The Civil War is often portrayed as the most brutal war in America's history, a premonition of twentieth-century slaughter and carnage. In challenging this view, Mark E. Neely, Jr., considers the war's destructiveness in a comparative context, revealing the sense of limits that guided the conduct of American soldiers and statesmen. Neely begins by contrasting Civil War behavior with U.S. soldiers' experiences in the Mexican War of 1846. He examines Price's Raid in Missouri for evidence of deterioration in the restraints imposed by the customs of war; and in a brilliant analysis of Philip Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign, he shows that the actions of U.S. cavalrymen were selective and controlled. The Mexican war of the 1860s between French imperial forces and republicans provided a new yardstick for brutality: Emperor Maximilian's infamous Black Decree threatened captured enemies with execution. Civil War battles, however, paled in comparison with the unrestrained warfare waged against the Plains Indians. Racial beliefs, Neely shows, were a major determinant of wartime behavior. Destructive rhetoric was rampant in the congressional debate over the resolution to avenge the treatment of Union captives at Andersonville by deliberately starving and freezing to death Confederate prisoners of war. Nevertheless, to gauge the events of the war by the ferocity of its language of political hatred is a mistake, Neely argues. The modern overemphasis on violence in Civil War literature has led many scholars to go too far in drawing close analogies with the twentieth century's total war and the grim guerrilla struggles of Vietnam.
Hagemann, E. R. Fighting Rebels and Redskins: Experiences in Army Life of Colonel George B. Sanford, 1861–1892. ... Southern Sons, Northern Soldiers: The Civil War Letters of the Remley Brothers, 22nd Iowa Infantry.
Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation
No single word better expresses what Americans believe their country has stood for from 1776 right down to the ... upon the whole character and conduct of the men of '76,” said the antislavery poet and journalist William Cullen Bryant.
Jarret Ruminski examines ordinary lives in Confederate-controlled Mississippi to show how military occupation and the ravages of war tested the meaning of loyalty during America's greatest rift.
41 Joseph B. Carr, “Operations of 1861 about Fort Monroe,” in B&L, 2:152. The 10th New York may have been part of Carr's brigade, but it had already crossed Hampton Roads and was marching on Norfolk. Carr said that later that day he did ...
Hugo Stinnes; Biographie eines Industriellen, 1870–1921. Munich, 1998. ——. “Hugo Stinnes and the Prospect of War before 1914.” In Anticipating Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871–1914, ed.
Through widespread and relentless surprise attacks and ambushes, Confederate guerrillas drove Union soldiers and their leaders to desperation. Confederate cavalrymen engaged in hit-and-run tactics; autonomous partisan rangers preyed on Federal...
How did Civil War soldiers endure the brutal and unpredictable existence of army life during the conflict? This question is at the heart of Peter S. Carmichael's sweeping new study of men at war.
This volume explores the Union army's treatment of Southerners during the Civil War, emphasising the survival of political logic and control.
Discarding tidy abstractions about the conduct of war, Aaron Sheehan-Dean shows that the notoriously bloody US Civil War could have been much worse.