Causes of Peace, Part VI, Civil War, The Military Level and Political Will

Posted on December 7, 2015 by Fred Zilian

The Military Level

First, The South had some notable advantages, including what are called “interior lines.” Defending its own territory from an external threat, it had shorter “lines of communication,” had greater familiarity with the terrain, and could count on the support of the local population.

However, the North had many more advantages. The battle force ratios favored the North, generally outnumbering the South in every battle except Chickamauga (September 1863). The North had the larger population base from which to draw recruits.

Second, after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in January 1863, the North enlisted and employed blacks, the South did not. About 180,000 blacks served in the Union Army; 37,000 were killed and killed at a rate 40% higher than whites. Twenty-one distinguished themselves and won the nation’s highest military honor, the Medal of Honor.

Third, the competence of the North’s military leaders eventually equaled the South’s. At the outset of the war, the South clearly had the advantage of superior leaders in men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet. However, as the war continued, the North’s officer corps developed and improved in competence. Also, Lincoln eventually found the right generals who could prosecute the war to win battle victories: Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Sheridan. General Grant became commander of all Union forces in the West in October 1863, and General-in Chief of the Army in March 1864

Fourth, the South’s tactics could be quite reckless at times. Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson contend:

“that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than did the Federals. Offensive tactics, which had been used so successfully by Americans in the Mexican War, were much less effective in the 1860s because an improved weapon—the rifle—had vastly increased the strength of defenders. … The Confederates favored offensive warfare because the Celtic charge was an integral part of their heritage.” (Attack and Die, p. xv)

New technology had given the advantage to the defense rather than the offense. In the 1840s the French had developed the minié ball.  This, with the rifle (not musket), meant that the killing zone increased from 50 yards to 150 or more yards. The South aggressive offensive tactics often proved costly, and especially as manpower ran short, they simply could not afford the losses that such tactics brought.

Political Will

The final, crucial dimension which always matters in war is political will: the determination and resolve of a political actor to continue to prosecute a war.

In the early stages of the war, because of the Southern victories and the indecisiveness of the Northern generals, such as George McClellan, the South had swagger and confidence.  But this changed as the war progressed.

Southerners quite early lost their desire to volunteer, forcing the South to implement its First Conscription Act in April 1862. The early elation of Southerners evolved into dogged determination. Militarily, the summer of 1863 was a turning point. In the largest land battle in the history of North America, the South led by Robert E. Lee, invincible  to that point, was soundly defeated at Gettysburg by the North. Vicksburg, the final Southern bastion on the Mississippi River, fell shortly afterward.

As the war persisted, the Confederacy could not hold together under the strain of war as well as the North. By 1865 the South seemed to be full of wounded men, and women and children who were war refugees. Its will simply crumbled faster than the North’s.

After the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the North’s will and determination continued to grow. In early 1864 Grant so impressed Lincoln with his victories in the West that Lincoln brought him east and made him commander of all Union forces. Lincoln’s own determination was reinforced now after finally finding the right commander. His will and the will of the North were decisively reinforced with the fall of Atlanta in September 1864, and Lincoln’s subsequent re-election in November.

Conclusion: Not only in the military sphere, but in the political, economic, and social spheres, the North possessed at the outset, or gained as the war progressed, a number of distinct advantages over the South. These advantages, coupled with its better decision making in these spheres, eventually caused the South’s will to falter faster than the North’s and for peace to break out in the spring of 1865. (Please see Part VII.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Causes of Peace, Part V: The American Civil War, Section I

Posted on December 5, 2015 by Fred Zilian

Let us now apply the Multi-Dimensional War Model to the American Civil War.

Political Level

On the domestic political level, the South faced a dilemma, a contradiction. In the name of defending Southern rights, the Confederate government had to infringe of those very rights: on individual freedom by conscription when it ran short of manpower, on property rights by impressing slaves (property owned by Southerners) into service, and on civil rights by the suspension of habeas corpus. This contradiction proved to be very painful for Southerners to swallow.

Second, in Abraham Lincoln, the North had the better leader and commander in chief. It also had a stable two-party political system while the South did not. The Confederates looked down on political parties. This meant that Jefferson Davis lacked a secure political base, and the South never really had the benefit of an opposition to propose alternatives.

Third, on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Not all Northerners supported this; however, it still gave the North a sense of unity and a greater sense of purpose. It also helped to prevent Great Britain and France from endorsing the South.

On the international Level, the South was never able to get international recognition and the support it needed, especially from Great Britain and France.

Social-Demographic Level

The superior population base in the North allowed it to field more men without the strain on the society and the economy which took place in the South. The North had a population of about 22 million against the nine million of the South, including 3.5 million slaves.

In January, 1862, Lincoln clearly recognized the North’s advantage in this dimension and realized that it must take advantage of this in its strategy.

I state my general idea of this war to be that we have the greater numbers, and the enemy has the greater facility of concentrating forces . . . ; that we must fail, unless we find some way of making our advantage an over-match for his; and that this can only be done by menacing him with superior forces at different points, at the same time; and if he weakens one to strengthen the other, forbear to attack the strengthened one, but seize, and hold the weakened . . . .” (Peter J. Parish, The American Civil War, p. 158)

Economic Level

First, the South made the misassumption that its cotton would give it decisive influence. This proved false.

Second, the North clearly had economic superiority in many areas. It had more resources to draw from and used them more effectively. For example, the North’s iron and coal production was vastly greater than the South’s.

Third, the North’s railway net was much more extensive than the South’s. Because of this, the North was able to maintain a steady flow of supplies to its armies fighting in the south. By the end of the war, it was operating over 2,000 miles of track, with over 400 locomotives and 6,000 cars.

Fourth, the North’s financial system was much sounder that the South’s. The South failed to secure foreign loans and by the end of the war its inflation totaled 9,000%. By contrast, the North imposed taxes early and often to finance the war. Its inflation during the war was 80%.

Lastly, the North’s naval blockade was implemented early and over the long term had a great effect, especially after the seizure of Vicksburg in July 1863.

Having considered the political, social, and economic levels of the war, we shall take up in the next post the final two dimensions: the military level and political will. (Please see Part VI.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Causes of Peace, Part IV, Paradigm #2: Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model

Posted on December 4, 2015 by Fred Zilian

Paradigm #2 views war not as uni-dimensional but rather as multi-dimensional. War is more than warfare. Call this Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model. To truly understand why one side won and the other lost, we cannot simply look at the military dimension of any war. Rather we must consider all the possible dimensions—such as, political, economic, social-demographic, cultural—of a state (or other political actor) to understand the outcome of a war, why “peace broke out” and war ended.

In analyzing past wars, Zilian’s Multi-Dimensional War Model forces our analysis to be more sophisticated, complex, and comprehensive. In examining the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC, this model helps us to understand the role of the decline in political leadership within Athens and the Delian League, not just the invincibility of the Spartans as warriors. In addressing the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars of France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it helps us to appreciate the role of the nation in arms and the lack of cooperation among the allies in understanding the many early victories of France. In analyzing the victory of the Allies in World War II, it forces us to think about the role political-military relations within the U.S. and among the Allies as factors in their success. In evaluating the Vietnam War, it demonstrates the importance of considering political will on both sides.

For the American Civil War, overall, peace broke out in the spring of 1865 because, not only in the military sphere, but also in the political and economic spheres, the North possessed at the outset or gained a number of distinct advantages over the South as the war progressed. These advantages, coupled with its better decision making in these spheres, eventually caused the South’s will to crumble faster than the North’s. (Please Part V.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Causes of Peace, Part III, Thinking About War, Paradigm #1

Posted on December 3, 2015 by Fred Zilian

In order truly to understand war & peace, we must delve into some military theory. A theory lays out the principal concepts of a given field of study and their relationships, and it must also explain the “why” of things: causality. In doing this it should help us predict behavior: what will take place in that field of study under a given set of circumstances.

There are at least two ways of looking at war—two theories, “paradigms,” or frames of reference. The first paradigm can be summed up by the expression: “In war, God is on the side of the heaviest battalions,” that is, the side with the strongest military forces wins.

In Paradigm #1, war is about military stuff. War is uni-dimensional. However, if we look at military history, this clearly is not always the case. The Thebans defeated the supposedly invincible Spartans at Leuctra in 371 B.C. despite an almost two-to-one inferiority. At Cannae in 216 B.C. Hannibal destroyed over 90% of a numerically superior Roman force. In 1757, Frederick the Great outmaneuvered an army over twice his number, losing 500 men while the enemy lost close to 8,000. Napoleon repeatedly achieved battle victories with inferior numbers. And in this century, the French lost against the Algerians in the 50s and 60s and the United States lost in Vietnam, despite having superiority in military forces.

Let’s consider the analysis of the Civil War historian Peter Parish. In his book, The American Civil War, he states:

[The battles of] Gettysburg and Vicksburg are commonly regarded as the decisive engagements of the Civil War; they both took place in July, 1863, but the war did not end until April 1865. What had happened in the field of battle had become more than ever the tip of the military iceberg. The great submerged mass was a matter of equipment, supply, transport, commo, of industrial power, and technical skill, and also of public opinion, civilian morale, and sheer will to resist. (p. 159.)

It is clear that victory in battle or in war does not always go to the side with military superiority. This is because war since the time of the French Revolution (1789) has not been fought by armies but by nations. States have mobilized and employed any and all of their dimensions to wage war. For example, in August 1793 the Committee of Public Safety, during the height of the Revolution, decreed a universal mobilization:

“Young men will fight, young men are called to conquer. Married men will forge arms, transport military baggage and guns and will prepare food supplies. Women . . . will forget their futile tasks: their delicate hands will work at making clothes [and tents and they shall attend the wounded]. Children will make lint of old cloth. . . . And old men, . . . , will be guided to the public squares . . . where they will kindle the courage of young warriors and preach the doctrines of hate for kings and the unity of the Republic.”

Since then, war has become multi-dimensional. If we wish a truly comprehensive explanation of any modern war, we must look at various dimensions of the states waging war, not just the military forces. Any comprehensive analysis of the American Civil War must be multi-dimensional. In order to understand “why peace broke out” in the spring of 1865 after four long years of war, one must look at more than military things. One way of expressing this succinctly is that: “War is more than warfare.” (Please see Part IV)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Causes of Peace, Part II

Posted on December 1, 2015 by Fred Zilian

The authoritative, London-based, weekly magazine, The Economist, has just issued its annual look into the next year: The World in 2016. It contains an essay written by John Andrews entitled, “More War than Peace.” He notes International Peace Day, September 21, established by the United Nations in 1981, and predicts that this day in the coming year will be anything but peaceful. “…swathes of Syria, Iraq, and Africa will be racked by violence; murderous drug cartels will threaten the stability of Latin America; and “frozen conflicts”, from the Korean peninsula to the Caucasus, will risk thawing into renewed wars.”

He continues by indicating the “(relatively) good news is that the casualties will be trifling compared with the horrors of the past.” He then provides summary statistics for the world wars of the 20th century, followed by statistics showing the drop in war-related deaths in the decades, 1960-2010.

Unfortunately, he indicates, this trend will reverse itself in the future. He predicts an increase in such deaths because of religious, ideological or ethnic insurgencies, and also civil wars.

He thus contradicts Steven Pinker in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, discussed in my earlier essay on the causes of peace. Such quantitative analysis and prediction is certainly interesting but built on a very precarious foundation. Historically, war and peace are very hard to predict. We can hope that world wars are a thing of the past; however, Plato was correct in saying, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” War will remain a recognized, legitimate instrument of international politics to resolve clashes of interests. We must do our best to push it as far as possible to the bottom of the options available to a political actor pursuing its interests. (Please see Part III.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Unified Germany at 25: More Normal, More Independent

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay, abridged, was originally published as “Germany’s Unification a Huge Success,” in the Providence Journal on October 3, 2015. For more analysis, please see my book:  From Confrontation to Cooperation: The Takeover of the East German Army by the Bundeswehr.)

Twenty-five years ago, eleven months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany was unified for the second time in modern history. The first time in 1871 it took three wars and was achieved over the objections of its neighbors. This time it was without bloodshed and with the support of its neighbors, including Soviet Union.

Shortly after the fall, Gerhard Herder, the East German ambassador to the US, said of the possibility of unification: “In my dreams, yes, but being a politician and standing with both my feet on the earth, I don’t see a possibility in the foreseeable future.” He was wrong.

On the international level, the Soviet Union’s position evolved over the months after the Wall fell, not only to endorse unification, but also to a withdrawal of its 546,000 troops and dependents in East Germany. The United States gave early and unwavering support for unification, eventually convincing Great Britain and France to follow. The six countries began the 2+4 Talks in May, 1990, concluding and signing the Final Settlement on September 12.

In 1989 within East Germany, das Volk (the people) had chanted “No Violence!” and then “We Are the People.” But soon after the Wall fell, the chant changed to “We are One People” and “Germany, Fatherland.”

Within the space of five months, the East German Communist Party had lost its legitimacy, clearly shown in the March 1990 elections, in which it received only 16% of the vote. Economic union followed in July, and at midnight October 2, 1990, East Germany was joined to the Federal Republic of Germany, making the new Germany the most populated country in Europe with 82 million people.

Today, despite the huge amount of money that had to be invested in the new eastern federal states, the postwar German Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) continues. It has the fourth largest economy (GDP) in the world, expected to grow 1.8% this year. Relying on its small and middle-size manufacturing companies, it is clearly the most powerful economy in Europe, described as an “economic juggernaut,” and the “economic powerhouse of Europe.” Its unemployment rate remains stable at 4.7%, the lowest in the Eurozone. By 2011 it had become the world’s second largest exporter (after China) and now has the world’s largest current-account surplus.

On the domestic political level, there is no question this united Germany has continued its course, set after WW II by the allies, as a Western liberal democracy, its authoritarian past buried. Since Unification, it has peacefully and democratically installed several governments of various political hues. In 2005 Angela Merkel became its first female chief executive (chancellor) and the first from the former east. In addition to its three traditional parties, it has had a Greens Party for decades and since 2013 a new party on the right, Alternative for Germany. The political system has shown resilience: the CDU/CSU conservative parties are now in coalition with the Social Democrats, the former opposition. Finally, Roger Karapin has argued that citizen activism has become a major force in domestic politics—German citizens are more prepared to be disobedient and assertive, belying the earlier passive, obedient stereotype.

Its foreign policy, however, is in flux. The “German Question” has returned, at least in part. In its original form, this Question related to the 19th century debate over the proper means and ends for the envisioned unification of the many Germanic states in the heart of Europe at the time. In its post-WWII version, the Question has had at least two parts: What borders for Germany? Second, what role for Germany? With German Unification in 1990, the first was answered categorically; the second has not.

Though accused by its NATO allies of foot-dragging at times, it has moved from a country militarily hand-cuffed—restricted by its Constitution, its national culture, and its past—to a more confident, “normal” country that is prepared to assert itself and even send its soldiers abroad. In 1999 it committed its military forces to combat for the first time since WW II as part of a NATO force to protect Kosovo. Beyond the Balkans it has also sent military forces to the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan. Recently its top political leaders approved the delivery of thousands of machine guns, grenades, and antitank missiles to Kurdish forces battling Islamic militants in Iraq.

Germany’s foreign policy actions during the past five years suggest a role, grounded in Western values and interests, committed to human rights, mindful not to repeat the mistakes of its past—including reliance on military force—and more prepared to lead Europe, commensurate with its power. The United States can expect a more independent and less docile Germany—perhaps cold water for the US, but something good for Europe and for the world.

As I stood in Bonn’s central market place on Unification Day twenty-five years ago—oompah music playing, balloons rising, flocks of pigeons darting, the crowd swaying—I was hopeful that the Germans would succeed in their unification. Today the Germans can be proud of their achievements, and Americans can be proud of the role they played in ending the Cold War and supporting the Unification. Shortly after Unification, I spoke to a former East German sergeant who indicated how it might have been had the Soviets won the Cold War. He told me that “Germany would have been one big concentration camp.”

An educator at Salve Regina University, Newport, RI, Mr. Zilian was a US Army liaison officer to the German Army during Unification. Contact: www.zilianblog.com

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Civil War Changed U.S. Forever

Posted on June 27, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay was originally published by the Newport Daily News on June 24, 2015.)

This year our country concludes its sesquicentennial celebration of the Civil War, fought 1861-1865, in which Americans fought, wounded, and killed each other in astounding numbers. For many years, the conventional number of soldiers killed was 620,000. In recent years, sources have raised the figure to over 700,000.

Over 2.2 million men served under arms in the Union military and perhaps 1.5 million served in the Confederate military. One in 65 died in combat, one in 13 died of disease, one in 10 was wounded. The last Civil War veteran died in 1959.

The average Civil War soldier was 25 years old, five feet eight inches tall, and weighed 143 pounds. Though the minimum legal age for enlistment was 18, an estimated 100,000 soldiers in the Union Army were under 15, some drummer boys being as young as nine.

While many Americans consider Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, to be the end of the war, this is not true. Other Confederate units continued to exist and remained at large for the next few months. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was captured on May 10.

The final engagement in which there were casualties took place at the Battle of Palmito Ranch, May 12-13, on the banks of the Rio Grande, east of Brownesville, Texas.  Union Private John J. Williams of the 34th Indiana Regiment, who died in this battle, was the final soldier to die in the war.

John_J__Williams, Civilwar-online

Private John J. Williams, the final soldier killed in the Civil War

(www.civilwar-online.com)

The final Confederate surrender took place on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah surrendered at Liverpool, England.

The Civil War forced our country to face four key issues. Were we a federation of states in which the central government has higher authority than the individual states, or were we a confederation of states in which the individual states had more power than the central government? One of these powers was, of course, the right to secede from the Union. The answer: a federation

Second, if one of our first principles was that all men are created equal, how did we reconcile this with the existence of slavery in our country?  The Atlantic slave trade had been banned since 1808; however, slavery was still lawful. Eighteen states had passed laws banning slavery; fifteen states did not. The war eliminated this contradiction, even if true social equality in our country has, to this day, still proven elusive.

Third, in a national crisis, what civil liberties could justifiably be restricted and too what extent in order to quell the crisis? While President Lincoln believed that he could do just about anything to quell the insurrection, the war provided no definitive answer to this question. The civil liberties and rights curbed after the 9/11 terrorist attack continue to be a source of debate.

Finally, could a democracy sustain itself through such a crisis? Not only did it endure the storm, it had a national election in the midst of it, reelected its leader, and saw the crisis through to its conclusion.

The war took the life of President Abraham Lincoln who, in most surveys, is rated our greatest president. On April 14, 1865, he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a southern sympathizer who believed that slavery was one of God’s greatest gifts to humankind.

At the outset of the war, people referred to the country as “the United States are,” while afterward people said “the United States is.” At first the conflict was about the existence of the Union and about states’ rights, but it eventually rose to a higher plane. The subtext of slavery surfaced and recast the war into one fought about a new birth of freedom for our country and about dictating that the Southern way of life based on slavery must be gone with the wind.

The Civil War is a cornerstone in America’s national identity. Civil War writer Shelby Foote stated that any understanding of our nation must be based on an understanding of the Civil War. “The Civil War defined us as what we are and opened us to what we became ….” It was an “enormous catastrophe” and the “crossroads of our being.” Civil War historian James McPherson has stated that: “From the war sprang the great flood that caused the stream of American history to surge into a new channel ….”

This brings to an end my series of essays on the Civil War. I hope in the past three years I have educated and enlightened, and perhaps inspired you to renew your civic commitment to our country. My thanks to all of you who have given me such kind feedback.

A retired Army officer, Fred Zilian teaches history and political science at Salve Regina University and is a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Sesquicentennial Commemoration Commission Advisory Council. Send him email at zilianf@aol.com or check out his blog at www.zilianblog.com and his Abe Lincoln website at www.honestaberi.com.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Climax at Appomattox

Posted on April 19, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay was originally published as “Defeat, denial, and surrender,” in the Newport Daily News, April 9, 2015.)

Despite the victory delusions of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, the fortunes of the South deteriorated dramatically in March 1865. Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was now reduced to 55,000 men, hunkered down defending Petersburg and shielding the southern capital of Richmond as it endured the siege of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s army of 120,000. Having lost hope in their cause, Lee’s men were hungry, despondent, and now deserting in increasing numbers.

By March 24, Gen. William T. Sherman had completed the second leg of his devastating march through the deep south, pulverizing anything of value and punishing the people in an effort to sap the last vestiges of their will to endure. The army reserved its harshest treatment for South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. He now moved north to assist Grant.

After nine months of siege, Grant sensed Lee’s vulnerability and on April 2 ordered a general offensive along the entire front. On this pleasant spring Sunday, President Davis attended church. A messenger suddenly came to him with a telegram. It was from Gen. Lee: Richmond must be evacuated. Davis hurried from the church, signaling the congregation with his ashen face the ill tidings.

Escorted by ten sailors, President Lincoln arrived in Richmond shortly after the first Union soldiers. Admiral David Porter nervously scanned the windows for assassins. Lincoln was soon surrounded by black people shouting: “Glory to God!” “Bless the Lord!” “The great messiah!” “Come to free his children from bondage. Glory, hallelujah!” One black man fell to his knees. “Don’t kneel to me,” Lincoln said. “That is not right. You must kneel to God only….”

Lee’s Army was now reduced to a mere 35,000 men. He planned to link up with Gen. Joseph E. Johnston at Danville, Virginia. Already there was President Davis who asserted: “Relieved from the necessity of guarding cities … with our army free to move from point to point … nothing is now needed to render our triumph certain, but… our own unquenchable resolve.”

But resolve, itself in short supply, would not be enough. On April 7, Gen. Grant sent Gen. Lee a note calling for him to surrender, which Lee rejected. On the morning of April 9, Lee tried one final breakout which failed. Surrounded and outnumbered five to one, Lee decided to surrender. He said: “there is nothing left for me to do but go and see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.”

One hundred and fifty years ago today, the two generals met at the home of Wilmer McLean in the village of Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Four years earlier, McLean had lived near Manassas, Virginia, the site of the first real battle of the Civil War, First Bull Run. A Union artillery shell had crashed into his dining room. Vowing to avoid the war, he had moved to this location. He justifiably asserted: “The war began in my front yard and ended in my parlor.”

There in McLean’s living room, the two generals presented quite a contrast: Lee, taller, resplendent in impeccable, full-dress uniform, with sash and engraved sword; Grant with muddied trousers and muddy boats, wearing a simple soldier’s blouse, apologizing for his shabby appearance. The West Point graduates talked informally for a while. Lee, having graduated 14 years before Grant, said he did not remember meeting Grant during the Mexican-American War. Lee eventually directed their conversation to the matters at hand.

Lee_Surrenders_to_Grant_at_Appomattox, wiki

(Wikipedia.org)

          The surrender terms were generous, reflecting President Lincoln’s earlier guidance to Grant. The Confederate officers and men could return to their homes, “not to be disturbed by U.S. authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.” They could keep their horses “to put in a crop to carry themselves and their families through the next winter.” Officers could keep their side-arms. Lee was grateful: “This will have the best possible effect upon the men and will do much toward conciliating our people.”

After the signing, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. As Lee shook the hand of Grant’s military secretary, he realized that the secretary was a native American. Lee remarked: “I am glad to see one real American here.” Ely Parker, a Seneca Indian  remarked: “We are all Americans.”

Two days later President Lincoln gave a prepared speech from a balcony of the White House praising Grant and the army and addressing the reconstruction of the Union. He included his view of favoring the enfranchisement of literate and veteran blacks. In the crowd listening was John Wilkes Booth who vowed: “That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

Posted on March 8, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(This essay was originally published by the Newport Daily News as Lincoln looks to the future on March 5, 2015)

On March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in to his second term as the president of the United States, giving a speech which many consider his best, even better than the Gettysburg Address.

He was elected for a second term in the election of November, 1864, an election which many argued should not take place under the press of war. Republicans were understandably concerned about conceding power to the Democrats who settled on former commander of the Army of the Potomac, Major General George B. McClellan, as their candidate. However Lincoln believed that such an event, so fundamental to democracy, could not be deferred, even in wartime.

Lincoln admitted: “…I have the common pride of humanity to wish my past four year’s Administration endorsed.” He believed that he could “better serve the nation in its need and peril than any new man could possibly do,” and wanted the chance “to finish this job of putting down the rebellion, and restoring peace and prosperity to the country.”

Lincoln, ironbrigader

Abraham Lincoln

(ironbrigader.com)

          March 4, 1865, broke wet and stormy. After the swearing in of Vice President Andrew Johnson in the Senate chamber, the presidential party moved to the east front of the Capitol to repeated cheers. In the large audience stood John Wilkes Booth and Frederick Douglass.  As he began his speech, like amazing grace from above, the sun pierced through the gray sky and uplifted the rain-soaked crowd. Chief Justice Salmon Chase took it as “an auspicious omen of the dispersion of the clouds of war and the restoration of the clear sun light of prosperous peace.”

The speech was a mere 703 words and took about seven minutes, the second shortest inaugural speech in US History. It was decidedly impersonal. After the opening paragraph, he did not use the word “I”; neither did he refer to any of his previous statements or actions. Rather he sought to understand the great conflict and to look with hope and compassion toward the future.

“All dreaded it—all sought to avert it.” “Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.”

Turning to slavery, Lincoln said: “All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” He continued by indicating the faulty assumptions both sides made about the magnitude and duration of the war.

Lincoln then turned at length to a markedly religious vein: “Both [sides] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. … The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes.”  He then quoted the Bible: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” In referring to the offense of slavery, Lincoln stated: “He now wills to remove [it], and … He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came ….”

2nd Inaugural,abrahamlincolnonline

“Abraham Lincoln Second Inaugural Address” by Alexander Gardner

(Library of Congress)

And then harshly he continued, “if God wills that [the war] continue,” until all the wealth of the slaveholder vanishes and until every drop of slave blood is repaid, “so still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

Lincoln ends with majestic compassion and magnanimity: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

After concluding, he turned to Chief Justice Chase and took the oath of office, ending with an emphatic: “So help me God!” He then kissed the Bible to the sound of an artillery salute and a cheering crowd.

Lincoln was not phased by the tepid initial reaction to the speech. He mentioned to Thurlow Weed that he expected it “to wear as well as—perhaps better than—any thing I have produced.” “Lots of wisdom in that document, I suspect.”

Frederick Douglass attended the reception which followed. Initially stopped by guards, he pushed his way through. Lincoln called out: “Here comes my friend Douglass. … There is no man’s opinion I value more than yours. What do you think of it?” Douglass responded, “Mr. Lincoln, it was a sacred effort.”

 

A retired Army officer, Fred Zilian teaches history, ethics, and political science at Portsmouth Abbey School and Salve Regina University and is a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Sesquicentennial Commemoration Commission Advisory Council. He is writing an occasional series of columns highlighting various aspects of the Civil War and their impact on Newport County and Rhode Island for The Daily News. Attend the Tribute to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln on April 17 at the Jane Pickens Theater. Tickets at www.janepickens.com.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Women and the Civil War

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Fred Zilian

(The essay was originally published as “Women and the War,” by the Newport Daily News on February 4, 2015.)

While most women were content to remain at home and to focus on the home and their families when their husbands went off to war, others took more active roles, some even hiding their gender to accompany their husbands to battle.

There were women who became notable for the roles they or their husbands played in the Civil War. Mary Todd, the daughter of a prosperous merchant and banker in Lexington, Kentucky, met and married Abraham Lincoln in 1842. Mary’s sister, Elizabeth, stated that Lincoln “was charmed with Mary’s wit and fascinated with her sagacity—her will—her nature—and culture.” They married in 1842 and had four children, all boys. Robert Todd Lincoln was the only son who reached full maturity. In 1861, they moved to the White House and lived there until the President’s death April 14, 1865.

  Mary_Todd_Lincoln, wiki

Mary Todd Lincoln, circa 1861

(wikipedia.com)

          Julia Grant, the wife of General Ulysses S. Grant, accompanied her husband at numerous times during the war. She was taken into custody by Confederate troops in Mississippi in 1862, probably the only time this happened to a wife of a general. When Confederate Brig. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest became aware of her identity, he reportedly said, “Pass that woman through the lines, and waste no time.” When Grant was at City Point, VA, for the long siege of Petersburg near the end of the war, she traveled there and made sure he frequently had “good home-cooked food.”

Julia Ward Howe, a talented, independent-minded woman—poet, writer, playwright, preacher, lecturer, and reform leader—spent much of her life at her “Oak Glen” country home in Portsmouth, RI. She is best remembered for writing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in 1861. She traveled to Washington, DC, met President Abraham Lincoln, and visited military camps in the area. During these visits she heard the tune popular at the time, “John Brown’s Body,” celebrating his martyrdom for the anti-slavery cause. As she lay in her hotel bed early one morning, the words came to her.  The poem was first published in February, 1862, was quickly put to the tune of “John Brown’s Body,” and became an unofficial anthem of the Union.

julia-ward-howe, poetryfoundn.org

Julia Ward Howe

          Clara Barton of Massachusetts became convinced it was her Christian duty to help comfort and care for Union soldiers. In August 1862 she obtained permission to administer to soldiers on the front lines. She performed her mission at several battles, including Cedar Mountain, Second Bull Run, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. She became known as the “Angel of the Battlefield,” and after the war founded the American Red Cross.

wcbbrady

Clara Barton, circa 1866

(Photo by Matthew Brady, wikipedia. Com)

          A good many other women played less prominent roles. Some accompanied their husbands to war and served to meet their needs as well as the others around them, often acting as unofficial nurses. Harriet W. F. Hawley managed to stay with her husband when he took command of the 7th Connecticut Regiment. When Pastor Stephen Barker joined the 13th Massachusetts Regiment, his wife became a nurse for the unit. Mrs. John A Logan, the wife of an Illinois colonel, was able to find her wounded husband aboard the steamer New Uncle Sam and tended to his needs and other wounded men.

Mrs. John B. Turchin, wife of a colonel in the 19th Illinois Regiment, accompanied her husband to war and served as a nurse. In a campaign in Tennessee, her husband became very ill. Veterans of the unit stated that she essentially took command of the unit for ten days and briefly led it in combat.

The men of the 26th North Carolina Regiment noticed that Sam and Keith Blalock had a very close relationship. Keith explained that they had grown up in the same town and were distant relatives. The officers of the unit eventually discovered that Sam’s real name was Malinda, Keith’s wife.

Robert Brownell and his wife Kady lived in Providence at the outset of the war. When Robert enlisted in the 1st RI Regiment and the unit left for the nation’s capital, Kady made her way there.  Both took part in the First Battle of Bull Run, Kady serving as temporary color bearer. She also accompanied her husband later in the war with the 5th RI Heavy Artillery when the unit saw action in North Carolina. Kady served as nurse and standard bearer.

Kady_Brownell, wiki

Kady Brownell of Providence wearing her self-made uniform

(wikipwedia.com)

          Newport’s own Katharine Prescott Wormeley was one of the first women during the war to assist the Medical Bureau and Sanitary Commission in caring for sick and wounded soldiers. She was eventually named “Lady Superintendent” of Portsmouth Grove Hospital, here in Portsmouth, RI. She accepted the position in August 1862, and was responsible for its “domestic management.” The hospital came to be quite sizeable, with 28 ward buildings and 60 patients per ward.

katherine-prescott-wormeley

Katharine Prescott Wormeley of Newport

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment