Research Exercise: Confederate Soldiers on Tariff Policy

I have heard it said that since the correspondence of Confederate soldiers does not often mention that the soldier in question was fighting to protect the institution of slavery, Confederate soldiers did not fight to protect slavery … and, ergo, the Confederacy was not established to protect slavery.

Let’s stipulate for a moment that this reasoning is on the mark, and let’s apply it elsewhere … specifically the oft-cited cause, the tariff. Surely, if the Confederacy was established to protest protective tariffs, then Confederate soldiers would write home about how they were risking life and limb to protest the imposition of protective tariffs.

So, folks, show me those wartime letters. Thanks.

Research Exercise: What Horace Porter Said

Horace Porter liked to put himself at the center of everything.

Horace Porter liked to put himself at the center of everything.

One of the enduring images of Cold Harbor comes from the description provided by Horace Porter of how Union soldiers prepared for the attack on June 3 during the evening hours of June 2. One of the enduring characteristics of narratives about Cold Harbor is how people have used this description to further various interpretations of the June 3 assault.

This presents us with an opportunity to do a little detective work. Here’s what Porter actually wrote in his 1897 book, Campaigning with Grant:

Porter Cold Harbor One

Porter Cold Harbor Two

Porter Cold Harbor Three

Your assignment is a simple one: what have people made of this statement? What use have they made of this narrative? Is the interpretation you highlight justified by the text cited?

Let’s cite an example from the New York Times’ Disunion blog.

Unbelievably, despite having been given orders – and an extra day – to prepare before engaging Lee’s army, the Union corps commanders had conducted practically no reconnaissance of the seven-mile front that stretched from Bethesda Church to the Chickahominy. As a result, their troops would be charging blind. When they received their orders early on the morning of June 3, the soldiers did not panic or run; many of them simply wrote their names and addresses on slips of paper, and pinned the notes to the inside of their blouses, so that their bodies could be identified for burial.

Their fatalism proved amply justified. The attack began in mist and fog, at 4:30 a.m. As they charged, all the Yankees could see before them was freshly turned earth, behind which were the entrenched rifle pits of thousands of waiting rebels. During the first crucial hour of the main attack, the Southern guns poured volley after volley of enfilading fire into the hapless federals. They died in rows, in waves; as many as 7,000 Union soldiers fell in that terrible hour, most in the first 10 minutes. The field was soon littered with Union dead and wounded.

Yes, I know: the 7,000 dead and wounded in thirty minutes tale has been discredited, but it persists in various forms (here we have most falling in ten minutes … can’t these people coordinate their tales?).

Or this, from The Washington Post:

Cold Harbor became Gettysburg in reverse; what Pickett’s Charge would be to Lee, Cold Harbor would be to Grant. Thousands of men were killed or wounded in barely half an hour on that June morning. The story goes that many pinned their names to their clothes before they charged, so that their bodies could be identified.

Not quite so bad, although I don’t recall Lee advancing after Gettysburg. Nor did Grant lose half the attacking force.

I’m well aware that Gordon Rhea has pointed out that he can find no other account to substantiate Porter’s description. I am less likely to dismiss it simply because of that fact … but I also know that the act of fashioning homemade dog tags (there were none issued by the government) was done before engagements on several fields, so to single out Cold Harbor seems a bit exaggerated.

Kevin Levin beat me to the punch on these and several other issues concerning recent commentary on Cold Harbor, and I’ll return to those issues later. But, for now, there’s what Horace Porter said. So let’s see what you find.

Robert Anderson Caused the Civil War

Recently a poster declared:

Secession had many causes, but none of them led to the war. Your proof positive is the Secession documents, which are nothing more than a list of grievances. So that being case, show proof using these documents that the war was fought over slavery. When you have done this I will show proof the issue was not slavery

The only event that leads to the war was Anderson moving from Moultrie to Sumter. Without that event there would have been no war.


Research Exercise: The Imploding Confederacy

People who celebrate Confederate heritage as the story of a proud and unified people defended by soldiers committed to the cause of Confederate independence ought to do a little more research into what happened at home during the war. Here’s a letter from an eminent Georgia politician to Governor Joseph Brown that shows us just how problematic an account of a united white South may be:

Morganton, Georgia

August 11, 1863

His Excellency, Joseph E. Brown

Dear Sir,

I wrote you a few days since, relative to the conduct of the deserters and bushwackers, giving you the program of their actions up to that time.

I called out my cavalry as far as they were armed. Capt. Kincade called out his infantry company and they are now stationed at the place. Both companies have actively engaged scouring the country but up to this time we have not been able to capture any of them. Last night one hundred and twenty five of these desperadoes were within five miles of this place swearing they would come to the town and burn it. They were met by the sheriff and persuaded to disband. The sheriff has several relatives in the crowd and he therefore went boldly to work, and finally prevailed with them to desist.

We have no arms of any value, scarcely old rifles and a few single barreled shot guns and no ammunition, not two rounds a piece. We cannot muster more than fifty or sixty guns which I consider worthless. We must have arms and ammunition or this town will be burned and the country over run and perhaps many citizens massacred.

They swear that no man who is a Southern man in sentiment and action, will be permitted to keep a gun or any other weapon of defense. They are bold and reckless. I repeat to you that we must have help, both in men and arms or our county will be over run. There are some of the Georgia deserters who have sent me word if I can obtain the consent of the War Department that they will join the company here for home defense, but they swear they will die before they return to the army. Can you procure the consent of the department. It would be better to quiet them in this way than to let them connect themselves with these North carolina desperadoes.

Under an order of Gen. Buckner of a recent date, I am informed that the names of all the deserters under his command have been stricken from the company rolls. It strikes me therefore that the war department might willingly, if applied to, give permission for them to join the companies for home defense, I must confess I have little confidence in them but they can be better controlled in this way, they can be dispersed all over the country. If this meets with your approbation I trust you will immediately telegraph the war department and if they give their consent, write me immediately and I can quiet all the Georgians in this section.

Since writing the foregoing, I learned that a large party of these scoundrels, after dispersing last night went back a few miles into the edge of Union County and took all the guns they could find in that section. They say they can muster eight hundred men. Every man in Cherokee, N. Carolina who was enrolled for conscription have taken to the bush and if this is true, I doubt not that they can muster a large force. The Tennessee deserters and conscripts are also with them–many of them. And they are all sworn to defend one another, I am not scared but I confess that the times are any thing but pleasant to contemplate.

I intend to hold this place if I can, but how it is to be done without arms or ammunition I must confess looks doubtful. The lives of all the prominent citizens are threatened and unless some relief is sent forthwith, they will doubtless execute their threat.

Now my Dear Sir, as you see how things stand and it is for you to take such course as you think the emergency requires. If you can arm the battalion composed of the companies from Gilmer and this county, we can successfully defend this section and drive the marauders from this country. Without help however we are destined to suffer.

I am as your friend and servant.

E. W. Chastain

P.S. I had omitted to say that the whole country is panic stricken. That I cannot get them to turn out for their own defense. They are afraid to move anyway. EWC.

What does this letter tell us about the state of the Confederacy in the summer of 1863? The floor is open.

Research Exercise: Twelve Years a Slave … Edwin Epps’s Slaves

Much has been made of the movie “Twelve Years a Slave,” but I haven’t offered an opinion on it, largely because I have yet to see it (trying to complete several manuscripts leaves a mark on one’s time). However, I’m well aware of the book, which you can access online here.

One can turn to page 184 to read about the slaves owned by Edwin Epps, and one will find this description:

Epps remained on Huff Power two years, when, having accumulated a considerable sum of money, he expended it in the purchase of the plantation on the east bank of Bayou Boeuf, where he still continues to reside. He took possession of it in 1845, after the holidays were passed. He carried thither with him nine slaves, all of whom, except myself, and Susan, who has since died, remain there yet. He made no addition to this force, and for eight years the following were my companions in his quarters, viz: Abram, Wiley, Phebe, Bob, Henry, Edward, and Patsey. All these, except Edward, born since, were purchased out of a drove by Epps during the time he was overseer for Archy B. Williams, whose plantation is situated on the shore of Red River, not far from Alexandria.

Abram was tall, standing a full head above any common man. He is sixty years of age, and was born in Tennessee. Twenty years ago, he was purchased by a trader, carried into South Carolina, and sold to James Buford, of Williamsburgh county, in that State. In his youth he was renowned for his great strength, but age and unremitting toil have somewhat shattered his powerful frame and enfeebled his mental faculties.

Wiley is forty-eight. He was born on the estate, of William Tassle, and for many years took charge of that gentleman’s ferry over the Big Black River, in South Carolina.

Phebe was a slave of Buford, Tassle’s neighbor, and having married Wiley, he bought the latter, at her instigation. Buford was a kind master, sheriff of the county, and in those days a man of wealth.

Bob and Henry are Phebe’s children, by a former husband, their father having been abandoned to give place to Wiley. That seductive youth had insinuated himself into Phebe’s affections, and therefore the faithless spouse had gently kicked her first husband out of her cabin door. Edward had been born to them on Bayou Huff Power.

Patsey is twenty-three—also from Buford’s plantation. She is in no wise connected with the others, but glories in the fact that she is the offspring of a “Guinea nigger,” brought over to Cuba in a slave ship, and in the course of trade transferred to Buford, who was her mother’s owner.

That seems rather interesting … and it gets even more interesting when one turns to this lesson plan that includes an image from the 1850 federal slave census:

Epps 1850 slave census


As Susan had died, there were eight slaves left (including Northrup). Yet this schedule does not easily match at first glance with Northrup’s description of Epps’s slaves.

Your mission is to figure out why and what this says about Northrup’s narrative.

Grant and Onions

If we are to believe numerous websites, Ulysses S. Grant telegraphed the authorities in Washington in 1864 as follows:

“I will not move my army without onions.”

Moreover, so the story goes, within a day three trainloads arrived at his command.

You can follow the Google search results here.

This seems a bit odd. The claim is that this demand was issued in 1864. However, if it was issued while Grant was in the west, it would have taken more than a day for a telegraph to be received, acted upon, and have three trainloads of onions make their way to Tennessee. If it was issued between the time Grant came east in March and the commencement of the Overland Campaign, the Army of the Potomac would indeed be supplied by rail; afterwards, such would not be the case.

A search of the Grant papers for 1864 reveals no such reference to onions. See here, here, here, and here, or simply conduct a broader search from here.

Fans of onions have made a big deal out of this claim, as one can see by paging through the search results, but I haven’t been able to find the telegram in question. So, folks, I leave it to you: any truth to this tale?

By the way, I don’t particularly like onions, although I like french onion soup … so long as there aren’t too many onions in it. Go figure.

Research Exercise: Rumor at Arlington

Some blogs like to start things off with a bang, and this just may be the case with a new one, called civilwarhistorian.  For in only the second post on this blog, we find the following except from an 1863 Massachusetts newspaper, publishing the comments of a member of the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry about a visit to Arlington, the home of Robert E. Lee:

“At the cook house for the overseer’s family I noticed an octoroon, nearly white, with fine features. She told me that her mother, long since dead was a quadroon and Gen. Lee’s housekeeper at Arlington, and to the question, ‘Was your father a colored man?’ she answered without hesitation ‘No,–master’s my father.” And this father and master now leads an army, the sole purpose of which is to establish a government founded on an institution which enslaves his own children, making his own flesh and blood saleable property!”

Okay, folks … what do you make of this?  How would you go about finding out exactly what’s going on?

UPDATE:  Just in case you were wondering, our intrepid blogger, Colin Woodward, has also posted the answer to that question, an answer which you can encounter in the comments section below.  Tony Gunter and Andy Hall get a gold star.  I would have sent them a t-shirt from The History Channel, but the publicist who promised me some swag does not seem to have come through.

Research Exercise: The Wadsworth Letter

In the comments section Helga Ross makes reference to a debate over the authenticity of a letter purportedly written by Abraham Lincoln to James S. Wadsworth in early 1864. The letter’s text does not bear a date, but it must have been written between the beginning of 1864 and the Battle of the Wilderness, where Wadsworth was killed.

You desire to know, in the event of our complete success in the field, the same being followed by a loyal and cheerful submission on the part of the South, if universal amnesty should not be accompanied with universal suffrage.

Now, since you know my private inclinations as to what terms should be granted to the South in the contingency mentioned, I will here add, that if our success should thus be realized, followed by such desired results, I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how, under the circumstances, I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military service.

How to better the condition of the colored race has long been a study which has attracted my serious and careful attention; hence I think I am clear and decided as to what course I shall pursue in the premises, regarding it a religious duty, as the nation’s guardian of these people, who have so heroically vindicated their manhood on the battle-field, where, in assisting to save the life of the Republic, they have demonstrated in blood their right to the ballot, which is but the humane protection of the flag they have so fearlessly defended.

The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of the both races; and it must be sealed by general amnesty [1].


New York Tribune, September 26, 1865; Scribner’s Magazine, January, 1893. This extract was widely reprinted in newspapers from the source indicated in the Tribune as follows:

“The Southern Advocate of the 18th inst. says:

“The following extract, which has just been published, is from the late President Lincoln’s letter to Gen. Wadsworth, who fell in the battle of the Wilderness. The letter, which is of a private character, is to be sent to Gen. Wadsworth’s family.

‘”It shows that Mr. Lincoln, who desired the bestowal of the elective franchise upon the blacks, was also, at an early day, in favor of granting universal amnesty, which, for some strange and unaccountable reason, is still withheld from the South, notwithstanding it is known that it was his intention to grant, without any exception, a general pardon.

“‘His wishes, in this particular, the American people cannot afford to disregard. Congress will, no doubt, exact the right of suffrage for the blacks. Why universal amnesty should be withheld until that time, we are unable to see. This, certainly, was not Mr. Lincoln’s plan, whose intentions all parties should sacredly observe.

“‘The following is the extract referred to, in which Mr. Lincoln says: [extract as given above].'”

The Southern Advocate has not been located, and no other reference has been found to the original letter to Wadsworth. The contents of the excerpt is, however, closely in keeping with views expressed by Lincoln elsewhere (see Fragment, August 26, 1863, supra), and seems to be genuine. The date assigned is based upon the fact that General Wadsworthreturned from his tour of inspection of freedmen in the Mississippi Valley on December 3, 1863, and on the supposition that Lincoln’s letter would probably have been written some time thereafter, but in any case prior to May, 1864, since Wadsworthwas killed in the Battle of the Wilderness, May 5-7, 1864.

[1]   This paragraph does not appear in the newspaper accounts, but is included in the article by Marquis de Chambrun in Scribner’s Magazine.

So runs the text and the annotation in Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, volume 7, pages 101-2.

Your assignment is a simple one: is the letter authentic?

Take a Look Here …

at this post by Andy Hall at Dead Confederates.  It’s a really interesting exercise on how one weighs evidence as one struggles to construct a narrative that tells us what happened.

In recent years memory studies, which rest on some of the same principles as the practice of deconstruction in literary studies, look at various accounts and determined what shaped those accounts.  These studies have been very valuable, yet I still say the hardest thing for a historian to do is to find out what happened in the first place.  That some people misunderstand what good historians do by claiming that it’s all a matter of pick and choose according to some predetermined agenda or ideology say this in part as a way to evade the real spadework of scholarship.

Take a look at Andy’s post and see what you make of the two accounts he presents.