Baseball was a sport started in the mid-19th century in New York City. That led to it being a sport played at the time of the US Civil War. Here, Richard Bluttal looks at the impact of baseball during the war.

The New York Knickerbockers baseball team in 1858 (on the left in the picture).

Rather than the pastoral Cooperstown, modern baseball was born in America’s largest metropolis: New York City. By the 1840s, the first known consolidated rule set was created by the Manhattan-based New York Knickerbockers led by Alexander Cartwright. The Knickerbockers were well organized and promoted formalized rules for their game, emulating the more prestigious cricket clubs common in New York City at the time. Other teams in Manhattan and Brooklyn quickly emerged and sought to copy the Knickerbocker’s success.

As the Civil War began, the baseball clubs of New York became enthusiastic supporters of the Union war effort. The New York Clipper, an entertainment journal that covered the NABBP, celebrated players who enlisted and urged others to follow their example: “better join in boys, than be loafing the streets or hanging around bar-rooms, and thus show the people you have some noble traits that atone for whatever bad ones you get credit for.” The rules of baseball in 1860 as adopted by players and organizations are not too different from the modern version of the game. There are four bases spaced evenly apart with one of those being home plate, three strikes and you’re out, three outs in an inning, and nine innings for a standard game. One of the major differences in the rules of baseball in the 19th century is that the batter, after hitting the ball, can only be called “out” if he is hit by the ball. The President learned and loved the game prior to his election campaign in 1860. A popular newspaper even published a political cartoon showing him batting against his opponents in his campaign. During the Civil war he even had a baseball field constructed on the White House lawn. There are stories such as he was late for a war council meeting and said,” They will just have to wait. It is almost my turn at bat”.

Organized game

The first organized baseball game of the war took place on July 2, 1861, when a team from the 71st New York Regiment defeated the Washington Nationals amateur club, 41 to 13, in a park across from the White House. Later that month, the regiment suffered heavy casualties at the First Battle of Bull Run, losing many of its best athletes. The teams arranged a rematch in early 1862 where the Nationals defeated the decimated New Yorkers 28 to 13.

Organized events like this helped to popularize the game among Union soldiers. Colonel Mason Whiting Tyler explained that by 1863 baseball was “all the rage now in the Army of the Potomac…[the camps are] alive with ball players, almost every street having its game.” John G.B. Adams of the 19th Massachusetts Regiment reported that “base ball fever [had] broke[n] out” as different regiments played against one another usually favoring the New York game.

In most cases, Civil War baseball was played in the relative safety of military encampments. However, battles often disrupted these games. George Putnam, a Union soldier stationed in Texas in 1863, described one such incident. He wrote that a game had to be “called-early” after a surprise attack by Confederate infantry: Despite these dangers, baseball usually provided a welcome distraction from the carnage of the battlefield. On April 3, 1862, Frederick Fairfax of the Fifth Ohio Infantry wrote home from Virginia describing the specter of violence that haunted these games:

“It is astonishing how indifferent a person can become to danger. The report of musketry is heard but a very little distance from us…yet over there on the other side of the road is most of the company, playing [baseball] and perhaps in less than half an hour they may be called to play a ball game of a more serious nature.”

Moments of leisure

For soldiers, these games were rare moments of leisure from the anxiety and rigorous lifestyle typical during the Civil War. As John G.B. Adams put it, playing baseball “was a grand time, and all [participants] agreed that it was nicer to play base [ball] than minie [bullet] ball.” Consequently, officers often used baseball for official purposes, encouraging soldiers to play as relief from the monotony of military camp life and to complement training activities. They also hoped to use these games to foster camaraderie and teamwork among men who would soon be required to fight together in the battlefield.

The Civil War exposed many soldiers from all southern states to New York baseball for the first time and, over the course of the war, helped to popularize the game. Unfortunately, relatively little documentation exists regarding Confederate baseball. Judging from soldiers’ letters and diaries, many southerners’ initial exposure to baseball came largely in the form of watching Union men play the New York game in prisoner of war camps. Within Confederate POW camps, Union prisoners often used baseball to pass the time, with the most prominent site of play occurring at Salisbury Prison in North Carolina. Charles Carroll Gray, a Union physician held at Salisbury during the summer of 1862, reported in his diary that POWs celebrated July 4th “with music, reading of the Declaration of Independence, and sack and foot races in the afternoon, and also a baseball game.”

The Civil War started and ended in April, the traditional beginning of the now baseball season. The soldiers on both sides went home and brought baseball with them. The game exploded in communities all over the country. They were often referred to as the Textile Leagues.

What do you think of the role of baseball in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar. He looks at how they both wanted independence from Spain, but came from different generations - one an elder statesman, the other an idealist revolutionary

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, the impact of José Morelos here, and the changes of the 1810s here, and Mexico’s sudden independence here, and Colombia’s Revolt of the Comuneros here.

Francisco de Miranda by Martin Tovar y Tovar.

Miranda the Gadfly

Unlike the other pre-Bayonne viceroyalties, Gran Colombia had a small independentist movement. This can be ascribed to the workings of one man: Francisco de Miranda. Although a very thorough series about his life can be found here, an abbreviated version is in order.

Miranda was born in Caracas in 1750 to parents who did not quite fit into the city’s socioeconomic structure. On a racial and class basis, the Mirandas did not have a comfortable life due to persecution by the city’s Basque, old-money elites. This caused a great deal of resentment for Miranda. His father had been forced to sacrifice his military position and a significant part of his wealth refuting accusations of “racial impurity”.

Resentment against the colonial structure that enabled the Byzantine rules of New Granada made the decision to leave the colony easy for Miranda. After serving in the Spanish army in North Africa fighting the Moors and in the Caribbean and North America during the America Revolution, he was caught up in some illegal business deals, and potential spying, and became an object of suspicion for the Spanish colonial authorities who ordered his arrest. Miranda fled first to the United States and then to Europe.

While in Europe, Miranda met many of the most prominent people of the time, from William Pitt the Younger to Catherine the Great. When the French Revolution broke out, Miranda, a student of the Enlightenment, enthusiastically joined the French army and was made a general. As the French Revolution ate its own, Miranda got swept up in the persecution and was briefly put in prison, though he was later released and fled to Britain.

With his previous contacts and notoriety as a friend of seemingly every prominent person in Europe at the time, Miranda was able to leverage his contacts to fulfill his dream of liberating his homeland from the oppression of Spain. At the time, Spain was allied to Revolutionary France, and Miranda very pointedly told the British government that if they supported him with money, ships, and men, he could lead a revolutionary movement against Spain, deprive a British enemy of their most lucrative colonies by igniting a hemispheric revolutionary movement, and open the area to increased British commerce. Seemingly constantly, Miranda would come up with new plans and memoranda and send them off to Prime Minister Pitt looking for more of everything for his revolutionary projects. Eventually, he would tire of waiting on the British and returned to the United States to reignite his contacts there.

In 1806, Miranda, with alleged support from the administration of Thomas Jefferson, organized several ships and a few hundred volunteers and attempted an invasion of New Granada, landing at Coro. A British ship and some Royal Marines helped in the attack. It was a total catastrophe. Ashore for not even two weeks, Miranda would retreat back to the safety of his ships when Spanish troops arrived, and the expedition broke up.

Back in Britain, Miranda, having shown himself to be a man of action, began to receive real support from the British government. After a failed invasion of the Viceroy of Rio de la Plata that was defeated mostly by local forces, the British realized they needed the support of the local populace. Here is where the British thought Miranda would be useful. Still with contacts in New Granada, Miranda could be used to set the stage for local support for a British invasion of the colony. Being unable to directly strike the Napoleonic juggernaut, the British could strike at the soft underbelly of the Napoleonic system, the Spanish Empire.

Chaos of Bayonne

The stage had been set. A large British army under the command of General Arthur Wellesley was all ready to go. Miranda would go as well to lead his people. Then, the Abdications of Bayonne happened. Spain was no longer a British enemy. With now-King Ferdinand a prisoner of the French, the new revolutionary Junta that claimed to be leading Spain in his name was an ally. Additionally, that army now needed to be used in Iberia, not all the way in South America.

As in the other viceroyalties, the Abdications of Bayonne created chaos. Few wanted to accept the new King José I of Spain (Joseph Bonaparte). The Junta in Spain claimed authority over the colonies, but as the colonists saw it, by what right? If the Spanish people could rise up against the usurper, they could rise up as well to defend their rights.

By 1810, Juntas began forming in the colonies. The Supreme Junta of Caracas, like the Junta of Seville, declared itself the supreme government of all of the Captaincy-General of Venezuela. What was interesting was that the Junta only claimed to represent Venezuela, just one constituent part of the whole of New Granada. Officially the Junta was simply a sort of regency for the captive King Ferdinand. It was on this basis that the Junta requested help from the British. See, they were not rebelling against Britain’s ally Spain, they were fighting for King Ferdinand, and the British should help them succeed. It was just obvious. The diplomatic mission sent over to Britain by the Junta toed this line until a young hothead in the delegation, a man named Simón Bolívar, ranted to the British diplomats about how Venezuela should be free and independent.

Bolívar Meets Miranda

The meeting between Bolívar and Miranda would be a crossroads in both of their lives. Here was Miranda, the elder statesman. French revolutionary, Spanish-American revolutionary, world traveler, and supposed lover of Catherine the Great. Bolívar was a young idealist. The first “great man” he worshipped was Napoleon, but Bonaparte had betrayed his ideals, in Bolívar’s mind, when he crowned himself. Now, here was Miranda, the man who had been fighting to make America free since almost before Bolívar was born.

Bolívar’s Early Life

Like Miranda, Bolívar was from Caracas, having been born there in 1783. Unlike Miranda, Bolívar’s family was descended from the group of Basques that dominated the high society of Caracas. Although he was born into one of the wealthiest families in the Americas, tragedy struck early in Bolívar’s life. His father died when he was only 3 years old, and he would go on to be raised by relatives away from his siblings. He would be sent to live with his uncle, Carlos Palacios y Blanco, whom Bolívar would despise since he was convinced that the man was only after the family’s inheritance.

Carlos Palacios knew he had to at least do the bare minimum to show he was caring for his nephew, so he sent him to school. From there, he would meet one of the formative people in his life, Simón Rodriguez. Rodriguez was a liberal who believed in independence for Venezuela. He would be considered one of the earliest influences on Bolívar’s political upbringing.

First Taste of Revolution

Eventually, Bolívar would run away from his uncle’s care and fled to live with his sister and her husband. Not particularly wanting the very defiant and unruly boy hanging around too much, his sister arranged for Bolívar to move in with Simón Rodriguez to further his education. Rodriguez would teach the boy the values of the Enlightenment that we so much in vogue at the time. Bolívar, being a naturally defiant child, eagerly lapped up the philosophies that taught questioning established authorities and the vaguely libertarian outlook that early Enlightenment philosophers held.

Bolívar’s political education would end prematurely in 1797. Rodriguez was caught up in what was called the Gual and España conspiracy, named after two of the leaders. This conspiracy sought to throw off, what they saw, as the shackles then in place in Venezuela. Although the exact details of the conspiracy are shrouded by the mists of time and unclear, what is clear is that the basis for this movement was a checklist of Enlightenment philosophies: free trade and the elimination of tariffs and burdensome taxes, elimination of the tribute that Indians were required to pay, the immediate and total abolition of slavery, and complete racial equality. Independence for Venezuela was not an explicit goal; neither was republicanism. It was also not explicitly anti-Spanish, as many later rebellions would be. The conspirators believed that the interests of all people in Venezuela were in alignment and that no Venezuelan was an enemy.

While the conspiracy was broken up with ease by the colonial authorities, it did show that even at this early time, Venezuela was a hotbed of dissent. Simón Rodriguez would be exiled to Europe and Bolívar’s formal education in Venezuela was at an end. After a brief stint in the colonial militia, he would be sent by Carlos Palacios to Madrid to continue school. While in Madrid, Bolívar’s education would be broadened to create a more well-rounded education.

In the Belly of the Beast

His time in Madrid would be tumultuous. He stayed with his uncle, Esteban Palacios, who recognized almost right away that, although Bolívar came from an aristocratic family of means, his education was terrible. His uncle set about remaking his young ward. Bolívar was taught not just better grammar and spelling, but also how to dress, speak, and act as a member of his class and station. Part of this effort was getting Bolívar recognized at court. One of Esteban Palacios’ acquaintances in Madrid was a young man of the royal guard named Manuel Mallo.

The Spanish royal court at the turn of the 19th century was a sad parody of royalty. The Queen of Spain, Maria Luisa was the power in the country. It would be generous to call King Carlos IV dim. He was a man completely out of his depth ruling a country and had no discernable self-awareness. Maria Luisa was a woman with no beauty or charm, but she was strong-willed and pursued what she wanted. Two things she valued most of all were power and young, handsome men. For a young man with ambition and good looks, an appointment to the royal guard was also a ticket to the queen’s bedchamber and, subsequently, wealth and power. By this point in the story, she had already convinced her husband to elevate Manuel Godoy from said bedchamber to the prime ministership of the empire. Carlos was probably the only person in the court who was unaware of where Godoy’s rapid rise came from. While Bolívar was in Madrid, the queen cast her eye on Manuel Mallo. He was showered with wealth and power, with the king none the wiser. This relationship was Bolívar’s entry to the court.

Although Bolívar would be expelled from the court for a time for wearing diamonds to a reception, which was forbidden without express permission, his time at court was formative. He became acquainted with the heir to the Spanish throne, Prince Ferdinand, the future Ferdinand VII. There was a story that one day, Bolívar went to the royal palace to visit Ferdinand and they decided to play a game of badminton together. During the game, the shuttlecock came down and hit Ferdinand on the head. As everyone around laughed at the situation, Ferdinand became so embarrassed and angry that he refused to continue to play. Only by his mother shaming him, and her demand that Ferdinand be hospitable, was Ferdinand convinced to continue.

Eventually, Manuel Mallo fell out of the queen’s favor. When he was arrested, Esteban Palacios decided that this would be a good time to take Bolívar out of Madrid and away from court. One can only imagine how much damage close familiarity with the court in Madrid did to Bolívar’s loyalty to the crown. Indeed, Bolívar got a good look at how the Spanish court ran at this time, and it would color his views on both monarchies and the mother country.

A Match Made in Heaven

One thing Bolívar left in Madrid was love. He had met María Teresa Rodríguez del Toro during his time in the capital. She was also from New Granada, and she was a cousin to one of Bolívar’s childhood friends. They had become close during this time, but Bolívar’s abrupt exit from Madrid did not dampen his love for her. When he was able to return In April 1802, Bolívar immediately applied for a marriage license and he and María were married.

With his new bride in tow, and feeling his education complete, Bolívar decided to go back to New Granada. When the new, happy couple arrived, he reconnected with all of his old friends and acquaintances in Caracas. A grand future awaited the couple, splitting time between Bolívar’s estate at San Mateo growing indigo and cacao, and the city of Caracas. For Bolívar, who had grown up being passed around amongst family members who cared more for the inheritance he had than him as a human being, he felt reborn with the sanctity that a marriage of true love can bring. A comfortable life as a wealthy aristocrat awaited the Bolívars.

The Turning Point

Unfortunately, María contracted yellow fever (most likely) soon after arriving in New Granada. After only eight months of marriage, María passed away on January 22, 1803. She was only 21 years old.

For Bolívar, this was devastating. He had finally given his heart to another person after the chaos of his childhood, and now the love of his life was gone in the blink of an eye. Some close to him feared that he might even take his own life. His brother believed that Bolívar was going to go mad from anger and grief. Although he would reach the other side of the dark night, Bolívar emerged a changed man. It was the death of María that would change the trajectory of Bolívar’s life. Prior to her death, he would have been perfectly happy and contented to continue on with the empty-headed life of a colonial aristocrat, achieving prosperity and little more. Now, the nervous energy needed an outlet somewhere. It was this event that placed him on the road to being the Bolívar the Liberator.

What do you think of the Revolt of the Comuneros? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Between the years 1865-1868, the United States confronted one of the greatest political crises in its history, the battle between President Andrew Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction. The crisis arose from the intersection of three developments: (i) Militancy of the former slaves in demanding substantive freedom, (ii) White southern reluctance to accept the reality of emancipation, and (iii) Johnson’s intransigence in the face of growing northern concern over a series of momentous events in the South.

There is one particularly important historical event occurring at the beginning of the war that had a tremendous effect on reconstruction.

Richard Bluttall explains.

Andrew John in 1860.

Contraband

Newly arrived at Fortress Monroe, on May 23, 1861, General Benjamin Butler was confronted by the arrival of three fugitive slaves from the Confederate defensive works project across Hampton Roads. Faced with the looming prospect of being shipped to North Carolina to work on fortifications, Goodheart writes “the three slaves decided to leave the Confederacy and try their luck, just across the water, with the Union.” They were not the first slaves to seek sanctuary in a Union military post. Soon after Lincoln’s inauguration in early March, slaves in separate incidents had presented themselves at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor and Fort Pickens near Pensacola, Florida. Consistent with the Fugitive Slave Act, the slaves in both instances had been rebuffed and turned over to local authorities. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, Benjamin Butler had to decide what action to take. His hand was forced by the arrival of a Confederate officer at Fortress Monroe under flag of truce demanding the slaves return.

Adam Goodheart relates the encounter between Butler and the Virginian, Major John Baytop Cary on the three slaves.

Cary got down to business. “I am informed,” he said, “that three Negroes belonging to Colonel Mallory have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel Mallory’s agent and have charge of his property. What do you mean to do with those Negroes?”

“I intend to hold them,” Butler said.
“Do you mean, then, to set aside your constitutional obligation to return them?”

Even the dour Butler must have found it hard to suppress a smile. This was, of course, a question he had expected. And he had prepared what he thought was a fairly clever answer.

“I mean to take Virginia at her word,” he said. “I am under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country, which Virginia now claims to be.”

“But you say we cannot secede,” Cary retorted, “and so you cannot consistently detain the Negroes.”

“But you say you have seceded,” Butler said, “so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall hold these Negroes as contraband of war, since they are engaged in the construction of your battery and are claimed as your property.”  Officers on the ground like Butler quickly realized the slaves were a significant military asset to the Confederacy, acting not only as laborers, teamsters, and in other support roles for the army, but also by keeping southern agriculture functioning allowing a much larger portion of the white male population to be available for military service than might otherwise have been the case. Hence, as property being used in support of a rebellion against the government, Butler’s “contraband of war” formulation legally justified the seizure of the slaves without immediately undermining their status as property. The Lincoln administration quickly acquiesced to Butler’s policy and Congress gave it the force of law in early August through the Confiscation Act of 1861.

Within a little more than a year, the stream of a few hundred contrabands at Fort Monroe became a river of tens — probably even hundreds — of thousands. They “flocked in vast numbers — an army in themselves — to the camps of the Yankees,” a Union chaplain wrote. “The arrival among us of these hordes was like the oncoming of cities.”

This was such an important situation because it resulted in the creation of a separate organization to handle the refugee crisis.  A whole new system had to be developed to address slaves crossing Union lines throughout the war effort in many parts of the country leading to the development of refugee camps.

History of Secession

Many people, especially those wishing to support the South’s right to secede in 1860–61, have said that when 13 American colonies rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, it was an act of secession. Others say the two situations were different and the colonies’ revolt was a revolution. The war resulting from that colonial revolt is known as the American Revolution or the American War for Independence.  As to Lincoln’s belief on this issue see below:

First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken. We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861

The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against the law and by revolution.

Effect of the Civil War on the South

The losses were so great that the numbers ceased to register. In what Walt Whitman called “the desolated, ruined South . . . nearly the whole generation of young men between seventeen and thirty” had been “destroyed or maimed; the rich impoverished; the plantations covered with weeds; the slaves unloosed and become the masters; and the name of Southerner blackened with every shame.” Emancipation alone had wiped between $ 1.6 and $ 2.7 billion of capital investment off the books. Per capita income in the South collapsed by more than 40 percent, and real estate fell in value, ranging from an 18 percent loss in Tennessee to a whopping 70 percent devaluation in Louisiana. A third of Southern livestock and half of the South’s farm machinery had disappeared, and with them, the agriculture that depended on them, as land under cultivation shrank by 34 percent in South Carolina and 30 percent in Louisiana. Banking capital, much of it invested in Confederate securities, suffered losses of 28 percent, sending interest rates on what remained for borrowing through the few intact roofs. Total direct and indirect costs of the war for the South were probably close to $ 13.6 billion— which does not even begin to convey the sense of demoralization that accompanied the losses. “The whole country is alive with robbers,” shivered one Tennessee woman. “Every night we hear of a new robbery and sometimes murder.” Keep in mind the question, what would it take to resurrect the South economically?

The slave community was the seedbed for the ways African Americans responded to the coming of emancipation and shouldering the responsibilities of freedom during Reconstruction. After the war thousands of freedmen and women seeking to locate family members from whom they had been separated while in slavery would place advertisements in newspapers and solicit aid from the Freedman’s Bureau. Many families divided under slavery because their members belonged to different owners, now lived together.  Remember the experience of working under their own direction and of marketing produce they had grown as slaves helped to prepare African Americans for involvement in the market economy during Reconstruction. Many affirmed their newly acquired freedom by physical movement, separating themselves from former owners, if only by a few miles, “If I stay here,” one freedwoman told her ex-owner, “I’ll never know I am free.” Thousands of blacks converged on southern towners and cities. Schools, churches, fraternal societies, offices of the Freedman’s Bureau, and federal army outposts were built in cities.  There was a broader theme- a desire for independence from white control, for autonomy as individuals. Some married women established bank accounts in their own names at the Freedman’s Savings Bank.

Remember freedom meant more than establishing autonomous institutions. Recognition of their equal rights as American citizens quickly emerged as the animating impulse of black politics. In a society that had made political participation a core element of freedom, the right to vote inevitably became central to the former slave’s desire autonomy and empowerment.  “Slavery,” said Frederick Douglas in 1865, “is not abolished until the black man has the ballot.”

“We simply ask, “declared the South Carolina Colored People’s Convention of 1865 in a petition to Congress, “ that was shall be recognized as men; that there be no obstructions placed in our way, that the same laws that govern white men shall govern black men; that we have the right of trial by jury of our peers;…. That in short, we be dealt with as others are- in equality and justice.”

Freed people remained adamant in the desire to work without the supervision of masters and overseers, to determine their own hours and pace of labor, and to receive wages commensurate with their effort. Genuine economic freedom could be obtained only through ownership of land, for without land, blacks’ labor would continue to be exploited by their former owners.  The response, summed up by a Kentucky newspaper: the former slaves was “free, but free only to labor.” What the freedman wanted most, said Martin Delany, the black abolitionist, “is a home-one that he can call his own, and possess in fee simple.”

What was the definition of freedom for slaves?

  • Many affirmed their newly acquired freedom by physical movement, separating themselves from their former slave owners, if only by a few miles.

  • Some former slaves jettisoned the surnames of their masters.

  • A desire for independence from white control, for autonomy as individuals and as newly created communities. They want to work without supervision of masters and overseers. The ownership of land, without land, black’s labor would continue to be exploited by their former owners.

  • Reunite relatives separated by slavery and to consolidate long-existing family relationships.

  • Access to education.

  • The right to vote.

In South Carolina, Louisiana, and other areas occupied earliest by the Union soldiers, federal authorities found themselves presiding over the transition from slavery to freedom.

The world of most rural slaves was bound by their local communities and kin. They became extremely familiar with the local landscape, crops, and population, and gathered with slaves from nearby farms and plantations to celebrate marriages, attend funerals and for Christmas and Fourth of July celebrations.

The slave family was central to the African American community, allowing for the transmission of values, traditions, and survival strategies. When freedom came for slaves, legalizing their marriages and consolidating their families were among their highest priorities.

Slaves developed a distinctive version of Christianity that would play a crucial role in the Reconstruction era and, indeed, down to the present time. Before the Civil War, urban free blacks established their own churches. These institutions, at which many slaves as well as free blacks worshiped, became training grounds for postwar black leadership and schools, in a sense, of self-government. The black churches were the center of community life. These churches housed schools, social events, and political gatherings, adjudicated family disputes. The church also became a breeding ground for black leadership, and many ministers entered politics.  At least 240 black ministers, held some public office during Reconstruction.

Central to the meaning of freedom was access to education, so long denied to most African Americans. There was a recognition that learning was a form of empowerment, a desire to read the Bible, a general thrust toward uplift and group advancement. Northern abolitionists had been dispatching teachers as “missionaries” to runaways and contrabands since the first such contrabands had shown up at Fort Monroe in 1861.

The most difficult task confronting many Southerners at the end of the Civil War and beginning of Reconstruction was devising a new system of labor to replace the shattered world of slavery. Planters found it hard to adjust to the end of slavery.  Many former slaves believed that their years of unrequited labor gave them a claim to land. “Forty acres and a mule” became their rallying cry.  Most rented land or worked for wages on white-owned plantations.  Out of the conflicts of the plantations, new systems of labor emerged to take the place of slavery. Sharecropping dominated the cotton and tobacco South, while wage labor was the rule on sugar plantations. As under slavery, most rural blacks worked on land owned by whites. But they now exercised control over their personal lives, could come and go as they pleased, and determined which members of the family worked in the fields. Some urban growth occurred during Reconstruction, both in cities like Richmond and small market centers scattered across the cotton belt. Cities offered more diverse work opportunities for both black and white laborers.

Let’s remember the problem: Were they now supposed to sign contracts and be paid for their labor? Who would guarantee that the contracts would not turn out to be simply a newer version of bondage? Should provision be made by the public purse to educate them? Should they be considered citizens, and entitled to all the “privileges and immunities? Guaranted to citizens by Article 4, section 2, of the Constitution? And what were those “privileges and immunities” anyway? Office holding, jury service, bearing witness in court, voting, election to office?  And what would happen on representation in the House of Representatives, a complete change. The so-called three-fifths rule in the Constitution would disappear and going forward every freed slave would be counted as a full person- yet without any right to vote.

The Emancipation-Proclamation is perhaps the most misunderstood important document in American History.  The proclamation applied almost exclusively to areas under Confederate control. Thus, it had no bearing on the nearly half a million slaves in the board slave states that had never seceded from the Union, or on more than three hundred thousand slaves in the areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union soldiers and exempted by Lincoln from its coverage- the entire states of Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. On January 1, 1863, most slaves resided in places where the proclamation could not be enforced.

A New Birth of Freedom- Reconstruction During the Civil War, The Emancipation Proclamation launched the historical process of Reconstruction.

At the war’s outset, the Lincoln Administration insisted that restoring the Union was its only purpose. But as slaves by the thousands abandoned the plantation and headed for the Union lines, and military victory eluded the North, the president made the destruction of slavery his war aim announced in the Emancipation Proclamation. During the war “rehearsals for Reconstruction “took place in the Union-occupied South. On the South Carolina Sea Island, the former slaves demanded land of their own, while government officials and Northern investors urged them to return to work on the plantations. In addition, a group of young Northern reformers came to the islands to educate the freed people and assist in the transition from slavery to freedom.  As the Union army occupied Southern territory, slaves by the thousands abandoned the plantations. The move towards emancipation might alienate the border states or make it more difficult to persuade the Confederate States to rejoin the Union. Just five months after the war had begun, the Union Commander of the Western Department, Major General John C. Frémont, declared martial law in Missouri. The enthusiastic Frémont confiscated property belonging to owners from the Confederacy and announced that the slaves present in Missouri were to be freed. Lincoln intervened, canceling these emancipations and noting that “I think there is great danger that . . . the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us.” When Major General Frémont objected, he was removed from command. When in May 1862 another Union commander, Major General David Hunter, announced the emancipation of freed slaves in South Carolina and Georgia, Lincoln intervened once again and canceled these emancipations too. It wasn’t until June 1862 that Lincoln finally signed legislation that formally outlawed slavery in all U.S. territories though this was not immediately enforced.

Lincoln still had to be very careful. The phrasing of the proclamation meant that slaves in states which were part of the Confederacy would be deemed to be free only if their states were invaded by the north or if they escaped to the north. However, the status of slaves in states which were part of the Union such as Maryland and Kentucky were unchanged. African American slaves in the southern states saw this proclamation as a promise of freedom if they could escape from the south and enter the northern states. Over the next three years, more than half a million slaves made their way north to freedom. This not only deprived the Confederacy of essential workers, but it also provided a vital source of new troops for the Union. Almost 200,000 African Americans, many former slaves, joined the armies of the north and fought bravely during the remainder of the Civil War.

Lincoln and the 13th Amendment

Lincoln defeated Democratic candidate George McClellan and secured his second presidential bid, Congress continued to debate the passage of the 13th amendment.  This time, however, the President positioned himself at the center of the controversy.

 Lincoln argued that emancipation would so undermine the morale of the Confederacy that it would weaken their military and bring about a swift end to the war.  The President undertook his own campaign for passage of the amendment, and his political allies and cabinet members helped to further the cause, convincing constituents and state legislatures to appeal directly to their congressmen for passage of the amendment. The proposal had passed quickly through the Senate the previous spring, but in the House of Representatives debates created divisive partisan factions, with little certainty as to the fate of the proposal.  Finally, after months of conflict, on January 31, 1865, the amendment passed 119-56, a two-vote margin.  In December, it was formally adopted.

The ratification of 13th amendment conferred upon Congress the power to enforce the abolition of slavery by appropriate legislation, granting the federal government the constitutional authority to dictate power relationships among individual citizens as it never had before.

 As the text reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.

Less than a year after ratification, Congress called upon the enforcement power from Section 2 to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, granting African Americans citizenship and equal protection.  Proponents of the law argued that the 13th amendment authorized the federal government to legislate state action; critics maintained that unequal treatment was distinct from slavery such that the 1866 Act was beyond the amendment’s reach. This act represented the first attempt to give concrete meaning to the 13th Amendment. This Act declared all persons born in the United States (except Indians) national citizens and went on to spell out the rights they were to enjoy equally without regard to race.  No longer could states enact laws such as the Black Codes (noted below) declaring actions crimes for black persons but not white.

 In response to these debates, and as a direct outgrowth of the enforcement clause, Congress went on to pass the 14th and 15th amendments in quick succession, defining citizenship and equal rights and banning voting restrictions based on race.

 The 14th amendment would become the Supreme Court’s principal tool in deciding civil rights cases through the 20th century.  Still the 13th amendment, while less applicable to subsequent controversies than its counterpart, served to fundamentally reshape the American landscape.

 And while its eventual champion may have begun as little more than a symbolic emancipator, Lincoln’s 1865 campaign for ratification served to launch perhaps the greatest legal, economic and social revolution the United States has ever seen.

 

Response to Lincoln’s Plans

Two congressional factions formed over the subject of Reconstruction. A majority group of moderate Republicans in Congress supported Lincoln’s position that the Confederate states should be reintegrated as quickly as possible. A minority group of Radical Republicans--led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House and Ben Wade and Charles Sumner in the Senate--sharply rejected Lincoln’s plan, claiming it would result in restoration of the southern aristocracy and re-enslavement of blacks. They wanted to effect sweeping changes in the south and grant the freed slave’s full citizenship before the states were restored. The influential group of Radicals also felt that Congress, not the president, should direct Reconstruction. This is what led to the Wade-Davis Bill in July 1864.

The Radical Republicans voiced immediate opposition to Lincoln’s reconstruction plan, objecting to its leniency and lack of protections for freed slaves. Congress refused to accept the rehabilitation of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In July 1864, Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, their own formula for restoring the Union.

  • A state must have a majority within its borders take the oath of loyalty.

  • A state must formally abolish slavery.

  • No Confederate officials could participate in the new governments.

Lincoln did not approve of this plan and exercised his pocket veto. An angry Congress would later pass the Wade-Davis Manifesto (August 1864), which charged Lincoln with usurping the powers of Congress. This statement would have little impact on the public, as the military news from the South improved; Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign restored Lincoln’s popularity and helped assure his reelection.

President Johnson and his Reconstruction Plan

With the Assassination of Lincoln, the Presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states’ rights views. Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Johnson was no match for them.

Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1808, Johnson grew up in poverty. He was apprenticed to a tailor as a boy but ran away. He opened a tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, married Eliza McCardle, and participated in debates at the local academy.

Entering politics, he became an adept stump speaker, championing the common man and vilifying the plantation aristocracy. As a Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 1840’s and ’50’s, he advocated a homestead bill to provide a free farm for the poor man.

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners. In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction. In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

Views on Black Population

What were Johnson’s views regarding blacks?  He held deeply racist views regarding blacks and proved unable to envision their playing any role in the South’s Reconstruction, except as a dependent laboring class returning to work.

Prior to his assuming office after Lincoln’s assassination, Johnson continued to repeat himself: the eleven states of the Confederacy had never actually been out of the Union because they did not have the right to secede. According to Johnson, since these states hadn’t seceded, they had not relinquished their right to govern themselves as they wished. He insisted that slavery provided far better conditions for black men and women than they would enjoy in Africa and certainly enjoyed better conditions than the Northern wage slave, who had to grind out a pittance in a factory. To Johnson, free blacks were much worse off than southern slaves.  By the summer of 1863, Johnson supported immediate, unconditional emancipation. His reasoning was consistent with his hatred of the aristocrat: emancipation would liberate the white man from the tyranny of the plutocrat slaveholders. He did not for a minute believe” that the negro race is equal to the Anglo-Saxon-not at all.” Blacks had no role to play in Johnson’s vision of Reconstruction. In his view Reconstruction boiled down to placing the southern states under the control of loyal whites and bringing them back to their full standing in the Union as quickly as possible. At the end of May 1865 Johnson announced his plans for Reconstruction.

Johnson’s Plan for Reconstruction

Following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Andrew Johnson became president and inaugurated the period of Presidential Reconstruction (1865–67). Johnson shared the white Southerners’ attitude toward African Americans, considering black men innately inferior and unready for equal civil or political rights. On May 29, 1865, Johnson made his policy clear:

  • Issued a general proclamation of pardon and amnesty for most Confederates and authorized the provisional governor of North Carolina to proceed with the reorganization of that state. Shortly afterward he issued similar proclamations for the other former Confederate states. In each case a state constitutional convention was to be chosen by the voters who pledged future loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. Johnson offered a pardon to all Southern whites except Confederate leaders and wealthy planters (although most of these subsequently received individual pardons), restoring their political rights and all property except slaves. Petitions for pardons came in by the hundreds and were given the presidential signature by the hundreds. By 1867 Johnson would issue 13,500 pardons.

  • He also outlined how new state governments would be created. Apart from the requirement that they abolish slavery, repudiate secession, and abrogate the Confederate debt, these governments were granted a free hand in managing their affairs. They responded by enacting the black codes, ( note the Black Code folder ) laws that required African Americans to sign yearly labor contracts and in other ways sought to limit the freedmen’s economic options and reestablish plantation discipline. Note the observation of journalist Sidney Andrews on the black codes: “the whites seem wholly unable to comprehend that freedom for the negro means the same think as freedom for them. They readily enough admit that the Government has made him free but appear to believe that they have the right to exercise the old control.” All told, Johnson’s self-reconstructed states chose for senators and representatives six Confederate cabinet officers and four generals. Back to the Black Codes, it defined as “vagrants” or “paupers” any freedperson who appeared unemployed and allowed local officials to bid them out as laborers for up to a year.  The first Black Code was enacted in Mississippi in an ironically titled piece of legislation: An Act to confer Civil Rights on Freedmen. This act required all African American men to present an annual labor contact in January each year. Failure to do so would result in classification as a vagrant and arrest. Workers who reneged on their annual contracts were treated as runaways who could be classed as vagrants. Even whites who associated with or assisted African Americans could find themselves arrested for vagrancy. The Mississippi code was quickly amended to include a clause which noted that “all white persons so assembling themselves with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, on terms of equality, shall be deemed vagrants.” The Black Code enacted in Mississippi became the model for others that followed, and South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana all introduced their own Black Codes in late 1865. In early 1866, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Arkansas all followed the leads of these states. Thomas W. Conway, the commissioner for the Freedmen’s Bureau in Louisiana noted in 1866, “These codes were simply the old black code of the state, with the word ‘slave’ expunged, and ‘Negro’ substituted. The most odious features of slavery were preserved in them.”

  • Johnson vetoed both the Freedman’s Bureau and the Civil Rights bills. He insisted that Congress pass no Reconstruction legislation until the Southern states were fully represented. Although the Senate failed by a single vote to override the Freedman’s Bureau bill (another measure, enacted in July 1867 extended the bureau’s life to 1870). Congress mustered the two-thirds majority to pass the Civil Rights Act.

Johnson assumed that ordinary white yeoman would replace in office the planters who had led the South in secession. He also ordered nearly all the land in the hands of the army and the Freedman’s Bureau returned to its prewar owners, an action that solidified his support among the South’s power class.

Despite the abolition of slavery, many former Confederates were not willing to accept the social changes. The fears of the mostly conservative planter elite and other prominent white citizens, however, were partly assuaged by Johnson’s assurance that wholesale land redistribution from the planters to the freedmen would not occur. Johnson ordered that land forfeited under the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which were passed by Congress and administered by the Freedmen’s Bureau, would not be redistributed to the freedmen, but instead returned to pardoned owners. African Americans strongly resisted the implementation of these measures, and they seriously undermined Northern support for Johnson’s policies.

Congressional Radical Reconstruction Plan

During the autumn of 1865, the Radical Republicans responded to the implementation of the Black Codes by blocking the readmission of the former rebellious states to Congress. Johnson, however, pushed to allow former Confederate states into the Union, if their state governments adopted the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery). The amendment was ratified by December 6, 1865, leading Johnson to believe that Reconstruction was over. Congress refused to seat the representatives and senators elected from the southern states, many of whom had been leading officials in the Confederate government and army.

The Radical-controlled Congress, however, rejected Johnson’s moderate presidential Reconstruction, and organized the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, a 15-member panel that devised Reconstruction requirements for the Southern states to be restored to the Union.

Congress continued to pass more radical legislation. The Radical Republican vision for Reconstruction, also called “Radical Reconstruction,” was further bolstered in the 1866 election, when more Republicans took office in Congress. During this era, Congress passed three important Reconstruction amendments. The Civil Rights Bill was passed in 1866, as noted above. No state could deprive any citizen of the right to make contracts. The Congress mustered the two-thirds majority to pass the bill over the President’s veto.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment, proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and granted them federal civil rights. The Fifteenth Amendment, proposed in late February 1869 and passed in early February 1870, decreed that the right to vote could not be denied because of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These amendments transformed the Constitution from a document concerned primarily with federal-state relations and rights of property into a vehicle through which members of vulnerable minorities could stake a claim to substantive freedom and seek protection against misconduct by all levels of government.

Congress also passed the Reconstruction Acts (1867-1868), Congress approved the acts in February 1867, and then on March 2 it overrode Johnson’s veto. Their principle task was to create an entirely new electorate in the South that carefully excluded recusant Confederates and their sympathizers among the white population and certified the enfranchisement of the freedman through the creation of vast registries of eligible voters.

The first Reconstruction Act placed 10 Confederate states under military control (dissolving the self-reconstructed governments that Johnson had set up) grouping them into five military districts that would serve as the acting government for the region. One major purpose was to recognize and protect the right of African Americans to vote. Under a system of martial law in the South, the military closely supervised local government, elections, and the administration of justice, and tried to protect office holders and freedmen from violence. Blacks were enrolled as voters and former Confederate leaders were excluded for a limited period. These Reconstruction Acts denied the right to vote for men who had sworn to uphold the Constitution and then rebelled against the federal government. As a result, in some states the black population was a minority, while the number of blacks who were registered to vote nearly matched the number of white registered voters. In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution—which would have to be approved by Congress—and that each state ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and grant voting rights to black men. One of the acts arrested on the premise that lawful governments did not exist in the South, and that Congress could govern the region until acceptable ones had been established, this is the act that temporarily divided the South into five military districts and led as noted above to the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  Union Leagues spread throughout the South in 1867. The organization had originated among middle-class northerners. The local leagues met in schools and churches, planned rallies and parades, and raised funds for mutual aid societies. Local leagues organized cooperative stores, advised freedmen on contract disputes with landowners and sometimes established their own courts to deal with community disagreements.

The Overthrow of Reconstruction 1869-1877

In 1868, the Republicans unanimously chose Ulysses S. Grant to be the Republican presidential candidate. Grant won favor with the Radicals after he allowed Edwin M. Stanton, a Radical, to be reinstated as secretary of war. As early as 1862, during the Civil War, Grant had appointed the Ohio military chaplain, John Eaton, to protect and gradually incorporate refugee slaves in west Tennessee and northern Mississippi into the Union war effort and pay them for their labor. Grant also opposed President Johnson by supporting the Reconstruction Acts passed by the Radicals.

President Grant’s Reconstruction Efforts

Grant was unanimously nominated by all 650 delegates, “with swinging hats and waving handkerchiefs” and a spontaneous chorus of “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” and went on in November, 1869 to win the presidency by 300,000 votes and a 214 to 80 victory in the electoral college. 3 Even before the election, congressional reconstruction was bringing Southern states back into the Union, this time firmly under Republican control. Between June 22 and July 15, Congress readmitted seven of the ten rebel states— Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North and South Carolina— under new constitutions. South Carolina’s constitution enfranchised any “resident of this State” who was also a “male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty- one years and upwards . . . without distinction of race, color or former condition,” and forbade the state legislature from passing “any law that will deprive any of the citizens of this State of the right of suffrage, except for treason, murder, robbery or dueling, whereof the persons shall have been duly tried and convicted.” And there was serious discussion of appealing to the federal government for a loan of $ 1 million to be used in buying land for the freedmen. “There is but one way to make a man love his country,” argued Franklin J. Moses, an ex- Confederate who had transformed himself into a Radical Republican, “Give them lands; give them houses.”

Immediately upon inauguration in 1869, Grant bolstered Reconstruction by prodding Congress to readmit Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas into the Union, while ensuring their constitutions protected every citizen’s voting rights. Grant met with prominent black leaders for consultation, and signed a bill into law that guaranteed equal rights to both blacks and whites in Washington, D.C.

By the early 1870’s biracial democratic government, something unknow in American history, was functioning effectively in many parts of the South, and men only recently released from bondage were exercising genuine political power. The most startling aspect of the new state governments was the role played by African Americans. Of the eighty- four Republicans in the lower house of the Georgia legislature, twenty- nine were black. In Arkansas, eight were black, and the average age was thirty- seven; five were biracial, three were ministers, three were farmers, and one was a postmaster. Florida elected fifty- three members to its lower house, thirty- seven of them Republican, and of those Republicans, seventeen were African American. In North Carolina, sixteen African Americans were elected to the state House of Representatives and three to the state Senate. As a group, they impressed a New York Times correspondent as possessing “by long odds the largest share of mental calibre.” By contrast, “there is scarcely a Southern white man” sitting in the state offices “who has character enough to keep him out of the Penitentiary.

During Grant’s two terms, he strengthened Washington’s legal capabilities to directly intervene to protect citizenship rights even if the states ignored the problem. He worked with Congress to create the Department of Justice and Office of Solicitor General, led by Attorney General Amos Akerman and the first Solicitor General Benjamin Bristow. Congress passed three powerful Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871. These were criminal codes which protected the Freedmen’s right to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. Most important, they authorized the federal government to intervene when states did not act. Grant’s new Justice Department prosecuted thousands of Klansmen under the tough new laws. Grant sent federal troops to nine South Carolina counties to suppress Klan violence in 1871.

Grant also used military pressure to ensure that African Americans could maintain their new electoral status, won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment giving African Americans the right to vote, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which gave people access to public facilities regardless of race. To counter vote fraud in the Democratic stronghold of New York City, Grant sent in tens of thousands of armed, uniformed federal marshals and other election officials to regulate the 1870 and subsequent elections. Democrats across the North then mobilized to defend their base and attacked Grant’s entire set of policies. On October 21, 1876, President Grant deployed troops to protect black and white Republican voters in Petersburg, Virginia.

Election of 1876

In the months following the Election of 1876, but prior to the inauguration in March 1877, Republican and Democratic leaders secretly hammered out a compromise to resolve the election impasse and address other outstanding issues.

Under the terms of this agreement, the Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:

  • To withdraw federal troops from their remaining positions in the South

  • To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South.

  • To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South

  • To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet.

Why did the Democrats so easily give up the presidency that they had probably legitimately won? In the end it was a matter of practicality. Despite months of inflammatory talk, few responsible people could contemplate going to war. A compromise was mandatory and the one achieved in 1877, if it had been honored, would have given the Democrats what they wanted. There was no guarantee that with Samuel J. Tilden as president the Democrats would have fared as well.

To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the “Great Betrayal." Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money.

Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected, and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.

The policies of Rutherford B. Hayes, America's 19th president, began to heal the nation after the ravages of the Civil War. Hayes had a reputation for being upstanding, moral, and honest, despite the controversial election.  Much of Hayes's 1877 inaugural address was devoted to calming down the citizenry. He quickly announced plans for election reform and pledged his earnest desire to heal the rift between North and South. Though he had generally supported Reconstruction, which aimed to secure the rights of black citizens, Hayes came to believe that interventionist policies were breeding more hatred among southerners, preventing the nation from healing itself in the aftermath of war.

Plessy vs Ferguson 1896

The 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson case was extremely important. It was a legal case in which the Supreme Court decided that "separate but equal" facilities satisfied the guarantees of 14th Amendment, thus giving legal sanction to "Jim Crow" segregation laws. The namesakes of the Plessy v. Ferguson case were the plaintiff Homer Adolph Plessy (1862 – 1925) and the defendant Judge John H. Ferguson (1838 - 1915) of the Criminal Court for New Orleans. In 1954, the Supreme Court justices in Brown v. the Board of Education reversed the decision made in the Plessy case by making the decision that legally sanctioned racial segregation was inherently unequal and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Conclusion- End of Reconstruction

Reconstructed ended when national attention turned away from the integration of former slaves as equal citizens enabling white Democrats to recapture southern politics. Between 1868 and 1877, and accelerating after the Depression of 1873, national interest in Reconstruction dwindled as economic issues moved to the foreground. The biggest threat to Republican power in the South was violence and intimidation by white conservatives, staved off by the presence of federal troops in key southern cities. Reconstruction ended with the contested Presidential election of 1876, which put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in office in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South.

What do you think of the Reconstruction era? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

The treatment of Native Americans in the US has a very difficult history. Here, Isabella Kim looks at how expanding to new areas in the early 19th century led to conflict between settlers and Native Americans.

A depiction of US Marines looking for Native Americans near mangroves during the Seminole War.

While the rapidly expanding United States pushed into the lower South in the early nineteenth century, white settlers encountered what they saw as an impediment. The Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations called this region home. However, the settlers and many other white Americans believed these Native nations were hindering their progress. As a result, the settlers pressured the federal government to take over Native territory because they were eager for land to grow cotton.

Andrew Jackson of Tennessee was a firm supporter of Native American removal. He led the American armed forces that overpowered a group of the Creek nation in 1814. The Creeks lost 22 million acres of territory in southern Georgia and central Alabama due to their loss. Then in 1818, the United States claimed even more land after Jackson’s troops invaded Spanish Florida, wanting to punish the Seminoles for harboring fugitive slaves. Jackson had a crucial role in nine of the eleven treaties that traded the southern tribes' eastern territories for areas in the west. The tribes approved the treaties because they sought to satisfy the government to keep some of their territories and shield themselves from harassment. The treaties gave the US power over most of Florida and Alabama and portions of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

Conflict

The five Native American tribes had resisted in the past, but many of their methods were non-violent. Adopting practices like industrial farming, Western education, and slavery was one strategy. They pursued this assimilation method to coexist with settlers and avoid conflict. Yet it enraged and irritated the settlers. Although many of the Native American’s strategies were non-violent, the Creeks and Seminoles went to war to protect their territory. The Seminole Wars were a series of three military conflicts between the United States and the Seminoles. In the first Seminole War from 1817 to 1818, under the order of Jackson, the United States invaded the area burning towns and capturing Spaniard territory.

The Cherokee sought to protect their rights through legal means. They adopted a written constitution in 1827 that declared themselves as a sovereign nation. Previously  Native American countries had been recognized as sovereign and therefore could legally cede their lands. Georgia, on the other hand, did not acknowledge their status as sovereigns and instead saw them as tenants living on state land. After hearing the Cherokee's case, the Supreme Court rejected the Cherokee's appeal. The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee, stating that the Cherokee had the right to self-govern. Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation known as the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress just a year after taking office. It gave the president the authority to negotiate removal treaties with Native American tribes east of the Mississippi. The Native Americans were supposed to surrender their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. However, those who choose to stay in the east would become citizens of their home state.

Removal treaty

The Choctaws were the first to sign a removal treaty in September 1830. Those who chose to stay in Mississippi under the terms of the Removal Act suffered from constant harassment from the settlers who moved into their territory or stole their belongings. Although the War Department attempted to protect those who stayed, many grew tired of the mistreatment, sold their land, and moved west.

For the next 28 years, the United States government struggled to force the relocation of the southeastern nations. Most of the Creeks and Chickasaws migrated west from 1837 to 1838 due to the failure of the government to maintain its promise of protecting the tribes from harassment. By the third Seminole War, the United States paid the remaining resisting Seminoles to move west. On the other hand, the Cherokee were tricked with a false treaty. A tiny faction of the tribe agreed to sign the removal agreement, the Treaty of New Echota. Over 15,000 members decided to sign a protest but were ignored by the Supreme Court, which ratified the treaty in 1836. The group was given two years to migrate until they would be forcibly removed. When the deadline came, only 2,000 members had migrated, leaving around 16,000 still on their land. Seven thousand troops were sent by the U.S. government, forcing the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were allowed no time to gather their belongings. This march west became known as the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease. As they left, the white settlers looted belongings from their homes.

What do you think of the treatment of Native Americans in the early 19th century? Let us know below.

Africa held an important place in the Cold War. Hardly had the nations there freed themselves from colonial bondage than they were suddenly made into a battlefield. It was here that the United States and Russia, who did not dare fight on a Europe that had already shed so much blood, fought for supremacy. The Soviet Union tried to appeal to Africans as fellow revolutionaries and paraded capitalism as the enemy. However, the new leaders understood that the Soviet Union would merely absorb Africa into a new colonial empire. Kennedy, though, appealed to the Africans’ newfound taste for democracy. These conflicts met head-on in the Congo Crisis, and the clashes, unlike in much of the rest of the world, were bloody.

Ayrton Avery explains.

US President Richard Nixon meets President Mobutu Sese Seku of Zaire in 1973 in the White House.

Tempting Ideologies

As soon as Ghana achieved independence in 1957, the people were turning to socialism. Guinea, which was also led to independence the following year, followed suit. The Soviet Union viewed these countries as a gold mine. They found similarities between Russian and African history, and thought the subsequent implementation of communism was only logical. However, Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s president, viewed things differently. He preferred a version of socialism that emphasized pan-Africanism, though he admired Russia’s ideology of Marxism-Leninism. This became the reason that the Russians had to fight for Africa, using diplomacy or otherwise.

Much later, during the Portuguese Colonial War (1961-1974) in Angola, Kennedy was tempted to take the stand against the colonizers, probably because he feared Soviet influence in that region. Like the Russians, he tried to appeal to the Africans ideologically. He preached anti-communist and democracy, at one point even meeting with the Angolan politician Holden Roberto. However, Africans viewed the United States as a colonial power and Europeans feared the Angolans would still turn communist despite U.S. support. In the end, the U.S. also had to fight for Africa.

Cold War Not-So-Cold

Naturally, clashes made up the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the U-2 Incident and others were ways the two powers tried to gain supremacy without resorting directly to the gun. However, this conflict was more than just political, it was also economic. The United States needed money to fund their own wars, while the Soviet Union itself was in an economic downgrade. The two nations saw Africa, rich in resources, as a source of funds and diplomatic superiority.

However, even with this, there was no genuine need for any wars in Africa to turn bloody. But, new African countries took Kwame Nkrumah’s (the first president of Ghana’s) lead in viewing the Soviets as a colonial power. These countries accepted money from both sides, all the while refusing to become allied with either. This, of course, pleased neither the Russians nor the Americans. Eventually, Americans got Guinea and Ghana more or less under their foot. But the Congo, which was a confused bag of warring factions in 1960, and also boasted Iron, Zinc, Copper and Tantalum, was even more tempting.

A Fight for Tantalum

In the Congo, no one was in power. Shortly after gaining its independence, a series of rebellions broke out between ethnic groups and those who supported the colonizers. At first, the United States blamed the socialist leader Lumumba for the fighting and refused to send forces at all. But then, the Soviets intervened in August 1960, setting the stage for yet another clandestine battlefield of the Cold War.

The United States put down the Communist secessionists, but soon new ones appeared, inspired by the Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Belgium and the United States intervened directly this time, realizing the threat. Bloody fighting began, provoked by Russia, China, the U.S., and Belgium, but eventually they crushed the Maoists as well, by the spring of 1965.

Although an authoritarian dictator was put in, ever since, the West, not the Soviet Union, have controlled the Congo and all its exports. The defeat also undermined Soviet influence in Africa, and resulted in most governments handing over power (indirectly) to the West. This was possibly one of the greatest factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians lost huge amounts of revenue as African nations slammed the Russians for not providing better support to the rebels. It also did not help that now the U.N. was giving money to the Congo’s corrupted and authoritarian leadership. Once again, the West had won on a major battlefield of the cold war.

Conclusion

Of course, the violence did not end. The Cold War was not yet over. Russia tried, and succeeded somewhat, to gain control in Angola. But the victory was not enough. The West had tightened its grip on the continent far too tight. After the 70s, though, instability in the continent soared. The First Congo War broke out. Then there was the Rwandan genocide. And the Second Congo War broke, leading into the 21st century. Much of the Diamonds and tantalum are now being sold to Russian mercenaries. The West never truly won in Africa, just like in Korea. It was all an illusion. Both powers have rendered the continent more or less useless for their goals.

What do you think of Soviet and America in Africa during the Cold War? Let us know below.

We have run the site for free for over a decade - if you enjoy the site and want to say “thank you”, donate today >>> Click here.

References

Elizabeth, Schmidt. Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Africa and the Communist World. Stanford University Press, 1963.

Nkrumah, Kwame. Challenge of the Congo. International Publishers, 1967.

William Reno. Warfare in Independent Africa. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Elbaum, Max. Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che. Verso Books, 2002.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Gettysburg Campaign was General Jeb Stuart’s absence until late in the battle. Stuart had been surprised by the Union cavalry at Brandy Station, and his ego was hurt by the criticism he received in the southern newspapers. Through early June, he had done a magnificent job screening Lee’s movement to the northwest. Stuart hankered to circumnavigate the Union army once again. Nevertheless, Lee gave Stuart orders on June 22, which have been controversial ever since. Lloyd W Klein explains.

J. E. B. (Jeb) Stuart.

The absence of Stuart's cavalry during critical stages of the Gettysburg Campaign contributed to a lack of crucial intelligence for Lee and resulted in a crucial communication gap.  Stuart's absence during the early stages of the Battle of Gettysburg left Lee without cavalry reconnaissance and intelligence, depriving him of valuable information about the Union Army's strength, positions, and intentions. This lack of intelligence significantly impacted Lee's decision-making process and contributed to the uncertainties he faced in the initial phases of the battle. It is frequently speculated that had Stuart been present to screen the front of Lee’s army, Lee wouldn’t have been surprised by the proximity of the Union army and the Battle of Gettysburg would have been much different.

The Early Stages of the Campaign

In the early phase of the campaign, Stuart brilliantly screened Union cavalry from determining the location and strength of Lee’s army and hence its direction and ultimate destination in several battles:
Battle of Brandy Station (June 9, 1863): This was the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War and took place near Brandy Station, Virginia. It occurred in the vicinity of the Rappahannock River.

Battle of Winchester (Second Battle of Winchester) (June 13–15, 1863): This battle occurred in Winchester, Virginia, which was a strategic town in the Shenandoah Valley. Confederate General Richard Ewell's forces defeated Union General Robert Milroy's garrison, securing control of the area.

Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863): The Battle of Aldie was part of the wider cavalry engagements known as the Battle of Middleburg, which occurred as part of the Gettysburg campaign. Union and Confederate cavalry clashed in fierce fighting as they vied for control of key positions.

Battle of Middleburg (June 17–19, 1863): The Battle of Middleburg took place near the town of Middleburg, Virginia. It involved both mounted and dismounted actions between Union and Confederate cavalry forces.

With this portion of the campaign over, Lee was ready to cross the Potomac River and enter Maryland. How he would deploy his cavalry was essential to his plan.

What did Lee Order?

The narrative begins on the morning of June 22, 1863, when Stuart asked Lee for guidance as to which route he should take while following the infantry into enemy territory. If he moved down the Shenandoah Valley west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, he might alert Union cavalry to Lee’s carefully screened advance. The alternative was to move east from Rector’s Cross Roads and cross the Potomac between Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker’s Union army and Washington, D.C. which  might throw the Federals into confusion.

In fact, two written orders were given to Stuart:

On June 22, the first written order instructed Stuart to take 3 brigades and cross into “… Maryland and take position on General Ewell's right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy's movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army."

On June 23, a second order was sent to Stuart, which gave further orders for movement depending on whether or not Hooker was moving.

On the night of June 23, a letter was sent. This letter has never been found, but it was received by Stuart’s adjutant, Major Henry B McClellan, who recalled the contents in detail after the war which gave Stuart discretion and even encouragement  to pass behind the Union army. The letter told Stuart he could move “if General Hooker’s army remains inactive” and simultaneously advised Stuart to enter Maryland west of the Blue Ridge Mountains or “pass around” the Federals east of the mountains and then “feel the right of Ewell’s troops.” Besides giving Stuart two different routes to take, Lee no longer was emphasizing the link up with Ewell and guard his flank.

Lee's instructions to Stuart were somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation. Moreover, the conflicting nature and ambiguity surrounding the route Stuart was expected to take contributed to the resulting misunderstanding.  Stuart was expected to guard the mountain passes with part of his force while the ANV was still south of the Potomac, and then to cross the river with the remainder of the army and screen the right flank of Ewell's Second Corps. Lee's specific orders to Stuart were to move northward, screen the Confederate army's right flank, and maintain contact with Lee's forces. Lee expected Stuart to gather information on the enemy's location, strength, and intentions, and to report back promptly.

Lee instructed Stuart to keep the Army of Northern Virginia informed of the movements and activities of the Union Army. Lee's orders emphasized the importance of timely and accurate information. He clearly wanted Stuart to leave enough cavalry behind to cover the mountain passes in the army's rear and cover Ewell's advance with the rest of his force. The order didn't give specifics how to do this, leaving Stuart much discretion as to how to accomplish these goals.

Stuart chose to accompany him his three best brigades, commanded by Brig. Gen. Wade Hampton, Brig. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, and Col. John R. Chambliss (replacing the wounded Brig. Gen. W.H.F. "Rooney" Lee). The brigades Stuart left behind included Imboden's Valley brigade temporarily attached to the army and more used to partisan activity and the two "regular" brigades of Robertson and Jones. Robertson was considered the weakest cavalry commander and Jones, while good, was appropriately nicknamed "Grumble" because he was not easy to get along with. Lee did not trust these brigades or their commanders as much as Stuart and the three brigades he took with him. Stuart sent General Robertson very specific orders as to what he was supposed to do.

Stuart sent his request for guidance to Lee through I Corps commander Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, who gave his recommendation on June 23: “I think your passage of the Potomac by our rear at the present will, in a measure, disclose our plans. You had better not leave us, therefore, unless you can take the route in rear of the enemy.” Later that day, Lee responded with his second order, stating: “If you find that he [Hooker] is moving northward, and that two brigades can guard the Blue Ridge and take care of your rear, you can move with the other three into Maryland, and take position on General [Richard] Ewell’s right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy’s movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army.”

Stuart's interpretation of these conflicting orders, combined with his own decisions, led to his prolonged absence from Lee's main army and the subsequent lack of reliable reconnaissance and communication. Lee expected Stuart to gather information on the enemy's location, strength, and intentions, and to report back promptly. However, Stuart's interpretation of the orders, combined with his desire for personal glory and the allure of circumnavigating the Union army, led him to engage in an extended raid around the Union forces rather than maintaining close contact with Lee's army as Lee had intended.

Stuart Starts Out

Stuart and his three brigades departed Salem Depot at 1 a.m. on June 25. At this moment, the Union army's movement north had begun. Thus, his route was blocked by Hancock’s II Corps, forcing him to veer farther to the east than either he or General Lee had anticipated. This prevented Stuart from linking up with Ewell, which was part of his mission.

Stuart's decision to capture a wagon train at Rockville, Maryland on June 28, 1863, was based on several factors. Stuart believed that seizing the wagon train would yield valuable supplies and provisions for the Confederate army. It could have provided them with much-needed food, ammunition, and other resources that would support their operations. Rockville is indeed extraordinarily close to the city limits even today, about 20 miles. Stuart claimed that that were it not for his fatigued horses "he would have marched down the 7th Street Road [and] took Abe & Cabinet prisoners.

Additionally, Stuart may have viewed the wagon train capture as an opportunity to disrupt Union supply lines and create panic and confusion among the Union forces. By inflicting damage and depriving the enemy of vital supplies, Stuart aimed to weaken the Union's logistical capabilities and potentially hinder their ability to respond effectively. Furthermore, capturing such a large wagon train could have boosted Confederate morale and showcased Stuart's cavalry as a formidable force. It might have been seen as a way for Stuart to demonstrate his effectiveness as a commander and regain his reputation, which had suffered due to the earlier criticisms in southern newspapers.

However, it's worth noting that Stuart's decision to prioritize capturing the wagon train instead of gathering critical intelligence on the Union army's movements further delayed his reunion with General Robert E. Lee's forces. Although this train would be a logistical hindrance to Stuart's advance, he interpreted Lee's orders as placing importance on gathering supplies. This is entirely consistent with Lee’s objectives and goals of the campaign, and his own actions.

Stuart then attempted to ride around the Union army, starting in its rear, which to his surprise, turned out to become its east flank as the Union army moved north to meet the threat.

What happened to Stuart?

Part of the reason for Stuart’s tardiness was that he was caught up in the rear and flank of the Union army. From the time he crossed the Potomac to arriving at Gettysburg required nearly 8 days of non-stop marching for over 200 miles and fighting nearly every day.  Stuart engaged in 4 skirmishes and 3 actual battles trying to make his way to find Ewell. Skirmishes occurred at Thoroughfare Gap June 25 , Fairfax Courthouse June 27, Rockville June 28, and Westminster June 29; Battles at Hanover June 30, Hunterstown July 2, and Carlisle July 2.. Few accounts of Stuart’s ride explains that he wasn’t lost or just lollygagging; he was in fact in real trouble and it took great shrewdness merely to get to Gettysburg at all with his command intact. His men marched incessantly for 8 days and nights.

Hooker’s movements during this time should not have been a surprise to him, Stuart sent a dispatch to General Lee on June 27 that Hooker had crossed the Potomac River. It never reached General Lee, but a copy did reach Richmond; no one there bothered to confirm this with the Commanding General.

Moreover, at least 5000 cavalry had been left behind with Lee. General Robertson the commander of that force knew that Hooker had crossed the Potomac June 25-27 but failed to inform Generals Longstreet and Lee. Further, despite the direct order by Stuart to join Lee in force when Hooker advanced, Robertson instead guarded mountain gaps and the baggage train and never arrived at the battle.

The ANV moves North

By June 27, 1863, General Lee had accomplished his objective of wrecking the B&O RR and was moving up the Cumberland Valley.  JEB Stuart had torn up telegraph lines and rail north of DC. Gen. Richard S. Ewell’s  forces, moving ahead of the main body of Lee’s army in south-central Pennsylvania, had already disrupted railroad operations on the Gettysburg Railroad east of Gettysburg and on the Northern Central Railway near York.

On June 30, Jubal Early, who would go on to blame every other Confederate general at Gettysburg for its loss, and was one of Stuart’s most vociferous critics after the war, heard the sound of the battle at Hanover. Yet, he did nothing to discover who was fighting, despite knowing that Stuart was supposed to be finding him. Maps show that Early was within 5 miles of the battle, and that had contact been made, Stuart could have been present at Gettysburg July 1.

Conclusion

General Lee gave Stuart vague and conflicting orders which modern historians believe he could not have achieved given Hooker’s interim movements. Had he given Stuart a specific route, though, or recognized that he would require the cavalry to perform reconnaissance, he should not have allowed Stuart to stray behind the Union lines.

Within the discretion General Lee gave to Stuart, Stuart can not be blamed entirely for his choice of mission or how he tried to accomplish it. No one had any idea that the Federal position was so fluid at precisely this time. The raid itself was somewhat successful, and in accordance with Lee’s orders.  Stuart was fortunate to be able to fight his way out of a trap of his own making.

However, the loss of the cavalry as reconnaissance at this critical moment must be blamed on Stuart.  He was not located to fulfill his obligations to inform Lee of the movement of the Union army. Lee, by his own fault, was as unaware of Hooker’s position as Hooker was of his as he moved north into Pennsylvania.

Stuart followed Lee’s orders but not perhaps in its spirit. Stuart’s raid did not deprive Lee of the cavalry needed to monitor his opponent’s movements. However, he left in command an officer who was not skilled enough to do so successfully.

He must share the blame for having affected the course of the campaign and the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg in his quest for glory and redemption.

What do you think of General Jeb Stuart’s absence? Let us know below.

Now, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the 1781 revolt of the comuneros. The revolt was an uprising in New Granada, modern dat Colombia and some of Venezuela. It happened due taxation increases, but importantly was seen as a sign of what was to happen in later years.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, the impact of José Morelos here, and the changes of the 1810s here, and Mexico’s sudden independence here.

Manuel Antonio Flórez, Viceroy of New Granada from 1776 to 1781.

New Granada: Colonial Afterthought

For Spain, New Granada was always a backwater. Lacking the gold of New Spain and the silver of Peru, New Granada was never a priority for colonial authorities. It was an afterthought and, when thought of, it was as a cash cow. By the late 18th century, the small amount of gold that had once been mined in the provinces of Popayán, Chocó, and Antioquia was all gone. It was a colonial posting on the ladder to other colonial postings.

The Spanish government had problems figuring out what to do about the colony. They could not even decide what constituted the colony. The Viceroyalty of New Grenada was created in 1719, dissolved in 1724, and recreated in 1739. Venezuela was bounced between New Spain and New Granada. The inland border was ill-defined, and the southern border with Peru was barely mapped.

The Bourbon Reforms attempted to bring order out of the disheveled mess that was Spanish colonial administration. This led to a series of competent viceroys arriving in the colony. Men such as Manuel Antonio Flores, Antonio Caballero y Góngora, and José de Ezpeleta, did show that they could progressively bring improvements to the colony. None stayed longer than seven years, however, preventing any long-term improvements.

Spain Humiliated

By the mid-1700s, Spain had been licking its wounds from a series of wars lost to Britain and her allies. Humiliation after humiliation was eroding the legitimacy of the empire. Every few years seemed to bring another defeat. The predator that was the First British Empire had caught the smell of death on what they saw as their prey, the Spanish Empire. During the War of Jenkins’ Ear, Admiral Vernon attempted to take New Granada from Spain. Although he failed in the attempt, it was a warning to Madrid that something had to be done in New Granada. The other lesson was that Britain needed to be put in its place.

The revolution in Britain’s American colonies presented an opportunity for revenge. This time, unlike in previous wars, the British were having problems subduing their colonies. French money, guns, and especially gunpowder had kept the rebels in the field. With the intervention of France in the American War of Independence, the British now had to suppress their colonies and defeat their ancient enemy. For the first time in decades, Britain seemed vulnerable. With Britain so distracted, perhaps Spain could finally defeat Britain and get back some of the territories that it had lost in previous wars, such as Gibraltar, Minorca, and Florida.

Allying with a rebellious colony was not acceptable to Spain. Allying with France, on the other hand, was old hat by the 1770s. Carlos III and the rest of the Spanish government were determined on going to war. This was a chance that perhaps would not occur again. However, to fight a war, you need money, something Spain did not have much of. Through centuries of gross mismanagement, Spain did not have enough money to defend its empire and fight yet another war with Britain. More money needed to be found, defenses had to be fitted quickly, and ships had to be built so that Spain would not miss its window of opportunity.

The Engine of War is Money

It was decided to increase taxes on the colonies. With little sense of proportion, these taxes were levied and fell very heavily on New Granada. Taxes on everyday commodities were (and still are) popular since the tax base is so broad; therefore, they increased taxes on tobacco. Brandy was taxed to get money from the wealthy and aguardiente was taxed to squeeze the poor. Import taxes were increased. Poll taxes were levied to make sure everyone paid their fair share. Laws against tax evasion were tightened and the authorities cracked down on smuggling, further increasing prices for those who could not afford it.

Smuggling was endemic in Spain’s colonies as the government had few funds to pay for the fleets and the army of customs officials needed to stop the smugglers. Now, Spain was building a fleet for war and this fleet could also be used to reduce smuggling as well as for coastal defense. More royal monopolies were created to bring revenue directly to the crown, but also, again, raising prices due to a lack of competition. That competition, the colonial-born middle classes and those who strive to better their lot through hard work and natural brilliance, were now shut out from yet another avenue to rise in society. Even the natives were not exempt. They had always been exempted from sales taxes. Now, the crown would tax all transactions.

The people were tired of mismanagement and now they had to pay for a war they neither wanted a part of nor cared about. A perfect storm was being created. A large empire was being distracted by a foreign war while at the same time driving discontent among the very people that were expected to support that war.

In early 1781, small acts of defiance throughout the colony began to coalesce into a larger movement. One of the biggest losers in the new taxes, the colony’s taverns, became hives of dissent as people grumbled about paying higher prices for the alcohol and tobacco that were, in many cases, the only outlets in their hard and dreary lives. Out of these taverns, people began organizing and choosing leaders. These organized bodies began to be known as communes.

Resistance Begins

North of Bogotá, Manuela Beltrán, a store owner from Villa del Socorro was growing more and more frustrated. An extreme anomaly in New Granada, Manuela was a woman who owned her own business. She was also able to read and write, which was exceptionally uncommon for the area as illiteracy was near-universal in the region. As one of the few people who could read, she took upon herself the duty of reading out newly published decrees to the people of her town.

On March 16, 1781, she read a decree on the new taxes that were decreed by the colonial government. As she read, the crowd began grumbling and showing its displeasure. Being angered herself, she tore down the proclamation to the cheers of the crowd. This act in itself was an act of treason, and the die was now cast. Manuela had started a rebellion.

The rising in Villa del Socorro led to armed uprisings in the surrounding areas. The people began striking throughout the area north of Bogotá. Their demands were familiar to colonial rebellions, the repeal of unwanted taxes, and colonial access to appointments in the administration. Surprisingly, they also called for the protection of traditional rights and privileges for the natives. This was a movement that had tapped into discontent among all social classes in the region. This led to a large force of disparate people coming together who had, hitherto, been divided along racial and class lines.

The rebels, now under the leadership of Juan Francisco Berbeo, began a march on Bogotá. The colonial authorities assumed that this was just a mass of angry peasants and sent a small force out to disperse the rebels. They did not know that the rebels now numbered in the 10,000-20,000 range. The colonial force was easily pushed aside.

Success!

Here was an existential threat. An army of this size could easily take Bogotá and potentially cause the whole colony to rise. Despite calling for help from other areas of the empire, the colonial authorities in Bogotá could not guarantee help would come. The American Revolution had transformed into a world war with battles being fought from North America to Africa to India.

If Bogotá fell, and with it New Granada, there was no guarantee that Spain would be able to retake the colony. The rebels could even potentially receive aid from the British in a bit of turnabout. Extreme measures had to be taken. Unexpectedly, brutal repression was not the chosen route. When the rebel army arrived just outside Bogotá, the colonial authorities decided to negotiate.

The rebels could scarcely believe their luck. The colonial authorities not only agreed with their grievances almost immediately, they also agreed to repeal all of the laws that caused such problems in the first place. The onerous taxes would be repealed. All these promises were not just made, the colonial authorities also agreed to put it all in writing! The dreams of the rebels had come true. Bad government would be removed from the colony, and everyone would live happily ever after. They had won. They had not even had to storm Bogotá, which would have probably been bloody for everyone concerned. This war for their rights was over. Everyone could go home.

The Inevitable Backlash

The rebel force now began to disperse. There was no reason to remain as a unified force since they had achieved everything they set out to do. Thinking they had won and letting their guard down, they moved toward home. Then the reinforcements the colonial authorities had called for (but not really expected) at the beginning of the rebellion arrived. The authorities that had made the agreement with the rebels had declared that, as an agreement made under duress is no agreement at all, it was all void.

The reinforcements were let loose on the now-dispersed rebels. City after city was occupied and known rebels were rooted out and executed. Through a reign of terror, people began selling out their neighbors to save themselves. A culture of denunciation further embittered the populace. All of the hated taxes were enforced as harshly as they could be as much out of a sense of vengeance as for maximizing revenue. Some of the rebels attempted to reconstitute themselves under the leadership of a man named José Antonio Galán. These would fight on for a while but would be captured and executed in the end.

A Sign of Things to Come

The Revolt of the Comuneros was a sad affair that left little but burning memories of hatred and grievance behind it. There were many parallels in it to the later rising under Hidalgo in New Spain. A charismatic leader leading a cross-class movement full of idealistic vigor marching on the capital. Like Hidalgo later, this group also hesitated when it was time to strike. Like their cousins to the north, the New Granadans probably could have taken their capital. They showed their naiveté by buying into everything the colonial authorities told them. It all seemed too good to be true—because it was. Like Hidalgo, the backlash was terrible and resulted in terrible death and destruction.

Unlike Hidalgo, the time was not right. Although the rebellion of the British North American colonies could have served as an example of something more, the elements of later rebellions were not there yet. The Spanish government was still intact, and in fact, would be part of the victorious alliance with France and the Dutch Republic during the American War of Independence. Spain still had the ability to project power and enforce its rule in the colonies. Though a rickety structure, the Spanish Empire would stand…for now.

What do you think of the Revolt of the Comuneros? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States, in office from 1829 to 1837. Many important events happened during his presidency, and here Richard Bluttal looks at Jackson’s policies towards Native Americans.

An 1820s portrait of Andrew Jackson, By Thomas Sully.

Early years of Westward Expansion

To understand the basic elements of the Indian Removal Act 1830, we need to first understand the status of the United States at this critical juncture in time. In the early 19th century, American settlers were moving toward the frontier at an alarming rate. As the coastal regions were beginning to crowd, southern and western lands were in high demand. This prompted pioneers to begin settling deeper into Native American territory.

White Americans, particularly those who lived on the western frontier, often feared and resented the Native Americans they encountered: To them, Native Americans seemed to be an unfamiliar, alien people who occupied land that white settlers wanted and believed they deserved.

Some officials in the early years of the American republic, such as President George Washington, believed that the best way to solve this “Indian problem” was to simply “civilize” the Native Americans. The goal of this civilization campaign was to make Native Americans as much like white Americans as possible by encouraging them convert to Christianity, learn to speak and read English and adopt European-style economic practices such as the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances in the South, enslaved persons).

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. Before that, he was a successful general in the War of 1812 and made many contributions to the country as a lawyer, judge, statesman, and war hero. Despite his illustrious career, Jackson remains one of the most controversial figures in American history over one issue alone—the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This monumental law would affect history like no other. It was developed for the purpose of moving Native American tribes from east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west.

Lately, Historians have been asking, why did Andrew Jackson have an extreme hatred for Native Americans, or it was all fictional. In 1813, Andrew Jackson sent home to Tennessee a Native American child who was found on the battlefield with his dead mother. This boy, Lyncoya, (1811-1828), may have originally been intended as merely a companion for Andrew Jr., but Jackson soon took a strong interest in him. Lyncoya was educated along with Andrew Jr., and Jackson had aspirations of sending him to West Point, as well. 

What Tennessee in its frontier days did not offer was an easy life. The people who came to Tennessee did not travel with a wealth of possessions. They possessed little and knew how to manage with what they had. To eat, they had to grow their food or hunt it. They had come to conquer the land, but Tennessee did not readily surrender to their efforts as they chopped down the trees and cleared the land for agriculture. The houses were rudimentary, with the family sharing common living space. But they had come not only for prosperity but freedom, and they were willing to work hard to raise children who would grow up in liberty.

The General

Jackson made himself available when military service called. He was brave and known early on as a bit wild so Tennessee was perfect for him. In 1802 was appointed major-general of Tennessee’s militia military service and stationed where troops were needed along the frontier

1813 he headed south, where he was victorious in battle, defeating the Native Americans at Tallushatchee and Talladega. Jackson was discovering that he had a flair for leadership and a knack for soldiering. With a force of 5,000, Jackson’s volunteers defeated the Creek warriors at Horseshoe Bend, bringing the Creek War to an end in March 1814. The United States needed a hero in the war of 1812, and Andrew Jackson was going to fit the bill very nicely.

Jackson heard that the British were planning to invade the South, he went to Mobile, Alabama to strengthen the city’s fortifications. He then, although he was not authorized to do so, invaded Florida, which belonged to Spain. His motive was to get to nullify the dangers of the tribes who were allied with Great Britain and hostile to the Americans. Jackson and his troops headed for Spanish Florida. Jackson captured Pensacola in November 1814 and then set off on the trail of the British, who were on their way to New Orleans. The Americans, consisting of a military force of regular U.S. troops, Tennessee militia volunteers, with militia from Kentucky, Louisiana and the Mississippi Territory, free blacks, Native Americans, Creoles and even a band of pirates, were outnumbered.The British invasion began on December 14. On December 23, Jackson’s forces halted the advance of the British troops, initiating two weeks of battle as the British sought a way through Jackson’s defenses to reach New Orleans. On January 8, a full- scale attack by the British was launched. Jackson’s forces were outnumbered two- to- one at the battle. They were not a cohesive fighting unit. Despite these drawbacks, on January 8, 1815, Jackson’s 5,000 soldiers defeated the mighty forces of the British at the Battle of New Orleans, forcing the expert soldiers of the British Empire to withdraw from Louisiana. New Orleans was saved, the peace treaty between the United States and Great Britain had already been signed in Belgium, but slow communication prevented Jackson from knowing that his battle victory was unnecessary. The Treaty of Ghent had brought the war to an end several weeks before Jackson’s conclusive victory, although it would not be ratified by Congress until February 16, 1815. It was not, however, unappreciated. His military prowess also did much to boost the confidence of a very young country which had no longstanding military heritage to boast of, as did its European counterparts. The world saw, through Jackson’s boldness, that his reputation was well known to the tribes, and the Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws signed treaties which left them with significantly reduced land while the United States was able to increase its territory. What would benefit the Americans the most would be the undoing of the tribes, who would eventually be forced to leave their ancestral homes.

In 1817, Jackson returned to military leadership during the First Seminole War. In 1805 thru 1816 there was increasing friction between white settlers, Florida Native Americans and the Creek Confederation. The Seminoles began hiding runaway slaves who had escaped from southern plantations into Spanish Florida. In March of 1818 General Andrew Jackson crossed into Florida attacking the Spanish fort at St. Marks with 3, 500 men and then marched east to the Suwanne River and attacked the village of Chief Boleck. Many Native Americans escaped into the swamps. Jackson was unable to find or capture the Seminoles thus ending the First Seminole Indian War.

His success in military ventures brought more land to the growing nation, but by securing so much land, a new crop, which would thrive in the southern soil, would eventually bring both prosperity and tragedy to the region: cotton became the dominant agricultural produce in the South. It would, ultimately, expand the number of enslaved peoples, creating an irreparable division between North and South that would only be solved by war.

Jackson’s Presidency

The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress on this day in 1830 and signed by President Andrew Jackson two days later. The act called for the removal of Native Americans residing within state borders in the East to a newly created Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma and parts of Nebraska. The goal was to free up state lands for white settlers, particularly in the Southeast, where a growing population clamored for access to agriculturally rich land on which to grow cotton.

While some members of each affected tribe—which included the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—left voluntarily, most refused to leave and fought back, through physical and legal means.

Jackson was much more tolerant toward the issue of state’s rights when the state of Georgia claimed millions of acres of land that, according to federal law, belonged to the Cherokee tribe. The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no authority over the tribal lands, but Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. The Cherokees began to try to assimilate. Moravian missionaries taught the Native Americans how Europeans lived, farmed, and worshiped. The Cherokee, along with the Creeks, Chickasaws, Seminoles, and Choctaw, became known as the Five Civilized Tribes for their efforts. The Cherokees adopted a constitutional government and developed a written language, further adopting the ways of the white man. But for Americans, and particular for Georgians, this was futile. All they knew or cared to know was that Native Americans were savages. More to the point, these savages owned land that Americans coveted. One of the foundations of Jackson’s presidency was the  goal of removing all Native Americans in the Southeast, a goal which was part of the motivation for the 1830 Indian Removal Act. The Cherokees did not meekly submit. Using the political knowledge they’d gained by studying the white man’s ways, they sent their chief, John Ross, a mixed- blood Cherokee who spoke English and learned the law, to Washington D.C. to plead their cause. But when the Congress failed to be receptive, they took their case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with Ross’ arguments, and the Court ruled that the federal government, not the states, held authority over the Cherokee nation. Jackson paid no attention and supported Georgia in its activities against the Cherokee.

Cherokees had three years to move west. Jackson wanted the Native American lands, but he had other goals which he pursued passionately as well. In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot (some “bound in chains and marched double file,” one historian writes), and without any food, supplies or other help from the government.

Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a “trail of tears and death.”

The Native American removal process continued. In 1836, the federal government drove the Creeks from their land for the last time: 3,500 of the 15,000 Creeks who set out for Oklahoma did not survive the trip.

Jackson Returns to Tennessee

Just as Jackson seemed to exemplify the vigor and energy of the new country, he was also an innovator to the office of the presidency. He was the first president to ride a train and the second to be photographed. The White House that he left, with indoor toilets and running water that had been added during his tenure, was a more modern building than it had been when he moved in. He had done much to transform the office he had occupied, both politically and aesthetically.

Jackson’s Legacy

Jackson believed in the common man, not the elite. His presidency supported democracy as he believed it was meant to be practiced, not as the province of the rich and powerful, but as the birthright of ordinary people. It was the people Jackson held, who had the power to shape the nation. Historians may doubt the morality of his effect, but no one can contest the concrete results of his presidency. He paid off the national debt, expanded the boundaries of the nation, issued a new currency, and made America’s ties with foreign nations stronger. He was also, in an abstract way, one of the architects of the American myth. If a man proved himself willing to work hard, he could not only succeed in this new country, but he could rise to a position of power. In the nations of the Old World, where inherited land and titles dictated the path to empowerment, there was no fresh blood infusing upward mobility. Americans believed, because they had witnessed the process in men like Jackson, that a man could be born with nothing, but could profit himself by applying himself to the endless task of building his country.

Jackson was not, however, a visionary: slavery continued to be an economic factor, rather than a moral quagmire, for Jackson’s era. Native Americans lost more and more territory and sovereignty as the young country expanded at the expense of the natives who had been there first. The movements that would soon blossom in support of the abolition of slavery and the rights of women were on the horizon, but under Jackson, society was dominated by white men who wielded the power. Jackson saw nothing wrong in awarding government offices to his supporters and replaced many of these officials with his own people, beginning what would become known as the spoils system. He was, in this instance, true to his Southern beliefs, as he supported the rights of the states over the federal and judicial authorities. He used his veto power without a qualm, vetoing more bills than had all of the previous presidents combined. He opposed legislation which threatened slavery, supported the availability of cheap public lands, and refused to recognize the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the rights of the Native American tribes.

For better or for worse, the Age of Jackson imbued the young nation with the raw ingredients it would need to reach its potential. The country believed in its power to do whatever it wanted to do; very different from the established, traditional model of nations long settled into their routines.

What do you think of Andrew Jackson’s Native American policies? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.

This three-part series takes on one of America's most important founding fathers, John Adams. John Adams’ contributions to the founding, development, and success of the United States was unrivaled by others of his generation. In this series, I will examine John Adams’ life and contributions to the United States from three perspectives. First, John Adams the patriot here. Second, John Adams the diplomat here. Third, John Adams the Statesman.

Here, Avery looks more closely at John Adams as a statesman and president.

A portrait of John Adams, c. 1792/93.

Introduction

At the time of John Adams appointment to Britain, he had served in the diplomatic service for nearly eight years, and on June 1, 1785, that service would culminate into the great crescendo of his diplomatic career. Because on this day, Adams had his first audience with King George III, the King that multitudes bled and died to obtain freedom from. In this meeting, Adams tells King George of his honor to serve in his position, and his hope of restoring an amicable relationship between two nations that “though separated by an ocean and under different governments, have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.” King George responded in kind, assuring Adams that he was only doing his duty in prosecuting the war in America, but accepted the end of the conflict and the results of that conflict. Additionally, assuring Adams that he was thankful it was him who received the appointment. And it was with this that the meeting ended, and Adams penultimate diplomatic moment came to an end. However, it was only the beginning of the legacy he would leave as a statesman.

London

Despite missing the friends, home, and community that they had grown to love in Paris, Adams' family quickly adapted to life in London.  Abigail and Nabby attended the Queens drawing room, showing that Mr. Adams was not the only diplomat in the family. Additionally, the family moved into a home at Grosvenor Square and began their life in London in earnest. The family regularly attended church, and John Adams was able to reunite with friends that fled the revolution in America for their home nation.

The task at hand was a difficult one, and Adams was frequently attacked in the press (likely by loyalists in London) for being ill-suited for his station as minister. The task given to Minister Adams was nearly impossible due to the position of strength of Britain and the immense struggles that America was facing. Adams had to find a way to open trade with Britain, but first he had to make the British willing to meet at the negotiating table. The British did not need trade with the United States, but they knew that America desperately needed trade with Britain and its other territories. Because of this, Britain slowed down negotiations or simply did not meet with Adams at all. In doing so, Britain maintained firm control as the leading trader in the world. Additionally, the British were reluctant to abandon military forts in North America, a direct violation of the Treaty of Paris. Adams would attempt to resolve this problem as well; however, it would not truly be resolved until many years later in the Jay Treaty.

An additional hindrance to trade was the Barbary states of North Africa, or the Barbary Pirates, comprising Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, and Tripoli. Pirates from these North African states raided American shipping in the Mediterranean, greatly damaging American trade abroad, and forcing insurance rates to skyrocket. Cash payments were required to the various states, called tribute, and had formerly been paid by Britain when the colonists were under the crown's protection. But now, with their newfound independence, America was required to pay up - or fight. This was made clear in July of 1785 when two American ships were seized by the Barbary state of Algiers. The sailors aboard these ships were enslaved and kept in terrible conditions. Congress allocated funds to be made available for the negotiation of tribute to the nation, however it was a paltry sum compared to the likely price of tribute - as Adams was soon to find out.

Adams, in a tobacco smoke and coffee fueled meeting, discussed the prospect of tribute with the Envoy of the Sultan of Tripoli, His Excellency Abdrahaman. In this meeting, Abdrahaman informed Adams that America and Tripoli were at war, and this war would only be ended by a peace treaty - and money. Adams quickly dashed off a letter to Thomas Jefferson in Paris imploring him to come to London and assist with Barbary negotiations. Jefferson arrived in March of 1786, and the two soon met with Abdrahaman, being informed that peace would cost roughly 30,000 guineas as well as 3,000 pounds sterling for himself. A sum that was only a small portion of what peace would cost for all of the Barbary states. In later conversations, Adams and Jefferson debated the appropriate course of action regarding tribute. Jefferson in favor of immediate war, and not a penny spent for tribute. Conversely, Adams felt strongly that a Navy was necessary to ensure America was not extorted but felt that for time it was best to pay the tribute.

The Constitution

Adams, seeing the changes occurring in American government and a constitutional convention occurring soon, set off to write a document that would explain and defend what he felt was the best course of action for America to adopt regarding a constitution. The document was titled A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, and was ready for print in January of 1787. The document focused heavily on the government being broken into three branches each with checks and balances over the others. The work was praised by Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, with both stating that it should be used as a framework for the constitutional convention. Amazingly, even James Madison, one rarely to compliment Adams, stated that the work had merit. Adams soon received a copy of the constitution he had dreamt of and was disappointed in the lack of a “declaration of rights,” but was overall pleased with the document. Jefferson was less sanguine about the constitution, specifically the role of the President and the power he would wield.

Bound for Boston

Adams and Abigail knew it was time to wrap up their years of service abroad, as they had accomplished all that they felt they could in London. Adams requested he be recalled to America but was informed he needed to travel to Holland one more time. He would negotiate another loan, in addition to formally relinquishing his title.

On June 17, 1788, Adams and his family sighted the Massachusetts shore for the first time in years, and were shortly ashore greeted by cheering friends, family, and admirers all excited to welcome home the diplomat from London. Much of the first weeks were taken up with reunions, meetings, lodging arrangements, and unpacking. But all the while, there was talk of Adams for a multitude of government positions from governor, judge, and vice president. However, the most likely position was that of vice president. Adams stated, albeit not publicly, that he would accept the vice presidency and nothing less. The election of 1789 was different from the US elections that we know today, in which the popular vote determines the electors for a specific state and candidate. Electors were employed for the purpose of casting a vote for a candidate, just as they are today, but these electors were chosen by the state legislatures - each casting two votes. The individual with the most votes became president and the second most was named vice president. This system worked well in the first two elections; however, it would eventually be changed as a result of the election of 1800.

Vice President

The final count of the 1789 election was a unanimous choice (69 electors) for George Washington as president. And, 34 electors voted for Adams, who was deeply hurt by receiving less than half the vote - although still enough votes for him to easily win the title of vice president. Despite his initial frustration at the overall outcome, Adams was proud to be the first vice president of the United States. Much as he had for each of his prior positions in government, Adams was nervous about his ability to ably perform his duties. These nerves led him, on April 21 when sitting before the Senate for the first time to remark, that he would do his best to allow open debate on the senate floor, and only interject when he felt it necessary, treat all members with requisite cordiality, and attempt to uphold the honor of his office.

Shortly after Adams assumed his role of vice president, he accompanied Washington to the dais of Federal Hall in New York to receive his oath of office as the first president of the United States on April 30, 1789. And with this, the first constitutional government of the United States commenced in full.

During Adams time in the senate, he oversaw many difficult discussions, and led debate on a variety of issues with both domestic and international significance. Some of these issues, such as the title that should be held was Washington, were of small concern and were made into larger issues than was truly necessary (largely by Adams - who felt that titles were important to encourage the best candidates to accept public office). He also directed the Senate on such issues such as the assumption bill, created by Alexander Hamilton, which would allow the federal government to assume the debts of the 13 states. Also, Adams oversaw debate on the new location of a capital, with the government temporarily moving to Philadelphia before its permanent location on the Potomac River in Virginia. Adams was also vice president during the early years of the French Revolution, and the storming of the bastille prison in reaction to the difficult political, economic, and social condition of the French citizenry.

Second Term

In 1792, Washington and Adams were elected to another term in office. Washington was again unanimously elected (132 votes), with Adams receiving 77 electoral votes.  A much higher margin than in the previous election. Little did the two know that the next four years would be more dubious and treacherous than the prior four years. Largely, this was due to the French Revolution, and the uproar that it caused in France, America, and in Washington's cabinet. Jefferson was a supporter of the French, and the remainder of the cabinet (specifically Hamilton) were supporters of the British. Cabinet relationships would be further strained due to the arrival of Edmund Charles Genêt as the French Minister to the United States. Genêt, arriving in South Carolina, spent an excessive amount of time attempting to drum up support for American involvement on the side of France during the war. The cabinet, including the supposed Francophile Jefferson, became furious with this attempt to end American neutrality, sending word to France requesting his recall. Eventually, Washington granted Genêt asylum as he was facing death for his actions in America.The controversy over banking, the French, assumption, and other issues isolated Jefferson, as he was the only non-federalist member of the cabinet. He attempted to resign many times, with Washington finally relenting and accepting his resignation. Jefferson left office December 31, 1793. Despite his differences with the cabinet, Jefferson had been very successful in his position as Secretary of State, and his resignation ended the continuity heretofore seen in the government.

Adams often felt that his position was useless, and he had no real work of any consequence. This led to periods of melancholy that were evident in his correspondence and in his public appearance. However, his mood nearly almost always improved at the mention of his family. Specifically, Adams was always eager to hear about the progress of his eldest son, John Quincy Adams. The two had become very close during their time together overseas, spending more time together than with any other members of their family. And, in May of 1794, Adams' pride was evident at the appointment of John Quincy Adams to be U.S Minister to the Netherlands. With this, John Quincy began a diplomatic career that was only rivaled by his fathers.

Adams was very pleased at having his son in the foreign service, however other diplomatic relationships were not as favorable. The Jay treaty was signed in London, in which John Jay was attempting to resolve long standing issues that Adams had attempted to resolve during his time there.  However, Jay achieved very little that Americans desired, left many issues unresolved, and only gained a few small “crumbs” associated with trade and the vacating of troops from American Forts. Americans were furious with the treaty, bemoaning the lack of protection for sailors, lack of open and free trade, and concessions made on behalf of the American delegates. However, the treaty, Adams felt, was the best that could be obtained at the time. The country was in an uproar regarding the treaty, with many hoping Congress would not ratify it. Tempers were so high that Jay was burned in effigy across the country. Despite objections, Congress eventually ratified the treaty, despite its flaws as they too felt it was the best that could be achieved.

In the summer of 1796, Adams retired to his home to enjoy tranquility and peace before the end of his term as vice president. He and Abigail knew it was possible, if not likely, that he would become president, sending them into another few years of hard labor for the country they so dearly loved. Adams ended his sojourn at his home in December of 1796 and returned to Philadelphia. When he arrived, the news was all about the election. Reports changed daily with the winner being reported as Jefferson one day and Adams another. Adams was reluctant to believe he would be president, but it soon became apparent that he would be the next president of the United States.

President

On March 4, 1797, John Adams became President John Adams, which represented the final act to a lifelong commitment to the nation. Adams inauguration was a sad one for many, because it was the end of George Washingtons’ leadership of the nation. Washington had been the de facto leader since the early years of the revolution, but the government was now in the hands of Adams and Jefferson. And trouble started after a short, calm period in which bipartisanship appeared to be possible. The French Revolution was in full swing, and the Directory (the five-member governing council of France) took the Jay treaty to be a commercial and military alliance between the two nations. Which would be in direct violation to the Treaties signed by America during their own revolution. Adams needed to send a commission to France in order to work out the issues that were plaguing the nations. He spoke to Jefferson about sending James Madison, but Jefferson informed him that it was unlikely Madison would accept. Eventually, Jefferson spoke to Madison on the issue - receiving the expected “no”. When he relayed this to Adams, Jefferson was informed Adams had a change of heart, and he was not to send Madison anyway. Jefferson took this to mean he was taking orders from the high Federalists and would not be independent or willing to allow democrat-republicans to serve in high level positions. At this moment, Jefferson and Adams ended all correspondence, and no longer worked alongside each other as they had done for so much of their careers.

Despite this damaged relationship, Adams still had a responsibility to resolve issues with the French as peacefully as possible. Adams' best efforts were all foiled when the French refused to meet with the newly appointed Minister to France, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. The directory was furious with the Jay Treaty, and began issuing letters of marque to French privateers allowing them to raid American shipping and capture vessels. This naval tension escalated and eventually became a quasi-war.

Due to Frances’ response, Adams sent Elbridge Gerry and John Marshall to accompany Pinckney in Paris in an effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Quasi-war, and to restore trade among the two nations. However, the ministers would not be welcomed by the ministry without first paying three intermediaries – Jean Conrad Hottinguer ( X), Pierre Bellamy (Y), and Lucien Hauteval (Z), a large sum of money, money to the French Ministry, and a loan to the French government. The ministers refused to do so, and thus were not allowed discussions regarding peace. When word reached Adams, he was seething over the treatment of American ministers. He immediately requested that Congress make funds available for American defense in the event that war broke out. Congress gave Adams everything he asked for, allowing for defenses to be constructed, arming of merchant ships, and the building of a Navy.

During this time, Adams was very popular, and was riding high on a wave of patriotism not seen since the revolution. However, war fever caused him to support the alien and sedition acts, which violated the first amendment rights of Americans in limiting speech about the government and government officials. However, many prominent members of society, including George Washington, felt that it was beneficial that libelous publications and individuals be treated harshly. Pushback on the act was strong and led to a decrease in Adams overall approval. Fortunately for Adams, reactions were calmed by the fear of war and thus allowed him some grace that he would have been unlikely to receive at other times in history.

Another preparation for war was Adams' appointment of George Washington to commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Adams felt that Washington was the best suited American to fill this role, but his plans were soon hijacked by Alexander Hamilton when George Washington appointed him second in command. Adams was skeptical of Hamilton and felt that he was a “designing man.” Because of this, Adams did not want to see Hamilton in such a prominent place but was faced with little choice as Washington would not continue in the position without this arrangement. Adams' frustration at this was cooled by the news from Elbridge Gerry informing Adams that peace with France was possible, and the directory is willing to accept ministers from the US.

Despite the potential calm, Adams had Washington continue military buildup, in the event of war breaking out in earnest. In a final effort of peace, Adams appointed William Vans Murray to be minister plenipotentiary to France along with Oliver Ellsworth and William Davie as peace commissioners on October 16, 1799. The commissioners sailed for Paris on November 15, 1799.

In May of 1800 one of Adams' most difficult administrative issues came to a head in an explosive verbal tirade directed at Secretary of War James McHenry. Adams had felt that his cabinet (specifically McHenry and Pickering) frequently worked for the interest of Alexander Hamilton and the high federalists more than for himself or the nation. After this fiery meeting, Adams requests his resignation, as well as that of his secretary of state, Timothy Pickering. Adams felt that both were attempting to disrupt peace negotiations with France and hoped for all-out war - something he despised. With the termination of Pickering, Adams wisely selected John Marshall to serve as his new secretary of state.

Election of 1800

The election of 1800 was nothing like the prior three elections and showed errors in the American electoral system that were merely masked by the steadying presence of George Washington. With Washington's absence, party differences came to a head, leading to a cutthroat election. Hamilton, still angry about Adams' termination of Pickering and McHenry, worked tirelessly to end his career. Even releasing a pamphlet questioning his intelligence, character, and ability to serve. Hamilton's interference likely had a role in the final result of the election. The election results were tight with Jefferson and Aaron Burr receiving 73 votes, and Adams receiving 65.

This meant that Adams' career was effectively over. However, he received news in late 1800 that peace with Paris was achieved. This allowed Adams to exit office with a firm conscience that he had done his duty as president. Finally, in a last act as president, Adams made the controversial appointment of midnight judges and appointed John Marshall to the position of Chief Justice - replacing the resigning Oliver Ellsworth. Some of these appointments would not be maintained, but Adams' appointment of Marshall became one of the most important decisions of his career as it helped to shape the identity of the highest court in the nation.

John Adams departed Washington on March 4, 1801, never to return again as he left Thomas Jefferson to take the reins of government. Eventually after both men retired from politics, they began to correspond again, rekindling the friendship that grew in Philadelphia and Paris. Providentially, on July 4, 1826, John Adams died just hours after his friend Jefferson. The two men hoped to live to see one final Independence Day, to which they were both successful. On this day, America lost not one, but two of the greatest statesmen that have ever served the American public.

What do you think of John Adams as a statesman? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on the role of privateers in the American Revolution here.

Major General George G. Meade, a Union general during the American Civil War, has a reputation that has been historically criticized and misunderstood. Despite his important contributions at the Battle of Gettysburg and his cautious approach to warfare, he faced criticism for not aggressively pursuing and defeating Lee's army. Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major General George Gordon Meade.

During the war, Meade’s poor relationships with the press of his time and his secondary role under Grant further damaged his post-war reputation. However, modern appraisals recognize his competence and tactical acumen, including his appreciation for advancements in weapons technology. Meade's campaigns after Gettysburg, such as the Fall 1863 campaigns and the Overland Campaign, showcased his abilities as a general. While Grant's strategy ultimately led to victory, Meade played a crucial role in positioning his army to implement Grant's vision and should be credited for his contributions to the Union's success. It doesn’t help that the Overland Campaign was directed by Grant and that his victory at Gettysburg is typically considered a one-off.  The misunderstanding of the Williamsport circumstance will probably never be repaired.

Meade took command of the Union Army just a few days before the Gettysburg battle. General Meade commanded the Union Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg, and is regarded as a competent and capable general. Meade's leadership both preparing for and during the Battle of Gettysburg is often praised. He successfully organized his forces and made critical decisions that ultimately led to a Union victory in that significant battle. His strategic positioning and defensive preparations played a crucial role in repelling numerous Confederate attacks.

He faced Lee in two other campaigns in Fall 1863. They did not succeed.  For this, given that Grant won the war the year after, he is universally, but unfairly, criticized as another Union general hack. Yet few Civil War aficionados have studied these campaigns in much detail.

Meade was a competent general and a modest man. He was thorough, methodical and cautious; his engineering background had made him someone who planned his maneuvers carefully.

However, Meade's tenure as the overall commander of the Army of the Potomac was not without criticism. Some argue that he missed opportunities for more aggressive action and failed to decisively pursue and defeat General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army after the Gettysburg victory. Additionally, his cautious approach in subsequent campaigns, such as the Mine Run Campaign, drew criticism from his superiors.

Overall, while Meade's leadership at Gettysburg demonstrated his ability as a competent general, opinions on his overall performance during the Civil War vary among historians and military experts. A great deal of the bias we today have against Meade has its origins in the Congressional Investigations after Gettysburg. We today have the impression that Grant was brought east to supervise Meade and we therefore think that Grant held him in contempt

His post bellum reputation was damaged by his poor relationships with the press of his time, and his secondary role under Grant in 1864. We today have the impression that Grant was brought east to supervise Meade and we therefore think that Grant held him in contempt. The damaging consequences of the controversy arising from Gettysburg with General Sickles has also been damaging. Modern appraisals recognize Meade’s important contributions at Gettysburg.  His tactics in the field were one of the few that showed an appreciation for the improvements in weapons technology in the war:  he entrenched when feasible and did not launch frontal assaults on fortified positions.

Gettysburg Aftermath: Williamsport

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the retreating Confederate troops and ambulance train occupied Williamsport. The retreat required an active rear guard defense and was mainly carried out in the rain. ,Meade was widely criticized for failing to pursue aggressively and defeat Lee's army after Gettysburg. Although Lincoln and Stanton insisted on his following Lee, Meade may have been justified in not attempting a rapid pursuit.

At the three-day battle at Gettysburg, Meade's forces had suffered heavy casualties, and he needed time to regroup, reorganize, and resupply his army. The Army of the Potomac  (AoP) had sustained over 20,000 casualties including the loss of many of its best officers, including three corps commanders.  Attacking immediately after Gettysburg would have put additional strain on his troops and risked further losses.

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the retreating Confederate troops and ambulance train occupied Williamsport. Expecting to cross over the pontoon bridge they had constructed to get to Maryland, Lee had not been informed that a cavalry raid on July 4 had destroyed the bridge. Moreover,  there had been many days of rain after the battle, causing the Potomac River to rise. The Confederate Army was therefore trapped by the impassible Potomac. Under the direction of Brig Gen John Imboden, during the Confederate retreat, the wagon trains with thousands of wounded soldiers were escorted back to Virginia., Lee had not reached the town until a couple of days after an important cavalry attack that Imboden defended against. Imboden successfully managed to retreat and gather his forces, despite harassment from Union cavalry, to create defensive works against Union assault. Imboden was assigned to leading the ambulances, subsistence trains and cattle plundered during the campaign back to Virginia, with the active army in the rear as protection. When Lee arrived in Williamsport, he found the bridge out, the fords impassable, and no way to get over the river.

Meade chose not  to attack Lee in his trenches, believing the position could not be successfully breached. Attacking a well-entrenched enemy in this defensive position across a wide open field would have been a highly risky endeavor, potentially resulting in heavy casualties for Meade's forces.

Thirdly, Meade faced logistical challenges and supply issues. His army relied on a long and stretched supply line, and engaging in a major offensive action immediately after Gettysburg would have put additional strain on the already taxed supply system. Meade needed time to replenish his ammunition, food, and other essential supplies before considering another large-scale attack.

Expecting to cross over the pontoon bridge they had constructed to get to Maryland, Lee had not been informed that a cavalry raid on July 4 had destroyed the bridge. Moreover,  there had been many days of rain after the battle, causing the Potomac River to rise. The Confederate Army was therefore trapped by the impassible Potomac. Imboden was assigned to leading the ambulances, subsistence trains and cattle plundered during the campaign back to Virginia, with the active army in the rear as protection. When he arrived in Williamsport, he found the bridge out, the fords impassable, and no way to get over the river.

Expecting an attack, Brigadier General John D. Imboden set up defensive positions along the crest of a ridge about one-half mile from Williamsport on July 6. Arriving at Williamsport, Imboden found the pontoon bridge destroyed, and Federal cavalry attacked the wagon train of wounded. On July 6, 1863, the Potomac River flooding at Williamsport, Maryland, trapped Imboden's wagon train. He put together a defensive force that included an artillery battery and as many of the wounded who could operate muskets.

Late in the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Union cavalry under the command of Brigadier General John Buford arrived east of Williamsport, flanking the town. Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick took a different route that took him down the main road.  At sundown Union Brigadier General George A. Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" arrived to fight but were quickly withdrawn.

By July 7, Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden stopped Brig. Gen. John Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains. On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Meade chose not  to attack Lee in his trenches, believing the position could not be successfully breached.

Congressional Investigation of Gettysburg

In a 1961 article, The Strange Reputation of General Meade, Edwin Coddington wrote that Sickles’ attacks on Meade “greatly contributed to an unfavorable opinion of him as a commanding general, which has persisted to this day.” Coddington concluded that, “Sickles’ persistence in continuing his feud long after Meade’s death in 1872 had deep and lasting effects on publicists and historians of the battle,” and that “Sickles achieved a large measure of success” in his campaign to sully Meade’s name.

When Meade denied a request by Sickles to return to command, Sickles sought revenge. In February 1864, he went before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, a highly influential committee dominated by Radical Republicans, and gave distorted testimony that Meade had handled the army ineptly at Gettysburg—that the Union army had won a great victory despite Meade. Notably, Sickles alleged that on the battle’s second day Meade had been a coward, eager to retreat rather than fight.

The two most important witnesses against him were:

a) Major General Abner Doubleday supported Sickles’ egregious claims by testifying that Meade had played favorites in command assignments. Doubleday in particular was bitter that Meade had ignored army seniority and not promoted him to command of the 1st Corps after its commander, Maj. Gen. John Reynolds, was killed early on July 1—instead choosing Maj. Gen. John Newton as Reynolds’ replacement.

b) Hooker’s Chief of Staff, Daniel Butterworth, who Meade kept on during the battle of Gettysburg (remember, he had just 3 days to prepare!). Butterfield, a close friend of Sickles’ and Hooker’s, falsely testified about the claimed July 2 order to retreat. Sickles elevated his attack on Meade when he (or a close associate) penned an anonymous article by “Historicus” in the March 12, 1864, edition of The New York Herald, the nation’s largest newspaper. Historicus condemned Meade’s handling of Gettysburg while praising the brave and brilliant Sickles. The article claimed Meade had ordered his chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Butterfield, to prepare an order of retreat on July 2, the battle’s second day. The Historicus piece set off a firestorm, and stories of Meade’s alleged inadequacies appeared in papers nationwide.

The Joint Committee’s Radical Republicans wanted “Fighting Joe” Hooker back in command of the Army of the Potomac. The committee’s leaders, Chairman Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio and Senator Zachariah Chandler of Michigan, demanded Lincoln dismiss Meade even before he had an opportunity to testify. President Lincoln declined to order a Court of Inquiry. The president wanted Meade fighting Confederates, not a political conflict against a fellow general.

The Fall 1863 Campaigns

After the Battle of Gettysburg, General Robert E. Lee retreated back across the Potomac River to Virginia and concentrated behind the Rapidan River.  Early in September 1863, Lee dispatched two divisions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps to reinforce the Confederate Army of Tennessee for the Battle of Chickamauga. Meade knew that Lee had been weakened by the departure of Longstreet and wanted to take advantage. Meade advanced his army to the Rappahannock River in August, and on September 13 he moved the AoP forward to confront Lee along the Rapidan. Lee was occupying Culpeper, Virginia, following the Battle of Culpeper Court House. Meade planned to use his numerical superiority in a broad turning movement, similar to the one planned by Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker in the Battle of Chancellorsville that spring.

A traditional interpretation of this campaign is that Lee, despite having lost Longstreet’s Corps to the west, nevertheless beat Meade in the Bristoe Campaign. The reality is that on September 24 the Union split its forces as well, sending the XI and XII Corps to the Chattanooga campaign in Tennessee. It is interesting that this critical fact is rarely mentioned. Instead, the importance of Bristoe is nearly always depreciated. Its failure is often portrayed as the reason Grant was brought east, because its shows Meade to be too conservative to win.

In fact, four battles took place: Auburn, Bristoe Station, Buckland Mills, and Rappahannock Station. Every one of these is south of Manassas. Two are not far from Chancellorsville and the location of the Wilderness.

Lee knew of the departing Union corps, and early in October he began an offensive sweep around Cedar Mountain with his remaining two corps, attempting to turn Meade's right flank. Meade, despite having superior numbers, did not wish to give battle in a position that did not offer him the advantage and ordered a withdrawal along the line of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad.

Lee had been planning to go into winter quarters at Culpepper. Instead, he set up south of the Rapidan. In fact, the AoP occupied  Brandy Station and Culpepper that winter. Meade had escaped allowing a major battle in a disadvantageous location and Lee had lost ground. It was certainly inconclusive – because Meade saw the danger.

Lincoln and Stanton weren’t mollified by the lack of progress in the Bristoe Campaign and pressured Meade to do more. Meade responded by planning a march to strike the ANV south of the Rapidan. He had intelligence suggesting that Lee had made a miscalculation in his positioning. But an incredibly incompetent Union general and an outrageously courageous movement by a Confederate general saved the ANV after a brief but deadly conflict few appreciate. Traditional history suggests Meade was incompetent and ignores this action as having any importance, which is completely wrong: he almost had Lee trapped.

Meade actually planned a rapid movement just west of Chancellorsville and where the Wilderness would be the next Spring. In fact, the Union movements were in the same general vicinity.

Unfortunately, Maj. Gen. William H. French's III Corps got mired in fording the river at Jacob's Ford, causing traffic jams when they moved their artillery to Germanna Ford, where other units were attempting to cross.

Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's division was marching along the Raccoon Ford Road to join Early when the head of Gen. French's III Corps made contact in the heavy wooded terrain along the Widow Morris Road. Johnson turned his division about and ordered what can only be described as a reckless double-envelopment assault against a mostly unseen enemy of unknown strength, throwing his 5,500 men against French and John Sedgwick's VI Corps (a combined 32,000).  The fact is, if Johnson had cleared the Widow Morris Road before the arrival of French and Sedgwick, or had been driven away in defeat, the 32,000 Federals could have marched behind Lee's left flank and into his rear.

This battle is called the Battle of Payne’s Farm. Theodore P. Savas, together with Paul Sacra of Richmond, Virginia, set out to locate and map the Payne's Farm battlefield in the early 1990s. Savas believed published articles and books had incorrectly located the fighting area and was determined to test his theory. Armed with extensive primary sources and battle reports, he and Sacra located what they believed was the field and, with the permission from several landowners, used metal detectors to prove it. Within a couple days Savas and Sacra had unearthed hundreds of artifacts, including bullets, a ramrod, bayonet socket, a partial harmonica, belt buckles, buttons, and much more.

Overland Campaign

Often in the telling of Grant’s brilliant strategy of 1864 and the Overland Campaign, one gets the impression that Meade had been so incompetent that he was starting almost from Washington, but the fact is, in early 1864, the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia faced each other across the Rapidan River. It was there because Meade had placed it there, and had fought for it to be there.

In the spring of 1864 Meade’s authority was superseded by the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant as general-in-chief of all Union armies. Although he was still technically the commander of the Army of the Potomac, Meade acted as Grant’s subordinate for the rest of the war.

In this capacity, Meade participated in Grant’s aggressive Overland Campaign of 1864, in which the Union army absorbed staggering casualties. Meade took part in in the Battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. He was also instrumental in the prolonged Siege of Petersburg (June 1864-March 1865), which was launched after Meade’s early assaults on the city resulted in heavy Union casualties.

Meade and Grant

In 1864, Grant was appointed as the overall commander of the Union armies and placed his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac, led by Meade. Grant had a high regard for Meade's military abilities and acknowledged his successes, but there were instances where their working dynamics faced challenges.

Grant and Meade had a complex working relationship. Initially, there were some tensions and miscommunications between the two, but over time they developed a professional rapport and worked together effectively.

Meade sometimes felt that Grant did not fully appreciate his contributions and achievements. There were instances where the press assigned to the Army of the Potomac focused more on Grant's role in successes, while downplaying Meade's contributions. This caused frustration for Meade, as he felt he was not given the credit he deserved.

Despite occasional disagreements, Grant and Meade maintained a functional working relationship. They shared the goal of winning the war and coordinated their efforts to achieve military success.

Grant made his headquarters with Meade for the remainder of the war. Following an incident in June 1864, Meade disciplined reporter Edward Cropsey from The Philadelphia Inquirer. He falsely reported that  Meade had wanted to retreat after the Battle of the Wilderness. All of the press assigned to the AoP agreed to mention Meade only in conjunction with setbacks. Meade apparently knew nothing of this arrangement, and the reporters giving all of the credit to Grant angered Meade.

Meade wrote to his wife:

“I had a visit today from General Grant, who was the first to tell me of the attack in the Times based upon my order expelling two correspondents. Grant expressed himself very much annoyed at the injustice done to me, which he said was glaring, because my order distinctly states that it was by his direction that these men were prohibited from remaining with the army. He acknowledged there was an evident intention to hold me accountable for all that was condemned and to praise him for all that was commendable.”

Nevertheless, Meade is frequently blamed for specific problems in the Overland Campaign. As the fighting reached Cold Harbor and Petersburg, Meade is blamed for not directing his men to scout properly prior to the former battle and failed to coordinate his corps properly in the opening stages of the latter. During the siege of Petersburg, Meade again erred altering the attack plan for the Battle of the Crater for political reasons. But it is known that Grant approved these plans.

Grant issued orders to Meade who in turn issued them to the army. 

Meade, despite his aggressive performance in lesser commands in 1862, had become a more cautious general and more concerned about the futility of attacking entrenched positions. Most of the bloody repulses his army suffered in the Overland Campaign were ordered by Grant, although the aggressive maneuvering that eventually cornered Lee in the trenches around Petersburg were Grant's initiative as well.

Without question, Grant’s strategy won the war. Without doubt, Grant made the tough decisions and took the criticism of the heavy casualties.  But it was Meade who made Grant’s strategic plan a reality, being the commander who positioned his army to operationalize Grant’s vision.

Conclusion

General Meade was a thorough, methodical man as would be expected of a professional military man and engineer.

What do you think of the General George Meade? Let us know below.

Now, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

Suggested Reading

  • Brown, Kent Masterson. Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2005.

  • Nugent M, Petruzzi JD, Wittenberg EJ. One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, July 4 - 14, 1863. Savas Beattiem 2011.

  • Coddington, Edwin. The Gettysburg Campaign. Morningside Bookshop, 1979.

  • Sears, Steven W. Gettysburg. Mariner Books, 2004.

  • Woodruff, Joshua D. The Impact of Logistics on General Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1083715