Why They Were There: State Identity and the Civil War

Why They Were There: State Identity and the Civil War

Throughout the Civil War, there is a constant reference to states.  The obvious answer is that this represented the composition of the armies at that time.  It also demonstrates that each military unit carrying that state representation formed a shared identity among the soldiers.  The Confederate and Union armies both suffered from failures of leadership.  These failures put strain on the rank and file soldiers to which they turned to their state identity, to their fellow soldiers from the same state, to maintain the rationale for their personal sacrifice and remember why they were in the war at all.

Wars are fought by commissioned officers and, what we might term, ordinary soldiers.  For the American Civil War, their involvement was a far cry from blind adherence to a prescribed set of orders or ideology.  It was largely entered into by all as a quest for peace predicated more prominently upon identity to one’s specific state, rather than larger notions, such as abolition. 

Gallagher and Grimsley both paint a picture of the leadership of both the Confederate and Union armies.  After the Richmond Campaign of 1862, Robert E. Lee emerged as a savior of the Confederacy at a time when the South was suffering from low morale and no central military figure on which to hang future aspirations of sovereignty.  Richmond newspapers cite the “brilliancy of his genius” that had “entitled himself to the lasting gratitude of his country.” (160)  Meanwhile, the retreated Union army under McClellan was lamenting the loss of the Confederate capital, and with it, the hope that the war might end.  Brig. Gen. Philip Kearny cites McClellan’s “mismanagement” as the reason for their defeat and that only through the quick thinking of other lower officers saved the army from total ruin (156). Indeed, it was said of McClellan that his greatest ability was in organizing retreats (156). 

Grimsley, writing on the Overland Campaign in 1864, demonstrates the difficulties that both armies had with subordinate officers.  While Meade was the commanding general, his role had largely been subjugated by Grant.  Meade made no concerted effort to alter the situation.  The army was working smoothly and victory was happening; it was a case of not fixing was did not need to be fixed.  Even when a Congressional delegate visited him and awarded him the victories, Meade swept the credit to Grant.  For the sake of victory, for the sake of peace, subjugation was acceptable.  There were issues with Warren refusing to cooperate with any other general and most other regimental officers returning with unexpected, and disappointing, results.  Years after the fact, Grant would lament the fact that the East and West armies could not work together, which could have shortened the war.  Lee, on the other hand, had serious issues with subordinate officers.  Early on in the campaign, Lee could count on the service and obedience of Breckinridge and Beuregard.  This was offset by Hill’s inability to control his men, Stuart’s inability to recognize unfavorable conditions, and Anderson simply not performing. 

Rank and file soldiers faced whatever fate their commanding officers plotted.  Mistakes made by commanding generals to regimental officers stood to take life or limb from ordinary soldiers.  And, these soldiers could not escape the horrors they saw, in military and social actions.  Wilbur Fisk, a Union soldier, in 1863 discusses peace through a compromise between the North and South that would result in two separate countries.  Some soldiers would hear this message from those at ‘home’ and might consider it an assault on their honor, on their personal sacrifice and risk.  However, all parties desired peace.  Manning’s essay demonstrates that union soldiers, and indeed those not pitched in battle or clad in blue, upon interaction with slaves, saw the destruction of slavery as the only salvation from a war seen as God’s punishment for the sin and, in that destruction, peace.  Gettysburg (1993) demonstrates the toll of the war on the regular soldiers.  Regular soldiers desired peace, but they were not about to let it be at the expense of their personal sacrifice, or the sacrifice of those they served with in blue or grey, but those from their own state. 

One of the closing scenes from The Red Badge of Courage (1951) is between Confederate prisoners and Union soldiers.  They ask where each other are from.  They both mention the states they came from and say they have not met anyone from those states before.  Gettysburg paints a much clearer picture of the role of state identity.  Throughout the first half of the movie, Chamberlain is dealing with a group of men from a different Maine regiment who deserted.  He appeals to their sense of identity to Maine to rejoin the war, to fight for their state and the people in their state.  Later in the movie, Longstreet evokes the same sentiment with a Virginia regiment.  Sheehan-Dean’s essay on enlistment in Virginia claims that defending the state of Virginia, just prior to the war, was the same as defending the institution that defined their economic and social lives: slavery.  Charles Brewster mentioned a collective “Massachusetts blood” with regard to sentiment so broad as to encompass his whole unit.

If we can suppose that movies reflect the perceptions, ideologies, and ethos of the American audience, then we can surmise how Americans viewed and interpreted the Civil War and those who fought in it at the time the movies were produced.  The Red Badge of Courage was made in the afterglow of World War II and the beginning of the Korean War.  While the movie is based on a book from the late 19^th century, the personal conflicts encountered would resonate with the millions who were caught up in WWII.  The movie demonstrates personal battles in armed conflict, the need for bravery, and reliance on their fellow soldiers.  Gettysburg was produced in 1993, following the First Gulf War and around the time of U.S. involvement in Somalia. The movie might be a demonstration of Americans’ quest for peace, at home and abroad.  As with the previous movie, it is mainly concerned with personal interaction, between soldiers in their respective armies, and their interactions with soldiers from opposite armies.  In neither movie are soldiers portrayed as abolitionist or pro-slavery zealots; rather, they are portrayed as humans caught in a vicious, bloody conflict whose larger meaning had been skewed over the duration of the war. 

Whatever the reason for soldiers entering the war, the ravages soon weighed heavy.  From misguided military strategy to officer inability, all soldiers, including those same officers, risked much for preservation – preservation of a nation or of a way of life.  Through the rifle and cannon smoke, the comrades soldiers relied on were their own statesmen: an important rallying cry for identity and why they were even there.