Why They Fought –
The Real Motivations of Soldiers, both North & South,
during the War for Southern Independence
The War for Southern Independence, The Second American Revolution, the War of Northern Aggression, The Late Unpleasantness; there have been many names used to describe what textbooks refer to as the American Civil War, but to those who actually fought in and suffered the privations of that conflict it was anything but civil. The citizen-soldiers of both sides found themselves facing dangers that they could not have imagined prior to their first taste of combat. The stories told by their fathers and grandfathers of wars past were tales of glory and personal bravery. Marching off to war with flags waving, bands playing, and the women-folk lining the streets to offer their encouragement and support. Speeches were made by politicians extolling the virtues of the respective regions, their cause, and why God was on their side. There were shows of bravado by young men who had not a clue what they were in for. And when it was over, more than 600,000 Americans had died in the bloodiest war in U.S. history and thus was presented a glowing example of the futility of fratricide.
Textbooks generally paint a very narrow picture of the causes leading up to the war and are all too often focused on slavery as the primary, often the only issue, that caused that great conflict. Yet, the majority of Southern soldiers did not own slaves, but were themselves poor dirt farmers doing their best to eke out a living. The abolition movement that was afoot in the country was a minority movement at best and most Northern soldiers had no stake in the slavery issue, and offered little or no interest in it. So, this presents the question, “Why?” Why did men, North and South, volunteer to fight in a war that far too many textbooks tell us was about the issue of slavery? Why would a Southern man risk death on the battlefield or from disease in a fight to help some rich plantation owner keep his slaves? Why would a Northern man risk the same in order to end an institution that had little or no impact on his life?1
This thesis will attempt to show that the majority of men from North and South did not fight over the issue of slavery, but for ideals more evocative of our nation’s Founding. The concept of liberty and State’s Rights were pitted against the concept of a Union of States under a strong central government. The old argument that had begun at the nation’s inception and had not gone away was now, once again, at center stage. With all of the contributing factors that led up to this Civil War, the ideal of liberty and self-determination was at the root of the reasoning for the majority of the men who determined to offer up their very lives for their respective countries. It is the intention of this paper to explain, in some small way, the reasoning behind those decisions, both North and South, from the viewpoint of the men in the ranks and the folks back home. Using their own words and experiences to show that they were not there to maintain or abolish an institution that they paid little heed to, but to strive to implement or maintain the vision of our nation, as they believed it should be, since its very founding.2
The 1860 United States Census says that of the 27 million white citizens counted, 8 million lived in the slave holding South. Of those 8 million only 385,000 owned slaves. Thus, using the math provided by the Census numbers it is obvious that only 4.8% of Southern whites owned slaves.3 Certainly even those who did not own slaves knew of the institution and its impact on the Southern economy. It is therefore all too easy for those who wish to vilify the South to overlook the statistical analysis and claim that the Southern fighting man was indeed signing up for the armed forces in an effort to maintain the status quo. This tunnel vision does a disservice to the majority of Southern men who fought for ideals they associated with the founding of the nation. It also does a disservice to those Northern troops who were intent on maintaining the strong Union they had grown up with. Not to be overlooked in the mix was the human nature or psychological aspect of having “foreigners” attempting to enforce their will on what many saw as their sovereign nation. Picture the Town Council of Harrisonburg, Virginia telling the folks of Staunton, Virginia that they must accede to Harrisonburg’s demands for economic prosperity and cultural mores. It is not difficult to discern that this sort of demand would not be well received in Staunton. Apply then this same attitude to two vastly different regions, and on a much grander scale. It is sad to think that a war could not be averted by simply having both sides step back and take stock of even the most simple and basic tenants of human nature, but, alas, it was not to be.
In the North there was a political faction, the abolitionists, who were anxious to see the issue of slavery settled, by arms if necessary, and fully supported the idea of a war with the South to that end. However, the majority of Northerners had different ideas of what the war was about and why they should enlist to fight. In a letter to his mother, Edmund Clarence Stedman, of the New York World newspaper, made it clear that slavery was not an issue for him when he wrote, “The War is a duty on the part of the North. It is not waged by abolitionists, it is not the result of abolitionism. We are not sure but that slavery is a very good thing in the Cotton states.”4 This was not an uncommon attitude among the soldiers from the North. For them the overriding factor was the preservation of the Union. Ironic, is it not, that the Union was ultimately to be preserved by force of arms when it was Abraham Lincoln himself who, on January 12, 1848, said, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the powers, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - …”5 Yet, our nation would go to war to settle, for some, that very issue.
While South Carolina began the exodus of the southern states from the old Union, based on the election of Lincoln, it is worth noting that Lincoln’s attitude toward the slaves was really no different from that of the average American at the time. This brings us back to the lack of communication and the prevailing of cooler heads, which could have averted war, had the time been taken by representatives of both regions, to sit down and seek common ground. Lincoln did not seek the abolition of slavery, merely to limit its expansion to new territories and states. This did not set well with the government of South Carolina and other deep-south states, as they saw it as an unconstitutional overreach by the Federal government. Many in the South at this time, slave holders among them, acknowledged the need to abolish slavery, but saw a different timeline as necessary to that end. The South also felt strongly that this abolition should see slaves better prepared/educated for life off of the plantation and that the U.S. government had a constitutional responsibility to compensate slave owners for their “lost” property. This did not appear to be part of the abolitionist’s plans and as the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, was seen as the party of the abolition movement, the moneyed interests in the South felt threatened. Thus, with Lincoln’s election, South Carolina and others, through their state governments, would separate themselves from the old Union. It should be noted that those elected representatives, as is often the case in politics, were not the average poor, white southern farmer, but those of money and influence, many of whom did have a vested interest in the peculiar institution. But, as is often the case, it was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.6
In the South there were many, especially in the upper-South, who still held strong pro-Union sentiments, while those in the Deep South held more adamant secessionist views. As war approached, with the election of Lincoln, the domino effect of secession was initiated by South Carolina, when that state seceded on December 24, 1860. By February of 1861, six more Southern states had followed South Carolina’s lead. Four Southern states held out in the hope of reconciliation with their Northern brethren, but it was not to be. With the provisioning of Fort Sumter, Lincoln made it clear that he would brook no such dissent from the South. When Lincoln called on 75,000 volunteers to “bring the South back into the Union,” the die was cast and the remaining four Southern states, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee joined the Confederate States of America. While South Carolina and the other deep South states had determined early on that the cause of State’s Rights, economic freedom from Northern politics, Lincoln’s election, and the slave issue were enough to push them to leave the Union, the last four held out hope until it was apparent that Lincoln intended to “invade” the South. Then it was determined that they must join with their sister states in the South to guard against what many saw as a despotic Northern political machine. In his reminiscences of the war, William Thomas Poague, in Gunner With Stonewall, tells of the change in attitude among his fellow Virginians after Lincoln’s call for volunteers when he noted:
But when Lincoln called on all the non-seceding states – Virginia among
the number – for troops to force back into the Union the states that had
seceded, there was at once a complete change of sentiment. Our people
did not stop halfway and try to maintain a neutral position, but Virginia
with a unanimity almost entire, east of the Allegheny Mountains, took
her stand in front of her Southern sisters to resist the invader of her soil.7
For those who had held out hope of reconciliation Lincoln’s call for troops made it clear that they could no longer stand idly by.
Once the decision had been made to “join the cause,” many Southern men took to the field and joined the local company of infantry, cavalry, or artillery, while others took to the seas. For the majority of these men the cause was simple: the right to secede. The United States at this time strongly believed itself to be of differing regions, each of which was viewed by its inhabitants as “their country.” This sense of regionalism alone was enough to urge many to fight for their freedom to remain unencumbered by some nebulous, uncaring central government in some far-away locale. As Sam Watkins of the First Tennessee Infantry stated, “The South is our country, The North is the country of those who live there.”8 To be sure, there were many in the North who shared this attitude and had striven to avoid armed conflict as well. While there were certainly those who seemed anxious for the conflict to begin, for a variety of reasons, there were others who took a more measured and analytical approach to the decision making process. In a letter to his mother, in October of 1860, Augusta County, Virginia resident, John H. Cochran, attempted to explain his reasons for supporting secession:
There are men in the party (of which I am one) who seeing that
without a vigorous effort we will be wrecked upon that shoal to which
we have been slowly but surely [deleted: been] drifting for years -- I
mean slavish submission to a mear numerical majority. We hold to the
principle among others that this government is not solely the government
of a majority but that the minority have rights that must be respected. To
preserve these rights the constitution was framed which puts such checks
and restraints upon the dominant power as the framers in their far seeing
wisdom thought necessary.9
Unlike those who acted merely on their regional differences or prejudices, Cochran has taken the time to think through his reasoning and has applied his understanding of the U.S. Constitution to cite his belief that the South did indeed have the right to secede. Mr. Cochran continued to explain to his mother the reasons for his support of the South citing the Constitution and the history of the nation to that point. His is one of the more well reasoned explanations one is likely to read.
Another well reasoned explanation of the South’s right to secede was made years after the war by Commodore Matthew F. Maury, of Confederate Naval fame. In the Southern Historical Society Papers of February 1876, Maury offered the last writing he ever prepared for the press, before his death. Adding weight to his vindication of the South’s cause is the sort of analysis that could only come from a scientist (He was not just a Naval Officer) of his stature. Maury went to great lengths to point out the similarities between the plight of the original thirteen British colonies, as pertained to severing their ties with the tyrannical government of England, and how the same logic that precipitated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution also applied to the Southern States as civil war approached. Maury cited several reasons for the conflagration, but here he describes the unfair protective tariffs imposed upon Southern exports by Northern politicians:
The Northern farmer clips his hundred bales of wool, and the
Southern Planter picks his hundred bales of cotton. So far they are
equal, for the Government affords to each equal protection in person
and property. That’s fair, and there is no complaint. But the govern-
ment would not stop here. It went further – protected the industry
of one section and taxed that of the other; …
With his comments prefacing this statement, as well as his continued commentary, Maury makes an excellent case for the South’s righteous indignation toward what many came to see as a despotic government that did not have the entire nation’s best interests at heart. It is thus easy to see how many in the South, even those who did not own slaves, could be economically affected by such policies and therefore develop a stronger sense of regionalism and distrust.10
The regional attitudes that were so pervasive throughout the country in the years leading up to the war have already been mentioned. This pattern of human nature that tends to see people thinking of the region in which they live as having superior attributes to others. This regionalism or lifestyle deemed superior and worth fighting to maintain, can encompass many aspects of the human condition. In the prewar South, there were certainly those who felt that the Northern business and political interests threatened their “peculiar institution,” South Carolina certainly foremost among them, but again, one is taken back to the 1860 census and the numbers therein. Is it more likely then that a majority of Southern men would fight simply to protect their region, their homes, and their idea of what the Constitution and American freedom meant to them? American historian and Vanderbilt professor, Frank L. Owsley believed that the war could be attributed to what he called “egocentric sectionalism.” In a 1941 article for the Journal of Southern History, Mr. Owsley made it clear that he felt the North was guilty of being the aggressor in this conflict between “sections.” Owsley states, “The cause of that state of mind which we may call war psychosis lay in the sectional character of the United States. In other words, the Civil War had one basic cause: sectionalism…” He continues, “Our national state was built, not upon the foundation of a homogenous land and people, but upon geographical sections inhabited severally by provincial, self-conscious, self-righteous, aggressive, and ambitious populations of varying origins and diverse social and economic systems; …”11
Once again is seen the foibles of human nature and the unwillingness of various factions or sections to seek compromise as a major cause of that horrible conflict. When this psychology is taken into account, as well as the numbers regarding slaveholders in the South, the case can be made that the average Southern soldier was fighting for something far different than the maintenance of slavery.
While this issue has thus far been explored primarily from the Southern point of view, what of the North? Certainly Union soldiers were at risk as much as their Southern counterparts. Families were left without fathers, sons, brothers, etc., so what were these men willing to fight for? Why would their families offer their support to “the cause” knowing what the risks were? Just as with the South there were political as well as personal reasons for stepping into the fray. However, without a doubt it was primarily personal perceptions and reasoning that were the determining factors. There would even be politicians and newspapers in the North who wished to see war avoided and respected the right of the Southern States to secede. Of course these politicians and newspapers would suffer at the hands of the Lincoln administration for daring to speak in favor of the South’s rights or against Lincoln’s policies. One newspaper that early on seemed willing to offer compromise with the South was the New York Herald. Despite editorials seeking a means to mend the widening rift, the New York Herald was able to remain in business throughout the war. One example of this effort at reconciliation was taken from the article “Progress of the Revolution in the South – Gleams of Light,” in which was stated, “A little time, however, secured for reflection, South and North, may bring all things right again.” The anonymous editorialist was lamenting the “hotheads” that seemed to be holding sway on both sides of Mason and Dixon’s Line, and hoped that cooler heads might yet prevail.12
It is important to note that there are those who still contend that the war was fought to end slavery, and they point to the issuance of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, signed into law on January 1, 1863, as evidence. This, again, overlooks certain facts. In spite of the many citations of Lincoln’s statements to the contrary, the myth still persists that he sought to end slavery with his call to invade the South. The reality of the Emancipation Proclamation is that it only freed slaves in those states that comprised the Southern Confederacy. The Northern slave states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were exempt from this proclamation. In fact, these very states, while continuing to keep black Africans enslaved, would provide troops for the Union armies that would invade the South, ostensibly to free the slaves.13
Given the reality of the true content and effect of Lincoln’s proclamation it is once again apparent that the war was less about slavery than other issues. Certainly the participants in that struggle recognized this. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a political tool used by a shrewd politician to achieve a set of desired goals. Those goals were propaganda that would seek to keep England and France from recognizing the Confederacy, and it had the desired effect. Lincoln also hoped that his proclamation would increase in the South, a fear of possible slave insurrections and thus weaken the South’s armies, as soldiers would seek to return home to protect loved ones. And finally it had the effect of placating the more radical elements of the abolition movement in the Republican Party. In each case it had varying degrees of effectiveness, but it did not free the slaves. That would not be done until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.14
This was a period in the history of our nation when the concept of honor took on a meaning that many in contemporary society see as a quaint and antiquated notion. Yet the idea of honor, of meeting one’s obligations and duty, the desire to die rather than besmirch one’s own honor, or that of their family, was an overriding belief by many Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. With a multitude of reasons to get involved, many a young man made the decision to join up because of the clarion call of honor and duty. Such was the case for a young, eighteen year old Massachusetts lad named Freeman S. Bowley. Reared in one of the moneyed families of the Old Bay State he was sent to Highland Military Academy in an attempt by his parents to help him avoid service in the army. Their hope being that he would remain in school until the time came to take his place in the local militia, and remain near home. Their plans, however, were thwarted when Bowley’s Cadet Corp took part in a flag presentation ceremony for a wounded Massachusetts veteran. Thomas Plunkett, of the Twenty-first Massachusetts Infantry, had lost both arms during the December 11-15, 1862, battle of Fredericksburg, while serving as the Color-Sergeant and bearing the National Colors. A shell burst just above him all but tore off both his arms and he insisted he be left for dead. He survived and was presented with the regimental flag that he had borne that day. Bowley was so moved by the proceedings that he determined he must do his duty and serve the cause. As Bowley tells it:
The Mayor of Worcester , led him (Plunkett) upon a platform, and
addressing the regiment said: “Soldiers of the 21st, I present to you,
again, your old colors, and your old Color-Sergeant, who stained them
with his blood!” As Plunkett advanced, supporting as best he could,
with his helpless stumps, the very flag that he had carried at Fredericksburg,
a wild cheer went up from the veterans, and tears ran freely down their
bronzed faces. When I heard that great patriotic shout I resolved then and
there that I too would have a part in the stirring scenes of war, and that
my name would be borne on the roll of the country’s defenders.
It is easy to understand how witnessing such a stirring scene could so affect a young man seeking to earn a good name for himself. Bowley sought and received a commission as a First Lieutenant in the Thirtieth U.S. Colored Regiment, as the army was, at that time, seeking white officers for these newly formed regiments.15
The concept of honor was especially strong in the South, where this “code” had been the stuff of legend for many decades. Young Lieutenant Bowley of Massachusetts certainly felt the tug of honor on his heart and mind, but this code was by no means particular to him or the North. Perhaps the most prominent example, at least in the telling of the history of the South, is that of Robert E. Lee, who would come to command the armies of the South during the Late Unpleasantness. Lee was no stranger to honor and had devoted himself to his country’s service because of his deep and abiding belief that such was his duty. His was a devotion borne of the piety, which his mother had instilled in him at an early age. Lee’s concept of honor came from his deep religious faith and his commitment to his family. Thus it was that he met the coming storm of Civil War with deep regret and personal angst, as he believed in the Union and hoped to see the current upheaval resolved by calmer minds. Alas, it was not to be, and Robert E. Lee found himself having to make the most difficult decision of his life. Lincoln’s call to arms to “suppress the rebellion” meant an invasion of the South. Virginia, refusing to participate in such an invasion of its sister-states, finally seceded from the Union. On April 18, 1861, Lee was in Washington, D.C., being offered command of the Union forces that would lead this invasion. It was after much soul searching, and with a desire to do the right and honorable thing, that Lee resigned from the Union army on April 20, 1861, after more than thirty years of service. His reason for doing so was based on his devotion to his family and his native state, Virginia.16
In his letter of resignation to General Winfield Scott, Commander-in-Chief of the Union armies, Lee said, “Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.” On the same day, April 20, 1861, he would also pen a letter to his sister, Mrs. Anne Marshall, of Baltimore, Maryland, in which he asks for her forgiveness and understanding of his decision. He was obviously a man torn by his decision and lamented being thrust into a situation where he felt compelled to sever his ties with the Union he loved and had served. In the letter to his sister he says:
With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind
to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the army , and save in defense
of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may
never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.
While the example of Robert E. Lee certainly garnered more attention than many of his contemporaries, his situation was not at all unusual. Many Southern men, would see their pro-Union feelings challenged by Lincoln’s call for an invasion of their native states. Honor dictated that they could take no other course.17
As the ideal of honor and duty was so much a part of the culture of the nation at this time it was used as a tool to “push” those who had not decided where their loyalties lie to make a decision. Army recruiting posters of the time, as with most wars, were heavy on patriotism, duty, and honor. In just a couple of examples included here, it should be noted that the issue of slavery is not used as a recruiting tool. With the exception of appeals to Freedmen, it would be a time-consuming task to find posters that make an appeal to the white recruit based on the slavery issue. The vast majority of such posters, newspaper advertisements, and other recruiting efforts referred to one’s obligations of duty and honor to defend their respective causes and/or nations. Slavery, as an issue for enlistment, remained on the extreme fringes of the political and cultural scene for most Americans.18
In referring to the motivational aspects of many “Southrons” who would ultimately support secession or would enlist in the army, Mary Newton Stanard, in her 1923 treatise, Richmond – Its People and Its Story, points to the Virginia Convention to discuss secession in 1861. She notes the reluctance of the representatives present to leave the Union and their hope for a peaceful resolution to the strife that beset the nation. However, even those in the legislature, as well as the citizenry at large, could not ignore the Northern threat to the South. Upon receiving the news of Lincoln’s order their minds were made up. Mrs. Stanard asks, “Were these people moved by a desire to preserve slavery? Most of them had never owned, never expected to own a slave.”19
Politics and meeting one’s obligations to an honor code were not the only factors motivating Americans to join the fray. One factor that is seldom explored in the psychology of war is the hatred one side feels for the other. This is yet another example of the human nature aspect coming to the fore. In their 1991 scholarly article, Hate and Combat Behavior, authors John Ballard and Aliecia McDowell attempt to explain this aspect of the psychology of war. In the article they cite psychoanalyst, Rueben Fine, who said, "A very intense emotional state is essential for the successful conduct of what is the most strenuous, dangerous and difficult of all social undertakings, namely war." He continues, "Hatred remains a powerful force which cannot be ignored."20 While this may not seem newsworthy to many people, as it is assumed as a given when speaking of war, the fact remains that it is a seldom explored aspect of the psychology of war. Yet, has not the hatred that is born of regionalism already been seen in discussing the differences between the cultures of North and South? This hatred was not just reserved for the soldiers of the armies. The civilian population of Winchester, Virginia provides just one example of a scenario that was played out throughout the South. The women of the town were especially contemptuous of the presence of the Union troops. They wasted no opportunity to exhibit their hatred for the “damned Yankees.” John M. Gould, a Maine volunteer, noted his observations during one of his stays in the oft Union occupied town. “We had already seen Rebel women, but in all our travels we never saw any so bitter as those of Winchester. They were untiring in their efforts to show how they hated us.”21
Love of one’s country, belief in a better future should victory be achieved, and a belief that there were certain basic issues at stake are three categories listed in a 1970 study of troop morale during the war, as compiled by Pete Maslowski, of the Ohio State University, for Military Affairs. In his study of the motivations that urged men to join and remain in the armies he was surprised to note, “Less than one-sixth of the men, for instance, made any comment relating to slavery.” Given these criteria it is easy to see how hatred may have had a larger then suspected role in the decisions that soldiers made. If a country is threatened then the citizenry must stand against the aggressor. Certainly those who were seen as threatening that country would be the objects of a visceral hatred. If the enemy were to be defeated then a better future for one’s own country could be achieved. A difference over basic issues such as State’s Rights and a strong central government would also be the catalyst for a strong hatred, just as is seen in our contemporary world over issues such as welfare or abortion.22
If, as many textbooks state, the South was fighting to “keep their slaves,” then surely the North was fighting to free them. This is the overly simplified explanation that is far too often presented in schools, at all levels. However, the majority of Northern soldiers had very different reasons for joining the fray. The sentiments expressed by one anonymous Northern soldier to his wife are indicative of this sentiment. “I came out here to help support the Constitution & Laws of our land, and for nothing else, and if it is turned into some other purpose – then those that do it may do the fighting for me.” Yet another anonymous Union soldier expressed it a bit more pointedly in a letter to his father, “When I enlisted I came to defend the flag and to keep the Union as it was, but they have turned this into a nigger war and I want to get out now as soon as posable[sic].”23 It would appear that anger and hatred were not reserved for the enemy in the field alone.
Many Northern citizens would make their disdain for the war known during the draft riots of 1863. It was made plain for Lincoln’s administration to see that the cause of maintaining the Union, or freeing the slaves, was not their cause. While this anti-war movement had been brewing for some time, it came to a head as a result of the U.S. Conscription Act, which was signed into law on March 3, 1863. Anti-war sentiment was primarily found among the Irish immigrants in New York City. It would spread its tentacles throughout much of the region and among other classes of citizens, most of whom saw no point to what they considered a senseless war. As Allan Nevins points out in his 1971 book from the series The War for the Union: The organized War 1863-1864, “The riots had expressed a variety of passionate resentments and fears. Many detested the war, especially since it had embraced the extinction of slavery among its objects.”24
The Irish were particularly incensed because they saw the end result of the conflict creating a “jobs war” between themselves and Freedmen. Having migrated to this country for the opportunities that it offered them, they felt they were being attacked as a group by having their ability to find jobs and support their dreams threatened by freed slaves. For them it was about their own economic viability, not about the right to secede, the preservation of the Union, or putting an end to a “peculiar institution.” Adding to their frustration was a sense that their lot in life was to remain among the poor, while others prospered. Professor, Winona L. Fletcher noted in her 1968 journal article, Speechmaking of the New York Draft Riots of 1863, “There was scattered talk of violence in the taverns and along the docks, particularly among the Irish workers, who objected to what was popularly described as ‘a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.’” This was exemplified by the bounty that could be paid to exempt a man from service. Certainly those of means could afford it, but what of the poor working class?25
One belief that was pervasive among the soldiers and civilians of both sides was the idea that they were fighting to preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers, in the spirit of the Revolution. An officer in the One Hundred-First Ohio noted, “Our fathers in coldest winter, half clad marked the road they trod with crimson streams from their bleeding feet that we might enjoy the blessings of free government.” In response the South could offer up these lyrics from the popular standard God Save the South:
Rebels before
Our fathers of yore,
Rebel’s the righteous name
Washington bore,
Why, then, ours be the same26
So it can be seen that while both sides appear to the student of history to advocate vastly differing views of the Constitution and the concept of freedom and State’s Rights, the soldiers and citizens of mid-nineteenth century America each fervently believed that they represented the Founding ideals of our nation, so much so that many were willing to go to war over it. This leads back to the idea of State’s Rights versus a strong central government. Soldiers, civilians, and politicians from both sides were adamant in their belief that they espoused the true ideals of the Founding Fathers. They believed it so strongly in fact that many advocated war on that premise alone. This reason for the war was addressed some years after the conflict in a speech made before the New York Association for the Advancement of Science and Art. Having served as a U.S. Commissioner and an attorney in Boston prior to and during the war, George T. Curtis had had the occasion to have to send a fugitive slave back to the South according to the Fugitive Slave Act. He also was co-counsel for Dred Scott when that infamous case was presented before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is with that background, and his vast knowledge of the Constitution and the Founding, that he was asked to speak before the association in 1875. His remarks are preserved in A Discourse on the Nature of the American Union, as the Principal Controversy Involved in the Late Civil War.
Mr. Curtis spent a great deal of the speech “setting the scene” that led up to the war. His focus was on the interpretation of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that the antagonists of each side espoused. It is important to bear in mind that despite his own experiences with the slavery issue he did not mention that in his remarks, but instead focused on the respective arguments over the legitimacy of the right to secede from the Union. Having carefully laid out the history leading up to the conflict he concluded:
Upon the whole, therefore, I think that the history of the world scarcely
affords a parallel instance of a great conflict of opinion, so clearly marked
and so distinctly traceable in its growth and consequences, resulting in a
civil war, when you consider that that conflict of opinion concerned, not
the claims of rival dynasties, but the nature and character of a free
government [Emphasis mine].27
Religious leaders of the time had their own opinions of the causes of the conflict as well. Pastor Samuel R. Wilson, for example, of the First Presbyterian Church of Cincinnati, made his feelings clear in an address to his congregation in 1860, which the Church published as a pamphlet entitled, The Causes and Remedies of Impending National Calamities. He lists three “causes” that he felt must be addressed from the Biblical perspective. They were pride, oppression, and lawlessness. In his remarks he makes it clear that when speaking of oppression he is not speaking of slavery, as he felt it was Biblically permissible, and in fact, took to task Northern business interests, which oppressed their workers as badly or worse than any slave owner. The pastor lamented the pridefulness of man and cited an overabundance of this human trait as a primary cause. “Pride; National pride; State pride; the pride of the earth-worm, MAN!” He continued:
This is a sin which has always flourished under precisely those circum-
Stances in which men ought to be most humble and thankful. It is when
God had blessed a nation in basket and store, increased their numbers
and riches, raised them from feebleness to power, and from dependence
to empire, that, forgetting the rock whence they were hewn, and the hole
of the pit whence they were digged, they begin to say, ‘Who is the Lord
that we should obey him?”28
Pastor Wilson was making it clear to his congregation that he felt the coming crisis was one borne of prideful men, who had become so well-off that they had forgotten their proper place in God’s grand scheme. One can easily make the connection between the pastor’s assessment and the earlier mentioned “egocentric sectionalism?” There can be no doubt, whether Biblical analogies are assigned or not, that stubborn pride had more than a little to do with causing the Late Unpleasantness.
Religion was also a prime motivator in the South as well. As Susan-Mary Grant points out, in her scholarly article, For God and Country: Why Men Joined Up for the U.S. Civil War, “The Confederate solider, in particular, was encouraged to equate the cause of the Confederacy with the cause of Christ.” This idea was promoted not just from the pulpit, but also from religious journals that were distributed throughout the armies. One such journal, The Messenger, as late as 1864, reminded the Southern fighting man that he was, “Fighting not only for our country but our God. This identity inspires our hope and establishes our confidence. It has become for us a holy war, and each fearful and bloody battle an act of awful and solemn worship.” Given the religious fervor of both regions, especially in the South, and the many “revivals” that took place throughout the war, it is easy to see how this appeal could influence the soldiers to join and remain for the cause.29
It is easy to see that the soldiers of both sides in that awful conflagration were motivated by many ideals and issues to join and fight. But, it is also obvious that this could not be done without the support of the folks at home. The families: fathers, mothers, wives, siblings, children, all had a stake in this fight, whether on the battlefield or at home. The possibility of losing a loved one was ever-present, whether from an enemy’s shot and shell, or from myriad diseases that afflicted both armies. Why then would they offer their support, even, in many cases, extolling to their loved one the virtue of dying bravely on the battlefield, rather than returning with honor besmirched? Quite often the motivations were the same as those of the soldiers. This comes as no surprise, as they lived in the same household and shared or were influenced by the same news sources, the same church, and often the same political ideals.30
Southern author Constance Cary Harrison provided a unique perspective, given that she and her family had conflicting views on the issue of slavery. While they had manumitted their own slaves they were quick to hire slaves from other local slave owners as paid servants. Harrison and her family, despite continuing to employ blacks as servants, still offered a more “enlightened” attitude toward blacks than their contemporaries. Despite this personal dichotomy a young Miss Cary wrote about the outbreak of the war:
Then fairly awoke the spirit that made of the Southern women the inspira-
tion of Southern men for the war. Most of the young fellows we were
cheering onward wore the uniform of privates, and for the right to wear it
had left homes of ease and luxury. To such we gave our best homage; and
from that time forth, during The four years succeeding, the youth who was lukewarm in the cause Or unambitious of military glory, fared uncomfort-
ably in the presence of the average Confederate maiden.31
Just as women from the South were influenced by myriad political and social issues, so, too, were the women of the North. Many had paid little or no heed to the various arguments leading up to the conflict, as it was not a woman’s place to have thoughts on such matters. This ignorance or political apathy would be challenged by at least one Northern woman in the Atlantic Monthly as late as 1863. She states, “The women of today have not come up to the level of today. They do not stand abreast with its issues. They do not rise to the height of its great argument.”32
However, in the days just before the firing on Fort Sumter the news accounts and political conversations they encountered would not allow them to remain ignorant or quiet. Immediately after the attack at Fort Sumter the various political views in the North seemed to solidify behind the need to defend the nation. Although political and social divisions remained, they were set aside for the common good. This was noted by Jane Stuart Woolsey, of New York City, when she wrote in her diary, regarding Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers, “As the tide [of people] rolled up under our balcony we could see
scarcely a man who was not earnest-looking, grave, and resolved, and all seemed of the best classes, from well-dressed gentlemen down to hard-working, hard-fisted draymen and hod-carriers, but no lower.” She continued, “New York, at any rate, is all on one side now – all ready to forget lesser differences, like the household into which grief has entered.” Just as non-slaveholding Southerners were willing to fight because “their country” had been invaded, so, too, Northerners were willing to set aside differences to protect their own country.33
Yet another factor to consider is the influence of newspapers, magazines, and politicians on the mindset of the average citizen. It was no different in mid-nineteenth century America than it is now, except for the technology. Editors and politicians alike had their agendas and took advantage of every opportunity to put them before the people. Unfortunately, then as now, facts were often not a part of the equation that was presented to the reading or listening audience. One Northern woman’s point of view is that of Mary A. Livermore of Boston Massachusetts. In the days following the bombardment of Fort Sumter the atmosphere in Boston, as elsewhere in the North, was electric with patriotic zeal. After Lincoln’s call for the 75,000 volunteers to “suppress the rebellion,” Miss Livermore noted in her diary, “They [The troops] were for the protection of Washington and the property of the government.”34 This is in stark contrast to Lincoln’s stated purpose of using those troops to force the rebelling states back into the Union. One may legitimately wonder where Miss Livermore was getting her information and what political leanings that source espoused.
Newspapers in the South were no less important for disseminating information than those in the North. Because of the agrarian/rural lifestyle in the South, the dissemination of news, either by reading it oneself or discussing it among friends and family when they gathered, was often days late, but one of the few means of learning of the political goings on at the state or national level. Which paper one read and the political or social leanings of its editors had a tremendous impact on the message that its readers took away from it. In the Charleston Mercury, from Charleston, South Carolina, readers were certainly influenced by at least one writer’s commentary on the justness of their cause. An anonymous writer offered his/her feelings on the question, “For what are we now contending?” when they wrote, “State after state in the South sees the deadly development, and are moving to take their part in the grand effort to redeem their liberties. It is not a contest for righteous taxation. It is not a contest for the security of slave property. It is a contest for freedom and free government, in which everything dear to man is involved.”35
Many are the articles and editorials, which advocate similar sentiments. A daily reading of which, with no counter to the arguments, would certainly influence a persons thinking regarding the war’s causes. That these were written at all, points to the fact that those sentiments already existed among many in the South and the writers merely sought to vent those feelings and, no doubt, hope to influence others. There were no “multiple” news sources for the average mid-nineteenth century American, North or South, and thus it is easy to see how a particular news source could have an impact on the thinking process and attitude. Politicians were as notorious then as now for seeking to stoke the flames of partisan passion. Wanting all to believe as they did, elected officials from both sides of Mason’s and Dixon’s Line took advantage of every opportunity to extol the virtues of their cause, as they saw fit.36
Just one example of how newspapers influenced opinion at the time is the 1860 Harper’s Ferry raid by abolitionist John Brown and his band of radical abolitionists. This would be used as fodder to ignite the passions of all white Southerners, slave owners or not. The premise being that had Brown succeeded then all white people in the South were potential victims of the murderous spree that arming the slaves would unleash. No distinction would be made between slave owner and poor dirt farmer. All that mattered was that white Southerners were the enemy and must be made to “pay.” In the North Brown’s actions were used to foment hatred for the South and Brown himself was all but canonized as a demi-god after his trial. In the South a very different image was presented and the adulation heaped upon the old abolitionist was deeply resented, by slave owner and non-slave owner alike. Plainly, if Brown had succeeded with his plan even non-slaveholding Southerners would be at risk, and this did not sit well with any of them. Northern politician and Brown supporter, Joshua Giddings, was taken to task for his effusive praise of Brown’s efforts. As author Allan Nevins notes, in his treatise, The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861, “a Virginian advertised in the Richmond Whig that he would be one of a hundred men to pay $10,000 for the delivery of Joshua Giddings dead, or half that sum for his head.” Many were the Southerners who came away from the Brown raid and subsequent hanging with a bitter resentment for the North. This was based on the belief that the North’s actions, largely through a few newspapers and some political speeches, indicated a hatred for the South and all its white inhabitants. A hatred so strong that the North was willing to see them murdered as the result of a slave insurrection. It mattered not that many of these Southerners were not slave owners, as no such distinction would be made by a mob of attacking former slaves.37
Southern politicians would add to this disaffection between regions with their own speeches and actions. Certainly some supported the institution of slavery, but many were also caught up in the “regional hatred” of the moment, and sought to inculcate that same feeling in their constituents. Governor Henry Wise of Virginia was one such politician. His actions gave credence to the rumors of further potential Northern invasions, such as Brown’s was described. By deploying large bodies of militia along the state’s borders and suspending travel on some railways, he did much to foment further artificial antagonism between the regions.38
There were those of cooler head, who recognized these actions, and those of others, as unnecessarily stirring up passions. A lawyer and politician from Virginia, John Minor Botts, made his feelings clear regarding Wise’s actions and their effects on the general public, when he wrote:
Whether designed or not, it has exasperated and frenzied the public mind –
it has begotten an ill feeling, antipathy, and hostility between members of
the same political community, that every good man and patriot must
deprecate, and that it becomes the…representatives of the people to do all
in their power to smooth down and rectify.
This indicates that it was obvious to some on the scene that the passions of the people were being influenced, whether by accident of design, to further a political view. No doubt many of those reading about or seeing these actions did not take the time, as Botts did, to think things through, but instead reacted viscerally to what they saw as a threat to them and their state. Politicians and newspapers, North and South, share responsibility for fomenting and continuing this regional animosity.39
Despite the best efforts on both sides, to sway opinions, there were still those young men who were torn over the prospect of war between North and South, after all, were we not all still Americans? One such young man, from the North, was Warren Goss, of the Second Massachusetts Artillery. Goss would join before the two armies had actually clashed. He wrote of having attended the various rallies and flag-raisings, read the newspapers, and heard the speeches extolling “undying devotion to the Union,” yet he still had not entered the recruiter’s office. He had “mixed feelings” as the reason for his hesitance in joining the army of the North. It was not until a regiment from his home state was violently accosted that his feelings were solidified. When the Sixth Massachusetts was set upon by Southern sympathizers on their way through Baltimore, Maryland, Goss determined that the time had come to sign on the dotted line. As he stated, “It was the news that the Sixth Massachusetts had been mobbed by roughs on their passage through Baltimore which gave me the war fever.”40
A young Southern man echoed similar sentiments when he lamented the breaking up of the old Union he was born into. William W. Stringfield, of Tennessee, would serve first with the First Tennessee Cavalry and then later with the Thirty-Ninth Tennessee Infantry, before the war ended in 1865. He had held out hope that the nation would resolve its differences without bloodshed, but was pushed to make a decision when Lincoln called for the 75,000 troops to invade the South. Stringfield wrote, “I was warmly and honestly in favor of the maintenance of the Federal Union as long as there was the most remote hope of such an end, but Lincoln’s Proclamation of 15th of April last completely changed my feelings. I immediately changed my allegiance from the Federal to the Southern Union.” It is obvious that not everyone was anxious to see the country torn asunder.41
Adventure and peer pressure were also motivations that affected men of both regions. The farm boy seeking to “see the world” was as likely to join up for that reason alone, as for any other. The stories of the nation’s past and the glory of its Founding were staples in households throughout the country. The sacrifice of the hero, the excitement of combat, and the glory one could achieve through great deeds were ever-present in many a young man’s mind. As historian and author Bell I. Wiley states, in The Life of Johnny Reb, “The dominant urge of many volunteers was the desire for adventure.” It is not difficult to imagine the siren call of such adventure for a young farm boy, who had only the stories he was told or had read of, as a means of knowing about the great, vast world “out there.” The horrors of war were not part of those stories, only the glory that comes from feats of courage. The ignorance of those horrors would quickly be erased after one’s first real combat experience.42
It was no different for the young men of the North, many of them, like their Southern counterparts, were farmers who had never traveled any farther than the local town marketplace. Their peers having heard the same tales of glories past, accentuated with deeds of bravery and the adulation of an adoring public, served to create a climate of intimidation should one avoid doing their duty. Many a young man who, not yet decided, as was Warren Goss of Massachusetts, were pressured into joining, for fear of being labeled a coward or a “shirker.” One clever and effective means of employing this peer pressure for recruiting purposes was employed by the Eighth Kentucky Infantry (Union). Soldiers from that regiment would make the local community picnic circuit in their county and, as a veteran recalled, “We hoisted our flag, headed by our three amateur musicians, playing their one and only tune, ‘Sally is the gal for me.’ As each recruit fell into the moving line, loud cheers rent the air.” Imagine the reception awaiting the poor lad who failed to fall into line. In each of the aforementioned cases it is obvious that little thought is given to the political, cultural, or regional aspects of motivation. We are simply seeing the pressures brought to bear on young men who have been sequestered in a small, close-knit community, and who dared not leave themselves open to ridicule should they fail to heed the call.43
The broad overreaching theme for many was, again, the type of government our nation would have going forward. Looking back in this thesis it is easy to be reminded of the strong belief by both sides that they were seeking to maintain the Founder’s vision of our nation. Once again, another example of the sentiment expressed in many Northern newspapers is seen in this submission to the Philadelphia Public Ledger, titled, What are we fighting for? “We are fighting for everything for which this Government was established. We are fighting to preserve our republican institutions in their purity; to maintain our Union in its integrity; to establish the authority of the Constitution and laws over violence and anarchy…”44
Contrast then, that writer’s assessment of the reason for the fight with this one from another anonymous writer, this time in the Daily Picayune from New Orleans, “The Confederate States of 1861 are acting over again the history of the American Revolution of 1776.”45 The author went on to compare the tyranny of King George toward the colonies to the tyranny of the Northern political machine toward the South. So, once again we see how advocates from both regions felt that they were the true inheritors of the Founding spirit and they sought to justify their actions by citing that connection. Continuing in the same vein, Mississippi Congressional representative, A.H. Handy, made clear his feelings, in a speech he gave in Baltimore, Maryland in December of 1860. He said, “Secession is not intended to break up the present Government, but to perpetuate it. We do not propose to go out by way of breaking up or destroying the Union as our fathers gave it to us, but we go out for the purpose of getting further guaranties and
security for our rights.46
It has been shown how the women were adamant in their support of the respective sides. They offered up their services to the war effort to sew uniforms, manufacture ammunition, and nurse the wounded. They exhorted their men to meet the enemy in the field with courage and forbearance, as they themselves would, could they serve in uniform. The letters they wrote to the soldiers and to local newspapers, and civic organizations made it clear that they were willing to make whatever sacrifices were necessary on their part in order to support the war effort. Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell, of the Confederate States Army, noted the devotion of the Southern women when he said, “I tell you, sir, women would make a grand brigade – if it was not for snakes and spiders! They don’t mind bullets – women are not afraid of bullets; but one big black snake would put a whole army to flight.”47
It should also be remembered that in this mix was the effect the war had upon businesses as well. This concern led to at least one example of a call for secession in the North. New York Mayor Fernando Wood was not at all happy with the scene that was transpiring before him. New York City was heavily invested in Southern textiles and raw materials for the manufacturing businesses in that city. The idea of being separated from those materials was more than he was willing to contemplate. With this in mind he even proposed that New York City secede from the state and the Union in order to maintain friendly business relations with the South.48
Human nature has changed little since the beginning of recorded history. While technology advances and science opens new worlds for us to explore and understand, the human animal still struggles with the same desires and shortcomings. Everyone wants to be left alone to live as they please, to seek our happiness, rear families, enjoy our friends, and simply pursue the happiness that the nation’s Founders spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. Is it so difficult then for contemporary Americans to try and place themselves in the shoes of our ancestors? Throughout this paper it has been shown that the issue of slavery was seldom the reason for joining the army. The reasons range from the sublime reasoning of Valentine C. Randolph, of the Thirty-Ninth Illinois Infantry, who said, “We have but a few days to live; one has as well die fighting for his country as not. To die for one’s country is sweet.”49 To the visceral hatred exhibited by a Northern white man during an anti-Negro riot in Detroit when he screamed, "If we are got to be killed up for niggers then we will kill every nigger in this town.”50 Both are hardly the opinions of men who are fighting to end slavery.
Of the many factors that influenced men to join the army perhaps these can best be summed up with Frank Owsley’s assessment of “regional sectionalism.” However, to assign just one reason or cause for the war does a disservice to the hundreds of thousands who fought, sacrificed, and even died for their cause. As Americans it is important to make ourselves aware of all the factors leading up to a war that pitted region against region, and brother against brother. To avoid the destruction of fratricide again it is essential that Americans know why it happened before and take steps to assure that it never happens again. For us to do less dishonors the sacrifices made by our ancestors and simply perpetuates a national ignorance that we can ill afford and for which we have no excuse.
Many books have been written on the subject of our American Civil War. There have been books written by generals to explain their tactics, politicians to explain their thoughts or the constitutionality of their positions, by historians to explain campaigns, and a host of other authors and purposes. But in order to truly understand the causes of the war, the reasons for joining the fight, the thought processes behind the civilians who supported the war, one must avail themselves of the opportunity to read what those who carried a musket wrote. The men who trudged ten to twenty miles a day in the hot summer sun, while wearing a wool uniform and carrying upwards of forty or fifty pounds of equipment, tell of the real motivations. Politicians talk, but people have to fight the wars and their reasons are not always those of the political class. Sam Watkins addresses this topic in his book about his wartime experiences, Co. Aytch: A Side Show of the Big Show, when he explains the difference between his treatise and those of others. He states, “They tell of great achievements of great men, who wear the laurels of victory; have grand presents given them; high positions in civil life….and when they die, long obituaries are published, telling their many virtues…” He then brings the reader to the point of his book, and it is well that we should heed its content when he says, “…I propose to tell of the fellows who did the shooting and killing, the fortifying and ditching, the sweeping of the streets, the drilling, the standing guard, picket and videt, and who drew (or were to draw) eleven dollars per month and rations, and also drew the ramrod and tore the cartridge.”51
There are many such stories that can provide the student of history with insights into the motivations of the soldiers in the ranks. Sadly, these stories seem lost amid a plethora of vaunted leaders, bellicose politicians, and grand campaigns. As historians it is important to be ever mindful of the need to present these stories and insist that they be given their due. By doing so the educational impact on our national psyche can provide a better understanding of that terrible conflict.
In closing the question remains, “Why?” Why was our youthful nation torn asunder along geographical and ideological lines? Why were families forever alienated from one another? Why were regional animosities, sometimes outright hatreds, fomented that last to this day? Finally, why not simply turn to the pages of history for answers and look at the stories left behind by those who fought in that conflict? Was there one and only one reason, or were the reasons more complex and more likely the result of mere human fallibility? By seeking out the answers to these questions as a nation, we might be able to come to grips with this national tragedy in a way that will shed a new light on that dark period in America’s history. Perhaps the reason is no more complicated than the opinion posited by Boston attorney George T. Curtis, from his 1875 speech A Discourse on the Nature of the American Union, as the Principal Controversy Involved in the Late Civil War, when he breaks it down to its most basic premise, maybe it was nothing more than a “great conflict of opinion” about the form of government our nation would adhere to going into the future.
Bibliography (Primary Sources)
Anonymous, "For What Are We Now Contending? Daily Life Online (1861),
http://proxy.mbc.edu:2381/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&bc=DBDA1234&p=GR2126-498&tab=pd&id=60&u=#hit. (accessed June 16, 2010).
Anonymous, "Recurring to First Principles” Daily Life Online (2004),
http://proxy.mbc.edu:2381/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&bc=DBDA1234&p=GR2126-498&tab=pd&id=60&u=#hit. (accessed June 16, 2010).
Anonymous Rioter. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
Anonymous, "“What Are We Fighting For?” Daily Life America (2004),
http://dailylife.greenwood.com/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&=p=GR2126- 498&bc=. (accessed June 16, 2010).
Bowley, Freeman S. Honor in Command: Lt. Freeman S. Bowley's Civil War
Service in the 30th United States Colored Infantry. Keith Wilson. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2006.
Cochran, John H. "The Valley of the Shadow - Valley Personal Papers." October 8,
1860.http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/papers/A0571 (accessed 03/17/2010).
Curtis, George T. "A Discourse on the Nature of the American Union, as the
Principal Controversy Involved in the Late Civil War." March 1875. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1030291752&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed June 8, 2010).
Dodge, Mary A. "A Call to my Countrywomen."
1863.http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1032064562&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed 06/14/2010).
Ewell, Richard S. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
Goss,Warren. The Civil War Archive. Henry S. Commager. New York, NY:
Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc., 1950.
Handy, A.H... The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
Harrison, Constance C. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
Lee, Robert E. The Recollections & Letters of Robert E. Lee. Capt. Robert E. Lee
(Son). New York, NY: Konecky & Konecky, 1998.
Livermore, Mary A. Noble Women of the North. Sylvia G.L. Dannett. New
York, NY: Sagamore Press, Inc., 1959.
Maury, Matthew F.. Southern Historical Society Papers. Southern Historical Society
Papers. I, No. 2, A Vindication of Virginia and the South. Rev. J. W. Jones, D.D.. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1990.
Poague, William T.. Gunner with Stonewall. Monroe F. Cockrell. Wilmington, N.C.:
Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987.
"Progress of the Revolution in the South - Gleams of Light." New York Herald,
January 5, 1861, 6. Virginia Historical Society Collection.
Randolph,Valentine C.. A Civil War Soldiers Diary. David D. Roe. Dekalb,
Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2006.
Stedman, E.C. The Blue and the Gray. Henry S. Commager. New York: The Fairfax
Press, 1982.
Stringfield, William W. "William Stringfield Papers, Diary, and Memoirs."
. http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/stringfield.html (accessed June 17, 2005).
Watkins, Sam R. Co. Aytch - A Side Show of the Big Show. Wilmington, N.C.:
Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987.
Wilson, Samuel R. “The Causes and Remedies of Impending National
Calamities.” 1860. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1030287042&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Wood,Fernando. The Civil War Archive. Henry S. Commager. New York, NY:
Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc., 1950.
Woolsey, Jane S. Noble Women of the North. Sylvia G.L. Dannett. New York,
NY: Sagamore Press, Inc., 1959.
Bibliography (Secondary Sources)
Ballard, John and Mcdowell, Aliecia. "Hate and Combat Behavior” Armed
Forces & Society 2. 17 (1991), 229-241,
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#bib2. (accessed May 25, 2010).
Brand, Jonathan D. "Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks
from the Civil War to the Present." Journal of Education 184, no. 3 (September 2003): 63-71. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 18, 2010).
Cozzens, Peter. Shenandoah 1862. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press, 2008.
DiLorenzo, T.J. The Real Lincoln. Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2002.
Fletcher, Winona L. "SPEECHMAKING OF THE NEW YORK DRAFT RIOTS OF
1863” Quarterly Journal of Speech 54. 2 (1968), 134-139, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&hid=8&sid=3e623cc5-42b3-4335-8487-2d9b02c979bd%40sessionmgr13. (accessed July 16, 2010).
Grant, Susan-Mary. "FOR GOD & COUNTRY : WHY MEN JOINED UP FOR
THE US CIVIL WAR History Today 50. 7 (2000), 20-28, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=4f90bbcb-3bd1-4085-9f33-cb8e06d452a5%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3264474. (accessed June 3, 2010).
Kennedy, Walter D.. Myths of American Slavery. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Co.,
Inc., 2003.
Maslowski, Pete. "A Study of Morale in Civil War SoldiersMilitary Affairs 34.
4 (1970), 122-126, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1986780. (accessed June 5, 2010).
Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950.
Nevins,Allan. The War for the Union: The Organized War 1863-1864. New York, NY:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.
Owsley, Frank L. "The Fundamental Cause of the Civil War: Egocentric
SectionalismThe Journal of Southern History 7. 1 (1941), 3-18, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2054/stable/pdfplus/2191262.pdf. (accessed July 18, 2010).
Stanard, Mary N. Richmond - Its People and Its Story. 1st ed. Philadelphia &
London: J.P. Lippincott Company, 1923.
Streich, Michael. "The 1860 Census and Slavery in the United States –
Interpreting Census Data and Research on Pre-Civil War Slavery."
12/11/2008. http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_1860_
census_and_slavery_in_the_united_states
(accessed 03/09/2010).
Wiley,Bell I.. The Life of Billy Yank. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1951.
Wiley, Bell I. The Life of Johnny Reb. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1943.
Endnotes
Brand, Jonathan D. "Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the Present." Journal of Education 184, no. 3 (September 2003): 63-71. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 18, 2010), p. 69
2. Grant, Susan-Mary. "FOR GOD & COUNTRY : WHY MEN JOINED UP FOR
THE US CIVIL WAR History Today 50. 7 (2000), 20-28, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=4f90bbcb-3bd1-4085-9f33-cb8e06d452a5%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3264474. (accessed June 3, 2010), p. 7
3. Streich, Michael. "The 1860 Census and Slavery in the United States –
Interpreting Census Data and Research on Pre-Civil War Slavery."
12/11/2008. http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_1860_
census_and_slavery_in_the_united_states
(accessed 03/09/2010).
Stedman, E.C. The Blue and the Gray. Henry S. Commager. (New York: The
Fairfax Press, 1982), p. 54
DiLorenzo, T.J. The Real Lincoln. (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2002), p. 85
6. Kennedy, Walter D.. Myths of American Slavery. (Gretna, LA: Pelican
Publishing Co., Inc., 2003), pp. 163-169
Poague, William T.. Gunner with Stonewall. Monroe F. Cockrell.
(Wilmington, N.C.: Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987), pp. 2-3
8. Watkins, Sam R. Co. Aytch - A Side Show of the Big Show. (Wilmington, N.C.:
Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987), p. 49
9. Cochran, John H. "The Valley of the Shadow - Valley Personal Papers." October
8, 1860.http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/papers/A0571 (accessed 03/17/2010).
10. Maury, Matthew F.. Southern Historical Society Papers. Southern Historical
Society Papers. I, No. 2, A Vindication of Virginia and the South. Rev. J. W.
Jones, D.D.. (Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1990), p. 55
Owsley, Frank L.. "The Fundamental Cause of the Civil War: Egocentric
SectionalismThe Journal of Southern History 7. 1 (1941), 3-18, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2054/stable/pdfplus/2191262.pdf. (accessed July 18, 2010).
12. "Progress of the Revolution in the South - Gleams of Light." New York Herald,
January 5, 1861, 6. Virginia Historical Society Collection.
13. Kennedy, Walter D.. Myths of American Slavery. (Gretna, LA: Pelican
Publishing Co., Inc., 2003), pp. 171-172
14. Kennedy, Walter D.. Myths of American Slavery. (Gretna, LA: Pelican
Publishing Co., Inc., 2003), p. 172
15. Bowley, Freeman S. Honor in Command: Lt. Freeman S. Bowley's Civil War
Service in the 30th United States Colored Infantry. Keith Wilson. (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2006), p. 47
16. Lee, Robert E. The Recollections & Letters of Robert E. Lee. Capt. Robert E. Lee
(Son). (New York, NY: Konecky & Konecky, 1998), pp. 24-47
17. Lee, Robert E. The Recollections & Letters of Robert E. Lee. Capt. Robert E. Lee
(Son). (New York, NY: Konecky & Konecky, 1998), p. 26
18. See Appendix A & B for examples.
19. Stanard, Mary N. Richmond - Its People and Its Story. 1st ed. (Philadelphia &
London: J.P. Lippincott Company, 1923), pp. 162-163
20. Ballard, John and Mcdowell, Aliecia. "Hate and Combat Behavior” Armed
Forces & Society 2. 17 (1991), 229-241,
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#bib2. (accessed May 25, 2010).
21. Cozzens, Peter. Shenandoah 1862. Chapel Hill, NC: (The University of North
Carolina Press, 2008), p. 143
22. Maslowski, Pete. "A Study of Morale in Civil War SoldiersMilitary Affairs 34.
4 (1970), 122-126, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1986780. (accessed June 5, 2010).
23. Grant, Susan-Mary. "FOR GOD & COUNTRY : WHY MEN JOINED UP FOR
THE US CIVIL WAR History Today 50. 7 (2000), 20-28, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=4f90bbcb-3bd1-4085-9f33cb8e06d452a5%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3264474. (accessed June 3, 2010), pp. 5-7
Nevins,Allan. The War for the Union: The Organized War 1863-1864. (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), p. 124
Fletcher, Winona L. "SPEECHMAKING OF THE NEW YORK DRAFT RIOTS
OF 1863” Quarterly Journal of Speech 54. 2 (1968), 134-139, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&hid=8&sid=3e623cc5-42b3-4335-8487-2d9b02c979bd%40sessionmgr13. (accessed July 16, 2010).
26. Grant, Susan-Mary. "FOR GOD & COUNTRY : WHY MEN JOINED UP FOR
THE US CIVIL WAR History Today 50. 7 (2000), 20-28, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=4f90bbcb-3bd1-4085-9f33cb8e06d452a5%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3264474. (accessed June 3, 2010), p. 7
Curtis, George T. "A Discourse on the Nature of the American Union, as the
Principal Controversy Involved in the Late Civil War." March 1875. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1030291752&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed June 8, 2010).
28. Wilson, Samuel R. “The Causes and Remedies of Impending National
Calamities.” 1860. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1030287042&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP
29. Grant, Susan-Mary. "FOR GOD & COUNTRY : WHY MEN JOINED UP FOR
THE US CIVIL WAR History Today 50. 7 (2000), 20-28, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2289/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=4f90bbcb-3bd1-4085-9f33cb8e06d452a5%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3264474. (accessed June 3, 2010), p. 4
30. Wiley,Bell I.. The Life of Billy Yank. (New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1951), p. 18
Harrison, Constance C. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006), pp. 141-142
32. Dodge, Mary A. "A Call to my Countrywomen."
1863.http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1032064562&Fmt=10&clientId=45076&RQT=309&VName=HNP (accessed 06/14/2010).
33. Woolsey, Jane S.. Noble Women of the North. Sylvia G.L. Dannett. (New York,
NY: Sagamore Press, Inc., 195), p. 41
34. Livermore, Mary A.. Noble Women of the North. Sylvia G.L. Dannett. (New
York, NY: Sagamore Press, Inc., 1959), p. 37
35. Anonymous, "For What Are We Now Contending? Daily Life Online (1861),
http://proxy.mbc.edu:2381/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&bc=DBDA1234&p=GR2126-498&tab=pd&id=60&u=#hit. (accessed June 16, 2010).
36. Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
(New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), pp. 102-112
37. Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
(New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), p. 102
38. Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
(New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), p. 102
39. Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
(New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), pp. 102-103
40. Goss,Warren. The Civil War Archive. Henry S. Commager. (New York, NY:
Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc., 1950), p. 89
41. Stringfield, William W. "William Stringfield Papers, Diary, and Memoirs."
. http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/stringfield.html (accessed June 17, 2005).
42.Wiley, Bell I. The Life of Johnny Reb. (New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1943), p. 17
43. Wiley,Bell I.. The Life of Billy Yank. (New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1951), p. 21
44. Anonymous, "“What Are We Fighting For?” Daily Life America (2004),
http://dailylife.greenwood.com/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&=p=GR2126- 498&bc=. (accessed June 16, 2010).
45. Anonymous, "Recurring to First Principles” Daily Life Online (2004),
http://proxy.mbc.edu:2381/dle.aspx?k=7&x=GR2126&bc=DBDA1234&p=GR2126-498&tab=pd&id=60&u=#hit. (accessed June 16, 2010).
46. Handy, A.H... The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006), p. 139
47. Ewell, Richard S. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006), p. 98
48. Wood,Fernando. The Civil War Archive. Henry S. Commager. (New York, NY:
Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc., 1950), pp. 45-47
49. Randolph,Valentine C.. A Civil War Soldiers Diary. David D. Roe. (Dekalb,
Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2006), p. 10
50. Anonymous Rioter.. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. John
D. Wright. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006), p. 10
51. Watkins, Sam R. Co. Aytch - A Side Show of the Big Show. (Wilmington, N.C.:
Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987), p. 47
Appendix
A.
Appendix B.
