Brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor. The Civil War set a new precedent of warfare. One of the Union solders, Ambrose Bierce, wrote a collection of short stories based on his personal experience. Do his writings reflect that the Civil War was a just war by following just war theory? Bierce’s writings help reflect that the Civil War was unjust because the war was not conducted by a legitimate authority, the war was not conducted with the right attitude, and the war was not a last resort.
Just war theory is treated with a “prima facie” basis. That is, not all standards have to be met for any war to be declared just or unjust. To examine Bierce’s writing, a general knowledge of just war theory is needed. Just war theory follows five main rules. The first rule is that war must be conducted for a just cause. The second rule is that war must be carried out with a right attitude. The third rule is that war must be conducted by a legitimate authority. The fourth rule is that military means must be carefully related to the moral and political ends being sought. The fifth and final rule is the principle of discrimination. One important note about the principle of discrimination; to follow the principle of discrimination, conducting war must only be used as a last resort.
Bierce’s writings reflect that the war was not conducted by a legitimate authority. In the Union government, you had Lincoln who was the Commander-in-Chef. He was a legitimate authority. However, there was a breakdown in leadership and legitimate authority as power worked its way down through the ranks.
Bierce was one to criticize multiple Union generals and commanders, with the exception of General Don Carlos Buell. In one such instance, he questions t...
... middle of paper ...
... Writings of Ambrose Bierce, edited by Russell Duncan and David Klooster, 51-56. Boston: University of Massachusetts Printing Press, 2002.
Bierce, Ambrose. “From What I Saw of Shiloh.” In Phantoms of a Blood-Stained Period: The Complete Civil War Writings of Ambrose Bierce, edited by Russell Duncan and David Klooster, 93-110. Boston: University of Massachusetts Printing Press, 2002.
Description of The Battle of Shiloh. Civil War Home. Last modified February 7, 2002. http://www.civilwarhome.com/shilohdescription.htm
Schmidt, William, Special to the New York Times. "Barrage at Fort Sumter still Echoes in the South." New York Times, April 12, 1986., 6, TOPICsearch, EBSCOhost (accessed November 5, 2011).
Wilt, Napier. "Ambrose Bierce and the Civil War." American Literature 1, no. 3 (November 1929): 260. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 5, 2011).
William Marvel. “The Making of a Myth: Ambrose E. Burnside and the Union High Command at Fredericksburg,” in The Fredericksburg Campaign: Decision on the Rappahannock, ed. Gary W. Gallagher (Chapel Hill, 1995).
Duncan, Russell, ed. Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1992.
“Shiloh”. Saving America’s Civil War Battlefields: Civil War Trust. Civil War Trust. 2013. Web. 4 March 2014.
When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.
This dialectic will focus on two opposing theses on the matter of how successful the Union blockade was in guaranteeing a victory for the Union. Within “Reassessment of the Union Blockade’s Effectiveness in the Civil War,” M. Brem Bonner and Peter McCord make an argument for the success of the blockade by assessing statistical data comprised from the efforts of blockade-runners to breach the hindrance caused by the Union. The authors frequently employ the objecting side of the effectiveness argument when discussing the legality of the blockade and the successes some blockade-runners had in smuggling goods in and out of the Confederacy. On the opposing side of the argument, Daniel O’Flaherty condemns the blockade as ineffecti...
In the novel Shiloh, historian and Civil War expert Shelby Foote delivers a spare, unflinching account of the battle of Shiloh, which was fought over the course of two days in April 1862. By mirroring the troops' movements through the woods of Tennessee with the activity of each soldier's mind, Foote offers the reader a broad perspective of the battle and a detailed view of the issues behind it. The battle becomes tangible as Foote interweaves the observations of Union and Confederate officers, simple foot soldiers, brave men, and cowards and describes the roar of the muskets and the haze of the gun smoke. The author's vivid storytelling creates a rich chronicle of a pivotal battle in American history.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
I felt like the author could clearly show the true contributing factors of the civil war. As an admirer of history, I could use utilize his book for references later on in my academic studies. The book is 127 pages chronicling the events that led to the civil war. Holt gives novices history readers a wonder firsthand look into the world of young America pre-civil war. His book brought out new ways to approach the study of pre-civil war events. The question whether the Civil War was inevitable or could have been derailed was answered in The Fate of Their Country. Holt places the spotlight on the behaviors Politicians and the many congressional compromises that unintendedly involved the actions of the residents of American. These factors at hand placed the Civil war as inevitable. Most of the politician’s views in The Fate of Their Country were egotistical and shortsighted which left gaps in American’s social future. To consider the subject of why, first we need to understand the contributing causes, America’s great expansion project, the Manifest Destiny the driving factor behind the loss of virtue and political discord.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, bloody battles broke out all over the United States, pitting brother against brother and father against son. The causes of this war were the issues of slavery and the state’s rights; but most importantly, the catalyst for the Civil War was the tension in the air caused by the dissention of the South from the North. Dissention is a radically different concept than the idea of disagreement. Had the Northern and Southern states merely disagreed about slavery and states’ rights issues, the Civil War would only be a wisp of what could have been. Disagreement leads to arguments while dissent leads to quarrels, and the distinction Boorstin makes between the two is entirely accurate.
Aamodt, Terrie D., Righteous Armies, Holy Causes: Apocalyptic Imagery and the Civil War. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2002.
Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...
The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.
November 1888 - Miss Goldquist is my sixth grade teacher this year and she keeps talking about how well an education will serve you. Maybe so; all I know, is that I sure do like to read and that is something that Miss Goldquist likes as well. In fact she said, “You don’t know what good friends books can be till you try them, till you try many of them.” and for sure I have been reading a lot and I think she may be right (C. Sandburg, Prairie 51). So far, I like Charles Carleton Coffin’s The Boys of ’76 the best. I feel like I’m right there in the middle of the war and the pictures are swell (C. Sandburg, Prairie 52). Mart and I take turns being Paul Revere or George Washington. Emil is too young to play soldiers with us, but mama says we have to include him, anyway. Playing around outside, sometimes I’ll walk over to the campus of Knox College. I like looking at the plaque there that quotes Lincoln and Stephen Douglas as they d...