For ordering his men at Gettysburg to keep firing at over
10,000 Virginian infantrymen in what is now known as Pickett’s Charge, Alonzo
Cushing—who died in the battle—was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by
President Barack Obama on November 6, 2014. As a result of that charge, Pickett
lost his entire division. In the 1984 film, Gettysburg,
General Lee tells Pickett after the battle to look after his division. “General Lee,” Pickett declares, “I have no division.” Suddenly Lee is
confronted with the true magnitude of his military blunders at Gettysburg.
From
this point of view, Cushing’s military honor looks rather different than from
Obama’s point of view. As conveyed by the media, that vantage point enjoyed a
virtual monopoly, and thus the interpretation could easily be taken as true
rather than relative. I submit that much from the political discourse as
sourced or conveyed by the media is projected as truth when it is highly
subjective and thus subject to question and debate.
At the ceremony, President Obama said, “I’m mindful that I
might not be standing here today as president, had it not been for the ultimate
sacrifices of those courageous Americans.”[1]
Hardly a partisan comment, the statement is nonetheless partial even if it
seems indisputably true. Firstly, whereas Lincoln referred to all of the fallen
when he spoke at Gettysburg to commemorate the national cemetery, Obama was
likely referring only to the Union troops. What of the courageous men under
Pickett who walked more than a mile over open field as canon-fire came from the
hills on the sides and from directly ahead where the Union’s artillery fired
shots from behind a stone wall? Considering that the entire division was
slaughtered during that “charge,” is it even ethical to honor a man who ordered
his troops to keep shooting? My point is that what we take as a given may be
anything but.
Even the Union’s battle cry during the CSA-USA war that the
USA would cease to exist should it lose the war is faulty. The CSA never put a
claim on the states that remained with the Union, or the Union itself; rather,
the Confederate states formed their own federal system. So it is erroneous to
claim that the U.S. would not exist in the twenty-first century had the Union
army not beaten the CSA in 1865. So it is odd that Barack Obama thought he would
not be president. If he was referring to his multi-racial makeup, the U.S.
without the “Southern” states would hardly be more racist in the twenty-first
century.
I realize that the winner of a war gets to write the
history, but that account should at least be coherent. Even such an account
would be partial, but it would be conveyed as tantamount to fact by the source
as well as the media. I submit that both elected officials and journalists have
an ethical responsibility to represent partial or ideological statements as
such. For example, the media could add alternative takes in the reportage,
hence widening the window of interpretations held to be viable. In short, I
contend that the American political discourse tends to be very narrow,
especially when possible policy prescriptions are being debated. Having a
duopoly of two major parties contributes to this tunnel vision, but so too does
the confounding of partial and full accounts by candidates, elected officials,
and the media.
[1]
Gregory Korte, “Union Soldier Honored for Gallantry at Gettysburg,” USA Today, November 7-9, 2014.
