#U.S. Civil War

[todaysdocument]

Happy Juneteenth! 

General Order No. 3, June 19, 1865. 

Record Group 393: Records of U.S. Army Continental Commands

Series: General Orders Issued

File Unit: General Orders Issued

Transcription: 

[stenciled or stamped (?) ; page numer; near upper-right corner:] 1

{"OldBook[...]" below seems to have been added]                                                                                                                                                           [text below handwritten:]

Old Book 33.13 ac [? (unclear after "a"]                                                                                                                                                                              Head Quarters District of Texas

[blue [circular] stamp  [:; seen in left margin; following text:]  ]    [above central line:] WAR RECORDS                                                           Galveston Texas June 17th 1865.

                                                                                                                             [central line (larger letters):] COPIED

                                                                                                                             [below central line:]         1861-1865   [/stamp (transcribed lines from "Galveston[...] to bracketed header transcribed below seen to right of stamp in Image]                                                                                                                                     

General Orders}

No. 1                }

---------                        [short separating line extended to right of left margin line]

  I Pursuant to orders from the Head Quarters Military Division

of the South West, dated New Orleans, June 13th 1865, the undersigned assumes

command of all troops within the State.

-------------  [another short separating line]

   II No passes or permits will be recognized on the coast of Texas except

by authority from Head Quarters Military Division of the South West, or from

these Head Quarters.

                                                                                      [signature:} G., Granger [/signature]

                                                                                    Major General Commanding.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [long (separating) line from left margin to right edge]

Printed [handwritten in red ink[; seen in left margin] ]

[ [stamp also to left of left-margin line in Image:] [circular] blue stamp[with following text within it:] ] [above & below center; inside perimeter:] WAR RECORDS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1861-1865

                                                                                                                                                                   [between the 2 lines transcribed just above; in larger letters:]     COPIED           [/stamp]

          [following 4 transcribed lines seen to right of stamp in Image:]  

                                                                                            Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                            Galveston Texas June 19th 1865

General Orders}

No. 2                }

                                                                               The Staff of the District is announced as follows:

Major [underlined:] F. W. Emery[/underlined],    U. S. Vols.          Asst. Adjt. Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] J. C. Palfrey[/underlined], U.S. Vols.           Asst. Insp[']r. [abbreviation for "Inspector"] Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] R. G. Laughlin[underlined],   94th ["4" faint] Ill's  [abbreviation for "Illinois"] Vols.   Provost Marshal Genl.

Lieut. Col. [underlined:] J. G. Chandler[/underlined],  U. S. Vols.           Chief Quartermaster

Captain [underlined:] F.G. Noyes[/underlined],          U.S. Vols.           Chief Comy. [abbreviation for "Commissary"] of Subsistence

Surgeon [underlined:] C. B. White[/underlined],        U.S. Vols.           Medical Director

Captain [underlined:[ G. W. Fox [/underlined],           26th N. Y. Battery, Chief of Artillery

Captain [underlined:] S. Howell[/underlined],  [?]          6th Mich. Hy. [abbreviation for "Heavy"] Artillery   Chief of Ordnance

1st Lieut [underlined:] J. L. Baker[/underlined],     23[']d Wis. Vols.  Commissary of Musters

Major [underlined:] W. L. Avery[/underlined],           U. S. Vols.           Aide-de-camp.

Captain [underlined:] C. S. Sargent[/underlined],  U. S. Vols.           Aide-de-Camp.

                                                                                             G, Granger [signed]

                                                                          Major General Commanding.  [this line written in same writing as the writing above the signature]

Printed. [handwritten in red ink [in left margin]]

                                                                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [separating line in Image from left margin to right edge]

                                                                                                                                             Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                                                                            Galveston Texas June 19th 1865.

[blue stamp of WAR RECORDS COPIED 1861-1865]  

General Orders}

No. 3                }

                           The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation

from the Executive of the United States, "all slaves are free". This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former

 [continued]

[page 2]

[continued]

masters and slaves and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes

that between employer and hired labor.

                                                                              The freedmen are advised to remain quietly

at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will

 not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported

in idleness either there or elsewhere.

                                                                        By order of Major General Granger

                                                                         F.W. Emery [signed]

                                                                       Major A.A. Genl.

Printed [handwritten in red ink]

                                                                                               Head Quarters District of Texas

                                                                                                      Galveston Texas June 19th 1865

General Orders

No. 4

[blue stamp of War Records Copied 1861-1865]

                            All acts of the Governor and Legislature of Texas since

the Ordinance of Succession are hereby declared illegitimate.

                                                          All military and civil

officers and agents of the so-called Confederate States Government or of the State

of Texas, and all persons formerly connected with the Confederate States Army,

in Texas, will at once report for parole at one of the following places, or such

other as may be designated hereafter, to the proper United States officers to be

appointed:

                   Houston, Galveston, Bonham, San Antonio, Marshall and Brownsville.

                                       Although their long absence from their homes, and the

peculiar circumstances of their State, may facilitate their desertion from their organizations,

this order will be strictly and promptly complied with.

                                                                 The above mentioned, and all other

persons having in their possession public property of any description whatever, as arms

horses, "munitions", etc., formerly belonging to the so called Confederate States, or State

of Texas, will immediately deliver it to the proper U.S. Office, at the nearest

of above mentioned places.

                                    When they cannot carry it, and have not the means of

transporting it, they will make to the same officer a full report of its character,

quantity, location, security, etc.

                                         All persons not complying promptly with the order

will be arrested as prisoners of war, sent North for imprisonment, and their

property forfeited.

                 All homeless persons committing acts of violence such as bandits,

guerillas, jay-hawkers, horse-thieves, etc., etc., are hereby declared outlaws, and enemies of

the human race, and will be dealt with accordingly.

                                                                                                             (carried forward)

[claudia1829things]

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1970) Review

It is very rare to find a British adaptation of an American novel. It is even rarer to find more than one adaptation. Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel, "Little Women" must have been very popular with the BBC network. The latter had adapted the novel four times. Several years ago, I had seen the network's 2017 version. I thought it was the only version adapted by the BBC . . . until I had stumbled across the 1970 adaptation.

Set during the 1860s decade, "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts and their coming of age stories during and after the U.S. Civil War. With second daughter Josephine aka Jo serving as the story's main protagonist, the miniseries focused on the sisters' struggles with the family's diminished finances, their personal ambitions and especially their love lives. Early in the story, the March sisters become acquainted with their neighbor, one Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence, grandfather Mr. Lawrence and his tutor, John Brooke. Whereas third sister Beth develops a friendship with the elderly Mr. Lawrence, oldest sister Meg falls in love with Mr. Brooke, and the youngest Amy develops from a slightly vain and coddled child to a mature and self-assured young woman. As for Jo, the story focused on her development from a temperamental and stubborn girl, who learns to maintain her hot temper, navigate through her relationships with two men and adhere to her ambitions to become a writer.

Another surprising aspect of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I had learned was that it was the longest adaptation of Alcott's novel with a total running time of 225 minutes. This gave screenwriters Alistair Bell and Denis Constanduros to be as faithful to Alcott's novel as possible. Were they? Somewhat. The pair did take care to explore Laurie's volatile relationship with his grandfather - something that a good number of the other adaptations had failed to do. And it allowed glimpses into his growing relationship with Amy in Europe. Also, the early stages of Meg's marriage to Mr. Brooke ended up being explored, something that only the 2019 movie adaptation had repeated. I believe the miniseries did a very solid job of conveying these aspects of Alcott's novel.

But the miniseries left out Meg and Laurie's experiences at Annie Moffat's party. The miniseries also left out the sisters meeting with Laurie's English friends - something only the 2017 adaptation had included. Bell and Constanduros had changed the time period of Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond from the winter to either the spring or summer, allowing a rickety pier to send her into the pond, instead of thin ice. And it never touched on Amy's violent encounter with her schoolteacher over pickled limes. Did these aspects of the screenplay harm the production? Hmmmm . . . perhaps not. But I do feel that the miniseries' increased emphasis on the Lawrence men's relationship came dangerously close to overshadowing the March sisters' own relationships. I am relieved that the miniseries managed to focus somewhat on Jo's relationship with Professor Bhaer. However, I do have a problem with the sexist manner in which Constanduros and Bell had the professor viewed his future marriage to Jo. Whatever admiration Professor Bhaer had for Jo's writing skills seemed to fly out of the window in his anticipation of her being a good wife. Superficially, I had no problems with the brief focus on Meg and John's marriage, even if it could have been somewhat more thorough. But I believe it exposed what I believe was one of the miniseries' main problems.

"LITTLE WOMEN" did have its share of problems. Like the 1978 television adaptation, it is clear to see that it suffered somewhat from a low budget. If I must be frank, that seemed to be more obvious in this adaptation. Aside from Amy's near drowning at Walden Pond and some of European settings featuring Amy and Laurie, all other scenes had obviously been shot inside a studio. Very disappointing, considering a good number of BBC productions featured a mixture of interior and exterior shots. I found the actresses' makeup and hair - especially the latter - to be inconsistent and frankly, a big mess. Betty Aldiss' costume designs seemed solid enough, but not particularly earth shattering. Although the cast solely featured British performers, I believe a handful of them managed to handle American accents quite well - especially Stephen Turner, Stephanie Bidmead and Martin Jarvis. But despite their solid or excellent performances, the rest of the cast seemed to struggle maintaining one. And could someone please explain why three of the actresses who portrayed the March sisters seemed to be incredibly loud? Nearly every time one of them spoke, I had to turn down my television's volume. Some have explained these scenes featuring quarreling between the four sisters. They have even gone as far to claim this adaptation was the only one that featured the sisters often quarreling. Well, they would be wrong. Nearly every adaptation (I am not certain about the 1933 movie) of Alcott's novel featured quarrels between the sisters. So, this explanation does not strike me as a good excuse for the loud voices.

Judging from the previous paragraph, one would assume I have a low opinion of the majority of performances featured in "LITTLE WOMEN". Not really. Most of the performances featured in the miniseries struck me as pretty solid. Actresses Angela Down ("Jo"), Jo Rowbottom ("Meg"), Janina Faye (Amy) and Sarah Craze ("Beth") all gave solid performances and managed to capture the nuances of their individual characters in a competent manner. As I had stated earlier, I had a problem with most of them - with the exception of Craze - resorting to loud and histrionic voices in their portrayals of the March sisters at a younger age or in the case of Rowbottom, engaged in a heated quarrel. I thought Jean Anderson gave a solid performance as the stuffy Aunt March. Frederick Jaeger gave a very likeable performance as Jo's love interest, the intellectual Professor Friedrich Bhaer. And I believe the actor had a solid screen chemistry with Down. I really had a problem with actress Pat Nye, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah. Nye's handling of Hannah's American accent struck me as ridiculously exaggerated . . . to the point that her accent almost seemed Southern. Patrick Troughton, a talented actor in his own right, had more or less been wasted in his role as the family's patriarch, Mr. March. I do not believe he had spoken more than three to five lines in this production.

I can think of at least four performances that really impressed me. It seemed a pity that not one of them came from the four actresses who portrayed the sisters. Oh well. John Welsh has my vote as the second best version of Mr. James Lawrence, the March family's wealthy neighbor. I thought he did an excellent job of developing his character from a strict and curmudgeon guardian to a warm-hearted man who learned to develop a relationship with his grandson. Most portrayals of John Brooke, Meg's future husband, have never impressed me. But I must say that I found Martin Jarvis's portrayal of the character more than impressive. The actor was given an opportunity to delve more into Mr. Brooke's personality and he ended up giving one of the better performances in the miniseries. If given the chance to vote for the best performance in "LITTLE WOMEN", I would give it to Stephen Turner for his portrayal of the sisters' close friend, Theodore "Laurie" Lawrence. I suspect Turner had greatly benefited from Bell and Constanduros's script, which seemed more interested in Laurie as a character than the four leads. But judging from Turner's performance, I suspect his would have overshadowed everyone else's due to the actor's superb handling of the character. I also have to compliment Stephanie Bidmead's portrayal of the March family's matriarch, Mrs. "Marmee" March. Not only did I find her performance warm and elegant, but it also lacked the dripping sentimentality of the earlier versions and the heavy-handed attempts to make the character "modern" - relevant to today's movie and television audiences.

"LITTLE WOMEN" had its flaws. I cannot deny this. But I feel its flaws - which included a limited budget and some questionable American accents - were not enough to dismiss the nine-part miniseries as unworthy. I believe the 1970 miniseries proved to be a lot more solid and entertaining than some fans of Alcott's novel believed, thanks to Paddy Russell's competent direction, a damn good screenplay by Denis Constanduros and Alistair Bell, and a first-rate cast led by Angela Down.

[47thpennvols]

"On the Advance to Fisher's Hill: Forward the Skirmishers" (Alfred Waud, 22 September 1864, courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress, public domain)

American Civil War artist Alfred Waud's depiction of Union Army troops advancing on Confederate forces during the Battle of Fisher's Hill, Virginia on 22 September 1864.

[moshedayanslebanesetradwife]

civil war fanart guys

Sherman poisoning Lee.

[originaljediinjeans]

TIL that the very last shots of the U.S. Civil War were fired in Alaska (still owned by the Russians) by a Confederate privateer whose crew did not learn about Lee’s surrender until June of 1865 and surrendered to the British Royal Navy (in England) in November. 

[otherhistoricalthings]

We used to have a childrens book about him called "Mr. Benjamin's Sword", I wish I knew where it was.

[ljones41]

Top Five Favorite Episodes of "COPPER" (2012-2013)

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from the 2012-2013 BBC America series, "COPPER". Created by Tom Fontana and Will Rokos, the series starred Tom Weston-Jones, Kyle Schmid and Ato Essandoh:

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "COPPER" (2012-2013)

1. (1.02) "Husbands and Fathers" - In this brutal episode, New York City detective Kevin "Corky" Corcoran set about rescuing child prostitute/abused wife Annie Sullivan from a Manhattan brothel and her perverse customer, a wealthy businessman named Winifred Haverford.

2. (2.05) "A Morning Song" - Major counterfeiter Philomen Keating takes over the Sixth Ward precinct and hold hostages in an effort to retrieve his confiscated counterfeiting plates back.

3. (1.09) "A Day to Give Thanks" - Following the reappearance of his missing wife Ellen in an asylum, Corky tracks down her former lover in order to learn what really happened to their dead daughter, while he was in the Army. Meanwhile, Confederate agents blackmail Robert Morehouse's wealthy father into helping their plot to set New York City on fire, following the re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

4. (2.03) "The Children of the Battlefield" - While Kevin searches for the person responsible for the kidnapping and murder of young Five Points men, Robert Morehouse and the widowed Elizabeth Haverford exchange wedding vows before the latter reveals an unpleasant surprise.

5. (1.06) "Arsenic and Old Cake" - Corky investigate the death of the dentist of one of his men, who died by arsenic poisoning. Widow Elizabeth Haverford tries to discipline an unruly Annie and return the latter to her abusive husband, a Mr. Reilly. An exhibition boxing match between a young African-American and an Irish-American local politician end with racial tension.

[racefortheironthrone]

Guessing not the only one, but I just toke it for granted that Ulysses S. Grant was a hard drinker. Now learning it was often exaggerated by his rivals and the press during his lifetime, but especially grew in the rise of "Lost Cause" movement?

It certainly was exaggerated, but Grant was a (mostly functional) alcoholic who had a tendency to hit the bottle hard when he was depressed (something he suffered from pretty badly, and arguably his alcoholism was a form of self-medication) or bored or frustrated or isolated. However, he was capable of going cold turkey for long periods of time when he had a good support system around him (most notably his wife, and his aide-de-camp Rawlins, whose presence could keep him clean). Despite what was alleged in the press, Grant never drank during combat - indeed, it tended to be during periods of inactivity that his alcoholism manifested, likely due to that exacerbating his depression.

[lonestarbattleship]

USS ROANOKE (1855) was originally built as one of the Merrimack class screw frigates. She is the sister-ship to USS MERRIMACK. (The same ship which went on to be razed during the civil war, captured and converted into the CSS Virginia by the Confederates.) She served as flagship of the Home Squadron in the late 1850s and captured several Confederate ships after the start of the American Civil War in 1861.

"Lithograph depicting the ship during the final stages of her conversion from a steam frigate to a triple-turret ironclad, at the Novelty Iron Works, New York City, circa the first half of 1863. The original drawing of the scene was done by G. Hayward for Valentine's Manual, 1863. Note the large derrick at left, and the Novelty Works' building at right."

"Lithograph published during the Civil War era, depicting the ship after her conversion to an ironclad."

In 1862, she was selected to be transformed into a monitor, as it would be faster to convert an existing steam powered ship than coming up with a new design. She was planned to be an ocean-going multi-turret monitor. Although, design flaws, such as the weight of her armor and turrets causing her to roll excessively and deep her draft, prevented her use to only harbor defense.

"Sepia wash drawing by R.G. Skerrett, 1899, depicting the ship underway after her conversion to an ironclad, circa 1863-65."

After her conversion was complete, local politicians in New York City lobbied to have her assigned to New York harbor. However, the Navy ordered her to Hampton Roads, Virginia, to join the blockading squadron there.

"Watercolor by Oscar Parkes, depicting the ship after she was converted to an ironclad, circa 1863-1865. Courtesy of Dr. Oscar Parkes, London, England, 1936."

She remained there through the end of the war. Roanoke was placed in reserve after the war and sold for scrap in 1883

"At the New York Navy Yard, Brooklyn New York, probably following her decommissioning in June 1865. The ship of the line in the left background is USS Vermont, which was receiving a ship at the Navy Yard until September 1865."

U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command: NH 45364, NH 57813, NH 50462, NH 59548, NH 48105

[deadpresidents]

After that terrible Sunday at Shiloh, I started out to find [General] Grant and see how we were to get across the river. It was pouring rain and pitch dark, there was considerable confusion, and the only thing just then possible as it seemed to me, was to put the river between us and the enemy and recuperate. Full of only this idea, I ploughed around in the mud until at last I found him standing backed up against a wet tree, his hat well slouched down and coat pulled up around his ears, an old tin lantern in his hand, the rain pelting on us both, and the inevitable cigar glowing between his teeth, having retired, evidently, for the night. Some wise and sudden instinct impelled me to a more cautious and less impulsive proposition than at first intended, and I opened up with, "Well Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" "Yes," he said, with a short, sharp puff of the cigar; "lick 'em tomorrow, though."

-- General William Tecumseh Sherman, on General Ulysses S. Grant after the first day of the Civil War's Battle of Shiloh in 1862, as told to the Washington Post (published May 17, 1891).

[todaysdocument]

Marguerite Lacroix freed her mother Olivette from slavery on March 25, 1863. 

Marguerite had purchased Olivette with the intention of freeing her. 

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States

Series: Case Files

Transcription: 

To the Honorable Charles A Peabody Judge of the United States Provisional Court for the State of Louisiana

The petition of Marguerite LaCroix, who resides in New Orleans, respectfully represents that she is the owner of a female slave named Olivette a mulatress aged about forty two years, whom petitioner purchased on the thirty first day of May 1862, by a public act before C. V. Foulon, A Notary public of the city of New Orleans.  

Now Your petitioner further shows that the said slave Olivette is her mother, and was purchased by her with the sole design of conferring freedom upon her which petitioner now desires to do.  

Wherefore petitioner prays, the premise being considered, that a decree may be passed by the Honorable Court, declaring the above named slave Olivette to be a free person, and so such entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities conferred on free persons by the laws of the United States: and she prays for all general relief.  

Marguerite Lacroix

Durant T Hornor of Counsel

[page 2]

No 118.

W. L. Provisional Court

Marguerite Lacroix praying for the emancipation of the slave Olivette

Petition

Durant T. Hornor of Counsel

Filed March 25th 1863

Aug. D. [illegible] Clk

The Court considering the allegations of the within petition & the proof thereof contained in the Authentic Act of Sale of 31st May 1862 before C . V. Foulon Notary Public, by Marguerite arsine to petitioner; it is now ordered, adjudged, & decreed that the Slave libera, Olivette, be declared emancipated & to be henceforth Free; and as such Free person, entitled now & hereafter to all the rights, privileges & immunities of a Citizen of the United States.  

New Orleans 24 March 1863.

Ch. A. Peabody

Judge U. S. Provincial

Court of Louisiana

[claudia1829things]

TIME MACHINE: Mary S. Peake

TIME MACHINE: MARY S. PEAKE

One of the least known historical figures from the 19th century an American educator and humanitarian named Mary S. Peake. Along with her husband, Mrs. Peake was a member of the African American elite community from Hampton, Virginia before the U.S. Civil War.

In 1823 Norfolk, Virginia; Mary Peake was born as Mary Smith Kelsey to a light-skinned free woman of color and an Englishman. Her mother sent Mary to live with her aunt in Alexandria (then part of the District of Columbia), so that she could attend school. Mary spent another eight years attending a primary school operated by Sylvia Morris. Since Alexandria was part of the District of Columbia until 1846, when it was retro-ceded to Virgina. A new U.S. Congress law prohibited free people of color in Virginia and several other Southern states from being educated. This prohibition came as a result from the Nat Turner Rebellion in 1831. When Alexandria was retro-ceded back to Virginia in 1846, all schools for free people of color were closed due to this law. However, Mary had completed her education at age sixteen by 1839 and returned to her family in Norfolk.

Not long after her return to Norfolk, Mary secretly taught some of the city's slaves and free blacks to read and write in defiance of the law that prohibited African Americans from receiving an education. Her widowed mother married a free man of color named Thompson Walker in 1847 and the family moved to Hampton, Virginia, where they purchased a house. In 1850-51, Mary married Thomas Peake, a freed slave who worked in the merchant marine. The couple had a daughter named Hattie, whom they nicknamed "Daisy". As she had done in Norfolk, Mary began teaching some of the neighborhood's slaves and free blacks in defiance of the law prohibiting their education. Kelsey also founded a women's charitable organization, called the Daughters of Zion, whose mission was to assist the poor, the sick and enslaved fugitives who managed to reach Hampton. She supported herself and her family as a dressmaker and continued to teach in secret. Among her adult students was her stepfather Thompson Walker, who became a leader of Hampton's black community.

A few weeks following the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War, Union forces assumed control of the nearby Fort Monroe. The fortification became a place of refuge for enslaved fugitives seeking asylum. The Union defined them as "contraband", a legal status to prevent their being returned to Confederate slaveholders. They built the Grand Contraband Camp near, but outside the protection of Fort Monroe. Her classes moved inside Fort Monroe, after Confederate forces torched Hampton in August 1861. After Mary Peake began teaching the fugitives' children, the American Missionary Association (AMA) hired her as its first paid black teacher. Mary taught her first class and many others under a large oak tree on September 17, 1861; in Phoebus, a small town nearby in Elizabeth City County.

Eventually, the AMA provided Peake with Brown Cottage, which is considered the first facility of Hampton Institute (and later Hampton University). Mary's school taught more than fifty children during the day and twenty adults at night. Due to her classes being held at Brown Cottage, Mary became associated with the AMA’s later founding of Hampton University in 1868. However, Mary never enjoyed this distinction during her lifetime. Before the war, she had contracted tuberculosis. The illness struck her again in February 1862. And on February 22, 1862 - George Washington's birthday - Mary Peake died of tuberculosis.

For more details on Mary S. Peake, I recommend the following book:

"Mary S. Peake, The Colored Teacher at Fortress Monroe" by Rev. Lewis C. Lockwood

[47thpennvols]

Ulysses S. Grant, half-length portrait, photograph by Barr & Young, published by J. C. Buttre, 1864 (U.S. Library of Congress, public domain)

As he penned his memoir in 1885 during the final days of his life, United States President and American Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant made clear the significance of the Battle of Opequan, Virginia, which took place on 19 September 1864:

"Sheridan moved at the time he had fixed upon. He met Early at the crossing of Opequon Creek [September 19], and won a most decisive victory – one which electrified the country. Early had invited this attack himself by his bad generalship and made the victory easy. He had sent G. T. Anderson’s division east of the Blue Ridge [to Lee] before I [Grant] went to Harpers Ferry and about the time I arrived there he started with two other divisions (leaving but two in their camps) to march to Martinsburg for the purpose of destroying the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad at that point. Early here learned that I had been with Sheridan and, supposing there was some movement on foot, started back as soon as he got the information. But his forces were separated and … he was very badly defeated. He fell back to Fisher’s Hill, Sheridan following."

[eachlittlebird]

Bon Iver sang "The Battle Cry of Freedom" at the Harris-Walz rally in Wisconsin and OMG, it would make me deliriously happy if this became an anthem of their campaign.

[beardeddetectivepaper]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by رحلة-Rihla (@rihla_sd)

[eugenedebs1920]

Reconstruction in the Present

Reading the Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, even the Federalist Papers, one can almost feel the excitement of those who wrote and drafted them. This energetic, hopeful, nervous energy dawned on every page, sometimes every word. For there had never been anything quite like it. There still has never been anything quite like it since.

Not only were they casting aside the shackles of a tyrannical government, they were initiating the birth of a new nation. One can feel the pride behind their words, knowing, that if executed with the proper mindfulness, their concept might work.

Then to have the foresight to enlist amendments, knowing that the wheel of time forever moves forward, and inevitably society will change. They had a few of their own amendments they wanted enshrined on the citizens of this new and beautiful republic. The first 10 amendments, also known as, The Bill of Rights.

The first amendment alone gives privileges that some nations today are not blessed with. The initial thought in the first amendment was to ensure the freedom to practice or believe in whatever religion one held, and stating that the state shall force none onto any of its people. This was magnificent! Many had fled Europe to get away from state sponsored and enforced religion. Giving those the ability to worship who, and as they pleased, or not to worship at all, was a colossal freedom.

In this same proclamation the freedom of speech, and the press, as well as the freedom to assemble to petition the government was gifted. In the old world one could have their tongue removed, or life ended, for nothing more than speaking their mind. To remove that fear from the perspective of society was a fervent display of granted liberty.

A free press is given. This would seek to enlighten and inform the populace without pressure from the state to influence it one way or another, not only conveying the happenings of the time, but also holding the representation of the branches of government accountable.

Finally it gives the ability to gather en mass, to show the position of the people concerning what matter was at hand, without concerns of incarceration for doing so.

The endowments go on. Granting American citizens with such freedom, such liberty, such possibility to thrive, as an individual, as a collective, as a nation. There was one major hypocritical practice and mindset that would, did, and does, create friction that burns the very intent for which this whole experiment boasted.

The enslavement of humans from the continent of Africa.

To be fair, America did not invent the notion of slavery, it had been around since the beginnings of civilization. America did immensely profit and benefit from it. So much so that our landmass may not have been as vast as it encompasses without it. It would become the source of a false belief of superiority in some of Americas white countrymen, a source of violence from those in opposition to, and those for it, a source of shame, and a festering blemish that infects our country to this day.

Acknowledging, admitting, and owning the mistakes and wrongdoings of the past does not make one a foe of themselves, nor of their nation. There are many today who do not wish to teach these atrocities to the youth. As if shielding them from the truth is somehow patriotic. As if pretending it didn’t happen will make it just go away.

It was George Orwell who said. “Totalitarianism demands the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run, probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth”. A warning that to avoid and change events that since transcribed, is to initiate an unnatural control over the people whose history it represents.

There is not a person, most certainly no nations that is without its own missteps, horrific acts, grave misgivings, and the unavoidable consequences that followed.

Ours was, and is, racism and white supremacy. The reverberations of which are clearly seen and felt in the present.

Since Americas beginnings there were those who knew the hypocrisy in which the words they wrote in our founding documents contradicted the practices of the time. Some who wrote, ‘all men are created equal’ owned humans themselves. Many opposed it, but for the sake of, ironically, unification, security, and progress, compromises were conducted, and morals overlooked.

With the Louisiana purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the Gadsden purchase, the United States more than doubled its size, now spreading from coast to coast.

Although some states, like Pennsylvania, had outlawed slavery as early as 1780, the southern states were adamant in its use. As westward expansion commenced, southern states feared the abolishment of their free labor. This can be seen in the Missouri Compromise of 1821, as well as proceeding “compromises” up to the Civil War, which would end the practice.

Because of the way representation was/is given in the Senate, the slave states (southern states) insisted that for every free state entered in to the union, a slave state must follow as to not give a majority to the free states. This is also reflected in the 3/5 compromise, where slave states wanted what they considered to be their property in some occasions, (the fugitive slave act of 1793, and 1850 bearing the same name) but wanted them to be considered full persons when part of the census, providing representation in the House of Representatives, as well as an increase in their electoral votes for the presidency. Whereas the free states (northern states) felt that any enslaved person should not count in instances such as they decried, unless they were enfranchised as freemen with the constitutional protections therein.

This kinetic energy would come to a boil with the assistance of the Supreme Court ruling in, Dred Scott v Sandford.

Scott was born a slave to a plantation owner in Alabama. He was sold to a man named John Emerson, who, upon purchasing him, (it just feels wrong to even write that) took him to his home in Missouri. Emerson would move from Missouri to the Wisconsin Territory, now present day Minnesota to be precise, where he would reside for several years.

The Wisconsin Territory held the title of a free state. Upon moving with Emerson, Scott met a woman who was previously owned by another man, they would fall in love, get married and have two children.

In 1845 Emerson had planned to move. He took Scott and his family back to St. Louis MS, where slavery was permitted. Scott was aware of the “Once Free, Always Free” doctrine inherent in the northern states. He would sue for his freedom under that pretense.

The case would make it to the Supreme Court where in a 7-2 decision the majority wrote that enslaved persons “Were not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizen’ in the Constitution, and therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for, and secures for, citizens of the United States.” Also adding that blacks did not have rights as citizens in Federal Courts, that, southern states did not have to honor the “Once Free, Always Free” doctrine, and that congress should not have eliminated slavery. It’s prudent to point out that all justices in the majority owned slaves themselves, and that in our history of the Supreme Court, that 30 of the 116 justices that have served, owned humans.

The tension came to a head with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, where upon his victory, starting with South Carolina, 7 states succeeded from the union and formed The Confederacy. The official start of the war was April 12, 1861, with the bombardment of Ft. Sumter on the South Carolina coast.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln would declare the abolishment of slavery in his Emancipation Proclamation speech. It had been 2 years of a harsh and bloody war over slavery, with more than 2 years of the conflict still to come.

Throughout history most civil wars are fought to overthrow a government system, or over grievances, whether social, economic, historical, or political. Whereas Americas Civil War was to free an enslaved population from the bondage of their “masters”. This does not wash away the transgression, yet it’s worth addressing.

After the Civil War was what is known as The Reconstruction Period. Where Confederate states were under a type of marshal law and occupation by union soldiers to advert any continuing conflicts. Southern whites felt as if their whole way of life had been attacked (perhaps the same way Africans forced on to ships then enslaved may have felt? 🤷‍♂️) their contempt for African Americans loomed large.

Slavery was abolished in the United States with the enactment of 13th Amendment, on January 31, 1865, shortly before the start of Lincoln’s second term as president. Lincoln would take the oath of office again on March 4, 1865.

The south had suffered innumerable defeats throughout the last year of the war. Not long after Union troops overtook Savanna George, the war was all but done for the confederacy. On April 8, 1865, General Robert E Lee would surrender, ending the bloodshed of the Civil War. Estimates range from 750,000 to a million Americans killed.

Now the monumental task of integrating the free peoples into society, as well as the dilemma of what to do to, and with, the “rebel” slave states after the war, was at hand. It would be a strenuous and difficult task ahead. Lincoln had been pondering these questions for some time as the war drew to a close. Yet he would not be able to implement any of his ideas.

On April 14, 1865, Lincoln would go with his wife to Fords theater in Washington D.C., where prominent actor, and confederate sympathizer, John Wilkes Booth, would sneak into the upper box where Lincoln was watching the play, pull a pistol, and shoot Abe in the back of the head. Lincoln would die from the wound on the following day, April 15, 1865. The grave task of integrating the freeman and unifying the nation would fall on a crass, unqualified man in his successor, Andrew Johnson.

Reconstruction, as it would be deemed, would be an arduous endeavor that would entail grace and strength, finesse with unadulterated power. The consensus was that harsh penalties or treatment of the insurrectionist states would only alienate the southern states more, causing the reunification process to lengthen, yet their actions couldn’t be tolerated.

A series of demands was proposed to southern states in regards to regaining their representation in congress, and for the eventual withdrawal of the military occupation of the former slave states.

First each state would have to accept the 13th amendment ending all enslavement of any persons. Each state would have their leaders formally renounce succession, and swear loyalty to the Union. They would have to reimburse debts incurred to the Union due to the Civil War. As well as rewrite their state constitutions to abide with the newly enacted 14th amendment in which citizenship, and all the rights enjoyed therein, including the right to vote, was granted to all native born persons despite their former servitude or status. Section 3 of the 14th amendment, prohibited any persons who had swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, then “engaged in Insurrection or rebellion against the same” (cough Trump cough ahem cough). They would also have to show a willingness to accept and carry out these ultimatums.

(I swear there’s a point in all this. I realize it’s aversion to brevity, but bear with me and I’ll attempt to wrap up this drawn out history lesson all back to a singular perspective 😁)

This did not come without resistance. The slave states had come to harbor an entitled sense of superiority over blacks. Their arrogance through ignorance and sloth, in having an unpaid, purposely uneducated, vast workforce had given rise to the notion they were above the African Americans who labored, creating the wealth they would secure due to it.

The loss of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery, the demands for fealty, the reparations, the mandatory alterations of their state constitutions, the acceptance of suffrage to their former subservients, and the annihilation of their false sense of grandeur and self importance was too taxing for their fragile egos and petty hubristic illusions of white domineering to bear.

Their once overinflated pride, much like a hemorrhoid, needed soothed. The ass cream to remedy this uncomfortable situation was the enactment and inception of white supremacist organizations like, The Knights of the White Camelia, the White Brotherhood, the Red Shirts, the White League, and the the largest collection of bigoted cowardice terrorists, the Klu Klux Klan. It’s estimated that these pusillanimous, sheet wearing, cosplay, B-list antiheroes killed over a thousand innocent African American souls in 1868 alone. In a cruel irony, wearing hoods to hide their faces, they would threaten, brutalize, torture, maim and murder, the very immolations abducted to acquire the wealth they so deeply coveted.

Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, would end his presidency with whimper. He would become the first president to be impeached by congress, narrowly escaping his expulsion. He would infuriate the Republicans by vetoing numerous attempts to enshrine civil rights and suffrage to the freemen in southern states, and restrict “black codes”. His final hurrah would be his campaigning, where he compared himself to Jesus, gave hour plus long speeches, ramble incoherently, and would often fall prey to engaging in verbal fights with supporters and naysayers (sounds like he’d be elected to a second term these days 😑…). Johnson would run on a different ticket than the Republican platform he had inherited the White House from, but would lose miserably to decorated war general Ulysses S Grant.

Grant’s decisive victory in the 1868 election was on account of his popularity as a war hero. His skills on the battlefield far outweighed that of his skills as a politician. Grant was sworn in March 4, 1869. Upon his inauguration Grant proclaimed the need to ratify the 15th Amendment, something his predecessor wouldn’t. His swearing in was attended by many African Americans. He made it clear that the Reconstitution efforts were of top priority. He called for bonds that were issued during the war be paid out in gold, and specified the need for “proper treatment” in regards to relations with Native Americans.

Grant was known as an honest man, and in so, gave that same assumption to those he dealt with. As many of us with integrity know, not all can be trusted or held to thier word. His administration would be fraught with scandals and corruption, though none involved Grant himself.

Grant was ahead of his time when it came to his views on race relations. He advocated for equality and fairness regardless race, status or religion (although he did get into some hot water with General Order #11 during the war). He pioneered for civil rights, shortly after the start of his first term on March 18, 1869, he signed into law an equal rights bill allowing black Americans to serve on juries, and to hold federal office. Again championing equality, in 1870 he signed the Naturalization Act, granting foreign black peoples citizenship.

On February 3, 1870, Georgia finally conceded to the terms for re-entering the Union, including acknowledging and complying to the 15th Amendment, which stated that neither the federal government nor any state, could abridge or deny any male citizens right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Grant would serve two terms as president, spearheading Reconstruction. Great progress was achieved, but as the saying goes, old habits die hard, and the south’s feelings over white superiority were rooted deep.

As Reconstruction trudged forward, certain leniency’s were given to southern democrats. Just as the case with disobedient kids, you give them an inch, they take a mile.

As soon as military presence rescinded out of the former slave states, is as soon as southern whites began subjugating blacks and disavowing laws enacted to enshrine their liberty and protect their person.

The 1876 presidential election between Samuel J Tilden and Rutherford B Hayes was ripe with controversy and corruption. Although accounts are sketchy, and no documents exist confirming anything, a compromise was made. It held many names like, The Compromise of 1877, the Wormley Agreement, The Bargain of 1877, and the Corrupt Bargain.

The preferred Democratic candidate, Tilden, received 184 electoral votes to Hayes’ 165, with 185 winner take all. Yet the territories hadn’t had their electoral votes certified.

Long story shortened a bit. The South was less interested in who was in the Oval Office as they were with the federal government interfering with the way in which they governed their own states, and in particular, the way in which they dealt with their black “constituents”.

After backroom deals and compromises on both sides, Hayes was declared winner and president elect, and the former confederate states were relinquished from federal control and oversight. So after more than 12 years of efforts, 12 years of progress, 12 years of strife and struggle, the southern Reconstruction was ended with a default victory by the former slave states.

Almost immediately southern whites began to roll back protections and liberties, while enacting oppressive laws of their own. Many of the provisions, programs and protections not only enfranchised, benefited and protected those of color, the same rang true for poor whites. Sharecropper controls were deregulated, basically creating scores of both black and white indentured servants, who worked land they didn’t own, made next to nothing, and enriched the already wealthy landowners.

Any programs that were affiliated with Reconstruction were eliminated. This included schools and education programs. Hospitals and healthcare, and benefits for families like food assistance, housing assistance and other social services.

To poor southern whites in which these services would be helpful and accessible, it made no difference. Their intolerance to black equality far outweighed the empty bellies of themselves and their children. It far outweighed their personal health and the health of their offspring. The oppression of black Americans was far more significant than their children receiving an education, having decent accommodations, or whether they themselves were basically conned into servitude themselves.

After Reconstruction was when “Lilly White” laws and “Jim Crow” laws became the status quo. Nothing cemented this more so than the 1886 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v Ferguson which allowed the concept of “separate but equal” to stand as not violating the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments, stating the “Constitution is color blind and knows, nor tolerates classes among citizens”. This gave way to long standing segregation in the south. From drinking fountains to lunch counters, from schools to public transportation. It also enabled the rise of literacy tests, poll taxes, ownership and/or employment clauses in order to cast a vote. This disenfranchised the white poor and middle class just as much as the African Americans.

Southern Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats, would dominate the political landscape in the south throughout the later part of the 19th century till midway through the twentieth when Dixiecrats vanished. Well! What caused this political mass extinction event to, just as an asteroid did to the dinosaurs, wipe Dixiecrats into oblivion?

Maybe taking a look into the career of the oldest sitting senator in U.S. history may give us some insight.

Strom Thurman was 100 years old when he died, still serving as senator from the “great” state of South Carolina. He served as the Democratic Governor of that state from 1947-1951. In 1948 Thurman threw his hat in the ring as a presidential candidate under a branch of the Democratic Party that advocated for robust states rights, known as Dixiecrats. Him and his running mate, Mississippi Governor Feilding Lewis Wright took 39 electoral votes in the 1948 election, carrying Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and, you guessed it, South Carolina. They ran as staunch segregationist, pushing adamantly for state sovereignty and independence. Harry Truman would go on to win the 48 election, but Strom’s political career had barely begun.

Thurman would become the first major political office candidate to seek and win an election as a write in, for senator representing South Carolina. He was very vocal in his opposition to civil rights. In 1957 when Eisenhower’s administration attempted a civil rights bill, the first since the 1875 bill passed nearing the end of Reconstruction, Thurman would filibuster for over 24 hours, (back when you couldn’t just call for the filibuster, you actually had to be in the floor speaking to filibuster a bill) alas he was unsuccessful and the bill passed.

Strom had been a Democrat his whole career. Until one fateful day, July 2, 1964 when Thurman confessed that the Democratic Party had changed and no longer represented the same values it once stood for and he could no longer consider himself a Democratic.

Hmmmm. Whats the significance of July 2 1964? It’s either some wild, one in a billion chance coincidence, or it has to do with Linden Johnson signing the most extensive and sweeping civil rights legislation in the, Civil Rights Act, into law.

Linden Johnson is noted as saying to a young staffer of his, Bill Moyers after seeing some racially charged, degrading political signs while campaigning in Tennessee, “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell! Give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you!”

There’s a certain portion of Americans, where it’s never been about policy. It’s never been, who’s more fiscally responsible, whose economic plan is better moving forward, which candidate do I think is most qualified?… It’s about, who holds the same perspective of white superiority? Who thinks minorities are a threat to my white nationalist identity? Who HATES that people of color are allowed to prosper more than me!? A white person!

That is what MAGA is all about. That was the platform they ran on, all the MAGA candidates. They may try and gaslight you and say otherwise. The darkness of the color of skin may have lightened a touch when it comes to their discriminatory rhetoric, but it’s the same shit.

In my liberal naivety I truly thought those days were behind us as Americans. That those who experienced segregation, Jim Crow laws, open, blatant racism, were slipping the mortal coil and taking that garbage with them to the grave. To see how many GenZ males voted for the openly racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-immigrant, cruel, hateful, dictator admiring, Hitler Sympathizer, rapist, conman, fraudster, felon, FUCK! Donald Trump, it’s clear the discrimination of the past is very much alive and kicking.

It holds no relevance whether Republican or Democratic. It harbors no reverence whether it’s anti-black, or anti-immigrant. It isn’t in relation to a remnant of time. It’s the same racist assholes, with the same discriminative shit.