War Between Neighbors: The Coming of the Civil War

       In his podcast, Edward Ayers proposes the idea of using social history when exploring the Civil War and advocates for his book In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America. The book focuses on two cities, Stanton, Virginia and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, when breaking down the events of 1859-1863. Ayer’s vocal point of his lecture is not on the specific events, causes, and effects of the Civil War, but rather on the people and their feelings, thoughts, and hardships. This innovative take on the war introduces new insight into Northerners, Southerners, and African Americans and their opinions toward each other and toward fighting. Ultimately, Ayers is able to take thousands of primary sources and mold them into his book as a unique look at the war.

            Ayers’ goal from the beginning is to take the lives of everyday people cities from the North and South and follow them on their journeys. This may work in depicting a realistic view of what war is like; however, at no point does Ayers take a step back and break down or comment on what is occurring and why. The essential issue is that most of the time, the everyday person just isn’t that interesting. Most of the accounts that Ayers presents in his lecture that are taken out of his book are all similar in that they showed struggle and exertion. Yet, Ayers explains himself that one of the accounts, with a soldier Henry and his wife Lisa, is downright boring. The story simply involves a young husband writing to his wife, sending money, and occasionally receiving packages. The dialogue in the letters shows first hand experiences of war, but it does not give much of a look into the real death and disaster of the Civil War. There may be Civil War primary sources that illustrate the trauma and burden of battle, but it probably won’t be found in a soldier outside of the action writing to his wife.

           Another issue that Ayers avoids a little more than he should is the question of how over a four month period, Virginia persuaded itself to secede from the Union. He emphasizes that in January of 1860, there were practically no votes in favor of secession in Virginia and secession was linked with treason. Then, by April, almost everyone in Virginia was voting for secession. Ayers supplies some of the Confederate justification of secession in presenting Psalm 23, suggesting that it was God’s will to secede. On the other hand, Ayers never actually explains what created such a sudden change of heart in Virginia, whether it was Lincoln’s inaugural address, slavery, or Southern persuasion. Either way, Ayers avoids going into depth about these and other points that involve the reasons and causes of events and occurrences that took place.

            When explaining why the war lasted longer than both sides expected, Professor Ayers refutes the common conception that the Civil War was a modern and industrial Northern society vs. a not modern and agricultural Southern society. He rationalizes that the South was very modern and very powerful, defending his statement with the fact that the South by itself had at the time the fourth largest economy in the world. Therefore, Ayers proposes that it wasn’t at all obvious that the North would win a swift and painless victory. Although it may have been true that the North victory would not be immediate, the North held a clear advantage over the South in many areas. Disregarding Ayers opinion for a moment, the statistics show that the North had the obvious lead in modernization and industrialization over the South. For example, the South had one-ninth the industrial capacity as the North, with around 20,000 factories compared to the Northern 120,000. Moreover, 94% of cloth, 97% of firearms, and over 90% of clothing were all manufactured in the North. The North also had around twice the man-power of the South and superior transportation (twice as much railroad). These statistics make it apparent that the South was nowhere near the industrialization of the North. The South was able to for a brief period maintain control of the Civil War. However, Ayers’ opinion is questionable because the Southern success was not due to a modern, industrial, and powerful Southern society, but instead to superior generals, strategy, and motivation.

            Later in Edward Ayers’ lecture, he refers to author Stephen Gould’s book on evolution and Gould’s ideas that any major change in the any step of the sequence of happenings and events alters the results. Gould uses the Civil War to back up his point, explaining that the South lost the war with a “relentless inevitability” once events occurred as they did. Ayers continues to express that if the Confederates had not obtained early victories, then their campaign would have failed. Thus, with no Emancipation Proclamation, slavery would have been drastically changed in history. Nevertheless, this view on the Civil War and its hypothetical effects could be applied to any situations in any other battles, wars, and major events in history. This “what-if” take on the Civil War simply explains what could have happened. If the colonists had lost the Battle of Saratoga then the British may have succeeded in suppressing the American Revolution. If the atomic bomb had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the war with Japan might not have ended for another year or so, extending American casualties. The “if… then” scenarios only create possible situations to inspect and discuss. As interesting as it is to imagine a quick end to the Civil War without the Emancipation Proclamation, this never happened and merely involves theoretical circumstances.

            Overall, Professor Ayers offers an innovative idea in describing the Civil War through first hand experiences. On the other hand, Ayers explains himself that before writing the book, he knew very little about the Civil War. Currently, Ayers is most likely well-educated and informed on the issues the war, but he avoids deep thinking in his lecture. Although his ideas, such as the Southern modernization, can be easily challenged, Ayers provides an inside look at the usually unnoticed struggles, hardships, and opinions of the American Civil War.