Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-1865 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS77 em life. His obvious preferences for the enlightened gentry led him to smooth over some of the cruel and harsh facts of slavery in the earlier age; nor did he ever adequately consider the way the "great generation " might have handled the issue when the controversy grew intense. The reactionary response Jefferson made at the time of the Missouri Compromise is a case in point. Because of his dislike for many things in the generation after 1826, at the same time, Eaton may not have made a full enough effort to explain the forces at work in national life that helped to produce it. In effect, the pattern of his likes and dislikes placed him, on the spectrum from Kenneth Stampp to Ulrich B. Phillips, much closer to Phillips. It did enable him to sense and appreciate the finer things about southern civilization; yet it disposed him to miss or to deem as "unsouthem," in some sense, other and less desirable aspects. Major L. Wilson Memphis State University Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-1865. By Marcus Cunliffe. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Pp. 499. $12.50.) The martial spirit in America during the first half of the nineteenth century reflected vividly changing attitudes witiiin the young Republic . It was a time of growth and discord, of economic progress and social and economic ferment, of patriotic fervor and grim death on the battlefield. One theme that attracted considerable attention was the argument over the proper role of the military in a nation committed to democratic principles. In the book under review, Marcus Cunliffe, Professor of American Studies at the University of Sussex, in England, examines the attitudes during those years toward the professional soldier, the militiaman, and the volunteer, testing cliches, exploring biases, and seeking reasons why the martial spirit remained vibrant and strong. The result is an interesting, well-written survey of attitudes, ideas, and group behavior. About one half of the book is devoted to unraveling the various threads comprising the American military heritage. In 1775 the Americans inherited from their British experience the principle of civilian control over the military, the fear of a standing army, and a reliance on the citizen soldier. Thereafter, American military history was largely civilian rather than military. This was true even of West Point, where the cadets were taught to act defensively and to seek civilian approval. The civilian image also was apparent in the state militia systems (which began to decay by 1850), in the privately organized volunteer companies , _ and in the arguments over maintaining a professional army. Cunliffe presents the pros and cons concerning the various aspects of the military establishment, but he avoids value judgments. The remaining chapters penetrate deeper into the nature of the Amer- 78CIVIL WAR HISTORY¡can military ethos. Cunliffe questions the observation in standard military histories that soldiers eschewed politics and emphasizes that military affairs and politics were intimately related in the decades before the Civil War. Many regulars were amateur politicians; many politicians were amateur soldiers. The interaction between the two resulted in an equilibrium, with neither exercising a dominant role. He also questions the age-old "Southern Military Tradition" which is found in most American history textbooks. Tackling the tradition from many different angles—West Point records, official rosters North and South in 1861, the army command system in 1861, obituaries during the Mexican War—Cunliffe reaches interesting conclusions. For example, he shows through charts and statistics that during the period 1802-1861 more northerners than southerners graduated from West Point (more southerners entered); that New York and Pennsylvania (Virginia was third) led in sending cadets to the Academy; that logistics in the Mexican War dictated the heavy levy on the southern states (actually, the first regiments were from the Ohio Valley); and that there were more military periodicals and volunteer associations in the North during the 1850's than in the South. However, it was true that southerners (Jefferson Davis and John B. Floyd) were war secretaries in the 1850's, that southerners held the senior military appointments in 1861, and that they dominated the cavalry. A southerner was also the superintendent of West...