Book Circle Reflections 2009-2010

This page contains reflections written by the participants in the Teaching American History Book Circles.  The work reflects the teachers' thoughts following their reading and discussion of  the books read this year.

Book #5

After reading and discussing We Are What We Eat  by Donna R. Gabaccia, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:

Does “…the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients signify a spirit of toleration” or does it represent a lack of respect for the ethnic and regional traditions that preserve many differing histories of our people”?  

Yes, the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients signifies a spirit of toleration because food brings people together.

Mary Goldberg writes:

Nancy Stewart writes:

I do believe that the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients signifies a spirit of toleration and not a lack of respect for ethnic and regional traditions.  From the colonial period until today, although different people first looked at one another’s foods with some measure of suspicion or even disdain, and were a little reserved about trying these foods in the first place, necessity and just plain curiosity led people to accept one another’s foods.  In some cases people preserved the authentic way that the foods were prepared; in other cases they adapted the preparation methods to more closely align with their tastes.  Although turn-of-the-century reformers complained that immigrants did not “eat like Americans” and sought to promote the dietary ways of New England as a sort of “national cuisine,” still Americans gravitated and continue to gravitate toward “ethnic” foods; had there been a lack of respect for these traditions all along, more groups likely would more quickly have abandoned these ethnic foods in favor of a more “American” diet.  Instead, our American diet today is characterized by a blend of many ethnic foods; it is likely that if we kept a food diary for several days we would see the influence of many ethnic groups at our tables three meals a day.  We can debate the authenticity of many of the ethnic foods we eat.  We should probably also acknowledge the fact that the mass production of many of these foods has led to a standardization of taste and texture through the use of similar fats, sugars, salt and preservatives no matter what the product.  Still, the very fact that these different foods find their way into our diet, and have found their way into American diets all along, is testament to the spirit of toleration Americans have for one another’s foods.

Jennifer Keller writes:

American diversity naturally leads to a mixture of culture which includes food. “The mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients” signifies our toleration for other cultural groups over time. Although ethnic groups may have faced intolerance when they arrived in the United States their traditions have diffused into “American culture” through relationships and food. In addition Americans desire to continue to explore and experiment with food has lead to fusion cooking. As the global community gets smaller people of different groups have greater contact with each other leading to greater cultural diffusion. For many Americans eating is a form of travel and our desire to eat “authentic” foods from many different regions of the world drives our desire for new tastes and helps American culture grow and allow for more acceptances of many different cultural groups.

Maria Delaney writes:

     I believe that the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients signify a spirit of toleration.  The immigrants who came to America were trying to appeal to the diversity of the American people.  They saw this as purely a business opportunity which captures the attention of other ethnic customers.  This gave the American immigrant a connection with their homeland.   This in turn “feeds the soul.”

Michaela Riviello writes:

The mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients demonstrates a spirit of toleration and does not represent a lack of respect for ethnic and regional traditions.  Since the foundation of this country, people have been experimenting with various foods from other cultures, sometimes out of necessity and, oftentimes, out of curiosity. At times, people viewed foods from other cultures with hesitation and reservation but over time, food from all over the world has been incorporated into the American cuisine. The concept of American cuisine addresses another issue. Is there really a national cuisine or is it a misconception? An interesting point was addressed in our book club and we pondered the question, “What if food from other cultures was eliminated from the American menu? Would there be anything left at all?” We chuckled, “Probably not!” Essentially, American cuisine is representative of all cultures. This representation demonstrates our love, respect and admiration for all foods and even more importantly, all cultures.

Yes, in some ways the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients signifies a spirit of toleration. However, it's more about people wanting to be chic or more cultured and try new things.

Brian Thone writes:

Christina Cone writes:

In response to this question, I would have to say that I think on some level it does neither.  I do not believe that in this day and age the incorporation of various foods and ingredients into people’s diets is usually a conscious decision.  I think many of the ethnic cuisines and ingredients have become so ingrained in many people’s diets and the origins of the items are not considered. I know I have not stopped to think about where the sweet potatoes, the Lender’s bagels, the pierogies, etc. are from before reading this book.  I eat what I think tastes good!

However, I do believe that the partaking in some ethnic foods, ones which have not become part of the staple diet in many American homes, is more of a sign of openness and is often a reflection of affluence, education, urbanization, and the media.  As Gabaccia stated, the eating of ethnic cuisine did rise in the late twentieth century among the wealthier classes, She made the connection to how “eating is travel” and it was/can be considered more sophisticated and worldly to eat certain foods.  Urbanization certainly plays a factor as well in creating a more diverse environment with a multitude of choices.  Furthermore, the cooking shows and magazines of the day do help to educate and inspire some people to try new menus,

Again though, I hesitate to say that it is tolerance as I feel that sounds elitist and disparaging to those who may not try some different foods. People may not try various ethnic cuisines not because they are intolerant, but rather they may not have the exposure to the choices, they may not have the knowledge, or they may just have a finicky palette.

Joan Lopardo writes:

No, the mixing and matching of cuisines and ingredients does not signify a spirit of toleration nor does it represent a lack of respect for the ethnic and regional traditions. Peoples' eating habits are a reflection of the melting pot that America has become.

Cathy Sebesta writes:

        I don’t think that the mixing and matching of cuisines displays a lack of respect at all.  Instead, this fusion is a celebration of sorts from some the best of vast and distinct cultures. 

      Ethnic cuisine started out as an outlet for people to connect with people and customs they felt familiar with.  These brave men and women had given up their homeland for a better chance of success in the United States, so a familiarity in food and language gave immigrants a feeling of security and comfort.  Now that we have become a more global community of sorts and more interdependent on each other, a sharing and mingling of foods has become a new way to find connections. 

     Most people when they are cooking don’t say to themselves, “I’m going to be disrespectful to these Polish pierogies by serving them with Mexican salsa!”  Instead they have been able to find a connection or blending between these two foods that are usually served in other ways, with no disrespect intended.  Many people’s only connection with other regions and cultures is through food so perhaps they are learning about another people’s food, culture, and history by mixing it with their own (by the way, hummus on a bagel is really tasty). 

     Histories and cultural identity can be preserved through families, books, and cuisine.  By blending, mixing, and matching foods we are celebrating what is means to be American since truly all food is “American” and gives all a chance to learn and eat something new.   

 Paul DeMatteo writes:

Matthew Karmin writes:

When examining the different types of food that have come to define American culture, it is clear that American culture is a heterogeneous mix rather than a single ethnic type of food.  Elements from Spanish, Italian, Greek, Asian, as well as a vast variety of other cultures are present in what is now considered “American food.”

            This is a clear sign that the blending of cultures is more of an acceptance than a lack of respect in terms of creating an “American” food.  While many feel that this diminishes the importance and destroys native histories, I believe that this serves to reinforce regional values. 

            The introduction of ethnic food into the American diet has introduced different cultures to people that might not otherwise have the opportunity.  The integration has been increasingly popular as people begin to expand their horizons and appreciate what other ethnic groups have to offer.

            Some argue that this creates an artificial and sometimes false view of ethnic groups.  The authenticity of many of these types of foods can certainly be questioned, but this is in no way meant to be a lack of respect for regional traditions.  Instead, this is a result of big business and the mass production that allows for the seamless integration into American culture.  Most people understand that the “regional” food that they eat usually have been Americanized and lack authenticity.  This does not diminish the appreciation for the food nor is it meant to stereotype.

            The idea of America being a “melting pot” has never been truer when looking at American food.  Most people think of Apple pie or a hamburger as signifying American cuisine but it can be argued that American cuisine is simply a combination of the different ethnic groups that define our culture.

 Sarah Ahmedani writes:

Absolutely Not! It would be very difficult to say that the mixing of food shows a lack of respect for a specific culture or ethnic group. In terms of packaged food, the very fact that mass production became ethnic at all is a sign of toleration. It may not be ethnically correct- but it was marketed which showed a tremendous about of toleration even in a culture of nativism and ethnocentrism.

American culture has always mixed cultures, whether because of necessity in the case of the early colonies, or through a progression- cultures were bound to mix. Transportation and communication allowed small regional traditions to spread across the United States and abroad. Many countries today have American style fast food chains, while we have Americanized Italian. The fact is that there is no pure form of ethnicity- we live in a global market, a market that has been growing and evolving since human time began, we see it now on a larger scale. There is no lack of respect for traditions, all of this has been a choice- the consumer has the power and the mixing of food and culture has been the choice of both Americans and other ethnic groups.   

Book #4

After reading and discussing Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business  by Harold C. Livesay, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:

Did Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts justify his questionable business practices?

Yes. However, Carnegie should be judged by the standards in which he lived and not by the standards of the 21^st century. Therefore, his business practices were not questionable and he didn’t have to donate money to make up for it.

Nancy Stewart writes:

The question “Did Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts justify his questionable business practices?” begins with the assumption that Carnegie’s practices were in fact questionable and unethical, and therefore needed to be justified by Carnegie giving away millions.  I would argue that his philanthropic efforts were not necessary to “justify” his business practices because I am more inclined to evaluate his business practices in light of the standards of the day rather than by 21^st century standards.  Andrew Carnegie was able to remain at the top because he understood his business as a result of having started at the bottom, he was able to transfer his skills from one industry to another, he pioneered cost accounting methods which allowed for highly efficient production, and knew how to find and groom strong people for management and then delegate authority to them.  Many people point to his use of “pools” as an example of unethical business practice, but again, this is in light of today’s business regulations.  At the time, Carnegie was not breaking any laws, and as far as business ethics, that is a field which evolved over time.  In terms of labor relations we can point to Homestead as an example of Carnegie’s great failure, yet again, labor relations has been a process, which perhaps Carnegie and Homestead were catalysts for.  Long work weeks and low pay were the order of the day and while some argue that Carnegie had the opportunity to do more for his employees, to do better for them, this again was a step in the process toward labor laws.  So while we may look back and in hindsight see that his practices and labor relations would not hold up today to our standards and regulations, I would not argue that these were practices for which he needed to “atone” through his philanthropic efforts, nor do I get the impression that Carnegie himself felt that need for atonement as the impetus behind his generosity.

Brian Thone writes:

Andrew Carnegie is the perfect example of the American Dream.  He came to this country poor and through hard work he was able to retire the richest man in the world.  In the Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie writes that “a man who dies rich, dies disgraced.”   Throughout his retirement, Carnegie embodies this motto by giving away his fortune.  Carnegie’s legacy should be remembered for this philanthropy and not for what some consider his questionable business practices.  Carnegie should be judged by the standards in which he lived and not by the standards of the 21^st century.  Carnegie’s dedication and drive to be the best only helped his employees by guaranteeing them work even during national depressions.  Without men like Carnegie and Rockefeller, the U.S. economy and position in the world may not be where it is today.  These men should be remembered as Captains of Industry for their contributions to America as well as for their philanthropy. 

Cathy Sebesta writes:

Did Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts justify his questionable business practices? In order to answer this with honesty, there is a need to examine the extent of his philanthropy, and the practices which guided his businesses.

His philanthropy is a result of his enormous wealth, and his desire to spend the surplus on benevolent purposes. A quick glance at the list of his philanthropic efforts covers all aspects of society except religion.  He is responsible for libraries throughout the USA, as well as many educational and research institutes, including grants for such endeavors. His efforts at benefiting society extend to our own time funding the arts, sciences and education.  He gave away more than 90% of his wealth.

To question his business practices is difficult at best.  What were the ‘business practices’ of the time?  Workers were part of the cost of running a business, and still are. Their personal needs and desires were not attached to their jobs.   Big business was a new concept, and practices evolved with time.  Insider trading wasn’t illegal; there were little or no regulations on business, so business grew on its own.  Organized labor was in its infancy, born of the increased power of the worker to object to his low wages, and his lack of benefits.  The Homestead Strike of 1893 was a bloody conflict between business owners and workers.  Carnegie left Frick in charge knowing a fight was brewing, and knowing that Frick had a reputation of ruthlessness toward labor and competitors. This was the worst of his business decisions.  It caused him sorrow and regret to his last days.  It stained his once excellent reputation.

To say that his general attitude of cutting costs and striving for excellence in his businesses caused him to indulge in bad business practices, at this end of history is inappropriate.  His philanthropy has and continues to benefit millions of people here in the states, and abroad. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that Carnegie’s philanthropy was an effort to justify his questionable business practices. 

Karen Van Dover writes:

Some might argue that Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron who made his personal fortune on the backs of his employees. He sought to minimize costs in all areas and paid low wages in an effort to implement a frugal cost-management plan to maximize his profits. To him, the very people he depended on for his great wealth were nothing more than objects to be manipulated and controlled, and he didn’t seem to care much about their working or living conditions or whether they could make ends meet. When it was to his advantage to do so, he joined price-fixing pools and participated in insider trading. It was not unknown for him to use his wealth to influence politicians, and the bloodshed of the Homestead strike was on his hands.

Although none of these practices was illegal in Carnegie’s day, through the lens of time and the perspective of anti-trust and insider trading laws, Carnegie’s business practices may seem questionable at best and unscrupulous at worst. Yet Carnegie is considered by some to be the greatest philanthropist of all time.  By the time he passed away in 1919, Carnegie had given away almost 90% of his fortune. funding thousands of libraries around the world; a world-renowned concert hall enjoyed by millions; trusts and foundations that provide money for research, recreation, teachers, and heroes; and educational institutions that are among the finest in the world. Does this legacy justify the actions that created it? It depends on how you look at it.

Carnegie was not interested in individuals or their welfare, but rather in mankind and the cultural means by which an individual might rise to greatness. Therefore, it is not surprising that the practices that created Carnegie’s wealth did not recognize the humanity of those who helped to create it, yet his philanthropy reflected his desire to create resources that an industrious person might take advantage of to better him- or herself, much as this self-made man did in his lifetime. Does Carnegie’s legacy justify what he did to leave it for posterity? I feel it did, for he was a product of his time and did what his culture allowed. His altruism resulted in generations of people being able to benefit from his labor and that of those who toiled for him. In a way, the people he exploited also gave to posterity, for if they hadn’t done their part in Carnegie’s industrial empire, we wouldn’t be enjoying Carnegie’s legacy, nor would future generations be able to enjoy it.

Anna Fisk writes:

Judging Carnegie by today’s standards would perhaps render his philanthropic efforts less worthy than the spirit in which he actually did them.  From early in the acquisition of his wealth, he had always believed it should be used for the “public good”.  By that he meant he should give back to the community by supporting such things as libraries, concert halls, parks and hospitals.  He not only believed this but followed through on it and gave away his wealth to many worthy causes. So the question becomes “Does the ends justify the means?”

In this case, Carnegies was a pioneer in what we would now call common business practices.  He looked at cost management, developed accounting systems and found innovative ways to manufacture products cheaply and efficiently.  Was there a human cost involved?  Were some things illegal by today’s standards?  Perhaps, but during the time period that Carnegie was revolutionizing business he was a genius at what he did - which is not to say that he didn’t make any mistakes along the way.  The bottom line was that he created the business model that changed capitalism in America, made an extreme amount of money that he could have kept to himself, but instead chose to use his wealth to better the lives of others.  Even if his business practices were questionable his philanthropic efforts were still worthy.

Yes. However, Carnegie’s business practices weren’t questionable; he was just a businessman of the times. We should remember Carnegie for what his money did for others and not for how he treated his workers.

Greg Sill writes:

Andrew Carnegie, the little man with big dreams, is a shining example of living the American Dream.  A poor boy from Scotland comes to the land of opportunity and becomes the richest man in the world.  However, some critics say that, despite his enormous philanthropic endeavors and countless contributions to society in the late 19^th century, Andrew Carnegie is simply a no good Robber Baron.  These critics unfairly question his business practices, treatment of the workers and need to accumulate wealth.  However, we must remember that Carnegie was a business genius who transformed business by focusing on cost accounting, using new technology, and hiring smart, competent people with like-minded goals.  He believed in the ideals of capitalism:  Investing money to make money, taking advantage of opportunities, and utilizing the natural laws of supply and demand.  He believed in hard work, in understanding your all aspects of your business, maximizing productivity, and getting the most out of his workers.

What about the workers?  Since he was a businessman first, he was always looking to cut cost and workers’ wages were a part of that equation.  He thought it was good business management that was needed for his businesses to strive in the very competitive market of railroads, steel, and bridges.  It was a necessary part of business to pay the workers the least amount possible.  Despite the lack of a human touch, Carnegie did hire Captain Jones, who became the voice of reason when it came to dealing with the workers.  He convinced Carnegie that a happy worker is a more productive worker.  The Homestead riot happened after Jones had died and Carnegie simple left Henry Clay Frick in charge of dealing with Labor negotiations.  Frick was the polar opposite of Jones and as a result, workers were killed and Carnegie was vilified.  Carnegie regretted his non-role in this incident, but began a much more aggressive philanthropic campaign afterwards. 

Carnegie’s legacy is not how he treated the workers, but of all the good things he did with his wealth.  Libraries, schools, theatres, hospitals, etc. are all long lasting effects of the amazing wealth this poor Scottish boy was able to earn in America!

  Robin M. Jacobsen writes:

      While I’ve taught about Carnegie when I covered U.S. History, my personal feelings on the man have always been ambivalent.  Yes, he started with almost nothing and had a meteoric rise to greatness and wealth, but not with out some lucky breaks and being in the right place at the right time.  No one can deny his philanthropic endeavors, but were the motives purely to help others, or more so to repair an image that had become tarnished over time?  I think a way I can come to terms with Carnegie is to think of him as simply a business man who does exactly what a business man is supposed to do and then shares some of the wealth with others.

     He definitely had a work ethic that behooved him and his business, but he also dabbled in pools that ruined others and had many labor problems and questionable labor practices.  He was always able to separate business affairs from his personal ones and knew there was always a calculated cost in what he did.  I think he did not put human feelings and emotions into his equation though.  He did not think of the hard scrapple life people who worked for him lived, perhaps they barely had enough to pay for food for a growing family.  Perhaps they had a sick child or spouse.  Yes he was philanthropic but to all, I think he could have done better for those who worked for him personally in the various layers of his empire.

     In conclusion, Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts while immense, did not make up for the slights he should to those average workers who were the true cogs in the machine that made his empire one of the greatest conglomerates of all time.

Jennifer Keller writes:

I am very conflicted with this question, “Did Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts justify his questionable business practice?” Carnegie’s rise to enormous wealth was driven by hard work, ingenuity, and business improvements. Some of his practices may seem unethical from the perspective of modern day however these practices were common place during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. This does not however excuse Carnegie’s constant undermining of workers wages, workers rights and sometimes shady business practices. Carnegie undoubtedly wished to make money. This is evident throughout the book: continuing to work, competitiveness, slashing cost and maximizing profit. Carnegie seemed concerned with his overall image and he missed the opportunity to set a higher standard for relationships between the worker and the businessmen. Carnegie’s philanthropy was evident that he had a constant conflict with wealth. However, the money that he donated is still assisting the American community today. These mammoth donations however were gained on the backs of under paid workers. I believe that a pay raise for workers still would have resulted in colossal wealth for Carnegie and his future endowments.

Christina Cone writes:

Yes.

Maria Delaney writes:

Carnegie believed that his philanthropic efforts justified his business practices.  Since business was his first love he was forced as a businessman to make decisions that did not favor his family and friends.  Rising out of the poverty cycle and driven by internal conflict Carnegie emerged into a renown businessman of his time.  His drive, determination and establishment of business practices created a model for other businessmen to follow. 

Joan Lopardo writes:

Based upon the times in which Andrew Carnegie lived, his “questionable business practices” were similar to the practices of the “captains of industry” of his time.  What are considered to be questionable business practices today were within the law during Carnegie’s time.  Although he profited from insider trading and “influenced” politicians, Carnegie was willing to start from the bottom up and capitalized on every employment and business opportunity that was presented to him.  He was driven to become self-educated, adapted to new situations, had good insights in making profitable business decisions as a result.  His early life must have had a significant influence on the person who he became, partly because his family left Scotland in shame when his father clung to the life he knew, even though he was unable to support his family and could not adapt to change. 

Carnegie’s most questionable business practice would be considered to be his role in the Homestead strike of 1893.  Livesay indicates that before this strike, “Carnegie’s companies had had relatively few labor problems … because [he] had kept his mills running full … workers … enjoyed steady employment.” (p. 145).  Also, Carnegie’s companies had not followed anti-union policies.  With the Homestead strike, even though he wanted to eliminate the union as a bargaining agent, Carnegie was conflicted.  Based on his reputation he attempted to distance himself from the strike by going to Scotland and leaving Frick to handle it, knowing full well how it would be handled.  Carnegie’s reputation was permanently damaged by the strike’s events and he regretted it for the rest of his life, having been quoted about the incident as being “the most embarrassing thing in my life.” 

Although he did not begin his philanthropic work until 1881 by giving a library to his hometown in Scotland, his philanthropic efforts did justify business practices that would be viewed as questionable.  His philosophy of life was revealed in a dictum in which he indicated that the first third of a person’s life should be spent getting all the education one can—which he did, much through self-education.  The next third was believed to be spent making all the money one possibly could, and the last third was to be spent giving it all away for worthwhile causes.  To establish many libraries and schools in this country and his native land, Carnegie gave away most of his money.  Therefore, being a product of his time, Carnegie’s business practices were justified by his philanthropic efforts.   

Mary Goldberg writes:

A young immigrant boy came to America to discover the American Dream and he earned it. He had a hunger for business and wealth and devoted his life to achieve his goals during a period in history that lacked government regulations and unions to abide by.  Climbing the ladder of success afforded him many opportunities to learn and understand the world of business from the bottom up. This gave him the insights needed to help him build his steel empire; cost accounting and vertical integration helped to increase his profit margins due to production efficiency, hired young and eager workers who had a similar vision of the workplace, and understood the significance of new technology to keep ahead of his competitors. Perhaps there were some ruthless tactics involved such as influencing public officials for favors, eliminating competition by reducing cost, and schemes that backfired like the Homestead Strike, insider trading, etc.  However, due to the time period, they were accepted and understood practices-unchartered territory…”business is business”…. and they were engaged in the game.  These innovative early entrepreneurs sculpted a business model and created the foundation of the US economy that would navigate up until this day. The rules of business have changed since the Gilded Age, but it was risk takers and highly motivated people like them that not only changed our economy but prepared us to be global competitors.

No. Carnegie gave away money because he wanted to see himself as a generous man.

Paul DeMatteo writes:

NO!  I believe that Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts were his attempt to craft his own image.   Although the argument was made that he was only executing what the common business practices were common at the time, the book hints that he was aware that the way he profited was not the most ethical.  We talk about how he streamlined and created new business practices, but we have to remember that there is a human factor involved – peoples lives were effected.  Carnegie was an opportunist – a Capitalist -  he entered into business for one reason …money.  He made a lot of it.  He enjoyed the process, as well as the profit.  The market place was unregulated by government and controlled by people like him.  He was a man driven by wealth and status. In the book there are accounts that he did not want to be a failure like his father. Being from Europe, his family name and lineage were important; how a man is remembered reflects upon the way that he lived.  They way Carnegie writes his legacy is plausible deniability.  He wanted to be a gentleman in the European fashion, a man of leisure and learning, but he cant quite give up the life of a business tycoon.  He wants to be Enlightened.  He sings the accolades and the virtues and the opportunities that Democracy affords people in America, but when these very principals intrude on his business model and profit margin – he comes down upon them as with his actions with the Homestead Strike.  He allowed Frick to be bad guy, but it was Carnegie himself that gave Frick the tacit approval to take the actions that history records.  Carnegie bought his reputation with the monies that he made over a lifetime of insider trading and exploitation of his workforce.  Andrew Carnegie has the best philanthropic reputation that money can buy!

Sarah Ahmedani writes:

This question is as ambiguous as Carnegie himself. The answer is not wholly yes or wholly no. Carnegie is a dichotomy of a man and so follows a very confused view of him.  Carnegie’s philanthropy is important even today- colleges, libraries, scholarships all in his name continue to be as relevant today as they were when they were endowed. His business practices, although unethical and unfair to laborers by todays’ standards, became the example by which businesses would draw from. Carnegie created a model based on cost, which allowed him to prosper. Without this system his business models would not have thrived. Considering that he prospered at the expense of the less fortunate feels morally wrong- however it is hard to escape the questions in my mind had he not adhered to social Darwinism. Would industry have boomed without him? Would the railroads, telegraphs, and steel industries have merged to build an empire? What would the effects have been on expansion? I find it difficult to condemn him when his efforts clearly revolutionized American business and American lifestyle with long lasting effects.

At the same time as I praise Carnegie’s strategy- it is clear that there are shades of moral grey. Carnegie seemed to have lived in a world all on his own- unable to hold meaningful personal relationships.. I do believe that he had a plan for himself in his world. Carnegie did not give out of the kindness of his heart- I believe that it was part of his plan to leave a mark on the world, his philanthropy made it possible for him to be remembered. His donations were even controlled and he only gave to those he felt were worthy of receiving (churches, libraries, education). All of his donations were objects that would last a long time if not forever. His philanthropy was his ultimate gift to himself - to be remembered as a generous man. 

Michaela Riviello writes:

Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts justified his business practices to Carnegie, but not to me. However, Carnegie did not believe his business practices were questionable. He used loopholes, workers were forced into seven-day work weeks, worker complaints were ignored, he avoided helping friends such as Scott. Carnegie even stated, “I was not tempted for a moment to entertain the idea of involving myself.” The book went on to state, “He owed Scott a great deal, but not that much.”  As a businessman, Carnegie was overwhelmingly success. He served as the model of a businessman. He had a remarkable ability to separate business from personal. In Carnegie’s defense, his money is still doing good deeds. On the other hand, Carnegie had the opportunity to something great for the capitalist model and for the American people. Instead, he seemed to make his donations based on upon the areas in society in which he deemed necessary.

Jen Hennessey writes:

 I think this question comes down to motivation. Carnegie was not driven to make money in order to give it away. Everything that Carnegie did was about him and his image. His donations were mainly things that would last and would be forever remembered as being donated by him. True to his belief in Social Darwinism, the things donated were things to be utilized by those who were attempting to better themselves or those he deemed worthy, not to people who didn’t have the ability to help themselves. I don’t think Carnegie made these donations because of guilt, but rather, to complete the image of what a great man he thought he was.  He could dominate in business and be the best philanthropist as well.  If he truly believed in helping people, he would have started donating money much earlier in his life. 

On the other side, I would have to concede that without Carnegie, our economy might not have flourished as it did. The manner in which he managed his businesses most definitely served as a model for efficiency.  And yes, his donations are still benefitting the world today. I think the bottom line is he used questionable practices because he could, and he gave away a lot of money because he could.  In the end, I think Carnegie’s motivation was self-centered in creating his legacy without much thought to the people affected by his decisions. 

Christy Ortiz writes:

No, Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts did not justify his questionable business practices. The fact that Carnegie gave away so much money has helped and will continue to help improve peoples’ lives. However, it doesn’t make up for the way he treated his workers. Carnegie had the perfect opportunity to use his money to pay his workers a decent wage. He could have set a positive example for other capitalists and he missed his chance. Instead, he withheld the money because he didn’t think his workers were smart enough to spend it wisely. Instead, Carnegie would spend the money on their behalf by donating it to build libraries, supply churches with organs, and provide students with scholarships. If Carnegie really wanted to make a positive impact, he would have considered the lives of his workers. How can a man who spent so much time traveling to Europe and entertaining in his castle, think that working seven days a week was acceptable? Carnegie demonstrated his view of labor when he escaped to Scotland during the Homestead Strike. He realized that his unwillingness to give them higher wages would be problematic and decided he didn’t want to be around to deal with the consequences. He purposely secluded himself and sent word to Frick to do as he saw fit. It was only after the fact that he expressed regret for his actions. Yes, Carnegie’s money has helped and will continue to help many people. However, he had the chance to make an even bigger impact on labor relations and he missed his opportunity.

NO.

Nancy Raftery writes:

Andrew Carnegie represented the true spirit of capitalism.  He amassed an untold fortune by his ceaseless drive to succeed through hard work and determination.  He often did this, however, at the expense of his workers who were not sharing in the huge profits.  Through his success, he was able to offer a large number of workers some type of employment.  Perhaps he did feel twinges of guilt as a result, which lead him to donate his fortune amongst various charities.  It is my opinion, however, that his drive to succeed was not out of vengeance to put down the working man, but to prove to himself that he could in fact succeed.

Book #3

After reading and discussing The West the Railroads Made  by Carlos A. Schwantes and James P. Ronda, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:

To what extent did the railroad end sectionalism and unify the United States?

The Railroad standardized American culture and thus, unified the United States.

Christina Cone writes:

            The book lays out compelling information to support the statement that the railroad did indeed end sectionalism and unify the United States.  After the Mexican War, the United States was a truly continental nation.  The railroad served the need for communication with the new territories.  There was a belief that the railroad could also politically tie together the country and it even earned the nickname of the “iron band.”  While it did foster sectional controversies and debates over extensions, as everyone wanted their city to be the hub, ultimately “it married the Atlantic and the Pacific.”

            The railroads led to the standardization across the country in regards to engineering and time.  It created industrial order in the form of engineering issues, standardized depot designs, switching yards, uniform gauge, and the importance of precision.  It also led to the adaptation of standardized times.  In the past, steamboat and stagecoach schedules varied by the season.  The railroads triumphed over nature.  Railroad managers introduced railroad time zones to solve the confusion of hundreds of local time standards.  Failure to observe accurate time could lead to head on collisions. 

The railroads also led to the standardization of American culture.  The delivery of the Sears catalog to the West and the shipping of consumer goods allowed the West to look like the East.  Fashion, books, building materials all spanned the continent.  There was also the beginning of nationally recognized brands.  Furthermore, the invention of refrigerated cars allowed for perishable goods to reach elsewhere and diets to become more uniform as well.

As the book stated, “the railroads annihilated time and space.”  Distance was measured not in miles but rather in hours and minutes.  Local economies became regional ones, and regional ones became national.  Certainly, the railroads helped to populate the West and changed the landscape leading to greater similarity from sea to sea.

Anna Fisk writes:

             The railroad played a major role in ending sectionalism and unifying the United States in many ways.  The railroad transformed the way America thought about itself.  People no longer measured things by distance but rather by time.  Time became standardized and the country became “smaller” as travel to the west became easier.  Commerce no longer went from North to South but rather from East to West as the railroads became the main artery moving people, goods and ideas.  As more and more of American culture were easily transported west, America became more unified.  National brands emerged as all Americans were able to have a “Sears” catalog delivered to them and could order the same goods no matter where they lived.  Food, clothing and even houses were easily transported and soon the west was able to adopt the same culture and attitudes as the east helping to eliminate sectionalism and unite Americans.  When people are able to share the same things culturally, it can help ease the differences brought by the geographical sectionalism naturally occurring it a country as vast as the United States was before the railroad helped unite it.

 Maria Delaney writes:

The railroad ended sectionalism and unified the United States.  This was achieved in many ways.  First, it created a time zone which intern created a more structured environment for the American nation.  This changed the pace for the American society.  The American practices became more standardized and less creative.  For example, measurement and material for the railroad became the same.  The uniforms, procedures and depots for the railroads all were all marketed and practiced the same in all stations across America. 

The railroads also spread new trends in culture across America.  Sears was created which allowed for different common house hold items to be transported.  It made life simpler and more intriguing for the average American.  It gave them hope and dreams to have a more quality life style.

Nancy Raftery writes:

The railroads served as the arteries of the growing nation to achieve the dream of Manifest Destiny.  The railroads served to standardize American culture to some extent, providing all Americans with a common concept of time, products, food, culture and brands.  As Western towns developed, they were being modeled on those of the East, providing a common culture that helped to erase some portion of the sectionalism that was present.  Americans worked toward a common goal of civilizing the West through the spread of a common American culture.

Jennifer Keller writes:

            Railroad development boomed in the mid to late 1800’s. The drive to move West through the use of railroads helped to end sectional differences and unified the United States. The railroads made this possible by creating standardization in tools and measurement, and spreading American culture.

In order to create a transcontinental railroad that was used by multiple trains, tracks need to be a unified size. Also, trains needed to be relatively similar in construction with similar gauges, bolts and materials. This uniformity would allow trains to move more quickly and efficiently across the continental United States. As a result depots were also similar in construction, signals and instructions.

In addition the wide spread use and popularity of the Sears Roebuck catalogue also encouraged American continuity. People in the East and West were able to have access to similar fashions and materials. The transportation of natural resources such as lumber also allowed homes in the West, once built from sod, to be built like homes in the East.

Michaela Riviello writes:

             The standardization of American life probably started within the railroad construction itself. The railroads prided themselves in standardized equipment, tracks tools, employee behavior and practices. Employees were required to maintain these standards at all times.

In turn, the railroad helped to facilitate a common American culture. Social norms and cultures were dictated by the cities in the East. Women out West were intrigued by the latest styles and fashions generated from mail order catalogs. Sears and Roebuck catalogs were able to share their goods, styles, and standards across the entire nation. Everything from fashion, to home furnishings to actual houses could be purchased. Standardized time altered the pace of society, in general. The sun, the seasons, and crop rotations no longer determined the pace of life. The new and artificial standardized time became the new “clock.” People across the nation now scheduled themselves based on railroad time. It also sped up the pace of American life. Even the foods, in the American diet were transformed. Food could be transported in refrigerated cars across the country bringing once considered seasonal foods to people year-round. 

The overall impact of the railroad industry was far-reaching and truly transformed the American landscape.

 Christy Ortiz writes:

 A quick comparison of lives led by citizens in all parts of the United States would leave a person with the impression that Easterners and Westerners are vastly different. The geography of the East and West has dictated what industries will survive in specific parts of the states.

Despite these obvious differences, there are many ways in which peoples’ lives are similar. The railroad has been largely responsible for unifying the states and contributed to the standardization of American culture. As noted in the book, “The machine made west required uniformity, predictability, and respectability.” The railroad companies themselves standardized everything about their operation from the gauge of the tracks, the size of the bolts, the workers’ uniforms, as well as the paper and envelopes in the depots! 

The railroad also brought the East to the West. It shipped items from catalogs like Sears and Roebuck to the west for citizens to enjoy. Westerners were also eating the same foods as Easterners and were able to have fresh produce throughout the winter. Lumber from the east was shipped west so the settlers could live in the same wood homes as easterners instead of sod houses. Thanks to the railroad, standard time was created and everyone began to live their lives on a set schedule.

Mary Goldberg writes:

Manifest Destiny-the idea that God had given the entire continent to America and wanted to settle western land, according to John O’Sullivan a magazine editor.  By 1800, Americans began to travel westward in search of land, adventure, religion, rights, etc. While most American lived east of the Mississippi River, many continued westward across the Great Plains and Rocky mountains to California and the Pacific Northwest. The mode of transportation in the early 1800’s was basically stagecoaches or covered wagons which was slow and dangerous along treacherous roads, dealing with weather conditions. etc. Later, with the building of canals and the use of rivers, the steamboats came along which were faster, more efficient and cheaper but were limited to certain destinations. By 1830, the railroads was the new mode of transportation which at first did not win universal support but as time progressed, many began to look at the railroads as the main artery to the West.

The American dream of Manifest Destiny did not only expand our boundaries from the East coast to the West coast but to eventually would unify our country-socially, politically and economically. As a new young nation, it became the dream that our country would grow and prosper and acquiring more land was one of the goals. The East coast at this time developed into two distinct sections and geography influenced the economies of the North and South.  The West developed as people were in search of other pursuits that the East coast perhaps did not fulfill for them and so three isolated parts of our country developed. With three different agendas, feelings of loyalty and commitment for their region, a country that needed to unify was slowly tearing apart.

The railroads that were once frowned upon by critics as” dirty smoke, soot and fire” would eventually help to unify our segregated sections. The advantages of train travel soon took roots and it helped to transform the identity of the United States. It encouraged the development of the West and helped to expand trade between the three sections and beyond. As the railroads expanded, they created national markets for many goods by making transportation cheaper. It helped to decrease the feelings of sectionalism as communication and travel became more accessible. The Sears and Roebuck catalogue increased awareness that people shared similar styles and interests. News traveled quicker and the populations were less insular as “news and views” exchanged between the regions. The RR benefited in the development of trade relationships as various sections were searching for business beyond the established boundaries. The RR provided different avenues of communication for the three sections which began to sew the sections closer to each other as they began to realize that they needed each other-whether they liked it or not. The more they knew why and how others would think- the more understanding was possible.

The RR was able to provide motivation and hope for many who were either searching for a new adventures, life, dreams, business or perhaps taking a journey to the unknown.

Joan Lopardo writes:

             A driving force behind the transcontinental railroad was Manifest Destiny, effectively illustrated in an engraving by artist John Gast entitled “Spirit of the Frontier.”  It shows settlers, herdsmen, a stagecoach, and trains moving westward under the guidance of “guardian angel” bearing forms of the new technology of the 1800s, while ships are in the background, in a water route appearing to drift off in the northeast.  The west is darkened and mysterious, appearing to have undeveloped potential.  It was believed to be “providence” for the U.S. to connect the East to the Pacific, but this belief was further influenced by lands obtained as a result of the Mexican War and the Oregon Treaty of 1846 between the U.S. and Great Britain.  Many of those who previously doubted building a railroad was crucial for national prosperity and the way to surpass Europe as an economic power were convinced after these events.

Before the completion of a transcontinental railroad, sections of the United States had different political, social, and economic concerns.  However, the long-sought idea of reaching a route to the Northwest Passage and the riches of the Far East were encouraged by huge efforts by railroad developers and investors.  They created “propaganda” about the glamorous potential of the western frontier lands through posters, brochures, and essays to entice and influence people to move west toward the Pacific via rail.  Even though the geography through which the rail lines would be built would be more costly than transporting goods by ship, the mindset of the public was that they were determined to build a transcontinental railroad that surpassed anything previously built.

As the railroads continued to build westward, the need for a uniform time system became necessary to prevent train wrecks and for travelers to be able to make connections between rail lines through reliable schedules.  As a result, standardized time zones were implemented, changing the way of life from keeping time by sunrise and sunset along with the seasons.  This quickened the pace of life for many.  In addition, the rail companies required that employees wear uniforms and designed specific requirements for railroad stations as well. 

Benefits of the westward moving railroad were refrigerated cars that enabled the transport of foods to marketplaces over great distances without spoiling, bringing goods such as mail order catalog items from Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward that ranged from clothing, kits for building houses, and household items.  Another benefit was that communication and travel was reduced from years to months to days through a mail system and the telegraph lines that were eventually laid.  Therefore, the railroad had a major influence on unifying the United States and ending sectionalism in that people from coast to coast were unified in all aspects of their lives by what they ate, wore, where they lived, and a means of communication.    

Karen Van Dover writes:

That the railroad helped to end sectionalism is a given. To what extent the railroad did this, and unified the United States in the process, is difficult to determine.

Certainly before the advent of the railroad, America was more a collection of regions than a unified country with standardized practices and culture. The institution of time zones and timetables brought sections of the country closer together and caused Americans to become more time-conscious. A time-aware populace began to rely more on clocks and less on the sun to drive daily activities. Our time-conscious society today has its roots in the railroad.

Catalog stores, such as Sears, relied on the railroad for their existence, and the same homes, clothes, tools, and household goods found their way to all parts of the nation, thus helping to unify our country. The catalogs offered not only the latest goods, but the latest opinions, tidbits about proper manners, and what was “hot” in various sections of the country, which contributed to standardization of the culture and gave people in different locales more in common than they had before the catalog days.

The enticing travel brochures brought people from all walks of life together in new places, encouraging a blending of various ideas, backgrounds, and politics. The shorter time to get “from here to there,” helped to make America a smaller place.

The influence of the railroads is considerable, but how considerable is a matter of opinion. 

The railroad did unify the country, but sectionalism still exists.

Matthew Karmin writes:

             While the creation of the railroad is often considered to be a major factor in the settlement of the United States, it is clear that the railroad also played a vital role in the standardization of American culture.  Additionally, the railroad also served to reduce sectionalism and unify the United States.

The Sears catalogue is a perfect example of how a “nation brand” was created that diminished the differences between the East and West.  Common culture was shaped and ensured that the people in the West shared cultural traits with their counterparts in the East.  The slogan “uniformity, predictability, respectability” which defined the railroad also served to introduce standards throughout the United States.  The Railroad even had an effect on the time zones.  The “railroad time” brought about a common means of measuring time.  This brought about an even greater change; distance was no longer measured in miles.  People began to measure distance in travel time.

The railroad station became more than just a place to purchase tickets.  These hubs of information became a place where people would meet to talk about politics, read about gossip, and learn about what was happening around the country.  This new gathering place became a link to the outside world.  In addition, directional commerce changed from North and South to East and West, thus further shrinking the United States and creating a truly national economy.  The advent of the railroad provided a means for goods to be shipped throughout the entire country.  Everything from clothing to books to food could now be shipped wherever railroad tracks existed.

While the railroad did create a more standardized country, sectionalism still does exist.  There still exist many parts of the country that have not been urbanized to the extent of the easternmost and westernmost states.  One cannot ignore that there are still many cultural difference between the states.  

Nancy Stewart writes:

The advent of the railroad greatly unified and standardized American culture.  First, the railroad allowed for much easier and faster travel across the nation, and people began using rail travel not only for the practical purpose of moving from one place to another but also as a recreational activity for vacation time; seeing and experiencing other parts of the country was now possible and appealing thanks to the railroad.  Ever increasing cross-country travel necessitated the standardization of time; prior to this local time was based on the position of the sun, and resulted in hundreds of local time standards.  Lack of standardization of time led to difficulties when trying to meet connecting trains as well as the potential for accidents on the rails; as a result, the creation of the time zones which we are familiar with today came about at this time, as the entire nation began to run on “railroad time.”  The beginning of catalog shopping, most especially the Sears Roebuck catalog and the Montgomery Ward catalog, made the same products available from coast to coast.  Products from clothing to tools to dry goods to home furnishings to even the homes themselves could be ordered and delivered by rail anywhere in the country.  Natural resources could now be easily shipped from place to place as well, and towns in the west began to look very much like towns in the east as buildings were made from materials brought in from elsewhere rather than using local materials.  The invention of the refrigerated car allowed for the transportation of meats, fruits, and vegetables from one part of the nation to another, and therefore even diet became standardized among Americans.  However, the railroad could not completely end sectionalism.  Different areas of the United States continued to be distinct from one another, and so although there was some continuity of culture resulting from the influence of the railroad, it is the case that the flavor of the south continued to be, and continues to be today, different from the flavor of the north; the northeast remains distinct from the Midwest or the Pacific northwest, and so on.  Therefore, although the railroad did unify the nation physically and culturally, it did not completely end sectionalism in the United States.

Cathy Sebesta writes:

The railroad didn’t end sectionalism, but created a more homogenous nation.

Chauncy Cone writes:

The railroad ended sectionalism and unified the United States to the extent that one could consider it a more homogenous nation after the establishment of the rail system. There were various ways that this was accomplished which included: the sale of uniformed products; time zones; diet changes and the delivery of mail.

The Sears and Montgomery Ward catalogs revolutionized the way people purchased products throughout the nation and with the advent of the railway system helped to unify a once fractionalized country. The catalogs made available goods that were only offered regionally, to the entire nation. Trains made this possible through the carrying manufactured items to different areas which once had no opportunity to purchase these goods.

Another way that that the railroad helped to unify the nation was through the establishment of uniformed time zones. Prior to this, time was kept differently in various parts of the nation. The train, for safety as well other reasons, were forced to create time zones to ensure that schedules were keep and that trains did not collide.

By covering vast areas of the nation, the railroad helped to change the diet of its citizens by offering meals that were once local staples to the rest of the country. Fruits and vegetables that once spoiled could now be shipped via rail and enjoyed by the whole country. Anheuser Busch was one of the first companies that took advantage of this by offering its frothy adult beverages to the parts of the nation outside of St. Louis.

Lastly, the mail system brought the country together and it was through the train lines that this was accomplished. The Pony Express, which was put under by the railroads, was seen as a system that helped to bring news across the nation at an amazing rate. The train however ended this institution and made mail and news delivery much quicker and reliable.

Prior to the advent of the train and the railway system, the U.S. was a factionalized bunch of states and territories loosely tied together through a common bond of national government. However, the railroad would change all of that. It helped to allow Americans to buy products manufactured from across the land, keeping time consistent throughout the newly established time zones, shipping food grown in the south to the north and vice versa, it also bonded us through communications via mail and news.

 Paul DeMatteo writes:

    It did not.  Sectionalism and regionalism still exists in the America of the 21^st century.  As far as “unify”… I would substitute that word with “Homogenized”.  The railroad fundamentally changed the nature and rhythm of American life, as well as that of the - Native American Indian tribes – the natural landscape – indigenous wild life – and the ecosystem.

The history of the railroad possesses a host of accomplishments, achievements, innovations and embarrassments.  It has come to represent an era of American ingenuity full of stories, legends and lore.  It created a network of trade and demand and markets; “nature was transformed and transported”.  Products-food-building materials of the east were imported to the west and vice versa.  National brands and uniform standards and practices developed.  Time itself was transformed from seasons – months and days to miles per hour – minutes and seconds.  Regularity and precision marked by train whistles became a welcomed friend.  The manufactured image perpetuated by the railroad industry has left its mark with a nostalgic sense of Americana.    

The railroad may have actually increased sectionalism and competition between different regions of the United States.

Jennifer Hennessey writes:

 At first glance, the railroad ended sectionalism to a great degree. As the railroad brought common goods, brands, and even time zones to the entire population, a common American culture formed. Prior to the transcontinental railroad, it was not possible to know what the fashions in New York looked like or to have access to certain goods that were created on the other side of the country. National name brands and the use of common goods made cities, homes, people, and their possessions look alike, creating a common culture.  In addition, the country became smaller as it now became possible to imagine travelling to far off places that at one time seemed a world away.

 In the time period following the construction of the transcontinental railroad, however, one may argue that sectionalism increased to a degree.  The economy of St. Louis declined once Chicago became the eastern hub, and it is plausible that this increased sectionalism to a degree as a region and industry was left out of the boom in commerce that developed between the east and the west. Those who worked on the Mississippi River fought to keep their industry alive, and they might view those cities flourishing from the railroad as undeserving. As the financiers of the railroads were mostly businessmen from New England, those who did not benefit from the railroad might also harbor negative feelings toward the “rich New Englanders” who took away their livelihood.

 Robin M. Jacobsen writes:

      When I imagine the railroad of the early industrial era, I picture this “magic bullet” that was able to fulfill the dream of many people filled with the wanderlust of dreams to come. Yet my dream that was shaped by Movie Westerns and episodes of “Little House on the Prairie”, is not a true reality.  While the railroad in essence made the country smaller, for example travel was now measured in hours not miles, it did not make the country one cohesive whole.   Even to this day we refer to regions of this country as the “northeast”, the “south”, and the “mid west” (for example).  Each region still to this day, competes which each other over which is the truest example of “American” culture.       

    So in essence, the train actually forged and created competition between these areas over which had better cities, colleges, people, and businesses.  Early train advertisements even show that different areas of the country called for certain types of immigrants to settle there.  There were advertisements written in German to entice that group to settle in Kansas.  It seemed that the message was, other immigrants groups need not apply. 

     While the west was no longer a dream, or far way vision of making one’s life better, different regions offered different choices for people to choose from.  So to answer the question, while the railroad made traveling to different parts of the country faster and more efficient, the railroad might have actually created more sectionalism between different areas of the country by allowing each area to develop at its own rate, and fight for the title of the best town in America.

Greg Sill writes:

The Railroads helped to end sectionalism and unify the United States by bringing the industrial culture of the East to the West.  It enhanced the Notion of Manifest Destiny by making it a reality faster than anyone thought was possible.  The Sears catalogue was pivotal in creating a unified culture by offering the West the latest fashions, gadgets, appliances and other items that were available in the East.  Plus, railroads brought important resources to the west such as wood from Chicago and the use of refrigerated cars were crucial in the development of the rise of national corporations like Budweiser and Sears.  The railroads made a connection to the west that was no longer measured by distance, but was instead measured by time.  The railroad industry standardized time and created uniform railroad stations that became the major hub of cities from Chicago to Seattle.  Railroads became part of the national culture with engineers gaining fame for their efforts, as well as, news and mail traveling the landscape faster than ever before.

However, despite this impact on the national culture, the creation of the railroads sparked some regional rivalries.  St. Louis and Chicago battled to become the main hub to the west and Portland and Seattle were also pitted against one another.  Throughout the construction on the railroads, companies competed with one another in what was called the “Railroad Wars.”  This lead to the eventual decline of the railroad barons and created an environment of competition between different regions of the country.

The concept of the railroads and the exchange of goods brought the nation together and is usually painted with a romantic brush, however, the actual process and construction of the railroads had crude results that eventually led to its own decline.

Sarah Ahmedani writes:

The railroad can be said to have helped end sectionalism, but also to have increased competition.  After the Civil War the railroad certainly helped to unite the country in its dreams of the west. Often called “the arteries of the nation, the railroad moved the American people into a new direction, one that would standardize the culture. Towns began to flourish along track lines, hubs were established and with that came new commerce and new customers to new lands. The speed of the railroads transformed  perspectives of space and time- what would have taken days now took- hours. This transformation allowed for the establishment of big corporations such as Sears, to establish a national brand. Americans began eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, and living in the same houses. The west moved from rugged and untamed to  “civilized” and organized. The railroads made this shift possible with its mail order system the delivery of goods from the east and vice versa was made possible. Trade shifted, no longer was trade concentrated on Northern and Southern routes provided by the Mississippi- but now trade routes moved east to west.

With the standardization of American culture, came competition provided by the very same corporations. Bad PR, combined with greed of these corporations ultimately led to the downfall of the railroads and the original ideas of what greatness they would bring.

BOOK #2

Could the Confederacy have won the Civil War?           

Yes, if Robert E. Lee had fought a defensive war instead of losing at Gettysburg.

Chauncy Cone writes:

I believe that in fact the Confederacy could have won the Civil War. If some of the tactics used by Robert E. Lee would have been different. While Lee is seen as a brilliant commander and tactician, he stubbornness in refusing to fight the war outside of Virginia hurt the Confederacy’s war effort. Lee also was regarded as a “gentleman soldier” which was not well suited for this conflict.

Robert E. Lee was is one of the most revered military leaders in American history. He is someone that has been credited longevity of the Southern struggle while facing a dominant Northern army with superior military forces and supplies. However, I would argue that Lee made several decisions that hampered his success. First of all, he focused all of his efforts in Virginia, while siphoning off soldiers and supplies from other key areas of the engagement. If Lee would have allowed the war to be waged in other fronts other than Virginia, the Confederacy could have won battles in the North allowing for a boost in moral for the Confederacy while diminishing the will of the North.

Secondly, Lee was a “gentleman soldier.” By this, I mean that he was one whom used only used military practices that were seen as acceptable for this time period. If he had veered from this position and used guerilla tactics, as his counterparts in the North had done, then he could have helped the Southern cause.  Sherman’s march to Atlanta was not only a military victory, but also a psychological one for the Union. If Washington, D.C. or Philadelphia had been burned to the ground like Atlanta, this could have been the moral boost the Confederacy needed to secure victory.

Paul DeMatteo writes:

The answer to this is like answering a rhetorical question.  The outcome of the American Civil War was indeed the defeat of the Southern Confederacy and a Northern Union victory.  The answer to the question “Could have” is difficult to do with out another question…. “What If”.

Historically, one of the first items that is analyzed and discussed is statistical.  The Northern industry and ability to replace fallen soldiers with Irish immigrants, and later on escaped Slaves, gave them a succinct advantage fighting a war of attrition.  In addition, the battle fields are predominantly in the South, leaving northern factories and supply origins unscathed.  The Southern solider, although not as well equipped as their Federal counterparts, did possess a felling of camaraderie and “small unit cohesion”.  The southerner was fighting for home and family.  They grew up together and volunteered together.  An instant brotherhood was formed from the onset. The war and its hardships were more personal. 

As the war progressed, I face a crossroads in addressing the thesis of this essay, the “What If”.  It is at the Battle of Gettysburg where my conundrum lies. All the authors in Boritt’s book have agreed that the North was losing interest and momentum in the early years of the war.  Lincoln was feeling pressure to come to terms with the Confederacy.   IF Robert E. Lee stuck to his original war plan and strictly fought a defensive war, I believe the Confederacy would have won their independence from the Union.  It is the attempt by Lee to win a decisive victory on Union territory that decides the Confederacy’s fate. 

Without the Northern victory at Gettysburg and the subsequent Gettysburg Address that followed, the Union had found its purpose and resolve - as this occurred, the Confederate solider was losing his.  In the attempts to sustain the Confederate army, the ideals of states rights were replaced by marshal law and the commandeering of southern personal property.  Add to this the psychological and physical destruction inflicted by the command of U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman’s policy of total war – the resolve and ability of the Confederacy to continue the fight as cohesive army was lost.

Brian Thone writes:

Maybe in an ideal world the Confederacy could have won the war.  If everything went perfectly and no mistakes were made, possibly the Confederacy could have won.  From the beginning the Confederacy was the major underdog.  The North possessed almost every advantage from money, manufacturing, population, and railroads. The Confederacy's best chance was to maintain fighting a defensive war.  As long as they maintained an army in the field it was the North's responsibility to win the war.  If the Confederacy could drag the war on so that the Union lost its will to fight and public opinion turned against the war the Confederacy could have possibly won.  When Robert E. Lee decided to invade the North and tried to win a major victory at Gettysburg he made his biggest mistake. Lee should have followed Washington's strategy of defensive retreat.  Washington realized that he did not have numbers to fight the British in major open field battles.  Lee should have done the same.  The Confederacy could not continue to lose the numbers of causalities that the Union could.  After a Union victory at Gettysburg and Sherman's march to the sea the Confederacy had lost all chances at victory.  Robert E. Lee realized this and surrendered at Appomattox thus ending the war.

Mary Goldberg writes:

Gabor S. Boritt presents a series of historical essays by Civil War historians on their views of the American Civil War.  The topic of this war over many years has been debated, reviewed, revised and the controversies still go on today. I would imagine that the very nature of a civil war not only tears the country in half but also challenges the heart and soul of the people who dwell within those boundaries. We can look at the economic, political and social conditions that existed during that time period that either hindered or contributed to the success of the Union or the Confederacy through the eyes of these five historians. Then of course, we can agree, disagree, or integrate parts of some to create our own revisionist view of why the Confederacy lost the war. 

After reading all five essays by these distinct historians, I found that they each presented interesting and compelling facts and information that supported their views on the outcome of the civil war. I thought that I had a more definitive view on why the South lost however, after carefully reading all essays I began to question my original view. I am not certain that I have completely altered my stand but I am certainly giving other views consideration. Perhaps it is due to maturity and experience of researching more on the topic or perhaps my own core beliefs and views have changed over the years?  Whatever the reason, its reassuring to know that learning evolves and to respect and learn other perspectives makes for an interesting controversy class.

After today’s discussion, many interesting views were presented that could have changed the course of the war.  Internal and external factors were discussed as to what factor factors contributed to the defeat of the Confederacy.  First, Lees’ decision to reverse from a defensive war strategy to an offensive strategy was a critical decision that altered the direction of the war. Losing at Gettysburg not only cost the South thousands of lost men but also set the course of the war. Psychologically, the North begins to feel more confident in its war to preserve the Union and the South needs to rethink its future strategies. Secondly, Lee could have considered a different military strategy that would have had a different impact on the war. He chose a Napoleonic strategy that was traditional and conventional in its methods. The Southern culture was entrenched of the mindset of a “gentlemen’s war” that is honorable however, predictable against the “guerrilla” tactics of the Union. Thirdly, the Confederacy needed to be better equipped with war supplies, food, and transportation to outlast the Union forces. The Confederacy was divided as nation ready to be born.  States Rights was a major reason the Southerners wanted to defend and as time progressed the states themselves were more interested in their own states rather than unifying as one.  Lastly, President Jefferson Davis was considered a weak and stubborn leader who lost sight of the war causing disunity and confusion. In retrospect, the Confederacy could have had the opportunity to win if the internal and external factors coincided in such a way to ensure victory.

Anna Fisk writes:

Of course the confederacy could have won the war.  If external and internal factors had aligned slightly differently perhaps the outcome would have been dramatically different.  For one thing, the Confederacy’s plan had originally been to fight a defensive war.  If they had stayed with that strategy and not attempted the Battle of Gettysburg, the North may never have gotten the moral upper-hand that began to turn the war around. 

Secondly, they needed to keep the goal of their wartime effort more crystal clear so that the Southern soldiers had a clear understanding of what and why they were fighting.  The initial idea of “States’ Rights” seemed like a strong motivator initially but as the war dragged on this very policy ended up hindering the South more than unifying it.  As more and more southerners realized the war had become more about slavery than states’ rights, more soldiers began to question their own loyalty to the cause.

Although the South had strong leadership in terms of strong generals, especially at the start of the war, their leader President Davis was no match for President Lincoln.  This lack of a strong, steady leader led to the South’s demise as it could not keep cohesion among its Confederate states.  Without creating a unified country, it is no wonder that the Southern soldier felt stronger ties to their families and homes over their military units.

Finally, the South also needed to become more resourceful in getting their troops the basics such as food and uniforms.  Again this relates to a lack of strong leadership and ability of the administration to carry out a cohesive wartime effort which Lincoln and the North was able to do much better.  These lack of resources while daunting, alone does not account for the South’s loss, but certainly more resources especially in terms of men may have led to a victory. In hind sight it is easy to see where the South could have adjusted its strategy or improved its policies to ensure a win but as the events unfolded as they did the North was able to eventually capitalize on its position and secure the victory.

Erica Geldmacher writes:

If you made of list of advantages and disadvantages for both sides of the Civil War, you would clearly see that prior to 1860, the North dominated the south.  Industry was developed in the North; you had better systems of transportations with canals, road and railroads. When the war itself breaks out, Union soldiers outnumbered those in the confederacy.  The Union army should have defeated the Confederacy quickly. History shows that this did not occur. The Confederacy was able to stand there ground for a number of years and had many successes on the battlefields. With this being said, I agree that the Confederacy could have one the war.

The Confederacy was originally fighting for “states rights”. They believed that they could nullify laws that they did not agree with and also felt that the US Constitution allowed them to secede.  They used the principal of Natural Rights.  This was a strong argument, which helped them recruit many soldiers to raise arms against the Union. The Union was able to continue a string of attacks with their wealth of resources, better systems of transportation and larger troop numbers.  The Confederacy began to come apart at the seams. They were lacking vital resources such as food for their soldiers. Their farms were being burned and their homes attacked.  This led to a lot of dissention.

General Lee also made some tactical mistakes.  This war was about protecting territory, not gaining new land. This was to protect a border of what they believed to be a sovereign state. By going into the North at Gettysburg, Lee changed the goals of the war.

If the South did not go into Gettysburg Pennsylvania and was able to hold off a little while longer (without the external forces of Grants and Sherman’s strategies), I believe a compromise would have been reached.  If the South had kept things as a defensive war, they might have won. Also Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation complicated things for the Confederacy. This helped neutralized Europe in the war.  This also adjusted the Union goals on the war, shifting from a war to preserve the Union, to one about the abolition of slavery.  All of these had an impact on the war and allowed the Union to eventually win.

Nancy Stewart writes:

                 In teaching history, one thing that I often explain to my students is that history can often be a story of “what ifs” – what if a person had made a different decision?  What if circumstances had aligned differently?  Considering the question “Could the Confederacy have won the Civil War?” is no different.  It is difficult to argue that the outcome of the Civil War was inevitable.  The Confederacy had many obstacles to overcome, but the fact that they held their ground for so many years is evidence that the Union victory was not a given.  In terms of ideology, the Confederacy seems to have had an advantage over the Union.  The Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve their way of life and to assert their right to secede. 

Consider the “what ifs”.  What if the Confederacy had decided to pursue guerilla warfare to a greater extent?  There are many reasons why they did not: the military background of the generals was not geared toward guerilla warfare, and that type of warfare was seen as dishonorable among the genteel southerners.  In addition, to be effective, guerilla warfare requires ceding a certain portion of your territory to your enemy, which the Confederacy was not willing to do.  But guerilla warfare might have caused the war to last much longer than it in fact did.  This was likely seen as a negative factor by the Confederate soldiers, who were concerned about their families left behind to keep order at home, and who wanted to return home as soon as possible.  But the longer the war dragged on, and the less decisive the Union victories, the greater the likelihood that Lincoln might not have been victorious in the election of 1864.  A change of leadership in Washington may have also brought a change in strategy, or a willingness to compromise altogether, which may have allowed the Confederacy to reach its goals.

What if the Confederacy had stuck to its original plan of fighting a defensive war, and had not pushed northward to Gettysburg?  The lack of this key battle, the inability of Lincoln to make his inspirational address, may again have turned the tide in the direction of the Confederacy, or at least not turned the tide in favor of the Union.

What if the Confederacy had not made the war about slavery at all?  The Union perceived that the Confederacy was in fact making slavery an issue of the war when it was not originally.  As a result, the Union felt the need to “abolitionize” their effort, recognizing that to end the war they needed to end slavery.  Had the Confederacy received foreign aid sooner, for example, from Britain, this may have turned the tide of the war in their favor.  However, the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation effectively neutralized the foreign powers who might have aided the Confederacy but at that point could not enter the war on the side of fighting for slavery.  Having outlawed slavery in its own empire, Britain certainly could not enter the war on the side of the Confederacy at this point in time.

It seems that had decisions been different, had circumstances aligned differently, it is entirely possible that the Confederacy could have won the Civil War.  It is true that there were internal and external factors which made their victory extremely difficult and of course, history tells us, which ultimately proved impossible to overcome.  But the outcome was in no way inevitable when the war began.

Yes, if the Confederacy had used guerilla warfare.

Matthew Karmin writes:

                 While the Confederacy had many disadvantages both internally as well as externally, it is not out of the question to think that the Confederacy could have won the civil war.   Several mistakes were made regarding resources and strategy that inevitably gave the Union enough of an advantage that the Confederacy could not overcome.

                The Union soldiers greatly outnumbered the Confederate soldiers so it would have been very difficult to fight a war without using guerilla strategy.  The Confederacy had the advantage of fighting on home land and thus knew the terrain.  Guerilla warfare would have been a better strategy to help make up for the difference in resources.  This did not represent and honorable way of fighting that much of the Confederate soldiers and generals had been schooled in.  Additionally, the fact that so much of the population was made up of slaves made Guerilla warfare difficult to pull off.  Had the generals created better plans employing guerilla warfare, the Union’s numbers advantage could have been neutralized.

                One of the greatest problems that the Confederacy faced was the lack of resources.  Much of the Confederate infrastructure was destroyed and this proved to be a major problem.  Additionally, the war severely disrupted the economy and halted production.  Had the Confederacy been able to fight a more aggressive war and move the fight to the North, it is entirely possible that the Confederacy would not have suffered so much damage.  This would have allowed for a longer fight which might have turned the tide of the war.

                Finally, had Abram Lincoln not issued the Emancipation Proclamation which outlawed slavery in the North, foreign countries like Britain may have joined the Confederacy.  This could have possibly turned the tide of the war and given the Confederacy upper hand.  The Union would have realized that the Confederacy could not be defeated and would have thus allowed them to secede from the Union.  Abraham Lincoln knew that the British would not align with the Confederacy which supported slavery.  This move of making the war about slavery kept foreign countries out of the war and turned the war into a war of attrition.  

Sarah Ahmedani writes:

I would have to say that I believe the Confederacy could have won the war. I think it would be somewhat ignorant to say that nothing could have changed the outcome of the Civil War. Their loss was not inevitable and although the outcome was defeat- many factors could have changed history. The use of Guerrilla warfare was the Confederacy’s greatest advantage their decision to fight a conventional war leveled the playing field. There was no reason the confederacy couldn’t have employed this tactic as well as fought a conventional war. If they had used Guerrilla warfare they may have been able to reduce the numbers in the Union army as well as taking over their resources after an attack.

General Lee was a big factor in the fall of the Confederacy. Had he kept to the strategy of a defensive war, rather than being on the offensive- things certainly could have come out differently, Lee was too focused on a win on northern soil, and protecting Richmond that the Western theatre was largely ignored. The population focused on Lee and regarded him as a hero. I think had he taken the lead- allowed guerrilla warfare, stayed on the defensive and focused more troops in the west Grant, and Sherman may not have been so effective at their psychological warfare against the south. After all by putting the western theater on the back burner the Confederacy allowed the Union Army to advance to the south and employ total war.

If the Confederacy never had the chance to win the war, then why did it last so long? Why did the Union struggle so much for a decisive victory?

The Confederacy had the upper hand at many stages of the early war. Had they changed their strategy to include guerrilla warfare, and the western theater- The South could have won the Civil War.

Joan Lopardo writes:

            After reading and discussing the book, it is possible to interpret this question using “what ifs” or interpret it based on historical events and circumstances.  If Lincoln had not signed the Emancipation Proclamation or had not been reelected, if the Confederate army was more aggressive and used guerilla tactics, perhaps the Confederacy could have won the Civil War. 

In reality, the war waged by the Confederacy was a tactically defensive one with the goal of protecting its territory from being taken over and preserve its armies from total destruction.  For this kind of war, Confederate armies didn’t have to invade the North.  The South needed to hold out long enough for the North to decide that conquering the Confederacy held too high a cost.  The author used the analogies of Britain concluding the same in 1781 and the U.S. realizing about Vietnam in 1972.  It cannot be assumed that because the North had greater resources it was inevitable that the Union would win the war.  If this were the case, would the South have lasted for as long as they did?  As far as military training, a lot of Southerners had military training and went to West Point.  Their way of life included using guns, so they did not need to learn how to be trained in their use.

Looking at the bigger picture, internal and external factors led to the defeat of the Confederacy.   Some reasons why the South lost were that it was the site of almost all battles, and therefore farms and resources were destroyed.  In addition, General Lee didn’t cover the western border while defending Virginia.  The Confederates lost the battle at Gettysburg, which was a major turning point in the war.  Some reasons why the North won were that the Union had more troops so although its casualties were great, they were not felt as profoundly as the Confederacy.  To quote General Lee in his farewell address at Appomattox, “… the army has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources” (more men and guns). 

In order for the Union or Confederacy to be successful politically, they had to win battles, which would improve morale, affect how the military would run, how the government would respond, and Lincoln being able to be reelected.  Lincoln’s success was demoralizing to the South, which led to their will to give up. 

Karen Van Dover writes:

Obviously, if all conditions, participants and their actions were to remain the same, the South could not have won the Civil War.  If any possibility existed at all for a Confederate victory, several things would have had to change.

 If the Southern view had been less myopic and more global, there might have been a Confederate victory. Specifically:

• Southern leaders misjudged England’s need for the South and didn’t discern the importance of India in meeting England’s needs. Had this been anticipated, the Confederacy could have more vigorously pursued foreign support from other sources. There was no real diplomatic effort to do so.
• Lee’s focus on Virginia and his inability to see the Confederacy as a much larger entity led to military missteps that combined to drive the South down the road to defeat.
• Poor communication among the Confederate generals led to defeats that didn’t have to occur.
• If the South had been willing to use guerilla tactics, the North could have been weakened.
• Davis’s failure to consider many points of view and his determination to implement his own vision for the Confederacy, resulted in limiting the strategies, both military and political, available to the South. Lincoln was a humble man, willing to consider the advice of others and take it when it would benefit the Union. If Davis had been willing to follow a similar course, he could have led the Confederacy toward victory.
• Although the North had more manpower, the Confederacy did not take advantage of slaves who were willing to fight for the South, which was an advantage to the North near the end of the war. Had slaves been permitted to fight, it would have helped the South throughout the war and denied the North this benefit later on.
• The South had the capacity to produce more food but didn’t take a farsighted view at the start of the war. They thought the war would be short and didn’t plan for a different possibility. This shortsightedness also led to poor planning in regard to clothing, ammunition, etc.
• The Confederacy lacked the railroads, canals, and the industrialization of the North, so it would be difficult to overcome this disadvantage. However, if there had been better planning, leadership, and a willingness to accept many points of view, they may have been able to mitigate these circumstances.
• There was no real political campaign to organize the Confederacy into a “war machine.”

 No, the lack of unity hurt the Confederacy too much.

Nancy Raftery writes:

The South could in fact have won the Civil War if it had a larger and better equipped military which was led by more capable generals serving under a wiser leader for a more unified purpose.  The internal problems experienced by the South may it much more susceptible to the external pressures placed upon it.  The most significant of the internal problems was a lack of unity among the Southern states.  Each Southern state was increasingly fighting to protect itself, rather than fighting for a unifying concept such as “the Union”, which was the case for the North.  The lack of this unity, and the decision to change from a defensive to an offensive strategy was the death knell for the Confederacy.

Christy Ortiz writes:

No, I don’t think the Confederacy could have won the Civil War. At least, it’s not very likely. There were just too many internal factors that contributed to the Confederate loss. First of all, the Confederacy was just too fragmented when the war began. The Confederacy had just been formed and didn’t have a strong sense of nationalism. The economy was poor and even the new constitution and flag were based on the Union’s. The new country’s citizens were not even united over the cause. Two-thirds of the South’s population didn’t even own slaves. This lack of support on the home front was enough to keep the Confederacy from winning the war. Also, the idea that the war was fought in the South also severely hurt their chances. Since the Confederates didn’t take advantage of guerilla warfare, they essentially stood back and watched their land get ripped apart. The women who were left at home to take care of the family just couldn’t survive without their husbands helping them get food and protecting them from possible slave uprisings. Therefore, wives wrote to their husbands in battle and urged them to come home. Since the Confederates were already losing battles, these men decided that protecting their family was more important to them than fighting a losing battle. This loss of will translated into losing the war. Changing the external factors may give the Confederates a chance at victory, but it’s not possible to fix the fragmentation and loss of will that kept the Confederates from winning. A Confederate win would have only been possible with different leaders and different military strategies.

     No, the Confederacy lacked the necessary resources.

 Kathy Sebesta writes:

The South was in a losing position from the beginning.  Where would they have gotten the weapons, ammunition, leather, etc. to win?  Not only were they short on people to fight the war, the materials to feed, clothe and arm an army weren’t there.  Because they had no navy, they were unable to keep their ports open for trade, and materials. Because of the plantation system the manufacturing enjoyed by the North didn’t exist. Because of slavery—and without slaves, they wouldn’t have developed their economy or culture—they didn’t have the necessary manpower to survive the onslaught of the final ‘surge’. 

Because of the southern culture,  threats posed by  possible slave uprisings made the Confederate soldiers feel obligated to  desert their position on the battlefield, and go home to protect their families.

In order for the South to win this war, most of their conditions and positions would have had to change.  Since the very words of our constitution deny the right to own slaves, [inalienable rights granted by our creator…] the Supreme Court of the time notwithstanding; the South didn’t have a ‘leg to stand on’.  They were at war to defend an unsupportable way of life.

Some historians have said that if Lincoln was the President of the Confederacy, and Davis was President of the Union, that would have turned the tide.  I say the above considerations would have outweighed the advantage of the right man for the job.

Jennifer Hennessey writes:

In order for the Confederacy to have won the Civil War, they would have had to utilize guerilla warfare, thus prolonging the war greatly.  In the long run, I do not believe the Confederacy could survive or sustain a long war.  The factors drawing Confederate soldiers to return to their homes instead of remaining with the army were so great, that eventually the Confederacy would suffer the same fate -- lack of soldiers to continue to fight. 

In addition, with the strategies of Grant and Sherman, southerners would be faced with the same psychological war that the north waged in order to instill fear among southerners, especially families of soldiers who would begin to beg their husbands and fathers to return home.  Grant and Sherman understood that victory meant total destruction of the south and that mission would not have changed if the Confederacy utilized guerilla warfare. The destruction of small towns, railroads, homes and farms would have pulled southern soldiers away from the army to help protect their homes.  The Confederacy could not have maintained a cohesive, dedicated army with such demands at home.  After all, most Southerners were truly fighting to preserve their way of life and that meant that defending their homes was more important than fighting for independence. 

Jennifer Keller writes:

The circumstances surrounding the Civil War leads to a decisive victory for the Union. Beside the traditional reasons often taught for the Northern victory: greater population, railroads, factories and more resources, the Union clearly had many other advantages over the Confederacy. The Union and the Confederacy both possessed intelligent and capable military leadership. However, Grant’s ability to use the resources of the North and his ability to focus on the long term goals of the Civil War verses the short term battle victories made him a more effect military leader over Lee. One of the primary reasons Robert E. Lee was ultimately unsuccessful in the battle field over the course of the Civil War was his unwillingness to change military strategies. Lee often fought an offensive war that took place primarily in Virginia. Lee also often asked for reinforcements that depleted other regiments in the Confederate Army. Lee’s unwillingness to change his military strategies ultimately leads to the defeat of the Confederacy.

In addition, the Confederacy refused to use guerilla warfare. The use of this fighting tactic could have lead to greater victories for the South with fewer casualties. Lee’s short term victories in the battlefield only helped to prolong the Civil War rather then set the foundation for a long-term Confederate victory. Grant may not have had as many superior battle skills as Lee; however, Grant was able to use the resources of the North to build on the Northern victories of the Civil War. Grant with the assistance of Sherman also adopted a policy of total war and planned to undermine the ability of the Confederate government to protect its citizens. This is evident in the psychological battle tactics of Sherman’s raids.

Christina Cone writes:

             The Confederacy most certainly could have won the civil war.  Victory for the North was not inevitable.  As McPherson argues, the element of contingency was paramount.  When one argues that the North had greater resources, the flipside can be shown that the South thought they did have the resources needed to be victorious.  When one argues that the Confederates became demoralized with death and defeat, the same can be said for the North.  In addition, McPherson brings up the point that many will state that the North had greater resources and therefore victory was indeed guaranteed.  However, he points out other examples in history where conflicts were won against greater odds than the Confederacy faced.

That being said, the Confederacy did have obstacles to face.  I do believe that the resource argument has stood the test of time because it is such a strong case.  However, the Confederacy did hold out for quite some time.  There are many “what-if’s” that could have turned the tables of the war.  For one, if the Confederacy decided to launch a full-scale guerilla war the outcome may have been different.  If Sherman did not take Atlanta and the military tide did not improve for the North then maybe Lincoln might not have been re-elected.  If that was the case, I do think the result would have been quite different. 

Ultimately though, I conclude that the Confederacy did have an uphill battle.  The numbers and resources in the North were a huge asset and while the Confederacy did keep their efforts strong for longer than one would imagine, it would have been quite difficult to emerge as the victors.

Michaela Riviello writes:

Given the circumstances, demographics, resources, economics as well as military and political personnel and decisions, the Confederacy could not have won the Civil War. There are several reasons that victory was not possible.

The Confederacy did not have outside support. Resources from an external force, such as from another nation, would have helped the Confederates even the playing field. The North, for example, had “a population advantage of five to two over the Confederacy-and that is counting the slaves as part of the Confederate population…the value of real property was three times greater and the manufactures was more than ten time greater, etc.” With such a disadvantage, the odds were generously in favor of the North.

Another factor was the lack of political leadership. Jefferson Davis was rigid and uncompromising, which was quite the opposite of President Lincoln. President Davis’ flaws as the leader of the Confederacy can be considered to be partially responsible for its demise.

The military strategy utilized by the Confederacy was not helpful to its cause either. The Confederates opted out of implementing guerilla warfare. Confederate General Lee, for example, felt that total war immoral and unethical. However, it was eagerly used by Union General Sherman. Lee’s failure to adopt guerilla warfare aided the Union war strategy. Military success leads to political success and vice-versa. Therefore, if the Confederates could have changed their military leaders or strategies or appointed a new leader, success might have moved in its direction.

 No, states’ rights and slavery led to the Confederacy’s downfall.

Greg Sill writes:

Fundamentally, nothing is inevitable… so the answer is yes, we could’ve won the war.  However, looking back on it now, once the war started, our chances of winning were as slim as fitting a camel through a needle.

Sure, we can blame resources and being outnumbered.  That’s what Lee said after he surrendered to Grant.  We were certainly outnumbered and the Union troops knew it!  Our land was devastated, our food supply was low, and our transportation systems were damaged.

We can also blame the strategy of the North under General Grant!  He and Sherman entered into our land with an unrelenting fury!  They were as gentle as a bull in a china shop!  Their merciless push not only destroyed our homes, plantations, and cities, but also our will!  Good Confederate young men went crawling back home to save their families from that horrible experience of total war, deserting the army and the dream of an independent Confederate nation.

We can also blame Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Lincoln was the soul of the Union, convincing them that a house divided is a house that falls.  He was able to convince northerners that their cause of keeping the Union together and freeing the slaves was noble and just, and would ultimately allow them to keep their liberty established by our founding fathers.

Yeah, we can blame all these things… but like I said, nothing is inevitable.  We could have one way or another overcame these obstacles.  However, there are two reasons why we would never win this war, even if we fought it over 1000 times.  It ultimately comes down to the nature of our cause!

States’ Rights and defending the institution of slavery is what led to our downfall and what would always lead to our downfall!  The very nature of vehemently defending states rights made it impossible to establish a federal army or make centralized decisions.  I had Generals dismissed by governors.  I had problems raising money and enlisting military.  Foreign nations refused to recognize our nation.  Without the power to do these things, there is no way we could efficiently fight this war!  Also, defending slavery became a huge obstacle.  Southerners needed to stay home to watch the slaves, who were willing to sabotage our methods and destroy our crops.  How could we police a hostile group who are ultimately responsible for supplying food and supplies to soldiers that are fighting to keep them captive!  This also prevented us from using guerilla warfare tactics, which may have been successful!

So, the very things we were fighting for, States Rights and slavery, were the very things that inevitably led to our downfall!  Hence, we would never win, we could never win!

That is why we lost the war of Northern Aggression!

Jefferson Davis

Maria Delaney writes:

I have not study this topic extensively as some of the other participants in this class. I believe that the confederacy could not have won the war for several reasons.  My reasons really stem from more of a social and psychological point of view.  From what I can conclude is that the South was fighting for the wrong reasons.

     1. Money

     2. Power

     3. Personal interests

     4. Going against Gods will and being punished for it.

   As the war progressed the South was being destroyed, and the Confederacy lost their moral and unity.

Robin M. Jacobsen writes:

    This question is almost a dichotomy.  There are some many yes and no scenarios that it is almost impossible to answer.  If one takes the Alternative Historic Approach the answer would be undoubtedly yes.  The confederate ideology of the perfect gentleman who is trained at West Point and comes home to run the family plantation looms large in the imagination of many a reader of historical literature.   This gentleman would believe that slavery was that “peculiar institution” that had to exist for the confederate economy to survive.  He would fight his hardest to beat those “Damn Yankees” and because he is noble and brave success and victory would be his in a short span of time.

     If we take more of an historic approach to this question, a series of “what if’s” have to be answered.  If the confederacy had had more food resources instead of a focus on king cotton and tobacco this could have made the soldiers stronger and if they were not starving, perhaps prolonged their will to fight.  Of course when your harvest land becomes your battlefield and all your crops are destroyed, this can never occur.  If England had sided with the confederacy, could they have won the war?  Many a confederate saw this as a distinct possibility, but it really was never even close to remote.  Once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, England had to side with the north since they had emancipated their own slaves in the 1840’s.  Also England thanks to their imperialistic ideals, had cotton from both India and Egypt at their disposal.    

     If the confederacy had used guerilla tactics perhaps could they have won the war?  Perhaps but this was a war of northern aggression where the fight was to keep the north of southern territory, tire them out, and then force treaties of some sort.  Guerilla war fare was not taught at West Point and many a southern commander had attended the school.

      In conclusion, if the planets had been aligned differently, if Lincoln had not been such a tactical genius politically, if Grant and Sherman had not become northern generals, if Lee was willing to fight a “dirty war”, if Jefferson Davis had forced his generals to attack more like the north, perhaps the confederacy could have won.  Ultimately, slavery, emancipation, and the confederate economy forced the confederacy to a slow demise.

 Maybe, if several factors were changed that increased their will to win.

 Donna McGoldrick writes:

                The Confederacy could have won the Civil War however, the question is how many factors and to what degree would they have to be changed to allow that victory. Just as the interaction of a variety of internal, external, military and psychological factors created the series of events that led to the union victory, so too a change in the complex interaction of numerous factors would be needed to alter that outcome.

                While military strategies drove the progress and ultimate victory of the war, it seems that several psychological factors were key to turning the war in the Union’s favor.  The unfaltering focus on winning at any cost by both Grant and Sherman demonstrated a veracity that had previously been missing. This purpose was evident in Lincoln’s decision to act on the Emancipation Proclamation. Up until that point Lincoln had embraced a message of containment of slavery and bringing the South back into the fold as a prodigal son. While the Emancipation Proclamation did very little at the time as an executive act it signaled Lincoln’s willingness to adopt whatever strategy was politically expedient to conclude the war. The Proclamation attacked the Southern way of life that up until that point had not been directly addressed as a target. This political decision echoed the military tactics of Grant and Sherman in its                        .

                Each of these strategies had ramifications on the psychological strength of the North and the South and their will to continue to engage in war. The Emancipation Proclamation forced England to finally choose to support the Union. This decision was another blow to the Confederacy both financially and more importantly psychologically. The repercussions were felt at every level of Southern society from the political decision makers down to the slaves in the field. Now, the Confederacy was on its own. Conversely, the most powerful country in the world endorsed the Union’s position which bolstered its will to win. Union soldiers, who may not have had any political opinion about the war, now knew that the strongest country in the world was on their side which lent authority to their cause. Political leaders understood that the Confederacy had lost a powerful potential ally.

                Had these and other events not occurred, the Confederacy may have won a war that at its outset was doomed if measured only in terms of resources. Their will to fight was eroded by the psychological effects of many events combined with the very real hardships endured on the battlefield and by their families at home. As the author states in the introduction, Vietnam proved that resources alone do not decide a war.

BOOK #1

Michaela Riviello writes:

    "At first glance, it would seem that William Lloyd Garrison may not have helped the abolitionist cause. As a radical, he felt that his role was to agitate and to help the people in their journey of moral conversion. His radical views were not quite palatable and caused quite a stir even amongst fellow abolitionists. While Garrison called for universal suffrage, he failed to attract the masses. Garrison was far too polarizing for the larger population. His views on equal treatment of women caused even more of his mainstream supporters to defect. At first glance, one would assume that Garrison would be unsuccessful is his cause. However, his movement led to splinter organizations that were able to grasp his idea of abolition but hone it and mold it into a more moderate viewpoint. Therefore, Garrison was invaluable to the abolitionist movement because it served as a launch pad for the more respectable candidates."

Jennifer Keller writes:

    "Garrison’s radical view on the women issue and the means in which to achieve African American freedom was helpful to the abolitionist movement. Garrison's was a polarizing force in the abolitionist movement but his radical ideas on feminism helped to create a forum for both men and women to join together to achieve the goals of freedom for all. The role of women in the movement and Garrison's support for the open discussion of the Grimke Sisters helped to accomplish freedom for African Americans and to strengthen the foundation for women’s suffrage.  Again, Garrison's fundamental ideas on the American society (that all Americans needed moral conversion) was not useful in gaining the large support needed for the success of the Abolitionist Movement in achieving its primary goal – universal male suffrage. However, his deep-seated beliefs set the underpinning for the success of the more “respectable” abolitionist movement proposed by James Birney."

Brian Thone writes:

Robin Jacobsen writes:

    "While many felt that Garrison and his followers went too far beyond the realm of normalcy to further their cause, I think that they did what needed to be done at the time.  Garrison’s The Liberator while not widely produced, reached the masses as its articles were dispersed around the country.  By reaching the masses in this way, many average Americans who were not directly related to the slavery issue, became followers when the realized through Garrison’s prose the problems and horrors or slavery.  For example, someone in Maine did not own slaves and was over 500 miles from area where slavery existed.  A cousin from Massachusetts could mail them an article from The Liberator and thus they could begin to understand how the abolitionist movement worked and perhaps feel the need to get involved even from such a far distance.  By getting people from farther northern states directly involved with the anti-slavery movement the abolitionist cause grew in strength to include people who had never even seen a slave. 

     Also out of Garrison’s work the issues of women’s rights, the Free Soil party and the Republican party were born.  Even though there were groups far more towards the moderate side of the issue, without the radicals, these ideals would never have been introduced into a common consensus.

    Garrison and his followers made the average American look at the issue of abolition and take sides.  While this was a polarizing time in U.S. History, it was also probably the first time that Americans looked at the enslaved not as a piece of property but as human beings."    

. . .hindered the abolitionist cause with their uncompromising ideology.

Nancy Raftery writes:

    "Although the extreme and morally righteous views of William Lloyd Garrison did serve to plant a seed in the minds of Americans that universal suffrage was a natural right, his extreme views did in fact hinder the cause of the Abolitionist Movement by polarizing the North and South which made the Civil War a short-term inevitability.  William Lloyd Garrison’s moral absolutes and uncompromising ideology successfully convinced many Northerners that the abolition of slavery must be accomplished immediately, not by means of a gradual approach.  By convincing many Northerners of this, the Civil War became unavoidable.  Many more moderate Northerners could have promoted a campaign of more incremental emancipation possibly postponing, yet most likely not eliminating, military conflict.  Garrison, however, has to be credited with expressing the views that many Americans may have agreed with, even if they were not ready at that time to act upon them."

Greg Sill writes: