James Buchanan: Wrong Man in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

There are few, if any, happy endings in history. The 1856 election of James Buchanan should have signaled a happy ending after several years of rancorous political debate involving slavery, its extension into the territories, and the equally boisterous arguments over tariffs and national projects such as the transcontinental railroad. For all intents and purposes, “Bleeding Kansas” was an event of the past and 1857 began with the unexpected death of South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks, the man responsibly for caning Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner.

 

In His March 4^th inaugural address, Buchanan alluded to a sense of finality tied to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision, which was about to be announced. Buchanan saw his presidency as a time to “restore harmony” and to placate his Southern supporters by emphasizing a policy of non-interference with slavery. Buchanan, who had spent the last four years as U.S. envoy to Great Britain, noted that the nation’s prosperity depended upon union.

 

Why Buchanan Made a Good Candidate

 

Buchanan’s diplomatic sojourn, a political “get out of jail” free card during the turbulent days of the Pierce administration and the prelude toward Civil War in the Kansas territory, left him blissfully untainted within the Democratic Party. He represented a venerable candidate with an impressive portfolio whose hands were not tied to Bleeding Kansas or the actions of Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, whose 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act was akin to Brutus’ treachery in the Roman Senate or Judas bargaining away the life of Christ for thirty pieces of silver.

 

Buchanan’s greatest support came from the South. He lost numerous Northern states to John C Fremont, the candidate of the upstart Republicans, and to Millard Fillmore, standard bearer of the so-called Know-Nothings. Buchanan almost lost Pennsylvania, his home state, if not for last minute infusions of cash by lobbyists. When it was all over, Buchanan was a minority president, elected with 45% of the popular vote.

 

The Tariff Issue in 1857

 

The lame duck Congress also passed a new tariff, signed by President Pierce before Buchanan’s inauguration. Lower tariff schedules were designed, in part, to stop the treasury surplus, seen as a growing temptation for public works projects deemed unnecessary. Buchanan, however, called fore the need to construct a “military road” connecting the east with the Pacific. A transatlantic cable was already in the works. The railroad, however, was already becoming associated with corruption.

 

Finally, Buchanan addressed the need for immigrants and their impact on growing national prosperity. These sentiments were aimed at the Know-Nothings who were rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. Within the decade of the 1850’s, 424,000 had emigrated from Britain and 914,000 from Ireland.

 

Congress was a Pro Slavery Government

 

The Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. The Supreme Court under Roger B Taney, a Maryland Catholic appointed by Andrew Jackson, was also pro-Southern. Southerners, however, feared the “Black Republicans” and their party platform calling for free soil status in the territories. Popular Sovereignty, Stephen Douglas’ Holy Grail, would shortly be obliterated by the Dred Scott v Sandford holding.

 

Buchanan’s patronage shone toward the South; indeed, most of his Cabinet appointments were Southern. It was a pro-slavery government, but happy endings cannot take root when the realities of other viewpoints claiming their own sense of morality challenge the status quo. Fremont may have lost the 1856 election, but many disenchanted Democrats saw it was a success. Senator John P. Hale, a fringe party candidate in 1852, reminded his listeners of the “handwriting on the wall.”

 

The next three years proved difficult for Buchanan. The 1857 tariff caused a panic – an economic downturn, and negatively affected iron manufacturing in Pennsylvania. Economic historians note that the economic state of affairs in Pennsylvania helped the Republicans carry the state in 1860. Lincoln won that general election without appearing on any southern ballot.

 

Buchanan’s Ineptitude

 

In 1859, John Brown attempted the capture of the Harpers Ferry federal arsenal in an attempt to ferment a general insurrection. Brown’s actions reminded Southerners that the North could not be depended upon to protect the South and its right to maintain the Slave Power. A year later, Lincoln won the 1860 election and South Carolina left the Union. Throughout it all, Buchanan dithered.

 

Buchanan had been in St. Petersburg, Russia during the nullification crisis. But President Jackson wrote him a long letter, detailing how he had stopped the secessionists almost three decades earlier. Buchanan must have forgotten the letter and the advice.

 

The Homosexual Theory

 

David Eisenbach’s book, written with Larry Flynt, suggests that Buchanan’s inability to reign in the South was tied to his relationship with William Rufus King. According to Eisenbach, “James Buchanan, the only bachelor president, fell in live with Alabama politician William Rufus King.” Eisenback states that, “Buchanan’s sexuality has long baffled historians.” Andrew Jackson ostensibly called Buchanan “Miss Nancy.”

 

Eisenbach’s theory is that Buchanan’s relationship with King tied him to a pro-Southern course of action, even though he was a Northerner from Pennsylvania.

 

Regardless, the four years of Buchanan’s administration might have either confronted heads-on any calls for secession, as Jackson had done earlier in South Carolina, or worked – as his inaugural address promised, to find a centrist position much as Martin Van Buren had accomplished, thereby avoiding the start of the nation’s bloodiest and most divisive war.

 

References

 

James Buchanan, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1757

Larry Flynt and David Eisenbach, PhD, One Nation Under Sex: How the Private Lives of Presidents First Ladies and their Lovers Changed the Course of American History (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2011)

Page Smith, A Nation Comes of Age: A People’s Historybof the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Kenneth M. Stamp, America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink (Oxford University Press, 1990)

Published 4/12/2012 by M. Streich for Suite101

The Ill Fated March of General Braddock

 

 

 

The start of the French and Indian War hardly achieved the grand objectives envisioned by England in an attempt to dislodge the French from the colonial frontier. Instead, the war began with the spectacular defeat of General Edward Braddock’s army composed of two regiments, assorted militia, and a handful of Indian scouts within a mile of their destination, Fort Duquesne in Pennsylvania. Braddock’s is often maligned for his role in the disaster, yet other factors may have contributed to the defeat in a more direct manner.

 

Braddock Arrives in Maryland

 

Braddock was appointed by the Duke of Cumberland, second son of the king. Known as the “Butcher of Culloden,” Cumberland and his protégés relied on the efficiency of continental military strategy, never considering the geographical differences of colonial America or the mindset of the colonial peoples.

 

Braddock, according to Simon Schama, was a “…unsentimental administrator and a stickler for discipline.” Like many commanders sent to America, Braddock viewed colonial militias and officers with contempt. Expecting to find supplies for his campaign, neither Virginia nor Pennsylvania provided food or transportation until Benjamin Franklin, almost at the last minute, arrived with 150 wagons obtained from Pennsylvania farmers as well as large amounts of food.

 

Virginia had no surplus food. Virginia agriculture was dominated by tobacco. In Pennsylvania, the colonial Quaker proprietors, clinging to the pacifism, refused to grant funds for a military operation, relenting in the end to support the endeavor with food supplies.

 

Ironically, it was the wagons and 500 pack horses that slowed his column as the army hacked a trail through the wilderness to Fort Duquesne. Braddock’s colonial aide-de-camp was Virginian George Washington, whose past experience fighting the French and their Indian allies would be valuable. Washington had written to Braddock, requesting consideration as a member of the general’s staff.

 

Also assisting Braddock was the experienced and highly trust frontiersman George Croghan who brought with him several Indian guides to scout the path. According to Dale Van Every, Braddock respected the Indians, giving gifts to friendly Indians he encountered on his trek, yet smarting that the Catawba and Cherokee had not come to assist him, as had been promised.

 

Braddock within Sight of Fort Duquesne

 

Having divided his force, Braddock led 1700 of his best men toward the French outpost. Vastly outnumbered, the French commander, Pierre Contrecoeur, contemplated surrendering his position. Excessive drought had lowered river levels, making resupply virtually impossible.

 

Contrecoeur’s second in command, Captain Daniel Hyacinth Beaujeu, however, convinced the commander to allow him to attempt a daring ambush as Braddock’s troops were crossing the Monongahela. Beaujeu caught Braddock after the river had been forded. Although killed in the ambush, Beaujeu’s Indians began to slaughter the English, firing into the disciplined ranks from the safety of the dense forest. Braddock lost two thirds of his command and would die during the retreat from a bullet wound. The French lost 23 men.

 

Washington would write in a letter, “we have been most scandalously beaten by a trifling body of men.” As the war continued, new leadership in England, learning some lessons from the initial disasters, appointed commanders willing to adapt to wilderness fighting and willing to share fully with colonial officers and militias.

 

Braddock Assessed

 

Edward Braddock was a product of European military experience. The colonial war was an entirely new experience. His antipathy for “backwater” provincials inclined him to disregard advice. Practically, he was hindered in movement by his supply train and the necessity of creating a path to the destination. Additionally, the strategic aims had been laid out by the Duke of Cumberland; Braddock was obliged to follow orders even if a more prudent policy appeared to promise more successful results.

 

Sources:

 

Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (Vintage, 2001)

Walter R. Borneman, French and Indian War: Fate of North America (Harper, 2007)

Dale Van Every, Forth to the Wilderness: the First American Frontier 1754-1774 (Mentor Book, 1961)

Simon Schama, A History of Britain, Volume II, The Wars of the British 1603-1776 (Hyperion, 2001)

Published January 23, 2009 by M. Streich in Suite101

Boston Massacre

 

 

 

 

The old saying that a “picture is worth a thousand words” goes a long way in portraying the past but often at the cost of historical truth. Nikolai Tolstoy, writing about Joseph Stalin, quotes the composer Shostakovich talking about the numerous painters Stalin ordered shot because their portrayals of the Soviet leader “didn’t please him.” [1] Not as tragic as Tolstoy’s example, pictures from American history, however, often present embellished tales that added to the propaganda quality of the event.

 

The Boston Massacre and Paul Revere

 

On the evening of March 5^th, 1770, a crowd of angry Bostonians, many unemployed, confronted a group of British “red coats” or “lobster backs.” Taunted by the crowd, the soldiers eventually fired, leaving five dead. This became the Boston Massacre. But it was Paul Revere’s engraving of the event, based on a drawing made by Henry Pelham that created anti-British fervor throughout the colonies.

 

Revere’s engraving, reprinted in most American history texts, gave a grossly distorted view of what actually happened. One of the mob leaders, a mulatto named Crispus Attucks, was the first shot. Yet the Revere engraving shows no person of color. Those fallen in the foreground are white. The actual incident occurred in front of the customs house and only seven British privates and one officer were involved.

 

According to the lithograph, there is no impression that the British soldiers were surrounded by the mob. The incident began when a group numbering about twenty people started to intimidate a lone sentry, Hugh White. After retreating to the customs house, he was supported by seven others, commanded by Captain Thomas Preston. By now the mob had grown in numbers.

 

According to eye witness accounts, later used in the public trail of the soldiers, struck one of the soldiers with a club, causing a shot to be fired. Although the order to “shoot” was heard by witnesses, Preston denied giving the order and other witnesses claimed that it came from a direction away from where Preston stood. The Revere depiction gives the impression of a premeditated volley at near point blank range into a group of innocent citizens.

 

The classic engraving does not show the crude weapons used by some members of the mob nor does it show any snow on the ground. The Boston Massacre encounter was not the first time angry mobs threw stones wrapped in snow. March 5^th was the culmination of three days of provocation. None of the above facts are portrayed in the Revere engraving.

 

Paintings, Patriotism, and Propaganda

 

The story of the Boston Massacre is not alone in presenting false facts in order to achieve a desired response. Patriotism can do much the same. The classic painting of Teddy Roosevelt at the forefront of the Rough Rider’s charge up San Juan Hill during the Spanish American War is frequently used in history texts such as The American Vision. The Rough Riders, however, had left their horses in Florida. The charge was made on foot, and contrary to the intent of the picture to glorify “TR,” he was not the commander of the group.

 

The 1851 picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze has become iconic in Revolutionary War history lore. The men who ferried Washington across the Delaware were white and black sailors under the command of Colonel John Glover yet one would be hard pressed to find any persons of color in the painting (one is to the right of Washington). Additionally, the troops crossed on barges, not open row boats and the general was not standing as in the painting: indeed, in the barges, everyone was standing!

 

Sources:

 

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses:” The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 2002)

Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003)

Hiller B. Zobel, The Boston Massacre (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970)

See also Howard Zinn’s A People’s History on-line version.

 

[1] quoted in Nikolai Tolstoy, Stalin’s Secret War: A startling expose of his crimes against the Russian people. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981) p. 19

Published 12/23/2008 in Suite101 by M. Streich

 A 1964 Hollywood Film the Harbinger of a Future Government Take Over

Hyper-Patriotism has always been a threat to American freedoms and to democracy. Nativist political parties like the Know-Nothings of the mid-19^th Century attempted to define patriotism and the definition of what it meant to be an American. In the 1950s, the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Affairs and the efforts of Senator Joseph McCarthy sought to characterize a pure America devoid of diversity in belief. The 1964 Hollywood film classic Seven Days in May, released during a time of Cold War uncertainty and debate over U.S. involvement in Vietnam, follows a military plot to overthrow the U.S. government by a popular Air Force general.

 

The Universal and Timeless Warning of John Frankenheimer’s Seven Days in May

 

Presidential unpopularity is often prompted by executive decisions that flaunt the ideological beliefs of the opposition party. In Seven Days in May, fictional president Jordan Lyman (Frederic March) is opposed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster) over the White House decision to go forward with a recently ratified treaty with the Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear arsenals.

 

The film, previewed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 at the White House, focuses on the so-called “Roman doctrine.” Is the American nation better off employing a strong defense, or should Americans trust hostile nations to honor treaties of disarmament?

 

As General Scott stated before a Senate committee hearing, “We’ve stayed alive because we’ve built up an arsenal, and we’ve kept the peace because we’ve dealt with an enemy who knew we would use that arsenal.” Even the “informer,” Colonel “Jiggs” Casey, agrees with this assessment. But Jiggs also believes in the Constitution.

 

The President Responds to Allegations of a Military Take-Over of the U.S. Government

 

Colonel Casey, General Scott’s aide, is sufficiently alarmed by the circumstantial evidence to meet with the President. Jiggs has been cut out of the loop, “for some security reason.” All indications in the film point to his liberal leanings. But President Lyman’s key advisors are not sold on the notion of a plot.

 

Nonetheless, after sifting through spurious evidence, the President outlines his course of action. His Chief of Staff Paul Girard (Martin Balsam) will fly to the Mediterranean to question Vice-Admiral Barnswell (John Houseman) who has been implicated in the plot. Senator Ray Clark of Georgia, Lyman’s closest friend, will fly to El Paso, Texas to locate General Scott’s secret base – “ECOMCON, Site Y.”

 

The Plot Thickens in Seven Days in May

 

The “last resort” ammunition against General Scott are a packet of love letters written to Eleanor Holbrook (Ava Gardner) with whom he had had an affair – letters that were “very revealing of the general’s extra curricular love life,” according to Cabinet Secretary Chris Todd (George Macready). Jiggs retrieves the letters after pretending to fall for the vulnerable and alcoholic Holbrook.

 

Aboard a carrier in the Mediterranean, Paul Girard elicits a written confession from the hapless admiral. In Texas, Senator Clark, with the assistance of Colonel “Mutt” Henderson, a personal friend of Jiggs, escapes from the secret base he stumbled upon, and returns to Washington with Henderson.

 

But Girard’s plane is sabotaged and crashes into the Spanish hills. Henderson is arrested by the army in Washington and held incommunicado. Admiral Barnswell, in a telephone conversation with the president, denies having signed any papers (Girard had called the president to inform him of Barnswell’s confession in writing).

 

The Enemy Is a Nuclear Age

 

Only the letters retrieved by Casey remain, but the president is reluctant to use them against Scott. In one of the most pivotal scenes, President Lyman tells Todd and Senator Clark that the enemy isn’t Scott but a nuclear age. People look for transitory heroes like Scott to guide them through the fear and uncertainty.

 

The president meets with General Scott in the Oval Office, the “show down” designed to produce the resignation of Scott and the other complicit officers in the Joint Chiefs. The scheduled alert for the following day is called off – the alert that would have resulted in Scott’s taking over the government. But Scott is defiant. As he leaves the Oval Office, the president says, “I’m going to fight you…”

 

President Lyman’s Press Conference Averts a Military Take-Over

 

_{Although his press conference has begun, the president is called outside by Todd and Clark. His Chief of Staff had folded Admiral Barnswell’s written confession into a cigarette case which was found by an American embassy official in Madrid at the crash site of Paul Girard’s plane. The entire plot was revealed.}

 

_{Copies are made and forwarded to all of the implicated officers. Excepting Scott, they immediately send the president their resignations. These are announced during the resumption of the press conference, the president commenting at length about the American system, the Constitution, and the democratic way.}

 

_{The Message of Seven Days in May}

 

_{Politics and Civics instructors still use Seven Days in May to generate class discussion. Can such a thing happen in America? Is the American Constitution strong enough to withstand the rise of demagogues that threaten civil liberties and differences of opinion? In this regard, the film is timeless.}

 

_{History, even contemporary history, is full of examples of democratic governments elected by the people being overthrown by strong military personalities. This has happened in large, progressive nations like Turkey and small, island paradises like Fiji. But can it happen in America?  Seven Days in May suggests that it can happen in America, given the right circumstances.}

 

_Sources:

 

_{Warner Bros. Classics, VHS 1997}

_{Internet Movie Data Base}

_{Published October 21, 2018 in Suite101 by M.Streich}

The Battle of Guilford Couthouse: Harbinger of the British Defeat at Yorktown

 

As the southern campaign progressed during the last phase of the American Revolution, British commanders labored under several false assumptions that would hinder their efforts in the Carolinas and ultimately cost them the war. The untenable position faced by Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown caused by lack of reinforcements and supplies began at the battle of Guilford Courthouse, a pyrrhic victory that cost him a quarter of his army. It became evident to military commanders as well as members of Parliament that although Guilford Courthouse represented “a complete victory over the rebels,” the cost of victory could not be sustained.

 

The British March through North Carolina

 

North Carolina witnessed some of the bloodiest and most savage fighting of the entire War for Independence. This possibility was not foreseen by British military planners who assumed that the state contained more loyalists than rebels. The assumption proved to be false. Those loyalists that might have joined Cornwallis swiftly reconsidered after the massacre of loyalists by Colonel Tarleton’s cavalry, mistaking them for rebels.

 

Additionally, North Carolina geography was not well suited for Cornwallis’ march north. The province was full of rivers like the Catawba, Dan, and Yadkin, restricting opportunities at greater maneuverability, especially as patriot forces began to oppose British units sent to garrison key North Carolina cities.

 

British troops had been told to expect supportive loyalist farmers that would provide food and drink as the army advanced. This proved to be another false assumption. Additionally, the Carolinas had offered stiff resistance and weakened the British forces. South of the North Carolina border, the battles of King’s Mountain and Hannah’s Cowpens devastated British and loyalist forces. Cornwallis, referring to Cowpens, stated that it was the “most serious calamity since Saratoga.”

 

Battle of Guilford Courthouse

 

At Guilford Courthouse, not far from the Virginia border, General Nathaniel Greene’s 4,500 men met the much smaller British army of 2,000. Arranged in three lines, the patriots had the advantage of terrain. Greene’s first and second line, representing local militia as well as Virginia militia, rapidly broke.

The third line, however, was made up of Continentals, regular, veteran troops. They held the high ground and almost succeeded in turning the British advance. Military historians speculate that if General Greene had ordered a charge, the weary British grenadiers and Guards units would have crumbled and the entire war would have been over.

 

Lord Cornwallis ordered the firing of grapeshot into the melee, killing as many of his own men as those of the enemy. The action succeeded and Greene ordered a withdrawal, leaving the British in control of the battlefield. Without food and enduring heavy rains, morale decreased. Further, Cornwallis had lost a quarter of his command and would limp into Virginia with only 1,435 men fit for combat duty.

 

Effects of Guilford Courthouse

 

British planners could not see the impending disaster. Although Benedict Arnold, who had recently changed allegiance to the British cause, was successfully harassing Virginia patriots and disparate military units, neither Virginia nor the Carolinas were solidly under British control. In fact, Cornwallis remarked in a letter to Lord Germain in London that rebel activity in the Carolinas was far more active and widespread than had been assumed.

 

Arriving in Yorktown, the British army was in no condition to fight. Disease was taking more lives and promised reinforcements failed to materialize. Cornwallis’ commander, the incompetent Sir Henry Clinton in New York, realized too late that British defeat at Yorktown would translate into the end of the war, the Americans having won their independence.

 

Revolutionary North Carolina had shown that the British southern campaign had been built on erroneous information. This cost them the war, particularly after the devastating defeat at Guilford Courthouse.

 

Sources:

 

David Eggenberger, An Encyclopedia of Battles (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985)

Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York: Avon Books, 1991)

Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Volume Two (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)

Primary Source Reference Book For the 1781 Guilford Courthouse Campaign, Captain Thomas Goss, Editor (Department of History, United States Military Academy West Point: May 4, 1998) [on-line PDF] 

Published September 9/2009 Suite 101 by M.Streich

Why the British Lost the Revolutionary War

 

Great Britain lost the American War for Independence for a number of reasons. These included the failure to capitalize on loyalist support, fighting a war on unknown terrain, poor communication between commands, and under-estimating colonial resistance. Many of these blunders were exacerbated during the actual conflict, such as in the Southern campaign. Finally, the decision makers in London, both military and political, failed to understand the growth of colonial self-identity, notably reflecting the ideal of individualism, self-reliance, and the yearning for self representation.

 

Failure to Galvanize Loyalist Support

 

John Adams estimated that one-third of the colonists, numbering slightly over 2.2 million people at the start of the Revolution, remained loyal to the Crown. Many of these Tories would leave the new United States after 1783, their property confiscated. During the war, however, neither Parliament nor the military commanders appealed directly for proactive support.

 

During the Southern campaign, for example, Lord Cornwallis fully expected wide scale support from loyalists in the Carolinas. If any had been contemplated by the inhabitants, such support was quickly diminished as British troops raided farms in search of food, and Colonel Tarleton’s dragoons massacred men who actually supported the British position.

 

 In some cases support translated into profit. The Continental Army, wintering in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, lacked all basic necessities including food. Henry Knox bitterly noted that the British, encamped also in Pennsylvania, were supplied by Pennsylvania farmers with meat, butter, and all of the foodstuffs necessary for normal daily comfort. Pennsylvania farmers trusted the gold and silver coins of the British rather than the paper money called continentals.

 

Command Communication and Hierarchy

 

Two of the most significant battles during the American Revolution were lost by the British due to blunders in communication and jealousy within the overall command structure. Saratoga, fought in 1777, is often called the major turning point of the war. General John Burgoyne, coming from Canada, fully expected to link with a British army coming from Philadelphia. General Howe, however, failed to send the expected troops and did not bother to inform Burgoyne. Even as Burgoyne was facing a superior Patriot force under General Horatio Gates, he still expected relief from Sir Henry Clinton in New York. The relief column arrived too late.

 

The battle of Yorktown best represents weaknesses in communication and inter-service rivalries. Lord Cornwallis repeatedly requested reinforcements and supplies from Sir Henry Clinton, commander of British forces after the retirement of General Howe. Clinton replied with evasive and contradictory orders. Further, the utter failure of the British navy to coordinate with Cornwallis allowed the French fleet under Admiral De Grasse to cutoff Yorktown from any naval support.

 

Colonial Resistance

 

British commanders viewed Americans as provincials, incapable of standing up to British regulars, considered the finest fighting force in the world. British impressions of American military abilities were formed, in part, during the Anglo-French colonial wars that culminated in the French and Indian War. British commanders like General James Wolfe and Sir Jeffrey Amherst disparaged colonial militias, viewing them as unreliable and ineffectual.

 

In many cases, the British military under-estimated the boldness and resolve of the Patriot colonists. Ticonderoga was taken by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold because of British laxity. The battle of Trenton was successful because the Hessians never expected a surprise attack. Guilford Courthouse so weakened the army of Cornwallis that it is credited with leading to the final surrender at Yorktown.

 

British Defeat the Result of Massive Blunders

 

The British were better equipped and better supplied. In some cases, their numbers were superior. Yet they lacked knowledge of the land – the vastness of colonial America, and their commanders frequently failed to coordinate operational goals and aims. 

 

They were fighting a determined group that added to its numbers as British indifferences to local populations became apparent. Parliamentary leaders as well as King George III refused any compromises. For these reasons, the British lost the American War for Independence.

 

References:

 

Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution Volume I and II (NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)

Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution (NY: Ballantine Books, 1988)

Published 2/7/10 Suite101 by M.Streich and still under copyright 

Why the Revolutionary War Battle of Saratoga was a Turning Point in the Conflict: 

The 1777 battle of Saratoga was the most important and decisive battle of the Revolutionary War until Yorktown. Frequently termed the “turning point” of the conflict, American victory at Saratoga dramatically lifted sagging American morale, gave impetus to those in England pressuring Parliament for a negotiated settlement of the war, and convinced the French to support the American cause with material and men.

 

John Burgoyne and the Plan to Capture Albany

 

General Burgoyne, senior British commander in Canada (though nominally under Sir Guy Carleton), used his considerable influence with powerful London war policy-makers to receive approval to march a formidable British army south into New York with the intent of capturing Albany and splitting the colonies.

 

Success of the plan depended upon Sir William Howe, technically Burgoyne’s senior as commander-in-chief in North America, sending an army up the Hudson River to support Burgoyne’s march south. Howe never received a direct order to that effect, however, and resented the fact that Burgoyne had been given complete independence to use the Northern Army for his own purposes.

 

At the time Burgoyne began preparing his army in June 1777, he was unaware that Howe was not planning to send any troops north. Howe was busy brilliantly defeating George Washington in a series of skirmishes that ended with British occupation of Philadelphia where only a year earlier the Declaration of Independence had been adopted.

 

Howe’s second in command, Sir Henry Clinton, remained in New York with a much smaller force and, although initially supportive of Burgoyne’s plan, had no intention of weakening his position. As Burgoyne began his march into the interior after debarking at Lake George, he had no way of knowing that his 7,000 men would be forced to fight an army four times as large without the assumed support from Howe.

 

Benedict Arnold at Bemis Heights

 

Although General Philip Schuyler was responsible for American defenses and the eventual strategy that would result in the encirclement of Burgoyne, he was replaced by Horatio Gates, referred to by historians as the most political of all American generals. Burgoyne, arrogant and uncompromising, severely overextended his supply train, making it easier for the Americans to defeat him at Saratoga. Additionally, Burgoyne’s army included hundreds of women and dependants.

 

After some minor victories along the route (including the capture of Ticonderoga), Burgoyne lost a sizeable number of troops at Bennington where they were ambushed. His march, however, was halted at Bemis Heights. American troops under Benedict Arnold inflicted heavy casualties, forcing Burgoyne to withdraw north to Saratoga where his army dug in.

 

At this point Burgoyne was still able to evacuate northward, an action counseled by some senior officers including Baron von Riedesel, commander of the two German brigades. But Burgoyne still anticipated relief from either Howe or Clinton.

 

The ensuing battle, including an attack on Burgoyne’s center by Benedict Arnold who was acting against orders, resulted in such carnage that Burgoyne was forced to seek surrender terms. His army had less than a week’s worth of food and, as one desperate German officer wrote, “Never can the Jews have longed more for the coming of the Messiah than we longed for the arrival of General Clinton.”

 

Terms and Aftermath

 

Horatio Gates accepted Burgoyne’s counter-terms to the unconditional surrender he had requested. Although Burgoyne threatened to fight to the death if his terms were not accepted, Gates would be undone by the generous terms that included marching the prisoners to Boston and allowing them safe passage home on the promise not to fight in America again. Washington, jealous of Gates’ victory, pressed home this point. An exiled Continental Congress later abrogated the terms. Saratoga was a prime example of why the British lost the war.

 

Sources:

 

William Digby, “The Saratoga Campaign: New York, July-October 1777,” The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence, John Rhodenhamel, Editor (New York: The Library of America, 2001)

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses” The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Woodstock: the Overlook Press, 2002)

Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York: Avon Books, 1990

Published 7/4/2009 Suite101 by M.Streich

 Margaret Chase Smith: Grand Woman of the Republican Party

At the 1964 Republican Convention in San Francisco, political history was made when Vermont Senator George Aiken placed in nomination the Senior Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith. This represented the first time that a woman had been nominated for the presidency by a major political party. Although Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater won the nomination, it was a victory for women. In her first 18 years in the Senate, Smith had been the only female in an all-male club.

 

The Early Years in the Pine Tree State

 

Margaret Chase Smith was born and raised in Skowhegan, Maine. As a young teenager, she began working part-time jobs to help her family that included six siblings. After completing high school, she worked as a teacher, telephone operator, newspaper writer, and office manager. In 1930 she married Clyde Smith, politically connected and soon to enter Congress as Maine’s 2^nd District representative.

 

Margaret Chase Smith in the House of Representatives

 

Clyde Smith died from a heart attack in 1940, related to a diagnosis of tertiary syphilis. Margaret had pledged to enter the Maine primary election in place of her husband – at his request. In January 1941, Congresswoman Smith became one of a select minority to sit in the Congress; few women had been elected to the national legislature up to that point.

 

Margaret Chase Smith refused to be identified on the basis of gender; she saw herself as the representative from Maine’s 2^nd district, although she championed women’s rights and equality. She supported the ERA and as a member of the House Naval Affairs Committee, worked to equalize the status of women in the military. According to Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Smith “favored a completely gender-blind society.”

 

Serving in the U.S. Senate for Four Terms

 

When Margaret Chase Smith lost her bid for reelection in 1972, she had served the people of Maine for 24 years in the U.S. Senate. She was first elected in 1948, the 100^th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention where Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the Declaration of Sentiments, that advocated, among other things, a woman’s right to vote. Senator Smith would deliver a declaration of her own in 1950, but the issue would be the tactics of Wisconsin’s junior senator, Joseph McCarthy.

 

On June 1, 1950, Margaret Chase Smith rose in the Senate to deliver her Declaration of Conscience. She was the first senator to challenge McCarthy’s hearings on alleged Communist sympathizers in government departments. Of the six senators that supported her, only Oregon’s Wayne Morse stood by her. Her courage cost her committee assignments but she never regretted her actions. After the Eisenhower victory in 1952, Smith would serve on both the Appropriations and Armed Service committees.

 

A Democrat in the White House

 

John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election but, as historians have pointed out, was unable to see many of his ideas approved by Congress. As a senator, Kennedy had been less than industrious, often shunning important committee work. Senator Smith recalled that Kennedy had missed the 1954 censure vote of Joseph McCarthy and believed the young president was not forceful enough in combating Nikita Khrushchev.

 

Yet following the assassination of JFK in November 1963, it was Senator Smith who delivered the most poignant eulogy and tribute: removing the red rose from her lapel – a trademark for the indomitable senator, and placing the flower on the desk once occupied by Kennedy. A year later she thrust herself into the Republican primaries, taking on Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.

 

The Break-Through Senator Returns to Maine

 

Senator Smith’s first priority was to be an effective and transparent legislator, although her public life and successes made her a “break through” woman. Senator Hutchison writes that, “Despite the press’s tendency to treat women legislators as novelties…Margaret managed to convince the voters that she was an effective presence on Capitol Hill.” This was the great legacy of Margaret Chase Smith.

 

References:

 

Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club (Basic Books, 2005)

Kay Bailey Hutchison, American Heroines (Harper, 2006)

Margaret Chase Smith, Declaration of Conscience (Doubleday & Company, 1972) edited by William C. Lewis, Jr

Published 3/24/2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright in force

The Civil War and Slave Emancipation

 

Although the U.S. Civil War started as an attempt to preserve the Union, the issue of slavery was always the pivotal cause of the conflict. Southerners feared that Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860 was the first step in dismantling the peculiar institution of the South. They believed that Republican claims limiting slavery and opposing its expansion into the new western territories were merely the prelude to abolitionist goals. Northern war aims, however, gradually changed as emancipation became part of the slow transformation of life in the South with the advance of Union armies.

 

Early Steps toward Slave Emancipation

 

The first hint of emancipation took place at Fort Monroe in 1861 when several slaves left Confederate lines and sought asylum from Union general Benjamin Butler. Confederate officers, under a flag of truce, demanded the return of the slaves, citing the Fugitive Slave Law. Butler, a lawyer in private life, replied that the runaway slaves were “contraband of war.” The now freed slaves were given the opportunity to work for the Union army, with pay, and fully emancipated.

 

Butler’s precedent encouraged other slaves to cross over battle lines and seek freedom in Union occupied territory. In March 1862, Congress passed a law that prohibited the military from returning fugitive slaves. The Second Confiscation Act emancipated any slaves within the confines of Union occupied territory.

 

The Seeds of General Emancipation in 1862

 

Union policies allowing for gradual emancipation were tempered by fears that any move toward a general emancipation of Southern slaves would alienate pro-Union sympathizers in the South. Lincoln had not forgotten that the Election of 1860 revealed pro-Unionist attitudes in the South, identified with the Constitutional-Unionist Party.

 

Additionally, Lincoln researched colonization possibilities. Options included transporting freed slaves to Central America or the Caribbean. Some 5,000 former U.S. slaves were sent to Haiti but most of them soon left. Another option included a compensated emancipation, perhaps based on the Russian model of 1861.

 

The Emancipation Proclamation

 

By the end of 1862, Lincoln had finished the Emancipation Proclamation. The document freed all slaves within the rebel territories at the time of signing. It did not free slaves in Border States. Lincoln publicized the proclamation months before signing it, using it as an ultimatum against the Confederacy. In essence, if the South returned to the Union, Lincoln would not sign the document.

 

But the South kept fighting. Lincoln’s first official act in 1863 was signing the Emancipation Proclamation. Southerners saw this as confirmation of their initial fears regarding Lincoln and the Republicans. Northern Democrats criticized Lincoln for deviating from the original war aims. What they failed to see was that the Proclamation was not motivated by abolitionist concerns. The document was as much a part of the strategy of war as any military action.

 

Facing the Realities of Emancipation

 

The Emancipation Proclamation opened the door to hitherto radical notions regarding former slaves. These questions included a Constitutional definition of citizenship, extending the franchise to black men, and increasing the use of blacks in the military. 180,000 blacks served in the Union army with great distinction.

 

Civil War emancipation was gradual, but by the end of the conflict a transformation in the South had radically altered the social landscape. Although it would take over 100 years for African Americans to fully experience the social and political fruits of emancipation, the events that began in 1861 began the long overdue process.

 

Sources:

 

Gabor S. Boritt, Lincoln the War President (Oxford University Press, 1992)

William K. Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation 1861-1865 (Viking Penguin 2001)

Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Volume 5 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

Published by M.Streich in Suite101 11/26/2009 Still under copywrite

 The Civil War in America and the Growing Role of U.S.Government

 

 

The coming of the post Civil War industrial society can be traced to key factors that had enabled the North to win the war in 1865. These factors include a laissez faire relationship between government and business, the continuance of population growth through immigration, and a national spirit of sacrifice in order to achieve a goal. At the same time, these factors created significant problems affecting integrity of government, treatment of industrial works and immigrants, and the needs of western farmers.

 

The Civil War and American Business

 

The conduct and course of the war necessitate strong bonds between government and business. This was the debut of the billion dollar federal budget and direct governmental relationships with big business, notably the railroad industry. Railroads had played a significant role in Union victory, freighting supplies and carrying soldiers. After the Mississippi was closed, railroads picked up the cargo traffic normally assigned to the river and its tributaries.

 

As historian Howard Zinn demonstrates, Union generals at times contracted directly with businesses for arms and supplies. Without government regulatory policies, businesses grew through a self-policing financial community, failing when greed overtook prudence as in the Panic of 1873. Congressional leaders curried favor with big businesses, accepting loans that were never repaid, shares of stocks, and seats on corporate boards. As in the railroad industry, the quid pro quo was substantial land grants enabling railroads to connect the oceans and build hundreds of subsidiary lines.

 

The amount of railroad construction remained the same in the decade of the Civil War as it has the decade before the war. In the decade of the 1870s, however, railroad construction more than doubled from 20,000 miles of track to over 45,000 miles of track. [1] Much of this can be directly traced to Congressional support, often resulting in kickbacks and other favors. The 1872 Credit Mobilier scandal is but one salient example of graft.

 

Spirit of Sacrifice and Determination

 

The war had taught average Americans that victory would come if everyone shared in the sacrifices demanded. This included rationing as well as serving on the front lines. Four years of often intense conflict inculcated this mentality in the minds of Americans. As the United States grew and industrialization changed the face of American aspirations, growing a middle class and producing spectacular innovations, Americans worked within the mentality of sacrifice and determination.

 

Industrialization harnessed the power of millions of workers, men, women, and children that had no other recourse to working twelve hour days for low wages. In inequities arising out of Gilded Age wealth production produced labor movements – unions – that challenged the status quo and demanded better working conditions.

 

Many of these workers were immigrants, unskilled, poor Europeans and Asians, thrust into the economic machine of rapid industrialization. Government, for its part, supported big business and viewed unionization as a step toward anarchism and socialism. Governmental leaders, including Presidents and Cabinet members, had close ties to big business and legislation that attempted to regulate businesses, such as the first Interstate Commerce Commission, had no regulatory teeth.

 

The End of Laissez Faire

 

The war between capital and labor would not abate until the Progressive Movement of the early 20^th Century and legislation passed under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Yet even before Roosevelt, American voters, notably in 1894 and 1896, rejected Populism and chose the status quo conservatism of on-going capitalism. While the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act did little to effectively “curb” the power of the Trusts and rescue American workers from abuse, it was a first step in recognizing that a problem existed.

 

Sources:

 

[1] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Washington, DC, 1975.

 

Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post Reconstruction Era Vol. 6 (Penguin Books, 1984)

Published 2009 in Suite101 M.Streich under Copyright

The Civil War and the Role of Slavery

 

2011 commemorates the 150^th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War. On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was bombarded by Confederate cannons in Charleston, South Carolina; the fort’s commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered the next day. What caused the disunity between North and South? President Lincoln provided the answer in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address: “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves…localized in the [South]…These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” Slavery, according to Lincoln, was an “American” problem.

 

Further Clues to Slavery in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

 

In his third paragraph, Lincoln links the “bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil” with the blood drawn by the sword. This was his explanation for the Civil War, tied to the judgment of a just God. American slavery was an offense, a stumbling block that “He now wills to remove…”

 

Slavery Identified as the Chief Separation between North and South

 

That slavery was intricately tied to the conflict was always known. In 1858, New York Senator William Henry Seward, in a speech delivered in Rochester, New York, stated that, “…the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free labor nation.” This was Seward’s “irrepressible conflict” speech.

 

Lincoln himself spoke of a “house divided” in Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858. Lincoln proclaimed that, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” When southern states began to leave the Union, Lincoln reread the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall, determining that “states’ rights” did not abrogate the Constitution or the doctrine of federal supremacy.

 

Lincoln and the Legality of American Slavery

 

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that, “…all men are created equal…” During the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln, in response to Douglas’ interpretation that Jefferson never meant to include non-whites, rebutted that the statement represented a “promise” for future generations.

 

Although Lincoln rejected Southern justifications based on biblical passages that appeared to condone slavery, he also maintained that as long as slavery was the law of the land, he would not touch it. This was one of the points Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address.

 

In a March 6, 1860 speech given in New Haven, Connecticut, Lincoln concurred with Seward’s notion of an “irrepressible conflict” and stated, “Does anything in any way endanger the perpetuity of the Union but that single thing, slavery?” Yet Lincoln also supported efforts to resettle emancipated slaves.

 

In 1862, slaves in the District of Columbia were finally emancipated by Congress, the final bill signed by Lincoln. Lincoln applauded the fund that had been set up to relocate the former slaves outside of the United States.

 

Lincoln and the Biblical Foundation of a Civil Theology

 

Political Science professor Joseph Fornieri identifies several key elements of Lincoln’s biblical opposition to slavery. He includes Lincoln’s “…affirmation of a common humanity created in the image of God…” as well as the “Golden Rule,” and the “Great Commandment.”

 

In many of his writings, including the 2^nd Inaugural, Lincoln refers to Genesis 3.19 in which man was to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, not another man’s. His writings also show displeasure with Southern proslavery arguments as seen in a May 30, 1864 letter to Baptists in which he compared the Christian acceptance of slavery to Satan’s temptation of Christ.

 

Lincoln’s Views on Slavery as Perceived in the South

 

When Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, the Charleston Mercury predicted that the Underground Railroad would become the “Over ground Railroad” and that the individual value of slaves would drop dramatically. Referring to the gathering “storm,” historian David Detzer writes that, “…at its core lay the fear white Southerners had about the possibility of slavery’s demise…that Lincoln…might attempt to free the slaves.”

 

Lincoln’s Republican rival at the national convention was New York Senator William Henry Seward. Seward was far blunter in his views on slavery, denying any there was any Constitutional recognition of property in man. On another occasion, Seward stated that, “…there is no Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery.” In 1850, as a freshman Senator involved in the Compromise debates, he declared that “there is a higher law than the Constitution…”

 

All Knew that the Slavery Interest was the Cause of the War

 

Lincoln managed to portray the “offense” of slavery both as a secular and a theological issue. Slavery violated the “just” nature of God as well as the supposed Enlightenment “republicanism” of Jefferson’s Declaration.

 

The 150^th anniversary of Ft. Sumter will produce many writings on Lincoln, slavery, Republicans, Southern Democrats, and reignite a fierce debate as to the role of the “peculiar” institution in the coming of war. Despite these debate differences, the discussions will be worthwhile, forcing Americans to reread Lincoln, Seward, and other leaders for clues and explanations.

 

Sources:

 

Gabor S. Boritt, editor, Why The Civil War Came (Oxford University Press, 1996)

David Detzer, Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (Harcourt, Inc., 2006)

The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Joseph R. Fornieri, editor (Regenery, 2003)

Ray Raphael, Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past (The New Press, 2004)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Published 12/14/2010 M.Streich copyright, Suite101

 Civil War Music

 

 

 

Civil War Confederate songs help to understand why Southern men enlisted to fight the North. The 1860 census reveals that a mere 4.8% of Southern whites owned slaves. Many were yeomen farmers without slaves. Only in Mississippi and South Carolina did the percentage of slaves in the overall population exceed 50%. Historian James McPherson’s book, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, analyzes letters, diaries, and other written documents and concludes that many men joined the Cause as a nationalistic endeavor rather than fighting strictly for slavery. The songs of the Confederate South corroborate this theory.

 

Confederate Anthems

 

“We are a band of brothers, And native to the soil; Fighting for our liberty, With Treasure blood and toil…” So begins Harry McCarthy’s stirring 1861 tune, Bonnie Blue Flag, destined to become the second anthem of the Confederate States, behind the popular Dixie. Song lyrics reveal the mindset of average soldiers as they marched or spent days encamped, awaiting battle. Historian Richard Hartwell refers to them as, “tuneful symbols of Southern nationalism.” David Eicher writes that, “among the most significant ways in which soldiers expressed….feelings of unity, especially while on the march, was in song.”

 

Harry McCarthy came to New Orleans from Great Britain as an entertainer. Bonnie Blue Flag begins with a reference to Henry V and Shakespeare’s “band of brothers” battle speech. The analogy was obvious. Like Henry V, facing a vastly superior French army at Agincourt in 1415, the South was poised to defend its sovereignty against a foe that outnumbered them by thirteen million people. McCarthy’s “band of brothers” was a celebration of unity as well as an assurance of victory.

 

William Barnes’ 1864 Battle Cry of Freedom champions the idea of freedom and independence: “Their motto is resistance – ‘To tyrants we’ll not yield…” “Our Southern sky is brightening and soon we will be free…” Maryland, My Maryland begins by referring to the Northern “despot,” while The Flag of Secession, sung to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner, concludes the first stanza with, “Now the flag of secession in triumph cloth wave; O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”  Confederate lyrics reinforced the imagery of a tyrannical North that paralleled the despot George III in 1776. Like the Founding Fathers, Southerners were fighting for the right to be free.

 

Dixie, the most popular Southern tune and the song most associated with the South, was written in 1859 by Daniel Decatur Emmett to be used in a variety show. It was rapidly adopted by both North and South and Abraham Lincoln counted it as his favorite tune. It came to be viewed at the Confederate national anthem after it was used to open Jefferson Davis’ inaugural ball. In July 1861 General Irvin McDowell’s men were singing Dixie as they advanced toward Bull Run. Repulsed by P.T. Beauregard and Joseph Johnston, Southern soldiers adopted the song as their own.

 

Revenge and Eulogies

 

Written after the end of the Civil War, James Randolph’s Good Ol’ Rebel Soldier declares, “…We got three hundred thousand before they conquered us.” The South I Love Thee More, also written after the war, is a eulogy that compares the defeated South to the coming of winter.

 

Southern Civil War songs speak of independence and freedom, of repulsing a conqueror and defending the home. The Flag of Secession predicts that, “the Northmen shall shrink from our warriors’ might….O’er the land of the freed and the home of the brave.”