Cannons and Colonialism – What Caused the Rise of Europe?

How did Europe grow quickly and become a hub of innovation, making it a global leader in trade and military strength? Here, Ilyas Ali gives us his take.

The 1836 Siege of Constantine during the French conquest of Algeria.

Historians disagree on how Europe came to be so powerful - to say the least.

But one thing is for certain and which all agree on. And that is that to find the answer, we must not look at what happened or who did during an isolated point in time.

Rather, we must grasp the long-term changes that brought Europe to its current position.

Troublesome Geography

One thing that is striking about Europe in 1500 was its political fragmentation. And unlike in places such as China, Europe’s political disunity was not a temporary affair.

In fact, this is as it had always been. Even the mighty Roman Empire had difficulty conquering areas north of the Rhine and Danube rivers.

In comparison to the Ottomans and Chinese, the Europeans were divided into smaller kingdoms, lordships, clans, and confederations in the East.

And the cause that prevented anyone from conquering Europe was geography.

Europe lacked the vast open plains that enabled the Mongols to conquer on horseback in Asia.

Nor were there large rivers like the Nile, Euphrates, or the Yangtze which provided nourishment to easily conquerable peasant populations living along its banks.

Europe was divided by mountains and forests, making it inaccessible for conquerors wishing to dominate the continent. Also, the climate varied considerably across the continent, which made that goal harder still.

But whilst it denied the unification of the continent, it also acted as a barrier to invasion from elsewhere.

Indeed, despite the Mongol horde swiftly conquering much of Asia, it was these same mountains and forests which saved Europe.

Free Economy

Because its geography supported dispersed power, this greatly aided the growth of a free European economy.

Do you remember how Europe had different climates across the continent?

This same variable climate allowed for different products to be made and traded.

For example, due to their different climates, an Italian city-state would sell grapes the English couldn't grow. And in return, the English sent fish from the Atlantic.

And another advantage Europe possessed was its many navigable rivers which allowed the easy transport of goods. And to make transporting goods even easier, many pathways were made through forests and mountains.

And dispersed political power also meant that commerce could never be fully suppressed in Europe. This was a recurring problem that Eastern empires had, but not so much in Europe.

If a king taxed his merchants too much or stopped trade completely, they would move to a more business-friendly part of Europe. And they would take his tax money with them.

Because of this, over time European statesmen learnt that it was in their best interests to strike a deal with these merchants and tradesmen. They would give them a law and order, and a decent judicial system. In return, those merchants would give them tax money to spend on their state and military ambitions.

Military Superiority

Despite its geographic situation, there was still one way to unify Europe: to have superior military technology.

This is what happened with the ‘gunpowder empires’ of the East. For instance, in Japan, the feudal warlord Hideyoshi brought together the country by obtaining cannons and guns that his rivals lacked. This technological superiority allowed him to unify Japan.

And it wasn’t at all impossible for a ‘gunpowder empire’ to arise in Europe. By 1500 C.E., already the French and English had amassed enough artillery at home to crush any internal enemy who rebelled against the state.

Despite Europe having powerful military forces, no one was able to conquer the entire continent -although the Habsburgs would come close though.

So why did this not happen?

The reason this didn’t happen was because of that same decentralization spoken of before. Due to political decentralization, an arms race occurred among all European states.

Europe, you see, had a habit of constantly going to war. To survive, every European polity aimed to be militarily stronger than its neighbors.

This created a competitive economic climate to create superior military technology.

But this also meant that no single power had complete access to the best military technology. The cannon, for example, was being built in central Europe, Milan, Malaga, Sweden, etc.

Nor could one power easily proliferate the most superior ships. There were shipbuilding ports all across the Baltic to the Black Sea, all locked in fierce competition.

One might ask at this point; wouldn’t the disunited European armies easily be crushed by the mighty Ottoman and Chinese armies of the East?

And the answer would probably be yes.

Europe was definitely lagging behind the Eastern empires in the 16th century. However, by the latter half of the 17th century, the Europeans were gaining an upper hand.

This was because the Europeans were successful in creating superior military technology, which set them apart from others.

Although gunpowder and cannons were invented by other civilizations, Europeans improved and enhanced them. They also worked towards creating more powerful variations.

The Ottomans and the Chinese invented this technology, but they didn't feel the need to improve. There was not much of a threat which forced them to innovate and better those weapons like before. When they were weak, they innovated and improved, but once they had become mighty, they stopped.

But due to the competitive climate in Europe, improvement was a matter of survival. They improved the grain quality of the gunpowder they used, they changed the materials of the weaponry to make them lighter and more powerful.

In their shipbuilding large strides were taken also. They learned how to build big, sturdy ships for the rough Atlantic waters. Then, they learned how to equip these ships with powerful cannons for destructive potential.

And it was these new ships and weaponry that would soon allow them to travel across the whole world and conquer territories in other continents.

All this innovation allowed the Europeans to soon supersede the Eastern empires, and for the age of colonialism to soon begin.

Colonialism

With their powerful ships in tow, Europe started venturing outside of its continental borders.

Using the long-range capabilities of the new ships, they controlled ocean trade routes and demonstrated their powerful cannons by bombarding resisting coastal settlements.

The Portuguese and Spanish were the first to explore. The Portuguese dominated the spice trade with powerful ships. Additionally, they carved out an empire stretching from Aden, to Goa, and to Malacca.

The Spanish, in turn, went West into the New World and quickly overcame the comparatively primitive populations of South America in a matter of a few short years. And as a result of their successes, they sent home silver, furs, sugar, hides, etc.

Soon the Dutch, the English, and the French joined in as the Europeans kicked off their bid for world domination.

New crops such as potatoes and maize, along with various meats gave the Europe steady nutrition. And access to the Newfoundland fisheries by the English gave Europe steady access to fish and seafood.

Whale oil and seal oil, found in the Atlantic, brought fuel for illumination.

Moreover, Russia’s eastward expansion also brought other previously inaccessible such as hemp, salts, and grains.

All of this created what is now known as the ‘modern world system’ which allowed Europe to connect the world using their new technologies and exploit various opportunities across the globe in a manner never done so before.

Less Obstacles

What allowed the Europeans to achieve this success was that they simply had fewer hindrances.

It was not that there was something special about them. Rather it was that the necessary conditions which allowed Europe to succeed were not present elsewhere.

In China, India, and Muslim lands, there wasn't the correct mix of ingredients like in Europe. Europe had a free market, strong military, and political pluralism.

And because of this they appeared to stand still while Europe advanced to the center of the world stage.

Ilyas writes at the Journal of Warfare here.

Charles Francis Adams Sr: America’s Man in London During the US Civil War

Naturally, we get taken in by imagining the sights, sounds, and smells of the battlefield; our books describe in detail what that experience must have been like. This article will concentrate on battles fought in fancy conference rooms by men wearing expensive clothes. And especially those of one man, who in his own peculiar way, won bigger battles with more important implications than Grant or Lee. Adams came from perhaps the most storied family in the north. But he didn’t get an easy out. Several early defeats in life despite a sterling family pedigree forged a tough diplomat who didn’t let things dissuade him when frustrating, difficult things happened later on.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Charles Francis Adams Sr. As painted by by William Morris Hunt in 1867.

Charles Francis Adams Sr was the youngest of 3 sons of John Quincy Adams and the grandson of John Adams, which is about as illustrious a family tree as one could imagine. As you’d expect of a northern elite family, he attended Boston Latin and Harvard, then studied law with Daniel Webster. He opened a law practice, was elected 3 times to the Massachusetts House and once to the Massachusetts Senate.

But politics was not really his game, and he knew it. Instead, he purchased and edited the Boston Whig, a newspaper for the common people, who were more liberal minded than those he grew up with and wanted to see change faster. His initial successes came as an editor. This paper went from obscurity to national acclaim under his editorship, so much so that he was offered a national candidacy at the age of 41. He edited his grandmother’s, Abigail Adams, letters; then finished his father’s incomplete biography of his grandfather, including a highly acclaimed collection of his letters, which ultimately became the first Presidential Library.

Many of his relatives found the burden of carrying on the family tradition of public service impossible to live up to. Many retired to private life, while others broke under the strain.  Charles Francis Adams was the youngest of 3 brothers; his older brothers were George Washington Adams (1801–1829) and John Adams II (1803–1834). All 3 were rivals for the same woman, their cousin Mary Catherine Hellen, who lived with the Adams family after the death of her parents. In 1828, John married Mary in a White House ceremony, and both Charles and George declined to attend. John was the father of an out-of-wedlock child born later that year to a woman who was the chambermaid to the family’s physician. The child died in infancy.  John was a reputed alcoholic who is believed to have committed suicide the next spring.

Charles Francis Adams

Instead, Charles Francis married Abigail, the daughter of Peter Chardon Brooks, a Boston millionaire and one of the richest men in Massachusetts. Her father insisted that they wait several years before getting married, as they were too young when they met. Later, Charles Francis Adams said that if not for Abigail Brooks, he would never have accomplished anything in life. After experiencing his brother's death, his marriage to Abigail Brooks, and his reconciliation with his father, Charles Francis became a more focused and goal-oriented person.

Charles opened his own law office but was careless about its operation, and his father criticized Charles for being aimless and irresponsible. Charles and his father had never been close but after Charles' oldest brother died in 1829, John Quincy seemed to show more interest and affection for his two remaining sons. After his father’s presidency, he spent eighteen years representing the Quincy district; Charles Francis assumed the care of the property the elder Adams possessed.

The controversy over slavery, however, propelled Charles Francis into prominence. In the Massachusetts legislature, where he served from 1840 to 1845, Adams became a leader of conservative antislavery members who concentrated on resisting the encroachments of "slave power." With the issue of the annexation of Texas, Adams became one of the leaders of the "conscience Whigs," that wing of the Whig Party that demanded guarantees that slavery would not be expanded westward. The Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts merged with the broader "Free Soil" movement in 1848.

Adams unsuccessfully ran for vice president as that party's candidate alongside Martin Van Buren. Adams disapproved of the Free Soil tendency to ally with other parties in order to achieve election. He became unpopular in the south for his abolitionist views and unpopular in the north for his strict adherence to supporting abolition over elected office.

In 1848, he was the unsuccessful nominee of the Free Soil Party for Vice President of the United States, running on a ticket with former president Martin Van Buren as the presidential nominee. That same year, his father died from a stroke at age 80. He spent most of the 1850s rehabbing the family home in Quincy, today a national park.

In 1859, Adams was elected to the US House of Representatives. He became chair of a northern committee studying how to work for conciliation with the South. Suddenly, the intransigent abolitionist was looking for a solution: the very definition of diplomacy. He supported Seward – not Lincoln – for the presidential nomination.  But on his election, Lincoln asked him to serve as US minister to Great Britain, which Adams accepted. This became the work of a lifetime. Give Lincoln props for an amazing recognition of talent.

US Minister to the Court of St James

The US Minister to the Court of St James (Great Britain) was a crucial post. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1868, Adams played a crucial role in preventing British recognition of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Through skillful diplomacy and advocacy, he successfully conveyed the Union's perspective and counteracted Confederate efforts to gain international support. Through firm but skillful negotiations, Adams was influential in persuading the British, and by extension the French, not to recognize the Confederacy.

Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on May 13, 1861. The imposition of the blockade forced Britain to take a position on which side it would support. Southern cotton was critical to the textile industry in western England, especially Liverpool. The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat as hostile any country that recognized the Confederacy. Instead, the Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent, but it was premature to recognize it as a sovereign state.  Britain remained neutral officially and waited to see how things would develop before making a commitment. Adams did incredible work to keep Britain neutral and prevent the British from going any further in their recognition. Both his father and his grandfather had served in this diplomatic post, and so he was immediately accepted by the British as speaking for the new administration with a wise voice.

Official recognition was tied to the idea of the Union blockade being against a belligerent power rather than an insurrection. Adams managed to navigate this by getting the British to respect the blockade officially while still not recognizing the Confederacy as an independent entity. Because of his own family legacy, he managed to form a friendship with Prince Albert.

One of his main accomplishments was leveraging his friendships to prevent the British from supplying Confederate ironclads. A strong element in Britain wanted to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.  Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strong sympathies with the South and believed it would win independence. The Prime Minister in particular had a lifelong hostility to the US, and despite opposition to the slave trade and slavery, he believed that dissolution of the Union would benefit the British.

Adams played a key role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom through diplomatic efforts and effective communication. Adams skillfully engaged with British officials, politicians, and influential figures, presenting the Union's case and countering Confederate propaganda. Support of the Confederacy in Britain was popular for several reasons. The primary one was the availability of cheap cotton for English mills.

Adams in London

Britain had lost 2 wars to this fledgling primitive country on the other side of the pond. Further, the idea of a successful democracy remained unappetizing to a government based on a monarchy. Moreover, southern trade especially cotton was very important to British manufacturers. Finally, they knew that if they helped this new country win independence, it would be forever in its debt; which is precisely what empire is about.

He emphasized the Union's commitment to upholding international law, the abolition of slavery, and the economic benefits of maintaining trade relations with the North. Adams emphasized the military and industrial power of the Union, which was vital in dispelling the perception that the Confederacy could achieve a quick and decisive victory. He provided accurate and timely information about Union victories, the strength of the Union army, and the North's ability to sustain the war effort.

Adams warned that meant war with the United States, as well as the cutting off of American food exports, which comprised about a fourth of the British food supply. ”The English people can't eat cotton” was his strong argument, and the Union supplied too much necessary food to England to make war with the United States a realistic action. Losing grain and meat shipments from the United States would mean a huge fall in food supply. It’s fascinating that the Jefferson Davis government believed King Cotton would be decisive, yet it was corn that really was.

Also, the American Navy, increasingly strong, would try to sink British shipping. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain's economic interest.

Adams recognized the significance of public opinion and worked to shape it in favor of the Union. He engaged with the British press, wrote articles and letters to influential publications, and delivered speeches to counter Confederate narratives and generate sympathy for the Union cause.

Adams conveyed to the British government that recognition of the Confederacy would likely strain relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. He made it clear that such recognition would have negative consequences for British trade and international standing, creating a disincentive for British officials to support the Confederacy.

By employing these diplomatic strategies, effectively countering Confederate propaganda, and highlighting the Union's strength, Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom. His diplomatic efforts helped to maintain the international isolation of the Confederacy and ultimately contributed to the Union's victory in the Civil War.

Had Britain recognized the Confederacy, and given its aid and assistance, the Civil War would have had an entirely different result. Charles Francis Adams took on this exasperating and vexing assignment. Recognition was a fear of the Union and a pipe dream of the Confederacy. In retrospect, it was never really likely to happen without multiple major successes on the battlefield by the Confederacy.  This reality was based on the political situation in Britain more than the circumstances we Americans think the Civil War was about.

Trent Affair

The “Trent Affair” in November 1861 produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis. The British predicted a war and Seward threatened to fight. Only Abraham Lincoln kept the crisis in perspective.  Ambassador Adams played a crucial role in resolving it, and for a time, things looked bleak. Adams almost single-handedly calmed British anger.

The "Trent Affair” was initiated when an American warship seized two Confederate agents bound for Europe from the British mail ship Trent.A U.S. Navy warship stopped the British steamer Trent and seized two Confederate envoys en route to Europe. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate envoys: James Murray Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and to lobby for possible financial and military support.

Public reaction in the United States was to celebrate the capture and rally against Britain, threatening war. In the Confederate states, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations and possibly even war, or at least diplomatic recognition by Britain. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on foreign intervention.

In Britain, there was widespread disapproval of this violation of neutral rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners and took steps to strengthen its military forces in British North America and the North Atlantic. PM Palmerston called the action "a declared and gross insult", demanded the release of the two diplomats and ordered 3,000 troops to Canada. In a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said that if his demands were not met: "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten."  In another letter to his foreign secretary, he predicted war between Britain and the Union.

President Abraham Lincoln did not want to risk war with Britain over this issue. “One war at a time” Lincoln told Seward. After some careful diplomatic exchanges, Lincoln admitted that the capture had been conducted contrary to maritime law and that private citizens could not be classified as "enemy despatches”, which was the only possible legal argument. After several tense weeks, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions, although without a formal apology.  Slidell and Mason were released, and war was averted. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Europe. Adams basically brokered this resolution, by recognizing the British right to engage in diplomacy as it saw fit while maintaining the Lincoln administration’s position that the war was an internal domestic conflict not an international one.

The resolution of the Trent affair dealt a serious blow to Confederate diplomatic efforts. First, it deflected the recognition momentum developed during the summer and fall of 1861. It created a feeling in Great Britain that the United States was prepared to defend itself when necessary, but recognized its responsibility to comply with international law. Moreover, it produced a feeling in Great Britain and France that peace could be preserved as long as the Europeans maintained strict neutrality in regard to the American belligerents.  Lincoln, through Adams, turned a potentially explosive event into a huge net positive. (See more at https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/trent-affair)

Slidell was the designee to represent the Confederacy in France.  He failed to bring France into the war, which would not change its position unless Britain made the first move. His major success in the war was negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Emile Erlanger & Co. and in securing the ship "Stonewall" for the Confederate government. Slidell, Louisiana is named after him. After the war, he remained in Paris.

Mason was the grandson of George Mason. He was a strong secessionist and white supremacist who strongly favored slavery, wrote the fugitive slave act, and before the war was the chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’d think he would have been tough competition for Adams, but in fact his views were so extreme that he was ineffectual as a diplomat and he moved to Paris in 1863 where he hoped he would find a more sympathetic ear. After the war, he lived in exile in Canada, eventually purchasing a huge estate in Alexandria VA with white servants as he believed free blacks to be worthless.

The British Government

In retrospect, Both the Union and the Confederacy overestimated the potential of British recognition. Not only the Queen and Prince, but also the Church, the Commons, and working people adamantly opposed slavery. Still, faced with both a PM and a ruling party that favored the enemy, you can understand the fears.

Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister and William Gladstone the Chancellor. Their relationship lasted 35 years, both as allies and as political enemies, exchanging jobs several times. Together they dominated British foreign policy, and If they were in agreement, the US was in trouble. With very little cotton reaching Europe except through Union channels, a strong element in Britain, including both Palmerston & Gladstone, wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.

Palmerston's sympathies in the Civil War were with the Confederate States of America. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures". He expected the Confederacy to achieve its independence.

The British government pulled back from talk of war when the Confederate invasion of the North was defeated at Antietam, and Lincoln announced that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.  Palmerston then noted that the only thing positive that had been accomplished by the war was the killing off of thousands of “troublesome Irish and Germans”.

Palmerston and his government were careful to avoid any actions that could be interpreted as favoring either the Union or the Confederacy. While there were debates within his government and among politicians regarding the recognition of the Confederacy, Palmerston ultimately adhered to a policy of non-recognition and neutrality.

Palmerston's government closely monitored the progress of the war, sought to gather accurate intelligence, and maintained diplomatic channels with both sides. However, the British government did not extend official recognition to the Confederacy as an independent nation during Palmerston's tenure.

Overall, Palmerston's approach was one of careful neutrality, prioritizing British interests and avoiding actions that could disrupt relations with either the Union or the Confederacy. The neutrality policy pursued by Palmerston was influenced by the efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, who effectively conveyed the Union's perspective and countered Confederate attempts to gain international recognition.

Gladstone believed in the principle of self-determination and viewed the Confederacy's struggle for independence as a valid cause. He saw the war as a conflict between two parties, and he argued that the British government should remain neutral and extend recognition to the Confederacy if it appeared likely to achieve independence.

Gladstone's public statements and speeches, such as his Newcastle speech in October 1862, expressed sympathy for the Confederacy and called for British recognition. His views caused controversy both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, where they were seen as potentially detrimental to the Union cause. Gladstone owned a home on Abercrombie Square in Liverpool, and was very likely a confidential member of the Southern Club.

The British government did not officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. The British government, led by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, adopted a policy of neutrality throughout the conflict and maintained trade relations with both the Union and the Confederacy. The official recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation did not occur, largely due to diplomatic efforts by Charles Francis Adams and concerns over the potential consequences of such recognition on British trade and international relations.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, generally remained neutral and refrained from publicly expressing her opinions on the conflict. As the constitutional monarch, her role was largely ceremonial, and she did not have direct involvement in formulating or implementing government policies.

Queen Victoria's stance on the American Civil War was influenced by the prevailing British policy of neutrality. She, along with her husband Prince Albert, closely followed the developments of the war, but she did not publicly take sides or officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation.

It is worth noting that there were some instances where Queen Victoria's sympathies seemed to lean towards the Union cause. In 1861, she wrote a private letter to Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, expressing her hopes for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and her admiration for President Abraham Lincoln.

James Russell Lowell said, "None of our Generals, nor Grant himself, did us better or more by trying service than he [Charles Francis Adams] in his forlorn outpost in London." As we ponder strategy and battles and generals, we ought to keep in mind that Charles Francis Adams won a huge diplomatic victory of greater value than is ever described in books or articles. The battle of Antietam is usually credited with keeping England neutral, but the question is never asked why that was.

Imagine being Adams, who had to be diplomatic yet persuasive with Palmerston, an obviously arrogant and racist man who made decisions purely on the basis of value to his personal political future. Imagine being able to converse directly with Queen Victoria, the most powerful monarch in Europe, in such a convincing manner as to maintain her views, despite a government whose leaders tended the opposite way. The struggle to keep Palmerston and Gladstone officially neutral despite their evident slant toward the South required someone of experience, who could play the “long game”, and who could unemotionally remind these headstrong men of the consequences of choosing the wrong side. Lincoln needed a man whom the British would immediately take seriously; Adams had his family background (both his father and his grandfather had been Ambassadors to the Court of St. James as well) and the recognition of non-political accomplishments to bolster the power of his argument. And, he had had the taste of failure and frustration in his life, and knew that calmness and composure, not superciliousness, was the right path.

After the War

Minister Adams publicly supported moderation toward the South during the last year of the war and at the start of the Andrew Johnson administration after Lincoln's assassination. The British recognized him as a steady hand at the wheel. But support for Johnson's conciliatory policies, particularly his opposition to radical reconstruction of the South, was unpopular at home, and this injured Charles's future political prospects. He gladly resigned his post in 1868 with the election of the new Grant administration and returned to his home in Quincy. He turned down an offer to be president of Harvard.

But in 1871-1872 he returned to Europe with his youngest son Brooks. There, he would win his biggest victory, one that all of the frustrations and setbacks in life he had experienced, all of the diplomatic skills he had acquired, had prepared him for; and no other American of his era could have accomplished it.

As Minister to Great Britain, Adams was quite aware that although the British government was officially neutral, its citizens were taking sides anyway. And that those who supported the South, like the Southern Club, were having critical effects on the war. In particular, he knew exactly how Confederate agents were working to arrange armament shipments through the blockade. He knew that Liverpool shipbuilders were creating commerce raiders and blockade runners. He uncovered how ships were being built on the Mersey, sent off to the Caribbean under the British flag, then its crew & captain changed in port and the ship was renamed as a Confederate ship.

For example, he convinced British authorities to confiscate two ironclad warships from the Laird shipyards that were destined for use by the Confederates. But many others he could merely document. He wrote myriad letters to Secretary of State Seward with documentation of the British private sector working with the Confederacy while the official government looked the other way.

The Alabama Claims

Adams and his staff at the Embassy, including his son, collected details on the shipbuilding issue, showing how warships built for the Confederacy caused widespread damage to the American merchant marine. They documented everything in real-time: Who were the agents, where the money came from, who the British citizens were, everything. For the 4 years of the war, he collected the evidence, knowing the British weren’t going to do anything about it, and if he mentioned it, it would be a serious impediment to working with those he had to keep neutral. And so, he waited. He held onto all of these documents and they collected dust.

When Palmerston died in late 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, who for his own political purposes had no interest in getting involved after the war, took his place. Disraeli had maintained a truly neutral position during the war, but he did criticize the Lincoln administration's handling of the war and expressed concerns about the potential growth of American power if the Union were to emerge victorious. He believed that a strong United States could pose a challenge to British interests in the future. Overall, Disraeli's approach during the American Civil War was one of caution and pragmatism, focusing on preserving British neutrality and safeguarding British interests. And so, Adams held onto his notes.

The evidence he collected became the basis of the postwar Alabama Claims. The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War. The claims focused chiefly on the most famous of these raiders, the CSS Alabama, which took more than sixty prizes before she was sunk off the French coast in 1864.

The Alabama Claims were a series of diplomatic negotiations and arbitration proceedings that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War between the United States and the United Kingdom. The claims arose from the actions of Confederate warships that were built and equipped in British shipyards and subsequently attacked and destroyed American ships during the Civil War.

The most notorious of these Confederate warships was the CSS Alabama, a powerful raider that had a significant impact on Union shipping during the war. The British government's involvement in the construction and outfitting of the CSS Alabama and other Confederate vessels raised serious issues of international law and neutrality. Can a country declare itself neutral but its citizens aid one of the combatants?

After the end of the Civil War in 1865, the United States sought compensation from Britain for the damages caused by these Confederate warships and demanded that the British government take responsibility for its role in aiding the Confederacy. Negotiations between the United States and Britain began in 1866, but they failed to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The United States claimed direct and collateral damage against Great Britain. The United States claimed that Britain had violated neutrality by allowing five warships to be constructed, most especially the CSS Alabama, knowing that it would eventually enter into naval service with the Confederacy. For 3 years, the British denied responsibility. They claimed that officially declaring neutrality had nothing to do with businesses its private industry conducted. They said that there was no proof of American claims. American outrage grew; Sumner, still head of the US Foreign Affairs committee, demanded $2 billion in indirect costs for supplying the South through the blockade. Calls for annexation of Canada, or provinces like British Columbia, as payment for damages became common American political rhetoric. Britain continued to stall, and Canadian separatists began looking into joining the US to control the northwest Pacific Ocean.

As a result, the United States brought the case before an international tribunal known as the Alabama Claims Commission. The evidence leading to the settlement of the Alabama Claims case was collected and presented by the United States government. After the American Civil War, the U.S. State Department was responsible for compiling the evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The U.S. government conducted thorough investigations and collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. This evidence was used to support the United States claims that Britain had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War and should be held responsible for the damages caused by the Confederate warships.

During the negotiations and arbitration proceedings, the U.S. delegation, led by chief U.S. arbiter Charles Francis Adams and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, presented this evidence to the international tribunal, known as the Alabama Claims Commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871. The evidence played a crucial role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in collecting the evidence for the Alabama Claims case. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, Adams was responsible for gathering and presenting evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The evidence collected by Charles Francis Adams was the central documentation evaluated during the arbitration proceedings. Adams had diligently collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals who were involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. His efforts were instrumental in building a strong case against Britain, showing that the British government had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War.

Finally, in 1871, the British agreed to a commission to resolve the dispute, and Adams unveiled the notes and documents he had collected. He showed contemporaneous notes and letters. He named names. He had the proof, because the whole time he was ambassador, he kept meticulous records and documented everything.

The commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871, was composed of representatives from the United States, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Brazil. After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the tribunal issued its decision in September 1872. The tribunal ruled in favor of the United States, stating that Britain had indeed violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War by allowing the construction of Confederate warships in its shipyards. As a result of the ruling, Britain was required to pay the United States $15.5 million in damages. Today, that would be equivalent to several hundred million dollars. Nothing like that had ever happened before.

So, who actually paid for the Confederate war machine, war supplies, and naval presence? The British Government did in 1872, along with its citizens and investors who purchased Confederate Cotton Bonds. The evidence Adams had collected during his years as ambassador played a vital role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

The resolution of the Alabama Claims case marked an important moment in the development of international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. It also helped improve relations between the United States and Britain after a period of tension and served as a precedent for future international arbitration cases.

Treaty of Washington

A final deal was then arranged. The Treaty of Washington established for the first time a codification of international law and of international arbitration. The Treaty of Washington resolved fishing disputes with the establishment of the Halifax Commission, set up the Alabama Claim arbitration, and set up the San Juan Island territorial dispute arbitration. The Halifax Commission would order the US to pay the UK $5.5 Mil for illegal fishing practices. The Alabama Claims would order the UK to pay the US $15.5 Mil in direct damages, with $1.9 Mil deducted for illegal US blockading practices during the war. An additional $500 million in loans was the biggest part of the agreement, which the US was able to take out with British banks at low-interest rates to refinance their war debt.

 The treaty set principles of what neutrality between two warring factions meant:

1.     That due diligence "ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part."

2.     "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the neutral country, nor can the consummation of fraud become the means of establishing its innocence."

3.     "The principle of extraterritoriality has been admitted into the laws of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."

And the best part of his story is that although it took many years, eventually his enemies were defeated, and his inherent refinement and intellect ultimately carried the battle. These setbacks that would have buried a lesser man had a funny way of moving him into his real calling. It’s kind of like a real-life “David Copperfield”, overcoming personal losses led to amazing success, albeit not exactly what anyone had imagined. His wife Abigail steadfastly supported him through all of his life’s trials. They succeeded in "passing the torch" to the next generation of the Adams family, which included four noteworthy sons—railroad reformer Charles Francis Adams Jr., Massachusetts politician John Quincy Adams II, celebrated writer Henry Adams, and historian Brooks Adams. His son Henry Adams would go on to become one of the first great American historians and authors. The posting influenced the younger man through the experience of wartime diplomacy and absorption in English culture. After the war, he became a political journalist who entertained America's foremost intellectuals at his homes in Washington and Boston. During his lifetime, he was best known for The History of the United States of America 1801–1817, a nine-volume work.

No, he was never elected President, like his father and his grandfather, and so he is often taught superficially as a man who failed. But his public service saved our country, documented who had assisted the enemy, and sought and obtained reparations from a foreign power for prolonging the war. He changed forever what neutrality entailed. And it turned out he was not only the right man for the job, he was in fact the only man who could have succeeded at it.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Reconstruction Era in America

In their novel, The Gilded Age, Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner noted that the Civil War and its immediate aftermath, ‘uprooted institutions that were centuries old, changed the politics of a people, and wrought so profoundly upon the entire national character that the influence cannot be measured short of two or three generations.’ In the hope of rebuilding the broken pieces together, every aspect of society, from urban life to class system to agriculture and industry had to be touched upon. The process of institutional transformation came to be known as the Reconstruction (1865-1877).

Aarushi Anand gives her take on the Reconstruction era.

A Visit from the Old Mistress. Winslow Homer, 1876.

The task of reconstructing the union initiated the transition from conflict to peace by targeting fundamental components of the rebuilding framework.  Restoration of "physical infrastructure," a traditional area of strength, involved expensive maintenance services like rebuilding rail and road networks, reconnection of interrupted water supply and racial desegregation of schools and hospitals. The process of social and emotional reintegration becomes more difficult when conflicts, especially those that last for a long period, damage the fabric of society and render a return to the past impossible or undesirable. Slavery was formally outlawed in the entire United States through the 13th amendment (1865). In order to determine what kind of reconstruction policies to implement, the nation had to first decide whether the Confederacy be treated with leniency or as a conquered foe?

President Abraham Lincoln was of the lenient persuasion as is evident from his second inaugural address “with malice toward none; with charity for all...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” He started off the Ten-Percent Plan (1865–87) which imposed a minimum requirement of political loyalty for southern states to rejoin the Union. Following President Lincoln's assassination, his successor Andrew Johnson and his administration drafted what is now known as Presidential Reconstruction. Johnson, a former enslaver, was deeply racist and recreated conditions in the South which were largely the same as they were before the war. Case in point, he set up all-white government and appointed a trust-worthy provisional governor in the South. During his administration, a number of draconian laws known as the Black Codes (1865–1866) were passed, limiting the civil and political rights of blacks in the South. Since most freed blacks had only the skills to work on plantations the black code stipulated that black workers would be legally bound to the plantation owner. Each year blacks were required to sign a labor contract to work for a white employer and if they did not do so they'd be arrested for vagrancy and then sold off. According to several historians’ Black codes marked the continuation of ‘slavery in all but name.’

The Radical Republicans, who at the time-controlled Congress, were opposed to Johnson's clemency or his role in the South's resegregation. To this end, they passed 2 pieces of law that granted black citizenship rights while also calling for the racial integration of workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and universities. First, the Freedmen's Bureau, a coalition of Northern officials and Union Soldiers, was set up all over the South. Its goal was to help reunite families separated by slavery which over the course of 250 years had split apart millions of people. In one of its main roles, securing fair labor contracts, the Bureau proved to be redundant.  The Bureau was crucial in helping Black Americans pursue formal education. According to historian James McPherson, there were over 1,000 schools in existence by 1870. Second, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted Black Americans citizenship and guaranteed their equal civil rights, including the ability to enter into agreements, acquire property, and give testimony in court. Republicans sought the 14th constitutional amendment (1868) to bolster these rights and prevent overturning of the central government's directions out of a fear that the Civil Rights Act would be struck down. For nearly a century, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized. African Americans in Southern states were successfully denied the right to vote through the imposition of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other techniques (e.g. permitting only registered voters since the 1860s to vote).

CARPETBAGGERS

Despite being eligible to run in elections, it was a harsh reality that an all-black government would not succeed and would require white allies to form an inter-racial coalition.  This raises the issue of whether white people are willing to participate in the reconstruction of government in conjunction with African-American voters. The carpetbaggers come first for the purpose. Carpetbagger is a political term used to describe a northerner who united with blacks and the Republican Party and advocated the new constitutional rights of African-Americans. During the Civil War, Union soldiers and commanders who chose to remain in the South after the army were demobilized made up the majority of the northerners who traveled there. In office, the performance of the carpetbaggers was mixed. While some were dishonest, others, “were economy-minded and strictly honest.” For instance, carpetbag lawyer Albion W. Tourgee contributed to the drafting of the North Carolina Constitution (1868), opposed the Ku Klux Klan (1869–1870) and fought for blacks in Louisiana against a law requiring segregation in railroad cars (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

SCALAWAGS

Although the carpetbaggers managed to occupy positions of authority, they were insufficient to form a voting bloc. So, in terms of voting power, the other real group is the so-called scalawags. The majority of them were Whigs, lower-class whites, and Southern unionists who opposed secession.  James Lusk Alcorn, one of Mississippi's wealthiest planters, a large slaveholder, and a Whig opposed to secession, popularized the term "harnessed revolution," which refers to the period of time when White people like himself would lead the Reconstruction process. By far less affluent white people in the upcountry made up the greatest number of scalawags. The number of white Republicans in states like Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia was sizable. These Republicans did not want the planters to regain power and felt that the only option is black suffrage.  Internal conflict also plagued these regions

KU KLUX KLAN

It is crucial to remember that white supremacist opposition to the Radical Republicans' agenda manifested itself as covert organizations. The Ku Klux Klan was one such group that fostered homegrown terrorism in the United States. Members of the Klan rode across the nation in white sheets throughout the night to conceal themselves and use violence for political purposes. Violence was used to frighten black and white Republicans to keep them from casting ballots. Additionally, it was done to unite white people under the idea that race was the main concern. The glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in the movie "Birth of a Nation" is based in part on the notion that the group was merely exploiting people's superstitions.

The ferociousness of Ku Klux Klan attacks in 1870 and 1871 convinced many that additional laws, either state or federal, along with a vigorous enforcement, were essential to the security of the new order. Carpetbagger Amos Lovering, a former Indiana judge, contends that "universal education in morals and mind" is the only effective way to permanently quell the Klan's brutality. Many of these measures failed. In the South, most white people continued to own weapons. The government was unwilling to deploy armed blacks after the white knight riders since such a move would only intensify racial tensions.

W.E.B Du Bois, described the Reconstruction period as a moment where "...the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery." By the end of the 19th century, 2,500 Black people would be lynched across the South. Occasionally people say that Reconstruction failed, but it would be more accurate to say that it was violently overthrown. It did not fail to succeed because Black people were incapable of governance but because white Southerners did everything in their power to obstruct Black mobility and opportunity.

CIVIL RIGHTS

In a variety of ways, reconstruction prepared the way for future struggle. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement was frequently referred to as the second reconstruction, the country's second attempt to face the issue of racial equality in the law, politics, and society. The movement was a nonviolent social movement and campaign to abolish legalized racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement throughout the United States.  Reconstruction also opened discussion on how to deal with domestic terrorism. Racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan thrived throughout reconstruction and made its imprint on American society via racial bloodshed. The Black Power movement emphasized how little tangible progress had been made since the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and how African-Americans continued to experience discrimination in jobs, housing, education, and politics. Reconstruction is still relevant today because it raises fundamental questions about   American society that are still being debated, such as who is eligible to become a citizen, how the federal government interacts with the states, who is in charge of defending  citizens' fundamental rights, and how one deals with homegrown terrorism.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

1.     Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History: Seagull Fourth Edition. Vol. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

2.     Foner, Eric. "The new view of reconstruction." American Heritage 34, no. 6 (1983).

3.     Grob, Gerald N., and George Athan Billias. "Interpretations of American History Patterns and Perspectives." (1972).

4.     Harris, William C. "The Creed of the Carpetbaggers: The Case of Mississippi." The Journal of Southern History 40, no. 2 (1974): 199-224.

5.     Trelease, Allen W. "Who were the Scalawags?" The Journal of Southern History 29, no. 4 (1963): 445-468.

Poker and the US Presidency

Surprisingly, card playing and other games had a great impact on the U.S. presidents, from George Washington to Joe Biden. Card games, played by a majority of the presidents, especially were a respite from the overwhelming pressures of the presidency. These games, mainly poker, honed the presidents’ ability to take calculated risks and enhanced the Chief Executives’ ability to bluff and read their opponents.

Several presidents used poker, specifically, to start their political careers. Here, Ralph Crosby, author of Poker, Politics and Presidents (Amazon US | Amazon UK), tells how poker playing helped put three presidents in office.

Theodore Roosevelt in 1898.

TR at the Poker Table

In the fall of 1880, when Theodore Roosevelt first sat down to play poker in Morton Hall, wearing his black dress coat, a top hat and pince nez glasses on a cord, the rough-hewn players at the table didn’t know what to make of this “dandy,” especially a Harvard-educated scion of the Roosevelt Clan, part of the 400 “best” New York families.

Theodore was there on a mission. He wanted to get involved in Republican politics and Morton Hall, a large room over top of an East 59th Street New York City saloon, was the headquarters and club room of the Twenty-first District Republican Association and just a few short blocks from his home.

At first, he was not very welcome at Morton Hall, as he had been warned by his rich, privileged friends, who viewed with disdain politics as the province of a rough and tumble crowd of saloon keepers, horse car conductors and low-level storekeepers and pols.

Theodore was not too pleased with the place itself, with its residue of cigar smoke and ashes, half full spittoons and a few dingy tables and chairs. The only appointments to break the dinginess were two framed pictures on the wall, of Ulysses Grant and Levi P. Morton, a Republican Vice President under President Benjamin Harrison and the club house’s namesake.

But Roosevelt persevered. He later commented, “I went around there often enough to have the men get accustomed to me and to have me get accustomed to them, so that we began to speak the same language….” It worked, and he was finally accepted for membership.

“They rather liked the idea of a Roosevelt joining them,” he later recalled. “I insisted in taking part in all the discussions. Some of them sneered at my black coat and tall hat. But I made them understand that I should come dressed as I chose…. Then after the discussion I used to play poker and smoke with them.”

Theodore’s courage, self-confidence and camaraderie especially impressed one man, Joe Murray, an Irishman and former street gang leader, and the second in command of the Twenty-First District Association—conniving to be number one. By lining up delegates under the nose of the Twenty-First’s leader, who expected his crooked candidate to get the nod for state assemblyman, Murray only needed a good candidate of his own. He decided Roosevelt was his man, and convinced the newcomer to run.

Politics Begins for Teddy

On October 28, 1881, the association’s convention was held at Morton Hall, and Murray surprised the top boss by nominating Roosevelt. The convention elected Theodore on the first ballot, and the 23-year-old went on to win his first elective office. As poker historian James McManus concluded in his book Cowboys Full, Roosevelt “had used poker and other manly ploys to raise himself up in the Republican party.”

Roosevelt would later introduce Joe Murray as the man who “started me in politics.” That start was the first step on the road to the White House. That road would have many twists and turns, but Theodore would navigate them with the fearlessness, fighting spirit, and risk-taking so prominent in the military man and adventurer he would become and the card player, success seeker and creative thinker he already was.

Richard Nixon’s Evolution

During WWII, the 29-year-old Richard Nixon joined the Navy as a Lieutenant (Junior Grade) and his life changed drastically. In his Quaker family tradition, Nixon did not smoke, drink liquor, use cuss words, gamble or play cards. That would change in the Navy.

Eventually sent to the South Pacific and promoted to Lieutenant Commander, he led a small detachment in the Combat Air Transport Command (SCAT). On the Island of Bougainville, during his first month there, Nixon’s unit was bombed by the Japanese for 28 nights out of 30. Many bombs just missed his bunker.

As in many wartime situations, much of the Navy’s SCAT team’s time was spent in what Nixon called in his memoirs “interminable periods” of monotonous waiting. They also sought diversions from the stress of nightly bombing. The boredom and fear often were quelled by poker games, which hooked the non-card-playing Nixon.

Nixon’s Poker Profits

Thrown in with some hard-living and hard-drinking Navy men, Richard Nixon soon was drinking and cussing with the best of them. Bored with lonesome evenings reading by himself, he began kibitzing the regular poker games in the camp. When he saw the amount of money being won and lost at poker, especially dollars thrown away by drunken players, he became intrigued. It was the money, not the cards that caught his attention. Nixon biographer Steven E. Ambrose concluded, “The games became an obsession with him.”

An earlier biographer of Nixon’s, Bela Kornitzer, in his book titled The Real Nixon, written while the subject was still vice president, said of Nixon’s South Pacific time, “Out there Nixon passed over Quaker objections to gambling. Why? He needed money. He learned poker and mastered it to such a degree that he won a sizable amount, and it became the sole financial foundation of his career.”

Nixon’s poker playing was very profitable. His South Pacific poker winnings are reported variously between six and ten thousand dollars. The most accurate figure, which he told his family, was $8,000, worth more than $110,000 in current dollars.

He used the winnings from the poker games to finance his successful campaign for Congress, his entry into politics.

Obama’s Poker Pals

With his Harvard law degree in hand, Barack Obama went to Chicago to join a law firm, where he concentrated on civil rights cases, and taught at the University of Chicago Law School. He quickly became involved in Project Vote for election year 1992, overseeing volunteers and registering voters, helping elect Carol Mosely Braun, Illinois’ first black U.S. Senator, and preparing himself for his run for the Illinois state senate in his district.

Obama won the primary unopposed. At age 35, four years out of law school, running against only token Republican opposition, Obama won his first public office.

In his pre-presidential autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote of succeeding in the state legislature despite the risks of a political career:

“By all appearances, my choice of careers seemed to have worked out. After two terms during which I labored in the minority, Democrats had gained control of the state senate, and I had subsequently passed a slew of bills.”

Of Poker and Politics

Obama’s entry into the state capital was not greeted warmly. The highbrow Harvard Law graduate got the cold shoulder from the old school Illinois legislators. But he found a way to earn the trust and friendship of many. Like Teddy Roosevelt—he played poker with them.

In fact, with fellow freshman Democratic senator Terry Link, Obama started a poker game, which became a favorite of an eclectic group of legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, and lobbyists.

In a 2008 The New Yorker article, poker historian James McManus concurred. “Perhaps realizing that both the Chicago machine pols and the downstate soybean farmers viewed him as an overeducated bleeding heart and a greenhorn, he decided to woo them with poker.” In his poker history, Cowboys Full, published in 2009, McManus  devoted the book’s first six pages to Obama’s poker playing, in general, and to his and Link’s games, specifically.

The poker game, at different times played in Link’s Springfield home basement, a local country club and a lobbyist’s office was called the “Committee Meeting.” It started out with only a few players but eventually developed a waiting list. They played stud and draw poker for low stakes, a dollar bet and a maximum three dollar raise. A night’s win or loss normally ran about $25, and a big loss would be $100.

In Cowboys Full, McManus quoted Link, “You hung up your guns at the door. Nobody talked about their jobs or politics, and certainly no ‘influence’ was bartered or ever discussed. It was boys night out—a release from our legislative responsibilities.”

Obama undoubtedly saw it a bit differently. As McManus wrote, Obama “seems to have understood, as a networking tool, poker is the most efficient positive of all.” “The bottom line politically,” McManus concluded, “was that poker helped Obama break the ice with people he needed to work with in the legislature.”

Later, when Obama decided to run for the U.S. Senate, he reached out to his poker friends to gauge their support. Most felt the time was right and pledged their backing.

From Poker Winner to Political Winner

As Obama wrote in his autobiographical book, A Promised Land, “I began by talking to my poker buddies… to see whether they thought I could compete in the white working-class and rural enclaves they represented… They thought I could and all agreed to support me if I ran.”

Fortuitously, at the same time, Obama gained local and national prominence with his star-turn keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a speech called so “transformational” that politicians and the media started calling Barack a “rising star” and presidential material.

The result: Obama scored a landslide victory over Republican Alan Keyes, 3,597,456 votes to his opponent’s 1,390,690 to become, at age 43, the junior Senator from Illinois.

To celebrate his victory, his buddies held a special poker game—meant to bring Obama some humility.

In his book on Obama’s political ascent, author David Garrow reported, “We brought him down to earth real quick, explained Terry Link, describing how they worked together so that Barack lost every hand.” By night’s end, Obama had lost all his money, but maybe gained a bit of humbleness. Later, U.S. Senator Obama, visiting Springfield, again found time for a poker game with his old buddies.

The next step was the White House, where Obama continued to play cards.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

When President Lincoln Met 11-year-old Grace Bedell

A few weeks before he was elected President, Lincoln received a letter from Grace Bedell, an 11-year-old girl from Westfield, New York. Richard Bluttal explains.

Grace Bedell in the 1870s.

The Letter

N Y Westfield Chatauque Co Oct 15. 1860

Hon A B Lincoln Dear Sir

My father has just home from the fair and brought home your picture and Mr. Hamlin's. I am a little girl only eleven years old, but want you should be President of the United States very much so I hope you wont think me very bold to write to such a great man as you are. Have you any little girls about as large as I am if so give them my love and tell her to write to me if you cannot answer this letter. I have got 4 brother's and part of them will vote for you any way and if you will let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you   you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husband's to vote for you and then you would be President. My father is a going to vote for you and if I was a man I would vote for you to but I will try and get every one to vote for you that I can   I think that rail fence around your picture makes it look very pretty   I have got a little baby sister she is nine weeks old and is just as cunning as can be. When you direct your letter dir[e]ct to Grace Bedell Westfield Chatauque County New York

I must not write any more   answer this letter right off Good bye Grace Bedell.

 As soon as Mr. Lincoln received the letter he wrote back the following:

October 19, 1860

Springfield, Illinois Miss Grace Bedell

My dear little Miss,

Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is received. I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughters. I have three sons—one seventeen , one nine, and one seven years of age. They with their mother, constitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affection if I were to begin it now? Your very sincere well-wisher.

-A. Lincoln

By the time Lincoln left his Illinois home to start his inaugural journey to Washington, D.C., he wore a full beard. The trip took him by rail through New York state, where he stopped briefly in Westfield on February 16. Once at the train station, he called into the crowd for Grace. The following contemporary newspaper accounts recorded the incident.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer of February 20, 1861

At Westfield, Mr. Lincoln greeted a large crowd of ladies, and several thousand of the sterner sex. Addressing the ladies, he said, "I am glad to see you; I suppose you are to see me; but I certainly think I have the best of the bargain. (Applause.) Some three months ago, I received a letter from a young lady here; it was a very pretty letter, and she advised me to let my whiskers grow, as it would improve my personal appearance; acting partly upon her suggestion, I have done so; and now, if she is here, I would like to see her; I think her name was Miss Barlly." A small boy, mounted on a post, with his mouth and eyes both wide open, cried out, "there she is, Mr. Lincoln," pointing to a beautiful girl, with black eyes, who was blushing all over her fair face. The President left the car, and the crowd making way for him, he reached her, and gave her several hearty kisses, and amid the yells of delight from the excited crowd, he bade her good-bye, and on we rushed.

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

U.S. Civil War: Battle of Fredericksburg

The Cincinnati Commercial noted, "It can hardly be in human nature for men to show more valor or generals to manifest less judgment than were perceptible on our side that day." 160 years later, that still pretty much sums up the US Civil War’s Battle of Fredericksburg from the Union side. Yet, the fact is that, as bad as it was, and it was truly awful, it did not provide the South with any lasting strategic advantage. In fact, within seven months, the tables would turn after their own costly frontal assault.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Union soldiers from Franklin's ‘Left Grand Division’ charge across the railroad during the Battle of Fredericksburg.

General Robert E. Lee's survival at Antietam was remarkable. McClellan missed numerous opportunities to create total disaster for Lee's army, and Lee likely recognized some fundamental errors in his strategy. Yet, Lee emerged with his army intact, high morale, and a new adversary.

After McClellan's lack of aggressive pursuit post-Antietam, he was relieved of command on November 5. His replacement, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside, assumed command on November 9, under pressure from Washington to act swiftly. Burnside devised a plan to reach Richmond ahead of Lee's forces.

Situated near Warrenton, Virginia, Burnside was west of Richmond and Washington, at approximately the same latitude as Manassas. Continuing on the roads from there would lead to Culpeper and Charlottesville, necessitating the crossing of both the Rapidan and the Rappahannock Rivers.

Burnside’s Plan

Burnside proposed abandoning the southwest movement of the army, which led away from any specific target. Instead, he planned to move southeast rapidly toward the lower Rappahannock River, positioning the Union army at Falmouth, just across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg. From there, he aimed to launch a direct attack on Richmond, avoiding Lee's forces in Culpeper, and positioning himself between Lee and the direct route to Richmond. On paper, Burnside's plan held great promise, but successful execution hinged on speed.
The direct route from Warrenton to Fredericksburg was approximately 35-40 miles. It was a single country road in late Fall, presenting logistical challenges in organizing troops and supplies. However, Burnside managed to move his 100,000-man army to Falmouth on the north bank of the Rappahannock in just two days. Fredericksburg lay opposite Falmouth, a riverport town.

Lee had conducted a cautious retreat from Sharpsburg, ensuring his rear was secure in case McClellan launched an attack, which never materialized. This route brought Lee closer to the Shenandoah Valley than to Richmond. Lee, positioned at Culpeper, had a slightly shorter distance of about 35 miles to cover to reach Fredericksburg, but he had to cross the Rappahannock River. Thus, a race was on between the two armies.

When Burnside assumed command, he found himself in a strategic predicament. McClellan had left him in a remote location with a supply line that relied on the Orange and Alexandria Railroad, which extended to Culpeper Court House before heading east to Orange and Charlottesville. This placed Burnside far to the west of his desired destination, and there was no established supply line to support a rapid eastward movement. This situation raised concerns for Lincoln and Halleck, given that Burnside, a relative rookie as a general, aimed to move faster than his army had ever moved before, and he faced a cunning adversary who could launch attacks along the way.
However, Burnside devised a clever plan to address this challenge. Knowing that Longstreet was positioned at Culpeper, and Jackson was on his right flank, Burnside recognized that Longstreet had a shorter distance to reach Fredericksburg once his movement was detected.

The leadership in Washington believed that the primary target should not be Richmond itself, but rather Lee's army. They wanted Burnside to attack Longstreet at Culpeper while Jackson was separated from him. Burnside believed that this move was quite obvious and that Lee would anticipate it. He envisioned a scenario similar to the Second Battle of Manassas, with Jackson launching a flank attack against him. Burnside proposed feigning an attack on Culpeper, which would hold Lee in that area just long enough for Burnside to reach the eastern side of the Rappahannock River. He began moving supplies to Falmouth, located just north of Fredericksburg and close to the Potomac River. The plan was to reach Falmouth swiftly, resupply, and have a pontoon bridge constructed across the river before Lee could arrive. Halleck disagreed with Burnside’s plan but left it to President Lincoln, who chose to go along with it.

Crossing the Rappahannock River

Pontoon bridges have been essential in warfare for centuries. These floating bridges use floats or shallow-draft boats to support a continuous deck for infantry, artillery, cavalry, and supply wagons. The buoyancy of the supports limits their maximum load. Strong currents and storms can disrupt these bridges, making their use typically temporary, just long enough to cross a river. Connecting the bridge to the shore requires designing approaches that are not too steep, prevent bank erosion, and accommodate movements during changes in water levels (such as tides). During the Civil War, both armies commonly used pontoon bridges. They played a crucial role in key crossings, such as Grant's crossings of the James and Mississippi Rivers. Lee's use of a pontoon bridge over the Potomac River during the Gettysburg campaign is another notable example.

The plan for a pontoon bridge wasn't particularly complex, as it required old boats and wooden planks. When Burnside initiated his plans for this campaign, he requisitioned these materials on November 7, submitting his plan to Halleck. The plan was sent to Brig. Gen. George Washington Cullum, the chief of staff in Washington, on November 9. The pontoon trains were deemed ready to move on November 14.

However, when the Union Army commenced its march on November 15 and the first units arrived in Falmouth by November 17, they found no bridges built, no materials for construction, and no engineers to undertake the task. The pontoon materials were ready to move on November 14, except for the absence of the 270 horses needed to move them. Burnside was unaware until he arrived that most of the building materials had not been transported. Burnside arrived in Falmouth by November 19, but the pontoons that he planned to use to cross the Rappahannock were delayed because some functionary in Washington had failed to send the pontoons when Burnside asked for them. They were supposed to be there when he got there. Communications between Burnside's staff engineer Cyrus B. Comstock and the Engineer Brigade commander Daniel P. Woodbury indicate that Burnside had assumed the bridging was en route to Washington based on orders given on November 7.

So, when General Sumner arrived in Falmouth on November 17th, he ordered his men to race to Fredericksburg and cross the river. Except when he got there, there was no bridge. There were only 500 troops in the town and occupying the commanding heights to the west. Burnside became concerned that early winter rains would make the fording points unusable; that might make Sumner vulnerable, he could be cut off. Instead, Burnside ordered Sumner to wait in Falmouth.

Lee didn't ascertain Burnside's movement early enough to launch an attack. The part of the plan that Halleck had expressed concern about worked out favorably. Lee believed that Burnside would outpace him and cross the Rappahannock River first, prompting Lee to prepare for defense along the North Anna River instead. This plan, however, was met with dissatisfaction from President Davis, who considered it too close to Richmond . Lee recognized that Burnside had beat him to the Rappahannock – and now found himself on the wrong side of the river. Instead of moving to the North Anna, he had Longstreet move instead to the heights above the river on its south side above the town.

The materials for one bridge arrived November 25, 8 days after the Union army. This is truly a failure of the Union Army quartermaster department. The fact that Burnside ended up taking the blame for this is unfair; there was plenty of blame for everyone. Burnside was looking for a place to ford the river. The arrival of the bridge was much too late to cross the river without a battle. He knew only half of Lee’s army was across the river. Still, Burnside had an opportunity because at that time only half of Lee's army had arrived and were not yet dug in. Had Burnside acted more expeditiously and attacked Longstreet sooner, he might have won a victory before Jackson arrived. Part of his reluctance to move was his fear that if only some of his army crossed, an attack by Longstreet might be decisive.  It has always intrigued me that Burnside had delayed his attack at Antietam across the bridge and was criticized for not finding fords downstream; and 3 months later, he is criticized for the delays in looking for fords downstream.

Longstreet's arrival on November 23 marked a critical moment in the lead-up to the Battle of Fredericksburg. General Lee strategically positioned his forces, placing them on the commanding ridge known as Marye's Heights, west of the town. This defensive formation included Anderson's division on the far left, McLaws positioned directly behind the town, and Pickett's and Hood's divisions anchoring the right flank. Lee recognized the significance of holding this high ground.

Meanwhile, Lee had dispatched a message for General Stonewall Jackson on November 26, anticipating the need for his Second Corps. Jackson, known for his remarkable swiftness, had already foreseen the call and initiated a forced march of his troops from Winchester starting on November 22. They covered as much as 20 miles a day, a remarkable feat considering the challenging terrain. Jackson's timely arrival at Lee's headquarters on November 29 reinforced the Confederate position.

As General Burnside awaited the construction of crucial pontoon bridges, General Lee organized his army for the impending battle. Lieutenant General James Longstreet's wing shifted eastward from Culpeper, securing a formidable position on Marye's Heights, which offered a commanding view of Fredericksburg from the western vantage point. To the south, Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson's troops entrenched themselves along a line stretching from Prospect Hill to Hamilton's Crossing, a strategic position four miles south of the town. 

However, as Burnside's wait for the bridges extended, he missed a valuable window of opportunity. Lee recognized this delay and anticipated that Burnside would eventually attempt to cross the Rappahannock River. Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s wing moved east from Culpeper, and Lt. Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s men hurried toward the Rappahannock from the Shenandoah Valley. Longstreet took up a position on Marye’s Heights, overlooking Fredericksburg from the west. To the south, Jackson’s men were entrenched in a line stretching over Prospect Hill and onto Hamilton’s Crossing, four miles from the town. Burnside had squandered his opportunity. During this delay, Lee anticipated Burnside’s crossing the Rappahannock. This strategic maneuvering and positioning by both sides set the stage for the dramatic events that would unfold in the Battle of Fredericksburg.

Originally, Burnside had planned to cross east of Fredericksburg at Skinker's Neck, a shallow marshy area downstream from the town. However, upon Jackson's arrival and Confederate movements in that area, Burnside changed his plan to cross at the town itself, hoping to surprise the enemy. When Jackson arrived, he placed DH Hill and Early in that area when he received notification of Union gunboats there. Union spy balloons detected this movement, so Burnside was aware of it. Since it seemed that Lee had moved toward his right, then a smarter place to cross would be to Lee’s left, so he decided to cross at the town itself, thinking it would surprise the enemy.

Union engineers finally began to assemble 6 pontoon bridges on December 11. They were designated to be placed as 2 north of the town center, 1 south of the town center, and 3 more south. In the pre-dawn hours, a regiment of Union engineers began assembling the pontoon bridges opposite the town. Confederate riflemen harassed the engineers and slowed their progress.

The delay between November 25 and December 11 was partly due to the weather. But several years later, Halleck reported to Stanton that he had never approved of the plan, and had suggested using the fords upriver instead. After the war. Burnside wrote that he had told Halleck that during the movement he wouldn’t be unable to receive telegraphic messages. I get the impression, reading these notes well after the fact, that Halleck just didn’t order things be done and Burnside didn’t think he had to be certain about this detail. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-were-burnsides-bridges-late-at-fredericksburg.7791/?amp=1

As Union forces under General Hunt positioned over 220 cannons on Stafford Heights, it seemed they held an impregnable advantage against any Confederate counterattack. In the late morning, the Union unleashed a formidable bombardment, This relentless shelling wreaked havoc, causing considerable damage to numerous buildings and instilling terror among the civilian population. After approximately four hours of intense bombardment, the engineers resumed their work on the pontoon bridges, but Confederate riflemen wasted no time in resuming their sharpshooting.

However, a significant challenge remained in the form of Confederate sharpshooters entrenched in the basements of buildings within Fredericksburg. It was then that General Hunt proposed a bold solution. He suggested that Burnside deploy infantry across the river to engage the sharpshooters directly, effectively proposing urban combat in the heart of Fredericksburg.

Faced with the bridging process grinding to a halt due to enemy fire, General Burnside authorized a daring plan to dislodge the Confederate snipers.

As the plan unfolded, 135 infantrymen from the 7th Michigan and the 19th Massachusetts courageously crowded into small boats, with the 20th Massachusetts following soon after. Colonel Norman Hall, a brigade commander from the nearby Second Corps, volunteered his brigade to row across the Rappahannock. Under enemy fire, these regiments successfully crossed the river and formed a skirmish line to eliminate the Confederate sharpshooters. While some Confederate soldiers surrendered, the fighting intensified as Union and Confederate forces clashed street by street throughout the town. Ultimately, the riflemen were driven from their positions on the riverbank.

By late afternoon, Sumner's Right Grand Division began its crossing at 4:30 p.m., although the bulk of his troops did not complete the crossing until December 12. Hooker's Center Grand Division followed on December 13, utilizing both the northern and southern bridges.

Union artillery unleashed over 5,000 shells upon the town and the ridges to the west, transforming Fredericksburg into a scene of destruction. By nightfall, four Union brigades occupied the town, engaging in looting on a scale hitherto unseen in the war, enraging General Lee, who likened their actions to the ancient Vandals.

December 12: The Slaughter Pen

On December 12, the remainder of Burnside's army successfully crossed the river and established their presence in Fredericksburg. As the evening developed, Burnside formulated a strategy to secure the areas surrounding the town. His plan involved utilizing the nearly 60,000 troops in Major General William B. Franklin's Left Grand Division to crush General Lee's southern flank, commanded by General Jackson. Simultaneously, the rest of Burnside's forces would maintain General Longstreet's position on Marye's Heights and provide support to Franklin if required.

However, the planning that evening left everyone in a state of uncertainty. Despite Burnside's verbal instructions, which outlined a primary attack by Franklin, supported by General Hooker on the southern flank, with General Sumner leading a secondary attack on the northern flank, his written orders on the morning of December 13 were vague and confusing to his subordinates. These orders did not reach Franklin until 7:15 or 7:45 a.m., and when they did, they differed from Franklin's expectations. Rather than ordering a full-scale assault by the entire grand division, Burnside instructed Franklin to maintain his position but send "a division at least" to seize Prospect Hill around Hamilton's Crossing. Simultaneously, Sumner was to send one division through the city and up Telegraph Road, with both flanks ready to commit their entire commands. Burnside appeared to anticipate that these limited attacks would intimidate Lee into withdrawal.

Franklin, who had initially advocated a vigorous assault, interpreted Burnside's order conservatively. Map inaccuracies further compounded the confusion. Interestingly, Burnside's use of the word "seize" conveyed less forcefulness in 19th-century military terminology than the command "to carry" the heights.

The attack finally began when General Reynolds led the way, selecting General George Meade to initiate the movement. However, substantial artillery fire from Pelham's Cavalry artillery and later Walker's artillery on Prospect Hill delayed Meade's advance until nearly 1 PM. The attack eventually gained momentum, but Jackson had concealed approximately 35,000 Confederate troops on a wooded ridge.

The battle on the southern end of the field, known as the Slaughter Pen, resulted in heavy casualties on both sides. General A.P. Hill's poor performance at Fredericksburg led to a significant portion of Confederate casualties in Jackson's corps. A triangular patch of woods extending beyond the railroad, swampy and dense with underbrush, created a 600-yard gap between the brigades of Brigadier Generals James H. Lane and James J. Archer. Brigadier General Maxcy Gregg's brigade was stationed approximately a quarter mile behind this vulnerable gap. Meade's 1st Brigade entered the gap, ascended the railroad embankment, and turned right into the underbrush, catching Lane's brigade in the flank. This maneuver enabled Meade to attack both Confederate brigades from the flank.

However, Gregg, for unknown reasons, ordered his troops not to fire, believing mistakenly that the approaching Union forces were friendly. It is suspected that his partial deafness may have prevented him from hearing the sounds of battle and gunfire. Tragically, he was struck in the spine by a minie ball and succumbed to his injuries two days later. As the situation escalated, Archer called for Gregg to send reinforcements, but by then, Gregg's brigade had suffered defeat. Early and Taliaferro moved their divisions to cover the gap, effectively halting Meade's advance. A counterattack by Early and a counter-counter charge by Union generals Gibbon and Birney eventually forced the Confederates to withdraw into the hills south of town. Had Franklin supported Meade with all of his men the gap might have led to a rout.

The main Union assault against Jackson initially achieved success. In an area later known as the Slaughter Pen, Major General George G. Meade's division briefly penetrated Jackson's line, posing a threat to the Confederate right. However, a lack of coordinated reinforcements and Jackson's resolute counterattack thwarted the Union effort. The battle resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, with neither gaining a significant advantage.

December 12: Marye’s Heights

On the northern end of the battlefield, Brig. Gen. William H. French's division of the II Corps stood ready to advance, despite facing a barrage of Confederate artillery fire raining down upon the fog-shrouded city of Fredericksburg. General Burnside had instructed Maj. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner, the commander of the Right Grand Division, to send "a division or more" to secure the high ground west of the city. This move was initially seen as a diversionary tactic, with the main thrust of the Union assault expected to occur in the south. . General Burnside's orders to Maj. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner, commander of the Right Grand Division, was to send "a division or more" to seize the high ground to the west of the city, assuming that his assault on the southern end of the Confederate line would be the decisive action of the battle.

Marye’s Heights, a prominent geographic feature overlooking the river and the city, presented an imposing obstacle. The low ridge, composed of several hills separated by ravines, including Taylor's Hill, Stansbury Hill, Marye's Hill, and Willis Hill, rose 40–50 feet above the surrounding plain. This gives an impression that it’s not an especially steep approach. While the approach was relatively open, it was punctuated by scattered houses, fences, and gardens, hindering the movement of Union forces. To reach the base of the heights, Union soldiers had to leave the relative cover of the city, descend into a valley crossed by a water-filled canal ditch, and then ascend an exposed slope of 400 yards.

Close to the crest of the ridge, specifically Marye's Hill and Willis Hill, a narrow lane in a slight depression known as the Sunken Road was protected by a 4-foot stone wall, supplemented with log breastworks in some areas. Initially, McLaws had placed about 2,000 Confederate soldiers on the front line of Marye's Heights, with an additional 7,000 in reserve positions on the crest and behind the ridge. At the front of Longstreet's position, the Sunken Road was packed with Confederates three ranks deep. Confederate artillery covered the plain below, making it a deadly approach. General Longstreet had received assurance from his artillery commander, Lt. Col. Edward Porter Alexander, that they could effectively sweep the field with gunfire: "General, we cover that ground now so well that we will comb it as with a fine-tooth comb. A chicken could not live on that field when we open on it."

Burnside's original diversionary attack against Longstreet's defensive position behind the stone wall resulted in horrendous Union casualties. Wave after wave of Federal troops advanced across the open ground, only to be met with withering rifle and artillery fire from the strongly fortified Confederate position. Lee, witnessing the carnage, famously remarked, "It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."

The initial plan had been to distract Longstreet with this attack while the main effort took place elsewhere, but when the secondary engagement at the Slaughter Pen stalled, this ill-fated assault became the primary focus of the battle.

Sumner's Right Grand Division was the force behind the initial assault, which began at noon, kicking off a relentless sequence of attacks that persisted until nightfall. As Northern forces moved out of Fredericksburg, Longstreet's artillery rained destruction upon them. The Union troops encountered a perilous bottleneck at the canal ditch, crossed by only three narrow bridges. Once they surmounted this obstacle, they formed shallow battle lines, seeking cover behind a slight bluff that provided concealment but no protection.

The order for the final advance echoed across the field. The terrain beyond the canal ditch offered little cover, with few buildings and fences. Southern cannons wasted no time resuming their barrage on these exposed targets. As Federals covered about half the remaining distance, a torrent of bullets erupted from the Sunken Road, causing severe casualties. Survivors sought refuge behind a small depression in the ground or retreated to the safety of the canal ditch valley.

Darius Couch and the II Corps were at the forefront of this attack. His corps was ordered to assault the Confederate position at the base of Marye's Heights overlooking Fredericksburg. From the courthouse cupola, Couch watched as French's division, followed by Hancock's division and then Howard's, suffered heavy casualties. The II Corps alone sustained 4,000 casualties in this part of the battle. One may wonder why a flank attack was not attempted instead of a direct assault; in fact, Couch ordered Howard to march his division toward the right and flank the Confederate defenses, but the terrain did not permit such a maneuver; all such attempts were crowded back to the center.

Why Did Burnside order this attack?

The Assault on Marye's Heights resulted in a casualty rate estimated at 15-20% for Union troops, contributing to a total Union casualty count of 8,000. Although the assault was tactically devastating, it had minimal strategic impact on the war. It became the most one-sided Confederate victory in the war, yet it did not alter the overall trajectory of the conflict.

Several factors influenced Burnside's decision-making. There was a breakdown in communication and coordination among Union commanders. Burnside received reports of limited success in the diversionary attack on the Confederate right flank, leading him to believe that a more aggressive assault on Marye's Heights was needed to divert Confederate attention. Pressure to achieve a decisive victory and optimism may have clouded his judgment.

Burnside believed in his numerical advantage and hoped to dislodge the Confederate defenders through overwhelming force. Given the circumstances, Marye's Heights seemed the most promising target due to its proximity to the shelter of Fredericksburg and the less steep terrain.

While some subordinate commanders, including General William B. Franklin, expressed reservations, Burnside persisted in ordering piecemeal attacks. Hooker, Sumner, and several others told Burnside it was futile, but he continued to order piecemeal attacks

Aftermath

As darkness descended on the battlefield, strewn with the fallen and the wounded, it became evident that the Confederates had secured a decisive victory. The night resonated with the harrowing cries of the wounded, described as "weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear."

Burnside, undeterred by the grim outcome, issued orders to renew the assaults on December 14, even expressing a desire to personally lead them. However, his subordinates persuaded him against this perilous endeavor. On December 15, Burnside orchestrated a skillful retreat across the Rappahannock River, dismantling the bridges behind his army as they withdrew to Stafford Heights.

As darkness descended upon the battlefield, it revealed a haunting scene of devastation, strewn with the fallen and wounded. The cries of the wounded, described as "weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear," echoed through the night, serving as a grim testament to the horrors of war. The wounded soldiers who lay on the battlefield faced dire circumstances as there were limited means to evacuate them. Many had fallen in front of the Confederate lines, making any rescue attempt perilous and likely to result in even more casualties. Regrettably, many of the wounded likely succumbed to their injuries who might have been saved under different circumstances. Undoubtedly many of the wounded exsanguinated who might have been saved.

As a consequence of this tragedy, the role of Jonathan Letterman, appointed in June 1862 as the medical director of the Army of the Potomac, became pivotal. Letterman initiated a comprehensive overhaul of the Medical Service, armed with a charter from army commander Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to enact necessary improvements. By the time of the Battle of Antietam in September, Letterman had established a system of forward first aid stations at the regimental level, introducing principles of triage. He implemented standing operating procedures for the intake and treatment of war casualties and was the first to apply management principles to battlefield medicine.

Letterman also introduced mobile field hospitals at division and corps headquarters, along with an efficient ambulance corps that operated under the control of medical staff rather than the Quartermaster Corps. He streamlined the distribution of medical supplies. Regrettably, at Fredericksburg, Letterman's innovative system was often countermanded by Union officers. Nevertheless, it was adopted by the Army of the Potomac and other Union armies after the Battle of Fredericksburg, eventually becoming the official procedure for the intake and treatment of battlefield casualties.

Amidst the grim aftermath, one story of extraordinary compassion emerged. Richard Rowland Kirkland, known as "The Angel of Marye’s Heights," displayed remarkable humanity. Kirkland, a devout Christian, could not ignore the pleas of the dying Union soldiers. Initially denied permission by his commander, Brigadier General Joseph Kershaw, due to concerns for Kirkland's safety, he eventually received approval to assist the wounded Union soldiers, symbolizing a moment of humanity amidst the brutality of war.

The Battle of Fredericksburg was the single most lopsided victory in the war. The outrageous repetitive attacks on Marye’s Heights had led to an unnecessary attack and thousands of casualties. Although profoundly discouraging for Union soldiers and the Northern populace, did not deliver a decisive impact on the overall course of the war. Despite being the most one-sided Confederate victory in the war, it had minimal strategic significance. Confederate morale surged, despite their numerical disadvantage, while Union morale had already suffered due to the replacement of the popular McClellan with Burnside. Burnside's errors in planning and leadership led to rising insubordination and his infamous ineffective second offensive against Lee in January 1863, mockingly referred to as the “Mud March.”

Understanding the lack of a long-term advantage is essential in comprehending the broader dynamics of the Civil War. Although a resounding tactical victory for the Confederacy, the Battle of Fredericksburg proved to be a hollow triumph. The North's vast resources soon compensated for Burnside's losses in manpower and supplies. Conversely, Lee faced difficulties replenishing both missing soldiers and much-needed supplies.

Strength:

- Union: 122,009 (114,000 engaged)

- Confederate: 78,513 (72,500 engaged)

Casualties and losses:

- Union: 12,653 total (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing)

- Confederate: 5,377 total (608 killed, 4,116 wounded, 653 captured/missing)

The casualty ratio was about 2:1, which, when expressed as percentages, equates to approximately 11.1% for the Union and 7.4% for the Confederacy. While it was a clear Confederate victory, the casualties were not as catastrophic as some accounts suggest. Lee's forces suffered 5,300 casualties but inflicted over twice that number of losses on their Union counterparts. Notably, of the 12,600 Federal soldiers killed, wounded, or missing, almost two-thirds fell in front of the formidable stone wall at Marye's Heights.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Crossword of Black History: Decoding the Real behind the so-called ‘Paternal Relation’ between Masters and Slaves

For a few centuries, the United States of America has been known as ‘the land of the free and home of the brave.’ Here, Aarushi Anand argues that in the context of slavery, the adage still holds true for the past three centuries, only the narrative gets reversed.

Mid-19th century painting Slaves Waiting for Sale - Richmond, Virginia. By Eyre Crowe.

America was the land of free people, of its native people. With the advent of British imperialism in the eighteenth-century slavery became the norm. Different degrees of freedom coexisted, from the slave stripped completely of liberty to the independent slave-owner who enjoyed a full range of rights. The settlers’ success, however, rested on depriving Native Americans of their land and, in some colonies, importing large numbers of African slaves as laborers. Freedom and lack of freedom expanded together from seventeenth-century to nineteenth-century America. 

In writings from the eighteenth century, the image of the “grateful slave,” becomes commonplace. Such a stereotype provided readers and viewers with what appeared to be a seemingly positive alternative to the injustices of human trafficking and exploitation:  a willing and even desperate captive who served a beloved White master out of gratitude for their good deeds. In the latter half of the century the vision of the “grateful slave” contributed to colonial practices of White supremacy.

Historiographical trends in analyzing relationship between master and slave

By the 1960s, U.B. Phillips had become a paradigm for the racist and regressive aspects of slave historiography. He substantiates his arguments by stressing on availability of amenities: adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, along with instruction in contemporary technologies to “civilise" the slaves. Only occasionally were slave laws enforced, and owners hardly ever sold their slaves, "except in emergencies." Despite its significance in structuring Southern society, Phillips addresses the unprofitability of enslaved labour which slowed down the industrialization process, restricted crop diversification, and wasted soil fertility. His claim that "a negro was what a white man made him" reflects his beliefs that Blacks were culturally blank and retained few native African qualities after enslavement. 

Innumerable historians have responded unfavourably to Phillips' writings. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp dismantled Phillips' portrayal of benign paternalism and presented a starkly cruel reality to the academics and students of the South. Slaves in Charleston could not “swear, smoke, walk with a cane. or make joyful demonstrations.” For some crimes, Florida's laws permitted branding, mutilation, and even execution. Working hours from sunup to sunset, course food, exacting work, limited medical care were other forms of exploitation.  According to Stampp, absence of paternal authority and no legal sanction for slave marriages weakened the Afro-American kinship system: “the slave woman was first a full-time worker for her owner and only incidentally a wife, a mother and homemaker.” Additionally, the sale of family members separately led to “widespread sexual promiscuity” among both men and women, typified by a Kentucky female slave labour “who had each of her seven children by a different father.” 

Stanley Elkins argues that the origin of North American slavery had capitalistic tendencies which gave paramount rights to slave owners, and barred slaves from appealing to institutions, like the church or the state, which in Spanish America might protect them from some forms of exploitation. The "shock" and trauma of the slave trade, along with the adaptation to the “closed system" of the Southern plantations, resulted in the infantilization of the Afro-Americans and their absolute subservience to authority.

Initiating a new chapter in the debate over slavery, historian Eugene D. Genovese draws upon the writings of U.B. Phillips. Genovese saw the plantations as pre capitalist firms and the slave South as a distinctive civilization that was anti-bourgeois. He contends that plantations were inefficient in the South and that plantation owners were unable to make investments in labour-saving efficiency to preserve the worth of their slaves. His Marxist vision is ironic in the sense that he talks about the slave economy on the one hand, but he minimizes the degree of exploitation in the relationship between slaveholder and slave on the other. He envisioned a mutual acceptance of paternalism by both master and slave. Paternalism contained resistance, perpetuated class rule, and gave slaves moderate bargaining power.

His analysis of slave religion reveals it to be a religion of resignation which was not conducive to revolutionary political or ideological tradition. Slaves had no prophetic heritage, therefore plantation owner’s control over slave religion and Afro-American culture continued to be dictated by the whims of the planters. Genovese discredits the humanity of Africans and emphasizes the Biblical endorsement of human enslavement in order to rebut the abolitionists’ contention that slavery must be abolished on the grounds of Christianity, reason, and property ownership.

Some historians focus on the high rates of slave mortality in the rice plantations, where owners’ absenteeism was frequent, while others stress on the slave trade. In terms of housing slaves had one or two-room cottages that were situated on agricultural fields, had no ventilation and were unbearably hot. They were more susceptible to illnesses than their owners were because of poor nutrition, unhygienic living conditions, and excessive work. Skin irritations, toothaches, rickets, beriberi, and scurvy were all exacerbated by vitamin deficits. Juxta positioned with racist historiography no kind slave owner would disperse familial groups, sever the bond of father and child, or exploit slaves in the above-mentioned manner.

Debunking the narrative of father-son relationship through slave resistance

Emphasis on African antecedents provides a viable interpretive framework for understanding the subtle ways in which they provided resistance. Slaves typically hold out to music from their native countries. This implies preservation of their own culture through the memorialization of their homeland in songs, poems, and fables was a kind of resistance to white civilization. Sabotage, sluggish labour rates, and escape from plantations were the more visible forms of resistance. To limit the quantity of their services slaves encouraged their masters to underestimate their intelligence by damaging tools and feigning illnesses. Depending on the severity of the white master's brutality or the type of order disobeyed, the penalties varied from starvation and limited ration to physical violence and death. The number of laws enacted to keep the institution working gives clinching evidence of the amount of resistance slaves offered. 

An additional form of resistance was the occasional murder of overseers or masters. Additionally, slaves who had access to the master's residence would make attempts to assassinate them. One of those suspected of killing the master was the barber (as he got extremely close to him when providing grooming services and had access to long blades for shaving). Another strategy is to inflict severe discomfort or a bleeding nose on the master. People with access to a White man's household, such as female slave servants, could kill the occupants by slow poisoning, which involves putting a small amount of arsenic in meals to simulate kidney failure and demonstrate natural death.

Female experience of slavery

New work on gender and slavery throws light on the experiences and extent of resistance offered by women. Sexuality imposed an implicit price constraint on the worth of enslaved labour. The cost of female slave labour was cheaper than male slave labour, particularly when planters applied to black women the same tax-exempt status that applied to white female servants. Slave pregnancy was one of the best ways for a slave owner to increase slave numbers without being forced to buy new ones. To curb sexual attacks on White women Black females were originally brought from Africa to act as companions (sexual gratification) for the male slaves. 

Slavery, according to some historians, was an opening for a white man's sexual playground. Female slaves received the nickname "Fancy maids," and they were auctioned off into the "fancy trade." This "fancy trade" was expressly established to sell mixed-race women for sexual liaison and trafficking. Female slaves frequently attempted to flee, but since they were more concerned with the welfare of their children, their mobility was restricted and likelihood of capture raised. In addition to their physical labour, women's reproductive work was aggressively exploited. As a result slave women suffered from difficulties arising due to birthing complications, and sexually transmitted infections. To provide resistance, women in the fertile stage practiced birth control and abortion to avoid remaining in a perpetual state of pregnancy.  Thus, in the lives of slave women, financial affairs and the biological process entwined in intricate and tragic ways.

Historian Ira Berlin rightly contends that comprehending the economic, social, and political evolution of North America, particularly the United States, requires confronting slavery's key role in the nation's foundation. While the ruthless oppression of slaves constituted the foundation of colonial American society, traditional historians viewed the dehumanizing institution through rose-tinted spectacles. The revisionists' study of data pertaining to several fugitive laws, reports on death, violence and an agonizing living experience of slaves destroy the conception of a father-child bond between slave and slave owner. When Eric Foner remarked "parents do not typically sell their children," the institution’s non-paternalistic, exploitative bent gets highlighted. No wonder slavery is referred to as the nation's original sin.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

·       Genovese, E.D. (2011). Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. 9th edition. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

·       Morris, Richard B. "The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. By Kenneth M. Stampp. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1956. Pp. xxi, 435. $5.75." The Journal of Economic History 18.1 (1958): 89-90.

·       Genovese, Eugene. (1989). The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

·       Stampp, K. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage, 1989.

·       Deborah Gray White; ‘The Nature of Female Slavery’; “Aren’t I am Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South”; W.W. Norton and Company.

Jacob Riis: The Danish-American who Made a Big Impact in the Late 19th Century

Jacob Riis (1849-1914) was a Danish-American who had a big influence in America during his lifetime. He was a social reformer, journalist, photographer – and confidante to presidents. Richard Bluttal explains.

Jacob Riis in 1906.

The great mass. . . . of newsboys who cry their “extrees” in the street by day . . . are children with homes who contribute to their family’s earnings, and sleep out, if they do, either because they have not sold their papers or gambled away their money at “craps” and are afraid to go home . . . . In winter the boys curl themselves up on the steam-pipes in the newspaper offices that open their doors at midnight on secret purpose to let them in.

Imagine it's 1888, New York City. The Lower East Side is the most densely populated place on Earth: block after block of tenements house the working-poor immigrants of the city, including Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews, Czechs and Chinese. Imagine the darkness of an unlit corridor in one of those tenements, a corridor that opens onto windowless rooms, 10 feet square, where entire families live and might even work — sewing or rolling cigars. Out of the darkness, a door opens. A man with a Danish accent leads a team of amateur photographers, who are accompanied by a policeman. They position their camera on a tripod and ignite a mixture of magnesium and potassium chlorate powder. A flash explodes, illuminating their squalor. It would take the photographers a few minutes to reload that early ancestor of the flash bulb. And then, on to another tenement scene. And despite the blackness of a room or an unlit street, a picture is taken, a document of urban poverty.

In 1873, Riis became a police reporter and was assigned to cover New York City’s Lower East Side. This role, as described by Riis, meant he was “the one who gathers and handles all the news that means trouble to someone: the murders, fires, suicides, robberies, and all that sort”. His investigations led him to some stunning discoveries, including the horrible living conditions of New York tenements. He found that some tenement conditions were so abysmal that the infant death rate was 1 in 10. These experiences drove Riis to continue his efforts; by the late 1880’s, Riis was conducting in-depth investigations into the conditions of the slums, using flashbulb photography to capture these deplorable conditions.

Social activist

At what point did Riis become a social activist. As the story goes, “One cold night of wandering led to a chance encounter with a little dog, who loyally followed him around the city. When Riis sought refuge in a police lodging house, the dog was denied entry. Riis awoke in the middle of the night to find another lodger had robbed him. When he complained to a policeman, he was called a liar and thrown out of the lodging house.

His loyal friend, who had been patiently waiting at the door, reacted to seeing Riis treated this way by attacking the policeman and biting his leg. The policeman grabbed the dog and smashed him against the station steps, killing him. Riis was beside himself with grief and rage and pinpoints this exact moment as launching his life as a social activist. 

The kind of police lodging where Riis had attempted to spend the night had become an increasingly since the 1860s. Low Life author Luc Sante estimates that between 100,000 and 250,000 people per year took shelter there. As Eric Monkkonen documents in Police in Urban America, these cold, leaky, drafty lodging houses were a petri dish of diseases that would spread quickly through their populations and onto the police force.

One police doctor lamented, “More miserable, unhealthy, horrible dungeons could not well be conceived of,” which sounds pretty rough by 19th century standards. The most common afflictions were tuberculosis, lice, and syphilis. Reformers had long hoped to shut such institutions down. In 1894, when Riis met Teddy Roosevelt, they got their best chance.

Confidante

Jacob Riis was once one of the most famous men in America: and became a close friend and confidante of President Theodore Roosevelt and the epitome of the immigrant made good — good, in his case, being measured by political and social influence, not by wealth. One of his books, How the Other Half Lives (1890), exposed the horrors of tenement life. It caught the attention of Civil Service Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, who viewed it as a call to action. Immediately after finishing this book, Roosevelt marched into Riis’s office to tender his assistance. In 1895, when Roosevelt was New York Police Commissioner and Riis was employed as a police reporter at the Mulberry Street station, the two often worked together. They ventured out on urban expeditions together to witness first-hand the calamitous conditions affecting the poor. Through their investigations, they hoped to bring about better living situations as well as to eliminate corruption within the police department that added to the burden of destitute New Yorkers. . On February 8, 1896, Riis took Roosevelt on a tour of police lodging houses, including the specific one that had mistreated him nearly 20 years earlier. A disgusted Roosevelt promised Riis, “I will smash them tomorrow.” A week later, Commissioner Roosevelt shut down all of the police lodging houses in the city. Afterwards, Riis wrote, “The battle is won. The murder of my dog is avenged.” For the for the rest of his career, Riis would end lectures thundering, “My dog did not die unavenged!”Through their investigations, they hoped to bring about better living situations as well as to eliminate corruption within the police department that added to the burden of destitute New Yorkers. Riis was active in bringing about anti-child labor and tenement reform laws.

After Roosevelt resigned as Police Commissioner, he and Riis remained close. United by their passion for reform, the pair’s unlikely friendship surpassed purely political matters Riis was active in bringing about anti-child labor and tenement reform laws.

Photos

One of Riis' most famous photos was taken on Bayard Street. It's called "5 Cents a Spot," which shows a room full of people bedding down for the night. (A "spot" meant a place on the floor.) They must have been shocked. Magnesium flash powder was something new. It was developed in Germany in 1887. Riis' burst of light must have been a stunning surprise, but it made the dim, airless lives of the poor visible to the middle class.

Bonnie Yochelson and Daniel Czitrom, co-authors of Rediscovering Jacob Riis,  took a walk through the neighborhood.  The neighborhood is recently gentrified, but this was where Riis campaigned against the housing conditions of the day. "You can still see the really small size of the building lots," says Czitrom, who is a historian. "The typical building lot in New York for a tenement was 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep going back," and the buildings often took up the entire lot, he says. So-called rear tenements, built behind other tenements, would have no access to light or air, and all the rooms were interior rooms, Czitrom says.

A court decision from that era essentially said there is no right to light or air for a renter or an owner, he says. "So, the idea that you have a right to a window or the right to some breathing space was not a legal right that anyone recognized until much later," Czitrom says.

Riis thought of himself as a writer, and he was evidently a gripping storyteller in the lectures he gave to accompany his lantern slideshows.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Republicans in the Presidency: Criminal Dealings?

Donald J. Trump is in court for a number of reasons currently, although he still remains favorite for the Republican nomination for the presidency. With that in mind, here Larry Deblinger looks at some of the criminal (or possibly criminal) dealings of some former Republican presidents.

Harding’s Gang? President Warren G. Harding’s first cabinet in 1921.

The Republican party of the United States is in flux as it seeks to forge its future with or without the leadership of former president Donald J. Trump. While Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls in the race for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, he is also facing trial on four criminal indictments encompassing 91 separate charges. Republican politicians and rank-and file-voters must decide whether they will support Trump should he be both their party’s nominee and a convicted felon. Depending on the trial outcomes, it may be a stark choice of Trump or the law.

But the stakes of the present moment for the future of the Republican party, and, potentially, of American democracy, can only be fully appreciated in light of the GOP’s past. The history of the presidencies of the Republican party, which often brands itself “the party of law and order,” includes a long criminal record, spanning almost the entire existence of the party, of which the Trump administration, despite some unprecedented aspects of its law-breaking, is only the latest chapter. What Republicans decide today will help determine whether that heritage of lawlessness at the highest levels of national government, where a political party is expected to assemble its best and brightest and promote its core tenets, will continue to stain the character of the GOP.

Grant’s Invasion

The criminal record of Republican presidencies substantially begins a mere 15 years after the 1854 birth of the GOP, with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877). At this time, corruption in government was common since the so-called “spoils system,” as in “to the victor go the spoils,” held sway in American politics, determining government jobs, favors and funding through political patronage.1 But federal executive branch corruption erupted to unprecedented and shocking levels under Grant. The scandals, too numerous to detail in total, ran from bribery, fraud, and extortion to embezzlement and financial market manipulation and permeated the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Justice, War (now called Defense), the Navy, and the Postal Service, reaching to top cabinet officers and the vice-president.2

The malfeasance by the end of Grant’s first term was such that it helped trigger a breakaway faction of his party who called themselves the Liberal Republicans and opposed Grant’s 1872 re-election. Among other points of opposition to Grant, the Liberals charged that “The Civil Service of the Government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition, and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions, and breeds a demoralization dangerous to the perpetuity of republican government.”3

The Whiskey Ring

The most extensive of the Grant administration scandals was the Whiskey Ring. Grant had sent an old friend whom he had appointed to the Treasury, General John McDonald, to head up federal tax revenue collection in Missouri, a hotbed of support for the Liberal Republicans. Once there, McDonald observed that whiskey distillers had been bribing federal revenue agents for years to allow them to underpay what they owed in taxes. Rather than curtail the illegality, McDonald and other Republican operatives got in on the action, forming the Whiskey Ring in conjunction with distillers, ostensibly to divert the unpaid tax money to a slush fund for Grant’s re-election in 1872 and other Republican campaigns.4 Storekeepers, treasury clerks, revenue agents and others in the whiskey chain were forced to cooperate, sometimes through impressment and blackmail.4 After the 1872 elections, the Whiskey Ring outgrew its original, perhaps specious political purposes to become a nationwide crime syndicate operated entirely for the enrichment of the conspirators. After it was uncovered and investigated by Grant’s Justice Department starting in 1875, 110 conspirators, including MacDonald, were convicted of crimes (e.g., defrauding the US Treasury) and over $3 million in stolen revenues were recovered.5  

Despite the scandals of his administration and opposition of the Liberals, Grant, the former top general of the Union army and Civil war hero, won re-election handily. Grant appeared to be unaware of the various corrupt activities in his administration, and urged prosecution of the malefactors when informed of them.6 But he was drawn into the Whiskey Ring scandal when his private secretary, Orville Babcock, was indicted and tried in criminal court for involvement in the scheme. Grant testified on behalf of Babcock, denying his guilt and defending his character, in a deposition taken at the White House. Owing largely to Grant’s testimony, Babcock was eventually acquitted, but was later accused of complicity in another corrupt scheme.4,5 For years afterwards, fairly or not, the term “Grantism” was synonymous with government corruption.7

Harding’s Gang

Following Grant, the Progressive era of the late nineteenth and early 20th century in the US promoted “good government” policies which helped to curb government corruption. Progressive Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt played prominent roles in this movement.8 But Americans came to tire of Progressivism under the strident leadership and activism of the Democratic president Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), and in 1920, they voted a conservative Republican, Warren G. Harding, into the White House. Harding had run on the campaign theme of a “return to normalcy.”9 If by normalcy Harding meant a return to Republican officials criminally abusing the powers of the Federal government, he delivered in spades.

A handsome, statuesque, and genial man with a turbo-charged sex-drive, Harding had risen through the shady world of Ohio politics and brought his cronies from that milieu to the executive branch. Known as the Ohio gang, Harding’s associates generated a font of corruption.

The disclosures began in early 1923 at the Veteran’s Bureau  (now the Department of Veterans’ Affairs), leading to the resignation of the Director, Charles R. Forbes and the suicide of the General Counsel, Charles T. Cramer. Forbes was convicted in 1924 of conspiracy to defraud the government, involving the theft of more than $200 million in bureau funds, and sentenced to two years in prison.10,11

The odor of corruption led next to the office of the Alien Property Custodian, which adjudicated claims for properties confiscated from Germans during World War I. Congressional investigators the bureau to be a sump of bribery and graft. The Custodian, Thomas W. Miller, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and imprisoned.12  Harding’s Attorney General, Harry Daugherty, a key member of the Ohio gang, was brought to trial on charges of involvement in the Alien Bureau schemes and was acquitted, although it was brought out that he had burned bank ledger sheets of his and other accounts to destroy evidence.13 Daugherty was also accused of running a bribery/protection racket for alcohol dealers trying to evade the Prohibition law then in effect but was never prosecuted.14 However, Daugherty’s secretary and close friend, Jess Smith, committed suicide under mysterious circumstances.15

Oil Money Bribes

The infamous Teapot Dome scandal, also occurring under the Harding administration, was named for a federal government reserve of oil-bearing land at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, intended for use by the US Navy and managed by the Interior Department. After a series of investigations and criminal trials revealing an intricate and scandalous web of corporate-government corruption, Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall was convicted and imprisoned for receiving bribes in return for leasing Teapot Dome and other federal oil reserves to private companies.16

The full extent of Harding’s knowledge of the corruption in his administration remains unknown, largely because he died suddenly while in office in 1923. In his classic 1931 history of the 1920s, “Only Yesterday,” Frederick Lewis Allen, author and Editor of Harper’s magazine, opined that “the Harding administration was responsible in its short two years and five months for more concentrated robbery and rascality than any other in the whole history of the Federal government.”17 

Nixon’s Criminal Cohort

It is sometimes forgotten that Richard M. Nixon set the tone for his administration (1969-74) well before the Watergate scandal with his choice for vice-president, Spiro T. Agnew, Governor of Maryland. Little-known outside of Maryland, Agnew was a tough, plain-spoken politician whom the Nixonites thought would be perfect for their campaign. It turned out that Agnew was a creature straight from the Grant-Harding school of politics as criminal enterprise. Agnew had not only run a bribery racket as County Executive and then Governor of Maryland, extorting public works contractors for kickbacks of government-appropriated funds, he continued receiving the payments—in envelopes stuffed with cash—as Vice-President of the US.18 Faced with criminal charges of extortion, bribery, graft, conflict of interest, and tax evasion, Agnew pleaded to the least embarrassing charge, tax evasion, in return for resigning his office and a $10,000 fine.19

The Watergate Scandal

Then there was Watergate. The infamous burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters and cover-up, the latter personally engineered by Nixon and his White House staff, encompassed a vast scale of illegal activities and abuses of power. As in the Harding administration, the nation’s top legal official, Attorney General John Mitchell, was a key facilitator of illegality under Nixon. A century after Republican operatives under Grant used the Whiskey Ring to raise re-election campaign funds through intimidation and blackmail, Nixon re-election campaign officials also used an illegally derived slush fund, including campaign contributions from corporations, which were outlawed at the time, to finance the Watergate break in and other crimes and “dirty tricks,” laundering the money through banks in Mexico.20,21

Overall, 69 Nixon administration officials were indicted for crimes related to Watergate or other illegal activities and 48 were convicted, including Attorney General Mitchell.22 A grand jury was set to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation but prosecution was deterred by questions over whether a sitting president could be indicted.23 In any event, like his vice-president before him, Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Reagan Restores a Republican Tradition

After the brief period of atonement known as the Ford administration (1974-77), which was most notable for President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Nixon, the Republicans were back at it with the presidency of Ronald W. Reagan (1981-89). Reagan bore curious echoes of Harding as a genial, handsome, somewhat inattentive man promising to restore a nostalgic era of simpler times in America. And like Harding, Reagan presided over a viral outbreak of corruption in the federal government of a magnitude unseen since the days of the Ohio gang.24 Abuses of office occurred at no less than 20 different federal departments and agencies, according to Pulitzer prize-winning Washington Post journalist and author Haynes Johnson.25

“By the end of his (Reagan’s) term 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of numbers of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever,” wrote Johnson, in his 1991 history of the Reagan administration, “Sleepwalking Through History.”26  

Cascading Corruption

The Iran-Contra affair is the most famous of the Reagan-era scandals, but that episode could at least be portrayed as a principled, if illegal, attempt to fight the spread of socialism in Central America. Less noted is that the Reagan administration was rife with raw, greed-driven corruption, which by one estimate amounted to a total theft of $130billion in public funds.27 A prime example was the Wedtech case, involving a Defense Department contractor, which Johnson described as “the kind of political corruption that extended back to the Washington (DC) of Grant and Harding: influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks, fraud and conspiracy.”28 The subsequent “Operation Ill Wind” probe by the FBI, investigating further corruption in Defense Department procurement, resulted in 50 convictions, including those of high-ranking military officers and administration officials.29

And on it went, across the federal government in a veritable feeding frenzy from the department of Housing and Urban Development, where an estimated $8 billion in public funds were stolen,30 to the Environmental Protection Agency where the director resigned rather than cooperate with a Congressional investigation of political manipulation of department funds.31 As in the Harding and Nixon administrations, the nation’s top law enforcement officer came under scrutiny for alleged lawbreaking. Edwin Meese III, Reagan’s Attorney General starting in 1984, was the object of a 14-month special prosecutor and federal grand jury investigation of alleged criminal financial improprieties. Although Meese was acquitted, he became an object of ridicule at the Department of Justice where morale plummeted.32     

Government-Sponsored Organized Crime

The Iran-Contra scandal involved a secret scheme concocted by high-ranking officials at the CIA and the National Security Agency to sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund the Contras of Nicaragua, who were fighting the socialist regime of their country. The arms sales to Iran violated US policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The support for the Contras violated the 1984 Boland Amendment, which specifically prohibited all military aid to the Contras or other groups in Nicaragua.33 Moreover, the murky scheme involved an unholy host of money changers, drug dealers, arms dealers, and terrorists, amounting to what one writer has described as “American-sponsored organized crime.”34

The Independent Prosecutor on the case, Lawrence E. Walsh, ultimately indicted 14 individuals with criminal charges of whom 11 were convicted, including National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North, National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams.35 Four counts of perjury and false statements were pending against Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger when he was pardoned in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush, who also pardoned Abrams and MacFarlane, among others. Walsh, a lifelong Republican, reportedly called Bush’s pardon of Weinberger, “one of the great cover-ups of American history at the highest levels of the executive branch.”36

Reagan pleaded ignorance of the Iran Contra scheme, while accepting responsibility for it. Although Reagan made multiple false statements regarding the activities in a televised speech to the nation,37 there was no evidence he knew they were false, and Walsh declined to indict him.38

And then there was Trump, who is now charged under one of his four indictments (from the state of Georgia) of running a “criminal enterprise” along with 17 co-defendants.

A Partisan Pattern?

Of the 19 total Republican presidencies, four, not including that of Trump, have each compiled a criminal record unparalleled by any other administration of any other party in US history. The outbreaks have been sporadic but persistent to this day. Yet, the question could be raised as to whether this record truly reveals a penchant for lawlessness specific to the GOP or simply a tendency endemic to all political parties. As the famous saying goes, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Over their history, the Democrats have surely demonstrated no blanket immunity to corruption. During the 1860s and 1870s, the era of the spoilsmen, the Tweed Ring of New York City, run by the notorious “Boss” Tweed of the Democratic party, was a nexus of corrupt rackets that dominated city politics and set a standard for “boss”-run “party machines” nationwide. The Democratic-run states of New York, Illinois, and New Jersey have long been known for systemic corruption. Former New York State Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver died a convict in 2022 after being found guilty of corruption in 2015, and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey is currently facing bribery charges. Numerous other Democratic federal legislators have also been convicted of crimes in office.39 And the vast majority of Republican federal, executive branch office holders have been law abiding. The many Republicans who declared themselves ready to convict Nixon in his impeachment trial and forced his resignation demonstrated a courageous commitment to the law, as did those who testified for the January 6th Committee, and the two who served as committee members.

The Parties Compared

There is no comparison, however, between the criminal records of Democrats and Republicans in the presidency, the pinnacle of the US government, a fact supported by several media outlets using online data. Politifact, a nonpartisan website, found that there were 142 indictments against members of the past three Republican administrations (including Trump’s) versus just two under the past three Democratic presidents.40 The Huffington Post, a left-leaning news site, reported 91 criminal convictions connected to Republican presidencies versus only one under a Democrat since 1970.41 And the Daily Kos, another left-wing media site, tallied 120 indictments, 82 convictions, and 34 imprisonments for Republicans from the Nixon through the Obama administrations versus 4, 2, and 2, respectively, for the Democrats.42

What is next for the Republicans? If Trump is convicted, Republicans may or may not choose to move beyond him. The greater question for their party, and for US democracy, is whether the Republicans will leave behind or continue their heritage of criminal abuse of power at the highest levels of the US government, of which the Trump administration is but the latest chapter.

What do you think of the author’s argument? Let us know below.

References

1.     Calhoun CW (2017). The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Lawrence, Kansas; University Press of Kansas. Page 12.

2.     Scandals of the Ulysses S. Grant Administration. Wikipedia. https://wiki2.org/en/Grant_administration_scandals.

3.     The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/liberal-republican-platform-1872.

4.     Rives T. Grant, Babcock, and the Whiskey Ring. Prologue Magazine. Fall 2000; 32(3): https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/fall/whiskey-ring-1.

5.     Longley R. The Whiskey Ring: bribery scandal of the 1870s. Thought Co. March 29, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-whiskey-ring-5220735.

6.     Chernow R (2017). Grant. New York; Penguin Press. p.837.

7.     Sumner C. Republicanism vs. Grantism. Speech in the Senate of the United States. May 31, 1872.

8.     Swinth K. The Square Deal. Theodore Roosevelt and the themes of progressive reform. The Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/square-deal-theodore-roosevelt-and-themes-progressive-reform.

9.     Wallenfeldt J. Return to normalcy. American campaign slogan. History and Society: Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/return-to-normalcy.

10.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.129-30.

11.  Charles R. Forbes. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Forbes.

12.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.130-1.

13.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.131-2.

14.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.132.

15.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.132-3.

16.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.118-29.

17.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.133.

18.  Yarvitz M, Maddow R (2020). Bag man. The wild crimes, audacious cover up and spectacular downfall of a brazen crook in the White House. New York; Crown. pp. 50-75.

19.  Yarvitz M, Maddow R (2020). Bag Man. The Wild Crimes, Audacious Cover Up and Spectacular Downfall of a Brazen Crook in the White House. New York; Crown. pp. 138-9.

20.  Genovese MA (1999). The Watergate Crisis. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press. pp.22-23.

21.  Emery F (1994). Watergate. New York; Random House, Inc. pp. 110-11, 124-5.

22.  Watergate Scandal. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal.

23.   Watkins E, Kaufman E. National archives release draft indictment of Richard Nixon amid Mueller probe. CNN.com. October 31, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics/richard-nixon-watergate-national-archives-mueller/index.html.

24.  Scandals of the Ronald Reagan Administration. Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandals_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration.

25.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 169.

26.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 184.

27.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

28.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 172-3.

29.  Operation Ill Wind. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ill_Wind.

30.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 183.

31.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 170-1.

32.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 184-5.

33.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

34.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

35.  Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters. Volume 1: Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel. August 4, 1993, Washington, D.C. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm.

36.  Rosenberg P. Republicans, a history: how did the party of “law and order” become the party of crooks and crime. Salon. November 24, 2019.

37.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 296-7.

38.   Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. Good Government Project, Brown University. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-reagan.php.

39.  List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes.

40.  Kertscher T. Many more criminal indictments under Trump, Reagan, and Nixon than under Obama Clinton and Carter. Politifact; The Poynter Institute. January 9, 2020. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/09/facebook-posts/many-more-criminal-indictments-under-trump-reagan-/.

41.  Grossinger P. Republican presidencies have 91x the conviction rate of Democratic presidencies. HuffPost. December 22, 2017. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-presidencies-have-91x-the-convictions-rate_b_5a3d5406e4b0df0de8b064e5.

42.  RoyalScribe. Updated: Comparing presidential administrations by felony arrests and convictions (as of 9/17/2018). Daily Kos. September 18, 2018. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/18/1796668/-UPDATED-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-felony-arrests-and-convictions-as-of-9-17-2018.

The Worst Union General? Major General Ambrose Burnside

Delving into the character of General Ambrose Burnside, the man whose facial hair lives on as “sideburns” in the vernacular, threatens to lose many readers from the start. Most Civil War enthusiasts would consider him a prime candidate to be named the worst Union general in the war and with some merit. And, no question, he made a series of wild miscalculations and poor judgments.

Lloyd Klein explains.

Ambrose Burnside, 1862 (on the left).

“All the world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.”

― Oscar Wilde

Burnside was actually a very talented man who was grossly miscast in the war. Baseball fans recognize that a pitcher who loses 20 games in a season must be thought of highly because a bad pitcher would never get the opportunity to keep losing; that may be a good analogy to keep in mind when reading about him. The commonly held view that he was always on hand to lose a battle will absolutely be demolished by this in-depth study, although some will not willingly part with that cherished myth.

His father had been a slave owner in South Carolina who freed his slaves and moved to Indiana. Ambrose graduated from West Point, served in garrison duty at the end of the Mexican War, served under Braxton Bragg in Nevada and California, and was the recipient of an Apache arrow through his neck in Las Vegas. He was promoted to first lieutenant and sent to duty in Rhode Island. There he resigned from the army, became commander of the state militia, got married, and went into business, with no expectation of seeing military service ever again. But you know, life can be funny sometimes; our destiny is often beyond our control.

Burnside relinquished his U.S. Army commission to fully dedicate himself to perfecting the Burnside carbine, a groundbreaking breech-loading firearm (as seen in the patent drawing). He ingeniously crafted a unique brass cartridge for this carbine, designed to hold both bullet and powder, with a notable absence of a primer. To load the weapon, users would open the breech block by manipulating the twin trigger guards, inserting the cartridge. Upon pulling the trigger, the hammer struck a separate percussion cap, creating a spark. A hole in the cartridge base ignited the black powder, with the conical cartridge expertly sealing the barrel-breech junction. Unlike many contemporary breech-loaders prone to gas leaks upon firing, Burnside's design triumphantly eliminated this issue.

President Buchanan's Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, entered into a substantial contract with the Burnside Arms Company to outfit a substantial portion of the Army, mainly cavalry, prompting Burnside to establish extensive manufacturing facilities. However, these plans were marred when allegations arose that Floyd accepted bribes to terminate the $100,000 contract with Burnside. This revolutionary concept took time for the military to grasp, and by the time its value was recognized, Burnside had already sold the patent. In 1857, the Burnside carbine triumphed in a competition at West Point, outclassing 17 other carbine designs. Nevertheless, government orders for these carbines were initially sparse. This changed with the outbreak of the Civil War, resulting in over 55,000 carbines being requisitioned for Union cavalrymen. It became the third most widely used carbine during the Civil War, surpassed only by the Sharps carbine and the Spencer carbine.

In 1858 he ran for Congress as a Democrat in Rhode Island and lost. Newly married and out of a job, he needed to find a way to support his young family. So, Burnside went west looking for a job, any job. And he was hired as the Treasurer of the Illinois Central Railroad. Anyone who doubts that the Goddess of History doesn’t have a mordant sense of humor will find this coincidence a bit much. So, consequently, his new boss became George B. McClellan, and in his position, he began working directly with its corporate attorney, one Abraham Lincoln.

The Start of the Civil War

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Burnside was a colonel in the Rhode Island Militia. He raised the 1st Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry Regiment and was appointed its colonel on May 2, 1861. Notably, two companies of this regiment were armed with Burnside carbines. In less than a month, he advanced to brigade leadership within the Department of Northeast Virginia. His performance during the First Battle of Bull Run in July was unremarkable, but he temporarily assumed division command in lieu of the wounded Brig. Gen. David Hunter.

And so suddenly, Ambrose Burnside, inventor, failed politician and businessman, Indian fighter, and fledgling railroad executive, found himself a brigadier general in the Army of the Potomac. Initially tasked with training troops in the nation's capital, his destiny took a sharp turn that autumn. Burnside was entrusted with leading three brigades within the North Carolina Expeditionary Force. Their mission: to seal the North Carolina coast to shipping as part of the naval blockade. Collaborating closely with maritime experts, Burnside orchestrated an impressive amphibious operation that indeed achieved an 80% closure of the coastline. His significant promotion to Major General on March 18, 1862, played a pivotal role in later events during the war. His brigades were officially amalgamated to form the IX Corps, and he earned recognition as one of the Union generals who contributed to Union victories.

1862

In a context where career professional soldiers ruthlessly vied for advancement, an extraordinary occurrence transpired after McClellan's Peninsula Campaign failure: Burnside was offered command of the Army of the Potomac.  He declined, citing his lack of experience in leading an army of that magnitude, resulting in John Pope assuming command. Still, the other generals looked up to him.  In the lead-up to the Second Battle of Manassas, a fellow Major General, Fitz-John Porter, repeatedly conveyed messages to Burnside, questioning Pope's competence. Burnside, concurring with Porter's assessments, forwarded them to higher-ranking authorities, a crucial factor in Porter's later court-martial, during which Burnside testified in his defense.

And after the debacle of Second Manassas, once again he was offered command, and once again, Burnside declined, citing his inexperience as the reason. He acknowledged his shortcomings as a military officer. President Lincoln pressured him on several occasions, but Burnside stood firm in his belief that he wasn't capable of leading such a sizable army, a belief ultimately vindicated by history. He repeatedly declined, saying, "I was not competent to command such a large army as this."

During the Battle of Antietam, Burnside assumed command of the Right Wing of the Army of the Potomac, overseeing the I Corps and his own IX Corps at the outset of the Maryland Campaign. However, McClellan separated these two corps during the battle, stationing them at opposite ends of the Union battle line and restoring Burnside's authority solely over the IX Corps. Burnside, implicitly refusing to relinquish his control, operated as if the corps commanders were first Maj. Gen. Jesse L. Reno (who was killed at South Mountain) and subsequently Brig. Gen. Jacob D. Cox, directing orders through them to the corps.

At Antietam, the fact that Burnside delayed his attack on the Union left flank until the afternoon, particularly in the context of the stone bridge over Antietam Creek, the Rohrback Bridge now known as Burnside Bridge, likely influenced the battle's outcome. A cumbersome command arrangement contributed to Burnside's sluggishness in launching his attack and crossing the Rohrback, later Burnside's Bridge, positioned on the southern flank of the Union line. This delay allowed Confederate forces to reinforce and ultimately repulse the Union breakthrough. Sears suggested in Landscape Turned Red that the problem was that Burnside felt he was demoted and was piqued.  But its hard to imagine Burnside allowing a Union loss for that reason, and even harder to imagine that Lincoln would choose him to be the next Commander in Chief a month later if it were true.

The real story is far more complicated. McClellan sent his engineer to position Burnside but did so incorrectly. Rodman’s small force has to move on its own to Snavely’s Ford, which was the best downstream ford; this was too far away at this point for an alternative route. The idea that the Union forces could have waded across the Antietam Creek was based on a post war remark by out old friend, Henry Kyd Douglas. It was picked up by historians over the 20th Century, including Catton, who used it to make Burnside appear incompetent. The best guess is that it was not true, that there was just one ford, and it was far from ideal for a cross-river crossing under fire. This very complicated story is told in these two links: https://www.historynet.com/sculpting-a-scapegoat-ambrose-burnside-at-antietam/ and https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/assault-on-burnsides-bridge-at-the-battle-of-antietam/In the afternoon, Burnside's corps advanced against the Confederate right. At this critical moment, Jackson's subordinate, Maj. Gen. A. P. Hill, arrived at the last minute from Harpers Ferry McClellan might have secured victory if Burnside had acted differently. The cumbersome command arrangement contributed to Burnside's sluggishness in launching his attack and crossing Burnside's Bridge, positioned on the southern flank of the Union line. This delay allowed Confederate forces to reinforce and ultimately repulse the Union breakthrough.

Burnside failed to conduct a thorough reconnaissance of the area and failed to exploit numerous easily accessible fording sites beyond the reach of Confederate forces. Instead, his troops were repeatedly forced into assaulting the narrow bridge, under the threat of Confederate sharpshooters on elevated terrain. McClellan, growing impatient, sent couriers to urge Burnside forward, even ordering, "Tell him if it costs 10,000 men he must go now." Despite this, Burnside didn't receive reinforcements, and the battle ended with missed opportunities. He further increased the pressure by sending his inspector general to confront Burnside, who reacted indignantly: "McClellan appears to think I am not trying my best to carry this bridge; you are the third or fourth one who has been to me this morning with similar orders.” The IX Corps eventually broke through, but the delay allowed Maj. Gen. A.P. Hill's Confederate division to come up from Harpers Ferry and repulse the Union breakthrough. McClellan refused Burnside's requests for reinforcements, and the battle ended. 

Astonishingly, Burnside was offered command once more, despite his poor performance at Antietam.

Fredericksburg

Lincoln issued the order to remove McClellan on November 5, 1862, and on November 7, 1862, he selected Burnside to take his place. Burnside reluctantly complied with this directive, the third such instance in 1862, partly due to the courier's message that if he declined, command would instead be given to Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker, whom Burnside had an aversion to. It is instructive that he was offered this position and compelled to accept the third time given his own reluctance and, as history shows, his lack of preparation for the position.  The fact is, no one in the Union Army had ever been prepared for such a role, and he was as accomplished as anyone in senior leadership.

Burnside on taking command moved his army from near Culpepper to Falmouth within a few days, a pretty monumental achievement. His plan was to then make a direct attack on the Confederate capitol of Richmond, Virginia, avoiding Lee’s forces who were then in Culpepper. Burnside arrived in Falmouth by November 19, but the pontoons that he planned to use to cross the Rappahannock were delayed. He had ordered pontoon bridges from DC, but they were not delivered for weeks by the Quartermaster Department.  General Halleck acknowledged afterward that he had opposed the movement and had not hurried their supply. The loss of time allowed Lee to position Longstreet on Marye’s Heights.

The Assault on Marye's Heights resulted in a casualty rate estimated at 15-20% for Union troops, contributing to a total Union casualty count of 8,000. By comparison, Pickett’s charge had 6000 Confederate casualties of 12,500 engaged, or close to 50%. Malvern Hill had 8000-9000 casualties on both sides combined, or about 16-18%. Numbers aside, these figures tell us that attacks of entrenched or prepared positions in the Civil War were challenging, and the technology didn’t exist to overcome those odds.

It is so obvious to us, 160 years later, that this was a disastrous move. It wasn’t obvious to Burnside. Burnside’s decision to escalate the initial diversionary attack into a full-scale frontal assault on Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg was a costly and unsuccessful move. Why smart people make decisions that don’t work out can be perplexing, and General Burnside at Fredericksburg gives us a chance to see how external pressure and internal self-delusion impact our choices.

Several factors influenced Burnside's decision-making. There was a breakdown in communication and coordination among Union commanders. Burnside received reports of limited success in the diversionary attack on the Confederate right flank, leading him to believe that a more aggressive assault on Marye's Heights was needed to divert Confederate attention. Pressure to achieve a decisive victory and optimism may have clouded his judgment.

Burnside believed in his numerical advantage and hoped to dislodge the Confederate defenders through overwhelming force. Given the circumstances, Marye's Heights seemed the most promising target due to its proximity to the shelter of Fredericksburg and the less steep terrain. These factors, combined with the changing dynamics of the battlefield and the desire for a breakthrough, led Burnside to escalate what was originally intended as a diversionary attack into a full-scale frontal assault on Marye's Heights. I think none of the Civil War commanders understood that artillery had changed war a great deal and still believed that brute force attacks could overcome any defense; see Lee at Gettysburg, Grant at Cold Harbor. I also think Burnside was not a strategic genius and had exactly one plan in mind, and when it failed, he panicked.

Several of Burnside's subordinate commanders, including General William B. Franklin, expressed reservations about the frontal assault on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg. Franklin, in particular, was critical of the plan and argued against it. He believed that attacking Marye's Heights directly would result in high casualties and was unlikely to succeed. Hooker, Sumner, and several others told Burnside it was futile, but he continued to order piecemeal attacks.

The Battle of Fredericksburg is not a moment of shining glory for General Burnside. The battle and the subsequent ill-fated offensive led to Burnside's officers voicing vehement complaints to the White House and the War Department, citing his incompetence. Burnside attempted a Spring offensive, only to encounter hindrances stemming from poor planning and organization. The Spring Offensive was known as the Mud March. Although conceptually clever, it was highly impractical for January in Virginia. Burnside's plan was quite similar to Hooker's strategy in the Battle of Chancellorsville, aiming to outmaneuver Lee using the upriver fords on the Rappahannock. Burnside intended to execute this with his cavalry, which had thus far delivered lackluster performances in the war. However, heavy rains in January transformed the roads into impassable mud, forcing the plan's abandonment

After Fredericksburg

Burnside offered his resignation, but Lincoln declined, proposing that there might still be a role for him within the army. Consequently, Burnside was reinstated as the head of the IX Corps and dispatched to command a relatively inactive department, a quiet region with limited activity. Lincoln's rationale was that Burnside couldn't get into significant trouble there. However, he swiftly found himself embroiled in a major political controversy.

Burnside was assigned to the Department of the Ohio, which encompassed the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. Burnside issued a series of orders in a region with divided loyalties and sentiments, seeking to suppress "the expression of public sentiments against the war or the Administration." General Order No. 38, in particular, declared that "any person found guilty of treason will be tried by a military tribunal and either imprisoned or banished to enemy lines." On May 1, 1863, Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent opponent of the war, held a large public rally in Mount Vernon, Ohio in which he denounced President Lincoln as a "tyrant" who sought to abolish the Constitution and set up a dictatorship. Burnside had dispatched several agents to the rally who took down notes and brought back their "evidence" to the general, who then declared that it was sufficient grounds to arrest Vallandigham for treason. This led to the arrest and trial of Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent war opponent, further fueling political discord. A military court tried him and found him guilty of violating General Order No. 38, despite his protests that he was simply expressing his opinions in public. Vallandigham was found guilty of violating General Order No. 38, and sentenced to imprisonment for the duration of the war. This turned him into a martyr by antiwar Democrats. Lincoln had to extricate the entire Republican administration from the fallout that Burnside had produced.

Lincoln and Grant faced a dilemma concerning Burnside, pondering whether he posed a greater hindrance as a general in the field or in political administration. Initially, he was dispatched to relieve Knoxville, a relatively manageable task since only 2,300 troops opposed him. However, it still necessitated the return of all three brigades from Knoxville to force the Cumberland Gap's surrender. The strategic intent of the Knoxville campaign was to prevent Burnside's reinforcement of the besieged Federal forces at Chattanooga. Longstreet’s movement forced Burnside back into the defensive works in Knoxville. Burnside effectively outmaneuvered Longstreet at the Battle of Campbell's Station and successfully reached safety in Knoxville, where he endured a brief siege until the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Fort Sanders outside the city. It should be noted that General Burnside, widely seen as incompetent by modern enthusiasts, defeated Longstreet, widely seen as stellar, in this one-against-one campaign. There were extenuating circumstances, such as favorable terrain and supply routes, of course; but that is history. Longstreet then began a siege but it wasn’t very effective. After the first week, Longstreet learned of Bragg’s defeat at Chattanooga. Longstreet realized that time was not on his side, so he ordered an assault a few days later, but it failed miserably. Then, General Longstreet, who had bested him at Marye's Heights, launched an attack, preventing disaster despite being besieged. Grant sent Sherman to assist, but Longstreet had already withdrawn to Virginia. Longstreet's siege ended when Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman led the Army of the Tennessee to Knoxville, entered the city, and relieved Burnside.  Longstreet withdrew his men and later rejoined Gen. Robert E. Lee’s command in Virginia.

Later, Grant, thinking he could better monitor Burnside in the east, brought him back to Virginia. Unfortunately, Burnside's performance at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House and later at the Battle of the Crater was subpar.

During the Overland Campaign, Burnside's actions were less than stellar. At the Wilderness, timely attacks over three days could have secured victory, but Burnside failed to launch them. On the second day, had this union general moved rapidly when ordered (or even at all), AP Hill’s corps might have been destroyed. But once again, he was too slow to recognize the potential.

The blame for the Union's failure at the Battle of the Crater initially fell on Burnside, but it was later lifted. Burnside had been ordered to change the attacking troops at the last minute by Meade. General Ambrose Burnside was the corps leader of the Union assault. He was relieved of command for the final time for this failure. Brigadier General Edward Ferrero's division of black soldiers sustained very high casualties, perhaps because the Confederates refused to accept them as prisoners when they tried to surrender. He and  General James H. Ledlie were drinking rum throughout the battle in a bunker behind the lines. A division of United States Colored Troops under Ferrero trained to lead the assault. The plan was for one brigade to go left of the crater and the other to the right. A regiment from both brigades was to rush perpendicular to the crater. Then, the remaining force was to seize the Jerusalem Plank Road just 1,600 feet behind the line.

But the day before, Meade ordered Burnside not to use the black troops in the lead assault. Instead, Ledlie’s division was chosen but no one told them what to do once the explosion occurred. Meade did not let them charge because he thought if it failed then it would receive political backlash in the north and only prove Lincoln's message as false. He was aligning military goals with political ones. The USCT instead charged behind the lead troops. Tactically, Union troops entered the crater instead of going around it.  There, they were trapped in a hole with no support on the flanks. The ANV began shooting surrendering troops, perhaps due to racial animus. Ledlie was forced to resign by Meade and Grant.

Post-war Accomplishments

Burnside exhibited his intelligence and abilities in all of his positions after the war. He was elected Governor and later served as a US Senator from Rhode Island, chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He even attempted to mediate an end to the Franco-Prussian War.
It is remarkable that as accomplished as he was both before and after the war, his legacy among Civil War enthusiasts is so diminished. Grant remarked that Burnside was "unfitted" for army command, a sentiment shared even by Burnside himself. It should be recognized that Grant fired handfuls of generals during the war who did not live up to his standards, but he always kept Burnside around. Despite his affable personality and diverse talents, Burnside's Civil War decisions showcased his weakest contributions to history. However, astute historians recognize his deeper well of aptitude.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.