Black and White
In terms of morals, Charley is very
set on his ideas of what is good and what is bad. In terms of the war, he
sees things as very cut and dried, and does not ever appear to falter
or question his beliefs. This is especially evident in what he
writes, where there can be seen a massive bias against the South and its
ideals, and even towards those in the North who wavered in their support of the
war.
One example of the latter is in his talking about the election of Connecticut. He essentially says that only those who voted for Buckingham, who supported the war effort heavily, were the ones who voted in the right. The other option, Seymour, supported ending the war, and he attributes a soldier’s desertion in part to Seymour not winning the election.
Charles’ bias towards the south is extremely prevalent throughout the letters. At one point, he calls the State of Virginia “…one vast pest house. politically, morally & physically.” At another he comments on how target practice was not quite as enjoyable as attacking real rebels. At times, I believe that he steps close to oversimplifying the war. While he is one of the few who seem to recognize that the war is as much of a war against slavery as it was for the preservation of the Union, he also sees things as either clearly good or bad. Sometimes, thinking like this can be dangerous.
One questions the source of his ideas. Certainly, F. W. Gunn and his family were a major influence on the development of his ideas. Also, the books that he read could have very likely been a part of why he felt the way he did. He was a prolific reader, after all, and I’m certain that Mr. Gunn would have pointed Charles towards books, like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s, that showed a certain image of the South. While there is little evidence showing that he was an overly spiritual man, there is also no evidence pointing in the opposite direction, so it is possible that Charley could also have been influenced by preachers who praised the war effort. George Lyman, the preacher at the Congregational Church in Washington, is one possibility if religion influenced his ideas.
One example of the latter is in his talking about the election of Connecticut. He essentially says that only those who voted for Buckingham, who supported the war effort heavily, were the ones who voted in the right. The other option, Seymour, supported ending the war, and he attributes a soldier’s desertion in part to Seymour not winning the election.
Charles’ bias towards the south is extremely prevalent throughout the letters. At one point, he calls the State of Virginia “…one vast pest house. politically, morally & physically.” At another he comments on how target practice was not quite as enjoyable as attacking real rebels. At times, I believe that he steps close to oversimplifying the war. While he is one of the few who seem to recognize that the war is as much of a war against slavery as it was for the preservation of the Union, he also sees things as either clearly good or bad. Sometimes, thinking like this can be dangerous.
One questions the source of his ideas. Certainly, F. W. Gunn and his family were a major influence on the development of his ideas. Also, the books that he read could have very likely been a part of why he felt the way he did. He was a prolific reader, after all, and I’m certain that Mr. Gunn would have pointed Charles towards books, like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s, that showed a certain image of the South. While there is little evidence showing that he was an overly spiritual man, there is also no evidence pointing in the opposite direction, so it is possible that Charley could also have been influenced by preachers who praised the war effort. George Lyman, the preacher at the Congregational Church in Washington, is one possibility if religion influenced his ideas.