Transcripts For CSPAN3 The 20240704

Civil war. My name is molly mersmann and i am a postdoctoral associate here with the Virginia Center for civil war here at virgin tech, which is sponsoring this event, the center regularly hosts talks like and other activities which include academic conferences scholarships and grants, outreach programs in museums and, Elementary School classrooms and more besides, basically sharing wonderful civil war era history. As many different people as we possibly can. You can keep up with what is going on with the center on our website, which is civil war dot v teen dot edu or you can go on facebook or twitter. On to tonights event. Our speaker is dr. Meghan bever, who is an associate professor of history and chair of the social department at Missouri Southern state university. She received her ph. D. From, the university of alabama, but i am a little more excited that she received her undergraduate degree at purdue university, which is where i went for my graduate work. So im excited to have that connection with. Broadly, she focuses on 19th century u. S. History, an emphasis on civil era liquor and foods studies. She is the coeditor of the book the historian behind, the history. And her most work is the brand at war with king alcohol, debating, drinking and mask enemy in the civil war era, which is the subject of this evenings presentation. Dr. Barbour will speak for around to 35 minutes, give or take, by a discussion with the with you wonderful people. You can all type in your questions at any time using the q a button on zoom. We may not be able to get to single question, but we certainly are going to try. We are to wrap things up at the latest around 815 noon eastern time. I think that is it for me. And with i would like to just say thank you to bever for how grateful i am that she is joining us tonight to her wonderful new to discuss her research. And with that i will turn it over to dr. Pepper. Thank you, dr. Emerson. Molly, for that wonderful and very generous introduce. And id like to thank the Virginia Center for civil war studies and dr. Paul quigley as well, for the invitation to join you all this evening. I really appreciate the virtual welcome from blacksburg, and im so glad that so many of you have decided to join us this evening. If i share my screen, i would to begin tonight in camp of the 118th pennsylvania and specific i id like to join them along the potomac. In may 1863. This is just days after the union defeat at chancellor and the event is somewhat unrelated. I want to set the scene, but the scene were going to step into is a party or, a shindig of sorts, hosted a captain dendy sharwood before the war, sherwood had been a hotel owner and he had experience as a caterer because of his line of work and for his shindig, he treated his guests, other fellow officers, to a generous supply of gin, fish house, punch club, punch and ale, and to go along with those beverages, the offers the officers found tubs of cold beef boiled ham, a Chicken Salad and ham sandwiches. Perhaps not surprisingly, the men really enjoyed themselves at sherwoods party, and his tent became filled with a writhing mass of drunken men who were exchanged at least some pledges of love, friendship. The next morning, most of the officers lay asleep on the floors under the tables and on the ground, surround ning sherwoods tent. Only one captain who had remained sober at the party was awakened up to report for duty, and luckily i suppose the sober captain found the incident mostly amusing. The problem, and i think which i can, you know, thank for for giving me a book to write is that drunkenness in the army wasnt always as funny as party. In fact, later that year, in the same regiment, the 18th pennsylvania, a private shields was found outside the limits. One october day. He was roaring drunk and disgrace ing the regiment and in by unseemly and conduct his captain, Francis Adams donelson, was out of patience. Privates shields was a substitute, and although he was quiet and inoffensive when he was sober, he was a veritable devil incarnate. When drunk and unfortunately for private shields, he was drunk. Most the time. So in this particular instance, after he was taken to the guardhouse, the very combative private shields charge captain donelson with his musket, donelson being sober was able to wrest musket away from shields, and he clubbed the private on the. The blow kilt killed private shields instantly. Captain donelson felt justified in his actions, and he wasnt punished for the mishap. But he still got branded as a mankiller by men in regiments in nearby. And of course, donaldsons negative experience is only part of the problem. Shields ended up dead, and its by what most of us would consider unavoidable accident if he not been so often drunk, violent. Neither the shah would ignore the shields incident or isolated. It wasnt that 118th pennsylvania was uniquely liquored up. In fact these types of occurrences, both ornery and funny, and then also violent, occurred throughout union and confederate armies. And they did so at least in part because the armys regulations regarding liquor left the armies unable to completely rid the camps of. The potentially disruptive spirits. And this is what would like to talk about tonight in the limited of time that we have. How the armies were at war with liquor in more than one sense. First, id like to discuss how Union Confederate armies purposefully went to with liquor stocked in their medical and Subsistence Department as much as possible. And after fleshing out the official uses for liquor, i want to turn to the ways that officers and soldiers broadened their beyond those official rations. Drinking and becoming intoxicated when it suited their own medicinal and recreational needs ultimately. Id like to discuss how the widespread use of liquor left officers soldiers, civilians debating how much drinker drinking was appropriate for men who were serving their countrys. So lets begin by looking at alcohols official uses, medicinal uses in the civil war armies and in 2023, when we think of alcohol or liquor, we tend to focus on those numbing characteristics that pain relieving the cough relieving even emotional relief that liquor provides for us. But when the civil war began, the medical community didnt really liquor this way at all. In fact, the medical manuals discussed liquor as a stimulant. So the idea was liquor could reinvigorate a body that had lost a lot of blood and it could restore nervous when men were suffering from shock. So when the civil war surgeons are instructed to prescribe liquor when soldiers are sick or wounded in order to stimulate the body and help it recover every use of liquor designed to give the body a jolt, if you will. So in practice, what this looks like is union and confederate armies guidelines to to use liquor to treat wounds and illness in their hospitals and beyond this the medical departments also used whiskey rations try to prevent malaria. They mix quinine with whiskey and so you know anything about the 1860s you may know that physicians in that decades physicians at the start of the civil war dont understand that malaria is a mosquito illness. But the u. S. Army does know that malaria occurred swampy or low lying areas. And they also know that quinine can treat malaria. They also think it can prevent it. The problem with quinine is its incredibly bitter. And youve ever tasted tonic water, you you know this to an extent. So you have to cut the quinine with something to help get it down. And civil war soldiers, their quinine with whiskey. So any time the armies are encamped near water departments dole out whiskey quinine rations. If supplies are available. Beyond the medical departments, military regulations stated that whiskey or other types of could also be used in cases of exposure. And what this meant was the soldiers got whiskey rations whenever. They were stuck in extreme elements, typically water or snow or mud if theyre cold, damp, they get rations again. If supplies allows. So this hopefully prevents them from becoming ill. And this is particularly common if soldiers are serving picket duty in bad weather. And then the final official use of whiskey rations is that theyre used in cases of extreme fatigue. And officially, this means that soldiers can have rations any, time, theyre performing fatigue, duty. So building bridges, digging trenches, burying the dead. In practice this often gets expanded to include anything thats exhausting. Marching long distances, for example, is sometimes lumped together with fatigue duty. Now, i think at first glance, these guidelines seem straightforward enough. They appear to be clearly defined. When liquor is going to be used or doled as a ration . Its also measured. Its usually a gill, a half gill. And i wanted put those conversions up for you. So a liquor ration is about a shot or maybe two. And just to give that a measurement that more used to than a gill. The problem is that in practice, these guidelines are not really very specific all. And in large part the confusion and the lack of specificity came from the fact that supplying the rations often left to the discretion of a Commanding Officer. So in some cases commanding generals actually decide and take control over how liquor is going to be dispensed. For example, the battle of fredericksburg in 62, robert lee, who was commanding the army of virginia, he forbade christmas rations throughout the ranks. So he just controls from the top how the whiskey is is going to flow or not flow. In this case, but just down the road, in the army of the potomac, youve got general joseph hooker. He is celebrating christmas and his new promotion by doling out whiskey rations pretty widely. So can see in two cases, both in fredericksburg or fredericksburg in 1862, you have general really controlling the ebb and flow liquor rations at the top. Thats pretty. Most of the time the decision about rations passed down the chain of command. So the implementation varies lot by whos in charge. So if a colonel or a major in your chain of command is a teetotal, youre probably not getting any rations. And other times your Company Officer might have the authority to ladling out whiskey. And so basically what this means is you have a lot of low ranking officers making decisions about what constitutes exposure and what constitutes fatigue. So when men had to march for, there are plenty of Commanding Officers who thought that a ration of whiskey would stimulate them, so to speak, for the journey. This doesnt work that well. There in plenty of cases whiskey and other forms of liquor are responsible. A lot of straggling, perhaps the most infamous instance of not working well are the whiskey related problems that occurred during burnsides mud march. Again, this is shortly after the battle of fredericksburg soldiers in the army of the potomac are incredibly demoralized anyway. Their officers decide give them whiskey rations to cheer them up in the midst of the bad weather and everything else. And the men drunk and begin fighting. Beyond marches, there are other officers who decide that battle constitutes extreme. Fatigue. And this is absolutely, most assuredly not what military considers to be fatigued duty. But the officers seemed to be that if you needed whiskey to dig ditch, you definitely needed whiskey. Charge a hill. And the general seemed to be that liquor could stimulate, but maybe also calm nerves or steal a soldier in the midst of a fight. Again, it doesnt work the way that officers intend. So there are instances when officers will give whiskey rations battle and it backfires. In one case, during siege of petersburg in june 1864, a federal captain gave his men whiskey right. They were going to be engaged and instead of fighting the men, it dropped into a ditch just outside of line of trees. And the captain who had given the whiskey rations was left with tears streaming down his face. He was screaming at his men and prods them, begging them not to disgrace themselves or, also to disgrace him. Despite his fear that men might fighting if they were during battle. There were plenty officers who gave men if theyd been under heavy fire. And i think this is especially true after the men were done fighting if theyd experienced a victory. So i think this is the biggest stretch of these official regulations for officers in a way. So ill just give another example to try to illustrate the point when. A federal general fitch, john porter heard of Union Successes in tennessee. So porter is in virginia on the peninsula, but he hears news of grants successes in tennessee in early 62, and he gives all of his colonels permission to issue a celebrated jury ration to their men. Hes pretty far away from successes of grant. Hes all the way in the eastern theater, but he gets excited. He. He predicts that the union army will take richmond in about six weeks. And i say think that these celebrations as porters they show basic that that that official use of is being used to raise morale. So to stave off emotional exhaustion or mental fatigue if you will to try to steal the men and convince them to keep going. So those are what i would consider to be the official uses of liquor and the ways that officers use. Whats important remember, though, is that even the soldier used liquor rations beyond what their Commanding Officers intend. And here, i think its important me to note that officers are allowed to drink, but enlisted men in, lest they receive an official ration, are not allowed to drink. So theres a difference in the status that so officers during the war are keeping private of liquor. They could buy from camp merchants. They could passes to go to town and drink at times. So the captain sharwood that we met at the beginning of the talk, hes not out of line. He had permission to keep those private stores. He had permission to share them with fellow officers and party, but enlisted in the war werent supposed procure their own spirits. Theyre not supposed to buy from the camp merchant. Theyre not supposed drink in town, not even supposed to go to town without a pass. So this is why privates was in so much trouble. He had left camp without and he had procured his own spirits. And then on top of it all, he had become violently drunk. And to be clear shields is not alone. And i said that at the beginning, but enlisted men are drinking all of the time, even though its against the rules. But what i find is, even though theyre there drinking is officially against the rules. They are basing their own uses liquor off of of army. And the route here of soldiers drinking is that they have grown using liquor medicinally. So soldiers here are not unlike medical professionals. I mean, they are, but they believe that liquor treats illness. So theyve up in homes where wines and brandies are kept on hand in case someone became ill. So when soldiers became sick in the army, which was fairly they typically tried to find liquor to treat themselves. Federal soldiers could typically get whiskey rations from their medical departments. But confederate soldiers were much less adequately in their medical departments. They tend to try to scrounge their own whiskey and they use it really broadly to treat whatever is ailing them. One of my favorite examples is a texas man. His name is elijah petty, but he reports in a letter to his wife. He reports that he used about four fingers of brandy and also a bat. So hes combining the drinking with the back. But hes trying to treat fever brought on by a severe a very sore and painful ripped fingernail that i think is infected. And then also a case of piles. So this brandy is supposed to cover a lot of ground for petty and actually thinks that it works. He announced after his brandy and baths that he is ready for a full discharge. His duty. So soldiers really beyond this medicinal use, they then expand use or their understanding of liquors, usefulness. Theyre treating head. Theyre treating infected thumbs. But theyre also interpreting exposure and exhaustion. And fatigue even more broadly than their Commanding Officer, if thats possible. And soldiers much than official documents, talk about they talk about mental fatigue. And one of the places where i see this happening are in their winter camps. So, again, those of you who study the civil war know a lot about. It already are maybe familiar with this, but civil wars, war, spend a lot of time in winter camp more much more so than they do in battle. And by and large, when campaigning stops in the winter, soldiers end up living months in these tent cities that are fairly massive. And what they do is they try to make these shelters as home like as possible. Right. They try to make them warm. They build little pieces of furniture them. And they do anything they can to make them. Comfortable. And one of the ways that they attempt make themselves warm and comfortable by drinking. There are men, especially, who keep jugs of whiskey, their beds. And this seems straightforward, right . Theyre combating exposure. They think theyre staving off the cold. Thats not actually how liquor works, but they dont really understand that. But men are also right about keeping warm by playing whiskey poker. So this seems to just a little bit more than exposure. Its clear theyre trying to pass the time. Its clear theyre trying to relieve boredom. Theyre certainly trying to create some kind of familial atmosphere or that theyve had to leave behind. So when they talk about drinking in their tents at while playing games. There seems be an element of emotion in all care here. And i think that this emotional element, drinking becomes clearer around like christmas. So this is really where i see a lot of soldiers drinking combined with angst. Its a time most soldiers were used to drinking with their families, used to being with their. And they go to really fantastic lengths to fine liquor around. The christmas holidays. One example is from texas excuse me, walkers texas division. A group of enlisted men pooled their resource together to purchase some whiskey about 40 a gallon in order to have what they called a frolic on christmas day. Those prices werent isolated. For those of you who are sort of shocked. There are other soldiers who report paying between 30 and 50 for a gallon of liquor to help celebrate. And what these men are trying to do is make christmas camp as much like christmas at home as they can. But it doesnt work. They will sometimes wait for their families to send care packages. And when those care packages that include whiskey or not dont arrive, the men become melancholy. A floridian named Robert Watson said that after he drank, he still didnt. Mary, because his thoughts at home. So these descriptions of, sadness and loneliness theyre very similar to the ways that men describe picket duty. The way they describe illnesses. So liquor becomes an attempt to curative, if you will, for homesickness as well. These other illnesses. But what as a result is that men end up drinking pretty much time . It suits their own personal. And also in, any time that they can find the liquor from a merchant or in the countryside, i and as a result there are a lot of discussions that ensue among the soldiers themselves, among civilians. Army is about how much it was appropriate soldiers to drink while theyre at war. Officer overwhelmingly considered it permissible for they themselves to drink. They came from middle class or affluent backgrounds, and some of them are temperance men, but most of them are not. Most officers are think that moderate drinking is fine and they incorporate that into their conceptions of masculinity. One federal colonel, Charles Wainwright actually was so accustomed to having wine that he expressed a lot of consternation when he ran out of clara and his private. He wasnt able to get to washington d. C. To restock and his camp sutler only had what he considered be the poorest jersey brand of champagne, which he found undrinkable. And thats probably not wrong. He luckily had a bottle of common madeira. He used to tie it himself. Until you get more clarity, enlisted men dont tend to drink clary or even common madeira or jersey. But they do think drinking is fine. They come from rural backgrounds. They come from working class backgrounds. They have families that were not necessarily really involved. That Temperance Movement before the war. So they come from families where drinking is common. Thats why theyre drinking on christmas. Thats why theyre drinking at other holidays. So they are perfectly in winter camps to. Engage in drunken snowball fights in new orleans, 1863 union troops go to religious services on st patricks day, and then they have a general spree of drunkenness, horse racing and fighting. Its just how celebrated the day. So these soldiers, these enlisted men, they often appreciate when Commanding Officers supply at least some whiskey after those long marches or after a hard fought battle. They even at times with thundering cheers to show their appreciation. The liquor, and yet, if disorder follow ode soldiers started to wonder if the whiskey rations were really a perk. Soldier said that Union Officers who used whiskey more freely than water caused additional headaches. And i think he meant that figuratively. But it probably applies literally to bison whiskey to their men and instances of fighting and brawling reveal soldiers own debates about the relationship between drinking manliness or masculinity and patriotism. And case a confederate soldier named john got drunk and kicked up the devil when the guards tried to arrest him and. His long term friend, Robert Patrick said the overton used to be consider a respectable man that he had mingled in society before the war. But now he was a drunk and, scarcely tolerated. And i think the overton example illustrates that the problem came when soldiers and officers drank so much that they were violent and possibly risks to other mens safety and even their lives. So Lieutenant Colonel h. D. Almond actually that officers who were unfit to command our brave, patriotic men in battle. He argued that in temperance repeatedly raw disaster and blunders and caused on plenty of battlefields. These men and officers who were too inebriated id to even drive a decent mule team had no business directing important campaigns so from almonds of view, sobriety was as essential and commanding as it was. As was an understanding of military. And i think enlisted men worry less that large scale effect of drunkenness. So theyre not worried about disruption or a poorly planned campaign, but they are worried about the direct intoxicated officers have on their wellbeing. So they express fury at shenanigans of drunken officers when it led to abuse and when it compromised the soldiers ability to be good fighters. So at vicksburg. In july 1863, an illinois soldier, william wiley, reports that the men marched hard all because the officers had rushed them through as if they were on a forced march. There was no point. There was no enemy nearby. So wiley wondered why they were being run back and forth like. Greyhounds. What wiley found out was a few of the head officers had got too much mississippi run, and they didnt. What they were doing. Other soldiers talk about problem of being subjected double quicks and extra drilling for the pleasure of drunken officers who are abusing them for their own amusement. So enlisted men believe that these useless drills are wasting their wasting their manpower, manhood and hurting the war effort. And a confederate soldier, Robert Watson, went so far as to threaten to desert, to go to some other command because his Commanding Officer was so drunk he didnt want to abandon his duty completely. But i think as watson saw it, these drunken officers were misusing him. And also, his fellow his fellow soldiers, when the confederacy didnt really manpower to waste. So it was only by a certain deserting and joining another outfit that watson could escape abuse and fulfill his patriotic obligations as a soldier and a man. And this potential for disorder caused by drunken soldiers officers. It left civil u. N. Observers horrified as. Well, although they might not have been surprised and they respond by articulating their own ideas about role that liquor should play in soldiers life and their opinions are different than the soldiers and the officers. Temperance reformers, especially thought that soldiers should avoid all liquor at, all costs. Theyre worried that theyll jeopardize their manliness and jeopardize the safety of the country as a result. So reformers worried that young men would drink to their ruin in an effort to assert masculinity and to appeal to social stability, to and to bravery. And then after spending time in the army, both abstainers and drinkers would be ruined. Fatigue rations would be thrust. Everyone. So what reformers wanted for soldiers to pledge themselves to total abstinence both Union Confederate temperance reformers tracks evangelicals did as well. And they attempted to reform military drinking culture by championing the virtues of the sober life. And that tracks were not shy about exploiting the imminence of death to try to avoid young to avoid drinking, particularly death and damnation. They went for that. So tracks published by north carolinians, urged soldiers to flee all sins, reminded the young men that swearing led to gambling that. Gambling led to intemperance, and that intemperance led to and then subsequently eternal torment. So drunkards had no place in heaven and in temperate soldiers, were risking not only their soul, but they also top of it could bring anguish on their a heavy burden and northern tracks follow the same themes that in one in temperance was said to scar soldier similar to the bite a lobster that scars a fisherman. Presumably this tract aimed at new englanders. But its a little bit hard to tell. The brave men again, avoid all the vices swearing, drinking. They protect themselves first from accidents, then from crime and death, and then from anguish. They from bringing ruin to their families. And from how. I think, though, that reform also knew that appealing to young mens sense of morality and care for their soul might only so far. Because while there are plenty of tracks that first kind of hyperbolic kattegat sorry, there are others are much more pragmatic and they kind of they seem to try to appeal. Appeal soldiers desire to stay alive and what they do what these tracks do is they directly confront military policies that are using medicinally. So these tracks and theyre going against the medical community as well. But they instruct soldiers to rely on cold water and temperate habits. This is not practical necessarily for to just rely on cold water while theyre in the field. But one northern track called a unit wounded soldier told of a young man with habits of great selfdenial and selfcontrol for he was severely wounded in battle. And then while he was wounded, he came down with a bout of typhoid fever. Miraculously the man not only recovered, but he also didnt need any amputations, so he was able to return to the battlefield to do service for his country. And according to the tract, if the man had been a drinker he never would have recovered at very least he would have had a limb amputated and be have been unable to continue as a soldier. So if the threat of internal damnation wasnt going stop a soldier, perhaps its the very pragmatic possible bility of avoiding amputation might im not convinced that these tracks had much effect at all. Maybe they did. What they reveal, i think, are are the intense, intense debates surrounding the use of liquor and its relationship to both masculinity and patriotism. So i think reformers and perhaps not surprisingly, they carry along these middle class and evangelical throughout the civil war. And they argue that sober men served their country most morally and most effectively. They dont see a difference between those two things. And yet what i find really interesting is the soldiers and officers themselves are not in agreement. Instead, they create acceptable definition of masculinity for themselves. They made room for a moderate consumption of liquor for when they were sick. However they defined that, but they stopped short of just drinking to excess with no regard for themselves or others. Soldiers and officers absolutely condemn the abuse of liquor and in particular, they condemn men who drink much, that it causes violence. That i think seems needless and especially wasteful in a war where people are dying anyway in battle. So soldiers overwhelmingly argue that there can be good men, men who serve their country effectively who use liquor because. It makes them better soldiers. It allows them to stay healthier. It staves off the harsh effects of camp life and and enables men to serve their to the fullest. Thank. Wonderful. Thank you so much, megan. That was that was very enlightening and. I, i want to remind you all that you can put any questions you have into the q chapel books and we will, we will get as many asked as we possibly can. But i guess to start us off, how did you become interested in this topic of alcohol and masculinity . I mean, this is very interesting topic that that thats been overlooked. So how did you how did this interview it thats a really its really interesting question and i dont think i have a very short answer. I think i went to grad School Interested in the civil war. My purdue professors might have had something to do with that, but i was interested the war for a few decades before that. So the drinking part, i think, kind of hit me by surprise when i got into grad school, became really interested. First in reform movements. Those i think really those anxieties that people to worry about drinking and its relationship to society its relationship to gender and to race and. While i was at alabama, i worked with rabo, who was a fante tastic advisor, and i told him i had these that i thought really were going separate ways and. He really worked with me to show all of the ways potentially that they worked together. And then once i got into the project what the temperance reformers, i think they were my starting point and. The project moved well. A study of temperance so i still like their tracks. I still like their newspapers. They are incredibly almost comically hyper, but but the study moved far beyond. What the temperance reformers thought. So i ended up much more broadly than i ever would have thought. So that kind of gets to one of our first questions. It just source says when when these men at theyre in a crack state to be writing these of events that are happening people are in various states of sobriety. You know how do you trust, what diaries or letters might be saying about drinking. And alternatively, is there an air of selfcensorship then that goes with what the soldiers right. Yeah. So i would guess i would say what i do there when im looking at soldiers letters and diaries i aggregate them, i mean and not in a mathematical way. Let me be really clear there, but i think over time you get so many sources and you start to see the pattern and i looking at soldiers accounts and it with government records official record the official records are full of references to liquor its supply the problems caused by it and so on and so forth. But i do deal a lot with perception in the book because i think on one level i think the way that people talking about liquor matters just much as what theyre actually using. So if if someone is talking about an officer that they perceive to be drunk, then im curious about how those rumors, those perceptions might be functioning. But i think with soldiers themselves. In some cases, theyre pretty matter of fact about it. But i try to keep in mind, if its letters, especially i try to keep in mind who theyre talking to so they are much more likely to talk about what. Theyre up to in camp with their dads or their brothers or other male relatives than they are when they write them. Right. And ill have like specific letters where soldiers will say, like, you dont need to worry about me, mom, im not drinking a thing but i you know, i, its a letter to mom. So it may not tell the whole story. But but other i mean, i think too, especially men are writing to their dads or their brothers. Theres also some like, i dont want to be too sappy, theres a real care for for each other. So that story of john overton that i shared, thats told by a friend, but its a friend who is really and i see that happening lot is that soldiers will write home theyre concerned about someones behavior but theres a compassionate or a compassion to it and so i think that makes it its last gossipy and not as prone to exaggeration maybe, but very much a concerned friend, a Family Member writing about what they is happening. Its very interesting, you Public Opinion and rumors. And i was wondering, i thought that was one of the really interesting of your book. I was wondering if you could touch on that a little bit more so mostly comes into play with generals at least thats what i found. But federals and confederates but really, really, really in the union there is this desire to want to link morality, battlefield performance and particular northerners reformers temperance reformers of course. But even the the Reform Community people assume that you have to be to win this idea that your character is related to your success. And so what it does is it leads a lot of rumors when Union Generals dont do very well. So it. Mcdowell, for example, gets accused of drunkenness, i think just because people dont like him, because he doesnt drink. But he i mean, i think hes a people dont like im a hooker after chancellorsville is plagued by these that he was drunk and thats why the federals lost. And whats really interesting there is that civilians start the rumors the federal government even is piqued by them. But generals at chancellorsville a close. Ranks immediately and they say that hooker wasnt that he might been sick, that he may very well have been sick, but that he absolutely was not drinking. And and this gets into your question of like, can we trust them or not . I dont really know if theyre telling the truth or if theyre just closing ranks. But i think its really interesting that they argue immediately that he isnt drunk, but he is. So you can be sick and thats acceptable. And you can also be sick and use liquor. So i think those two things are playing together really interestingly, but but it does from a civilian. They assume that hooker is drunk and hes done nothing. The battle to indicate you know, that that he wouldnt be confederates really celebrate theyre a little bit different but they really celebrate the sobriety of lee and jackson thats something they hold up again that these men are moral and jackson especially is a cold enthusiast and thats really held up as as of part of their success success. That is very interesting. We a few questions here that are curious about the differences between the confederate and Union Drinking did one imbibe more was it more prevalent than the confederate see. So i would say theyre two, two two parts of this answer the answer is that the the signifier essence of drinking is the same. So the way that alcohol is understood medically is the same the way that soldiers think about drinking is the same in the union and the confederacy. But federals have a lot more supply. So the federal army, whether its the medical department, the Subsistence Department there, be able to provide liquor rations pretty regularly throughout the war, not perfectly, but pretty regularly the war. So federal soldiers talk receiving whiskey confederates have a really severe shortage, partly because of the blockade and then partly because there are bread shortages throughout the if you dont have any grain, eat, youre not making bread. Youre not also distilling very much. So its really all that the Confederate Medical Department can do to try to scrape together. I guess you cant really scrape liquor. Its a pool thats butter as much liquor they can and theyre desperate for it. That doesnt leave lot of rations be distributed. So what see in the confederacy is soldiers tracking down and theyre really adept at this. So they can fine apple impeach from farmers. There are all these accounts of them finding gallons of it here there and everywhere in rural parts of south. And i think its a difference of scale. Right. So the confederacy and, its armies as a whole isnt producing enough, but that doesnt theres not enough for an individual group of soldiers to get really from time to time. Its a question of scale. There. Interesting how how does. This does the confederacy clamp down on and distill in any way or do does the north and does the union clamp down on distilling . Yeah, the north doesnt. The north has license laws and and they keep those in place much to the chagrin of temperance reformers. The north raises taxes so theyre using whiskey and its flow or liquor, i should say. And flow to raise revenue for. The war, the confederacy. Absolutely clamps down again, got food shortages. And so what ends up happening is that confederates seven different Confederate States prohibit distilling. And they their rhetoric basically suggests that distillers are unpatriotic that are wasting food with their distilling. And then on top of it all they causing theyre causing women and children to starve the wives of soldiers theyre causing them to starve. And then they are also causing the soldiers to get drunk. So its a double like its a double double whammy for distillers that they are undercutting the war effort in these multiple ways. Theyre just as bad as profit tiers. Theyre also raising prices. So theyre extorting as well. So distillers become, i think, associated with disloyalty in the confederacy and distilling becomes illegal. So we wouldnt necessarily think that prohibition would pop up in the confederacy, but absolutely. Does it in a way that it doesnt in the north. So thats one of the interesting components of the war. I think. Yeah, thats thats interesting and ironic that the state is is coming in to stop distilling could a question about religious beliefs that play a role in how much the men drank at all. Yes as men who are from evangelical backgrounds are much less likely to drink so and they they write a lot about their frustration with liquor both theres it seems like to the extent that i can get numbers which is not that great an extent it seems like only 10 of men in regiments are kind of joining temperance societies in the camps or taking pledges, which is about the same as the number of people who are active in temperance organizations before the war. But so i would say a relationship between evangelical religion and temperance, but its not its not the case that every who was religious was a temperance. I advocate. And of course, catholic soldiers theyre out going to church on st patricks day and then going out and partying. So i think there is much i think there are limits to how influential religion was on curtail drinking. But did immigrants germans irish play a big picture in your story. I yes and so its not a story of immigration by any but it comes up and i think the story of german american soldiers comes up a little bit more. First of all, theyre their rules for rations are different than everybody elses. Theyre allowed to have beer more than native born soldiers, which creates quite a bit of but got their patriotism questioned. And Irish American soldiers have this as well right their their commitment to the cause thats union a confederate. Its being constantly this idea that theyre maybe not committed and so their drinking can a part in this if theyre hesitant to enlist or like that which german american soldiers tended to be and theyre also drinking. Then theres this idea perhaps that they are not good soldiers or that maybe theyre drinking undercuts their patriotism in some way and. Then they, of course, back against that. They that really its native born soldiers. Who are the drunks. They have no idea how to drink responsibly. And theres this one saloon keeper in richmond. His name is is john lang, and he is a german american. Hes a confederate supports the confederacy through and through, but gets really frustrated throughout war because his business is subject to these constantly changing laws. Martial law, prohibition, and its his livelihood. Its really being undercut and hes frustrated that his particular line of work is coming under fire and his patriotism being questioned because of the like, because he supports the confederacy. Its like hes using his saloon to gather supplies. So i think he chafes at the notion that hes a confederate because hes a saloon keeper. Interesting. Yeah. You mentioned that the the temperance tracks that nasas lee walker you cannot gauge effective necessarily they are but where theyre other things that perhaps did work to real these men back in and away from drinking. I dont know. I dont really think so, because so the temperance reformers try their tracks. Families tried to convince men. And i do think that that has some effect. Like there are some soldiers who say, you know, soandso cant drinking with us tonight because wife says no, you know, so even like through letters and all of distance, its still not happening. So i think, i do think that wives and mothers have, a little bit of an effect. But not really. And the military doesnt either. They drunkenness after the affair after it happens they use Corporal Punishment on enlisted men who drink and it doesnt really. It it doesnt necessarily help any creates a lot of resentment among enlisted men so no i see it as just a constant have a struggle whatever the militarys try and they do they also try closing and cutting off men from supply supply i guess it sort of works but not not really. I feel like none of the solution are meeting expectations, so i think if anything works, just the men deciding among themselves what they think is acceptable and what isnt. So i think theres some selfpolicing. But as far as efforts from outside outside, yeah. So when theres selfpolice thing or there is that tension you mentioned between the officers and the enlisted men are any attitudes about drinking towards africanamericans . To us . Mm. I think you asked. And then also just in general, are there there there is this thought among white northerners. Well, ill talk about white northerners for a second. So why it southerners have for generations, right . Perhaps enslaved people and free black from having alcohol. So prohibition in the south is racialized. We dont call it prohibition, but its absolutely there. And its race based. I think are worried after emancipation that black people once theyre free are going to drink too. And so black americans are very conscious of this and i think work. Really purposefully to combat that image. So a lot of what i see are black americans arguing that theyre more sober than their white counterparts, that black soldiers are more sober than their white counterparts. So theyre doing their patriotic duty better. And in some cases, theres antagonism between like black soldiers and irish soldiers about whos better american, the black soldier, irish or excuse me, whos sober, or the irish soldiers who are drinking. Theres some nativism and some racism going back and forth, but and then at other cases are African American accounts of enslaved people who ran to union lines, who are sober and then are like given back to disloyal owners who are drunks. So basically saying like here is a black person who has all of the character that you want to make a Good American and youre sending him back to his owner whos a traitor and also a drunk, because those two things go together and so you see those those those elements of race and its relationship to gender and sobriety, theyre all playing out. But i see a lot of African American just very, very crafted narratives of sobriety as evidence of their deserving of freedom theyre deserving of of citizenship and their and their evidence of patriotism was any evidence of women and camp followers imbibing or did you find anything like that . Yeah, i think most of most of the women i encounter are merchants or i runners, facilitators so theyre smuggling liquor camp for the men there, assisting with drinking or theyre there operating some kind of, you know, some kind of a business where soldiers can drink so theyre bound in that stew. And again, it on who you talk to like if you if reading the accounts of enlisted these women are doing a Great Service for their country. If you read the accounts of Commanding Officers, the official records or some other source. These women are a problem. So, you know, its all about perspective and southern women, southern white women, i have stomach sounds of them being very worried about combination of yankee invasion, emancipation and rampant drunkenness. And i you see those rumors and those fears that union and black men will become drunk and sort of ravage the countryside. So you see those rumors coming in from women, not necessarily the confederate government, but but i see that element as well. Yes, women, absolutely play a role in providing. One of the questions actually was that were there any of soldiers getting drunk and going to town and attacking civilians . Yes, a lot in both the north and. South, yes. Yeah. Its a problem on both sides. It tends to affect confederate towns and border towns more just because of where the you know, the proximity to the fighting. Although there are some pennsylvania accounts, too, but its absolutely problem. And i think thats one of the reasons, you know, to go back to the private shields i mentioned. Thats one of the reasons why his behavior such a problem he gets drunk, he gets violent. Hes not only causing problems in camp, but those men also are in town. Theyre fighting with each other. Theyre fighting with civilly. They attack merchant. When they dont get what they want, they africanamericans, when they dont what they want. So you see, a lot of attempts, both confederate and union, to keep soldiers out of town and then also to keep civilians from selling to them. Thats the other piece of the puzzle here. You keep the men as to camp as you can, but you also to have punishments and regulations got to expand martial law over civil, which is very sketchy because thats the only way you can keep the attacks the property to destruction. Thats the only way you can keep it under control. Very interesting. Got a big question here. How does the civil war fit into the longer history of of attitudes towards alcohol . You. Yeah, yeah, thats a big one. So i think the war is one of the places where we really see americans struggle with the role that drinking plays in our national identity. And its not the only place that we see that. But i think its one of the big flashpoints and i think another big flashpoint is going to be world war one. And obviously, Like National prohibition out of that. But as far as like where Temperance Movement fits because i think thats one part of this question. The Temperance Movement regroups really quickly after. The war i think it fits and. They perceive this, too. And im getting the work of like gaines foster, other historians. It dovetails really nicely with emancipation because with emancipation, you, the government stepping in to write a moral wrong as reformers see it theyre writing the sin of slavery so reformers say all right lets do drinking next lets take the the power of the government that is growing out of the war. And lets use it to make the United States more moral. So the the Temperance Movement is going to have a lot of momentum coming out of the war by the end of the 1860s. And through reconstruction, and its just going to get stronger. And i think true thats true in the north. And its also true in the former confederacy. They dont link it to emancipation, perhaps for obvious reasons, but they do need prohibition after slavery. Theyve already experimented with it once during the war. So think we see that prohibition becomes much more national after the war than it had been maybe before the war. But yeah so i think theres that official like question of like what does the war mean for a temperance and that movement . Liquor businesses also get bigger that bigger federal state is going to help liquor interests as. Well, but i just i think theres more i dont know if nebulous is the right word, but i think theres theres this this trickier cultural question to get at. And i think what the war shows us is that we are not united on what we think it to be a man coming out of the war and that veterans particular dont have the same definition that civilians have. And i think thats going to be a problem as veterans. That theyre not sober, theyre not hard working. They dont, you know, walk pulling themselves up by their bootstraps theyre sick in a million ways. You can define sickness and theyre using liquor in a way that that civilians dont like. But yeah to get back to my original part of the answer, i just think and i, i jokingly say this a little bit, but i think there is this question that still plagues us in 2023 and that is how much can drink and still be a good person. And i think thats really what soldiers are asking during the war. And everybody is asking asking, ah, a final is what was the most interest dating thing that you found . A story, anecdote, whatever while you were doing your research . Oh my goodness. I think it depends on the day. I think a confederate at prohibition was the of that was one of the big surprises. Mississippi has it had a state dispensary system that i found really, really fascinating to learn about . But there are i feel as well, like there are all of these just different people. I guess theyre not characters. They were a real for no particular at all. I have some that i find particularly funny. I really like an officer augustus. I think his his writings are published so. Anyone can find them, but hes very funny. He doesnt hes a provost guard a lot of the time, but he also doesnt really have a lot of tolerance for people he considers to be drunk, but he drinks a lot and self and then he somehow ends up drunk in memphis and at a temperance play. And so hes writing about how he didnt really like the play and he didnt find it very interesting. And i had found it, i think, in my, you know, nerdy sort of way. I found it a very funny and endearing but i dont i dont know how analytically significant he is. Just i just found him funny. So yeah, sometimes you just find those gems in the archives or online. Its yeah. Well wonderful. I think thats about all the time we have with dr. Barrett tonight. Thank you so much to the wonderful audience for your and for attending tonights talk and thank you to these centers donors we hope to see you all at future events with the Virginia Center for civil war studies, and especially a huge you to dr. Megan bever for providing us with a fascinating talk on her research and her brand new book thank you for joining her evening we really appreciate it