Q and A From Readers July 2023

The following are questions and comments from readers I have received over the past year. I answer every one, as long as they are courteous, even if they disagree with my point of view.

Q.  In a recent article you wrote about women soldiers in the Civil War. One lady you mentioned was Loreta Velasquez, who has been featured on the History Chanel and in several stories about the Civil War. You do not seem to accept the historical accuracy of these accounts. Have you researched her life enough to have an informed opinion?

A. When I first started writing about Lincoln and the Civil War era over ten years ago, I ran across information about her. A few years later when I decided to write specifically about women soldiers who served on either side, I actually reviewed her original book and some magazine articles by others written in the 19th century. A friend wrote about her last year, but I respectfully disagreed with some of his conclusions. So, I have begun to research her once more and plan to publish an article in the fall. Let us just say that I probably won’t be as kind to her as was he. Stay Tuned!

Q. You wrote recently about Leonidas Polk who was an Episcopal Bishop and a Confederate General. I am a life-long Episcopalian, and our creed would not allow the ownership of another human being. How could he, as a theologian, justify supporting slavery? I know it was nearly 200 years ago, but still, even then?

A. This would require a much longer answer to be complete, but, in essence, the Southern Catholic and Protestant clergy had developed a theology, beginning in the late 1600s, that accepted slavery as a normal human condition. (At least for some “other” humans, certainly not themselves.) Polk was a supporter of slavery, but held a fairly compassionate view of how slaves should be treated as compared to many slaveholders. To justify slavery, he would cite that slaves were common in Old Testament times and slavery was not condemned by Christ in New Testament times. Plus, it had been legal in the English colonies before the United States was formed, and still legal in the new country at the time of the Civil War in 1861. Most slave owners encouraged their slaves to accept a unique version of Christianity which called for obedience to masters and acceptance of toil as righteous, while patiently awaiting a better life after death. I have read three books on the subject that ave me some insight on the subject and might help you. (1) “Cotton is King” (a compilation of 19th century essays) (2) “Charles Hogue” by Barnes. Hogue was a theologian and philosopher of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and (3) “Mastering America” by Bonner. I caution you that none are easy reads and you will shake your head at some of their reasoning. As a postscript to the Article (#123) you referenced about Polk, I added that I would research the matter of “Slavery within Southern Theology” and “try” to write an objective article for next fall. That research has not yet started.

Q. In your article about Ward Lamon, Lincoln’s friend and body-guard, you did not mention whether the two men discussed Lamon’s support for slavery and Lincoln’s opposition to it. Do you know if the subject was discussed?

A. As far as I know, there is no record of such discussions; however, I suspect they had conversations about the issue. I am not sure of Lamon’s level of support for slavery, but he was sympathetic to other Southern grievances. Lincoln was always ready to discuss his views on slavery (he hated it) and Lamon was a very outspoken character, so it is not hard to imagine that the subject came up. I can say with confidence that any differences they had on the matter, did not seem to negatively affect their common trust.

 

Q. I learned about Edward Baker’s friendship with Lincoln by reading two Lincoln biographies, including the one you wrote. I think he is a fascinating historical figure, even without his connection to Lincoln. Are there any biographies about Baker you recommend?

A. I enjoyed my research into the life of Edward Baker in preparation for my short article. However, there are not many full biographies of the man, and that is unfortunate because he was a colorful guy. “Edward Dickenson Baker” by Thomas Bowers, is one I could recommend. If I ever write another book like “The Lincoln Era” I would include a longer article about him.

Q. Well, I see you did it again. Your Memorial Day article honored another Union soldier. I find it astounding that you never recognize the courage, honor, and loss of Confederate soldiers. I enjoy your articles, but I believe you have a blind-side.

A. My Southern friend, I think you know I have never denigrated the courage and honor of the Confederate soldier. I do, however, frequently denigrate the politicians and the slaveocracy of the South for being willing to break this country apart to preserve slavery. And make no mistake, secession was about preserving slavery, or if you will, “a state’s right” to retain slavery.

(Q) I am sure you are aware of the Civil War Memorial in Boston to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment of Black soldiers and the unit’s commander Colonel Robert Shaw. I wrote to you a couple of years ago about my concerns about vandalism and possible removal. Now, I understand there is a new controversy brewing about the memorial and whether it should be moved. Evidently, some are objecting that the memorial depicts the White commander riding a horse, while the Black soldiers are relegated to walking beside him. Isn’t the story one of uplifting Black men and recognizing their courage? What is your opinion?

 

 

(A)The monument you reference is in front of Massachusetts State House in Boston. A few years ago, the city enclosed it with a plywood wall to both protect it from further vandalism and to repair a section damaged earlier. Fortunately, the vandals had not caused extensive damage. I visited the memorial last summer (2022) and it was fully visible and restored. A few more explanatory signs about the formation and battle history of the unit have been added, which may help prevent future misunderstandings. I am not sure why vandals chose this monument in the first place. The memorial was intended to commemorate the heroes of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, an all-Black unit of Union soldiers and the Regimental Commander, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, who was White. Colonel Shaw, and most of his men, were killed during an ill-fated land assault on Fort Wagner, a Confederate facility on Charleston Bay. Colonel Shaw, whose family were leaders in the abolitionist movement, had volunteered to train and lead the new regiment. The city of Boston, however, was not the original intended site for the memorial. The initial plan, envisioned soon after the Civil War, was to erect the memorial in Beaufort, South Carolina, near Fort Wagner; however, some White citizen groups in the area objected to the project. When the decision was made to erect the monument in Boston, numerous abolitionist societies joined with survivors of the 54th Massachusetts and emancipated former slaves to pay for the project. It would seem to me to be a memorial that should garner respect, not condemnation. I had not heard about this latest controversy, but it seems silly. During the Civil War, Senior officers rode horses and infantry soldiers marched. That is what the monument depicts to me as well the fact that they were willingly going into battle, together!

Previous
Previous

Q and A from Readers August 2023

Next
Next

Lincoln’s Dream (Article 124)