South of the border, our American cousins are beginning to stage mock battles in remembrance of the American Civil War, which began 150 years ago in April 1861. As the real Civil War waged for four very long and disastrous years, we can safely assume the re-enactments will last just as long, although hopefully with far fewer deaths. Replaying historic wars seems to be a peculiar American endeavour. I don’t recall England restaging the First or Second World Wars, the Russians never replay the Crimean War and the Greeks and Macedonians studiously avoid all of the dozens of battles in their vast history. Even Italy, home of the Roman Empire and inheritors of a gloried history that includes hundreds of battles and hundreds of victories, remain quietly on the sidelines.
In a recent conversation, an American friend who lives in Indiana was explaining to me the history of the Civil War, the reasons the war was fought and the subsequent change in American society when the conflict ended. At the beginning of the war, few people gave the South any real hope of winning. The North held a four to one superiority in population, and the entire industrial output of the Confederacy was less than the output of the state of New York alone. Indeed, at the first Battle of Manassas (referred to as the First Battle of Bull Run if you were a Confederate), high society from Washington, D.C. showed up at the battlefield to watch the results. The prevailing wisdom in the North was that the war was going to be over in weeks, if not days, and everyone wanted to see the action. Hopes for a quick conclusion to the war started to fade, however, as the galleries watched Confederate forces thoroughly whip the Union army and send it into retreat.
During a brief break in my friend’s seemingly endless monologue, I asked him why the South was able to extend the war for so long, to win so many battles and come dangerously closing to winning the whole thing in 1863 before the debacle at Gettysburg. He said the success of the South was really due to the fact that most battles occurred on Southern soil and southerners were not just fighting to win the day — they were fighting to save their homes. Southern leaders believed the Constitution gave them full authority to secede and they were drawn into war only when it became apparent the union was ready to fight to keep the nation together. So, as he explained, many southerners viewed their freedoms and liberty as being threatened, with an army invading their homeland. As such, the Confederates fought with uncommon bravery and strength and often overcame huge odds to win numerous battles. So, what the Union thought would be a quick struggle turned into a horrific, multi-year slaughter that killed thousands while injuring even greater numbers.
During his next break, I commented that his description of the southerners fighting to save their homeland from an invasion of foreign forces and waging an incredibly successful multi-year campaign against a vastly superior force reminded me of what was going in Afghanistan. Different locations, different times, different languages and vastly different philosophies between the two combatants, yet wasn’t the southern philosophy also vastly different than the northern position? Unfortunately, it was precisely at this time that my phone call got disconnected and I was unable to hear his comments.
Strangely the phone line to Indiana is still not back in operation.
While Brian McLeod loves history, he fails to see how two 400-lb. men fighting in their pickup trucks for the last Twinkie is a true reflection of the Battle at Chancellorsville.
