Civil Wars in the Capital: Civil Affairs in the Defenses of Washington, 1861-1863

This thesis analyzes the relationships between civilians and soldiers in the Defenses of Washington during the Civil War. Marked by a combination of conflict and adaptation, the visible tension between soldiers and civilians threatened Union loyalty around Washington. Differing identities and priorities caused these conflicts. Young soldiers steeped in a Northern education that cast the South as an enemy thought slavery and associations with Maryland marked Washington’s rural outskirts as an enemy territory. This dynamic, along with material needs, led soldiers to frequently take private property without compensation, known as foraging. Furthermore, soldiers adopted new identities and social groups that encouraged behavior not normally accepted in peacetime. Therefore, drunkenness, violence, and theft became an easy and tempting way for soldiers to “fight” the war around the Washington and vent frustration and boredom. Civilians attempted to find redress with junior and senior officers, but found the former dismissive and latter too overwhelmed to effectively compensate for lost property. Blaming alcohol, both military and civilian authorities restricted alcohol’s sale and traffic, itself an intrusion on local business and customs. In the end, few real solutions were found for these problems, but soldiers and civilians nonetheless adapted to each other, building informal communities in the process

The Importance of the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War

The purpose of this research and writing is to examine the military history which transpired in the Shenandoah Valley during the American Civil War. There is a general motivation to discover more about the people who made the decisions that impacted the Valley. Two research questions will be considered. First, why did the Union and Confederate leadership conduct operations in the Shenandoah Valley as they did in the Civil War? Second, how did the conduct of operations in the Shenandoah Valley change during the war for both the North and the South? Readers will encounter what happened in the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War from the perspective of some of the participants who lived through it. This encounter will be presented from the analysis of both primary and secondary sources. Such sources as collected papers of people including Robert E. Lee and Robert Milroy along with recorded history from units like the 118th Pennsylvania will be included. The Shenandoah Valley campaigns of the Civil War tell the story of two wars. In the beginning, there was the dramatic success of the Confederate army in the Valley in the first half of the war. Subsequently, there was the ultimate, final success of the Union army in the last half of the war. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the Union success came at the right time and marked the end of the war for the South. This duality of emphasis on the Valley can be seen in two observations. First, the Federal leadership did not understand the importance of the Shenandoah Valley until they did. Second, the Confederate leadership always understood the importance of the Valley. Their problem was they were able to adequately defend it until they could no longer defend it. In the end, the explanation for the ability to access the Valley boiled down to the ability of both the Union and the Confederacy leadership to hold on to it

Battle of Antietam: Why Sixteen Regiments Suffered Over 50% Casualties

The Battle of Antietam saw some of the most terrible fighting of the war. Nearly 23,000 men were killed or wounded that day and of the over 400 regiments that were engaged, sixteen of them entered the battle with over 250 men but ended the day with over 50% casualties. The primary reasons for these sixteen to have suffered such terrible losses are: 1) five of the regiments had the unfortunate luck of halting on a piece of high ground becoming the target of every enemy regiment and artillery battery within range, 2) thirteen regiments adhered to accepted doctrine but were overpowered by superior numbers and firepower while the remaining three did not follow doctrine and suffered the consequences, and 3) fifteen of the high-casualty regiments had experienced combat before and were classified as veteran regiments so they understood and knew what to expect, giving them the fortitude and resilience to stay and fight when, without that experience, prudence and fear most likely would have caused them to retreat. To sum it up…having “seen the elephant” before the battle allowed them to suffer the heavy losses they experienced on the fields around the small Maryland town of Sharpsburg

Engineering Victory: The Ingenuity, Proficiency, and Versatility of Union Citizen Soldiers in Determining the Outcome of the Civil War

My dissertation explores the critical advantage the Union held over the Confederacy in military engineering. The skills Union soldiers displayed during the war at bridge building, railroad repair, and road making demonstrated mechanical ability and often revealed ingenuity and imagination. These skills were developed during the antebellum period when northerners invested in educational systems that served an industrializing economy. Before the war, northern states’ attempt at implementing basic educational reforms, the spread of informal educational practices directed at mechanics and artisans, and the exponential growth in manufacturing all generated a different work related ethos than that of the South. Plantation slavery generated fabulous wealth for a tiny percent of the southern white population. It fostered a particular style of agriculture and scientific farming that limited land use. It curtailed manufacturing opportunities, and it stifled educational opportunities for the middle and lower classes because those in political power feared that an educated yeomanry would be filled with radical ideas such as social equality, and, worst of all, abolition These differences in the North and South produced unique skill sets in both armies, and consequently, resulted in more successful and resourceful Union engineering operations during the war. Between 1861 and 1865 the North engineered victory

THE RHETORIC OF DESTRUCTION: RACIAL IDENTITY AND NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA

This study explores how Americans chose to conduct war in the mid-nineteenth century and the relationship between race and the onset of “total war” policies. It is my argument that enlisted soldiers in the Civil War era selectively waged total war using race and cultural standards as determining factors. A comparative analysis of the treatment of noncombatants throughout the United States between 1861 and 1865 demonstrates that nonwhites invariably suffered greater depredations at the hands of military forces than did whites. Five types of encounters are examined: 1) the treatment of white noncombatants by regular Union and Confederate forces; 2) the fate of noncombatants caught up in the guerrilla wars of the border regions; 3) the relationship between native New Mexicans, Anglo Union troops and Confederate Texans; 4) the relationship between African American noncombatants and Union and Confederate forces; and 5) the conflict between various Indian tribes and Union and Confederate forces apart from the Civil War. By moving away from a narrow focus of white involvement in a single conflict and instead speaking of a “Civil War era,” new comparisons can be drawn that illuminate the multi-faceted nature of American warfare in the mid-nineteenth century. Such a comparison, advances the notion that there has been not one “American way of war,” but two – the first waged against whites, and the second against all others. A thorough study of the language soldiers employed to stereotype explains how the process of dehumanization functioned and why similar groups of men behaved with restraint in one instance and committed atrocity in another. Though the fates of Hispanic, black, and Indian noncombatants have generally been obscured by the “greater” aspects of the Civil War, they are integral to understanding both the capacity of mid-nineteenth century Americans to inflict destruction and the importance of race in shaping military responses. Ultimately, the racialist assumptions of white soldiers served to prevent atrocities against white noncombatants, while the desire to maintain white privilege virtually guaranteed the implementation of harsh tactics against nonwhites

1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles: Mississippi’s Union Battalion in the Civil War

In the Civil War era, Mississippi was a house divided. Secessionists were in a never ending conflict with pro-Unionists in the 1850’s and into 1860 over secession. These clashes even spilled over into the war as Confederates skirmished with pro-Unionists, as well as groups of people that became known as anti-Confederates (these being people that did not support the Union, but did not agree with the policies of the Confederacy). The division in Mississippi had become so bad that many men refused to join the army, some deserted after conscription, while others supported the Union in any way possible. In 1863, the United States formed a battalion containing men from in and around Mississippi, who was willing to fight the Confederate Army, called the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles. Over 600 men enlisted into the battalion for various reasons. Many signed on to truly fight for the Union, while others stayed long enough to collect one or two bounties and then desert, often taking their horse and gun. For those that truly desired to serve the United States, they were never going to be a determining factor in the war, as the course for a brutal and destructive end was already set in motion. But their role was very important as they had to fight the army under General Nathan B. Forrest that could have slowed Sherman’s March, thus prolonging the war. During its existence, the men of the battalion were given the objective of protecting the Federal base at Memphis, as well as venturing on several expeditions into Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri, thus taking the fight to the already crumbling Confederate forces and destroying any and all remaining Rebel property. This is where life as a soldier in the 1st Mississippi became very difficult. Mississippians had to go into their own state with the task of suppressing any armed resistance, which included fellow Mississippians that were fighting for the Confederate Army. The story of Mississippians fighting against the C.S.A. is not unusual. One man has been the focus of many historians, and has become a larger than life legend; almost like a nineteenth century Robin Hood. This story of, course is that of Newton Knight and the Free State of Jones. The story of Knight is something that remains highly debated. In short, he was a citizen of Jones County and enlisted into the Confederate Army, only to desert and become nothing more than a fugitive on the run with friends and family, having several run-ins with Confederate forces. Another well known story is a memoir written by Mississippian Levi Naron, who served as a scout for the Union during the Civil War

MS-009: Ambrose Henry Hayward Papers

The Ambrose Henry Hayward Collection consists primarily of correspondence from the period April 14, 1861 through August 17, 1864. The bulk of the letters were written by A.H. Hayward to his father, sister and brothers, but the collection includes 3 letters written by Melville Hayward of the 7th New York (6/22/1862, 7/10/1862, 7/23/1862), letters from Henry\u27s commanding officers regarding his service and four letters regarding Henry\u27s death. Also included in the collection are several newspaper clippings about the 28th Pennsylvania, Hayward\u27s 1862 promotion to Sergeant, and 19 envelopes addressed to Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Albert, Mr. John and Miss Hannah C. Hayward of North Bridgewater, MA and to Mr. Augustus Hayward of New York City. All letters have transcriptions, though many are slightly inaccurate. The collection is arranged chronologically. The letters provide firsthand accounts of camp life, major battles and minor skirmishes during the Civil War as experienced by a high-spirited and patriotic Union soldier. Special Collections and College Archives Finding Aids are discovery tools used to describe and provide access to our holdings. Finding aids include historical and biographical information about each collection in addition to inventories of their content. More information about our collections can be found on our website http://www.gettysburg.edu/special_collections/collections/.https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/findingaidsall/1008/thumbnail.jp

Trans-Mississippi Southerners in the Union Army, 1862-1865

Men from throughout the Trans-Mississippi South enlisted in the Union army during the Civil War both in existing northern regiments and in units raised specifically for the purpose of enlisting southerners. The men who joined and fought represented almost every social and ethnic division within the region and contributed substantially to the success of Union arms during the war. Examining a single regiment from each state or territory in the region (except Louisiana, where one white and one black unit were chosen due to segregation) reveals similarities of background, experience and purpose. Louisiana\u27s contributions to the Union army were primarily black soldiers, although a smaller number of white immigrants and freeholders also served. Texas\u27 contribution was equally divided between native-born southerners and Hispanics, while the Indian Territory contributed Native Americans from several southern tribes. Arkansas\u27 Union soldiers were split equally between white farmers from the northwestern corner of the state and freed slaves from the southeast. Service varied among the several regiments, but included active campaigning, anti-guerrilla operations and the far more mundane garrison duty. Men succumbed to disease in extraordinary numbers due in part to their position at the end of an extended logistic system in an ignored backwater of the war. These southerners represent the staunchest internal opposition to the Confederacy and contributed significantly to the restoration of Federal authority. Whatever their background these soldiers possessed a strong ideological attachment to the Union and endured severe hardships and oppression in order to vindicate a cause many valued more than their own lives