Book Discussion: Antietam Crossroads of Freedom

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom: The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War

James M. McPherson 

copyright 2002

Oxford University Press

 

When I buy a book, I usually read it, then place it back on my shelf. Occasionally I will grab a book to try to find a phrase or claim I remember in the book or to clarify my memory on some subject, but very rare is the book that I read a second time.

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom became one of those rare books. I read and enjoyed it a few years ago, but have now just re-read it as part of the "Let's Talk about it: Making Sense of the American Civil War" series I have mentioned here before. 

As expected, this book is very readable and informative, written in a style as most of McPherson's books are. It is only 156 pages long as well, so it is a quick read too.

I've entitled this post as a "discussion" instead of a review as I expect this to be more of an exploration of my thoughts of the message of the book than of a more traditional review. I'll try to keep it at a reasonable length and not touch on most of the many other points that can contribute to these thoughts. (I'm even leaving out any talk of  Gettysburg as the turning point - please pick yourselves up off the floor after reading that if the shock overcomes you.)

My main question about this book is if Antietam is truly the turning point of the war as McPherson contends. He does a good job of showing the mood in the north in the months before the war, with the great concern after the failure of the Peninsula Campaign and the route of Second Bull Run. Some leaders in Great Britain and other European countries were watching events closely and momentum seemed to be favoring either recognition of the Confederacy by those countries, or intervention into the war. 

Then Lee's army invaded Maryland. That should have been no way to improve Northern morale.

At this point, the book describes the action of the battle itself, from the famous "lost orders" to George McClellan's equally famous lack of aggressiveness. McPherson shows how that, even before the battle, the Union forces had experienced a sudden improvement in their morale, and were ready for the challenge of a battle on what they considered their territory. This contributed to the ferocity of the fighting, and after the fighting ended, many Union survivors were ready to pursue their enemy and try to inflict even more punishment on them.

McPherson then presents his arguments about Antietam's importance to the outcome of the war, and they are familiar - the Confederates returned to Virginia, Lincoln had the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and foreign recognition of the Confederacy suddenly became unlikely, if not impossible.

They are good, strong arguments, but I'm not sure I agree with them. 

For one, the war was only one-and-a-half years old when this fight took place, yet lasted two-and-a-half years more afterwards. Can it be a turning point if the event lasts longer after it occurs? 

I suppose that raises the question of what is a turning point, as well as the difference between A turning point and THE turning point. 

Also, if Antietam is a turning point because it ended the hopes of foreign recognition of the Confederacy, that implies an assumption that the Confederacy could only win the war with such recognition. Though time proved the Confederates did not get such recognition and did not win the war, I am not convinced that the failure to obtain such recognition doomed the Confederacy. I believe they still had the possibility of gaining victory without foreign intervention. During the summer and early fall of 1864, the Confederates had inflicted many casualties on Union forces in Virginia and had frustrated their foes elsewhere, particularly in the Union's attempt to approach Atlanta. Europe did not offer recognition, but the Confederate armies still bogged the Union armies down and the lack of progress on the part of the Northern forces frustrated and aggravated people at home. Doubt about the war's outcome began to build, and even President Lincoln looked unfavorably at his chances of re-election.

I can understand listing Antietam as one of many turning points in the war, though perhaps that cheapens the importance of whatever is meant by "turning point." In the discussion of THE turning point, my interpretation is of THE moment or event after which Union victory was inevitable. In that regard, I turn back to the middle and end of 1864, and contend that Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was the key event in showing that the Union would prevail. William T. Sherman's capture of Atlanta certainly aided Lincoln's re-election and I have often thought that event was the key, but now I believe the actual election result was the symbol and sign that the northern people were not succumbing to war-weariness; they did not elect a candidate whose party favored peace at almost any cost; they decided to continue fighting until success came.  This spirit displayed by the Northern people dismayed many in the south, and destroyed Southern hopes that the Confederacy could win simply by outlasting the north. The supposed "mechanics" "hirelings" and "wage slaves" of the North had shown a more persistent fighting spirit than their enemies had expected.

That - the failure to injure Northern morale badly enough to convince Northerners to give up on the war - was more important than the failure to get European of the Confederacy as a separate nation. Or at least it was as important, but it was not, at least in my understanding, less important to the Confederacy's chances of victory.

Of course, the "turning point" issue is one of the many questions that will in all likelihood always spur debate on the Civil War and McPherson's book does add to that discussion. It may create new thoughts and perspective too. In high school, I bought the "Gettysburg as the high-water mark" turning-point view, have sometimes accepted the points McPherson makes in his book about Antietam and its aftermath, and have also given thought to Sherman's Atlanta campaign as the so-called "turning point" before settling (at least for now) on Lincoln's re-election as the true key "moment" that demonstrated how the war would eventually end. 

Although I may not agree now  with McPherson's arguments, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and his analysis. I'm glad I read it again and look forward to the discussion it creates at our next "Let's Talk About it" session tomorrow night.

An Afflicted Regiment

This story comes from the January 25, 1862 edition of the Covington Journal, but is probably very similar to other stories throughout the war, at least in regards to the challenges the men faced. The incident with the colonel (linked below the article) may not have been quite as common as illness, but was not unknown either.

An Afflicted Regiment
From a letter written by a member of Thirty-seventh Indiana regiment to the Brookville Defender we extract the following:

You have of course heard of many of our troubles. You may some day hear of all.  We find that it is not the battle field that is to be feared in a campaign as much as the diseases of camp. Strange as it may seem, we have been constantly an afflicted Regiment from the first. The measles first prostrated us, proving fatal in no cases, but entailing effects from which very few have recovered. Then came diarrheas and dysenteries; then worst of all, and taking advantage of diseases symptoms, came the fatal typhoid fevers and typhoid pneumonias. Finally we have the mumphs. At present we have some prospect of better health, though a great many are now on the sick list, and some are very sick

Deeply do we sympathise with the family of Mr. Clendenning in the loss of two so noble boys as were Addison and James. I was not with the regiment when the last move was made from Camp Nolin to this place, but am told that great cruelty was shown toward the sick. James was unable to walk, but as there was no other way to do he tried, but fell by the way. He gradually grew worse, and died yesterday. Addison died a week before, though taken afterwards. The Company to which they belonged feel greatly their loss. They gave the boys all their attention in their power during their sickness.

--
The 37th Indiana had formed in Lawrencburg, Indiana in late 1861 and was serving in west-central Kentucky during the time-frame in which this story was published. They would eventually fight at Stone's River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and in General William T. Sherman's Atlanta Campaign and March to the Sea.

Addison and James Clendenning were both part of company G of this regiment, Addison as a private and James as a sergeant.  The New York Times published this account that mentioned the deaths of Addison and others in the regiment and how Colonel George Hazzard behaved, on at least one occasion, regarding the ill men who served under his command. He does not come across very well at all in this story, and it may have had ramifications on his career, as Governor Oliver Morton of Indiana wrote to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to withdraw his previous request to promote Hazzard to Brigadier General at least in part due to this incident and "great tyranny to the troops."

Battle of Somerset (Mill Springs)

Here is the Covington Journal's post battle coverage of the Battle of Mill Springs. The battle took place on January 19, 1862 and this article is from January 25. I've seen it called "Logan's Cross-Roads" before, but this is the first reference to the "Battle of Somerset" I have seen.

Battle of Somerset
Defeat of the Confederates
Death of Zollicoffer

On Sunday morning, Jan. 19, at 6 o'clock, Gen. Zollicoffer, with a Confederate force, said to have numbered nearly 10,000 attack (sic) the Federal forces, under Gen. Thomas, near Somerset. The battle raged with great fury until the middle of the day, when the Confederates gave way and retreated to their intrenchments near Mill Spring. Gen. Thomas pursued them, reaching the foot of the hills just at night-fall, where he bivouacked, intending to attack the Confederates the next morning. During the night, however, the Confederates withdrew across the river, leaving behind their artillery, wagons, ammunitions, horses, &c., but destroying most of the boats in which they crossed the river. 


Gen. Zollicoffer was killed, it is said, by Col. S.S. Fry, of the Fourth Kentucky regiment, and his body found on the field. The rebel loss, besides Gen. Zollicoffer, is stated as 114 killed, 116 wounded and 45 prisoners not wounded. The Federal loss was 39 killed and 150 wounded. They captured 14 cannon and 1,400 horses and mules. 


The Federal force is not given. General Thomas was reinforced Saturday night by Gen. Manson's brigade, numbering four or five thousand, and during the engagement by the Tenth and Twelfth Kentucky, First and Second Tennessee, Fourteenth, Thirty-first, Thirty-fifth and Thirty-eighth Ohio, and by Standart's, Whetmore's and Kenney's batteries. The Confederates had 16 cannon and the Federals 22.

The Rebel Retreat from Mill Spring, January 1862

From The Civil War in Song and Story 1860-1865, collected and arranged by Frank Moore page 69. This link shows that the story came from the New York Times of March 2, 1862.

Here is a summary of the Battle of Mill Spring of January 19, 1862 in southern Kentucky

The Rebel Retreat from Mill Spring
In the course of a notice of Capt. C.C. Spiller, the following particulars of the rebel retreat from Mill Spring occur:


The Noble Ellis was at Gainsboro; three ineffectual attempts had been made to take her up the river to where our army was. Finally Capt. Spiller was ordered to bring the boat; it was executed. Before the fight, he asked permission to lead his company; but Gen. Zollicoffer ordered him to remain at the river, in charge of operations there. The battle was fought, and our army driven back to the river, where a successful and skilful crossing alone could have saved it from utter ruin. Spiller was the man for the post - the world could not have furnished a better.


The crossing began at three o'clock P.M. One of the enemy's batteries opened on the boat, and the fire was incessant until dark. The steamer was run all night. At four o'clock in the morning, when two thousand five hundred men were yet to cross, the captain and pilot left. It was understood that the engineer would leave her the next trip, and Spiller sent for Dick Fields, then one of his cavalry company, but formerly an engineer on one of his Tennessee river boats. Spiller knew Dick - together they had braved danger before that on the water. Sure enough, the engineer and deck-hands quit the boat, Dick took his place, and the boat was manned from the company. At daylight the work was done, and the last man was over.


During the night the enemy had placed a Parrott gun in position, and at the earliest dawn the firing began. The first shell fell short but a few yards; the third passed through the chimney, and exploded over the wheel, scattering its fragments in every direction. Now that the troops were over, and all the horses that could be saved were saved, the torch was applied to the Noble Ellis. Spiller's company were near by; they had bee ordered to fall back out of range of the enemy's fire, but they would not; their captain, whom the loved, was at his post, and they would not leave him. As the flames spread over the boat, and told that the army had crossed, and that all chance of pursuit were gone, the gallant Spiller, at the head of his troops, moved away to aid the retreating forces. But three of his men left him.

Book Review: Our Lincoln, edited by Eric Foner

Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World

Edited by Eric Foner

copyright 2008

W.W. Norton & Company

As the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth approached in 2009, many new books exploring his life, times and legacy came out and I purchased several of them.

Among them was Our Lincoln, a collection of essays edited by Eric Foner, yet somehow this book sat on my shelf until late in 2011, three years after it was published. 

This collection consists of four parts, which are the major topics of the book, and eleven essays, each by a distinguished Lincoln scholar. The sections are "The President," "The Emancipator,' "The Man," and "Politics and Memory." 

The book starts with four essays about Lincoln's role as president. James McPherson describes Lincoln's role as Commander-in-Chief of the Union military forces and how he as a non-professional military man, was able to exert his leadership and influence on the American army and navy during the war.

Mark Neely Jr.  then explores civil liberties under Lincoln's administration. One idea I found fascinating was his description of the well-known controversy over Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus and Judge Roger Taney's opinion that this suspension was unconstitutional. Neely mentions the possibility that Taney's ruling may not have been totally constitutional either, based on at least one reading of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Sean Wilentz contributes a discussion of Lincoln's political beliefs if relation to his beloved Whig party, the hated Jacksonian Democracy and how these worked together for Lincoln the Republican. He claims Lincoln was not only just a Whig, but that he used theories and practices that Andrew Jackson had espoused as well, despite the Whigs' dislike of "King Andrew." He shows that just because a person like Lincoln accepted a political party as a home did not mean that this person could only understand or believe in one line of political thought, especially with so many issues being vital to American politics.

The next essay, by Harold Holzer, does a fine job of describing how Lincoln controlled his image through the use of the new medium of photography. This section also does a remarkable job of showing how photography worked with and for existing artistic media such as sculpture and painting to shape the President's image. Artists of each of these styles frequently used the others to help them accomplish their goals, such as using photographs to complete a painting or looking at a painting to complete a sculpture. This was an especially educational chapter for me. I had understood how Lincoln had used photography to establish his image, but the inter-relation of the different ways of creating his image was new to me.

In part two, Lincoln's role in emancipating the slaves and his beliefs in race relations are the topics. James Oakes begins it with a discussion of the various types of rights that people at the time, including Lincoln, belidved existed. He shows how Lincoln believed African-Americans deserved "natural rights" (such as described in the Declaration of Independence) and "citizenship rights" (being treated as a citizen of the country, or at least of a state) , but that the concept of "political rights" (such as voting, holding office and serving on juries) was a state's choice. In this case, he argues, Lincoln supported "states rights" and if a state decided not to enfranchise African Americans, that was the state's choice and Lincoln did not oppose it.  I admit I struggled with this concept as it struck me that by denying the so-called "political rights," states could in effect prevent African Americans from enjoying their natural or citizenship rights. Perhaps this is one essay I will need to read and study again.

Eric Foner then contributes his own essay to this section, discussing Lincoln's long-held support of colonization,but also describing how this idea had taken hold in the United States and had quite a few supporters for many years. It is a good overview of colonization, the support it enjoyed at times, and some of the opposition this idea encountered, especially from African-Americans as well as many abolitionists.

Following that discussion comes a view of Lincoln and his relationships with abolitionists, especially black abolitionists, by Manisha Sinha. This essay describes Lincoln's evolution into a supporter of emancipation during the war, and shows how abolitionists helped lead Lincoln to this conclusion. It tries to focus on black abolitionists but I found it to be most effective in describing the role of abolitionists as a whole, not the smaller segment of black abolitionists. Black abolitionists were smaller in numbers and that seems to come across in this essay. Despite that, it is a good review of how those people (white and black) who favored a more immediate abolition of slavery worked with and influenced the President as he moved towards a policy of emancipation.

Part three begins with Andrew Delbanco's review of Lincoln's writing and the language he used, and how it compared to American writing styles that came before him. This was certainly an interesting part of this book. He describes the question of whether Lincoln's words carry the same weight to modern readers as they did to people who heard and read those words in Lincoln's era.

Richard Carwardine's essay Lincoln's Religion describes not just the long argument over what Lincoln actually believed and how he should be listed ( as a Christian or as a member of a specific denomination) but also on Lincoln's ability to understand the importance of religion to a large number of Americans at the time and how he shaped his language to communicate with them and get their support. Carwardine argues that the main instrument that aided the North in its ultimate victory was not just the amount of resources it possessed had, but, rather, its ability to maintain a patriotic spirit and avoid a war weariness that may have lead to a willingness to give up the fight. Many evangelistic Northerners and organizations played a role in maintaining this patriotism.

This section of the book concludes with Catherin Clinton describing the families of Abraham Lincoln - not only that consisting of his wife and children, but also a description of Lincoln's family as  a child, including his father, mother, step-mother and sister. This also includes a discussion of Nancy Hank's ancestry and how it may have influenced Abraham's development and beliefs, a point I had not read or considered before. (His relationship with his father is mentioned too, but that is a bit more common in Lincoln studies than the talk of his mother's background.)

The book concludes with its fourth part, a single essay by David Blight about the theft of Lincoln and his image in politics and memory. This started out as what I thought was a very good look about Lincoln's image is used commercially so frequently (a trend that was noticed in the 1920s" and how some modern writers have used Lincoln and his image and decisions as a basis to further their political agendas. It then evolved into a discussion of how the modern Republican Party has made attempts to use Lincoln and his memory to show this party as being in favor of Civil Rights. "The Party of Lincoln" is a phrase that he shows they have used (or variations of) to try to garner votes from African-Americans. At times, it appeared to me that the author made his own political beliefs a part of this essay, such as his use of the phrase "disaster in Iraq" on page 272 (instead of simply "war in Iraq), but as I read this more and saw how he was tying in Lincoln's image and the concept of memory (a concept which I would like to study more), I found that to be a minor issue. Blight uses several examples to show how certain conservatives have tried o use Lincoln's memory in their favor even when what he believed in may not be the same as what they believe. It is a very interesting essay, one I should ponder again, and a good way to end this book. 

Overall, this was a very good book, covering many aspects of Lincoln, his life and image, and how these factors influence our views of him today.  Our Lincoln is a book I certainly feel that students interested in our 16th President should consider reading and studying. 

Brief mention: Kentuckians Divided on Question of Slavery

Here is a brief report in the January 11, 1862 Covington Journal,reprinted from the Cincinnati Gazette.

The general verdict is that Lovejoy had the better of all his antagonists in the debate to-day. The remarks of the Kentuckians show a divided opinion among them, a part preferring the Union destroyed rather than Slavery, and part holding the opposite ground. Wickliffe is of the former category, and Mallory of the latter.

Politicians Supervising Military Affairs - A Thrust at Slavery

Roscoe Conkling, courtesy of wikipeida

 
The January 11, 1862 Covington Journal included this article. Please note it used the phrase "commander-in-chief" instead of "general-in-chief."

Politicians Supervising Military Affairs-- Another Thrust at Slavery

A debate of more than ordinary interest sprung up in the Lower House of Congress last Monday. As much of it as the telegraph has furnished is given in another column.

Conkling's resolution is aimed at Gen. McClellan, and makes an issue that the new commander-in-chief cannot well evade. Apart from the particular case in view, the passage of the resolution must be regarded as important, as it establishes a precedent for the supervision of military movements by the politicians at Washington.

As usual the slavery question was lugged into the debate. Mallory, of Kentucky, rushed to the aid of the Abolitionists. He declared that "if slavery stood in the way of the Constitution he would wipe it out," and was applauded. In all the wild declarations of Abolitionists we do not remember one which has assumed that slavery stood in the way of the Constitution. Precisely the reverse is the fact. Abolitionists denounce the Constitution because it recognizes and protects slavery. The Constitution stands in the way of Abolitionism. Mr. Wickliffe hit the nail on the head when he declared that in a contest between Abolitionism and slavery - if one or the other must give way - he would throw Abolitionism overboard.

--
This article refers to a resolution by Roscoe Conklin (pictured above) asking for an investigation into the battle of Ball's Bluff. This request sparked a debate about the role of the civil government in military affairs, and, as this article points out, ended up with a debate about slavery and its impact on the army and war.

It also mentions two Kentucky Congressmen:  Robert Mallory, and Charles A Wickliffe. (Wickliffe was also a former Kentucky governor who returned to state service after serving as Postmaster General in the 1840s.)

Robert Mallory, courtesy wikipedia

Charles A Wickliffe, courtesy e-archives.ky.gov