April 8, 1865: Lee Rejects Guerrilla Warfare

Wednesday, April 8, AD 2015

On April 8, 1865 the last hope of escape for Lee’s army flickered out.  Union cavalry under Custer seized the critical supplies waiting for the Confederates at Appomattox Station.    Lee’s line of march to the west was now blocked as parts of three Union corps were making forced marches to reinforce Custer and would arrive on the morning of the ninth.  On the eighth Grant and Lee exchanged these letters:

APRIL 8, 1865

General R. E. LEE:

Your note of last evening, in reply to mine of same date, asking the condition on which I will accept the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, is just received. In reply I would say that, peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist upon, namely, that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms again against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged. I will meet you, or will designate officers to meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point agreeable to yell, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.


APRIL 8, 1865

Lieut. Gen. U.S. GRANT:

I received at a late hour your note of to-day. In mine of yesterday I did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition. To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army, but as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all, I desired to know whether your proposals would lead to that end. I cannot, therefore, meet you with a view to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia, but as far as your proposal may affect the C. S. forces under my command, and tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 a.m., to-morrow; on the old stage road to Richmond, between the picket-lines of the two armies.

R. E. LEE,


It was becoming clear to the officers of the Army of Northern Virginia that surrender loomed and most of them were heartsick at this fact.


We Americans today view the Civil War as part of our history.  If different decisions had been made at the end of that conflict, the Civil War could still be part of our current reality.  Just before the surrender at Appomattox, General Porter Alexander, General Robert E. Lee’s chief of artillery, broached to  Lee a proposal that the Army of Northern Virginia disband and carry out a guerrilla war against the Union occupiers.  Here history balanced on a knife edge.  If Lee had accepted the proposal, I have little doubt the stage would have been set for an unending war between the North and the South which would still be with us.  Douglas Southall Freeman, in his magisterial R. E. Lee, tells what happened next, based upon Alexander’s memoirs, Fighting for the Confederacy :

“Thereupon Alexander proposed, as an alternative to surrender, that the men take to the woods with their arms, under orders to report to governors of their respective states.

“What would you hope to accomplish by that?” Lee queried.

It might prevent the surrender of the other armies, Alexander argued, because if the Army of Northern Virginia laid down its arms, all the others would follow suit, whereas, if the men reported to the governors, each state would have a chance of making an honorable peace. Besides, Alexander went on, the men had a right to ask that they be spared the humiliation of asking terms of Grant, only to be told that U. S. “Unconditional Surrender” Grant would live up to the name he had earned at Fort Donelson and at Vicksburg.

Lee saw such manifest danger in this proposal to become guerillas that he began to question Alexander: “If I should take your advice, how many men do you suppose would get away?”

“Two-thirds of us. We would be like rabbits and partridges in the bushes and they could not scatter to follow us.”

“I have not over 15,000 muskets left,” Lee explained. “Two-thirds of them divided among the states, even if all could be collected, would be too small a force to accomplish anything. All could not be collected. Their homes have been overrun, and many would go to look after their families.

“Then, General,” he reasoned further, “you and I as Christian men have no right to consider only how this would affect us. We must consider its effect on the country as a whole. Already it is demoralized by the four years of war. If I took your advice, the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy’s cavalry would pursue them and overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit. We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from. And, as for myself, you young fellows might go bushwhacking, but the only dignified course for me would be to go to General Grant and surrender myself and take the consequences of my acts.”

Lee paused, and then he added, outwardly hopeful, on the strength of Grant’s letter of the previous night, whatever his inward misgivings, “But I can tell you one thing for your comfort. Grant will not demand an unconditional surrender. He will give us as good terms as this army has the right to demand, and I am going to meet him in the rear at 10 A.M. and surrender the army on the condition of not fighting again until exchanged.”

Alexander went away a humbler man. “I had not a single word to say in reply,” he wrote years afterwards. “He had answered my suggestion from a plane so far above it, that I was ashamed of having made it.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to April 8, 1865: Lee Rejects Guerrilla Warfare

April 7, 1865: Surrender Correspondence Begins

Tuesday, April 7, AD 2015



April 7, 1865 was a day of intense frustration for Robert E. Lee.  Hoping to feed his army with rations waiting at Farmville,  Union troops prevented that, crossing the Appomattox at bridges that Lee had ordered to be burned.  His army had no choice but to continue on its hungry way, the nearest rations being at Appomattox Court House some twenty-five miles away.  Longstreet in his memoirs recalled that dismal day.


I heard nothing of the affair at Sailor’s Creek, nor from General Lee, until next morning. Our work at Rice’s Station was not very serious, but was continued until night, when we marched and crossed the Appomattox at Farmville without loss, some of Rosser’s and Mumford’s cavalry following.  We crossed early in the morning and received two days’ rations,–the first regular issue since we left Richmond,–halted our wagons, made fires, got out cooking utensils, and were just ready to prepare a good breakfast. We had not heard of the disasters on the other route and the hasty retreat, and were looking for a little quiet to prepare breakfast, when General Lee rode up and said that the bridges had been fired before his cavalry crossed, that part of that command was cut off and lost, and that the troops should hurry on to position at Cumberland Church.

I reminded him that there were fords over which his cavalry could cross, and that they knew of or would surely find them. Everything except the food was ordered back to the wagons and dumped in.

Meanwhile, the alarm had spread, and our teamsters, frightened by reports of cavalry trouble and approaching fire of artillery, joined in the panic, put whips to their teams as quick as the camp-kettles were tumbled over the tail-boards of the wagons, and rushed through the woods to find a road somewhere in front of them. The command was ordered under arms and put in quick march, but General Lee urged double-quick. Our cavalry was then engaged near Farmville, and presently came a reckless charge of Gregg’s troopers towards parts of Rosser’s and Mumford’s commands. Heth’s division of infantry was sent to support them. As the balance of the command marched, General Lee took the head of the column and led it on the double-quick.

I thought it better to let them pass me, and, to quiet their apprehensions a little, rode at a walk. General Mahone received the attack of part of the enemy’s Second Corps, like Gregg’s cavalry making reckless attack. The enemy seemed to think they had another Sailor’s Creek affair, and part of their attack got in as far as Poague’s battery, but Mahone recovered it, and then drove off an attack against his front. General Gregg and a considerable part of his command were captured by Rosser and Mumford. At Cumberland Church the command deployed on the right of Poague’s battery, but Mahone reported a move by part of Miles’s division to turn his left which might dislodge him. G. T. Anderson’s brigade of Field’s division was sent with orders to get around the threatening force and break it up.  Mahone so directed them through a woodland that they succeeded in over-reaching the threatened march, and took in some three hundred prisoners,[211] the last of our trouble for the day. General Lee stopped at a cottage near my line, where I joined him after night; the trains and other parts of his army had moved on towards Appomattox Court-House.

Just after sunset, a letter from General Grant arrived:

Continue reading...

April 6, 1865: Battle of Sailor’s Creek

Monday, April 6, AD 2015


One last battle between the old adversaries the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia.  While moving towards the Appomattox River to cross it on his march to the west, Lee was intercepted by a large Union force under Sheridan.  Ewell’s corps, the rearguard of the army, was surrounded and after hard fighting surrendered.  Lee lost one quarter of his army.  Union casualties were slightly in excess of 1,000 while Confederate casualties were 7,700, mostly prisoners.



Major General William Mahone relates this poignant moment with General Lee:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to April 6, 1865: Battle of Sailor’s Creek

April 5, 1865: Endgame

Sunday, April 5, AD 2015




With the fall of Richmond the Civil War was drawing rapidly to a close.  However, Lee still led the remnants of his army and he had a plan:  march to the west and break contact with the Army of the Potomac and head south to join up with Johnston in North Carolina.  It was unlikely that he could accomplish this, but Lee felt duty bound to try.  His main initial problem was to feed his army.  To accomplish this he had the army concentrate at Amelia Court House where he expected to find supplies.  To his astonishment he found plenty of ammunition but no food.  To feed his army he had to draw upon the civilian population:


Amelia C. H., April 4, 1865.

To the Citizens of Amelia County, Va.

The Army of Northern Virginia arrived here today, expecting to find plenty of provisions, which had been ordered to be placed here by the railroad several days since, but to my surprise and regret I find not a pound of subsistence for man or horse. I must therefore appeal to your generosity and charity to supply as far as each one is able the wants of the brave soldiers who have battled for your liberty for four years. We require meat, beef, cattle, sheep, hogs, flour, meal, corn, and provender in any quantity that can be spared. The quartermaster of the army will visit you and make arrangements to pay for what he receives or give the proper vouchers or certificates. I feel assured that all will give to the extent of their means.

R. E. Lee, General

The next day Lee found his path south blocked as the Army of the Potomac occupied Jetersville.  General Longstreet in his memoirs gives us the details:


Continue reading...

April 4, 1865: Lincoln Visits Richmond

Saturday, April 4, AD 2015

Linoln in Richmond


When studying the past one of the primary rules is to remember how different one time is from another.  This rule comes jarringly to mind when we recall Lincoln’s visit to Richmond the day after it fell.  Lincoln was at City Point on the James River, so he was quite close to Richmond.  Lincoln was curious to see the city that had eluded Union armies for such a long time.  Since he wanted to see it, he did, almost with no security.  I cannot possibly imagine any chief of state today taking an informal tour of an enemy capital the day after it fell!  Any chief of security would have a stroke at the time.  John Hay, one of Lincoln’s secretaries, did note after the trip, that anyone who wanted to take a shot at Lincoln in Richmond could have.  Yes, the past is a different country!


Admiral David Dixon Porter who accompanied Lincoln in his journey into Richmond later wrote about it in his memoirs:

Continue reading...

April 3, 1865: Fall of Richmond

Friday, April 3, AD 2015

Fall of Richmond


After all the blood shed to take Richmond, its fall was anti-climactic.  Grant was moving his army in pursuit of Lee, and entry of Union troops was unopposed, the Confederate military and the civilian government having evacuated the city on the evening of April 2.  The mention of the fall of Richmond receives scant attention from Grant in his memoirs:

Soon after I left President Lincoln I received a dispatch from General Weitzel which notified me that he had taken possession of Richmond at about 8.15 o’clock in the morning of that day, the 3d, and that he had found the city on fire in two places. The city was in the most utter confusion. The authorities had taken the precaution to empty all the liquor into the gutter, and to throw out the provisions which the Confederate government had left, for the people to gather up. The city had been deserted by the authorities, civil and military, without any notice whatever that they were about to leave. In fact, up to the very hour of the evacuation the people had been led to believe that Lee had gained an important victory somewhere around Petersburg. 
Weitzel’s command found evidence of great demoralization in Lee’s army, there being still a great many men and even officers in the town. The city was on fire. Our troops were directed to extinguish the flames, which they finally succeeded in doing. The fire had been started by some one connected with the retreating army. All authorities deny that it was authorized, and I presume it was the work of excited men who were leaving what they regarded as their capital and may have felt that it was better to destroy it than have it fall into the hands of their enemy. Be that as it may, the National troops found the city in flames, and used every effort to extinguish them.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to April 3, 1865: Fall of Richmond

  • One minor outcome of the Richmond fire was the erasure of many of the state’s pre-war land records. When the war began the Virginia government ordered all land records moved to Richmond “for safekeeping”, and most towns followed the order. These records all went up in smoke.
    When George Washington was alive he was one of the major landowners in Virginia. So, would it be neat if you could search the records of your home and see if your yard was once owned by him? Yes, it would be, but it is quite out of the question now.

  • Just thank God the Capitol building and, with it, the Houdon statue survived. Both irreplaceable treasures.

  • While the fall of Richmond may have been anti-climactic to General Grant, it certainly wasn’t to the people who lived there. As I have noted before on this blog, a chapter of Jay Winik’s “April 1865” is devoted to a blow-by-blow account of this event, from the order to the Confederate government to evacuate, to the fires and chaos, to the Union troops arriving the next morning, and (spoiler alert) the arrival of Abraham Lincoln himself the day after that, to be greeted by throngs of jubilant, newly liberated slaves.

    I thought when I read this book, and still do, that this event comes about as close as any in American history to being a prefigurement (if that’s the right word) of the Last Judgment. The “last” — the slaves — became first, and the “first” — their owners — became last; the false system of the Confederacy and the evil upon which it was built (slavery) were at last destroyed; and while it was surely terrifying for those who lost their loved ones, their homes, and possessions, there was also unexpected mercy shown by the occupying Union army and by Lincoln himself. Some pictures of the most devastated parts of Richmond are hard to tell apart from pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki 80 years later. It must have felt like the end of the world to people who lived there, but since Richmond still survives today, it obviously wasn’t.

  • Mr. McClarey, Today’s front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch is a reprint of the Daily Dispatch’s front page dtd Saturday, April 4, 1865. If you cannot access it online, I could mail it to your office. The 2 inch headline is “FLAMES!”.

  • Appropriate, and one of my favorite songs of the 1960’s.

April 2, 1865: Third Battle of Petersburg

Thursday, April 2, AD 2015





With Union victory at Five Forks, General Lee desperately shifted troops to the west to protect the Southside Railroad.  Grant, realizing that Lee was thinning his lines around Petersburg and Richmond to protect the railroad, ordered a general assault against the Confederate fortifications.

The VI Corps achieved  a major breakthrough up the Boydton Plank Road.  Lee telegraphed Secretary of War Breckenridge:

I see no prospect of doing more than holding our position here until night. I am not certain I can do that. If I can I shall withdraw to-night north of the Appomattox, and, if possible, it will be better to withdraw the whole line to-night from James River. I advise that all preparations be made for leaving Richmond tonight. I will advise you later according to circumstances.

The II Corps to the left of the VI Corps and the XXIV Corps to the right of the VI Corps also achieved breakthroughs.  Union casualties were about 4,000 compared to 5000 Confederate, most of whom were taken prisoner.  The siege of Petersburg and Richmond was at an end as Lee moved his army out of his lines and began the march to the west that would end at Appomattox Court House.



Here is General Longstreet’s account of the Third Battle of Petersburg in his memoirs:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to April 2, 1865: Third Battle of Petersburg

  • Don, I appreciate how you have tied these battle accounts to our current calendar. I think it really accomplishes the goal you stated in the first article, of relating these events to the passion of Holy Week.

    Some aspects are so sad. My in-laws have a similar event in their history: my wife’s maternal grandmother’s first fiancé died in combat in the U.S. Army on November 10, 1918.

  • Thank you Tom. Being killed in a war is bad enough, being killed when it is almost over is a fathomless tragedy.

  • Unrelated but significant topic – today is the tenth anniversary of the death of Pope St. John Paul II. It’s worth a minute or two of time to sit back and reflect.

  • This post was of particular interest to me because of a bit of family history. My great-grandfather by this time was a senior (possibly THE senior) NCO of the 11th North Carolina Regiment (Heth’s Division, A.P. Hill’s Corps). About 50 years later, he wrote down his memorys of his service and his account of this final Federal assault on the Peterburg line is both vivid and amusing. Evidently, the Federal troops approached so quietly that the Confederates in his portion of the line weren’t aware of the assault until their oppenents were almost on top of them, so they “skedaddled” in a hurry. He recounts that, prompted by a reluctance to finish the war at Point Lookout or some other prison hellhole, he was running so fast that he passed some Yankee bullets going the same way. He and others were consequently out of contact with their unit for a day or two, but rejoined it before the fight a Saylor’s Creek and were present for the capitulation at Appomattox Court House on the 9th.

April 1, 1865: Battle of Five Forks

Wednesday, April 1, AD 2015


 On March 31, 1865 General Pickett, commander of the Confederate forces at Five Forks had launched an attack on Sheridan’s troopers driving them south to just north of Dinwiddie Court House.  However, his left flank being threatened by troops of the V Corps arriving to reinforce Sheridan, Pickett retreated to Five Forks.  Sheridan followed the retreating Pickett, and launched an attack on the Confederate breastworks at 1:00 PM on April 1, with two divisions of dismounted Union cavalry, armed with Sharps repeating rifles.  This intense fire pinned down the Confederates while the infantry of the V Corps massed to attack the Confederate left.  At 4:15 the attack went in , overcoming a stubborn Confederate defense.  Sheridan removed General Warren from command of the V Corps on the grounds of being dilatory in arranging the attack of the V Corps, a decision which was ruled unfounded by an Army court of inquiry in 1883.  Confederate casualties were almost 3,000 many of them prisoners, and Union casualties were 830.  The Confederate right had now been turned, and largely obliterated, and the   Southside Railroad lay exposed to the Union.  Richmond and Petersburg could no longer be held.



Here is Sheridan’s report of the battle:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to April 1, 1865: Battle of Five Forks

  • Thoughts on Sheridan’s relief of Warren?

    I happen to think that it was unjust, but I am also sympathetic to Bruce Catton’s take: had the leaders of the Army of the Potomac taken the same approach earlier in the war to genuinely dilatory commanders, the war would have been much shorter.

  • “Thoughts on Sheridan’s relief of Warren?”

    In the abstract unjust, but I agree with you and Catton that if Sheridan’s attitude of fast movement and hard fighting had been the order of the day for the Army of the Potomac from its inception, the War might well have ended in 1862.

March 31, 1865: Battle of White Oak Road

Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015



Realizing that Grant was moving sufficient troops to flank his right, General Lee decided to launch an attack against the troops of the Union V Corps, holding a section of  the White Oak Road and preventing the linking of the Confederate right under Pickett with the rest of Lee’s army.  The Union left was in the air, separated by  three miles from Sheridan’s troopers at Dinwiddie Court House and Lee intended to take full advantage of this fact, massing four brigades to make the attack.

The Confederates routed two Union divisions, chasing them south of Gravelly Run.  At 2:30 PM the Union V Corps counterattacked across Gravelly Run, the attack spearheaded by the First Division of the V Corps.  The spearhead of the spearhead was Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain’s brigade, still led by Chamberlain although he had been seriously wounded at the battle of Lewis Farm on March 29, 1865.  The Union counterattack was successful,  recovering the lost ground and once again breaking the White Oak Road, separating the Confederate right at Five Forks from the rest of the Confederate army.  Union casualties were approximately 1407 to approximately 800 Confederate.


Here is the report of Brigadier General Charles Griffin who commanded the First Division of the V Corps:

Continue reading...

March 30, 1865: Prelude to Five Forks

Monday, March 30, AD 2015


By the 30th it became obvious to both sides that the Confederate right at Five Forks was in jeopardy.  Grant discusses this in his memoirs:

The next day, March 30th, we had made sufficient progress to the south-west to warrant me in starting Sheridan with his cavalry over by Dinwiddie with instructions to then come up by the road leading north-west to Five Forks, thus menacing the right of Lee’s line.  

This movement was made for the purpose of extending our lines to the west as far as practicable towards the enemy’s extreme right, or Five Forks. The column moving detached from the army still in the trenches was, excluding the cavalry, very small. The forces in the trenches were themselves extending to the left flank. Warren was on the extreme left when the extension began, but Humphreys was marched around later and thrown into line between him and Five Forks.    
My hope was that Sheridan would be able to carry Five Forks, get on the enemy’s right flank and rear, and force them to weaken their centre to protect their right so that an assault in the centre might be successfully made. General Wright’s corps had been designated to make this assault, which I intended to order as soon as information reached me of Sheridan’s success. He was to move under cover as close to the enemy as he could get.    
It is natural to suppose that Lee would understand my design to be to get up to the South Side and ultimately to the Danville Railroad, as soon as he had heard of the movement commenced on the 29th. These roads were so important to his very existence while he remained in Richmond and Petersburg, and of such vital importance to him even in case of retreat, that naturally he would make most strenuous efforts to defend them. He did on the 30th send Pickett with five brigades to reinforce Five Forks. He also sent around to the right of his army some two or three other divisions, besides directing that other troops be held in readiness on the north side of the James River to come over on call. He came over himself to superintend in person the defence of his right flank.

Continue reading...

March 29, 1865: Battle of Lewis Farm

Sunday, March 29, AD 2015

General Chamberlain

Battle of Lewis Farm


 The Appomattox Campaign began on March 29, 1865, with Grant moving the V and II corps to the west to outflank Lee’s lines, while Sheridan and his troopers were sent south to rip up the rail lines linking Petersburg and Richmond to what remained of the Confederacy.  Lee, with that preternatural sixth sense he seemed to often possess regarding the intentions of his enemies, had moved his cavalry, along with infantry under Major General George Pickett to the west to beat off Union attempts to outflank his army.

The first Union objective was to cut the Boydton Plank Road.  After crossing Gravelley Run stream, the leading brigade of the first division of the V corps ran into Confederate fortifications.  The brigade was led by Brigadier Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, the heroic officer who had commanded the 20th Maine during its stand on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. In a fierce action of several hours duration, Chamberlain held his position only falling back as Union reinforcements arrived.  The reinforcements caused the Confederates to retreat to their White Oak Line.  Union casualties were 381 to 371 Confederate.

Late in the afternoon Sheridan’s cavalry occupied Dinwiddie Court House without opposition.  The end of the day saw the vital, for the Confederates, Boydton Plank Road cut in two locations, and the Confederate right dangerously exposed.  Here is Chamberlain’s account of the fighting:

Continue reading...

The Peacemakers

Saturday, March 28, AD 2015

The Peacemakers


A historic meeting occurred between Lincoln, Grant and Sherman on March 27-28, 1865 at City Point, Virginia.  Sherman had no idea that President Lincoln was going to be there, he having traveled by sea from North Carolina to coordinate with Grant the final campaign of the War.  This meeting was memorialized in the 1868 painting The Peacemakers, which was suggested by Sherman:

In Chicago about June or July of that year, when all the facts were fresh in my mind, I told them to George P. A. Healy, the artist, who was casting about for a subject for an historical painting, and he adopted this interview. Mr. Lincoln was then dead, but Healy had a portrait, which he himself had made at Springfield some five or six years before. With this portrait, some existing photographs, and the strong resemblance in form of [Leonard Swett], of Chicago, to Mr. Lincoln he made the picture of Mr. Lincoln seen in this group. For General Grant, Admiral Porter, and myself he had actual sittings, and I am satisfied the four portraits in this group of Healy’s are the best extant. The original picture, life-size, is, I believe, now in Chicago, the property of Mr. [Ezra B. McCagg]; but Healy afterwards, in Rome, painted ten smaller copies, about eighteen by twenty-four inches, one of which I now have, and it is now within view. I think the likeness of Mr. Lincoln by far the best of the many I have seen elsewhere, and those of General Grant, Admiral Porter, and myself equally good and faithful. I think Admiral Porter gave Healy a written description of our relative positions in that interview, also the dimensions, shape, and furniture of the cabin of the “Ocean Queen”; but the rainbow is Healy’s—typical, of course, of the coming peace. In this picture I seem to be talking, the others attentively listening. Whether Healy made this combination from Admiral Porter’s letter or not, I cannot say; but I thought that he caught the idea from what I told him had occurred when saying that “if Lee would only remain in Richmond till I could reach Burkesville, we would have him between our thumb and fingers,” suiting the action to the word. It matters little what Healy meant by his historic group, but it is certain that we four sat pretty much as represented, and were engaged in an important conversation during the forenoon of March 28, 1865, and that we parted never to meet again.

The original painting was destroyed in a fire, and what we have now is a copy found in 1922, lying forgotten in a family storehouse in Chicago.  Harry Truman, ironically a proud card carrying member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, purchased the copy of the painting for the White House in 1947.

Here is Sherman’s recollections of the meeting from his Memoirs:


The railroad was repaired to Goldsboro’ by the evening of March 25th, when, leaving General Schofield in chief command, with a couple of staff-officers I started for City Point, Virginia, in a locomotive, in company with Colonel Wright, the constructing engineer. We reached Newbern that evening, which was passed in the company of General Palmer and his accomplished lady, and early the next morning we continued on to Morehead City, where General Easton had provided for us the small captured steamer Russia, Captain Smith. We put to sea at once and steamed up the coast, reaching Fortress Monroe on the morning of the 27th, where I landed and telegraphed to my brother, Senator Sherman, at Washington, inviting him to come down and return with me to Goldsboro. We proceeded on up James River to City Point, which we reached the same afternoon. I found General Grant, with his family and staff, occupying a pretty group of huts on the bank of James River, overlooking the harbor, which was full of vessels of all classes, both war and merchant, with wharves and warehouses on an extensive scale. The general received me most heartily, and we talked over matters very fully. After I had been with him an hour or so, he remarked that the President, Mr. Lincoln, was then on board the steamer River Queen, lying at the wharf, and he proposed that we should call and see him. We walked down to the wharf, went on board, and found Mr. Lincoln alone, in the after-cabin. He remembered me perfectly, and at once engaged in a most interesting conversation. He was full of curiosity about the many incidents of our great march, which had reached him officially and through the newspapers, and seemed to enjoy very much the more ludicrous parts-about the “bummers,” and their devices to collect food and forage when the outside world supposed us to be starving; but at the same time he expressed a good deal of anxiety lest some accident might happen to the army in North Carolina during my absence. I explained to him that that army was snug and comfortable, in good camps, at Goldsboro’; that it would require some days to collect forage and food for another march; and that General Schofield was fully competent to command it in my absence. Having made a good, long, social visit, we took our leave and returned to General Grant’s quarters, where Mrs. Grant had provided tea. While at the table, Mrs. Grant inquired if we had seen Mrs. Lincoln. “No,” said the general, “I did not ask for her;” and I added that I did not even know that she was on board. Mrs. Grant then exclaimed, “Well, you are a pretty pair!” and added that our neglect was unpardonable; when the general said we would call again the next day, and make amends for the unintended slight.

Early the next day, March 28th, all the principal officers of the army and navy called to see me, Generals Meade, Ord, Ingalls, etc., and Admiral Porter. At this time the River Queen was at anchor out in the river, abreast of the wharf, and we again started to visit Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln. Admiral Porter accompanied us. We took a small, tug at the wharf, which conveyed us on board, where we were again received most courteously by the President, who conducted us to the after-cabin. After the general compliments, General Grant inquired after Mrs. Lincoln, when the President went to her stateroom, returned, and begged us to excuse her, as she was not well. We then again entered upon a general conversation, during which General Grant explained to the President that at that very instant of time General Sheridan was crossing James River from the north, by a pontoon-bridge below City Point; that he had a large, well-appointed force of cavalry, with which he proposed to strike the Southside and Danville Railroads, by which alone General Lee, in Richmond, supplied his army; and that, in his judgment, matters were drawing to a crisis, his only apprehension being that General Lee would not wait long enough. I also explained that my army at Goldsboro’ was strong enough to fight Lee’s army and Johnston’s combined, provided that General Grant could come up within a day or so; that if Lee would only remain in Richmond another fortnight, I could march up to Burkesville, when Lee would have to starve inside of his lines, or come out from his intrenchments and fight us on equal terms.

Both General Grant and myself supposed that one or the other of us would have to fight one more bloody battle, and that it would be the last. Mr. Lincoln exclaimed, more than once, that there had been blood enough shed, and asked us if another battle could not be avoided. I remember well to have said that we could not control that event; that this necessarily rested with our enemy; and I inferred that both Jeff. Davis and General Lee would be forced to fight one more desperate and bloody battle. I rather supposed it would fall on me, somewhere near Raleigh; and General Grant added that, if Lee would only wait a few more days, he would have his army so disposed that if the enemy should abandon Richmond, and attempt to make junction with General Jos. Johnston in North Carolina, he (General Grant) would be on his heels. Mr. Lincoln more than once expressed uneasiness that I was not with my army at Goldsboro’, when I again assured him that General Schofield was fully competent to command in my absence; that I was going to start back that very day, and that Admiral Porter had kindly provided for me the steamer Bat, which he said was much swifter than my own vessel, the Russia. During this interview I inquired of the President if he was all ready for the end of the war. What was to be done with the rebel armies when defeated? And what should be done with the political leaders, such as Jeff. Davis, etc.? Should we allow them to escape, etc.? He said he was all ready; all he wanted of us was to defeat the opposing armies, and to get the men composing the Confederate armies back to their homes, at work on their farms and in their shops. As to Jeff. Davis, he was hardly at liberty to speak his mind fully, but intimated that he ought to clear out, “escape the country,” only it would not do for him to say so openly. As usual, he illustrated his meaning by a story:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Peacemakers

  • I have a young friend, with a master’s in history who writes a history blog. Here him tell it, our Founding Fathers were racists and Lincoln the least honorable of men. This perversion of history is not new, but reading this recalls what injustice is being done to the memory of good men by our illiberal, progressive liberals.

  • Donald, I have spent the last week (literally day & night) helping to pass a bill through the AR Senate Ed Committee that will require relevant review of the origins of our country to the year 1890 at the high school level. The goal of the bill is provision for instruction in high school social studies/history classes in proper context & for mastery. It allows for the complete freedom of individual classroom teachers to meet the needs of their students/classes as they see fit. Our AR Dept of Ed has created social studies standards, for implementation across the state in July of this year, that literally allow for the teaching of the beginnings of US History to the year 1890 in the 5th Grade. Then 4-7 years later, they ask high school students to use analysis, comparison & contrast, & synthesis level thinking based on those same concepts. Of course the bureaucrats at large are responding to a push from the liberal college level down into the high school level that is an attempt to decrease any emphasis the great things that made our country free and how it continues to (relatively) be free–anywhere they possibly can. The usual suspects in the liberal media have gone beserk spreading misinformation even to the point of posting links to the wrong bill. They are doing all they can to kill the bill. The state educational bureaucrats are livid that we want our children learning things such as what you have posted here in context and for mastery. They have explicitly stated that they “want to teach modern American history.” An ADE assistant commissioner was reduced to blubbering over & over to the Sen Ed Committee, “what do you want us to leave out? There is too much to teach!” expecting us to accept that in the last 8 years it has suddenly become impossible for high school teachers to teach all of American history. And we know why that is. One liberal has specified on line that she does not want American Exceptionalism taught–won’t define for me what that term means for her but wants to be sure that the horrid genecidal things our country has done is taught to our students so there is what she calls balance. Anyway, I am preaching to the choir. Pray for us, please in our fight to give future Arkansans enough knowledge to maintain their freedoms. The bill goes to the full senate tomorrow and then on to the House Ed Committee which is a true lions den. The ADE has agreed to put any changes of educational standards up to public comment in the future, however Ibwould not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Thank you for this beautiful post about the Civil War period. I thouroughly enjoyed it.

  • Barbara, Please come to Colorado and get elected to the legislature!

  • Harry Truman proud member of SCV…
    …When Harry’s mother (Mama) first came to the White House, she was very concerned that she would have to sleep in the Lincoln Room, (as her other son Vivian had erroneously told her). Told Harry that she would sleep on the floor before she’d occupy the same bed as Lincoln.
    BTW, I was gonna post all that until Barbara’s post, which made everything else seem so small. But, oh well, there it is.

Grant Plans His Attack

Friday, March 27, AD 2015

General Ulysses Grant

 Grant, a failure all of his life except for war, marriage and his last valiant race with the Grim Reaper to finish his memoirs and provide for the financial security of his family;  seemingly a dull plodder, but possessed of iron determination and an uncanny ability to never let the trees obscure the forest;  happily married and a firm believer in God, but subject to bouts of depression, usually when his wife was absent, when he would grasp for the bottle;  the shabby little man who won the greatest war in American history. 



On March 24, 1865 Grant sent out his movement order for the Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James.  Grant planned a vast move to the west to force Lee to come out of his entrenchments to avoid Grant outflanking him on his right.  While this was going on, Sheridan would strike with the Union cavalry to sever the rail lines linking Richmond and Petersburg to the dwindling remainder of the Confederacy.  Grant planned for the movement to begin on March 29, 1865, taking advantage of the good weather that had dried the roads.  The Appomattox campaign was about to begin.

Continue reading...

One Response to Grant Plans His Attack

  • Longstreet, who knew Grant well, told Lee that he would fight him everyday. Some men seem made for a purpose. And Grant was a superb horseman and a good mathematician. Just a country boy from Ohio.

Lincoln to City Point

Thursday, March 26, AD 2015

Lincoln 1860 and 1865



Anyone looking at photographs of Lincoln in 1860 and 1865 can’t help but see how much the War aged him.  By March 1865 Grant thought that Lincoln could use some time away from Washington, and suggested to him that he visit Grant at his headquarters at City Point, Virginia on the James River.   Lincoln readily agreed and on March 23, 1865 left for City Point, along with his wife and Tad.  In his last month of life, he would spend eighteen days at City Point.

Continue reading...

One Response to Lincoln to City Point

  • City point is just down the road from my office; still well-preserved, including Grant’s suprisingly modest log cabin right on the banks of the Appomattox.

    It doesn’t take much imagination to see the river clogged with supply and troop ships, and the area choked with troops, supply wagons, tents, campfires.

    Now City Point is a slice of parkland on the river, surrounded by residential development in what is now the city of Hopewell.

March 25, 1865: Battle of Fort Stedman

Wednesday, March 25, AD 2015




On March 25, 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia embarked on its last offensive.  Here is the account of John B. Gordon, who commanded the assault on Fort Stedman:


My troops stood in close column, ready for the hazardous rush upon Fort Stedman. While the fraternal dialogue in reference to drawing rations from the cornfield was progressing between the Union picket and the resourceful private at my side, the last of the obstructions in my front were removed, and I ordered the private to fire the signal for the assault. He pointed his rifle upward, with his finger on the trigger, but hesitated. His conscience seemed to get hold of him. He was going into the fearful charge, and he evidently did not feel disposed to go into eternity with the lie on his lips, although it might be a permissible war lie, by which he had thrown the Union picket off his guard. He evidently felt that it was hardly fair to take advantage of the generosity and soldierly sympathy of his foe, who had so magnanimously assured him that he would not be shot while drawing his rations from the little field of corn. His hesitation surprised me, and I again ordered :
“Fire your gun, sir.” He at once called to his kind- hearted foe and said : ” Hello, Yank ! Wake up ; we are going to shell the woods. Look out; we are coming.” And with this effort to satisfy his conscience and even up accounts with the Yankee picket, he fired the shot and rushed forward in the darkness.

As the solitary signal shot rang out in the stillness, my alert pickets, who had crept close to the Union sentinels, sprang like sinewy Ajaxes upon them and prevented the discharge of a single alarm shot. Had these faithful Union sentinels been permitted to fire alarm guns, my dense columns, while rushing upon the fort, would have been torn into fragments by the heavy guns. Simultaneously with the seizing and silencing of the Federal sentinels, my stalwart axemen leaped over our breastworks, closely followed by the selected 300 and the packed column of infantry. Although it required but a few minutes to reach the Union works, those minutes were to me like hours of suspense and breathless anxiety ; but soon was heard the thud of the heavy axes as my brave fellows slashed down the Federal obstructions. The next moment the infantry sprang upon the Union breastworks and into the fort, overpowering the gunners before their destructive charges could be emptied into the mass of Confederates. They turned this captured artillery upon the flanking lines on each side of the fort, clearing the Union breastworks of their defenders for some distance in both directions. Up to this point, the success had exceeded my most sanguine expectations. We had taken Fort Stedman and a long line of breastworks on either side. We had captured nine heavy cannon, eleven mortars, nearly 1000 prisoners, including General McLaughlin, with the loss of less than half a dozen men. One of these fell upon the works, pierced through the body by a Federal bayonet, one of the few men thus killed in the four years of war. I was in the fort myself, and relieved General McLaughlin by assuming command of Fort Stedman. 


Daylight was coming. Through the failure of the three guides, we had failed to occupy the three forts in the rear, and they were now filled with Federals. Our wretched railroad trains had broken down, and the troops who were coming to my aid did not reach me. The full light of the morning revealed the gathering forces of Grant and the great preponderance of his numbers. It was impossible for me to make further headway with my isolated corps, and General Lee directed me to withdraw. This was not easily accomplished. Foiled by the failure of the guides, deprived of the great bodies of infantry which Lee ordered to my support, I had necessarily stretched out my corps to occupy the intrenchments which we had captured. The other troops were expected to arrive and join in the
general advance. The breaking down of the trains and the non-arrival of these heavy supports left me to battle alone with Grant’s gathering and overwhelming forces, and at the same time to draw in my own lines toward Fort Stedman. A consuming fire on both flanks and front during this withdrawal caused a heavy loss to my command.

Continue reading...

The Last Confederate Offensive

Tuesday, March 24, AD 2015

Fort Stedman


Few generals in American history have been as aggressive as Robert E. Lee.  Faced with a hopeless military situation in March of 1865, he decided that he had no alternative but to launch an attack.  His starving army was down to 50,000 men, and with the lines around Petersburg and Richmond so extensive, when Grant began to move with an army nearly three times the size of Lee’s it did not take a military genius to realize that he would break Lee’s lines.  However, if Lee could break Grant’s lines first, it might buy Lee time.  Grant would perhaps consolidate his lines around the breakthrough and delay his Spring offensive.  That might give General Joseph E. Johnston sufficient time to march up ahead of Sherman from North Carolina and link up with Lee.  At that time Lee could attempt to defeat Sherman and then Grant seriatim.  The plan relied far too much on hopes and wishes, but other than surrender, it was the best of the bleak options facing Lee.

Continue reading...

The Crossroads of Our Being

Saturday, March 21, AD 2015


Something for the weekend.  The opening of the Civil War documentary, to the tune Ashokan Farewell, that premiered twenty-five years ago this September.  As the 150th anniversary of the Civil War draws to a close, what strikes me most is the immensity of the conflict and the huge changes it wrought in American life.  One can spend a lifetime studying this conflict as I have, and still find, almost daily, new pieces of information.  Shelby Foote, and it took a gifted novelist I think to write an epic history worthy of this huge, sprawling event in American history, put it best:

Continue reading...

21 Responses to The Crossroads of Our Being

  • Foote’s comment about “the United States are” vs “is” is very incisive.

    The federal Republic instituted by the Founders dramatically and fundamentally changed by the War. What had been a federal system of very limited central government and very powerful states had been transformed over four years of conflict to the nascent form of what we struggle with today: a central government with great power and an ever-growing lust for power, and weaker states growing progressively weaker. The 14th Amendment (which sought to guarantee that newly freed blacks would be afforded every civil liberty a state afforded to its white citizens) very soon became a judicial foot in the door for federal notions of “due process” to be imposed on all the states. Ultimately this 14th Amendment would soon be used to assert federal primacy in small ways (to federalize police practices (“Miranda” warnings, exclusionary rule, etc)) and in large– to strike down abortion and sodomy laws; and likely soon to impose “gay marriage” on unwilling states.

    The sad lesson of the War is, in my view, that for the horrible sin of slavery that our Protestant Republic, north and south, imported to this continent and perpetuated, atonement came at a great price in the blood of 400,000 soldiers, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, property, and even lives, and not least, the deformation of our Constitutional framework of limited central authority.

  • “What had been a federal system of very limited central government and very powerful states had been transformed over four years of conflict to the nascent form of what we struggle with today”

    Untrue. The Federal government shrunk in size rapidly to a size similar to what it was in 1860.

    “The 14th Amendment (which sought to guarantee that newly freed blacks would be afforded every civil liberty a state afforded to its white citizens) very soon became a judicial foot in the door”

    The first of the incorporation decisions was not until 1925.

    “that our Protestant Republic”

    Slavery was equally a Catholic sin. Priests and bishops were notable by their absence among the ranks of the abolitionists.

  • he federal Republic instituted by the Founders dramatically and fundamentally changed by the War

    Donald already beat me to the punch, but this is an oft-made claim that doesn’t withstand a second of scrutiny. As Donald mentioned, the federal government quickly shrunk in size in the post-war era. It wasn’t until first the ascendancy of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, and then the Depression and FDR that the federal government became a true leviathan.

    As for the 14th Amendment, the blatant misreading of it by later Supreme Court justices does not nullify its usefulness nor its need.

  • at least those who died for the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union in the Civil War had a purpose in life that was honorable and valid.

  • Any familiarity with the 14 th Amendment, especially with the ratification debates, will reveal that it was an instrument which was designed, and within a lifetime, used, to fundamentally alter the original federal arrangement of the Constitution by imposing federal notions of due process, “substantive” and procedural, on the states.

    No war, no coercing the southern states into ratifying the 14th Amendment, no 14th Amendment. No 14th Amendment, no Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, or whatever case will be the death of state control of marriage.

    The War did fundamentally alter our federalist arrangement.

    The size of government always decreases in the aftermath of a war, as it did after the Civil War. Its claim to power in this case, however, did not cease, and only increased with continued Manifest Destiny and the suppression of the American Indians.

  • “No war, no coercing the southern states into ratifying the 14th Amendment, no 14th Amendment. No 14th Amendment, no Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, or whatever case will be the death of state control of marriage.”

    Rubbish Tom. You might as well claim, with better justice, that Dred Scott was the ancestor of Roe:

    “The concluding paragraphs of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833, 1001-1002 (1992)
    There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Ante, at 24.

    There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”

    It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

    We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.”

    Of course there would have been no War except for the fact that the Southern slave holders were in a panic against a purely phantom threat to their precious right to own other people as property.

    “Its claim to power in this case, however, did not cease, and only increased with continued Manifest Destiny and the suppression of the American Indians.”

    Actually Tom it was the slaveholders who tended to be the most vociferous advocates of Manifest Destiny in order to provide more room for the expansion of slavery.


    The Civil War had nothing to do with the suppression of the Indians that had been underway since the founding of Jamestown.

  • Don, with all due respect, you’re really stretching if you seriously maintain that the 14th Am does not constitute a fundamental shift in the federal scheme as it was before the War, and if you cannot concede that the 14th has been the primary tool of used to nullify all kinds of state laws that would have been perfectly acceptable before the 14th.

    We could argue the genesis of the War ad infinitum, but the simple fact is, the War effectuated a fundamental transformation of the balance of power between the states and the federal government which the Founders originally instituted in 1789. The very fact that federalized state troops could be used to invade a state such as Virginia which had not fired a single shot would certainly have amazed Geo Washington and Tom Jefferson, and probably even Hamilton.

    Having won and forced through the 14th Amendment, the interference of the federal government into purely state affairs would be legalized and set in stone.

    If it was not the intent of the Republicans in passing the 14th Amendment to do that which they could not have done to the states before, what in the world was the point of passing the damned thing?

    That’s the only point I was making: that the War resulted in a change from federalism as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

  • Let’s remember that slavery and its close relative indentured servitude were established with the full knowledge and consent of the Crown of Great Britain. Only in the vastly agricultural Southern colonies, and then states, did slavery grow roots and become an institution.

    The Civil War was instigated, financed and run by slaveowners. While other Western Hemisphere nations phased out slavery, the American South would have none of it. The South was wrecked economically and in a depression for more than two generations for starting a war it could never win without outside help. Great Britain was the only nation that could and Lincoln told the Crown’s representatives that if they helped the Confederacy, his troops would march into Canada and take over the entire place.

    As a result of the loss in the War, the North, where industrialization was under way, experienced the economic growth than made the USA a world power. The great industrialists were all from the North. It was highlighted in the History Channel series The Men who built America. Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and Frick, Edison and Westinghouse as well as industrialists not mentioned in the series such as Henry Flagler and the Du Ponts all were from the North. The factories they built and the immigrants they drew on to work came to the North, not the impoverished agrarian South.

    This industrial base with its roots in the Northern victory provided the factories and the capital needed to win two World Wars and elevate the standard of living in much of the world.

    it was not until well after WWII, and the advent of air conditioning, that the South, free of the pathetic Democrat machine politics that infect Northern cities, has risen again, in large part due to business and industry relocating, military spending, and retirees and others who want to escape the miserable cold of the North.

    As for the Indians – I deny the political correct nonsense that they were all peaceful – they were not – and like it or not, stronger cultures inflict their will on weaker ones. It started with the Spanish Empire and men with small armies such as Cortez and Pizarro destroying the Aztecs (and their human sacrifices) and the Inca. Their way of life was finished forever when Queen Isabel assisted Columbus on his initial voyage.

  • Any familiarity with the 14 th Amendment, especially with the ratification debates, will reveal that it was an instrument which was designed, and within a lifetime, used, to fundamentally alter the original federal arrangement of the Constitution

    The War did fundamentally alter our federalist arrangement.

    We could argue the genesis of the War ad infinitum, but the simple fact is,

    Tom, with all due respect, your method of argumentation is to bang your fists on the table and more loudly argue your points. At no single point in any one of your comments have you been able to provide a substantive argument that backs up any one of claims you have made.

    Any familiarity with the 14 th Amendment, especially with the ratification debates

    Having written a dissertation that studied both I have more than a passing familiarity with the background of these items.

  • “Don, with all due respect, you’re really stretching if you seriously maintain that the 14th Am does not constitute a fundamental shift in the federal scheme as it was before the War, and if you cannot concede that the 14th has been the primary tool of used to nullify all kinds of state laws that would have been perfectly acceptable before the 14th.”

    The problem wasn’t the 14th amendment Tom but rather the Supreme Court. As we both know, in the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment had no impact on the police power of the states. The incorporation of the bill of rights through the 14th amendment as binding on the states would await Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Your ire is misdirected at the 14th amendment and should be aimed at those who interpret it.

    “the War effectuated a fundamental transformation of the balance of power between the states and the federal government which the Founders originally instituted in 1789.”

    Not really. The Whiskey Rebellion put down by Washington was a broad based movement west of the Alleghenies and Washington had no ideological problem using federalized state militias to put it down. Washington in his Farewell Address made it clear what he thought of the concept of secession: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address noted: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” What the Civil War does mean is that unilateral attempts to dissolve the Union will lead to war. The Confederates of course should have brought their secessionist demands to Congress for action by all the people. I think they would have found a fair number of northerners, especially among Democrats, sympathetic to a call for a peaceful separation of the sections of the country. However that was not done because the wisest secessionist leaders knew that secession would not occur unless done in an atmosphere of panic. Once the Lincoln administration took office, a secession movement that sought the approval of Congress would quickly have lost steam due to Lincoln’s stated policy of not interfering with slavery in the states where it existed.

  • It wasn’t until first the ascendancy of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, and then the Depression and FDR that the federal government became a true leviathan.

    Federal expenditure in 1916 amounted to less than 2% of gross domestic product. The federal sector grew contextually quite large during the 1st world war (comprehending about 13% of gdp, IIRC), but it was all dismantled by 1922. The federal sector grew contextually larger during the early Depression years as nominal expenditure was maintained while production was imploding. The Roosevelt Administration embarked on a number of initiatives, but even in that circumstance, domestic expenditure by 1940 was no greater than about 7% of domestic product. The advance of the federal sector was stepwise, most occurred after 1940, and not really completed until about 1974.

  • The problem wasn’t the 14th amendment Tom but rather the Supreme Court.

    I think vague and perplexing constitutional language is something of a problem.

  • Henry Flagler and the Du Ponts all were from the North.

    IIRC, Flagler made a fortune in Florida real estate development. The duPonts made their home in Delaware, which was a slave state which refused to secede. As we speak, about half Delaware’s population constitutes a component of greater Philadelphia and the other half is Southern-lite.

  • Having relatives in Delaware (Dover) there is a bid difference between Wilmington (part of the Philly metro area in fact if not in statistics) and downstate. The du Ponts were centered around Wilmington.

    Flagler made a fortune in Florida real estate but he started with a fortune he made in Northeast Ohio. Flagler built the railroad that went all the way to Key West.

    In doing so, Flagler made South Florida, well, not South at all in terms of outlook and culture.

  • I still use the grammatically correct (and historically correct) “United States ARE”.

  • As much as I respect the opinions and knowledge of my friends, Don and Paul (two gentleman whose historical acumen far exceeds my own), I just don’t see how anyone can dispute the point that Tom (and Art, at least in pointing out the danger of “vague and perplexing constitutional language”) is making that the 14th Amendment — whatever noble aims it may have had in the context of slavery and the Civil War — has, indeed, transformed the very nature of this country into something wholly unrecognizable from the nation the founders established.
    It didn’t take a fairly conservative (at the time) Supreme Court long to recognize the danger posed by the 14th Amendment in this regard, which is why we have the Slaughterhouse Cases less than a decade after its passage. Unfortunately, they left unblemished a vague Equal Protection Clause for future, less conservative and less deferential (at least with regard to state prerogatives) Courts to make mischief with.

  • Lino Graglia has offered that the three troublesome clauses in the 14th Amendment were an address, respectively, to the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of state governments and that it is invalid to refer to the equal protection clause to test any statute. (For my own part, I’ve never figured out why the privileges and immunities clause was not held to incorporate the Bill of Rights and can think of at least one legal historian who insists that it does).

  • Just to point out, the really troublesome 14th Amendment case law was issued in the last 60 years. To the extent that the federal government’s dimension and function in 1925 differed from what it had been in 1860, it was about what you would expect given the changing character of commerce – larger volumes of cross-border trade and larger volumes of trade in merchandise whose contents were esoteric. You also had a more sophisticated financial system and the advent of policy problems derived from technology. So, you had more of a federal health-and-safety inspectorates, the advent of new sorts of property rights (e.g. broadcast licenses), the detritus of warfare (veterans’ hospitals), statistical collection services, and some efforts (ham handed) to prevent industries from devolving into monopolies). All of this was fairly benign (and, bar the VA, low-budget). About the only pre-Roosevelt example of federal authorities manipulating state governments in an appreciable was would be the Bureau of Public Roads and the financing of the U.S. Route System.

  • “… I’ve never figured out why the privileges and immunities clause was not held to incorporate the Bill of Rights and can think of at least one legal historian who insists that it does …”
    Yeah, I read that book in law school, too.


  • Do the United States need to pass an Amendment XXVIII that would make applicable Amendment XIV to the regime in Washington, DC?

  • Wilmington (part of the Philly metro area in fact if not in statistics) and downstate. The du Ponts were centered around Wilmington.

    In 1920, the portions of New Castle County, Delaware found outside of Newark and Wilmington had a population density of 88 persons per square mile, or less than 0.14 persons per acre. It was countryside, not Philadelphia suburb.