Author Archives: Bob

06/18/13

“Was It Worth It?”

From Gary Gallagher's "The Union War"

From Gary Gallagher’s “The Union War”

Back in March I attended a conference at Gettysburg hosted by the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College. I never wrote about it. There seemed to be plenty of bloggers discussing its content, structure, successes, and shortcomings. Personally, I enjoyed the sessions I attended and was happy to meet face-to-face a number of people I had known previously only online. As I recall, Pete Carmichael, Director of CWI, opened the conference by questioning the thrust of Civil War interpretation in regard to the horrors of war. Dr. Carmichael showed a photo of an armless Civil War soldier and asked how often we are willing to share such images with visitors to parks. When Dr. Carmichael finished and opened the floor for questions, Brooks Simpson came to the microphone and observed that Dr. Carmichael’s address could be summed up with the question, “Was it worth it?” It’s been a few months, but that is how I remember it, and the subject came up again over the course of the conference.

I was reminded of that conference when last week a friend sent me a copy of an article that appeared in the latest issue of The Journal of the Civil War Era titled “Revisionism Reinvented? The Antiwar Turn in Civil War Scholarship” by Yael A. Sternhell.  Dr. Sternhell argues that “a new revisionist trend in Civil War scholarship is in full bloom.” She describes the “old revisionism” which flourished in the 1930s, but then states that “much of the revisionists’ agenda has been discredited over the years.” I wrote about the “revisionists” in a past blogpost. See here.

Given the numbers of books and monographs being published in recent years, I’m not sure how anyone could come to a proper synthesis of Civil War historiography. Dr. Sternhell chooses to focus on a few books and articles, not all of which I have read. One, however is Harry S. Stout’s Upon the Altar of Freedom: A Moral History of the Civil War, which I have read. Frankly, I wasn’t that impressed. For example, Stout’s grasp of events in Missouri is pitiful. I would have to agree with most of what this Amazon reviewer wrote. Sternhell also writes that “Stout argues that the Union army was fighting a total war against southern civilians and combatants alike, in which the dictums of just war were freely and unapologetically breached,” yet in her notes she admits that “the debate over the severity of Union policies toward the South began before the close of the war and has continued ever since.”

Sternhell also cites David Goldfield’s America Aflame: How The Civil War Created a Nation. I have not read this book, but considering that it is not published by a University press, I would be a bit suspect (not that there aren’t some excellent books published outside the academy). However, since Sternhell tells us that Goldfield’s mentor was Avery Craven, I feel little need to read it. Again, see my previous blogpost on the revisionists.

Sternhell cites Michael Fellman, a scholar who did some excellent work on guerilla warfare in the Civil War, but Sternhell quotes Fellman, “For most of its history, America has celebrated its military establishment, built it up, and used it around the world as an instrument of international power.” This statement ignores the fact that early Americans distrusted standing armies, and the fact that the Civil War in particular was fought not by a “military establishment” as we might envision that today, but by citizen-soldiers who answered the call to arms then quickly returned to their civilian pursuits. Fellman’s statement also raises the question of whether or not America’s power has historically been more a force for good in the world or bad.

More than once in her essay, Sternhell seems to accept potshots leveled at U. S. Grant. Stout, she quotes as saying, “Emancipationist rhetoric was actually (and unbelievably) employed by Grant and Sherman to justify Indian exterminations in the 1870s and later. Indians, they argued were standing in the way of ‘Americans” freedom to expand, and therefore they deserved to be exterminated.” I’d like to know where Stout finds Grant calling for the “extermination” of anyone. Grant repeatedly called for policies that (at least to his way of thinking) would allow Indians to become citizens of the United States. Sternhell also cites Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War.  Foreman apparently “contends that Grant achieved his monumental victory at Vicksburg not by any great military feat but by starving out the town’s civilians.” This likely comes as a surprise to the numerous military historians who have studied Grant’s Vicksburg campaign and praised it as one of the most masterful of all time. Furthermore, I wonder, not having read Foreman’s book, does she offer an alternative to Grant’s siege? One that would have cost fewer casualties?

Sternhell tells us that “new revisionist” authors see the Emancipation Proclamation as a mere “political ploy” and a move to weaken Confederate military capabilities. Criticism of the EP is nothing new, but Goldfield, according to Sternhell, “argues that other means might have achieved freedom for the slaves, had the democratic process been allowed to succeed.” This one really has me scratching my head. Who exactly does Goldfield think thwarted “the democratic process?”

In the end, Sternhell admits that the “new revisionism” is not very convincing. The “new revisionists” want to answer the question “was it worth it?” (and the question seems to be mostly directed at the Union side) with a resounding “no” just as the “old revisionists” did. There is, however, just too much evidence of the centrality of slavery  in bringing on the conflict, and the importance of the Union to Northerners (and many Southerners). If we are going to answer “no, it wasn’t worth it,” then we must allow that freedom is not worth killing and dying for, and that The United States of America is not, and has not been, the beacon of hope and freedom to the world that it claims to be. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” becomes mere words on fading parchment. From our vantage point 150 years and countless wars later, these might be debatable points. We might even need to admit that democracy as we practice it is not always the answer for other countries. But, the generation of loyal Americans who actually endured the Civil War from Ft. Sumter to Appomattox, as Gary Gallagher wrote, “possessed a strong sense of their nation as a democratic republic unique in the world, bequeathed to them by the founding generation and destined for future greatness if poisonous questions relating to slavery could be settled.”  It was  “worth it.”

I would suggest that one’s time would be better spent reading other books than those discussed by Sternhell. Here are a few:

The Union War by Gary Gallagher; Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South by Stephanie McCurry; The Civil War As a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll; Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America by Allen C. Guelzo.

 

06/6/13

Remembering Bobby Kennedy

Kennedy The DallesJune 5-6, 1968 I was a few weeks shy of my 13th birthday, just finishing 7th grade at a jr. high school in Corona, California. I seem to remember my school holding mock presidential elections that year, but that may not have happened until after summer break. At any rate, my mother was a Kennedy supporter and so I naturally followed her lead. I know we watched the primary election returns, and I might have actually seen the terrifying scene that unfolded in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night Bobby Kennedy triumphed over Eugene McCarthy. I wish I could remember for sure, but after all these years and the numerous times I’ve seen the film clips and photos, I’m not. I might have already been sent to bed. Whatever the case, I’ve always felt more connected to Bobby than his older brother. I was, after all, only eight years old when JFK was shot, and Bobby’s tragedy occurred in California – my home state – not all that far from where I lived.

If my memory is a bit hazy, my wife’s is not. She was seventeen years old and a Senior at Wahtonka High School in The Dalles, Oregon in early 1968. Oregon’s presidential primary preceded California’s. The Dalles was one of 11 Oregon cities where Bobby made campaign stops that spring. Bobby arrived at The Dalles airport to a welcoming crowd of 300-500 people. Streets had been blocked off in advance for Bobby to ride in an open limousine through town to The Dalles Junior High School. Thousands lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the motorcade. 3,000 people packed the jr. high auditorium to hear Bobby speak. The girls of Wahtonka and The Dalles High Schools had been asked to be ushers for the event, and to hand out Kennedy campaign literature. My wife, Sue, was one of the girls who volunteered. They were dubbed “Kennedy Girls.”

002The Dalles newspaper said Bobby “quickly dealt with various national and international issues, among them violence and lawlessness, injustices affecting both Negroes and, in some areas, Indians, the need for more jobs instead of more welfare payments, the danger of continued inflation, the adverse effect of high interest rates, and his willingness to ‘help’ South Vietnam, though critical of the fact U. S. casualties now are running higher than those of the South Vietnamese, and it is ‘their war.’”

After his speech, Bobby mingled with the crowd while the “Kennedy Girls” provided light refreshments, and then helped usher people out. When it was time for Bobby to leave, the “Kennedy Girls” were asked to line up outside so that Bobby could personally thank each one as he made his way to his waiting limo. Sue wrote in her “Senior Memory Book”:  ”Shook his hand 2 times and he said to us ‘thanks, girls.’ It was really neat.” Attached to the page is the Kennedy button she wore. She only remembers saying “you’re welcome” in response, and that she was suddenly overwhelmed with the knowledge that she had shook hands with the man who might be the next President of The United States. She also remembers feeling that Bobby seemed sincerely interested in each girl he spoke to. “He had kind eyes, but his skin looked gray; he looked so tired,” Sue tells me, “and he brushed his hands through his hair, just like in all the film clips.”

Bobby told the people of Oregon that he feared losing Oregon or California might give the nomination to Hubert Humphrey. He lost Oregon, which made victory in California crucial. Whether he could have secured the nomination of the Democratic Party is still debated. It all became moot that night in June. Sue was heartbroken when she heard the news. To this day, she cries every time she sees photos or film clips or news reports of Bobby Kennedy. A few months ago I  sent an email request to the Wasco County Library for newspaper articles covering the event. They graciously sent me an envelope full.

"Scoring a point with the crowd, estimated at over 3,000, Senator Kennedy wins cheers at this point of his brief presentation. In the center of the photo are four of the "Kennedy Girls" recruited from local high schools. The attractive bevy of girls distributed campaign literature before the candidate's arrival and escorted him into the junior high gymnasium." The Dalles Chronicle, May 23, 1968.

“The attractive bevy of girls…” The Dalles Chronicle, May 23, 1968.

 

In 2004, we visited Arlington National Cemetery. Seeing the simple white cross where Bobby Kennedy is laid to rest was a moving experience for us both, but more so for Sue. Bobby, we hardly knew you…

004

06/5/13

Did Grant Live At White Haven After His Presidency?

004Visitors to White Haven (Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site) often ask if Grant returned to live there after his Presidency. The simple answer is, no, he never did. After that it gets more complicated and also quite interesting because the answer includes many stories and a bit of conjecture. One of those stories is the subject of a book that was published last year, A Disposition To Be Rich: How a small-town pastor’s son ruined an American president, brought on a Wall Street crash, and made himself the best-hated man in the United States by Geoffrey C. Ward.

The “small-town pastor’s son” was Ferdinand Ward, and the American president was, of course, Ulysses S. Grant (although the “ruin” actually occurred several years after Grant left the White House). The author, Geoffery C. Ward, is a direct descendent of Ferdinand Ward, and also happens to be a very successful writer and historian. This book isn’t just the story of how Ferdinand Ward financially ruined the Grants (and many others); for Geoffery Ward it is personal family history. Yet, he pulls no punches in telling the story, which involves one of the most devastating “Ponzi” schemes ever perpetrated. In fact, Ferdinand Ward was decades ahead of Ponzi himself.

The bottom line for Grant was that Ferdinand Ward cost him everything he owned, including Julia’s beloved White Haven. After 64 years of Dent/Grant ownership, the property was deeded over to William H. Vanderbilt to help pay down a personal loan Grant had secured from him. Ferdinand Ward had convinced Grant that the Marine Bank needed a short-term infusion of cash to avoid failure, which in turn would be devastating to their Wall Street financial concern, “Grant and Ward.” (The Grant in “Grant and Ward” was actually Grant’s second son, Ulysses, Jr., who had invited his father to join the firm after Grant failed to secure a third term nomination for President in 1880.) Grant had personally visited the railroad baron’s mansion to borrow the $150,000 Ward claimed was needed to keep the bank afloat. The bank failed anyway, and consequently so did “Grant and Ward,” which left Grant with no income and a $150,000 personal debt.

The swindle of Ferdinand Ward was crushing not only financially for Grant, but psychologically as well, and may have even been a contributing factor in the development of the cancer that would kill him the following year.

Despite the enormity of Ferdinand Ward’s swindle, it turned out to be difficult for legal authorities to convict him because many of those he had cheated did not want to come forward and admit they had been fooled.

For all the dirty details, read the book.

 

 

04/14/13

A Bit Of Jewish History

Mt. Zion CemeteryWe stayed at a hotel in Maspeth (Queens). Directly across the street is Mt. Zion Cemetery, a  Jewish burial ground established in 1893. I didn’t take the photo above, but this was essentially the view we had from our room. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a cemetery so closely packed. Before going to New York I had read a few reviews of the hotel and one said the surroundings are “grim.” Well, cemeteries don’t bother Sue and I; in fact, we find them fascinating – so much history! I only wish we had had the time to walk across the street and explore a little. Since returning home I did a little googling and learned some very interesting things about Mt. Zion. For example, many of the workers who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire are buried there. Given the 1893 date, I’m sure there must be Civil War veterans buried there. For certain, there are WWI veterans buried there. See here, here, and here for more.

While I’m on the subject of Jewish history in New York, fellow blogger Keith Muchowski posted about an exhibit that recently opened at a museum in New York on Jews and the Civil War. See Keith’s post here. If you are going to be in New York this summer you might want to check this exhibit out; I wish I could get back for it.

Of course, no history of the Jews and the Civil War would be complete without an examination of Ulysses S. Grant’s infamous General Order No. 11, and it appears that the exhibit includes three mini-documentary films, one of which focuses on General Order No. 11. I was glad to see that Jonathan Sarna is involved with the project. You might recall that he recently published a book that put forth a positive interpretation of Grant and his attitude towards Jewish people. Dr. Sarna was a guest speaker at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site last year and his lecture was well attended and received. The park therefore, decided to try having an annual lecture on Jewish history. On June 2, 2013, the park will welcome Robert A. Cohn, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Jewish Light here in St. Louis. His topic will be “Jewish Soldiers in the Civil War.” If you are interested in attending, remember to call a few weeks ahead and make a reservation.

04/3/13

“Boss” Tweed’s Courthouse

On the steps of the Tweed Courthouse, March, 2013.

On the steps of the Tweed Courthouse, March, 2013.

In the opening scenes of the movie “Gangs of New York,” Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, the son of a slain Irish Catholic priest, provides a narrative introduction to mid-19th century New York. DiCaprio introduces one of the 19th century’s most colorful and infamous characters, William M. “Boss” Tweed. Di Caprio informs the audience that “New Yorkers loved Tweed…and hated him!” Whatever other historical errors the film makes, this is true. When Tweed died one New York County sheriff said, “Tweed had a great many friends among the poor and friendless. Other people will regret his death because they think he has been rather harshly dealt with…he cannot be considered wholly as a bad man. He erred deplorably. And he has paid for his errors by dying in prison.” Others could muster no sympathy at all for the man they saw as nothing but a criminal who had grossly forsaken the public trust. It is exactly this kind of complexity in historic characters that has always fascinated me; this is what makes history so fun.

This Nast cartoon from October 29, 1870, portrayed Tweed (left) as the real power behind New York Governor John Hoffman. (From Keller's "The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast.)

This Nast cartoon from October 29, 1870, portrayed Tweed (left) as the real power behind New York Governor John Hoffman. (From Keller’s “The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast.)

Tweed was a larger-than-life figure in his day, in part thanks to cartoonist Thomas Nast, whose editorial cartoons helped expose Tweed’s corruption and eventually led to his downfall. But, Tweed had quite a run in the incredibly rough-and-tumble politics of 19th century New York. In his biography of Tweed, Kenneth Ackerman wrote:

William Tweed had left enormous footprints on his city; he had built as grandly as he’d stolen. His monuments dotted every corner of Manhattan – the new Brooklyn Bridge rising across the East River, the opulent new County Courthouse by City Hall, the widened, paved streets up Broadway and around Central Park. Just as striking were shadows of his huge crimes- the huge debt and ruined credit that would haunt city finances for a generation, the broken lives and shattered trust of former friends. Tweed had defined a grimy reality of American politics, perfecting forms of graft and voting-box abuse mimicked by political bosses for the next century, but never on so grand a scale. His fall had created a new role for a free, skeptical press in the public arena, and his legal persecution had set a tone for political scandals lasting generations.

Tweed stood trial in January of 1873 in an unfinished room of the courthouse; the construction of which he had been using to embezzle unbelievably large amounts of money. This first trial ended in a hung jury, but Tweed was re-tried in November, convicted and sentenced to twelve years in the city penitentiary on Blackwell’s Island. Tweed spent almost two years there. His lawyers won his release, but he was promptly arrested again and placed in the Ludlow Street jail from which he escaped and fled the country, first to Cuba and then to Spain. He might have lived out his life on foreign soil, but President Ulysses S. Grant, nearing the end of his second term, took a personal interest in Tweed. Grant and his Secretary of State Hamilton Fish engineered a trap, and then negotiated a deal with Spain that brought Tweed back to New York where he eventually died in jail. Despite the ignominious end to the reign of “Boss” Tweed, the Democratic political organization that had given rise to Tweed, Tammany Hall, continued on and thrived well into the twentieth century.

Today, Tweed's Courthouse is home to the New York City Department of Education and a charter school.

Today, Tweed’s Courthouse is home to the New York City Department of Education and a charter school.

Tweed’s courthouse was not completed until after he died. Beginning in 1999 it underwent an extensive two-year restoration. (See here.) I was only able to see the outside of the courthouse on my recent trip to New York due the short amount of time I had to spend there. Tours are available and I hope someday soon to return.

I highly recommend Ackerman’s book, Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York. Also, The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast by Morton Keller, The Devil’s Own Work: The Civil War Draft Riots and the Fight to Reconstruct America by Bernard Schecter, and Five Points: The Nineteenth Century New York City Neighborhood That Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World’s Most Notorious Slum by Tyler Anbinder. Also, in my pile of books “to be read”: Boss Tweed’s New York by Samuel J. Mandelbaum and The Tiger: The Rise and Fall of Tammany Hall by Oliver E. Allen.

 ***Here are links to a couple of interesting articles about the restoration that I discovered after posting this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/09/nyregion/grandeur-that-graft-built-boss-tweed-s-courthouse-slowly-reveals-its-glory.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://archive.archaeology.org/0207/abstracts/tweed.html

04/1/13

A Tale of Two Julias

Julia GrantAs I’m sure many of you already know, The New York Times has been running a series of articles by various authors on the Civil War under the title Disunion. My impression is the series has been well-received. Personally, I have not followed the series too closely, partly because I was disappointed in the content of a few articles early on. (See here and here). The series is running on the Times “Opinion” page, and perhaps that is appropriate. The problem with most newspaper articles and blogposts (yes, this blog included) is that there are usually no source footnotes and no peer review. In the case of the Disunion series, I don’t know who is reviewing or approving the articles the Times is running. Regarding sources, the articles are not footnoted, although they do list source references at the end of the article. This, of course, is only somewhat useful in identifying the source of specific information related in the article.

A couple of days ago I came across an article that appeared in the Disunion series in February titled, “The Two Julias.” The subject(s) of the article, written by Candice Shy Hooper, are Julia Dent Grant and the slave nurse the Dent family called ”Black Julia.” I was flattered to see that Ms. Hooper cited a post from this blog in her sources. Overall her article relates some very interesting history and raises some very interesting historical issues. Ms. Hooper, however, makes some assertions that I find problematic.

Ms. Hooper tells us that throughout the Civil War “Grant wanted his wife with him at every possible opportunity, and he made that clear from the start,” and that “Julia Grant was the Civil War’s road warrior. Beginning with that first journey, she covered more than 10,000 miles in four years – and nearly 4,000 in just the first year – to be with her husband.” There is no question that Ulysses and Julia made every effort to be together; they had already endured a two year separation in 1852-1854 while Grant had been stationed on the west coast and they did not want to be separated that long again. Then Ms. Hooper writes, “She couldn’t have managed without her slave.” And this is where I begin to question. Ms. Hooper’s description of the difficulties of travel are certainly accurate. In fact, most middle and upper class women found it necessary to have domestic help, even when they weren’t traveling. These servants did not have to be slaves though. Julia had already managed to get along without slaves when as a young bride she had lived with her husband while he was stationed in Michigan and New York. She had also just spent a year living in Galena, Illinois without slaves. It’s true that Julia would have found it difficult to travel without the help of a “servant” but that doesn’t equate to “She couldn’t have managed without her slave.”

The slave that Ms. Hooper chooses to focus on in her article, “Black Julia,” was, according to Julia Grant, born at White Haven.  Ms. Hooper describes White Haven as “a plantation near St. Louis, where her father, Frederick Dent, and more than a dozen slaves lived a life more commonly associated with the Deep South.” But what exactly is ”a life more commonly associated with the Deep South”? Yes, Dent owned slaves. Yes, they labored in the fields and served the needs of the white family living in the main house. Beyond that, White Haven operated more like a family farm. There was a variety of crops grown, as far as we know there was never an overseer, we have no record at all of punishments of any kind being meted out. Julia Grant insisted that the slaves at White Haven were treated well. When Grant farmed there in 1854-1858 he worked in the fields alongside the slaves. It probably was not as idyllic for the slaves as Julia Grant remembered it, but we don’t really know.

Ms. Hooper then tells us “historians still debate whether Dent retained legal title to the four slaves his daughter claimed to own.” This is where the lack of footnotes begins to be a challenge. Who are these “historians” who are debating this issue, where is this “debate” taking place, and what evidence is being presented? Ms. Hooper notes that when the Grants moved from St. Louis to Galena in 1860, Julia’s father, Col. Dent, refused to let Julia take “her” slaves with her, but then Ms. Hooper asserts that the slaves were left with Col. Dent. Julia wrote in her Memoirs, however, that she and Ulysses “hired out our four servants to persons we knew and who promised to be kind to them.” (JDG Memoirs, 82) Ms. Hooper then states, “It is likely that in November 1861, when Julia traveled with her children from Galena to St. Louis and then to Cairo, she convinced her father and husband to allow her to take Jule with her.” Maybe so, but then she asserts, “As the price of having Julia with him, Grant tolerated Jule’s presence, though the slave’s arrival at his headquarters was surely an embarrassment.” How can we know if Grant was embarrassed? This is 1861-2. Grant is still fighting a war to save the Union, not to emancipate slaves. It seems to me that describing Grant as embarrassed that his wife has a slave traveling with her assumes that Grant was anti-slavery. As I have argued before, the evidence that Grant was anti-slavery in 1861 and earlier is sketchy at best. In addition, most Union officers had “servants.” Ms. Hooper has already noted that Grant himself had a servant at the beginning of her article.

Ms. Hooper relates one of my favorite passages in Julia Grant’s Memoirs in which Julia remembered being questioned by several Southern ladies in Holly Springs regarding her loyalties. Julia indignantly told them she was “the most loyal of the loyal.” Ms. Hooper asserts that the presence of “Black Julia” precipitated this exchange, however that is not at all clear in Julia’s account. (JDG Memoirs, 105-106)

Ms. Hooper admits that “we know almost nothing about Jule [Black Julia],” yet she goes on to make unsubstantiated guesses about what Jule might have been thinking and feeling. Ms. Hooper states that after the Emancipation Proclamation, “Jule must have wondered at a world in which any other slave in the South but she could find freedom in General Grant’s camp.” Since we don’t know anything about her, how can we assume what she is thinking? And, we don’t really know what kind of relationship “Black Julia” had with Julia Grant or with Ulysses Grant. Ms. Hooper quotes Julia Grant in her Memoirs, “Eliza, Dan, Julia, and John belonged to me up to the time of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.” But Julia, writing decades after the fact, was incorrect. Ms. Hooper acknowledges this, but she gets it wrong also. Eliza, Dan, and John were presumably still in Missouri which was not covered by the EP. Black Julia’s status, traveling with Julia Grant, may have been more uncertain, however there were areas under Union control where slaves were freed immediately by the EP. At any rate, Ms. Hooper then posits that “Jule continued her service to Julia, most likely as a paid servant.” Again the lack of footnotes makes it difficult to determine what the source is for this information. Ms. Hooper again quoting Julia’s Memoirs stated,  “’At Louisville, my nurse (a girl raised at my home) left me,’ Julia later recalled. ‘I suppose she feared losing her freedom if she returned to Missouri.’” This was actually a curious statement on Julia’s part, because it conflicts with her earlier assertion that the slaves she considered “hers” were all freed by the EP. And, if Black Julia had actually become a paid servant, wouldn’t that imply a right to leave at any time, unless she had signed some kind of employment agreement?

Despite having told us at the beginning of her article that historians are debating whether or not Julia Grant legally owned slaves, Ms. Hooper concludes by asserting, “One Julia was a slave owner and the wife of the general who defeated a slave nation. The other Julia was her slave for 37 years.” She also concludes, “The tale of the two Julias reveals the complexity of the Civil War’s social landscape in a way that the traditional image of brother fighting brother does not.” While this is manifestly true, her article actually misses some of that complexity by assigning thoughts and emotions to historic characters that can not be substantiated. It seems to me that Ms. Hooper has projected onto 19th century people, the “two Julias” and Ulysses Grant, a 21st century sensibility. The simple truth is that we don’t know exactly what kind of relationship these people had. We don’t know what “Black Julia” thought or felt. It is not difficult, however, to imagine that she stayed with the Grants as long as she did because she actually wanted to; because she felt a certain loyalty to this woman she had grown up with and the Grant children she had nursed as infants, because the Grants may have treated her with a certain measure of respect, and because there was a certain measure of security. What life might she have once she left them? Julia wrote that Black Julia married soon after leaving. Perhaps she had already met the man she married even before she made the decision to leave Julia Grant.

Finally Ms. Hooper wrote of Black Julia, “She risked more than her traveling companion during the war.” It’s not clear to me what this means. She concludes, ”We do not know much about Jule, but we know she had fierce determination. Once given her freedom, she refused to risk losing it.” Maybe so, but even Julia Grant, again writing decades later, only “supposes” that “Black Julia” avoided returning to Missouri for fear of losing her freedom. Maybe she just had a better offer. Maybe she just fell in love.

 

03/19/13

Who’s Buried In Grant’s Tomb?

If you’ve read the “about me” page of this blog you know I live St. Louis, but I am a product of the west coast. Last week, for the first time in my life, I visited New York City. I have wanted to get there for many years, and there were certain things I especially wanted to see; probably not all of which would be what a more typical New York tourist would want to see. Perhaps not surprisingly, number one on my list was General Grant National Memorial, or in more popular parlance, “Grant’s Tomb.”

At Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site I am often asked where Grant is buried. Sometimes a visitor will playfully ask, “Who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?” Well, to be precise, no one is buried in Grant’s Tomb. I can now personally attest that the sarcophagi of Ulysses and Julia can be viewed inside the immense mausoleum that was officially dedicated on April 27, 1897.

Visitors to Grant’s Tomb today may not be aware of the rather sordid modern history of the Tomb; how it was neglected, fell into disrepair, was covered in graffitti, became a place where the homelees lived, and where New York gangs fought gun battles. That history is partially documented here, including photos. Also, Joan Waugh’s book, U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth  includes much on the Tomb’s history. I had the pleasure of a conversation with the NPS rangers at the site who told me stories that make one’s hair stand on end. It wasn’t too long ago that visitation was only around 10,000 annually and NPS rangers were actually afraid to go there. I am happy to report that has all changed now; according to the NPS ranger I spoke to, visitation is about 100,000 a year, and my wife and I felt entirely comfortable (in fact, we were in many parts of the city during our three days and nights and never once felt apprehensive or unsafe).

While much has been done, there is still more that needs to be done, as can be seen in the photos below. In particular, the mosaic sculptures which surround the Tomb are completely out of place. The Tomb is staffed by only three full time NPS employees, one of whom is on loan from Liberty Island while that site is still shut down due to Hurricane Sandy. The shortage of employees means the Tomb is frequently closed because the staff can’t cover both the visitor center and the tomb at the same time. The visitor center is actually a recent addition. It is housed in what used to be the public restrooms under the pavillion overlook. There is a gift shop, and a small interpretive room which has text panels, a few artifacts, and a video. Unfortunately, there was something wrong with the video equipment so I could not view the video. Also unfortunately, there were a few glaring mistakes in the text panels, and a few curious ommisions. For example, there is no mention of Grant and Ward. I would think the story of Grant’s financial debacle would be of prime interest to visitors to New York. I do like the site brochure, which highlights “Milestones of Grant’s Presidency” rather than focusing on Grant’s military achievements.

The former Women's restroom under the overlook is now the entrance to the visitor center.

The former Women’s restroom under the overlook is now the entrance to the visitor center.

The Tomb is impressive evidence of the respect and admiration the American people had for the man who saved the Union. Personally though, I couldn’t help but think it is in a rather odd place. As Joan Waugh wrote, after Grant died there was competition over where he would be buried between various towns in Illinois, Ohio, and Washington, D. C. It was the family, primarily Julia, who chose the New York site. The tomb might have fared better over the years had it been placed elsewhere; my vote would probably be D. C., but that’s just my 21st century opinion. If I had been a 19th century New Yorker, perhaps I would have felt as did the New York Times: “A Most Fitting Burial Place: The Nation’s Greatest Hero Should Rest in the Nation’s Greatest City.”

The bullet hole under the wing of one of the eagles at the entrance testifies to the gritty past history of the Tomb.

The bullet hole under the wing of one of the eagles at the entrance testifies to the gritty past history of the Tomb.

Can you find the mistakes in this text panel?

Can you find the mistakes in this text panel?

 

Much has been done to rehabilitate Grant's Tomb, but the work is not complete.

Much has been done to rehabilitate Grant’s Tomb, but the work is not complete.

These mosaics need to go.

These mosaics need to go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

01/30/13

Shades of Gray

A friend and I had a short discussion on facebook the other day regarding federal government “bailouts” and today’s political and social divide. My friend asserted that homeowners who are struggling with mortgages they can’t afford, in homes worth less than what they owe, shouldn’t be helped by the government because they made their own “bad decisions” and therefore they should bear the consequences on their own. I would agree that as individuals we all must be responsible for our own actions, and yet I also believe that often things happen to people through no fault (or “bad decision”) of their own. In the case of stuggling homeowners, I can think of many extenuating circumstances; not to mention the social cost of cascading foreclosures. This is however, not meant to be a post on “bailouts” for homeowners. That is just an example. The question is, do conservatives always see issues in terms of  “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” “black and white?” And, do liberals always see issues in ”shades of gray?”

I, personally, try to question all sides of an issue. I think in part this is because I believe in the old maxim, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” As I told my friend, I’ve made plenty of “bad decisions” in my lifetime. There have been times I’ve needed help. On the other hand, much has happened to affect the course of my life that I have had little or no control over. I therefore, have a difficult time passing judgment on others. This, I suppose, colors my social and political views.

In my last post I noted that I recently read Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland. In an early chapter of the book, Perlstein wrote an account of the 1966 gubernatorial election in California, which pitted incumbent Democrat Edmund G. Brown against the former New Deal-Democrat-turned-Republican Ronald Reagan. Perlstein maintains that Brown, first elected in 1958 and re-elected in 1962 (running against Richard Nixon), had done a lot of great things for California during his eight years in office. But between 1962 and 1966, much had changed. Long oppressed segments of the population had begun to agitate for civil rights, in particular African-Americans. In California, this had resulted in the Watts Riots of 1965. Many young people were actively promoting social change and beginning to oppose the war in Vietnam, and this resulted in unrest and violence on the campuses of California’s universities. Perlstein maintains that Reagan responded to this upheaval in “black and white” terms. Perlstein: “At his announcement in January of his candidacy for California governor, Ronald Reagan had blamed the original Watts riot on the ‘philosophy that in any situation the public should turn to government for the answer.’”  It was said that Brown “had the grays and Reagan had the black and whites.” Perlstein: “Brown did his best to sail a course more like Reagan’s, not quite getting the coordinates right: signing the nation’s first law outlawing LSD, he promised it would ‘not hamper proper use of the drug for legitimate purposes.’  He put in gray – ‘proper use…legitimate purposes’ – what Reagan rendered in black and white: ‘The smell of marijuana was thick throughout the hall.’”  (The reference being to Reagan’s denunciation of a particular event on a California university campus.) Reagan said “the one overriding issue of this campaign [is] the issue of morality.” If there has ever been a codeword for “black and white,” it must be “morality.” Of course the difficulty is in defining “morality.” And again, we are into “shades of gray.”

My friend contends that bleeding-heart liberals (the extreme left) actually see all issues in black and white, just as the extreme right sees all issues in black and white, and that it is the moderates, the people in the middle who actually view issues in shades of gray. Interestingly, Perlstein contends that Brown lost support on the left, in part due to his support of President Johnson’s Vietnam war policy. Perlstein: “Moral panics from the right, moral panics from the left; poor, dumpy, Pat Brown pinioned helplessly in the middle.” As I mentioned in my last post, Perlstein contends that we are still living in “Nixonland,” a country dangerously polarized, where there is no room for a compromising middle ground. This brings me back to the question of knowing when compromise is good and when it’s not.

I sometimes think it would be easier to be the kind of person who sees things in black and white. Life might be much simpler. But that’s just not me. Then again, how useful is this “black and white vs. shades of gray” construct?

 

01/22/13

Have The 1960s Ended Yet?

300px-Pentagon_vietnam_protestsWhy do historians seem to have a need to divide history into neat eras? And then endlessly debate when those eras actually began or ended? Did the Civil War begin with the firing on Fort Sumter, or did it really start sometime before April 1861? Maybe 1854 with the border war between pro-slavery Missourians and free-state Kansans? Maybe with John Brown’s Harper’s Ferry raid? Did it really end at Appomattox? Or when Johnston surrendered? Or was Reconstruction a continuation of the Civil War?  Many historians have said that the fight for civil rights ended with the election of Hayes in 1876 and didn’t resume until the 1950s with Little Rock’s Central High. I’ve argued in earlier posts that the fight for civil rights never ended because it was never just about African-Americans.

I noted in my last post that I’ve been delving into more recent history and, lo and behold, the same question arises. When did the 1960s really start and when did they really end? A few of the books I’ve been reading attempt to answer that very question.

As the title suggests, Fire And Rain: The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, James Taylor, CSNY, And the Lost Story Of 1970 by David Browne, combines the stories of some the music industry’s biggest acts (and among my favorites) with the era’s social and political history to argue that the sixties actually did end in 1970. For a review of Fire and Rain see here.

Reading Browne’s book whet my appetite for more on those years of my youth which led me to Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland. I found Nixonland to be a fascinating read. Published in 2008, Nixonland, according to wiki, “was named one of the three best books of the year by the editors at Amazon.com and a New York Times notable book for 2008, and has been named on year-end ‘best of’ lists by over a dozen publications.” After 748 pages describing the chaos of the sixties that Perlstein argues was exploited by Richard Nixon for personal political power, Perlstein closes by asking, ”Do Americans not hate each other enough to fantasize about killing one another, in cold blood, over political and cultural disagreements? It would be hard to argue they do not. How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet.” This is a chilling assessment. In his review of Nixonland, George Will challenged Perlstein, writing, “America has long since gone off the boil. The nation portrayed in Perlstein’s compulsively readable chronicle, the America of Spiro Agnew inciting ‘positive polarization’ and the New Left laboring to ‘heighten the contradictions,’ is long gone.” Since it’s been nearly five years since the book and the review appeared, I wonder if either writer has changed their thoughts on the subject. I highly recommend reading Nixonland, but I also suggest reading Ross Douthat’s review.

Perlstein essentially concludes with Nixon’s re-election in 1972, so the book I’m reading now seems like a natural follow-up, 1973 Nervous Breakdown by Andreas Killen. Killen argues that the 1960s really ended in 1973. The year I graduated from high school! I mentioned in my last post that I don’t remember a lot of what was happening in the 60s and 70s (and, I should probably say, not because I was high :) ) and all three of these books have contained stories that further confirm that. Killen spends several pages dissecting what was apparently the first reality tv show, An American Family. According to Killen, the show was watched by 11 million Americans. I don’t think I’d ever heard of it until reading this book. The show was apparently about a family living in Santa Barbara, California. Geographically, I wasn’t too far away, but judging by the way Killen describes this family, I was a million miles away.  I did find Killen’s description of the ending of the Vietnam War and the return of the POWs to be quite interesting. Killen wrote, “the continuing prevalence of myth, false memory, and fantasy in representations of the Vietnam War finally suggests the extent to which Americans experienced the war as a fundamental rupture in their history, indeed as a kind of crisis in the very fabric of history itself.” You could almost insert “Civil” in place of “Vietnam” in that sentence. Killen also notes that “the Vietnamese vision of history is one that, unlike its American counterpart, which is linear and progressive, sees history in cyclical terms, as part of a pattern of growth and decay.” Hmmm, have to think about that some more…