Q & A August 15, 2017
These are a few of the questions, comments, and challenges sent to me by readers of my books and blogs. Some were in the form of statements expressing disagreement with some position I had taken and, as long as they are reasonably civil, I answer every one.
1. Wasn’t Abraham Lincoln shot at by Confederate operatives before his assassination in 1865?
There was one incident which was not well documented, possibly because Lincoln ordered his guards to not report it. While riding from Washington DC to join his wife at a Presidential retreat outside the city, his horse was spooked into a rapid gallop. His guards believed a shot was fired at the President but Lincoln insisted that, if so, it must have been random. Lincoln had lost his hat during the fast and wild ride to their destination and there are some stories that his hat was found later with a bullet hole. At about the same time, there was also a report by a Confederate picket in General Jubal Early’s command near Washington DC that he “took a long shot at Mr. Lincoln but missed.” Even if true, we do not know if the episodes were related.
We know for certain of one incident when he was fired upon by regular Confederate troops. While viewing a battle from an observation post near Fort Stevens, Lincoln surprised his escorts by quickly climbing a ladder to get a better view. Confederate soldiers down below, recognized the stove-pipe hat and began firing at the President. They missed!
There was also an incident where the Presidents carriage was tampered with, many believe by Confederate sympathizers, resulting in a subsequent crash. Mary Lincoln, however, was the only passenger.
And, there was plot to assassinate Lincoln as he passed through Baltimore on his way to the first Inauguration, but he was forewarned and took an unscheduled train.
2. I was told that the Lincoln Tomb we see today is not the original which was completed shortly after his death; is that true?
Yes, there were several changes to the tomb over the years, including the height of the obelisk tower, which was raised fifteen feet during an extensive remodel in 1900-1901. Lincoln’s body was originally placed in a temporary vault at Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield to await the construction of a more permanent tomb. In 1871, while not fully completed, the tomb was sufficient to house Lincoln’s body in a white marble sarcophagus, but none of the numerous statuary that were included in the design were yet installed. Finally, in 1874, the “Lincoln Monument” was dedicated with all of the commemorative statues and busts in place.
After an attempt to break into the tomb in 1876, Lincoln’s remains were relocated to a subterranean vault several feet below the former location. By 1900, the original support structure for the 85-foot tall obelisk was rapidly deteriorating and the structural defects needed addressed. The extensive repairs also included re-facing the obelisk and increasing its height to 100 feet. Unfortunately, there were so many defects in the 1901 stone work that, by 1930, the entire structure had to be dismantled and re-built; but the exterior design was retained and looks today much as it did then. However, the 1930 remodel included a totally new design for the interior. The old white sarcophagus was discarded (it no longer held Lincoln’s body which is entombed ten feet below), and a new block of “red Arkansas fossil’ was placed over the crypt. While the original interior had space for artifacts and souvenirs for sale, the 1930 interior re-design was done to create a more quiet, solemn, and reflective space; and I believe the designers were successful.
3. Please elaborate on the “Yankee reign of terror” in New Orleans, which included the execution of citizens to set an example. So much for Lincoln’s “compassion” toward the South.
The martial law imposed by General Benjamin Butler after Navy Captain David Farragut’s fleet had captured New Orleans in May 1862, was indeed very harsh. New Orleans was by far the largest city in the South and its citizens resented the “Yankee” occupation. Soon after assuming command of the city, Butler ordered the execution of one citizen who (allegedly) burned a newly raised American flag. Then, after an organized group of women began harassing and verbally insulting his soldiers, he issued General Order Number 28, which stated that any woman in New Orleans who insulted a Union soldier would be labeled as “A woman of the town plying her avocation” and subject to arrest as a prostitute. The confrontations ended but anger among the citizens was palpable and Butler became known as the Beast to the city’s inhabitants. One entrepreneur sold hundreds of chamber-pots in which he inscribed Butler’s image in the bottom. Lincoln realized that Butler’s excesses could lead to greater resistance, not less, and he replaced the General; however, Butler was unrepentant saying; “I was always a friend of southern rights, but an enemy of southern wrongs.” Most historians believe Butler overplayed his hand and there was a general calm in the city after his departure and the revocation of General Order Number 28.
4. You have written about the letters and diary of a Union soldier (Elisha Rhodes) but nothing about a Southern soldier; is that because of bias or lack of research?
“Ouch!” But, actually neither. I have read numerous accounts by young Confederates and provided some of their quotes in “Abraham Lincoln, An Uncommon, Common Man” and in several of my blogs. I am currently drafting an article about Sam Watkins a young boy from Tennessee who joined the Confederate Army in 1861. He was a prolific letter writer and note taker and used those records to compile a memoir, with a word-play on his Company H, titled “Co. Ayche -A Side Show to the Big Show”. I hope to complete my rendition of Sam Watkin’s story by November 2016. I also have tried to tell other stories from a Southern prospective including a blog (#28) about Mary Chesnut, considered the “Diarist of the Confederacy.”
5. How many stars were in the American flag during the Civil War; after all, several states had left the Union?
Abraham Lincoln and most Northern leaders considered the Union to be permanent and unbreakable, so the Union flag still contained a star for each of the states which they considered were “in rebellion” but still (and in perpetuity) part of the United States. When the War started in April 1861, the flag had 34 stars (including a new star for Kansas which was admitted in January) and stars for each of the eleven seceded states. Then during the war, stars were added for Nevada, and West Virginia. So, 34 stars at the beginning and 36 at the end. Nebraska was under consideration before the Civil war ended, but was admitted in 1867.
6. You wrote about nurses who served during the Civil War but weren’t there some women who fought in combat for each side?
Yes. Some women who joined the Union or Confederate Armies sought adventure, some wanted to stay close to their husband or betrothed, and some needed the paycheck and access to food; but they were all disguised as men. Most were discovered early but a few managed to hide their gender for an extended time. This subject also may become a future blog.
7. What would have been different if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated and lived to fill out his second term?
My answer is always the same. The re-construction process in the Southern states would have been quicker and more moderate, the long post-war rift between the northern and southern states would have been less rancorous, and the civil rights issues would not have fermented so long and become so polarizing. Lincoln wanted prompt re-instatement of all Federal rights within the former Confederate states, without retribution against the leaders, including the military officers who resigned their commissions in the United States forces and fought for the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee, understanding Lincoln’s compassionate nature said of his final defeat, “I surrendered as much to Lincoln’s goodness as to Grant’s artillery.” The nation, both north and south, paid a heavy and long-term price for one man’s murderous actions.
8. What do you think the U.S. would be like today if the Southern states had begun to secede either twenty years earlier (about 1840) or twenty years later (about 1880)?
While I usually do not engage in hypothetical questions (like #7), this one also intrigued me. (Thanks Bud.) There was nearly a secession by South Carolina in 1832 which was stopped by President Andrew Jackson. It is likely that 2 or 3 other states might have joined the movement then if not for Jackson’s swift and forceful declaration. He said that he would prevent South Carolina’s secession by military action, and when the Virginia Governor said Jackson could not cross his state to attack South Carolina, Jackson replied that he would kill any Virginian that got in his way. As a result, there was no secession at that time. If, however, President Jackson had militarily brought South Carolina back into the Union and deposed its secessionist leaders, slavery would not have been affected. Jackson himself owned slaves and the Northern states had not yet seen a strong abolitionist movement.
For the next 25 years, each subsequent time the Southern states threatened to secede, always over a concern that Northern interests in the Federal Government would interfere with slavery, some compromise was worked out by Congress. However, by 1860, many Southern leaders were convinced that the political forces in Northern states would no longer reach compromises over the expansion of slavery which were acceptable to the South. In fact, Salmon Chase, William Seward, and Abraham Lincoln, who were all Republican candidates for the Presidency in 1860, opposed the expansion of slavery to new states. The Southern leaders thought failure to compromise on expansion would be a precursor to federal interference with slavery in their own states.
Even if, however, some compromise would have been worked out in 1860 to avoid war, sooner, not later, the slave-owning states would have seceded. Then the only question would have been, when, not if, the war would start? The Republican leadership in the North, joined by some Democrats, had made it clear that secession would be considered unconstitutional and illegal, and would be cause for military force. Some modern Confederate supporters (who I refer to as “neo-confederates”) believe that after secession, if the North would have chosen to seek a peaceful solution and recognized the new Confederate nation, over time, agricultural progress would have rendered slavery uneconomic. Then, their argument continues, perhaps the two nations would have again merged and hundreds of thousands of soldier’s lives would not have been lost. I do not believe for a “Confederate Minute” (a very small speck of time) that such an outcome was politically feasible; not to mention that millions of slaves would have remained in bondage until the southern “enlightenment” occurred.
I believe that, after about 1854, Civil War became inevitable as workable compromises had been exhausted and Southern leaders were set on a course of dissolution to protect the institution of slavery. All of that said, I think the United States history for the last half of the 19th century would not have been much different if secession had occurred later than 1860-61; the North would have forced capitulation by the Southern states to end secession and, as an ancillary result of the war, slavery would have been abolished.
9. I recently read an article stating that the War was not fought by the South over slavery but only to defend “States Rights” and the proof is that most southern soldiers did not own slaves.
That is a tired argument that dates back to the “Lost Cause” movement started after the War, and has been continued by some, because there was, and is, no viable moral justification for slavery. It is true that most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves but many senior military officers, career politicians, and especially the secessionist leaders, did own slaves and wanted the chattel ownership of humans to continue. The best explanation I found for the Confederate soldier to fight for so long and at such sacrifice, was a reply to a Union soldier’s question; “Why are you fighting us?” The poor Southern boy, now a prisoner, simply responded, “Because you are here.” He had not fought to keep slavery in place or because of a constitutional question of secession as a state’s right, but only because the Yankees had invaded his home! I can understand and respect that.
10. What happened to cause the collapse of Confederate Currency? Wasn’t it backed by gold under the Confederate Constitution?
No, the currency never was backed by gold reserves and the Confederate constitution was silent on the matter. The currency was actually a promissory note that was to be redeemed (the implication was for gold but that was not specified) after the hoped for ratification of a peace accord between the newly formed Confederate States of America and the United States of America. Some bills were due in one, two and even three years. Initially, pride and hope were enough for the southern public to accept the currency at face value for goods and services; so, basically, the currency was backed by the ideal of the Confederacy. If the Civil War would have been as brief as the Confederate leaders expected, and they had prevailed, their currency might have retained value. However, the South, and to a large extent Northern leaders as well, thought the war might last only several months and consist of a few battles.
The Confederate government had assured some early revenue by declaring all debts to Union based companies (except in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri), and all import and export tariffs due the Union government, should instead be paid by Southerners to the Confederate treasury. However, war is expensive and the outlays necessary to procure weapons, pay soldiers, and create a war-time industry where none existed before, began to put inflationary pressures on the currency. Once the War entered its second year, the Confederate government’s finances were doomed by increasing debt, the inability to raise meaningful taxes from the eleven seceded states, and the excess printing of currency without reserves (the very definition of hyper-inflation).
The South also used cotton as collateral for debt early in the war causing some writers to claim their currency was backed by that commodity; but that was never the case. (see #11)
11. In a blog about the Southern blockade runners you implied that the Union’s Naval restrictions on the use of southern ports halted the international trade of cotton; but you ignored the Confederacy’s own decision to place an embargo on the sale of cotton to England, which had disastrous results.
One unfortunate fact about writing a short blog is that the complete picture of any event cannot be fully explained. In that article, I was focused on the blockade runners, not so much the commodities they brought into the south and other items they carried out. The Confederate embargo of their own cotton, which was their largest export and the source of more foreign currency than tobacco and rice combined, certainly contributed to the rapid decline of the new government’s financial structure. Cotton had been used as collateral by Southern borrowers for years before the war and cotton backed bonds were freely traded throughout Europe. In a bold, but fatally flawed financial gamble, the Confederate government imposed its own embargo on cotton exports in 1862 hoping to (1) drive up the price of cotton sold to English mills, (2) increase the value of cotton as collateral to provide additional borrowing at better terms and (3) possibly force England to become an ally in order to keep their fabric mills open. The plan never worked; but instead led to the loss of valuable export fees for the Confederate coffers and anger, instead of support, from England.
Historians and economists still argue the relative importance of the many moving parts to the collapse of the Confederate economic system and this brief explanation of mine will almost certainly invite even more criticism.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com