The Wreck of the Birkenhead

On this day in 1852 the HMS Birkenhead struck rocks off the coast of South Africa and sunk in stormy seas. The ship had 634 passengers, most of whom were soldiers in the British Army from various units. As some of those units were cavalry, it also had a cargo of horses.

One hundred soldiers drowned in the initial collision, but the remainder made it to the deck. The ship, as was common for military transports of the time, also had a small number of women and children. When it was realized the vessel was lost, the order was given to place the women and children (seven women, thirteen children) in the lifeboats. The horses were then set loose into the sea in hopes they'd swim the two miles to shore. The soldiers were ordered to stand fast as the ship sank out of fear that if they swam for life boats, which was first proposed than countermanded, they would swamp the life boats. They remained nearly silent the entire time.

The women and children survived. 113 soldiers also did, some swimming two miles over 12 hours, some clinging to wreckage, and some to the floating hull where they were picked up the next day. Many of those who went into the sea were killed by sharks. Six Royal Marines and 54 sailors also survived. Eight horses successfully swam to shore.

I note this for no particular reason other than that this tragedy occurred on this day so long ago. The soldiers were on their way to a colonial war against the Xhosa, a British effort which wouldn't draw any admiration today. Be that as it may, the sacrifice they did make in their final hours is one that a person might wonder if men today would make, and it was really heroic.

Soldier an' Sailor Too, by Kipling. 

To take your chance in the thick of a rush, with firing all about,Is nothing so bad when you've cover to 'and, an' leave an' likin' to shout;But to stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew,An' they done it, the Jollies -- 'Er Majesty's Jollies -- soldier an' sailor too!Their work was done when it 'adn't begun; they was younger nor me an' you;Their choice it was plain between drownin' in 'eaps an' bein' mopped by the screw,So they stood an' was still to the Birken'ead drill, soldier an' sailor too

Today In Wyoming's History: Richard's (Reshaw's) Bridge, Evansville Wyoming.

Today In Wyoming's History: Richard's (Reshaw's) Bridge, Evansville Wyoming.:

Richard's (Reshaw's) Bridge, Evansville Wyoming.

Reshaw's Bridge, or more correctly Richard's Bridge, was a frontier North Platte River crossing only a few miles downstream from Platte Bridge and like it, it was guarded by a contingent of soldiers.  As noted in the plaque below, it ultimately closed in favor of the slightly newer Guinard's Bridge, which Richard bought, which ultimately came to be referred to as Platte Bridge.



In 1866, after the bridge had been abandoned, it was dismantled by the soldiers stationed at Platte Bridge Station.

While Platte Bridge Station is remembered for the battle that occurred there, Reshaw's Bridge saw its fair share of action as well.

Indeed, as we've discussed previously on one of our companion blogs, which we'll link in here below, bodies exhumed at the post when Evansville's water treatment facility was built include what are certainly two soldiers and a pioneer woman.  Generally, the Army would reclaim bodies of troops, but my minor efforts to inform the Army of this failed.

From our companion blog, Some Gave All:

Richard's Bridge Cemetary Mausoleum, Evansville Wyoming

This mausoleum was built when at least part of the cemetery of the military post at Richards Bridge was located at the time Evansville, Wyoming built a water plant near the river. The former location of the Frontier Era bridge across the North Platte had not been precisely known up until that time. When three bodies, believed to be the bodies of two soldiers and one woman, were disinterred they were reburied here, on the grounds of the Evansville grade school. The school grounds were the only nearby public land at the time.

This creates a very odd situation in a variety of ways and the mausoleum is not well maintained. While worse fates could exists than spending eternity near a grade school, it is generally the case that the Army has recovered the lost remains of Frontier Era soldiers when they were located, and it would seem that moving these victims of Frontier conditions would be a positive thing to do.

Taxation, importation, and Indian Tribes. No tax allowed.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING v. COUGAR DEN, INC.  

The State of Washington taxes “motor vehicle fuel importer[s]” whobring large quantities of fuel into the State by “ground transportation.” Wash. Rev. Code §§82.36.010(4), (12), (16). Respondent Cougar Den, Inc., a wholesale fuel importer owned by a member of theYakama Nation, imports fuel from Oregon over Washington’s publichighways to the Yakama Reservation to sell to Yakama-owned retailgas stations located within the reservation. In 2013, the WashingtonState Department of Licensing assessed Cougar Den $3.6 million intaxes, penalties, and licensing fees for importing motor vehicle fuelinto the State. Cougar Den appealed, arguing that the Washingtontax, as applied to its activities, is pre-empted by an 1855 treaty between the United States and the Yakama Nation that, among otherthings, reserves the Yakamas’ “right, in common with citizens of theUnited States, to travel upon all public highways,” 12 Stat. 953. AWashington Superior Court held that the tax was pre-empted, andthe Washington Supreme Court affirmed. 

Held: The judgment is affirmed. 

No surprise, really, except that it was 5 to 4.

It does create cause for concern, however, regarding the impending decision in a case involving Tribal hunting rights and off reservation, inter state, hunting by tribal members.

"‘Great War’ brought Catholics, bishops into mainstream of US society"? Not so much.

‘Great War’ brought Catholics, bishops into mainstream of US society

So claims the headline for a story in the website of   The Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau

The Roman Catholic Church of Southern Missouri.

Well. . .

I don't really think so.

One of the temptations when you study a certain era of history, or write a lot about it, or even look into it, is to attribute things to it that exceed the boundaries of where you ought to go.

Now, don't get me wrong, war brings about a lot of first.  Indeed, we've maintained here that War Changes Everything.  And that's true. But it doesn't change as much as we might think.

What this article touches on is something that we tend not to think a lot about today, even though it is still with us, that being the strong prejudice against Catholics that once existed in the United States.

On that, a little background. There was once a vast amount of prejudice against Catholics in the United States.   I've touched on this elsewhere, but the United States wasn't founded by a culture that wasn't tolerant of Catholicism in the first place, even if one of the colonies was, for a time, a refuge for English Catholics.  Indeed, contrary to what we tend to imagine about the founding of the American colonies, they weren't religiously tolerant in general.  England had gone from being a highly Catholic country prior to the reign of King Henry VIII (who no doubt always imagined himself to be a loyal Catholic of some sort in spite of everything) to being one that endured a long period of religious strife which broke out occasionally into open warfare.  By the time that the English planted their first colony in North America, the English were officially Protestant but it was still whipping around from one Protestant theology to another.  As noted, King Henry VIII basically thought of himself as the head of the Catholic Church in England, but still a Catholic.  More radical Protestant reformers were vying for position and would soon come into control with his passing, but not before the nation became Catholic again under Mary, and then ostensible reached a "religious settlement" under Elizabeth. Even that settlement wasn't really one. Things were muddy under King James I as a struggle between Calvinist and Anglicans went on during his reign over England and Scotland.  Puritans would come to be oppressed and flea to the Netherlands where they'd prove to be annoying and end up leaving later.  Various English colonies were strongly sectarian, so much so that Puritans coming down out of Rhode Island later would be tried and executed.  Religious tolerance was somewhat lacking early on.

Remains of the early church at Jamestown in the 1870s.  This was an Anglican Church, as the settlers at Jamestown were all members of the Church of England.  The Puritans (only part of the "Pilgrims") were not however, and in their Plymouth Rock settlement their church was not an Anglican one.  The two groups did not get along.

Anyhow, while Catholics were present in the colonies early on (and Catholics remained in varying stages of being underground in England but very much above grown in Ireland. . .and then there's the story of English crypto Catholics which I'll not go into as it complicates the story further) they were always a minority and knew it.  That might be, oddly enough, why the small Catholic population of the Colonies supported the Revolution in greater percentages than other colonists, in spite of the anti Catholic rhetoric of the Intolerable Acts.  Catholics remained looked down upon in the new nation even as it adopted a policy of prohibiting a state religion which morphed into officially accepting religious tolerance (the two aren't really the same).  And this continued on for a very long time.

Now, let me first note that it would be absolutely the truth to state that war, or more correctly wars, changed the view of a segments of American society and sometimes all of American society towards Catholics. But World War One wasn't really one of those wars. 

The Mexican War was.  By the time of the Mexican War, which ran from 1846 to 1848, lots of Germans and Irish were immigrating to the United States.  Indeed, the Irish were also immigrating in large numbers to Canada and some of them from Canada to the United States.  The Irish Great Famine (potato famine) commenced in 1845 and was driving millions of Irish from Eire causing a population that was already religious oppressed and living in primitive poverty to enter other lands where they were truly alien.  Political conditions in Germany were in turmoil which would break out in the revolutions of 1848, something that saw large-scale Catholic emigration out of Germany as Catholics sought to avoid living in a Prussian Germany.

A large number of Catholics therefore ended up serving in the American forces during the Mexican War as enlisted men, many of whom were Irish born or born in one of the various German states.  They were treated abysmally by their Protestant officers and particularly by Southern officers, who tended to detest Catholics.

They generally fought well however and their numbers caused the appointment of the first Catholic clerics to the U.S. Army.  That helped bring about a new relationship between the Army and Catholics, but what really did it is that the appalling abuse of Catholic enlisted men lead a group of them to desert and join the Mexican army, which formed its own artillery unit made up of American deserters.  That shock caused the Army to reevaluate what it was doing, and Catholics, particularly Catholic immigrants, found a home in the Army thereafter.

Mass hanging of captured members of the San Patricio's. The penalty for treason was death, but this would be the last act of its type and bring to an end outward discrimination against Catholics in the enlisted ranks of the U.S. Army.

That was built on during the Civil War, during which you can find several examples of very senior Catholic officers, such as Phil Sheridan.  Sheridan is notable in this context as he entered West Point in 1848, hard on the heels of the Mexican War, which shows how quickly things were changing.  By the time of the Civil War Catholics, and in particular Irish Catholics, were common in the Army.  The enlisted career Irish sergeant was a fixture in the American Army by that time.

Philip Sheridan, one of the most famous American officers of the Civil War and a Catholic.  By this time the oddity of having a Catholic general officer was gone. For that matter, William Sherman was married to a devout Catholic which is something that would have been held against him in an earlier era but was not, and he had converted to Catholicism but was not observant and sometimes disclaimed it.  His son would become a Jesuit Priest.

The Civil War brought about a wider change however as American society at large remained viciously anti Catholic prior to the Civil War.  Catholics may have found a place in the Army, but they were generally pretty isolated in every way otherwise.  Bizarre anti Catholic literature was common accusing Catholics of all sorts of things.

Following the war, however, this largely ceased. The country didn't grow suddenly tolerant, but rather open bizarre hostility stopped.  This was in part because the high degree of sectarianism also stopped due to the war. Going into the Civil War Americans not only tended to be strongly Protestant or Catholic (although the level of non observance was much, much higher than imagined, which is another story), but they also tended to strongly have opinions on other Protestant faiths if they were Protestant.

San Miguel Church in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Built between 1610 and 1625, this church is a contemporary to the Anglican church at Jamestown, but it remains in use today.  This Catholic church is emblematic of the act that with the large amount of Mexican territory taken in by the United States during the Mexican War, a Hispanic Catholic population was taken in as well.

The American Civil War had come in the wake of the Second Great Awakening, although its technically outside of the time period for that which historians have assigned it and instead in what they have framed as the Third Great Awakening.  The Second Great Awakening saw the rise of the a lot of American Protestant denominations including some that had strong millenialism beliefs.  Catholics weren't part of this in the United States, of course.  But the very strong sectarianism that came up in the period came to a bit of a hiatus due to the Civil War.  Prior to the Civil War Americans were ready to cite religion in support of their fighting positions.  Mexico's Catholic status had been a cited reason to fight it in some Protestant sermons prior to the Mexican War.  The United States had fought a small scale war with the Mormons in the 1850s.  Going into the Civil War both sides cited religious grounds for going to war, with both of those sides citing Protestant religious grounds at that.

Let's be clear.  Neither the Mexican War nor the Civil War were wars over religion by any means.  Protestant ministers who cited Mexico's Catholic nation status as a reason to fight it were sincere, but at the end of the day the Mexican War was fought because Mexico couldn't stomach the thought that it had lost the province of Texas and they couldn't agree to the border with the newly American Texas being where it was claimed to be by the United States.  Religion didn't have much to do with that. And the Civil War was about slavery, plain and simple. There were certainly religious overtones to the positions taken by both sides in the Civil War, and religion strongly informed some of those positions, but the war itself was not a religious war which is attested to by some of the oddities of the topic on both sides of the war. The Union had huge numbers of Catholic troops including some who were outright Fenians, but that impacted those units only within them.  The Confederacy, which had  much higher religious uniformity than the North; it was overwhelmingly Protestant except in Louisiana and many of its senior generals were devout Episcopalians including one who was an Episcopal Bishop found itself taking a position on slavery that had already been condemned by the Catholic Church in Rome but its president toyed with Catholicism throughout his life and the Confederate cabinet included a Jewish member.

But because of the Civil War Americans really backed down on citing religion in an extreme prejudicial way like they had before.  Indeed, it wasn't all that long, in spite of ongoing prejudice, that there would be a United States Supreme Court justice on the bench who was both a veteran of the Confederate army and a Catholic.

Which doesn't mean that the prejudice had ended.  Well into the 20th Century to be a Catholic was to be subject to prejudice.  Catholics were mostly blue collar or agriculturalist, with medicine and the law, two professions always occupied by minorities, the exceptions. They couldn't attend Ivy League schools and remain faithful to their faiths and they largely didn't go on to upper education at all.

Which was the status when the United States entered World War One.

And the status after the war as well.

St. Joseph's Polish Catholic Church, an active church in Denver Colorado today, was built in 1902 as the Polish Catholics wanted their own church separate from the southern Slavic (Balkans) Catholic church one a block away. This is a bit symbolic of the degree to which Catholics lived in ethnic Ghettos at the time, but it was also contrary to the policy of the Catholic Church to attempt to integrate all Catholics into non ethnic congregations. This church was built in 1902 just as Slavic immigration was becoming significant in the United States and obviously various diocese yielded to pressures on occasion.  This same neighborhood contains a Russian Orthodox cathedral of the same vintage, reflecting the Slavic nature of the neighborhood. At the time this church was built, Poland wasn't a state and was part of both Russia and Germany.

Indeed, going into the war there were real reasons to worry about some of the Catholic populations of the United States and their receptive loyalties.  At the time, Catholicism was heavily represented in Irish, German, French, Italian and "Mexican" demographics.  Irish populations identified heavily with their ethnic fellows in Eire, which remained part of the United Kingdom but which was struggling with obtaining home rule and which was suffering under the long impact of religious oppression that had come to an official end only in the 19th Century.  German Americans retained a strong sense of pride in their ethnic origin and openly celebrated their Germaness in various ways throughout the year.  Hispanics, who were of various origins but whom most of, at that time, traced an origin to from Mexico or Spanish Mexico, were a suspect people both because of their ethnicity and because there were fears that they may sympathize with Carranza who, it was feared, might be sympathizing with the Germans.

Only French Americans, who were mostly Acadians, Cajuns, or Creole's, and Italian Americans, were not suspect. But the French population was so remote from France that it had no real sympathies with France itself and was highly concentrated in Maine and Louisiana.  The Italians were recent arrivals who did sympathize with Italy, an Allied power in World War One, and were not accordingly suspect.

Indeed, the Italians were hugely celebrated during World War One in the United States.  The Germans, Irish and Mexicans were worried about.

For no reason, as it turned out. They were not disloyal to the United States at all and served loyally.  Prejudice against the Germans was vicious in the U.S. but the German population in the country reacted basically by burying their culture to such an extent that it was largely lost.  The Irish did not do that, but their service in the Great War, including the fact that they were well represented in the Regular Army and made up the bulk of some National Guard regiments, put aside any fears that people had.

But it didn't do much, indeed anything at all, to address the ongoing prejudice that remained in the country.  In that fashion, they found themselves in the same position, but to a much lesser degree, as African Americans. African Americans served very loyally during the war and, unlike World War Two, there were significant numbers of black combat officers in some all black units, but after the war, prejudice against them didn't abate at all.

It'd really take the Second World War to address all of that.

September 25, 1918. The Passing of Archbishop John Ireland

Archibishop John Ireland in his later years.

On this day in 1918, a towering figure in North American religion died, Catholic Archbishop John Ireland.  He had just turned 80 years of age.

The Irish born prelate is universally regarded as having been born and possessed of a great intellect.  It's been said of him, when he was right, he was very right, and conversely, as is the case with towering intellects, when he was wrong, he was very wrong.

Ireland was born in County Kilkenny in 1838 and came to the United States at age 10 with his family. This put him in the midst of the horrible Irish potatoe famine and the accompanying waive of immigration into the U.S., Canada and Australia that accompanied it, with his family, like so many others, choosing the United States for their second home.  This meant that he arrived in the country at the depths of Irish despair and the height of prejudice against the Irish in the United States, whom were regarded as an "alien race" at the time.  But it also meant, even though hew would have grown up in the "Catholic Ghetto" era, that he came to the country sufficiently young to effectively grow up as an American.  These various factors would define his views in profound ways throughout his life.

Ireland was sent to France by the French born Bishop Joseph Cretin at age 14, at which time he'd only been in the United States for a mere ten years.  He was ordained in 1861 at age 23 and became a chaplain to the Fifth Minnesota at that time, during the American Civil War.  He served in that role until 1863 when poor health forced his resignation.  Following that he became a pastor at Saint Paul's Cathedral in Minnesota, Cathedrals having pastors who serve as the Cathedral's priest, a role quite different than that of the Bishop of course.  He became a coadjuter Bishop at St. Paul's in 1875, at the fairly young age of 37.  He became the Bishop Ordinary in 1884 and an Archbishop in 1888.

As a bishop he was a towering figure and a uniquely original one in many ways.  He would become a central figure in American Catholicism as a result, and take positions that some would regard as contradictory but which, at their best, showed his independence in thought.

As an Irish ex-patriot he was deeply concerned about the fate of the Irish in America and encouraged direct colonization of areas in the West and Midwest, taking the view that settling the Irish in rural areas took them out of the vice of the crowded Eastern slums in which many found themselves.  Several towns in the Midwest were directly founded by Ireland for this purpose and his concern over what was occurring in Eastern ghettos was not misplaced.

Perhaps almost paradoxically, however, Ireland was an extremely strong proponent of Americanization of American Catholics and he actively worked to prevent the formation of "national",  i.e., ethnic, churches.  His view left a heavy imprint on the Catholic Church in the United States and this may in some ways be his lasting legacy, although what he was working for had not been fully achieved at the time of his death in 1918.  He did not want Irish Catholics or German Catholics to be that, but rather wanted them to be American Catholics.  He urged and foresaw an American society in which Catholics were fully part of it, a dream never fully realized but perhaps principally realized (and maybe even in some ways over realized) after World War Two when American Catholics did in fact fully enter the American mainstream.  Ireland feared that if this did not happen Catholics in the United States would remain marginalized and the faith would loose adherents to Protestant denominations that were in fact mainstream.  His fears were well placed and his efforts would ultimately be successful to a large degree, indeed to such a large degree that some Catholics holding romantic views of the Catholic Ghetto of old essentially lament them even if they do not themselves recall Archbishop Ireland.

As part of this, he was a strong supporter of education but paradoxically, especially for a man who had benefited from a Catholic education himself, he supported state support of Catholic schools in some instances and even supported the municipal takeover of distressed Catholic schools even when it resulted in those schools retaining Priests and Nuns but found them unable to teach religion.  This was a phenomenal position to take at the time and it would be very unlikely to receive much Catholic support today.  Indeed, he had to travel to the Vatican to explain it at the time.  Ireland, additionally, was such a proponent of Americanization of Catholics i the United States that he opposed the use of foreign languages to instruct students, something that was common in immigrant Catholic schools at the time.

Perhaps as part and parcel of this, and perhaps reflecting his Civil War service, he was a Republican and friends with several Republican Presidents.  He was an outspoken proponent of the rights of blacks at a time when that was not a fully popular view by any means.

Conversely, these same doctrines made him a dedicated opponent of "national" or ethnic churches to such an extent that he's also remembered today for inexcusably alienating Ruthenian Catholic followers of Alexis Toth.  Toth, an immigrant Ruthian (Eastern Rite) priest received a cold shoulder from Ireland upon making a courtesy visit to him upon first arriving in his diocese. As an Eastern Priest with his own Bishop, he was not subject to Ireland's jurisdiction, but Ireland was open in his opposition to the Eastern Rite having a place in the United States and took the view, rather bluntly, that Eastern Rite Catholics should switch to the Latin Rite, which he was working to make non ethnic.  This view is completely contrary to the view of the Church today and at the time it lead to Toth, who is regarded now as an Orthodox saint, going into schism and taking his followers and taking a large number of them into the Russian Orthodox Church, to which additional adherents would later follow.  Ireland is sometimes jokingly called the father of the Orthodox Church in America as a result.

Ireland was a towering figure and more successful than not.  His impact on the Catholic Church in the United States was very large, and because of its nature, lasting.  Ironically, his impact upon the Orthodox in American proved to be very large as well, but for a different reason, and perhaps in some ways both churches owe their modern nature to Ireland.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. James the Less Catholic Church, Ulupalakua, Maui, Hawaii.

Churches of the West: St. James the Less Catholic Church, Ulupalakua, Maui, Hawaii.

This is St. James the Less Catholic Church in Ulupalakua, Maui, Hawaii.  It's a mission church served by Our Lady Queen of Angels, which is actually fairly close to it on the same highway.  Being used to the large distances of most rural areas of the West, to find two churches of the same faith so close together is surprising, but even in such locations as Denver Colorado that still occurs, so perhaps this should not be surprising.  This church is actually older that Our Lady Queen of Angels and the original church built in this location was constructed at least as early as 1875, with missionary activity having dated back to the 1850s.  The current structure was built in 1950 and renovated in 2002.

The Vietnam War

 

The Vietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Novik

I have already mentioned in a couple of threads that I've been watching this documentary.

Given the focus here on the Punitive Expedition and, more recently, World War One, it might come as a surprise that I have a real interest in the Vietnam War, although I've written about it here before.  This will be, however, only the 30th post on the topic of the war since we started the blog.  Not a lot compared to the 613 on World War One (to date) or even the 182 on World War Two (to date).  Still, it has been for a very long time something I've been pretty interested in.

That's the case for a variety of reasons, one being that the war is within my living memory.  The war was ongoing when I was born in 1963 and it was something that I became increasingly aware of in my youth.  When the US pulled out of the war in 1973 I was ten and can well remember that, including various things that occurred in the war during the Nixon Administration period.  To my surprise, in fact, I can personally recall some things about the war much earlier than that.  When the North invaded in 1975 and the Republic of Vietnam collapsed I was only a couple of years older but that was something that I was very much aware of.  Indeed, at that time in my youth I thought I might want to opt for a military career and I followed the fading fortunes of South Vietnam carefully, even putting up a National Geographic map in my bedroom so I could follow the war as the NVA closed increasingly in on the doomed former ally of the United States.  The war was a topic of conversation in the house as I grew up, although probably not in the way you might figure.*  My father and mother thought the war was a mistake.  I, my youthful self, didn't.

Soon after that I started to try to find histories on the war and to this date I've frankly never been satisfied with any of them.  But I did learn quite a bit about the war.  Later on, when I joined the National Guard, I learned a different prospective yet as so many of the fellow Guardsmen I served within the 1980s were veterans of the war.  One of the first major essays I wrote in college was an exploration of the Tet Offensive of 1968. And so on.

So I was looking forward to the documentary, although holding back some reserve about that as well.  I like the Ken Burns documentaries I've seen quite a bit and I was worried this one wouldn't measure up, and that if it didn't it might make me question a bit his earlier documentaries that I do like.

So I'm glad to report that I think this documentary is okay.

Not spectacular, but not bad. And frankly, it's a really tough topic to take on.  If I were grading it, I think I'd give it a B-.

Burns and Novik worked on this for a decade.  At least one of the people interviewed for the documentary has passed away in that period.  In releasing it, Burns has stated that it was his view that only now, in the 2010s, can a documentary on the war be released and be objective.  I think that's likely correct, and I also think that we are now ready, perhaps for the first time, for a good objective treatment of war in the written form.  I'll hope for that.

The documentary is presented in ten episodes, some of which are 1.5 hours long but most of which are two hours long.  Not every episode is equal in quality to the others.  In my view, the documentary might have been better to have been seven episodes rather than ten, but that's a tough call for the doumentarian to make.  I'd guess they probably had enough material for twenty episodes had they chosen to go that long (which would have been a mistake).

The documentary is presented in the now standard Burns form.  We are introduced to a collection of speakers who speak in nearly every, but not every, episode.  Unlike The Civil War, or Baseball, these speakers tend to all have first hand experience with the topic being addressed, which does make it different from those well known documentaries (I haven't seen Burn's documentary on World War Two which may follow this form to a degree).

Because it's ten sequential episodes its a bit difficult to determine how to properly review it.  Reviewing each episode might be tedious, but on the other hand its hard not to do that in some sense.  Nonetheless I'm not going to strictly do that.  Indeed, I'm going to start off where I think the documentary falls short, which may be additional bad form.  Nonetheless. . .

The most significant failure of the documentary was the failure to really handle the story of French involvement in Vietnam adequately. This is a failure, however, that nearly every treatment of the Vietnam War makes. In fairness, this failure was less pronounced here than it often is.  There's always a temptation to treat the French Indochinese War as simply a minor prelude to the American war in Vietnam, but that's a fairly serious mistake.

It's a mistake as the French first became involved in Indochina, and more particularly in Vietnam in particular, in the early 1600s. That's correct.  French presence in Vietnam predates, by decades, American independence from the United Kingdom. The story of that early involvement, indeed how France came to be in Indochina at all, is exceedingly complicated and very difficult to understand.  It mirrors, however, to some degree the story of the British in India.  Basically, French interests of various types, not the French government, entered the area and that lead to conflict.  As the French interest expanded, the French government began to take an active role in what ws occurring.

 French naval infantry in Tonkin, ie., northern Vietnam, 1884.

This lead the French ultimately to directly intervene in Vietnam in 1858, an event which touched off thirty years of conflict with the indigenous people.  French dominion of the region, including Vietnam, lead to a sort of unitary geography that had never existed before so, as with India, while France didn't create the Vietnamese, in some ways it created Vietnam.

 French Indochina in 1930.  Note that the borders on the map heavily reflect the modern states in the region.

The French were so successful in "pacifying" Indochina that the region became the desired post for French Foreign Legionnaires, who dreamed of being posted there.  Nonetheless the Vietnamese never accepted French dominion of their heavily rural jungle land, even as they acquired bits of French culture. Again, this strongly recalls the British in India, who managed to stamp British culture on the existing Indian one as they formed an India out of a collection of regional states, while never really acquiring the loyalty of the people who lived in them.  Open rebellion in native troops broke out in 1930, signaling that all was not well.  By that time, as the documentary correctly and importantly notes, Ho Chi Minh was already a Communist seeking the liberty of the Vietnamese from the French

Of course, part of what came not to be well was Japan had different ideas for Asian people that didn't include liberty, even if it didn't include Europeans.  When the Pacific War broke out on December 7, 1941, France was already the anemic Vichy state that the Germans had left it and the Japanese basically simply walked into Indochina with the French accepting it.  The Vietnamese, however, did not and a guerilla war against Japan broke out.

Vichy propaganda poster showing unity between France and northern Vietnam, 1942.

Burns and Novik handle this history, but in a light form.  Like most treatments of the Vietnam War, the entire century plus long story of France in Indochina prior to the Japanese occupation is handled in a light form.  Vietnam had long been occupied by the French prior to the Japanese occupation. Why was there only one significant rebellion, prior to World War Two, by the Japanese?  How much had French culture impacted the Vietnamese?  Why did the rebels of mid 20th Century find refuge in Communism in Vietnam, as in so many other places. What about the other, and there were other, nationalist movements that sought to expel the French but didn't adhere to Communism?  This stuff would be nice to know.

And it would also be nice to know why the French ever wanted Vietnam.  It's an odd possession, quite frankly, for them, or anyone. For Europeans it was primitive and dangerously diseased ridden. Early French military missions fell by the droves to disease. What was it about the place?

The story of the rising Communist/Nationalist struggle against the Japanese, and how it morphed into a struggle against the return of the French was also given a typical treatment and as usual it gives a light treatment to European dreams of restored colonial possessions and American opposition, at first, to that.  This could also have been treated more completely.  This is a complex story but of note the British, while not openly admitting it, had come to the reluctant conclusion that the sun was setting on empire everywhere and was acting accordingly.  India, the crown jewel of the British Empire, was granted independence in 1947.  The UK made a pretext of not granting independence to Israel voluntarily but in actuality simply withdrew from the region to let the contestants fight it out in the same year. The British were clearly going home.  They even worked to prevent the Dutch from restoring their presence in the Dutch East Indies, a rare example of one colonial power refusing to allow another to keep its colony while not trying to take it for its own. 

The French, however, seeking to restore France's position in the world following its defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1940 acted to try to hand on to, and restore, its empire.

The US, at first, opposed and would not cooperate with French efforts.  The Roosevelt Administration was not terribly alive to the threat of Communism anywhere and the Truman Administration, at first, was only slightly more concerned.  Given this, the administrations either actively opposed French colonial restorations or were not cooperative with them.  In 1949, however, the situation abruptly changed when China fell to the Chinese Red Army.  The prior year, 1948, the dangers of Soviet expansion became manifest when the Soviets blockaded Berlin.  The isolationist Republican Party became converted to active global opposition to Communism overnight and the heat then fell on Truman in a major way.  The North Korean invasion of South Korea cemented that and the US began to slowly, but actively, support the French effort on the thesis that it was an anti-communist effort, which was true, but only partially.

French Foreign Legion airborne artillery in Indochina during their war following World War Two.

Burns and Novik touch on part of this history, but not all.  I wish they'd dived into it more deeply.  They do a good job, however, with the French Indochinese War, although they failed to cover the request the French made for the US to deploy atomic weaponry at Dien Bien Phu, which is a significant oversight.

Following this, I think they do a good job with the story of American involvement in the war thereafter.  They do an excellent job revealing the political machinations that occurred behind the scenes.  Some of the revelations are startling and hard to grasp.  Kennedy comes out looking better than I'd generally credit him to be (I'm not a Kennedy fan).  Lydon Johnson comes across as shrewd and alert, but bizarrely inclined to keep wading deeper into the "Big Muddy" even though he was expressing absolute doubts about the entire project, privately.  Nixon comes across as an even bigger crook than we generally look back upon him to be, which is pretty horrifically exposed.  All of the Administrations come across as willing to lie and scheme against the presumed wishes of the American people.

 US Army advisers and Vietnamese Special Forces, Vietnam War.

Well, what of the portrayal of the American war itself?  I think it was well done, balancing events back home, politics and the war, quite well.  People with strongly vested views in the war will likely be unhappy that their side isn't more fully portrayed as correct.  Revisionist histories of the war, of which there are now several significant ones, are not given pride of place.  The arguments presented, and they are arguments even if they do not appear to be, given the conflict on interpretations of the war and how it was waged, and lost, are very well presented and hard to argue against. For those who can recall the war personally the end of the documentary is gut wrenching.  It must be leagues more so for those who experienced it in any fashion.

Boomers protesting the Vietnam War, from our thread Boomer, wake up. Generations, Part One of Three.  Of interest in this photo, only one of these young people have anything approaching a Hippie look even if they are protesting.

I was glad to see that the documentary went on after the fall of Saigon to briefly note Vietnam's following war in Cambodia, although I was disappointed that the fall of the non Communist regime in Cambodia was not dealt with itself, as I'd consider that to be part of the Vietnam War.  Indeed, the wars that occurred in Cambodia and Laos are part and parcel of the same story, so their omission was surprising.  A bit more on Vietnam's war with China, which occurred in the late 1970s, would also have been appreciated.

Pathet (Communist) Laotian troops, riding in an American 6x6 truck, in Vientiane in 1972.  The situation in Laos had been tense since the country had gained independence from France and it had teetered on the edge of falling to Communism for years.  Like South Vietnam, it fell in 1975.

Burns and Novik's history of the war is presented as an unresolved history by its own admission. The documentary makes the argument that the rift in American culture that we clearly see all around us know came about due to the war and that perhaps the documentary can be a step on the way towards healing that rift. That's a big claim, worth examining, and a big hope as well.

 

 Infantry in Vietnam.

There are indeed good reasons to look back on the Vietnam War as a major factor in the split in the countries culture into two cultures in a near cultural civil  war with one another.  Indeed, that's one of those arguments which fits under our You Hear It Hear First category as we've cited the rise of the Boomer left as a major element of this.  Given this, I'll credit this argument to a certain degree but I think it may be too simplistic to believe that no divide existed before the 1960s.  More accurately, the strong divide that had existed between right and left at various points prior to World War Two closed as a result of the war and while it rose again briefly after the war, the rise of Communism in the late 1940s closed it again. This is not to say that everyone saw everything the same way, as that would definitely not be true. But the big cultural divide we now have does indeed stem, at least to some degree, to a rift that developed during the war.

CH-54 landing in Saigon, April 30, 1975. At the time this photograph was taken, , as pointed out in an earlier thread, Hillary Clinton had already worked on the Nixon impeachment effort, Chuck Schumer was already in the New York Assembly, and Nancy Pelosi was already involved in California's Democratic Party.

Healing that rift is a big task and its unlikely that Burns' and Novik's documentary will achieve that, no matter how much that might be wished for. The split today isn't over the Vietnam War but rather over many other things.  Indeed the remaining rifts of the Vietnam War itself are more likely to be healed by the passing of that generation.  But that we can look back and see what occurred is a good thing, and perhaps that will contribute to the wider hope of recovering the middle that seems in recent years to have been lost, or at least recalling that there is a middle and where it is.

 Vietnamese refugees being evacuated from Saigon in 1975.

*A person shouldn't overemphasis this however.  In all of our households in that era, World War Two was the war that was "the war".