Lee's Slave Hunters.

I have just come across a Ted Alexander's 2001 North and South article entitled "A Regular Slave Hunt." This article highlights a sad and little known aspect of Lee's Gettysburg campaign. Alexander wrote that in June and July 1863 Confederate forces rounded up hundreds of free blacks and escaped slaves throughout southern Pennsylvania.

Alexander has provided evidence, eyewitness testimony, to show that Confederate forces participated and what amounted to slave hunting. Some of the most disturbing evidence came from Rachel Cormany, who left a detailed account of some of the abductions. Cormany wrote: "[Confederates] were hunting up the contrabands [escaped slaves] and driving them off by droves. O! how it grated on our hearts to have to sit quietly and look at such brutal deeds--I saw no men among the contrbands--all women and children. Some of the colored people who were raised here were taken along--I sat on the front step as they were driven by just like we would drive cattle...One woman was pleading wonderfully with her driver for her children--but all the sympathy she received from him was a rough "March along"--at which she quickened her pace again." Alexander was not precise about how many blacks were captured by Confederates; an estimate for Chambersburg places its count at 250 and an estimate for York states that a little more than 100 were abducted in this town.

Alexander went on the state that most of the Confederates who participated in these kidnappings were guerrilla forces who "operated on the fringes of Lee's army." He did provide evidence that General James Longstreet knew about these abductions and that the famed General George Pickett's division participated in the kidnappings. Alexander, however, left some rather important questions unanswered. Were the orders to abduct free blacks and escaped slaves general orders or were they issued independently of the high command? To what extent did Lee's regular forces participate in the kidnappings? We know that Pickett's division participated, but did others do the same? This is a disturbing aspect of the Gettysburg campaign that deserves to be fully examined, but, unfortunately, Alexander's article leaves us with more questions than answers.

Thesis 4/24/2008

I have been thinking about how I can narrow my thesis topic down and make it more manageable. As I have said, I am going to be looking at the the US Officer Corps and trying to explain how this group developed a unique sense of community. I have begun to think that I should focus on the role the written word played in developing this community. I will be drawing upon Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, which deals with nationalism, but I think that some of his arguments can be applied to the US Officer Corps. I hope to have another update soon.

Theodore Roosevelt and the 1912 Election

Historian Lewis Gould's Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics offers a much needed revision of this presidential campaign. Gould contends that TR lost the Republican nomination and then the general election due to mistakes made by himself and not his opponents.

Gould writes:

"The contest between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft for the Republican presidential nomination culminated in one of the most tumultuous and controversial national conventions in all of the nation’s history. A key participant said of the scene in the Chicago Coliseum during those June days that for the Republicans “a parting of the ways was imminent” and so it proved. Taft won the nomination, Roosevelt bolted, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson gained the presidency. According to the main story line about this convention, a popular, progressive Roosevelt, eager to promote the New Nationalism, yielded to the public clamor for his selection and became a declared candidate for the GOP nomination during the winter of 1912. “My hat is in the ring,” he told a reporter. An inept, befuddled Taft, a pawn of party conservatives, faced down the Roosevelt challenge. The incumbent president did not do it with skill. He won in the end through parliamentary muscle and control of the party machinery."

"By all rights, this narrative runs, Roosevelt should have been the Republican nominee. Outraged at having the prize snatched from his grasp by trickery and deceit, Roosevelt bolted, formed his third party, and insured Republican defeat. This story line owes much to the pioneering research of George E. Mowry in Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement (1946) which relied on the Theodore Roosevelt Papers as its main source."

"The story has been compelling because much of it fits the facts. In its dramatic simplicity, however, it misses the dilemmas that the Republicans faced in 1912. By giving Roosevelt the sole starring role in the saga, it depicts the political loser as the winner, and thus understates Taft’s skill as a party politician. That Roosevelt made a series of mistakes and unwise decisions gets overlooked. It also leaves out the crucial contributions of Senator Robert M. La Follette to the ultimate triumph of the Republican conservatives. In a battle that foreshadowed the campaigning style of the future, Roosevelt and his allies missed chance after chance to seize control of the Grand Old Party. The consequences of their missteps would shape American politics for decades."

"To understand how the Chicago convention turned out as it did, it is necessary to recognize the superior skill of President Taft in winning renomination. The portly chief executive is often portrayed as a genial boob, but in this case he grabbed the initiative from Roosevelt in mid-1911 and never lost it. His personal secretary, Charles D. Hilles, began rounding up delegate commitments within the GOP during the summer of 1911 and continued through a nationwide tour that Taft made in the autumn of that year. The two men also recognized the key role of the Republican National Committee and solidified Taft’s dominance of its membership in December. Their strategy emerges in the Hilles Papers at Yale University which, when opened in the 1960s, provided detailed evidence of Taft’s strategy. This crucial collection has, however, been little consulted by previous historians of this election."

"Meanwhile, Roosevelt dithered. He could not decide whether to challenge Taft until late October 1911. During much of the year he assured friends he did not wish to run in 1912 but refused to endorse Taft for renomination. Keeping his options open fed the celebrity on which the former president depended. Had he come out for Taft the contest would have been over. But Roosevelt did not take any steps to prepare for a run for the nomination. As a result, he was always several steps behind the president and his organization when he did enter the race."

Read the entire article here.

Master's Thesis.

I have arrived at the beginning stages of my thesis research. I'm sure that I will face some resistance from certain professors because, unlike others in my seminar, I have elected not to focus on one or all of the "holy trinity" of race, class, and gender. I'm going to be researching the emergence of American strategic thought and its role in developing a sense of community among the U.S. Officer Corps during the antebellum and Civil War eras. This may also bring resistance from the professors because military history is frowned upon by most academic historians. I will have more updates as my research progresses.

"Security isn't a dirty word."

More from Blackadder...

Blackadder on Western Front Strategy

These clips from Blackadder Goes Forth are hilarious and, in my opinion, accurately portray strategic thought on the Western Front during World War I.

Bad Voodoo's War

I was watching Bad Voodoo's War on PBS last night. I found it very interesting and I highly recommend it. The documentary follows a platoon on a tour of duty and offers a glimpse of what ordinary soldiers experience in Iraq on a day to day basis. The entire episode can be viewed here.

Will the Republicans win in November if the Democrats carry the primary fight to their convention?

Katherine Seelye and Julie Bosman of the New York Times have sought to answer that very question:

"President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward M. Kennedy had been sharp adversaries with a bad history, and in the 1980 presidential campaign they let it bleed into a bitter nomination fight. The Carter administration challenged Mr. Kennedy’s patriotism and refused to debate, while Mr. Kennedy dragged out their fight for nine months, all the way to the Democratic convention. A weakened Mr. Carter prevailed and won the nomination, but he went on to lose in November."

"Convention fights often spell ruin for a party. The 1980 experience for Democrats — as well as a fight in 1968, and one in 1976 for Republicans — all suggest that a bruising primary carried through the summer can contribute to defeat in November."

"Today, nervous Democrats are worried that history will repeat itself as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lags in delegates and the popular vote, has refused to concede the nomination to Senator Barack Obama. Despite the increasing rancor of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton says she is staying in until the voting is over."

Read the full article here.

Thomas Sowell on Obama and Race

Thomas Sowell has entered the endless stream of commentary being rendered on the Wright controversy. Sowell, who has written extensively on race relations, has offered an interesting piece entitled "Audacity Without Hope." Sowell has written:

"It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious."

"Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time — and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it."

"It makes a good story, but it won’t stand up under scrutiny."

"Barack Obama’s own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far-left fringe. In college, “I chose my friends carefully,” he said in his first book, Dreams From My Father."

"These friends included “Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets” — in Obama’s own words — as well as the “more politically active black students.” He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman Underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator."

"Obama didn’t just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way-out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college — members of the anti-American, counter-cultural Left."

"In Shelby Steele’s brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama — A Bound Man — it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were — and, like many converts, he went overboard."

"The irony is that Obama’s sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together."

"One sign of Obama’s verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother — “a typical white person,” he says — with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright."

"Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright’s words have a “resonance” in the black community."

"There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan’s words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?"

"While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright’s words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come."

"Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have. "

And more on Obama and Race

Ever since Obama delivered his speech on race I have become increasing interested in Obama and the race question. On the website The Cutting Edge, Edwin Black has recently written:

" It is pivotal to understand that Obama’s potentially insurmountable problem is not about his mere membership in Pastor Wright’s Trinity Church, an affiliate of the nationally diverse United Church of Christ. Obama’s problem is the deep-vein mentoring with Pastor Wright himself. Obama was not just sitting in the pews for twenty years. The two men were and are tight--very tight."

"It was Wright’s charismatic "in your face" African-American activism that first brought unaffiliated, young twenty-something Chicago neighborhood organizer Obama into the Trinity Church as a practicing Christian in the eighties. Obama became a regular attendee and took Wright’s inspiration with him when away. While at Harvard studying law, Obama morally tutored himself with tapes of Wright’s fiery lectures."

"Wright was a moving force in Obama’s family as well. Pastor Wright married Obama to his wife, Michelle, and baptized their two children. The Pastor’s provocative sermon, "The Audacity of Hope," gave Obama the title for his bestselling book of the same name. Obama even huddled with his Pastor for spiritual guidance just before announcing his presidential bid. Wright was given a prominent advisory role in the campaign. Wright is more than an arms-length acquaintance. The Pastor is precisely the mentor and close personal advisor Obama has long declared him to be."

" Exactly what is the objectionable conduct of Wright? To begin, Wright is a close confidant and supporter of Minister Louis Farrakhan. The leader of the Nation of Islam has called Jews "bloodsuckers" who practice a "gutter religion," and has ascended to the apex of virulent anti-Semitism in the Black community and indeed worldwide. Wright was among those deeply affected in the early eighties by Farrakhan’s Southside Chicago activism. In 1984, Wright was one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Khadafy. The ostentatious Farrakhan junket came at a time when Khadafy had been identified as the world’s chief financier of international terrorism, including the Black September group behind the Munich Olympics massacre. By the time Wright and Farrakhan visited, Libyan oil imports had been banned, and America was trying to topple what it called a "rogue regime." In the several years after that, Farrakhan was pro-active for Khadafy even as Libya was internationally isolated for suspected involvement in numerous terror plots including the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."

"The Farrakhan-Wright connection is no distant matter of the turbulent eighties. Farrakhan, Wright and Wright’s Church have remained in close esteem until this very day. As recently as December 2007, the Church’s publication, Trumpet Newsmagazine, bestowed upon Farrakhan its highest honor, the "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter" Award for Lifetime Achievement. An interview with Farrakhan in the magazine concludes with the words, "he truly epitomizes greatness." Wright himself described Farrakhan in that article as "a 20th and 21st Century giant." Pastor Wright is the CEO of the church publication, which is said to reach 200,000 readers across the nation. Members of Wright’s family act as publisher and editor. As recently as this Palm Sunday, March 16, 2008, the church listed Farrakhan on its Prayer list in the weekend hand-out at church services."

"In the Farrakhan mold, Wright is a firebrand anti-American, anti-White, anti-Zionist preacher. His pulpit statements, by now widely broadcast on cable TV and across the Internet, have histrionically asked followers to chant not "God Bless America" but "God Damn America," to denounce Israel and Zionism for "state terrorism," to hold Washington responsible for creating the HIV AIDS virus as a weapon against Blacks, and to recognize that America is controlled by "rich white people." Immediately after the 9-11 attacks against the World Trade Center, Wright waved his arms and almost danced, bellowing that America had brought the crime upon itself. Nor is he shy about publicly using the words "nigger" and "shit" even from the pulpit."

"Despite his extremism, Wright is no fringe member of the African-American mainstream. He is a giant in the Black community. Wright built the Trinity Church from an 87-member congregation in 1972 with a $30,000 annual budget to a Black megachurch said to boast as many as 10,000 members--the largest in the United Church of Christ--operating on a more than $9 million annual budget with its own $2 million credit union, donating its own $100,000 check to Hurricane Katrina relief, and selling advertising in its house organ for $5,000 per page. In 1993, Ebony Magazine listed Wright among its top 15 pastors. In March 2007, Wright was honored by a resolution of the Illinois House of Representatives."

And according to Black, how did Obama defend himself and Wright?:

"In a political defense that now ranks with Bill Clinton’s assertion that he "never inhaled" and "never had sex with that woman," Barack claims he was never in the pews when Wright expressed his hateful sermons. Not a few in the media are now scouring Pastor’s Wright’s video tapes to spot Obama’s face in the rollicking crowds, or those much-loved audio tapes Obama so passionately studied to detect bigoted language."

"Obama’s defense that he did not know of Pastor’s Wright bigotry is opposed by the record itself. More than a year ago, Obama suddenly uninvited Pastor Wright to offer the invocation at a major campaign event. Wright told The New York Times in March 2007, "Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack... One of his members had talked him into uninviting me." Wright pointedly chose the Yiddish term Shabbos to refer to the Friday night time of the call."

"Many critics have long self-censored on Obama’s hate links, even among the Jewish community where sensitivity to any connection Farrakhan runs high. For example, the Anti-Defamation League recently issued a press release that it was satisfied that Obama had disavowed Wright’s race hatred and anti-Zionist fervor. But now, in a weekend interview, ADL national director Abraham Foxman says his view is different. "More is now known," says Foxman. "It is not a casual, one-way way relationship with Pastor Wright." Foxman has joined the growing chorus of disbelief about Obama’s ignorance. "It is very difficult to believe that throughout these years, Obama has been unaware of the conspiracy, bigotry, and anti-Zionist views.""

"While most in America are worried about playing a race card, Barack Obama has shown he is still carrying around a full deck."

More fom Hanson on the Obama Speech.

Victor Hanson's commentary on Obama's speech on race in America was continued today with the latest installment of his analysis. Hanson wrote:

"The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes."

"For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else."

"Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable."

"The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure."

"Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense."

"What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred."

Hanson wrote that Obama must now deal with certain facts:

"(1) Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration;"

"(2) Hillary may not just win, but win big in Pennsylvania (and maybe the other states as well), buttressing her suddenly not-so-tired argument about her success in the mega-, in-play purple states. Michigan and Florida that once would have been lost by Hillary in a fair election, now would be fairly won — and Clinton is as willing to replay both as Obama suddenly is not; and"

"(3) The sure thing of Democrats winning big in the House and Senate is now in danger of a scenario in which a would-be Senator or Representative explains all autumn long that the party masthead really does not like Rev. Wright, whose massive corpus of buffoonery no doubt is still to be mined. (The problem was never “snippets,” but entire speeches devoted to hatred and anger, often carefully outlined in a point-by-point format)."

So, according to Hanson, how can Obama fix his current problem:

"I would go buy about 10,000 American flags to blanket every Obama appearance, have a 4x4 lapel-button flag custom-made for the senator, have Michelle finish every appearance by leading a chorus of “God Bless America,” draft every middle-of-the-road crusty drawling Democratic veteran (the knightly Harris Wofford doesn’t cut it) to criss-cross the country — and try to Trotskyize Rev. Wright from the campaign."

"Oh, and no need for any more Obama half-conversations about race and “typical white person” clarifications. All that does far more damage to the country than even to Obama himself."

Victor Davis Hanson on "The Tragedy of Obama's Speech"

More from VDH on Obama's speech on race in America:

"The tragedy of Obama's speech and the mindless endorsement of it was the rejection of any constant moral standard — an absolute sense of wrong and right that transcends situational ethics, context, and individual particulars. And once one jettisons such absolutes, they won't be there when one wishes to seek refuge in them in a future hour of need."

"When he failed to 'disown' Rev. Wright, and then brought in parallels of things purportedly as bad, or offered excuses that Wright had done good things to balance the bad, or that there were certain mitigating circumstances that explain his hatred, then the universal wrong of Wright's racism and lying disappears and with it any ethical standard by which we have moral authority to condemn such vitriol."

"That this self-serving relativism was used to address a self-induced political disaster is especially unfortunate for a self-appointed moralist. I think the liberal blanket endorsement of the Obama speech will later come back to haunt its enthusiasts, once they see the creepy freak show that emerges from the woodwork, immune in public discourse now from absolute standards of rebuke."

"In that regard, the grandmother metaphor, the radio talk show simile, the evocation of Ferraro, the context of the black church, etc. were meaningless without any unequivocal rejection of Rev. Wright and what he stands for."

"This was a transformational speech — but in ways its endorsers can hardly believe but will surely regret. The voters of Pennsylvania will be the first indication of Obama's folly, followed by the moral paralysis that meets the next outbreak of racism and hatred in the public forum."

Obama and the Race Question.

On Tuesday morning Barack Obama delievered a speech with the intent to defuse some of the anger swirling around the incendiary remarks made by his paster, Jeremiah Wright. The speech was a very good speech, but he dodged the many concerns held by a significant portion of the electorate. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has pointed, in his article "An Elegant Farce," that "Obama’s Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered, postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama’s relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general." "The Obama apologia," argued Hanson, "was a 'conversation' about moral equivalence. So the Wright hatred must be contextualized and understood in several ways that only the unusually gifted Obama can instruct us about:"

"1) The good that Rev. Wright and Trinity Church did far outweighs his controversial comments, which were taken out of context as 'snippets' and aired in the 'endless loop' on conservative outlets."

"2) We are all at times racists and the uniquely qualified Obama is our valuable mirror of that ugliness: Wright may say things like 'God damn America' or 'Dirty Word' Israel or 'Clarence Colon,' but then it must be balanced by other truths like Obama’s own grandmother who also expresses fear of black males (his grandmother’s private angst is thus of the same magnitude as Wright’s outbursts broadcast to tens of thousands)."

"3) We don’t understand Wright’s history and personal narrative. But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. (As if all blacks did?)"

"4) Indeed, Wright does nothing that much different from radio-talk show hosts and those of the Reagan Coalition who thrive on racial resentments. But whereas Wright has cause as a victim, his counterparts are opportunists who play on white fears."

"5) And if we wish to continue to express worries about Obama’s past relationships with Wright — never delineated, never explained in detail — in trite and mean-spirited ways such as replaying the Wright tapes, then we have lost a rare opportunity to follow Obama into a post-racial America."

"6) We, both black and white alike, are victims, victims of an insensitive system, a shapeless, anonymous 'it' that brings out the worst in all of us — but it will at last end with an Obama candidacy."

Hanson concluded: "Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama."

Bugs Bunny does the Civil War.

I found this video on the Civil Warriors blog and I thought it was a great example of how the Civil War is remembered. So, enjoy.

Thank "God" for Hitchens.

One of my favorite writers, Christopher Hitchens, is making atheism fun, or at least seem fun. I am not claiming to be an atheist myself, but I do enjoy reading books by sworn atheists. Lately there has been a growth in the popularity of books denouncing religion. Some writers, such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), come off as, well...preachy. They're arrogant and, one can argue, stuck-up. However, Hitchens's God is Not Great is a rather fun read. I highly recommend it. If you are a religious person you should definitely read this book because it provides a concise critique of religion and raises questions and issues that those who believe in God must reconcile in their own faith. (here is a recent article by Hitchens on belief.) Another great book on religion by Hitchens, which I suggest should be read with God is Not Great, is The Missionary Position. In that book Hitchens exposes the lies and hypocrisies of Mother Teresa. So, thank God for Hitchens for making atheism seem interesting.

Abraham Lincoln and Material Culture

In a recent essay, published in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Erika Nunamaker examined Abraham Lincoln's "egalitarian refinement." "Egalitarian refinement," according to historian Joyce Appleby, can be described as "an oxymoron that nicely captured the split personality of American society, with its yearning for the manners of the better sort and appreciation of the vernacular culture of ordinary folk." Nunamaker wrote that Lincoln, in 1837 when he was just starting his career as a lawyer, purchased a expensive horsehair couch. He defied all cultural customs of the antebellum gentry by reclining and spreading out on the couch while reading. Lincoln's to purchase such a couch shows his desire to be thought of as a gentleman, but his improper use of the couch illustrates "his refusal, whether conscious or unconscious, to resort to affecting behaviors or aping manners that did not come naturally to him."

Nunamaker's propose in writing this essay was to call attention to a wealth of primary sources that have been largely ignored by historians and Lincoln scholars. Studies in historical material culture reveals what peopled desired to own and what objects they bought. Examining Lincoln's furniture, as Nunamaker has done, shows how Lincoln was influenced by common cultural assumptions and how he defied them. There are tens of thousands of books on Lincoln, but the examination of the objects he bought demonstrates that there is still much we can learn about this man.

Civil War Battlefields

Earlier this week the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) released its annual report on the country's most endangered Civil War sites. Here is the list of the 10 most endangered sites in America: Antietam, Md., Cedar Creek, Va., Cold Harbor, Va., Hunterstown, Pa., Monocacy, Md., Natural Bridge, Fla., Perryville, Ky., Prairie Grove, Ark., Savannah, Ga., and Spring Hill, Tenn.

The CWPT also named 15 sites that are at risk. Among the at risk sites are Brandy Station, Va., Kennesaw Mountain, Ga., and Petersburg, Va.

Atlantic Emancipations 200 Years Later.

This years marks the 200th anniversaries of the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in the United States and the year during which Pennsylvania's gradual emancipation law finally bore fruit. The Library Company of Philadelphia is hosting a conference marking the anniversaries of these events, which will feature some of the most prominent scholars within the field. (the conference website can be viewed here.) The keynote speaker will be Pulitzer Prize winning historian Steven Hahn, author of A Nation Under Our Feet. The conference will also feature other important historians such as Gary Nash. It will be held on April 10-12. It is free and registration is open to the public.

8 Dead in Jerusalem

8 were killed and 9 were wounded in an attack on a rabbinical school by militants. Palestinians took to the streets and celebrated. I hope Israel's retaliation is swift and decisive. My heart goes out to the families of the victims. (article)

Lincoln and Douglas...the standard for political debates

A little over a week ago Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton participated in the twentieth presidential debate. The Republicans have also held countless debates over the past year. With John McCain as the Republican nominee and the Democrats thinned out to just two contenders the general election will soon begin bringing the promise of yet more debates. One would think that with the sheer number of debates that have taken place, then the American people must be the most informed electorate in all the world. This presumption is dead wrong. These debates that we have had to endure were not true debates and pale in comparison to a series of seven debates between the two candidates who were campaigning to be a senator from Illinois in 1858. These two men, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, participated in seven debates with each lasting for about three hours. At the heart of these debates was the issue of slavery and the fate of the Republic. These debates were racially charged and were not short on sexual innuendos. Here is an interesting article on the debates written by historian Allen Guelzo.

Allen Guelzo on the Daily Show

Allen Guelzo, one of my favorite historians, was on the Daily Show recently. Guelzo and host Jon Stewart discussed his new book Lincoln and Douglas.

The inexperience myth... or how the Clintons sold their supporters and half the electorate a bunch of lies.

Over the past several months I've heard from countless people, both talking heads featured in the media and average voters, that Barack Obama is inexperienced. The other part of this myth is that Clinton is running on decades of experience.

I'll deal the Obama's supposed inexperience first. This idea that Obama is inexperienced is just total nonsense. Obama has eleven years experience in public office as an Illinois state senator (1997-2004) and he has been in the US Senate since 2004. Prior to that he gained experience as a civil rights attorney, university lecturer, and community organizer. You could say many different things about these facts, but one thing you just cannot say is that he is inexperienced. Then there is the argument that his experience isn't the right kind of experience that a potential president should have. What?!?! First, I must ask; What is the right type of experience one should have before serving as president? Never mind that. Let's compare Obama's experience to those who have served as president. The most common comparison that has been made is the one between Obama and John F. Kennedy. When JFK was elected president he had just three more years experience in public office (US Representative, 1946-52 and US Senator, 1952-60). Obama is also three years older than JFK when he was elected to the presidency. Here's a list of presidents that Obama has had more experience in national political office than they had when they were elected to the presidency: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (Obama is also older than Bill Clinton was when her was elected), and George W. Bush did not serve in any elected office in the federal government prior to being elected president. Some of these men were great presidents, others mediocre or just plain bad. The best comparison one can use is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had served just one term in the House of Representatives (1847-1849) prior to his election to president in 1860. So, is Obama experienced enough to be president? Yes, of course he has enough experience.

Now let's turn to Hillary Clinton, who is running on 35 years of experience. This is preposterous! Hillary Clinton has served in national elected office longer than Obama (US Senator 2000-2008), but this is the only public office she has ever been elected to serve. This means that Obama has had more experience in elected office (national and state) than Clinton. Clinton also resorts to arguing that the years she spent as First Lady and the First Lady of Arkansas makes her more prepared to be president. Well, the last time I checked, the First Lady was not an elected office nor does it carry any duties that can be comparable to being the president. I concede that Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of certain policies such as health care. What was the result? Well, Hillary failed at bringing about universal health care and her attempt to do so resulted in a landslide for the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections that brought about 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress. I am left to ask; does simply being married to a president mean the you are experienced and qualified enough to be president? No and to think so is sheer stupidity. Is the spouse of a lawyer qualified to try cases in a court of law? Is the spouse of a heart surgeon qualified to perform open heart surgery? Of course not and being the spouse of a president is not the measure of whether or not one is qualified or experienced enough to be president.

Hillary should stop trying to feed us the lie that Obama is inexperienced. If she wants to play that game we can discuss how inexperienced she is compared to John McCain. All in all, this talk about experience is a waste of time. One's experiences prior to entering the Oval Office cannot be used as an indicator of the successes or failures that one may bring about as president.

You're a Jew in a Polish ghetto during the Holocaust...What would you do?

I was given this scenario in my Antisemitism seminar:

"The Jewish community is now pressed into the poor section of town which has become a ghetto. The Judenrat [Jewish council, leaders of the Jews in the ghetto] is given the responsibility of taxing the incomes of those who work in factories that have been moved into into the ghetto by German industrialists. These industrialists have assured you that 'rescue comes through work.' With rumors that the Russian army is only 125 miles away, the ethic became clear, 'work will save blood.'

One day, as a member of the Judenrat, you are called in by the SS and told that contrary to the decree that there are to be no new cases of childbirth in the ghetto, it has been reported that there are a number of pregnant women. You are told that there is hardly enough food in the Reich to feed good Germans, and that there is no food to feed Jewish 'brats.' You are reminded of an example of in a neighboring village where a whole family was shot because of violation of the decree. You are told to go home immediately and 'set your house in order' or the SS doctor will take care of the women. It is also clearly implied that reprisals will be taken against all in the ghetto.

You return to the Judenrat offices and a debate rages. You know that one of the twenty women reported pregnant had long tried to conceive without success. The choice facing you is whether to press these women to undergo abortions. Your choice is between taking the life of the 'unborn' in the hope of saving the living, or refusing to carry out the order and face SS reprisals.

a. Will you press these women to undergo abortions?

b. If yes, explain why. If no, explain why not."

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P

I was deeply saddened today to read the news of the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr. He was 82. Since the 1950s, Buckley had been at the forefront of the conservative intellectual movement. Buckley made his first splash on the American political landscape in 1951 with the publication of his highly influential book entitled God and Man at Yale. Throughout the 1950s his importance within the movement continued to grow and would become stronger after his founding of the conservative magazine, National Review. During the decades of the Cold War, Buckley was staunch anti-communist and eloquent supporter of free markets. Buckley had a profound impact on the formulation of my own political ideology. For years I have enjoyed reading the National Review, especially his columns. His brilliant insights and stinging wit will be greatly missed by many. May he rest in peace.

That other 200th birthday...Jefferson Davis

All the hoopla surrounding the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln has led some to ask how should we, as a society, remember the 200th birthday of his Confederate counterpart, Jefferson Davis (1808-1889). A recent AP story reported on the struggles encountered by the Confederate president's descendents in their attempt to comemorate his legacy. (read the story here) At the heart of this issue is the topic of memory. How do we, as a people, remember the past.? It's not just about remembering, but how people construct the meanings and symbols they apply to history. What average peole say history means is usually much different than how historians explain and assign meanings to the past. Over the past decade or so, professional historians have started to examine historical memory. The most famous example of this scholarship is David W. Blight's Race and Reunion, which examined the historical memory of the Civil War.

Ronald Reagan redux.

Over the last year the American public has witnessed all the GOP presidential candidates vie for the mantle of Ronald Reagan. As a libertarian/moderate conservative and a staunch supporter of John McCain it has been painful for me to watch the Republicans channeling the former president. However, the next Reagan is running for president and, ironically, he is a Democrat. Barak Obama is the next Ronald Reagan. What?!? Obama is nothing like Reagan!! He's a Democrat and a fairly liberal one at that. This is all true, but he is the candidate that is closest to Reagan. Let me explain. My arguments rest upon the messages that both men were preaching. No, not their platforms, but their respective messages of hope and change. Reagan was an eternal optimist who believed that America was "a city upon a hill." In his farewell address Reagan stated:"I've spoken of the shiningcity all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still. And how stands the city on this winternight? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong andtrue on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. Myfriends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all."

Somehow I could imagine a President Obama bidding the nation farewell in a similar way. Back to my argument. In 2008 it's Obama that is the eternal optimist and not Hillary Clinton (the brooding Lady Macbeth who is attempting rain on the Obama parade with childish banter and racially charged barbs) nor is it McCain (the cool and collected realist who sees the world for what it really is; a very dangerous and unforgiving place). Obama is not a rancid political hack (Clinton). He is also not a realist, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Watching Obama's campaign rallies one can see that Obama is Reagan redux. Even before he steps on stage or speaks a word the image of the "city upon a hill" is conjured up through Obama's campaign song; U2's "City of Blinding Lights." But when 2008's "great communicator" wades into his speech the similarities are unparalleled. Let's examine some portions of speeches from both men. In a recent speech delivered at Janesville, WI., Obama stated: "But how many times have you been disappointed when everyonegoes back to Washington and nothing changes? Because the lobbyists just write another check. Or because politicians start worrying about how they'll win the next election instead of why they should. Because they're focused on who's up and who's down instead of who matters - the worker who just lost his pension; the family that just put up the For Sale sign; the young woman who gets three hours of sleep a night because she works the late shift after a full day ofcollege and still can't afford her sister's medicine. These are the Americans who need real change - the kind of change that's about more than switching the party in the White House. They need a change in our politics - a leader who canend the division in Washington so we can stop talking about our challenges and start solving them; who doesn't defend lobbyists as part of the system, but sees them as part of the problem; who will carry your voices and your hopes into the White House every single day for the next four years. And that is the kind of President I want to be. " (read the speech here)

Now compare that with a portion of Reagan's First Inaugural: "The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, butthey will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed byself-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teachour children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, inshort, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans. Well, thisadministration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy thatprovides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotryor discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans backto work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ``new beginning,''and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism andfair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have astrong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world." (read the complete speech here)

There are, indeed, striking similarities between the two men. (Obama has even acknowledged the significant impact Reagan had on the American political landscape, which can be seen here.) Obama's opponents, however, must be wary of this optimism and hope. Just as Reagan was derided as being mindlessly and hopelessly optimistic, Clinton and McCain are beginning to do the same. And just as it back fired against Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale, so to will it back fire against Obama's rivals. Hope, optimism and change can win elections. They can win big!! These sentiments combined with a gifted orator and period of "national malaise" (a term from a speech given by Jimmy Carter) will win over childish partisan politicos (Clinton) and straight-talking realists (McCain).

The president that slavery elected...maybe...maybe not.

Why was Thomas Jeffereson elected president in 1800? A better question is; who elected Jefferson president? I'm conflicted over the answer to this seemingly simple question. The argument can be and has been made, most notably by Garry Wills, that slavery was the reason Jefferson was able to capture the presidency over John Adams. In his book, Nergro President, Wills argued that Jefferson and the South were able to come to power due to the 3/5 clause (article 1, section 2, paragraph 3) of the Constitution. (a short review of Wills's book can be found here.) The "slave power," as Wills labels it, handed Jefferson a majority of votes in the Electoral College. This is true, but, as much as I don't like Jefferson, I must admit slavery was not solely responsible for his election to the presidency. Jefferson, according to John H. Aldrich, was also the choice of the people (or the choice of the white males population who were the only people that could vote). Aldrich, using voting records, was able to show that Jefferson also captured the popular vote; Jefferson had 150,778 votes to Adams's 138,685. A map of the election results can be seen here. It seems as if the will of the people and the "slave power" combined to make Jefferson president over Adams....Though one could also argue that Congress elected Jefferson, but I won't delve into that.

Hello

I created this blog to share my thoughts and experiences as a graduate student in the history program at Rutgers University. I will mostly comment and attempt to analyze and critique the works and theories that I am currently reading for my seminars. Another goal of this blog is to shed some light on what it's like being in graduate school, which sounds simple enough. I will also comment on developments and arguments in the various fields of history that interest me: the American Civil War, military history, early American history, and the history of conservatism. However, from time-to-time I will comment on subjects and issues other than historiographical ones. Since the country is in the midst of a fairly important and historic presidential campaign I will also comment on politics and other current events. I'm a libertarian/moderate conservative, but I welcome comments from all p.o.v.'s as long as they are civil and respectful.

So....I will be posting the first real entry soon.

Josh