My buddy's a Civil War nut. He's also a World War II nut. Maybe he's just a nut. Actually, he's big into military history and over the years I've enjoyed his stories about and knowledge of historical events.
This month -- September 17, 2002 to be precise -- was the 140th anniversary of America's bloodiest day. There were 23,000 casualties, of which about 6,000 were killed. If you're a math nut (that would be I), that breakdowns to a death every 8 seconds. If you throw in wounded, then something bad happened to somebody every 2 seconds all day long. It's amazing how math can add context to mere numbers.
Of course, the carnage was indisputable. But wasn't clear was this "reenactment" thingee that was staged in a field close to the real battlefield. I've read about volunteers in period dress with period armaments trying to recreate what happened decades ago. On the day I observed this ritual for the first time, 15,000 men and women were on horseback or foot showing tens of thousands of spectators what likely happened at that blood-soaked battlefield in Sharpsburg, Maryland.
Most people know the battle as Antietam. Confederates called it Sharpsburg. I suppose it's called the former because the North won the war and the right to name it. But I doubt any modern day Confederacy sympathizers would agree with that.
Which leads to the point about winners and losers. When I was at Antietam/Sharpsburg, I read that Britain and the Confederacy had a little dance going before and after the outbreak of the Civil War. The scuttlebutt was that England would recognize the South's right for independence because Great Britain was so desirous of the South's King Cotton.
But England had a problem. Should it side with the rebels wanting to form a fledgling country? It couldn't make a hasty decision. It had to evaluate the impact of Great Britain's dealing with a North U.S. and a South U.S. and what would happen with trade, diplomacy, etc. But most of all, it had to decide whether the Confederates could win.
According to James McPherson and other reputed Civil War experts and historians, the Brits wanted to side with a winner, pure and simple. My first thought was how disgusting and selfish. My second was how indicative of human nature.
Ever notice how people curry favor with an obnoxious boss because she can provide employment, bonuses, financial security, etc? Ever notice how the black sheep of the organization is shunned, even when the masses believe that an injustice has been heaped upon him?
We're opportunists and supporters of the superior. My children illustrate this point very well. Whenever we watch a TV sporting contest, they're all for the team that's ahead. Who wants to be associated with a loser. Who wants to be a loser?
There were many losers at Antietam and many more across this country in the mid-1800's. There are many disputed 'real reasons' about how and why we fell into this horrendous internecine interlude. I'm sure I don't know which one was right: slavery, economics, states' rights, will of God, independence. I wasn't there and even if I were, whatever belief I cherished would have been based on personal, selfish motivations designed to make me feel like a winner of some sort. The impetus for this conflict probably was all the above and more! There may have been as many reasons for starting the Civil War as people who were participating or supporting it above and below the Mason-Dixon line.
One thing's for sure. Nobody wanted to be on the losing side. The sad thing, however, was that both sides lost that day in 1862 and they lost badly.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 620 words.
© 2002