Essay on Confederates In The Attic

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

At the beginning of the book, Horowitz sets up the background for his spellbinding interest in the American Civil War. Horwitz wrote this book shortly after settling in Virginia following several years as a journalist overseas. The consciousness out of which Tony Horwitz witnessed conflicts in foreign war zones for decades was imbued with an obsession, sustained since childhood, with the legacy of the American Civil War. When Tony Horwitz was 6, in the 1960's, he learned that his 101-year-old great-grandfather, Isaac Moses Perski, an immigrant from czarist Russia, was an American Civil War buff. So was Horwitz's father. Horwitz became one too. One purpose of this book is to reexamine this connection, to question why a liberal Northerner should find himself drawn to stories and figures that represent much that he has worked against in his own life.What explains this non-Southern, nonmilitary family's fascination with a horrible conflict in which their ancestors had no part? That, the first question raised by Horwitz's splendid commemoration of the war and its legacy, is never quite answered. Appropriately so, perhaps, because Horwitz gives us the Civil War in which Americans see all sorts of unresolved strife: over race, sovereignty, the sanctity of historic landscapes and who should interpret the past. One morning, he hears gunfire outside his house. It turned out to be a group of Civil War reenactors, decked out in Confederate uniforms, filming a scene

American religion has a tendency to bring people together. They manage organizations that feed the hungry, clothe the cold and house the homeless. There are many exceptions, but they are just that, the exception, not the rule. However, this treatise attempts to focus on one of these exceptions, the widespread and (somewhat) secular religion surrounding the civil war, as seen through Tony Horwitz brilliant, “Confederates in the Attic”. This faith, rather than unifying, causes us to disintegrate.

In the modern day, we, Americans, face racism and inequality on a daily basis, whether it is by appreceiving or by being hectored with it. In Confederates in the Attic by Tony Horwitz, Horwitz peppers in the harsh reality of unequal conditions and the struggle of an everyday American that were caused by the Civil War. Horwitz claims the Civil War is unfinished because of the racial tension that is still present, removals of controversial Civil War objects, and superior thinking of both races.

Ezza Zahid In his nonfiction book, Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War, Tony Horwitz meets many different people and learns about their different perceptions of the War. Racial discrimination is one of the major issues that can be traced throughout the timeline of United State’s history. However, the United States has attempted to take action against the discrimination. According to Horwitz’s ideas and journeys in his book, the Civil War remains unfinished.

James M. McPherson sets out to discover what motivated the Confederate and Union soldiers to continue fighting in the Civil War in his book What They Fought For. McPherson analyses nearly a thousand letters, journals, and diary of Union and Confederate soldiers to determine what urged them to fight is this defining American Conflict. McPherson reads and groups together the common thoughts of the everyday soldier, from their letters and journals that none of which had been subjected to any sort of censorship, in that time period. He then generalizes the motivations that they used to fight for their country. Whether it be for slavery or for the Union, the author views both sides of the fighting to analysis their ideological issues, how deep their belief coursed through their veins to continue fighting, and how the soldiers held their convictions close to heart in the time of war.

This book was a good analysis of Civil War soldiers' diaries, and letters to their loved ones. Which explains what they were going through in their lives and what they fought for and risked their lives for in this conflict. In the book the author James M. McPherson uses information from l00's of diaries and letters from the soldiers to learn why they fought in this war. The Union soldiers fought to preserve the Nation that was created in 1776, to save it from destruction. The Confederate soldiers fought for their independence, liberty, self government, and for revenge.

In order to look into the lives of the U.S. citizens during the Civil War I decided to look into the first week from April 12, 1861 to April 18, 1861 of the New York Times. I looked into this week of articles to see how the New York Times covered the outbreak of the war and the people’s response to it. Some of the main war events covered were: call for Union to relinquish command of Fort Sumter and first shots of the war, reaction to the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s Proclamation to add seventy-five thousand volunteers to the war efforts, possible attacks on Fort Pickens, and the Confederate reaction to Lincoln’s Proclamation. During this week, the north was obviously nervous and scared yet felt they would win as well as confused as to why the war was happening at all.

Quite literally brothers had to fight brothers. This sort of warfare shook every solider, commander, and political leader down to their core as they gave the orders to, or actively engaged in combat. The average man who passionately watched the slave debates was now thrust into the combat, whether as a solider or a civilian in the crossfire. There is almost no other topic in the history of the United States that seeped down to every individual man 's lifestyle and became a focus mentally and in the warfare in the way slavery did. The average man 's point of view on slavery is shown in Michael Shaara 's The Killer Angels through soldiers who fought and died over this very ideal. This book 's perspective on the common viewpoint on slavery gives a deep insight on the people who didn 't belong to the political extremes, which is a topic left out in history a decent amount of the time due to a possible lack of relevance seen by instructors or authors. Through this book it becomes visible how every man has is own just cause for fighting in the war, as shown in Chamberlain 's speech that he gives to the soldiers that refused to fight wherein he states: "Some of [them] volunteered to fight for the Union. Some came in mainly because [they] were bored at home and this looked like it might be fun. Some came because [they] were ashamed not to. Many of [them] came because it was the right thing to do" (Shaara 29-30). Even with all these

During the Civil War the Union and the Confederates had different tactics because of their different types of leadership. In this paper I will talk about the types of leaders, how the leadership differed between the leaders, and how the leadership was different between the Union and Confederates. The leaders for the Union I will talk about are Irvin McDowell, Ulysses S. Grant. For the Confederates leaders I will talk about Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Robert E. Lee. I think that the only reason the north had lost so many battles is because the Union had started most of the wars and didn’t wait for the Confederates to come attack them.

Twain recounted his war experiences for an audience in October of 1877 at a dinner for the Boston Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company. He spoke before the dinner recounting his actual Civil War experience.  Twain said, “I was made Second Lieutenant and Chief Mogul of a company of eleven men, who knew nothing about-war - nor anything, for we had no Captain. My friend, who was 19 years old…and just out of the infant school, was made Orderly Sergeant. His name was Ben Tupper. He had a hard time.” Important from his statement is the confirmation that Twain actually held the exact position of the narrator of his story and also the consistent youth and inexperience of the troops. The theme of inexperience is continued in his story many times over. An example of which can be seen when the narrator describes the daily activities of the men, “afternoons, we rode off here and there in squads a few miles and visited the farmer’s girls and had a youthful good time…” These are not the action of hardened killers. Rather, they are those of innocent and ignorant boys that have the misinterpretation that they are fighting a war. This very innocence could be that which Twain shared with his “narrator” at an actual time in history when he too was playing war with the Marion Rangers.

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

If you study the history of any country, it is bound to have uncomfortable topics that the people of that country would rather not think about. This includes the United States; The US is not lacking in uncomfortable topics in its history. If you look at any part if the nation’s history there will be dark sides. However, for many people in the united states they would just rather avoid the blemishes and look at the positive’s and the people such as the founding fathers as if they were perfect. The confederacy is a major part of history and heritage in the south and now many cities are taking down confederate statues because instead of having them there showing figures from a major event in the history of this country, they are too ashamed

Confederate States of America, the name adopted by the federation of 11 slave holding Southern states of the United States that seceded from the Union and were arrayed against the national government during the American Civil War.

In a way, it can be said that these men use the war to suit their own needs in the present. Some reenactors avoid the issue of slavery all together, recreating and romanticizing battles to fulfill their Civil War obsession. While many of the men respect and honor the history they reenact, some use is as a way to elude the past and rearrange the present.