You have probably already figured this out, but I spend a great deal of time thinking about regimental histories, or regimental biographies. Maybe it was all those year reenacting, or maybe…. Anyway, I’ve come across two different thoughts on regimental histories in the past twenty-four hours that might lead to some interesting discussion.
Last evening I started reading Richard Reid’s Freedom for Themselves: North Carolina’s Black Soldiers in the Civil War Era (UNC Press, 2008). In the introduction, Reid writes about the need and the process of creating what he calls “regimental biographies”: “The process of selecting a regiment to study and the act of writing the subsequent history runs the risk of bias. It almost inevitably favors the regiments whose ranks teemed with heroes created at critical junctures of the Civil War and whose battle flags carried the names of the war’s most famous engagements. Less studied are the units that broke at the first sound of musket fire or who saw little fighting…” (xiv)
Nick Kurtz, over at the blog Battlefield Wanderings, also discusses regimental histories in a recent post. Kurtz wonders if regimental histories “Should… be…. going forward… only… for regiments that did something extraordinary or whose service was unique? Or that fill a gap in the historiography?” And, “So is the goal of regimental histories to eventually fill in all the gaps so that every unit in every major army has a regimental history? And in this endeavor the Eastern Theater is well ahead and widens its gap every year.”
I would argue that every regiment is unique in some form or fashion. The 37th North Carolina lost more men (dead) than any other Tar Heel regiment; the 58th North Carolina was the largest Tar Heel regiment and lost more to desertion; the 26th North Carolina was Governor’s Vance’s regiment, and lost more men at Gettysburg; the 18th North Carolina mortally wounded Jackson; the 29th North Carolina suffered heavily at Murfreesboro; the 51st North Carolina repelled the attack at Battery Wagner; the 16th North Carolina was the first regiment raised in western North Carolina; Thomas's Legion was a mixture of whites and Cherokee Indians; the 1st North Carolina Volunteers fought (and won) the first land battle of the war… This list could go on and on.
So what do you think? Do regimental biographies only need to cover the regiments whose service might be deemed extraordinary (and what is the definition of extraordinary) or do they all need histories?