Book Reviews
The contradictory army of General Lee
A force full of fight yet ill-suited to war.
By Randy Dotinga | May 20, 2008 edition
Randy Dotinga talks with Joseph Glaathaar.
Randy Dotinga
The men of the Confederate States of America had liberty on their minds when they enlisted in the struggle to preserve slavery. “Better to die freemen than live [as] slaves,” declared a Texan soldier. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, put it this way: “Will you be slaves or will you be independent?”
Today, the notion of freedom lovers fighting for slavery is bizarre. But steeped as they were in the glories of both the South and the United States, the troops of Dixie had no problem uniting their faith in democracy with an unquestioned commitment to keeping blacks in bondage.
In the minds of the soldiers, “just as Revolutionary War veterans had fought to secure liberty for their descendents, so must they preserve it for future generations,” writes Joseph Glatthaar in his perceptive and fascinating history General Lee’s Army: From Victory to Collapse.
In other words, they were fighting for their great-great grandchildren – the white ones – who live today.
As for the Union troops, the cocky soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia figured they had no “legitimate cause” and no motivation to fight. They fully expected to easily vanquish the North’s superior numbers and resources. And as Mr. Glatthaar shows, they nearly did.
The strength of “General Lee’s Army” lies in Glatthaar’s exploration of the personal experiences of individual soldiers. Armed with excerpts from dozens of letters to family members, he carefully tracks the soldiers’ transformation from greenhorns to suffering masses, all under the command of a patrician tactician.
Many of the army’s most severe challenges had nothing to do with the Union army. Countless soldiers were so dependent on women and slaves back home that they couldn’t cook a potato, light a fire, or operate a gun. Discipline was a problem that Glatthaar blames on a “spirit of profligacy and self-
indulgence” in the prewar South.
As Glatthaar’s analysis reveals, the Southern troops were deeply invested in slavery and the leisure that it brought. Four out of every 9 soldiers came from slaveholding households, although only
1 in 4 Southern homes had slaves.
In wartime, discipline required officers to order others around, and “such dominance of the individual smacked of slavery” to many who weren’t accustomed to hard work in the first place.
The failure to follow orders hurt Lee’s army. Many soldiers plundered farms on Southern soil, stealing from the very civilians whose support they needed to win. Some of the top officers, meanwhile, couldn’t be bothered with the nitty-gritty details of administration, no minor matter for an army forced to travel up and down the Eastern seaboard and cope with filth, hunger, and disease.
But the “Rebels” had advantages, too. It was their society under threat, a fact that boosted their morale. And they had the masterful General Lee.
Glatthaar portrays Lee as a man almost at war with himself, charming and playful but also hot-tempered, cold, and “almost unbearably irritable.” Lee was “renowned as a cautious man,” Glatthaar writes, “yet he ordered some of the boldest maneuvers in American military history.”
Glatthaar could have devoted more space to contrasting the experiences of Lee’s army with that of the Union army or with the rest of the Confederate forces. It’s sometimes hard to tell whether the experiences of the Southern soldiers were truly unique.
On the whole, though, “General Lee’s Army” is a fine blend of scholarly research and you-are-there history. Glatthaar brings new life to the drive of the Dixie soldiers, while never neglecting their bonds to the sins of the South.
Ultimately, the end came in 1865, but not before Lee’s army turned to an unexpected source of manpower – slaves. Few of them fought, unlike in the Union army, and they made no difference in the grand scheme of things. Still, some Southerners welcomed their help. “I would make them my equals rather than submit,” said one.
He was among the first – and definitely not the last – to find a way to separate the South from slavery.
Randy Dotinga is a freelance writer in San Diego.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Larry Suthon | 05.20.08
This book is a thoughtful survey of the inner most thoughts of the
average soldier and why he fought for the CSA.
A good antidote for the Big-Lie propaganda in “Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln”
3. Doug Gray | 05.21.08
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. We’ve heard it all before. it’s obvious the CSM is continuing to throw up the propaganda vomit concerning the “War Of Nothern Aggression.” What more needs to be said,
4. Steve Edmondson | 05.21.08
“4 of every 9 soldiers had a slave” “1 in 4 Southern home had slaves” These are the most ridiculous numbers I ever read. But the best joke is to suggest the Confederate soldier was so dependent on women and slaves he couldn’t fire a gun! Whether you like it or not, the Confederate soldiers were considered one of the best fighting units ever assembled. What the CSM has here is down right silly and childish. Too bad people will actually believe this without bothering to check the facts and numbers.
5. Rev. Dr. William H. Swann | 05.21.08
Actual number of slave owners among confederate enlisted men, was approximately 58,000 out of an army of 2.4 million, there were slightly more slave owners among the ranks of Officers who numbered more than 110,000 and 18,000 of them were slave owners. Actually these numbers could be a little high, but the percentages aren’t.
I have copies of more than 70 letters written by Confederate Soldiers and enlisted men, not one fought to preserve slavery. Instead they fought because their Country was invaded, their homes destroyed, their wives, daughters, slaves, and some cases livestock raped and/or killed. In the more than 1,100 letters and journals I’ve read, not one says or suggest they were fighting to preserve or protect slavery, to suggest or say otherwise is nothing short of outright lying at worst, or extremely selective reading of highly questionable letters at the best.
6. wxdavid | 05.21.08
someone needs to tell the good Rev that lying is a sin. For indeed the uniformed ignorant Rev is lying. This clown wrote ” to suggest or say otherwise is nothing short of outright lying at worst, or extremely selective reading of highly questionable letters at the best.”
Ok then so the words of VP of the CSA alexander stephens mean Nothing?
On the brink of the Civil War, on March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he reaffirmed that “African Slavery … was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” He went on to assert that the then-prevailing “assumption of the equality of races” was “fundamentally wrong.” “Our new [Confederate] government is founded … upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition,” and, furthermore, “With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.”
Give it up Rev… you are a neo confederate kook and we all know it
7. Brock Townsend | 05.21.08
The typical response from the liberals educated in public schools, the solitary quote they were taught there. Quotes? Here are a few, and there are innumerable more.
The Great Emancipator
http://37thtexas.org/html/Emancipator.html
8. Brock Townsend | 05.21.08
The solitary quote above seems to be all that is ever presented, as though words by one man would define the government.
Quotes? Here are a few, and there are innumerable more.
The Great Emancipator
http://37thtexas.org/html/Emancipator.html
9. JCW3 | 05.22.08
The implication that all Southern soldiers were lazy, lie-abouts before the War, is simply foolish. The bulk of the army consisted of non slave-holding farmers. The “spirit of profligacy and self-indulgence” may well have applied to wealthy planters and their sons, but to imply that Southern farm boys couldn’t light a fire or operate a firearm is beyond ludicrous.
10. Julie | 05.23.08
wxdavid, do you have to be so vicious in your posts that you have to refer to someone as “clown” and as “uninformed ignorant”? As far as the words of CSA VP Alexander Stephens are concerned, do you believe everything Dick Cheney says? How about Spiro Agnew? Just because a politician says something he/she truly believes, doesn’t necessarily make it so. It’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with what one says, as long as you don’t become vitriolic and childish in calling names to prove what you perceive is the truth. Name calling just belittles what you have to say.
11. Thomas in Kentucky | 05.23.08
It is absolutely astounding to me that there are still people who deny that the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. I think people fool themselves into thinking otherwise because it is too painful to admit that their ancestors fought for such a terrible cause.
I defy anyone to actually read the Articles of Secession by the southern states and come to any conclusion other than slavery was the primary reason for the war. Every Article of Secession clearly cites slavery, as you can read for yourself here: http://www.bessel.org/slavecw.htm
Or you can just read the words of Confederate VP Alexander Stephens: “African Slavery … was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution…Our new [Confederate] government is founded … upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”
Or the words of Confederate General Major General John B. Gordon, published in 1905: “If asked what was the real issue involved in our unparalleled conflict, the average American citizen sill reply, ‘The negro’; and it is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war…Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woful [sic] American conflict.”
Those confederates were honest enough to admit what they were fighting for. And it was not state’s rights in general – it was specifically the state’s right to maintain and protect slavery. We should be just as honest.
12. daniel | 05.24.08
I was born and raised in Memphis. If any town is more at the heart of racial divisiveness in this country, I don’t want to know. Despite this, I recall being taught that the root cause of the war was the north wanting its way. Slavery was on a slow decline at the time because it was no longer profitable. People cost too much to clothe, shelter, and feed on even a subsistence level.
It was the hot button issue but how many wars are fought over a rallying principle that is not the overwhelming reason. I just can not believe brothers would pick up arms over that one reason. People don’t function that way and just because most of the south was “under-educated” does not imply it was stupid or asinine enough to give up everything to fight for slavery. What folks really hate around here is the sense of someone else telling them how to live. That will get southerners, black or white, fired up and if it is any time in the summer we’re irritable enough to act on emotion.
(I wonder if anyone has wrote a dissertation on how AC has changed southern sociology.)
All this is to say that if anyone wants to believe that the most brutal war in American history was fought over this one issue I would call them myopic simpletons. Remember, politicans make wars. Men fight them.
13. Keith | 05.24.08
Daniel, if slavery was on a slow decline, why did slaveowners pay as much as $1500 reward for runaway slaves prior to the Civil War? I don’t know what $1500 would be in today’s dollars, but I’m guessing it was a lot of money in the 1850s. By the way, after the war, many former Confederates predicted the Negro race would die out in a few generations because they were incapable of surviving as freedmen. Not too accurate on that.
14. Paul Bergeron | 05.24.08
Agreed, let’s be accurate and honest: that was a war of hypocrisy. If the North was so concerned about the freedom of slaves, it never would have allied with the Southern colonies in 1776 and it would have seceded rather than fight in the War of 1812. Slaves served and freemen of color supported the United Colonies in the War for American Independence and the War of 1812. The true cause of the war of 1861-65 was the tariff and the massive re-distribution of wealth. Slaveholders in the border states sided with the Union because they believed they were secure in their “property” after the Dred Scot decision. Racists in the South nevertheless used the visceral appeal to negrophobia just as bigots North and South used similar appeals against Germans and Japanese to recruit for the world wars. Let’s ask if the current US army is waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq for abortion rights, homosexual marriage, pornography, pork for human consumption, etc. 140 years from now…let’s leave the historians a time capsule with a note–”it was the oil.”
15. Jeff | 05.25.08
It is sad to see so many have bought the slavery cause pushed by a liberal and revisionist educational establishment. You do not have to look far to find untold numbers of inconsistencies and out right lies that are taught as ‘gospel’ in today’s textbooks. My family has lived in the Southern United States since the 1700’s and not one owned a slave but all fought for states rights - the real reason for the war. Slavery was brought into the fold in order to galvanize citizens into two groups, hoping there would be enough emotion to on the so called anti-slavery side to win. Any serious look into the past and it is easy to find states in the north that supported slavery. New York witnessed a riot over the end of slavery long before the war started, and Indiana passed a law to free all the slaves in their state - and then expel them all. Truth is most Southerners where too poor to ever have slaves, most lived from hand to mouth. One Confederate soldier was asked by his northern captors why he fought - he simply said ‘ cause your on my land’, therein lies the reason most Southerners fought. Take the time to investigate for yourself what took place, read more than the accepted text and the writings, the truth is often found outside the mainstream. I believe as firmly today in states rights as my grandfather did in the mid 1800’s, and he died for them.
16. Jeff | 05.25.08
One more thing, the notion that southern men were so dependant on women that they could not fire a gun is beyond ignorant. Southerners lived off the land and that meant hunting. In fact, little boys would go hunting with their fathers as soon as they could hold a rifle. The South would have never put up a fighting force due to starvation had that been the case, to think otherwise shows a lack of basic historical knowledge. It is hard to imagine Southern soldiers had anything to steal from their neighbors after the northern soldiers took it all.
17. Mik | 05.25.08
The south did fight for states rights, you’re correct. However, what those states wanted was to retain the right to own humans as their slaves.
It was a problem since the founding of the country and almost every document written in that era — from the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Secession, including all the compromises — dealt with slavery one way or the other.
Imagine if the federal government suddenly made the farming and production of cotton illegal. What would southern states do? They’d have no choice. Either submit to the federal government, or succeed. The north did not invade, destroy farms and rape animals. That’s crazy talk. Farm boys joined because they knew that the federal government was telling them what to do, and they didn’t like it. Neither would I, except the thing they were being told they couldn’t do was own another human being and sell their children like dogs.
Now that’s a liberal concept. Just like the weekend and adequate compensation for work. Gotta love how people bash “liberals.” Ever look the word up in the dictionary?
18. Todd Meadows | 05.26.08
In recent years, excavation of slave-quarter areas of plantations have uncovered hunting and fishing equipment such as hooks and gun parts. Gun parts? Slaves had guns? Why didn’t the use them?
I don’t think 12-hour-per-day, seven-day-a-week factory workers in the North had guns. Would they have used them?
Of freed slaves, many stayed on the plantation to their last day on Earth. Why?
Of the Northern factory workers, a large family was required to support them in old age, or they worked until they died.
Of freed slaves, before abolishion, some were land-owning slave holders. Factory workers in many cases died in poverty.
The first, self-made millionaire, female in the US — was a freed slave.
Northern cousins, upon visiting Southern slave-holding cousins, often wrote that their cousins often worked themselves to death nursing, carrying, and tending to the needs of their slaves.
Slaves were often listed as family members in the Census. Chattle was listed separately.
Some southern diaries mention how the master and slaves would go fishing or swimming in the heat of the day. I wonder if Northern factory workers ever went for a swim with the boss?
When field laborers grew to old to labor, the were often given house jobs. Older Northerners were fired.
Some slaves had a trade with their own shops, such as barbers and boot makers with trade to the public. Some lived off the plantation and commuted to work.
Some slaves were lent to other platations to pay a debt, but the debt was considered paid in full if they were mistreated, or over worked.
Jewish land owners, were numbered among slave owners and Confederate Officers Corps.
There were many white and black indentured servants (indebted slaves) earned their way out of servatude.
Black slaves were often sold into slavery by other Black Aficans. Slaves were a major export from the Ivory Coast. Who ran things in that area?
Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves back to Africa. Freed blacks didn’t like the idea.
I don’t believe that slavery is a good thing. It matters little if one slaves for the master, boss, corporation, or state. But slavery is basically labor without just compensation. Agreed?
Sound familiar? Try and think of some things you have to do without any compensation.
Welcome to the New Plantation!
19. Thomas in Kentucky | 05.27.08
I would like to point out that southerners admitting that slavery was the main cause of conflict between the sections was hardly just one politician who might be lying. (Why on earth would the VP of the Confederacy feel compelled to lie about this anyway? If he was going to lie, it seems he would go in the other direction and deny that was what the war was about.)
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general: “First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere — in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections.”
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi: “I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason — for the planting and spreading of slavery.”
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: “African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.”
Gov. Joseph Brown of Georgia: “Abolish slavery, and you make the negroes their equals, legally and socially…Then the negro and the white man, and their families, must labor in the field together as equals. Their children must go to the same poor school together, if they are educated at all. They must go to church as equals; enter the Courts of justice as equals, sue and be sued as equals, sit on juries together as equals, have the right to give evidence in Court as equals, stand side by side in our military corps as equals, enter each others’ houses in social intercourse as equals; and very soon their children must marry together as equals. May our kind Heavenly Father avert the evil, and deliver the poor from such a fate.”
The Richmond Enquirer, 1856: “Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery.”
There are no fewer than 20 references to slavery in the Confederate Constitution, including two specific articles on slavery.
For those having any doubt, I urge them to read “What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War” by Chandra Manning. Based almost exclusively on the writings of the soldiers themselves, both North and South, the letters of those soldiers leaves no doubt as to the ultimate cause of the Civil War.
As to the comments that slavery wasn’t much different from working for a boss or corporation at the time, I can only hope this comes from a person who has never read much about slavery since it shows an amazing level of self-delusion. I can almost understand why someone might try to fool themselves into thinking their ancestors did not fight to protect slavery since that fact is so disturbing. But I cannot believe anyone in this day and age could seriously post a defense of slavery and claim it wasn’t that bad.
I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about his family being sold and never seeing them again. I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about rape. I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about severe physical punishment or death by lynching. I’m trying to keep this from being personal, but that post is one of the most appalling posts I’ve ever seen.
20. Abuelo Marcos | 05.28.08
The Southern cause was morally bankrupt. While I believe that the North fought primarily to restore the Union, the South fought to preserve a way of life based on the slavery of other men.
The South was wrong and their system needed to be destroyed. The South continues to pay for the sin of slavery. Southern culture was and still is based on race.
21. Jeff | 05.29.08
Abuelo, the South continues to pay for the sin of slavery? You joking, right? The population in the South outpaces the rest of the country. The quality of life is better than the rest of the country. People move to the south in droves abandoning place like New Jersey and Detroit and others for a host of reasons.
Race is no longer an issue in the South, why else would Atlanta be considered the Black Mecca? Also consider the rash of racial violence that takes place in LA, Chicago and New York - heard any lately from the South? Keep in mind the largest *** membership is not in the South, but in Indiana -a fact people like to ignore.
No, I don’t think the South is paying for any sins of the past.
One more comment - there were at least 5 reason the South decided to leave the Union. Among them were states right - the right for self determination and in unfair tariffs were the two biggest.
22. Todd Meadows | 07.25.08
“I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about his family being sold and never seeing them again. I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about rape. I don’t think a factory worker had to worry about severe physical punishment or death by lynching. I’m trying to keep this from being personal, but that post is one of the most appalling posts I’ve ever seen.”
You need to read more about the history of the labor movement. The only thing above you may be right about, is the part about a man’s family being sold. There are other ways of seperating families.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Stand-To!- Agribusiness Development Team - May 21, 2008 - Freemason Hirams Travels Masonic Forums | 05.21.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. JPE | 05.20.08
This is yet another instantiation of the same old revised history since 1861. For real history, for an honest look at the war see Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln.
JPE
Columbus, OH