August, 2023

HOWARD PYLES’ PAINTING OF THE BATTLE OF NASHVILLE

What’s Right, What’s Not, and What it Portrays

An Opinion: By Philip Duer

Howard Pyle finished “The Battle of Nashville” in 1907. The painting was commissioned by the Minnesota State Architect to portray the battle in large scale. It hangs in the Governor’s Reception Room in the state capitol at St. Paul. The painting was to commemorate the battle because Minnesota lost more soldiers at Nashville than in any other battle during the Civil War.

Some people assume that the painting depicts the final assault on Compton’s Hill, later re-named Shy’s Hill, on December 16^th, 1864. It does not. The painting depicts the 5^th and 9^th Minnesota Regiments of Hubbard’s Brigade, A. J. Smith’s Division, attacking through the muddy cornfield to the east of the hill. Lucius Hubbard would later become Minnesota’s governor. In the charge, Hubbard was shot in the neck and had two horses shot.

It is truly a magnificent painting. There are few paintings in history that rival the desperation, courage, and outright drama of an infantry charge than this one. John Banks, podcaster, writer, and a director of the Battle of Nashville Trust calls it “mesmerizing”. But this was not the only historical military work painted by Pyle. His previous work, “The Battle of Bunker Hill” finished in 1897 as well as his other American Revolutionary War paintings are excellent examples of martial tension. The atmospherics in each pull the viewer into the action. You can very clearly see the carryover of the atmospheric drama from the Bunker Hill painting into the Battle of Nashville painting.

But was Pyle’s Nashville work historically accurate? Historical reality and artistic license are always at play in reproducing history and at times, at odds with each other. While military artists set out to portray a real event, the portrayal usually yields to the level of artistic license the artist ultimately elects to use to evoke an emotional response from the viewer and to commemorate the event in heroic fashion. Its ultimate authenticity is underpinned by how much research has been undertaken to get the weather, uniforms, and events of the battle right. Sometimes the artist doesn’t fully succeed.

A clear example is the Battle of the Little Big Horn, initially named Custer’s Last Stand, and more recently referred to as the Battle of the Greasy Grass, the Native American name for the battle. Many famous artists attempted to memorialize the battle. Most captured the drama but failed in other parts. In Frederick Remington’s painting “Last Stand” (1891), painted 15 years after the battle, the view in the painting is dramatic and evokes desperation and resignation of the soldiers’ to their combined fate, but the historical authenticity is clearly wrong. Custer is placed at the top of a rocky pinnacle resembling a cairn with his soldiers seated around him in greatcoats signifying cold weather. Sabers, which had been left behind and not at the battle, are stuck into the ground in front of the troopers reflecting to the viewer that it will be a final desperate hand to hand struggle. In June of 1876, the weather was very dry, very hot, and most troopers wore only their blouse, some even wearing straw hats purchased from the sutler on the steamer The Far West which had accompanied General Terry’s combined Custer/Gibbon force to the Rosebud, then to the Yellowstone River. In this depiction, the weather and uniforms are wrong.

In Edward Paxton’s painting of the battle, it is more accurate, but the regimental standard is wrong, the yellow cavalry flag which was to replace the blue standard having not been adopted for cavalry units until after the battle; not to mention that the regimental color was not at Last Stand Hill, the flag having been stowed with the reserve ammunition pack train following the regiment. The swirl of battle is desperate but not how it unfolded.

But The ultimate flawed painting, and a very political one at that, rests with the painting by Cassilly Adams’ “Custer’s Last Fight” (1884) commissioned by Anheuser-Busch as a poster and later prepared by Otto Becker as a lithograph advertisement (1889) heavily revised from the original, which probably hung over most of the bars across the United States. The battle space is fairly accurate and some of the intensity of the actual fighting. The dismemberment and scalping images are gruesome and terrifying. But what makes this painting politically incorrect, to say the least, is the disbelief at the time in the United States that Custer and his beloved 7^th Cavalry could have been defeated by “savages”. An inspection of the central foreground introduces the viewer to a buckskin attired man with a rifle who is wearing a western hat. He is not facing the viewer…he is facing the battle with his rifle. Why is he there? Why is he with the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho and not being attacked? This figure represents the rumor that the only way Native Americans could have defeated Custer was through the strategy and tactics of a renegade white officer, presumably an ex-confederate. The white man is there, directing the attack. That is why Custer was defeated. Notice the partially nude “Michaelangelo bodies” of two dead troopers in the right foreground and the Zulu like shields of some of the warriors!

This is but one example in art. There are many. The paintings of native peoples after discovery by Europeans always elicit the question of why do they look like they just dropped off of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? The answer is simple…their “Michaelangeloesque” musculature was painted because no one really knew what indigenous people looked like.

With these issues in mind, let’s examine Pyle’s Nashville painting. Does the painting meet the four criteria listed below?

• Does it actually portray the event it seeks to reproduce?
• Does it realistically portray the battle space, topography and weather conditions?
• Does it accurately depict the combatants?
• And finally, does it accurately portray the battle without exaggerated artistic license?
• 

1. Portrayal of the Event. The answer is YES. Pyle’s painting seeks to represent the charge of the Minnesota regiments of Col. Lucius Hubbard’s II Brigade in the late afternoon of December 16^th, 1864. John Banks’ Blog of December 20^th, 2020 titled “Where are Howard Pyle’s “lost’ Nashville battlefield photos”? is an excellent post which includes present day photos of the Harding Place Road near the intersection of the Granny White Pike at the location where Pyle must have determined the charge occurred across the muddy cornfields to the north of Harding Road and east of Shy’s crest. Pyle had traveled to Nashville and took multiple photos from which he painted his epic oil and did research before painting it. He met with and consulted veterans of the battle, but his painting only represents two regiments involved in the assault out of Hubbard’s Brigade, the 5^th and 9^th Minnesota. The 7^th Minnesota and the 10^th Minnesota were not included, understandably, because the 7^th was to the east of Pyle’s portrayal in Marshall’s III Brigade, which angered Capt. Thomas G. Carter of the 7^th for not including his unit. The 10^th Minnesota is not portrayed because it was well above Hubbard’s brigade in McMillen’s I Brigade tasked with assaulting Shy’s Hill and its location would be past the battle smoke portrayed.

2. Realistic Portrayal of the Battle Space, Topography and Weather Conditions. The answer is MOSTLY YES. Shy’s Hill is accurate in its location, size and eastern slope descending to the Granny White Pike. But the foreground slope may be another story. The assault is through a muddy cornfield. There is evidence of a past ice storm among the corn stalks. It appears it is late afternoon with the sun setting in a cloudy atmosphere, all of which would be accurate. However, the foreground slope appears to be exaggerated in steepness. The charge is also exaggerated to the east. In other words, if you draw a line of the direction of the charge, the men are moving from the right to the left, in other words almost due east and away from Shy’s Hill exposing them to enfiladed fire. The earthworks or stone wall on the slope are well back. Shrouded by smoke, McMillen’s Brigade is supposedly attacking straight ahead through the smoke and up Shy’s Hill at a right angle to Hubbard. But who are the Confederates depicted in the left corner fighting at almost a 90 degree angle? They certainly aren’t pickets as they would not have attempted to contest such an overwhelming charge. In fact, first person reports from Marshall’s III Brigade state that the Confederate pickets were surprised by Marshall’s charge, as they were watching the assault to their left up Shy’s Hill and rose up en masse in panic and headed for the stone wall. And it certainly does not depict the stonewall on the Granny White as the wall is placed further back. It must represent the angle where Loring’s Division tied into Walthall’s Division. But again, the representation is more like The Angle on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg than at Nashville. This is where Capt. Carter may be correct. Carter stated that the topography depicted was wrong. With the background seeming to be correct, he must be referring to the foreground. From an eye test computation, it would appear that the slope is at angle from 15 to 20 degrees. A theoretical argument could be made that when Harding Road was developed, the contours were flattened but it is very doubtful that that much material would have been moved to make the road and the corresponding level home lots as it appears today. In this writer’s opinion, the direction of the attack is filled with artistic license and drama as will be discussed in Number 4.

3. Does the Painting Accurately Depict the Combatants? The answer is GENERALLY YES. The Federal troops appear appropriately attired for December 1864 with appropriate weapons. Great coats and bedrolls would have been piled up before forming for the charge. There are two regimental standards and two national colors, all in tatters with the regimental and the national close together as expected. In Hubbard’s report, Hubbard mentions that several color bearers were shot down in the charge so it appears he wanted to include the danger and bravery of the color guard. The mud on many of the soldiers evidence how difficult the charge would have been through the cornfield after the ice storms, and the rains, earlier that day.

In turning to the depiction of the graycoats, what few Confederates that are depicted, the gray color of their uniforms, the slouch hats, and their heavy beards would appear to be accurate. Their grizzled faces show they are veterans attempting to make a stand. Notice few, if any at all, of the Federal troops have beards; almost to a man they are clean shaven with only a couple sporting mustaches. But the real question of accuracy in the painting is: who are the mounted men on Shy’s Hill? And why are two of them on white horses? They appear to be within cannon range and sniper fire. The mounted men appear to represent officers, not artillery. Is it Lt. General John Bell Hood and his command staff? This depiction is artistic license as more fully explained in Number 4.

4. Does the Painting Portray the Battle Without Exaggerated Artistic License. The answer is NO. Pyle could not have painted the entire assault on Shy’s Hill. The painting, as he correctly stated, would have been too big. In addition, he could not have had the drama that he so wonderfully included if he had painted from behind the assault which would have had MacArthur’s whole division. Instead, he created the drama and intensity of the attack heading from the right to the left almost as an overwhelming, unstoppable juggernaut of determined men, the same as in his Bunker Hill The inclined angle of the foreground only accentuates the charge. Look at the slope of Shy’s Hill and compare it with the line of attack. The angles are the same. The line of the slope supports the angle of the charge sweeping the viewer along with the troops. We are going in with them. We cannot stop. Even the soldier with a bandaged head wound from the previous day is not going to be left behind. Note in the Bunker Hill painting (see above), Pyle included a hatless grenadier in the foreground with a bandaged head wound, another image, and symbolism, adopted into the Battle of Nashville painting. We are all on a dead run downhill. Battle has already been joined to the right of the charge as signified by the dense smoke of hiding McMillen’s brigade. Pyle cannot include that part of the battle but lets us know that there is intense fighting at the hill. The roiling smoke speaks to other battle but doesn’t detract from Hubbard’s charge; in fact it further dramatizes it, the same as his Bunker Hill painting.

Capt. Carter is right. Pyle could not have included Marshall’s Brigade the way he sought to portray the battle. But, There is a drawback to Pyle’s artistic use of angles and lines. Hubbard’s Brigade driving almost due east would have slammed into the right flank of Marshall’s III Brigade. It almost looks as if he has. Moving the charge along, Pyle would have to show the antagonists, not Marshall, so we have Confederate troops in a deep swale that probably wasn’t there and at an angle that is extremely pronounced. There was an angle in the line at the nexus between Walthall and Loring, undoubtedly, but was it that extreme?

And finally, it appears to this writer that the rider on the white horse on Shy’s Hill is General Hood. The other horsemen would be his command staff and probably officers from Bate’s Division. I have not seen a picture nor a description of Gen. Hood on a white horse. Most paintings of Hood depict him on a Bay or Chestnut Horse, both at Gettysburg and at Nashville. But, in the movie “Gettysburg”, Hood is mounted on a white horse. Whether that is Hollywood or not, I don’t know. Most general officers had more than one horse, but I think that the white horse in this painting is utilized to represent a warrior leader. White horses have always had that symbolism. With a white horse it is easy to spot the leader, in this case, General Hood surveying the attack that would break his line and result in the rout of his army. Hood is “Danger Close” so it is doubtful he would have been in that position. Did Pyle purposely place Hood there in the painting so he could witness the destruction of his army by Hubbard’s Minnesota troops? In actuality, Hood was at the Lea home when advised of the break in the line so there is artistic license at play in putting him on the field of battle.

Conclusion. While it appears that I may have sought to poke holes in the painting, it was not my intent. After critically reviewing it, I walk away with even greater admiration for it and Pyle’s skill. He was ahead of his time in realism. He had researched his subject well, and though Col. Hubbard was included in the painting, he was not glamorized, only barely noted, nor was he the central figure as you would expect. Instead it was the common Minnesota farm boy that Pyle sought to exalt and in that mission, he succeeded. The intensity of an infantry charge I don’t think has ever been exceeded by any other painter, and the artistic license he took to frame the charge is in lasting tribute to those Minnesota farm boys that day.