Billy Yank v. Johnny Reb

Juxtaposing the Leadership Qualities 
of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis

Throughout the brief history of the United States, there is perhaps no greater story than that of the Civil War. Out of all of the wars fought under the banner of the red, white, and blue, this was the most gruesome. Never had the nation seen so much destruction or bloodshed before or since. The Civil War became, in many respects, the ultimate divide in how the American experiment was to be played out.  Did freedom apply to "all men" as the Declaration of Independence suggested? And how were the roles of local, state and federal powers to play out in this grand American republic?

Emerging from the smoke of warfare were two unique men, whose differing viewpoints were but a representation of the opinions and beliefs of the masses they led. President Abraham Lincoln of the United States and President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States, took center stage in this epic conflict that forever changed the course of history. While both Lincoln and Davis shared many attributes that made them powerful leaders, they also had obvious differences when it came to their "style" of governing.  Lincoln was a negotiator and a delegator, while Davis was an uncompromising micro-manager.  Regardless of their differences, both men saw themselves as the embodiment of what the United States was ultimately destined to become.

At the onset of succession, both Lincoln and Davis jockeyed for position in their respective nations. Jefferson Davis conducted himself as the true leader of a new nation. As Historian William Cooper points out in his fantastic biography, Jefferson Davis: American, Davis hosted an open house at the Confederate White House, and was inaugurated as President of the newly founded Confederate States of America on the grounds of the Virginia capital. This ceremony gave a sense of legitimacy and prestige to the new nation. To add to the luster of the occasion, Davis was inaugurated on the birthday of George Washington, and underneath a giant statue of that very man who embodied the revolutionary ideas that the Confederacy deeply embraced. During his inaugural address, Davis made numerous remarks that personified the South’s revolutionary ideals. “We hope to perpetuate the viewpoints of our revolutionary fathers,” Davis continued by stating, “To show ourselves worthy of the inheritance bequeathed to us by the Patriots of the revolution, we must emulate the heroic devotion which made reverse to them by the crucible in which their patriotism was defined” (Cooper 401). Davis worked hard to ensure that the Generals under his command, and the public at large understood that the crisis at hand was much more than a simple civil war, but that it was in reality a war of independence. Davis reiterated the comments of his inaugural address on numerous occasions throughout his time in office.

To undermine the Union’s efforts, Davis also embarked on a crusade to expose what he believed was a tyrannical government. Davis said, “Humanity shudders at the appalling atrocities which are being daily multiplied under the sanction of those who have obtained temporary possession of power in the United States” (Cooper 438). President Davis also labored unceasingly in labeling the Union leaders and soldiers as men without a conscious, that enjoyed plundering, murdering, and defiling the Southern way of life. This would prove effective in swaying the public’s opinion of the Union soldiers. Jefferson Davis also employed this argument in defending slavery. He argued many times that the Union was determined to enslave the Confederacy, and eliminate the institution that the South greatly depended on. Davis stated, “Fellow citizens, no alternative is left you but victory or subjugation, slavery and the utter ruin of yourselves, your families and your country” (Cooper 481). Even when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Davis attacked it head on by claiming, “Cannot we, who have been raised with our Negroes and know how to command them, make them more efficient than the Yankees can?” (Cooper 555).

Perhaps the most important and effective thing President Davis did to boost morale and public opinion was the fact that he was visible to the soldiers and to the general public. Davis embarked on several train trips throughout the infant nation, and he gave countless speeches at virtually every stop. As simple an act as this was, it greatly motivated and rejuvenated the public’s view of their cause. Davis understood the importance of portraying confidence and determination to the public he led. At every stop, Davis worked tirelessly as he encouraged his Generals, motivated troops, and called for new volunteers. Up until the end of the war, Jefferson Davis was greeted at nearly every stop with enthusiastic cheers and applause. It was not until the end of the war when Davis was received with a lethargic salute from an exhausted and demoralized army, and was asked to leave by the general public, so that they would not appear loyal to their leader when the Union Army arrived.

To the North, Abraham Lincoln labored equally as hard to persuade the public he lead. Before his inauguration, Lincoln took advantage of the long train ride from Springfield to Washington. At virtually every city along the path, Lincoln’s train would make a stop so the people would be able too see and hear the awkwardly looking man they elected president. Lincoln would give brief speeches to the masses from the back of the train and then continue on the journey to the capital. By doing this, Lincoln was able to personally spread his message to the massive crowds that would gather to hear him.

After he took office in the early part of 1861, Lincoln was bombarded with vital decisions that required immediate action. State after state had left from the Union, and war was on the horizon. People began to look to their new leader in hopes that he would be able to avert the oncoming crisis. Lincoln knew that the public was not fully prepared to go to war with the South. Over the years the Southerners had threatened succession many times. Many in the public believed this was just another one of the many Southern threats, and that the states would eventually return on their own. The morning after his inauguration however, Lincoln faced a truly difficult dilemma with Fort Sumter. The soldiers, stationed at the fort, were in desperate need of supplies and additional troops. Lincoln knew that if he sent more soldiers that the South would view his action as hostile. After debating with his cabinet, Lincoln decided to send a ship carrying provisions only to aid the fort. The South still viewed this action as hostile, and immediately seized the fort. The war had begun. The attack of Fort Sumter proved very beneficial because the public saw this as an unprovoked and deliberate attack on the Union. Lincoln now had the backing of the masses that he needed to wage a war.

At the beginning of the war, most saw it as a simple conflict that would be resolved in a matter of weeks. As the war waged on, many viewed Lincoln as incompetent. Most of the Border States wanted nothing to do with the Lincoln administration, and often accused him of being a tyrant. As Historian David Donald points out in his fantastic biography, Lincoln, the President tried desperately to convince the people that this war was not a war for Southern independence, but that it was “an insurrection of combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings” (Donald 302). Lincoln never recognized the Southern States as a Confederacy. He viewed them as simply a rebellion, and made sure he convinced others of that fact as well.

The issue of slavery also crept its way into the public arena. Debates were constant on the issue. In this area, Lincoln was a master at understanding the public’s readiness for emancipation. Lincoln knew that he had vowed to fight slavery in both his presidential campaigns and inaugural address. The public expected their president to act. Many of his closest allies urged him to act quickly in freeing the slaves. Lincoln however, understood that it would require baby steps to correctly emancipate the slaves. At first, Lincoln recommended colonizing slaves, and even offered compensation for slave holders. Many hailed this proposal “as a master-piece of practical wisdom and sound policy” (Donald 347). In reality, this proposal did little to actually free slaves. It was not until January 1, 1863 when slavery was finally delivered a fatal blow. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made all slaves throughout the entire nation forever free. Newspaper writers declared it “the greatest proclamation ever issued by man” (Donald 377). Lincoln’s proclamation was hailed by most Northerners as truly magnificent. Lincoln eventually declared it the crowning achievement of his administration.

With emancipation official, Lincoln worked hard to sway public opinion in his favor. He set out on a mission to write numerous public letters to persuade the public to elect him for a second term. Due to the fact that Lincoln had delivered on his promise of emancipation, and that the war had taken a turn for the better, Lincoln was easily re-elected to a second term in 1864. He would spend the next year preparing the nation for eventual reconstruction, and bringing about a quick end to the bloody conflict.

When it came to political leadership, Davis and Lincoln could not be more opposite. While Abraham Lincoln was more delegating, Jefferson Davis was more micro-managing. He constantly wanted to be informed about everything occurring on the battlefields, as well as everything happening in political, and social arenas. Even though Davis made the majority of the decisions, he did not decide on them quickly. He was the type of person who consulted with everyone at his disposal before he chose a course of action, which meant that quick decisions were highly unlikely. Many of the Generals in the field seemed to have a problem with Davis’s style of management. General Joseph Johnston would intentionally leave President Davis and his advisers in the dark when it came to Johnston’s military plans. This of course made a control-driven person like Davis upset.

Along with the Generals, many cabinet members within the Davis Administration disliked the President’s management style. One of those members was Secretary Randolph of the War Department, who found Davis to be somewhat of a control freak. When Randolph attempted to send orders to General Holmes in Arkansas to cross the Mississippi river, Davis rebuked him stating that any movement of significance or any decision of importance had to go directly through him. As a result, Secretary Randolph resigned from his position stating, “Conceiving that I can no longer be useful in the War Department, I hereby resign my commission as Secretary of War” (Cooper 446). Davis tended to justify his need for constant control by claiming that he wanted those under him to give input on a particular discussion, but that he needed to be the decision maker.

The only exception in Davis’ mind was Robert E. Lee, in whom the President had invested complete and total trust. Lee did not receive the same amount of coaching and criticism that others leaders had received. This was most likely due to the fact that both Lee and Davis shared the same motivations and viewpoints in terms of military strategy. In the President’s mind, General Lee had done more than enough to win everlasting trust from his administration. Even after Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg, the President supported his General by stating, “To ask me to substitute you by some one in my judgment more fit to command…is to demand an impossibility” (Cooper 487). There is little doubt that the President viewed Lee in a different light than he viewed others. Davis felt as though he had struck gold with Lee, while he found nothing but apathy and discontent from many of his other leaders.

Another part of Davis’s political agenda was addressing the issue of conscription. The Davis Administration faced the complex task of keeping armies supplied with soldiers, so that they could keep up with the Union’s massive numbers. Original enlistments had only been for one year, and that time would not be enough. To remedy the problem, Davis ordered conscriptions of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 35. Those already enlisted would have their terms extended to three years. Eventually, many soldiers began complaining that they were needed back home to take care of their plantations and slaves. Davis’s answer to this was to create the “Twenty Negro Law,” which stated that if a soldier had twenty or more slaves, they were exempt from service. Many argued that this action turned the war into a poor man’s war, since only a rich person could have twenty or more slaves. Davis however held to his guns, praising the men who were defending the noble cause of independence.

In contrast, President Lincoln was much more patient and delegating of a leader. From the start of his first term, President Lincoln strived to diversify his cabinet, which consisted of just as many democrats as republicans. Lincoln tried very hard to find specific individuals that he felt would be best suited for the department they were assigned. Constructing his cabinet in this fashion brought on a lot of disputation, and argument among the cabinet members, but it also helped to bring all issues to the table. President Lincoln needed the diversity if he was to succeed as president, and he did everything he could to win support on both sides of the political spectrum.

For the most part, Lincoln was a very forgiving and accepting leader. Many times he would be ridiculed by a General or cabinet member, but would not retaliate in any way. Lincoln also allowed those under him to make decisions they felt best. In contrast to Jefferson Davis, Lincoln was good at delegating tasks, and then letting those he trusted do their assigned jobs. This was especially true with his Secretary of State William Seward, and with many of his Generals. Lincoln fully trusted Seward with the administration’s foreign policy. When it came to his Generals, Lincoln would show as much support as he could, and would try not to mix military and politics. There were many instances when the military would view Lincoln as incompetent. Among the biggest Lincoln haters was General George McCellan. McCellan’s view of the President was very harsh at times. He felt that Lincoln was asking for the impossible. He often stated, “The President is an idiot” and “Isn’t he a rare bird” (Donald 319). To this Lincoln would show continued support for the men he had chosen.

Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus is another important example of his political leadership abilities. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln took the initiative by arresting anyone who appeared to have ties with the Confederacy. While many ridiculed the President for acting unconstitutionally, Lincoln held his ground and argued that it was within his power to suspend Habeas Corpus. In the first nine months of the war, Lincoln arrested 864 people who were believed to be a threat to the Union. While many opponents viewed this act as unnecessary, Lincoln believed that he was acting prudently, and that it was absolutely necessary at that time.

Despite their different management styles, both Lincoln and Davis exhibited incredible leadership qualities that earned them the respect of their nations. While both of them suffered as a result of their imperfections, they were able to both overcome the unique obstacles that stood in their way. As a result, they accomplished a great deal. Lincoln’s ability to be trusting, and Davis’s ability to weigh all options, made each of them unique and charismatic leaders of their respective nations.

Foreign policy was a surprisingly important issue to both presidents. Both Lincoln and Davis worked very hard to push their agendas and beliefs to the other nations that had American interests. Jefferson Davis viewed his foreign agenda as one that tried to win the support of both Britain and France. Davis sent ambassadors to both nations, hoping that they could persuade both nations to offer military aid in their cause. Davis knew that his bargaining chip would be the cotton that the South produced. Both Great Britain and France depended greatly on the product, and did not want to loose the commodity. Davis also believed that the presence of the Union naval blockade would convince both nations that the only way to secure cotton was to join in the fight.

Unfortunately for Davis, both Great Britain and France would not support their war efforts. The fact that the Confederacy was a nation that protected slavery greatly hindered their efforts. Great Britain and France simply could not ally themselves with a country that claimed to be fighting for its independence, but oppressed an entire race of people. After exhausting all avenues, Davis eventually abandoned any and all hopes of receiving foreign aid. It was not until 1864 that Davis, seeing his nation and cause in grave danger, decided to sacrifice the institution of slavery in hopes that Europe would finally help. Regrettably for Davis it would be too little too late.

As for Lincoln, he too faced many problems in terms of foreign relations. For the most part, Lincoln would defer all foreign matters to his Secretary of State William Seward, who seemed to do a great job. There were however, a few situations that required Lincoln’s intervention. Among these was the Trent Affair, when two ambassadors of the Confederacy were seized by a Union blockade. Both ambassadors happened to be on a British ship when seized, and when news of this reached England they became enraged. The British government argued that the capture of Confederate ambassadors onboard a British vessel was a direct violation of international law. In response, Great Britain threatened to resort to war if both Confederate ambassadors were not released and permitted to travel to England. Upon hearing this, the Lincoln Administration began shifting into damage control mode. Secretary Seward recognized the gravity of the situation, and immediately recommended releasing the ambassadors at once. While this was a hard pill to swallow, Seward’s idea proved to be the right one. The proposition of fighting the British and the rebel Southerner’s at the same time was a virtual impossibility for the North.

The problems between Great Britain and France would continue for Lincoln. The Union blockade of Confederate exports was a source of great agitation for the European powers, which depended greatly on the Confederate cotton. Lincoln however would not budge. He also maintained his policy of deferring to Seward on foreign affairs. Seward’s ability to negotiate with other nations kept most of the major problems from escalating. The big break for the Lincoln Administration came when the Russian Czar offered assistance by sending numerous fleets to support the Union. The Russian’s presence served as a large deterrent to both France and Britain.

It is clear that both Lincoln and Davis faced difficulties in persuading other nations to come to their aid. While Davis battled to gain British and French support, Lincoln was trying to keep them away. In the end, slavery seems to have been the main deterrent. Both Britain and France simply could not give aid to a country that supported slavery. This obvious factor was greatly magnified when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which virtually guaranteed that the Confederates would receive no foreign aid.

Presidents Lincoln and Davis will forever be remembered for different reasons. Lincoln has become immortalized as the man who preserved the Union and freed the slaves, while Davis is viewed as the rebel leader of a lost cause. These stereotypes may offer a generalization of both men, but they do not tell the whole truth. The fact remains that both Lincoln and Davis were very effective leaders. Both men gained their public’s support, they both struggled through war difficulties with stubborn Generals, and both dealt with tragedy and defeat. Lincoln’s ability to defer major decisions to his subordinates exhibits his trusting character that made him a great leader. Davis’s personality as a micro-manager may have angered some under his authority, but allowed him the luxury to analyze all major decisions. Both men struggled when it came to foreign relations and economics, but eventually it would be Lincoln who would emerge victorious in both arenas. Lincoln and Davis also exhibited a deep interest in the men they had in the field, and did everything they could to assist in their efforts. In reality, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis have each left a legacy, whether good or bad, that will forever endure as part of our heritage as a nation.

Seven Score and Ten Years Ago...

On this day, 150 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a two-minute speech that would go down in history as arguably the greatest speech in American presidential history.

The Gettysburg Address, which wasn't even meant to be the primary speech of the day (the Honorable Edward Everett had prepared a two-hour discourse to commemorate the occasion), has been rightfully praised as a landmark moment in the already stellar legacy that was Lincoln's presidency.  Even 150 years later, the words of his short speech stir our deepest emotions of patriotism and respect for those who give "their last full measure of devotion" in the service of their country.

Below are the words to the Gettysburg Address.  Take a couple of minutes today to reflect on them.  As you will see for yourself, there is only one major flaw in the speech. Lincoln stated that, "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here."

He couldn't have been more wrong.

---------------------

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on 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 that 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 gave their lives that this nation might live.  It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground.  The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.  The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but we can never forget what they did here.  It is fur us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have this 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 their 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 the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And for your listening and viewing pleasure:

Lincoln's Life Was Actually Saved by Booth...

...But It's Not What You Think.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is an event that will forever be etched into the hearts of generations of Americans.  His death not only marked the end to the legacy of a living legend, but also sparked one of the largest manhunts in American history, instantly making his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, the most infamous fugitive this country has ever seen.  

But not long before his fateful rendezvous with Lincoln at Ford Theater, Booth had actually saved Lincoln's life.  Yes, as crazy as it is to believe, Booth saved Lincoln from certain disaster.

Though it's not the Booth you're thinking of...or the Lincoln for that matter.  

During the winter months of 1864, Robert Todd Lincoln, the eldest son of then President Lincoln, was boarding a train in Jersey City, New Jersey bound for Washington.  It was dark, conditions were cold and the train was extraordinarily crowded.  In his own words, Robert Lincoln recalled what happened next as follows:

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

Edwin Booth, brother of the notorious John Wilkes Booth, had been in the right place at the right time, rescuing the doomed Robert Lincoln from an untimely and ugly demise.  Like his infamous brother, Edwin was one of the most well-known and respected Shakespearean actors of the 19th century.  In fact, Edwin had been praised for his portrayal of Hamlet by President Lincoln, who was a self-proclaimed connoisseur of Shakespeare. It must have been quite the experience for young Robert Lincoln to be rescued by the Brad Pitt of his day!

Less than a year later, Edwin's brother took the life of the president, forever altering his family's fate from that of noteworthy actors to cold-blooded killers.  Edwin, who didn't know at the time that he had saved the life of President Lincoln's son, received notification from Robert Lincoln himself, thanking him for his good deed on that fateful day.  It is said that Edwin regularly pondered the incident, allowing to comfort him in the wake of his brother's horrific act.

Robert Lincoln went on to have a successful political career, eventually climbing the ranks to become Secretary of War (Defense) under Presidents Garfield and Arthur.  Edwin Booth went on to continue his career as an actor, becoming one of the most influential Shakespearean actors in American history.

Booth saves Lincoln, Booth kills Lincoln.

One of the many ironies of history I suppose.

Dumb and Dumber: Glenn Beck and David Barton's Latest Lunacy (Glenn Beck Check, Part VIII)

America's Favorite Pseudo-Historians
Make Asses of Themselves...AGAIN!

My two favorite goofballs (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle DUMB) have managed to once again open their mouths and insert both feet.  Yes, the always comical dynamic duo that is Glenn Beck and David Barton, the gift that just keeps on giving, have added another smash single to their already "stellar" greatest hits album. But instead of tackling the legacy of our nation's Founding Fathers (a topic they just can't seem to ever get right no matter how hard they try), their target this time was none other than Honest Abe Lincoln.  Take a look:



This is absolutely PRICELESS!  David "The Brain" Barton actually admits to writing a review for a movie he never saw!  Are you kidding me!?! Well, Mr. Barton, with that sort of litmus test let's just pass blind judgement on whatever we don't like.  What a buffoon!

But let us not get distracted and focus on Mr. Barton's bogus depiction of the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Mr. Barton states that "there wasn't the wheeling, dealing kind of back room deals" and that the passage of the amendment was a "slam dunk, big time." 

Ugh! I don't even know where to begin!  It's almost as if these two idiots go against EVERYTHING that those in the know (in whatever field of expertise) have to say.  Evolutionists point to fossils, carbon dating, etc. to claim that the world is billions of years old, these two quote Deuteronomy to say that is wrong.  Climatologists overwhelmingly declare that the Earth's climate is changing, these two call it a progressive hoax to subjugate us all.  Historians assert very obvious truths about our nation's founding, these two say that the exact opposite is true and that evil, socialist, progressive, fascist scary people are destroying our nation's heritage.  In short, these nut-jobs have absolutely no clue what they are talking about!

But I digress.  Mr. Barton's portrayal of the passage of the 13th Amendment couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is there was a great amount of back door "wheeling and dealing" taking place.  Not only does Mr. Barton (and Beck) demonstrate his ignorance for how a Congressional Amendment is brought to pass, but he is apparently unaware that there was a plethora of drama surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment.

First off, prior the the commencement of the Civil War, Congress (which consisted of northern and southern representation at that point) had already passed a 13th Amendment (in Feb., 1861) which "guaranteed the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states."  This was the latest in what had been a series of congressional bills that had sought to protect slavery for literally decades, and appease the Southern leadership (yet somehow the Civil War wasn't about slavery...yeah, right!).  With the onset of the Civil War, the states were unable to ratify the newly-created 13th Amendment (a requirement for any Constitutional amendment), and thus it never became law. 

With the obvious division of the nation brought on by war, northern abolitionists saw an opportunity to eradicate the "peculiar institution" once and for all.  In December of 1863, Representative James Ashley of Ohio proposed a bill to support "A Constitutional Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery." For the most part, Ashley's petition fell on deaf ears (and eventually contributed to his failure to be reelected), but it did get the ball rolling.  Other congressmen, including Lyman Trumball and Charles Sumner, would propose similar measures before Congress.

But there was still a great amount of tension (even without the Southern delegates) in Congress over the issue of slavery.  It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln decided to include the passage of a Constitutional amendment on slavery as a part of his 1864 reelection that the matter started gaining steam.  It took Lincoln and his supporters a full year to garner enough support for the measure.  In fact, a number of deals were made to appease reluctant Republican voters and to sway the 4 needed Democrat votes in the House in order to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment.  If the passage of the 13th Amendment was the "slam dunk" that Barton thinks it was, why did Lincoln and his supporters feel the need to make it the principal issue of their reelection campaign, especially when they already had passed the Emancipation Proclamation the year before?  Why were abolitionist leaders, including prominent Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, campaigning so vigorously for this amendment if it was such an obvious "slam dunk?"

In addition to this, Mr. Barton's apparently doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119-56 vote in the House was anything but a "slam dunk."  Heck, Barton's ignorance is so great that he states for all to hear that the amendment had "an 80 percent vote."  Uh...not quite, sir.  The measure barely passed the House with 68% support (just barely making the 2/3 cut), while the combined House and Senate support was 70% (the Senate voted 38-6 in favor).  Again, this reveals the woeful ignorance that both Beck and Barton have when it comes to the Constitution; a document they claim to "revere."

Barton's failure to accurately describe the history surrounding the 13th Amendment, along with his obvious illiteracy of Constitutional practices, just proves how untrustworthy the man is when it comes to American history.  David Barton is not a historian.  Let me say that again: David Barton is NOT a historian.  He's an activist for a radical agenda, nothing more.  Much like Howard Zinn was to the left, David Barton is a errand boy for the right.  What he writes isn't history, pure and simple. 

But let's not let good ol' Glenn off the hook here either.  Beck, who is always more than eager to suck up whatever ilk Barton spews at him, actually states at the beginning of this video that he found Spielberg's "Lincoln" film to be "a remarkable movie."  But after hearing Barton's one-minute "rebuttal," Beck stated that he "wished he had un-seen that movie."  Amazing...simply amazing. This clown, who claims to be a voice of "truth," does a complete 180 in a single minute. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, reveals just how simple-minded Glenn Beck truly is!

For anyone left (and I know there are very few and the numbers continue to decline) who still grant these two buffoons any level of credence I hope you will now see just how misplaced your trust really is. Please, will somebody save these two from themselves!  Glenn Beck, who has fancied himself as the next Thomas Paine and then as the next George Washington (until he realized that both men would probably have hated his stupid guts), really does need to hurry up and complete his Utopian community so that he can just go away, drink the crazy Kool-Aid with all of his crazy followers, and never bother us again.  How can anyone still buy into all of this blatant bullshit???

Meanwhile, Beck's sidekick, Pseudo-historian David Barton Extraordinaire, needs to face reality.  David, you're not a historian, not even close.  Everything from your foolish assertion that half of the signers of the DoI were ministers, to your indescribably stupid "Black Robe Regiment" argument, not to mention the fact that your Thomas Jefferson book was so horrific that not only was it recalled by your publisher, but even the most conservative of supporters called your work "a joke," prove that you don't know history. Mr. Barton, I think you need to join your pal Glenn at his heavenly new compound and just leave us all alone. 

And for those of you thinking about joining Beck and Barton in "Independence, USA," consider this: Once upon a time, not that long ago, another leader decided to create a Utopian paradise for his followers where they could separate themselves from the evil, "progressive" world and teach one another according to their own values and beliefs.  Click here to see how things worked out for them. 

The First Memorial Day Celebration

Happy Memorial Day, everyone!

On this day, Americans from all over the nation pay homage to our brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom (and no, that isn't just some cliche thing that we say but is the literal truth).  This is a solemn day of reflection, reverence and remembrance that should inspire every citizen of this nation to be a better and more grateful person.

Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with the history of Memorial Day, a history that dates back quite a ways in our nation's book of remembrance.  Officially, Memorial Day (which was actually called Decoration Day) began in May of 1868, almost immediately following the American Civil War.  General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, declared May 30th of that year to be a day set aside for the "decoration of graves with flowers for Union and Confederate forces at Arlington National Cemetery...and all other cemeteries of the nation."  This first "Decoration Day" was to remember the high price that the nation had paid in the cause of freedom.

And make no mistake, this first generation of Americans that celebrated "Decoration Day" knew very well the high price of war.  The American Civil war, unlike any American war before or since, gave our nation a front row seat to the carnage of war.  With more than 750,000 dead (more than all other American wars combined) Americans everywhere had cause to mourn.  This massive loss of life was an obvious reality for every American in every corner of the still infant nation.  Celebrating a memorial/decoration day only made good sense.

But the story of General Logan and the first "official" Memorial Day celebration of 1868 was not the precedent-setter for this national holiday that so many have come to accept.  The very first Memorial Day is actually a beautiful (an forgotten) story that deserves recognition.  The story takes place in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, where by the end of the Civil War the town lay in virtual ruins.  The city had been abandoned by White citizens and Confederate troops and was on the verge of surrendering to the Union.  Finally on April 29th, Union forces, including the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry, took the city and accepted the official surrender of Charleston.

Just a couple of days after the official surrender of the city (on May 1 to be exact), thousands of Black Charlestonians, most former slaves, held a series of memorials to those who had paid the ultimate price for their new found freedom.  Scores of Black citizens made their way to Charleston's horse race track, the Washington Race Course and Jockey Club, which had been converted into a prison for Union soldiers.  The conditions in the prison had been horrific, and at least 260 men perished due to disease.  Most of the dead had been hastily buried in mass graves just months prior.  On this day, this group of Black citizens worked tirelessly to see that all of these deceased Union soldiers received the proper burial they deserved.  The grounds of the race track were also repaired, cleansed and given a sense of reverence all to honor a small group of fallen heroes.

This simple act of kindness, in memory of a group of "enemy" soldiers, spawned a massive movement that captured the entire city of Charleston.  As Yale historian David W. Blight points out:

Black Charlestonians in cooperation with white missionaries and teachers, staged an unforgettable parade of 10,000 people on the slaveholders' race course. The symbolic power of the low-country planter aristocracy's horse track (where they had displayed their wealth, leisure, and influence) was not lost on the freedpeople. A New York Tribune correspondent witnessed the event, describing "a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina and the United States never saw before." 

At 9 am on May 1, the procession stepped off led by three thousand black schoolchildren carrying arm loads of roses and singing "John Brown's Body." The children were followed by several hundred black women with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantry and other black and white citizens. As many as possible gathering in the cemetery enclosure; a childrens' choir sang "We'll Rally around the Flag," the "Star-Spangled Banner," and several spirituals before several black ministers read from scripture. No record survives of which biblical passages rung out in the warm spring air, but the spirit of Leviticus 25 was surely present at those burial rites: "for it is the jubilee; it shall be holy unto you… in the year of this jubilee he shall return every man unto his own possession." 

Following the solemn dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: they enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches, and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantry participating was the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th U.S. Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite. The war was over, and Decoration Day had been founded by African Americans in a ritual of remembrance and consecration. The war, they had boldly announced, had been all about the triumph of their emancipation over a slaveholders' republic, and not about state rights, defense of home, nor merely soldiers' valor and sacrifice. 

According to a reminiscence written long after the fact, "several slight disturbances" occurred during the ceremonies on this first Decoration Day, as well as "much harsh talk about the event locally afterward." But a measure of how white Charlestonians suppressed from memory this founding in favor of their own creation of the practice later came fifty-one years afterward, when the president of the Ladies Memorial Association of Charleston received an inquiry about the May 1, 1865 parade. A United Daughters of the Confederacy official from New Orleans wanted to know if it was true that blacks had engaged in such a burial rite. Mrs. S. C. Beckwith responded tersely: "I regret that I was unable to gather any official information in answer to this." In the struggle over memory and meaning in any society, some stories just get lost while others attain mainstream dominance.

We are fortunate to have the history of this first Memorial Day for all to enjoy.  The imagery of Black slaves, reverently and humbly providing a proper burial for Union soldiers, is a reminder of just how precious freedom really is, and the high cost that we are sometimes required to pay for it.  On this Memorial Day, I am grateful to the God of Heaven for the freedoms I enjoy.  God bless this great land that we live in!

Life, Liberty and Property: Slavery and the Founding of America

America is a nation that has become synonymous with freedom. The hope that people of all races, religions, genders and backgrounds can have an equal and protected right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has become the principal creed of the American experiment. This belief has been a constant work in progress, dating back to the time of our Founding Fathers. During the American Revolution, men Like John Adams, Patrick Henry and others tirelessly campaigned and urged the American public to embrace the ideals of independence, and to break the bands of tyranny from England. America’s war hero George Washington was inspiring troops to come together in a common cause, to win their freedom from what they saw as an oppressive King of England.

And though these founders are rightfully praised for their incredible efforts, the American Revolution was far from the perfect personification of human freedom. An entire race of people, for example, would not receive the benefits of independence or of personal liberty. The African American slave population was the greatest contradiction to the ideals of American independence. Their legacy not only confuses many Americans today, but it also greatly troubled the citizens of the early American republic. Citizens endeavored to justify their "rights" to Black "property" while at the same time praising the "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal." Needless to say, this contradiction was an ugly and uncomfortable truth of American society that was simply brushed under the table in most cases. The "peculiar institution", as it became known, was arguably the most ugly and painful thorn in the side of our nation's founders, a thorn they never fully removed.

With mounting tensions between England and her rebel colonies mounting, the Continental Congress looked to the redheaded, thirty-three-year-old Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, to create the "marching orders" for the new nation. In a matter of days Jefferson would write one of the most amazing documents in world history, the Declaration of Independence. In this document Jefferson spelled out the reasons and justifications that the colonists had for independence, along with a list of grievances they had against the King of England. In addition, this Virginian master of hundreds of slaves attempted to address the slave issue. In his first draft of the DoI, Jefferson not only condemned the slave trade, but placed full blame for slavery in America on the shoulders of the King of England:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither… to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold.

As wonderful as all of this may have sounded, the Continental Congress elected to delete all references to the slave trade, fearing that it may actually harm the revolutionary movement. No doubt many of the signers themselves were slaveholders. While we today may look at Jefferson and others as hypocrites, it is worth remembering that they were (like us today) a product of their times. Slavery had become a reality for many early Americans. If the Congress truly wanted to gain the backing of the masses, the best way to do that was to ignore the slavery issue altogether.

With the "revised" draft of Jefferson’s Declaration now complete, the Continental Congress distributed the document to the masses. General Washington ordered it read to the men under his command. With all the excitement that this document caused, there is little doubt that many found it to be contradictory to the realities of 18th Century American life. The bold phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" only rang true for a section of the population. Women, Blacks, Native Americans, and many others were far from "equal" to their sophisticated American gentry neighbors. Regardless of this fact, the DoI inspired and gave hope to thousands of slaves, who sought for a way to break the chains of servitude.

Once the exhilaration of victory over Britain had worn off, the American people faced the challenge of creating a new government. With thirteen separate states, each with its unique culture and ideals, this proved to be a very difficult task. Under the Articles of Confederation the new nation was loosely tied together through a virtually powerless national authority. The new government quickly realized that it had little to no influence over the states. As problems arose, the new government was powerless to help. Since the Confederation was powerless to tax the states, they created the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance was created to help the government sell off the land north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachian Mountains for colonization. This proved to be one of the Confederation’s finest moments. As historian Carol Berlin stated, the Northwest Ordinance was "without question, the government’s finest peacetime establishment" (A Brilliant Solution, 23).

The Northwest Ordinance had another side to it though. Article IV of the document stated that, "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory" (Slavery and the Founders, 40). This move on the part of the Northwest Ordinance was an obvious challenge to many of the accepted norms of the time. Clearly the slavery issue had been a popular topic of the time, and many people felt that the institution had to be eradicated before the revolutionary ideals could be fully realized. Others, however, felt that slavery was an institution worthy of full government protection. As historian Joseph Ellis points out, "slavery was woven into the fabric of American society in ways that defied appeals to logic or morality" (Founding Brothers, 91).

Despite its controversy verbiage, Article IV did not become a source of debate for those for and against slavery. As historian Paul Finkelman argues, southern slaveholders were more than willing to accept the article because to them it meant slavery would continue in the south, and it would prevent settlers of the new territory from competing with their monopoly on Black labor (Slavery and the Founders, 42). Slaveholders also took comfort in the apparent ambiguity of Article IV. For example, Article IV (and the ordinance in general) said nothing about the fate of slaves already living in the territory. It also said nothing about the children of slaves who would be born in the territory. Much of the ambiguity of this article came as a result of its hasty adoption. It was quickly created and accepted with little to no revision. As Paul Finkelman calls it, "The Ordinance illustrates the danger of hastily drafted legislation" (Slavery and the Founders, 48). Had Article IV been better scrutinized before being accepted, then perhaps the pro-slavery arguments would have had not footing to stand on.

As the infant nation continued to define itself, many prominent members of society began seeing a shadow of uncertainty cast over their republican experiment. Men like Madison, Hamilton and Washington began to believe that only a strong nationalized government could secure America’s future. As a result, a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, in the very building where the Declaration of Independence had been signed. Men from 12 of the 13 states came together to discuss different solutions to a growing problem. Opinions varied greatly on whether a new government should be created, and how that new government should look.

After great debates and great compromises the Constitution of the United States was created and ratified. Debates over representation in the national legislature, the nature of the Executive branch, and the protection of individual rights were among the issues debated. But of all the debates that came to the forefront of the convention, the problem of slavery took center stage. As James Madison stated, "the States were divided into different interests not by their difference in size, but principally from their having or not of slaves" (Founding Brothers, 91). Southern states desperately wanted to protect the institution, or at least extend its lifespan. Those who sought to destroy slavery through Constitutional laws were met with disappointment. As Carol Berkin states, "Any attempt to raise the moral issue of slavery was just as quickly rejected" (A Brilliant Solution, 113). Eventually, northern states gave up on the slavery issue and acquiesced to the demands of their southern brethren by accepting the compromise to allow slaves to be counted as 3/5 a person in the representation of a state. This 3/5 Compromise gave slaveholders the comfort of knowing that they would be able to safeguard their "property" from northern abolitionists, and ensured that they would play a major (perhaps the major) role in American politics for the next 70-80 years.

The newly ratified Constitution also served to protect slavery in other ways. The southern delegates were able to gain the guarantee that the slave trade would be Constitutionally protected for at least twenty years. Although many abolitionists were no doubt devastated, many also realized that securing the ratification of the Constitution was a more pressing need. Southern delegates would have been reluctant to sign any Constitution that did not give specific safeguards to slavery. As Joseph Ellis points out, "The distinguishing feature of the document (Constitution) when it came to slavery was its evasiveness. It was neither a contract with abolition nor a covenant with death, but rather a prudent exercise in ambiguity" (Founding Brothers, 93). The southern slaveholders had won a major victory in securing their slave-holding rights. Any effort to restrict or eliminate the institution would have to overcome the massive hurdle of the Constitution. In short, the south had won one of the key battles to secure the legacy of the American Revolution. The rest of the war would have to wait to be settled till the 1860s.

Slavery was not only an institution protected by law in the early American republic, but it also became an institution that defined the early American republic. The complex and immoral debates that arose in defense of the institution helped to determine the actions of many Founding Fathers. The creation of the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution were all influenced by the existence of slavery. Through the actions of our early founders, slavery became not only an institution but also a culture, fully protected by law. It is no wonder that slavery, and all the debates that went with it, would continue to shape American history and eventually contribute to our bloodiest war ever: The Civil War.

Book Review: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. By Eric Foner. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. xxxix, 317).

The years leading up to the American Civil War have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the convoluted labyrinth of Civil War historiography is no small task for any writer. Historian Eric Foner, however, is an exception to that rule. In his book, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men Foner effectively provides simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to the critical formative years of the Republican Party, just prior to the commencement of the Civil War. Foner attempts to portray the division between North and South as more than a simple disagreement over political issues, but rather as a passionate and tangible battle between rival moral standards.

Foner’s prose successfully resurrects the underlying tensions that shaped Republican ideology. Foner suggests that the Republican Party eventually grew to see their world dividing into two distinct societies: one agrarian and oppressive, the other industrial and libertarian. As the idea of free labor gained notoriety in the North for being a noble endeavor, slavery was receiving greater condemnation for its barbarity. Foner alludes to this fact when he writes, “If the free labor outlook gave Republicans a model of the good society, it also provided them with a yardstick for judging other social systems, and by this standard, slave society was found woefully wanting” (Pp. 40).

The book’s main strength comes from the author’s analysis of the ideology of free labor. Foner’s opening chapters are almost exclusively dedicated to the Republican Party’s advancement and development of the free labor doctrine. As the economy of the North grew to embrace this new policy on labor, more and more people began to see its benefits. This ideology was then woven into the Republican agenda, which strove to convince the masses of the superiority of a free labor economy. “The economic superiority of free to slave labor became a major argument of the Republicans in their attempt to win northern votes” (Pp. 43). Foner adds further credence to his argument by mentioning the numerous reporters that traveled to the Deep South to bring to light the inferiority of the Southern slave economy (Pp. 46-49). By relating stories of slave oppression, the plight of the poor whites, and the dilapidated nature of Southern infrastructure, the press was able to convince its readers that the economy of the South was morally unacceptable. Northern obsession with free labor, combined with a strong abhorrence of the slave economy, gave Republican politics a strong advantage that propelled their agenda forward.

The development of free labor ideology is a reoccurring theme in this book. Foner uses it to demonstrate just how powerful of a dichotomy there was between the North and South in terms of economics. Foner points out that the Northern economic standard evolved into a moral one, which was in constant conflict with slavery. Foner makes mention that the apparent upward social mobility of the North was of paramount significance, and was one of the primary problems with Southern slavery. “The plight of the poor whites [in the South] was compounded, as Republicans saw it, by their lack of opportunity to rise in the social scale” (Pp. 47). Foner does not neglect the perspective of the South, however, which maintained that, “there must be a class to do the mean duties, to perform the drudgeries of life” (Pp. 66). Clearly the economic divisions depicted by Foner had evolved into much more than a simple dispute, and had in fact become a passionate moral conflict.

The ideology of free labor is not the only issue addressed in this book. Foner also gives a lot of attention to the historical development of the Republican Party. In the middle and end parts of his book, he stresses the fact that Republicans were forced to incorporate a large conglomeration of politically diverse groups into their fold. Foner makes it clear that the Republican integration of abolitionists, ex-Whigs, ex-Democrats, and others was a slow process that required adaptation and compromise. The radically charged viewpoints of many within the party (Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens to name only a couple) required time to adapt to the more conservative perspectives within the party. As Foner claims, there existed a large number of conservatives that were not as charged over the slavery issue as the radicals (Pp. 187).

One of the best aspects of Foner’s inquiry into the development of the Republican Party comes from his chapter on Salmon Chase. In it, Foner demonstrates how Chase was able to effectively weave slavery into a political issue. By doing so, abolitionists and other radicals rallied around the idea, creating an agenda of zero tolerance. As different factions came together under the banner of the Republican Party, slavery became its main political issue. Foner adds credibility to this argument by effectively demonstrating how the conservative elements within the party began to see slavery as an assault to their ideology of free labor. By doing so, Foner reveals how those less interested in the slavery issue were persuaded to believe that slavery presented a legitimate threat to their way of life.

The appeal of this work should thus be seen from the perspective of Civil War historiography. As a result of his research, Foner has provided us with an additional way of understanding the events that led to the Civil War. By effectively exposing the importance of free labor ideology in the North, and its introduction and evolution in the Republican Party, the reader is able to gain a sense of the moral dilemma that existed between North and South. Foner’s insight into the various political factions that made up the Republican Party provide a rich and sophisticated view of the events that drove the North to strongly oppose the South. Though written from a predominantly Northern perspective, this book gives brilliant insight into the origins of the Civil War.

Why do we Celebrate Labor Day?

"Labor Day differs in every essential from the other holidays of the year in any country...All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man's prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day...is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation."

These words, spoken by Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of labor, help to sum up why Labor Day is a unique celebration in the American canon of federal holidays. And though in our current era Labor Day tends to signify the unofficial end of summer, the origins of this unique holiday are quite complex to say the least.

The first official Labor Day celebration in the United States was held on September 5, 1882, primarily in New York City. During its first few years, Labor Day was not recognized as a national holiday but was held as a local day of celebration to honor the labors of the common workers in various urban areas throughout the country. In fact, the idea for a day to honor laborers had been tossed around during the Civil War, as a way for the Union to pay homage to the superiority of the free labor system v. that of slave labor. For this reason, many northern urban centers began holding unofficial labor days, but nothing on a national scale ever came to fruition.

Over the next decade, however, a number of public uprisings resulting from labor disputes and economic crises caused the federal government to rethink its position. For example, on May 4, 1886, striking workers and other supporters gathered at the Haymarket Square in Chicago to protest the efforts being made by big business to block the implementation of the standard eight-hour work day. Just four days earlier, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions had unanimously voted to accept and support the eight-hour work week as a standard practice. However, several large businesses including the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. challenged the decision and refused to cave in. Both sides grew impatient and several protests irrupted into violence. As a result, protesters to the May 4th gathering at Haymarket Square were urged to, "Arm Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!", which they did. As the crowds grew, police responded to prevent and violence. In the midst of the excitement, an overzealous member of the crowd threw a large bomb at police, killing at least three officers and several protesters. What became known as the Haymarket Affair sent shock waves throughout the country and furthered the divide between common laborers and big business.

A few years later, economic depression took tensions to an even higher level than ever. The Panic of 1893, which was the result of th over expansion of the nation's railroads and questionable bank financing, caused tensions between workers and big business to reach a boiling point. In the same way that hosing expansion and foolish bank practices have caused much of our economic troubles today, the over expansion of railroads caused the industry to come to a screeching halt. As a result, jobs were lost and wages decreased.

In the wake of the Panic of 1893 came the Pullman Strike of 1894. As the Pullman Palace Car Company (a railroad company) began cutting jobs, decreasing wages, and increasing the daily work hours of its workers, more laborers began organizing. Eventually they began to strike in Pullman, Illinois. Initially there were only 3,000 workers who refused to work, however, that number soon increased to over 200,000 and spead to over 27 states, thus effectively causing the nation's railroad system (and much of its economy) to become stuck in the mud. In response, President Grover Cleveland dispatched the U.S. Marshals and over 12,000 U.S. soldiers under the command of Lt. General Nelson Miles, to break up the strike and return the laborers to their work. Long story short, General Miles' efforts were effective, but over 50 people were killed and over $300,000 dollars in damage was caused.

In response to this event, which was obviously received in a negative fashion by the American public, legislation was quickly created to make Labor Day a national holiday. Only a mere six days after the end of the Pullman Strike, President Cleveland asked Congress to pass a bill that officially recognized Labor Day throughout the nation, which they did on June 28, 1894. Obviously this was done in an effort to appease the masses who were already infuriated over the dwindling American economy and the president's decision to sent troops to break up a lawful strike. Sadly for Cleveland, his efforts were in vain, as he was easily beaten by William McKinley in the election of 1896, thanks in part to his handling of the Panic of 1893 and the Pullman Strike.

So here we are in the 21st century, and like our predecessors we too face an economy that is on the skids (though let's not be dramatic here. The Panic of 1893 was MUCH worse). But unlike our forefathers, we live in a time when the rights of the working class are in a far better state...

...

...At least in some respects.

Yes, we too have many who work for low wages, endure long hours, receive terrible benefits, etc., etc., etc. Yes, like the J.P. Morgans of the 19th century, we too have corrupt corporations who suck the wealth from the people, use their money irresponsibly, fall on hard times, ask and receive a bailout from the government and then turn around and create jobs in China so that their stock goes up a few points. I guess greed knows no limits, no matter the era.

I guess I can't help but wonder if Labor Day is just like those peasant holidays from the Medieval era. Are the nobles of society simply appeasing us rabble peasants by giving us a free day from the fields where we can indulge ourselves in various forms of entertainment? Sure smells like it.

All hail Caesar!

Here's a brief video on the history of Labor Day from the History Channel:

The Most Religious State in America is...

Historian Paul Harvey of the Religion in American History blog (and my former grad school professor) has posted the results of a very interesting Gallup Survey on the importance that each state's citizens place on religion in their daily lives. The survey was actually very simple. Respondents were asked one fundamental question: "Is Religion an important part of your daily life?" The results are quite interesting. Here are the top 10 states that responded favorably to the question:

Mississippi: 85%
Alabama: 82%
South Carolina: 80%
Tennessee: 79%
Louisiana: 78%
Arkansas: 78%
Georgia: 76%
North Carolina: 76%
Oklahoma: 75%
Kentucky: 74%
Texas: 74%

What's fascinating about this study, as Dr. Harvey points out, is that the median score is quite high: at 65%. From the Gallup Poll:

And, although there is a wide range in the self-reported importance of religion, from a high of 85% for residents of Mississippi to a low of 42% for residents of Vermont, the distribution of religiosity by state takes the shape of a bell-shaped curve, clustered around the overall nationwide mean of 65%. Twenty-three of the 50 states and District of Columbia are in the range of 60% to 70% saying religion is important.

In addition, it's important to note how geography comes into play. Obviously the majority of the high ranking states lie in the south, as is illustrated in the following map from this same Gallup poll:


And here is a more detailed map (from a much earlier study not related to this Gallup poll) that breaks down where certain denominations are strongest:


One can't help but wonder how important of a role the social and cultural factors of a particular region play in determining the religion of a particular geographic area. Take for example this map of the United States prior to the Civil War:


And it doesn't look like a whole lot has changed. Even our voting trends are dramatically impacted by geography. This 2008 electoral map provides at least some insight into how geography can shape our views:


So what are we to make of this? That probably depends on who you ask. In my opinion, this Gallup poll (and the other studies/maps mentioned) prove that religion is still a very intimate, localized, and highly influential factor for most Americans. It can (and does) define our politics, our biases and our future. But most of all, I believe it shows just how diverse we are, and perhaps that is our greatest strength of all.

Or our greatest weakness as well?

What is Cinco de Mayo? And Why Should Americans Give a Care?

A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its
Important Role in American History

Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!

With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.

For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.

On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.

It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.

Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!

Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!

Book Review: Forever Free

Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation & Reconstruction. By Eric Foner. (New York: Random House Inc., 2005. Pp. xxx, 238).


In all of American history there is perhaps no time period more misrepresented than Reconstruction. Those crucial years between the conclusion of the Civil War and the “withdrawal” of federal troops from the South in 1877 have been clouded in a fog of ignorance and indifference for generations. In his book Forever Free, acclaimed historian Eric Foner successfully rebukes the status quo perspective of Reconstruction by “reintroducing to the nation’s memory, Reconstruction’s remarkable cast of characters and their enduring accomplishments” (xix).

Foner’s primary objective is to eradicate the traditional view of Reconstruction, which has continued to affirm the delusion that emancipated slaves played little or no role in shaping post-Civil War America. Foner’s prose focuses on the deficient aspects of Reconstruction historiography, and suggests that such deficiencies stem not from ignorance, but from racist undertones that saturated early historical inquiry. In this book, Foner effectively reveals how such myths wove their way into the collective memory of American society, along with the historical imperative that demands sincere revision of Reconstruction historiography.

The initial chapters of Foner’s book focus on the development of early Reconstruction historiography. Foner outlines the communal desire of both the North and South to purge any and all "Negro involvement" from the collective memory of Civil War history. In essence, the objective was to portray the Civil War “as a tragic family quarrel among white Americans in which Blacks played no significant part” (xxi). What resulted was a distorted national perspective of the fundamental issues that shaped Reconstruction. In consequence, the contributions made by emancipated slaves were obscured by xenophobic Whites, which labeled Negroes as ignorant children, incapable of appreciating their newly granted freedom. The resulting racism permeated American culture and gave credence to groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which Foner points out was seen as a romantic and patriotic defender of Southern liberties (216-217). Foner also mentions the powerful impact that early nineteenth century books and movies (most notably D. W. Griffith’s repugnant film "The Birth of a Nation") had on portraying blacks as simple-minded, gullible and bestial. By reducing African American involvement during Reconstruction to the level of a simple spectator, Americans were duped into accepting a watered down history that promoted White superiority and Black inferiority.

Foner’s book is clearly intended for readers with an elementary understanding of the time period. For their benefit, Foner devotes a large portion of his book to the general history of slavery and abolitionism before and during the Civil war. He then provides specific examples of how African Americans passionately participated in their struggle for freedom. Foner also guides his readers through the various problems that plagued the South during Reconstruction, and how Blacks and Whites reacted in very different ways. Foner, however, does not confine his research to a simple analysis of early Reconstruction historiography.

Along with the general outline on the history of slavery, Foner provides an in depth look into the various struggles African Americans faced to secure their freedom. Of all the struggles, Foner makes specific mention of the racist elements that drove plantation owners to find new ways of restricting their former slaves. As Foner states, “Reared on the idea that African Americans would not work except through physical coercion, white southerners sought new ways to maintain a disciplined labor force and revive plantation agriculture despite the end of slavery” (92). Newly enacted Jim Crow laws, along with other race laws, gave the racist South all the ammunition it needed to subjugate African Americans to a level of bondage that often equaled their former slave state. Essentially, these racist laws gave southern society a loophole to get around emancipation.

Despite such laws, Foner makes it clear that African Americans did not quietly submit to the injustice that surrounded them. Instead, a large number of Black leaders emerged to challenge Jim Crow laws and to reassert the importance of African American contributions during Reconstruction. Foner gives strong emphasis to the endeavors of W.E.B. Du Bois and Henry Adams, whose works tried to reclaim the lost voices of African Americans during Reconstruction. Foner also adds credence to his argument by pointing out the violent response most Blacks received whenever they spoke out. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan were quick to silence those that stood in the way of, “overthrowing Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy” (174).

In his concluding chapters, Foner completes the connection between the struggles for freedom and equality during Reconstruction, and those that existed during the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Foner calls the connection between these separate historical eras “The Unfinished Revolution,” and suggests that American society ignored the problem for almost a century. The chapters are greatly enhanced by Foner’s effective incorporation of images depicting the lynching of several African Americans. The images provide the reader with a more realistic sense of the racism that permeated America and of the struggles African Americans faced in their quest for equality.

Foner’s work clearly takes a strong stance against the “traditional” historiography of Reconstruction. The book provides ample evidence to support his claim that African Americans were at the vanguard of political and social battles for equality in the post-Civil War era, and that early historiography simply ignored their contributions. Foner’s work serves to resurrect many of the forgotten characters that helped to shape Reconstruction. The book is a valuable source that serves to augment the already changing historical perspective of the Civil War and Reconstruction.