Voter Participation in America 1876-1920

Decreasing Percentages Highlight a Lack of Major Issues

© Michael Streich

Feb 5, 2009

With minor exception, American voters demonstrated growing apathy with the major political parties during presidential elections by staying at home on election day.

American voter participation in presidential elections between the end of Reconstruction in 1876 and the end of World War One in 1820 dropped significantly from 82% to 49% with two elections reflecting slight gains in 1896 and 1916. These statistics reflect what specific issues were important to Americans as well as voter apathy in the face of weak executive leadership during most of the post Civil War period. Additional factors include the personalities of the men chosen by their parties to lead the nation.

High Voter Participation in the Election of 1876

 

1876 represented a watershed year in late 19th-century politics. Although two reform governors were vying for the presidency, the issues included rampant government corruption and graft both on the federal level under Ulysses Grant and in local state and city governments. Additionally, northern voters had grown weary of Reconstruction, seeking to move on to new challenges associated with rising industrialization and urbanization.

The Election of 1876 was a dirty campaign. Propaganda and outright lies dominated the newspapers, mostly on behalf of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Although Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, he was denied the electoral vote through an extraordinary compromise between the parties. High voter participation reflected the pressures to put the Civil War and Reconstruction behind the national psyche.

The Decline in Voter Participation

Most historians of this period agree that the presidents between Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were lackluster with Grover Cleveland being a “cut above.” Additionally, Congressional power and leadership grew at the expense of a weak executive branch. Further, there were few burning issues that separated the parties. Both major parties were intricately tied to the eastern banking establishment and the “trusts.”

Between 1894 and 1896, voter participation rose briefly to 79%. These elections produced significant gains for the Republican Party. Middle class voters responded to labor unrest characterized by violence such as the 1892 strike at the Homestead steel plant in Pennsylvania. In May 1894, just months before the mid-term election, the Pullman strike in Chicago suggested the influence of socialists. The strike, led by Eugene Debs, cost several lives and resulted in property destruction of nearly a half million dollars. Americans in 1894 and 1896 went to the polls to affirm law and order and identified the Republican Party as the best assurance of that goal.

Minor Increases in the Early 20th Century

The election of Teddy Roosevelt in 1904 saw an increase in voter participation to 65%. Roosevelt was highly popular and defeated Alton Parker by over two and a half million votes. His “Square Deal” resonated with the public and his leadership style broke with the previous centuries examples.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won reelection as 62% of voters went to the polls. Although the results were close and Republican Charles Evans Hughes initially thought he had won, Wilson’s slogan “he kept us out of war” as well as the progressive reforms coming out of his legislative nationalism enabled him to win. The Great War in Europe was a key issue for Americans and Hughes appeared to advocate a tougher stand on Germany.

By 1920, voter participation had fallen to the lowest level – 49%. Although neither candidate was popular or charismatic in any way, Warren Harding’s so-called “return to normalcy” trumped James Cox’s endorsement of the League of Nations. Americans were tired of war and tired of entangling alliances. There was no compelling issue to bring out the voters in great masses. Harding won a landslide victory.

Sources:

Statistics taken from America Past and Present by Robert Divine, T. H. Breen, and others, (Pearson/Longman, 2007) p. 676.

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004).

William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents From George Washington to George W. Bush (New York: Gramercy Books, 2001).

Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005).

Page Smith, America Enters the World: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I Vol. 7 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985).

The copyright of the article Voter Participation in America 1876-1920 in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Voter Participation in America 1876-1920 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

A Civic Duty

 The Crimean War 1853 - 1856

Causes and Effects of a Pointless and Preventable Conflict

© Michael Streich

 Feb 7, 2009

The Crimean War shattered the European order crafted by Prince Metternich in 1815 and resulted in new alliances that altered the European balance of power.

In 1853 the Metternich system, designed to control and mediate conflicts between the great powers of Europe, fell apart with the outbreak of the Crimean War. For the first time since the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the major powers were at war with each other, Britain and France supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russia. Although the war was preventable and foolish, the results paved the way for a new order after 1856.

Napoleon III of France and Tsar Nicholas I of Russia

The conflict began when Napoleon III approached the Ottoman Empire with an offer to act as protector of Christians within the Ottoman lands. Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church sought to act as custodians of the sacred sites in the Holy Land. Nicholas I was outraged, seeing himself as the protector of Orthodox Christians and demanded that the Holy Land sites continue to be served by Orthodox priests. This “quarrel of monks” led to a break in relations between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.

Historians offer additional, perhaps more salient motives for Russian and French actions. MacKenzie [1] cites the overconfidence of Nicholas I following Russian success in assisting with the suppression of European popular revolts in 1848. Henry Kissinger [2] refers to the long standing Russian aim of controlling Constantinople and the Dardanelles. Others highlight Napoleon III’s desire to break out of European isolation and possibly destroy the Holy Alliance.

Outbreak of the Crimean War

In October 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia following Russian troop movements into Moldavia and Wallachia (Danubian Principalities). Shortly thereafter, Russian Admiral Nakhimov discovered the Turkish fleet at Sinope and destroyed it. The “Sinope Massacre” was enough to compel the British to send their fleet into the Black Sea.

Russia, relying upon Austrian support, was severely disappointed when the Austrians remained neutral in the conflict and occupied the Principalities upon Russian withdrawal early in the war. This “monstrous ingratitude,” as Nicholas I termed it, exacerbated the tenuous Russian military situation because the Russian commander, Field Marshall Paskevich, had dispersed Russian troops throughout the empire to control possible insurrections.

Austria’s actions may have been motivated by the fear that in supporting Russia, France would seize the opportunity to acquire Italian provinces dominated by Austria. By effectively rejecting the Russian alliance that dated to 1815, Austria may have hastened the rise of Prussia, also neutral in the conflict.

Course of the War

With the Russian withdrawal from the Principalities, the focus of the war shifted to the Crimea and the 60,000 troops poised to take Sevastapol. Although predominantly British and French, the allied force included thousands of Turkish troops under the command of Omer Pasha as well as 16,000 troops from Piedmont-Sardinia. Count Cavour of Piedmont-Sardina cunningly deduced that an allied victory would include his nation at the peace table, furthering his goal of Italian unification.

The Russians were initially defeated at the Alma River and withdrew to Sevastapol, strengthening their defenses. The ensuing battles included the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava as well as the “Thin Red Line” that held back an onslaught of Russian cavalry. In the end, Sevastapol fell and Russia, now under Tsar Alexander II, agreed to a peace conference.

Results of the Crimean War

The war highlighted the need for Russian military and economic reform. No railroad track was available below Moscow, imposing a tremendous burden on troop movements and supplies. Both sides fought using strategies that dated back to the venerable Duke of Wellington in 1815.

Old alliances were broken as Russia began to look with greater interest at the Balkans, promoting Pan-Slavism and eventually conflicting with Austrian goals in that region. Prussia’s Otto von Bismarck used the events to plot the expansion of Prussia by developing new diplomatic ties and alliances. The Crimean War would create a new European balance of power.

Sources:

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000 (New York: Random House, 1987).

[2] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

[1] David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4th Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993).

Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992).

The copyright of the article The Crimean War 1853 - 1856 in Russian/Ukrainian/Belarus History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Crimean War 1853 - 1856 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Tsar Nicholas I

 Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt

Congressional Delegation and Executive Orders Prepared for War

© Michael Streich

Mar 12, 2009

Sensing the need to provide assistance to European democracies under attack, FDR and the Congress committed US support as early as November 1939.

World War II began in September 1939 when German forces invaded and overwhelmed eastern Poland. The attack on Poland resulted in war declarations by Britain and France. In the United States, the Roosevelt administration watched events in both Europe and Asia with caution. The nation was still in the midst of a depression and in terms of foreign affairs, FDR had to balance the growing need for preparedness with the strong isolationist views of many Americans and the Congress. Despite these obstacles, Roosevelt was able to help the British as well as thwart the Japanese through legislative loopholes.

Lend Lease and Executive Orders

Within weeks of the fall of Poland, Roosevelt and the Congress passed the Neutrality Act of November 1939 that repealed the U.S. embargo of armaments to Europe. Britain and France could now purchase arms but on a “cash and carry basis,” meaning that the goods had to be transported in their own vessels. But by the spring of 1940 the European situation had changed dramatically. Hitler’s blitzkrieg strategy resulted in the defeat and occupation of large sections of Europe, including much of France. The Battle for Britain was about to begin.

One of Roosevelt’s first actions was to “trade” fifty American destroyers to Britain for the rights to build bases on British possessions in the Americas. The “bases for destroyers” deal augmented a stretched British fleet protecting conveys across the Atlantic, defending the British Isles and Mediterranean sites, and maintaining a naval presence in the Pacific as Japanese aggression became more overt.

By 1941 Congress authorized President Roosevelt to implement the lend-lease policies. Given wide authority to transfer defensive articles to foreign governments, Roosevelt’s Congressional loophole rested in the statement, “whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.” In many ways a “blank check” to sell, lease, exchange, or lend, this delegation of legislative authority was upheld by the federal courts.

In regard to Japan, two 1940 Presidential “executive orders” embargoed oil (July) and banned the sale of scrap iron and steel (October). In July 1941, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japan’s financial assets in the United States. Although much has been written about these executive orders in terms of their impact on the Japanese decisions to attack the United States, and while they certainly played a role in setting Imperial time tables, the plans to eliminate the U.S. from a position of dominance in the Pacific region predate the 1940s.

Committing American Naval Support

In July 1941 President Roosevelt ordered the armed forces to occupy Iceland. Iceland was highly strategic in terms of the naval war in the Atlantic. United States’ troops replaced British troops that could be used elsewhere in the British effort. Additionally, United States’ naval vessels could now escort convoys to Iceland before handing them over to British escorts.

The expanded U.S. presence in the Atlantic might have prompted the attack on the USS Greer in September 1941 by a German submarine. An angry Roosevelt denounced the action, referring to U-boats as the “rattlesnakes of the Atlantic.” As both Germany and Japan would soon learn, America was the “great arsenal of democracy.” The delegation of authority by Congress was in line with presidential prerogatives regarding foreign affairs. It was all the more constitutional in times of international crisis.

Sources:

David Bercuson and Holger H. Herwig, One Christmas in Washington (Overlook, 2005).

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

The copyright of the article Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Protecting a convoy

 The Black Death in 14th Century Europe

Danse Macabe and the Results of Bubonic Plague

© Michael Streich

Mar 16, 2009

In the mid 14th century, an epidemic plague ravaged Europe, killing as many as 25 million people while affecting short term social and religious practices.

The Black Death or bubonic plague arrived in Italy in 1347, spread by merchant ships coming from eastern commercial port cities like Constantinople. The plague rapidly spread through Europe, following the trade routes along which expanding and densely populated urban centers were located. Within a hundred year period, the disease reduced Europe’s population of approximately 75 million by a third. As the plague frequently returned, some cities lost over fifty per cent of the inhabitants. Commenting on the early responses, Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter state that, “It is not surprising that some of the first reactions to the Black Death were marked by a sort of pathological irrationality.”

Danse Macabe throughout Fourteenth Century Europe

Visitors to Europe can travel from Paris to Lubeck and on to Tallinn and view the murals dedicated to the plague years, the danse macabe or dance of death. The frescoes and woodcuts are a reminder that the plague was no respecter of persons. Dancing skeletons hold the hands of popes and bishops, kings and queens, merchants and peasants. When the plague swept through Avignon in southern France, half of the College of Cardinals succumbed. Because the church was deeply involved with the dying and with dispensing medical relief, albeit very primitive by modern standards, members of the Catholic clergy were reduced by such numbers that subsequent standards for ordination to replace the dead were lowered.

No one knew what caused the plague, which had begun in China and made its way west over the Silk Road and through the Crimea. Scholars at the University of Paris blamed unusual planetary conjunctions that ultimately emitted poisonous vapors. Poison seemed a logical answer and many Europeans, notably in Germany, blamed the Jews, asserting that they had poisoned the wells. Massacres of Jews followed, despite earnest attempts by the Catholic Church to suppress the persecutions.

In most cases, death was swift. Although there were several varieties or strains of the disease, pneumonic plague, which affected the lungs, is considered to be the deadliest. Plague symptoms included high fever and a swelling of the lymph nodes. The disease was spread by fleas, living on black rats. In London, the plague was blamed on cats – long associated in Europe with evil. Huge bonfires consumed the cats, causing the rat population to grow. Poor sanitation, hygiene, and malnutrition helped the disease to spread in cities like London.

Results of the Plague Years in Europe

In some areas, such as in England, the plague left small hamlets deserted. The shortage of farm laborers forced some landowners to raise sheep, beginning, perhaps, a process that would culminate in the rise of English textiles centuries later. Additionally, worker shortages had the impact of increased overall wages. Fewer workers forced employers to pay more for daily labor. As the population corrected itself, these wages would be cut, prompting peasant revolts in several sections of Europe.

The plague also renewed interest in religion and death. Groups of people known as flagellants marched through cities flogging themselves in an orgy of blood and pain, hoping to appease an obviously angry God who was calling people to repentance. With religion came superstition and local remedies as old as pre-Christian Europe. Rhymes like Ring around the rosy date back to the plague in London, ending with the line, “Ashes, ashes, we all fall down,” referring to the certain death that came in a city that some scholars say suffered a 60% population loss.

Charms and amulets were worn to protect against the plague, a favorite charm inscribed with the magical word “abracadabra.” A reverse pyramid decreased the word to a simple “a,” symbolic of the shrinking of plague symptoms. The Black Plague represented one of three population-reducing events of the 14th century. Ultimately, the plague ran its course, returning to some regions briefly. Europe’s population would return to normal growth patterns by 1450.

Sources:

Giulia Calvi, Histories of a Plague Year: the Social and the Imaginary in Baroque Florence (University of California Press, 1989).

William H. McNeill, Plagues and People (Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1976).

Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475 (McGraw-Hill, 1992) p 482.

Philip Ziegler, The Black Death (Harper & Row, 1969).

See also “Totentanz.” Although in German, the site provides good images of the various Dance of Death murals.

The copyright of the article The Black Death in 14th Century Europe in Late Middle Ages is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Black Death in 14th Century Europe in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Dance of Death

 Children's Heroes of the 1950s and Early 1960s

Great Men and Famous Deeds in Childcraft's 1961 Primer

Michael Streich

March 19, 2009 

In 1961, the Childcraft series of books featured thirty-five brief stories in volume six of the collection titled Great Men and Famous Deeds. Published throughout the thirties, forties, and fifties, the Childcraft series included volumes on child rearing, poetry and music, technology, and geography. Today, these books represent a glimpse into the American past, enabling students of history to see what was being taught in the 1950s and what was omitted. Volume six offers an excellent example of 1950s and early 1960s American education.

 

Analysis of the Thirty-Five Stories

 

The late 1950s and early 1960s was a time of both conformity and uncertainty. The United States was involved in an ever expanding nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. It was a time of home bomb shelters and an emphasis on the traditional American family. All of the stories in the Childcraft selection highlight those virtues associated with a distinctly American “ideal:” courage, integrity, determination, risk-taking, and making good decisions.

 

The story about George Washington relates how, as a young teenager, he was tempted to go to sea. At the last minute, however, he saw his mother’s despair and the tears in her eyes and changed his mind. He was humble and obedient – but not a “mother’s boy.” He befriended the elder Sir Thomas Fairfax who developed a fatherly relationship with the young man, helped Washington begin a career as a surveyor, and became a positive role model.

 

The thirty-five selections include three other presidents: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. Of the thirty-three stories of “Great Men,” twenty-six are devoted to men while only eight detail famous women (of those eight, only five are American women). Of all the entries, the story of George Washington Carver is the only one about an African-American. Two selections are devoted to Canadians.

 

Native American culture is nominally represented in the selection on Captain John Smith and Pocahontas as well as a Canadian story about Catholic missionaries among Indian tribes titled, “The Feast of Eat-Everything.” Indian Americans also figure prominently in the story of Columbus, the first selection in the book. Although politically incorrect today, the 1961 overview paints Columbus as a hero and a risk-taker but never alludes to the negative aspects of Indian treatment, well-documented in later decades by historians like Howard Zinn.

 

Impact of the Childcraft Book in 1961

 

Although select women appear in the volume, there was no hint of feminism. Madame Curie’s story focuses on the encouragement and love of her Physicist husband and does not mention her death caused by experimentation with radium. The story has a happy ending. Jenny Lind’s story demonstrated that her “discovery” and success came because men heard her sing and gave her a chance. The underlying message could be found both in the stories included as well as how they were written: the decade of the 1950s and into the 1960s was still “a man’s world.” Madame Curie’s story includes her role as a mother.

 

Many of the included stories tell of events that occurred when the “great men” were still children or teenagers: “The Boy Lafayette and the Wolf,” “When Mark Twain was a Boy,” “Teddy Roosevelt, the Boy Naturalist,” and others. It was important to teach children that the completion of “famous deeds” begins early. The sub-heading of the contents page reads, “Adventures of Famous Persons.” John Audubon’s love for nature began as a boy; Thomas Edison’s career started as a “Young Scientist.”

 

Marketed to white, middle-class families, the Childcraft series told parents and their children what was important in terms of growing up as an American. They also preached conformity. None of the stories challenge legitimate authority. Children are obedient and adults serve as positive role models. Sometimes, extraordinary events force people to do very courageous things, like Dolly Madison saving the White House portrait of George Washington. Even here, the author’s message was clear: “She didn’t expect people to think that she was wise or brave or smart. She was just helpful and friendly. And that was enough.”

 

Sources:

 

“Great Men and Famous Deeds,” Vol. Six, Childcraft (Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1961).

First published in Suite101. Copyright Michael Streich. Written permission required for republishing

                                              Author in Hamburg. Rathous in background
 Hanseatic League Dominance in Northern Germany

Trade Monopolies and Merchant Associations in Early Modern Europe

© Michael Streich

 Mar 29, 2009

Early merchant associations, equated with the beginning of town life and European trade fairs, enabled powerful organizations like the Hanseatic League to dominate.

Centuries before Europe would merge itself into a powerful, continental force known as the European Union, merchant settlements and towns in the medieval and early modern periods were forming trade associations that worked to benefit from commercial monopolies, tax exemptions, and the granting of import and export privileges from kings and other feudal lords. Emerging out of these often competing associations, the Hanseatic League, controlling the lucrative markets along the Baltic and North Seas, would thrive well into the fifteenth century and dominate most of northern and middle European trade.

Rise of the Hansa

By the eleventh century, trade fairs enabled wealthy Europeans to purchase a variety of goods from distant lands unknown during the period between the fall of Rome and the beginnings of town living. Emerging early towns often owed their existence to these trade fairs as well as several centuries of developing trade routes, linked perhaps to the Viking raids of the eighth century and beyond. Vikings were known to raid and eventually trade as far south as Marseilles in southern France.

The growth of towns was accomplished by the ever increasing need for skilled craftsmen catering to growing populations. Innovations in agricultural production in the eleventh century also impacted population growth, leading to a plethora of twelfth century towns that weaned themselves of feudal control through town charters and bound burghers by a common law.

Fueled by this town expansion, European merchants began to form associations, one of the earliest being the Cologne Hansa. Special commercial privileges and trade monopolies made the Hansas attractive as other towns affiliated with Cologne. In northern Germany, cities like Lubeck – one of the first German ports on the Baltic, and Hamburg on the Elbe River began to compete with Cologne and other associations.

Rise and Dominance of the Hanseatic League

Cities of the German Hansa guarded their independence fiercely, resisting the frequent attempts by princes to incorporate them into ducal landholdings such as in the case of Schleswig and Saxony’s attempts to harness the wealth of Lubeck. The Lubeck city hall, still standing today, was considered one of the finest and demonstrated the city’s commercial might at its mercantile zenith. Along with Hamburg, Lubeck is still referred to Hansestadt.

The shrewd dominance of Hanseatic commercial power is best demonstrated by its dealings with Norway through the Hansa port, Bergen. All grain imported into Norway came aboard ships of the League. In return, Norway’s fish export was carried to other ports, such as London or Antwerp, by German ships. The monopoly made the Hansa wealthy. When Norway balked at perceived unfair trade practices in 1294, the League boycotted Bergen, forcing Norway to accede.

A boycott against Bruges, from which Flemish cloth entered northern Europe, was also successful and ended with even greater concessions made to the League. At the same time, however, the League promoted industries such as in Sweden where copper and iron production increased, in part due to innovations introduced by the League.

Decline of the Hanseatic League

By the mid to end of the fifteenth century, early modern nation states were forming and, embracing their own mercantilist policies favorable only to national economies, limited earlier trade monopolies and commercial privileges. The same can be said of the Baltic region where cities like Danzig, associated with Poland, were competing apart from the League.

Fernand Braudel, in his book on 15th-18th Century commerce, sites the economist Walter Eucken suggesting that one very basic reason the League “failed to become great in the sixteenth century” was due to its refusal to adopt the practice of double-bookkeeping. (573)

Although Hamburg would remain a free city with its own stock exchange – the oldest in Germany, dating to 1558, many Hanseatic cities lost their independence or free-city status as early modern nation states developed. The exclusive “trade stations,” such as Bryggen in Bergen, Norway, or the Hanseatic station in London, also lost their privileges in these years of change.

Sources:

Fernard Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization & Capitalism 15th-18th Century Volume 2 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1979).

Johannes Schildhauer, The Hansa: History and Culture (Leipzig: Druckerei Fortschritt Erfurt, 1985). [A professor of General History at Greifswald University in the mid 20th century, Schildhauer is considered an expert on the Hansa and on Baltic history]

The copyright of the article Hanseatic League Dominance in Northern Germany in Late Middle Ages is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Hanseatic League Dominance in Northern Germany in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 The Fall of Richmond in 1865

Michael Streich May 9, 2009

By the end of March 1865 the Civil War was drawing to a long awaited close. Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, and Columbia had become a part of that brutal history, associated forever with General William Sherman’s often quoted phrase, “war is hell.” Only outside of Richmond, the Confederate capital was the final scene of this drama being played out. The fall of Richmond signaled the end of the war, evoking jubilation among Southern slaves and millions of Northerners while igniting absolute despair in the South.

 

Robert E. Lee Abandons Richmond

 

Richmond and Washington are separated by less than 100 miles. Yet in four years, neither side came close to capturing either capital. The South might have accomplished taking Washington early in the war, following up their victory at First Bull Run. Had Lee followed advice in June of 1863 to take his army east instead of engaging Meade at Gettysburg, the Confederacy might have captured Washington.

 

Similarly, General George McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign in 1862 aimed at taking Richmond came very close to success, yet the general’s vacillation enabled the South to thwart any serious attempt to take the city, and McClellan withdrew.

 

By March 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia was entrenched at Petersburg in a desperate attempt to stop Union advances. By April 2^nd, however, their lines were breached and General Lee sent messages to Jefferson Davis in Richmond that the city would have to be abandoned.

 

Sunday in the Confederate Capital

 

Davis was attending the Sunday morning service at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church when word arrived that Richmond must be abandoned. Leaving the service, Davis returned to his executive mansion as the Confederate bureaucracy began to burn documents.

 

Having sent his family out of the city on a train bound for Charlotte, North Carolina, Davis and his Cabinet evacuated Richmond that evening on the last train out of the city, relocating the Confederate capital to Danville, Virginia.

 

General Lee’s plan was to withdraw south in order to link with Joseph Johnston, but was prevented from doing so by Phillip Sheridan. Cutoff and his troops disintegrating for lack of food and clothing, Lee surrendered his army at Appomattox Station on April 9^th, several days after Richmond fell.

 

A Night of Horror in Richmond

 

Richmond authorities ordered all alcohol to be destroyed. As casks of whiskey and other spirits were destroyed, homeless men, including escaped prisoners, helped themselves. With the liquid in their veins, they became a mob, numbering in the thousands before the night ended, looting and pillaging Richmond.

 

The order to burn the tobacco warehouses also caused unexpected calamities. Surging flames spread beyond the warehouses, igniting homes, churches, and businesses. Over 900 homes and businesses were destroyed. Many inhabitants were left homeless and pauperized.

 

Confederate vessels, notably iron-clad ships, were scuttled and set ablaze. These ships, however, stored thousands of shells. As the fires engulfed the sinking vessels, thousands of shells rained destruction on Richmond.  Union troops, arriving on April 3^rd, found a city smoldering.

 

Richmond Taken by Union Forces

 

One of the first units to arrive at Richmond was comprised of black cavalry, commanded by Major Charles Francis Adams, Jr., grandson of one President and great-grandson of another. Richmond, “Babylon the Great,” was finally captured. For Richmond’s black population, many of whom were slaves, it was the final Jubilee.

 

Union troops sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “John Brown’s Body.” Yet for the Southern whites, especially the many women adorned in black signifying mourning, it was the end of life itself.

 

On April 4^th, against the advice of his advisors, President Lincoln visited Richmond. It was a moment of sublime retribution. One former female slave expressed it best, saying, “I know that I am free, for I have seen Father Abraham…”

 

The capture of Richmond represented the final scene in a long and bloody war. Little wonder that Lincoln felt compelled to walk its streets. It was the end of a civilization and the beginning of decades of rebuilding.

 

Sources:

 

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

Jay Winik, April 1865: the Month that Saved America (Harper Perennial, 2001)

Copyright Michael Streich; republishing with written permission.

 The Know Nothing Party in 1854 and 1856

The Move Against Irish and German Immigration

© Michael Streich

 Mar 24, 2009

Nativism, strongest in the American Northeast, affected political realignments during the early and mid 1850s through the American or "Know Nothing" Party.

Begun as a secret society in New York in 1849, the “Know Nothings” or American Party – as they appeared on national ballots in 1856, could be traced to the virulent nativist movement of the 1830s and 1840s. Fiercely anti-immigration, Know Nothings aimed their wrath at Irish and German migrants, many of whom were Roman Catholic. The Know Nothings would achieve some political success during the mid-term elections of 1854. In the 1856 general election led by former President Millard Fillmore, the party split over the Kansas-Nebraska Act but sill gained 871,731 popular votes and 8 electoral votes.

Know Nothing Success in the Mid 1850s

Paul Boller, a Professor Emeritus of History at Texas Christian University, attributes the Know Nothing name to an initial attempt at secrecy. “When members of the party were asked about the organization, they were directed to answer, ‘I don’t know…’” (93) As the party gained support, however, the secrecy gave way to public awareness. “America For Americans,” Know Nothings chanted, demanding a twenty-one year period of naturalization and the banning of any non-native born Americans from office-holding.

Irish immigrants, clustered in the larger urban centers, bore the brunt of nativist ire. Seen as charity cases dumped onto American shores by a British government willing to assist immigrants in order to lessen the pressure on poverty relief, the Irish were willing to work for lower wages in unskilled jobs, taking away work from native-born Americans. Fear of Catholicism also contributed.

German immigrants, flooding America after the failed 1848 revolutions, also attracted fear and suspicion. Like the Irish, they were Catholic and did not “keep the Sabbath” the way Protestants did. And Germans brought beer, a particular evil among New Englanders that still clung to Puritan values. Finally, Germans were perceived as socialists, identified with the various liberal movements in Europe.

These fears enabled the Know Nothings to achieve some success in the 1854 mid-term election. In both the North and the South, the party attracted former Whigs searching for new political homes. In his valuable study on 1850s American politics and the expansion of slavery, Harvard University Historian Frederick Merk (died 1977) isolates Whig strength in 1854 to New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Vermont with small pockets in mid-Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, and Tennessee.

The Presidential Election of 1856

By 1856 the Know Nothing Party was beginning to disintegrate in the wake of the ill-advised Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Anti-Nebraska Know Nothings and Whigs “bolted” to support the Republican Party’s candidate, John C. Fremont. By now the “American Party,” the Know Nothings nominated former president Millard Fillmore.

Professor Merk’s analysis of the 1856 election demonstrates a remarkable change for the party over the two-year interval. The party had lost ground in Missouri and the Northeast. Small pockets of Know Nothing strength existed in every southern state except South Carolina. Fillmore’s 8 electoral votes came from Maryland, although his popular vote was 871,731. (407)

None of the national political leaders respected the Know Nothings. Stephen Douglas, in an October 6, 1855 letter to Howell Cobb, wrote that “Abolitionism, Know Nothingism, and all the other isms are akin to each other and are in alliance…against national Democracy.” In several other letters Douglas equates Know Nothingism with Abolitionism.

Abraham Lincoln, quoted by University of Massachusetts Professor Stephen Oates, preferred to live in Russia if the Know Nothings ever succeeded. According to Lincoln, “When the Know Nothings get control, it will read ‘all me are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’” (165)

Southern “bolters” from the Know Nothing Party would emerge in 1860 as the Constitutional Unionists, led by former pro-Union Whig John Bell. After 1856, the Know Nothings ceased as a viable political party, northern supporters joining the rapidly rising Republican Party. Yet another decade of xenophobic Americanism had come to an end, although it would not be the last time nativism dominated political extremes.

Sources:

Paul F. Boller, Jr. Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Stephen A Douglas, The Letters of Stephen A Douglas, edited by Robert W. Johannsen (University of Illinois Press, 1961).

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

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 Volume Four,(McGraw-Hill, 1981).

The copyright of the article The Know Nothing Party in 1854 and 1856 in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Know Nothing Party in 1854 and 1856 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Millard Fillmore