Conflict and Command: Civil War History Readers, Volume 1

A “Face of Battle” Needed: An Assessment of Motives and Men in Civil War Historiography

a “face of battle” needed 43 a “Face of battle” needed an assessment of Motives and Men in Civil war historiography Marvin r. Cain In the years following 1945, at a time when nuclear “massive retaliation” was national policy, historians turned away from the “causes” of the Civil War and began to examine in greater detail the “consequences” of the mid-nineteenth centuryconflict.astheVietnamdebacleregistered onthenationalconsciousness, the“needlesswar”thesiswas replaced bypresentist revisionism of the 1960s and 1970s. although there was not an immediate historiographical antiwarconsensus , the bitterdebate between John rosenberg and Phillip Paludan revealed that the moralityof the Civil War had become a central question and that the issue of judgmental balance between the destruction of slavery and the preservation of the Union, as weighed against human suffering and economic loss, dominated historial thought. However, as in the case of the “causes” generation, the historians of the “consequences” era did not explore the conflict’s human equation, the Civil War soldier. There is more detail about the life of the Union soldier in the ever increasing literature of the Civil War, but the relevancy of his attitudes, his behavior, and his motives has been generally neglected.1 43 E Civil War History, Vol. XXVIII no. 1 ©1982 by The Kent state University Press 1. david donald,“american Historians and the Causes of the Civil War,”southatlantic Quarterly 59 (1960):351–55;eric Foner,“TheCauses of theCivilWar:recent Interpretations and newdirections ,” Civil War History 20 (1974): 197–214; Phillip Paludan, “Triumph Through Tragedy,” Civil war history 20 (1974): 239–50; richard o. Curry, “The Civil War and reconstruction: a Critical overview of recent Trends and Interpretations, 1861–1877,” Civil war history 20 (1974): 215–38; 44 marvin r. cain robert Cruden, The warThat Never Ended (englewood Cliffs, n.J., 1973);William l. barney, Flawed victory:a New Perspective on the Civil war (new York, 1975);arthur M. schlesinger Jr., “The Causes of the Civil War,” Partisan review 16 (1949):969–81;PeterGeyl, “The american Civil War and the Problem of Inevitability,” New England Quarterly 24 (1951): 147–68;Thomas n. bonner, “Civil War Historians and needless Wax,”Journal of the history of ideas 17 (1956): 193–216; James G. randall, “The blundering Generation,” Mississippi valley historical review 27 (1940):3–28;avery o. Craven, The Coming of the Civil war (new York, 1942); John s. rosenberg, “The american Civil War and the Problem of ‘Presentism’: a reply to Phillip s. Paludan,” Civil war history 20 (1974): 242–53; Phillip s. Paludan, “Taking the benefits of the Civil War Issue seriously: a rejoinder to John s. rosenberg,” Civil war history 21 (1975): 254–60. 2. allan r. Millett, “american Military History: over the Top,” in The state of american history, ed. Herbert J. bass (Chicago, 1970), 158–64; richard H. Kohn, “Myths and realities of america at War,” reviews in american history 6 ( 1978):445–47;Peter Karsten, “demilitarizing Military History: servants of Power or agents of Understanding?” Military affairs 36 (1972): 88–92; stetson Conn, “The Pursuit of Military History,” Military affairs 30 (1966–67): l-8; Maurice Matloff, “The nature and scope of MilitaryHistory,”in Essays in some Dimensions of Militaryhistory, ed. don rickey Jr., and benjaminF.Cooling(Carlislebarracks,Pa.,1972),3–20;louisMorton,“TheHistorianand thestudy of War,” Mississippi valley historical review 50 ( 1962): 599–613; Peter Paret, “The History of War,” daedalus 100 (1971): 376–96; russell Weigley, The american way of war: a history of United states Military strategy and Policy (new York, 1973); Theodore ropp, “War: From Colonies to Vietnam,” in The reinterpretation of american history and Culture, ed. William H. Cartwright and richard l. Watson (Washington, 1973), 207–26; Thomas e. Gress, “a Perspective on Military History,” and ronald H. spector, “Military History and the academic World,” in a Guide to the study and Use of Military history, ed. John e. Jessup Jr., and robert W. Coakley (Washington, 1979), 25–34, 431–37. 3. allan r. Millett, “The study of american Military History in the United states,” Military affairs 41 (1977):58–61; Jack C. lane, “The american Military Past:The need for newapproaches,” In the past two decades, with the emergence of the new military history, historians such as Joseph l. Harsh, edward Hagerman, Peter Karsten, richard Kohn, allan Millett, Peter Maslowski, russell Weigley, and several others have come to regard war as an integral part of the stream of human conduct instead of an episodic event created by the aberrant behavior of generals and demonic...