The Confederate War : How Popular Will, Nationalism, And Military Strategy

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.

Beginning as a battle of army versus army, the war became a conflict of society against society. In this kind of war, the ability to mobilize economic resources, the effectiveness of political leadership, and a society’s willingness to keep up the fight despite setbacks, are as crucial to the outcome as success or failure on the battlefields. Unfortunately for the Southern planters, by the spring of 1865, the South was exhausted, and on April 9, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, effectively ending the war.

James McPherson was born on October 11th 1936, he is an American Civil War historian. He received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. McPherson was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica. In his early career McPherson wanted to leave a legacy as being known for the historian who focusses on more than one point. Through skillful narrative in a broad-ranging oeuvre of essays and books, McPherson has succeeded in telling both stories, combining social, political, and military history to reach a broad scholarly and popular audience, emphasizing all the while that the Civil War constituted a “second American Revolution.” Examining thousands of letters and diaries written by soldiers to gather a better insight and understanding, McPherson argued that deep political and ideological convictions about liberty, slavery, religion, and nation were the fundamental reasons that men on both sides enlisted and fought. McPherson’s views on the Civil War are broad in comparison to many other writers, he believes there are multiple causes to the war but that the underlying cause was slavery and that Southern states used the saying “States’ Rights” to justify their actions of slavery and secession. It became a psychological necessity for the South to deny that the war was about slavery that they were fighting for the preservation, defense and

In 1994, McPherson wrote the book, What They Fought For: 1861-1865, about his exploration on the motivations of the soldiers that fought in the Civil War (“James M. McPherson” par. 6). He analyzed the letters and diaries of twenty-five thousand soldiers, ultimately determining the reasons for the soldier’s continuance to fight during the Civil War.

Despite the differences in the primary reasons for Northerners in the war, Gallagher and Manning’s arguments align on certain aspects of slavery: both argue that in order for the Union to successfully win the war, slavery needed to be abolished. Gallagher argues that many northerners realized that in order to end the war and to rid nation of conflict and threat to the Union, slavery would need to be abolished. He argues, “Without slavery and the various issues related to its expansion, most white northerners could envision no serious internal threat to their beloved union.” Similarly, Manning also argues that there was a threat to the union because of slavery, whether Northerners liked it or not: “In 1861, a large and growing number of ordinary soldiers believed that a war endangering the Union had come about because of slavery. White Southerners’ willingness to destroy the Union over slavery made the war about slavery whether an individual Union soldier wanted it that way or not.” Therefore, Manning’s argument states that there is a need for the end of slavery in order to preserve the Union.

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

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at.

The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s

The South vs. The South by William Freehling is a narrative that focuses on the civil war that affected a vast number of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy regardless of whether they were white or black. These “anti-Confederates,” as termed by Freehling comprised Slaves and Boarder state whites who together formed half the southern population and were significant to the Union victory. By weakening the Confederacy military, contributing manpower and resources to the Union and dividing the southern home front, the anti-Confederates made a critical contribution to the Union war efforts that hastened the end of the war leading to the Union’s victory. The U.S was not the only house that was divided; Divisions between pro-and anti-Confederates, white and black, and the loyalty of both upper and lower states to slavery contributed a lot to the downfall of the confederates. “Divisions within the South helped pave the path toward war. The same divisions behind army lines helped turn the war against the slaveholders.”(p.10). William Freehling argues that more than 450,000 Union troops from the South, especially southern blacks and border state whites, helped in the defeat of the confederates. Further, when the southern Border States rejected the Confederacy, more than a half of the South’s capacity swelled the North’s advantage.

During the Civil War, there were two sides, the Confederate Army and the Union Army. While the Confederates fought for slavery, the Union fought for their freedom. While the

If the north was to succeed, they would forever be oppressed by their victory, and slaves of their achievements. The Confederates fought to promote the wellbeing of their family and the protection of their land “from Yankee outrage and atrocity”(Mc.Pherson 20) .

The American Civil War was a military conflict between the United States of America (the Union), and 11 secessionist Southern states, organized as the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). It was the culmination of four decades of intense sectional conflict and it reflected deep-seated economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. Many books have been written on this “first modern war” describing how over 620,000 men were killed. Jeff Shaara goes deeper and explores the personal conflicts of four historical figures, two from the South and two from North: General Lee, General Jackson, Colonel Chamberlain, and Hancock.

James McPherson the author of What They Fought For 1861-1865, thesis states that the soldiers from both the North and South fought for a large extent for ideology, and not exclusively as brothers in war with other soldiers, for principles of strength or courage, and for the nations of honor and duty. McPherson uses hundreds of letters and diaries from soldiers from both the Union and Confederate troops to show their experience. He tries to focus on a variety of attitudes and motives from the volunteer soldiers. These young men coped with fear, stress, exhaustion, pain, and death everyday while out there fighting. “A final theme that will receive attention is ideology,” (McPherson 1) this is what the soldiers supposed they were fighting for during the Civil War.