Q & A August 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. The first question is in reference to an article published in May about the CSS Hunley, the Confederate submarine which attacked and sank the USS Housatonic in Charleston Harbor in February 1864. The second question concerns a novel, recently made into a TV movie, about the underground railroad. The next two questions, in a way, ask about the effects of slavery in America and one reader expressed his thoughts about the many soldiers who succumb to the wounds after a war is over. The last writer wanted me to lighten up.

(Q) Contrary to your claims, in fact, the Hunley was never fully submerged when it attacked the USS Housatonic; so, it should not be labeled as the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel in wartime. That real event actually occurred twenty years later by a Russian Submarine. The Henley floated at the surface.

(A) I understand your point, but disagree with your conclusion. However, the Henley was capable of operating below the surface and delivering a charge against an enemy ship while submerged. In its only attack, most of the hull (and the crew inside) were below the water-line, because the officers planning the attack decided delivering a charge in that mode was safer than fully submerged. However, they were wrong and the Henley sank near its target with the loss of the entire 8- man crew. I have not found any historic accounts that did not describe the incident as the first successful use of a submarine to sink an enemy vessel in combat. And I agree.

(Q) You wrote about the Underground Railroad describing it as a patchwork of surface trails, waterways, and other pathways leading to safehouses and ultimately to an area where escaping slaves could be free. My wife just finished reading and is recommending that I read, a famous Pulitzer Prize winning book titled “Underground Railroad” by Colson Whitehead that describes it very differently. The book suggests that there were railroads actually built underground to move escaping slaves northward and that the tracks ran from under South Carolina, North Carolina and into Virginia. What is factual?

(A) The book is a novel, not history, and the idea of a railway system of tunnels under the Southern states is a pure fantasy. I read the book by Mr. Whitehead several years ago knowing it was not a history lesson, but thought it might still contain valuable lessons about slavery.  I believe it was so well reviewed by critics (it did win a Pulitzer Prize) because it brings its fictional characters to life and depicts the evils of slavery and the hardships escaping slaves endured. I found it interesting that the author also developed story lines to illustrate the various levels of morality among different slaveholders. (As if slavery could ever be justified morally). Some taught their slaves to read and write, encouraged marriage, kept families together, and allowed religious services. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some treated their slaves no better than farm animals, branding them, selling them, breaking up families, beating them for minor infractions, and even killing them to instill deeper fear in other slaves. The author describes the atrocities in chilling detail. You can tell your wife with certainty that there were no underground trains; however, as a novel, the book has merit. Read it to see if you agree. The book has been made into a multi-part movie by Amazon Prime and, if reviews can be believed, it closely follows the book. If so, the fantasy about real tunnels and trains may leave the wrong historical perspective with some people; however, if it retains the humanity lessons of the book, it could be a powerful explanation of the horrors of slavery. A line in the book spoken by a former slave is, “You can escape slavery, but you keep the scars.”

(Q) I recently read an essay you wrote comparing George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Generally, I agree with your assessment, but I feel you glossed over Washington’s involvement with slavery. He owned human beings, bought and sold them, and profited from their labor. On the other hand, Lincoln objected to slavery, and as President, pushed for abolition. Washington was willing to lead the Continental Army against British rule primarily to assure the perpetuation of slavery. I think Washington’s legacy is tarnished and he does not deserve the reverence in which you seem to hold him. (This is a condensed version of a very long e-mail.)

(A) Most important in rebuttal, Washington did not lead the colonies in revolution against England to perpetuate slavery-you are very wrong and I will address that point later. Further, in my essay, I believe that I covered Washington’s ownership of slaves as a difference between him and Lincoln. Washington was a product of his times and his heritage, and that included the fact that slavery was legal under British Law and in every American colony. It doesn’t mean that it was morally right, just that it was widely practiced and legal. You are judging Washington’s ownership of slaves from a perspective that is 250 years removed from his period and I believe that is unfair. I certainly wish the nations of the world would have abolished slavery centuries earlier, but they did not. However, as to your statement about Washington’s motivation to pursue separation from British rule, it had nothing to do with slavery; let me repeat, it had nothing to do with perpetuating slavery! In fact, England, and its people, benefited from slavery in the colonies by importing cotton for its mills, and rice and tobacco for consumption; all crops raised using slave labor. The real issues for Washington, and other founding fathers, were the differences in the ways that the British government had treated the people in the colonies compared to other British citizens. The colonists were taxed differently, there was an occupying British force in their communities, they were not given full protection in courts, and their grievances were not addressed. Please read the Declaration of Independence! The reasons for starting the American Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with slavery! However, the same cannot be said for the Civil War over eighty years later.

(Q) It is clear from your many different articles that you believe slavery is a “stain” on our country, as spoken by Abraham Lincoln. Do you also believe that the country had an opportunity in 1865 -1870, after the Civil War ended, to establish a society in which former slaves were fully integrated and we could have avoided most of the racial tensions we face today? If so in your opinion, who caused that failure?

(A) I often receive correspondence with this basic theme, and they all cause me to reflect on a painful part of our past.  First, slavery in any form is abhorrent to me, but I realize the historical truth that the United States of America would not have been formed if the founders had tried to force emancipation on the slave states in the either the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention. The states that relied on slavery simply would have formed a separate nation (or nations) that permitted human bondage. Further, I believe that the Civil War was justified to end the Confederacy, which in turn changed the nation’s political power structure, weakening the influence of pro-slavery Southern Congressmen, Senators, and Judges. That sea-change allowed the passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution which made slavery illegal and established a legal system of civil rights. The abolition of slavery, in my opinion, required those events. Unfortunately, after only a few years beyond the Civil War, citizens and their politicians in the North tired of the costs of reconstruction, and, combined with a desire to welcome former Confederate states back into full partnership, allowed an erosion of those hard-won civil rights in the South.  It would be easy to blame only Southern Whites for the racial animus that doomed civil rights protections after reconstruction and gave us another 150 years of racial tension. However, it is only fair to note that many White citizens in the North were either opposed to, or ambivalent about, progressive civil rights for the recently freed slaves. Therefore, the failure to enforce the protections intended for the newly designated African-American citizens by the three Constitutional Amendments, cannot be blamed only on Southern bigotry. I wish the historical record was different, but the facts are that there were people who wanted to own another human being, and many others who didn’t care, and when the opportunity arose to end that system, it was only replaced by a different form of oppression. As a result, today we face collateral damage for that failure. I hope no one asks me how to overcome the racial barriers, for I do not know.

(Q) The previous Memorial Day article you wrote touched me. It was about the two Union soldiers who were both at times designated as the last to lose their life in battle at the end of the Civil War. I wonder, however, about soldiers who died of battle wounds weeks or months after the end of the war. I know you cannot cover every tragic aspect of that war, but the families of those soldiers suffered just as much. This came to mind as I watched news coverage of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. It stated 3,417 soldiers had died there, certainly some poor soul was the last as of this date but many others will die later as a result wounds received during their service. Who counts them? Does the military keep such records? I read that they kept adding names to the Viet Nam Memorial for years. I ask not because I am interested in the statistics, but in recognition of the ongoing sadness. War related deaths do not end when the troops come home.

(A) Thank you for the poignant reminder. Of course, you are correct. I do not know how the military might keep track of those service men and women who succumb to their wounds after a war ends, but I am aware that names were added to the Viet Nam Memorial after it was completed and dedicated. My Memorial Day articles often tell of one or two soldiers who died in the service of our country; however, I usually conclude those articles with a general comment that we should honor all who made such a sacrifice. Your letter reminded that my general comments do not convey the lingering cloud of pain over hundreds of thousands of families which lasts long after a conflict is over. You are obviously reflecting on that sad fact and I thank you for your respectful consideration.

(Q) Do you ever write about happy times, pleasant experiences, or humorous topics? Is there ever any joy among the people you chronicle? Are you morose yourself? I usually enjoy your stories and your style of writing, but you should loosen up from time to time. Asking and suggesting for a friend.

(A) Thank you, I think! Ten years ago, when I chose to research the Lincoln era, I knew that many of the individuals would have had their lives disrupted, friends and family lost, homes destroyed, and they faced an uncertain future. That is not exactly fertile ground for humor and joyfulness. I did, however, write about strong marriages, close friendships, devotion to a cause, triumph over an evil system, and the joy of freed slaves. I also wrote about Lincoln’s humor, his deep friendship with Joshua Speed and Secretary Seward, and the love he had for his children. When writing about the experiences of individual soldiers who survived the war, I tried to also include their return to their families and a normal life. I wanted to cover the wide range of human experiences during difficult times even-though, unfortunately in wartime, many of those experiences are tragic. As for me personally, I am not morose, I believe I have a good sense of humor (although I may not be as witty as I think), and I am privileged to enjoy a contented family life. So, please just enjoy the stories of people involved in historical events, but appreciate that most Americans of Lincoln’s generations lived through the unimaginable chaos of Civil War. Also, tell your “friend” that there is no need to worry about me.

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com and find other articles at the website  www.alincolnbygadorris.com