Why there are still American Revolution and Civil War buffs

“And there was Cap’n Washington,

And gentle folks about him;

They say he’s grown so ‘tarnal proud

He will not ride without ‘em.

Yankee Doodle keep it up,

Yankee Doodle dandy,

Mind the music and the step,

And with the girls be handy.”

– “Yankee Doodle,” written in 1755 – although some verses (like the one before the famous chorus above) were later added, when this became the first American patriotic song

Our Revolution and Civil War (particularly the latter) receive much interest in America …

This might seem a strange way to begin a blog post about these American topics … but, in nearby Canada, people strongly remember the “Seven Years’ War,” including the portion known to Americans as the “French and Indian War.” Canadians also strongly remember the War of 1812 – in which they fought against the United States. But Canadians usually forget the American Revolution (where they had been fighting against the Americans), and the American Civil War (which coincided with the peaceful Confederation period in Canada). Conversely, Americans usually forget the “Seven Years’ War” (including the “French and Indian War” portion thereof), and they usually forget the War of 1812 as well. But the American Revolution is considered a big deal here in the United States, and so (to an even greater degree) is the American Civil War. Why is this? Why are there still many American Revolution buffs here – and why is our Civil War still one of the most popular historical topics in the United States? And why do these subjects remain important today, all of these years after both of these conflicts ended – one in 1865, and the other even earlier in 1783? These are the questions that this post will try to explore. I will try to show how both of these subjects can shed some light on the American identity – by telling us who we are as Americans. They are related to promises about liberty and equality, and what they mean for Americans today. To some extent, this may explain why Americans are still interested in these conflicts today.

Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge

In defense of the United States of America

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his “Address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield” (27 January 1838)

In 1776, the United States rightly declares that “all men are created equal”

On a warm summer day in 1776, the Continental Congress declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776) It has often been noted that the man who wrote these words was a Virginia slaveholder named Thomas Jefferson. Clearly, the promise of equality had not yet been realized when he wrote these words, even in his own household. There was much to do in the coming decades to give these words a fuller meaning. But people have rightly looked to these words as a “promised beginning.” We made a promise that, one day, all men (and also women) in this country would see legal recognition of their equality. Some interpret this to mean that all of us must have equal wealth, or equal income, or equal status of some other kind. If so, then the promised equality could never be realized, because there will always be people who succeed, and there will always be others who desperately struggle to make ends meet. No utopian scheme ever proposed for ending poverty has ever yet been brought to pass, despite fervent efforts to implement such schemes. Whether or not these schemes bring any actual progress … may be a better topic for another post. But the Founding Fathers did create a “land of the free, [and] home of the brave.” They created a land of opportunity, where one could rise through industry and honest toil. And they created equality of opportunity, arguably the kind of equality that was meant to be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

John Trumbull’s “Declaration of Independence”

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

– A comedic line from the play “Our American Cousin” (1858) – spoken by an actor at Ford’s Theater in 1865, the moment before Lincoln was shot there by John Wilkes Booth

Background on John Wilkes Booth, and his unrealized plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln

I have seen many films about the Civil War. But this film may still rank among the best, despite its relative brevity. It is only 90 minutes long, and it is brilliantly narrated by the actor Chris Cooper. It has many omissions, but it also has some great storytelling. (More about the omissions later.) After a brief introduction, they start by delving into the early life of John Wilkes Booth. They spend some time on his successful stage career, and his early sympathy with the Confederacy. Ironically, John Wilkes Booth had a pro-Northern brother, who later disowned the actions of his notorious sibling. The brother-against-brother phenomenon extended right into the Booths’ own family. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. They spend time on his growing dissatisfaction with Abraham Lincoln, which would later turn into murderous rage. Booth felt some guilt about not having fought for the Confederacy on the battlefield. Thus, he recruited people to help him in a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln, and bring him southward. Obviously, this kidnapping plot was never realized – partly because his accomplices pointed out that there were some slight flaws in his plan. But, eight hours before the fateful gunshots, he learned that President Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater that night. Thus, he worked at a feverish pace to lay the groundwork for the later events of that evening. Lincoln had few bodyguards around him, in part because no president had ever been assassinated before. That is, there were many other times where Booth could have killed Lincoln with relatively few risks to himself. But he chose Ford’s Theater instead, in part because of his familiarity with the stage. Thus, he got ready to kill President Lincoln. But he also had some accomplices remaining, as well as two other targets.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who murdered Abraham Lincoln

Booth with brothers Edwin and Junius Jr. in Julius Caesar

Abraham Lincoln prevented Great Britain from supporting the Confederacy

“England's course towards the United States during the rebellion exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and are related by blood and other ties.”

– Ulysses S. Grant, in the Conclusion of the “Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant” (1885)

There was a real danger that Great Britain would support the Confederacy …

The biggest issue of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency was the rebellion of the Southern states, and the Civil War that quickly erupted when they tried to leave the Union in 1861. There may be good reason for thinking of this kind of domestic rebellion as a “domestic” policy issue. But it also involved complicated foreign policy, as the Southern states tried to get European powers to intervene on their behalf. In particular, the South tried to get Queen Victoria’s British Empire to support the Confederate war efforts. If this had happened, there was a chillingly real possibility that the Civil War would have ended very differently than it did. For example, we might have been forced to become two countries, with chattel slavery living on for years in the more southern country. Abraham Lincoln was just as determined to prevent this from happening. To some degree, Civil War diplomacy also involved distant France, nearby Mexico, and the various Native American tribes who made various choices about whom to ally with. But the two sides’ respective relationships with Britain were the most important theatres of the chess game, since the British had the most power to affect the war’s outcome. Thus, an examination of the Civil War diplomacy might be in order here, to show how both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis conducted diplomacy with the mighty British Empire.

Charles Francis Adams, Sr. – Lincoln’s ambassador to Britain

Reflections on the proper role of self-education

“Never let your schooling interfere with your education.”

– Possibly a paraphrase of author Grant Allen, although it is often misattributed to Mark Twain

Not all learning is done in a classroom …

One of the saddest things I’ve seen is when people have no curiosity. They may suppose that they’ve learned everything that they need to know, and that they don’t need to learn any more. I don’t think that everyone needs to keep reading textbooks (although I like to do this myself), but I think that people should continue to learn long after they leave school. Fortunately, not all learning is done in a classroom – many life experiences can be educational in some way. You can learn some things in the real world that you would never learn in a classroom. And you can keep reading and keep thinking, and be open to what life has to teach you.

Me when I graduated from Yavapai College, which is now my employer

A review of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

“The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads ; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other ; both of which are equally productive of confusion.”

– Opening lines of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 1

So I spent four and a half years reading Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work which influenced our Founding Fathers. The first volume was originally released in 1765, and the last was originally released in 1769. This is one of the best books that I’ve ever read, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. But this is the first post in which I’ve attempted to give an overview of the entire work. Thus, I will try to summarize the work for those who’ve never read it before. In doing so, I will give my reaction to the different volumes of Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” and what parts of each volume most stood out to me personally.

Title page of the original edition of the first volume of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

A review of “The Civil War” (audiobook)

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

– Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861)

What was the Civil War about? This question may be easy to ask, but it is one of the most complicated questions in American history. No matter how long we discuss it, we keep coming back to two popular theories, which are sometimes believed to contradict each other. These are slavery and “states’ rights.” Both of these issues were explicitly discussed in the United States Constitution, so both of them were constitutional issues as much as they were anything else. But we don’t have to choose between these two seemingly-contradictory explanations. This audiobook argues that these two issues were inseparably connected in the Southern mind. Put simply, this audiobook argues that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, while “states’ rights” was the convenient pretext used by the South to justify their attempts to protect and prolong it. At times, even “states’ rights” would take a back seat to their despicable goal of prolonging African slavery, as this audiobook shows in a number of ways – including by citing the “secession ordinances” of the rebellious states (which are highly incriminating on this score).

Yes, Blackstone’s “Commentaries” influenced Abraham Lincoln (and here’s the proof)

“The election of 1834 came, and [Abraham Lincoln] was then elected to the Legislature [of Illinois] by the highest vote cast for any candidate. Major John T. Stuart, then in full practice of the law, was also elected. During the canvass, in a private conversation he encouraged [Abe to] study law. After the election [Abe] borrowed books of Stuart, took them home with him, and went at it in good earnest. He studied with nobody. He still mixed in the surveying to pay board and clothing bills. When the Legislature met, the law books were dropped, but were taken up again at the end of the session.”

– Abraham Lincoln’s “Autobiography Written for John L. Scripps” (circa June 1860), in which Lincoln strangely is referring to himself in the third person (as shown above)

There was an official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 …

Sir William Blackstone died nearly three decades before Abraham Lincoln was born. But Blackstone would nonetheless have an influence on the young Lincoln through one of his books, as many others have noted. In the year 1860, William Dean Howells wrote the “Life of Abraham Lincoln,” the official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln (not to be confused with the above-quoted autobiography). This campaign biography was subject to revisions by Lincoln himself. Lincoln did indeed make some modifications whenever he deemed it necessary, but he did not alter the part about Blackstone that I’m going to quote here.

Sir William Blackstone

… which briefly talked about Lincoln’s legal education back in the 1830’s

The passage is about Lincoln’s legal education, which seems to have been gained sometime back in the 1830’s. Lincoln was in his twenties when getting this education. Thus, here is the portion of this biography about Lincoln’s reading of Sir William Blackstone:

William Dean Howells, author of this campaign biography of Lincoln

The Gettysburg Address explained

If you feel like you don’t understand the Gettysburg Address, this post is for you.

What the heck does “Fourscore and seven years ago” mean?

When people think of the Gettysburg Address, the first thing they think of is the opening phrase: “Fourscore and seven years ago.” Most people don’t even know what a “score” is, so perhaps I should define it for my readers. A “score,” in this context, is an older way of saying “twenty.” Thus, “Fourscore” is four times twenty (which is eighty), and “Fourscore and seven” would be eighty-seven. Lincoln was giving this speech in 1863. If you do the math, 1863 minus 87 gives you the year 1776 – the birth year of this country.

Sketch of Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address

Abraham Lincoln recommended Joseph Story, and Jefferson Davis criticized him

Joseph Story was a U. S. Supreme Court justice, appointed by President James Madison

In 1812, President James Madison appointed a new justice to the United States Supreme Court. His name was Joseph Story, the author of a three-volume work that I would like to read someday. The work is simply called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.” Story had been a Supreme Court justice for more than 20 years, when he published this three-volume work in 1833. He did not leave the court until his death in 1845.

Joseph Story

The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily designed to be legally sound …

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his letter to Horace Greeley (August 22nd, 1862)

On September 22nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued what is sometimes called the “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” In it, he basically said that if the Southern states were not back in the Union by New Year's Day 1863, then he would free their slaves. (The actual Emancipation Proclamation came on New Year's Day itself, when he actually did so.) One commentator actually said that it's “the dullest thing you ever read.” With two possible exceptions, neither one has any soaring rhetoric or ringing phrases, and “here was a guy who could do that,” as this commentator said. Why did Lincoln choose not to do that with the Emancipation Proclamations (and there are actually two of them)?

First reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” (PBS series)

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still must it be said that 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "

- Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865)

It was the bloodiest war in American history, with more American dead than World War II. It was a war that both sides thought would last ninety days, but which ended up dragging on for nearly four years. And it was a war that freed four million Americans from bondage, and brought some sweeping changes to American society.

Confederate dead at Antietam

A review of “Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided”

" 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

- Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech (1858)

I have seen a lot of PBS's presidential biographies, and many of them are compelling indeed. But my personal favorite would have to be this one about Abraham Lincoln. Technically, it is not a biography of Abraham alone, as it is also about his wife Mary. (Witness the title: "Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided.") But telling the story of either is also to tell the story of the other; and weaving them together as they are woven here, one gets a great view of both of them, especially during Lincoln's presidency.

Abraham Lincoln

Mary Todd Lincoln

A review of Steven Spielberg's “Lincoln”

" ... that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom ... "

- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (1863)

So I recently watched the Steven Spielberg movie "Lincoln," with Daniel-Day Lewis in the title role. I've seen a fair amount of media about Lincoln's life, from the Henry Fonda film "Young Mr. Lincoln" to the Sam Waterston TV movie called "Lincoln" (the brief and appealing nature of that title makes it a popular one). This is my personal favorite of the Hollywood movies about Lincoln's presidency, even though it focuses on just one part of his presidency. It sets the record straight on some important things about his administration.

The president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process ...

For those unfamiliar with this movie, Steven Spielberg's movie focuses on the last part of Lincoln's presidency, with much attention given to his role in getting the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, the amendment that banned slavery. At that time, slavery was protected by the Constitution through the Three-Fifths Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and some other notorious clauses. Thus, getting rid of slavery in the United States required a constitutional amendment; and this is the one that did it. People often point out that under the Constitution, the president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process; as this is done by Congress and state legislatures. But the president's indirect influence upon it is enormous, as he can offer Congress things they want in exchange for their cooperation, and he was thus able to influence the passage of this amendment.