Welcome to the American Civil War electronic discussion page (Spring 2008).

Hi. I'm David Hottel and I am a freshman. I live near Wilmington, NC and I love to surf. Studying history is something that i enjoy very much, especially war history. I look forward to acquiring new knowledge of the
American Civil War era through this course.

Emily Franda (aka me) was born in Orlando, FL and raised in Plano, TX. She is a sophomore history/ education major at Furman. Emily's other interests involve theatre, musical theatre, swing dancing (or contra dancing), vocal performance, photography, astronomy, nature and nature preservation, water sports, horse back riding, etc. Her 7th/ 8th grade history teacher sold Emily on pursuing history with an in-depth study of the Civil War. Since then, she has explored various time periods, but has decided to teach US History – especially the Civil War.

Hey everyone! I'm Kim Ewing, and I'm a sophomore from Easton, CT. Most of my extended family lives in or around Charlotte, NC so I've spent a great deal of time there as well. My interest in the civil war era started early, when we would drive to Charlotte every summer and Christmas, we would pass battlefields like Antietam and Gettysburg. My father would tell us about the battles and the history of those places, and I've been hooked ever since. However, my major interest, besides history, is aviation. I have my private license in gliders and my student license in powered aircraft, and I hope to one day become an airline or commercial pilot.

I'm from Sherman, Texas. I have always loved history, especially European History. My favorite time period is World War I. I hope on going to graduate school for history in a few years, and just recently figured out that I really want to teach. Over the past few months I have gained more interests in United States History, and I am drawn to the Civil War because of all the underlying social and political fights that accompanied the war. I am especially interested in how the Press covered the War on each side. Anyway, I'm a senior and this is my last term. I just looking to get through with everything and learn some interesting things along the way.

I'm a sophomore from Charlotte, NC. I am a History and Asian Studies Major and am interested most in United States History, specifically immigration policy. I do not discriminate though on other history courses especially if they are US or Asian related. I am very proud to be from the South, I love the culture, weather, and the food. I really wanted to take this course to have a deeper understanding of this time in US history. I think it is really fascinating because it still has an effect today in society and politics. I also find it interesting to see how people who aren’t from the South perceive the war because I often find that it is very different than when I learned about it in school.

Hi, I'm Andrew, from Raleigh, NC and a history major. My hobbies mostly revolve around sports, and I play for the club lacrosse team here. I love history, and want to potentially get my PhD and teach American history at a University at some point. The Civil War era is probably my favorite part of US history so I hope to learn a lot in this class.

Hi, I'm Megan Colvin. I was born in Michigan through first grade and lived in Anderson, South Carolina from 1st through 8th grade, moved back to Michigan for high school and my first year of college and moved back to S.C. again about four years ago. I'm a transfer from Greenville Tech (coming in as a junior) and my major is History. I got married about six months ago at the Furman Chapel. I enjoy learning about all history but I really like US History. I don't know a great amount of information about the Civil War but I'm very interested in learning more about it.

I am Chris Yankow, and am originally from Scranton, PA. The Civil War and specifically the battle of Gettysburg are my favorite historical topics. I am a former Ranger in the U.S. Army and military history is exceptionally intriguing to me. I am a history Major and also a member of the ROTC program and Furman Football team. I am currently in my junior year and intend on re-entering the military upon graduation.

Hi, I'm Samantha Hicks. I am a History and Latin major and have lived my entire life in Kennesaw, Georgia. I've always been interested in Civil War history especially growing up five minutes away from the Kennesaw Mountain battlefield and several other important Civil War era sites around the Atlanta area. I've mostly taken classes so far in European history (also studied abroad in Norway)and I'm excited to finally take some American history courses.

Edited by author 03-03-2008 08:23 PM
   Hey! I'm Ashley and I'm a junior Communications major who's thinking about doubling with History.
   I'm from Winchester, VA which is tucked in the Shenendoah Valley, the breadbasket of the Civil War...I think Winchester was handed back and forth between the North and the South most during the Civil War (or something like that). Anyways...that gives me a little reason to like civil war history, partly because I've grown up in a small town that prides itself on it. I also just finished a South Carolina History class, which really sparked my interest in History.
   As for me, I love to play/watch/see/do sports...anything from rough contact football to graceful ballet (yes, ballet and dance is a sport!) I also love animals (especially dogs), cooking (especially baking), and hanging out with friends and family.

I'm a senior History major, trying to go to medical school in the fall. I needed one more American history course to graduate, so here I am!
In the 8th grade I wrote a 12-page paper on the conspiracy theory surrounding Abraham Lincoln's assassination, so he is of interest to me.
I live on Henry Clay's old property and grew up watching re-enactments of 'the Battle of Ashland' on the lawn. Two summers ago I was a docent there and renewed my interest and knowledge about Henry Clay and his family's history. Of particular interest to me was the fact that he had sons fighting on either side of the line, so to speak. Growing up in Kentucky, I've always learned about the Civil War as a very divisive time in our nation's history precisely because Kentucky itself was so divided on the issues of the war.
(I guess I have more interest in the Civil War than I realized)
I also had family members on my grandfather's side ride with Morgan's Raiders, so I'd love to learn more specifically about them.

I'm a Junior History major from right here in good ole' Greenville, and have been interested in the Civil War for quite a while but have never actually had a time of focused study on it. I read a book in 5th grade that called "Rifles for Watie" that really kind of sparked my interest - specifically in the view from the common soldier and what he believed he was fighting for. I play football and have NO idea what i'm gonna do when i graduate.

Hi, I'm Sarah and a sophomore Religion major (haven't formally declared, but will more than likely keep with Religion!). I'm from Oxford, North Carolina. This is a very small town located an hour north of Raleigh. It has recently gained notoriety by being the setting of the non-fiction book, Blood Done Signed My Name. I had an amazing AP US teacher in high school and he was very passionate in his discussion about the Civil War. I guess his enthusiasm rubbed off on me, and I'm excited to take a course that is very specific to the Civil War. My dad is a huge history buff and whenever we take family road trips, we stop at any and all historical sites. I hope to be able to gain more knowledge of the Civil War and carry on informed conversations with him about this period in time!

Greetings and salutations. I am a Senior Theatre Major, and for awhile even a double major with History(had to drop though because I was short 2 classes). Let's see, I grew up in Charleston, SC but went to boarding school on Long Island from 8th - 12th grade. When I was a kid my dad tried to load me up with as many facts about Charleston as possible, which included a lot about the Civil War. Even though I am from Chas., I am not a die-hard southerner so y'all don't have to be worried about me starting a Civil War in class. This class looks like fun and a great way to close out my time at Furman.

Edited by author 03-04-2008 12:03 AM
hello!!! i am a sophomore history major whose interest is Russia. i really enjoy studying conflict periods. i don't particularly like capital letters when typing, but that doesn't make me lazy, and i wear flip-flops in the snow, but that doesn't make me crazy, although perhaps there are plenty of other things that do. i have been in love with the civil war since i lived in greeneville, tn for a couple of years in elementary school. i vividly remember visiting a battle site, watching the reenactment, and going to visit the medical tent. the "doctor" gave us two bright-blue pills and told us not to eat them because they were mercury tablets that might kill us. we double-dog dared a kid to eat them once we were back on the bus. he did . . . and that's when we learned they were just tic-tacs. i was taught an extraordinarily slanted view of Civil War era history early on, to the point of falsehood, as i discovered in 1820-1890, and the passion behind the teaching continues to linger on. i am looking forward to analyzing different views of the War of Northern Aggression and proving to everyone that Robert E. Lee really might could have been a fourth division of God, or at the very least an angel. . . . juuust kidding - but seriously, i had a teacher who taught that. i promise. welcome to appalachian tennessee public education in the early nineties i suppose. i have lived in such illustrious places as greeneville, franklin, and brentwood. my grandmother lives in donelson, and my parents went to rhodes in memphis. obviously i am very tied and interested in tennessee's role in the War. i'm also extraordinarily verbose. sorry for the novella :]

Im a sophomore history major because a math major just didn't add up. :) My hometown is Earl, North Carolina. (That should tell you something about the perspective I have on the Civil War Era. I am a private pilot. Military and aviation history interests me.

Edited by author 03-04-2008 08:25 AM
Hi, I am Billy Oden and I am a sophomore from Richmond, VA. I am a double major in Political Science and Economics. Even though I am not a History major, I have a very strong interest in the history of the Civil War. Growing up in Richmond, I have been very exposed to many battlefields and museums of the Civil War, which is probably the reason for my love and appreciation of the war. I am looking forward to hearing and learning more about a topic that interests me greatly.

I'm a senior history major from Jacksonville, FL, and this is my last course in the americas. I don't usually love American history, but the Civil War era definitely interests me. My family on my mom's side reaches back to the war, but I will have to ask my mom to get the names. I think Civil wars are really sad, because I think a country has to really fall apart before it starts warring with itself, and I'm really interested to get into the question "how things fell apart"

Greetings to everyone and I hope the rain doesn't ruin anyone's warm spring day. My name is Adrienne (which it says on the post) and I am a senior (how did that happen?) history major with a concentration in Women and Gender studies. I have studied the Civil War some both here and at other schools (Gettysburg Semester) and I always like to hear new perspectives. When being a nerd doesn't eat up too much time, I follow the New Zealand All-Blacks international rugby team religiously and teach various forms of social dance on campus. I notice that at least Mr. Yankow is interested in the Battle of Gettysburg, so to him and others, I encourage you to come and visit me this summer, when I will be working as an intern with the NPS at Gettysburg. Then hopefully to grad school somewhere, still waiting for results.

I am a junior from Florence, SC. I am a biology and history major. I have enjoyed history since I had some great teachers in high school, and I have always loved good stories. My family has lived in South Carolina for a long time and several of my relatives fought in the Civil War. We even have some letters that one of them wrote home during the war. I look forward to hearing a lot of different perspectives on this period.

I'm a junior biology major from Spartanburg SC. I'm the youngest of 3 and the first in my family to attend college. I don't have much knowledge of history in general nor the Civil War but I'm interested in learning. None of my family fought in the Civil War (that I know of).

For a more traditional textbook overview of the period, take a look at the University of Houston's Digital History textbook, particularly the sections on

Antislavery:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...tles.cfm?titleID=24

The Old South:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...tles.cfm?titleID=94

and the Impending Crisis:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...tles.cfm?titleID=58

Hi I'm Hunter. I am a junior religion major from Birmingham, Alabama. I really have little knowledge of the the civil war era, but am very eager to learn about this period in American History. Being a religion major, I am very interested to study the role of religion and its relationship to the war effort from both a northern and southern persepective.

Hi, my name is ben and i'm a sophomore history major from Raleigh, NC. My dad loves to study the history of the civil war, specifically Lee and Stonewall. He has exposed me to it from a young age. In high school i did two research papers on the Civil War my junior and senior year. Im looking forward to the in depth analysis that we are going to do in this class.

The presentation page containing maps, images, tables, document excerpts and other materials related to the emergence of sectional conflict can be found at http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/cw3.htm

The presentation page containing material on late 1850s politics and secession is located at http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/cw4.htm

The war knowledge page can be found at:

http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/warknowledge.htm

Edited by author 03-30-2008 08:57 PM
Q: From my understanding, we are to read the assignment posted on the assignment website. Then, you come up with an argument that correlates with your group number. With that, you post your argument on the class database where we posted our bios. After all of the arguments have been posted, the the group who is the jury votes. For the jury, that really means that (if you're jury), you go on and post a sentence or two about which group you thought made the best argument. Is this sounding right?

A: That is exactly right.

Q: But for the argument itself, is that just a couple of sentences too? A paragraph? Is it more casual (using "I think...") or essay formal?

A: I would think that a single concise paragraph should be the right amount. There will be some overlap in arguments from person to person on the same team, of course, but you should seek to add something new that other posters have not submitted. This should be as formal or informal as you think will be most persuasive to the jury.

Q: And there's no special "virtual debate" place on the course database (where our bios are) to post these things, right?

A: Just the course workspace.

Faust makes a very clear argument for the large role of women in the defeat of the Confederacy, which is not at all to say that it was entirely their fault. On the contrary, the Confederacy expected too much from their women. The South was governed by paternalism, where women were followers and beneficiaries of the rule of men. When the Civil War had progressed far enough that there were no men to fulfill their traditional roles, the women were left confused and unsure. They were now being asked to take on leadership positions and control the slave population - a very frightening proposition for most. Increasingly, this was not a temporary position: reports continued to come from the battlefields of men dead or maimed, men who could never again take on the role which had been assigned to them for generations. And the emotional aspect must be considered. The image of womanhood was continually reinforced by their physical weakness, their need for protection, their strongly felt emotions. Yet now, the Confederacy asked its women not to show or feel the distress and fear many experienced to an overwhelming degree. Is it any surprise that the women's war effort broke under such strain? It is any surprise that women became exhausted by the sacrifice? Is it any surprise that women simply wanted their men back home where they belonged, for society to be as it was?

Without a doubt, Confederate women were essential to the war effort. It was an unconscious endeavor to save not only the confederacy, but the nation as a whole. Since men were enlisted and sacrificed their lives on the line, it was little to ask the women to sacrifice their time. They put their efforts into “sewing countless flags, uniforms, and even underwear . . . penning patriotic songs, [and] submitted . . . designs for the national flag to the Confederate Congress” (Faust, 1206). This active role was done not only for the soldier’s benefit, but it was an unconscious attempt to minimize class divisions “that might threaten national survival” (1201). Taking part in these activities towards the war effort united the women in patriotism and feminism, also giving each other hope that their loved ones would return. This small yet significant factor played a huge role in the confederate women’s help towards the Civil War.

The American Civil War could be argued as the first modern, total war, at least in United States history. As such, civilians were mobilized more than ever before. Women, being the overwhelming majority among white southerners, had to shoulder most of this burden. Expected to continue their normal domestic roles of a patriarchal society, women also had to take on numerous new roles to fulfill the needs of the war effort. They helped by sewing flags and uniforms, raising money, taking hold of agricultural and slave management duties, and began to fill jobs as teachers and nurses. They helped morale by writing songs and supporting the men as they went off to war. Most of all, women were charged with keeping in place the delicate social system which the men were fighting to preserve, without men to fulfill their roles as patriarchs. This overwhelming amount of pressure could have broken many women and caused a slowdown in production and the complete loss of social order, which would have brought the war to a quick end. Instead the resolve of southern women during the conflict was perhaps the biggest reason the war effort lasted as long as it did.

As the war took men and boys away from work at home, women stepped up to fill necessary positions to keep society functioning. They filled much-needed hospital positions to care for wounded and dying soldiers and provided an irreplaceable force of support and morale throughout the war. As the war dragged on, however, these women, like all people do, reached a breaking point. One woman wrote her son, "I only see sacrifices, victims, ruin, misery, nothing of winning" (Faust 1220, my translation). Women began protesting the war, demanding remuneration for their sacrifices, among which they counted the sacrifices of their husbands and sons. The war was so costly that women decided "enough is enough." Without their continued support, instead replaced by their impassioned cries for an end to the war, the Confederacy lost a huge support system which ultimately undermined its success on the battlefield.

I believe you also have to take into account how many women took over the roles in education as well. Page 1216 and 1217 give a good overview of how women did this. Because so many men who were preparing to become teachers were taken by the war effort, women began to assume these duties and opportunities for college education for women expanded as well. Many women's colleges created education programs so that while in the midst of war and soon after the war was over, the country's education system would not fall behind and would continue to educate the nation's youth.

In any war especially one such as the Civil War where the fighting occurs at home, the home front and war front are intimately related. Women’s roles as nurses and in the continued production at home were integral to the success of the troops in battle. To say that women’s alienation from the war effort was the cause of Southern defeat is like blaming the caboose when the whole train crashes. The alienation that women felt was simply a manifestation of similar trends among the soldiers. A war that had begun with ideological dreams soon let way to the realities of war, the death and suffering on the battlefield and the news of death and shortages on the home front. The same time women were abandoning the South for the homes of Northern relatives and friends, Confederate soldiers were deserting the army (Faust 1224). Women’s seeming loss of the sacredness of sacrifice came as death tolls mounted catastrophically. It is too simple to blame the alienation of Confederate women for the South’s defeat; their experience can not be separated from the events and trends of the war they were a part of, and the services they provided throughout the war were necessary for the Confederate's continued fighting.

Faust begins his argument concerning the role of Southern women in relation to the Confederate war effort by saying, “women’s sacrifice was indispensable to the moral, political, and military triumph of her men and her country.” Women played a crucial role in providing the moral and spiritual support their husbands and sons needed. A popular sentiment expressed by some women was that the war was as much theirs as it was the men’s. Instead of going through actual drills like the men, women made uniforms, created flags, came up with songs, wrote editorials, and were responsible for much of the publication during this time. It was left up to women to encourage their men to stay in the fight and not to desert the army. A great responsibility was put on women during the Civil War. They assumed the command of schools as teachers, and also came to the aid of doctors as nurses. Faust ends his writing by saying that women eventually became disillusioned by this “useless sacrifice”, and without ideological support from home, the war was doomed to fail. However, this statement does not take into account the actual physical, monetary, and artillery support that the Confederate army lacked by the end of the war. The Confederate women did all they could to support the war effort from beginning to end, and the assumption that female alienation caused the demise of the Confederacy is a vast over-simplification of a complex problem.

FYI, DGF bio: http://www.president.harvard.edu/biography/

As the mojority of the male population in the South was called off to war, women were charged with the duty of stepping in to fulfill many social and economic positions usually reserved for men. They were given the task of boosting the morale of the troops, preforming many tasks in daily life usually done by a man, and giving up many luxury and essential items in order to further the war effort. While most women stepped up to fulfil these roles, they ultimately felt it was trivial in the overall war effort. Faust states on page 1206 "'Useless' was a dread epithet, repeatedly directed by Confederate women against themselves as they contemplated the very clear and honored role war offered men." Women in the South during the Civil War felt both emotionally and physically confused. Their shift in roles left them out of place in their society. The overall sentiment of "useless" eventually became to much for the women in the South and through a call the end the war, they underminded the Confederate cause.

The elite class of Confederate women assumed the responsibilities of men, much to their chagrin, and soon found themselves overwhelmed by all the day to day tasks; such as looking after the slaves. These women wrote to Jefferson Davis pleading for their loved ones return home, but to no avail. If the confederate government had found a way to help women at home the war effort may have continued longer. Women would not have written letters to their men relaying the decay of one's home, and without those letters less men would have deserted. That was the central issue to why the South could not win a protracted war without the women's support.

Without the effort by the women in the south, the Confederate Army would not have had a chance. Because the women took over many of the factory jobs and took the initiative to make uniforms for the soldiers. Despite the Confederacy lacking in materials and transportation, and the fact that the Union was way ahead of them as far as materials for the war, the women of the Confederacy provided the means for their war. Much like the home front in WWII, The women were the moral support for the men and according to Faust, the ladies of the South were what kept the males as gentlemen and provided those gentlemen with a means to defend their country.

In order to win a war, a country must have a united home front to supply the armies. Women in the South began the war with a certain degree of dissapointment that they did not hold the honorable role in the war. "Without directly challenging women's perscribed roles, they nevertheless longed for a magical personal deliverance from gender constraints by imagining themselves men." As the war progressed the romanticism of the war was taken over by the lack of food, clothing, and manpower. "First luxuries, then necessities were to be relinquished for the Cause." People began to die of starvation and the homefront was not able to sustain the armies due to the denial of the women's role in the war effort. This lack of support made it difficult for the Confederate armies to win the war.

Women living in the confederate states had to step up to the plate and take on roles that they never had before. She had to be the man and the woman of the house when the men went to war. Because they had never been trusted or deemed smart enough to do anything else besides cooking, cleaning, and rearing children, other daily tasks became arduous for them. Not only that but they had to get paying jobs to help support the family and the slaves the family owned. Most of the women probably didn’t mind doing these things for a short period of time; after all, the war was a glorious, romantic thing to them. As the war went on, women began to realize that this new role in their lives might be permanent. In their minds, that is not what ladies are meant to do in life. Women had to give up so much that they were used to to support these men.

In order to win the war, the soldiers needed not only physical help from the home front (make uniforms, raise money etc.) but they needed to be believed in. They needed morale boosters. The lack of this from the women left at home was demoralizing and contributed a great deal to the confederate’s loss in the civil war.

Whether or not Southern Confederate women support the war effort greatly influenced the way the Confederate men fought the war and it influenced the way the men thought of themselves. It was so important that in 1863 Mississippi declared a proclamation for the women of their state thanking “mothers, wives, sisters and daughters” for having “ardent devotion… unremitting labors and sacrifices.” The fact that Mississippi did this shows it meant a lot to the cause of the war to have the women stand behind the men and support them and this is why it was so detrimental to the war for the Confederacy when they began protesting the war. The women sacrificed a great deal for the Confederacy; they had to take on the role of being both the father and mother in some cases, they had to get jobs to support their families, and they sacrificed their emotions. I’m sure that many women were glad to be able to do something else besides housework and be able to speak their mind but they weren’t used to this, it began to wear on them. They also didn’t have their husbands there to physically give them affirmation of the good they were doing. When they began to protest the war, this was hard on the morale for the men because they cared so much about what their women thought of them and this was detrimental to their confidence.

It is not that women were growing tired of their responsibilities at the factories, nor with maintaining uncommon jobs that were required of them. Their experiences were not dissimilar from the male's role, enchanted by the prospect of war only to be hit with the harsh reality. Rather, the South came into the war with a distinct disadvantage, both in manpower and industry. Therefore, if anything, women in the south helped to prolong the war and gave the South a fighting chance. Blaming them for the failure of the war is negligent of much larger issues. Would you say that the North won because of the staunch support of the troops from their women? Of course not, for their alienation from the war effort was indicative of further, deeper issues.

It seems that most people are arguing over the issue of whether or not women’s support mattered to help the war efforts, and it is clear that southern women gave their men a will and a need to fight. Southern Field and Fireside said that a woman “makes the confederate soldier a gentleman of honor, courage, virtue, and truth instead of a cut-throat and vagabond.” I ask that you recall our discussion in class about the Caning of Sumner, we all said that the reason the Representative from South Carolina retaliated was because southern men had a need to protect their honor among other things, so if women gave men status of “gentleman of honor” it would have fulfilled role in which southern men strove for. Beyond the support of troops women also played a crucial role in taking care of the sick and wounded. Confederate soldiers died everyday due to infection and disease that could have been worse without the help of women to care for them. It is clear that the Confederate cause was helped by the role of women.

Edited by author 03-31-2008 09:02 PM
"Whatever doubts… the southern women… [were] essential to the Confederate social and economic order," Faust states (1214). And the Confederate women were essential to the war from beginning to end. Civil War soldiers fought constantly on the "home front" and the civilians (aka a majority of women) did the "nursing, textile and clothing production, munitions and government office work, slave management, and even agriculture" (1200). Faust also allows for some women who took part in the battle as soldiers – more than we know (1207). However, Faust makes it seem as though women felt "useless" from the beginning. And even when contributing to useful activities such as nursing and teaching, these women did not maintain the social status of women and were too masculine. Despite all of this the southern women still persevered. In the end women sacrificed everything they had. One woman stated - Why be patriotic when my husband is sacrificed (1222). It was the sacrifice of everything in the southern states and not the lack of continual sacrifice or alienation of the women that lead to the end of the Civil War. Women did not lose the Confederate ideology of giving to the Cause as Faust states (1225), they had already sacrificed all they could and they had no more to give to the Cause.

In reading the responses, I find myself in agreement with Team F-N. The members did a great job of portraying specific roles filled by women in the absence of men in the south, and showed that the fall of the confederacy was a caused by far greater issues than simply the lack of support from its women.

As a member of the Jury, I am going to say that side 1 (A-E) won this one.
To explain my position, let me use a few quotes from your arguments.

“On the contrary, the Confederacy expected too much from their women.” I think this is very true. I think the strict social gender roles of the South set it up for failure from the beginning. The mass mobilization was more than the society could handle. Also, I don’t think the article does justice to the mind-numbing nature of the change in some of these women’s situations.

“..the resolve of Southern women during the conflict was perhaps the biggest reason the war effort lasted as long as it did.” This is an interesting point, but it kind of straddles the fence, because the author is arguing that the Confederate women hung on instead of giving in, but in the end winds up saying that sure they hung on, but they eventually gave up.

“Without their continued support…the Confederacy lost a huge support system.” This sums it up in a nutshell. When all the men are gone, the society is supported by women. When women can’t handle this anymore, the men are not only demoralized, the society gives up.

“Women would not have written letters to their men relaying the decay of home and without those letters, less men would have deserted.” Let me play devil’s advocate with that by arguing that the letters weren’t that important. Toward the end of the war, when desertion rates went up, the men didn’t have to wait for letters to tell them how bad things were, they were fighting over their home territory. Plus, when you are camped out 5 miles from your cabin, you don’t need a letter to tempt you to go home. It doesn’t change the ends, just the means.

However, let me finish off by agreeing with this quote “…the assumption that female alienation caused the demise of the Confederacy is a vast over-simplification of a complex problem.” Yes, this is absolutely true. What we are arguing about is how big a role it played.

My vote goes to group F-N for their ability to express the over-simplification of blaming southern women for the demise of the Confederacy.

Edited by author 03-31-2008 11:04 PM
After reading the arguments I thought both sides did an excellent job identifying and articulating on the importance of confederate women to the war effort. I think I am going to have to agree with (A-E)principally because the role of women was demonstrated to be so influential that the loss of such support on the homefront resulted in the fracture of confederate motivation.

Althoug I agree with the argument of F-N that blaming the Confederate loss on women is an oversimplification, I think A-E was succcessful in arguing that women's declining support for the war effort was a contributing factor to the Confederacy's decline. The subversive role women could play by encouraging men not to reenlist would certainly have hindered the ability of the South to field an army.

I agree that both sides did well to emphasize the importance of women to the confederate army during the war. I have to side with group F-N though. Every argument from (A-E) was very persuasive until that final bit that went something like, "the loss of their support led to the demise of the confederate troops" It is just too much of an over-simplification.

Charles Royster clearly states that Stonewall Jackson was a war hero for his aggressiveness and his dedication to the war effort. He was a distinguishable figurehead because he led his Virginia troops to victory in many offensive occasions. On page 72, Royster mentions how Jackson was successful in driving out the Federalists from the Valley, took Harper’s Ferry, and broke Union forces in Antietam and Fredericksburg. His dedication derived from his childhood, where “he had felt pain since adolescence, had withstood and overcome it. Jackson was ready to die” (Royster 73). Death was the ultimate risk Stonewall went to in order to achieve success for his Confederate troops. His willingness to die positively affected his troops, which made them have a high regard for their leader. Stonewall Jackson risked everything had to prove himself a distinguished war hero, accompanied with his overflowing list of war accomplishments.

Every cause needs a hero. Royster clearly describes how Jackson filled this role, saying, “He was the George Washington of the Confederate revolution” (68). As we know from stories about Washington (e.g. chopping down the cherry tree), hero worship can often overemphasize the hero’s positive characteristics while glossing over any of his or her character flaws. “Stonewall” Jackson and the media in the South both contributed to the transformation of Jackson into the paramount example of not only a gentleman warrior but also a devout and humble Christian. Jackson created this persona in order to disguise his internal struggles and doubts, while southerners needed someone to believe in, someone who they felt sure would take the war to the North, causing the same devastation the South had seen and proving the justice of the Confederate cause. Thus, southerners often ignored Jackson’s flaws such as a dogmatic insistence that only his way was right, the failures of his over-aggressive policies in several battles, and the secretive and sometimes manipulative way he dealt with his subordinates.

Jackson became the symbol and idol that southerners needed to fight the war. His efforts and humility whether they be genuine or not put him into a public life in which people looked to for guidance and as a role model. Confederates needed a person that could symbolize the ideal soldier, and Jackson fit the bill. He was a compassionate man towards his followers often writing women or ministers in response to gifts or letters they had sent. He was a “Christian patriot” a man that could bring about a Confederate victory. While the media seemed to exaggerate his characteristics he was none the less effective in creating an idealized image that gave men the necessary will to fight, and people on the home front a hero to cheer for.

Edited by author 04-01-2008 10:00 AM
There is no doubt that Stonewall Jackson was indeed a distinguished leader as Royster states "Jackson won rapid promotion from colonel to lieutenant general" and "'He is the idol of the people'" or how about "he was the George Washington of the Confederate revolution" (68). He was said to be an "implacable destroyer and ubiquitous mastermind"(75). Though the newspapers built Jackson up to be a mythical figure and "Jackson made mistakes", he was still an inspiration to the Conferate people and changed the course of the American Civil War(77).

Even though team A-E makes a good argument, they are forgetting multiple other factors that led to the Confederate surrender. The South had multiple other disadvantages in the war effort that were much more significant than women. Overall population, resources, and railroads are just a few of these disadvantages. So to say that southern women were a main reason for the southern defeat is preposterous. Someone on the opposing team presented a very good thought, "Would you say that the North won because of the staunch support of the troops from their women?" After considering this question, it is obvious that women on either side of the war were not a significant reason for the Union victory. So as a member of the jury, I give my vote to team F-N.

The importance of Jackson's character as a leader was not in his individual strategy or campaigns but in his ability to inspire. He was the symbol for the Confederate soldiers for what they were fighting for, the Christian and gentlemanly values that he embodied. The fact that he did not always live up newspaper and media accounts that made him a legend matters not. He was the face of the Confederate cause and in that role his success was clear.

In regards to the Jackson question...He was a religious zealot with poor leadership traits. His undistinguished record at West Point as well as the disdain with which his VMI cadets viewed his redundant classroom lectures is case enough. With the level of harship placed on his "foot cavalry" in the Valley Campaign, it is a wonder they were fit to fight at any moment. The strictness with which he held his subordinate officers accountable for obeying orders created much dissent and suprisingly did not result in a mutiny. His fame rested on legend and accomplishments of his men despite him, not because of him.

Stonewall Jackson has to be considered one of the finest and most important generals in the Confederate Army. His reputation gained for his audacity and relentlessness was well earned, particularly by his victories won at First Bull Run and in the Valley Campaign. As Royster says, Jackson epitomized hope in the Confederate cause and in victory over overwhelming odds. Whether or not his fame was hyperbolized in the newspapers doesn’t seem to be important, because in any case it served to rally both troops and civilians on the home front. Further proof of Jackson as a distinguished leader can be seen in the failure of successive generals such as John Bell Hood to win victories after his death. That Lee believed he would have won at Gettysburg had Jackson been on his side speaks volumes to his competence as a leader.

does anyone know where that book is... the librarian person said that it had been missing from the shelf for a while. It was checked out but not returned.

Jackson was a great leader, who led his army through many victorious battles. However, the praise he recieved during and after his life was excessive, to say the least. He was a man caught up in his own folklore, struggling with his own personal issues. Royster describes him as "a troubled man, in conflict with himself," and that "a troubled people, striving for unity in self-defense, sought purpose and cohesion through attacking the Yankees." Royster also wrote that the "Confederates made the way to triumph, led by Jackson, look easier than it was. Jackson's long marches and lethal battles came at the cost of great pain to his men." He also describes how ready for death Jackson was, and how little tolerance he had for men who were not willing to die as well. Jackson was led by his religious zeal and his own ego and ambition. This led to mistakes on the battlefield which contributed to the Condederate's defeat.

Stonewall Jackson, though he was the engineer of great victories for the Confederacy, cost the South victory in the Civil War. Jackson became so focused on his own plan of victory that he neglected to train his soldiers properly in the event that he could no longer lead them into battle. Though he seemed to hold an air of humility, his lack of true leadership ability, i.e. making those around him better soldiers and better generals cost the Confederacy greatly. In Royster's own words, "His errors often flowed from his ambition to overcome all impediments, to miss no opportunity to take the war to the enemy. Jackson's inability to take a step back and look at an entire situation before taking action proved quite costly. H.E. Gourdin stated it best, saying, "A month uncontrolled and he would destroy himself and all under him."

T.J. Jackson was a walking formula for destruction. His original, aggressive tactics gave him the upper hand in a conflict that at its beginning was a scramble for organization, but ultimately led to the destruction of the army he commanded.
The problem arose when the press and the general public at large took these successes and blew them out of proportion. Feeding off of this and using it to add to his self -generated internal pressure to perform, Jackson’s aggressive nature led him to utilize tactics that ultimately resulted in a “take-no-prisoners” attitude. The first manifestation of this attitude and the problems associated with it was his treatment of Garnett after Kernstown.
“Virtuosity led to disaster. Wielding power ended in being destroyed.” (75). The nature of Jackson’s command was one of obsessive micromanagement and unnecessary secrecy, which led to Jackson fumbling his power because he simply took on too much. He “was right and the man who differed was wrong.” (77) In Jackson’s mind and perhaps the public’s as well, he had become infallible.
Even after his death, the head on, aggressive tactics that were Jackson’s trademarks continued to be widely used—a decision which bled the Confederacy’s man-power to the critical point. Whether or not it was Jackson who was physically there, it was his legacy within the Confederate army which ultimately led to its downfall.

I agree with the F-N position at this point. Even if everything Chris has stated is absolute truth (I cannot say, having not done the research myself), I think Jackson's importance was as Stephen said: "[e]very cause needs a hero." What was actually relevant for the war effort at home was the character of Stonewall Jackson, not the man's actual personality. Royston and team F-N distinguished between these two very well. McPhee wrote that the "Confederates needed a person that could symbolize the ideal soldier, and Jackson fit the bill." And further, I do not think Jackson's military leadership can be so easily discounted because he did win battles, and he did encourage aggressiveness. I do not know much about war, but it seems to me that a positive emotional and psychological attitude is at least part of any victory. Jackson did burn bright and fast, more like a firework than a steady candle flame, so it is conceivable that he would have burned out had he survived. But his contribution, as it was during his lifetime, definitely inspired the Confederate war effort, both on the home front and the battle front.

Team 3 makes the most convincing argument, against Jackson. They effectively argue that his leadership style was not effective and in most cases was detrimental to the Confederate cause.

I agree with Team 2 as to whether or not Jackson was an effective leader in the Civil War for the Confederacy. After reading the responses and arguements, I believe that under the circumstances given to Jackson and the choices that he had to make in response to those circumstances were what he thought was best. It was not his fault that people may have over-glorified him for his victories. It shows that people really cared for him and his leadership and this inspired them.

Just letting everyone know the book has been found and is at the library desk

Stonewall Jackson portrayed an image to the world which differed greatly from his true person. "All admire his genius and great deeds; no one could love the man for himself. He seems to be cut off from his fellow-man and to commune with his own spirit..." This hardly sounds like a man who was being considered for the future president of the Confederate States of America. Newspaper exaggerated his gradure for their own personal advancement and to provide a hero for the Confederacy. Even his wife took note of the numerous innacurate descriptions of Jackson(69). Ultimetely, people wanted Jackson to be greater than he actually was so badly, that "they wrote the history of what had not occurred in order to show that they had not judged wrong in resorting to war" Southerners tried to rationalize their defeat by looking to Jackson's supposed greatness and the subsequent loss of his leadership as a reason for defeat so they would not have to accept the truth about being outmatched by the North.

It would seem from this debate that the history of Stonewall might be slightly skewed. Stonewall was important to the Southern cause not because of his military prowess, but because of the reputation that preceded him. Even though there were discrepancies with the facts that have been reported that disprove the accepted belief of Stonewall being a hero. (This view is the amalgamation of all the responses in short hand.) Both sides argued well, in the end though I would have to agree team F-N because they argue that what matters is the perception of today.

Stonewall Jackson's reputation has been greatly over exaggerated since the South's victory at Bull Run in 1861. Following the battle, newspapers all across the South began praising Jackson; this praise continued throughout the war, even past his death. However, newspaper writers and the general public were blind to his excessive ambition that ultimately cost the Confederacy the war. "Jackson's long marches and lethal battles came at the cost of great pain to his men."(72) Jackson always took the offensive throughout the war which led to exhausted troops and high casualty rates. "Emulation of Jackson's methods after his death hurt the Confederates more than it helped."(76) These offensives that Jackson launched continued past his death and did nothing to help the Confederate cause. Along with ambition, the lack of trust in his commanders was one of Jackson's flaws. Stonewall never backed down in battle, he also never backed down from his own opinion. Jackson never accepted others opinions and was never willing to accept his opinion as being wrong. His opinion of taking the offensive at Chancellorsville, despite others' suggestions, was what ended up ending his life. The ambition and the legacy of Jackson are two things that the Confederacy could have done without. These traits from Jackson ended up costing the Confederacy the war.

In Royster’s book, Stonewall Jackson is described as an “intrepid general” and “the idol of the people”. Many viewed him as the George Washington of the Confederate Revolution. Women thought he was good looking and many lined up to get his autograph. He displayed a strong sense of faith and many times he told his wife that earthly praise and recognition were only transitory compared to heavenly things. Jackson is remembered as an aggressive general who was able to unite his men and defeat the Federal troops on many occasions. His leadership and tact during the Valley Campaign won him a reputation for relentless audacity. Jackson was able to bring unity to the Confederate Army through the cohesive attacking of the Yankees. Royster goes on to say that it was ultimately his commitment to the offensive that caused his death. Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely.

Lee was completely committed to the Confederate cause, willing to give his all, to encourage his troops till the end, and determined to bring the Confederates to victory. This "idee fixe" or obsession of his allowed him to be a powerful, commanding Confederate officer. He understood that constantly being on the defensive was not good military strategy; even when he chose to be on the defense, it was with an offensive motive in mind. Lee's troops suffered considerable setbacks in comparison to the Federals, including casualties and desertions. Lee was aware of these challenges and did his best to counteract them, to keep up his men's morale. He was observant, smart, intuitive, and brave; Lee was truly one of the best Confederate commanders, maintaining a "spirit of aggression, which remained permanently his most prominent characteristic as a soldier" (89).

(Rebel Yell) General Robert E. Lee waz thee bes' darn' tootin'...ok so a little over the top, but you get the point, that Lee was good at his job. At least one would hope so, since he was the protege to Winfield Scott, his motto of audacity won him many battles, but could not win the war. It was his personal belief that if he could win every battle there might be a chance of the South winning the war. Still he knew the problem with this strategy , and that was pure and simple numbers. Lee's strategy may have succeeded in dragging out the war, and forcing talks if he had won more battles. From Lee the American people saw first hand the strategy of "a good defense is a good offense", and how it could win a fight even with an inferior force.

Amen and Amen to Mr. Ned Daniell's representation :]
Nolan second-guessed Lee's every action from the safety of his study, but Lee was daily making life-or-death decisions, as cliche as that perhaps is. In his aggression I see a desire to move the battle away from Confederate land. If he could get his soldiers fighting on Northern soil on the offensive, morale would improve with the advancement and support from home would be buoyed as well. Lee was also smart enough to consider the social and political scene in the North in his estimations, as evidenced by the letter to his wife. That he guessed incorrectly is not a sign of bad judgement or inepitude, but rather a lack of understanding or experience with such matters in such a volatile period. He did incur heavy casualties, but in war death is necessary. And Nolan looks with great specificity and emphasis at North-South death tallies and Lee's constant call for more troops, but never does he address the return correspondence. What was he being told about more troops? Perhaps he believed that there would be replacements for his forces, that more men would join the cause. Lee was not afraid to fight, even when outnumbered. He pressed every advantage to further his cause. He attempted to turn every shortcoming or disadvantage into positive movement on the battlefield. If he constantly pushed for long enough, he could push the enemy back on its heels and take the upper hand.

In response to the Royster Debate, I would agree with the group that advocated Jackson as overrated and whose decisions hastened the defeat of the south. Those who mentioned his long marches and tiresome ambition particularly caught the attention of an undecided jury member, such as myself, and "hastened" my choice for their group.

The goal of a commanding general must be to win the war, not simply to meet the enemy in glorious combat whenever it is offered. As Nolan noted, Lee was aware that he had fewer troops to deploy than Northern commanders; however, he still used his limited number of men recklessly to continue his policy of a constant offensive. He sent huge numbers of troops against the “admirable federal defensive line” at Gettysburg and even mounted a bloody assault against Fort Stedman in the closing days of the war which made his men “run a gauntlet of terrible fire” (78). Lee and his admirers have created a false dichotomy, establishing only two options: mount an offensive in the North or face a siege in Richmond. In fact, Lee showed that he could maintain an army in Virginia even after Antietam, and his successful defensive efforts with a decimated army during the last years of the war showed that a defensive strategy could have been successful. Such a “defensive grand strategy” could have reduced Lee’s losses from his limited troops and, perhaps, changed the elections of 1864 (101). Rather than engaging in unadvisable battles which resulted in Pyrrhic victories at best, Lee could have forced northern armies to fight on his terms, perhaps neutralizing their numerical superiority.

Robert E. Lee was an inspiration to citizens of the CSA and has been the object of hero worship since the moment of his death. That doesn’t mean that he was a great leader. Lee’s tactics were perpetually offensive, and though they won him battles, they ultimately lost him the war. The Confederacy began the fight with less man power that the Union. While the losses for both sides throughout war were similar in number, the casualties were a greater proportion of the Confederate population. Not only battlefield attrition, but desertion as well depleted the Confederate ranks, and unlike the Union, the Confederacy had no population reserves to draw from for replacements. Nor was the loss of men the only problem. The Confederacy also could not replace capable officers who died, so they were replaced by incompetent men.
 The Pennsylvania Campaign and the Maryland Campaign both represent stages of the war when Lee was unnecessarily on the offensive. Though he believed that this was the way to win, fighting on the offensive tack would do nothing to accomplish overall Confederate War aims. Not to conquer, but to withdraw. Though in some situations, he had not wanted a general engagement; his tactics put him into a prime position for such an occurrence. Even some of Lee’s own commanders (E. Porter Alexander) and some fairly eminent historians are in agreement.
 The situation at Petersburg was the culmination of Lee’s poor decision making. He needed troop mobility to avoid a siege situation, which would have further depleted his numbers. What he did was deplete his strength until there wasn’t a large enough force to be mobile and still defend the Confederacy. He backed himself into a corner that turned into a 200+ day siege.
 Robert E. Lee’s flaw as a leader was that he could not discern the ideal strategy that would conserve manpower and achieve Confederate war aims. “The grand strategy of the defense was therefore not only a feasible alternative; it was also more likely to have led to victory.” (101)

Team 3 makes a strong case against the heroism of Jackson. As an undecided juror, Team 3 gave many points as to his offensive tactics and grueling marches that did not help the Southern cause.

04-02-2008 11:08 AM ET (US)
 
I'm a little late on this, but in response to the Jackson debate, I have to say I am in agreement with the argument from Group F-N. They presented convincing evidence in support of the fact that Jackson inspired the Confederates in the war effort. I especially agree with what Sarah wrote: "Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely."

General Robert E. Lee was a very distinguished and important figure in the American Civil War. In Nolan's book he writes that Lee pursued the war with such a spirit of aggression, he was determined to fight for his cause until the bitter end. Although he was not successful in the end, his "offensive defensive" strategy made sense. I am in agreement with Virginia and Ned, Lee wanted to save Confederate land from the brutality of fighting. It is possible to overanalyze and second guess Lee's actions from a modern viewpoint, but in the thick of the battle, he was doing what was right for that moment.

General Lee was a great general for the Confederate Army, he was asked to lead the Union Army, I think that says something about him. Of course he made mistakes that cost people their lives, which is sad, but that's part of what war was about. Lee was only able to make decisions based on the information that was provided to him and he did act rashly at times, but that is how he thought he could win the war. There were a few occasions where Lee didn’t want a battle to occur but it was inevitable in most cases. Lee did try to be careful and consider the options he had, but sometimes he had to make an aggressive move to attack the Union in an attempt to gain some ground. After reading the selection out of Nolan’s book it would seem that Lee did the best he could as did everyone else that fought in the Civil War.

As someone who grew up in the South and in a family of Civil War buffs, I grew up hearing stories of General Lee. Over a century later, many people still tell stories of General Lee, one of the greatest military leaders in history. While Lee was a remarkable leader, Nolan's "Lee Considered" gives some examples of why Lee's reputation is over-rated. Lee's grand strategy was to keep the South on the offensive, repeatedly attacking the Federal troops. This worked in the beginning, but the problem soon became clear that the Confederate troops were outnumbered to such an extent that remaining on the offensive was no longer a wise choice. Lee was more than aware of this problem. He often wrote about it. Piston commented that "Lee's offensive tactics were bleeding the army white, and many of those who remained with him during the Maryland excursion took 'French leave' as soon as they returned." In the Lee's first four months as Commander of Northern Virginia, nearly 50,000 troops were lost. The number of casualties under Lee were astounding. Still, Lee kept his troops on the offensive, he didn't like to "shy away from a fight." While he led his troops into many glorious battles, perhaps he could have led them in a way which would not have resulted in so many casualties. He was a great leader, but he has been greatly over-rated.

In the Roeyster debate I would have to agree with team F-N. They provided strong evidence to the heroism of Jackson and his ability to inspire and further the Confederate cause. I beleive Sarah highlighted some strong points when she said "Royster goes on to say that it was ultimately his commitment to the offensive that caused his death. Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely."

Robert E. Lee has been seen throughout history as a great general of the Confederacy, but to call him a great leader would be a bit of a stretch. Though he won a number of battles for the South, he did it at the cost of great numbers of men he needed to win the war. His strategy included only offensive measures, and while this was important in winning some battles, Lee crippled the army of the C.S.A. in losing huge percentages of his men. He inflicted great numbers of casualties, but as Nolan states, "Federal casualties could be, and were in fact, made up with additional manpower. Lee's were irreplacable." For example, at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee lost 21 percent of his men, and at Gettysburg, the conservative estimate says he lost one-third of his men. These losses were so devastating to an army who had little or no reinforcements, and ultimately cost the Confederates the war. A great leader would have found a way around an offensive strategy as the sole measure to win the war. Lee knew he had to save as many men as possible to win the war, but chose instead to win small victories rather than save his men to win the war as a whole.

Lee was greatly overrated as a leader and tactician. His successes were due in large part due to an immense amount of great subordinate talent. His tactics were outdated from the advances in military technology and he was willing to accept severe casualties in sticking with his largely Napoleonic doctrine. His orders were rarely clear and concise and his great successes were due to the flexibility and competence of his Corps commanders more than any brilliance on his part. His contribution came as a symbolic figurehead and not as a tactician and General. If his actions at Gettysburg are viewed as an example, it would be justified to say the casualties resulting from his lack of direction and stubbornness dealt a blow to the ANV from which they and the Confederacy would never fully recover.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 11:38 AM
I am going to reiterate Stephen's point that the goal of a general is to win the war. It is ridiculous that people still praise Robert E. Lee as a great general when it was his tactics that ruined the Confederacy's chance of victory. General Lee's offensive strategy was extremely inconsistent with the resources of the South. The Confederacy began the war with a severe disadvantage in numbers of men; this disadvantage grew worse and worse for General Lee as the war moved on. The offensive strategy proved to be very costly and produced high casualty rates. An offensive strategy was the worse possible strategy that Lee could have deployed with the disadvantages that he had. After a series of large offensives including the Seven Days battles on the Peninsula, Second Bull Run, and Antietam, Lee's troops were undeniably exhausted. It was Lee's tactics that cost the Confederacy's the war. "Lee's efforts were unsuccessful, costly, and destructive to the South's chances of victory in the war."(98)

I am going to have to agree with group O-Z. They argue the point very well that Lee's strategy was not the best strategy according to the south's resources. More importantly, he exhausted his resources in the beginning of the war with his offensive strategy as Billy pointed out.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 01:18 PM
I apologize for this delayed entry. I fell victim to the missing book dilemma. So here is the posting for tuesday 4/1. Again I apologize.

To restrict the influence of General Stonewall Jackson upon the confederate war effort to the level of simply a “distinguished leader” verges on the boarder of an understatement. In minds of southern confederates Stonewall Jackson was a divinely appointed deliverer who would carry the confederacy upon his shoulders and establish independence through a military exodus. In his discussion of Jackson, Royster articulates on the southern perception of Stonewall as divine medium serving to establish the will of God, “His aggressiveness embodied his confidence that , when the destruction to which he committed himself stopped at last, his cause would prove to have been God’s.” (p.69) In the public eye Jackson embodied the ideal confederate leader. Coined as a “Christian Patriot” Jackson shunned all public esteem for the mastery of his virtuoso military successes claiming, “You must not over-estimate me in the work. I have been but the unworthy instrument whom it pleased God to use in accomplishing His purpose.” After the war confederates began to assess how the situation might have been different had Jackson lived, and they even went as far as to assert the Battles of Gettysburg and Wilderness would have been won if Jackson had been at the helm to command the Confederate forces. The impact of Jackson’s death was described by General Robert E. Lee as the equivalent to “loosing his right arm”, a comparison not usually attributed to an insignificant loss.

I will have to agree with group O-Z. While Lee won a great many victories for the CSA, this group does a good job arguing Lee's overall strategy was unsuccessful. His aggressive tactics caused his army to sustain a proportionally enormous amount of casualties, and his failure to fight a defensive war when possible overstretched both the resources and the manpower of the Confederate States.

I agree with group O-Z. I think they effectively argue that Lee’s efforts were inconsistent with the realities of the Confederacy’s position, and his strategy of maintaining the offensive at all costs resulted in larger numbers of casualties than if other means were employed.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 04:32 PM
I agree with group A-E, despite strong agruments for group O-Z. Group O-Z effectively pointed out that the Confederates were short on men, but I'm not convinced that Lee only fought an offensive war or that his strategy was the worst strategy the Confederates could have followed. I can't think of any man that could have replaced Lee as the Confederate military leader and done a better job.

Lee's overall strategy and mindset that "annihilation of the enemy army" was necessary for Southern victory, while being great for the stuff of legends was grossly counterproductive given the limited resources of the Southern armies. Lee himself even recognizes the "necessity to increase our armies if we desire... effectual resistance". Knowing his army and resources lacked the numbers and technology which the North did have, taking the offensive at every chance was quite foolish and "not feasible" by any stretch of the imgaination. His willingness to take severe casualties by way of direct attack of an enemy not only resulted in high casualty rates but in the slow attrition of Southern resoures, manpower, and moral. While Lee may have been a great battlefield tactition, he lacked a holistic mindset and variability in thinking which would have allowed him to employ more effective strategies to win the war, rather than battles.

Sorry it's late but....Robert E Lee was a brilliant general whose leadership abilities resulted in many victorious battles. He was also a great leader in that he boosted the morale of his troops and was a staunch supporter of the Confederate causes. Lee kept fighting his hardest even when defeat was inevitable. He even tried to arm slaves to fight for the confederate cause. He had to be considered a great general if Abe Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army first. The reason the south lost was not because of him, but because of the different war tactics between the north and south, and because to southerners, war was inevitable to preserve their freedom.

Once again, sorry about the tardiness. I got the dates and times mixed up. Team 3 (O-Z) convinced me that Jackson was an overrated leader. Besides the fact that the Confederates lost the war, he was not an effective leader because of the mistakes he made as a general. Stephen made a good point when he said "Every war needs a hero." I also like the comparison Stephen made to George Washington and how "hero worship can often overemphasize the hero’s positive characteristics while glossing over any of his or her character flaws."

Not only did Robert E. Lee use proven war techniques and tacticts, he also embodied that of a Southern Gentlemen, with a unique emphasis on honor and pride that many other Civil War leaders did not posess (notably Grant). Though he may have experienced defeats, Lee was "committed to the offensive"(77) and to the protection of his home and country. General Lee understood his army, as evidenced by his continual indications in correspondance that losses to the Confederate side were not the same as the Union side, and acknowledged other factors which led to the Confederacy's lack of morale, personnell, and weaponry. Many would make the claim that it was therefore foolhardy for him to continue the fight, but the fact remains that Lee's constant vigilance and continual offensive was the only thing that stood between the Northern Army and the Southern States. It was his exemplary leadership that led to a surrender at Appomatox, and an honorable defeat of the South. On the whole, he was a leader that is still remembered today not because of his mistakes or misjudgements, but because of his effective leadership, and that cannot be simply shrugged off.

To call Lee a bad general is an absurd claim. He was a man faced with a tough situation that did the best he could. He understood certain sacrifices that had to be made in order to give the South a fighting chance at winning the war. Hindsight is always 20/20, and when we look back at Lee we can certainly criticize some of his tactics, but he preformed exceedingly well given the cercumstances. After reading the selection from Nolan's book, its clear Lee was faced with formidable odds, but he was a consistent preformer on the battlefield.

General Lee was not just the most exemplary Confederate military leader, but he was the personification of true Southern character. He served his country in an honorable and heroic fashion. He faced overwhelming odds in fighting the Federals. They had a large man advantage, as well as better supplies and supply lines. The war was fought almost exclusively in the South where the destruction of bridges, railroads, and towns would have massive repercussions. This is why Lee went on the offensive, to rid his beloved state of the attackers, without a Southern offensive the Northern armies would be content to wage war across the south until the South ran out of supplies and was strangled by the blockades. Lee was faced with a daunting task and almost was able to drive the Northern armies out. This is why his decisions were supported and it made him the most effective general in the South.

In hindsight, the Confederate military strategy led by General Robert E. Lee has been hallmarked as an “addiction to the offensive.” Lee and the Confederates adopted an aggressive style of military tactics which expressed that peace would come when the Confederacy could “defeat or drive the armies of the enemy from the field.” There are instances when an aggressive military offensive is called for and times when it is appropriate to asses the losses and live to fight another day. Frank E. Vandiver a notable military historian describes Lee’s aggressive strategic tactics as being “too addicted to the offensive, even against outstanding firepower.” Furthermore, he goes on to state “Lee’s addiction [to the offensive] and his losses limited the South’s chances of winning the war.” Great leaders poses a capacity to accurately analyze a military situation and make appropriate decisions which include a wide range of versatile military strategies as opposed to limiting oneself to a single-minded commitment to the military offensive, a capacity Lee obviously did not poses.

I cast my vote to Group 3, who argued that Lee was an over-rated civil war general. Group 1 made some points, but some of the arguments were "wishy-washy" and I could not tell if they were supporting or criticizing Lee. On the other hand, Group 3 made very strong points, proving that he lost an unneccessary amount of men and that his offensive tactics are to blame. Group 3 did made the case clear that Lee was not as much of a war hero as he is made out to be.

I feel like both groups had good points. However, I think the group that had to claim that Lee was greatly overrated as a leader, won the debate. They presented strong arguments that were convincing enough to make Lee appear as a general with severe leadership flaws. The reiterated point about the lack of sufficient troops and manpower served to undermine the greatness of Lee as a military leader. I believe their arguments were the most effective in this debate.

I am going to have to side with the group that was defending Lee as a great general because of the situation that he was placed into would have been difficult for any man. The Union originally asked Lee to command their troops which comments on his talent and ability as a leader. Furthermore, I think that we must take into account the negative biases that the book placed on Lee. It had a negative tone in its discussion of Lee as a leader talking about his "addiction to the offensive" and other notable flaws in his strategy. The general arguments provided by the Lee defenders were strong and clearly pointed out his ability to command with lack of resources and competent leadership.

here is a post from the Jackson reading since i was unable to read the material that day:
I have to say that Jackson was the reason the Confederates did as well as they did. His "never back down" strategies proved him the victor in many crucial battles as Royster points out. He even goes as far as comparing Jackson to the figure of George Washington. This is a very true statement. The press reported on Jackson's victories and his public picture was huge and very influencial on the public moral. He was able to rally his troops many times where other commanders would not have been able to. The author agrees with the statement, "Stonewall's aggressiveness brought Confederate success." If he would have lived throughout the whole war, the outcome might not have been the same for the Confederacy.

Edited by author 04-09-2008 12:00 PM
Analytical Comparative Book Essay (5-7 pp. based on assigned books)
Due dates will be staggered:
Week 9: last names starting with A-E. (Comparison of Woodworth and Ayers)
Week 10 last names starting with F-N (Comparison of Ayers and Horowitz)
Week 12 last names starting with O-Z (Comparison of Burton and Billingsley)

Edited by author 04-09-2008 03:08 PM
Some questions concerning the Ayers text:

1. What (if anything) seems to have differentiated these two communities?
2. What new insights does the book reveal about the coming of war and the
motivations for combat? What was the war about in Franklin and Augusta?
3. What impact did the war have on factions, alliances, and national identity in the two communities?
4. What does the book tell us about the changing relationships among civilians, soldiers, and political leaders in wartime?
5. How did slavery and racial attitudes change in both communities? What did African Americans think about these changes? What did Whites think?

The Keegan text was an interesting piece on the way battle has been recorded throughout history. Often, accounts have been written by those who know little of battle, and both exaggerate and oversimplify the events. Generals such as Julius Caesar have written their own accounts with a political purpose, and serve to glorify their own deeds. Continuing to the near past, writers such as the American General Marshall have looked at the more human element of battle. In his writings, he discusses the ways that soldiers are a product of the society's cultural values, and how that can best be taken into account when structuring an army.

General Buell's report on the battle of Perryville seems to give a fairly objective account of the events. Here, he is most concerned with the actions of his own subordinate generals in shaping the outcome of the battle, rather than emphasizing the actions of himself or the individual troops.

Bragg's proclamation to the people of Kentucky is interesting in the way that he considers his aim to liberate them from the Union. He wants Kentucky to join in the struggle for 'constitutional freedom' by breaking its bonds with its own constitution. This message shows some of the effects of war, as he invokes the memories of the dead at Shiloh to try and rally the Kentuckians around the Confederate cause.

I thought that the Keegan text was especially interesting when applied to the Buell and Bragg readings because you are really able to see what he means when he discusses the different methods used when recording battles. I also found it interesting how most people who wrote about battles don't have a large background of them. For this reason battles tend to look easier than they are and are unable to usually convey the complexity of the maneuvers. I was really intrigued with the Marshall concept that everyone is afraid of battle, but when they go into battle they fall back onto their beliefs and culture. Even though the rest of his theory does not play out as well, I think this has a huge impact on how the Civil War was fought. Soldiers on both sides fought for reasons that make Confederate and Union states distinguishable

With the Bragg reading we can see that he takes a more biased and political turn in his discussion of Perryville. He is quick to call of his successes, and then at the end appeals for more troops. The reading also comes off as a means to rally support and patriotism for the Confederate States. Buell's account is a lot shorter and unbiased. He seems to not want to discuss anything unless he can verify it for fact such as the number of casualties and gave more of a timeline to the battle than his personal feelings or details.

Keegan highlights the importance of motivation behind retelling battle narratives. Caesar's political ambitions drove him to exaggerate his own role in victory, while Du Picq seems driven by honest curiosity to understand the actual experience of lower-ranking officers and their soldiers. The first account necessarily relegates most fighters to mass anonymity, and the second relishes the individual, reminiscent of today's discussion of the difference between textbooks and the Ayers narrative.

The battle stories of Du Picq and the Cincinnati Gazette are, like Ayers, not without their own brand of interpretation and perspective, yet there is something more honest to them. The writer of the Cincinnati Gazette article, in all of its length and detail, did strive to present an accurate account of the battle at Perryville. But some authorial and editorial bias is unavoidable, especially when the writer is emotionally and physically invested in the proceedings. The article, interestingly, does not hesitate to criticize the Union generals or praise the Confederate soldiers for awing presence on the battlefield. He neither makes the Union forces angels who are incapable of mistakes, nor does he dehumanize and monsterize the Confederate soldiers. But once soldiers begin dying, the author's language becomes more frantic and emotional, less an objective account than a narrative. His level of specificity combined with his raw feelings for the carnage enhance the reader's understanding of the battle. Caesar's account romanticizes war to a great degree, far-removed from the dirty reality. Du Picq's account would be, perhaps, for many readers who have not experienced battle, too intense to stomache. The Cincinnati Gazette attempts to combine both approaches successfully, in my opinion.

Edited by author 04-12-2008 03:20 PM
   Keegan’s article was interesting in that it gave a background to the historiography of military narrative. It took me some time to understand the relationship of Caesar to the Civil War, but then I finally made some connections.
   The comparison that struck me most was Keegan’s analysis on Caesar and Thucydides. Caesar, the Roman historiographer, can be compared to Buell’s account of the Battle of Perryville. Caesar writes about a particular history, giving a specific account for military commands and battle formations. Soldiers have no character or personality, if they are even mentioned. Buell gives available statistics and describes the army’s specific movements.
   On the other hand, Bragg’s address to Kentucky is similar to how Thucydides writes a general history. They both touch on the human behavioral side of battle, attaching to nationalism and pride to stir emotions. They make appeal to the people, to gain their support for battle.
   Keegan gives the reader a good view of different forms of historiography with analysis from Caesar and Thucydides.

Keegan gives the proper perspective with which to view history. He shows how history can be viewed through two different lenses, and what it means to look at battles through each one. I really enjoyed his example of how the US court system and the French court system are different. What intrigued me the most was his idea that everyone should question first if the event truly happened before moving on to accusing someone.

The Cincinnati Gazette was a long, detailed account that was full of information. Suprisingly the paper's bias did not completely overwhelm me, but the "rebel defeats" described within are all colored with Union patriotism. When he demonized the Southerners, in his description of the charge at Perryville, one could plainly see the paper's bias. The Gazette describes war always as Union victories and never as defeats, unless referring to the rebels.

   The individual soldiers' battlefield experience has definitly been historically ignored in favor of larger movements and action. The Keegan piece deals directly with some of the misconceptions we have about individual behavior in a large scale. Many of these concepts (that soldiers are more likely to die when retreating, that charges are not met with an initial 'shock') may have been familiar to the few experienced men in Civil War armies, but so many in those armies were inexperienced and unfamiliar with military concepts. The idea that it has taken until the 20th century to acknowledge battle as a terrifying experience is interesting to me. We are now familiar with such terms as post-traumatic stress disorder, but what were the affects on the huge numbers of discharged soldiers after the Civil War, and how did society deal with them?

Sam Watkin's account of Perryville, while certainly engaging, is suspicious in its late publication. Why wait until 20 years later to puclish contemporary memoirs, or perhaps even more relevant, what did he remember after 20 years. Interesting also is that fact that he doesn't lable his work as history. Like most of society, he has bought into the notion that history is generals and leaders--he acknowledges this when he says no one ever saw a private in battle, just generals. Only in more recent times has the history of the individual become a subject of academic interest. Buell's account reinforces this with his reports prioritizing the reporting of general's and officer's deaths without acknowledging or seeking an accurate account of general casualties among the men.

General Buell's official report seems to follow the typical "battle piece" that Keegan describes more than humanize the battle. Buell gives specific locations and times similar to a chess match. He makes statements such as "More or less skirmishing has occurred daily" or "driving out the enemy's rear guard of cavalry and artillery" that do not really give you a good picture of individual soldiers in battle (more of a mass of soldiers moving back and forth on a field. The loss of human life does not seem as relevant as the position of the soldiers. However, Buell does describe some confusion as he "heard with astonishment that the left had been seriously engaged for several hours and that the right and left of that corps were being turned and severally pressed Re-enforcements were immediately sent forward from the center". He tries to send orders, but "it was impossible for it to get into position in time to produce any decided results". In the end he mentions that there was most likely a heavily loss of men and the only two names mentioned are General McCook, General Crittenden, General Jackson (died), and General Terrill (died). This goes along with Keegan's statements of the officers as the only names mentioned. Buell does not describe motivations or influences of the battle. This does make sense in that he is giving an official report and needs to be brief and to the point, but his report gives you an insight on how leaders of war think and run battle - very much like a chess match. The individual and why he fights or the fact that he dies does not matter outside that he has a use as another body on the field.

Bragg's report also followed the typical "battle piece" described by Keegan, though not completely. Bragg describes why he chose to make certain actions that does not follow a typical "battle piece". "Not having succeeded in getting my supplies from Lexington to my new depot near Bryantsville, it was necessary to hold a large portion of General Smith's forces in that direction." He describes tour of inspection, installing the Provisional Governor into office", supply lines. He also descibed some of the chain of command. However, Bragg gives a typical losing perspective. He describes the troops as "never faltering and never failing in their efforts" though they were engaged in "the severest and most desperately contested engagement within my knowledge" and "fearfully outnumbered". He makes blanket statements of the troops never hesitating, in reality, as Keegan describes, that goes against human nature. Bragg goes on to decribe in detail what they did accomplish. Like Buell, Bragg does not emphasis the horrible loss as he states "in such a contest our own loss was necessarily severe" and goes on to specifically name the officers wounded. Another indication that the individual soldiers are not important is the paragraph he refers to the enemy is a "he" not "them". His statement, "Nobler troops were never more gallantly led" really seems to highlight the point Keegan makes of most battle-pieces. Everything is simplified to the officers being the most important and inspiring to the men and the troops acting as one without questioning.

Keegan’s discussion about the evolution of the discussion of battles is a good one. Typical battle narratives have continued since the Renaissance in the Caesarian tradition, but it is also important to acknowledge how the different purposes affect this tradition. Even in Caesar’s time, there was more than one literary tradition for writing about battles. Caesar’s Gallic Wars was written for a specific political purpose, namely to promote his name back in Rome for political reasons during his campaigns, and for that reason referred more to himself as a leader than the people who served him. In other traditions, for example, in epic poetry, the stories of the individual characters themselves were necessary to the battle scene because of the glory they brought to their families and descendants. Roman historians also wrote more in the example of Thucydides when attempting to glorify the battles in a more general history for posterity. It is Caesar’s tradition that has come down for use in the official reporting of battles, and the shift Keegan describes is in the way the United States government began to examine the motives of the individual soldiers in their official reporting of their own battles.
 Both the Buell and Bragg pieces fall into this tradition, serving to report back to their respective governments and chains of commands what had happened on the battlefield. For this reason the narratives seem to follow the battle as if it were a chess board, describing the attacks, counterattacks, supply lines, and the final result, victory or retreat and the number of casualties involved with each side. While clearly a two dimensional view of the battle it fits into its purpose, simply to explain the main strategies and supplies used and the final outcome.

I agree with what Keegan says about Marshall's historical method. Marshall dealt with many infantrymen from WWII and he observed that any man on the battle field has great fear, but it is how that fear is controlled and even harnessed that defines how the soldier fights in battle. I feel that men that share a common bond in war relate to one another better and feel more comfortable with his comrades. For me personally, this would make me want to fight more because i am not only protecting and fighting for myself but i am fighting for men like me. Otherwise, one would just be fighting for a country that is somewhat distant. Sharing common bonds with your allies brings the emotion and will to fight closer to the heart.
General Buell's report is report on the Battle at Perryville is very much in the fashion of the narrative tradition. It is a very dry overview of what had happened without much in depth talk about the actions of individuals or even any kind of emotional involvement or stance. As for General Bragg's account this projects a little bit of emotion and gets personal with asides that deal with "the ground was literally covered with his dead". But overall this is an overview type reflection that deals mostly with numbers and positions and not of any personal emotion.

Keegan lends some interesting thoughts to the idea of the war narrative, and one that I thought was particularly interesting was the fact that throughout history, there has been relatively little challenge of Caesar’s battle narratives. This goes to support the theory that those in places of authority and on the winning sides get to write the accounts that are remembered. Later in the chapter, Keegan goes on to mention a strategy of writing history that allows for freedom in writing exactly as things happen, without a focus on winning or losing, but simply noting the way in which events took place. It seems that the only way to truly arrive at a “true” battle account would be to take into account the views from both sides of battle, rather than have one side write the history. In doing so, as Keegan notes with the Germans and their experience with the Battle of Britain never really being a battle at all, one might find some interesting conflicts in each side’s interpretation of events.
Watkins account was very personal, and quite interesting to me. It told little of grand strategy and commander’s tactics, but focused only on the single events that stood out in one soldier’s mind. To me, this seems to be the “realest” of all battle accounts because it shows what happened in the field in the midst of battle. It was not told from the perspective of one who was on the back lines, but told of the real story. Buell’s account is the exact opposite of Watkins in that it speaks to the broad, overall strategy of each side. It seems more disconnected to the war effort of the individual soldier, and seemed more for the purpose of superior officers needs than anything else.

When you read any battle account you need to keep in mind the source(s). Combat is a deeply personal experience and individuals will often have vastly differing perspectives and recollections of the same events. Also, as to Keegan's ideas about harnessing and managing fear in battle...he is dead on. There is no soldier who is not completely terrified in a firefight, but that is when you see the benefits of training, discipline, and leadership. Great soldiers aren't fearless, they just have the ability to conquer the emotion and do what needs to be done.

Keegan gives many arguments that are definitely thought provoking. On page 72, Keegan states “that all men are afraid on the battlefield, yet that most, despite their fear, remain products of their culture and its value system.” I think this is a great point to make. As a group in general I believe that people tend to loose sight of the individual’s thoughts and feelings. When looking back on a battle, I don’t think that we normal think that the soldier fighting may be scared out of their mind. We just assume that if they are there and fighting that they know what they are getting into and that they are not afraid. This is why I like the Ayers book so much, it gives a whole new perspective on war and how it affects the individual. This statement also attributes to how amazing it is that people can be so scared and nervous, yet if they know they must do something to protect themselves or someone else, that they can muster up a remarkable amount of strength in themselves to do what they thought they could not do.

Right off the start Cincinnati Gazette article recognizes that it is difficult to produce a report of a battle that is accurate, this is good. I think that the realization of this shows the care that was being put into this article in the attempt to give an accurate a fair report, if that’s even possible. I believe author did well with this piece. It does have some bias to it but everything does. Considering it was written very soon after the battle it does a good job of representing the Union and Confederate soldiers.

Since I could not be in class on Thursday, I am going to post a brief discussion about the Ayers book here.

I thought one of the most interesting ideas in the Ayers book was the way people thought about slavery and race during the early years of the war. Through his depiction, many peoples’ opinions about slavery seemed relatively unchanged by 1862. Although Republicans apparently moved from attacking abolitionists in the days after John Brown’s Raid to at least a guarded acceptance of some form of emancipation, the Northern Democrats still attacked any abolitionist tendencies in their opposition. Democrats continually blamed failures in the war effort (such as Second Manassas) as the results of Republican focus on emancipation. Although Republicans became more open about supporting some form of abolition, even Abraham Lincoln in March of 1862 could not see blacks and whites living together in peace and called for colonization of freed slaves after compensated emancipation. The Democratic paper in Franklin was worried about the influx of freed blacks after the emancipation proclamation, while the people of Staunton saw it as an invitation to servile insurrection. It seems that many in the North favored the Union as it was since Democrats made a comeback in many northern states running on this slogan. Thus, although the Republican party began to gradually accept making the war at least partly about slavery, emancipation seems to have become a major focus relatively late in the war with many in the North still wholeheartedly against emancipation.

I thought Keegan's article was an interesting insight into the historiography of battle narratives. I agree with Chris (below) about the management of fear in battle...I see that mostly in war narratives. Especially in Sam Watkin's account, he tells about the battle with very graphic descriptions and very little emotion. Gen. Bragg's account is much of the same, although there is some emotion expressed. I cannot imagine what being in battle might have been like from reading these accounts, not that that is their purpose, but I also cannot imagine being in battle and then writing down all of my memories from those battles years later. I think it is important what Sam Watkins said in his narrative, that he can only tell the things that he saw, but that is what everyone ought to do so that the world may know the truth.

The Sam Watkins piece is undoubtedly of the historical narrative style that Keagan refers too which plays more on emotion and personal experience than summaries of battle tactics and tabulations of casualties. Watkins begins by acknowledging his inability to "give you figures" and "how this General looked and how that one spoke". His account of the battle of Perryville is simply what the average rank and file soldier saw, felt, and experienced during battle. His ability to recount short personal narratives about befriending a Union soldier given lookout duty across the street from him and lying next to a friend of his while he lay dying after the battle provide a much needed emotional perspective to historical accounts of the Civil War. Even with his focus on personal stories he is still able to give what I must assume is a reasonably accurate account of the role his regiment played in the battle, which if used in conjunction with many other similar accounts could probably yield a very accurate battle account.

Sorry this is a little late, I was out of town all weekend and this is my first opportunity to post.
I thought that the Cincinnati gazette account of the battle of Perryville was certainly biased and skewed towards the Northern side, obviously. It justified all Northern losses and demonized the Southern forces. Although it did offer a very detailed account of the war, it's bias must be taken into account when trying to determine what really happened. As far as the Keegan book is concerned, I thought it to be a more realistic and personal account. Keegan discusses what really happens to a soldier in warfare, both psychologically and physically. I thought his approach to the actual analysis of the history of each battle was good. He looked at the broader picture and what actually happened before delving into the details. Both of these accounts give perspectives on warfare, but Keegan has a more unbiased, personal approach.

Bragg’s account provides an example of the “typical ‘battle piece’ ” described by Keegan (61) while Watkins’ account represents some, though not all, of the elements of the more nuanced approach described by Keegan. Throughout his account, Bragg describes the battle as a sort of chess match between opposing generals. Bragg seems to follow the pattern Keegan described of a “reduction of soldiers to pawns” and a “high focus on leadership” (61). In fact, Bragg doesn’t seem to mention anyone other than generals and describes all the actions of troops as uniform (e.g. fighting ferociously against overwhelming odds). Rather than giving a more detailed, complicated account which relays possible individual motivations, he simply reports on troop movements and overall numbers of casualties.

Watkins gives an individual account of the fighting which represents what Keegan described as the Civil War’s contribution of “a remarkable crop of soldier’s literature, in which battle had been depicted very much from the private’s rather than the general’s angle of vision” (70). At the beginning of his account, Watkins acknowledged that his was not the typical battle piece since he would not give the stock descriptions of large troop movements or casualty numbers. His is a much more detailed account, mentioning individuals (below the rank of general) by name and describing the horrific scenes, confusion, and fear of battle rather than giving the more picturesque heroic story. However, his account does not seem to coincide with some of Keegan’s characteristics of more modern battle accounts. For instance, he provides few rationales for how individuals overcame their fear in battle. The only reason he gives is a desire to capture the Napoleon guns which is perhaps a result of the Roman influence on soldiers, resulting in a desire to gain glory by capturing the weapons or standards of the opposing unit. In addition, Watkins description of the hand-to-hand fighting seems to contradict du Picq’s insistence that battles did not actually result in “shocks.”

The Watkins account and Keegan's writing coincide with each other. The Watkins account plays on your emotions and gives the individual soldier's point of view, experiences, and emotions on which Keegan focuses. The individual experience with death, and Watkins befriending an enemy to raid a pantry give a view of war that is absent of histories that are written on generals and other authority figures only.

General Buell’s report of the Battle of Perryville is very precise and concise. He describes the position of the enemy and the way his army was able to maneuver around them on three separate occasions. However, he also realized that he was in desperate need of re-enforcements. His report ends by saying he does not know the number dead, but that valuable officers have been killed and his army has fallen back. It was interesting to read General Bragg’s account of the same battle. He admits that he and his men were outnumbered but were able to drive the enemy (Confederates) two miles back. The total number of dead for the Union was around 2500 compared to the Confederates 4000 +/-. Bragg realized that Buell and his army were receiving reinforcements so he withdrew his troops. Bragg’s report includes his opinion on the South’s desire for independence but their inability to risk their lives and their property for its success. Keegan’s book focuses on the structure of war and the actual mechanics that come into play when armies fight a battle. In this way, both Bragg and Buell’s reports fit into this model by giving specific locations, troop numbers, and distance measures. However, the experience of the soldier as an individual is left out of these reports.

Keegan's article provided sound reasoning for the traditional battle narrative: "if soldiers did not learn to fight their battles from reading books, neither is it likely that military historians learnt to write their books from watching battles" (62). Namely by simplifying characters, actions, and motivations, historians are able to compartmentalize and break down otherwise complex and chaotic battles. The Cincinnati Gazette account is a perfect example of this. At the outset, the author apologizes for any faults in the article due to the difficulty of trying to detail a battle so soon after its occurrence. Yet the article contains much detail, including most focus on commanders and leaders, where they died and how. The article oversimplifies the battle perhaps, yet gives the reader a fair idea of the atmosphere with descrimtions like this one:

"Distance concealed the rags composing their uniform; the bright sunbeams glanced from their bayonets flashed like lightning over the field; and the blue flag with a single star waved all along their lines, as proudly as though it were not the emblem of treason, slavery, and death" (8).

Gallantry and bravery are apparent on both sides, despite who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.' War is portrayed as something very honorable. Keegan explains this when discussing Marshall's historical method: "all men are afraid of the battlefield, yet... most, despite their fear, remain products of their culture and its value-system" (72).

Most influential to me was the Gazette's description of the Confederates' loss, as the men of the Tenth regiment, "[o]verwhelmed and confounded" turned their backs "upon the enemy. They will not run; they only walk away, and they are mowed down by scores as they do so" (9).

The emotional recount of Sam Watkins experience in the civil war with the First Tennessee in addition to Keegan’s explanation on the process of historiography shed light a simple fact that can have profound consequence in the process of historical interpretation, and that is there is quite a difference between history and the past. The past is absolute, concrete, universal; it is the events themselves as they occurred regardless of their interpretive reflection. History on the other hand is an interpretive process using language and imagery to depict the past in a certain manner for a specific purpose. The process of recording history has evolved from brief annotations to intricate emotional reflections. Moreover, the goal of historical writing has evolved as well into a science of re-creating the past as opposed to highlighting specific issues the author deems most important.

David Hottel[8:42:55 PM]: my group was talking about how Ayers might have a bias being that he is a proffessor at Virginia and that he is from Tenneessee.... He seemed to have a litttle bias in favor of the south
David Hottel[8:44:04 PM]: Or at least he mentioned battles from the augusta perspective a few more times than he did from the franklin perspective
Lloyd Benson[8:44:27 PM]: !st Manassas, Wilson's Creek, Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Valley Campaign (general facts and significance, not specific stages, units or battles) Peninsula/Seven Days, Antietam, Perryville, Fredericksburg.
Virginia Cain[8:44:48 PM]: YaY! thank you!!!
David Hottel[8:44:53 PM]: thats awsome
Lloyd Benson[8:45:00 PM]: Interesting Ayers bias question. What do people think?
David Hottel[8:45:11 PM]: phil was in my group today
David Hottel[8:45:46 PM]: im suprised that so few people are in here.... this is way beneficial!
Virginia Cain[8:45:59 PM]: everyone has a bias . . .
Lloyd Benson[8:46:04 PM]: It might be useful for you to come up with your own justifications of why the battles I listed might be more consequential than some I did not (Pea Ridge, for ex.).
Virginia Cain[8:46:27 PM]: maybe there were more documents from augusta. but i'm not sure that i agree with that at all. no one here does either.
Lloyd Benson[8:46:33 PM]: Would viewpoint be more charitable than bias?
David Hottel[8:46:59 PM]: yes.... sometimes i have a very limited vocabulary....
Virginia Cain[8:47:01 PM]: these opinions don't necessarily represent the views of virginia cain because this is mcphee
Megan Colvin has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:47:16 PM]: Hi Megan, welcome in!
Megan Colvin[8:47:33 PM]: Thanks, sorry I just got home from work.
David Hottel[8:47:44 PM]: better late than never....
Virginia Cain[8:47:49 PM]: ...
Lloyd Benson[8:47:50 PM]: Glad to have you present.
Virginia Cain[8:48:06 PM]: so here's the deal I don't feel that Ayers represents one side over the other because he clearly understands the importance
Phillip Garrott[8:48:49 PM]: I am very interested in the biases (viewpoints) of people, because the discussion that we had today focusing on perspective as reality I think is very true. I think it is similar to the discussion that we had of how the perspective of doris kearns goodwin has shaped her opinion of Lincoln. As a professor from virginia, I think that he would be more inclined to have delve into augusta county and take more time to demonstrate the complexities of that county.
Virginia Cain[8:49:23 PM]: of both sides I think that this is the point of the book. More importantly he juxtaposes the two sides to show how things of small towns on both sides operated.
Lloyd Benson[8:49:44 PM]: For Ayers, a central goal of the book and the Valley archive is to present a multiplicity of voices, show their evolution and their paradox, and to explain how "deep contingency" emerged from the contest of different voices as they responded to a range of competing events and motives.
David Hottel[8:50:33 PM]: what was the outcome of the xeven days battles
David Hottel[8:50:55 PM]: and significance... other than McClellan's replacement
Lloyd Benson[8:50:59 PM]: The archive itself is quite even-handed. Ayers and his project associates scoured every available repository to locate every extant document from both places.
Virginia Cain[8:51:09 PM]: virginia back - david, there's a link to official battle records on the front page of the course website
Virginia Cain[8:51:18 PM]: it's REALLY helpful for basic questions
Virginia Cain[8:51:25 PM]: :]
David Hottel[8:51:29 PM]: oh.... thanks.... sometimes i miss the obvious
Virginia Cain[8:51:57 PM]: no problem - i just know that we used them really heavily when studying!
Lloyd Benson[8:52:43 PM]: The 7 Days had several important outcomes, among which I would list (a) For many soldiers and units on both sides, this was their first pitched campaign, their first real exposure to combat (b) this combat was ferocious, chaotic, and nothing like their preconceptions of what battle might be like.
David Hottel[8:53:23 PM]: is the 7 days battles like malvern hill and gaines' hill
David Hottel[8:53:45 PM]: there isn't like a link that IS the seven days battles
Virginia Cain[8:54:03 PM]: yes! those are part of the seven days' battles h00ray
David Hottel[8:54:10 PM]: lol thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:55:16 PM]: (c) it proved both Lee's ability as a commander and his propensity for aggressive full-frontal assaults (ie Malvern Hill) (d) it delegitimized (sp) McClellan. (e) it chewed up the V corps (many Pennsylvanians) but did so fairly early before the Fall elections. (f) it decreased U.S. morale and increaed U.S. desertions, but did exactly the opposite for the CSA, reversing what had been the Spring crisis of the Confederacy, with all the nationalizing policies appertaining thereto.
David Hottel[8:55:56 PM]: thanks... very helpful
Lloyd Benson[8:56:04 PM]: See the (now operational) map of the seven days, on the schedule pages.
David Hottel[8:56:12 PM]: thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:57:57 PM]: The components include oak Grove, Mechanicsville (1st Cold Harbor) Gaines Mills, Savage Station, Glendale, and Malvern Hill. If you know these details, super, if not, know the starting and ending dates.
David Hottel[8:58:20 PM]: okay good
Lloyd Benson[8:59:26 PM]: For the Peninsula/7 days, and more generally, having command of the associated primary documents will also be useful.
Virginia Cain[9:00:19 PM]: are the primary documents just the maps? i'm not sure of which ones you're speaking
Lloyd Benson[9:00:39 PM]: For all of these, the basic concepts are (a) who wrote/created the document? (b) in a sentence, what is the basic idea of the document, and what is the creator trying to accomplish? (c) was it successful in its intent, and (d) how does it compare to other related docs.
Lloyd Benson[9:01:18 PM]: I'm referring strictly to documents that are assigned in the syllabus, but am not expecting to ask map-specific questions.
Virginia Cain[9:01:42 PM]: okay. nevermind. i had them grouped differently. sorry!
Lloyd Benson[9:02:00 PM]: Does that clarify which are in and which are out?
Virginia Cain[9:02:11 PM]: Yessir!
Megan Colvin[9:03:12 PM]: Where does the material start for this test that we need to make sure we have covered? Bull Run?
Lloyd Benson[9:03:17 PM]: It's officially 9:00, but I'm willing to go for another 10 minutes or so to clear up anything in your notes that needs attention, or anything else. Last round, in other words.
David Hottel[9:03:38 PM]: Im good thanks for this... it was a real help
Lloyd Benson[9:03:39 PM]: After Sumter, including the raising of troops.
Lloyd Benson[9:04:22 PM]: And I would add the whole "what is the war about" question.
Virginia Cain[9:04:37 PM]: Thank you *very* much Dr. Benson!!! We hope your wife and daughter are doing much better :]
Virginia Cain[9:05:09 PM]: mcphee: would you say the civil war was, or was not important?
Virginia Cain[9:05:12 PM]: ;-P
Virginia Cain[9:05:23 PM]: j/k
Lloyd Benson[9:05:33 PM]: I am very fortunate, wife and daughter-wise
Virginia Cain[9:06:06 PM]: we're glad!
Lloyd Benson[9:06:21 PM]: Compared to the wheel, or the invention of coal-powered steam engines, perhaps the ACW was of secondary importance.....
Virginia Cain[9:06:32 PM]: hahahahaha
Megan Colvin[9:06:37 PM]: Yesterday it was said that Ghalleger (sp) gave two reasons for why Antietam was not really a defeat one was that there were many US soldiers captured and the other was about Lee but I didn't catch it. Can you explain that please.
Lloyd Benson[9:07:20 PM]: But if it came to your town it would be a life-defining experience, and it's role in setting the national political agenda, national identity, and other things Americans have been grappling with ever since, quite significant.
Virginia Cain[9:08:09 PM]: mcphee: agreed!
Lloyd Benson[9:08:36 PM]: Lee, by staying around on Sept. 18 and allowing his soldiers to bury their dead, despite the eminent dangers of doing so with a flooding river at their back and a powerful enemy at their front, earned their everlasting respect.
Megan Colvin[9:09:28 PM]: That's right, thanks.
Lloyd Benson[9:10:16 PM]: Gallagher suggests (contra McPherson) that Antietam (er Sharpsburg, in CSA context) actually helped create cohesion, loyalty, and fighting spirit in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, rather than crippling its capacities (which McPherson claims it did.)
Lloyd Benson[9:11:00 PM]: In other words, A/S helped extend the war, not shorten it or undermine the CSA.
Lloyd Benson[9:11:33 PM]: (Which is what McPherson claims when he calls Antietam the war's watershed or turning point event.)
Lloyd Benson[9:11:42 PM]: One last question?
Megan Colvin[9:12:02 PM]: I'm good.
Lloyd Benson[9:12:27 PM]: Good luck, everyone!
Virginia Cain[9:12:34 PM]: thank you!
Megan Colvin[9:12:41 PM]: Thanks Dr. Benson, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.
Lloyd Benson[9:13:04 PM]: Glad to do it.
Lloyd Benson[9:13:25 PM]: See you all in the morning. Try to get some sleep.
Virginia Cain[9:13:41 PM]: YOU TOO
Virginia Cain[9:13:55 PM]: :]
Lloyd Benson[9:14:11 PM]: Bye, all!

Transcript of HST49 Study Session.

Lloyd Benson has joined the chat.
Phillip Garrott has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:00:03 PM]: Hi Phillip!
Phillip Garrott[8:00:07 PM]: Hello!
Lloyd Benson[8:00:38 PM]: Hang on while some others check in.
Ben Delahoyde has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:00:51 PM]: Hi Ben!
Ben Delahoyde[8:00:55 PM]: hello
Ben Delahoyde[8:00:57 PM]: how are you
Phillip Garrott[8:01:04 PM]: A group of us are in the classroom watching the conversation on the projector.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Ben Delahoyde[8:01:15 PM]: creative.
Virginia Cain[8:01:17 PM]: Hi Dr. Benson!
Virginia Cain[8:01:19 PM]: Mcphee
Virginia Cain[8:01:28 PM]: Doug and Ashley and I are together with Phil
Lloyd Benson[8:01:32 PM]: Interesting projector idea.
Virginia Cain[8:01:46 PM]: :]
Lloyd Benson[8:02:08 PM]: Doing well here. How is everyone.
Phillip Garrott[8:02:26 PM]: Great!
Ben Delahoyde[8:02:29 PM]: good
Lloyd Benson[8:03:12 PM]: Good to hear. Thanks for your virtual participation. Eleanor the 2 year old says thanks too!
Virginia Cain[8:03:13 PM]: we're doing amazingly cool
Virginia Cain[8:03:25 PM]: HI ELEANOR!!!!!
Lloyd Benson[8:03:26 PM]: :-)
Virginia Cain[8:03:29 PM]: how are you?
Lloyd Benson[8:03:50 PM]: Can't complain. Better than picket duty at Fredericksburg.
Virginia Cain[8:03:58 PM]: amen!
Virginia Cain[8:04:29 PM]: we were at ann coulter, and someone is running for the Constitution party! we thought of this class :]
Lloyd Benson[8:04:54 PM]: Let's jump in. Format: Same as before, structure-wise, with 35ish short answers, a paragraph essay, and a take-home.
Phillip Garrott[8:05:16 PM]: is it open book? :)
Lloyd Benson[8:05:22 PM]: Take-home is choice of two out of three, as before.
Ben Delahoyde[8:05:58 PM]: what sort of things should we be looking to discuss in the one paragraph essay?
Lloyd Benson[8:06:30 PM]: Restricted open book, same rules as before. You can use your notes, the assigned readings, any documents or articles from the syllabus that have been specifically assigned, and anything on the course workspace.
Lloyd Benson[8:06:37 PM]: Hang on, logging in someone.
David Hottel has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:07:08 PM]: Hi David!
David Hottel[8:07:14 PM]: hey
Lloyd Benson[8:07:18 PM]: We're just getting started.
David Hottel[8:07:22 PM]: good
Lloyd Benson[8:07:48 PM]: The one paragraph essay will be somewhat like before.
David Hottel[8:08:04 PM]: so it will be like a reflection type essay
Virginia Cain[8:08:17 PM]: when exactly did pope replace mcclellan
Lloyd Benson[8:08:23 PM]: Yes, a reflection essay.
Lloyd Benson[8:09:22 PM]: Hard to be exact about the Pope replaced McClellan question -- see the Sutherland article for specifics.
Lloyd Benson[8:10:00 PM]: McClellan still continued to have nominal command on the peninsula well into the summer, but Lincoln pulled more and more units from him as time went on.
Virginia Cain[8:10:09 PM]: we have gone through that article, and it's still pretty unclear . . . do we need to know specifically?
Lloyd Benson[8:11:20 PM]: (Fact-checking)
Lloyd Benson[8:12:00 PM]: Pope was transferred east in late June and began building his army even before the Peninsula debacle.
Virginia Cain[8:12:25 PM]: so he controlled a totally different army always, or he took over for mcclellan?
Lloyd Benson[8:13:23 PM]: He took over several of the "armies" in Northern Virginia, including commands led against Jackson in the Valley campaign by Fremont, Banks, and Shields.
Lloyd Benson[8:13:41 PM]: And then had elements of McClellan's army added to his.
Lloyd Benson[8:14:20 PM]: The command was technically called the "Army of Virginia" but is always treated in textbook accounts as essentially the Army of the Potomac.
Lloyd Benson[8:15:51 PM]: (More fact-checking....)
David Hottel[8:16:10 PM]: so about McClellan.... He was replaced right after the 7 days battles or what? Im still trying to find some good info about those battles and I was wondering what happened because wasn't McClellan knocking at Richmonds door by this point
David Hottel[8:16:57 PM]: Hey virginia was Ft. Sumpter April 12 or was it a day sooner....
David Hottel[8:17:59 PM]: the confederates arrived there on the 10th I think but i don't know what the official dates for the conflict are
Lloyd Benson[8:17:59 PM]: (Last Pope comment) Pope's army was made up of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 5th, and 9th corps. (I'll not be asking you this on the test)
Virginia Cain[8:18:28 PM]: april 12, far as i know
Phillip Garrott[8:18:32 PM]: it was april 12th, at 4:30 am. according to wikipedia,
Phillip Garrott[8:18:35 PM]: )
Lloyd Benson[8:18:37 PM]: McClellan remained as a general without an army for quite some time on the peninsula.
Lloyd Benson[8:19:17 PM]: April 12 will do more than accurately enough.
David Hottel[8:19:39 PM]: So McClellan was floating around without any specific orders?
Lloyd Benson[8:19:49 PM]: For most of the battles I will ask no more precisely than a month and a year.
Lloyd Benson[8:20:15 PM]: But I might also ask about related battles in the same month or span of time.
David Hottel[8:20:23 PM]: okay good cause i dont have some of the dates for a few battles
Virginia Cain[8:20:25 PM]: 2nd Manassas - why was it so important as a battle in the Northern Virginia campaign
Lloyd Benson[8:21:19 PM]: He remained stationed at Harrison's Landing in Virginia, (technically threatening Richmond) well into the summer.
Lloyd Benson[8:21:33 PM]: (More fact-checking)
David Hottel[8:22:04 PM]: Okay so he never made an attempt at Richmond?
Virginia Cain[8:22:07 PM]: Wilson's Creek - is the important thing that the Confederates were too disorganized and ill-equipped to pursue?
David Hottel[8:23:05 PM]: Thats what I think they were completely exhausted and had many casualties
Lloyd Benson[8:23:24 PM]: 2d Manassas is a way-station to Antietam. Its consequences were (a) yet one more defeat for the U.S. armies in the east, (2) Pope got reassigned -- this time to the Sioux wars in Minnesota (long story) and (3) both armies suffered heavy casualties, esp. the V corps which was so used up that McClellan put it into reserve at Antietam.
Phillip Garrott[8:23:29 PM]: Do we need to know full names, or can we simply know important personas such as A.P. Hill by their more commonly referred to initials?
David Hottel[8:24:00 PM]: about 2nd manasas.... what was the month for that?
David Hottel[8:24:13 PM]: Are you blue for a reason Phil
Lloyd Benson[8:24:25 PM]: Fact confirmation: Mc. remained on the Peninsula until Aug. 3. (You won't be asked this.)
David Hottel[8:24:34 PM]: okay... thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:24:52 PM]: Last names are sufficient.
Lloyd Benson[8:26:13 PM]: Ambrose Powell, in case you're wondering. One of his ancestors, Ambrose Booton, and mine, are the same. AP Hill lived in the Culpeper area, and the Bootons moved across the mountain to Luray.
Virginia Cain[8:26:37 PM]: Emily Franda is here with us now too :]
Lloyd Benson[8:28:06 PM]: August 1862, for 2d Manassas. Note the relationship to changing US military policy, too, including the 2d Confiscation Act, the Militia Act, and the (not yet publicly announced) emancipation proclamation, as well as Lincoln's Greeley letter "save the union without freeing the slaves," etc.
Lloyd Benson[8:28:14 PM]: Hi Emily!
David Hottel[8:28:21 PM]: So as far as our debates on the workspace... will we just need to be clear on what the authors' ideas were from the different assigned readings?
Virginia Cain[8:28:26 PM]: ashley wants to know if we can visit luray caverns and meet your family?
Virginia Cain[8:28:33 PM]: haha
Lloyd Benson[8:29:58 PM]: As far as the virtual debates, your responsibility is to the historians and articles alone, and not to the participant postings. These latter may help you to understand the articles better, however.
David Hottel[8:30:18 PM]: okay i figured...
Lloyd Benson[8:30:43 PM]: Various relatives are indeed buried in Luray, and some in Winchester (but that's a different war.)
Lloyd Benson[8:32:41 PM]: For you Texans in the crowd, I'll just note that this is more or less a period of stalemate, with a U.S. blockade of Galveston and some ambitions to advance into the state but not much change of condition.
Lloyd Benson[8:33:34 PM]: And without the aesthetics of bloody pitched battles, something important (no advance into Texas) hardly goes noticed in the textbooks, (or on 2d midterms in HST-49)
Lloyd Benson[8:34:27 PM]: Any questions about emancipation policy?
Phillip Garrott[8:34:27 PM]: Emily and I think we should focus more on Texas. Like the entire class.... :)
Virginia Cain[8:34:55 PM]: Wilson's Creek - is the important thing that the Confederates were too disorganized and ill-equipped to pursue?
David Hottel[8:35:04 PM]: Im a little confused with compensated emancipation.... is that the preliminary proposal to his official proclamation on jan 1st 1863
Phillip Garrott[8:35:04 PM]: McPhee wants to know if Yellow Fever affected the war in certain ways.
Lloyd Benson[8:35:48 PM]: Alas, lacking any Pickett's charges and other romantic thrills, Texas just gets its history in other moments. Remember the Alamo. And all those John Wayne movies.
David Hottel[8:36:07 PM]: lol
Lloyd Benson[8:36:30 PM]: Wilson's Creek. Look closely at the battle accounts provided on the syllabus and on the ABPP descriptions. Everybody lost.
David Hottel[8:37:30 PM]: yes but the confederates held the field.... important for their pride at least.... wouldn't you agree? Or were the losses too great to take any pride out of that battle?
Lloyd Benson[8:37:34 PM]: Confederates carried the day at Wilson's Creek, and controversial commander (U.S.) Nathaniel Lyons was killed, but the CSA could not advance further into the state.
Virginia Cain[8:37:46 PM]: right. we've made three different sets of battle reviews to focus on different aspects. but as far as importance goes . . . the union loses, but the confederacy doesn't take missouri. is it because of the aforementioned reasons
Virginia Cain[8:38:11 PM]: ohhh okay
Lloyd Benson[8:38:35 PM]: This left Missouri contested ground -- something like an Iraq of the Civil War, where large areas were pacific and under military control, and other areas devolved into guerilla war, community feuds, or worse.
Lloyd Benson[8:39:38 PM]: Why this matters, especially, is that John C. Fremont came in and started tossing around martial law declarations and calling for the emancipation of Missouri slaves -- until Lincoln rapped his knuckles.
David Hottel[8:39:42 PM]: but these were isolated incidents right? They weren't significantly close to any other battles or conflicts
Virginia Cain[8:39:59 PM]: david, why is your type so small?
David Hottel[8:40:03 PM]: i dont know
David Hottel[8:40:17 PM]: there we go
Lloyd Benson[8:40:17 PM]: (See the assigned documents in this regard. -- something of an odd turn for a nominally antislavery Lincoln -- see Burton on this issue, too.)
David Hottel[8:40:59 PM]: i might go gray for a little southern support since phil is apparently union blue
Phillip Garrott[8:41:54 PM]: Okay....if you had to give us one topic, area of focus, person, place, battlefield, etc to focus on most, what would you say? (Answer of "the entire course" does not apply, haha.)
Lloyd Benson[8:42:01 PM]: Missouri, then, represents something of an opposite analytical problem from Texas -- it's just too messy, and too opaque, and there are fewer easily described movements of blue and gray lumps on the map.
Ben Delahoyde has left the chat.

Yellow fever declined dramatically during the war because of the U.S. blockade and the army's sanitation efforts in occupied cities. Because the military could order all ships to remain in quarantine (however loudly the local merchants and shippers complained of delays) the yellow fever was generally contained before it reached the docks. This was all to the dismay of those who had anticipated with some glee that the fever would wipe out the un-fever-seasoned Yankee occupiers. The U.S. returned the favor in several instances by attempting to ship fever-tainted blankets, etc., into Confederate encampments (and they vice-versa). Germ warfare is not a 20th c. invention.

For your entertainment and review:

http://civilwaranimated.com/

David Donald, Why the North Won (1962)
Beringer, ed., Why the South Lost (1993)
Gary Gallagher, The Confederate War (1999)
Armstead Robinson, Bitter Fruit of Bondage: the Demise of Slavery and the Collapse of the Confederacy (2004)

The Civil War had a lasting effect on the nation. It just took awhile for all the changes to have a permanent hold. Even after taking this course there are still many rocks left unturned, but one of the big things that was illuminated to me was the closeness of the actual war. Also how the people greatly influenced the outcome with their support or the lack thereof. It was also really enjoyable to learn about the personal responses of people in the Shenandoah Valley, and what the war meant to them. The book "Confederates in the Attic" was the most interesting piece of literature we read because it illustrates how people feel from all over the country even though the war happened almost a hundred and fifty years ago. After all was said and done the biggest insight I took out of the class was the North did not truly motivated to end the war until the end of 1862.

When I signed up for this class I knew what the Civil War was but I did not have much of an understanding of it. I really enjoyed learning about the whole era, especially the different aspects on the war. It was great to learn more about the country I live in and how the Civil War changed the USA forever. One of the most important things I learned in this class about the Civil War is that there is definately no clear black/white way to do anything. It was not just "the North" fighting "the South" it goes so much deeper than that. The Ayers book was probably one of the most influential readings for me because I like how the average person can really make a difference in the bigger than life situations. Watching the movie clips helped me also because it gave me a visual understanding to compliment the reading. It’s so amazing to think of how much the US has changed because of the Civil War Era. Even though the US isn’t perfect, civil rights and freedom are a major part of what makes the US the US.

The Civil War was indeed a revolutionary era and probably the defining period in American history. On the one hand, it was the catastrophic culmination of sectional tension, millennial ideals, questions left unanswered by the framers of the US Constitution, and the breakdown of the old national political system. On the other, its result brought sweeping changes by freeing millions of people from bondage, restructuring the political and economic foundations of the country, and redefining the concept of the nation as a whole. The war and its aftermath dramatically increased the powers of both the executive and legislative branches of federal government, and was a victory for big government in general. America would no longer be viewed as a collection of semi-autonomous states, but as one nation. Additionally, it helped to usher in a more pure democracy, involving more people in the political process and toppling the aristocrats of the old South.

What emerged was a very different America than anyone could have imagined in the 1850's. The price of this new nation, for better or worse, was paid in the lives of thousands of the country's finest men.

Despite all that I've learned this term, I still struggle with the same question that I had before the course began: how does a country fall so far that its citizens, who had fought together for freedom less than a hundred years before, begin to fight against each other? While the question of slavery, regional differences, the issue of states' rights, millenial expectations, etc. all played a part in the path to war, it is still hard for me to comprehend that the civil war went on for so long and to such extremes. However, I do believe that the civil war had a lasting affect on the United States. While I recognize that freedom for African Americans was not truly found after nor due to the civil war, I do believe that it was a long process which began with the civil war. Also, America became a stronger entity following the war, a solid nation of united states. The consequences of war are seen so clearly in the history of the civil war. The price was paid not only by the soldiers but by every citizen. I just hope that the lesson of the civil war will continue to be learned by all americans, and that we will never again fall so far away from unity.

The Civil War was a defining period in the life of the United States. The whole idea of a United States held in the balance during the years before, during, and after the Civil War. One thing I gained from the course was that the war era was very complicated! The books we have read in class, the online sites, and the lectures have made me realize that to polarize regions, people, political parties as one way is incorrect and leads to false interpretations. It was interesting to see how politics, and not strictly moral conviction, during the Civil War had a huge impact on the emancipation of the slaves. Also, Lee’s determination to continue to fight in the war, ultimately led to the complete emancipation of every slave. The illusion that was shattered for me by this course was that the North was not staunchly abolitionist and that not all Southerners agreed with slavery. The implications of the Civil War are great, and this class and it’s entire devotion to a few years in the history of the United States speaks to the Civil War’s magnitude and importance.

The American Civil War Era was not only a complicated time for the United States, it was one of its most embarrassing yet defining moments. Despite the fact that an entire race was looked upon as inferior, many of the wars implications has gone on to affect the present. Now, with civil rights laws and the public sentiment become one of equality, we can look back at the war from an educational perspective and learn from our mistakes. One thing that I did not realize coming into this course was the complexity of the issues involved. Every aspect of the Civil War is tied in with at least two other aspects of it. Very confusing! But I can see why so many historians devote their lives to find new things that we can learn from our past.

I found it interesting to look at this class in terms of the continued interest in the Civil War even hundreds of years after the war. Especially with the HOrwitz book was interesting to see other people's view of the war who grew up with different as well as similar viewpoints to mine and learn about the similar preconceptions that people of the Civil War also brought to the table.

I really liked how we looked at how the war really transformed the country and moved it in a new direction especially with economic development. With concerns to the Horowitz book "Condfederates in the Attic" you see how the popular memory of the war is different for everyone, and has various conotations. I think that this is one of the lasting effects of the war.

It was difficult for all sides and opinions to be expressed and evenly represented before the war, during the war, and even after the war. Because so much of the population was literate, writings about the Civil War spawned almost a cult following in the years to follow it. So much passion and pain was lost in the Civil War that people for generations after wanted to remember its memory more than that of the Alamo. The War greatly impacted the lives of millions of Americans at the time, and forever after.

This class has broadened my perspective on the Civil War. Growing up in Connecticut, I got a very different view of the war than the view in this class. Being in this class for a term, I realized how narrow that view actually was. Reading the Ayers and Horowitz books were the most helpful for me, because they let me see the scope of the impact of the war, both back in the 1860's and in the present day. Now, I have realized the huge impact that this war really had, and continues to have even to this day.

The individual, super specific information we discussed revealed the war's impact in a different way than wide, textbook strokes. The Civil War affected individuals in diverse ways - Ayers demonstrated that it was the onset of the War itself that polarized people. As Horwitz showed, the War continues to be discussed and used today. Before the War, Americans were citizens of different states, through the War, they became citizens of different regions, and after the War, they became citizens of one country, albeit with strong (at least in the South) regional ties. In an interesting way, the Civil War actually served to unite Americans perhaps . . .

In this class, I have gotten a different view on the Civil War. Through critical study new turning points in the era arose. I have examined the different perspectives on the civil war and discovered new perspectives. The readings in this class have raised new questions about individuals during the Civil War.

The Civil War was not one fought between static, diametrically opposed groups and certainly not one of static individuals. Throughout the course, we read about how people changed their views about slavery and union. For example, through the Ayers book, we saw how many Virginians went from staunch Unionists to strong supporters of the Confederate cause. Similarly, we could see how Lincoln modified his views on what rights African Americans should be given in America. Overall, I learned that there is no single answer as to what caused the Civil War or as to what its ultimate impact was. To learn the answers to these answers, we have to look to the community level or perhaps even to the individual level.

The study of personal experience during the Civil War in this class has fascinated me. The Ayers' book was a great example of the way in which normal citizens were greatly affected by the War, as so many people were involved on so many levels. I think Horwitz really opened my eyes to the reality that the memory of the Civil War, and even the values it was fought to uphold, on both sides, is still alive and well today. However, it wasn't always that the common soldier knew, or even cared what he was fighting for. He simply fought because it was his duty. The Civil War may have very well been a war of the governments and educated fought by the lower classes.

This is a tough question to address. Certainly there is something to 'get' about the Civil War, and thousands of people even go so far as to dress up and pretend like it all still exists. But it is difficult to understand all of the factors that led up to a nation so divided that there was nothing left to do but shed blood. Scholars might argue about that last statement, but really looking at all of the compromises and conflicts that had arisen in years before, it seems inevitable that conflict would arise. The world has learned much about war since Appomattox, yet we still seem able to find things to shoot other people over. I question whether this might mean that we learned nothing from the Civil War. In truth, I think this class has raised more questions than answers for me, but I would be worried if I had found all the answers.

Q. What was the difference in the civil rights bill that was passed in 1866 versus the bill passed by congress in 1875?


A. The CRB of 1866 was a response to the state conventions and legislation of Fall 1865, esp. the so-called Black Codes. Its emphasis was on basic civil liberties (jury, marriage, movement, due process) The CRB of 1875 involved public accommodations, esp. parks, schools, cemeteries, and transportation. See esp. Age of Lincoln, pp 274 and surrounding, and pp. 307-315ish.

For the full texts, see http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/...n/civrights1866.htm

and

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/civilrightsact.html

the latter was declared unconstitutional in the civil rights cases of 1883:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...R_0109_0003_ZS.html

uu5cR4

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.