Hearing in lecture, that both the north and south sides morale during 1862, was rather low, makes me wonder why the war lasted so long. One would assume that during war, one side would have low morale and the other high, however it seems this is not the case, during this particular time period.
Its sort of the "pendulum" effect of the war. Both sides had their moment s and their demoralizing times. You could say the same with many wars throughout history. It almost sounds like morale for this war was very little the entire time, one loss and the whole side thinks you're doomed. If nations like Russia or Germany or England had acted like that during the world wars, the world wars would have lasted less than 6 months. Why do they wax and wain so much?
Maybe its just too obvious now and it wasn't back then, but if I'm Burnside at Fredricksburg, I'm calling off the attack of Marye's Heights after about the second wave of my men is just mowed down. It was basically suicide. But hindsight is 20/20.
So far during the Watkins book I've really just have had trouble really getting into it. I know there are his words on the pages and this is how he perceived everything, but would it of hurt to revise the writing to some extent. I read Killer Angels before that book will keep you interested from beginning to end, this book not so much though. I don't know if anyone else feels that way but I just wanted to throw that out there.
General McCellan seemed to be at best incompatent and at worst delusional through out his command. If he was not avoiding conflict he would be overestimating the strength of the Confederate army. Consistantly he possessed greater numbers and superior equipment. Yet his defeats are quite pathetic, as is his failure to take any responsibility for them. Why would Lincoln trust a man like this for so long with the army guarding the capital of the Union?
Regarding the morale of the North and South during this time period, I found it interesting the way that Watkins portrayed his feelings. He had perceived that the morale of the Confederate soldiers in general was "a thing of the past". Was this the main conception of the Confederate soldiers during this time? Did the Confederate generals feel the same way? Were these feelings mutual among the common folk of the Confederate states during this time?
In regard to the morale of the North and South, I think that both sides probably realized that war, as it is in most cases, is a last resort. While not trying to compare the Civil War to the current war in Iraq, I have friends that are currently serving and while their morale is not very high, they realize that they have a job to do and their main focus is not so much morale, but how to get the job done as quickly and safely as possible.
I think that the North was so staggared after the year of 1862 that the "pendulum" was swung too far in the favor of the south. Not to say that they got cocky, but they are obviously confident as Lee's actions show.
I wonder what would have held if the Confederacy would have mantained a more defensive stance throughout the rest of the war.
In regards to moral, I think the entire aspect of moral was more important in this time period and the lack of it is support to a long war. When you look at a modern soldier moral is not as big of an issue because of the vigorous training every soldier goes through. The whole idea behind boot camp and basic training is to become something that does not rely on those kinds of feelings. When you look back at the Civil War they did not have training to this extent, which is reflected by soldiers deserting because of various personal reasons.
With regards, to the readings as well as the quiz this week, it seems that political alliances, played a big role in the framing of the government and battles of the Civil War...at least in the early parts of the war.
11 comments:
Hearing in lecture, that both the north and south sides morale during 1862, was rather low, makes me wonder why the war lasted so long. One would assume that during war, one side would have low morale and the other high, however it seems this is not the case, during this particular time period.
Its sort of the "pendulum" effect of the war. Both sides had their moment s and their demoralizing times. You could say the same with many wars throughout history. It almost sounds like morale for this war was very little the entire time, one loss and the whole side thinks you're doomed. If nations like Russia or Germany or England had acted like that during the world wars, the world wars would have lasted less than 6 months. Why do they wax and wain so much?
Maybe its just too obvious now and it wasn't back then, but if I'm Burnside at Fredricksburg, I'm calling off the attack of Marye's Heights after about the second wave of my men is just mowed down. It was basically suicide. But hindsight is 20/20.
So far during the Watkins book I've really just have had trouble really getting into it. I know there are his words on the pages and this is how he perceived everything, but would it of hurt to revise the writing to some extent. I read Killer Angels before that book will keep you interested from beginning to end, this book not so much though. I don't know if anyone else feels that way but I just wanted to throw that out there.
General McCellan seemed to be at best incompatent and at worst delusional through out his command. If he was not avoiding conflict he would be overestimating the strength of the Confederate army. Consistantly he possessed greater numbers and superior equipment. Yet his defeats are quite pathetic, as is his failure to take any responsibility for them. Why would Lincoln trust a man like this for so long with the army guarding the capital of the Union?
Regarding the morale of the North and South during this time period, I found it interesting the way that Watkins portrayed his feelings. He had perceived that the morale of the Confederate soldiers in general was "a thing of the past". Was this the main conception of the Confederate soldiers during this time? Did the Confederate generals feel the same way? Were these feelings mutual among the common folk of the Confederate states during this time?
In regard to the morale of the North and South, I think that both sides probably realized that war, as it is in most cases, is a last resort. While not trying to compare the Civil War to the current war in Iraq, I have friends that are currently serving and while their morale is not very high, they realize that they have a job to do and their main focus is not so much morale, but how to get the job done as quickly and safely as possible.
im confused with why the north wouldnt give grant command of the army of the potomac sooner with all of the military success he had in the west
I think that the North was so staggared after the year of 1862 that the "pendulum" was swung too far in the favor of the south. Not to say that they got cocky, but they are obviously confident as Lee's actions show.
I wonder what would have held if the Confederacy would have mantained a more defensive stance throughout the rest of the war.
In regards to moral, I think the entire aspect of moral was more important in this time period and the lack of it is support to a long war. When you look at a modern soldier moral is not as big of an issue because of the vigorous training every soldier goes through. The whole idea behind boot camp and basic training is to become something that does not rely on those kinds of feelings. When you look back at the Civil War they did not have training to this extent, which is reflected by soldiers deserting because of various personal reasons.
With regards, to the readings as well as the quiz this week, it seems that political alliances, played a big role in the framing of the government and battles of the Civil War...at least in the early parts of the war.
Post a Comment