Growing up we hear stories of King Arthur and David, righteous men who fought for valiant causes. We like to think that our ancestors did the same, and so we put them on gilded pedestals. However, the real history behind our pasts is not always so noble. The way we tell our histories reflect how we feel about the past, and our biases can cloud our narratives. The historical marker titled “Home Guard Defended Covered Bridge” in Tuscaloosa, Alabama tells the story of the conflict between the Union General John T. Croxton and Confederate Captain Benjamin F. Eddins in April 1865 as the Confederate “Home Guard” tried and failed to protect the bridge and Tuscaloosa from the Union Calvary Brigade. The words chosen by the author picture the Confederate force as the protagonist in the eyes of the reader and the Union forces as the antagonist by comparison.
Through their initial characterizations, the language of the text paints the Confederate forces in a positive light and the Union forces in a comparatively negative light. The marker’s text opens with an introduction to the two parties in the conflict: the 150 Union “troopers” on one side and “about a dozen” Confederates on the other. Showing that the Home Guard was far outnumbered by the 150 Union soldiers reveals that the Union force is more likely to win from the start. Additionally, the descriptor of the Union soldiers as “troopers” portrays their forces as more militant in comparison to the more humanized “old men and young boys” that comprised the Confederate forces. This creates the image of a faceless and highly organized regime going against a more unorganized, smaller, and therefore weaker underdog. Tipping the scales in favor of the Union encourages the reader to take the Confederates’ side in the conflict as the more helpless of the two parties. Whereas the Union Brigade is described in minimal terms and statistics, the Home Guard is given a more colorful and well-rounded characterization. This makes the Confederates more humanized, more than just numbers and names. An audience is more likely to side with the more humanized and therefore relatable of the two parties, which supports the deliberate characterization of the Confederates as the protagonists.
The retelling of the conflict on the bridge further reinforces the “underdog” characterization of the Confederate side. After the introduction to the two parties, the fighting is portrayed in earnest. The marker’s text depicts the Union troops armed with “7-shot carbines” charging forward against the retreating Home Guard armed with “single-shot weapons.” The author once again highlights the disproportionate amount of power the Union forces have over the Confederate troop. This supports the underdog narrative created in the first part of the text. The text goes on to recount the casualties sustained by the two groups. It describes how Capt. Eddins was injured and died the next week and names a 15-year-old combatant, John Carson, who was “crippled for life by a bullet.” In contrast, the Union casualties are simply “numbered 23.” Whereas the Home Guard is further humanized by the shocking mention of a named child dying for their cause –paired with the death of their leader–, the Union’s losses are only briefly mentioned. The text disregards the pain felt on their side as a way to keep the reader’s attention on the Confederates’ pain. By putting more emphasis on the Home Guard’s casualties, it makes the Union troops seem more expendable and therefore less human and relatable, further pushing the reader to side with the Confederates in the text.
In the final part of the narrative, the text solidifies its ideas of the Confederate underdogs and the unforgiving Union troops. After the Union Cavalry Brigade crossed the bridge and entered Tuscaloosa, the mayor surrendered. According to the text, a Catholic priest accompanied the mayor during the surrender. The inclusion of the character of the priest calls to the supposed piety of the city of Tuscaloosa. Associating the Confederates with Christianity makes them appear upstanding to the reader since the religion is generally linked to morality. Following the surrender is a recount of the carnage inflicted on the city by the Union troops. The text details the extent of the damages caused by the troops, including the local university, factories, and “over 2,000 bales of cotton.” Going solely off of the description given, the reader pictures educational and industrial structures. Listing the different resources and infrastructure destroyed by the Union adds to their repeated characterization as unyielding and cruel, considering how they tore through the city and its protectors with seemingly little resistance. While the text shifts the attention towards the union’s cruelty, it tears it away from the more important fact of the matter. The buildings the Union destroyed held resources for Confederacy. They did not target those locations as an extension of their characterized cruelty, but as a means to harm the Confederacy specifically, not the civilians of Tuscaloosa. The text does not recognize the strategical explanation behind the destruction, but instead plays down the Union’s reasonings as a means to focus the reader on the hurt the city and its people felt at the loss of the establishments destroyed. The hurt further humanizes the Confederates and adds depth to their underdog narrative pushed throughout the text.
While the marker was written with the purpose of telling the history of the old bridge, its Pro-Confederate bias shines through the language used. This language is subtle, which makes it easier for the reader to agree with the sentiments underlying the narrative without thinking about how the word choice leans them away from an even view of both parties towards viewing the Confederates as the protagonists. Looking closer one can see the biases laid out more clearly and realize in what ways the information is skewed to support the author’s message.
Works Cited
“Home Guard Defended Covered Bridge.” Hugh Thomas Bridge, Northport, Alabama, 2002.