In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Civil War Letters of Colonel Charles F. Johnson, Invalid Corps
  • M. Keith Harris
The Civil War Letters of Colonel Charles F. Johnson, Invalid Corps. Edited by Fred Pelka. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004. Pp. 336. Cloth $80.00; paper $26.95.)

This fascinating collection is a welcome addition to the growing list of published Civil War correspondence. More than 150 letters, expertly annotated, trace the experiences of Charles F. Johnson, an officer who sustained severe wounds during [End Page 332] the Seven Days' Battles in June 1862 and subsequently served in the Union Army's Invalid Corps. Always forthcoming, and critical, Johnson's observations, flavored with an incisive wit, reveal a great deal about his country's war effort, issues of masculinity, nationalism, and race.

While offering numerous insights into the vagaries of war, this collection makes its greatest contribution in illuminating the complicated position of the nation's thousands and thousands of newly disabled soldiers. The men of the Invalid Corps, later renamed the Veteran Reserve Corps and known throughout the army as the "Cripple Brigade," faced a number of challenges. Significant were their efforts to maintain viability as productive men under arms while simultaneously staving off insults and assumptions of inadequacy from the ranks of "normal" army units. While battle scars could prove these veterans' mettle under fire, and although they remained in service performing various tasks vital to Union victory, they nevertheless became objects of ridicule.

Pelka's introduction and annotations expose the insufficient knowledge and inaccurate stereotypes surrounding "ableism"—discrimination against those with various disabilities. Pelka's observations of mistreated disabled veterans show how, as is often the case today, people with disabilities were approached with a great deal of caution. Those both inside and outside the army defined these men by their disabilities, suggesting that they were somehow inherently different beyond their debilitating wounds. To many, visions of disability could mean both feebleness of body and spirit. Opinions ranging from unsolicited pity to outright hostility plagued the Invalid Corps and followed its members long after the war had ended. This situation had serious implications for those struggling to find a place in the postwar nation. Those who were once called to save the Union were now shunned by large segments of society.

To his credit, Pelka illuminates the difficulties of readjustment and crises of identity suffered by those with disabilities. Critics of Pelka's formulation may very well be skeptical of modern terminology and sentiment applied to an entirely different time and space. Seemingly anachronistic use of language, in this case, does not detract from the thrust of Pelka's discussion. Rather, he compellingly harnesses twenty-first-century terminology to understand nineteenth-century prejudice on its own terms. In many ways, he convincingly illustrates how the issues of both centuries bear striking similarities. Most important, Pelka has broadened the vision of a subject that has previously suffered from a lack of analysis. While previous historians have essentially dismissed the Invalid Corps, Pelka's presentation of Johnson's story opens the door to a "new sophistication and inclusivity to the writing of American history. Disability can now be seen [End Page 333] as a socially and culturally constructed identity well worth the analytical efforts of social historians" (4).

While Pelka's central interest is probing how the disabled were cast aside, there is another image of the wounded veteran that deserves equal attention. Particularly during the volatile immediate postwar period, veterans running for political office could, and often did, exploit war-related disabilities to garner favor from a sentimental constituency. While consistent with many of Pelka's themes concerning disability as a social construct, images such as these would illustrate some veterans defining themselves and being embraced as heroes through their disabilities. Furthermore, the contradictory juxtaposition of the disabled veteran as both hero and burden in the eyes of a vacillating public would add complexity and yet another layer to a captivating story. Despite this imbalance, Pelka provides a creditable framework for future analysis. Johnson's letters are at once absorbing and enlightening.

M. Keith Harris
University of Virginia
...

pdf

Share