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

Week 9 Blog Post

Week 9 Blog Post

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

Gov. Joseph E. Brown: It is an ironic dilemma that the Confederacy placed itself in by forming a separate nation. By going to war, the new nation found out that a strong central government and military was necessary if the country was going to have any chance at beating the Union forces. It is interesting that Gov. Brown had not anticipated that the need for martial law would arise in time of war. Also noteworthy was that he was writing to Vice-President Stephens who was already at odds with President Davis.

Eliza Adams: It was very bold and brave of Mrs. Adams to write to Pres. Davis to request an exemption for her son Matthew. She certainly had just cause in my mind as did the other women that Amy M. Taylor wrote about in her essay “Southern Families and Their Appeals for Protection.” Adams also anticipated needing corroboration of her hardship. She offered to get a petition from her neighbors. She also referenced that he could inquire of Gen. Lawton’s Brigade.

Plain Folk: Keeping the misspellings in the document shows the education level of its writers. Writing to the governor of NC was undoubtedly a big step for them born out of their hunger. They see the large plantation owners as taking advantage of them by jacking up prices especially of corn. At least they are letting the governor know that they will take matters into their own hands, presumably threatening violence, if he does not do something to stop the inflation.

NC Legislature: Significant in this document is that the legislature did not accept the possibility of needing “emergency powers” even in time of war. They wrote, the People of North Carolina … declare that ‘no conditions of public danger,’ present or prospective, probable or possible, can render the liberties of the people incompatible with the public safety.” (P & T, 251) The document further equated a draft with military despotism and a violation of state rights. This again demonstrates that the states were not in favor of the national government exercising any authority over them which is why the Confederate Constitution’s preamble stated, “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent government …” (McPherson & Hogue, A-1) The NC legislature had a good case to say that the Confederate government was acting against its own Constitution by trying to enforce draft requirements of the states and suspending habeas corpus.

I will post on the essays tonight.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 8 Blog Post Continued - Comments on Schwalm

Comments on A Hard Fight For We by Leslie A. Schwalm: Schwalm gave a detailed account of the hardships faced by newly emancipated freedmen and especially freedwomen. It was especially brutal that the Union troops in Sherman’s march took everything the slaves had, not only their food but their cooking utensils as well. (Schwalm, 123-124, 151) It is amazing that the Union army would then wonder why so many freedpeople would show up to receive rations! They would then characterize the blacks as lazy when their soldiers were the ones who took away all their means of sustenance destroying their property and confiscating their food and animals.

General Saxton’s view that “slavery had totally eradicated in slave women any self-restraint in their sexual expression” seems totally bizarre by our standards today. (Schwalm, 141) Yet, it was in keeping with the racism of the times.

It was interesting to read of Col. James C. Beecher’s change of heart concerning sympathy for the freedpeople after he had observed the “former slaves’ capacity for revenge as well as their violent defense of freedom and independence.” (Schwalm, 170-171) In my opinion, Beecher’s use of violence to attempt to force the freedpeople into working according to the plantation contracts was as unjustified as the freedpeople’s violence. His form of “discipline” was and not an effective method of obtaining compliance.

I was glad to see Schwalm point out the double standard with which freedpeople viewed their post-emancipation circumstances. “Freedpeople expected bureau agents and the military’s provost courts to enforce planters’ obligations under the labor contracts, and yet freely violated the terms of those contracts themselves.” (Schwalm, p. 185)

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 8 Blog Post

Week 8 Blog Post

Comments on Ordeal by Fire Appendices:

The Emancipation Proclamation: The proclamation stated that the military and navy “will recognize and maintain the freedom” of the freed slaves and do nothing to repress them. That order was not consistently enforced especially in terms of the camp followers consisting of women and children as the Perman & Taylor documents highlighted.

It was not only stereotypical prejudice that caused Lincoln to admonish freedpeople from committing violence. It is human nature for any oppressed people to want to retaliate against their oppressors if given the opportunity. Schwalm in A Hard Fight for We detailed the violence committed by freed blacks both men and women in South Carolina especially in 1865, over two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted.

As we discussed in class, Lincoln felt that he could only free the slaves in the states that were in rebellion in order to be in compliance with the Constitution. Northern Democrats still felt that he had violated the Constitution.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Lincoln hoped to avoid a Constitutional challenge to his freeing of the slaves which is why he proposed the 13^th amendment to outlaw slavery completely. It was fortunate that the amendment was still able to be ratified by a sufficient number of states even after his April assassination. It was ratified in December of 1865.

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

General Benjamin Butler was concerned for the blacks, especially those who were unfit for military duty such as old men, women and children. He understood what a hindrance these camp followers were going to be to the army if they were allowed to stay. This was very early in the war, July 1861, to have 900 Negroes already approaching Union lines. Butler was correct to ask the secretary of war what to do about them. Schwalm mentioned that Butler was one of the first generals to refuse to return fugitive slaves. (Can’t find page in Schwalm)

The Conkling Letter: Lincoln’s arguments defending his Emancipation Proclamation were very insightful and showed his skill as a lawyer. His use of if, then logical reasoning painted his adversaries into a corner. He spelled it out for the Republican Party when he stated, “I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union.” (P & T, 290)

Joseph Miller, U.S.A., Protests the Mistreatment of His Family by the U.S. Army, Nov. 1864: Miller’s affidavit was very sad. He was correct to blame the army for the severe conditions that resulted in his son’s death. Living conditions would have been difficult enough in the tent Miller’s wife and children were first assigned. Tents are normally not very warm, but according to the document, the tent was providing enough shelter for his sick son to slowly recover. Miller blamed the cold wind for killing his son. The living conditions for both soldiers and camp followers during the war were tragic.

James H Payne, Aug. 1864: Payne had a valid complaint that the black regiment was not reinforced by the whites. It is good that documents such as this remain to counter any claims that whites made afterwards that the blacks did not distinguish themselves enough in battle.

Frederick Douglass: It is interesting that Douglass brought up that women also were denied the right to vote, but that did not mean that the government should “justify one wrong by another” in denying African-Americans the right to vote. He said that he approves of women’s suffrage but it is a difference argument. Douglass also argued that denying blacks the right to vote contributed to their low self-esteem. If Douglass understood that keeping blacks low was precisely what white supremacists intended to achieve, it was not a good argument to use to get them to change their minds. Lincoln was much better at using psychology. Douglass’ advocacy for justice as opposed to benevolence, pity, or sympathy had more resonance.  His entreaty of “Do nothing with us!” was likely to have better appeal to latent racists. Even though racists would still prefer to deny blacks voting rights, they would be more willing to see the Negro fall if he “cannot stand on his own legs.”

Gertrude Thomas: I was struck by Gertrude’s comment, “I assisted [Patsy] in wiping the breakfast dishes, a thing I never remember to have done more than once or twice in my life.” (P & T, 297) I totally sympathize with the Southern white women. I wish that I never had to wash dishes. I positively hate washing dishes and even with a family of only three and a dishwasher, the stream of dishes throughout the day seems constant. I even let my dishes air dry and the chore is still endless!

I think that Southern women after emancipation deserve more sympathy than they’ve gotten. I certainly wouldn’t want to be faced with trying to run a plantation or even the manor house with ex-slaves, now paid servants, who refuse to work and still expect to be fed and taken care of. It is no wonder the whites viewed their ex-slaves as immature and childlike. The freedwomen especially had no concept of economics. I am reminded of my fourteen year old daughter.

The African American Role in Union Victory: This was a very good, concise essay on the blacks’ participation in the military and sabotage on the Confederate homefront. One fact that I underlined was Glatthaar’s comment, “There were more white volunteers than the government could accept into uniform.” (P & T, 310) I did not think that was true since even the Union needed to start a draft in 1863. Glatthaar gives no reference date for his comment.

It was interesting to learn that Butler was one of the first generals to allow blacks to work for the army which led to the First Confiscation Act. Also interesting was the account of Edmund Ruffin wondering why his slaves would want to run away from his care. Ruffin evidently didn’t understand the lure of freedom. As Glatthaar pointed out, “[T]he situation challenged their core beliefs.” (P & T, 313)

Douglass was right that blacks fighting in the army would prove that they had earned their right to citizenship. (P & T, 314) This is precisely what the Confederates feared as embodied in the quote from Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown, “Whenever we establish the fact that they are a military race, we destroy our whole theory that they are unfit to be free.” (P & T, 310)

I found Glatthaar’s section on the effect of white officers upon black troops enlightening. He pointed out the white officers were volunteers but also “men of their time” who couldn’t help being burdened with “some degree of racial prejudice.” New information to me was that these officers had to pass competency examinations and provide character references. So the black regiments benefited from having “talented, experienced officers who could prepare them for battle” more so than the all volunteer regiments. (P & T, 317) Still, that did not make up for the black regiments being unsupported by white regiments in battle as told in the document by James Payne mentioned above. (P & T, 294-295)

Comments on A Hard Fight For We by Leslie A. Schwalm to follow in next post.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 7 Blog Post

Week 7 Blog Post

Comments on Ordeal by Fire Appendices:

Lincoln’s Inaugural Address: Lincoln directed the bulk of his address to the states which had already seceded from the Union. He attempted to convince those states that no violation of the Constitution had occurred to justify their secession. He also stated that the fugitive slave clause already in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2.3) was sufficient to required slaves to be returned to their owners. It should not matter whether the clause was “enforced by national or by state authority.” (Perman & Taylor, A-8)

In general, Lincoln was trying to get the seceding states to admit the error of their ways and seek reconciliation. The Confederacy had taken great pains to justify their secession and subsequent establishment of a separate nation as legal according to the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln used his inaugural address to refute that claim. I thought that Lincoln’s argument concerning the “perfect Union” was very creative. (P & T, A-9) The Constitution was enacted “to form a more perfect Union.” By seceding, each state in the Confederacy essentially made the Union less perfect, thereby, behaving counter to the Constitution’s original intent.

Another one of Lincoln’s arguments that I found interesting was when he told the Confederacy that they were setting a precedent for a minority to cause permanent division by not accepting majority rule. Lincoln warned that parts of the Confederacy would secede in the future if they disagreed with their new national government. (P & T, A-10) The war united the Confederacy. I wonder if Lincoln’s prediction would have come true if a war had been averted.

The Gettysburg Address: I think it is ironic that Lincoln did not expect his Gettysburg address to be remembered. He stated, “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” (P & T, A-17) Most people today likely recognize the first sentence of the address, “Fourscore and seven years ago … all men are created equal” and that Pres. Lincoln said it. (P & T, A-16) Many of these same people probably know very little if anything about the Gettysburg battle itself.

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: Lincoln began his address by basically stating that there is not much new. He was not overly boastful about the chances of the Union winning the war. Instead, he said that the public knew as much about the progress of the war as he did. (P & T, A-19) He did not say the Confederacy is going to be defeated. “With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

Lincoln discussed the civil war of the previous four years as though both sides were at fault but they were clearly at opposite poles. One side wanted to destroy the Union, the other save it. One party wanted to make war, the other accepted it. (P & T, A-19) Interestingly, Lincoln spoke of the slaves as though they had emancipated themselves. He did not mention his part in the “cause of the conflict,” slavery, ceasing to exist before the war ended. (P & T, A-20).

Lincoln realized and reminded his constituents that God was the common denominator between and Union and the Confederacy. “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.” (P & T, A-20) There can be no doubt that Lincoln understood the pain and anguish of civil war when he said, “[L]et us judge not that we be not judged.” (P & T, A-20) Just as many Union and Confederate soldiers turned their individual fates and that of their army over to God, Lincoln turned the fate of the war over to God also.  

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 6 Bolg Post

Week 6 Blog Post

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

Document 1: General McClellan’s Harrison’s Landing letter amply illustrated the contempt McClellan held for Lincoln even though his actual choice of language was respectful. It is truly amazing that McClellan would think that he needed to tell the president that “the Constitution and the Union must be preserved.” (Perman and Taylor, 140) He also should not have had to tell the president that the Union was in a “War” a year after the fighting began. McClellan was living in a fantasy world if he thought that the Union armies would respect Southern private property and leave it in tact. This had been Lincoln’s intention a year earlier, but he realized that it was no longer practical.

I did not understand exactly what McClellan meant by the statement, “[Y]ou will require a Commander in Chief of the Army …” (P & T, 141). By the Constitution, Pres. Lincoln was Commander in Chief of all the military. By the time of the letter, July 7, 1862, Lincoln had already made McClellan Chief of Staff.

I thought it was interesting that McClellan closed his letter with, “Very respectfully your obdt svt [obedient servant] when he disobeyed Lincoln’s orders to attack on several occasions. (P & T, 141)

Document 2: I noticed that the General Orders, No. 75 document from General Lee was actually written by his assistant general, Chilton, referring to Lee in the third person. The letter switched to second person in the last paragraph so that it could thank the soldiers directly. General Lee gave thanks to God for the victory in battle in keeping with a tradition that dates back thousands of years in Western Civilization. That opening sentence seems to contradict itself. God is “the only Giver of all the victory,” yet it was the “valor” of Lee’s men that made it all possible. (P & T, 142)

Document 3: Gen. Lee’s letter to Pres. Davis was much more appropriate than Gen. McClellan’s letter above. Lee’s subject outlined a specific battle strategy which was in keeping with his position as commanding general. He supported his position with outlines of the conditions within both armies. He was also implicitly asking for Davis’ permission to undertake the offensive. Lee’s signing of his letter, “your ob’t servant” is more believable than with McClellan. (P & T, 143-44)

Document 4: This letter is a good example of Gen. Grant’s battle strategy. He gave detailed instructions to Gen. Meade about the coordination of troops under different commanders.

Document 5: Grant memoirs show that he remembered the Overland campaign as a standoff with inevitably high losses on either side. It gives a grim indication that Grant was aware of the high death toll on both sides that had not accomplished much towards ending the war as of mid-1864. (P & T, 146)

Document 6: I find it interesting that Gen. Sherman even took the time to respond in writing to a petition by the mayor of Atlanta. I don’t know the actual events of Sherman’s march because we haven’t gotten that far in this course yet. From the letter, it seems that Sherman gave the citizens of Atlanta notice to evacuate the city so that they wouldn’t be wounded or killed when his army came through. He did not apologize for any of the hardships of war and basically blames the people of Atlanta for bringing the war upon themselves by Georgia taking part in the secession. He told them that they must admit the error of their ways in order to end the war. He is willing to destroy the city in order to force them into obeying “the laws of the United States.” (P & T, 147-48) Sherman emphasized that he is just doing his duty as a Union officer. To reinforce that concept, he asserted that once peace has been achieved (meaning after Georgia rejoins the Union), Sherman will defend Atlanta’s “homes and families against danger from any quarter.” (P & T, 148)

Document 7: I noticed that General Grant referred to the war as “the rebellion” in his report made at the end of the war.  He noted that he surmised from the beginning that peace between the North and South would not come from diplomatic negotiations. Only after the South had been defeated militarily would peace be possible. (P & T, 148-49) He admitted that it was a problem that the Union armies of the East and West did not work together which gave the enemy an advantage. Grant realized that his actions were apt to be criticized the most by those who lost loved ones or property in the war, but that he served to the best of his ability.

Essay 1: Gallagher made a good point that armies “operate within a complicated web of military, political, and social constraints.” (P& T, 150) As such, he gave a good summary of influencing factors leading up to the Richmond campaign. I found his argument convincing for why the Eastern Theater battles received more attention and significance from the public. It is interesting to learn that Pres. Lincoln was not happy with that fact since he necessarily had to view the war as a whole in order to preserve the Union. He highlighted the Northern political divide over emancipation. As the Richmond campaign approached, the North expected to continue their victories while the South was demoralized from losses. Another of Gallagher’s insights was that Lee took over the Richmond campaign without the benefit of public confidence in his abilities as McClellan had. Paradoxically, McClellan was the one undeserving of such confidence when he retreated from the offensive. Politics played a leading role since McClellan Democratic political views in addition to his ego caused him to chafe with Pres. Lincoln. It was after the Richmond campaign that McClellan presented Lincoln with his Harrison’s Landing Letter mentioned above. Gallagher noted that after this campaign, Lincoln moved much closer to emancipation.

I also found it interesting that Gen. Lee’s impressive performance at keeping Richmond from falling to Union forces influenced foreign opinion. There was more support in the British Parliament for granting diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy since Lee took command.

Essay 2: I thought that Mark Grimsley’s essay on the Overland Campaign was a good assessment of generalship. (P & T, 162-65) It was difficult to put into context since we do not read about the Overland Campaign in Ordeal by Fire until later (I found it on page 454). The campaign does not take place until the spring of 1864. The discussion of the relationship between generals Grant and Meade was revealing (P & T, 166-67) Also interesting was the brief paragraph on the statistical cost of just one of Grant’s campaigns at $48,000 per day. (P & T, 170) I wonder how much the cost figures were quoted to the public then. We were inundated with cost factors over the Iraq wars, especially the controversial second war. Was it millions per day and billions per month? I don’t remember. I only remember wishing the money had been spent at home in the U.S. or saved in the treasury. At least during the Civil War, the money was spent on trying to preserve our own country although, again, it is unfortunate that the money needed to be spent on war. I suppose the Confederacy would have asserted that the Union (North) could have left them alone to form their separate nation and not engage in a war.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 5 Blog Post

Week 5 Blog Post

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

According to John Cochran’s letter, he pledged his devotion to his state of Virginia before the nation. He referred to Virginia as “this proud old mother of states.” He believed that the slave owners would leave and that “Yankees and other such like vermin” would come in to take their place. (Perman and Taylor, 179). Cochran seemed to realize that the secession of Virginia along with the other states might trigger Civil War. When he refers to “this fair land,” I think that he means Virginia and not just the United States as a hole. If this is the case, then he would prefer to see Virginia “drenched in the blood of contending brothers” rather then stay in the Union. This is a point that I personally cannot image sharing at that time. Nevertheless, Cochran specifically felt the need for a second revolution and he thought there were enough other people who supported the seceding states to make victory possible.

In his letter, Charles Harvey Brewster made it clear that he did not want runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. He derided his fellow officers who would do so. It was particularly telling when Brewster said that he thought Major Marsh would put more effort into returning a fugitive slave than fighting for the Union. The letter also documented the extent of fighting within the Union army camps over both the moral and legal obligations involved in whether to return fugitive slaves. (The fugitive slaves are called Contrabands because they are technically in the army camp illegally.) Brewster was from Massachusetts where he would have exposed to more abolitionist sentiments. He was speaking not just for himself but also for other recruits from his state when he spoke of Massachusetts blood being “riled.” They were “humbled” because they had to follow the orders of their captain or be accused of insubordination. (Perman and Taylor, 180) Brewster expressed his concern over the slaves when he stated, “I don’t know what will be done with them …” (P & T, 181)

Charles Willis who was from Illinois had a different perspective from Brewster on the runaway slaves. He was completely unconcerned about them and that they were much “better off with their masters.” (P & T, 181) He added that he wouldn’t help to send a slave back to his owner because he would be blamed. (by his unit?) He noted that his general pacified the slave owners by telling them that he would not allow the slaves to leave with the army but then did not keep his word. Willis knew that would cause trouble for the Indiana regiments that will be left to guard the territory.

Eugene Blackford’s letter to his father was a good description of combat and camp life. He stated that the enemy (the Union side) had the minie muskets which gave them a firing advantage. It was interesting to read that he “never expected to be alarmed or excited in battle.” Fortunately, he was not disappointed with himself. Because he acted “cool” under fire, he anticipated always functioning that way. (P & T, 183) He referred to “my men” which makes me think that he might have been an officer. He described the hardships of being exposed to the elements and having inadequate food not to complain but as a way of expressing his pride for himself and his men for enduring them. (P & T, 183-84).

Wilbur Fisk’s letter was very insightful concerning the effects of political peace advocates and defeatists upon troop morale. It was a good idea for him to send this letter to a Northern newspaper (Montpelier, Vermont). That way both the politicians and the public could hear directly from a soldier instead of relying on assumptions. This letter was written in April 1863 after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. I think Fisk might be referring to that proclamation when he said, “the depths of principle involved in this controversy, and the wisdom of the policy the Government is adopting to bring it to an issue that God must forever approve.” (P & T, 185) Low morale can be fatal to soldiers and cause them to lose battles further reinforcing defeat and prompting desertions.

Lack of support from the public on the home front was especially a problem during the Vietnam War.  Due to media coverage concerning morale in Iraq and Afghanistan, many politicians and citizens protesting against the war stated publically that they supported the soldiers for serving their country but wanted to bring them home as soon as possible.

Tally Simpson’s letter home was a good example of a Confederate soldier trying to justify the turn in tide of battle after the defeats at Vicksburg and Port Hudson.  The soldier foresaw more major cities including Savannah, Mobile, and Richmond becoming lost to the Yankees. The letter revealed the intense religious devotion that was entwined with the fighting of the war. Simpson was attempting to keep his spirits up through his Christian faith. The Confederate losses must have been part of God’s plan, Simpson reasoned. “He [God] is working for the accomplishment of some grand result.” (P & T, 187) Instead of bitterly blaming the Confederate leaders, Simpson told himself that God directed them. He spoke of the war as God’s means to punish and humble the nation. (I think he is referring to just the Confederacy.) Yet, Simpson believed if he and his fellow soldiers maintained their trust in God and continued “working [fighting] in good earnest” that the Confederacy would be “victorious in the end.” (P & T, 187) This same line of thinking regarding God’s favor or disfavor would be employed by the South after the war in the Redemption.

Aaron Sheedan-Dean’s essay “Confederate Enlistment in Civil War Virginia” did a good job of revealing the diverse reasons why Virginians supported the Confederacy and the war in general. (P & T, 187-199) In my opinion, Dean did not draw a clear distinction between those who supported the Union and those who ended up fighting for the Confederacy based upon socioeconomic and demographic factors. He states that there were Confederate recruits even from pro-Union northwest Virginia which would eventually form the new Union state of West Virginia. (P & T, 188) I can understand how Lincoln’s call-up of troops would make the “unionists look irresponsible” and cause some of them to switch their support to the Confederacy. (P & T, 189) Deen did not report the enlistment statistics for the various Virginian counties in an organized fashion so that a clear pattern could be discernable to the reader. I feel as though I would have to reread the whole essay and make up my own chart in order to be able to match and summarize all the enlistment percentages with their socioeconomic and demographic factors. What was clear from the essay was that “a wide variety of incentives” contributed to support from the Confederacy. (P & T, 198) Deen repeated the main motivations given elsewhere that Christianity, politics, the status of slavery, the need to prove one’s manhood, and the preservation of the status quo all contributed to southern secession and mobilization for war.

Chandra Manning’s essay “White Union Soldiers on Slavery and Race” (P & T, 199-209) was well-organized and easier to follow than Deen’s above. She systematically discusses the different views concerning emancipation of the slaves based upon race and deployment in the war. To us in the twenty-first century, it seems obvious to us that Union victory required emancipation as it did to black Americans in 1861. Manning did a good job explaining why it was not equally obvious to white Americans at the start of the war. The Union soldiers stationed in the South saw that they must deprive the Southerners of their workforce. Yet that would create a problem concerning what to do with the freed slaves. Due to prejudice, the North didn’t want them. Manning makes a good point that many Union soldiers separated emancipation from racism in their minds. They could be against slavery and still see the black race as inferior to the white race. Unfortunately, this view is still held by some Americans today.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 4 Blog Post

Week 4 Blog Post

Comments on Ordeal by Fire Appendices:

The additions and modification that the Confederate States made to the U.S. Constitution are interesting. (McPherson and Hogue, A-1 - A-3) Since one of the Confederacy’s proslavery arguments was that that institution was supported in the Bible, they added the phrase “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God” to the preamble. Also, they allowed a line item veto which was probably a reaction to the compromise bills over slavery such as in 1820 and 1850. Since the South lacked manufacturing for finished goods, the Confederate states did not want import duties. (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Par. 1) From my “northern” point of view, I think it is amazing that they would put in their Constitution that the government could not fund internal transportation improvements. (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Par. 3) They obviously wanted and expected that their society would be able to stay predominantly agricultural forever.

Since the slaveholders, in general, did not want universal suffrage even for white males and even stated that they were opposed to democracy, it is understandable why they would not want their president to able to run for a second term. (Art. II, Sec. 1, Par. 1) Incumbent candidates have an advantage in an election since they are already well-known. The Confederacy would likely not want their presidency to be a popularity contest.

Of course, they would write protections for slavery in their Constitution. (Art. IV, Sec 2, Par. 1 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, Par. 3) This is what they wanted the federal government of the Union to do although it did not. Therefore, the Southern states seceded.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in his inaugural address, denied that the seceding states were starting a revolution.  Calling it a revolution was merely an “abuse of language” on the part of the North. (McPherson and Hogue, A-4) Predictably, the Confederacy was unwilling to except any part of the blame for the sectional conflict. It was all the North’s fault, their “wanton aggression.” Although he kept referring to the secession as a peaceful action, he spoke of the possibility of war and the willing of the Confederacy to fight so many times that his speech had the effect of being a call to arms. He erroneously spoke of secession “as a necessity, not a choice.” (A-5) Secession is always a choice. The states called conventions to vote on whether to secede from the Union. When there is more than one option to chose from, voting represents a choice. The persuading of delegates by inflammatory language is another matter that was also by choice.  

Additionally, Davis naively thought that even if a war broke out, it would not affect crop production. Just because cultivation was not disrupted in the first month of secession, did not mean that it would proceed smoothly during wartime. Any reading of historical wars should have taught him that property destruction and depopulation of the countryside are likely.

President Lincoln was similarly naïve in his “Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress.” (McPherson and Hogue, A-14 - A-15) He thought it was possible to re-possess the forts and any other Union property seized by the Confederacy and still “avoid devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” (A-15)

Vice President Stephens’ speech in Atlanta on March 21, 1861 seemed to contradict a key assertion by President Davis in his inaugural address a month earlier. Stephens explicitly referred to the creation of the Confederacy not only as a revolution, but as “one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world.”  (McPherson and Hogue, A-13) He was correct in stating that there had not yet been “the loss of a single drip of blood” (A-13) because his speech was prior to the first shots of the impending war fired on April 12. He spoke as if the revolution was complete with the drafting of their new Constitution.

Written by Molly Kettler