The American Civil War: An Exceptionally Nice Conflict? April 10, 2014
Author: Beach Combing | in : Modern , trackback
The American Civil War was a grim event: of this there should be no question. Perahps 400 thousand young men were killed, who would have contributed to the future of their country/countries. There was lasting bitterness, particularly in the South, where even today there are debates about Confederate Flags and northern culpability. For an outsider, though, with a steady interest in history two things stand out. First, there is the splendid irony that the country that would heroically turn self-determination into its war cry in the twentieth century, fighting for national borders and an end to Empires, rode so hard over that principle on its own doorstep. And, second, there is the fact that the Civil War just wasn’t that nasty a war.
That line about self-determination can go hang: it is a provocation and a fairly feeble one. But how on earth can anyone say that the Civil War was not nasty: the casualty figures, particularly compared with other late nineteenth century wars, beggar belief? There is though the very simple fact that the two sides in the war were generally able to keep up a gentlemanly veneer both before and more significantly after the conflict. Of course, there are lots of people who would disagree with this. Afro-American soldiers on the Union side, by some estimates black civilians in the south, everyone in Missouri, all too many prisoners of war…. War is horrible and there is no question that the American Civil War was not exceptional in that respect.
However, Civil War is particularly horrible and here American exceptionalism kicks in with a blessed vengeance. Read about the Civil War in Yugoslavia in the Second World War with Croats crucifying Serbs and Serbs hacking Croats to pieces. Read about the levels of bitterness in a low grade conflict like the Republican campaign in the six counties from 1969 to the early 1990s. The Taiping Rebellion in China saw perhaps twenty million Chinese killed, many civilians being routinely put to death on the capture of settlements. Now think of Lee defending Grant in the years after the close of the ACW or Lincoln demanding that Dixie be played at the cessation of hostilities. Americans managed to keep their heads and to avoid the greater bitterness that civil strife normally gives rise to: ‘The woe’s to come; the children yet unborn/ Shall feel this day as sharp to them as thorn’ and blood will manure the ground.’
If this can be allowed then the question follows: why? Civil Wars are fought over religion, ethnicity, politics, language but perhaps in the end wars fought over geography and self determination are the most hopeful. They don’t call into question each side’s humanity – though with the ACW there is, of course, the shameful running sore of the South and slavery… Then perhaps too there was Anglo-Saxon common sense, a constant and (again to a non-American) remarkable refusal to descend into the abyss of hate and loathing on the part of many of the movers and shakers on either side. There were also relatively few divided communities: in most parts of the country the vast majority found themselves on one side or the other. I sometimes wonder, especially when talking with and reading the work of American students, how much this peculiar lack of rancour distorts modern Americans view of a wider and all too often less happy world. Other perspectives: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com
An afterthought, the revolutionary war in the late eighteenth century was far nastier in terms of civilian deaths etc than the Civil War.
24 April 2014: James H writes: I believe the three things most important things for the aftermath of that conflict were the Gettysburg address, Lincoln’s second inaugural address, and Lee’s farewell to the Army of Northern Virginia. That the country had these two men and the second tier (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Longstreet) who with their enormous prestige steered a moderate course for the Country was astounding and a blessing. Nathaniel writes, meanwhile, Re American Civil War deaths, the figure given for soldiers killed is usually 620,000, with (according to Wikipedia) possibly higher figures of 750,000 or even 850,000. Probably 2/3 of these were a result of disease rather than combat. Wikipedia gives a figure of 50,000 for civilian deaths, which actually seems high to me. I’ve seen other estimates that civilian deaths were about 2% of total casualties, which would make them about 12-16,000. In any event they were far lower than in modern wars where civilians make up as much as 80% of total deaths. Most of the Civil War was fought between uniformed combatants in lightly populated areas, so there was little of the accidental or deliberate targeting of civilians that is a standard feature of modern conventional (and even more of guerrilla) wars. Deaths in the American Revolution (again largely from disease) are estimated at 25,000 on the American side, with an unknown but probably similar figure for British deaths. I couldn’t find any estimate of civilian deaths. What is sometimes not recognized is the degree to which the American “Revolution” was also a civil war. In some areas in fact there were no British soldiers at all — the combat was all Americans fighting other Americans. My own family (an old colonial one) split down the middle over it, with some supporting the American side and others (including a direct ancestor) remaining loyal to the British. In 1775 my great-great-great-great-grandfather wrote “God Save the King” on the last page of a Pennsylvania colonial government record book and then left Philadelphia for his country estate. There’s an odd record which may refer to him saying he was “released from parole” in 1778. The next for certain reference is his being appointed a county judge under the new American government in the 1780s. Apparently all was forgiven. His son served in the American army during the war of 1812 and his descendants remain in the U.S. to this day, although sadly we are no longer wealthy. Oh well… KMH writes, instead, One aspect of the Civil War you may not have considered is the treatment of prisoners of war. As the losing side, the South had a particularly bad record. You might start a perusal with the name Andersonville. The South also killed any and all black soldiers they encountered on the theory that not being fully human, they didn’t deserve to be treated on a par with whites. Trying to be civil about this subject. Thanks KMH, Nathaniel and his great-great-great-great grandfather and James H!
