Q & A September 1, 2020
Q and A September 1, 2020
The following are more questions/comments I have received from readers over the past year. I usually print 5 or 6, however, the first question printed here deserved more of a response than I usually provide. The question, and I believe my response, are important because the exchange illustrates that the current frenzy to attack figures from our past by toppling, defacing or moving historic monuments and statues, can cause some to ignore common sense. They then actually harm memorials that project a positive message and which seem to support their cause. So, my response was long, probably too long for this post, but I did not know how to abbreviate the message. As a result, I will need to limit the number of other questions this time.
(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, who was White. There is now a controversy brewing about the memorial and whether it should be moved. I feel that this monument is different than others, which are being removed, and hope it is not altered in any way. Isn’t the story one of uplifting Black men and recognizing their courage? What is your opinion?
PHOTO- Shaw Memorial
(A)The monument you reference is in front of the Massachusetts State House. At last I checked, it is still obscured by a plywood wall to both protect it from further vandalism and to repair a section damaged earlier. The vandals have not yet caused extensive damage; although, on May 31, 2020, graffiti was painted on the plywood and the stone back of the monument. I am not sure why vandals chose this monument; perhaps ignorance of its message. 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. 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, White citizens in the area objected to, and some threatened, the project. When the decision was made to instead 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.
However, it appears that the “cancelling or cleansing” protests are not going away anytime soon, and in some cases, have gone astray. I believe there are Confederate statues and memorials that need to be removed and/or converted to be only a part of a learning center where the horror that was slavery is well explained. I do not support the myth of the Lost Cause which grants heroic stature to many undeserving Confederate leaders. But some of these more recent protests have lost focus and, in some cases, are directed at individuals who should be revered, not chastised. Of course, I believe Abraham Lincoln is one such icon; however, another who deserves remembrance is Union Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.
In early 1863, Colonel Shaw, a devoted abolitionist, volunteered to train and lead a newly formed Massachusetts regiment of 1,600 Black men, only a very few of whom had ever had any military experience. He believed that the Black soldiers, once trained, would prove equal in skill and courage to any other Union soldier. Colonel Shaw was convinced that the new Regiment eventually would change the way both Union and Southern Generals (and politicians) viewed the Black soldiers. And he was right!
In July, 1863, the Union Army and Navy began a systematic attack in Charleston Harbor, which was one of the last functioning Confederate ports on the Atlantic. The port was surrounded by several forts including the massive and well-defended Fort Wagner. On July 18, knowing that casualties from any land assault would be heavy, the Union Generals ordered the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, commanded by Colonel Shaw, to storm the fort. Colonel Shaw knew it was a near suicide mission and that he and his men were being sacrificed to determine if a direct land assault might breech the walls of the fort. Shaw met with his men before the battle and told them they would face heavy resistance and suffer many casualties, but he had confidence they would prove themselves up to their task that day. He said that they were among the finest soldiers he had ever commanded, and then added that, “Your actions, and discipline under fire will rewrite the history of your people, and I am proud to face this enemy with you.”
And he did, as he led his men from the front!
Colonel Shaw's men steadily fought their way through a maze of trenches which provided almost no cover from the Confederate sharpshooters who manned the top of the fort. Most of the soldiers were struck and only a few of Shaw's men were able to reach the base of the fort; but none were able to actually breech the walls. The attack had failed and the casualties, dead and wounded, were heavy, including Colonel Shaw who was killed as he led the troops toward the fort. The Union Generals, after observing the withering patterns of fire from the fort, decided no frontal attack could succeed and chose instead to begin a siege; which lasted for two more months before Fort Wagner was finally abandoned by the South. The day after the battle, Colonel Shaw's body was stripped by Confederate soldiers and thrown into a mass grave with the many Black soldiers who had also been killed. While Confederate General Johnson Hagood allowed the remains of other White officers to be returned north, he intended the treatment of Colonel Shaw's body to be an insult for leading the Black troops.
However, Colonel Shaw's family did not react in the manner General Hagood probably expected.
Shaw's family had been prominent abolitionists in Boston and they were proud of their son's willingness to train and lead the Black regiment. While his family certainly mourned his death, they refused later offers to disinter his body for its return to Boston, to a more prominent final resting place and with full military honors. His father said, “We can imagine no holier place than that in which he lies, among his brave and devoted soldiers, nor wish for him better company; what a bodyguard he has!” Then later, responding to a personal note of condolence from Abraham Lincoln, his father wrote, in part, “If our son's death contributes to securing equal justice, our loss, and grief, will be a blessing.”
In 1866, former Black soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts and other black veterans raised enough money to commission the memorial we now see in Boston. Yes, it depicts Colonel Shaw on a horse surrounded by marching Black soldiers, evidently a scene some feel denigrates the Black foot-soldiers and promotes the superiority of the White Colonel. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, every black soldier depicted was based on an individual who served. Second, in the Civil War, senior officers rode horses and soldiers marched! Simple as that. It is impossible to imagine that the Black soldiers who contributed to that memorial intended to depict anything but respect for individual brave soldiers following their commander into a deadly battle.
Only ignorance, or a twisted view of history, would cause anyone to want to disrespect that memorial. I hope it stays where it is.
(Q) I read an internet post which claimed that Abraham Lincoln had permitted a secret message to be delivered to Jefferson Davis that stated Lincoln would grant a pardon to Davis, his cabinet, and top Generals if they would give up armed resistance by March 31, 1865. This would have saved many lives over the next month, including Lincoln’s. Was there such a message and if there was, why on earth would Davis have rejected it? He had to know by then the South would lose. The author of the article said it pointed out Lincoln’s goodness and Davis’s stubbornness.
(A) I do not believe there was such a message, at least as you describe it. Lincoln did permit an emissary, Francis Preston Blair, to go to Richmond and see if there was any chance Davis was ready to concede defeat and end the Confederacy. However, Lincoln did not expect a favorable response because he would not permit the Confederacy to survive as a separate nation, while he believed Davis would insist upon keeping some form of a Confederate state. Certainly, Lincoln discussed pardons for Confederate officials, soldiers and officers, within his cabinet, but not a specific offer to Davis. As to the post you read, sometimes history writers run out of ideas from historical facts and turn to speculation. I hope I have avoided that trap, so far.
(Q) I know that Dwight Eisenhower as Commanding General in WWII supported Black soldiers in the military and, unlike previous Generals, permitted Blacks to be commissioned as officers; although in command of only all-Black forces. After the end of the war, President Truman ordered the complete integration of the Armed Forces, a position Eisenhower, by then a private citizen, supported. But Eisenhower was an admirer of Robert E. Lee and received some criticism for not condemning Lee as a traitor and slave-holder. Are you aware of Eisenhower’s admiration for Lee? How do you reconcile his seemingly contrary position?
(A) I am no expert of Eisenhower but I believe his admiration for Robert E. Lee was based on Lee’s stellar record as a cadet at West Point, his courageous service in the Mexican War, and his outstanding engineering feats for the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, he studied Lee’s strategies and tactics during the Civil War and believed Lee was a master at military maneuvers. Finally, after the war, he admired Lee’s acceptance of loss without the rancor displayed by many other former Confederates. It is important to note that Eisenhower was no southern sympathizer, supported voting rights acts, and the integration of public schools. In his mind, he had room to condemn racial barriers but still admire Lee. An example of Ike’s thought process surfaced as he was finishing his second term as President in 1960. He received a letter complaining that he had a painting of Lee in the Oval office of the White House and the writer made sure newspapers received a copy of the letter. President Eisenhower responded as follows (in part).
“Dear Dr. Scott:
...Respecting your inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted. General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. …..He was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies, but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. To the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower”
Well said, Mr. President! It must be noted that President Eisenhower also had a painting of Abraham Lincoln in the Oval Office and considered Lincoln, along with Washington, as the two greatest Presidents. He saw no contradiction in his admiration for Lincoln and for Robert. E. Lee.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com