Q & A August 1, 2018

Last month I offered eight of the many questions, comments, and/or constructive criticisms I had received over the past year, primarily from readers of my blogs/articles. Here are few more which made me pause, due further research, and/or argue my position.

 1.      (Q): In a recent article about Abraham Lincoln and Steven A. Douglas, you briefly mentioned the debates they held throughout Illinois. I know the debates became famous later, but were they well attended at the time, how did the public learn “Where and When” information as there was no mass media, and did the debates have any effect on that 1858 election for the Senate seat? (A): This could almost be another blog, but I will try to be brief. (1) There were seven debates and they were all well attended, considering the relatively small Illinois population in 1858; an estimated 1,400,000 people of whom only about 200,000 were voters, as only men employed or with property could vote. In some locations, the attendance was greater than the population of the community. (2) Both Douglas and Lincoln were popular speakers at a time when that was a form of public entertainment. Newspapers and printed handbills, which touted the events, were plentiful as it was common to have two or more newspapers and pamphleteers in even smaller towns. So, spreading the word was no problem. (3) I do not believe the debates had much affect on that specific state legislative election, since Democrats held a majority in the Illinois legislature which would select the Senator. However, the debates were followed in the national press, and a popular book was published which summarized the talking points, both of which were of enormous benefit to Lincoln in the 1860 Republican nominating process and the Presidential election. I doubt if he would have been well enough known (name recognition was equally important then) to even win the Republication nomination, if it were not for the debates.

 2.       (Q): You have written about the Hampton Roads Peace Conference which occurred in February, 1865, but you did not mention, as far as I know, the peace plan proposed by Preston Blair a month earlier to President Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, with the support of a few Confederate and Union leaders, to combine their forces against the French, who had invaded Mexico and installed a puppet Emperor in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine.  Blair’s plan could have ended the Civil War earlier, after giving North and South a common goal, and could have been helpful to reconstruction. Did Lincoln or Davis ever acknowledge Blair’s plan and do you believe the joint Mexican invasion would have been helpful? (A): Blair was the initial catalyst for several complicated meetings, over a five-week period, which led to the Hampton Roads Peace Conference; however, his Mexico invasion plan was quickly rejected by both Lincoln and Davis. (Note: this is a very brief explanation). On December 28, 1864, Preston Blair, a Union supporter, but, also a long-time friend of Jefferson Davis, met with Lincoln and requested that he be permitted to pass through battle lines to meet with Davis in Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate Capital. Blair told Lincoln the time might be right to encourage Davis to seek a peace accord.  Lincoln did not expect any legitimate peace offers but did hope that Blair might assess the public mood in Richmond, which was under constant threat by Union forces, so he granted the pass. However, he told Blair he was not authorized to officially make any commitments on behalf of the Union government or the President. On January 13, 1865, Blair spent several hours in private discussions with Davis, during which he exceeded his authority when he brought up his own plan that called for an invasion of Mexico. Blair proposed that the two sides consider a cease fire, followed by the formation of a joint military force, which would invade Mexico, remove the French imposed Emperor, and restore the Mexican legitimate government; which had earlier been forced to disperse by the French. Blair believed that after a successful common mission, the opportunity for a permanent end to the Civil War might be advanced. Blair also thought that some Union Congressmen, who were opposed to Lincoln’s vigorous pursuit of the war and were willing to accept the Confederacy as a legitimate government, might support his plan. Blair knew that Lincoln had already dismissed any idea of an invasion of Mexico (which by proxy, would be war with France) and was content to give the Mexican people time to overthrow the foreign Emperor. In Blair’s first meeting with Jefferson Davis, he also rejected the idea; so, the two Presidents agreed on at least one point. Davis did, however, offer to Blair some encouragement that he would discuss a cease-fire and open a dialogue “between our two countries” for a peace accord. Blair returned to Washington with a letter from Davis for Lincoln and held a second meeting with Lincoln on January 18. Blair told Lincoln that his Confederate friends in Richmond were discouraged and believed their cause was lost; but that Davis remained convinced the Confederacy could survive. Lincoln then gave Blair permission for another trip back to Richmond to visit Davis. Lincoln wrote a letter to Blair, knowing it would be shared with Davis, which offered to informally receive any person who was presently “resisting national authority” who might seek peace for “our one common Country.” Blair returned to Richmond, met with Davis, and, at that meeting, Blair encouraged Davis to appoint a Peace Commission. Although there were fits and starts, the Conference was finally held, at Hampton Roads, Virginia on February 3, 1865; attended by Lincoln, Secretary of State Seward, Vice-president of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens and two other Southern Commissioners. The Conference did not specifically advance the cause for peace since Lincoln would not consider a continuation of the Confederacy (the so-called “two-nations” solution) and the commissioners were only authorized by Davis to discuss a cease-fire and peace between “our two countries.” So, there was no middle ground. However, although no peace accord was reached, the Conference was valuable because both leaders then knew exactly where the other stood; they knew there would be no “two nations” discussions, no interim cease-fire, and the Civil War would be fought to the bitter end. Blair’s idea of an invasion of Mexico was not only unwise, it was proved to be unnecessary because a native Mexican insurgency, led by legitimate President Benito Juarez, successfully regained Mexican Independence in 1867.

 3.      (Q): I just saw a film called “The Conspirator” which made the case that Mary Surratt, the owner of the boarding house where John Wilkes Booth met with others to plot Lincolns death, was in fact, innocent. The movie seemed to blame Secretary of War Stanton for the rush to judgement and her execution. What do you think, and why? (A): I saw the film about ten years ago and it occasionally resurfaces on cable. It seemed to be a reasonably accurate, but simplified, portrayal of the individuals and events; and, as with most films, it was fictionalized for dramatic effect. As to Mary Surratt’s actual guilt or innocence, I wish I knew, and so do most historians; but we do not. Mrs. Surrat was certainly around those who were conspiring; including own her son who escaped, was captured two years later, but was never convicted. She was also known to be a Southern sympathizer (by birth) which was not unusual in Washington DC at the time; it was after-all, a southern city. However, there was no testimony at the trial that directly linked her to the plot other than the prosecution’s charge that “she was there, and she must have known” and they hammered that point. Further, she claimed to not know of her son’s involvement nor where her son could be; which the prosecution claimed were lies to protect her son. She was convicted on that circumstantial evidence and sentenced to die; although, there were others who were charged in the case and who clearly had some direct involvement with Booth but who were, instead, given life sentences.  Throughout the trial, Lewis Powell (AKA Lewis Payne), who had attempted to murder Secretary of State Seward, had steadfastly claimed that Mrs. Surratt knew nothing of the plot and said he regretted returning to her boarding house (after the attack) because it seemed to implicate her. On the gallows, Powell again declared, “Mrs. Surratt is innocent and should not die with us!” There is no doubt that Secretary of War Stanton was convinced of her guilt and the new President, Andrew Johnson, went so far as to revoke the right of Habeas Corpus for Mrs. Surratt just before her execution to prevent Federal judges, who were sympathetic to her case, from issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus to review her conviction. Although she consistently proclaimed that she had no knowledge of the assassination plot, her military trial was orchestrated to assure “guilty until proven innocent” rather than the customary legal standard in civilian courts of “innocent until proven guilty.” We will probably never know for sure whether she had any direct involvement in, or even knowledge of, the assassins’ plans. Personally, I believe that she likely had some knowledge of a conspiracy on behalf of the Confederacy, but, that she did not know of the assassination plot. Further, I believe President Johnson should not have waived Habeas Corpus, but should have let the legal process work-out; however, that was not the only in-temperate decision he made during his tenure as President. But, that, as they say, is another story.

 4.      (Q): I have seen a list of axioms for success for our nation that have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln. They were called “Lincoln on Limitations of Government” and they include the following: (1) You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. (2) You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. (3) You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. (4) You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. (5) You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn, (6) You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. (7) You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves. (8) You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. (9) You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. Did Abraham say these things? (A): Thank you for asking rather than just re-posting and sharing. Lincoln never said this. In fact, the quote is a compilation of comments used by William Boetcker, a minister and public speaker, in the early 20th century.  Boetcker was a proponent of industrialization as the proper way to national prosperity, and these were what he called "nuggets" in a series of lectures. When compiled into one document, they became known as "The Industrial Decalogue" or the "The American Charter."  Ronald Reagan mistakenly, on several occasions, attributed some of these quotes to Lincoln, but he was not the first nor the last to do so; Governor Kasich made the same mistake in his campaign in 2016. Historians always try to correct the errors but the media lazily does not even try; and the uninformed on the internet just repeat the quote which perpetuates the myth. I even found a poster in a Springfield souvenir shop with these words on paper made to look old and with Lincoln's image over-laid; (I should have made a scene, I suppose).  In his political career, Lincoln did make comments on government’s role in the lives of citizens. In one instance, when he was in the Illinois legislature, he said (paraphrased) that the government’s duty was to do for the people what they could not do individually for themselves; but he was referring to building roads, bridges, and waterways. As to these axioms, I think the message is a good one, but the wrong messenger is given credit. Remember, Lincoln is also quoted as saying “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

 5.      (Q): I saw a post recently that listed Lincoln as one of the Presidents who had an affair. Did he, and if so, with whom? Nonsense! This does not even rise to the level of historical speculation. He was married to a sometimes volatile and difficult woman, Mary Todd, but theirs was a fairly typical marriage in that day. No reputable historian, and there are many, has ever claimed that he was an unfaithful husband. (See the last line of the previous response.)

 6.      (Q): What is your opinion of George McClellan? To set you up, I believe he was a victim of Lincoln’s impatience, but was an outstanding General; and he would have made a great President in 1864, re-unifying north and south and saving thousands of lives. What say you? (A): My opinion of the man is not as harsh as some but probably not as favorable as yours. My military experience is limited to six years as an Air Force officer, but I have always believed a successful national military force (in this case an Army) requires at least three types of senior commanders/leaders. (1) The battlefield tactician who can earn the soldier’s trust and lead them in the chaos of battle (sometimes called the fog of war). (2) The strategic battle planner who can deploy large forces successfully against an enemy by anticipating significant events; and who has appointed good battlefield tacticians to carry out the orders. Equally important, but usually not recognized as such is (3), the logistical planner who can manage the process required to build, equip, and train a large military force. Only a few successful military leaders in history combined all three attributes, and most do not even master two of these skill-sets. McClellan was type-3, and he was a great logistical planner. I believe he was essential to the Union’s ability to create an effective large army, when only a small and disorganized army existed at the outbreak of civil war. This was a predicament caused by the lack of a large standing army since there was no international threats, combined with the defection of some experienced officers and soldiers to the Confederacy. The Union army in 1861 had fewer than 1,200 officers and 20,000 men; with antiquated arms; and then, nearly one third of that force left to serve on the Confederate side. General McClellan, who was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, but had left the Army to become a successful railroad executive, was recommended by the aging General Winfield Scott as one who had the logistical talent to build an army. Lincoln followed that advice and in the first year of the war, was complimentary of McClellan. McClellan deserves credit as a masterful executive, a leader of other officers and senior non-commissioned officers who could transform civilians into soldiers; and he was the right man for that job at that time. He created an Army large enough, well enough equipped, and well enough trained to be ready to fight a multi-front Civil War. Unfortunately, the accolades he received for this accomplishment brought out, in the young General, an arrogance that led him to disregard a fundamental American code; the obligation of the military to follow the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. His dis-respect for the President was often public and embarrassing. His military failures came as he needed to transition from a logistical General, to a strategic battle planner. He had built a magnificent army but did not seem to know what to do with it, or perhaps he was afraid of failure in the field and lacked the confidence to commit those forces. (Lincoln once remarked to the effect that if McClellan was not going to use his Army, perhaps Lincoln could borrow it.) In the second year of the war, McClellan consistently over-estimated the enemy strength, failed to take the initiative, and, over time, lost the confidence of the President. As far as McClellan’s run for the Presidency in 1864, he might have defeated Lincoln if it were not for several significant Union battlefield victories that summer and fall which encouraged both the citizenry, and the soldiers who were fighting the war, that Lincoln’s policies were on the right track. For the nation’s future, however, I believe McClellan’s Presidency would have been a disaster as he was prepared to initiate a peace settlement which could have left the Confederacy intact as a separate country, enabled the revocation of the Emancipation Proclamation, which could have resulted in freed slaves being returned to their former masters, and he would not have supported the Thirteenth Amendment.  He probably could have steered a peace agreement; but at a cost of a reunified Country and continued enslavement of millions. In my view, McClellan was the right man to build an army, but, the wrong man to lead it to victory; and he would have been the wrong man to become President. I assume you disagree with my assessment and I would encourage you to explain your position further.

Contact the author by e-mail at  gadorris2@gmail.com