Is War Necessary?

After reading another text I go back to one of the main questions that we are supposed to be asking ourselves throughout this course, which is whether war is a necessary cause?  I personally believe that there is always another solution to the problem at hand other than war but that is only my view on the matter.

            I feel that Slaughterhouse-Five provides a great deal of insight regarding the aftermath of war.  From reading the text I was able to gain a further understanding on some of the problems soldiers face when they return home post-war.  Some of these problems are re-adjusting to modern day society and even some soldiers returning home with major psychological problems.  The majority of these psychological problems were, like Will wrote about in his blog and we talked about in our last class, diagnosed as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  When thinking about some of the problems that soldiers even face when they return from war it further questions whether war is a worthwhile cause.  Are the potential detrimental results worth the potential gain?  It really begins to question what a soldiers life is truly worth.

            If the reason for war is not truly justifiable then is it really necessary to sacrifice the lives of the people involved in the war?  I believe an important question to ask is that if a soldier does not agree with the cause for which they are risking their life, do you really want them fighting for you?  It is important to understand that the military takes as many willing soldiers as possible, due to the fact that the greater the number of forces they have the stronger the military will be.  But still is it worth having a soldier who is just there to fight even though he is opposed to the cause?

            I would love to hear how you all feel about some of the questions I have proposed and whether you agree with my stance on some of them.

US Civil War Media Coverage

With my recent presentation on the media coverage during the US Civil War, I could not help but consider the slanted coverage that the two opposing newspapers took.  While Will and myself briefly went over the concept in class, here is my two cents on the matter.

            I thought that it was quite interesting how the two newspapers, which represented the two sides of the war, had similar beliefs about certain events.  For instance, we told the class that both of the newspapers believed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea and would only prolong the war and make it bloodier.  I felt this was peculiar because I expected the south to oppose the Emancipation Proclamation, however the north opposing it also caught me off guard.  It just goes to show how two sides that are fighting against each other can agree on the fact that it might have detrimental effects to the outcome of the war.

             We also discovered that newspapers during the Civil War would exaggerate or lie flat out about the outcome of a battle or important event.  I found this particularly interesting because the newspaper was one of the only sources of information available at the time and the newspaper was misleading its followers.  While I understand that the newspaper might have been trying to keep patriotism high (in either the north or the south) I personally feel that the newspaper has a right to report the truth to its readers.

            Now looking at modern day newspapers, it is almost unheard of that newspapers knowingly provide false information to its followers because of the consequences and the information that is available to the public (such as information accessible through the internet).  While there are still newspapers that support different sides of the government (such as republican/democrat) with a slanted point of view, newspapers nowadays typically provide accurate information.  It is interesting to see the similarities and differences from newspapers during the US Civil War and present day.

The Better Leader

With the recent idea of playing the strategic military board game of risk in class (which I believe was a great idea) I cannot help but consider the military strategy that is involved in our text the Killer Angels.  In my previous post I went over the differences between the two highest commanders for the confederate forces and stated that a conflict was bound to erupt.  In this post, I will be looking at the two characters from strictly a military strategic standpoint and try and determine which commander is best fit for ruling the confederate forces. 

First, looking at Lee, we know that he has the complete respect from all of his men.  However, we also know that Lee is willing to sacrifice the lives of his men because he knows he has an excess of men at his disposal.  We also found out that Lee often made decisions through his religion rather than through the information that was available to him at the time of the decision.

Next, looking at Longstreet, we know that he was quite different than Lee in his regard for the lives of his men.  Longstreet does not feel that it is right to sacrifice his men, he feels connected to them and responsible for them.  As for his decision-making process, he unlike Lee used all available information and based his decisions around the concept of modern warfare.

Looking at these two commanders, they both clearly display different attributes that make them great leaders.  If I had to choose between these two commanders which to follow into battle it most likely would be Longstreet.  While Longstreet does show a sense of uneasiness in loosing his men, he also makes decisions based on the information that is available to him and does not allow religion to impair his judgment.  The best case scenario would be to combine Longstreet’s judgment in making decisions with Lee’s realization that men under his command are bound to die.

The Killer Angels

As a class we just went over our first reading of The Killer Angels.  We went over the concept that the story was based around the characters rather than the actual story itself, which we all seemed to have previous knowledge on.  It was interesting to see how the two highest-ranking commanders in the Confederate army could be so different in their military beliefs.

We first went over the character of Robert E. Lee, who is the highest in command of the Confederate forces.  We were able to conclude that his men revered him and that he was very conscious of his own reputation.  We also learned that he had his own opinions, for example he was not pro-slavery, he was also not for equal rights, and most importantly he cared more about his home state of Virginia rather than the Confederacy. 

James Longstreet, second in command to Lee, was similar to his commander in the fact that they both shared a respect for the chain of command.  Longstreet was also said to be near Lee at all times.  However, Longstreet was also very different to Lee in his military beliefs.  Longstreet believed in modern warfare, such as building trenches, protecting the lines, and defense first.  This was completely opposite to Lee’s beliefs because Lee made military decisions based on his religion.  Lee believed that his religion would lead to the decisions he made on the battlefield. 

After discussing these similarities and differences about two of the major characters in the story, Mr. Crotty told us to carefully watch out for the potential conflict that could rise about.  I feel that the opposing views by the two men on how to fight the Union could lead to a major disagreement, which we might see in our upcoming readings.