Andrew Johnson & Impeachment

In Class on Tuesday we mainly went over the Presidency of Andrew Johnson and the attempted impeachment of him. While Congress was on its break President Johnson over the summer took care of the southern problem. That problem was letting the South back into the Union and letting them participate in Congress. Over the summer without letting any of the northern congressional members know, Andrew Johnson told all the former southern congress members just to come on back, many of these people were the ones who helped run the Confederacy, so there is going to problems with this but Johnson just wanted to put the whole event in the past and act like nothing happened.

I personally feel like Andrew Johnson letting them back in without any consequences is a big issue, its basically a slap in the face to the Northern political leaders and the Union army. Although I feel as if Johnson had good intentions but didn't think about the backlash that would occur from it. He just wanted to put the Civil War behind him and everyone else and hope things would go back to normal in an instant. I agree on the decision to bring the South back into Congress because a divided America would be weaker than a united America and one of the main goals of the Civil War was the preservation of the Union.

President Johnson was right to bring the South back into Congress in my opinion but he shouldn't have brought back the same ones that helped run the Confederacy, there should have been special elections held for all of those seats and the public should have been made aware of what was going on, he upset a lot of people for doing what he did and they were right to get upset. Bringing back those southern politicians gave the statement that the Civil War was fought and won for nothing and that 800,000 Americans fought and died just so America could go back to pre Civil War times. Elections would've been the right thing to do and even when they were elected they should have had to earn back there trust to have a voice in Congress. Instead of saying he come on back, he should have had them prove they could come back or they would be replaced.

President Johnson was impeached for many different things, he was impeached because people were pissed off and they wanted him gone, which is understandable but he didn't do anything that overstepped his bounds or things that were unconstitutional. I learned that he wasn't impeached and that was really surprising to me because of how he just brought the South back in and the constant veto of laws that Congress was trying to pass. Him not getting impeached says that people will still do the right thing and not just get rid of him because they're upset with what he's done, I think if he would have got impeached for this, then a whole bunch of Presidents after him would've gotten impeached as well.

War & the Slaves

            In August of 1862, the North and the South met in Manassas for what was going to be the second battle of Bull Run. It is called Bull Run because of the river that runs through there.  This battle was also much larger than the first one. The North also had quite a bit more troops than the Confederates had, but the result was the same as the first battle of Bull Run, which was a southern victory. This battle was all part of the plan by Lee and Davis to strike the Union while their leadership was a mess and they were hoping Lincoln would lose the majority he had during the mid term elections.
         
           This brings up the debate of the military leadership in the North, they had generals but they were nothing like the generals of the south, Pope was no where near as good as Stonewall Jackson. This is when the North brings McClellan back in to command the Northern Army, McClellan is a great general no doubt but on the battlefield is where he lacks in his leadership. He's a great organizer and a great trainer as he did assemble the largest Army ever recorded in North America but when it came to fight, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were the best generals in the country.

          The Democratic Party in the North was divided at time, there was the Peace Democrats and these people also known as Copperheads wanting nothing but peace and an immediate end to the Civil War. There was also the War Democrats they wanted to have a more aggressive policy when dealing with the Confederate South and they supported Lincoln. To help with the war effort against the South Lincoln enabled the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts; the 1st Act gave the north the power to confiscate any property that the confederate was using. the 2nd Confiscation Act was basically freed any slaves that were under Union Control.

          To me the North was struggling from late 1862 to early 1863 because of many reasons. The Democratic party in the North being divided and not agreeing with Lincoln and the Republican party during a time of war especially the Civil War one important thing to have is agreement among the two parties, you can't get anything accomplished if there divided but when there together things happen. Also the military generals of the North were good generals but compared to the generals of the South they weren't on the same level. Jackson and Lee were the best military minds of their time and that hurts the North militarily. Even though the North had the numbers the South had the brains. The North in my opinion needed help with their military leadership big time. I believe they got a big boost of help when Stonewall Jackson died.

         

McClellan - Great General or Not?

            After the first battle of Manassas, President Abraham Lincoln issued an order to enlist half a million men for three years.  Shortly after, George B. McClellan was put in charge of the Army of the Potomac.  Major General McClellan was only 35 at the time and was a graduate of West Point.  President Lincoln knew of him personally and thought he would be a great “organizer and motivator” (Cook p129).  After assigning McClellan to lead the Army of the Potomac, Lincoln added another half million men.  So up until now, did the North take the war too lightly?  I think that many still felt it would be a minor conflict and everything would be over.  This battle showed that it was not going to be that easy.  I feel that is why President Lincoln had to change leadership of the army and recruit more men.

            Major General George McClellan did a great job of managing the Army of the Potomac in the beginning.  The army was well disciplined, well trained, and well supplied.  Unfortunately, history tells us that did not always result in victories.  Many historians point to the lack of leadership of the officers below him (Cook p131).  Is it fair to blame McClellan for others’ inabilities to be leaders?  After all he was in charge of them as well.

            McClellan had one drawback that many did not like. He was a very cautious person.  President Lincoln wanted him to be more aggressive.  Unlike Lincoln who admired McClellan, the same cannot be said the other way around.  McClellan did not respect Lincoln and thought of him as nothing more than an “ignorant Midwesterner deficient in gentlemanly virtues” (Cook p135).

            One thing I have noticed about McClellan is that even though he was a very organized man that could outfit and train an army, he was not very good at leading them into battle.  Maybe all of the blame cannot be placed on his officers.  It seems he made many mistakes himself.  Sort of reminds me of a coach that can prepare his team, but struggle making good decisions during the game.  Do you think this is a fair comparison?

            Finally, Lincoln had enough and relieved McClellan of his command on November 5, 1862.  His men loved him but Republicans did not like some of his qualities.  One such quality I mentioned earlier was about his cautious attitude.  Another quality they did not like was his “conservative view on slavery” (Cook p140).

            To be fair to McClellan, many of the Union’s generals failed.  His replacement, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside, did not do any better.  Would it be fair to say that the South had better officers?  After all, the South seemed to have the upper hand in many of the early battles.

 

Biblography

Cook, Robert. Civil War America: Making a Nation 1848-1877. New York: Routledge, 2013.       Print.

Shiloh (post by Jackson)

[Note: due to technical issues, I posted this on behalf of Jackson.]

                Shiloh is known to be Hebrew for ‘place of peace’. However, it was the sight of one of the deadliest conflicts of the civil war. Fought in Tennessee, it is the first major battle in the war. In April of 1862, a Union army under General Ulysses S. Grant was camped out in front of the Tennessee River awaiting the arrival of reinforcements before heading south to attack the confederates. The Confederate Army and General Albert Sidney Johnston attacked the Union first. The confederates drove the Union Army back toward the Tennessee River. Nevertheless, the Union line held up at a place known as the ‘Hornets Nest’. There was no choice for Grant and the Union line, they had to hold their position at all costs. I can’t even begin to imagine what was going through the minds of the Union army. I imagine their nerves were running high, it was either kill or be killed. They did end up holding the line of defense and by the end of the day the ground was full of dead corpses.

                General Johnston was killed in the first days fighting. General P.T. Beauregard takes over confident that he will take the field the next day. Reinforcements come to help Grant and the Union in the middle of the night and the Union launches a counter attack the next morning. The result is a Union victory, but one where over 13,000 deaths occur from each the North and the South. In my opinion, the cost was greater than any battle in the war. It showed that the North and Grant were willing to pay whatever price was necessary to achieve their goal. Once that victory had been established, I think that it set the tone for the war that Union victory was going to happen because the Union resources and man power were much greater than those available to the confederates. However, would the Union be able to expend it? I believe that the Battle of Shiloh shows that yes it would.

It is scary to think people were in this fight at Shiloh. When the confederates attacked, it completely took the Union by surprise. Imagine waking up to eat breakfast or still sleeping in your tent and out of nowhere you’re being shot at and attacked. I think when people think of the this war they look past what the soldiers had to deal with. Poor food, disease, poor medical treatment, great distances to travel, poor equipment, poor military leadership in the lower ranks, no sanitation, little knowledge of germs. African Americans were facing all of this plus racial discrimination. It sounds like hell to me. 

Since we have been talking about the civil war in class, I have noticed that generals from both sides seem to care a lot about what the public thinks or says. So, what was the effect on American public opinion in the North and the South after the Battle of Shiloh? Did the Union forces learn anything from the battle? Did the Confederates? How did this battle effect lives and careers of Grant, Lew Wallace, Halleck, and Sherman for the Union and Albert Sidney Johnston , PGT Beauregard ,and Braxton Bragg for the Confederates?

1862 A Union Victory

During our last lesson we learned about the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) in July of 1861. This was the first major battle in the Civil War. Before the battle began most Americans thought it would be a quick conflict and not a full on War. The Battle of Manassas would change that. The battle was fought in Virginia just miles away from Washington D.C. Spectators from both sides were ready to watch this battle, they even set up picnics. Before the battle began the Confederates knew an attack was coming from the Union Army. The Union army attacked and pushed the Confederates back until the smaller but more efficient Confederate army received reinforcements. They broke through Union lines and what started off as a retreat by the Union army became an unorganized rout. Some Union soldiers did not stop until they reached camp. This battle made it clear to the Union that it would not be a quick and easy fight for unification. The Confederates gained confidence, and the battle prove their bias that one southerner could take on ten Yankees. The Confederates now thought it was not a question of if but when they would win.

Southern Secession and the Fight to Preserve the Union

The Civil War is arguably the most important event in American history. In "America's Civil War" introduction and Chapter one Simpson identifies to the reader the historical importance of the Civil War and the events leading up to the first shot on Fort Sumter. Simpson first highlights on the fact that any history book ever written was written from the views and opinions of the writer, he does not claim his book to be any different but identifies the need to bring together these ideas stating none are more correct than the others but all of significance for understanding this important nation changing part of American history.

Is "slavery" just a Southern term?

            The American economy experienced a great deal of change throughout the early to mid 1800s.  It saw itself start to drift away from its original ways of life to a more modern way and for some it was a difficult transformation.  The nation was finally completely connected and they didn’t have to rely on other nations for trade. Instead they were now able to trade and produce products within the nation that they hadn’t been able to do before.  This did however lead to poor working conditions for all workers in America, not just the slaves in the South. 

The Ideology of Manhood

During the mid-nineteenth century, defining manhood proved to be complicated. But as James Corbett David wrote in The Politics of Emasculation: The Caning of Charles Sumner and Elite Ideologies of Manhood in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century United States the varying definitions were not strictly based on whether you lived in the North or South. "What it meant to be manly or honourable was contested within as well as across sectional lines." (page 325) There are two main conflicts of what defined one's manhood according to David, passion versus self control. 

A Perspective On Bleeding Kansas

"Come on, then, gentlemen of the slave states. Since there is no escaping your challenge, we accept it in the name of freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas, and God give the victory to the side which is stronger in numbers, as it is in right." -- Senator William Seward, on the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, May 1854

Was Slavery A Necessary Evil?

When we think of slavery we think of something bad. A better word would probably be evil or immoral. The Webster dictionary defines slavery as "someone owned legally by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay". This barely scratches the surface of what slavery was and in some cases, still is. But there is no question that there were benefits to such a system and this blog post will make an argument that one could make the case that slavery was a necessary evil. However, this opinion does not in any way represent my personal feelings on the matter.

From Slavery to Abolitionism

All the way throughout class on Tuesday there were same two (2) themes kept reappearing over and over; the abolishing of slavery and giving equal right s to all people regardless of color. There were many different groups and organizations that were working towards these goals such as "The American Colonization Society" (est. 1819) and later "The American Anti-Slavery Society" (est. 1833). Like I said earlier the main cause of liberation for black and the equal treatment of all people was noble but there were also many underlying reasons that were not and noble and just as you think.

For example, "The American Colonization Society" was against slavery and did want to abolish the practice but they did not like the idea of black men and women living and coexisting with white men and women. To make sure that would not happen the sent back some 40,000 black men, women, and children "back" to Africa. These were men and women that were born in the United States that knew just as little about Africa as the people that were rounding them up and sending them "home". To make it easier of a transition, the ACS bought land in West Africa and  made a colony which is the West African country of Liberia whose capital (Monrovia) was named after the American President at the time, James Monroe. 

At this time I want you to think; if you were a black person during this time, what would you do? If it meant being free would you completely leave the only life you knew behind in order to start fresh in a place you barely even know? 
Personally I dont think I would have been able to leave for the simple fact that I would be leaving the only thing I knew even though it was bad. But that is what these men and women of African decent had to deal with.

Further along the line once more and more Northeners could not get through to wealthy Southeners and other people that supported the enterprise of slavery, drastic measures were being taken by abolitionist as well as slaves. The biggest slave slave revolt in America was lead by a slave by the name of Nat Turner. He and his group of newly liberated slave went fro plantation to plantation murdering all whites that opposed their will. As they were killing slave owners, there would be more and more slaves that would join the cause of "Freedom by Any Means". Nat and his band of vigilantes were finally caught and killed. This revolt scared people up and down the Eastern sea board and more slave laws were put in affect afterward. This brings me to my next question.

If you were a slave during the time of Nat Turner's revolt, would you join the revolt or notify someone that they were near? Knowing that the punishment would be death, would your freedom mean that much or that little too you? Explain why or why not.

On the other hand of the coin, abolitionist were telling the gruesome stories from slaves about the inhumane treatment they were receiving from the "slave masters" and overseers. When people still were not able to quite comprehend the atrocities that were happening to these people in a place were all mean are supposed to be treated equal, the American Anti-Slavery Society started doing something that was completely unprecedented for that time. 
They would have former slaves and women both speak at conventions and other engagements. This had never been done before, blacks and women BOTH speaking out to white men about that abolishment of slavery and women's rights. One former slaves that told about his struggles of being a slave, his name was Fredrick Douglas. One of the most influential black abolitionist of the era. He was a former salve that taught himself to read and write and become the well spoken man that he was. He wrote about in his narrative called, "Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas: An American Slave. The things that he went through really opened up the eyes of white men and all men that what was happening was wring and that the institution of slavery had too come to an end.

What is your “Nationalism” stance and where do you place your heart?

I believe that our Nationalism comes from our multiple sources of identity.  My reference to 9/11 and all that were good and bad, this was a time of recognition as a country and of oneself.  Many Americans were called to service and many more volunteered their service to anyone of need.  This was a calling that many were falling astray from believing in our country.  What percentage of our class could stand and say the “Pledge of Allegiance”? 

Ists and Isms

Reading the The Dangerous Isms and the Fanatical Ists by Michael F. Conlin was not only an interesting read but an comically ironic one as well. I don't want to sound like I was laughing through the whole passage because I wasn't at all it's just that even after years of history classes and many lessons on the Civil War I still cannot wrap my head around what society was like in this period of American history. The United States of America is known as a melting pot, a country of many freedoms and liberties to all citizens but in this document Conlin's analysis and explanation clearly paints a picture of the foundation and starting point of this very important issue in our history. In class we have talked about how yes, the U.S. has developed and overcome the unfair treatment of many individuals in this country but how we also still have a long ways to go.