Civil War

Review: Longstreet

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "Longstreet" by Elizabeth R. Varon

Longstreet: The Confederate General Who Defied the South, Elizabeth R. Varon. Simon & Schuster (ISBN: 9781982148270) 2023.

Summary: From Lee’s “old war horse” to the Radical Republican who defied the “Lost Cause” and fought to vindicate his war record.

James Longstreet was a product of the South. Although West Point-trained with his good friend Ulysses S. Grant, when war came, he resigned his commission to fight for the South. At the heart of this was the defense of slavery. He was a slaveholder. Therefore, his post-war transformation to a Republican and radical reconstructionist was stunning then, and still demands explanation. In this new biography, Elizabeth R. Varon explores the war-time record of Lee’s “old war horse” and his defiance of advocates of the “Lost Cause” to support Republican Reconstruction efforts including a whole panoply of Black civil rights. Perceived as a traitor to the South, this led to a defense of his war record, and later, efforts to reconcile with his enemies.

The first part of the book concerns his military record, including his major triumphs at the second Bull Run, at Fredericksburg, and at Chickamauga. Then there was Gettysburg. He believed in fighting from strong defensive positions from which counterattacks could be launched against weakened foes. At Gettysburg, Longstreet wanted to move between the Union left and Washington but Lee wouldn’t permit this. On the second day, it took Longstreet far longer than expected to get in place to launch an attack on the Union left, including the badly positioned Dan Sickles and the thinly occupied Little Round Top. On the third day he vigorously disagreed with Lee on the frontal assault on the Union center. In the end, he obeyed, with the disastrous results he feared. At the time, Lee assumed full responsibility for the loss. Only after the war would recriminations come against Longstreet.

After his victory at Chickamauga and the later inglorious end to the campaign in eastern Tennessee, Longstreet rejoined Lee. Wounded in the Wilderness Campaign by friendly fire, he rejoined Lee after recovering for the final defense of Petersburg and Richmond and was with him at Appomattox. Until then, he fought unstintingly for the South. But when his old friend Grant offered generous conditions of parole to Longstreet and his troops, the transformation began. Indeed, a theme running through this narrative is the important role Grant played in his post-war transformation.

Subsequently, supporting the Republicans, he lauded the passage of the 15th Amendment and even helped form a multiracial Louisiana State Militia that included Black officers. As a result, Longstreet was considered a traitor and the Crescent City White League attempted a coup against the governor in the Canal Street Coup. Longstreet’s militia performed poorly and only federal troops preserved the government.

He moved to Georgia and served in various civil service posts, including ambassador to Turkey, and later on, as railroad commissioner. His hope was to advocate from within Republican governments for the South. Longstreet believed that cooperating with Reconstruction could help the economic development of the South. Meanwhile, he faced increasing attacks upon his military record, particularly at Gettysburg, where he was blamed for the defeat. As Reconstruction receded, he sought ways, without recanting his post-war commitments, to reconcile with his fellow Southerners, notably Jefferson Davis. But through memoirs, and his widow’s efforts after death, the fight continued to uphold his reputation. Yet even to this day, the debates continue.

Varon offers a sympathetic account of Longstreet, both militarily, and in the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction years. I suspect that those who still adhere to the “Lost Cause” and to critical narratives of his actions at Gettysburg won’t buy it. But I found this a compelling account of a man who changed his mind and acted with courage. He acted, in sympathy with his influential friend Grant, for a more inclusive vision for the country, including the South. Sadly, we have not fully realized that courageous vision even yet.

Review: The Political Transformation of David Tod

/ rtrube54 / 7 Comments

The Political Transformation of David Tod, Joseph Lambert, Jr. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 2023.

Summary, A biography of Governor David Tod from Youngstown, focusing on his political career and his transformation as a “War Democrat” from support of popular sovereignty to supporting the Union war effort and ultimately Emancipation.

Growing up in Youngstown, I’ve long known of David Tod as one of our most illustrious citizens. In particular, I was familiar with the Tod farm at Brier Hill, first settled by his father George, also a state lawmaker, but not a very successful farmer. David’s success as a lawyer allowed him to acquire and pay off the farm, allowing his parents to live out their years there. His act set the stage for the discovery of high quality coal, the construction of blast furnaces contributing to the growth of the iron industry in the valley and his stake in rail companies, enabling the shipment of coal and iron from the Mahoning Valley, establishing his fortune.

Beyond knowing that he served a two-year term as Ohio’s governor during the Civil War, I was unaware of the political career of David Tod. Joseph Lambert’s new book opened my eyes to the political career of Tod, from its beginnings in Warren to the statehouse. I was unaware that the first part of his career centered around Warren Ohio, where he got his first taste of politics. From 1825, when he went to read law in the firm of Roswell Stone until 1841, when his father died, Tod’s activities centered around Warren, the bustling county seat of Trumbull County, of which Youngstown, then a township, was still a part. Admitted to the bar in 1827, by 1832, he was named postmaster by Andrew Jackson. Brief stints as a councilman and as Warren’s mayor were followed by election as a Democrat to Ohio’s state senate. He left after one, two year term, returned briefly to Warren, and then took over the Brier Hill farm after his father’s death.

Lambert shows how Tod’s political activities went along with the development of business, whether speaking for other candidates, or running twice, unsuccessfully, for governor. Then, in 1847 he was named ambassador to Brazil, replacing an ambassador with a fraught relationship with the Brazilian government. Lambert shows how Tod, with no previous diplomatic experience both represented U.S interests well while winning the favor of the Brazilians. His exposure to the slave trade confirmed his personal opposition to slavery.

However, in returning to the states, he was caught up in the debates on slavery. Ohio was a microcosm of slavery, with the north being staunchly abolitionist, and southern Ohio much more favorable to the institution just across the river. As a Democrat, he was part of a national party trying to bridge sectional difference. Before the war, he supported Stephen Douglas against Lincoln and Douglas’s position of popular sovereignty and leaving slavery in the south alone, hoping it would wither of its own accord.

Lambert shows how Tod’s politics were shaped by the constitution, which upheld slavery, and how they evolved over the course of the war. Since the Union was also created by this constitution, he vigorously supported Lincoln when hostilities began. After personal efforts to raise troops, Tod, as part of a Union Party of War Democrats and Republicans was elected Governor in 1862, widely respected around the state.

This didn’t last long. His arrest of Clement Vanlandingham brought charges of being an iron-handed dictator. He faced sniping from his own party. But he met Lincoln’s calls for troups, cared for returning soldiers, and particularly the wounded, guarded the state’s borders, and managed the state’s finances. During this time, as the war progressed, he slowly moved to support emancipation and to eventually allow Blacks from Ohio to serve in the military, a significant transformation, and one that alienated him from the Democrats. After the war, he could not go back. As the 14th and 15th amendments were proposed, he moved to support Black citizenship and suffrage, the latter a corollary in his mind.

Lambert portrays Tod as tireless in campaigning, in or out of office, to the detriment of his health. He refused Lincoln’s appointment as secretary of the Treasury for health reasons. While campaigning, he suffered several “apoplectic strokes” and died of this in 1868, although Lambert raises interesting questions of whether these “strokes” may have been malarial in origin, given the description of symptoms.

The portrait of Tod is one of a savvy businessman and politician, although a man of great personal generosity and integrity. He balanced Ohio’s interests and security with unstinting support of the Union effort. He devoted significant attention to the welfare of soldiers. He handled loss with grace. And he put Union and the constitution ahead of political party, growing, albeit slowly, in his commitment to emancipation and basic rights of Blacks. Though never a presidential candidate, he might be one of Ohio’s greatest political leaders. Ohio was a key to the Union victory, and Tod’s war leadership a major factor in that. Tod has not received the attention due him. Lambert’s book remedies that. The man who said “I would not have been born anywhere else than in Youngstown if I could” lived a life that should make all of us who grew up in Youngstown proud.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: The Crooked Path to Abolition

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution, James Oakes. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2021.

Summary: A historical account of how Abraham Lincoln, although not a traditional abolitionist, strongly supported and implemented the antislavery portions of the Constitution to pursue the end of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist in the traditional sense. He did not advocate immediate emancipation in the slave states. He did not advocate active resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act, but only for due process rights. He did not rail in his rhetoric against the vile evils of slavery. But Abraham Lincoln hated slavery and believed there were resources within the Constitution properly leveraged that would lead to its eventual end. How could this be so when the Constitution protected slavery in the states? Only states could abolish slavery, not the Federal government. Both Constitution and legislation allowed slave owners or their proxes to capture and return runaway slaves even where slavery was not legal. And there was that language of slaves being three-fifths of a person.

Actually those who believe in an antislavery Constitution might start there. Slaves are written of as “persons,” undermining the contention of slaves as being property. Beyond this, those who developed the idea of an antislavery Constitution drew on both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble affirming the equality of persons. They focused on the due process rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to make it as hard as possible for slave owners to retrieve runaways, while not breaking the fugitive slave laws. They used the Federal power to regulate the territories to make these free rather than slave. The Constitution said Congress had no authority “to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.” They antislavery people were committed to no more compromises that would admit new slave states into the country.

Lincoln believed that slavery would eventually wither away of its own. Some proposed that slaves brought into free territory could sue for their freedom. The dynamic economy of the north would outstrip the south, particularly because it could not expand its economy, fenced about by free territories becoming states. Eventually Southern states would abolish slavery on their own, which only they could do, Lincoln believed, since the Constitution did not give this power to the Federal government.

James Oakes traces the development of this antislavery doctrine, particularly within the Republican party. With enough votes in the growing North, Lincoln was elected. While he assured the South that slavery would be upheld, the implementation of other aspects of the antislavery doctrine triggered secession. Oakes shows how this offered new avenues to antislavery effort: ending slavery in the District of Columbia, ending the slave trade and blocking slave shipping to southern ports, and most significantly, voiding Fugitive Slave laws for slave owners in rebel states, since they no longer were under the laws of the Union. Slaves who fled into Union lines would be considered “contraband” and emancipated. While this was not so for border states who remained in the Union, the Army was directed not to assist in the retrieval of any fugitive slaves, since they did not have the legal powers to properly adjudicate such matters. The owners were on their own, further contributing to abolition.

Oakes doesn’t portray Lincoln as an antiracist. He favored colonization of Blacks, believing Blacks and Whites could not live together. But he hated slavery with a singular focus. One senses a Lincoln both shrewd and resolute in availing himself of all the resources available in the Constitution to move the needle toward abolition and emancipation, even maneuvering conquered states to constitute themselves as free and to join in ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment.

What I continue to wonder about is whether Lincoln realized his approach would send the South over the edge, precipitating the Civil War? Or did the South adequately take on board Lincoln’s resolve to preserve the Union once attacked? I wonder, given the case Oakes make, whether there is an argument to suggest that the South played into Lincoln’s hand, accelerating the demise of slavery that may otherwise have taken another fifty to one hundred years. Did Lincoln fully understand the cards he was holding and play them to full advantage?

I’ve often commented about the writing of slavery into our Constitution. I don’t think we can dodge that terrible compromise. But Oakes offers another perspective, showing the side of the Constitution that assumes freedom and equality the norm and slavery an exception. He also shows the lawyerly genius of Lincoln to recognize and exploit that side to its full extreme. The great sadness of all this was the lives it cost, including in the end, Lincoln’s own.

Review: A Republic in the Ranks

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

a republic in the ranks

A Republic in the Ranks, Zachery A. Fry. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2020.

Summary: A study of political loyalties in the Army of the Potomac, and the influence of junior officers and the experience of war among enlisted men, resulting in Lincoln’s re-election in 1864 to a second term.

At one point, it was not at all certain that Abraham Lincoln would win re-election. The Army of the Potomac suffered defeats or at best partial victories against the Confederacy. There was a growing Copperhead movement of Peace Democrats pressing for a settlement that would restore the Union without resolving the issue of slavery–a return to the status quo. This was further complicated after Lincoln cashiered General George McClellan, a popular leader among his men despite his lackluster record. Eventually, he became the Democratic presidential candidate on the Copperhead platform. Many in the senior command of the Army of the Potomac still supported him. Yet in the end, the Army of the Potomac overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln.

In this work, Zachery A. Fry explores the hotbed of political discussion that was the Army of the Potomac, and how their votes ended up solidly in the Lincoln column. The Army was united by loyalty in its commitment to defeat the Confederacy and restore the Union. But there were two different ideas of loyalty. One group was loyal to the constitution, wanting to restore the Union, but without enforcing abolition and the emancipation of slaves. They favored a negotiated settlement and supported the Democrats. The other group was loyal to the Republican administration and its commitment to emancipation and hard war.

Fry traces the evolution of the political views in the ranks as the war progressed. At the beginning, most didn’t have strong political views as much as a rage militaire response to Southern secession. The initial battle experiences, both defeats and victories, and the dashing figure of McClellan led to a divided Army, during the Peninsula Campaign, and especially after he was relieved during the extended pause after the Maryland campaign. Things began to shift as Joseph Hooker took command as more and more junior officers led their men in loyalty to the administration. A combination of being excluded from voting by many Democrat-led states and the realities of what they saw in the South fostered support for the administration. Democrat generals in the upper ranks continued to advocate for the constitution and peace with the South. While a number of veterans refused to re-enlist, tired of war, they continued to advocate back home for Lincoln. The endorsement by McClellan of the Copperhead platform cemented the loyalty to the Republican/Union ticket leading to their overwhelming support of Lincoln.

Fry takes us from the big picture to the unit level, citing unit resolutions and the advocacy of individual officers. What is clearly apparent is that junior officers closest to the men had much greater influence that the senior officers who inclined toward McClellan. He offers a chronological bibliography of unit resolutions that document the political evolution in units. He also provides an appendix with unit-by-unit election returns beginning with 1863 gubernatorial races.

This is a valuable work for all Civil War buffs and scholars as well as those who study the impact of political beliefs inside the military and how those beliefs are formed. The role of junior officers is especially important. It seems that, equally, the alignment between battlefield realities and administration policy was significant. Soldiers would not accept politics that undermined the significance of their efforts or rolled them back. Fry helps us understand the political dynamics within the Army of the Potomac, and why Lincoln was re-elected despite the efforts of Peace Democrats.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: Gettysburg: The Last Invasion

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Gettysburg

Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, Allen C. Guelzo. New York: Knopf, 2013.

Summary: An account of the three day battle at Gettysburg, the personalities, key turning points, battlefield topography, and movement by movement narratives that both zoom out and come up close in describing the unfolding of the battle.

There are scores of accounts of the confrontation between Union and Confederate forces for a three day battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, July 1-3, 1863. Allen C. Guelzo’s account, written on the 150th anniversary of the battle has to rank among the best. Guelzo directs the Civil War Era Studies program at Gettysburg College, which means he resides on the site of the battle. I know of no book that reflects such an intimate acquaintance with the topography of Gettysburg, whether it be the two hills that make up Culp’s Hill, Sherfy’s Peach Orchard, or Little Round Top, or even the locations of fences, that made advances more difficult. At Gettysburg, topography was a critical factor on all three days, and Guelzo helps us see how strategic choices, topography, and leadership in battle all contributed to the outcome.

The book is organized into four parts, one for the decisions and movements leading up to the battle, and one for each day. It’s clear that neither Lee nor Meade had “planned” to fight at Gettysburg. Meade had only taken command three days earlier and wanted to gather his army behind Pipe Creek, positioning him between Lee and Washington, a strong position to receive an attack. Lee wanted to scare the North into negotiating, as well as secure much needed supplies for his army. If he could defeat a spread out army in detail, he would take that chance, but without scouting from Stuart’s cavalry, absent on a ride around the Union forces, he was guessing.

When lead elements of his forces engaged Union troops under Reynolds and Howard, he thought he had his chance. The Union leaders barely were right that they could get the rest of the army there ahead of the Confederates. On such calculations the battle swayed back and forth all three days. Guelzo traces these through the battle’s three days: Howard’s decision to leave troops on Cemetery Hill and Ewell’s decision not to attack this thinly held position the first night, Longstreet’s delayed movements on the second day and Dan Sickle’s near fatal advance of his troops to the Peach Orchard, the last minute decisions of Warren and Joshua Chamberlain’s stand that held Little Round Top and the near rolling up of the Union position by Barksdale’s Mississippians, and the fierce resistance of Alexander Hays troops redeeming their ignominious defeat at Harpers Ferry.

Particularly as I read the second day’s account, I found myself on the edge of my seat wondering how the Union managed to hold on. It seemed to me that if Longstreet had attacked a little sooner, and had a bit more support, that the Army of the Potomac could have been shattered. In all this, Meade comes off rather poorly, letting Sickles take a weak position that opened a gap in the rest of his lines, promoting fellow McClellanite John Newton over Abner Doubleday for command of the 1st Division, and preparing for retreat while Winfield Scott Hancock moved troops into gaps, holding Cemetery Ridge and Hill. After they had held the position, according to Guelzo, Meade wanted to retreat and was overruled by his generals.

Then there is the third day and the perennial question of “why Pickett’s charge?” Guelzo reminds us of the military precedents for the success of such charges that may have been in Lee’s mind. Again we grasp what a near run thing this was as Armistead reaches the high water mark of momentarily seeing no one in front of him, only to fall. Had the artillery barrage been more effective, had Pickett more support, much more support, I would venture, the outcome might have been different.

Beyond understanding the outcome of the battle, Guelzo takes us inside the battle. We hear what soldiers are talking about as they wait to give or receive attacks, we witness the incongruity of fierce fighting and human compassion between opposing soldiers, and the gore of war, as brains spatter, limbs are torn off, and men are eviscerated. We read of the primitive surgeries, piles of limbs stacked up, and no infection measures.

Guelzo also helps us understand the politics in the Army of the Potomac that undermined Lincoln’s efforts to defeat Lee. As already noted Meade was a sympathizer with McClellan who wanted a negotiated settlement that likely would have preserved the Confederacy, and he promoted accordingly. Meade was satisfied to drive Lee back across the Potomac when he had an opportunity to defeat him, prolonging the war and the loss of lives (unlike abolitionist John Reynolds, who was spoiling for a fight, and whose aggressive actions precipitated the battle where he would lose his life).

This is a great book to read in conjunction with a battlefield visit. There is something for both Civil War aficionados and those reading their first account of the battle. Most of all, he helps us understand why this battle was “the last invasion” and just what a near run thing it was.

Growing Up in Working Class Youngstown — Civil War Soldiers Monument

/ rtrube54 / 14 Comments

8254989123_e331b9f560_z

The Man on the Monument. Photo by Jack Pierce (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr

I have to admit that I never really looked closely at the monument on Central Square when I was growing up and if I were honest, I couldn’t tell you its story. All I know is that it was a slender, tall pillar with a man on top looking off to the north. I presumed he was a soldier–he looked like he was in uniform and was holding a rifle. Apparently that’s what most people around Youngstown see, because often this landmark is simply called “The Man on the Monument” when in fact it is the Civil War Soldiers Monument.

The recent controversies about statues of Confederate soldiers and other figures got me wondering about the story of the monument. [Note: please do not hi-jack comments either on this blog or Facebook to debate the current controversy–they will be taken down, that’s not what this post is about]. What I learned was that this was a monument to remember the men of Youngstown who died in the Civil War to restore the Union and end slavery. On the north side of the base, you can read the following:

“ERECTED BY THE CITIZENS OF YOUNGSTOWN IN MEMORY OF THE HEROES OF
THE TOWNSHIP WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEIR COUNTRY IN THE WAR OF THE REBELLION, 1861 – 1865.”

On the four sides of the base of the monument, you can read the names of these men. The Ohio Geneological Society’s Mahoning Chapter has compiled a document organized providing information about each man who died. Here is an example of the kinds of information they provide about each of the men listed:

Shannon, Thomas J., First Infantry Division, Army of Virginia. Surgeon-in-Chief, Cedar Creek. Residence was not listed; Enlisted on 7/22/1863 as a Surgeon. On 7/22/1863 he was commissioned into Field & Staff Ohio 116th Infantry. He died of wounds on 10/20/1864 at Cedar Creek, Virginia. He was listed as: * Wounded 10/19/1864 Cedar Creek, Virginia.. Other Information: Buried: Winchester National Cemetery, Winchester, Virginia. Sources used by HDS: – Official Roster of the Soldiers of the State of Ohio – Roll of Honor of Ohio Soldiers.- The Medical and Surgical History of the Civil War.

On the pillar above the base the battlefields on which they fought are listed, along with the words “E Pluribus Unum” (out of the many, one), the motto of the United States, fitting in an effort to re-unite the states. The eight battlefields mentioned are Antietam, Chickamauga, Shiloh, Winchester, Stone River, Cedar Mountain, Perryville, and Vicksburg. The soldier at the top is standing at “parade rest.”

Governor David Tod first proposed the monument in 1864. One of the most interesting stories about it is that it was funded by ordinary citizens of Youngstown. I came across this interesting account in Stories of Central Square:

“No one who was in Youngstown on the Fourth of July in 1867 will ever forget it. Mrs. Susanna A. Filton, Mrs. Henry Tod and Miss Nancy Van Fleet recalled some of the circumstances yesterday at the Vindicator’s request. To raise money for the monument, as well as to provider for the crowds that were expected, the ladies of the town organized by wards: there were only four or five wards here then, and a friendly, though spirited rivalry existed as to which should raise the most money. Mrs. Felton recalled that on the morning of the Fourth the ladies of the Fourth ward which then took in the streets south of Federal and west of Market, met at the home of their chairman, Mrs. Breaden, the mother of Miss Nancy M. Breaden of Madison avenue. For several days previous they had been busy, cooking and baking, and they had scoured the country fo miles around for milk and cream and eggs. Dawn on the morning of the Fourth found them hard at work freezing ice cream and attending to the thousands of details that had been left until the last.

They had a long table on the Diamond. It was in the form of an L, and extended from Federal street around to Market. Their supplies were in the old Disciple church. Even though every girl and woman of Youngstown helped in one way or another, with the preparation and serving, the crowds that came from every part of the state were needed. The ladies of the Fourth Ward served all day long; besides a big dinner at noon, they served luncheons and ice cream and cake until late in the evening. They worked so hard, indeed, that some of them fainted from the strain, and it was midnight before they returned home. But they were happy after their long task, for they had led the other wards in the amount of money raised and turned over $400 as their contribution toward the expense of the monument.

Youngstown was neither large nor wealthy in those days and before the monument was entirely paid for it was necessary for a committee to canvass the town and secure subscriptions from nearly every man and woman in it. But most of the money was raised by the patriotic ladies.”

The monument was dedicated on July 4, 1870. Two future presidents, Governor Rutherford B. Hayes and congressman James Garfield spoke at the event.

Central Square has undergone a number of changes over the years. At one time, there was a fountain opposite the statue. Eventually this was covered over and a library branch was erected. It was turned into “Federal Plaza” in the mid-1970’s, closed off to traffic and bricked over. In 2005 Federal Street and Central Square were re-opened to traffic. Through all these changes, one thing has stayed the same–“The Man on the Monument”, the Civil War Soldiers Monument.