The Civil War in Historical Memory

While remembering events such as the Civil War is tremendously important to our American history, no event can be remembered objectively, concretely, or without prejudice of some sort. I think it was Walt Whitman who said that perhaps they should not, probably referring to the sacred nature of the Civil War and how language can do no justice to the horror of the many civil and military deaths.

However, write they did and so long after the war but far removed from our generation, it is fascinating to read what each side thought. In some ways, I think the glossing over and rejoining of both sides had to do with having no choice but to unite but also a real sentiment of reunification. It really is almost as though we forget "what a bad temper Aunt Matilda had" at her funeral and eulogize only her good traits, if you will.

The first document is from Jubal Early (what a name!) who defends the "Legacy of the Confederacy" in August of 1873. Here, he is writing for out-of-state visitors to Va. I fancied when he wrote about Noah Webster because I liked that he used the word history and story as meaning two distinct things. It is almost comical that he says writers are making up what they want to about the war and that that is not history but a fable. He writes that this happens with Northerners and Southerners alike. He does directly reference the North in how the South is portrayed as rebels and traitors and finds it of utmost importance not to allow that to happen by framing the war in a positive Confederate light. He even calls out each Federal general to make a point! Then he takes issue with Southern historians who claim to know, "ex post facto" or after the fact, how to have won the war (hindsight really is 20/20). He does make a good point there. His article, which I assume was continued at length elsewhere, pays tribute to all southerners who participated in the war heroically and unselfishly. He basically is asking folks of the South to write about themselves in the way the victors of the war also see themselves.

The second document from Roger Pryor (Confederate general) reminds me of selective memories which I referenced in my intro. Here, the general writes to the Committee persons to elevate the heroism of the soldiers. However, he honors them in a way that seperates their honor (which I understand to be typical per our class lectures) over emancipation. I think he really wants some sort of conciliation, but it is at the cost of what it meant for ex-slaves. Pryor blames the politicians for the conflict and references the Missouri compact of "pacification" and calls abolitionism an "agitator." I think where he says "imaginary wrongs" and "fictitious evils" caused folks to become furious is where  he is most insulting and genuine only to himself. Pryor feels the constitution with a small "c" shone with a "sinister aspect" towards the south This is quite an angry or sarcastic statement. There are so many loaded statements here that the reader understands his is not really a speech of someone who admits wrong, but of someone unrepentant and downright mad that 1) the South lost and 2) won't admit the cause by referencing the heroism of soldiers over the cause (slavery) and 3) cries foul! where he can. He indirectly speaks of Lincoln where he says, basically, "you (Lincoln) promised not to 'touch the least of the securities of slave property.' The end of his speech regards how the war was won- not by men but through God - which was something usually said by the North. I think his saying that removes the victory from the North even if they strongly beleived in a deity who watched over the country. What a speech!

The third, fourth and fifth articles are from prominent Unionists such as Douglass, Sherman and Holmes, which appeal to citizens in different manners. I love reading Douglass because he writes so eloquently and with the unique perspective offered from someone with intimate understanding of what emancipation and occasion meant for "that class of our fellow citizens to which I belong" and for all Americans in general. He speaks to the "brave and noble spirits, living and dead." My favorite parts are not only when he writes about how important the war is to the memory of all who served and lived or perished and to emancipated millions, but also where he speaks of what peace carries behind her. He says peace is good, but liberty, law and justice is "first." H eknows the amendments are important, but so too is having them "faithfully executed." He knows from first-hand experience that the letter of the law and its' execution are two seperate spheres. Later, he launches into direct language about law and the rights of the weak, using a Biblical reference to the "prodigal son." Despite this, he says that we must not say who was right or wrong, but more importantly, meet on "common ground." His last paragraph  is beautiful for its' word choices but also as a reminder of his faith in Americans who are "true to themselves." He personifies the Nation as a person with a "strong heart," its' weakness, of course, having been slavery. I wish I could write like him and so many others (N and S) who put thoughts into words and beleived - right or wrong - in what they wrote and felt.

Sherman's speech exemplifies the same thing that other speeches in both areas of the U.S. did - that one side was right, the other was wrong. He is unapologetic and more defiant than Douglass, saying that the Union saved itslef from "total annihilation" or from "anarchy." I got a chuckle out of his "intestine war" comment, which I took to mean an entity which attacks itself is derived from anarchy. However, he does acknowledge that preventing war is better than declaring war and wants both sides to "unite." His last paragraph is a vision of America for all people and their descendants.

Holmes writes in 1884 about reconciliation. His essay begins with a newer generation asking about what the importance of Memorial Day celebrations and the author answers why in this essay. He recognizes that future generations of kids will need to understand that celebrating no matter what side you were on is important for our future reconciliation and also for those who died. His two last paragraphs contain gorgeous imagery of "the lonly pipe of death" and "symphony of flowers" at spring when we remember the war on Memorial Day (Decoration Day). That day and the season signify to him a renewal of brotherhood, of "daring, hope and will." Youth also signifies this new hope of a renewed nation; lovely writing.

George Williams in doc. 6 wrties about the importance of a monument for black soldiers to honor their contributions. I know it has been done, but I wondered if it was done in the same way he suggested? I will research this. Regardless, he has it right in 1888 to bravely say that "History contains no parallel" to this war, slavery, and the disenthralment thereof. He makes many references to God and likens the South to a biblical pharoah, which was not uncommon writing in that time. I felt that his acknowledgement in numbers of black soldiers who died shows readers a symbolic and concrete commitment from those soldiers to the cause. The last paragraph shows how the government can honor said contribution and he sketches out the statues, how they should look, where they should be placed, and how many there should be in honor of each military branch. The fact that he refers to the appearance of blacks as peripheral ot "incidental" in stories led me to believe he may also be African-American.

The last document is from Walt Whitman, who feels that the real war may never get in tot he books. He writes in 1882-3 here about the war being forgotten, how emotion affects how we think and write during emergencies, and how the "real war"  is hell and cannot be captured (or perhaps should not be) in recollective writing. The "stray glimpses of life" he refers to are all the small details forgotten in the heat of such a war, never to be captured again. I think he says it should not be because those moments are sacred. To capture them ,we must tell it right and do those moments and the soldiers, justice in the telling. But since war is such a personal experience (per his anecdote), it is not possible. His word choices are as beautiful as any other, especially where he says the war was like a "heavy-pouring constant rain."  These documents left an inmpression on me more indelible than any other documents because they come after the war from people who were so impressed by the war that they understood the solemnity of it and the unparalled destruction of the time.

Reconstruction Policy in the North and South; Amendments 13-15

Ending slavery in the South and ending the war were not the only tasks faced by the North. How would the North rebuild the war-torn South? What policies were going to be put in place to make sure the South would not only rebuild, but never again attempt secession? What to do with displaced freedmen and women? In some ways, this task seemed just as formidable (if not for the number of the dead in both armies) than the war itself.

Amendment 13 abolishes slavery with the provision that Congress can enforce this law.
Amendment 14 section one through five, gives makes freedmen citizens with full rights to life, liberty and property with full due process of the law. Reps. will be assigned in numbers proportionate to state representation, which means all males will be counted (male suffrage) for this purpose. No one except for folks (CSA) who participated in the rebellion or any other crime should be denied this right. The next section says anyone who participated in this rebellion can hold office in the US, esp. if the person had previously held office and still participated. The next section (4) speaks to public debt, insofar as this debt incurred because of the war should not be questioned, which means ex-slave owners could not seek damages against the government in payment for the losses sustained because they began the rebellion by seceding, which made them enemies of the gov. Section five means Congress has the power to enforce all of the above.
Amendment 15 gives all citizens except women the right to vote and it cannot be denied based on race or color. Again, Congress can enforce the above laws.

I should note that the law was more easily written than complied with in the South. It is esp. notable that it took awhile for the laws to be put in place due to the new president and disagreement about what Reconstruction meant for the Republicans. Some people wanted Radicalism, others a more moderate appraoch, afraid of how the South would react.

In Chapter 19, document one represents the "Grasp of War" speech by Mr. Dana, a lawyer who felt he could "justify" the reconstruction policy based on constitutional law. He wanted the Republicans to adopt this theory, which begins with an anecdote about fighting and what the victor should hold the loser  (the SOuth) accountable for. Namely, that "The conquering party may hold the other in the grasp of war until it has secured whatever it has the rights to require" (p. 325). This was so famous that others began to quote from this speech. The requirement was for whatever "the public safety and public faith make necessary," which was open to interpretation in the South and North. I could imagine the applause this received, just as the letter being read aloud from Lincoln in Springfield elicited shouts and applause during the staged letter-reading. I thought it was awe-inspiring when he kept asking about freedmen's rights in terms of the right to hold land, to testify in court, to bear arms, and so forth because it reminded one of a call-and-response sort of speech ("Have we not? Is it not?"). Here, he acknowledges that they should not make the South hostile to the nation and that there are two courses of action: to "permit the body politic to go on" and to "obliterate it." He further acknowledges that he doesn't want to get rid of the states, but considers them to be as planets which orbit the sun, or states which "orbit" a national, central government. Lastly, he wants us to "hold" those states as hostile if they do not hold to making constitutions satisfactory to the Republic. This speech is referenced in the first essay.

Document 2 is Sen. Trumbull explaining his Civil Rights Bill in 1866. This bill is about protecting freedmen and their rights or the right of "suffrage." He says we either live by the "ballot or bayonet" which I took to mean that either this is enforced or there will be violence. The last part, where he says either it is passed or the Constitution id a "cheat and a delusion" is daring for the times, but true.

Doc, 3 is Rep. Stephens stating his "Terms" in 1867. He makes the case for confiscation of property as a form of reconstruction because he is worried about the control of Congress by copperhead parties, among other things, and warns that "negro suffrage" is important in every rebel state. However, true to the times, he says that while every man has these rights, no one should be forced to sit with a black person, that the aforementioned was a matter of "private taste," implying racism.

Doc. 4 is Rep. Julian's definition of Reconstruction. Here, he objects to the Reconstruction bill, saying the Rebel state are "not ready" to be independent states. He wants central government to "make it safe" for all. I thought it was interesting that he references freedmen and whites, but also "Old World" immigrants, which I had not seen in other speeches unless I am mistaken. Particularly, he is interested in a safe North, living in democracy, and again true to the times, a Christianized society is "what the Rebel needs." He almost seems to take on a father-knows-best attitude, saying that "states must grow" by being "fostered and protected."

Document 5 is Sherman's urging of caution and moderation for the South. This was a common trope, it seems, of the moderate Republican. He thinks that the policy of Reconstruction is humiliating for the  South because they have gone through enough with the devastation of property and lives lost the war bought about. He cautions that the US should "Beware" and allow states to form their governments, opposite to what some believed about the conquering North.

Doc 6 is Congress's Act/terms for the Rebel State's readmission and reconstruction thereof. Here, the 14th amendment is adopted as discussed above, with five sections. Also, the Recon. Act delineates the terms of Reconstruction and what it entails for the South as well as the nation. Rebel states will be divided into military districts and a ranking no less than brigadier general shall govern each district. This proved to be both good and bad, to put it simply, for the freedmen in the South. It also states that no one can be put to death without the President's approval, and cites article fourteen plus all the rights conferred on said citizens. All of the requirements allow the states to re-enter the central government in a provisional manner, similar to a probationary period.

Document 7 is Tourgee's condemnation of said policy. He doesn't like the fact that freedmen will be given equality and I believe he refers to abolitionists (if I read this correctly) as knave or fools or both. He thinks black citizens need the patriarchal, racist protection of their masters for their own good and says so very explicitly and directly.

Foner's essay discusses both Radical Republicans and their policies on Reconstruction. Even if they were a minority in Congress, however, it seems eventually their policies passed in Congress. Foner discusses their successes and shortcomings re. the policy. He references Stephens, for example, to point out that public policy and personal policy were sep. matters. He also writes about their economic policy as being short-sighted and vague and mostly in the interests of the North. He provides examples of what they wanted and why confiscation of property would ruin the vision of "black yeomanry" as part of this labor ideology. Benedict's essay was more complicated for me and had to do with his theory that this "Radical Reconstruction" was more conservative than not because of their commonly held, traditional constitutional views on the role of a central gov. in relation to the states. Both essays discuss radical and conservative republicanism and its' successes/shortcomings.

Chapter 11 is about "Life and Labor in the South after Emancipation." Here I found that life was not "idle" for the freed men and women as expressed by white Southerners. Documents 1-6 show the different points of view via race. For example, Mattie Curtis related her struggle after Emancipation, where a Georgia planter in doc. 2 speaks about freedwomen as "idle" and requests that they be impressed to forcibly work. I thought about how ironic that was, considering white women were not forced to do the same and that goes back to patriarchal ideology and the destruction thereof folowing emancipation. Agents for the freedmen's bureau also reported on the conditions in the South and we get a glimpse at how difficult life was for both white and black citizens. When a system collapses, a society must redefine itself and smooth out its' problems, but the South could not seem to do it alone.

This Republic of Suffering by Drew Gilpin Faust

In This Republic..., Drew Gilpin Faust writes so elquently, profoundly, and yet directly on the subject of death in the Civil War. I have never read so extensively on this subject before now and was surprised by
some information. Other facts, such as the brutality in killing, did not take me aback. However, I am glad we read this book next to last because it almost sums up the course in that it treats aspects normally (and perhaps necessarily due to time constraints) "glossed" or barely touched upon in the other books.

Of course, just as Tolstoy was fascinated with the psychology of a killer and killling in Crime and Punishment, Faust (who mentions him as well) knows a modern day reader will probably be drawn to such a taboo subject on a war mostly studied briefly and from afar in high school history. Deliver she does, though respectfully, in minute detail. It seems cliche to write, but the title is perfect and each chapter in succession treats every aspect of dying as though she were chronicling a person's life.

The chapters are: Dying, Killing, Burying, Naming, Realizing, Believing and Doubting, Acccounting, Numbering, and Surviving. Faust not only writes about the soldiers, for example, but also on other related topics such as the effects on survivors (i.e:  fellow soldiers and family), black Unionists, letters, God and religion, undertakers, greed, comparisons to other wars and so forth. So profound is her research that there is little left to imagine; It is almost as if the Civil War era were speaking from beyond the grave.

In "Dying," Faust marks the not what she considers to be a Good or bad Death, but what Victorian beliefs were of that time through soldier's letters and other things such as clergymen's assertions on the topic. This topic is especially important because although modern society is not too far removed from those ideas in terms of religion (like Catholicism and ideas on salvation, extreme unction, etc.) we ARE far removed from the time due to technology and distance in other wars of the kind. Really, we were destroying one another - other Americans that mirrored us in many ways other than national origin. In this chapter, she writes about Victorian codes of culture, such as gender, patriotism, and religion as important preparation for soldiers in the event of death. Because of the ideas of that time and the War's unprecedented brutality in casualties, soldiers had to prepare for a Good Death. Death was foremost on the minds of civilians and authors alike, such as Emily Dickinson, Tolstoy, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, which implies a cultural saturation of huge proportions. Faust writes using Latin terms such as hors mori (hour of death) and  ars moriendi (death among memebers of family) to help explain why dying a good death was important to the soldier (most of the time) and his family. I was surprised by the fact that hospitals would have been considered to be for the indigent, not respectable soldier. Dying with family was first, followed by dying among friends in combat who could tell the family what occurred, and then perhaps dying among supporters, depending on whose side you fought for.  Spiritual condition was the reason for this because most people in that time wanted to know whether the soldier would be recieved unto Heaven or doomed to an eternity in hell.
I also didn't know that soldiers purposely executed for defecting from thier units were considered an example of dying a Bad Death because they were 1) shamed and 2) unprepared to meet their Maker. Memento mori, or mementos of death was especially sad to me, but brought joy and finality to a soldier's family as someone's dog tags, for example, would provide closure for a modern family. In this manner, families could somehow extrapolate what a soldier may have been thinking or feeling.

"Killing" was a little harder to read because it is hard for anyone to imagine killing anyone. Faust writes that while some soldiers had difficulty with killing due to religious beliefs, others seemed to go wild after the first taste of blood, so to speak. I was surprised to learn that some soldiers refused to kill even if it meant dying as a result. Others killed with abandon, especially when confronted by a dying enemy who begged for water but recd. a bayonet thrust instead, writes Faust.  Particularly atrocious was the fact that weaponry such as it existed forced a soldier to be too intimate with killing in relation to proximity (not that killing from afar is okay). This was so damaging to the psyche of either side. Recently, an English professor at NEIU told the class that one of his students returned from the war with a vacant look and had "never been the same kid after Vietnam." It must have been hard to shoulder the burden of killing in a society with high regard to religion and moral duty! Blacks were considered unequal and were never taken prisoner, but summarily excuted without mercy as inferiors who could not be equal to a white "secesh" soldier. :( For many, though, killing was the duty of any loyal soldier. I also thought sniping was a recent thing, like during Kennedy's time, and was again surprised at this and the fact that killing while a soldier was taken unawares was considered cowardly. I thought anything went, but it makes sense in conjunction with moral code. It was super hard to read about the stench which ensued - the "efluvia" as they called it, which emanated from soldier's bodies (esp. in places where they lay for many days! Putrid corpses changed color dramatically.

The chapter on interment was very interesting for a few reasons. For example, the government eventually had to step in and create a national cementary due to the obvious logistical problems with burying. Also, Faust details how and why some bodies were buried while others (to prove a point to enemies) were left unattended. I cannot imagine living in an area where the air is saturated with such a smell. It is said that once one smells it, one never forgets it. Equally disgusting was the fact that people were often thrown on other's properties (imagine finding 50 soldiers in your drinking well water!) or left for the vultures. Sometimes they weren't buried deep enough and resurfaced and others with more means were buried in caskets. The detail on undertakers cast a sinister undertone even as they scrambled greedily to profit from dealing with officer bodies over lower-ranking officers. It would be unthinkable today to follow soldier units "just in case." I did wonder how caskets were refrigerated though and Faust says the business of burying was so expensive, most were buried without coffins. Some people even visited survivors or graves to satisfy morbid curiousity rather than "helping" (p. 85).

Naming was of course important too. Every single culture I have ever read about names children upon birth and each carries his/her name unitl death. I thought about the "Unknown Soldier" not as someone in Arlington, but as many who were never recognized during/after the war and therefore, suspended in a question mark for all time. How painful for families! I also noted that the disruption of normal life had to cause a disruption in good information. Faust also suggests that some people did less than they could have in naming these soldiers individually. Where they could not be ID'd, some folks were thrown in to a general area and buried among many. Others devised ways of a rudimentary id by way of carved medals bearing their name or pamplets bearing the same from the Commision or other Christian Society. Folks also carried pictures which could help identify and send a body wherever home was. The anxiety survivors experienced had to be overwhelming and isolating as they waited for word that sadly, sometimes did not come. Naming was also important for the practical purpose of claiming money or inheritance.

"Realizing" deals with mourning. Some people died as an indirect result due to injuries from an exploding shell, for instance. Preachers explained when mourning became excessive, while others like slave families, died of starvation. The war did not take just soldiers, but a lot of women and children too. Authors became obsessed with and wrote about the "visions" of death and dying whether by war, starvation or yellow fever. The custom of mourning by showing your sadness in black clothing and veils was also important as an expression. This reminded me of 9/11 not in the scale of what happened, but in the aftermath of grief, where families were united, suicides from depression were occuring, and the nation wasn't "right" for some time. I can understand how some people in the Civil War simply waited anxiously until reunification could occur in "another life." Making sense of something so tragic, so huge, had to be done this way. The opposite would have meant lose of hope and purpose."Doubting and Believing" needs very little explanation then. In this chapter, faust explains what this "universal lamentation" meant. People either turned to religion or questioned it, but we know that God was always central to the question of what war and death meant. Most would have understood from their N/S perspective, that the war came because God wanted to right wrongs and "science" and religion became "unified." Some people gave up in this belief, feeling that God just didn't care or wasn't divine. Still, reunification in another world led to ideas in Spiritualism or the beyond. I know from my research that Stowe was one of those people. it made sense to them or else nothing could. The newspaper with "Voices from the Dead" seemed creepy though. I also didn't realize the Ouija Board came as a result of this! War seemed "glorious" no longer.

The last three chapters, "Acccounting," "Numbering" and "Surviving" deal with the horrendous aftermath of war. Accounting meant making sense of the non-sensical by making the war "purposeful." This is the true meaning of when people say someone should "not die in vain." Death had "exacted a cost" too high and unbearable for all Americans during the Civil War. People had to buried with dignity and women in particular answered this call with grace and solemnity. In Numbering, the losses were related to in terms of money langauge, writes Faist. We had to pay for the war's cost, for example, and redeem "losses" sustained by burying the dead in honor. Not everyone liked having women in their midst in this effort, and said so loudly. I am so grateful to be able to read diaries of this time to know what people like Clara Barton were thinking and feeling. "Surviving" is the last chapter and short for a reaosn. What can a survivor do except to be alive? I suspect many like Mary Todd Lincoln, were depressed enough to wish death for themselves. Still, this was a new americ, writes Faust, one that necessarily and sadly went on to redefine for themselves what war meant. As if speaking to each individual reader, Faust shows her own profound emotion and scholarship dually by writing about what the Civil War did for today's Americans, which is taken for granted unknowingly. Death really is the only end, as she states, and my hope is that we learn from it and use it to understand our past as Americans so we can understand our futures too. I understand war and know we owe so much to veterans past and presnet. What a sad, good book to read right around this annniversary of the Civil War and Veteran's Day!

The Northern Home Front, P&T

Studying the Northern homefront has been as enlightening as learning about the Southern home front. In class we learned that the North wasn't necessarily as united as the South or even modern citizens would beleive. Instead, the war in the North was characterized by men and women with interests of their own and "attachments to individual states," which eventually cobbled together to build an "American identity" (p. 210). The focus on ordinary citizens, especially Northern women, was most appealing to me.

Document One - Isabella Duffield
In this document from 1861, the president of the Detroit Ladies Aid Society asks women to aid in the war effort via the "steady purpose" of providing for soldier's needs. Here she asks women to send mittens, caps, shirts, blankets, and so on to the soldiers and calls it a "noble mission," for "humanity sake" (p. 212). There is no talk of partisan views (though I suspect Republican over anti-war democrat alignment here?) and it is still early in the war. She references God in her appeal for help and also the saying that "women feel where men act" (p. 212). My interpretation of this is that she means women should both feel and act as two actions which go together and not just something to pay lip service to. Duffield also makes no class division, saying that the rich are in as much need as the poor and finishes in urgency and reerences to God.

Document Two - Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Though these two women were more well-known, I was excited to read their documents. These go along with Silber's essay about the charges that Northern women were disloyal to the cause, unlike Southern women .What is interesting is that this view must have been widely held and not just something men mulled over in newspaper "editorials" or privately with each other. Written when the war was already two or so years underway, Stanton replies to those charges by stating "facts" and asking women to define for themselves what loyalty means. Cleverly, she references Adams' mother and writes that theory and practice must be aligned. That is, all people, not just men, have the right to the blessings of liberty by abolishment of slavery. To do otherwise is to ascribe to a "backwards" way of caste and class, in her view. In my opinion, this is a call to mobilize and reject being "out of time and tune with independence" (p. 213). In the next document, both Stanton and Anthony call for a meeting with the Loyal Women of the Nation. The idea that the north is divided with unique interests is evident when she writes that neither policy nor other sectional interests should take away from women viewing a common goal of freedom and justice. I think this documentis radical for their day because it places women's political and work-productive responsibility on equal footing with men's responsibilities. "Woman is equally interested and responsible with man in the final settlement of self-governemnt," she writes on p. 214, and calls on them as "daughters of the Revolution" to mobilize in this united effort. For lack of better terms, this document seemed a lovely response to the doubts that Northern women were less dedicated than Southern women and I feel forward-thinking as well.

Document Three - Protest of Wartime Wages
This document was written to President Lincoln in 1965 shortly before his death and attests to unfair labor wages. It is signed by "wives, widows, sisters, and friends of the soldiers in the army of the United States" (p. 214). Curiously and bravely, it is numbered almost as would be a document of protest. In this lette, the women assert that they are indeed loyal and willing to do the work required of them, but ask in number two to cut out contractors, or the middle man. I calculated that those contractors were making 40% or so profit while women were getting paid peanuts, so to speak. I liked that they asked to work directly for the governement as a partial solution to this problem but that they wrote at all is cool. They seemed to understand that they had the power to provide a crucial service to the soldiers. It also seems that by adding words like "humble" and "prayer" they are both careful to appear loyal but ready to word their protest in an acceptable manner.

Document Four -Henry Bellows
In this document, Bellows explains the work and goals of the Sanitary Commission and its importance as a society in war time aid. He explains why the society is important and expresses here a sense of national unity and is not sympathetic to statish (in his words) or local governments, which he says created the war in the first place. However, if I understand correctly, Bellows thinks women to be withdrawn from partisan strife, as opposed to not really being allowed into politics (man's sphere). As a result, he feels there is more a "wonderful spirit of nationality" in women which porvides for the needs of soldier's through the society and their own productive labor.

Document Five - Lincoln's Address to the Central Fair in Philadelphia
The first paragraph speaks to war's destruction, which in 1864 had to be foremost on the president's mind. He says it is "deranged" business and proclaims that the "heavens are hung in black." It had to be quite depressing for him and his mind must have been preoccupied in this horrible war that caused not only death, but debt and destruction/ruin of property and the nation as a whole. He says that the benevolent societies are doing large things in aiding the soldiers , whom he praises. He goes on to say that while the aforementioned is patriotic, that he cannot say when the war will end and is determined to see its end only when his goals are accomplished. I didn't miss his description of women as fair and "tender" handed, or that any effort given limited resources was greatly appreciated under the circumstances. the object to be attained that he describes on page 217 is most likely the end of slavery and a united America. Though cognizant of war being "hell," he seems committed to doing whatever it takes including continuing for another three years if need be. His proficient oratory is evident when he poses a question to his audience which elicits "cries of yes," which is basically, will you aid us when we need you?

Document Six and Seven - Chase Appeals to the public for financial support (1861) and The N.Y. Tribune Supports Exansion of the Governement Bond Drive (1865)
Though written four years apart, the intended audience in both documents is the public. Public resources were ery important in a war which was draining the nation's economy. Chase uses national bonds "to transmute the burden into a benefit"  on p. 218. These will benefit both the government and the people because it causes interest to be paid from the government three years from the time purchased. Aside from personal benefit, the citizens help themselves also by contributing to their nation. He also delineates a bond plan fully in the last paragraph. The last document explains how Jay Cook is now a leader in that effort, as described in Lawson's essay. The importance of this hits home in the last paragraph, whivch states that the "nation will be hooped" (joined together) via these bonds "stronger than steel" (p. 220).

The Essays - Silber and Lawson
Silber's essay was thought porvoking: why were Northern woman considered dispassionate or not loyal to the Northen cause? Women's patriotism was problematic at the onset of the war because it was viewed only through their husbands. That is, she writes women were not considered politically autonomous and were expected to "sacrifice" domestic focus in favor of support for men's public and political obligations (p. 221). Silber's focus on Northern women stems from the fact that certain conditions informed "the North's discussion of gender and patriotism" (p 222) more than the South's. Females as self-less martyrs were the day's views, which were couched in feminized forms. In other words, women were supposed to be "submissive" (p. 222). Yet, as the war progressed, women had to redefine who they were and what they believed while proving national allegiance. Her point about other issues clouding women's patriotism was so important because it helped illustrate that sometimes those worries were put off too specifically on women and their "failings" (p. 223). Silber touches on materialistic excess, classist ideas and how democrats viewed war protest akin to something unmanly and unpopular. The end of her essay observes that women "held themselves to a new standard of patriotism." She later asserts that what people thought about women's loyalty dissipated as they realized "women had to ground their own patriotism in their own individual understandings of the Union cause."

The second essay by Lawson helped me understand who Jay Cooke was, the crisis (financially) of the war, and how bonds were to be used to strengthen nation and self. Cooke became the government banker and began advertising what war bonds could do. Namely, they helped the country to flourish/stabilize by providing for citizen's self-interest. Acccording to the article, the word was put out by ads and circulars which urged "readers" take out war loans also. This was a way to support the government and one self. I never knew Cooke was the driving force, much less that there was so much bond literature. By appealing to self-interest, Cooke was promoting patriotism and much more. Men and women who did so were acknowledged publicly, which I also did not know. The essay also traces the impact of the war bonds, its success, and Cooke's construction of patriotism. Cooke, it is written here, was in fact less rooted in patriotism so much as a "classic liberalism" market model (pp. 243-244).  It worked though, and the people in turn were presented with a government which could be depended on for loans as a "big bank." By advertising and selling this model to all people, then, Cooke helped solidify the vision of "democratization" by serving the common folks' material interests.

The Southern Home Front, P&T, Chapter Eight

The Southern home front chapter explains many common misconceptions I had about the South. That Southerners suffered the distress of war I never doubted. However, to read it detailed in primary evidence and engendered by Southern female understanding, then how Southern women changed their views, provides another means of examining the war machine in an invaded area such was the South.

Documents One through Four - "An uneasy relationship with the COnfederate Govt."
The first document from Gov. Brown illustrates to the CSA vice-president his apprehension that his state has more to fear from "military despotism" than "subjugation by the enemy." Here he seems quite aware that no one but him has addressed these concerns as of September 1862. Though considered a friendly letter, it nevertheless highlights "dangerous usurpations of power" which centralize a government which was originally a pro states-power entity. Document 2 is more personal. Eliza Adams asks the government (Jefferson Davis) for exemption for her son. It both speaks for itself and for so many more whose husbands, sons, and sons-in-law were already conscripted and fighting, leaving women without help and dependent on those who remained, if any. Mrs. Adams' sacrifice is in the "giving up" of seven members of her family as proof to her loyalty. It seems she can bear no more and needs her remaining son to stay to help er and his sisters whose husbands are gone to fight. Document 3, though it seems simply written, is far from simple. It is a moving, at times apologetic, and at times warning letter written by "plain folk," letting the Gov. of N.C. know how spent and distressed white men and women of lower classes really are. Here the writer writes as a consensus of people who are frankly unable to buy any food to subsist due to high inflation prices of things like corn. He seems to say he is tired and distressed by the fact that plantation owners are living "high on the hog," so to speak, while they starve. In the middle of the letter, he lets the government know that if things do not change soon, they will murder for food that is affordable or get it at any expense. This is an act of desperation, not a willful warning, which he finds regrettable but necessary. It is so extraordinary because one often reads letters from politicians and wealthy landowners, even slaves, but rarely a protest from "plain folk" who see this as a rich man's war over rich men's interests - not something of their own making. Document 4 continues the disillusion from a government standpoint with the Confederacy. Document 4 is from N.C's legislature in protest over Confederate drafts/conscription and martial law. It's May 1864 and the letter initiates a series of protests written as "Resolved" to show their "alarm" over the aforementioned laws passed by the CSA. The legislature is stating that these laws endanger exactly what they are fighting for, a free government and people's rights. The document also argues state sovereignty isbeing destroyed via this military "despotism."

Documents Five Through Seven; women and the war
These documents helped me to understand how Southern women viewed conscription, public and personal  life, class and how their roles were changing. Particularly gone are traces of romantic war notions, to be replaced by the gloom and horrors which so tried them at every turn. Document 5 is Mrs. Edmonston's comment on public and "domestic life." She blames the abolitionist newspapers for inciting people against one another, can't believe Emancipation will happen, talks about the money situation as declining, and comments on African-Americans as unequal to white class status. She seems to abhor doing the work of the slaves during the slaves' Christmas holidays but talks about her prized pickles and wishes (of all things) she could wear silk. Document 6 is Cordelia McDonald's comments on class and the forced draft. She says many have deserted from the CSA military and while she cannot tolerate them for "giving up" she also acknowledges that she understands why they must do so and even feeds such men. She knows conscription is a "dreadful tyranny" to those who must endure freezing or starvation or both. Also, their families are suffering and she says those people would be in the same position under one government or another. Some of those "lawless people" even turn on defenseless folks, which helps the reader understand how "little law there was" that good for nothing except filling the army with deserters faster than it filled. Documment 7 is from Elizabeth PAtterson who is asking the Secretary of War to let her son go according to his talent in agriculture which seems to be backed by a law which authorizes men with over 15 slaves to be exempted. Her plea comes wrapped in her nationalism, which was common then and thought to serve the better of the country. PAtterson had already lost three son's to the war by the time she makes said plea.

Essays
Essay one by Faust was not surprising but fascinating. The author uses primary sources to detail how the war changed women. Once confident, women had to redefine themselves at the price of their health and mental well-being. The psychological toll of the war left women depressed, anxious, taxed, and "completely unhinged." The author compares women in this context to the people affected in Vietnam. Increasing the pressure was the fact that many could not grieve or express sorrow because they wanted to remain strong for their families. I so connected with them in this moment because they show a striking awareness of the deterioration of a society, especially women. Faust says this shifted the perspective from nationalistic to self-interested in terms of self-preservation. This was because they were tird of giving up their men to conscription, the army, and worse -death for nothing and wanted family needs to come above the governments needs. Though many seemed to throw elaborate parties which may have seemed odd or selfish, this reverting to traditional ways reasserted their right to reclaim some sense of sanity and normalcy which were truly fleeting.  However, the criticism was dire.

The second essay is from Taylor, in which she offfers "narratives of negotiation rather than of protest" for our perusal. In doing so, Taylor highlights this special means of communication with government by ordinary people as a way of presenting individual cases. This was important because women were thrust in these roles which previously belonged to men. by writing a certain way, those folks maintained that they were writing due to national duty, not in their own self-interest. Some people wrote on their own behalf as much as for their neighbor's. Family seemed to be at "the center" of this debate; they just couldn't survive or absorb further loss but knew to negotiate with the CSA rather than demand it. Letters were often read and responded to, which may have encouraged others to write.

Document three by Escott is about how things such as conscription, impressment, were unique. Tax-in-kind for example, the government's taxes on agriculture, caused undue burden on farmers. The author then says that oppostion to such policies was mostly from Governor's of CSA states and Davis defended the practices via the Constitution. In other words, DAvis' power was more centralized than anyone wanted. Therefore, Davis policies contradicted gov.'s fight for the preservation of state rights.

Amendments, P&T Readings, Schwalm's Hard Fight

McPherson and Hogue - "Emancipation Proclamation," President Lincoln
 Because we have discussed this already in class and I will refer back to this document in the other readings, I will be brief here. This document was issued by Lincoln on 1/1/63. Its' importance is central
freeing Southern slaves. However, it did not free Northern slaves because it was the South who had seceded. many have said it didn't go far enough and was only a military stratagy, but I think and scholars have written, that Lincoln really opposed slavery and knew why the war was being fought and where additional resources lay by way of black and white citizens. Prof. Morgan helped me to understand that in this document, Lincoln addresses the public's fears (especially with deeply entrenched racist views) but he also held them partly himself, or else he would not have stated that htey should "abstain from all violence," in part. Still, this document was a step in a crucial direction and much needed to end the war.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution
The 13th amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude except for punishment as a crime. It seems to be the beginning of Reconstruction and backs up what Lincoln set out to do - abolish the "peculiar" institution. Sec. Two of that article gives Congress the power to uphold it lawfully, so that it cannot be challenged.

The 14th amendment was ratified long after Lincoln's death, but extends Reconstructionist ideals by addressing several issues, including who is a citizen and what rights does a citizen have? Section 1 refers to both naturalized and American-born citizens as having the right to life, liberty, and property and not only be judged according to due procees of the law, but speaks to both national and state law. Section 2 is about each state's representation according to its' numbers of all people EXCEPT Native Americans and women, I noticed. Section 3 refers to military and high office that no person who holds such office could participate or have participated in any hostile action against the USA or given aid to the enemy. Its' implications are obvious in that no CSA officer would suddenly get elected to be Preident, for example. This is also a warning, in my opinion, to keep something like another rebellion from happening while solidifying national interest. Section 4 is about the validity of public debt and how it should not be "questioned" (A-21). Here it states that it applies only to Northern debt and Southern debt is not recognized as valid. in other words, "we're not paying for what you caused." Finally, section 5 reinforces that Congress has the power to uphold the aforementioned.

The 15th amendment contains two sections. The first keeps voters from being denied voter's rights based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Clearly, this was necessary to prevent those who held any hostility towards ex-slaves from discriminating against them at the polls. I think it was Douglas that wrote something about such, stating if you see a black man at the poll, let him alone! Love it. Of course, it leaves women out according to the principles of the day. The last section reinforces again Congress's ability to enforce this law.

Readings from Perman and Taylor
Whenever I think there can't be a reading or essay which touches me more, I find another to blog about. I love this book! This section regards the end of slavery and what it meant to whites and blacks alike in their own words. The first letter from Benjamin Butler shows the problems faced by confused military as they discover many fugitives fleeing from the South to Union lines. He calls the slaves' condition worse than "Egyptian bondage" (p. 287). Though he uses language which is unacceptable today, I understood that he keenly felt and knew what the "contrabands" and generals faced. Later in the war, he would be instrumental (according to one essay) in freeing three slaves who turned around and helped build a Union bakery. Here, he poses many questions baout what to do with them, whether they be considered property, and uses words like "starvation," "thrown away," "God's image," and so forth, which shows me he "gets it." This letter was for the Secretary of War, but I am glad our modern American public saw it preserved because it speaks to this war's difficult and strange circumstances.

The second document is short but is by the Freedmen's Commission. There are racist ideals in it to be sure, but it also acknowledges that the commision will bow to the government's wishes and do as ordered. I felt it used the word "quietly" because of the time's attitudes toward African Americans. It also refers to the treatment of African American refugees and recommends they be treated not as "spoiled children" but as self-reliant people who are not in need of charity. Though the racism here is hardly disguised, one can see a turning point - African Americans will forever be free and we must address it, it seems to say. I did wonder if this commission intended to also bow out, in part, of economic responsibility in future reconstruction?

The third document is Lincoln's defense of the Emancipation, also called the Conkling letter. After reading this, I found the Guelzo's statement about this letter being largely ignored by scholars except for a few references to be so true! Lincoln could not attend the meeting, but meant the letter as a way to not just "write" to Conkling, but to address the public and fears/concerns/objections. Here, he defends the E.P., and gives strong voice in rhetorical flourish to his detractors. I think this letter helped me realize Lincoln was sincere even more so than did the Proclamation! He speaks directly to "you," in such a way that I felt its' force and could not understand why modern scholars and others feel it is dry. His Emancipation policy is here delineated in a way that (as the essayist confirms) that shows Lincoln's great lawyering. Each point depends on another and even has hidden jokes, if one reads carefully between the lines. He writes about the policy, its' necessity, any compromise as a "waste of time," retraction and how there is no need for it (the law will handle it), gradual emancipation and its' rejection, and so forth. He goes even further by tipping his hat to black soldiers and writes "You say you will not fight to free the Negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter." Nice! Again, I hate the word Negro, but almost everyone then spoke this way. He talks about the war's progress also, but firmly says that he will keep his promise for their freedom. Lincoln knew at this time that "peace" had to come and could only do so by abolishing that dying institution. This is now my favorite Lincoln document!

Document four reconfirms what others were saying about the condition of fleeing slaves. It was written by Lorenzo Thomas and speaks to slave's mortality rates, the "helpless condition" they are in, sickness, his confeernces with Grant regarding said matter, and also acknowledges that "slavery has received its death blow" (p. 292). This letter shows again that fugitive slaves were vulnerable, but also no person in the military could deny now what the war was about - especially when confronted with African American's physical presence in large numbers.

Document five made me weep more than anything I have read in primary form. I guess in part because I am a mom, but also because it shows that mistreatment of brave African American soldiers and their families occurred on both sides of the line. Joseph Miller bravely wrote this letter (or perhaps was written for him after dictation? I say this because of the "mark" in the signature at the end) to "protest the mistreatment of his family by the U.S. Army." His detailed acct. ends in the death of his sick child due to the army's actions. War really is hell! The letter which follows his also highlights racial discrimination as was written by James Payne, a black soldier. This letter isn't just about discrimination, but tells how the war could have been won sooner if not for white attitudes towards fellow black soldiers. The letter is imassioned, concise, and makes an important point among many that although "some still plead " that "colored" sodiers are being treated well, he won't believe it until "one of the prisoners tells the story," which of course, means it is not so because no prisoner was treated well who was black.

Document 7 is by Douglass. I don't recall having read this one, but it is powerful as well. He claims black rights as important not just to the women's movement, but for the empowerment of the "black man." I wrote "this is amazing" in my margin because he is not asing for anything anyone else doesn't already have - simply, rights. I love the part where he wrote that he asked not for pity or sympathy, but to simply be allowed to have justice. This is the early 1960's come to life in 1865. His letter reminds one of when someone is talkd at and not to, especially when he says "Do nothing with us!" and that interference is an injury.

Document 8 shows the importance of slaves to the slaveowners; it is a recorded reminder of not only what slaves produced for those who treated them cruelly, but how slave aided in stopping the war through fleeing, stopping production, and so on. Ms. Thomas meant the entry as a diary lamentation, but I am also glad this survived in history because it shows the disintegration of a society which could not be.

Guelzo's essay is about the Conkling letter and as mentioned, the importance of its' content, Lincoln's skill in prose, but most importantly, Lincoln's solid commitment to emancipation. Guelzo uses Lincoln's words at every turn to prove the President's sincerity and skill, despite what other scholars have said (or not said) about the letter. The anecdote about Conkling's reaction elicited a smile from me - esp. the way it was delivered. Guelzo affirms that Lincoln's letter addressed "the public opposition to emancipation most directly..." (p. 300). I liked this essay a lot probably because of my major, but also because it mirrors the Conkling letter by imitating its' form of point/counterpoint with examples and treats the topic of black cicil rights and journalistic reception.  The next essay is longer but also valuable. It is by Glatthaar and carefully delineates the role of African-Americans in the war. Though he takes nothing away from white soldier's successes, the author confirms how and why blacks were important in the war. Topics such as roles, work sabotage, labor, the Confiscation Acts and how they helped turn the tide toward Confederacy defeat, obstruction and flight to Union lines helped to push the war towards its end. All of these factors made winning the war possible for the Union even when untrained soldiers were allowed to fight. I saw many of Schwalm's points here, especially regarding labor on former plantations. Black enlistment and white attitudes about such were also treated here.

Schwalm's Hard Fight...
Scwalm's scholarship on women is hard to encapsulate in just one paragraph (but I'll try - I'm also writing my paper on her). Chapter three is about the importance of women in conjunction with the end of the war. Women helped to destabilize the economy of South Carolina through work stoppage, resistance, etc. while showing great courage because the war came not only to men, but to women's home front and threatened, if not enveloped, their hearths and families. It signaled war-time change and the destruction of the South as it was known. The demands made of them during the war and shortages of food and supply meant they had less than before even as their work increased. Further, impressment "severed community" and familial ties, which meant that slaves had nothing to lose and much to gain in escaping or otherwise undermining the South's war efforts. Black men and white men became absent from the home as impressment and enlistment increased. Planters also got rid of slaves they couldn't provide for by black labor. "Wartime flight" also divided families at times and made Southerners doubly paranoid. Sometimes escape was necessary to avoid family separation too and this aided the Union because it meant more bodies for the fight. Schwalm also writes about what happened beyond Union lines, uses examples of individual families like Lizzie's  and writes about slave women's change in attitude as perceived in the South. The punishment inflicted on them was so very barbaric with the threat of death always looming and perhaps almost preferable to their terrible conditions.  I understand why humans do things they would never do under extraordinary circumstances as a result of this book. Chapter 4 and five regard the end of the war, destruction of that region's slavery, and the first year of freedom. I didn't know that slaves did not always perceive the Union soldiers as liberators and for two good reasons: first, they were told untrue stories by their owners designed for coercion, and second, I think the uncertainty of it all caused suspicion on their part for good reason. Who to trust but oneself? he pictures included tell a thousand words but I also found descriptions of unwelcome planters in the early end days to be interesting. Schwalm puts more into this scholarship than most! There was no going back and those brave women made sure of it, food, clothing, shoes or anything else notwithstanding.

Focus on President Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
   I read this address three times to make sure I was not only understanding what Lincoln was saying, but also reading between the lines, considering the audience, and comparing it to his second inaugural address.
   Lincoln was a great orator and given his background, he knew how to appeal to the masses. McPherson (p. 318) refers to Lincoln's metaphors as "homely, but effective," indicating his ability to reach the common American. I think this speech (as discussed in class) was intended for those who were undecided about his presidency and the question of war and slavery. Moreover, this address can be seen as perhaps reaching those undecided folks (Southern Unionists), although this was not apparent to me at first.
   This first address opens in a humble, conciliatory manner - not unlike Lincoln. He then gets right to the point and says he will discuss what is foremeost in the American mind, which to me shows he did not take his audience for granted. That is, he begins with the "Apprehension...among the people of the Southern states..." who beleive their property, peace, and personal security are "endangered." No fool, Lincoln knew that he should speak to them and appease them so as to resolve this crisis without war. To wit, he wrote that he had no intention to end slavery where it already existed, which he repeated in the first page of his speech. Yet he also says he will be fair in protecting all sections of the U.S., not just the South. Next, he provides that no fugitives will be freed, but will be returned to his/her "master" (my word, not his). He doesn't say he supports slavery explicitly, he simply believed he was following the Constitution. If he had not, the South would have accused him of being a hypocrite and had seen more reason to secede as they did.
   Yet, I also noted that Lincoln would not tolerate secession. He cites "perpetuity" in the law as the intention of the framers. That is, that they made no provision for the self-destruction of our government, and as such, the states could not "destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself" (A-8). He made it clear that the Union was perpetual and the "some action" implies war brought on by the Confederacy's actions. The President cites the law and several historic events to prove his point here.
   His next statement shows a balancing act - he was not going to "menace" or warn anyone, but was making sure they knew the boundary - the Union could and would "constitutionally defend and maintain itself" as he was charged to do by his office and by law with "no bloodshed or violence," if possible. In other words, he wasn't making a move unless forced to do so. This address was the month before the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln probably knew something of this sort would happen. His only promise was a lawful and honest one: that he would not make a move and maintain peace wherever possible while faithfully executing his duties to the nation.
   By page A-9 he acknowledges that there are people (Rebels) seeking to "destroy the Union" and I made note that he would not address a word to them. I thought this was powerful because it shows that he will not tolerate or recognize secessionists who are trying to dissolve the Union, much like a foreign body invading its' host. This also establishes that "Honest Abe" is fair, but firm - he is the Commander-In-Chief.
   The section following the aforementioned is a direct speech to the Unionists and those undecided border states. He warns that in the best interests of all, one side must give in to the other for the good of the nation and that the Constitution is vague on questions regarding states rights over national rights. However, he is clear that secession amounts to anarchy. Even though Lincoln respects the Supreme Court, he writes that people cannot completely turn it all over to the Court, especially making everything a political matter or they risk not being "their own masters." In other words, this is a government "for the people, by the people." I liked his husband/wife metaphor and understood it better this time. He meant that we could go to war, but we couldn't keep fighting, especially because the question would resurface given our geographic location North to South.
   Of course, I expected he would invoke God in his speech, though he saved it for the end on purpose, to be sure. Though each side believes his cause to be right, Lincoln is smart to let Americans know that whichever side wins, it will be because they are wise to provide no great power to any one administration. By saying/writing this, he is giving confidence to and trying to calm the public. The end of the speech is another direct appeal for peace, reflection and no hasty action. Again he appeals to Southern Unionists; "We are not enemies, but friends" he writes, and "Though passion may have strained it, it must not break the bonds of affection." He makes a complete circle around this inaugural speech which closes with the hope of avoiding war. Sadly, this was not to be.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
   As a little girl, I always loved Lincoln's style of speaking and writing, even if I had a vague idea of his meaning. Funny enough, I was about ten when I was "apprehended" drawing a cartoon of Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth in crayon - on my bedroon wall, no less (true story). I write this silly side note because I am imagining what it would be like for orphan children and widows of that time when they were listening to or reading his Gettysberg Address. What a sad, somber occasion! Delivered on November 19, 1863, this is one of his most famous speeches of all time. Lincoln spoke these words at the dedication of the National Military Cemetery, where so many lives were lost.
   It is fitting that it was short, although emotional. His first paragraph reminds us why we are a nation ("all men are created equal"), referring to the war as a "test" of whether our government could endure. I thought he was humble, sincere, and proper in that he says it was the soldier's blood which hallows the ground dedicated, not our doing in the dedication itself or any speech. It's ironic that he thought the world would not remember what was said there, but I understood that he wanted the attention on the purpose of the war itself, that "these dead shall not have died in vain." In other words, there is a sad, expensive lesson to be learned and not forgotten and that we owe those soldiers by remembering what happened on that field. Lincoln's last sentence illustrates that the Union should never "die," but that it was now a new Union which lived, though at a steep expense.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865
   Lincoln's second address is markedly different, both in tone and duration, from the first. This address is around sixteen months after the Gettysburg Address and, obviously, four years after his first and after secession. This time he begins with "Fellow Countrymen," rather than "Fellow Citizens," which to me is more cohesive or national.
   His tone is more hopeful, though guarded. Little did he know his life would end shortly thereafter, but he knew it could only be a matter of time at this point before the Confederates fully surrendered. With this in mind, he writes that the South made war, while the Union accepted war, rather than letting "it perish." He makes sure to state that slaves were concentrated in the South, acknowledges once again that such an institution holds a "peculiar and powerful interest," and finally affirms that slavery was the cause of the war. Even so, Lincoln repeats what everyone knew; the South wanted to keep slavery, while the North sought not to abolish it, but keep it from spreading. This was delivered a few years after The Emancipation Proclamation, so it makes sense when he writes that the war continued even though the "cause" of the war ceased to exsist. To his credit, he thinks that it's strange to wage war simply to "ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces" in a direct reference to slavery.
   What he wrote next was a more forceful condemnation than most of his styled speeches and surprised me more than the beginning of his address. He basically says that the war is our own fault, even if neither side anticipated its' duration or severity. Lincoln quotes Scripture here to call the cause (slavery) an "offence" which we must pay for dearly. His reprimand and invocation of God's wrath is appropriate given the times, but more importantly, he points out neither side really "won." The war was, in his view, the price the nation paid for slavery.
   The tone in this speech, as I mentioned, is so different from the first. The duration and closing is also different, but the same in a way. His last paragraph ends in the hope that we can reconcile as a nation and "bind up the nation's wounds." The wounds he mentions are certainly physical, spiritual, and psychological and reminds of a reconstruction which will necessarily take place. Though modern-day citizens and historians malign him at times for not taking a hard-line, abolitionist stance against slavery, I think Lincoln did what he could (indeed more than others) and considered, in part, what would happen to war widows, children, and former slaves. He seems to be the pacifist thrust into a war that history will never (should never) forget.
  
  
 

Generalship: How They Fought

Perman and Taylor Documents (Informed by M&H Readings)
The letters and essays in these readings taught me many things, and chief among them was that war is never the straight-forward, General Lee-vs.-General Grant war that most people romanticize even today. If soldiers faced sad and demoralizing circumstances, Generals felt the heavy burden/consequences of action or retreat, the fist-shaking (in some cases) of the citizens within their regions, and sometimes the discord between (especially for McClellan and Lincoln and Davis and Beauregard) their superiors, inferiors and each other.

Informed by M&H's Ordeal by Fire, each document reinforced the aforementioned - namely, that general theories are just that - they do not always add up in a straight-forward manner. For example, McClellan's letter to Lincoln in Document 1 illustrates how McClellan almost tells the President what to do. Indeed, his manner is condescending. He corretly says that this "rebellion" is now a "war," but regards himself somewhat the authority on strategy (p. 140-141). The end of the letter is ironic (almost hypocritical) because after telling him what to do, McClellan places himself as the humble servant. In some instances (as in Va.) General McClellan does quite the opposite of what is needed - he retreats rather than being someone who "is competent to execute your orders..." (p. 141).

Document 2 is one in which General Lee congratulates his army in The Seven Days Battle also mentioned in M&H. The weather may have been bad (M&H, p. 266), but Lee was no pushover. While McClellan complained of no reinforcement and retreated rather than attacked, Lee was in pursuit of "the flying foe" (p. 142, P&T). Gen. Lee gives credit to the Union, but knew how to strategize during that time. On the other hand, while he commends his troops, he knows that "The service rendered to the country ..." and its' "brilliant results have cost us many brave men" (p. 142, P&T). Sadly, his next-to-last paragraph is powerful in that it was and continues to be a war "that will live forever in the hearts of people" (p. 142). One only need to see modern-day, Civil War reenactments to know how many died on both sides for the Generals who thought (as McClellan and Lee did) that each had Christianity on his side.

Document 3 is Lee's letter to President Davis in lieu of "the Opportunity to Invade Maryland" (p. 143, P&H). This letter highlights Lee's strategies and his lamentation of not having enough "munitions" (p. 143). Even without the necessaries, Lee felt he could not stand by and let the enemy rise against them.
He further shows hope that "success" is not "impossible," despite the hard luck of the Confederate army. His letter is in contrast with McClellan's - to me less haughty (though I don't like the fact that the South cared so much about protecting slavery). He does not refer to slavery itself, but he does seem worried about having enough guns, as mentioned. Shoes were also a large concern, as the territory to be marched over was rough and going into Md. not easy.

Document 4 is Grant's Plans for The Overland campaign (USA). While the union had several victories (Chapter 14 of M&H) in 1862, by 1864 Grant was strategizing in his letter to Meade on how to defeat Lee and the E/W plan (smartly so because of the rail lines and diverting from the typical N/S plans). He seemed to anticipate what the rebels would do to try to "force" their way in (p. 145). Though the letter is an outline, he writes that he will "talk over with you more fully than I can write them" his "objections and advantages" (p. 145). Though Grant had had some failures (the pause in Ft. Donelson, M&H), he also had the advantage of reinforcements and cutting off enemy supply in this campaign. Gen. Grant's plan was also to reduce "baggage" and attack (contrasting w/McClellan's "retreat" mode) (P&T p. 146, M&H). Perhaps, as in the essays that followed, grant really hasn't been given his due in history.

Document 5 reveals Grant's thoughts on the aforementioned campaign two years later. He calls the campaign "memorable" in that it could not be "accomplished, however, without as desperate fighting as the world has ever witnessed" (p. 146). Grant also never seemed to underestimate the enemy, whether at The Battle of Shiloh (M&H, p. 247-8) or two years later during this campaign. He strategized but also anticipated correctly. The letter to me divulges a sad, scared (for lack of a better term) Grant: The enemy almost making their "boast good" and the "carnage" on both sides with heavy loss underscored in this letter (p. 146).

Document 6 is Sherman's "angry letter" (intro.) to Atlanta's mayor. This one was very interesting because it is also later in the war, after Union "Triumphs in the West" (p. 251, M&H) and the Union seems stronger than before. After Jackson and Lee's victories in Va. and Lee being called "audacious," Sherman was also no easy target, according to this letter (p. 257, M&H, P&T, p. 147). His letter is an angry response to the mayor after asking for the evacuation of his citizens, and he is just as decisive as any other Gen. "We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America" he writes in one  striking moment on page 147. He details the chain of events which necessitate to receive the peace sought for all citizens as well. However, he doesn't underestimate the enemy and lets the mayor know it is up to him to prepare his people and "make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away" (p. 147). He calls the war cruel in the same letter and makes my point that to be a Gen. is hard: "I will make more sacrifices than..any of you to secure peace" (p. 147). He also refers to national feeling, and goes on to rebuke the mayor in saying the US wants nothing of their property, "negroes," or land, but demands "obediance" to the law of the nation (p. 148). I thought his last three paragraphs were more forceful than the first because he puts the fault of war back onto the South and pretty much tells them what must be done to obtain peace.

Document 7 is Grant's report to Stanton on his achievements since his appointment. Grant minces no words in explaining each side's vulnerabilities and strengths. Grant knew the CSA was outnumbered in troops (p. 149) and acknowledges that the Union made costly mistakes. His defense was to use many troops and "hammer continously" the enemy to submission not to him, but to "the constitution" and "the law of the land" (p. 149). His last paragraph rung truthfully and powerfully when he writes that the people who suffered the most will decide whether his actions were properly executed (p. 149). It is easy to see he was as burdened as any other Gen. when he writes in closing that he did all he did in good faith and "conscientiously" (p. 149). I felt empathy that the cost of war was felt so deeply by the men who were ultimately blamed/praised for their respective failures and successes. no one has it harder than the guy who takes all the guilt and sleeps as little as - or less than - his men.

The last two documents are essays which deal which the Va. "Seven Days" and Overland campaigns. In the first essay, Gallagher writes about "how each side fought" (intro.) and how the Confederate army "changed the course of war" (p. 149). Chapter 15 of M&H also deals with this very important topic taking placein 1862. McClellan's hesitation seems to be a topic brought up again and again in both books. Gallagher examines this campaign in a different way than the traditional "gauging consequences" and "examining casualties" (p. 150). Although M&H offer a detailed review, his take on this is interesting because he offers insight into "the larger picture" (p. 150). Small pieces taken together, he offers, provide a clearer picture of what happened in Va. and why it was important. Richmond was crucial, as both books point out, because of its location and what it meant in terms of emancipation, outcome, and so forth. He also treats the topic of newspapers and how the contributed to sentiment during that time - "Sentiment in the South contrasted sharply with that in the North," he writes on page 154. The essay also deals with morale, the lack of a comander in the South, how McClellan treated the war, why Lee was successful, and so on. The end of his essay leaves us to consider the "full context" of the campaing and its "immediate and long-range influence" (p. 161).

The last essay is written by Grimsley and speaks to the meaning of the Overland Campaign and the myth of Gen. Lee vs. Grant. The campaign was bloody.When he writes "So much broken humanity, and for what?" in his assessment, I felt sad because it holds true even today. Grant was portrayed as a butcher by many in his camp and otherwise, casualties were high, but the author also writes about Lee's defense as a "masterpiece" (p. 164). The author shows here that no matter which way the cookie crumbles, it wasn't a Lee vs. Grant contest; it was also about their subordinates and each man's style of "control" or "coping" (p. 167). The end of the essay echoes what M&H write about Grant having an unfair image (p. 171). The last two pages refer mostly to the "myth" of those Gen.'s propagated even by today's scholars. Though he writes more objectively than I have seen in other works, the author also defends Grant as "often poorly served" on p. 165. He devotes the rest of the essay to dispelling those myths and writes that "if we need the myth of Lee, so too perhaps do we need the countermyth of Grant" (p. 165).

Both Books

Reading about the different generals in relation to their strategies, soldiers and campaigns gave me a richer, deeper, sadder sense of what it took in human lives to win this war that started out - presumably-- being not about slavery, being about state rights, etc. The Generals had first-hand experience not only in Va., but in Shiloh, Manassas, The Battle of Bull Run and many others. It is difficult to read about the Civil War and not feel for the men who had to strategize, prevent, be criticized, be responsible and ultimately win or lose the war. I hope we never have to deal with this again, a brother's war with no end in sight until so many more are lost than lived. We may have Vietnam and 911, but sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

Mcpherson and Hogue, Perman and Taylor - The Civil War

Chapter Six: Perman and Taylor/Chapter Eleven: M&H (Why They Fought)

I thought to combine these readings because they inform one another as to the various reasons why volunteer soldiers fought in a war which would end later than most people predicted. There is so much information available through primary articles, diaries, and letters, that modern readers get a clear picture of the many reasons soldiers from the North and South sought to defend their cause. For some on both sides, it was patriotism. Though both sides differed as to what our forefathers meant when they invoked liberty, each side was certain they were upholding the original principals of 1776. For some Southerners, the fight was about subjugation, states rights, protecting slavery, property, self-government, honor, and/or duty. For some Northerners, the fight was about "the need to destroy slavery" (P&T, p. 178), duty, honor, Union rights, brotherhood, the need for the survival of a republican governement, and so on. No  matter why they fought, Perman and Taylor's letters from men on both sides leave no doubt that the war had a huge impact on the men's pschological and physical well-being. Periods of no fighting were boring or intolerable, the men's morale hung in the balance, too many questions were unanswered (what was to be done with escaped slaves, for example), and both sides seemingly seperated race from slavery. Some Northerners echoed the sentiments of the Southerners, in that they cared less about what happened to the slaves than themselves. All of the letters are filled with a mixture of war words, hope, dread, longing, confusion, and doubt. One letter, written by Tally Simpson from the CSA, could have well been written by a Northerner when he states that the Battle at Vicksburg has caused him to "lose confidence in something or somebody, I can't say which." This was striking because every loss meant that the loss of confidence in the war itself, the men who led, and/or the privates fighting to make gains.

The Essays
Dean's essay on Confederate soldier enlistment patterns in Va. also informed my understanding of McPherson and Hogue's discussion on enlistment. In Va., for example, two party politics divided a state into Pro-Confederacy or Pro-Union. Geographical and industrial limitations or advantages like railroads and waterways were important stategically because they could be used to "strike" in those "vital" areas (M&H, p. 175). Dean's essay on enlistment of soldiers highlights each region's importance and high rate of enlistment "across a diverse array of communities in spite of the sharp regional divisions that had prevailed before the war" (P&T, p. 189). Here, Dean gives us the idea that pro-slavery conscription was highest in areas where there was a profit to be made. He goes on to illustrate the reason for secession, including ideology, religion, socio-economic status, and honor/shame culture. Both slaveholders and non-slaveholders in Va. enjoyed a certain status which they intended to keep/fight for, "hence, defending Virginia in 1860 was defending slavery" (p. 195). Rhetoric complicated and "prolonged" the war further, as "proslavery propagandists" framed arguments abstractly (p. 196). Enlistment patterns here speak loudly as to the real reasons folks volunteered for the war, not only in Va. but in the deep South as well.

Chandra Manning's essay on White Union Soldiers and their ideas about race and slavery was also eye-opening, to say the least. Here, she maintains that some Union soldiers were anti-slavery only because they wanted to "end the institution that they identified as the root cause of the conflict" (P&T, p. 199). Views on slavery ranged greatly, and as the author confirms, and it is difficult to know why because so many fought on the Union side and disagreed about almost everything (P&T, p. 200). However, research indicates that the earliest reasons had to do with protecting the republican governement. far from abolitionists, Union soldiers began to understand that the the peculiar institution that caused the war was also the one which needed to be abolished in order to end the war (P&T, p. 202). If any reader has romanticized notions about the North, Manning dispels them in her use of the soldier's own words. However, some (such as the Chaplain she quotes on p. 202) saw the folly of slavery in terms of class status and gender. I was also happy to read that popular literature also helped the abolitionist's cause. For one moment, I could not help cast aside the hat of historian for that of mother, and wept when I read about the inhumanity (p. 203) Webber encountered when he and friends met a boy whose "shoulders were black and blue" and couldn't raise his arm. No wonder, when confronted with such scenes, some (like Webber) could not turn away from the cruelty of slavery. manning writes that slavery "violated family rights" as well as other "sacred ideals" (p. 203). This happened with African-american soldier enlistment as well; Pro-union soldiers began to understand that black men could fight alongside and as well as they could. Of course, it was but a small change, since it did not mean soldiers were going to fight for racial equality or rights. Her ending is also a fitting explanation for "the aftermath of reconstruction," in which there was "a vast potential for racial change" which was unfullfilled (p. 209).

McPherson and Hogue (Chapters 10-13)

Chapter 10, as discussed earlier, was more than about geographical and regional differnces; it is discussed in the book as a "Brother's War" where whole families were divided between the North and the South. People who lived in the border states fought neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother. Public proclamations by Lincoln, disregard for orders and lack of supplies were only some of the problems faced by these states. Chapter 11 discusses the organization of the forces and the navies. Confederate navies were only well-versed in their waterways but lacked the knowledge of the sea and supplies (ships,  ship engines) produced in the North. They may have had West Point graduates, but the North's Navy was in better shape. No one, as mentioned, thought the war would be long, except for Sherman. Tragic mix-ups with uniforms and lack/quality of supplies further plagued each side p. 181).
The sub-section on army organization was helpful because it included a diagram together with examples of what soldiers in each division did. There were so many casualites, that most companies were reduced to only fractions of their original numbers. The discussion on professionals vs. nonprofessionals was vital to understanding fractions within same regiments. Finally, the discussion on blockades showed that the South was crippled in some ways by "cargo" that would have "gotten through had there been no blockade" (p. 198). Chapter Twelve, "The Balance Sheet of War," gives the reader a glimpse as to how each side financed this expensive war. conscription began to suffer as morale declined, but was crucial to the South because without a draft, the South would have lost sooner (p. 203). A good point M&H make on page 204 was that the South only needed to defend from, not invade, the North. In other words, the burden of proof was on the North, The South knew their terrain better and maps of such areas were scarce for the Union. M&H also write about guerillas and state that less than 10,000 men served as such. Violence increased greatly because of guerillas - not a romantic notion! The Confederacy seemed in as bad shape financially as the North, although the North created "Greenbacks" or teasury notes to help finance the war along with War Bonds. Chapter 13 treats the topic of the war from both the homefront and abroad in Europe. The first Battle of Bull run was a bumbled success for the Union, in which Jackson was killed and the popular legend arose. Lincoln ordered them to attack even though they were "green," which caused elays and confusion among the troops. Spies foiled some of the plans and confusion about uniforms caused crippling of Union attacks (p. 229). Later, this battle became an expensive, "tactical victory for the Confederacy" (p. 230). This caused the South to think the war had been won, but McClellan came into the Union picture to organize what was left of the army. However, his ego large and his tendency to not act when important placed him in a tight spot for all the adulation he received. Equally, he wanted to dodge the question of "the Negro" and saw the war as a need to keep "the integrity" of the Union (p. 236). Last, I was surprised to learn that the Confederacy did not elicit help from other nations, as they thought previously would occur. There were several reasons for this, but the biggest seemd to be national self-interest, not ideology or politics (p. 238). The South thought blockading cotton from GB would enlist their help, but they were wrong because the Brits developed alternative solutions and would not be economically blackmailed (p. 239). The last topic, The Trent Affair, was the only skirmish between GB and the Union, but ended in a check-mate of sorts as either side realized one war was enough for the moment.

Alexander Stephens & Abraham Lincoln

Alexander H. Stephens, Confederate VP

As I read this week's selections, I really became excited. The reason for that is, I think, that both selections put me in that historical moment, as though I was a spectator because they were so powerful. As such, these men realized the gravity of the situation. For example, Stephens calls it being "in the midst of one of the greatest epochs" and one of the "greatest revolutions in the annals of the world" (M&H, A13).

However, where some speeches by other Southerners held out hope or weren't as direct, Stephens drew the line clearly and his point was direct. That is, the South was seceding (as Dew asserts) because of slavery. Here, he insists that our forefathers (Jefferson et al) were "fundamentally wrong," in their principles of equality and that slavery is correct. In other words, he felt African Americans were unequal to whites. He received applause for this, but I noted something else - his speech seemed desperate to me. When he says that our forefathers erroneously felt the institution was "evanescent" and that "Providence" would rid us of this blight called slavery (my words), he and others were worried so much that it was so, that secession was the inevitable slippery slope.

He went on to use science, fanaticism and racial premises to convince drive his point home, even calling it a "species of insanity" to be anti-slavery. He really thought "The Creator" had made the races unequal. Stephens unknowingly predicted the South's fate with an anecdote from the opposition but in the end, stated that it was the North, not the South, who were "warring against a principle." Sad for humanity, for the slaves, for the U.S., and for all those who died in the cause on both sides.

Abraham Lincoln's "Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress"

In this Proclamation, I found the President had no choice but to be determined and politically forceful at this point. It was a month after Lincoln was elected and less than three weeks after Stephens' speech; physical presence of the military was needed to the tune of 75,000 (according to his speech). This was basically an order to protect and uphold the law via the militia, with Congress convening until the fourth of July.

Here, he powerfully appeals to/threatens both seceded states and citizens to be peaceable and gives them twenty days from that date to do as ordered. He asks the forces too to "repossess" all property including forts, etc. but to do so without "devastation" or "destruction." For me, he turns the tide from being diplomatic at the onset to letting them know who's boss. Lincoln does not want bloodshed, but he does what a Commander-In-Chief should do (uphold the law, especially because he believes in Providence). The Proclamation is short, clear and determined. War is here. It is indeed an "extraordinary occasion" (A15).

Perman & Taylor Readings and Dew's Apostles of Disunion

The more I read, the more I realize I know little to nothing (no pun intended) about the North and South's reasons for Union/secession. More explicitly, my view was based on movies I saw or subjects quickly studied in high school rather than the varied views of scholarship deftly presented in essays/documents such as Perman and Taylor's or books written like that of Dew's Apostles of Disunion.

Perman & Taylor readings
Sheepish disclaimer aside, Chapter Four's "Sectionalism and Secession" helped me to understand what sectionalism meant in both the modern and periodic sense and what the impetus behind secession was. Regarding the two documents by Emerson and Lincoln, it is obvious that Sumner's caning horrified the North, and its' accompanying images were certainly used in speeches to highlight the South's "barbaric" nature. I noted that the whipping of a slave was not mentioned in these documents (although perhaps in other primary, abolitionist sources) as  barbaric. A few years later, Lincoln addresses accusations of the North's sectionalism and says it is really the South who is sectional. (It isn't lost on me that he writes like the lawyer he was :). Moreover, he turns the South's arguments and what they are in favor of on them by writing that they are the ones who are not acting according to the Founding Father's precepts.

The last three documents by Southerners written during the secession crisis, illustrate that they too, had blame to throw at the North, and felt justified in seceding. Of course, as Dew mentions, one cannot set aside that the South was primarily concerned about slavery itself. In all the documents, strong language in words like "madcaps," "totally revolutionized," "ignorant, inferior, barbarian," etc. leave no doubt where each stood. For instance, Harris' address to the Georgia assembly, which also appears in Dew, is plain language which is plain sad (as Dew has also asserted in his introduction). Yet, I tried to read the aforementioned articles in a way that would showed me how scared each side was because of the slippery slope leading to the inevitable - secession, then war - following Lincoln's election. Although the first Southern justification articles are forceful, Stephens seemed a little less so; "We will be the architect of our own fortunes," and even though he feels Northerners are "fanatics," one can't help but feel some hesitation on his behalf about secession.

The pair of essays by Grant and Sinha left me with mixed feelings, although they seemed to speak to one another. Grant's essay shows a different side of the same coin in that she examines what she views as the North's sectionalism and some of the ideology she feels fanned the flames of secession. For example, she points out that the North wasn't nationalistic because they had "anti-southern" views and that the North saw the South as "posing a threat" to their way of life. To her, How is not as important as why. That is, she maintains the North's support of "all things Northern" and their claim of nationalism was truly sectional and politically calculated/motivated. Grant makes some concessions, but in the end, she writes that the North was not unified and that "Opposition to the South was a more viable cohesive force ... than was opposition to a threat an ocean away." On page 117, she makes a definitive point that the North was "too" everything to allow "national development" which had both parties interests. I hope I did justice to her essay, as there were so many interesting points in it. By contrast, Sinha's article on  South Carolina planters presents the view that they were politically motivated to keep a "separatist" ideology which favored few and "defended bound labor," but was not democratic in nature. Her essay is almost completely differs from Grant's in that she sees no democratic values in the South. She also writes that a distinct ideology, not "broad republican principles" was the reason for disunion in South Carolina (p. 123). Later in the essay, she says that Leonidas Spratt "has been strangely neglected" by scholars of "pro-slavery thought," which I found to be untrue as I read Dew's book, which dedicates at least three or more pages to him and his address to the South. I did wonder if Spratt was considered a radical in his day?, as he was for the African slave trade. Both essays address religion as an inextricable part of the secession equation, although Sinha includes gender as well.

Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew
Appearances are def. deceiving in Dew's slim volume! I thought it was brave of him to introduce this book in both a scholarly and personal way. His introduction is not to be missed because as a son of the South, he lets the reader know how primary documents in history made him question Southern pride and what the causes of the Civil War were beyond what he learned growing up. Though his intro. is short, it is the Commissioner's own voices in letters and speeches he uses to tell the story of why the South felt secession was necessary after Lincoln's election. I didn't even know that Southerners had commissioners of this sort  because it is not usually taught in history courses. Mainly, the trend seems to be to read Harriet B. Stowe, discuss major leaders like Lincoln, or discuss slavery as evil without showing how we got that far. The commissioners were more like henchmen who took their jobs seriuosly without regard (more or less) to war's consequences. No one thougght the war would last as long as it did and with so many casualties on both sides. This book fully engaged me in understanding their roles (especially that of South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama) and why the war was shortly to follow. Some Southerners were reluctant, while others were adamant and used language that stings especially modern readers and historians alike.

Dew's conclusion firmly asserts that these "Apostles of Disunion" were also "Apostles of Racism." Additionally, he gives three reasons why the South felt threatened, all amounting to apocalyptic scenarios for the white man. One was (he writes) social inequality, two was the possibilty of a "race war," and three was "racial amalgation" (Dew, 77-79). That is, the author sees these reasons not as political discussions but as arguements sometimes slyly, sometimes unapologetically, sometimes brutally cloaked as rhetoric (and violent canings, at times) in the justification for secession. The men, Dew writes, were "untroubled" by "illogical inconsistencies". Any good historian would do just what Dew did: present the facts and let history speak for itself. Any group that cannot see slavery as a major underpinning of the Civil War has not read these documents extensively or chooses to ignore the facts that race and hierarchy, not political affiliations and national pride, caused the inevitable. A history ignored is one that, unfortunately, tends to repeat itself in this and other ways. It should be required reading in high school history courses!