Tag: Different Perceptions of Nature

Posted on

War Upon the Man? – Nature’s Stance in the Civil War


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

I found that Brady’s War Upon the Land brought up some interesting concepts for us to consider both with respect to works we have read in weeks passed as well as the history of war and the environment in the United States. One concept that I enjoyed and found particularly effective for Brady was her development of nature as an actor. I thought Brady depicted this especially clearly when she presented the quotes of Captain Thaddeus Minshall stating that “nature and man are at war” (2). While we have previously discussed nature’s potential role in determining the course of American culture and society, this quote from Minshall gives nature both agency an orientation, and one directly opposed to the conquest of humans. With this in mind, I think Brady’s focus on the Civil War becomes a great point at which to start the conversation about war emerging between man and the environment.

As Brady mentions, although the wars of colonial America and the American Revolution housed conflict within North America, the Civil War was the first prolonged and large-scale series of battles to occur on American soil. This compounded with the technology that made the Civil War the first “modern” war in American history places this monograph at the beginning of an age where we see a shift in the way Americans interact within the environment – particularly as industrialization spread rampantly across the United States (4). Additionally by discussing environmental history in conjunction with military history, Brady is able to write a narrative that emphasizes the idea of nature and man as independent, but inherently linked agents. I think this is brought up effectively in Emily’s post where she juxtaposes Brady’s discussion of nature’s “power to shape human decisions” and how Union generals used their own northern ideas about improving, civilizing, and conquering nature in establishing a battle strategy against the Confederacy (emkrall).

Another piece of War Upon the Land that I appreciated was Brady’s use of the concept of “agroecosystems” or “domesticated ecosystems” (9). I think the most effective deployment of these agroecosystems was the ability to use them to highlight the differences between northern and southern farmers leading up to the Civil War. While southern lifestyle was dominated by plantation farms, most northern yeoman looked at their much smaller farmland with industrialist perspectives because the environment did not direct the culture of the North (18). I also think you see the clash between these two divergent environmental cultures in examples like the Union’s efforts to redirect the Mississippi River in the early years of the Civil War. Before finally being able to “embrace the hybrid nature of the river’s landscape,” General Grant’s Union soldiers unsuccessfully tried to turn the river twice, and as a result they suffered at the hands of diseases that plagued the mosquito-ridden region (48). It was not until northerners sought to understand the southern agroecosystem and “ally” with “their erstwhile nemesis, water” that the Union was able to use the southern environment for their own directives (41). Through this work, I think Brady was successful at establishing a framework for future historians to assess the ongoing cause and effect relationship between war and the environment as well as developing an effective frame in which to view nature as an actor in American history.

Posted on

War Upon the Land: The Differing Perceptions of Nature by the North and the South


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

There can be no doubt that wilderness played a very important role in the American Civil War. Lisa M. Brady’s War Upon the Land focuses on nature’s role in the conflict and the differing conceptions of nature by the North and the South. In order to understand this difference a definition of nature is needed. Brady utilizes Steven Stole’s definition in her narrative. Wilderness is “defined places and times when humans did not yet control their environment or where they had lost control.” This definition is similar to one that Brandon put forward in his post when analyzing the perspectives presented in Robert Marshall’s essay. “The Problem of the Wilderness,” is an area without permanent inhabitants, impossible to cross by mechanical means, and so vast that a person attempting to cross it must sleep out.  In short, the wilderness is an escape from civilization.”

Both these definitions are very similar in that they portray nature as something that is separate from human control. While humans can interact with nature they cannot ever tame it. For my purposes I see nature as its own person. When considering the Civil War there is the Union and the Confederacy but I believe that nature/ wilderness is a third party that played an integral role in the struggle. This would be an idea that Brady would appear to agree with. Nature would fill a role similar to American Indians during the Revolutionary War, a group that had their own interests separate from the two main parties.

What I believe to be one of Brady’s most important arguments is the idea that the North and the South had dramatically different perceptions of wilderness and this reflected each regions placed importance on the agriculture and the land in general. For the Union Army, led by General Sherman, the land was something that was destined to be tamed and controlled. This mindset was reflected throughtout the war with Grant’s army and their refusal to abide by the limitations that nature placed. “Even more than reenvisioning the landscape in military terms, however, Sherman’s operations were predicated on gaining control over the landscape. Control- over nature, labor, and territory- formed the basis of the campaign.” (95) In some ways this mindset could be the result of northern industrialism where every aspect of the culture was controlled and able to be manipulated. The land itself was very much undervalued and the concepts of civilization led many to see anything “uncivilized” as an opportunity to civilize and demonstrate industrial strength over agriculture. Could this also be a reflection of Union exceptionalism?

On the other side the Southern states reliance on the land led to a very different relationship with nature. They did not see it as something that simply could be controlled. Their close interactions with nature made them understand that the best benefits could be contrived when living in harmony with nature instead of trying to overcome it. Those living in Vicksburg understood this idea. Where the Union Army tried to change the Mississippi River’s flow, the confederates understood that this was impossible and that was a major reason why Vicksburg was located where it was. The city of Savannah was another city that was built in harmony with nature. As a result nature provided the city many natural defenses that allowed the confederates to hold out for a considerable amount of time.

It is clear that the north and the south held very different perceptions on nature. Unfortunately, the North prevailed through their destruction of the land. The south was greatly devastetd for their reliance on nature was so great that they had failed to establish indpendent means for survival. Still despite the North’s victory, the Union still failed to understand the true identity of nature. While protectionism grew in the later part of the 19th century, most in the north never understood the benefits of living with nature instead of trying to isolate it through a paternalist mindset. In some ways this failure to understand coexistence may have set the US on the path of greater environmental destruction through unsustainable means being justified by the fact that a limited part of nature was being protected.