Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Dustin, i think you pretty well illustrate the problem many, if not most, Southerners faced with the splitting of the country. How many actually wanted to have to fight a war? But if there was going to be a war, then what to do? One thing that is obvious throughout the war is that, no matter what atrocities were committed- for how to prevent them in time of unrest?, the soldiers in the main did not hate their opposite number. In fact, when not in active fighting and in relative approximation, the fraternization and itermingling was universal. In fact, during many instances of skirmishing, informal truces between the belligerents went into play - ('Hey Yank, if you don't shoot for a bit, we won't either, and we can all fill our canteens.' 'Alright, Johnny, we'll give you a heads up if we have to start shootin again.')
What it comes down to is the identification, if not absolutely conscious, of being Americans. Of course, men of the time identified with their state and called themselves 'Ohioans', 'Alabamians', etc, but in their psyche was that part of them that was 'American', whether a Southern American, Northern American, slave holding American and what have you, but assuredly an American. They knew inherently that they were not indigenous nor British nor French, but of America. The Mexican authorities saw this when the American emigrants were granted deeds in the Mexican province of Texas in the '30s & '40s, grew gravely concerned, and attempted to stem the flow (unsuccessfully) of Americans into the province. They could see that these folks were not likely to forget their primary allegiance and assimilate, notwithstanding that Mexican citizenship was accepted. Did they not prove farseeing?
As to the Southerners problem of having to defend slavery, i don't believe many of them took up the cause of the Confederacy for that reason. Most did not like slavery either. What it was to them was an established social order, which, if removed, would be a truly dreadful occurrence. Would not the freed slaves disrupt the entire social order of the South and not turn on them, their former masters? Ugly as slavery was to them, at least it amounted to some kind of order. The example of Saint-Domingue and the successful slave rebellion was not so long ago nor faraway nor absolutely frightening to be forgotten. The thought of the continued existence of the abhorrent chattel slavery did not weigh evenly with its abolition.
Ultimately, as in the North, each person had to decide for himself. As many Southerners fought for the North, as Neil points out, many Northerners fought for the South. Who is to know how he would decide in the necessity of the moment? We thankfully, unlike our unhappy countrymen of the time, are spared the question. We can only intelectually (or intuitively) figure how we would decide, and thank the Great and Living Lord, as well as our countrymen who decided the issue, for this.
(Message edited by ewc on July 25, 2004)
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Very Much so edward.. I have read accounts were the pickets & Skimishers agreed to load their guns with blanks. I would guess just like what we reenactors use. And faire away at each other harmlessly.
__________________ Steven Noel Cone Living Historian and Battlefield Preservationest
"Silver Spring Mess" ; "Citizens of the Bonnie Blue" ; "46th Tn Inf. Co. K"
'I think we mostly would like to be able to warn them, to tell them of the bloodshed that would happen, if only to spare their lives.
'Who knows what genius was killed, what man might have contributed to our world and understanding?
'That is the true crime of war, it takes away lives that might have bettered our own, it takes away the light of human love and spirit, and replaces it with a horrible, dark silence.'
Neil, my friend, you are a poet of haunting eloquence.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
I have found this conversation to be emmencly interesting, and I would like to chime in a woman's point of view, and a Northern woman's at that and a Wisconsinites.
This may have been a war between the states and a war between brothers but it was also a war on the home front. The men argued and discussed and debated over whether to fight or not, to susseed or not, but the women bore the bront of this conflict as much as the men. Prior to the war Victorian women were bred to be upstanding ladies, to be honorable and faithful to their husbands, and to take care of and nurture their families. And yet the debate never came up as to whether these fare women could sustaine their homes once the war came on. Whether to go or not would not have been a woman's choice, but how to survive was. If the men left how were they to take care of themselves? They had never had to do it before. The pioneer women and immigrants were self sufficient, but the gentle lady was not. Take for example the husband goes off to fight, and gets killed, and then the oldest son goes off to fight to avenge his father, and he gets killed, and the cycle goes on.
As a women, whether I be north or south, I wouldn't have wanted anyone to go. That may just be hormones talking, but it would have scared the crap out of me to be left on my own. I would have been strong and stood up for what my husband believed in, but I would have been a nervous wreck inside. I read a very interesting diary by Cornella Peak McDonald of Winchester, VA, and although she was a very strong woman, she did not want the war at all. She understood where the men were coming from, but the thought of taking care of her 5 kids that were at home, and worrying about her husband who rode with Jackson, and her son that also was with a cav unit, was too much at times for her to handle. She became a rufgee and moved to Lexington, VA, bought a side of a house and stayed there once her husband died of disease. She broke down with grief and the miserable thought of she and her family were going to die of starvation. What a weight! And did they think of that when they decided to split the nation?
Now, the Wisconsin homefront was a bit different then other areas of the country. We weren't required to send as many troops off, and let me tell you, when they had Camp Randle as a Confederate prison camp, that turned heads for sure! But we were a very rural community, with farming and the logging industry being major to the economy, and the golden age of wheat having ended shortly before the war, Wisconsin was actually in a depression. The war halted most of the major agricultural advancements, and Wisconsin came to a stand still. I have read letters home from WI soldiers that said they didn't want to fight for the "darkies" that they wanted to fight for the preservation of the Union and that was it. Get them home as fast as they could. It wasn't that they agreed with slavery, nor do I, but they did not see it as the cause to the war.
I have a good friend from Baton Rouge, and we had an interesting dicussion on slavery, and she was telling me that it is not entirely the whites fault that there was slavery, that blacks were actually selling blacks in Africa as slaves. It would usually be one tribes selling off the captives of a fueding tribe, but that the whites helped to fuel this. And yes, it was expensive to own slaves. Figure you had to cloth, feed and maintain them in order to make them productive. But that's a discussion for another board.
I hope that this does not step on toes, but I did want to put a woman's point of view out there.
Jenna, that's a good, thought-provoking post. I have to admit that I haven't given much thought to what the wives, mothers, and sisters endured when the husbands, sons, and brothers went off to war. It must have been pretty unsettling to a wife, who was left alone to provide for her family, especially if her husband was killed or disabled. Those women had to be extremely strong for them to be able to get through the many worries that they had to deal with. Thanks for the post....Terry
Two of my gg grandfathers fought with the United States Army between 1863 and 1865. Both were southerners from east Tennessee and western North Carolina. Farmers, both with large families prior to and after the war. I think there is some basis in Steven Cone's comment earlier about the spot on the earth these men might have occupied at the precise time the regiments were being formed. GG grandads Cockerham and Arnold had no slaves and no use for them. The tariffs didn't affect their subsistance farm operation or their jobs making cabinets or working at the post office. The Home Guard was a factor in the decision of where and how to serve for those who had the nerve to express some allegiance to the federal government, only a second generation away from the American Revolution. A nation was growing and there was something to be said for preserving the union of thirty-some states that gave us power in the world. GG grandad Rouse fought for two years under Thomas Jackson with the 48th Virginia and after charging Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, he came home to his wife and four young sons that winter of 63-64. Early spring saw him jump the fence and take the oath of allegiance to his country before joining the 3rd North Carolina under Gen. Stoneman. He was honorably discharged at war's end standing next to his brother James who had served with the same regiment. I've met some folks in the SCV who spend a lot of time and energy wandering around muttering about yankees, particularly the soldiers who fought for the US Army 1861-65. (The ones who move down here looking for jobs and sunshine are a different story.) I have repeatedly pointed out, often to some stares, that the US Army wasn't made up of yankees (yes, there were a few in the bunch), but in many cases the brothers and cousins of those who wore the gray. Civl War was and is a horrible concept.
When I first got into Civil War reenacting and more deeply into the history of that war, I was surprised to find out that 5,000 Ohioians went south to fight for the Confederacy, not to support slavery, but to support the idea of states rights.
Indeed, one man who did so that I try to reenact in my Confederate unit, the 17th Mississippi, is based on an acutal figure who was a carpenter in Columbus, Ohio, before the war and who went to Holly Springs, Mississippi, to enlist in the 17th Mississippi and rose to the rank of sergeant during the war.
Whose side would I have enlisted on? God only knows after reading this bit of history. I might have been a Douglas Democrat or for Bell or perhaps for Lincoln. I only know what I feel now in this time and place and I am sure most of the other board members know my feelings on that subject!
But to have the audacity to claim what I would do if I was living in that time? No, I truly do not know what I would have thought to have done. Raised up in that time with those values and political troubles, who truly knows what a person would have done? And while researching my family, I found out my ancestors came out of Virginia before the war. Would I have leaned towards the South during that time? BIG question mark!
But again, I feel the loss of how many who might have contributed in so many other ways if the war had been avoided somehow. That is the one feeling that really stays with me.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Thank you for your post, Jenna. The war sure was terrible for women. My family was filled to the brim with farmers, so while the men went off to war (and at least three of my family did), they had to stay home and help tend the farms. Then they had to take care of the men who would be forever affected by what they experienced, and what illnesses they may have succumbed to.
As for my loyalties, I've thought about this. If I were living back then, I would have to say that I would have sided with the Union. I don't feel that the Union is something that should be easily broken up. I love my country, the whole thing, and breaking it up would break my heart. Of course, each situation is different and who knows what other factors I would have had affecting me at that time.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
