Joshua Chamberlain: Hero of Gettysburg, future Politician?

Thats right. Tho I think it was also printed in an earlier collection.

I've got it in a series called Alternative Generals which may be what your thinking of. The story itself is called something like 'A Bad day for Mother' as his brother is in charge of the Maine forces in his absence and nearly gets killed.

As T3h_shammy says that's however totally different from what he's after.

Steve
 
The wound that ultimately killed Chamberlain was the Minie ball that passed through his body from hip to hip, suffered at the Battle of Petersburg. It never healed correctly, possibly because he insisted on rejoining the army before he was fully recuperated, and always bothered him. As he grew older it became the source of frequent infections, especially in winter. One of them killed him in February 1914.

His wife was, umm, difficult. There is some evidence that she suffered from chronic depression. When Chamberlain was elected governor in 1866, she refused to move to the state capital, Augusta, and instead stayed in their home in Brunswick.
 
Chamberlain had a strong sense of duty. The POD could be as simple as the party leaders sending someone to ask him to run for VP in Grants second term to help clean up the mess. His wound didn't affect him being Governor 4 times and his wife was probably no worse than Lincolns or a few others.
 
He might be a president to not allow the failures of reconstruction to happen. If you could have Grant killed in his first term he could have a drastic effect on post-war african-american rights in the South.

That drastic effect would not be a positive effect for African-American rights. Grant was an advocate of the rights of both blacks and pro-Union whites of the south and would have had more influence than Chamberlain.

For a chance at better rights for African-Americans, have former VP Chamberlain get the Republican nomination in 1876, avoiding the Hayes-Tilden compromise.
 
He died 50 years after his wound (his only wound worse than a bruise), at the age of 85....

That's the first time I've heard of a wound from a bullet that passed through an arm, struck the chest, exited out the back, and rendered the man unconscious as being no worse than a bruise. ;)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
That's the first time I've heard of a wound from a bullet that passed through an arm, struck the chest, exited out the back, and rendered the man unconscious as being no worse than a bruise. ;)

Yes, his one wound that was worse than a bruise (he received several bruises at Gettysburg for example).
 
Joshua Chamberlain was one of the key figures of the battle of Gettysburg, the 20th Maine held the extreme flank of the Union army at Little Round Top and in face of superior forces held their ground and preserved the Union line for the day. Now, Chamberlain was a very brave individual and was wounded something like 5 times throughout the Civil War. He became well-known enough to be made a Brigadier General by the end of the war and was given command of the troops accepting the surrender of one Robert E. Lee.

Now Chamberlain was also an intellectual and taught theology at college before enlisting. He had a number of close calls with death but averted them during the war. After the war he went back to his beloved Maine and ran for Governor and won numerous times. My goal for my first timeline is to get him more involved with politics and onto the national stage. Any ideas on this and maybe does anyone see issues with its plausibility?

Edit: Posted in the after 1900 on accident could we close that one please?

I believe it was rhetoric, not theology.

The problem was he was wounded something like 5 times. It would require more then one POD. Now if the POD had him promoted earlier or something like that, then it is logical that butterflies would save him from every wounding.

In the ACW, officers were more likely to get hit than their men, and this gets worse as their rank grows. Until, I suppose, you're commanding the entire army.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
In the ACW, officers were more likely to get hit than their men, and this gets worse as their rank grows. Until, I suppose, you're commanding the entire army.

No, it's the reverse, officers are less likely to get hit, they're not exposed to as much fire.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Several serious wounds -- the one I cited and the second one Fiver mentions were just two of them.

Bruises?

No, he received one wound (that is a wound serious enough to merit seeing a doctor), at the siege of Petersburg on 18th June 1864; he was shot with a musket ball that went through his hip. His other "wounds" were two bruises at Gettysburg from spent bullets (one striking his sword and bruising his left hip, another bruising his right ankle) and so serious bruising from having a horse shot out from under him on the Quaker Road in 1865.

I'm looking at a picture of the musket ball now (ref), a Union .577 Burton ball that entered his right hip from below, shattered the pelvis, nicked the bladder and uethera and exited. From the wound trajectory it must have been a ricochet. Luckily it missed everything that would certainly have killed him.
 
Do you think he could run with Winfield Scott Hancock as the choice as VP on the Democratic ticket in 1880 --- "Heroes of Gettysburg" Ticket?
 

burmafrd

Banned
The Civil War was the last major one where the officers led the men into battle marching in front. At least company level and below, though quite a few Regimental Commanders still did. Brigade Commanders also were still notable for doing it.

So many officers were killed in that war compared to others before it that most armies began to have the officers come BEHIND the men after that, Though of course many armies also thought it dishonorable to do that. Right up to WW1.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The Civil War was the last major one where the officers led the men into battle marching in front. At least company level and below, though quite a few Regimental Commanders still did. Brigade Commanders also were still notable for doing it.

So many officers were killed in that war compared to others before it that most armies began to have the officers come BEHIND the men after that, Though of course many armies also thought it dishonorable to do that. Right up to WW1.

Errr, no.

WW1 saw a further move of officers to the front. In the ACW the proper place of the Colonel and his Captains is in the battleline. The remaining field officers, all the subalterns and most of the Sergeants are behind the battleline pushing the men forward.

By WW1 officers are typically leading the men forward from the front.
 
Well, now I want to see a President Chamberlin movie starring Jeff Daniels (the only good thing about the movie Gettysburg, IMO).
 
No, he received one wound (that is a wound serious enough to merit seeing a doctor), at the siege of Petersburg on 18th June 1864; he was shot with a musket ball that went through his hip. His other "wounds" were two bruises at Gettysburg from spent bullets (one striking his sword and bruising his left hip, another bruising his right ankle) and so serious bruising from having a horse shot out from under him on the Quaker Road in 1865.

There is also the wound that I previously mentioned, where the bullet when through his arm and stuck him in the chest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=epbbg1CA4CAC&pg=PA65&dq=%27Joshua+L+Chamberlain%22+wounded&lr=#v=onepage&q='Joshua%20L%20Chamberlain%22%20wounded&f=false

That source also disagrees with you on the location and severity of the foot wound at Gettysburg.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
There is also the wound that I previously mentioned, where the bullet when through his arm and stuck him in the chest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=epbbg1CA4CAC&pg=PA65&dq=%27Joshua+L+Chamberlain%22+wounded&lr=#v=onepage&q='Joshua%20L%20Chamberlain%22%20wounded&f=false

That source also disagrees with you on the location and severity of the foot wound at Gettysburg.

No they don't. His two Gettysburg wounds were a bruise on his thigh and a scratch on his ankle. The ball on the Quaker Road just caused bruising.
 
No they don't. His two Gettysburg wounds were a bruise on his thigh and a scratch on his ankle. The ball on the Quaker Road just caused bruising.

Yes, we fully understand that is your view. But since your view disagrees strongly with the source I listed, it would help if you would list what source you base your view on.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Yes, we fully understand that is your view. But since your view disagrees strongly with the source I listed, it would help if you would list what source you base your view on.

No they're identical to the source. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.
 
Top