The Won Cause

The Grand Army of the Republic formed after the Civil War as a way for former Union soldiers to remember their experiences, support each other, and find a place of belonging.  While some scholars have focused on racism and division in the GAR, Barbara Gannon, author of The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic, the GAR represented one of the only places of the time blacks and whites were considered somewhat equal due to their sacrifice and bravery during the Civil War.

The GAR was and interracial group.  During a time when Jim Crow laws, segregation, and poll taxes were oppressing African Americans, the GAR stood for inclusion and representation for them.  While it did include them, the presence of all black GAR posts most likely means whites never fully embraced them in the integrated posts. Regardless, African Americans participated in the politics of the group on the state level. They nominated men for office in the organization and were also nominated themselves.  In a speech given by African American member, Comrade Smith, on being elected he stated, "You preach that in our order there is no color line; and to-day you have demonstrated the fact by your actions" (Gannon Kindle Location 500).  According to Gannon, GAR was one of the most prestigious organization there was during its time and the fact that so many white Americans were willing to accept blacks as equals in their group was incredibly important. This political and social equality was something African Americans could not experience anywhere outside the group.  In a speech delivered to an interracial GAR audience, Comrade Jacob Hector boasted, "I greet you and you greet me as comrades if the Grand Army of the Republic- the only association on this side of Heaven, where black men and white men mingle on a foot of equality" (Gannon Kindle Location 318).

The bond between white veterans and black veterans was created by the memories if their shared suffering during the Civil War.  The GAR was interracial because "it's members, both black and white, thought it should be" (Gannon Kindle Location 325).  These men fought together during the Civil War and the integration was based on that shared service and experience.  Gannon mentions "African Americans' place in the historic Memory of the GAR, the Civil War narrative articulated by members of this group, relied on the personal memory of white veterans who fought in the same battles and campaigns as their black counterparts" (Gannon Kindle Location 2166).  Most white Americans believed anyone who suffered for the Union cause during the Civil War deserved to be included in the GAR.  Memories of these sufferings "created enduring comradeship" (Gannon Kindle Location 2327).  Many suffered from disease, wounds, and psychological illness after the war, making this comradeship invaluable to them.  The charity work the GAR did for fellow veterans was also incredibly important for post-war veterans' well-being.  These veterans not only took comfort from their comradeship, "but they also found solace in their cause" (Gannon Kindle Location 2661).  Many GAR members had not yet forgiven the Confederates and took comfort in affirming with one another that the Union cause was just and the Confederates were wrong.

In former slave states, African American GAR members were not as easily accepted as in states who were free prior to the Civil War.  Gannon informs us that "Most black veterans had been born in the southern states, and many returned home after the war to former Confederate states" (Gannon Kindle Location 548).  Although black veterans were sometimes excluded from the white posts in the South, this was controversial, which suggests that most white veterans were committed to keeping GAR interracial.  The national GAR would get involved if black veterans were barred from joining a post.  White veterans in the South usually failed in trying to stop black veterans from joining the GAR.  Surprisingly, "African Americans in former slave states had more success achieving public office than their counterparts on antebellum free states" (Gannon Kindle Location 646).

"Many black veterans shared their fellowship with white veterans" in integrated posts, especially in large cities like Denver and Hartford (Gannon Kindle Location 1584).  Free states had more integrated posts than former slave states did.  Racial attitudes in the South made forming integrated posts there close to impossible.  Border states did sometimes have integrated posts and there were a few in former slaves states.  In Kentucky, one integrated post member told officials that "one of our delegates here today is a negro, and we have no member here for whose integrity and Christian character I have more respect" (Gannon Kindle Location 2012).  GAR members honored their dead comrades regardless of their race.  Integrated post members also cared for African American veterans' families after the comrade passed away.  Not only did integrated posts welcome different races, but also different social classes.  In order to join these integrated groups, African Americans had to risk rejection and white Americans had to stand up for their inclusion.

While African American veterans did join integrated posts, the also created their own all black posts which were usually "named after individuals prominent in the African America freedom struggle" (Gannon Kindle Location 1126).  These organizations were very important to the African American community.  Gannon posits that these organizations were formed not because of exclusion or pressure from mostly white posts, but "created and maintained by African Americans for their own purposes" (Gannon Kindle Location 720).  One reason these posts were created was "to challenge the notion of an all-white Civil War" (Gannon Kindle Location 770).  Black posts were also likely created because the provided more leadership opportunities for African Americans than white posts would.  Although they had their own posts, they were not isolated from white posts.  White and black posts often celebrated and mourned together.  Black and white veterans participated in social events, relief efforts, and other rituals.  Black veterans could not expect integrated groups to promote pro-black agendas.  Emancipation was enough for most white Americans; Constitutional equality was important to black Americans.  For most white Americans, segregation was not a pressing issue.

Memorial Day was especially important to black posts and was used to fight for their own version of Civil War Memory.  Black posts would participate in Memorial Day church meetings, graveside ceremonies, and parades.  White Americans often took note of these events.  Members decorated their comrade's graves and often took on the responsibility of decorating white soldier's graves in the South.  Parades were usually integrated and provided people with "inspiration and entertainment" (Gannon Kindle Location 1552).  These events helped black veterans to further fight the idea of the Civil War being an all-white war.

The three primary principles of the Grand Army of the Republic were "fraternity, charity, and loyalty" (Gannon Kindle Location 673).  The GAR was committed to instilling patriotic sentiment in the next generation.  This was true in both white and black posts.  Black posts do seen to have been more dedicated to following GAR guidelines.  They were more likely than white posts to purchase and wear uniforms.  Gannon argues that "Given the poverty of black veterans, purchasing a uniform required great sacrifice and indicated their devotion to GAR" (Gannon Kindle Location 807).  They also maintained their posts for a long time, demonstrating their dedication and resilience, and often had better attendance than white posts.  Due to a larger portion of illiteracy than white posts, black posts do seen to have had trouble keeping records and keeping up with paperwork.

Gannon asserts that more important than arguing over won or lost causes is remembering "the suffering and sacrifices of both the men who died and those who lived, including the black and white comrades of the GAR" (Gannon Kindle Location 272).   More important than convincing people of a won cause or discrediting a lost cause, it is necessary to recall "the interracial blood sacrifice that redeemed, transformed, and made possible the modern United States- the living legacy of the black and white comrades of the Grand Army if the Republic" (Gannon Kindle Location 3739).

The Hard Hand of War, Chapters 7-9

Burning of Atlanta

The policy of the United States toward the Confederate States of America during the Civil War moved from one of conciliation to pragmatism to hard war.  Conciliation made sense at the beginning of the war, but had to be abandoned.  Up to a certain point, it had worked.  The message of conciliation was not being understood clearly by the Confederates, partially due to certain contradictions, which caused the strategy to have to be abandoned.  Mark Grimsley, author of The Hard Hand of War, argues that "it is unlikely that the Southern people ever really understood the message of forbearance that Lincoln and other Northern moderates were trying to communicate" (Grimsley 211).  The war had already been destructive, but generally prior to the introduction of this new policy, war was not waged against civilians.  The Emancipation Proclamation officially brought about the hard war policy and Grant's ascension to command firmly established it.  The year 1863 marked the turning point in policy and the start of destruction at a wider scale.

Hard war had already been flirted with by other generals of the United States.  Grimsley claims that this was not hard war, but "a rigorous application of the pragmatic policy" (Grimsley 143).  Destruction of private property was usually in response to guerrilla warfare.  Other times it was pure vandalism, like the burning of private residences for no reason.  In Jackson, Mississippi, Major Thomas T. Taylor wrote that "the army acted more as a mob, than as disciplined soldiers" (Grimsley 161).  Destruction of railroads was considered legitimate by both sides.

Although hard war became the general policy by 1863, the severity varied from general to general.  Some generals carried out the policy indiscriminately.  Others disliked the hard war policy entirely.  Major General Henry W. Halleck was in favor in dealing with the South more harshly.  General Order No. 100 asserted "Sharp wars are brief" (Grimsley 149).  General William Tecumseh Sherman was never completely comfortable with the hard war policy.  Grimsley contends that "[i]t bothered him that soldiers would not confine themselves simply to authorized destruction" (Grimsley 193).

Most generals agreed that the hard war policy should be used with "appropriate discrimination" (Grimsley 180).  For the most part, property of those who supported the Confederacy was all that was targeted.  Few generals allowed for "wanton devastation" (Grimsley 150).  Sherman stated regarding the evacuation of Atlanta: "We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your lands, or anything you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States.  That we will have, and if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it" (Grimsley 188).  Generals understood that anything that made peace more difficult after the war was over would be counterproductive and wrong.  Sherman asserted during the Savannah Campaign that commanders should "order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility" (Grimsley 175).

War-related factories and mills were often among the buildings destroyed.  Buildings that could be used in any way in the war effort were also often burned.  Not only did Union soldiers use Confederate crops and livestock to survive, they would destroy what they could not use in an attempt to cripple the Confederate army, guerrillas, and supporters.  Sherman reported on July 14, 1863, to Grant: "We are absolutely stripping the country of corn, hogs, sheep, poultry, everything, and the new-growing corn is being thrown open as pasture fields or hauled for the use of our animals" (Grimsley 159).  This devastation was practical, but also psychological, attempting a blow to the Confederate civilians and soldiers morale.

Soldiers were not allowed to enter private homes without permission or destroy anything that was not considered military necessity.  Theft was also greatly frowned upon.  General David Hunter witnessed soldiers breaking into homes and taking "dresses, ornaments, books, [and] money" (Grimsley 178).  He was furious at this scene.  Union soldiers became conditioned to the level of destruction with Grant in Mississippi.  It was hard enough to keep soldiers from vandalizing and stealing prior to the introduction of hard war policy.  It became more difficult after destruction and foraging were a normal part of their duties.

Some soldiers agreed wholeheartedly with the hard war policy.  Even so, they believed only those who deserved it should be affected and "only in rough proportion to the extent of their sins" (Grimsley 185).  Others felt disturbed by it.  One soldier wrote home to his wife saying that while the strategy was effective at weakening the enemy, he could not "but feel a kind of a sense of injustice connected with it" (Grimsley 158).  Some soldiers believed it turned Southern civilians into enemies.

Grant aimed for a two-pronged strategy - one of annihilating Lee's army, the other, destruction of the Southern resources.  Grant saw the destruction as nothing more than a military necessity, albeit an unfortunate one.  According to Grimsley: "Grant, although willing to inflict destruction on a large scale if necessary to defeat the enemy, was far from embracing a policy of indiscriminate devastation" (Grimsley 162).

According to Grimsley, hard war was key in defeating the Confederacy:

"By destroying railroads they had crippled the South's ability to transfer men and supplies from one theater to another.  By eliminating arsenals, foundries, lead mines, and other factories they had ended the South's ability to create the sinews of war.  And by taking livestock and burning or despoiling they had done great temporary harm to the South's ability to feed itself" (Grimsley 203).

He asserts that more important than all of this was the blows dealt to Southern morale.  They no longer had confidence they could keep up the fight and win their independence.  Grimsley argues that even after years of warfare, most soldiers "still maintained a basic morality" (Grimsley 185) which differs from wars in history that are considered "total wars."  This morality did not stop destruction, but "it channeled it in some directions and away from others" (Grimsley 185).  Hard war damaged much Southern property, but restraint was also exercised.

No Place For The Sick: Reflection on Meier

During the first years of the Civil War, soldiers diaries were filled more with more information about where they slept, what they ate, and various ailments they faced than content about the combat itself.  The weather greatly affected soldiers mental and physical health.  According to Kathryn S. Meier, "disease caused two-thirds of soldier mortalities by war's end" (Meier 177).  She argues that self-care became extremely important for soldiers to learn and practice.

During the Peninsula Campaign and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, soldiers experienced similar environmental conditions.  Clothing and shelter did little to protect them from pests, seasonal changes, and inclement weather.  Weather affected their mental health as well as their physical health.  Soldiers seemed to feel the most depressed and homesick when the weather was bad, to the point of exhibiting physical symptoms of their depression.

Meier posits that mental and physical health remained closely knit to each other during the Civil War and it was not always battle loses that contributed to poor morale.  Poor morale could make a person sick or keep them from recovering.  Being low in spirits could even cause a person to succumb to their illness entirely.

Nature was not the ultimate culprit of disease, but it did play a role in the health of Civil War soldiers.  The environment of Shenandoah Valley and the Peninsula of Virginia are very different, but the exposure to the elements was very similar.  Soldiers lived, slept, and fought outside, regardless of the weather.  The affect of the environment was less on the officers, as they slept in houses or tents.  They also had the advantage of better medical care, although officers also subscribed to self-care.

Exposure to so many people played a larger role in sickness than the exposure to the elements did.  Rural citizens especially were afflicted as they had not been exposed to many of the diseases the urban men had.  Most soldiers agreed death by disease was worse than death on the battlefield.  Meier reveals that soldiers were fearful that disease would rob them "of a chance to fulfill their sense of duty" (Meier 184).  Treatment of wounded men was preferred over treatment of the sick by the officers and surgeons.

Self-care habits were important for soldiers to develop if they wanted to remain in good health, especially during the early years of the war.  Some of these habits included: "practicing personal hygiene, supplementing one's diet with fruits and vegetables, exercising regularly, protecting oneself from the elements, eradicating pests, and consistently communicating with loved ones" (Meier 177).  These habits not only helped soldiers stay in good mental and physical health, but assisted in recovery when they did get sick.  Military healthcare did improve as the war went on, but the soldier was primarily responsible for his own health.  Pennsylvanian Corporal John H. Bevin wrote his parents and illustrated, "We must take care of ourselves or we will be likely to get sick" (Meier 190). This was a fairly new idea prior to the Civil War and many soldiers never learned these skills.

Soldiers who washed their clothes and bathed regularly were in better health and morale.  These habits eradicated insects and helped with infections and rashes.  Maintaining a healthy diet was difficult to do, but important.  Soldiers who foraged for berries and other fruits fared better against sickness and depression than those who did not.  Clean water was invaluable as well to keeping up health and morale.  Boiling water for coffee helped and clean water was sometimes purchased.

Keeping in touch with family was extremely important for a soldier's mental and physical health.  "Soldiers," Meier points out, "depended on contact with their loved ones, and it is hard to find a man who did not suggest his family write him more often" (Meier 196).  They were able to vent their unhappiness and educate their family about their progress.  In addition to family, relationships with fellow soldiers were important to self-care.  Soldiers would look out for and take care of one another.  They would also educate each other and offer advice.

The U.S. Sanitary Commission played a huge role in improving the health of the Union army.  Their system favored prevention by focusing on hygeine over damage control.  The commission "gathered and distributed food, clothing, and medical supplies, provided nurses in the hospitals, sent inspectors into camps and hospitals to agitate for reform, and printed and distributed instructional pamphlets on environmental disease and treatment" (Meier 197).

Soldiers in the war who practiced self-care faired much better than those who did not, mentally and physically.  The conditions of army life were brutal, but its affects could be curbed by taking care of oneself, bathing often, eating and drinking well, getting sleep, and keeping in touch with family.  According to Meier, not doing these things was often an individual's choice.  Through self-care, a soldier had more control over his wartime experience.

This Fiery Trial, VI-VII

In the beginning of Lincoln's speeches and writings, he was weary to add emancipation to the Union's war aims and to use black soldiers in the war effort.  As the Civil War raged on, his views evolved significantly.  They changed so considerably that, by the end of the war, he was boldly calling for permanant emancipation, an anti-slavery amendment, and limited suffrage for African Americans.

Lincoln faced criticism regarding his emancipation proclamation and use of African Americans as soldiers.  He stood by these decisions.  He used the examples of Maryland and Missouri to explain how much opinion regarding emancipation had changed: "Maryland, and Missouri, neither of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slavery into new territories, only dispute now as to the best mode of removing it within their own limits" (Gienapp Kindle Locations 2541-2542).  He argued that he had done nothing more than what the Constitution allowed him to do and reiterated that the proclamation was a war strategy to hurt the Confederacy.  He heralded the use of former slaves in the war effort as a huge success.  African Americans could "bear arms in the ranks; thus giving the double advantage of taking so much labor from the insurgent cause" (Gienapp Kindle Locations 2543-2544).  He went on to say that the new recruits had been tested and proven themselves to be good soldiers.

In regards to reconstruction, Lincoln made it clear that the emancipation of African Americans would stand.  Having slaves serve as soldiers by promising them their freedom, then taking that away, would "be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith" (Gienapp Kindle Location 2564).  Lincoln was willing to look forward and not backward regarding the rebel states.  He was willing to grant "a full pardon... to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves" as long as they were willing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States (Gienapp Kindle Locations 2600-2601).  Lincoln, unlike some members of Congress, believed the oath should be reasonable as to encourage people to take it.  In Lincoln's prescribed oath, the former rebels must "faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and... abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress [and the President] passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves" (Gienapp Kindle Locations 2604-2605).  Lincoln wanted to require one-tenth of all people in a state to take the oath before a state government could be reestablished and would be protected and supported by the United States.  He agreed to be flexible in working with Congress on reconstruction.

Lincoln recommended limited black suffrage for those who had fought in the war and "the very intelligent" (Gienapp Kindle Location 2634).  Although this was his recommendation, he did not require it of the new state governments.  He also believed an anti-slavery amendment should be passed and "the sooner the better" (Gienapp Kindle Locations 2867-2868).  When the amendment was passed he called it a "great moral victory" (Gienapp Kindle Location 2952).

Lincoln believed "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong" (Gienapp Kindle Location 2641).  Before the Civil War, he kept this as his personal belief, but did not push for or have plans to push for emancipation.  He did not believe at the start of the war that "domestic slavery would be much affected" (Gienapp Kindle Location 2673) or that colored troops would be used.  As the war went on and emancipation was adopted as a war strategy, Lincoln's views regarding the future of slavery morphed into more extreme and long-lasting plans.

Turned Inside Out: Reflection on Wilkeson

In the Introduction to Turned Inside Out: Recollections of a Private Soldier in the Army of the Potomac, James M. McPherson argues that "[t]he Civil War was the biggest and most fearful experience that any generation of Americans has known" (Wilkeson v) and that it changed society permanantly in both the North and the South.  The Civil War stole the lives of more than 620,000 soldiers.  He applauds Frank Wilkeson's memoir as one of the first and most accurate recorded by a private soldier.  Wilkeson focused on the reality of the war, with its good and bad moments, and for the most part chose not to exaggerate in his descriptions of either.  McPherson remarks that Wilkeson sometimes "leans too far to the dark and ugly side, producing distortions of his own" (Wilkeson viii), but his memoir if by far one of the most reliable.

In 1863, Wilkeson joined the army at fifteen years old.  He was one of the few to serve as a volunteer in the last two years of the war.  He served for seven weeks with the Army of the Potomac in a period of time with some of the most intense fighting of the war.  Wilkeson wrote his memoir for the purpose of describing the Civil War from the perspective of a private soldier.  The literary works about the war were largely written by generals before his.  In Wilkeson's opinion, these generals had reputations to repair and therefore their writings cannot fully be trusted.  He believed enlisted men could provide the most accurate descriptions of the war and encouraged others to write their own memoirs.

When Wilkeson enlisted, he was surprised at the way he was received.  Those in command treated him like he was a criminal.  This was largely because of the epidemic of bounty-jumpers that plagued the army in the last two years of the war.  Wilkeson looked down on these men calling them "murderers and thieves" (Wilkeson 3).  He mentions other cowards he comes across, including a man who shot his own foot to get out of fighting.  The surgeons were much less sympathetic to this wounded man then others who had truly been wounded in battle.  The young man unfortunately woke up from surgery and "found that his leg was off" (Wilkeson 150), which was certainly an unintended consequence to his cowardice.

Life as a soldier was often rewarding for Wilkeson but wrought with hardships.  Traveling initially to the front, Wilkeson remarked on the disorganization and chaos.  Men gambled, got drunk, and stole from other men.  At the start of the campaign, Wilkeson recalled advice he received from a more seasoned soldier.  The soldier told him to pack light, focusing on food and tobacco.  When they were marching, he was only to pick up extra food or tobacco, not clothing or blankets.  He also advised him to fill his canteen whenever possible and not to straggle.  The Union soldiers often did not get enough sleep and were hungry much of the time.  Wilkeson remembered "the lack of good food and loss of sleep told hard on me" (Wilkeson 147).  After the fighting, the men were reminded that this war was not an adventure or fun, but it was "a savage encounter with desperate adversaries, who dealt death and grievous wounds with impartial hands" (Wilkeson 86).  The fighting physically weakened them and "unstrung our nerves" (Wilkeson 97).  Dead soldiers were usually left on the battlefield and buried quickly after the fighting was over.

The title of the book references the pockets of the dead soldiers lying on the battlefield.  Their pockets were turned inside out as the living stole what was in the dead mens pockets along with their bags.  Wilkeson recalled: "The dead men lay where they fell.  Their haversacks and cartridges had been taken from their bodies.  The battle-field ghouls had rifled their pockets.  I saw no dead man that night whose pockets had not been turned inside out" (Wilkeson 67).  Wilkeson admitted to doing this himself at times as well as stealing from the living.  He confessed that once before going back into battle "I equipped myself with a plug of tobacco and two canteens filled with water - never mind where I got them" (Wilkeson 69).  Wilkeson acknowledged that he stole tobacco, haversacks, and at one point a "sheep, which I had met in a field near Bowling Green" (Wilkeson 142).  Wilkeson remembered that the troops, himself included, raided tobacco barns, killed sheep and chickens, and stole food from farmhouses.

The men seemed to be high in spirits when something worthwhile was coming up, like marching to a new location or a flank movement.  Monotony, drills, and endless fighting seemed to discourage them.  Wilkeson remembered "joyfully" packing up "[a]t once understanding that a flank movement was at hand" (Wilkeson 151).  When marching to The Battle of the Wilderness, Wilkeson remarked that there was "the sound of exultant cheering" (Wilkeson 43).  Wilkeson himself was eager to fight.  In the Battle of the Wilderness, his was the reserve artillery, but he was anxious to see the battle.  He goes to check it out, knowing how dangerous it is.  Eventually, he picks up a musket and starts fighting as if he were an infantryman.

Wilkeson was surprised how quickly news travelled through the army.  He recalled that men would wander around the camps at night, going from fire to fire, bringing and looking for news.  Wilkeson called them the "army news-gatherers" (Wilkeson 54).  Rumors spread wildly and were often correct.  Wilkeson mentioned hearing one rumor repeated over fifty times one night that Meade had advised Grant to retreat after the Battle of the Wilderness.  He also recalled hearing an exciting rumor that enemy plans and numbers were found in the coat of a dead Confederate soldier.  Most of the information the soldiers received was from "prisoners whom they captured, from fellow-soldiers serving in the calvary, from negroes, and above all from the 'news-gatherers' who walked the battle-lines in the night" (Wilkeson 108)

The soldiers also like to study maps, strategize, and guess what the next move was and whether it would be successful.  Wilkeson argued that the enlisted men were skilled and accurate in their military reasoning and they could usually accurately judge the state of the campaigns.  One night the men sat up for hours studying maps "earnestly endeavoring to fathom Grant's plans" (Wilkeson 100).

Grant's leadership was for the most part welcomed by the Army of the Potomac because the men believed he would be more aggressive than his predecessors.  Wilkeson remembered hearing one man assert that Grant "cannot be weaker or more inefficient than the generals who have wasted the lives of our comrades during the past three years" (Wilkeson 37).  When Grant came in command of the Army of the Potomac, the men were ready to be led to victory or defeat and most just wanted the war to end.  Grant brought more recruits and firmer regulation and discipline.  When the campaign began, men were high in spirits and ready to go.  The Army of the Potomac had "longed for a fighting general - one who would fight, and fight, and fight" (Wilkeson 88), and with Grant, they got one.

Wilkeson seemed to have animosity toward many of the generals.  He believed they were lazy and did not fight with their troops like they should.  He sometimes doubted their ability to accurately judge the state of a battle or campaign.  He mentioned being worried at times "that Grant would keep sending us to the slaughter" (Wilkeson 123).  He criticized the generals for procrastinating on flank movements.  He denounced Generals Winfield Scott Hancock and William F. Smith for "dawdling the night away" (Wilkeson 172) when sensitive information regarding Confederate positions had been found.  He also criticized the amount of Union generals who lost their lives, arguing if they were doing their jobs correctly more would have been lost.  Wilkeson explained "[w]e knew the fighting generals and we respected them, and we knew the cowards and despised them" (Wilkeson 185).  The lack of fighting on the part of the generals, Wilkeson argued, was one of the biggest demoralizers of the Army of the Potomac.

Wilkeson often noted the poverty he saw among the Confederate soldiers and that it was especially evident "by the clothing and equipment of her dead" (Wilkeson 125).  He was impressed that despite their poverty, they fought "like men of purely American blood"(Wilkeson 70).  This shows that while Wilkeson fought for the purpose of reunification, he admired the Confederate soldiers and still considered them brothers.  He described them as skilled fighters who could be "deadly accurate" (Wilkeson 71).  Wilkeson never expressed in his writings bitterness or hatred for the Confederacy or its citizens.  He often applauded their courage and competence.

Despite the animosity between the North and the South, Wilkeson described moments of kindness between the two sides.  Wounded men would help other wounded men, despite their allegiance, to safely.  Wilkeson illustrated a touching scene where two soldiers, one Union and the other Confederate, were "drinking in turn out of a Union canteen, as they lay behind a tree" (Wilkeson 73).  He also recalled honorable Confederate soldiers who in one instance "understood what was being done and ceased to shoot" (Wilkeson 138) when a Union soldier ran into the line of fire to rescue another wounded soldier.  Wilkeson described "an unwritten code of honor among the infantry that forbade the shooting of men while attending to the imperative calls of nature" (Wilkeson 121).  Wilkeson himself once shared food with lost Confederate soldiers in the woods.  These exceptions show the humanity soldiers still have when they are fighting one another.

Wilkeson argued that the Union made two large mistakes during the Civil War.  The first was calling for volunteers to fight.  He believed that a draft should have happened sooner.  That way, the end of the war would not have been so wrought with bounty-jumpers and cowards.  The second mistake he saw was in the appointment of generals.  He argued that appointing mainly West Point graduates was a mistake because they were never soldiers themselves and were not fit to command soldiers.  He further goes on to say that West Point should be shut down.  He placed the blame for the war being drawn out as long as it was firmly on the shoulders of those West Point generals.

Divided Houses: Gender and The Civil War (Chapters 7, 11, and 12)

Acting Her Part: Narratives of Union Women Spies

Lyde Cullen Sizer

Woman during the Civil War sometimes acted as spies both for the North and the Confederacy. Female spies during the Civil War were thrilled to be able to play a part in helping their side.  Women smuggled weapons, medicine, and messages.  Women were much less likely, especially at the beginning of the war, to be searched by men.  Messages were written on buttons and wound up in women's hair.

Newspapers circulated stories about women spies, some true and some false.  These stories allowed women to challenge their gender role in the time period.  According to Sizer, they represent women's "ability to adapt to and to excel at an unusual test of courage and patriotism" (Sizer 117).

These spies ranged from women who used their femininity as a weapon to those who dressed up as men and concealed their gender.  Pauline Cushman, her story narrated by herself and other biographers, was been found to be an authentic union spy.  She narrated her story in The Romance of the Great Rebellion.  Life of Paula Cushman, Celebrated Spy and Scout was written by Ferdinand L. Sarmiento in 1865.  Cushman was an actress who was challenging gender roles before the outbreak of the Civil War.  One of her missions was to go behind enemy lines and investigate Braxton Bragg's base to find out about him and other Confederate generals.  She used her femininity and attractiveness to visit various camps with generals and officers under the guise she had been banished to the South and was searching for her brother, who was a Confederate soldier.  She was captured and sentenced to death, but was rescued by Union troops.  She desired to establish herself as a heroic figure after the war.

Union Spy Pauline Cushman

S. Emma Edmonds was one such women that dressed as a man and at first, fought as a soldier in the war and later became a spy.  Edmonds also played the role of nurse during the Civil War.  When the war broke out, she enlisted in the army as a man, under the name "Frank Thompson".  She worked as a field nurse.  She later desired to take on a more ambitious role and became a spy.  She not only dressed as a man at times, but also used other disguises, like a slave or an Irish peddler.  She was forced to put away her uniform and other disguises when she became sick with malaria.

Union Soldier, Spy, and Nurse S. Emma Edmonds

Harriet Tubman, an African American spy, was well-known and used by the United States government.  She had been spying for twenty years before the Civil War began.  She had escaped from her master from Maryland and went to Philadelphia.  She returned many times and successfully rescued 300 to 400 people from the bondage of slavery.  She was often sent across lines during the Civil War as a spy to bring back information about the positions and conditions of enemy troops.  She also assisted in the efforts to persuade slaves to trust the Union troops who were coming in.  She did not desire fame or to be placed in a heroic position.

Abolitionist and Union Spy Harriet Tubman

These women all played roles in redefining womanhood in the mid-nineteenth century by taking on roles normally assumed by men.  They were strong, smart, and courageous and paint a more complete picture of women's roles during the Civil War.

"Since the War Broke Out": The Marriage of Kate and William McLure

Joan Cashin

Confederate Family

Scholars know little about how relationships between men and women in marriage changed during the Civil War.  Some scholars believe women's roles changed very little while others object that the war gave women more opportunities for activities outside of the home.

The marriage of one Southern couple, William and Kate McClure of South Carolina, gives us some clarity as to what life may have been like for married couples in the South during the war.  William McClure served in the Confederate army and Kate stayed on their plantation.  There was conflict as to who would run the plantation - Kate, the white overseers, or male relatives.  Kate began to make decisions about the plantation, which William was not happy about.

When Kate and William married, it did not seem to be an exciting occasion, nor did it seem she was in love with him. There does seem to be evidence that Kate gradually fell in love with William.  They had eight children and maintained a typical marriage for the time period in which William made decisions and Kate followed his lead.  He ran the plantation while she took care of the children.  William was a radical secessionist and believed the North would be easily beaten.  Kate seemed to agree with her husband's political views.

Typically in the South, the wives faced more changes and hardships than the husband's who went off into the army. In 1861, William left the plantation in the hands of a new overseer, B.F. Holmes.  Kate purchased many of the plantation's supplies hat September and often relayed messaged to the overseer.  William was impressed with her capability to help run the plantation. Kate relied on a slave named Jeff to help her. Kate and Holmes sometimes received contradictory instructions, which created some tension.  Kate believed Holmes was making mistakes, not planting enough food and planting too much cotton.  By the end of 1862, Holmes was fired.  Kate put Jeff in charge of food crops and the livestock and expanded her own responsibilities.

William was not comfortable with his wife running the plantation alone.  One of Kate's in-laws hired a new overseer, Mabery, in early 1863. Mabery was not doing a satisfactory job and Kate's responsibilities continued to increase.  When Maybery's contract was renewed, Kate was furious.  The conflict came to a head in December 1864.  Maybery became involved in a sexual relationship with one of the slaves.  He attacked the slave's husband one night, who ran to Kate for help.  In January 1865, Mabery disappeared, although it is not known if he was fired or quit.  Kate was in charge of the plantation for the remainder of the war and ran it with Jeff's assistance.

William hired a free black female to work as his cook and laundress. Kate suspected William might be sleeping with her and expressed disproval of the hire.  William made it clear to his wife that he would do whatever he saw fit.

William McClure never believed in his wife's ability to run the plantation.  Kate's confidence in herself increased greatly during the war.  It is unknown what, if any, long-term changes came to the McClure house and to their marriage.  They did remain married for the rest of their lives.

The Children of Jubilee: African American Children in Wartime

Peter Bardaglio

Slave Children

One important and overlooked aspect of the Civil War is its affect on enslaved children during the war and its later affects on their adult outlooks.  How did they see the war and their condition during it as well as after?

Parents of enslaved children had little control over the condition and protection of them.  Children still had respect for their parents and most times maintained a relationship with them.  One of the hardest lessons a slave child had to learn was how helpless they were in protecting their family members.  The child often saw two different sides to a parent - the one on display for the master and the one they saw in the slave quarters.  Parents were often hard on their children in order to exercise their control on them and also prove to the slaveholders the authority they had on their own children.

The mother of a slave child had more influence over the development over their personality than the father did, although the father did play a role.  Slave masters sometimes displayed their authority over the fathers by dividing families using the slave trade.  When a child was born, after a month or so, the mother returned to the field and an elderly slave took care of the young children.  The mother had little time to care for and nurture their new babies.

Many slave babies did not survive infancy.  If the child did survive, they did experience some measure of childhood, playing and exploring.  They often played with the white children who lived on the plantation.  Some of the games they played displayed the children had a clear understanding of their condition.  At the end of the day, they shared a meal with their parents.  At the age of five or six, children were given chores.  They entered the fields around ten or twelve.  This entrance into labor was often distressing.  They were rudely awakened by their position and were often shocked by the severing of their friendships with the white children.

The outbreak of the Civil War awakened hope for a different life among slave children.  They wanted to know all they could about the war.  They would often eavesdrop on their parents conversations about what what happening.  This also changed the games the children would play to those that mirrored the conflict.

Life changed for slave children when the war broke out.  As the white men went off to war and slave men left the plantation, the women and children's workloads increased.  They also were sometimes taken further south as their masters tried to get away from Union troops.  Sometimes women and children were left behind.  The impressment of black male slaves by both the Union and the Confederacy disrupted the lives of the children.

Life became unpredictable.  Although familiar with violence, the children began to witness it on a much larger scale.  When the Northern troops arrived, the children were often initially frightened of them because of stories they had heard.  They then grew fascinated with them.  If the Union soldiers looted, it was alarming to the children.  Children whose fathers fought for the Union received an elevated sense of pride.  Their fathers became their heroes and liberators.  To keep black men from enlisting, slave owners would often persecute the family's of those who did.

After the war there was a rush of formally enslaved who wanted to formally be married.  Many went in search of their loved ones.  An effort was made by parents to educate their children.  Some slave children found it difficult to leave the familiar lifestyle of slavery after the war was over.  Some who hardly knew their parents were devastated to be claimed by them after they were free.  Young men tended to view the war in more positive terms and young women often looked at it with anxiety on what it would mean for them relationally.  Both sexes were left "with feelings of both loss and gain" (Bardaglio 228).  Most children, despite the losses of previous lives along with the sense of security that accompanied it, were likely overjoyed with their newfound freedom.

The Hard Hand of War, Chapters 1-6

Looting in Fredericksburg, VA

According to Mark Grimesly, author of The Hard Hand of War, the Civil War marked a progression in the hardness of the North's policy toward the Confederacy.  The Union began the war attempting to remain as gentle with the citizens of the Confederacy as possible.  As time went on, Grimesly argues, guerrilla warfare in the South, the defeat of Union troops in battles, and the lack of the previously assumed Unionist sentiment in the South drove the Union commanders, with the blessing of Lincoln, to enact harder policy in dealing with the Confederacy.  Although the policy became more severe, the way the Union dealt with civilians in the South "was seldom the wanton, wholesale fury of legend," although that did sometimes take place (Grimesley 2).

The North started the war with a strategy that attempted to exempt Southern civilians from the troubles of war.  The Lincoln administration assumed that most Southerners were not for secession.  When the strategy of the North shifted to a harder war, the goal was still not to completely destroy the South, but to do whatever it took to win the war.  Between these two phases was a pragmatic phase that was less strategic than the other two.  Strategy was left much up to individual Union generals.

It was widely believed by the North, including Lincoln, that the South had been led astray by a wealthy and powerful few, and most of those in the Confederacy remained loyal to the Union.  If this was the case, it seemed counterproductive to enter the South with guns blazing, wreaking havoc.  The assumption that most Southerners were lukewarm was a misconception.  Still, the Union used a policy of conciliation with Confederate civilians for the first part of the war.  With this policy, the Union hoped to end the conflict without producing an excess of bitterness in the South.  As the war raged on, the North had to reconsider this policy.

Both Winfield Scott and George B. McClellan shared a desire for conciliatory policy.  Scott was known for his diplomacy and restraint and it had served him well in the past.  Scott hoped to avoid attack and bloodshed.  Many in the North quickly grew tired of the delay.  Lincoln decided offensive action should be taken.  Unfortunately for the Union, McDowell's forces were beaten at Manassas Junction.  In light of this, Lincoln called on George McClellan who had similar views as Scott but acknowledged that the North needed to take action and could not afford to wait.  He hoped to crush the Confederacy in one campaign as to not strengthen the will of the rebels.  McClellan succeeded Scott as General-in-Chief.

The initial policy of conciliation faced two main challenges  One was the existence of a competing policy in Missouri.  The other challenge was between the generals and the soldiers.  Not everyone shared Scott and McClellan's desire for a conciliatory policy.  Even though Missouri remained with the Union throughout the war, it was often treated like enemy territory.  Conciliation was attempted there and quickly abandoned.  The individuals responsible for this change in policy were Nathaniel Lyon and Francis P. Blair, Jr.  They remained concerned with the state of Missouri's loyalty.  They held civilians responsible for guerrilla warfare, which continued in Missouri until the end of the war.

Most Union soldiers found the conciliatory policy hard to swallow.  Conciliation partially failed because of the reluctance of the average soldier to embrace it.  Some opposed it out of principle and others believed it was not practical.  Soldiers often look apart fences for lumber, forced the local population to feed them, killed and ate their animals, and stayed in their homes without permission.  These sort of events did little to harm the Confederate economy, but they made the conciliation policy less affective and harder to maintain.

During the first Union occupations of the South, they attempted to keep violence on the battlefield exclusively.  In the west, the policy tended to be different.  Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant saw the conciliatory policy to be ineffective.  He believed the population in Missouri especially were not responding well to the policy.  Major General Henry W. Halleck found the same to be true.  Missouri is where a new pragmatic policy likely began.  This policy tried to keep the civilians on the sidelines as much as possible.  Adherents to this policy supported Unionists and actively punished secessionists.  Those who supported the Confederacy could expect to have their property taken.  The policy was carried into Tennessee and Mississippi.  Major General Benjamin F. Butler maintained a similar policy.  He also preferred to make dramatic examples of some citizens to demonstrate that they were determined to maintain order.  The policy of conciliation was used more often and was more effective int he east.  In early 1862, the policy of conciliation seemed to be working wherever it was used.

Everyone's focus shifted to McClellan's campaign against Richmond.  McClellan was not successful and one of the first things to suffer was the conciliatory policy.  Many from the North understood that they were fighting to bring the Union back together and one thing that would help is to avoid any unwanted bitterness on the rebel's side.  Still, some of the violence they were witnessing and experiencing from the Confederacy caused the Northerners to want to respond in violence.  Many Northerners gave up the hope they had held that their may have been Union sentiment in the South.  By the end of Summer 1862, it had been almost completely abandoned.  The Confiscation Act helped to end it.

Major General John Pope exemplified this abandon of conciliation policy.  He issued orders holding civilians responsible for damaged railroad lines and shots taken at Union soldiers.  The orders allowed for people suspected of those kinds of activities to be shot without trial.  Anyone was considered to be disloyal to the Union in the North were forced to go South.  Lincoln supported this harder policy toward the Confederacy.  Much of the population of the North seemed to rejoice in the idea of harder war, although many were not ready to see it be put into practice yet.  They were not ready to see Union troops act in complete disregard for the property and rights of the Southern civilians.  McClellan was not impressed by the new orders and was determined to continue with the policy of conciliation.

In reality, at this point, the orders were more used to scare Confederate civilians.  No one was actually shot or arrested because of the orders.  The orders did bring a swell of raiding.  In response, Pope issued a directive to clear up any confusion or exploitation regarding the order.

Soon after, Robert E. Lee made his way into Maryland in hopes of obtaining them as an ally.  McClellan's army was able to force them to retreat back to Virginia.  Lincoln took this as enough of a victory to issue his Emancipation Proclamation.  The Proclamation officially ended whatever was left of the policy of conciliation.  It also incensed the Confederacy and increased their will to fight.

Grimsley argues that the main reason the policy of conciliation was abandoned is the Union loss on the Peninsula campaign.  Many feared the war would go on indefinitely if a change in policy was not made.  The defeat was used as an excuse to expand the war's goals by Radicals.  It also "proved right" those who did not support the policy of conciliation in the first place.

Although conciliation had been abandoned, commanders did not immediately adopt a hard war policy.  Most still wanted their troops to have a sense of order and honor.  For practical reasons, it was important for the troops going through the countryside not to bleed it dry in a disorganized fashion.  This would negatively affect any troops coming after them.  It was also important for most manpower not to be used in foraging, but on the battlefield.

A pragmatic policy began to be embraced.  The extent of the harness of the policy depended on the cooperation of civilians in the area and the discretion of the individual commanders.  Generals had different ideas about when and how much foraging was appropriate.  Generals in the West were quicker than those in the East to adopt policies of authorized foraging.  In both the East and West, known secessionists were typically held responsible for the guerrilla warfare.  The purpose of pragmatic policy was not to devastate the south, but to control civilians so war could be waged on the battlefield.  It made the South a more definite enemy and set the stage for a harder policy.

Emancipation affected the South, and the United States as a whole, far greater than foraging or pillaging.  Emancipation was a military strategy, but it was also political and moral.  The Confederacy certainly had a military advantage in their slaves.  Some slaves worked directly for the war effort.  Others made it possible for more white men to fight by keeping the economy running.  If slaves were emancipated, they could be used in the war effort on the side of the Union.  This was one of the most important parts of Lincoln's Proclamation.

More than a military strategy, it was Lincoln's personal views and the strength of the anti-slavery movement that also was a driving force of emancipation.  As much as the emancipation was a military strategy, it was also a symbol of Northern resolve.  The Union would do whatever it took to eliminate the rebellion and bring the rebel states back into the Union.