USA spies: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

“Therefore no one in the armed forces is treated as familiarly as are spies, no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage.”

– Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” (5th century BC China), Chapter 13 (as translated by Thomas Cleary)

Information traveled slowly in those days, at the speed of a horse or a sailing ship

Sun Tzu reminds us that spies have been around since antiquity. In the Peloponnesian Wars of Ancient Greece, for example, Alcibiades betrayed Athens to Sparta, then defected to the Persian side, and then returned to Athens. This high-profile treason had a way of making him a little unpopular in certain quarters, to say the least. But most of the glory of espionage tends to go to the later Cold War period of the twentieth century. The latter period has been the subject of movies like “Breach,” “Bridge of Spies,” and (of course) the “James Bond” franchise. We may thus tend to associate spies with high-tech methods, like hacking and computer encryption. But most of the spies in history were somewhat lower-tech, and the embarrassing government secrets could travel no faster than the speed of a horse. And, during the American Revolution, London and Paris were way across the ocean from the critical campaigns in North America. Thus, it could take months for important information to sail across the Atlantic. The news of the American victory at Saratoga took several months to bring France into the war, delaying the all-important French assistance to the outnumbered (and badly outgunned) American rebels.

British surrender at Saratoga, 1777

Some information in this post was once top-secret, while the rest is largely forgotten

But the spy conflicts of the early United States are largely forgotten today. We hear much about the American Revolution and the Civil War in school, but we don’t hear too many stories about the important spies in our earliest conflicts. This is understandable, because the discussions of these wars usually have to focus upon the politics involved therein – and, of course, upon the many battles themselves. But the spy stories of these wars seem to have all the drama of more modern spy conflicts. They have all of the human interest, all of the juicy scandals, and all of the broader strategic importance. Specifically, the spies therein had a great effect on how these wars ultimately played out. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about a few of the spies in America’s earliest conflicts. Some of the information herein was once top-secret. The rest is largely forgotten to the public. But these details tell a story about how the military secrets of both sides were either protected, or (more embarrassingly) leaked – sometimes with catastrophic consequences, for the one side or the other.

Paul Revere’s ride

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”

James Buchanan: One of the worst presidents in American history

When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, James Buchanan remained in office until March 4th of 1861. (The Twentieth Amendment, which later changed the regular inauguration date to January 20th, had not yet been passed.) Therefore, Southern states started seceding from the Union while James Buchanan was still in the White House. By the time that he left office, a full seven of them had seceded. But James Buchanan did nothing to stop them. The South was furious because Buchanan wouldn’t yield to their demands. And the North was also furious, because Buchanan wouldn’t stop Southern secession. Mr. Buchanan did practically nothing during this critical period. Thus, it would fall to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, to end the Southern attempts at secession. The seeds of the Civil War were being sown (at least in part) during James Buchanan’s administration. This is why Buchanan is typically ranked among the worst presidents in American history. But more about that aspect of the story later. For now, let me try to answer a relatively simple question: Where exactly did James Buchanan come from?

James Buchanan

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

Millard Fillmore: A moderate on slavery who pleased no one

In July 1850, President Zachary Taylor mysteriously died while still in office. Most seem to believe that his stomach disease was from natural causes, but there has long been a theory that it came from arsenic poisoning instead. This actually led to Mr. Taylor’s long-dead body being exhumed in 1991, nearly a century and a half after his death. The medical examiner failed to find any evidence of arsenic poisoning. Thus, most seem to believe that his stomach disease was indeed from natural causes, and that Millard Fillmore had no involvement in his death. There were open sewers in Washington, D.C. at that time, which caused an epidemic in the city. Nine of Mr. Taylor’s Cabinet officials were sick with the same disease as President Taylor. Thus, most believe that the poor sanitation led to Taylor’s food and drink being contaminated. As vice president, Millard Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor upon his death. And, fortunately for Mr. Fillmore, relatively few Americans suspected him of any involvement in his predecessor’s death. But Millard Fillmore would fail to be elected president in his own right, and only served for two-and-a-half years. Specifically, Fillmore finished out the term that he had inherited from Zachary Taylor. Fillmore would destroy the Whig political party, by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

Millard Fillmore

Andrew Johnson: The man who botched Reconstruction

An anecdote about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth …

On April 14th, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln was at the height of his glory, having just won the American Civil War. Lincoln had just begun his second term a month earlier. But John Wilkes Booth had robbed Lincoln of the opportunity to finish out his second term. As a Confederate sympathizer, Booth hated Lincoln’s support for African American civil rights, and thus shot the President of the United States at Ford’s Theatre. Booth had also wanted to kill the vice president, a relative unknown named Andrew Johnson. Booth then believed that the vice president would be at Kirkwood House while he (Booth) was surreptitiously shooting the president at Ford’s Theatre. Thus, Booth had assigned George Atzerodt to kill Johnson at Kirkwood House. As Wikipedia puts it, “Atzerodt was to go to Johnson's room at 10:15 pm and shoot him.[footnote]  On April 14, Atzerodt rented the room directly above Johnson's; the next day, he arrived there at the appointed time and, carrying a gun and knife, went to the bar downstairs, where he asked the bartender about Johnson's character and behavior. He eventually became drunk and wandered off through the streets, tossing his knife away at some point. He made his way to the Pennsylvania House Hotel by 2 am, where he obtained a room and went to sleep.[footnotes]” (Source: Their page on the “Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”)

George Atzerodt, the man whom John Wilkes Booth had tasked with killing Andrew Johnson

Why is Zachary Taylor now considered a “forgettable” president?

By 1849, General Zachary Taylor had spent more than four decades in the United States Army. He had become one of the heroes of the Mexican-American War. But, when Zachary Taylor first ran for president, he had never held a political office in his life. Taylor’s political beliefs were vague and largely unknown, making one wonder why the Whig political party decided to choose him as their candidate. But, in 1840, the war with Mexico had just added some massive territories to the American Union, and our national debate over slavery was now increasing in intensity. That is, would these new states be admitted to the Union as “free states” or slave states? And how would this question be decided? When Zachary Taylor first entered the White House in 1849, the seeds of a future civil war were being sown. The prelude to the Civil War arguably began in this year that Zachary Taylor was inaugurated: 1849. The fateful cannon shots at Fort Sumter were then still twelve years in the future, but the nation was now on a fateful collision course … with itself.

Zachary Taylor

Franklin Pierce: One of our most pro-slavery presidents

In the earliest decades of the United States, all successful political parties tried their best to sidestep the controversial issue of slavery. But it became increasingly hard to do this as time went on, because the nation was expanding westward. Thus, people then had to debate about whether slavery would be expanding westward as well. Franklin Pierce continued the westward expansion through the Gadsden Purchase, but slavery rapidly became the biggest issue of his presidency. He hated the abolitionist movement, and the abolitionist movement likewise hated him in return. In 1820, the Congress had enacted the controversial “Missouri Compromise.” This compromise had admitted Missouri as a slave state, while simultaneously admitting Maine as a “free state” (among other policies). But, in 1854, several aspects of this compromise were effectively repealed, when Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law. He also created controversy by enforcing the prior Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The country was on a fateful collision course with itself, and the drums of a future civil war began to 

beat with ever greater intensity.

Franklin Pierce

USA prisoners of war: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these in particular is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

I grew up on prisoner-of-war movies – like “Stalag 17,” “The Great Escape,” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” They are particularly popular when depicting World War II, or certain other wars of the twentieth century. But relatively little has been said about American prisoners of war in prior conflicts. For example, little has been said about POWs in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Thus, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps here, and talk about our “POWs” (or “Prisoners Of War”) in some of these other periods. I should note that most of these periods were before the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Thus, modern rules and laws about the treatment of POWs did not yet apply in some of these periods. The stories of captured Americans, and those that we captured for ourselves, will tell us much about who we were as a people – and who we are today.

American naval power: Playing a crucial role in the rise of the United States

“An act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America …”

– Long title of the “Trade Act 1774” (also known as the “Boston Port Act 1774”), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered in the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How the United States went from a vulnerable backwater to a world superpower …

A few of America’s wars began at sea, as part of greater conflicts between Britain and France. America was just an economic and military backwater, and its navy started out as a pinprick and a laughingstock. But the United States would eventually become the mightiest naval power in the world. How did this happen? The roots of this success involve various political and economic factors, which would be too complex to cover here. But they were expressed in the rise of the American military – and, in particular, of the United States Navy. This was how our economic and political rise was most expressed, and the most direct way that this rise was asserted and defended. Thus, an examination of its effects might be in order here, as I show the role of the United States naval power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This shows how the rise of the United States as a world power was owing (at least in part) to the United States Navy. The navy was involved in some shameful imperial acts, but it also helped the young nation to survive, and to withstand its most vulnerable periods.

Naval engagement in the Barbary Wars, 1804

A story of revolution, defensive actions, imperialist ventures, and civil war

Most coverage of America’s naval conflicts focuses on the Second World War – and, to a lesser degree, on other wars of the twentieth century. But this post will focus on the now-forgotten role of sea power in some of our earlier naval conflicts. That is, it will go from our navy’s beginning in the 1770s, through its role in the Spanish-American War of 1898 – and, eventually, in the “Great White Fleet” of the early 1900s. This was a critical period for the United States, which (chillingly) involved many frightening dangers on land and on sea. During that time, our navy supported unfortunate imperial ventures against Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines – although those against Native Americans were primarily on land, so I will have to omit them here. (Although I do cover them elsewhere – here, if you’re interested.) But our navy also defended American sovereignty against serious encroachments from Britain and France, and allowed the United States to survive the most staggering threats of its birth and early childhood.

Battle of Lake Erie – Great Lakes (between the United States and Canada), 1813

Rutherford B. Hayes: Entering office by a margin of one electoral vote

Reconstruction had been going on for twelve years, when Mr. Hayes became president

When the Civil War ended in 1865, it was followed by another violent period of postwar reconstruction. Some historians have even described the Reconstruction Era as a sort of “Second Civil War,” and this may actually be accurate. During the early phases of Reconstruction, Rutherford B. Hayes (who was, by then, a Republican) had supported his party’s attempts to bring order to the South. But the violence was ongoing, and Republicans were starting to lose support for maintaining the presence of federal troops in the South. It was a bit like the later Vietnam War, which lost American support as the war dragged on without an end in sight. The Republican president Ulysses S. Grant had thus been forced to retreat somewhat, in his efforts to keep federal troops there. General Grant completed two full terms as president, but was not then seeking a third term of office. Thus, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became the Republicans’ new presidential candidate. He faced Samuel J. Tilden, a Democrat from New York. It would be one of the most controversial elections in American history.

Rutherford B. Hayes in Civil War uniform in 1861

A review of Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (audiobook)

“I heartily accept the motto,—‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

– Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (published 1849)

In 1846, the American writer Henry David Thoreau refused to pay a tax to support his country’s then-ongoing war with Mexico. He believed that the war was not only unjust in and of itself, but that it would even create new territory into which slavery could expand (a real danger at that time). His fears were not unfounded, and had some sympathetic aspects to them. But they prompted him to write one of the most influential attacks on government ever printed. He lived in an era when government in the United States was already quite small – far smaller than it is today. But Thoreau was suspicious of the idea of having any government at all, and said so in “On Civil Disobedience” (as quoted above).

Henry David Thoreau

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

A review of “The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross”

“They [African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery … ”

– Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), possibly the most infamous decision in Supreme Court history, which created unfortunate barriers to both emancipation and racial equality

Black culture is “inextricably intertwined” with American culture

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. once said that “black culture is inextricably intertwined with American culture.” I tend to agree with this sentiment. It’s almost impossible to talk about the larger history of the United States without talking about black history in some depth. Unfortunately, chattel slavery was a prominent institution during the first 250 years or so of this country’s history. Compromises over slavery were written into the national Constitution (as I describe in this post) – although they were later amended – and the controversy over slavery was at the heart of our Civil War. We still grapple with the ripple effects of slavery today. The civil rights movement was spearheaded by African Americans, who were the most prominent victims of the racial discrimination against which this movement fought. In so many ways, black history is central to American history.

Slavery in Virginia on a tobacco plantation, 1670

It may be the most talked-about of any minority history that has transpired in this country

Because of this, their history is the most talked-about of any ethnic history that has transpired in this country, with the exception of white history. Of other ethnic minority histories, only Native American history seems to come close in this regard today. It is only natural that there should be a television history of the African American people, made by an African American named Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who has studied the subject in some detail. As Wikipedia noted, “It is the first documentary series to recount this history in its entirety since the nine-part History of the Negro People aired on National Educational Television in 1965, and the one-hour documentary Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed, narrated by Bill Cosby and broadcast in 1968.” (See their page on this series.) This series came out in 2013, and covers African American history from its beginnings, all the way through the election of Barack Obama in 2008 (very recent, at the time that I write this).

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the presenter of this series

What did the Constitution say about slavery?

The original Constitution never used the words "slave" or slavery," but it sure did talk about them ...

In the Constitutional Convention, the Northern and Southern states agreed to a number of compromises about slavery. But in the Constitution itself, you will not find the words "slave" or "slavery" anywhere (at least, not until the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the 1860's).

Constitutional Convention, 1787

For example, it used euphemisms like "service or labour," or the "importation of such persons"

Instead, you will find a number of diplomatically-worded euphemisms that were meant to ease the consciences of Northerners on this issue, such as the ones that follow. Instead of "slavery," they say "service or labour." Instead of the "slave trade," they say the "importation of such persons." And instead of just saying "slaves," they say "three-fifths of all other persons" (which I will elaborate on later here.)

Slave dance to banjo, 1780's

Who can vote in the United States?: The voting rights amendments

" ... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

- Closing lines of Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" (November 19, 1863)

Many Americans have historically been denied the vote in this country ...

Voting rights are one of the most important rights that anyone can have in a free country. They are a right by which many others can be defended, and the essence of popular government in democracies and republics. But voting rights were long restricted in this country to white male citizens who had private property, and who were 21 years of age or older. They could be denied for failure to pay poll taxes, for having ancestors that had been enslaved, or for any number of other things that were used as restrictions on the right to vote.

Frederick Douglass, a notable advocate of African American voting rights

... and the changes in these policies were made somewhat gradually over a period of decades

It took a long time for this situation to be rectified, and the changes brought herein were made somewhat gradually over a period of some decades. Thus, it would seem appropriate to review them now, and show what categories are forbidden to be used as legal grounds for denying people the right to vote. (I should acknowledge that some would classify the Twenty-Third Amendment as a voting rights amendment as well; but since this amendment is more relevant to the electoral college than it is to individual suffrage, I have saved that discussion for another post. I will focus this post instead on the four amendments about voting rights at the individual level.)

Martin Luther King, another notable advocate of African American voting rights

The complicated legacy of the “Three-Fifths Clause”

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."

- Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (later changed by constitutional amendments, as I will describe in detail later)

It appeared on the surface to be one kind of racism, but in reality was another ...

A review of PBS's “Transcontinental Railroad” movie

"[The Congress shall have the power] To establish post-offices and post-roads ..."

- The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7

It allowed a continent to be crossed in just a week, where before it had taken six months or more. It enabled fast transport for trade goods of all kinds, connecting the economies of the continent's East and West coasts. And it unleashed a wave of settlement and colonization, which would have massive effects on the population spread and distribution in the West - and by extension, the history, politics, economics, and even geography of the country.

Snow gallery (a portion of the railroad), while under construction