The Civil War is often portrayed as the most brutal war in
America's history, a premonition of twentieth-century slaughter and
carnage. In challenging this view, Mark E. Neely, Jr., considers
the war's destructiveness in a comparative context, revealing the
sense of limits that guided the conduct of American soldiers and
statesmen.
Neely begins by contrasting Civil War behavior with U.S.
soldiers' experiences in the Mexican War of 1846. He examines
Price's Raid in Missouri for evidence of deterioration in the
restraints imposed by the customs of war; and in a brilliant
analysis of Philip Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign, he shows
that the actions of U.S. cavalrymen were selective and controlled.
The Mexican war of the 1860s between French imperial forces and
republicans provided a new yardstick for brutality: Emperor
Maximilian's infamous Black Decree threatened captured enemies with
execution. Civil War battles, however, paled in comparison with the
unrestrained warfare waged against the Plains Indians. Racial
beliefs, Neely shows, were a major determinant of wartime
behavior.
Destructive rhetoric was rampant in the congressional debate
over the resolution to avenge the treatment of Union captives at
Andersonville by deliberately starving and freezing to death
Confederate prisoners of war. Nevertheless, to gauge the events of
the war by the ferocity of its language of political hatred is a
mistake, Neely argues. The modern overemphasis on violence in Civil
War literature has led many scholars to go too far in drawing close
analogies with the twentieth century's "total war" and the grim
guerrilla struggles of Vietnam.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!