Editor's note: The Lincoln
Forum (www.lincolnforum.org)
is an organization dedicated to enhancing "the
understanding and preserving the memory of Abraham Lincoln and
the Civil War." Founded in 1995, the Forum
meets each year in Gettysburg, PA, on the anniversary of
Lincoln's address at the dedication of the Gettysburg National
Cemetery. Several members of the Cleveland Civil War
Roundtable are also members of the Lincoln Forum and attend its
meeting each year. CCWRT past president and Lincoln Forum member
Mel Maurer once again agreed to provide a recap of this
year's event. (Read Mel's
reports on the 2007,
2008 &
2009 Forums.)
The 15th Annual Lincoln Forum
Symposium was held November 16th through November 18th, as always,
in Gettysburg, PA (and again this year at the Wyndham Hotel). The
Theme this year was: “The Coming of Civil War: Enter Lincoln, Exit
the South” (Year one of a five year focus on the Civil War
Sesquicentennial - 2010 / 2015.)
Attending with me this year from
our Roundtable were Kirk Hinman, Gordon Doble, Betty Bauer and
Maynard Bauer. (A conflict in scheduling kept Dick Crews from
attending - meaning I had to ask even more questions than usual to
make up for his absence. He was missed.)
The speakers this year (a mix of
Forum veterans and newcomers) and the information they presented
were especially good - Not just my opinion but also others
attending. Included with this article are the biographies of the
speakers whose presentations I will be summarizing in this article.
In these summaries I try to focus on what we may not have heard or
read before, including little things I learn that help to round out
history.
NOVEMBER 16th
The Forum opened as is its
tradition with cocktails and dinner. Forum Chairman,
Frank J. Williams,
welcomed attendees (between 250 and 300), and introduced Tina Grim
to welcome us to Gettysburg. Tina is the Program Manager at the
Gettysburg Civil War Institute. She told us of the events planned
for that week in town in commemoration of Lincoln’s Gettysburg
Address, including the annual talk on the 19th with Sam Donalson
this year as the speaker, Remembrance Day Weekend, several programs
at Gettysburg College and the Majestic Theater.
She also said that author, Jeff Shaara, would also be receiving an award over the weekend. (Maynard,
Betty and I ran into Shaara at a store in town on Thursday where he
was signing books. I talked to him a bit and he told me his last
book in his WWI trilogy would be out next year. He was then going to
start a new Civil War trilogy with the Battle of Shiloh. I expect
that it will focus on Grant.)
Frank then introduced
Harold Holzer,
Lincoln scholar extraordinaire and keynote speaker at The Soldiers
and Sailors Monument rededication this year, to deliver the first
paper of the Forum: “The New York Times and the Silent President.”
Harold, the author of Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861, and the newly published - with Craig Symonds
as co-editor - The New York Times The Complete Civil War 1861-1865,
knows this subject very well - and how to present it. (This talk was
also recorded by C-SPAN and was first aired in January. If you saw
it you saw the back of my head - my best side - as I ask a
question.)
 |
The 15th Annual Lincoln Forum Symposium
The Wyndham Hotel,
Gettysburg, PA
November 16th-18th, 2010
|
After his election, Lincoln was
known to have “said so little for so long” and for that matter, he
didn’t have much to say on issues after he made his Cooper Union
address. (After saying that Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address,
before 30,000 people was underappreciated, Harold threw in the fact
that the “Lincoln Bible” used by Lincoln that day and later by
President Obama was really the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Bible -
used when no other could be found..) The time between Lincoln’s
election to the presidency is sometimes called, “Secession Winter,”
as various states led by South Carolina attempted to leave the
Union.
During this time Lincoln felt that
it was best to say nothing than to “encourage resistance. He did not
want to enter the ongoing debates on Slavery. He maintained that he
could say nothing that he had not already said and would not at this
time be repetitive. Some have called this approach his “masterful
inactivity.” He did not even approve of publishing his old speeches.
Lincoln did have good input on the country’s affairs as they played
out during this time and despite ever growing pressure for public
declarations, he remained publicly quiet. The democrat papers were
already misrepresenting his views and he had no intention of working
towards any compromises - “Would not pay a debt he did not owe.” One
wag said that Lincoln only “opened his mouth to eat.”
In addition to not wanting to say
or do anything that would further enflame discontent (“trying to
keep feet out of wolf traps” - “Let Buchanan have his say”), Lincoln
knew that he would not officially be president-elect until the
Electoral College voted for him - there was some feeling that
actions could be taken that would have thrown the election into the
House where anything could have happened. He and Alexander Stephens
- the soon to be vice president of the Confederacy - communicated
during this period with Lincoln reassuring him that there was, “no
cause for concern for the South. He was only for restriction and not
elimination.”
Lincoln only began to open up after
his election became official - privately he tells congress - “No,
orders it” - not to compromise or “we shall have to do this all over
again," telling congress to hold firm as “if a chain of steel.”
(Harold also added incidentally that “it’s myth” that Lincoln picked
his cabinet on election night - the selection was actually a long
slow process.) Herndon described Lincoln as being "as firm as the
Rocky Mountains.” There would be no secession and there would be no
expansion of Slavery. Lincoln then opened up publicly giving 101
speeches after February 11th - mostly on his way to his
inauguration.
I asked Harold in the Q&A if the
South would have tried to secede if anyone else but Lincoln had been
elected? Harold agreed this question could be debated but felt that
any northern person elected would have given them their excuse for
secession.
NOVEMBER 17th
Our first speaker was
Edna Greene
Medford. Hearing her speak is like attending a class with a very
good professor - which she is at Howard University. The title of her
talk was: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Road to Freedom.” (Edna brought
her whole class on the Civil War to the Forum - all three students,
all ladies.)
Edna opened by reading an exciting,
moving page from the book describing the enslaved Eliza’s escape
from the South across a frozen river to freedom. (Edna, an
African-American, also related how 29 of her ancestors had left the
country for Canada in the 1850s). “Uncle Tom,” a novel by Harriet
Beecher Stowe, was published in 1852. With more than 500,000 copies
sold the first year, it would help shape the nation’s and the
world’s opinions on slavery.
Edna’s talk was not a book review
but rather focused on the book's impact during the 1850s as our country was
“in decline towards disunion.” Its author was the daughter of a well
known preacher (Lyman Beecher) - she once lived in Cincinnati where she saw slavery
escapes from Kentucky, but before the book had limited knowledge of
slavery.
Although a novel, the book, in the
words of Frederick Douglass, “Aroused a sluggish nation on Slavery.”
And to some degree in the North where there was no slavery but
racial prejudice and segregation. Through its vividly drawn
characters, the book humanized slaves for the masses as never
before, creating great sympathy for their cause of freedom.
As the book became more and more
popular, numerous attacks were made against it and its author.
Harriet was criticized for stepping out of the “role of women -
unsexing herself.” Southerners called the book “a gross
misrepresentation of facts - wide of the truth.” “Uncle Tom is a
lie” they claimed and pointed to their books showing the happiness
of slaves. Plays were created from the book, becoming very popular -
extending the cause for freedom to new audiences. (The downside of
some of these plays was the beginning of the caricature of some
Blacks that lived on for decades in popular culture. And much later,
the name, "Uncle Tom” was used negatively during the fight for Civil Rights.)
Europeans appreciated the book.
Harriet received international honors including awards in Great
Britain. America’s policy on slavery came under even greater attacks
from abroad.
Edna in her conclusion said the
book, of course did not bring about the war but did during those
times of change become an important element of what she called, “A
confluence of events that did lead to the war.”
We learned, in response to a
question that contrary to Civil War mythology, Lincoln
probably never told Harriet, when they first met, that “She was the
little lady who started the war.” Lincoln, in fact, said he never
read the book (Holzer added that while that was true, Lincoln did
read Harriet’s, “A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” in which she defends
the facts presented in her first book. Holzer also said that while
Lincoln always said that he didn’t read novels, he actually did read
them. (So much for “Honest” Abe on recreational reading.)
The question, “Did US Grant own
slaves?” was also asked - Edna deferred to John Marszalek for the
answer. John said that Grant bought one slave and then later freed
him and that he also inherited a slave that he also freed. Grant’s wife
owned slaves from her father and Grant did not interfere with that
ownership.
Our second speaker was
Gary Ecelbarger - his talk was entitled: “Lincoln’s Great Comeback.” Gary
is a dynamic speaker - using no notes - he had us wondering whether
or not Lincoln was actually going to get the nomination for
president at the 1860 convention. (Some members may recall on our
field trip to the Shenandoah Valley, when Maynard was president,
that Gary led the tour of the Kernstown Battlefield.)
It would take 233 votes in the
Republican Convention in 1860 to win the nomination for president.
At that time it was the tradition that, “The office should seek you”
and not you the office, so there was no overt campaigning by any of
the candidates. Not that there wasn’t campaigning behind the scenes
through various friends and associates. Gary reminded us that at
this point in his career, Lincoln was a loser: he had lost two
Senate races. He also had no national prominence - except as loser
- and if nominated, the candidate would probably have to face Stephen
Douglas, who Lincoln had lost to twice. Despite all of that, Lincoln
told his friends in 1859 that he “wanted the presidency,” and a
shadow campaign was initiated to get it.
Lincoln would then give 30 speeches
in eight states throughout 1859 and then gave his seminal Cooper
Union talk in February of 1860 - clearly stating who he was and what
he stood for. Despite his work, Lincoln was not even listed as a
candidate on the pamphlet for the convention. The first victory in
his quest came when his supporters managed to have the convention
held in
Chicago (Lincoln’s home field), a supposedly neutral site.
The convention began on May 16 with
balloting scheduled for the next day. Lincoln’s strategy was: 1) to
give no offense, 2) to accumulate partial votes from states, 3) get
commitments for the second ballot, 4) hold off Seward on the first
ballot and
get enough votes to come in second. (With a large number of Favorite
Sons to be nominated, there was no way that Seward could win on the
first ballot.)
Gary took us through the pre
balloting maneuvering, state by state as Lincoln rolled up enough
votes (partial and whole states) to come in second on the first
ballot also achieving his goal of getting at least 100 votes. Seward
would get 173 votes and Lincoln, 102. The Lincoln strategy - getting
partial votes and commitments for the second ballot paid off as on
that ballot he got 181 votes and Seward 184.5. The momentum was now
Lincoln’s as the third ballot was taken - ending first with Lincoln
at 231.5 and Seward at 181 - and three votes were switched to
Lincoln giving him, 234.5 and the nomination. (Some clever home town
managing of the convention, on ballots and timing also helped
Lincoln to win.)
During the Q&A, we learned that
Lincoln did not promise Ohio a cabinet position for Salmon Chase and
that Seward had wanted Lincoln for his vice president. (I
bought Gary’s book,
The Great Comeback: How Abraham Lincoln Beat the Odds to Win the
1860 Republican Nomination.)
Craig Symonds followed Gary with
his talk entitled: “The Sumter Crisis: Learning on the Job.” (Craig
was a speaker for us when Bob Boyda was president.) In this talk
Craig takes us through Lincoln’s learning process as a man with no
executive or military leadership experience as he faced his first
military crisis at Ft. Sumter.
With its secession, South Carolina
and then the Confederacy considered all military forts on “their
land,” their property. The Union, under Lincoln, did not see it that
way. Especially vulnerable to takeovers in South Carolina were forts Moultrie, outside Charleston, and in Charleston Bay, Sumter. Major
Robert Anderson, commander at Moultrie had a garrison of 75 men -
which included 14 musicians. Sumter which had been under
construction since 1816 was still not finished and was occupied only
by laborers. Anderson knew he couldn’t defend Moultrie and moved his
garrison to Sumter to protect them. (Anderson told Lincoln that it
would take 20,000 men to defend his position - of course there were
only 15,000 men in the army at that time, before many left for the
Confederacy.)
Craig pointed out that Sumter
was bought and paid for by the Union and not the state but it
quickly became a symbol of secession. Anderson made his move while
Buchanan was still in office. The south accused him of violating a
“gentlemen’s agreement to take no action. Buchanan finally stood
firm on something - he told them, “It was just a move,” and did not
order the garrison to leave the island fort.
Anderson occupied the fort but
without enough supplies to stay very long and when a supply ship -
Star of the West, attempted to reach him it was fired on and had
to withdraw. Things were heating up. Lincoln as president was faced
with how to show resolve without firing the first shot - Craig
asked: “Was he good or just lucky?” Both.
Lincoln sought the advise of
experts, including General Winfield Scott (overweight now but still very
sharp militarily), and members of his cabinet. Various approaches
were considered, including abandoning Sumter and then making a
principled stand at Ft. Pickens in Florida - a more readily
defensible fort. Montgomery Blair said Sumter must be held. Scott suggested
holding on to Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas. A consultant named
Gustavus Vasa Fox was brought in to work out a plan to use tug boats, defended by
war ships to supply the fort under the cover of night. Fox even
visited Sumter - with permission from the South who did not know his real mission. Fox believed that his tug plan would work.
A decision was made on March 28th
to reinforce / re-supply Sumter and Pickens. Supplies would be sent
in early April. Lincoln decided that he would send notice of the
sending of supplies only after the mission started - only supplies
but if challenged, reinforcements would then be sent. Did he do this
to force the South to attack? That is not clear and if they had
allowed the supplies, no military action would have been taken.
Jefferson Davis considered
Lincoln’s notice and decided that to allow supplies would make him
look weak, so he ordering the firing on Sumter. The South with its 9
million people (5 million free) and agricultural society began a war
with the 20 million people (all free) and their manufacturing
society in the north.
Lincoln, although inexperienced,
knew enough to be patient and to seek advise from a variety of well
informed people before developing a plan that could have avoided
hostilities - with cooperation from the South - if it worked and if
it did not would make the South the aggressor in a war. He was
learning on the job.
I asked Craig what if any advice
Davis sought during this time. Craig said that Davis considered
himself to be the expert and so did not seek much advise from
anyone. Lincoln, the Mohawk War Captain of a few men who never saw
battle, outfoxed Davis, the former Secretary of War.
I was also able to ask Craig at
lunch (maybe that was why he never sat with me again) if it was
prearranged that Anderson would surrender if fired on? He said, not
directly, but that it was accepted that Sumter could not be held. He
went on to describe how it all happened. The South began it’s
bombardment at 4:30 a.m. Anderson waited to be sure it was what it
seemed to be. He decided it was at 8:30 and began to return fire.
Eventually, the Sumter flagpole was hit and fell downing the flag.
The South wondered if this meant surrender, so under a white flag,
General P.G.T. Beauregard rowed out to the fort to find out. Anderson told
him that it did not mean surrender but as long as Beauregard was
there, he would surrender the fort. (By now, Craig’s soup was getting
cold so I asked no more questions.)
Our first speaker in the afternoon
session was John Marszalek. John spoke to our roundtable on Halleck
when I was president and will speak to us again in May - on U.S.
Grant. His talk was entitled: The Old Army on the Eve of War.”
John began by telling us as
conditions worsened during the 1850s pointing towards an eventual
conflict, the North thought that the South was bluffing on secession
while the South thought that the North would never fight to prevent
it. He then described the contrasting development in both regions
during the 1850s with the North’s focus on manufacturing and the
South’s on agriculture, mostly cotton - King Cotton based on slave
labor.
There were 15,259 men in the U.S.
Army in 1859 including 1009 officers. Most of the Army was based on
the frontier. West Point was considered to be elitist. There was a
total of 200 West Point Graduates in 1860. Of these, there were 821
still in service - 197 of these would become Confederates. (John
noted that it was a “myth that most went to the South.”) West Point
was primarily focused on engineering and many West Pointers had left
service for jobs as engineers - canal building, manufacturing, etc.
with better pay. (958 graduates did not serve during the war.)
The culture of the country at that time and before did not favor a
large standing army - some even felt that no more than an Army of
1000 would ever be needed (with the use of state militias as backup
if needed.) When the war started, there were only two officers in
service who had ever led a large force - one was 75 years old and
the other 77 - and no one had ever led forces the size of those
needed for this war. (John also noted as an aside the lack of maps
for military purposes, saying that good ones just did not exist.)
Obviously the “Old Army” would not be enough to win any war.
John then told us how no one could
have predicted in 1860 that Grant, Sherman and even Halleck would
lead the North to victory. They did enjoy the old army, Sherman was
bored, Grant drank (but, John told us the views of Grant as a drunk
were hogwash), and Halleck, who had succeeded in the old army and
who wrote the “Book on Military Theory,” was in administration.
Grant and Sherman had both left the service and would need to use
political connections to get back in. These three do succeed and
with Lincoln, form a new army, moving, under their leadership, into
modern warfare. The South, John told us, with Davis, Lee and Jackson
never did grow out of the old army and its ways.
After the war, the army was once
again reduced and then limited to frontier duty by act of Congress.
It would take several more decades - until the 1900s - for real
reform.
Our next speaker was
William W. Freehling who was new to the Forum. We all hoped he would return for
another talk. His topic was: Lincoln’s Forgotten Southern
Republicans.”
In trying to summarize these talks,
I’m always aware of how poorly they represent the speakers - a “you
had to be there type of thing.” This is especially true of this talk
as the very distinguished professor, with great humor, led us
through some facts and considerations on the South and its
Republican influences.
Lincoln was not as little known in
the 1850s as is often thought, Freehling told us, reminding some
that Lincoln had come in second for the vice president nomination on
Fremont’s 1856 ticket. Lincoln and his views on national issues were known
to many. Cassius Clay (no not that one), a southern Kentuckian, who
came in second, wanted to establish the party in the South. Freehling said that virtually no one talked about slavery in the
South but Clay did and so did other southern Republicans. Some
southerners feared a revolt of slaves if slavery were discussed.
(The speaker’s claim that 20% of the South was Republican was
questioned but he answered with the logic of how he arrived at that
figure. He also pointed out that Lincoln did get some popular votes
in the South.)
The real issue between 1852 and
1860 was the expansion of slavery, not its elimination. Freehling
told us that, after Kansas and Texas, there were really no territories
for slaves to be brought into - there were just not enough slaves
for expansion. The Republican Party did not support John Brown and
his actions.
He referenced a book of that era by
a man named Halpert entitled: “Compendium of the Coming Crisis” in
which a revolt is predicted against slaveholders. As the South did
not talk about slavery, it also did not debate it: slavery was and
always would be to them. The most prominent southern Republican was
Frank Blair of Missouri who told his people: “We don’t need
Slavery.” His approach was to buy a colony property and ship freed
slaves to it. (“We have slavery, because we have blacks.”)
With Lincoln, the South feared -
far more than no expansion of slavery - was that he would build a
Southern Party of Republicans through patronage to non slave holders,
etc. and then, through debate in the South, achieve an end to slavery
from within. Lincoln, when asked a direct question on this strategy
after his election, avoids a direct answer but he does desire that
the South find a way to free slaves itself even to considering a
colonization plan with payments to slave holders.
There was no more talk of any
colonies with the Emancipation Proclamation - the South wouldn’t
solve the slavery problem so Lincoln did and, had he lived, his
planned moderate approach to reconstruction may have avoided the
problems that followed the Radical Republicans' reconstruction
policies. While Lincoln did not initially believe that blacks should
become full citizens, his views changed and he began to think in
terms of full equality for them.
Freehling’s belief that with
Lincoln the South feared the rise of the anti slavery Republican
Party in the South which would eventually end Slavery provided us
with a new perspective on the South. As we will learn in the first
talk the next day by Peter Carmichael, “You don’t want to mess with
Southern culture.”
At Dinner that night, Frank
Williams presented the Annual Leonard Volk Life Mask Award. (The
life mask made of Lincoln by Volk in 1860.) Prior recipients were
Fords’ Theater and The Soldiers Home. The Lincoln Home in
Springfield received the award this year - accepted by its curator,
Tim Townsend.
After the award presentation,
George Buss, noted Lincoln re enactor, who has spoken and performed
at our Roundtable twice, read excerpts from Lincoln’s Cooper Union
Address - excellent as always.
Frank Williams was the speaker that
evening. The title of his talk was simply: “Lincoln’s Education.” He
began by reminding us of the enigma of Lincoln - “one of the
examples of American Dream.” How did this backwoods boy become our
greatest president? Through intellect, strength of character, a
disciplined mind and a self education through his extensive and
varied reading as a person, politician and military leader.
Frank walked us through the
young lawyer Lincoln’s reading of the law, treaties, and court
sessions as he handled cases on land, bad debts, libels etc. He was
admitted to the Bar in 1837 and was known to “root for facts”
digging them up and analyzing them in his work - and he never
stopped working to improve his writing - honing his skills as a
lawyer (or just as a thinker - using resources of the Library of
Congress to study Euclidian Geometry to improve his logical
talents.)
Lincoln said that if all of his
time were put together, that he had about one year of formal
education. One time, when filling out a form, next to the line
reading “Education,” he wrote “Defective.” However he read anything
he could get his hands on. His early books included: ‘A Life of
Washington,” “Aesop’s Fables,” The King James Bible and “Pilgrim’s
Progress.” (Close readings of Lincoln’s words will see how these
works influenced his thinking and writing.) His hero was Washington;
his biography showed Lincoln the potential of man.
Early life experiences also added
to his education: a harsh father without ambition, losing his mother
when he was nine years old, life on the prairie including the
terrible winter of 1816, the building of his flat boat and his ferry
boat business, the Blackhawk War (lack of supplies for troops) - “he
studied everything - he learned.” (Some trivia: Lincoln used his
flat boat at times to ferry passengers to larger boats in the river.
He was charged with running a ferry boat without a license but was
then found not guilty since his boat was not technically a ferry
boat under the law.)
Other books he read that influenced
him were those brought to his home by his stepmother, Sarah, were:
“Arabian Nights,” “Lessons in Elocution” and “Robinson Crusoe.”
Sarah recalled that it took Lincoln awhile to learn, that: “he must
understand all of it - and then he didn’t forget it.” We also know
that he had a love of Shakespeare and the poems of Robert Burns and
Walt Whitman (who he loved to read out loud.) As president he read
and studied books on military strategy.
Lincoln’s father never supported
his reading and thought Lincoln to be just lazy (and maybe he was at
times since he always hated physical labor.) Contrary to some
historians, Lincoln was not in bondage to his father - it was the
system at that time that wages of children belonged to their parents
until they were 21 years old. (Lincoln’s father hated slavery and
was known for his story telling; so Lincoln did receive this much of
a legacy from him.)
“What do we take from his
education?” “He was not a naturally brilliant man” (But maybe he
was, someone in the audience later pointed out that someone had
pegged Lincoln’s IQ at 140) - he worked to learn and to use what he
learned. Lincoln was taken something of a plodder in his studies.
(Horace Greeley called him an “exhaustive” learner.) Lincoln knew how
to learn and with his love of reading and great books it may be said
(as I always tell the students I speak to) that he had some of the
best teachers in the world.
In answering a question, Frank said
that history shows that Lincoln was always against slavery and for
the preservation of the Union. He also pointed out that the first
inaugural address was a stern speech in support of the Union.
NOVEMBER 18th
After a short report on the state
of the Forum by Frank and a preview of next year’s programs - the
theme will be “Lincoln on the Home Front” (Ed Bearss will lead a
battlefield tour for the first 50 to register for the Forum), our
first speaker was introduced.
Peter Carmichael’s topic was:
“Southern Perception of Lincoln in the Wake of the 1860 Election.”
(This talk was recorded by C-Span and was aired in January so it may
be on again some day.)
In this talk Carmichael sought to
give us an understanding of the Southern culture with its ingrained
traditions of honor (its way of life) and slavery. It seemed that
some in the audience thought he was trying to justify the South and
they showed some displeasure. Others, like me, appreciated the
perspectives he gave us that help explain the great differences that
led to the war. (As was pointed out in the Q&A, misunderstood and
unappreciated cultural differences still lead to wars and
insurrections. The more we understand such things the better.)
Carmichael is a bright guy who has
an evangelist’s style of speaking. His background in Civil War
history - North and South was apparent in his talk. I’ll just try to
cover some of his main points - hoping that you will see him on
C-Span one of these days. He told us the South had a long tradition
of “Honor” (protection of self, home, family, friends and country)
and which, if offended in any way, needed “Satisfaction” to resolve,
often in a duel. He pointed out that all cultures have their own
unique systems that help to make them what they are. Any attack on
Slavery was an attack to them - not on the practice itself - but on
their way of life.
It was this Honor for example that
led Lee, while opposed to secession, to the South once the states
were attacked. Lee cared deeply about slavery - it did matter to him
but it was his honor that made him a Confederate according to
Carmichael. It was for the South, "Honor over Union.” We often hear
that most of the southern soldiers did not and never did own slaves
- they fought for their honor, their way of life especially when
Union forces came into their states. The North also had its culture
- community, family, faith etc. - but with a broader mix of people
from different cultures it did not have the long held traditions of
the South.
After this talk, I had a better
understanding than before of the Southern Culture including slavery
in what it thought was its modern society. I had the impression
although not put this way by the speaker that war could have been
avoided if some way could have been found for the South to come to a
realization that slavery had to be eliminated on its own since it
would never accept any other entity telling it what to do especially
when it came to its “principles.” Ingrained cultural principles still play a part
in differences between nations - sometimes still leading to wars.
They must be addressed if we are ever to have meaningful
relationships with other countries especially those that seem so
strange to us. (For example, I doubt that China will ever be
browbeaten into improved Civil Rights - given its culture, those
improvements must come from within.)
The second feature presentation
that morning was the annual panel discussion - a favorite where we
are given the opportunity to participate with our questions. The topic for the panel (Frank
Williams - moderator, Harold Holzer, Craig Symonds, Michael Lind,
Peter Carmichael and William Freehling) was: “Could the War Have
Been Avoided?
Freehling went first. He said the
broader question was how did things get so bad between the North and
South in the 1850s and focused on John Brown - his capture and the
speech he gave before being hung - and the influence it had. The
1850s for all panelists were the road to war. Carmichael focused on
the two economic systems - wage labor vs. slave labor setting up an
inevitable conflict. Holzer agreed that a collision was inevitable
given the actions of the 1850s. And to Harold, any Republican
elected president would have brought on secession - maybe Lincoln
just faster than someone else. Symonds called the actions of the
1850s over slavery, new territories, extension of practices etc.
those that led to an inevitable confrontation - sooner or later.
Marszalek said it all came down to slavery. All seemed to agree that
by 1860, not much could have been done to avid a war of some kind
and duration without allowing secession.
Some thoughts and facts that came
out of the questions that were asked: Symonds pointed out that at
the beginning of the 1850s, the South was stronger than the North
and it could have won a war at that time - timing was critical. The
roles reversed as the decade progressed and manufacturing developed
in the North. Holzer said that no one had a clue about what it would
take to wage or to win a war. Lind said there was a gradual
polarization of sides.
I had the last question. If war was
inevitable, as all of the panelists agreed, why was
there no preparation on either side of any significance before it
broke out? They really didn’t have a good answer. (This presentation
was recorded by C-Span and was to have been aired on January 22 and
23rd. It may be repeated at some future date.)
11-18 - Afternoon
The Forum tried something new this
year for this afternoon - breakout sessions wherein most of the
speakers held Q&A meetings with the attendees divided between them -
with up to 20 at each of the meetings. This is a good idea but it
did not work well for the session I attended which shared a room
with another session, making it very difficult to hear or to engage
in any conversations. These were the only sessions sharing a room
and such sharing will not be repeated next year. (There was also an
option for new attendees to take a bus tour of the battlefield.)
11-18 - Evening - Dinner
Our own Maynard and Betty Bauer
were honored at dinner as the couple which has been married the
longest - 60 years and counting. Each received a small prize.
Congratulations to them.
The Annual Richard Nelson Currant
Award was presented to Mark Neely Jr. - described as “The Lincoln
Scholar of his generation.” Professor Neely was also the
speaker. His topic was: “The Essence of Anarchy: The Problem of
Secession After 150 Years.”
Neely teaches constitutional law
and hearing him was as if we were sitting in his classroom - it was
a very scholarly presentation. One in which he, among other things,
emphasized the importance of constitutional law and the teaching of
it. (I had the impression from his words such teaching must be a
dying profession.)
Neely began by telling us that
constitutional history is crucial to understanding secession. He
said that Lincoln didn’t think about secession very much or very
long - really not until 12-16-1860 with the South Carolina
Convention. What Lincoln thought about secession: 1) No state can
get out of the Union without the consent of other states, 2) In his
first Inaugural, he called secession the “essence of anarchy and 3)
He also said it was not democratic but rather anti democratic.
Neely asked if secession was
stampeded, some kind of coup or a popular movement? He then led us
through the process of ratifying or de-ratifying a constitution
raising these questions on the secession process: Was it rushed, was
any delegate fraud involved, was it debated and fully heard by
people and was it a popular movement?
His answers were: 1) Yes, it was
rushed in South Carolina. It took this state 116 days to ratify the
constitution and only 86 days to de-ratify it. 2) Fraud? Out of 889
delegates only one was contested - should have been more, 3) Debate
adequate? Ratification allowed plenty of time for debate,
de-ratification did not - much based on 166,000 copies of various
documents and pamphlets and 4) Popular? No, it was anti popular and
the convention did more than it was supposed to.
He also pointed out that the
ratification process also had some problems with some fraud and
tricks too but the conclusion relative to secession is that those
states seceding did not follow constitutional law - and he closed by
saying without the study of constitutional law we would never know
that.
The final presentation of the
evening and the 2010 symposium was given by Jim Getty - who has been
a speaker for us - reading selections from Lincoln’s First Inaugural
Address. He was excellent as always.
One of the treats of these
symposiums is the opportunity to literally rub elbows with its
speakers and presenters and others in attendance that may also be
authors. One of these authors was John G. Sotos, a doctor who
has written a book entitled, The Physical Lincoln Complete . It’s a
comprehensive examination of every aspect of Lincoln health - or
lack thereof. Dr. Sotos concludes that Lincoln would not have lived
much more than a year if he had not been shot. And that it was not
Marfan syndrome that would have killed him but rather something
called “Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN2B)” a type of cancer. I
now have this book and will be writing an article about his findings
for The Charger. I was able to discuss his conclusions with him in
the buffet line one day. (The book is a brick and looks imposing but
it’s really two volumes in one: the first volume is the narrative
and finding and the second is a complete reference volume with all
of his research. It’s written for civilians in a very readable style
with some humor too. It’s far from dry and is as much history book
as medical.)
The success of any event can be
measured by how sorry you are to see it end and how much you look
forward to the next one. The 2010 Lincoln Forum Symposium was a
great success.
My thanks as always to Hank Ballone
for his generosity in allowing me to add his great photos to this
report - and for his patience every year as Crews and I pester him
to take our pictures.
My thanks too to Betty and Maynard
Bauer for their invaluable editing of this report - correcting miss
spellings and typos and for getting my train of thought back on
track form time to time.
And to Paul Burkholder for adding
the music to my words on the web site.
Biographies of the 2010 Lincoln
Forum Speakers
(from the Forum program)
Peter S. Carmichael, newly named Director of the Civil War
Institute, and Fluhrer Professor of Civil War History, at Gettysburg
College, previously taught history at Penn State (where he earned
his Ph.D.), Western Carolinas University, Virginia Commonwealth
University, UNC-Greensboro, and West Virginia University. A highly
popular lecturer, his books include, The Last Generation: Young
Virginians in Peace, War, and Reunion. He is at work on a new
volume entitled Black Rebels, exploring the experience of
slaves who served as soldiers in the Confederacy.
Gary
Ecelbarger is the author of seven books, most notably, The
Great Comeback: How Abraham Lincoln Beat the Odds to Win the 1860
Republican Nomination (2008). He has also written biographies of
Frederick W. Lander and "Black Jack" Logan, and a history of
Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah. The Western New York native was
educated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and spent 16 years
working in medical intensive care units. A professional history tour
guide, Ecelbarger has written dozens of articles about personalities
and events of the Civil War era.
William W. Freehling, Singletary Professor of the Humanities
Emeritus at the University of Kentucky and Senior Fellow at the
Virginia Foundation for the Humanities is considered one of the most
distinguished historians of the Civil War era, and the leading
scholar on the secession period. His most recent book is The Road
to Reunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861,
which historian David Brion Davis called "brilliant and
indispensable." In addition to Volume I, Secessionists at Bay,
his other books include, A Prelude to War, which won the
Bancroft Prize.
Harold
Holzer, vice chairman of the Forum, served as co-chair of
the U. S. Lincoln Bicentennial Commission from 2001-2010, and now
chairs its successor organization, the Lincoln Bicentennial
Foundation. Author, co-author, or editor of 36 books, including the
award-winning Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the
Great Secession Winter, he won a 2005 second-place Lincoln Prize
for Lincoln at Cooper Union, and the 2008 National Humanities
Medal from the President of the United States. His new book,
co-edited with Craig L. Symonds, is The New York Times Complete
Civil War.
John
M. Marszalek, W. L. Giles Distinguished Professor of History
Emeritus at the Mississippi State University, is executive director
of the Ulysses S. Grant Association and editor of the Papers of
Ulysses S. Grant. A longtime member of the Forum's Board of
Advisors, Marszalek is the author of many books, including,
Sherman: A Soldier's Passion For Order, Sherman's Other War:
The General and the Civil War Press, Assault at West Point.
which became a TV film (look for a Marszalek cameo!). and
Commander of All Lincoln's Armies: A Life of General Henry W Halleck.
Edna Greene Medford, a frequent speaker at The Lincoln
Forum, where she serves as a member of the Board of Advisors, is
professor of history and chairman of the department at Howard
University, where in 2009 she chaired a major bicentennial
conference on Lincoln. The former director of New York's African
Burial Ground project, she has appeared regularly on C-SPAN, and was
recently elected a member of the Board of the Lincoln Bicentennial
Foundation. The author of many articles and reviews; she was
co-author of a two-volume work, The Price of Freedom, and of
the 2007 book, The Emancipation Proclamation: Three Views.
Mark E. Neely, Jr., McCabe-Greer Professor of Civil War
History at the Pennsylvania State University won the 1992 Pulitzer
Prize for The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil
Liberties. His other books include, The Abraham Lincoln
Encyclopedia, The Last Best Hope of Earth: Abraham Lincoln
and the Promise of America, The Union Divided: Party Conflict
in the Civil War North, and with Harold Holzer and Gabor Boritt,
The Lincoln Image and The Confederate Image. With Holzer he
authored The Union Image, The Lincoln Family Album, and
Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: The Civil War in Art. He is
currently working on a book about Civil War nationalism.
Craig
L. Symonds, co-editor of The New York Times Complete
Civil War, was co-winner of the 2009 Lincoln Prize for
Lincoln and His Admirals. Professor of history emeritus at the
U. S. Naval Academy, he is the author of biographies of Joseph E.
Johnston, Patrick Cleburne, and Franklin Buchanan, along with the
recent The Civil War at Sea (2009). Symonds won the
prestigious Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt award for the best book
on naval history for his Decision at Sea: Five Naval Battles that
Shaped American History (2005). He serves on The Lincoln Forum
executive committee.
Hon.
Frank J. Williams is founding Chairman of the Lincoln Forum,
former member of the U.S. Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and a
newly elected member of the Board of the Lincoln Bicentennial
Foundation. Among his many books are Judging Lincoln and,
with Roger Billings, the new Abraham Lincoln, Esq.: The Legal
Career of America's Greatest President. He earlier served as
President of the Lincoln Group of Boston and the Abraham Lincoln
Association (whose prestigious "Lincoln the Lawyer" award he earned
in 2009), and currently serves as President of the Ulysses S. Grant
Association. |
