Savannah: 1864's Must Have Christmas Gift

Christmas 1864 would be the last Christmas of the United States Civil War. The war had taken an ominous turn for the so-called Confederacy long before the winter solstice. President Abraham Lincoln's Triumvirate, Generals Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Sheridan, and their armies were unleashing total war, demonstrating to Southerners that Johnny Reb could not protect them and their property from Billy Yank as he rolled through Northern Virginia, coastal Georgia, and the Shenandoah Valley employing a "scorched earth policy" to inflict maximum psychological, economic, and tactical damage. Moreover, the Republicans triumphed in the 1864 elections with Lincoln securing four more years in the White House. Lincoln's reelection doomed Southern hopes of establishing an independent slave republic rooted in white supremacy. A Republican triumph at the ballot box and the trail of destruction left in the wake of advancing Union armies devastated Southern morale.



New York Times, Dec. 26, 1864

By mid-December, Sherman's army reached the outskirts of Savannah, completing his "March to the Sea," a 285-mile trek across Georgia that had begun in Atlanta on November 15. He prepared for a siege of the city; however, Southern forces managed to escape Savannah on December 21, thus forcing the city's residents to surrender one of the last major ports that remained open to the Rebels. Sherman wired Lincoln the next day with a message notifying him that he had captured Savannah. Sherman's message was published in the December 26 edition of the New York Times. It read:

 

“I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty (150) heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, and also about twenty-five thousand (25000) bales of cotton.”

Telegram from Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman to Abraham Lincoln, December 22, 1864.(National Archives Identifier: 301637 ); Series: Telegrams Sent by the Field Office of the Military Telegraph and Collected by the Office of the Secretary of War., 1860 - 1870; Records of the Office of the Secretary of War; Record Group 107; National Archives.

 

President Lincoln replied to Sherman in a letter dated December 24: “Many, many thanks for your Christmas-gift—the capture of Savannah. When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours.” The end of the Southern rebellion was in sight.

But first, Sherman, Lincoln, and the Republican Congress moved against slavery by taking the first steps towards making emancipation a reality. On January 16, 1865, Sherman issued his Special Orders No. 15, which seized a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John's River, Florida, including Georgia's Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast. The order redistributed some 400,000 acres of land to approximately 40,000 newly freed black families in an effort to break the Southern slaveholders' power. From Sherman's perspective, the policy, dividing southern lands into forty acre segments, was intended primarily for military expediency, to free his army from the problem of black refugees. But the policy, long advocated by the more radical, racial egalitarian elements of the Republican party, was also favored by most Republicans who viewed it as a solution to sustaining the freed people's newly won liberty by providing them with forty-acre tracts of land as they prepared for the transition from the cradle of slavery to freedom. Meanwhile, Lincoln, working hand-in-hand with the Republican Congress, pushed for the 13th Amendment, thereby making emancipation of slavery law of the land when Georgia ratified the amendment on December 6, 1865, becoming the 27th of 36 states (then in the Union) to ratify the amendment thus meeting the three-fourths constitutional requirement. With the federal government beginning to take the first steps towards safeguarding the freedom of the South's nearly four million slaves, the Rebels faced two options: either continue the war under the risk of total annihilation or accept peace under the laws of the United States. A divided Union with slavery was no longer an option.

rrender Your Arms to us and Obey the Laws of the United States." Following Lincoln's reelection, the Rebels faced two options, either continue the war under the risk of total annihilation or accept peace under the laws of the United States. A divided Union with slavery was no longer an option.
President Lincoln replied to Sherman in a letter dated December 24: “Many, many thanks for your Christmas-gift—the capture of Savannah. When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours.” The end of the Southern rebellion was in sight. But first, Sherman, Lincoln, and the Republican Congress moved against slavery by making emancipation a reality. On January 16, 1865, Sherman issued his Special Orders No. 15, which seized a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John's River, Florida, including Georgia's Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast. The order redistributed some 400,000 acres of land to approximately 40,000 newly freed black families in an effort to break the Southern slaveholders' power. From Sherman's perspective, the policy, dividing southern lands into forty acre segments, was intended primarily for military expediency, to free his army from the problem of black refugees. But the policy, long advocated by the more radical, racial egalitarian elements of the Republican party, was also favored by most Republicans who viewed it as a solution to sustaining the freedpeople's newly won liberty by providing them with forty acre tracts of land as they prepared for the transition from the cradle of slavery to freedom. Meanwhile, Lincoln, working hand-in-hand with the Republican Congress, pushed for the 13th Amendment, thereby making the abolition of slavery law of the land. The Rebels faced two options: either continue the war under the risk of total annihilation or accept peace under the laws of the United States. A divided Union with slavery was no longer an option.

It was here at the Green-Meldrim Mansion that General William Sherman set up headquarters and offered Savannah as a Christmas gift to President Lincoln. It was also that the site that Sherman, after meeting with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and twenty leaders of South Carolina's African American community, issued Special Field Orders No. 15 at this location.

 

 "Lincoln's Christmas Box to Jeff Davis" (Phunny Phellow, 1864)

Abraham Lincoln gestures toward two boxes, offering Jefferson Davis a choice. One box reads, "Four Years More War. Extermination. Confiscation. U.S. Soldiers to Have Your Lands. Death to All Traitors. No Armistice. Slavery and Rebellion Will Fill the Same Grave."

The other box reads, "Peace and Union. No Slavery. Surrender Your Arms to us and Obey the Laws of the United States."

 

Cincinnati Firefighters Memorial

One of the bonuses of a recent trip north of the Ohio to Cincinnati was getting to visit the Cincinnati Fire Museum. A future post will look at the artifacts in their collection that concentrate on 19th century firefighting, but I stumbled upon this solemn memorial to the city's firefighters while walking the surrounding streets. The names that surround this memorial answered the alarm and paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. A beautiful, moving memorial dedicated to just one branch of our first responders who daily put their lives on the lines to protect and serve our communities.

Here are some of my pictures.

 

 

 

Where it all began for me . . . sort of: Visiting with Daniel Boone

Daniel Boone

Besides the tidbits of history I can recall learning in kindergarten up through third grade, it was in 4th grade that I was introduced to history, learning the history of the United States and Kentucky from its colonial origins (the Commonwealth was, of course, part of one of those other commonwealths--Virginia--during its colonial phase) up to the beginning of the Civil War. I took to history immediately. No doubt a large part of that was due to the incredible Social Studies teachers that I was privileged to have and sit in their classrooms. They each made history fun with the energy they brought to the classroom, their passion for the subject, and the stories they told. History was story time where I got to meet legendary American figures and they made those individuals come alive for me.



In 4th grade, I learned my history not from my regular classroom teacher, a very young teacher probably not more than a year or so on the job, but from the veteran teacher across the hall, Betty Boone. The first thing I can recall is her telling us that she was a part of Kentucky's royalty (not her exact words, but mine). She had married into the Boone family, Daniel Boone's family, a prominent frontiersman in early American history. If not Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Boone is the very first historical figure that every young Kentuckian encounters in the classroom, or so they did when I was a mere cog in Kentucky's educational system. As my year as a fourth grader unfolded, Mrs. Boone's enthusiasm for the subject and especially Kentucky's state history was palpable indeed. I took to the subject in general naturally and delved into Kentucky's colonial and early history as a state, reading supplementary books in her classroom. Subsequently, I must have impressed her because I was selected captain of our school's Kentucky history team, which went to Frankfort, the state capital, where we participated in the Governor's Cup, a quick recall-like competition in which teams from schools across the state competed in a battle royale over the state's history. Sadly, we came up short in the semi-finals or else we would have stood a great chance at winning (perhaps the lack of a gold medal on my trophy case still haunts me, but I can vividly recall sitting on the sidelines conferring with my team members as we knew every single question asked in the final round but one!).

After fourth grade, I got my fill of American history in fifth grade and beyond; however, Kentucky history was no longer an emphasis in our curriculum. Truth be told, I have lost much of what I knew then. I feel as if I know much more today about my adopted state's history than I do about my native Kentucky. Still, Daniel Boone remains one of any native Kentuckian's most beloved figures. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit the gravesite of Kentucky's pioneer legend at Frankfort Cemetery, overlooking the Kentucky River and the state's modern capitol building . . . or did I?


There seems to be some debate as to whether the site actually does contain the body of Boone and his wife, Rebecca. I enclose some links below to stories about Boone, his actual bones, and the controversy.

The Body in Daniel Boone's Grave May Not Be His (New York Times article from 1983)

Where is Daniel Boone Buried? (a video segment from Kentucky Public Television)

Boone's Bones Broohaha

Daniel Boone (find a grave website)

Nevertheless, here are some of the photos that I took of Boone's gravesite, with the remarkable view of the state capitol building in the distance, and the marble reliefs that appear on each side of Boone's "grave."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebels at Rest in Lexington: The Todds, a Couple Notable Rebels, & Kentucky's Basketball Baron

 

 

The gates to Lexington Cemetery on Main Street

Despite being a native who lived nearly 26 years in the great Commonwealth and an avid Kentucky fan, I have only occasionally visited Lexington. More often than not, my visits took me to the University of Kentucky's campus for research--to grab journals (Journal of East Tennessee History!) and books that the University of Louisville's library did not carry and to nap in the library's cozy surroundings. Last weekend I had an opportunity to visit again on my way back to Knoxville, and this time I decided to see two sites I had always wanted to see--Rupp Arena and Mary Lincoln's childhood home. What I hadn't expected to do, however, was to visit Lexington Cemetery. But had it not been for a segment on UK talk radio (the hosts had spent the previous weekend searching for Kentucky legend Adolph Rupp's grave), I wouldn't have thought to go in the first place. I figured I would do some quick research and see any other "big" historic names that may be buried there as well. I was astonished to see several folks I wouldn't mind visiting. What follows is a collection of some of my photos.


The Todd family plot, Section F (sits alongside Main Avenue)

When Abraham Lincoln entered the Senate race against Stephen Douglas in 1858, months before the famous Lincoln-Debates, he referred to the nation, which was splitting over the issue of slavery, as "a house divided." This biblical metaphor could be used to describe the situation in which many families, especially those among the border states, found themselves in 1860-1861.

The Todd family plot, Section F. 

It is certainly fitting when discussing Mary Todd Lincoln's Lexington, Kentucky family. Mary was born into a slaveholding family, many of whom chose to support the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though Kentucky, a slave state, struggled to remain neutral at a time in which states were compelled to choose between their allegiance to the United States or an allegiance to a new "nation" on which slavery stood as its cornerstone. During the war, Mary's stepmother and eight of her thirteen siblings supported the Confederacy, some of those siblings donning Confederate gray.




Mary's father, Robert (left) and her mother Elizabeth (right)

Mary's parents are both buried at Lexington Cemetery. Her mother, Elizabeth "Eliza" Ann Parker Todd died when Mary was seven years old (Lincoln also lost his mother when he was young, at the age of nine). Elizabeth died as the result of complications following the birth of her seventh child, George, who survived. She was buried next to her sixth child, Robert, who died at 14 months of age.

Mary's father, Robert Smith Todd, who had remarried (Elizabeth Humphreys Todd), was a prominent Kentucky Whig and a state senator. In the summer of 1849, he decided to run for political office; however, he collapsed suddenly on July 7 while on the campaign trail and fell ill as a cholera epidemic swept through central Kentucky. The doctors could do little for him and he began finalizing his will. He managed to live more than a week before passing away quietly on July 16.

John C. Breckinridge, Section G

Nearby, one can find several prominent Rebels. John Cabell Breckinridge, United States Vice President, the Southern Fire-Eating Democratic challenger in the 1860 presidential election, a Confederate commissioned officer, and Secretary of War for the Confederate States of America.


John C. Breckinridge

Across the street from Breckinridge is the so-called "Thunderbolt of the Confederacy," Kentucky cavalryman John Hunt Morgan. Morgan was killed by Union forces in Greeneville, Tennessee during the Civil War, but buried in Richmond, Virginia in the summer of 1864. Morgan, who had garnered a lot of attention in the press for his summer 1863 raid into northeastern Ohio, which had caused great anxiety among Union officials, was a marked man. The raid proved to be the furthest northern incursion by Confederate military forces during the Civil War (smaller operations by former Confederates and secret service operations were conducted as far north as Vermont); however, Morgan's raid proved a futile, sideshow of the war. His younger brother Thomas H. Morgan was also killed in action and was first buried in Lebanon, Kentucky in 1863. Both brothers' remains were re-interred in the same grave in a double ceremony in April 1868.


John Hunt Morgan

The Duke, Morgan, and Hunt family plot, section C

John Hunt Morgan grave, Section C

Basil W. Duke

An additional Rebel of interest includes Basil Wilson Duke who is also buried next to Morgan. Duke was Morgan's second in command, becoming commanding general of the cavalry after Morgan's death. Duke and his men protected the Confederate president Jefferson Davis as he fled Richmond in early 1865 as Union forces closed in. Duke later served Kentucky in the United States House of Representatives after the war.

A monument to the Rebel dead.

Last but not least, an adopted son of the Commonwealth, the Baron of basketball, coaching legend Adolph Rupp.

 

The End of a Golden Era in College Basketball's Greatest & Fiercest Rivalry

Note: Yes, this is a history blog, but it also traces the history of things that I care about; therefore, what follows are my thoughts, hastily written in the moment, on the history of UK-UL's basketball rivalry and what was perhaps that rivalry's golden era that likely closed today with the firing of Rick Pitino.

I realized that I bled blue and did so before I was five years old. I can recall sitting on the floor watching Kentucky basketball games with my dad who was situated in his chair with his beverage of choice in one hand and the remote in the other as he shouted at the television. Of course I was indoctrinated by my family's preference for Kentucky despite having grown up in Louisville.

Throughout the 1980s, the Wildcat fan witnessed college basketball's winningest program slip behind Duke and Louisville and then came the 3-year ban, essentially the death penalty after Kentucky was found to be paying a recruit's father and slapped with academic fraud. What seemed like the end of basketball in the Commonwealth as we knew it (Louisville is, of course, a small nugget of the great Commonwealth), turned out to be a blessing in disguise as the university's basketball program was purged of all the muck that had built up during Eddie Sutton's tenure as head coach. Still, few of us thought so highly of Rick Pitino, the program's new coach, a largely unknown Italian or whatever he was from the Northeast. Within a matter of two years, Pitino had done the unthinkable with a team consisting of native Kentuckians that no program in the nation wanted. "The Unforgettables" nearly pulled off the unthinkable in knocking off Duke in the 1992 NCAA tournament had it not been for that last second buzzer beater shot by . . . oh and thanks CBS for reminding us about it EVERY March. I can remember being on an emotional roller coaster as I jumped on my bed watching the last seconds and then dejection. The hurt that loss inflicted deep within the hearts of Kentucky fans was an indication of how far we had come in such a short period a time.

Kentucky was back in the conversation among the nation's marquee basketball programs. Pitino was at the top of his game, a close tie with Coach K as the best coach in college basketball in the 1990s (I would argue better given how far he had to come as Duke had already established itself since the late 1970s.) He took us to the Final Four again, and again, and again. In the midst of the incredible ride, Kentucky won the NCAA title in 1996 with what was undoubtedly Pitino's best team to date, and arguably one of the best teams in college basketball history (even better than any of Coach John Calipari's teams during his tenure at UK). Then, Pitino was gone.

Since 1993, every UK fan had worried year in and year out that the NBA would come and pilfer Coach P. The lure of being back home in the Northeast, the glitter and glitz of professional basketball, and winning an NBA title was too much to resist. Sure Kentucky fans were hurt; however, nobody could fault him for doing what he did. Surely not I. Pitino had made my middle and high school years memorable (I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of the trash talk I engaged in with my Louisville schoolmates at school) and I was thankful for what he did and for what he left the program with--a team ready to win the next NCAA title and a great assistant coach--Tubby Smith--ready to fill his chair. Pitino could have retired at Kentucky and been made governor if he had wanted the post!

When he failed at Boston, we felt bad for him. But when Pitino came back to Kentucky, his plane landed not in Lexington, but in Louisville. Instantly the Kentucky fan base was split. I chose not to bad mouth and loathe him. I maintained my appreciation and respect for the man who restored Kentucky to its rightful place on top of college basketball. I embraced the fact that the rivalry was now going to be extra-heated and made even more special every time Kentucky won although I knew it would not be easy to do so. Despite Pitino being the better coach, he had to rebuild a program that had fallen over time as Louisville's Denny Crum saw the game pass him by. In the beginning of the Tubby-Pitino era, the edge in the rivalry remained with Kentucky. Then, things shifted quickly in Louisville's favor as Pitino worked his magic in his new adopted hometown. Meanwhile, Tubby wore out his welcome as he failed to develop players and that NCAA title he had won in 1998 seemed to be more credited to Pitino, as it was his team, rather than Tubby himself. Kentucky's star waned further in the "Billy G" years as Louisville supplanted Kentucky as the Commonwealth's superior team.

Then came 2009. It was time to flush the muck that was Billy Gillispie out of the system and to begin anew. I was not pleased one bit to hear John Calipari was to be our new coach. Sure, I thought he was dirty. There was a violation at UMass involving Marcus Camby which resulted in a vacation of wins and suspicion that possibly something unseemly was at work in Memphis where Cal went next. With Cal at the helm in Lexington, I knew Kentucky would be a 30+ win team; however, I dreaded the consequences of what might come with him. Let's face it, we all remembered the shame of 1989 and feared it would happen again (and to be honest, many fans still have those lingering fears of Cal--even though he has never been directly implicated in any NCAA violations at UMass, Memphis, or Kentucky).

Rick Pitino flips off Kentucky fans at Rupp Arena

With Cal and Pitino now on opposite sides of the court in the UK-UL rivalry, it quickly became the best rivalry in college basketball (I'm sure Duke and North Carolina's basketball fans would challenge that assertion). From the beginning, Cal had the upper hand on Pitino, as Kentucky got the best players and dominated the series. As Cal changed the face of basketball, a process which was already underway before he arrived in Lexington, it forced other coaches to adapt. It appears Pitino resisted as long as he could; however, as Duke, Kansas, and North Carolina changed to adapt to the new style, I am sure the pressure was too great on Pitino. I believe the entire hell Louisville finds itself in today is due in part to the pressure brought to bear on Coach P by Louisville fans and boosters to keep up with and beat Kentucky. The other part, and perhaps even larger part of the puzzle, is a direct consequence of the culture that has permeated the university for the past two decades under the greedy and immoral leadership of the current (hopefully not for too much longer) Athletic Director Tom Jurich and for some of that time, the former President James Ramsey where athletics was privileged over academics.

Had Pitino stuck with the coaching style that made him a Hall of Famer, I believe he would still be the coach at Louisville today. Quite frankly, when it comes to the x's and o's of basketball, Pitino is the best or a close tie with Duke's Coach K. Pitino is a much better coach than Coach Cal. Pitino is perhaps the best coach, even better than Coach K, at developing a 4-year player. That is Pitino's game, not going after the 5-star, "one and done," recruits. What Pitino lacks, is simply the flair and panache that comes natural for Cal (the stuff that lands these 5-star recruits), even if Cal can be, yes (pardon me) a blowhard. Although I have never lost my respect for Pitino as a coach, the era of my respect for Pitino as an individual ended long before the current plight that he finds himself. It is certainly not my place to judge his moral failings and I really could care less about what part he played or did not play in the current scandals facing the university. But when Pitino disgraced himself at Rupp Arena, flipping off some ignorant, foul-mouthed UK fans, that was the end of my respect for Pitino as a man. He should have been used to that treatment at an opponent's arena and controlled himself. Now, sadly, a golden era of the enduring rivalry between Kentucky and Louisville, has come--for the time being--to an end. I am sure that the game in late December will mean a little more than all other regular season games, but it won't be the same with a young, untested coach on Louisville's bench. I wish him the best, but I doubt he is their future. Here is to Louisville cleaning up the remaining muck in their program and getting back solid on their feet as quickly as possible, because I want both programs back at the top of college basketball.

Ulysses S. Grant "Finally" Gets His Due???

Ron Chernow's "Grant," perhaps the most anticipated biography in American history of 2017, drops tomorrow and reading the early reviews leaves me asking myself, really?

Just a sampling of some of the reviews (Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker; Mike Fischer, Journal Sentinel; David Plotz, Slate), which all leave the impression that Grant is about to get the "Hamilton treatment," even if it does not ultimately result in a Broadway hit musical.

No doubt Chernow's biography (the man behind other notable biographies and who inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda to write his Broadway hit that has rescued/rehabilitated the $10 Founding Father) will become the most widely read study of Civil War General and President Ulysses S. Grant to date; however, for those of us who have been laboring in Grant's vineyard for the past two decades, all of this talk of rehabilitating the $50 president is quite odd.

Sure, the architects of the Lost Cause beat up Grant during his time and that narrative influenced their scholarly descendants and even the revisionists were influenced by William McFeely's 1981 biography that was more a product of the Vietnam War era than a study of Grant & the Civil War era. But those of us who have studied and written on Grant know that the man buried in his tomb (yes, the answer really is Ulysses S. Grant!) is much more than a failed businessman; a drunkard; a butcher; a second-rate to Robert E. Lee who only managed to defeat the great hero to the Confederacy because of sheer mathematics and firepower; a rascist whose policies who doomed the freed people in the South and the Indians on the Great Plains; and an incompetent politician who trusted those who took advantage of him and stained his administration with scandal.

Since the late 1990s, that narrative has been challenged and refuted. My own work into Grant's role between Appomattox and his election in 1868 as president (I argued Grant worked behind the scenes with leading Moderate and Radical Republicans to undermine President Andrew Johnson, actively sought the presidency to secure "the fruits of victory" achieved by the Union, & played a significant role in shaping postwar U.S. foreign policy south of the border during the French intervention in Mexico) was questioned by the late John Y. Simon, who headed up the Grant Papers project. I can vividly recall him sitting in the front row of a conference that I presented my research and afterwards telling me that he found my talk interesting but he wasn't buying my overall argument that Grant was anything but apolitical. But that work, which resulted in my Masters thesis and subsequently two scholarly articles, has held up and been supported in several studies published since the "Grant Boom" began in the late 90s (notable scholars contributing to the "Grant Boom" includes Brooks D. Simpson, Joan Waugh, Frank Scaturro, Jean Edward Smith, and most recently Ronald C. White).

It is a safe bet that Chernow's "Grant" will be a NYT bestseller and will go a far way to rehabilitating the $50 man in the public's eye (and I wish Chernow success in this venture and that he reaps his financial rewards for his magisterial biographical abilities); however, it is probably also a safe bet that it will unlikely shed anything new on the man with no middle name that Grant scholars have not already published in the first two decades of the 21st century.

Why July 4th is not the original date of American Independence

July 2nd, NOT July 4th, is America's "historically accurate" day of independence day.

Massachusetts Historical Society

In a July 3, 1776 letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams wrote the following (page 3 of the letter, see right):

 

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States."

 

Why, then, was Adams so assured that July 2nd would become "the most memorable Epocha" and America's "great anniversary Festival?" On July 2, the Continental Congress unanimously affirmed independence from Great Britain. The vote had been anticipated for quite some time once Virginia's House of Burgess instructed its delegates in May 1776, led by Richard Henry Lee, to propose independence. Once Lee formally moved a resolution on June 7, a committee headed up by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, began drafting a document setting out the case for independence. Though the document was unfinished, the July 2 vote was the moment a handful of America's Founding Fathers crossed the Rubicon. According to the July 2nd Philadelphia Evening Post, "This day the Continental Congress declared the United States Free and Independent States." The deed was done. The die cast. Independence was a monumental action that had only then recently gained favor with the majority of Americans, thanks, in large part, to the work of Thomas Paine (a British citizen) and his pamphlet "Common Sense."

 

John Trumbull's Signing of the Declaration (Library of Congress)

But what about July 4th and Thomas Jefferson's ultimate breakup letter to Great Britain, the Declaration of Independence? The final draft of the Declaration of Independence, the very document that has "July 4" literally stamped at the top of the document and is believed to have been singularly authored by Thomas Jefferson, was, in fact, finally approved by Congress on July 4. However, the document's first clean copy was not produced until August 2, the date in which the first members of Congress signed their names--i.e. John Hancock becoming the first as he wrote his name so large that King George III would not need his spectacles to read the signature. Several other members did not sign until 1777. The Declaration of Independence itself, was largely ignored following the American Revolution because its "work" was accomplished.

Declaration of Independence (Library of Congress)

So, why do we celebrate July the 4th, not July the 2nd, the day in which Congress actually declared American independence? Because the document has since become a living, rather than a dead document. Though largely ignored for decades after it was completed and signed, the Declaration of Independence--the work of many, not one single man (Thomas Jefferson)--gradually emerged as a living force in American society in the nineteenth century. It was Abraham Lincoln, who in essence, dusted off the Declaration of Independence and began to invoke the Founding Father's "ideas" and language when he reentered the political realm in the 1850s. Lincoln's reinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence is stated briefly and eloquently in his 1863 Gettysburg Address in which he declared that the founding fathers had committed the nation in 1776 (you know, "four score and seven years ago") to "the proposition that all men are created equal." Lincoln challenged those who remained loyal to the United States to complete the "unfinished work" of the Union dead, who "gave the last full measure of devotion" to bring to "this nation, under God, a new birth of freedom." According to Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence, the national charter of our liberties, was what the American people chose to make of it. Binding the founders' generation with his and subsequent generations of Americans, Lincoln reinterpreted the Declaration of Independence as a living document in a continuing act of national self-definition.

Congress may have completed its work on July 2, 1776 when it declared independence from Great Britain; however, Americans of all stripes will continue to look to the document itself as they reinterpret that most sacred of American ideas--"that all men are created equal." Therefore, so long as the Declaration of Independence guides this nation and those fighting for human equality, I suspect July 4th is a fitting day to celebrate. In the meantime, for historical accuracy, let's push for recognition of July 2, 1776 as the date we officially severed our bonds with the "Mother Country" and, why not call for a 3-day national holiday to celebrate this great country. Huzzah!

"His Excellency" to the line! (Part 2)

"Impeachment & Base Ball"

In February 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first president to be impeached. The impeachment and subsequent trial in the U.S. Senate, in which Johnson was spared conviction and removal from office by a single vote, was the culmination of a bitter partisan struggle for power that pitted the Executive against Congress.

The English-born American sportswriter Henry Chadwick using "Old Chalk" as his "Brooklyn Morning Programme" pen name, used base ball to describe Johnson's impeachment to readers, a tactic often used as early as the late 1860s to explain Washington D.C. politics and society. In the following account, impeachment was a ball game between Johnson of the National Club and Thaddeus Stevens (Radical Republican leader in the U.S. House) of the Constitution Club:

Andy Johnson, who had a fight with Stevens, the pitcher of the nine, not long since and the quarrel has not been made up yet. Johnson, it appears, wanted to play certain points in the game . . . but Stevens wouldn’t pitch as Johnson wanted him to and as the rest of the nine joined Thad. Stevens against Johnson, who is the occupant of the first base in the National nine, of course the game had to be postponed. Finally Johnson tried to organize a new nine for the club, and then the row began. Johnson began by placing Larry Thomas in as catch in place of Ed. Stanton. . . . The rest of the nine then took part with Stevens, and putting Stanton in the nine again, said they had found a man to take Johnson’s place, and boldly announced that they were ready to “Wade” in and “fight it out on that line if it took all the summer.” . . . They charged him [Johnson] with selling the games of the club, and of putting men out purposely on his own side in match games. How the mess will end I can’t tell.

Henry Chadwick, an English-born American sportswriter, covered baseball from the 1860s to his death in 1908.

 

 

 

"His Excellency" to the Line! (Part 1)

"1860 Election & Baseball":

 

Library of Congress

For those of us who live in the 19th century, we are familiar with the first image, which depicts the four presidential candidates running in the 1860 election. It's a great image that I often put up on my PPT to cover the entire election--candidates, political parties, & issues--for my students. I recently came across the 2nd image, which depicts the four candidates and the election as if it were a baseball game, thus revealing how baseball had become ingrained in popular culture as early as 1860. It may be difficult to read, so I have transcribed the cartoon.

 

 

 

Library of Congress

 

From left to right: John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) His belt reads "Union Club" and his bat (willow) states "Fusion" which accurately captures the state of the Const. Union Party, the Border States who sought compromise to avoid war. Bell says, "It appears to me very singular that we should strike "foul" and "put out" while old Abe made such a "good lick."

Stephen Douglas (Northern Democratic Party) His belt reads "Little Giant" his nickname and his willow states "Non-Intervention." Douglas and the Northern Democrats were contempt to adhere to the idea of "popular sovereignty" to allow settlers moving west into the federal territories to decide for themselves whether their states should be free or not. Douglas says to Bell, "That's because he had that confounded rail, to strike with. I thought our fusion would be a "short stop" to his career.

John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic Party) His belt reads "Disunion Club" and his willow appropriately reads "Slavery Extension." Breckinridge, holding his nose and walking off, captures the Southern Democratic position in 1860. They were headed out of the Union, convinced that a Republican victory would spell doom to their way of life. He says, "I guess I'd better leave for Kentucky, for I smell something strong around here, and begin to think, that we are completely "skunk'd."

Abraham Lincoln (Republican Party) His belt reads "Wide Awake" and his willow "Equal Rights and Free Territory." Lincoln says, "Gentlemen, if any of you should ever take a hand in another match at this game, remember that you must have "a good bat" and strike a "fair ball" to make a "clean score" & a "home run."

A Confederate takes a stand against Confederates hiding what they really fought for

He was known as the "Gray Ghost," a capable Confederate officer whose 43rd Virginia Cavalry's lightning-quick raids behind Union lines in northern Virginia and Maryland during the Civil War frustrated Union forces. John Singleton Mosby was one of the Confederacy's most celebrated generals; however, this Southern war hero lost his luster when he decided to cast his lot with the Republican Party and forge a friendship with President and former Union general Ulysses S. Grant in the years after Appomattox. As Mosby entered the twilight years of his life, he was frustrated that many of his former brothers in gray were twisting history for their own purposes, hiding the true reason for what they had fought to preserve and the cause of secession.




Confederate General John S. Mosby

As the years passed and many of the former Confederates chose to record their war experiences, most chose to frame the war that they fought to sever the South's relationship with the federal government as a tragic family quarrel, a war of "brother against brother" in which both the Union and Confederacy had fought gallantly for noble causes--states' rights on the part of the South, preservation of the Union for the North. They chose to hide the real cause of the war--slavery. This tragic, yet romantic Lost Cause version of the Civil War was reinforced in the writings of Confederate soldiers and officers alike, in reunion speeches, and dedication of monuments in public spaces throughout the South in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.




John S. Mosby to Sam Chapman, June 4, 1907 (Page 1)

As a United States Assistant Attorney in 1907, Mosby wrote Sam Chapman a letter on Department of Justice stationary in which he complained that George Christian, one of many former Confederates who were rewriting the cause of the Civil War, minimizing the primary role of slavery, to make it appear as a noble war. Mosby gives a brief account of the Southern defense of slavery prior to the war, criticizing John C. Calhoun's bitter attack on Thomas Jefferson, who had prohibited slavery's expansion into the Old Northwest (Northwest Ordinance of 1787). The "Gray Ghost" confessed that he did not approve of slavery; rather, it was inherited in his family as an institution: "Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did, I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance. Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates & cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property, it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war--as she said in her Secession proclamation--because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding.... Ask Sam Yost to give Christian a skinning. I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery--a soldier fights for his country--right or wrong--he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights in. The South was my country.”


*Note: In the above excerpt, I have made slight edits (punctuations & removed strikeouts) to make Mosby's letter easier to read. If you would like to view the original letter and transcript, please visit Gilder Lehrman.

This post was inspired by Adam H. Domby's article "Defenders of Confederate Monuments Keep Trying to Erase History" which referenced Mosby's letter.