Regular readers know that I am a deep admirer of not only President Lincoln but also Union Army General Ulysses S. Grant who also became President. Read about this exchange of letters between Grant of the North and Lee of the South. This was in 1864 when there was some political interaction regarding possibilities of peace between Lincoln and the Confederacy, but they fell through due to the South's insistence on retaining slaves. Meanwhile on the battlefield there were also negotiations:
The Confederate answer came from General Lee a few weeks later. He proposed to Grant an exchange of prisoners captured by each side in a Union attack and Confederate counterattack ten miles southeast of Richmond on September 28-30. Several black regiments participated, and some of their men were captured. Grant agreed to the exchange so long as the black soldiers were included. But Lee replied that "Negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subject of exchange and were not included in my proposition." That was unfortunate, responded Grant, because the U.S. "Government is bound to secure to all persons received into her armies the rights due to soldiers." Lee's refusal to honor this obligation therefore "induces me to decline making the exchanges you ask." (p. 248).
From "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief" by James M. McPherson, The Penguin Press, 2008.
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Case study: Lincoln using logic
I have been sharing with readers tips on how to use reasoning and logic to carefully explore even (and I'd say even especially) those things that seem simple and obvious. Read this famous example of how Lincoln described the problem of slavery, and developed principles through which to reason and deduce the available options and implied consequences:
If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I may seize the nearest stick and kill it. [Slavery in itself.]
But if I found that snake in bed with my children that would be another question. I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. [Slavery in the South.]
Much more, if I found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a solemn oath not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. [Slavery in the South as seen from the North.]
But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide. [Slavery in the territories.]
Lincoln was very careful in framing these parallels (delivered to a Connecticut audience early in 1860). He does not speak of Southerners as belonging to different states, but as "neighbors" with whom one has a solemn agreement. Nor does he palliate the evil of slavery-it is a snake no matter where one finds it, and it endangers the Southerners' children. But in denouncing the evil, in trying to contain it, in hoping for new agreements, Lincoln will not divide the "one people" that declared itself united in the Declaration... (Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, page 138-9).
Now, notice that being rationale and thoughtful about the layers of consequence of action did not stop Lincoln from taking the fateful and correct step of eradicating slavery. So one should not fear that being honest about the layers of implication and potential consequences of a monumental problem or decision will lead to inaction. Lincoln followed the steps of his logic, thoughtfully escalating, and it was the South who repeatedly refused to use a similar process of accommodation. Thus Lincoln concluded that the South had removed itself from the protection and rights of the Union, and thus was no longer the neighbor with whom he had a solemn oath (the third analogy) and realized that war would be necessary, and there would be the damage (the high price of war) of analogy two, which is to remove the snake of slavery that is already in bed with the children (as Lincoln continued to insist and explain that it was one nation, one set of children, not the "north" and the "south.")
Think about Iraq. When the decision was made to invade and occupy Iraq, you can see reading this excerpt from Lincoln's thought process how inadequate the thought process was regarding Iraq and the implications of various sets of actions. For example, one of my biggest criticisms of the Iraq strategy was the incomprehensible dismantling of the Iraqi army, rather than turning them into the service of the country without Hussein. Lincoln was very diligent and rationale in "enemy identification," which was slavery itself, not the people. The USA spoke the game of liberating the people, but they had obviously assigned "snake" categories to groups of people and institutions without any genuine reasoning and thoughtfulness. Thus to conclude that the army was part of the problem rather than solution, once the head of the snake was cut off, was a dire and stupid error.
Diplomats and other government officials can benefit greatly from the study of Lincoln, as you can see in this example, and use what they read to illuminate a more mature and well informed steps of progress in international relationships and in the necessary conflicts when they do arise.
If Lincoln, for all the evil of slavery and all the provocation he was subjected to when trying to reason with the South, can and did retain his view of them, ultimately, still being Americans, still being neighbors, still being children with his children, then we all would do well to do likewise in world affairs and diplomacy.
Friday, January 23, 2009
More about freed slaves burying Union dead
Here is more about the photograph of the freed slaves disinterring and reburying with dignity the remains of the Union soldiers.
First, here is the background of the battle depicted in the picture. This is from the book “A. Lincoln: A Biography” by Ronald C. White, Jr:
Lincoln could see the cost of the battle in the streets of Washington as the wounded arrived throughout the day and night. Attorney General Edward Bates wrote in his diary on May 15, 1864, “For the last 8 or 10 days, the most terrible battles of the war have occurred in Virginia. The carnage has been unexampled.” After so much bloodshed, questions began to rise about the price of victory. Grant and Meade had suffered [my emphasis in bold letters here:] SIXTY THOUSAND CASUALTIES IN ONE MONTH OF FIGHTING, almost the size of Lee’s entire army. [My comment: again, compare that the USA has lost three to four thousand troops in all of Iraq and Afghanistan; the Union army lost sixty thousand in one month in the war against slavery].
The carnage increased as Grant attacked the crossroads called Cold Harbor at the beginning of June. Lee, for whom Grant had increasing respect, was turning this war into a war of attrition, and so Grant decided to mount a massive assault. On the morning of June 3, 1864, hundreds of troops pinned their names and addresses to their uniforms in a premonition of what lay ahead. In the next hours, Union soldiers charged forward and were met by a withering hail of bullets. Grant lost 7,000 men, while Lee, fighting from trenches, suffered 1,500 casualties. At the end of the day Grant stopped the attack, admitting defeat. The Union army learned that day what European armies would learn a half a century later in World War I: the deadly horrors of trench warfare. General George Mead wrote to his wife, “I think Grant has had his eyes opened, and is willing to admit now that Virginia and Lee’s army is not Tennessee and Bragg’s army.”
The public began to turn against Grant, but Lincoln did not. The president told Noah Brooks, “I wish when you write and speak to people you would do all you can to correct the impression that the war in Virginia will end right off victoriously.” He continued, “To me the most trying thing in al this war is that people are too sanguine; they expect too much at once.” Lincoln, who would not make predictions, told Brooks, “As God is my judge, I shall be satisfied if we are over with the fight in Virginia within a year” (p. 632).
So I went back to the bookstore today after lunch and bought the book where I had seen this tremendously moving photograph that I described in the previous day’s blogging. The book is “Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief” by James M. McPherson. Here is the caption to the two photographs that I described:
The grim harvest of war is illustrated by these two photographs. The one on the left was taken at Gettysburg on July 5, 1863, two days after the battle, showing the bloated corpses of Union soldiers killed there. The other photograph depicts freed slaves after the war disinterring the remains of Union soldiers who had been killed at Cold Harbor, Virginia, for the reburial in the national military cemetery established there. Those killed at Gettysburg were also reinterred in one of the first such cemeteries, where on November 19, 1863, Lincoln consecrated “these honored dead” and resolved that they “shall not have died in vain.” Seventy-two national cemeteries were ultimately created as the final resting places for Union soldiers who died in the Civil War-and also for later veterans of the U.S. armed forces. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (photographs located between pages 174-175).
Thus by cross referencing two books I found a description of the dreadful battle and Union soldiers toll with the photograph of the freed slaves disinterring the Union bodies and taking them to the new national cemeteries for honorable burial.
The photograph shows four freed slaves in the background digging with shovels into the ground to unearth the bodies. In the foreground a freed slave is crouched next to a simple stretcher upon which they have been piling the remains of the Union soldiers. There are five skulls visible among a pile of their bones and uniforms, and a leg with a boot dangles over the side. It is a remarkable and unforgettable photograph, one of the many treasures of the Library of Congress.
So there are two things we can think about. One is that in Washington, as President Obama was inaugurated, we all thought of how Washington was built by slaves. But we should also remember that Abraham Lincoln saw a constant inflow of the dead and wounded Union soldiers on that very same ground, who had fought and died to free the slaves. In one Virginia battle the dead Union soldiers were piled five deep.
I am making much of this point because young Afro-Americans have grown up only knowing one side of the equation, those who considered them less than human, less than objects and chattel. However, I believe that the self esteem of young Afro-Americans would have been raised if they understood the magnitude of the other side, which is that there were 600,000 Union casualties, dead and wounded, as the Union soldiers fought for the freedom of the slaves. To feel that no one but Abraham Lincoln cared about your ancestors is to forget that hundreds of thousands of people cared with their lives.
So my second thing that you can think about is that those who live near or pass by Cold Harbor, Virginia can stop and contemplate a real moment of history and Afro-American pride. That is in knowing that the Union soldiers who died by the thousand were not left to rot on the battlefield, but were disinterred by the freed slaves and buried in places of honor established by Lincoln and the government. That is something I’d want to tell my children about, and I guess I am now.
While researching this item I came across this passage from the book “Tried by War:”
When the news of Richmond’s fall reached the North, wild celebrations broke out. Lincoln felt the same way, but his response was more restrained. He met with Grant in Petersburg on April 3 and discussed the pursuit of Lee, which would bring him to bay at Appomattox six days later. Meanwhile Lincoln returned to Adm. David D. Porter’s flagship USS Malvern, anchored in the James River, and told Porter: “Thank God I have lived to see this! It seems to me that I have been dreaming a horrid dream for four years, and now the nightmare is gone. I want to see Richmond.”
Porter was dubious about taking the president to see the still-burning enemy capital two days after it fell. But Lincoln insisted, so they went. With an escort of just ten sailors, he walked the streets while thousands of freed slaves crowded to see the Moses they believed had led them to freedom. “I know that I am free,” shouted one woman, “for I have seen father Abraham and felt him.” To one black man who fell on his knees before him, an embarrassed Lincoln said: “Don’t kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only and thank him for the liberty you will hereafter enjoy.” The president was profoundly moved by these encounters (p. 261).
By the way, notice that this reference to who and who is not God is on page 261. I’ve written before about how the media is infested with Antichrist obsessed people with weak mental and moral capabilities, who manipulate significant text in even textbooks to occur on what they consider a mystical number of the Antichrist and the beast, 126, 261 and 621. You can read more about this subliminal pushing of occult Antichrist agenda by following the labels I include on this post. It has ruined my enjoyment of media, such as books, for many years now. If I were Afro-American I would also be embarrassed and enraged to be pawns in these dispensationalist and cultists’ manipulation, by the way. It’s quite an insult to be used that way when Afro-Americans have traditionally been the most faithful to pure Christianity and their God. Lincoln would be mortified that his words and deeds have been exploited by those who manipulate for occult purposes.
I have in front of me the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, which I have quoted from before. I will close this blogging with the first note that he wrote to Robert E. Lee after the fall of Richmond. In a future blog posting I might group all the correspondence together so you can read and enjoy it as I have. I include it because General Grant was quite stoic about the incredible loss of life, and it is here as he urges Lee to surrender (which Lee rejects) that Grant refers to the carnage.
Headquarters Armies of the U.S., 5 P.M., April 7, 1865
General R. E. Lee, Commanding C.S.A.
The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood, by asking of you the surrender of that position of the Confederate States army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.
U.S. GRANT,
Lieut.-General
First, here is the background of the battle depicted in the picture. This is from the book “A. Lincoln: A Biography” by Ronald C. White, Jr:
Lincoln could see the cost of the battle in the streets of Washington as the wounded arrived throughout the day and night. Attorney General Edward Bates wrote in his diary on May 15, 1864, “For the last 8 or 10 days, the most terrible battles of the war have occurred in Virginia. The carnage has been unexampled.” After so much bloodshed, questions began to rise about the price of victory. Grant and Meade had suffered [my emphasis in bold letters here:] SIXTY THOUSAND CASUALTIES IN ONE MONTH OF FIGHTING, almost the size of Lee’s entire army. [My comment: again, compare that the USA has lost three to four thousand troops in all of Iraq and Afghanistan; the Union army lost sixty thousand in one month in the war against slavery].
The carnage increased as Grant attacked the crossroads called Cold Harbor at the beginning of June. Lee, for whom Grant had increasing respect, was turning this war into a war of attrition, and so Grant decided to mount a massive assault. On the morning of June 3, 1864, hundreds of troops pinned their names and addresses to their uniforms in a premonition of what lay ahead. In the next hours, Union soldiers charged forward and were met by a withering hail of bullets. Grant lost 7,000 men, while Lee, fighting from trenches, suffered 1,500 casualties. At the end of the day Grant stopped the attack, admitting defeat. The Union army learned that day what European armies would learn a half a century later in World War I: the deadly horrors of trench warfare. General George Mead wrote to his wife, “I think Grant has had his eyes opened, and is willing to admit now that Virginia and Lee’s army is not Tennessee and Bragg’s army.”
The public began to turn against Grant, but Lincoln did not. The president told Noah Brooks, “I wish when you write and speak to people you would do all you can to correct the impression that the war in Virginia will end right off victoriously.” He continued, “To me the most trying thing in al this war is that people are too sanguine; they expect too much at once.” Lincoln, who would not make predictions, told Brooks, “As God is my judge, I shall be satisfied if we are over with the fight in Virginia within a year” (p. 632).
So I went back to the bookstore today after lunch and bought the book where I had seen this tremendously moving photograph that I described in the previous day’s blogging. The book is “Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief” by James M. McPherson. Here is the caption to the two photographs that I described:
The grim harvest of war is illustrated by these two photographs. The one on the left was taken at Gettysburg on July 5, 1863, two days after the battle, showing the bloated corpses of Union soldiers killed there. The other photograph depicts freed slaves after the war disinterring the remains of Union soldiers who had been killed at Cold Harbor, Virginia, for the reburial in the national military cemetery established there. Those killed at Gettysburg were also reinterred in one of the first such cemeteries, where on November 19, 1863, Lincoln consecrated “these honored dead” and resolved that they “shall not have died in vain.” Seventy-two national cemeteries were ultimately created as the final resting places for Union soldiers who died in the Civil War-and also for later veterans of the U.S. armed forces. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (photographs located between pages 174-175).
Thus by cross referencing two books I found a description of the dreadful battle and Union soldiers toll with the photograph of the freed slaves disinterring the Union bodies and taking them to the new national cemeteries for honorable burial.
The photograph shows four freed slaves in the background digging with shovels into the ground to unearth the bodies. In the foreground a freed slave is crouched next to a simple stretcher upon which they have been piling the remains of the Union soldiers. There are five skulls visible among a pile of their bones and uniforms, and a leg with a boot dangles over the side. It is a remarkable and unforgettable photograph, one of the many treasures of the Library of Congress.
So there are two things we can think about. One is that in Washington, as President Obama was inaugurated, we all thought of how Washington was built by slaves. But we should also remember that Abraham Lincoln saw a constant inflow of the dead and wounded Union soldiers on that very same ground, who had fought and died to free the slaves. In one Virginia battle the dead Union soldiers were piled five deep.
I am making much of this point because young Afro-Americans have grown up only knowing one side of the equation, those who considered them less than human, less than objects and chattel. However, I believe that the self esteem of young Afro-Americans would have been raised if they understood the magnitude of the other side, which is that there were 600,000 Union casualties, dead and wounded, as the Union soldiers fought for the freedom of the slaves. To feel that no one but Abraham Lincoln cared about your ancestors is to forget that hundreds of thousands of people cared with their lives.
So my second thing that you can think about is that those who live near or pass by Cold Harbor, Virginia can stop and contemplate a real moment of history and Afro-American pride. That is in knowing that the Union soldiers who died by the thousand were not left to rot on the battlefield, but were disinterred by the freed slaves and buried in places of honor established by Lincoln and the government. That is something I’d want to tell my children about, and I guess I am now.
http://www.cem.va.gov/CEM/cems/nchp/coldharbor.asp
While researching this item I came across this passage from the book “Tried by War:”
When the news of Richmond’s fall reached the North, wild celebrations broke out. Lincoln felt the same way, but his response was more restrained. He met with Grant in Petersburg on April 3 and discussed the pursuit of Lee, which would bring him to bay at Appomattox six days later. Meanwhile Lincoln returned to Adm. David D. Porter’s flagship USS Malvern, anchored in the James River, and told Porter: “Thank God I have lived to see this! It seems to me that I have been dreaming a horrid dream for four years, and now the nightmare is gone. I want to see Richmond.”
Porter was dubious about taking the president to see the still-burning enemy capital two days after it fell. But Lincoln insisted, so they went. With an escort of just ten sailors, he walked the streets while thousands of freed slaves crowded to see the Moses they believed had led them to freedom. “I know that I am free,” shouted one woman, “for I have seen father Abraham and felt him.” To one black man who fell on his knees before him, an embarrassed Lincoln said: “Don’t kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only and thank him for the liberty you will hereafter enjoy.” The president was profoundly moved by these encounters (p. 261).
By the way, notice that this reference to who and who is not God is on page 261. I’ve written before about how the media is infested with Antichrist obsessed people with weak mental and moral capabilities, who manipulate significant text in even textbooks to occur on what they consider a mystical number of the Antichrist and the beast, 126, 261 and 621. You can read more about this subliminal pushing of occult Antichrist agenda by following the labels I include on this post. It has ruined my enjoyment of media, such as books, for many years now. If I were Afro-American I would also be embarrassed and enraged to be pawns in these dispensationalist and cultists’ manipulation, by the way. It’s quite an insult to be used that way when Afro-Americans have traditionally been the most faithful to pure Christianity and their God. Lincoln would be mortified that his words and deeds have been exploited by those who manipulate for occult purposes.
I have in front of me the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, which I have quoted from before. I will close this blogging with the first note that he wrote to Robert E. Lee after the fall of Richmond. In a future blog posting I might group all the correspondence together so you can read and enjoy it as I have. I include it because General Grant was quite stoic about the incredible loss of life, and it is here as he urges Lee to surrender (which Lee rejects) that Grant refers to the carnage.
Headquarters Armies of the U.S., 5 P.M., April 7, 1865
General R. E. Lee, Commanding C.S.A.
The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood, by asking of you the surrender of that position of the Confederate States army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.
U.S. GRANT,
Lieut.-General
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Another thought about American Presidents
I have the feeling that many readers enjoyed my blogging about the religion of the American Presidents and why certain faiths are so represented historically. I also have the feeling that by grouping the Presidents in sets of ten, showing that we have had four sets of tens Presidents, plus four, that readers, especially the young, have a better feeling for the span of our history as a country. It is both a mature nation and a very young one.
I've always been a visual learner myself and teacher. I find that grouping information in certain ways helps give a quick and rich insight into what might otherwise be obscured by a lot of detailed text. For example, let's look at the grouping of ten Presidents in sequence again for another couple of insights.
If ten Presidents had only one four year term, a group of ten Presidents in a row represents only forty years. If a few of them have two four year terms that bumps the span of ten Presidents to forty eight or fifty two years. Think about that: a group of ten Presidents is well within a lifespan of an observer. Traditionally the phrase "one generation" refers to thirty years. So a group of ten Presidents could be thought of that way, in terms of generations, but isn't the idea that it's between forty and sixty years kind of interesting? It makes it more real because now you can imagine someone who lives a good long life as seeing over a fourth of the Presidents that we have ever had in our history. That helps you to understand how young our country really is, and it is far too soon and inappropriate to feel all old and jaded about the USA. I like that President Obama seems to view it that way too.
I've mentioned this before on my blog but now in this context this small story from my own family is even more interesting. My grandparents on my dad's side owned a small hotel in upstate New York, near the border with Canada. Thus it was a real country inn kind of place but the way it used to be not the quaint image people have today. Thus is was a saloon, a place to get home cooked meals, and lodging for my family and rooms for those who needed, for example, the single elderly.
Think about this. When my dad was a young man in the hotel there was a Civil War veteran who lived there, who went by the name "Pappy." Yep, you read that right. My father (who was born in 1903) personally knew a Civil War veteran and that veteran lived in my grandparents hotel, since he was a single and elderly gentleman. My dad died when I was a young child, so I did not have a chance to have conversations about such things, but my cousin who was much older than me told me about Pappy. I think that my cousin also met Pappy, but I'm not sure as Pappy would have had to have lived to quite a long age. However, what is significant is that between me and my father, one generation, we reach back to someone of the time of Lincoln and the Civil War. How cool is that?
This gives you another way to look at history, doesn't it? It shows that even though a struggle for something so crucial as Civil Rights seems to take so long, with decades of sweat and blood, on the other hand such a radical and amazing change as we have seen can take place in three generational jumps: Pappy, my father, me. Lincoln was the 16Th President. Thus Pappy to my father to me spans Presidents 16 to now President Obama, who is number 44.
So young people, do not think that your parents and your grandparents are boring and have nothing interesting to tell. Ask them to tell you about the earliest President they remember, for example, and try to get some stories from them. So many of my father's generation the "World War II" generation have died and it's sad that many of their kids and grand kids just were not interested in history or their family stories. I think that President Obama is stirring more relevance, pride and interest in American history and that's one of the implications of his presidency I find thrilling and very hopeful for rejuvenating the American spirit.
Again, think about my example... I was born during President "Ike" Eisenhower's first term so I remember him as President very well. While of course I was not yet born when his predecessor President Truman was in office, I remember him as having been current and just recently stepped down from the Presidency so he was a figure of great stability and honor along with "Ike." So just in my relative youth (ha) I have memory of (Truman), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush...one of those "group of ten" Presidents, twelve if you count Truman and now President Obama!
I remember Eisenhower governing and I remember, and even watched part of, the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate. My dad, a Catholic, lived to see Kennedy win and become President, but my dad died of a heart attack well before President Kennedy was assassinated. So I've been alive for and very aware of our Presidents and national and world events for just about one fourth of the Presidents our country have had!
Just think, my dad was born during the 26Th President, Theodore Roosevelt's, first term. So my dad would have been alive for and witnessed Presidents number 26 through 35, and would have obviously seen a lot more if he had not died at an early age of chronic heart ailments. But think about it: my dad was born just "ten Presidents" after Abraham Lincoln!
See. memorizing lists of Presidents is boring. But thinking about who was President and what the issues were during the time of your grandparents and parents is VERY interesting!
So even though much of the schooling in history is dismal in our schools (and thus I try to plug in some key information for you all whenever I think of something pertinent and interesting) you can make it interesting for yourselves by just sitting down with an almanac or the Internet, of course, and look up the Presidents that correspond to the lives of your family members. Then it would be fun to ask them what they thought and what they remember about each of the earliest ones.
It's not only educational but it is reassuring.
Of course it all goes back to Washington. Regular readers know that he is my favorite President because he was the first to walk the talk. President Washington had to become in reality what was needed, first as the Commander of the Revolutionary Army and then in the new role of President. As time goes on the wonder and marvel of what Washington did only grows, it does not diminish.
Washington's birthday is February 22. Lincoln's birthday is February 12.
I remember when each day was a separate national holiday, before they became mashed together into "President's Day."
I wish they were still two separate holidays, and I think with the election of President Obama you can see why. One was the father of our country, who took the impossible dream and made it honorable and real and his birthday should be celebrated with that in mind. The other fought the great Civil War, held the Union together and emancipated the slaves. Are these not two separate wonderful glowing deeds and men in our country? Should not our kids learn about them and celebrate them on their actual birthdays as national heroes and role models?
Instead President's Day is just a long weekend, a mashing together of "something about the presidents" and endless advertisements for automobiles and their "President's Day sales!"
It was really different when I was young and the days were celebrated separately. Just a little story here. In the 1950's if you did well on a school paper you would get either a sticker, a star or a rubber stamp on the top of your paper. The rubber stamps were of holiday themes, and thus included one stamp of Washington's famous profile for Washington's Birthday and another of Lincoln's profile for Lincoln's Birthday, and kids were thrilled to get one of those stamps on their paper! Kids really cared about and role modeled Washington and Lincoln, they were NOT boring. We loved Lincoln and I'm speaking as someone who grew up in a rural white community.
I blame the schools, society's rampant commercialization, and the secularization of our nation for the degrading of our education of our kids in the Presidency and in particular those two icons and heroes of our nation, Washington and Lincoln. Sigh. Remember, when you "purge" teaching about any history that mentions religion or God you are basically whiting out of discussion and textbooks half of factual human events. Look at how I had to explain why each President was of certain faiths because that is no longer taught in schools.
Anyway, I hope that you have found this more grist for thought! I've listened all day to the Inauguration activities and am very excited and hopeful. (I totally do not understand the "blah" attitude of some news personalities who were not "Obama supporters," I mean, duh, why are they not excited?) I have always been no matter who wins because that is the American way, to "give the new guy a fair shake" to use a classic expression. The snarky partisanship is so wearying and depressive and it really ought to stop. Like I said, I remember when no matter which candidate you voted for, you were still excited and supportive when one of them won and became President, even if he "wasn't your guy." That is one of the sad things about how this country's spirit has changed. I hope that people will regain that fairness and unity of American support for their President. Lord knows I've supported all the Presidents in spirit and dignity even when they have done the most dreadful things!
I've always been a visual learner myself and teacher. I find that grouping information in certain ways helps give a quick and rich insight into what might otherwise be obscured by a lot of detailed text. For example, let's look at the grouping of ten Presidents in sequence again for another couple of insights.
If ten Presidents had only one four year term, a group of ten Presidents in a row represents only forty years. If a few of them have two four year terms that bumps the span of ten Presidents to forty eight or fifty two years. Think about that: a group of ten Presidents is well within a lifespan of an observer. Traditionally the phrase "one generation" refers to thirty years. So a group of ten Presidents could be thought of that way, in terms of generations, but isn't the idea that it's between forty and sixty years kind of interesting? It makes it more real because now you can imagine someone who lives a good long life as seeing over a fourth of the Presidents that we have ever had in our history. That helps you to understand how young our country really is, and it is far too soon and inappropriate to feel all old and jaded about the USA. I like that President Obama seems to view it that way too.
I've mentioned this before on my blog but now in this context this small story from my own family is even more interesting. My grandparents on my dad's side owned a small hotel in upstate New York, near the border with Canada. Thus it was a real country inn kind of place but the way it used to be not the quaint image people have today. Thus is was a saloon, a place to get home cooked meals, and lodging for my family and rooms for those who needed, for example, the single elderly.
Think about this. When my dad was a young man in the hotel there was a Civil War veteran who lived there, who went by the name "Pappy." Yep, you read that right. My father (who was born in 1903) personally knew a Civil War veteran and that veteran lived in my grandparents hotel, since he was a single and elderly gentleman. My dad died when I was a young child, so I did not have a chance to have conversations about such things, but my cousin who was much older than me told me about Pappy. I think that my cousin also met Pappy, but I'm not sure as Pappy would have had to have lived to quite a long age. However, what is significant is that between me and my father, one generation, we reach back to someone of the time of Lincoln and the Civil War. How cool is that?
This gives you another way to look at history, doesn't it? It shows that even though a struggle for something so crucial as Civil Rights seems to take so long, with decades of sweat and blood, on the other hand such a radical and amazing change as we have seen can take place in three generational jumps: Pappy, my father, me. Lincoln was the 16Th President. Thus Pappy to my father to me spans Presidents 16 to now President Obama, who is number 44.
So young people, do not think that your parents and your grandparents are boring and have nothing interesting to tell. Ask them to tell you about the earliest President they remember, for example, and try to get some stories from them. So many of my father's generation the "World War II" generation have died and it's sad that many of their kids and grand kids just were not interested in history or their family stories. I think that President Obama is stirring more relevance, pride and interest in American history and that's one of the implications of his presidency I find thrilling and very hopeful for rejuvenating the American spirit.
Again, think about my example... I was born during President "Ike" Eisenhower's first term so I remember him as President very well. While of course I was not yet born when his predecessor President Truman was in office, I remember him as having been current and just recently stepped down from the Presidency so he was a figure of great stability and honor along with "Ike." So just in my relative youth (ha) I have memory of (Truman), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush...one of those "group of ten" Presidents, twelve if you count Truman and now President Obama!
I remember Eisenhower governing and I remember, and even watched part of, the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate. My dad, a Catholic, lived to see Kennedy win and become President, but my dad died of a heart attack well before President Kennedy was assassinated. So I've been alive for and very aware of our Presidents and national and world events for just about one fourth of the Presidents our country have had!
Just think, my dad was born during the 26Th President, Theodore Roosevelt's, first term. So my dad would have been alive for and witnessed Presidents number 26 through 35, and would have obviously seen a lot more if he had not died at an early age of chronic heart ailments. But think about it: my dad was born just "ten Presidents" after Abraham Lincoln!
See. memorizing lists of Presidents is boring. But thinking about who was President and what the issues were during the time of your grandparents and parents is VERY interesting!
So even though much of the schooling in history is dismal in our schools (and thus I try to plug in some key information for you all whenever I think of something pertinent and interesting) you can make it interesting for yourselves by just sitting down with an almanac or the Internet, of course, and look up the Presidents that correspond to the lives of your family members. Then it would be fun to ask them what they thought and what they remember about each of the earliest ones.
It's not only educational but it is reassuring.
Of course it all goes back to Washington. Regular readers know that he is my favorite President because he was the first to walk the talk. President Washington had to become in reality what was needed, first as the Commander of the Revolutionary Army and then in the new role of President. As time goes on the wonder and marvel of what Washington did only grows, it does not diminish.
Washington's birthday is February 22. Lincoln's birthday is February 12.
I remember when each day was a separate national holiday, before they became mashed together into "President's Day."
I wish they were still two separate holidays, and I think with the election of President Obama you can see why. One was the father of our country, who took the impossible dream and made it honorable and real and his birthday should be celebrated with that in mind. The other fought the great Civil War, held the Union together and emancipated the slaves. Are these not two separate wonderful glowing deeds and men in our country? Should not our kids learn about them and celebrate them on their actual birthdays as national heroes and role models?
Instead President's Day is just a long weekend, a mashing together of "something about the presidents" and endless advertisements for automobiles and their "President's Day sales!"
It was really different when I was young and the days were celebrated separately. Just a little story here. In the 1950's if you did well on a school paper you would get either a sticker, a star or a rubber stamp on the top of your paper. The rubber stamps were of holiday themes, and thus included one stamp of Washington's famous profile for Washington's Birthday and another of Lincoln's profile for Lincoln's Birthday, and kids were thrilled to get one of those stamps on their paper! Kids really cared about and role modeled Washington and Lincoln, they were NOT boring. We loved Lincoln and I'm speaking as someone who grew up in a rural white community.
I blame the schools, society's rampant commercialization, and the secularization of our nation for the degrading of our education of our kids in the Presidency and in particular those two icons and heroes of our nation, Washington and Lincoln. Sigh. Remember, when you "purge" teaching about any history that mentions religion or God you are basically whiting out of discussion and textbooks half of factual human events. Look at how I had to explain why each President was of certain faiths because that is no longer taught in schools.
Anyway, I hope that you have found this more grist for thought! I've listened all day to the Inauguration activities and am very excited and hopeful. (I totally do not understand the "blah" attitude of some news personalities who were not "Obama supporters," I mean, duh, why are they not excited?) I have always been no matter who wins because that is the American way, to "give the new guy a fair shake" to use a classic expression. The snarky partisanship is so wearying and depressive and it really ought to stop. Like I said, I remember when no matter which candidate you voted for, you were still excited and supportive when one of them won and became President, even if he "wasn't your guy." That is one of the sad things about how this country's spirit has changed. I hope that people will regain that fairness and unity of American support for their President. Lord knows I've supported all the Presidents in spirit and dignity even when they have done the most dreadful things!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Lincoln would be proud but not surprised
Many people ponder about how the great President Abraham Lincoln would feel about President elect, soon to be President, Barrack Obama. They figure, for the most part, that he would be surprised to see the first African-American President.
I actually do not think he would be surprised. There is something that moderns do not understand about the great Founding Fathers, including up to and including Abe Lincoln. Moderns are so filled with a mixture of world weary "real politick" point of view combined with lack of understanding of cultural realities of older times that they totally miss one thing. The Founding Fathers, including Abe Lincoln, were ardent visionaries who were fervently in love with both the reality and the potential of America.
Regardless of their religion, their gender or their class, and even though they were "white males," the great Presidents and the Founding Fathers had one thing in common: They envisioned an America that is so great and full of potential that they designed it with no preconceived notion of limitations. It's like when you really love your spouse or your child that you really think that they can do anything that they put their mind to, when they do something wonderful, you marvel at it, but you are not surprised. You have wonder and pride, but you are not shocked that your loved one could do something so great.
Abe Lincoln was such a man. Do not be distracted by thinking that "oh, well, he lived in this backwards cultural time or that type of family, or upbringing" or whatever. The great men, and women, who created this country, and guided it during the worst of times, such as the Civil War, were uplifted far beyond the mud, sorrows and limitations of their time. They kept their eyes always upward regarding the future of America. They did not limit themselves or waste time trying to "imagine" deeds of the future; they trusted in the America that they love so much that it would grow and overcome all that limited it.
So no, Abe Lincoln would not be surprised if he were able to see Barrack Obama become President. He would be enormously proud, and humbled by his role, but he would be the first to glorify God and also the country, the scope and potential of America, for being the real reason that anything good such as this is possible. Remember, Abe Lincoln himself was a "surprise" as President, coming from a humble and poor log cabin upbringing, working through law school as people did back then (by reading and apprenticing, not paying huge tuition) and most of all, he had no military experience. So Lincoln himself was a "surprise" as a President, and he would feel a kinship with Barrack Obama based on that aspect of their similar upbringings and early careers.
From his second inaugural address:
...Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward one, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan-to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations.
Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865.
I actually do not think he would be surprised. There is something that moderns do not understand about the great Founding Fathers, including up to and including Abe Lincoln. Moderns are so filled with a mixture of world weary "real politick" point of view combined with lack of understanding of cultural realities of older times that they totally miss one thing. The Founding Fathers, including Abe Lincoln, were ardent visionaries who were fervently in love with both the reality and the potential of America.
Regardless of their religion, their gender or their class, and even though they were "white males," the great Presidents and the Founding Fathers had one thing in common: They envisioned an America that is so great and full of potential that they designed it with no preconceived notion of limitations. It's like when you really love your spouse or your child that you really think that they can do anything that they put their mind to, when they do something wonderful, you marvel at it, but you are not surprised. You have wonder and pride, but you are not shocked that your loved one could do something so great.
Abe Lincoln was such a man. Do not be distracted by thinking that "oh, well, he lived in this backwards cultural time or that type of family, or upbringing" or whatever. The great men, and women, who created this country, and guided it during the worst of times, such as the Civil War, were uplifted far beyond the mud, sorrows and limitations of their time. They kept their eyes always upward regarding the future of America. They did not limit themselves or waste time trying to "imagine" deeds of the future; they trusted in the America that they love so much that it would grow and overcome all that limited it.
So no, Abe Lincoln would not be surprised if he were able to see Barrack Obama become President. He would be enormously proud, and humbled by his role, but he would be the first to glorify God and also the country, the scope and potential of America, for being the real reason that anything good such as this is possible. Remember, Abe Lincoln himself was a "surprise" as President, coming from a humble and poor log cabin upbringing, working through law school as people did back then (by reading and apprenticing, not paying huge tuition) and most of all, he had no military experience. So Lincoln himself was a "surprise" as a President, and he would feel a kinship with Barrack Obama based on that aspect of their similar upbringings and early careers.
From his second inaugural address:
...Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward one, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan-to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations.
Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
History: more about Lincoln by Ulysses Grant
Here is another fascinating excerpt from the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. The time of this excerpt is when he is the General of the Union Army, and hoping to deliver the final defeat of the Army of the Confederacy, led by General Robert E. Lee. They were in the midst of the Appomattox Campaign in Virginia, and had just had a great victory at Petersburg, south of the as yet not fallen Confederate capitol Richmond. Here is what he wrote.
Mr. Lincoln was at City Point at the time, and had been for some days. I would have let him know what I contemplated doing, only while I felt a strong conviction that the move was going to be successful, yet it might not prove so; and then I would have only added another to the many disappointments he had been suffering of the past three years. But when we started out he saw that we were moving for a purpose, and bidding us Godspeed, remained there to hear the result.
The next morning after the capture of Petersburg, I telegraphed Mr. Lincoln asking him to ride out there and see me, while I would await his arrival. I had started all the troops out early in the morning, so that after the National army left Petersburg there was not a soul to be seen, not even an animal in the streets. There was absolutely no one there, except my staff officers and, possibly, a small escort of cavalry. We had selected the piazza of a deserted house, and occupied it until the President arrived.
About the first thing that Mr. Lincoln said to me, after warm congratulations for the victory, and thanks both to myself and to the army which had accomplished it, was: “Do you know, general, that I have had a sort of a sneaking idea for some days that you intended to do something like this.” Our movements had been concealed up to this point, I no longer had any object in concealing from the President all my movements, and the objects I had in view. He remained for some days near City Point, and I communicated with him frequently and fully by telegraph.
Mr. Lincoln knew that it had been arranged for Sherman to join me at a fixed time, to co-operate in the destruction of Lee’s army. I told him that I had been very anxious to have the Eastern armies vanquish their old enemy who had so long resisted all their repeated and gallant attempts to subdue them or drive them from their capital. The Western armies had been the main successful until they had conquered all the territory from the Mississippi River to the State of North Carolina, and were now almost ready to knock at the back door of Richmond, asking admittance. I said to him that if the Western armies should be even upon the field, operating against Richmond and Lee, the credit would be given to them for the capture, by politicians and non-combatants from the section of country which those troops hailed from. It might lead to disagreeable bickering between members of Congress of the East and those of the West in some of their debates. Western members might be throwing it up to the members of the East that in the suppression of the rebellion they were not able to capture an army, or accomplish much in the way of contributing toward that end, but had to wait until the Western armies had conquered all the territory south and west of them, and then come on to help them capture the only army they had been engaged with. [Note: Imagine that! Grant records how the Union armies provided by the states were in competition to be the greater contributors to the effort in the War against slavery, vying between the Western states and the Eastern states to be allowed to be the captors of at least one of the Confederate armies on the field.]
Mr. Lincoln said he saw that now, but had never thought of it before, because his anxiety was so great that he did not care where the aid came from so the work was done.
The Army of the Potomac has every reason to be proud of its four years’ record in the suppression of the rebellion. The army it had to fight was the protection to the capital of a people which was attempting to found a nation upon the territory of the United States. Its loss would be the loss of the cause. Every energy, therefore, was put forth by the Confederacy to protect and maintain their capital. Everything else would go if it went. Lee’s army had to be strengthened to enable it to maintain its position, no matter what territory was wrested from the South in another quarter.
I never expected any such bickering as I have indicated, between the soldiers of the two sections; and fortunately, there has been one between the politicians. Possibly I am the only one who thought of the liability of such a state of things in advance.
When our conversation was at an end Mr. Lincoln mounted his horse and started on his return to City Point, while I and my staff started to join the army, now a good many miles in advance. Up to this time I had not received the report of the capture of Richmond.
Soon after I left President Lincoln I received a dispatch from General Weitzel which notified me that he had taken possession of Richmond at about 8:15 o’clock in the morning of that day, the 3d, and that he had found the city on fire in two places.
Mr. Lincoln was at City Point at the time, and had been for some days. I would have let him know what I contemplated doing, only while I felt a strong conviction that the move was going to be successful, yet it might not prove so; and then I would have only added another to the many disappointments he had been suffering of the past three years. But when we started out he saw that we were moving for a purpose, and bidding us Godspeed, remained there to hear the result.
The next morning after the capture of Petersburg, I telegraphed Mr. Lincoln asking him to ride out there and see me, while I would await his arrival. I had started all the troops out early in the morning, so that after the National army left Petersburg there was not a soul to be seen, not even an animal in the streets. There was absolutely no one there, except my staff officers and, possibly, a small escort of cavalry. We had selected the piazza of a deserted house, and occupied it until the President arrived.
About the first thing that Mr. Lincoln said to me, after warm congratulations for the victory, and thanks both to myself and to the army which had accomplished it, was: “Do you know, general, that I have had a sort of a sneaking idea for some days that you intended to do something like this.” Our movements had been concealed up to this point, I no longer had any object in concealing from the President all my movements, and the objects I had in view. He remained for some days near City Point, and I communicated with him frequently and fully by telegraph.
Mr. Lincoln knew that it had been arranged for Sherman to join me at a fixed time, to co-operate in the destruction of Lee’s army. I told him that I had been very anxious to have the Eastern armies vanquish their old enemy who had so long resisted all their repeated and gallant attempts to subdue them or drive them from their capital. The Western armies had been the main successful until they had conquered all the territory from the Mississippi River to the State of North Carolina, and were now almost ready to knock at the back door of Richmond, asking admittance. I said to him that if the Western armies should be even upon the field, operating against Richmond and Lee, the credit would be given to them for the capture, by politicians and non-combatants from the section of country which those troops hailed from. It might lead to disagreeable bickering between members of Congress of the East and those of the West in some of their debates. Western members might be throwing it up to the members of the East that in the suppression of the rebellion they were not able to capture an army, or accomplish much in the way of contributing toward that end, but had to wait until the Western armies had conquered all the territory south and west of them, and then come on to help them capture the only army they had been engaged with. [Note: Imagine that! Grant records how the Union armies provided by the states were in competition to be the greater contributors to the effort in the War against slavery, vying between the Western states and the Eastern states to be allowed to be the captors of at least one of the Confederate armies on the field.]
Mr. Lincoln said he saw that now, but had never thought of it before, because his anxiety was so great that he did not care where the aid came from so the work was done.
The Army of the Potomac has every reason to be proud of its four years’ record in the suppression of the rebellion. The army it had to fight was the protection to the capital of a people which was attempting to found a nation upon the territory of the United States. Its loss would be the loss of the cause. Every energy, therefore, was put forth by the Confederacy to protect and maintain their capital. Everything else would go if it went. Lee’s army had to be strengthened to enable it to maintain its position, no matter what territory was wrested from the South in another quarter.
I never expected any such bickering as I have indicated, between the soldiers of the two sections; and fortunately, there has been one between the politicians. Possibly I am the only one who thought of the liability of such a state of things in advance.
When our conversation was at an end Mr. Lincoln mounted his horse and started on his return to City Point, while I and my staff started to join the army, now a good many miles in advance. Up to this time I had not received the report of the capture of Richmond.
Soon after I left President Lincoln I received a dispatch from General Weitzel which notified me that he had taken possession of Richmond at about 8:15 o’clock in the morning of that day, the 3d, and that he had found the city on fire in two places.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Everyone should visit the Lincoln Memorial
Anyone, American or not, who has an opportunity to travel to Washington DC should, if at all possible, visit the Lincoln Memorial. It is my favorite secular building because it is the one place that has such a grace of history, dignity and inspiration that no one can fail to be uplifted and heartened by a visit.
http://www.nps.gov/linc/
It's been many years since I paid my visit as an adolescent with my brother and sister in law while we were tourists to Washington DC. (By the way, that was also the occasion of my first visit to a mosque).
The Lincoln Memorial captures and magnifies in its very structure and design much of the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, his burden and his triumphs, in a way that no one can fail to derive much inspiration from, and an instinctive sense of who he was and what he did. The memory of such a visit, taken with such an attitude, will never fail the visitor, even years later. I love to think about my visit and I wish I had my photographs from that time with me so I could check them out again, me (young and slim!) next to the statue of Lincoln.
http://www.nps.gov/linc/
It's been many years since I paid my visit as an adolescent with my brother and sister in law while we were tourists to Washington DC. (By the way, that was also the occasion of my first visit to a mosque).
The Lincoln Memorial captures and magnifies in its very structure and design much of the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, his burden and his triumphs, in a way that no one can fail to derive much inspiration from, and an instinctive sense of who he was and what he did. The memory of such a visit, taken with such an attitude, will never fail the visitor, even years later. I love to think about my visit and I wish I had my photographs from that time with me so I could check them out again, me (young and slim!) next to the statue of Lincoln.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Lessons from history (2 of a series)
Here is another great excerpt from the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. I’m piecing together several sections from the same event.
On the last of January, 1865, peace commissioners from the so-called Confederate States presented themselves on our lines around Petersburg, and were immediately conducted to my headquarters at City Point. They proved to be Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, Judge Campbell, Assistant-Secretary of War, and R. M. T. Hunter, formerly United States Senator and then a member of the Confederate Senate….
I was instructed to retain them at City Point, until the President, or some one whom he would designate, should come to meet them. They remained several days as guests on board the boat…
I had never met either of these gentlemen before the war, but knew them well by reputation and through their public services, and I had been a particular admirer of Mr. Stephens. I had always supposed that he was a very small man, but when I saw him in the dusk of the evening I was very much surprised to find so large a man as he seemed to be. When he got down on to the boat I found that he was wearing a coarse gray woolen overcoat, a manufacture that had been introduced into the South during the rebellion. The cloth was thicker than anything of the kind I had ever seen, even in Canada. The overcoat extended nearly to his feet, and was so large that it gave him the appearance of being an average-sized man. He took this off when he reached the cabin of the boat, and I was struck with the apparent change in size, in the coat and out of it…
Right here I might relate an anecdote of Mr. Lincoln. It was on the occasion of his visit to me just after he had talked with the peace commissioners at Hampton Roads. After a little conversation, he asked me if I had seen that overcoat of Stephen’s. I replied that I had.
“Well,” said he, “did you see him take it off?” I said yes.
“Well,” said he, “didn’t you think it was the biggest shuck and the littlest ear that ever you did see?”
Long afterwards I told this story to the Confederate General J. B. Gordon, at the time a member of the Senate. He repeated it to Stephens, and, as I heard afterwards, Stephens laughed immoderately at the simile of Mr. Lincoln.
[Here I will explain the simile, in case some of my readers are unfamiliar with the term. Lincoln was referring to the process of removing the husk from an ear of corn. The process of removing the husk is called shucking. So Lincoln was making a droll agricultural reference by comparing the giant coat that Stephens used, and when he removed it revealing his very small stature, with shucking the husk off from an ear of corn, to find a very small ear inside. It’s a great story, especially when one reads with what good humor Mr. Stephens took hearing about it. Also I am always thrilled to read a historic corn reference!
To keep continuity of that event, I had skipped over what Grant wrote about Lincoln’s reaction to the peace commission. Here it is, and very moving reading it most certainly is.]
After a few days, about the 2d of February, I received a dispatch from Washington, directing me to send the commissioners to Hampton Roads to meet the President and a member of the cabinet. Mr. Lincoln met them there and had an interview of short duration. It was not a great while after they met that the President visited me at City Point. He spoke of his having met the commissioners, and said he had told them that there would be no use in entering into any negotiations unless they would recognize, first: that the Union as a whole must be forever preserved, and second: that slavery must be abolished. If they were willing to concede these two points, then he was ready to enter into negotiations and was almost willing to hand them a blank sheet of paper with his signature attached for them to fill in the terms upon which they were willing to live with us in the Union and be one people. He always showed a generous and kindly spirit toward the Southern people, and I never heard him abuse an enemy. Some of the cruel things said about President Lincoln, particularly in the North, used to pierce him to the heart; but never in my presence did he evince a revengeful disposition-and I saw a great deal of him at City Point, for he seemed glad to get away from the cares and anxieties of the capital.
On the last of January, 1865, peace commissioners from the so-called Confederate States presented themselves on our lines around Petersburg, and were immediately conducted to my headquarters at City Point. They proved to be Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, Judge Campbell, Assistant-Secretary of War, and R. M. T. Hunter, formerly United States Senator and then a member of the Confederate Senate….
I was instructed to retain them at City Point, until the President, or some one whom he would designate, should come to meet them. They remained several days as guests on board the boat…
I had never met either of these gentlemen before the war, but knew them well by reputation and through their public services, and I had been a particular admirer of Mr. Stephens. I had always supposed that he was a very small man, but when I saw him in the dusk of the evening I was very much surprised to find so large a man as he seemed to be. When he got down on to the boat I found that he was wearing a coarse gray woolen overcoat, a manufacture that had been introduced into the South during the rebellion. The cloth was thicker than anything of the kind I had ever seen, even in Canada. The overcoat extended nearly to his feet, and was so large that it gave him the appearance of being an average-sized man. He took this off when he reached the cabin of the boat, and I was struck with the apparent change in size, in the coat and out of it…
Right here I might relate an anecdote of Mr. Lincoln. It was on the occasion of his visit to me just after he had talked with the peace commissioners at Hampton Roads. After a little conversation, he asked me if I had seen that overcoat of Stephen’s. I replied that I had.
“Well,” said he, “did you see him take it off?” I said yes.
“Well,” said he, “didn’t you think it was the biggest shuck and the littlest ear that ever you did see?”
Long afterwards I told this story to the Confederate General J. B. Gordon, at the time a member of the Senate. He repeated it to Stephens, and, as I heard afterwards, Stephens laughed immoderately at the simile of Mr. Lincoln.
[Here I will explain the simile, in case some of my readers are unfamiliar with the term. Lincoln was referring to the process of removing the husk from an ear of corn. The process of removing the husk is called shucking. So Lincoln was making a droll agricultural reference by comparing the giant coat that Stephens used, and when he removed it revealing his very small stature, with shucking the husk off from an ear of corn, to find a very small ear inside. It’s a great story, especially when one reads with what good humor Mr. Stephens took hearing about it. Also I am always thrilled to read a historic corn reference!
To keep continuity of that event, I had skipped over what Grant wrote about Lincoln’s reaction to the peace commission. Here it is, and very moving reading it most certainly is.]
After a few days, about the 2d of February, I received a dispatch from Washington, directing me to send the commissioners to Hampton Roads to meet the President and a member of the cabinet. Mr. Lincoln met them there and had an interview of short duration. It was not a great while after they met that the President visited me at City Point. He spoke of his having met the commissioners, and said he had told them that there would be no use in entering into any negotiations unless they would recognize, first: that the Union as a whole must be forever preserved, and second: that slavery must be abolished. If they were willing to concede these two points, then he was ready to enter into negotiations and was almost willing to hand them a blank sheet of paper with his signature attached for them to fill in the terms upon which they were willing to live with us in the Union and be one people. He always showed a generous and kindly spirit toward the Southern people, and I never heard him abuse an enemy. Some of the cruel things said about President Lincoln, particularly in the North, used to pierce him to the heart; but never in my presence did he evince a revengeful disposition-and I saw a great deal of him at City Point, for he seemed glad to get away from the cares and anxieties of the capital.
Lessons from the study of history (1 of a series)
This evening I want to write some thoughts about “what history teaches us.” It is a very important and even an enjoyable topic, but not for the reasons that so many moderns seem to believe these days. As usual I’ve selected a huge topic, but will, thankfully, use a specific example to round out the points I wish to make. To set the tone, let me say that one of the most irritating and incorrect shibboleths used today is the saying “Those who do not understand (or know) their history are doomed to repeat it.” Hardly a day goes by that some talk show commentator doesn’t feel oh so wise when he or she says this. Here are the problems with the belief that underlies that statement.
First of all, humans on a day to day boring basis need to either learn from past mistakes or repeat them. That is a proper context, the problem of learning, as my brother would say to his children “the easy way or the hard way.” If someone text messages and causes an accident, one would hope that the person learns not to text message while driving again, and to pull off into a parking area of one must. This is an example of “those who do not understand not to text message while driving because you might cause an accident are doomed to risk possibly causing another accident at some point in their driving life.” However, one could not immediately write an epic history or philosophical book that discusses “Humans learned that texting while driving is dangerous and thus, oh you people of the future, do not ever put any distracting activity in your automobiles of the future again.” How can one anticipate a country’s stance toward a human activity and foible, and use of a technology, twenty or one hundred years in advance? You can’t because you cannot anticipate the circumstances. For example, maybe a car is invented where you can sit there and text all you want like a fiend while driving and never cause an accident! I’m just making up a slightly silly analogy, but it’s a solidly accurate analogy and very useful.
So trying to shove history down people’s throats so that they “learn to never make THAT mistake again” is just plain stupid. History is important so that one can learn 1) what actually happened 2) what people actually thought, did and believed at the time 3) the circumstances and 4) as a contribution to modern day wisdom and ability to problem solve. The first three reasons are all part of what the TV character Inspector Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” History is about learning facts, and facts do include what people alive at the time thought and felt, in other words, their perceptions. When you understand the facts of history, including the perceptions of the contemporary participants, you can synthesize all the facts into an addition to your individual and societal wisdom. Being wise has many advantages. The first is that one tends to be more optimistic and be strong of heart because you understand what has happened before, and how people got through it, and how you can retain hope, even in dire circumstances, today. The second advantage of wisdom is that you are not mislead by false theories of what is actually happening today, and as both the Bible and secular literature warn that in times of trouble rumors and false prophets are rampant. When one has a solid grounding in factual history and adds that to one’s lode of wisdom, one can discern truth from falsehood or exaggeration much more clearly. The third advantage of wisdom is that you understand a wider range of possibilities of solutions to present day problems. You think of things that you and your contemporaries who are ignorant of history might never have thought about. The fourth advantage of wisdom is that you consciously or unconsciously emulate the wise leaders who have gone before you. Remember, the great virtuous figures in history became “wise” the same way as everyone else: through education and experience, including making mistakes.
Military instructors all understand what I’ve just described, and that is why key historical figures and their battles are studied in military academies. They study them so that they add 1) facts and 2) wisdom to their collective and individual skills. They do not study military history because they think that someday they may have to defend the Alamo again, and this time they “won’t get it wrong.” History and the ordinary people who comprise history is a moving target; people, life and society change. Circumstances change and society changes. For example, the Holocaust is the premier justification for the saying that I am criticizing, “Those who don’t learn from their past are doomed to repeat it.” Huh? No disrespect, but the Holocaust happened in a time before fax machines, cell phones, computers and satellite imagery. That is just one example of how precisely “the same thing” can never happen again, just from the sheer change in technology, if not in the improvement in people’s hearts. Yet we can photograph the Sudan and Darfur, and the conflict in the Congo, over and over again, and the suffering continues, just to give two examples. The idea that history needs to be studied to “prevent” the “same mistake” from “repeating” is New Age stinking thinking. History needs to be studied so that people have a common basis for the facts, so that they understand human nature and response to circumstances more clearly, and thus they can add to their wisdom that they then apply as judicious to current situations and problems that they face.
So now I will give my specific example. This afternoon I drove to the book store “Barnes and Nobles” and was gratified to find that they had (at a discounted price) a copy of one of my favorite books that I have sorely missed, because my original copy is in storage many miles away. The book is “The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.” Regular readers know that my favorite secular history figure is George Washington, and of course it goes without saying that Abraham Lincoln has always been close to my heart. Like George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant was also first a general and then a United States President. Grant led the Army of the North, the Union Army, against the Army of the South, the Confederacy, during the American Civil War, known as the War against Slavery. Unlike George Washington, who lived in the USA as it was one hundred years before Grant’s time, Grant did not come from a landed and well to do background and instead, even after being President, was in desperate poverty. He wrote his memoirs as he was very ill and toward the end, dying, so that his family would have some income, particularly after he was gone, and he died one week after completion of them. Thus this book has come to be known as a masterpiece of American literature because it truly has no grandiose agenda, no fudging of facts or perceptions in order to look more grand or clever. Grant has left all of us a treasure of “what it was like” and “just the facts, ma’am” of a pivotal time in the history of the United States. If you want to be instantly transported into that crucial time in US and indeed global history, and be inside the mind of a truly great man (of the “ordinary man who steps up to the challenge” ilk, as was Washington), all you need to do is open this book. I tend not to read these types of books cover to cover and then put them away. I tend to turn to them regularly and just read a section. For example, I have (in storage) first editions of Washington’s letters to Congress during the War of Revolution and I would enjoy just reading one letter every once in a while to be transported in terms of perspective and the facts to the time of the Revolution, to the mind of George Washington. No student of history needs to be told of the poverty and hard conditions of the Patriot Army that Washington commanded, and how he had to beg for every scrap of arms, food and clothing from the Continental Congress. It is facts and perspective like that which anyone can read at will, reading the words of the Father of our Country as he desperately needs gunpowder as New York City is about to fall. That is history. That is why people need to learn and love history, and why students should not be impoverished of learning genuine, not agenda ridden, history in their classrooms.
By the way, I want to make another point. I am not “drawn” to certain historical figures for any of the usual flaky reasons that New Age “thinkers” (such as it is) posit about themselves and others. I don’t find historical figures interesting because 1) I think they’ve reincarnated (no one is reincarnated, as you ought to all confess to right now) 2) I have a “lesson” or “unfulfilled karma” that I’m just blindly reaching out toward 3) I’m “taking sides or making a statement” about who I am interested in or not. For example, yes, Lincoln and Grant are the Union figures. But I have and always will have a great personal and professional affection for General Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy. For a long time I enjoyed reading about the Tudors of England but that sure as hell did not mean that I was applauding or “reminiscing” about Catholic killing Protestant upstarts. As I’ve reported before, I have an even handed interest and affection toward all people of all nations and cultures, one that has been sorely tried and abused, however. Unfortunately that type of New Age stinking thinking has permeated our children’s schools where historical figures are ignored, diminished or skewed because of deliberate, and in some cases unconscious, imposition of New Age “values” and “dirty eyeglasses” (looking at the negative instead of the opposite, which is wearing “rose colored glasses”), as it were, on the ordinary people and facts of history. Honestly, I don’t know how this country or the world will survive if faith and reasoning based on facts does not return to the classroom and to day to day decision making.
So for my example, here is what I turned to read in Grant’s book this evening. I wondered, “What was it like the first time that he met President Abraham Lincoln?” I looked in the table of contents and found the event, which was when Grant was promoted to lieutenant general. Here is that excerpt from Grant’s memoirs.
From Chapter Fifteen, section “First Interview with President Lincoln.” The event described here took place in 1864.
The bill restoring the grade of lieutenant-general of the army had passed through Congress and became a law on the 26 of February. My nomination had been sent to the senate on the 1st of March and confirmed the next day (the 2nd). I was ordered to Washington on the 3d to receive my commission, and started the day following that. The commission was handed to me on the 9th. It was delivered to me at the Executive Mansion by President Lincoln in the presence of his Cabinet, my eldest son, those of my staff who were with me and a few other visitors.
The President in presenting my commission read from a paper-stating, however, as a preliminary, and prior to the delivery of it, that he had drawn that up on paper, knowing my disinclination to speak in public, and handed me a copy in advance so that I might prepare a few lines in reply. The President said:
“General Grant, the nation’s appreciation of what you have done, and its reliance upon you for what remains to be done in the existing great struggle, are now presented, with this commission constituting you lieutenant-general in the Army of the United States. With this high honor, devolves upon you, also, a corresponding responsibility. As the country herein trusts you, so, under God, it will sustain you. I scarcely need to add, that, with what I here speak for the nation, goes my own hearty personal concurrence.”
To this I replied: “Mr. President, I accept the commission, with gratitude for the high honor conferred. With the aid of the noble armies that have fought in so many fields for our common country, it will be my earnest endeavor not to disappoint your expectations. I feel the full weight of the responsibilities now devolving on me; and I know that if they are met, it will be due to those armies, and above all, to the favor of that Providence which leads both nations and men.”
On the 10th I visited the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac at Brandy Station; then returned to Washington, and pushed west at once to make my arrangements for turning over the commands there and giving general directions for the preparations to be made for the spring campaign.
Is this not a marvelous treasure, just this half of a page from Grant’s Memoirs? Stripped of what moderns would put in it of agenda and blabbing about the unimportant, it reveals many truths, both facts and perspectives. I’m sure most of you noticed what I am about to point out, but I know some of my readers are not from the USA and so I’d like to make plain some of the things I find gratifying in this excerpt.
The first is the promptness of Congress in acting in a non-partisan way to in ONE DAY approve Grant’s commission. In modern times, would not big mouth and big ego senators and representatives insist on blabbing away their opinion of both Grant and the conduct of the war? That is not to say they did not do that in the course of their normal business. But here in the middle of the Civil War, they kept separate the necessary swift actions, such as Grant’s commission, from being combined with thirst for both attention and perhaps necessary argument about the war. So Grant has preserved totally unintentionally a time that would be wonderful to see in that one respect again, when an action is conceived and completed in a matter of days.
The second is that Grant explains that even though President Lincoln and he had never met, Lincoln knew that Grant did not glorify in public speaking. This is not to say that Grant was a poor orator, but that he was a modest military man who preferred not to make speeches! Lincoln knew this about Grant in advance and in thoughtfulness of Grant’s feelings, wrote down his comments and gave Grant a copy so that Grant could compose in his mind while listening to the President what he would say in reply. That is a courtesy and more importantly a supportive thoughtfulness that is a role model that Lincoln is providing and that Grant has preserved for us to recall and to ponder. Notice too that on this occasion Lincoln invokes God; there is no escaping the heartfelt faith that all of our country’s leaders had and expressed as threads throughout all of their discourse and actions. But, of course, we know that in omitting from our schools study of the Founding Fathers and the great leaders as expressed in their own words that there is a deliberate resultant censoring of the name of God and expression of the presence and role of their faith in historical events from our students’ eyes and ears.
The third point that really stands out is the focus by both of them on the commission as a burden of responsibility, not as a glory, a “promotion” or an ego fulfilling award. This was not a change in title; this was the combining of responsibility for the Army and the placing it in the hands of General Grant. Both Lincoln and Grant focused their remarks on the gravity of that responsibility, and the confidence of the people of the nation in Grant. These were not empty words of false modesty, but preservation of the words that two men each carrying a great burden expressed at such a momentous time. Remember, they were not saying these words for “TV” or for “the public,” but they were saying what they genuinely felt according to the gravity of the situation.
The fourth point is that Grant turns all credit immediately on the troops. He calls the armies that are assembled to fight for the Union “noble” and he means it. That is in stark contrast to some today who do not speak up more clearly and sincerely in giving the armed services personnel their credit and respect. By contrast it’s just about the first words out of Grant’s mouth based on his heartfelt feelings (remember, this was a private event and no poseur self consciousness existed back then, for even newspapers had small circulation and delay in reporting events). People said what they meant and when they gave credit they meant it.
The fifth point is that Grant in turn gives all credit and glory to God, using a term that was common traditionally, which is Providence. Grant credits the troops and concludes with saying that if the Union is successful it is because of God’s will because God’s will leads both individuals and nations. Again, remember this is Grant’s ad hoc words of acceptance of the commission and once again we are treated to reading that people said what they honestly and strongly believed. Faith in God was in our nation as common, shared, strong and ever present as the air that we breathe.
I suspect that people enjoy reading all they can about what President Abraham Lincoln was really like. Paging through just now I found another meeting between the men and more “gold” for both facts and enjoyment. Maybe I’ll make a series of these excerpts for those of you who can’t get a hold of the book and would like to read some of the more interesting things that I find to share.
First of all, humans on a day to day boring basis need to either learn from past mistakes or repeat them. That is a proper context, the problem of learning, as my brother would say to his children “the easy way or the hard way.” If someone text messages and causes an accident, one would hope that the person learns not to text message while driving again, and to pull off into a parking area of one must. This is an example of “those who do not understand not to text message while driving because you might cause an accident are doomed to risk possibly causing another accident at some point in their driving life.” However, one could not immediately write an epic history or philosophical book that discusses “Humans learned that texting while driving is dangerous and thus, oh you people of the future, do not ever put any distracting activity in your automobiles of the future again.” How can one anticipate a country’s stance toward a human activity and foible, and use of a technology, twenty or one hundred years in advance? You can’t because you cannot anticipate the circumstances. For example, maybe a car is invented where you can sit there and text all you want like a fiend while driving and never cause an accident! I’m just making up a slightly silly analogy, but it’s a solidly accurate analogy and very useful.
So trying to shove history down people’s throats so that they “learn to never make THAT mistake again” is just plain stupid. History is important so that one can learn 1) what actually happened 2) what people actually thought, did and believed at the time 3) the circumstances and 4) as a contribution to modern day wisdom and ability to problem solve. The first three reasons are all part of what the TV character Inspector Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” History is about learning facts, and facts do include what people alive at the time thought and felt, in other words, their perceptions. When you understand the facts of history, including the perceptions of the contemporary participants, you can synthesize all the facts into an addition to your individual and societal wisdom. Being wise has many advantages. The first is that one tends to be more optimistic and be strong of heart because you understand what has happened before, and how people got through it, and how you can retain hope, even in dire circumstances, today. The second advantage of wisdom is that you are not mislead by false theories of what is actually happening today, and as both the Bible and secular literature warn that in times of trouble rumors and false prophets are rampant. When one has a solid grounding in factual history and adds that to one’s lode of wisdom, one can discern truth from falsehood or exaggeration much more clearly. The third advantage of wisdom is that you understand a wider range of possibilities of solutions to present day problems. You think of things that you and your contemporaries who are ignorant of history might never have thought about. The fourth advantage of wisdom is that you consciously or unconsciously emulate the wise leaders who have gone before you. Remember, the great virtuous figures in history became “wise” the same way as everyone else: through education and experience, including making mistakes.
Military instructors all understand what I’ve just described, and that is why key historical figures and their battles are studied in military academies. They study them so that they add 1) facts and 2) wisdom to their collective and individual skills. They do not study military history because they think that someday they may have to defend the Alamo again, and this time they “won’t get it wrong.” History and the ordinary people who comprise history is a moving target; people, life and society change. Circumstances change and society changes. For example, the Holocaust is the premier justification for the saying that I am criticizing, “Those who don’t learn from their past are doomed to repeat it.” Huh? No disrespect, but the Holocaust happened in a time before fax machines, cell phones, computers and satellite imagery. That is just one example of how precisely “the same thing” can never happen again, just from the sheer change in technology, if not in the improvement in people’s hearts. Yet we can photograph the Sudan and Darfur, and the conflict in the Congo, over and over again, and the suffering continues, just to give two examples. The idea that history needs to be studied to “prevent” the “same mistake” from “repeating” is New Age stinking thinking. History needs to be studied so that people have a common basis for the facts, so that they understand human nature and response to circumstances more clearly, and thus they can add to their wisdom that they then apply as judicious to current situations and problems that they face.
So now I will give my specific example. This afternoon I drove to the book store “Barnes and Nobles” and was gratified to find that they had (at a discounted price) a copy of one of my favorite books that I have sorely missed, because my original copy is in storage many miles away. The book is “The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.” Regular readers know that my favorite secular history figure is George Washington, and of course it goes without saying that Abraham Lincoln has always been close to my heart. Like George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant was also first a general and then a United States President. Grant led the Army of the North, the Union Army, against the Army of the South, the Confederacy, during the American Civil War, known as the War against Slavery. Unlike George Washington, who lived in the USA as it was one hundred years before Grant’s time, Grant did not come from a landed and well to do background and instead, even after being President, was in desperate poverty. He wrote his memoirs as he was very ill and toward the end, dying, so that his family would have some income, particularly after he was gone, and he died one week after completion of them. Thus this book has come to be known as a masterpiece of American literature because it truly has no grandiose agenda, no fudging of facts or perceptions in order to look more grand or clever. Grant has left all of us a treasure of “what it was like” and “just the facts, ma’am” of a pivotal time in the history of the United States. If you want to be instantly transported into that crucial time in US and indeed global history, and be inside the mind of a truly great man (of the “ordinary man who steps up to the challenge” ilk, as was Washington), all you need to do is open this book. I tend not to read these types of books cover to cover and then put them away. I tend to turn to them regularly and just read a section. For example, I have (in storage) first editions of Washington’s letters to Congress during the War of Revolution and I would enjoy just reading one letter every once in a while to be transported in terms of perspective and the facts to the time of the Revolution, to the mind of George Washington. No student of history needs to be told of the poverty and hard conditions of the Patriot Army that Washington commanded, and how he had to beg for every scrap of arms, food and clothing from the Continental Congress. It is facts and perspective like that which anyone can read at will, reading the words of the Father of our Country as he desperately needs gunpowder as New York City is about to fall. That is history. That is why people need to learn and love history, and why students should not be impoverished of learning genuine, not agenda ridden, history in their classrooms.
By the way, I want to make another point. I am not “drawn” to certain historical figures for any of the usual flaky reasons that New Age “thinkers” (such as it is) posit about themselves and others. I don’t find historical figures interesting because 1) I think they’ve reincarnated (no one is reincarnated, as you ought to all confess to right now) 2) I have a “lesson” or “unfulfilled karma” that I’m just blindly reaching out toward 3) I’m “taking sides or making a statement” about who I am interested in or not. For example, yes, Lincoln and Grant are the Union figures. But I have and always will have a great personal and professional affection for General Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy. For a long time I enjoyed reading about the Tudors of England but that sure as hell did not mean that I was applauding or “reminiscing” about Catholic killing Protestant upstarts. As I’ve reported before, I have an even handed interest and affection toward all people of all nations and cultures, one that has been sorely tried and abused, however. Unfortunately that type of New Age stinking thinking has permeated our children’s schools where historical figures are ignored, diminished or skewed because of deliberate, and in some cases unconscious, imposition of New Age “values” and “dirty eyeglasses” (looking at the negative instead of the opposite, which is wearing “rose colored glasses”), as it were, on the ordinary people and facts of history. Honestly, I don’t know how this country or the world will survive if faith and reasoning based on facts does not return to the classroom and to day to day decision making.
So for my example, here is what I turned to read in Grant’s book this evening. I wondered, “What was it like the first time that he met President Abraham Lincoln?” I looked in the table of contents and found the event, which was when Grant was promoted to lieutenant general. Here is that excerpt from Grant’s memoirs.
From Chapter Fifteen, section “First Interview with President Lincoln.” The event described here took place in 1864.
The bill restoring the grade of lieutenant-general of the army had passed through Congress and became a law on the 26 of February. My nomination had been sent to the senate on the 1st of March and confirmed the next day (the 2nd). I was ordered to Washington on the 3d to receive my commission, and started the day following that. The commission was handed to me on the 9th. It was delivered to me at the Executive Mansion by President Lincoln in the presence of his Cabinet, my eldest son, those of my staff who were with me and a few other visitors.
The President in presenting my commission read from a paper-stating, however, as a preliminary, and prior to the delivery of it, that he had drawn that up on paper, knowing my disinclination to speak in public, and handed me a copy in advance so that I might prepare a few lines in reply. The President said:
“General Grant, the nation’s appreciation of what you have done, and its reliance upon you for what remains to be done in the existing great struggle, are now presented, with this commission constituting you lieutenant-general in the Army of the United States. With this high honor, devolves upon you, also, a corresponding responsibility. As the country herein trusts you, so, under God, it will sustain you. I scarcely need to add, that, with what I here speak for the nation, goes my own hearty personal concurrence.”
To this I replied: “Mr. President, I accept the commission, with gratitude for the high honor conferred. With the aid of the noble armies that have fought in so many fields for our common country, it will be my earnest endeavor not to disappoint your expectations. I feel the full weight of the responsibilities now devolving on me; and I know that if they are met, it will be due to those armies, and above all, to the favor of that Providence which leads both nations and men.”
On the 10th I visited the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac at Brandy Station; then returned to Washington, and pushed west at once to make my arrangements for turning over the commands there and giving general directions for the preparations to be made for the spring campaign.
Is this not a marvelous treasure, just this half of a page from Grant’s Memoirs? Stripped of what moderns would put in it of agenda and blabbing about the unimportant, it reveals many truths, both facts and perspectives. I’m sure most of you noticed what I am about to point out, but I know some of my readers are not from the USA and so I’d like to make plain some of the things I find gratifying in this excerpt.
The first is the promptness of Congress in acting in a non-partisan way to in ONE DAY approve Grant’s commission. In modern times, would not big mouth and big ego senators and representatives insist on blabbing away their opinion of both Grant and the conduct of the war? That is not to say they did not do that in the course of their normal business. But here in the middle of the Civil War, they kept separate the necessary swift actions, such as Grant’s commission, from being combined with thirst for both attention and perhaps necessary argument about the war. So Grant has preserved totally unintentionally a time that would be wonderful to see in that one respect again, when an action is conceived and completed in a matter of days.
The second is that Grant explains that even though President Lincoln and he had never met, Lincoln knew that Grant did not glorify in public speaking. This is not to say that Grant was a poor orator, but that he was a modest military man who preferred not to make speeches! Lincoln knew this about Grant in advance and in thoughtfulness of Grant’s feelings, wrote down his comments and gave Grant a copy so that Grant could compose in his mind while listening to the President what he would say in reply. That is a courtesy and more importantly a supportive thoughtfulness that is a role model that Lincoln is providing and that Grant has preserved for us to recall and to ponder. Notice too that on this occasion Lincoln invokes God; there is no escaping the heartfelt faith that all of our country’s leaders had and expressed as threads throughout all of their discourse and actions. But, of course, we know that in omitting from our schools study of the Founding Fathers and the great leaders as expressed in their own words that there is a deliberate resultant censoring of the name of God and expression of the presence and role of their faith in historical events from our students’ eyes and ears.
The third point that really stands out is the focus by both of them on the commission as a burden of responsibility, not as a glory, a “promotion” or an ego fulfilling award. This was not a change in title; this was the combining of responsibility for the Army and the placing it in the hands of General Grant. Both Lincoln and Grant focused their remarks on the gravity of that responsibility, and the confidence of the people of the nation in Grant. These were not empty words of false modesty, but preservation of the words that two men each carrying a great burden expressed at such a momentous time. Remember, they were not saying these words for “TV” or for “the public,” but they were saying what they genuinely felt according to the gravity of the situation.
The fourth point is that Grant turns all credit immediately on the troops. He calls the armies that are assembled to fight for the Union “noble” and he means it. That is in stark contrast to some today who do not speak up more clearly and sincerely in giving the armed services personnel their credit and respect. By contrast it’s just about the first words out of Grant’s mouth based on his heartfelt feelings (remember, this was a private event and no poseur self consciousness existed back then, for even newspapers had small circulation and delay in reporting events). People said what they meant and when they gave credit they meant it.
The fifth point is that Grant in turn gives all credit and glory to God, using a term that was common traditionally, which is Providence. Grant credits the troops and concludes with saying that if the Union is successful it is because of God’s will because God’s will leads both individuals and nations. Again, remember this is Grant’s ad hoc words of acceptance of the commission and once again we are treated to reading that people said what they honestly and strongly believed. Faith in God was in our nation as common, shared, strong and ever present as the air that we breathe.
I suspect that people enjoy reading all they can about what President Abraham Lincoln was really like. Paging through just now I found another meeting between the men and more “gold” for both facts and enjoyment. Maybe I’ll make a series of these excerpts for those of you who can’t get a hold of the book and would like to read some of the more interesting things that I find to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
