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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)