I'm reading the book, Andersonville novel by McKinlay Kantor and am enjoying the book very much. I see that there is a DVD about Andersonville and I was wondering if anyone had watched the DVD and what you thought of it.
KTK
Printable View
I'm reading the book, Andersonville novel by McKinlay Kantor and am enjoying the book very much. I see that there is a DVD about Andersonville and I was wondering if anyone had watched the DVD and what you thought of it.
KTK
was a made for tv series on TNT years ago. I liked it.
Most civil war internment camps were like Andersonville, or worse, on both sides. I think Andersonville was one of the largest and most notorious however. I visited the site several years ago, very interesting. They have a statue/mounument of the Commander in the town square, he is a hero there, even tho he was hanged. My GGrandfather spent some time in a southern camp near New Orleans, but was paroled after a year or so.
I also have visited the camp several years ago. Not very big for the the amount of humanity that was there. After I returned home ,my aunt told me I had a relative that was a prisoner. When he came out they say he was never right in the head after the exposure.
Jim
To be honest with you Jim I doubt anyone would ever be right in the head after being in a place like Andersonville for awhile.
I'm trying to understand why the north and south treated one another's POW's so badly?
Was this just a product of crueler harder times or was it because it was a civil war?
Interesting stuff for a guy sitting in a comfortable easy chair, pretty tough for someone who was there.
KTK
The South was extremely short of food and medicines, and PWs were on the hind teat for that.
Prisoners were exchanged or paroled until 1863 when the North stopped the practice, having calculated that the South was a net beneficiary from it.
Federal prison camps could have been humanely run, but few officers had much interest in doing so and it was seen as retaliation for the conditions in Southern PW camps.
Ken,
My great great grandfather survived 11 months in that hellhole, he was captured after being wounded for the 5th time. He was a wreck after the camp and I would imagine that those that did survive were all pretty much messed up. Hanging the camp comander was not nearly enough.
Regards
BudT
I have also read the book "Andersonville" and while it is a "Good Read" most serious historians consider it to be a "joke." What it really is, is just some more thinly disguised Anti-South/Southern propaganda.
The conditions that developed at Andersonville, circa 1864/65 can be DIRECTLY attributed to General U.S. Grant and the NORTHERN decision to stop exchanging prisoners. Prisoners at Andersonville received EXACTLY the same rations as Confederate soldiers serving in the field.
True, that dosen't say much because during the same time period Confederate soldiers in Lee's Army serving in the trenches around Petersburg and Richmond had a grim joke: "There is a new General with the Army, his name is "General Starvation."
Grant thought nothing about squandering the lives of his own soldiers, whether they were serving in his army OR if they were Prisoners of War. Matter of fact, Grant's nick name in HIS own army was "Butcher" Grant.
Just ONE example of his callous, criminal disregard for the lives and suffering of his own men: At the Battle of Cold Harbor in 1864; after the Yankee assaults against the Confederate trenches was stopped cold (my G-Grandfather, Private Charles Mallory Sanders of the 3rd Georgia Regiment was one of the soldiers that fought there); thousands of wounded and dead Yankees were lying on the field in front of the Confederate trenches.
Grant absoutely refused to call a "Truce" so HIS OWN WOUNDED MEN could be removed from the field and given medical care! As a consequence, many, many Yankee boys died of thirst and in horrible agony BECAUSE Grant did not want to admit he was defeated by such a smaller army.
As the days passed and the corpses swelled up and bloated in the heat, a joke went thru the Confederate Army there: "If Grant can't push us out of these trenches by assault, he is now trying to 'Stink us out.' " Simply stated, Grant was a 'War Criminal,' nothing more nor less for his actions at Cold Harbor.
After the war was over, Wirtz was made a "scapegoat" for the conditions at Andersonville and was hung following a 'kangaroo court' "trial." So there is no wonder that a statue has been erected of him by people that actually know the real FACTS.
A G-G-Grandfather of mine on my mother's side served as a guard at Andersonville. He was born with a "club foot" and was conscripted into the army and assigned that guard duty because his disability prevented him from serving in the field.
One of the stories that came down in my family was that he was sent on a detail with several other guards to a county in Northern Florida, near Jacksonville. At the time, Jacksonville was occupied by Yankees and the prisioners had been trying to reach Yankee lines when they were caught by a county sheriff and a possee in Southern held territory.
G-G-Pa and his fellow guards were sent down with a team and a wagon get the Yankees from out of jail and bring them back to Andersonville.
When they arrived at the little town where the Yankees were held, they got the prisoners from the sheriff and headed back to Andersonville. When night came, they stopped at an isolated farmhouse to spend the night before continuing back to Andersonville the next morning.
The farmer and his wife fed them (the guards and prisoners) supper and suggested that the Yankees could be confined in his old smokehouse overnight. So, when the Yankees were led out to the smokehouse they were told in no uncertain terms:
"When we come out here in the morning to let you out, IF Y'all are still here, you are going back to Andersonville with us. If you are gone, then we will simply return to Andersonville and report that Y'all escaped."
With that, they closed the door to the smokehouse, neglecting to lock it.
The next morning the Yankees were gone from the smokehouse. G-G- Grandpa and his comrades returned to Andersonville and reported that the prisoners had escaped.
Now, to be fair to Grant, he has never been given the due credit for what he did at Appomattox. By giving Lee and his army such lenient terms and his later actions in preventing ex-Confederate leaders from being brought to trial (and possibly receiving death sentances for committing "treason.") He did much to 'heal the wounds' of the war. If Lee and Jefferson Davis along with other ex-Confederate leaders had been hung for "treason," they would have been converted into instant martyrs in the South-and there would have been 'hell to pay' for the Yankee Occupation trooops.
In 1865, resentful Southerners could have easily begun waging a desperate, guerilla style war that could have lasted for decades with many casualities on both sides. As it was, taking their cue from Lee and many other ex-Confederate leaders, Southerners began rebuilding their shattered economy and section of the nation and after a decade, Yankee occupation troops were withdrawn and the South again became a part of the United States-not just a collection of conquered provinces.
(By the way, the withdrawal of all those Yankee Occupation troops was met with Southerners with mixed emotions. When the troops went away-so did their military payrolls! So IF you have ever wondered why there are so many military instillations in the modern day South, now you know: WE Luv those military payrolls!)
I give Grant credit for that leinient post-war policy towards the South as he was the ONLY Northern leader (following the assassination of Lincoln) with the prestiege and Northern public support to implement such a policy.
So, after reading that tawdry propaganda piece "Andersonville," learn the real facts. Actually, the TNT production isn't that bad-you could probably get a DVD of it thru Amazon. When you watch it, just keep in mind that is is based on a work that is propaganda-nothing more or less.
Yeah? How many guards at Andersonville starved to death? How many died of scurvy? Typhoid? If they got the same rations as the prisoners, then their death-rate should be comparable, should it not? Now just who is dishing revisionist propaganda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Southron129
Oh yeah....regarding blaming Grant for the end of prisoner exchanges: Is "Fort Pillow" a term you're familiar with?
I guess you never heard of "Point Lookout" or "Ft. Delaware" either, did you John? Both sides carry guilt for neglect of POWs. However, the South bears no guilt for her intent in the war, she just wanted to be left alone and your Mr. Lincoln refused her that right. Confederates fought because their homeland was invaded, period.
Respectfully and truthfully submitted,
Steve
Johnson's Island is 15 miles from where I'm sitting. I place flowers in the cemetary every Memorial Day.
Look, just being in the Army during the conflict was "Hazardous to your Health" even with an infrastructure that was doing it's level best to keep the soldier healthy and fed...when no one particularly gave a Tinker's Dam, such as with POW camps, things could deteriorate rather badly.
Having said that, Andersonville was far worse than it should have been or needed to be...if there's a statue of Heinrich Hartmann Wirz in Andersonville, then it's a monument to incompetence and stupidity.
As for the rest, I'm not going to re-fight the Civil War with you, but neither am I going to agree that the "poor South" was jes sittin' aroun', mindin' it's own bidness....when Lincoln sent in an Army to beat'um up! The South had an agenda that was dark and essentially evil, and ultimately defined the methods by which that agenda was finally "modified" and has done nothing much but b!tch about it ever since! I'm sure that all that "Banger" in the Hood wants is to be "left alone" too!
Edited-just dropped it all, it was a pointless rant. I'll never forget the bravery of my ancestors, and I'll never forget their sacrifices. I'm sure you northern boys feel the same way.
May the Lord bless them all, and may we never forget why (we individually believe) they fought and died.
As am I, Steve, so there really isn't any reason to rant, and I ain't exactly "...one of them Northern boys".
July 1, 1863 was a tough day for our family. On Mom's side, James McCroskey 40th Virginia, Heth's Div., 3rd Corps (A.P. Hill) was shot in the left arm, captured near the Railroad Cut, had his left arm amputated in a Federal hospital, and was paroled at Carlisle, PA in Aug., 1863 (my cousin has the signed parole). Ironically, on Dad's side, Peter S. Kepler 150th PA (The Bucktails), 3rd Div (Doubleday), 1st Corps (Reynolds) was shot in the left leg near McPherson's barn within sight of the Railroad Cut, and had the injured limb amputated...likely in the same Federal hospital as his future great-great brother-in-law! Both survived.
Mom's people were simple farmers near Abingdon,VA....never owned a slave, wouldn't have had one if you gave it to them (documented fact....someone tried in 1854 in an attempt to settle a debt...no sale!), thought slavery was scripturally indefensible (and recorded same in the Family Bible), and in the end, typified the bitter "Rich-man's war, poor-man's fight" aspect of the conflict. Nevertheless, the family sent 3 sons into the Confederate Army, got 2 back, one of them maimed.
Excellent post and history John!
My people (let me qualify, my father's direct lineage) were poor sharecroppers. My Great great Grandfather took his 4 eldest boys off to serve in August 1861, leaving only my great Grandfather at home with his sisters to help his wife continue farming. He never owned a piece of land, yet he felt it his duty, at 42 years of age, to enlist for the Southern cause of Independence and he so believed in his Cause, that he took those 4 sons off to war with him. They fought together through the duration of the war until most of them were captured at Saylor's Creek, just a few days before Appomattox. One was captured earlier in the war and held at Point Lookout for something over a year. But they all survived and came home to continue farming with one of the boys actually buying a small farm. Not one went to war to preserve slavery, not one ever owned a slave, and not one was willing to die for the institution. You expressed the "poor man's war" facet wonderfully in your post. Too many good men died on both sides, and most if not all would be ashamed of what their country has become...
Lord bless you and yours John!
At this point, as a Southerner and historian, I feel i have to chime in.
1. Slavery was NOT a focus, or major cause of the War until 1863, with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. And if you read that document, you will find that it "liberates" slaves held ONLY "in the States or portions of the States..." at rebellion. Those slaves held in the North (of which there were many) and those held in previously occupied areas were not freed. In fact, the last state to free its slaves was Massachusetts, after passage of the 13th Amendment.
2. If you will read contemporary accounts such as the newspapers and magazines of the time, the initial response in the North was to "...let those troublemakers go...we don't need their kind anyway..." until it became obvious that the majority of the Federal income was derived from tariffs collected in New Orleans, Savannah and Charleston. Further, the merchants and the bankers let the hue and cry to reunite the Union to restore their markets.
3. Many (if not most) of the Union officers expressed extreme displeasure with fighting to end slavery. It was a not uncommon statement thread "if i'da known I was fighting to free the ..." that they would have resigned their commissions, refused to fight, whatever.
Despite the foregoing truths, the War Between the States was (and still is) a national tragedy of the first magnitude. We, as a Nation, lost over 650,000 of our fellow citizens in a war that never needed to be fought. Slavery had become an economically unsustainable institution (a slave sold for over $3000.00 at a time when an acre of land went for $1.25, and few could afford that cost).
I personally feel that the greatest casualty, next to the lives of the soldiers, both North and South, was the belief in the supremacy of the 10th Amendment and the concept of Federalism. The War led to the Strong central government that the founding Fathers feared and which plagues us to this day.
Nevertheless, slavery had been shaping the US political landscape like a D-9 Cat since the ratification of a Constitution that didn't ban it out-right. It was the "dirty little secret" no one talked about, and everyone thought about. Why isn't Mexico a state, and for that matter, why did we go to war with Mexico in the first place? Slavery! Why wasn't the Homestead Act passed after the Louisiana Purchase? Slavery! Why wasn't a transcontinental railroad built in the 1850's when it was technically and even more economically viable? Slavery! Why was the Southern Cause doomed from the day of it's inception? Slavery!
It is the pinnacle of revisionist history and/or naivete to talk about the conflict and NOT recognize the issue of slavery at it's core. Without slavery, the war would NEVER have happened!
"If a slave can be made a soldier, then our entire concept of the institution is wrong." A. Stephens
John, I almost let you have the last word on this (and you may well yet have it) but I just can't ignore your last post. Most Southern soldiers were not slave owners, I believe that has been statistically proven time and time again. When we honor our ancestors, when we speak of "the War", when we consider the sacrifices of our brave Confederate forebears, we do so to honor their service in the field, not to honor the politics of the time nor the evils of either government. I expect you Yanks do the same for your forebears, as well you should.
In short, to heap the institution of slavery on every Confederate soldier that served is the pinnacle of injustice and serves only to drive more wedges between us, modern day North and South. Please pay close attention to the first part of the quote below, it came from, undoubtedly, the most honorable man to serve on either side of the conflict:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained." Robert E. Lee
And the epitome of why Southern men served:
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Robert E. Lee
I have said all I shall say on the subject.
It would appear to me that there are many various types of slavery. When I see the pictures of young children forced into jobs, working 12 hrs. a day 7 days a week because of economic need. This hardly seems any worse than slavery prior to the civil war in the plantations of the South. Yet after the war was ended, this type of slavery continued in the North and around the world. It continues today, those in third world countries producing the cheap goods cannot be considered free.
Somehow I have to think that slavery in the South would of disappeared once the beancounters, started running the cotton companies. I'm not sure that the civil war was needed to end slavery, but it seems like it was a very good peg on which to hang your hat.
KTK
I find it hard to take sides as an old family photo shows a Confederate Soldier standing on one end of the family photo while a Federal Soldier stands on the other end. I believe the photo was taken in the 1880's. I will know more when I refind it.
Comparing Fort Pillow with Andersonville is comparing "apples and oranges." An unfortunate aspect of EVERY war is that, in some cases, enemy prisoners of the side that lost the battle have been massacred.
There was also a massacre of prisoners following the Battle of Saltville, Va-but the Confedrate responsible for that massacre, Champ Ferguson was, after the war-tried, found guilty and hung. He deserved his fate and was not the victim of a judicial lynching as was the case with Wirtz.
The actual fact of the matter was that the DEATH RATE of Southern P.O.W's in Northern prison camps was HIGHER than the death rate of Northern prisoners in Southern P.O.W. camps. The North had adequate resources to care for their prisoners adequately; which was not the case in the South.
In 1845/65 Jacksonville, Florida was occupied by Yankee troops. On several occasions Confederate authorities tried to arrange a truce where some of the prisoners at Andersonville could be turned over to federal authoriy-no exchange was to be involved. Yet, even this was refused!
I would also like to point out that in 1863 when Lee's Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania during the Gettysburg Campaign; the property of Pennsylvania civilians was respected. When foodstuffs, horses and other items were seized because of military necessity; the owners of thos properties were given vouchers which they could redeem to be paid.
The behavior of the Yankee armies in the South was totally different. Sherman and his men made war on innocent civilians. AFter the fall of Atlanta in 1864, General Sherman ordered the evacuation of the city by civilians. Thus, the aged, infirm and sick were literally kicked out of their homes and sent beyond Confederate lines with winter coming on.Then Sherman burned the city.
Supposedly the war was being fought "to free the slaves," yet in the area of Georgia I live in not only were the foodstuffs stolen to feed Sherman's men and the plantation houses and outbuildings burned-but in many, many cases also the slave cabins on those plantations.
Thus, the most innocent of Southern civilians (slaves) lost their homes but
had to follow Sherman's army in the hope that they could obtain food. As it was many died of exposure and starvation-especially the aged, very young and infirm.
At several river crossings, Sherman's engineers threw up pontoon bridges so the army could cross, but then destroyed the bridges before the blacks following the army could cross. Many, many died of exposure and starvation.
The unpardonable sin that Southerners had committed was simply a desire for "self-determination."
By the way, if you don't believe me-check with General Sherman. He will confim what I have posted and his guilg. His current mailing address is:
General William T. Sherman, (Deceased)
666 Brimstone Lane,
Firey Circle Terrace
HELL
No , it isn't! Ft. Pillow is the DIRECT reason for Andersonville! The Confederate government refused to exchange captured Federal black troops, placing them again in bondage, and in cases like Ft. Pillow...quite deliberately killed the black troops outright, so no more exchanges until and unless it could be done on "color-blind" lines. The Confederates refused, and Andersonville was the result....apples-to-apples, cause and effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southron129
As for the rest. You think a J-DAM that targets the water, sewer, and power systems of a large city isn't going to "effect civilians"? How about a fire-bomb raid a`la Dresden or Tokyo? Do you actually think that a Confederate handing a Pennsylvania farmer a receipt redeemable in Richmond in script that even the issuing government knew wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, was anything other than out-and-out horse theft? How about a nuke? "War is all hell, you cannot change it!" Uncle Billy simply knew his job a lot better than Jeff Davis, and apparently you!
You mean Jubal Early DIDN'T burn Chambersburg, PA in 1864? How about the Commando Raid/burning of St. Albans, VT? The attempt to burn NYC? The attempted capture of the USS Michigan to free POW's on Johnson's Island to burn and destroy Northern cities by hijacking the SS Philo Parsons, terrorizing the captured CIVILIAN passengers and crew, doing likewise to the SS Island Queen, and eventually looting and burning both vessels (the commander, John Y. Beall was later captured, tried, convicted and hung for murder and piracy in Feb. 1865!)? If you're trying to make a point, you'd best keep ALL the facts straight!Quote:
Originally Posted by Southron129
Judicial lynching? Heinrich Hartmann Wirz' (note the correct spelling) only defense was that he was "just following orders"! That line didn't work at Nuremberg either!Quote:
Originally Posted by Southron129
Gentlemen please, do not fight the civil all over again. It was destructive enough the first time around to our great southern nieghbours Being that my interest is one of a historical bent I most appreciate the knowledge you fellows have and are willing to share. I would suspect that many Americans too appreciate the fruits of your knowledge. For there are many of us on both sides of the border who can learn more of our histories.
Now I found the book Andersonville a very good read, I believe that it was written less than a 100 years after the conflict. Now did the author have a slant? I would certainly expect so, for we all do. But it was window to me on a section of the civil war which I was not aware of. I knew that conditions were bad in POW camps in both the North and the South.
What were the reasons? Why were the exchanges halted? I would have to think that an intelligent man or men could quickly figure out that if you are blockading and attempting to starve a population into submission then the people with the least value would be hit the hardest. So in fact the Northern Generals must of known what they were doing to thier own captured soldiers. But in the book the local farmers attempted to give the prisoners food and were not allowed to do this.
As in all conflicts there seems to be enough guilt to go around.
One aspect of the civil war which I find interesting is the politics which led to the war. To a furriener such as myself it would seem that both sides forgot about the great principles which were used to create the United States of America.
But as I said I am only learning and certainly stand to be corrected. So I appreciate hearing from both sides and I thank-you for sharing your knowledge.
KTK
OFC
Mr. Kepler:
Your information about Ft. Pillow is, unfortunately, based on a slander that has been perpetuated for nigh on to a century now to debase Nathan Bedford Forrest. Yes, he was a slave trader before the war. Yes, he was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. No! he did not massacre prisoners at Ft Pillow.
The facts are that Ft. Pillow was surrounded, and the Union gunboats were unable to provide effective fire to relieve the garrison. Major Bradford was given the opportunity for surrender, and after requesting an hour for consultation (Forrest granted twenty minutes), refused to surrender. The Confederates then overran the fortifications. In the ensuing rout, all but 63 of the black troopers were killed.
Ft. Pillow was not the reason for the deplorable conditions at Andersonville, they were the direct result of U.S. Grant's decision to halt all prisoner exchanges because the care and feeding of POWs would present a greater burden on the Cobnfederacy than on the Union. And as was pointed out earlier, the casualty rate at Union POW camps was higher than at Andersonville. Genreal Grant, known among even his own troops as "Butcher Grant" used his troops as expendable cannon fodder and cared little for their lives as evidenced by his casualty rates. He is revered in the North only because he was the ONLY Union general who was successful at defeating an outnumbered, outequipped foe. George MaClelland had as many troops at his disposal, but was unwilling to sacrifice them in wholesale fashion as was Grant. Burnsides and Hooker were both incompetants, and Sherman was the Union version of Lt. Col Banastre Tarleton (the model for Mel Gibson's antagonist Col. Tavington in The Patriot).
The issue is that no one is trying to paint Andersonville as a humane, kindly place - it wasn't; it was a hellhole. But it also was typical of the conditions faced at ALL POW camps during the War Between the States. Political Correctness aside, Wirtz no more deserved hanging than Dr. Mudd deserved imprisionment for treating John Wilkes Booth's broken leg. The North treated the South as a conquered province, and many, many in the North extracted every ounce of revenge they could for the South's "uppity attitude" in having even thought that they were entitled to go their own way.
Now that that has been said, I suspect that I, along with Mr. Kepler and most other members of this board would find ourselves on the same side should the situation in this Country further deteriorate and it once more become necessary to restore the Constitution by force of arms (God Forbid!). I respect his passion and knowledge, but I disagree with his interpretation of some of the history. I doubt I will be able to convince him of thr righteousness of my position any more than he will convince me that Southerners were evil incarnate. We will simply agree to disagree, and go forward to make this the best country that we can, each in our own way. As Santayana said, "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it"
Ken...you wanted some "search for meaning"? I cannot write it adequately....that was done more than 50 years ago by a news reporter turned historian in some of the most poignant paragraphs ever written in the language.
"In front of them was the wide gentle valley of the shadow of death, brimming now with soft autumn sunlight, and behind them the flags waved lazily about the speakers' stand and the voice droned on, building up toward a literary climax. The valley was a mile wide, and there was the rolling ground where the Rebel guns had been ranked, and on the crest of the ridge was the space where a girlish artillery lieutenant had had a sergeant hold him up while he called for the last round of canister, the ground where the file closers had gripped hands and dug in their heels to hold a wavering line together, the place where the noise of men desperately fighting had been heard as a great mournful roar; and the voice went on, and the governors looked dignified, and the veterans by the trees looked about them and saw again the fury and the smoke and the killing.
This was the valley of dry bones, waiting for the word, which might or might not come in rhythmic prose that began by describing the customs of ancient Athens. The bones had lain there in the sun and the rain, and now they were carefully arranged state by state under the new sod. They were the bones of men that exulted in their youth, and some of them had been unstained heros while others had been scamps who pillaged and robbed and ran away when they could, and they had died here, and that was the end of them. They had come here because of angry words and hot passions in which they had not shared. They had come, too, because the drums had rolled and the bands had blared the swinging deceitful tunes that piped men off to battle...three cheers for the red white and blue, here's a long look back at the girl I left behind me, John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave but we go marching on, and Yankee Doodle on his spotted pony rides off into the eternal smokey mist of war.
Back of these men were innumerable long dusty roads reaching to the main streets of a thousand youthful towns and villages where there had been bright flags overhead on the board sidewalks cheering and crying and waving a last good-by. It had seemed once that there was some compelling reason to bring these men here--something so broad that it would encompass all the terrible contradictory manifestations of the country's pain and bewilderment, the riots and the lynchings, the hysterical conspiracies with their oaths written in blood, the hard hand that had been laid upon the countryside, the scramble for riches and the scheming for high place, and the burdens carried by quiet folk who wanted only to live at peace by the faith they used to have.
Perhaps there was a meaning to all of it somewhere. Perhaps everything that the nation was and meant to be had come to a focus here, beyond the graves and the remembered echoes of the guns, and the wreckage of lives that were gone forever. Perhaps the whole of it somehow was greater that the sum of its tragic parts, and perhaps here on this wind-swept hill the thing could be said at last, so that the dry bones of the country's dreams could take on flesh.
The orator finished, and after the applause had died away the tall man in the black frock coat got to his feet, with two little sheets of paper in hand, and he looked out over the valley and began to speak."
Bruce Catton, "The Glory Road"
It simply cannot be synopsised any better.