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.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)