Quotes Upon the Death of Abraham Lincoln (Article 68)

Earlier, they had been doing the mundane things people did on a Friday evening in Washington DC, reading, working, resting, having a late dinner, even attending a play at a theater; but now, they had learned Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated. After the attack on the evening of Friday, April 14, 1865, and after his death the following morning, the public reactions began in newspapers, private letters, diaries, pulpits, homes, and even battlefields. Some of the quotes are sorrowful, some pragmatic, some angry, some thoughtful, and, unfortunately, but not surprisingly in a deeply divided country, a few were even celebratory. News of Lincoln’s death sped rapidly through the Northern states by telegraph and railway distribution; however, throughout the South, it would be several days before the news became widespread because of the near total destruction of telegraph lines and railroads in that region during the War. As a result, reactions from Confederate officials and everyday citizens in the deep South only occurred several days later, or in some cases a full week, after the assassination.

But, whether the person first heard about Lincoln’s death on April 15th, or as late as April 23rd, the following quotes were made moments after hearing the news, and the individual was expressing the raw emotions felt at the time. Some of these people later gave more articulate comments, after they had time for reflection, but their initial thoughts seem more compelling to us today.

“It is all over. The President is no more.”  -Said the doctor who had attended Lincoln, to Mary Todd Lincoln, as she rested in an adjoining room.

“My husband is gone! Why did you not tell me he was dying? – Mary Todd Lincoln wailed upon learning that her husband had died a few minutes before. (She had earlier been overwhelmed and fainted, and had to be taken from the room)

“They have killed Papa dead. They’ve killed Papa dead!”  –  12 year old Tad Lincoln cried to Thomas Pendel, the White House doorkeeper, as the boy rushed into the White House. Tad had been at another theater when the owner suddenly walked out on the stage and said “The President has been shot!” 

“It cannot be, it cannot be.” – Said Robert Lincoln, the President’s oldest son, who was in the White House with John Hay, one of Lincoln’s secretaries, when he learned that his father had been shot. Unaware yet that the wound was mortal, the two young men rushed to the rooming house where the President had been taken. When he saw his father and realized that he would not recover, Robert spoke those words and began to weep.

“I know’d they’d kill him”  – Said Sarah Bush Lincoln upon hearing that her step-son had been assassinated. In their last visit, four years earlier, as Lincoln left for Washington DC and the White House, Sarah had said she feared that his enemies might kill him. Lincoln, attempting to sooth her fears, said, “No. No, Mother, they will not do that. Trust that the Lord will keep us well and we will see    each other again.”  Sarah’s sad premonition was finally proven!

“Will I be a slave again?”  – Asked an elderly Black man to a young Union soldier in the outskirts of Washington DC. The   young man wrote home that he was (at the time) unaware of the assassination and asked the old man why he would ask such a question? When told “Marse Lincoln is killed” the soldier wrote that he replied, “That cannot be true,” but within a few minutes he heard others talking about the attack on Lincoln.  He then wrote, “I sat on a low fence and cried.”

 “The Moses of my people had fallen in the hour of his triumph”     -Said Elizabeth Keckley, a former slave and seamstress for, and friend of, the President’s wife.

“The President is dead!”  – Cried William Seward, Secretary of State, who was savagely attacked as part of the assassination plot. Because of his very frail condition, no one had yet told Seward about Lincoln, but from his bed he noticed the flag at the War Department at half-staff.  Hoping to calm Seward, the attending doctor tried to deny that Lincoln was dead. But Seward, now with tears streaming, said; “No. If he were alive, he would have been the first to call on me. But, he has not been here, nor has he sent to know how I am, and there is a flag at half-mast.” 

Frederick Douglass spoke the next day at the Rochester, N.Y., city hall in an impromptu gathering of city leaders. First, he repeated from memory these words from Lincoln’s second inaugural, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all of the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another, drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that judgements of the Lord are righteous altogether.”Douglass continued in his own words, “Those memorable words – words which will live immortal in history, will be read with increasing admiration from age to age”.

 Newspapers were quick to print the news of the assassination attempt early Saturday morning, and then most issued a second edition after receiving word that Lincoln had died. These very similar headlines were coincidental, and even remarkable, as the newspapers were bitter rivals.

  “Our loss, The Great National Calamity” – New York Herald

  “The Great Calamity – The Nation’s Loss” –  New York Tribune

  “Our Great loss – The National Calamity.” –  New York Times

On the other hand, a newspaper editor in Chattanooga, Tennessee wrote: “Old Abe has gone to answer before the bar of God for the innocent blood which he permitted to shed, and for his efforts to enslave a free people.”  This was an interesting choice of words since the “free people” of whom he wrote, were the Southern Whites, many of whom either owned slaves or tolerated slavery.

“Glorious News. Lincoln and Seward Assassinated.”   – Headline in the Demopolis (Alabama) Herald.

But, the War’s two most famous Generals each expressed compassionate views.

“I have no doubt that President Lincoln will be the conspicuous figure of the war. He was incontestably the greatest man I ever knew.”    -Union General Ulysses S. Grant.

“Cowardly”, “Deplorable”, “A Crime.”  –  Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s reaction to a reporter for the New York Herald. While there is no complete text of the responses Lee gave, the reporter placed these three comments in quotation marks. The reporter also included, without quotes, that Lee condemned the assassination and said he was devastated.

On April 19th, Confederate General Breckenridge located Jefferson Davis who had fled the Capital City of Richmond two weeks earlier. The General informed Davis that Lincoln had been assassinated and was dead and (mistakenly) that Secretary of State Seward was also killed. According to the General, he ended his brief report by offering that he was regretful because the death of Lincoln was unfortunate for the future of the Southern people, to which Davis replied: “I do not know. If it were to be done, it were better if it were well done. If the same were done to Andy Johnson (Lincoln’s Vice-President), the beast, and to Secretary Stanton (Secretary of War), the job would then be complete.”  There is no evidence that Jefferson Davis was aware of the assassination plot and almost all historians believe he was not involved.

“All honor to J. Wilkes Booth. I cannot be sorry for their fate. They deserve it. They have reaped their just reward.”    – A southerner, Kate Stone, referring to Lincoln and Seward, wrote in her diary on April 16th .

“Hurrah! Old Abe Lincoln has been assassinated. It may be abstractly wrong to feel so jubilant, but I just cannot help it.”    – Another Southern woman, Emma LeConte wrote in her diary on April 19th.

But, many Southerners realized that Abraham Lincoln’s moderating influence would now be replaced by other leaders who were already seeking revenge against the South for the War; and would now be re-enforced and blame all Southerners for the death of Lincoln.

“Lincoln, old Abe Lincoln, killed, murdered. Seward wounded. Why? By whom? It is simply maddening. …I know this foul murder will bring down worse miseries on us.”  -Wrote Mary Chesnut, Southern diarist and wife of a Confederate General, on April 22nd when she first learned of the assassination. It was a full week after the attack, but news had traveled that slowly into the deep south.

“The South has lost her best friend in the future cases. This is the greatest possible calamity for the South.”  – Said Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston on April 17th, after being told By Union General Sherman that Lincoln was dead when the two men met to discuss surrender terms. Two days earlier, General Johnston had told Confederate President Jefferson Davis that he would surrender his army; and, when Davis suggested that they re-form an army of deserters and previously pardoned soldiers, Johnston replied that was only a wishful thought, and said, “Our people are tired of war, feel themselves whipped, and will not fight.”

“The adjutant read the dispatch to the officers and men. The sad news was received in grief and silence, for we all feel that we have lost a friend…Lincoln was truly the soldier’s friend and will never be forgotten by them.”  – Wrote Elisha Hunt Rhodes on April 15th.  Rhodes had entered the War as a sixteen year-old private and subsequently, because of his battlefield courage and prowess, rose to the rank of Colonel.

While almost all Union soldiers would express similar grief, a few did not feel that way. Private James Walker publicly declared that; “Lincoln was a Yankee SOB, who ought to have been killed long ago.”  Private Walker was immediately arrested, court-marshalled, and sentenced to death by his Commander; and only intervention by a superior officer kept the sentence from being carried out. An appeals court later commuted the sentence.

As was the custom then, people in mourning wore black arm bands or ribbons, and one seen often over those next few days quoted another famous Lincoln phrase, “With malice toward none; with Charity for all.”

“It would seem that Providence had exacted from him the last and only additional service and sacrifice he could give his country, that of dying for her sake. Those of us who knew him will certainly interpret his death as a sign that Heaven deemed him worthy of martyrdom.”  – Wrote John Nicolay, the President’s other long-time secretary, who had left Washington DC and was on his way Paris to become the American Counsel when he received the news. He immediately wrote the above note to his fiancée.

And, perhaps the most eloquent and heartfelt response came from Edwin Stanton, the gruff Secretary of War, who originally thought Lincoln was unfit for the office as President, but quickly became an admirer; even saying later, “I came to love President Lincoln.”  Stanton was present in the room and, at the President’s death, uttered the phrase that still rings true today: 

 “Now he belongs to the ages.”

A Quiet Teacher Becomes A Stone Wall (Article 67)

“God has fixed the time of my death. I do not concern myself about that…” – Thomas Jackson

“War means fighting. The business of a soldier is to fight… This will involve great destruction of life and property” – Thomas Jackson

His mother and father named him Thomas Jonathan Jackson, but both died while he was still a child. His sister Laura Ann called him Tom (or Dearest Tom). When he taught at Virginia Military Institute, the cadets called him Tom Fool, and, because of his religious fervor, some called him Old Blue Light. Later, at age 37, he was affectionately called “Old Jack” by the men who served under him in the Civil War.

Then, after July 21, 1861, he became known as “Stonewall” and that name stuck. Some question, however, whether the General who originally referred to Jackson as “a stone wall” intended the remark as a compliment or an insult. But, more on that later.

Thomas was born in 1824 and became an orphan at seven. He was separated from his sister, with whom he was very close, and was sent to live with first one relative then another; but never in a home with a loving and supportive father and mother. At age eleven, he ran away from the home where he had been placed and walked through the night back to where he had last lived with his mother; and a half-uncle took him in, but he was never close to the family. He worked as a farm hand and was permitted to receive a reasonable early education and he remained on that farm until he left for military school. As a boy, he was considered “slow” to learn, awkward in movements, shy to the extreme, and had few friends. When he was finally united with his sister in his early teens, they developed a loving bond that literally helped sustain Thomas in his darkest hours for the next twenty years. But, unfortunately, even that bond was broken.

Never a very good student, he was appointed to the U.S. Military Academy only after the first selectee dropped out. As a first-year cadet he struggled with academics, but adapted well to the harsh discipline; which, perhaps, was less severe than he had known as a displaced child. He was near the bottom of his class of sixty at the end of his first year, but, showed improvement each following year and finally graduated in seventeenth place in 1846. One instructor remarked on Jackson’s steady progress and said, “If he had one more year he would have been near first.” Jackson never quite mastered one task, at least to the satisfaction of his instructors. A critical skill for young Army officers was horsemanship, and cadets were expected to excel and conform to a classic posture in the saddle. Jackson was a good rider but, as a boy, had learned to lean forward in the saddle and he always drooped one shoulder while riding; so West Point instructors downgraded him. He could, at times, instructors noted, also be careless with his appearance; a habit that continued even as a Confederate General, when his uniforms were often described as rumpled or well worn. On the other hand, he did well enough in artillery and engineering to raise his over-all standing in his class. And, while he was not a popular cadet and made few close friends, he was respected for his hard work. Almost immediately upon graduation, Thomas left to fight in the War with Mexico, where he distinguished himself in several battles; and was personally singled out for recognition by General Winfield Scott, the commander of U.S. forces.

In those days, most Academy graduates had primarily sought an advanced education, not necessarily a military career, and only stayed in U.S. Army for a few years. Jackson was no exception, and he left the Army in 1851, but, he did not stray far-afield as he joined the staff at Virginia Military Institute (VMI). He was still without social graces, spoke little when in groups, and, by most accounts, was not a good teacher. Former students later recalled that he would stand nearly motionless and deliver his lectures in a monotone and expected his students to learn from textbooks, supplemented by his lectures; and he rarely provided any personal attention.  He was seen as unemotional, not very empathetic, and the only subject which could cause him to join a group discussion was religion; a topic he thought important enough for reflection. He did finally marry at age 29, but his first wife died within a year in childbirth, along with an infant.

Thomas was devastated; however, his religious faith, along with support from his sister, sustained him during this period. Jackson always had a connection to religion, but now, he went all in. He joined the local Presbyterian Church and gradually changed from a “believer” to a “near zealot” as described by one observer.  Another contemporary said, “Never have I seen a human being as thoroughly governed by duty. He lived only to please God. His daily life was a daily offering up of himself.”

He married again in 1857 to Mary Anna Morrison, the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, and she shared Thomas’s devotion to his faith. She also shared his unorthodox views on slavery. While he thought human-bondage was in accordance with God’s will, he believed mistreatment of slaves was immoral. To the consternation of neighbors, he and his wife taught slave children to read and write, in violation of Virginia law. They also held Sunday school classes for children and adult slaves, as they believed they had a duty to bring their Christian message to the slaves.

Jackson hoped that Civil War could be avoided, and although VMI was a hotbed of secessionist discussion, Jackson urged caution. He had seen the devastation that war brought to communities in Mexico and believed that, if Civil War came, the state of Virginia would become a main battlefield. He had another reason to be concerned if Virginia determined to secede; he and his beloved sister, Laura Ann, began to experience strains in their relationship as she was opposed to secession and to the formation of the Confederate States of America as a separate nation.

After the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, Jackson did not immediately leave VMI to serve in the Confederate Army; but rather, he waited to see if Virginia, which had not yet left the Union, would vote to secede.  Jackson believed secession was unnecessary and un-wise, but he vowed to follow the decision of his home state. When Virginia voted to secede and Jackson joined the Confederacy, his relationship with his sister became bitter. Laura Ann and her family were so opposed to the secessionist politics in Virginia, that they worked over the next two years to have the Union recognize West Virginia as a separate state; ripped away from the old Commonwealth of Virginia to which Thomas was so loyal.

Unfortunately, he and Laura never reconciled.

Jackson’s first assignment in the Confederate Army was as a drill instructor, directed to instill some degree of discipline in new recruits, who were often uneducated farm boys.  Jackson embraced this duty because he knew it was important to build cohesiveness within the troops in preparation for the chaos of battle. After a month, he was given command of a unit and dispatched to an area where many expected the first, and some thought possibly the last, battle of the new Civil War would occur.

The opposing armies were gathering close to Manassas Junction, Virginia, near Bull Run Creek; and Jackson would soon lead troops into battle for the first time since the Mexican War, fifteen years earlier.

His understanding of “God’s will” convinced Jackson that the Civil War was visited upon the Country as a curse by God for the nation’s many failures to follow scriptures; and, in his mind, devotion would decide the victor. That belief also gave Jackson a total lack of fear in battle. What some saw as courage, or even recklessness, Jackson saw as a belief that his death would be timed by God, not by another human being. He once said, “My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed.”

But, religious fervor aside, during the earlier war with Mexico, Jackson had proven to possess an uncanny ability to make the right tactical moves in almost every battle situation. Other officers noted that Jackson could quickly ascertain a rapidly changing battle situation and create opportunity for victory; or, what military experts refer to as “battleground sense” or “battlefield awareness.”

Then, suddenly on July 21, 1861, he became known as Stonewall!

The circumstances of the nickname are still debated by some.  Only a few months after the war started, Jackson found himself in Northern Virginia, at Manassas Junction, between the Union Capital at Washington DC and the Confederate Capital at Richmond. Union attacks were beginning to push back Confederate positions; but Jackson’s men held their ground and were in a position to reinforce the troops of General Bernard Bee, whose men were beginning to break ranks. Bee rode through his disorganized soldiers reportedly shouting; “There is Jackson standing like a stone wall. Let us determine to die here and we will conquer.” Based on an observation by a General, who did not personally hear the remarks, a few historians claim it was intended as an insult, because Jackson did not move quickly enough to provide needed support to Bee’s troops. But to most Civil War experts, and certainly all Confederate aficionados, General Bee meant that Jackson was holding his own and intended to use Jackson’s men as inspiration for a rallying cry. The debate about General Bee’s intent will go on, since the General was killed moments later. But, Jackson’s new nickname stuck, believed by most to be a compliment to his steadfastness, and General Jackson became “Stonewall” forever after. The new name was also adopted by the forces under his command, which became known as the “Stonewall Brigade.”

After that July battle, which Confederates named Manassas but the Union called Bull Run, Stonewall Jackson’s victories became the stuff of legends. While occasionally he made mistakes which caused setbacks in some battle situations, victories at places like Front Royal, Winchester, Cross Keys, Port Republic, Fredericksburg, and then a stunning victory at Chancellorsville, are all well known to those who study the Civil War.

He was not a “background” General but was always present at the battlefield which earned him the respect of his troops. He was a harsh disciplinarian, but was consistent and fair, so morale in his units remained high, despite heavy casualties. Although, one soldier who served under him reportedly said (sarcastically) of his discipline; “I think the General has shot more of us than the Yankees.”

On May 2, 1863, Stonewall Jackson, in a brilliant tactical decision, led his men in a multi-pronged assault on a larger Union force at Chancellorsville, Virginia. It was a clear victory as Confederate troops pushed back to, and even through, the Union lines. As darkness approached, General Jackson and his aides were returning to his camp after reviewing Union emplacements, when Confederate pickets mistook the riders for enemy scouts and opened fire. Jackson was hit by first one, then a second volley; and he suffered wounds to his left arm and right hand.

Upon hearing that Jackson had been wounded, General Robert E. Lee sent a message to his most dependable General; “Could I have directed events, I would have chosen for the good of the Country to be disabled in your stead.”

His wounds were serious and his arm had to be amputated. He was taken to a nearby plantation for what he expected would be a brief recovery before rejoining his men, but, after several days, he contracted pneumonia and his overall condition gradually worsened. On Sunday, May 10, 1863, eight days after being wounded, his doctor told Jackson there was nothing more to do and he would likely die that day. Jackson’s reply was; “It is the Lord’s day; my wish is fulfilled. I have always desired to die on a Sunday. Well, it is a Sunday, and I would like to meet the Lord on a Sunday.”

When Jackson died, General Lee said, “I have lost my right arm” and “I am bleeding at the heart.” But, his sister, Laura, an ardent supporter of the Union, would say, “I would rather know that he is dead than to have him a leader in the rebel army.” It seems that these two disparate sentiments capture perfectly the deep divisions in the country at the time.

A minister in Richmond said; “To attempt to portray the life of Jackson while leaving out the religious element, would be like undertaking to portray Switzerland without making mention of the Alps.” And, one of his biographers, Robert L. Dabney said, “It was the fear of God which made him so fearless of all else.”

Abraham Lincoln believed that many of the Southern Generals, who had once served in the U.S. Army, were good men who had made a misguided decision when they joined the Confederate forces. After reading an obituary of Jackson in the Washington Chronicle, Lincoln, in an extraordinary gesture, wrote to the newspaper’s publisher; “I wish to lose no time in thanking you for the article on Stonewall Jackson. He was a true Christian gentleman and soldier.”

Although from an unlikely source, it was a fitting tribute!

Contact the author at  gadorris@gmail.com and see other articles at the web-site www.alincolnbygadorris.com

The Militarization of the South (Article 66)

The names are still familiar to many of us today; Confederate President Jefferson Davis, General Joseph Johnston, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, John Magruder, P.G.T Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, Jubal Early, James Longstreet, George Pickett, Benjamin Helm (Abraham Lincoln’s brother-in-law), John Bell Hood, George Washington Custis Lee (Robert E. Lee’s son), J.E.B. Stuart, and Andrew Jackson III (grandson of President Andrew Jackson). All were from Southern states, all received their education at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and all served the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Most historians agree that the significant underlying causes for which thirteen Southern states chose to secede from the Union, and form the Confederate States of America, were economics, the sovereignty of individual states, and of course, the retention of slavery. Some historians and social scientists, make the additional argument that the South was more willing to first threaten, and then be ready to fight, a Civil War because so many of its political, social, and business leaders had received their educations at various military academies and/or had military experience. The term “Militarization of the South” was used by some as a pejorative; but is it a fair and accurate term? Then, if so, did it influence the beginning of the war and, equally important, did it affect the outcome?

Since the time of the Revolutionary War, almost all Southern states had regulated militias in which male citizens could be trained and be ready for service if called upon by their state government. Then, in late 1860 and early 1861, as various states began to secede from the Union,

the ranks of those state militias began to swell with men who had received their military training at private and state military colleges and with graduates of the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy. Of the nearly 1,100 graduates of the U.S. Academies from the classes of 1830-1860, over 300 served the Confederacy, including many who were still on active duty and resigned their commissions to join the Southern military forces. And, they were joined by even more officers from the U.S. Army and Navy who were not Academy graduates.

The new Confederate government was still organizing its military forces, so most of these volunteers initially joined the militia in their home state; and, they were prepared to defend their state from potential invasion by Union forces. However, within a few months after the start of the war, most of these state units were integrated into the Confederate armed forces.

The concept of loyalty to the state of one’s birth would seem odd to recent generations, as mobility has nearly made allegiance to a particular state obsolete; but, in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was normal. And, the political leaders, who led secessionist movements, counted on that parochial loyalty to raise armies to defend against any attempt by the Federal government to force the return of the state to the Union through military action. In fact, historians estimate that 65-75 percent of eligible men in the thirteen seceded states joined either the Confederate armed forces (Army or Navy) or their state’s militia during the war. By contrast, in the North, that percentage was likely 35-40 percent. Clearly, most of the enlisted level Confederate soldiers and many of the officers were not fighting to preserve slavery or against oppressive excise taxes; they fought because Union forces were marching into their home states.

Regardless of the motives of those who chose to fight, by mid-1861, the South had built an effective fighting force, with a solid group of educated and experienced officers to lead the troops; however, to a certain extent, southern society was already “militarized” long before the threat of Civil War.

In some ways way, southern aristocratic families resembled the feudal families of Europe who identified more with their feudal land than with a governing nation; and who protected their large land holdings by passing the inheritance to the eldest son (if there was one), rather than break up the land among several siblings. In the American South, families identified with their home state, where the family’s holdings often dated back to colonial times, before the United States was even founded. Theirs was a patriarchal society and, in general, the eldest son was expected to continue family traditions and control the family’s assets; which were often centered around plantations (and the slaves to provide the labor) or large merchant and financial enterprises. Younger sons, however, were expected to use their wealth and position in some noble service. Of course, there were a few gadflies who chose to simply enjoy the benefits of being part of the wealthy leisure class; but, most of these privileged young men sought a useful career. Aristocratic Southern families encouraged contributions to the betterment of their state and their social structure, and many of their sons became politicians (a noble career at that time), judges, lawyers, educators, merchants and even clergymen. But one of the most coveted and admired occupations was that of an Army or Naval officer.

Soon after the Revolutionary War, the new United States of America (both north and south) realized a viable military would be necessary to maintain that hard fought independence; and a source of well trained and disciplined officers would be needed. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson (of Virginia) approved the formation of the United States Military Academy to be located at West Point, New York and the first class of cadets entered in 1802. Forty years later, Congress authorized the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, specifically as a training program for future officers in the Navy; and its first class graduated in 1854.

Since many Southern families valued a military education as a noble and desirable profession for young men, an appointment to either Academy was highly prized. However, there was such a demand for a formal and elite military education, which would lead to a commission in the U.S. Army or in a state’s “well regulated” militia, that several small colleges were formed throughout the Southern states with a component of military training and discipline. But, even the addition of those private schools could not meet all of the requests for a military education and several states, which already maintained militia forces, established and funded their own military schools. The very formation of the Citadel in South Carolina in 1839, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1842, and the Louisiana Military Academy (later to become LSU), were directly a result of the increasing demand in the South for a premier military education. While not all of the graduates of these in-state academies immediately joined their local militia, they were available upon notice if their state should ever issue a call to arms.  Many fought in the war with Mexico in 1846-47, in which Southern soldiers actually comprised a larger portion of the U.S. force than the much greater populated northern states.

And, they would again respond as the South prepared for war in 1860.

Those who contend that “Militarization of the South” was a factor in the Civil War believe that the large number of Southern men with a military education and/or military experience, may have given the political leaders a sense of confidence (or over-confidence) that they could quickly defeat the northern states. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who had graduated from West Point, fought with the U.S. Army in the Mexican War, and later was the U.S. Secretary of War, said just prior to the attack on Fort Sumter, “We will start, and finish, the war!” and, speaking of Union President Abraham Lincoln he said, “There is no fire in his fight.” In the end, both of his statements were proven wrong!

So, in answer to the earlier questions; is “Militarization of the South” a fair term; and if so, did it influence the start of the Civil War or affect the outcome?

The appreciation by Southern families of a military education and/or career was not so much a glorification of warfare, as simply one accepted way for young men to meet their implied duty to serve their society. And, their courage and sense of honor was extraordinary; as one General said (paraphrased) after a Confederate defeat, “If valor alone could have carried the day, we would have been the victors.” Therefore, the use of the term “Militarization of the South” as a pejorative is not appropriate; however, aside from that, the term is probably fair. It certainly gave secessionist leaders a level of confidence that, with their strong contingent of experienced officers to lead dedicated troops, they would quickly defeat the disorganized Union. And, even when victory did not come early, the militarized South was able to prolong the war in the hope (misplaced) that the Union, and Abraham Lincoln, would tire of the war and just accept the independence of the Confederate States.

On the other hand, that early advantage soon faded before the overwhelming mass of men and materiel available to the Union forces; and so, the “Militarization of the South” may have delayed, but it did not affect, the final outcome of the Civil War.

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com or find additional articles at the website: www.alincolnbygadorris.com

Lincoln and Douglas – Beyond The Debates (Article 65)

On the podium, the visual contrast between the two men was striking; Abraham Lincoln was tall and thin, while Stephen A. Douglas was almost a foot shorter and portly. When they spoke, the audience immediately noted that Douglas had a deep, booming voice, while Lincoln’s voice was a bit higher pitched but still carried well. Although Douglas was nearly theatrical in his presentation, striding back and forth as he gestured with his hands; Lincoln was almost immobile, except for minor hand movements. And, while Lincoln would interject humor, Douglas was almost continually intense. But a more important difference was political. In Illinois, Lincoln was an influential leader of the Republican Party, while Douglas often singularly drove the Democrat Party.

However, the Illinois audiences at the seven “Lincoln – Douglas” debates, held across the state, did not come to just observe and be entertained by these two politicians, they came to hear their ideas on the compelling issues of the day. Those citizens would soon vote for either Democrat or Republican legislators, who would then select the state’s next Senator.

And both men wanted the appointment!

Interestingly, Lincoln and Douglas did not really debate; not in the modern sense anyway. One would first speak for no more than an hour, the second man would speak (often in rebuttal) for ninety minutes, and then the first speaker would follow up for thirty minutes. After the allotted times, when the two men had raised, and responded to, important political and social issues of the day, they would occasionally banter back and forth to the delight of the crowds.

By 1858, when the debates occurred, the men had known each other for twenty-five years and had become friendly, but were not considered best friends. Each man respected the other as honorable and well-intentioned, and they often agreed on political positions which affected the economy of Illinois; for example, state and federal support for roads, railroads and waterway improvements. However, they had been on the opposite sides of nearly every other political matter which faced the State of Illinois and/or the United States of America during that time; for example, Douglas supported the Mexican War in 1846, but Lincoln opposed it.

And they were on different sides of one of the most explosive and urgent issues in that century; whether any new state should be admitted to the Union if that state’s Constitution permitted slavery. Most northern states did not want to admit any new state in which slavery would be legal, while southern states were insisting that new states permit (or at least not prohibit) slavery to assure the political balance was maintained in Congress between slave states and non-slave states. Further, while both men agreed that the Constitution recognized slavery in states where it currently was legal, they differed on the longer-term question; whether slavery should exist at all within the United States.

Douglas, who had already served two six-year terms in the Senate, could have chosen to avoid the debates with Lincoln. He was not required to meet with his opponent and, after all, the Illinois legislature was already controlled by the Democrats who were not expected to lose many seats in the 1858 election; nearly guaranteeing Douglas the appointment. So why did the incumbent choose to give his challenger a platform with which to possibly unseat him? Douglas never fully explained his reasoning; however, there may have been at least four factors in his decision. First, almost every time Douglas gave a speech in a community, Lincoln, who was a popular speaker, would show up after Douglas had finished and give a counter-argument. Second, Douglas enjoyed political give and take and knew he and Lincoln would create an entertaining show for the public. Third, he knew the debates, which would center on the topics surrounding slavery, would receive national attention in the press; and Douglas intended to be a candidate for President in 1860. What better way to get his message across to voters in every state? Those first three reasons were personal and even a bit self-serving. But, his fourth reason was honorable and patriotic; he believed in the Constitution and the preservation of the Union, and honestly felt that he could protect both, currently as a Senator and then later as President. He intended to spend the next two years in the Senate guiding the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions toward compromise (as he had successfully done in his previous two terms) and then, as President in 1861, assure those regional differences did not turn into Civil War.

For the prior ten years, Douglas had worked to bring about compromises in Congress between the states that rejected slavery (largely northern states) and those states in which slavery was legal and thriving (primarily in the South). Douglas did not believe, as many southerners did, that slavery was morally justified; he simply did not want the issue of slavery to tear apart the United States. So, whenever and wherever that threat arose, Douglas had become a mediator; or, “The Great Compromiser”, as he became known in the national press.

Lincoln and Douglas looked at the issue of slavery differently. Lincoln abhorred slavery, condemned the institution as unjust, and did not want to see slavery expanded to new states. Douglas promoted the democratic idea of “popular sovereignty” wherein a proposed new state’s citizens would vote on the question of slavery, and the U.S. Congress would accept that state into the Union, regardless of the outcome. On the other hand, Lincoln did not want any new state admitted to the Union unless that state’s constitution prohibited slavery; and he had said the country could not endure “half-slave and half-free.”

The two men did agree, however, on one national issue which, while related to the questions surrounding slavery, was distinctly different. They were both ferocious in their belief that the United States was inviolate and that any secession by southern states would be unconstitutional and illegal!

Most Americans know at least basic information about Lincoln, but conversely, know almost nothing about Stephen Arnold Douglas. He was five years younger than Lincoln, but they both began their political careers about the same time. Douglas had moved to Illinois 1833, when he was twenty, obtained his law license within a year, and quickly became active in the Democratic Party. He became a County Attorney, then in 1836, he was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives. Since Lincoln had earlier been elected to that legislative body, the two men certainly became acquainted that year, but perhaps a year or two before.

We do know that, in 1836, they were on opposite sides of a resolution which stated that slavery, although not permitted in Illinois, must be recognized as a legal and Constitutional institution in certain states and that Illinois would respect slave ownership rights which existed in those other states. In Lincoln’s opposition, he stated: “We protest against the passage, we believe slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy.” Douglas supported the measure and it passed in the Democrat controlled legislature.

With Lincoln’s move from New Salem to Springfield, the state’s new Capital city, Douglas and Lincoln had numerous social as well as political interactions. Both men were single and considered to be eligible bachelors by the town’s matchmakers. For a short time, they both courted Mary Todd, the daughter of a Kentucky banker and slave owner; and her family much preferred Mr. Douglas who was reasonably well-to-do. But, in 1841, Mary chose Lincoln; so, it may be said that he won that round.

Douglas would not marry for another six years.

But Douglas’s political star was rising, while Lincoln’s was not. Lincoln had served four consecutive terms in the State Legislature and decided to forgo another campaign and focus on his law practice to better provide for his family.

Douglas, on the other hand, was riding a wave of support toward higher office.  Although later known as the “Great Compromiser” by the national press, by contrast, in Illinois he was referred to in the press as the “Little Giant” because of his ability to successfully drive political issues through the Legislature. At age 27, in 1841, he persuaded the legislature to expand the Illinois Supreme Court and the new law also made each new Associate Justice a District Court Judge. Then, in a bold political move, Douglas had himself appointed as one of the new Supreme Court and District Court Judges.

In 1846, when he was only thirty-three years old, he was appointed as the new U.S. Senator from Illinois and resigned from the State Supreme Court. As a Senator, he quickly became a leader because he had an ability to work both sides of the aisle to reach consensus; whether on political or economic issues. In addition to his efforts to reach compromises on the expansion of slavery, he pushed through legislation to greatly expand the nations railway network; of course, with several main lines right through Illinois.

In 1847, Douglas married the daughter of a wealthy North Carolina plantation owner and, upon the death of his father-in-law a year later, Douglas’s wife inherited the property and over one hundred slaves. Douglas was appointed manager of the estate, which provided him with a substantial income for the rest of his life. However, Douglas wanted to protect his political career in Illinois, so he appointed a subordinate manager and never was actively involved in the plantation. Of course, political opponents in the North (but not Lincoln) were always ready to accuse Douglas of being a slave-owner.

But Douglas remained popular in Illinois and was re-appointed to the Senate for another six-year term in 1852.

While Douglas’s political career continued, Lincoln, after his last term in the Illinois legislature ended in 1841, focused on his law practice for the next fifteen years; except for a single term as a U.S. Congressman in 1847. However, he did not leave politics as some claim, but rather he actively supported other Whig (later Republican) candidates for local, state and national offices; and his influence continued to grow within his Party. Because he felt obligated to his old friends in the Whig party, Lincoln even made a half-hearted attempt to gain the state’s other Senate seat in 1854. He was not surprised, nor unhappy, when he lost.

Then, in 1857 Lincoln began a methodical march toward a run for Douglas’s Senate seat, which would next come up for appointment in 1858. It was a long shot because the Democrats continued to hold a majority in the Illinois Legislature which selected U.S. Senators; however, Lincoln was popular and he hoped, if Senator Douglas would accept his challenge to debate, that he might convince some Democrats to cross-over in support of his candidacy. Lincoln must have been pleased when Douglas agreed to a series of seven debates in different communities.

Those debates, measured by attendance, enthusiasm, and publication in newspapers around the country (and a subsequent best-selling book), were successful beyond either candidate’s expectations. And, Lincoln almost pulled it off! But, in the end, enough Democrat Legislators stuck together to appoint Douglas to another six-year term.

Perhaps, however, it could be said that Lincoln really won the debates. For the first time, Lincoln’s message denouncing slavery received national attention and, combined with his speech a few months later at Coopers Union in New York, which also was widely published, laid the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 1860.

Arguably, at least until then, Stephen A. Douglas had a more successful, and influential, political career than did Abraham Lincoln. However, when Douglas returned to Washington to begin his third term, he found that the Southern aristocracy had hardened their positions to protect the institution of slavery on which their economy was based. Douglas encountered resistance to compromise and heard more threats about secession as the Senators from Southern states openly discussed the option of forming a separate nation comprised of slave holding states. As a result, Douglas began to lose influence with many of the Southern Senators due to his position that secession was unconstitutional and illegal.

Throughout 1859 and 1860, Senator Douglas worked tirelessly to forge another compromise to avoid secession by several states, which he feared could lead to a disastrous Civil War. His health began to fail and friends noticed that he was aging rapidly. His hope to become President was fading, but he did win his Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the summer of 1860. However, the party had split into factions and Southern Democrats nominated another candidate. In December, in a four-man race, Abraham Lincoln was elected. Douglas received the second most public votes behind Lincoln, but was last in the Electoral College count. His political career was over.

The secession crisis began as soon as Abraham Lincoln was elected and, by April 1861, the nation was divided; and both sides were preparing for war.

After the Confederate attack at Fort Sumter, Stephen Douglas went to see his new President to pledge his support for Lincoln’s determination to re-unite the Country and preserve the Constitution; even if that meant all-out Civil War. Lincoln showed Douglas his executive order to raise 75,000 troops to which Douglas replied “make it 200,000.” Douglas also said in the meeting; “I have had many friends in the South who must at some level still be my friends, but we will also know we are enemies.”  One of Douglas’s most famous quotes came in a speech he gave during this period when he said; “There are only two sides to this question. Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in the war; only patriots and traitors.”

Over the next few months, Douglas did his best to help his President and his Country; but, he did not get very far. On June 3, 1861 he died. He was only 48 years old.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 became regarded by historians as the most famous and most effective in the history of the United States. Those debates articulated not only the crisis over slavery, but the potential for Civil War if secession by any states were to occur. Not even the Kennedy-Nixon debates over 100 years later, influenced events in this nation as did those seven debates – between two passionate and articulate politicians – in small towns – in the frontier state of Illinois.

Lincoln certainly deserves all the credit he receives for a grand political legacy. But, he may have never become President, had not Douglas, the “Little Giant” of Illinois, been willing to participate in those debates; and, as a result, helped introduce Abraham Lincoln to a national audience of voters.

So, in the long run, perhaps our Country was the real winner of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@aol.com  and read other articles at the website: www.alincolnbygadorris.com

A Nation Divided – The Cherokees (Article 64)

For over seven months in 1861, the tension was palpable within the Cherokee Tribal Council. While there was an elected Principal Chief, the position was not autocratic and was only one of about twenty Tribal leaders. On one side of the debates, Chief John Ross urged caution, and believed the Cherokee Nation could avoid conflict by remaining neutral in the “White Man’s War” that had just started. On the other side, Stand Watie, another respected leader, spoke of a new beginning for his people as he urged alignment with the Confederate States of America; although he knew that came with the risk of battle against forces of the United States. Watie argued that, after what would surely be a quick victory over the northern states, the Confederate government would recognize the Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty and provide representation in the new country’s Congress. John Ross countered that the vast resources of the North would prevent an early victory by the South. There was one additional key argument by some Cherokees who urged siding with the Confederate government; a common interest in protecting slavery. Those tribal members wanted retain the nearly 3,000 black slaves they owned, which represented their largest “asset” and most of the Native Nation’s wealth.

The discussions went on for months, and the divisions within the Nation were clear. Again!

The Cherokee Nation had been divided before. Twenty-five years earlier, in 1835, Ross and Watie led opposing factions when White merchants in Georgia persuaded the Federal Government to permit confiscation of tribal lands which held valuable gold deposits, salt mines, timber and other resources. All of the Cherokee leaders realized that they could not win a military battle against Federal forces empowered by the Indian Removal Act of 1830; and other nearby tribes had already agreed to relocation, including Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw. The question was not whether they would lose some or all of their lands, but rather which leader could negotiate the best settlement with the United States Government.  Chief Ross, who headed the Union Party, believed he could negotiate an agreement for compensation, in return for giving up a large portion of their land; but would allow the Cherokee to retain some of their property and stay in Georgia. On the other hand, Watie and other Cherokee leaders, including brothers John and Major Ridge, were convinced that Federal forces, joined by Georgia militia, would willingly and readily annihilate the Cherokee to gain all of their land. Watie’s group formed an opposition party, initially called the Ridge Party, but later known as the Treaty Party, specifically to negotiate a treaty with the United States which would avoid war and obtain reasonable compensation for their Georgia lands; but would require relocation to western Indian Territory. Watie and his co-founders of the Treaty Party claimed to represent the majority of Cherokee and signed the Treaty of New Echota with the United States; which called for removal from Georgia to Indian Territory by 1838, in return for promised financial support. John Ross did not sign the treaty and argued in the U.S. Congress and in State and Federal Courts for the next three years that the document was not valid; but he was ultimately unsuccessful.  In a rare instance of political violence among the Cherokee, several founding members of the Treaty Party were found murdered, including the two Ridge brothers; but, whether by design or by luck, Watie was not attacked and no one was ever charged with the crimes.

However, the outcome for the Cherokee people was already set in motion; and, in 1838, nearly 20,000 were removed from their homes by the U.S. Army and Georgia militia and forced to march westward nearly a thousand miles to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).  The government did not bother to keep accurate records, but at least 3,000 thousand Cherokee died on the journey; which became known as “The Trail of Tears” to many Americans, but “The Trail Where They Cried” among their own people. Over time the survivors settled into the Indian Territory and re-built a functioning society; although most relocated Cherokee were now dependent on government assistance, unlike their earlier self-sustaining culture in Georgia.

Even Principal Chief John Ross had to adapt to life in Indian Territory. Born in 1790 to a Cherokee mother and a Scottish father, he was comfortable in both Native and White cultures. He served in the War of 1812, and then began a career as a merchant and lawyer in Tennessee.  Ross became interested in Cherokee politics and relocated to Georgia to participate in the Tribal Council; and, because he was bright, bi-lingual, and energetic, he soon became an influential leader within the Cherokee Nation. John Ross was first elected to his position as Principal Chief in 1828, over thirty years before the Civil War, and continued as Chief until 1866, the year following the end of the War. While he had responsibility for management of the Cherokee Nation’s affairs, he was only one voice in their representative system.

Ross had been deeply affected by the “relocation” to Indian Territory in 1838. His large farm had been confiscated and he lost his prosperous legal practice; but to him, the worst blow of all came when his wife died during the forced march. Despite his contention that the United States had colluded with Georgians to remove the Cherokee Nation from their homeland, he had no trust that the new Confederate Government (of which Georgia was a part) would be any better for his people. So, Chief Ross had argued for the Nation to remain neutral, and, for a few months, he seemed to be holding the Cherokee Nation together. At one point, he was so confident that he notified U.S. Indian Agents in their territory that the Cherokee would not choose sides in the looming civil conflict. Ross knew better than most that the war would not be easily won by either North or South and, as a pragmatist, he wanted to keep his options open. But, he also was simply tired of conflict. He was over 70 years old, had been the Chief of the tribe for thirty years, and he did not want to see the new generation of young men further decimated by war. Some historians claim his arguments for neutrality were staged and that he really supported the Confederacy because he owned slaves; however, Ross had already granted them “freedman” status. But, because the former slaves were the second or third generations connected to the Ross family with whom they had lived and worked their entire lives, they chose to remain with Ross.

Chief Ross’s primary opponent, both in the 1835 relocation debates and now in the Civil War debates, was Stand Watie who argued for the Cherokee to align with the new Confederate government. Like Ross, Watie had lived among White society in Georgia and was educated as a lawyer; but the confiscation of the Cherokee lands and re-settlement to Indian Territory caused him to despise and distrust the United States government. Although he was an astute businessman and became one of most wealthy Cherokee in Indian Territory, Watie blamed the Federal government for numerous broken promises in violation of the New Echota treaty of 1835, which he had supported; and that certainly influenced his support for a treaty with the new Confederate government. But Watie was indifferent to the “States’ Rights” position of the Southerners, or their other political and economic grievances with the United States. He had more fundamental goals in mind! He believed that, after a quick Southern victory over the North, the Cherokee Nation would be rewarded for their loyalty with civil equality and representation in the Confederate Congress, and, at least, a possibility that they might regain some of their ancestral lands in Georgia. Equally important at the time, he fully expected that a Southern government would continue to protect the rights of Cherokee slave owners.

Although a state of War existed between the United States and the Confederate States after the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April 1861, not much happened for the next few months. Then, after the decisive Confederate victory at First Manassas (Bull Run) in July, the mood within the Cherokee Nation changed as more of their people became convinced that the Confederates would win the war.

The debates intensified and every participant understood that the stakes were high. Those outsiders who knew about the earlier murders of the members of the Treaty Party, might have expected confrontation, perhaps even violence, between the differing sides; but the Cherokee were respectful people who listened to others and gave open counsel.

And, then, on August 21, 1861, they decided.

The Cherokee Nation agreed to join forces with the new Confederate States of America. As difficult as it must have been for him, Chief Ross accepted the majority’s decision and represented the Cherokee in negotiations with the Confederacy; and then he signed the new treaties. Those agreements ended any obligations between the Cherokee Nation and the United States, and established Confederate obligations to the Cherokee for more rations, farm implements, and defined borders (within Indian Territory which was basically Oklahoma). Further, an amalgamation of Tribes would be given representation in the Confederate Congress; something the United states had discussed but never formalized. In return, the Cherokee agreed to form several Confederate military units to provide protection within their lands, but they were not to be deployed to fight U.S. forces elsewhere. Each Cherokee unit was led by a Native officer, appointed by the Confederate Army. Stand Watie was designated a Colonel and agreed to form, and lead, a unit of at least 1,000 Cherokee Cavalrymen.

In the summer of 1862, Chief John Ross was captured by U.S. Army troops and taken to Washington DC, where, in exchange for a pardon and the promise of future financial considerations for his Nation, he agreed to support the Union cause. Three of his sons even joined the Union Army and one died in a Confederate prison. He came to know President Abraham Lincoln and believed that his willingness to lead those Cherokees he represented to pledge allegiance to the Union would gain favor for his Nation when the war ended. His pledge was not a hollow gesture because he was still considered to be the Principal Chief by many Cherokees and led the largest contingent of the fractured Native Nation.

However, in Ross’s absence, Stand Watie was named a separate Principal Chief. So, the Cherokee Nation was now truly divided; just like the rest of the Country.

Watie immediately called a draft of every Cherokee male from 18-50 years of age into military units of the Confederate Army. Watie was already a strong leader before the war, but his new rank of Colonel and a few early successes against Union forces within the Indian territories, also cemented his reputation as a military commander. In 1864 he was promoted to Brigadier General and given command of a newly formed large unit, named the Indian Cavalry Brigade, which included men from other tribes such as Creek, Osage and Seminole. General Watie then moved out of Indian Territory into Arkansas (a Confederate state under constant attack and occupation by Union Forces), where he led his troops to several victories over the U.S. Army. General Watie was so dedicated to the Confederacy that he and his Cherokee soldiers continued skirmishes with Union troops until June 23, 1865; over two months after Generals Lee and Johnston had surrendered the two largest Confederate armies.

The Civil War divided the United States as a nation and split many families. The War also divided the Cherokee Nation and created familial chasms that would take a century to heal.

At the end of the war, John Ross resumed his duties as the Principal Chief of all Cherokee and began to negotiate with the United States for a new “reconstruction treaty” for his people. He tried for nearly a year to gain some concessions that would lead the Cherokee out of the consistent poverty which they had experienced in Indian Territory since 1838. However, with Abraham Lincoln gone and replaced by a new President, Andrew Johnson, who considered Indian matters less important than others he faced, Chief Ross made little progress. Exacerbating his dilemma, many Union Congressional leaders considered the whole Cherokee Nation traitorous because of the Confederate service by the followers of Stand Watie. Finally, in late 1865, Ross was able to meet with President Johnson, whose administration then recognized Chief Ross as the official spokesman for the Cherokee Nation and granted some assurances for financial aid and the promise of gradual return of control over Native affairs. In August 1866, John Ross was still in Washington trying to negotiate a new treaty for Native Sovereignty when, following another day of meetings with the Federal bureaucracy, he died. He was seventy-six years old.

After the War, Stand Watie formed a mercantile company (primarily trading in tobacco) within the Cherokee portion of Indian Territory. When the Federal government levied excise taxes on his business, he refused to pay believing that the U.S. Government could not tax Native businesses on Indian land.  He lost his case, and his business, in Federal Court. He died penniless in 1871.

The Cherokee Nation had divided over whether the United States of America or the Confederate States of America would most likely honor treaties and give them fair consideration after the Civil War. Neither choice, as events unfolded, would prove to be good for the Cherokee.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail .com or see other articles at www.alincolnbygadorris.com

Native American Dilemma – Which Side To Choose (Article 63)

“I am glad to see one real American here.”  – Said Confederate General Robert E. Lee, graciously nodding to Union Army Colonel Ely S. Parker, a member of the Seneca tribe, when surrendering at Appomattox.

“We are all Americans here.” – Said Colonel Parker, in an equally courteous reply to General Lee.

There are thousands of stories about the Civil War and those who fought for either the Union or the Confederacy and the vast majority tell of the exploits of White men (and women) who chose to serve one side or the other. There are also numerous accounts of the service of Black soldiers, most of whom fought for the Union, but there were some who served Confederate forces.

On the other hand, the service of Native Americans in the Great War, whether for the Union or the Confederacy, has not been as extensively covered. It is estimated that nearly 30,000 members of various Tribes and Nations served in the war, over 20,000 for the Union. (The Union Army records were more thorough than those of the Confederate Army, but, still not very complete, so the exact numbers will never be known). Further, it is likely that over 2,500 Native Americans died in combat, or later from wounds, during the Civil War. Some of the battles in which they participated are famous and familiar, because they involved thousands of troops; such as Antietam, Pea Ridge, Cold Harbor, Second Manassas, and the Battle of the Crater. Others fought in smaller, lesser known engagements; such as Cabin Creek, the battle for Wichita Agency, and the battle of Round Mountain. However, the size of the battle meant little to those individuals who fought close to their enemy, often in hand to hand combat; for death visited the soldiers whether the engagement was large or small and whether it was historically significant or not.

Almost all Native American Tribes and Nations, especially those whose ancestral lands were in the East, had some type of parliamentary process where representatives debated before voting on significant matters involving their people. While some tribes were able to remain neutral throughout the war, many chose one side or the other. Their reasons varied and, because there were sovereignty and existing treaty issues at stake, their choices carried great risk.  Also, mirroring the dilemma faced by many other northern and southern families, several tribes had members who fought for opposite sides; a tragedy of epic proportions for societies in which familial loyalty was so important.

In any event, their choices had severe consequences. So, what factors led certain Tribes to choose to support the Union, and others to support the Confederacy; and, in the case of one major Native Nation, to split their allegiance?

In early 1861, when the Indian Tribes and Nations were deliberating whether to align with one side or the other, or remain neutral, their decisions were not made in a vacuum of information. Every Tribe had at least a few members who were English speaking and who were knowledgeable about the customs, mannerisms, governmental policies, and especially the prejudices, of the White majorities in the North and the South.

In some instances, regional loyalties and familiarities played a part, as certain northern tribes joined the Union Army and other southern tribes fought for the Confederacy.  Also, as in all wars, enlistment into an army was an alternative to poverty; but the Union Army usually offered better, and more reliable, pay. However, there were other reasons. Some tribes chose the Confederacy because that “new” government, unlike the United States, carried no negative legacy of mistreatment of Indian communities or broken treaties. Also, several former “southern” Native Nations were slave-holders, including the Cherokee who held more Black slaves than any other Tribe/Nation, and they believed a victorious Confederacy would protect their “property” after the war.

But, certainly, in all cases, each tribe initially believed that they had chosen the winning side, and if they fought valiantly, they would be rewarded with better living conditions, increased representation, and some, who had been “relocated” to Indian Territory, hoped that they could return to ancestral lands.

The Seneca Nation, still living in New England, unanimously sided with the Union and a significant number of their young men joined the U.S. Army, including the Parker brothers, Ely and Newton. Both men, who were educated as lawyers, became officers, with Ely eventually assigned to General Grant’s staff. It was in his role as Grant’s secretary/adjutant that Colonel Parker assisted with the Articles of Surrender at Appomattox and was in the right place to have his famous exchange with Robert E. Lee. Parker was subsequently promoted to Brigadier General.

Arguably the most famous Native American military unit was Company K of the 1st Michigan regiment which included members of the Ottawa, Huron, Delaware, Oneida, and Potawami tribes, and was quickly labeled the “Sharpshooters” by their officers. The unit was fearless in battle and were known for standing together and laying series after series of clustered fire at Confederate positions. Despite heavy and concentrated return fire usually directed at them, they would not break. In July, 1864, after one such engagement at the Battle of the Crater near Petersburg, Virginia, an officer observing the “Sharpshooters” wrote in his battle report; “The men did splendid work. They were nearly surrounded, receiving forceful fire from Confederates, but never wavered. Some of them were mortally wounded, and, drawing their blouses over their faces, they chanted a death song and died – four of them in a group” And in another report, wrote “Those living, maintained return fire, until too wounded or until they were out of ammunition. Their position was held. It was bravery by all.” The Michigan Sharpshooters lost so many men in that battle, that they were kept out of further combat through the war’s end.

Other tribes which sided with the Union included the Lumbee, Iroquois, Pamunkey, and the Ojibwa.

The Confederate States of America also attracted several Tribes. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, realized the potential value of Native Americans to supplement Confederate manpower west of the Mississippi River, mainly in Oklahoma, but also in Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri. Davis appointed an envoy to the various tribes and granted him almost unlimited authority to reach treaties, including recognition of Indian sovereignty, representation in the Confederate Congress, and even potential citizenship. These offers enticed the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes to commit their allegiance to the Confederacy.

However, perhaps the Cherokee Nation, residing in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), which split into several factions over the Civil War, suffered more than any other Native American group, both during and after the War. Although once one of the largest Native Nations, the Cherokee only had about 22,000 members (and about 2,000 slaves) when the Civil War began. Many had died during the “Trail of Tears” forced relocation in the 1830s from Georgia and nearby states to Oklahoma Territory; and by the war’s end in 1865, fewer than 15,000 remained. While many non-combatants, women, children, and elderly died of malnutrition and disease in Indian Territory during the four-year Civil War, the Cherokee also lost nearly 1,000 young men as casualties of the War.

The Cherokee Nation had initially voted to side with the new Southern government, against the advice of their elected Chief and President, John Ross; however, various smaller groups, although still loyal to the Confederacy, soon divided into factions, each with their own military leaders. The largest of these break-away groups was led by Stand Watie, who was appointed as a Colonel in the Confederate Army, later promoted to Brigadier General, and who led his forces in a series of successful raids over the next four years. However, a year into the War, Chief John Ross, who had originally argued for the Cherokee Nation to remain neutral and still led the largest contingent of members, was captured by Union troops and, in exchange for a pardon, pledged his loyalty, and the loyalty of the people he represented, to the United States. Ross kept his word and worked tirelessly for the Union cause in Eastern States and in Washington DC. There, Ross became a confidant of Abraham Lincoln and had every right to expect that, after the Union won the War, the Cherokee Nation would be rewarded by the “Great President” he had come to know.

When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated near the end of the war, Chief John Ross’s influence in Washington ended, as the new President, Andrew Johnson, had little interest in Indian affairs. Further, the split in loyalties between the Watie and Ross factions caused many other Northern political leaders to mistrust the Cherokee Nation; and even Chief Ross, who championed the Union cause, could not marshal any federal assistance for his impoverished people.

When tribes made their decision to serve either the Union or the Confederacy, they certainly believed that they were backing the side that would win; and they expected (or hoped) for improved conditions for their people.  Unfortunately, whether they chose the Union or the Confederacy, those hopes were not realized. In defeat, the Confederates could offer no solace to their former allies; and the treaties those tribes signed with the South were not only worthless, but the documents labeled them as traitors to most people in the North. For the Native Americans who served the victorious Union, the U.S. government gave only token recognition, and almost no tangible rewards; a tragic disappointment for those who chose the “winning” side.

That makes their sacrifices even more poignant.

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com

General Lincoln? (Article 62)

“General, I have just received your dispatch about sore tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?”  –  Abraham Lincoln to General George McClellan after the General said he could not advance that day because his horses were too tired.

“If the General is not going to use his army, I wonder if I might borrow it.”  –  Abraham Lincoln in a staff meeting, talking about General George McClellan.

“Had McClellan followed his advice, he would have taken Richmond. Had Hooker acted in accordance with his suggestions, Chancellorsville would have been a victory for the nation. Had Meade obeyed his explicit commands, he would have destroyed Lee’s army before it could have re-crossed the Potomac.” And, continuing: “The War would have ended two years earlier, President Lincoln would have served his second term, and the nation would be healed.”  – William A. Croffut, Civil War soldier, journalist, and author, writing in 1875.

As the new Commander-in-Chief, Abraham Lincoln was constantly frustrated with his Generals. He had given them the largest standing Army in the history of the United States and provided them with the equipment and munitions they requested. But still, no significant progress had been made against the smaller and lesser equipped Confederate Army. But, because he had hardly any military experience himself, he was reluctant to give specific direction to the Generals who had made a career in the Army. After all, his only experience in the military was as an Illinois militia Captain in the 1832 Black Hawk War; thirty years before he became the Commander-in-Chief. He never engaged in any direct action in that short war, and even made fun of his experience saying (paraphrased), “I fought many bloody battles with mosquitoes, I was no hero.”

Later, as a young Congressman in 1847, he had argued against the war with Mexico and showed little interest in the tactics of the Generals who carried out President Polk’s invasion plans. He simply thought the war was a “land grab” by Polk’s administration and opposed the overall mission.

Now, however, as President, he was ultimately responsible for the progress, and the outcome, of the largest military engagement in United States history. And, he was not confident that the senior commanders he had appointed were leading the nation toward a victory and preservation of the Union. Even worse, one commanding General, George B. McClellan, failed to even acknowledge the Commander-in-Chief ’s requests for definitive reports on strategic plans. In fact, McClellan had such disrespect for the President, that he once refused to see Lincoln when he called at the General’s home.

On the other side, when war broke out, the Confederates had attracted about one-third of the officers who had been in the United States Army, and that included many of most experienced and able Generals. Lincoln noted after several early military set-backs, “We were out-generaled!”

In the first year of the Civil War, Lincoln usually deferred to the plans of his generals; even when he noted to others that he disagreed with some of their strategies. Lincoln was a highly intelligent man and was prone to utilize careful logic (and an occasional metaphoric yarn) when presenting his opinion, whether about political issues or military affairs. He recognized his lack of military knowledge, including lessons which might be learned from the study of historic engagements, so he read books on battlefield tactics and strategies and conferred with other Generals. As a result, over time, he gained confidence in his own ability to understand the various military situations.

Only then, did he begin to more forcefully influence the war effort.

His primary concerns were that the Generals were hesitant to take the battle to enemy forces and that they were obsessed with “place”, which meant gaining and holding territory, even if that location held little strategic importance. (The old, “take that hill” military mentality.) And often, satisfied with their occupation of a place, they would wait for long periods before moving to another engagement. Lincoln, on the other hand, felt there were only a few strategic locations worth fighting for and defending; and he wanted the Union army to focus on overcoming rebel forces wherever they were encountered and to pursue them until they were too weakened to resist. He believed that the Union forces held such numerical advantage, in both men and supplies, that a “pursue and conquer” strategy would be successful.

One of his early attempts at directing battlefield strategy was in January 1862, when he suggested that Generals Halleck and Buell merge their two armies which were both operating around Tennessee. Urging cooperation, Lincoln wrote (in part): “We have the greater numbers. We must fail, unless we can find some way of making our advantage an over-match for his; and that can only be done by menacing him with superior forces at different points at the same time. And if he weakens one to strengthen the other, seize the weakened one.” Lincoln thought his “overwhelming force strategy” could also prevent the Confederates from re-taking a place they had lost, if the Union would pursue the enemy rather than holding the place until rebels counter-attacked. The two Generals simply ignored the President’s request.

Perhaps his only excursion into a battlefield area to actually give commands, rather than to just counsel and/or observe, occurred in May 1862 when Lincoln felt that General McClellan should reduce his forces around Yorktown in order to send more troops to re-take the nearby Norfolk Naval facilities. Lincoln felt strongly that Norfolk was one on those “places” worth taking and keeping. The Confederates were using Norfolk not only to repair and supply their ships, but also as a staging area for the ironclad CSS Virginia (formerly USS Merrimack) which endangered Union shipping. Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton went to the area and, leaving McClellan out of the discussion, directed a dual assault against Norfolk, one from gunboats sent up the James River and the other a coordinated ground attack by troops from Fort Monroe. The Confederates quickly abandoned Norfolk and scuttled the famous ironclad.  As was his style, Lincoln did not take credit for the mission’s success; but, General McClellan and his senior staff were still outraged by the interference in their battle plans.

While Lincoln readily conceded that McClellan had created and trained a great army, the President believed he had failed to lead his mass of troops consistently, and aggressively, against Confederate forces. And, eventually, he began to appoint successors.

Some were more aggressive than McClellan, but each was “out-generaled” in Lincoln’s view.

For one, there was General Joseph Hooker, who Lincoln knew would fight, but soon learned that Hooker might not choose the best battleground. When both Hooker and Lincoln realized that General Robert E. Lee was moving a large Confederate army north into Maryland and Pennsylvania, Hooker planned to circle behind and attack Richmond, the South’s Capital city. Lincoln disagreed with Hooker’s plan and gave Hooker different orders. Lincoln said, “Lee’s Army, and not Richmond, is your true objective point. Follow on his flank, shortening your (supply) lines while he lengthens his. Fight him when the opportunity offers.” Then a week later, Lincoln told Hooker, “This invasion gives you back the chance that I thought McClellan lost to cripple Lee’s army far from its base.” To Lincoln’s astonishment, Hooker replied that he would be outnumbered, which Lincoln knew to be untrue, and Hooker would not commit to attack Lee’s army. Hooker then made a devastating tactical error and chose to fight a large Confederate army at Chancellorsville; where he lost the battle and his command.

Lincoln replaced Hooker with General George Meade, and was at first elated when Meade led Union forces to the victory at Gettysburg, but then saw Meade, as had McClellan and Hooker (and others), fail to pursue and destroy Lee’s army; instead Meade allowed a retreat by Confederate forces back into Virginia. Lincoln realized that the Union forces would now be fighting in that battle-weary area between Washington and Richmond, and said, “To attempt to fight the enemy back to his entrenchments in Richmond, is an idea I have been trying to repudiate for quite a year.” While he respected General Meade, Lincoln again looked for another General who would “Chase the Rebels without let-up.”

For the first three years of the War, Lincoln was constantly either unsure if he had the right Generals in place, or absolutely certain he did not.

Until he appointed General Ulysses S. Grant! He had finally found his General.

So, with all of his earlier dissatisfaction with the various Generals before settling on Grant as the Commanding General, why did Lincoln not take an even more direct role in battlefield strategy? There were three primary reasons and all relate to Lincoln’s logical thought process, which usually included trying to anticipate options he might need if an opponent, whether legal, political or military, did the unexpected.

First, he was a master politician and knew there was an advantage to having a barrier (the Generals) between himself and the public. Lincoln did not want to be either a hero, who became Dictator/Emperor (like Napoleon) because he “won” the war, nor a scapegoat if the war were prolonged or eventually lost. But, he also believed in the Constitution’s requirement that the elected civilian President would have authority to over-see the military leadership. To Lincoln, the roles of Commander-in Chief and Commanding Generals were separate, and the Country needed both.

Second, he knew he was a persuasive leader. Lincoln realized that his lack of military credentials would always, at first, elicit skepticism so, with few exceptions, he counseled with his generals, rather than give firm orders. He did a lot of ranting to members of his cabinet, and his two dedicated secretaries, but he was usually restrained when meeting with, or writing to, his Generals.

Third, and perhaps most important, with his limited military experience, he was not always sure he was right! For example, in a telegram, Lincoln admitted to General Grant that he had been wrong to doubt Grant’s plan to invade deep into Mississippi. As usual, with Lincoln, self-doubt almost always resulted in self-control.

President Abraham Lincoln was, however, absolutely convinced that he was right to make one bold strategic military decision.

While not technically a tactical battlefield event, Lincoln’s most significant military directive may have been the inclusion of Black troops into the U.S. Army. He certainly risked the resistance of many Union military leaders, and alienation of those in the North who were opposed to making the war about freedom for slaves.  Lincoln re-enforced his decision with the Emancipation Proclamation, which he declared was a “military necessity.” He then brought thousands of willing (and soon to be proven, able) Black soldiers into the Union Army and that was, by any rationale, a direct intervention by the President in military strategy.

Throughout the Civil War, with few exceptions, Abraham Lincoln did not interfere with battlefield plans or overall military objectives; therefore, in the strictest sense of the phrase, he never really became “General Lincoln.”

But, he certainly asserted himself as “The” Commander-in-Chief.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com

Christmas at the Lincoln White House (Article 61)

No Tree. No Cards. And, the President worked all day. Not unusual at all during the Civil War.

Some historians suggest that Abraham Lincoln was concerned with his public image and did not want to appear frivolous while a war was going on. Others have written that he lacked interest in Christmas and rejected religious rituals, and some even claim that he used work as an excuse to get away from his difficult wife. Actually, these are all unfair criticisms of the man, disguised as historical explanations, by those who want to chip away at his image.

So why then, was the Lincoln White House so stark on Christmas? Foremost, Abraham Lincoln wore the heavy duty of Presidential responsibility like a leaden cloak; it enveloped him and he could only rarely take it off. However, this was self-imposed, not due to any concerns about perceptions by his critics. To him, there was a destructive war tearing the country apart, young men were dying, and there were daily decisions to be made; and, ultimately, he was the one in charge.

However, there were also practical reasons the Lincoln White House did not have a tree, or send cards, for Christmas. First, the placement of large Christmas trees in homes and public places was not a universal custom in the United States during the mid-1800s; more likely found in the northeastern regions and in settlements with a significant German or Scandinavian presence. In fact, there had never been a Christmas tree in the White House; although some false narratives claim that Franklin Pearce had one in 1853. Even if a tree were desired by Lincoln or any of his predecessors, it would not have lasted very long. The White House was more open to the public (and relatively unguarded) in those days and a large Christmas tree in the White house would have been stripped by souvenir seekers; who were already notorious for cutting snips from curtains and carpets and stealing any small trinkets. Also, the concept of sending and receiving Christmas cards was not yet wide-spread, and any Christmas sentiment was usually in the form of personal notes to close friends and family. However, both the customs of decorated trees and pre-printed Christmas cards were already gaining favor in England; in part due to the success of Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol” published in 1843. Dickens’s book promoted more of a family festival to accompany the solemn religious practices which had been prominent for centuries. The European influences gradually took hold in America and decorated trees, Christmas cards, and gifts for children became the accepted norm later in the century.

But, in the 1840s and 1850s, in Illinois, there were few Christmas trees, holiday cards, or elaborate gifts for children; however, it was a day celebrated by most families, including Abraham Lincoln, his wife Mary, and their sons.

Before he became President, previous Christmas holidays were happier, but still restrained, in the Lincoln family home; which, in many ways, reflected the regional customs.  Those who lived in, or were from, the New England and the southern states, celebrated a more robust Christmas season than did most of those on the frontier, which included, at the time, Illinois. Abraham and Mary Lincoln never participated in the relatively new trend of sending out Christmas cards nor did they have a decorated tree; as not very many people in Illinois followed either custom. The Lincolns did give small Christmas gifts to their children, usually fruit and nuts and possibly a book; certainly nothing excessive, but enough to satisfy young boys back then. Mrs. Lincoln, who appreciated the formalities of a prescribed religious service, insisted the family, including her husband, attend a local church. While Lincoln was a very spiritual man, who studied the Bible throughout his life, he never joined any church or espoused a specific religious creed. He once said; “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.” However, Lincoln enjoyed Christmas activities with his family and he relished sharing time with friends. He was a popular lawyer and politician, and he and Mary participated in various social functions during the Christmas period in their home and at the homes of friends and political acquaintances. We do not know if Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln exchanged gifts, but, all in all, Christmas at the Lincoln’s Springfield home was quite normal for that period, and in that place.

During the Christmas holiday in 1860, the family was still living at their Springfield home. Lincoln had won the national election to become the sixteenth President of the United States, but would not be inaugurated until the following March. Civil War was being discussed and South Carolina had already declared secession from the Union, with several other southern states expected to follow; however, there was still hope that outright war could somehow be avoided. Mrs. Lincoln held a Christmas Eve reception and many of their friends and political acquaintances stopped by the home, including one of Lincoln’s oldest friends and confidants, Congressman Edward Baker, who Lincoln had asked to introduce him at the coming Inauguration.

Abraham Lincoln did become the President of the United States in March 1861, and about one month later, the Civil War, which he dreaded so much, began; and his Christmases would never again be the same.

December 25, 1861, was the Lincoln family’s first Christmas in the White House. Since that last Christmas in Illinois, war had indeed struck the country and his close friend, Edward Baker, the former Congressman from back home, was now dead, just one of the many casualties of the Civil War. Therefore, it was a solemn White House, even with two young boys, Willy and Tad, who would run through the halls, and engage in other rambunctiousness; and who probably longed for a happier day. Social activities were almost non-existent since Mrs. Lincoln did not have many friends in Washington, as both she and her husband were considered outsiders by the long-entrenched Senators, Representatives, Judges and career bureaucrats who comprised the Washington elite. (Some things never change).

A White House employee later wrote; “We did not have many doings in those days, there were too many grave things going on.”

December 25, 1862, was the second Christmas the Lincoln family spent in the White House, but this year may have been the saddest of all. Young Willy had died and Mrs. Lincoln could not seem to recover. Further, the war had become a stagnated mess of death and destruction, with some Union victories, but with a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg just before Christmas. Lincoln had announced the Emancipation Proclamation to be effective January first, and the public was split on the unilateral move the President had made. If there had been a presidential poll back then, his approval rating would have been very low. On Christmas afternoon, after a morning cabinet meeting, the President and Mrs. Lincoln visited wounded soldiers at several Washington hospitals.

December 25, 1863, was their third Christmas in the White House. Mrs. Lincoln was again receiving visitors and Tad had found some new friends, however, the President was still subdued. Although the war news was better, with several major victories for the Union armies, casualties continued to mount and the President still worked through the day.

December 25, 1864, was their fourth Christmas in the Presidential Mansion and the mood was different. President Lincoln knew that the war would not last much longer, that the Union would be preserved, and slavery would soon be outlawed. (The Senate had passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and he was prepared to press the House of Representatives on the issue.) Also, he had just been re-elected to a second four-year term by a wide margin of both voters and the Electoral College. He even received a welcome telegram from General William Tecumseh Sherman, announcing that Savanah, Georgia was now in Union hands, it read “Mr. President, I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah.” Tad, the President’s young son, who still lived in the White house, invited a group of newsboys who sold papers around the area to follow him home for dinner; without telling his parents. He knew his father would not mind, but he must have been at least a little concerned about his mother’s reaction; as she could be difficult at times. Over the holidays, President and Mrs. Lincoln held several receptions for Union military leaders, politicians, and foreign emissaries. This was probably the closest to a “normal” Christmas in the Lincoln White House.

Unfortunately, it would be the last. The President was assassinated less than four months later.

Abraham Lincoln had enjoyed traditional Christmas customs back home in Springfield with family and friends; but, for four years, in the White House, he could not. Instead, he put his country, and his responsibilities as President, first.

For that, he deserves our admiration and gratitude, not criticism.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com

Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamations (Article60)

On October 23, 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation declaring the final Thursday in November as a “Day of Thanksgiving” and our nation has ever since celebrated this special day.

The country had heard calls for a day of Thanksgiving before. In 1777, while the Revolutionary War was still being waged, the members of the Continental Congress were grateful that their rebellion still held promise for independence and they issued a proclamation designating Thursday, December 18, as a Day of Solemn Thanksgiving. And, in 1789, President George Washington proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day for Thursday, November 26.  Thereafter, a few Presidents and the Governors of several states periodically issued Thanksgiving Proclamations, however none designated a recurring November holiday.

Then Sarah Josepha Buell Hale stepped in! 

A well-known editor and novelist, she was a strong proponent of women’s education and was a co-founder of Vassar College.  But few Americans are aware that, beginning in 1838 and for the next twenty-five years, she used her public visibility to lobby for a national Thanksgiving Day in November. As editor of the “Godey’s Lady Book” and “The Ladies Magazine,” which combined had the largest paid circulation of any women’s periodicals, she and her readers began an annual letter-writing campaign to “encourage” (her word) and “pester” (one recipient’s word) Governors to issue a resolution in their respective states; and they petitioned every sitting President to declare a National Thanksgiving Day. By 1858, while no President had created the special day she requested, every state except Virginia had declared a Day of Thanksgiving.

But, in 1859, two years prior to the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln and the start of the Civil War, her progress not only stalled, but began to recede. Politicians in some southern states refused to issue their annual Thanksgiving proclamations, with one referring to the holiday as a “Yankee Abolitionist holiday” and another stating that it was a “National Claptrap” started by northerners to hinder the South’s institutions (meaning slavery). But many families in the South continued to observe a day of thanksgiving, keeping the religious aspects, but eliminating the bountiful table, which was seen as a New England custom. While Confederate President Jefferson Davis issued several proclamations for a day of prayer and thanksgiving; his were not in November and were directed as a celebration of military successes over the Union armies.

Despite the setbacks in the southern states, Mrs. Hale did not give up and three times in consecutive years she petitioned President Abraham Lincoln to declare a national Thanksgiving Day. She asked that he set aside a designated day “for all Americans to put aside sectional feelings and local incidents” and “to be thankful for the blessings of life, not of war.” 

She would have to wait.

Abraham Lincoln had issued two proclamations calling for a day of thanksgiving and reflection, the first in August, 1861 and another in April, 1863. Each proclamation asked the public to set aside time to reflect upon the challenges the country faced and to follow their own religious creed to express hope for peace and gratitude for the blessings bestowed on the nation.  

But, neither was in response to Mrs. Hale’s letters.

In August, 1861, after four months of fighting, the awful realities of the Civil War were coming home to roost. Lincoln felt that the people might be comforted by a special day on which the nation as a whole would turn to their religious faith, in whatever forms that may take, to ask for guidance in restoring the forefathers’ vision for the United States. That Presidential proclamation was officially titled The Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, and read (in part):

“..And, whereas our own beloved country, once by the blessing of God, united, prosperous, and happy, is now afflicted with faction and Civil War, it is particularly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our faults as a nation, and as individuals, to humble ourselves and pray for His mercy, and that the inestimable boon of civil and religious liberty earned by His blessing and the labors and sufferings of our forefathers, may be restored in all its original excellence.” The Proclamation went on to declare a day of humiliation, prayer, and fasting and urged “all ministers and teachers of religion of all denominations and the heads of all families to observe and keep that day according to their creeds and modes of worship.”

 A good start, but not quite an official Thanksgiving Day. So, Mrs. Hale sent another letter!

 The Emancipation Proclamation had become effective on January 1, 1863, changing forever the context of the Civil War. By April, Lincoln believed that the North would eventually prevail and the Union would be restored; but he held little hope that the War would end soon. He decided to issue another “Thanksgiving” proclamation in April, 1863; however, this one was officially titled “Proclamation for a Day of National Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer” and read (in part):

“It is the duty of nations as well as men, to owe their dependence upon the ruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow. We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. But we have forgotten God. We have vainly imagined that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. I do, by this proclamation, set April 30, 1863 as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do request that all the people abstain that day from their ordinary secular pursuits and to unite at their several places of public worship and in their respective homes, in keeping that day Holy. Let us rest humbly in the hope that the united cry of the nation will be heard on High, and (provide) the restoration of our now divided and suffering country.”

 So, Mrs. Hale wrote still another letter, a few months later, but this one finally gave the President pause.

  By the fall of 1863, the Civil War was still being fought, but the Union was beginning to see significant victories. Sarah Hale again implored President Abraham Lincoln to designate one day, in November, throughout the entire country, which would be “set aside in perpetuity for prayerful Thanksgiving for the blessings bestowed by the Creator.” Lincoln was persuaded and issued his third “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.” It read (in part):

“The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies, bounties which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come. In the midst of Civil War of unequaled magnitude and severity, laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has been preserved except in the theater of military conflict; while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.” Lincoln went on to describe the wealth that was building in the north and advances in bringing in new states from western territories; while still keeping up an aggressive war effort against the Confederacy. But then Lincoln returned to the basic theme of gratitude and Thanksgiving. “No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the most gracious gifts of the most High God, who while dealing with us for our sins hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It seems fit and proper that they should solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledge as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens to observe the last Thursday in November as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise.”

With this Presidential proclamation, Sarah Hale saw her vision become a treasured day, which she said, “Would be observed across all lines that, on other matters, may divide us; such as politics, geography, ethnicity, and religion.” 

A year later, on October 20, 1864, and without another letter from Mrs. Hale, President Lincoln issued his fourth Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; again, declaring the last Thursday of November as the special day; which read (in part):

“It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with His guardian care against unfriendly designs (and providing) to us in his mercy many and signal victories over the enemy who is of our own household. He has augmented our free population by emancipation and by immigration, while he has opened new sources of wealth and has crowned the labor of our workingmen in every department of industry with abundant rewards. He has been pleased to inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficient for the great trial of Civil War into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity. Therefore I set apart the last Thursday in November as a day of Thanksgiving and praise (to) offer up penitence and prayers for a return of the inestimable blessings of peace, union, and harmony throughout the land.”

 Because of an assassin’s bullet a few months later, this became President Lincoln’s last Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.

 After the Civil War ended, the northern bureaucrats, politicians and military leaders, who were in charge of “reconstruction” of the occupied former Confederate states, imposed Thanksgiving Day as a November federal holiday. However, it would take another generation (or two or three in some cases) before the holiday was embraced by families throughout south; and so, Mrs. Hale’s hope for national unity, symbolized in part by a Thanksgiving Day celebrated by all Americans, was deferred. But, time can heal the worst of wounds and, in 1905, a Southern minister, referring to a New England staple, said, “I knew Thanksgiving Day was again ours as well, when, after my prayer, I noticed cranberries on the table.”

 Mrs. Hale would have been pleased.

 The four Lincoln proclamations were all collaborative efforts with Secretary of State William Seward, who was a devout Episcopalian. Seward’s intonements tended to be more ecclesiastical and flourishing, while Lincoln, who was no less spiritual, tended to use simpler wording. But, the two men trusted each other’s ability to communicate, and their combined prose flows seamlessly as if it was the effort of only one person.  Historians still debate which phrases each man may have contributed to the proclamations. In any case, the co-authors left us with elegant, meaningful, and still pertinent, proclamations. Certainly, their calls for humility, unity, and peace seem appropriate today.

Have a wonderful, and reflective, Thanksgiving Day; courtesy of Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, and of course, Sarah Hale.

Can We Defend Washington City? (Article 59)

The new President, Abraham Lincoln, was worried. For good reason.

 There had been wide-spread debates, and intense arguments, for and against secession by the nation’s slave-holding states. The opposing sides raised their voices in the halls of Congress, in many state legislatures, in pulpits, and in newspapers. And, many feared civil war would be the outcome if any or all of the fifteen states where slavery was legal chose to separate from the United States. For months, General Winfield Scott, commanding General of the U. S. Army, knew that war would surely result if the Federal government intervened to prevent secession.

He was forced to ponder a critical question; if war comes, can we defend Washington City from an attack by rebel forces? General Scott was not so sure, especially if the attack would come early in the conflict.

 One Washington politician noted in November 1860 that, “The odor of war is in the air, and I fear it is intoxicating.” No one knew then if five, seven, eleven or even all fifteen of the slave-holding states might secede from the Union, but almost all expected that, if there was to be war, and when it came, the nation’s Capital was certain to be a target. If for no other reason, Union officials thought the rebels would want to disrupt the Federal government just when central leadership would be most needed. It could be a quick and easy capture; after all, the city was surrounded by Maryland and Virginia, both slave-holding states, and a vast majority of the city’s citizens were of southern heritage.

 Washington was vulnerable.

 For the months leading up to the outbreak of war, very little was actually done to prepare a defense, primarily because the responsible parties, including Congress, the preceding President, James Buchanan, General Scott, and new President, Abraham Lincoln, did not want to appear as if all hope was lost for a peaceful solution. Some thought that if Virginia and Maryland remained in the Union, in the event there was war, any rebel forces would be less likely to attack Washington. Others, like President Lincoln, thought (or hoped?) some compromise to avoid war might still be reached which protected slavery from Federal interference in those fifteen states where it remained legal. Still others, many in the South, could not fathom that the northern states would be willing to rally an army to invade any southern state which had seceded; especially because there was valuable commerce between the states as well as many personal relationships among their citizens. So, while tensions rose, only minimal defensive measures to protect Washington were being taken.

 At the start of the new year, 1861, the United States Army had about 16,000 enlisted men and 1,100 officers but over the next few months, over 4,000 of the soldiers and over 300 of the officers defected to either southern state militias or to the new Confederate army. In March, General Scott reported to in-coming President Lincoln, that the force of 20,000 southern militia and Confederate troops gathered around Charleston in South Carolina was larger than his entire army. He would be forced to re-assign troops from areas further from Washington to supplement the relatively small Federal garrison in the city; however, that process would take time.  So, the issue was addressed, but not yet solved; because, before any of these troops could defend the city, they had to get there.

 The primary rail lines into Washington from the north passed through Baltimore, a place already proven to be hostile. In fact, some of the first casualties of the war occurred in Baltimore as Union troops marched through the town. When a group of secessionist militia challenged troops from the 6th Massachusetts regiment, shots rang out, and before the skirmish was over, three Union soldiers and twelve civilians lay dead in the streets. President Lincoln and General Scott were surprised by the violent incident and there were some calls for retribution against the secessionists in Baltimore by the additional Union forces which were in route. But Lincoln hoped to avoid another confrontation in the city by using a route around the city, and told the mayor and police chief of Baltimore; “I must have troops for the defense of the Capital. Our men are not moles and can’t dig under the earth; they are not birds and can’t fly through the air. There is no way but to march them across, and that they must do. Keep your rowdies in Baltimore and there will be no bloodshed.”             

 Using secondary routes, over the next few weeks more troops filed into the Capital and defensive preparations began in earnest. But even with those added Union forces, Washington City was still in panic mode! A woman resident of the Capital, who was a Confederate sympathizer, wrote to a friend in Virginia, “We could march right in and take control of the city. Where are our men?”

 In late March, General Scott directed his staff to recruit local militias to add to the few Union troops in the city, and to fortify the perimeter, especially the bridges across the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. Scott’s officers formed some units from residents of Washington, however, they hardly resembled regular troops. One regiment was composed of older veterans, some in their sixties, and was appropriately called the Silver Brigade. Another regiment was formed by Kentucky native, and ardent abolitionist, Cassius Marcellus Clay, who had come to Washington to prepare for his new appointment as the Ambassador to Russia. However, he delayed his departure for two months to form a unit of irregulars, which became known as the Clay Battalion.

 Washington began to look like a city preparing for war. Bridges across the Potomac and Anacostia rivers were blocked with guard gates and sufficient soldiers to check every individual going and coming, and thousands of Union soldiers were encamped nearby. Then, finally, both General Scott and President Lincoln felt that Washington could now be defended from, what they assumed would be, an assault by the Confederate Army.

 So, they waited!

 But the attack about which they worried, and planned to defend against, and for which they tied up so many Union troops and spent so much money, never came.  Why?

 In one of those ironies of war, and unknown to Lincoln and his military advisors, the Confederate military leadership had never seriously contemplated an early (and all-out) assault on the Union Capital.  There were a variety of both military and personal reasons for the Confederates’ hesitancy to attack the city; (1) the effort would tie up thousands of their troops, (2) many of the southern generals thought attacks on cities and their citizens were not ‘honorable” war tactics, (3) some did not believe that the city had a strategic importance, and (4) they did not want to alienate those in the North who supported a compromise peace plan.  The Confederate leaders thought there were better uses for their relatively small army, including protecting their lines of supply throughout the south and keeping control of the major ports in the south-eastern seaboard, in the Gulf of Mexico, and along the Mississippi River.

 However, to keep the Washington politicians and the citizens concerned and off-balance, the Confederates would occasionally penetrate the city’s outskirts, which had the desired effect; wide-spread panic!  Union military leaders, President Lincoln, and the public were alarmed at each of the nearby small raids, but remained unaware that Washington would not be one of the Confederate primary strategic targets.

 The Union Army had swelled to over two hundred thousand men by early 1862; however, Lincoln’s concerns for Washington’s safety were further complicated because he was unsure if the new General of Union Armies, George McClellan, would appropriately defend the Capital City. Lincoln feared that the General might take too many of the Washington based troops for other engagements, which would again leave the city vulnerable. Therefore, in a surprise move, the President ordered a contingent of 40,000 troops to remain in Washington under the command of General Irvin McDowell, who would report directly to the War Department. This order infuriated General McClellan (not the first or last time he and Lincoln would disagree), and that same day, McClellan wrote to his wife, “rascality and traitors are in Washington.”

 But, now Lincoln felt that Washington was reasonably secure from any Confederate siege.

 However, in hindsight, we know now what President Lincoln did not know then. Throughout the Civil War, while his defensive steps to protect Washington from invasion seemed prudent, he had acted under an erroneous assumption. In fact, the Union’s capital was never in danger of an all-out attack!

They Called Her Moses - The Harriett Tubman Story (Article 58)

She was born a slave in about 1820 but the date is not certain. Her birth name was recorded by her owner as Araminta Ross, but she was known as Minty. As a young woman, she was only about five feet tall, probably never weighed more than one hundred pounds, and suffered seizures due to a childhood injury. She was illiterate until adulthood. She escaped her slave master’s plantation 1848, when she was about twenty-seven; however, legally, she was considered a fugitive slave until 1865.  For nearly twenty years, she risked capture, returning numerous times to the area around her former home in southern Maryland to guide other escaping slaves to freedom in Pennsylvania, New York and Canadian provinces. For her exploits, she was dubbed “Moses,” but at the time most slave-owners thought their nemesis was a man. During the Civil War, she was an armed scout for the Union Army and once participated in a raid to free a group of slaves from several large plantations. After the war and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, she became active in the suffrage movement; but she was never allowed to vote. She remained devoted to her life’s work, which was to improve the lives of former slaves by helping them find work and try to build a life on their own. Then, as she grew older, she formed a retirement home for those with no family to help with their care.

 This is the remarkable legacy of Harriett Tubman.

 Minty, as she was known then to master and family alike, endured the hardships and degradations that were common for slaves in those days. Always a feisty girl, she was frequently beaten for disobedience, and occasionally rented out to other slave-holders as a form of punishment. Those periods away from her home were especially difficult for Minty because she was very close to her large family. In 1840, her initial owner died and, under provisions of his will, her father was manumitted from slavery; but, Minty, her mother, and her siblings remained slaves; and she was able to observe first-hand the difference freedom made for her father. To drive home their status as slaves, soon after her new master took control, Minty witnessed the horrific effect on her mother and father when three of her siblings were sold, breaking up their family.  As a child, she was once innocently caught in a confrontation between a slave owner and a male slave who was attempting to flee, and suffered a severe head injury when a heavy metal object thrown by the owner at the slave, struck Minty instead. Thereafter, for the rest of her life, she would occasionally have seizures and debilitating headaches. In 1844, her owner arranged for Minty to marry a Black man who had gained his freedom, probably expecting that Minty would bear children. Under Maryland law at the time, any child born to a female slave, became a slave owned by the same master. However, Minty did not have any children and, although she never explained the matter, it is reasonable to assume that she did not want to bring a child into slavery. After her marriage, Minty changed her name to Harriett and soon, unknown to her husband, began to hope for an opportunity to escape!

 Late one night, she and two of her brothers took off, with no real escape plan. They were quickly missed and identified in a wanted poster as fugitive slaves, with a reward of $100 each for their return. When the three were unable to find a route to safety and freedom, or even help with food and shelter, they turned themselves in. As they probably expected, they were returned to their owner and beaten before being re-assigned to hard labor tasks.

 But Harriett had tasted freedom, if only for a short while, and again thought of escape. Although, this time she did more than just hope. She gathered information from other slaves about possible routes, developed a plan for evasion, including travel only at night through waterways; and her most critical decision was to go alone! She later wrote of her feelings during her preparations to escape: “There was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other.”

 Within weeks, Harriett was again on the run and this time for good. She found refuge in the homes of several Quakers as she travelled at night north along what was becoming known as the Underground Railroad, which was neither a railroad nor underground. She worked her way through Maryland and Delaware (also a slave state), then, finally into Pennsylvania.

 When she realized that she was probably safe (for now) she wrote: “When I found I had crossed that line, I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person. There was such a glory over everything; the sun came like gold through the trees, and over the fields, and I felt like I was in heaven.”

 While she was now relatively “free” and had found steady work to build a new life, she missed her family. The following year she slipped back into Maryland to rescue a niece with two small children and, six months later in a return trip, guided other family members to safety. Over the next two years, she made at least ten more clandestine trips bringing over seventy slaves into her “Promised Land.” In fact, one northern newspaper editor, without naming her, or even her gender, began to refer to her as “Moses” and the name stuck. Slave-holders in Maryland who knew of “Minty” never suspected that the small, disabled, girl who had escaped earlier, could possibly be “Moses” and several thought it was really a male abolitionist conducting the group escapes while deceptively leaving the impression it was a woman.

 Harriet’s true identity as a primary “conductor” in the underground railroad inexplicably remained unknown to slave-holders despite her growing recognition in the north from numerous appearances at abolitionist society meetings arranged by publisher William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, the nation’s most famous former slave. She even met with John Brown, the violent abolitionist who later led the failed raid against the U.S. Arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, which he had hoped would arm slaves for a rebellion. While many historians believe Harriett knew about Brown’s general plan, most know that she opposed violence, even against White slave-holders, and, therefore, probably would not have supported an attack on U.S. Army troops.

 After the Civil War began, she was able to find work as a cook and nurse with various Union Army units, however, her most valuable service to the Army came as a scout. Because Harriett knew the backwoods, rivers and streams so well, she offered her services to guide Union army units on patrol in the area. Accounts written by others make it clear that she was often more than just a scout and was an adept gatherer of intelligence as she would enter Confederate held territory, dressed in the garb of a slave, pretending to be on an errand for a master. She was always armed, but later said she was grateful that she had never had to fire her weapon at another person, even an avowed enemy, because, “Killing someone would have worn on my mind as a Christian.” However, she recalled one situation in which she was prepared to use her small pistol, but the need never arose. In June, 1863, she guided a raiding party of Union troops led by Colonel James Montgomery to liberate slaves from several plantations along the Combahee River, in South Carolina. She had earlier infiltrated the nearby plantations and told the slaves to “run like wind” when they heard steam boat whistles. Then, at the first blast of the whistles, the slave-owners and the few Confederate soldiers in the area could not slow the stampede of slaves running toward the river and the waiting boats. Over 700 slaves were freed in what became known as the Combahee River Raid. Her efforts were recognized by Colonel Montgomery and he petitioned for Harriett to receive regular Army compensation.

 It was denied.

 In fact, numerous U.S. Army officers supported some form of compensation for Harriett, during and after the War, some even requesting that she receive a pension. All were denied, until 1899, thirty-five years after her Army service ended. However, even then, the Army still refused to recognize her service as a scout; instead, she was given $20.00 per month for her service as a nurse. She was eighty years old.

 Along with almost all former slaves, on April 15, 1865, Harriett Tubman mourned the death of Abraham Lincoln and spoke of the grief she felt at his loss. She appreciated his personal beliefs that slavery must be abolished and his efforts to drive the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress; however, she was a stern critic of the President’s earlier policies toward slavery. When Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was first published in September 1862 to become effective on January 1, 1863, it did not include slaves held in the four border states of Maryland (her original home), Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, and Harriett was dismayed. She said: “God won’t let Master Lincoln beat the South till he does the right thing. Master Lincoln, he’s a great man, and I am a poor Negro; but the Negro can tell Master Lincoln how to save the money and the young men. He can do it by setting the Negro free.”  Harriett offered to help recruit former slaves into the Army, understanding that the units would consist of only Black enlisted men, commanded by White officers; but, she considered it a start. After several months, Lincoln and Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, approved the new regiments and the first real test for Black soldiers in the regular U.S. Army, was about to occur.

 In July, 1863, Harriett was providing nursing support as well as guide services to Army units in South Carolina, near Charleston, as the Union Army was mobilizing to assault Fort Wagner, the largest of the nearby installations still held by the Confederates. The unit chosen to lead the initial assault was a regiment of Black enlisted men, led by Colonel Robert G. Shaw, a White officer and avowed abolitionist. The assault was certainly a suicide mission and almost all of Shaw’s men were killed, as was the Colonel. Harriett helped care for the few survivors as some White doctors and nurses refused to aid the Black soldiers. While their assault failed to breech the walls of the fort, the 54th Massachusetts efforts, despite enormous losses, impressed other commanders and there was little hesitation afterward to forming Black units and employing them against Confederate forces.

 Harriett wrote poetically of the experience, comparing the fighting to a storm; “We saw the lightening, that was the guns. Then we heard the thunder, and that was the big guns. Then we heard the rain falling, and that was the drops of blood. And when we went to get the crops, it was only dead men that we reaped.”

Throughout the rest of the war, Harriett would stay close to Army units, helping the growing number of escaping slaves pass through the lines toward safety. Most found themselves, not in northern states building a new home, but in large encampments, with meager rations and tattered tents for shelter. However, they were free and those who worked for the Army received the first wages of their lives.

 Except for occasional seizures and headaches from her childhood injury, Harriett remained generally healthy and was active in causes she believed in until well into her eighties. In 1912, at age ninety, Harriett’s health began to fail and she spent the rest of her life at the Harriett Tubman Home for the Aged, the home which she had built for elderly former slaves.

 She died on March 10, 1913.  

 But Harriett Tubman’s legacy lives on. In towns throughout Pennsylvania, New York, and in the Canadian province of Ontario, there are enclaves of families whose forefathers were saved by her many rescue missions into slave territory. Moses was an apt title for this woman who led so many to the promised land and, for over sixty years, from the most humble beginnings, she was a force to be reckoned with, as this country awakened from the era of slavery.

Descriptive Art of Civil War Letters (Article 57)

The language, especially in written form, used in America during the Civil War era and the rest of the mid-nineteenth century, was more expansive than today, with broad descriptions and less jargon. While some refer to the language of that day as quaint and/or antiquated, others view the use of the lilting phrases from earlier times as more expressive than the “soundbite” linguistics of today. Of course, the newer abbreviated text symbols which dominate social media today, and pass for language, will only exacerbate the distinctive differences.  Reading letters written one hundred and fifty years ago, can help transport a modern reader back to those times. The earlier writers seem more articulate, even those with little or no formal education. Political speech, whether verbal or written, has always been, and continues to be, more flowery and long winded than everyday communications so, with one exception for Abraham Lincoln, no excerpts from speeches are quoted. Instead, these examples are from letters or notes, written between 1861 and 1865, and exchanged between friends; but, in one case, between enemies.

 A first-time visitor to the the Potomac River near Alexandria, Virginia wrote; “Game and fish abound, many objects of interest are close at hand, and the summer fugitive from the ills of city life finds here a pleasant, halting place in his journeying for recreation.”

Upon viewing a battle-field a year after the event, one soldier wrote, “Another year and peace will have hidden the scars that now so sadly mar its beauty. Nature cannot be wholly defrauded of her blossoms, or prevented from drawing her mantle over the deserts that mankind may make.”

 Writing of his dismay at the Confederate victory at Bull Run, the first major land battle of the Civil war, one man wrote to a friend; “Little did I conceive the greatness of the defeat, the magnitude of the disaster which it entailed upon the United States. So short lived has been the American Union, that men who saw it rise may yet live to see it fall.”

 A friend wrote about a mother whose son was stationed in Washington DC; “Washington City was no longer a name to the mother waiting and praying in a distant hamlet. Never, till that hour, did the Federal city become, to the heart of the American people, truly the Capital of the nation”

 In describing a battle, photographer Alexander Gardner wrote, “The Fifth corps performed one of the most dashing exploits of that campaign. Advancing quickly upon the river, they poured down the steep banks, driving all before them, and dashed across and secured a position on the other side, before the rebels could organize for opposition. The enemy soon commenced a vigorous attack upon the isolated corps; but the Fifth was not disposed to part with its laurels.”

 After watching thousands of General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate soldiers march past her Maryland home, one woman, a Union Sympathizer, wrote; “This body of men moving along with no order, their guns carried in every fashion, no two dressed alike, their officers hardly distinguishable from the privates; were these the men who had driven back again and again our splendid legions?”

 After finding the body of a young confederate soldier, this was written; “He had been wounded by a fragment and laid down upon his blanket to await death. The disordered clothing shows that his suffering must have been intense. Was he delirious with agony or did death come slowly to his relief, while memories of home grew dearer? What visions of loved ones far away may have hovered above his stony pillow? What familiar voices may he have heard, like whispers beneath the roar of battle, as his eyes grew heavy in their long, last sleep?”

 General Ulysses S. Grant, wrote many touching, and personally revealing, letters to his wife. This is part of an early letter; “You can have little idea of the influence you have over me, Julia, even while far away. If I feel tempted to do anything that I think is not right, I am sure to think, ‘Well now, if Julia saw me, would I do so?’ And only then set my mind.”

 A person who accompanied Lincoln through the streets after the fall of Richmond wrote; “There is a stillness, in the midst of Richmond, with her ruins. The pavements where we walk stretches a vista of desecration, the loneliness seems interminable. There is no sound of life, but the stillness of the catacomb, as our footsteps fall dull on the deserted sidewalk. This is Richmond, says a melancholy voice. This is Richmond.”

 After he was captured by Union forces, former Confederate President Jefferson Davis wrote to his wife; “Dear Varina, This is not the fate to which I invited you when the future was rose-colored for us both; but I know you will bear it even better than myself, and that, of us two, I alone will ever look back reproachfully on my career.”

 In an 1855 letter to his good friend, Joshua Speed, who was a slaveholder in Kentucky, Lincoln wrote; “You suggest that in political action now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would, not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery and you fully admit to the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause for difference. But, you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave - especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. It is hardly fair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable.”

 In a follow-up letter to Speed, Lincoln wrote; “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘All men are created equal’ (but) now read it ‘except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings (a growing anti-immigrant political party) get control, it will read, ‘except negroes, foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to a country where they make no pretense of loving liberty.”

 In 1864, there was a movement to cancel the up-coming election because of the strife and uncertainty of the ongoing Civil War. Lincoln would not even consider it, although at the time, he was expected to lose his re-election bid. He wrote: “We cannot have free government without elections; and if the (Confederate) rebellion could force us to forgo or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. No! There will be elections, and we will accept that which the people decide.”

 After making that critical election decision, over the next few months, the fortunes of war changed in Lincoln’s favor and he was re-elected. In his second inaugural address, he reflected back to the beginning of the war, four years earlier. “While the (first) inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.”

Robert E. Lee agonized over the decision he felt he was forced, by honor, to make if his family’s home country for nearly 200 years, the Commonwealth of Virginia, chose to secede from his family’s newer country (of about 75 years), the United States. He wrote in his letter of resignation to his Union Commander, Winfield Scott; “I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, and your name, and fame, will always be dear to me.” Then to his sister the same day he wrote; “I look upon secession as anarchy. And, if I owned every slave in the South I would sacrifice them all to save the Union. But, how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state. I will retire to my home in Virginia and share the miseries of my people and, save in defense of Virginia, will draw my sword on no one. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feelings of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.” And by home, Lee meant the Commonwealth of Virginia!

Four years later, in April 1865 there occurred a most extraordinary exchange of brief letters, over a two-day period, this time between General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee. The letters were delivered by couriers under a white flag, in “no man’s land,” between their two armies, which were locked in brutal combat.  

·         On April 7, Grant wrote to Lee (in part); “The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance in this struggle.  I regard it as my duty to shift responsibility of any further effusion of blood by asking of you the surrender of (your) army.”

·         Lee responded (in part); “I have received your note.  Though not entertaining the opinion you express of the hopelessness of further resistance, I reciprocate your desire to avoid useless effusion of blood and ask the terms you will offer.”

·         Grant then replied (in part); “I would say that peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist on – namely that the men and officers be disqualified for taking up arms against the government.  I will meet you or any officers you may designate, at any point agreeable to you for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms.”

·         Lee responded to Grant; “General, I received your note of today.  In mine of yesterday, I did not intend to propose the surrender but to ask the terms of your proposition.  To be frank I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army; but as far as your proposal may tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10am tomorrow (April 9) on the Old State Road to Richmond, between picket-lines of the two armies.”

·         Grant immediately wrote (in part); “I have not authority to treat on the subject of peace (meaning an overall settlement of the War). (Therefore) the meeting for 10am today would lead to no good.  By the South laying down their arms, they would hasten that most desirous event, save thousands of lives, and hundreds of millions of property, not yet destroyed. Seriously hoping our difficulties may be settled without the loss of another life.”

·         Lee was startled that Grant would cancel the meeting, as Lee had decided in the meantime to surrender his army and now wanted to assure a meeting with Grant did occur. Lee wrote; “I now ask for an interview, in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday.”

·         Grant immediately replied (in part); “I am at Walker’s church and will push forward to the front for the purpose of meeting with you.”

The meeting was on! Lee’s men chose the McLean house at Appomattox and a first step in the process of ending the devastating war began.

After the surrender, Lee and Grant each wrote to his respective Commander-in chief. Lee wrote to Jefferson Davis beginning as follows: “Mr. President, It is with pain that I announce to your excellency the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.” Lee then went on, for three more hand-written pages, which included details of placement and troop strength of major units of both armies and the dismal state of supplies, including ammunition, within the Confederate forces. Lee then concluded: “I deemed this course the best under all circumstances. The enemy were more than five times our numbers. If we could have forced our way one day longer it would have been at great sacrifice of life, and at its end, I did not see how a surrender could have been avoided. The men, deprived of food and sleep for many days, were worn out and exhausted.” General Grant simply wrote to Abraham Lincoln; “General Lee has surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia this afternoon upon terms proposed by myself.”

Later, Lee wrote to a friend, “I surrendered as much to Lincoln’s goodness as to Grant’s artillery.”

And this description of a Confederate hospital ward written by Mary Chesnut, captures not only the scene but the raw emotions of the writer as well. “Who are these southern boys? Sometimes I can barely understand the language they speak, except suffering always sounds the same. The boys just want to go home but I know many will not see their mothers again, so I wash their faces and pray with them.”

Modern writers, including this one, simply do not match such descriptive eloquence.

Q & Q September 15, 2017

Lincoln Q & A September 15, 2017  

 Only a few of my more than 60 blogs and articles generated more questions, comments and criticisms than did my response to a question (really a challenge) from a reader about the removal of Confederate monuments and symbols. The reader wrote: “Where do you stand on the growing public movement to remove statues and other memorials of Confederate officials and commemorations of important Confederate events? Your answer will define your respect for our history. What is it, whitewash history or preserve it?”

 The responses, questions and comments which I received could be divided into three broad political viewpoints. (A) Those likely more “progressive” who believe that I am a Confederate sympathizer and a racist; one even said “_____” Neo-Nazi. (you fill in the word.)  OR , (B) those likely more “conservative” who believe I am naïve and politically correct or a “_____” Liberal (same word as before).  OR, (C) I provided a reasonable, fair, and balanced opinion (I liked the last category best and, fortunately, it was the most prevalent).

 Sadly, for me, I did have two readers, one with viewpoint (A), who may lean to the left, and one with viewpoint (B), who may lean more to the right, who both disagreed so strongly with my comments that they asked to be removed from my blog lists. While civil, both readers explained their reasons; which remarkably were very similar except they used polar opposite terminology to explain their disappointment in my remarks. While one said that I “obviously supported the removal of memorials” the other reader said that I was “too willing to listen to those who defended Confederate memorials.” And, while one said my “continuing defense of the motives of Robert E. Lee in blogs and books was misplaced because he was a traitor,” the other said he could no longer tolerate my “ongoing disrespectful comments toward Robert E. Lee.” Finally, one said that my “continuing adulation of Lincoln blinded me to his unacceptable racial biases” the other said that my “ongoing commentary about the negative racial attitudes of Whites toward Blacks in the 1800s, including Abraham Lincoln, is helping fuel these protests against Southern heroes and even the Founding Fathers.” These two acquaintances, with whom I have had some dialogue over the past few years, each have a fairly well-founded knowledge of history (as they each see it). I sent them the other’s letter (with names redacted) so that they might see the differences in their historical perspectives. Maybe I can facilitate a conversation between the two.

 I know that readers of all opinions forwarded my comments to their friends and associates because some of the replies were from those with whom I had no earlier contact and were not on my mailing lists. As always, however, I replied personally to everyone.

 First, for clarification, here is a brief re-cap of my initial response. (My full response “LincolnQ&Aconfederate memorial “is also attached to the cover e-mail). In part, I replied as follows:

 That most of these memorials were funded by chapters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which was formed in the 1890s with the express purpose of raising funds to help preserve their southern heritage by honoring individuals and events from Confederate history.  I want to preserve historically significant monuments, but it might be more fair to all citizens if some were placed in a museum setting rather than in the middle of a town square. I believe some who want to protect and preserve all of these memorials, fail to recognize, or simply disregard, the negative symbolism some monuments project. Unfortunately, the Confederate Battle flag (stars and bars), which is often depicted in memorials, has been confiscated by some white supremacists, exacerbating the tensions. …On the other hand, those honored by Confederate memorials, and many of our noble founding fathers (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson), were born in an era when slavery was legal and their position on slavery should not be the overriding definition of their lives.  If we demonize historical figures who lived at that time, based only on their racial views, hardly any founder of our country nor any successful political figure from that era could have a memorial that survives the ages. I wonder if our current generations are doing something, or failing to do something, which one-hundred years from now, will cause us to be seen as unworthy of respect.  If history is any indication, there will be something!

 So, here are a few of the follow-up comments by readers to my initial response.

 Several thought I was too simplistic when I wrote that some are willing to erase history replying, “History can’t be erased by the removal of a few hundred monuments.”  Others, in effect, said, “You should have added that we must learn from the nation’s history of slavery and never forget the absurdity of one human owning another.”

 Some asked me if I had any examples to support my comment that: “I sometimes wonder if we are doing something, or failing to do something, which one-hundred years from now, will cause us to be seen as unworthy of respect. If history is any indication, there will be something!” Actually, I believe there are several. (1) I fear my grandchildren’s grandchildren, will ask why we did not address the impossible burdens on their generations of the crippling national debt and the debts and budget deficits in most states.  (2) They may ask why we let the country’s infrastructure deteriorate until the costs to repair were beyond the nation’s capacity, leaving their generations to live with third world bridges, roads, airports, dams, and electric grids.  (3) They might ask why we allowed the failure of a 200 – year - old system of quality public education for all. (4) I hope, they do not have to ask, why we let race relations and political posturing become so divisive in this country that they are left to deal with the corrosive consequences. Or, (5) will they look back on our generations as too eager for war? They could rightly disrespect our generation for any of these failures as much as today’s society is “offended” by actions of leaders who lived over 150 years ago. Will they want to tear down our monuments, if we have any to start with?

 Several writers commented that I am either (A) a Robert E. Lee apologist or, conversely, (B) I failed to recognize his long service to the United States Army. Actually, neither is correct. As to Robert E. Lee, the person, I respect his years of service in the U.S. Army. I believe that he is still the only cadet at the U.S. Military Academy to ever finish four years with no demerits (none!). He served heroically in the Mexican War and his accomplishments, before the Civil war, for the Corps of Engineers along the Mississippi River were outstanding feats. I believe if the state of Virginia had chosen to remain in the Union as a border state (like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) Lee would have likely sat out the Civil War, as he indicated he would in a series of letters. But, he made a monumental, and, in my mind, a flawed decision to resign his commission in the U.S. Army and pledge his loyalty to Virginia, and subsequently to the Confederacy. This, despite his belief that secession was anarchy and slavery was evil. We must recognize that almost all of the monuments erected to Lee by the United Daughters of the Confederacy commemorated his service to the Confederacy, not his service to the U.S. Army. I do not want any destroyed, but do not object if (1) they remain in place but become part of a broad educational experience explaining his personal conflicts and the history of slavery or (2) are carefully removed from a public area (such as a town square) and placed in another area (a museum perhaps) where interested individuals can seek out the memorial.

 Then there were a few charges that I am a racist (one even said neo-Nazi) sympathizer. I hope I have lived my 75 years on this earth in such a manner that every-one who knows me, even those who do not like some of my other, less serious, but still annoying traits and habits, would vehemently disagree that I am a racist. On the opposite spectrum, to those who stated that I must be a Liberal, I believe my more progressive friends would laughingly disagree. Both of these diametrically opposed characterizations of me are absolutely wrong and are based on an extremist’s viewpoint of a moderate position that I have taken on one controversial topic. (Actually, the racist and Nazi accusations are not only very wrong but are personally disgusting to me). I hope this type of rhetoric, and labeling, does not creep into the vocabulary of the majority of Americans; for if it does, I fear our country may face disastrous, and, potentially unbridgeable, racial and political divisions. I will do my small part to prevent that from happening.

 Finally, I was taken to task by both opposing factions for not condemning “the other sides” violence. To be very clear, I believe there is no place for attacks on individuals or property as an expression of protest or advocacy. None! Ever! I do believe there is a cherished place for peaceful protest and advocacy. Further, I do not believe that “shouting down” a speaker, or otherwise preventing free speech, is “peaceful protest” but is closer to anarchy. However, I do realize that such tactics garner attention from a media sometimes too lazy to research and report more broadly on the issues, so groups (on both sides) believe that those images of confrontation re-enforce their message.  Maybe so, but I also believe that those images further harden the opposition, and never help bring resolution.

 Friends, I just hope for a more tranquil, rational, and civil discussion of important topics so that we can begin to find solutions, instead of identifying enemies.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com.

Q & A August 31, 2017

Questions and Answers, Comments and Criticisms (08/31/17)

 1.      Did Lincoln “really” offer to step down? Renowned historian David Herbert Donald disagrees with your conclusion. (Dr. Donald, who died in 2009, won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1992 biography titled “Lincoln”) A reader posed this question based on my blog about the subject in May 2017. I had asserted that Lincoln, in 1863, using Thurlow Weed, a New York based political operative as the emissary, had made such an offer to not one, but two of Lincoln’s political opponents, General George McClellan and New York Governor Horatio Seymour. In 1885, Mr. Weed had disclosed the “offers” to author Charles Allen Thorndike Rice who was seeking remembrances of Lincoln by his contemporaries for a new book to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Lincoln’s death. Weed said that he had approached the two men on behalf of President Lincoln, who offered to step aside from the 1864 election and support their candidacy; if they would agree to push the Union agenda. McClellan and Seymour subsequently confirmed those conversations to Mr. Rice. Dr. Donald, for whom I have the greatest respect, questioned if Mr. Rice quoted his sources correctly, noting that all three participants as well as Mr. Rice died about the time the book was published and that Lincoln’s secretaries made no direct mention of the offers. He did not deny that such events may have occurred, but could not say for certain that they did. Dr. Donald addressed his misgivings on page 423 of his book. I just disagree and accept Mr. Weed’s and Mr. Rice’s accounts.

 2.      In your book, “Abraham Lincoln, An Uncommon, Common Man, you summarily dismiss the “Lost Cause” as the justification by Southern leaders for the necessity of secession, for the Civil War which followed only after the illegal invasion by the North, and as the reason the South was defeated. Too many of the brave founders of the Confederacy believed in the Lost Cause, and too many subsequent historians support it, for you to not recognize the validity. I must assume you are anti-Southern to a fault. Well said, but wrong on several counts. I’ll address the last issue first; I am not anti-Southern as most of my relatives were from the hills of Tennessee and Alabama, and I was raised in Southern Illinois; but I am anti-Confederate. I believe that the Lost Cause was a false rationale offered by former Confederate leaders, AFTER the war. They needed an answer for the people of the South, most of whom did not own slaves, but who had collectively lost nearly a generation of young men, were left with devastated towns and farms, and an economy in ruins; the results of a war that gained them nothing. The Lost Cause became the mantra for those whose poor decisions led the South into the War. Some of the basic the tenets of the Lost Cause include: (1) That Slavery was never the cause for secession as it would have died out in a few decades anyway; but rather that “States’ rights” was the issue. (2) That the South only lost the War because the villainous Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to impose their will. (3) That Confederate officers were gentlemen in the European tradition, (4) Robert E. Lee was a near saint, and (5) Southern women were loyal and courageous. (That last point is true.) (6) Finally, the lost cause declared that slavery was a benevolent institution which benefited the Negro as it offered a civilized existence, food, shelter, honest work, and Christianity. As to “many” historians supporting the Lost Cause, I suggest otherwise; since those supporters are usually neo-Confederates whose body of work is devoted to maintaining the myth. Frankly, I understand why the former Confederate leaders felt the necessity to concoct the Lost Cause theory at the time it was invented; it was a clever rationale. I have no argument with their desire to preserve some aspects of their pre-Civil War culture, but abhor their insistence that they did not secede over slavery or that slavery was somehow benevolent. However, I have even less sympathy for those in the modern era who continue to argue that States’ Rights, not slavery led the country to war and who still claim that “Slavery was benign.” These basic tenets of the Lost Cause are, I believe, patently false.

 3.      I read an article recently which included the statement, “The North won the war but the South won the peace. Unfortunately, the write did not amplify. Have you heard that catchy phrase? Yes, I have; and I generally agree. By the end of the war, Lincoln, most of his cabinet and the North’s leading Generals, including Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, believed the defeated South could be forced into recognizing some civil rights for the freed slaves. Congress passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution which set that expectation. However, within a few years after Lincoln’s death, Northern citizens grew tired of the cost of keeping a large Union Army presence in the South to enforce the new laws. Although former seceded states were required to recognize those landmark Civil Rights laws, the Southern states quickly reverted to oppressive actions against the former slaves. Jim Crow laws, forced labor through a penal system, sharecropper arrangements, and intimidation by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan became common, keeping the vast majority of southern Black citizens in a second-class situation. Except for the new laws which prohibited their designation as chattel property which could be bought and sold at will, most of the Black population found that their quality of life did not improve very much. On the other hand, the southern agrarian economy still had a cheap labor force. And, as a peculiar political consequence, the South actually gained greater representation in Congress by now counting each former slave as a whole person for census purposes, while during slavery, each was counted as only three-fifths of a person. (Of course, most freed slaves were still prevented from voting.) Further, the limitations of civil rights for the Southern Black communities continued un-abated for another one hundred years. So, while the Southern economy was crushed during the war, and far too many of their young men died, those former Confederate leaders who survived, picked up their way of life pretty much as before. And they remained at the top of an elitist system. Thus, some say, they won the peace.

 4.      A famous quote of Lincoln’s to explain his commitment to the restoration of the Union, but not to the abolition of slavery, was not in your book and I have wondered why not? The quote paraphrased was; “If I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves I would; If I could save it by freeing some of the slaves, I would; and If I could save it by not freeing any slaves, I would do it.” Your paraphrase is close enough to an important part of Lincoln’s statement, but he added the following for clarification; “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”  At the time, August 22, 1862, Lincoln needed to clarify why he was pressing the War; (1) to the Northern public, (2) to those in the four “Border States,” which remained in the Union but retained slavery, and (3) to critics who were calling it Lincoln’s Negro War. In early drafts of my book, I included his comments, which were made in a response to a letter from an influential newspaper publisher, who was trying to get Lincoln to declare that the War was being fought to abolish slavery as a mission equal to preservation of the Union. During the editing process, the quote did not survive because I felt I had already explained his position with other anecdotes.  In retrospect, I wish I had left it in.

 5.      Did Lincoln ever address support for the Underground Railroad in writing or in speeches? Not directly, as far as I know, but he must have been aware of its existence as early as 1840 since there was a station (holding house) within a few blocks of his home in Springfield. Also, he was an outspoken critic of fugitive slave laws which required citizens in non-slaveholding states, such as Illinois, to assist (or at least not hinder) efforts to re-capture slaves. The Underground Railroad had no trains and was not underground, but rather represented hundreds of clandestine routes used by escaping slaves to, hopefully, find freedom. The participants, both the slaves and those Whites and free Blacks who aided in their escape, used railroad terms as a code; for example, one who helped move slaves was a conductor, a safe house was a station, and one who would help hide an escapee was an agent. Although there is evidence of the organized escape program dating back to the 1790s, there was a significant increase in use between 1830 to 1860, and throughout the Civil War. The extent of the system was not fully known until after the war, when it became safe to talk about the exploits of the heroes and heroines who helped escaping slaves find refuge in the North. It must be remembered that the fleeing slave was not safe just because they left Confederate territory since four Union States (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) still permitted slavery and would incarcerate captured slaves as criminals awaiting possible return to their masters. Even in some areas farther north, the local population would turn away any escaping slave. I plan an article on the subject later in 2017. 

 6.      Where do you stand on the growing public movement to remove statues and other memorials of Confederate officials and commemorations of important Confederate events? Your answer will define your respect for our history. What is it, whitewash history or preserve it?

 Wow, such a loaded question! Apparently, to you the issues we face in this world as it changes over time are black and white; pun intended.  First, it is important to understand how and why many of these memorials were created. Most were funded by chapters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which was formed in the 1890s with the express purpose of raising funds to help preserve their southern heritage by honoring individuals and events from Confederate history. Then, over the first forty years of the twentieth century, the chapters commissioned literally hundreds of statues, memorial plaques, and stone carvings for placement in predominantly southern communities.

 Now, about today’s contentious arguments. Actually, I tend to seek common ground. I do want to preserve historically significant monuments, but it might be more fair to all citizens if some were placed in a museum setting rather than in the middle of a town square. I believe many of those who declare that they will fight to protect and preserve some of these symbols of their southern and Confederate heritage, fail to recognize, or simply disregard, the negative symbolism some monuments project. Unfortunately, the Confederate Battle flag (stars and bars), which is often depicted in memorials, has been confiscated by some white supremacists, exacerbating the tensions. On the other hand, my concern with those who are offended by any Confederate symbol, or for that matter any memorials to the Founding Fathers or early Presidents who owned slaves, is that they would be willing to erase history.

 I do not have a problem with the re-placement (but not destruction) of memorials and statues which glorify a person whose only significance in history is that they defended slavery and fought against the United States.

 On the other hand, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were noble Presidents and the fact that they were born in an era when slavery was legal and they owned slaves, should not be the overriding definition of their lives. Robert E. Lee was, for all but four years of his life when he believed he needed to defend his state of Virginia, a patriot who served his country honorably in several military engagements and, after the war, accepted his defeat honorably and supported the United States. Further, he did not own slaves and had stated that slavery was a moral and political evil; but his memory is also under attack as if his whole life was degenerate.  There are even demands to remove President Woodrow Wilson’s name from a University building; although his accomplishments on behalf of our country, in my opinion, far outweigh his prejudices.

 One of the most difficult memorials to rationalize for the future, is the carving at Stone Mountain in Georgia. It is by far the largest Confederate monument, stands over 400 feet high, and depicts Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis in heroic poses on horseback. It was also funded primarily by the United Daughters of the Confederacy when they purchased the land in 1916 and contracted for the design. Construction was delayed for long periods on several occasions, because of disputes with the original designer and carver, and it took nearly 40 years to complete. Compounding the tensions surrounding this monument, the original title transfer included the right for the Ku Klux Klan to hold meetings at the site in perpetuity. The monument was acquired by the State of Georgia in 1960 using, in part, the condemnation process, which allowed the “Klan Covenant” to be removed; however, the state included a protective clause that the monument could not be altered in any way. Several compromise proposals have been floated which call for the addition of educational exhibits which might include a history of slavery and justification for the Union’s (and Abraham Lincoln’s) willingness to wage war to defeat the Confederacy, to re-unite the nation, and ultimately, to abolish slavery. I do not wish to see the monument destroyed, as some suggest, but a solution satisfactory to the various factions will not be easy.

 The unfortunate fact is that most White Americans, not just southerners, who lived during the 17th  through the 19th centuries, were taught at home, in schools, and in churches that their race was superior; and although many of those same people did object to slavery on moral grounds, few would have supported equal rights. So, today, if a person or group is going to demonize historical figures who lived at that time, based only on their racial views, hardly any founder of our country, nor military hero, nor any successful political figure, should have a memorial that survives the ages.

 I sometimes wonder if we, and our current generations, are doing something, or failing to do something, as a society, which one-hundred years from now, will cause us to be seen as unworthy of respect.  If history holds any lesson, there will be something!

 The most balanced article on this subject I have read was by William C. Davis, in the July 10, 2015 edition of the Wall Street Journal, titled “The Right Way to Remember the Confederacy.” Dr. Davis was the Director of the Virginia (yes Virginia) Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech. The article is available on line.

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com

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

Q &A August July 15, 2017

The following are another ten frequently asked questions (FAQ) from readers of my books and the blogs. Some were in the form of statements expressing either support or disagreement with some point I had made, others were questions as follow-up or clarifications to my position, and others raised new issues.

 1.     What was the concept of the “militarization” of the South and did that lead to the Civil War? First, the “militarization” of the South refers to the fact that many Southern aristocratic families valued a military education as a noble and desirable profession for young men. An appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point was highly prized. In fact, the very formation of the Citadel in South Carolina in 1839 and the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1842 were directly a result of more demand in the South for a premier military education that could be met by West Point alone. I believe the fact that so many of its senior politicians, influential leaders and wealthy family patriarchs had a military background probably contributed the South’s willingness to first threaten and then be willing to fight a Civil War. However, I do not believe it was a significant cause of the War compared to the issues of slavery, economics, and the independence of individual states. Certainly, in the early stages of the War, the South had an advantage with their large contingent of experienced (and very competent) military officers.

2.     You wrote about Confederate women who were spies; what about ladies who spied for the Union? In my Blog on February 28, 2015, I mentioned that there were women who were Union spies but focused the earlier article on those who served the Confederacy. In some ways, the Union spies had a more risky situation since they were mainly behind enemy lines. I have studied the accomplishments of several female spies for the Union, but there are three whose story fascinates me. In each case, these women supported the Union but their real cause was their opposition to slavery. First, there was Harriett Tubman, a former slave, who was sometimes called the “conductor” of the under-ground railroad, and was personally responsible for guiding over 300 escaped slaves through South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia to freedom in the North. She would send messages to Union officials with the escapees that disclosed Confederate troop strength and locations. In one case, she acted as a scout for a Union raid on a Confederate compound housing several hundred slave laborers and Union prisoners.  Second, Mary Elizabeth Bowser (whose name may have been Richards) was a born a slave of John Van Lew, a prominent merchant in Richmond Virginia. Fortunately for Mary Elizabeth, when Mr. Van Lew died, his heirs signed manumission papers granting all of his slaves their freedom. Mary, who had been taught to read and write, became an invaluable spy actually working for a while in the Confederate White House in Richmond. Third, is Elizabeth Van Lew, daughter of John Van Lew and the person most responsible for freeing the family’s slaves, including Mary Bowser. Elizabeth Van Lew was well known in Richmond as an anti-secessionist and an abolitionist. Although, Elizabeth agreed she opposed slavery, she denied the label of “abolitionist” because “they are fanatics and accomplish nothing.” On the other hand, Elizabeth accomplished a lot!  She was originally granted permission by Confederate authorities in Richmond to help care for Union prisoners. However, she quickly established an intelligence network to pass information back through enemy lines and she was instrumental in several successful Union raids around Richmond. In 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant praised her contributions to his campaigns in Virginia. As you can imagine, Elizabeth Van Pew was a social outcast in Richmond after the War. These three women have been inducted into the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. Elizabeth Van Lew will be the subject of a more detailed blog later this year.

 3.     Did Lincoln intentionally “bait” the Confederate forces to fire on Fort Sumter in April 1861?  He did not need to. South Carolina militia, aligned with Confederate forces, had already taken over several strategic installations around Charleston Harbor and had fired upon, but not hit Union ships. Remaining Union forces retreated to the unfinished Fort Sumter and the Confederate government could not let them remain there. The only alternate step Lincoln could have taken would have been to abandon Fort Sumter and pull the men and ships out of Charleston Harbor; which some of his cabinet members urged.  In my view however, the War would have simply started elsewhere because Lincoln believed the secession by the Southern States was unconstitutional and the Confederate seizure of Federal facilities and ships was illegal. If the initial attack had not occurred at Fort Sumter, Confederate forces would have pressed an engagement at another Union installation in the South, perhaps at Norfolk, Virginia.  Or, Lincoln may have even initiated the conflict by ordering an incursion into Southern territory at another point such as Arlington. In any event, the die was cast and both sides were prepared to fight a Civil War in 1861 to settle the issue of secession once and for all. 

 4.     I just read an article that claimed the states that seceded did NOT mention slavery as a cause in their declarations. Is that true?  Partly. Of the eleven states which issued a declaration to secede, three made no specific mention of the right to hold slaves, but all except Texas mentioned their “domestic institutions” a then common euphemism for slavery. However, South Carolina, the first to declare and most others, clearly stated why they would secede and form a sovereign nation and I will let their words speak for them. The following is a direct quote from the Secession Declaration (in part).  “The fourteen (northern) states have for years failed to uphold their constitutional obligations which provide as follows: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping to another state, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due. But, an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations. Thus, the constituted compact (the U.S. Constitution) has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding states, and the consequence follows is that South Carolina is released from her obligations. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this government (was) instituted have been defeated by the actions of non-slaveholding states.   Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the property of our domestic institutions. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes, and those who remain, have been incited to servile insurrection.”  The declaration goes on to state that the election of Abraham Lincoln is proof that the north intends to further interfere with South Carolina’s right to hold slaves.  Seems clear to me that slavery was the underlying issue!

 5.     Why won’t you (meaning me) acknowledge that the Civil War was fought by the South as a “States’ Rights” issue and was not about slavery?  My answer was, and is, “poppycock!”  (see prior question). Of course a war of that magnitude always has several nuanced causes but slavery was at the heart of every significant difference between North and South. The most significant “States’ rights” issue was the right of states to maintain a bondage system. The Southern leaders had determined in 1860 that they needed to secede to eliminate the risk of further Federal interference with their so-called “domestic institution” in the future. There had already been attempts by the U.S. Congress to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and states. This fear by Southern leaders persisted, although there had been no practical attempt by Federal laws to challenge slavery in the states where it was permitted by the U.S. Constitution.  There were, however, several northern states which passed individual laws hampering the rights of slaveholders to retrieve their “property” in those states. Until two years after the Civil War started, Abraham Lincoln had not proposed any legislation or a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery. The Southern leaders also accepted the probability that Federal Authorities, from President Lincoln on down, would try to reverse secession and their seizure of Federal facilities; so they anticipated the likelihood that Civil War would result.  In fact, Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, “We will start, and finish the War!” Most Southern leaders thought, however, that the North would quickly tire of the cost of Civil War in lives lost and the massive expenditures which always accompany any war. They expected the Confederacy would prevail and the United States of America (what was left of it) would acquiesce to a two nation solution that recognized the Confederate States of America. They simply underestimated Lincoln’s resolve. 

6.     Were Confederate agents complicit in Lincoln’s assassination? Most reputable historians do not believe senior Confederate officials were aware of the assassination plot; however it is possible that some weapons stockpiled by John Wilkes Booth and John Surratt may have been provided by lower level Southern agents without knowledge of a specific plan. It is important to recall that the initial plan was to kidnap Lincoln and that plan may have had a wider connection.

 7.     Why do you (meaning me) persist in perpetuating the “Lincoln Myth” that he was a good man, and a good President? I only add this question because it keeps coming up from the so-called “New Confederates”. My answer is “Because he was” and no amount of “neo-confederate” rationalizations will change that!

 8.     Did Lincoln receive any votes from Southern citizens or electors in the 1860 election? No! In fact, nine Southern states did not even print ballots with Abraham Lincoln as a choice for President or provide any electors who pledged support to him. Hard to get votes if you are not on a ballot!

 9.     Very few soldiers who fought for the Confederacy owned slaves so they must have been fighting for other cause. (Not really a question but I responded). I do agree that most of the Confederate forces were poor southern boys and others who did not own slaves. My opinion is that those people believed they were defending against an invasion of their home-land by the Federal Government and they were fighting the “War of Northern Aggression.” Confederate leaders and local newspapers used that term almost immediately, and nearly exclusively, after the war began, as a rallying cry for their troops. It certainly sounded better than “The war to defend our right to own slaves.” By the way, the term “War of Northern Aggression” is still widely used by some of Southern heritage. 

10. If Seward or Chase had won the 1860 Presidential election, would there have been Civil War? What if Steven A. Douglas, a Democrat and southern sympathizer, had won?  I usually do not spend much time on hypothetical or speculative questions but this was asked so many times that it deserves a response. I believe the War would have resulted at some point under any of those three alternative candidates, but it might have started in a different time and place. Seward and Chase thought that Charleston Harbor (Fort Sumter) should be abandoned and Federal forces re-enforced in and around Virginia.  At some point any U.S. President would have directed Union troops to re-take facilities in Virginia confiscated by Confederate forces. Perhaps the first shots would have been fired at Norfolk. Steven A. Douglas was sympathetic to the “state’s rights” issues of the Southern states and had repeatedly sought compromise to avoid war. But, he adamantly opposed secession and at a minimum would have directed Northern attacks to reclaim Federal installations which had been seized by Confederate forces. After the attack on Fort Sumter, Douglas offered to help raise funds for the Union Army and told Lincoln, “I have had many friends in the South who now must at some level still be my friend, but we will also know we are enemies.”

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com

Bringing the War Home - The Photographers (Article 56)

War Dead

The American public, both in the North and the South, had never seen anything like it. Newspapers and periodicals, which carried the images, sold thousands of extra copies compared to those that did not, and people flocked to exhibits to see the pictures first hand. The photographs were of dead soldiers, both Union and Confederate, taken as they lay, nearly covering the ground, in the distorted postures that only horrific violence against another human being can cause. A New York Times editor said; “(The photographer is bringing) home to us the terrible reality and earnestness of war. If he has not brought bodies and laid them on our door-steps, he has done something very like it.”

Amid the chaos of the War, a few photographers became famous for telling their own stories of that conflict; not with words but with un-edited scenes of the terrible aftermath of war. Photography became a medium for an important message; war was not the grand adventure often described by Victorian era writers and artists. Until the Civil War, most manuscripts and memoirs about war, and oil paintings by artists of the day, glorified warfare as noble and even romantic. But, the photographer’s new message clearly showed that it was dirty, destructive and deadly; and that powerful message began to sway public opinion.

 Photography had evolved in the thirty years before the War but was not yet seen as an art form; it was simply a fascinating new way to record events and portraits of people; although only in black and white. The first useful method, daguerreotypes, only provided a single mirror image, was nearly impossible to reproduce, and was easily damaged or completely ruined. However, by the late 1850s, improvements in the process had evolved to make photography more widespread, durable, practical, and reproducible; but it still required professional skills. And, to many, the work of a fine painter was still preferable to photography as the artist could depict a larger scale and with vivid colors. A few artists even began to add tints to photographs to make them appear more lifelike.

 Even by the time of the Civil War, successful photographers had to be a combination of chemist, physicist, authoritarian, and laborer. The process required the mixing of several caustic chemicals, including sulfuric acid and silver nitrate, which was then coated onto a glass plate just moments before the photograph would be taken. The treated plate had to be protected from any light source as it was quickly inserted into the body of the large camera box, then a lens cap was removed for a precise amount of time, depending on the light of day, to allow only the correct amount of light to strike the glass plate and cause the desired chemical reaction. A good photograph also required the subject or subjects to remain absolutely still because, if anyone moved, their motion was captured as a blur. One photographer said, “I am the Captain in my studio and I tolerate no movement.” And, another who took many battlefield photographs said, “I take better images of the dead, they lie still.” The equipment was heavy and bulky which required strength and agility to set up the camera and take it down when finished. The process was also accident prone as the dangerous chemicals could spill, or the glass plate would break which usually rendered the image useless.

 As a result of the effort and expense required, relatively few people learned the skill.  But those who did, began to make their mark in society. Mathew Brady became the most recognized master of his craft and built profitable businesses from his studios in New York and Washington DC. One of his most trusted employees was Alexander Gardner who was assigned primarily to the office in Washington DC and began to photograph the leading politicians of the day. At that time, Abraham Lincoln was not yet one of them.

 However, in 1859, Lincoln was in New York City to present a political speech at Coopers Union, a small Manhattan college, which he hoped would be reprinted by the Eastern press and expand his recognition in the region. He visited Brady’s studio for a portrait, which he intended to use to introduce himself to the Eastern population. He knew that he had to dispel the common notion that he was a simple “western frontiersman” from Illinois. Brady posed Lincoln standing, in a new suit, which was bought and pressed for the occasion, resting his hand on a bookstand. Lincoln’s political instincts were, as usual, very good and the speech solidified his stature as a serious Republican leader. Brady’s photograph was released at Coopers Union and then reproduced in newspapers, campaign pamphlets, and in new copies of the still popular book about the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The public now had an image of Abraham Lincoln, looking presidential, confident, and, as Lincoln himself joked, not at all as ugly as some had expected.

But then the Civil War started and Mathew Brady recognized the business potential of quickly delivering photographs of the Generals and soldiers taken at the battle-front to newspapers and periodicals.  But Brady did not initially set out to be a messenger warning of the horrors of war; he just wanted to run a successful business and enjoy the profits which would be created.  

 To cover the wide territory of the Civil War, Brady had to first make a major financial investment. He designed a portable, but very sturdy, dark room that could safely carry all of the necessary photographic supplies, including chemicals, glass plates, and the camera. He then manufactured over twenty large covered buckboards, which would each be drawn by one or two horses. Finally, he trained other photographers who would drive the wagons and follow the Union armies from battlefield to battlefield. He and his crew of photographers, would, for the first time, bring the scenes of the battle-front to the home-front. Among those roving photographers/assistants were Alexander Gardner, Timothy Sullivan and James Gibson, who all became well known in their own right; but, of those, Gardner certainly became the most prominent.

 While some of Brady’s photographers were able to cross into Confederate territory to capture images, and a few Southerners also learned the craft and took historic photographs; far more images were taken from the Union perspective. This disparity was partly because both Brady and Gardner supported the War to restore the Union and were admirers of Abraham Lincoln. However, while Brady was generally quiet about his politics, Gardner was outspoken in his advocacy for the Union, support for its use of overwhelming military force, and his respect for the courage of the individual Union soldier. On the other hand, he frequently described the Confederate forces in less complimentary terms and editors would occasionally include his comments about a battle along with his photographs. As an example, after the battle of Gettysburg, Gardner’s photographs of devastated terrain and Confederate dead were accompanied by his words; “Killed in the frantic efforts to break the steady lines of  patriots, they paid with life the price of their treason, and when the wicked strife was finished, found nameless graves, far from home and kindred.”

 Abraham Lincoln appreciated the loyalty of both men and frequently gave each of them permission to take photographs of him not only at the White House, but in battle areas as well.  Lincoln understood that images of him near the battlegrounds with soldiers would “play well” in the communities across the North, where such photographs were featured in local newspapers. The following image by Gardner was taken at the Antietam headquarters of General George McClellan.

 In late 1863, Gardner began to realize that, while he had taken many of the more dramatic pictures of the then two-year Civil War, Mathew Brady was given (or took) most of the credit. Gardner was appreciative of Brady’s mentorship and did not resent the existing arrangement, but was ready to break out on his own. The two men reached an amicable settlement with Brady even transferring ownership of some of Gardner’s photographs; and Gardner then opened his own studio in Washington DC.

 Gardner became close to Abraham Lincoln, and several of his photographs of the President have become iconic, including one of the most artful images of Lincoln which captured, in the President’s lined and weary face, the enormous toll that the War had taken on the man.

 Collectively, the photographers of the Civil War era provided thousands of images of people and places from that great conflict, however, their contributions were possible because Brady and Gardner, with their extraordinary vision and talent, advanced the profession of photography.

 Mathew Brady, by his professional foresight and his willingness to invest heavily in the horse drawn photographic studios and in the training and salaries of the several assistants, was critical to the extensive record we have of the Civil War. And, Alexander Gardner transcended mere images and captured the harsh reality of war with his pioneering images of the tragic loss of life, young men left with terrible wounds, and the devastations of farms and communities.

 And both men, by developing a trusting relationship with Abraham Lincoln, left us with unique and deeply introspective portraits, taken over several years, which let us glimpse Lincoln’s heartfelt humanity and the sad evolving effect the War took on this President.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com

Did President Lincoln Offer to step Aside? (Article 55)

As Charles Allen Thorndike Rice reviewed the numerous replies he had received from Lincoln contemporaries in preparation for his 1885 book “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln,” he noted that, occasionally, there were discrepancies between the recollections of the respondents to the same incident. Usually, he just included the writers’ statements as sent to him, preferring to let the readers sort out which version might be more accurate. However, in one instance, he decided that he must reconcile the differing remembrances of three of the respondents to a unique event in Presidential history.

 Prior to the publication of Rice’s book, there had been suggestions that President Lincoln had once offered to resign or to not seek re-election; and would then throw his support behind the politician he had chosen. Biographers in the twenty years after his assassination had offered conflicting testimonies from individuals who claimed to know for certain that he did, and others that he did not, make such an offer. The key word in these speculations was “offer,” and there seemed to be no proof either way as no prominent figure in the political scene at the time had confirmed participation. It was, however, well known that Lincoln had said, at times, that if anyone would come forward who could better unite the Northern citizens and more successfully prosecute the “awful Civil War,” he would yield the office as President. Such an occasional utterance in the face of intense political opposition and a stagnant war effort would be reasonable for any President, but especially one as empathetic to his cause as Abraham Lincoln.

 But, did Lincoln take any specific steps to identify, and then encourage, a potential replacement? And, if so, why would he have made such an offer?

 In mid-1863, the Republican President was unsure if he would even get his Party’s nomination in 1864, let alone win a national election against a Democratic opponent.  He was concerned that the public in the Northern states seemed to have lost the will to support the fight to restore the Union. There were Democrat and Republican Congressmen, Senators, Governors and newspaper publishers calling for a peace accord with the Confederate government; even if that resulted in two separate nations and the lost opportunity to end slavery. However, Lincoln believed that only a vanquished South, defeated militarily, would ever rejoin the United States; so he wondered if another individual could re-ignite the public’s support for the war effort.

Lincoln was an astute political observer and believed that a new “blended” party would attract both Democrats and Republicans who favored efforts to force the Southern states back into the Union. Then, that new constituency would support a Unionist platform and elect as President a man dedicated to that cause; or at least a man who “said” he was dedicated to that cause.

 Of course, any such offers, if made, would have to be kept confidential and could not seem to come directly Lincoln. After all, Lincoln was still the President with obligations as the country’s chief executive and Commander-in-Chief, and the War was still raging.  Also, he was also fearful that such news would be a rally point for the Confederates and such an announcement could boost their morale and likely prolong the War.

 Thanks to Mr. Rice’s book, we now know that the President had approached two men, neither a Republican, and notified them that he was willing to not seek re-election and would support their candidacy as the new President; if they would commit to continue the fight for restoration of the Union.  And, the methods Lincoln devised to deliver the offers were indicative of his astute political skills.

 One of the men who Mr. Rice interviewed, for his forthcoming book, was Thurlow Weed, a New York based attorney. Mr. Weed had been a political operative for many years before and after the Civil War; usually in the service of William Seward, former New York Governor, who became Lincoln’s Secretary of State. Weed thrived on political intrigue, especially if the task at hand involved a bit of misdirection and back-door negotiations. One New York newspaper declared that, “Weed is the bullet, fired from long distance by Seward.” When Seward went to Washington DC in 1861 to serve under Lincoln, Weed became a frequent visitor. Weed was excellent at his job because he never sought notoriety for his deeds and he assured there was no trail back to Mr. Seward.

 And, on at least two occasions, he undertook assignments at the request of Abraham Lincoln!

 Weed’s second assignment for President Lincoln was in 1865 when, by offering patronage and other dubious promises, he was instrumental in securing enough votes to get the House of Representatives to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which, if ratified by the states, would abolish slavery. But, Mr. Weed’s first assignment for the President was in 1863, when he was asked to approach two men Lincoln had chosen as possible successors.

 When Rice was first working on his book, he visited Thurlow Weed at his home, hopefully to hear some Lincoln stories from the eighty-year-old famous (some say in-famous) politico. Rice found Weed in excellent spirits, under the care of his daughter, and “lucid as a gold piece.” At the time, Weed was categorizing his papers, including the many newspaper accounts of his career, and dictating his recollections to add details. Weed told Rice that he had met Abraham Lincoln on several occasions and would be pleased to provide anecdotes for Rice’s new book. First, Weed spoke of Lincoln’s close relationship, both political and personal, with Secretary of State William Seward, who had introduced Weed to the President. Rice already knew of the friendship between Lincoln and Seward and sought to explore, with Mr. Weed, Lincoln’s relationship with other important figures of the day.

 Rice asked Weed’s opinion of General George McClellan, who Lincoln had dismissed in 1862 and who had been Lincoln’s Democratic opponent in the 1864 election. Weed quickly replied, “He might have been President as not!” At first Rice thought that Mr. Weed was referring to the 1864 campaign but, to Rice’s surprise, Weed continued down a different path. “(In 1863) Seward telegraphed me to come to Washington, and he took me right over to the White House saying, ‘The President wants to see you.’

 Weed continued, “We found the President deeply distressed. I had never seen him in such a mood. The President said, ‘Everything goes wrong. The rebel armies hold their own; Grant is wandering around in Mississippi; Seymour has carried New York. (Horatio Seymour was a popular Democratic Governor who earlier promoted a peace settlement with the Confederacy, the antithesis of Lincoln’s war policy.) If his party carries many of the Northern states, we shall have to give up the fight, for we can never conquer three-quarters of our countrymen, scattered in front, flank, and rear. Governor Seymour could do more for our cause than any other man living. If he could control his partisans he could give a new impetus to the war. Mr. Weed, I want you to go to Seymour and tell him now is his time. Tell him I do not wish to be President again and that the leader of the party, provided it is in favor of a vigorous war against the rebellion, should have my place. Entreat him to give a true ring in his Annual Message (to the New York Legislature), and if he will, I will gladly step aside and help put him in the executive chair. All we want is the rebellion put down. If there is a man who can push our armies forward one mile further or one hour faster, he is the man who ought to be in my chair.’

 Then Weed went on, “I visited Governor Seymour and delivered my commission from Lincoln. When I left him it was understood that his message would breathe an earnest Union spirit, praising the soldiers and calling for more, and omitting the usual criticisms of the President’s policies. I forwarded this expectation to the President. Judge my disappointment and chagrin when Seymour’s message came out- a document calculated to aid the enemy.

 This attempt to enlist the leader of the Democratic party having failed, Lincoln authorized me to make the same overture to McClellan. Lincoln said, ‘Tell the General that we only wish the success of our armies and that if he will come forward at the head of a (new) Union-Democratic party, and through that means, push forward the Union cause, I will gladly step aside and do all I can to secure his election in 1864.’

 Weed continued, “I opened negotiation through Mr. Barlow, McClellan’s next (best) friend, who shortly afterward told me he had seen him (the General) and secured his acquiescence, saying ‘Mac is eager to do all he can do to put down the rebellion.’ I then suggested a great Union-Democratic meeting in Union Square at which McClellan should preside and this was agreed to by both Barlow and McClellan. I drew up some memoranda of principles to set forth on the occasion and set the meeting for Monday, June 6 (1863). Once more there seemed to be a promise of ending the war by organizing a great independent Union Democratic party under McClellan. On the eve of the meeting I received a formal letter from McClellan declining to preside, without giving any reason. If he had presided at that war-meeting, nothing but death, could have kept him from being elected President in 1864.”

Rice was astounded by the revelations that Lincoln had offered these two different men a similar path to the Presidency. Rice was aware that there had been rumors that Lincoln had possibly made such proposals but, to his knowledge, no politician had ever come forward to claim they were the person who had been approached by the President.  However, Rice was an experienced reporter and could tell by Weed’s mannerisms that he believed his recollections were factual. On the other hand, Rice wondered if the tale was true or was it the muddled thoughts of an elderly man? So, Rice made appointments with the two men Weed mentioned as potential Lincoln replacements; Seymour and McClellan.

 In his meeting with McClellan, the former General and former Presidential candidate said, “No such events ever occurred. Mr. Weed is a good old man but he has forgotten. Mr. Lincoln never offered me the Presidency in any contingency and I never declined to preside at a war-meeting. I am sure I never wrote to Mr. Weed in my life.” Rice also called on Mr. Barlow, who Weed said was the messenger; and, Barlow said he could recall no such episode.  Rice then returned to Weed’s home and relayed the conversations with McClellan and Barlow. Weed laughed and said, “The General has forgotten, has he.” Mr. Weed’s daughter then presented the twenty-year old letter from McClellan to Mr. Weed in which the General had written, “I have determined to decline the compliment of presiding over the proposed meeting of Monday next.” (In the letter, McClellan did offer vociferous support for the Union and the military efforts.)

 Thurlow Weed, who had spent his political life in the shadows, leaving no paper trail, had saved, at least, this one letter.

 Rice made a second appointment with McClellan and showed him the letter. McClellan spent a few minutes looking at the document and finally said, “Well, that is my writing. I wrote that and had forgotten about it.” And with that, one historical puzzle was solved!

 Next, Mr. Rice visited former Governor Seymour who, unlike McClellan, readily confirmed Mr. Weed’s account. In fact, Seymour said that years earlier he had once visited with Weed and they agreed as to the general sequence of events, including Seymour’s unexpected change of heart. Seymour told Rice that he changed his mind when he realized that a forceful speech to continue the Lincoln policies would have cost him too much of his support in New York. When Rice said that Weed still believed he could have become President, Seymour replied, “Well it isn’t much matter. I was not in good health and it might have killed me. It is a hard laborious, thankless office and it is just as well as it is.” However, while he passed on the opportunity to become Lincoln’s replacement in 1864, Governor Seymour was evidently in good enough health by 1868 to be the Democratic nominee for President, losing to the Republican candidate, former Union General, Ulysses S. Grant.

 But, Mr. Rice now had his last piece of the 1863 puzzle. Thurlow Weed had indeed been Abraham Lincoln’s emissary for his offer to step aside and support either Seymour or McClellan as President of the United States in the 1864 election.

 So how did Lincoln go from that level of despair in the summer of 1863, when he thought he could not even win his Republican Party’s nomination for a second term, to a landslide re-election in 1864? Simply put, the tides turned! He found his perfect General in Ulysses S. Grant, the Union began to win more victories, the Confederate armies began to weaken through attrition, and the Southern economy began to collapse while the Northern economy surged.  It was a perfect storm against the Confederacy, but certainly advantageous for the re-election chances of Abraham Lincoln.

 However, we now know that, in 1863, Lincoln’s overtures to Seymour and McClellan were sincere, as he placed his country ahead of his own political ambitions.

 Isn’t that a unique concept for a politician!

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com

Reminiscences of Lincoln - by those who knew him (Article 54)

Charles Allen Thorndike Rice wanted to publish a book to mark the twentieth anniversary of President Lincoln’s death. He wrote to numerous individuals who had known and worked with Lincoln and asked if they would share their recollections of the man. The book, first published in 1885, eventually was titled “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time.” When Rice began to read the responses he had received from some of the men who had known Lincoln, he said he was quickly moved by the kindness and fairness of the man they described. He also noticed that many appreciated his wit, integrity, and friendly nature. A few said they were not initially impressed but only began to understand his leadership qualities after they witnessed his actions and demeanor during crisis.

 Although it had been twenty years since their friend died, most of these remembrances seemed, to Mr. Rice, to be eulogies. They offered numerous reflections about Lincoln’s personal attention to an individual who might not have expected it, his objectivity and political tolerance, and his astute political and diplomatic instincts. And, as would be expected, some commented on his penchant for humorous story telling as a means to emphasize a point, which one respondent called “preaching by parables.”

 The book became a treasure trove to historians and other authors as soon as it was published, because it offered insights into events and conversations that were not widely known at the time. However, today, after more than a century, many of the anecdotes have been repeated numerous times and now are part of the Lincoln legend and, unfortunately, many of those have been edited over time into more modern vocabulary.  By reading from the original editions, the reader will soon notice the differences in the use of words and phrases between the mid-nineteenth century and today.  The quotations presented herein are printed in the verbiage from Mr. Rice’s manuscript and the anecdotes which are included were chosen because they seem to have escaped multiple repetitions by historians and, therefore, are not as well known.

 Kindness and personal attention: One person  recalled a widow from Tennessee, whose son, a 17 year-old Confederate private, was a prisoner of war and lay seriously wounded at Fort McHenry in a make-shift hospital. She gathered letters from friends verifying that her son had enlisted only after the urging of an overly persuasive recruiter for the Confederate army and without her permission, which should have been required as the boy was only sixteen at the time. Further, the letters were testimonies that her family was not secessionist. She had traveled to Washington DC, taking the letters in a large envelope, to appeal to Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War to release the young boy to her care. However, the unsympathetic Stanton, with a brusqueness unusual even for him, ordered the woman out of his office. Through a mutual acquaintance, she was encouraged to try to see President Lincoln and, surprising to her, she was granted a meeting, which  she described in her own words. “The President received me with the kindness of a brother. He immediately rose and pointed to a chair and said, ‘Take this seat madam and then tell me what I can do for you.’ I took the envelope and asked if he would read the enclosures. When he finished reading he turned to me and with great emotion said, ‘Are you madam, the unhappy mother of this wounded and imprisoned son?’ I replied that I was. ‘And do you believe he will honor his parole if I permit him to take it and go with you.’ I replied, I am ready Mr. President to peril my personal liberty upon it. Then the President said, ‘You shall have your boy. To take him from the ranks of rebellion and give him to a loyal mother is a better investment for this government … And God grant that he may prove a great blessing to you and an honor to his country.’ Then taking my envelope, he wrote with his own pencil the order you see upon it.”

 Lincoln had written, “To the Commander at Ft. McHenry. You will deliver to Mrs. Winston, her son now held a prisoner of war upon his taking the proper parole (oath) never again to take up arms against the United States. A. Lincoln”

 Mrs. Winston took her son back to Nashville where he recuperated; and kept his oath to the Union.

 Another respondent to Mr. Rice recalled that he was invited to ride on the President’s train to Gettysburg for the dedication of the new national graveyard. He was with Lincoln when a man approached and said to the President, “My only son fell on Little Round Top at Gettysburg and I am going to look at that spot.” Andrews described Lincoln’s sad face and emotional response to the grieving father: “You have been called upon to make a terrible sacrifice. But, oh my dear sir, if we had reached the end of such sacrifices and had nothing left for us to do but place garlands on the graves of those already fallen, we would give thanks even amidst our tears; but when I think of the sacrifices of life yet to be offered and the hearts and homes yet to be made desolate before this dreadful war, so wickedly forced upon us, is over, my heart is like lead within me and I feel, at times, like hiding in deep darkness.” The following day, President Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, dedicating the hallowed ground to those lost, including the young boy at Little Round Top.

 Political Tolerance: One respondent, E.W. Andrews, related a story which described Lincoln’s objectivity when he encountered someone who held a different political point of view. Andrews was an officer in the Adjutant’s office in Washington DC and had met the President on several occasions. As the election of 1864 neared, Andrews attended a Democratic rally where several speakers promoted the candidacy of George B. McClellan, the former Union General who was the party’s nominee to oppose Lincoln. In their official duties, Andrews had also met with McClellan while he was still the Commanding General of the Army. Andrews was well known in the city and one of the speakers, recognizing that Andrews was in the audience, pointed him out to the crowd and asked for his thoughts on McClellan.  A bit embarrassed by the unwelcome recognition and question, Andrews felt he could not dodge the issue and said that he held high regard for McClellan and would vote for him. Andrews never mentioned Lincoln and said nothing disparaging about the current President; then he hurried out of the hall. Someone in attendance reported Andrews’ comments to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who then, in a rage, signed an order rescinding Andrews’ commission and mustering him out of the Union Army.

 Andrews knew that Stanton would never change his mind and decided to try to reach President Lincoln. Andrews wrote a letter explaining the Democratic gathering and the context of his remarks and asked a friend who was close to Lincoln to appeal to the President. When Lincoln read the letter, he replied to Andrews’ friend. “I know nothing about this. Of course, Stanton does a thousand things in his official character which I can know nothing about and which it is not necessary that I should know anything about.” Andrews’ friend replied that he did not believe that Stanton’s retaliation against the officer was warranted and hoped that the President would over-ride Stanton’s order and restore Andrews’ commission and his position at the Adjutant’s office.  After reading the letter and listening to the friend’s explanation, Lincoln replied: “Well that is no reason. Andrews has as good a right to hold onto his Democracy, if he chooses, as Stanton has to throw his overboard. (Stanton had once been a Democrat!) If I should muster out all my generals who avow themselves Democrats there would be a sad thinning out of commanders in the Army. No! When the military duties of a soldier are fully and faithfully performed, he can manage his politics in his own way. Tell this officer he can return to his post. Supporting (former) General McClellan for the Presidency is no violation of army regulations. And, as a question of taste in choosing between him and me, well I’m the longest but he’s better looking.”

 President Lincoln notified Stanton of his decision and Andrews remained in the military. He later wrote, “I resumed my service and was never afterward molested by the Secretary of War.” It is interesting to note that, in his response to Mr. Rice, Andrews did not disclose whether he voted for McClellan as President or for Lincoln, the man who stepped in to preserve his military career.

 Political and diplomatic instincts: Charles Dana, an Assistant Secretary of War, related an unusual decision Lincoln made concerning a Union spy who was so trusted by the Confederates that he was asked to deliver a message from a Southern sympathizer in Canada to a Confederate official in Virginia. The letter explained activities in Canada which supported the Confederacy. The spy/courier realized the importance of the document and took it to Mr. Dana, who immediately showed it to Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War. Stanton’s instinct was to use the letter to reproach the Canadian government, but wanted Dana to first take the letter to President Lincoln for his concurrence. Immediately, Lincoln had a different idea. He told Dana to have the man “arrested” and taken to prison; however, Dana was also instructed to orchestrate an escape. Lincoln said that, if the ruse worked, the Confederates might use the man’s talents again and the Union could likely obtain another correspondence between Confederates in Canada and Virginia. The escape did not go exactly as planned as a Union soldier shot at, and slightly wounded the Union spy; an unexpected, but fortuitous, occurrence that must have helped convince the Confederates that the man had truly escaped through cunning. As a result of Lincoln’s plan, the Union kept a very useful, and courageous, spy active within the Confederacy.

 Mr. Dana also recalled a conversation with Lincoln as the Confederacy was crumbling in early April 1865. Dana reported to Lincoln that he had learned, through another Union spy, that a troublesome Confederate operative named Jacob Thompson was planning to escape into Canada. Secretary of War Stanton wanted to arrest Thompson before he could get away, but again, asked Dana to first check with the President. After hearing Dana’s explanation of the situation, Lincoln indicated he did not think arresting Thompson was worth the effort saying, “When you have an elephant on hand, and he wants to run away, better let him run.” After Lincoln was assassinated, Stanton wanted Dana to arrest Thompson, if he was still in the United States, but Dana never pressed the matter. About five years after the war, Dana and Thompson met and Dana explained how President Lincoln initially prevented Thompson’s arrest; and the fact that Dana, honoring Lincoln’s stance, later chose to not pursue him.  Unfortunately, Mr. Dana did not relate what, if anything, Mr. Thompson said about the episode.

 Use of humor: Titian Coffin was an Assistant Attorney General, whose office defended Army Officers against lawsuits brought in local courts by citizens either for confiscation of property or possible improper arrests. Generally, the courts found for the Army officers, and even if not, there was usually no monetary compensation awarded. Congress, wanting to show local constituents their generosity, provided a large fund for future compensation to such aggrieved citizens. Suddenly, the complaints increased dramatically and the officers began settling the cases out of court by simply paying the citizen (and his lawyer) directly from the new fund. Mr. Coffin raised the issue with Lincoln and recalled the President’s reply. “Yes, Coffin, they will now all be after the money and be content with nothing else. They are like a man in Illinois whose cabin burned down and, according to the kindly custom, his neighbors all contributed to start him again. But, they had been so liberal that he found himself better off than before the fire, and he got proud. One day a neighbor brought him a bag of oats but the fellow refused it with scorn. ‘No, said he, I don’t take oats now, I take nothing but money.’ So it is with our Officers.”

And, sometimes Lincoln could make a point; very pointedly! Mr. Coffin recalled a meeting where Lincoln was being “hounded” by three weapons manufacturers who kept arguing their case long past the appointment time, but Lincoln continued to listen to their “over-long, inappropriate and impolite” demands. Then the President interrupted and said; “You three gentlemen remind me of a poor little boy. His father wanted him to have a religious education and placed him with a clergyman. Every day the boy was required to commit to memory a Bible story. Things proceeded smoothly until the story of the trials of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. He was asked to give their names but he had forgotten them. The teacher said he must learn them and gave him another day. The next day he had again forgot them. The teacher then said ‘I will give you one more day and if you do not repeat the names I will punish you.’ The third time, the boy got to the stumbling block and said, ‘Here come those three infernal bores. I wish the Devil had them!’ At that, (Mr. Coffin wrote) the three patriots retired; the President had dismissed his untimely visitors.”

For each person who responded to Mr. Rice’s inquiry the fact that he had known Abraham Lincoln, and was left with these recollections, was obviously a source of personal pride.

 For Charles Allen Thorndike Rice, his book “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished men of His Time” gave him the satisfaction of helping preserve the memory of a man he very much admired. And, coincidentally, cemented his own place in history.

 And for me, I am very fortunate to have an original edition of the book and have the privilege and enjoyment of reading these “Reminiscences” from pages which carry the feel and fragrance which can only be found in very old books.

 But whether reading Mr. Rice’ book from an original edition or from a modern reprint, we can appreciate that he helped maintain the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

Contact the author at  gadorris2@gmail.com

Remembrances of Lincoln - A deferred Eulogy (Article 53)

The young man carefully addressed the last envelope:

 “Ulysses S. Grant

City of  New York”

 He placed it with the fifty other envelopes which he had recently completed. Each contained a letter which, besides introducing himself and outlining his proposed project, requested either a written reply or a personal interview and posed one primary question.

 “Sir, as we near the twentieth anniversary of the loss of President Abraham Lincoln, what are the remembrances of him which still fill your mind?”

 He was not confident that many of the carefully chosen recipients of his letters would ever respond, and even less hope that any would actually agree to a meeting or provide meaningful observations. He was aware that some of the senior members of Lincoln’s cabinet and other acquaintances had already passed away. Further, many of Lincoln’s living contemporaries were in their seventies or eighties, an advanced age in 1885; and he was unsure if their recollections would be real or imagined.  Also, they had likely given numerous interviews over the years and might not want to indulge his request. And, for some others, the loss of their friend, although so long ago, might still stir sadness best left unmentioned. Further limiting likely responses, was the fact that a few, like Ulysses S. Grant, were writing their personal memoirs and might want to withhold information to protect the value of their own projects.

 But Charles Allen Thorndike Rice was on a mission, which he deemed as sacred as those with a religious fervor. He wanted to record for posterity the recollections of Abraham Lincoln by those who were close to him, especially during his political years. He sought to offset the mythical figure created by some devoted admirers soon after the President’s death as well as the picture of a tyrant which continued to be painted by southern sympathizers, who referred to “Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression” against their homeland. 

 Over the next few weeks, Rice was pleased by the responses. Although very ill, former President (and former General) Grant responded; as did Walt Whitman (poet and friend), Henry Ward Beecher (minister), Frederick Douglass (writer/orator who was born a slave), Charles Coffin (war correspondent), and Leonard Swett (friend). And, Thurlow Weed, a famous (some say infamous) political operative from New York, who served Lincoln on several confidential matters, was eager to be interviewed. In all, 44 friends, acquaintances, and even a couple political adversaries, responded with reflective commentary.

 But, almost as important as the list of those who did respond, was the list of people who did not. Among those were Robert Lincoln (the President’s only surviving son), Hannibal Hamlin (his first Vice-President), William Herndon (law partner), and John Nicolay and John Hay (his two secretaries). Nicolay and Hay had controlled most of Lincoln’s personal and official papers since his death and planned to publish a comprehensive biography; which turned out to be a ten-set edition offered in 1890. William Herndon, in order to prepare for his own biography of Lincoln, had traveled throughout the North during the first few years following Lincoln’s death, to interview acquaintances. This was several years prior to Rice’s effort, and many were the same people now approached by Mr. Rice; but Herndon was also able to interview some who had died before Rice conceived his book. Herndon’s biography was finally published in 1889.

As Rice began to compile the different reflections from the respondents, most seemed to him to be eulogies; but twenty years after the subject’s death. The result was a fascinating book, first published in 1885, titled “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time.” Evidently, long titles were in vogue in the 19th century.

 Critics of his book, then and over the years, complained that he edited some of the responses to fit his agenda, and failed to contact several acquaintances; especially certain political opponents who were known to grant such interviews. But, no biographer is above such criticism, as all authors will construct and edit their narrative, not only to fit a point of view, but also simply because of space limitations.

 Another complaint by some historians is that Rice did not require his subjects to document their recollections, so the book is almost devoid of the verifying footnotes which most historians consider almost as important as the narrative. But, Rice made no illusions that this was to be a historian’s account; he called it “Reminiscences” for a reason.

 On the other hand, he did want his book to be as accurate as possible. As his respondents shared their recollections about Mr. Lincoln, Charles quickly noted differences in their descriptions of the same incident. In some cases, he just left their individual recollections alone and let the future reader sort out which was likely more accurate. In other cases, however, he contacted both parties (or multiple parties in a few instances) to try to determine which was historically the most correct. His willingness to shuttle back and forth among these acquaintances of Lincoln helped bring clarity to a few issues that had been debated since Lincoln’s death.

Since he was so involved in the publishing business, Rice was keenly aware that there were several biographies of Lincoln scheduled to be published within the next few years (1885-1890) and some critics claim that he rushed his book to assure it came to market before others. There is no question that he did move quickly to compose and publish his narrative, but there may have been a more profound reason he was in such a hurry. At the time he was approaching his subjects, Rice was not well. He completed his initial work in late 1885 and assured it would be promptly published. Two years later, although his health was rapidly deteriorating, he revised and updated a few sections and re-issued the book. Mr. Rice died in 1889 at the age of only thirty-seven.

 We know he was fascinated by the life of Abraham Lincoln, however, Charles Allen Thorndike Rice, Charlie to his parents and close friends, also led an unusual life.

 He was an only child and when he was five years old his wealthy parents divorced; but not amicably! Both sued for divorce and both sought sole custody of young Charlie; but after two years of court proceedings, the New York Supreme Court ruled that custody was to be awarded to Mr. Rice. In most cases the story might have ended there; however, Mrs. Rice , who was wealthy in her own right, spirited away (her words) or kidnapped (his father’s words) the boy and escaped first to Canada and then to Europe. Over the next six years, they moved several times among different countries, usually so that his mother could avoid surrendering Charlie to local authorities after his father obtained court rulings affirming his right to custody. Charlie’s father never gave up chasing his former wife and son, filing numerous appeals to the English, German, and French courts.

 But she and Charlie always stayed a step ahead.

 Charlie’s mother had allowed him to periodically correspond with his father, but insisted that he use the addresses of a group of European aristocrats who sympathized with her cause and who would transfer the messages. Charlie and his mother lived an elegant lifestyle in Europe and he received his early education from outstanding tutors. But, in 1866, his mother became ill and died. His father then quickly arranged for Charlie to be brought back to the United States where he spent the rest of his childhood living with his father. He was a gifted and enthusiastic student and, as a young gentleman of social stature (and wealth), was able to attend the most advanced private schools in New York. Then, at nineteen years of age, Charles returned to England and, over the next five years, received undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Oxford.

 He began his professional career in the United States when he purchased the “North American Review” and assumed the position of Publisher and Editor-in-Chief. He became a prolific writer, often assessing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, especially his administration during the Civil War; which had occurred while Charlie lived in Europe with his mother.  And, unusual for the times, he was not intensely partisan, often presenting counter-arguments to current popular political thought.

 Mr. Rice regarded Abraham Lincoln to be the most consequential political leader of the century and supported that thesis in many of his articles, editorials, and speeches. He also realized that the acquaintances of Abraham Lincoln were aging, that many had already died, and he wanted to capture as many first- hand recollections as possible.  So, he embarked on his mission; and left us “Reminiscences.”

 He took great pride in this compilation of anecdotes and he wanted it to be a gift to future generations about Abraham Lincoln’s legacy; but he must have also hoped that it might enshrine, if only in a small way, his own legacy as a writer and publisher.

 It seems that Mr. Rice wanted to be remembered too.

(Note: Article 54, Reminiscences of Lincoln will include some of the replies.)

Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com