2 Jan
Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the date in 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation took effect.
Here is an actual photocopy from the National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/.
Here is a really good article from the Atlantic Monthly which provides some historical evaluation of this important document: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-wholly-misunderstood-emancipation-proclamation/266741/
7 Dec
Be able to discuss with me: was the Lincoln administration and the Union army right in holding John Merryman or Lambdin Milligan (what an unfortunate name!)?
Here is a nice summary from PBS regarding Ex parte Milligan: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_exparte.html
Here is a great discussion of the problem of habeas corpus in wartime in general: http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm . This provides the background info to the case of John Merryman and Lambdin Milligan.
Excerpts from the decision of Ex parte Merryman (having to do with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Chief Justice Taney:
“…The case, then, is simply this: A military officer residing in Pennsylvania issues an order to arrest a citizen of Maryland, upon vague and indefinite charges, without any proof, so far as appears. Under this order his house is entered in the night; he is seized as a prisoner, and conveyed to Fort McHenry, and there kept in close confinement. And when a habeas corpus is served on the commanding officer, requiring him to produce the prisoner before a Justice of the Supreme Court, in order that he may examine into the legality of the imprisonment, the answer of the officer is that he is authorized by the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at his discretion, and, in the exercise of that discretion, suspends it in this case, and on that ground refuses obedience to the writ.
As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the President not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him.
No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the President claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there is no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended except by act of Congress….
The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article.
This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department….
But the documents before me show that the military authority in this case has gone far beyond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus. It has, by force of arms, thrust aside the judicial authorities and officers to whom the Constitution has confided the power and duty of interpreting and administering the laws, and substituted a military government in its place, to be administered and executed by military officers. For at the time these proceedings were had against John Merryman, the District Judge of Maryland–the commissioner appointed under the act of Congress–the District Attorney and the Marshal, all resided in the city of Baltimore, a few miles only from the home of the prisoner. Up to that time there had never been the slightest resistance or obstruction to the process of any Court or judicial officer of the United States in Maryland, except by the military authority. And if a military officer, or any other person, had reason to believe that the prisoner had committed any offence against the laws of the United States, it was his duty to give information of the fact and the evidence to support it to the District Attorney, and it would then have become the duty of that officer to bring the matter before the District Judge or Commissioner, and if there was sufficient legal evidence to justify his arrest, the Judge or Commissioner would have issued his warrant to the Marshal to arrest him, and, upon the hearing of the party, would have held him to bail, or committed him for trial, according to the character of the offense as it appeared in the testimony, or would have discharged him immediately if there was not sufficient evidence to support the accusation. There was no danger of any obstruction or resistance to the action of the civil authorities, and therefore no reason whatever for the interposition of the military. And yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the District Attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the District of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if, indeed, he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without having a hearing even before himself, to close custody in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.
The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It declares that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.
And these great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me; and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers may thus upon any pretext or under any circumstances be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found….”
Full text of Taney’s decision here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=442 He even brings up Aaron Burr!
3 Dec
This is a wee bit profane, but pretty much on the mark and humorous. Thanks to DJ for the link!
http://www.cracked.com/article_19223_6-civil-war-myths-everyone-believes-that-are-total-b.s..html
3 Dec
Given November 19, 1863
“Fourscore and seven years ago
our fathers brought forth upon this continent
a new nation
conceived in liberty
and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
“Now we are engaged in a great civil war,
testing whether this nation
or any nation so conceived and so dedicated
can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field
as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives
that that nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But in a larger sense,
we cannot dedicate,
we cannot consecrate,
we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here
have dedicated it far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note nor long remember what we say here,
but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us
the living
rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work
which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–
that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain,
that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom,
and that government
of the people,
by the people,
and for the people
shall not perish from the earth.”
29 Nov
watch?v=FNt9PJMzcn4&feature=related]
watch?v=GtgzG1kqaY0&feature=related]
Matthew Brady is referred to here as “The Father of Photojournalism.” His work was controversial because it was so gory and so realistic that it shocked the sensibilities of people– it seemed voyeuristic, in some people’s opinions.
29 Nov
Questions chapter 21
These are due on Friday. They’ve been here since Tuesday….
1. Why was Richmond significant? How far was it from Washington? Why is this significant in choosing the site of the first major battle? What ironic effect did the Southern victory have there, and why?
2. What were the consequences of the 1st Battle of Bull Run (Manassas)? What did Lincoln hope that a victory there would do, militarily and psychologically? How did Gen. Jackson distinguish himself? What happened at the second battle there?
3. What was the name of the main Union force in the eastern theatre? Who was its commander, and what were his flaws? What was he supposed to do after taking command (make sure you name the campaign as well as explain it)?
4. Describe the intent of the Peninsula Campaign. How did early Confederate strategy affect McClellan? What was the price/consequences to each side?
5. What is total war? Describe its components as practiced by the Union army. How was it to be accomplished?
6. Why was the blockade of the Confederacy implemented so slowly? Why didn’t Britain protest more? What was the policy of “ultimate destination?” What role did the Virginia and the Monitor play, and what happened to them?
7. By the time after the Battle of Antietam, how many times had the Union army changed commanders? What was the short and long-term outcome of the battle, and why was it so critical? How does the character of the war change after this battle?
8. What was the point of the Emancipation Proclamation, and why was it carefully worded? (See blog for the text of the Proclamation) What was the public response and the perceived significance? What were the specific effects?
9. What new recruiting practice was adopted by the Union army after the Emancipation Proclamation? What difference did this make long-term? How did the South respond to the use of blacks in either army? What did “Remember Fort Pillow!” mean (similar to the movie Glory….)?
10. How did the presence of so many slaves in the South affect the Southern war effort?
11. What were the consequences of giving command to A. E. Burnside? To Hooker? Describe the outcome of the battles with which each was associated.
12. What did Lee and Jefferson Davis hope to achieve in attacking Northern soil after Chancellorsville? Describe the battle that took place and why it contained the “high tide of the Confederacy.”
13. List all of the Union commanders in order up to Grant. How and where did he initially distinguish himself, both positively and negatively? What was his nickname?
14. How and where did the Union Army and the Union Navy work together in the Western theatre of the war? What was the practical effect?
15. Why was July 3-4, 1863 such an important day for the overall outcome of the war? What two battles were fought on Northern soil?
16. How did Grant and Sherman work together in the Eastern theatre? What tactics were utilized in “Shermanizing” the South as he went through Georgia?
17. What political challenges did Lincoln face during the war? How did Lincoln attempt to appeal to the broadest number of voters possible in 1864? Be specific and complete in your answer, and include the influence of the Peace Democrats as well as Copperheads.
18. Why did the Democratic party struggle during the war? Describe the various factions. Who was Clement Vallandingham? Who was Philip Nolan? (see blog for more info). Who did they eventually choose as their candidate to run against Lincoln in 1864?
19. What does “Vote as you shot” imply? How did military events influence the election of 1864? What was the “bayonet vote?”
20. Why was the warfare in 1864 and 1865 referred to as “meat-grinder warfare?” How does the battle at Cold Harbor illustrate this term? How do Lee’s casualty rates compare to Grant’s?
21. How does the war end? Does Grant live up to his original nickname at Appomattox?
22. Why was Lincoln assassinated five days after Lee’s surrender, and how was this actually a “calamity for the South?” What was the “crucifixion thesis” of historians?
23. What issues were settled by the Civil War as “the supreme test of American democracy?”
28 Nov
I originally posted this in September. You need to reread these two for Friday.
Today (September 17, 2012) is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in the US Civil War, the single bloodiest day in the entire conflict, and first thing close to a victory that the Union forces had won during the entire conflict. President Abraham Lincoln used this day to announce his intention to declare the emancipation of slaves who were held in areas that continued in rebellion against the Union government.
Please click on this link to read about reflections upon this singularly bloody day.
This link is also an interesting take on the significance of this event.
28 Nov
In the wake of the Battle of Antietam, Abraham Lincoln issued this proclamation. Read it carefully to see exactly WHERE it applied.
By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.”
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
28 Nov
Congress faced an extraordinary circumstance with the outbreak of actual warfare during the period known as the Civil War. Below is an excerpt of a law Congress passed specifying the penalty one could expect if engaged in the rebellion or even if just supporting it.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. Would Southerners have agreed that they were engaged in treason? Explain why or why not.
An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.
July 17, 1862
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not be construed in any way to affect or alter the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person or persons guilty of treason against the United States before the passage of this act, unless such person is convicted under this act.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That, to insure the speedy termination of the present rebellion, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks, credits, and effects of the persons hereinafter named in this section, and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for the support of the army of the United States, that is to say:
First. Of any person hereafter acting as an officer of the army or navy of the rebels in arms against the government of the United States.
Secondly. Of any person hereafter acting as President, Vice-President, member of Congress, judge of any court, cabinet officer, foreign minister, commissioner or consul of the so-called confederate states of America.
Thirdly. Of any person acting as governor of a state, member of a convention or legislature, or judge of any court of any of the so-called confederate states of America.
Fourthly. Of any person who, having held an office of honor, trust, or profit in the United States, shall hereafter hold an office in the so-called confederate states of America.
Fifthly. Of any person hereafter holding any office or agency under the government of the so-called confederate states of America, or under any of the several states of the said confederacy, or the laws thereof, whether such office or agency be national, state, or municipal in its name or character: Provided, That the persons, thirdly, fourthly, and fifthly above described shall have accepted their appointment or election since the date of the pretended ordinance of secession of the state, or shall have taken an oath of allegiance to, or to support the constitution of the so-called confederate states.
Sixthly. Of any person who, owning property in any loyal State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, shall hereafter assist and give aid and comfort to such rebellion; and all sales, transfers, or conveyances of any such property shall be null and void; and it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or the use of such property, or any of it, to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in this section….
APPROVED, July 17, 1862.
Source:
U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12 (Boston, 1863), pp. 589-92.
