******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: September 23, 2019 at 10:08:01 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-CivWar]: Verhayden on Silkenat, 'Raising the White > Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > David Silkenat. Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the > American Civil War. Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press, > 2019. 368 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-4696-4972-6. > > Reviewed by Jack R. Verhayden (Mississippi State University) > Published on H-CivWar (September, 2019) > Commissioned by G. David Schieffler > > Twenty-first-century Americans have valorized the image of the > defiant American soldier refusing to surrender. Books, movies, and > video games have glorified the efforts of soldiers fighting on > despite seemingly insurmountable odds and governments refusing to > allow "any man left behind." However, while today's popular image of > submitting to the enemy is often associated with cowardice or even > immorality, nineteenth-century Americans had a different > understanding of surrender. David Silkenat's _Raising the White Flag_ > shows how common the act of surrender was during the Civil War, when > Americans did not see surrender as a "sign of weakness but as a > hallmark of humanity" (p. 297). Silkenat argues that surrender was > one of the war's "most common military experiences," as more than > 673,000 soldiers, or one out of every four soldiers, surrendered > during the war (p. 2). Over the course of ten chapters, Silkenat > contends that surrendering was not only a common experience, but > "that American ideas of surrender at the beginning of the Civil War > grew out of inherited notions that surrender helped distinguish > civilized warfare from barbarism" (p. 3). Surrender was a > prerequisite for civilized warfare, and without the ability to > surrender, war devolved into atrocities. During the Civil War, both > the Union and Confederacy challenged this understanding of surrender > as the Union enlisted black soldiers, Southerners used guerilla > warfare, and commanders demanded "unconditional surrender." Like Drew > Faust's work on death during the war, Silkenat shows how imperative > studying surrender is to our understanding of the Civil War and its > legacy. Surrender was a common experience that deeply impacted the > lives and mindsets of many Americans. Silkenat shows that mass > surrender, just like the war's mass death, challenged American > conceptions of warfare and civility.[1] > > Silkenat argues that Civil War generals like Winfield Scott inherited > their ideas of surrender and proper conduct during previous American > conflicts. The act of submitting to the enemy was common but not > always honorable or acceptable. During the War of 1812, for example, > General William Hull surrendered Detroit without firing a shot. > British forces marched continuously through an open clearing in sight > of the American forces and tricked Hull into believing he faced a > much larger enemy. Hull's force of two thousand men held a > defendable, fortified position but did not resist the British > assault. General Hull's surrender horrified Scott, who observed that > "the disgrace of Hull's recent surrender was deeply felt by > Americans" (p. 6). Surrender was acceptable after fighting honorably > but not usually before then. After Hull's defeat, Scott's force > attacked Queenstown Heights. His men fought bravely but became pinned > down between enemy fire and the Niagara River after British > reinforcements arrived. Scott surrendered his force to the British > and they spent the next five weeks as prisoners of war. During these > weeks the British forces kept Scott and his men well fed, clothed, > and housed while also protecting them from Native Americans. Silkenat > points to Scott and his fellow Americans' experiences during the War > of 1812 as key to understanding their preconceived notions of > surrender during the Civil War. Surrender was honorable if, after > bravely fighting, the odds were too high and raising the white flag > would save lives. After surrender, the enemy was expected to accept > his opponent's submission and properly care for his prisoners. For > Silkenat, this coexistence is what made surrender so unique and > humane. Surrender was a two-way street, as honor mandated an opposing > force to both accept that surrender and treat its enemies fairly and > respectfully. > > In many ways, the Civil War challenged these preconceived ideas of > civilized conflict and surrender. Union and Confederate forces did > not accept surrender when they portrayed the enemy as fighting > improperly. One example that Silkenat cites is the Union enlistment > of black soldiers after the Emancipation Proclamation. The > proclamation was immediately condemned by Confederate leadership as a > barbarous Republican ploy to undercut the Southern way of life. > Confederate anger did not stop at condemning the Lincoln > administration but led to the Confederate policy of not taking any > United States Colored Troops (USCT) or their commanders as prisoners. > This policy not only led to the wanton killing of black soldiers at > places like Fort Pillow, but had other frightful consequences, too. > Since USCTs received no quarter, they often fought with ferocity and, > at times, desperation to secure victory and their own lives. Another > result of the Confederate policy was that USCTs sometimes refused to > take Confederate prisoners, which led to the revenge killing of > Confederate soldiers attempting to surrender. Massacres at places > like Fort Pillow also led General Ulysses S. Grant to suspend > prisoner exchanges with Confederate forces. Prisoner exchanges had > been common during the early years of the war, and they were a good > way to return soldiers and officers while also keeping prison > occupation reasonable. However, suspending prisoner exchanges allowed > prisons in both the North and South to become overcrowded, > disease-ridden, and undersupplied. According to Silkenat, when Union > and Confederate forces took away the enemy's ability to surrender, > they took away civilized warfare. > > Silekenat's book is a welcome addition to Civil War historiography, > as it converses with a thriving field on civilized warfare.[2] > Silkenat shows that while the war had horrifying episodes, soldiers > and their commanders' desire to fight a civilized, humane war limited > the conflict. This book will be great for upper-level undergraduate > courses and graduate colloquia as well as for professionals > interested in the connections between the Civil War and Americans' > understanding of proper warfare. > > Notes > > [1]. Drew Gilpin Faust, _This Republic of Suffering: Death and the > American Civil War_ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008). Faust argues > that death and dying during the Civil War created the modern United > States. Mass death led to fundamental changes in American religion > and personal beliefs, while the extraordinary number of dead changed > the responsibility of the state to the people. In contrast to > previous wars, helping the families of dead soldiers and > memorializing those who fell now became the responsibility of the > nation. For Faust, mass death changed the American mind-set and led > to an expansion of the American bureaucracy. > > [2]. Debates over the war's destructive or limited nature have been > especially influential in Civil War historiography over the past > twenty years. See, for example, Charles Royster, _The Destructive > War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans_ > (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991); Mark Grimsley, _The Hard Hand of > War: Union Military Policy toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865_ > (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Mark E. Neely Jr., > _The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard > University Press, 2007); Daniel E. Sutherland, _A Savage Conflict: > The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War_ (Chapel > Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009); Glenn David Brasher, > _The Peninsula Campaign and the Necessity of Emancipation: African > Americans and the Fight for Freedom_ (Chapel Hill: University of > North Carolina Press, 2012); Williamson Murray and Wayne Hsieh, _A > Savage War: A Military History of the Civil War_ (Princeton, NJ: > Princeton University Press, 2016); and Andrew Lang, _In the Wake of > War: Military Occupation, Emancipation, and Civil War America_ (Baton > Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2017). > > Citation: Jack R. Verhayden. Review of Silkenat, David, _Raising the > White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War_. H-CivWar, > H-Net Reviews. September, 2019. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=53548 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
