American Slavery and Southern Religion

Using the Bible to Justify the Enslavement of Africans in the South

© Michael Streich

 Aug 8, 2009

Antebellum religious views within slave holding communities defended the institution as a divinely decreed fulfillment of God's ordering of human societies.

When the Declaration of Independence was promulgated in 1776, a London newspaper described a South Carolina clergyman reading the document aloud while being fanned by a slave. In the Antebellum South, both Protestant and Catholic clergy owned slaves and had developed elaborate biblical defenses to justify the institution. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives in February 1836, James Henry Hammond of South Carolina declared, “The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and feature of his African Descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny.”

Genesis 9 and the Justification for Slavery

The “status” of a slave converted to Christianity had been settled in the early years of Colonial America. Christian baptism did not negate the servile role of peoples whose status was based on racial considerations. By the 19th century, as Northern groups like the Quakers began to loudly question the morality of slavery, religion in the South attempted to appeal to primarily Old Testament passages regarding the institution.

The first and perhaps most important passage is in Genesis 9.20-27. It is the story of Noah’s nakedness after having drunk wine. Ham, his youngest son, did not cover his father’s nakedness, as did the older brothers Shem and Japheth. Since these were the first men of an entirely new human race following the biblical flood, Noah’s “curse” of Ham appeared significant.

“Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers.” Stephen R. Haynes of Rhodes College, in his book Noah’s Curse, states that this passage has been interpreted throughout the centuries to refer to those of African descent as well as, perhaps, the beginning of slavery. He even cites early Christian church fathers that held this view. Haynes does not agree with this view, he merely demonstrates how it affected societies that interpreted the Genesis passage to justify African slavery.

Religious Teaching in the South

John W. Blassingame, formerly of Yale University, writes that, “No white minister could give a full exposition of the gospel to the slaves without incurring the wrath of planters.” Slaves were encouraged to be devout Christians, but the Christian message they received from planters and ministers was to be docile and submissive. It was God’s will that they spent their lives as slaves and sermons capitalized on such themes as “obeying the master.”

Slavery was more than an economic necessity. It was greater than the earlier arguments painting it as a necessary evil. It had become, by the 1850s, a biblically based institution immune to abolitionist arguments appealing to Christian morality. This same message was repeated at every Southern Sabbath school and enunciated in every sermon. This was the divine order decreed by God from Genesis onward.

Response of the Slaves

Scholars point out that despite these attempts, slaves developed their own interpretations that rejected a master-slave relationship built on scriptural principles. Although kept from all forms of education including reading, slaves often memorized Bible passages from sermons while some slaves even managed to learn to read surreptitiously and possessed Bibles.

Exceptional slaves like Josiah Henson became ordained and preached a more encompassing and welcoming gospel. Henson eventually fled with his family to Canada and began a ministry for other fugitive slaves. Further, through song and music – the “spiritual,” slaves conveyed their own Bible interpretations of deliverance.

Little wonder that after emancipation, freedmen began their own churches, refusing to bond with the white congregations that had for so long used religion as a tool of oppression. The use and misuse of the Bible has been linked to centuries of persecution. The plight of Africans in the South is one example of this.

Sources

:

• John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972)
• Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002)
• Peter Kolchin, American Slavery 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993)

The copyright of the article American Slavery and Southern Religion in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish American Slavery and Southern Religion in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Franklin Roosevelt and the Yalta Conference

Charting a Post War Europe Based on Free and Open Elections

|

Aug 11, 2009 Michael Streich

Although the Yalta Conference addressed a variety of issues including Soviet participation against Japan, the post-war status of Poland was at the top of the agenda.

The Yalta Conference of February 4, 1945 was the last meeting of the “Big Three,” Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Josef Stalin. Roosevelt died shortly after the conference, leaving a legacy of doubt and suspicion regarding agreements made at the conference. Historian Robert Sherwood aptly wrote that, “Yalta has been blamed for many of the ills with which the world was afflicted in the years following the total defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan.” Although many Americans believed that FDR had “sold out” Eastern Europe to Stalin, there is no evidence that this was the president’s intention.

Yalta and the Polish Question

World War II began with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, followed by Soviet invasion and occupation September 17, 1939. Both nations incorporated Poland as per the secret protocols of the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty. The legitimate Polish government fled to London. It was this exiled government that was recognized by the United States and Great Britain.

As the war drew to a close, however, German armies were retreating west. By the summer of 1944, the Red Army was ready to cross the Vistula River to liberate Warsaw. Polish resistance fighters – the Home Army, began a prolonged uprising against the German occupiers in the Warsaw Rising that would cost a quarter million lives. Although prodded into rising by the Soviets, the Red Army refused to cross the river, despite appeals from Roosevelt and Churchill.

Satisfied that the German defenders had eliminated any Poles that might offer similar resistance to the Soviets, the Red Army marched into a destroyed city five months later and installed the pro-communist Lublin government. At Yalta, Roosevelt was determined that the exiled Polish government should be included and that free elections must be held.

Franklin Roosevelt’s Declaration

Roosevelt’s “Declaration on Liberated Europe” proposed free elections in all Eastern European countries, particularly Poland, which was to include all factions: a "Provisional Government of National Unity.” Surprisingly, Stalin agreed to these proposals. At the same time, however, Soviet agents were busy setting up pro-communist governments in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

Roosevelt was exuberant and felt that the conference had been a success. Commenting on the final agreements regarding Poland, his Chief of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated, “This is so elastic that the Russians can stretch it from Yalta to Washington without ever technically breaking it.” Roosevelt, however, believed it was the best the West could get out of Stalin.

Other Yalta Agreements

Stalin promised Roosevelt to enter the war against Japan 2-3 weeks after the final defeat of Nazi Germany. It was agreed that Russia would receive land concessions in Asia such as the Kurile Islands and southern Sakhalin. Also discussed were the protocols involving the new organization of nations – the United Nations, of which veto power was the most contentious question. Additionally, Russia demanded separate seats for Ukraine and Belarus.

On the issue of Iran, Russia refused to be drawn into a discussion. The Middle East, including the status of the Dardanelles, was important to the British. In an effort to maintain the strong Anglo-American alliance, Roosevelt supported Churchill on most issues but rejected his suspicions that Stalin could not be trusted and that the Russians would not abide by the agreements coming out of Yalta, notably the promise of free elections.

Big Three Motivations

Everyone at Yalta knew that the European war was rapidly drawing to a close. Stalin was already looking toward the post-war world. His agenda included war reparations and expansion. Churchill’s post-war goal was to maintain the Empire, particularly India. Roosevelt, however, still had to defeat Japan. This would require one million fresh soldiers in the Pacific, according to General Marshall. Each leader approached Yalta with a definite agenda and left with different short term aims.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)
• Irwin F. Gellman, Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and Sumner Wells (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)
• Robert E. Sherwood, The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins, Volume II, January 1942-July 1945 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949)
• 
  

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form requires the written approval by Michael Streich

 The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures

German Jews Denied Entrance to America in 1939

© Michael Streich

 Aug 21, 2009

Allowing 937 Jews to leave Germany in May 1939 served Nazi propaganda goals, particularly when the the United States rejected asylum after Cuba refused their entry visas.

In May 1939, the S.S. St. Louis sailed out of Hamburg, Germany bound for Havana with 937 Jewish men, women, and children. It was only seven months since Kristallnacht had wrecked a bloody havoc on the Jews in the German Reich and only five months from the outbreak of World War II. The plight of these Jews would become intimately entangled with insensitive American immigration quotas, President Franklin Roosevelt’s political expediency, and deeply rooted Anti-Semitism in the United States.

Nazi Propaganda and the St. Louis

The passengers on the St. Louis were a varied group. They represented young and old, professional and worker. Some had been in concentration camps. Both Dachau and Buchenwald camps were in full operation, a fact known to most foreign governments including the United States. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, used the sailing of the St. Louis to strengthen the ideological posture of Germany toward the Jews to appeal to world public opinion.

On the one hand, Germany was demonstrating compassion by allowing these Jews to leave, albeit at a steep price. Those with property forfeited everything to the Reich. This aspect of the Nazi procedures was not for public opinion. Although issued exit visa, the passenger’s entry documents into Cuba would not be honored. The passengers did not know this.

Dr. Goebbels, Reichsmarschal Goering, and Hitler knew that, inevitably, the St. Louis would be turned away, proving to the world that nobody wanted the Jews. Most European nations had already stopped the flow of refugees crossing their borders. Britain not only curtailed Jews from entering Britain, but severely limited the number of Jews migrating to Palestine, a viable and logical destination coming out of late 19th-Century Zionist efforts.

The St Louis and United States’ Reaction

When the ship entered Havana it was not permitted to dock. As the hours went by, panic began to fill the passengers. Once the official decision was announced that the St. Louis would have to return to Germany, pandemonium ensued. Some passengers jumped overboard; some committed suicide. Captain Gustav Schroeder, not a member of the Nazi Party, deeply empathized with his passengers.

Schroeder sailed for Miami as Jewish organizations in America and Europe drafted frantic appeals to various governments. According to survivor accounts, passengers could see the lights of Miami. But the St. Louis was met by the U.S. Coast Guard, warning it away from the American coast. Reluctantly, Schroeder returned to Europe.

Researcher Lyric W. Wink, in a December 7, 2003 Parade cover story, details the arduous search for the 937 passengers. The research demonstrates that a number of the passengers eventually made it to the United States during and after the war years.

President Roosevelt was keenly mindful that the majority of Americans opposed any changes in the immigration quota system, particularly since unemployment was still high. This applied even more to European Jews. Anti-Semitism, fed by such luminaries as the radio-priest, Father Charles Coughlin, was rampant. Even German-American enclaves, like New York’s “Yorkville” along East 86th Street, identified with Nazism and had no sympathy for Jews.

Return to Europe of the St. Louis

Captain Schroeder threatened to scuttle his ship off the coast of England, forcing, under international law, Britain to take in the refugees. Negotiations hastily led to Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium agreeing to take a portion of the refugees. This represented a short reprieve to many of the Jews that would be caught up in the Nazi web after the 1940 Blitzkrieg occupation of much of Western Europe.

The United Stares must take significant blame for the tragedy of the St. Louis. Artifacts from the ship’s voyage can be seen at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, along with other exhibits such as the Evian Conference of 1938. The St. Louis affair should provide a template for the future.

Sources:

• Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)
• Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, Voyage of the Damned (Stein and Day, 1974)
• Lyric Wallwork Winik, “The Hunt For Survivors of a Doomed Ship,” Parade, December 7, 2003

The copyright of the article The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The St. Louis and U.S. Policy Failures in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

St. Louis in Havana

 Colonial Occupations in Early American History

Lost Professions and Skills From the Founding of the United States

© Michael Streich

 Aug 29, 2009

Colonial Era occupations were interesting and unique, focusing on skilled trades necessary in the creation of a society that worked toward prosperity and consumerism.

Everyday colonial American life included many occupations that are lost to post-modern Americans living in the 21-Century. These occupations, within the greater scope of daily living, are recreated at places like Plymouth Plantation and Old Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts, Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, and Old Salem in Winston Salem, NC. Yet most Americans would be hard pressed to recognize some common and some not so common occupations during the Colonial Era.

Colonial Occupations that Disappeared in the Modern World

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem “The Village Backsmith” begins with the line, “Under a spreading chestnut tree the village smithy stands…” Longfellow’s poem, written in the 19th-Century, refers romantically to an earlier period when colonial Americans identified with villages. A “Smith” or smithy was a skilled worker in metals. He could be a whitesmith, another term for tinsmith, a coppersmith, jewel smith, or a blacksmith.

The “Scrivener” or conveyancer was a writer of contracts or professional scribe. Another term employed for this occupation was that of “Penman,” from which the modern term penmanship is derived. Scrivener as a defined term dates to the 14th century to denote a scribe.

Early colonial ship manifests, notably from the 17th Century, list the occupation of passengers conveyed from England to the American colonies. Many of these occupations included that of “husbandman.” The husbandman was a farmer and denoted the status as head of the family. The “patriarchal” allusion is not without precedent. The term is traced to old Latin and refers to a settler in a new land, specifically a colony.

The colonial occupation “Chirugeon” comes from the Latin chirurgia meaning surgeon. During the Renaissance, the term was resurrected from the Greek spelling and used universally in the colonial period.

Other Unique Occupations in Colonial America

• Cordwainer: a shoemaker. Derived from the French cordovan and referring specifically to leather from Cordoba, Spain
• Crimp: an agent of a shipping company but more specifically one who recruits men to work on ships
• Ganymede: a servant boy, most likely an indentured servant; the term is derived from the Greek, referring to a Trojan youth made cup bearer to Zeus
• Picaroon: used to refer to either a pirate or a pirate’s ship
• Lorimer: a worker who made bits for horse’s bridles
• Fellmonger: a dealer in skins or animal hides; the term monger is a general term found in Old English to denote one who deals or trades
• Joiner or Joyner: a skilled craftsman who created ornamental wood working although also used to denote a maker of cabinets

Skilled Crafts and Lost Arts

Unlike most men of the colonial period, modern and post-modern males have no more use for wigs, although the toupee still hides baldness. Wigmakers or “peruke-makers” went out of business in the early 19th Century. Today, people use the term “blockhead” to refer to an idiot yet it derives from the wooden models used by wig-makers to fashion their creations.

Contemporary Americans no longer await the visit of a Tinker to mend kettles, pots, or pans. Old kitchen items are trashed. Yet during the Colonial Era, such items were costly and the timely arrival of the surly Tinker helped to preserve an investment.

After describing the long, hard work hours of the village smithy, Longfellow concludes with the line, “Something attempted, something done, has earned a night’s repose.” Colonial occupations prospered because of the so-called Puritan or Protestant “work ethic.” Like Longfellow’s smithy, this culminated in a well deserved night’s sleep. Colonial occupations represented hard work, yet left a sense of satisfaction and completion.

Sources: 

• Peter Beney, The Majesty of Colonial Williamsburg (Pelican Publishing Company, 2002)
• David Freeman Hawke, Everyday Life in Early America (Harper & Row, 1988)
• Richard M. Lederer, Jr., Colonial American English (Essex, Conn.: Verbatim Books, 1985)
• Colonial Williamsburg Journal (on-line edition)
• Etymology Dictionary (on-line)

The copyright of the article Colonial Occupations in Early American History in Colonial America is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Colonial Occupations in Early American History in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 The Nullification Crisis of 1832

Idealogical Differences over Constitutional Interpretation

© Michael Streich

 Aug 30, 2009

The Nullification Crisis resulted from federal passage of two protective tariffs, prompting men like John C. Calhoun to assert state sovereignty over federal law.

The concept of nullification is most keenly demonstrated by the tariff controversy in South Carolina during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Nullification, however, had surfaced earlier in 1798 when Thomas Jefferson attacked the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The nature of the nullification debate rested on the interpretation of the Constitution and its relationship to the states. The 1832 crisis was based on two unpopular protective tariffs. Under the ideological leadership of John C. Calhoun, South Carolina nullified the federal acts and threatened to secede if coerced in any way by the central government.

The Coming of the Nullification Crisis

Prior to the crisis emanating out of South Carolina, Georgia had struggled with the federal government as well over Indian policy. Despite pro-Indian rulings by John Marshall, Georgia ignored the government and evicted the Cherokee. It should be noted that President Jackson, unlike his stance over nullification, supported Georgia and sent troops to enforce the relocation of the Native Americans to Oklahoma.

Some scholars point out that Georgia’s success in opposing the federal government might have emboldened South Carolina’s resolve in passing the November 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. It is also true, however, that Southern states did not benefit from protective tariffs. The 1820s had brought a period of economic decline as well as population growth to the region.

As larger plantations flourished with the over-production of cotton in states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, the price of cotton fell. Thus, the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” and the July 1832 tariff were seen as a direct threat to Southern prosperity. Finally, although Calhoun had supported Henry Clay’s “American System,” the South received scant benefit from federal expenditures.

The Ideological Foundation of Nullification

During the January 1830 Webster-Hayne debate, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster refuted South Carolina Senator Hayne’s argument that the central government was a mere collection of sovereign states that had been responsible for the creation of the Constitution. Webster argued that the Constitution derived not from the states but from the people. It was the supreme law of the land.

As Chief Justice John Marshall had pointed out in numerous cases involving national supremacy, sovereignty was not concurrent, neither was the Constitution a mere “compact” among the various states. The Founding Fathers had established a working government that recognized limited states’ rights but not at the expense of national supremacy.

Andrew Jackson Responds to Nullification

In his December 10th Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson made it clear that force would be employed to stop the actions of the South Carolina nullifiers. According to Jackson, disunity was tantamount to treason. The proclamation was followed by a January 1833 request from Congress giving him the authority to end the crisis.

Congress responded with the Force Bill, authorizing a military response, yet also began the process of rewriting the tariff so that protectionism would gradually be eliminated. As historian Page Smith wrote, it was a carrot and stick approach and it worked.

South Carolina was isolated. No other Southern state offered more than token, verbal support and then only from a minority of nullifiers. South Carolina felt compelled to reverse its stance while Andrew Jackson recounted his response in a letter to a friend who was serving as US Minister to Imperial Russia. That man was James Buchanan who, in 1860, would face a similar crisis.

Sources:

• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development 5th Ed., (New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1976)
• Stephen B. Oates, The Approaching Fury: Voices of the Storm, 1820-1861 (Harper/Collins, 1997)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years Vol. 4 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

The copyright of the article The Nullification Crisis of 1832 in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Nullification Crisis of 1832 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

John C. Calhoun in 1822

 The Armenian Genocide

Turkish Troops Attempt to Obliterate the Armenian People

Michael Streich, March 17, 2010 in Suite101

In the midst of World War One, the first modern genocide took place in Turkey. The Armenian Genocide, commemorated on April 24^th, is vigorously denied by the Turkish government. Although a recent House of Representatives Resolution (H. Res. 106) was passed in committee, the U.S. government has repeatedly referred to the “genocide” as atrocities or massacres. Henri Barkey, a visiting scholar at Lehigh University, however, wrote in the Washington Post that. “…the overwhelming historical evidence demonstrates what took place in 1915 was genocide.” His commentary was reprinted in Ankara’s Hurriyet Daily News on March 3, 2010.

 

What was the Armenian Genocide?

 

In 1915 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by the Turks while another million were deported. [1] Turkish actions were meticulously detailed, primarily by American diplomats and missionaries working in Turkey. Professor Peter Balakian, whose 2003 book The Burning Tigris [2] documents the genocide, refers to Turkish actions as “the first modern episode of race extermination…” [3] Balakian recounts the extensive investigations and documentation by U.S. consul Leslie A. Davis and U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr.

 

Morgenthau’s papers include detailed examples of the genocide and of Turkish responses that labeled the Armenians a “detested race.” Outside Ankara alone over 40,000 Armenians were slaughtered. Balakian recounts Davis’ discoveries at Lake Goeljuk where thousands had been bayoneted and beheaded. Balakian writes that Davis’ account had “an Auschwitz sense about it.” Sections 8-10 of House Resolution 106 reference the U.S. National Archives and the “extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide.” [4]

 

Eyewitness accounts added to U.S. revelations. “Teenage girls were raped with crucifixes made from tree branches…” [5] The Turks used “Mobile killing squads” to depopulated Armenian towns and villages, subjecting the inhabitants to forced marches to places where they would be massacred. Like the later Einsatzgruppen of the Third Reich, they forced their victims to strip before killing them. According to Consul Davis, it was “one of the greatest tragedies in all of history.”

 

Propaganda and Fanaticism

 

In the midst of World War I propaganda, the realities of the events in Turkey became obscured. Phillip Knightley writes that several journalists published accounts of the atrocities in The Times, but that “their detailed and damning accusations were lost in the welter of false and exaggerated propaganda of the period.” [6] More recently, Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s Minister for European Affairs stated that “the Ottoman Empire was an ally of the German Reich. Nothing that happened back then happened without consultations with the Germans.” [7]

 

Similarly, Turkish responses focus on propaganda linked to “the Church, terrorism organizations and fanatic politicians.” “The theme of this propaganda was based on so-called Armenian genocide…” [8] and was designed to instill Tukophobia. Today in Turkey, citizens can be jailed for equating the atrocities as genocide. [9]

 

United States Humanitarian Efforts

 

American Protestant denominations sent tens of thousands of dollars for the relief of Armenians. This “Near East Relief” has been compared to the Marshall Plan, enacted by the U.S. Congress after World War II. [10] Balakian values American relief, primarily from individuals, as $1.25 billion based on conversion rates to current valuations.

 

The Historical Record

 

The events in Turkey in 1915 clearly indicate “race extermination.” The historical evidence documenting the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians is beyond dispute and has been affirmed by U.S. Congresses and Presidents since Woodrow Wilson – who actually considered committing U.S. troops to the region. H. Res. 106 as well as a recently (though narrowly) passed Swedish Resolution succinctly details what can only be classified as genocide.

 

Notes:

 

[1] Peter Balakian, “How a Poet Writes History Without Going Mad,” The Chronicle Review, May 7, 2004, Vol. 50, Issue 35, p B10

[2] Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response (HarperCollins, 2003)

[3] Balakian, Chronicle Review

[4] House Resolution 106, 110^th Congress, 1^st Session, Government Printing Office

[5] Balakian

[6] Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty: From the Crimea to Vietnam (Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1975) p 104-105

[7] Bernhard Zand and Daniel Steinvorth, “ Turkish EU Minister on the Armenian Genocide Controversy,” Spiegel Online, March 16, 2010

[8] Dr. Cengiz Kursad, The Massacre (Istanbul Research Center, 1993)

[9] Henri Barkey, “The Armenian genocide resolution is a farce all around,” Hurriyet Daily News, March 3, 2010

[10] Historian Page Smith credits Joseph L. Grabill on page 836, America Enters the War: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I, Vol. 7 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Contact author for permission to republish.

 

The Presidential Election of 1864

Lincoln is Reelected After Spectacular Union Victories in the South

May 6, 2009 Michael Streich

George McClellan Challenged Lincoln in 1864 - National Archives - Picture in the Public Domain

Although renominated unanimously, Republicans had strong doubts that Abraham Lincoln would be returned to office given the shift in mood among Northern voters.

Two days after the November 8th election in 1864, Abraham Lincoln addressed a group of well-wishers that had come to serenade him. “We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” As historian Paul Boller points out, the United States was the first nation ever to hold a general election in the midst of a major war. But the Election of 1864 was not predicted to be a victory for Lincoln.

Turning Points that Assured Lincoln’s Re-Election

By the summer of 1864, the mood toward war in the North was beginning to shift. The lack of major military victories as well as overwhelming casualties threw many into despair. Rumors of regional uprisings in southern Illinois and Missouri, the ever expanding costs of the war, inflation, and continued resistance to the military draft contributed to dissatisfaction and war weariness.

Some Republican leaders suggested that Lincoln step aside and even queried Ulysses Grant on his availability, a notion the general vigorously rejected. Influential leaders like the publisher Horace Greeley turned on Lincoln, viciously criticizing the President’s policy of staying the course. One disaffected faction of Republicans formed the Radical Democracy Party, nominating John C. Fremont.

As the administration faced growing despair over Lincoln’s prospects for reelection, significant military events in the South altered the course of the election:

• Admiral David Farragut’s capture of Mobile Bay
• General Philip Sheridan’s routing of Jubal Early and the devastation of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
• General William Sherman’s victory over Confederate General John B. Hood and the burning of Atlanta
• General Grant’s progress at Petersburg

The Democrats in the 1864 Election

Calling for an immediate end to hostilities in their party platform, the Democrats nominated George B. McClellan, whose inaction during the Peninsula campaign and later timidity at Antietam resulted in his being relieved of command by Lincoln. McClellan was caught between having to defend a platform he did not agree with and declaring that all heretofore war deaths had been in vain if the party won and forced a negotiated peace.

Results of the Election of 1864

Because of the changing tide of the war, Lincoln felt comfortable in the final weeks before the election. Even Horace Greeley was supporting him. John C. Fremont withdrew from the race and most Northern voters were elated by the news of victory on all fronts.

Abraham Lincoln won the election with 55% of the popular vote versus 45% for McClellan. The electoral vote, however, was more lopsided. Lincoln received 212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 21. Lincoln viewed the election results as a referendum of his conduct of the war, specifically emancipation.

The Republicans had run as the National Unity Party, selecting a Southern Democrat and former slave-holder from Tennessee as vice-president. Andrew Johnson was the only U.S. Senator from the South not to have resigned his office and held strong pro-Union views. He appeared to be the ideal running mate for a party emphasizing unity and reaching out to Northern Democrats.

Somewhat taken to alcohol (he was drunk on Inauguration Day and slurred his speech), Johnson would prove to be a blunder after becoming President upon Lincoln’s assassination. Impeached by the Radical Republicans, he would, ultimately, be returned to the Senate but died just before the new Congress convened.

Sources:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr. Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Joseph R. Fornieri, editor (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003)
• 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.