Themes of the American Civil War
Download 2.25 Mb. View original pdf
|
| The Nature of Total War Several historians have concluded that the American War between the States was a modern war and also a total war. Although few have agreed exactly how to define total war, historian Daniel Sutherland summarized that its “principal themes have always been the disruption of the enemy’s logistical base and the destruction of civilian morale.” 16 Others insist that total war means widescale attacks on civilians themselves, not just finding ways to undercut their morale or destroy the enemy nation’s resources and industrial and agricultural production. 17 Among the first to suggest that total war” could be applied to the Civil War was J. F. C. Fuller, a British army officer and military analyst. In his study The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant Fuller asserted that the Confederacy was crushed physically, economically, and morally, in contrast to the Central Powers in the Great War, that were never morally defeated Furthermore, Fuller contended, The Northern problem of conquest meant not only defeating the enemy’s armed forces and occupying his capital, but subduing the will of an entire people and occupying the whole of their country Fuller concluded The political object of the war was so clear, namely, union or disunion, that no other course could be adopted.” 18 World War II affected scholars views about the Civil War. A number of them elaborated upon Fuller’s suggestions. In an essay, General William T. Sherman and Total War and later in a book, Merchant of Terror, John B. Walters asserted that at the outset Sherman’s attitude toward the enemy was essentially that of the orthodox professional soldier of the period— interested in the game itself as it was being played by the two armies rather than in personalizing the enemy After more than a year of war, however, Sherman began to see things differently When one nation is at war with another all the people of the one are enemies of the other Even more emphatically, Sherman stated to his brother, US. Senator John Sherman, that “the entire South, man, woman, and child are against us the North, armed and determined As the conflict intensified, Sherman decided that he must “wage war so terrible reaching the lives and property of many Southern 68 • Joseph G. Dawson III civilians as well as the Confederate armies. Taking steps to destroy the southerners economic base and transportation network, Sherman also aimed at their morale and psychological outlook. Sherman’s devastating campaign through Georgia and the Carolinas culminated his terrible approach to waging war. 19 Influenced by J. F. C. Fuller’s writings, T. Harry Williams made one of the strongest statements by an American historian. Williams flatly contended that The Civil War was the first of the modern total wars In Lincoln and his Generals (1952) Williams argued that President Lincoln became a masterly commander-in-chief, marshalling the North’s resources and military might to completely subdue the South, creating a modern general staff in the process. After further reflection, Williams qualified his views. Writing in 1981, he reiterated that there could be no compromise, no partial triumph for either side. One or the other had to achieve a complete victory He concluded The totality of these objectives led some historians to call the Civil War a total war. The label is somewhat exaggerated, as neither side put forward the absolute effort required of many nations in World War I or World War II. . . . Still, the Civil War missed totality by only a narrow margin.” 20 Numerous other historians joined the ranks of those describing a total war. For instance, to Frank E. Vandiver, the conflict had become total. All elements of the population were affected all had some part in the whole effort Along the same lines, Bruce Catton contended that Grant was fighting. a total war, and in a total war the enemy’s economy is to be undermined in anyway possible Russell F. Weigley argued that Northern political and military leaders gradually came to believe that nothing less than total victory would result in the goal of national reunification and Northern military leadership agreed on using a strategy of annihilation.” Emory M. Thomas concluded that by 1865, under the pressure of total war, the Confederate South had surrendered most of its cherished way of life.” Phillip S. Paludan postulated that Grants war making has come to stand for the American way of war. For one thing, that image is one of total war demanding unconditional surrender In influential books and essays, James M. McPherson maintained that the Union war effort blended military, diplomatic, economic, political, social, and ideological threads to produce a total war. In Battle Cry of Freedom McPherson pointed out that in Grant and Sherman the North acquired commanders with a concept of total war and the necessary determination to make it succeed Identifying Lincoln’s ultimate goal in the most resounding way, McPherson emphasized the President’s Strategy of Unconditional Surrender.” 21 From the outset, North and South fought over a central issue—whether two nations would exist where only one had stood before. Although that issue could not be compromised, both sides expected that the war would be The First of the Modern Wars? • 69 limited in certain ways. Few expected that the war would have great impact on civilians lives or change society. Instead of lasting only a few months, with a few battles fought in only a restricted geographical area, the war went on for fifty months Union and Confederate armies fought battles in nineteen states and territories. In the east, opposing forces fought from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, south to Olustee, Florida. Battles swept across the continent from the Atlantic coast westward to Glorieta, near Santa Fe, New Mexico, and raged up and down the Mississippi River Valley. Altogether, the fighting covered an area approximately equal to that between the Rhine River to Moscow and from the Bosporus to the Baltic. Some Americans might have anticipated that the war could be fought out if each side fielded only two or three armies. Eventually, a dozen armies carried Union or Confederate banners, enrolling nearly 3 million men in blue and gray uniforms between and The longer the war lasted, the greater the geographical area it covered the more men who served in uniform, the greater the involvement of both governments in order to provide the supplies necessary to support extraordinarily large armies and continue the war. Beyond what anyone would have expected in 1861, the Union and the Confederacy mobilized their economies and populations. In many ways, the demands of the wider war called for unusual cooperation between governments and businesses, especially railroads, and War Department contracts became vital to many industries. Ironically, in the Confederacy the marriage of government and business, and the growth of government agencies, had the greater impact. Another way to consider the war efforts of North and South was to postulate that, because of its greater strength and resources, the North conducted a modern war by less than total means, but the South eventually called upon nearly total effort from its people. The Confederacy’s leaders found after a year of warfare that their national government had to step into the economy in unforeseen ways. In order to wage a modern war, the Confederate government surpassed the old U.S. government’s number of employees, eventually hiring more than persons in its several agencies, most in the War Department. During the 1850s, few southerners were convinced that industrialization would benefit their region. In 1861, Confederates were unable to find enough private companies to supply all of their needs for the war effort, prompting them to establish government factories to produce gunpowder, uniforms, tents, and firearms. Colonel Josiah Gorgas, chief of the Confederate Ordnance Bureau, worked wonders in wartime production. Seeking greater access to overseas resources, the government commandeered one-third space on blockade runners in 1863. Although its contracts provided the livelihood for most every Southern rail line, the government refused to nationalize the railroads. The Confederate government gradually assumed a decisive place 70 • Joseph G. Dawson III in the economic life of the struggling nation Confederate contracts were vital for many businesses and industries. 23 Looking to the North, historians have debated the impact and consequences of the Civil War on the US. economy. The demands of war generated growth in some economic sectors, hurt some, and left others almost unaffected. War Department contracts spurred expansion in companies making gunpowder, firearms, and ammunition, but also in the production of all kinds of leather products, including shoes, boots, and harnesses. The Union army demanded tremendous quantities of meat and other foodstuffs to feed its units. Coal mining increased. Woolens production doubled to makeup the loss of cotton. Workers produced new wagons by the score and the government purchased thousands of horses and mules to pull them. By the end of the war, the federal government employed almost civilian workers in all of its departments, nearly quintupling the civilian employees of 1861. Overall, Northern manufacturing was up in 1865, but it had not grown at the same rate as during the s. The key features were the tremendous expansion in government employment and the signing of federal contracts that sustained the war effort. 24 Download 2.25 Mb. Share with your friends:
|