Q & A August 1, 2019

Q & A  August 1, 2019

The following are few of the questions I received from readers, and my responses, over the last year from my blogs, articles and books. I answer every question, and even respond to all comments and suggestions.

(Q)A small point, but in the interest of grammatical accuracy, in a recent article, you mis-spelled Harper’s Ferry. That is the small Virginia town where John Brown attempted to raid a Union arsenal for weapons to wage a slave insurrection. Put down, by the way by Colonel Robert E. Lee, who was still in the U.S. Army. (A) Glad you brought that up, however you are only half right. The area, before it became a town, was known as Harper’s Ferry because in the late 1700s, Robert Harper ran a ferry service across the Potomac River at the confluence with the Shenandoah River. Also, in some maps from the early 1800s, it is labeled as Shenandoah Falls; however, by 1824, a bridge had been built over the river and the ferry service ended. The small town, which grew around the bridge, officially adopted the name Harpers Ferry in 1824 (no apostrophe). Also, while the town was in Virginia until 1863, it became part of West Virginia when that new state was partitioned. You are correct about Brown’s purpose and Lee’s involvement. Unfortunately, many texts still use the old spelling for the community, which was common, but still incorrect, in the Civil War era. Please spell it Harpers Ferry, as do the 200 or so residents and the U.S. Postal Service.

(Q) I recently heard an author, speaking about Lincoln, use the term “un-reconstructed Confederates” without explaining who he was talking about. Did he refer to those who lived through re-construction after 1865 or people today? Actually both. I know the author who coined the phrase (which I consider very clever). His original intent was to focus a spotlight on modern day apologists for the Confederacy; who I refer to as neo-Confederates. Generally, both terms describe folks who, even today, believe the Confederacy was noble and that “States’ Right’s” was the reason for the war, not the preservation of slavery. They claim that slavery would have died out over time, and Lincoln led an illegal invasion of the Southern states. Over the last few years, I have seen the term un-reconstructed Confederates also applied to those Southerners who, after the Civil War, defied federal reconstruction policies and imposed Jim Crow laws to limit the progress of former slaves. The term fits both eras.

(Q) Why did the Confederate flag have thirteen stars? The stars were to represent each state in the Confederacy, just like the flag of the United States; however, most history sources I have read mention only eleven states seceded from the Union. (A) The discrepancy occurred because delegations from Missouri and Kentucky made promises they could not keep. These two groups, without any official status, falsely claimed to the committee which was organizing the Confederate government in February 1861, that their respective states had approved Secession Declarations. They had not, and neither state ever left the Union. Based on the belief that thirteen states would join the Confederacy, in March 1861, flags were authorized with thirteen stars. In fact, for several months after the war started, Jefferson Davis still held hope that Missouri, Kentucky, and possibly even Maryland, might secede from the Union and join the Confederacy. He had good reasons to be optimistic; as both Missouri and Kentucky had a segment of their citizens who supported the Confederacy, several state militia units joined the Confederate Army, and many individual young men from both states volunteered to fight for the Southern cause. Abraham Lincoln’s brothers-in-law from Kentucky did so. The Confederate flag, in several iterations, continued to have thirteen stars.

(Q) You wrote about the slave mutiny on the ship “La Amistad” in 1838. You did not mention an atrocity that occurred. According to an account I read, when the Captain of the Amistad realized he did not have enough food and water on board to take care of all of the slaves, he selected ten of them, bound them with ropes and rock ballast and threw them overboard to drown. How could you not include that travesty in your article?  (A) First some background. The slaves, who ended up on the Amistad, had earlier been kidnapped in Africa, and, along with nearly 200 others, were chained in the hold of the large ocean-going, Portuguese ship, Tecora, bound for Cuba (a horrible passage that could take a month). The Amistad was a small ship which was used to transport fifty-three slaves, who had been recently purchased at a large centralized slave auction in Cuba, to new owners at plantations elsewhere on the island nation. The slaves broke their chains, took over the Amistad, and sailed to Connecticut where they were ultimately set free by the U.S. Supreme Court. (My rendition of the Amistad story can be found at www.alincolnbygadorris.com  under “Blog # 77). To answer your question, I had read the account you mention (at least a similar one), but I did not find it credible as to the La Amistad incident. I do believe that such atrocities occurred on other slave ships which ran short on food and water on the voyage from Africa to Cuba, but, in my opinion, not on La Amistad. In my research, I determined that the writers of a movie titled “Amistad” incorporated a scene in which slaves were thrown overboard in the manner you describe; however, I believe they must have added the scene for dramatic effect. Again, I am not disputing that such wanton disregard for human life occurred on board some slave ships; but I have found no confirmation that such an incident occurred on the Tecora, at least on that specific voyage. Historians estimate that ten percent of those shackled in the holds of slave ships died in route from injury, disease, starvation, beating, and/or outright executions. Of the fifteen million Africans kidnapped and transported across the Atlantic over two hundred years, about 500,000 were sent to what is now the United States. If the estimate is true, 50,000 of those died on the voyages. As an abolitionist wrote about slavery, “As a human, it is impossible to describe man’s inhumanity to man.”

(Q) Didn’t the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which is one of the Bill of Rights, protect the slave-holder’s investment in his slaves. Was it not an illegal and unconstitutional act for Lincoln and the Union to free slaves without just compensation to the owners? This is not to support the concept of slavery, which I believe would have died out anyway within two-three generations. But, under the Fifth amendment, the slave owners should have been compensated for the abrupt emancipations in 1863 and 1865. This is one striking example of Lincoln’s total disregard for the rights of Southern citizens. (A) I believe you are either misreading the Fifth Amendment or have been reading neo-confederate propaganda. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were silent on the matter of slavery (except to prohibit the International Slave Trade after 1808) and, by omission, left the question of legality of slavery up to each state. The Fifth Amendment covers a lot of ground. For example, it prohibits double jeopardy in criminal cases and, somewhat to your point, also states, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Since slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation, or later under the Thirteenth  Amendment, were not “taken for public use”, the point is moot. The compensation clause was important to the framers of the Constitution because English soldiers had frequently commandeered homes, equipment, and other property whenever they wished, often with no compensation to the citizen. After the War, much of the Southern property (but not slaves) confiscated by Union forces was either returned to the owner or compensation was offered. In one famous case it was not! The wife of Robert E. Lee might have been able to use the Fifth Amendment to claim compensation for the Union’s seizure of her family’s plantation at Arlington as a cemetery; but she was very ill at war’s end and neither she, nor her husband pursued the case. Interestingly, Lincoln, as a way to entice Rebel states back into the Union, once considered that the Union might offer a fund of up to $400 Million (a lot of money in 1865) to compensate slaveholders who voluntarily released their slaves. But his cabinet was unanimously opposed, as would have been the Congress; so that idea never had a chance.

(Q)  You keep referring to Jefferson Davis’s willingness to lead the Secessionist movement because he wanted to protect slavery. This is, again, a false narrative. Jefferson Davis believed that secession was a State’s right, a much more important Constitutional issue than slavery. Our overblown central government proves that he was right. (A) First, let me quote Jefferson Davis when he was still a U.S. Senator, before secession occurred. “Secession is possible unless something is not done. I again ask, what is to stop this agitation before the great and final object of which it aims, the abolition of slavery in the states, is consummated. Is it then not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?”  (underlines are mine).  There it is, Slavery or secession, not states’ rights was his position. Jefferson certainly thought that a state had the right to secede from jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution if it felt aggrieved by the federal government; but he chose to exercise that State’s right to assure the perpetuation of slavery. Next, I will not agree that the question of States’ Rights is a more important Constitutional question than slavery. But, now, as to your assertion that our “overblown central government” proves that Davis was right. I always hesitate to give a current political opinion; but in this case, I will put my toe into the quagmire. While I agree we have let the federal government grow beyond the framers’ intent in the Constitution, I consider that the over-reach and fiscal irresponsibility we are living with today is the result of the politicians we chose to elect over the last seventy years. Except for some excesses during war-time, the government had stayed pretty financially contained within the Constitution (of 1789) for its first 160 years.  I expect the critics of my economic opinion will soon begin the e-mail campaign!

(Q) Do you believe Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, an agnostic, or what?  This question is important to me because I admire him so much, but I recently heard that he may not have been a Christian, and that thought saddens me.  (A) First, your admiration for the man is well placed; as I agree that he was one of most towering figures in our nation’s history. However, I cannot directly answer your question about his faith, because I am in no position to try to judge anyone’s faith.  I just will not do that. I did devote a section on this topic (Supplemental Report D) in my 2015 book, “Abraham Lincoln, An Uncommon, Common Man.”  The best I can do now, is tell you what Lincoln once said about joining a church, and what others said about him. When asked by a friend, Henry Demming, why he had never officially joined a church, Lincoln replied, “I have found difficulty giving my assent to the long and complicated statements of Christian doctrines. If any Church will inscribe over its altar, as the sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement; 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself,'- that church will I join.” Lincoln had extensively read the Bible and memorized many passages, which he often invoked in his speeches and writings. Here is what some contemporaries said about Lincoln. General Sherman wrote (in part) after a meeting with Lincoln, “I recall thinking, of all men I have ever known he seemed to possess more of the elements of greatness, combined with goodness, than any other.” And, his friend Leonard Swett said upon Lincoln’s death, “A feeling of religious reverence, and belief in God, increased upon him when involved in matters of the gravest importance and humanity.  If you judge his devotion by the observances of religious ceremony or Sabbath rituals, he would fall short of your standard.  However, if you judge him by the higher rule of purity in conduct, of honesty of motive, his rigid discharge of duty, his accountability to God, then you will accept that he was undoubtedly full of Natural religion, for he believed in God as much as the most approved Church member.” In his personal, political and business life, he held no religious biases, and once said (paraphrased) that neither politics nor religion should cause the loss of a friend. Also, you might consider a personal statement Lincoln wrote in 1862, referred to now as “Meditation on the Divine Will” which he had kept private. The document was only discovered, and then titled, by his secretaries after his death. Lincoln wrote:                                          
“September 2, 1862
The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war, it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party---and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect (sp) His purpose. By His mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

My opinion is that, based on his words and deeds, Abraham Lincoln was at peace with his understanding of Providence. In his biography “Lincoln,” David Herbert Donald writes; “He was a believer in the God of the Bible and, although not a regular, church-going Christian I believe he accepted Christianity as part and parcel of that.” If this matter is important to you, there are several well-written books which explore his spiritualty and your librarian or bookstore can help you. Just be aware that there are also nonsense posts, articles, and books out there about Lincoln, so look carefully at the credentials of the author. Whatever your research leads you to understand about Lincoln’s religious beliefs, I hope you continue to revere his legacy.

This must have been a time for religious reflection by readers because I received another, somewhat related question.

(Q) I am in possession of a small tract titled “Lincoln’s Devotional” which contains daily inspirational sayings, often followed by a scripture. The forward indicates that it is a copy of one used by Lincoln. The cover is missing but the pages were securely sewn and seem to be intact.  I have been reading it and find it very inspirational. Are you aware of this book? Is it an important piece of Lincoln memorabilia? (A) If I had a copy, I would treasure it; however, it is not very valuable from a monetary standpoint. An original small book was published in the 1850s titled “The Believer’s Daily Treasure” which contained a scripture verse for each day of the year. A copy, which has Abraham Lincoln’s signature on the title page, is in the hands of a collector of Lincoln items and available to scholars. Many historians believe that this is the small book Lincoln was seen to read on occasion, with some later researchers erroneously thinking it was a New Testament; as it was about the right size. No historian that I know of has uncovered how the small book came to be in Lincoln’s possession. He may have purchased it or it may have been a gift; that fact is lost in history. Fortunately, however, his copy of the book has survived and is being cared for. The small book you have is probably a copy of a revised version of “The Believer’s Daily Treasure” published in the 1950s. The publisher called this new tract, “Lincoln’s Devotional”, certainly because it would sell more copies than under the original title. The revisions included fewer Old Testament verses and the addition of a few more modern inspirational sayings. I think you are lucky to have your copy. In a distant way, you may be reading what Lincoln read.

(Q)   A few months ago, you wrote an article titled, “Sherman’s Andersonville Dilemma” in which you described the general’s failure to liberate the Union prisoners held in that Georgia prison; although his large army was only a few miles away. After the camp was finally liberated in April 1865, the Commander was hanged by the Union for war crimes. Do you think his execution was justified? Do you think Sherman or Grant or Lincoln bore any responsibility for the loss of life at Andersonville?    (A) In my article, I tried to convey the moral and military factors that weighed on General Sherman. He and Grant made statements over the years about the decision with both determining that Sherman’s mission was to march his army across Georgia from Atlanta (inland) to Savanna (on the coast), destroy the Confederate forces, and capture those two major cities. They knew the Union soldiers would engage the Confederate army along the way and both Generals believed that, if Sherman had split his forces to send a large number to Andersonville, those soldiers who remained on the march across Georgia would have been in greater danger as they fought Confederate units. I do not know of any statements Lincoln made on the matter. In my view, Sherman and Grant accepted the responsibility for their decision to focus on the primary mission, but I do not believe they bore any responsibility for the atrocities that occurred at Andersonville. As to the commander, Captain Hartmann Wirz, who assumed command of the prison in March 1864, historians are divided about his culpability. When he took over, he reported to his superiors that conditions in the prison were miserable and asked for help. So, some believe he had done the best he could with almost no support from the Confederate government for professional guards or for food supplies; and may have been a scapegoat. Other historians believe he deserved to be tried for war crimes because he permitted already inhumane conditions to worsen. At least one author suggests that Wirz considered freeing the prisoners in late 1864, but he ultimately just let things deteriorate. On the gallows, Wirz said, in part, that he was just following orders. We heard that same plea from some Germans at their trials at the end of WW II.  Personally, I think Wirz received an appropriate judgement and sentence. The best book on the subject is “Andersonville” by Mackinlay (Bruce) Cantor.

(Q) I had assumed that the eleven states which seceded rejoined the Union at about the same time; which was soon after Robert E. Lee surrendered and Jefferson Davis was captured. However, I recently read an article in which the author said, “The eleven prodigal states stumbled home to the Union like eleven drunken soldiers whose money ran out while on leave, and some came home earlier than others.” Can you tell me what he meant? (A) First, I think that line is very clever and I would like to read the whole article. The eleven states which seceded did not leave the Union at the same time (they took from December 1860 through May 1861) and, after the Civil War, they were not recognized as re-admitted states into the Union at the same time. There was never any finalizing treaty between the Confederacy and the Union, so each state had to petition for re-admittance, which essentially was when the United States Senate and the House of Representatives allowed appointed or elected officials to take their seats. Admittance required the State to certify that Slavery was illegal and the Civil Rights amendments (#14 and #15) would be honored. The initial Senators and Representatives were “Reconstruction politicians” approved by Union authorities, and it would be another five years before more “traditional” Southern politicians would be elected and seated. Unfortunately, almost immediately after re-admittance, most of those Southern states simply disregarded the 14th and 15th amendments and imposed Jim Crow restrictions on the Black communities; which lasted another hundred years. The eleven former Confederate states, in order of re-admittance, are: Tennessee (July 24, 1866), Alabama (January 11, 1868), Arkansas (June 22, 1868), Florida (June 26, 1868), North Carolina (July 4, 1868), Louisianna and South Carolina (July 9, 1868), Virginia (January 26, 1870, Mississippi (February 23, 1870), Texas (March 30, 1870), and Georgia (July 15, 1870). Georgia had actually been approved for re-admittance two years earlier, but the wanton disregard for Civil Rights within the State caused a repeal of the first authorization. West Virginia was partitioned from Virginia in 1863 and was admitted that year as a new state. The four slave-holding Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, never left the Union.

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com