Issue 7

CONFEDERATE LIKE ME

p. 60

| 13 MINUTES IN THE GULF

p. 38

VOL. 3, NO. 1

Lincoln STEVEN SPIELBERG’S NEW MOVIE HAS BEEN HAILED AS A CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE. BUT DOES IT HOLD UP AS A PIECE OF HISTORY?

SPRING 2013

+ $5.99

CIVILWARMONITOR.COM CIVILWARMONITOR.COM

CWM07-Cover-FINAL.indd 1

2/13/13 12:18 PM

changed hands between the Union and Confederacy over 70 times.

Residents experienced constant uncertainty and turmoil, but life went on even as the cannon blasts of war thundered around them. to the 1860s at the Civil War Orientation Center Follow the trenches at Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park

Pedal the trail at the Third Battle of Winchester Walking & Biking Path Imagine the General at his desk in Stonewall Jackson’s Headquarters Tour the Pritchard family’s home on the Kernstown Battlefield See soldiers‘ graffiti at the Old Courthouse Civil War Museum Learn the civilians’ stories at the Newtown History Center Sign up for a Guided Tour of Historic Towns or Battlefields Honor soldiers at the Union and Confederate Cemeteries

-JWJOH )JTUPSZ 1SPHSBNT ] )JTUPSJDBM 5BMLT ] 4QFDJBM 5PVST #PPL 4JHOJOHT ] :PVUI 1SPHSBNT

XXX WJTJUXJODIFTUFSWB DPN

CWM07-FOB-TOC.indd 2

2/12/13 12:34 AM

Contents DEPARTMENTS

FEATURES

Lincoln Considered

Salvo

{Facts, Figures & Items of Interest}

TRAVELS

.......................

A Visit to Vicksburg

VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1 / SPRING 2013

6

Steven Spielberg’s movie has been deemed an instant classic, but how does it stand up as a piece of history?

We’ve enlisted top Civil War scholars—experts on the real-life people behind the characters—to give their opinions.

PAGE

24

VOICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Green Day

FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Sizing Up Billy Yank

PRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Blue, Gray, and Green

BY GERALD J. PROKOPOWICZ, JAMES OAKES, MATTHEW PINSKER, JASON EMERSON, AND PETER H. WOOD

DISUNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Boxers, Briefs, and Battles

IN FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fredericksburg’s Curious Confederates

13 Minutes

Columns COVER: 2012 D R E A M W O R K S I I D I S T R I B U T I O N C O ., L L C A N D T W E N T I E T H C E N T U R Y F O X F I L M C O R P O R AT I O N . A L L R I G H TS R E S E R V E D .

CASUALTIES OF WAR . . . . . . . 20 Monroe Bogan

BATTLEFIELD ECHOES. . . . . . 22 MOPs, MOEs, and Chancellorsville

PAGE

38

The brief clash between CSS Alabama and USS Hatteras was over in minutes. But the “sharp fight” off the coast of Galveston, Texas, in January 1863 changed the course of the war in the Gulf of Mexico.

Confederate Like Me PAGE

60

BY ANDREW W. HALL AND EDWARD T. COTHAM JR.

Books & Authors CIVIL WAR NOVELS: SIX SHINING EXAMPLES OF A THRIVING GENRE. . . . . . 68

Rebels who brought their slaves to war assumed a shared loyalty to the Confederate cause.

Reality was much more complex.

BY CRAIG A. WARREN

CELEBRATING CHANCELLORSVILLE: 150 YEARS OF STUDY AND SCRUTINY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

BY ROBERT K. KRICK

In Every Issue EDITORIAL

.....................

2

Lincoln: Hollywood vs. History

PARTING SHOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Prized Possession

BY KEVIN M. LEVIN

Enemies Front & Rear: Grant & the Campaign for Vicksburg

PAGE

50

As he carried out his campaign to capture Vicksburg, Mississippi, Major General Ulysses S. Grant faced two kinds of foes: the Confederates who defended the strategically vital city, and the disloyal generals, skeptical civil superiors, and critical press who scrutinized his every move.

BY BROOKS D. SIMPSON

ON THE COVER: Daniel Day-Lewis

as Abraham Lincoln in a scene from Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln.

Photograph by David James

1 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-TOC.indd 1

2/12/13 10:39 PM

Editorial VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1 / SPRING 2013

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

......

. . . . . . . . Laura June Davis

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Lincoln: Hollywood vs. History I THOUGHT STEVEN SPIELBERG’S latest movie, Lincoln, was excellent. Who knew that a feature film about the political sausage-making behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment could be so captivating? I found the writing, acting, sets, and costumes all to be first-rate. And it appears I’m hardly alone. Lincoln has already earned $173 million at the domestic box office, at the time of this writing. It’s also favored to win big at the upcoming Academy Awards. (At the very least, Daniel Day-Lewis seems a lock for best actor.)

Of course, no movie is perfect, nor without its critics. Some have objected to Lincoln’s rather narrow focus. How, they ask, can you tell the full story of the push for emancipation without noting Abraham Lincoln’s evolution on the issue over the course of the war? Or without acknowledging the influential work of leading African Americans of the time, such as Frederick Douglass, in the fight to end slavery?

Others have pointed out myriad factual errors, some bigger than others. There have been questions as to whether Mary Todd Lincoln ever attended House debates, despite the film’s shots of her and Elizabeth Keckley side by side in the congressional balcony. That might be considered artistic license compared to screenwriter Tony Kushner altering the names—and the votes—of the Connecticut delegation to the House of Representatives. (In Lincoln, two of Connecticut’s four representatives vote against the amendment; in fact, all four voted for it.)

What to think of such criticisms and errors? The easy answer: It depends on what you expect from a historical film. What is the proper balance between art and history? How many liberties with the historical record (and how large) can you take in the pursuit of entertainment?

For this issue, we asked five leading Civil War scholars to share their opinions about the film—and its accuracy. (See this issue’s lead article, “Lincoln Considered,” beginning on page 24.) I think you’ll find their responses both provocative and enlightening; I know I did. Have your own thoughts? Send them our way to the email address below.

Terry A. Johnston Jr.

TERRY@civilwarmonitor.com

EDITORIAL ADVISORS

Angela Esco Elder David Thomson Robert Poister

. . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen Berry

Patrick Brennan John Coski Judith Giesberg Allen C. Guelzo Amy Murrell Taylor

BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

COPY EDITOR .

. . . . . . . . Matthew C. Hulbert

MATT@civilwarmonitor.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Sturak

CREATIVE DIRECTOR

. . . . . . . . . . . . Patrick Mitchell

(www.ModusOp.net) . . . . . . . . Zethyn McKinley ADVERTISING@civilwarmonitor.com (559) 492 9236

ADVERTISING DIRECTOR.

CIRCULATION MANAGER .

WEBSITE

. . . . . . . . . . Howard White

hwhiteassoc@comcast.net

. . . . . . www.CivilWarMonitor.com

DIGITAL HISTORY ADVISORS

. . . . . . . .M. Keith Harris

Kevin M. Levin Robert H. Moore II Harry Smeltzer

SUBSCRIPTIONS & CUSTOMER SERVICE

CIVIL WAR MONITOR / CIRCULATION DEPT. P.O. BOX 567, SELMER, TN 38375-0567 PHONE: 877-344-7409 FAX: 731-645-7849 EMAIL: CUSTOMERSERVICE@civilwarmonitor.com DISTRIBUTION

Curtis Circulation Company www.curtiscirc.com

The Civil War Monitor [ISSN 2163-0682/print, ISSN 2163-0690/ online] is published quarterly (4 times per year) by Bayshore History, LLC (P.O. Box 428, Longport, NJ, 08403). Subscriptions: $21.95 for one year (4 issues) in the U.S., $31.95 per year in Canada, and $41.95 per year for overseas subscriptions (all U.S. funds). Postmaster: send address changes to The Civil War Monitor, P.O. Box 567, Selmer, TN 38375-0567.

Views expressed by individual authors, unless expressly stated, do not necessarily represent those of The Civil War Monitor or Bayshore History, LLC. Letters to the editor become the property of The Civil War Monitor, and may be edited. The Civil War Monitor cannot assume responsibility for unsolicited materials. The contents of the magazine may not be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of the publisher.

Copyright ©2013 by Bayshore History, LLC

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: LETTERS@civilwarmonitor.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.

2 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Editorial.indd 2

2/13/13 11:51 AM

Chambersburg Civil War Seminars & Tours experience the civil war "sesquicentennial" The years 2011 to 2015 mark the 150th Anniversary of the American Civil War. Chambersburg Civil War Seminars and Tours will commemorate the "Sesquicentennial" with seminars in 2013 that correspond with events of 150 years ago.

“CHANCELLORSVILLE”

MAY 17-19

featuring battlefield bus tours with Ed Bearss and Robert Krick, and talks by Greg Mertz, Frank O’Reilly and others. Based in Fredericksburg, Va.

“GETTYSBURG AND BEYOND”

with Ed Bearss, Jeffry Wert, Lance Herdegen, Richard Sommers, J.D. Petruzzi, Dennis Frye, Scott Mingus, Steve French and others. Seminar includes bus and walking tours of “Pickett’s Charge”, The Iron Brigade at Gettysburg, the Texas Brigade, Civilian Gettysburg, Off the Beaten Path Sites, Early’s Advance to the Susquehanna, the Retreat and the Battle of Monterey Pass, plus much more.

JULY 23-28

“THE CAVALRY AT GETTYSBURG”

OCTOBER 4-6

with Eric Wittenberg, Ed Bearss, Jeffry Wert and others.

Featuring tours of East Cavalry Field, Farnsworth’s Attack and Buford’s Cavalry.

Remember when you support Chambersburg Civil War Seminars you support battlefield preservation. $160,000.00 raised to date for preservation.

A Division of the Greater Chambersburg Chamber of Commerce 100 Lincoln Way East | Chambersburg, PA 17201 (717) 264 7101

www.ChambersburgCivilWarSeminars.org

CO-SPONSORS OF CHAMBERSBURG CIVIL WAR SEMINARS & TOURS

(866) 646 8060 www.ExploreFranklinCountyPA.com

CWM07-FOB-Editorial.indd 3

www.MarylandMemories.org

2/13/13 11:51 AM

Salvo { FA C T S , F I G U R E S & I T E M S O F I N T E R E S T }

In this Kurz & Allison lithograph titled “Siege of Vicksburg,” Union infantry commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant and warships commanded by Rear Admiral David D. Porter besiege the strategically vital Confederate city, which would surrender on July 4, 1863. FOR MORE ON VICKSBURG, TURN THE PAGE.

4 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Salvo.indd 4

2/11/13 7:06 PM

IN THIS SECTION Travels

A VISIT TO VICKSBURG

............

6

Voices

GREEN DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figures

SIZING UP BILLY YANK . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Preservation

BLUE, GRAY, AND GREEN . . . . . . . . . 14 Disunion

BOXERS, BRIEFS, AND BATTLES . . . . 16 In Focus

FREDERICKSBURG’S CURIOUS CONFEDERATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

CWM07-FOB-Salvo.indd 5

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 7:06 PM

Salvo | Travels

Destination: Vicksburg “VICKSBURG IS THE KEY…. The war can never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket.” These words, reportedly spoken by President Abraham Lincoln, echoed the thoughts of countless northerners and southerners, military and civilian, during the early years of the Civil War. Control of the Mississippi River, a vital avenue of commerce and military supply, was imperative to both sides. ¶ In the spring of 1863, Major General Ulysses S. Grant began to move his Army of the Tennessee against Vicksburg, whose Confederate garrison had been using the city’s natural defenses—its position on a high bluff at a bend in the river—to effectively block Union traffic down the Mississippi. On July 4, after months of heavy fighting and siege operations, the city known as the “Gibraltar of the Confederacy” fell to Grant, opening the way for Union control of the Mississippi, splitting the Confederacy in two, and providing Lincoln with the key to victory.

Interested in visiting Vicksburg? To help plan your trip, we’ve enlisted a couple of experts—individuals who live in, work in, or are otherwise intimately familiar with the historic city—to offer their personal sug-

gestions for what to see and do.

BEST SLEEP

| PARKER HILLS | I have been taking tour groups to the Hampton Inn & Suites in Vicksburg for several years. The Hampton is located across the street from the main entrance to Vicksburg National Military Park, and offers a free hot breakfast and a free happy hour every afternoon except Sunday. | JEFF T. GIAMBRONE | For quality and convenience, you can’t beat the Hampton Inn & Suites. For those seeking a more significant place to stay, I highly recommend Anchuca Historic Man-

THE EXPERTS

PARKER HILLS, who

retired from the U.S. Army as a brigadier general in 2001, is the founder of Battle Focus (www. battlefocus.com), a leadership training company that offers tours of Civil War battlefields.

His works include Vicksburg Campaign Driving Tour Guide (2008) and Art of Commemoration: Vicksburg National Military Park (2012).

sion and Inn. Built in 1830, one of the home’s more notable residents was Joseph Davis, brother of Confederate president Jefferson Davis. The mansion is also home to the Café Anchuca, one of the best restaurants in Vicksburg.

BEST FAMILY ACTIVITY

| P.H. | I grew up in Jackson, Mississippi, and my greatest thrill as a youngster was to visit Vicksburg National Military Park. We ran up and down the hills and re-fought the battles

JEFF T. GIAMBRONE,

a native of Bolton, Mississippi, works as a historic resources specialist at the Mississippi Department of Archives & History. His latest book, Remembering Mississippi’s Confederates, was released in October 2012.

Sunset in downtown Vicksburg

6 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Travels.indd 6

PHOTOGRAPHS BY PATRICK NIDDRIE

2/11/13 7:41 PM

until we dropped from exhaustion. In fact, a field trip to the park was the highlight of the sixth-grade school year. | J.G. | For travelers with children, a stop at the Lower Mississippi River Museum is a must. With interactive exhibits, a model of a section of the Mississippi River, and the huge ship MV Mississippi IV—a former workboat for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to explore, this museum can keep the little ones occupied for hours as they learn about life on one of the nation’s most important waterways.

BEST TIME TO BE HERE

| P.H. | May and October are my absolute favorite months in Mississippi. In May, everything seems to be coming alive, with the magnolias, crepe myrtles, wisteria, and redbuds blooming,

Clockwise, from top: The Vicksburg waterfront; the Old Court House Museum; Fort Hill; and the Anchuca Historic Mansion and Inn.

the air scented with their flowers, and the birds at their happiest. October has crystal-clear skies, shirtsleeve weather, and the hickory and sweet gums put on their red and golden attire. I love the outdoors, and these two months are superb in Vicksburg. | J.G. | October is an excellent time to visit Vicksburg, as the heat of summer is past. Best of all is the first weekend of October, for the Downtown Fall Fest. With great music, activities for the kids, and a massive flea market around the Old Court House, it has something to keep every member of the family entertained.

CAN’T MISS

| P.H. | The city and battlefield of Raymond, both of which are only a 35-minute drive from Vicksburg, are scenic and his-

toric, and wonderful places to visit. Don’t let the out-of-theway location deter you—that rural setting is also its biggest attraction. Raymond’s courthouse is beautiful and served as a Confederate hospital after the May 12, 1863, battle fought there, just as St. Mark’s Episcopal Church next door served as a Union one. There is a Confederate cemetery, and the battlefield features a walking trail and has 25 interpretive cannon representing the 22 Union and 3 Confederate guns engaged in the fight, in which Confederate forces attempted unsuccessfully to thwart the Union approach toward Vicksburg. | J.G. | The Old Court House Museum is a must-see. This national landmark, built in 1858, survived the siege of Vicksburg, and is now home to the most impressive collection of Civil War artifacts in the city.

BEST OF THE BATTLEFIELD

| P.H. | The Iowa Memorial, due to its magnificent bronze work, is my favorite spot in the Vicksburg National Military Park.

Dedicated in 1906, this memorial’s six bronze panels representing six battles pulse with energy.

Each time I visit the memorial, I see something new. I highly

7 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Travels.indd 7

2/11/13 7:41 PM

Salvo | Travels

recommend that visitors stop at the Vicksburg Convention & Visitors Bureau and pick up a free copy of a guidebook I wrote called Art of Commemoration, which discusses the details of many of the park monuments. | J.G. | My favorite spot in the Vicksburg National Military Park is Tour Stop #9, Fort Hill, the earthwork that anchored the extreme left of the Confederate line during the siege. The spot offers a magnificent view of the Mississippi, and with a little imagination you can almost see the Federal gunboats firing on Vicksburg from the river.

BEST-KEPT SECRET

| P.H. | Some folks love to tour antebellum homes, but as an old soldier, I feel most comfortable outdoors. So I take every opportunity to explore back roads in the area. Vicksburg is located in the loess (pronounced in Mississippi like the name Lois) bluffs, a formation of calcium-laden soil that erodes deeply when disturbed. So the old roads in this area are like small canyons.

They are usually gravel-surfaced, and they almost always have a canopy of moss-festooned trees.

No wonder movies such as O

Brother, Where Art Thou? were filmed in this area. You literally go back in time and can almost hear the foot and hoof prints of generations long past. | J.G. | The Vicksburg Riverfront Murals on Levee Street.

Over 30 murals are painted on the city’s floodwall, illustrating the history of the region

Above: The Vicksburg Riverfront Murals.

Below: Walnut Hills Restaurant and one of its classic southern dishes.

from prehistoric times to the present day. Painted by artist Robert Dafford, the murals are so amazingly detailed that they look more like photographs than paintings.

VICKSBURG NAVIGATOR " PLACES OF INTEREST

8

Downtown Vicksburg Fall Festival (www.visitvicksburg.com/events) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site (910 Washington St.; 601- 638-9900) Old Court House Museum (1008 Cherry St.; 601-636-0741) Raymond Battlefield Park (www.friendsofraymond.org) Vicksburg Convention & Visitors Bureau (52 Old Hwy 27; 601-636-9421) Vicksburg National Military Park (3201 Clay St.; 601-636-0583) Vicksburg Riverfront Murals (www.riverfrontmurals.com) " LODGING

4

Anchuca Historic Mansion and Inn (1010 First East St.; 888-686-0111) Hampton Inn & Suites Vicksburg (3330 Clay St.; 601-636-6100) " DINING

1

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and Restaurant (4001 South Frontage Rd.; 601-636-2115) Hot Dog Man (1710 Monroe St.; 601-629-3998) McAlister’s Deli (4200 Clay St.; 601-619-8222) Rusty’s Riverfront Grill (901 South Washington St.; 601-638-2030) Walnut Hills Restaurant (1214 Adams St.; 601-638-4910) Whataburger (3402 Halls Ferry Rd.; 601-638-9655)

8 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Travels.indd 8

PHOTOGRAPHS BY PATRICK NIDDRIE

2/11/13 7:41 PM

BEST BOOK

| P.H. | I am prejudiced on this question because I co-authored, with chief historian emeritus of the National Park Service Ed Bearss, Receding Tide: Vicksburg and Gettysburg, the Campaigns that Changed the Civil War (2010), which covers the entire Vicksburg and Gettysburg campaigns. We discuss not just where the armies fought, but also the routes the troops took and where the generals made key decisions. For the Civil War enthusiast, understanding and following the campaign trail is essential. To do this, Receding Tide is a must read. | J.G. | Warren E. Grabau’s Ninety-Eight Days: A Geographer’s View of the Vicksburg Campaign (2000). The book’s many detailed maps help to make sense of what was a very complex campaign.

Above: Rusty’s Riverfront Grill.

BEST EATS

| P.H. | I like to go to the Cracker Barrel on South Frontage Road, just off I-20, in Vicksburg because I like the southern, home-style meals—the pot roast beef, meat loaf, hot biscuits, and cornbread hit the spot. The restaurant is usually crowded, and for good reason. Whataburger on Hall’s Ferry Road offers a friendly atmosphere, great hamburgers, and large, heavy-duty

VB.2012SesquAd.7.875x5.313.qxp:Layout 1 2/1/13 10:47 AM Page 1

drink cups with easy-to-get refills, while McAlister’s Deli on Clay Street has great salads and sandwiches and speedy service.

For dinner, one of my favorite spots is Rusty’s Riverfront Grill. Try the appetizer plate of fried green tomatoes with crabmeat and hollandaise sauce— but share with someone else, or it’ll be a meal in itself. | J.G. | For a quick bite, one of my favorite places is the Hot Dog Man on Monroe Street.

I recommend the chili cheese dog with all the trimmings, and the delicious chili pie. For lunch, Walnut Hills Restaurant on Adams Street offers good old-fashioned southern cooking at reasonable prices.

For dinner, Rusty’s Riverfront is a local favorite that I highly recommend. Their blackened redfish with crawfish cream sauce is amazing. 

Vicksburg Commemorates 150 Year Anniversary:

April 1-30: Tapestry: The Pilgrimage to Vicksburg tour of homes April 5-7: Vicksburg Sesquicentennial Heritage Fair at Pemberton’’s Headquarters, the Southern Cultural Heritage Foundation Complex and the Old Courthouse Museum May 23-26: Vicksburg Sesquicentennial Signature Event at the Vicksburg National Military Park June & July: Living History Presentations Fridays –– Tuesdays at the Vicksburg National Military Park July 4: Anniversary of Vicksburg Surrender PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

July 4: Fireworks Show at the Waterfront

Scan the QR code to visit the Vicksburg Campaign’’s Sesquicentennial website.

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN DOE

CWM07-FOB-Travels.indd 9

www.keytothesouth.com www.vicksburg150.com www.facebook.com/visitvicksburg @VisitVicksburg

9 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 7:41 PM

Salvo | Voices

Green Day

“[ST. PATRICK’S DAY] IS AN IRISHMAN’S SECOND FOURTH OF JULY.”

—IRISH-BORN SOLDIER TIMOTHY J. REGAN, 13TH MASSACHUSETTS INFANTRY, WRITING IN HIS DIARY ABOUT HIS REGIMENT’S ST. PATRICK’S DAY CELEBRATION, MARCH 17, 1863

“ON ST. —JOHN R. WINTERBOTHAM PATRICK’S DAY I WENT ON A SPREE. LUCKILY OUR CAPTAIN IS AN IRISHMAN.”

AN AMERICAN-BORN OFFICER IN THE 155TH NEW YORK INFANTRY, PART OF THE CORCORAN LEGION, A BRIGADE OF IRISH REGIMENTS COMMANDED BY BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL CORCORAN (BELOW).

—UNION SOLDIER EDWARD KING WIGHTMAN, IN A LETTER DATED MARCH 27, 1864

“On they went, horses flying the track, running over the spectators, falling over the hurdles, into the ditches, breaking arms, legs &c. Never did I see such a crazy time. I will have to alter my mind if I ever go to see another Irish fair.”

—PENNSYLVANIA SOLDIER DANIEL CHISHOLM ON THE ST. PATRICK’S DAY FESTIVITIES, INCLUDING HORSE RACING, IN THE CAMP OF THE IRISH BRIGADE, MARCH 17, 1865 SOURCES: JOHN R. WINTERBOTHAM LETTERS, CHICAGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY; DAVID C. NEWTON AND KENNETH J. PLUSKAT, EDS., THE LOST CIVIL WAR DIARIES: THE DIARIES OF CORPORAL TIMOTHY J. REGAN (VICTORIA, 2003); W. SPRINGER MENGE AND J. AUGUST SHIMRAK, EDS., THE CIVIL WAR NOTEBOOK OF DANIEL CHISHOLM (NEW YORK, 1989); EDWARD G. LONGACRE, ED., FROM ANTIETAM TO FORT FISHER: THE CIVIL WAR LETTERS OF EDWARD KING WIGHTMAN, 1862-1865 (RUTHERFORD, NJ, 1985); THE DIARY OF A YOUNG OFFICER SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE WAR OF THE REBELLION (CHICAGO, 1909); ANNIE E. FOXON, “SKETCHES OF ARMY LIFE,” THE UNITED STATES SERVICE MAGAZINE, VOL. IV (NEW YORK, 1865).

“There was the inevitable quarrel. How could it, otherwise, have been complete? The general and the brigade surgeon ended in challenging each other to mortal combat, and for a time matters assumed a threatening aspect.

The following morning, however, when the effects of the nectar had subsided, the surgeon apologized in due form, and peace resumed her loving sway.”

The Hist Cont Edite Mich Cath $32.

—UNION OFFICER JOSIAH MARSHALL FAVILL, REFLECTING ON ST. PATRICK’S DAY 1863 IN HIS DIARY

“I never saw such a gay scene before…. Handsome men in gay uniform, graceful ladies with badges on their jaunty hats, pretty romping girls, the splendid horses who seemed conscious of their beauty, the soldiers free for one day from the restraints of camp, all form a pleasant picture long to be remembered.”

—MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENT ANNIE E. FOXON, RECALLING HER VISIT TO THE CAMP OF THE 9TH MASSACHUSETTS INFANTRY, AN IRISH REGIMENT, ON ST. PATRICK’S DAY 1864

Com

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

“The next of the programme was climbing the greased pole for a furlough and fifteen dollars in cash; then foot racing, racing in sacks, horse racing, mule racing, and jumping, a purse being offered to the victor in each contest; a greased and soaped pig was let loose, the one who could catch and hold him to be the owner.

Three rations of whiskey was issued during the day….”

Linc Leon Robe $34.

1863 Edite and $32.

*V

4Y

10

3V %PW FS

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Voices.indd 10

2/11/13 7:58 PM

Learn about Lincoln

through his Family and Friends

Lincoln’s Forgotten Friend, Leonard Swett Robert S. Eckley $34.95, cloth

Giant in the Shadows: The Life of Robert T. Lincoln Jason Emerson $39.95, cloth

The Madness of Mary Lincoln Jason Emerson $19.95, paper

Lincoln’s Ladder to the Presidency: The Eighth Judicial Circuit Guy C. Fraker $34.95, cloth

The Lincoln Family Album Mark E. Neely Jr. and Harold Holzer $24.95, paper

8LI ;VMXMRKW SJ 0MRGSPR´W ;LMXI ,SYWI 7IGVIXEVMIW )HMXIH F] 1MGLEIP &YVPMRKEQI

The Mary Lincoln Enigma: Historians on America’s Most Controversial First Lady Edited by Frank J. Williams and Michael Burkhimer, epilogue by Catherine Clinton $32.95, cloth

The Dark Days of Abraham Lincoln’s Widow, as Revealed by Her Own Letters Myra Helmer Pritchard, Jason Emerson $19.95, cloth

Coming March 2013

Coming April 2013

Abraham Lincoln: The Observations of John G. Nicolay and John Hay $24.95, cloth

An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln: John G. Nicolay’s Interviews and Essays $19.95, paper

With Lincoln in the White House: Letters, Memoranda, and Other Writings of John G. Nicolay, 1860–1865 FORWK š SDSHU

Lincoln’s Journalist: John Hay’s Anonymous Writings for the Press, 1860–1864 $24.95, paper

At Lincoln’s Side: John Hay’s Civil War Correspondence and Selected Writings $22.95, paper

0MRGSPR´W WIGVIXEVMIW EW WIIR MR XLI QSZMI 0MRGSPR Coming June 2013

A l s o A v a i l a b l e i n t h e Concise Lincoln Library

1863: Lincoln’s Pivotal Year Edited by Harold Holzer and Sara Vaughn Gabbard $32.95, cloth

Grant at Vicksburg: The General and the Siege Michael B. Ballard $32.95, cloth

Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley Gregory A. Borchard

Lincoln and Medicine Glenna R. Schroeder-Lein

Lincoln and the Civil War Michael Burlingame

Lincoln and Race Richard Striner

Lincoln and the Constitution Brian R. Dirck

Lincoln as Hero Frank J. Williams

Lincoln and the Election of 1860 Michael S. Green

Abraham and Mary Lincoln Kenneth J. Winkle

Lincoln and Reconstruction John C. Rodrigue

ZZZ FRQFLVHOLQFROQOLEUDU\ FRP š FORWK

*VSQ 7SYX L I V R - P P M R S M W 9 R MZI VW M X ] 4 VI W W 4YFPMWLIV SJ XLI 4E TIVW SJ 9P]WWIW 7 +VE RX

3VHIV EX [[[ WMYTVIWW GSQ SV F] GEPPMRK %PWS EZEMPEFPI EX QENSV VIXEMP MRHITIRHIRX ERH SRPMRI FSSOWXSVIW CWM07-FOB-Voices.indd 11

Supported by a grant from the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation

2/11/13 7:58 PM

Salvo | Figures

Sizing Up Billy Yank “THE MOST STRIKING THING about Union soldiers was their diversity,” wrote historian Bell Wiley in The Life of Billy Yank, his classic study of the men who served in the U.S. Army during the Civil War. “Indeed, there was hardly a type or class of any conceivable kind that was not represented in the Northern ranks.” While Wiley’s observation focused on Union soldiers’ backgrounds and occupations, the same might also be said of their appearance, as evidenced by these statisics, based on data collected from regimental muster rolls and published shortly after the war by the United States Sanitary Commission.

EYE COLOR (all soldiers): Blue............. 44.9% Gray ............ 24.3% Hazel ............ 12.8% Dark .............10.4% Black ............. 7.6% Highest proportion of blue-eyed soldiers: Vermont

HAIR COLOR (all soldiers): Brown ........ 30.6% Dark ........... 25.0% Light .......... 23.5% Black........... 13.6% Sandy ........... 3.7% Red .............. 2.6% Gray .............. 1.0%

AVERAGE HEIGHT 5´7.6˝ Tallest soldiers (avg.) .....West Virginia (5´8.4˝) Shortest soldiers (avg.)..... New Jersey (5´6.6˝)

Highest proportion of redheaded soldiers: Indiana

TALLEST UNION SOLDIER: Lieutenant David Van Buskirk, 27th Indiana Infantry (6´10.5˝) SHORTEST UNION SOLDIER

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

(over 21 years of age): a volunteer in the 192nd Ohio Infantry, 24 years old (3´4˝)

12

SOURCES: Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union (Baton Rouge, 1952); Benjamin Apthorp Gould, Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers (New York, 1869).

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Figures.indd 12

2/11/13 9:47 PM

NEW CIVIL WAR TITLES from The Kent State University Press

A SELF-EVIDENT LIE

RICHMOND MUST FALL

Southern Slavery and the Threat to American Freedom

The Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, October 1864

Jeremy J. Tewell

Hampton Newsome

If slavery was the beneficent and paternalistic institution that southerners claimed, could it not be applied with equal morality to whites as well as blacks?

Author Jeremy Tewell explores the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the context of slavery in America during the Civil War for both whites and blacks.

As America’s attention was focused on the presidential election, substantial military operations were taking place. With so much at stake, in both the election and in control of Richmond, both sides took risks to seek out the advantage, laying groundwork for the war’s conclusion.

Available in September 2013

“A PUNISHMENT ON THE NATION�

An Iowa Soldier Endures the Civil War Edited by Brian Craig Miller New Englander Silas W. Haven, who fought with the 27th Iowa Volunteer Infantry, believed that the war was divine punishment for the sin of slavery. Brian Craig Miller uses Haven’s vivid and descriptive letters to his family to examine how Haven’s persistent faith, his love of country, his commitment to his family, and his belief in the war’s moral purpose allowed him to endure one of the most traumatic chapters in American history.

RACE AND RECRUITMENT

Civil War History Readers, Volume 2 Edited by John David Smith This is the second of a multivolume series reintroducing the most influential of the more than 500 articles published in the Civil War History journal. In this volume, John David Smith has selected groundbreaking essays that examine slavery, abolitionism, emancipation, Lincoln and race, and African Americans as soldiers and veterans.

Available from your local bookstore or from www.KentStateUniversityPress.com 800-247-6553

The Kent State University Press Ĺ?Ĺ?Ĺ?Ť ‍ה‏ĜįĿĎĿņ t ‍ד‏IJĝŠ‍ח‏ľĜğ ŠŠŞŠŞ ĹœĹœĹœĹ?

CWM07-FOB-Figures.indd 13

2/11/13 9:47 PM

Salvo | Preservation

Blue, Gray, and Green PRESIDENT, CIVIL WAR TRUST

DURING THE LAST 13 years I’ve spoken with countless officials at all levels of government—from county planning staff to state representatives to the secretary of the interior. And while politicians may have a less than rosy reputation, I can say that these hard-working men and women truly want what’s best for their communities. ¶ In our meetings, I have tried to convey the many benefits of preserving Civil War battlefields and have seen what makes our mission resonate with these decision makers. Respect for American history and the events that shaped our nation drives some. With others, it is a personal interest in history or curiosity about an ancestor.

More still find the environmental benefits of open space appealing or are drawn to our principles of smart, balanced growth. But more often than not, we find common ground on one thing: money.

As a taxpayer, I’m thankful for this. Like you, I’d rather pay for measurable, lasting improvements than superfluous projects.

As a recovering politician—I spent time in the Maryland General Assembly, and was a county executive and state secretary of transportation—I do my best to assure government officials that battlefield preservation fits into

this category.

My arguments began to pack a lot more punch in 2005, when the Trust published a report looking into the issue more formally. We surveyed visitors to battlefield parks, crunched the numbers, and, for the first time, could demonstrate the benefits of a wellpreserved and well-interpreted historic site for local communities. The economics beat my anecdotes: Hard data that showed how many visitors it takes to support a community job got people

***

Look for regular preservation news and updates from the Civil War Trust in future issues.

To learn more about the organization and how you can help, visit www.civilwar.org

Visitors walk toward the Meade Pyramid on the Fredericksburg battlefield during the battle’s 150th anniversary commemoration last December.

to sit up and take notice.

It’s important to remember that while battlefields are natural economic engines, they still need fuel—and that’s where preservation and interpretation come in. The more there is to see and do at these sites, the longer visitors will stay and the more money they’ll spend in local shops, restaurants, and hotels.

In 2011, as we entered the sesquicentennial commemoration with its anniversary events, we knew that Civil War sites would see a rise in visitation. Still, how much economic impact would this surge have? The Civil War Trust turned to the Harbinger Consulting Group to take a fresh look at the interplay between history and economic vitality.

The result is our updated report, Blue, Gray and Green. Not only does it affirm our earlier research, but it offers insights into how significant anniversary events boost already strong economies. For instance, shops in Old Town Manassas, Virginia, saw 55 percent more sales tax revenue during July 2011 compared to July 2010.

The report is available at www.civilwar.org/economicimpact. Please read it—even if you already support battlefield preservation for its historic significance, you’ll gain new insight into its tangible benefits. And by knowing how much good you’re doing the local community, maybe you’ll extend your next battlefield trip by a day or two.

C I V I L WA R T R U S T

BY O. JAMES LIGHTHIZER,

14 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Preservation.indd 14

2/11/13 8:52 PM

Discover new dimensions of the Civil War in 1863 through lectures, discussions, and battlefield tours with leading experts – Gary Gallagher, Peter Carmichael, Allen Guelzo, Scott Hartwig, Carol Reardon, Kent Masterson Brown, Glenn LaFantasie, and many more.

Conference topics include Cowardice at Gettysburg, the Richmond Bread Riots, the War in the West, and Decisive Moments of the Gettysburg Campaign. Battlefield tours will explore topics such as Little Round Top, Robert E. Lee’s Retreat, and George Gordon Meade at Gettysburg, with staff rides at Gettysburg and Chancellorsville. www.gettysburg.edu/cwi/conference

photography by hal ardell

WANT MORE CIVIL WAR?

GETTYSBURG COLLEGE C I V I L WA R I N S T I T U T E SUMMER CONFERENCE JUNE 21 – 25, 2013

Stay connected with The Civil War Monitor wherever you are!

@CivilWarMonitor

www.facebook.com/ CivilWarMonitor

CWM07-FOB-Preservation.indd 15

15 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 8:52 PM

Salvo | Disunion

Boxers, Briefs, and Battles

BY JEAN HUETS CIVIL WAR SOLDIERS CARRIED many valuables: letters from home, photographs, and locks of hair from wives, sweethearts, and babies. But they held a less romantic article much nearer to their hearts, and sometimes much dearer: their undergarments. ¶ History favors epic battles, stirring speeches, presidents and generals, and the economic and political forces that transform the lives of millions. Yet mere underwear has a story to tell, a story that covers the breadth of the Civil War, from home front to battlefield. ¶ A full suit of mid-19th-century men’s underwear consisted of a shirt, “drawers,” and socks. Like today, men’s underwear at the time, unlike women’s, did not provide structure to the body. Rather, cover, warmth, and hygiene were the order of the day—though the hygiene part did not always work out.

The term for undershirt was usually just “shirt”; shirts as we know them today were often called blouses or top-shirts.

Undershirts were square-cut pullovers, voluminous and long.

Buttons and sometimes laces at the neck fastened them.

Drawers, meanwhile, were sometimes knee-length, usually ankle-length. Two or three buttons closed a center fly. Lacing or a buckle at the back waistband adjusted the fit. Tape ties or drawstrings at the ankle (or knee) kept drawer legs from riding up. Possibly the drawstrings also functioned as sock garters.

For many men of the period, shirt tails stood in for drawers.

Ribbed and knit fabric primarily went to socks, which were nearly always woolen. When not hand-knit, the tubular body was knit at mills, with heels and toes added by hand.

Mills provided the fabric, which women pieceworkers assembled at home by hand or with sewing machines. “In certain districts” of rural New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, reported one New England

manufacturer, “the whole female population is employed, in spare moments, at this work.”

It’s nearly impossible to imagine rural women enjoying “spare moments” while running farms in the absence of men, in addition to housekeeping and child care. Women who relied solely on piecework struggled as well. One “smart operator” finished four pairs of drawers daily, breaking “long enough to make herself a cup of tea and eat a piece of bread,” reported The New York Times. For her 12-hour day, she earned 16 and a quarter cents. Women in mills might make even less. By comparison, a Union private earned about 43 cents a day, plus rations and clothing.

For subsistence, patriotism, love, or profit, women North and South worked hard to supplement army-issue underwear, sometimes ripping their own clothes apart for fabric. And many soldiers, especially those in the South, preferred their underwear homemade; wives, sisters, and enslaved women stitched a variety of fabrics, especially canton flannel (cotton flannel fleeced on one side) and

This article is excerpted from Disunion, a New York Times online series following the course of the Civil War as it unfolded.

Read more at www.nytimes.com/ disunion.

cotton-and-wool blend flannel, into drawers and shirts.

Underwear was always in short supply. Prisoners of war suffered most. Lincoln’s quartermaster general, Montgomery Meigs, stipulated that “from the 30th of April to the 1st of October neither drawers nor socks will be issued to prisoners of war, except to the sick.” A Union prisoner testified that hundreds of his fellow captives went “without even a pair of drawers to cover their nakedness.”

Such shortages made underwear coveted spoils of war. When General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s men raided a Union supply depot, “sumptuous underclothing was fitted over limbs sunburnt, sore and vermin-splotched.” A Confederate cadet spotted his own monogram on underwear worn by a Federal whose pants were cut open to tend a wound.

The soldier confessed to looting a Lynchburg, Virginia, house where the cadet had stowed his trunk.

Getting fresh underwear by issue, mail, or pillage was easier than laundering and carrying extra. One Confederate soldier, Carlton McCarthy, preferred to wear all his clothes “until the enemy’s knapsacks or the folks at home supplied a change. Certainly it did not pay to carry around clean clothes while waiting for the time to use them.”

Francis Ackerman, a volunteer from New York, gleaned fresh clothes from the fields at

16 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Disunion.indd 16

2/11/13 9:50 PM

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

the Third Battle of Winchester, in September 1864. His account of finding a riderless horse mingles the grotesque tragedy of battle with the dry humor so characteristic of war memoirs.

“I discovered a horse with one of his legs shot off, on his back a good outfit,” he wrote. “Feeling rather lively from life inside my clothes,” he “concluded to examine the wounded horse, and was rewarded by finding a clean full suit of underwear. I stripped on the battle field, and with thankful heart put it on, the first change I had in six weeks.” More fastidious men changed into clean underwear faithfully— once a week.

Regardless of how often one changed his drawers, the louse ruled. “It preyed alike on the just and the unjust. It inserted its bill as confidingly into the body of the major-general as of the lowest private,” wrote one memoirist. Laundering in boiling water didn’t rout the “gray backs”; instead, taking a page from their battlefield playbooks, soldiers relied on “skirmishing,” or painstaking search-and-de-

A multitasking Union infantryman dries his recently laundered clothes while on the march in this Edwin Forbes sketch. Soldiers on both sides considered a clean, well-fitting suit of underwear a luxury.

stroy efforts to pick them off one by one.

In any case, boiling underwear could get a man into hot water. When General Thomas Lanier Clingman of North Carolina wrote his mother to send drawers, she answered back, “I am certain that your flannel is injured by washing. It should not be put in very hot water or boiled at all,” and it should be washed in “moderately warm water with soap and rinsed in warm soap suds, which will keep it soft and free from shrinking. At least, you can direct your washer to do so.” General Clingman was 50 years old when his mom told him how to wash his underwear.

Even clean and vermin-free, underwear was rarely comfortable. Harsh laundering subtracted durability and comfort.

Availability and cost, not fit or season, dictated cut and fabric.

In summer a soldier sweltered in flannel or discarded his drawers and got chafed raw by rough, sweaty wool pants.

The manufacture and use of underwear reflects several aspects of the Civil War, and it

holds a mirror to our own times.

Labor was both empowered and exploited by the cascade of contract money that poured in for its production, which in turn helped usher in the corruption and wealth of the Gilded Age. Slavery and regionalism weren’t the only things that fractured our country. A chasm existed between the “dainty men” in their boiled shirts and the common herd in homespun plaid and flannel, between impoverished millworkers and pieceworkers— often immigrants—and women whose elegance was purchased by their husbands’ manufacturing enterprises.

Most of all, the humble suit of underwear highlights the Civil War soldier himself: his endurance and fortitude, his ability to make do with whatever conditions and supplies came along, and his sense of humor, which pervades even the most dire accounts of battle and camp life. is publisher of Circling Rivers, an independent press dedicated to historical fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. She is writing a family saga set in the 19th century.

JEAN HUETS

17 DRAWING BY EDWIN FORBES

CWM07-FOB-Disunion.indd 17

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 9:50 PM

Salvo | In Focus

Fredericksburg’s Curious Confederates

By Tktktktktk

Contributed by Bob Zeller, president of the Center for Civil War Photography, a non-profit organization devoted to collecting, preserving, and digitizing Civil War images for the public benefit. To learn more about the CCWP and its mission, visit www.civilwarphotography.org

PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

ON APRIL 7, 1863, Union officer Andrew J. Russell received a new assignment: Take images of the destroyed railroad bridge that had spanned the Rappahannock River into Confederate-held Fredericksburg, Virginia, so military engineers could study them and possibly repair the bridge. Russell, a captain in the U.S. Military Railroads—an agency established by the War Department to operate rail lines seized during the war—was the only full-time army photographer on either side. He spent most of his time photographing bridges, engineering projects, and, of course, trains.

The following day, Russell took his camera and tripod to Stafford Heights, Unionoccupied ground on the bank of the Rappahannock opposite Fredericksburg. He began to take images, capturing the ruined bridge and stone piers from several angles.

As he did so, Confederate soldiers in Fredericksburg—first just one man, then a larger group—began to emerge from behind cover to see what the Yankee was up to.

When they realized the photographer posed no threat, the Rebels swarmed out on what was left of the bridge’s western terminus to pose for Russell’s camera. Russell snapped this shot of a Confederate officer, resplendent in his gray uniform, and a group of his men, most likely all members of Brigadier General William Barksdale’s Mississippi Brigade. In doing so, he captured the first clear photograph ever of enemy soldiers across a live battlefront.

18 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-InFocus.indd 18

2/12/13 3:48 PM

COURTESY BOB ZELLER

PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

Above: Tktktktk

19 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-InFocus.indd 19

2/12/13 3:48 PM

Casualties of War

Monroe Bogan

B Y A M Y M U R R E L L TAY L O R

EST BOGAN WAS by all accounts “peaceful and obedient” as he waited in a Union military prison for his fate to be decided in February 1864. Charged with the “awful crime of murder,” as one official put it, Bogan had watched in silence as his court-martial trial unfolded over six days, not allowed to testify on his own behalf while multiple witnesses described the fatal events in detail, over and over again, until the court was ready to issue its findings. The verdict, in the end, was unequivocal: West Bogan was guilty and sentenced “[t]o be hanged by the neck till he is dead, at such time and place as the Commanding General may direct.” It was a devastating outcome—especially so for a slave like Bogan, who may have once equated the Union with freedom. Now the defenders of the Emancipation Proclamation were going to kill him.¹ West Bogan’s life up until this point had revolved around the hard, physical labor of harvesting cotton for a 28-year-old planter named Monroe Bogan. A member of an extended slaveholding family that had its roots in South Carolina, Monroe had migrated west in the 1850s to the cotton-planting regions near Helena, Arkansas, a Mississippi River town located between Memphis and Vicksburg. Here Monroe, like so many other

young planters, would dream of building an empire of wealth and mastery on the backs of his slaves. It is not clear if West made that journey with his master, or if he was born into slavery in Arkansas and purchased when Monroe arrived; it is not even known how old West was at the time of the trial.² What is known is that by the time the war came, West was enslaved to a loyal Confederate. Monroe likely supported the South’s secession from the very beginning, but it took until June 1862 for him to enlist in a newly formed Arkansas regiment. Monroe had every reason to hesitate or even resist taking up arms: Service in the Confederacy would render his slaveholding enterprise vulnerable in his absence. This no doubt

MONROE BOGAN BORN:

1835, in Union County, South Carolina DIED: December 15, 1863, in Phillips County, Arkansas WAR SERVICE: Enlisted in Co. A, Cocke’s Regiment, Arkansas Infantry, in June 1862.

Deserted five months later.

DETAILS: According to the U.S. Census, Bogan in 1860 owned $60,000 in real estate as well as 37 slaves— men, women, and children—ranging in age from one to 49 years old.

troubled him, given that his control over his slave property had already seemed more desperate than assured before the war. He had a reputation in his neighborhood as an especially “exacting” and “cruel” master, denying his slaves rest on Sundays and whipping someone nearly every day, occasionally replacing the whip itself with other objects, like a chair. Service in the Confederate army put yet another weapon in his hands, although he never climbed the leadership ranks and left behind an undistinguished service record.³ After Monroe left, West and the other enslaved men, women, and children living on the property continued to work the fields by day and retire at night to their quarters, a cluster of 10 small dwellings. There may have been some tensions among the residents in this close, confining space, as a few later recounted that West was generally “peaceable” but given to a temper if “pestered.” Yet within a month of their master’s departure, the ground beneath them gradually began to shift. First came the arrival of Union troops to occupy nearby Helena in July; next came the announcement

by President Abraham Lincoln of his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September. Both portended enormous change for the Bogan slaves: The Union army, now an army of liberation, was bringing freedom within reach.⁴ At least that’s how Monroe Bogan saw it from a distance— and why, after apparently failing to receive a discharge, he did what so many other desperate

20 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Casualties.indd 20

2/11/13 9:06 PM

IMAGES COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR

soldiers did: He deserted. In November 1862 Monroe returned home, “absent without leave,” as his service record documented; the defense of his plantation was now most pressing on his mind. As fall turned to winter, and Lincoln’s proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863, Monroe juggled the demands of keeping his slaves working and keeping the Confederate authorities off his deserting back.

He took care of the latter on April 18, 1863, when he paid for a substitute to serve in his place, but this came too late to secure his position at home. Just one week earlier, in response to the Union army’s decision to begin enlisting black men in Arkansas, three of Monroe’s enslaved men fled to Helena to join the 1st Arkansas, African Descent, which later became the 46th USCT (United States Colored Troops).⁵ West Bogan was not one of them. This could not have been because West lacked the desire for freedom or that he feared taking up arms to defend his interests. He would show soon enough that neither was true.

It could have been because of

Above: A sketch of the scene where Monroe Bogan met his death, from the trial record. Below: Abraham Lincoln’s notation in which he “disapproved” West Bogan’s sentence.

the risk involved, knowing that escaping the plantation did not necessarily mean a safe arrival in Union lines, or because he feared leaving behind family members or other relations. Whatever the reason, West continued to work in the cotton fields for another eight months. His presence on the plantation would hardly have been reassuring to his master, though, for it takes little imagination to envision how the dynamics of slavery had

changed: Here was a weakened master, determined to fight for his enterprise and desperate to hold on, who now had a slave who could see that change was coming, but was not yet part of it and may have been frustrated.

It was a combustible mix.

So it was probably no surprise to those who observed them that the two men came to blows on December 15, 1863. In the early morning hours, as he arose and prepared to return to the fields, West encountered his master just outside his cabin.

One of the other residents of the quarters, an enslaved woman named Maria Bogan, was inside her cabin nursing her infant when she overheard what transpired next. Several children came running into her dwelling shouting, “Master is trying to whip West,” and Maria went to the door just in time to see West strike back with an ax. She quickly turned and shielded the children—and } CONT. ON P. 73

21 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Casualties.indd 21

2/11/13 9:06 PM

Battlefield Echoes

MOPs, MOEs, and Chancellorsville

E T H A N

S .

R A F U S E

N THE AFTERMATH OF his army’s defeat at Gettysburg, General Robert E. Lee welcomed a brother of Secretary of War James Seddon to Army of Northern Virginia headquarters. Curious as to the public’s opinion of his performance, Lee asked him, “[F]rom what you have observed, are the people as much depressed at the battle of Gettysburg as the newspapers appear to indicate?” The Seddon brother told Lee that he believed that the newspaper reports were accurate. Lee then proceeded to expound on “how little value is to be attached to popular sentiment in such matters” by offering a rather surprising assessment of the Confederate victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

“At Fredericksburg we gained a battle,” Lee remarked, “inflicting very severe loss on the enemy in men and material; our people were greatly elated—I was much depressed. We had really accomplished nothing; we had not gained a foot of ground, and I knew the enemy could easily replace the men he had lost….

At Chancellorsville we gained another victory; our people were wild with delight—I, on the contrary, was more depressed than after Fredericksburg.”¹ How could this be? What kind of twisted thinking could lead Lee to judge Chancellorsville— where he had half the manpower of the Union army but, through

bold and skillful generalship, was able to force it to retreat from the field—so harshly?

A FUNDAMENTAL modern military principle is to “continuously assess the operational environment and the progress of operations.” And the first step toward a successful assessment is deciding what to measure and how to measure it. Commanders often find two concepts helpful in assessment: measures of performance, or MOPs (which ask the question, “Are we doing things right?”), and measures of effectiveness, or MOEs (which ask, “Are we doing the right things?”). Those who understand the difference know that joint forces need to “do the right things” (succeed at MOEs) to achieve objectives, not just

THE CHANCELLORSVILLE CAMPAIGN DATE:

April 30 to May 6, 1863 LOCATION: Spotsylvania County, Virginia RESULT:

Confederate victory

COMMANDERS:

Robert E. Lee (CSA, above); Joseph Hooker (USA) QUOTABLE:

“My God! My God! What will the country say?”

—Abraham Lincoln’s reported reaction to news of the Union defeat at the Battle of Chancellorsville

OBVIOUSLY, LEE and his command did many things right in the Chancellorsville Campaign.

He correctly identified Major General Joseph Hooker’s turning movement as the Union main effort and then compelled the Federals to give up terrain they seized during the campaign by forcing them back across the Rappahannock River. But was reclaiming that terrain an MOE, and therefore sufficient cause for the celebration that followed? Or was Lee correct in seeing it as merely an MOP? In other words, did the Army of Northern Virginia do things right but not do the right things?

Answering these questions, of course, requires identifying what the right things were. While the Confederacy could have been justifiably proud of its military performance in 1862, its strategic situation was badly deteriorating by the spring of 1863. The Union army had made up for the losses in manpower it had suffered the previous year, the

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

B Y

“do things right” (succeed at MOPs).² A superb example of someone confusing the two took place in April 1975 in Hanoi. “You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,” an American military officer told a North Vietnamese officer. “That may be so,” the North Vietnamese officer replied, “but it is also irrelevant.”³ Victory on the battlefield can be an MOE, if it helps achieve the war’s strategic ends.

If not—or worse, if it is counterproductive to that effort—a battlefield victory is little more than an MOP.

22 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FOB-Echoes.indd 22

2/11/13 9:03 PM

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Above: Tktktktk

Union blockade was tightening its grip, and Confederate arms were on the brink of a catastrophic defeat along the Mississippi River.

However satisfying the December 1862 victory at Fredericksburg may have been to others in the Confederacy, Lee knew that his country did not need another bloody battle along the Rappahannock River that resulted in the Union army merely retracing its steps to its camps.

Indeed, Lee had been “much depressed” by Fredericksburg, while in Washington, President Abraham Lincoln had looked over the results of the battle— one in which no one could deny that their generals had performed poorly—and found a silver lining, musing: “[I]f the same battle were to be fought over again, every day, through a week of days, with the same rela-

While the Confederate victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville (depicted above) is still considered one of General Robert E. Lee’s greatest military achievements, Lee himself found little to celebrate in the result.

tive results, the army under Lee would be wiped out to its last man, the Army of the Potomac would still be a mighty host.”⁴ Yet a far more damaging battle is what Lee got in May 1863 at Chancellorsville. It ended with the Federals re-crossing the Rappahannock River after inflicting over 12,000 casualties on Lee’s army, a casualty rate of over 20 percent. The cost to the Union army came to about 17,000—by no means insignificant, but still less than 15 percent of the Federal force.

Making matters worse, Lee had thrown just about every unit in his army into the fight, while nearly three entire Union corps had been only minimally engaged. If the course of the war in the East was ultimately decided by how long it took until the Army of Northern Virginia was no longer combat effective—if

that was an MOE—then Lee was absolutely correct in his woeful assessment of the campaign.

Of course, the counterpoint is to consider Lee’s alternatives.

He certainly could have been less aggressive in his response to Federal movements. (There is little doubt that Lee was fortunate that Hooker chose to retreat when he did, which denied Lee the opportunity to launch what would have certainly been a bloody—and probably futile—final assault against an impregnable Federal line on May 6.) Still, given Lee’s options and Hooker’s clear determination to not repeat the mistake of Fredericksburg by launching pointless attacks on entrenched Confederate positions, it is difficult to see the Confederates accomplishing as much as they did with a more cautious battle plan.⁵ Alternately, Lee } CONT. ON P. 74

23 LITHOGRAPH BY KURZ & ALLISON

CWM07-FOB-Echoes.indd 23

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 9:03 PM

PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

Linc 24 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 24

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN DOE

2/12/13 10:03 PM

coln PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S NEW MOVIE HAS BEEN DEEMED AN INSTANT CLASSIC, GARNERING ACCLAIM FOR ITS ACTING AND EARNING WELL OVER $100 MILLION TO DATE. BUT HOW DOES IT STAND UP AS A PIECE OF HISTORY? WE’VE ENLISTED FIVE TOP CIVIL WAR SCHOLARS— ALL EXPERTS ON THE REAL-LIFE PEOPLE BEHIND THE LEADING CHARACTERS—TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE FILM’S PORTRAYALS. PHOTOGRAPHS BY DAVID JAMES Daniel Day-Lewis is contemplative as President Abraham Lincoln in a scene from Steven Spielberg's Lincoln.

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN DOE

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 25

25 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/12/13 10:03 PM

Daniel Day-Lewis/ Abraham Lincoln

BY GERALD J. PROKOPOWICZ Ţ Ţ A professor of

WHEN THIS ESTEEMED JOURNAL asked me to review the performance of the lead actor in the recent, much-talked-about Lincoln movie, my reaction was that I am not a drama critic, nor do I play one on TV, so I’m not qualified to comment history at East on the technical merits of anyone’s acting. But I Carolina University, Prokopowicz hosts agreed, with the understanding that all I can ofthe long-running fer is whether the portrayal of President Abrapodcast Civil War Talk Radio (www. ham Lincoln has obvious failings that will disturb impedimentsofthe well-informed viewer’s suspension of disbewar.org). His most lief. To get started on the assignment, I watched recent book is Did Lincoln Own an online trailer, and what I saw did not make Slaves? And Other me look forward to going to the theater. BenjaFrequently Asked Questions About min Walker was not quite tall enough, and far Abraham Lincoln too young and smooth of face to make a convinc(2008). ing Lincoln, which I feared would interfere with my enjoyment of scenes like the one in which he jumps from the roof of one railroad car to the next, wielding a silver ax and fighting to the death with a Confederate vampire. I was prepared to write a rather strongly worded review when I learned with some relief that there was another recent Lincoln movie.

The trailer for the Daniel Day-Lewis version was almost equally alarming. It showed Lincoln silently sitting, listening, rocking, or riding a horse slowly, while a voice-over offered snippets of lines from what seemed like everyone in Civil War-era Washington except Lincoln. When Day-Lewis finally did speak, he shouted and pointed his finger at members of his cabinet, something that the real Lincoln did not characteristically do.

Fortunately, in contrast with many Hollywood productions, the movie proved to be much better than the trailer. There are not that many noisy or visually dramatic scenes in this detailed drama of political procedure, and even fewer with Lincoln in them, so packing all of them into a 135-second preview didn’t give a very accurate sense of what was to come. Day-Lewis’ Lincoln turned out to be neither histrionic nor a passive marble man, but someone who looks, sounds, and acts enough like what the sources tell us about the original that one can watch the movie without being distracted by how good (or poor) a job Day-Lewis is doing.

For the role of Lincoln, that may be just about the best one can

Day-Lewis gives us “a Lincoln who looks very much like the beard-and-stovepipehat image, but acts like a person rather than a caricature.”

expect. The highest achievement possible for an actor portraying a historical character is for his or her performance to assume that character’s image in the public mind, the way most people think of General George Patton as looking like George C. Scott, or Jake LaMotta like Robert De Niro, or Moses like Charlton Heston. Lincoln’s image is simply too well known for anyone to do this, no matter how strong the physical resemblance. The publishers of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals (2005), on which the screenplay was based, may gain a few sales by putting Day-Lewis’ photo on the cover of the current edition, but there’s no chance of Day-Lewis’ image permanently replacing Lincoln’s. When copies of that book show up on remainder tables in a few years, some people will wonder, “Who’s the guy on the cover dressed like Lincoln?” but no one will be saying, “Who is Daniel Day-Lewis supposed to be in this picture?”

That he looks sufficiently Lincolnesque to avoid drawing undue attention to his appearance is all to his credit, and all one can ask for.

How he sounds is another story. No moviegoer has heard a recording of Lincoln’s voice, unlike the voices of more recent historical figures like JFK or FDR, against which to compare the film

26 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 26

2/12/13 10:03 PM

A L L I M A G E S : 2012 D R E A M W O R K S I I D I S T R I B U T I O N C O ., L L C A N D T W E N T I E T H C E N T U R Y F OX F I L M C O R P O R AT I O N . A L L R I G H TS R E S E R V E D .

Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis), accompanied by an escort of Union cavalry, examines the carnage caused by the fighting outside Petersburg, Virginia. Lincoln toured the battlefield on April 3, 1865, the day after Confederate forces evacuated the city.

version. If there is an archetypal Lincoln voice in the public mind, it is Raymond Massey’s in Abe Lincoln in Illinois (1940). Massey’s commanding baritone fits the heroic scale of the Lincoln Monument, but it doesn’t resemble the tenor with a Kentucky twang that contemporaries described.

More recent actors have worked consciously to recreate Lincoln’s voice as it likely sounded, most notably Sam Waterston in Ken Burns’ The Civil War (1990), Gore Vidal’s Lincoln (1988), and stage presentations with Lincoln author Harold Holzer.

Waterston also provided the voice of Lincoln in the audio exhibits at the late, lamented Lincoln Museum of Fort Wayne, Indiana, where I participated as staff historian in the writing and recording of those exhibits, and then heard Waterston’s Lincoln voice every working day for nine years.

No actor has studied the descriptions of Lincoln’s voice or put more effort into re-creating it than Waterston; Day-Lewis, whose intense preparation for and immersion into the role of Lincoln is already legendary, presents an interpretation remarkably similar to Waterston’s. It’s a little lower in pitch but very close in cadence and accent, and conveys the president’s weariness, self-possession, and determination to get the Thirteenth Amend-

ment passed. Day-Lewis’ face won’t take the place of Lincoln’s, but it would be fitting and proper if his voice were to replace Massey’s as the one that people hear in their heads when they visit the Lincoln Memorial.

Day-Lewis’ voice is particularly successful in his storytelling.

Lincoln used stories for many purposes: usually to make a point, but also to soothe hurt feelings, distract opponents, relieve stress, or entertain a crowd. “Storytelling as an emollient saves me much friction and distress,” as Lincoln put it. Day-Lewis communicates the instrumental nature of Lincoln’s storytelling, letting the audience see the reason behind each recital, while telling the stories effectively enough to make a modern movie audience laugh out loud.

Lincoln was our most humorous president, but on the printed page, his stories flop around like fish on the deck or just lie there still and cold, making it difficult for authors to convince modern readers of how funny Lincoln was. Given the opportunity to tell some humorous stories in the context of a long and otherwise serious movie, as Lincoln told them during a long and dreadful war, Day-Lewis effectively brings them back to life.

Day-Lewis’ voice and storytelling are critical to Lincoln, because it is a wordy film. It necessarily uses words to explain the complex political concepts that underlie the plot, but it also uses words for almost everything it wants to express. It’s about as close to a book on the screen as can be imagined. For example, where another movie might use a flashback to visually show what happened when Lincoln’s carriage was sabotaged in July 1863 (resulting in a

27 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 27

2/12/13 10:03 PM

serious head injury to Mary Lincoln), this one not only uses words to make the viewer aware of this little-known assassination attempt, it conveys the scene through dialogue between Abraham and Mary rather than having a narrator explain it. The script wrings full value out of every word, requiring the viewer to pay close attention in order to follow the historical narrative. On the few occasions when it employs visual metaphors in place of speech, it has mixed success, most notably in the scene where Lincoln slaps his son Robert. In earlier scenes in which the president and his wife are torn over whether to allow Robert to enlist, Day-Lewis establishes the anguish that Lincoln feels between his duty and his care for his wife’s fragile psyche, already damaged by the loss of their son Willie. His sudden physical act is not only shockingly out of character with Lincoln as Day-Lewis otherwise portrays him, and historically dubious, but unnecessary to the story.

Playing a figure as iconic as Abraham Lincoln is an extraordinary challenge. The two greatest film versions of Lincoln in the 20th century, performed by Massey and by Henry Fonda (in John Ford’s 1939 classic Young Mr. Lincoln), were both of Lincoln as a young man. The mature Lincoln with his beard and stovepipe hat has been caricatured so often as to make it almost impossible to bring him to life again. Daniel Day-Lewis doesn’t accomplish the impossible; he doesn’t make viewers forget that they are watching a movie and believe even for a moment that they are seeing Lincoln himself. What he does do is to give us a Lincoln who looks very much like the beard-and-stovepipe-hat image, but acts like a person rather than a caricature, and sounds like Lincoln very well might have sounded.

He allows room for viewers to absorb and embrace the rest of the film, not just stare at an actor in a Lincoln costume. Lincoln has received some criticism for its implicit ideological focus (telling the story of the end of slavery as a drama almost exclusively of white Americans), for its mostly insignificant historical errors (the Gettysburg Address did not become something that people thought worthy of memorizing until the late 1870s), for its wordiness, for its narrowness of topic, for its length, and for any number of other reasons big or small, but very little for Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of the main character. That his Lincoln isn’t the first thing to criticize about Lincoln is a major achievement.

Lincoln spends some quiet time in his office with his son Tad (Gulliver McGrath).

Tommy Lee Jones/ Thaddeus Stevens

BY JAMES OAKES Ţ Ţ A professor at the

ON AUGUST 2, 1861, near the close of an emergency session of Congress, Republican congressman Thaddeus Stevens took the floor to defend a bill—later City University of known as the First Confiscation New York Graduate Center, Oakes’ Act—that would confiscate the most recent book, property of traitors and free all Freedom National: slaves used in support of the The Destruction of Slavery in the rebellion. In peacetime, Stevens United States, explained, the federal govern1861-1865 (2012), was awarded the ment had no power to “interLincoln Prize for fere” with slavery in the states 2013. where it existed. But the nation was now at war. “What are the laws of war?” Stevens asked. They let the government do things, constitutionally, that it could not do otherwise. For example, it could confiscate the enemy’s property on the grounds of military necessity. If “taking from him every dollar of property which he has on earth will weaken his hands, will strengthen your hands, you are at liberty to fight him in that way instead of putting him to death.” Then, citing the great theorist of the law of nations, Emerich de Vattel, Stevens claimed that under the laws of war the government could also emancipate slaves. Vattel “further says,” according to Stevens, that: in time of war, if it be a just war, and there be a people who have been oppressed by the enemy and that enemy be conquered, the victorious party cannot return that oppressed people to bondage from which they have rescued them…. [O]ne of the most glorious consequences of victory is giving freedom to those who are oppressed.¹

I thought of Stevens’ speech as I listened to one that Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner puts into the president’s mouth in January 1865. Speaking to his cabinet, Lincoln explains the legal logic

28 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 28

2/12/13 10:03 PM

/

“It’s hard ... to dislike a film that makes Thaddeus Stevens an admirable, even likable character.”

behind the Emancipation Proclamation:

Radical Republican congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) addresses the House of Representatives during the debate over the Thirteenth Amendment.

I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don’t exist. I don’t know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebels’ slaves from ‘em as property confiscated in war….

That means, since it’s states’ laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property—the Federal government doesn’t have a say in it that, least not yet—then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate ‘em as such. So I confiscated ‘em.

But if I’m a respecter of states’ laws, how then can I legally free ‘em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I’m cancelling states’ laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I’m hoping still.²

But there was a weakness in this argument, Lincoln explains. Slaves were property under state law, and those laws “remain in force.” Lincoln was emphatic. “The laws of which states remain in force,” he repeats.

It’s hard not to be impressed by a film that takes its audience seriously enough to subject it to Lincoln’s complicated explanation of emancipation and war powers. And it’s even harder to dislike a film that makes Thaddeus Stevens an admirable, even likable character, especially when portrayed so charismatically by Tommy Lee Jones. As several reviewers have already pointed out, there’s a long

29 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 29

2/12/13 10:03 PM

tradition of presenting Stevens as the embodiment of wild-eyed, demonic fanaticism—the antithesis of the moderate and merciful Lincoln. Kushner’s Lincoln remains the epitome of mercy and humility, but his Stevens is nevertheless commendable for his principled commitment to racial equality.

Yet the historian in me can’t help but quibble. Lincoln is pulled along by the undertow of the older stereotypes from which Kushner has not fully emancipated himself. It’s refreshing and important to see Abraham Lincoln presented as the hands-on politico that he undoubtedly was, but Kushner’s Lincoln is no mere politician. He’s a “genius” endowed with a preternatural ability to turn the mundane machinery of politics toward the highest moral ends—in this case, the abolition of slavery. Lincoln’s willingness to use jawboning, horse-trading, patronage, and even outright bribery to get the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress is Kushner’s shining example of Lincoln’s unusual greatness. By contrast, Thaddeus Stevens’ greatest moment comes when he defers to Lincoln by suppressing— for the time-being—his noble commitment to racial equality for the sake of the more immediate goal of abolishing slavery.

So the problem with Lincoln lies not in its favorable portraits of these two men, both of whom I admire, but in the substance of those portraits. Stevens’ deference to Lincoln reflects the film’s larger premise of congressional deference to Lincoln’s near-mystical superiority. Congressional Republicans squabble amongst themselves, threatening their own abolition amendment in the face of determined Democratic opposition. Lincoln herds the cats, skillfully massaging the egos of the conservatives and radicals within his own party so that they can present a united front when the final vote on the amendment is taken.

This is fiction, not history, and one way to appreciate the fiction is to take a closer look at the differences between how Stevens explained the war powers on the floor of Congress in 1861 and how Lincoln explains them in the film version.

The first and most glaring difference is the timing. Thaddeus Stevens was already there in August 1861, invoking the war powers to justify emancipation. Several years later, in 1867, Stevens claimed that when Lincoln first took office he knew nothing at all about the laws of war. “I’m a good enough lawyer in a Western law court,” Lincoln supposedly told Stevens, “but we don’t practice the law of nations up there.”³ That’s real interesting if it’s true. But it’s worth bearing in mind that it was John Quincy Adams who, back in the 1830s, first claimed that federally imposed emancipation was possible under the war powers, and by the time the Civil War began, emancipation as a “military necessity” was a familiar proposition among political abolitionists and antislavery politicians. By 1865 nobody in Lincoln’s cabinet needed a lesson on the subject.

The argument Stevens made in 1861 will be familiar to anyone who has studied the history of antislavery constitutionalism. The laws of war applied to both international conflicts as well as to the suppression of domestic insurrections. In either case those laws endowed the government with

Lincoln Behind the Scenes

Lincoln qualifies as Steven Spielberg’s lengthiest movie project. After purchasing the rights to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals in 1999 (six years before publication), it took the director over a decade to bring his vision of the sixteenth president to the screen. Measured by box office success, it was well worth the wait. The film, which cost an estimated $65 million to create, has earned over $173 million in the U.S. alone as of February 2013. ABOVE: Steven Spielberg sets up a shot in the balcony of the House of Representatives. ABOVE LEFT AND CENTER: Spielberg with Daniel Day-Lewis and Doris Kearns Goodwin. LEFT: Screenwriter Tony Kushner on the Lincoln set.

30 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 30

2/12/13 10:03 PM

powers it could not exercise in peacetime, including both the confiscation of enemy property and the emancipation of enemy slaves. Stevens treated confiscation and emancipation as distinct because, like all antislavery politicians—including Abraham Lincoln—he insisted that the Constitution recognized slaves only as “persons held in service,” never as property.

By contrast, Lincoln’s explanation of the war powers is thoroughly garbled.

Kushner’s Lincoln insistently declares that the laws of the states, recognizing slaves as property, “remain in force.”

But that’s precisely the opposite of what Lincoln actually believed. Secession did not destroy the states, but it did mean that the “civil authorities” in those states were no longer functioning properly, that is, loyally. Without properly functioning civil authorities the Constitution alone became the “sovereign” in any area “in rebellion.” This was a crucial point in the constitutional defense of military emancipation. Because slaves were “property” only under state and “municipal” laws that were rendered inoperable by secession, and because the only remaining legitimate sovereign authority— the Constitution—recognized slaves not as “property” but as “persons held in service,” the federal government was free to emancipate slaves in all areas over which it enjoyed exclusive sovereignty.

Legally, rebellious masters “forfeited” their claim to the labor of “persons held in service,” and the federal government subsequently “discharged” those persons from their obligations to service.

Put more simply, Lincoln could emancipate slaves because slaves were not property under the Constitution. Kushner builds Lincoln’s speech around the supposed conflict between the president’s unwillingness to recognize the legality of state secession and his simultaneous desire to trample the state laws recognizing slaves as property. But for Lincoln and the Republicans, secession eliminated that conflict by rendering the “civil authorities” within the state inoperable, thereby freeing the federal government from any further obligation to protect slavery in those states. Democrats fiercely disputed this constitutional logic, but all Republicans accepted it.

This detour into the arcane logic of military

During a formal function at the White House, Abraham Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens gather in the relative quiet of the kitchen to discuss the politics of emancipation.

emancipation is unfortunately necessary because it reveals what I see as the most serious flaw of the film: It has Lincoln dreaming up the idea of emancipation all by himself. Lincoln’s war powers speech rings false not only because the legal logic is inconsistent with what most Republicans believed, but also because Lincoln’s language is uncharacteristically solipsistic. He uses the word “I” about 25 times. I maintained. I felt. Three times Lincoln says “I decided.” It’s George W. Bush foreshadowed—Abraham Lincoln as decider in chief—which is to say it’s anachronistic, the imperial presidency read back into the mid-19th century.

When John Quincy Adams first suggested that the war powers endowed the federal government with the authority to emancipate slaves, he vested those powers in Congress. When Stevens explained the logic of military emancipation in 1861, he claimed that the war powers were shared between the two main branches of government. Against charges of executive tyranny and usurpation being leveled by Democrats, Stevens claimed that the president could only exercise the specific war powers granted to him by Congress. Thus, under the terms of the First Confiscation Act, Congress decreed the forfeiture of any slaves used in the rebellion, and the president then exercised his authority as commander in chief to emancipate them. The Second Confiscation Act ratified all the military emancipations that had taken place in areas already occupied by the Union army, but it authorized the president to issue a proclamation emancipating slaves as a military necessity in unoccupied areas of the seceded states.

As his speech of August 1861 makes clear, Thaddeus Stevens understood all of this from the opening months of the war. His were not the most eloquent explorations of antislavery constitutionalism, but only because he had some remarkably erudite Republican colleagues who spent much of the war giving sharp, pointed speeches in defense of military emancipation. But in Lincoln, congressmen don’t make sober arguments; they hurl epithets at } CONT. ON P. 75

31 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 31

2/12/13 10:03 PM

John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, James Spader / The Seward Lobby The most preposterous characters in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln—those seedy lobbyists employed by Secretary of State William Henry Seward—were actual people. Although the film incorporates nearly a dozen other minor characChair for Civil ters who were either wholly fictional or mostly War History at Dickinson College fictionalized (see, for example, the memorable in Carlisle, Jollys from Jefferson City, Missouri, or their Pennsylvania, congressman, “Beanpole” Burton), these three Pinsker is the author of Lincoln’s masters of comic relief—Robert Latham (John Sanctuary: Hawkes), Richard Schell (Tim Blake Nelson), and Abraham Lincoln and the Soldiers’ W.N. Bilbo (James Spader)—were living, breathHome (2003). ing (and perhaps bribing) agents who helped the Lincoln administration secure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment from that lame-duck 38th Congress in January 1865.

But exactly how and why screenwriter Tony Kushner decided to include these particular figures remains something of a mystery. The Seward Lobby, as they are known to historians, does not appear in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, the book from which the screenplay was adapted.

Kushner has told numerous interviewers that he read widely during the more than five years that he worked on the project, but the only specific works he has mentioned that include any discussion of the notorious Seward lobbying effort are James McPherson’s Battle Cry of

BY MATTHEW PINSKER Ţ Ţ The Pohanka

Freedom (1988) and Michael Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life (2008). Yet neither details any of the incidents or individuals highlighted in the film, except a brief reference to Latham from Burlingame.

The best academic work on the Thirteenth Amendment—Michael Vorenberg’s Final Freedom (2001)—does mention all three figures and describes each of them to a degree, but this treatment of their activities differs widely from what appears on film. To begin, Vorenberg suggests the lobbying effort took off soon after the November 1864 elections (not in January 1865, as the film portrays) and carefully explains how many other players and factors were involved besides the Seward Lobby. Vorenberg even notes how strongly former postmaster general Montgomery Blair lobbied for the amendment—a fact that flies in the face of one of the film’s key plot devices regarding how Montgomery’s father, Francis Preston Blair, his family, and other “conservatives” were diametrically opposed to abolition. Vorenberg also emphasizes how the Seward Lobby focused its efforts heavily on New York Democrats—and, more important, the Democratic press in New York—and did so through a variety of means, not merely money and patronage. Vorenberg suspects (but cannot prove) that there might have been some “outright bribes” offered during this process, but he concludes that the switching of the necessary Democratic votes on the great measure “was in most cases not the result of corruption.”¹ It almost goes without saying that such a well-calibrated analysis is not the stuff of which Hollywood dreams are made. Actor James Spader, as W.N. Bilbo, the colorful Tennessee lawyer and lobbyist at the head of the trio, plays his disheveled, charismatic and utterly crass role to the hilt.

In a film cluttered with anachronistic curse words, Spader gets the lion’s share. He also has many of the movie’s most memorably cynical lines. He’s the one who tells Seward that the president can have his “discretion” for “nothing” because “what we need money for is bribes.” He then adds with a flourish, “Congressmen come cheap! Few thousand bucks’ll buy you all you need.”

Spader also steals most of the best lobbying scenes, such as the one showing him getting “near to murdered” by a “sumbitch” congressman who pulls a derringer on him outside a Washington eatery. And it’s Bilbo who memorably counsels a nervous (and imaginary) Democratic congressman from Ohio named Clay Hawkins about how a “deal’s

32 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 32

2/12/13 10:03 PM

“Bilbo and his pals represent not just comic relief in this film, but also a necessary evil.”

Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn, left) consults the three lobbyists he’s employed to help ensure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment: Richard Schell (Tim Blake Nelson), Robert Latham (John Hawkes), and W.N. Bilbo (James Spader).

OPPOSITE PAGE: Bilbo and Schell scheme to secure votes for the amendment.

a deal” while instructing him (on the run) about the art of doing “right” as you make yourself “some money in the bargain.”

Of course, all of that Falstaffian color comes from the combined imaginations and talents of Tony Kushner, Steven Spielberg, and James Spader—not from the historical record. Yet it works well as comic relief, or so report most critics, viewers, and even historians. The bawdier elements of the film are simply funny, even if not entirely plausible.

That’s ironic in a way that perhaps only historians can fully appreciate. The real, documented story of the Seward Lobby is also quite funny— maybe even more engaging than the Hollywood version. Vorenberg’s work is quite good for the general context, but by far the most comprehensive account of the Seward Lobby comes from LaWanda and John H. Cox in Politics, Principle, And Prejudice, 1865-66 (1963). In this narrative, Bilbo and his cronies—not just Robert Latham

and Richard Schell, but several other nefarious hangers-on and political hacks—appear in their richest, fullest light. The Coxes paint William N. Bilbo as a cosmopolitan Tennessee Whig lawyer who appeared to know nearly everybody, including Seward, Jefferson Davis, Horace Greeley, and others. Bilbo sold morphine to the Confederates early in the war and by all accounts was supportive of the rebellion until 1864, when he arrived in New York and suddenly switched sides. Bilbo was also a striking dandy, “known for his elaborate waistcoats, his long sideburns, and his elegant manners.”² This mysterious figure then apparently got to meet with President Lincoln shortly after the November 1864 election and was soon put to work on the lobbying effort for the Thirteenth Amendment.

Bilbo’s principal influence-peddling, however, took place in New York City (not Washington, as the film depicts) and involved generally unsuccessful attempts to plant editorials in the major Democratic newspapers. His most dramatic moment came in mid-January when some enemies accused him of being a Confederate spy and he was threatened with military arrest. “To those who know me,” Bilbo wrote indignantly to President Lincoln, “the charge is simply ridiculous. I may be justly charged of being impulsive, defiant, and precipitant, but never as a hypocrite or spy—never never.”³ } CONT. ON P. 75

33 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 33

2/12/13 10:03 PM

“[Sally] Field did not merely portray Mary; she imbued her, she channeled her. She quite simply was Mary Lincoln.”

In Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field) is grieving the loss of her son and worried about her husband and the stress of war. Here, Mary and Abraham Lincoln share a private moment. OPPOSITE: Mary attends a White House function.

34 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 34

2/12/13 10:03 PM

Sally Field / Mary Todd Lincoln

BY JASON EMERSON Ţ Ţ An independent

MARY LINCOLN HAS been portrayed on the big and small screens by actors in dozens of iterations, ranging from the staid and self-important Lincoln historian and based on Gore Vidal’s novel in professional journalist, Emerson 1988 (as played by Mary Tyler is the author of Moore) to the recent (and hilarinumerous books and articles about ous) Geico insurance commerMary Lincoln and cial in which Mary asks “honmembers of the est” Abraham, “Does this dress Lincoln family, including The make my backside look big?”

Madness of Mary The celluloid Mary—sometimes Lincoln (2007) and Giant in the a major character, sometimes a Shadows: The Life minor one—has been ridiculed, of Robert T. reviled, and revered. But has Lincoln (2012). any screenwriter, director, or actor ever captured in the finite space of film the true personality and essence of Mary Todd Lincoln?

The answer: Yes—Tony Kushner, Steven Spielberg, and Sally Field in Lincoln.

Now Hollywood is Hollywood, and no historic film or film adapted from a book is ever 100 percent accurate. The portrayal of Mary Lincoln in Lincoln was not perfect, but it was certainly the best ever offered on screen.

It was, succinctly, spectacular.

One of the film’s great scenes has Mary confronting Thaddeus Stevens and other Radical Republican House members at a White House reception, asking them playfully (yet seriously) if they were going to investigate her household spending in committee again. This was a reference to her overspending her $20,000 congressional appropriation in 1861 to redecorate the White House. The conversation becomes a verbal sparring in which Mary’s repartee shows her intelligence, humor, sarcasm, venom, and fiery strength: Her spine of steel and a flash in her eyes dare Stevens to question or judge her once more. The writing and acting are brilliant, and leave the audience cheering her strength and cheekiness. And this was one side of the real Mary: someone who would not back down from a fight and would stand up for herself and her husband. “How

the people love my husband,” she taunts in her conversation with Stevens, insinuating that they will never love him in the same way and he should not attempt to thwart the president’s will.

Another great aspect of the scene is Lincoln himself. When the camera pans back to show Lincoln watching the exchange, his look of pride and admiration (and even a hint of smugness) is a profound flourish that shows why he fell in love with her—and why he loves her still.

The movie captures the other side of Mary in the scenes of her and Lincoln alone together, when her petulance, jealousy, self-indulgence, and pitiableness also shine through. Mary’s first scene is in the Lincoln’s White House bedroom. Wearing her shift at her dressing table, looking a bit disheveled, her hands shake slightly and she seems emotionally overwrought, even on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

She’s still grieving for her dead son Willie, stressed about the war, and worried about her husband and his place as president.

In another scene Abraham and Mary have a shouting match in which Mary can consider nothing but her own needs and Abraham lashes back, reminding her that when their youngest son, Tad, was sick after Willie’s death, she locked herself away and ignored Tad. He says that he grieves Willie’s death too, but has the sense and decency to consider others. “Just once don’t think of yourself,” he thunders. “I should have clapped you in the madhouse.” To this, Mary replies only with continued self-indulgence and self-pity.

Mary Lincoln was a woman of extremes who, for all her virtues, had numerous faults. As White House Secretary William O. Stoddard wrote, “It was not easy, at first, to understand why a lady who could be so kindly, so considerate, so generous, so thoughtful and so hopeful, could, upon another day, appear so unreasonable, so irritable, so despondent, so even niggardly, and so prone to see the dark, the wrong side of men and women and events.” This dichotomy, this complexity, was perfectly pitched, balanced, and tuned by Sally Field. Field did not merely portray Mary; she imbued her, she channeled her. She quite simply was Mary Lincoln.

Both Field and Kushner achieved what many historians have failed—rather than trying to either vindicate or blame Mary for her personality and her actions, they seek to understand who she was.

Kushner particularly offers this in a presentist attempt to address Mary’s historical reputation. During Mary and Abraham’s carriage ride on the day of the assassination, Mary tells her husband, “All anyone will remember of me is I was crazy and I ruined your happiness.”

She also tells him that if future generations want to understand him, “They should look at the wretched woman by your side.” While Mary certainly never would have said such things at the time, Kushner’s intent is to connect past and present, to suggest the closeness of Abraham and Mary and the need to understand her to fully understand him. Mary Lincoln was a vital part of her husband’s life, but she was a fascinating, impressive, and misunderstood person in her own right. Tony Kushner’s pitch-perfect writing and Sally Field’s impeccable acting have brought Mary Lincoln to life on the silver screen in a balanced and realistic way, one that many historians, quite frankly, did not think possible.

35 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 35

2/12/13 10:04 PM

Gloria Reuben / Elizabeth Keckley

BY PETER H. WOOD Ţ Ţ An emeritus pro-

WHEN FRIENDS TELL ME they saw Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, they often add: “I read Team of Rivals too.” No wonder Doris Kearns Goodwin’s persuasive study from 2005 made it back onto the bestseller list this winter, when presidential fessor of history politicking and congressional hardball dominated at Duke University, Wood is the the news. “But have you read the other book?” I author of Strange ask. “Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly by Jennifer New Land (1996) and Black Majority Fleischner?” “Oh,” comes the reply, “that must (1974), about early be about the maid.”

African American However you spell her name, Elizabeth Kehistory, and Weathering the ckley was no mere servant, and nine years after Storm (2004) and Fleischner’s duel biography appeared, this forNear Andersonville (2010), about mer slave is beginning to get her due. She is the important black subject of several recent novels and the central images in the work figure in last fall’s New York musical A Civil of artist Winslow Homer.

War Christmas, and Ford’s Theatre continues to book walking tours of Mrs. Keckley’s Washington. Still, millions of viewers and reviewers seem to have missed her low-key but crucial presence in Lincoln, dwelling instead on Tony Kushner’s masterful script and the fine performances by Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones.

Some scholarly critics have questioned why Spielberg didn’t emphasize black efforts to overthrow slavery, or depict the white violence during Reconstruction that dulled the impact of the Thirteenth Amendment. Wishing for a different movie, they suggest the director could have reached back to 1864 and dramatized the White House visits of key black leaders such as Abraham Galloway (in June), Frederick Douglass (in August), and Sojourner Truth (in October).

Instead, Spielberg and Kushner chose, astutely, to utilize three unfamiliar free black figures about whom much is now known. Their well-crafted roles show more about Civil War-era race relations in the corridors of power than American moviegoers are used to seeing. One dignified performance involves Lydia Hamilton Smith, the quadroon housekeeper and confidante of abolitionist congressman Thaddeus Stevens. In her brief appearance, actress S. Epatha Merkerson (familiar as a tough police investigator on television’s Law & Order) erases the grotesque caricature created by D.W. Griffith in his racist epic, The Birth of a Nation.

Likewise, Stephen Henderson (nominated for a Tony Award in 2010 for his featured performance in August Wilson’s play Fences)

imparts subtlety and depth to the role of William Slade, the president’s valet, a respected White House functionary whose children often played with young Tad Lincoln. The historical Slade was an elder in Washington’s Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church, where the black abolition leader, Henry Highland Garnet, became the high-profile pastor in 1864.

But it is Gloria Reuben, as Elizabeth Keckley, who most fully epitomizes the hopes and fears of African Americans as the shooting war approaches an end. Reuben, the daughter of a Canadian architect and a Jamaican classical singer, seems well cast for the part of a high-achieving, mixed-race Virginian. Along the way, she studied piano and dance, sang backup for Tina Turner, and had long stints on ER and Homicide: Life on the Street. But gracefully portraying Mrs. Lincoln’s dressmaker and companion, alongside Sally Field and Daniel Day-Lewis, represents a significant step up for the former Miss Black Ontario, and she rises to the challenge.

“It’s late, Mrs. Keckley,” the president says, when she first appears at the Lincoln bedroom.

His layered comment covers far more than the hour. When he fingers the fringe material of the unfinished dress draped over her arm, she explains simply, “It’s smallwork,” using an old term for items made for personal use, including sewing equipment. This six-word exchange at a half-open door speaks volumes. At one level, the smallwork of the free black woman, who makes elegant dresses for the first lady, is inconsequential indeed compared to the labors of a wartime president. At another level, she epitomizes Mr. Lincoln’s largest and most difficult task.

Each has lost a beloved son during the war.

Both are patient and determined; both are loyal to the troubled Mary Todd Lincoln. The film portrays Mrs. Lincoln initially opposing “the amendment bill that’s sure of defeat.” But when she attends an opera with her husband, we see her pressuring him to work for passage of the measure, while Elizabeth listens attentively. Returning from the theater, Mrs. Keckley buttonholes the president outside the White House front door (no side door for her), and voices her support for the measure and her confidence in his capacities.

In this domestic political drama, we sense that if Mary has influence over Abe, it is Elizabeth who is helping to steer them both. One of the film’s unusual accomplishments is its suggestion of the ways that key representatives of the African-American community make their presence felt among the white politicians who are determining their fate. As Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckley follow the debates surrounding the Thirteenth

36 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 36

2/12/13 10:04 PM

“[I]t is Gloria Reuben, as Elizabeth Keckley, who most fully epitomizes the hopes and fears of African Americans as the shooting war approaches an end.”

Elizabeth Keckley (Gloria Reuben) sits in the Lincolns’ box next to Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field) during a performance of Charles Gounod’s opera Faust.

Amendment, the camera cuts to this odd couple in the House balcony nearly a dozen times.

We could, of course, hear more from Keckley. She was the child of an enslaved seamstress and a Virginia planter, and she was abused as a young woman. But her early life is condensed into one frank comment to Tad: “I was beaten with a fire shovel when I was younger than you.” Viewers who perceive her as a subservient maid need to know more about her career as the founder of the Contraband Relief Association, which provided badly needed food and medical support for escaped slaves and black Union soldiers. I won’t hold my breath, but I wish Spielberg and Kushner would follow Lincoln with an equally compelling film based on Keckley’s autobiography.

Such a drama would reveal how Elizabeth toiled as a seamstress in St. Louis to purchase freedom for herself and her only child. We would witness her rise as a premiere modiste, making elegant gowns for Mrs. Jefferson Davis and Mrs. Robert E. Lee. We would experience the grief of learning that her son George, after leaving college in 1861 to enroll in a white unit in Missouri, had been killed in his first battle.

In 1974, Americans embraced a television movie based on the Ernest Gaines novel The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman. Certainly, four decades later, our mainstream culture is finally ready for a Hollywood treatment of Keckley’s nonfiction autobiography, which she called Behind the Scenes, or Thirty Years a Slave and Four Years in the White House. In such a film, Gloria Reuben should have first refusal on the leading roll, since she has already demonstrated her capacity to convey the dignity, dexterity, and unshakable determination of this remarkable woman.

37 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Lincoln.indd 37

2/12/13 10:04 PM

PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

38 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 38

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN DOE

2/11/13 11:48 PM

The brief clash between CSS Alabama and USS Hatteras was over in minutes. But the “sharp fight” off the coast of Galveston, Texas, in January 1863 changed the course of the war in the Gulf of Mexico.

By Andrew W. Hall and Edward T. Cotham Jr.

39 ILLUSTRATIONS BY ANDREW W. HALL

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 39

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 11:48 PM

The new naval vessel was commissioned in October 1861 as USS Hatteras, and fitted with four 32-pounder smoothbore guns, naval artillery that was fast becoming obsolete. A rifled gun firing a 20-pound shell was soon mounted on a pivot to the ship’s forward deck. This added considerably to her firepower, but Hatteras was still likely to be outmatched by a proper warship. Two 30-pounder rifled guns were added later.¹ Hatteras spent her first few months of service with the U.S. Navy’s South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, one of several squadrons that each enforced a zone of the blockade. In January Hatteras was transferred to the Gulf Blockading Squadron, where she continued intercepting and snapping up small vessels attempting to run the blockade on a regular basis—10 in all, through the summer of 1862. That fall, Lieutenant Commander Homer Crane Blake, a 22-year Navy veteran, took charge of Hatteras after her original commander transferred to another vessel. Immediately after joining the West Gulf Blockading Squadron at Pensacola on October 27, Blake was assigned to join Henry H. Bell’s squadron on blockade duty off Mobile.²

FIVE DAYS AFTER THE Confederacy opened fire on Fort Sumter at Charleston in April 1861, Abraham Lincoln declared a blockade of Confederate ports. It was a key element in the grand Union strategy known as the Anaconda Plan. Just as the South American constrictor suffocates its victims, Lincoln and his advisors Above: Captain Raphael Semmes (right) and First Lieutenant John M. Kell pose hoped the strategy would gradually squeeze the life on the deck of CSS Alabama. Opposite: Lieutenant Commander Homer Crane Blake, commander of USS Hatteras. out of the rebellion by cutting off commercial activity.

But the blockade was far easier to plan than to establish. In the spring of 1861 the U.S. Navy possessed only a few WHILE HATTERAS WAS MAKING life difficult for the dozen serviceable vessels. Navy Department agents fanned out in Confederates along the eastern part of the Gulf New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and other ports, buying up civilcoast, another ship was being rapidly constructed ian ships idled by the conflict and vessels still under construction. on the banks of the River Mersey, opposite LiverOne of them was the iron-hulled steamer St. Mary, purchased new pool in the United Kingdom. The few shipyards from her builder for $110,000. The ship measured 210 feet long, and in the South were blockaded and occupied buildwas outfitted with a hurricane deck and wooden cabins. Propuling vessels for local defense, so the government in sion was provided by a pair of enormous side wheels, driven by a Richmond invested heavily in the construction of single-cylinder steam engine. The vertical motion of the engine was warships in Europe. The vessel being built at John transferred to the side wheels by a pivoted, diamond-shaped iron Laird, Son & Co. was a warship that would eventualframe, known as a “walking beam,” that rocked back and forth as ly achieve fame as CSS Alabama. Just as the Union’s the wheels turned, like a leviathan child’s teeter-totter.

Anaconda Plan was intended to restrict southern

N AVA L H I S T O R Y & H E R I TA G E C O M M A N D , WA S H I N G T O N , D C ( A L A B A M A I M A G E ) ; E D WA R D T . C O T H A M J R . ( B L A K E I M A G E )

S. NAVY COMMODORE Henry H. Bell was worried. Four hours before, in the late afternoon, he had dispatched one of his blockade steamers, USS Hatteras, to investigate a strange sail that had appeared southeast of his position off Galveston, Texas.

Then, at about 7 p.m., his lookouts spotted gun flashes reflected on clouds to the southeast, followed by the bass rumble of a fierce cannonade miles away.

The firing had lasted almost 15 minutes, followed by silence.

Now with his own flagship, USS Brooklyn, pounding southeast into the chilly darkness in the direction of the flashes on a January night in 1863, Bell and every man aboard understood that Hatteras had encountered a serious foe. Bell would continue searching through the night, to no avail. Until it grew light, he could only wait, and watch.

Bell would soon learn that he had been a long-distance witness to the destruction of USS Hatteras by an infamous Confederate commerce raider, CSS Alabama. Although the engagement is little remembered today, it was then seen as a sensational defeat at the hands of a vessel widely dismissed in the northern press as a “pirate.” At the end of the battle, Alabama went from being merely an inconvenient burden on commercial activity to a feared enemy warship, a vessel that might appear at any moment to sink other U.S. Navy ships. The lopsided, 13-minute engagement between Hatteras and Alabama would have repercussions on both naval operations and the overall strategy of the war itself, effects that went far beyond the understanding of those who watched that night.

40 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 40

2/11/13 11:48 PM

commercial activity, Alabama’s mission would be as a commerce raider, to wreak havoc among the North’s merchant shipping on the open sea.

Laird’s construction of a Confederate warship was an open secret in Liverpool. In the absence of verifiable information about the ship and her plans, though, wild rumors filled the vacuum. One of the more clever and persistent was that the ship was known as “290” for the number of Liverpool merchants who had pooled their resources to pay for her construction and outfitting. In reality, the raider was Laird’s 290th vessel, and until the company’s vessels were formally turned over to their owners and christened, they were known simply by their sequential construction numbers.³ The new raider would, in fact, be very similar in size to Hatteras, just 2 feet longer than the converted passage steamer, and two feet narrower in beam. But the similarities between the converted steamer and this true warship ended there. Alabama’s composite construction hull— wooden timber over iron framing—was better suited to withstand gunfire than Hatteras’ thin iron plates. Where Hatteras was built with a large engine exposed to gunfire in the upper part of the hull, with a vulnerable walking beam engine exposed above that, Alabama had a compact engine that sat low in the hull, away from enemy gunfire.

Above all, Alabama would be armed with very heavy naval artillery, including a seven-inch rifle and an eightinch smoothbore cannon, both fitted on pivoting mounts. All of Alabama’s guns firing on one side amounted to 274 pounds of shot and shell; Hatteras’ broadside weight was only 114 pounds.

The new ship was launched on May 14, 1862, and christened Enrica—though everyone still referred to her as “290.” She sailed on the last day of July 1862, with her destination reported in the newspapers as the Bahamas. In fact, the ship sailed to the Azores in the North Atlantic, where final preparations could be carried out in secret. Her guns had been sent ahead in another

THE COMBATANTS

USS HATTERAS

CSS ALABAMA

Baltimore (1861)

Birkenhead, England (1862)

$110,000

$250,000

Tonnage

1,126

1,050

Length

210'

212'

Beam

34'

32'

Draft

18'

14'

6.5 knots (7.5 mph)

12.8 knots (14.7 mph)

114 lbs.

274 lbs.

Built (year) Cost

Speed Broadside Weight

ship; they were swung aboard at a secluded anchorage, along with ship’s stores, coal, and other provisions. The raider’s appointed commander, Captain Raphael Semmes, and other officers made the passage from Britain to the Azores on another vessel. On August 24, Semmes raised the Confederate ensign and announced to his crew that the ship would henceforth be known as Alabama.⁴ From the Azores, Semmes set a course to the west, skirting dangerously close to New England on the U.S. Atlantic coast.

But the busy shipping lane proved to be very successful hunting grounds, and Alabama seized a dozen or more Union merchantmen.

As 1862 drew to a close, Semmes set his course south and east, almost to the coast of Venezuela, then north and west again through the Caribbean. More captures followed, and word spread through the region that the infamous “290” was in the region. Five days before Christmas 1862, Semmes’ lookouts spotted Cape Catoche, the northernmost point of the Yucatán Peninsula. Alabama was now loose in the Gulf of Mexico.⁵ THE FALL OF 1862 brought a wave of Federal naval operations against the Texas coast, including the October 9 capture of Galveston, the most important port in Texas and the terminus of a railroad system that extended through Houston to rich inland agricultural areas. With Galveston in Federal hands, it would be only a matter of

41 ILLUSTRATIONS BY ANDREW W. HALL

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 41

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 11:48 PM

time before that port served as the staging area for a major invasion of Texas. Indeed, northern newspapers soon reported that in New Orleans, Union general Nathaniel Banks was outfitting a force of 20,000 men, the “Banks Expedition,” destined for Galveston.

On Alabama, Semmes monitored the war as closely as he could.

From every enemy ship he captured, Semmes seized and eagerly read any newspapers on board. On December 7, 1862, while cruising off Cuba, Alabama captured the California mail steamer Ariel, carrying recent newspapers from New York. From these, Semmes learned of the Banks Expedition and the rumor that the invasion force intended to start its inland push from Galveston sometime around January 10, 1863.

Alabama’s campaign against northern civilian shipping had been a great success so far, but Semmes desired to inflict a more direct blow against the enemy. The reports about the planned Banks Expedition seemed to provide the perfect opportunity to do this. To supply an operation of the scale described in the papers, Semmes believed, there would have to be a large fleet of transports and supply ships anchored off Galveston—40, 50, or more, most of them anchored in deep water outside the harbor. Semmes determined to head for Galveston, intending to take Alabama into the middle of that transport fleet at night and destroy as many vessels as he could.⁶ John Macintosh Kell, Alabama’s executive officer, considered this plan “the boldest of all the bold schemes of Captain Semmes.”⁷ Interviewed about it long after the war, Kell was still amazed by his captain’s daring strategy. “His plan was to wait until the fleet anchored, when the provision ships and the men-of-war which escorted them would be carelessly left together in fancied safety. In the night he intended to steam at full speed through the fleet, pouring fire from both broadsides, sinking and burning as he went.”⁸ But as Alabama sailed northward for the Texas coast, the situation at Galveston changed dramatically. Early on the morning of January 1, 1863, a combined Confederate land and sea attack under the command of Major General John Bankhead Magruder managed to recapture the city of Galveston, taking one Federal warship and destroying another in the process. Through a combination of extemporization, audacity, and luck, Magruder had cobbled together an unlikely military force that reclaimed the only Confederate port retaken from the Federals during the war. Admiral David G. Farragut, the Union naval commander in the Gulf of Mexico, called it the “most shameful and pusillanimous” incident in the history of the U.S. Navy.⁹ Believing that the disaster at Galveston was not only a major strategic setback, but also an insult to the navy’s honor, Farragut lost no time in ordering Commodore Bell and a fleet of six gunboats to Galveston to recapture it. Bell arrived with the first vessels on January 7 to find the Confederates already busy building earthworks and fortifications surrounding the city. As he waited for the rest of his gunboats to arrive, Bell exchanged fire with the shore batteries, on one occasion shooting away a fort’s Confederate flag.

At about 4 p.m. on January 10, as the last shots of the day’s bombardment were fired, Hatteras arrived off Galveston, followed by USS Clifton two hours later. The fleet of Federal gunboats needed to retake Galveston was now deemed complete.¹⁰ Bell’s plan was that Sunday, January 11, would be a day of rest, with the bombardment of Galveston to be renewed on Monday morning. If all went well, the Federal fleet would then attempt to pass the forts at the entrance to Galveston Bay. The mood in the Union fleet was focused and resolute. One crewman on board USS

New London confidently wrote to his father that “Galveston is a doomed town.”¹¹ Sunday, January 11, dawned clear and beautiful in Galveston. Observers on the Federal ships reported seeing Confederates moving guns at the fort near the entrance to the bay. The Confederates clearly anticipated the Federal attack scheduled for the following day. In the Union fleet, the day was spent preparing for action and monitoring the enemy’s movements on shore. At about 2 p.m., an unidentified ship was spotted approaching from the southeast. Commodore Bell ordered Hatteras, the closest ship, to chase the unknown vessel and ascertain its identity. By 3 p.m., Hatteras was in pursuit.¹²

42 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 42

2/11/13 11:48 PM

© TOM W . FREEMAN , 2013 , ALL RIGHTS RESERVED . COURTESY SM & S NAVAL PRINTS , INC .

USS Hatteras (foreground) and CSS Alabama exchange fire in Tom Freeman’s painting “The Fatal Chase.” The engagement would prove to be as brief as it was sharp.

THE BATTLE Although no one in the Federal fleet knew it then, the unknown vessel that Hatteras was chasing was Alabama. Semmes, knowing that Galveston had been taken weeks before by the Federals, expected to find dozens of Banks’ transports anchored in the roadstead. Instead, the lookout at the masthead reported only a few vessels, all of them apparently warships. Semmes puzzled on this for a moment until the lookout reported that one of the ships had fired a shell that burst over the city. Semmes now realized that Galveston had been retaken, and was in Confederate hands.13 The captain was

still pondering his next move when the lookout reported one of the Federal steamers coming out to meet him. Alabama would not have been likely to prevail against four or five Federal warships at once, but this was a situation that suited him well. “It was just the thing I wanted,” he later recalled, “for I at once conceived the design of drawing this single ship of the enemy far enough away from the remainder of her fleet, to enable me to decide a battle with her before her consorts could come to her relief.”¹⁴ He ordered the ship’s head swung around, out again into the Gulf and into the growing darkness. He also ordered Alabama’s propeller lowered into position and engaged, to give the raider an extra bit of speed in the light air; he didn’t want the Yankee blockader to come up to him too soon.

On Hatteras, Blake and his officers were becoming increasingly suspicious. They knew of Alabama’s captures in the Caribbean, and

43 PAINTING BY TOM FREEMAN

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 43

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 11:48 PM

realized the suspect steamer might be “290” herself. Shortly before dark, the unknown vessel came into clear view and began to maneuver in a way that alerted the officers on board Hatteras that what they were chasing was no skittish, unarmed blockade runner. Henry Ogden Porter, Hatteras’ executive officer, remarked to Captain Blake, “[T]hat, sir, I think is Alabama. What shall we do?” Blake’s reply was immediate and direct: “[I]f that is Alabama we must fight her.” Blake ordered his ship cleared for action and directed Porter to make sure that all guns would be trained on the other vessel.15 When Hatteras had closed the range to about four miles, Blake saw that the stranger had stopped and was lying broadside on to his vessel, waiting for him to come up. By now it was about 7 p.m., and getting quite dark. Hatteras continued on, and ran close alongside the unidentified vessel. Blake hailed the other ship, asking, “What steamer is that?”

The reply shouted across the water from Alabama was that the raider was a British warship—Blake recalled that the name given was Vixen, while Semmes later said Petrel—and Semmes asked for the identity of Blake’s ship. Semmes couldn’t make out the name, but the first words he heard, “[T]his is the United States Ship,” were enough. A pause ensued while both vessels jockeyed for position. Blake, following standard procedure, asked for permission to send a boat with an officer to verify the other ship’s identity. Semmes, still trying to maneuver for best advantage, politely agreed and Hatteras’ boat, with a junior officer and four seamen aboard, was soon dancing over the water. Alabama, meanwhile, had made a steaming turn to the east and was running up alongside Hatteras’ port side, less than 100 yards off.

Satisfied with his position and that all was ready, Captain Semmes turned to his first lieutenant and asked, “Are you ready for action?” Kell replied, “[T]he men are only waiting for the word.”

Semmes said, “[D]on’t strike them in disguise; tell them who we are and give the broadside at the name.” Kell raised his speaking trumpet and announced, “[T]his is the Confederate States Steamer Alabama!” And then, to his crew, he gave the simple order: “Fire!”¹⁶ Even before Alabama fired that first broadside, Captain Blake had concluded that the other vessel must be an enemy. He’d noticed the way it kept maneuvering as if trying to get into a better firing position. Even while going through the formal process of learning the ship’s identity, Blake had carefully kept Hatteras turning, preventing the mysterious steamer from getting squarely behind him.¹⁷ When Alabama finally revealed her identity, the Confederate steamer was located on the port quarter (left rear) of Hatteras, about 75 yards away. The first broadside went high, passing harmlessly over Hatteras. Blake immediately ordered his aft guns, the only guns that would bear, to return fire and rang the bell to direct Hatteras full speed ahead. He also turned the ship to port to get into a position where he could fire all of his port guns at Alabama.

On the deck below, the moment Alabama fired, Executive Officer Porter of Hatteras also realized that his suspicion about the identity of the enemy ship was correct. Not waiting for Blake’s orders, he yelled, “Alabama! Boys, now give it to her!” and the gun crews on Hatteras began firing away.¹⁸ A running fight followed, with the two ships exchanging broadside after broadside, Alabama firing to starboard and Hatteras firing to port. Alabama’s first officer, Kell, later described the action as “a sharp fight.” At some points the ships were only 25 yards apart, and men with small arms on the decks of both vessels joined the fray.

The gunners on Alabama soon found their targets and began pouring an enthusiastic fire into the port side of Hatteras. Although Alabama’s officers were mostly southerners, her enlisted crewmembers had to be recruited in the U.K., and were almost all British. Semmes had shown them one of the captured New York newspapers that described them as the “scum of England.” This was a chance, then, for the “scum” to get their revenge, and they took full advantage of it. Besides shot and shell, they hurled angry invective across the water. “That’s into you!” “Damn you! That kills your pig!” A boatswain’s mate was heard to shout, “[T]hat’s from the scum of England!”¹⁹ Blake soon realized that Alabama had the advantage of heavier guns, and tried to turn his ship to enable Hatteras to get alongside and possibly board the enemy vessel. But Semmes used his ship’s superior speed and maneuverability to keep Hatteras at a distance.²⁰ About eight minutes after the action began, a shell entered Hatteras above the water line forward, and burst a quantity of stored turpentine, setting that part of the ship on fire. Soon after, another shell hit the forward part of the “walking beam” and knocked it out of alignment. The walking beam was a critical part of the connection between the steam engine and the paddle wheels, and the damage caused Hatteras to slow its forward motion. At almost the same time, a shell entered amidships and set fire to the vessel near the magazine. Yet another shell had entered the engine works and damaged part of the steam machinery.²¹ Captain Blake had only a limited understanding of the battle’s effect on his vessel and her crew. He had spent the entire battle on the upper, or “hurricane,” deck, where he could see Alabama very well but could not directly observe his men operating guns on the deck below. Occasionally, Blake could hear the forward gunners sing out “Give it to her boys!” or “Stand by the captain!” but otherwise, he had to rely on reports from his officers. Blake would later complain about the ship’s hurricane deck, noting that in battle he “was under great disadvantages from the construction of the vessel.”²² Hearing the labored movement of the walking beam, Executive Officer Porter went below to ascertain the extent of the damage and report back to Blake. As he headed for the engine room, Porter encountered the ship’s engineer. When asked about the condition of the machinery, the engineer simply replied, “[W]e are pretty near played out I think.” Water was rushing into the engine room through holes in the hull so large that the crew had been forced to plug them with hammocks. As Porter surveyed the damage below deck, he noticed that an entire iron plate had been knocked

44 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 44

2/11/13 11:48 PM

13 MINUTES IN THE GULF

USS Hatteras’ encounter with the Confederate raider Alabama 1

2

Gulf of Mexico Galveston, Texas (30 MILES)

3

USS Hatteras

4

CSS Alabama

5

No track chart of the encounter between Hatteras and Alabama is known to exist. This diagram, based on written accounts by Captains Homer Crane Blake and Raphael Semmes, and testimony at the U.S. Navy’s inquiry into the loss of Hatteras, reconstructs the ships’ movements, which ended in a 13-minute cannonade that sealed the fate of the Union gunboat. 1 Hatteras comes up on Alabama, about 30 miles south of Galveston. When asked the identity of his ship, Captain Semmes replies with the name of a British warship. Hatteras launches a boat with a boarding party to verify the mystery ship’s identity. 2 Alabama gets under way, steaming first north, then east, then back toward Hatteras. 3 Captain Blake, now fully convinced of the other vessel’s malevolent nature, gets under way to avoid a raking shot. 4 Now running up from behind Hatteras, Alabama hoists Confederate colors and opens fire. 5 Recognizing he’s badly outgunned, Blake attempts to bring Hatteras closer to Alabama in order to board, but Semmes is able to use his superior speed to keep his distance. A running fight ensues that will end with Hatteras on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

off the port side of the ship, and part of the paddle wheel was protruding inside the hull of the vessel. Porter headed back up the ladder to Captain Blake to report the bad news.²³ There were no doubt several heroes on board Hatteras that night, and one of them was below deck at that point. He went unmentioned in any official report, but after the war, Blake described the actions of an unidentified African-American steward in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. The man knew of a small locker of arms and ammunition under a passageway off the wardroom. When the ship caught fire and the compartment filled with smoke, the steward remained at his post, continually dashing the ammunition with water.

When he was later asked whether he found his position dangerous, the steward replied that he had, “but I knew if the fire got to the powder them gentlemen on deck would get a grand hoist.”²⁴ By this time, the “gentlemen on deck” could tell that Hatteras was in a desperate condition.

Fearing that the fire was about to ignite the maga-

zine, Captain Blake ordered that two feet of water be pumped into the compartment. As this was being done, a shot knocked a hole in the engine’s steam cylinder, where steam generated by the boilers is concentrated and used to power the vessel’s machinery. The hole allowed the steam to escape, flooding the engine room and deck nearby with scalding steam. The ship’s enormous engine, which was all above the water line, ground to a halt, having been struck six times in different places. Hatteras was dead in the water and beginning to roll steeply to port.²⁵ Blake ordered that a lee gun, facing away from the enemy, be fired to signal his surrender. Unfortunately, in the darkness, Semmes did not realize that Blake was signaling his capitulation, and it took two more repetitions before Alabama ceased firing.

It was an eerie scene. The sea was as smooth as glass as Alabama passed silently into the darkness. Blake and Porter both knew that Hatteras was doomed; their concern now was that Alabama would leave them to sink, without making any attempt to rescue survivors.²⁶ Hatteras had rolled so far over on her port side that it appeared she might capsize completely. Blake claimed later that he authorized the port-side guns to be thrown overboard to lessen the weight on that side; Porter maintained that he did not wait for the order but directed the dumping of the guns on his own authority. However the order came, it was easily accomplished. Hatteras

45 INFOGRAPHIC BY ANDREW W. HALL

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 45

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

2/11/13 11:48 PM

“ D E S T R U C T I O N O F T H E U . S . A . G U N B O AT H AT T E R A S B Y A R E B E L C R U I S E R O F F G A LV E S T O N , T E X A S ,” C O U R T E S Y O F T H E B E C K E R C O L L E C T I O N , B O S T O N , M A FRANCIS H. SCHELL,

A badly damaged USS Hatteras lists toward port in this contemporary sketch by Francis H. Schell. Within 10 minutes of the crew’s successful evacuation, Hatteras disappeared from sight, sinking bow first into the Gulf.

was heeled so far over that the men did not even have to use block and tackle to coax the guns over the side. Freed of the weight of the port-side artillery guns, the ship righted herself at once. But she continued flooding, and was sinking rapidly.²⁷ Porter could not believe that Alabama had left a disabled foe.

He yelled into the darkness, demanding that Alabama send boats to help take away the crew of Hatteras. Porter did not know it but Captain Semmes was dealing with his own difficulties. Just before Hatteras fired its first lee gun, a shot from Hatteras had struck Alabama’s funnel, wounding one man in the cheek. Alabama was not seriously injured, but Semmes—not knowing when or where he might make repairs to his own ship—was hesitant to return until he knew his opponent was completely defeated.²⁸

Finally, Porter heard a voice in the distance crying, “Halloo!” Porter shouted back that Hatteras was sinking and needed boats. Semmes quickly dispatched two of his boats to help transfer Hatteras’ crew, now prisoners, to Alabama. As Porter supervised the orderly loading and launching of the boats, Captain Blake carefully counted the men leaving the ship. When everyone other than Porter and Blake had been evacuated, two crewmen last seen in the coal bunkers were still unaccounted for. The captain and executive officer tried to go below to search the bunkers, but the smoke and fire stopped them; Porter even burned off the

46 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 46

2/11/13 11:48 PM

bottom of his shoes. Finally, Blake concluded that the missing men could not be recovered and reluctantly left for Alabama to formally surrender to Semmes. Ten minutes after they reached the enemy ship, Hatteras went down, bow first. Blake watched as the water extinguished the flames.²⁹ Hatteras would remain undisturbed until 11 a.m. the next day, when a worried Commodore Bell would come searching in USS Brooklyn. He would find the wreck in water about 9½ fathoms (57 feet) deep, shallow enough that her two masts were sticking above the surface, with the gunboat’s U.S. commissioning pennant still “gaily flying.”³⁰ IMMEDIATELY AFTER BRINGING HATTERAS’ survivors on board, Semmes had his ship’s clerk write out a parole document for Blake and his officers to sign. It was a common practice of the time; the officers pledged their “sacred word of honor that we will not bear arms or in any manner serve against the Confederate States during the present war, or until regularly exchanged.” After signing, Blake and his officers were assigned space in the cabins of their counterparts, Blake in Semmes’ cabin, and the officer prisoners in Alabama’s wardroom. Hatteras’ enlisted crew members were put in irons.³¹ Semmes’ success over Hatteras brought with it a set of problems. First, the more than 100 prisoners roughly doubled the number of men on board the Confederate raider. They took up space, consumed rations and fresh water, and had to be guarded. More important, every available Federal warship in the Gulf of Mexico would now be sent to find and engage Alabama. He could not be assured of a quick victory the next time, and even if he prevailed, such an encounter would almost certainly result in damage that would jeopardize his primary mission as a commerce raider. Semmes needed to leave the Gulf of Mexico and dispose of his prisoners quickly. Havana or another Spanish port on the Cuban coast was too close to risk stopping, so Semmes set a course southeast for Jamaica, south of Cuba. Alabama anchored off Port Royal, across the harbor from Kingston, after dark on January 20, nine days after the encounter with Hatteras. Semmes put Blake and his crew ashore and, after taking a few days to refit and reprovision his ship, slipped away on January 25 for points unknown.³²

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

THE AFTERMATH As with every loss of a U.S. naval vessel, there was a formal court of inquiry regarding the loss of Hatteras. Blake and his officers testified at the proceeding, which was held at the Navy Yard in

Brooklyn. The court concluded that Blake had discharged his duties as commander “in an efficient and praiseworthy manner” and stated that his conduct after the battle “was altogether commendable and proper.” The court also found that, with the exception of two junior officers who had misbehaved or not fulfilled their duties after the battle, “the conduct of the officers and crew of Hatteras was good, and every effort [was] made by them to defend and preserve the vessel in this very unequal contest.”³³ Though Blake and his officers were formally cleared, others inevitably assigned blame. One notable example was Admiral David Dixon Porter, elder brother of Hatteras’ executive officer, Henry Porter. In his Naval History of the Civil War, written in 1886, the elder Porter argued that the error was Commodore Bell’s, for not sending sufficient force to investigate the vessel sighted on the afternoon of January 11. Two ships, he argued, would have made quick work of the Confederate raider. Admiral Porter suggested, perhaps in subconscious reference to his younger brother’s involvement in the embarrassing incident, “never send a boy on a man’s errand.”³⁴ After leaving Port Royal and Hatteras’ crew astern, Raphael Semmes set a course east and then north, through the Santo Domingo Channel between the islands of Hispañola and Puerto Rico, into the North Atlantic again. Then Alabama headed south, along the coast of Brazil, where Semmes took a dozen ships in the spring and early summer of 1863. After an extended refit at Cape Town, South Africa, the raider continued east, across the Indian Ocean, through the Sunda Strait and into the Java and South China Seas.

After another long call at Singapore for repairs and provisions, Alabama sailed west again, skirting the Indian subcontinent, following the west coast of Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope and again north into the Atlantic. By the spring of 1864, Alabama had been at sea for most of the past 18 months. She and her captain had been continually hunted, always just a step ahead of their pursuers. Both Alabama and Semmes were worn out. Semmes would later write that “poor old Alabama was not now what she had been then. She was like the wearied fox-hound, limping back after a long chase, foot-sore, and longing for quiet and repose.”³⁵ Semmes’ analogy was wrong in one respect: Alabama was not “the wearied fox-hound,” but the wearied fox, and the hounds were closing in. Alabama anchored at Cherbourg, on the Channel coast of France, on June 11, 1864. Semmes intended to put his ship into dry dock for a major overhaul, but there were no commercial docking facilities available at Cherbourg, only those of the French navy, which Admiral David Dixon Porter, elder was reluctant to provide such a brother of Hatteras’ executive officer, service to a belligerent’s warship Henry Porter, blamed Commodore Henry H. Bell for sending Hatteras out alone to when France was determined investigate the mysterious vessel that to stay neutral in the conflict. turned out to be CSS Alabama.

Then, three days after Alabama’s arrival, the sloop-of-war

47 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 47

2/11/13 11:48 PM

In the late summer of 2012, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) organized a cross-disciplinary team of scientists, researchers, educators, and archaeologists to document the wreck of USS Hatteras, sunk in the Gulf of Mexico during her brief engagement with the Confederate commerce raider Alabama on January 11, 1863. Participants included representatives of a dozen or more public agencies and private organizations, led by Dr. James P. Delgado, Director of Maritime Heritage for NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Funding and support for the project was provided by the Edward E. and Marie L. Matthews Foundation, ExploreOcean, and Teledyne BlueView.

The wreck site of the former Federal warship—the only one sunk in single-ship combat in the Gulf of Mexico during the conflict—had been discovered by sport divers in the 1970s, who wanted to collect and sell artifacts from the wreck. The federal government sued, claiming that the sunken ship, which was never formally decommissioned, remains U.S. Navy property. The ruling in that case, Hatteras Inc. v. the USS Hatteras (1984), helped establish the legal doctrine that the U.S. Navy maintains ownership of its lost ships and aircraft until and unless it formally relinquishes them.

Today, the Hatteras wreck site lies about 20 miles south of Galveston, in federal waters administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Several state and federal agencies work in close coordination to monitor the site on an ongoing basis.

Most of the iron-hulled warship remains intact under the sand and mud, about 60 feet (18m) below the sea surface. Visits by divers monitoring the site in 2010 and 2011 indicated that more of the wreck had been recently exposed, probably due to the effects of Hurricane Ike in 2008. This gave investigators an ideal opportunity to use a new underwater imaging technology, called BlueView, to compile an accurate, three-dimensional record of the exposed portions of the wreck. The BlueView system uses sonar to create point clouds of submerged objects, even in conditions with very low visibility. The resulting high-definition images can be used by researchers to take measurements, plot complex spatial relationships, and reveal features that are often not visible to divers working on the site. It also produces vibrant, compelling imagery, as can be seen in the image below.

There are no plans to excavate the wreck of USS Hatteras, but NOAA and its partners continue to look for opportunities to study the site. Lying as it does in relatively shallow water, Hatteras may prove to be an ideal site upon which to evaluate new technologies like BlueView. Underwater archaeology is a logistically complex, slow, and expensive undertaking, and as a result relatively few historic shipwrecks are studied in any detail. But the September 2012 expedition to the Hatteras site may point the way to a new way of recording and studying them. Hatteras’ naval career was brief, but her contributions to science and history may only be beginning.

In this BlueView image, portions of Hatteras protrude above the seabed, including the stern and rudder (right), and the paddlewheel shaft, engine machinery, and paddlewheels (left).

CONTROVERSY HAS SINCE SURROUNDED Semmes’ decision to engage Kearsarge. Part of his rationale, no doubt, was that Alabama had been so strikingly successful in her fight with Hatteras, the only other warship that Semmes and Alabama had faced in direct combat. Semmes employed similar tactics and chose to fight with his starboard guns in both encounters. But the ease of the 1863 victory would help pave the way to the 1864 defeat.

The battle between Alabama and Hatteras had important repercussions that lasted far beyond the 13 minutes of gunfire. Had Alabama sunk instead, she would have been unable to continue her fabled career as a commerce raider, going on to burn, capture or destroy more than 30 ships after her encounter with Hatteras.

In addition to the toll on Union commerce that Alabama would inflict, the ease with which Alabama sank Hatteras stunned many in the U.S. Navy.

Alabama was seen not just as a nuisance pirate

N O A A , O F F I C E S O F N AT I O N A L M A R I N E S A N C T U A R I E S / E X P L O R E O C E A N ; P H O T O G R A P H B Y J A M E S G L A E S E R

REDISCOVERING HATTERAS

USS Kearsarge appeared off Cherbourg and took up a position outside the entrance to the harbor.

Alabama was trapped.

Semmes had few options. He could disperse his crew and turn the ship over to French authorities; he could sit at anchor indefinitely while Alabama slowly rotted beneath his feet; or he could make a break for the open sea and face Kearsarge, a vessel of comparable size and armament but in better shape and with a fresh crew.

Semmes chose the last option. After a few days of furious preparations, on June 19 Semmes steered Alabama out through the Cherbourg breakwater and into the English Channel, where Kearsarge and her captain, John Winslow, were waiting.

Alabama fired first, and the two ships began circling each other, starboard broadside to starboard broadside. They circled for an hour until Alabama, holed repeatedly below the waterline, began to fill and sink. Semmes struck his colors.

Around 40 of Alabama’s crew were killed in action or drowned. Another 70 were picked up by Kearsarge’s boats. Semmes, his first officer and some others were fished out of the water by a British steam yacht that had been lingering just outside the range of the ships’ guns. Semmes would sleep that night in a fine Southampton hotel, celebrated as a gallant underdog in an unfair fight against Kearsarge. Semmes did all he could to encourage that belief; when he learned that Winslow had fitted curtains of chain cable amidships to protect his vessel’s machinery, Semmes complained that Kearsarge had thus been “armored,” and that his ship’s munitions had deteriorated over the two years since they were first brought aboard.³⁶

48 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 48

2/11/13 11:48 PM

vessel to be chased, but as a formidable warship in her own right. For the next year and a half, Union ship captains worried that Alabama or a similar Confederate vessel might appear out of the sea behind them and leave them a sinking wreck. This caused commanders to be overly cautious and, on some occasions, fail to achieve military objectives.

The loss of Hatteras also had an immediate and significant impact on the larger conduct of the war. At the time of the battle, Bell’s squadron was preparing to recapture Galveston and use it as a stage to invade Texas. They would very likely

have been successful had they proceeded as planned, but worried that Alabama and other Confederate ships might still be lurking out of sight, naval officials delayed, giving the Confederate garrison critical time to fortify the city. Galveston would survive as the last major Confederate port, not surrendering until June 1865, two months after Appomattox and the assassination of President Lincoln.

The short clash between Alabama and Hatteras was more than just a rehearsal for the battle that would end Alabama’s famous career. The 1863 battle had its origin in a scheme that, if successful, would have dealt a substantial blow to Union military plans on the Texas coast. Although Captain Semmes’ plan } CONT. ON P. 77

ENDNOTES 1

“U.S.S. Hatteras,” in United States Naval War Records Office, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion 30 vols. (Washington, 1894-1922), Series II, Vol. 1, 100 (hereafter cited as ORN).

2

Joel T. Headley, Farragut and Our Naval Commanders (New York, 1867), 276-77; H. C. Blake, “Report of Lieutenant-Commander Blake, U. S. Navy, commanding U.S.S. R. R. Cuyler, regarding the departure of that vessel for sea,” October 7, 1862, ORN, Series I, Vol. 17, 319; H. H. Bell, “Order of Commodore Bell, U. S. Navy, to Lieutenant-Commander Blake, U. S. Navy, commanding U.S.S. R. R. Cuyler, to proceed to blockade duty southward of Mobile Bay,” October 27, 1862, ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 317; D. G. Farragut, “Order of Rear-Admiral Farragut, U. S. Navy, to Commander Emmons, U. S. Navy, to assume command of the U.S.S. R. R. Cuyler,” October 18, 1862, ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 308; Geo. F. Emmons, “Report of Commander Emmons, U. S. Navy, commanding U.S.S. R. R. Cuyler, offering to go in search of the C. S. S. Alabama and captured U. S. S. Harriet Lane,” January 9, 1863. ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 502.

3

Philadelphia Inquirer, February 16, 1863; Rafael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States (Baltimore, 1869), 400-01.

4

Andrew Bowcock, C.S.S. Alabama: Anatomy of a Confederate Raider (Annapolis, 2002), 9-11; Norman C. Delany, John McIntosh Kell of the Raider Alabama (Tuscaloosa, 1973), 128-30.

U.S.S. Hatteras, under his command, and the C.S.S. Alabama, Captain Semmes, C. S. Navy,” January 21, 1863, ORN, Series II, Vol. 2, 19; John Mcintosh Kell, Recollections of a Naval Life, an Original Compilation (Washington, 1900), 145-46.

17 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 30-32.

18 Court of Enquiry, Porter testimony, 109-11.

19 The Cruise of Alabama and the Sumter: From the Private Journals and Other Papers of Commander R. Semmes, C.S.N. and Other Officers (New York, 1864; reprint edition, 2001), 274.

20 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 32-34.

21 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 33-34, Porter testimony, 111-12.

22 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 40-41.

23 Court of Enquiry, Porter testimony, 113-15, Abraham M. Covert testimony, 200-202.

24 John S.C. Abbott, “Heroic Deeds of Heroic Men,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine vol. 33 (1866): 458.

25 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 35-37, Covert testimony 200-201.

5

Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, 537.

26 Court of Enquiry, Porter testimony 114-16.

6

R. Semmes to S. Mallory, May 12, 1863, ORN, Series II, Vol. 2, 684-85.

27 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 38-39, Porter testimony, 115-17.

7

“The Great Cruiser,” The [Atlanta] Constitution, August 29, 1886.

8

Ibid.

28 George Townley Fullam, The Journal of George Townley Fullam, Boarding Officer of the Confederate Sea Raider Alabama (Tuscaloosa, 1973), 72.

9

D.G. Farragut to T. Bailey, April 22, 1863, ORN, Series I, Vol. 20, 157.

10 H.H. Bell to D.G. Farragut, January 11, 1863, ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 504; Extract from diary of H.H. Bell, January 10, 1863, ORN, Series II, Vol. 2, Vol. 19, ORN735-36 (hereafter cited as “Bell Diary”).

11 F. H. Thompson, January 10, 1863, ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 505.

12 Bell Diary, January 11, 1863, 736-37; “Court of Enquiry concerning the loss of USS Hatteras convened at New York Navy Yard, Brooklyn, on March 1, 1863,” National Archives (hereafter cited as “Court of Enquiry”), testimony of H.C. Blake, 25-26.

13 Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, 541-42.

29 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 44-45, Porter testimony, 118-19.

30 H. Bell to D.G. Farragut, Galveston, January 12, 1863, ORN, Series I, Vol. 19, 507.

31 W. B. Smith, “Parole given by officers of the U.S.S. Hatteras to the commander of the C.S.S. Alabama,” January 11, 1863, ORN, Series II, Vol. 2, 21; Delaney, John McIntosh Kell, 143.

32 Delaney, John McIntosh Kell, 144-45.

33 G. Welles to H. Blake, March 23, 1863, ORN, Series II, Vol. 2, 22-23.

14 Ibid., 542

34 David D. Porter, Naval History of the Civil War (1886; reprint edition, Seacaucus, NJ, 1984), 271.

15 Court of Enquiry, Blake testimony, 29-30, Porter testimony, 106-107.

35 Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, 749-50.

16 Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, 543; H. C. Blake, “Report of Lieutenant-Commander Blake, U. S. Navy, of the engagement between the

36 Delaney, John McIntosh Kell, 179-80; Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, 761.

49 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Galveston.indd 49

2/11/13 11:48 PM

THE FILSON HISTORICAL SOCIETY, LOUISVILLE, KY

50 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 50

2/12/13 12:28 AM

E N E M I E S F R O N T & R E A R:

& TH E CA M PA I GN F O R V I C K S B U R G

BY B R O O K S D. S I M P S O N

Ulysses S. Grant’s capture of Vicksburg, Mississippi, remains one of the Civil War’s most celebrated campaigns. With equal parts military skill, determination, and persistence, the general overcame difficult terrain, poor weather, and a nearly equal foe to achieve one of the conflict’s most significant triumphs. Yet there is much more to the story. Even as Grant waged war against the elements and the enemy, he also had to wrestle with disloyal generals, skeptical civil superiors, and a critical press. Had he failed under their watchful eyes, the campaign might well have been his last.

51 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 51

2/12/13 12:28 AM

Vıcksburg, located midway down the state’s western border along the Mississippi River, was not only one of the last links uniting the Confederacy east and west of the river, but also served as a barrier to Union efforts to reopen the river to commercial and military traffic from St. Louis to New Orleans. Grant first contemplated the problem of how to take it in the fall of 1862. Perhaps a strike southward from Corinth would do the trick, he thought, although he would have to rely upon a single rail line for supplies as he first advanced upon Jackson and then turned west to take Vicksburg. He soon hit upon the idea of launching a second strike along the Mississippi River, with soldiers ferried down from Memphis, Tennessee, to a point north of Vicksburg, where, if all went well, a determined assault might overrun the fortifications in the area. He had some 30,000 men available for such a movement, and reinforcements were arriving daily, giving him a growing edge over his Confederate opponent, Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton.¹ Even as Grant mapped out his plan that November, however, he heard rumors that one of his former subordinates was contemplating a similar operation. Major General John A. McClernand, who had served under Grant for over a year, rising to division command, had left Grant’s army in late August and travelled to Illinois and then Washington. Grant, who had reservations about McClernand’s skills and found him a little too self-seeking, knew that he claimed to have friends in high places, all the way up to the White House. Indeed, McClernand accompanied Abraham Lincoln when the president visited the Army of the Potomac in early October. That Lincoln left George B. McClellan’s headquarters with serious doubts about that general’s willingness to take the offensive in Antietam’s aftermath suited McClernand’s agenda, for the Illinois Democrat-turned-general had long argued that West Pointers were more interested in promoting and protecting each other than in waging aggressive war. In McClernand’s view, that left citizen-soldiers such as himself struggling to attain the glory he was sure to secure if left to his own devices.

McClernand advocated a different approach for taking Vicksburg. Several midwestern governors were anxious to bring the Mississippi River under Union control and reopen that key commercial route. McClernand proposed raising new regiments throughout the Midwest to form an independent strike force under his command, with orders to take Vicksburg. He shared his idea first with Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, who fancied himself an expert on military affairs, and who secured an opportunity for McClernand to present his concept to the president. Always eager to support aggressive generals, especially those whose support might prove valuable politically, and impatient with the pace of the war to date, Lincoln agreed to the

plan. Yet no one, including General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck, thought to inform Grant.² Halleck was not wild about McClernand’s plan—or McClernand himself. And though he had criticized Grant’s abilities as a general back when he was Grant’s immediate superior in the West, Halleck had reassessed his opinion since coming to Washington, where a wider assortment of problems had led him to realize that Grant was not so bad after all. For the moment Halleck prodded Grant forward, telling him that the new regiments entering his department (the ones supposedly earmarked for McClernand) were his to command.

Meanwhile, Grant began hearing rumors of a possible expedition under McClernand, although no one fully disclosed what Lincoln, McClernand, and Stanton had discussed and what McClernand believed he was authorized to do.

But the scraps of information and innuendo that Grant gathered were enough to spur him into action: He hurried to commence his campaign, hoping to take Vicksburg before McClernand arrived to claim his command. Grant would drive down southward from northern Mississippi with some 40,000 men, looking to engage the Confederates, while Major General William T. Sherman, whom Grant had grown to treat as his most trustworthy subordinate, would board some 30,000 men on transports and make his way down the Mississippi, debark north of the city, and then strike at Vicksburg itself. Should the Confederates decide to concede control of central Mississippi in order to concentrate on Sherman, Grant would advance on the city from the northeast and east in a giant pincers movement.

Grant’s eagerness to move led to a hasty offensive undertaken before everything was in place.

His overland strike came to naught when Confederate cavalry sliced his supply lines and devastated his supply depot at Holly Springs. Vicksburg’s defenders, left to concentrate their attention on Sherman’s riverborne expedition, dealt him a bloody setback at Chickasaw Bluffs on December

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

But the scraps of information and innuendo that Grant gathered were enough to spur him into action: He hurried to commence his campaign, hoping to take Vicksburg before McClernand arrived to claim his command.

52 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 52

2/12/13 12:28 AM

PHOTOGRAPH CREDIT HERE

g,

Major General John A. McClernand (right) poses for the camera with Abraham Lincoln and famed detective Allan Pinkerton during the president’s visit to the Army of the Potomac in October 1862. A former subordinate of Grant’s, McClernand used his political connections in Washington to push his own plan to take Vicksburg.

53 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 53

2/12/13 12:28 AM

29. Soon after, McClernand arrived at Sherman’s headquarters, took command, and agreed to implement Sherman’s proposal to advance up the Arkansas River to subdue Confederate-held Fort Hindman, located at Arkansas Post, perhaps two dozen miles upstream from where the Arkansas emptied into the Mississippi. Although Grant protested that the expedition was a wild goose chase, he did so under the impression that it was McClernand’s idea; after learning that Sherman had proposed the operation, Grant spoke more kindly of it.

After meeting McClernand on January 18, Grant soon learned that neither Sherman nor naval commander David Dixon Porter had any faith in McClernand. That confirmed his own impression. Ten days later, Grant picked a fight with John McClernand by announcing that he would take charge of operations against Vicksburg.

From

In Illinois governor Richard Yates (above) John McClernand saw an ally who could advance his case with political leaders in Washington.

nand to command of a single corps, he could not silence his disappointed subordinate’s criticisms.

For months McClernand sent reports to Lincoln, always with an eye toward advancing his own opportunities and denigrating Grant. He also maintained contact with Illinois governor Richard Yates, explaining his situation and asking Yates to “do what you can for me.”⁷ Grant did not need such distractions. Although he favored a sweep southward to cross the Mississippi below Vicksburg, the wet weather and soggy levees had forced him to wait until spring.

It would not do to sit for several months without doing anything; that would invite scrutiny from his superiors, the press, and prominent politicians. Besides, suppose something else worked?

Certainly there were enough people willing to offer advice. Halleck urged Grant to consider exploiting an old canal to divert the path of the Mississippi away from Vicksburg, which would allow a naval force to bypass the challenge of running past the Vicksburg batteries. “[T]he President attaches much importance to this,” Halleck suggested.⁸ Grant took the hint and set his men to work, first on the canal, then on other projects designed to carve out new waterways and divert the flow of the Mississippi. Such activity might prevent idle soldiers from contracting disease, a challenge given the lack of medical personnel. “Vicksburg will

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

the moment he assumed command of operations against Vicksburg, Grant knew that the best way to advance against the city from his position on the west bank of the Mississippi was to move south, cross the Mississippi below Vicksburg, and approach the city from the south. At the moment, however, that was impossible: The levees he would have to use as roads were wet and in some cases submerged. Approaching the city from the north would prove daunting because of the Mississippi Delta, a nearly impassible set of swampy waterways. Sherman preferred to abandon the entire enterprise and return to Memphis to start anew, but Grant believed that the press, public, and politicians alike would interpret such a movement as a retreat and call for his removal.

Besides, at the moment Grant’s biggest problem was John A. McClernand, who was not taking Grant’s assumption of command without protest. Grant had no right to thwart a presidential directive, McClernand insisted. Grant calmly countered that he had orders from Halleck directing him to take command of the Army of the Tennessee and had seen no order from Lincoln (or anyone else) “to prevent my taking immediate command in the field.”³ A careful reading of the order authorizing McClernand’s expedition revealed a gaping loophole. Although it called upon him to raise new regiments in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, with directions to forward them to Memphis, it specified that only “when a sufficient force not required by the operations of General Grant’s command” was raised would McClernand have the authority to organize and direct an expedition against Vicksburg. It would be left to Halleck to decide that the conditions had been met, and it was unlikely that Halleck ever would. That Halleck did not draft the order (indeed, Halleck said for months that he had no instructions concerning McClernand’s mission) simply increases one’s curiosity about who chose the particular wording of the directive—and why.

Nevertheless, McClernand continued to interpret the order as an expression of Lincoln’s support for his plan.⁴ McClernand asked Grant to forward his protest through proper channels in Washington (and McClernand himself sent the correspondence directly to Lincoln).⁵ Grant complied, adding that while he was “not ambitious to have this or any other command,” and would have entrusted Sherman with the task, when it came to McClernand, “I have not confidance in his ability as a soldier to conduct an expedition of the magnitude of this one successfully.”⁶ Although Grant prevailed for the moment in reducing McCler-

54 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 54

2/12/13 12:28 AM

“Our noble army of the Mississippi is being wasted by the foolish, drunken, stupid Grant.”

Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati Commercial, to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase in February 1863

be a hard job,” he told his wife, Julia. “I expect to was always a sticking point with the general-in-chief—and tried to get through it successfully however.”⁹ motivate him with a major generalship in the regular army. It was It proved a hard job indeed. After determina position he also dangled before Army of the Potomac commander ing that the old canal would not suffice to divert Joseph Hooker, and Army of the Cumberland commander William the river, Grant identified three other promising S. Rosecrans, saying “it will be given to the General in the field who routes, but all were unsuccessful.¹⁰ Such setbacks first wins an important & decisive victory.”¹⁴ Grant did not reply. He only added to the overall perception that Grant was well aware of what might happen if he failed to produce results. was stuck and could do nothing about it. Moreover, the season, the weather, and the sodden ground combined to spread sickness throughout his command, as reported throughout the press and in letters to Washington.¹¹ nothing else, John A. McClernand was persistent. He had Aware of the reports, Grant informed Halleck kept up a flurry of correspondence to Lincoln. If the president did that the situation “is not what it is represented in not reply, neither did he discourage the corps commander from the public press. It is as good as any previous calwriting. In March, McClernand turned to that ace in the hole played culation could have prognosticated.” Perhaps so, by many a critic of Grant’s: He sent forward one William J. Kountz, but only three days earlier Grant had noted to his a captain who had clashed with Grant early in the war over the wife that there was “a greatdeel of sickness among management of steamboats, to tell the president that Grant had the soldiers but not nearly so much as there was been “gloriously drunk” on March 13. That Grant drank to exwhen I first came down.” It would not do to be so cess was a common charge offered by critics throughout the war: candid to Halleck.¹² Kountz had also made it back in 1861, and in February 1863, another Countering stories of low morale among his unhappy general, Charles S. Hamilton, had confided to Wisconsin men, Grant also reported that “there is the senator James R. Doolittle that Grant had been “beastly drunk” best of feeling and greatest confidence in Memphis some time before. However, Kountz was one of success,” although they looked forof several correspondents to report a mid-March 1863 ward to receiving back pay so as incident involving Grant. That there may have been to provide for their families back something to the story is implied by a close reading home. But the issue remained a of a June letter from John A. Rawlins, Grant’s chief pressing one. So did the weather: of staff and reputed conscience when it came to Grant complained that the “evliquor, that referred to Grant pledging “early last erlasting rains set us back here March” that he would no longer imbibe during the wonderfully in our work. It is imwar.¹⁵ possible for us to get done more Others joined the swelling chorus of criticism. than one days work in three.”

Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati CommerEventually the downpours and cial, told Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase in John A. Rawlins flooding rendered the canal-digging February, “Our noble army of the Mississippi is being enterprise futile. Other attempts to wasted by the foolish, drunken, stupid Grant.” He repeatreach Vicksburg through the Mississippi ed his litany on April 1, declaring that Grant “is a jackass Delta north of the city, preferably along the in the original package. He is a poor drunken imbecile. He is Yazoo River and various bayous, also fell short. a poor stick sober, and he is most of the time more than half drunk, As winter turned to spring, it looked to be an unand much of the time idiotically drunk.” The record was clear: “Grant relenting tale of setbacks and failures.¹³ will fail miserably, hopelessly, eternally. You may look for and calcuGrant was well aware that people in Washlate upon his failure in every position in which he may be placed, as a ington were watching him. Halleck chided him perfect certainty.”¹⁶ for not reporting his situation more often—that Several of these people had axes to grind with Grant. The gen-

L I B R A R Y O F C O N G R E S S ( R AW L I N S ) ; N AT I O N A L A R C H I V E S ( G R A N T )

If

55 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 55

2/12/13 12:28 AM

eral had never been a favorite of the Cincinnati press. More surprising was the criticism from other quarters. Furious that Grant had ordered sanctions lifted against the Democratic Chicago Times, Joseph Medill, editor of the rival Republican Daily Chicago Tribune, exploded in a letter to Elihu B. Washburne, long known as Grant’s political patron in the House of Representatives. “No man’s military career in the army is more open to destructive criticism than Grant’s,” announced the newspaperman. “We have kept off of him on your account. We could have made him stink in the nostrils of the

public like an old fish had we properly criticized his military blunders.” Next time, Medill warned Washburne, “we shall not be so tender on him.”¹⁷ Cadwallader C. Washburn, a major general in Grant’s army, shared similar doubts with his brother, who happened to be Elihu B. Washburne.

Complaining about “the contemptible imbecility that characterizes the management of this whole army,” Washburn soon concluded that Grant had no

L I B R A R Y O F C O N G R E S S (2)

Craving reliable intelligence on Grant and the progress of his campaign against Vicksburg, Lincoln had Secretary of War Edwin Stanton send two men to the general’s headquarters to report back what they learned: newspaper reporter and erstwhile War Department agent Charles A. Dana (above) and Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas (opposite page).

56 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 56

2/12/13 12:28 AM

idea how to go about taking Vicksburg. “The truth must be told even when it hurts,” he concluded.

“You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

Alarmed, Representative Washburne shared the letter with Chase, permitting him to show it to Lincoln. For Chase, the effort to discredit Grant was part of a plan to shift forces from Grant to Rosecrans’ Army of the Cumberland, currently sitting in Tennessee. For the president, however, it was troubling to learn that even Washburne, once Grant’s staunch defender, was now expressing doubts.¹⁸

By March 1863, Lincoln had heard enough. Beside the complaints making their way to the White House, there were rumors that Grant and his generals opposed the administration’s recent decision to enlist African Americans. And still, there was no sign that any of Grant’s operations would amount to anything. In February Lincoln had pondered asking General Benjamin F. Butler to visit Grant’s command, and he had Secretary of War Edwin Stanton draw up orders placing Butler in command of the Mississippi Valley “as soon as the navigation of the Mississippi is opened,” which would have left Grant in limbo.¹⁹ The president was impatient. Perhaps it was time to try someone else.

Unable to see things for himself (as he had often done when he visited the Army of the Potomac), Lincoln through Stanton decided to send two people to visit Grant’s headquarters and report back. Each would have a cover story to conceal their mission. Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas would oversee the recruitment of AfricanAmerican soldiers and the formation of new regiments, supposedly a point of controversy among Grant’s generals, while newspaper reporter and erstwhile War Department agent Charles A. Dana would go on the pretext of investigating problems with the paymaster department, a sore subject with Grant. The men left Washington the day before Grant supposedly became sensationally drunk, and several weeks before the most critical comments—including the observations from McClernand, Halstead, and Washburn—would arrive. Those accounts would reach Washington as Dana and Thomas arrived at Young’s Point, Louisiana, in early April.

As the two men made their way west, Henry W. Halleck did his best to warn Grant. He reminded him of the importance of the administration’s new initiative to raise black regiments, and told him about the rumors of opposition in his army.²⁰ He also relayed to Grant that Lincoln “seems to be rather impatient about matters on the Mississippi,” a clear hint that some-

thing had to happen, and soon.²¹ For Grant, the solution would be straightforward—once spring arrived and he could move his army again. At last he could test out sweeping south to cross the Mississippi below Vicksburg. However, he had to buy time to get the movement under way, and to counter stories of an intoxicated, incompetent commander of sickly soldiers, stuck in an unending stalemate. For Grant to wage the military campaign he wanted, he would first have to win over his superiors and counter criticisms. If he failed to win those battles, he need not worry about the other operation.

Dana

arrived at Grant’s headquarters on April 6. Despite his cover story, his real mission was no secret: As Sherman put it, “Mr. Dana is here I suppose to watch us all.” Not everyone welcomed the visitor. Several of Grant’s staff officers at headquarters had already suggested that the best way to greet him was to toss him into the Mississippi. Rawlins, Grant’s chief of staff, favored making the intruder feel welcome—the better to keep an eye on him—an approach Grant endorsed. If the opportunity presented itself, they might even cause Dana to see things their way, and have him relay that perspective back north. Dana found himself protected by an armed guard, with his tent pitched next to Grant’s own tent. He was allowed to listen in as other officers (notably Sherman) complained about McClernand’s shortcomings, all of which Dana dutifully reported to Stanton.²² Thomas arrived a few days later. Grant welcomed him as well, and began issuing orders to facilitate not only raising black regiments but also “removing prejudice against them.” Pleased, Thomas soon had nothing but good things to report about his host. “The army is in very fine shape, unusually healthy, and in good heart,” he told Stanton, effectively defusing rumors to the contrary.²³ Dana set along similar reassurances.²⁴ Thus Grant had turned two men sent to investigate him into his very advocates with his superiors. As Sherman put it, he felt assured that Dana “knows many things he never did before.”²⁵ Eventually Stanton’s spies would be joined by two more men. Elihu B. Washburne arrived at Grant’s invitation, no doubt curious to see matters for himself in the wake of his brother Cadwallader’s troubling accounts. Illinois governor Richard Yates may well have come to the front at McClernand’s urging, for the two men had maintained close contact since the fall of 1861 about the military fortunes of Illinois soldiers in general and McClernand in particular, and McClernand saw in Yates a man who could plead McClernand’s case to Lincoln. Every general in Grant’s army, it seemed, had political connections, which did much to blur the line between civil and military authority and complicated the challenges facing a commander. It was bad enough to find oneself under fire from the enemy in front of you without worrying about the intrigue going on behind you.

Aware that he was now surrounded by visitors from Washington, each eager to reach his own conclusions, Grant reassured Halleck that he would move within days, adding: “The embarrassments I have had to contend against on account of extreme high water

57 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 57

2/12/13 12:28 AM

cannot be appreciated by anyone not present to witness it. I think however you will receive favorable reports of the condition and feeling of this Army from every impartial judge, and from all who have been sent from Washington to look after its welfare.”²⁶ The visitors had arrived at a critical point in the operations against Vicksburg. Less than two weeks before, Grant had rejected one final strike from the north via Haines Bluff, concluding that it “would be attended with immense sacrifice of life, if not defeat.” He returned instead to his plan to march south of the city, cross the Mississippi at or near Grand Gulf, and move inland. That would involve transports and gunboats running the Vicksburg batteries, a risky proposition. Once across the river, he would dispatch McClernand to join Major General Nathaniel P. Banks to capture Port Hudson before turning on Vicksburg itself.²⁷ Not everyone agreed with Grant’s plan. Sherman still favored an advance from the north, with Memphis serving as a supply base. He warned Rawlins to have each corps commander prepare a written opinion on what to do, implying that he believed McClernand would distort the record if Grant suffered another setback.²⁸ Then he took his doubts even further, qualifying his status as Grant’s loyal subordinate. He shared his concerns with his wife, his father-in-law, and his brother John, who happened to be a United States senator—all people who were well connected with the powers that be.²⁹ In Sherman’s mind, Grant had settled on a plan of campaign because he was afraid of criticism from the press, and when he failed, McClernand would replace him, an event that would lead to Sherman’s resignation.³⁰ Aware of Sherman’s reservations, Grant nonetheless set them aside. Apprised that naval commander David Dixon Porter had received orders from Washington to move his flotilla south of Vicksburg sooner than he had expected, Grant accelerated his plans.³¹ On the night of April 16, gunboats and transports ran past the Vicksburg batteries, suffering little damage; a second attempt on April 22 was only slightly less successful. Meanwhile Grant shifted the corps of Mc-

B AT T L E S A N D L E A D E R S O F T H E C I V I L WA R

By keeping Charles Dana (seated right, in a drawing based on a July 1863 sketch of Grant’s headquarters) close by, Grant (seated center) ensured that Washington would learn his perspective on affairs from a trusted source.

Clernand and Major General James B. McPherson southward to prepare to cross the Mississippi, while Sherman remained opposite Vicksburg to keep Pemberton and his Army of Mississippi guessing as to Union intentions. A Union cavalry raid through Mississippi led by Colonel Benjamin Grierson added to the Confederate confusion.

Grant crossed the Mississippi just downstream of Grand Gulf at Bruinsburg as April came to an end. He kept an eye on McClernand, who wanted to put on a good show for Governor Yates, including a grand review complete with an artillery salute, even though Grant had issued orders to conserve ammunition. Other observers wondered whether McClernand might also be slowed by his new wife joining him on this march. Dana, Washburne, and Yates also accompanied Grant’s move: Yates had even spoken to McClernand’s men at Port Gibson, delaying a possible pursuit. Upon taking Grand Gulf, Grant reported to his wife that both the congressman and the governor were elated with the progress.³² At Grand Gulf, Grant learned that Banks would not be able to cooperate with him for weeks due to a series of delays in getting his command under way. Rather than wait for his counterpart (who ranked him), Grant chose to keep moving into the interior of Mississippi. He would take Vicksburg on his own. He notified Halleck but didn’t wait for a response, believing that any reply would be too late. The move would require Grant to live off the land for a few weeks, but he made ample preparations, and once Sherman arrived they set out in earnest, some 40,000 strong.³³ In keeping Dana close by, Grant ensured that Washington would learn his perspective on affairs from a trusted source. The War Department envoy, prone to offering his opinion freely and vigorously, proved ideal for this service. His reports were effusive in their praise of Grant and expressed serious reservations about McClernand’s fitness to command. Eventually Stanton wired Dana that Grant could remove any general who obstructed military operations: “He has the full confidence of the Government, is expected to enforce his authority, and will be firmly and heartily supported; but he will be responsible for any failure to exert his powers.”³⁴

58 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 58

2/12/13 12:28 AM

It would not be until May 14 that Grant saw the letter. By that time his army was on the move in Mississippi, having beat back the Confederates at Raymond on May 12 before entering the state capital at Jackson two days later. Once his men tore enough rails to impair Jackson’s usefulness as a Confederate supply depot, he planned to turn west to give battle to Pemberton’s army, which was shielding Vicksburg from the invader.³⁵ Within four more days Grant was at the gates of Vicksburg, having thrashed the Confederates at Champion Hill on May 16 and at Big Black River the following day before advancing on the city, where Pemberton and some 30,000 men rallied in fortified positions. When two assaults on May 19 and 22 failed, Grant commenced siege operations against the surrounded Confederate citadel,

whose surrender soon seemed simply a matter of time.

Grant’s success erased any doubts in Washington. Reassured, Lincoln now declared that if the general prevailed, “why, Grant is my man and I am his the rest of the war!”³⁶ Stanton and Halleck agreed.

Even Chase would pretend he was always in Grant’s corner. Sherman was astonished but delighted by the course of the campaign. Back in Illinois, Yates understood that Grant’s success meant that McClernand would not gather the laurels accorded the victor, while an elated Washburne reminded people that Grant was his discovery.

With Vicksburg in his grasp, Grant turned to dispose of his rival. He reiterated to Halleck his distrust of McClernand: “He is entirely unfit for the position of Corps Commander both on the march and on the battle field.”³⁷ Had he had his way, he would have waited until Vicksburg fell to dismiss his troublesome subordinate. However, when McClernand issued an order congratulating his men and disparaging other units of the Army of the Tennessee—and released the document to the press—Grant took advantage } CONT. ON P. 77

ENDNOTES 1

Michael B. Ballard, Vicksburg: The Campaign That Opened the Mississippi (Chapel Hill, 2004), 82, 89.

2

Richard L. Kiper, Major General John Alexander McClernand: Politician in Uniform (Kent, OH, 1999), 135-36.

3

General Orders No. 13, Department of the Tennessee, January 30, 1863, John Y. Simon, et al. eds., The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant (Carbondale, IL, 1967-2012), 7:265n (hereafter PUSG); McClernand to Grant, January 30, 1863, ibid.; Grant to McClernand, January 31, 1863, ibid., 7:264.

21 Halleck to Grant, April 2, 1863, ibid., 7:429n.

4

Kiper, McClernand, 140-41.

5

McClernand to Grant, February 1, 1863, PUSG, 7:267n and 268n.

6

Grant to John C. Kelton, February 1, 1863, ibid., 7:274.

24 Dana to Stanton, April 14, 1863, The War of the Rebellion: A Compiliation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, DC, 1880-1901), Series I, Volume 24, part one, 74-75 (hereafter OR).

7

Kiper, McClernand, 196.

8

Halleck to Grant, January 25, 1863, PUSG, 7:252n; Grant to Halleck, January 31, 1863, ibid., 7:254n; see also Grant to McClernand, February 18, 1863, ibid., 7:340.

9

Grant to Julia Dent Grant, January 31, 1863, ibid., 7:270.

10 Grant to Kelton, February 4, 1863, ibid., 7:281.

11 Kiper, McClernand, 199-200.

12 Grant to Halleck, February 18, 1863, PUSG, 7:339; Grant to Julia Dent Grant, February 15, 1863, ibid., 7:331. On conditions when Grant arrived, see Grant to Robert C. Wood, March 6, 1863, ibid., 7:391-92.

13 Grant to Halleck, February 18, 1863, ibid., 7:339; Grant to Edwin D. Judd, February 19, 1863, ibid., 7:343-44; Grant to Isaac S. Stewart, February 23, 1863, ibid., 7:351; Grant to Stephen A. Hurlbut, March 4, 1863, ibid., 7:381.

19 Lincoln “to whom it may concern,” February 11, 1863, Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ, 1953), 6:100 and note.

20 Halleck to Grant, March 30, 1863, PUSG, 8:93-94n.

22 Simpson, Grant, 184.

23 Ibid., 187.

25 Sherman to John Sherman, April 23, 1863, Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Berlin, eds., Sherman’s Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T. Sherman, 1860-1865 (Chapel Hill, 1999), 459 (hereafter SCW).

26 Simpson, Grant, 187; Kiper, McClernand, 207.

27 Grant to David D. Porter, April 2, 1863, PUSG, 8:3-4; Grant to Halleck, April 4, 1863, ibid., 8:10-12: Grant to McClernand, April 12, 1863, ibid., 8:56-57.

28 Sherman to Rawlins, April 8, 1863, SCW, 443-44.

29 Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, April 10, 1863, and Sherman to John Sherman, April 26, 1863, ibid., 445-48, 459-63.

30 Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, April 29, 1863, ibid., 464-66.

31 Grant to McClernand, April 11, 1863, PUSG, 8:47-48.

32 Ballard, Vicksburg, 237; Grant to Julia Grant, May 3, 1863, PUSG, 8:155.

14 Halleck to Grant, March 1, 20, 1863, ibid., 7:401n.

33 Simpson, Grant, 193-94.

15 See Halstead to Chase, April 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln Papers (Robert Todd Lincoln Collection), Library of Congress; Rawlins to Grant, June 6, 1863, PUSG, 8:323-24.

34 Stanton to Dana, May 5, 1863, OR, Series I, Volume 24, part one, 84.

16 Brooks D. Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 18221865 (Boston, 2000), 177.

35 Simpson, Grant, 197.

36 Ibid., 215.

37 Grant to Halleck, May 24, 1863, PUSG, 8:261.

17 Ibid., 174.

38 Grant to Lorenzo Thomas, June 26, 1863, PUSG, 8:428.

18 Ibid., 178.

39 Simpson, Grant, 218-19.

59 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-Grant.indd 59

2/12/13 12:28 AM

Confederate _____________________

Rebels who brought their slaves along to war assumed a shared loyal ty to

REBELS WHO BROUGHT THEIR SLAVES TO WAR ASSUMED A SHARED LOY ALTY

“I sure stuck by my master.... I went in the battles along side of him and we both fit under Marse Robert E. Lee.” —CONFEDERATE CAMP SERVANT ISAAC STIER

60 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 60

2/12/13 8:38 PM

Lieutenant Andrew Chandler of the 44th Mississippi Infantry and his slave Silas, who accompanied him to war.

___________________ Like Me

oyal ty to the Confederate cause—as do some history revisionists today. *Reality was much more complex.

LOY ALTY TO THE CONFEDERATE CAUSE—AS DO SOME HISTORY REVISIONISTS TODAY. *REALITY WAS MUCH MORE COMPLEX.

C O L L E C T I O N O F A N D R E W C H A N D L E R B AT TA I L E

BY KEVIN M. LEVIN

BY KEVIN M. LEVIN

61 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 61

2/12/13 8:38 PM

during the winter lull of 1861-1862, Confederate officer Edward Porter Alexander purchased what he described as “two appendages.”

The first was a “a very pretty bay mare with a roan spot on one hip,” and the second was “a 15 year old darkey named Charley,” whom he described as “a medium tall & slender, ginger-cake colored, & well behaved & good dispositioned boy.”¹ Charley would remain with Alexander until the close of the war. He experienced the brutality of the whip on at least two occasions, but also received genuine acts of kindness from his master.

In addition to ensuring that Alexander’s quarters were kept clean, Charley washed his master’s clothes, prepared his food, brushed his uniforms, polished his swords and buckles, ran errands, foraged for food, and tended his horse. While soldiers were on the march, servants such as Charley likely would have transported their masters’ personal baggage as well as accoutrements of headquarters. Although Alexander makes no mention of it, Charley may have experienced the battlefield as a courier and may even have assisted an artillery battery under his owner’s command. Writing decades after the war in a private journal intended for his grandchildren, Alexander Confederate officer Edward Porter Alexander acknowledged Charley’s presence in camp, though it was a relationship that he never fully described—and perhaps one that he never completely understood himself.

Charley joined thousands of fellow slaves who were forced to follow their Confederate masters—or, more likely, their masters’ sons—to war beginning in the spring of 1861. In many cases, they were continuing a longstanding relationship, with masters selecting their most trusted slaves to accompany them. The arrangement embodied what white southerners deemed best about their slave society.

A closer look at the relationship between soldier-master and slave opens a window into the final years of slavery as it stretched to meet the exigencies of war. Master and slave confronted one another on a landscape where the social rules that were strictly defined and enforced at home now constantly shifted in response to events on the battlefield, political decisions made in Richmond and Washington, D.C., or the slaves’ own choices.²

Confederate army reflected the need to mobilize as much of the southern population as possible against an enemy whose materiel and human resources seemed limitless. The mobilization of body servants fit within the much broader Confederate process that impressed tens of thousands of free and enslaved blacks into work on various military-related projects such as earthworks construction and road maintenance. Yet in contrast with other, impersonal uses of black labor, personal servants occupied a unique place in a slave society now at war. They shared the hardships of life away from home with their owners and even reinforced long-standing assumptions about the morality of slavery itself. But as the war dragged on, these same men would force their masters to face profound questions about what they believed to be their slaves’ unquestioning loyalty.³ While the presence of slaves in the army fit within an institution based on a clearly defined chain of command, the relationship between master and slave went further: It was one of absolute authority.

Although servants were sometimes outfitted with Confederate uniforms, this should not obscure the fundamental fact that their legal status remained unchanged while with the army. Because most servants accompanied officers, their presence reinforced both the master’s military rank as well as his position in a society that measured power and influence based on slave ownership.

Masters framed even routine tasks such as cooking and cleaning as a reflection of their slaves’ fidelity. One Georgia officer wrote home flatteringly of his servant, Cyrus: “He gives me no trouble at all. Attends well to my horse and things general.” According to this officer, when Cyrus was asked if he wanted to go home, Cyrus reaffirmed his loyalty by responding, “not without I go.” In language that both praised his servant’s work and pointed to the vast gulf between master and slave, one South Carolina officer both asked and exclaimed: “Why weren’t you white! Why weren’t you white! Why weren’t you white!” Writing after the war, Carlton McCarthy, who served in the Richmond Howitzers, held tightly to the language of paternalism by concluding that the routine work of camp servants represented “admiration … for their masters.”⁴ These one-dimensional and self-serving por-

F R A N C I S M I L L E R , T H E P H O T O G R A P H I C H I S T O R Y O F T H E C I V I L WA R

ON ONE LEVEL THE presence of body servants in the

62 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 62

2/12/13 8:38 PM

C O M E R FA M I LY PA P E R S #167 - Z , S O U T H E R N H I S T O R I C A L C O L L E C T I O N , U N I V E R S I T Y O F N O R T H C A R O L I N A AT C H A P E L H I L L

Alabama soldier John Wallace Comer and his slave Burrell, who accompanied him during his service with the Army of Tennessee.

63 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 63

2/12/13 8:38 PM

traits tell us very little about how body servants experienced camp life or the meaning they attached to their time away from loved ones while in constant danger. A close examination of the accounts of their owners, however, suggests that servants took advantage of the opportunity to negotiate new boundaries and increased privileges. Some slaves, for example, earned extra money by performing tasks for other men in camp. Brigadier General Dorsey Pender’s body servant, Joe, used his earnings to purchase a new suit. While buying clothing traditionally reserved for whites may have enhanced Joe’s sense of self-worth, Pender may have uneasily reflected on whether such privileges threatened his authority.⁵ A master’s willingness to negotiate more flexible terms could have stemmed from several factors, including trust in a slave’s ability to prioritize personal obligations as well as the recognition of their shared experiences in camp and on the march. In his letters home, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Winsmith of the 5th South Carolina Infantry routinely included reassurances that his trusted servant Spencer was well, to be read to Spencer’s wife, Peg, and children. News from home may also have brought master and slave closer together.

In March 1863 Silas Chandler learned of the birth of his son from his owner, Lieutenant Andrew Chandler of the 44th Mississippi Infantry.

While Silas acted as a liaison between camp and their home in West Point, Mississippi, during the first half of the war primarily for his master’s benefit, it is likely that Silas welcomed the trips so he could see his wife and children. John Winsmith’s servant, Spencer, washed and cleaned for others while encamped in the relatively peaceful setting of Sullivan’s Island, near Charleston, in the spring of 1861. He soon earned enough money to catch the attention of his owner, who noted that, “he is making more money than any of us.”⁶ We do not know if Spencer’s income threatened the delicate balance of power between master and servant. In the case of Sergeant Edwin Fay, who enlisted in the spring of 1862 in the Louisiana Minden Rangers, his servant Rich’s increased freedoms caused nothing but frustration. Over the next two years Rich challenged his master’s authority by running off for days at a time and maintaining a lucrative business cooking and cleaning for other men in the unit. In a letter home, Fay reported “Rich has sent home 2½ [dollars] by Capt. Wimberly $2 another time and 4¼ by Linn Watkins.” Rich’s unwillingness to entrust his owner with his earnings likely contributed to his own sense of self worth and autonomy. Even a “good whipping” on at least one occasion failed to yield the desired changes in Rich’s behavior.⁷ While soldiers in the ranks were disciplined to maintain order within a complex hierarchy, officers disciplined their servants as a reminder of their absolute authority. Edward Porter Alexander recalled giving Charley “a little licking but twice—once for robbing a pear tree in the garden of the Keach house, in which we were staying on the outskirts of Richmond below Rocketts, & once in Pa. just before Gettysburg, for stealing apple-brandy & getting tight on it.”⁸ It is impossible to know whether Charley considered his punishment a “little licking.” The ability to discipline a servant not only ensured continued compliance to certain expectations, but also likely reflected the servant’s willingness to challenge those set boundaries.

The slaveowners’ paternalism made it easy to frame such disciplinary actions as part of their chattel’s continuing education. At some point, however, slaveowners had to question whether their servants’ fidelity was absolute. The proximity of the Union army offered slaves— both in camp and on the home front—the best path to freedom, one that countless numbers of them seized. How Confederate officers dealt

with escaped servants pointed directly to the ambivalence that underlay the master-slave relationship.

The problem was especially acute during marches into northern territory. During the Gettysburg Campaign in the summer of 1863, South Carolinians in General James Longstreet’s First Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia could do little as they watched women in Chambersburg call out to their servants to make their escape.⁹ A year into the war, John Winsmith’s servant

64 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 64

2/12/13 8:38 PM

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Rebel soldiers and slaves are shown relaxing together in this idealized view of Confederate camp life. In truth, the exigencies of war would test the master-slave relationship.

Spencer disappeared while away from camp on assignment. Winsmith struggled with the possibility that Spencer escaped to the Union navy, which had been patrolling off the coast near Charleston.

Upon his return to James Island, Winsmith wondered whether his trusted servant had been kidnapped by the enemy or influenced by “a free boy from the city who was hired as a cook” by a fellow officer. Apparently, he never seriously considered that Spencer might have desired freedom or that

he may have exploited Winsmith’s trust. Rather, Winsmith fell back on the observation that “negroes are very uncertain and tricky creatures so it is difficult to tell what is the real truth in this case.”¹⁰ Spencer was never heard from again.

CONFEDERATE CAMP SERVANTS WHO did not or could not escape were

exposed to all the dangers of military life, from disease to the battlefield. Accounts of slaves marching into battle alongside masters, assisting them if they were wounded, or securing the body in

65 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 65

2/12/13 8:38 PM

D AV I D W Y N N VA U G H A N C O L L E C T I O N

the event of death, as well as tales of shooting at Yankee soldiers, slave.” Another slaveowner recalled instructing his remain the most contentious aspect of the memory of these men. servant “when a fight was on to remain at the rear,” There can be little doubt that these stories outline events that actu- but invariably he was “on the skirmish line or in ally took place; however, many of these accounts come from Confed- the thickest of the fight, loaded with canteens of erate veterans’ postwar writings and rarely include the voice of the water for members of the mess.” The vast majority slave in question. As a result, they tell us much more about white of these stories of servants braving the battlefield southerners’ ideal version of their former slaves and not the often to fight Yankees or rescue wounded masters litter complex factors that motivated slaves during those moments of postwar accounts. As a result, they tell us much grave danger and uncertainty. about how whites chose to remember their former While camp servant Stephen Moore reassured his wife back slaves during the postwar period, but very little home in South Carolina that he was beabout what motivated camp ing treated well in camp, his priority was servants during these moments that she inform the rest of the slaves of intense danger.¹⁴ that, “I have been on the Battle field.”

Former slaveowners may There is no indication that Moore viewed have found it easy to acknowlhis battlefield exploits as a sign of loyalty edge their servants’ bravery to either the Confederacy or his master; in a comforting Lost Cause rather, he likely wanted to display his narrative in their wartime manly virtues and earn respect.¹¹ In a reminiscences, but this was postwar interview Wiley Brewer of Misnot always the case during sissippi bragged that he had “killed a the conflict. To acknowledge a thousand Yankees” and even “drowned” camp servant’s discipline, feara few. Isaac Stier fondly recalled, “I sure lessness, or skill would have stuck by my master.... I went in the batcompromised a crucial distles along side of him and we both fit [sic] tinction that justified slaves’ under Marse Robert E. Lee.”¹² It would use in various support roles be a mistake to brush off these accounts rather than as soldiers. In his as posturing or exaggerating. Just like letters home, Lieutenant John veterans, former camp servants viewed Wallace Comer of the 57th the war as the defining experience of Alabama Infantry continually their lives, and they wanted their sacripraised his servant Burrell for fice and bravery to be acknowledged and his devotion and steadfastness remembered. while accompanying him on Some of the most popular and mispicket duty, but at no time did An unidentified officer and his camp understood accounts of Confederate he consider him anything but servant, who like his master is dressed in Confederate uniform. camp servants involve rescuing a master a “Negro” servant. For a slave from the battlefield or escorting a body named Luke who requested home. Silas Chandler rescued his master, to be paroled along with his Andrew Chandler of the 44th Mississippi Infantry, on the Chickamaster at his surrender in Columbia, Mississippi, mauga battlefield after he was severely wounded in the leg. Silas this distinction was reinforced. Luke may have brought Andrew to a hospital in Atlanta, where he likely worked believed that his experience in camp and perhaps to ensure that his leg was not amputated. From there he escorted even in battle rendered him more than a servant, Andrew home to Palo Alto, Mississippi. Many one-dimensional but his master reminded him, “you don’t need accounts of Andrew and Silas reduce Silas’ motivation to unquesone. You never been a soldier.” Luke was granted tioned loyalty. Such self-serving accounts do little to help us to unhis parole by a Union officer, but it was likely inderstand how Silas may have viewed the situation. tended as an insult to the officer rather than an There can be no doubt that the many challenges of military acknowledgment of his service. The frequency of life brought the two closer together, but what is often ignored is references in both wartime and postwar writings that Silas also had a concerned family waiting for him in Missisto servants as “boy” or “uncle” also functioned to sippi. On March 26, 1862, Andrew’s mother wrote: “I think I ought maintain the divide between soldiers and slaves.¹⁵ to tell Silas that Lucy has a fine boy. They call him General Bragg.”

In escorting Andrew, whom he was still legally bound to, Silas also brought himself one step closer to a reunion with his own family.¹³ LATE IN THE WAR a remarkable debate took place After the war, Confederates waxed poetic in describing the throughout the Confederacy—in soldiers’ letters battlefield exploits of their camp servants. Samuel Coleman of the and diaries, in newspaper editorials, in the halls 6th Alabama Cavalry recalled in the pages of Confederate Veteran of state governments, and at the Confederate Con“the deadly pale face of the unconscious and sorely wounded young gress in Richmond—over whether to arm slaves. officer as he was being carried to safety in the arms of his faithful It’s notable that soldiers in the field never re-

66 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 66

PHOTOGRAPH BY A.J. RIDDLE

2/12/13 8:38 PM

ported that blacks were serving as soldiers. There were no tales of heroic acts by camp servants on the march or even on the battlefield. It’s clear that slaveowners and other observers did not acknowledge slaves’ actions as those of soldiers. The Richmond Examiner spoke for many in November 1864 when it declared, “If a negro is fit to be a soldier he is not fit to be a slave. The employment of negroes as soldiers in our armies, either with or without prospective emancipation, would be the first step, but a step which would involve all the rest, to universal abolition.”¹⁶ Only the fear of defeat could offset the apocalyptic images of emancipation and miscegenation that prevented many Confederates from seriously considering arming slaves. A soldier in the Greensboro Guards of the 5th Alabama Infantry reported home that the men in his unit would agree to the arming of slaves if it prevented “subjugation by the Yankees, & they are willing to submit to any measures deemed necessary to prevent it.” Entire

regiments made their voices heard, including the 56th Virginia Infantry, which expressed approval only if would aid in the “successful resistance to our enemies, and to the maintenance of the integrity of our Government.”¹⁷ The evidence is overwhelming that Confederate plans to arm slaves were considered a radical and dangerous step, not a continuation of the slave impressment policies that accepted slaves in camps as servants.

On February 10, 1865, a bill was introduced in the Confederate Congress granting Confederate president Jefferson Davis the power to accept black men as soldiers, but only with their masters’ permission.

General Robert E. Lee’s endorsement helped to push the bill through the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, where it passed by a one-vote margin. Davis signed it into law on March 13, 1865.

A few weeks later the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. Following the stacking of arms and colors, Confederates bade one another a heartfelt goodbye and set out on the dusty roads that would take them home. Edward Porter Alexander, planning to avoid the humiliation of surrender and offer his services to the government of Brazil in its war against Paraguay, said goodbye to not only the men under his command, but to his servant, Charley, as well. According to } CONT. ON P. 78

ENDNOTES 1

Gary W. Gallagher, ed., Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollection of General Edward Porter Alexander (Chapel Hill, 1989), 76.

2

For an overview of the role of slaves in the Confederate army, see Joseph T. Glatthaar, General Lee’s Army: From Victory to Collapse (New York, 2008), 304-14.

3

On impressment, see James H. Brewer, The Confederate Negro: Virginia’s Craftsmen and Military Laborers, 1861-1865 (Tuscaloosa, 1969) and Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South (Cambridge, MA, 2010), 218-63.

4

The first two accounts can be found in Leon Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (New York: Vintage, 1979), 40; Carlton McCarthy, Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861–1865 (1882; reprint, Lincoln, NE, 1993), 19.

5

Glatthaar, General Lee’s Army, 310.

6

John Christopher Winsmith to Kate, April, 26, 1861, John Christopher Winsmith Papers, Museum of the Confederacy (MOC), Richmond, Virginia.

7

Quoted in Kenneth W. Noe, Reluctant Rebels: The Confederates Who Joined the Army after 1861 (Chapel Hill, 2010), 41-42.

8

Gallagher, Fighting for the Confederacy, 77.

9

Warren Wilkinson and Steven E. Woodworth, Scythe of Fire: A Civil War Story of the Eight Georgia Infantry Regiment (New York, 2002), 224.

10 John Christopher Winsmith to J.N. Moore, July 28, 1862, MOC. 11 Quoted in Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long, 39-40.

12 Quoted in Andrew Ward, The Slaves’ War: The Civil War in the Words of Former Slaves (Boston, 2008).

13 Myra Chandler Sampson and Kevin M. Levin, “The Loyalty of Silas Chandler,” Civil War Times (February 2012): 30-34.

14 Quoted in J.H. Segars and Charles Kelly Barrow, eds., Black Southerners in Confederate Armies: A Collection of Postwar Accounts (Gretna, LA, 2001), 150.

15 Noe, Reluctant Rebels, 43-44; Ward, The Slaves’ War, 93.

16 Robert F. Durden, The Gray and the Black: The Confederate Debate on Emancipation (Baton Rouge, 1972), 108; on the debate to arm slaves, see Bruce Levine, Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves During the Civil War (New York, 2006).

17 G. Ward Hubbs ed., Voices From Company D: Diaries by the Greensboro Guards, Fifth Alabama Infantry Regiment, Army of Northern Virginia (Athens, GA, 2003), 355; Durden, The Gray and the Black, 223.

18 Gallagher, Fighting for the Confederacy, 531, 545.

19 Hilary A. Herbert, A History of the Arlington Confederate Monument (United Daughters of the Confederacy, 1914), 76-77.

20 Kevin M. Levin, “The Influence of ‘Roots’ on the Black Confederate Myth,” Civil War Memory, http://cwmemory.com/2011/07/31/the-influence-of-roots-on-the-black-confederate-myth/ (accessed January 14, 2013); Jerome S. Chandler and Michael L. Tuite Jr., “Retouching History: The Modern Falsification of a Civil War Photograph,” http://people. virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html (accessed January 14, 2013).

21 Scott K. Williams, “Black Confederates in the Civil War,” http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm (accessed January 14, 2013); Vernon R. Padgett, “Did Black Confederates Serve in Combat?” http://www.dixiescv.org/fact_did-blacks-serve.html (accessed January 14, 2013).

22 Gainesville Volunteers, SCV Camp 373, http://gainesville-vols.org/ links.html (accessed January 14, 2013).

23 History Detectives, “Chandler Tintype,” http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigation/chandler-tintype/ (accessed January 14, 2013).

24 Kevin M. Levin, “Teaching Civil War History 2.0” The New York Times, January 21, 2011, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/ teaching-civil-war-history-2-0/#postComment (accessed January 14, 2013); Carol Sheriff, “Virginia’s Embattled Textbooks: Lessons (Learned and Not) from the Centennial Era” Civil War History (March 2012): 37-74.

67 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-FEA-CampSlaves.indd 67

2/12/13 8:38 PM

&Authors Civil War Novels: Six Shining Examples of a Thriving Genre

BY CRAIG A. WARREN NO EVENT IN AMERICAN history has inspired more imaginative writing than the Civil War. Authors have made the struggle the subject of thousands of rhymes, songs, poems, short stories, plays, radio shows, and screenplays.

In particular, readers and writers have gravitated toward Civil War novels. Well over 1,000 such novels have seen print since 1862, with about 200 published since the turn of the new millennium.

The sheer volume of such writing can pose a challenge to readers today. Which texts might one turn to for a combination of artistry, historical insight, humanity, and narrative?

The short list below is necessarily incomplete, leaving out many superb novels. But each book stands as an artistic success, and the selections together illustrate the central theme of Civil War

literature—individual participation in the nation’s defining conflict.

Tales of Soldiers and Civilians (1892) BY AMBROSE BIERCE

΅ ΅ ΅

Although thousands of Civil War soldiers penned memoirs of their experiences in uniform, relatively few authored fiction about the war. Of those who did, the greatest was Ambrose Bierce, a veteran of the 9th Indiana Infantry. In 1892, Bierce published the dark masterpiece Tales of Soldiers and Civilians.

While technically a collection of 19 short stories, the contents offer the thematic cohesion of a single narrative. Bierce depicts soldiers whose commitment to duty, unit, and protocol conflicts with the non-military qualities that their training was

meant to suppress. The stories include moments of moving heroism and sacrifice, but more often show the personal and familial suffering required of Americans caught up in a vast civil war. Readers will find these ironic stories spiked with cowardice, hubris, jealously, and desperation, all vividly present in Bierce’s most famous story, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.”

The Red Badge of Courage (1895)

BY STEPHEN CRANE

΅ ΅ ΅

Born in 1871, Stephen Crane grew up at a time when the memoirs of Civil War veterans dominated the literary market.

The young writer found these stilted works frustrating, once telling a friend: “I wonder that some of these fellows don’t tell how they felt in those scraps!

They spout eternally of what they did, but they are as emotionless as rocks!” In publishing The Red Badge of Courage, Crane gave the reading public what soldiers’ slow and sanitized memoirs did not: a portrait of Civil War combat replete with noise, fear, rage, speed, adrenaline, sweat, and blood. For the first time, many readers believed, they could experience the nation’s greatest struggle

68 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Books.indd 68

2/12/13 8:19 PM

on an emotional, visceral level.

The novel irked some veterans, who saw it as a kind of literary trespassing, but the public made the book a bestseller. Ambrose Bierce conceded that while Crane had not experienced battle himself, his imagination had produced an authentic portrait of war: “This young man has the power to feel. He is drenched in blood. Most beginners who deal with this subject spatter themselves merely with ink.”

Gone with the Wind (1936)

BY MARGARET MITCHELL

΅ ΅ ΅

Far more than a historical romance, Margaret Mitchell’s colossal bestseller offers one of the finest portraits of the southern home front during the Civil War. In fact, Gone with the Wind interprets Reconstruction as part of that same struggle, detailing the poverty, toil, and disease facing a limping South during the years after 1865. While undeniably racist at times, the novel is progressive in its portrait of white southern women, whose personal and family perseverance demanded respect. At the end of the novel, a nostalgic Scarlett O’Hara looks back on what she accomplished during those tumultuous years as a wife, widow, mother, landowner,

“I wonder that some of these fellows don’t tell how they felt in those scraps!

They spout eternally of what they did, but they are as emotionless as rocks!”

—Stephen Crane, author of The Red Badge of Courage

farmer, businesswoman, and survivor. The novel then claims for Scarlett an identity too often denied southern women who lived through the war: “They were veterans. She was a veteran too.”

The Unvanquished (1938)

BY WILLIAM FAULKNER

΅ ΅ ΅

William Faulkner peoples The Unvanquished with civilians on the Mississippi home front—especially children, old women, and slaves. The Nobel Prizewinning writer found these figures far more compelling than the soldiers and belles of most Lost Cause narratives. Indeed, in southern fiction the term “unvanquished” would typically refer to white Confederates who, though defeated in war, refused to be broken. Faulkner expands the term to include the AfricanAmerican residents of his fictional Yoknapatawpha County, a people whose mass exodus for the Union lines stands as one of the most memorable scenes in all of Civil War literature. No matter what trials and reverses await these men and women, the novel celebrates their timeless, universal impulse to “sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world’s roaring rim.”

The Killer Angels (1974)

BY MICHAEL SHAARA

΅ ΅ ΅

Well tuned to late-20th-century sensibilities, Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels stands as one of the most beloved of Civil War novels. Shaara represents Gettysburg as the ultimate clash between Old World aristocracy and American individualism.

Only through northern victory, the novel suggests, could the nation destroy an oppressive class system that threatened to enslave all Americans, regardless of race. One might expect southern partisans to chafe under this narrative. Yet because Shaara portrays the southern high command with respect, and celebrates shared American ideals, few readers have found reason to complain. It is worth noting that Shaara did much to elevate the popular reputations of both James Longstreet and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain—further evidence of fiction’s role in shaping historical memory.

The Judas Field (2006)

BY HOWARD BAHR

΅ ΅ ΅

Haunting and unforgettable, The Judas Field applies what we have learned about post-traumatic stress disorder to the lives of Confederate veterans. Howard

69 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Books.indd 69

2/12/13 8:19 PM

Bahr, himself a Vietnam veteran, takes readers back and forth between the Civil War and the postwar lives of soldiers—men whose psychological wounds lead to nightmares, substance abuse, and social isolation. When encountering Bahr’s traumatized characters, we cannot help but revise our thinking about the old Yankees and Confederates pictured in photographs of battlefield reunions.

How many of those men led lives of quiet desperation, proud of their service but too badly scarred to ever truly return to civilian life? The Judas Field reminds us that the human toll of the war extended far beyond the more than 600,000 Americans who perished between 1861 and 1865.

Further Reading

΅ ΅ ΅

Many other Civil War novels deserve a wider readership. In 1867, Union veteran John W. De Forest published Miss Ravenel’s Conversion from Secession to Loyalty, a book whose lighthearted title belies a harrowing study of love and war. The Long Roll (1911), by the historical novelist Mary Johnston, arrived on the doorstep of World War I. This impressive

work is equal parts Lost Cause narrative and anti-war manifesto.

Two years before The Unvanquished, William Faulkner published Absalom, Absalom! (1936), offering readers a challenging, brilliant portrait of race relations and the fall of a southern family.

One of Faulkner’s literary protégés, Shelby Foote, authored the battlefield novel Shiloh in 1952.

Exploring the famous battle from various perspectives, northern and southern, the novel anticipates the structure of The Killer Angels. Of 21st-century works, few rival The March (2005)

by E.L. Doctorow. In its pages, humanity is swept along by historical forces beyond the control of even the most powerful of generals and politicians. Still more Civil War novels will be published this year and in the decades to come—new entries in a thriving genre concerned with race, region, and national identity.

CRAIG A. WARREN

is an associate professor of English at Penn State Erie, the Behrend College. He is the author of Scars to Prove It: The Civil War Soldier and American Fiction (2009) and the editor of the Ambrose Bierce Project (ambrosebierce.org).

Celebrating Chancellorsville: 150 Years of Study and Scrutiny

BY ROBERT K. KRICK WITHIN A FEW MONTHS of the war’s end, two members of Stonewall Jackson’s staff, Jedediah Hotchkiss and William Allan, published an important book about Chancellorsville. Scores of battle studies have followed, spanning the inevitable gamut from sublime to ridiculous.

Hotchkiss, civilian mapmaker for Jackson, and Allan, an ordnance officer, each brought powerful historical impulses to their early project. Between them they eventually produced dozens of significant articles and books.

On May 6, 1863, the day that Joe Hooker abandoned the campaign and re-crossed the Rappahannock, Hotchkiss wrote in his diary: “General Lee directed me to make a map of the battlefield.” With infantry detachments detailed to help in the surveying, Hotchkiss worked long and thoroughly. More than

70 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Books.indd 70

2/12/13 8:19 PM

a week later he wrote: “Measured lines all day, got quite weary.” Two weeks after that the topographer still labored exclusively on the Chancellorsville map, revisiting sites covered with fresh graves, dead horses, and lines of raw-earthen fortifications. He delivered the product to Robert E. Lee 30 days after receiving the order.

Using that careful contemporary evidence, Jed Hotchkiss produced five maps that make his 1867 book, done in collaboration with William Allan, a priceless resource. The title— The Battle-Fields of Virginia.

Chancellorsville; Embracing the Operations of the Army of Northern Virginia … Illustrated by Five Maps and a FullLength Likeness of Lieut.-Gen. T. J. Jackson—they gave their 152-page work makes evident a plan to continue with books on other battles, a purpose never realized.

The maps, glued into the back, opened out to such unwieldy size (three are 17¼ x 18½ inches) that they almost always became worn, torn, brittle, and loose. Their elaborate detail of roads and lanes, woods and fields, trenches, and troop positions put them today—and always will—among the ultimate authorities on Chancellorsville.

The narrative resonates with contemporary, eyewitness immediacy, reported by men who knew their topic intimately. A March 1866 letter from Hotchkiss to General Dan Sickles reveals something of the historical method. Jed sent two original maps to his recent foe, asked the general for his recollections, and requested that Sickles mark up the maps and return them.

With a nonchalance surprising to modern readers, publisher Van Nostrand used whatever bolt of cloth came to hand to bind Battle-Fields of Virginia.

All of the copies are stamped identically in gilt, but the cloth varieties include red, dark brown, cinnamon, and blue. The book surely constitutes the most desirable printed collectible associated with Chancellorsville.

Perfervid bibliolaters will want all four cloth colors, but

because the scarcity of the originals has driven their price well into four figures, most modern readers will buy instead the 1984 reprint. That new edition printed the elegant maps, including their color features, and pragmatically issued them in an envelope rather than trying to glue them into the binding. The 1984 version only numbered 600 copies, so it also has become scarce, and now fetches more than $100.

Two books by northern writers appeared almost simultaneously in 1881 and 1882: The Campaign of Chancellorsville by Theodore A. Dodge and The Battle of Chancellorsville by Samuel P. Bates.

Both contain precisely 261 pages.

Dodge published four good maps; Bates included three weak ones.

Dodge, a veteran of the Army of the Potomac, wrote a long shelf full of respected military history, including studies of Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon—and did not attempt to fit Joe Hooker into that pantheon.

His study of Chancellorsville deserves attention; Bates’ does not make a memorable splash.

Augustus C. Hamlin wrote his The Battle of Chancellorsville (1896) primarily as an apologia for the Federal Eleventh Corps, in defense against widespread, and not entirely appropriate, animadversions. The book features

71 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Books.indd 71

2/12/13 8:20 PM

of their moonlit reconnaissance supplies important and interesting details. His companion had no chance to contribute his story; the volley that mortally wounded his chief the next evening also killed Boswell.

The centennial of the war spawned some pedestrian books, such as the one by Edward J. Stackpole (1958)—the first book that I ever read on the subject. Good books about Chancellorsville followed in the 1990s.

Ernest B. “Pat” Furgurson’s Chancellorsville 1863: The Souls of the Brave (1992) uses a great deal of new material to describe the battle in a subjective narrative, focused on the experience of the men of both sides who faced the maelstrom.

The best book yet on the battle is Stephen W. Sears’ Chancellorsville (1996). It is thick and thorough (593 pages), researched impeccably, written with grace and style, and illustrated by 20 good maps. Some readers will balk (I surely do) at a few interpretations, such as Sears’ determination to fumigate and rehabilitate Joe Hooker, but the book deserves the highest ranking.

In tribute to the preservation efforts that have saved impor-

Above: Alfred R. Waud’s sketch of a scene at the Battle of Chancellorsville.

tant sections of the battlefield in the past quarter-century, it might be worth mentioning an 1891 publication flurry by the Chancellorsville Battlefield Association. Veterans of both sides and local citizens issued pamphlets soliciting support, illustrated with maps offering a spiritual title to a specific piece of the hallowed ground. They succeeded in buying up a sizable tract—but the War Department, which ran the sites then (Gettysburg National Military Park was just in the formative stages), rejected the donated land as too much trouble to maintain. The bureaucrat in question, significantly, had suffered a wound and considerable humiliation at Chancellorsville in 1863.

The successors of those 1891 crusaders are making headway today against the bulldozers.

Anyone not yet supporting the cause should do so. Visit the Central Virginia Battlefield Trust’s website, www.cvbt.org.

ROBERT K. KRICK,

chief historian (retired) at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, has written 20 books on the Civil War, including Chancellorsville: Lee’s Greatest Victory (2010), Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain (2001) and The Smoothbore Volley That Doomed the Confederacy (2004).

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

some original content, and considerable merit. Hamlin’s Chancellorsville appeared in both cloth and paper bindings.

A half-century ago, pundits sometimes suggested that John Bigelow’s The Campaign of Chancellorsville (1910) might be the best study extant of any American campaign, in any war.

Bigelow supplied 47 maps, many of them employing color. Modern access to a vast lode of primary evidence has made possible the production of an array of battle studies in recent years, on many campaigns, that leave Bigelow outclassed, but for decades it was the gold standard.

A monograph focused on a small piece of the story that might serve as exemplar for that extensive genre is Thomas Mann Randolph Talcott, General Lee’s Strategy at the Battle of Chancellorsville (1906). Major Talcott, Lee’s staff engineer, crept through the woods toward Chancellorsville crossroads on the night of May 1, 1863, on a scouting mission. Captain J. Keith Boswell of Jackson’s staff (known as “Preserves” to his friends because he loved jams and jellies) went along. Talcott’s description

72 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Books.indd 72

2/12/13 8:20 PM

CASUALTIES OF WAR CONTINUED FROM P. 21

herself—from the scene. It was a grisly one: Her master was hit on the head and neck at least twice and his head “nearly severed” from his shoulders. Monroe Bogan was dead.⁶ But West Bogan was not yet free. After dropping the ax and fleeing the plantation, West headed straight in the direction of the Union encampment at Helena, where he may have thought, by virtue of the couple thousand other refugee slaves living there, that he could blend in and hide in the event that Monroe’s neighbors came after him. But they proved less a threat, it turned out, than the Union army itself, which, two weeks after his arrival, locked him up in the military prison. The officials, in occupying Helena and its environs, had instituted martial law and given themselves wide latitude to

ENDNOTES 1

General Court Martial Order No. 211, Records of the Adjutant General, RG 94, and Court Martial Case File of West Bogan (NN1823), Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, RG 153, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Washington, D.C.

2

West Bogan Case File; 1860 U.S. Population Census and Slave Schedules, Phillips County, Arkansas; 1850 U.S. Population Census and Slave Schedules, Union County, South Carolina.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

3

Compiled Military Service Record of Monroe Bogan, Co. A, Cocke’s Regiment, Arkansas Infantry, and West Bogan

tent to kill,” and thus, clear self-defense at work? Others, including the highestranking official overseeing the court-martial proceedings, Judge Advocate Genermaintain order among the al Joseph Holt, reframed the civilian population, and this events entirely by shifting included bringing a murder the blame off West’s shoulcase to trial. West Bogan’s ders and onto Monroe’s. The very first encounter with crucial, most telling detail the United States governin Holt’s view was Monroe’s ment thus ended in his attempt to whip his slave death sentence. in the first place: This, conIt was a tricluded Holt, was umph of law and something “he order—or was had no right to it? Not all Union do,” thanks to officials were of the “changed one mind about relations of the the case. Three white and black months later, population of Major General the Southern Frederick Steele, States.”⁷ in command of Relations Judge Advocate Union troops had changed, General Joseph Holt in Arkansas, Holt argued, besuspended the cause the Emansentence and allowed new cipation Proclamation had reviews of the case to travel changed them. The presiup and down the army’s dent’s 1863 order did more military justice chain of than alter the meaning of command. Was the charge of the war in the abstract; it murder even correct in the did more than authorize the first place, some asked, since freeing of slaves in rebelthere seemed to be no “inlious territory. It changed the meaning of each and every daily encounter between master and slave. To hold a man in slavery, and to impose on him “ceaseCase File, NARA. less toil and cruel punish4 West Bogan Case File. ments,” Holt explained, was, in the aftermath of the 5 Compiled Military Service Reproclamation, “in violation cords of Monroe Bogan, Lewis Bogan (Co. G, 46th USCT), Deof law and right.” Therefore, nis Bogan (Co. E, 46th USCT), it was to be expected, even Charles Bogan (Co. E, 46th justified, that a man illegalUSCT), NARA. ly enslaved would do what 6 West Bogan Case File. it takes to free himself. The ax West Bogan wielded had 7 Ibid. rightfully changed from an 8 Ibid. “implement with which he 9 Elizabeth D. Leonard, Lincoln’s was quietly going to his Forgotten Ally: Judge Advounrecompensed toil,” Holt cate General Joseph Holt of concluded, “into a weapon Kentucky (Chapel Hill, 2011), of revenge.”⁸ ch. 5; West Bogan Case File.

The judge advocate es-

sentially condoned killing, even slave uprising and rebellion, as a means of implementing the Emancipation Proclamation—exactly what so many of emancipation’s opponents, as well as some of its supporters, had long feared would accompany slavery’s end. Holt’s judgment was befitting of his record for punishing Confederates swiftly and firmly, and for advocating emancipation wholeheartedly, but it was not a position ever before espoused by the president, to whom he sent the case for a final ruling. Lincoln may have agreed with some of Holt’s reasoning but chose to say little about the case: In July 1864 he added his signature to the trial record beside the simple notation, “sentence disapproved.”⁹ West Bogan’s life was spared, and for the first time in his life, he walked away a free man. The Emancipation Proclamation freed him—and Lincoln freed him personally—but not in the way the story of slavery’s end is often remembered.

West’s freedom did not come overnight: It did not come on January 1, 1863, nor did it come with the arrival of Union troops in Confederate Arkansas. His was a more indirect path to liberation, unique in its details but still characteristic of the violence and the everpresent risk of death that surrounded so many other former slaves as they fought their way out of bondage. is associate professor of history at the University of Kentucky. She is currently writing a book about the Civil War’s refugees from slavery and their experiences in so-called “contraband” camps.

AMY MURRELL TAYLOR

73 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 73

2/12/13 6:24 PM

CONTINUED FROM P. 23

could have taken the option to, in Hooker’s immortal words, “ingloriously fly,” giving up the Rappahannock line and falling back to the North Anna River. Such a move would have undoubtedly spared his army the heavy losses at Chancellorsville and might have provided him a better logistical situation. Yet any possible material advantages must be weighed against the loss of the moral effects won by the Chancellorsville Campaign.

There is little doubt that

Lee was wrong to, in his remarks to Seddon, deprecate the value of public opinion “in such matters.” In a conflict such as the Civil War, which Lincoln so accurately described as “a people’s contest,” public opinion could matter as much as, if not more than, material effects.⁶ The fact that southerners “were elated” over the outcome at Chancellorsville was a genuine positive result of the campaign for the Confederacy.

Even if Lee’s narrow

ENDNOTES 1

Henry Heth to J. William Jones, June 1877, in Southern Historical Society Papers 52 vols. (1876-1959; reprint, Millwood, NY, 1977), 4: 153-54.

2

Department of Defense, JP 3-0: Joint Operations (Washington, August 11, 2011), II-9-10, GL-13.

3

Harry G. Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (New York, 1982), 21, 29.

4

William O. Stoddard, Inside the White House in War Times: Memoirs and Reports of Lincoln’s Secretary, ed. by Michael Burlingame (Lincoln, 2000), 101.

5

That this was Hooker’s vision for the battle is evident in General Orders No. 47, April 30, 1863, in U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 128 vols. (Washington, 1880-1901), Series I, Vol. 25, pt. 1: 171 (hereafter OR; all subsequent references are to Series I).

6

Abraham Lincoln, “Message to Congress in Special Session,” July 4, 1861, in Roy P.

Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, 195355), 4: 438.

7

Halleck to Hooker, January 31, 1863, OR, Vol. 25, pt. 2: 12 (the note to Ambrose Burnside, which Lincoln endorsed with “I approve,” is Halleck to Burnside, January 7, 1863, ibid., Vol. 21, 953-54.); Abraham Lincoln, “Memorandum on Joseph Hooker’s Plan of Campaign Against Richmond” [c. April 6-10, 1863], in Basler, ed., Collected Works, 6: 164-65.

Interestingly, Lincoln himself seemed to have missed what Chancellorsville had accomplished, for a little over a month later, he frankly advised Hooker that, because of the operational limitations of operating along the Rappahannock River, “since you took command of the army I have not believed that you had any chance to affect anything.”

Lincoln to Hooker, June 16, 1863, ibid., Vol. 6: 281.

8

That is, unless the resources of the region around the Chancellorsville crossroads have been vastly underappreciated over the course of over three centuries of European settlement in the region.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

BATTLEFIELD ECHOES

range of options means the before the Chancellorsville MOP-MOE concept does not Campaign began that, “I do compel a reassessment of not think we should take the Confederate army’s per- the disadvantage of attackformance, we can still scruing him in his entrenchtinize the Federals’ actions ments; but we should conthrough that lens. If holding tinually harass and menace ground was the MOE, they him, so that he shall have no were clearly ineffective. leisure.”⁷ But if maintaining terrain Thus, if one looks beyond was only an MOP and other the MOP of ground occumetrics—such as progress pied and instead to an MOE toward achievsuch as relaing the Union’s tive loss rates, strategic goal of the Federals’ grinding down performance at the ConfederChancellorsville ate army until it suddenly looks could no longer much better. resist—are used While Hooker for measuring certainly comeffectiveness, mitted errors then Fighting and missed opJoe Hooker did portunities, he rather well. He did meet his sudid not repeat periors’ mandate Union general the mistakes of to “injure” and Joseph Hooker Fredericksburg, “harass” Lee. and he made Hooker got his the Confederates pay a far army across the Rappahgreater price for the terrain annock smoothly and then they reclaimed than what it took up a strong defensive was worth. Indeed, accordposition that enabled him ing to the guidance Hooker to inflict massive casualreceived from his superiors ties on the Confederates. He in Washington on taking then re-crossed the river, command of the Army of giving up ground that was the Potomac, his conduct of no particular value.⁸ Reduring the Chancellorsville gardless of the Confederate Campaign very much met army’s performance, this their MOE. On January 31, was certainly not an effec1863, General-in-Chief Henry tive game for Lee to play— Halleck forwarded to Hook- nor one that he wanted to er a message he had sent a repeat. Looking back with few weeks earlier to his pre- an MOP and MOE method decessor that he stated “em- of assessment, Lee’s gloomy bodies my views in regard and unconventional view of to the duty of the Army of the battle is understandthe Potomac.” In that letable. ter, Halleck declared, “The great object is to occupy the ETHAN S. RAFUSE is professor enemy … and to injure him of military history at the U.S. all you can with the least Army Command and General Staff College. His publications injury to yourself.” In this, include Robert E. Lee and the Halleck was echoing the Fall of the Confederacy, views of President Lincoln, 1863-65 (2008) and a forthwho pointedly endorsed the coming guide to the Manassas letter and declared shortly battlefields.

74 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 74

2/12/13 6:25 PM

THADDEUS STEVENS CONTINUED FROM P. 31

one another. There’s a climactic scene in which Stevens issues a blistering series of insults at a Democratic opponent of the abolition amendment.

It’s a cathartic moment, but it’s also misleading. Stevens’ speeches were often sarcastic, but they were also substantive. He was a very good lawyer, but he was also a brilliant parliamentarian who steered various pieces of antislavery legislation around the concerted opposition of the Democratic minority. And of all the radicals in Congress, Thaddeus

Stevens was least in need of a basement-kitchen lecture

by Lincoln about when to push and when to pull back.

Despite all of these objections, I actually liked the movie. It’s way smarter than your run-of-the-mill version of Hollywood history; it tackles a serious subject seriously; and it’s right about the importance of politics in general and the importance of the Thirteenth Amendment specifically. But if it were up to me, I’d have given that war powers speech to Thaddeus Stevens, not Abraham Lincoln. 

ENDNOTES 1

Congressional Globe, August 2, 1861, 414.

2

Tony Kushner, Lincoln (Final Shooting Script, December 11, 2011), 2627.

3

Charles M. Segal, ed., Conversations with Lincoln (New Brunswick, 2002), 114. The Stevens interview was originally published in the New York Herald, July 17, 1867. Stevens’ recollection did not concern emancipation; he was remembering his objection to Lincoln’s decision to order an embargo of the South, which Stevens thought was a mistaken application of the laws of war.

THE SEWARD LOBBY

See for yourself

CONTINUED FROM P. 33

Both Seward and Lincoln quickly intervened on his behalf and he returned to work. Yet Bilbo was not in Washington during the final days of the lobbying campaign, nor for the actual House vote on January 31— an inconvenient fact that the moviemakers ignored when they had Bilbo try to outrace White House aide

-USEUMS v (ISTORIC (OMES v "ATTLElELD 4RAILS

John Hay during the climactic scene that involved Lincoln’s deceptive note to Congress about there being “no peace commissioners in the city.�

LaWanda and John Cox paint equally vivid portraits of Bilbo’s co-conspirators, Latham and Schell. Robert Latham was an old personal friend } CONT. ON P. 76

why the Civil War Trust named Pamplin Historical Park the

h$ISCOVERY 4RAIL 3ITE OF THE 9EARv

/PEN YEAR ROUND s 3CHEDULE CHANGES SEASONALLY 0ETERSBURG 6!

Come visit us!

0!-0,).

Dr. Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. WWW PAMPLINPARK ORG

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 75

2/12/13 6:25 PM

principal compromises necessary for the abolition of slavery was a moral one. Bilbo and his pals represent not just comic relief in this film, but also a necessary evil. Their outlandish campaign of bribery seduces and ultimately involves Lincoln. At one sad point, Lincoln even says caustically about congressman Clay Hawkins, “He’s selling himself cheap, ain’t he?�

The words linger and burn coming as they do from Honest Abe, who after all was the one doing the buying in this movie. It is powerful drama, but not at all proven history. 

ENDNOTES 1

Michael Vorenberg, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment (Cambridge, 2001), 202, 204.

2

LaWanda and John H. Cox, Politics, Principle, & Prejudice, 1865-66: Dilemma of Reconstruction in America (New York, 1963), 6.

3

Ibid., 9.

4

Ibid., 17.

5

Ibid., 28.

A L L I M A G E S : 2012 D R E A M W O R K S I I D I S T R I B U T I O N C O ., L L C A N D T W E N T I E T H C E N T U R Y F OX F I L M C O R P O R AT I O N . A L L R I G H TS R E S E R V E D .

the amendment’s passage, complaining that his honor had been offended when, “A Gentleman called [presumTHE SEWARD LOBBY CONTINUED FROM P. 75 ably from Seward’s office] to have me give an acct of expenses.� Unlike the grubby lobbyists in the film, Schell afof Seward’s who had a sordid history fected a nobler air, claiming that his as a Washington political fixer. And “expenses� amounted to “nothing.� it was Latham, much more so than “Any time that I can be of service to Bilbo, who had the special way with the Hon Sec of State or yourself I will cynical words. He wrote to Seward do all I can but at my own expence,� early in the process that he had “no he wrote. doubt� about obtaining passage for Whether or not Schell was being the amendment. “Money will certainly serious remains anybody’s guess. Like do it, if patrioVorenberg, the tism fails.�⠴ RichCoxes are emiard Schell was nently cautious also a good friend about leaping to of Seward’s—the any conclusions authors found about corruption. more than a They acknowlLincoln confers with Secretary hundred letedge that “money of State Seward (right) and ters from him in was available for Representative James Ashley in a scene from Lincoln.

Seward’s papers. briberyâ€? yet end And Schell was a up determining successful Wall Street speculator (at that “the records do not establish least until the Panic of 1873) and an whether it was used for that purinveterate gambler who apparently pose.â€?â ľ But one thing is clear. Tony had enormous charisma. He wrote a Kushner and Steven Spielberg sugmock letter of indignation to Fredergest in Lincoln through their use of ick Seward, the secretary’s son, ! after the Seward Lobby that one of the !

! ! ! !

!

76 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 76

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN DOE

2/12/13 6:25 PM

AD_CivilWarMonitor_Layout 1 12/10/12 4:07 PM Page 1

13 MINUTES

CONTINUED FROM P. 49

to steam boldly through the middle of the fleet firing broadsides in both directions did not materialize, Semmes did indirectly play a major role in postponing Union plans to capture Texas. The very fact that there was never a major invasion of the interior of Texas can be traced in part to the “sharp fight” in which Alabama defeated Hatteras.

ANDREW W. HALL,

a researcher living in Galveston, Texas, blogs at Dead Confederates (DeadConfederates.com). His first book, The Galveston-Houston Packet: Steamboats on Buffalo Bayou, was published last fall by The History Press of Charleston, South Carolina. EDWARD T. COTHAM JR. is an independent scholar specializing in the Civil War history of Texas. He is the author of Battle on the Bay: The Civil War Struggle for Galveston (University of Texas Press, 1998).

GRANT & VICKSBURG CONTINUED FROM P. 59

of McClernand’s failure to submit the order through army headquarters and relieved him of his command on June 18. Reporting his action to the authorities at Washington over a week later, he explained that he had tolerated McClernand “long after I thought the good of the service demanded his removal.”³⁸ Grant’s timing was impeccable. It would have been a mistake to relieve McClernand during the winter or early spring, given Grant’s own uncertain standing. Nor was it necessary to remove McClernand during the move against Vicksburg, although it was certainly helpful to have Dana serve as a conduit for criticism. But now, with his army in ideal position and his reputation just as secure, Grant could do what he wanted, knowing that the administration would not remove an army commander on the eve of a great success.

That success came soon. On July 3 Pemberton sent out a flag of truce and met with Grant to negotiate terms; the following day Grant entered Vicksburg. News of the victory electrified the North, and Lincoln, admitting that he had erred in his assessment of what Grant should have done, warmly congratulated his commander. As Halleck had promised, Grant won a major generalship in the regular army, giving him the job security he had craved. His final victory came a month later. Dana re-

$32.95, HC, 978-0-8117-0813-5 turned to Washington singing Grant’s praises, while Grant had Rawlins handdeliver his final report of operations to his superiors so that the chief of staff could answer any questions. The mission must have proven a success, for when McClernand protested his removal to Lincoln, the president declined to act, pointing out that he could not remove a successful general.³⁹ Vicksburg is known today as a prime example of Ulysses S. Grant’s military skill, and deservedly so. What few appreciate is that the victory was equally due to Grant’s skillful management of criticism and his deft handling of a disloyal subordinate. At Vicksburg Grant not only secured the Mississippi and split the Confederacy; he also safeguarded his future as a general who had battled doubters and gossip and prevailed. In both cases, his conduct of the campaign was masterly.

Available February 2013 “An engrossing narrative that the reader can scarcely put down.”

—James M. McPherson Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom

“A timely and vital addition to the all-too-meager literature on this neglected American hero. Excellent!”

—Ralph Peters Author of Cain at Gettysburg

“Unique and irresistible…. brings us closer than ever to the old general and his strange reputation.”

—Harold Holzer Author and Chairman of Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation

BROOKS D. SIMPSON

is ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University. He is the author of The Civil War in the East: Struggle, Stalemate, and Victory (2011); Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865 (2000); The Reconstruction Presidents (1998); America’s Civil War (1996); and Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861-1868 (1991), as well as the editor most recently of The Library of America’s The Civil War: The Third Year Told by Those Who Lived It (2013).

Discover much more of the Civil War

!

Scan to visit www.stackpolebooks.com

77 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 77

STACKPOLE BOOKS www.stackpolebooks.com

2/12/13 6:25 PM

CONFEDERATE LIKE ME CONTINUED FROM P. 67

STORIES LIKE THOSE of Ed-

ward Porter Alexander and Charley have been all but lost in our popular memory of the Civil War. Following the war the relationships between Confederate officers and their black camp servants were transformed into stories of loyal slaves and used as a pillar of the Lost Cause narrative. Such a narrative required a selec-

tive memory. Gone were stories of slaves who disappeared or who proved to be recalcitrant. Instead monuments were erected to loyal servants who shared the dangers of camp and battle. On occasion former slaves could even be seen at Confederate veterans reunions as symbols of continued fidelity and peaceful compliance to a new racial order. All of this helped to embolden white southerners through the postwar period in their conviction that battlefield defeat had not soiled their cause. More important, it made it easier to distance the Confederates’ experiment in independence from their “peculiar institution.�

In the decades after

free admission !

Featuring !

A crowd gathers to view the unveiling of the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery on June 4, 1914.

the war, these Lost Cause themes were accepted, and even embraced, by the rest of the country as well. In 1914, the narrative helped defuse the controversy that arose when a small number of Confederate dead were re-interred at Arlington National Cemetery, alongside those who fought to destroy the institution of slavery.

A monument sculpted by Moses Ezekiel and funded

by United Daughters of the Confederacy was dedicated to the occasion. Around its base it featured a bronze tableau of Confederate soldiers marching off to war, including a young black man wearing a uniform and kepi. That symbolism figured prominently in the addresses given that day by the ladies of the UDC and President Woodrow Wilson, and are explicit in the UDC’s official history of the monument: But our sculptor, who is writing history in bronze, also pictures the South in another attitude, the South as

12th United States Colored Heavy Artillery Reactivated with Cannon Fire on the hour Numerous re-enactors and demonstrators Parking at former Banana’s restaurant on Ford Rd. Shuttle transportation available to and from site !

she was in 1861-1865....

There they come, representing every branch of the service, and in proper garb; soldiers, sailors, sappers and miners, all typified. On the right is a faithful negro body-servant following his young master, Mr. Thomas Nelson Page’s realistic Marse Chan over again.š⠚

Fifty years after the end of the Civil War the memory of the loyal camp servant continued to remind the rest of Jim Crow America of “the kindly relations that existed all over the South between the master and the slave.�

No one present that day in 1914 was confused about the identity or status of that “faithful negro body-servant� on Ezekiel’s monument. The same cannot be said today. In the hands of organizations such as Sons of Confederate Veterans and individuals hoping to influence how Americans remember their Civil War, loyal camp servants become black Confederate soldiers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Alexander, Charley was aware of his master’s plans and “was very anxious to accompany me; & would have gone anywhere on earth.�š⠸ That plan never materialized. Charley was given $10 in gold, and the two went their separate ways.

78

www.civilwarfortatboonesboro.com

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 78 35_Civil_War_Monitor_1-4pg-ad.indd 1

1/28/13 10:27 A

2/12/13 6:25 PM

The first signs of this rewriting of history could be seen after the movie Roots (1977), and more recently, Glory (1989), which each introduced the story of emancipation and black Union soldiers to a wide audience. Partisans who inaccurately claim the presence of black soldiers in the Confederate army hope to bring balance to the focus on black Union soldiers and deflect attention away from the central role that slavery played in the Confederate war.

Recently, with stories reproducing on websites and spread easily through social media, the black Confederate soldier narrative has gained credibility.

Many of the websites with these false depictions are maintained by individuals with little training in history, thus rendering misinterpretation and even fraud more likely.²⠰ Consider recent interpretations of Moses Ezekiel’s Arlington monument. In the hands of one Internet author, Ezekiel’s “negro body-servantâ€? is now a “Black Confederate soldier ... marching in rank with white Confederate soldiersâ€? and the monument itself is identified as “one of the first monument[s], if not the first, honoring a black American soldier.â€? Another website references the Ezekiel monument as evidence that black Confederates served in combat. The author assumes that because Ezekiel was Jewish, “he knew firsthand the nature of ethnic prejudice, and was for that reason a unique observer, and recorder, of the ethnic composition of the Confederate Army, observations which he recorded in the first military monument to honor a black American soldier in Washington, D.C.â€?²š Many of these websites simply cut and paste from one another.

Arguably, the most enduring black Confederate narrative on the Internet is that of Andrew and Silas Chandler. That soldier (Andrew) and slave (Silas) were photographed together, both armed and in uniform, makes them an easy target for those who want to re-imagine the nature of black Confederate service. For instance, the website for a Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter in Florida includes the image with the caption “Andrew Chandler and his lifelong

friend, Silas Chandler, who accompanied Andrew to war and remained true to the South his entire life.â€?²² One can spend hours scouring the Internet for websites that misinterpret the photograph and the history of Silas and Andrew. In 2011 the PBS show History Detectives even devoted an episode to debunking the myths surrounding Andrew and Silas.²³ Unfortunately, the black Confederate narrative has, on occasion, emerged in more popular discourse and even in history textbooks. In 2010 controversy erupted in Virginia over a reference to black Confederate soldiers in Joy Masoff’s Our Virginia: Past and Present. According to Masoff, “thousands of Southern blacks fought in Confederate ranks, including two battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson.â€? It was later learned that Masoff had simply repeated what she read online after conducting a simple search. The book included a photograph of Lieutenant John Wallace Comer with his servant, Burrell, as evidence of the presence of black soldiers in Jackson’s command.²⠴ The result of this decades-long spread of misinformation—sometimes innocent, sometimes purposeful—is that the complexity of the relationship between masters and their slaves/ camp servants has been almost entirely erased from our popular imagination of the Civil War. The debate, as it currently stands, pits those who envision a Confederate band of black and white brothers committed to southern independence against those who want to acknowledge the broad range of emotions that defined the master-slave relationship at war. Only by setting aside our assumptions and approaching the available evidence honestly will we have any chance of uncovering the world that masters and slaves inhabited together.       KEVIN M. LEVIN

teaches American history at Gann Academy near Boston. He has published numerous articles on the Civil War and is the author of Remembering the Battle of the Crater: War as Murder (The University Press of Kentucky, 2012).

You can find him online at Civil War Memory (cwmemory.com).

Abraham Lincoln A Life Michael Burlingame Winner of the Lincoln Prize “A magisterial enterprise.� —William Safire, New York Times “The author knows more about Lincoln than any other living person.� —James McPherson, New York Review of Books Volume 1: $29.95 paper Volume 2: $29.95 paper

Secession Winter When the Union Fell Apart Robert J. Cook, William L. Barney, Elizabeth R. Varon Politicians and opinion leaders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line struggled to formulate coherent responses to the secession of the deep South states. Three senior historians explore the robust debates during the winter of 1860–1861. $19.95 paper

Maryland’s Civil War Photographs The Sesquicentennial Collection Ross J. Kelbaugh Rare images from a border state caught between the Union and the Confederacy, secession and loyalty, slavery and freedom.

Maryland Historical Society $30.00 paper

79 THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-Jump.indd 79

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS

t QSFTT KIV FEV

2/12/13 6:25 PM

Parting Shot

Prized Possession

DURING THE CIVIL WAR, soldiers on both sides flocked to have their photographs taken—a way to both immortalize their service and provide friends and family with treasured keepsakes. They posed for the camera in myriad ways— alone or with a few of their closest comrades, standing ramrod straight or brandishing their weapons. ¶ The unidentified Union soldier pictured here opted for something more unconventional. While a canteen was considered an indispensable piece of equipment—“as essential … when on a long march as a tender is to a railroad locomotive,” as Illinois volunteer Henry Eby put it—it was a curious prop selection. Perhaps water was not his beverage of choice?

80

SOURCE: Henry H. Eby, Observations of an Illinois Boy in Battle, Camp and Prisons—1861 to 1865 (Mendota, Ill., 1910). Image: Liljenquist Family Collection of Civil War Photographs, Library of Congress

THE CIVIL WAR MONITOR SPRING 2013

CWM07-BOB-PShot.indd 80

2/11/13 9:36 PM

CWM07-BOB-PShot.indd 3

2/11/13 9:39 PM

Vicksburg Commemorates 150 Year Anniversary: $ April 1-30: Tapestry: The Pilgrimage to Vicksburg tour of homes $ April 5-7: Vicksburg Sesquicentennial Heritage Fair at PembertonÂ&#x2019;â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Headquarters, the Southern Cultural Heritage Foundation Complex and the Old Courthouse Museum $ May 23-26: Vicksburg Sesquicentennial Signature Event at the Vicksburg National Military Park $ June & July: Living History Presentations Fridays Â&#x2013;â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tuesdays at the Vicksburg National Military Park $ 71,= = 984)= 117(<48;<54=8;=*<206/793 National Military Park $ July 4: Anniversary of Vicksburg Surrender $ July 4: Fireworks Show at the Waterfront

www.keytothesouth.com www.vicksburg150.com www.facebook.com/visitvicksburg @VisitVicksburg

Scan the QR code to visit the Vicksburg CampaignÂ&#x2019;â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sesquicentennial website.

CWM07-Cover-B.indd 4

2/12/13 12:32 AM