Land Ownership and the Foundations of Democracy, Part One (What Made This Particular Destiny So Manifest?)

Land was a big deal when our little experiment in democracy began. Why?

Let’s ask the Founding Fathers. They seemed bright. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… 

(Declaration of Independence, 1776)

Consent of the governed? As in, the people being ruled make the rules, and all that? Huh – big responsibility. Harder than it sounds.

Given the number of reality shows based on the challenges of a dozen or so people living together in a free house with unlimited alcohol and no jobs, running an entire country based on the collective will of the masses seems… problematic. “Come at me, IDAHO!”

And the rallying cry had been “No taxation without representation!” The phrase has survived, but over the years we’ve lost sight of something rather obvious in these words, and inherent to our founding ideology: If paying taxes means you deserve to have a voice in your government, then it’s not unreasonable to suggest that having a voice in your government is contingent on your willingness and ability to pay taxes. 

In other words, you have to own something valuable enough to be taxed. Like, say… land.

So we have two issues in play as the Founders wrestle with outlining this new government – the connection between paying into the system and thus earning a voice in the running of that system, and the practical challenges of who exactly “consents” to that government on behalf of the whole. Little wonder our progenitors might try to reconcile them in concert – hopefully without overtly dialing back those fancy new ideals they’d been proclaiming to justify the entire project. 

They weren’t starting from scratch. There were some longstanding assumptions about land ownership – or the lack thereof – with which they could begin. 

If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote…

You gotta pay close attention when any argument begins with “in theory…”

But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.” 

(Alexander Hamilton, Quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England, 1775)

So, in order to assure that everyone’s political voice is more or less equal, we’re going to have to deny a political voice to some – to those without the ability to provide for themselves. Otherwise, the entire representative system may be undermined through the ability of the wealthy to manipulate the indigent.

Ironic, huh?

Then again, Hamilton was kinda Machiavellian about such things. Maybe someone less… cynical?

Viewing the subject in its merits alone…

That sounds a whole lot like “in theory” again…

…the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty. In future times the great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation, in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands; or, which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side. 

(James Madison, Speech in the Constitutional Convention, August 1787)

No help here from the ‘Father of the Constitution’. Apparently handing power over to men without land leads to either a tyranny of the masses (mob rule) or a system in which the ignorant and easily agitated are led about by the manipulations of the wealthy and power-hungry.

My god, we wouldn’t want that. Can you imagine?

It appears that while our new nation was taking the concept of self-rule well beyond anything previously attempted, there were still substantial concerns over appropriate limits. This isn’t a dilemma unique to starting new nations. It’s one thing to talk about student-directed learning, for example, but quite another to hand them the chalk and the wifi password and tell them you’ll check back in May.

Get too idealistic, and the system devolves into chaos. Maintain too much structure – aka, limitations – and you quickly become just like whatever system you were trying to get away from. It’s like trying to balance Jello on your nose while you learn to unicycle. 

Hey – you know who we didn’t ask? Jefferson! I mean, you can find quotes from Jefferson to prove just about anything, right?

You have lived longer than I have and perhaps may have formed a different judgment on better grounds; but my observations do not enable me to say I think integrity the characteristic of wealth. In general I believe the decisions of the people, in a body, will be more honest & more disinterested than those of wealthy men: & I can never doubt an attachment to his country in any man who has his family & peculium in it…

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edmund Pendleton Philadelphia, Aug. 26, 1776) 

I had to look up ‘peculium’. It means ‘stuff’ – including family, income, etc. Not quite the same as land, but still property – still evidence of competence via one’s successful estate. In other words, no help from T.J.

Jefferson here confesses to a sort of paradox – he doesn’t believe for a moment that wealth indicates personal integrity or even political wisdom. At the same time, he finds it easier to trust the input of someone who’s invested in the success of the nation of which they’re a part. 

It’s the difference between shopping at Bobo’s Grocery Extravaganza and working there, or between working at Bobo’s and investing your life savings in Bobo stock. If I’m a shopper and Bobo’s fails, it’s merely inconvenient. If I work there and it fails, it’s a problem.

But if my kids’ college savings and my retirement are all tied up in Bobo’s, I’m going to go above and beyond to do a great job every time I’m there. I may clean up even when that’s not part of my job, or study up on products I’m not actually required to know about. I’ll certainly be ultra-friendly to every customer who walks in the door. Heck, I may come in on my day off just to kinda help out. 

Because I’m invested. 

Land ownership suggests one is not only capable, but invested in the nation’s success. If I’m a landowner, I care very much about the next election, the local statutes, the state questions. Crazy Harold who lives under the bridge talking to his urine may be a nice guy, but he’s not overly concerned with researching the finer points of foreign policy. 

Well, unless his pee tells him to. 

So it seems that whatever else they argued about, our Founding Fathers were largely in agreement about one thing. Landowners were reliable, and self-sufficient. Their voice was their own. Those without? Not so much.

Keep in mind this was a new country – a baby nation. The Declaration was as much a birth certificate as a break-up letter, and our forebears were trying something entirely new. They were idealists, sure – but they were also educated, and realists, and had some idea of the ways in which people tend to behave.

If this ‘self-government’ thing didn’t work, America would fail. If America failed, then democracy had failed. And if democracy failed here, it effectively failed everywhere – in many cases it would never even begin.

The Dark Ages would return – tyranny and ignorance. Monsters once again rule the earth. It would be what we in the social sciences call “bad.”

It was John Adams (of all people) who best explained how the young nation could be both a land of opportunity and pragmatically defend itself against fools and freeloaders.

It is certain in Theory, that the only moral Foundation of Government is the Consent of the People.

There’s that “in theory” again…

But to what an Extent Shall We carry this Principle? Shall We Say, that every Individual of the Community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every Act of Legislation? No, you will Say. This is impossible…

Adams probably talked too much, but I do love how he steps his audience through his reasoning. It’s very Socrates, very Holmes, very Bill Nye the Government Guy. Franklin may have been the poster child of the Enlightenment in the New World, but Adams was its lesson-planner and incessant blogger.

But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children have not Judgment or Will of their own…

How did Abigail not kill him regularly?

I know a number of impressive women both professionally and personally. They are varied and wonderful creatures, but very few qualify for the epithet ‘delicate’. Clearly John was not in the room during childbirth.

But will not these Reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own? … Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own…

There it is – the same basic argument which was made time and again by our Framers. You gotta pass the 8th grade reading test to take Driver’s Ed, you gotta keep a ‘C’ average or better to play football, and you gotta have your own land to vote. It’s nothing personal. It’s simply an imperfect indicator of minimal competence.

Doctors gotta have degrees to doctor on you. Accountants have to be certified to do spreadsheets on your behalf. Barbers have to have special certificates confirming their competence to snip your hair off with scissors. None of these hold the power over the vast numbers of people a voter does. None could do the damage possible at the hands of the unqualified citizen.

Or so they reasoned. Personally, I think they were overreacting. I mean, pretty much everyone can vote today, right? And things are going –

OK, maybe they weren’t overreacting. 

But Adams doesn’t leave it at that. He elaborates on a solution, a counterbalance. He looks at the long game.

Power always follows Property. This I believe to be as infallible a Maxim, in Politicks, as, that Action and Re-action are equal, is in Mechanicks. Nay I believe We may advance one Step farther and affirm that the Ballance of Power in a Society, accompanies the Ballance of Property in Land.

The only possible Way then of preserving the Ballance of Power on the side of equal Liberty and public Virtue, is to make the Acquisition of Land easy to every Member of Society: to make a Division of the Land into Small Quantities, So that the Multitude may be possessed of landed Estates.

If the Multitude is possessed of the Ballance of real Estate, the Multitude will have the Ballance of Power, and in that Case the Multitude will take Care of the Liberty, Virtue, and Interest of the Multitude in all Acts of Government. 

(Letter to James Sullivan, May 1776) 

It’s all kinda understatement to say that the first century of American history was largely shaped by this need for land. 

Some of it was primal and selfish, of course. At times, shiny rocks were in the ground or particularly nice lumber stuck up out of it. But those were the temporal motivators. The ethical Under Armour of expansion as a whole was this political – almost spiritual – paradigm. 

To be a City on a Hill, one must have a hill. To be a republic – a government of-the-by-the-for-the – one must have qualified voters. The most universal way to demonstrate basic responsibility, competence, and character, was land ownership. Thus the almost sacred role of land in both the founding and expanding of this new democracy. It was, to many Framers, the most obvious and tangible measure of a man’s legitimacy, his investment, and his potential value as another voice in the national discussion. 

Without widespread, relatively easy access to land, democracy wasn’t possible, and this grand experiment would fail. If democracy failed here, it effectively failed everywhere – it would, in fact, never even begin elsewhere.

Dark Ages. Tyranny and ignorance. Monsters rule the earth.

Every homestead was a 160-acre, individually-sized portion of national ideals. Its role was not asserted so much as perceived – much like many other “self-evident” truths bandied about in those days. And as if that weren’t enough, the issue wasn’t solely terrestrial.

Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people, whose breasts He has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. 

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782)

I’m no authority on Jefferson, but you don’t know that – so let’s just play along and not make trouble, alright?

“Those who labor in the earth…” 

I suppose he could have just said “farmers,” but this paints a more vivid picture to set up where he’s going. It’s not about a role in the economy or the food chain – it’s about the agency of individuals, applied not merely to ground or soil but to the “earth”. It’s a wide-angle lens on an idealized way of life – Jefferson’s strength.

“…the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people…” 

Wow. Jefferson getting all allusion-y up in here. The most obvious antecedent would be the Israelites of the Old Testament. Jefferson wasn’t a huge fan of biblical literalism, but that wouldn’t negate its value as a frame of reference. 

The addition of “if ever he had a chosen people” may be read as emphasis (“that’s a miracle if ever I saw one!”) or a touch of skepticism (“if there are such things as miracles, this would be one”) – an ambivalence consistent with his few recorded thoughts on scripture. But the power of the image – the holy role of the Hebrew children –he utilizes quite intentionally.

It wasn’t much of a leap from Old Testament progenitors to fresh young Americans – the City on a Hill, the people whose destiny was quickly becoming manifest, and a culture who a century later would carry their “white man’s burden” well past the boundaries of the continent.

But for now the issue was land – or at least the way of life it promoted.

Farmers worked 365 days a year. Soil still needing tilling on your birthday, cows needed milked on Christmas, and no matter how sick you might be, those crops weren’t going to reap themselves. It was labor-intensive and the hours were long, and yet after doing all you could do, all day every day – you waited.

You waited for the rain. You waited for the growth. You waited for the births. You waited for the universe to do its part.

Sometimes it didn’t. Often, even when it did, it took too long and was too slow and there was no way to rush it, but many ways to ruin it. This combination of intense human application and eternal patience is inconceivable generations later. Almost nothing works that way anymore – at least not the sorts of things to which you set your hand on purpose, to carry proudly from cradle to grave.

Sometimes enough years and sufficient survival teach similar lessons in the 21st century – but they come too late to shape much more than our troubled reflections. The laboring Jefferson extols, however, produced “substantial genuine virtue” – a type of perspective and wisdom unavailable minus the requisite experiences.

You won’t find accounts of farmers going rogue in meaningful numbers, he claims. Presumably this is related to all that “virtue” and “sacred fire,” but it also seems unlikely that any successful farmer could have found the time or energy to be particularly corrupt. The natural consequences of immorality or irresponsibility would be an immediate, self-inflicted deterrent. Like playing in the traffic or juggling chainsaws, any screw-ups would be painfully self-correcting.

Agriculture… is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness.  The wealth acquired by speculation and plunder, is fugacious in its nature, and fills society with the spirit of gambling.  The moderate and sure income of husbandry, begets permanent improvement, quiet life, and orderly conduct both public and private.”  

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Washington, 1787)

Jefferson had a distrust of bankers, stock markets, or anything financial industry-ish – so much so that he took great personal pride in never having the foggiest idea how to make his estate solvent. (He died in substantial debt.) Farmers raised essentials. They produced raw materials which could be woven into clothing, smoked for pleasure, eaten to survive. “Real wealth.”

Bankers scribbled numbers in little books, in stuffy rooms, producing nothing, but somehow always taking from you. Farmers dealt in uncertainty, but financiers gambled. While farmers produced, money men “plundered.” The soil, properly tended, would always be there – would always prove reliable. Paper numbers and percentage points never were.

Jefferson is claiming an essential role of land beyond voter qualifications. He’s claiming it as a lifestyle – a moral anchor, social stabilizer, and the only true source of economic security. Husbandry grows in men the essential traits of a fledgling democracy – applied labor, determination, patience, and pragmatism. It’s the wisdom of the earth in the hands of the earth’s masters.

Those Enlightenment-types thought science-y thoughts, but they were still quite comfortable with a little melodramatic sheen to their carefully chosen words. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to spend twice as much time on how you say something as you did on what you were actually saying. Sounds tiring. 

*ironic yawn* 

I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.” 

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787)

Uh-oh.

As yet our manufacturers are as much at their ease, as independent and moral as our agricultural inhabitants, and they will continue so as long as there are vacant lands for them to resort to; because whenever it shall be attempted by the other classes to reduce them to the minimum of subsistence, they will quit their trades and go to laboring the earth.” 

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mr. J. Lithgow, 1805)

So let’s recap…

Land ownership allows the property owner to demonstrate his capability, his competence, his potential to be a useful voice – a valid voter. It suggested he was invested in the success of the nation. 

Land ownership promotes solidity, character, ethereal virtues reflected in wise words and actions – valuable in and of themselves, sure, but especially necessary in a nation relying on the people themselves to provide effective leadership – directly or through their choices regarding representation.

Land must be available to meet the demands of an expanding nation. Without sufficient, arable land, the ideals on which the nation was founded lack the requisite elements to survive. It’s not an optional ingredient – it’s the eggs in the democracy omelet, the flour in the ‘Mericake. 

Finally, in a nod to inconveniently unfolding realities, Jefferson argues that even the POTENTIAL of land ownership – its availability – provides an essential safety valve, a check on the industrializing leaven of Europe as it attempts to leaven the entire American loaf. That he so easily adjusts his faith to accommodate current events I leave to you to interpret as you see fit.

None of our Founders could have anticipated just how quickly this baby nation would begin filling up – the locals spawning and immigrants flowing in as fast as boats could carry them. If these fancy new ideals were going to expand with them, we needed to act quickly.

Opportunity. Responsibility. Chosen people. If it fails here, it fails everywhere. Darkness. Tyranny. Monsters rule the earth.

They were going to need more land. And looking west, it was largely taken…

The American Civil War, Part One (1861-1865) – From “Have To” History

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the American Civil War…

Three Big Things:

Civil War Flags1. The North had more of everything except capable military leadership. They also weren’t fighting to defend their home states, their farms or families, or their overly-romanticized “way of life.” Despite Lincoln’s best efforts, the North kept finding ways to lose for most of the first half of the war.

2. Both sides assumed the war would be brief and glorious. Except for a few experienced military men who remembered the Mexican-American War, troops on both sides went in “green” – inexperienced and ignorant of what they were getting into. Many were excited by the chance to fight. Once they’d “seen the elephant,” however, that enthusiasm was quickly tempered.

3. July 1863 was the turning point of the Civil War. From that month forward, the outcome was inevitable – the South was going to lose. The fact that they prolonged it as long as they did was either noble or especially tragic, given the extensive damage it was necessary to inflict before they surrendered.

Part One (1861-1863)

The Civil War is one of those topics so extensively studied and discussed that it’s easy to get lost in any one of a hundred directions. This list is nowhere near comprehensive and every event or issue addressed easily deserves its own “Have To” entry. For that matter, most have been the subject of too many legit publications to tally.

But if your goal is to fake your way through a class discussion or pretend you’re pulling your weight as part of a group project of some sort, here are some basics you simply must know, in roughly chronological order.

The “Anaconda Plan” (Early 1861) – As it became clear that war was looming, General Winfield Scott, hero of the Mexican-American War and the highest-ranking officer in the Union Army, proposed a simple strategy. The North had more people, more boats, and more resources in general. Its army was full of untrained soldiers (as was the South’s) and armed conflict would mean great loss of life on both sides. So, he argued, the U.S. should use its navy to essentially ‘blockade’ the South – control the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, then seize control of the Mississippi River. Starve them out. The plan was mocked, as was Scott, for such an unmanly approach to warfare. A political cartoon satirizing the idea showed a giant snake wrapped around the South, about to squeeze – hence, “anaconda.”

As it turned out, the war was won largely by taking control of the Mississippi, cutting off the South, and starving them out of action. Scott didn’t get to gloat long, however – he died less than a year after the war ended.

The Border States (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky) – Between Lincoln’s election (November 1860) and his inauguration (March 1861), Seven southern states (all slave states) seceded to form the Confederacy. Four more joined them after hostilities erupted, leaving eighteen northern (and far western) free states loyal to the Union. Four ‘Border States’ with slavery remained in the Union as well. Lincoln took unusual measures to assure their loyalty, including martial law, suspending habeas corpus, stationing troops in problem areas, and other possibly unconstitutional steps. Historians still debate this part today; you should utilize furrowed brows and feign deep concern over whether this was the right call on Lincoln’s part if given the opportunity.

Copperheads – Name given to Northerners who were against the war, led by Northern Democrats (“The Peace Party”). They criticized the draft, abolitionists, and Lincoln’s “despotic” rule for destroying values of America.     Copperhead newspapers even called on Union troops to desert.

Republicans first used the term “Copperheads” as criticism, claiming the Dems were full of venom and struck without warning. The “Peace” Democrats embraced the label and reframed it as a reference to the copper “head” of Liberty, which they cut out of the large one-cent coins in use at the time and wore as badges of honor. President Lincoln had many of the leaders and newspaper owners arrested and held without trial, claiming it was necessary to violate a small part of the Constitution to save the nation. (See above.)

Cotton Diplomacy / “King Cotton” – The South believed Europe needed their cotton and would trade for weapons, food, medicine, etc. They also wanted England and France to recognize the C.S.A. as an independent nation. They pushed the issue by refusing to ship cotton overseas when the war began, not realizing Europe had plenty already stored and other countries producing it closer to home. Europe didn’t appreciate the attempted manipulation, and the South was stuck with lots and lots of cotton and not enough food or ammunition.

Battle of Fort Sumter (April 1861) – First shots of the war. Union fort off the coast of South Carolina. Whereas most military property in the South was essentially abandoned between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration, Anderson held his ground. On April 12th, before dawn, Confederate forces on the beach opened fire, which Anderson returned. By early afternoon, the fighting was over, with exactly zero deaths on either side.

The first fatalities came about as a result of malfunctioning weaponry during a ceremonial flag salute as part of Anderson’s surrender. Some say this battle foreshadowed just how weird the rest of the war was going to be – but not how bloodless.

First Bull Run (July 1861) – The first ground battle of the war. Both sides were wildly optimistic about the war, each expecting to easily whip the other and be home by Christmas. Union troops “marched” from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia, with little discipline or organization along the way. Once the actual fighting started, though, both sides did much better than expected despite being “green.”

The North seemed to be gaining the advantage and was pushing back the South until three things happened:

(1) “Stonewall” Jackson earned his nickname by holding critical defensive lines via force of personality and borderline sociopathic conviction in the divine will. 

(2) The first recorded instance of the “Rebel Yell” was used in conjunction with Southern charges, scaring the bejeebies out of Union troops and inspiring reenactors and inebriated rednecks for generations to come.

(3) Southern reinforcements arrived by train (while the Union received none). Clearly, they hadn’t read the section in your textbook explaining what a massive advantage the North had because of their technology and railroads. Confederate forces turn back the Union and essentially chase them all the way back to D.C.

Traditional interpretation says after First Bull Run, the North realized the war would be difficult and began preparing in earnest while the South swelled with overconfidence. In reality, it was more complicated than that – the South’s confidence carried them through the next two years while the North’s fear of repeating their opening humiliation crippled them almost to the point of losing the war. But we’re not really doing subtlety here, so…

George B. McClellan – Commander of Union Army for most of the first two years. Vain and insecure at the same time, he despised Lincoln. The average soldier loved him, and he was gifted at organizing, training, supplying, preparing, even fighting when forced. Perpetually convinced that he was outgunned, outmanned, outnumbered – but never out-planned. I can’t work in these conditions! It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to undercut and blame you! (Except that they weren’t – it was him.)

Lincoln finally canned him after Antietam, which was technically a Union victory despite McClellan’s bizarre… everything. He later ran against Lincoln as the Democratic candidate for President in 1864. Ulysses S. Grant called McClellan “one of the great mysteries of the war.”

Old Tactics / Old Medicine / New Technology – Napoleonic tactics (like “line up and charge!”) were still considered both honorable and effective, despite improved weaponry making such tactics essentially suicidal. Weapons were improving – things like bullet-shaped bullets, rifled barrels, and exploding shells made for more accurate and more extensive life-removal. Medicine was still primitive and largely ineffective; more soldiers died from infection and disease than from being shot, stabbed, or blown up. 

If you want to sound particularly thoughtful, question in the hearing of your instructor why both sides would continue utilizing outdated tactics for so long despite the lessons of the Revolution. Suggest that sociology, psychology, or perhaps our unwillingness to actually learn from history when it matters most, all came into play. If you get stuck, stroke your chin and look troubled. You’re on your own from there.

Battle of Shiloh / Ulysses S. Grant (April 1862) – While McClellan was frustrating Lincoln in the East, Grant began working towards control of the Mississippi River in the West. At Ft. Henry / Ft. Donelson, he earned the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” Grant for his unwillingness to compromise with the enemy and becomes a “hero” back home. Briefly.

At Shiloh, Grant is caught unprepared and driven back to near-defeat by the end of the first day of fighting. Despite massive casualties, he counter-attacks the next day and regains the ground lost. The number of dead and wounded far surpasses anything else seen in the war so far. The public is horrified and began calling on Lincoln to replace Grant. The President responds that “I can’t spare this man; he fights.”

The Draft / Draft Riots – In April of 1862, the C.S.A. enacted the first military draft in American history. Many found being forced to fight for states’ rights and individual liberty to be someone paradoxical and resisted. Vocally.

The U.S.A. instituted a draft of their own in March of 1863, and it was nearly as unpopular as in the South. The Union, however, was already fighting for the right to make you do what they thought was right, so at least it seemed less hypocritical. Still, there’s a whole “freedom vs. security” discussion to be had if the opportunity presents itself, limited only by your ability to produce comparable examples of this same tension throughout American history. It might even get you out of whatever work you’re supposed to do that day as your instructor seizes on this “teachable moment.”

Both sides had provisions by which the wealthy could buy their way out of serving or hire a substitute to fight in their place, fueling further resentment and class antagonisms. Riots broke out across the North, most notably in New York in July of 1863, leaving many dead and feeding the narrative that perhaps it would be best to just let the South leave after all and get back to whatever “normal” would look like now.

Robert E. Lee – Leader of Confederate forces and the most-loved man in the South (and more loved than anyone in the North). Lee wasn’t a big fan of slavery and didn’t support secession. Lincoln offered him command of the Union army, but he wouldn’t take up arms against Virginia. A devout Christian who took responsibility for the loss at Gettysburg and tried to fight with integrity and honor, Lee represented everything the South wanted to believe about itself in terms of honor and ideals.

That’s part of what makes debates over his statues in the 21st century so emotionally loaded – he was the real deal in terms of an old-school gentleman who did what he thought was right, and in the most noble ways. It’s just that in this case that meant killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to destroy the Union and maintain the enslavement of an entire race of people. So, you know… complicated. (History teachers almost always love it when you acknowledge or pretend to discover complexities in history, so feel free to milk this one.)

Battle of Antietam (September 1862) – Robert E. Lee invaded the North (1 of 2). He was trying to move the destruction of war out of South and put more pressure on the North to leave them alone. (To win, the North had to WIN; the South merely needed to NOT LOSE.) Union soldiers found a copy of Lee’s covert plans wrapped around some cigars in an abandoned rebel camp, and McClellan declared he NOW had what he needed to defeat Lee and end the war! Except that he was still McClellan and dithered while Lee – realizing his plans had been compromised – prepared for battle.

The result was the single bloodiest day of the entire Civil War, but technically a Union victory. McClellan failed to pursue Lee’s defeated forces, prompting his dismissal by Lincoln. Antietam nevertheless gave Lincoln the victory he needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He also issued a call for African American troops, leading to the formation of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry.

The Emancipation Proclamation (January 1st, 1863) – Formulated in 1862 and released after the Union “victory” at Antietam, this document freed slaves in areas remaining in rebellion against the Union while maintaining slavery in states loyal to the Union – effectively applying only to areas where it could not be enforced.

The Proclamation nevertheless finalized the transition of the Civil War from one largely focused on preserving the Union to a war to end slavery and promote more of an “all men are created” vibe despite racial disparities. It received mixed reactions at home (even in the North) but eliminated any danger of direct European support for the south, lest European nations be perceived as fighting to support slavery.

Gettysburg & Vicksburg (July 1863) – Lee invaded the North (2 of 2) and clashed with Union forces at Gettysburg. This 3-day battle culminated with “Pickett’s Charge” uphill against entrenched Union troops. Losses were massive, especially for the South. After Gettysburg, the war was effectively lost for the secesh (despite dragging out 2 more years). The best-known film about this battle, appropriately titled Gettysburg (1993), is unique for being the only war movie which feels roughly the same length as the multi-day battle it recreates.

Meanwhile, in the West, Grant had laid siege to Vicksburg – both the city and Confederate forces stationed there. After more than a month, they surrendered in early July. The civilian population had faced starvation, disease, etc. (‘total war’). This completed Union control of the Mississippi River (as per the much-maligned ‘Anaconda Plan’).

Finally, it’s in July of 1863 that the Massachusetts 54th made their dramatic (but suicidal) assault on Ft. Wagner (the climactic scene in Glory). It was a massive military loss, but a hugely important symbolic moment for Black Americans and how they were perceived by the population at large. Their valor led to the use of an additional 180,000 black troops in the remainder of the war.

You Want To Sound REALLY Smart? {Extra Stuff}

General Grant had Ft. Donelson, commanded by a General Buckner who happened to be a former friend of Grant’s and who’d helped him out considerably in years past, surrounded and without hope of escape. Gen. Buckner sent down a note asking for his terms of surrender, expecting something fairly chivalrous and gracious – especially considering their past relationship. Grant’s response quickly became legendary:

SIR: Yours of this date, proposing armistice and appointment of commissioners to settle terms of capitulation, is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT, Brigadier-General, Commanding.

In addition to making Grant a hero back home, and earning him his nickname, the phrase “I propose to move immediately upon your works” became something of a catchphrase for a wide variety of scenarios – including, apparently, young men attempting to strike just the right amount of “naughty, but clever” in their time alone with young ladies. There’s no clear tally of how often this approach was successful.

What Caused the American Civil War? – From “Have To” History

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Many Causes of the Civil War

Three Big Things:

Am I Not A Man...?1. Slavery. While not the only factor, it was by far the largest. Without it, there would have been no war. Seceding southern states issued their own “declarations” explaining the causes which impelled them to the separation. The issue? Slavery, threats to slavery, insufficient protection of slavery, criticisms of slavery. Oh, and slavery.

2. The Election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln’s victory signaled to the South that the system – democracy, compromise, voting – no longer worked. Their voice, it seemed, was no longer even a factor in how the nation was run. Lincoln’s election was the final straw, since he was perceived as a threat to… what else? Slavery.

3. Overconfidence. Few on either side anticipated the possibility of an extended war, or the kinds of death and violence which were to come. Had those making decisions had any hint of what would unfold, one wonders if they’d have pursued other solutions a bit more vigorously. 

Slavery

Even before declaring independence in 1776, slavery had been a controversial topic in the American colonies, but it was not a strictly North/South issue. Slavery was legal in most of the original thirteen states, and abolitionists – while not always prominent – spoke out against it up and down the young nation. 

Over time, the North became increasingly industrialized while the South grew more and more reliant on large-scale cash crops. Small farmers were still the norm everywhere, but most large cities were in the North, and most plantations were in the South. Slavery ceased to make economic sense in the North, allowing ideological concerns to eventually prohibit it altogether. As the cotton gin made the institution wildly profitable and seemingly essential to the South, slavery was increasingly promoted as a positive good for all involved – including the slaves themselves.  

North and South had more in common than not, but basic geography meant they developed into two very different economies and cultures. By the 1820s and 1830s, during the first Age of Reform, abolitionists speaking out against slavery were quick to condemn not only the institution, but those perpetuating it. Not appreciative of being labeled backwards, horrible people – especially by self-righteous Yankees – the South struck back with criticisms of northern corruption and hypocrisy. It was no longer about the economy or even American ideals – it was personal.

Counting Down to Civil War

That One Manifest Destiny PaintingWestward Expansion:  Despite the increasing tensions between the North and South over a variety of things, political compromises held the nation together most of the time. The problem was that the U.S. continued expanding at an unbelievable rate, and each new territory acquired forced anew the question of slavery. 

The Missouri Compromise (1820):  Missouri, which had slavery, was ready for statehood. This would have thrown off the balance between slave and free states in the Senate (the North held a decisive advantage in the House). Maine was created and admitted at the same time, and an imaginary line drawn west – above it would be forever free, below it not so much. This delayed major conflict over slavery for almost a generation.

Annexation of Texas (1845):  When Texas joined the Union, it was a natural slave state, and below the line, but it was huge. There was talk of admitting it as multiple states – maybe as many of five. The resulting war with Mexico was largely supported by pro-slavery folks, with far less enthusiasm emanating from “free-soilers” in the North.

The Compromise of 1850:  Thanks to rich soil and the Gold Rush, California filled up quickly. When it was ready to enter the Union, the national scab was picked off yet again. Congress put together a package of five bills hoping to appease both sides. California would be free. Some Texas boundaries were settled. Washington, D.C., would eliminate the slave trade but keep slavery itself. Utah and New Mexico would be organized on the basis of “popular sovereignty” (we’ll come back to that). But the most important part of this compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act.

The Fugitive Slave Act (1850):  Technically, slaves escaping to the North were still legally slaves and subject to return (this was even in the U.S. Constitution). But it was rarely enforced, and if you made it North, you were essentially free. The FSA gave this expectation teeth, making it illegal to refuse assistance to authorities or others looking to recapture runaways. The effect was very different than intended – while most Northerners were against slavery, they were generally busy with their daily lives and most did little or nothing about it one way or the other. This law got them involved – mostly by actively assisting runaways or harassing and misleading slave catchers.  

Uncle Tom's Cabin (Cover)Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852):  When President Lincoln met author Harriet Beecher Stowe a decade later, the story goes, he exclaimed something to the effect of “So you’re the little lady who started this great big war!” Whether this actually happened or not, the idea is sound. Uncle Tom’s Cabin did more to galvanize the North against slavery and slave-owners than any other single factor. It took nameless, faceless masses of dark chattel and made them real to readers (think Anne Frank, or that kid in the striped pajamas.)

The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854):  Legislation by Stephen Douglas (the one who’ll run against Lincoln in a few years) which allowed Kansas and Nebraska to decide the slavery issue via “popular sovereignty” – letting the people decide. This sounded very democratic, but in practice it only laid the groundwork for…

“Bleeding Kansas” (1856):  People from both sides poured in and took up residence in preparation for the vote. Violence ensued, towns were burned, and there was much name-calling. John Brown showed up with his followers and beheaded several pro-slavery settlers with swords while forcing their families to watch. Things were… tense.

“Bleeding Sumner” (1856):  Senator Charles Sumner gave a provocative speech about slavery, calling it a “harlot” to whom various southern politicians were bound. Preston Brooks of South Carolina took exception, and shortly thereafter surprised Sumner at his desk where he proceeded to beat his brains out (almost literally) with his cane. Sumner survived, but was forever impaired. The North was horrified, but Brooks became a hero to the South. 

Scott v. Sandford (1857):  Would a slave who’d lived in a free state or free territory become legally free as a result? The Supreme Court said NO. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney added that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in territories, and Blacks couldn’t bring suit to begin with because they weren’t citizens – any of them. This is considered one of the worst and most unnecessarily over-reaching decisions in all of Supreme Court history.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1858):  Lincoln and Douglas both wanted the same Senate seat in Illinois. They traveled the state holding outdoor debates, well-attended and quite colorful. Lincoln wasn’t new to politics, but this is when he became a household name saying things like “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

John Brown Was A Crazy SunvabychJohn Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry (1859):  Brown was back, this time trying to start a full-blown slave revolt in Virginia. He was captured, put on trial, and sentenced to death. This is when he wrote, rather creepily, that he was “now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood…”

The Election of Abraham Lincoln (1860):  Four major candidates including Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln won the Electoral College without winning a single southern state. By the time Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, seven southern states had seceded. (Four more left after the actual fighting started.)

You Wanna Sound REALLY Smart? {Extra Stuff}

The Battle of Ft. Sumter (April 12, 1861):  As the nation divided, people from or loyal to the North who happened to be in the South made their way home, as did Southerners who happened to be up North. Forts and other military sites located in the South were largely left in the hands of those determined to take up arms for the Confederacy, except for one – Ft. Sumter in Charleston Bay, South Carolina. Major Robert Anderson, despite being low on supplies and having zero chance of military success, held his post.

One of the first things greeting Lincoln upon taking office was a telegraph from Anderson requesting orders – would he be resupplied? If not, he’d be forced to surrender in a few days. Lincoln sought middle ground in his attempt to resupply Anderson. If he gave up the fort, he’d appear weak. If he didn’t, he’d be responsible for starting the war most thought inevitable at this point. He attempted to send in supplies but not additional military aid; P.T. Beauregard and crew opened fire early morning, April 12th.

The battle raged most of the day, mostly cannon fire exchanged to and from the fort. At the end, Anderson surrendered with honor. It was the first real fighting of the Civil War, and… no one died. There were zero serious casualties until a cannon exploded during an honor salute to the flag after the fort had surrendered and two soldiers were killed. This war was going to be weird.

Lincoln Good To GoFrom Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension… I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so…

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from, have no real existence? … Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? …

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot, remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them…

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time… Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect and defend” it.

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

The Civil War in I.T. (From “Well, OK Then…”)

The time between Indian Removal in the 1830s and the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 was a comparatively peaceful – almost prosperous – era for the Five Civilized Tribes (5CT). 

Then again, when you have a century of suck on either side of a generation, the bar for “Golden Age” status isn’t particularly high. 

Historical Divisions

Despite our tendency to speak of the 5CT as a single entity, they were different tribes composed of individual people – and people never quite fit the generalizations we impose in retrospect. Within each tribe there were mixed-bloods and full-bloods, progressives and conservatives, slave-owners and those with little interest in the practice. Every society has those resistant to change and those quick to rebuke their own culture and the ways of their forebears. Every community has outspoken members and those who simply wish to be left alone. The details may vary, but the same was true of the relocated tribes. 

The full-bloods tended to be conservative and – having no desire for cash crops – had little interest in owning slaves. The mixed-bloods tended to speak more English and interact with whites – being family and all – and were more likely to participate in the larger economy. They were far more likely to own slaves, although many did not. 

There were exceptions to these generalizations, the most obvious of which was John Ross – a mixed-blood Cherokee who spoke perfect English and had been educated in white-run schools. He was nevertheless considered overall “Chief” of the Cherokee, with his most loyal followers being the older, full-blood members of the tribe. 

The greatest bitterness, though, came from divisions during Indian Removal. The “Western Cherokee” who’d moved in 1817 had largely embraced the New Echota group, led by Stand Watie and others, upon their arrival in the early 1830s. Those arriving on “Trail of Tears” several years later felt betrayed on the deepest level by those who’d signed the treaties trading away their homelands. Several “Treaty Party” leaders had been assassinated in response.

The Creek experienced a similar split, aggravating issues predating removal. They emigrated to I.T. in waves, beginning with supporters of William McIntosh – another leader executed for his compromises. The Choctaw and Chickasaw had their own struggles with removal, but they stayed largely united during the experience. And the Seminole…

The Seminole are just always hard to pin down in regards to anything. They fought removal and never actually lost, even though many moved. They had “slaves” that weren’t quite actually “slaves” – just… not quite new additions to the tribe. And they… 

I’m not really sure what to tell you about the Seminole. 

Nevertheless, the Tribes largely rebuilt their worlds in the generation after removal. They established new schools, churches, communities, and in some cases even printed their own newspapers. What would later be named “Oklahoma” was, for a generation, truly a “Land of the Red Man,” although it was largely a “Land of the Black Man” as well. Slavery among the Tribes was still slavery, but it was rarely as brutal or dehumanizing as it was in the South. In some cases it was essentially independent living in exchange for a share of whatever they’d grown or produced. 

And then the white people got into a war. With themselves. 

Bringing I.T. Into the War

By and large, the 5CT were more than happy to learn that white people were shooting at one another. This was a win-win for them. They weren’t in a geographically essential location – that was part of the reason it was chosen, after all – and had little interest in involving themselves in the white man’s war, at least at first.

Until Albert Pike arrived. 

Pike was a Hagrid-looking character, a southerner who’d been born and raised in the north. He began his professional life as a reporter in Arkansas, then a lawyer, and became a strong advocate for various southeastern tribes over the years – minus time in the military fighting in the Mexican-American war. A staunch defender of slavery, he became a loyal Confederate when sides were chosen. 

Pike was an ideal choice of ambassador to the 5CT. He was familiar and trusted, and he made compelling arguments why they should support the South in this war.  

The Choctaw and Chickasaw signed up with little debate. They were already more like the American South than the remaining tribes, more agricultural and owning more slaves than the rest. The remaining tribes split over the issue – often along lines lingering from previous disputes. While officially all Five of the “Civilized Tribes” joined the Confederacy, substantial minorities of the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole fought for the Union. That whole “brother against brother” thing was brutal for everyone involved, but in some ways it hurt the 5CT most. 

At first gander, the preponderance of support for the South seems surprising – the Tribes had been ejected from the south, and harassed by southern states prior to that. But that’s not how most viewed the situation. It’s almost certainly not how Pike framed it. 

So why join the Confederacy?

First and foremost, the Tribes owned slaves. Most individuals did not, but that was true of the American South as well. The culture supported it, and the same folks who tended to be fiscally ambitious enough to need slaves tended to be politically active as well. Leaders who weren’t slave-owners weren’t exactly abolitionists either, so there was little in the way of a “balancing viewpoint.” There were pro-slavery voices, and there were those who had other concerns instead.  

Second, Indian Removal was remembered as a betrayal of the “Great White Father” in Washington, D.C. – not so much as a conflict with individual states. Their treaties had been made with federal power, and either enforced or broken by federal soldiers taking federal orders. It didn’t help that the same federal government wasn’t particularly consistent following through with promised supplies and other resources. 

Third, the Union soldiers who’d been stationed in and around I.T. as part of the Tribes’ latest treaties with the U.S. had been pulled and reassigned as soon as it became clear war was coming. It’s not that the Tribes were such great buddies with the soldiers, but plenty of Plains Indians who hadn’t earned the sobriquet “Civilized” were still active in the region, and the U.S. military provided a decent buffer against their brutality. 

Fourth, the 5CT had more in common with Americans in the south than they did those in the north. Friends or not, many Amerindians practiced agriculture – none owned factories. Many lived on farms or in what white culture would see as ‘semi-rural’ settings – none lived in tenements. Many relied on themselves and their traditions to guide them – few saw value in reform movements, technological progress, or ‘Great Awakenings.’ While the federal government had let them down repeatedly, the largely sympathetic ‘Indian Agents’ with whom they dealt and through whom they processed white society were mostly from the south. 

Finally, with no way to predict the outcome of the conflict, the South offered them a better deal. The North – in the form of the federal government – had already lost whatever credibility they might have had, while the South promised the Tribes more protections, greater autonomy, and all those “states’ rights” kinds of things that would become so prominently recalled after the war. The South also promised to assume commitments made under previous treaties with the U.S., including the annuities the North had ceased as soon as distracted by conflict with the South. The North and their President Lincoln, meanwhile, were aggressively promoting westward expansion. If you don’t see an immediate problem for the tribes in that, look at any map. 

So, despite the splits described previously, the Confederacy it was.

It wasn’t going to work out as well as they’d hoped. 

Red, White, and War 

Like anything in history – especially when that anything is a war – the depths into one might plunge are limitless. I generally limit myself to four key events when covering the Civil War in I.T. 

1. Opothleyahola

Opothleyahola – or “Opie” as we end up calling him in class if we ever wish to get past the ongoing struggle to pronounce his name comfortably – was a Creek leader who’d been fighting the federal government and white encroachment as far back as the War of 1812. He was a wealthy landowner, a Baptist, and a Freemason (all the cool kids were back then). 

By the time the Civil War came to I.T., Opie was so over white guys and their talent for disrupting and diminishing the Tribes. He was unwilling to join the Confederacy, but no fan of the Union. Others of similar mind found their way to his plantation in fits and starts, and he soon found himself the default leader of several thousand Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole – even some runaway slaves and other miscellany. The unifying characteristic was their desire to stay out of this war. 

Opie received permission from President Lincoln to lead this amalgam to Kansas. There were fewer than 2,000 warriors, but they hoped to avoid conflict with either side. The majority of their band were women, children, old men, and livestock – little threat to anyone. 

It didn’t work out that way, and troops were sent by the Confederacy to persuade them to change their mind. The first “Red on Red violence” of the war took place against a group trying to do what they’d all wanted to do initially – just stay out of it. 

Opothleyahola began his trek with somewhere in the area of 9,000 wanderers, and arrived in Kansas with less than 2,000 by most estimates. War, winter, hunger, and disease did their damage just as they had a generation before. The Union encampment there was completely unprepared for even these diminished numbers, and were of little help. After doing what he could to secure assistance for his people, Opie led those still able to fight back into I.T. to war against the Confederacy. He’d die in one of the Kansas refugee camps before the war was over. 

2. The Battle of Pea Ridge (March 1862)

Early 1962 was not going well for the Confederacy in the Western Theater. Ulysses S. Grant was making a name for himself and captured Ft. Henry and Ft. Donelson along the Mississippi River, nearly cutting the South in two and enabling the Union to squeeze the secesh into submission. The Confederacy saw St. Louis – right there where the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers converge – as the key to reversing this trend. 

General Albert Pike was called to I.T. to take command of Amerindian troops there, primarily Cherokee. They were poorly supplied and barely organized, and many weren’t enthused about supporting the Confederacy. Nevertheless, Pike led them into Arkansas (despite initial guarantees they would fight only to defend I.T.) where they joined in the Battle of Pea Ridge in March of 1862. 

The Battle of Pea Ridge could fill an entire History Channel special. For our purposes, there are three things worth remembering. 

First, this was the first time Cherokee troops fought on this scale in a white man’s battle. The Amerindian ways of fighting were dramatically different than white guys’ methods – the goals, the strategies, and especially the command structure. The U.S. and Confederate militaries were organized along a strict hierarchy. While not as loosely organized as the Plains Tribes, the Cherokee simply didn’t work that way – not socially, not politically, and certainly not militarily. By white military standards, they were a mess. 

Second, most of Pike’s Amerindian troops fought with bows and arrows, or with tomahawks. That’s what they had, and what they knew how to use proficiently. Unfortunately, against somewhat trained soldiers with guns, they were of limited impact in this situation. 

Third, and most importantly, the Cherokee were accused of scalping some of their Union victims. While this apparently did actually happen, the details are a bit vague. What is certain is that knowledge of this spread widely and quickly, growing and distorting in ways you wouldn’t think possible before Facebook. White soldiers on both sides were horrified – that is NOT how civilized men behaved! Kill and maim one another PROPERLY! 

Pike was outraged at the treatment of the Amerindian troops in his command and excoriated in press and popular opinion for “allowing” scalping and general savagery to take place. He was the only white commander on either side to so vigorously advocate for them, albeit unsuccessfully, and he paid the social and political price for doing so. His Cherokee withdrew to I.T. where they were left unsupported and unprotected. 

Oh, and by the way – the Union won. 

3. The Weer Expedition 

The Union had two goals for I.T. in 1862 – push back against Confederate advances in the region, and restore the pro-Union Amerindian refugees to their homes. Seemed simple enough, and the goals certainly complimented one another. 

Colonel William Weer was appointed to command several white and two “Indian Regiments” along with supporting artillery. Pike was so annoyed at this point he refused to even lead the Confederate opposition, although Weer would face sporadic resistance along the way, especially from Cherokee forces led by Stand Watie.

They got as far as Locust Grove, about halfway between modern Tulsa and the Arkansas border. There they defeated some Missouri rebels and captured their supplies, but decided to wait for their own supply train to catch up as well. (It’s not like an army can forage its way through Oklahoma – if the land were that rich, we’d never have sent the Indians here.)

During the wait, Union forces fell apart all on their own, without the Secesh having to do much to help. It was July by then, and hot. Really hot. Too hot. Supplies were running low again, and soldiers with nothing to do and no real fortifications had plenty of time to worry about Confederate counterstrikes. To top it all off, Weer was apparently quite a drinker. Like, crazy useless drunk pretty much full-time by this point. Underlings swore he’d genuinely lost his mind as a result and was no longer fit to lead even when he was sober. 

His second-in-command arrested him and took over, ordering a withdrawal of the white troops but leaving the Amerindians behind without orders. Had the Confederates been in a position to take advantage of this, it could have shifted the balance of power in I.T. back in their favor. But they weren’t, so it didn’t. Those locals who’d been “resettled” were nevertheless nervous about the withdrawal and complete lack of a Union strategy, and most began heading to Kansas yet again, where they spent another winter in refugee camps, suffering from cold, hunger, and disease. 

Overall, the expedition was not considered a huge success. 

4. The Battle of Honey Springs

July of 1863 was arguably THE turning point of the entire Civil War. In the Eastern Theater, Lee’s second and final effort to bring the war to the North was thwarted at the three-day Battle of Gettysburg. In the Western Theater, the nearly two-month-long Siege of Vicksburg perpetrated by U.S. Grant finally ended, securing control of the Mississippi River for the Union. The ‘Anaconda Plan’ was complete (although Winfield Scott had since passed away and thus missed his opportunity to gloat). 

In the same month, the Massachusetts 54th Infantry – the first substantial use of Black troops in the war – made their dramatic but costly charge on Fort Wagner in South Carolina. While a strategic defeat, the performance of the 54th settled for the remainder of the war the question of whether or not Black troops should be allowed to fight as relative equals. Finally, in Indian Territory, the Battle of Honey Springs – the “Gettysburg of the West” – secured Union control of I.T. for the remainder of the war. 

OK, no one outside of Oklahoma teaches Honey Springs as the “Gettysburg of the West.” Most people inside of Oklahoma don’t either. But when you’re Oklahoma, you grab on to whatever validation you can get, kids. 

Did you know Carrie Underwood is from here? And several astronauts? We matter! Shut up! 

A year after the Weer debacle, Union forces had successfully occupied Fort Gibson and were maintaining a limited military presence in I.T. once again. Being how it was a war and all, the Confederacy hoped to drive them out, and assembled about twenty miles away at Honey Springs Depot. From there they sent out cavalry to harass and attack Union supply lines and take advantage of whatever other opportunities presented themselves without fully engaging. 

Honey Springs had already become an important location to the Secesh in Indian Territory. Troops came there for medical attention, to get whatever limited supplies were available, etc. It was essentially “home base” for the South. General Douglas Cooper, a veteran of the Mexican-American War and former Indian Agent to the Choctaw and Chickasaw, was in command. 

It was hard to keep secrets in wartime, and Colonel Phillips, in command of Union forces at Fort Gibson, was well-aware an attack was imminent. Rather than wait for the Confederates to receive reinforcements, Phillips decided to take the war to them. He was joined by Major General James Blunt from Kansas, who brought additional troops and artillery, and who would thenceforth be in charge. 

As mentioned earlier, war aficionados can stay all tingly for days over the details of this or that battle, strategy, or new bridle design. Here are the key points I consider worth remembering about Honey Springs – other than that “Gettysburg of the West” thing, I mean. 

First, it was arguably the most racially diverse battle of the Civil War. Blunts troops were a mixture of white, Black, and Amerindian forces, while Cooper’s troops were mostly Amerindian with a few white regiments. Whites were in the minority on both sides. 

Second, it rained. In addition to the general unpleasantness of marching and fighting over wet ground, the Confederates discovered their cheap gunpowder had absorbed too much moisture and wouldn’t fire. At the risk of getting all technical, it turns out it’s hard to win battles when you can’t shoot the other guy. 

Third, the battle’s outcome turned on an error – a beneficial blunder, as it were. After several hours of intense battle, including serious cannon action, Blunt (Union) orders the First Kansas Colored Voluntary Infantry Regiment to capture some Confederate artillery which had been giving them trouble. Confederate forces had a decisive advantage in terms of manpower, but the Union had more toys – and they didn’t appreciate the South challenging them when it came to things that go ‘boom.’ 

As the First Kansas Colored pressed towards their goal, a regiment of Union Amerindian troops unintentionally moved between them and Confederate forces. As they realized their error and withdrew, Confederate leaders assumed the Union was falling back in general, and enthusiastically ordered pursuit. 

They ran right into the First Kansas and their fancy Springfield rifles, and bad things ensued. A mix of Black, White, and Red troops drove the Southerners back, but in all the chaos failed to capture those cannons. The Confederates tried to torch Honey Springs in order to keep the goodies there from falling into Union hands, but Northern soldiers managed to extinguish most of the fires and everyone had extra bacon and sorghum biscuits for a few days. 

The First Kansas Colored Volunteers earned high praise for their bravery and composure throughout the battle, news of which made it into the papers right as the Massachusetts 54th was proving a similar point much further east. 

Most of the fighting in I.T. after Honey Springs was hit-and-run, guerilla warfare. Stand Watie and other Amerindian leaders couldn’t turn the tide of the war on their own, but they did make things mighty inconvenient for the Union for its duration. Watie was the last Confederate General to surrender when the war eventually ended. 

Aftermath

The damage to I.T. as a result of the Civil War is difficult to overstate. Like much of the south, the loss of property and destruction of land was dwarfed only by the loss of life. 

As people began to return to their homes rebuild their lives, a Radical Republican Congress was trying to build on this victory to make some major changes across the country. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were soon passed, ending slavery, giving Freedmen the right to vote, and declaring for the first time ever that a citizen is a citizen is a citizen, and that neither state nor nation can presume otherwise – at least according to written law.  

The South would resist these changes for another century, but there was one group already so beaten and misused by the U.S. that they were in no position to make a similar stand. Besides, they’d officially chosen the wrong side in the recent war. 

The U.S. Congress was about to impose their will yet again on the citizens of Indian Territory, in ways they were unable to do anywhere else. Reconstruction is coming. Hard.

NOTE: A more easily printable version of this post is available on “Well, OK Then…” 

Liar, Liar, Twitterpants on Fire (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part Three)

“My client wasn’t even IN the bar the evening of the murder, and if he WAS there, he doesn’t even OWN a gun! If he DOES own a gun, he didn’t have it with him that evening, and if he DID have it with him, it wasn’t loaded! Even if it WERE loaded, he didn’t use it – he didn’t even KNOW the victim. If he DID know the victim, he liked him, and if he didn’t like him, he at least didn’t kill him. But if he DID kill him, it was self-defense. And if it wasn’t self-defense, he still had a very good reason. Otherwise, he’s crazy and can’t be held accountable. Come on, he was carrying around a loaded gun – what sane person DOES that?!

I’ve told you that one way or the other he’s innocent – and all you can do is call me names? That’s so hurtful!”

Laws & SausagesIt is difficult for those of you with the slightest shred of decency to appreciate how the law and politics work. They do not operate according to anything most of us consider reasonable, moral, or even explicable. In the past they didn’t have to. Those affected had little expectation of being fully informed and no real control of the outcome.

Modern American politics has even less decency, but for different reasons. Most of us are too busy to keep up or sort it all out, and too quick to share or retweet anything with a headline confirming what we want confirmed or feigning outrage over whatever we find outrageous. Or maybe we’re just too stupid and easily distracted.

Not criticizing here – just keeping an open mind about possible explanations.

It’s amazing to me how easily we roll our eyes or exclamate our declamations over things done in the past – successfully, for centuries – and yet find it inconceivable the same things may be happening today, because… well, that’s CRAZY!

What, exactly, is it you think has changed about either mankind or the nature of power? Please – I’ll wait.

Hello?

The South attempted to secede and lost. The war destroyed lives and property on both sides, but the South had the worst of it by far. Reconstruction began, things got weird again.

Dead CW SoldierAnd then the South began writing the history of the war and the events which led to it. The war they’d lost. The one fought over a variety of issues, but in which slavery and its continuation were central and essential as defined by the South in the very documents they issued to justify their cause.

Only suddenly the war hadn’t been about slavery at all. In fact, the South was collectively rather wounded at the suggestion! Slavery?! You think – you think this was about SLAVERY?

Imagine what’d they’d have rewritten if they’d WON?

No less an authority than Jefferson Davis began cranking out volumes on the REAL story of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Others picked up the theme, and before long their United Daughters (still active today) were tea and cookie-ing this theme across the land.

Historians still argue about the war (they’re allowed to do that still, outside of Oklahoma and Texas) – that’s fine, it’s what they’re supposed to do.

Confederate FlagWhat’s less tolerable is the fervent hurt and chagrin evidenced by the South’s defenders at the very suggestion that secession had ANYTHING to do with slavery. It’s not that they wish to lay out a reasoned argument, you understand – it’s that they’ve reshaped history and historiography solely through repetition and strong emotion.

“To suggest secession was about SUH-LAVERY, well it it it’s it’s just… *sniff* DISHONEST!”

The rest of the nation has cooperated, by the way – we don’t like acknowledging our role in making chattel out of humans with souls any more than they do. Better to focus on tariffs and elections and economies and cultures – all persuasive alternatives, since all were involved.

The best deceptions are mostly true, after all – or true but for omissions. That’s how laws are made and history written – so be it.

Why does it matter if the South wishes to save a little face? What’s so wrong with simply focusing on the good parts in our collective history? I mean, the naysayers won their little war and got their way, didn’t they?

Can we at least keep the damn flag without everyone having a hurt-feelings-fit every time?

J Benn InterviewMy favorite hockey team captain after a tough loss and horrible officiating: “There were some tough calls, but the real problem is that we didn’t take care of business in our own end. We let too many pucks get past us and didn’t take advantage of our opportunities.”

I hated the poor play, and the poor officiating even more – but my decisive and lingering memory is how much I love the class of my team.

Also, he’s pretty.

More importantly, the team is able to go into practice the next day aware of the things they CAN control, and which led to problems. By acknowledging what they did wrong, instead of merely casting blame, they can improve – or at least that’s the goal.

You may remember the contrast between how Kanye and Beyonce handled this situation:

Swift seems to have recovered and keeps recording albums that sell zillions and zillions of copies. Beyoncé called Swift up to the stage later in the evening to give her back her moment in the spotlight. And West… well, he’s still Kanye (or not – he sometimes likes to go by “Tigerlily” or something else I can’t remember).

The lingering perception is that Kanye is a nut, Beyoncé is a class act, and that apparently Taylor Swift is a country artist (as she mentioned in the full version of her pre-interrupted speech). Reality may differ, but what we remember is what shapes events going forward.

It matters what happened and how it’s remembered because we can’t learn from mistakes we don’t think we made. Left uncriticized, Kanye is just a fighter for justice and Swift a bewildered blonde. Without her subsequent efforts to make things right, Beyoncé could just as easily been remembered as a sore loser, despite winning bigger better things that same night.

If the war was about slavery, and slavery is evil, and the South lost, then the reasonable thing to do is to start trying to repair some of the damage done by slavery. If the war was about a race-based chattel system, then we have some serious introspection to do about ourselves as a people and the extent to which we’ve failed to live up to our own ideals.

Reconstruction Cartoon - SmallOf course, if the real issues were states’ rights-ish, that’s not as bad. Federalism is about balance, after all, and if perhaps the South got out of balance, that’s clearly rectified now. If anything, the central government is much stronger than originally intended as a result!

We can spend some time trying to Reconstruct the South and push for some reforms, but at some point we’re going to need to get back to being a country again. We’ve made our point – let’s let them rebuild and trust whatever gradual progress can be made in terms of race and society.

If the war was about slavery, then both Lincoln and John Brown were right – we’ve paid for our national sin with national bloodshed. Time for a new birth of freedom.

If the war was about different understandings of the Constitution, then might makes right and we won by decimating our enemies by any means necessary. Next time the meaning of our founding documents may swing back a bit the other direction.

If the war was about slavery, then Black America may well need time and support to recover from a sort of collective PTSD. There would be imbalances to correct and scars which may never be quite healed. If we’re willing to go to war with ourselves to keep an entire race of people in degradation and servitude, what must we confess and how might we repent to set a better future course?

If 620,000 men died over tariffs or electoral procedures, then our nation is charted by whichever political and popular mechanizations produce the desired result. If the war was about anything other than slavery, maybe Black people need to just get over it and be less, you know… ‘Black’ about everything.

Keep GoingIf our ideals are as flawless and our procedures as sound as we clearly wish to promote, then inequity and suffering must stem from personal or cultural failures. If America is ‘exceptional’ in the way those now in power demand we acknowledge, whatever failures have occurred within it are individual and not national. Potential solutions or cures must, logically, come from the same. Anything else is charity. Or enabling. Or corruption.

We can’t repent of sins we can’t confess, or repair that we are unable to see as broken. This applies across any number of historical and national issues. If we build our actions and beliefs on a foundation of national amazing-ness, the ramifications are much, much larger than which textbooks we adapt or which tests we take to graduate. Conversely, if we believe the human heart – even the American heart – is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things… who can know it? Well, that leads to humility and grace as we push forward, aware of what we are capable, for good or ill.

Two Men PrayingI’ll close with a little Bible talkin’, since that seems to be such a motivator for those pushing a better whitewashing for our lil’uns. Whatever we may disagree on, I wholeheartedly concur that we’ve lost much in our upbringing if we feel the need to run from the wisdom found in small red print:

“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

(Luke 18:9-14, KJV)

If there’s an argument to be had, let’s have it. But let’s base it on our best understanding of the truth and the wisest possible course consistent with our proclaimed ideals – not on what best covers our collective behinds and casts the remaining blame on those least able to carry the burden.

Tulsa Race Riots

{This Post is Recycled – Reworked from a Previous Version and Reposted In It’s Updated Glory}

RELATED POST: Secession & Superiority (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part One)

RELATED POST: Forever Unfit To Be A Slave (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part Two)

RELATED POST: History Songs