The American Civil War and pacifism

Before 2011 draws to an end, we want to acknowledge that 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the U.S. Civil War. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln, 11 slave states seceded from the United States in 1861.Soldiers of Peace book by Thomas F. Curran

Most people educated in the U.S. have heard of General Robert E. Lee and General William Tecumseh Sherman and of Sherman’s destructive march through Georgia.

Moreover, most Americans have some notion of how deadly the Civil War was, even if they don’t have the facts and figures.

According to John Huddleston*, 620,000 soldiers died during this conflict—more Americans than in all the other wars combined, up through Vietnam. Huddleston estimates that 10% of all Northern males aged 20-45 and 40% of all Southern white males aged 18-40 died. By one estimate**, there were a total of 1,030,000 casualties–3% of the population.

On the other hand, it is likely that few Americans know that the conscription law for the Union allowed conscientious objectors to buy their way out of fighting. This law followed in the tradition of General George Washington, who excused young men from the Revolutionary War draft if they had a conscientious objection to war.

Moreover, few Americans have heard of the Universal Peace Union (UPU). Led by Alfred H. Love, the UPU was devoted to the idea of nonresistance, the belief that evil must not be met with violence, no matter how noble the cause.*** To learn more about the UPU and the early pacifist movement in the U.S., read the review of Curran’s book by Jeffrey McClurken.

* Huddleston, John.  Killing ground: Photographs of the Civil War and the changing American landscape. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

** Nofi, Al (2001-06-13). “Statistics on the war’s costs”. Louisiana State University. Archived from the original on 2007-07-11.

***Curran, Thomas F. Soldiers of peace: Civil War pacifism and the postwar radical peace movement. New York: Fordham University Press, 2003.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Revolting against tyranny: Then and now

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today’s post is by our guest contributor Dr. Mike Corgan.]

The protests against tyranny suddenly sweeping the Middle East still focus on the achievement of the Egyptian people and what they accomplished. Now the world waits to see what the army will do.

George Washington portrait by Peale
George Washington, 1776, by Charles Wilson Peale (Photographic reproduction in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

As we in the U.S. celebrate this Presidents’ Day weekend, it is well to think beyond the car and flat screen TV sales and reflect on just how lucky we were with our revolution and why we honor these two presidents.

George Washington was unquestionably the ablest military man among the Americans who chose to fight British absentee governance and taxation. Qualities far beyond his generalship immortalize his  service to democracy and his country.

When the war was over and the British had surrendered he could have been king if he wanted it. Instead he went to Congress and laid his sword on a table and said his work was done. How many other military leaders of a victorious revolutionary army have ever surrendered to civilian control like that? None–before or since. We were lucky beyond all others.

Yet again, when the army later threatened to march on Congress in Philadelphia to get promised benefits, Washington went to the plotters in Newburgh and defused the situation. He pleaded with his officers not to undo all they had stood for in the name of democracy against tyranny and force with a military show of force.

His oratory and sincerity and even his dramatic putting on of glasses and saying that he himself had grown blind in the service of his country ended the affair, many plotters leaving the meeting in tears. Our revolution succeeded in its aims for many reasons, but George Washington was one of the most important ones.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University