On this day in 1865 the U.S. Army paraded through Washington, DC, to mark the end of the Civil War. The nation had a million men in uniform, enrolled in an army that the world’s military men envied and feared. To many students of the war, this army was the emblem of what the war had wrought—a modern state. The United States government had grown in size and capacity, had levied its first income tax, and had become a nation-state at last. And here was the great instrument of that state, a citizen-army.
Here’s a less picturesque picture: the number of men in U.S. uniform 1865-1900.
That fearsome army vanished almost instantly and didn’t return. The U.S. fought a quarter century of wars against the aboriginal inhabitants of the continent, and a few more wars against labor unions, with a tiny professional force. And just as the great modern army went away, so did the great modern state. What remained of the war-swollen federal apparatus? The Department of Agriculture, pretty much. Pretty much everything else—even, or especially, the machinery for enforcing civil rights—was similarly reduced. It wouldn’t be till after World War II that such establishments of state power became more or less permanent. So inasmuch as the Civil War ended slavery, it was a watershed—but the other trends it’s often credited with (or blamed for) establishing, it didn’t establish. The pattern of American development 1865-1914—a lot of growth with a little government—is thus an even odder story: it wasn’t the case that Americans had never seen or used modern state power, it was the case that they had, and preferred not to.
23 comments
May 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm
eyeingtenure
Mind-bogglingly small army during those years. I didn’t know that; thanks for sharing.
May 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm
urbino
an army that the world’s military men envied and feared
Really? I’d never heard that.
it wasn’t the case that Americans had never seen or used modern state power, it was the case that they had, and preferred not to
I find myself wondering who all can reasonably be included in the “Americans” expressing such a will. The large standing army seems to have been pretty widely unpopular, from what little I know. The desiccation of the rest of the federal apparatus — was that a product of popular will, or of the big capitalists, industrialists, and other moneyed interests?
May 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Gene O'Grady
Question — I thought I had seen somewhere (perhaps in an analysis of the forces Custer had at Little Big Horn) that a rather large proportion of the permanent army in the 1870’s and 80’s were recent immigrants, including less assimilable groups such as Italians and Irish and Slavs. Anyone know if this is true? If so, it would obviously be a contrast with the Civil War armies.
I believe it is true that world’s military were impressed with the Civil War armies, particularly with the ability Grant and Sherman showed at moving large forces through hostile territory. Wellington, probably a competent judge, had made similar observations about Winfield Scott’s campaign in Mexico.
May 23, 2008 at 4:39 pm
eric
a rather large proportion of the permanent army in the 1870’s and 80’s were recent immigrants
Yes. There’s a discussion of this phenomenon and a table to this effect in this book.
And to your question, urbino, I think I drew that from On the Road to Total War.
May 23, 2008 at 5:29 pm
AWC
Good lord, I’m disagreeable today.
1) The public didn’t “prefer” laissez faire. And until the 1880s, they didn’t get laissez faire. It’s only after about 1886 that the Supreme Court began requiring it.
2) You can’t just dismiss forty years of public debates over tariff policy. How’d you like to pay 50%-100% tax on every item of foreign manufacture? During the Gilded Age, the power lies with the customs service and revenue cutters, and it’s directed outward towards the world.
May 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Paige Davis
Hey!…I Googled for paige davis stripping, but found your page about nnial 2007 – salvatore iaconesi – del.icio.us poetry…and have to say thanks. nice read.
May 23, 2008 at 6:08 pm
eric
Yes, you are disagreeable, AWC, especially as I didn’t even say the things you’re disagreeing with! Where do you see “laissez faire”? What I said was, the size of government decreased. And it did! There’s a graph and everything! And I’m using exclamation points only because I know you read my book! And we’ve had this discussion already! And in it there’s a distinction between the tariff and a big bureaucracy as measures of big gummint! To which I still hew!
May 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm
AWC
Aw, I’m just a Jewish uncle today. Arguing for arguing’s sake. I don’t mean nothin’ by it.
But here goes: you didn’t mention laissez faire. But you did say:
1) “What remained of the war-swollen federal apparatus? The Department of Agriculture, pretty much.”
Demonstrably untrue. See Theda Skocpol.
2) “…it wasn’t the case that Americans had never seen or used modern state power, it was the case that they had, and preferred not to.”
False. They wanted more government and the courts told them: no, you can’t have that; you can have the tariff.
Alternatively, the tariff might not look like big government to us, but it did to the people who lived through the Civil War, the very people you’re referencing. If you think Rufus Peckham hated maximum hours laws, you should see what he thought of sugar duties.
Peace (really!)
May 23, 2008 at 6:48 pm
eric
Demonstrably untrue. See Theda Skocpol
Say, you really didn’t read my book, did you?
They wanted more government and the courts told them: no, you can’t have that; you can have the tariff.
I think this depends very much on who “they” is and what “more government” is.
Shalom, champ.
May 23, 2008 at 7:08 pm
AWC
>Say, you really didn’t read my book, did you?
Hey, you know I read your fine work! In fact, I read it in page proofs and gave you comments. I’ll probably assign it someday.
But writing something isn’t the same as proving it, especially in the historical profession. And if you think I’m a sucker for the Gilded-age state, talk to Richard John.
Sincere regards. Enjoy the holiday.
May 23, 2008 at 8:13 pm
eric
writing something isn’t the same as proving it
I don’t think it’s a particularly fair implication that in the book I merely “write” that US veterans’ benefits weren’t as considerable as you might think; there are actual measures offered for judgment and comparison.
May 23, 2008 at 8:37 pm
urbino
But writing something isn’t the same as proving it
To prove it, you have to demonstrate that it weighs the same as a duck.
May 23, 2008 at 11:15 pm
eric
urbino’s right. If AWC comes back I’m throwing him in the river.
May 23, 2008 at 11:28 pm
urbino
You could always burn him.
May 24, 2008 at 3:36 am
AWC
I thought my last comment was more than complementary. You present plenty of evidence, but you shouldn’t expect that your last book _concluded_ a set of debates that are, quite obviously, still running.
Moreover, I could just as easily say to you: “hey, Eric, don’t you remember my stuff on smuggling in the Gilded Age?” I don’t say that because I understand that you disagree. And I don’t take that personally; I appreciate your point of view. That’s why I visit the site.
May 24, 2008 at 5:35 am
jhm
Sorry for being impertinent, but I wanted to ask this page about something that Hon. Sen. McCain said recently in a speech to a group of Cuban Americans. Now that I look at your graph, I see a bump in what I assume was the Spanish-American War, so maybe this isn’t as off-topic as it could be, but in the speech, the Senator referenced some laudable fighters for liberty in Cuba ‘a century ago [paraphrased].’ He referenced the hundred years (no relation to the Iraq hundred years that I’m aware of) at least twice.
I’ll not pretend to have any special knowledge of Cuban history, but I can’t think of anything besides the Spanish-American War that would fit this description. I guess I’m curious about how this liberation from the Spanish crown was engaged in by Cubans (to the degree that they didn’t consider themselves Spanish). and how the proceeding fifty years brought the distinctly illiberal Fulgencio Batista.
May 24, 2008 at 9:53 am
Bill Harshaw
jhm–McCain may have been referring to Jose Marti et. al. see the wikipedia article on colonial Cuba–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Colonial_Cuba.
May 24, 2008 at 10:11 am
charlieford
Howard Zinn has a pretty good discussion of the rebellion in Cuba, and how we manouvred to get ourselves welcomed as liberators.
May 24, 2008 at 11:10 am
Cala
God, I love this blog. Just for the graph.
May 24, 2008 at 11:12 am
eric
We’re here to please, Cala. You want a graph of tariff revenue as a proportion of import value? You have only to ask.
May 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hemlock
Since the advent of memory theory, I’ve been under the mistaken assumption that most “events” in present national discourse are important…no matter what they did or did not do.
I stand corrected: perhaps historians should still clarify what an “event” did or did not do…but, then again, “did or did not do” is relative, eh?
I do like the graph.
May 29, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Odds & Ends: May 29, 2008
[…] at The Edge of the American West discusses how the bloated wartime government of 1861-1865 disappeared after the Civil War, not to return again until after World War […]
September 6, 2008 at 2:46 pm
TerryB
Good food for thought. Hope to return.