471A3--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday

In Mitchell's article, "Not The General, But The Soldier", He claims that the main reason for the south losing seems to be a lowered morale in the second half of the war. This idea of yeoman farmers heading home to care for sick loved ones and destitute conditions seems the most rational reason I have seen thus far. In fact, I went back to read Gallagher's "Blueprint For victory" and I was shocked Gallagher did not mention this when dealing with strategy. Although I am sure it was a planned strategic goal, however, when dealing with strategy source of how the north won, I assumed this would come up as a reason why strategy was not the most important. --Matt A.

In Kolchin's "Slavery and Freedom In The Civil War South", he ends by discussion the relation between the wartime unraveling of emancipation and black agency during the Civil War. Some historians seem to fall on both sides all agreeing that the war was the catalyst for emancipation. The argument seems to be whether slaves rebelling against their southern masters or political goals changing during the war primarily led to emancipation. This seems to be too black and white for me. Slaves on their own acted in ways to gain autonomy. This just seems natural to work towards your own freedom and independence. Whether they acted more because the war created opportunities that had not existed before is a different story but black agency was always there and itself did not lead to emancipation. On the other hand, aside from Radical Republicans in the north who did advocate emancipation, Lincoln himself saw it as a casualty of the war as stated in Gallagher's article. Therefore i believe that Kolchin showed that both worked together without knowing to push the issue of emancipation far enough that it was a reality. --Matt A.

Regarding the Faust piece, as I read it, something struck me. There have clearly been many changes in the scholarship over time as the Civil War becomes more distant from our time. As many historians have noted, interpretations are subject to the societal values, events, and personalities of their time. However, one aspect that is perhaps underdeveloped in the literature is the concept that different eras simply have different tastes--different stories are more interesting than in other times. To some degree--and maybe not a huge one--I do think that this has had an effect on what elements of the war are stressed and what is not examined as closely. - Carly B. Considering the amount of scholarship on the Civil War I was struck by the amount of topics that have not been, or at least under, represented in literature. McPherson and Cooper, in their introduction, point out that since the civil rights movement Civil War scholarship has exploded and is now focused on more social aspects such as family, women, and other areas that were previously neglected. It would appear that a more balanced, and more importantly complete, approach is being taken. Grant is receiving a fairer, more positive treatment for example. The future of Civil War history seems bright. -Jason

I liked the Gilpin article. I thought it was a different perspective on women in the war than what we have previously read. We have seen how women are involved after the war, with UDC and other organizations but Gilpin explains how our understanding of women and their participation during the war has become clearer and more complex. It was something that I was aware of but not something I knew a whole lot about. I really enjoyed looking at the war from a different angle. – Kayle P

It should be obvious which essay grabbed my attention: the Northern Strategy and Military Policy one of course! Just kidding! I was all over that Drew Gilpin Faust one. I just find it fascinating the debate over the effects of the Civil War on postwar gender roles. There is no clear answer here. Despite my own feelings and the evidence Faust gives, no one can be sure because there was no “one” experience for women. I’m kind of disappointed in Faust’s essay because of her brief mention of race and gender, but it definitely represents the lack of scholarly work on that aspect of Civil War history. Further, this essay is at least as old as 2000. Anya Jabour and Giselle Roberts may have not gotten into race and gender, but they certainly did fill in some of the gap in the study of gender and age during the Civil War. Basically this comment summarizes my HIST299 literature review... -- Brooke

I have to agree with Brooke and Kayle when it comes to the article that most interested me. Like Brooke, I was disappointed with Faust's lack of race and class issues, but I completely understand it because I think it's difficult to find sources for different groups of elite women, so it is definitely the case with the other two. What this article did most for me was raise the question of how much literature has been written since Faust's article to include the categories that lacked scholarly works in years past. Carly W.

This is just a general question…But McPherson and Cooper raised the point that in the last generation that Civil War literature exploded. I was wondering if there was any reason that it was in that time period. It would be right after Civil rights movement (I think I have the time frame right….) so did it relate to that? Or was it some other reason? –Kayle P

I had the same question as Kayle. Why was there an outburst of Civil War scholarship? This is something I actually wrote down to discuss with the class tomorrow! I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was thinking this! -Meg O

Having been exposed to less than ideal conditions myself, I am always interested in the real experiences of Civil War soldiers. I have always been struck by the way their lives are romantically depicted. Mitchell does an excellent job of sifting through the historiography of the subject of the Civil War soldier’s ideology and motivations. I couldn’t help but laugh as his criticism of James I. Robertson when he said of him, “Rarely has a historian so openly shucked his responsibility to represent the past fully.” (p. 86) Ouch! Mitchell’s discussion of the impact of the war in the closing paragraphs of his article was intriguing, but probably needed some more clarification. He poses the question, “Did the war screw up soldiers [psychologically]? He then lists three authors, including McPherson who allegedly find little psychological damage inflicting on Civil War soldiers. (p. 95) I am not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that Civil War soldiers were not psychologically damaged, many of them severely by their experience. Warriors commonly dehumanize their enemies to help deal with the uncivilized act of projecting violence onto them. In WWII they were “Japs”, in Vietnam “gooks”, and in present conflicts “rag heads” (among others). In these conflicts we were killing and injuring those that fit into the “other” category. Soldiers in the Civil War did not have that luxury. That lack of separation, figuratively fighting your brother had to make that experience all the more troubling. We have modern day warriors fighting to cope with the grief of taking the life of someone that doesn’t share a common race, religion, ideology, country, language, etc. Trust me, the more different someone is from you the easier it is to inflict harm on them and psychologically cope with it. -Jason

Jason brings up a really good point about dehumanization and war. I had some of the same critiques of Mitchell, but on a different question: Is paranoia ideology? (94). I don't think the question is invalid, but I do think it's a strange place to be asking it, at the end of a piece instead of at the beginning. And, I think it ignores some of the psychological aspects of the war, both on the part of soldiers and on the part of those at home. - Carly B

I really liked how these readings were dealing with a whole range of things, not just one aspect of the war. I have many questions to ask tomorrow, not only to lead discussion but also just questions I was wondering while reading the different articles. I also thought it was really interesting how almost everyone referenced McPherson in their article. Anyways, I saw a lot of things that questioned the Lost Cause for me, for example when Roark was talking about the production and distribution of food in the Confederacy..it made me wonder if the Confederacy defeated itself before the war had even started. -Meg O

I thought it was interesting that even though the topics all focused on different aspects of the Civil War, they all had similar dates of scholarly activity. The most obvious being that alot was written during the 1920s-30s and then again in the 60s-70s. Both of these time periods saw social and political upheaval, inspiring a new generation of historians to look at the Civil War and its subcategories differently. -Cameron F.

In Mitchell's essay, he does an overview on Wiley's studies on Civil War soldiers. It’s interesting how Wiley noted that the men who joined the confederacy joined over the issue of slavery. I feel like whenever we have discussed reasons for why soldiers joined the war, it was for a deeper meaning. It is surprising that in his book he only spent four pages on their reasoning’s, especially when we start to discuss their understandings of liberty (like the essay mentions). I am curious as to why he left out such an important aspect such as their ideologies when writing his book. I am also wondering why Mitchell didn’t make any conclusions to why this may have been. –Ana Y.

I really liked Faust’s essay on women, but I wish that she had done a little more speculation for the gender aspect of this essay. Like already mentioned before me, it’s understandable that she may not have had enough scholarly evidence, but she could have added her opinion. I do like how in the beginning she identifies how shifts in scholarly work went from what women did for the war to what the war did for women. It makes it a little easier to understand the direction of her analysis. – Ana Y.

Not only were these readings all so very interesting, but I found them really helpful as examples of good lit reviews. I'm one who learns best by examples, and all of these essays show different ways to look at scholarship. I know this will be of use in later classes and future lit reviews, so this reading assignment was important for me in that way. -Cameron F.

Peter Kolchin’s article was also pretty interesting. I wish he would have explored more on the reasons why the historiography of blacks helping the Confederate cause seems to avoid “what circumstances might have led slave to work on behalf of a slaveholders’ rebellion” (244). Following Faust’s essay, I also kind of hoped for this essay to have more on the effects of emancipation on masculinity and gender roles in the postwar society. I know that wasn’t the point of his essay, but Faust leaves the reader kind of hanging on that. -- Brooke

One of the more interesting points in "Behind The Lines" I enjoyed was the creation of welfare programs in the Confederacy during the Civil War. This welfare program, developed to help alleviate poor white farmers struggling because of the war, seems against the ideology of the Confederacy. The idea of state's rights comes into mind and the Confederacy's attempt to help struggling farmers throughout the CSA by providing food "below market prices" falls in line with a more centralized big government (215). -- Donald P

I found Reid Mitchell's article pretty interesting. Particularly the debate on why so many civilians joined the Confederacy. He states that some of the reasons were the South's hatred of the Yankees, their issues with losing slavery, and their desire for adventure. I understand the first two reasons to enlist, but the desire for adventure doesn't really convince me as to why someone would enlist. The same tactic is used today. I remember when I was in high school army recruiters would visit and say something along the lines of, go on the ultimate adventure and become a US soldier. For some reason when I think of adventure, I think Lord of the Rings, not enlisting.-- George H McPherson and Cooper's article stood out to me during the readings. Their argument about the Civil War being a "total war" was very interesting. A total war represents a conflict in which the enemies entire war-making capacity is targeted. I would agree that the Civil War was a total war; the Union attacked every aspect of the Confederacy, destroying their armies, economic infrastructure, and the civilian will.-- George H

I thought Henry Timrod's poem regarding women and the Confederacy provided an interesting insight into the perceived roles of women during the Civil War. Although my ability to analyze poems isn't the best, I will take a crack at it. Southern women willingly sacrificed to the Confederacy just as much as the men fighting. Despite not being able to fight, their stoic nature provided great support to the CSA. Women in the south were appreciated greatly for their efforts. Women on both sides were supportive of their nation's cause, however how did the centrality of gender during the Civil War help women's perception post war? -- Donald P.

The readings for today provided numerous views and opinions towards the works that have been devoted to writing the history of the Civil War. As Dr. M keeps mentioning in class, many of these works are great examples of literature reviews on the topic, which is something I never put much thought into until he started bringing it up and has completely changed how I view what I read now. The McPherson article does an excellent job of covering all of the different aspects of the war and the impact they had on politics, society and the landscape. While each of the other articles focus solely on certain aspects of the war, I found the Faust reading interesting because it deals a lot with what my 485 is covering and she brings a different view of women's roles within the war to the table. --Mary O.