Search Results for: Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln the Philanthropist

Emancipation Proclamation with LincolnFew people know that Abraham Lincoln was also a philanthropist. We remember him for saving the union and the Emancipation Proclamation, but he also was a big donator to charity. On December 17, 1863, he sent a letter thanking the Sanitary Commission of Chicago for a watch that was sent to him for his contributions. He wrote:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, December 17, 1863
To James H. Hoes
My Dear Sir,

I have received from the Sanitary Commission of Chicago, the Watch which you placed at their disposal, and I take the liberty of conveying to you my high appreciation of your humanity and generosity, of which I have unexpectedly become the beneficiary. I am very truly yours

A. LINCOLN

So why was he receiving a watch?

The managers of the Northwestern Soldier’s Fair at Chicago had earlier written to Lincoln, noting:

`Among the many remarkable incidents of our recent Fair, not one has been more pleasant, than the duty that devolves upon us, of consigning to you, on this National Thanksgiving Day, the accompanying watch; of asking you to accept it, as a memorial of the Ladies N. Western Fair. During the progress of the Fair, Mr. James H. Hoes, Jeweller of Chicago, a most loyal and liberal man, after giving very largely himself, in order to stimulate donations from others, proposed through the columns of the Tribune, to give a gold watch to the largest contributor to the Fair. . . . Emancipation Proclamation . . . was sold for $3,000, the largest benefaction of any individual. . . .”

In a nutshell, Lincoln had handwritten a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation to donate to the Fair. The two-week fair was the first of many Sanitary Fairs designed to raise money to support the care of wounded and sick soldiers. The fair was entirely organized by women, and the managers that sent the letter to Lincoln were indeed Mrs. Abraham H. Hoge and Mrs. David P. Livermore. Most of the crafts, food, and entertainment for sale at the fair were created and provided by women. Dignitaries such as Lincoln donated documents, lithographs, and other items for sale and auction. The Chicago Fair brought in $80,000 (roughly $1.7 million today). Many hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised in subsequent fairs held around the country through the end of the war.

Lincoln’s contribution garnered the greatest gain for the Fair, hence the watch. What became of the watch is unknown, but perhaps he donated to the next Sanitary Fair.

On a related note, a printed copy of the Emancipation Proclamation but signed by Lincoln was sold at auction in 2012 for $2.1 million. The buyer was modern philanthropist David Rubinstein, who has donated millions of dollars to renovations of Lincoln-related buildings around Washinton, D.C. A total of 48 printed copies were made in 1863, with Lincoln signing all of them and donating them to the Sanitary Commission for auction.

Fire of Genius

Lincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln’s Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America is available at booksellers nationwide.

Limited signed copies are available via this website. The book also listed on Goodreads, the database where I keep track of my reading. Click on the “Want to Read” button to put it on your reading list. Please leave a review on Goodreads and Amazon if you like the book.

You also follow my author page on Facebook.

David J. Kent is President of the Lincoln Group of DC and the author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius: How Abraham Lincoln’s Commitment to Science and Technology Helped Modernize America and Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America.

His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity andEdison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Lincoln’s Scientific Approach to Military Strategy

Lincoln testing a SpencerLincoln took a scientific approach to military strategy. The Anaconda plan’s focus was on securing the coastlines and the Mississippi River. Recognizing New Orleans as the hub of the cotton trade and commerce, Lincoln saw it as the first port to be targeted for blockade. He also hoped to block southern ship traffic from Charleston, South Carolina to cut off Confederate attempts to woo Great Britain and France to their side. Helping him make this happen was Alexander Dallas Bache and the Coast Survey. The Coast Survey had been authorized by Thomas Jefferson, and Bache, who was Benjamin Franklin’s great-grandson, was quick to send nautical charts of the Chesapeake Bay to Lincoln. He also forwarded two terrestrial maps produced by the Survey that had far-reaching influence on Lincoln’s decisions on emancipation and military strategy.

The first map was of the state of Virginia. A relatively new technique of color-coded shading was used to show the percentage of enslaved population in each county based on the 1860 census. The darker shaded counties reflecting higher percentages of enslaved persons were primarily in the tidewater region and toward the southern part of the state. The mountainous western counties held only small percentages of enslaved. That told Lincoln the western counties were less likely to support the insurrection, and indeed, those counties rejoined the Union as the new state of West Virginia.

The second map showed the entire slaveholding portion of the country. Lincoln quickly recognized that the four “border” states—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware—had relatively few slaves in most of their counties. That fact helped inform Lincoln’s strategies to retain the border states in the Union, including proposals for gradual compensated emancipation in an effort to stimulate the process of freeing the enslaved. The map also clearly showed that eastern Tennessee had relatively few slaves, which again allowed him to target that region for initial military and diplomatic forays in the hope many of the residents would retain their Union sentiments. Also clear was that the highest densities of enslaved populations were in the cotton belt of the deep South and along the Mississippi River borders of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, where over 90 percent of the populations of some counties were enslaved. The map reinforced the importance of capturing New Orleans to cut off the main supply and transport line for the Confederate economy. Controlling the Mississippi was the key to the war, which “could never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket.” It also reinforced the belief that the deep South was so dependent on slavery it would never willingly give it up. Lincoln found this second map especially fascinating, according to Francis Carpenter, who spent six months at the White House preparing his famous painting, “First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln.” Carpenter added the southern slavery map to the lower right corner of his painting, reflecting its significance to the decision-making process.

But there is more…much more!

[Adapted from my book, The Fire of Genius, coming from Rowman & Littlefield in 2022]

David J. Kent is President of the Lincoln Group of DC and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln and McClellan’s Fatigued Horses

Tired and Fatigued horsesI have just read your dispatch about sore tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything? A. LINCOLN

General George B. McClellan was at it again. Or not at it, in a sense. McClellan had a habit of overestimating the enemy troop numbers and underestimating his own ability to attack. Lincoln was constantly frustrated.

In September 1862, Confederate General Robert E. Lee led his Army of Northern Virginia into western Maryland. Following their victory at a second battle of Bull Run, Lee moved his army north to a point near Sharpsburg, alongside Antietam Creek, where they took up defensive positions. With surprising aggressiveness, McClellan’s Army of the Potomac attacked Lee’s forces on September 17. The first assault came from Union General Joseph Hooker on Lee’s left flank, while General Ambrose Burnside later attacked the right. A surprise counterattack from Confederate General A.P. Hill helped push back Union forces. Eventually, Lee’s troops withdrew from the battlefield first. He moved his remaining army back across the Potomac into the safety of Virginia.

Always overly cautious, McClellan made no effort to follow. Lee had committed all of his 55,000 men, while McClellan only ordered a portion of his larger 87,000-man force into the fray. This numerical imbalance allowed Lee to create and exploit tactical advantages he should not have had. When questioned by Lincoln about his failure to pursue Lee, McClellan complained that his army and horses were sore-tongued and fatigued, and thus required rest. Lincoln responded tersely by telegram:

Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?

Antietam was destined to be the single bloodiest day of battle in American history. The casualties for both armies totaled a staggering 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.

Despite Lincoln’s frustration, Antietam stood out as an important battle in the fight for freedom. Although essentially a draw, the fact that Lee withdrew from the battlefield first allowed the North to record Antietam as a victory, something that Lincoln had been needing for some time. A few days later, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Adapted from Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln and Me Tour Harpers Ferry

Harpers FerryPresident Lincoln took a special train to Harpers Ferry on October 1, 1862. I drove my car to the National Park Service visitors center on October 1, 2021. Lincoln reviewed the troops on Bolivar Heights. I climbed to the overlook on Maryland Heights. One hundred and fifty-nine years separated us, but I still felt his presence.

Lincoln was anxious about his commanding general, George McClellan. McClellan had brought a military success, of sorts, near Antietam creek just a few weeks before. More of a draw than a clear-cut victory despite McClellan’s staff finding Confederate General Lee’s plans wrapped around three cigars, it had been enough for Lincoln to issue his Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd. Lincoln was not pleased with McClellan’s overall performance. McClellan complained incessantly that the enemy had decisively more troops, even when it was McClellan with the distinct numerical advantage. So Lincoln was coming to talk to McClellan in person.

Around 6 a.m. on the first day of October, Lincoln and entourage left Washington on a special train. Joining him were General McClernand, Ward Hill Lamon, Ozias Hatch, John Garrett (president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) and others. Arriving at Harpers Ferry at noon, Lincoln meets with General Sumners until General McClellan finally arrives in the early afternoon. McClellan and Lincoln visit the troops at Bolivar Heights. That night, Lincoln spends the night in Harpers Ferry. The next morning he visits more troops on the Maryland Heights and moves to McClellan’s headquarters for a strategic discussion and critical job review. While there, several iconic photos are taken by Alexander Gardner. A month later, Lincoln would finally relieve McClellan from command, permanently this time.

My visit began around 8 a.m. for a drive of just over an hour. The day was about as perfect as could be, with no clouds and a high temperature in the low 70s. A fog enveloped the valley as we approached, but quickly disappeared once I arrived in the lower town of Harpers Ferry. John Brown’s Fort was getting a paint job as I headed for the Maryland Heights trailhead. Not only is Harpers Ferry the intersection between Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia, it’s also where three trails intersect – Maryland Heights,  the C & O Canal Towpath, and the Appalachian Trail. The railroad and foot bridges over the Potomac River (with the Shenandoah River sliding in from the right) lead into the gaping maw of the tunnel under the heights. A short walk up the towpath brought us to the trailhead. A constant uphill hike of about 1200 feet elevation gain brought us to the Heights overlook, where we snacked and replenished electrolytes before hiking back down to the town. A delightful lunch on the patio of the Coach House Grill capped a perfect visit.

A week earlier I had toured Williamsport and Falling Water, another area not far away that had hackled Lincoln. After the decisive Union victory in Gettysburg, Lincoln was displeased with General George Meade for his failure to attack and destroy Lee’s army, giving it time to cross the Potomac River upstream from Harpers Ferry. Lincoln wrote a blistering letter berating Meade, his failure prolonging the war another two years instead of ending it in late 1863. Lincoln never sent the letter. Having spewed his anger onto the page, he rethought the wisdom of chewing his arguably one of his better generals. Luckily for us, he saved it for posterity “never signed, never sent.”

Eventually Lincoln would find likeminded generals in Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Henry Sheridan, along with Meade, who would be key to closing out the rest of the war. But his trip to Harpers Ferry and Antietam was to reassess his commander. McClellan was found wanting, and Lincoln fired him.

Unlike Lincoln, my trip to Harpers Ferry was a total success, and despite the sore muscles afterward, a wonderful experience.

[David J. Kent has been “Chasing Abraham Lincoln” for the last several years, with the COVID pandemic putting much of it on hold. With most responsible people now vaccinated, David will be doing more road trips on the trail of Lincoln. Stay tuned.]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Abraham Lincoln Meets with Frederick Douglass

Lincoln Douglass DebateOn August 10, 1863, Abraham Lincoln met with Frederick Douglass in the White House. Douglass had arrived unannounced, accompanied by Kansas Senator Samuel Pomeroy. They found the waiting room filled with people seeking an audience with the president, so Douglass, dressed in a dark suit on this sweltering August morning, assumed he would have a long wait. Instead, Lincoln’s secretary John Hay came quickly out to greet him and usher him into the inner sanctum.

Douglass described the meeting in his memoir:

“I entered [the room] with a moderate estimate of my own consequence, and yet there I was to talk with, and even to advise, the head man of a great nation. Happily for me, there was no vine pomp and ceremony about him. I never was so quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man, than in that of Abraham Lincoln….The room bore the marks of business, and the persons in it, the president included, appeared to be much overworked and tired.”

After describing the “long lines of care” already “deeply written on Mr. Lincoln’s brow,” Douglass writes that:

“As I approached and was introduced to him, he rose and extended his hand, and bade me welcome. I at once felt myself in the presence of an honest man – one whom I could love, honor, and trust without reserve or doubt.”

Douglass then told him of the object of his visit, which was to assist in the raising of African American troops for the war effort, an option now available after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863. Douglass reported that Lincoln “listened with patience and silence to all that I had to say.” He asked pertinent questions and answered Douglass’s complaints with respect and honesty.

John Hay notes the meeting in his diary, adding that Douglass “intends to go south and help the recruiting among his people.” Later that day, Lincoln endorsed the idea as set forth in a letter signed by Secretary of the Interior and Senator Pomeroy indicated that Douglass is “a loyal, free, man, and is, hence, entitled to travel, unmolested. We trust he will be recognized everywhere, as a free man, and a gentleman.” The trip fell through for lack of a commission and intransigence among military leaders, but three of Douglass’s sons served in the Union army.

Douglass would visit Lincoln twice more in the White House. The final time was on the day of Lincoln’s second inaugural speech, which Douglass professed to be “a sacred effort.”

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln Fires General-in-Chief George B. McClellan, But Keeps Him Anyway

George B. McClellanOn March 11, 1862, everyone was thinking about George B. McClellan. Lincoln’s cabinet met and groused about their chronic dissatisfaction with the General. Frustrated with McClellan’s “slows,” Lincoln issued War Order No. 3, which fired McClellan as General-in-Chief but retained him as commander of the Army of the Potomac. He spent the rest of the day explaining his decision. War Order No. 3 stated:

Major-General McClellan, having personally taken the field, at the head of the Army of the Potomac, until otherwise ordered, he is relieved from the command of the other military departments, he is retaining command of the Department of the Potomac.

 

Ordered further: That the two departments now under the respective commands of Generals Halleck and Hunter, together with so much of that under General Buell as lies west of a north and south line indefinitely drawn through Knoxville, Tennessee, be consolidated and designated the Department of the Mississippi; and that, until otherwise ordered, Major-General Halleck have command of said department.

McClellan had been an irritant from the beginning. The embarrassing loss at the first Battle of Bull Run sent Winfield Scott to retirement and left Lincoln desperately searching for a military leader. With few options, he turned to a young George B. McClellan for his next General-in-Chief. The Ohio-born McClellan had exhibited strong leadership in two small skirmishes in western Virginia, and he came highly recommended by Ohio Governor William Dennison and Ohio native Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase.

McClellan masterfully outfitted and drilled his raw recruits into a skilled Army of the Potomac, yet he consistently refused to put them into action. He repeatedly claimed the Confederates vastly outnumbered him, even though he had up to twice as many troops at his disposal. His soldiers loved him, but McClellan’s overabundance of caution led to Lincoln’s significant frustration. Adding insult, McClellan arrogantly considered himself vastly superior to the President, referring to Lincoln in letters home to his wife as “nothing more than a well-meaning baboon” and “a gorilla.”

Peninsula Campaign

Despite his position as General-in-Chief, McClellan rarely communicated his strategy or progress. His insubordination included ignoring the President and retiring to bed after Lincoln had sat patiently in McClellan’s parlor for an hour waiting for him to return from an evening out. Continuing to press his generals to fight, Lincoln suggested that the well-trained army make a frontal assault on Confederate forces between Washington and Richmond. McClellan disagreed, eventually counter-proposing a complicated plan to take the Confederate capital of Richmond from the South, which was in direct opposition to Lincoln’s strategy to defeat armies, not take territory.

After several months of obsessive planning, in March 1862 McClellan began shipping troops down the Potomac River to the Virginia peninsula between the James and York Rivers. The size of the troop movement was unprecedented, with more than 120,000 men, a dozen artillery batteries, and tons of equipment all ferried into place at the base of the peninsula. To Lincoln’s chagrin, further overland movement toward Richmond was painfully slow because of bad weather, mud, and McClellan’s exaggerated opinion of enemy troop strength. The Union forces negated the advantage of surprise, and by the time they advanced toward Richmond the more mobile Confederate army had positioned itself to defend the southern capital. Meanwhile, McClellan, against Lincoln’s wishes, had left the Union capital woefully unprotected.

By any measurement, the Peninsula Campaign was a disaster. The Union survived its critical blunder only because of Lincoln’s strategic decision-making. McClellan, of course, blamed Lincoln for supposedly meddling. A frustrated Lincoln demoted McClellan. This left the president once again in desperate need of a military leader. Generals Henry Halleck, Ambrose Burnside (whose trademark facial hair was the inspiration for the term “sideburns”), Joseph Hooker, John C. Fremont, John McClernand, John Pope, George Meade, and others were all considered by Lincoln but ultimately found wanting. Sitting in the wings were Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, western generals who had not yet captured the president’s eye.

McClellan’s demotion was short-lived. In utter desperation and after several disastrous Union losses in the summer of 1862, Lincoln once again turned to McClellan as his General-in-Chief.

At the time, Lincoln was experiencing personal heartbreak in addition to the pressure of mounting Union soldier casualties. In February, Mary Lincoln had planned a grand open house to show off the dramatic and expensive improvements she had made to the aging and neglected White House. By the night of the party, however, Lincoln’s two youngest sons had become severely ill. While guests gathered downstairs, Lincoln and Mary repeatedly slipped upstairs to check on their ailing children. Diagnosed with what was likely typhoid fever, Willie progressively worsened. On February 20, 1862, he died. Tad recovered, but never really understood the sudden loss of his older brother and constant playmate.

Mary was devastated, and for the rest of her time as First Lady (a term she coined to refer to her position) she wore nothing but black. Relying even more on her trusted confidante, former slave Elizabeth Keckley, Mary became an even greater burden on household staff and the growing list of Washington insiders who despised her. Lincoln mourned as well, coping by throwing himself more deeply into the continued struggle to save the Union. One part of that struggle was the hugely important battle of Antietam.

Antietam

In September 1862, Confederate General Robert E. Lee led his Army of Northern Virginia into western Maryland. Following their victory at a second battle of Bull Run, Lee moved his army north to a point near Sharpsburg, alongside Antietam Creek, where they took up defensive positions. With surprising aggressiveness, McClellan’s Army of the Potomac attacked Lee’s forces on September 17. The first assault came from Union General Joseph Hooker on Lee’s left flank, while General Ambrose Burnside later attacked the right. A surprise counterattack from Confederate General A.P. Hill helped push back Union forces. Eventually, Lee’s troops withdrew from the battlefield first. He moved his remaining army back across the Potomac into the safety of Virginia.

Always overly cautious, McClellan made no effort to follow. Lee had committed all of his 55,000 men, while McClellan only ordered a portion of his larger 87,000-man force into the fray. This numerical imbalance allowed Lee to create and exploit tactical advantages he should not have had. When questioned by Lincoln about his failure to pursue Lee, McClellan complained that his army and horses were sore-tongued and fatigued, and thus required rest. Lincoln responded tersely by telegram:

Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?

Antietam was destined to be the single bloodiest day of battle in American history. The casualties for both armies totaled a staggering 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.

Despite Lincoln’s frustration, Antietam stood out as an important battle in the fight for freedom. Although essentially a draw, the fact that Lee withdrew from the battlefield first allowed the North to record Antietam as a victory, something that Lincoln had been needing for some time.

He issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation a few days later.

[Adapted from my book, Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

[Image Credit: U.S. Signal Corps/National Archives, Washington, D.C.]

David J. Kent is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.

The Misguided Idea of Targeting Abraham Lincoln and Other Statues

Abraham Lincoln ChicagoSan Francisco targets Abraham Lincoln schools for renaming. Chicago targets Abraham Lincoln and other statues for possible removal. DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduces a bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue in Washington, D.C. These efforts are severely misguided, based on political expediency rather than an informed discussion of Lincoln and other past American leaders.

I’ve been addressing the issues surrounding removal, and consideration of removal, of Confederate statues across the nation. There is a rational case for removing Confederate statues. There is no rational case for removing Abraham Lincoln statues.

The motives are understandable and I strongly encourage an open and honest discussion of problematic statues. In my “rational case” post I explained that there are three time periods reflected by, and must be considered, for every statue: the subject, the motive and timing of erection, and the present. Norton’s bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue is based almost entirely on the present perspective. While many believe that present perspective overrides the two earlier perspectives, proponents of removing the statue are obligated to make that case in a public forum, not by arbitrarily passing a bill by politicians without any interest in the discussion or the outcome, i.e., 99%+ of the House Representatives and Senators who would vote on the bill. Norton would better serve her constituents by using her power to garner news coverage, input from the city, from the National Park Service (who owns the statue, hence the need for a law before it can be removed or augmented), and a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. This last point is critical and I’ll return to it shortly.

While the Emancipation Memorial is controversial because of its inherent design elements (Boston removed its copy of the statue for this reason), the actions by San Francisco and Chicago have no such controversies stimulating their actions. Instead, they are acting based on misrepresentation of Lincoln’s attitudes and actions.

San Francisco has every right to name, or rename, schools within their jurisdiction. Their far-ranging list of names they want to move away from includes several U.S. Presidents, the current California Senator (who was once Mayor of San Francisco), environmentalist John Muir, and many others. While some of the reasons are potentially persuasive, others border on the ridiculous.

Regarding Abraham Lincoln, the chair of the renaming committee argued that “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.” This comment is simply absurd. Lincoln was literally murdered because his assassin listened to Lincoln argue for black voting rights. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed enslaved people and brought African Americans into the armed forces, which played a large role in why the Union won the Civil War. As the Spielberg movie Lincoln dramatically documented, Lincoln acted aggressively to ensure passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery. African American leaders like Frederick Douglass recounted their personal experiences with Lincoln, all saying that he treated them like any other American. As historian Jonathan White explains in Smithsonian, Lincoln most certainly believed black lives mattered.

The spreadsheet outlining the reasons for renaming noted that Lincoln was “not seen as a hero” among Native Americans “as the majority of his policies proved to be detrimental to them.” By this standard, every American president before Lincoln – and since Lincoln – would not be acceptable for naming schools, including Ronald Reagan. The country has a long history of maltreatment of Native populations; Lincoln neither enlarged it nor shrunk it during his time in office. Given he was faced with the most critical existential crisis of our nation’s history, the Civil War, which did not end until the time he was assassinated, it is unrealistic to expect that he would have to time to reverse long-standing attitudes and policies that virtually no one in the country was acting to change. And yet in his last two annual messages to Congress he did call for a reevaluation of the government’s treatment of Native Americans, something he had planned to deal with in his second term after the war was over if he had lived to do so.

Chicago, yes, even Chicago, has also recently called for the reevaluation of 41 statues and monuments within the city as part of their “racial healing and historical reckoning project.” Again, the focus of the Lincoln statues is because the committee “determined Native Americans were mistreated during his administration.” The points made above apply to Chicago’s actions as well. Part of this idea is a misunderstanding of Lincoln’s role in the “Dakota 38,” which resulted the hanging of 38 Dakota Native Americans in Minnesota in 1862. I’ve discussed this misunderstanding in depth here.

Which gets me back to the idea for a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. Removing these statues and renaming schools does not make these larger issues – white supremacy, systemic racism, continuing disadvantaging of BiPOC individuals suddenly disappear. In some ways it may exacerbate them, especially when the reasons presented for removal are based on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of history, along with unrealistic expectations of perfection in our past leaders. These are not Confederates who literally chose to divide America, they are leaders who fought hard to create, protect, and bring America closer to the ideal of a more perfect Union. They were human, like all of us, and should be treated as human, not as some idealistic “god” of humanity who aren’t allowed not be perfect.

So rather than simply remove statues by edict for political expediency, current day leaders should take advantage of the opportunity our more recent awareness affords us and lead public discussions across America. Rather than pass a resolution to rename schools on misinformation, use the school names as a focal point for deep public education. Neither San Francisco, nor Chicago, nor Washington, D.C. involved historians in their debates. How is that even possible? Historians expert on each of the historical figures are happy to participate in discussions with school boards or monument commissions. They, we, are happy to sit down with the public and policy-makers to help everyone better understand the relevant history. That’s what we do.

Ultimately, it is up to those responsible communities to decide how they will proceed. Undoubtedly there are some historical figures that we will, and should, choose no longer to honor. But that discussion should be done in the open. Beyond that, the discussion must include the larger issues that remain even after statues and school names are removed. Leaders have an opportunity to lead; they must embrace this opportunity, not hide from it by making arbitrary decisions.

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.

Can We Add Context to Confederate Monuments?

Confederate monument exampleAs I continue to explore “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” a key question has arisen: Can we add context to Confederate monuments and keep them in place? [Note: Also see my post: Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?]

Most of the existing Confederate monuments (statues, as well as school, army base, and street names) remain standing in the locations in which they were placed over the last century. A small number have been removed, although removals are still occurring as local and state communities grapple with the question. A tiny number were pulled down during the racial justice protests in 2020. Little has been done to the remaining monuments, but there have been calls to leave them in place and add additional context.

A good illustration of the difficulties of adding context comes from a statue of Abraham Lincoln that had been targeted for forcible removal during the summer of 2020. The Emancipation Memorial, also called the Freedman’s Memorial, is not a Confederate statue. It was erected as a commemoration of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freedom for enslaved African Americans. The funds for the statue were raised entirely from freed slaves and Frederick Douglass gave the keynote address at its dedication in 1876. The black male figure is modeled after a specific freed slave named Archer Alexander. This history would seem to make the statue immune to attack. However, the design includes a standing Lincoln with a crouched African American man breaking his chains and apparently rising to freedom. This “superior” positioning of a white male versus “inferior” positioning of a black male was controversial from the beginning (the funders had no say in the statue design). In our current time, the third time period reflected by all statues, many believe the design to be inappropriate. Historians and the public alike have debated what to do with the statue, if anything.

As with Confederate statues, some have suggested that the Emancipation Memorial can be augmented with additional context. So what context might be added?

Emancipation Memorial

Within a week after dedicating the Emancipation Memorial, Frederick Douglass expressed in a newspaper advertisement that the design had some problematic elements. He suggested that additional bronze figures might be added around the statue to complement, and more fully contextualize, the main Lincoln/Alexander artwork. Nothing was done at the time and today there is a legal problem in doing so. The statue is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, which is barred by law from removing – or adding – any additional statues. Given today’s congressional trend toward inaction, the idea of Congress passing a law to allow additional figures seems remote. [DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced a bill in the summer of 2020 to have the Emancipation Memorial removed, but as of this writing no further action has occurred.]

Forgetting this logistical roadblock, historians and the public have offered various options for adding statues to provide a fuller picture. They include turning the statue again so that the Archer Alexander figure is looking across the park to the Mary McLeod Bethune statue. [The entire Emancipation Memorial statue had been turned 180 degrees in the 1970s to face the newly installed Bethune statue; Bethune was a black educator and civil rights activist] Others have suggested statues of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and/or Harriet Tubman be added. There is also a suggestion that the statue be replaced by one featuring Lincoln and Douglass standing together, eye-to-eye, shaking hands, which would show them as equal statesmen. As noted, however, the idea of adding statuary seems a losing battle on NPS land.

Another suggestion is to add signage with additional context. Again, the Emancipation Memorial shows the difficulty and apparent ineffectiveness of this option. During two “teach-ins” conducted in the summer of 2020 at the Emancipation Memorial, including one where protest activists expressed their contempt for the statue and attempted to arouse the gathered crowd to pull it down, many attendees said they were unaware of the history noted above (Funding by former slaves, Frederick Douglass dedication, Archer Alexander figure). And yet, the Memorial itself contains a large (3 foot x 5 foot) plaque on the side of the pedestal explaining the funding process, including that Charlotte Scott, a former slave, had contributed the first $5. People don’t read, or don’t remember, plaques. Howard University Lincoln scholar Edna Greene Medford recently noted that statues are built to be seen, not read. Given historical patterns, virtually no one would see, or retain, any additional context signage added to existing monuments.

Costs and logistics would also seem to be prohibitive. Any additional context signage would have to be permanent; paper or temporary billboard signage wouldn’t last long enough to be meaningful. This means that additional context would need to be included on permanent, probably bronze, plaques installed on or near the statues. It’s unclear that NPS limitations would allow even this change. Bronze (or marble or any other permanent material) is expensive. The cost and time to design, fund, get permissions, and build permanent addendums would require considerable time. It seems unlikely that 99% of existing monuments would ever see additional permanent contextual elements added.

When it comes to Confederate monuments the difficulties of context become even more acute. What additional context could be added to a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example? As I noted in response to a comment on the initial Confederate Monument post, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s historical context would obviously have to include his Confederate Army service, as well as his roles in the murders of black Union troops (USCT) at Ft. Pillow and elsewhere, as well as his role as grand dragon of the KKK. In all cases, the full story would need to be told. Would those wanting to preserve Confederate heritage want that story? Robert E. Lee’s story might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejecting the Union and fighting for the Confederacy to protect and expand slavery. His time after the war as president of Washington College (renamed Washington and Lee after his death) might be relevant if any of his actions were relevant to his standing. Similarly, Jefferson Davis forsook his United States citizenship and his prior service as U.S. Secretary of War and U.S. Senator to become president of the Confederacy with the swore belief in white supremacy, slavery, and rejection of the U.S. Constitution. Again, what additional context would improve the historical position of Confederate leaders and generals in today’s society?

As we can see, there are significant roadblocks to adding context to Confederate monuments, both logistical and textual content.

The discussion above is primarily focused on adding contexts to statues in situ, that is where the statues are currently placed in public areas. Two other options have been suggested: One, to move statues into museums where context would be easier to add (e.g., they wouldn’t need to be as durable); the other is to move statues to battlefield locations or to special parks. I’ll address both of these ideas in future posts.

A reminder that this is a continuing series of posts addressing rational discussion of the fate of Confederate monuments. The initial post is: The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments. This and follow up posts are appended at the end of that post.

[Emancipation Memorial photo credit: David J. Kent; Confederate monument photo source: Confederate Statues Come Down Around U.S., But Not Everywhere : NPR]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Mis-Understanding Abraham Lincoln and the Dakota 38

Abraham LincolnThe recent pressure to remove Confederate statues has spilled over into monuments to other historical figures, most incredibly including Abraham Lincoln. As more and more of the country shifts “Columbus Day” to a more appropriate “Indigenous Peoples Day,” Lincoln has been targeted for his role in what is often referred to as “The Dakota 38.” The problem is that Lincoln’s role has been completely misunderstood and mischaracterized, which does poor service to the indigenous goal.

Dakota 38 refers to the 38 Dakota (sometimes called Sioux) Native Americans who were hanged in 1862 for crimes such as rape and murder in southwest Minnesota. The incident followed a short armed conflict in which several bands of Dakota rose up against repeated treaty violations during the 1850s that had led to increasing starvation and chronic hardship. Dakota fighters made extensive attacks on white settlers, resulting in an estimated 800 settler deaths. Hundreds of Dakota were captured by U.S. Army soldiers led by Major General John Pope. Military tribunals were held and 303 Dakota were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.

Mired in the ongoing Civil War and two weeks prior to issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln assigned Pope to go to Minnesota to end the violence. Lincoln was unaware of the specifics at the time and was only informed of the capture, trials, and sentences long after they had occurred when on November 10th he received a telegram from Pope. Realizing the gravity of the sentencing, Lincoln immediately responded to Pope:

Your despatch giving the names of three hundred Indians condemned to death, is received. Please forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions. And if the record does not indicate the more guilty and influential, of the culprits, please have a careful statement made on these points and forwarded to me. Please send all by mail. [Lincoln to Pope, November 10, 1862, Collected Works 5:493]

Once received, Lincoln spent several weeks reviewing the trial records. Many of the trials were perfunctory, lasting as little as 15 minutes. Lincoln struggled through his review with the twin goals of ensuring the fairness of the actions while also discouraging further violence. On December 11, 1862 he responded to the U.S. Senate, which as a body had requested Lincoln provide his findings. Lincoln informed them:

Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination, and a classification of all who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and included the two convicted of female violation. One of the number is strongly recommended by the commission which tried them for commutation to ten years’ imprisonment. I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed on Friday, the 19th instant. [Lincoln to U.S. Senate, December 11, 1862, Collected Works 5:550]

One further Dakota sentence was later commuted when new information called into question his conviction. Thus, the final number executed on December 26, 1862 was 38, hence “The Dakota 38.”

So Lincoln’s role was actually to stop the execution of 264 Dakota men where he believed the trial records did not support the sentence. Each of the men executed had been found guilty of violating women (rape) or participating in a massacre (murder). The raids, capture, trials, and sentencing all occurred far away from Washington and without Lincoln’s direct knowledge until after the fact. When he found out, he personally reviewed the case records and commuted the sentences of nearly 90% of those convicted.

This, of course, does not change the horrendous treatment that the United States has imposed on Native Americans throughout our history. The arguments against honoring Columbus with a holiday include his unintentional (bringing disease) and intentional (murder) of indigenous peoples along his routes of conquest (which, ironically, never included what is now the United States). Legitimate arguments can also be made against U.S. government actions long before Lincoln took office, including forced relocation of Native Americans in the 1830s and the Trail of Tears. Likewise, “Indian wars” in the latter half of the 1800s continued the oppression and forced removal of Native Americans as white settlers moved west. When Lincoln took office he inherited a long-standing system of corruption in the Indian Bureau. He did little to reform it during his first term – after all he was fighting to save the Union – but had promised to deal with the situation in his second term once the war was over. His assassination made that impossible.

Efforts to destroy or vandalize Abraham Lincoln statues are therefore misguided. There are valid arguments for removing Confederate statues and even Columbus, but those arguments don’t support attacks on Lincoln. Other statues sometimes targeted, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they were slaveowners, are also misguided. Washington and Jefferson helped start this country on a path where “all men are created equal.” Lincoln ended slavery in the United States. Each of these men, and all men and women, are as flawed as all of us are today. These were men who lived in the realities of their times and yet found a way to transcend those times to nudge us toward a more perfect union. We obviously have a long way to go, and often we seem to be moving in the wrong direction. But to achieve the ideal goals of this nation we must be willing to act based on knowledge and understanding. We must be focused on adding to our history by including the roles of women and people of color, as well as fully understanding historical people and incidents of the past.

Misunderstanding Lincoln and his role in the Dakota 38 executions hinders rather than advances those ideal goals and the concerns of indigenous peoples. We can better understand our history if we focus on providing the accurate context of such incidents. In many cases, that will call into question some of the omissions of history, but our goal should be understanding the realities, not creating an inaccurate and false counter-history.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

 

The Pre-Presidential Debates That Made Lincoln President

Lincoln Douglas DebatesIn 1858, Abraham Lincoln began following Douglas from town to town as they campaigned against each other for Douglas’s Senate seat. Challenging the incumbent Senator in a Democratic-dominated state, Lincoln had to coax Douglas to go against his own interests and formally debate. Whenever Douglas gave a major speech, Lincoln told the crowd he would respond that evening or the next day. After doing this for a while, and with the help of his influential friend Jesse Fell, Lincoln approached Douglas about holding a series of joint debates across the state. Reluctant at first, Douglas eventually agreed to one debate in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. They had both already spoken in Springfield and Chicago within a day of each other, so they agreed to seven additional joint debates in Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton over the next two months. For each debate one candidate would speak for sixty minutes, followed by the other for ninety minutes, and the first would get a thirty-minute reply. They alternated who would speak first, with the incumbent Douglas getting the benefit of doing so in four of the seven debates.

The optics of the debates were almost comical. Lincoln was as tall and thin as Douglas was short and wide. Douglas tended toward inflammatory and racist language, while Lincoln was calmer and more logical in his arguments. Douglas had a reputation as a blatant liar; Lincoln as “Honest Abe.” Douglas often arrived in town on a special train accompanied by boisterous bands. Lincoln rode coach. Douglas was prone to histrionics, personal attacks, dogmatic exclamations, blatant negrophobic pandering to white superiority, and lying without remorse. Lincoln avoided sliding in the muck, focusing on making his key points clear to the often large crowds.

Because of the way Illinois was settled—the south moving up from slave states, the central from free states to the east, and the north from the upper states via the Great Lakes—each debate city offered a different range of public opinion. And while topics like banking were briefly mentioned, the main focus of all debates was the defining issue of the day—slavery.

Douglas and Lincoln explored several aspects of the slavery question, with Douglas largely sticking to his stump speech at each stop while Lincoln built on his arguments over time. One aspect was whether slavery was right or wrong. Lincoln argued that slavery was inherently wrong, both from a moral view and from a public policy perspective. Douglas asserted that he “cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up.” To Douglas, each state could choose whether it wanted slavery, and the federal government had no right to dictate policy. Lincoln disagreed, noting again that the Founders had banned slavery from the territories that became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and parts north. The Founders also banned the import of new slaves from Africa. As such, Lincoln argued, the federal government had every right to restrict slavery in the territories, and had done so repeatedly.

Sensing this was a difficult position, Douglas went on the attack. He accused Lincoln and all “Black Republicans” of being abolitionists, intent on removing slavery from all the southern states where it currently existed. Lincoln denied this, reminding people that he acknowledged the Constitution protected slavery where it existed. His goal was simply to stop it from expanding. Douglas took his attacks a step further, accusing Lincoln of being for the full equality of the races. This was a straw man used to play to the flagrant racism that permeated the North as well as the South. Douglas knew that if he could paint Lincoln as a “left wing radical,” it would help his campaign.

But Lincoln was hardly a radical. Today he might be considered a “prudent progressive.” True, he achieved great things, including the radical idea of emancipation, but he did so by sticking to authority constrained by the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln, and most Americans at the time, believed that while slavery was immoral (he once said, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”), the acknowledgement of its existence in the Constitution meant the federal government did not have the authority to ban it in the states where it already existed. Each state must take action to remove slavery from within its borders, which is how each of the northern states had achieved their free status. As noted above, however, Lincoln believed that Congress did have the power to block slavery from entering the federal territories and the District of Columbia. He and Congress later took steps to ensure freedom from slavery in both of those.

Later, as President, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which did free enslaved people in those states in active rebellion against the Union. This actually remained consistent with the Constitution as it provided for special powers in case of insurrection, powers that would not have been available in the normal state of affairs. Lincoln used these powers as a military necessity. Acknowledging that the Proclamation would become legally moot once the war ended, Lincoln worked hard to have Congress pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which permanently enshrined the freedom of all men and women regardless of race.

All of this was possible because of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. In particular, during the second debate in Freeport, Lincoln posed a set of questions to Douglas. Always thinking ahead, Lincoln set a trap, and Douglas had no choice but to fall into what would become known as the Freeport Doctrine. Lincoln asked:

Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?

The question directly pit Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty against the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Douglas was forced to choose between alienating those people he required to get reelected to the Illinois Senate or the Southerners he needed in his third run for the presidency two years later. He responded that people in a territory could keep out slavery despite the Dred Scott decision, which stated that federal and state governments had no authority to exclude slavery because it would deprive slaveholders of their “property” rights without due process.

Lincoln was ecstatic over Douglas’s response, although he did not show his hand. Southerners, who wanted the ability to expand slavery without limit, had grown concerned that states could choose to exclude slavery in accordance with Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty. They saw the Dred Scott decision as confirming their right to bring slaves wherever they wanted, and now Douglas was saying that was not true. This presented a long-term problem for slave-owning states. While they knew that most of the new territories were grossly inadequate for growing cotton, which was still the primary driver of the need for slaves, they recognized that every new slave state would increase their representation in Congress—and their continued power to dictate policy.

When the votes were counted, Lincoln had won the popular vote and the Republican Party picked up seats in the legislature. But the state legislature, which was majority Democratic, was still choosing Senators. Douglas retained his Senate seat. Lincoln likely realized his chances of winning the seat were close to nil because of the legislature’s makeup. When he was asked why he would give Douglas an advantage for Senate reelection, Lincoln replied that he had a longer view in mind: Douglas might win the Senate, but he would lose the presidency. The Freeport Doctrine would see to that.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Adapted from Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!