A Nod to Military History and Teaching the Civil War

Civil War aficionados attribute one of my favorite quotes from the era to George Pickett. When asked why the Rebels lost at Gettysburg, he noted: ”I think the Union Army had something to do with it.” Now this story may be apocryphal - but I don’t really care, because it’s the sentiment that matters more to me: there was a war going on, there were winners and losers, a lot of things changed…and some things didn't, and the military did indeed have something to do with it. It seems kind of odd that I have to make this point. It’s just that a lot of folks (especially in academia) think that the study of the military dominates the Civil War narrative at the expense of everything else...the really important stuff, I suppose. Even my Civil War students will sometimes ask why I tend to spend so much time on the military. Honestly I think they grow weary of the tactical stuff - fair enough…but dammit it was a war, and so I talk about the armies.

For those who scoff at “drums and bugles” history - maybe chill for a minute and consider this: for one, there is a good deal more to the military than generals, strategy, and tactics. Now - I don’t think that the military story is necessarily more crucial to grasp than anything else, I just think that you can’t really get the war - in all its complexity - without understanding what took place on the battlefield. That's right - to understand the wartime social, economic, and political changes over time, we have to engage with and carefully analyze what’s going on where the actual shooting is taking place.

I have just watched (and assigned to my students…) Katy Shively’s excellent talk at the American Civil War Museum in Richmond, which they broadcast on C-SPAN, and I tend to agree with her take on the whole thing. She name checks the crew who think of military history as “fraternity boy” history (grrr) and proceeds to explain why it is essential to weigh the military events in relation to other examples of historical change. In addition, she frames military history as a gateway through which students of the war and other members of the informed public can enter into any variety of Civil War topics. As she notes…“Because so many modern day Americans receive their first introduction to the conflict through battles, generals, and soldiers - just as Civil War Americans scoured the newspapers for these topics - military history can attract a large audience…but also offer much more than anticipated. It can challenge us to reengage with our long-held beliefs and wonder at the war’s social revolution with all its promise, progress, and failure.” Amen sister.

A book that has been doing a lot of heavy lifting as I work through military topics in my own Civil War course is the first volume (of three) in The Cambridge History of the American Civil War, edited by Aaron Sheehan-Dean. I especially appreciate how many of the authors take on traditional military history while situating the fighting within the broader context of the war. Most also ask engaging questions that could very well challenge one’s way of thinking about any number of military topics…and how they intersect with other aspects of the war.

The list of contributing authors is a who’s who of first-rate historians…here’s just a sampling of the contents:

The Battles of the Trans-Mississippi by William Shea

The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862 and 1864 by Kathryn J. Shively

The Western Theater by Kennth W. Noe

The Gettysburg Campaign by Carol Reardon

The Overland Campaign by Gordon C. Rhea

War in Indian Country by Kevin Waite

And the list goes on and on…so you can go ahead and assume that I highly recommend this anthology. Sheehan-Dean notes in the introduction: “Regardless of disciplinary trends, all history begins by appreciating how participants understood their experiences, and people who lived though the Civil War recognized that their were momentous times.” This suggests to me profound interconnectedness of the events on the battlefield with the events beyond the fighting. Changes affecting society, politics, economics, gender, race, ethnicity and anything else really ebbed and flowed depending on the outcome of the military contest, both in the immediate sense (individual battles) and in determining the final tally of the victors and vanquished. And of course, this idea cuts both ways. Sentiments, actions, and the realities of living behind the lines could and did compel those in charge to make decisions culminating on the battlefield.

So, my students will surely be happy that I have backed off a little on the tactical stuff. But they will hopefully acknowledge and ultimately appreciate military history. Not for what it overshadows, but for how it can help us understand the bigger picture. I’ll let you know how things go.

With compliments,

Keith