Across the Divide: Union Soldiers View the Northern Home Front

By Steven J. Ramold

Union
soldiers left home in 1861 with expectations that the conflict would be short,
the purpose of the war was clear, and public support back home was universal.
As the war continued, however, Union soldiers began to perceive a great
difference between what they expected and what was actually occurring. Their
family relationships were evolving, the purpose of the war was changing, and
civilians were questioning the leadership of the government and Army to the
point of debating whether the war should continue at all.

Separated
from Northern civilians by a series of literal and figurative divides, Union
soldiers viewed the growing disparities between their own expectations and
those of their families at home with growing concern and alarm. Instead of
support for the war, an extensive and oft-violent anti-war movement emerged.
Often at odds with those at home and with limited means of communication to
their homes at their disposal, soldiers used letters, newspaper editorials, and
political statements to influence the actions and beliefs of their home
communities. When communication failed, soldiers sometimes took extremist
positions on the war, its conduct, and how civilian attitudes about the
conflict should be shaped.


In this
first study of the chasm between Union soldiers and northern civilians, Steven J.
Ramold reveals the wide array of factors that prevented the Union Army and the
civilians on whose behalf they were fighting from becoming a united front
during the Civil War. In Across the
Divide, Ramold illustrates how the divided spheres of Civil War experience
created social and political conflict far removed from the better-known
battlefields of the war.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Apr 22, 2013
• ISBN: 9780814760376

Book preview

Thank you for buying this ebook, published by NYU Press.

Sign up for our e-newsletters to receive information about forthcoming books, special discounts, and more!

Sign Up!

About NYU Press

A publisher of original scholarship since its founding in 1916, New York University Press Produces more than 100 new books each year, with a backlist of 3,000 titles in print. Working across the humanities and social sciences, NYU Press has award-winning lists in sociology, law, cultural and American studies, religion, American history, anthropology, politics, criminology, media and communication, literary studies, and psychology.

ACROSS THE DIVIDE

Across the Divide

Union Soldiers View the Northern Home Front

Steven J. Ramold

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS

New York and London

www.nyupress.org

© 2013 by New York University

All rights reserved

References to Internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor New York University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Ramold, Steven J.

Across the divide : Union soldiers view the northern home front / Steven J. Ramold.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8147-2919-9 (cl : acid-free paper)

ISBN 978-0-8147-6017-8 (ebook)

ISBN 978-0-8147-6037-6 (ebook)

1. United States. Army—History—Civil War, 1861-1865. 2. United States—History—Civil War, 1861-1865—Social aspects. 3. Soldiers—United States—Social conditions—19th century. 4. Civil-military relations—United States—History—19th century. 5. Northeastern States—Social conditions—19th century. I. Title.

E491.R358 2013

973.7’4—dc23

2012045596

New York University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and their binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. We strive to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the greatest extent possible in publishing our books.

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For Paula

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Such a Dirty Set of Creatures: The Divide between Union Soldiers and Civilians

2. A Land of All Men and No Women: Soldiers and the Gender Divide

3. This Is an Abolition War: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Purpose of War

4. A Sin to Join the Army: The Debate over Conscription

5. The Ranting of the Black-Hearted Villains: Soldiers and the Anti-War Movement

6. The Sky of Our Political Horizon: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln

Epilogue

Notes

Bibliography

Index

About the Author

Acknowledgments

A number of people have made this book possible, and their contributions are deeply appreciated. From Eastern Michigan University, I would like to thank the Provost’s Office for providing a Faculty Research Fellowship that granted a semester of release time to complete the original draft of the manuscript. Several members of the Department of History & Philosophy also deserve a great deal of thanks, especially Department Head Kate Mehuron for the department’s generous research support, and two colleagues, John McCurdy and Richard Nation, for reading and commenting on various portions of the original draft. A number of librarians and archivists also deserve mention for their generous assistance, especially Jeff Flannery at the Library of Congress and Don Pfanz at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Lastly, my wife Paula deserves the biggest thanks of all, for her constant support, encouragement, and proofreading skills.

Introduction

The people up North do not know what war is, John Brobst, a Union Army private from Wisconsin, wrote a friend. If they were to come down here, they would soon find out the horror of war.¹ Brobst spoke for many Union soldiers during the Civil War who held views of their own families, communities, and home states that defy the traditional picture of national unity based on their perception that civilians did not comprehend what it meant to be a Union soldier. Stressed by the demands of combat, often frustrated by the lack of success, and burdened by the hardships of army life, many Union soldiers adopted attitudes and opinions about various facets of the war quite different from those of civilians, positions often elucidated in their letters to family members. Soldiers who, as an army, roundly supported President Abraham Lincoln perceived members of his Democratic opposition as enemy adversaries. Soldiers became irate about civilian actions that failed to support wartime measures of which the army approved, or who engaged in activities the army perceived as against its interest. Some of the disgruntlement came in the form of lack of support, whether real or imagined, for soldiers by those at home. Those who complain of the war the most, Private Wilber Fisk wrote, are generally those who have suffered the least, and few Union soldiers would have disagreed with him.²

Union soldiers left their homes expecting to fight their Confederate enemies, but clashes with family and communities at home emerged unexpectedly. The issues that divided soldiers and the Union home front were numerous, complex, and long-lasting. While some issues emerged only during certain periods of the war, others caused friction for the duration of the war. Several themes emerge when considering the perception held by Union soldiers of home communities. First, soldiers tended to lash out at things about which they could not immediately do anything. Soldiers at the front, unable to return home, felt frustrated at their inability to influence events. Consequently, their only recourse was to encourage certain courses of action, liberally share their own opinions, or threaten retaliation when they could get home. Next, soldiers shared the opinion that the current national emergency justified strong actions. The expectations and demands soldiers placed on civilian communities often defied traditional political and social norms, but soldiers justified such actions in the name of saving the Union and defeating the Confederacy. This included threats of violence against the worst offenders of soldier expectations, threats that would never receive popular sanction in peacetime. Soldiers could sustain their demands only by recognizing a gulf between us and them, as soldiers understood that as long as the war lasted, they were members of a separate army community. The success of their new community was vital if the nation was to survive, the war was to come to a successful conclusion, and they were to emerge from the fight alive.

The most important theme, however, was the disconnection between perception and reality. While accurately assessing most national issues, soldiers generated some inaccurate beliefs and conclusions about others, usually as the result of incomplete information and viewing events through the lens of their own experiences. Consequently, soldier reactions, to both contemporary and modern observers, can seem reactionary and erroneous. Although soldiers generated incorrect perceptions of civilian activities, the situations in which they found themselves explain the defensive postures adopted by them. Operating in a separate sphere and undergoing great personal risks, soldiers shaped their own view of civilian behavior. Tasked with saving the Union by risking their lives, soldiers held misinformed views regarding the nature and extent of civilian actions and beliefs, but their reactions to civilian behaviors represented the views of those acting most directly to win the war. What soldiers believed may not have been correct, but their beliefs were what they acted upon. Therefore, despite their misplaced opinion, what Union soldiers had to say about civilian actions merits closer study as it reflected the direction of the army and the war. That is not to suggest that all soldiers always disagreed with all civilians. Quite the contrary, the mass of published Civil War histories reveals a broad spectrum of support, enthusiasm, and concern for the plight and sacrifices of Union soldiers. At crucial times of the war and on specific issues, however, soldier and civilian beliefs diverged, and a study of that diversion is necessary to understand how the social and political outcomes of the Civil War came about.

The misunderstanding and ideological separation that existed between Union soldiers and the different civilian communities was the result of various divides between soldiers and noncombatants. The most obvious divide was the physical one, the separation of soldiers from their families and communities by long distances. For most young men, military service created the first opportunity to leave their hometowns and undergo new experiences. The early war excitement induced many men to volunteer as soldiers, but recruits soon found their new lives much different from their old lives. Military existence proved very different than anything the volunteers anticipated, and the separation from home became something many soldiers came to regret. Soldiers left behind families, and often their spouses had to fend for themselves. The stress of separation became only worse as the war, so optimistically estimated at only a few weeks in 1861, stretched into months and years. Soldiers matured, changed, and evolved over time, and wartime separation usually meant young recruits were quite different when they returned as veterans at the end of their service.

Compounding the emotional difficulties of the physical divide was the experience divide, as soldiers believed civilians often simply did not understand or comprehend their wartime experiences. Civilians, soldiers complained, had no concept of the risks, constraints, and difficulties of soldier life. They grumbled that civilians did not recognize that soldiers had a different mindset and separate priorities than those unfamiliar with military life. Private William Bentley summed up the lack of understanding when he tried to explain to his family how a soldier, when he enters the Army, almost loses his Individuality and becomes a very small portion of the great machine.³ Even more difficult, soldiers struggled to make civilians who were relatively safe in their homes comprehend the stress of living under constant threat of death, illness, or serious injury. Civilians certainly worried about the physical well-being of their relatives and loved ones in the army, but soldiers often believed their families equated the difficulties and hardships of the civilian home front with the deadly business of being a soldier.

Such dissonance might not have occurred except for a communication divide. Soldiers and civilians had only limited means to convey their thoughts, opinions, and ideas, primarily through letters and newspapers. Both methods, however, had limitations that prevented a closing of the communication gap between the army and Northern civilians. Newspapers held a bias for one political party or the other, slanting the news into pro- or anti-Abraham Lincoln rhetoric that skewed the progress of the war or the collective attitudes of a community. The absence of modern journalistic standards meant that newspapers became less a forum for public debate and more a clearinghouse for random tidbits of information, with rumors and rabid editorials substituting for accurate information. Letters exchanged between soldiers and civilians were not an entirely clear conduit. Positive letters from home were always welcome, but less optimistic content exacerbated the physical and experiential divides. News of civilian hardship placed emotional burdens upon soldiers who could not act upon the problem, especially those who left family members in economically vulnerable positions. Soldiers also construed bad news from home as a commentary upon their lack of success, which had the effect of actually widening the communications divide. Often, soldiers also did not effectively utilize letters home to help civilians understand their experiences. One reason has to do with ideas about propriety: soldiers did not wish to offend or frighten their families at home with graphic descriptions of combat and death. In the case of such letters that do describe gory details, soldiers penned them to a male family member or friend rather than to females or families generally. Linked to this reason is the inability of soldiers, even the most literate of them, to accurately to put into words the dramatic and horrific scenes that unfolded before their eyes. Such descriptions required time to process and comprehend, which explains the frequent battle descriptions in personal diaries rather than letters home.⁴

Once the war began in earnest, a number of social divides also emerged between Union soldiers and civilians. The male-oriented environment of the army camp created a gender divide that challenged the antebellum notions of male and female relationships and roles. Soldiers who partnered with their families and spouses in the operation of farms and businesses replaced their labor at home with their wages as a soldier, forcing their female counterparts to shoulder new economic, labor, and supervisory roles. Attempting to fulfill their prewar role as primary providers, soldiers tried to participate in decision-making regarding their domestic establishments and to provide monetary assistance to their families, but these efforts proved difficult because of the physical divide. The war also tested the prewar notions of gender propriety as the protocol and etiquette of gender relationships changed. Union soldiers also experienced women in ways unique to military life. Their male-dominated camps had female occupants, even if only temporarily, in the form of camp followers, prostitutes, visiting respectable ladies, and women disguised as men in their ranks. Each contact reshaped how soldiers perceived women and their capabilities.

Soldiers also clashed with civilians over the developing racial divide. As the war eroded the South’s hold on slavery, the issue of abolition and emancipation, or whether either was desirable, constantly rose to the forefront. Soldiers had a particular interest in the slavery issues as it directly affected the purpose and outcome of the war and, by extension, determined their immediate future and dedication to the newly established goals. The Northern home front’s growing acceptance of a war against slavery as manifested in Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation differed sharply with that of soldiers, whose firsthand experiences with slaves and slave-owners shaped a more diverse debate among them. In addition to the anti-abolitionist element of the army, soldiers divided themselves into those who wished only limited abolition for the slaves and those who favored full emancipation of the slaves by granting rights as well as freedom. As another element of the racial divide, opinions on the intelligence and ability of the former slaves determined allegiance to the abolition or emancipation camps. The experience of fighting in the South and viewing slavery firsthand either reinforced prewar dedication to abolition or anti-abolition, or caused a change of heart. Shift of opinion happened in each direction, as sympathy made abolitionists or war-weariness turned anti-slavery soldiers against their prewar beliefs.

The emancipation debate also directly fueled the political divide. Accustomed to the traditional rights of citizens in peacetime, Northern civilians were not inclined to accept changes to their political and procedural rights in wartime. Although acknowledging the military crisis of the Civil War, citizens expected the government to engage in normal discourse and process when it came to political decisions, a position the soldiers did not share. Asserting they did not have the luxury of equivocating on key political issues, soldiers demanded clear and decisive action on the part of the Lincoln administration and state governments. Any less, they believed, threatened their lives, prolonged the bloodshed, or threatened to make the outcome of the war meaningless. The different perceptions clashed most directly over the crucial political decisions coming out of Washington, D.C. As the war continued, civilian disenchantment with Lincoln’s performance as President rose dramatically, especially in the aftermath of controversial and divisive actions like the Emancipation Proclamation and the establishment of compulsory military service. Disenchantment turned into outright resistance in the form of anti-draft organizations, riots, and efforts to deny Lincoln a second term. Soldiers, viewing the Northern resistance though the experience divide, perceived Lincoln’s actions quite differently. Although some soldiers experienced defeatism that led them to support anti-war measures, the vast majority of the army viewed Lincoln as sharing their determination to win the war at all costs. Denouncing Northern opposition as unpatriotic and treasonous, Union soldiers defended their side of the political divide by suppressing Northern dissent where possible, declaring their support for Lincoln’s policies, and actively promoting Lincoln’s reelection bid.

Ensconced in different situations and outlooks, Union soldiers struggled to communicate with those they left behind. Through often unreliable communications, soldiers tried to describe and explain their experiences during wartime. As the hardships of the war took their toll, however, soldiers and civilians found themselves more and more at odds on the future of the nation. Soldiers desired a military outlook on the war, with battlefield success first and social stability later, while civilians held a reverse opinion, as the war affected them economically more than it did soldiers. Civilians desired government restraint, while soldiers favored more extremist action to ensure victory in a time of national crisis. As the group risking their lives for others, soldier came to assert themselves in national debates and demand the support and respect of the civilian community who increasingly seemed inclined to adopt policies that did not favor a successful outcome of the war. Soldiers expected certain considerations from the civilian communities around them, and antagonism between soldiers and civilians began when civilians did not live up to soldier expectations.

1

Such a Dirty Set of Creatures

The Divide between Union Soldiers and Civilians

Most of the Union soldiers who went off to war in 1861 had no concept of what they were about to experience. There were certainly military conflicts in the recent past, but nothing that involved large numbers of inexperienced volunteers. Clashes with Native Americans and the recent war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848 required only the efforts of the professional Regular Army and a number of state volunteer regiments. For a large-scale national war that demanded significant sacrifices from the people, one had to look back through nearly half a century of peaceful history to the War of 1812. The volunteers of 1861 could perhaps be forgiven for lacking an understanding of modern military realities. Amidst expectations of a short war and minimal risk, soldiers held romantic visions of what warfare entailed and little inkling of how untidy a battle could become. Among their romantic visions was the concept of separation between military and civilian existence. Soldiers did not just separate themselves geographically from their families and communities by marching off to war; they separated themselves in a cultural sense as well. They adopted a new set of behaviors, obligations, and outlooks by becoming warriors, entitling them to engage in acts, most notably killing, that civilian life found intolerable. The cultural separation of soldiering also generated a romantic notion of how civilians were to behave and how they were to be treated. Civilians were spectators to war, observers whose sole task was enthusiastically to support the army in the field. Conversely, soldiers respected the status of civilians and maintained the chivalrous view that warriors protected noncombatants, regardless of side. That view, in turn, connected to the spectator role of civilians as non-participants. Soldiers respected civilian boundaries as long as civilians remained spectators and nothing more.

Like all romantic beliefs associated with the Civil War, the pleasant view of inviolate civilians vigorously and unanimously backing the Union Army’s efforts proved an illusion, as Northern civilians did not universally endorse the war. Nor were civilians stoically enduring their burdens, as Union soldiers may have wished. Instead, soldiers found the political and emotional support from the North wanting. Letters from home provided comfort when they arrived on time and in sufficient numbers, but letters also brought bad news and evidence of a divided North. Rather than feeling backed in their martial efforts by a harmonious populous, Union soldiers experienced wavering reinforcement. The spirit of anarchy seems deep at work at the North, a Union general wrote, more alarming than the batteries that shell at us from the opposite shore.¹ The uncertain loyalty of Northern civilians generated a sense of hostility among Union soldiers that shattered the rosy view of military/civilian cultural separation. Increasingly, Union soldiers believed Northern civilians did not bolster their cause, culminating in a severe erosion of the traditional divide.

* * *

The separation between soldier and civilian was a byproduct of the hardening of soldiers brought about by their experiences in combat. The average Civil War combatant experienced dire privation in the form of physical exertion, sleep and food deprivation, exposure to the horrors of the battlefield, and the emotional gap between victory and defeat. After only a brief time in the army, the definition of a veteran soldier became someone inured to harsh conditions. The gauntlet of arduous experiences led to a decline in traditional moral values and insensitivity to death and suffering as soldiers set aside the civilian morality that defined their prewar existence.² Instead of a conscious decision to change their outlook, hardening was a subtle process that culminated in the detachment of the soldier from prewar ideals. The duress of facing combat and living in a climate of death obviously affected the soldiers’ mental state to an extent that modern historians consider hardening as a mental disease.³ Hardening also served as a defense mechanism, allowing soldiers to repress the negative elements of their experience so they could carry on with their duties. The suppression of depressing and harmful activities became so prevalent that it gained historical credence. Few, if any, official regimental histories after the war recalled the horrors of the battlefield, or, if they did, it was in terms of achieving a glorious outcome and stalwartly enduring bad times.

Although many soldiers did not perceive the change the process of hardening had on their outlook, other soldiers did, and the understanding of the change made them ponder their lives after soldiering. The army is becoming awfully depraved, Charles Wills observed to his family while on occupation duty. How the civilized home folks will ever be able to live with them after the war is, I think, something of a question. If we don’t degenerate into a nation of thieves, t’will not be for lack of the example set by a fair sized portion of our army. Do you remember that I used to write that a man would no sooner lose his morality in the army than at home? I now respectfully beg to recall the remark.⁴ For most, the loss of prewar morals was the fault of the war, an attitude that absolved soldiers of personal responsibility. War is a horrible thing, Private John Follmer realized. It makes men heartless, brutal, and in many instances sinks out of sight all higher and nobler manhood.⁵ Instead of excusing the shift in conduct, other more conscientious soldiers recognized that simple explanations did not absolve them of amoral behavior. Many a man does that here that he would be utterly ashamed to do at home, a New York soldier detected, and excuses himself by saying that others do it or that it is customary in the Army to do it. But that is no excuse . . . it is worse than no excuse at all.⁶ Reflecting upon the impact of combat and army life, some veterans feared that they could never readjust to civilian life and that the change in their persona was permanent. Although he sometimes pondered returning home when his enlistment ended in 1864, Isaac Abraham predicted he would reenlist, admitting I expect I would be lost in civil life.⁷ Others feared the change in them made it impossible to pick up their lives where they left off. To-day makes four years soldiering for me, a thoughtful veteran pondered, It is a terrible waste of time for me to have to make a start in life yet . . . I have almost a dread of being a citizen.⁸ Many soldiers never did adjust. Private Herman White took a long time to settle after the war, moving from town to town in search of work, his sleep plagued by dreams of war & fighting.⁹

An indicator of changing and hardening attitudes amongst veterans was their declining acceptance of traditional social mores. Manifesting a willingness to ignore conventional conduct, soldiers began to think and act in a manner that shocked the sensibilities of their families at home. Thus, while confessing his love for his wife, Corporal Leander Davis did not dwell upon it in his letters. Love and war don’t go well together, he wrote to her. My business is killing instead of talking love.¹⁰ John Holahan, surrendering his traditional values, wrote My virtues and vices must correspond to that of my fellows. I must lie to the rebels, steal from the rebels, and kill rebels—Uncle Sam making vicarious atonement for these sins.¹¹ Responding to his wife’s query if he looked the same as the photograph taken when he left for the war, John Brobst replied he looked the same, but only a little more fierce perhaps . . . after hunting men and helping to kill them for three years. Brobst also confessed that he and his comrades were not the same innocent young men who went off to war but rather more possessing of the devil. If we were to come home, he warned his wife, I fear that you would soon get tired of us, for we would be so full of that old gent . . . the chief proprietor of that dark region the preacher tells us about, the one that coaxes the sinners in.¹²

The Confederate Army was not the only target of the morally hardened Union Army, as the Union Army increasingly accepted civilians, traditionally off-limits to depredation, as a legitimate military target. The perceived improper actions of the Confederacy in causing the war provided more than enough justification for Union soldiers to target them. Rejecting the notion that soldiers must accept conventional behavior, Colonel Emerson Opdycke declared, The court of nations, is the court of battle, and of War. The people having might on their side, receive the favorable verdict.¹³ General Alvin Voris observed such behavior amongst his men in Virginia: Our boys are bent on making the war felt. The deprivations they endure make them unfeeling.¹⁴ Private John Rath, marching through South Carolina, echoed the sentiment. Preparing to enter the hotbed of rebellion, Rath noted everyone swears vengeance and threatens to burn everything that would burn and make them feel the war . . . almost every house was ablaze . . . [and] fires could be seen in all directions.¹⁵ Consequently, increasing disregard for the sanctity of civilian status created soldiers perfectly willing to make civilians victims of property crimes and other offenses. They will go right into a house and if there is anything to eat they will have at it, John Tallman wrote home; if there is any clean clothes they can wear, they will put them on, if there is a horse or a mule . . . they will take it, if there is a pig or a chicken that is eatable, they will kill it.¹⁶ Reflecting upon how the war changed him, John Brobst confessed, I am one of the lowest grades of men. I go right in a man’s yard, steal . . . anything that I can find, take off a corpse before the eyes of the owner, and if [anyone] says anything tell him to dry up or he will get his wind shut off.¹⁷

The most frightful aspect of hardening was the soldier’s casual acceptance of violence and death, both as an inflictor and a recipient. Beyond becoming accustomed to the new morality of war that made killing an acceptable practice, some soldiers seemed to welcome and enjoy the new permissiveness. An Ohio soldier, bearing a musket he nicknamed The Widow, was pleased to report after a battle that he fired on the Rebels 31 times during the day—and I think with some purpose.¹⁸ Private William Lamson wrote to his sister of his disappointment of not fighting rebel cavalry. Wouldn’t we have emptied their saddles for them, he wrote, full of regret, The Railroad would make such a nice breastwork and they would have to cross a brook and then charge across a flat for some ways and climb a bank 6 to 10 feet high. Cale was very anxious to have a fight. Oh, he’s a blood-thirsty wretch.¹⁹ Commenting on the utmost barbarity and vindictiveness of his comrades, Private William Bradbury claimed the 9th Ohio Regiment boasts that none of their men ever took any prisoners.²⁰ In response to his sister’s letter of when to expect him home, Private Eli Lilly delayed his response because I want to kill another rebel, then I will Be ready to Come home.²¹

Often on the receiving end of violence, soldiers took little notice of the death around them. In civilian life, a corpse or a funeral elicited deep emotional responses, but amongst the vast casualties of the Civil War, such nice-ties disappeared. Nothing special happening, Private Evan Davis wrote in his diary, than one of Co. H shooting (killing) his brother.²² Captain George Hugunin and a comrade, searching for somewhere to sit for a meal, looked around and close by us were two of our dead boys close together so we sat on one and used the other for a table. Thinking back on his callous behavior, Hugunin joked, suppose our folks could drop in and see us eating—do you think it would take away their appetite? . . . I don’t believe they would sit down and eat with us on this table.²³ Inured to the sight of death, a Pennsylvania private observed a hasty funeral for a dead soldier: as the grave is dug, four men carry the corpse . . . in a blanket, and thus it is buried without coffin, and without ceremony.²⁴ This was not just the case with strangers. Confessing that the death of even one of the best men in the regiment earned nothing more than to talk about him . . . for a day or two and then forget all about him, Lawrence Van Alstyne understood what only a year in the army had done to harden him, revealing two years more and we will be murdering in cold blood.²⁵

After admitting