Passionate Abolitionist and
Witness to the American Civil War
Passionate Abolitionist and
Witness to the American Civil War
Some readers have felt that this article gives several exaggerated propagandistic accounts of events in the war at that time. Here our correspondent offers a detailed commentary which suggests that that may indeed have been the case but adds significant context to the situation.
“ For now, I just want to say 1863 was a drastically different year than 1865. By 17 May 1863, the Union armies in the east had lost far more battles, especially major ones, that they had won. Other than Antietam in September 1862, the Army of the Potomac had only small victories. Antietam was a horrific battle, the bloodiest single day of the war, but the Union came out on top which was what Abraham Lincoln was looking for so he could announce the Emancipation Proclamation. Without a Union victory to give it some teeth, that document would have been seen as a joke. The document was ready long before the battle was fought, but the fact that Lincoln delayed that long says a lot about how he and everyone else in government felt the war was going for the Union.
The Union fared much better in what was considered the west at that time, which was Kentucky, Tennessee , Missouri, Arkansas, and their neighboring states. There were better commanders for the Army of the Cumberland, the Army of the Tennessee in particular which was commanded by Ulysses S. Grant, and even the Army of the Ohio at times. Modern warfare is quite different than it was in the mid-1800s due to communication. Though the telegraph figured heavily in an army’s ability to communicate with distant locations, it was still very much an iffy proposition since lines could be cut and wires had to be physically run between stations. Both the Union and Confederate armies operated quite independently even of armies on their own side. This is why the each side had multiple armies operating in different areas. Having said that, the various armies were all somewhat important to the outcome of the war, but no two armies were more important that the Army of the Potomac (Union) and the Army of Northern Virginia (Confederate) which operated in essentially the same general area and were in regular conflict with each other.
That’s just to give you a little background on how troops were arrayed. Now I can say that public sentiment, editorials, national decisions and much more often ebbed and flowed based on how the armies, especially the Army of the Potomac and its nemesis, the Army of Northern Virginia, were doing. In 1863, many felt the Union was losing, and rightly so based on objectives not reached and battles lost, so the mood in the North concerning many things was a bit bleak and even some Lincoln supporters, less-than-radical abolitionists, and what we would now term “average Americans” were seriously considering the possibility of just letting the South go and allowing the Confederacy to exist. The northern economy had been hit hard, though not as hard as the southern, and people were tired of sending sons, husbands, farm hands and others off to war.
Due to time constraints and work this is about all I’m going to write today, but I wanted you to have this as background for how things were going in 1863 in general and mid-May in particular. The Union had suffered a serious defeat in a major battle at Frederickburg, VA in December 1862, and especially the Battle of Chancellorsville in late April and early May of 1863. The Army of the Potomac was not doing well and two major defeats in big battles rather close to Washington, DC did not enhance the reputation of the Army of the Potomac as a fighting force. There’s loads more I could say on the constant firing and replacement of generals, politics of the time and such, but I only want you to have a feel for the climate of what things were like in mid-1863 because that was a huge factor in what people were talking about. The Union armies in the western theatre were actually doing quite well, but those were smaller battles and did not make the headlines and capture the attention of people as did the Army of the Potomac, the largest Union army. What I am getting at is that people were seriously opinionating on ending the war soon, however it could be ended and rumors were flying fast and far on how that might happen. I dare say TJ was caught up in that as much as anyone, and perhaps everyone was, so whatever comments he made were likely from a place of fear for the outcome of the war coupled with reporting on what he was hearing others say and what he read in the newspapers. Both of those sources can be reasonably accurate, but more often they anywhere from a little off the facts to wildly inaccurate.” – Keri- Lynn Kelman
“…but I feel the need to comment first on these sentences:
Now, under these unmistakeable circumstances, I thought the North would at once consider the rebels as voluntarily breaking the bond, and thus freeing us from all constitutional obligations to respect their peculiar institution; and that to weaken our enemy, and save white men’s lives as much as possible, we should at once proclaim the abolition of slavery, and arm all the blacks on our side that were willing to fight for the freedom of their race. Any common-sense people, similarly situated, who really loved liberty from principle, or even to save themselves from being slaughtered in battle by such an insolent foe, would have instantly adopted that policy, and availed themselves of the powerful aid of the enemy’s bondmen.
Most of us sincerely anti-slavery men did and said all we could in favour of at once arming all the coloured men on our side, and they were then all anxious to enlist. We could have had hundreds of thousands of as good soldiers for this war as ever handled a musket – obedient, hardy, used to the climate, acquainted with the enemy’s country, and who would have fought fully as bravely as any Union soldiers have fought. But no; they were “niggers,” and it was not constitutional to arm niggers, as if the lordly rebels cared anything for the constitution. We showed them that every able-bodied man taken from the enemy and enlisted on our side counted two, as against the foe, one from him and one added to our own number; but it was all in vain. The bullying reply was, “Who is going to fight alongside a dam nigger.” The Democrats cried, “To hell with the niggers.” “They aint human beings anyhow,” says another, who took good care to stay at home, and not to fight at all. Such was the cry two years ago.
As you likely know, later in the Civil War black men did serve in combat, but unfortunately not until after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 went into effect. Before that, free and freed black men worked in/for the military, but not in combat roles. That applies to both the North and South. In the North, they willingly served as teamsters, cooks, officer’s servants and so forth, and were paid for that work (though it was a pittance). In the South they were slaves who were brought by their enslavers who were officers or perhaps some were sent by local enslavers to aid the Confederacy’s war effort. That I’m not at all sure about because I haven’t studied much about the war from the South’s perspective.
It would have made sense, in my opinion, if black men had been able to fight for the Union earlier or at least after the Emancipation Proclamation was in full effect, but a lot of doubt by Union commanders about their abilities had to be overcome first. Once they were allowed to fight, they quickly showed they were as capable as any white soldier and just as brave, but it took a lot of work and small steps to get to the point of allowing them enlist for combat. I can’t say I disagree with TJ’s opinion in the least. Things may have gone quite differently for the North and the Civil War likely would not have lasted as long as it did had black soldiers been allowed to fight earlier, but that is only my opinion and I’m sure there’s some who would disagree.
TJ is, however, not quite on track for his reason black men were not armed. There is no constitutional article or amendment specifically prohibiting black men from serving That is a bit of an exaggeration, if indeed that’s what he actually means by “constitutional”. If he is using the term “constitutional” to mean “lawful” that’s a different matter. One act in particular had been passed in 1792 prohibiting black men from serving in a federal unit. That was in force and I’m guessing other laws bolstered it on the federal and state level, if that was needed and it may not have been. It would take a long and deep dive into all the laws that affected the rights of black men and women just in the states where slavery had been abolished, as it had been throughout the North before the Civil War, to be sure what the status of black men enlisting in some capacity was throughout the North. I’m just saying TJ was not correct in blaming the constitution, if that is what he’s doing, for impeding the ability of black men to fight, but if he’s implying it was illegal and using the word “constitutional” to represent that, he is right, and it would have taken an act of congress to abolish the 1792 law and any others, which would have required a majority to support the idea. It was highly unlikely that would happen before the 1860s even for the more progressive senators and representatives. Though they might even be abolitionists, the mindset of most Americans of that time was entrenched in the idea that somehow black people were different, unequal to whites in intelligence and capability, and less courageous. Though many in the North disapproved of slavery and wanted it abolished, that does not mean they considered black people their equals.
I suppose it’s splitting hairs to say the constitution also did not have a “right to hold slaves.” The constitution protected slavery and allowed it, so for many that was considered the same thing as making slavery a constitutional right. I won’t take TJ to task for his phraseology when others of that time saw the constitution as guaranteeing the institution of slavery. Now I think I’m getting close to your questions, specifically what the Northern Democrats were saying in 1863. One thing to keep in mind is that there was a broad spectrum of political thought in the North during the Civil War. Even amongst the Democrats there were War Democrats who supported Lincoln and his policies and the Copperheads who did not. The Democrats were divided on the issue of slavery before the war started, and that is actually why Abraham Lincoln was elected. The short version of that event is that the Democratic party split to the point of holding two different conventions in 1860, and because of that split neither group had enough votes to surpass the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln.
Things got even more divided after the war started, and again, this is just in the North. Of course the southern states officially sanctioned their secession from the United States, but the North was a bit divided too. One thing we don’t often realize is that there was plenty of opposition to Lincoln in the North. By 1862 there was a significant anti-war element (the Copperheads) in the Northern Democrats. However, they were the minority. Proof of that is the result of the 1864 presidential and congressional election. George McClellan (a Union general and War Democrat) was nominated by the Democrats for president, but despite being a War Democrat himself he ran on a platform of peace so even the War Democrats defected from him and supported Lincoln in that election.
Since TJ is writing in 1863, a year before Abraham Lincoln’s reelection, he’s hearing plenty about how the Democrats expected to win the election of 1863. I’m sure there were plenty who thought that. For one the Republicans won in 1860 only through the fluke of the Democrats being split, for another the war was not going well for the North up through mid-1863 with only a couple of major battles and several minor ones in the “win column” for the North. The Union had failed in many of its objectives so of course that was blamed on the administration.
Now for what the Democrats were espousing politically. On paper, their stated platform and the policies they supported in 1863 included maintaining the Fugitive Slave Law, which essentially promoted slavery everywhere by making it unlawful for anyone to help a self-emancipated (runaway) person and requiring law enforcement even in the North to aid in their return. They also promoted the idea that territories should be able to decide for themselves if they were going to be slave or free. Both of these ideas were abhorrent to abolitionists.
Now for the Copperheads. This is where things get a little murky because not only did they promote their own agenda, but the Republicans tended to exaggerate it for their political purposes. What that means for TJ is that he may have been getting his information from “both sides” and felt he was getting an accurate picture of things, but at that time both the Democrats and Republicans skewed what they could if they saw it as an advantage. One other thing to keep in mind is that most of the Copperheads were actually centered north of the Ohio River (west of Pennsylvania) in states near the Confederate border which included Ohio, Illinois and Indiana. There was also support for the Copperheads in major urban areas of the North, mining camps, and coal fields, especially those in Pennsylvania. Berks County mines were mostly extracting iron, and other metals, but there were also coal mines and the county is near some of Pennsylvania’s major coal mining areas. Many of the Copperheads were southern transplants into the North, but there was also support from Irish American Catholics and German Catholics especially in the Midwest. Regardless of where they were located, the Copperheads made a lot of noise about opposing the war and faulting abolitionists for it. They resisted draft laws, encouraged desertion, considered Lincoln a tyrant, and even talked about helping Confederate prisoners-of-war to escape, though that may be one of the many exaggerations of their efforts. Of course, the Confederacy supported their efforts.
One thing that likely threw TJ and many others off was the numerous newspaper editors who were openly or secretly Copperheads, the editor of the Chicago Times possibly being the most vocal. The Uniontown, PA Genius of Liberty newspaper was also Copperhead affiliated. Uniontown is in Fayette County, a fair distance from Berks, on the southern border of Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh. I have no idea how many other newspapers were Copperhead affiliated in Pennsylvania, but it’s clear their influence wherever they were was felt. The Knights of the Golden Circle, which I mentioned in my first email, were Copperheads who did their best to disseminate lies and exaggerations and they advocated the violent overthrow of some state governments. There were even physical altercations between Copperheads and Union soldiers and Republicans in some Illinois towns which resulted in several deaths. Republicans were able to play that up and sensationalize it to discredit all Democrats. The Copperheads remained a thorn in the side of the Republicans and even the War Democrats until late 1864 when the writing was on the wall that their ideals were not held by the majority and Lincoln won reelection” – Keri- Lynn Kelman