April 1865 ~ Jay Winik ~ 7/02 ~ Nonfiction: archived Book Discussion

I too used every trick I know to search on Google and Hot Bot for information from the web on the celebration of the Fourth during the Civil War, but could find nothing specific. No matter how I devised the search string all I got was references to modern celebrations. Some gave histories of community celebrations, but I saw none that mentioned the celebration during the war.

On July 4 1826 John James Audubon was aboard the Delos in the North Atlantic on his way to England where he planned to publish his life work, “The Birds of North America.” In his Journal he tells how he missed the rousing celebration common back in Kentucky. Specifically he missed the singing of “Hail Columbia.” He also mentioned waking early that morning with a bad dream and an eerie premonition that some great evil event was about to befall his beloved America. Indeed weeks later in England he heard the news that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had died on that day. Audubon took these events to be the evil his dream had foretold.

I am more inclined that Williewody to think the cities and towns of the Confederacy continued reorganization of the 4th of July during the war though probably not as vigorously as in the North. After all it was the day on which Southern independence from England had been declared too. Virginia and the other southern states had participated in that struggle that brought about republican government to the South as well as to the North. I think that had the South won and remained independent the Fourth would have remained a Southern holiday though dates more specific to the Confederacy would have been the more important.

Probably the many Civil War Diaries would be the best source of information on celebrations of the fourth either North of South during the war, particularly those written by civilians including women. There are many and surely some would mentioned hometown celebrations such as the fourth. Here is one by a well known Southern woman, Mary Chestnut, A Diary From Dixie and another more recent book about her The Private Mary Chestnut

A few years ago I was cataloging some Art History books at a San Antonio Museum where I ran across a little book, quite out of place in that museum, describing an 1865 Thanksgiving celebration by a German Immigrant Family in the Texas Hill Country near San Antonio. One son had just returned from the Confederate army, another had not survived the war. The little book describes their Thanksgiving made possible by a successful hunt yielding wild turkey and a variety of homes gathered food stuffs.

Thanks, Harold and Williewoody for your ideas about July 4th during the Civil War.

An interesting phrase, Harold - "I think that had the South won and remained independent"

Let's talk about that as our discussion progresses. I believe someone wrote a book about that, does anyone recall it?

Mary Chestnut is mentioned numerous times in the APRIL 1865 book. I wish the book had an index as I often use that; however, it does have Endnotes.

Since we are still in the "pre-discussion" stage perhaps y'all will enjoy this little story with a Civil War background.

The following was taken from an article written by William G. Bentley in CIVIL WAR TIMES.

The Army of Tennessee was passing the winter of 1863-64 in Camp Dalton, Ga. The temperature had been near zero for several days so it was much too cold to drill. About all the soldiers could do was gather wood and try to keep warm between meals.

On one side of a hugh ravine were camped some Georgia troops and on the other Tennesseeans. During the night a hugh snowfall had blanketed the area, and the soldiers awoke the next morning to find slightly warmer temperatures and plenty of snow. Some of the younger fellows began sowballing among themselves. Soon individual duels gave way to larger engagements. Finally, the inevitable happened. A group of Tennesseeans and Georgans squared off for battle. Now it was a matter of state pride. By this time almost 2000 men were taking part. Snowballs were flying everywhere, and charge after charge was attempted and repulsed.The struggle seesawed back and forth for hours.

As the encounter grew in intensity, the Tennesseeans requested that one of their colonels come out mounted on his favorite war horse and lead them in the attack. Accepting the invitation the colonel mounted his horse and galloped out to the battlefield to take place at the head of his troops. Across the way, the Georgians sent up a loud roar as one of their majors had ridden out to lead them. Hundeds of noncombatants assembled on the surrouning hills to watch the action.

Directing his Tennesseeas, the colonel ordered the charge. Hundreds of snowballs filled the air. Hardest hit of all was the colonel and his horse at the front of the charge. The force of the Tennesseeans charge enabled them to break through the Georgans line, thus resulting in a complete rout. Feeling that his men had accomplished their objective, the colonel called a halt to the chase and ordered his men back to camp.

Thus ended a action involving almost 5000 men fought only with snowballs. THE END.

After reading this the thought occurred to me what fun that must have been. Too bad all wars could not be fought like that. No casualties, and a great time had by all combtants.

Hi WW - There is a newsletter/magazine called THE CIVIL WAR TIMES? Do you subscribe? How often does it come out and who contributes?

That was a good story and it reminded me of an incident that I believe happened in WWI. It was Christmas Eve and the soldiers in the trenches started singing Christmas carols (don't remember which side it was) and the other side joined in - there was peace for awhile, but at daylight the war started anew.

Perhaps someone with a better memory of that incident can clean it up for me.

I am looking forward to reading and discussing this book. antoinette

Ella, I remember hearing of the Xmas caroling incident during WW I that you described, but my memory too does not reveal other details.

I remember reading a 1960’s book by James Street on the Civil War. I will always remember the opening sentences that went (from memory) something like this

There was not much difference between the boys in Georgia and those in Massatuches except that one raised cotton and the other raised corn, Between 1861 and 1865 together, they raised hell!

Antoinette, we are looking forward to your participation. Thank you for your interest.

Regarding Ella’s question, my thought is that had the South won, slavery would have succumbed in the South by the turn of the century because of the growing understanding in the South of the moral repugnancy and political inconstancies inherent in the system and for economic reasons that were becoming more significant as the century progressed. Already by 1860 there were signs the institution was withering as more owners were freeing slaves on their death for moral reasons and more resourceful slaves were sometimes in a position to earn outside money and buy their freedom. And most importantly, as the 19th century progressed the competitive position of a slave labor society in competition with a wage labor system was more and more at the disadvantage.

Once the divisive issue was removed would there have been an incentive for reestablishment of the Union? It might seem there would be real social and economic incentives favorable to reunion.

For argument I might raise for discussion another “another interesting historical if” question: if the abolitionist movement in the United States as it developed from 1800 through the 1850’s had been based on helping the Southern economy transform from the slave to wage system through some form of compensation and other incentive, could the Civil War have been avoided? (As it had been done by England throughout the British Empire in the 1830’s). While I have never seen a serious study to answer this question, I suspect that the monetary cost of a transitional economic aid program would have been less that the cost of the war. It would certainly have been far less traumatic, far and less costly in the human suffering of people on both sides.

I do not believe there ever could have been a peaceful settlement of the slavery question. It was an unresolved question at the time of the writing of our Constitution. In general, man's proclivity for settling disputes by violence goes back to day one of history. And it continued on past the Civil War and exists today. As a species we seem to have made no progress toward solving our problems peacefully, even with the advent of strong religious teachings by various leaders ie. Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Budda,etc. Some of the worst acts of terrorism have been commited in the name of all of the above leaders. I see no good signs for the future. Business as usual. But there is always hope.

WELCOME ANTOINETTE! WE ARE SO HAPPY YOU ARE JOINING US

What a beautiful name, it conjurs up all sorts of romantic images!

HAROLD, what a shame so many young lives were lost before the South eliminated slavery and it may be true the - "the growing understanding in the South of the moral repugnancy and political inconstancies inherent in the system and for economic reasons" it would have disappeared without a war.

Are you suggesting that had Lincoln been more disposed to a peaceful settlement and attempted to find ways to settle the slavery issue, perhaps we could have avoided the war? Hmmmm, that's an interesting thought!

I do agree, WW, that "wars and rumors of war" (a biblical prophesy that I remember my grandmother quoting) will go on forever as long as civilizations are on this earth.

ELLA; I don't know where I found that Civil war snowball story.Obviously, it was a reprint. I was surprised to learn there actually is a publication called Civil War Times. If I can find how to get it I will surely subscribe.

WW I think I have seen the Civil War Times at the magazine sections of the big book stores like B & N in San Antonio and Book People in Austin. Click Here For Subscription Information

Ella, no I don't think anything short of war could have saved the Union after the politics of the 1860 presidential campaign. By then the hot heads on both sides were incapable of formulating alternates. The last chance would have been during the previous quarter century and would have been based on the realization of the economic obsolesces of the slave labor system and the recognition that the problem was a National one not exclusive with the South. Solution would have required a plan to counter the economic disruptions in the South. This is essentially what happened in England when in the 1830’s the Parliament pass the Emancipation Act using the tax money from non-slave-holding Britons to lessen the economic blow in remote areas of the Empire.

I received the following in an email from a Seniornetter regarding the WWI story (and am hoping that person might join us!):

(that story) "is chronicled in a recently released book titled "Silent Night" by Staley Weintraub. It is a fascinating read. It is also told in a poem called "Beallau Wood" and sang hauntingly beautifully by Garth Brooks on his CD "Sevens". Just discovered your web site and plan to spend more time perusing."

WE HOPE SO, TOO!

Isn't it intriguing that while the whole country is debating two words in the Pledge of Allegiance, we will soon be discussing and debating one word in the Pledge - the word "indivisible."

Before we begin the book discussion nest Monday, I thought I might post a few words concerning my early introductions to the Civil War through family vestiges still remaining in the 1930’s. These include comments from the older generation, my grand parents and great uncle and of course from the school. From the Family I got a Yankee view; from school I heard the Confederate side.

My paternal great grand parents had been recent (1850’s) immigrants from Germany. One set, the Arnolds had settled in Indiana in the 1850’s. This was August Arnold who arrived from Baden on the Rhine when he was about 20 years old in the early 1850’s. In the late 1850’s after marrying a German girl he had become a Methodist minister and had moved to New Orleans where he had a Church near the river in the American Quarter across Canal Street from the French Quarter. After succession in 1861 he did not seem to get along in Confederate New Orleans and at once his wife returned up-river to Louisville where August soon followed. At the end of the war the family was back in Indiana with and expanding family. It was 1874 when my Grandfather was only three that they moved to Texas. August had several churches in Central Texas before 1880 when he gave up the active ministry and moved to San Antonio where he earned his living by selling specialty food items such as cottonseed oil, yeast, and horseradish. His son my grandfather became a federal employee.

My other paternal great grandparents were August and Johana Schlick. They arrived in New York in the mid-1850’s but 3-years later they were in Texas. August’s oath of allegiance making him a US citizen is recorded in the County Courthouse at Brenham Texas in early 1860. This pair is the only set of my great grandparents in the South during the War. August avoided the army possibly working in Texas as a gunsmith. There is no tradition of harassment by confederate authorities as there is with some other Germans who shunned military service. My Grandmother was the youngest of the couple’s four daughters born in 1873. August Schlick died the same year the apparent victim of appendicitis. I have no real recollection of ever hearing a mention of the Civil War from either of my paternal grandparents. I think to them it was very much an ancient happening of no current significance. Click Here For more details.

On the other hand I heard more of the Civil War from my maternal grandparents. Both sets of maternal grandparents were in the north throughout the war and for many years afterwards. My maternal grandparents moved to Texas in 1905. My grandmother’s father, Franklin Wells had been too young (born in 1849) to participate, and there is no record of his father, an Ohio tailor having served. But my maternal grandfather’s father, Christian Hull had served in an Illinois regiment in Tennessee. This would seem to make him a part of the Sherman command that launched its campaign into Georgia from there, but I have no record of his active participation in any action. We know Christian’s brother died while in service also in Tennessee; but it wasn’t a rebel bullet that got him; it was Yankee Chow that laid him low.

As a child I heard a great deal of the Civil War from this family. Not so much from my grandfather who died in 1936 when I was only nine, but some from my grand mother, but mostly from my old great uncle George who had been born in 1858 and seemed to have retained many of the reconstruction sentiments and views of the late 1860’s and 70’s. Though Uncle George had lived in Texas since the early 1900’s he still told me of the war, and it was from him that I got the Yankee side that seemed confusingly contrary to the information I was beginning to acquire in the Texas schools as I advance from elementary to the junior high grades.

Interesting story , Harold. My paternal grandfather, Edward Specht, came to this country around 1861 from Baden on the Bodensee.He settled in Chicago. He came to escape the wars in Europe and, of course, wound up in the Union army during the Civil War. I have no information about his activity during the war, but he did survive and died in 1921, the same year I was born. My mother's parents were both born in the USA. But her grandfather, one of my great grandparents, also served in the Union Army, but apparently spent most of the war in hospitals (as a patient). Following the war he settled his family in Chicago. I recall my grandmother telling of how they survived the Chicago fire of 1872 by walking out into lake Michigan to escape the great heat. My mother.s father was a lieutenant on the Chicago Fire Department. He was killed in a famous Chicago Stock yards fire in 1910. He along with the Chicago Fire Chief, and Asssistant Fire chief and 20 other firemen were crushed when a wall caved in on them. This happened on December 23, 1910 just two days before Christmas.

Harold and Williewood, Thanks for the history. I truly enjoyed them.

How interesting, Harold, and what is this about Yankee chow? From somewhere in my past I've heard that many died from food poisoning and diseases of all kind and one can imagine that very easily when you read of the bodies lying for days without burial and the unsanitary conditions everywhere, no refrigeration, no toilets, nothing probably in the field hospitals.

Apparently, WW, one of your great grandparents survived a Union hospital, possibly one of the better ones.

There are written family histories on both sides of my parents, but they are very scarce as to anecdotes, more like statistics than anything - you know, so-and-so married, had nine children, and then it takes off on all those children and the branches of the children and it is endless - pages and pages of this. I truly cannot get interested in it but, as I told Harold someday when I am old I will take an interest in geneology and attempt to find out more. Harold you are one year older than I am and I don't think either one of us can brag about it yet- hahaha. Now when we get up into the 90's we may have a right?

Ginger, thank you for your post. We hope you will be with us as the discussion begins Monday.

Williewoody, what a coincidence that we have German roots from the same province, Baden. My g-grandfather left a 500-word comment on his early life in Baden (Click Here)

Ella, It was some form of food poisoning that killed my g-g- uncle. Apparently he was at a station in Tennessee. I understand that a very toxic form of dysentery killed many on both sides during the war. I suspect those who died of disease are not included in the 600,000 dead count so often quoted. Does anyone know?

Regarding “Family History” I deplore how they so often center on births, marriage, and death, but of course I understand that such statistics are too often all that is available to us today. In my editing of my late parents research of the early Wells family in North America, I emphasized the available material concerning how they lived and how they related to their contemporary history. I consider my little Wells web pages social history rather than genealogy.

We continue to experience heavy rains in this area though my place remains in no danger of flooding. It would require rains of true biblical extent to reach me here. However, the possibility of a telephone outage remains so if I disappear for a day or two that is doubtlessly the cause.

Yes, Harold that is interesting about our common roots. My wife's ancestors were also German, but from further north, like Prussia. Our one and only granddaughter now lives in New Braunfels and works in the North Star Mall in San Antonio. One of her distant relatives was the astronomer Hubble after whom the telescope was named.

My family came to this country from Germany in the 1840's and 1850's as well. They moved to central and southern Illinois. There is no record of any of them fighting in the Civil War.

A one who has lived in the Texas and Tennessee all of my adult life, but not of southern ancestry, I have always wondered what would have happened if the Union had not tried to relieve Fort Sumter. ALL of the border South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas) seceded after Fort Sumter. Many of the secession votes were quite close. The story, to be believed or not, was that the border south voted to secede because of the Union invasion. How long would a Confederacy of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missippi and Louisina have lasted? Did there need to be a war?

Living in Chattanooga I have been to Chickamauga National Military Park many times. Many visitors want to see it. I found it fascinating at first, but I no longer enjoy it. There were more American casulties on both sides in two days than on other battle in the Civil War or any other war. I have learned to loathe and detest the American Civil War. It should have and could have been prevented, although I don't specificly know how. If the American people, on both sides, had known what they were getting into it would have been prevented. It was this countries worst hour.

I look forward to participating in the discussion of "April 1865" but I bring my biases with me.

John Z

Zwyram, your participation here is most welcome. I thank you for your significant contribution to the “Mutiny On The Bounty” discussion concluded last month. Let us see if we can make this one a great success!

My feelings of the Civil War seem to parallel yours as you expressed your feelings in the next to the last paragraph of your last post. The nation just kept sweeping the dirty issue under the rug until finally it was too late and the war was inevitable. They just never seemed to have the guts to face the issue in a decisive manner.

With the advantage of hindsight we certainly have no trouble seeing how futile and unnecessary the bloody conflict was. This has led me also, as you put it, to “loath and detest the American Civil War,” and despite my long record of reading history, I have scarcely touched this issue since I completed an undergraduate course some fifty years ago at Trinity. I am glad I got involved in the reading of the book and in its discussion. I think now at any rate I do have a bit better understanding of some of its results.

Thank you Williewoody for first mentioning this book on the History Book Forum. Better late than never we are finally getting around to its discussion.

I certainly agree with all you said, JOHN, and HAROLD also. However, as we have heard over and over, it is best we not forget the past lest we make the same mistakes. Do join us, JOHN, as we discuss the book.

Please note at the bottom of this URL the statistics of those who died of disease on both sides:

Civil War Statistics

Oh, I forgot to mention that yesterday in between other things, I tuned in to C-Span and they were just finishing a panel discussion regarding the Civil War. There were three panelists and one of them was Jay Winik, the author of our book. One had written a book on the Reconstruction period called "America's Unfinished Revolutions" and I didn't get the other man's name - my notes are very scribbled, hardly readable as I couldn't find a tablet in time.

There was a good bit of discussion as to why America has been able to come together successfully - they discussed other countries' tribulations that are still ongoing, i.e., Ireland and the Middle East, Bosnia, etc. They concluded that it was because we discuss the war in the context of politics and law and, also, because the leaders such as Grant, Lee and Lincoln were gentlemen who kept their word.

Did anyone else see the entire program?

More of this later as we progress into the book.

To you gentlemen who have come to detest the Civil War I remind you what Gen. Sherman said. "War is Hell". I don't think that applies to just the Civil War, but ALL wars. We have experienced some duzies since then, and what we are involved in now is the worst yet. Actually this is not a war but more like a police action of hunt and seek and kill the hiding terrorists.

Anyway I look forward to starting the discussion on April 1865.

I finally have an account of my own. All through the Mutiny on the Bounty I piggy backed on my lovely wife's account "zwyram". I asked the computer literate one to set me up my own account, and she did. I am now 'JohnZ' ,formerly 'zwyram', but just as opinionated as ever.

John Z

Good Afternoon, "Renamed" JOHN - and we all love to have "opinionated" people in discussions. Never boring that way.

Did you notice from the statistics given that the Confederates had 94,000 killed in action; while they had 164,000 who died of disease.

The Federal Army had 110,000 killed in action while 224,580 died of disease.

Can you imagine the hopeless feeling that doctors and nurses must have had and, of course, the soldiers must have known that once in the war you could die of disease more readily than getting shot.

I thought it interesting that on both sides about the same amount of p.o.w.'s died. If you have ever been to Andersonville, you have a idea of how terrible conditions were in the prison camps.

I visited Andersonville several years ago. It was the most depressing place I have ever been. Only Dachau and Auschwitz could be worse. I will never go there again, I can get depressed enough without that.

John Z

I have been reading "April 1865", and have followed the fighting almost to Appomattox. In reading your posts, I see that some of you have the same reaction to war that I have.

It seems like such a futile way to solve a problem.

I am learning from reading this book, which makes it worthwhile.

Tomorrow our discussion begins and I just want to encourage all to stick to the schedule of discussion that is posted in the heading. In that way we can all be talking about the same period - the same chapters - the same topics at the same time.

We will start at the beginning and go through the PRELUDE AND PART I - or pagewise through Page 69 - until July 15th.

Yes, Andersonville was awful, it brought tears to my eyes and their redemption springs (I think it was called) did little to make their day-to-day existence any better.

Hahaha - depression, JOHN! True, true - the stock market is depressing and that's just one thing today, but what great leaders we had during the Civil War. I've often wondered if these men would have been so remembered if there had not been a war in their lifetime?

CIVIL WAR - THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
CIVIL WAR - THE WAR OF SECESSION
CIVIL WAR - THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
CIVIL WAR - THE WAR OF REBELLION

What other names have you heard?

Ella, here are two names for the Civil War from 1950's, John Wayne movies- "Fort Apache," "She (Joan Dru) wore a Yellow Ribbon," et al. First "The Rebellion" obviously a Yankee term and second, "The War for the Southern Confederacy," used by the former rebels.

I remember one of these movies probable "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, had ex Confederate General Kirby Smith an enlisted man in Wayne's post Civil War cavalry company. When an Apache arrow killed him, the other ex Confederates with Wayne's permission contrived a field made Confederate flag for the burial ceremony..

ELLA: Thanks for the reference to statistics. I was sure that many more died of diseases than were actually killed in battle. No doubt many wounded who survived the battle, became victims of infection and died in hospitals. If the military leaders learned anything it must have been in the area of care for the wounded and field sanitation. I know from my own experience in WWII how much the latter part about field sanitation was stressed.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

Isn't it appropriate to start our discussion with Lincoln's immortal words? They set the tone for our discussion of this tragic war fought between our states, brothers against brothers.

We have put a few questions in the heading for us to think about as we progress through these pages.

Jay Winick, our author, asks the question why our Civil War was so different from those in other countries - those which in his words - beget a vicious circle of more civil war and more violence, death and instability.

Harold and I are looking forward to a great discussion and we thank all of you for your interest in the book and joining us! Now let us hear from you.

Let's start with Question 1 above. After reading the Introduction, what did you think about it?

The military was certainly beginning to lean the importance of sanitation during the Civil War. However the disease problem was still around 30 years later during the Spanish American conflict. I think there was quite a scandal involving food poisoning in combat units serving in Cuba involving some form of preserved (I think canned) beef. The food was dubbed “embalmed beef” by the troops and press. Also even during WW I influenze epidenics killed many.

Also during the Civil War and later be are beginning to see the injection of new technology in the form of much improved military hardware. In the civil war Yankee troops were beginning to use semi-automatic weapons that would fire cartridges from a clip or magazine that permitted repeated fire with the simple manual working of a lever or bolt. By the time of the Spanish War machine guns were in use.

Continuing into the 20th century while camp health conditions improved finally lessening deaths from disease to near zero, military tactics were slow to adapt, and infantry formations were still charging protected enemy positions during WW I, WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam. Of course during this period tactics did change. Troops learned you can’t charge fortified liens protected by machine guns and artillery. They learned to use new armored vehicles and of course there was air power to take out the fortified enemy lines. It was only with desert storm and the current operation in Afghanistan that the technology seems to have managed successful operations with out exposing large formations to fire from fortified positions.

Ok it is July 8t and this forum is now open for serious discussion of the Book and here are some opening comments on the Prelude and Introduction.

Yes, emphatically, YES, I do believe these preliminary chapters are necessary. I see no other way because it is in the prelude that the authors announces his plan to show April 1865 as a pivotal year in American history and in the Introduction he tells his readers, many of whom will not have knowledge of the historical events of the pre War century, of those events that culminated in the subject drama in April 1865

In the prelude Winik compares April 1865 in US history to 1066, the year of the Norman Conquest, in British history; and the 1789 storming of the Bastille in French History. While Winik acknowledges that there are other pivotal dates in American History including the 1492 discovery by Columbus and the Declaration of Independence in 1776 he announces to his readers his intent to argue a similar importance for April 1865.

Continuing with the Introduction Winik sets the stage for the situation culminating in his subject, the events of April. In this introductory chapter we readers get a first example of an outstanding feature of Winik’s writing style. This is the use of a rather detailed character sketch of an individual who history has made a character in his story. In this initial instance the character is Thomas Jefferson. The reader in later chapters will encounter other character sketches of Lee, Lincoln, Grant, Davis, Sherman and others.

The author in this case uses Jefferson’s earlier career to show the reader the over whelming nature of the Slavery issue since the earliest years of the republic, and how the United States since its inception had never been able to squarely face the issues necessary to resolution. Continuing with his Introduction the author conveys to the reader the necessary details of the intensity and nature of the War that is underway and how things stood as April of 1865 began. Here we begin to see the development of the idea that the American Civil War was unique to previous history as the first modern war, one in which all segments of the belligerent’s society, economic, social civilian and military would be dedicated to the war effort, and a war in which the civilian infrastructure of the enemy belligerent would be legitimate targets of military attack. These points are further developed as the story continues in later chapters.

Yes, these chapters are necessary and Winik does a rather good job of making his point.

AND a message to everyone; as we use to say in the summers back in the 40's-"COME ON IN, THE WATER'S FINE!

There is no question that Winik needed to develop the background for what lead up to the momentous developments of April 1865 and the effect they had on the future development of the nation.

In my view the primary causes of the war were twofold. A settlement of the slavery issue once and for all, and the question of states rights as opposed to the national interests. The Constitution never dealt with these questions,and they were argued in Congress ever since the founding of the Nation. The Southern states were not the only ones who claimed they had the right to secede from the Union. Many Northerners held this view for their states also.

May I comment just briefly on mine and Ella's post relating to casualties. Harold has mentioned that deaths in subsequent wars ie Spanish American war in particular were still caused by other than bullets etc. In the case of the Spanish war there was a serious problem with poisoned food. I feel that the vast number of deaths from other than "lead poisoning" in the Civil war were absolutely attricious sanitary conditions in the field as well as in hospitals. Vast numbers of wounded were not able to receive proper medical care and could not survive under such conditions.

I think most of us would agree that the Introduction and Prelude were necessary to establish a context, a framework.

My good friend williewoody (who called my attention to this book--otherwise I wouldn't be here) writes:

"In my view the primary causes of the war were twofold. A settlement of the slavery issue once and for all, and the question of states rights as opposed to the national interests. The Constitution never dealt with these questions,and they were argued in Congress ever since the founding of the Nation. The Southern states were not the only ones who claimed they had the right to secede from the Union. Many Northerners held this view for their states also."

Article X, the last article in The Bill of Rights, says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Of course, those words are admirably vague, ala "cruel and unusual punishments", and "unreasonable searches and seizures", which is part of the genius of our Constitution: It can adapt to change over time.

I am struck by the fact, as I see it, that few of us today (unlike in long-ago Virginia) think of ourselves as citizens of a state, but of the United States. (Texans and others may disagree!). I'm also struck by the fact that most of the President's cabinet seem to have lost most of their status. How many of us can name the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Commerce? I doubt that the full cabinet ever meets with the Prez, except for photo ops. Surely today their influence on matters like war are zip. It wasn't always so.

I thought the prelude and introduction were interesting in that both gave an overview of the past and how events led to the civil crisis. It prepared the reader for the forthcoming chapters. I thought both the prelude and introduction were well written in that it kept the reader interested in the topic/theme and gave pertinent information,ie, Jefferson's life/personality. Although the author gave factual information, it was written as a story that encourages the reader to want to continue reading to see what happens next. Anyway, this how this reader felt.

Correction to my #52: Of course, it is Amendment X, not Article X, that discusses the Rights of States under the Constitution.

And of course I realize there probably was no Dept. of Labor or Commerce, etc., in the 1860s. My point is that the Cabinet used to be a big deal in advising Presidents; but no more.

Rambler it has been a while since we have participated in the same discussion. I know you were in the Bradlee autobiography and I think “Nothing like it in the World. It is good to have you here.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were the early ones intended to limit the powers of the federal Government. They were promised early on to obtain ratification of the Constitution and were originally not intended to limit the power of the States in any way. The ratification of all ten was completed in 1791. Under them while the United States were prohibited from supporting a particular religion or denying free speech or freedom of the press, etc, in theory there was no restriction on the states from this Constitutional source.

After the Civil War the 13th through 15 amendments were ratified prohibiting slavery and prohibiting voting restrictions based on race and most fundamentally important the 14th amendment that included the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses. It is through this source that court decisions by the end of the 1960’s had made the prohibition on the Federal government contained in the first 10 amendments also applicable to the States. These Civil War amendments particularly the 14th are indeed a most important Civil War legacy that has made possible the modern character of our social and economic structure.

As for the 10th amendment, the post Civil War Court decisions seemed to ignore it or at least minimize its importance. During the last quarter of the 20th century the courts seemed to have rediscover it and it has been cited to support several recent decisions upholding State laws and regulations alleged to conflict with the Federal Authority. Courts and their outlook do change from time to time.

Rambler, as an American and a Texan I have no problem what so ever with our system of dual sovereignty. We are a big and diverse country with many different interests and traditions. It is not necessary or desirable that we be exactly alike shaped to a single pattern. It is to the great credit that our rather vague constitution to have set up a system that so well defines the jurisdiction and limits of each

I agree, the Cabinet is indeed substantially less than its former self. Today the cabinet heads are for the most part administrators within their particular field quite unlike earlier cabinets including Lincolns that served as his principle lieutenants in the prosecutions of the war. Today the large White House staff has largely superseded many of the Secretaries though I suppose the importance of some like State, Defense and maybe the Attorney General remain strong. Even in this regard there are high White House staff officer such as the National Security Advisor and I suppose the Presidents White Housel legal staff that distract from the former role of of the traditional offices

I agree with Antoinette that the introduction and prelude "gave an overview of the past and how events led to the civil crisis." Winik also chain-links this 'history' to our contemporary world with the still divisive, and deadly, issues of national identity and civil war (as examples: Cambodia, and the Balkans). I had a much clearer impression of the influences and pressures surrounding the actual people in the 1860s but this is an experience, as he shows us, that today we are still undergoing throughout the world. Winik led me to question why the United States survived this monumental crisis. Therefore the American Civil War isn't a distant, isolated event but one in which the U.S. of today and all nations can use as a touchstone, pro and con.

With such issues planted in my mind, I was yanked from observer status outside history to become a participant with a lot to win or lose.

Besides linking past and present, Winik writes informally, rather as if he's talking directly to me and you, and keeps the scholarly notes -- his authority -- unobtrusively at the back of the book. Further into the book I do question certain choices in characterization but this is a minor annoyance and hasn't stopped me from reading. In this book I started to see the U.S. as a 'nation in the making' with traditions and rules of leadership being improvised in front of my eyes. I feel the immediacy of events and am driven to keep turning the pages.

Marvelle

HOW WONDERFUL TO READ ALL YOUR POSTS! THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS DISCUSSION!

Have you clicked on the BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPULIC IN THE HEADING? Have you wondered, as I have over the years, why God is so connected with the battles and the violence in that old hymn? God is loosing his terrible sword and sounding trumpets and who is the hero that is to crush the serpent? Which side is God on here? As the author of the words was a Northerner do you think she was hoping that God’s “righteous sentence” would be for the Union troops? Hmmmmm

Did any of you know that Harold is from Texas so that when he tells us to “COME ON IN THE WATER’S FINE” he’s in it up to his neck about now and may need to be rescued? Hope you are still okay on your hill, Harold, we are still hearing reports of more rain.

Your statement, Harold – The author in this case uses Jefferson’s earlier career to show the reader the overwhelming nature of the Slavery issue since the earliest years of the republic, and how the United States since its inception had never been able to squarely face the issues necessary to resolution is true, of course.

However, I ask you if you don’t agree that most readers of history would know these facts? I found much of the Prelude and the Introduction extraneous; however I think I am in the minority here. Aren’t I bold to criticize an historian and writer? I do agree that Winick is an excellent writer and I enjoyed reading both, but didn’t learn a whole lot that is new.

Yes, indeed, WW, your comment that the causes of the war were – “A settlement of the slavery issue once and for all, and the question of states rights as opposed to the national interests. is very concise and particularly the issue of “states’ rights” which had never been dealt with in Congress. Our author comments on this (page 20) and quotes Madison as writing “each state is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others.” What a state of affairs we would have had if that had continued; the Civil War, in that sense, brought forth a nation.

HELLO RAMBLER – AND WELCOME TO OUR DISCUSSION! Your statement –
I am struck by the fact, as I see it, that few of us today (unlike in long-ago Virginia) think of ourselves as citizens of a state, but of the United States
speaks to the same issue as WW. As Harold is from Texas, we will have to ask him if Texans are citizens of the United States? Hahaha Stick around awhile as we read more of this war that settled many issues of the young nation.

Antoinette, I’m so glad you are enjoying the book and I, too, found that the ”author gave factual information (and) it was written as a story that encourages the reader to want to continue reading to see what happens next.” He does write well and makes it an enjoyable experience.

Thank you so much, Marvelle for your comments. I particularly liked this comment:

I had a much clearer impression of the influences and pressures surrounding the actual people in the 1860s but this is an experience, as he shows us, that today we are still undergoing throughout the world. Winik led me to question why the United States survived this monumental crisis. Therefore the American Civil War isn't a distant, isolated event but one in which the U.S. of today and all nations can use as a touchstone, pro and con.

Although I did find the Prelude and Introduction somewhat long and unnecessary I did enjoy some of his material, i.e. quoting a John Murrin he says “Americans erected their constitutional roof before they put up national walls.” That’s good! Also the author calling the Declaration of Independence a “national birth certificate.”

But the author of that Declaration was such a hypocrite writing elegant words and yet keeping his own slaves – I don’t mean to take away his importance to the birth of our nation in any way, but he was a man who enjoyed wealth and needed his slaves. That fact haunted him all his life.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR MAKING OUR FIRST DAY SUCH A FASCINATING ONE – SEE YOU TOMORROW! Shall we tackle Question 2?

Considering question 2, Yes, I do believe the events of April 1865 had a dramatic effect upon the future of the Nation. From the time of the Revolution and the early stages of the Republic there was a good deal of disagreement as to how much power the central government should have. As has been pointed out previously,the Constitution is rather vague on many points. No republic type of government had ever succeded in the past. The United STATES of America was indeed a noble experiment. The Federalists, lead by Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, favored a strong central government. It is interesting to note that those who favored the strong states rights were mostly from the south, and were lead by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

I fully believe that April 1865 sealed forever the central power of our government. I do not recall that after that time there was ever another threat of secession of a state or states from the Union.

As an interesting sidelight, yesterday while browsing thru our local Barnes & Noble I spotted in the Civil War section a book entitled "The South was Right." I picked it up and glanced thru the cover description. It would appear the authors (two brothers named Kennedy) argue that the Southern states did secede from the Union legally and formed a separate government, and that they were INVADED by the north, and therefore defended themselves. I am sure there is a lot more to this , but whether it is worth my time to pursue it further, I am not quite sure. Maybe someone else has read the book.

Just one further item. Harold is not the only Texan Here. I admit I am not a native, but they tell me that 35 years, almost half of my life, qualifies me as a naturalized Texan. But as Rambler said earlier most everyone thinks of themselves as citizens of the United States and not of the individual states. A lot of folks, mostly Texans, like to brag about their state of residence, but that's just mostly BS, if you get my drift.

I havent had time to read ALL the posts and have been too busy to read what was being offered in the book discussions. However Marvelle was telling me about it and I knew I had to read the book and join in the discussion.

Having made Virginia my home for 30 years and living in an area full of history from the early settlers of 1620 at Jamestown to the end of the Revolutionary War at Yorktown all within 20 minutes of my home.

My youngest daughter just recently moved from Fredericksburg where she lived for 7 years and I spent many hours exploring some of the Civil War sites there. In fact the church she attended had several cannon balls from the siege still embedded in the pillars and the brick.

The site of the Battle of the Wilderness is located between both my daughters and I passed it every time I visited them. Ft Monroe which is near me as well holds the cell where Jefferson Davis was incarcerated and Abraham Lincoln visited there. In case any one doesnt know it is the only fort to boast a moat.

My local Barnes and Noble just sold the last paperback copy and expect a new shipment in any day so I will have my book to refer to. Looking forward to the discussion and to taking the time to read ALL the post.

anna from Virginia

WW, I am so sorry I didn't notice your second line which announces your Texas residence! Any water problems where you are? One doesn't hear as many jokes about Texas or songs (the yellow rose of Texas) that we used to, but we drove through the state a couple of years ago and it took forever to get out of it, so you do realize how big it still is.

As you said, that issue of states' rights was a contentious problem in the early days of the republic; particularly Jefferson feared a strong central government. There are times today that we all believe the federal government has become too powerful, do you agree? If so, in what ways? Should the states have more power?

IN the early days it was the states that enforced most of the laws of the land; however during the Civil War, the government became very organized (indeed they had to if they were to win the war) and the federal government, as a result, never relinguished that power and continued to this day to become the central force.

Antoinette and Marvelle9 thank you for your posts with your comments on the prelude and Introduction. I agree that Winik’s writing style is quite interesting and encourages reader concentration on interest, but to me the style seems more formal than McCullough, Ellis, and Ambrose, who have authored many recent popular history titles.

I sometimes wonder if perhaps our individual economic interests are not a key to our survival and unity as a nation. We are all too interested in making money to permit the luxury of dissent and disunity?

Ella while I agree that while most serious readers of American history would know the existence of many of the facts covered by Winik in his introductory chapters, many Americans, probably the great majority, are not readers of history making the introduction necessary. Having said that I can also agree that Winik in using his biographical sketches (Jefferson in the Introduction) gave more information than necessary for his purpose. I did not consider this too much. He and his publisher probably considered it necessary to round out an optimal 400-page history for the interested, but non-professional reader.

And Ella, We in Texas are very definitely citizens of the United States and very comfortable with that fact!

Regarding our recent Central Texas Rains. Many places in the area recorded rainfall of from 10 to 33 inches over a 6-day period. Here at my place on a well-drained hill I was in the low end, probably about 15 inches. Both of my ponds are full and I spent much time rescuing gold fish that washed over the water garden dam. I don’t know whether or not I lost bass and catfish from the large pond in the back pasture, but it too discharged over its spillway. While my movement was at times restricted, a road to San Antonio remained open and I made all my commitments there.

The total area flood loss is now estimated at over a billion dollars, but I count myself lucky as really I have no real flood damage although my direct TV went dead and has remained dead. Apparently the dish transducer or the cable to the TV in the house absorbed too much water. At any rate I cannot make contact with the Satellite and it will be a week before I can trouble shoot the problem.

And when I said in an earlier post, “Come on in, the Water’s fine,” I was not referring literally to actual water, flood or otherwise. Rather I was using “Water” as a metaphor meaning, Come on and post your thoughts on “April 1865” here in our discussion!

ANNA WELCOME! We were posting together and we do need you here, living right in the heart of the Civil War sites. I may be wrong about this, and I have no time today to look it up, but I believe 65% of the Civil War was fought on VA soil.

So good to see your posts again, we have not met since "SAVAGE BEAUTY" where you rescued many of us from the vagaries of poetry.

While you are waiting for the book - tackle that old hymn above for us - THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC.

Hello Harold! And I was just teasing you about COME ON IN, THE WATER'S FINE! I've heard that expression many times, still it was fun!

And we are having RAIN - AT LAST, we've had a draught here in the midwest for 2 weeks! Storms are not far behind so I must get off of here.

WW, I looked up the book you mentioned, interesting title, and you can read all the reviews here:

The South was right

I noticed the publisher used the word "mythology."

John's been off camping (trying to get cool up in the mountains) since Sunday - will be home tomorrow. He's going to have to do a lot of reading to get caught up. But he will be here.

Mary

Going way back to p. XV in the Introduction, middle of page, I see, "...we would be equally mistaken if we believe that the constitutional provisions guiding the Union cabinet--as it prepared to hand power over to Andrew Johnson-- were anything but awkward, uncertain, and exasperatingly unclear."

Since when do mere cabinets bestow the Presidency on a Vice-President?

That one time, I guess, and never since.

Perhaps someone can clarify.

In regard to The Battle Hymn Of the Republic. I am sure there were many people who abhored the idea of slavery and thus I think Julia Ward Howe wrote a poem that expressed that opinion.

I understand the South's point of view regarding state's rights but it has always been my opinion the war was fought for economic reasons. The South had few industries and relied on the land for wealth. Without slaves to tend the land and the crops everyone would have been land poor.

And the North while extolling the idea they were fighting to free the slaves and stop this practice also had a economic motive. Slaves afforded the Southern owners more or less free labor and labor that remained silent for the most against unfair treatment. The North was dealing with hired labor that was also unfairly compensated but were compensated. And the laborers in the North could complain and demand more equitable wages. If the Northern factory owners could have used slave labor they would have.

I am so anxious to recieve my book and hope BnN will call me today to say it is in and I can come get it. anna in Virginia

Rambler, Perhaps there was some confusion as to the actual powers of the Vice President when he assumed power on the death of the president at the time when Tyler assumed the office when Harrison died in office in the 1840’s. Though Article II of the Constitution seems clear enough on that account, Winik implies that on Harrison’s death there was some reluctance to accord him the full powers of an elected President, and this resulted in some sort of cabinet rule. Perhaps the reluctance to give the successor full presidential status stemmed from the republican reluctance to follow the English example of the new sovereign’s assumption of power at the last heart beat of the previous king?

I think today there would be no cause for such confusion because of post 1963 legislation covering presidential succession. This would seem to clearly give a successor president the same position as an elected one. Even in 1963 though Johnson elected to keep the Cabinet intact, he immediately assumed the full powers of president. Likewise again in 1974 there was no question of Ford’s status when he replaced the resigned Nixon.

Of course any future Vice President succeeding to the presidency upon the death of an elected one would certainly be subject to the political forces prevailing at the time of his succession as Johnson was in 1868 and Ford in 1974. All might not be as fortunate as Johnson and Ford in that respect, but the source of the political dissention would be Congress, certainly not the Cabinet.

Annafair, I certainly do agree that there were strong economic causes for the Civil War. I would also point to a political vector as one of the causes also. The growing capitalist economic interests in the north would do nothing to help the South with the the cost of emancipation and they were eager to weaken the traditional political power of the South. Both Economic and Political factors were also present in the Congressional imposed reconstruction that followed.

Regarding the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” its tune is indeed a musical alcohol that really arouses the spirit, much like the French National Anthem. (I could never spell the name). Note however the modern revision in the lyrics- how typically modern U.S. American; how much more preferable living to making men free, than in dying to make them free!

RAMBLER: Be glad to clarify old buddy. The Constitution did not orginally provide for succesion to the Presidency in the event of his disability or death. The first test of this problem came with the death of President William Henry Harrison in 1841. You may recall that in the early simpler days of our Republic Voting for President was simply whichever candidate got the most votes became President, and second runner up was Vice President. John Tyler, who was Vice President when Harrison died by sheer will power took over on the basis that he was second highest vote getter in the recent election. This sort of set a prescedent for when on several occasions later a President either died or was killed while in office. It was not until the 25th Ammendment was passed in 1967. that the Vice Presidents ascendancy to President was officially established. It reads in part as follows: "In the case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

George W. used this ammendment recently to legally transfer presidential powers to Dick Cheney, while he was temporarily having minor surgery.

Several things in the introduction did not go down easily with me.

As a Southerner all of my adult life but not of Southern heritage, in my view, Winik missed some points. The places cited by Winik where civil wars have lingered for generations were pulled apart by religious or ethnic differences. The populations here, both north and south, were not split by either religious or ethnic differences, but united by a commonality of backgrounds and religions. Winik totally ignores this as a factor in why the aftermath of the American Civil War was different.

But...The civil war did not end for many white southerners until the end of WWII with the beginning of the "new South". This was evidenced by the treatment of the blacks as a surrogate for the north. The "Jim Crow" laws and the lynchings were a form of continued rebellion, of defiance against the federal government. For some it will never end, as in the recent case of the Georgia state flag as a political cause. The incumbent governor was instrumental in changing the state flag which prominently displayed the Confederate flag. This flag dates back to the desegregation era of the 60's. His part in this is a big issue to some in the upcoming gubenatorial election.

There will always be the minority that will use the Confederacy and the Confederate flag for racist purposes. The war was fought over slavery and the abolishment of slavery.

John Z

Hey, Williewoody, My well-worn desk copy of the US Constitution quotes the original Article II of the Constitution as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or inability to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, ……

This was the basis for Tyler’s assumption of the office when Harrison died. Also at the time of the Harrison/Tyler transition the XII th amendment approved in 1804 was in effect. This amendment provided for the separate election of the Vice President abandoning the provision of the original Constitution giving the second place presidential candidate the consolation prize of the Vice Presidency. Tyler had been individually elected to the Office of Vice President much as a VP is chosen today.

The 25th amendment that became effective in 1967 clearly says that the VP upon the death, resignation, etc of the President shall become President. It also provides for succession if the elected President becomes incapacitated during his/her term. The latter is the source for the recent temporary transfer of Power to the VP while GWB was having surgery.

Refering back to my post #58 and Ella's reply. I found the following reply by Sam Fletcher:

THE SOUTH WAS NEVER RIGHT The minute the last gun was fired in the war of Southern rebellion, my fellow southerners began rewriting history to justify the idiotic gamble by which they wrecked their economy and society. This book (The South Was Right) pulls together most of those old whines and fallacies, and labors hard to breathe new life into them. But it's just as much a lost cause today as it was in 1865."

Those comments tells me exactly what that book is about and who wrote it. I have lived in the south long enough to recognize a "red neck" and what he is all about. The KKK were "red necks" of another day. There is till a very very small fringe of southerners who are still trying to fight the civil war. Most of their cowardly acts these days result in volations of the law. As was the case not too long ago of three red necks in east Texas who dragged to death a black man behind their pick up truck. All three are awaiting execution, which unfortunately, takes too long to accompish. But I will guarantee it will happen here in Texas. We kill our murderers.

So much for "The South Was Right"!!!!!!

HAROLD: Well, here we go with our first conflict. I don't know what Constitution you are referring to, but the one I have is for the United States of America.

The wording you quote is the exact wording of Section 1 of the 25th Ammendment passed in 1967. If the original Constitution had that exact wording there would have been no need for Section 1 of the 25th Ammendment.????????

Williewoody, I am refering to the Constitution of the United States of America. My reference copy is from Gunther and Dowling, "Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law, Eight edition, the Foundation Press, 1970. It was a text book widely used by law schools in the 1970s. I consider it current through the 25th amendment and case law interpretations up to about 1970.

I don't understand why our sources would be different. I think Arron Burr in the election of 1800 was the last VP wining the office as the 2nd place finisher in the presidential race. In your last post you wrote:

The wording you quote is the exact wording of Section 1 of the 25th Ammendment passed in 1967. If the original Constitution had that exact wording there would have been no need for Section 1 of the 25th Ammendment.?????

But it is not the exact wording even though the meaning is the same. The words in Article II of the original Constitution read:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and (the article continues ths say the Congress shall have power to designate others to succeed shold both P and VP be unable to serve)

This original Constitutional provision in Section II effectivly made the VP the automatic successor to a dead President as indeed it was in the case of Tyler, Andrew Johnson,T Roosevelt and Trueman. While the first section of the 25 amendment stated in actual words that the suceeding VP became President, the real purpose of the 25th amendment was to provide a means of determining when an elected president was unable to act. True its opening restates that the VP succeeds as President whereas the original Constitution only said the duties and powers of the deceased President devoplved on the VP.

Do re-read the 6th paragraph of Article II (they are not numbered, you will have to count them down)that begins, "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office or of his edate etc etc....... ". Also read Amendment XII in its entirity. This amendment is relatively long and wordy and written in 19th century legaleese it is a bit difficult for casual reading. Also in the case of the 25th amendment the reading of Sections 2, 3, and 4 are necessary to an understanding of its purpose.

ZWYRAM – or JOHN, what happened to your “renamed” tag? And was that your wife that came on earlier and told us you were away, but would return shortly? Please thank her for the note, and we are happy you are back.

You have us confused (or me, confused), but it’s all right because I love a person who can confront the author with a disagreement with content. As you will have read I’ve already done so.

Would you please tell me the page numbers in the Introduction that you are referring to so that I may re-read them?

This statement you made:

There will always be the minority that will use the Confederacy and the Confederate flag for racist purposes. The war was fought over slavery and the abolishment of slavery.

is certainly one we all agree with. As WW commented they are all “rednecks.” I gather that is a derogatory nickname - "rednecks" - but am not sure the exact meaning?

But also, ANNA has made a good point that there were economical reasons for the war also – and particularly during the war as the North blockaded the South who depended on trade for their survival as well as the slaves.

HAROLD, WW AND RAMBLER we are listening and learning from your posts. Keep it up!

When was it that the presidential candidates started choosing their own running mates? Wasn’t it the practice at one time for the party to name the vice-presidential candidate and vote on both? Or am I putting my foot in my mouth here?

Gee, I'm almost sorry I raised this VP-becoming-President matter back in #66! Wasn't intending to stir up a debate.

The "original" (as I understand it) system seems strange: If the President dies or whatever, the job goes to the person who got the second-highest vote. No doubt that person's views on most issues would generally be the opposite of his predecessor's views.

In a lighter vein, today's comedian Jeff Foxworthy has made a career out of redneck jokes (popular with rednecks, too, I think), i.e.: You could be a redneck if:
Your porch collapses and kills three dogs.
Your home is mobile and your car isn't.
You go to your family reunion to meet women.

I think modern Presidents sometimes don't choose their VPs and much as face reality: They need a geographical balance or some other balance. But all this is afield from April 1865. Sorry.

Hahaha, RAMBLER!

Whenever I heard the term I thought it meant people that worked out in the sun - they would have been rednecks wouldn't they? Shows how much I get around.

I thought you might like to read the whole Declaration of Independence - I don't believe I've read it in its entirety (perhaps in school, perhaps not).

Declaration of Independence

As to Question #3 above, would there have been any way that the thirteen colonies could have abolished slavery at that time and avoided the Civil War that came later?

HAROLD: I presume we are reading the same Constitution, but I don't know why they are different I intend to dig into this further, but since this is not a major point this early in the book, I will put it on the back burner for now. I still don't see the need for two ammendments dealing with the same point (12th and 25th) If the original Constitution is so clear. Be back later on this point.

I've just looked at the Signers of the Declaration on that clickable above and without taking the time (gotta cook dinner) to count the delegates, it just looks as if there are more northern states than southern and wouldn't they have outvoted the southerners if they could have drawn up some document that all could have agreed to regarding slavery?

Either paying the southern states for each slave or setting a date for abolishment?

Was Maryland considered a southern state?

Here is (hopefully) a final comment on the reasons for the 25 amendment. It is a short 2-paragraph commentary on the legislative history of the amendment from a Findlaw site. It explains its purpose a bit clearer than the text itself. Click Here for Commentary on Legislative History of the 25th Ammendment

Winik gets into to the presidential seccesion in great detail later in the book. Evidently it was foggy at best until Tyler pulled of the seccesion to Harrison, and got by with it. It set a precident that wasn't challenged very much. At least not seriously in Johnson case.

One of the great authorities defined the difference between a "good ol' boy" and a "redneck". This was none other than Billy Carter, and who should have known better. A "redneck" drives down a back road in his pick up truck drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and throws the empties out along the road. A "good ol' boy" drives down a back road in his pick up truck drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and throws the empties into the bed of his truck. Originally the term redneck was one of derision used by the gentrified folk, either city or country, to desribe the poor white dirt farmer who worked out in the fields all year. His neck was red.

Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri all had stars designated for them in the Confederate flag. There was seriuos hope that they to would secede. Slavery was legal in all of these states.

John Z (maybe)

an amendment to the Constituion supplants the original part. In this case the amenders wished to keep the idea of the Vice President assuming the power of the President (Article II), so they included that wording exactly in the 25th Amendment, (Section 1). Then Sections 2, 3, 4 of Amendment 25 further refine the path to be followed when a President dies, or is incapacitated, and sets a procedure for choosing a new Vice President when that office becomes vacant.

Earlier today in post 77 Ella included a link to the Declaration of Independence. The declaration was significantly, manifestly influenced by the philosphy of John Locke.

A few years ago as a non-traditional (read "old") college student I read John Locke and noted that the professor accepted his work as unquestionable. I was disturbed by some of the thoughts Locke expressed and researched to find out when his treatises on civil government were written and what his interests were. I'm including a link to

John Locke

which includes a brief biography and a Locke Time Line. In 1670 Locke wrote The Fundamental Constitution of Carolina for the English Lords who owned that colony. This constitution set down, among other things, the duties, obligations, and rights of slaves and owners and thus made legitimate this unsavory 'institution.' Locke was secretary to the Lord Proprietors of Carolina and his main duty was provisioning the colony at their requests, including sending slaves. He owned shares in the Royal Africa Company which, authorized by the crown, operated the slave trade. So Locke had a financial interest in keeping slavery going.

In 1690 he published treatises of civil government and his work was so popular in the American Colonies that numerous editions sold out as soon as they reached the Colonies. The Founding Fathers of America certainly read Locke. Thomas Jefferson corresponded with friends often about Locke's treatises and he used the arguments for usurption of a monarch as well as some wordings, in slightly amended form, such as "lifes, liberties, and the estates of the people." In Locke's

The Second Treatise of Civil Government

Chapters 1-4 neatly line up justification for taking land from the Native Americans and for enslaving Africans. Locke lays out arguments when a monarch can be deposed, if I remember this correctly, in Chapters 17-19 and Jefferson used all of Locke's arguments in the American Declaration of Ind.

I'm sure everyone here already knows this tie between Locke, and slavery, and the American Revolution and establishment of a government but I felt a need to point it out. Locke's treatise is self-serving, a dubious argument for the primacy of greed over morality, and totally repugnant.

Locke's treatise had an unfortunate influence on the nation both North and South. If you read the treatise you can see where the South felt they had the right to secede since this philosophy was the very bones of the Republic. I wish Locke had not been an influence, that there could have been a better way for the nation to be established, but it was Locke who was the shadow behind Jefferson, Washington, Davis, Lee and so many others. Locke gives me the creeps; he did so much harm.

Marvelle

I know, I know, I know that John Locke was one of the first logical, political-revolutionary thinker and I applaud him for that; I do not deny the powerful benefits of his philosophy in 'government by the people' but still . . .he did a great deal of harm. One could say that if Locke's philosophy hadn't swept the Americas perhaps it would have been Hobbes the monarchist, or ... or ... but the fact is that it was Locke and we have in him both good and bad influences. The bad I've already talked about and, since this isn't an essay, I allow myself the freedom to say I'm creeped-out by Locke. (Hope I haven't been too far off topic.)

Marvelle

HAROLD: I have no problem with the 25th Ammendment. I believe you are probably correct about Article 2 of the Constitution. but I am still confused as to why the 12th an 25th Ammendments were necessary, unless, of course, the language of article 2 was too vague.

HAROLD: Please accept my apologies. You are correct about Article 2 of the Constitution . When I fnally read down about 6 or 7 paragraphs, I found the one you quoted. I don't know why I had assumed it was the first paragraph of Article 2. Must have been out in the Texas sun too long. You know how that is. I just couldn't understand why my copy was not the same as yours. Now I feel better we are both on the same page. We will talk about it more when we get to the Andrew Johnson succesion to the presidency.

In particular I think much of the U.S. Governmental structure stems from the ideas of Lock. He was certainly read by Jefferson, Adams and the other founding fathers, and his ideals found their way into our Constitution.

Has anyone else noticed how much the Federal structure today under our 1787 Constitution resembles the structure of the English government, as it was evolving throughout the 18th century? Yes, the strong elected President is the analogy of the King, democratized by the term of only 4-years duration and popular election. Yet immense powers remain in his/her hands. The two-house congress is divided into the upper (Senate/House of Lords) and House of Representatives/ Commons).

Even the Federal structure of sovereign states within the Federal system has resulted in the retention of some of the popular attitudes toward government that had appeared earlier in England. An example in England in the 13th through 16th the common people often supported the King and the national government in preference to the local lords and their local government. Also threats from foreign countries occasioned the rallying behind the monarch against the foreign foe. So even today in the U.S. there is popular support for strong national leadership in times of foreign threats and to solve immense social and economic problems or nationwide extent. Yet when the National structure becomes too large to efficiently function there is popular demand for devolution of power to local units.

Yes the ideals of John Lock have contributed to the character of our American government as it is formed today

WW, no apology is necessary. All might note how quickly the founding fathers found their system of giving the Vice Presidency to the 2nd place finisher in the Presidential race unworkable. I suppose this resulted from the rapid development of strong, opposing political parties. In 1787 the writers of the Constitution did not favor strong parties and did not foresee their development. But develop they did, and they developed very quickly. This led to a P and VP with different views and antagonistic attitudes. By 1804 the 12th amendment had changed the procedure in a way that permitted the election of the VP making possible a VP of the same party as the P.

I agree the first section of the 25th amendment was really unnecessary since Article 2 of the Constitution said the powers of the office of the P “devolve” to the VP on death etc of the P. In practice under this authority several VP had moved to the White House and assumed the Office and title of P. The only justification for Section 1 in the 25th amendment seems to be that it expressly states that the Vice President becomes the President.

The real reason for the 25th amendment was the great need for clarification of the procedure for declaring a President disabled and unable to perform (temporally or permanently) and to provide for a replacement VP if that office became vacant. This purpose is acomplished in Sections 2 through 4.

Thanks, Catbird, for your information; certainly that sounds logical to me. I believe that WW and Harold have settled their Constitutional problem now, haven’t you fellows?

Marvelle - great post and I remember studying John Locke in World History, along with Rousseau and Hobbes, and all I could remember was they did influence America’s constitutional government and I remember that before they came along most of the great political philosophers based their writings on religious beliefs – that God designated those who were to be monarchs – and they had “divine rights.”

But that’s all I remember and I have now read (that’s difficult reading, OH, gosh – and even more difficult to interpret without the help of a professor) a few chapters. Here is a paragraph of Section 4 of Chapter II for us to consider:

”TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

And then I found this in Chapter 4 of SLAVERY:

”The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.

What can we make of all of this?

Marvelle, can you help us interpret some of Locke’s work, particularly the parts that “creeped you out?” Hahaha – you are perfectly in your right to be creeped out, or disgusted, or plain mad at our forefathers – because they were not “man” enough or “brave” enough to do away with slavery then and there!

Did you, by any chance, teach this material? If so, do let us know and interpret some of the "slavery" parts, PLEASE!! I do want to understand.

Marvelle, I've read that last passage over again and this sentence -

"for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure:

I understand to mean that we are all the work of a "wise maker" and we are all servants of that "wise maker and are to do his business.

Is this how you interpret that?

(I know we are way off the subject of the Civil War, but this is interesting - we will get back to it I promise)

HAROLD: Agreed about the 25th ammend. The latter clauses were important to take care of the situations that occured later in case of McKinley and later Woodrow Wilson. You mention the similarity of today's English and American governments, reminds me of the course I took many, many years ago in English constitutional history, which covered the similarities between of the English and American systems and how they occurred. Today, the situation might be reversed. The English could dump their Monarchy and Join the USA as a European state or states. Isn't that the trend? But we digress.

Since only about one third of the southerns owned slaves I would like to know what the opinion of the group is on why the other two thirds fought. Was it because of individual rights? Many of the non slave owners didn't believe in slaves and their status wasn't much better than that of the slaves.

I am new to this kind of book discussion and am enjoying reading the comments very much. You are teaching me a great deal.

WELCOME MARI LYN

We were all new at one time and love to discuss books! So, just join right in. Do you have the book? If not, that's okay too, we are discussing the last month of the Civil War, and most people are aware of the events that happened, although probably not in the detail that is in this book.

You asked a good question! I think the people in the southern states, with or without slaves, felt loyal to the state they lived in and had ties with friends or family. Those that felt very strongly about abolition went north and joined the Union before or during the war. However, during the war, many were captured that tried to cross lines and imprisoned.

We're happy you are with us - stick around, more to come and we will get back to our subject shortly.

I have read all the posts and I now have my book and will try to read from 3-73 by tomorrow night so I can refer to what the author is saying and how the opinions and views of everyone agrees or disagrees.

Until then I think it best to keep my opinions to myself. Living in Virginia the Civil War became a subject I found myself delving into with an interest that captured my attention as I wanted to see what the War was all about.

I most likely wont change my mind but I am willing to see what the author has said and how you, my fellow discussion mates think.

One thing I know if reading and discussing events helps to keep our minds active and our juices flowing I think we can all be cheerful.

anna in Virginia

Mari Lyn, welcome to the discussion We hope you will post often You ask a good question and I think Ella has responded with a good answer.

And Anna Fair, we are glad your received your book from B & N. I think you will find it interesting. It must have been quite difficult for civilians living in Virginia during the Civil War. They had to contend not only with severe shortage of basic food and other necessities, but also with great danger from the military activities.

In my state, Texas, I am sure things were easier. As I said earlier one set of my G grand parents were in Texas. They were recent immigrants from Germany, and probable spoke very little English. But I guess this was no big problem since there were many Germans. My g grandfather avoided military service. There are many storys of hardscrabble living with shortages of the basic necessities. I am sure, however, that they could grow their own, hunt and gather without harassment by Yankees. I also mentioned a little book that I read that described the Thanksgiving Day dinner in Nov, 1865 of a German Family in the hill country north west of San Antonio. What would have been a meager dinner turned out to be a pretty good one after a hunt resulted in plenty of wild turkey.

Tomorrow I will be out of pocket all day. I probably won't check in until evening, as I will have the opportunity to show a very distinguished visiting Senior's Net personality the San Antonio Mission's National Park and the Institute of Texan Cultures. Ella will be around.

I'll try Ella to interpret Locke to show, unless I mess things up, his monumental influence: in the institutionalization and justification of slavery, in taking land from the Native Americans, in the thinking of men like Jefferson who believed that "all men are created equal" yet owned slaves. The Southern right to secede is taken directly from Locke's philosophy but this issue can be for another post -- perhaps by an out of pocket lawyer?

State of Nature (Ch 2): is a state of perfect freedom to dispose of property/persons, to act as a person choses without answering to another. Power and jurisdiction are reciprocal and persons are "equal...without subordination or subjection unless...(God) sets one above another by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and soverignty." This quote from Locke is his caveat and he will later provide examples of superior humans who reason and labor.

(Ch 2 Sect 6) The law of nature: "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions..."

(Ch 2 Sect 7- A person who violates nature's law will be punished because he "declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity...and becomes dangerous to mankind...and every man has a right to punish the offender..." Reason will be defined later by Locke to suggest that anyone without Lockeian-defined reason is not equal and may be treated accordingly. Vengeance; an eye for an eye which relates to Locke's State of War.

(Ch 2 Sect 11) The victim can take the goods or service (slavery?) of the offender by rights of self-preservation and preserving all of mankind because the offender has renounced reason through violence and "declared war against all of mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security." Here we get into the early beginnings of name calling. We'll see later in Locke's philosophy that native populations who protected their country were without reason and transgressed. These two qualifications make them wild and savage and beasts.

(Ch 2 Sect 12) Lesser breaches of nature's law will still be punished "with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like." This gives a lot of authority to enslave and punish.

State of War (Ch 3): declaring by word or action designs upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with the other man. "...one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey..." Again reason, beasts, lions and wolves.

(Ch 3 Sect 19) "Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appealto for relief, is the state of war....(F)orce without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge."

(Ch 3 Sect 21) Men form into a society with an authority or power to whom they can appeal in order to avoid the state of war.

Slavery (Ch 4 Sect 22): What it isn't -- "(F)reedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the ... arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature."

(Ch 4 Sect 23): When slavery is allowed -- "...having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it" for if a slave wants to die he can resist the will of his master and thus obtain his death.

(Ch 4 Sect 24) The perfect condition of slavery is "the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive. It isn't slavery or war if both parties agree to the relationship of authority on one side and obedience o the other.

Property (Ch 5): is a man's right over his own person and the fruits of his labor.

(Ch 5 Sect 26) God gave the world to men in common but he also gave them reason. Man should use reason to "make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience."

(Ch 5 Sect 27-30) Man uses reason when he cultivates the natural earth with his own labor and thereby makes it his property. Picking up acorns from the ground or fruit from the trees does not constitute property or ownership.

(Ch 5 Sect 32) "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property . . .. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e., improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour ...(his property) which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him." This is a self-serving argument for land-grabbing. If Native Americans didn't plow up the forests, then they weren't using the land and had no claims. This would also be perceived in Africans who hadn't yet developed ivory fever. Again there is a subtle thread of defining what reason is.

(Ch 5 Sect 34-42) God gave the earth to the deserving man -- "industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy of covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.... (S)ubduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we see are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate....We see how labour could make men distinct titles to several parcels for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel....(B)read is more worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk, than leaves, skins or moss, (and) that is wholly owing to labour and industry."

I hope you can see why Locke's philosophy is so offensive to me. He is justifying enslavement and land-grabbing on the basis of superior reason and industriousness (labor). I couldn't condense this anymore and I did leave out a lot. I think this is enough of Locke for me. His arguments still echo today in govenment and committee rooms.

Marvelle

Answering question #3 above. I doubt that secession could ever have been avoided. In the very first days of the republic there were differences of opinion on this point. The Federalists lead by Washington, Adams, and particularly Hamilton were proponents of a strong Federal Government, Whereas, Jefferson, Madison and others were for the supremacy of the States. The latter group believed that the Federal governent existed at the pleasure of the indivisual states, which meant they believed in the right of any state or states to secede from the Union if they so chose. From the Revolution on up to the Civil War this was a major point of contention in the Congress. Generally the southern states were the "state Rights" group, although there were occasions when northern states such as New York and New Jersey threatened secession. The first major challenge to Federal authority was the Whiskey Rebellion, in rural Pennsylvania that threatened secession.

In any event the Civil war seems to have settled that question once and for all. To my knowledge there have been no threats of secession since then. The word in the Pledge of Allegiance "indivisable" seems to mean what it says. We seem to have a few miguided individuals, probably supported by the ACLU, who seem to believe we are a godless nation, and are objecting to some other words in that Pledge.

We will undoubtedly hear from someone on this latter point. Regardless we are a nation where the overwhelming majority believe in some sort of Diety, which is expressed on all of our money and in our oaths of office, and in countless other ways and places.

I don't think that one third of the white population of the south [as defined by the states that seceded] owned slaves. The percentage was probably less than half of that estimate. The non-slave owning southerners that voted to secede saw the issue as being a threat to their state, particularly after the attempt to reinforce Fort Sumpter. The attempt by the union to hold Ft. Sumpter by military force was seen by some as invasion.

As I wondered once before in this forum, would the border south have seceded if the union had decided to let the deep south go, and how long would the deep south have lasted as a separate country if left alone?

As an aside, the largest slave owner in East Tennessee was a staunch union man. He was loyal and supportive of the union as most of east Tennessee was. East Tennessee voted not to secede when the vote was taken in 1861. There was talk of splitting off East Tennessee from the rest of the state, as was done with West Virginia. It was not done because of the difficulty of militarily supporting the east Tennesseeans. Incidently the leading slave owner changed sides after the Emancipation Proclimation.

John Z

Marvelle, thanks for presenting Locke’s arguments, I think we could do a whole discussion on the man and his writings alone, but for now I think we must go back to the book – or go forward to the book – and put Locke behind us, as interesting as some of his ideas are – perhaps when our roving lawyer returns he will add something to this conversation about the early theorists and their influence on our founding fathers.

WW, I agree that with those influential southern fathers in stout opposition to any abolishment of the slave trade, there was no way to avoid secession. I remember the Whiskey Rebellion from our discussion of the book “JOHN ADAMS” by David McCullough – the first act of government in our country to enforce the law (and payment of taxes). I counted three incidences in the Declaration of Independence of a mention of a Diety – they were, “Nature’s God” – “Creator” and “Divine Providence.”

That’s an interesting speculation, John - “would the border south have seceded if the union had decided to let the deep south go, and how long would the deep south have lasted as a separate country if left alone?” However, Lincoln had no intention of letting any portion of the South secede. I didn’t know that about TN – interesting! I did know about W.VA as many of my ancestors came from there when it was a part of VA.

It is time to return to our book and beginning on page 29, let’s ponder THE DILEMMA, as the chapter is called. The map on page 40 shows General’s Lee’s strategy for striking at Grant and smashing Sherman in the process. Lee’s army is tattered and exhausted, but the General is still attempting to overcome the North even though his troops are outnumbered 3 to one.

We will go into detail in each of these men’s personality and lives as we proceed through the book, they are entertwined in the stories of the battles.

Many southerners at this time were for freeing the slaves if they agreed to fight. There were approximately 4 million slaves in the south and they had already helped tremendously in the war by their labor. In February General Lee stated that the slaves would “furnish a more promising material than many armies of which we read in history. Those who are employed should be freed. It would be neither just nor wise to require them to serve as slaves.”

Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy is a symbol, a proud city – “capital of the Mother of states and Statesman, “ it was the birth of America’s first president, authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. But General Lee knew that it must be soon abandoned if his campaign against Grant were unsuccessful.

It was at this point that Abraham Lincoln, knowing that if the nation were to ever become reunited, it must be with reconciliation and he gave the order to Grant and Sherman to:

”get the deluded men of the rebel armies disarmed and back to their homes…….Let them all go, officers and all, I want submission and no more bloodshed….I want no one punished; treat them liberally all around. We want those people to return to their allegiance to the Union and submit to the laws.”

I am putting a couple of new questions in the heading for our consideration. Let’s talk about this chapter.

I must say that I don't know which is more interesting---the book or the comments by my fellow seniornet readers. The background information and research is wonderful. Thank you. As for my answer to the question regarding having fought as a soldier if I were promised freedom after the war, answer is yes. The comparison of negative response to Lincoln appears to be paralled to that of Clinton.

I ‘m back after a day in San Antonio with Ginny, her friend Sandy and Barbara St Aubrey. We went to the Institute of Texan Cultures, The Alamo, and the SA Missions National Historic Park (Conception, San Jose, San Juan de Capistrano, and Espada and also the Espada aqueduct)

Here are a few points from Chapter I, The Dilemma. First we have another rather long descriptive sketch, but this time not of a person; this one is of a city, Richmond. I am coming to a decision that Winik’s use of these verbal sketches is rather effective and they are skillfully done.

Second, I think the Lincoln visit to Grants headquarters and the “River Queen” conference with Grant and Sherman and other Army and Navy chiefs is the most significant point discussed in the chapter, Do we not see here a draft version of the military surrenders terms that came just weeks later?

And third Lees final battle plan, what a bitter pill with the abandonment of Richmond and a 200-mile retreat to link with Johnson in NC. I think this plan was weighted with many fatal flaws, and his “dilemma” at that point could be summed up in a single word EXHAUSTION! We get to the details next week.

Thanks, Antoinette for your comments. Clinton? Hmmmmm

What do the rest of you think?

Would you really fight for the people who had bought and sold you? That would take sometime to decide; of course, as a slave one would want your freedom but Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had already freed you, all you had to do was wait out the war.

I don't know - what do the rest of you say?

When I read this chapter with the description of Lee's army, these men had fought for 4 long years, no shoes, no food, no blankets, and Lee just had 57,000 men and Grant had around 150,000.

I would have surrendered then!

Anna I know you have read this part about Richmond - is the Confederate Capitol (now I forget - was it the Capitol building or someone's home?) still there? Do you sense the importance that Richmond had to the Confederacy, even though, as our book says, it was a poor choice?

What else can you tell us about Richmond and it's relationship to the Confederacy?

Hi Harold! Gee whiz, you did a lot today - and, bless your heart, here you are in our discussion! Good points - but it's bedtime for me here in Ohio. Earlier there where you are.

See everyone tomorrow!

I am not sure if we are still in chapter 1. If so I will make just one comment now. I belive one of the primary reasons why the Union was successful, besides having much greater resources and personnel numbers, Lincoln made the decision in early 1864 to turn the command of ALL the Union forces over to Grant. Jeff Davis made the mistake of masterminding the Confederate total effort. Not until too late did he let Lee command the entire Confederate war effort. Oh, let me add just one more point. Lee was wrong in one respect when he broke away from Petersburg. In the past all his opponent Generals had failed to pursue him. He was counting on this to happen again, thus giving him more time to reprovision his men and escape to the south and join Gen Johnston in North Carolina. But Gen Grant was not like the others, he immediately pursued Lee.

Lee's army was exhausted. They had expected to find provisions waiting for them at Amelia Courthouse. According to Lee's Biography by Emory M. Thomas, " he had to stop his march and dispatch foraging parties with wagons into the countryside... he spent 24 hours in foraging forays, collected very little food, and later concluded. This delay was fatal, and (time)could not be retrieved."

Winik somewhere notes in the book that the great difference between Grant and McCellan Burnsides, Hookers and the other Northern Generals who held high command in battle with Lee was that after even a partial victory or draw they would pause to reorganize and lick their wounds allowing Lee the opportunity for an easy escape. Grant on the other hand would push on throwing in reserves which by 1864 and 65 he had in large numbers. In other words he was willing to take large causalities and at that point of time he always had the reserve of men and equipment to sustain the pressure. In contrast Lee did not have reserves to replace his losses.

We will begin discussing the details of the execution and final outcome of Lee's Escape plan Monday morning. MEANWHILE, we have the two questions Ella has highlighted in the heading. I suspect some may have opinion on these (particularly the second one) they would like to answer.

Also going back to one of the original focus questions, does anyone have want to comment how both the anti-slavery North and the pro-slave South justified their position by quoting scripture from the Christian Bible?

As I understand from the book the slaves had to be freed before they could be soldiers. Yes, I would have accepted being a soldier if I was freed ahead of time but would also escape north at the first opportunity to fight for the federal troops. The book said that the slaves who would fight for the south would be set free but said nothing about their families. The Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the Confederate not just the ones who would fight.

I think the Southerns used Leviticus 26:44 as justification for buying and keeping slaves. The verse the Northerns based abolition on has been quoted in earlier comments, does anyone know the verse?

Mari Lyn, thank you for the scripture citation. I knew both sides freely quoted scripture supporting their position. I think the pro-slave theologians also used from the New Testament the St Paul message saying something like “Slave be obedient to your Master,” and most certainly there were no shortage of new Testament references to Christian brotherhood available to the other side.

Here is a comment on the Emancipation Proclamation as I remember it from my 1950’s: Civil War and Reconstruction” course at Trinity. As I remember it, it contained a very critical limitation. This was that the Emancipation proclaimed applied ONLY in those States then under rebellion.

Lincoln was severely criticized when the proclamation was released for freeing only those slaves that he had no power to liberate. Technically the slaves in Maryland Kentucky, Missouri and the other States where slavery was legal were unaffected. Of course as Winik tells us as sections or the South came under the jurisdiction of Federal troops, the Slaves were declared free (often with impressive ceremony and much jubilant celebration by those liberated). Also I suppose the Boarder states were in the process of reassessing their laws and of course the issue was permanently decided nationwide by the 13th amendment that was proclaimed in effect before the end of 1865.

Under the later Reconstruction Laws, each succeeding state was required to positively affirm the 13tn, 14th and 15th amendments before being allowed to resume its place in the Union.

Hello MARI LYN AND HAROLD - did everyone go to the picnic tody and we three missed it? hahaha

Nice to see you two posting and I'll just add a couple of things; here is the Leviticus quote from the Bible, Mari Lyn. During my Sunday School days (years ago) I used to be able to rattle off all the books of the Bible and we had quizzes, with prizes, for all the quotations from the Bible we could remember. Here is Leviticus 26:44 -

"And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God."

I'll look up the one I had quoted in the heading, one that the Union used, but I know there are many, many that both sides used to justify their beliefs.

You can find anything on the WEb and I went searching briefly regarding using slaves as soldiers. Here is the Proclamation from the Office of the Conferacy which states

"the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to ask for and accept from the owners of slaves, the services of such number of able-bodied negro men as he may deem expedient, for and during the war, to perform military service in whatever capacity he may direct. "

The URL which contains that sentence is here:

PROCLAMATION OF THE CONFEDERACY

Isn't it strange that Lincoln would not free ALL SLAVES at this time, but only those in the rebellious states? It's as if he was punishing those states and not truly freeing all slaves. He should have been criticized, don't you agree?

For a short comment of the Emancipation Proclamation plus a JPG copy of each page Click Here. Note, that it did not apply even in those areas of the rebel states that were under Federal Control on its date of its issue, January 1,1863.

It is however unfair to criticize Lincoln for excluding loyal states from its effect. The President, neither alone as President or in conjunction with Congress had power to abolish slavery with out a Constitutional amendment. Apparently work on an amendment was begun at that time because the 13th amendment was approved and in effect in 1865 about the time the War ended.

Here is an important point from the first section of “April 1865;” that is Winik’s portrait of the American Civil War as the first modern War. I remember in 1950 one of my Economic courses was entitled the “Economics of National Security.” This course concerned the management of a country’s economy during war. The first chapter of the text book reviewed the role of the Economy during War time through history assigning to the American Civil War the distinction of being the FIRST MODERN WAR, in the sense that the entire economy of both belligerents were fully dedicated to the War effort. Winik picks up on this ideal and somewhere in these early chapters he may even have used the words, “first modern war.” (Did he?). In any case beginning in the initial section and continuing in later chapters he emphasizes how the economy of the north contribute to the war effort with an endless stream of guns, ammunition, railroad equipment, steam ships and countless items needed to supply, maintain, and transport a large army in the field as well as the Civilian force. And the Confederacy to the extent it was able likewise mobilized its economy for the same purpose. That the North by 1865 was in such a stronger position was very much because of the superior economic base of the North that simply outpaced and overwhelmed the Confederate equivalent. .

There was another “modern war” dimension that was not emphasized in my economics course that Winik emphasizes through out “April 1865.” This is the fact that modern war opened enemy infrastructure, Civilian as well as military, as legitimate targets for attack. Therefore it followed that as Sherman marched through Georgia, he left a blackened and scorched landscape to deny his enemy belligerent any future use of its resources. Later wars would refine these tactics much further but it was in our Civil War that they first appeared as a chosen military tactic

Harold - "an endless stream of guns, ammunition, railroad equipment, steam ships and countless items needed to supply, maintain, and transport a large army in the field as well as the Civilian force."

It's called "logistics" today. It has always made millionnaires of those supplying the armed forces.

Are you saying that the "scorched earth policy" of warfare started with the Civil War? You mean the Crusaders never pillaged and burnt those cities they marched through?

Ella: I think you have a point when you inquire Did not the Crusaders pillage and burn cities? It would appear that the term "modern war" implies the complete distruction of an enemy city for example. I guess we can say this is the first war on the North American continent that could be called a "modern war." Certainly no such thing happened in the American Revolution, nor the earlier French and Indian war. Of course, so called "modern warfare" was going on for many centuries in Europe, and elsewhere in the world. The Bible in the old testament, which is basically a history of the Hebrew race, speaks of complete destruction of ancient cities by the scads.

Hey, WW - did you get a letter this morning from Harold and I? I'm getting used to a new computer and I'm not sure I pressed the "send" button as I never received my copy of it. I'll send it again as I saved a "draft" of it if no one got it.

As a former proofreader for The Chicago Tribune, I find it odd that our author confuses "ordinance" with "ordnance".

The former, as I understand it, is a sort of petty law like "no spitting on the sidewalk" or "no smoking in public buildings".

The latter is a military term for cannon, artillery, military weapons. He seems confused about these terms near the bottom of p. 74 and at the top of p. 75, perhaps elsewhere.

I wish I still had the text I used in that 1950 course. I think however I can add comment that while it may not be sufficient to satisfy all is an arguable reason for viewing the American Civil War the first modern conflict. The criteria for a “Modern War” was that the full economy of both belligerents are dedicated to fighting for final victory AND the economic infrastructure of the enemy belligerent are therefore considered legitimate targets for attack.

True rape, rapine and pillage have always since the earliest time been a part of war. However, in earlier times such were the expected results of victory, not a strategic part of the battle plan for obtaining victory. When the Greeks broke out of their wooden horse to over whelm Troy they sacked the city killing and selling or taking any survivors as slaves. The victory duly chastised Troy for absconding with the fair Helen; it was their reward for victory, not a part of their plan for winning the victory

I remember in 1950 arguing that the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century deserved the status of the first modern war. Here larger armies were in the field and it seemed to me much of the continental and English economy was dedicated to the war effort. In England there was a major economic effort to build hundreds of ships each of which I understand took the leveling of several hundred acres of oak forest to provide the timbers. And there was a systematic British economic blockade of the Continent. That would certainly constitute an attack on the civilian infrastructure.

Yet like I said the text took the position that it would be another 50 years and our Civil War before the first Modern War would occur. After reading the Wynik book, I guess I am inclined to agree that whether it was the first, the second or what ever, our Civil war certainly met the criteria both with regard to the extent of the economic dedication of both belligerents and the unions policy of burning and destroying farms, houses, stores and factories as its armies swept through enemy territory. This arguably qualifies our Civil War as an early Modern War.

Obviously a better example of a war Modern War would be 20th century conflicts, World War II is a good example The economies of all belligerents were totally dedicated to the achieving victory. Even in the United States and more so in Britain, Germany and Russia Governments took complete control of the means of production directing it to produce for the war effort. Ordinary nonessential civilian goods were not available. Materials. commodities, and even food was rationed. Furthermore part of the battle plan of each side was the destruction of the enemy’s economies. This was accomplished with thousand bomber attacks on enemy cities to destroy the enemy economy or even to instill terror in its civilian population.

You are so right, RAMBLER! Hahaha - we should tell them. There's a lot of that going on in publishing today, even in our newspapers. I looked up the publishers' website thinking they may have a "contact us" space, but they don't. Here is what they do have - not very serious stuff is it?

HarperCollins

Did you notice that quote of Lee's in the heading - devotion, duty and loyalty as an American citizen? How anguished over his decision to join the South was he anyway? Would the South have endured as long as they did without him? So many questions......

Harold - to answer Question #3 in the heading I liked the portrait of Lee, he was a very complex man and I'd like to read a biography of him. No, it wasn't necessary to the book but I like character sketches.

P.S. to Rambler: Don't make us feel self-conscious here about our spelling, this is a conversation not a publication.

Hi Harold! We were posting together and the word "modern" needs defined I would imagine.

The South certainly suffered much more damage in the fighting as to infrastructure didn't they? I came across the reference again that 60% of the fighting was done on Virginia soil and then there was Sherman......

Yes Ella I don’t think the readers would have understood Lee’s ultimate decision to surrender rather than continue guerilla activities without the rather long background sketch on Lee. I have come to judge that Winik used these several informational sketches mostly of people rather well. They gave the reader vital information to understanding the events.

And Rambler, you are a pro. I am a terrible speller and an even worst typist and proofreader. Word’s spell checker pretty well has over come my spelling and largely my typing problem, but it does no good in assuring I will use the correct word. Generally I will use the right word in situations like there/their or to/too and common others, but I might have missed the example you gave and I certainly would not have caught it in a simple reading of the text. On the plus side I am quite satisfied with my ability to put words together to form sentences and paragraphs.

I think I have caught Winik in one historical error. As I remember in a later chapter he says, Texas completed the reconstruction process in 1870. Actually it was not completed until 1874.

Lee had such an impeccable background - I didn't know, however, how Arlington Cemetery came about until I read that portion of this chapter. Never thought about that, actually, did any of you know that?

But reading that both he and his wife shared common beliefs:

"considerable antislavery sentiments (he had described the institution in 1856 as a moral and political evil) and both were equally outspoken against secession"

one wonders how they both ever came to the position of seceding with their state of VA?

Did they own slaves - I doubt it, but the text doesn't say or I can't find it. Still, how did they keep the grand mansions, Statford and Arlington, without them?

We spent considerable time at Gettysburg some years ago, but I'm going to look up Antietan on the web. It's described in the book as the bloodiest day in American history.

Ella asked an interesting question -- did either Robert E. Lee or Mary Custis Lee own slaves?

I did some research (there are a lot of web sites about this) and found Lee did not own slaves. Furthermore, when his father-in-law died, in 1857 I believe, Lee was given management of the Custis estate and immediately began freeing the slaves. By 1863 all the slaves were freed.

Marvelle

Thanks, MARVELLE - good for Lee! I like the fellow more all the time, but I can't believe his wife would have done all that work herself; they possibly had paid servants?

I've been having a bit of fun looking up the song - DIXIE - I thought it only fair that as we had the Union Battle Hymn of the Republic up in the heading, we should do likewise for the Confederacy. Can you see it? It's right under the box that contains the questions. Unlike the Northern hymn, the South's Dixie had rhymn (sp?) and fun-loving lyrics and, again, for the fun of it, here's the North's version of "Dixie" - just the words.

The Northern version of "Dixie"

Time to go look for the Antietam battle.

Nothing about the Civil War is amusing, but the first verse of the Northern version of DIXIE reminds me of G.I. humor:

Away down south in the land of traitors,
Rattlesnakes and alligators,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.
Where cotton's king and men are chattels,
Union boys will win the battles,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.

And read the rest of them.

The National Park Service site at Antietam, MD - Sept. 1862:

Antietam

And the battle of Gettysburg, PA - July, 1863 (there's no doubt Lee was bold):

Gettysburg

When I was a kid, "Like Grant took Richmond" was a synonym for speed. Did Grant, indeed, take Richmond all that quickly?

The comic Tom Lehrer did a takeoff on "Dixie":
"Old times there are not forgotten
Whuppin' slaves and pickin' cotton
And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee."

I was sort of surprised at the report stating Robert E. Lee did not own Slaves. Yet I suppose I should not have been since his father had lost his property and Lee had served all his life in the army. But I knew he had managed slaves coming from his father-in-law'w estate.

I did a quick Google search using the search string, "Robert E. Lee and Slavery". There were many hits some of which were on the issue desired. After reading several I don't think their is any doubt that he wrote in letters he considered the institution "a moral and political evil." But I did not find any reference to his having freed slaves, and there was one that was somewhat negative noting he was a stern slavemaster. This was in reference to his administration of his father-in-law's estate in the late 1850's.

You can read these web resources and more and make up your own mind by clicking, http://www.google.com . Enter, "Robert E. Lee and Slavery" in the search box. and click to begin the search.

Sometimes even today when things at work don’t go as well as an employee might like and the employer calls him/her in and transfers him/her to a more work/less desirable job, the employee will lament to friends, "I was sold down the River!" This term is out of the 19th century South when slave owners in the more developed states like Virginia would threaten their under performing slaves with, ”you had better measure up, or I'll sell you down the River." This was a threat of selling the slave to an owner in a developing state like Alabama or Mississippi, where the work was harder and conditions less desirable. Alas, we still have cause to use the metaphor today.

In order to have an organized discussion of these pages, I think we should declare a portion at a time; for now, let's finish our discussion of Robert E. Lee, described by one soldier - "I've heard of God, but I've seen General Lee." WOW!!!

We will start on Chapter 3, page 123 tomorrow, okay?

The map on Page 90 shows the terrible campaigns of both the Union and Confederate armies, beginning on May 8, 1864 and lasting until April 1865, culminating in the Petersburg Siege, south of Richmond. Anyone have any comments on that "blind and bloody hunt to the death, in bewildering thickets, rather than a battle."

Winick doesn't spare us any of the horrors of it in describing these battles or any of the battles. I found it difficult to read at times, but I did. The hand-to-hand combat at Spotsylvania was just awful. OH!

Lee's words - "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - are well known.

What does that statement mean to you?

Harold, I'm sure you noticed the Texas brigade on page 92 - one of the soldiers with tears in his eyes said before he plunged into battle: "I would charge hell itself for that old man."

Why was he so beloved by his troops?

What happened to everybody? I know Ella and Harold are here, and occasioally Rambler pops in. But we have lost some people along the way.

A few scattered comments:

Sherman's characterization of war was much shorter and right on point. "War is Hell." And how true it is. Only difference between today and then is the speed and high technology of killing today.

Although Lee hated the long drawn out seige of Richmond an army well entrenched has an advantage of being able to keep supplied better than one on the move. The seige at Richmond actually, prolonged the war almost a year.But as the Union army continued it's build up, Lee could see it was only a matter of time before Grant would attack in overwhelming force. His plan to escape to the south and join forces with Gen. Joseph Johnston and the Army of Tennessee's remnants was good, except for one fact. In the past the Union forces under many Generals never followed up on a victory or even a draw. They all chose to sit still and reorganize and lick their wounds. But Grant was a different General. As Lee made his move, Grant pursued him as quickly as possible. Given more time and the ability to replenish his ragged and tired troops with food and supplies at Amelia Courthouse he might have pulled it off. While it might extend the war longer the writing was on the wall. All Lee and the South could hope for was the Northern populace would give up the hope of complete victory and allow the South to go their own way.

This was the last "Gentlemen's war" if there can be such a thing. By this I mean, except for the war in the west, that is west of the Mississippi, many of the officers on both sides had served together during the war with Mexico. They knew each other personally, and respected each other. They fought hard for their respective causes, but they refused to engage in the guerrilla type of warfare that gave no quarter, making civilians targets etc. Confederate leaders like Moseby and Quantrell engaged in such murderous tactics out west. Because Lee and Grant were a part of this "gentlemens corps" the war effectively ended at Appomatox instead of the last Confederate armies breaking into guerrila groups, taking to the mountains to continue a war of harassment.

HELLO WW. Yes, yes, where are all the troops? Obviously they are not Lee's soldiers (poor joke!)

Where are all the rest of you? Do tell us whether you like the book - if you don't it's okay! We understand, it may be detailed or too descriptive? We all have different reading tastes. But we would like to know, SPEAK UP!!!

That's a big chunk of a post, WW! Good points though - wouldn't it be frightful to be fighting against a good friend, one that you knew personally? Impossible for me to imagine that!

MARVELLE sent me an email (she works 4 days a week and doesn't have a lot of time to post, but she was hoping that I could put this online as a picture. However, even though it is not copyrighted, Seniornet is not at all sure we should do it as the picture belongs to an individual.

I'll give you the site and you can go look at it. Marvelle collects old photographs - what an interesting hobby!!! Look at this cartoon that appeared in a paper up North:

Jefferson Davis cartoon

We'll be getting into the attitudes of both sides after the surrender of Lee as we progress through the book.

While I think of it, I would like to pass on some other excellent sources of information on the principal characters in the Civil War.

Biography of Robert E. Lee by Emory M. Thomas

Biography of Joseph E. Johnston by Craig L. Symonds

Biography of Jefferson Davis by Clement Eaton

Have you read that one of Lee, WW? If it's good, I'm interested.

It seems to me that the world is fond of war when one thinks about all the wars that are being fought and have been fought. I agree the descriptions of the battles are horrible but realistic.

I was just looking at our questions above in the heading and my answer to No.2 would be Truman! He obviously didn't get along too well with MacArthur (the country was stunned when he fired him) and Washington society didn't think too much of this "country boy" and the press - well, the whole country - was amazed when he won the election after his term taking over for Rooselvelt.

What do you think?

Incidentally in November we are starting to discuss TRUMAN by David McCullough - check it out in the Coming Discussions!

HI MARI LYN!

Good to hear from you and what do the rest of you think about Mary Lyn's statement (which is a ve-r-ry interesting one!) Let me repeat it here:

It seems to me that the world is fond of war when one thinks about all the wars that are being fought and have been fought

A lot to consider there.

Where are we, approximately, in the book?

My mind tends to concentrate on present-day crises rather than past ones. Of course, I recognize that new problems are very often related to, or the result of, those of the past.

At the time I thought Truman was a skunk (for lack of a better word). But many years later I changed my mind and now think of him as one of the best presidents we have had. I rank him right up there with Washington and Lincoln (but not Jefferson) and FDR. I'm glad to hear you will be discussing Truman in November. I really liked McCullough's John Adams. Politically, you will think I am a really mixed up conservative (Independent). But Truman, and FDR were among my favorite presidents. But we digress! I think Lee would have made a good president too. There is no question he was understandably loved in the south. A really fine human being.

RAMBLER - tomorrow we are beginning on page 123 - the Chapter entitled "THE CHASE - AND THE DECISION."

You are right on target when you speak of "present-day crisis." It is just what MARI LYN was referring to in her statement that "we do seem to be fond of war" because as we speak our government may be/is planning an all-out invasion of Iraq.

But let us not get bottled up in present-day decisions at the moment - the Confederacy now has abandoned Richmond and Lee is retreating westward - the map on page 167 is very helpful.

One thing that bothered me is that President Lincoln walked into Richmond after it had fallen and walked to the Confederate capitol and sat in Jefferson Davis' chair. Winick writes as if this was an admirable thing to do; not so in my opinion. It was a show of egotism to those poor southerners who remained in Richmond and an attempt to humiliate them.

I doubt Lincoln meant it in those terms, but it is the way I would have felt about it if I had been a Virginian. The proud conqueror hero!

Continuing the digression I too was impressed with Truman principally for the way he concluded the WW II peace and particularly how he recognized the Russian menace and stood up to it by the creation of NATO. The Macarthur problem did not distract from my respect for him, as somehow Macarthur was never one of my favorite WW II Generals

Having said that, I remember, I voted against him in 48, my first voting opportunity, principally because of his stand on Federal/state ownership of the so called tidelands. I was surprised at his victory but in retrospect, I realize it was probably for the best as in 1950 he again acted strong and well in dealing with the Korean problem. Truman was the last U.S. President that did not graduate from college. Is that a status likely to stand?

Incidentally in that 1948 election I also voted against LBJ who was making his first bid for a senate seat. LBJ was the surprise winner by about 50 votes almost certainly fraudulently planted by a corrupt South Texas County Political machine. LBJ while the benefactor was not himself a party to the fraud. Those Votes as it turned out effectively elevated LBJ to the Presidency Thereafter, I quite freely voted for LBJ in all of his future campaigns right through the 1964 Presidential Election, and I am quite sure I would have voted for him in 1968 if he had run for a second term

If I do not participate in the coming “Truman” biography discussion, it will be solely because of the length of the book and the need for a respite from book discussions.

In one respect modern war has become less bloody than before. This of course has come through the great innovations in military technology, As a result, it has been quite a while since infantry formations routinely charged machine gun and heavy artillery studded defenses. Of course the creation of such army requires multi trillion defense outlays.

On the other hand Civilian infrastructures have now become legitimate targets for attack. If we had not learned this after the WW II civilian bomber raids, we surely learned it after Sept 11th. The way things stand now civilian casualties may far out number military casualties in current and future wars.

P. 136: "It was the South's worst defeat of the entire campaign."

P. 137: "Barren, horrid, in the collective memory of the Confederacy, this one day would be forever known as 'Black Thursday' ".

I know it's early in April, but why not give us clearer hints as to where we are and when we're there?

The author writes very well, but sometimes he loses me in his verbiage.

RAMBLER: I think what you are saying is that the writer goes into infinite detail at many points,and it is easy to become bored, yet there was much to be learned. For example, I was surprised to learn the extent to which guerrilla warfare was used in the war. I was aware of Quantrill's activity in Missouri and Kansas, but I really didn't know much about yhe activities of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Moseby the James brothers and Cole Younger, and the extent of guerrilla warfare conducted in the east. One always thinks of the great battles fought by the armies of Lee, and all the Northern Generals .

ELLA: I am not sure that I can comment about the Biographies that I noted before, as I confined my reading to the sections that referred to the period of April 1865. I don't believe they were as extensive as this book, even though they covered the complete lives of their subject.

What was most satisfying to me about the eventual end of hostilities, was the lenient terms offered by Lincoln. Of course, Grant was in agreement as was Sherman later when he received the surrender of Johnston and his forces.

As has been pointed out there might not have been a surrender at all, merely the breaking up the remaining forces into guerrilla bands and possibly years more of maurauding forces attacking civilian or military targets and shrinking back into the hills. I do believe Lee was surprised and had expected more severe treatment. The real scoundrel, was Jefferson Davis who ran like a scalded dog and was bent on fighting to the end with even more destruction of the infrastructure of the south and death of more people. Surprisingly he was only imprisoned. I would have thought he would have been hung.

Near the top of p. 141, Lee asks Grant about terms for surrender.

At the bottom of that page, he tells one of his own officers, "...if I were to intimate to General Grant that I would listen to terms, he would at once regard it as such an evidence of weakness that he would demand unconditional surrender...".

Was not Lee speaking more honestly to Grant than to his own officers?

RAMBLER - WillieWoody answered your question very well. This book is very detailed, it rambles which does not allow us to keep events in sequence. It breaks off in the middle of a battle to tell us all about a personality; however as WW stated it does give us some new material to think about it.

Have you learned anything that you didn’t know before?

And I have a gripe about this book, also. Does anyone like this method of Parts and Chapters as being separate? It’s confusing – however, the author may not have thought about his book as a discussion!

On page 163 guerilla warfare is discussed and the actions taken by the Confederacy are described well. I knew nothing about the Partisan Ranger Act of April 1862, did any of you? That was very interesting and the attitudes of the South were commendable in regards to guerrilla warfare.

Later, eg

OH, RAMBLER - I see you were posting at the same time as myself.

I'll be back later - dinner is on the stove cooking!

Harold - WW - are you around?

On April 8th, as Rambler pointed out earlier, Lee was “being cagey.” I think he was betwixt surrender and continuing to fight in his mind; here are a few key words in those communiqués of each:

4/7 – Grant writes to Lee of the “hopelessness of further resistance.”

4/7 – Lee writes to Grant asking for the “terms you will offer.”

4/8 – Grant writes to Lee that the only conditions he will demand is all be “disqualified from taking up arms.”

4/8 – Lee writes to Grant that he shall “be pleased to meet you at 10 a.m. tomorrow.”

Both generals were terribly worried, Grant had collapsed into his bed with mustard plasters and hot footbaths.

And from Page 143 we do not get back to the subject of these communiqués and what has been decided in their meeting until Page 168 – the author rambles on and on!

And after all that, Grant didn’t show up for their first meeting!

And on April 9th Lee writes 3 memos to Grant – I felt great pity for the man at this stage - here was this fine, brave and bold soldier who was so revered by his army, facing bluecoats that stretched over 2 miles (it said somewhere in there) and he cannot even touch base with the opposing General to surrender his army!

Too bad that Lee never wrote his memoirs, his thoughts in those last days. Did Grant ? Did any of the generals write their full memoirs of this terrible war struggle between the divided nation? I know there are numerous letters preserved from Civil War soldiers to their families, but what of these men who had to lead armies against each other – these former friends – on the battlefields.

While all the time in the North, there are cries of Let them HANG!” “BURN RICHMOND!”

Were were they not traitors and shouldn’t they have been treated as such? All those who had seceded from the Union and fought against their government?

Let’s discuss that meeting starting on Page 173 tomorrow

I'll be back a bit later. I've been tied up on a couple of other things, but will offer some comment later.

I'm behind in the posts and haven't studied them with the thoroughness they deserve, but a few comments from me. (Ella, you didn't think I'd be speechless, did you?)

I understand Harold's suspicion of Lee's status of slave ownership. It is confusing. When I first checked into it, way back when in this discussion, I too delved into 'Lee and slavery' but the hits in google were vague. I expected the issue would be directly addressed and it wasn't. So I checked further and found resources that, when talking about ownership, agreed that Lee did not own slaves. However, I don't trust instant scholarship and had already asked a reputable public organization, neither leaning Northwards or Southwards, what they know about Lee and slaves. If they respond to my inquiry I'll post whatever they say. By the way, I assume everyone knows, and even Winik reports it, that Grant's wife owned slaves?

I agree with the summation of WW on the section in the book about Lee. You summed it up so cleanly. Also appreciate the book biography references. Since reading Winik I've an itch to learn more about Lee. Thanks.

I can accept the digressions of the book. The extensive intro and prologue hammered the main questions Winik would be exploring and that hammering helped me stay on track. But one of my criticisms of the book: I thought Winik was polishing up Lee a bit, making him rather saintly and with the near immortal powers of Zeus; yet despite this possible 'polishing' by Winik, I truly admire Robert E. Lee. Is Winik's book a cautious reaction to the inflammatory literature that was produced after the War? In checking out the web, I've had to be careful not to put my blind trust in a link's accuracy for there is still -- after all these years -- a lot of intense emotion and bias on both sides, North and South.

Bias is what I aimed to show with the Davis cartoon, one of many copies produced from the Civil War. It is a Northern cartoon, based on the rumors, and rumors only, that Jefferson Davis tried to escape capture by dressing as a woman. This is propoganda used to satirize the image of a fallen foe. The South did the same in its cartoons. Where, oh where, is the truth?

Ella, I was intrigued by the apprehension of Southerners that they would be treated as traitors; and the cry of many Northerners of "Traitors!" Until Winik's book I hadn't thought of the secession attempt in those terms and he brought home to me the fact that secession/revolution throughout the world, up to the American Civil War, was commonly considered treason. Perhaps if we believe in Locke's reasoning for revolt, and the Declaration of Independence we might consider that the South had a historical justification for seceding (but not on the issue of morality due to slavery, there lies the problem for me). Still, we have built our government on revolutionary principles.

Marvelle

ELLA: As I have indicated before, I read parts of the biographies of the two famous Confederated Generals and the President of the Confederacy.

I was so interested in General Joseph Johnston that I read further on about his activities following the war. It seems he hated Jefferson Davis so much that he carried on a campaign of heated articles in the newspapers and magazines of the day, and may have written a book, I am not sure. His hatred stems from his removal as commander of the Army of Tennessee by Davis after the fall of Atlanta.

As you recall, Davis masterminded and controlled all of the Confederate armies up until almost the very end of the war. He finally acquiesed and appointed Lee General in Chief over all the Confederate forces. Lee reappointed Johnston to Command the Army of Tennessee, which by that time was quite disorganized.

Marvalle9, thank you for your research into the “Lee’s attitude toward slavery” issue. Yes indeed, please let us know any answers coming from your query and any other facts you may come across on the subject.

I just took a different approach to a Google search using a Boolean search string, lee AND slavery. (note: all lower case except the AND). This lead to results most centered on the specific issue with 7 or 8 out of the 10 hits on the first page squarely on the issue. One did say Lee as administrator did free some slaves. However, this is a simple sentence with out documentation. Perhaps one of the best is a suggestion recommended by “Arlington House” for their Ranger and Docent interpreters. I think if there was strong documentation that Lee actively freed slaves, this source would have said so. Yet they did not, advising interpreters:

The real power we have as interpreters is not to exonerate or to sentence Lee as a slave master but to use his experience to introduce the larger issues of slavery and freedom in nineteenth century America to the visitors. We can use the very different pictures of Lee as an avenue to discussing the broader issues of slavery and freedom and how they played out at Arlington and other parts of the country--- .

I recommend we all click the following to read the Arlington House thoughts on interpretation of this issue: Thoughts On Interpreting Robert E. Lee & Slavery

I found following the details of Lee’s necessary retreat from his Petersburg position that necessitated the abandonment of Richmond a bit difficult to follow because of Winik’s style of interrupting his narrative for the insertion of necessary comment on other related issues. The retreat of course ended after only 9 days with his army virtually surrounded by far superior Union forces

I think the critical decision day for Lee came after General John Gordons effort to clear the retreat path in the action described on p-145. I think this was early morning on April 8th (or was it the 9th)? At any rate Gordons men found themselves badly out numbered by the unexpected appearance of two Union infantry corps. Gordon reported to Lee that he could do nothing to complete his mission, leaving Lee the realization that the continuation of his organized retreat to North Carolina was not possible.

Winik says on P-145 that at that point Lee had 2 options, (1) surrender or (2) a final battle to the death. At a council Lee met with Generals Longstreet and Porter Alexander at which Alexander suggested a 3rd alternate (P-146). It was that the army should in effect be individually released to fade into the surrounding countryside and pursue guerilla activities individually and in small groups. Alexander maintained that 2/3’s of the men would escape to fight on.

At this point Winik interrupts his account with the long outline on the guerilla war possibilities resuming on P-164. Here Winik gives his thoughts concerning the considerations that brought Lee to the Surrender decision. Lee of course decided on the Surrender options and the meeting at Appomattox followed in short order. Winik attributes Lee’s decision to his high regard for his honor and duty and the fact that the Gordon plan would have resulted in as many as several tens of thousands disorganized men hiding in the countryside living off the land. He realized that in such a state they would be nothing more than brigands and thieves robbing innocent people to support their operations. Somehow this did not appeal to Lee’s sense of honor and duty and under the circumstance the surrender option seemed better suited to his outlook.

I wonder if the Injection of the Gordon option was not instrumental in Lee’s surrender decision. In its absence with the only two open options surrender or a battle to the death, would not Lee have chosen the latter? And if this had come about and had Lee been killed or captured, is not Winik right in his conclusion that the healing and return to the Union would have been more difficult to accomplish?

Williewoody, How much do you think Lee’s surrender and his conciliatory cooperative policy influenced Johnson to do likewise? Would he have surrendered so quickly had Lee been killed or captured in a last great battle? For that matter would he have surrendered in the absence of Lee’s example and his active promotion of ending the struggle?

I find Davis an Interesting American history character. He too was a West pointer holding responsible command during the Mexican War. He had been Secretary of War in the last prewar administration during which he is remembered (in Texas) for importing camels for Army use in the desert southwest complete with Arab handlers. This is the subject of a histrowall at the ITC. The experiment at West Texas Forts was interrupted by the war and never resumed in the post war period. I suspect the Arab immigrant handlers remained to become our first Arab Texans.

Davis’s status after the war seems to have been more difficult and uncertain than Lee’s, but I understand his citizen status was finally restored. Am I correct on this point? After the war Davis lived in an interesting house just several hundred feet from the gulf near Biloxi, Mississippi. I remember passing it many times when I spent 4-months at the Navy School at Gulfport during WW II, but never once did I stop for the tour.

Ella will be away until Sunday evening or Monday morning. She has taken the opportunity to take a weekend trip to attend an nearby local event. I understand a Civil War reenactment may be involved.

Meanwhile we must conclude this second phase of the discussion, as Monday we must push on to the third week schedule. Let us hear further comment on the last 3 focus questions in the heading. And my questions to Williewoody in the first paragraph of this post concerning the importance of Lee’s example on the Johnson surrender decision is certainly directed to everyone. Finally how about hearing some of your thoughts about the extent of guerilla operations in Missouri and in occupied parts of Virginia. What would have been the final outcome of a successful link by Lee with his army with Johnson’s army in North Carolina?

HAROLD: As to Lee's influence on Johnston regarding surrender, we must remember that now Lee was Commander in Chief, and Johnston was obliged to follow his direction. Although considering the state of Johnstons army I feel sure he too like Lee wanted to see an end to the conflict.

It is interesting to note that Jeff Davis' home on the Gulf beach survived the viscious hurricane Camile several years ago. We passed by there about 6 months later and everything was still total destruction.

I am cerainly of the opinion that even if Lee had been succesful in joining Johnston, they were caught in a pincer between Grant and Sherman. It was just a matter of time before they would be forced to quit, after losing who knows how many more men. Their surrender at Appomatox and Durham mercifully stopped the killing.

hAROLD ET AL: I am sorry I am going to be leaving you here this weekend. I believe I indicated I would miss the latter part of this discussion. We are about to depart on a two week trip to Europe. It will be a cruise of the scandanavian countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

This has been an interesting discussion and I am real sorry to be missing the end of it, but according to your schedule you will be just about finished when I get home again in early August.

I hope you all enjoyed the book as much as I did, and I am glad to have suggested it for a review. My only objection was ,as others have said , it got a bit wordy. I noticed that the second time I read through it.

For those of you who are really American History buffs. someone gave me as a present the BIG book entitled "The American President"There was a PBS documentary run, I believe, last year, which I did not see, but was based on this really wonderful book. So much of the history of our country is based upon the lives of our presidents. I would highly recommend it. The book is quite expensive, but your local Library may have a copy. It covers the lives and times of all 41 (?) of our presidents. The authors have quite an interesting way of presenting it.

Hope you all make it through Winiks' Civil War.

Marvelle - Hello! I was certainly hoping you wouldn’t desert us! We all, I believe, want to know more about Lee, so why don’t each of us look at a book at our library or bookstore and come back before the discussion is over and report.

We have a place where we store ideas for future discussions and though our schedule for nonfiction discussions through the rest of the year is rather tight, it will not be forgotten by me – or Harold! Perhaps then we can answer your intriguing question, MARVELLE - ”Is Winik's book a cautious reaction to the inflammatory literature that was produced after the War?

I'd love to pursue that more - let’s find out!

Harold I went to the site you quote in Post #149 and read the following regarding Lee and slavery:

”Robert E. Lee owned a number of slaves during his life and managed many more while serving as the executor to his father-in-law’s estate at Arlington, apparently earning the reputation as a stringent taskmaster on the estate.[3] The difficulty becomes even more evident when one tries to balance Lee’s words that slavery was “a moral & political evil in any country”

The source for that quotation - “Douglas Southall Freeman’s biography R.E. Lee, (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1934) is probably the most prominent of the Lee biographies. In this four volume work, Freeman depicts Lee as an eminently pious and easily-understood man driven by duty and Christian concepts of morality.”

1934 and a 4-volume biography! Certainly we can come up with something better?

And Harold and WW your posts were very interesting. I think we have discussed and adequately answered the question of why Lee did not choose the guerilla option open to him before he surrendered his army. According to Winick , Lee could not countenance the results of such a prolonged siege, laying waste to his beloved south and many more deaths in the future - a prolonged bloody future.

WW - GOODBYE AND HAVE A GREAT VACATION

We are sorry you won’t be with us to the end, but we’ve had a great time of it so far and we will meet again when you get back! What books are you taking with you on this cruise? Always an interesting question isn’t it!

I won’t be leaving until Saturday morning, so will post again tomorrow sometime about my thoughts on the meeting, beginning on page 173. Here we meet U.S. Grant and we can compare him with Lee – just as Winick has done. Do you agree with all the author says? Who has read about Grant, his personality, his presidency? I was surprised that Winick says he drank – excessively? Somewhere, sometime, I thought that was disputed?

Winik's comparison of the Army of North Virginia's retreat to the Bataan's Death March and his treatise on guerilla war made the events so much clearer for me because he gave examples which happened in my life time and I could draw from memory and apply to the past.

I would like to go back to the guestion of slaves fighting for the south. Jay Winik cleared up that issue in this part of the book for me because I got the impression from the debate on the subject that the slaves had to be free before they could be soldiers. How could the slaves trust that they would really be freed if the south won the war? No wonder the south mixed the black and white soldiers together. I know I would have tried to escape every chance I got.

Ella I'll go to the library this evening and look at what they have to offer on Lee. I had some great links on Lee but unfortunately left them at home. Here is one link however that I just found, not as comprehensive as the others, on Robert Edward Lee with interesting info on Davis. I didn't trust any of the Arlington links since they may feel a need to justify the seizure of Lee's property. One sideline on citizenship: intriguing to think that Confederates had to reapply for citizenship after the War. Davis was reinstated but Lee's application for citizenship was "lost" and he died without a country. In 1970 his application was found and citizenship poshumously granted.

In answer to the question about autobiography: Lee never wrote his although his letters were published after his death; Grant wrote his "Personal Memoirs" of the War, published in 1885. Grant was dying of cancer and he wrote up to the last. I've heard that an incredible number of men who fought under Grant would come to see him; they didn't disturb him but would pass by his cottage where he was writing on the porch and salute him, and walk on. This was their last chance to see the man they served under and to honor him. It seems that both Grant and Lee inspired great and lasting loyalty.

I found a link called the Ulysses S. Grant Home Page with lots of information and graphics, including 'Praise for Grant's Memoirs' with remarks by Gore Vidal, Bruce Catton, and Mark Twain among others. Grant was concerned about his family's financial well-being and was driven to write the memoirs to provide for them. Twain published the memoirs and he gave all the profits to Grant's widow, nearly driving himself into bankruptcy to do so. Twain had to take an extended, whirlwind speaking tour in Europe in order to keep himself financially afloat. I hope this Grant link will help when we get to discussing Winik's depiction of him.

As for slaves fighting for the South. Apparently it happened but I wonder what the percentages were? Would the South really have freed them if they won the War? I will try to respond to the 2 topic questions later this afternoon.

Marvelle

I received an E-mail letter from Tiger Tom that mentions an interesting 5-volume publication of Civil War primary source material. This Series should be of great interest to the more serious Civil War researcher. I have posted a copy of Tiger Tom's letter and some comments and links to the B & N pages concerning the publication on: The History Book Forum (Click Here To Read). You are welcome to view Tiger Tom's letter there.

ELLA: You ask what books I am taking on our cruise. I for sure will not be taking any history books. I have always enjoyed mysteries and thrillers. Recently I discovered Ken Follett , and will be checking out his "Eye of the Needle". Also will be taking one of my fun reading author's light reading mystery "Claws and Effect" by Rita Mae Brown and Sneaky Pie Brown.

WHAT GREAT POSTS! THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST AND JUST BEING HERE! YOU ARE WONDERFUL COMPANY!

I’m in here between storms – at last, we are having rain today – wonderful! But I hope it doesn’t storm tomorrow and ruin this little town’s festival that we visiting.

Don’t have much time here to respond to Mary Lyn, or Marvelle, or Harold, or WW! Last night late I did look in my Library’s database (from my computer) and do you know there are 99 books on Lee himself, then there are books on his campaigns, books on he and Davis, he and Grant (numerous ones) and on and on. The topic is well covered, my friends.

There are two that interest me, but I have 3 non-fiction discussions coming up and don’t have the time to read anymore history at the moment. The two are: Lee, the Last Years, by Charles Bracelin, 1981; and The Making of Robert E. Lee, Michael Fellman, 2000.

Did you see the picture of the McClean house in the heading – where Lee and Grant met to discuss the terms of surrender? Isn’t it wonderful that our government has preserved these historical sites around the country so that we may learn of our history! We were at this home and I believe there are two others preserved there (it has been a few years!), but I think I read that the site has 1800 acres preserved there.

And in this chapter titled THE MEETING, we have U.S. Grant’s profile – a different fellow altogether – short, scrawny, speaking bluntly, slovenly, but what a General!

Gotta go – I hear the thunder!!!!! See you all Sunday eve (if we get back in time) or Monday!!

Have a great weekend!

Lee had two choices: fight to the death or surrender, and Porter Alexander's third option of guerrilla warfare is what might have nudged Lee towards choosing surrender.

Historically, guerrilla resistance was deadly effective and could extend the war a long, long time. The Confederate guerrillas John Mosby, Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Hunt Morgan and William Clarke Quantrill were effective but also a form of brutal terrorism.

Lee had to decide. Guerrilla warfare and fighting to the death are in some ways similar. The former might prolong the battle and the latter might bring honor in the battle but either way the Confederacy as a country would cease to exist. Guerrilla fighting is anarchy, without a country or gentlemanly rules.

Lee's qualities of loyalty to his men and home, honor and principles are what led to his decision to surrender. He valued honor over personal glory and said "it [is] better to do right, even if we suffer in so doing, than to incur the reproach of our consciences & posterity." Certainly there is a good deal of pride in Lee who wanted to be remembered as a gentleman of honor. Pride is one of his strong qualities too.

Harold, I think pride, honor, loyalty, principles had a lot to do with Lee's decision to surrender but also think I'm circling around Lee's reasons yet not hitting the mark. Perhaps someone else could explain it?

Marvelle

On reflection, there is a practical reason why guerrilla fighting did not appeal to Robert E. Lee and that has to do with his physical condition. The guerrilla leaders were in their 20s and 30s while Lee was 56 years old and the war had aged him considerably. As Winik writes on pages 87-88:

"Throughout the war, he was beset by physical problems: sore throats, heavy colds, coughs, fever, elevated pulse, chest pain, back pain, arm pain, angina, pectoris, lumbago, sciatica, extreme diarrhea (confining him to a cot), two sprained hands and broken bones in one of them (leaving him unable to ride for a month), and, predictably, exhaustion; he was also afflicted by constant anxiety ("day and night") and sorrow ("it is wearing me away")."

These physical problems were lengthy. Lee must have realized the seriousness of his weakened condition; indeed he survived the end of the War by only 5 years. If Lee became a guerrilla general and died under those arduous conditions, what would happen to his men? Leaderless, would they be easily killed by Union soldiers, would they have become no more than thugs and killers? Lee had to think of these things.

I came across one report on the injury to his hands in an essay on his horse Traveller found in this link to Robert Edward Lee :

Lee was holding the reins to Traveller while standing in a skirmish line at the 2nd battle of Manassas, "the horse was highspirited, impatient and hard to hold and pulled the General down a steep bank and broke his hands." A later narrator says that "the General went through the remainder of that campaign chiefly in an ambulance. When he rode on horseback, a courier rode in front leading his horse."

What a fragile physical state, yet Lee soldiered on. Lee had courage but must have known in 1865 when he chose between death, surrender, or guerrilla warfare that he was not emotionally (honor, gentleman's code, rules) nor physically able to fight a guerrilla war. He could not submit the land and people he loved to anarchy and terror.

Marvelle

Marvelle9, you are right about Lee being physically unhealthy. His chest pain were angina . He did not live long after the war dying within 5-years in 1870.

Guerilla Warfare is definitely for the young. Yet Lee in making the last retreat from Petersburg seems to have been willing to accept an ORGANIZED FORM of guerilla war since this would have been the result of a successful link with Johnson. Had the retreat succeeded there would have been a large Confederate force holding a sizable, favorable (mountainous) territory with a small cooperate civilian population. This would seem very different from the result of the Alexander proposed 3rd option. That would have resulted in disorganized resistance by small isolated bands living off the lands. They would have to survive by murder and thievery. For Lee this was not being a soldier, it was becoming a common criminal an unacceptable condition so far as Lee was concern.

Does any one remember an early Roy Rogers film on Quantrill’s guerilla operation in Missouri with a very young Roy Rogers only in a supporting role? I remember such a film that was so out of place in comparison the usual cowboy/horse opera character of the Roger films. Click Here For a Short Web Account of Quantrill’s Activities

Between the heat and the thunderstorms that produced little rain but required the computer to be shut down I havent been here. There are other reasons as well but they only add to the weather related concerns. Heat also brings on a sort of malaise where I just dont want to do anything.

While this is a new book I have read many of the biographies of Lee and Grant and just about anyone concerned with the Civil War. One reason I have always felt that moved Lee to accept surrender was the fact he was a graduate of West Point. To do attend the military academies requires to a certain extent a personal declaration of obligation to support the governement. In the books I have read there was a sadness for Lee to fight against the government of the United States. He did not fail the Confederacy and in the end when all hope was lost he neither failed the Confereracy or the United States. What he did was honorable for himself and for the men under his command.

The South had ties of family and blood to the North as did the North to the South. He may never expressed his views in so many words but I always felt a good general knows when to accept defeat and to move on.

Now I must go back and read what I have missed both in the book and here. anna

Here is the Roy Rogers film I was referring to in my last post. It was "Dark Command" and starred none other than John Wayn, but curiously I did not remember Wayne, only Roy Rogers Click Here For Dark Command

And Anna, I think most of us are pretty close to agreement that it was Lee’s sense of honor as a soldier and his realization of the obvious that as a soldier he could do no more that led to his surrender decision. The same decision fortunately was drawn by other Confederate Generals including Johnson and others with less creditable professional credentials such as General Nathan Bedford Forrest who we will talk about next week. I liked the way you expressed it “and in the end when all hope was lost he (Lee) neither failed the Confederacy or the United States.”

What a difference between Quantrill and Robert E. Lee! Just typing their names in the same sentence shows me how impossible it would be for Lee to be a guerrilla fighter like Quantrill. They are night and day. I've developed an admiration for Lee but am trying to be open-minded enough to see his good and bad points. I need to do some serious research and I'd appreciate suggestions for further independent reading. I know we've talked about some already and tomorrow I hope to add a couple titles to the suggestion box.

Hi, Anna. So glad you're here. You won't have to play much catch up since you've read about the Civil War and you live in Virginia. You mentioned once that you visited the Wilderness. How did Winik's section on that battle sound to you? Wonder how Quantrill would have fared?

Harold, so the Civil War movie "Dark Command" has both Roy Rogers and John Wayne? Plus Walter Pidgeon as Will Cantrell and Marjorie Main, of 'Ma and Pa Kettle' fame, as Mrs. Cantrell. The mind boggles at the casting. What were they thinking?

Marvelle

Good point, Marvelle, about Lee’s physical condition being one aspect of his decision not to prolong the war by guerrilla warfare – thanks for giving us that fact to chew over! In the clickable you gave us on Lee there is this at the very end:

- Lee’s ”application for restoration of citizenship was mislaid, and it was not until the 1970's that it was found and granted.”

Isn’t that amazing – 1970 – that recently? It makes the war come alive in a way doesn’t it? Wonder where his application was found? Does anyone know?

Harold, that Quantrill fellow was quite a guy, first a school teacher, then a gambler, then a murderer!!! And he inspired raiders even after he was killed – Jesse James, was one, and his brother, Frank!

I must look up the Civil War in Ohio, I do know that Morgan’s raiders came up near Columbus, because we have the Morgan house still standing (where he stayed) and it is now an adorable restaurant and gift shop. Also the Confederates raided Roscoe Village and Coshocton where I spent the weekend; the confederates defeated the Yankees there – we watched a reenactment of the battle with cannons roaring and rifles shooting – a lot of smoke and noise and ladies and gentlemen strolling around in period costumes! We had a grand time and I think it’s great we honor these men in some way by having these re-enactments, remembering them!

Have you ever been to one? It’s a hobby for many people and they travel with their clothes and dog tents and souvenirs of the Civil War to different locales.

Anna, I’m happy to see you are still with us! As mentioned before, what a difficult decision it was for Lee – a West Point graduate – to fight against his country!! And what you said – I always felt a good general knows when to accept defeat and to move on.<//b> - is so poignant! He was an honorable gentlemen to the end – didn’t our text say he was the South’s hero for generations?

So good to see you here, Anna! And you must tell us, as Marvelle suggested, something about Virginia’s attitude toward the Civil War today, the destruction of the state by the Union, how many statues, homes, battlefields there must be in your state. An amazing number I would believe.

Is Jefferson Davis honored there and, if so, in what ways?

Marvelle - there are many books mentioned in the Endnotes – our author did his homework before writing this, didn’t he>

I’ll be back later today to start us on Chapter 5!

We have put new questions in the heading for your consideration. We could linger in this book and all its varied topics for quite awhile couldn't we? Have we ever had such an upheaval in our country that this war, - the events during and after - left in its wake?

Many of us are familiar with the death of President Roosevelt in WWII which left the country bereft of a beloved president in wartime; and there is the assassination of President Kennedy who had just begun the upheaval which culminated in the Vietnam War.

Strange isn't it?

Strange also is the premonitions that Lincoln had before his death - in his dream he saw the catafalque on which he later rested and he saw soldiers guarding it - gives one the shivers!

What a toll the war took on this man - 30 pounds underweight, not sleeping, haunted by dreams, depressed. The burden of making such decisions must have been very heavy. I've often wondered what would have been the future of the country have Lincoln not been re-elected for his second term - any thoughts?

Had a doctor's appt today and of course there is always a long wait so I took April 1865 with me and and am now on page 100 something. It was hard to not visulize what the author was writing about. I want to share a personal expierence with you. I came to Virginia 30 years ago and knew little about the Civil War and much less about the people who fought it.

However since so much of it involved Virginia I soon began to read in depth about the war. Between Fredericksburg and Charlottesville area lies the area where the Battle of the Wilderness was fought. Each of my daughters lived at either end of the road that passed the park that is there now.

Now I must tell you I did not know the location or the story. So the first time ( and subsequent times) I drove between my two daughters homes I had a stange thing happen. I was driving down this narrow highway ( 2 lanes ) and all around were trees and it was a bright sunny day and all of a sudden I felt a tightness in my chest. It was part overwhelming sorrow and a sense of fear. I felt very apprehensive and ill at ease as if something terrible was about to happen. The sunny day seemed less bright although there was no cloud in the sky. It was like a darkness lay over the land. About that time I came across a marker declaring this was where the Battle of the Wilderness occured. Mind you at this time I really knew nothing of the battle or what happened there.

The feeling of something unseen, unknown and a shadow over this area persisted until I was well past the place. Of course I then had to read about it and understand what had happened there. Each time I had need to drive that way I would start feeling this tightness in my chest and this overwhelming feeling of sorrow. Eventually I wrote a poem about it and I am including it here.

Battle of the Wilderness

One hundred thirty-three years, Since cannons belched smoke, Hurled iron balls against Flesh and bones of men. Not aliens, from some foreign land, These men who fought their brothers. Who peered through darkened skies, Through misted, blood tinged clouds, Seeing fear in each man's eye.

Today, concrete sashes mark the edge Where they fought and died. Boxed it, to contain the spirits there. Even on sunlit days when fields, Serene, rest, their chores done, A darker shadow hovers just above The earth where horses neighed, Forelimbs lifted high to avoid Broken bodies, of those who Came to defend their right to decide, Whether we would be whole, or parts Of a fledgling country's pride!

A chill shivers through the visitor, Creeps along the living flesh, Feels the weight of past Battles lost, and the men who Paid the ultimate cost. Each right, according to their belief.

Years of rain have come and gone, Sun has warmed the land. Blood of heros, composted here, Fed the grass and trees we see. Scarred, and bruised, the land now Rests, keeps watch for US.

anna alexander 9/27/97 all rights reserved

Ella, I think it was apprehension of the Quantril character model that made Lee sure he wanted no part to the guerilla experience. Lee saw that it would lead most certainly to outlaw mobs. This is what happened just a few years later with outlaw graduates like the James brothers.

My great, great grandparents were in Ohio during the War. Henry Wells was a tailor and did not serve in the military. My great grand father, Franklin Wells was a boy 12 to 16 years old during the war period so he escaped service also. Do post a comment if you find reports of Morgan’s operations in the state.

We have frequent historical reenactments here also. They usually reenact some of the local skirmishes during the Texas and Mexican revolutions. Also I note the Alamo programs sometimes presents programs with actors in period costumes. I have never attended these reenactments and don’t really believe them effective in interpreting the event.

Prominent this year at the Texas Folklife Festival was a local western gunfighters group. I have a friend that participates there. The ITC bands actual gunfight reenactments. In fact the firing of guns were prohibited. Even so in their colorful costumes with six-guns, which they were free to take out, they were a very popular group particularly with boys in the 7 to 12 year age group

Anna, thank you for your poem expressing your feelings while at the Wilderness battle site. The green grass and trees grow back covering the scars but yet the realization of the event remains. Or by now has is the area crisscrossed by highways and Interstates connecting a maze of subdivisions, malls and Wallmarts?

ANNA!

What an experience - what a poem!

Thank you for that even though I experienced the "chill that shivers" while reading it! Thank you for sharing it with us!

Harold, whether authentic or not, the reenactments bring questions to the minds of the young ones who attend and who may remember what happened on this soil as they grow up and learn more details. I think it is a good thing - we need to remember!

There were two men on horseback during all this boom and smoke, etc. and I couldn't believe those horses could be trained not to bolt! They didn't even blink an eye and we were all holding our ears! Well trained!

ANNA - I have a story.

It happened in Charleston, S.C. on a visit there some years ago. We had gone to the downtown area for dinner one evening hearing of a good restaurant and we were the only couple there, if you can imagine that. It might have been a week night or it may have been that all the residents go to neighborhood restaurants in the suburbs. I don't know but our waiter was happy to see us and talked to us at some length. He told a story, he was serious, not caring whether we believed or not.

He was from the North and from an early age had had bad dreams of men in grey uniforms dying, nightmares that made him uncomfortable and when he reached maturity he felt the need to move south. The dreams stopped altogether and he feels wonderful in the south, he's at peace, at home, and believes he was a Confederate soldier that was killed in the battlefield.

I've never forgotten him as he was quite serious.

Before we do go on I wanted to just mention the bravery of the professor from a little college in Maine. We learned about Joshua Chamberlain in Gettysburg years ago and here he is again - so brave! There's a man that deserves mention, as well as so many others!

ARE WE ABOUT TO DETHRONE ANOTHER AMERICAN IDOL?

This book is on a reserve by me at our local library: - Title: The real Lincoln : a new look at Abraham Lincoln, his agenda, and an unnecessary war by Thomas J. Dilorenzo.

A quote from a review:

"Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized - as the Founding Fathers intended - to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still."

What do you think?

One more story and I will quit for today. President Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd, both spoke at Roscoe Village over the weekend and Mary Todd explained that, though critized extensively during the war for spending money unnecessarily when soldiers did not have blankets, she had been allotted $20,000 by Congress to restore the tattered White House. She went over that budget by $7000 and further stated that the $20,000 would not have been used to supply the army as it was budgeted strictly for the purpose she used it for.

Both speeches I thought were true to the extent of my knowledge; however I've never read a biography of Mrs. Lincoln. Has anyone?

I have a Civil War story (of a sort) that I have mentioned before on the History Book Forum, but I'll tell it again here. It concerns a 1995 trip to Atlanta and a visit to the great museum diorama depicting the Battle of Atlanta (Sherman vs. Johnson).

This diorama must be the largest of such displays anywhere. It is a circular building, I guess at least 100 feet in diameter, probably larger. The Battle is view from amphitheater seats in the center of the building. While the audience relaxes in the darkened theater in the air-conditioned environment the battle scenes, one after another come into view as the outer circumference with numerous battle scenes illuminate.. A narrator describes the scenes. In this manner scene after scene rotate into the view field and are explained to the audience leaving them with a generally long remembered picture of the epic battle that preceded the fall of Atlanta to Sherman’s army..

In one of the scenes the spotlight pauses on the carcass of a dead horse with the lifeless body of a Yankee officer sprawled across its flanks. The Narrator asks the audience if anyone recognizes the spot lighted face. The audience sees it is of a rather handsome man of about 30 years with a thin mustached upper lip. Yes the Narrator says, “it is the face of the actor Clark Gable.” After a pause he continued, “When the cast of “Gone With the Wind” came to Atlanta for the premier they were taken to view this diorama. At the end Gable was asked what he thought of it.” “Oh, I Don’t know,” and after a pause, “but where am I,?” the star answered.. Well, with all the Hollywood people and City and States Brass, and the Museum Board present, the Museum director quickly took the microphone to apologize for the oversight assuring all that a correction would be forthcoming. Shortly thereafter the dead Yankee Major with Gable’s likeness lying over his dead horse was added to the exhibit.

Here is a link to the B & N description of the Dilorenzo Book critical of Lincoln that Ella mentioned. It is noteworthy that B & N does not give any information on the credentials of the author. Note the third review calling the book bad revisionism! I’m inclined to agree and may give more detailed comment later.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=16SUECFUIV&mscssid=WXE10346KJV78GC1VFNBPWNLUG09D258&isbn=0761536418”>Click Here For B & N Catalog Listing

Well I have read most of the assignment and I cant tell you how many times I stopped and thought about what the author wrote. It is almost like he was there and I know he made me feel I was there. I researched The Battle of the Wilderness so my poem would be be a true picture of the event. But this author makes me feel like I was there and his description of the battle matches my feelings when I pass the area. It is still a lonely place set out from most of stores and even homes. Although it has been two years since I have driven past it so things could have changed. I hope not for I think the feelings I had and have would be lost if it became a commercialized area.

One thing I pondered as I read was the fact that regardless of the argument it was a fight to preserve slavery I have come to the conclusion the southern soldiers would never have fought so valiantly and with such determination do some wealthy landowners could keep thier slaves. Nor do I believe Robert E Lee fought for that either. He was opposed to the practice and while I always questioned the idea it was a states rights war I am beginning to believe it was just that. Slavery was the emotional hook for the North but I think those small farmers and business men in the South believed they should have the right to make thier own choices. The large plantation owners preferred slave labor even if it was a terrible preference and they had to park their conscience in order to think it was okay.

As I noted in my poem we were still a new country and the states had been given to understand they had a certain autonomous right. In reading the story as Mr Winik wrote ....and he is a great story teller ...my feelings of the places I have been and whatever I have felt leads me to understand the bravery of this undermanned army and to understand the desire of the heirs to want to honor them. The Northern Army suffered greater losses and they too fought bravely and I feel there is room for us to honor both sides. For in the end it was Americans fighting Americans on American soil and it has to have been the saddest war which is why we are still talking about it ...

Back to my reading..anna

Ella, here are some books that Thomas J. DiLorenzo's authored and co-authored which might give you an idea of his work; hope that you take a peek at his Lincoln book and tell us what you think. Now for the DiLorenzo books:

1. "Frightening America's Elderly: How the Age Lobby Holds Seniors Captive" (Capital Research Center 1996)

2. "CancerScam: Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics" (Transaction Publishers 1998)

A blurb on the book says 'authors suggest that the antitobacco campaign is a "smokescreen" for raising taxes on tobacco and earmarking it for the financial benefit of the American Cancer Society and its allied charities.'

3. "Destroying Democracy: How Government Funds Partisan Politics" (Cato Institute 1985)

4. "Unhealthy Charities: Hazardous to Your Health and Wealth" (Harper Collins 1984)

5. "The Food and Drug Police" (Transaction Publisher 1999)

6. "Official Lies: How Washington Misleads Us" (Groom Books 1982)

7. "Public Health Profiteering" (Transaction Publisher 2001)

8. "Underground Government: The Off Budget Public Sector" (Cato Institute 1984)

9. "Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy" (Capital Research Center 1990)

Marvelle

P.S. Is there a Grant discussion after Lincoln?

Thanks, Marvelle, for the list of books written by DiLorenzo; those titles to me tell the story of a man who wants to shock, or attempts to shock folk into buying his books. But I will look at the book when it comes in and let you know.

I took a little while this morning to find a picture of Ford Theatre as it looked in Lincoln's day - what is striking in the story of the assassination is the fact that Lincoln had no guards around him, didn't want them; however, we think we do better today protecting our president - NO WAY DO WE, think President Kennedy.

later, ella

Click Here for a Short Thomas D. DiLorenzo Resume. He is a PhD economist with good academic credentials in economics. The current Lincoln title may be his first writing on a history subject. I wish B & N had said more about the author. Also they give no sales volume information as they sometimes do

The DiLorenzo book four months after its publication does not seem to be getting much popular reorganization. So far as its history is concerned there may be little or nothing that was not previously published. Surely Lincoln was a Politician and as Winik has noted he always tried to stay with the political main stream. Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation freeing only Southern slaves he had not been a strong supporter of emancipation. Finally historians have long recognized that the Civil War had both political and economic causes unrelated to slavery in which Northern interests sought to break the South economically and particularly its significant national political strength. Of course the rising tide of industrialization in the North would have left the South behind anyway and it would have been in the interest of the south and the Nation as a whole to facilitate changes in its social system. But in the spring of 1861 when Lincoln became President the South did not recognize the obvious; they took the bait and succeeded participating the war.

I think Lincoln’s position as a national hero resulted from the fact that in the end the Union was preserved and by the tragic way in which his Presidency ended. I doubt that the DiLorenzo book will much affect Lincoln’s status of sainthood.

Harold - thanks for taking the time to look DiLorenzo up and for your comments. No, he doesn't seem to be a fly-by-night fellow, but why he took on someone like Lincoln after all those economic books is interesting, isn't it? My Library only bought 2 copies of it - always an indication to me that they don't believe the book will be popular. I'll let you know.

Marvelle - why do you suppose that Winick does not say much about Grant? After all those pages about Lee?

And now we have Lincoln - is there anything new here? So many lovely words about him: "niche in history secure, something lofty, special, parochial grandeur, unique, looming hero, genuine intellectual, etc." Why does Winick write so much about Lincoln's early life that almost everyone that would bother to read this book knows already? From page 229-242 I learned nothing new, I've read a number of books about Lincoln, what person that loves history hasn't?

As to his health, I don't know! What do the rest of you think in regards to Question #1 above. How old was he at the time he was assassinated? And how much of his poor health was attributable to the war?

Perhaps once the heavy burden of the war, the bloodshed, the anxiety, was over and it was a matter of politics and debates within Congress as to how the South should be brought back into the Union, Lincoln might have regained his health.

He loved politics, was good at it.

Back later......eg

Ella after reading the opening pages of this chapter describing Lincoln’s physical condition and his appearance in early April 1965, I could not help but wonder if his health would have permitted him to live to complete his term that had almost the entire four years to run. I immediately noted a comparison to FDR after Yalta and particularly in March of 1945 the month before he died. He too just did not look good and sure enough, he suffered his fatal stroke April 12, 1945 just a few days short of the 80th anniversary of Lincoln’s death. FDR like Lincoln had led the country through a major war but did not live to guide the Nation into the peace. FDR too died with almost a full four-year term remaining.

I find the Lincoln dreams, particularly the bad one very eerie because it so accurately described the scene in the White House just a few days later. What would make an elderly adult have a dream like that? Perhaps I who since middle age have never had so vivid a dream, just, don’t understand. I think the account of the bad dream comes solely from his wife, Mary Lincoln. Could she have invented it after Lincoln’s death?

I’ll leave your question regarding the brevity of the informational sketch on Grant to Marvelle to answer, but I too thought it rather brief particularly when Winik devoted 12 pages to the obscure Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Regarding Lincoln security, it sure doesn’t appear any where near adequate. Apparently he had but one bodyguard and the president frequently went out in public without him including the carriage drive to the Ford theater. The one bodyguard had already gone ahead. Of course Presidential security was not deemed much of a problem at the time. Even as late as 1939 I remember reading in a WW II history book how in the late afternoon of September 3, 1939, after the British Parliament had just declared a State of War with Germany, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax with their wives had a leisurely unescorted walk through London’s Hyde Park, something no head of government would do today.

I don't know about question #1 either, Ella. I thought about it all day but there are so many "what ifs" that it would be hard to judge. Harold made a comparison between Lincoln and FDR which says much. Both men were playing God with human lives, every decision was life and death, and the ultimate responsibility was theirs. That is an incredible burden to carry. It would be a miracle if people making such decisions were not affected emotionally and physically -- we might even question their humanity if they remained untouched by such events. If Lincoln wasn't murdered, if the war wasn't prolonged, if Lincoln's political enemies were rendered harmless by the North's victory, if the economy greatly improved . . . all these and more ifs. Perhaps Lincoln would have regained his health and served the rest of his presidential term. We'll never know.

When I first read the book I was dismayed that Grant was more or less overlooked. I think Winik was compensating for past neglect of the South's story. In war and power struggles, the winning side gives themselves prominent and favorable mention in history books. Thus, Grant has been amply reported on while Lee and especially the other Southern generals were not and any mention of them would not be very positive.

Also, while Grant wrote a 2-volume memoir of his military career that was widely distributed, Lee was silent; he did not write his story.

I can only guess that Confederate officers would have a limited audience for their story due to lack of finances of potential Southern readers as well as lack of interest in the North. I hope that attitude has changed.

Winik was compensating for the historical slighting of Lee and offering the not so familiar Southern perspective of the conflict. I feel Winik did not present a balanced view of the War. He showed a saintly, aristocratic Lee, counterbalanced by the rather oafish, loud Winik-version-of-Grant. I knew I would not be happy with the Grant characterization when Winik had him 'harumphing and bellowing' when he spoke -- that was editorializing. A minor but telling style choice.

I also remember Winik had Lee 'leaping into the saddle' near the end of the War when it was quite apparent that Lee had too many problems, including his heart, to perform such physical feats. It was Winik's choice to present Grant and Lee as he did. I question such slanted characterizations even though Winik does permit Grant some good traits, and cautiously gives Lee some questionable ones.

Marvelle

I am going to toss out a different view from marvelle9's regarding history’s treatment of Lee and Grant. In my experience during the 1940’s through the 1970’s I think Lee was treated very favorably. He was elevated to near national sainthood certainly in the South but in the West and even the North also. This was largely based on nostalgia reflected from the valiant effort and the finality of the lost cause. Also Lee like another old soldier some 90 years later just faded away to a gentile elder statesman’s retirement as a college president. There was no self justifying writing and in a few years he passed permanently from the mortal scene.

Grant on the other hand indisputably the brilliant general who finally prevailed went on to serve two terms as President. In this office his record was marked with scandal, radical reconstruction in the South and a multitude of post war problems in the North. These negatives right or wrong, I think distract from his success in leading Union armies to final victory during the war.

And there were other negatives. For one Grant was a heavy drinker of strong alcoholic beverages even by 19th century standards. He was also a heavy cigar smoker a habit that doubtlessly led to the terminal throat cancer that killed him. While 19th century society would not notice these traits as negative, 21st century historians do, leading them to more negative impressions of Grant as an American Hero.

Finally I think a most important factor leading to a more negative judgment of Grant is the modern abhorrence of large battle casualties and the officers in charge with such operations. This is particularly true when great civilian causalities, loss of property and displacement occur. Grant undisputable emerged with the final military victory, but the victory was won because of his total disregard for casualties- both Union and Confederate. Also there was great long-term civilian suffering not just in Northern Virginia, but also throughout the South.

From the Battle of the Wilderness in 1964 to Appomattox in April 1865 through many major battles Grant took heavy losses promptly replaced by a never ending supply of fresh hardware and cannon fodder from the North. Lee defending his homeland took heave losses too, but his losses could not be fully replaced finally leading to defeat. Perhaps these factors have contributed to the more negative treatment of Grant by historians?

Oh, what a great debate we have here - it was just delightful to read both of your posts. Wouldn't we have fun if we could do this face-to-face, each bringing up his/her own argument.

What a keen eye you have, Marvelle, I never noticed this - "Winik had Lee 'leaping into the saddle' near the end of the War when it was quite apparent that Lee had too many problems, including his heart, to perform such physical feats."

And, of course, you may be right in stating that "I think Winik was compensating for past neglect of the South's story."

You believe that, historically, the South's side of this tragedy has not been fully explored by historians? Hmmmm In a lighthearted digression, I will mention the great popularity of the movie "Gone with the wind" - certainly a portrayal of the destruction that the North imposed upon the South.

Winick does discuss Grant to some length on page 173 through 180 and he describes him as having "a kind of built-in shock absorber," but goes on to comment that beneath the cold steel exterior there were many signs of the toll the excessive deaths were taking on the man - migraines, sleeplessness, even crying on his cot one night, etc. The man was human, obviouslly, but he had determination to get the job done.

And we have to agree with Lincoln, that he was a great fighter, the right man for the job at hand, and if Lincoln had not found him in time, perhaps the war would have taken the wrong turn.

As much as I would love to pursue these points each of you have made, and we could to great length, I am mindful that we are scheduled to finish the book a week from today.

Do you all agree that Boothe's plan was to cause chaos in the government of the North hoping that the South would benefit from this disorganization?

The history of the succession to the presidency was interesting to me and when you read that Andrew Johnson, the vice-president, who succeeded Lincoln was:

a drunk, a buffoon, a neophyte who had never met with the cabinet, had not once been privy to a single decision made by Lincoln and was not even of the president's political party, had not met with Lincoln just once since his inauguration

it is a wonder that the war came to a conclusion.

We should consider Questions 2 and 4 above which deal with the reconstruction problems that faced the northern government and as Winick says - "is complex.....wholly baffling....prone to being misunderstood."

later, e.g.

I'm back from a week at the beach, and now have two of the grandkids here to learn to scull.

Forrest was from a different background from the typical Confederate officer. He was a barely literate self made millionaire, as opposed to the typical Conferderate officer who was from the elite upper crust of southern society. He has been called a slave trader. There is some truth in this, he was a trader, he traded in land, cotton, horses, cattle, livestock in general and slaves. He was not the typical slave trader whose business was solely buying and selling slaves. He was a slave trader in the same sense that any slave owner in the pre-civil war south, or north for that manner, that bought or sold one of his slaves was a slave trader. Being a rich southerner he had more of them

As to the Fort Pillow incident, all that I have read over the years says that the mass killing did occur. I don't think that Forrest ordered it to happen. Could he have prevented it? Who knows. Knowing a little about the southern soldier, there would have been no mercy towards blacks and Tennessee Tories. The historians have been arguing about this one since the civil war.

I think that the reason that Winik spends so much time talking about Forrest is that if anyone were to become a guerilla comanderand continue the war, he would have been the most effective and most feared. He was something of an early day Rommel, if fact I think I remember stories of Rommel studying Forrest's tactics. Forrest certainly was of the same mind set as Rommel.

There exists today a group dedicated to trying to make NB Forrest one of history's good guys. This in spite of Fort Pillow and his later involvement with the early Ku Klux Klan. This is one of those fascinating characters in history that had so many sides that there will never be anyting approaching common opinion about them.

John Z

Welcome back John! What beach did you visit. My beach period was the 60’s and first half of the 70’s when I had a boat and spent just about ever weekend in the summer, spring, and fall at Padre Island or Port Aransas on the Gulf.

I think I can agree with just about everything you said about Bedford Forrest. He certainly was cast in a different mold from other Confederate officers. Though uneducated and with out prior military experience he volunteered signing on as a private. Of course as you said ha had business experience and was a self-made millionaire. These were few and far between in the South and it enabled him to organize his own unit and after that he rose very fast to high Confederate commands. He was it would seem successful just about everywhere he fought. He was also very lucky as he seems most often to have been in the thick of the action and though wounded he survived.

No I don’t think Winik devoted too much space to Forrest. The background was necessary to show us readers that though Forrest was the type of leader who logically would be expected to become a guerilla leader, the situation was such that even he exercising his basic common sense recognized the cause was lost and that surrender was the only remaining course. I liked his final advise to his men that seems almost that it should have come from the mouth of an aristocrat, “you have been good soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford to be and will be magnanimous.”

No I don’’t think the Fort Pillows action qualified as a war crime under standard employed by the Union at the time. It may qualify under the current UN standard since a commander is expected to control the action of his troops.

Click Here for Nathan Bedford Forrest Biographical Sketch

Click Here for More Forrest Biographical Material

WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK, JOHN!

We will be finishing up the book by the end of the month and we'd love to have you stick around - you can see our schedule above.

Both you and HAROLD summed up N.B. Forrest very well - I've heard the expression "take no prisoners" before but where? That will haunt me the rest of the day and it describes Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow very well.

Did you wonder how Winick knows the expressions that an uneducated fellow from Tennessee used? Or is "cracker" language historically pictured or written somewhere?

Did Forrest remind anyone of Clark Gable in the movie GONE WITH THE WIND in some aspects, e.g. wealthy, swash-buckling, charming, gambling.

At the surrender of his troops, as Harold stated above, he seemed to at last be a gentlemen in advising his soldiers to "divest ourselves of all such feelings (animosity, hatred, and revenge)."

We have before us now more profiles - Boothe, Sherman, Jefferson Davis (who am I missing here) and I'm wondering which of those, or those profiles we have already discussed, you would most prefer to read about - to further your knowledge of this particular person.

Which would you like to discuss now?

Lincoln's assassination? Is there anything new in this book that you did not know prior to reading this book?

Incidentally, I looked up both Lincoln and FDR's age at the time of their death which we mentioned earlier. Lincoln was 56 and FDR was 63.

Does anyone know where the word "YANKEE" came from? Always has interested me.

While searching the Internet for John Morgan and his raid in Ohio, I came across an interesting site, an organization which calls itself the Morgans' Men Association. Give a look, it's interesting:

Morgans Men Association

Notice the poem at the bottom which reads:

""I want to be a cavalryman
And with John Hunt Morgan ride,
A colt revolver in my belt
A saber by my side.
I want a pair of epaulets
to match my suit of gray,
The uniform my mother made

Last winter we attended an Elderhostel in Natches, MS and on the way we stopped at an abandoned church which had a small graveyard in back and among the tombstones one stood looking very new, upright, stark white, with a name and date of a young man and on it were the initials CSA - Confederates States of America.

I don't know, of course, but the stone's condition made me believe that due to people's interest in geneology some family member has replaced that tombstone.

Ella, an on-line (free) version of the Webster’s Dictionary says the word, Yankee, came into the language in 1758. The source of the word is given as unknown. Another web site says the source is unknown but mentions the way certain Indians in New England pronounced the word “English” as a possible source. Does anyone have and Encyclopedia Britannia. It might say more?

Another source of head stones on Confederate graves were Southern Veteran’s Organizations in the 20th century. Incidentally do you remember the sort of watch on the last veteran survivors in the 1950’s It finally came down to one last Yankee and one last Confederate. The Confederate was the last resident in a Texas State home for Confederate Veterans and he out lived the last Yankee by a short time.

One of the Winik’s points in this section of the book relates to the mixed up and confusing laws governing Presidential succession. Winik does in my opinion give us a real good summary of the Constitutional history of the Vice Presidents status after the elected President dies. Williwoody and I had tossed this issue around earlier. After studying the Winik summary more closely, I think it now becomes perfectly clear why the 25th amendment specifically stated that the “VICE PRESIDENT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.” Now there can be no doubt for argument on the issue.

Presidential succession in 1865 was subject to the laws passed by congress then in force. Under these law the Vice president would assume the duties of the president. By the precedent in the two earlier cases he would live in the White House, be called Mr President, and perform all duties of the office for the remainder of the term. But suppose both the President and Vice President died at the same time. Under the law in 1865 the Secretary of State would call a meeting of the Electors the following December to elect a replacement. In this case the Government would have been in an 8-month limbo.

This is why Vice President Johnson and Secretary of of State Seward were also scheduled for assassination along with Lincoln. The successful completion of the plot would have left the nation leaderless for an 8-month period during which anything might have happened including general National anarchy.

Essentially the plot failed when the assassin assigned to kill the Vice President got cold feet. Also despite the several badly wounded at the Seward home, Seward survived. I wonder if all of the wounded survived? Some of the wounds as described by Winik seemed pretty serious.

I found Winik's description of the previous two vice-president's succeding to the presidency fascinating. I guess that like most people I just assumed that the vice-president took over and nobody asked any questions. I had never read how close a thing it was when Tyler became president. This was all news to me. Isn't wonderful to learn things just by chance? I love it!

Even after two precidents there was much discussion in high places of how much power Johnson was to have. I vaugly remember something from my history books about the cabinet wanting to limit Johnson's power but my education must have been very limited.

John Z

Thanks, Harold and John for your remarks. I agree that everytime we read something in a book pertaining to history we learn something new - whether we can retain it in memory is another thing altogether!

Personally, I like a more linear view of history than Winick is giving us; his stops and starts, which many modern fiction writers seem to be in love with, is annoying to me.

Let's discuss the reconstruction issues next, okay? Both sides of this conflict were in terrible condition, both were broke, hatred of each other was a very ongoing visible scar that all feared would never heal, both governments in turmoil.

At one point in the text I read that Lincoln proposed to pay 400 million to compensate the owners of slaves - that was earlier in the war I believe. Where was he going to get that money or was it to be paid out in notes of some sort?

later, eg

On the question of reconstruction I agree with Winik when he pointed out that the assassin group did the South NO FAVOR when they killed Lincoln. In so dong they substituted the forgiving Lincoln for the angry Populist Andrew Johnson. He was a poor southerner from Tennessee who had been the only Senator from a Southern state that remained loyal. His first inclination was not to forgive, but to punish the South for their treason. I remember visiting Andrew Johnson’s tailor shop in a Tennessee town; I forget which one, in 1940 on a family vacation to Washington.

Winik tell us that many radical republicans were privately pleased that Johnson had become President thinking he would be more inclined to favor a radical reconstruction period. The reconstruction was beyond the scope of the Book, but remembering my 1950 course, I think later he did support more or less the Lincoln plan but he was unable to prevail over the radical Republicans in Congress, so the Congressional Reconstruction plan was imposed.

Question, If Lincoln had lived would he have been better able to control the Radical Republicans in Congress in the acceptance of a more forgiving and quicker reconstruction?

Harold, that's a good question but I don't think we can get an answer from this book. Winick, in my opinion, gives us very little information as to the actuality of the reconstruction, other than the fact that Lincoln's plan was to keep the southern states as they were before the conflict - minus slavery.

Oour book does state that the radicals in the government wanted to recast the whole structure of the states and after Lincoln's death, Johnson's took the position that treason had been committed by the citizens of those in the seceded states and must be punished. But what actually happened, our author leaves us with very little knowledge.

Johnson, according to Winick, although looking the part of a leading politician and even a president, was a crude man with a vile temper, insecure and prone to bluster and hyperbole. And this is where the tale ends for……

Winick, as he does constantly, persists in leaving the reader hanging at one point and going off into an entirely different direction, but this time I persisted throughout the length of the book, ending up my search for reconstruction plans in Chapter 8; wherein I found NO PLANS but a peaceful reconciliation, albeit with some hatred and bitterness lingering, and the healing of both sides.

Where did you find any information as to the reconstruction?

I think Winik's goal was to get us asking questions and he left it up to us to find answers. I'm not sure if this was a good scholarly approach but he does create interest. Did Lincoln have an actual plan for reconstruction -- a guide for Johnson to follow if he had been so inclined?

Marvelle

Harold

We went to Fort Morgan, AL. We have been going there or Gulf Shores, AL for about 20 years. We get a big house and have all the kids and grandkids and just hang out or for a week. Very low key.

John Z

Marvelle, there are a few comments on page 209 regarding Lincoln’s plans; actually somewhere in the book I remember a young man in the South taking the oath of loyalty (over his father’s objections). That would be interesting to pursue – to see how many or what percentage were required to take a loyalty oath to the Union. And was it to the “Union” per se, or the “United States of America.”

Anybody know anything about this?

I believe that may be the only time loyalty oaths were required in America, except for immigrants who take one – don’t they?

For some reason, loyalty oaths remind me of a Hitler state – I cringe at the thought of requiring such a thing in this country.

On pg. 355, Winick comments:

”Indeed, everywhere across America there was an awareness of endings and beginnings. The South had to struggle with its destitution, the North had to wrestle with its grief; the country as a whole had to ponder, what next?”

Tonight on the national news there was a story about a radical right person (a friend of David Duke) who is campaigning for office in the organization Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Did anyone else see the story? Evidently, this group does civil war enactments and has been harmlessly enjoying family heritage. Now some members are worried that a takeover by this candidate will turn the organization in a different direction. (neo-nazi, Arayan nation)

They also interviewed a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Interesting. The effects of the Civil War live on...and on...and on.

As soon as I can get a copy of this book, I'll join in the discussion. This is a time period that fascinates me (a Westerner, San Franciscan with no family connections to the Civil War). Several years ago, however, I was able to spend about a week traveling from Philadelphia (one SeniorNet meeting) to DC (another SN meeting) and used the time to visit a number of CW battlefields...a trip I'd love to do again. Gettysburg is marvelously organized, but some of the other spots, with the existing trenches, etc. are equally mesmerizing.

BTW, seeing the picture of Ford's Theater reminds me (yes, I've been there) of the BookFest in DC in October (go take a look at Joan Pearson "---Bookfest 2002~ Our THIRD ANNUAL Gathering ~ Join us at the National Book Festival in Washington D.C.~New" 7/26/02 7:02pm). Our hotel is about two blocks from Ford's Theater.

Fran Middleton

I don't know why that link printed out the way it did, but it does work-- I just tried it.

Fran

Here is the whole history of Reconstruction in 109 pages and 62,000 words ready to read in its entirety off the web: Click here for The Sequel of Appomattox, A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States by Walter Lynwood Fleming

An here is a shorter 15 page magazine article written by Woodrow Wilson before he became President. The Reconstruction of the Southern States by Woodrow Wilson

And John Z, my family in the old days went to Corpus Christi, and later to Rockport, and Port Arransas. As I said in the 60,s and 70’s, I had a boat and was out most weekends. Here are some pictures of a 1913 trip to Corpus: A Summer At The Beach

Winik's plan for the book was as the title suggests the last single month of the war, April 1865. A lot occurred in this month and he tells us of them including enough background concerning earlier events and the leading characters necessary for us to understand the main subject.

There are also some previews of things to come. One of these is the pending reconstruction. This is a subject for a multi-volume book itself and Winik certainly does not include it here. I wonder how much Lee, Joe Johnson and the Confederate rank and file thought of the future in April 1865 and the magnitude of the experience the South would be put through?

On the Subject of Andrew Johnson’s knowledge of Lincoln’s plans, it must have been NOTHING. Remember the inauguration had been less than a month before on March 20th. Winik said that the short meeting on the afternoon of April 14th was the first time he had seen the President since the inauguration. It was just about the same in April 1945. When Truman became President he did not even know of the Atom Bomb Project. More recently Presidents have done a better job of keeping the VP informed and productively employed.

Francisca, your comments on the Civil War are welcome with or without the book. Please come back often.

I'm taking up the question of loyalty oaths following the Civil War. In a Presidental Proclamation, a full pardon was automatically granted to Confederates with restoration of property except slaves. There were people excluded (disenfranchised) from this automatic pardon, including Lee and Davis.

On Dec 8, 1863 Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction

The loyalty oath of the proclamation includes the words "Constitution of the United States" and "the union of the States" which was bound to disturb people having to take the oath. Johnson issued a more lenient proclamation in 1865 as noted in

Aftermath & Reconstruction

in which the President could pardon those disenfranchised people who applied to him and took the loyalty oath. Johnson granted 200,000 pardons but although Lee applied twice, he was not pardoned. Under both the Lincoln and Johnson plans only 10% of the enfrancised Southerners needed to take the oath before a State was readmitted to the Union. Shocking to think that while not officially branded traitors, people lost their citizenship and that the proclamation was the authority used by the U.S. to take Lee's property and that of others. For Lee's citizenship see

President Gerald R. Ford's Remarks Upon Signing a Bill Restoring Rights of Citizenship to General Robert E. Lee

There was quite a controversy about that loyalty oath. After the War it was required of members of Congress, North and South. It was eventually replaced by our current Oath of Office.

Jan 29, 1864: Senator Resigns to Protest Loyalty Oath

Immigrants who apply for citizenship take a different Oath of Allegiance

As an addition to Harold's Reconstruction links, I found this chart Civil War and Reconstruction Timeline which might be of interest.

Marvelle

Thank you marvelle for the reconstruction links. From the end of the first link, “Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction,” you can click for an Index that tells of other phases of the Reconstruction process. I also recommend marvelle’s last link, “Civil War and Reconstruction Timeline,” for a quick over view of the process.

I wish Winik had said more of the trials ending in the execution of the assassination conspirators. I understand these trials were extra-judicial, ie by military courts outside the constitutional judicial system. I understand most (maybe all) the defendants were hanged including the doctor whose only involvement was setting Booths broken leg. Also hung was the woman who ran the boarding house where some of the conspirators stayed and met the common fate despite questionable actual involvement in the plot. The record of these trials would seem to cast doubt as to the justice such tribunals might disburse?

I may not be back until this evening as I am going to San Antonio to buy a new satellite antenna. Yesterday I checked my system that failed three weeks ago during the rains. The converter is ok as is the cable leaving the LNB as the sole remaining possibility. This is the gizmo that set on and arm in front of the dish to receive the satellite signal and send it via the cable to the Converter.

OH, WHAT FUN IT IS TO COME IN AND SEE ALL THESE POSTS! AND ALL THISE LINKS! WOW! THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH!

We positively must do a book on "reconstruction" or as President Johnson called it the "restoration" of the South. LET'S LOOK UP A GOOD BOOK!

I had not realized so much had gone on during 1865-1898 - Marvelle's Timeline was fascinating to read! If I knew at one time I had forgotten that President Johnson missed impeachment by one vote! And that 1875 Civil Rights Act - did you know about that! So much to discuss here.

The Southern Congressmen being ignored when they came back to the Capitol, how long did that go on? How effective was the Freedman's Bureau?

FRAN - HOW GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE! But I'm afraid we just have a few days to finish up our discussion on this book! We've had a "good-go" at it and I think you will like much of the book, we've had some criticism, but we have a discerning bunch of people in our midst.

Harold, I did look up Lincoln's age at the time of his death - he was 56 - FDR was 63. Comparing the two leaders of tragic wars is ridiculous in many ways, one assassinated while the other died a natural death. FDR was a polio victim which could have impacted on his heart, he smoked.

Lincoln didn't have any bad habits I don't believe - smoking, drinking.

I did want to mention an article that appeared in our paper a few days ago relating to the family of Dr. Mudd - the fellow who set the broken leg of John Wilkes Boothe. This family is still fighting to erase the conviction of their relative, but what is relevant today is the fact that Dr. Mudd was tried and convicted before a military tribunal which is being challenged by his ancestors on the grounds that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over an American civilian.

Two American citizens are being held at the moment accused of aiding the enemy (terrorists) without charge as the military ponders what to do with them.

The question is: Should American civilians who are not soldiers in a rebellion army be subject to miliary law?

Mudd's case (Mudd vs. Secretary of the Army) is to be heard by the District of Columbia of the U.S.Court of Appeals in September and may bring some clarity to whether American civilians can be subject to military authority for crimes on U.S. soil

The article is a long one, but that is the crux of it.

The Civil War, as CATBIRD said lingers on and on......

NICE TO SEE YOU BABI AND CATBIRD!

Are you all aware that YOU ARE ALL INVITED TO WASHINGTON, D.C. in October for the National Book Festival? Click here for more information:

National Bookfest Discussion

And here are the participating authors that will be there (this is so exciting, our chance to meet them and greet them and maybe invite one to have lunch with us? Who knows?):

List of participants in National Book Festival

Do join us! This will be a great one!

The Lincoln murder trial could be the subject of an entire discussion -- legality of the military trial, who was under suspicion, sentencing, justice. I'm not suggesting another book discussion, just thinking we cannot cover it here. The Reconstruction Era was profoundly affected by Lincoln's murder and resulting actions. Emotions ran high.

See Abraham Lincoln's Assasination for info on the murder, Booth's diary excerpts, exhumations of bodies including Lincoln, and more.

Lithographs of the shooting of the president and numerous renditions of Lincoln's Last Hour flooded the streets of the nation.

Winik reported that Lincoln's funeral procession in New York City was observed by Walt Whitman and Theodore Roosevelt. "Six-year-old Theodore Roosevelt was there too, leaning out of the second-floor window, watching the spectacle from his grandfather's town house on Broadway." I discovered, in the Lincoln Assassination link, further information on President Roosevelt: he wore a mourning ring containing a lock of Abraham Lincoln's hair when he was inaugurated in 1905. Not only did the assassination affect the contemporary Reconstruction Era but had a profound and continuing impact on the nation.

The trial of the conspirators was held as quickly as possible. A Military Commission convened May 8th at the Old Arsenal Penitentiary in Washington, less than a month after Lincoln's death, and held a 7-week trial.

The Trial of the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators

Of the ten conspirators, 4 were sentenced to death by hanging on July 7th -- Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, George Atzerodt, and David Herold. Mary Surratt, the woman who boarded Booth on his Washington trips, was reported to have said to her daughter following the first interview of Federal investigators: "Anna, come what will, I am resigned. I think J. Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people." There were 1,500 observers at the hanging.

Sentenced to hard labor for life were Samuel Arnold, Dr. Samuel Mudd, and Michael O'Laughlin. Dr. Mudd was pardoned by President Johnson on March 1st, 1869.

Receiving a 6 year sentence was Edman Spangler, who held Booth's horse for him at the Ford Theatre. The Spangler sentencing seemed to reflect the suspicion that he was more deeply involved in the assassination than could be proved.

It was under this atmosphere of suspicion, fear, and hatred that Reconstrucion began.

Marvelle

Ella, we were posting at the same time. (It takes me a long, long time to prepare a post.) We seem to have similar interests on the Reconstruction ---- Lincoln's assassination had a direct impact on that program. The link I included on the trial was put together by a Law University and it goes indepth into the question of the legality of the military trying civilians. A lengthy link but worth it and the graphics are outstanding.

Did national grief -- Lincoln's murder, the death and devastation of the War -- did this grief finally gave more support to Lincoln's Reconstruction Plan? Or did a revised plan prevail that encompassed grief, rage, and revenge? I think it was a compromise that took a long time to implement, with a lot of starts and stops and detours along the way.

I would join a discussion about the Reconstruction but don't know of a book to recommend.

Marvelle

Neither do I, Marvelle, it will be interesting to see what HAROLD, being a lawyer, has to say about this military tribunal question.

What I perceived from your clickable was this:

" In time of peace, neither Congress nor the military can create any military tribunals........... A military tribunal exists under and according to the Constitution in time of war."

I took both those phrases from the A.G.'s quotation on that page you gave us.

Are we are at war? I believe President Bush declared it as such, didn't he? It's a strange situation.

How about Eric Foner's "A Short History of the Reconstruction," which I found in B&N... when I used Reconstruction as a keyword, it came up with something over 1,000 books with that word in the title!

I'll take a look in the store when I go to get April.

I was glad to hear the Doctor who set Booth’s leg was not hung, and in fact was pardoned by the President rather promptly. As I understand it two American citizens currently charged are being tried in the federal court system, not the military tribunals. One of these pleaded guilty last week and will get a 20-year term. The other was a Pakistani who was born in Louisiana when his immigrant parents were living there. As a child the prisoner returned to Pakistan and fought in Afghanistan. When his Louisiana birth became know he was promptly transferred to the Federal Court jurisdiction. Also the would be shoe bomber who is a French Citizen is in under Federal Court jurisdiction. It is only the Afghanistani and other Arab prisoners who are being held in Cuba and are under the jurisdiction of the Military tribunal..

Harold, since the Civil War hadn't ended when Lincoln was murdered was the military trial legal? Or is there some issue with that?

Francisca, I heard there is a full length- and a shorter-version of Foner's book. Hope to get your thoughts on his work. I haven't read anything by him.

Marvelle

Marvelle and all: Here are two links on the subject of suspension of the Writ of habeas Corpus. The first concerns the Civil War suspension by Lincoln: CLICK HERE

The second concerns a current 2002 suspension: CLICK HERE

It would seem to me that Lincoln’s suspension and use of Military Tribunals to try dissidents in loyal states where the Federal Courts were functioning would now be considered illegal. We probably have not heard the last word on the current controversy. While the Afghanistani born in the US has been transferred from Cuba to a Stateside Navy Brig, the issue probably is not finally settled, and in truth the same might also be said concerning the several hindered foreign prisoners of the Afghanistan war now held by the Military in Cuba.

A Google search on the string, "Suspension of Habeas Corpus" will yield many hits for those wanting more.

We weave a tangled web when we mess wit the suspension of the Great Writ, Habeas Corpus.

Ella asked, are we at war?

I would think we are not, as only Congress can declare war, regardless of what the President says.

This was such an issue in the Vietnam "police action".

If the Senate passes all the Presidential request for Homeland security, they are encouraging the movement of our nation toward a repeat of the Vietnam situation.

If this is too political, ignore it.

WELL, YOU SEE, I WOULD HAVE MISSED KNOWING LINCOLN WAS SO "GUTSY" as to suspending the writ of habeas corpus I'm so glad you are all in here discussing this issue. I remember reading a little about that in the book somewhere but I my eyes must have glazed over that as they often do when I'm reading a large book with so many details.

And Lincoln, being a lawyer, would have known it would be contended in the future - is this the first time a president had ever done that?

Don't worry,Catbird, about being political - my heavens no, we are free in a discussion to bring up ideas that we feel are pertinent!

FRAN- would you look both of Foner's books up, one is probably an abridged one and see which would be better for us to discuss?

I'll try to find out something also.

We have a slot open in January for a good nonfiction book - let's all come back then and continue this discussion.

GREAT FUN TO MEET AGAIN!

But let's finish up Chapter 8 and the Epilogue until Wednesday, the 31st.

One thing that has always interested me was the reason the Greek and the Roman Empire collapsed (or one of the reasons) was the fact that they could not govern over that vast area and Winick says as much on page 371. Our founding fathers, as well-read as they were, knew this and were at times convinced that a central government could not rule a large area.

Why have we survived?

We have posted new questions in the Heading to be considered as we finish our discussion.

War is STUPID. Civil war is even more STUPID. Go to any military cemetary that dated back to the civil war, and count the tombstones. Then remember that this is only half of those killed there. All of them were Americans.

Shouldn't the smart, moderate people of the United States, both North and South,have been able to come together and prevent this terrible war. If they had only known.

Slavery would have ended, not soon enough for some, to soon for others, but it would have ended.

This is easy for me to say as a white man.

John Z

Yes, John, I agree, but the Civil War DID happen. Perhaps in learning more about it we can discover new approaches to prevention.

The Foner book is over 600 pages of small print...not a very good basis for discussion here!!! I didn't see anything about an abridged edition. There's another book, edited by Foner, but not on Reconstruction.

I did find "After the Thunder" by Wilmer Jones, published in 2000. It looks quite interesting; it's a study of fourteen men who were prominent in the CW and what they did afterwards. The 14 are:Lee, Grant, Davis, Johnson, Longstreet, Sherman, Johnston, Sheridan, Forrest, McClellan, Hood, Chamberlain, Mosby and Custer.

I thought perhaps a biography of Andrew Johnson would be helpful, but almost all that were listed are "hard to find" or "out of print" so went to perusing the shelves (always a bad idea because it ends up costing me $$$$$$) and found the Jones book.

And now to get to reading!

Fran

I checked out Foner on Barnes & Noble:

"Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877" (HarperCollins 2002), 690pp illus pbk $15.92

"A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877" (Harper Row 1989), 297pp pbk $11.97

The publisher calls "A Short History..." the abridged version of the first title. At half the size I'd say that's quite an editing job!

Need to think about the new questions in the heading. What did we learn and can nations apply the lesson-learned in today's world?

Marvelle

The lesson that stands out in my mind would be negotiation and compromise. Passions were running so high at the beginning of the CW that neogtiations would have been very hard to do and compromise was a dirty word but it would have been better than the results of the war. Of course, we have hind sight and at that time both sides never thought that the result of the war would be like it was. I wonder what would have happened if the North did let the South go their separate way and the battle had been fought on economic grounds if evenually we would reunited.

To me one of the more interesting Confederate leaders was Judah P. Benjamin. During the War he served as head of three cabinet portfolios including Secretary of State. He had been in the prewar years the first Jew to serve in the U.S. Senate, and a noted legal scholar. After the war he avoided the Federals and went to England where he became Queens Council and wrote a highly regarded textbook on the Law of the Sale of Personal Property Click Here For Judah P Benjimin

Our local PBS channel is carrying "Lee: Beyond the Battles, An in-depth look at Robert E. Lee and his roles in life" tonight. It might be on in your area as well.

I guess what I was trying to say about the civil war and its lessons is that men and women of good will and good sense ought to be able to prevent the hot-heads on both sides from taking over and getting us into a place that most of us don't want to be. Every time I hear anyone on either side of any issue say "I'm right and you are wrong, and God told me I am right and God told me you are wrong" I think of the civil war. I hear those words spoken in the USA today and it scares me. That is the lesson for me.

John Z

Oh, so many thoughts and am in haste this morning to post something. I'm going to look for that program, JOHN, on PBS as all of us in this discussion have been very interested in discussing a book about Lee in the future.

MARI Lyn, thanks for your comments - it's always interesting to speculate that we could have found another way to avoid this conflict. On page 376, there are numberous "ifs" that could have happened and didn't.

The changes to America that came after the war are fascinating to read about in the EPILOGUE. A few listed are the surge of immigration which brought something entirely new to America from all points around the globe, the expansion of education and transportation, the growth of a vast "middle class" and our book cites these changes as the catalyst that made America forget the bitterness of the Civil War. America was no longer "states.

Somewhere in here (can't find the page now) but our author states that we no longer say the United States "are," - we say the United Staates of America "is." Did you know that? Seems awkward to say.

“……... In the end, April 1865 emerged as not just the tale of the war's denouement, but the story of the making of our nation, “ said the publisher on the back of our paperback edition of “April 1865.” And indeed Jay Winik set out to deliver on this promise in his Epilog. I don’t feel he succeeded very well.

True, Winik came up with words like “renaissance” and “transformation’ to describe what he saw as a spirit of reconciliation North and South as April 1865 ended. True the fighting had stopped and the boys from Georgia returned to their homes to again plant their cotton and the boys from Massachusetts returned to plant corn, BUT try as I might I do not see much transformation and I certainly do not notice a renaissance as April 1865 ended!

True after a few years, the two sections got along well enough when it came to foreign wars and there was no hesitation in matters of business and commercial intercourse but to the people of the South their cousins to the north were “damned Yankees and to the sophisticates of the North, southerners were but hillbillies, unclean, lazy, and not very bright. I think the renaissance came a century after 1865- after the social reforms of the 1960’s effectively restored the franchise of the descendents of the former slaves with the perhaps surprising effect of liberating not only the blacks, but the white population as well.

Harold

I couldn't have said it better, probably not half as well. The American Civil War did not end until after WWII. Fortunately it has ended for all but the most bitter hold outs, it wasn't easy for the south.

John Z

John, on reflection I don't think the 1960’s reconstruction came easy for the old states of the North and Mid-West either. One of the results: just as after 1865 the South lost its national political preeminence, so after the 1960's the old loyal states lost their century of political dominance. This fact is evident by the fact that 7 of the 9 Presidents who have served since 1961 came from the South or far West (5 of them from 3 of the States of the old Confederacy). During the preceding century there had been no U.S. Presidents elected from the South.

We are coming to the end of our discussion - we have tomorrow for summing up or is that possible? We could rate the book on a scale of 1-10 (ten being the best). Or we could just do what I’m going to do and say how much I enjoyed discussing this book – history – it’s always fascinating to me that history is forever changing as research, or historians, discover new avenues, new approaches.

Oh, I did look up Eric Foner and the fellow must know his history of the U.S. very well as he has been the consulting editor of many books and then he has written several under his own name. I reserved the shorter history of the Reconstruction to take a look at it.

We were watching the history channel last night and it always strikes me as odd – no, that’s not the right word; but when they call America ‘”The New World” as they did back in the 1800’s and into the 1900’s, if anyone ever thinks of us that way again. Of course, we are the newest world wouldn’t you say?

One weekend not long ago I had C-Span on and an author was talking about Republicanism in the South so I looked it up and here’s an interesting quote (from a book entitled "The Rise of Republicanism" by Earl and Merle Black) I found at this site:

CBS News

“For a hundred years following the Civil War (a.k.a. the War between the States), Southerners loathed the Republican Party, symbolized first by Abraham Lincoln and then by Herbert Hoover.

Prior to 1960, the national Democratic Party made an implicit pact with Southerners that they wouldn't tamper with segregation if southerners supported key economic legislation. But, by the '60s, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could no longer turn a blind eye to Southern racism and the Democratic domination of the South began to crumble.

One of the great quotes in the book comes from LBJ, a protégé of Georgia Democratic Sen. Richard Russell, who went along with segregationist policies in the early part of his career. But by 1964, Johnson concluded that it was time to pass a civil rights bill. "Dick, I love you. But I'm going to run over you if you challenge me or get in my way. I am going to pass the civil rights bill, only this time, Dick, there will be no compromise, no falling back. This bill is going to pass”

The beginning of a new South.

Notice when they said the Civil War, they apparently thought it was necessary to put in parenthesis “The War between the States.”

The “CBS News” link Ella posted mentions John Towers as the first modern Southern (Texas) Republican to gain a Senate seat. This he did, but his first election was something of a fluke coming out of LBJ’s election as Vice President in 1960. When LBJ was elected Vice President in the 1960 election his Senate seat became vacant.

Texas law then provided for a single special election to fill the vacancy, specifying that the candidate having the plurality of votes would take the office even in the absence of it being the majority of the votes. That is, there was no run off. The special election was held early in 1961. There were 10 candidates, 9 of whom were democrats and Towers the sole Republican. In that environment Towers emerged with a plurality but no majority, all that was needed to win the office.

Towers was successful in winning reelection under more competitive conditions in later reelection bids, voluntarily choosing not to run in 1988. President Bush I, nominated him as Secretary of Defense. Principally because of rumored heavy drinking the Democratic controlled Senate blocked his confirmation. He was killed the next year in a plane crash.

Texas Democratic party politics always had strong Populist roots going back the post Civil War 19th century. This made them the natural allies of the New Deal of FDR in the 1930’s. FDR’s first Vice President was John Nance Garner from Texas. So long as the Democratic Party went along with segregations they had no problem with the liberal New Deal policies and supported it readily. This was LBJ’s root. These roots died beginning in the 70’s but particularly with Ronald Regan in the 1980’s. I supposed desegregations had something to do with it, but I think the growing dissatisfaction with big government and the accompanying socialist controls and regulation were the principal cause. Also the Cold War was a factor. At any rate Republican candidates have generally prevailed in recent elections for state and National office, certainly since 1994 when George W defeated the last popular democratic governor, Ann Richards.

To day there is a potential for a Democratic Party comeback, but the source of its strength would be the growing Hispanic vote and the large number of new Texans moving from other more liberal states. A continuation of the current economic troubles could also be a factor.

I will pass on any opinions of contemporary politics and go back to Winik's promise that he would explore

"the most formidable of all tasks: how to bring peace to countries in the wake of a civil war's bloody aftermath."

That was an ambitious promise and I was disappointed that the epilogue, at least, did not provide solid answers.

Winik says that before the War the country was not a nation but a loose gathering of disparate states. He also states that wars are transforming dramas and in this War the common act of secession had become a thing of the past. And that people were sick of war. And that the U.S. had developed a visible, functioning, strong Federal government.

This still doesn't tell me how peace can be brought to countries following a civil war. Winik never quite follows through on his thesis.

Marvelle

I would rate "April 1865" as a 3 or 4. I found no great insites or deep thought provoking ideas. Other than a few incidental facts like the presidential succession I didn't learn all that much.

In Winik's defense, it is very difficult to write another book of real significance about the American Civil War. It is a huge and very complex subject, with so many sides and still unanswered questions, that it approaches impossibility to do anything in one volume.

John Z

I’ll give this book an overall rating of 5 on Ella’s scale of 1 – 10 with 10 being highest. This is a bit higher than Johnz’s and comes despite my earlier judgment that the Author failed to support his principal thesis that the events of April 1965 shaped our national character during the 20’th and into the 21st century. The only reconciliation I see exhibited, as April 1865 ended was the acceptance by the south that they had been beat. In the North while Lincoln voiced a policy of pardon, the great majority of his party called for revenge. While I do see the Civil War as a factor and a turning point in the development of the modern U. S. constitutional concept of the nation and its relation to its states, I also see many other later forces influencing this development, which is a continuing evolving process.

One of the reasons for my higher overall rating is that throughout much of the book, I think Winik did a masterful job of describing the military situation in the spring of 1865 and the troop movements, battles and negotiations that ended the War. I really feel that I finally understood some of the intricacies of these developments far better than I did in 1950 as I completed the Civil War and Reconstruction course at Trinity. .

Another plus of this book in my judgment is Winik’s rather skillful use of the many informational sketches of the leading characters in the drama. While some were rather long, arguably poorly placed, and might be classed as “fill material” necessary for a full-length book, overall I think they were a plus. I found all of them interesting and for some of the lesser know characters, they were very informational for me as well.

Finally though the reading of this book was maybe less exciting the other recent books by Ambrose, Ellis, and McCullough, I am glad I read it. I am happy to have been a part of our discussion here and hope all participants consider it a worthwhile experience.

The book was worthwhile to me despite my reservations and I'd give it a 5-6 rating. There were a lot of things I learned from reading this book: about the vice-presidency and succession to the presidency, legal issues of Presidential power, the amount of devastation caused by the Civil War. I agree with Harold about the characterizations of historical figures which might be overly long or misplaced but still interesting.

I was surprised and saddened at the history of Arlington to find that it was confiscated from Robert E. Lee whose wife was a descendent of Washington. Perhaps Lee wasn't welcomed back as a citizen because the Federal Government did not want to give up Arlington which would then have been returned to the Lees?

I am also intrigued by little things such as Winik's statement that the tradition of flowers at a gravesite/funeral began with Lincoln's death. I don't know why but that really touched me.

This discussion was a true pleasure and I want to thank all of you for the generosity of spirit and the informed background you brought to our group. I haven't read much history so there are lots of gaps in my knowledge but you welcomed me anyway. I would rate the discussion as a 10, hands down. I hope we meet again over a virtual cuppa and a good book.

Marvelle

Marvelle, your final paragraph echoes my sentiments (and I hope to see as many as possible f2f at the BookFest in October in Washington).

I have just begun to read the book and will profit immensely from the discussion here.

Thanks to all!!!!!!

FranMMM

Aw, it's time to say Goodbye - we've all enjoyed the journey through this book, this month, these events and a "virtual cuppa and a good book," (quoting Marvelle) sounds great to me.

FRAN, I'm so sorry you came in late but we will be doing another history, possibly of the Civil War, at a later date.

A good biography of Lee, we've talked about that, we are all intrigued by the man and MARVELLE mentioned a few more things that Winick wrote that I didn't know before either.

I've reserved the small Foner book on Reconstruction. We'll find a good one, so stay tuned to our schedule.

HAROLD mentioned several other reasons why I enjoyed the book; if you went looking for a more graphic description of the battle scenes you wouldn't find a better book. It's always worthwhile to revisit this tragic war and to remember.

It's been a great trip, a wonderful discussion and I want to thank you all for your participation. YOU MAKE THE DISCUSSION, WITHOUT YOU THERE WOULD BE NONE! THANK YOU ALL AGAIN.

I am sorry I failed to participate ..I enjoyed the book for all the reasons most of you have given. The author made the battles real and personal. After moving to Virginia I began a continuing interest in the Civil War...so much of the book was more of the same. I did think his battle scenes were more personal and I feel akin to my own feelings when I visited some of the places.

I think the fact that Arlington wasnt returned to the Lee's is because there were vindictive reasons for doing so. In all the books I have read the determination to punish the South always upset me. Of course if my family had fought for the North and been killed or seriously wounded perhaps I would have felt the same. Civil war has to be war at its worse. Whether any good comes from it depends on the magnimity of the winner.

I hope the next book discussion will find me in a better place for being part of the whole discussion not just a bit here and there.

anna

Harold: Well, it looks like I got back just in time to probably post the last message. I am real sorry that this discussion overlapped a wonderful trip to the Scandanavian Capitals of Norway Sweden Denmark, Finland, and St. Petersburg Russia. I had hoped that it would be still going for another week so I could post some last thoughts. I don't pretend to be an EXPERT on History, although it has always been my favorite subject. Therefore, I did not read Winick's book having in mind being a critic of his writing. There were parts that were overdone, but overall I found it an interesting book. I came away with a better understanding of what triggered the slow development of a stronger sense of nationalism after the events of April 1865 and the reconstruction period following. Never again was there a threat of secession. Because of the kind treatment of the Southern soldiers fostered by Lincoln and executed in part by his Generals Grant and Sherman, the south gradually accepted the idea of a strong Federal government. While the slaves were freed,their economic freedom did not start to come until 100 years later.

I must relate finally that many years ago I visited the mauseleum where Lincoln is burried in Springfield, Illinois. It was a moving experience for me and the only time in my life that truly chills ran up my spine. I had the distinct sense of being in the presence of greatness.

I hope you all enjoyed this book as much as I did. I will continue in the search for finding a new book to discuss later.