We Cannot Know Their Minds

4 comments | Posted: 9/21/2011 | Author: Andy Hall
Unknown North Carolina Volunteer

Undoubtedly one of the reasons for the tremendous, abiding interest Americans have with the Civil War is that a great many of us have a personal connection to it. We have uncles who fought in it, cousins who were widowed by it, or grandparents who were liberated by it. We live in towns that changed hands during the war, went to high schools named for famous generals, or help put out flags on soldiers’ graves on Memorial Day. The conflict even serves as a dubious backstory to the latest Hollywood steampunk fantasy. Perhaps even more than World War II, the legacy of the American Civil War is all around us.

That personal intimacy with the war is a good thing, mostly, but it sometimes also lends itself to a false intimacy, an assumption that we can intuit the beliefs and motivations of those long-dead men and women. The reality is that in most cases, we haven’t got a damn clue. It’s hard enough, most of the time, to figure out what they did, much less why they did it, or what they thought about it. 

Certainly there are many people from that era, men and women, soldiers and civilians, who left diaries and letters that have survived down to the present that give us real insight into their thoughts at the time. There are also those who wrote memoirs decades later; these are helpful but come with the caveat that they were written both from the perspective of the intervening years, and with the knowledge and intent that they would be read by a wide audience. The memoir depicts the old veteran as he wanted to be remembered, rather than how he actually was.

But most of us don’t have the luxury of being able to refer to a stack of fragile documents, written in rusty ink, to know why those young men eagerly marched off to war or, in some cases, scrambled for cash money to find a substitute. We do not know how their wives and mothers and children managed in their absence, or reacted when they saw their loved one’s name printed in a casualty list in the newspaper. We just do not know, and likely cannot ever know, the thoughts, inspirations and fears of these men and women. 

The men who went off to war in 1861 were, like soldiers today, motivated by a whole range of reasons, often multiple reasons at once, and often by reasons that they could not fully articulate to themselves, much less to others. And while some clearly saw a larger, moral purpose to their service, many of the young men who so happily marched off to war 150 years ago did so for no reason more noble than not wanting to miss out on what looked to be the greatest adventure of their lives. 

Unfortunately, that lack of documentation doesn’t stop many modern Americans from filling those gaps in their knowledge about their kin with imagined attributes and virtues. This is mostly subconscious, I suspect, originating from a deep desire to identify personally with those long-dead ancestors, to find them likeable, to see oneself in them. It’s understandable, but it’s a happy fantasy that serves the present, not the past. 

I really do wish I could talk to that 20-year-old soldier, a century and a half ago, and ask him why—why was he enlisting? What motivated him? What did he expect would happen? And I wish I could talk to him again, trudging back home from Appomattox—tired, hungry, hardened, and perhaps traumatized by his experiences.

Those are questions I’d want to ask, and never can. The first principle of the historian is to recognize that there are some things he or she will never fully know. That’s a hard thing, but to my thinking, it’s preferable to projecting our own deep-seated wants and desires onto people we never met. Fantasy is no way to honor one’s ancestors.

 
Andy Hall is a Texan and Southerner by birth, residence and lineage, with a family tree full of butternuts. With a background in history, museum studies and marine archaeology, Hall also writes at his own blog, Dead Confederates.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress.

 

Submit a Comment

Captcha code
Enter the code in the image to the left:

Comments

corkingiron 9/24/2011 12:23 PM

There is some truth to this, Andy - but only some. Or so I would argue. In striving to find and interpret the resources, to "intuit" their motivations, it is not their mind that we come to know; it is our own. When we step back from judgement or justifications, we grope towards an understanding of what we might have had in common. We move from questions like "what would motivate them to do this" to "what would motivate me to do this"? As you know, I had a long career teaching History to High School students. One of my stock speeches was:

"Napoleon is dead today. He'll be dead tomorrow too. The best we can say for him is that his condition is stable. The only value in studying this stuff is - that if you work hard and use your imagination, you will come to know more about yourself."

That self-awareness, that I too can be subject to propaganda and persuasion - to group pressure and blind acts of patriotism, courage and brutality, all mixed together in the human stew - makes the past come alive with meaning. It is the only thing that History has to offer. And I would submit that, by making that offer, History far exceeds all the other disciplines in its reward.

Best of luck in this new endeavour.

Reply
Captcha code
Enter the code in the image to the left:
Richard 9/24/2011 2:28 PM

Good post, as always, but I'm having a hard time accepting your conclusion. I know it's true we cannot know all the thoughts and motivations of our ancestors and that some things may be impossible to know, but are you saying we should not try to get at least some understanding of such issues? Should historians not try to use what evidence there is to draw at least some general conclusions, such as in the several examples of "why they thought" books? I may be missing your point and apologize if I am, but is there no ground in-between the concepts of "cannot know" and "fantasy" in which we can at least theorize on such questions?

Reply
Captcha code
Enter the code in the image to the left:
Andy Hall 9/24/2011 3:20 PM

Richard, of course we can, and must, try to understand those issues. What I'm pushing against here is a tendency to project beliefs and motivations onto specific individuals without any particular evidence for doing so -- as in saying, "my great-great-granddaddy fought for _____," when you actually have no evidence of that one way or another. It's easy to do, but something one rightly ought to guard against.

Reply
Captcha code
Enter the code in the image to the left:
Will Hickox 10/4/2011 12:30 PM

Andy: Insightful post, and I enjoy your blog. My only direct ancestor in the war was a 47-year-old farmer who enlisted in September 1864. Based on the limited evidence it seems likely that he joined up with the $1,000 local bounty being his primary motive. This doesn't dismay me; in fact, I find it comforting that, 150 year before our cynical modern age, people were often motivated by more practical concerns than "duty, honor, country." In my grandfather's case, however, he died of typhoid fever without receiving his bounty.

Reply
Captcha code
Enter the code in the image to the left:

About This Blog

The Front Line is our communal blog featuring the latest in Civil War news, research, analysis, and events from a network of scholars.

For information concerning the blogs/bloggers, inquiries into becoming a blogger for The Front Line, events calendar requests, or general questions, please contact the Contributing Editor: 


Laura June Davis
laura@civilwarmonitor.com



Newsletter

Sign up here for regular email updates, including our free newsletter and special offers.

Blog Roll

Our Friends

 

 


Twitter


Facebook