(Originally produced in 2008.) Most news coverage of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan focuses on troop movements, suicide bombings, and the geopolitical developments at work. Only rarely do we hear the stories of individual men and women fighting there, and hardly ever do we hear what it’s like for those Americans when they return home.

Has it always been thus? How have veterans been treated in the aftermath of America’s previous wars? How much depends on the politics of the war – are vets only as popular as the wars they’ve fought in? These are some of the central questions on the table as we explore veterans’ experiences through three centuries of American life.

Guests Include:

• Frank Earnest, past Commander of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
• Rebecca Jo Plant, historian and author of Mom: The Transformation of Motherhood in Modern America
• Ed Tick, Director of Soldier’s Heart, a nonprofit serving America’s war veterans and their families

Show Highlights

• Conflicting Loyalties
  Sons of Confederate Veterans spokesman Frank Earnest tells 19th Century History Guy Ed Ayers how he reconciles his Confederate heritage with his identity as a veteran of the U.S. Navy. And he explains what the Confederate flag means to him.
• Soldier’s Heart
  Psychologist Edward Tick counsels combat veterans and studies historical accounts of war.  He discusses the ways war was understood in the years before Post Traumatic Stress Disorder existed as a diagnosis.

Further Reading

Want to learn more about the history of War Veterans? Check out a comprehensive list of sources that the History Guys put together to learn more.

Tape: From VFH Radio in Charlottesville, Virginia, this is “BackStory.”

Peter Onuf: From weapons of mass destruction to the U.S.S. Maine, each of America’s wars has been accompanied by its own debate at home, but no war has produced as much debate about its root causes as the American Civil War.  Was it slavery or states’ rights?  Might it have been avoided or was it baked into our history from the outset?  One hundred and fifty years after the shooting began, the national conversation about what the Civil War really meant is still going strong.

Ed Ayers: We’re the American History Guys and today on our show, we’re diving head first into that conversation with an hour devoted to your questions about the Civil War.  What interests you about the war and how much does that have to do with your own family story?  How have our collective stories about the Civil War evolved and what in the world is left to discuss?

PO: The questions that remain one hundred and fifty years later.  That’s coming up on “BackStory” after this news.

Tony Field: Hi, I’m Tony Field, the producer of “BackStory.”  Today’s Podcast is the third and final installment in our special Civil War Anniversary Series.  You can find the first two parts on our website and on iTunes.  If you enjoy the Podcast, please consider making a contribution to VFH Radio to help cover some of our production costs.  There’s a link to give in the bottom right hand corner of our website, backstoryradio.org.  Fifteen dollars would amount to a dime for each year since the Civil War began and we’ll consider any donation of that amount as an endorsement of our work on this series.  As always, you can also help out by sharing links to our shows with your friends and by leaving a review on our page in the iTunes store.  Thanks so much for listening.  Now, back to the show.

PO: Major production support for “BackStory” is provided the Joseph and Robert Cornell Memorial Foundation.  Support also comes from the National Endowment for the Humanities.  [music]  This is “BackStory,” with us, the American History Guys.  I’m Peter Onuf, the 18th century guy.

EA: I’m Ed Ayers, the 19th century guy.

Brian Balogh: And I’m Brian Balogh, 20^th century history guy.  [music]   A few weeks ago, a historian friend of ours here at the University of Virginia, a guy by the name of Gary Gallagher, received an invitation to deliver a talk about the Civil War.  Now, there’s nothing new about that.  Gary is one of the most prominent scholars on the Civil War.  He could probably talk about the Civil War in his sleep, but he had the feeling that this lecture was going to be just a little bit different.

Gary Gallagher: I was asked to talk to basically the Democratic Caucus of the United States Senate.

PO: The invitation came from the office of Senator Harry Reid.  They wanted Gary to provide the after-dinner entertainment for a group of 49 senators attending a retreat in Central Virginia.

Gallagher: I’d been told to give 20 minutes worth of comments and to be ready for 20 minutes worth of questions and answers, and the third and most important thing according to the person who invited me and who was speaking for the Majority Leader Senator Reid, “don’t be boring.”

PO: That last admonition weighed on Gary throughout the evening’s dinner, especially as the dinner went on, and on, and on, much later into the evening than had been originally planned.

Gallagher: Just before I got up, Senator Kerry who was sitting right across from me leaned over and said, “I wouldn’t give prepared remarks if I were you,” and I said, “I’m way ahead of you Senator, I’m not giving prepared remarks,” and so I didn’t.  I asked for a hand-held mic and I just walked up and down and talked to them.

BB: Gary ended up talking to the senators about everything from the balance of power between federal, state, and local governments to what happens to individual liberties in war-time—all from the perspective of the mid-19th century.  The Q & A continued late into the evening, leading Gary to believe that a lot of these senators found the Civil War more than a little relevant to the issues they’re dealing with today.

EA: In the spirit of that evening, we’re devoting today’s show to your questions about the Civil War.  We’re interested in hearing your thoughts about how the war connects with today.  The last two episodes of our program looked specifically at the run-up to the war and at the question of what actually motivated Northerners and Southerners to take up arms against each other.  In this third episode of our Civil War 150th Anniversary Series, we’re opening things up.  All questions are fair game. And, yes, we promise to do our utmost not to be boring.

BB: Okay, guys, I understand that we all get excited about anniversaries and it’s been a hundred and fifty years since the Civil War, but I got to tell you, I don’t understand all of the effort and the subtlety and the nuance that has gone into recreating this event.  It actually seems pretty clear-cut to me, right?  I mean, there’re two really fundamental things at stake:  one is the preservation of the Union—

PO: Yeah.

BB: And two is liberty.

PO: Liberty for all.

BB: Check.  Check.  Check.  End of story.  I mean, what actually is there to talk about.

PO: Well, Brian, I would say the question then and now is this:  who is an American?  Now, if you think we have a clear answer to that question right now, then I think you’re crazy and you know that it’s not true. We’re constantly debating the margins of nationhood.  Well, that’s what was happening in the period of the Civil War, that is, were African Americans really part of America?  Were they Americans?  Now, that’s the question I think that’s so troubling to us now looking back is even in the North, the civil rights, the liberties of blacks were radically circumscribed.  You would have very few people accept fully the notion that these are us, that is, white people saying black people are part of the great American people and obviously, slavery was the great bulwark of this exclusion of a whole people, but that’s the reality of the times, so let’s look it straight in the face and say, okay, yeah, we have come a long way but it wasn’t because we got rid of Confederates.  I mean, that wasn’t it.  There was a lot of other things that had to happen.

BB: So you’re pointing to a danger also, Peter, which is the notion that, okay, this is an important question, but we settled it in the Civil War.

PO: Yeah, exactly right.

EA: And not really settled it but atoned for it.

BB: And atoned for it.  Yeah, that’s terrific.

EA: What’s what gets me is a sense of, yes, I know we were all complicit in this for 200 years, longer than we’ve been since the Civil War that the nation as a whole tolerated and fostered slavery and somehow that the white North sacrifice, intentional or otherwise, in the Civil War somehow wipes the books clean—

PP: Yeah, yeah.

EA: And buys innocence for the nation.  I think the other danger of it is that it creates the impression that a war can fix a deep-seated social problem and, well, look, in just four years, the North wiped out slavery.  Imagine what we could do elsewhere with missiles and tanks, so I think that’s it full of danger to too easily settle up on a triumphal story of the Civil War.  I think it’s better for us to feel so profoundly fortunate that it turned out as it did and for us to redeem that good fortune by trying to live up to the best of its promise.

BB: Guys, we have some good fortune of our own.  We call that good fortune our listeners and our callers.  For the past few weeks, our producers have been soliciting your questions on our website, backstoryradio.org. Today, they’ve invited a few of the people who left comments there to join us on the phone.

[phone music]

PO: Our first call today is from Atlanta Georgia.  It’s Dan.  Dan, welcome to “BackStory.”

Caller (Dan): Hey, thanks for having me.

PO: So, Civil War, a hot topic.  Dan, what’s on your mind?

Caller (Dan): Well, I was thinking a lot about the secession crisis of 1860 and 1861 because it seems to me in many of the popular retellings of the history of the war that it kind of goes that Lincoln was elected in November of 1860 and from then on down, the Civil War was happening and there was no stopping it—

PO: Right.

Caller (Dan): But over time, you know, I’ve kind of looked a little bit closer at some of the events that happened and there was a really long time in between when Lincoln was elected and when the fighting really started.  The states, they didn’t all leave at once.  They kind of slowly filed out one at the time and there was a lot of negotiations back and forth and a lot of debate in the state legislatures and so with all of this going on, all of these different small events, how much could those affect the course of history as opposed to the longer term events that we talk about a lot in [9:03/ __________] slavery sectionalism.

PO: That’s a great question.  Well, you know, Dan, you’re really putting your finger on a hot button for historians.  It’s the contingency button.  That is, things are not inevitable.  Stuff happens but it doesn’t have to happen and we have one of the world’s leading authorities on contingency hailing from the 19^th century.  Come to us, Ed.  [laughter]  Communications are very irregular across the centuries.

EA: One way to think about this is there’s two groups of historians:  one, to the fundamentalists who point to the real fact that slavery is a driving source of conflict from the moment that the American nation is created and that the fact that we see every decade some different kind of struggle over it, shows that it was going to come to some kind of head and if you just want to get all hung up on the details of what actually happened, you’re overlooking this fundamental struggle.  Other people say, no, no, no, this is really about the political machinations at the time and this is what most American historians thought in the 1920s and ’30s, that if you’d had somebody other than James Buchanan and other inept blundering generation at the famous phrase went, you would’ve had the war.  I think what historians today are trying to figure out is exactly how do you connect those underlying structural tensions and the more dynamic personal—

BB: Contingencies.

EA: Contingencies.

PO: Yeah, yeah, right, but Ed, wouldn’t say that something had to happen.  I’m prepared to say that as an expert on the founding, so you might cast me as a fundamentalist but what’s going to happen is by no means clear.  Does it have to be that kind of war?  Do we know who the antagonists are going to be?  We don’t know these outcomes and it seems to me everything is wound up in the thing that does happen and that, of course, is deeply contingent.

EA: Well, you know, I think the critical thing to understand is that it’s not just that the war has started like a wind-up toy—

PO: Yeah, yeah.

EA: Even in April of 1861.  Now, once it begins, it can follow lots of different courses.  As a matter of fact, the one that it followed seemed very unlikely to most people at the time, that it could be fought to just ultimate exhaustion on both sides.  You know, even after Virginia and Tennessee and North Carolina and Arkansas leave, Maryland and Kentucky do not.  Even though you could imagine that Kentucky had at least as much reason to secede as Tennessee, it didn’t because of geopolitical positioning and so forth, so I think that Dan, you’re on to something really important, that we’ve got to relax our certainty of how the story is unfolding enough to actually see what happened.

BB: I have a question for you, Dan.  As 20^th century guy, I want to know what interests you about all this stuff.  You know, frankly, to me it seems a really long time ago.

PO: He’s from Atlanta, Brian.  [laughter]

Caller (Dan): Yeah, we’ve got a big reminder carved onto Stone Mountain.

PO: That’s right.

Caller (Dan): Of the conflict.  You know, in Atlanta, there’s historical markers on every corner in downtown Atlanta.

BB: Yeah, but you know you guys are too busy to hate there in Atlanta and you’ve kind of, you know, you’re the new South, but, you know, to get back to contingency, what about you?  What about your circumstances really drives you to learn so much about the Civil War?  You seem to know more about it than I do, for instance.  [laughter]

PO: That is saying next to nothing.

BB: I know.  I know.  Dan doesn’t know that, though.  You didn’t have to tell him that.

PO: Go ahead, Dan.

Caller (Dan): Well, I think that part of what drives my interest in it today is there so much contemporary debate on it, so even if the Civil War in and of itself was not that interesting, the fact that so many people keep debating about what caused it, how did this happen, what does it mean, you know, it just kind of naturally draws my interest looking to some of the history around it and saying, well, you know, what did happen.

PO: In other words, Dan, you’re saying it’s out of self-defense that you engage with it?

Caller (Dan): I want to feel like I’m well equipped [13:06 / with facts].

PO: You know, I think that’s a serious response.  I’m not making fun of that.

EA: I would have a word in particular for Dan.  We look back on it now and that is that Georgia came in pretty soon after South Carolina which was one of the original Confederates states, but historians have looked at the returns pretty carefully and think that maybe a majority of white Georgia men would have voted against secession if it had been presented as such.  And it’s certainly the case that Georgia under Governor Brown began to be a real thorn in the side of the Confederacy almost from the beginning, withholding men, resisting Confederate policy, so here’s the contingent thing I’d leave you with, Dan.  Virginia comes in kicking and screaming, deeply reluctant.

PO: Yep.

EA: And then is remarkably loyal to the Confederacy from start to finish whereas Georgia is torn apart.  Northern Georgia resists the Confederacy so we tend to think about the Deep South being the real Confederacy and the upper South being kind of an ersatz Confederacy—

PO: Yeah, yeah.

EA: But in the course of the war it becomes the opposite.

PO: So, Dan, do you feel well armed for your next engagement on the Civil War?

Caller (Dan): I hope so.

PO: Good.  Yeah, well, keep your powder dry.

Caller (Dan): It can be difficult to make some progress among people sometimes.

PO: All right.  Well, Dan, keep on fighting.

BB: Thank you, Dan.

PO: Thanks for calling.

Caller (Dan): Thank you very much.

PO: Bye.

EA: Bye, Dan.  [music]

PO: It’s time for a short break, but before we go, let me just tell you that we’ve posted tons of great multimedia resources on the Civil War at backstoryradio.org.  After the break, we’ll return to the phones, so please, don’t go away.  This is “BackStory,” the show that looks at a topic from the perspective of three different centuries.  I’m the 18^th century guy, Peter Onuf.

EA: I’m the 19th century guy, Ed Ayers.

BB: And I’m the 20th century guy, Brian Balogh. Today, we’re marking the 150^th anniversary of the Civil War’s beginnings by opening up the phone lines to your questions about the conflict.  For a few weeks now, our producers have been surveying all the comments that you left at backstoryradio.org.  Today, they’ve invited a few of the people who left questions there to join us on the phone.

PO: Hey, guys, we’ve got a call from New York City.  Elaine’s on the line.  Elaine, welcome to “BackStory.”

Caller (Elaine): Hi, thank you so much and thank you for having me on the show.  So, I was wondering, what did racial identity, ethnicity make up, was in the military in both the North and South since at that time there were a lot of different races and plus a lot of different ethnicities living in America already.

PO: Right.

Caller (Elaine): So, I would imagine the military probably had a good mixture of different races, probably in the North but I’m not so sure about the South.

PO: Ed, maybe you could speak in a general way to the ethnic and racial make-up of the armies.  In a way, the question is do they reflect the country or the parts of the country that are now at war with each other.

EA: They actually do reflect their populations very effectively.  No, the white Southern concern was that the Union armies were reflecting too much ethnic diversity, [laughter] that they were not really the Northern people mobilizing but rather sending what they saw as the riff-raff, people who didn’t have a job otherwise, sort of mercenaries, but we’ve looked at this pretty carefully and it turns out that white Southerners were right in that Northern immigrants did fight but they fought really as a part of solidarity often with other people from their own ethnicities and they fought with remarkable bravery and consistency.  The harder thing for us to understand perhaps is that also in the South, which was more ethnically diverse before the Civil War than it was afterwards.

PO: Yeah, interesting.

EA: That there sometimes people were more conflicted but you would’ve had very prominent Irish people, Germans, and Jews who would fight for the Confederacy, so I think the general story is that the entire populations of the North and South, the entire white populations, were quite mobilized by the Civil War.

PO: And that’s the important qualification, Elaine.  It’s white we’re talking about.  The idea of African Americans fighting on, well, on either side, though, ultimately, of course, even the Confederates consider mobilizing slaves and freeing them in order to win, but this is in the desperate final phases of the war, but the idea that this was a democratic movement in the broadest sense, North and South, even in the North there’s tremendous resistance to mobilizing black troops.

EA: Yeah, Elaine, I’m curious as to where your question comes from.

Caller (Elaine): Well, I’m Chinese and we all know that America at that time that there were a lot of people from all over the world already, so I was just wondering, what was their motivation to join the military at that time?

PO: It’s a great question.  Yep.  And I think Ed mentioned the Irish and maybe, Ed, you could talk a little bit more about the Irish because in some ways that is the great immigrant group of this period and how the Irish would fit into American society, that’s a live issue.  There’s some discussion among historians that in many ways Irish were treated as if they were black, that is, a despised other, so the moment of wartime mobilization and Irish enthusiasm for the war North and South, because Ed’s right, I mean, there’re Irish units on both sides, indicates a kind of self-conscious Americanization.  It’s a moment in which you can prove yourself that you’re a part of this great country.

BB: Yeah.

EA: This is all the more remarkable that the Irish would fight because they were often pitted against African Americans at the bottom of the social order—

PO: Yes, yes, exactly.

EA: Competing for jobs and so the fact that Irish people often who’d lived in the United States less than 10 years are willing to imagine themselves as a part of the American people and willing to fight for the freedom of other people is really another amazing story in U.S. history.

PO: Uh huh.

EA: Something we need to remember, however, is that the Irish also rioted in the streets against what they saw as, and what was, in fact, an unfair use of the draft that seemed to them days after many of their compatriots had died in Gettysburg and the story was in the Irish neighborhoods, that they had been sacrificed by Union generals who did not value Irish lives the way they did a people who had been born in the United States, so you have both the greatest gallantry and sacrifice for the Union but also the nagging story of when push came to shove, the Irish and other working people did actually riot against the United States.

BB: And just for our 20^th century fans, it’s also true for the 20^th century where we have zoot suit riots among Mexican Americans during World War II that on a large part ethnic groups and racial groups see this as an opportunity but they also are not unaware of the intense discrimination and it’s very understandable that some would ask, what?

PO: But isn’t it interesting, though, that the U.S. colored troops are not rioting?

BB: Far from it.

PO: They’re rioting for the opportunity to fight and so the comparisons are interesting because, of course, there’re mixed feelings about the war but the one group that is absolutely clear about the war would be freed people or slaves, that the war means for them the end of slavery and the possibility of dignity and inclusion in the nation.

Caller (Elaine): Right.

PO: Thanks for your call.  It’s been a lot of fun talking to you.

Caller (Elaine): Thank you.  Have a good day.

EA: Bye bye. 

Caller (Elaine): Bye bye.  [music]

PO: We’ve got another call and it’s a local call from right here in Charlottesville, Virginia.  Blake— welcome to the show.

Caller (Blake): Hello.

PO: So, what’s on your mind?

Caller (Blake): Well, you know, I was brought up in Virginia and have lived I guess with the Civil War for my whole life and remember very vividly the Centennial in Richmond, but recently I have been trying to learn a little bit about the, for lack of a better word, the causes and have been reading particularly about the influence of the church, in this case, mostly Methodist and Presbyterian churches in the South and was wondering how you guys viewed that.  Do you feel the preachers from their pulpits and their writings led the South to the Civil War and to secession?

PO: Well, Blake, that’s a great question.  Blake wants to know whether the preachers are responsible for the Civil War.  That’s the short version of it.  Obviously, they didn’t do it all by themselves.  I’d say this is a point of departure.  Many Southerners believe there was a piety deficit between North and South, that the South was a more Christian place and the North was riven by heresy and socialism and secularism and so Southern preachers did a couple of important things, I think, and that is, on one hand, to tell Southerners that they had God on their side, that they were good Christians, and second, preachers played an absolutely crucial role in the emerging pro-slavery argument.

EA: That’s really well put, Peter.  I think the preachers make a real point of saying, hey, hey, hey, the pulpit is no place to talk about politics.

PO: Right.

EA: All that we say is that slavery has God’s divine sanction.  Other than that, we have no political position at all to make.

PO: That’s all.

EA: That’s right.  So, Southern preachers do not lead the South into secession but as Peter says, as soon as providence seems to dictate that that’s the way to go, the ministers are some of the most vocal advocates of the Confederacy.

PO: But, Ed, it’s my impression from historians who’ve written on this subject that in fact Southerners had ample ground in scriptural reference for the support of slavery and they might even have had the edge over their Northerner counterparts, at least if you’re looking for literal readings of the Bible and what it tells us.

EA: Well, that’s the crucial point, Peter.  The literal historic injunctions, especially in the Old Testament do accept slavery as a reality.  Increasingly, what happens in the North is that people look at the spirit of the New Testament instead.  It said how can you possibly love someone as your brother and hold them in perpetual bondage so there’s plenty of energy in the Bible—

PO: Yeah, yeah.

EA: For both pro- and anti-slavery.

PO: No question, but what is also going on and what’s important for white Southerners is that they believe that they have been successful in a great missionary campaign to Christianize the quarters and it’s one of the reasons why they’re comfortable with slavery is that they have taken an instrumental role in spreading Christianity in the slave population so the idea that the slaves were an internal enemy or dangerous subversives who would rise up and revolt, that had been mitigated if not altogether eliminated for many Southerners because they thought of Christianity as a profound bond of union between black and white, even if they worshipped separately.

Caller (Blake): But would that be a true belief, do you think, or more or less just an apology for the burdens that they’d put on African American through slavery.

PO: Hey, Blake, what is a true belief?

Caller (Blake): [laughter]

PO: It’s a known unknown or unknown known.  Do they believe it?  I think absolutely.  One of the things that we learn as historians is to take our subject seriously.  They may be by our standards deluded and self-serving, but that Southerners believe they were good Christians, I believe that’s absolutely true.

EA: As a matter of fact, the South says we are in the process of creating the most Christian nation on the face of the earth, but your question, I think, Blake is right.  It doesn’t take long for the end of the war for white Southerners to begin to worry, hmmm, were we fooling ourselves?

PO: Yeah.

EA: Yeah, do they really love us?  [laughter]  The fact that they’re moving away at the very first moment of freedom really is a confrontation with a kind of truth that the white South is really not ready to embrace.

BB: Hey, Blake, may I add an addendum to your good question?

Caller (Blake): Yes, please.

BB: Guys, I’d like to know—  I do know, actually, that the church played such a crucial role in the lives of African Americans after the Civil War.  Can you tell me something about religion and slaves during the Civil War?

EA: Well, one of the first thing that happens is the churches which had been the really only inter-racial space in the slave South begins separating.  At the very first moment, African Americans seize the opportunity to have their own churches.  You know, they’ve always gone off on their private worship ceremonies out in the woods or whatever, but in the Civil War itself, as things begin to fall apart, you find that black ministers step forward and begin leading the African American church, so you find that there’s a kind of freedom that comes maybe first in the religious realm and African Americans are quick to seize it.

PO: Well, Blake, thank you for calling “BackStory.”

Caller (Blake): Thank you very much

EA: Thank you, Blake.

Caller (Blake): Right.

PO: Bye.  [music]

BB: If you’re just tuning in, this is “BackStory,” and today we’re talking about everything you ever wanted to know about the American Civil War.  Or at least everything the people on the other end of our phone line want to know.

PO: Next up on that line we have Carl, calling in from Murray, Kentucky.  Carl, welcome to “BackStory.”

Caller (Carl): Oh, thanks, glad to be on.

PO: Yeah, so, we’re talking about the Civil War and you have something for us.

Caller (Carl): My question involves education.  As a future educator myself, I’m just wondering what do you all see the significance of the Civil War for kids of the next generation?

PO: Yeah.  Super question. That’s really the big question of this series we’re doing on the Civil War.  What can we take away from the Civil War?  What are the lessons we want to learn and can we get beyond simply reveling in the details and reenactments and all that stuff.  How about the 20^th century, because, you know, as an educator—

BB: I was being quiet because I know so little about the Civil War, Carl, but I’ll say my piece and then shut up.  I’ll tell you what I’ve learned from the guys about the Civil War which is basically you don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow.  You know, there were some very smart people back then and we might not have agreed with them and their views, but they thought about this really carefully and they followed the news and they talked to each other and they debated each other and just about everything that they thought was going to happen either didn’t happen or happened in another way or happened in ways that absolutely would’ve confounded them two or three years later.

PO: So, Brian is so absolutely right and it’s the historians’ takeaway, but just imagine with Carl that we’ve got school kids and we want this to be a real teaching opportunity.  Are there any—  Well, the old-fashioned word “civics.”  Any civics lessons, Ed and Brian.

BB: Well, I’ll continue and then, again, try to shut up.

PO: You will succeed.

BB: I think one of the lessons I would take away, Carl, and your future students, is that language and the way we talk to each other matters.

Caller (Carl): Right.

BB: That’s a very timely issue today as you know, and we as historians tend to pooh-pooh some of this very heated rhetoric that’s being tossed around today and say, oh, you know, they were a lot worse to each other back in the 19^th century but, you know what, every now and then things kind of come unraveled and that heated rhetoric which they surely used contributed, I think, to tearing at the fabric of the nation, along with, of course, key issues like slavery and expansion of slavery into the territories and now I really am going to be quiet.

EA: May I ask what age students that you’ll be teaching, Carl?

Caller (Carl): It’ll be secondary ed, 8^th to 12^th grade.

EA: Oh, man, 8^th.  If I were you, I would choose the 12^th.  [laughter]

Caller (Carl): Hey, I’m at the point now I’ll take anything they give me, really.

EA: I know how that goes.  That’s right.  Even 8^th graders.  But, you know, it’s a fine line.  I always tell the story, I’ve actually written some things about kind of the open-ended nature of some of these things and my daughter who was 11 at the time which I guess is pretty close—  That’s not quite 8^th grade.

PO: Right.

BB: She’s very precocious, though, Carl

EA: Exactly.  She walked in, literally with her American history textbook with her finger in part of the pages and she said, “Daddy, what caused the Civil War?”  And I was thinking, okay, do I go into all this thing about a the complexity and the indeterminacy and the choices to be made.  I said, “slavery, honey.”  [laughter]  And because, you know, that’s what she could have right then.  That’s what she could understand.  If you have to chose one word, that’s what it is.

Caller (Carl): Right.

EA: But the trick is, you know, as the kids get older, to suggest, yes, it was slavery but how was it slavery?

PO: Yeah, that’s the question.

EA: It suggests that the North was all different from the South.  No, they weren’t.  They sort of discovered over the course of the war that slavery was going to have to be destroyed and they didn’t want to do it necessarily and they weren’t just the good guys who were coming in.

PO: Right.

EA: But the people that look back on it now and, you know, you have the same accent I do, so I know you’re a fellow Southerner—

PO: It’s really grating, isn’t it, Brian?

BB: Yeah.  I would say one’s enough.

PO: [laughter]

EA: Hey, it’s never enough, is it, Carl?

Caller (Carl): That’s right.  We got to band together, I guess.

EA: Well, we tried that once.  It didn’t really work out all that well.  Even the last time I checked you guys in Kentucky chose not to stick together with the South.

PO: [laughter]

Caller (Carl): Well—

PO: Come on.  East Tennessee, a hot bed of Unionism.

Caller (Carl): I would say I’m from far western Kentucky and we were called the South Carolina Kentucky, so I guess I’m from the pro-Southern part.

EA: And I’m from east Tennessee.  We’re called the Massachusetts of Tennessee, so I guess it all evens out.  Which is an important lesson in and of itself, you know, that this was not just a thing.  If I were to come up with a sort of short version of all this is that kids, this is a story that we have to follow to see how it unfolds.  You can’t just sort of get to the summary and say that’s what it was all about.

PO: You know what?  We have to be aware of unintended consequences and we like in our mythic understandings of American history to ascribe the right intentions to our forefathers and foremothers.  We like to think that the right people at the right time stood up like Abraham Lincoln represents the North and he had a vision that slavery was evil.

Caller (Carl): Right.

PO: It’s not that there isn’t a conscience and a moral sense.  There is all over the place.  It’s just that what happened was not scripted, that it became a war that ended slavery was on nobody’s mind or very few, except for radical abolitionists’ minds at the start of the war and I think this is humbling—

Caller (Carl): Right.

PO: So, Carl, after listening to all this, you still want to go into the history teaching biz?

Caller (Carl): Well, yeah, sure.  [32:49 / __________]

EA: Okay. So what can we do to get you’re a job now, Carl?  Let’s get down to brass tacks.

PO: How about we write a letter for him?

EA: We’re ready.

PO: All right.  “BackStory” endorses Carl.  Great talking with you, Carl.  Thanks for calling.

Caller (Carl): Oh, yeah, I really enjoyed it.

EA: Thank you very much.

BB: Thanks a lot, Carl.

Caller (Carl): Thank you.  [music]

BB: It’s time for another break.  Don’t go away, though.  When we get back, we’ll hear if these two very wordy colleagues of mine are capable of summarizing the Civil War in a hundred and forty character characters.  That’s right.  You’re going to hear Peter and Ed tweet the Civil War.

PO: You’re listening to a Civil War special from “BackStory,” and we’ll be back in a minute.   We’re back with “BackStory,” the show that turns to history to understand the world around us today.  I’m Peter Onuf, and I represent the 18th century.

EA: I’m Ed Ayers, representing the 19th century.

BB: And I’m Brian Balogh, spokesman for the 20th century.  Normally on our program we take a topic from the news and explore its historical context.  Today we’re changing things up a little, and devoting the entire show instead to listener calls about the Civil War.  But before we go back to the phones, I’m just determined to get a little bit of the 21^st century into this show.  Okay, guys, I’ve warned you and you have had sixty seconds, a millennium in 21^st century terms, to think about this.  One hundred and forty characters or less, I want each of you to distill the essence of the Civil War.  I want you to tweet the Civil War.

PO: Okay.  I start.  I get a hundred and forty characters?

EA: That’s right.

PO: Right.  All right.  Here’s the simple version.

EA: That includes your name.

PO: Americans love their country.  They’re nationalists.  We had two different nations on one territory and it was love of nation and, of course, one of those nations was predicated on the existence of racial bondage; the other on the integrity of a Union that included both parts, both nations.  It’s nationalism.  That’s my one word answer.  Patriotism.  That’s another word.  But it’s the same word.  It’s this devotion to some higher cause and I think that’s why we admire these heroes North and South.  We know they are devoted to a higher cause.  We may have different judgments about the worthiness of that cause in retrospect, but put ourselves back in a moment.  They died for a reason.

EA: Okay.  In fairness to Peter, they didn’t have Twitter in the 18^th century.

PO: How many [centuries] was that?  [laughter]

BB: We’ll call that a fascinating and engaging blog.  Ed, you’re closer to the 21^st century.  See if you can tweet the Civil War.

EA: North versus South.  Black versus white.  Events creating their own momentum.  North brings victory out of near defeat, brings emancipation out of slavery.  The story continues.

BB: Wow.

PO: That’s good.

EA: That was very close.  [laughter]

BB: Well, now that we’ve experimented with the 21^st century, why don’t we go back to an old-fashioned technology like the good old telephone, something I feel so comfortable with as 20^th century guy.  [music]

PO: We have another call.  It’s from our nation’s capital and it’s Alan.  Alan, welcome to “BackStory.”

Caller (Alan): How are you guys doing?

PO: Oh, we’re doing pretty good.

Caller (Alan): Okay.  Well, you know, gentlemen, it seems to me that one of the criticisms of the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn’t cover the border states or some Union-controlled areas.

PO: Yep.

Caller (Alan): And a lot of people look at that and they say, well, you know, there’s some illegitimacy concerning the Union’s desire to eliminate slavery.  Could you talk about that?

BB: Well, you have to trace this really to the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1^st, 1863.

EA: And what the Emancipation Proclamation says is that in those places in rebellion against the United States, slavery is hereby abolished, but that leaves enormous gray areas.  You have some areas where the Union Army has penetrated and occupied all along the Mississippi River, New Orleans, Nashville, Tennessee.  Then you also have states that have never left the Union that are slave states, especially Kentucky is the largest one, and in all those places, you have a fundamental uncertainty about the future of slavery that the Emancipation Proclamation does not resolve.

BB: Does that not get cleared up until the 13^th Amendment?

EA: That’s right, Brian, until the 13^th Amendment in 1865 officially abolishes in the grain of the Constitution not as a war aim—

PO: Right.

EA: Right?

PO: So, Ed, the bottom line for Kentucky is there were slaves until the 13^th Amendment was ratified.

EA: That’s right.  So, ever since then, people have pointed to the hypocrisy the Emancipation Proclamation, that it emancipates people who are weak and actually reach them and the ones that are completely within our control are not emancipated.

PO: Right.

EA: So, let’s think about Abraham Lincoln’s point of view.  He needs more than anything the loyalty of the slaveholding border states—

BB: Right.

EA: Or the war is lost, especially Kentucky and Maryland.  If Maryland goes, then the capital of the United States is surrounded by enemy territory.  If Kentucky goes, they lose the Tennessee River and the incredible strategic advantage that gives.  You might also say that even if those things weren’t compelling, he does not want to have to be fighting a war in the rear, so to speak, of slaveholders resisting the Union cause in those very tenuous Union states, so the reasons to not abolish slavery are much more powerful than the moral consistency of abolishing slavery in the border states would’ve suggested.

PO: Yeah, and Ed, it’s fair to add that preponderant opinion throughout the Union North was not anti-slavery.  It wasn’t as if there was a clear public will and so even in prudential political terms, Lincoln couldn’t get out, way out in front of the American people, that is, the people of the North without subverting his own cause.  You can talk about a war in the rear.  What would people have said about a war against slavery?  Not only was it unconstitutional but nobody was ready or had thought through the implications of the end of slavery, not just for the South but for the North as well.

BB: Well, I’m going to just jump in kind of on Alan’s end of things and just comment on the remarkable paradox.  If I’m right, Ed, that you had slaves being freed in the Confederacy before there were freed in the Union.

EA: That’s right.  So, the hypocrisy is apparent and people who want to be skeptical of Abraham Lincoln and, ironically, this is often African Americans who were looking at this and saying don’t be talking about giving us anything, because we seized our freedom ourselves.  When you did have power, you didn’t use it.

Caller (Alan): I just want to just add a couple other things.  You know, I don’t really want to, you know, glorify Lincoln too much, I guess, but I do understand that before the war, he tried to, I guess, in modern language, tried to maybe pay off the border states.  I know that he specifically approached Delaware and basically said, you know, can we have compensated emancipation and I think his term was, you know, this war will probably end slavery anyway.  Why don’t you let us pay you to free your slaves and then at least that will be one less contentious issue to think about, so, again, I’m not really saying that he deserves credit but I think that’s maybe a bit of history about him trying to cause emancipation in the border states that people don’t understand, so that’s just one thing I was going to add.

PO: Yeah, well, you know, Lincoln was in favor of colonization, that is, to free people and send them someplace else and the idea of compensated emancipation is another version of colonization.  It was going to be a big thing for white Americans to get their minds around the idea of an integrated nation based on the premise of equality.    If you look at state legislation in the North up to the Civil War with few exceptions, the legal political environment was increasingly hostile to freed blacks—

EA: That’s right.

PO: If you just tracked legislation as an expression of the popular will, you’d say, you know, things don’t look that good, so what’s remarkable is that opinion could be so radically reshaped and what really was in historians’ terms, a very short of time and I think that makes the achievement of emancipation all the more remarkable.

EA: Peter’s exactly right, of course, about the atmosphere for African Americans in the North before the war.  The sad thing is that it was the same thing for African Americans after the war as well.

PO: Uh huh, yep.

EA: A terrible backlash in some ways against African Americans during the war.  The New York City draft riots and all that, blaming African Americans for being held in slavery but after the war at the same time that Reconstruction’s going on, Northern states are removing the vote from African American men, so I guess what strikes me is that it is amazing that the North could mobilize itself enough during the war to get behind ending slavery.  I think that is the main story frankly that Lincoln through enough manipulation of political chits and public opinion and timing and good luck militarily and so forth was able to pull this off.  He was barely able to do that.  And after he did it, there was sort of a backlash in the white North, so I think people are right to be skeptical, but I think that what’s remarkable, too, is the extent to which for a moment in the crucible of war, Lincoln was able to lead a majority of white northerners to accept that destroying slavery was a wise and just and feasible thing.

PO: Hey, Alan, thanks a lot for calling.

Caller (Alan): All right.  Thank you guys.

PO: Bye bye.

EA: Thanks, Alan. Bye bye.

Caller (Alan): Have a good one.  [music]

BB: If you’re just tuning in, this is “BackStory,” and we’re talking about some of the questions that remain one hundred and fifty years after the shooting started for the Civil War.

PO: Guys, we’ve got another call.  It’s from Fultonville, New York. Wanda, welcome to the show.

Caller (Wanda): Thank you.

PO: Well, we’re talking about the Civil War and it’s on everybody’s mind for some reason just about now.  What have you been thinking about?

Caller (Wanda): Well, I’m writing a book called Soldier’s Dream and in researching the dreams in the letters of Civil War soldiers, soldiers from both the North and the South dream of home as a lifeline to normalcy and humanity, but I’ve found there seems to be a difference between the dreams of Southern soldiers which are often lengthy, evocative, describing the dreams as so real you can taste the peach or hold the beloved, and Northern soldiers who still do not deny their dreams are real, but they’ll say something like, well, I dreamed of you last night and it was really real.

PO: Hey, hey, Wanda, this is very upsetting.  I’m from the North.  You’re saying—

EA: Well, Peter, it’s obviously, Wanda, they read Hemingway in the North and in the South, they read Faulkner, Wanda.

PO: Whoa.

EA: Call over.

Caller (Wanda): I’m thinking that there might be a cultural difference in the mindset we have of the Northerner’s pragmatic and practical and getting things done and this is [45:05 / __________] Ed, and I dreamed about you, and the sort of overly romantic Southern solider who goes on at some length about trees and glades and flowers—

PO: Wow.

Caller (Wanda): And holding his beloved.

PO: Wanda, Wanda, we need to devote a whole season of this show to that question and let me toss it over to Ed framed in this way:  A lot of the discussion of the origins of the Civil War pivots around the idea that there were, as Southerners said, separate civilizations North and South, that is, your cultural question, Wanda.

Caller (Wanda): Right.

PO: That is, that they just think differently down there.  Now, as close as we get to an authentic Southerner in our midst and I don’t know about Ed Ayres since he’s from east Tennessee which is a dodgy part of the South—

BB: Yeah.

PO: But, Ed, what do you think?

Caller (Wanda): I’m from Tennessee.

PO: [laughter]  I didn’t say it was a bad part, just dodgy.

EA: We’re probably related, honey.  [laughter]

PO: So, Ed, this does verge on what we call in the business, essentialism and it does run counter to I think the prevailing wisdom among many of us now that in cultural terms there’s not all that much difference between North and South.

EA: Ahhh—  Boy, you set me up on this one, Peter.  As it turns out, you know, I think that does describe my own thinking about this, except that this question poses in such an interesting way, so here’s the paradox, Wanda.  I think that what you’re saying is true in the sense that Southerners are known and I have lots of tape on the editing floor here to prove, known for being long-winded and somewhat in love with the sound of their own voice

PO: Ed, will you just get to the point?

EA: This is the point, Peter, is that I like to talk, but the thing is is that there’s a famous line from Bell Wiley, the historian who pretty much invented the social history of soldiers way back in the 1940s and ’50s.  He’d read thousands and thousands of letters and he said, if you took the letters from Northerners and Southerners and threw them up in the air and they landed on the floor, you would not be able to put them back into the right pile again, that the differences between the way Northerners and Southerners talk and even the ideological content of what they said was far more alike in their letters than you might think.  Now, I don’t think that Bell Wiley was looking at the sort of subtle cultural manifestations that you’re talking about.

Caller (Wanda): Right.

PO: Hey, Ed, I got another idea here and that is we have troops from the North marching on the South and threatening the homes of these soldiers—

Caller (Wanda): Exactly.

PO: These evocative images really suggest that sense of profound threat.  It may seem more prosaic and routine for Northerners to talk about home, but that’s because it’s a fixed place and it’s not necessarily under risk.  Now, we know that the home front does suffer in the North but nothing like that nightmare vision of what happens when a countryside is destroyed by a marching army and it seems to me that those evocative images of this sensual, romantic, sentimental, wonderful place have something to do with—

Caller (Wanda): With what’s being threatened.

PO: Yes.

Caller (Wanda): And the universality that I found interesting speaks to—  [Carl Hume] made a statement which I don’t think was every thoroughly proved that when soldiers ceased to dream of home on the battlefield, they should be removed for a time until they began to dream again because they became animals on the battlefield and fought with less humanity.

BB: You know, it’s interesting because there’s a pretty well known article about World War II that talks about what soldiers were really fighting for had to do with home and had to do with consumer goods and it’s, you know, kind of tossed off as being superficial, especially when the army was spending so much effort and money to train soldiers in terms of the ideological reasons they were fighting.

PO: Yeah.

BB: But, in fact, you’re saying that this is really essential to retaining one’s humanity.

Caller (Wanda): And survival, because I’ve also found dreams of soldiers in Andersonville and the ones who survived best are the ones picturing in their mind and dreaming recurring dreams of a place in their childhood or a place in their home where they were thriving with food on the table and in one particular case, a person dreams of an inn where his father took him as a child in St. Louis where there were tables and tables of food and this got him through Andersonville.  He would wake up to a crust of bread, starving, but that memory of food gave him the will to survive and not go crazy.

PO: Wanda, this is, of course, another story about human nature and how we can transcend horror and survive it and it’s an inspirational one.  I’d just like to add this darker dimension to it, however.

BB: He’s from the North, Wanda.

PO: Yeah, well, when we sentimentalize home and these dreams are a way of making home seem very real, present to you in your dream and you re-dedicate to the cause and to surviving the great war, but at the same time, as you sentimentalize your home, you’re demonizing your enemy because those are the people that want to destroy your homes, so I’d say that both it’s a triumph for humanity and it’s also a triumph for inhumanity.

Caller (Wanda): Well, that’s interesting.  That’s interesting.  So then you wonder which takes over if the dream of home—

PO: Oh, yeah.

Caller (Wanda): Yeah.

PO: No, and on an individual level, what can you say?  This is wonderful.  This is a resource to work with.  This is the way people have survived, but on a cultural level, when a whole society is at war with another society, I think it takes on a rather uglier profile.

Caller (Wanda): Unless it’s what gets you back to where you were before.

PO: Yeah.

Caller (Wanda): However you define home, back to that memory of someone that you’ve loved, back to a place where you can separate yourself from the battlefield and be where you were when things were normal again.

PO: It is a dream of peace.

Caller (Wanda): Yeah.

PO: Yep.

Caller (Wanda): Yeah.

PO: Well, Wanda, this has just been fabulous and thanks so much.

Caller (Wanda): Well, thank you.

BB: Thank you so much, Wanda.

Caller (Wanda): Oh, thank you.  This is great.  [music]

BB: That’s where we’re going to have to leave things today.  But as always, we’d love to keep this conversation going online.  Drop in at backstoryradio.org and let us know what still interests you about the Civil War.

PO: Again, that’s backstoryradio.org.  You can listen to the first two episodes of our Civil War series there, as well as any of our other past shows. We’re also on Facebook and Twitter.  Whatever you do, don’t be a stranger.

EA: Today’s episode of “BackStory” was produced by Tony Field and Catherine Moore. We had help from Miriam Kaplan and Jose Argueta.  Jamal Milner mastered the show and Gabby Alter wrote our theme.

BB: “BackStory’s” executive producer is Andrew Wyndham.

PO: Production support for “BackStory” is provided by Cary Brown Epstein and the W.L. Lyons Brown, Jr. Charitable Foundation.  James Madison’s Montpelier, Weinstein Properties, Trish and David Crowe, Austin Ligon and an anonymous donor.

Tape: Brian Balogh and Peter Onuf are professors in the University of Virginia’s Corcoran Department of History.  Ed Ayres is president and professor of history at the University of Richmond.  “BackStory” was created by Andrew Wyndham for VFH Radio at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.

Tape: From VFH Radio in Charlottesville, Virginia, this is “BackStory.”  [music]

Peter Onuf: Liberty and union.  Liberty and union.  That was the refrain across the American North as Civil War broke out one hundred and fifty years ago.

Ed Ayers: But the phrase doesn’t mean what you might think.  Most Northerners were not very concerned about the four million people still held in bondage.

Tape: Liberty is often tied now to your attitude towards slavery.  That is not how they would’ve deployed that word for the most part.

E. Ayers: Southerners, on the other hand, were very much thinking about those four million enslaved people and specifically what it would mean if they were all freed.

Tape: The fear and paranoia about what that represented is almost impossible for us to capture today, but it certainly inspired most of them fight much harder.

P. Onuf: We’re the American History Guys and today on our show, what motivated people, North and South, to take up arms.  That’s all coming up on “BackStory” after this news.  [music]

Tape: Hi, I’m Tony Field, the producer of “BackStory.”  I just wanted to let you know that today’s Podcast is the second installment in our new three-part series on the Civil War.  You’ll find the other two parts on our website and on iTunes.  If you like what you hear, please consider a contribution to help us out with some of our production costs.  There’s a link to give in the bottom right hand corner of our website, backstoryradio.org.  Fifteen dollars would amount to a dime for each year since the Civil War began and we’ll take any donation of that amount as a endorsement of our work on this series and, remember, you can also help out by sharing links to our shows with your friends and by leaving a review on our page in the iTunes store.  Thanks for listening.  Now, back to the show.

P. Onuf: Major production support for “BackStory” is provided by the Joseph and Robert Cornell Memorial Foundation.  Support also comes from the National Endowment for the Humanities.  [music]  This is “BackStory,” with us, the American History Guys.  I’m Peter Onuf, 18th century guy.

E. Ayers: I’m Ed Ayers, 19th century guy.

Brian Balogh: And I’m Brian Balogh, 20th century history guy.  [music]  How might America be different today if the Union had not won the Civil War?  What legacies of the Civil War have an impact on your life?  These are a couple of the questions posed by curators at the American Civil War Center in Richmond, Virginia. Visitors are encouraged to answer each question on a post-it note, and stick it to the wall there before they leave.

Tape (Christy Coleman): We had a post up there one time.  The person actually used like four post-it notes to get their point out and [laughter] one of the things that they went on about was here again is another example of how the haves managed to convince the have nots to fight their battles for them.

E. Ayers: That’s Christy Coleman, President of the American Civil War Center.  She says that the notes visitors leave often reflect their regional affiliations.  Northerners, for example, tend to answer that question about the war’s legacy with a certain amount of, well, triumphalism.

Tape (C. Coleman): You know, if it wasn’t for this war, we wouldn’t have expanded the rights to so many and opened our gates and broken down the power structures that would have us all truly slaves, etc. etc.

P. Onuf: This April marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War’s beginnings.  But despite the passage of all that years, Americans in many parts of the country are still trying to understand what the war really meant.  Go ahead—Google the recent controversy over Virginia history textbooks or the dust-up over South Carolina’s commemoration of that state’s secession.  Or just spend some time with Christy and those post-it notes in Richmond.

E. Ayers: In our last show on the Civil War, we looked at how the election of Abraham Lincoln set off a cascade of events that resulted in war.  Today, we’re going to pick up where we left off, but we’re going to shift our focus from the politicians to the ordinary men and women who, in the spring of 1861, found themselves staring war in the face.  In the South, most of these people did not own a single slave.  And in the North, only a small minority were committed abolitionists.  All of which leads us to our central question for today’s show—what motivated these people to pick up weapons and fight one another in the Civil War?

B. Balogh: We’re going to return now to Christy Coleman, the president of the American Civil War Center in Richmond.  When we spoke to her, she told us about another one of those post-it notes, another question that yields particularly interesting results.

Tape (C. Coleman): “Where do you consider your strongest allegiance— to your state, to your nation, or some other place.”  And it’s interesting that you can always tell when there’s a political upheaval going on in our current society, because the percentage of those answers shifts dramatically.  You know, prior to the 2008 elections, for example, you had a lot of people identifying themselves very strongly as Americans.  I am an American, this is the U.S.A., I’m very proud of it.  And then in 2010, you see a shift, and people are identifying via their states, you know, I’m a proud Virginia, I’m a proud Texan, I’m a proud, you know, what-have-you, and 9 out of 10 times, it’s Southerners that are identifying via their state.

B. Balogh: So Peter and Ed, I know this is going to shock you, but, you know, it sounds like these folks leaving their post-it notes are applying their biases from today’s world imposing it on history, so I’m curious to know have Americans done this specifically to interpretations of the Civil War.

E. Ayers: Well, you know, it’s not just Americans but it’s historians, too.

P. Onuf: Oh, oh, oh.

E. Ayers: I know.  I’m sorry, Peter.  I hope you can keep your sobbing to a minimum, but, you know, as long as there’s been a professional historical set of organizations since the late 19^th century, we’ve been able to see the academic historians sort of shifting their interpretations of the Civil War as their own times changed.  Let me just give you a thumbnail sketch of how that has been.  After World War I, widely seen as a war without purpose, the American Civil War was interpreted by our predecessor historians as a war without purpose.  The leading historians of the Civil War talk of a blundering generation that got us into that mess.  World War II comes, immediately revised our understanding of the Civil War.

P. Onuf: Yeah, a good war.

E. Ayers: Exactly.  Sometimes there’s evil in the world.  Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., says, “and you have to rise up to defeat it,” and that’s what the Civil War as well as World War II was all about.  Then Vietnam comes along and we might expect that we would go back and reinterpret the Civil War as a big mess, but instead, historians are saying, ahhh, look, what else is going on now in the ’60s and ’70s, the civil rights revolution, let’s go back and look at the abolitionism and reconstruction and focus on that and then when you get into sort of the very frustrating, sort of decentered wars like the 1980s and 1990s, there’s a real disillusionment among a lot of scholars with the Civil War in general and we start discovering guerilla fighting and all kinds of breakdowns of morale and all that sort of stuff, so that’s kind of where we’ve gone.  Every single stage of our own warfare experience in the 20^th century had disrupted our understanding of the American Civil War.

B. Balogh: Well, Ed, your summary of 20^th century developments being read into the Civil War is terrific, but it strikes me that one of the key 20^th century developments is people are drafted for wars in the 20^th century and I know there was a draft in the Civil War but how did that actually play out, this tension between all those folks who volunteered and the eventual draft in both the North and the South?

E. Ayers: You know, the draft is important but we’d have to acknowledge that both the North and the South benefited from enormous degree of voluntarism.

P. Onuf: Right, right.

E. Ayers: You know.  Both armies were filled with men who could not wait to show their dedication to their nations.

P. Onuf: Yeah, but we could go back further to the Revolution, to the first American war.

B. Balogh: Let’s do it.

P. Onuf: Yeah, the wars that in effect define American political culture, that idea that Jefferson articulated in his first inaugural address that we are the strongest government on earth because of the devotion of citizens to defending the country.  It’s the idea of the citizen soldier that our country’s wars are our wars.  This is a free country and we die freely for our country.

E. Ayers: Well, as a matter of fact, it strikes me, Peter, that the war driven by popular commitment that Jefferson dreamed of didn’t actually happen until the American Civil War.

P. Onuf: Right.

E. Ayers: Because the War of 1812 and the Seminole War, the Mexican War, all those were deeply compromised, deeply conflicting, disappointing, those kind of wars, right?

P. Onuf: Yeah, that’s a good point, but what I would say is that Jefferson wasn’t really inventing the citizen soldier.  What he was doing was creating a political culture, a civic culture in which there was a lot of vicarious fighting and that is that the party formation in the antebellum period before the Civil War in effect mobilized people in a semi-quasi-proto-militant way.  They would march to the polls. They would feel righteous anger at enemies, even with the other party but nonetheless it was that belligerent frame of mind, the idea that it’s incumbent on you as a good citizen to be ready to fight at the polls or wherever the fight is taking place because fundamental issues are at stake and I think that helps explain the amazing preparedness of the American people to slaughter each other in the Civil War.

E. Ayers: I could argue that this is actually what brings on the Civil War.  If you think about the timing of the coming Civil War, it’s determined a lot more by what you’re talking about, Peter, than by any change in the actual status of slavery.

P. Onuf: Yeah, yeah.

E. Ayers: Or, it’s not that the North becomes modernized enough to fight against the South.

P. Onuf: No, no.

E. Ayers: What it really is about is the party system because for the last 30 years, people have been used to thinking of two parties:  the names of the parties and the identities of the parties change but what happens is this two-party system which had been around now for decades really just begins to unravel in the 1850s.  First, you have the Whig Party begin to show signs of weakness.  Then the Know Nothings emerge and the Democrats splinter apart.  Then the Republicans arise and once this sort of bipolar, in both senses of the word, party system shatters, you have all that sort of polarizing energy built up.

P. Onuf: That’s exactly right, Ed.  That’s exactly right.

E. Ayers: Everybody’s used to thinking, us or them.

B. Balogh: Yes, so help me, guys.  Let me try to understand this.  All of these passions are rattling around but in the past, they’ve lined up through the mechanism of parties and those parties have been distributed roughly evenly between North and South so the passions don’t get channeled into these sectional rivalries.  Is that what you’re saying?

P. Onuf: Right.  Well, I think the key thing, Brian, is we shouldn’t imagine that there’s something going on in individual people’s minds and that there’s a flashpoint or a threshold that people cross.  They say, I’m going to fight now.  I propose when you think about the run-up to the Civil War that there is an excess of patriotic feeling and it’s not necessarily focused and that’s the whole point of it, it’s only in the process of mobilizing for the war that this ambient patriotism that Americans North and South share becomes focused in a particular way.

B. Balogh: So where was Cuba when we needed it?

P. Onuf: Well, [laughter] that’s a great point.

B. Balogh: To use a late-19^th century example.

P. Onuf: Well, yeah, yeah.  No, that’s what Americans were looking desperately for some kind of war to fight elsewhere and we had Mexico.  I mean, that proved to be problematic, but it—

B. Balogh: It bought us a few years before it blew up in our face.

E. Ayers: But, you know, I think the strange thing is you go back and look at the mobilization of the Confederacy, there is no new language, there’s no new idea that the very people who had been for the Union and who’d been all about loyalty and sacrifice and fealty to the fathers and to one another, just switched the entire apparatus of loyalty from the Union to the Confederacy literally overnight.

P. Onuf: Yeah, yeah.

E. Ayers: And this patriotism you talked about could be directed toward an entirely different and new and warring nation and so that’s another thing that makes it a fight inside the family is that there is no warring ideology except that one family possesses slaves and the other does not.

P. Onuf: Yeah, and you know, we talk a lot about war weariness imagining that somehow there’s only a certain amount of enthusiasm and it’s spent.  It plays out over time.  Instead, it’s almost as if that energy, that original commitment, in some ways it grows.

E. Ayers: The cause becomes more coherent in both the North and the South—

P. Onuf: I think that’s a great point.

E. Ayers: And so that’s the thing is we don’t want to think about it as, okay, I’m doing an inventory of my emotions and loyalties.  Yep, there’s adequacy supply—

P. Onuf: [13:23 / __________] [laughter]

E. Ayers: To go fight and die.  Instead it’s like, yeah, I’ll go fight this one battle or I’ll join every other young man in my community going off for this, and so the initial motivations don’t become—

P. Onuf: [13:38 / __________]

E. Ayers: What James McPherson called the “sustaining motivations” and one of the things we have to do about the entire Civil War is remember that it’s an unfolding story with different kinds of motivations and contexts and not just one monolithic substance that we kind of analyze like a chemical ingredient

B. Balogh: Right, so we should be asking why they fought when.

E. Ayers: Exactly.  They’re constantly playing catch-up with events.  They act and they go, okay, what did that mean?  [laughter]

P. Onuf: Yeah.

E. Ayers: And so the Civil War is not driven so much by ideas as it is interwoven with them.

P. Onuf: Yeah.

B. Balogh: So, I think it’s great that we’ve entered the time dimension into this discussion and I’m going to enter another time dimension and that is it’s time for a short break.

[music—“when Johnny comes marching home”]

B. Balogh: When we get back, we’ll hear why the word Union quickened the heartbeats of men in the antebellum North.

P. Onuf: You’re listening to a special Civil War anniversary edition of “BackStory” with the American History Guys.  We’ll be back in a minute.  [music]  This is “BackStory,” the show that takes a topic and considers it from the perspective of three different centuries.  I’m your 18^th century guy, Peter Onuf.

E. Ayers: I’m your 19^th century guy, Ed Ayers.

B. Balogh: And I’m the 20^th century guy, Brian Balogh.  Today on our show, we’re exploring the motivations of soldiers on both sides of the American Civil War.  Most people agree that slavery was at the root of why the war started, but if most Southerners were not slaveholders, and most Northerners weren’t abolitionists, then why were so many thousands of people willing to put their lives on the line?

E. Ayers: That’s a question that’s really challenged historians for many years in large part because there’re so many answers that are at least partially right.  Now, there’s a historian Adam Goodheart who’s the author of a new book called 1861: The Civil War Awakening. He’s also one of the main contributors to “Disunion”—a New York Times blog that chronicles the events of 150 years ago.  And in his research for both projects, Goodheart had discovered that there was an enormous range of considerations that factored into people’s decisions in the lead-up to the war.

Tape (Adam Goodheart): I found a letter in a sort of a bundle of letters in an attic a few years ago on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, a bundle of letters from an Army officer from the spring of 1861 trying to decide which side he was going to go with and on the one hand, he was a slave-owner.  He was from a slave owning family.  He’s grown up in the Southern state of Maryland.  On the other hand, he’d been an Army officer.  He’d been under the Stars and Stripes since he was a 14-year-old cadet at West Point and he’s having a correspondence.  He’s stationed out at a fort out in Indian territory in what’s now Oklahoma and he’s corresponding with his wife and his brother back East and some of the decision has to do with slavery.  Some of it has to do with the Union and some of it has to do with which way Maryland is going to go but then he’s also talking about, well, what’s this going to mean for my own career.  His wife writes something that really stuck with me.  She said, “It is like a great game of chance.”  And I thought, well, gosh, he’s trying to decide, well, if I join this Confederacy will I end up as one of the founding fathers of a new nation or will I end up as a traitor being tried for treason.

P. Onuf: In the end, that officer decided to stand by the Union or at least by his career in that Union, and if his choice about which side to fight for seems like a tough one, then what about all the ordinary civilians in the North who had to decide whether to fight at all?  Joining the Army would mean leaving their jobs and yet tens of thousands of them flocked to answer Lincoln’s call for men.  So how do we explain that?

B. Balogh: Well, fortunately, Peter, we don’t have to explain it.  We brought in our colleague Gary Gallagher, University of Virginia historian who wrote a book on this very issue.  It’s called The Union War and it argues that while the Southern states went to war to protect slavery, the vast majority of Northern men who volunteered to fight did not oppose slavery.  Even after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Gallagher says that ending slavery was for most of them purely a military strategy.  That’s why they went along with it.   He says that if you asked these guys what really compelled them to take up arms, they would have answered that it was their deep commitment—hold your breath—to Union. Now, if you’re scratching your head on that one, you’re not alone.  I was a little confused by it also.

[music]

B. Balogh: You know, Gary, that I’m the 20^th century guy on this show.

Gary Gallagher: I’ve heard that.

B. Balogh: And I just can’t understand how all these men could fight and many of them die for something as abstract as Union.  Can you explain to our listeners what Union meant to these men?

G. Gallagher: I think what Union meant at the absolutely base for the mass of white Northerners was it meant a small “d” democratic republican system that gave a common person a voice in his own government—men are voting.  Only men are voting.  We know that—in his own government and it provided economic opportunity, not a guarantee for economic success, but much greater economic opportunity than any aristocratic or oligarchic society had and that was something that they treasured and they had imbibed Daniel Webster’s great rhetoric.  It’s everywhere.  It shows up in advertisements—Liberty and Union, Liberty and Union, and what they meant by liberty is not what we would normally think about.  Liberty is often tied now to your attitude toward slavery.  That is not how they would’ve deployed that word for the most part.  Liberty for them meant freedom to enjoy these political rights and a chance to move ahead in an economic sense.

B. Balogh: And I’m really struck by the comparative nature of your answer.  We think today we live in a world of globalization—

G. Gallagher: Right.

B. Balogh: But you were saying that these people woke up thinking I may not have much money, I may not have much education right now, but I’m special because I can vote and I can have a say in my government and millions of people around the world don’t have a chance at that.  Am I getting that right?

G. Gallagher: That’s absolutely right and they not only thought it, they wrote it down and they wrote it down sometimes in language that makes it clear they had very little education.  They’re literate but barely literate and they had a poster example of this in the presidency.  Abraham Lincoln literally did what they believed this system allowed people to do, literally go from—

B. Balogh: That’s the opportunity part.

G. Gallagher: That’s the opportunity.  That’s the opportunity and they compared themselves again and again and again to Europe and they were well aware of the failed revolutions of the late 1840s in Europe.  They believed that if the Union failed, if after an election, a legal election, if the party that lost that election could simply destroy the nation because they weren’t happy with the result, then the aristocratic oligarchic monarchical Europeans could look and say we told you a democratic republic could not work.

B. Balogh: So it’s almost as though they viewed those slaveholding aristocratic-leaning Confederates as the kind of shock troops of the aristocratic model around the world that was just waiting for America.

G. Gallagher: They wouldn’t have said aristocratic-leaning.  They would’ve said the words they used, the word “oligarch” came up a stunning number of times to me.  I was really struck in doing the research for this book how often the word “oligarchy” was applied to the slaveholding class of the South. They called them aristocrats.  They called them oligarchs. They said they were absolutely inimical to what the United States was about.

B. Balogh: So, in a way, you’re saying they were fighting against those slaveholders.

G. Gallagher: They were, yes.

B. Balogh: They just weren’t fighting against slavery.  They weren’t terribly upset by slavery per se, except that to have slavery, you needed slaveholders which defied the very concept of a democratic republic.

G. Gallagher: That’s absolutely right and they sought to punish the slaveholding class which had caused the whole problem in the first place, they believed, and there’s no better way to punish the slaveholding class than to take their slaves away from them because they’re property and slaves was the basis of their power and so get rid of them.

B. Balogh: Yeah. Well, Gary, let’s get down to brass tacks.  What public opinion polls did you consult for your study?

G. Gallagher: I used the three major ones that were available in the mid-19^th century.  [laughter]  There’re no public opinion polls.

P. Onuf: Oh, God.

G. Gallagher: What I did was try to put different kinds of evidence in conversation with one another.  For example, I read—  There were two major illustrated weeklies at the time, equivalent of Life and Look really, Harper’s Weekly and Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper.  I read every word of every issue of those for the whole war to see how this sentiment—

B. Balogh: That’s why I haven’t seen you for years.

G. Gallagher: Yes, I’ve been—  Yeah, I don’t have a tan anymore.  I also looked at soldiers’ letters.  I looked at letters from people behind the lines.  I mean, I used different kinds of evidence, fully aware of the fact that this is not a science.  There’s nothing scientific about this and anybody who pretends they can get a scientific sample of letters from the Civil War is either deeply ignorant or dissembling because it just can’t be done.  It can’t be done.

B. Balogh: Well, this has been so informative.  We have a guy on the show who claims to know about the 19^th century, Ed something.  Ed Ayers, that’s right.

G. Gallagher: I’ve been one of Ed’s admirers since I was a little boy.  I mean, I grew up sort of idolizing Ed.  [laughter]

B. Balogh: Now, he is getting up there in years.  Now that you’ve explained to us why the North fought, I felt we could bring Ed in.  He just happens to be standing outside looking just so anxious to get into this conversation.  Ed, come on it.

E. Ayers: [sound effect]  Hey, everybody.  It’s good to see you.  I didn’t know how long you’d leave me with my face pressed up against the glass there.

B. Balogh: I know.  I know you’ve been listening in and I’d just be curious to get your thoughts about what Gary’s had to say, especially about Union and about why men in the North fought for Union.

E. Ayers: Well, you know, it takes a little bit of the drama out of it to say that I think he’s exactly right about the motivations of people at the beginning.  I do think, though, if you read our textbooks, there is a general sense embodied in Abraham Lincoln of a sense of a moral growth over the course of the war and that is Northern soldiers come into contact with enslaved people as African Americans fight 200,000 strong in the United States Colored Troops, as people begin to wonder if this amount of bloodshed must not have a larger redeeming purpose as Abraham Lincoln says, some kind of providential reason to obliterate slavery.  People often think that the white North develops a greater understanding of slavery and its injustice over the course of the war.  Would you agree with that or not?

G. Gallagher: Not in the way you put it.  I think the big problem we have is not accepting the fact that for most of the white North Union was a completely sufficient reason to fight the kind of war they fought.  Union meant so much to them.  I mean, a number of historians have said Union wasn’t worth the loss of a single life. Well, that would’ve been stunningly wrongheaded to people who lived in the loyal states.  I don’t think there was a great moral shift.  I do believe that some Union soldiers surely changed their views about African Americans when they saw slavery up close, but many others had earlier notions about black people actually confirmed and their letters make that clear.  The prejudices came out more on the wrong side of things from our point of view.  I think there’s quite a variety of reactions to seeing slavery and seeing African Americans up close.

In terms of Lincoln, Lincoln’s second inaugural, of course, is the place that we go to see this change in this almost spiritual take on what the war was about, but Abraham Lincoln’s message to Congress in December 1864 which is after the elections—there’s no reason for him to pitch this to the loyal population if he didn’t think that most of them still focused on Union—he said in a great war such as this, you need to have one thing (I’m paraphrasing him) which everybody believes and he said, in our war, it’s Union.  He said killing slavery is one of the means to achieve that great end that we all agree on.  That’s December of 1864, so I just think that Union is most important in 1861, ’63 and ’65.

E. Ayers: So, Gary, since we know that we’re writing history for today to help us understand what the Civil War means for us, you are taking advantage of the fact that we’ve now recovered the African American component of the war and you don’t try to displace any of that, but you’re trying to restore an understanding that in alliance with that was a dedication to Union.  Does that speak to our current time in some way that we need, you think?

G. Gallagher: Well, I guess my principle goal isn’t to speak to our current time.  I think it’s important in our current time to understand the complexity of our past and I think that if we’re going to come to terms with the Civil War, we have to understand that it isn’t exactly what we wish it had been, but one of the points I make is that it’s sort of miraculous that a mass of white Northerners who were as racist as they were would be transformed by this giant military event into a population that believed slavery must be killed and I think that is a radical transformation within a mid-19^th century context and I think it shows the capacity for growth and change in the direction we would say is the right direction even if it’s not for exactly the reasons that we would prefer that it had taken place.  I think that’s important to know.

[music]

B. Balogh: That’s Gary Gallagher.  He’s a colleague of ours in the History Department at the University of Virginia and his book is called The Union War. If you’re just joining us, this is “BackStory,” and we’re talking about the reasons soldiers on both sides of the Civil War were motivated to fight.  We’ve already heard that most white Northerners did not go to war in order to end slavery, even if they ended up supporting that as an eventual outcome.  But Peter, Ed—what about black Northerners?  I mean, a lot of our listeners have probably seen Glory, the movie about the African Americans who fought on behalf of Massachusetts and on behalf of the Union.  I want to know more about those guys.

E. Ayers: Well, you know, the first thing to understand is they were not permitted to fight until 1863.

P. Onuf: Right.

E. Ayers: So, the war ultimately is half over before African American men are allowed to fight and there’s widespread skepticism in the white North that many of them will, but what happens is as soon as they open the doors to black recruitment, African American men of all kinds of backgrounds surge into service.  Black men who could’ve sat out the war put themselves in harm’s way to help make sure that this war is a war that does fight against slavery and this strikes me as one of the great miracles of American history, frankly, that these thousands of African American men whether previously held in slavery or born free or having made themselves free, go fight for a nation that has held them in slavery, you know, and why?  Because they have the idea—

P. Onuf: Yeah, yeah.

E. Ayers: That fully extended to its logical conclusion, to its consistent meaning, the federal nation of the United States would guarantee even their freedom.

P. Onuf: Well, I think that’s a great point, Ed.  There are values that Northerners are invoking about freedom and liberty and about the reason that we need to fight for the survival of the Union and African Americans, free and enslaved, take those ideas seriously in a way that most white Northerners don’t take them seriously, that is, they make a local application.  Northern whites are saying our freedom is what’s crucial.  Well, those ideas once they’re in the air, even Jefferson the slaveholder said “all men are created equal,” that idea is hard to put down and all of a sudden in the midst of war, it seems to have this power.  It’s really the story of imagining an America that could be but that wasn’t.

E. Ayers: You know, in this moment, there’s an incredible quote from Frederick Douglass who goes into the Civil War deeply suspicious of Abraham Lincoln, of the Republican Party, even of the Union cause. Why are we fighting to maintain a Union with slaveholders?

P. Onuf: Right.

E. Ayers: He does say now that black men, black families, can fight for not just their freedom, but for the very survival of the United States, this changes everything.  He says, “once put an Eagle put on their buttons and a rifle on their shoulders and things can never go back to the way they were.”

B. Balogh: And what difference did this make in the actual prosecution of the war.

E. Ayers: Well, you have 200,000 African American men fighting on land and sea that you would not have had otherwise and they come into the United States purpose just when the North really really needs men.  As a matter of fact, let’s not fool ourselves.  That’s why they are enlisted in the first place.

B. Balogh: Right.

E. Ayers: Is that despite all this language of Union and self-sacrifice, not enough Northern men stepped up to sustain the purpose.

Reading: Dear Wife i have enlisted in the army i am now in the state of Massachusetts but before this letter reaches you i will be in North Carlinia and though great is the present national dificulties yet i look forward to a brighter day When i shall have the opertunity of seeing you in the full enjoyment of fredom i would like to if you are still in slavery if you are it will not be long before we shall have crushed the system that now oppresses you  great is the outpouring of the colered peopl that is now rallying with the hearts of lions against that very curse that has seperated you an me yet we shall meet again and oh what a happy time that will be when this ungodly rebellion shall be put down and the curses of our land is trampled under our feet i am a soldier now and endeavoring to strike at the rebellion that so long has kept us in chains tell Eliza I send her my best respects and love Ike and Sully likewise your afectionate husband until death-SAMUEL CABBLE, Private 55^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, 1863

P. Onuf: It’s time for another short break.  When we get back, we’ll shift our focus to the South, and ask why so many white men who did not own slaves were willing to lay down their lives in defense of a nation that was based on slavery.  You’re listening to “BackStory,” and we’ll be back in a minute.  [music]  We’re back with “BackStory.”  We’re the American History guys.  I’m Peter Onuf, otherwise known as the 18th century guy.

E. Ayers: I’m Ed Ayers, “BackStory’s” 19th century guy.

B. Balogh: And I’m Brian Balogh, representing the 20th century.  Today on the show, we’re marking the 150th anniversary of the Civil War’s beginnings by asking what motivated people on both sides of the conflict to take up arms.  Before the break, we were looking at the Union cause.  Now we’re going to shift to the Confederacy.

Tape (Aaron Sheehan-Dean): You know the old saw is that the Civil War was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight, and that actually turns out not to be accurate.

P. Onuf: This is Aaron Sheehan-Dean, a historian at the University of North Florida.  A few years ago, he published a book called Why Confederates Fight, a book that also answered the question of who those Confederates were.

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): Wealthy men and wealthy counties send much higher proportions of men than do poorer places and the Army is also different in ways that we might not imagine.  We would assume that this army would be composed of younger men, of unmarried men.  In fact, a majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army are married and they have families, so they’re deeply invested in protecting their families and in preserving the society as they know it in 1860 and 1861.

P. Onuf: So what about all the men who did not own any slaves?  Why would they have flocked to enlist, and continued to enlist, even after the initial excitement of war had worn off?  This is the real million dollar question for Sheehan-Dean.  After all, slaveholders may have been over-represented in the Confederate army, but they still made up a minority of the ranks.

B. Balogh: After spending a lot of time with letters that Virginia soldiers sent home to their families, Sheehan-Dean concluded that there were three main reasons why non-slaveholders felt that they, too, had something worth fighting for.  The first was political—recent democratic reforms had given white men new voting rights that they worried could be undone by the Lincoln administration.  The second was economic—they realized that the strength of the Southern economy depended on slavery, and in classic American fashion, many of them aspired to join the ranks of slaveholders one day.  It was aspirational.  But the third—well, that one’s a lot trickier.  And so I asked Sheehan-Dean to explain himself.  [music—banjo]  So, I’m familiar with people fighting for political rights and their economic stake in society, but here’s one that really threw me for a loop, Aaron.  Maybe you can help me out.  Companionate marriage—  I didn’t even know what term meant.

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): Yeah, now we just call it love.  [laughter]

B. Balogh: I don’t know what that means either, Aaron.

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): It’s the job of historians to muddy the waters.  The notion of a companionate marriage, of a marriage built on love, though, is actually a pretty recent thing in the middle of the 19^th century.  We tend to assume that emotions are the same and that families are the same because they’re such bedrock parts of our lives but, in fact, the notion of how families are constituted and how people within them relate to one another was changing in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and we were moving from a period in which the model of the family was as a microcosm of the state in which the father was the king and you obeyed him because it was God’s law, to a model in which husbands and wives came together because they loved one another and they respected one another and even more importantly, that parenting absorbed the same ethos—that parents should love and respect their children and children should respect their parents because they love them.  And this creates, I think, a much stronger and more intimate kind of bond within these families and so as the war grinds on and particularly in parts of the upper South like Virginia and Tennessee, as the North wages a hard war which imperils their loved ones and puts greater hardships on women and children at home, soldiers talk about the necessity of protecting their families because of their love for those families, and I think we’ve tended to talk about the motivation of soldiers in terms of hate and in terms of hating the Yankee but, in fact, what I saw in these letters over and over again was that many more men spoke about love and the love of their families as the primary reason that they were fighting.

B. Balogh: One of the things you stress in your book is how the motivations for fighting change as the war drags on.  Could you tell me how Lincoln’s Proclamation freeing the slaves changed things?

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): Yeah.  Well, it fundamentally changes things because up to that point the Union Army had been quite inconsistent in terms of its policies on slavery and in some places under some commanders had returned slave and in other places, it emancipated them and the Emancipation Proclamation then makes quite clear that if the Confederates lose, whatever society they will return to will be completely different than the society that they’d left so it means now that particularly non-slaveholding men are going to be competing with enslaved men who are now freed.  They will be competing with them at all levels and the fear and paranoia about what that represented is almost impossible for us to capture today, but it I think certainly inspired most of them to fight much harder because now there was no going back.  There was no finding a peace that would allow them to have the Virginia they used to know if they failed.

B. Balogh: And did those fears extend beyond the political economy?  In other words, were these soldiers worried about this post-apocalyptic society with slavery ending in which there was actually social mixing among the races?

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): They are.  I mean, certainly the rhetoric of what would happen socially in the event of emancipation that had been used extensively by Southerners and Democrats in the years before the war then bloomed during the war and non-slaveholders as well as slaveholders imagine that black men once emancipated are going to be out to capture their wives and their daughters and there’s a long, long rhetoric of really vile kind of racialized, sexualized imagery about what black men are going to be doing to white women and that threat is a much more immediate social threat to a homefront that’s largely undefended in most parts of the upper South because the rates of enlistment were simply so high.  Seventy, eighty percent of white men, eligible white men, would’ve been in the armies and serving away from their home communities so that’s really the immediate threat is what’s going to happen in the wake of emancipation and, you know, decades of hysteria and sort of fear mongering about that possibility then produce a great deal of anxiety among those soldiers who are now not at home.

B. Balogh: Let me ask you about all of these causes.  When we ask why did the Confederate soldier fight, you’ve now laid out a number of them.  I’m just curious on the ground level, how did individuals integrate balance, deal with these competing motivations ranging from it’s my obligation to protect my wife who, by the way, wasn’t imposed on me, but I chose and I love, to states rights?

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): Yeah. Well, they struggle with them all the time and particularly when they come into tension when the collapse of slavery creates insecurity and fear that might compel them to go home and there’s a great letter from a soldier named John Jones whose wife has written to him.  His wife’s name is Molly, saying you need to come home, we need protection here and he says to her, I’m going to stay in the Army.  He says, this is the best place to protect you and it’s important that we strike now.  He says, we need to get the Yankees now while they’re organizing.  I’m afraid they might come home and get my boy.  That is, what had been in the pre-war period would’ve been envisioned as a kind of a personal effort to repel, honor you.  You’d use violence to protect your family becomes a corporate form during the war and a recognition that the Army is the best way to do this, but there’s this tension and they are basically arguing with and trying to convince their wives, in many cases, that this is in fact the best decision because a lot of the wives weren’t at all convinced.

B. Balogh: Yeah.  Now, you know I’m a 20^th century guy.  I think of the literature that comes out of World War II and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, all this complaining about the boredom and bureaucracy.  Do you come across a lot of that, too?  I mean, in all of this emphasis on why they fought, do we sometimes kind of lose track of the fact that often they weren’t so keen on fighting?

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): No, they’re not keen at all.  I mean, that’s in fact all the letters are are long complaints and I have to imagine, you know, they often—soldiers often complained to their wives—your last letter was three days late, why haven’t you written?  And I think if I received your letters twice a week and it’s just three pages of complaints, I probably wouldn’t be eager to respond either after six months of that.  [laughter]  Soldiers had a great deal to complain about.  I don’t begrudge them their complaints.  You know, the food is both bad and scarce.  Dysentery and diarrhea are rampant.  Every man would’ve been infested with lice and had scabies and all sorts of sort of kind of routine physical problems that you 20^th century guys don’t have to worry about, you know, we’ve got clothes and shoes and socks and a lot of these men marched barefoot up to Antietam in the fall of 1862.

B. Balogh: Yeah, it’s incredible.

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): And a lot of them felt like the Army was poorly run and poorly managed and poorly supplied and they complained bitterly and always and it’s not an expression of disloyalty.  It’s an expression of frustration and anger over the fact that they aren’t being provisioned the way they need to be provisioned if they’re going to be able to do their jobs and they’ve signed a contract to fight for the Confederacy, the least the Confederacy can do is get them some rancid corn and mealy meat or something.

B. Balogh: Yeah, and you mentioned loyalty which is so important.  If I read your book correctly, that loyalty actually grows and deepens over the course of the war in spite of what we might call the complaining or that classic Civil War term, kvetching.

Tape (A. Sheehan-Dean): Yeah, and I think you’re absolutely right that it deepens which is surprising.  We would anticipate and the traditional story gives us a story of sort of kind of waning morale.  The morale deepens as the crisis of what failure, of what defeat looks like, looms larger for these men.  They certainly wear down and they wear out in many cases and I think ultimately that’s what accounts for Confederate defeat is simply wearing out, but in the process, these men have committed themselves very very deeply to a Southern nation, to the Confederacy, but a Southern nation that lives on beyond the Confederacy.  It’s the Confederate state that is destroyed by the Civil War but I think unfortunately not a very deep sense of sectional loyalty that presents enormous problems for post-war America, for reconciling these men.  This is one of the classic problems of Civil War and one that Lincoln recognized, that the harder you fight and the more bitter and the longer the fight goes on, the more difficult that post-war reconciliation is going to be.  [music—banjo]

[E. Ayers]: Aaron Sheehan-Dean is an historian at the University of North Florida and author of the book Why Confederates Fought.  Thank you so much for joining us, Aaron.

B. Balogh: Thanks, Brian.  That was great.  [music—banjo]

E. Ayers: So, Aaron does a great job of evoking for us the central idea of home—

P. Onuf: Yeah.

E. Ayers: And the motivations of Confederate soldiers and their understanding that is what they are sacrificing their lives for.  And you might ask, what did this look like from the perspective of those for whom they were sacrificing their lives.  What was it like for the women who lived in those homes that the Confederate soldiers were defending?  No one has thought about this more thoroughly than Catherine Clinton who has written about women in the war before and after for a long time, and she told me that when you look really closely at the lives of women in the Civil War era, Northern and Southern, white and black, a lot of the easy stereotypes and generalizations begin to fall away.

Tape (Catherine Clinton): Men were coming home maimed.  Men were coming home scarred.  Men were coming home psychologically damaged and then, again, men weren’t coming home.  There were small towns in Wisconsin where marriageable-age men were simply wiped out, an entire generation and the young women became skilled at the rituals of mourning.  And I think this really deeply affected their outlook on life.  It scarred an entire generation of young women.

E. Ayers: So, it sounds like you would emphasize in some ways the commonalities perhaps that we’ve overlooked between Northern and Southern white women.

Tape (C. Clinton): Right, and also the way in which war and men marching into war can create a commonality between women, black and white, in the South.  When we look at matters of war unleashing violence against women, war unleashing men’s restraints during war time, I was struck by the fact that Jefferson Davis was someone who spoke about rape as a fate infinitely worse than death, so we look at the way in which gender and sexual politics during the war affected very dramatically how women lived the war and that a woman alone, black or white, might be in fear of soldiers marching through.  Maybe they were supposed to be liberators, maybe they were our own boys, but in both cases, war can unleash terrors and cause a gender divide that was quite dramatic.

E. Ayers: So, the more we look at the Civil War, as Catherine Clinton shows us, the more you see that the humanity of the people at the time stretched over four years, dying in incomprehensible numbers, in incomprehensible ways, for causes that had been unimaginable, it’s going to require every skill the historian has to try to make sense of this thing.

P. Onuf: Right.  And I think, Ed, Catherine tells us something important, reminds us of something that is omnipresent in the experience of people in war and that is here we are fighting on behalf of civilization, however we define it, yet just beneath the surface of civility and law is the reality of violence and as Catherine quite rightly points out and this is what Southern soldiers feared, as Aaron told us, when the forces of war are unleashed on your home, then the laws of war are hanging in suspense and that is the whole notion of laws of war which is the whole basis of modern international law, that you can somehow create conventions and standards of how you fight.  Well, actually killing people blurs the distinction between barbarism and civilization and it’s that dissent into barbarism that is the threat of all wars.

B. Balogh: Yeah, and Peter, with that phrase, “the threat of all wars,” we really must confront this question of ultimately how different—

P. Onuf: Yeah, yeah.

B. Balogh: Is the Civil War from all wars.  Now, I who know the least about this so I’ll listen to your answers, but for me, it remains very distinctive, primarily because we did this to ourselves.  We fought this—

P. Onuf: Yeah.

B. Balogh: On our own homeland, so to speak, and that certainly makes it distinctive, but listening to you guys, especially about the number of young men who signed up without being coerced and their sense of patriotism, either to the Union or to their home state and the larger Confederacy, really underscores this notion of doing this to ourselves—

P. Onuf: Yeah, I think that’s exactly right.

B. Balogh: And that remains distinctive to me, but I’d be curious to hear where you and Ed come down on this question.

P. Onuf: Well, Ed—

E. Ayers: You know, I think it was an exceptional moment in American history but I guess I’d argue that this is our version of something that all nations seem to go through at some time, right?  They’re fighting over who are we really.

P. Onuf: Right.

E. Ayers: And unlike other countries where they might be fighting over a religious difference or a longstanding who owns that piece of turf, here this was all about a future.  There was not anything immediately at stake because the North didn’t think that it could abolish slavery in the Constitution, but Americans projecting themselves across space and across time were fighting in many ways over what the future of America would be.

P. Onuf: Yeah, and I do think, I mean, you’re exactly right.  There’re been so many civil wars.  There’s been so much slaughter in world history.  We’re not special in that regard, but what makes this special for us is that the United States was founded on the notion of a vision of peace, that is, that republican government would end conflicts within nations, that this was a model for the world, that the Union was a way to transcend the problem of war that had scarred the European continent for centuries, that the Americas had the hubris, the pride, to think that they had discovered the formula for progress and perpetual peace and prosperity and that is republican government and that’s why there’s so much pathos in Lincoln’s Civil War rhetoric about the meaning of the war, about the meaning of republican government, because what the war was really demonstrating was the failure of that dream.

B. Balogh: Well, guys, one thing is not exceptional and that’s that once again we’ve run out of time, but we want to know what our listeners think about all of this and we want them to continue the conversation online.  You can find us at backstoryradio.org.  And while you’re there, have a listen to the first installment in our Civil War series, “The Road to War.”

P. Onuf: Again, that’s backstoryradio.org.  We’re also on iTunes, Facebook, and Twitter.  Don’t be a stranger.

E. Ayers: “BackStory” is produced by Tony Field, with help from Catherine Moore.  Dylan Keefe mastered the show, and Gaby Alter wrote our theme.  Our interns are Jose Argueta and Miriam Kaplan.  Special thanks today to Clinton Johnston.  “BackStory’s” executive producer is Andrew Wyndham.  Production support for “BackStory” is provided by Cary Brown Epstein and the W.L. Lyons Brown, Jr. Charitable Foundation, James Madison’s Montpelier, Marcus and Carole Weinstein, Trish and David Crowe, Austin Ligon, and an anonymous donor.

Tape: Brian Balogh and Peter Onuf are professors in the University of Virginia’s Corcoran Department of History.  Ed Ayers is president and professor of history at the University of Richmond.  “BackStory” was created by Andrew Wyndham for VFH Radio at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.

“Why They Fought” is Part III of a three-part BackStory series commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

Read Show Transcript

Further Reading

Still questioning? The BackStory research team has compiled a comprehensive list of print and online resources for further exploration. Read On.

Gary Gallagher: Why Northerners Fought — University of Virginia historian Gary Gallagher argues that while Northern leaders’ opposition to slavery brought on the Civil War, it wasn’t what motivated the majority of men in the Union army to enlist.

Aaron Sheehan-Dean: Why Confederates Fought — University of North Florida historian Aaron Sheehan-Dean explains why so many non-slaveholding Southerners were willing to lay down their lives in a Confederate war to protect slavery.

Aaron Sheehan-Dean: Why Confederates Fought (Extended Interview) — Hear the full account of Southern soldiers’ motivations in this extended interview.

23rd New York Infantry, ca. 1861-1865 (Library of Congress)

150 years ago this April, the Union went to war with the Confederacy. Ever since, Americans have been debating the causes of that war. Most historians today agree that it was fundamentally about slavery. And so what are we to make of the fact that most Southerners didn’t own any slaves, and most Northerners were not abolitionists?

In this hour of BackStory, the History Guys turn the question of the war’s causes on its side, asking instead why Northerners and Southerners took up arms to fight one another. What causes, in other words, were they willing to die for? Were families on the home-front united in their commitment to war, or were there differences of opinion? Who didn’t want to fight? What did slavery mean to white people on both sides, and what role did enslaved and free African-Americans play in the liberation of slaves? How much did Americans’ reasons for fighting change between 1861 and 1864? And finally – how have intervening wars altered the ways we interpret the motivations of Civil War soldiers?

“Why They Fought” is Part II of a three-part BackStory series commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

Read Show Transcript

Guests Include:

 
• Adam Goodheart (lead author, New York Times “Disunion” series)
• Christy Coleman (president, American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar)
• Gary Gallagher (historian, University of Virginia)
• Aaron Sheehan-Dean (historian, University of North Florida)
• Catherine Clinton (historian, Queens University Belfast)

 

Features and Highlights

Listen to historians Gary Gallagher and Aaron Sheehan-Dean explain what men on both sides of the conflict were really willing to die for.

Further Reading

Want to peer further down the road to Civil War? The BackStory research team has compiled a comprehensive list of print and online resources for further exploration. Read On.

Listing of the music heard in “Civil War 150th: Why They Fought”

Part 1: THE ROAD TO CIVIL WAR

"The Hercules of Union Slaying the Great Dragon of Secession," 1861 (Library of Congress)

As America launches its multi-year commemoration of the Civil War, it’s easy to overlook the fact that back in the spring of 1861, disunion was anything but inevitable. This episode traces the dramatic six months leading up to the outbreak of war, and explores the complex layers of logic and emotion that Americans experienced as they looked into a very uncertain future. Listen here.

________________________________________________________

Part 2: WHY THEY FOUGHT

Two Soldiers from 23rd NY Infantry, c. 1861-1865 (Library of Congress)

Slavery, in a word, was what brought on the Civil War. But in the spring of 1861, most Southerners didn’t own slaves and only a tiny minority of Northerners were abolitionists. So how are we to understand the willingness of soldiers on both sides to take up arms against each other? Listen here.

________________________________________________________

Part 3: QUESTIONS REMAIN

Ruins of Richmond and Petersburg RR Depot, 1865 (Lib. of Congress)

In this episode, the History Guys open up the phone lines and take listener questions about all aspects of the Civil War.  Listen here.

___________________________________________________________

Hungry for more? Subscribe here to BackStory’s special “Civil War 150th” podcast feed, which includes Civil War-related excerpts from our entire program archive.

Historian Michael Holt explains the lasting impact of a little-known president, James K. Polk, and the History Guys ask whether Polk’s expansion of US territory was a foregone conclusion or the mark of presidential power & influence.

Excerpted from: The More Things Change: A History of Presidential Transitions

Show Highlights

General Education
Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper tells the History Guys what it’s like to have civilian bosses, why he spoke out publicly in favor of Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, and what the study of history has to teach the soldier.

Related Links

Read an excerpt from Human Smoke, Nicholson Baker’s book about WWII.

Fighting…maybe for freedom, but probably not: slaves and free blacks in the Revolution