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.