-
Introduction
- The Kent State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Introduction The Civil War was a vast military struggle, a fact worth restating from time to time. an anthology of articles on the military aspects of the war needs no apologia , but some introductory observations are in order. an entirely appropriate source of such articles is Civil war history, a journal devoted from its origins to a serious analysis of thatconflict, in all its dimensions.The following are chosen for their scholarship, their literary quality, and for their lasting contributions to an understanding of the war. In the december 2011 issue of Civil war history is a “Historians’ Forum: The american Civil War’s Centennial vs. the sesquicentennial.” The comments of the distinguished panelists include the question “What role should academic historians play in the commemoration?” It reminds us that this journal was founded, at least in part, to enlist the academy, broadly defined, into the mission of describing the Civil Warto the public. In short, professional historians should write not just for one another (and for promotion and tenure committees) but for an ever-increasing audience. This mission has been successful, at least in the traditional definitions of Civil War studies. The articles included herein address such historical perennials as motivation, leadership, strategy, politics, psychology , and, by implication at least, larger issues of morality and ethics. and not to be unduly flippant, thousands of americans have looked upon accounts of the war—in books,movies,and televisiondocumentaries—asentertainment.asdrew Gilpin Faust so pointedly asks in the first essay in this collection, what explains “this growing fondness for the Civil War?” Her answer may be a bit unsettling for some, especially that our interest is “almost pornographic in its combination of thrill and terror.” In a less fraught tone, she suggests that historians love the study of the war because of its compelling narrative flow and a pervasive and persistent notion that war lends meaning to a nation. at the time of the Civil vii E viii introduction War and in succeeding generations the idea of war as a purifying and ennobling experience, a necessary antidote to social and moral weakness, is related to the need to justify war’s melancholy statistics. lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg, and even more his second Inaugural, addresses this very theme. In less exalted language and most certainly with less persuasive reasoning, commentators of various political stripes insist on attributing a higher meaning to death on the battlefield. My own study of america’s wars has led me to recall a comment by my high school history teacher, a World War II veteran, who was asked to speak to the local Kiwanis Club about the war in Korea, this during the 1951–52 academic year. The comment that attracted most notice was, “Korea is not worth one american mother’s tears.” on another occasion, in words also memorable, he said that lee and davis were traitors and should have been hanged. This in our segregated high school in the heart of oklahoma’s “little dixie” (now safely republican). Picture a room full of teenagers in nearcardiac arrest.When I began to study the Civil War and reconstruction with serious intent, these comments still resonated. I also noticed the influence of one’s relationship to the Cotton Curtain as a determinant in discussing that distracted era. The selections following tend toward taking the war on its own terms, with consideration of such standards as military leadership, intelligence, and logistics and howwellcertain generals addressed these issues. Forsome reason, the generals most often discussed (here and in articles omitted for reasons of space) are those who were not so good at their trade. The authors have tried, with a high degree of success, to answer the old question: Why is one general successful and another less so? Mark e. neely Jr.’s widely referenced essay“Was the Civil War a Total War?” remains a benchmark and a source of debate. It is also a cautionary note about careless research or assumptions and argument by assertion, sometimes by accomplished historians.Thedimensionsof theconflictmayhave approached total war, but neelyargues, successfullyin myopinion, that the term is misapplied. as he defines it, total war would demand a wholesale economic reorganization, as in World War II, and the erasure of distinctions between soldiers and civilians. The last is the “essential aspect” of any definition of total war and no leader, on either side of the conflict, systematically applied it. Marvin r. Cain’s “a‘Face of battle’needed,”was an excellent overviewof the...