Union Women

One of the central themes in this week's readings was the role that Union women played as supporters of the war effort and of being political activists. Nina Silber commented in her essay, "The Problem of Women's Patriotism" that the period of the Civil War suddenly thrust a special burden on women to be especially active in both politics and in other areas of support for the war. There lingered a negative stigmatism concerning the appropriate level of political involvement for women. The prevailing thought of the day was that the husband or man of the house was the political leader of the entire household and therefore dictated the political awareness of women. As women began to challenge this pervasive ideology during the civil war, many were cast as poisonous supporters of Democratic or Copperhead agendas and labeled as opponents to a Republican Union. However, women were unfairly condemned. An inspiring example was the Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton document. In this document, a challenge to all women is set forth to preserve freedom and democracy by making certain sacrifices and by devoting themselves to the cause of the Union. Stanton and Anthony used the example of Southern women and how they had committed themselves to the cause of the Confederacy so fervently because they had seen the horrors of war and were fully enveloped in its struggle. Northern women, on the other hand were more removed from the front lines and were therefore accused (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) of being frivolous amidst such a great struggle. The first document written by the President of the Detroit Ladies Aid Society also implored women to work hard to make whatever they could in whatever way they could to help their poor men fighting for them so far away. The documents and the essay by Sibler illustrate that Northern women stepped up to the challenge as bearers of Union strength and resolve although, as they broke down prevailing sexist ideas, they were too often misrepresented and attacked.

Perspectives from the South

Reading through the documents this week that focused on perspectives of Southerners, one phrase seemed to resonate with most of the writers. "Military despotism" seems to be a prevalent fear among the writers of these documents. They fear that, especially through the acts of military conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus, the government is acting in a manner un-republican. I found it to be interesting that a fear of un-republican government taking over the South would be so prevelant. In the fourth document, The North Carolina Legislature voices their concern over what they perceive to be an un-repbulican government. It reads, "...That the act of the late Congress, entitled 'an act to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases,' violates the fundamental maxim of republican government..." I find this to be especially interesting considering the fact that the Confederate government was founded by its blatant abandonment of republican government by their refusal to accept a legitimate election. Now, in a number of these documents, they cry foul at an apparent abandonment of republican government. These documents also show the desperation many Southerners felt by 1864 and 1865 as the war was drawing to its conclusion. In the 6th document, Cornelia Peake Mcdonald wrote about how she witnessed many Confederate soldiers deserting. Lee's army was continually being defeated and many soldiers were hearing about the hardships of their wives and children they had left at home, so they deserted the army to take care of their families. Besides, they never signed up for the war anyways. This was what made conscription so bad. It took men away from being the provider for their families. This is what Eliza Adams wrote about in her letter to President Jefferson Davis as she pleaded with him not to make her son go into the army as his role at home was so important since he was the last son of her 6 left at home. She couldn't afford to lose him. Overall, those in the South were not at all happy with the way the war had unfolded. It was only draining them more and more of family and subsistence.

Lincoln

In this blog, I'd like to focus on the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Certainly, the Gettysburg address has been somewhat canonized in American history books. Children have been made to recite the first few paragraphs while wearing a top hat and a fake beard. But while re-reading it here, it seems that Lincoln does not even want to be there on that day. The gravity of the moment, I think, demanded a coming to grips with reality for everyone there. That action, facing death, broken life and a broken nation had to have challenged Lincoln's resolve. Without giving up hope for the future, I got the sense that Lincoln found himself swimming in dissolution during that ceremony. He said, "...we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." I think Lincoln knew he was right; he knew he was right about the preservation of the Union, about ending slavery in that Union and about the steps he had to take in order to meet those demands. But, I think he had a hard time reconciling the fact that a large portion of his brothers and sisters so staunchly rejected his resolution, to the point that they would bring this type of mass devastation in opposition. In his second inaugural address, he continues in his sense of befuddlement that the South would go to such great lengths and fight so long and hard for an issue he knows he stands justified. He says about the North and the South, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces' but let us judge not that we be not judged." He continues to talk about God's role in the great struggle between the two sections, and although Lincoln believes he was on God's side (if God had a side in this mess), he almost seems apologetic that even his side had to engage in an armed conflict of that magnitude in order to bring about justice. There is no doubt though, that Lincoln clearly states in this address that slavery was wrong and by whatever endeavor necessary must be erased from America's boarders. He was not hesitant to blame the South for starting the war and for continuing it in blatant disregard for God and country.

Soldier Reflections

The first few documents focusing on the soldiers come from the early part of the war in 1861 and 1862. It is interesting to see how the language changes to the two last documents which are dated from 1863. The earlier documents seem a bit naive about the war and the ensuing combat. The later documents seem to evoke more of a desperate tone. The key document that sums up the mood of the early part of the war for the soldiers is Charlie Willis' diary from 1862. In this exempt, he wished for more action and complained of boredom. However, Tally Simpson's letter from 1863 shows the language of a soldier who has had to endure a number of battles and setbacks. His demeanor is much more sober and pessimistic than the documents from a year earlier. In the end, he sees a crushing defeat of the Confederate army, which, as a Confederate soldier, saddens him but he has resolved himself to continue the fight because it is God's will that he fight and die. It is interesting to observe how confidence dwindles as the war moves on.

McClellan, Lee, Grant, Sherman Documents

These documents offer a deeper understanding of the will of each side to endure the hardships of war and see the conflict through to its finality. The first document written by George McClellan to President Lincoln addressed how the Union should approach the impending war. McClellan told Lincoln things the President was surely already aware of. Lincoln probably didn't need reminding about the principles that the Union stood for and the he held constitutional powers to preserve law and order in all the states. Still, McClellan reminded Lincoln that he should lay out "a system of policy thus constitutional and conservative and pervaded by the influences of Christianity and freedom." Conversely, Robert E. Lee wrote to President Stephens about Confederate victories in somewhat of a confident and boastful tone. After writing to Stephens about their recent victories, Lee wrote again to Stephens to convince him that the Confederate army should attack Maryland and go on the offensive in order to keep the pressure on the Union. He also petitioned to Stephens for ammunition and shoes in order to continue the effective assault of the Union.
The next document, written by Ulysses S. Grant was his recollection of the eve of the Overland Campaign. He admitted in this document his realization that the capture of the Confederate capital was not to happen without great losses. Grant wrote that since there had been such fierce fighting on both sides for so long, there had to be a final end - no matter the cost.
Finally, General Sherman warned that the people living in Atlanta had better prepare to vacate because war was imminent. Sherman wrote, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." He chided those in the south for continuing the fight and said that, "the war was done in error and is perpetuated in pride." He ended by telling those in the south that the Union was not interested in confiscating their possessions or gaining anything at their expense, they simply wanted them to obey the law and if it took the destruction of their land, homes and bodies, then it must be so in order to preserve reconciliation. After this stern and frightening warning, Sherman assured Southerners that after the conflict, he'd be their friend, but not until they were willing to give up the fight.

Stephens and Lincoln documents

No one could make it more clear than Alexander Stephens did that the Southern states withdrew from the United States on the issue of slavery alone. Unless Stephens spoke to the crowd gathered at Savannah, Ga on March 21, 1861 on his own accord and without the sanction of any other Confederate authority, any post war explanation of the motives of disunion that relied on states rights as its bedrock is nothing but a weak and untruthful argument. I also find it incredibly interesting that Confederates used the constitution extensively as their body of evidence that they were acting in the true spirit the country's founding principles. In his speech in 1861, Stephens actually asserts that the crafters of the constitution were ideologically wrong in their assumption that all men were created equally. Observing flaw in one aspect of the constitution severely diminishes any other argument that uses the constitution as its legitimizing document.
I also found it interesting in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation that, although he based this act on the purpose of its justice, it only applied to a portion of the enslaved population. Regarding states like Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland, which were not in rebellion to the Union but at the same time sanctioned slavery, Lincoln said, "are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." It seems that if the emancipation of the slaves was an act based solely on justice, then the entirety of the slave population would have been emancipated. It seems more appropriate that Lincoln used the emancipation of the slaves in rebelling states more as a bargaining chip than a civil rights act.

Response to Apostles of Disunion

I find it interesting that southern cotton states proactively lobbied for other southern states to join the confederacy on the basis of slavery but insist in hindsight that the war was fought over states rights and interpretations of the constitution. Charles Dew did a great job emphasizing the major role that race and slavery played in the decision making for southern states as they decided to secede one by one. Dew explains, "Alabamians described the same nightmare world that Commissioner Harris had painted for the Georgia legislature: a South humbled, abolitionized degraded, and threatened with destruction by a brutal Republican majority. Emancipation, race war, miscegenation - one apocalyptic vision after another. The death throes of white supremacy would be so horrific that no self-respecting Southerner could fail to rally to the ccessionist cause, they argued. Only through disunion could the South preserve the purity and ensure the survival of the white race."

Major Problems, chapter 1

James McPhereson, LeeAnn Whites and Edward Ayers offer explanations of the conflict between the North and the South that go beyond the issue of slavery itself. Certainly, slavery was a pivotal issue but as LeeAnn Whites pointed out, gender and the changing roles of manliness for both blacks and whites and the important role that women played and how that role evolved throughout the conflict also proved to be an inbeded sectional issue. James McPhereson highlighted the polarity that existed between the ideologies, economic systems and traditions of the North and South. This polarity drove Northerners and Southerners to extreme positions. It drove leaders in the South to create their own government and call men to arms to defend as patriots, the honor of their traditions and economic livlihood. It drove leaders in the North, namely James Garfield, to suggest that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the destruction of the South. These measures included taking land away from Southern land holders and redistributing it to Northerners and freed slaves. Garfield also suggested that rebel leaders should be executed or banished. Finally, Edward Ayers explained reconstruction in a new light. The fact that white Southerners found the reforms of their victors so utterly repulsive illuminates both the polarity of ideologies and the solidarity of resolve by each side to preserve its own values. Ayers explained that, although reconstruction was a lengthy process that many Southerners never accepted, the process was the monuentous bedrock that paved the road to the greatest civil rights victory of its time. These three articles are important in our understanding of the real issues that led to the Civil War. They help us comprehend the complexity of conflicting economic systems, gender expectations and deeply inbeded traditions that found no room for coexistence.