Perryville.

Perryville does indeed seem to be the "forgotten battle" of the Civil War. In the key border state of Kentucky, with a prominent slave population, Bragg's failure to consolidate Kentuckian support with all the potential political implications- Lincoln's birthplace, Davis' birthplace, and the home of prominent former senator Henry Clay- a CSA victory at Perryville would have had a massive public opinion effect, and may have refuted the northern advantage gained at Antietam. Both sides describe the battle's ferocity and blood in no uncertain terms. Watkins "does not remember a harder fight," and finds "both sides whipped" at the culmination of hostilities. Bragg's desperation was evident, and he followed a wanton aggression similar to that of Lee in the eastern theater. Perryville represents a huge opporunity lost for the Confederacy, with plummeting prospects for victory in the western theater and the draw that was beginning to emerge in the eastern theater. The CSA was becoming surrounded and cornered, and resigned to success only in the eastern theater of conflict. The Federals had gained control of the backbone of the Confederacy, and the western theater was ready to fall.

A general's account of battle is very different than a privates. One's perception of the experience of battle can be dramatically altered depending on which depiction is observed. This appears to be Keegan's basic argument. I found this to be true first-hand after reading reports of the accounts of the battle at Perryville. General Bragg and General Buell's accounts have an all-business tone. A short synopsis of the events and results is given. In this case, both sides claim victory while acknowledging the large cost for it. However, there is a sense of the "reduction of soldiers as pawns" that Keegan speaks of. In his account, Sam Watkins just tells it like it is. Both sides claimed victory but both sides were whipped. As opposed to the Cincinnatie Gazette's account, Watkins does not really romance the experience by glorifying either side's bravery or valour. He does assert that the plight of the private deserves more recognition than that of most undeserving generals. This is a point of consideration that Keegan champions: war from the view point of the tedium, discomforts, and other factors that would effect the fears and actions of the common soldier; rather than from the view of general stratagies and tactics divised by leaders unaffected by their physical situation.

Keegan- The Face of Battle

Sorry, forgot to incorporate Keegan...I found most of Keegan's point valid in our context, especially his connection between national spirit and military success...this is an academic definition of morale's relationship to military result, and the two are easily connected with ultimate success. His disregard for Du Picq I also found interesting, as I found Du Picq to be incorrect in many of his assumptions. His assumptions that large masses of soldiers do not clash, and that the civilized soldier always defeats the barbarian history has proven to be wrong, even prior to Du Picq's writing. One needs to look no farther than Rome and the commonly held conception, politically correct or not, of the massive "barbarian invasions" to discredit Du Picq's theory. Keegan's ideas on the motivations for men to fight and die in the Civil War were also very valid. Keegan easily tapped into the mindset of the Civil War soldier, and sees that a soldier's base fear is not death, it is dishonor and fear itself. Men fight because of fear, but they do not run because their sense of honor and value tells them otherwise. Keegan also discredits the long-held sense that generals dictate victory, as historians as far back as Herodotus and Caesar have written of. Keegan's belief is that the individual soldiers fight the battle, and no amount of tactics or orders devised by the mind of generals can override the fever of soldiers in battle. This is an interesting assumption, and can be construed to support a romanticized view of war which has been subjugated to a sense of reality lately. Keegan presents many excellent observations about the true nature and manner of war from the point of view of the individual soldier.

Lincoln outlines his first ideas of compensated emancipation in Delaware to be payed for with federal funds. Also any child born to a mother who was a slave was to be an apprentice to that owner until the age 18 for girls and 21 for guys. THe question of money comes up and lincoln makes the argument that compensted emancipation is going to be cheaper than fighting the rest of the war. Southern newspapers saw Lincolns emancipation as again the yankees going against the constitution. Also you see the papers attacking the character of the yankees saying they "steal all they can get their hands on."

Emancipation

I am quite interested in the complexity of the debate within historical circles regarding Emancipation, particularly the role and influence of Lincoln's Jan. 1, '63 proclamation. I very much buy into Ira Berlin's middle ground approach. I thought when I first began the piece that I would end up coming down with McPherson and opposition to the "new orthodoxy." However, when this approach (would Berlin, after his explanation, be in the new orthodoxy?) is explained it is the positive middle ground to explain the complex political and social process of Emancipation. The evidence supports Berlin's view, though I would imagine more compelling evidence coming from narratives, letters, newspaper editorials preceding the debate, and reporting of the debate and the presence slaves in Union camps (the historical accounts of the bottom-up pressure exerted on this issue from within the United States Army).

Berlin's "Who Freed the Slaves" was a i guess stimulating would be the word, piece for me to read, for the simple fact that I never actually sat down an dissected the Emanicpation Proclamation, seeing what it really said and who actually cause it. I've always known the Emancipation Proclamation to be the document that freed all the slaves, I hadn't really heard the subtleties that lied within it, such as the facts that it didn't really apply if the rebellious states rejoin the union before the certain date and it didn't include the slave state still in the Union. As Berlin says, "Lincoln's proclamation . . .freed not a single slave who was not already entitled to freedom . . .it aplied only to the slaves in territories then beyond the reach of Federal authority."(109) I always thought it was all Lincoln, I mean I knew there were rebellions among the slaves, but I had no idea that they were so persisent as to be the "prime movers of emancipation" (112), thereby influencing the soldiers who influenced the officers who continued to influence until it reached Lincoln who had the ultimate power to do something about slavery. It was also good to see Lincoln doing what was best for the country/people and not himself. He was "no friend of slavery"(116), but for the purpose of keeping unity (although it dissolved anyway), he chose not to interfere. However, while at the time Emancipation was a great thing for most people we soon see that it was just the beginning of problems. (nevertheless, looking back one can be glad it happened).

In response to Keegan, I liked the sentence on page 71, that said "When a soldier is . . .known to the men who are around him, he . . .has reason to fear losing the one thing he is likely to value more highly than life - his reputation as a man among other men." I believe this to be true for the most part of the male species in general, dogs, beta fish, lions just to name a few must protect there territory. During the 19th century and before the norm was "men brought home the bacon and a woman's place was in the kitchen" and before the war and even times afterwards if that situation was ever reversed it was a huge detriment to a man's pride. This statement is also exhibited in Letter's to Amanda, though it was decided today in class that MHF probably wouldn't have had that big of problem of letting Amanda run things for a while, he was definitely concerned with the fact that he might never be able to show his face in GA again if he ever ran away from battle and I know MHF wasn't the only man who thought like that.
As far as the Battle of Perryville goes, I agree with Scott as it being "forgotten" for I never much heard of it myself, Gettysburg yes, Antietam, yes, but Perryville, not that I recall. But anyway, I think that Sam Watkins' account was great. it wasn't all one sided, we got action, human emotions, other people and everything. And then his final paragraphs in which he clearly criticized leaders who weren't as competent as the privates he served with: "I know...many a private who would have made a good General. I know of many a General who was better fitted to be excused from detail and fights..." Now I don't know either personally, but from all the accounts that I've read for this class I can certainly see where Sam Watkins is coming from.

     Like Derrick, I was surprised at Lincoln’s justification of compensated emancipation in terms of the difference emancipation would cost in relation to the daily costs of the Civil War. To Cronkling, he claims compensated emancipation would save the taxpayers from the “greater taxation” of saving the Union, but one is left wondering if this was Lincoln’s true feelings on why the North needed to push this compensated emancipation. Although earlier documentation (Lincoln/Douglas debates) proves that Lincoln had a belief in civil equality for black people, he never ventured into saying anything about altering slavery in states where it already existed because of the risk of political suicide. I think the risk of political consequences was just as large in 1863, so I feel like one can not get an accurate view on Lincoln’s feelings towards ending slavery, because each of his decisions were heavily influenced by politics.

     I also felt that the Southern newspaper reactions to the Emancipation Proclamation were quite humorous. It seems like they have quickly forgotten what a disaster Antietam turned out to be; not to mention the CSA’s ever increasing number of losses in the western theater. In fact, Lincoln had waited until some military victories to introduce this proclamation, in order to avoid these types of accusations of being desperate, coming from his political opponents. But then again, these newspapers had an agenda of keeping Confederate morale up, so I guess it is not too shocking to see these words being written in the South.

I agree with everyone else with regards to Perryville and its absence from our collective memory. Simpson offers us a rather inexhaustive account of the campaign with the rapid flurry of detail about the number of men, the actions of the various commanding officers, and General Bragg's scheme to inaugurate a Confederate governor within hearing range of United State cannon. So we turn to other sources, most interestingly this participant's account by Sam Watkins. I find this to be one of the most compelling arguments against the romanticized battle accounts we have looked at thus far. Unlike the newspaper reporters and movie directors, Watkins offers us similar romanticism: "It was a life to life and death to death grapple. The Sun was poised above us, a great red ball, sinking slowly in the west" and again "The mantle of night fell upon the scene" (pg. 2, paragraph 2) It is very interesting that a participant would offer such an account from within the midst of battle. I also found his statement "Now, if you wish, kind reader, to find out how many were killed and wounded, I refer you to the histories" (pg 2, par. 4) What does he think he is doing? Was this not considered a valid entry into the canon of Civil War histories? Is it a valid entry in the Civil War history?

Emancipation was a concept in America that brought out several different opinions among people. Like Derick said earlier, it made the South think Lincoln had weakened and they were winning the fight. The thought of slaves becomong free was a terrifying idea to southern slaveholders. For fear of vicious uprisings like those in Haiti, the Southern men did not want slaves to be emancipated. As we talked about in class, Lincoln was being portrayed as a duplicitist. The war had always been about bringing the Union back together until now. Now it seems as if freeing the slaves had been Lincoln's intention all along. The old argument of what the war was being fought for is answered in the proclamation. Yes, preserving the Union was a major factor in the Civil War, but I believe freeing the slaves was always the issue that was in the back of many minds. I agree with whoever in class compared it to the issue in Iraq today. We went to seize nuclear weapons, but now we are liberating Iraq. You really don't ever know what or why someone does something.

The battle at Perryville is not popularly remembered as an important part of the Civil War. If the reporters and photographers had not been in the East, perhaps the battle would have received more recognition. The Cincinatti Gazette wrote a lenghty piece that focused on the local issues. They described their hometown boys McCook and Gilbert as showing no cowardice on the battlefield. Many irrelivant details are also included in this account, which made it drag on. I guess that just proves the point that something is not that interesting if it has no bearing on you. Watkins seemed to have a respect for Generals, but visibly preferred privates in the army. He admired them because they risk their lives in battle, while the General only risks his reputation. Keegan, as we said, did read like a philosophy book. The part that jumped at me was when he said most armies are not physically defeated, but the side that loses its nerve first usually goes down. Maintaing composure would have been a huge part of the Civil War, because there were so many battles in which the side that stayed on the field after the battle was the victor.

When the Yankees Came: The Intentional Destruction of the Foundations of Southern Culture and Society during Occupation

In Stephen V. Ash’s When the Yankees Came, the author describes the devolution of the traditional methods of life and social connections in the occupied South. The recurrent themes for Ash are the destruction of community, the devastation of traditional southern social relationships, and the defeat of paternalism. All three of these themes are inseparable from one another, and to extract one from the overall conglomeration would be to subtract a major premise of life in the South. These themes personify life for those outside the more widely studied military conflict and describe existence for those whom the war affected most dreadfully, and outline the broader sense of the loss of defense that the communal southern culture provided.

  The destruction of community in the throes of Federal occupation signaled a death knell for southern culture. “Families and communities,” Ash writes, “were…battered.” The most basic institutions of southern existence, such as the intercommunal sharing of food and other resources, were destroyed by the Yankee occupation. “Armed forces, Ash says, “threatened the sanctity of the home,” the base concept of Republicanism and of essential southern existence. After the “rosewater period,” or the era before the Federal war aims were revolutionarily altered, the procurement of civilian resources for Federal use reduced the community to essential beggary. Federal occupation forces, Rebel cavalry and guerrillas, and simple bandits swarmed across Southern communities as the plague of locusts in Exodus. While Sherman’s army in the “March to the Sea” garners the most attention, it was the rule of life across the occupied South for the Federal armies and garrisons. Life for those in the occupied South became increasingly individualized as mere survival became more and more difficult.

 A second interesting dynamic in the occupied South was the differing spheres of life for the southerner. The waning influence the Federals possessed over southerners the further one traveled from a garrisoned town is no surprise in itself. But the most interesting fact about the devolution of Federal influence outside the garrisoned towns, in no-man’s-land and on the Confederate frontier was how southerners themselves destroyed their communal existence. Rural homesteaders were plundered by bandits, who were occasionally prominent and respectable local citizens as much as they were stripped clean by the Federal armies. The lawlessness of these areas creates an interesting idea on the basis that the Federal occupation forces were not the only fearsome band in the occupied southern countryside- the communal existence, the common trust was being betrayed by southerners themselves.

Traditional methods of communal defense were also bypassed by Federal occupation. The devolution of the areas immediately outside direct Federal rule, what Ash terms the “Confederate frontier” and “no-man’s-land,” into banditry and guerrillaism exemplified the increasingly desperate life of the southern individual. Banditry was driven by a sense of revenge and desperation, inspired by starvation and revenge as well as mere greed and lust. Southern women fared the worst as a result of the appearance of banditry, both by southern deserters and their cohorts as well as Federal provision raiders. The defense that southern culture provided southern women was bypassed by the destruction of the sense of community, and the psychological strain to women was devastating. Fear of rape was the most terrifying. Guerrillaism was driven by a sense of dedication to the Confederate cause, yet also by a sense of defense of the community.

The destruction of traditional southern social relationships was another major alteration due to the presence of Federal occupying forces. The foundation of the southern communal existence was founded on defense: defense of women, defense against starvation, defense of one’s neighbor and kin, and defense against slave uprisings. The Yankee occupation rendered these defense mechanisms obsolete by making the communal relationships that tended it powerless. The aristocracy, which provided paternal sustenance in times of need for the huge population of yeoman-farmers and poor whites, was initially the primary target for Federal forage squads. As the war continued, the forage squads also raided the lower classes of white southerners, and with the presence of two reduced classes of whites, traditional intercommunal southern social relationships collapsed. The aristocracy could no longer provide for the yeomen and poor whites, and these lower classes began to lose their zeal for “quell[ing] the popular unrest and…bolster[ing] the moral authority of the aristocracy.” By reducing the aristocracy to beggary, as the Yankee occupation accomplished, social status and hierarchical relationships in the South had ceased to exist.
The intentional reduction of the prowess of the aristocracy defeated the foundation of southern culture: paternalism. Paternalism ensured racial superiority complexes would continue to exist and to function by providing for the lower classes of southern whites in times of need. “The sign of quondam plutocrats,” Ash writes, “lining up for Yankee handouts alongside the wretched rabble was no doubt shocking to many people in the occupied South.” Aristocrats had now been lowered to the status of poor whites, struggling to survive in the cruel world of occupation every bit as much as the yeomen and other poor whites.

The defeat of paternalism also threatened to devolve racial relationships. As occupation forces increasingly reduced the white power base in the South, the subjugation of blacks so carefully constructed by slaveholders came under fire. Ash supports Berlin’s argument that the slaves in essence freed themselves by claiming that the destruction of slavery in the South was in fact due to the combined forces of Union troops and the slaves themselves. With the occupation forces thwarting paternalism, slaves began to escape to the army lines, and began a process of armed resistance to the “peculiar institution.”

Southern whites detested the new black liberties allowed by the Union troops. The southern whites, so used to deference and respect in racial relationships, now faced “insolence” and “degradation.” The whites began to fear uprising, in the mold of the Haitian uprisings of the early nineteenth century. Most of the southern white fear was due to stereotypical descriptions of slaves. “It is a well known fact that one bad negro will corrupt many [good ones],” describes the attitude of the former paternal whites. It was feared by the whole of southern society that an isolated incident would inspire rampant racial violence, violence that mercifully never emerged.

The lives of southerners in the midst of Federal occupation were incredibly difficult. The foundational institutions of southern culture and society were undermined de facto by mere Yankee presence, and Federal governance eroded southern society and culture de jure. The methods of defense had been destroyed by the advent of hostilities, as southern men enlisted or were conscripted for the Confederate cause. The traditional role of women in southern life was the antithesis of the role they were forced to assume under occupation, and the transgenderation of southern society and culture was a step taken out of necessity. By the end of omnipresent Federal occupation in 1865, southern society and culture had been irrevocably altered, never to return to its former self.

Edited by author 08-11-2003 12:01 AM
Derick Henderson
8/11/03
Benson
When the Yankees Came, Stephen W. Ash


        The South created the monster that they claimed had already existed. Southerners’ created false stereotypes of Yankees as motivational tools to incite the rise against them. This resulted in a fear that bread the resistance that forced Yankees into those stereotypes, allowing Southerners to justify resistance by claiming that they were right all along. After reading Stephen V. Ash’s When the Yankees Came, one realizes that it is not fair to categorize the Confederate States during the Civil War under one simple heading such as “the South.” Referring to these states as “the South,” as they were to open this discussion, indicates a united sect that shares common goals and interests. Ash methodically shows that his is not the case. Distinct lines are drawn between the sects of Southern society, most notably the following: political, radial, class, and gender. Ash painstakingly explains in great detail how the motivations, ideals, and experiences differ among these sects. When his tedious identification and separation of the Southern social stratum is all said and done, however, the author fails to recognize the cross cutting fact that surfaces. No matter the differences, the “white bond” within Southern society bought into the image of the Yankees as a monster invading to destroy the rights that held together their families and communities, which were the essential institutions of Southern life.[1] Ash does admit the war disrupted these the sturdiest features of the social landscape across the entire South.[2] In defense of their honor, Southerners of all sects kept their moral and hopes strong, altering the course of Yankee occupation from conciliation to compulsion.[3]

 In the early Northern occupations of the South, Southerners encountered a Union army with a policy of conciliatory behavior that clearly opposed all of the preconceived notions about the character of Northern men, or lack there of, that they had been taught. The Yankees relieved an unstable South torn apart by Rebel army retreats by bringing order and security. This “rosewater” policy, aimed at winning the allegiance of Southerners, was based on the belief that Southerners generally supported the Union and were coerced into secession by the “Slave Power conspiracy.” Union officers were known to address occupied communities “to calm any apprehension of harsh treatment that might exist in their minds . . . [and] . . . to reassure their people and to confide in our kind intentions toward them.”[4] However, the North overestimated the amount of support for them in the South. Even under cordial occupation, citizens were hostile. Southerners’ psyche was offended and they felt subjugated to a slave class level under occupation. Passive resistance turned into active resistance over time.[5] Guerrilla tactics were implemented by Southerners in the three zones of Northern influence, garrison towns, no-man’s land, and the Confederate frontier.[6] Union soldiers resented this and developed a hateful and vengeful attitude toward the South’s citizens. The difference between an enemy soldier and a hostile civilian faded. They were no longer fellow countrymen with whom to work out problems, but rebels to be subjugated. Southerners affectively transformed themselves from potential friends to mortal enemies. Northerners began to view the cultures as incompatible and a war for reunification became one of purification in order to create a new South.[7] It became obvious that there was no moral way to deal with the resistance, but rather, a hard policy must be adopted. The Union army would have to impoverish the South to destroy their moral.[8] General Sherman promoted the hard policy by saying that the proper course towards Southern civilians was “not [to] coax them or meet them half way, but make them . . . sick of war.”[9] The Union’s war aims changed. Southerners believed it revealed the North’s true intentions and confirmed the stereotypes. But did this really have to happen? It appears that the South simply got what they asked for.

 In Garrison towns the Union had firm control. The economy and community life disappeared due to townspeople deserting and refugees filling the towns. However, public institutions and daily life structure remained intact. The people were dependent on the occupying power; therefore, relief programs and efforts to create a lucrative marketplace were made by the Union army in order to prevent the potential threat of rioting. This created opportunities and jobs for runaway slaves, escaping Unionists, and poor whites. These groups also found security from the oppression of the guerrillas and the upper class. In no-man’s land, Federal forces made regular patrols that kept secessionalists insecure but did not have enough presence to guarantee the safety of Unionists. Therefore, it was generally a vacuum of no authority. Raids and plundering depleted the zones and fear caused all to be idle. This stifled the mobility necessary for a productive community system and left the inhabitants subject to privation. The confederate frontier was victim to occasional siege but was usually under Confederate authority. Therefore, local government was still intact and slavery enforced. This helped keep the relief efforts of communities alive, however, legislation discriminating against poor classes were passed.[10] The North attempted to capitalize on this with a social and moral reconstruction policy in the South that aimed to destroy aristocratic hegemony by educating the poor in order to incite a revolt.[11] Ash raise an interesting point that had the war continued, the bonds of deference and paternalism may have completely been severed. In this sense, surrender at Appomattox actually saved the South’s old social order.[12] In fact, while other sects flared into rupture, women were the only ones “who fought to preserve the patriarchal system that subjugated and exalted them.”[13] However, no matter what the occupational zone or social sect of the South, the “white bond” overruled all other differences and motivational forces. In this regard, the South can in fact be simply categorized as “the South.”

1. When the Yankees Came, Stephen V. Ash; UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1995; p.196
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid. p.51
4. Ibid. p.30
5. Ibid. pp.40-45
6. Ibid. p.76
7. Ibid. pp.50-53
8. Ibid. p.61-67
9. Ibid. p.52
10. Ibid. p.178
11. Ibid. pp.172-176
12. Ibid. p.193
13. Ibid. p.203

Edited by author 08-11-2003 04:23 AM
 In Stephen V. Ash’s, When the Yankees Came, he describes the how the invasion of Union soldiers effected the lives of people in all areas of the South. The destruction of communities played a major role in the Confederate defeat. It was a chaotic time, in which every man was fending for his or her own life. Before the arrival of northern armies, communities got along with the help of everyone. The system broke down and the Confederacy was severely weakened with little food, labor, and the influence of the house-ruling men. The role of the Southern women was crucial during wartime and Ash gives several examples showing the pride and toughness these women possessed. As the war progressed, many Southerners looked to the Union armies for relief and the hope of reasserting peace to the country.
 
There were mixed feelings with the first arrival of Union soldiers to the South. Some were glad to see them because Confederate soldiers had been such a nuisance to several towns. Others were not pleased and let the soldiers know exactly how they felt about them. Most of the initial reaction came from women, because many men fled their homes with the news that soldiers were coming to town. The ones that stayed behind did so to protect their property that they could not abandon.[1] Men who encountered soldiers were also more likely to receive more physical harm than women were. Women felt they could verbally abuse the opposing soldiers for this reason. Some women even expressed their willingness to fight, but were not allowed to because they were women.[2] It was shocking to see such a vivid hate for these men by many Southern women in the beginning. Granted they were the enemy, but it seemed as if they did little to provoke these nasty feelings. Lieutenant Colonel Voris wrote, “The women are bitter Secesh and spit it out with venom,”[3] describing the callous women of occupied territories. The protection of values, honor, and the Southern way of life was ever strong in many women, who had been left with their families to take care of the home while the men were gone.
 
Fear was a prominent emotion felt among those who were at home during the war. Slaves running away or rising up was a constant thought of many. Guerillas were also a threat to the people in no-man’s-land. While there was a country at war, internal wars were also taking place. Women could not control the slaves, guerillas often pillaged homes to survive, and Union soldiers did the same. Two people from Arkansas noted, “We have been robbed and personally maltreated to an extent unparalleled in Christian history.”[4] A growing hate for the war was developing in places where the people were tired of the inhumanities they had to deal with regularly. The violent insurrections of slaves that people imagined hardly came true. Guerillas were hunted by Union troops but still wreaked havoc on many homes. Even with the help from Yankees, many Southerners refused to take an oath to the Union in order to keep their pride.[5]
 
The Emancipation Proclamation caused even more trouble among households in the South. Whites had always controlled blacks in the South and now their most sacred value was being threatened.[6] Slaves began to seek refuge at Union lines and plantations were losing their work force. The food supply began to diminish and starvation became a problem. Neighbors were robbing each other and communities working together fell apart. The war on slavery had begun and slaves gained confidence in the arrival of Union soldiers. Riots would break out and white people locked themselves in their houses during these times. Slaves would knock whips out of their master’s hand and openly defy them in the presence of the army. When the troops left whites came out of their houses raging mad at their slaves and were quick to pick up the whip.[7] The time of slavery was coming to an end and blacks and whites knew it.
 
Ash discusses class conflict in the South and how it helped the Union emerge victorious. Wealthy aristocrats had long ruled the South and the poor were getting sick of it. An effort to educate the poor class was thought to be a remedy to their terrible situation.[8] Even the rich lost much of what they had and some were forced to beg Union troops for help. The poor class moved onto aristocrats’ property and claimed it to be their own. Revenge for the years of inferiority was sweet to the poor and the aristocrats could do little to suppress them. It was humiliating and the upper class realized they would not be able to push these people around like they once had.[9]
 
Chaos was the final stage that brought the South to its knees. Guerilla forces and gangs of robbers were rampant in the closing stages of the war. Unruly behavior was common because many had nothing more to lose. Boys became wild because fathers weren’t there and some schools had shut down, leaving the boys with much free time.[10] Confederate soldiers coming home also disrupted many towns by pillaging and robbing homes. The war had made people weary and many just wanted it to be over. Citizens in the occupied towns even befriended Union soldiers and welcomed their help in the closing of the war.[11] The hardest part now would be restoring peace in the South and establishing a new way of life free from slavery.

1)When the Yankees Came, Stephen V. Ash; UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1995; p.19.
2)Ibid. p.39.
3)Ibid. p.43.
4)Ibid. p.68.
5)Ibid. p.70-73.
6)Ibid. p.2.
7)Ibid. p.163-165.
8)Ibid. p.175.
9)Ibid. p.187.
10)Ibid. p.200.
11)Ibid. p.219.

 In his highly acclaimed work entitled When the Yankees Came, Stephen Ash gives his readers a masterful portrayal of the Federal occupied areas of the South during the Civil War. Through scrupulous detail and unparalleled research, Ash beautifully explored this aspect of the War Between the States that is, surprisingly, often overlooked. The thoroughness of his research gives him instant credibility with Ash citing examples geographically ranging from the port of New Orleans, to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and every Union occupied territory in between. Not only did his sources have this vast representation stemming from every conquered area of the South, but they also came from a variety of different people; whether it was from a Northern officer, secession dedicated Southern woman, or a Southern Unionist. He tied this wide array of sources well into his work, and, because of these seemingly never-ending examples supporting his ideas, it is difficult for anyone to criticize his work. However, many readers would come away, after reading this work, believing the “conflict (turned) from a limited war into a revolution”1 in the South. This is not the case, and one can easily see this if they carefully read Ash’s work. Although he certainly proved the Civil War led to many changes in Southern society, one could hardly describe those changes as revolutionary, because they only lasted as long as the Union troops were in the South. The only true revolutionary occurrence, which happened between 1861 and 1865, was the emancipation of the slaves. Never again would the horrible institution of slavery plague the South, but the immediate and lasting change brought about by emancipation cannot be seen in any other aspect of Southern society. Although some may argue that other social revolutions took place, a close examination of When the Yankees Came would prove otherwise. It is safe to say there was a significant increase of consciousness in the South, but it did not lead to any immediate and lasting change in society.

 The first group one should explore, when questioning whether social revolutions took place in the Southern states, is the poor whites of the South. Ash did prove this class “began seizing opportunities denied them under the old regime”2, and this would lead some to believe this was the beginning of some form of a revolution. The poor whites quickly took possession of land left behind by fleeing aristocrats and secessionists, became informants for the occupying forces, and tried to position themselves as the next leaders in the post war South along with the unionists. There was also a minority of poor whites expressing an interest in a social revolution, which the Northern “invaders” had been trying to convince them to initiate. All of this seemed to strengthen the belief among property owners that these poor whites could not be trusted, and the repercussions of this increased distrust would prove to be detrimental to the elevation of these lower class whites after the Union army had left Southern soil. All of this seemed to be the makings of a revolution, but Ash quickly made it clear that this possible revolution would not come to pass. He claimed, “aristocrats came to understand that the unruly plain folk did not fundamentally threaten the social order”3, and thus they never became a threat to the “old order”. It was interesting, however, that Ash felt a social revolution of sorts from the poor whites could have come if the war had lasted longer. This suggests that Ash believed there was a form of class-consciousness arising among the lower class whites, but in no way did that consciousness lead to a social revolution. Once the Northern troops left the South, these poor whites found themselves in the same position as they were before the war. The land they seized was quickly reclaimed by the former landholders 4, and they were placed back under the power “local authorities.” In fact, the tensions between upper class whites and poor whites only got worse, and would continue to be a problem well into the Twentieth Century. Some could even argue that the tensions are as strong as ever today in the Twenty First Century.

 Another group, whose position change in society during the war could have easily been mistaken as revolutionary, was the Unionists. It is important to realize that a majority of these Unionists were from the lower social classes of small slave owners and independent farmers, and thus found themselves in the same situations as the poor whites. They too initially felt the presence of Northern troops in the South brought an end to their problems, but ultimately it turned out to be only temporary relief. The loyalists soon came to realize “that only a thin blue line stood between them and Rebel vengeance.”5 Before the Union troops had come to their areas, publicly known Unionists were subject to not only social isolation, but even physical danger. These men, who would eventually be known as scalawags, were considered by Southerners to be worse than the Yankee invaders. Thus, their social position, in the eyes of secessionists, was equivalent, if not lower than, slaves. One can imagine the torment and subjugation these men lived under during the early year of the war. However, when the Union troops came, the Unionists seized the opportunity to retaliate against their tormentors. They became informants, guides, formed home guards, and even joined the ranks of the Federal Army. Some Unionists went as far as to form their own guerilla groups to “wage guerilla war against the Rebels.”6 Once again, this seems like the development of a social revolution. But it wasn’t, because nothing ever lasting came of it. Once Union soldiers left an area, known Unionists had no other option but to leave with them. A great example of this was seen with the hurried departure of Unionists from Jacksonville when the Federal Army left the tactically worthless city. It would be nice to know what became of these Unionists once the war was over, but it is safe to say they were subject to great persecution from angry secessionists. Ash states, “Unionists came to understand that the advent of the Union army was not the answer to all their prayers, not a sign of final deliverance but merely a herald of continuing struggle.”7 Once again, one witnessed the failure of a possible social revolution, and the Southern norms remained intact.

 Lastly, the possibility of a social revolution coming from the black race was lost with the withdrawal of Union troops. Although emancipation is clearly a form of social revolution, it still did not elevate Southern blacks up the social ladder of their society. Some may argue that African Americans were just as bad, if not worse off than they were under slavery when the final Union troops left with the end of Congressional Reconstruction. However, just like the poor white and Unionists, they did have some hope during the Civil War in the Union occupied territories. Slaves frequently ran away from their plantations, and came in enormous numbers to Union camps; where they were eventually welcomed. However, their resistance to the social elites did not end with their crossing of the “Red Sea” and escape from the persecution of “Pharaoh.”8 Blacks joined the Union Army, contracted themselves out of “shantytowns”, and some still living with their masters demanded wages. Once again, this looks like the possible beginning of social change, but everyone knows that ended quickly when the departure of the Union Army and the instituting of Jim Crow laws. True social revolution would not come for another hundred years with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s.

 Why didn’t these social revolutions take place when the opportunities looked so promising? The answer lies with the commitment of the Union Army, and the North in general, to social change in the South. Had they truly been interested in setting up this new, educated, Northern-like society in the South, they could have made these brief social changes become permanent. By 1865, Union forces had complete control of the South, and could have stayed there as long as Congress wanted them to. However, they ended up leaving the South by 1876 in the hands of the very men they were fighting against 11 years earlier. Confederate General Wade Hampton was left as the Governor of South Carolina for goodness sakes. The Union Army definitely did a lot of great things for poor whites, Unionists, and African Americans, but they didn’t finish the job. They left the “fire” 9 burning in the South, and these defenseless “lessers” of society were left to fend for themselves in the flames.


1. Stephen V. Ash, When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995), Preface ix.
2. Ibid., 180.
3. Ibid., 193.
4. Ibid., 234.
5. Ibid., 112.
6. Ibid., 129.
7. Ibid., 130.
8. Ibid., 160.
9. Ibid., 232.

In Stephen V. Ash’s book, "When the Yankees Came," he primarily uses a “three worlds” distinction to describe the underlying complexities and tensions of the United States occupied South [1]. This story of the occupied Confederacy at the dawn of reconstruction and in the last gasps of the Confederate Army is the social history of a people without a country of their own. Here the Yankee Victorian and sometimes ruffian ethos met the fading influence of white authority, robust Southern pride, and the infant freedom of the slave population. This is a story of acclimation and conversion-aristocratic whites, ardent secessionists and unionists, blacks and poor whites seeking to acclimate themselves to the rapidly growing and changing South, a South that was to be remade in the North’s image and the reality of emancipation [2]. Most gripping about When the Yankees Came is the unfolding realization that the real revolution of the Civil War came neither at the great battlefields of Gettysburg or Antietam nor from the florid script of the Emancipation Proclamation, rather the revolution came from the upheaval of the social order: the aristocrat humbled, the black made free, and the poor white vindicated.
 
Ash presents three “zones” into which the South was informally organized during the first years of occupation: Garrisoned Towns, the Confederate frontier, and “No-Man’s-Land. Garrisoned Towns were towns in which the Union army was regularly quartered and governance sure. The Confederate frontier was for the most part under the governance of Confederate authority but was regularly in the path of Union raids. “No-Man’s Land” is the term Ash uses to describe territory not regularly under the control of either side in this war. Typically this was the site of most social and civil upheaval that oft bordered on anarchy. The use of these distinctions creates an organization and somewhat systematic approach to the historical problem of deciphering the conditions of the occupied South. Ash indicates through the sheer depth of his book that the occupation of the former Confederate territories was messy business. Northern invaders sought to reorganize and “convert” the South from its pre-war organization around a powerful slave aristocracy to an enlightened and educated free society based on the principles of “hard work and free labor that had made their country great.” [3] This program of “moral reconstruction” was in direct response to the complex and negative social structures that were viewed as corrupt and debase by the Northern invaders. The conflict of these social structures, “the backward, undemocratic society”, with the nature of occupation and defeat is the crux of the remaining portions of "When the Yankees Came" [4]
 
Before actual reconstruction began, the very processes of invasion and occupation were in themselves forces that severely upended the traditional structures of the South. Ardent secessionists living in occupied territory were forced to endure the humiliating ordeal of submitting to a bitterly despised foe. For many white, aristocratic Southerners the humiliation they endured was tied closely with the freedom and confidence slaves began to feel as the Union armies approached. The transition from a slave society to one in which blacks were free was difficult for many whites to handle. Whites either lost their grip on their slaves as they began running towards the Union armies or slaves began to undermine the system through sabotage and disloyalty. Though in these ways it was possible for whites to retain their dignity, when they were forced to employ former slaves they were unable to do so with appropriate dignity [5]. This loss of dignity and loss of the economic system that whites were accustomed to and had relied upon was devastating and fear-inspiring.
 
In addition to the upheaval of the complex social system between Southerners there was also a complex relationship between the invaders and the invaded. The civilian resistance in the occupied South ebbed and flowed with the success or failure of the Confederate military. From the first occupations ardent secessionists were wholly dedicated to undermining the occupation. Zealous secessionists viewed secession as an act of decontamination from debase Yankee society and thus the presence of Union forces in their localities was a horrible transgression. Southern women especially never failed to take a moment to undermine occupation through verbal or other means. Under the initial “rosewater policy” of occupation Yankee tolerance was high and those who were not viewed as legitimate threats (i.e., women, children, and old men) were allowed a great deal of latitude in defying Federal forces. Men were not afforded such latitude and thus were required to maintain their sense of dignity through acts of noncooperation or at times guerilla warfare [6]. However, as the war wound to a brutal close and the South grew weary of war many Southerners began to view the occupation forces with less hostility. As Ash points out, Southerners and occupying forces eventually found themselves interacting socially and at times romantically [7].
 
The overturning of the pre-war Southern society of slavery and tyranny for both blacks and poor whites was difficult progress. However, as Ash indicates in his epilogue that progress was checked by the leniency of post-war reconstruction policy which allowed former secessionist officials to simply take an oath of loyalty and return to their former posts. From these posts they were able to reverse the revolutionary tide and return blacks and others to positions as similar to their old status as possible [8]. When the Yankees Came describes clearly the foundation of Southern society for the post-war era. This was the foundation that had formed under Yankee occupation from the destruction of the old order and the ushering in of a new order. This was an order in which slaves were freed, aristocrats humbled, family life altered, and politics upturned, and all this occurred under the watchful eye of Federal occupation forces whose presence was in many ways the primary catalyst for the profound change. What was required of Southerners was conversion and acclimation to the new order. Mostly this was difficult and frequently they tried to reverse the inevitable change. Southerners had no choice but defeat and change or total destruction through an even more protracted and bloody war.

[1] Stephen Ash, When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) 76.
[2] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 171.
[3] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 172.
[4] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 171.
[5] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 167.
[6] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 42-44.
[7] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 220.
[8] Ash, When the Yankees Came, 233-234.