Public Speaking

Before July of 2008, I had never given a public talk. After last night's talk before the Northern Kentucky Civil War Roundtable, I have now done three - 2 for that group and one earlier this month for a local historical society.

Granted that still leaves me quite the novice in this area, but I did notice I felt much more relaxed and comfortable last night than in the past. Perhaps it is true that "practice makes perfect."

I had never imagined myself doing even one such talk, but, then again, I didn't expect to be posting blogs on the web either. Hopefully my entries and my talks have brought at least some enjoyment and maybe even some learning to anyone who has read or heard me.

I just wonder what the future holds. I certainly intend to continue this blog, but will other speaking opportunities arise? Will I find new subjects worth discussing? Only time can tell.

Book Review: Lincoln’s Men: The President and His Private Secretaries

Lincoln's Men: The President and His Private Secretaries

Author: Daniel Mark Epstein

HarperCollins

Copyright 2009

First Edition

Anyone who reads about the Civil War, particularly about President Abraham Lincoln, should be very familiar with the names John G. Nicolay and John Hay, and at least somewhat familiar with William Stoddard. While all three served as private secretaries to the President, Nicolay and Hay are the two whose names have become more recognizable.

Daniel Epstein's book provides a new and enjoyable look into the lives of these three men and how they interacted with their boss. He describes the extremely heavy workloads each faced, the varied job duties (even when they left on vacation, they usually had at least one assignment to work on in the area they were visiting from the President), new tasks (learning to be in charge of state dinners, for instance) and other challenges, particularly dealing with Mary Lincoln, whom Nicolay and Hay disliked and perhaps even feared, referring to her as the "Hellcat" or "Her Satanic Majesty." (Stoddard was the one of the three who had a more normal and friendly relationship with the First Lady.)

It is an entertaining and informative look, sort of a "behind-the-scenes" investigation into the workings of the White House in that chaotic time, as this small White House staff dealt with mountains of mail, including newspapers, and even death threats and other insulting correspondence people tried to get into Lincoln's hands. Sorting this out was quite the chore, as this book shows.

Epstein also goes in-depth into the actual personalities involved and their personal lives, not just the daily tasks they faced, including Nicolay's correspondence with his girlfriend/fiancée who had stayed behind in Illinois and Hay's possible romance with celebrated actress Jean Margaret Davenport Lavender. The author uses existing letters from Nicolay and letters and diary letters from the censored collection of Hay's papers to probe into their everyday lives, their feelings, frustrations and how tired they became trying to accomplish so much with such a little team. He even discusses Stoddard's gambling, both in the rooms in Washington and his possibly unseedy attempts to play the gold markets, possibly even using information he gathered from his job to help friends try to profit from the markets. Epstein makes it clear that Stoddard was the least dedicated and least able of the three young men who were there to help the President.

One small point I regretted about the book was the absence of illustrations. The cover design is the famous picture of President Lincoln seated between Nicolay and Hay (which, combined with the title of the book gives it an appearance awfully similar to William C. Davis' We Are Lincoln Men, (Simon & Schuster, 2004) ) but there are no other pictures, drawings or maps in this book. Another picture or too of Nicolay and Hay, even from much later in their life would have been nice, but I especially hoped to see a view of Stoddard and of the "lovely" Mrs. Lander, whose name and fame were so prominent through much of this volume. A map of Washington would have been appreciated as well, showing the locations of buildings the young secretaries visited often and how their locations compared to each other.

There were also one or two brief instances where I questioned some things. For instance, on page 167, he claims that Lincoln wrote his famous letter to James Conkling for a meeting of " 'Union Men' who objected to the president's policies" though it was actually to a meeting of supporters who were rallying to show the state's support for the Union after an earlier rally of the administration's opponents. He also quoted Edwin Stanton as saying, after Lincoln's death, "Now he belongs to the angels" (page 226) though most accounts say the final word was "ages."

Despite that nitpicking, however, I really enjoyed this book, and how it showed the relationship between the President and his secretaries, especially Nicolay and Hay. The trust they had in each other, their willingness and ability to help each other and the way they all recognized each other's strengths and skills all combined to form them into a very well-running machine that certainly aided each one, even the older President. They could share stories and jokes at all times of the day and night or read poetry or Shakespeare. Hay was especially noted as a good story-teller, much like the Chief Magistrate.

Lincoln's Men is a very well-written, readable book that is both informative and enjoyable. It provides a wonderful examination of how Lincoln and his team worked together through times of incredible stress to focus on the cause of preserving the Union and winning the war.

Legacy of John Brown

The anniversary of John Brown's ill-fated raid on Harper's Ferry has just passed, one of the more violent and incredible acts that took place in the antebellum years, leading up to the Civil War.

First of all, the House Divided Blog has posted a couple of very interesting posts about this subject, including a link to the online exhibit at the Gilder Lehrman Institute. Both of these sites are very interesting and much more in-depth than anything I plan to post, but I thought I would post a few of my comments about this subject anyway.

A few  weeks ago, I made a post claiming 1850s was a volcano, with many mini-eruptions spewing out controversies throughout the land. If this is true, the Harper's Ferry raid may have been the nearest thing to the Mount St. Helens type explosion, at least during this decade (though the firing at Fort Sumter was the ultimate eruption.)

I guess my interest in the matter is regarding the legacy Brown left. Was he a hero, dying for his cause? Or was he a 19th-century terrorist, using violent crime to make his point? A martyr or a threat to civilization?

My opinion, I suppose will be nothing new. I can understand the concept of "dying for what you believe in" and appreciate that his opposition to slavery was admirable, especially in that time, but to resort to such violence, even after what he had witnessed in Bloody Kansas, was not justified.

Perhaps a reasonable argument is that time proved Brown right - that the coming of the Civil War meant his prediction that bloodshed would be required in order to end slavery turned him into a sort of Nostradamus of his time. Maybe he had more foresight than most of  his peers.

As much as I do, however, not like the actions he took, the decisions he made, the killing, the bloodshed and the violence he produced, there is a small nagging feeling that perhaps something so radical was necessary to help lead towards the end of an institution that had been so violent and evil towards not dozens, but millions of people over 250 years. I cannot get rid of the feeling that maybe Brown was heroic, at least in some sense of the word.  I do not mean to defend the killing he and his minions did, but simply wish to point out what a complicated, confusing issue this can be.

New additions to my library

I have purchased 4 books to add to my library and to my stack of "to be read," a stack which never seems to shrink (that's a good thing.)

The first is The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command by Edwin B. Coddington. This book seems to have a reputation as the best (or close to it) study of Gettysburg - not just the battle, but the time before and after it as well. It looks to have over 500 pages, plus detailed notes, so it may be some intense reading, but since I learned of this book, I have wanted a copy. Who knows when I will get to it, but I'm glad I have it now.

Civil War Commanders: From Fort Sumter to Appomattox Court House by Chester G Hearn, Rick Sapp and Steven Smith provides brief biographies of dozens of Civil War Generals. This will make a nice "quick reference" book to keep around and should be a good read too, especially on some of the commanders with whom I'm not familiar.

The third book is Escape on the Pearl by Mary Kay Ricks describes an escape attempt in the late 1840s by dozens of slaves on the ship called the Pearl. It certainly looks captivating and I am anxious to see how she desribes this event and its effects.

Last, but not least, is Fields of Honor: Pivotal Battles of the Civil War, a chronicle of 14 important Civil War battles from the tours led by famed historian Edwin Bearss. I have never been on one of his tours, but have seen him on various Civil War programs and met people who have been on his trips, so this book is one I'm very happy to have. Mr. Bearss is a legend and I anxiously await the time I get to read this volume.

Book Review: 1776 by David McCullough

1776

Author: David McCullough

Copyright 2005

Simon & Schuster

(First Simon & Schuster paperback edition 2006)

Book Summary

So I swerved off the Civil War pathway briefly to read this entertaining and enjoyable book on another period of American history, but for a long while, I did not realize the subject had changed.

Discussions and mentions of topics like "rebels," differences of attitudes between Virginians and Southerners (see p. 43 for one example), bold plans by the underdog force trying to form a new country (pp. 50-1), difficulties finding money to pay troops (p. 54), and the motivations of troops to fight in such a war (also page 54) all sounded themes extremely familiar to me through my Civil War readings.

Perhaps all these topics could be found in any war, or especially in rebellion or Civil War where one group or region is trying to sever ties with a "mother country" but all those topics and more all caught my attention and perhaps even led me to a better understanding of the Civil War.

At several times in the narrative, the author mentions George Washington's dislike and distrust of Yankees and New Englanders, such as on page 41 when McCullough quotes Washington as calling Yankees "dirty and nasty" and goes on to say Washington "had only contempt for 'these people'" claiming the problem was a "kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people, which believe me prevails but too generally among the officers."

In the past, I have often read of the Southerners' attitudes towards the Northerners during the "Second American Revolution" but did not realize such similar attitudes existed so long before that conflict. Seeing such expressions from Washington and the descriptions of his mistrust of the people from this different region makes me understand a bit better how and why such an attitude existed by the 1850s and 60s. It was not something new that had developed over time and during the various battles over slavery, but, rather, a feeling that existed before the colonies became a nation. This eye-opening reading really fascinated me and gave me a new perspective on some of these attitudes.

Beyond these and other similarities to the Civil War (rag-tag bunch of rebels with rags for clothes, few shoes, hard marching and much building of fortifications, for further, but not all,  examples), this book simply was enjoyable and informative. Not only did it describe the events surrounding what became known as the Continental Army during 1776, including the Siege of Boston and the battles of Brooklyn and New York, but the author did a fine job of focusing on the humanistic aspects of many of the men involved, such as Washington, his assistant Joseph Reed, General Nathaniel Green, British General William Howe and others.

Instead of simply praising Washington for his greatness and the triumphs he eventually achieved, McCullough shows Washington's self-doubts, his questioning of the commitment of his Yankee soldiers, his occasional bouts of indecisiveness and points out mistakes Washington made. He does the same for the British generals as well, but also shows how experience could be a good teacher, especially for Washington and Greene. Even men who did not make the rank of general are represented in similar fashions, especially in regards to the challenges they faced and emotions they felt.

McCullough showed great candor in referring to the day that American General Charles Lee was captured as an "exceedingly lucky" break (p. 264) for the rebel troops, despite the British hopes that the imprisonment of their former comrade and the man they regarded as the colonists' premier military man would bring the war to an end.

Another similarity to the Civil War is the occasional mention of hopes for a decisive battle or short war, on both sides; like the later war, however, both would be disappointed in the failure of that wish to come true.

One small change I may have liked in this book would have been a short prologue, with some information on what happened to some of the characters of this story in later years, men such as Howe, Greene and Henry Knox, but that's a small quibble and, perhaps, simply a subject for which I need to find other reading. The ability of McCullough to make the reader feel greatly informed yet hungry for more is impressive, I must admit.

I truly enjoyed this narrative, and found it to be very readable and pleasurable. Unlike many historical writings, it does not have footnotes cluttering up the pages, and while that may not be ideal, the lack of such distractions added to the enjoyment of this book, much like the feel from reading Shelby Foote's three-volume The Civil War: A Narrative. McCullough did include source notes at the end of the book, as well as a long bibliography.

After reading McCullough's fine work, the "four-score and seven years" that separated this fascinating and important year from the era of a famous speech in a small Pennsylvania town do not seem to be so far apart in terms of attitude and similarity of the type of fight ongoing. Perhaps this will also help me to gain a better appreciation of the Civil War era claims of both sides of "upholding the Revolution" that seem so frequent at times, especially in the presence of sectional tension so much sooner than I realized and in the similarity of the actual fighting.

Although I do have a "Civil War Obsession," I am glad I stepped back in time and read this fascinating narrative of another remarkable time on this continent. The military struggle of 1776 was harsh, tough, and unpredictable, but makes for a compelling and enjoyable story when told by an author of the skill of David McCullough.

What a fascinating and enjoyable read!

Mount Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, and the 1850s in the United States

What are four famous volcanoes?

Well, not really, but I have come to believe that the arrival of Civil War in the United States was the culmination of a long series of events, not just one election or one speech or any one single grandiose occurrence. It was a long, slow process that, in hindsight, gives the modern reader plenty of evidence of what was to come, and may even make the war seem inevitable given the many controversies, disputes and grandstanding that took place in the ante-bellum era. When trying to get a feel for this era and how a long and bloody Civil War resulted from it, the best metaphor that has come to my attention is that of a volcano, with years of pressure building underneath the surface, not really seen or understood by those living on top of it despite occasional venting that might now appear to have been foreshadowing of future events.

This thought has been in my mind for a while and I did express in publicly once, in a message board post on Civilwartalk.com, which started some very good and interesting discussion. Most of the below message is from that post, with some tweaks I've made, including some thoughts gathered in feedback to my original claims and questions.

Perhaps the argument could be made that this time frame should be extended back to 1848 to include the Wilmot Provisio and the trouble it stirred, or to earlier events like the Mexican War, the acquisition of Texas, or even to the Gag Order or Nullification Crises, in the early 1830s. A strong argument could claim that such troubles were within this country from its birth, or even beforehand. I, however, chose to focus on the 1850s as the pattern of major public arguments taking place every couple of years really caught my attention with the start of this new decade. I do actually see the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso as part of that pattern as I read more about them and perhaps that's a topic for further exploration in the future, but for now I look into the turbulent 1850s. This decade may not be nearly as famous as the "Roaring 20s" or the 1960s of Vietnam and Civil Rights struggles, but, I contend, certainly belongs at the top of any list of decades which influenced this nation.

As the roar of cannon-fire sounded through Charleston Harbor early on April 12, 1861, and balls and bullets thudded into the earth or the masonry walls of Fort Sumter, the United States of America had descended not only into war, but into a type of war long regarded as the most serious, violent and harmful of all – Civil War. Where it would lead in the next few years in terms of death, bloodshed, lost limbs, split families, orphaned children, widowed wives and political and social change is a story that remains popular many years and decades after the men who fought in that war have passed away from this life. It will likely remain an object of study and curiosity for as long as the United States lives on, but the story of how that war came about, how and why that volcano exploded when it did is a fascinating tale itself.

The 1850s witnessed tensions between North and South grow like never before, more quickly, more constantly, with a series of events that served as both evidence of the pressure building underneath the American political groundwork and as additional pressure and stress.

In 1850, the very start of the decade, debate over the Compromise of 1850 stirred passions, but ended with several measures to try to sooth feelings, including major concessions such as the admission of California as a free state, the banning of the slave trade in Washington DC and a tough fugitive slave law. Neither North nor South found this totally satisfactory, but it provided enough for both sides, at least temporarily.

The possibility of compromise, upon which the nation's foundation had been lying for much of the 19^th century, soon diminished early in this decade, however, with the deaths of the "Great Triumvirate" of John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, all between 1850 and late 1852. Three great, influential men – from regions southern, border and northern – were now gone, along with their long and well-known work. The succeeding generation would find it impossible to replace such leadership and influence.

In 1852, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin created a firestorm about the issue of slavery and the treatment of slaves, as well as how the north and south perceived the institution and how it was to be publicly portrayed. Steam was starting to creep out from underground as the earth and politicians tried desperately to contain it.

1854 witnessed the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston and his return to Virginia. This may not have been the biggest event on a national basis, but it certainly did create an uproar in Massachusetts and the surrounding region, and did nothing to diffuse the tempers of the most radical of abolitionists.

A major political shift occurred during the middle part of this decade when the Whig party, the nationally organized opponents of the Democratic party, began to fall apart, as the slavery issue divided Northern and Southern wings of this party and the Know-Nothing party, with its nativist and anti-Catholic sentiments, managed to build support of its own, much of it coming from the Whig party.

Adding to the political strain was the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854. With its concept of popular sovereignty being applied to the slavery question, its repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and its making possible the expansion of slavery into federal territories, it may have been symbolic of the first magma creeping onto the surface of the political world, showing how serious the situation truly was and was becoming. Perhaps it could be argued that this act and its after-effects in Kansas were the actual first eruption of civil war. That may be an exaggeration, but it is beyond dispute that this act enflamed the situation even more than it had been, especially in the North and among former Whigs, and even some Democrats. This was now a political crisis in the eyes of many.

One of the effects of this political act was to get a fairly unknown Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln back into politics on an active basis, first still as part of his beloved Whig party, then, when that party eventually died, as part of a new group that called itself the Republican party.

Preston Brooks attacked Charles Sumner in Congress in 1856, hitting him with his cane and beating him severely, due to a speech Sumner had made that was taken as an insult to Brooks' uncle and an attack on slavery as well as family honor. Freedom of speech was under attack by the slave power, or so it seemed to many Northerners (though the Southerners who sent Brooks new canes and re-elected him to Congress may not have agreed.)

"Bleeding Kansas" and the Lecompton Constitution controversy both were taking place during the middle of the decade as well, adding bloodshed and violence to all the political talk and grandstanding. It was no longer just an issue of talk and bravado.

These issues also added to the trouble within the Democratic party as Douglas split with President Buchanan over the issue of Kansas and its admission as a free or slave state, another sign of things to come.

1857 brought the Dred Scott decision, which said no government had any right to keep slavery out of the territories, meaning slave-owners could take their "property" with them to the lands to the west and northwest. This ruling outraged many people, including the Republicans, but also negated Stephen Douglas' theory of popular sovereignty, adding to the fissure within the Democratic Party, which resulted in the splitting of the party at its Charleston convention in 1860.

That year also saw the publishing of "The Impending Crisis of the South" by Rowan Helper, which claimed slavery was bad for the South from an economic viewpoint (not the same moral view that many/most abolitionists supported), an argument that offended many of Helper's fellow Southerners. Then, the 1859 House of Representatives had trouble selecting a Speaker of the House as the Democrats refused to vote for anyone who had endorsed Helper's book, as many Republicans had done. This was one of the events that may not have created an explosion of ash and dust, but which certainly added to the stress and strain on the political system, beyond the view of many citizens.

Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, John Brown and his few minions attacked Harper's Ferry in 1859, attempting to convince local slaves to rise up against their master. This scheme was a huge failure and Brown was quickly captured, tried and hanged, but he served as an important symbol to many people on both sides - a martyr to some in the North, dying for what he believed in, and a threat to many in the south, a sign of slave uprisings and how the North might encourage them.

One year later, the Democratic party split into Northern and Southern halves, a Constitutional Union party formed to compete for the nation's highest office and the new Republican Party, which had lost its first Presidential election in 1856, nominated that unknown prairie lawyer Abraham Lincoln as its second Presidential candidate.

Lincoln's victory in November preceded South Carolina's December declaration of secession. After a few more weeks of ineffectual leadership by outgoing President James Buchanan, the United States inaugurated its new leader, who, then had to decide how to react to Fort Sumter after only a few weeks in office.

The Civil War – long, bloody, violent, perhaps revolutionary – had finally erupted, spewing ash, dust, magma and lava throughout the land, leaving nobody perfectly clean over the next four years of incredible pain, suffering and violence.