Confederate Outlaw: Champ Ferguson and The Civil War in Appalachia

First and foremost, I am really excited that I got to read such a great book.  I had absolutely no knowledge of who Champ Ferguson was until now.  The Champ Ferguson legend contains so much mystery that it actually intrigued me, and now, I would just love to learn more about him.  Brian McKnight, not the singer, but the author, did a fantastic job at collecting evidence on Ferguson, and putting the pieces together as good as he could.  There are so many intricate details and stories concerning Ferguson that it is certainly hard to tell fact from fiction, but I feel that McKnight did a splendid job with all the evidence he complied.  There seemed to be many fallacies, and romanticized origins and legends of Ferguson that may or may not be completely true. Whatever the case, McKnight did a wonderful job.

My conclusion on Ferguson is that he was just a man of the times.  With so much instability within the borderland states and the Upper South, many people seemed to realize that they really did not know which route they wanted to take in terms of deciding whether of not they would go Union or Confederate.  Many of the families were split which caused friction.  Everything they ever knew was basically turned upside down.  He was caught between a rock and a hard place so to speak because it seemed as though he had actual motives behind his actions, but he went about the results all wrong.  Perhaps he just did not know how to deal with his paranoia of his enemies during the War. 

His legacy as a Confederate guerrilla is fascinating. It seemed as if Ferguson was paranoid about whether or not his fellow friends, family members, and acquaintances would turn their backs on him.  Everyone seemed as though they were out to get one another, in his eyes.  The paranoid thoughts seemed to be the motives behind the murders of these people.  Whether his actions were justified, meaning, whether or not they actually were going to kill him first, remains to be seen. The justification of his actions seem to be wrapped up in romanticized tales after his hanging.  

Furthermore, I also think that perhaps Ferguson felt as though he was "doing the Confederacy" a favor whenever he would go out and kill on of his arch-Union enemy's. Maybe he confused war time with his own agenda, and under the Confederate commission, he felt obligated to kill every last Yankee.  The world may never know.  But the mystery behind Ferguson and the Ferguson's sources are very intriguing.    

Cassius Clay: American Lion and Russian Bear

Dr. Spock's lecture tonight about the Ambassador Cassius Clay: American Lion and Russian Bear was rather informative and enjoyable.  She did a job well-done! The lecture was really interesting.  I honestly had known very little about Clay before this. Afterwards, I felt like I grew a few more "wrinkles in the gray matter". I thought the entire lecture was done really well, and I had learned so much.  One minor thing that really stood out to me was the Alaska ordeal.

I knew that Alaska had once been property of Russia, but I had no idea about anything else past that.  People in America and surrounding nations had actually bought the shipped Alaskan ice for the longest time.   Furthermore, the negotiations between the diplomats of Alaska and Russia, that excluded Cassius Clay was pretty cool. Regardless of what people think about Cassius Clay, he really did have a lot for Russia, and for his home country.  Clay was really hurt by the fact that no one actually told him about Russia selling Alaska off to American during the Polk Administration, which I guess goes with the Manifest Destiny philosophy.  He really held Russia close to his heart because he loved the architecture, and "fine Russian ladies" (which I found hilariously odd).  

In all, Cassius Clay was quite interesting, and I'm happy that Dr. Spock gave a lecture on him.  She did a splendid job! I found his love for Alaska, American, and Russia similar to my own.  Clay was a very neat character, and Dr. Spock inspired me to learn more about him! 

Ambassador Cassius Clay: American Lion and Russian Bear

 

I recently observed the lecture on Cassius Clay that was wonderfully done by Dr. Spock.  First and foremost, I must say that I found the lecture to be a delight and very much enjoyed learning about Madison County’s own historical celebrity.  Going into this lecture I knew absolutely nothing about Clay, save for the fact that he owned White Hall and had political ties.  So yes, I was a bit “wowed” when I heard about his interesting escapades with duels and such.  Aside from that, I was also highly intrigued by the bulk of what was covered.  I had no idea of how well tied Russia was to the U.S. during this time.  I did not know about the Russian fleet showing up to the American coast, nor did I know just about everything else that was said about Russia. 

I feel a bit disappointed in myself that I had not taken time to learn more about Cassius Clay.  Even though the majority of the information was based on his diplomatic missions to Russia, it was still enough to leave me wanting to know more.  I can honestly say that I have gained more from the lecture than just learning about the topic of the lecture.  It sparked an interest in me for Russian history and the histories of Europe around the time of the Civil War.  I had no idea that the Civil War was so internationally noticed “on the other side of the pond” so to speak.  The fact that Russia had an interest in the U.S. due to the relations between Britain and the C.S.A was something that jumped out at me.  I feel the urge to find books and other sources (more than likely secondary at the moment) on Europe around the 1860’s and learn.

Before I rant any much longer, I have to say that I am highly impressed with Clay.  He quite frankly makes me proud to say that I am a Kentuckian.  I must be an odd fellow when I say that I find people who brandish Bowie knives and duel to be people of high esteem but I retort that I am a product of my time, much as Clay was a product of his.  I’m also glad that I have a historical figure to admire who also had horrible hand writing.  After all, we Kentucky gentlemen with poor handwriting must stick together, even if we are eighty or so years apart.

Invasion of Kentucky: Battle of Richmond through Northern and Southern Eyes

    Kentucky was one of the most sought after states before and during the Civil War.  Each section of the country both realized the necessity of the borderland state and both sought to obtain it.  I got together several newspaper sources through microfilm and chose only two newspaper for which had prominence during this time, and both covered the Kentucky issue to the best of its ability.  The Battle of Richmond was spoken through little tidbits of information, but I was more curious to see how the Union and the Confederacy seen this battle, and the importance of Kentucky through their eyes.
   
    My Northern source was The New York Times.  Many headlines regarding Kentucky were mostly talking about J.H. Morgan, and his Confederate raiders raiding Kentucky, and the guerrilla warfare that was going on in the border state.  (As a side note, the Champ Ferguson book for Dr. Weise’s class is actually really interesting on the subject of guerrilla warfare and I encourage everyone to actually sit down and read it).  The tensions in Kentucky were rising before the Battle of Richmond actually ensued because of this guerrilla activity and raiding.  Brimming with these kinds of activities, newspapers such as The New York Times feared Kentucky was being absorbed by the rebellious Confederate armies.  Furthermore, a section of August 25th, 1862’s newspaper stated, “The War in Kentucky: Martial law called for Clarke and Madison, for home defense.  Rebellions on the rise.”  I thought this was actually really neat because I had no idea that any of this ever occurred. 
   
    I was also quite curious about Big Hill, KY.  On August 26th, 1862, Big Hill, Madison Co, KY was in the New York Times.  It stated, “Skirmish occurred yesterday afternoon between National troops under Gen. Metcalf and the rebels at Big Hill, Madison Co., KY.  After a brief engagement Gen. Metcalf’s forces withdrew to Richmond.” Afterwards, guerrilla activity continued to increase.  A Martial law bill was passed on August 28th, 1862.  Major Gen. Nelson- House passed this Draft Bill, but preferred voluntary enlistments.  The draft bill was a major issue regarding Kentucky.

    The Battle of Richmond occurred on August 29th and 30th.  I actually did not find anything on this in the newspaper.  Of course, news did not travel as fast as it does today and/or maybe it just was not significant enough to have any coverage.  On September 1st, 1862, however I did see a headline labeled, Disaster in Kentucky, and it went on to say, “Defeat of our forces under Gen. Mansan.  6 regiments engaged against a rebel force of 15,000 to 20,000.  Retreat of Our Forces to Lexington”.  This was the only thing written about the Battle of Richmond in the prominent New York paper.  The Northern papers mainly shunned Confederate states, unless there was a large battle in which many Union forces were lost. 

    Afterwards, I took the liberty to look at a Southern newspaper called, Charleston Daily Courier: Confederate States of America. This newspaper had lots of Southern pride in it and it was very Protestant oriented.  What also caught my eye was that the paper never really said, 'the North' or 'the Union', as much as it did say 'Yankee' and 'Yankee forces'.  Almost instantly I seen on May 10th, 1862, the Confederacy President, Jefferson Davis, had called for wanting the border states to go Confederate.  We talked about this type of stuff during class whenever the Confederate States of America started campaigning in the border states and stating all the reasons why they should join the South.  Furthermore, Morgan’s raids were again spoken about, and they were not as negatively brought up as the New York Times had done. 

    On the day of the battle, I actually found something on it, which was completely different from the Northern paper which did not write about it much until September 1st.  The Charleston Daily Courier: Confederate States of America, wrote (this is just paraphrase in my own words the specific points of the excerpt), “Glorious achievement that thrill the heart of the South!  Richmond no longer threatened and Washington in danger!” The South was already planned on winning the war.  They took a lot of pride and honor into what they did and were doing, unlike the NY Times where it was a bit more on a broader base.  In the eyes of many Southerners, they felt honor and the need to protect their lifestyles; that is the sense that I got while reading this newspaper.

    Overall, this war, in general, was seen in different way through different eyes.  But the idea of what they were reading gave them a sense of what they needed to know was going on.  This only, to me, reiterates that everyone has their own perspective, and that everyone fights for what they believe in.  I chose the Battle of Richmond because well, it is Richmond.  The point is is that the coverage of this war, or all the battles in general, were covered from their own points of view.  There is no right or wrong answer in the feelings felt by these people during this time because it was a very unstable world then. I respect what they said and how they felt because if America was to ever get into another civil war again, I think the thoughts and feelings would be the same, i.e. pride, honor, and hope.

                                                                   Bibliography

The New York Times. July-Dec. 1862 Vol. XI, No. 3406-3413

Charleston Daily Courier (Confederate States of America).  May 10th, 1862-Nov. 29th, 1862. No. IX.

Civil War Legacy: Should the U.S. Government Pay Reparations for Slavery?

The event I attended was the Oxford style debate sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and Religion, which considered the question: Should the U.S. Government pay reparations for the atrocity of African slavery?  Each of the three debaters took a distinct position regarding this question: first, the United States government has a moral obligation to compensate for harm it inflicted on others through legally sanctioned slavery and its aftermath, and thus should pay reparations to African Americans in order to ameliorate this wrong; second, the United States should not pay reparations for slavery, not because reparations aren’t warranted, but because of the logistical and practical impossibility of doing so, and rather, the U.S. should continue to decrease the negative impact of slavery on African Americans through affirmative action policy; and third, the U.S. should not pay reparations for slavery due to logistical and practical realities, but should issue a formal apology and pay reparations, in a manner sanctioned by international law via rules regarding genocide, for the oppression during pre-civil rights era, and paid only to those individuals born prior to the passage of civil rights legislation who are still living. 

This was a very interesting debate, but I’m incredibly grateful for the participation of Dr. Gunderson, a political scientist, without whom the debate would have likely been a dry philosophical analysis of a very real and material problem for the millions of African Americans in the United States.  Without his input regarding the practicality of reparations, I fear that the event would have been more focused on logic and the construction of arguments, than on the real issue of the massive inequality that still exists between black and white Americans: an inequality which can be clearly traced back to its origins in African slavery.  Despite the different positions taken, by the end of the debate it became clear that all the panelists agreed that some form of reparations should be provided to African Americans by the United States government as compensation for the more than 400 years of slavery, segregation, and racial inequality.

The Validity of William T. Sherman's Memoirs

I have recently read an article titled “Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It” by John F. Marszalek.  This article tackles the issue of how Sherman is viewed by historians. This topic is one that I feel needed to have been covered. Of all the military commanders during the American Civil War, William T. Sherman has received the worst of reviews. Some have labeled him as villain, “prevaricator”, and worse sadly.

John Marszalek does not focus on all of the detractors of Sherman, just one in particular, an individual named Albert Castel.  Apparently, Castel is a historian who really knows his stuff about the Civil War.  I’m not familiar with his work, although I feel I should and will make a point to do so.  From what I read in the article, Castel was really harsh on Sherman.  I have not read the memoirs of Sherman yet (though it is on my reading list) and apparently they are full of inaccuracies.  I managed to find a copy of “Prevaricating through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign” by Albert Castel, the same article that Marszalek is focusing on, and I must say that Castel held nothing back in his critique of Sherman.  If you just glance and skim through the article, you get the impression that Castel has an axe to grind with Sherman.  The very last paragraph of Castel’s article, he claims that he was trying to “expose the real truth” and he tells anyone who sees his article as harsh (readers such as me) that “it is not a popularity contest.” 

The Memoirs are still important even if they do have a few inaccuracies.  They are the accounts of the Civil War written by a man who was a major player in it.  That reasoning in itself should be enough to justify its existence and valid use in a term paper but to elaborate on the issue; many primary sources have some inaccuracies, biases, and other factors that challenge their credibility.  I doubt that any firsthand account of any event can be one hundred percent free of any flaw.  Everyone perceives things differently.  Truth varies in the eye of the beholder.  I don’t mean to rant here but labeling the Memoirs as useless is a jab at the intelligence of anyone attempting research William T. Sherman or anything related to the Civil War that would involve said book.  Anyone trained in history or any other scholarly field would know that they need to check other sources and not just one.  The fact the he feels obligated to do so is almost like he expects everyone reading the article without a PhD to be the kind of people who give a left turn signal and turn right.  Either his “final word” was yet another jab at Sherman or an off handed remark at the layman researcher. 

I do respect Castel and his pain staking thorough research into the question of how authentic was Sherman’s Memoirs, I agree with Marszalek that Sherman was a “blunt chronicler”.  This document is Sherman talking about Sherman’s experiences and not Sherman presenting a detailed account of the Civil War.  I doubt that the Memoirs were written to be an objective, historically accurate document.  The document was written to be Sherman’s accounts of what he experienced.  The man was a soldier after all (no disrespect to soldiers) and not a highly trained chronicler of history.  Besides, anyone who is conducting research is supposed to use other sources.

Castel, Albert “Prevaricating through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign,” Civil War History 40, no. 1, (March 1994) 48-71. http://muse.jhu.edu/ journals/cwh/summary/v040/40.1.castel.html (accessed February 2, 2013)

Marszalek , John F. “Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It,” Civil War History 40, no. 1 (March 1994): 72-78.  http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cwh/summary/v040/40.1.marszalek.html (accessed February 1, 2013)