Civil War

                                        Civil War Paper

The Civil War violently stripped off all layers of American civilization. Before the fighting began, the United States projected a romantic, rosy image of civilized society. In most of the country, people looked kindly on others, rules were followed, and there was a social structure–lawyers, doctors, immigrants, farmers and men, women, and children – that was maintained. When the war broke out, this picture was destroyed and humans all of a sudden were operating on the most elemental level. Now, in life or death situations on the battlegrounds without layers of civilization, people behaved in unimaginable ways. The carnage and brutality witnessed and experienced during the war were unlike anything Americans had ever gone through before. The Civil War disrupted the beliefs, values, expectations and principles of society and individuals at almost every level, including the role of women, the nature and meaning of the human body and death, the relationship between the individual and his/her country and even the relationship between the sexes. 

The caring for maimed bodies of soldiers caused a considerable shift in gender roles. Both on the battlefield and at home, women became more highly touted, respected figures. Thrown right into the destruction and chaos of battle, nurses played a significant role during the war working tirelessly to save as many soldiers as possible. To many, they were seen just as much heroes as the men they were trying to heal in that they “knew the same hardships and triumphs as those who fought with guns and sabres, though her weapons were washcloths and quinine” (Silber 211). Nursing placed women in active and immediate relationship with government officials and encouraged them to commit themselves to a difficult, grueling task. Many women gravitated towards nursing “with the ‘same patriotism’ as the scores of men who responded to Lincoln’s call for troops after the attack on Fort Sumter” as it was seen as an outlet for the desire to “do something” for the cause (Silber 200). Indeed these women were crossing a daunting boundary, from a relatively safe and secure world to one of unknown difficulties and horrors. Amidst the carnage and brutality of a man’s war, nurses managed to create a feminine, almost domestic realm that became very powerful for both women and men. The demeanor and attitude of a nurse was powerful – “projecting an air of refinement and respectability could transform even the weak and inexperienced women into significant figures of authority” (Silber 205). Nurses tried to project an image of propriety and motherliness despite the often uncomfortable and even immoral feelings that came with having intimate contact with unknown men. They often spoke of their obligation in familial terms and could comfort themselves with the thought that they were caring for other women’s relatives. Indeed, wounded soldiers often became close with their healers, viewing them as the wife or mother away from home. This was a role that became so important for the psyche of men as sensitivity and other feminine qualities were completely void in war environments.

 This elevated role did not necessarily disappear when the canons quieted, especially for those women in relationships with disabled men after the war. The empty sleeve phenomena allowed wounded men and women to enter into a relationship on equal terms. Women had greater responsibility in their new position as caregiver. The war “traumatized notions of dependency as amputated men remained dependent on a willing woman to care for their crippled bodies” (Miller 303). The manhood of disabled soldiers, in turn, took a major blow. Instead of feeling like the protectors of the home and family, crippled men now saw themselves as incapable of doing their basic duties. Married men, however, with a reliable caregiver in sickness and in health were perhaps better off than the many unwed, young amputees after the war. One woman “saw the war destroying any suitable able bodied men for her sister” (Miller 309). Disabled men were viewed as undesirable because they would not be able to fill the traditional, strong male role.  

New military technology combined with old-fashioned tactical doctrine produced a scale of battle casualties unprecedented in American history. With these casualties came an incalculable amount of physical suffering for those fighting. The war emphasized the way in which a man suffered in never before, turning it into an almost competitive and maniacal experience that even permeated throughout the home front population. Suffering was seen as a defining measure of character. Those considered “exemplary suffers became the Civil War’s quintessential patriots…by commendably bearing their illnesses and injuries, they revealed the strength of their characters, the force of their religion, and the depths of their civil commitment” (Clarke 54). How a soldier suffered was a direct reflection of their manhood, level of bravery, strength and dedication in the minds of many. Bearing mortal and disabling wounds and warding off illness was seen not nearly seen as much of a hindrance to the fighting as it was seen as an extension of it. One wounded soldier recounting a time with several other wounded men in a trench and the joy felt as they listened to cannons announcing a Union victory claimed, “not a man of us that could speak, but cheered, and even the men with only stumps tried to raise them and huzza” (Clarke 58). Another account tells of an amputated man rifling through a pile of severed limbs and upon finding his own arm “raised it above his head, crying ‘hurrah! Hurrah! for the Stars and Stripes” (Clarke 65). Men could view suffering not a personal ordeal but as a continuing form of participation in the war and understood it as a necessity for victory.

Suffering that occurred was also turned into forms of propaganda in order to boost support for the war cause. Unlike before the war, suffering became a public experience as soldiers were assigned to a bed in an open ward and subject to the awed gaze of onlookers (Clarke 78). Those back at home read reports of men fighting courageously against injury and disease were expected to feel proud and increase their support of the war effort as their nation’s protectors were being so heroic. Stories of suffering were also used to slander the other side. Pro-Union newspapers, for example, constantly included reports of how “’slightly disabled’ Confederate soldiers moaned and protested, demanding immediate treatment, while dauntless Union soldiers lay on the ground ‘with horrid and gaping wounds without a complaining word or look’” (Clarke 60). This was enough proof that Union soldiers were the more rational, mature citizens fighting against an overly zealous, irrational, and effeminate South. The media told tall tales of the opposing side feasting on the suffering of fallen men in order to rile up the population. One story claimed Southern women wore jewelry made from Union soldier’s bones and carried purses made from their skins (Clarke 63). Such absurd allegations painted an ugly picture of the enemy, one people would be more willing to fight against.