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

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).

Frederick Douglass took a great risk by learning how to read

Note: This post quotes from Frederick Douglass’s memoir, where he recounts racist treatment that he received from various white men. Although he quotes their offensive language, this post has censored out the racial slurs, indicating only by brackets that the unfortunate “N-word” was the word used in the original quotations.

Before the Civil War, a young slave secretly took a great risk by learning how to read ...

Before the Civil War, a young slave secretly took a great risk by learning how to read. The young slave’s name was Frederick Douglass, and he would later become a tireless campaigner in the cause of black freedom. First he would campaign against slavery, and then he would campaign for civil rights. (But I’m getting ahead of myself.)

Frederick Douglass in the 1860s, long after his being held as a slave

Frederick Douglass would later recount this story in a famous memoir

After he had escaped to the North, Frederick Douglass would later write a memoir. It was simply entitled “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (Written By Himself).” This memoir was first published in 1845. In it, he describes his experiences as a slave, writing the most influential account ever given about American slavery. Most relevantly for our present subject, he recounts his secret undertaking to learn how to read, while under the domination of White Southerners. The writing speaks so well for itself that very little commentary will be needed to dramatize it, or put it into perspective.

Original edition of this memoir

A review of William Lloyd Garrison’s “The Liberator” (audiobook)

“On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

– First issue of William Lloyd Garrison’s “The Liberator,” in a column entitled “To the Public” (published January 1, 1831)

William Lloyd Garrison campaigned tirelessly against the institution of slavery. For 35 years, he published an influential antislavery newspaper that was aptly titled “The Liberator.” It had a modest circulation of only 3,000, but there were many influential people in its readership. These included the former slave Frederick Douglass, who would go on to become a tireless antislavery campaigner in his own right.

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

Actually, the Confederacy had no intention of ever abolishing slavery

Warning: For obvious reasons, this post does not censor the offensive language out of the historical sources that it quotes from. To do so would be to obscure the truth about past racism and bigotry.

The Confederate Constitution shows that the South intended to prolong slavery

Even today, there are still some White Southerners who support slavery (although they are few), but most of them now disapprove of the institution, and the racial discrimination that was at the heart of it in these prior times. Perhaps because of this, there have been some White Southerners in recent years who have argued that the South would have abolished slavery anyway, and that it was inclined to do so at this time. (The fictional book “The Guns of the South” is one example of this trend, and I have encountered various other examples of this in some conversations that I have had with White Southerners over the years.)

I will show this with some relevant quotations from the Confederate Constitution

Because of this, it might be helpful to correct the record here, and show that the South had no intention of ever abolishing slavery. I will do this with some quotations from the so-called “Constitution of the Confederate States” (ratified 1862), which show how pro-slavery this wanna-be “Constitution” really was. In many ways, it was even more pro-slavery than the United States Constitution that it would have permanently replaced, which had a number of defects of its own with regards to slavery.

First page of the Confederate Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment is something of a mixed bag …

It might seem strange to say it today, but the “Bill of Rights” amendments were once understood to apply only to the federal government, rather than to the states as well. This was a particular problem when you consider that the states had (at times) denied these protections to African Americans (and others), even after the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment.

First page of the Fourteenth Amendment

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

States' rights: The ongoing debate

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

- Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution

States' rights was a major issue in the Civil War

In the 1860's, the United States fought a bloody civil war with itself, where 624,000 Americans (more than half a million people) died in a major rebellion. Slavery may have been the root cause of the Southern states' desire for secession, but the "states' rights" arguments were the ones that they used to try and prove their legal right to do so. This was, of course, a "right" that they believed that they were entitled to. Regardless of whether they were right or not (and I believe they weren't myself), they were symptoms of a deep-rooted debate within American society over states' rights, which had roots going back far before the Civil War and into the Constitutional Convention - perhaps even to the Declaration of Independence. States thought that they had the right to nullify federal laws, and considered themselves as independent nations bound into a mere league of nations, rather than mere provinces of a larger nation. They saw the "United States of America" much like we see the "United Nations" - a collection of independent nations that work together when convenient, and which would never surrender their sovereignty when they work together.

Confederate dead at Antietam, 1862

People were willing to fight and die for their views on the subject

When the United States was no longer perceived to be useful to the Southern states, they believed they had the right to secede from it, and win that secession by bloodshed. The Northern states believed with equal fervor that they had no such right to secede, and were willing to suppress this by bloodshed. Thus both sides were willing to fight and die for their own view of states' rights, and a bitter civil war was fought partially over that divisive issue about the role of states. (Although I should acknowledge that there were other factors at work here, and there are other root causes of this war.) The debate continues in full force today (although without the "bloodshed" part), as we continue to define the role of states in the Union. Thus, a closer look at how "states' rights" works might be useful here; answering what responsibilities states have to each other, what rights they still retain at this time, and what advantages they derive from the Union in the 21st century.

A review of PBS's “The Abolitionists”

"No person held to service or labour [a. k. a. "slavery"] in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the original Constitution  (a. k. a. the "Fugitive Slave Clause"), later superseded by the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865

The meaning of the word "abolitionist" was kept secret from slaves ...

The future abolitionist Frederick Douglass was a young slave boy when he first heard the word "abolitionist." He said it was some time before he found out what the word meant, even though "it was always used in such connections as to make it an interesting word to [him] ... If a slave ran away and succeeded in getting clear, or if a slave killed his master, set fire to a barn, or did any thing very wrong in the mind of a slaveholder, it was spoken of as the fruit of abolition." He did not dare to ask any one about its meaning, he said, because he was "satisfied that it was something that they wanted [him] to know very little about." The dictionary afforded him little or no help, because it said only that it was "the act of abolishing," without mentioning what it was that was to be "abolished." (He was entirely correct that his masters didn't want him to know about it, and would have punished him severely if he had made any inquiries to them about its meaning.)

Frederick Douglass

... because it referred to the abolition of slavery

Thus, it was not until later that he finally discovered the mysterious secret of the word's meaning: "I got one of our city papers," Douglass said later, "containing an account of the number of petitions from the north, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and of the slave trade between the States." (He was a literate man, it should be noted; in an age when slaves who knew how to read could be punished severely for the "offense" of literacy. He was thus one of a number of slaves who risked their lives just for the knowledge of learning how to read.) "From this time," he said, "I understood the words abolition and abolitionist, and always drew near when that word was spoken, expecting to hear something of importance to myself and [my] fellow-slaves." This early encounter with the abolitionist movement for Frederick Douglass, although brief, would have an enormous effect on his life; giving him the courage to escape from slavery once and for all, even after a first escape attempt had resulted in severe punishment. He also joined the abolitionist movement as one of its most distinguished supporters - contributing much to the cause of black freedom, before and after the Civil War.

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 “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 4

It was the end of a civil war in which four million slaves were freed, but which failed to bring true freedom to the people on whose behalf it had largely been fought. It was called the "Reconstruction Era" because its purpose was to rebuild (and heal) a war-torn nation, but which saw almost as much violence and destruction as actual reconstruction. And it brought the vote and other rights to the former slaves of the South for a time, only to see those rights taken away almost overnight when the Reconstruction Era ended in a corrupt political deal, giving the White South almost everything it wanted.

Confederate capitol of Richmond, 1865 (the end of the war)

Reconstruction period characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict

Much has been written about the military conflict called the "Civil War" (fought between North and South), but not as much has been written about the postwar Reconstruction period, which is perhaps even more complex politically than the war itself. Indeed, some historians have even called it the "Second Civil War," because it was characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict. This was between former Union soldiers occupying the South, and former Confederate soldiers joining the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations, who were trying to undo all that the North had fought and died for.

Dred Scott: The most infamous decision in Supreme Court history

"The plaintiff [Dred Scott]... was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant [Sandford], in the State of Missouri; and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for [Missouri], to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom."

"As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois...."

- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a decision that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court

If you asked people what was the worst decision in Supreme Court history, you would get all kinds of answers. Liberals, for example, might say something like District of Columbia v. Heller (a pro-gun-rights decision), and conservatives might say something like Roe v. Wade (a pro-abortion decision). But one thing conservatives and liberals can agree on is the notoriety of another decision - the one my own vote for the worst decision goes to. The case is an old one from 1857, four years before the Civil War broke out. This is a decision that upheld the constitutionality of slavery, and put the liberty of free blacks in the North in jeopardy, to a degree not seen in any previous decision.

Dred Scott, a fugitive slave the court refused to free

A review of “Jefferson Davis: An American President”

"The executive power [of the Confederacy] shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for a term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible."

- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Confederate States

Other documentaries cover other major figures of the Civil War

So I recently watched a 3 ½ hour documentary about the life of Jefferson Davis, the one and only president of the Confederacy. I first ran into this after having watched documentaries about Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, and wondering if there was anything decent out there about the lead Confederates. So I Googled Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, to see if there were any good documentaries about their lives. There were two documentaries about Robert E. Lee which were an hour and an hour-and-a-half respectively; but after watching both of them, neither of them turned out to be very good. The A&E one suffered from many of the same flaws as the network's other biographies, as it was poorly made and painfully brief. The PBS one had a liberal bias bad enough to interfere with its quality. I've enjoyed many of PBS's other biographies, but their one about Robert E. Lee was disappointing, particularly in that it was also brief; and it was not so much offensive as just unsatisfying - I didn't feel like I learned anything new.

Even the title of the documentary is controversial

Jefferson Davis was a different story, as I soon found two movies about his life. One of them was only two hours long, and the reviews of it did not make it seem that good. But the other one was this one, which is a 3 ½ hour documentary entitled "Jefferson Davis: An American President." The title in and of itself is somewhat controversial, but that was part of what made it intriguing. The length of it seemed appropriate, and the controversies about it among the reviewers further augmented my interest. I thus decided to get a copy for Christmas. This one is much better, as I learned a lot; and it helps you to better understand the Southern side of the war.

The most fascinating man in American history

"My family is American, and has been for generations, in all its branches, direct and collateral."

- Opening lines of "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), in the very first chapter

If you asked your average person what historical individual they find most interesting, you might hear an answer like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or another Founding Father. These would be excellent choices. But the person I find most interesting would not make most people's list. Although he was voted President of the United States, he is not remembered as a statesman, but as a soldier. He may have been the finest general in American history, but he is mostly forgotten today.

A review of “Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President”

"The war between the States was a very bloody and a very costly war. One side or the other had to yield principles they deemed dearer than life before it could be brought to an end."

- "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), Conclusion

I had heard the name "Ulysses S. Grant" as a child, and knew he was important; but did not know much about him. I had heard much criticism of Grant's generalship, with the old claim that he was a butcher - an unfavorable characterization voiced by then-First-Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. I also heard some good things about Grant's generalship, and my father was a great admirer of Grant; but everyone seemed to consider Robert E. Lee's generalship superior to his. The general, it seemed, was incompetent; and a drunk to boot. I knew also of the apocryphal story about someone complaining to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, and then hearing the response to "Find out what he drinks, and I'll send a barrel of it to all my other generals" (or something to that effect).

Abraham Lincoln

Ken Burns' famous depiction of Grant in "The Civil War"

It was in watching Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries that I got to know Grant a little better; to hear Jason Robards read quotes from him, and to hear a brief version of Grant's postwar life. Ken Burns is a little hard on Grant's presidency in the postwar episode, I think, mentioning only its failures in the brief sentence about it. He does do justice to the story of Grant's writing his memoirs, and setting it up with the business failures that prompted his writing them; but he also ignores some important context when mentioning that Grant had someone tied to a tree for several hours for mistreating a horse - the man was ordered to stop doing it, and persisted quite openly in doing so. Mentioning this insubordination would have seemed appropriate to give context; but given the other virtues of the series, I'll let this omission slide.

The definitive film on Grant is this biography by PBS

This American Experience documentary about him is the definitive film on Grant. The Western director John Ford, I am told, wanted to do a biopic about Grant; but never got to do so. A Hollywood movie would have been something, but this documentary is quite impressive as well; making good use of the many photographs of Grant, the people he worked with, and the events he was involved in. They make good use of quotes from Grant's memoirs, and benefit from having one of the most interesting stories in American history to dramatize. I think Grant may be the most fascinating man in American history, and this documentary does him justice.

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.

Frederick Douglass: The forgotten antislavery leader

"Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds - faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts - and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause - I subscribe myself, FREDERICK DOUGLASS. Lynn, Massachusetts, April 28, 1845."

- Concluding words of the Appendix to the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself"

Have you ever wondered what American slavery was like? If so, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better answer to this question than the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself." This book was written by a former slave to influence Americans to oppose the "peculiar institution" of slavery.

Young Frederick Douglass