Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

How Do We View The Confederate Soldier

Originally published by Civil War Times magazine. Published Online: December 13, 2010 
Print Friendly
22 comments FONT +  FONT -


22 Responses to “How Do We View The Confederate Soldier”


  1. 1
    Michael C. Lucas says:

    In my opinion to understand the American frame of mind leading up to and during the Civil War. We have to disect the issues of conflict to understand the context of "Slavery" and "expansion", and the role of Politics in the mid nineteenth century. The history student and novice, needs to remove modern concepts of what these things are. The citizen soldier of the Confederacy was fighting for his family, friends, and in self defense, of his freedom and property against an invading usurper. Property including land, horses, businesses, etc… what had legally been Constitutionally protected, including the right to hold property such as Slaves. For most slave owners it was a burden of inheritance and as a property it was their right to take their property with them where they chose. We should not categorize everyone in a group as society does today or has regarding Confederate Americans and the institution of Slavery. Especially without considering Northern attitudes and actions which were no less offensive towards African Americans.
    The compromises regarding expansion in the new territories had been made in an attempt to maintain an equal political balance of power between Free States and Slave States. When Free and Slave state settlers clashed along the borders of Kansas and Missouri, the bloodshed ignited the seeds of fear, hate, and conflict. The fly in the butter milk is that Southerners and Northerners who's wealth was derived from Slave Labor were being disenfranchised. Not because of Slavery but because of Political control regarding the country for those who held the wealth.
    Ask yourself this, if thou shall not kill then how do two wrongs make one right? How could either side cast the first stone as both sides had profited from Slavery? Was it not caused by Northern Aggression, escalated by acts of offensive propaganda, and violence, “Beecher”s Bibles (Sharps Carbines),” and John Brown’s swords? Was it Slavery or that the term of Slavery symbolized one side differently vs. the other? People tend to identify their opposition for another group by something commonly practiced by that group they derive as offensive.
    Abolitionist, Northern Press and members of the New Republican Party, clearly demonstrated this by supporting aggressive actions, of John Brown and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Who would not have been President had the Democrats been so divided. The threats of “Northern Treachery,” gave Southerners the absolute impression they had no choice but to defend themselves, as they did. So their cause for Independence was in their self defense vs. slavery itself.
    The Confederacy defended itself rightly so, as Abraham Lincoln sought to keep the Union together by coercion of force. Northern propaganda suggests that after the war that it was necessary for emancipating the Slaves. Suggesting that slavery would have continued in the United States otherwise. That by supporting emancipation of slaves which was the only redeeming result, furthered propaganda that the war was solely about slavery. Which is inconsistent with how the Slave triangle was emancipated elsewhere in the world without the necessity of war. The Confederate Soldiers that did their duty were good men, Christian and Jewish Americans defending their rights as good men should. If you can’t see to agree with all my views, I hope we can at least agree that every group has a mixed bag of some good, some bad and some ugly! North, South, East, and West. I will earnestly pray for you anyway.
    In regards to the enlightenment of humanity that slavery was an abomination, the debate regarding what is humane within society is still argued and has yet to be fulfilled completely. Considering so many crimes against humanity have been while on the road paved with good intentions. Continuing acts of inhumanity exists in our world unto this very day, by the hour, every minute.

    • 1.1
      L. Mosier says:

      Michael Lucas's reply doesn't answer the question, "How do we view the Confederate soldier?", but instead regurgitates "Lost Cause" rant at its worst.

      Simply put, the Confederate states seceded from the Union to maintain slavery, which was the basis of their economy and society. The North fought to restore Union. Any manure about how slavery was "a burden of inheritance", or how Northern racism justified Southern efforts to maintain slavery, or how slavery was somehow destined to disappear on its own without war obfuscates the issue.

      True, Southern soldiers fought for their cause, for states rights, because they were invaded, etc. Of course, their cause was the cause of maintaining a society based on slavery, the states rights they coveted were the property rights regarding owning black people, and the reason they were invaded is because their state governments seceded from the US to form a confederacy based on slavery.

      Still, the common Confederate soldier was no less brave, no less dedicated, and no less sure of his cause than the common Union soldier. He lived, fought and died proudly and should be honored for his devotion and sacrifices; although it should ALWAYS be acknowleged that his cause was ultimately misguided. We can honor the individual soldier while noting that slavery was morally repugnant, secession a great error, and the Confederacy a horrible mistake. (Just as Germans can honor their WWII soldier ancestors while acknowleging that the Nazi cause was wrong.)

      • 1.1.1
        S. Scullion says:

        As a Canadian who studies the American Civil War from a completely disinterested point of view, I must agree with L. Mosier. In every book I've read or pertinent speech I've reviewed on this issue, slavery was the driving force behind the issue, though it did lead to or exacerbate corollary problems e.g. the Northern industrial economy vs. the Souther agrarian. Lincoln's first inaugural address only needed a few preliminary sentences before he delves into the question and really does, even at a distance of 149 years, eviscerate Mr. Lucas' present arguments.
        Really Mr. Lucas, was New Hampshire (live free or die) not interested in states' rights? What prevented them from joining the confederacy? How many compromises or provisos or acts could America come up with to preserve the ultimately unsalvageable balance of slave vs free state/territory? "Bleeding Kansas" is all the evidence needed to show that high falutin' but spurious Southern apologia is entirely self-serving.
        I found disconcerting consequences of this "lost cause" nonsense while visiting Gettysburg several years ago. I was shocked by the decidedly pro-Confederacy feel to the place (this was also noted by my daughter who visited a few years later).
        As an aside, America should count its blessings every day that they had such a man as Abraham Lincoln.

    • 1.2
      michael says:

      No doubt about it. Their "property?" That would be slaves. And as the US Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them" — they were traitors.

    • 1.3
      James Horn says:

      9 blade says:
      3/21/2011 at 11:04 am

      1 Michael C. Lucas says:
      12/13/2010 at 8:18 pm

      They are both the same. Thesituation has just switched. Now it is the Republicans who are sharply divided. Not only that, half of the South are
      Northerners tired of cold weather and snow. There are more Yankee hats in the South, that there are in the North. The Civil War started out as a grandstand of observers sitting on the sidelines. There are many out there who know more about the Civil War and are still fighting it. Many of those are in the lower SES and education level. "Give me liberty or give me death," Patrick Henry once said. Give me racial bias, descrimination and ambivalence and you will have a divided countryside which we now seem to have with an other that WASP in the White House. It was a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant President up until now. President Clinton just said that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore, is a Native American eligible to be President. Maybe the next President will be an American Indian or a female. When are all of the Macho Males going to wake up. Wars were created with the end result to be a loser. The South has been treated as a loser ever since. The Civil War is over and done. When will everyone finally realize and accept it? Why go on fighting for something you can truly explain. There seems to be two sides to every issue. Is that why yhere needed to be a North and a South? I don't know. Lets start thinking about the economic problems and issues at hand and stop living in the past. One thing that I have noticed about this column is that the more educated the answer, the more likely it is to meet a wall of resistance. The descriptions of the Confederate Soldier are based on one's discipline and educational endeavors. A historian says it one way while a sociologist and economist will describe things in another fashion. We seem to have a lot of educated holigans out there at times. Are you one?

  2. 2
    michael says:

    traitors

    • 2.1
      Michael C. Lucas says:

      Whether Confederate or Union the majority of Civil War soldiers had no concern or care for Slavery or even the results of their emancipation. The soldiers primary concern was as most soldiers, was with their comrades and surviving. Issues regarding the propaganda of the war are not the same as the issues confronting the common soldier. It is very evident that "Northern Aggression" remains with certain types of people who harbor ill will towards Southern Americans. Such ignorance is the same reason the war occurred. Wonder what excuse the next war will have?

      • 2.1.1
        TL Rouhier says:

        My double greatgrandfather joined the union because he hated slavery. His great grand father left Germany because he was a "slave" to the country. The hatred of slavery was passed down in the family. Only the southerner still tries to fight the war yet. The North moved on more than 100 years ago.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Luke Gammache says:

    The social constructs we have about Confederate soldiers is one that ranges from racially charged gladiators to a patriotic supporter of one's homeland. No one can doubt this span of views; however, a look at this situation today is quite interesting. Being a person from the North I am subject to many opinions of Southerners during the American Civil War. The predominant view from those whom I see as having a very basic understanding of the conflict and of history in general, see the soldiers that fought for the South in a spectrum ranging from slavery supporters to the point of being almost radical racists. Many educated people of the conflict and of the South know the extreme view is quite in the minority; however, when thinking of how we view Confederates as an entire national populous, it isn't far fetched to think of a middle ground between the two as being how 'we as a nation" remember the Confederate soldier.
    The more educated personages of history and the Civil War, would support a more patriotic duty view of Southerners during this conflict such as most people on this discussion including myself. No doubt slavery was the driving force of the conflict but can we lump all the Southern soldiers into a biogtry driven military force? I think not and it's our duty to inform the populous of a more realistic view of Confederate soldiers.

  5. 5
    Luke Gammache says:

    Another hot topic for discussion is how do we remember the Union soldier and specifically their views towards slavery. A look at my many first hand accounts such as diaries and letters shows that a substantial group of Union soldiers had no desire or interest in freeing the slaves and saw their mission at hand to simply restore the Union.
    Sorry to side step the topic at hand but I always found this one very stimulating.

  6. 6
    Tim Woods says:

    Any serious reading of the diaries of Northern Civil War soldiers puts to rest the notion that they were fighting to free the slaves. Most northerners had never seen a Black person, much less were willing to fight and die to free slaves. Union was their overarching concern.

    Also, the percentage of Southerners who actually owned slaves is extremely small. Any student of the Civil War must ask, why would thousands of men go to war to protect the property rights of the ruling Southern Classes.

    Look no further than the emotional payoff that comes with the entrenched values of White Supremacy and how men are willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution.

    That said, and I have relatives who fought on both sides of the war, the soldiers North and South were heroic, patriotic and willing to die for their beliefs. My hat is off to all them for their courage–however misguided their other motives might be.

  7. 7
    Anna says:

    Typical Yankee perspective. Southerners know the truth.

  8. 8
    Darrell says:

    I have read many books, present and reprints(confederatereprint.com) and I conclude that the war was going to occur no matter what. Tariffs were hurting the South, misrepresentation in Congress, fanatics over slavery, etc. See, if slavery WAS obolished, then the South would have lost equal representation in Congress. They would have been at the mercy of the North. It was not slavery in itself but many things that just all came to a head. Did the South have a legal right to seceed? I believe they did.

  9. 9
    blade says:

    In my opinion to understand the American frame of mind leading up to and during the Civil War. We have to disect the issues of conflict to understand the context of "Slavery" and "expansion", and the role of Politics in the mid nineteenth century. The history student and novice, needs to remove modern concepts of what these things are. The citizen soldier of the Confederacy was fighting for his family, friends, and in self defense, of his freedom and property against an invading usurper. Property including land, horses, businesses, etc… what had legally been Constitutionally protected, including the right to hold property such as Slaves. For most slave owners it was a burden of inheritance and as a property it was their right to take their property with them where they chose. We should not categorize everyone in a group as society does today or has regarding Confederate Americans and the institution of Slavery. Especially without considering Northern attitudes and actions which were no less offensive towards African Americans.
    The compromises regarding expansion in the new territories had been made in an attempt to maintain an equal political balance of power between Free States and Slave States. When Free and Slave state settlers clashed along the borders of Kansas and Missouri, the bloodshed ignited the seeds of fear, hate, and conflict. The fly in the butter milk is that Southerners and Northerners who's wealth was derived from Slave Labor were being disenfranchised. Not because of Slavery but because of Political control regarding the country for those who held the wealth.
    Ask yourself this, if thou shall not kill then how do two wrongs make one right? How could either side cast the first stone as both sides had profited from Slavery? Was it not caused by Northern Aggression, escalated by acts of offensive propaganda, and violence, “Beecher”s Bibles (Sharps Carbines),” and John Brown’s swords? Was it Slavery or that the term of Slavery symbolized one side differently vs. the other? People tend to identify their opposition for another group by something commonly practiced by that group they derive as offensive.
    Abolitionist, Northern Press and members of the New Republican Party, clearly demonstrated this by supporting aggressive actions, of John Brown and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Who would not have been President had the Democrats been so divided. The threats of “Northern Treachery,” gave Southerners the absolute impression they had no choice but to defend themselves, as they did. So their cause for Independence was in their self defense vs. slavery itself.
    The Confederacy defended itself rightly so, as Abraham Lincoln sought to keep the Union together by coercion of force. Northern propaganda suggests that after the war that it was necessary for emancipating the Slaves. Suggesting that slavery would have continued in the United States otherwise. That by supporting emancipation of slaves which was the only redeeming result, furthered propaganda that the war was solely about slavery. Which is inconsistent with how the Slave triangle was emancipated elsewhere in the world without the necessity of war. The Confederate Soldiers that did their duty were good men, Christian and Jewish Americans defending their rights as good men should. If you can’t see to agree with all my views, I hope we can at least agree that every group has a mixed bag of some good, some bad and some ugly! North, South, East, and West. I will earnestly pray for you anyway.
    In regards to the enlightenment of humanity that slavery was an abomination, the debate regarding what is humane within society is still argued and has yet to be fulfilled completely. Considering so many crimes against humanity have been while on the road paved with good intentions. Continuing acts of inhumanity exists in our world unto this very day, by the hour, every minute.

    Reply
    1.1L. Mosier says:
    12/21/2010 at 3:21 pm
    Michael Lucas's reply doesn't answer the question, "How do we view the Confederate soldier?", but instead regurgitates "Lost Cause" rant at its worst.

    Simply put, the Confederate states seceded from the Union to maintain slavery, which was the basis of their economy and society. The North fought to restore Union. Any manure about how slavery was "a burden of inheritance", or how Northern racism justified Southern efforts to maintain slavery, or how slavery was somehow destined to disappear on its own without war obfuscates the issue.

    True, Southern soldiers fought for their cause, for states rights, because they were invaded, etc. Of course, their cause was the cause of maintaining a society based on slavery, the states rights they coveted were the property rights regarding owning black people, and the reason they were invaded is because their state governments seceded from the US to form a confederacy based on slavery.

    Still, the common Confederate soldier was no less brave, no less dedicated, and no less sure of his cause than the common Union soldier. He lived, fought and died proudly and should be honored for his devotion and sacrifices; although it should ALWAYS be acknowleged that his cause was ultimately misguided. We can honor the individual soldier while noting that slavery was morally repugnant, secession a great error, and the Confederacy a horrible mistake. (Just as Germans can honor their WWII soldier ancestors while acknowleging that the Nazi cause was wrong.)

    Reply
    1.1.1S. Scullion says:
    1/1/2011 at 9:11 pm
    As a Canadian who studies the American Civil War from a completely disinterested point of view, I must agree with L. Mosier. In every book I've read or pertinent speech I've reviewed on this issue, slavery was the driving force behind the issue, though it did lead to or exacerbate corollary problems e.g. the Northern industrial economy vs. the Souther agrarian. Lincoln's first inaugural address only needed a few preliminary sentences before he delves into the question and really does, even at a distance of 149 years, eviscerate Mr. Lucas' present arguments.
    Really Mr. Lucas, was New Hampshire (live free or die) not interested in states' rights? What prevented them from joining the confederacy? How many compromises or provisos or acts could America come up with to preserve the ultimately unsalvageable balance of slave vs free state/territory? "Bleeding Kansas" is all the evidence needed to show that high falutin' but spurious Southern apologia is entirely self-serving.
    I found disconcerting consequences of this "lost cause" nonsense while visiting Gettysburg several years ago. I was shocked by the decidedly pro-Confederacy feel to the place (this was also noted by my daughter who visited a few years later).
    As an aside, America should count its blessings every day that they had such a man as Abraham Lincoln.

    1.2michael says:
    1/5/2011 at 1:51 am
    No doubt about it. Their "property?" That would be slaves. And as the US Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them" — they were traitors.

    Reply
    2michael says:
    12/15/2010 at 12:38 am
    traitors

    Reply
    2.1Michael C. Lucas says:
    12/16/2010 at 3:31 pm
    Whether Confederate or Union the majority of Civil War soldiers had no concern or care for Slavery or even the results of their emancipation. The soldiers primary concern was as most soldiers, was with their comrades and surviving. Issues regarding the propaganda of the war are not the same as the issues confronting the common soldier. It is very evident that "Northern Aggression" remains with certain types of people who harbor ill will towards Southern Americans. Such ignorance is the same reason the war occurred. Wonder what excuse the next war will have?

    Reply
    3Dana Shoaf on the Confederate Soldier « Bull Runnings says:
    1/2/2011 at 12:07 pm
    [...] See here. [...]

    Reply
    4Luke Gammache says:
    1/2/2011 at 7:09 pm
    The social constructs we have about Confederate soldiers is one that ranges from racially charged gladiators to a patriotic supporter of one's homeland. No one can doubt this span of views; however, a look at this situation today is quite interesting. Being a person from the North I am subject to many opinions of Southerners during the American Civil War. The predominant view from those whom I see as having a very basic understanding of the conflict and of history in general, see the soldiers that fought for the South in a spectrum ranging from slavery supporters to the point of being almost radical racists. Many educated people of the conflict and of the South know the extreme view is quite in the minority; however, when thinking of how we view Confederates as an entire national populous, it isn't far fetched to think of a middle ground between the two as being how 'we as a nation" remember the Confederate soldier.
    The more educated personages of history and the Civil War, would support a more patriotic duty view of Southerners during this conflict such as most people on this discussion including myself. No doubt slavery was the driving force of the conflict but can we lump all the Southern soldiers into a biogtry driven military force? I think not and it's our duty to inform the populous of a more realistic view of Confederate soldiers.

    Reply
    5Luke Gammache says:
    1/2/2011 at 7:22 pm
    Another hot topic for discussion is how do we remember the Union soldier and specifically their views towards slavery. A look at my many first hand accounts such as diaries and letters shows that a substantial group of Union soldiers had no desire or interest in freeing the slaves and saw their mission at hand to simply restore the Union.
    Sorry to side step the topic at hand but I always found this one very stimulating.

    Reply
    6Tim Woods says:
    1/14/2011 at 1:43 am
    Any serious reading of the diaries of Northern Civil War soldiers puts to rest the notion that they were fighting to free the slaves. Most northerners had never seen a Black person, much less were willing to fight and die to free slaves. Union was their overarching concern.

    Also, the percentage of Southerners who actually owned slaves is extremely small. Any student of the Civil War must ask, why would thousands of men go to war to protect the property rights of the ruling Southern Classes.

    Look no further than the emotional payoff that comes with the entrenched values of White Supremacy and how men are willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution.

    That said, and I have relatives who fought on both sides of the war, the soldiers North and South were heroic, patriotic and willing to die for their beliefs. My hat is off to all them for their courage–however misguided their other motives might be.

    Reply
    7Anna says:
    1/23/2011 at 7:12 pm
    Typical Yankee perspective. Southerners know the truth.

    Reply
    8Darrell says:
    1/26/2011 at 1:21 pm
    I have read many books, present and reprints(confederatereprint.com) and I conclude that the war was going to occur no matter what. Tariffs were hurting the South, misrepresentation in Congress, fanatics over slavery, etc. See, if slavery WAS obolished, then the South would have lost equal representation in Congress. They would have been at the mercy of the North. It was not slavery in itself but many things that just all came to a head. Did the South have a legal right to seceed? I believe they did.

    Reply
    8.1Walter says:
    3/15/2011 at 2:14 am
    Darrell, there are a lot of people that agree wtih you

  10. 10
    Cpl. Henry, 12th VA Vols. says:

    In my own experience with this short, yet tragic timeline, I firmly believe that the Confederate Soldier was a man who was fighting for his home. well over 90% of the entire south did not own slaves. Many of the points given previous to mine in this subject are very valid, yet the basic subject is lost on some.
    These men took up arms against thier national government in the belief that government would strips the rights from thier respective states/commonwealths. Also, the fact that in my own home of Virginia, the commonwealth split into east and west, shows that the obligations to these men were split.
    Even our founding fathers of Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, and Franklin, were regarded as traitors to the British monarchy, which was the government in control in thier time. To be a patriot to one's homeland, one also must be a traitor to that government at some point. The whole of the continent was split on the issue of joining the confederacy or supporting the United States government.
    In viewing the confederate soldier, the individuals' who fought that old war are as varied as we are now.

    He was a patriot. he was a warrior. he was a traitor. he was a gentleman. he was a villan. he was a bigot and/or hypocrit. He was a son, a father, a brother, a neighbor, and a friend.
    He is an AMERICAN Soldier.

    Every generation has its views on a different time, and we are no different than before. The soldier of that time cannot come back to say what he was thinking at the time. Lest his journal or letters be found, and even then, all we can do is speculate his intentions, and try to honor the universal American spirit of the right to self-government and fighting for a just cause, whether we view that cause as just or not.
    To view the Confederate soldier, is to view an American soldier.
    Deo Vindice! E Pluribus Unum!

  11. 11
    James Horn says:

    But what about the here and now. How am I to interpret Rebel flags on the front and in the back windows of Redneck trucks? People in the South still seem to be fighting that same war which created their demise. What about the Wallace's and Srate's Right. There seems to be a gap or void which never was filled. I still see and hear about racial descrimination, prejudice and Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action, descrimination and prejudice are still creating hard feelings.
    The Civil War is still being fought in many other ways. Didn't hear anyone mention the Industrial North and Agricultural South. Economics is the center of attention today. States are still fighting for their own existance through what is called economic development. Could you call the Civil War an economic tool to better the lliving conditions of the United States? What about people sitting on lawn chairs viewing the first Civil War battle? Look at all of the religious conflicts that exist in America today. This was significantly noted in the current Republican Presidential Campaign. It is almost as if each presidential campaign is another civil war. Have you ever thought about that?

  12. 12
    Bill G says:

    I've got to wonder if S. Scullion read an unabridged copy of Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech. I wonder because I own a published copy which omits the following:

    "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    Thus, the only thing Mr. Lincoln eviscerates is the notion that the seven states which had seceded as a response to his election did so to protect an institution with which he had pledged not to interfere.

  13. 13
    Mike says:

    Let's play with this. was it unconstitutional or illegal for the south to leave the union. If it was not unconstitutional or illegal what right did the north have to invade the south, which was then a declared separate nation. What reason did the north use to go to war. If it was slavery,why that. Slavery was not illegal at that time. Immoral yes, illegal no. Could it be that President Lincoln did not want to go down in history as the president that lost half of the country. I know I'm just being a pain in the ass, but it's fun.

  14. 14
    James Thomas Horn says:

    As usual, it was two sides, of which each one was trying to say that their way was the truly right way. War is a total of waste of human beings. There will be winners and losers for ever. What must happen is that both sides must admint that they are wrong and only God is right in the past, now, future and forever. Can either the North or South successfully make that accusation. My degrees are in sociology, psychology with a Master's in Labor Economics with 30 years in the military. I can look at it from both a military, sociological and economic outlook. Think that is a pretty broad perspective. Duty, honor and country is what is espoused by the military. Faithful Five said that I am not to leave my post until I am properly relieved. Was the North properly relieved when they left and invaded the South and vice versa. Truly, both sides were at fault. All of their shortcomings and misfortunes and lack of understanding were all self-evident. Jackson in his arch indicated that, "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Neither the South nor the North ever really resolved what and who they wanted to be.
    Talking about an ego trip many went on. Talk about poor families which were left behind and suffered anxiety because one of the very own being killed or injured. Surgical standards were at an all-time low. Look at a tall stack of stack of arms and legs cut off. If anything, forget where we were than and remember who, what and where we are now. Are you going to continue living in the past or promote positive incentives and educational standards so we can successfully live in the present and future? I prefer the second part myself. You with all of your prejudice and biasedness who continue to live in the past are the ones who are dragging America down. Keep up the good work if you are willing and want to call it that.

  15. 15
    James Thomas Horn says:

    One more addition and I will hush up. "It may truly be tough,trying to be a Civil War buff." Accounting for history and being a historian is one thing. Being a perplexed, racially biased person with a lack of perspective is another. Almost 50% of Civil War casualties can be accounted for and attributed non-related combat injuries. You are trying to create and build up soldiers who never where. Many of it is part of your imagination. You were not there with a firsthand knowledge of what actually happened. Read some of the diaries of the saddened soldiers communicating with their saddened families.
    Those soldiers were originally civilians caught between a rock and a hard spot. They were damned if they do and damned if they don't. There was no way out for them but war. America was experimenting with war. Military Science were just wordsand a concept then that few people had an understanding of. America put itself a generation behind trying to prove who had the biggest ego, exhibiting pride, prejudice and descrimination which was even going on in the ranks. I detect much shortsighteness, narrow mindedness along with bitterness. They are still winning the battle but losing the war and have never given up. How truly sad, sad, sad!!!



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy