June 30

The promise of throngs at Gettysburg (and being home with two wonderful kids) prevents me from visiting the battlefield over the next few days. I'm drawn to it, anyway, and have been immersing myself in the story of the battle for the last few weeks.

Allan Guelzo's recent book has been my main source of reading this past week. Some reflections about the battle based on what that reading has made me think follow.

Guelzo's account of the armies' nature fascinates me. The two armies consisted of infantry whose training was, at best, uneven. These infantry constituted the bulk of the armies. They were accompanied by disproportionately large elements of artillery and relatively sparse cavalry (at least compared to European armies of their day). And the armies were led by officers who were relatively (again to the Europeans) blind due their small staffs and lack of maps of the terrain in which they operated.

I'm gaining new respect for Michael Shaara's novel, The Killer Angels. Shaara really engaged in some decent scholarship about the battle to make his fictionalized account of the battle feel real. Certainly that novel can be deceptively close to the truth, and it is fiction not history. But it's brilliant historical fiction.

There are meaningful intricacies about the nature of combat at that time. Brigadiers usually marched with their soldiers, and Brigadiers were the officers who seemed to have most discretion and efficacy as combat leaders in the heat of battle. The logistical needs of moving these armies were daunting. Divisions would take up miles of space along roads (and divisions made up corps, and there were three corps fighting on side and seven on the other!), simply getting them to the site of a probable battle was a triumph of planning and foresight.

Gettysburg represented a compromise of the commanding generals' preferred places for battle. Meade, certainly, was set on battling along Pipe Creek in Maryland. The decision-making of division commanders (good for the Union, bumbling for the Confederacy) is what lead to the battle being fought in Gettysburg.

Favorite Reads from Today's Opinion Pages

Ross Douthat offers an interesting spin on the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Voting Rights Act.

An interesting opinion-analysis about America's power relative to that of other nations.

Steven Mufson writes a compelling piece on the political leadership of Nelson Mandela.

One of my favorite quotes from Ken Burns' The Civil War

Shelby Foote recites a line from a William Faulkner work (Intruder in the Dust) when the documentary nears the end of its coverage of the Battle of Gettysburg. I'm quoting it in what appears to be its entirety below. For me, it's a line that beautifully captures the allure (not entirely positive) of history.

“It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.” 
― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust

This was a day that made me tired

6:00 - work out by jogging to / from gym and doing weights
7:00 - watch TV with kids
8:00 - eat a breakfast I mangled with kids
9:00 - swim lessons
10:00 - use the computer to accomplish various finance and church tasks
noon - watch a classic movie with kids and nephew - The Princess Bride
2:00 - take daughter to friends' house, son to park with bike
3:00 - buy lumber
3:45 - pick up daughter, go to pool
5:00 - pick up wife, leave for friends' house
5:45 - drink and be merry
6:30 - eat
7:30 - play and lose two games of Ticket to Ride 
9:30 - return home; feed an angry cat
10:00 - here I sit
10:02 - read
11:00 - go to bed

That's a fun day.

De Facto

The most meaningful commentary on the recent Supreme Court decisions is this one, by Paul Butler, at The New York Times. I'm not sure I agree with all of what Mr. Butler is arguing. He offers a very astute observation, however, as to the stubborn nature of de facto racism, something I often work with helping my students understand. Informal practices that may be prejudiced (or which fight to correct racial imbalances) are crafted at the micropolitical level. Local governments and boards reflect the wishes of the stakeholders who form them. Liberals and conservatives will implement policies that reflect their broader goals which guide the gray areas after the de jure elements are stripped away.

That being said, our Constitution is well suited toward obliterating overt forms of discrimination, as long as there are at least two branches of government willing to make efforts at using the Constitution to do just that. It took the Judicial Branch and the Executive to bring down de jure barriers in the 1950s. It took the teamwork of the Executive and Legislative in the 1960s. (But when one branch is out on its own, as the courts were on busing and rights of the accused in the 1960s, success isn't guaranteed.)

Over the past year I've come to appreciate how important local politics are. A consistent thread in the Supreme Court's recent decisions seems to be a respect for states' prerogatives on matters of civil rights and civil liberties. Therefore, it's increasingly important for us to look carefully at our choices at the local level and to vote with our conscience in those elections that, sadly, are plagued by the lowest level of voter turnout. On matters of civil rights, the real battles might be fought, won, and lost during elections that sound as unglamorous as "municipal primary."

Continuing the Documentary

By the way, the images offered by the documentary about that first mall in suburban Minneapolis were truly wonderful. I am saddened at how the ideals (naive as they might have been) of the mall gave way to the crassness and over-priced ho-hum that became the mall food court.

#7) The Seagram Building in New York City . . . I need to see this.

Oh, I found the PBS website for this documentary.

#8) The Dulles Airport Terminal. Yes, it's majestic. I remember flying from there before I was ready to appreciate it. Then I saw it after I was ready to get it.

#9) Is from Philadelphia, the Vanna Venturi home. I have to admit to being more curious than enamored. The excerpt quotes the architect: "Don't trust an architect who's trying to start a movement."

#10) The Walt Disney Concert Hall. This one I don't know about. It lacks the elegance of the other forward-thinking public building, Dulles. It seems busy more than forward-thinking. However, the interior of the concert hall seems exquisite. Is it possible to want to see a building for the inside rather than the outside?

Ten Buildings

I'm enjoying my first day of the summer by watching a PBS documentary with Sam. It's profiling ten architectural wonders of the U.S.

#1) The Virginia Capitol, Richmond: We've been there! We visited it the day before Easter when we last visited Sherry's brother. It was the product of Jefferson's micromanagement and his zealous desire to avoid vestiges of monarchy. Even the statue of George Washington in that building shows small un-king-like details to differentiate us from our ancestors across the pond.

#3) Wainright Building, Chicago: I vaguely remember this building. Sherry and I visited our friend, Brian, in 2005 and took an architectural tour of Chicago. That was one of our favorite ways to traipse around a city for an afternoon. We saw some neat buildings, though I can't say I particularly remember that building.

#4) The Robie House, Chicago: Never seen it. But visits to Frank Lloyd Wright homes in Springfield, IL and in southwestern Pennsylvania were quite memorable. Kentuck Knob was a gem. I'm a little frustrated I must wait another few years before taking the kids to Fallingwater (they have a minimum age requirement for tours).

#6) Apparently the first modern indoor mall was designed by an architect who had very idealistic views on what the mall could be, as a meeting place that would bring people together and offer something more aesthetically pleasing than the vulgar commercial displays of strip malls. Having driven through Fredricksburg, Virginia and it's mecca of big box stores, I think that architect might have been right.

Uh oh. I have need to pause and watch the rest of this later.