Why Every Vote Counts in an Election

Jan 2, 2011 Michael Streich

In an Election Every Vote Counts - White House Photo/Pete Souza

The historical record demonstrates that close elections resulted from voter turnout which often dictated winners and losers in local and national elections.

In the election of 1884, Republican candidate James Blaine lost to Grover Cleveland because 1,149 New York voters selected the Democrat over Blaine. As one historian noted, “If 575 people had voted the other way in New York, Blaine would have become president.” In that election, 10,052,706 votes had been cast across the nation. The New York vote demonstrated that every vote in an election counts. Today, when parties talk about “getting out the vote,” they are mindful of historical elections like the 1884 campaign.

States that make a Difference in Key Elections: New York in 1884

In 1884, the “swing state” was New York. Had Blaine won the popular vote, the state’s 36 electoral votes would have made Blaine president. 401 electoral votes were in play in 1884. With New York’s 36, Blaine’s electoral vote total would have been 218 over Cleveland’s 183, more than half needed to secure the presidency. So how did Blaine lose?

Several factors caused Blaine’s loss of New York. Most specifically, Blaine failed to denounce an anti-Catholic phrase used by a Protestant minister during an October 29, 1884 campaign function in New York, days before the election. The Reverend Samuel D. Burchard referred to the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.”

Response to Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion

New York’s Irish Catholics were outraged. One of the persistent stereotypes of Irish immigrants involved drinking to excess. The reference to Romanism was an obvious slur against the Catholic religion. The bitter anti-Catholicism of the American Know-Nothing Party of the early 1850s was still a vivid reminder of religious intolerance and prejudice.

“Rebellion” was a reminder that the Democrats were responsible for the Civil War. Burchard was “waving the bloody shirt,” a common post-war tactic of Republicans. When asked by a reporter why he lost, Blaine replied, “I should have carried New York by 10,000 votes if the weather had been clear and Dr. Burchard had been doing missionary work in Asia Minor or China.”

Contested Votes and Stolen Elections in American History

One of the most significant election results of 2010 involves the write-in campaign of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski who lost the Republican primary election to Joe Miller. Miller was endorsed by Sarah Palin and received substantial support from the Tea Party Express. But Murkowski refused to admit defeat and mounted a write-in campaign.

Called a sore loser, she managed an almost impossible task and defeated Miller in the general election with more than 10,000 votes. It was an example of the political dictum that every vote counts.

In the 2000 presidential election, George Bush was declared the winner but only after appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court led to a split decision favoring Bush. The Democrat, Al Gore, actually received more popular votes than Bush. The 2000 election, decided in Florida, has often been compared to the “stolen election” of 1876.

Questions still persist regarding the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Allegations of voter fraud in the Chicago, Illinois region as well as certain Texas precincts suggest that Nixon actually won the election, but he refused to demand a recount or an investigation into the irregularities.

The Importance of Voting on Election Day

Historical examples demonstrate the importance of voting. Many past elections might have demonstrated different outcomes if enough people avoided the argument that “my vote will not make a difference.” There are other factors that affect election results. But in the end, what matters is how the citizens vote and if they exercise their duty as citizens in a free democracy.

Sources:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Charles W. Calhoun, “James G. Blaine and the Republican Party Vision,” The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Ballard C. Campbell, editor (Scholarly Resources Inc., 2000)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era, Volume 6 (Penguin Books, 1990)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Print Article|Share Article|

DONATE

Read more at Suite101: Why Every Vote Counts in an Election http://www.suite101.com/content/why-every-vote-counts-in-an-election-a327163#ixzz1G6bIpMBA

 

The Era of Good Feeling & American Expansionism

Florida, Oregon, and the Westward Movement in the 1820s

Mar 4, 2010 Michael Streich

James Monroe's Era of Good Feeling included an aggressive campaign to annex Florida, strengthen American claims in Oregon, and promote Westward Movement.

In 1823, Francis Baylies, a member of the House of Representatives, declared in the Congress that, “…our natural boundary is the Pacific Ocean. The swelling tide of our population must and will roll on until that mighty ocean interposes its waters, and limits our territorial empire.” The period following the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 is often called the Era of Good Feeling. It was a time of disorganized growth, national prosperity, emerging materialism, and continued expansionism. The national forces that facilitated this success were driven by the unswerving belief that the United States had a special destiny.

Expansionism in the Era of Good Feeling

The expansionist views of the 1820s took their cue from the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. As the 7th Congress debated the proposition of acquiring New Orleans from France, ratified to include the entire Louisiana Territory by the 8th Congress, Georgia Senator James Jackson, seeking to include Florida, stated that, “God and nature have destined…the Floridas to belong to this great and rising empire.” (2nd Session) Jackson, representing Georgia, was more practically concerned with fugitive slaves that found refuge in Florida, but his words echoed sentiments shared by most lawmakers.

Following General Andrew Jackson’s victory at the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 – after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, the Louisiana Purchase was legitimized in the eyes of many Americans. The nation, however, fully believed that the purchase should have included Florida and Texas. This view was based on statements like the one made by Gouverneur Morris much earlier, who declared that Florida “is joined to us by the hand of the Almighty.”

Treaties and Boundary Redefinitions

By early 1819, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams concluded the Adams-Onis Treaty, which enabled the legal annexation of Florida. American settlers had already occupied Alabama, jointly claimed by Spain and the United States. Spain, in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars and independence movements throughout the Central and Southern regions of the hemisphere, cut its losses. Additionally, Andrew Jackson’s foray into Spanish Florida, deemed war-like, against the orders and wishes of President Monroe, had created a volatile situation. Only Adams supported Jackson's actions.

Separate agreements with Spain and Britain ceded Spanish claims to lands above California, not within the scope of the Louisiana Purchase and also claimed by Britain and Russia. The 1817 Rush-Bagot Treaty created the world’s longest demilitarized border between the United States and British Canada. Anglo-American agreements also provided for joint possession of Oregon, a decision that would lead to a crisis in the late 1830s highlighted by the 1840 presidential campaign slogan “fifty-four forty or fight.”

Expansionism and the Friendly Indian Tribes

The most serious threat to American expansion occurred in Florida with the resistance of indigenous Indians during the Second Seminole War. The other major southern nations, led by the Cherokee, endeavored to adopt the pastoral life, seeking an amicable accommodation that would allow them to live on their traditional lands.

Most Americans, however, refused to accept any accommodation. The example of the Black Hawk War illustrates deeply held animosities against Native Americans and a desire to purge the land of unwanted peoples. This near universal prejudice would find fulfillment in the policy of Indian Removal, decisively put into practice during the Andrew Jackson presidency and culminating in the tragic Trail of Tears. Expansionism was also exclusionary. The divinely destined mission of the Republic was limited to white, Christian America.

Geographic Predestination has no Limits

The European view of “natural boundaries,” traced back to Imperial Rome, had no place in American expansionism. Americans looked to the west, eager to trek onward to the Pacific and exploit fertile lands and bountiful natural resources. Daniel Webster once said that the port of San Francisco was more valuable than all of Texas. The March of the Flag, famously associated with later imperialism, began with the Westward Movement.

References:

• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Vol. Four (McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

Published first in Suite101 and still under copyright

Civil War Diplomacy and the Trent Affair

Lincoln's efforts to keep Britain and France out of the Civil War isolated the South and contributed to the eventual Union victory in 1865

Seward Kept England Out of the Civil War - Library of Congress Image

 immediate years after the war are often dwarfed by the conflict, but United States’ relations with Europe, notably Britain, were crucial to the ultimate success and final victory. These efforts included intensive pressure to keep Britain out of the war by minimizing any potential British diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy as well as stopping any commercial assistance to the southern states.

The Trent affair as well as the construction of the CSS Alabama, a Confederate raider, threatened to unravel the uneasy non-interference of Britain. The efforts of Secretary of State William Henry Seward and U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Charles Francis Adams proved indispensable in keeping Britain out of the conflict.

The Trent Affair of 1861 Almost Creates a War with Great Britain

In early November 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, commanding the USS San Jacinto, overheard rumors that two special envoys representing the Confederate States of America were in Havana, Cuba, ready to board the British vessel Trent, bound for Southampton. Wilkes concluded that the ambassadors would be carrying diplomatic dispatches that might provide useful information for the Union.

Former U.S. Senators James M. Mason and John Slidell were carrying dispatches to London, although these documents were locked in a mail room once it became apparent that Wilkes meant to stop the British mail ship Trent. Dispatches were contraband if carried by the ship of a neutral nation even though ambassadors of a belligerent nation were aboard.

Captain Wilkes did not search the Trent but took Mason, Slidell, and their party aboard the San Jacinto, setting a course for Boston. While his actions turned him into an instant hero in the North, the British response was harsh. British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, demanded that the envoys be released and that the United States apologize.

Britain Threatens War and Sends Troops to Canada

Secretary of State Seward initially applauded the action, retreating from his position after it became apparent that Britain would go to war over what was considered a gross insult to the British flag. Additionally, the British upper classes harbored open sympathies with the Confederate South. The Trent affair played to those sympathies.

Britain sent 11,000 troops to Canada and instructed the governor general, Lord Monch, to activate the Canadian militia if war seemed inevitable. The British navy prepared to blockade the American coast. President Lincoln, writing that he had several sleepless nights trying to find a formula that would placate Britain without the loss of national honor, finally agreed to the release of the envoy.

Senator Charles Sumner Sways American Opinion on the Trent Affair

Charles Sumner represented the voice of reason, arguing that a war with Britain would result in the instant recognition of the rebel states by Britain. The British navy was in a position to break the Union blockade and keep the South supplied with needed war material.

In the end, Lincoln and Seward released the envoys, ending the crisis and throwing Confederate leaders into despair. Southerners viewed the Trent affair as the best circumstance to bring England into the conflict, thus assuring Confederate independence.

The Diplomatic War Between Britain and the United States

The Trent affair represented the lowest diplomatic point between Britain and the United States during the Civil War. Other pro-Southern actions by England, such as building the Confederate raider CSS Alabama, would be revisited after the war when the U.S. government insisted Britain pay for Union losses directly related to the Alabama’s actions.

Lincoln, whose experience in foreign affairs was limited, came to appreciate the importance of Anglo-American relations. Credit must also be given to Seward, Ambassador Adams in London, and the American ministers in Paris and Madrid. Keeping Europe out of the conflict was as much a Union victory as any success on the battlefield.

Sources:

• Dean B. Mahin, One War at a Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War (Brassey’s, 2000)
• James A. Rawley, editor, The American Civil War: An English View, The Writings of Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley (Stackpole Books, 2002)
• Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

William Jennings Bryan's

Cross of Gold Speech July 1896

Dec 18, 2010 Michael Streich

Cross of Gold Speech Made Bryan a National Icon - Wiki Media Commons Image/Public Domain

In 1896, William Jennings Bryan highlighted the

plight of farmers and everyday American workers in his Cross of Gold speech.

William Jennings Bryant's Cross of Gold Speech

 William Jennings Bryan was only thirty-six when he delivered his Cross of Gold speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, July 9, 1896. The issue of free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1 dominated political debates as much as the tariff issue, especially after passage of the 1890 McKinley Tariff. Farmers and working class Americans, deeply impacted by the Panic of 1890, felt cast aside by the money interests tied to politics. Bryan reminded his audience, “We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity.” The Cross of Gold speech was a drawn sword that heralded the battle between good and evil.

The Morality of William Jennings Bryan

As with many 19th Century speeches, Bryan’s Cross of Gold oration appeals to virtue and justice, using historical and biblical connections to illustrate principles. Bryan grew up in a Baptist family at a time in American history when Protestantism reflected a deep understanding of the Bible. Well educated, he worked briefly for Lyman Trumbull, a giant in Illinois politics but a man with sincere principles.

Much of this is evident in Bryan’s speech. He champions the average American worker such as “the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day,” as well as the man employed for wages and the merchant “at the crossroads store…” Bryan includes the miner who risks his life daily.

Bryan refers to Andrew Jackson several times. “What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.” Referring to Jackson’s veto of the re-chartering of the Nation Bank, Bryan compares him to Cicero, noting that, “He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.”

The Bible and History in the Cross of Gold Speech

In his first paragraph, Bryan notes that, “The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error they [the opposition] can bring.” The “armor of a righteous cause” may refer to Paul’s writings in Ephesians 6:10 which refers to putting on the “full armor of God…”

The symbolism of armor is also found in Romans 13:12 (the “armor of light”) and Jeremiah 46:3-4. In John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian is clothed with the “armor” of proof. Pilgrim’s Progress was as popular for Protestants in the 19th Century as the Bible. But Bryan also uses history, comparing the fight for silver as that “which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit…” Bryan’s example is clever; Peter the Hermit led what has been called the “People’s Crusade,” comprised of poor peasants compelled to act out of faith.

In contrasting the importance of the silver issue over the protective tariff, Bryan references 1 Samuel 18:6-9 in the Old Testament: “…if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands.” Despite the inclusion of tariff reciprocity in the 1890 tariff measure, it was ruinous to American farmers.

Conclusion of the Cross of Gold Speech Ends with the Strongest Symbol

The popular Protestant hymn, The Old Rugged Cross had not yet been written, but the symbol of the cross was a fixture in every church. Bryan ends his address boldly, asserting that, “…we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

Everyone in the audience understood the allusion to the crown of thorns and a cross of gold. The working people of America would not become scapegoats of corruption and greed. The cross of gold was, in fact, a perversion of that old rugged cross and a mockery of Christ’s sacrificial death. The plutocrats of the East were the Pilates and Chief Priests of error and injustice. This was a symbol everyone could see and understand.

American Populism and the Battle of Good Versus Evil

The Cross of Gold speech directed listeners to the looming battle for the very soul of the American people. Bryan reminded his listeners that the United States was not dependent on the policies of other nations, notably Britain. In this, he shared Jackson’s disdain of Britain’s supposed global economic power to dominate financial issues and policies.

Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” model may have been a myth, but the fact that American freedom and prosperity was intricately tied to everyday working Americans was not. Whether farmer or factory workers, Americans were as much businessmen as the captains of industry that dominated great monopolies, the “trusts” that created wealth for less than one half of one percent of the people. All the more reason Bryan favored an income tax, as noted in his speech.

The Election of 1896 became a national referendum on good versus evil, a theme played to by both major political parties. In the end, the Republicans won decisively, painting the opposition as dangerous socialists and equating populism with all of the civil unrest, including labor strikes, anarchism, and even peaceful marches like Jacob Coxey’s.

Bryan gave his Cross of Gold speech all across the nation, while his Republican opponent, William McKinley, ran a front-porch campaign in Ohio. In the end, voters saw the election as a referendum on the capitalist system. The alternative was unthinkable in many eyes. But Bryan’s Cross of Gold, if nothing else, reminded Americans that government was by the people and of the people.

Sources:

• William Jennings Bryan, “Cross of Gold Speech,” July 9, 1896

• Paul W. Glad, McKinley, Bryan, and the People (J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964)

• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

The Reconstruction Amendment to the Constitution

 The 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments.” Each amendment addressed specific issues regarding Southern slavery, citizenship, and suffrage. Of the three, the 14^th Amendment is still applied in contemporary cases that violate the “equal protection” clause. All three amendments radically altered the social and political landscape of American society at a time the Civil War was ending. Although the motives of Radical Republicans crafting the amendments were partisan, their efforts paved the way toward a society that was on the path to a democracy that would ultimately provide absolute equality for every citizen.

 

The 13^th Amendment Ends Slavery

 

President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation became law January 1, 1863. Yet the document did not end all slavery in the United States. Slaves held in key Border States like Missouri and Maryland were not affected. Only slaves in the South, held in areas not yet occupied by advancing Union troops, were declared free.

 

The 13^th Amendment assured that all slaves were declared free. The amendment used both the terms “slavery” and “involuntary servitude.” The only exception was in cases of “punishment fort crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…” This exception allowed for the use of slave labor by the state in regard to prison inmates.

 

In the South after the Civil War, many communities enacted laws that resurrected provisions of former slave codes. Vagrants could be arrested and, upon certain conviction, be forced into involuntary servitude. The same was true for minor infractions. In this sense, the “loophole” in the amendment continued the process of slavery, albeit by another definition.

 

The 14^th Amendment Defines Citizenship and Provides Equal Protection

 

The 1857 Dred Scott Decision denied citizenship to African Americans. The 14^th Amendment overturned that ruling, stating that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Significantly, citizenship was defined in terms of both federal and state jurisdictions. The Scott Decision, as detailed by Chief Justice Roger Taney, differentiated between state and federal citizenship.

 

The contemporary debate on immigration reform has prompted some Republican lawmakers to suggest a revision of the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship clause or even submitting a new amendment that addresses citizenship. But Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment also includes the “equal protection clause,” which has been applied to dozens of cases of discrimination and violation of civil rights. This clause must never be removed.

 

The 15^th Amendment Provides for Universal Male Suffrage

 

Ever since the 1848 Seneca Falls convention, female activists tied their cause of female suffrage to abolition. The passage of the 15^th Amendment shattered that goal. The right to vote could not be denied on the basis of race, color, or “previous condition of servitude.” But the amendment failed to address gender. Not until the 1920 19^th Amendment would gender be addressed.

 

The 15^th Amendment, however, did not stop newly admitted Southern states from placing legal conditions on voting, such as literacy tests and poll taxes. These state laws effectively deprived the very people the amendment targeted from political participation. Future amendments and Civil Rights Acts during the turmoil of the post-World War II Civil Rights movement would resolve those issues.

 

Reconstruction Amendments Represented a Positive Step

 

Ultimately, the Reconstruction amendments attempted to swiftly address the issues that came with Confederate defeat in 1865. They clarified and enhanced Lincoln’s 1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. Although loopholes were used to circumvent the intent of the amendments, they helped to forge an American society based on equality, respect for diversity, and guaranteed civil rights for all citizens.

 

Sources:

 

Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 (NY: Francis Parkman Prize Edition, History Book Club, HarperCollins, 2005)

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, 5^th edition (NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)

United States Constitution

Published August 14, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. Copyright continues.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the North and the South in the Civil War

 Although the Civil War was initially viewed by many Northern and Southern observers to be a short conflict, it rapidly devolved into four years of bloody battles. Lincoln’s original “police” action after the fall of Ft. Sumter gradually turned into total war that demanded nothing less than the destruction of the Southern political and social structure. The duration of the war, however, highlighted what was barely evident to those early recruits: Union military strength outlasted the South.

 

When the Civil War Came

 

The shots that forced the surrender of Ft. Sumter may have signaled the beginning of a defensive resistance to the North, but it also encouraged an outpouring of patriotic emotion for the Union in the North. Unlike the initial Northern military buildup, however, Southern military leadership was far better prepared. Many of the front-line commanders were army veterans, having served in the Mexican War as well as manning western garrisons. One third of all U.S. officers that resigned their commissions from the U.S. army to return South in early 1861 were West Point graduates.

 

Southerners were defending their homeland, a prospect driven into their collective consciousness after President Lincoln requested 75,000 men to force Southern compliance. Both North and South initially recruited volunteers. Southern farmers were relentlessly trained by their generals – men with years of military experience. Although the North also had seasoned West Pointers, many high ranking officers were political appointees, like Carl Schurz and Benjamin Butler.

 

Northern Advantages Begin to Erode the Confederate Defense

 

The fiasco of First Bull Run in 1861 represented the first major shift in military policy. The war would not be over within a few months and Southern soldiers demonstrated their skills and determination. By early 1862, Union victories at Forts Henry and Donelson began the process of Northern domination in the western theater. In April, New Orleans fell to a Union invasion fleet. After Congress passed legislation allowing for the recruitment of African American soldiers, General Benjamin Butler recruited several black regiments in New Orleans.

 

Northern advantages also included a network of railroads that allowed for faster troop deployments and freighting supplies. An industrial complex far superior to anything found in the South churned out weaponry and munitions. Once General Grant eliminated Vicksburg in July 1863, western food supplies desperately needed by the South, including beef from Texas, were curtailed. Finally, the inability of Southern armies to strike a decisive blow, such as at Antietam in 1862 or Gettysburg in 1863 kept European nations like Britain and France from committing more substantial aid to the South.

 

The Role of Manpower

 

In the course of the war, the North was able to muster 2,046 regiments, of which 1,696 were infantry. The South, however, only raised approximately 1,000 regiments. Although the South had more armies than the North (23 to 16), its divisions were 2,500 men stronger than Northern divisions. Unlike the North, there was no on-going immigration in the South. Northern immigration patterns allowed the Northeast to replace workers later drafted into the army and in some cases new immigrants went right from their ships to the Civil War front lines.

 

Although many Northern generals were promoted for political reasons, ethnic promotions helped to recruit ethnic regiments as well as instill pride within the urban ethnic communities of the North. Black soldiers also provided the North with fresh recruits, of which the 54^th Massachusetts under the command of Robert Shaw was the most distinguished.

 

The Duration of the Civil War most Benefitted Union Military Victory

 

As the battlefields became conflicts of attrition, the North was able to replenish troops with greater ease than the South. Even at the start of the war, white Southern population was dwarfed by the teeming millions in the North. The inability to supply troops – a key factor in Lee’s surrender, helped end the war in 1865. The Union’s utter destruction of the agricultural base, such as Sheridan’s foray in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman’s march through Georgia and the Carolinas, further exacerbated the problems of supply.

 

References:

 

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

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

Gerald A. Patterson, Rebels from West Point (Stackpole Books, 2002)

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

T. Harry Williams, Lincoln and His Generals (Alfred A. Knopf, 1952)

First published November 14, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich. Under copyright

The Union Takes New Orleans Early in the War

 

When President Lincoln ordered a blockade of all key Southern ports after the first battle of Bull Run, New Orleans was the most prosperous city in the South and had the largest population. Its roots tied it to France, yet the valuable cotton crop flowed to Britain from the port, bringing in much needed revenue to fight the war. In mid-November 1861, naval commander David Porter approached Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles with a proposal to take New Orleans. Porter’s plan proved a success when Union forces took the city in April 1862.

 

Planning the Union Attack and Defending the Confederate Port

 

Although the Union blockade was modestly successful, over 800 ships managed to evade Union warships during the first year of the war. Additionally, as the war progressed, the Confederate government embarked on the development of crude ironclads to sink blockading vessels and purchased formidable “blockade runners” like the CSS Alabama from Britain. It was in the best interests of Lincoln to take New Orleans and thereby effectively end this lifeline to Europe.

 

Eighteen Union warships, commanded by sixty-year old Admiral David Farragut, would be supported by General Benjamin Butler’s 18,000 troops. The operation took months of planning and was shrouded in secrecy. New Orleans’ commander, Major General Mansfield Lovell, a West Pointer, believed that the rumors of a large Union fleet were planning to attack Mobile, Pensacola, or some other target.

 

New Orleans was a poorly defended city. Defending troops had been withdrawn to points further up the Mississippi. The city relied on Forts Jackson and St. Philip, which guarded the approaches to New Orleans, 75 miles upriver. Recent successes by New Orleans’ gunboats forcing Union blockaders to withdraw lulled the populace into a false sense of security.

 

Farragut Arrives at the Mississippi Delta

 

The primary goals of the New Orleans operation were to close the Mississippi to trade and to end Southern cotton exports to Europe. Southerners, however, burned their cotton even before the city was taken, destroying a quarter of a million bales.

 

Forts Jackson and St. Philip sustained days of bombardment, beginning on Good Friday, April 1862. During the night, Union soldiers dislodged the heavy chain that had been placed in the river to stop the warships from proceeding on to the city. Running the forts, the fleet sailed on to New Orleans, described by one diarist as “silent, grim, and terrible.”

 

General Lovell had withdrawn his troops when it became obvious that the city leaders were not willing to risk the destruction of the city. Butler’s troops marched into the city and the South lost one of its most prized possessions. After occupying the city, Farragut and Butler continued upriver, capturing Baton Rouge and Natchez. Only Vicksburg eluded their efforts.

 

The Aftermath of the New Orleans Campaign

 

Historian Page Smith states that, “the entire operation was a model of careful planning and bold action…” Several historians point out that Napoleon III of France shelved his decision to officially recognize the Confederacy after the fall of New Orleans. It was also noteworthy that Butler only commanded 18,000 men (some historians use the figure 15,000); General McClellan, who had been consulted during the initial planning, suggested the operation would need 50,000 men.

 

The inability of the Confederacy to properly defend was also evident in the lack of industrial capacity: the CSS Mississippi, perhaps the most formidable ironclad yet constructed, was burned because vital metal parts could not be delivered in time. The fate of the Mississippi became a focal point of the Confederate investigation into why New Orleans fell. New Orleans provided the opening to attempt a similar action in Charleston. That attempt, however, failed.

 

Sources:

 

Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative Fort Sumter to Perryville (Vintage Books, Division of Random House, 1986)

Dean B. Mahin, One War at a Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War (Washington D.C.: Brassey’s, 2000)

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

First published August 11, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Importance of the Gosport/Norfolk Naval Yard in the Early Civil War Period

Confederate success in throwing back the Union army at Bull Run in 1861 owed much to the gun power used in the engagement, seized by the Confederates months earlier with the occupation of Gosport Naval Yard. On the heels of the capture of Harpers Ferry, Gosport represented a tremendous early loss for Abraham Lincoln. Despite attempts to destroy the yard, vessels, and munitions, the South salvaged most of the yard and its many armaments. Historians still debate who deserves the greatest blame for its loss to the South.

 

The Importance of Gosport Naval Yard

 

As the Civil War began, Gosport was one of the most important naval installations along the Atlantic coast. Its dry dock was the largest in the hemisphere and the facility contained almost 1000 naval guns and other artillery. Located on the James River, Gosport was in Virginia, a state that had not yet left the Union after Lincoln’s inauguration but was under intense pressure to do so by late April.

 

Besides the obvious tangible benefits that came with control of the yard such as munitions and vessels, use of the naval facility would enable the South to hinder any Northern naval blockage, put pressure on merchant shipping that might ultimately goad Maryland into joining the South, and possibly even threaten Washington on the Potomac River. Control of Gosport and the Norfolk area meant control of the Chesapeake Bay.

 

Several naval ships, in fact one quarter of the fleet, were in Gosport, although several ships were not seaworthy and repairs were being completed on most of them. The USS Merrimack was also awaiting repairs, her engines in desperate need of a major overhaul. Although sunk and set ablaze by Union defenders, she would be raised, repaired, refitted with iron casing, and renamed the CSS Virginia.

 

The Merrimack sank too quickly. This saved her hull and engines from the fire that was set as she began to founder. A boon to the South, she would earn the distinction, after her duel with the Northern Monitor in the spring of 1862, of forever changing naval warfare and ensuring that all wooden navies were obsolete.

 

Defending and Destroying Gosport

 

Historians differ as to who should receive the ultimate blame for the loss of Gosport. David Detzer demonstrates that several poor decisions were made by men in varying capacities yet ultimately blames Abraham Lincoln for waiting too long in an effort to appease Virginia. Page Smith, however, states that Naval Secretary Gideon Welles was blocked from implemented earlier actions by Secretary of State William Henry Seward.

 

Gosport was commanded by the seventy-eight year old Charles McCauley, a man whose immediate background may not have prepared him for the severity of the crisis in March-April 1861. Further, McCauley’s instructions were often ambiguous, almost contradictory, and indecisive. Lacking men or resources, he was fully aware that forces were being raised against his facility across the James River.

 

By the time reinforcements arrived under the command of Captain Hiram Paulding, McCauley had already destroyed parts of the facility and was in the process of evacuating. Paulding, reinforced with Marines as well as Massachusetts men from nearby Fortress Monroe, merely continued the process of destruction. Keeping the facility out of enemy hands was part of his orders, even if it meant destruction.

 

Critics point out that with the munitions at the yard and a reinforced garrison, the facility might have withstood a siege until further reinforcements arrived. Weeks earlier, when Welles asked General Winfield Scott for men to hold the yard, he was told that they simply were not available. President Lincoln concurred in this. But by the mid to end of April Union troop strength was growing steadily and necessary reinforcements might have made the difference.

 

Sources:

 

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

Shelby Foote, The Civil War: Fort Sumter to Perryville (Vintage Books – Random House, 1986)

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

First published May 2, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich.copyright