Week 14 Blog Post

Week 14 Blog Post

Comments on Chapter 14; “The Civil War in Historical Memory” in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction Documents and Essays:

I feel that I learned a lot from this chapter because it focused upon several perspectives that were left out of the American history survey course. Instead of just mentioning how Southerners evolved the “Lost Cause” mythology, this chapter discussed northern efforts at reconciliation by memorializing the valor of soldiers on both sides as well as black veterans’ efforts to keep their legacy from being forgotten. I can understand why white Southerners constructed the mythology that they did in order to commemorate their loved ones without, at the same time, having to feel the shame of defeat.

Roger A. Pryor’s speech is particularly revealing of the southern viewpoint of reconciliation with the North. (P & T, 467-469) David Blight referred to Pryor’s speech in his essay “The Origins of Memorial Day in North and South.” (P & T, 478-490) The additional information that Blight gives about Pryor is important to assimilating Pryor’s viewpoint. Although he was a former Confederate general, Pryor was a resident of Brooklyn, NY at the time he was asked to give the Decoration Day address at Brooklyn’s Academy of Music in May of 1877. Bright refers to Pryor as “the most prominent among a growing and influential group of what many called the “Confederate carpetbaggers” of New York and other Northern cities.”  (P & T, 485) Because Pryor wanted to believe that the South’s cause during the Civil War was righteous, he chose not to emphasize which side won or lost. When I first read Pryor’s expression of thanks to the committee, it seemed sarcastic due to his choice of the word “pathetic” to refer to the ceremony and his references to them being “recent adversaries” and “former foes.” (P & T, 467) Upon re-reading his speech, I understand his thanks to be sincere according to the flowery language of the time. He was using pathetic to mean arousing sorrow not piteous or unsuccessful. As the editor’s title to the document asserts, in looking for common ground, Pryor emphasized the heroism of the solders on both sides while downplaying the significance of slavery in the war. I certainly disagree with Pryor’s assessment that “impartial history will record that slavery fell not be any effort of man’s will, but by the immediate intervention and act of the Almighty himself.” (P & T, 468) With this statement, Pryor was trying to deny the agency of Unionists and blacks in the elimination of slavery. Surely at least the abolitionists believed that God endowed them with human agency towards achieving emancipation. Black veterans also felt that they did their part to end slavery.

For modern day historians and teachers, this chapter illustrates the importance of presenting the various viewpoints of historical memory of an era without neglecting to explain the actual historical events and how they differ from the propagated memories and why. It is my firm belief that no school-age child or college student today should be taught only one viewpoint of the Civil War or any historical event whether it be sectional or racial. I thing it is important for all people to understand how and why memories can be distorted. Ultimately, all wars are fought over perceived differences between groups of people creating an “us verses them” mentality. Understanding the commonality of human feeling and rationalization will go a long way towards the promotion and sustainment of peace in the world today.

Submitted by Molly Kettler

Week 13 Blog Post

Comments on Chapter 12; “Reconstructing Southern Politics” in Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction Documents and Essays:

The State Colored Convention Addresses the People of Alabama, May 1867: The African American delegates made a very good point by saying that they are not asking the white people to surrender very much compared to what whites expect them to surrender or endure. The African Americans are only asking the whites to give up acting on their prejudices in public. (P & T, 395) They seem resigned that the whites will continue to believe their prejudices even if they don’t act on them. Undoubtedly, the blacks felt the same way towards the whites. They likely would have preferred not to have had to interact with white people at all. The fact that they were writing or speaking an address to the white people showed that they realized the need for white cooperation to eliminate discrimination. Still, the African Americans made it clear that they would no longer be submissive. If the whites continued their discrimination against blacks that would be asking the blacks to sacrifice just about everything of importance: their “personal comfort, health, pecuniary interests, self-respect, and the future prospects of [their] children.” (P & T, 395) The editor terms the document as “remarkable.” (P & T, 394) Perhaps that is due to its forceful and threatening nature. It definitely issued a warning to the former slave owners to not only behave themselves but also to support Republican government so that the Republicans don’t see fit to confiscate their land. Their document also clearly details the reasons why blacks supported the Republican Party. (P & T, 396)

Former Governor James L. Orr Defends South Carolina’s Republican Government, June 1871: Former Gov. Orr was a respected judge and native South Carolina who supported Reconstruction. He had opposed South Carolina’s secession in 1851 when he was a congressman. It is interesting that a white South Carolinian would speak about blacks in some areas in terms of equality. Even when Orr was being questioned by a Democrat, Mr. Van Trump, he stated that he believed that bribery was being committed by both Negroes and whites. Mr. Van Trump interpreted Orr’s comment about the inadvisability of mixing the races in the militia to mean that they should not be mixed in government. Orr was careful not to equate the two by saying only that in terms of a mixed race government, “it has been a very difficult experiment.” (P & T, 398) It was Orr’s opinion that blacks would vote for white Republicans over Democrats. He reiterated many of the same reasons stated in the previous document about why blacks supported the Republicans. His last comment (before the ellipsis) was interesting. Orr seemed to suggest that if southern whites changed their support from the Democratic or the Republican Party that they could regain “absolute control” of southern affairs again. (P & T, 399) Clearly Orr was an astute politician.

Representative Robert B. Elliott of S. Carolina Demands Federal Civil Rights, Jan. 1874: I found it interesting to read in the “Black Americans in Congress” website http://baic.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=4 that up to age 25, Elliot had a very different background from other South Carolina freedmen. He was born in Liverpool, England to West Indian parents and had a public school education there. He also served in the British Navy. He came to South Carolina during Reconstruction so he had the advantage of already being educated. Black Rep. Elliot occupied the same house seat as Preston Brooks who assaulted Charles Sumner. Additionally, Elliot was speaking in the House to help pass the Civil Rights bill sponsored by Sen. Sumner. Former Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens of Georgia had been reelected to the House in 1873. Stephens had criticized the Civil Rights bill, and Elliot was responding. Elliott’s oratory in this speech as compared to Stephen’s speech was praised by the Chicago Daily Tribune on January 8, 1874, page 4. The Tribune said that “fair-skinned men in Congress … might learn something from this black man.”

Clearly Elliott had studied American history, but he viewed slavery with British eyes when he said that Alexander Stephens had “shocked the civilized world by announcing the birth of a government which rested on human slavery as its corner-stone.” (P & T, 399) Stephens’ announcement in 1861 as vice-president of the Confederacy was not shocking to the United States. It was the result of a conflict that had been brewing for decades. Elliott referred to the lenient terms of Reconstruction when he said that if Stephens were to change his position on the Civil Rights bill, he would “best vindicate the wisdom of that policy which has permitted him to regain his seat upon this floor.” (P & T, 400) (Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in July 1868, Confederate officers were barred from serving in Congress.) Elliot reminded the members of the House of black service to the Union. The Civil Rights bill “will form the cap-stone of that temple of liberty.” (P & T, 401)

Representative Alexander White of Alabama Defends “Carpetbaggers,” Feb. 1875: Rep. White was a scalawag since he was a southern, white Republican. White asserted that the carpet baggers had provided a useful role in counseling the blacks during the election of 1868. Many of the carpet baggers had fought in the South for the Union and decided to stay after the war. He emphasized that those who had plantation land had purchased it for “large sums of money.” (P & T, 402) In other words, the carpet baggers did not confiscate the land; they paid for it honestly. One of the rumors spread about the carpet baggers was that they were dishonest. (McPherson & Hogue, 604) White also criticized northern white reporters who traveled south specifically to discredit the carpet baggers. He pointed out that the work of the carpet baggers and scalawags in organizing the blacks was what kept the Republican Party alive in the South. (P & T, 403)

Albert T. Morgan of Mississippi Recalls His Achievements as Sheriff, 1884: It sounds like we should use Yazoo, Mississippi as a model for municipal budgeting! That they could build a $75,000 court house and new roads right after the Panic of 1873 was impressive. Being a Yankee himself, he could give his fellow Yankees credit! He pointed out that education was a divisive issue. It was interesting that the planters wanted schools when they saw positive results from education at neighboring plantations. (P & T, 403-404)

Steven Hahn, “A Society Turned Bottomside UP”: Hahn gave a good definition of Black power for the Reconstruction Era. Black power was about “achiev[ing] community reconstitution and self-governance … Not the destruction of established institutions or the redistribution of private property but the pursuit of simple justice.” (P & T, 406) The blacks were trying to achieve equality with not supremacy over the whites. As former Gov. Orr observed if the southern whites had supported the Republican Party, fewer blacks may have been elected to office. Of course, that concept was not realistic with the racial attitudes of the times. Due to the lingering effects of racial prejudice today, I do not think that O’bama would have been elected president if he had not been a mulatto with an Ivy League education. His family and education is a part of who he is and allows him to identify with both whites and blacks. Southern planters saw blacks only as former slaves not as competent legislators. Because of this attitude, the gains that blacks made during Radical Reconstruction were truly substantial and impressive. Hahn documented how blacks in many counties of southern states finally achieved local representation proportional to their population and perhaps beyond. Until this course, I did not realize how many blacks became involved in local law enforcement and the court system. I can understand why white planters would not want to face a predominantly black court system, but Hahn does make it seem as though the black juries and magistrates where trying to render fair verdicts despite the planters’ complaints. (P & T, 411). Hahn related how some blacks were so eager to avail themselves of their rights to a “day in court” that they would look for offenses that they could bring before justice of the peace John Lynch. (P & T, 410) It is ironic that black Republicans gained control of the court house in Edgefield County, SC (Preston Brooks’ home town). (P & T, 411) Hahn also referred to the black Republican South Carolina representative Robert Elliot (mentioned above) who in the tradition of his eloquent oratory spoke for three hours after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. For a crowd of people to listen to a three hour speech, that is dedication to freedom and liberty! (P & T, 411)

Rebecca J. Scott, “Building Citizenship in Louisiana, 1867-1873”: Scott essay is interesting because it gives a sense that French and Haitian influence had in Reconstruction Louisiana, especially for the New Orleans parishes. (P & T, 413-423) She pointed out that Louisiana’s new Bill of Rights meant to ensure equality for all races in terms of “civil, political, and public rights.” This Bill disallowed the “separate but equal” argument of later years which was never equal. Public rights, prohibiting discrimination on public transportation and in hotels was very significant. She noted that the constitutional amendments did not specify public rights which later influenced the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court decision to declare “separate but equal” facilities constitutional in 1896. Scot interpreted the public rights as “a commitment” to the “moral equality of all human beings” which combined “Christianity with French and American revolutionary ideologies.” (P & T, 414-415) It was also informative to note that Louisiana’s constitutional convention delegates drew the line at including socialist economic legislation favoring land redistribution, the advocate of which was a “red Republican” born in France. Neither could they keep the constitution from being overturned at a later date. (P & T, 415-416)

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 12 Blog Post

Week 12 Blog Post

Comments on Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction Documents and Essays:

Chapter 10 on “Northern Republicans and Reconstruction Policy” made the point that the Republican Party as a whole was much divided upon how the former Confederate states should be readmitted to the Union.

Richard Dana, Jr., Presents His “Grasp of War” Theory, June 1865: Dana insisted that the states of the Confederacy should be held in the “grasp of war” until the Union can be certain that they will not try to rebel again. (P & T, 325-326) As the document indicated, he received a lot of applause during his speech. Dana compared the Civil War to a man attacked fighting for his life. Once you get him down are you going to let him up to fight again? I do not feel that his analogy was appropriate considering the extent of devastation throughout the South due to the actual fighting and the destruction caused by Sherman’s marches. The South was not about to mount a new Civil War. Then Dana continued by saying that it was sufficient that the Union had destroyed the central government of the Confederacy so that the Union did not have to assume sovereignty over the individual states; however, he supported the idea of the former Confederate states making new constitutions. In this sense, the two parts of his speech do not really connect, but the audience did not seem to mind. His “grasp of war” rhetoric was political posturing.

Senator Lyman Trumball of Illinois Explains His Civil Rights Bill, January and April 1866: Trumball while first explaining his Civil Rights Bill in the Senate was naively downplaying the effect it would have (at least as intended) by saying, “It will have no operation in any State where the laws are equal, where all persons have the same civil rights without regard to color or race.” (P & T, 325-326) Since there were not any southern states that met that qualification in practice in 1866, the bill would obviously affect them all. In April, Trumball was correct that his bill was necessary to secure, by specifying in the Constitution, the rights of the freedmen. The former Confederate states did not want nor intend to recognize black civil rights solely on account of the 13^th Amendment banning slavery. It was for this reason that the Civil Rights Bill which became the 14^th Amendment in 1868 tied a state’s congressional representation to its observance.

Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania States His Terms, January 1867: Thaddeus Stevens was obviously one of the Radical Republicans since he advocated black suffrage. The reason he gave in his speech was that black suffrage would insure that ascendency of the Republican Party in formerly rebel states which was the effect upon passage of the 15^th Amendment granting black men that right to vote. Eric Foner in his essay, “The Radical Republicans,” states “Although Radicals insisted black suffrage must be part of Reconstruction, the vote was commonly considered a “privilege” rather than a right.” (P & T, 338) Stevens, in trying to make his position more palatable to his fellow representatives emphasized that equality before the law does not have to mean social equality with whites. “This doctrine does not mean that a negro shall sit on the same seat or eat at the same table with a white man.” (P & T, 329).

Senator John Sherman of Ohio Urges Caution and Moderation Toward the South, February 1867: Senator Sherman made a good point when he said, “I will not supersede one form of oligarchy in which the blacks were slaves by another in which the whites are disfranchised outcasts.” (P & T, 330) Sherman accused Senator Sumner of trying to defeat the Reconstruction Act even though it “yields all that the Senator has ever openly demanded in the Senate.” (P & T, 331) I am assuming that Sumner was objecting to southern whites being able to vote. Even though the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to blacks but did not specify their right to vote, the Reconstruction Act did not exclude blacks from voting; it specifically enabled them. (P & T, 333)

Albion Tourgée in hindsight condemned both the blacks for being ignorant of politics and Congress for allowing the “white people of the South” to elect their own representatives to their state legislatures and ultimately to be readmitted to Congress. (P & T, 334-335)

Eric Foner, “The Radical Republicans”: Foner’s essay is an excellent commentary on the Radical Republican position. (P & T, 335-343) He asserts that the Radicals were driven by a “utopian vision of a nation whose citizens enjoyed equality of civil and political rights.” (P & T, 337) It was this “utopian vision” that made abolitionist Charles Sumner unable to compromise. This inability of Sumner was so well known that he was not chosen for Congress’ joint Reconstruction committee (McPherson & Hogue, 556), but “ordinary blacks” loved him for it (P & T, 337). As I mentioned above, even Radical Republicans did not equate legal and political equality with social equality. The Radicals seemed to mistake the Constitution’s clause “guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government” (republican without capitalization) for rule by their Political Party. Foner points out that some Radical Republican businessman extended the meaning of republicanism to mean laissez-faire economics, but most focused on Reconstruction. Even Sumner who advocated full political and legal equality for blacks allowed for class stratification. (P & T, 342)

Michael Les Benedict, “The Conservative Basis of Radical Reconstruction”: Benedict asserts that Reconstruction failed due in large part to Congressional conservatism. (P & T, 343-353) I find it understandable that Congress as a whole would be reluctant to adopt measures that could be interpreted as violating the Constitution. During the war, Lincoln was careful to justify his actions by framing it within Constitution theory, albeit Unionist theory. As noted then, the Constitution was intended by our forefathers to be just vague enough to be malleable in interpretation. The state of war justified emergency powers. After the war, these emergency powers became Reconstruction.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 11 Blog Post

Week 11 Blog Post

Comments on This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War by Drew Gilpin Faust:

I thought that overall This Republic of Suffering was an excellent book. The information and sentiments expressed in the first three chapters: “Dying,” “Killing” and “Burying” were not a surprise to me. The way that both Unionists and Confederates viewed death prior to and during the Civil War seemed like a natural part of the human condition. I believe that war would have had similar effects on people generations and millennia before the 1860’s. In other words, I doubt that the Victorian philosophy of what constitutes a good life and a good death were unique to the time period (even the Christian professing would go back many centuries.) In ancient Greece and Rome, families grieved to know the fate of their loved ones in wars fought far from home. They also hoped for the return of their relatives bodies for burial. Likely also, in far flung battles, it was only the upper echelon of officers whose dead bodies were carted home. What makes Faust’s book distinctive is the individual examples and quotes she gives from the Civil War families. In several cases, she chronicles the same family throughout the stages of the book. This book functions well as a supplement to our course. It would also be equally understandable to someone who had not read much else about the Civil War.

One section that I found interesting concerned the development of embalming techniques. A sufficient level of skill was required so that physicians and other practitioners could charge top dollar for their work; therefore, making embalming available only to those who could afford to pay. The embalmers who were charged with profiteering likely thought their services were worth their fee. Considering the condition of the bodies they had to work with, not to mention the smell, I think that most embalmers probably did deserve their fee. Faust gives the example of Dr. Richard Burr who charged 100 dollars. According to Burr, he had employees to pay who “risked their lives recovering the body from near the picket line and then carrying it several hundred yards under fire.” In addition to his disinfecting and embalming services, he also paid for a coffin and shipping. (Faust, 97-98) It is definitely true that many families could not afford that kind of service which was certainly inequitable. If more families had been able to pay for embalming, there would not have been enough practitioners to handle all the deceased.

The chapter on “Accounting” was especially interesting to me since I had not previously read about the effort involved in creating our national (Union) cemeteries. I have only visited Arlington National Cemetery which has other military graves in addition to the Civil War graves. I got some sense there of the seemingly endless rows of identical tombstones. Faust noted that in the establishment of Gettysburg Cemetery during the war, William Saunders designed it so that “every grave was of equal importance.” (Faust, 100) She also emphasized that the establishment of Gettysburg Cemetery was a turning point in the war when the government began to realize that it had obligations to the dead as well as the living. She discussed Lincoln’s famous “Gettysburg Address” and enumerated many of the same points that we did in class. (Faust, 189-190)

I sympathize with the Confederate families regarding that only the Union soldiers were sought for the re-interment program after the war. I can certainly see why Southerners would be resentful that the federal government (which was supposed to be their government again) spent four million dollars relocating and reburying only Union soldiers in national cemeteries. (Faust, 236) Faust points out that John Trowbridge, a New England writer, was “horrified” that Confederate bodies had been deliberately “left to rot.” (Faust, 237) I can also understand why Trowbridge and NY governor Reuben Fenton were in the minority in the North. Many of the northern politicians and Congressmen, like John Covode, had lost sons and relatives in the war. If I had lost a child in the war, I would be bitter against the enemy. Faust stated that even the “veterans [who] were more forgiving of their former enemies” still could not imagine the southerners “who had tried to destroy the Union should be accorded the same respect as those who had saved it.” (Faust, 238) The South having to shoulder the burden of burying their dead with private donations and volunteer efforts undoubtedly affected their attitude towards Reconstruction. No doubt many historians have wondered how differently Reconstruction may have proceeded if Pres. Lincoln had not been assassinated. Given his Second Inaugural Address, I wonder if Lincoln would have included the Confederate soldiers in the re-interment into national cemeteries. I think it is likely that he would have; however, like the black soldiers, Confederate graves probably would have been segregated in their own section of each cemetery. (Faust, 236) It was heartening to read that Pres. William McKinley gave a favorably received speech to the Atlanta legislature on December 14, 1898 saying that “the time has now come in the evolution of sentiment and feeling under the providence of God, when in the spirit of fraternity we should share with you [the South] in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers.” (Faust, 269, n. 9, 322) What makes this event even more significant is that McKinley was a northern Republican who had served in the Union Army during the Civil War. No wonder the people of Atlanta were pleased. Thirty-three years after its end, Americans could finally look back in hindsight upon the Civil War and see “one nation under God” regardless of how divided it had been.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 10 Blog Post

Week 10 Blog Post

Comments on Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction Documents and Essays:

The President of the Detroit Ladies Aid Society (Isabella Duffield) Calls on Women to Assist the war Effort, Nov. 12, 1861 (published in the Detroit Free Press): I liked Duffield’s message to women not to waste time wondering “whether you think the North is right,” but “work for humanity[‘s] sake.” (P & T, 212) She also told the women not to listen to anyone who said they had enough hospital supplies since even though it looked like there were lots of boxes, thousands of men needed the supplies. Duffield specified to the women that mittens needed pockets for both the thumb and forefinger so that the men could fire their guns. This is something that the ladies might not think of themselves. Mittens would have been much easier to knit than gloves and not required fitting. She further emphasized the need for caps and other articles to keep the men warm. Not only do the women need to “feel” for the men but also act. It is interesting that Duffield understood that once “rich” men became soldiers they could easily lose or wear out their belongings and become as “poor” as the rest of the recruits. She reminded the ladies that their work would be in God’s favor. Compassion, Christianity, and patriotism were the main motivators for women’s war-time service.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton Appeal to Northern Women’s Loyalty, March 1863: Elizabeth Cady Stanton felt that the reason Northern women did not appear loyal to the war was because they did not fully understand what the North was fighting for which was liberty. According to Stanton, some Northern women couldn’t grasp the concept of liberty because they were clinging to Old World values of aristocracy and class. These women have traveled in Europe or the South and become “out of time with independence and equality.” (P & T, 213) Stanton appealed to women to give up the trappings of aristocracy in order to support the Republic and guarantee freedom and equality. Stanton and Anthony called women to meet “the church of the Puritans,” a coincidentally appropriate name for their Christian appeal. They equated work for the war effort to worship if and “when a noble purpose fills the soul.” (P & T, 214)

Cincinnati Sewing Women Protest Their Wartime Wages, Feb. 1865: I thought that the Cincinnati sewing women had a very reasonable request for the government to eliminate the middle men, the contractors, and give the work directly to the seamstresses. The women phrased their request politely emphasizing that they were not objecting to the workload nor intending to charge the government more money. Eliminating the contractor’s cut would raise their wages. I wonder how much administrative work the contractor’s did that would have made it more feasible for the government to use them. No doubt the contractors would be opposed to their elimination.

Henry W. Bellows Explains the Work and Goals of the Sanitary Commission, Jan. 1864: Bellows made an insightful analogy when he stated that the main reason people objected to the formation of the Sanitary Commission was the same as that which started the war, namely, opposition to a strong, federal authority. Bellows further asserted that citizen devotion to nationalism would be essential to winning the war. He praised “the wonderful spirit of nationality that beats in the breasts of American women” (P & T, 216) since female volunteers were the ones who carried out the commission’s work.

Pres. Lincoln addresses the Philadelphia Central Fair, June 1864: Lincoln thanked all those who contributed their time to the Sanitary Commission and the Christian Commission emphasizing the fact that they were volunteers. When I read that Lincoln refused to attempt to predict when the war would end, I thought of the troop withdrawal timetables under Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan. I agreed with some commentators that Obama should not have publically announced when he would withdraw troops. It gave information to the enemy and set up expectations that the war might not comply with. On the other hand, Lincoln was not willing to risk the public’s disappointment if the war did not go according to his prediction. (P & T, 217)

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase Appeals to the Public for Financial Support, July 1861 and Melinda Lawson, “Jay Cooke and the War Bond Drives”: Secretary Chase had a great idea which he termed “a national loan.” (P & T, 218-219) Later, such financial transactions were called “government bonds.” As Melinda Lawson points out in her essay, “Jay Cooke and the War Bond Drives,” Chase’s idea was not popular with banks or the public until he hired Jay Cooke to market the loan. (P&T, 231-244) Chase thought of the same reasons as Cooke regarding why the subscription loan would be attractive to the public; however, Chase put patriotism and liberty before profit. Cooke promoted the loan as a guaranteed high interest savings account where the government was the public’s bank. (P & T, 236-238)

The New York Tribune Supports Expansion of the Government Bond Drive, March 1865 and Melinda Lawson, “Jay Cooke and the War Bond Drives”: The New York Tribune excerpt confirms that the Seven-Thirty Loans were marketed to Southerners as well as Northerners. The newspaper spoke of Jay Cooke’s subscription agents being ready to fan out in Richmond, Virginia as soon as Union troops were able to occupy it. (P & T, 219-220)

Lawson reported that the bonds sold in the border states as well as areas that were “openly secessionist.” Cooperheads, who opposed the war, still bought bonds due to Cooke’s emphasis of “self-interest,” meaning guaranteed profit. (P & T, 241)

Nina Silber, “The Problem of Women’s Patriotism”: Silber asserts that Northern women during the Civil War were following the old model of female patriotism from the American Revolution as well as forging a new model of political participation and consciousness. Her examples of Harper’s Weekly stories were interesting especially those concerning “Mrs. Shoddy.” (P & T, 224) Finding out that there were Civil War contractors who gouged the government and/or made inferior goods, recalls the saying, “Some things never change.”

I do not agree with Mary Abigail Dodge (Gail Hamilton) who asserted that the Unionists did not deserve victory because they had “excessive amounts of material comforts.” (P & T, 224) I do not believe that women or men needed to give away all their fine possessions just to demonstrate their patriotism. Dodge was mistaken to categorize all northern women as living in luxury. The wealthy were still a small percentage of the population. In fact, women who were not poor or just “getting by” would have had more time to devote to volunteerism. Silber’s proposal that female writers’ ridiculed rich women to gain the support of the northern working-class seems a bit of a stretch to me. It is equally likely that these writers may have been motivated by jealousy as well as patriotism.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 9 Blog Post Part 3

Week 9 Blog Post Part 3

Drew Gilpin Faust, “Sick and Tired of This Horrid War”: Faust wrote an excellent essay on a perspective of the Civil War not often discussed – how the war affected Confederate women. (P & T, 256-266) Women’s history classes often espouse upon how women found self-confidence and independence by entering the public sphere via patriotic activities. Faust emphasizes that Confederate women discovered a new sense of self by becoming exasperated and exhausted by the demands of self-sacrifice and self-denial during the war. They had to think of themselves in order to survive. Feminine nurturing could only be stretched so far in the face of starvation, fear, and depression. Stress is a psychological and physiological disrupter in all types of conflicts with was being one of the worst. Throughout history, the blame for nervous breakdowns has often been placed upon the women themselves instead of the external causes. Although this is less true today, the perception still exists that we can “fix ourselves” simply with a “more positive attitude.” During the Civil War, a positive attitude became impossible when the Confederate women were increasingly faced with malnutrition as well as inadequate heat, clothing, and sanitation. Science has since confirmed that these depredations cause biochemical changes in the body that adversely affect the mind’s ability to cope. It is no wonder that the women became depressed and had attacks of hysteria, wanting the war to end no matter who won. I am sure that I would have felt the same way if I had been able to survive.

Amy Murrell Taylor, “Southern Families and Their Appeals for Protection”: In her essay, Taylor points out that the petitioners for discharges and exemptions from war service emphasized their patriotism and the sacrifices that their families had already made. I believe that they did this both because it was true as well as to increase the likelihood that their requests would be granted. Taylor gives us several examples of the hardships these families faced and appalling number of sons the petitioning mothers lost in the war. It was important to the Confederate war effort to have at least one man left behind to manage the farm or plantation. Taylor refuted the belief that the Southerners were just being selfish or unpatriotic. (P & T, 270) Due to the necessity to safeguard their family, women became more aware of law and politics. They knew what the exemption laws were and quoted them in their letters. (P & T, 272) Taylor concludes her essay by stating that the Southern citizens were “writing not to protest … but to negotiate.” (P & T, 275)

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 9 Blog Post Part 2

Week 9 Blog Post Part 2

NC Legislature Protests the Confederate Draft and Martial Law, May 1864 (cont.): In Paul Escott’s essay “Confederate Policymaking Produces Innovation and Controversy,” he stated that Jefferson Davis took the conscription law to the state Supreme Courts. I noticed that North Carolina was not in the list of states that Escott said upheld conscription on the part of the central government. I wonder if the North Carolina Supreme Court heard such a case. (P & T, 281-282)

The NC legislature was also protesting Confederate powers late in the war, May 1864. Habeus corpus had previously been suspended in 1862 for a year. North Carolina’s protest fell during the second suspension which according to Escott was from February 15 to July 31, 1864. (P & T, 278)

Catherine Edmonston of North Carolina Discusses Matters Public and Domestic, Jan. 1865: Edmonston was vehemently opposed to the Confederacy emancipating the slaves so they can fight in the army. She called the Richmond Enquirer newspaper an abolitionist because it endorsed the idea! She didn’t want the “degraded race” of the Negro to be put on par with the whites by allowing them to be soldiers. We can tell from Edmonston’s comments that she was well informed about current politics. She spoke of “the Constitution [being] daily trampled underfoot by Impressment Laws & Government Schedules.” (P & T, 252) She also commented that the slave emancipation was a political act to appease England and France whose governments had already banned slavery. Her diary entry contained a lot of venting about politics and government which was carefully thought out. She mentioned thinking about it for the “past fortnight” which meant two weeks.

As an introduction to her family’s activities, she commented that their Negroes were the only ones who got a holiday at Christmas. She and her husband were busy working slaughtering and preserving meat! She poked fun at the parts of the hog that her slaves ate and said that the only presents that a Negro child needed were a hog bladder and hog tail. (P & T, 253)

Cornelia Peake McDonald Comments on Class and Conscription, March 1865: I assume this is a diary entry; the editor does not say. McDonald made clear that she was against deserters but understood why they wanted to run away. One reason she gave was that they needed to keep their families from starving which was a consequence of their being low born and poor. Although she admitted that “the plainer people” who had died on the battlefield must have “had true soldierly hearts and bore themselves bravely in the shock of battle.” (P & T, 254) She thought that there wouldn’t have been any desertion from the army “if the brave, the well born and the chivalrous could have done all the fighting.” (P & T, 254) Clearly, McDonald was not thinking of any upper class man who had paid for a substitute. I wonder what she thought of those plantation owners or managers who got exemptions.

Regarding the government, McDonald considered conscription to be tyranny even though it “was made necessary by the exigency of the times.” (P & T, 254) She also vented about the lawlessness when people both upper class (like herself) and poor (butcher’s wife) were robbed of their food and property. (P & T, 253-255)

Elizabeth Patterson of Virginia Tries to Reconcile Her Loyalty and Her “Misfortune,” March 1865: Amy Murrell Taylor mentions Patterson’s petition in her essay, “Southern Families and Their Appeals for Protection” where she provides the reader with more details of the family than given in the document. (P & T, 255, 273-274) Patterson expressed her patriotism and sacrifice having lost her husband and three sons in the war. It seems like a reasonable request to want a discharge for her “only living adult son” from the army as a bonded agriculturist. Patterson further attested that her son’s health was feeble. (P & T, 255-256) Taylor stated that “the Confederate Congress passed a new series of laws in 1864 and 1865” in response to letters like Patterson’s. (P & T, 274) She did not say whether Patterson’s request was granted. “Only 7 percent of the special exemption requests in [her] sample were granted.” (P & T, 270)

Written by Molly Kettler