Academic literature on the topic 'United States ;Army History Civil War, 1861-1865 African American troops'

On June 2, 1862, William A. Hammond, Surgeon General of the United States Army, announced the intention of his office to collect material for the publication of a “Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion (1861–1865)” (1), usually called the Civil War of the United States of America, or the War Between the Union (the North; the Federal Government) and the Confederacy of the Southern States. Forms for the monthly “Returns of Sick and Wounded” were reviewed, corrected and useful data compiled from these “Returns” and from statistics of the offices of the Adjutant General (payroll) and Quartermaster General (burial of decreased soldiers).

Introduction. The Civil War in the United States (1861–1865) has been of considerable interest to historians, lawyers, economists, and political scientists for more than 150 years. The internal political struggle that broke out in the middle of the 19th century between the two regions of the young democratic state seems to be a valuable object of research. However, scientific approaches to the study of the causes of the “inevitable conflict”, their transformation and rebirth depending on the historical period and the political situation are of even greater interest. This article attempts to summarize the main trends in the historiography of the causes of the Civil War in the United States, mainly in foreign historiography. Methods of research and materials. The methodological basis of the study was made up of general scientific and private scientific methods. The historical-legal, comparative method, as well as sociological, concrete-historical and systemic methods are used. The theoretical basis of the study was the work of mainly foreign historians, lawyers, political scientists and state historians. Analysis. Without denying the centrality of slavery among the causes of the Civil War, researchers identify religious, economic, political and social factors as the key determinants of the separatist movement in the South. A special place in American studies is occupied by the consideration of the role of African Americans in inciting conflict, the personality factor of A. Lincoln, as well as the influence of the abolitionist movement and journalists on the growing confrontation between the North and the South. At the same time, all directions, one way or another, boil down to the fact that it was slavery that was the fundamental cause of the Civil War. The peculiarities of the formation of each of the scientific directions were determined by the socio-economic and political conditions that took place in a particular historical period. Results. The periodization of scientific approaches to the study of the causes of the Civil War in the United States in the historical and legal literature can be carried out by dividing the research into three main periods: the “confrontational” (second half of the 19th century); the “socio-economic” (beginning – middle of the 20th century); the “industrial” (middle of the 20th century – the beginning of the 21st century). In the period from the beginning of the 21st century to the present, there is an obvious consensus on the central role of slavery among the determinants of war, but approaches to this problem in recent years have been characterized by interdisciplinarity, complexity, taking into account completely different sides of the conflict. Each of these areas has contributed to the formation of a holistic view of the causes of the Civil War, allowing us to realize the complex, multifaceted nature of the causes of the conflict and to reject two-dimensional approaches to their understanding. Key words: American Civil War, causes of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, slavery in the United States, the Missouri Compromise, abolitionists, history of the USA.

AbstractBackgroundThe United States Civil War (1861–1865) pitted the more populous industrialized North (Union) against the mainly agricultural slaveholding South (Confederacy). This conflict cost an enormous number of lives, with recent estimates mentioning a total mortality greater than 700,000 combatants [1]. Although sulfuric ether (ETH) and chloroform (CHL) were available since Morton’s use of the former in 1846 and the employment of the latter in 1847, and even though inhalational agents were used in Crimean war (1853–1856) and the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), the United States Civil War gave military surgeons on both sides the opportunity to experience the use of these two agents because of the large number of casualties.MethodsResearch of historic archives illustrates the dramatic control of surgical pain made possible with introduction of two general anesthetic and analgesic drugs in 1846 and 1847.ResultsAn appreciation of the importance of anesthesia during surgical procedures can be noted in the poignant and at times hair raising cases of two left arm amputations carried out under appalling circumstances during the United States Civil War. In the first-case the amputation was delayed for nearly five days after the wounding of Private Winchell who served in an elite sharpshooter brigade and was captured by the Confederate Army during battle. The amputation was performed without anesthesia and the voice of the Private himself narrates his dreadful experience. The postoperative course was incredible as he received no analgesia and survived a delirious comatose state lying on the ground in the intense summer heat.Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson was a famous ascetic Confederate General who helped defeat the Union forces at the Battle of Chancellorsville on May 2, 1863. In the ensuing near-darkness, Jackson was fired upon by his own friendly troops where he suffered multiple gunshot wounds on his right hand as well as a ball in the upper humerus of the left arm similar to that of Private Winchell. Transported to a field hospital about thirty miles away, the evacuation was carried out under artillery fire and the General dropped from the stretcher at least twice before arriving at the field hospital. There, a team of surgeons operated on “Stonewall”, using open drop chloroform, the surgery taking 50 min, anesthesia times of one hour with General Jackson awake and speaking with clarity shortly after the termination of the anesthesia. A brief explanation of the use of anesthetics in the military environment during the Crimean, Mexican American and the United States Civil War is also presented.Conclusion and implicationsTwo case stories illustrate the profound improvement in surgical pain made possible with ether and chloroform only 160 years ago. Surgeons and patients nowadays have no ideas what these most important improvements in modern medicine means, unless “reliving” the true hell of pain surgery was before ether and chloroform.

Confederate batteries opened up on Fort Sumter in April of 1861, inaugurating the bloodiest conflict in American history. President Abraham Lincoln’s war effort, nursing wounds from defeats at Fredericksburg in 1862 and Chancellorsville in 1863, sorely needed more men and supplies. Propaganda campaigns and conscription efforts filled gaps in the depleted ranks of Lincoln’s army, helping it swell into the largest mobilization of troops in the world. Reliable supplies were, however, harder to come by; while Union soldiers fell to Confederate bullets and bayonets on the battlefield, army commissaries and quartermasters fell victims to fraud. A lack of meaningful government oversight had created an environment rife with profiteering. During the first years of the war, the government unwittingly purchased 1,000 horses so sick with every known equine disease that they were entirely useless; in another instance, the government paid a contractor for 411 horses of which only 76 were found fit for service (with the remainder being either blind, undersized, ringboned, or dead upon arrival). The government also bought artillery shells filled with sawdust rather than gunpowder, flimsy shoes that lasted for only twenty days, “rotten” blankets, “worthless” overcoats, and “muskets not [even] worth shooting.” To stop these abuses, Congress appointed a special committee, called the Select Committee on Government Contracts, to investigate the extent of the fraudulent contracting; the committee solicited testimony from military personnel, experts, and others that highlighted the disturbing magnitude of the problem. In response, the Union government promulgated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) in March of 1863. Following the conclusion of the war, and the rapid decline of government contracting needs, the FCA was left to gather dust in a forgotten corner of federal law until the late twentieth century. In the 1980s, the FCA surged back to prominence to address abuses in the defense contracting industry and, once again, it became the government’s weapon of choice to combat fraud.Since its Civil War origins, the FCA has undergone substantial changes. Congress, in recognition of the FCA’s increasing importance with the growth of the modern regulatory state, expanded the purview of the FCA in both 1986 and 2009, much to the chagrin of government contractors. The 2009 amendment, in particular, was a clear demonstration of congressional intent to expand the scope of the FCA by overriding federal judicial precedent that attempted to limit it. Congress’s goal in amending the FCA, thus, was not just to “enact a broad remedial statute” but rather to “preserve the traditional boundaries of fraud,” as well.The FCA operates as a powerful tool to combat fraud that, otherwise left unchecked, might imperil the federal government’s finances. The FCA allows either the Attorney General or a qui tam whistleblower (known in the FCA context as a relator) to bring an action on behalf of the United States against persons or entities committing certain types of fraud against the government. The FCA, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3729, holds that any individual who “knowingly” presents or knowingly conspires to “present[], or cause[] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” or “makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false . . . claim” is liable under the FCA, which imposes damages up to $11,000 per violation in addition to treble the amount of the government’s damages. This can result in cases where the damages could total a staggering $2 billion. The FCA, as a tool of fraud deterrence and of compliance enforcement, has had the most significant effect on the healthcare industry. By way of illustration, between 1986 and 2009, two-thirds of the $22 billion recovered by the federal government ($14.3 billion) came from recoveries in the healthcare industry. Since 2009, however, differing interpretations of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (“FERA”), the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), and the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar have all expanded the scope of the FCA, leading new industries to find themselves increasingly in the crosshairs of expanded procedural theories of liability.At an operative level, the FCA posits that both “factually false” and “legally false” claims are actionable; “factually false” claims include goods or services either incorrectly described or not provided at all, and “legally false” claims are false based on statements, promises, or other certifications of compliance. While various circuits have held that the FCA reaches factually false conduct, legal falsity (with the Supreme Court’s recent endorsement) could gain traction as an equally important theory for prosecuting fraud. This expanded theory of liability may continue to evolve as the industries that the FCA regulates continue to evolve, as well. One such industry falling under this broad purview is higher education.This Note will address whether or not educational institutions in the for-profit sector should be held liable under the FCA for entering into a Program Participant Agreement (“PPA”) with the government, in good faith, only to thereafter commit fraud. This Note contends that the modern higher education environment provides an appropriate context in which courts may permissibly disregard any distinction between conditions of participation and conditions of payment for purposes of imposing FCA liability. It further posits that the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision, though an important landmark toward a broader enforcement tool, did not go far enough to deter fraud in higher education. Part I will describe the background of the FCA, the rationale for the development of the “legally false” theory of liability, and the differences between the express and implied types of certification. It will also discuss judicial interpretation of legal falsity, with emphasis on the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobar. Part II will address conditions of participation and conditions of payment and why the difference may remain significant in the fraud context. Part III will explain the structure of for-profit educational institutions, their role as government contractors, and the nature of the circuit split regarding the receipt of Higher Education Act (“HEA”) Title IV funds and FCA liability. Part IV will discuss policy implications of this “implied certification of post-formation performance” theory and why the educational setting is the appropriate venue in which to hold government contractors liable for fraud on an expansive sub-theory of implied false certification.

Of the roughly 3,500 volunteer regiments and batteries organized by the Union army during the American Civil War, only a small fraction has been studied in any scholarly depth. Among those not yet examined by historians was one that typified the western armies commanded by the two greatest Federal generals, Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman. The Forty-fifth Illinois Volunteer Infantry was at Fort Donelson and Shiloh with Grant in 1862, with Grant and Sherman during the long Vicksburg campaign of 1862 and 1863, and with Sherman in the Meridian, Atlanta, Savannah, and Carolinas campaigns in the second half of the war. These Illinois men fought in several of the most important engagements in the western theater of the war and, in the spring of 1865, were present when the last important Confederate army in the east surrendered. The Forty-fifth was also well connected in western politics. Its unofficial name was the “Washburne Lead Mine Regiment,” in honor of U.S Representative Elihu B. Washburne, who used his contacts and influences to arm the regiment with the best weapons and equipment available early in the war. (The Lead Mine designation referred to the mining industry in northern Illinois.) In addition, several officers and enlisted men were personal friends and acquaintances of Ulysses Grant of Galena, Illinois, who honored the regiment for their bravery in the final attempt to break through the Confederate defenses at Vicksburg. The study of the Forty-fifth Illinois is important to the overall study of the Civil War because of the campaigns and battles the unit participated and fought in. The regiment was also one of the many Union regiments at the forefront of the Union leadership’s changing policy toward the Confederate populace and war making industry. In this role the regiment witnessed the impact of President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Of interest then, are the members’ views on the freeing of the slaves. Also of interest are their views on the arming of the slaves into black regiments, and on the Copperhead, anti-war movement in the Union. With ample sources on the regiment, and with no formal history of the unit having been written or published, a scholarly, modern study of the Lead Mine regiment therefore seems in order, as it would provide further insight into the Civil War from the Union soldiers’ perspective and into the sacrifices the men made in order to preserve their country.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the bands of the armies of the Confederate States of America. This study features appendices of libraries and archives collections visited in ten states and Washington D.C., and covers all known Confederate bands. Some scholars have erroneously concluded that this indicated a lack of available primary source materials that few Confederate bands served the duration of the war. The study features appendices of libraries and archives collections visited in ten states and Washington, D.C., and covers all known Confederate bands. There were approximately 155 bands and 2,400 bandsmen in the service of the Confederate armies. Forty bands surrendered at Appomattox and many others not listed on final muster rolls were found to have served through the war. While most Confederate musicians and bandsmen were white, many black musicians were regularly enlisted soldiers who provided the same services. A chapter is devoted to the contributions of black Confederate musicians.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
Following the end of the American Civil War in 1865, thousands of Union veterans joined the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), the largest Union veterans' fraternal organization in the United States. Upwards of 25,000 Hoosier veterans were members in the Department of Indiana by 1890, including President Benjamin Harrison and General Lew Wallace. This thesis argues that Indiana GAR members met in fraternity to share and construct memories of the Civil War that helped make sense of the past and the present. Indiana GAR members took it upon themselves after the war to act as gatekeepers of Civil War memory in the Hoosier state, publicly arguing that important values they acquired through armed conflict—obedience to authority, duty, selflessness, honor, and love of country—were losing relevance in an increasingly industrialized society that seemingly valued selfishness, materialism, and political radicalism. This thesis explores the creation of Civil War memories and GAR identity, the historical origins of Memorial Day in Indiana, and the Indiana GAR's struggle to incorporate ideals of "patriotic instruction" in public school history classrooms throughout the state.