“An Insult to Public Intelligence:” Abraham Lincoln’s Re-Election

Here is another story which seems appropriate to post at this time of the year, similar to a post I did recently.

 That previous post described one view of Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860, so this one naturally concerns his re-election four years later. The Cincinnati Enquirer published this on November 9, 1864. The author certainly did not hide his true feelings.

The Re-Election of Abraham Lincoln

Yesterday broke dark and lowering - the clouds were heavy - a drizzling and dismal rain was falling - and in every respect it was a cheerless and melancholy day; but a fit one for the re-election of ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The physical elements were in entire harmony with that state of the public morals and public intelligence that could repeat, after all the terrible lessons of the past, the horrid mistake of 1860. They were in harmony with the black and cheerless prospect that this re-election of the prime cause of our misfortunes opens to us. Nature, we repeat, sympathizing with the deed about to be committed, put on her most somber robe and darkest colorings. As to the means by which this political result was effected, we have spoken in another article. They will constitute the most woeful chapter in our national history. After making all due allowance for the frauds, forgeries, and rascalities, it will ever remain a wonder how so many hundreds of thousands of electors could deliberately vote to perpetuate the dynasty that is now in power. Not only does it seem to be an insult to public intelligence, but it would appear to be opposed to all the principles which ordinarily governs human nature and human conduct. It can only be accounted for upon the theory that a strange and unaccountable delusion has seized the public mind, giving it all the aspect of confirmed lunacy and madness. 

But it is useless, in this connection, and at this time, to speculate upon causes or express astonishment at results. What is written is written, and what is done is irrevocably finished. We can only hope for the best from this sad event and affliction, which forebodes such calamities to our beloved country. We hope we have in this matter no pride of opinion. Greatly should we rejoice if the future, which now appears to be of so frightful a character, should be robbed, as we approach it, of the evils that apparently attend it, and that some sparkling jewels may be found in the head of the ugly and venomous toad that is burrowing under the tree of American liberty. 

But with all the aid that philosophy can summon - with all the hope of the patriot - we can not draw aside the veil that hides another period of Mr. Lincoln’s administration without the greatest dread and apprehension. We are now embarked in a current that leads straight to the rapids of destruction, toward which the ship of State with all its priceless cargo is drawing near with frightful velocity. If we fail to be engulfed in its inmost depths under such pilotage as that of Mr. Lincoln, it will be the most remarkable miracle that was ever performed. 

"Long Abraham Lincoln a Little Longer"
From publications.newberry.org

“Their Triumph:” One Reaction to Abraham Lincoln’s Election

The Cincinnati Enquirer of November 8, 1860 included this brief commentary on one of the immediate effects of Abraham Lincoln’s election as President of the United States. It seems like a story worth sharing during election season.

The Negroes and the Election

The negroes in this city yesterday were greatly exhilarated by the triumph of Lincoln, and gave vent to their feelings in the most enthusiastic manner. They seemed to understand that it was emphatically their triumph; and all believe that it is the harbinger of Abolition in the South and negro equality in the North! In the Slave states the same belief extensively prevails. In this connection we will relate an anecdote or two to illustrate their feeling.

The other day, in Lexington, as we were assured by a Kentucky gentleman, while a lady was fitting a dress upon one of her slaves, a girl about nine years of age, the latter remarked that, if her mistress would give her another real nice dress, she would stay with her after the election! 

A few days since a Kentucky farmer, in Scott County, overheard one of his negroes inform his colleagues that, no matter what they did, he should stay with his master after the election! 

It will be remembered that, in 1856, a report was current in Tennessee among the negroes, that FREMONT had been elected, and was at the mouth of the Cumberland River, with a large force to set them free. They became insubordinate, and an extensive conspiracy and insurrection was the result. There can hardly be a doubt that the election of LINCOLN will have a bad effect upon the negroes, rendering those at the North saucy and insolent, and in the South insubordinate. 

—————

The author - consciously or not - reinforced the “loyal slave narrative” that some slavery defenders used in claiming that slaves accepted or even liked being slaves, their situation and that they loved their masters while being naturally subordinate. Though these anecdotes at least implied it was possible that those slaves might leave, their conclusions supported the idea of the servants’ loyalty, before the final paragraph contradicted that view. The only word that seems to be missing from that final stanza is “uppity,” though I do not know if that was a word in those days. At least those closing lines acknowledge that slaves were able to desire change in their status and that not all slaves would be content to remain faithful and passive chattel.

This story also demonstrates the reality that even a newspaper editor in Ohio, a free state, did not maintain a positive attitude towards slaves and showed no sympathy towards them.

Horsing Around: Some Thoughts on the Democratic Party Before the 1864 Election

With the 150th anniversary of the historic 1864 Presidential election approaching quickly, I have recently discovered some information I did not know before, and also confirmed some understanding of the Democratic Part issues that I had not thought about lately.

One tidbit that especially intrigued me was that the chairman of the 1864 Democratic Convention was August Belmont, who owned successful horse breeding farms in New York and Kentucky. Horse racing fans know that the third race of the sport's "Triple Crown" is the Belmont Stakes, now held at Belmont Park in New York. This race was named for August Belmont. Those interested in his career in the horse industry and the vast influence he wielded in it should read How Kentucky Became Southern by MaryJean Wall. It is a fine book about Kentucky history and memory, and frequently discusses Belmont's horse breeding business, which shifted between Kentucky and New York.

More information on the history of Belmont Stakes, though not with a lot of details of its namesake can also be found right here as well as on other links on that page. A longer, more detailed article, including information on his financial career and actions during the war years is at this link.

In the political arena, Belmont favored prosecuting the war before any reunion with the Confederate states, while the most vocal, and perhaps best-known, Democrat, Clement Vallandigham, preferred to end the war and reunite the nation immediately. This was the "peace without victory" philosophy that Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate George Pendleton also shared.

The party's Presidential nominee, General George B. McClellan, opposed this concept and his letter accepting the party's nomination repudiated the party's "peace plank" that was a key part of the party's platform. This led Vallindigham to refuse to campaign for McClellan.  This fissure was not as severe as the one the party faced in 1860 when it divided into two factions that each nominated its own candidate, but it does show that 4 years of time had only shifted the internal argument from one between Northern and Southern Democrats to one between War and Peace Democrats, and from how government should or could handle slavery to whether or not to continue the war effort.

August Belmont, courtesy newyorksocialdiary.com

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.

Harper's Weekly reaction to Election Day - November 8, 1864

In honor of the recent election day 2010, I'm reprinting another period poem, this one from the November 26, 1864 edition of Harper's Weekly.

On the back page of the same edition is published the following illustration.

Long Abraham Lincoln a Little Longer

Here is the poem itself, a celebration of Lincoln's victory over George McClellan in the 1864 Presidential election, though it sounds more like a celebration of victory in a battle or the war. Apparently the author thought the former ensured the latter, and he or she may have been right.

November 8, 1864

We breathe more freely now the struggle's done, 

Now that the glorious victory is won;

The grandest civil triumph which shall stand

Recorded in the annals of the land.

We trusted in the cause - we knew that Right

Must conquer Wrong, however hard the fight;

That not in vain by patriots had been shed

The precious blood with which our soil is red.

No, not in vain; to-day the pledge we give.

that by that blood the Union yet shall live;

And from the strong lips of the loyal North

In thunder tones the promise now goes forth.

Faith in that promise makes my eyes to see

Peace rising through the smoke of victory;

And as the cloud of battle drifts away

I see the white dawn of a future day.

Above the din of war i seem to hear

From tower and roof the sweet-toned bells of cheer

Ring out the welcome tidings to the skies,

While joyful paeans on the air arise. 

I see bold Freedom with a giant's stroke

Hurl to the earth the bondman's heavy yoke; 

I see her strike from off his horny hands

The galling chains and fetters where he stands.

I see a temple; from its dome on high

A glorious banner greets the broad blue sky;

The starry emblem of a mighty land,

Whose people all are on in heart and hand. 

 

Post-1864 election article from Harper's Weekly

Here's another article from Harper's Weekly, this one from the November 26, 1864 edition.The editors make their feelings about the leaders of the two sides in the Civil War very clear in this piece on page 754 (the second page of this weekly edition.)

THE FEELING OF THE NORTH

The president's two speeches in acknowledgment of the serenades after the election are the noblest expression of the universal public sentiment. There is no personal or partisan exultation. The issue was too solemn for that. There is the same sober joy as after a great victory or a narrow escape.

It has been customary for foreigners, and many among ourselves, to speak of Mr. Lincoln as the rebels speak of him, and to celebrate Jefferson Davis as a gentleman and a polished intellectual statesman. Will such persons compare Davis's recent speeches at Macon, Columbia, and elsewhere, or his earlier speeches in the war, with any speech of Mr. Lincoln, and especially these two last, and then say which of them are the manlier and more honorable? With malignant fury, which not even his trained coolness can conceal, Davis hisses that he would sooner fraternize with hyenas than Yankees; or in his foolish rage speaks of the "Beast" Butler. Is this the style of a statesman? Are these specimens of the intellectual superiority which distinguishes Jefferson Davis? Or is it the scurrility of a baffled conspirator, and the venomous malice of a disappointed rebel?

Nothing in the history of the war is more striking than the different spirit in which it is waged by the loyal citizens and the rebels. Indeed, the murderous and wicked olive-branch policy, which has so prolonged and embittered the struggle, is due to the want of proper insight and a more wholesome indignation upon the part of loyal citizens. From the beginning it was not only war, but war made upon the Government by men who had been taught to hate "the North" and "Northerners." And while rebels have been starving and slaughtering in every horrible way Union men at the South, and Union soldiers from the North, we have gone on mumbling "conciliation," until we were likely to be overthrown by our obstinate refusal to understand our enemies. 

We have learned now what they are. The election plucks off the olive branches and throws them away; and declares that conciliation is a word to be spoken to rebels when they submitted and not before. Yet there is no personal hate mingled with this resolution. As a class the rebels are regarded by the most strenuous loyal citizens as sophisticated and deluded; as men who must be taught by superior force to regard their obligations as citizens of the United States, but that is all. In no official paper or speech of the Union authorities has there been any expression of malignity toward the insurgents, nor will there be. Engaged in defending their Government, which is the sole security of their peace and prosperity, the people of the United States yield to no unworthy emotion. They are faithfully represented by the man whom they have again made their President. They feel in their successes "no taint of personal triumph; "but they are resolved, as he says, through every fortune, "to stand by free government and the rights of humanity." 

One of the two post-election Lincoln speeches mentioned in the article appears at the end of this long article concerning the election of 1864.  Here is the text of that speech.

It has been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies.
 

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring united, in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralyzed, by a political war among themselves, but the election was a necessity.
 

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not the change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as a strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.
 

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was possibility. It shows also how sound, and how strong we still are. It shows that, even among candidate of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.
 

But the rebellion continues; and now that the election is over, may not all, having a common interest, re-unite in a common effort, to save our common country? For my own part I have striven, and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom.
 

While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election; and duly grateful, as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as I think, for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result.
 

May I ask those who have not differed with me, to join with me, in this same spirit towards those who have?
 
And now, let me close by asking three hearty cheers for our brave soldiers and seamen and their gallant and skilful commanders.