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

Week 2 Blog Post

Week 2 Blog Post

Comments on A Hard Fight for We by Leslie Schwalm

     I am generally not too fond of historical gender studies written by feminists since they tend to overemphasize women’s lack of equality with men and insist that history would have been better off if that had not been so. Schwalm avoids that trap. Instead of bemoaning women’s oppression, she elevates the female labor above the male in the South Carolina rice fields. Contrary to the usual sexual division of labor in European history, the Negro women in SC did a great deal of physical labor as prime field hands. Schwalm attributes this division to the roles of their African ancestors. Female slaves brought over from Africa brought the knowledge of rice and indigo cultivation with them. Without their knowledge, rice would not have been grown in the colonies and later the United States.

     Although Schwalm’s focus is on women, she does not neglect to describe the male roles on the rice plantations. This helps the reader get a more complete picture of the division of labor. The sexual division supports her thesis that women were the backbone of rice cultivation since most males were engaged in maintenance, logging, or artisan roles. The author also describes in detail the daily lives of slaves who served in the plantation house.

     Schwalm uses plantation journals and WPA records to relate the interpersonal relationships between slave and master that evolved through the task system. Both sides co-opted the task system to their advantage. The task system differed greatly from the labor practices of cotton plantations where the field hands worked from dawn to dusk.

     It was no surprise to me that slave men looked to their wives to do all the domestic work. I got tired just reading about the black women’s lives! I would not have survived it. I like her quote on page 57 from Robert Smalls who said, “My idea was to have a wife … to have somebody to do for me and to keep me.” It was the first time I had read that slave women had to sew their own clothes from the cloth provided by the master (Schwalm, p. 59). I agree with the author that it is important to consider women’s after-task labor and field labor as an integrated whole. As any working mother knows, energy for evening activities depends a lot upon how hard one works during the day. On the plantation, without electricity for artificial lighting, as much as possible had to be done during daylight. Women had to work hard and fast in order to have daylight hours to do family chores. Schwalm makes the point that the SC slaves were better off than their female cotton-picking contemporaries who had no daylight hours left for their families when they were done in the fields.

Comments on Documents in Perman and Taylor's  Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction
     The documents in Perman and Taylor amply illustrate the sectional division between North and South during the 1850’s up to succession. They make easy to understand how both Northerners and Southerners could get offended by what the other side published about them. Frederick Law Olmsted’s (a white Northerner) essay from 1854 is filled with stereotypes. He refers to the Southerner as having “a large but unexpansive mind.” (Perman & Taylor, p. 31) Whereas, Olmsted associates the Northerner with “progress” and “doing.” (p. 31) Each side wishes to claim itself superior to the other as evidence by Helper’s and Hammond’s essays. (Perman & Taylor, pp. 33-35)

     George Fitzhugh’s essay (P & T, pp. 35-36) is an expression of Southerners priding themselves on not being a part of an industrialized, free labor society with the associated problems of trade unions and strikes. It was true that many low wage workers were on the verge of famine in industrialized France, Britain, and Northeastern cities. As a Southerner, Fitzhugh neglects to mention that not all were well-fed or well-housed and that the “benevolence” of masters varied greatly.

     J. D. B. DeBow (P & T, pp. 36-38) exposes that slavery existed for much more than economics. Keeping blacks in the inferior status of slavery kept the status of the white non-slaveholder high. This was one of the reasons DeBow thought non-slaveholders should support slavery – to keep the white race superior. (p. 37).

     It is truly incredible that proslavery clergymen could blame abolitionists for causing slave traders to be cruel to slaves. (P & T, pp. 39-40) Even if a master is not “obliged to treat his slaves cruelly,” it does not mean that he doesn’t. (p. 39) Rice dismissed cruelty to slaves as just “human nature” of a trader provoked by abolitionists. (p. 40) Rice should know that God does not excuse cruel acts of human nature without repentance.

     James McPherson’s “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism” (P & T, pp. 41-50) is an informative but rambling essay which lacks a thesis. Because it is by the same author as Ordeal by Fire, it duplicates much of the information but presents it in a less organized manner. McPherson accurately points out many of the differences between North and South, but to what end? His closing sentence that the Civil War’s aftermath “transferred the burden of exceptionalism from North to South” doesn’t make sense. (p. 50) I understand that the South was ousted from what McPherson calls “mainstream” after the war; however, that was due to its devastation. In my mind, “Exceptionalism” as in “American Exceptionalism” should refer to the good qualities in our country which distinguish it from others. McPherson twists the semantics of the term “exceptionalism.” I do not consider the war destruction and unwanted social upheaval of the American South as good, however exceptional, qualities.

     Steven Deyle makes an excellent point in his essay “The Domestic Slave Trade.” (P & T, pp. 50-63). Once Northerners viewed a slave auction for themselves, they were much more likely to view slavery as morally wrong as they see families torn apart. (p. 56) For this reason, the Upper South played a dual role in fostering the domestic slave trade and motivating the abolitionist movement. Harriet Beecher Stowe emphasizes the heart wrenching devastation to slave families from being sold apart in her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (p. 58) Deyle points out that it was impossible for Southerners to hide the unpleasantness of a slave auction from the public because it was a public entity. Since the auctions were advertised, even abolitionists could attend. The abolitionists could find ample proof that the separation of families was not an isolated incident.

Written by Molly Kettler

Week 1 Blog Post Part 2

Week 1 Blog Post Part 2

Regarding Perman and Taylor’s book Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction, I thought that McPherson supported his thesis in his essay “The Second American Revolution” (Perman & Taylor, pp. 3-14). The author uses a good analogy to begin his essay with Garfield as a radical Republican who wanted the federal government to confiscate the property of the southern planters following the Civil War as was done to the Tories during the Revolutionary War. Including Karl Marx’s view of the American Civil War provides another perspective not usually found in the American survey history textbooks. I doubt that hardly any of our politicians would approve of the analogy between the American Civil War and a Communist Revolution. McPherson points out that the Civil War does not dovetail well with “Marxian interpretation” despite Charles A. Beard’s assertion (pp. 5-7). Also significant to his argument was the percentage increase in black literacy following the Civil War to 1900 (p. 11). I agree with McPherson that it is more appropriate to evaluate black progress as the result of the Civil War based upon 19th century circumstances rather than the present.

Leeann Whites’ thesis in “The Civil War as a Crisis in Gender” (Perman & Taylor, pp. 14-24) that the Civil War was an assertion of manhood for both Northern and Southern white men as well as for black men is significant but not necessarily novel. From my viewpoint, all wars throughout history have been a test and assertion of manhood. Since the addition of women into the armed forces (unofficially during the Civil War and officially as early as WWI in the U.S.), war has become a test of both manhood and womanhood. It is part of being human to want to not only prove one’s own worth, but also to prove that one is better than the next person or, in war, the enemy.

Whites points out that the northern white men initially did not want the black men to fight in the Union Army (p. 17). The Union officers felt compelled to include blacks later only due to the outstanding rate of attrition among the enlisted ranks. Both northern and southern whites did not want the blacks to share in any of the glory that might result from combat. The Civil War brought women outside of their domestic sphere and into the public/political sphere. Yet, Whites emphasizes that, after the war, neither black men nor white and black women achieved the equality and freedom they had been hoping for (p. 24).

The essay, “The First Occupation,” by Edward L. Ayers was very insightful. (Perman & Taylor, pp. 24-27) It was written for the general public since it was published in the New York Times Magazine in 2005. Due to the timing, it was obviously intended to be a commentary upon and warning for U.S. conduct in the war/reconstruction in Iraq. Supposedly, as Bush declared, we had already won the war in Iraq well before May 2005 and were engaged in reconstruction. Considering that there were still frequent bombings and battles occurring at that time, it is hard to insist that the war was over. Reconstruction is a lot more difficult when those engaged in it fear for their lives. Northern white men and women that came to the South to help blacks after the Civil War were threatened and attacked as well.

Ayers point number six is an excellent observation. When the duration of reconstruction stretches into years, it is likely to be viewed by the native population as oppression (p. 26). This was true for Iraq almost from the start. Reconstruction in the American South lasted almost ten years (1867-77). It is easy to understand why the Southern whites wanted the Northerners and the Union Army out.

Ayers concludes his essay by saying that “the reconstructor must transform a society in its own image without appearing selfish or self-righteous.” (Perman & Taylor, p. 27) I do not think that is a realistic possibility regardless of the intent of the participants in reconstruction. Even when the motives of the reconstructors are good, those among the conquered who do not want their society changed will view them as invaders. This is simply an unavoidable part of human nature that should not be overlooked when embarking on a reconstruction project in any nation.

Written by Molly Kettler