Q & A September 2021

The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. Some are questions for which I had no ready answer, usually because I had not researched the specific person or event. Some comments challenged the historic accuracy of one of my posts or suggested my research for an article was incomplete. I answered every correspondence from readers, sometimes glad to learn more myself and, occasionally, to try to correct a mis-conception by a reader. In any case, I am always pleased to hear from the followers of my articles or my books.

(Q) Through Ancestry.com and other sources, I recently learned that my GGgrandfather on my father’s side, fought for the Confederacy. He was born in 1849, in North Carolina, and a record shows he enlisted in 1864. That would mean he was only fifteen.  Is that likely, or is there some mistake in the date? I am a 47 year old woman and am a direct descendant of the man. My great-grandfather, his son, was a prominent clergyman and our family has supported civil rights for over 100 years. Neither my father or grandfather ever mentioned this fact to me or my brother. The 1880 census lists him as a farmer and lists his wife and two sons. He died in 1928. Could he have been a slave-holder? If so, that is distressing to me. What should I tell my children and grandchildren about him?

(A) Tell them the truth as you know it. Many 15-16 year old boys fought for the Confederacy and I doubt slavery (or anti-slavery) was on their minds when they joined the army. Most of the Southern boys fought because an older relative had joined and/or because a recruiter had convinced them that the Northern soldiers had invaded their home state and were killing southerners. Although many of the boys served as musicians and drummers, some fought (and died) in battles. I cannot imagine the courage it required for a boy that young to fight, even if he was mis-guided. It seems your search is close to completing a personal history of the boy and the man he later became. I urge you to finish your research and you might begin by looking for information about his father (your GGGgrandfather); who may have also served in the Confederate Army or a North Carolina militia. According to the census, in 1860, the total population of North Carolina was about 330,000, including about 100,000 slaves; but only about 28% of the white families owned at least one slave. There are web-sites that offer help in finding obituaries and census records, and those may fill in some gaps. In any case, whatever you find, in my opinion, the deeds or mis-deeds of your great-grandfather (or GGGgrandfather) should not cause you concern. Although your GGgrandfather would probably have been too young to own slaves, if you find his family were slave-holders, you can give your children and grandchildren a life lesson by explaining how much the recent generations have changed.  Good luck and please let me know what you learn.

(Q) Did President Lincoln consider replacing General Grant after the Wilderness and Cold Harbor battles where so many men died in futile battles? I know some newspapers began to call him a butcher and ridiculed his name (Ulysses S. Grant) by referring to him as Unlimited Slaughter Grant, rather than the more respectful, Unconditional Surrender Grant.

(A) I do not believe Lincoln ever considered replacing Grant, although there were some congressmen and newspaper publishers who made that suggestion. Even Grant, in his memoirs, expressed regret at the losses in that campaign. However, Lincoln appreciated Grant’s focus on relentlessly pushing the Confederate armies. It became a war of attrition and the North had more men and supplies to throw into the fray. Both men thought that was the only strategy which would bring an end to the rebellion and eliminate the Confederacy. And they were right.

(Q) Do you think the availability of repeating rifles to the Union forces gave such an advantage over Confederate forces who had to use less effective single fire rifles, that it was a deciding factor in the Civil War? Who was the most effective General on both sides? Which battle won by the Union was the turning point in the war from which the Confederacy could not recover?

(A) Great questions, but I am not an expert in those areas. I do not know much about the different armaments used in the Civil War, nor much about battle tactics of various Generals, or even statistical military data. My interest in Civil War battles is not about tactics or ground gained or lost, but about the soldiers who had to fight and the civilians who suffered as collateral damage. One critic wrote that my lack of research, therefore my lack of knowledge, about such matters limits my ability to correctly describe events of the great War. To that, I plead guilty! My interest in the Civil War era lies in the individuals who lived (and died) in that time. I wrote a forward for a new book that read, “Some were politicians, others were soldiers, a few were opportunists, but most were ordinary individuals who made critical decisions when they found themselves in unusual circumstances in the era of slavery, secession, and Civil War. Their humanity, both noble and not so noble, was on display.”  In essence, I write about, and care about, the people. If you are interested in military details of the Civil War, I urge you to join a local Civil War Round Table or society. I can assure you that military experts abound in those important institutions.

(Q) Prior to the Civil War, I know there was a thriving business in the auction of slaves throughout the South. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest owned such an auction house where the unfortunate humans were bought and sold like farm animals. I assume there was still an active slave trade in the first year or two after the war started, but were slaves still being bought and sold right up to the end of the war and the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery?

(A) The simple answer is yes. There were ads in Southern newspapers and in posters announcing slave auctions, or direct sales and purchases, throughout the war, until at least April 1865. There may have been later ones in the deep south, but this poster dated April 25, 1865 in Macon Georgia, was the latest dated advertisement I found in old papers.

“WANTED TO BUY ONE HUNDRED NEGROES. I wish to purchase one hundred negroes to fill an order for investment. Single boys, men and girls and a few families for which liberal prices will be paid. Apr 25  A. Wilson.”

However, in the last two years of the war, many slave-holders were forced to sell their “chattel property” to pay debts as the general economy in the Southern states was collapsing. The prices began to fall and some slaves were even lost to foreclosure (only to be sold again). When it became clear the Confederacy would be defeated, at least a few “businessmen” began to accumulate slaves, for which they had no agricultural need, in a bet that the Union would offer compensation to slave-holders who voluntarily freed slaves. There was some truth to a persistent rumor in the last year of the war that Abraham Lincoln had proposed a large fund for such a purpose, believing it would be cheaper in money and lives than continuing to fight the war. This attempted money grab by the speculator slave-holders did not work as Lincoln dropped the idea! I have seen anecdotal evidence that there were some slaves bought and sold in Texas and Louisianna as late as May and June 1865, which may be true as certain parts of those two states were the last to come under full Union control. I found it interesting that the advertisement quoted above was posted in Macon, Georgia, just six months after Union General Sherman led a large army across Georgia to the sea, passing near the town. Mr. Wilson obviously felt safe to post his disgusting ad in Macon, indicating the Union forces were not in control of the area. I do believe that the “business” ended by late 1865 and the passage of the 13th Amendment.