Category Archives: Civil War

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.

 

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.

04/1/13

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

01/22/13

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…

 

11/13/12

Was Grant Correct On Texas Secession? (re-visited)

     In the wake of the re-election of President Obama, there is suddenly a lot of media attention being paid to petitions for secession coming from various states. In particular, a petition from the great state of Texas has apparently garnered over 60,000 signatures. According to Wiki, Texas has a population of 25.7 million, so there’s going to have to be a lot more signatures before I am convinced that this is serious. Nevertheless, I thought it might be good to re-visit a post I published last year. See here.

11/12/12

Was Ulysses Grant Anti-slavery?

One of the primary issues that I have grappled with in my four years as a Park Guide at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, the place the Grants called White Haven, is the question of what Grant’s personal views on slavery actually were in the years before the Civil War. I do not believe the issue has any direct bearing on what caused the war, as Grant was not really involved in the political debate that led to secession. Nevertheless, given his prominent role in suppressing the slaveholders’ rebellion it is a question that is often raised. Grant scholars, or anyone interested in Grant the man, must tackle it.

In a letter written to Elihu Washburne in August, 1863, Grant explicitly stated, “I was never an Abolitionest, [n]ot even what could be called anti slavery.” In his Memoirs he wrote, “For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that ‘A state half slave and half free cannot exist.’ All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time.” These would seem to be pretty straightforward statements directly from Grant himself.

According to some, Grant was instilled with anti-slavery views by his father, Jesse Grant. Jesse Grant indeed held anti-slavery views which he expressed in newspaper articles written for an anti-slavery newspaper. As a child Ulysses undoubtedly was taught his father’s political views and those of Jesse’s political friends and allies. Whether or not he adopted his father’s political principles as his own is far more problematic; examples abound of men who completely reject their father’s beliefs and opinions. During the Civil War, fathers and sons often found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. Grant’s letters to his father show respect and a desire for approval, yet his relationship with his father was often strained, and his letters show no indication of shared political views. In fact, in a letter written to his father in April, 1861 following the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant began with the statement, “Whatever may have been my political opinions before…” This could easily be interpreted as an apology of sorts for not following in Jesse’s political footsteps.

Young Ulysses never ran for political office, never gave a speech, never wrote a letter to a newspaper, never even voted prior to 1856, by which time he was 34 years old. Grant did criticize the Democrat President Polk’s handling of the Army in letters written during the war with Mexico, and in later years he would argue that the war had been an unjustified pro-slavery land-grab. There are, however, no known letters written by Grant prior to the late 1850s that mention politics, political parties, specific individual candidates, or the controversy over slavery. Grant voted for James Buchanan in 1856, and rejected the Free Soil arguments of Frank Blair and others in St. Louis in the late 1850s. As a result, historians searching for evidence that Grant was personally opposed to the institution of slavery before the Civil War have had to rely on post-war reminiscences of Grant’s family and acquaintances, and on Grant’s actions rather than his words.

However, the historic record is mixed. Grant was reported to have treated the slaves he worked with at White Haven humanely; he was reputed to have paid free blacks whom he hired the same wages as whites; the Dent’s slave cook, Mary Robinson, remembered Grant saying he would free his wife’s slaves when he could (see here and here); in letters written to his father he carefully avoided the term slave, calling them servants instead. He freed the one slave he is known to have owned, a man named William Jones, rather than selling him, however there is only one piece of primary documentary evidence available to historians regarding Jones; the manumission paper written in Grant’s own hand. Grant never referred to Jones in any other known writings. Exactly when, how, or why Grant acquired Jones in the first place is uncertain. Grant’s actual motivations in freeing Jones are also uncertain. See here.

Despite this limited evidence of a personal antipathy to slavery, the fact remains that Grant accepted the role of slaveholding planter-farmer at White Haven until it became economically untenable to continue. Grant biographer Jean Edward Smith described Grant’s antebellum views on slavery as “ambivalent.” In Triumph Over Adversity, Brooks Simpson wrote that Grant was “confused about the peculiar institution” after quoting Grant’s sister-in-law: “Emma recalled that he opposed the institution of slavery, yet added, ‘I do not think that Grant was such a rank abolitionist that Julia’s slaves had to be forced on him.’”

There is no question Grant recognized immediately that slavery was the root cause of secession, as his April 19, 1861 letter to his father-in-law clearly acknowledged. “In all this I can but see the doom of slavery.” The letter, however, showed no personal objection to slavery; only that it was slavery that was causing the disturbance. Pam Sanfilippo, Site Historian at U.S. Grant NHS, wrote in a Historic Resource Study, “It seems that war made Grant realize what slavery really was, and he did not want to see it continued in the country…like Lincoln, he thought first of the union of the states, and what was necessary to keep the country whole…this could only happen with the abolition of slavery…A national resolution to the issue of slavery would, in Grant’s view, restore peace and re-unite the North and South.”

The views of many people regarding slavery changed during the war – some radically. John Logan, Benjamin Butler, and George Thomas come to mind. In his later years Grant would recall that slavery was a stain on the republic. Whether he only saw this in hindsight, or believed it all along, does not change the fact that it was Grant who led the country to victory in a war that abolished slavery. Nor does it undo his postwar record of fighting for the equality of all Americans.

10/20/12

Missouri and Southern Identity

 

This video and the following commentary were posted by my friend Dr. Joan Stack on Facebook today and I am reposting them here with her permission.

    [The video above is] a lecture by historian Christopher Phillips. Some of you may know that I have problems with Phillips’ interpretation of the life and career of Gen. Nathaniel Lyon in his book, Damned Yankee. I was surprised to find that I liked this lecture, although I disagree with a few points (specifically with the suggestion that artist G. C. Bingham identified with the Confederacy after the war). Phillips actually has some pretty great research and references in his talk. I will be looking for some of these citations when his book comes out next year. HOWEVER, while I like many of the specific examples and points that he makes in his lecture, I have some problems with the overarching argument. In the presentation and in his upcoming book, The Rivers Ran Backward (Oxford University Press), Phillips argues that after the Civil War Missourians came to identify themselves as Southern.

      In an interview, Phillips summarized this thesis as follows, “Before the war, loyalties and how people defined their local communities and regions ran in one direction. After the war, they largely ran in an opposite direction. The war caused a seismic shift that still echoes today, where states like Kentucky and Missouri became ‘southern,’ and Ohio, Indiana and Illinois became ‘northern,’ or, for others, ‘Midwestern.’”

      Phillips presents a persuasive argument that the rebel-leaning, white supremacist element in Missouri had a powerful resurgence from the 1880s onward. However, I would argue that there has also been continued resistance to this element among the majority of Missourians. As a lifelong Missourian I have NEVER identified as Southern or Confederate. Phillips’ attempt to force a Southern identity on Missouri reminds me of the earlier attempt by another focus of Phillips’ research, Missouri’s rebel Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson, to drag the state into the Confederacy against the will of the majority of Missourians!

     In an informal survey of people that I know, the only Missourians who consider themselves southern come from southern Missouri. Most others feel uncomfortable with any regional identity and if they had to pick one, would consider themselves Midwestern.

     Many Missourians, including myself, have a split or schizophrenic identity. This fractured understanding of self gives many people from my state insight into a variety of regional allegiances. I believe Missourians’ complex identity has sometimes allowed them to understand the multifaceted nature of America as a whole better than residents of other states (think Mark Twain, G. C. Bingham, and Thomas Hart Benton).

With that said, Missouri’s recent entrance into the SEC supports Phillips’ argument, (but remember, we almost joined the Big Ten!)

09/29/12

Civil War in Missouri at the Missouri History Museum

     I finally got over to the Missouri History Museum on Tuesday to see the Civil War in Missouri exhibit. On Tuesdays, residents of St. Louis and St. Louis County get in free, which is always a good price. I had heard good things about it and was not disappointed; well, except for one thing I’ll mention in a minute.

     First, I think the exhibit does a nice job of showing how Missourians contributed to, reacted to, and helped resolve the sectional crisis. The issue of slavery can’t be missed, but of course, there were cultural, ethnic, and economic issues as well. I was impressed with the artifacts on display. A few in particular. There is a large flag that was hand embroidered by the ladies of St. Louis for the Missouri State Guard which was at Camp Jackson. I don’t know how many ladies labored to create it, or how many stitches went into it, but it is a beautiful piece of art. Also, this Wide Awake pin and ribbon; it’s amazing that these things survive today. Finally, the actual  Ordinance Abolishing Slavery in Missouri from January, 1865. All of these items serve to remind us that the history we read about in books was so very real; that it involved real people in ways I sometimes think we can’t imagine.

     Now, my one disappointment. I could not find a single mention of B. Gratz Brown! Seriously, how could such a prominent figure in St. Louis and Missouri’s Civil War and Reconstruction history not even rate a mention? Oh well, I really do recommend seeing the exhibit if you live in the area or will be in the area. The time of display has been extended through June 2, 2013.