Plans for Insurrection:

  By the middle of 1864, the Civil War had raged for three years, the Confederacy was at a point of utter exhaustion as they were beginning to feel the effects of the war as the support from many of the white planters began to fade as they felt that the Lincolnism ideals of big government was something that interfered with the mentality of “I am the king of my own castle.” In an attempt to counter this loss, as an end to the war by ways other than conflict, the Confederate leaders in Richmond, VA, that actions and tactics more diverse would ultimately win the war.

            Jefferson Davis’s plan was to essentially draw off Federal troops from the battle lines in the South, by allowing border raids that were sponsored by Confederate officials in Canada. This was in an attempt to create a bigger population of citizens in the North to ultimately feel that the war was pointless by creating a revolution and to allow the North to surrender giving the Confederacy, the country-hood that they felt that they so deserved. The raids that were planned were also set to raid many of the prisoner of war camps in order to free Confederate soldiers that were being held in enemy lines, as Davis felt that they would from the backbone of the raiding parties in the North.

            However, in theory this plan would have caused the war to end by different means, but according to Lieutenant Young of the C.S.A., in one of his letters to Clement C. Clay talks about the fiasco that transpired at Chicago.

            “In accordance with your orders, I left St. Catherine Friday morning, August 27^th for Chicago to engage with my company in the enterprise contemplated by yourself and Col. Thompson for the release of the Camp Douglas prisoners.

            Upon reaching Chicago, we found that already a strong force had been collected and veteran regiments were still arriving. One regiment was place within the enclosure with the Confederates and 16 pieces of artillery were parked, ready to open upon those defenseless me in case an attack was made…

…We waited until Wednesday night, hoping something would turn up by which we could benefit our suffering comrades   and enhance the glory of the Confederacy. It was then determined to make an attempt upon Rock Island, if the Copperheads would furnish a small portion of the long-promised aid…

            …Again demanding justice and a regard for my own reputation,

I remain respectfully,

                                                Young”

            Having faced a minor setback in the plan to free the captured Confederate prisoners from the camps of the North, and unwilling to let those men who were captured be killed outright by the Union, another plan was put into speculation that could have possible broken the Union; a rebellion in the North, or the utter bankruptcy of the Federal government.

            “Dear Holcombe,

            …Unless some disaster befall our enemies before the middle of next month and teach them by bitter experience the folly and madness of their effort to exterminate or subdue us, Lincoln will carry every state, Such an ebb of the tide of feeling for peace as has occurred in the North in twenty days is almost as marvelous as it is discouraging. The temper of the Northern public mind seems to me to be as unstable, unregulated and wild as that of any savage race. …They will fight us until we are destroyed or they are exhausted…

            …Very truly your friend,

                                    T.E. Lacy Clay”

            Having looked through this letter it is a case that the Confederacy was just as tired as war as the North, but felt that they needed to act quickly in order to bring about an end of the war that would ultimately bring them as the victors instead of the defeated as it actually happens. I found reading some of these letters to be interesting in the fact that I had never realized that the Confederacy was actually trying the win the war by means of “peace”, but I guess it is one of those things that sounds good in theory but never truly came to point were there would be a nation divided by war but separated by peace.

Sources:

Kinchen, Oscar A., comp. "Appendix IV." Confederate Operations in Canada and the North. North Quincy, Massachusetts: Christopher House, 1970. 226. Print.

Kinchen, Oscar A., comp. "Appendix V." Confederate Operations in Canada and the North. North Quincy, Massachusetts: Christopher House, 1970. 226. Print.

Clay Papers, Manuscript Division, Duke University Library

Clement C. Clay Papers, Record Group 109, National Archives

Five Civilized Tribes

Being the Native American scholar that I am, I am choosing to write my Reconstruction paper on the Five Civilized Tribes during the Reconstruction Era.  On a side note, Native American history is the only history that I enjoy most and the only type I find interest in.  My choosing of this topic has given me more knowledge into my love of Native Americans. I find the term civilized as applied in this case at various times as insulting or derogatory, as implying that other Native American tribes were “not civilized” and that the five tribes could only earn the designation of being “civilized” to the extent they took up the cultural values and ways of the European Americans. 

For those who do not know, the tribes that they considered the “Five Civilized Tribes” were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw.  These tribes were considered civilized by the Anglo-European settlers during the colonial and early federal period because they adopted many of the colonists’ customs and had generally good relations with their neighbors.  These people lived in the southeastern United States and they had an agrarian culture.  In the early part of the 19th century, the US government forced the Tribes to relocate, under Indian Removal, to other parts of the country, a significant number to Indian Territory, in the area that would become the future state of Oklahoma. At the time of their removal tribes were suzerain nations with well established tribal governments, cultures, and legal systems that allowed for slavery.  Many should already know that the tribes were relocated from their homes east of the Mississippi River over several decades during the series of removals known as the Trail of Tears, authorized by federal legislation. 

The Five Tribes were divided in politics during the American Civil War.  The Choctaw and Chickasaw fought predominantly on the Confederate side.  The Creek and Seminole supported the Union, while the Cherokee fought a civil war within their own nation between the majority Confederates and the minority, pro-Union men.  Congress passed a statue that gave the President the authority to suspend the appropriations of any tribe if the tribe is “in a state of actual hostility to the government of the United States… and, by proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe to be abrogated by such tribe.”

As an element in Reconstruction after the Civil War, the Interior Department ordered a meeting of representatives from all Indian tribes which had been affiliated with the Confederacy.  The Council, the Southern Treaty Commission, was first held in Ft. Smith, Arkansas in September of 1865, and was attended by hundreds of Indians representing dozens of tribes.  Over the next several years, the commission negotiated treaties with tribes that resulted in additional relocations to Indian Territory and the de facto creation (initially by treaty) of an unorganized Oklahoma Territory.

Larry S. Watson complied primary sources taken from speeches, reports, and meetings with the Southern Treaty Commission, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1865.  Watson found a report by the President of the Southern Treaty Commission in October 30, 1865.  I find this document especially interesting.  As many may not know, my HIS 450 paper with Dr. Bowes, is about the Nez Perce Indian assimilation in the late nineteenth century.  I have much experience on Native American assimilation reports.   When reading reports of these affairs, one will find many mentions about the “Great Spirit”.  The “Great Spirit” is the Indians word for their god, and the “Great Father” is the president of the United States.

 A report by D.N Cooley, who was president of the Southern Treaty Commission writes in 1865 that the red children “pained the Great Father the President” because some of the “portions of the several tribes united with the wicked white men who have engaged in way, and that they had attempted to throw off allegiance to the United States government, made treaty stipulations with the enemies of the government, and have been in open war with those who have remained loyal and true and at war with the United States.”  Cooley tells the tribes that “the President is willing to make new treaties with such nations and tribes as are willing to be at peace among themselves and with the United States.”

My interpretation of Cooley’s speech with the tribes and his report that they sent to the U.S. government is clouded with lies.  American efforts to assimilate and “befriend” the Native Americans were just that, lies.  The Five Civilized Tribes were no different.  Their equally got the brunt of the American treaties because of their intentions in the Civil War.  After the war, and during Reconstruction, many of the Native Americans were left out of the mix and were told to assimilate and have “peace” with the “Great Father” because the “Great Spirit” wanted them too.  That red children and white children should all be equal and share their lands.  As anyone who actually reads history about Native Americans would know, and NO, equality never came and that NO the lands were forced away from them as they were thrown onto reservations. 

What I am getting at is this, that Reconstruction, while it may have helped and paved the way for Africans, it did not help the Five Tribes or any other Native American for that matter.  The concept of Reconstruction is overplayed and equality for all had presumably never been put into effect, no matter how much contradicting jargon the United States government seemed to spew out of their mouths, especially from the Native Americans sake.  In sum, the treatment of the Native Americans, as well as the Five Civilized Tribes, should have been better than what they received. 

“Act of Congress, R.S. Sec. 2080 derived from act July 5, 1862, ch. 135, Sec.1, 12 Stat. 528.” Retrieved March 27, 2013. 

Peery, Dan W. “Chronicles of Oklahoma: A Foreordained Commonwealth”.  http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v014/v014p022.html.  Accessed March 27, 2013. Oklahoma. 1936.

“Report of D.N. Cooley, as president of the southern treaty commission.” Department of the Interior.  Office of Indian Affairs. October 30, 1865. 

Watson, Larry S. “Journal of Southern Treaty Commission of 1865”.  Histree. 1994.

Very interesting exchanges on the Clinton and McConnell speeches. Rather than respond to the posts individually, I'll say a word or two here.

1. Catherine Clinton: a fascinating talk, for those who could follow her rather dry, stream-of-consciousness delivery (o.k., I'll accept "boring"). She seems to have irked some people in this class, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. I certainly don't think she "butchered" women's experiences at all, and I don't quite see the sensationalizing that some of you pointed to. I'm not bothered that she criticized Ken Burns. She argued that Burns's film made women's experience an auxiliary to men's, of the compensatory type ("here's how even women contributed to the war effort . . ."), and I think that criticism is valid. On the other hand, Burns included women's voices far more extensively than any other popular-media account of the war that had been produced up to that time (1991). Clinton delivered what I take to be a friendly criticism of Burns.

2. Mitch McConnell on John Crittenden: having the Senate minority leader on campus is a pretty big deal and a coup for EKU. He is a person of national stature, and I'm glad some of you scored some photos with him. I didn't hear his talk, so I can't comment on its academic quality. I'd say this about Crittenden and compromise: his proposals to end secession would have provided federal guarantees of slavery, which I have a hard time stomaching. The abolitionist perspective that most of us (all?) share makes it hard to see the moral value in that kind of compromise. And I'm taken with Lincoln's argument that the compromises amounted to blackmail, and if the US had accepted them in 1861, Southern states would have threatened secession to gain more "compromises" in 1862 and every year beyond that. I'm glad Crittenden helped keep Kentucky from seceding, but then again he opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. Had he lived past 1863, would he have moved in a more Confederate direction, as many Kentuckians did after the EP went into effect?
     We seem to have in our country a deep respect for statesmen who seek compromise (Clay and Crittenden being Kentucky's fine examples of the pragmatic legislator). Hardliners, whether abolitionists of the 1850s or Tea Partiers of today tend to disparage compromise as a violation of moral principle. I don't know how Sen. McConnell wants us to see him -- in the tradition of Clay/Crittenden or a defender of moral righteousness? He hasn't really acted in either tradition. He certainly has not been a compromiser, and I've never heard him articulate a compelling moral or idealistic vision. How will he want to be remembered?

Catherine Clinton's Lecture on Women in the War

I attended Catherine Clinton's lecture on women during the Civil War, and here are some of my thoughts.
Clinton almost immediately began with a jab at Ken Burns' widely acclaimed documentary The Civil War. She criticized the work for its lack of perspective of women. To her, the female perspective was on the "cutting room floor." To Clinton, females played a very important role in the war, much more than Burns' film would have you believe. This certainly caught the attention of the audience, as most were probably Ken Burns fans.

I thought this was slightly shortsighted of Clinton. Burns' doc, while very lengthy, was on the topic of the Civil War, and most of the. While his depictions of women during the time may have been somewhat contrived, Clinton's comments felt like a full-scale repudiation of the work. Perhaps this was not intended, and maybe I'm biased, but it felt like too much.

She then began discussing the extent of the impact that women made on the Civil War. She discussed the reality women faced living in a male dominated society. Almost chief among her stories, she included anecdotes about cross-dressing females, posing as men to fight on the battlefield. She also discussed, among other things, the lives of slave women, including a very well-timed historical association with Michelle Obama.

Clinton's lecture was highly informative, as I had no idea of females cross-dressing as male soldiers during war time. She used vivid language to carry her lecture. It was enjoyable.

Something from class that we learned was the odd view of many Americans that freed blacks would result in white women running away with them. I thought it was interesting that Clinton didn't talk about this at all, because it was so dominant in political talk of the time.

Catherine Clinton

Catherine Clinton, while not the best public speaker I have seen brought up some very interesting points in her lecture on Thursday. She focused mainly on the local issues opposed to the large scale political and military issues that are focused on in class. Clinton's main focus in her lecture was the role of women and their oppression during the Civil War.

Clinton began her speech talking about how women were facing interlocking chains of oppression, and had been for centuries in the United States, before the idea of emancipation had even been thought of. Slavery might have been ending in the United States, but women were fighting to be equal to men. Clinton focused a lot of her talk on the fictional character Scarlett O'Hara, and her fictional tales of being a female heroine during the time of the Civil War. There were however, real live women that were the unsung heroes of the Civil War. A woman such as Annie Whitmeyer was among the women of this time, who created a meal plan for soldiers in hospitals to speed up recovery.

Two women that Clinton referred to were Elizabeth and Emily Blackwell. These women gain support for the war effort, and helped create the WCRA with their 2000-3000 supporters. Also 6 of the 12 board members for the WCRA were women opposed to men, which was unheard of at this time for women to be in roles of power. The Civil War may have been almost impossible to fund without the help of women. In Chicago, for example, $800,000 was raised by women from a charity fair that was held. Manhattan, not to be outdone then raised $1,000,000 in a charity fair shortly after the one in Chicago. This fair that was held in Manhattan was built from the ground up by women, and 10,000 people attended. These great fundraising accomplishments could be made by women, because at the time the government was spreading this idea that work was more important than leisure time, which was very different before fighting broke out in 1861.

While women’s indirect efforts in fundraising were essential to United States success women also helped in more direct way. Women served as nurses during the war, often tending to soldiers on the battlefield in the line of fire. Some women even went so far as to impersonate men, and fight alongside them. Tales of women living as men to be allowed in battle were not uncommon at this time.

The Civil War was not only tales of triumph. Women were often hit the hardest in terms of war. One woman by the name of Sarah Balou lost her husband at age 39, and never was able to remarry due to an entire generation of men being whipped out by the war (with 3 out of 5 men dying from diseases and another 20% dying in battle). Women that worked struggled tremendously during the Civil War. Wages decreased as much as 50% during war time. This paired with inflation that doubled the price on every day necessities such as sugar, eggs, and bread made it nearly impossible for some women to survive. Another struggle not often realized during this time was the during the Civil War the sex trade was at an all-time high, often due to women’s necessity to make money just to survive during this time.

Women fought hard during the Civil War in various ways, and are still fighting for equality today. No women were invited to speak at a Fort Sumter benefit this past summer, and the on stage at the March on Washington were women in the choir. Women still have a long fight ahead of them to achieve equality, but the women of the Civil War laid a strong path for women today to follow.

Mitch McConnell Lecture on John J. Crittenden

   Mitch McConnell's lecture on John J. Crittenden was a blast.  He was very informative!  Personally, being a staunch Republican that I am, I thoroughly enjoyed actually meeting McConnell. (If this offends, then get over it).  This was my first time ever meeting a man of such high profile.  

    I had actually never really studied much on Crittenden.  From McConnell's lecture, I believe that Crittenden did a lot for Kentucky.  While popular history shines the light on Crittenden as being the "poor man's Henry Clay", I feel that if it was not for Crittenden and his efforts of keeping Kentucky in the Union, we might have fallen to the Confederacy much soon.   Kentucky was the strategic spot that was needed for the Union to succeed and beat the South. Crittenden's efforts of keeping Kentucky together and in tact is really admirable.  McConnell's deliverance of his knowledge on Crittenden, from the early stages of his political career to his death in  1863, is very intriguing.  Very, very smart man. 

   Plus, he didn't have to, but he did anyway, he took pictures with Nate and I.  While many people do not like him, McConnell is a very nice and humble man. 

John J. Crittenden

Mitch McConnell's speech about Kentucky lawyer and statesman John J. Crittenden was very informative. I knew very little about Crittenden's life before the speech, but McConnell spoke about his early law career in Kentucky and his long role in government spent mostly in the shadow of Henry Clay. Crittenden was many times unjustly compared with Clay and is often forgotten. His compromises, like Clay, kept the Union together during the early 1800's. Clay died before seeing the country torn apart by war, but Crittenden died during the war, never seeing the country reunited. He took on many roles in his public service: US House of Representatives, US Senate, US Attorney General, governor of Kentucky, and the state legislature. He also once refused his parties nomination to run for the presidency. Crittenden and Clay tried to hold together the country through legislative acts instead of bloodshed, in the end change and unity only would come from the destruction of a way of life and no compromise.

Catherine Clinton Speech

I found Catherine Clinton's speech about women during the Civil War not as informative as I would have liked. Clinton chose to attack historians such as Ken Burns for not portraying women's roles more on the home front. Why then does Clinton take the majority of her speech telling of women cross dressing as men and engaging in battle. Is this a home front activity? Clinton has chosen to sensationalize the topic and tell intriguing stories of daring women risking their lives along side men. True as these stories are, it only puts deeper into the shadows the true story of women that stayed behind and fended off raiding armies, milked cattle, plowed gardens, cut wood, tended to children and did real home front work. By telling her glamorous stories, she has proven that an audience doesn't want to hear a true story about a soldier that guarded the Green River Railroad Bridge for fourteen months in 1864 and never saw battle or bloodshed. No one will sit through a speech about a blind farmer that couldn't go to war. Will a book be popular about the life of a soldier that only battled dysentery in an army camp? Likewise, most are not interested in hearing of true monotonous un-heroic daily lives. There were women during the Civil War that were not nurses, cross dressers, or prostitutes, but their stories may never be told due to historians only attacking other historians or focusing on exhilarating topics. A few parts of Clinton's speech were informative and do give women their rightful place in history, but she focused more on audience interest than true facts of the common Civil War woman. At least a mention during the speech about Kentuckian Mary Todd Lincoln would have been greatly appreciated.

Official Record of the War of the Rebellion

War of the Rebellion

 

            The Cornell University Library has done an outstanding job making the official military transcripts for both the Union and Confederate armies available. The account details correspondence between the Secretary of War and other military personnel, setting forth the actions taken by each in the moves in and around the war itself.

            In here, you see an account set forth by Maj. Robert Anderson, and the then Secretary of War J.B. Floyd. The detail concerns Anderson’s evacuation of Fort Moultrie to the more defendable Fort Sumter. Anderson took it upon himself to evacuate the Fort due to an inability to hold the position, feeling sure he would lose many lives as well; he decided to leave behind a small garrison, destroying carriages and ammunition and spiking the guns so they could not be used against him in the inevitable taking of the Fort by the Confederacy. His fears were well placed, as a few nights later the fort was taken and all of the public property seized to be used by the occupying forces.

            The accounts further detail the events of Charleston Harbor in 1860. The reports offer only the militarily cold description of what happened. More of a step by step approach as opposed to the letters and correspondence between soldiers and their loved ones at home. Reading this one gets a sense of chivalry between the opposing forces as each was afforded the luxury of time in waiting to receive further orders from the War department. As is the case in the taking of Fort Moultrie, where the remaining men were dispatched without harm, but their properties kept, again in the seizing of the Charleston Arsenal when Capt. F.C. Humphreys was surrounded by armed troops by Col. John Cunningham of the 17^th Regiment Infantry South Carolina. Captain Humphreys asks to remain in the accommodations with his men until they receive further orders, and ask that he be allowed to salute his flag, which has one star for each state still in the Union.

            While in Volume 10, you have the accounts that took place in Kentucky, Tennessee, N. Mississippi, N. Alabama and S.W. Virginia. These start out claiming the need for the post service to keep pace with the armies advance, and questioning why some reports went unanswered concerning troop strength and positions, and the fact that the Tennessee River had submerged Fort Henry. Again, most are in the cold militarily direct, format. While lacking some of the emotion displayed in personal letters that show the conditions of the time and the mindset of the soldiers the reports offer an insight of why troops were being shuffled from place to place, the delay in orders being received and the steps taken to remedy this problem.

            While reading the accounts set forth which show not only the actions made of one’s own volition but the procedural steps that ensue in any time of strife and uncertainty they also revealed the advantageous and adversarial role the land scape played. It also shows the kind of trepidation that each side had for the spilling of blood, some were less willing to go into messy situations while others were bent on destruction and ruin. While reluctance seemed to dominate some of the action, it was a testament to the resolve of the core ideas of each side. Both willing to fight for what they believe, I was surprised to see a chivalrous side to the war as one typically does not think this about war struggles.

Palmetto Song: Alluding to secession

In November of 1860, someone wrote a poem, “Palmetto Song”, for The Charleston Daily Courier, which alluded to South Carolina fighting for its state’s rights. The poem illustrates just how upset the state was that Lincoln had just been elected as president, and how they felt that their rights were going to be encroached upon.

            The poem begins by alluding to the state armory, the Palmetto, and calling the citizens of South Carolina to rise up and defend their rights. The author poses the question “shall we bend to the power that threatens our peace, or stand for our country ‘till being shall cease?” This is interesting because this line hints at the extreme possibility of South Carolina seceding from the United States. The author is asking the readers whether they want to give up their rights and stay in the Union, or defend what is already in place. This poem was written just a few months before South Carolina seceded, and it shows just how passionate some people were about secession.

            Secession and war seemed to be the only answers to the problem according to this poem. The author believed that oppression was coming and wrote “if oppression must come, with giant-like strides to endanger thy right…we dread not the tyrant, we fear not his might. ‘Neath our banner will rally with hope for one star, ‘God armeth the patriot’ amid the dread war.” These lines show how South Carolinians viewed themselves during the war. They viewed themselves as people who were oppressed by the government, and they felt the only way to overcome their oppression was to go against Lincoln and the government. This is interesting because the South always claimed to be oppressed and the weaker man, yet they fully supported oppressing a whole race. This poem illustrates the double standard the South had in regards to their views on oppression. It was all right for the South to oppress African Americans, but it was terrible for the government to try to end slavery, which somehow translated into oppression to southerners.

            The poems primary focus is on this idea that South Carolina and the institution of slavery are being threatened by the government, and the only way to solve the problem is to fight. The author believed that it was necessary for the people of South Carolina to defend the states’ rights.  The author referenced the Palmetto armory again at the end of poem, claiming that the Palmetto is “the pride of [the South Carolina] story.” The references to the armory could cause one to believe that the author felt that violence was the only way to end the conflict between the South and the Union. The author also acknowledged the possibility that South Carolina might not win the battle against the U.S. government. There were only two outcomes of the war according to the author, “like freemen we’ll stand, or we’ll perish in glory.” There did not seem to be room for compromise according to the author, but either way it ended the soldiers would be considered heroes. The soldiers would be heroes if they defeated the Union, or they would be heroes if they lost the battle. If they died in battle, then that was all right since they had fought on the “right” side.

            This poem helped to give insight into how the people of South Carolina were feeling before secession. It was easier to understand how they felt by reading a poem someone wrote, rather than reading a textbook, because there was more emotion to it. It was also interesting to read because it showed just how tense the situation was just a few short months before the South started to secede. Poetry from the time is a good way to see exactly how people were feeling and reacting to the situation that surrounded them.

"Palmetto Song." The Charleston Daily Courier 12 November 1860.  Print.

The Future of the Black Man: A Douglass Speech

On February 5^th, of 1862 Frederick Douglass gave a speech regarding the “Black man’s future in the Southern States” in the city of Boston Massachusetts; a city all too familiar with the uprising of a people from tyrannical woes. The premise of this speech primarily focused on exactly what the title entails; yet it was not limited to that. In the early focuses of Frederick Douglass’s speech, he states that he would first like to “make a few remarks, personal and general, respecting the tremendous crisis through which we are passing.” Perhaps the most significant personal remarks he made were regarding the hypocrisy of slavery, and from my perspective, how he takes the abolishment of slavery as a personal responsibility.
                Fredrick Douglass as most should know grew up in bondage. He was a slave for Twenty-two years of his life, and by the time this speech was delivered, he lived as a free man for Twenty-three years (492). Freed slaves such as Douglass must have certainly yearned for the freedom of all who found themselves in bondage, and Frederick Douglass was no exception. In this speech he criticizes the nation and the government for its hypocrisy on slavery, and the failure to rid the nation of this travesty already. Slaves had fought to secure the nations independence, yet they were prohibited from enjoying the freedom. They were good enough to serve under the command of General Washington, but not McClellan. They were permitted to fight under Andrew Jackson, but not Halleck. He doesn’t stop there. We all should be able to agree that the Emancipation Proclamation was a positive thing. However, Douglass asks why it is necessary to Douglass makes these legitimate complaints because he seems to think of it as a responsibility of his. He says “it is his mission to stand up for the down-trodden, to open his mouth for the dumb, to remember those in bonds as bound with them (494).

Imagine; if at all possible, that you spend nearly half of your life in slavery. Imagine by your own willingness to escapes the bondage of a master, you educated yourself, and thus liberate yourself. Now, a former slave has the ability to read and write; would you not feel some responsibility in fighting for the freedoms of others who are in the same position you were? I sympathize with Douglass, and could fully understand his stance. Yet, in his speech, he is yet to detail his idea of what the future of the black man will hold. Even after criticizing current commanders, and explaining how this situation is personal; he questions the whole premise of “Liberty as an Experiment.”
                This former slave is now a free man, and fully feels that all slaves should be free. However, the entire premise that emancipation is an experiment, and not simply the way it is appears to baffle him. He states that “they are not wolves, nor tigers, but men (505).” It’s enlightening to hear the common sense to be honest. Why are we questioning the ability of these people to be free? They are human, right? Well, even though Douglass is right; one must not forget that slave owners saw slaves as savage animals. So of course they did not feel they could just be set free. Remember, there were people that actually tried to argue scientific evidence of white superiority. Fredrick Douglass then begins the topic in which the title entails.
                “But would we have them stay here? Why should they not? What better is here than there? What class of people can show a better title to the land on which they lived than the colored people of the South (505).” This is an interesting point. Would the Freeing of slaves in America lead them to being shipped away and remaining separate from the race of people that previously enslaved them? This is in fact what Lincoln once proposed as a way to secure the nation’s future. Douglass argues that if Negro’s shall no longer live in the South, then the lands in the South may as well not be cultivated. Is he not correct? This has been the South’s labor force for centuries. Would it be economically wise to simply eradicate them from the South? I feel that Lincolns stance that I previously mentioned was somewhat illogical.

Douglass’s second point is equally as logical as his first. The abolitionist had fought for the freedom of these people because they saw it as a fundamental evil. Would these same people who fought so vigorously for the abolition of slavery agree “to make them leave the land of their birth, and pay the expense of their enforced removal (506).” This would make no sense, and would simply undermine what so many fought for. Douglass repeated throughout the speech poses the question, “What are we to do with four million slaves”. Would they be rounded up on ships and taken away? He notes that at the time of his speech, one could not turn around without encountering a black man (507).

All and all I feel Douglass wants to make the point that, this nation is in this together. It has suffered the hardships of slavery, the battles for freedom, and it must also stand together in “the perfection of human brotherhood (508).” Recall that Douglass appears to take this issue as a personal responsibility. He had noted early in the speech that another nation that goes unspecified had offered him citizenship, and he had turned it down. Despite the years of bondage, Douglass did not leave America. In this speech he highly doubts the ability of the country to survive if those earning freedom are simply denied a life among the nation. From this speech I take away patriotism, logic, and solutions from Frederick Douglass’s words. I find him to be one of the most fascinating men of that era; and rightfully so.

Douglass, Frederick. The Frederick Douglass Papers Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews.      Edited by John W. Blassingame. New York: Yale University Press, 1985.

Nate Back's opinion on the Women and the Civil War lecture

I found the lecture to be somewhat interesting, just very lengthy.  In no way am I a sexist or chauvinist  but the one thing that jumped out at me the most was the part that discussed the booming sex trade during the Civil War.  That is something that is never really pushed to the forefront of Civil War discussions.  I suppose that sex would be a high commodity during war times, with all the death and the promise of no tomorrow.  I chuckled at the mentioning of how the prostitutes were seen as a health hazard and such.  Maybe its my inner Beavis and Butthead that was in full bloom or the fact that I am still quite immature to be as old as I am.  My first reaction to the mentioning of prostitutes was Fightin' Joe Hooker.  I am now more aware of why Fightin' Joe had the resources to be known as the father of the term "Hooker". 

As a whole, I am not that interested in women's history.  I get bored with it easy. I am sorry but it just doesn't click with me. I did find the topic of women pretending to be men and thus being soldiers to be interesting in a non-immature manner.  I am very much interested in military history and anything military related gets my attention, so thus the mentioning of females serving in the army.  One of my favorite anecdotes was the story of the corporeal and the other soldier kept going to bed together and how the corporeal had a baby.  The stories of the drag soldiers reminded me for some strange reason of the 2009 film Pope Joan.  I was also reminded of the historical Joan of Arc (who is not related to the previously mentioned film in any way).  My tangent thought during the lecture was what things would have been like if a woman was allowed to be in command like Joan of Arc.  I wondered if she would have played a pivotal role in the events of the Civil War.  So until the day Joan of Gettysburg is written Me and the rest of the world may never know.

Women and the American Civil War Lecture

Catherine Clinton's lecture on Women and the American Civil War could have been made better. I think that she did an okay job at speaking about how women during the Antebellum period were overlooked.  To this day, women from that time period remain understudied and undervalued.  In my first blog on this site, I did it on Women in the Civil War, and I wrote about how women had multifaceted roles in the Civil War.  Clinton's lecture tonight only reinforced my viewpoint.  Really, I did not learn anything else that was new to me.

What I found my "thought provoking" about her lecture tonight was the stories she told about different women, and how their lifestyles during this time was challenging to their mainstream world.  Of course, I find that many of these stories hold much value and I appreciate her study of these ladies because though they may be overlooked, they do deserve our attention. Otherwise, her lecture kind of sucked, with lack of a better term.

Catherine Clinton

My interest in the American Civil War has really been piqued in the last couple years, but I am often disappointed about how the struggle is framed or how its characters are portrayed.  As a feminist scholar, I have become tired of hearing about female nurses, cross dressers, and prostitutes, all of whom were directly engaged with the military element of the war.  I in no way wish to demean the struggles these women faced, but I have constantly been left asking myself, "where are the rest of the women?"  If women made up half of the population, where are their stories?  Catherine Clinton did a wonderful job tonight sharing some of these forgotten voices.  She spoke about the real women of the Civil War era and how their lives have been overlooked, misinterpreted, undervalued, and, most frequently, forgotten all together.  Dr. Clinton presented the untold stories of women who were activists, social workers, and dietitians, and women who saw the opportunity to free themselves and seized it.  In one of my classes, which focuses on the history and politics of the world's revolutions, we had a discussion where many individuals argued that women didn't have any true or compelling role in the French Revolution!  I found myself in utter disbelief that we were having the discussion.  I asked, "what do you mean, 'were they involved?'" They were roughly half the population and had to experience the violence and terror in their country just like everyone else; though I will concede that women have rarely, if ever, had a hand in starting these devastating wars.  To be fair, we are not readily presented with the tales of these silently enduring women of history; or, rather, herstory.  This is why Catherine Clinton, as well as other scholars focusing on women's experience, are so important and inspiring.  If the Civil War should teach us anything, it is the devastating effect that social inequality can have on a nation, this nation.  And how the unjust omissions of the historical record can perpetuate these inequities for generations.

Reasons for Revolution: The Cornerstone Speech

As compelling as Alexander Stephen's speech is to read, I find that the draw is not from the inspiration of Confederate ideas, but in the insanity in which he truly believes what he speaks is the ultimate truth. In all sense of the word, Stephen's is a fanatic for his cause. In his Cornerstone Speech, he does not believe himself as such and states:

"Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises...."

To him, he is not the fanatic. Instead, those in the North who strongly believe the opposite of him are the fanatics and guilty of insanity.

While reading Stephen's speech, he places emphasis on the idea that what he speaks is the ultimate truth as ordained by God himself. He believes that God intentionally made things unequal unlike those in the North who claim equality for all races. "They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal." He utilizes this as a main premise for his argument for the majority of the state. To a reader now, who has never truly known or experienced the effects slavery has upon a society, it is difficult to connect with Stephen's speech and his ideas. To say that for a negro "subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system." is illogical in consideration of the society that has since developed. 

It is curious, however, the way in which Stephen's comes upon this conclusion. It is almost as if he comes upon it through philosophical reasoning because he states (about the Union), "Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails." In the beginning of his speech, it can be inferred that he has considered each portion of the Union's argument and then, as the speech progress, through his own philosophical reasoning has rebutted every bit of it. 

I came to the previous conclusion based upon his breakdown of the main points that the Confederate Constitution includes which he claims the Constitution of the United States does not include. Something interesting I found within that section is what he says about the Secretary of the Treasury position. Stephen's states, "Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, enforcing, or defending his views of policy...." I am unsure if this is still the case, but it is something to consider. Stephen's mentions that all members of the cabinets should be included as Senators and House Representatives so that they have the means to create their own policies for consideration rather than searching for a Congressman to represent them. 

As insane as his speech was for me to read since it goes against my morals, I found every once and a while he said something intelligent that really makes you stop and think and consider what he has said such as I have mentioned above. It would be interesting to investigate further into that matter (which I intend to do so) and discover what exactly the Cabinet members must do in order to get policies they develop go through Congress to be passed.

Confederate States of America. Cornerstone Speech. Alexander H. Stephens. Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861. From Civil War Trust, 2013. Civilwar.org http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/alexander-h-cornerstone.html