A few weeks before he was elected President, Lincoln received a letter from Grace Bedell, an 11-year-old girl from Westfield, New York. Richard Bluttal explains.

Grace Bedell in the 1870s.

The Letter

N Y Westfield Chatauque Co Oct 15. 1860

Hon A B Lincoln Dear Sir

My father has just home from the fair and brought home your picture and Mr. Hamlin's. I am a little girl only eleven years old, but want you should be President of the United States very much so I hope you wont think me very bold to write to such a great man as you are. Have you any little girls about as large as I am if so give them my love and tell her to write to me if you cannot answer this letter. I have got 4 brother's and part of them will vote for you any way and if you will let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you   you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husband's to vote for you and then you would be President. My father is a going to vote for you and if I was a man I would vote for you to but I will try and get every one to vote for you that I can   I think that rail fence around your picture makes it look very pretty   I have got a little baby sister she is nine weeks old and is just as cunning as can be. When you direct your letter dir[e]ct to Grace Bedell Westfield Chatauque County New York

I must not write any more   answer this letter right off Good bye Grace Bedell.

 

 As soon as Mr. Lincoln received the letter he wrote back the following:

 

October 19, 1860

Springfield, Illinois Miss Grace Bedell

My dear little Miss,

Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is received. I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughters. I have three sons—one seventeen , one nine, and one seven years of age. They with their mother, constitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affection if I were to begin it now? Your very sincere well-wisher.

-A. Lincoln

 

 

By the time Lincoln left his Illinois home to start his inaugural journey to Washington, D.C., he wore a full beard. The trip took him by rail through New York state, where he stopped briefly in Westfield on February 16. Once at the train station, he called into the crowd for Grace. The following contemporary newspaper accounts recorded the incident.

 

From the Philadelphia Inquirer of February 20, 1861

At Westfield, Mr. Lincoln greeted a large crowd of ladies, and several thousand of the sterner sex. Addressing the ladies, he said, "I am glad to see you; I suppose you are to see me; but I certainly think I have the best of the bargain. (Applause.) Some three months ago, I received a letter from a young lady here; it was a very pretty letter, and she advised me to let my whiskers grow, as it would improve my personal appearance; acting partly upon her suggestion, I have done so; and now, if she is here, I would like to see her; I think her name was Miss Barlly." A small boy, mounted on a post, with his mouth and eyes both wide open, cried out, "there she is, Mr. Lincoln," pointing to a beautiful girl, with black eyes, who was blushing all over her fair face. The President left the car, and the crowd making way for him, he reached her, and gave her several hearty kisses, and amid the yells of delight from the excited crowd, he bade her good-bye, and on we rushed.

 

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Cincinnati Commercial noted, "It can hardly be in human nature for men to show more valor or generals to manifest less judgment than were perceptible on our side that day." 160 years later, that still pretty much sums up the US Civil War’s Battle of Fredericksburg from the Union side. Yet, the fact is that, as bad as it was, and it was truly awful, it did not provide the South with any lasting strategic advantage. In fact, within seven months, the tables would turn after their own costly frontal assault.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Union soldiers from Franklin's ‘Left Grand Division’ charge across the railroad during the Battle of Fredericksburg.

General Robert E. Lee's survival at Antietam was remarkable. McClellan missed numerous opportunities to create total disaster for Lee's army, and Lee likely recognized some fundamental errors in his strategy. Yet, Lee emerged with his army intact, high morale, and a new adversary.

After McClellan's lack of aggressive pursuit post-Antietam, he was relieved of command on November 5. His replacement, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside, assumed command on November 9, under pressure from Washington to act swiftly. Burnside devised a plan to reach Richmond ahead of Lee's forces.

Situated near Warrenton, Virginia, Burnside was west of Richmond and Washington, at approximately the same latitude as Manassas. Continuing on the roads from there would lead to Culpeper and Charlottesville, necessitating the crossing of both the Rapidan and the Rappahannock Rivers.

 

Burnside’s Plan

Burnside proposed abandoning the southwest movement of the army, which led away from any specific target. Instead, he planned to move southeast rapidly toward the lower Rappahannock River, positioning the Union army at Falmouth, just across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg. From there, he aimed to launch a direct attack on Richmond, avoiding Lee's forces in Culpeper, and positioning himself between Lee and the direct route to Richmond. On paper, Burnside's plan held great promise, but successful execution hinged on speed.
The direct route from Warrenton to Fredericksburg was approximately 35-40 miles. It was a single country road in late Fall, presenting logistical challenges in organizing troops and supplies. However, Burnside managed to move his 100,000-man army to Falmouth on the north bank of the Rappahannock in just two days. Fredericksburg lay opposite Falmouth, a riverport town.

Lee had conducted a cautious retreat from Sharpsburg, ensuring his rear was secure in case McClellan launched an attack, which never materialized. This route brought Lee closer to the Shenandoah Valley than to Richmond. Lee, positioned at Culpeper, had a slightly shorter distance of about 35 miles to cover to reach Fredericksburg, but he had to cross the Rappahannock River. Thus, a race was on between the two armies.

When Burnside assumed command, he found himself in a strategic predicament. McClellan had left him in a remote location with a supply line that relied on the Orange and Alexandria Railroad, which extended to Culpeper Court House before heading east to Orange and Charlottesville. This placed Burnside far to the west of his desired destination, and there was no established supply line to support a rapid eastward movement. This situation raised concerns for Lincoln and Halleck, given that Burnside, a relative rookie as a general, aimed to move faster than his army had ever moved before, and he faced a cunning adversary who could launch attacks along the way.
However, Burnside devised a clever plan to address this challenge. Knowing that Longstreet was positioned at Culpeper, and Jackson was on his right flank, Burnside recognized that Longstreet had a shorter distance to reach Fredericksburg once his movement was detected.

The leadership in Washington believed that the primary target should not be Richmond itself, but rather Lee's army. They wanted Burnside to attack Longstreet at Culpeper while Jackson was separated from him. Burnside believed that this move was quite obvious and that Lee would anticipate it. He envisioned a scenario similar to the Second Battle of Manassas, with Jackson launching a flank attack against him. Burnside proposed feigning an attack on Culpeper, which would hold Lee in that area just long enough for Burnside to reach the eastern side of the Rappahannock River. He began moving supplies to Falmouth, located just north of Fredericksburg and close to the Potomac River. The plan was to reach Falmouth swiftly, resupply, and have a pontoon bridge constructed across the river before Lee could arrive. Halleck disagreed with Burnside’s plan but left it to President Lincoln, who chose to go along with it.

 

Crossing the Rappahannock River

Pontoon bridges have been essential in warfare for centuries. These floating bridges use floats or shallow-draft boats to support a continuous deck for infantry, artillery, cavalry, and supply wagons. The buoyancy of the supports limits their maximum load. Strong currents and storms can disrupt these bridges, making their use typically temporary, just long enough to cross a river. Connecting the bridge to the shore requires designing approaches that are not too steep, prevent bank erosion, and accommodate movements during changes in water levels (such as tides). During the Civil War, both armies commonly used pontoon bridges. They played a crucial role in key crossings, such as Grant's crossings of the James and Mississippi Rivers. Lee's use of a pontoon bridge over the Potomac River during the Gettysburg campaign is another notable example.

The plan for a pontoon bridge wasn't particularly complex, as it required old boats and wooden planks. When Burnside initiated his plans for this campaign, he requisitioned these materials on November 7, submitting his plan to Halleck. The plan was sent to Brig. Gen. George Washington Cullum, the chief of staff in Washington, on November 9. The pontoon trains were deemed ready to move on November 14.

However, when the Union Army commenced its march on November 15 and the first units arrived in Falmouth by November 17, they found no bridges built, no materials for construction, and no engineers to undertake the task. The pontoon materials were ready to move on November 14, except for the absence of the 270 horses needed to move them. Burnside was unaware until he arrived that most of the building materials had not been transported. Burnside arrived in Falmouth by November 19, but the pontoons that he planned to use to cross the Rappahannock were delayed because some functionary in Washington had failed to send the pontoons when Burnside asked for them. They were supposed to be there when he got there. Communications between Burnside's staff engineer Cyrus B. Comstock and the Engineer Brigade commander Daniel P. Woodbury indicate that Burnside had assumed the bridging was en route to Washington based on orders given on November 7.

So, when General Sumner arrived in Falmouth on November 17th, he ordered his men to race to Fredericksburg and cross the river. Except when he got there, there was no bridge. There were only 500 troops in the town and occupying the commanding heights to the west. Burnside became concerned that early winter rains would make the fording points unusable; that might make Sumner vulnerable, he could be cut off. Instead, Burnside ordered Sumner to wait in Falmouth.

Lee didn't ascertain Burnside's movement early enough to launch an attack. The part of the plan that Halleck had expressed concern about worked out favorably. Lee believed that Burnside would outpace him and cross the Rappahannock River first, prompting Lee to prepare for defense along the North Anna River instead. This plan, however, was met with dissatisfaction from President Davis, who considered it too close to Richmond . Lee recognized that Burnside had beat him to the Rappahannock – and now found himself on the wrong side of the river. Instead of moving to the North Anna, he had Longstreet move instead to the heights above the river on its south side above the town.

The materials for one bridge arrived November 25, 8 days after the Union army. This is truly a failure of the Union Army quartermaster department. The fact that Burnside ended up taking the blame for this is unfair; there was plenty of blame for everyone. Burnside was looking for a place to ford the river. The arrival of the bridge was much too late to cross the river without a battle. He knew only half of Lee’s army was across the river. Still, Burnside had an opportunity because at that time only half of Lee's army had arrived and were not yet dug in. Had Burnside acted more expeditiously and attacked Longstreet sooner, he might have won a victory before Jackson arrived. Part of his reluctance to move was his fear that if only some of his army crossed, an attack by Longstreet might be decisive.  It has always intrigued me that Burnside had delayed his attack at Antietam across the bridge and was criticized for not finding fords downstream; and 3 months later, he is criticized for the delays in looking for fords downstream.

Longstreet's arrival on November 23 marked a critical moment in the lead-up to the Battle of Fredericksburg. General Lee strategically positioned his forces, placing them on the commanding ridge known as Marye's Heights, west of the town. This defensive formation included Anderson's division on the far left, McLaws positioned directly behind the town, and Pickett's and Hood's divisions anchoring the right flank. Lee recognized the significance of holding this high ground.

 

Meanwhile, Lee had dispatched a message for General Stonewall Jackson on November 26, anticipating the need for his Second Corps. Jackson, known for his remarkable swiftness, had already foreseen the call and initiated a forced march of his troops from Winchester starting on November 22. They covered as much as 20 miles a day, a remarkable feat considering the challenging terrain. Jackson's timely arrival at Lee's headquarters on November 29 reinforced the Confederate position.

As General Burnside awaited the construction of crucial pontoon bridges, General Lee organized his army for the impending battle. Lieutenant General James Longstreet's wing shifted eastward from Culpeper, securing a formidable position on Marye's Heights, which offered a commanding view of Fredericksburg from the western vantage point. To the south, Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson's troops entrenched themselves along a line stretching from Prospect Hill to Hamilton's Crossing, a strategic position four miles south of the town. 

However, as Burnside's wait for the bridges extended, he missed a valuable window of opportunity. Lee recognized this delay and anticipated that Burnside would eventually attempt to cross the Rappahannock River. Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s wing moved east from Culpeper, and Lt. Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s men hurried toward the Rappahannock from the Shenandoah Valley. Longstreet took up a position on Marye’s Heights, overlooking Fredericksburg from the west. To the south, Jackson’s men were entrenched in a line stretching over Prospect Hill and onto Hamilton’s Crossing, four miles from the town. Burnside had squandered his opportunity. During this delay, Lee anticipated Burnside’s crossing the Rappahannock. This strategic maneuvering and positioning by both sides set the stage for the dramatic events that would unfold in the Battle of Fredericksburg.

Originally, Burnside had planned to cross east of Fredericksburg at Skinker's Neck, a shallow marshy area downstream from the town. However, upon Jackson's arrival and Confederate movements in that area, Burnside changed his plan to cross at the town itself, hoping to surprise the enemy. When Jackson arrived, he placed DH Hill and Early in that area when he received notification of Union gunboats there. Union spy balloons detected this movement, so Burnside was aware of it. Since it seemed that Lee had moved toward his right, then a smarter place to cross would be to Lee’s left, so he decided to cross at the town itself, thinking it would surprise the enemy.

Union engineers finally began to assemble 6 pontoon bridges on December 11. They were designated to be placed as 2 north of the town center, 1 south of the town center, and 3 more south. In the pre-dawn hours, a regiment of Union engineers began assembling the pontoon bridges opposite the town. Confederate riflemen harassed the engineers and slowed their progress.

The delay between November 25 and December 11 was partly due to the weather. But several years later, Halleck reported to Stanton that he had never approved of the plan, and had suggested using the fords upriver instead. After the war. Burnside wrote that he had told Halleck that during the movement he wouldn’t be unable to receive telegraphic messages. I get the impression, reading these notes well after the fact, that Halleck just didn’t order things be done and Burnside didn’t think he had to be certain about this detail. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-were-burnsides-bridges-late-at-fredericksburg.7791/?amp=1

As Union forces under General Hunt positioned over 220 cannons on Stafford Heights, it seemed they held an impregnable advantage against any Confederate counterattack. In the late morning, the Union unleashed a formidable bombardment, This relentless shelling wreaked havoc, causing considerable damage to numerous buildings and instilling terror among the civilian population. After approximately four hours of intense bombardment, the engineers resumed their work on the pontoon bridges, but Confederate riflemen wasted no time in resuming their sharpshooting.

However, a significant challenge remained in the form of Confederate sharpshooters entrenched in the basements of buildings within Fredericksburg. It was then that General Hunt proposed a bold solution. He suggested that Burnside deploy infantry across the river to engage the sharpshooters directly, effectively proposing urban combat in the heart of Fredericksburg.

Faced with the bridging process grinding to a halt due to enemy fire, General Burnside authorized a daring plan to dislodge the Confederate snipers.

As the plan unfolded, 135 infantrymen from the 7th Michigan and the 19th Massachusetts courageously crowded into small boats, with the 20th Massachusetts following soon after. Colonel Norman Hall, a brigade commander from the nearby Second Corps, volunteered his brigade to row across the Rappahannock. Under enemy fire, these regiments successfully crossed the river and formed a skirmish line to eliminate the Confederate sharpshooters. While some Confederate soldiers surrendered, the fighting intensified as Union and Confederate forces clashed street by street throughout the town. Ultimately, the riflemen were driven from their positions on the riverbank.

By late afternoon, Sumner's Right Grand Division began its crossing at 4:30 p.m., although the bulk of his troops did not complete the crossing until December 12. Hooker's Center Grand Division followed on December 13, utilizing both the northern and southern bridges.

Union artillery unleashed over 5,000 shells upon the town and the ridges to the west, transforming Fredericksburg into a scene of destruction. By nightfall, four Union brigades occupied the town, engaging in looting on a scale hitherto unseen in the war, enraging General Lee, who likened their actions to the ancient Vandals.

 

December 12: The Slaughter Pen

On December 12, the remainder of Burnside's army successfully crossed the river and established their presence in Fredericksburg. As the evening developed, Burnside formulated a strategy to secure the areas surrounding the town. His plan involved utilizing the nearly 60,000 troops in Major General William B. Franklin's Left Grand Division to crush General Lee's southern flank, commanded by General Jackson. Simultaneously, the rest of Burnside's forces would maintain General Longstreet's position on Marye's Heights and provide support to Franklin if required.

However, the planning that evening left everyone in a state of uncertainty. Despite Burnside's verbal instructions, which outlined a primary attack by Franklin, supported by General Hooker on the southern flank, with General Sumner leading a secondary attack on the northern flank, his written orders on the morning of December 13 were vague and confusing to his subordinates. These orders did not reach Franklin until 7:15 or 7:45 a.m., and when they did, they differed from Franklin's expectations. Rather than ordering a full-scale assault by the entire grand division, Burnside instructed Franklin to maintain his position but send "a division at least" to seize Prospect Hill around Hamilton's Crossing. Simultaneously, Sumner was to send one division through the city and up Telegraph Road, with both flanks ready to commit their entire commands. Burnside appeared to anticipate that these limited attacks would intimidate Lee into withdrawal.

Franklin, who had initially advocated a vigorous assault, interpreted Burnside's order conservatively. Map inaccuracies further compounded the confusion. Interestingly, Burnside's use of the word "seize" conveyed less forcefulness in 19th-century military terminology than the command "to carry" the heights.

The attack finally began when General Reynolds led the way, selecting General George Meade to initiate the movement. However, substantial artillery fire from Pelham's Cavalry artillery and later Walker's artillery on Prospect Hill delayed Meade's advance until nearly 1 PM. The attack eventually gained momentum, but Jackson had concealed approximately 35,000 Confederate troops on a wooded ridge.

The battle on the southern end of the field, known as the Slaughter Pen, resulted in heavy casualties on both sides. General A.P. Hill's poor performance at Fredericksburg led to a significant portion of Confederate casualties in Jackson's corps. A triangular patch of woods extending beyond the railroad, swampy and dense with underbrush, created a 600-yard gap between the brigades of Brigadier Generals James H. Lane and James J. Archer. Brigadier General Maxcy Gregg's brigade was stationed approximately a quarter mile behind this vulnerable gap. Meade's 1st Brigade entered the gap, ascended the railroad embankment, and turned right into the underbrush, catching Lane's brigade in the flank. This maneuver enabled Meade to attack both Confederate brigades from the flank.

However, Gregg, for unknown reasons, ordered his troops not to fire, believing mistakenly that the approaching Union forces were friendly. It is suspected that his partial deafness may have prevented him from hearing the sounds of battle and gunfire. Tragically, he was struck in the spine by a minie ball and succumbed to his injuries two days later. As the situation escalated, Archer called for Gregg to send reinforcements, but by then, Gregg's brigade had suffered defeat. Early and Taliaferro moved their divisions to cover the gap, effectively halting Meade's advance. A counterattack by Early and a counter-counter charge by Union generals Gibbon and Birney eventually forced the Confederates to withdraw into the hills south of town. Had Franklin supported Meade with all of his men the gap might have led to a rout.

The main Union assault against Jackson initially achieved success. In an area later known as the Slaughter Pen, Major General George G. Meade's division briefly penetrated Jackson's line, posing a threat to the Confederate right. However, a lack of coordinated reinforcements and Jackson's resolute counterattack thwarted the Union effort. The battle resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, with neither gaining a significant advantage.

 

December 12: Marye’s Heights

On the northern end of the battlefield, Brig. Gen. William H. French's division of the II Corps stood ready to advance, despite facing a barrage of Confederate artillery fire raining down upon the fog-shrouded city of Fredericksburg. General Burnside had instructed Maj. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner, the commander of the Right Grand Division, to send "a division or more" to secure the high ground west of the city. This move was initially seen as a diversionary tactic, with the main thrust of the Union assault expected to occur in the south. . General Burnside's orders to Maj. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner, commander of the Right Grand Division, was to send "a division or more" to seize the high ground to the west of the city, assuming that his assault on the southern end of the Confederate line would be the decisive action of the battle.

Marye’s Heights, a prominent geographic feature overlooking the river and the city, presented an imposing obstacle. The low ridge, composed of several hills separated by ravines, including Taylor's Hill, Stansbury Hill, Marye's Hill, and Willis Hill, rose 40–50 feet above the surrounding plain. This gives an impression that it’s not an especially steep approach. While the approach was relatively open, it was punctuated by scattered houses, fences, and gardens, hindering the movement of Union forces. To reach the base of the heights, Union soldiers had to leave the relative cover of the city, descend into a valley crossed by a water-filled canal ditch, and then ascend an exposed slope of 400 yards.

Close to the crest of the ridge, specifically Marye's Hill and Willis Hill, a narrow lane in a slight depression known as the Sunken Road was protected by a 4-foot stone wall, supplemented with log breastworks in some areas. Initially, McLaws had placed about 2,000 Confederate soldiers on the front line of Marye's Heights, with an additional 7,000 in reserve positions on the crest and behind the ridge. At the front of Longstreet's position, the Sunken Road was packed with Confederates three ranks deep. Confederate artillery covered the plain below, making it a deadly approach. General Longstreet had received assurance from his artillery commander, Lt. Col. Edward Porter Alexander, that they could effectively sweep the field with gunfire: "General, we cover that ground now so well that we will comb it as with a fine-tooth comb. A chicken could not live on that field when we open on it."

Burnside's original diversionary attack against Longstreet's defensive position behind the stone wall resulted in horrendous Union casualties. Wave after wave of Federal troops advanced across the open ground, only to be met with withering rifle and artillery fire from the strongly fortified Confederate position. Lee, witnessing the carnage, famously remarked, "It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."

The initial plan had been to distract Longstreet with this attack while the main effort took place elsewhere, but when the secondary engagement at the Slaughter Pen stalled, this ill-fated assault became the primary focus of the battle.

Sumner's Right Grand Division was the force behind the initial assault, which began at noon, kicking off a relentless sequence of attacks that persisted until nightfall. As Northern forces moved out of Fredericksburg, Longstreet's artillery rained destruction upon them. The Union troops encountered a perilous bottleneck at the canal ditch, crossed by only three narrow bridges. Once they surmounted this obstacle, they formed shallow battle lines, seeking cover behind a slight bluff that provided concealment but no protection.

The order for the final advance echoed across the field. The terrain beyond the canal ditch offered little cover, with few buildings and fences. Southern cannons wasted no time resuming their barrage on these exposed targets. As Federals covered about half the remaining distance, a torrent of bullets erupted from the Sunken Road, causing severe casualties. Survivors sought refuge behind a small depression in the ground or retreated to the safety of the canal ditch valley.

Darius Couch and the II Corps were at the forefront of this attack. His corps was ordered to assault the Confederate position at the base of Marye's Heights overlooking Fredericksburg. From the courthouse cupola, Couch watched as French's division, followed by Hancock's division and then Howard's, suffered heavy casualties. The II Corps alone sustained 4,000 casualties in this part of the battle. One may wonder why a flank attack was not attempted instead of a direct assault; in fact, Couch ordered Howard to march his division toward the right and flank the Confederate defenses, but the terrain did not permit such a maneuver; all such attempts were crowded back to the center.

 

Why Did Burnside order this attack?

The Assault on Marye's Heights resulted in a casualty rate estimated at 15-20% for Union troops, contributing to a total Union casualty count of 8,000. Although the assault was tactically devastating, it had minimal strategic impact on the war. It became the most one-sided Confederate victory in the war, yet it did not alter the overall trajectory of the conflict.

Several factors influenced Burnside's decision-making. There was a breakdown in communication and coordination among Union commanders. Burnside received reports of limited success in the diversionary attack on the Confederate right flank, leading him to believe that a more aggressive assault on Marye's Heights was needed to divert Confederate attention. Pressure to achieve a decisive victory and optimism may have clouded his judgment.

Burnside believed in his numerical advantage and hoped to dislodge the Confederate defenders through overwhelming force. Given the circumstances, Marye's Heights seemed the most promising target due to its proximity to the shelter of Fredericksburg and the less steep terrain.

While some subordinate commanders, including General William B. Franklin, expressed reservations, Burnside persisted in ordering piecemeal attacks. Hooker, Sumner, and several others told Burnside it was futile, but he continued to order piecemeal attacks

 

Aftermath

As darkness descended on the battlefield, strewn with the fallen and the wounded, it became evident that the Confederates had secured a decisive victory. The night resonated with the harrowing cries of the wounded, described as "weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear."

Burnside, undeterred by the grim outcome, issued orders to renew the assaults on December 14, even expressing a desire to personally lead them. However, his subordinates persuaded him against this perilous endeavor. On December 15, Burnside orchestrated a skillful retreat across the Rappahannock River, dismantling the bridges behind his army as they withdrew to Stafford Heights.

As darkness descended upon the battlefield, it revealed a haunting scene of devastation, strewn with the fallen and wounded. The cries of the wounded, described as "weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear," echoed through the night, serving as a grim testament to the horrors of war. The wounded soldiers who lay on the battlefield faced dire circumstances as there were limited means to evacuate them. Many had fallen in front of the Confederate lines, making any rescue attempt perilous and likely to result in even more casualties. Regrettably, many of the wounded likely succumbed to their injuries who might have been saved under different circumstances. Undoubtedly many of the wounded exsanguinated who might have been saved.

As a consequence of this tragedy, the role of Jonathan Letterman, appointed in June 1862 as the medical director of the Army of the Potomac, became pivotal. Letterman initiated a comprehensive overhaul of the Medical Service, armed with a charter from army commander Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to enact necessary improvements. By the time of the Battle of Antietam in September, Letterman had established a system of forward first aid stations at the regimental level, introducing principles of triage. He implemented standing operating procedures for the intake and treatment of war casualties and was the first to apply management principles to battlefield medicine.

Letterman also introduced mobile field hospitals at division and corps headquarters, along with an efficient ambulance corps that operated under the control of medical staff rather than the Quartermaster Corps. He streamlined the distribution of medical supplies. Regrettably, at Fredericksburg, Letterman's innovative system was often countermanded by Union officers. Nevertheless, it was adopted by the Army of the Potomac and other Union armies after the Battle of Fredericksburg, eventually becoming the official procedure for the intake and treatment of battlefield casualties.

Amidst the grim aftermath, one story of extraordinary compassion emerged. Richard Rowland Kirkland, known as "The Angel of Marye’s Heights," displayed remarkable humanity. Kirkland, a devout Christian, could not ignore the pleas of the dying Union soldiers. Initially denied permission by his commander, Brigadier General Joseph Kershaw, due to concerns for Kirkland's safety, he eventually received approval to assist the wounded Union soldiers, symbolizing a moment of humanity amidst the brutality of war.

The Battle of Fredericksburg was the single most lopsided victory in the war. The outrageous repetitive attacks on Marye’s Heights had led to an unnecessary attack and thousands of casualties. Although profoundly discouraging for Union soldiers and the Northern populace, did not deliver a decisive impact on the overall course of the war. Despite being the most one-sided Confederate victory in the war, it had minimal strategic significance. Confederate morale surged, despite their numerical disadvantage, while Union morale had already suffered due to the replacement of the popular McClellan with Burnside. Burnside's errors in planning and leadership led to rising insubordination and his infamous ineffective second offensive against Lee in January 1863, mockingly referred to as the “Mud March.”

Understanding the lack of a long-term advantage is essential in comprehending the broader dynamics of the Civil War. Although a resounding tactical victory for the Confederacy, the Battle of Fredericksburg proved to be a hollow triumph. The North's vast resources soon compensated for Burnside's losses in manpower and supplies. Conversely, Lee faced difficulties replenishing both missing soldiers and much-needed supplies.

 

Strength:

- Union: 122,009 (114,000 engaged)

- Confederate: 78,513 (72,500 engaged)

 

Casualties and losses:

- Union: 12,653 total (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing)

- Confederate: 5,377 total (608 killed, 4,116 wounded, 653 captured/missing)

 

The casualty ratio was about 2:1, which, when expressed as percentages, equates to approximately 11.1% for the Union and 7.4% for the Confederacy. While it was a clear Confederate victory, the casualties were not as catastrophic as some accounts suggest. Lee's forces suffered 5,300 casualties but inflicted over twice that number of losses on their Union counterparts. Notably, of the 12,600 Federal soldiers killed, wounded, or missing, almost two-thirds fell in front of the formidable stone wall at Marye's Heights.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Share

For a few centuries, the United States of America has been known as ‘the land of the free and home of the brave.’ Here, Aarushi Anand argues that in the context of slavery, the adage still holds true for the past three centuries, only the narrative gets reversed.

Mid-19th century painting Slaves Waiting for Sale - Richmond, Virginia. By Eyre Crowe.

America was the land of free people, of its native people. With the advent of British imperialism in the eighteenth-century slavery became the norm. Different degrees of freedom coexisted, from the slave stripped completely of liberty to the independent slave-owner who enjoyed a full range of rights. The settlers’ success, however, rested on depriving Native Americans of their land and, in some colonies, importing large numbers of African slaves as laborers. Freedom and lack of freedom expanded together from seventeenth-century to nineteenth-century America. 

In writings from the eighteenth century, the image of the “grateful slave,” becomes commonplace. Such a stereotype provided readers and viewers with what appeared to be a seemingly positive alternative to the injustices of human trafficking and exploitation:  a willing and even desperate captive who served a beloved White master out of gratitude for their good deeds. In the latter half of the century the vision of the “grateful slave” contributed to colonial practices of White supremacy.

 

Historiographical trends in analyzing relationship between master and slave

By the 1960s, U.B. Phillips had become a paradigm for the racist and regressive aspects of slave historiography. He substantiates his arguments by stressing on availability of amenities: adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, along with instruction in contemporary technologies to “civilise" the slaves. Only occasionally were slave laws enforced, and owners hardly ever sold their slaves, "except in emergencies." Despite its significance in structuring Southern society, Phillips addresses the unprofitability of enslaved labour which slowed down the industrialization process, restricted crop diversification, and wasted soil fertility. His claim that "a negro was what a white man made him" reflects his beliefs that Blacks were culturally blank and retained few native African qualities after enslavement. 

Innumerable historians have responded unfavourably to Phillips' writings. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp dismantled Phillips' portrayal of benign paternalism and presented a starkly cruel reality to the academics and students of the South. Slaves in Charleston could not “swear, smoke, walk with a cane. or make joyful demonstrations.” For some crimes, Florida's laws permitted branding, mutilation, and even execution. Working hours from sunup to sunset, course food, exacting work, limited medical care were other forms of exploitation.  According to Stampp, absence of paternal authority and no legal sanction for slave marriages weakened the Afro-American kinship system: “the slave woman was first a full-time worker for her owner and only incidentally a wife, a mother and homemaker.” Additionally, the sale of family members separately led to “widespread sexual promiscuity” among both men and women, typified by a Kentucky female slave labour “who had each of her seven children by a different father.” 

Stanley Elkins argues that the origin of North American slavery had capitalistic tendencies which gave paramount rights to slave owners, and barred slaves from appealing to institutions, like the church or the state, which in Spanish America might protect them from some forms of exploitation. The "shock" and trauma of the slave trade, along with the adaptation to the “closed system" of the Southern plantations, resulted in the infantilization of the Afro-Americans and their absolute subservience to authority.

Initiating a new chapter in the debate over slavery, historian Eugene D. Genovese draws upon the writings of U.B. Phillips. Genovese saw the plantations as pre capitalist firms and the slave South as a distinctive civilization that was anti-bourgeois. He contends that plantations were inefficient in the South and that plantation owners were unable to make investments in labour-saving efficiency to preserve the worth of their slaves. His Marxist vision is ironic in the sense that he talks about the slave economy on the one hand, but he minimizes the degree of exploitation in the relationship between slaveholder and slave on the other. He envisioned a mutual acceptance of paternalism by both master and slave. Paternalism contained resistance, perpetuated class rule, and gave slaves moderate bargaining power.

His analysis of slave religion reveals it to be a religion of resignation which was not conducive to revolutionary political or ideological tradition. Slaves had no prophetic heritage, therefore plantation owner’s control over slave religion and Afro-American culture continued to be dictated by the whims of the planters. Genovese discredits the humanity of Africans and emphasizes the Biblical endorsement of human enslavement in order to rebut the abolitionists’ contention that slavery must be abolished on the grounds of Christianity, reason, and property ownership.

Some historians focus on the high rates of slave mortality in the rice plantations, where owners’ absenteeism was frequent, while others stress on the slave trade. In terms of housing slaves had one or two-room cottages that were situated on agricultural fields, had no ventilation and were unbearably hot. They were more susceptible to illnesses than their owners were because of poor nutrition, unhygienic living conditions, and excessive work. Skin irritations, toothaches, rickets, beriberi, and scurvy were all exacerbated by vitamin deficits. Juxta positioned with racist historiography no kind slave owner would disperse familial groups, sever the bond of father and child, or exploit slaves in the above-mentioned manner.

 

Debunking the narrative of father-son relationship through slave resistance

Emphasis on African antecedents provides a viable interpretive framework for understanding the subtle ways in which they provided resistance. Slaves typically hold out to music from their native countries. This implies preservation of their own culture through the memorialization of their homeland in songs, poems, and fables was a kind of resistance to white civilization. Sabotage, sluggish labour rates, and escape from plantations were the more visible forms of resistance. To limit the quantity of their services slaves encouraged their masters to underestimate their intelligence by damaging tools and feigning illnesses. Depending on the severity of the white master's brutality or the type of order disobeyed, the penalties varied from starvation and limited ration to physical violence and death. The number of laws enacted to keep the institution working gives clinching evidence of the amount of resistance slaves offered. 

An additional form of resistance was the occasional murder of overseers or masters. Additionally, slaves who had access to the master's residence would make attempts to assassinate them. One of those suspected of killing the master was the barber (as he got extremely close to him when providing grooming services and had access to long blades for shaving). Another strategy is to inflict severe discomfort or a bleeding nose on the master. People with access to a White man's household, such as female slave servants, could kill the occupants by slow poisoning, which involves putting a small amount of arsenic in meals to simulate kidney failure and demonstrate natural death.

 

Female experience of slavery

New work on gender and slavery throws light on the experiences and extent of resistance offered by women. Sexuality imposed an implicit price constraint on the worth of enslaved labour. The cost of female slave labour was cheaper than male slave labour, particularly when planters applied to black women the same tax-exempt status that applied to white female servants. Slave pregnancy was one of the best ways for a slave owner to increase slave numbers without being forced to buy new ones. To curb sexual attacks on White women Black females were originally brought from Africa to act as companions (sexual gratification) for the male slaves. 

Slavery, according to some historians, was an opening for a white man's sexual playground. Female slaves received the nickname "Fancy maids," and they were auctioned off into the "fancy trade." This "fancy trade" was expressly established to sell mixed-race women for sexual liaison and trafficking. Female slaves frequently attempted to flee, but since they were more concerned with the welfare of their children, their mobility was restricted and likelihood of capture raised. In addition to their physical labour, women's reproductive work was aggressively exploited. As a result slave women suffered from difficulties arising due to birthing complications, and sexually transmitted infections. To provide resistance, women in the fertile stage practiced birth control and abortion to avoid remaining in a perpetual state of pregnancy.  Thus, in the lives of slave women, financial affairs and the biological process entwined in intricate and tragic ways.

Historian Ira Berlin rightly contends that comprehending the economic, social, and political evolution of North America, particularly the United States, requires confronting slavery's key role in the nation's foundation. While the ruthless oppression of slaves constituted the foundation of colonial American society, traditional historians viewed the dehumanizing institution through rose-tinted spectacles. The revisionists' study of data pertaining to several fugitive laws, reports on death, violence and an agonizing living experience of slaves destroy the conception of a father-child bond between slave and slave owner. When Eric Foner remarked "parents do not typically sell their children," the institution’s non-paternalistic, exploitative bent gets highlighted. No wonder slavery is referred to as the nation's original sin.

 

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

 

 

References

·       Genovese, E.D. (2011). Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. 9th edition. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

·       Morris, Richard B. "The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. By Kenneth M. Stampp. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1956. Pp. xxi, 435. $5.75." The Journal of Economic History 18.1 (1958): 89-90.

·       Genovese, Eugene. (1989). The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

·       Stampp, K. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage, 1989.

·       Deborah Gray White; ‘The Nature of Female Slavery’; “Aren’t I am Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South”; W.W. Norton and Company.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Share

The twentieth century saw the rise of literary titans whose pens shaped the landscape of modern literature. Exploring their biographies can offer a wealth of inspiration for students to craft inspiring essays. Each life story offers a window into the intricacies that made these writers legendary, offering you the vast potential to impress professors with deep literary insights. Let’s briefly tour the lives of 7 literary geniuses you could investigate next. Barbara Freeland explains.

Virginia Woolf in 1902.

Virginia Woolf

Virginia Woolf's work is distinguished by its inventive use of the stream-of-consciousness method. This narrative style attempts to depict the continual flow of a character's thoughts and feelings. But Woolf's genius was accompanied by serious mental health issues, notably her battle with depression and bipolar disorder. She brilliantly conveyed the ebbs and flows of her emotional condition in her journals, offering a deep peep into the hardships she faced.

(By the way, remember to do extensive research before writing on such sophisticated, cherished authors as Virginia Woolf. When students want to improve their work or get inspiration, they often flood Google with requests for essay services to save the day. If you find yourself in the same situation, consult a site such as grabmyessay essay writing services that have extensive experience supporting students write well-researched papers with impeccable grammar and good style.)

 

Gabriel García Márquez

Gabriel García Márquez, a literary giant of magical realism, is cherished for his unique storytelling style marked with lyrical twists and turns and supernatural elements that perfectly blend with reality.

Márquez's work was greatly influenced by his experience growing up in Colombia and witnessing political upheavals. His examination of love, power, and the intricacies of human relationships is profoundly anchored in Latin America's sociopolitical context. This nuanced combination of the personal and the political gives his novels extraordinary depth.

 

Albert Camus

Camus, well known for his explorations of the absurdity of human life, urges readers to examine the inherent contradiction between the desire for meaning and the universe's seeming absurdity. His seminal work, "The Stranger", challenges conventional notions of morality and societal norms, laying the groundwork for existentialist thought in literature.

Camus' philosophical inquiries are rooted in his experiences growing up in French Algeria and getting involved in the French Resistance during World War II. His investigation of revolt, irrationality, and the search for authenticity provides fertile ground for essays.

 

George Orwell

George Orwell, a staunch opponent of tyranny, left a lasting impact with works such as "1984" and "Animal Farm." His experience in the ashes of the Spanish Civil War, where he voluntarily fought against fascism, impressed on him the visceral reality of war and ideological warfare.

Orwell's work is distinguished by its sharp clarity exposing the flaws of political ideas. His focused vision cuts through the cloud of political rhetoric to see the bare roots of tyrannical systems. Orwell’s astute insights on the corrupting impact of power mirrored in his allegorical tales make for an incredibly interesting theme for your essay!

 

Franz Kafka

Franz Kafka, the master of the bizarre, created a literary world that blurs the real and absurd boundary. His writing is characterized by a unique blend of existential angst and dark humor that unmistakably stems from his internal conflicts.

His experiences as a bureaucratic functionary and the challenges he faced in forging meaningful connections weave seamlessly into the fabric of his narratives. Make sure to explore the Kafkaesque world and peep into his complicated relationships and personal challenges that served as driving forces for his irresistible literature.

 

Maya Angelou

Maya Angelou, an American literary daylight, captivated the globe with her profound autobiographical writings and poetry. Her magnum opus, "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," navigates the traumatic voyage of her early life, covering problems of racism, trauma, and survival.

Angelou's writing is distinguished by its poetic elegance and unflinching honesty. Critics laud her ability to mix personal stories with universal themes, as well as her profound insights into the realms of identity and femininity.

 

Toni Morrison

Toni Morrison, a Nobel laureate and Pulitzer Prize winner, is cherished for her remarkable storytelling, rich symbolism, and astute examination of the African-American experience. She masterfully blends myth and history to produce themes that transcend time and place.

Morrison's own experiences as an editor, professor, and advocate for racial and social justice inform the thematic depth of her works. Her examination of the complexities of love, power, and cultural heritage provides a fertile ground for insightful and nuanced essays that delve into the very heart of the human experience.

 

The Bottom Line

These seven personalities are literary titans who stand as pillars of creativity and introspection. Each biography attests to its enormous effect on the literary world, providing abundant information to construct a captivating and insightful article. Best of luck!

 

Barbara Freeland is a student counselor and blogger. Barbara spends her days helping students overcome the psychological stress that often accompanies college life. She also routinely writes educational blogs to help students excel at college and beyond.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Share

Jacob Riis (1849-1914) was a Danish-American who had a big influence in America during his lifetime. He was a social reformer, journalist, photographer – and confidante to presidents. Richard Bluttal explains.

Jacob Riis in 1906.

The great mass. . . . of newsboys who cry their “extrees” in the street by day . . . are children with homes who contribute to their family’s earnings, and sleep out, if they do, either because they have not sold their papers or gambled away their money at “craps” and are afraid to go home . . . . In winter the boys curl themselves up on the steam-pipes in the newspaper offices that open their doors at midnight on secret purpose to let them in.

Imagine it's 1888, New York City. The Lower East Side is the most densely populated place on Earth: block after block of tenements house the working-poor immigrants of the city, including Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews, Czechs and Chinese. Imagine the darkness of an unlit corridor in one of those tenements, a corridor that opens onto windowless rooms, 10 feet square, where entire families live and might even work — sewing or rolling cigars. Out of the darkness, a door opens. A man with a Danish accent leads a team of amateur photographers, who are accompanied by a policeman. They position their camera on a tripod and ignite a mixture of magnesium and potassium chlorate powder. A flash explodes, illuminating their squalor. It would take the photographers a few minutes to reload that early ancestor of the flash bulb. And then, on to another tenement scene. And despite the blackness of a room or an unlit street, a picture is taken, a document of urban poverty.

In 1873, Riis became a police reporter and was assigned to cover New York City’s Lower East Side. This role, as described by Riis, meant he was “the one who gathers and handles all the news that means trouble to someone: the murders, fires, suicides, robberies, and all that sort”. His investigations led him to some stunning discoveries, including the horrible living conditions of New York tenements. He found that some tenement conditions were so abysmal that the infant death rate was 1 in 10. These experiences drove Riis to continue his efforts; by the late 1880’s, Riis was conducting in-depth investigations into the conditions of the slums, using flashbulb photography to capture these deplorable conditions.

 

Social activist

At what point did Riis become a social activist. As the story goes, “One cold night of wandering led to a chance encounter with a little dog, who loyally followed him around the city. When Riis sought refuge in a police lodging house, the dog was denied entry. Riis awoke in the middle of the night to find another lodger had robbed him. When he complained to a policeman, he was called a liar and thrown out of the lodging house.

His loyal friend, who had been patiently waiting at the door, reacted to seeing Riis treated this way by attacking the policeman and biting his leg. The policeman grabbed the dog and smashed him against the station steps, killing him. Riis was beside himself with grief and rage and pinpoints this exact moment as launching his life as a social activist. 

The kind of police lodging where Riis had attempted to spend the night had become an increasingly since the 1860s. Low Life author Luc Sante estimates that between 100,000 and 250,000 people per year took shelter there. As Eric Monkkonen documents in Police in Urban America, these cold, leaky, drafty lodging houses were a petri dish of diseases that would spread quickly through their populations and onto the police force.

One police doctor lamented, “More miserable, unhealthy, horrible dungeons could not well be conceived of,” which sounds pretty rough by 19th century standards. The most common afflictions were tuberculosis, lice, and syphilis. Reformers had long hoped to shut such institutions down. In 1894, when Riis met Teddy Roosevelt, they got their best chance.

 

Confidante

Jacob Riis was once one of the most famous men in America: and became a close friend and confidante of President Theodore Roosevelt and the epitome of the immigrant made good — good, in his case, being measured by political and social influence, not by wealth. One of his books, How the Other Half Lives (1890), exposed the horrors of tenement life. It caught the attention of Civil Service Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, who viewed it as a call to action. Immediately after finishing this book, Roosevelt marched into Riis’s office to tender his assistance. In 1895, when Roosevelt was New York Police Commissioner and Riis was employed as a police reporter at the Mulberry Street station, the two often worked together. They ventured out on urban expeditions together to witness first-hand the calamitous conditions affecting the poor. Through their investigations, they hoped to bring about better living situations as well as to eliminate corruption within the police department that added to the burden of destitute New Yorkers. . On February 8, 1896, Riis took Roosevelt on a tour of police lodging houses, including the specific one that had mistreated him nearly 20 years earlier. A disgusted Roosevelt promised Riis, “I will smash them tomorrow.” A week later, Commissioner Roosevelt shut down all of the police lodging houses in the city. Afterwards, Riis wrote, “The battle is won. The murder of my dog is avenged.” For the for the rest of his career, Riis would end lectures thundering, “My dog did not die unavenged!”Through their investigations, they hoped to bring about better living situations as well as to eliminate corruption within the police department that added to the burden of destitute New Yorkers. Riis was active in bringing about anti-child labor and tenement reform laws.

After Roosevelt resigned as Police Commissioner, he and Riis remained close. United by their passion for reform, the pair’s unlikely friendship surpassed purely political matters Riis was active in bringing about anti-child labor and tenement reform laws.

 

Photos

One of Riis' most famous photos was taken on Bayard Street. It's called "5 Cents a Spot," which shows a room full of people bedding down for the night. (A "spot" meant a place on the floor.) They must have been shocked. Magnesium flash powder was something new. It was developed in Germany in 1887. Riis' burst of light must have been a stunning surprise, but it made the dim, airless lives of the poor visible to the middle class.

Bonnie Yochelson and Daniel Czitrom, co-authors of Rediscovering Jacob Riis,  took a walk through the neighborhood.  The neighborhood is recently gentrified, but this was where Riis campaigned against the housing conditions of the day. "You can still see the really small size of the building lots," says Czitrom, who is a historian. "The typical building lot in New York for a tenement was 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep going back," and the buildings often took up the entire lot, he says. So-called rear tenements, built behind other tenements, would have no access to light or air, and all the rooms were interior rooms, Czitrom says.

A court decision from that era essentially said there is no right to light or air for a renter or an owner, he says. "So, the idea that you have a right to a window or the right to some breathing space was not a legal right that anyone recognized until much later," Czitrom says.

Riis thought of himself as a writer, and he was evidently a gripping storyteller in the lectures he gave to accompany his lantern slideshows.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Share

When the State of Israel was declared in the Middle East in 1948, it was dubbed the first independent Jewish state since the reigns of kings like Saul, David and Solomon in the 10th century. That’s because very few people, then or now, are aware of an area that, in August of 1936, was declared as the site where “For the first time in the history of the Jewish people, its burning desire for a homeland, for the achievement of its own national statehood has been fulfilled.”

Alina Adams explains.

A 1933 Soviet stamp depicting the Jewish people of Birobidzhan, available here.

How It Started

That site was and still is known as Birobidzhan, a strip of land between the Biro and the Bidzhan rivers, located on the border of Russia and China.

How did that happen? Well, it began as many Jewish stories begin….

In 1926, the still-fledgling government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was advised that “Jewish agricultural settlements (have) called forth a sharply heightened anti-Jewish mood.”

Translation: Communism took away land from Russian/Ukrainian/Slavic peasants and redistributed it among all Soviet citizens, which included Jews. Also, Jews who did not want to farm, came pouring into the cities, competing with other unskilled laborers for the already limited pool of menial work. 

This annoyed both the farmers and the non-farmers. Since antisemitism had been officially outlawed by the newly formed workers paradise of the USSR, it annoyed those in charge that it still existed. It was an embarrassment to them. Something needed to be done!

The solution? Well, if you got rid of Jews, then you also got rid of Jew-hatred. Sure. Let’s pretend it works that way.

But where to get rid of them to?

The Committee for the Settlement of Toiling Jews on Land filed an 80 page report saying they would accept any piece of land the Soviet Union decided to put them on… except for Birobidzhan.

Why not Birobidzhan? Well, first, the territory was mostly swamp, covered in gadflies and mosquitos. Locals burned fires to keep insects away from the cattle, and covered themselves in repelling ointment and netting. Second, the area was populated by native Koreans who likely wouldn’t appreciate the newcomers, as well as Chinese warlords who periodically crossed the border to check on their poppy (opium) fields. Oh, and Cossacks. Did we mention Cossacks? After the revolution, many fled East. They likely wouldn’t appreciate the Jewish interlopers either.

Naturally, after reading the report, the Soviet government decided their newly created Jewish Autonomous Region would be… in Birobidzhan.

 

How It’s Going

In April 1928, 540 families and 150 single people made the trek to the Far East. There was no infrastructure for them. They literally lived in holes in the ground, dealing with the tail end of the rainy season. By May 1928, two-thirds of the settlers had turned back home.

Nonetheless, that same summer, Birofeld, the first Jewish collective farm in the East was established. It subsumed the Cossack village of Alexandrovka; the first recorded incident of a Jewish community overtaking a Russian one. 

In May 1934, the Communist Party granted Birobidzahn its official status as the Jewish Autonomous Region.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Except they did not.

The 1930s were a most precarious time in the USSR. That was when Stalin unleashed his Great Terror Purges, arresting, exiling, and executing all those who he believed were against him. And he believed almost everyone was against him. Alliances could change on a whim, with no warning. 

For instance, Lazar Kaganovitch, secretary of the Central Committee, Commissar of Communications, and colloquially known as the most powerful Jew in the USSR, visited Birobidzhan in February of 1936. He had dinner with the local party head, and praised his wife’s delicious Jewish cooking.

 

Where It Went Wrong

By August of 1936, that same party head was removed on charges that he’d been “unmasked as untrustworthy, counterrevolutionary, and a bourgeois-nationalist conspiring to create a murderous, Bundist, Nazi-Facist organization.”

Oh, and his wife had tried to poison Kaganovitch. With gefilte fish. Possibly the most Jewish criminal charge ever filed.

In 1940, after The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that partitioned Central and Eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Germany, the USSR found itself overseeing a portion of the over three million Jews living in Poland. Officials visited Birobidzhan to investigate whether it might be a good option for deporting them to, before opting to go with their tried and true destination of Siberia. 

In the run-up to World War II, Birobidzhan’s Korean population was also exiled to Siberia, for fear they might prove a fifth column more loyal to Japan than to the Allies powers. After the war, Birobidzhan saw a slight uptick in population, as Jewish survivors, unable to face returning to the villages and cities where their own neighbors turned them over to the Nazis and Rumanians, trickled into what they hoped might prove a safe haven.

However, those truly dedicated to the cause of an independent Jewish state made their way to Israel by the end of the decade, and the Jewish population of Birobidzhan continued shrinking. Currently, they number around 4,000 people, roughly 5% of Birobidzhan’s 75,000 citizen population. 

However, the buildings and street signs still bear the traces of Hebrew letters spelling out Yiddish place names. Officially, Birobidzhan is still The Jewish Autonomous Region, whether the Jews of the world know it or not.


Alina Adams is the NYT best-selling author of soap opera tie-ins, figure skating mysteries, and romance novels. Her latest historical fiction, “My Mother’s Secret: A Novel of the Jewish Autonomous Region” chronicles a little known aspect of Soviet and Jewish history. Alina was born in Odessa, USSR and immigrated to the United States with her family in 1977. Visit her website at: www.AlinaAdams.com.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Categories20th century
Share

For a thousand years, legends claimed that Vikings settled in North America. In his new book American Vikings: How the Norse Sailed into the Lands and Imaginations of America (here), Martyn Whittock explores the evidence for this in the literary sources and archaeology; and, also, in the way this idea has fed into the cultural DNA of North America and especially the USA.

Summer in the Greenland coast circa the year 1000. Painting by Carl Rasmussen from 1875.

The basis of the American claim: the discovery of “Vinland”

Old Norse sagas, first recorded in Iceland, tell of voyages to a land west of Greenland. These are Erik the Red’s Sagaand The Saga of the Greenlanders. The earliest surviving manuscript dates from shortly after 1264, in the case of Erik the Red’s Saga, and 1387, in the case of The Saga of the Greenlanders.  While separated from the events they claim to describe by centuries, both clearly drew on much earlier material. While they differ over details, the role of individuals, and the ordering of events, they never disagree about the central claim: Norse settlers moved from Iceland to Greenland; and from there to a land, they describe as “Vinland.”

The lands described in the sagas appear under the names Helluland (Stone-slab Land), Markland (Forest Land), and Vinland (Vine Land or Wine Land). The most likely location of Helluland is the east coast of Baffin Island and may also have included the mountainous region of northern Labrador. Markland almost certainly refers to the southern coast of Labrador. Vinland – the name derived from winemaking fruits – probably refers to the area from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to as far south as northern New England. The sagas say that wild grapes and wheat were located there.

Several settlement sites are referred to by name in the sagas and for each of them there are contested possible locations. What is clear is that the western explorers were operating at the extreme end of their supply lines and constituted a very small number of settlers. Relationships between them and indigenous peoples ranged from trade to conflict (including unprovoked killings carried out by some of the Scandinavians). The saga evidence indicates that long-term settlement was unsustainable. However, the matter may be a little more complex.

 

Continuing voyages to Vinland?

Norse involvement with Vinland did not end with the failure of the settlements described in the sagas. The Annals of the Kings of Iceland (compiled 1300–28) record that in “1121 Bishop Erik from Greenland went to look for Vinland.” The Law Man’s Annals (written sometime after 1412) mention Erik leaving Iceland in 1112, with the enigmatic words: “Voyage of Bishop Erik.” This tells us nothing more about Vinland or anything else for that matter.

Other medieval accounts also refer to ongoing connections with North America. It seems that these voyages went as far as the coast of Labrador, to collect wood that was lacking in Greenland. Voyages also took place to Helluland (probably Baffin Island). The intention here may have been to trade with indigenous peoples. The Elder Skalholt Annals, compiled c. 1362, contain an entry (under 1347) that reads: “There came also a ship from Greenland . . . It was without an anchor. There were seventeen men on board, and they had sailed to Markland, but had afterward been driven hither by storms at sea.”

Helluland appears, in passing, in mythical sagas, which illustrate how the far-west had entered a twilight world where history mixed with mythology. An example can be found in the Saga of Halfdan Eysteinsson, c.1350. It contains an enigmatic statement that “[a ruler named] Raknar brought Helluland’s deserts under his sway, and destroyed all the giants there . . .”

Finally, the Icelandic Book of Settlements enigmatically refers to a mysterious place named “White Man’s Land” (Hvitramannaland) or “Ireland the Great” and its discovery, allegedly c. 983. It was considered to have been somewhere in the vicinity of Vinland.

What all this evidence reveals is that the connection of Norse adventurers with North America did not end with the abandonment of the settlements there, as recorded in the famous sagas. Subsequent journeys seem to have occurred. The idea of Vinland was kept alive.

 

The archaeological evidence for “American Vikings”

It is in Newfoundland that securely dated evidence of this settlement has been unearthed. The site in question— L’Anse aux Meadows—lies at the northern tip of Newfoundland’s Great Northern Peninsula. Several archaeological investigations have occurred there. These confirm the existence of four building complexes.

The construction styles, combined with a limited number of artifacts, indicates that the site was Norse. Finds of wood and butternuts (or white walnuts) suggest voyages occurred down the eastern coast of what is today Canada and the USA. How far south – and how far into the North American continent – is a matter for conjecture, sometimes heated.

Tree-ring analysis of worked-wood from the site has dated them to the year 1021. However, research published in 2018 suggests that Norse activity at the site could have lasted for a century. This does not imply a continuousoccupation. That, given the sparse evidence left behind, seems highly unlikely. Instead, it indicates the possibility that occasional Norse activity occurred there beyond the early eleventh century.  We can imagine the final ships putting in at L’Anse aux Meadows as late as the first quarter of the twelfth century, having originally established the settlement c. 1021.

While L’Anse aux Meadows is the most famous site with archaeological evidence of Norse activity west of Greenland, it is not alone. On Ellesmere Island, Canada’s most northern island, stray finds suggest indigenous people trading with the Norse from as early as the twelfth century. Similarly, an indigenous site at Port Refuge, on Devon Island, situated between Ellesmere Island and the northern coast of Baffin Island, was the find-spot of part of a cast bronze bowl and some smelted iron. The context has been dated to the fifteenth century. On Baffin Island, a carved wooden figure appears to depict a Scandinavian wearing a characteristic hooded robe. Less dramatic than these finds, is the spun cordage, like that found on medieval European sites, which was recently recognized during a re-examination of an archaeological collection excavated from Baffin Island.

Similar material has been identified from two other sites on Baffin Island and another one in northern Labrador. These various sites indicate the widespread nature of the Norse interaction with native peoples in the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic. They join a growing list of artifacts – from tally-sticks to willow baskets – which suggest they were made by Greenland Norse. Whether these indicate the actual presence of Scandinavians, or items traded over a long distance, is open to question.

As striking, is the coin found, in 1957, at a Native American site at Naskeag Point, in Maine. It is a coin of Olaf Kyrre, king of Norway, and was minted by 1080. While questions have been raised concerning the authenticity of the find itself, recent study of the condition of the coin suggests it had lain in the position found for a very long period before its discovery. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider it a genuine find, which was probably traded down to its find-spot via indigenous intermediaries.

However, none of the other claimed Viking finds, currently known from North America (particularly in the USA), are convincing. Instead, these items – mostly runestones – are almost certainly fakes, manufactured from the nineteenth century onwards to make connections with medieval Norse explorers.

 

The enduring fascination with the Vinland Vikings

The interest in the Vinland Vikings in the USA began to gain traction from the 1770s, was encouraged by the availability of the sagas in English translation in North America from the 1830s, and accelerated with Scandinavian settlement (especially in the Midwest) after the 1860s. They were presented as an alternative European origin myth to Columbus, who himself had never made it to North America. Arguably, the ongoing popularity of the Norse in later US comic-book culture, films, games, and branding, owes a great deal to a particular American interest in “Vinland Vikings,” alongside stimulus from the wider global fascination with the Viking Age.

Norse symbolism is also now utilized by some alt-right groups as part of modern culture wars.  Viking symbols were displayed at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, and at the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021. This is evidence of how much further “American Vikings” have sailed into some modern imaginations, compared with into the North American continent itself.

 

 

Martyn Whittock has written numerous educational and history books, including titles on Viking and Anglo-Saxon history. In addition, as a commentator and columnist, he writes for several print and online news platforms, and has been interviewed on TV and radio news programs exploring the impact of history on current events in the USA, the UK, and globally. His latest book, American Vikings: How the Norse Sailed into the Lands and Imaginations of America, is published by Pegasus Books, New York, in November, distributed by Simon and Schuster. Find out more here: http://pegasusbooks.com/books/american-vikings-9781639365357-hardcover

 

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
Share

Heinrich Pfeifer is not a name which springs to mind when we consider the major events of the twentieth century, but new evidence shows he might just be one of the key figures to decide the outcome of the Second World War, and hence one of the reasons why we are not all speaking German today instead of English.

Robert Temple explains.

Reinhard Heydrich, who was Heinrich Pfeifer’s boss. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1969-054-16 / Hoffmann, Heinrich / CC-BY-SA, available here.

Pfeifer’s name only became known for certain recently, when it was revealed by some Swiss intelligence files. Before that, only the top people of the world’s security agencies of the 1940s knew who he really was, as he had about twenty different names and identities. Indeed, the voluminous American security files on Pfeifer are still classified, and until now no one could have asked to see them anyway because no one knew which name to ask for.

Pfeifer was the highest German espionage official ever to defect from the Nazi regime. His immediate superior was Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the SD, which was the intelligence service of Himmler’s SS. His special activities were counterintelligence and foreign operations. At one time he infiltrated the French spy service (the Deuxième Bureau) and acted as a double agent for Germany. He was a master of disguise and sometimes went around dressed as a tramp. Despite being anti-Communist, he was elected head of a Trotskyite society which he gracefully declined. Later he infiltrated the Polish intelligence service and tricked the General Staff of Poland with a false invasion plan. In all, he worked for the intelligence services of at least seven different countries.

Ultimately, Pfeifer turned against the Nazi regime because of its anti-Semitism, the concentration camps, and violent murders, all of which he despised. He defected to Switzerland in September of 1938, and worked for Swiss Army intelligence for three years, helping to prevent Hitler’s plan to annex the German portion of Switzerland. In 1938 and 1939, Pfeifer flew to London and met with Robert Vansittart, the head of British intelligence. Pfeifer was able to identify the two leading German spies in the UK, who had never previously been named, and they were both expelled in 1939.

 

Spies

The spies Pfeifer named were Baron Dr. Kurt von Stutterheim, who had been posing as an anti-Nazi activist, and Hans E. Friedrich, who had been posing as an arts journalist. Pfeifer gave huge amounts of detailed information to Vansittart which Vansittart then passed over to sympathetic American sources for circulation and partial publication, to help influence the American public about the need to join the War. Vansittart’s intense efforts to out-maneuver Neville Chamberlain and get Winston Churchill into power were greatly aided by Pfeifer’s defection and the enormous amount of material that Pfeifer supplied. The contact was made all the easier because Pfeifer was multi-lingual and spoke English as well as various other languages (being fluent in Italian, one of his duties had been to liaise with General Roatta, the head of Mussolini’s security services, on behalf of Himmler and Heydrich.)

Heinrich Pfeifer worked and was registered under a false name during his entire time in the security service. Starting in 1929 his first boss, Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s close friend and chief ideologue of the Nazi Party, insisted he be called Heinz Stein. Pfeifer was only 24 at the time.

Pfeifer was a devout Catholic all his life and he only became involved with the Nazis because he wanted to fight Communism. He then found himself immersed in an evil empire which he had not anticipated, and from which it was difficult to escape. He had, after all, joined the Nazis four years before Hitler actually came to power, and when their true nature was not entirely clear.

 

After the war

In 1949, at the age of 44, Pfeifer was assassinated by a Nazi vengeance squad for having betrayed Nazi secrets. His memoir published in 1945 in Switzerland was bought up and destroyed by Nazi sympathisers, and few copies survived. But Pfeifer’s meticulous description of the precise structures and methods of Nazi espionage ironically recorded the replicated version of the same thing which commenced about that time by the Russians. In that, they were guided by Heinrich Mueller, the head of the Gestapo who fled to the Russians at the end of the War. So, Pfeifer’s guide to Nazi infiltration techniques is equally a guide to the Russians’ techniques after 1945.

Pfeifer knew that he was risking his life by escaping from his boss Reinhard Heydrich, whom he described as ‘satanic’ and more dangerous than Hitler. He had risked his life many times before in the interests of Nazi Germany, but he was to pay the final price for his efforts to try to save the Allies, and especially Britain. However, if not for his bravery in coming forward and supplying crucial intelligence to Robert Vansittart, and ultimately to the American press, the tides of war may never have meaningfully turned against Hitler. History would likely have turned out much different if not for the courageous acts of this one man, who most have never even heard of.

 

 

 

Robert Temple is a London-based historian, archaeologist, publisher, and former journalist who has previously written for publications such as The Guardian, New Scientist, and Harpers. Temple is editor of the forthcoming book, Drunk On Power: A Senior Defector’s Inside Account of the Nazi Secret Police State, the long suppressed memoir of Nazi defector Heinrich Pfeifer. Temple was the first person to reveal the ‘forcible repatriation scandal’ during and after World War II and persuaded Lord Carrington, then U.K. Defence Minister, to release the sealed War Office files which blew away the secrecy of that forbidden subject, which had resulted in the deaths and incarceration of two million people by Stalin, with the shameful secret complicity of the Allied Powers. Temple has been a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI) since 1972. Robert Temple is the author of numerous books on history and science. He has twice been appointed Visiting Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science and he has done archaeological work in Egypt, Greece, and Italy.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
Share

Donald J. Trump is in court for a number of reasons currently, although he still remains favorite for the Republican nomination for the presidency. With that in mind, here Larry Deblinger looks at some of the criminal (or possibly criminal) dealings of some former Republican presidents.

Harding’s Gang? President Warren G. Harding’s first cabinet in 1921.

The Republican party of the United States is in flux as it seeks to forge its future with or without the leadership of former president Donald J. Trump. While Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls in the race for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, he is also facing trial on four criminal indictments encompassing 91 separate charges. Republican politicians and rank-and file-voters must decide whether they will support Trump should he be both their party’s nominee and a convicted felon. Depending on the trial outcomes, it may be a stark choice of Trump or the law.

But the stakes of the present moment for the future of the Republican party, and, potentially, of American democracy, can only be fully appreciated in light of the GOP’s past. The history of the presidencies of the Republican party, which often brands itself “the party of law and order,” includes a long criminal record, spanning almost the entire existence of the party, of which the Trump administration, despite some unprecedented aspects of its law-breaking, is only the latest chapter. What Republicans decide today will help determine whether that heritage of lawlessness at the highest levels of national government, where a political party is expected to assemble its best and brightest and promote its core tenets, will continue to stain the character of the GOP.

 

Grant’s Invasion

The criminal record of Republican presidencies substantially begins a mere 15 years after the 1854 birth of the GOP, with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877). At this time, corruption in government was common since the so-called “spoils system,” as in “to the victor go the spoils,” held sway in American politics, determining government jobs, favors and funding through political patronage.1 But federal executive branch corruption erupted to unprecedented and shocking levels under Grant. The scandals, too numerous to detail in total, ran from bribery, fraud, and extortion to embezzlement and financial market manipulation and permeated the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Justice, War (now called Defense), the Navy, and the Postal Service, reaching to top cabinet officers and the vice-president.2

The malfeasance by the end of Grant’s first term was such that it helped trigger a breakaway faction of his party who called themselves the Liberal Republicans and opposed Grant’s 1872 re-election. Among other points of opposition to Grant, the Liberals charged that “The Civil Service of the Government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition, and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions, and breeds a demoralization dangerous to the perpetuity of republican government.”3

 

The Whiskey Ring

The most extensive of the Grant administration scandals was the Whiskey Ring. Grant had sent an old friend whom he had appointed to the Treasury, General John McDonald, to head up federal tax revenue collection in Missouri, a hotbed of support for the Liberal Republicans. Once there, McDonald observed that whiskey distillers had been bribing federal revenue agents for years to allow them to underpay what they owed in taxes. Rather than curtail the illegality, McDonald and other Republican operatives got in on the action, forming the Whiskey Ring in conjunction with distillers, ostensibly to divert the unpaid tax money to a slush fund for Grant’s re-election in 1872 and other Republican campaigns.4 Storekeepers, treasury clerks, revenue agents and others in the whiskey chain were forced to cooperate, sometimes through impressment and blackmail.4 After the 1872 elections, the Whiskey Ring outgrew its original, perhaps specious political purposes to become a nationwide crime syndicate operated entirely for the enrichment of the conspirators. After it was uncovered and investigated by Grant’s Justice Department starting in 1875, 110 conspirators, including MacDonald, were convicted of crimes (e.g., defrauding the US Treasury) and over $3 million in stolen revenues were recovered.5  

Despite the scandals of his administration and opposition of the Liberals, Grant, the former top general of the Union army and Civil war hero, won re-election handily. Grant appeared to be unaware of the various corrupt activities in his administration, and urged prosecution of the malefactors when informed of them.6 But he was drawn into the Whiskey Ring scandal when his private secretary, Orville Babcock, was indicted and tried in criminal court for involvement in the scheme. Grant testified on behalf of Babcock, denying his guilt and defending his character, in a deposition taken at the White House. Owing largely to Grant’s testimony, Babcock was eventually acquitted, but was later accused of complicity in another corrupt scheme.4,5 For years afterwards, fairly or not, the term “Grantism” was synonymous with government corruption.7

 

Harding’s Gang

Following Grant, the Progressive era of the late nineteenth and early 20th century in the US promoted “good government” policies which helped to curb government corruption. Progressive Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt played prominent roles in this movement.8 But Americans came to tire of Progressivism under the strident leadership and activism of the Democratic president Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), and in 1920, they voted a conservative Republican, Warren G. Harding, into the White House. Harding had run on the campaign theme of a “return to normalcy.”9 If by normalcy Harding meant a return to Republican officials criminally abusing the powers of the Federal government, he delivered in spades.

A handsome, statuesque, and genial man with a turbo-charged sex-drive, Harding had risen through the shady world of Ohio politics and brought his cronies from that milieu to the executive branch. Known as the Ohio gang, Harding’s associates generated a font of corruption.

The disclosures began in early 1923 at the Veteran’s Bureau  (now the Department of Veterans’ Affairs), leading to the resignation of the Director, Charles R. Forbes and the suicide of the General Counsel, Charles T. Cramer. Forbes was convicted in 1924 of conspiracy to defraud the government, involving the theft of more than $200 million in bureau funds, and sentenced to two years in prison.10,11

The odor of corruption led next to the office of the Alien Property Custodian, which adjudicated claims for properties confiscated from Germans during World War I. Congressional investigators the bureau to be a sump of bribery and graft. The Custodian, Thomas W. Miller, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and imprisoned.12  Harding’s Attorney General, Harry Daugherty, a key member of the Ohio gang, was brought to trial on charges of involvement in the Alien Bureau schemes and was acquitted, although it was brought out that he had burned bank ledger sheets of his and other accounts to destroy evidence.13 Daugherty was also accused of running a bribery/protection racket for alcohol dealers trying to evade the Prohibition law then in effect but was never prosecuted.14 However, Daugherty’s secretary and close friend, Jess Smith, committed suicide under mysterious circumstances.15

 

Oil Money Bribes

The infamous Teapot Dome scandal, also occurring under the Harding administration, was named for a federal government reserve of oil-bearing land at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, intended for use by the US Navy and managed by the Interior Department. After a series of investigations and criminal trials revealing an intricate and scandalous web of corporate-government corruption, Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall was convicted and imprisoned for receiving bribes in return for leasing Teapot Dome and other federal oil reserves to private companies.16

The full extent of Harding’s knowledge of the corruption in his administration remains unknown, largely because he died suddenly while in office in 1923. In his classic 1931 history of the 1920s, “Only Yesterday,” Frederick Lewis Allen, author and Editor of Harper’s magazine, opined that “the Harding administration was responsible in its short two years and five months for more concentrated robbery and rascality than any other in the whole history of the Federal government.”17 

 

Nixon’s Criminal Cohort

It is sometimes forgotten that Richard M. Nixon set the tone for his administration (1969-74) well before the Watergate scandal with his choice for vice-president, Spiro T. Agnew, Governor of Maryland. Little-known outside of Maryland, Agnew was a tough, plain-spoken politician whom the Nixonites thought would be perfect for their campaign. It turned out that Agnew was a creature straight from the Grant-Harding school of politics as criminal enterprise. Agnew had not only run a bribery racket as County Executive and then Governor of Maryland, extorting public works contractors for kickbacks of government-appropriated funds, he continued receiving the payments—in envelopes stuffed with cash—as Vice-President of the US.18 Faced with criminal charges of extortion, bribery, graft, conflict of interest, and tax evasion, Agnew pleaded to the least embarrassing charge, tax evasion, in return for resigning his office and a $10,000 fine.19

 

The Watergate Scandal

Then there was Watergate. The infamous burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters and cover-up, the latter personally engineered by Nixon and his White House staff, encompassed a vast scale of illegal activities and abuses of power. As in the Harding administration, the nation’s top legal official, Attorney General John Mitchell, was a key facilitator of illegality under Nixon. A century after Republican operatives under Grant used the Whiskey Ring to raise re-election campaign funds through intimidation and blackmail, Nixon re-election campaign officials also used an illegally derived slush fund, including campaign contributions from corporations, which were outlawed at the time, to finance the Watergate break in and other crimes and “dirty tricks,” laundering the money through banks in Mexico.20,21

Overall, 69 Nixon administration officials were indicted for crimes related to Watergate or other illegal activities and 48 were convicted, including Attorney General Mitchell.22 A grand jury was set to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation but prosecution was deterred by questions over whether a sitting president could be indicted.23 In any event, like his vice-president before him, Nixon resigned in disgrace.

 

Reagan Restores a Republican Tradition

After the brief period of atonement known as the Ford administration (1974-77), which was most notable for President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Nixon, the Republicans were back at it with the presidency of Ronald W. Reagan (1981-89). Reagan bore curious echoes of Harding as a genial, handsome, somewhat inattentive man promising to restore a nostalgic era of simpler times in America. And like Harding, Reagan presided over a viral outbreak of corruption in the federal government of a magnitude unseen since the days of the Ohio gang.24 Abuses of office occurred at no less than 20 different federal departments and agencies, according to Pulitzer prize-winning Washington Post journalist and author Haynes Johnson.25

“By the end of his (Reagan’s) term 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of numbers of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever,” wrote Johnson, in his 1991 history of the Reagan administration, “Sleepwalking Through History.”26  

 

Cascading Corruption

The Iran-Contra affair is the most famous of the Reagan-era scandals, but that episode could at least be portrayed as a principled, if illegal, attempt to fight the spread of socialism in Central America. Less noted is that the Reagan administration was rife with raw, greed-driven corruption, which by one estimate amounted to a total theft of $130billion in public funds.27 A prime example was the Wedtech case, involving a Defense Department contractor, which Johnson described as “the kind of political corruption that extended back to the Washington (DC) of Grant and Harding: influence peddling, government contracts, cash, bribes, kickbacks, fraud and conspiracy.”28 The subsequent “Operation Ill Wind” probe by the FBI, investigating further corruption in Defense Department procurement, resulted in 50 convictions, including those of high-ranking military officers and administration officials.29

And on it went, across the federal government in a veritable feeding frenzy from the department of Housing and Urban Development, where an estimated $8 billion in public funds were stolen,30 to the Environmental Protection Agency where the director resigned rather than cooperate with a Congressional investigation of political manipulation of department funds.31 As in the Harding and Nixon administrations, the nation’s top law enforcement officer came under scrutiny for alleged lawbreaking. Edwin Meese III, Reagan’s Attorney General starting in 1984, was the object of a 14-month special prosecutor and federal grand jury investigation of alleged criminal financial improprieties. Although Meese was acquitted, he became an object of ridicule at the Department of Justice where morale plummeted.32     

           

Government-Sponsored Organized Crime

The Iran-Contra scandal involved a secret scheme concocted by high-ranking officials at the CIA and the National Security Agency to sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund the Contras of Nicaragua, who were fighting the socialist regime of their country. The arms sales to Iran violated US policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The support for the Contras violated the 1984 Boland Amendment, which specifically prohibited all military aid to the Contras or other groups in Nicaragua.33 Moreover, the murky scheme involved an unholy host of money changers, drug dealers, arms dealers, and terrorists, amounting to what one writer has described as “American-sponsored organized crime.”34

The Independent Prosecutor on the case, Lawrence E. Walsh, ultimately indicted 14 individuals with criminal charges of whom 11 were convicted, including National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North, National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams.35 Four counts of perjury and false statements were pending against Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger when he was pardoned in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush, who also pardoned Abrams and MacFarlane, among others. Walsh, a lifelong Republican, reportedly called Bush’s pardon of Weinberger, “one of the great cover-ups of American history at the highest levels of the executive branch.”36

Reagan pleaded ignorance of the Iran Contra scheme, while accepting responsibility for it. Although Reagan made multiple false statements regarding the activities in a televised speech to the nation,37 there was no evidence he knew they were false, and Walsh declined to indict him.38

And then there was Trump, who is now charged under one of his four indictments (from the state of Georgia) of running a “criminal enterprise” along with 17 co-defendants.

 

A Partisan Pattern?

Of the 19 total Republican presidencies, four, not including that of Trump, have each compiled a criminal record unparalleled by any other administration of any other party in US history. The outbreaks have been sporadic but persistent to this day. Yet, the question could be raised as to whether this record truly reveals a penchant for lawlessness specific to the GOP or simply a tendency endemic to all political parties. As the famous saying goes, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Over their history, the Democrats have surely demonstrated no blanket immunity to corruption. During the 1860s and 1870s, the era of the spoilsmen, the Tweed Ring of New York City, run by the notorious “Boss” Tweed of the Democratic party, was a nexus of corrupt rackets that dominated city politics and set a standard for “boss”-run “party machines” nationwide. The Democratic-run states of New York, Illinois, and New Jersey have long been known for systemic corruption. Former New York State Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver died a convict in 2022 after being found guilty of corruption in 2015, and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey is currently facing bribery charges. Numerous other Democratic federal legislators have also been convicted of crimes in office.39 And the vast majority of Republican federal, executive branch office holders have been law abiding. The many Republicans who declared themselves ready to convict Nixon in his impeachment trial and forced his resignation demonstrated a courageous commitment to the law, as did those who testified for the January 6th Committee, and the two who served as committee members.

           

The Parties Compared

There is no comparison, however, between the criminal records of Democrats and Republicans in the presidency, the pinnacle of the US government, a fact supported by several media outlets using online data. Politifact, a nonpartisan website, found that there were 142 indictments against members of the past three Republican administrations (including Trump’s) versus just two under the past three Democratic presidents.40 The Huffington Post, a left-leaning news site, reported 91 criminal convictions connected to Republican presidencies versus only one under a Democrat since 1970.41 And the Daily Kos, another left-wing media site, tallied 120 indictments, 82 convictions, and 34 imprisonments for Republicans from the Nixon through the Obama administrations versus 4, 2, and 2, respectively, for the Democrats.42

What is next for the Republicans? If Trump is convicted, Republicans may or may not choose to move beyond him. The greater question for their party, and for US democracy, is whether the Republicans will leave behind or continue their heritage of criminal abuse of power at the highest levels of the US government, of which the Trump administration is but the latest chapter.

 

What do you think of the author’s argument? Let us know below.

 

 

References

1.     Calhoun CW (2017). The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Lawrence, Kansas; University Press of Kansas. Page 12.

2.     Scandals of the Ulysses S. Grant Administration. Wikipedia. https://wiki2.org/en/Grant_administration_scandals.

3.     The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/liberal-republican-platform-1872.

4.     Rives T. Grant, Babcock, and the Whiskey Ring. Prologue Magazine. Fall 2000; 32(3): https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/fall/whiskey-ring-1.

5.     Longley R. The Whiskey Ring: bribery scandal of the 1870s. Thought Co. March 29, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-whiskey-ring-5220735.

6.     Chernow R (2017). Grant. New York; Penguin Press. p.837.

7.     Sumner C. Republicanism vs. Grantism. Speech in the Senate of the United States. May 31, 1872.

8.     Swinth K. The Square Deal. Theodore Roosevelt and the themes of progressive reform. The Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/square-deal-theodore-roosevelt-and-themes-progressive-reform.

9.     Wallenfeldt J. Return to normalcy. American campaign slogan. History and Society: Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/return-to-normalcy.

10.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.129-30.

11.  Charles R. Forbes. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Forbes.

12.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.130-1.

13.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.131-2.

14.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.132.

15.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.132-3.

16.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. pp.118-29.

17.  Allen, FL (1931). Only yesterday. An informal history of the 1920s. New York; Harper Perennial, Modern Classics. p.133.

18.  Yarvitz M, Maddow R (2020). Bag man. The wild crimes, audacious cover up and spectacular downfall of a brazen crook in the White House. New York; Crown. pp. 50-75.

19.  Yarvitz M, Maddow R (2020). Bag Man. The Wild Crimes, Audacious Cover Up and Spectacular Downfall of a Brazen Crook in the White House. New York; Crown. pp. 138-9.

20.  Genovese MA (1999). The Watergate Crisis. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press. pp.22-23.

21.  Emery F (1994). Watergate. New York; Random House, Inc. pp. 110-11, 124-5.

22.  Watergate Scandal. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal.

23.   Watkins E, Kaufman E. National archives release draft indictment of Richard Nixon amid Mueller probe. CNN.com. October 31, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics/richard-nixon-watergate-national-archives-mueller/index.html.

24.  Scandals of the Ronald Reagan Administration. Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandals_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration.

25.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 169.

26.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 184.

27.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

28.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 172-3.

29.  Operation Ill Wind. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ill_Wind.

30.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. p. 183.

31.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 170-1.

32.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 184-5.

33.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

34.  Suri J. Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair. American Heritage. 2021. 66(2). https://www.americanheritage.com/reagan-and-iran-contra-affair.

35.  Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters. Volume 1: Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel. August 4, 1993, Washington, D.C. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm.

36.  Rosenberg P. Republicans, a history: how did the party of “law and order” become the party of crooks and crime. Salon. November 24, 2019.

37.  Johnson H (1991). Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years. New York, London; W.W Norton and Company. pp. 296-7.

38.   Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. Good Government Project, Brown University. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-reagan.php.

39.  List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes.

40.  Kertscher T. Many more criminal indictments under Trump, Reagan, and Nixon than under Obama Clinton and Carter. Politifact; The Poynter Institute. January 9, 2020. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/09/facebook-posts/many-more-criminal-indictments-under-trump-reagan-/.

41.  Grossinger P. Republican presidencies have 91x the conviction rate of Democratic presidencies. HuffPost. December 22, 2017. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-presidencies-have-91x-the-convictions-rate_b_5a3d5406e4b0df0de8b064e5.

42.  RoyalScribe. Updated: Comparing presidential administrations by felony arrests and convictions (as of 9/17/2018). Daily Kos. September 18, 2018. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/18/1796668/-UPDATED-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-felony-arrests-and-convictions-as-of-9-17-2018.

Delving into the character of General Ambrose Burnside, the man whose facial hair lives on as “sideburns” in the vernacular, threatens to lose many readers from the start. Most Civil War enthusiasts would consider him a prime candidate to be named the worst Union general in the war and with some merit. And, no question, he made a series of wild miscalculations and poor judgments.

Lloyd Klein explains.

Ambrose Burnside, 1862 (on the left).

“All the world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.”

― Oscar Wilde

 

Burnside was actually a very talented man who was grossly miscast in the war. Baseball fans recognize that a pitcher who loses 20 games in a season must be thought of highly because a bad pitcher would never get the opportunity to keep losing; that may be a good analogy to keep in mind when reading about him. The commonly held view that he was always on hand to lose a battle will absolutely be demolished by this in-depth study, although some will not willingly part with that cherished myth.

His father had been a slave owner in South Carolina who freed his slaves and moved to Indiana. Ambrose graduated from West Point, served in garrison duty at the end of the Mexican War, served under Braxton Bragg in Nevada and California, and was the recipient of an Apache arrow through his neck in Las Vegas. He was promoted to first lieutenant and sent to duty in Rhode Island. There he resigned from the army, became commander of the state militia, got married, and went into business, with no expectation of seeing military service ever again. But you know, life can be funny sometimes; our destiny is often beyond our control.

Burnside relinquished his U.S. Army commission to fully dedicate himself to perfecting the Burnside carbine, a groundbreaking breech-loading firearm (as seen in the patent drawing). He ingeniously crafted a unique brass cartridge for this carbine, designed to hold both bullet and powder, with a notable absence of a primer. To load the weapon, users would open the breech block by manipulating the twin trigger guards, inserting the cartridge. Upon pulling the trigger, the hammer struck a separate percussion cap, creating a spark. A hole in the cartridge base ignited the black powder, with the conical cartridge expertly sealing the barrel-breech junction. Unlike many contemporary breech-loaders prone to gas leaks upon firing, Burnside's design triumphantly eliminated this issue.

President Buchanan's Secretary of War, John B. Floyd, entered into a substantial contract with the Burnside Arms Company to outfit a substantial portion of the Army, mainly cavalry, prompting Burnside to establish extensive manufacturing facilities. However, these plans were marred when allegations arose that Floyd accepted bribes to terminate the $100,000 contract with Burnside. This revolutionary concept took time for the military to grasp, and by the time its value was recognized, Burnside had already sold the patent. In 1857, the Burnside carbine triumphed in a competition at West Point, outclassing 17 other carbine designs. Nevertheless, government orders for these carbines were initially sparse. This changed with the outbreak of the Civil War, resulting in over 55,000 carbines being requisitioned for Union cavalrymen. It became the third most widely used carbine during the Civil War, surpassed only by the Sharps carbine and the Spencer carbine.

In 1858 he ran for Congress as a Democrat in Rhode Island and lost. Newly married and out of a job, he needed to find a way to support his young family. So, Burnside went west looking for a job, any job. And he was hired as the Treasurer of the Illinois Central Railroad. Anyone who doubts that the Goddess of History doesn’t have a mordant sense of humor will find this coincidence a bit much. So, consequently, his new boss became George B. McClellan, and in his position, he began working directly with its corporate attorney, one Abraham Lincoln.

 

The Start of the Civil War

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Burnside was a colonel in the Rhode Island Militia. He raised the 1st Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry Regiment and was appointed its colonel on May 2, 1861. Notably, two companies of this regiment were armed with Burnside carbines. In less than a month, he advanced to brigade leadership within the Department of Northeast Virginia. His performance during the First Battle of Bull Run in July was unremarkable, but he temporarily assumed division command in lieu of the wounded Brig. Gen. David Hunter.

And so suddenly, Ambrose Burnside, inventor, failed politician and businessman, Indian fighter, and fledgling railroad executive, found himself a brigadier general in the Army of the Potomac. Initially tasked with training troops in the nation's capital, his destiny took a sharp turn that autumn. Burnside was entrusted with leading three brigades within the North Carolina Expeditionary Force. Their mission: to seal the North Carolina coast to shipping as part of the naval blockade. Collaborating closely with maritime experts, Burnside orchestrated an impressive amphibious operation that indeed achieved an 80% closure of the coastline. His significant promotion to Major General on March 18, 1862, played a pivotal role in later events during the war. His brigades were officially amalgamated to form the IX Corps, and he earned recognition as one of the Union generals who contributed to Union victories.

 

1862

In a context where career professional soldiers ruthlessly vied for advancement, an extraordinary occurrence transpired after McClellan's Peninsula Campaign failure: Burnside was offered command of the Army of the Potomac.  He declined, citing his lack of experience in leading an army of that magnitude, resulting in John Pope assuming command. Still, the other generals looked up to him.  In the lead-up to the Second Battle of Manassas, a fellow Major General, Fitz-John Porter, repeatedly conveyed messages to Burnside, questioning Pope's competence. Burnside, concurring with Porter's assessments, forwarded them to higher-ranking authorities, a crucial factor in Porter's later court-martial, during which Burnside testified in his defense.

And after the debacle of Second Manassas, once again he was offered command, and once again, Burnside declined, citing his inexperience as the reason. He acknowledged his shortcomings as a military officer. President Lincoln pressured him on several occasions, but Burnside stood firm in his belief that he wasn't capable of leading such a sizable army, a belief ultimately vindicated by history. He repeatedly declined, saying, "I was not competent to command such a large army as this."

During the Battle of Antietam, Burnside assumed command of the Right Wing of the Army of the Potomac, overseeing the I Corps and his own IX Corps at the outset of the Maryland Campaign. However, McClellan separated these two corps during the battle, stationing them at opposite ends of the Union battle line and restoring Burnside's authority solely over the IX Corps. Burnside, implicitly refusing to relinquish his control, operated as if the corps commanders were first Maj. Gen. Jesse L. Reno (who was killed at South Mountain) and subsequently Brig. Gen. Jacob D. Cox, directing orders through them to the corps.

At Antietam, the fact that Burnside delayed his attack on the Union left flank until the afternoon, particularly in the context of the stone bridge over Antietam Creek, the Rohrback Bridge now known as Burnside Bridge, likely influenced the battle's outcome. A cumbersome command arrangement contributed to Burnside's sluggishness in launching his attack and crossing the Rohrback, later Burnside's Bridge, positioned on the southern flank of the Union line. This delay allowed Confederate forces to reinforce and ultimately repulse the Union breakthrough. Sears suggested in Landscape Turned Red that the problem was that Burnside felt he was demoted and was piqued.  But its hard to imagine Burnside allowing a Union loss for that reason, and even harder to imagine that Lincoln would choose him to be the next Commander in Chief a month later if it were true.

The real story is far more complicated. McClellan sent his engineer to position Burnside but did so incorrectly. Rodman’s small force has to move on its own to Snavely’s Ford, which was the best downstream ford; this was too far away at this point for an alternative route. The idea that the Union forces could have waded across the Antietam Creek was based on a post war remark by out old friend, Henry Kyd Douglas. It was picked up by historians over the 20th Century, including Catton, who used it to make Burnside appear incompetent. The best guess is that it was not true, that there was just one ford, and it was far from ideal for a cross-river crossing under fire. This very complicated story is told in these two links: https://www.historynet.com/sculpting-a-scapegoat-ambrose-burnside-at-antietam/ and https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/assault-on-burnsides-bridge-at-the-battle-of-antietam/In the afternoon, Burnside's corps advanced against the Confederate right. At this critical moment, Jackson's subordinate, Maj. Gen. A. P. Hill, arrived at the last minute from Harpers Ferry McClellan might have secured victory if Burnside had acted differently. The cumbersome command arrangement contributed to Burnside's sluggishness in launching his attack and crossing Burnside's Bridge, positioned on the southern flank of the Union line. This delay allowed Confederate forces to reinforce and ultimately repulse the Union breakthrough.

Burnside failed to conduct a thorough reconnaissance of the area and failed to exploit numerous easily accessible fording sites beyond the reach of Confederate forces. Instead, his troops were repeatedly forced into assaulting the narrow bridge, under the threat of Confederate sharpshooters on elevated terrain. McClellan, growing impatient, sent couriers to urge Burnside forward, even ordering, "Tell him if it costs 10,000 men he must go now." Despite this, Burnside didn't receive reinforcements, and the battle ended with missed opportunities. He further increased the pressure by sending his inspector general to confront Burnside, who reacted indignantly: "McClellan appears to think I am not trying my best to carry this bridge; you are the third or fourth one who has been to me this morning with similar orders.” The IX Corps eventually broke through, but the delay allowed Maj. Gen. A.P. Hill's Confederate division to come up from Harpers Ferry and repulse the Union breakthrough. McClellan refused Burnside's requests for reinforcements, and the battle ended. 

Astonishingly, Burnside was offered command once more, despite his poor performance at Antietam.

 

Fredericksburg

Lincoln issued the order to remove McClellan on November 5, 1862, and on November 7, 1862, he selected Burnside to take his place. Burnside reluctantly complied with this directive, the third such instance in 1862, partly due to the courier's message that if he declined, command would instead be given to Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker, whom Burnside had an aversion to. It is instructive that he was offered this position and compelled to accept the third time given his own reluctance and, as history shows, his lack of preparation for the position.  The fact is, no one in the Union Army had ever been prepared for such a role, and he was as accomplished as anyone in senior leadership.

Burnside on taking command moved his army from near Culpepper to Falmouth within a few days, a pretty monumental achievement. His plan was to then make a direct attack on the Confederate capitol of Richmond, Virginia, avoiding Lee’s forces who were then in Culpepper. Burnside arrived in Falmouth by November 19, but the pontoons that he planned to use to cross the Rappahannock were delayed. He had ordered pontoon bridges from DC, but they were not delivered for weeks by the Quartermaster Department.  General Halleck acknowledged afterward that he had opposed the movement and had not hurried their supply. The loss of time allowed Lee to position Longstreet on Marye’s Heights.

The Assault on Marye's Heights resulted in a casualty rate estimated at 15-20% for Union troops, contributing to a total Union casualty count of 8,000. By comparison, Pickett’s charge had 6000 Confederate casualties of 12,500 engaged, or close to 50%. Malvern Hill had 8000-9000 casualties on both sides combined, or about 16-18%. Numbers aside, these figures tell us that attacks of entrenched or prepared positions in the Civil War were challenging, and the technology didn’t exist to overcome those odds.

It is so obvious to us, 160 years later, that this was a disastrous move. It wasn’t obvious to Burnside. Burnside’s decision to escalate the initial diversionary attack into a full-scale frontal assault on Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg was a costly and unsuccessful move. Why smart people make decisions that don’t work out can be perplexing, and General Burnside at Fredericksburg gives us a chance to see how external pressure and internal self-delusion impact our choices.

Several factors influenced Burnside's decision-making. There was a breakdown in communication and coordination among Union commanders. Burnside received reports of limited success in the diversionary attack on the Confederate right flank, leading him to believe that a more aggressive assault on Marye's Heights was needed to divert Confederate attention. Pressure to achieve a decisive victory and optimism may have clouded his judgment.

Burnside believed in his numerical advantage and hoped to dislodge the Confederate defenders through overwhelming force. Given the circumstances, Marye's Heights seemed the most promising target due to its proximity to the shelter of Fredericksburg and the less steep terrain. These factors, combined with the changing dynamics of the battlefield and the desire for a breakthrough, led Burnside to escalate what was originally intended as a diversionary attack into a full-scale frontal assault on Marye's Heights. I think none of the Civil War commanders understood that artillery had changed war a great deal and still believed that brute force attacks could overcome any defense; see Lee at Gettysburg, Grant at Cold Harbor. I also think Burnside was not a strategic genius and had exactly one plan in mind, and when it failed, he panicked.

Several of Burnside's subordinate commanders, including General William B. Franklin, expressed reservations about the frontal assault on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg. Franklin, in particular, was critical of the plan and argued against it. He believed that attacking Marye's Heights directly would result in high casualties and was unlikely to succeed. Hooker, Sumner, and several others told Burnside it was futile, but he continued to order piecemeal attacks.

The Battle of Fredericksburg is not a moment of shining glory for General Burnside. The battle and the subsequent ill-fated offensive led to Burnside's officers voicing vehement complaints to the White House and the War Department, citing his incompetence. Burnside attempted a Spring offensive, only to encounter hindrances stemming from poor planning and organization. The Spring Offensive was known as the Mud March. Although conceptually clever, it was highly impractical for January in Virginia. Burnside's plan was quite similar to Hooker's strategy in the Battle of Chancellorsville, aiming to outmaneuver Lee using the upriver fords on the Rappahannock. Burnside intended to execute this with his cavalry, which had thus far delivered lackluster performances in the war. However, heavy rains in January transformed the roads into impassable mud, forcing the plan's abandonment



After Fredericksburg

Burnside offered his resignation, but Lincoln declined, proposing that there might still be a role for him within the army. Consequently, Burnside was reinstated as the head of the IX Corps and dispatched to command a relatively inactive department, a quiet region with limited activity. Lincoln's rationale was that Burnside couldn't get into significant trouble there. However, he swiftly found himself embroiled in a major political controversy.

Burnside was assigned to the Department of the Ohio, which encompassed the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. Burnside issued a series of orders in a region with divided loyalties and sentiments, seeking to suppress "the expression of public sentiments against the war or the Administration." General Order No. 38, in particular, declared that "any person found guilty of treason will be tried by a military tribunal and either imprisoned or banished to enemy lines." On May 1, 1863, Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent opponent of the war, held a large public rally in Mount Vernon, Ohio in which he denounced President Lincoln as a "tyrant" who sought to abolish the Constitution and set up a dictatorship. Burnside had dispatched several agents to the rally who took down notes and brought back their "evidence" to the general, who then declared that it was sufficient grounds to arrest Vallandigham for treason. This led to the arrest and trial of Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent war opponent, further fueling political discord. A military court tried him and found him guilty of violating General Order No. 38, despite his protests that he was simply expressing his opinions in public. Vallandigham was found guilty of violating General Order No. 38, and sentenced to imprisonment for the duration of the war. This turned him into a martyr by antiwar Democrats. Lincoln had to extricate the entire Republican administration from the fallout that Burnside had produced.

Lincoln and Grant faced a dilemma concerning Burnside, pondering whether he posed a greater hindrance as a general in the field or in political administration. Initially, he was dispatched to relieve Knoxville, a relatively manageable task since only 2,300 troops opposed him. However, it still necessitated the return of all three brigades from Knoxville to force the Cumberland Gap's surrender. The strategic intent of the Knoxville campaign was to prevent Burnside's reinforcement of the besieged Federal forces at Chattanooga. Longstreet’s movement forced Burnside back into the defensive works in Knoxville. Burnside effectively outmaneuvered Longstreet at the Battle of Campbell's Station and successfully reached safety in Knoxville, where he endured a brief siege until the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Fort Sanders outside the city. It should be noted that General Burnside, widely seen as incompetent by modern enthusiasts, defeated Longstreet, widely seen as stellar, in this one-against-one campaign. There were extenuating circumstances, such as favorable terrain and supply routes, of course; but that is history. Longstreet then began a siege but it wasn’t very effective. After the first week, Longstreet learned of Bragg’s defeat at Chattanooga. Longstreet realized that time was not on his side, so he ordered an assault a few days later, but it failed miserably. Then, General Longstreet, who had bested him at Marye's Heights, launched an attack, preventing disaster despite being besieged. Grant sent Sherman to assist, but Longstreet had already withdrawn to Virginia. Longstreet's siege ended when Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman led the Army of the Tennessee to Knoxville, entered the city, and relieved Burnside.  Longstreet withdrew his men and later rejoined Gen. Robert E. Lee’s command in Virginia.

Later, Grant, thinking he could better monitor Burnside in the east, brought him back to Virginia. Unfortunately, Burnside's performance at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House and later at the Battle of the Crater was subpar.

During the Overland Campaign, Burnside's actions were less than stellar. At the Wilderness, timely attacks over three days could have secured victory, but Burnside failed to launch them. On the second day, had this union general moved rapidly when ordered (or even at all), AP Hill’s corps might have been destroyed. But once again, he was too slow to recognize the potential.

The blame for the Union's failure at the Battle of the Crater initially fell on Burnside, but it was later lifted. Burnside had been ordered to change the attacking troops at the last minute by Meade. General Ambrose Burnside was the corps leader of the Union assault. He was relieved of command for the final time for this failure. Brigadier General Edward Ferrero's division of black soldiers sustained very high casualties, perhaps because the Confederates refused to accept them as prisoners when they tried to surrender. He and  General James H. Ledlie were drinking rum throughout the battle in a bunker behind the lines. A division of United States Colored Troops under Ferrero trained to lead the assault. The plan was for one brigade to go left of the crater and the other to the right. A regiment from both brigades was to rush perpendicular to the crater. Then, the remaining force was to seize the Jerusalem Plank Road just 1,600 feet behind the line.

But the day before, Meade ordered Burnside not to use the black troops in the lead assault. Instead, Ledlie’s division was chosen but no one told them what to do once the explosion occurred. Meade did not let them charge because he thought if it failed then it would receive political backlash in the north and only prove Lincoln's message as false. He was aligning military goals with political ones. The USCT instead charged behind the lead troops. Tactically, Union troops entered the crater instead of going around it.  There, they were trapped in a hole with no support on the flanks. The ANV began shooting surrendering troops, perhaps due to racial animus. Ledlie was forced to resign by Meade and Grant.

 

Post-war Accomplishments

Burnside exhibited his intelligence and abilities in all of his positions after the war. He was elected Governor and later served as a US Senator from Rhode Island, chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He even attempted to mediate an end to the Franco-Prussian War.
It is remarkable that as accomplished as he was both before and after the war, his legacy among Civil War enthusiasts is so diminished. Grant remarked that Burnside was "unfitted" for army command, a sentiment shared even by Burnside himself. It should be recognized that Grant fired handfuls of generals during the war who did not live up to his standards, but he always kept Burnside around. Despite his affable personality and diverse talents, Burnside's Civil War decisions showcased his weakest contributions to history. However, astute historians recognize his deeper well of aptitude.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.