Mr. Jensen's U.S. History Website
  • Home
  • College US
    • Coming Soon . . .
    • APHIST Video
    • NWU Dual Credit Info
  • US History 9
    • Coming Soon . . .
    • Online Reviews
    • US 9 Video
  • U.S. History Blog
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2020 - May 2021)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2019 - May 2020)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2018 - May 2019)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2017 - May 2018)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2016 - May 2017)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2015 - May 2016)
    • U.S. History Blog (May, 2014 - May, 2015)
  • "Good News"
  • My WHS Google Site

Destiny of the Republic (The Assassination of James Garfield)

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Candice Millard. Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and 
                                           the Murder of a President, 2011
Picture
    During 1st Semester of 2013, I read Destiny of the Republic over a weekend (I borrowed the book from my Mom, who highly recommended it) in order to learn more about the Assassination of President James Garfield (1881). So much has been written, discussed, in addition to founded and unfounded speculation, on the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, but not nearly as much has been written on our second assassinated president.  The book focused on six principal players surrounding this assassination - 


** Dr. Joseph Lister: His antiseptic theory (e.g. sterilizing hands, surgical instruments, germ 
     theory) was mostly accepted in Europe, but not in America in 1881.  The aftermath of the 
     Garfield assassination led to the general acceptance of his theory and practices in American
     medicine

** Dr. Willard Bliss: Garfield's lead doctor was basically a medical dictator; he had total control
     to who could access Garfield after the shooting.  For almost three months, he treated
     Garfield in his way, refusing to listen to other medical opinions.  He desperately wanted to
     enhance his reputation by being the doctor that healed the president, but his treatment,
     even by the standards of 1881, bordered on the cruel and unusual. In the end, his 
     treatment (and that of a few others before him) led to MASSIVE sepsis (infection), that 
     was very disturbing to read about, to say the least. He became convinced that the bullet 
     could only be located on one side of the President's body . . . "Dr. Tunnel-Vision"

** Alexander Graham Bell: Interestingly, the only reason why he became famous for inventing
    the telephone was that he was late registering for an "Inventor's Fair", and was located in 
    an obscure location. About to give up since there had been no foot traffic his way, a group
    of very important men walked by on their way out, but one of them recognized Bell, and 
    the group stopped, and they were amazed by the telephone.  Five years later, he wanted to
    help find the elusive bullet, and he adapted technology related to the telephone which in 
    effect, became a kind of "Bullet Detector".  This invention worked, but he wasn't able to 
    find the bullet due to two reasons: a) Bell wasn't told, and didn't bother to find out, that 
    Garfield was on a metal-spring bed, which was rare in 1881; b) Dr. Bliss absolutely refused 
    to let him use his invention on the other side of Garfield's body.  Had Bell been allowed to 
    do so, he would have quickly found the bullet.

** Charles Guiteau: Garfield's assassin was a certified psychotic; everyone that had any 
     dealings with him experienced his insanity.  Guiteau, in the end, believed he was doing a 
     great service for the future of America by killing Garfield.  He, after at least one failed 
     attempt, succeeded in shooting Garfield in the back at close range as the President was 
     heading on vacation in a train station.  Guiteau was the only of the four presidential 
     assassins to receive a fair trial; in the end, the jury refused to acknowledge any aspect of 
     an insanity defense, and sentenced Guiteau to hang. Guiteau's last words were "Glory, 
     Glory, Hallelujah."

** James Garfield: The President lived for almost three months after he was shot by Guiteau;
    given the medical practices of 1881, and the tyrannical Dr. Bliss, he never had a chance 
    due to the infection that invaded his body.  I was struck by how talented and capable he 
    was politically; it's a shame that we haven't had more presidents with his character, 
    discipline, and acumen. I think he was the perfect president at the perfect time, which
    doesn't happen as much in our history as we would like, or need . . . thanks  so much, 
    CHARLES. During the autopsy, the bullet was found safely encapsulated in scar tissue in 
    the pancreas.  Had nothing been done other than making him comfortable, or had doctors 
    adhered to Dr. Lister's procedures, he would have survived, and finished his term.  The 
    nation mourned his assassination every bit as much as Lincoln's death twenty years earlier.

** Roscoe Conkling: The most powerful man in America in 1881 was a U.S. Senator from New
    York. The Republican Party was torn apart by a battle between the "Stalwarts" (Conkling, 
     et al), which supported the "Spoils System" (Cronyism) and the "Half-Breeds" (Garfield, et 
     al), which supported the "Merit System". According to the "Half-Breeds", it wasn't who you 
     know that mattered, but whether or not you were competent for the appointed job.  This 
     battle was intense, and almost ripped the Republicans apart.  One after-effect of the 
     assassination was that Conkling was politically out-maneuvered, and actually was convinced
     to resign his seat in the Senate.  Then, he found out, the state legislature of New York 
     refused to send him back to Washington; even his right-hand man, Vice-President Chester 
     Arthur, abandoned him, even after he was sworn in as the 21st President.  Garfield must 
     have been a very inspiring figure, given the complete turnaround of Arthur, who supported
     the "Merit System" as president, turning is back on Conkling, the man that politically made
     him.

This book was selected as a "One Book, One City" selection for Lincoln in 2011 - I'm glad I had the chance to read it - I learned so much from reading the book - thanks MOM! (But no thanks to you, CHARLES)
0 Comments

Did a Barmaid Start the Civil War?

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Jon Meacham, American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, 2008
     The vast majority of high school U.S. History teachers are at least somewhat familiar with the "Peggy Eaton Affair", which occurred during Andrew Jackson's first term as president 
(1829 - 1833).  What immediately follows is a traditional, "Reader's Digest" version of what I was taught in college, what has been featured in the Jackson documentaries that I've seen, and what I have generally taught in my classes concerning the significance of the "Peggy Eaton Affair": Peggy Eaton, the wife of the Secretary of War (who at one point in her life worked as a bar maid), was from Tennessee, not of the Eastern Elite, and was "shunned" by the other Cabinet member's wives (e.g. at dinner parties). The Eatons were personal friends of Jackson, and when the "shunning" did not end, he removed the members of his Cabinet, and replaced them, and yet the "shunning" continued. When Jackson discovered that his Vice-President, John C. Calhoun, had instigated the entire affair, he politically embarrassed Calhoun to the point where he resigned, went back to his native South Carolina, and started the Nullification Crisis.  A Civil War nearly occurred 30 years before the real thing, leading South Carolina to view the threat of secession as a useful strategy . . . therefore, a bar maid helped start the Civil War.  
     As I started reading American Lion, I was curious to find out the true significance of the "Eaton Affair"; about half of Meacham's book features primary documents (especially letters) from the principal figures involved (the last third of the book contain his source notes).  So, from reading Meacham's heavily researched biography on Jackson's Presidency, I formed the following conclusions . . . 

a) The "Peggy Eaton Affair" did not cause the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina.
    South Carolina nullified (cancelled) the Tariff of 1832 seven days AFTER Jackson won 
    re-election over Henry Clay. At most, the "Eaton Affair" was only one of several events that 
    led many Americans to believe that Jackson was concentrating too much power in the
    Executive Branch. Many more Americans, as a result of the Election of 1832, showed that 
    they believed that he was actually representing the interests of the majority over those of 
    the Eastern Elite. (BTW, South Carolina nullified a Supreme Court ruling concerning slavery 
    in 1822; the "tradition" of nullification long predated the Eaton Affair).

b)  The Eaton Affair did not directly lead to Jackson replacing his Cabinet; Martin Van Buren          resigned as SecState for political reasons, and then John Eaton resigned as SecWar on his
     own accord, in order to pursue a U.S. Senate seat back in Tennessee (which he did not 
     get); Jackson then decided to remove the rest of the Cabinet, since his two must trusted 
     members were no longer there (the most significant addition was his new Attorney 
     General, Roger B. Taney, soon to replace John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme 
     Court). In was true that Jackson cleared out his Cabinet, in part, due to the "shunning" of 
     Margaret Eaton - to Jackson, an attack on him was an attack on the nation (in a way, his
     motto could have been that of the Feminist Movement of the late-1960s/early-1970s - 
     "The Personal is the Political"). Jackson's enemies called the removal of the remaining 
     Cabinet members a "purge"; to them, it was just one more example of Jackson 
     consolidating Executive power at the expense of Congress. The Eatons, by 1 January, 
     1833, were "Old News" in Washington D.C. & Nashville society; they didn't matter 
     anymore, because they no longer had power (Margaret Eaton had become quite ill by 
     that point; possible reasons include that she had a hard time adjusting to life after her 
     husband resigned his Cabinet position).

c) While it was true a Calhoun instigated the "Eaton Affair", it wasn't the Vice-President, 
    but his wife, Floride Calhoun.  The "scuttlebutt" among the Eastern Elites was that Margaret
    Eaton, in her past, displayed behavior that was associated with "loose women", and was
    repeatedly ignored and slighted at such social/political functions as dinner parties.  As 
    difficult as Floride Calhoun (and many other women) was, Margaret Eaton was not the
    innocent "Social Martyr" that popular history portrays.  Margaret Eaton was at least as
    culpable as Floride Calhoun for the political firestorm that consumed Washington, D.C., 
    especially President Jackson.  Margaret Eaton, in many ways, was her own worst enemy; 
    she even wrote a letter to Jackson attacking his niece, Emily Donelson, the de facto First
    Lady, who was doing her best to keep her negative views of Margaret Eaton to herself. 
    After John Eaton died, Margaret Eaton married an Italian dance instructor - she was 59,
    he was 19 years old - shortly after their marriage, he ran off w/ Margaret Eaton's
    granddaughter.

d) The "Eaton Affair" did play a major role in continuing the political version of "total war"
     in Washington, D.C. politics.  The tradition of trying to crush anyone that disagreed with
     their politics was an outgrowth of the Constitutional Era. In part due to the "Eaton Affair",
     Martin Van Buren (who was the only major politician other than Jackson to support the
     Eatons) created the first truly national political party in our history - the Democratic Party -        to crush any opposition (The Whig Party was created in 1834, largely by those that 
     believed Jackson had accumulated far too much power as President at the expense of
     Congress). For those that think the current political climate in Washington, D.C. is the
     worst it has ever been, Meacham made a very convincing argument, with plenty of 
     documentary evidence, that the political polarization during Jackson's presidency
     was much, much worse than what we see today.

e) The "Eaton Affair" did do significant damage in one regard: it temporarily split Jackson's
    family in the White House (his niece and her husband were his family in D.C.).  Jackson,
    in 1831, actually banished his niece, Emily Donelson, to Tennessee, over some comments
    that she made about Margaret Eaton in a recent letter (that letter was sent to Jackson
    after he read Margaret Eaton's letter "trashing" Emily).

f) John C. Calhoun did not resign the Vice-Presidency due to the "Eaton Affair"; he waited
    until the South Carolina state legislature selected him to the U.S. Senate. The "Eaton 
    Affair" did not play a role in his decision to resign; his desire to run for President in 
    1832 was his major motivation (he decided not to run when he calculated he would not be
    able to get enough Southern Electoral Votes to force the election to the House of
    Representatives).  He, like many others in South Carolina (and other Southern states), 
    argued that Nullification (in essence a state decides what is Constitutional, and what is
    not) was an extension of Jefferson's "Republican Virtue".  In the end, South Carolina stood 
    alone with its threat to secede from the Union in 1833; the other Southern states had a 
    cost-benefit analysis dilemma - was Nullification, a respectable enough political theory in 
    their eyes, worth Civil War?

     President Andrew Jackson had significant political battles during his first term in 
office, which included the future of the 2nd National Bank, Indian Removal, Nullification, and
the one that consumed him the most during his first term, the "Eaton Affair".  However, the "Eaton Affair", which took so much of his time and focus as President, had the least historical significance relative to the other three events.  When Jackson weakened the 2nd National Bank (Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, actually destroyed his own bank), what could have remained a "regular" depression intensified to a severe economic downturn starting in 1837. Jackson's policy towards Natives (it's important to remember Indian Removal was politically very popular in 1830s America) started the tradition of mass-removal to less desirable locations, such as to what is now Oklahoma. The U.S. Government's policy forcing Natives to reservations after the Civil War was an extension of what Jackson started during his first term in office.  The Nullification Crisis with South Carolina planted the seeds for Civil War, in that the only real lesson South Carolina learned from the crisis was that the threat of secession was a useful political tool then, and for the future.  In comparison, the "Eaton Affair" didn't have near the historical impact of the previous three events.  At most, the "Eaton Affair" was a focal point for Washington, D.C. (and Nashville, TN) political society, but when John Eaton left Washington, D.C., the "crisis" was over.  The "Eaton Affair" was only a partial cause for Jackson's Cabinet "Makeover", and was not a factor at all with Calhoun's resignation as Vice-President, or the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina. 
     The "Eaton Affair", to me, was rather similar to the divergent views of Nebraska Cornhusker football fans toward Coach Bo Pelini during the 2013 season - what consumed NU football fans simply did not matter at the national level (reinforcing the historical truism that "All Politics Are Local").  So, I would argue, based on reading Jon Meacham's American Lion, that a bar maid did not help start the Civil War. 
0 Comments

General Ulysses S. Grant in the Civil War

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Sources:  *H.W. Brands. The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in 
                  War and Peace (2012)
                *Bruce Catton. Never Call Retreat (The Centennial History of the
                  Civil War, Volume 3; 1965).
     In late-1863, a bill was introduced in Congress to resurrect the rank of Lieutenant General, which had not been in existence since General George Washington held that rank during the Revolutionary War. The bill was intended solely for General Ulysses S. Grant; when the bill passed both houses, Grant became the overall commander of all the Union armies, including the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Tennessee, the Army of the James, the Army of the Cumberland, and the Army of the Ohio. President Lincoln had desperately searched for a general that would be able to lead an army without the need for micromanagement and extrinsic motivation in order to be successful. President Lincoln also finally had a general whose overall strategy in fighting the Civil War matched his own - in effect, they both saw that a "full court press" had to be applied to the few remaining armies of the Confederacy in order to win total victory.  
     From the very beginning of his time as a general in the Civil War, Grant's philosophy was to engage and destroy an army of the Confederacy.  Location(s) was important, but Grant thought that defeating / destroying a Confederate army led to the acquisition of key strategic locations, as opposed to capturing the strategic location(s), which would lead to the destruction of an army. In February of 1862, Grant decided to engage a Confederate army atForts Henry & Donelson, only eight miles away from each other on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Grant could have out-flanked or by-passed the Confederate forces (especially the larger one at Fort Donelson on the Cumberland), but he chose to engage.  After a close-call in terms of a surprise Confederate attack, Grant forced the surrender of 12,000 troops, earning a promotion to major general in the process.  Far more important to Grant, however, was the ability to proceed south on the Tennessee & Cumberland rivers to engage another Confederate army in the west at Corinth, Mississippi.  
     By destroying the Confederate army at Corinth (led by Gen. Albert Sydney Johnston), Grant would then be able to gain access to the lower-Mississippi River, and a "Jumping-Off" point to move towards Chattanooga, Tennessee, which would basically divide the Confederacy not just once, but two times over . . . all by destroying one Confederate army.  Before Grant could engage Johnston's army at Corinth, Johnston attacked Grant's army in SW Tennessee at what would be known as the Battle of Shiloh (April, 1862).  Like at Fort Donelson, Grant was surprised by a Confederate offensive, but at Shiloh, the scale of the Confederate offensive was much, much larger.  That being said, Grant never lost his focus; he kept his emotions in check. Those that came to know him were astounded that his demeanor never changed, regardless of the circumstance.  After a disastrous first day of battle, the second day was all in the Union's favor, and Grant forced Johnston's army to abandon the field of battle (Johnston suffered a fatal wound to his femoral artery during the first day at Shiloh).  The casualties were astounding: in two days of battle, almost as many Americans died at Shiloh that had died in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, combined.  While victorious, Grant was essentially sidelined for a time, blamed for the excessive casualties despite gaining a crucial Union victory in the west. Grant's immediate superior, General Henry Halleck, an ambitious and vindictive sort, did the "sidelining", and actually traveled to the west to take over Grant's command.  
     However, General Halleck was re-assigned to Washington, D.C., to be the lead Union general in terms of administration, which suited his ambition. Halleck's promotion doesn't get very much historical attention, but without it, Grant probably would have left the army, and faded into obscurity. Back in command, Grant decided to take the last area of Confederate strength that remained on the Mississippi River - Vicksburg (Mississippi) and the surrounding forts.  In order to do so, he needed to defeat General Pemberton's forces at Vicksburg, while at the same time, defeating General Joseph Johnston's army at Nashville.  The general that Grant ordered to engage Johnston's army was General William Tecumseh Sherman (who not only became his most trusted general, but also a close friend), whose philosophy of battle was different than Grant's.  Sherman believed that geography was more important than the destruction of an enemy army; whenever possible, he tried to by-pass the enemy, destroying anything that could supply them on his way to his destination.  Sherman forced Johnston to retreat from Nashville by rarely engaging him in battle; he kept destroying rail lines and roads, and out-flanked Johnston's forces.  Once Johnston was forced out of Nashville, Grant ordered Sherman to join him, so they could focus on Vicksburg. Vicksburg was one tough nut to crack - it took Grant months to finally get on the same side of the Mississippi River as Vicksburg. General Pemberton's fate was sealed at Vicksburg when General Sherman was able to take the last Confederate artillery position on high ground in the area, but still, he stayed, hoping for reinforcements.  After months of maneuvering, and then a siege, Grant finally accepted the surrender of Vicksburg on 3 July, 1863, which was the same day the Battle of Gettysburgended. Gettysburg often overshadows Vicksburg, but Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America, saw that Vicksburg had the potential to turn the tide of the war in the Union's favor.  
     President Lincoln wanted to focus on a strategy which historians refer to as "Concentrations in Time"; attack the Confederacy on multiple fronts at the same time in order to end the war as soon as possible.  After Grant secured another Union victory in Tennessee, further dividing the Confederacy, he was placed in charge of all the Union armies.  Grant and Lincoln met for the first time during the Winter of 1863 - 1864, and Lincoln was satisfied that he finally had his "Concentrations in Time" general.  Grant believed that to win the Civil War, he needed to destroy Lee's army, as well as the remaining Confederate armies (e.g. Joseph Johnston's army in Tennessee, and Jubal Early's cavalry outside of Washington, D.C.).  Grant's orders were the following: a) Sherman was to destroy Johnston's army; b) General Phil Sheridan (cavalry) was to deal with Jubal Early in the Shenandoah Valley; c) General Benjamin Butler and the Army of the James would attack Lee from behind; d) General George Meade would advance on Lee's army. Basically, Grant dismissed the notion held by most northern politicians that to win the Civil War, the Union needed to capture Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy.  
     The strategy, of course, worked, but not as smoothly or as quickly as Grant or Lincoln envisioned.  General Butler, a political appointee who was not a very good tactician, blundered badly, and never did threaten Lee from behind - ironically enough, his Army of the James became bogged down on the James River outside of Richmond.  Sherman, under orders from Grant to destroy railroads and roads to his rear as he advanced towards Johnston, was going nowhere fast, and Grant, who was with Meade, was having extreme difficulty with Lee in the spring of 1864 (e.g. The Battle of the Wilderness, Sharpsburg, and Cold Harbor).  The only positive, as Catton mentioned in Never Call Retreat, was that Lee wasn't able to take the offensive, which was his preference, but had to engage in defensive strategies against Grant. General Sherman provided the turning point for Grant's strategy: he asked Grant for permission to take the offensive in Tennessee, and then in Georgia, focusing on geography rather than Johnston's army.  This strategy became known as "Sherman's March to the Sea",after he captured Atlanta in September, 1864.  He used the census of 1860 to focus on which parts of Georgia to devastate, and he continued with that strategy to Savannah, and then through the Carolinas, until he joined up with Grant in Virginia.  General Sheridan also received permission from Grant to do essentially the same thing in the Shenandoah Valley west of Washington, D.C., which meant that Lee was almost entirely isolated, and starving, his army down to 20,000 effectives.  
     On 2 April, 1865, Richmond was evacuated, and largely burned, and was occupied by Union forces. On 8 April, Lee gambled that he could take his army to the Danville railhead, and resupply his army.  As long as Lee had hope to feed his army, he refused to surrender to Grant.  At this point, Grant was using the strategy that historians call "Concentrations in Space", massing all of his forces in one location, in this case to force Lee to surrender. Sheridan beat Lee to the railhead, denying him any chance to feed his army, and he was then surrounded by Union armies commanded by Meade, Sherman, and Ord (who replaced Butler).Lee surrendered to Grant on 9 April, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.  Grant, probably on his own, but was also counseled by Lincoln to do so, gave Lee's army honorable terms for surrender, plus he ordered his quartermaster to provide five days of rations to Lee's starving army . . . in effect, the Civil War was over (General Joseph Johnston didn't surrender to General Sherman until 26 April, 1865, which was also the day John Wilkes Booth was captured and killed).
     In the late-1850s, Grant was toiling in a Missouri field, trying to make something of his life as a farmer. He was farming in Missouri since it was land that his wife's family owned (he had married Julia Dent during the Mexican War in the late-1840s), and he had a terrible go of it. Grant's social standing among his neighbors, in a slave state, was tremendously low.  In a northern state, Grant's efforts in the field would be seen as admirable, but in Missouri, working with African slaves in the field diminished his social standing to the lowest in his life, and Grant was fully aware of his station.  One wonders what his former neighbors thought of Grant during his ascendancy in the Union army during the Civil War, becoming not only the most famous Union general, but also, by 1900, the most famous person in American History, surpassing Washington, Jackson, and even Lincoln.
0 Comments

General Ulysses S. Grant: Between the Civil War and the Presidency (April, 1865 - March, 1869)

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source:  H.W. Brands. The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in 
                                      War and Peace (2012)
     After the Civil War, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant held the same rank, but his title became General-in-Chief of the Armies.  As the months passed after the conclusion of the Civil War (which technically didn't end until the summer of 1865, when remnants of a Confederate army in Texas surrendered), General Grant was forced to enter the world of politics, an arena in which he was admittedly not well-suited to enter.  Even though he was an admitted political neophyte, he earned the Republican nomination for president by acclamation, and easily defeated the Democratic nominee in the Election of 1868: his campaign slogan of "Let Us Have Peace" resonated in the North and the South.
     Grant's entry to the world of post-Civil War politics occurred very quickly.  General WilliamTecumseh Sherman negotiated a surrender with the Confederate general Joseph Johnston (after Appomattox) without consulting President Lincoln, SecWar Stanton, or General Grant. Even by Grant's standard, Sherman's surrender terms were viewed as far too generous, and actually set up post-Civil War Reconstruction policies at the state level contrary to what the Republican leadership wanted. General-in-Chief Grant was in a political pickle: SecWar Stanton, his superior, wanted Sherman demoted, or even cashiered, but Grant wanted Sherman to remain at his current rank.  SecWar Stanton honored Grant's request to allow Sherman to remain, but Stanton decided to embarrass Sherman politically by basically insulting his intelligence in the newspapers.  Sherman never forgot that Grant supported him, and he never forgave SecWar Stanton for what he considered libel.
     While this political kettle was boiling, President Lincoln was assassinated.  Mary Todd Lincoln had assumed that the Grants would attend "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater with her and the President - advertisements had already been released stating that the Grants would do so.  Julia Grant had her heart set on visiting family, and despite her husband's demanding schedule, had made arrangements for the trip.  With General Grant away from home, Julia received a message from Mary Todd Lincoln on 14 April, 1865, which indicated that it was a forgone conclusion that the Grants would alter their plans and attend the play that night, in just a few hours.  While General Grant would have been very receptive to the idea of going to the theater with Lincoln, a man he truly admired and respected, Julia made the executive decision that they would not attend the play. Julia's decision was based on a very simple reason - she had learned to despise the First Lady, intensely. She adamantly refused to alter her plans to suit Mary Todd Lincoln, and it's not clear whether General Grant knew at that time what had just transpired. On their way to visit family, the Grants were told of the assassination, and Grant had to immediately return to Washington, D.C. to help bring order out the chaos of Lincoln's Assassination.
     It must have been a difficult transition for Grant to serve as General-in-Chief in the Andrew Johnson administration after serving with Lincoln.  In short, Grant didn't like or respect the President, but he tried his best to respect and serve the position - Johnson didn't make that very easy for Grant. During the off-year elections of 1866, Grant had reluctantly decided to accept Johnson's invitation to travel with the President as he campaigned against the Radical Republicans, trying to reduce their influence in Congress.  It didn't take Grant long to determine that his role was in essence to be the "Celebrity-in-Chief", helping Johnson sway as many voters as possible by simply being seen.  As Grant heard Johnson speak during this campaign, he decided that he wanted to be as neutral (and as invisible) as possible, which was politically impossible. The end-result for Johnson's efforts were that the Radical Republicans(who wanted to punish the Southern states for the Civil War while advancing civil rights for African-Americans) gained a significant number or seats in the House, and a few in the Senate. Johnson's campaign strategy had backfired, but Grant fortunately remained politically unscathed, unlike the President.
     President Johnson had another plan in store that would actually lead Grant to believe he would go to jail if he continued to honor the President's wishes.  In early-1868, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, which was designed to insure that SecWar Stanton, a Radical Republican, remained in Johnson's Cabinet.  The law, passed over Johnson's veto, required the President to involve Congress in the removal of a Cabinet member.  Johnson, smart-but-stubborn, decided to challenge the law, and suspended Stanton while Congress was not in session - which technically meant he didn't violate the Tenure of Office Act.  But in the world of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", violating the spirit of the act was enough for the House to impeach Johnson.  Grant, in the meantime, was appointed by Johnson to be the interim SecWar in Stanton's absence.  Grant did not have any desire to become the SecWar on a permanent basis, and as the drama unfolded, he didn't want to be the Acting SecWar either. After Johnson survived removal in the Senate by one vote, 35-19 (he was never in any danger of being removed - the Moderate Republicans did not want the Pro Tem of the Senate, Benjamin Wade, as the next president).  It soon dawned on Grant that Congress could, if they followed the letter of the law, actually put him in jail since he was Stanton's replacement.  The whole unsavory episode for Grant ended after Johnson's acquittal in the Senate (after three 35-19 votes!); Johnson, now a confirmed lame-duck president, decided that he wasn't going to challenge Radical Republican policies, and Grant went back to only having one duty, General-in-Chief.
     During the Civil War in 1864 the Sand Creek Massacre occurred in Colorado.  Colonel Chivington and his small Union army soundly defeated Native warriors from the Arapahoe and Cheyenne nations.  While historians have long debated the significance of Sand Creek in the Civil War, what is certain is that Sand Creek was the touchstone for organized Native resistance on the Great Plains after the Civil War.  As early as 1865, the Cheyenne allied themselves with the Lakota nation in the Northern Plains, and U.S. forts north of Fort Laramie were attacked. By 1868, the Lakota leader Red Cloud, and his chief lieutenant, Crazy Horse, had gained total control of the Bozeman Trail, and General Grant ordered a tactical retreat, abandoning those forts on the trail.  Ironically, Red Cloud had actually won a war against the U.S. military, with Grant in overall command.  Given the impact and profusion of railroads in that part of America, Red Cloud's victory would be short-lived, but Grant, in the short-term, was forced on the defensive, and was politically criticized for his strategy.
     General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant was nominated by acclamation during the Republican National Convention in the summer of 1868.  The Democratic National Convention, on the other hand, needed over a dozen ballots before they were able to nominate Horatio Seymour as their candidate.  The presidential candidates of 1868 provided a stark choice for voters - Seymour's campaign slogan of "It is a White Man's Nation; Let White Men Rule", versus Grant's "Let Us Have Peace".  Grant, like virtually every prior presidential candidate, didn't actively campaign; he spent most of his time between the convention and the election in his hometown of Galena, Illinois. While Grant won the popular vote by a margin of 300,000, his margin of victory in the Electoral College in the Election of 1868 was much greater.  Not only was Grant's accomplishments and celebrity in play, but the Democratic Party would be associated with disunion for a few more presidential elections (it wouldn't be until 1884 that a Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, would win a presidential election).  
     On 4 March, 1869, Grant was inaugurated as the 18th President of the United States.  In his inaugural address, Grant stated his desire that the U.S. should return to the Gold Standard is soon as possible (the "Greenbacks" of the Civil War were not backed up by gold).  He also stated that African-Americans (men) needed and deserved the right to vote, and that a 15th Amendment to the Constitution should be proposed, and then ratified.  For many Americans in the North and South, it seemed to them that the new President was moving too fast for the times, in that there was still significant concern about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. While most people today focus on the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Under the Law" clause, there is another aspect to the amendment that had millions of Americans after the Civil War concerned.  By making African-Americans citizens, the "3/5's Compromise" contained in the Constitution was essentially nullified.  The battle over how to count African-Americans for representation in Congress resumed, 92 years after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Southern states wanted to count African-Americans as citizens, without granting them the right to vote, gaining power in the House, and maintaining power at home.  Northern states were deeply conflicted, in that they didn't want to establish a precedent that African-Americans were eligible to vote, but they certainly didn't want the South to dominate the House of Representatives. A compromise was reached: States could only count African-Americans as citizens if they were given the right to vote.  Republicans in Congress believed that the "enforcement clause" to the 14th Amendment (Section 5) would be a sufficient deterrent if any state refused to follow through on the agreed interpretation.
     The Republicans in the new Congress and the new President would soon find out that such language didn't provide any actual deterrence in the South.  Grant became President during a time when the Republicans were looking deep into the future concerning African-American Civil Rights and economic expansion, while Democrats were looking to the past, trying to re-create their traditional social order that existed before the Civil War. 
0 Comments

President Ulysses S. Grant (1869 - 1877)

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source:  H.W. Brands. The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in 
                                      War and Peace (2012)
     Most presidents that were re-elected experienced second terms that didn't measure up to their first term in office.  Among them were Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and President Ulysses S. Grant.  Some historians downgrade Grant's Presidency due to his decision-making during the nation's worst economic depression at that point in history (starting in 1873), while others focus on the scandals that metastasized in his last two years in office.  While Grant does not deserve a place at the head table with our great or near-great presidents, he certainly does not deserve relegation to the "Kiddie Table" with Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, or Andrew Johnson. While it is true that Grant's second term was a disaster relative to his first, one must remember that he succeeded in securing the future of the United States as a unified, Democratic nation, which was most definitely in doubt in the years that followed the Civil War.
     While President Grant was trying to re-unify the nation, his Republican Party was dividing along two fronts. The Radical Republicans (sometimes called "Consciousness" Republicans), led by Senator Charles Sumner (MA) and Representative Thaddeus Stevens (PA), were basically idealists that wanted to advance Civil Rights for African-Americans, while punishing the former Confederate states. The opposing faction in the Republican Party was a more practical wing that wanted to focus on economic expansion and business. In a way, both factions achieved their goals, in that the Radical Republicans were able to direct Reconstruction, while the other faction was able to expand the Northern economy to almost unimaginable horizons. But President Grant was caught in the middle within his party, not being nearly idealistic enough for one faction, and in some ways, not pro-business enough for the other. This fracture within the Republican Party would not only limit Grant as president, but it would also open the door for a return to national influence and prominence for the Democratic Party.
     Almost immediately in his first term in office, Grant found that it was indeed difficult to please the leaders within his own party. While Grant nominated capable men in his Cabinet (the best member of his Cabinet was Hamilton Fish as SecState), he didn't follow the established decades-long procedure of providing the names ahead of time to the Party leaders in Congress as a courtesy. In a time when virtually no Cabinet nomination met resistance in terms of confirmation in the Senate, Grant had to withdraw at least two nominations due to the sheer lack of support in that chamber. While Grant was able to eventually form a reliable Cabinet, the struggle to do so was a portent of things to come, not only within his party, but also within the nation.
     In 1870, Grant, again not following established protocol, tried to annex the Dominican Republic; he tried to do so while Congress was not in session. Grant saw the Dominican Republic as a way to establish an American "Footprint" in the Caribbean. In his mind, by providing a stable government in the form of a U.S. Territory (very much like what Puerto Rico would become) in the Dominican Republic, the U.S. would benefit in terms of being better-able to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, while acquiring controlled access to sugar cane. Senator Charles Sumner (who as the years went by became more-and-more unhinged in terms of his views and behavior, even among his fellow idealists) repeatedly blocked all of Grant's attempts to annex the Dominican Republic, in part due to his belief that the U.S. should be focused on expanding freedom for African-Americans in the South, not in a poverty-stricken part of an island in the Caribbean. While President Grant saw the annexation of the Dominican Republic as a potential benefit, the Radical Republicans saw it as an unnecessary cost at the expense of Reconstruction
     The Ku Klux Klan, and other reactionary terrorist groups, were reeking havoc and vengeance in the South after the Civil War. In states such as Louisiana, the White League assassinated Republican politicians (e.g. the Coushatta Massacre), and in South Carolina, the Klan was doing more of the same. Grant was besieged with letters from Republicans in Southern states begging for protection under the 14th Amendment. Gaining support from the Radical Republicans (the idealists), the Ku Klux Klan Act became law in 1871; the law gave Grant the power to use the rules of engagement that existed during the Civil War. In other words, Grant was able to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in dealing with suspected Klansmen, much the same as our government can do today with suspected terrorists. Grant's enforcement of the Klan Act in South Carolina worked, driving the reactionaries underground - the threat of the same thing occurring in other states reduced the reactionary activity. While the idealists in the Republican Party applauded these actions, the practical wing bemoaned those actions, believing that the President should shift his focus to the Northern economy.
     During Grant's Presidency, Great Britain became a trusted ally instead of an ancient enemy. The basis of this transformation centered around the still-lingering dispute from the Civil War over the "Laird Rams"; ships that the British had manufactured for the Confederate Navy, the most famous being the Alabama. The U.S. demanded an apology and war reparations from the British, and the British refused to do either.  Relations between America and Great Britain remained strained, until the Franco-Prussian War. With the growing threat from Germany, the newest empire in Europe, as well as internal problems in France, Great Britain desperately needed an ally, and decided to settle the whole affair with the United States. Thus, during Grant's time in office, the longest-lasting alliance in modern world history was established, and, both wings of the Republican Party were satisfied with the result (for differing reasons, of course).
     Grant wanted to include Natives in Modern America if at all possible; to such great leaders as Red Cloud, Grant offered "survival".  In essence, Grant started a system called "Concentration", which provided a Limited Homeland for Native nations / tribes (it was the stage before the Reservation System). Grant saw his program as a "Peace Initiative"; he very much wanted to end the conflicts in the Great Plains and in the American Southwest, in part because he needed troops to enforce the 14th Amendment in the South, but also so the nation could more easily expand West. In general terms, the Radical Republicans supported the strategy (potentially more troops to be used in the South), but the practical wing of the Party loved the strategy - they believed it would be much easier to expand the system of rails to the West. That heavy expansion (with the accompanying speculation) would play a role in starting the nation's worst depression in its not-quite 100 year history.
     The Election of 1872 pitted Grant, whose popularity was even greater than in 1868, against the Democratic candidate, newspaper publisher Horace Greeley. In effect, the Democrats nominated an un-electable candidate; Grant's victory in the popular vote was the greatest vote-differential in American History to that point. Undoubtedly in the throes of victory (I'm thinking of Sally Fields' "You Really Like Me" acceptance speech after winning an Oscar in 1985) Grant declared that it was basically "Mission Accomplished" in the South, and by inference, the West. Then, with very little warning, the bubble burst on the economy with the Panic of 1873, which led to the first "real" depression. The previous economic depressions hit the agricultural sector the hardest, which was most of America. Also, farmers had a built-in safety net in that they could grow their own food during hard times. But in 1873, America was transforming to an industrial giant, and when a person lost their factory job, there was no safety net. 
     Grant was a supporter of "Hard Money" (the Gold Standard), and he held firm in terms of expanding the money supply more than what was already in the financial system. While Grant did sign a bill into law that restricted the flow of money to banks in the East, trying to help banks out West, he refused to do more, believing that a sound "Hard Money" policy would be the best cure. Idealists didn't think Grant did enough, because the depression drastically eroded Northern interest in Reconstruction, and the practical Republicans wanted Grant to do something to encourage economic expansion. About the only group of Americans that supported Grant's policies concerning the depression were bankers, who benefited from "tight money".  
     With the North losing almost total interest in Reconstruction due to the "Great Depression" of that era, it should be no surprise that while the Civil Rights Act of 1875 became law (barely voted into law before the next Congress was sworn in after the mid-term elections; the next Congress had far more Democrats, and would not have supported the bill), it was never enforced. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed by Grant, outlawed segregation in public areas.
But with the depression and far-fewer Radical Republicans in positions of power, and President Grant understandably tiring from being asked to come to the rescue by Southern Republicans, the Act was in the books, but never enforced. Not until the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s / 1960s would the issue of public access be addressed again.
     Although there were scandals during Grant's first term (the Gould-Fisk Scandal, and the
Credit Mobilier Scandal), when the "Tweed Ring" in New York City was exposed, the general public started to pay far more attention to political scandals. When the "Whiskey Ring" was exposed, it was then predictable that the participants were actually prosecuted.  Grant promised vigorous prosecution and enforcement for those involved, and was extremely dismayed to find out that his own private secretary was accused of being a major participant. And to make matters worse, his own brother, Orville Grant, was involved in a scandal concerning the Secretary of War's wife, and after her death, SecWar Belknap himself, for receiving "kick-backs" for favors rendered. In terms of Grant's Presidency, scandals became synonymous with his name: "Grantism".  While the scandals occurred, Grant himself was never a part, but the scandals are part of his presidency.
     By 1876, Grant's "Peace Initiative" on the Great Plains was in tatters (in part due to the discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1874), and he had to make two key tactical decisions. Firstly, he calculated that a defeat of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in Montana would strengthen Red Cloud in the Dakotas, with which he would then negotiate. Secondly, he wanted a military leader that would deliver that victory, and the media and general public thought that Colonel George A. Custer was the man.  Grant, however, had deep misgivings about Custer's leadership capabilities, and placed a man he knew well from the Civil War, General Alfred E. Terry, in overall command. However, in June, 1876, Custer and about 200 of his men were killed at Little Bighorn. What the defeat meant to Grant was that there was absolutely no chance of any negotiations for peace on the Great Plains (or in the Southwest); the media and the public were clamoring for an end to the conflict. The timing of the battle was at least partly to blame, since it occurred about a week before the Centennial Celebration, and as a result, there was a general desire for retribution and revenge.
     During his second term, Grant had made it official: he would not run for president in 1876.
As a result, both political parties found it very difficult to nominate their candidates, needing more ballots than what each party considered necessary to select their standard-bearers. The Republicans selected a former Civil War general, Rutherford B. Hayes, while the Democrats finally selected the NY attorney general that put "Boss Tweed" in jail, Samuel Tilden.  With Grant no longer in the picture, the Democrats nearly won the election. With election "shenanigans" in three Southern states, each candidate claimed a victory in the Electoral College. A special commission was created, mirroring the make-up of Congress, so there were 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the commission.  Tilden needed just one of the states to become president, and Hayes needed all three - the commission, along party lines, gave all three states, and the presidency, to Hayes. But, a crucial decision was made in what became known as the "Compromise of 1877"; the Republicans had Hayes as president, but the Democrats were able to get U.S. troops out of the South, which signaled the end of "Political Reconstruction" (but not the end of social or economic Reconstruction by any means). Another main result of the Election of 1876 was that the Democratic Party had made its return to national level politics, only a little over a decade after the Civil War.
     From 1863 - 1877, tumult constantly threatened the Union, and Grant was the only historical figure directly involved during all those years, as a general, and then as a two-term president. By 1877, secession was no longer an option, even with the most reactionary extremists in the South. And while forms of slavery still existed (e.g. Sharecropping, Literacy
Tests, and the Poll Tax), the future of Democracy in America was insured, largely due to the efforts, influence, and vision of Ulysses S. Grant, a universally acclaimed military leader and tactician, but in the views of more-and-more historians such as H.W. Brands, a tremendously under-appreciated president.
0 Comments

Edward Muybridge & "The Borrowers"

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Edward Ball. The Inventor and the Tycoon: A Gilded Age
                                     Murder and the Birth of Motion Pictures (2013)
     They made an odd couple: Edward Muybridge was an eccentric man of art and science, while Leland Stanford was a man of power, profit, and image. Yet, from 1871 to 1881, they had a mutually-beneficial relationship of sorts.  Stanford spent a small fortune in order for Muybridge to prove that when a horse was at full-gallop, all four hooves left the ground. Stanford benefited from spending all that money in that, in essence, he gained bragging-rights among his wealthy peers in terms of solving a mystery that mattered to them. Muybridge benefited in that he became famous for something other than murdering a man in cold blood in the mid-1870s.  Yet, from 1882 - 1893, Muybridge and Stanford became completely estranged, never again speaking to each other. Muybridge would eventually wish that he had never spoke to Thomas Edison in 1888 - Edison, to a greater degree than Stanford, "borrowed" from the vision and mind of Edward Muybridge, and Muybridge was not able to truly shine, not when he was under the shadow of these two titans in American History (Personal observation: I have a hard time feeling too sorry for Muybridge since he was also a murderer). 
     The falling-out between Muybridge and Stanford began in 1882, when they were both in France, independently of each other.  Muybridge was in France to learn more in the world of photography, while Stanford was traveling in Europe to relax, and also to escape the spotlight and pressure of being the most powerful and influential Californian. When Stanford (and his family) was in Paris, Stanford became extremely jealous of the glowing reception in the newspapers that Muybridge received; he felt slighted that Muybridge never mentioned his name in conjunction with his success with moving pictures. Stanford, a man that always had things the way he wanted them, went back to San Francisco and used Muybridge's collection of photographs for his own published book. Stanford's book of Muybridge's photos (Muybridge was rarely mentioned in the book) sold well enough in America and in Europe, that when Muybridge traveled to his nation of origin, Great Britain, he was accused of plagiarism. When Muybridge came back to the United States, he sued Stanford, but lost, mostly due to the fact that Stanford had an all-star legal team in play. At this point, the only way that Muybridge could make money was to travel across America, giving presentations using his Zoopraxiscope(projector); Muybridge was the first to show motion pictures to paying audiences. By the end of 1882, Muybridge and Stanford reached the point where they detested each other.
     In 1883, Muybridge accepted a position at Penn; the university decided to sponsor him in order to have a famous Artist / Scientist in residence. Muybridge accepted the position because he needed the money and prestige, but also so he could try and upstage Stanford. For the next five years, Muybridge worked on projects that interested him, free of any meaningful supervision from the Penn administration. Most of Muybridge's projects involved photographing people in motion, even himself from time-to-time. The major problem as far as Penn was concerned was that these people photographed in motion were also nude. By 1888, Penn tired of his eccentricities, and refused to renew his contract. The good news for Muybridge by 1888: he had been cleared of all charges of plagiarism from Stanford's book, and was still famous . . . the bad news was that he was in need of a source of regular income.   
     In February, 1888, Muybridge met with a young-but-famous Thomas Edison. Muybridge, almost certainly hoped that a connection with Edison would prove to be fruitful in terms of work, money, and prestige, discussed an idea with the "Wizard of Menlo Park". Muybridge's idea: combine his pictures in motion with Edison's phonograph. Very soon after their first-and-only meeting, an article mentioning this idea appeared in "The Nation" (founded in 1865; a journal that contained opinions and analysis . . . it's still published); it is not known who provided the information for the article, but Edward Ball believed that Edison had the most to gain by "leaking" the idea.  Muybridge, back to presenting his moving pictures on his projector to paying audiences, was near West Orange, New Jersey, where Edison had recently relocated in order to have a larger base of operations. Edison had a nasty habit of "borrowing" the work and ideas of others, and passing them off as his own, and that is what he did with Muybridge's life work.  It is due to this "theft" that to this day, most Americans believe that Thomas Edison
invented motion pictures.  
     Muybridge never bothered to patent his projector, and Thomas Edison took full advantage. Edison submitted a "caveat" to the U.S. Patent Office for a projector; a caveat is the step before a patent, in which a person shows significant progress - in schoolyard terms, a caveat is "legal dibs" on an idea / item (it was abolished in 1909).  Edison even traveled to France, and talked to the same experts that Muybridge had visited earlier, and submitted more caveats to legally cover his bases so he wouldn't have to worry about someone else applying for any patents related to motion pictures. 
     Celluloid, the original plastic material, was "developed" by the late-1880s; George Eastmanwas using celluloid by 1889, calling it "film".  Celluloid changed everything for motion picture technology. Muybridge could not do what Edison could - Research & Development, market, advertise, and innovate in the fledgling world of motion picture technology - Edison even coined the term "Filmmaker".  In 1893, Muybridge reached the peak of his fame during theChicago World's Fair; he had a permanent exhibit, and for the first time, people came to him while he presented his moving pictures that featured twenty-four photographs on his Zoopraxiscope; one could argue that his exhibit was the first movie theater. Leland Stanford was attending the Chicago World's Fair, but refused to visit Muybridge; by then, Stanford was ailing, being taken around the exhibits in a wheelchair. Stanford would die that same year at the age of 69, never having reconciled with Muybridge. 
    During this period, Edison invented the Kinetograph (motion picture camera using celluloid) and the Kinetoscope (one-person motion picture viewer), and in April, 1894 in New York City, Edison created the first Kinetoscope Parlor for the paying public. Edison soon faced competition from the Lumiere Brothers in France - the Lumieres invented a celluloid projector that could display movies on a screen for an audience to watch together at the same time.  Edison, knowing that his Kinetoscope was dead-in-the-water, developed his "Vitascope" in 1895 to beat the Lumieres to the punch in the United States.  Both Edison and the Lumieres were on to the same thing that Muybridge had discovered years before: people liked to view motion pictures in an audience (a "Communal Gaze").  1895 was the year that motion pictures became a common amusement in cities; it was also the year that Muybridge closed down his exhibit in Chicago, and moved back to Great Britain. He gave his last presentation in 1896; by then, no one was willing to pay to see his dated technology at work.  
     On 8 May, 1904, Edward Muybridge died in Great Britain. An eccentric to the end, Muybridge died while continuing to dig a huge hole in his back yard that was, for some reason, in the shape of the Great Lakes. In 1905, the first true movie theater opened in Pittsburgh; before this theater, movies were shown as "teasers" before live performances (e.g. Vaudeville). By 1915, Edison was out of the movie business due to the U.S. Government's enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against his efforts at creating a monopoly in the emerging movie industry.
     Edward Muybridge was among the first to create moving pictures. However, Muybridge WAS the first to show moving pictures to audiences, since that was the only way he could make money from his vision and expertise in the world of photography.  Due to "The Borrowers", namely Leland Stanford and especially Thomas Edison, Muybridge has largely been lost in U.S. History. At best, Muybridge is remembered in popular history as the photographer that showed that all four hooves of a horse leave the ground when it is at full-gallop. He is forgotten as one of the pioneers of motion pictures (and as a murderer), a visual medium that continues to enthrall and engage Americans, whether or not they are a fan of Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier (which I saw earlier today . . . it was great . . . BTW, contrary to popular belief, Captain America was never President of the United States).

New York Times Book Review of Edward Ball's The Inventor and the Tycoon: 
                           A Gilded Age Murder and the Birth of Motion Pictures (2013)
0 Comments

Motion Pictures & Murder: The Story of Edward Muybridge - 1866 - 1880

1/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Edward Ball. The Inventor and the Tycoon: A Gilded Age
                                    Murder and the Birth of Motion Pictures (2013)
Picture
     Edward Muybridge was one of the pioneers of the technology that led to motion pictures.
In effect, Muybridge, by finding a way to quickly take twenty-four consecutive stop-motion photographs, "kidnapped" time.  After Muybridge, the "Media" became possible; all elements of what became the media had to rely on his template.  While Muybridge was able to "kidnap" time with a camera, he was also able to commit murder with a Smith and Wesson revolver. For a time, he was equally famous as an American icon in terms of photography, and as a cold-blooded killer whose story of why and how he committed murder made national headlines.
     Edward Muybridge was born (and grew up) in Britain, but emigrated to the U.S. in the
years before the Civil War. He went back to England as the Civil War began, and didn't come back to the U.S. until the Civil War was over. While some historians wonder about that coincidental timing, Muybridge used his time abroad, and learned quite a bit about photography during those years. In 1866, Muybridge went to San Francisco, and called himself "Helios" (Muybridge, born Muggerridge, was constantly changing his name to suit his circumstances): a professional photographer was born. Helios hated taking portraits of people; he preferred to photograph landscapes, even if there was no market for that kind of print.  In 1867, Helios (Muybridge) traveled to Yosemite, and in essence started the popularity of American Landscape Photography, while at the same time making himself known nationally. While there were photographers that preceded him in terms of landscapes, the photographs of Helios were different - his predecessors focused on space . . . he focused on time.  Helios had the gift of capturing time in a still photograph, even with the limited technology in the 1860s. 
Above, Helios photographed himself in Yosemite - he called this photograph "Charon at the Ferry" (1868).  He envisioned himself as Charon in his boat crossing the river Styx in Greek Mythology
Picture


In 1872, back at Yosemite, Helios / Muybridge photographed himself in a very dangerous position. He admitted that it would have been very easy to lose his balance and fall to his death 2000+ feet below.  This photograph was used in his murder trial in order to try and illustrate his lack of rational decision-making
     Helios just happened to be in San Francisco in 1868 when an earthquake hit the city (while severe, it wasn't nearly as bad as the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake). Helios was actually able to photograph San Francisco before AND after the earthquake.  As a result of his Yosemite and San Francisco photographs, Helios was a national figure, and General Henry Halleck selected Helios to go to Alaska with him in 1868 in order to document what was in America's newest territory ("Seward's Folly").  By the late-1860s, the technology of photography had advanced enough where Helios started to feature speed AND time in his prints. The improved technology also allowed Helios to "doctor" photographs in the development stage (it was still the glass-plate era).
     In "Cemetery With Cloud Effect" (1875), Muybridge inserted clouds in the sky during the development phase of the photograph. The actual photograph had a clear sky, as you can see in the original photograph at the left.
Picture
     As you can see in "Cemetery Without Cloud Effect", the photograph isn't as pleasing to the eye. Muybridge (he stopped calling himself Helios by the early-1870s) loved open sky; but in his photographs, he felt clouds enhanced the overall quality of the print . . . 
Picture
     1871 was a big year for Edward Muybridge, in that the studio owners that showcased his photographs introduced him to two people that year: Leland Stanford, his future patron, and Flora Brown, his future wife.  That same year, he married Flora Brown, even though she was twenty years old, and he was forty-one.  Muybridge constantly left his bride for months at a time for his adventures in photography, and he was completely oblivious to the fact that she had an affair with a man named Harry Larkyn (basically a colorful grifter).  In 1873, Muybridge was told of the affair by his housekeeper, and he even warned Larkyn about "California Justice". 
     When Flora gave birth to a boy in 1874 that was obviously a result of her affair with Larkyn, Muybridge followed through on his threat.  Muybridge traveled to Napa Valley near a town called Calistoga, and in a miner's cottage, shot Larkyn in the chest in a doorway in front of several witnesses.  Muybridge was almost lynched on the spot, but avoided that fate when one of the witnesses calmed down the throng.  Charged with murder, Muybridge needed a lawyer, and Leland Stanford was more than happy to supply one.  The first extremely wealthy Californian hired Muybridge to take interior photographs of his palatial mansion in 1871 (later published as a "Picture Book" in the late-1870s), and by 1874 was in the middle of an experiment which involved Muybridge's talent and expertise. 
     Stanford sent his best lawyer to represent Muybridge, and that lawyer convinced a jury to acquit him of murder (the prosecution helped by insisting on "first degree murder or nothing"). Flora Downs divorced Muybridge as one would expect, and desperately tried to get alimony, but she died suddenly in 1875 at the age of twenty-four, most likely of influenza.  Muybridge was completely free to resume his part of the experiment with Leland Stanford, since he no longer had any fear of any financial loss with the death of his former wife (BTW, Muybridge only visited his son, "Harry Jr.", once, when he was nine years old).
     The main reason why Stanford supplied an excellent lawyer free-of-charge for Muybridge was that he and Muybridge were in the middle of trying to solve a mystery over which Stanford obsessed.  Stanford, a horse-nut, believed that at full-gallop, all four of a horse's hooves left the ground; he wanted to prove that he was right (no one knew for sure). After his acquittal, Stanford purchased a huge tract of land outside of San Francisco in 1876 in order to have a place to keep his race horses, and to also provide a location for Muybridge to continue his work. On "The Farm" were two sequoias, which inspired Stanford to name the area Palo Alto (Tall Tree) - the future home of Stanford University, but that's another story for another U.S. History Blog entry. Stanford purchased over one million dollars worth of equipment in today's dollars for Muybridge to prove his "horse theory" was right.  
     In 1878, Muybridge finally succeeded in capturing one of Stanford's horses at full gallop with twenty-four photographs. Muybridge had succeeded in stopping time; in 1879, he would "re-start" time.  Muybridge invented (and received a patent for) what he called a"Zoopraxiscope", which was a projector he invented to display his twenty-four images so they would appear to be in motion - in essence, he invented the first motion picture projector.  
     In 1880, Leland Stanford, former Governor of California and the Chairman of the Central Pacific Railroad, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America, hosted a gathering at his mansion in San Francisco on Nob Hill (Nob was from the Indian word "Nabobs", which meant extreme wealth). The occasion was for Muybridge to display his "motion pictures", including that of Stanford's horse, to California's Elite.  The phenomenon of watching objects in motion from a projector was so astounding, that Muybridge actually had three public showings with his projector in the days following his debut at the Stanford mansion. Overnight, Muybridge became a magician with a projector, instead of a murderer with an obsession. However, despite reaching this peak of innovation and fame, there were storm clouds on the horizon. While Stanford spent an exorbitant amount of money on the process, he never really paid Muybridge much at all.  By 1882, a little over ten years after they were introduced and solved a vexing mystery together, they would drift apart, and become completely estranged.
    The story of Edward Muybridge was not over in 1880 - in the years that followed, he became a celebrated artist / scientist in America and Europe, and had a historically significant conversation with Thomas Edison, but he never again connected with Leland Stanford. How Leland Stanford became incredibly wealthy and powerful, and the role that Thomas Edison played in the development of motion pictures at the expense of Muybridge are for another U.S. History Blog post(s)
0 Comments

Why Did the South Win the Battle for Reconstruction?

1/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Eric Foner. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and 
                                 Reconstruction (2006)
Summary of Foner’s main points:
      Overall, Foner’s main points concerning Reconstruction centered around: 
a) Former slaves “digging in” and demanding meaningful and immediate freedom; b) Southern white Democrats refusing to accept emancipation; c) President Andrew Johnson’s lack of flexibility, vision, and leadership skills and; d) Political unity and division within the Republican Party in the North & South. In the end, The North’s unwillingness and inablitiy to stay involved with Reconstruction in the long-run led to the Southern states reasserting their economic, social, and political order.

What does Foner see as the most central issue of Reconstruction?
      I would argue that Foner saw race as the most central issue of Reconstruction. From the African-American perspective, “being a people” required political and economic equality within the American democracy. That, in turn, could only happen if the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were enforced by the federal government. From the Southern white Democrat perspective, “remaining a people” after the Civil War could only occur if the federal government did not, at least consistently, enforce the “Civil War Amendments”. From the perspective of most Northern whites (and politicians), enforcing the “Civil War Amendments” during Reconstruction became too costly; race was the easiest and most justifiable way to rationalize the decision to end involvement in Reconstruction. 


Could Reconstruction have turned out differently?
     I do not believe that Reconstruction could have turned out differently; “Non-Negotiable” economic, social, and political issues caused too much polarization for any long-term changes to take root during Reconstruction. These “non-negotiable” issues from various groups, in particular from Southern white Democrats, helps explain why Reconstruction started out with prominent African-Americans in the South “shouldering the responsibility”, but became a “White Man’s Burden” towards the end of the 19th Century. In the economic arena, much of the “Battle for Reconstruction” centered around land and labor reform. Radical Republicans in the North wanted to transform land ownership in the South by, in essence, transferring ownership of the land to the former slaves. 
     In terms of labor, Republicans were in favor of free labor (with the notable exception of Stevens); even during the Civil War, discussion of a “New South” featuring free labor for African-Americans was a predominant view. Southern white Democrats were against any type of free labor system for African-Americans; the last thing most Southerners wanted was a volatile and unreliable labor force. African-Americans in the South in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War demanded the right to own land and negotiate wages and working conditions. In the short-run, it must have looked very promising for African-Americans and Republicans to achieve their economic goals in the South. Added to this mix was the “Up-Country” Southern Republicans; in such areas as eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, resentment was high against the planter class, and a sort of “marriage of convenience” was created with African-Americans in pursuit of free labor. But, without long-term and meaningful assistance from the North, reform in terms of land ownership and labor was impossible. 
     Despite efforts at increasing the transportation network in the South, especially with railroads, very little meaningful and tangible results were achieved. The Northern effort at creating an economic “rising tide that lifts all ships” in the South was derailed in part due to corruption, but mostly due to the Panic of 1873. In economic terms, this depression shifted the focus of the North inward during Reconstruction; almost immediately, the North considered such issues as wages, eight-hour work days, and reform of the railroad monopolies far more important than any reform that would benefit African-Americans in the South.
      Socially, African-Americans in the South had a powerful ally in the Radical Republicans; both wanted civil liberties to take root and last for the long-term. And, for a few years, civil liberties seemed to be achievable, in particular with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. But as the years progressed during Reconstruction, a sort of “silent acceptance” occurred in the North, basically sanctioning oppression of African-Americans in the South from constant discrimination all the way to lynching. As Reconstruction played out, political cartoons reinforced the Northern and Southern views of racial superiority. Northern political cartoons often softened the reality of the oppression that was going on in the South, and Southern cartoons were used as a propaganda weapon to convince whites that African-
Americans must remain a subordinate group because they were an “inferior race”. 
     Any chance at gaining meaningful civil liberties disappeared when the “Civil War Amendments” were not consistently enforced by the federal government; it was very difficult for Northern Republicans to justify changing the social order in the South when little support existed among the North’s citizenry; in short, “Social-Darwinism” was taking root in the North. The reality of this lack of social progress can be seen by comparing two former African slaves: Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. At the beginning of Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass advocated equality across-the-board for African-Americans. By the late 19th Century, Booker T. Washington was forced to accept the social (and political) reality, and did his best to work within the confines of “Separate but Equal”, focusing on the “Equal” aspect in trying to help African-Americans gain at least a modicum of civil liberties.
      Politically, one could make a convincing argument that the Union won the Civil War, but the South won Reconstruction; Southern white Democrats “dug in”, and outlasted the Northern and Southern Republicans. In the beginning of Reconstruction, all Republicans wanted loyal Southern state governments in place, which could only really occur with African-American representation in the state houses. With the reality of an incredibly high level of political energy and enthusiasm by African-Americans in the South (the “Tocsin of Freedom”), this goal seemed to be an achievable one. However, Southern white Democrats were not only able to outlast Northern Republicans, but were also able to “re-package” the Civil War, in essence, controlling the propaganda during Reconstruction. 
     In the end, African-American representation in the Southern state legislatures existed only in the short-run; the North, especially during Grant’s presidency, started to experience “Reconstruction Fatigue”. By that, I mean it was becoming more and more untenable to keep “coming to the rescue” in the face of conservative and reactionary resistance in the South to Republican Reconstruction policies. Increasingly, Southern white Democrats were able to organize their resistance against a “Power From Without”; more and more “Redeemers” were “rolling back the clock” in terms of political power in the Southern states. 
     When the 15th Amendment was ratified, most Northerners viewed it as the end of Reconstruction; this also is the time-frame for the rise of the Liberal Republicans. When an increasing number of Northerners believe, as propagated by Liberal Republicans, that African-Americans had “their chances”, but didn’t take advantage, politically, Northern efforts at Reconstructing the South are effectively over. When an increasing number of Northerners believe that “The Lost Cause” is a valid explanation for the Civil War, then political Reconstruction is over. When Supreme Court decisions reinforce states rights, and provide a sort of “diplomatic immunity” when committing crimes against African-Americans (Cruikshank), then politically, Reconstruction can no longer occur in the South. When Congress and the President of the United States cannot extinguish reactionary terrorist groups like the KKK, but only force it into hibernation, the Southern white Democrats control the politics of Reconstruction. 
      In paraphrasing W.E.B. DuBois, African-Americans basked in freedom in the short-run after the Civil War, but soon, during and after Reconstruction, economic, social, and political slavery returned in the South.
0 Comments

Why Progressives Were Unable to End Class Conflict

1/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Michael McGerr. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the
                                          Progressive Movement (2010).
     While World War I ended Progressivism as a movement, factors existed before the war that set the stage for the end of this era of reform. Before the Great War, more and more middle class Americans were valuing individualism and pleasure, in particular, the “2nd Generation” progressives. In the early 20th Century, an increasing number of middle class citizens were placing a high priority on entertainment; a sense of “deserving the good life” started to become a necessity of existence. 
     While it’s true that more options in entertainment provided opportunities for “Association” among the middle and working classes, this “mixing” didn’t work out the way progressives had hoped. While Americans of the middle and working classes attended “World’s Fairs”, amusement parks, baseball games, or movies, commercial entertainment actually increased individualism (for the middle class, individualism was the pursuit of pleasure) in the middle class instead of “closing the gap” in terms of social tensions. 
     Before World War I, transportation and communication had reached a point in which those in the middle class were able to transcend the “here and now”, according to McGerr. Increased transportation and communication led to a sense of liberation; Americans were no longer confined to a specific location. As with commercial amusements, the improved communications and transportation at the turn-of-the-century increased the level of individualism in a growing number of middle class Americans; a “redefinition of self” was occurring on an increasing scale before World War I; the pursuit of pleasure (middle class individualism) was valued far more than the pursuit of reforms.
     Lastly before World War I, progressives were starting to be seen as “Reformers”, in other words, progressives were starting to be seen as “butting in” to the lives of too many Americans. Before America entered World War I, the Progressive movement was losing momentum; then, the Great War provided a cruel “false dawn” for progressives.
    In the early stages of America’s involvement in World War I, progressives were
encouraged that mobilization for war would feature increased federal control, and then, finally, class conflict, or “negative” individualism (pursuit of power, profit, or pleasure) versus "negative" mutualism (identity through a group; "strength in numbers"), would drastically decrease. By that, I mean that progressives thought that due to greater federal influence, there would be far fewer labor strikes and owner lockouts; a kind of “enforced” association would be achieved. This was the “false dawn” that teased, then torchered, progressives; in the end, World War I increased middle class individualism via pleasure (for example, should a person spend money on leisure, or war bonds; most seemed to favor pleasure), created a resurgence of class conflict, and increased government influence so pronounced that America experienced a “Red Scare”.
     After the Great War, much of America became a “society in chaos”; a brief-yet-intense economic depression was in full force, labor strikes increased and race riots occurred in such cities as Chicago. Some of this social disorder occurred, in part, because ironically enough, the federal government didn’t have a “war board” that was the equivalent of the G.I. Bill after World War II. Too many “doughboys”, both white and African-American, came back to America with too-few jobs available. McGerr brought up an excellent point comparing Europe and America after the Great War: In Europe, the “Old Regimes” were defeated or collapsed; in America, the Progressive Movement collapsed.
    During the Election of 1920, 60% of Americans that voted elected the Republican
candidate Warren G. Harding as president, a conservative individualist; the Progressive Era was over (had Theodore Roosevelt not died in 1919, he almost certainly would have been elected president again in 1920). During the presidencies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, big business returned in force, while the middle class, by and large, chose individualism and pleasure over association.
0 Comments

What Caused Class Conflict During the Progressive Era?

1/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Source: Michael McGerr. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the
                                          Progressive Movement (2010).
The social classes in America during the Progressive Era
 * The "Upper-10's: The richest Americans, especially the top 1 - 2%
 * Middle Class: The 2nd-Fastest-Growing social class during the Progressive Era;
                        the vast majority of Progressives were from this class, including
                        the "Radical Center"
 * Working Class: Fastest-Growing social class during the Progressive Era, due
                          mostly to immigration
 * The Agrarian Class: Historians tend to separate those involved in agriculture
                          from those involved in industry in the working class
  * The "Submerged-Tenth": The poorest 10% of Americans
Historical terms associated with the Progressive Era
  * "Victorian": A reference to the very conservative, behavior-centric code of conduct that dominated the Middle Class and the "Upper-10s" at the dawn of the
Progressive Era
 *Chautauqua: Popular education & entertainment programs that featured historical
                     role-playing and dramatic reading
 * Individualism: For "Upper-10s", it was the relentless pursuit of power & profit
 * Mutualism: A person's identity is through the group, and power is achieved 
    through "strength in numbers" (e.g. Labor Unions)
 * Association: The theory that "class conflict" could at least be significantly 
    diminished by having the various classes "mix" together
 * "Wildcat Strike": A strike that affects an entire industry; even non-Union workers
     are involved (e.g. The Pullman Strike of 1894 in the Railroad Industry)
 * Panic of 1893: A panic was the name for the initial stage of a depression; the 
    depression that started in 1893 was the most severe in U.S. History to 
    that point
       At the end of the 19th Century, the “radical center”, which ignited the Progressive Era, wanted to end class conflict. In other words, they wanted to protect and strengthen the “Thin Layer of Civilization”, because in their view, the “Upper-Tens” and the working class, in particular, were a threat to America’s social order. The definitive factors why the Victorian middle class transformed into this “radical center” can be analyzed by looking at how this “radical center” developed from America’s middle class, the impact of the Pullman Strike of 1894, and the formulation of a plan to try and stop class conflict.
    The “Upper-Ten” and the working class (and the agrarian class) had significant “chinks in their collective armor”, in that each had internal divisions and little-or-no organizational apparatus. The middle class was able to capitalize and gain traction in the national conversation, because they were able to become more organized, less fractured, and also had numerous goals of reform with at least a few ways to achieve each reform. Add to that the reality that in the middle class, there was much less direct internal competition compared to the “Upper-Tens” and the working class, the “seeds were sown” in terms of the Victorian middle class becoming a “radical center” advocating social change in the late-19th Century.
    In particular, it was the women of the Victorian middle class that basically “ran point” in this transformation. In general, middle class women were educated (or becoming so), had increased leisure time, but also had a reduced sense of overall purpose with which to contend. While McGerr discussed eliminating the “double standard” in terms of the behavior of middle class men, and reducing the domestic burden, he also focused on the desire of middle class women for increased public opportunities to satisfy their yearning for a purpose in their lives. In pursuing opportunities in politics, work, charity, and involvement in such activities as Chautauqua, an interesting development started to occur: a growing sense that individualism and mutualism were at odds with each other, and too much divisiveness and polarization ("Class Conflict") was the result.
    So, one may ask, which was more responsible for the class conflict in America in the late-19th Century: Individualism or Mutualism? The Pullman Strike of 1894 convinced such middle class reformers such as Jane Addams that individualism was more responsible; specifically George Pullman’s individualism. In his desire to increase profit margins at the expense of his laborers in Chicago, the working class responded with the first major “wildcat” strike of the era, involving far more workers than Pullman employed. While Addams thought the working class should shoulder a good deal of the responsibility for the strike and its impact, she mostly blamed Pullman and his individualistic orientation for the conflict (At the start of the Panic of 1893, Pullman lowered wages, but kept rents the same for his workers' housing). In short, Jane Addams, and many others in the middle class, thought the “Upper-Tens” were a major threat to our nation’s social order due to its focus on individualism.
    By the end of the 19th Century, the middle class had become a “radical center”, in that with its advantages in terms of organization, leadership, and relative unity, plans had started to formulate to try and end class conflict; most of them seemed to center around some form of socialism. A philosophy started to develop called “Association”, which tried to address how to best bring together different classes to reduce or end conflict. To many in this “radical center”, association seemed to be the antidote to the individualism of the “Upper Ten”, and the mutualism of the working class. The hoped-for and expected result of association, implemented with the guidance, assistance, or even the insistence of government, was that class conflict would at least be drastically reduced.
    In the span of about thirty years, America’s Victorian middle class transformed itself into a “radical center”. Not only did the middle class transform itself into a mix of individualism and mutualism by “association”, it wanted to use its framework to protect and strengthen America’s social order.
0 Comments

George Washington: Commander-in-Chief 1775

1/16/2015

0 Comments

 
                   Source: Ron Chernow. Washington: A Life (2010)
Picture
     Although George Washington experienced command in the wilderness during the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763), he was still a military neophyte. As 1775 unfolded, Washington knew he wasn't prepared to command troops in a large-scale conflict, and read volumes on military strategy. Despite this, Washington was the best-suited to lead when the time came to name a Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.
          (Pictured: Washington's portrait of 1772)
     Washington knew he didn't have the kind of experience that he felt was necessary, but he also knew that he wanted overall command - he appeared at the 2nd Continental Congress (he was one of Virginia's representatives) in his Fairfax County Militia uniform, looking like a general . . . to his fellow representatives, he looked like Mars (the Roman God of War) himself. The 2nd C/C lacked any consensus for independence, but they did favor a defensive military posture after Lexington and Concord. Adding to the complexity of the 2nd C/C's situation, was news that the fort at Ticonderoga had fallen, taken by Ethan Allen and his men (Benedict Arnold participated, but was denied credit by Allen). The 2nd C/C needed someone to bring order out of chaos in terms of overall military organization and strategy, and they turned to Washington; before there was a nation, a flag, or even a symbol, there was Commander-in-Chief George Washington.
Picture
      0n 25 May, 1775, the HMS Cerebus docked in Boston, bringing the British "Triumvirate" of Generals John Burgoyne, William Howe, and Henry Clinton. Based on the previous events, their arrival in the American Colonies dashed any hope for a happy or peaceful outcome with King George III. After their arrival, the new President of the 2nd C/C, John Hancock (pictured), hoped to be named the top Colonial military figure, but most of the representatives felt that the overall commander should be from Virginia; the consensus being that a Virginian would be best-suited to unify the Colonies. 
     The only other serious contenders for the position of what was being named "Major General" were Horatio Gates and Charles Lee, both former British Regular officers. Many factors separated Washington from Hancock, Gates, and Lee, including gravitas, as well as being a politician for the last 16 years; it was thought that he would answer to civilian authority.
     On 14 June, 1775, the 2nd C/C officially took charge of the Colonial soldiers in Boston; it was the birth of the Continental Army, and a Commander-in-Chief was required. By this point, Washington's appointment was a fait accompli (so impressive was Washington to his colleagues!), but Hancock STILL believed that he was entitled to the post. Hancock expected John Adams to nominate him first, before Washington, but Adams nominated Washington first instead. Washington handled the nomination with dignity and aplomb, unlike what the egomaniacal Hancock would have done. What sealed the confirmation of the nomination was that both John and Samuel Adams, along with Hancock the pre-eminent politicians from Boston, supported Washington. On 16 June, 1775, the 2nd C/C officially named George Washington as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army (a video segment from HBO's "John Adams" dramatizing this moment in history is below).
Picture
     Major General George Washington responded to the appointment by showing that he could be trusted with great power. He decided to serve without pay, wanting only expenses; he also tried to lower expectations of what was expected of him and the army (which was a consistent character trait during Washington's life); Washington was a bundle of confidence and insecurity. Although Washington was in command of an unorganized and untrained army in an undeclared war, he needed subordinate generals to carry out his orders and strategies. 
     Among his major generals were Horatio Gates (pictured) and Charles Lee, which the 2nd C/C had forced upon him; they would not only turn out to be incompetent generals, but would also covet Washington's rank. Israel Putnam (Connecticut) was unfit for everything except fighting, and Philip Schuyler (New York) was more of a politician than a military man (but he would be the conduit for Alexander Hamilton joining Washington's artillery corps). Before he was able to head towards Boston, Washington opened a sealed dispatch addressed to Hancock in order to see if there was any timely information for him as Commander-in-Chief. In that communique was a summary of the Battle of Bunker Hill from 17 June, 1775; Washington saw the battle as a colossal missed opportunity for the Colonial forces - he blamed a lack of discipline as the main factor why the key high ground was abandoned to the British
                             (Below: a video segment from the Discovery Channel)
Picture
     Washington's initial assessment of the soldiers under his command was that most of them would probably never amount to very much at all, especially those from New England. Among the few New Englanders that Washington quickly came to admire and trust was Nathanael Greene from Rhode Island; he was asthmatic, limped, and had little formal education, but he would become by far Washington's favorite general. Washington so admired Greene that he officially stated that Greene would be his successor as Commander-in-Chief.
     Another of the few New Englanders that were in Washington's "Circle of Trust" was Henry Knox (pictured), a Boston bookseller, who would not only become Washington's artillery commander, but also his Secretary of War when he was President. Washington liked Knox's imagination, candor, and enterprise, and came to implicitly trust Knox's strategies in terms of how to properly use the artillery. Knox never breathed a word of criticism towards Washington, even when Washington made huge mistakes during the Revolutionary War.
     Unlike the deceptive, disloyal, and eventually disgruntled Gates and Lee, Washington's best and most-daring generals were young, homegrown officers in which Washington saw great potential, and he groomed them for command . . . they were the officers he counted on for his great military maneuver / bluff at Dorchester Heights in March, 1776, where he convinced the British to abandon their occupation of Boston.
  (Below: a video segment from the History Channel's "Revolution" on Dorchester Heights)
Picture
      On 4 July, 1775, the 2nd C/C formally incorporated state militias into the Continental Army. In late-July, Daniel Morgan and his men marched 600 miles to join the Continental Army in Boston (they would be Washington's sharpshooters). There were many soldiers from many different regions of the Colonies, all without any military discipline . . . so trouble among soldiers was predictable. Marblehead militiamen (Massachusetts) taunted Virginia militiamen based on what they considered to be "foppish" uniforms, and over 1000 soldiers engaged in what was in essence a huge outdoor bar room brawl. General Washington showed up on horseback, dismounted, and grabbed two of the fight's ringleaders by their necks, often lifting them up from the ground; hundreds of soldiers see Washington doing this, and they ran for the hills, and the fight was over . . . only 15 minutes passed from the start of the fight to the end . . . it was the beginning of Washington instilling discipline in his army.
  (Pictured: General Washington officially taking command of the Continental Army in 1775)
     Although Washington had started making inroads towards creating military discipline, he was badly outnumbered by the British (they had up to 10,000 more soldiers around Boston), and he had nowhere near enough food or ammunition in order to take the offensive; he had to become a "Master Bluffer"; out of necessity, secrecy and deception became part of Washington's military repertoire . . . he was able to convince General Howe that it would be folly to attack the Continental Army. 
     Adding to Washington's challenges in Boston was the real threat of a smallpox epidemic; Washington inoculated and quarantined hundreds of soldiers. The only "offensive" strategy employed by General Howe in 1775 was to dump 300 Americans with smallpox as close to Washington's lines as possible . . . even as Washington's command was in its infancy, his army was on the brink of disaster long before they were ready for any significant military engagement with the British.
0 Comments

George Washington: Before the French & Indian War

1/9/2015

0 Comments

 
            Source: Ron Chernow. Washington: A Life (2010)
Picture
    
     Despite being the most famous Founding Father, George Washington was the most enigmatic of that brethren. Beneath the iconic General and President were complex layers of motivation and anxiety in the political, social, and economic spheres. As with all people, Washington was the sum of his experiences, and much of Washington's ambitions and anxiety were shaped from his childhood to his early-twenties before the beginning of the French & Indian War in 1754 in the Ohio River Valley.
Picture
     George Washington as a young child lived with his parents at Fredericksburg in Colonial Virginia; Washington's father, Augustine, ran a profitable plantation and also made money with iron ore. Washington's half-brother, Lawrence (14 years his senior; pictured) was tasked with being the caretaker of the properties on the Potomac River. Washington wanted to spend as much time as possible on the Potomac properties, mostly because he adored Lawrence. The Potomac properties were called Little Hunting Creek, but Lawrence, in a fit of Anglophobia, renamed it Mount Vernon after a British admiral under which he served (and admired). Lawrence had actually received a Royal Commission, which meant he served in the REAL British military; that was something Washington would pursue with every fiber in his being during the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763), but would never attain.
Picture
     Washington's father, Augustine (pictured below with a young GW), died in 1743; ironically, he died in a very similar manner as Washington would in 1799. The reality of the men in the Washington family was that none of them lived very long, and the young George Washington was very cognizant of that fact (he would be the outlier, living to the age of 67). Due to his father's death, Washington was unable to receive a classical education (which was considered a must when considering social status), or even have a true childhood, since it was "all hands on deck" to keep the plantations profitable. As a result, Washington lacked the classical education that was attained by Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison; he would always seem more provincial than the other Founding Fathers. 
     Nonetheless, Washington was exceedingly smart, and quick to grasp ideas, whether they were his or from someone else. Even as an older child, he knew good advice when he heard it, and more-often-than-not acted upon it. Washington learned the 110 Social Maxims, which was the universal etiquette for Gentlemen in Colonial Virginia. Washington followed the maxims almost to the letter; to others, Washington was cool, pragmatic, and controlled . . . but those genteel manners were a social facade that concealed his stormy emotions. It would be a very rare event indeed for anyone to witness Washington's virulent temper at Mount Vernon, during the Revolutionary War, or as President.
Picture
     Lawrence was a perfect model for Washington's development in terms of polishing his manners and investing in his human capital; Washington made sure that he was near Lawrence as often as possible. Lawrence married Anne Fairfax (pictured) in July, 1743; the Fairfax family was the most powerful and influential family in that region of Virginia (they were the only family to own land in all of the 3 main regions of Colonial Virginia: Tidewater, Piedmont, and the Shenandoah). As a result of the marriage, Lawrence became a Virginia Grandee (Gentleman) and a member of the House of Burgesses. 
     Anne's father, William Fairfax, owned five million acres, from the Potomac to the Shenandoah Valley; by marrying into the Fairfax family, Lawrence crossed the chasm from being merely comfortable to being fabulously rich and influential. Almost immediately, Colonel William Fairfax saw the young George Washington as a protege, grooming him for bigger and better things as a member and representative of the Fairfax clan . . . Washington would have never had his future opportunities without that marriage. Washington now had his social, economic, and political platform for advancement in Colonial Virginia, all at the age of 11.
     At age 15, due mostly to derive an income on his own, Washington learned how to be a good surveyor. Also, while acting as an agent for others in terms of land speculation (especially for the Fairfax family), he could scout potential choice areas for himself. Surveying was a perfect fit, in that Washington loved the outdoors, was very good with math, and was an excellent problem-solver. His years as a surveyor meant a lot of time in the saddle, and as a result, Washington would become one of the great horsemen of his time.
Picture
      At the age of 16, Washington had become hardened by the outdoors, and nothing really rattled him from that point on; that may explain why he would be able to make a smooth transition between the genteel and the wild (it also boded well for his future in the military). Lawrence and the Fairfaxes created the Ohio Company, which was designed to snatch up as much desirable land as possible in the vast Ohio River Basin; the formation of this company would set George Washington on his path to being directly involved in events that started the French and Indian War.
     At age 17, Washington was named the surveyor for William & Mary College; he became the youngest official surveyor in the history of Colonial Virginia, and as a result he was able to skip many social steps in terms of status. When he turned 18, Washington already had a plantation, where he focused on growing corn, wheat, and tobacco (By 1756, at the age of 23, Washington owned 2315 acres in the Shenandoah Valley, which today is NW Virginia). 
     In 1751 (Washington was 18), Lawrence contracted tuberculosis, and he and George went to Barbados, in an effort to help Lawrence recover his health. In Barbados, George contracted smallpox, and was nursed back to health inside of a month. By 12 December, 1751, Washington was completely recovered, but bore a pock-marked nose for the rest of his life; Washington now had immunity to the most virulent scourge for 18th Century armies.
Picture
     Not long after his return from Barbados, Lawrence died at Mount Vernon on 26 July, 1752; he was only in his mid-thirties. Mount Vernon was willed to George if he was alive after Anne and her daughter died; it wouldn't be too far in the future when both had died, leaving Washington the sole owner of Mount Vernon (it was a continuing Greek Tragedy in Washington's life that he greatly benefitted from the death of someone close to him). More immediately, Washington was willed thousands of acres near where he spent his young childhood at Fredericksburg. 
     It was at this point in his life that Washington decided to trade his life as a surveyor to become a soldier, like his beloved half-brother Lawrence. Due to his connection with the Fairfax family, Washington became a Major in the region's militia, with the additional title of Adjutant for the Northern District; it was the most prominent and prestigious military position in all of Colonial Virginia. In short order, Washington became a Freemason, mostly to gain more meaningful social contacts. By the age of 21, George Washington possessed large tracts of land, African slaves, and military and social status, but it came in part at tremendous cost, in that much of it would not have been possible without the deaths of his father and half-brother. 
     At age 21, Major George Washington, Adjutant for the Northern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was at the forefront of the events that unfolded in the Ohio River Valley that led to the start of the French and Indian War . . . his experiences to that point prepared him well for the challenges that awaited him in the Ohio River Valley.
                           (Pictured: a portrait of Washington shortly after being 
                                      promoted to Colonel in the Virginia Militia)
0 Comments

The Major Weapons of the Civil War

1/1/2015

0 Comments

 
              Allen C. Guelzo. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion (2013)
Picture
     Both the Union and Confederate States of America (CSA) used the British practice of raising volunteer regiments; not only was it cheaper, but it kept with the American tradition of a small professional standing army. The typical volunteer on both sides was long on esteem and short on experience . . . and he consistently resisted military discipline. Few even knew what military discipline meant, and most saw little sense in following orders. Volunteer officers weren't much better, since the typical militia officer had little military education and experience. Regular officers must have felt like George Washington at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, in that they were in command of a mostly rag-tag outfit with little training, and little desire for discipline.
     Despite the lack of military training and discipline, the typical volunteer was highly motivated. For a Union volunteer at the start of the Civil War, the main motive was to save Democracy from being overtaken by a Southern Aristocracy (by 1861, a typical Southern plantation owner saw himself as "God's Natural Aristocrat"). About 30% of the CSA soldiers were slave-owners, with the majority of officers as such. But after decade-after-decade of slavery in the South, even poor white farmers that didn't own a single slave had an instinctive impulse against what was considered "Domestic Tyranny".
Picture
     The day of the smooth-bore musket was gone, but the generals still used tactics from the first half of the 19th Century. The range of a rifled musket was five times greater, so the battlefield casualties were five times greater as well. The rifled musket fired a Minie Ball, named after Claude-Etienne Minie, the French weapons innovator. By 1857, the Minie Ball was the predominant ammunition; it certainly wasn't new by April, 1861. Rifling meant greater accuracy and range compared to the smooth-bore musket, but the Minie Ball (pictured below) sharply "dropped" after losing velocity; the soldier needed to take that into account when aiming for accuracy . . . but when under fire, the soldier had little time for accuracy.
     
  
     In theory, a soldier could fire three aimed shots in one minute with a rifled musket, but the reality (under fire) was one shot (maybe aimed, maybe not) every three-or-so minutes. Also, the gunpowder created black clouds, which blinded the soldiers; accuracy when firing a rifled musket was very rare in the Civil War. Also, ramrods nicked the rifling in the barrel, which led to greater inaccuracies. Despite the advances in rifling, the bayonet was still the "Queen of the Battlefield." 
     Adding to the inaccuracy with the rifled musket was the training of the soldiers; untrained and uneducated in military matters, volunteer officers trained volunteer soldiers, which inherently caused even more inaccurate shots when they fired their weapons . . . there were documented engagements during the Civil War where 1 in 500 Minie Balls hit anyone. The high casualties of the Civil War were due to far too many close engagements when both armies fired their rifled muskets at each other; the officers rarely used the bayonet to end the battle sooner, thereby reducing the casualties.
Picture
     In terms of using soldiers with the rifled musket (and the rarely used bayonet), there were two European strategies for the generals to consider. The basic British "Line" strategy featured a wide horizontal line, two or three soldiers deep. A positive was that soldiers in a "Line" were almost immune to artillery, but very susceptible to close-range fire from rifled muskets and close-range artillery. The basic French "Column" strategy formed soldiers into a long vertical line, stacking companies behind each other, with the leading company the "Tip of the Spear". While this formation was far-better at adjusting-on-the-fly and piercing through the enemy line, it was VERY susceptible to enemy artillery fire. Civil War generals for the Union and the CSA had a very hard time figuring out which strategy was the best given the enemy's location and formation.
     The Civil War didn't have anywhere near the numbers of cavalry soldiers used in European warfare. In Europe, the artillery started the battle, the infantry turned the tide, and the cavalry closed the battle. The mounted soldier was anathema to Americans, in part because of the tremendous systems-network costs involved in getting a soldier on a horse. Even in Washington's day, the American tradition of cavalry was that it was to be used for reconnaissance and scouting . . . neither the Union or the CSA had the kind of cavalry that could turn the tide of a battle, even if they chose to use them as the Europeans. 
Picture
     While the role of the cavalry in both armies never reached anything of which Napoleon would recognize and appreciate, the artillery was an entirely different matter, as its role greatly expanded during the Civil War. The Army of the Potomac's ratio of artillery for every 1000 soldiers was actually greater than the European ratio. The mission of the artillery was to break an enemy's advance, or better yet, prevent the enemy from even being able to advance.
    At the disposal of both armies were three types of artillery. The first was the long-range shell, which was timed to explode over the heads of the enemy with shrapnel; neither flight nor aggression was possible when this type of artillery was used. For mid-range was the solid shot; this "Flying Bowling Ball From Hell" was used for distances up to 400 yards, and many solid shots were fired at once. The canister (basically a huge shotgun) was the short-range artillery of last resort, able to fire 32 yards wide at a range of 100 yards. All artillery soldiers had to pace themselves, mostly so they wouldn't wear themselves down too much or too fast, but also to avoid overheating the guns.
     The most common weapon of the Civil War was of course the rifled musket, but unless enemy armies were very close for an extended period of time (which happened far too often), the rifled musket was not a weapon that excelled in terms of accuracy. Artillery was the deadliest weapon in the arsenal of both the Union and the CSA, but the the effectiveness of the artillery decreased with the range of the enemy. By far, the two most under-utilized weapons of the Civil War were the bayonet and the cavalry, which meant that deadly battles became even deadlier, since neither the bayonet or the cavalry was used to end the extended carnage.
0 Comments

"Wide-Awake": The Radicalization of the Election of 1860

12/6/2014

0 Comments

 
       Source: Adam Goodheart: The Civil War Awakening (2011)
Picture
     From the 1820s to 1860, there was a growing sense that America's leaders (and even citizens) had performed shamefully, especially when compared to the leaders of the Revolutionary War Era. By 1860, Americans were desperate for heroes, and a longing for the "Revolutionary War Spirit" was pervasive in the North and the South. A "Race of Giants" had given way to petty politicians, farmers, storekeepers, etc. The reality during the 1820s to 1860 was that politicians of those decades had to compromise in order to avoid sectional conflict. However, most citizens believed that their politicians were in the "Preservation" business, taking care of themselves, not the "Creation" business, like the leaders of the Revolutionary War Era, whose interests (Americans in 1860 believed) were for the public good. Despite the efforts of the "Preservationist" politicians, America was changing fast by 1860.
Picture
       In 1860, Americans everywhere were ravenous for news, hence the explosion of newspapers. Most Americans wanted to be the first to know the latest, and newspapers happily obliged. Aiding the supply of news to satisfy demand was the telegraph systems network which spanned 50,000 miles. Also, very fast "News Boats" sailed across the Atlantic in just 2 weeks, since there wasn't yet a Trans-Atlantic cable. What other people thought in other regions in America now mattered more than ever. 
     During the General Campaign of 1860, Stephen Douglas
(Northern Democrat, pictured) was the first presidential candidate to campaign by traveling great distances. Since it was rather unseemly to do so, his "Cover Story" was that he was traveling to visit his mother, and might as well campaign on the way. Republicans mocked his cover story, saying that he certainly seemed to have many relatives, since he kept traveling and campaigning; Lincoln stayed in Springfield, Illinois, not saying or doing much. By not saying/doing much, millions of Northerners started to see him as the embodiment of their hopes and ideals.
     The campaign imagery of Lincoln as a "Rail-Splitter" started in Illinois politics in order to provide a political identity, and a "hook" for name-recognition with voters. Using split rails for fences was incredibly common in the still mostly-rural U.S.; split rails represented hard work, success, and optimism for millions by 1860 . . . in the Election of 1860, Lincoln's rivals (Douglas, Breckenridge, Bell) were unable to equal the political symbolism of the Republicans.
Picture
     Democratic newspapers, in the North and South, turned the Election of 1860 into a referendum on slavery, and they did so in a very nasty manner, trying to scare whites with the prospect of "Equality For All". Democratic newspapers labeled the Republicans as the "Party of the N-------". Modern technology, especially the telegraph, made it possible for the shrillest ideologues to spread their vitriol (sound familiar today?). In the face of these attacks, Republican moderates (including Lincoln) talked about tariffs, jobs, markets, anything but slavery . . . but a grassroots army was banding together, wanting a "Holy War" against slavery.
     Most historians believe that grassroots movement started in February, 1860, when Cassius M. Clay, the most famous Southern Abolitionist from Kentucky (pictured), visited Hartford, Connecticut. Clay was escorted around Hartford parade-style, and the onlookers were very impressed, so much so that Republican "Marching Clubs" were formed . . . it was the birth of the Wide-Awakes. The Wide-Awakes in Hartford would march in the dead of night, with only their drums and boots on the ground making noise, and with many torches as well. This quickly became a political fad across the North as 1860 unfolded, many "enlisting" to be in a Wide-Awake group. In St. Louis, a local shopkeeper tutored local Wide-Awakes to the basics of military formations . . . the name of that shopkeeper . . . Ulysses S. Grant.
Picture
      The symbol of all Wide-Awakes was a sinister-looking (to some) single unblinking eye, which by design was to lead to various interpretations. The Wide-Awakes tapped into the tangible Revolutionary War Spirit in the North; it reached the point where the Republican Party had to not only acknowledge their existence, but to deal with them, and use them to gain votes. Southerners were watching the Wide-Awakes as well, with growing disquiet and alarm. 
     The Summer of 1860 was hot and dry, which led to ruinous fires in Southern states such as Texas. Originally, the fires were blamed on natural causes, but before long, the combination of continued fires and the growing influence of the Wide-Awakes led Southern newspapers to a false conclusion. Not long after Lincoln became the Republican nominee in Chicago, Southern newspapers started to claim that the fires were started by African slaves, and those slaves were inspired, and perhaps told/funded to do so by the Wide-Awakes. A rash of lynchings occurred, especially in Texas, trying to "get to the bottom" of the Abolitionist/Wide-Awake Conspiracy. Northern whites were even lynched with African slaves; in Texas, a Methodist minister was lynched due to his moderate attitudes towards slavery; his skin was taken from his corpse in order to be displayed as a public trophy.
Picture
     Many Northerners saw a "Southern Scheme" to expand slavery and create a "Slave Empire" in America. Many Southerners saw a "Northern Scheme" to fund/support radicals to arm African slaves, which was confirmed with John Brown at Harper's Ferry in 1859. However, most Americans were moderates, willing to tolerate the other region if it meant peace; the proof was that each presidential candidate in 1860 campaigned to attract moderate voters.
     But the Republican campaign became something that was neither intended or envisioned - they were about to be viewed as far more radical than moderate in the North and South. "Split Rails" epitomized the Republican Party's doctrine of free labor; quite often, Lincoln was portrayed in the campaign literature with a mallet (which was the tool actually used to split rails). The visual representations of Lincoln wedging rails to make fences showed power, but would Lincoln drive a wedge between the North and the South, leading to conflict? 
     In 1854, a mob of Abolitionists in Boston tried to free a captured slave by storming the building where he was held; a deputy was even killed in the process. The African slave was to be taken back South by his owner, so Federal troops escorted the "prisoner" away from the building, physically beating back those that tried to save him. It was the first time since the Revolutionary War Era that this level of civil disobedience existed in the city; to the tremendous glee of most of its citizens, Boston was once again a battleground for freedom. To Boston, and other like-minded citizens, Lincoln was viewed as just another "Chair-Warmer" in the White House for another four years; to them, Lincoln didn't go nearly far enough against the evils of slavery and Southern influence.
Picture
     To most Southerners, especially politicians, the conspiracy of the Wide-Awakes using African slaves to commit arson was taken as Gospel Truth. Southern states accelerated recruiting, training, and equipping their state militias in the Fall of 1860. Southerners had Revolutionary War Spirit as well; their local/state militias viewed themselves as "Minutemen" that needed to be on perpetual alert. In the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, & Delaware), Wide-Awakes were coming under attack, which led to the Wide-Awakes arming themselves so they could defend themselves in the increasing number of street battles . . . 
these street battles actually increased the number of Northern recruits to the Wide-Awakes.
     On 16 October, 1860, the largest and greatest parade of Wide-Awakes occurred in Boston; the number of participants in the parade exceeded ten thousand. Twenty-five years before, the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was nearly lynched by a mob of Bostonians for his radical views; the parade passed in front of William Lloyd Garrison's home on purpose, with Garrison standing on his porch, "reviewing the troops". 
     The creation of, and the growing numbers and influence of the Wide-Awakes, meant that the Republicans had to use them to gain votes in the Election of 1860. Southerners, fueled by the belief that Wide-Awakes were behind a conspiracy using African slaves to commit waves of arson, came to view Abraham Lincoln as a threat to their existence, property, and prosperity. Lincoln never left Springfield while he campaigned for President, and he did his absolute-best to stay on a moderate course of action. However, events and people that Lincoln couldn't control led to Northerners viewing Lincoln as a champion against slavery, while Southerners saw Lincoln as a threat to their very existence.
0 Comments

The Burr-Hamilton Duel: A Deeper Understanding

10/10/2014

0 Comments

 
     An example of the uncertainty surrounding politics in the 1790’s before “structured” political parties: James Monroe wrote to James Madison, telling him that President John Adams had insulted his honor.  Monroe asked Madison for his advice on a proper response:  should he challenge the "Old Man" to a duel?
The Options:
    * Anonymous newspaper essays (with pseudonyms, e.g. “Publius”, “Caius”, etc.)
       - A favorite political weapon for Hamilton and Madison . . . 
    * Writing a pamphlet (a very lengthy essay designed to defend your point of view
        and/or honor, or to attack someone else’s point of view and / or honor, or both)
       - Another VERY favorite political weapon of Hamilton . . . 
    * “Whispering Campaigns” (employing newspaper publishers, and other influential 
        people to “negatively campaign” on your behalf, while you “stay above the fray”)
       - A political weapon that Jefferson particularly favored . . .
    * “Political Gossip”  (Gathering and recording information on political enemies)
       - Jefferson's very favorite political weapon; his tailored his dinner parties in
          such a way to extract the maximum amount of gossip possible against his
          opponents
    * The Duel (“Affairs of Honor”; the ultimate weapon to defend your honor; most 
       arranged duels did not take place, they were settled beforehand in private)

THE DUEL (“AFFAIRS OF HONOR”)
     Since political parties were in their infancy (starting in 1791), the lack of organization and rules led to many "Affairs of Honor" among the political elite. Shifting coalitions, friendships, connections, unknown loyalties existed: it was very much like a “War Without Uniforms”. Character and reputation counted for much more than merit and skill in winning public office and having political influence over others.
     There were “Rules of Behavior” that were clearly defined: for example, there were
“Words to Avoid”.  These words were escalation words that crossed the line of
honor; examples included "Dangerous", "Despicable", “Liar”, “Coward”, “Scoundrel”, and “Puppy”; imagine being called a “Puppy” in front of others in that era. Using these “Words to Avoid” meant, in our vernacular, that someone is “Triple Dog Daring” someone to an "Affair of Honor". 
     Alexander Hamilton had 11 "Affairs of Honor" (Burr was his 11th, obviously): here is an account about how 2 of these 11 “Affairs of Honor” came about on a single day in 1795:
        “In 1795, after the Jay Treaty was negotiated, Hamilton was trying to explain the advantages of the treaty to an “Anti-Jay Treaty” mob.  Eventually, he became so frustrated with the crowd, that he told them “you have no Constitutional right to express an opinion on the Jay Treaty!” (in other words, he told the mob that they had no right to be a mob!).  Soon, Hamilton was hit on the head with a rock, and he left the building, and went to the street.  In the street, Hamilton (a Federalist) got involved in a confrontational conversation with a Republican, and Hamilton was quickly dismissed as a “fool; then, this same gentleman challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton accepted, and moved on down the street.  Hamilton continued to be harassed by the crowd, and eventually threatened to take on everybody “one by one”.  A challenger emerged from the crowd, and challenged Hamilton to a duel in 30 minutes. Hamilton said, “I can’t, I have a previous duel arranged: I will settle my business with you as soon as I take care of this other gentleman”.
THE POLITICAL DUEL
     Political duels were often deliberately provoked, most commonly by the loser of a political election. Political duels were basically “counter-elections”; it was a way for the loser of an election to “save face” and continue to have integrity and influence in the future. It was an effort, despite losing an election, to show that the individual was going to be a relevant factor, in that his character and reputation were above reproach.
     Both Burr and Hamilton were desperate to prove that they were “players” in the national / New York political arena by 1804. Hamilton was a former Secretary of the Treasury, and for 18 months, one of the 2nd-in-Command for the National Army under Washington during John Adams' Presidency. Burr was the out-going Vice-President for Jefferson, and had just finished last in the election for governor in New York. 
     Contrary to what most think, they both engaged in a reasoned course of logic given the rules of conduct and their particular circumstances in that era.  That being said, why did this “Affair of Honor” get to the point that Hamilton was killed by Burr, since the vast majority of arranged duels were settled behind the scenes long before the parties reached the Field of Honor.
     One day, in the early summer of 1804, an acquaintance of Burr claimed that he had
proof that Hamilton has said “something more despicable” about Burr; Burr had been at political odds with Hamilton for over a decade, and Burr saw this as a chance to re-claim his political fortunes by challenging Hamilton to a duel.
The Problem:  
     Burr had to have a “specific insult” to go by, but instead, he accused Hamilton of a “general insult” that may or may not have been made. This clouded the otherwise clear “Rules of Behavior” that governed the ritual before a duel. Hamilton received a letter from Burr, accusing him of saying “something more despicable” about Burr. Hamilton was torn between dueling and avoiding the duel. However, upon closer inspection, Hamilton couldn’t “lose face” by apologizing for a “general insult” that he knew Burr couldn’t prove, so he sent Burr a rather insulting letter that basically stated that “Burr was not a gentleman”, and that Burr really didn't know what the word despicable actually meant.
     The main variable that actually guided Hamilton's decision-making at this point was guilt; about 3 years earlier, Hamilton's oldest son (Philip) was killed in a duel. What caused Hamilton's guilt was that he advised his son to take the duel to its conclusion; once Burr challenged Hamilton to an "Affair of Honor", Hamilton was determined to follow the very advice that he gave his son. A series of letters were exchanged, and the situation escalated quickly; a date was set for a duel: 11 July, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey (dueling was illegal in New York); ironically, it was the same location where his son was killed in his duel.
     On 10 July, 1804, Hamilton wrote a final statement to be issued in case he was killed by Burr. In effect, Hamilton ensured that even if he was killed, he would prevail against Burr. Hamilton’s Final Statement included:
      a) Various reasons why he didn’t want to duel (family, debt, religious beliefs,
          desire to live, etc.)
      b) Why he had to duel Burr (he thought his opinions of Burr were true)
      c) He didn’t want to “become useless in a moment of crisis”
          (he still had political aspirations, at least in the state of New York)
      d) He planned on “firing into the air” to avoid injuring / killing Burr
          (President Jefferson used portions of the letter, especially the last part, to further 
           destroy Burr's honor and political future after the duel)

       Relevant US History Blog Entry: Alexander Hamilton, 1796 - 1804
    
                            The American Experience (PBS): The Duel

The Duel from Mitch Wilson on Vimeo.

0 Comments

Alexander Hamilton: 1796 - 1804

8/9/2014

0 Comments

 
            Source: Richard Brookhiser. Alexander Hamilton, American (1999)
Picture
     If Alexander Hamilton was a Jedi Knight, he almost certainly would have opposed those that used the "Dark Side of the Force", which in his opinion included Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and to top it off, mankind in general. Hamilton was spared the passions of greed and rage, but he thought he saw it in others. Almost all of the Founding Fathers "poo-pooed" ambition (well, not Aaron Burr), believing that if they showed the ambition that they felt in every fiber of their being, it would be construed as a threat to the nation. Therefore, all of them felt it was their duty to "check" ambition in others. Hamilton, as well as the other Founding Fathers, feared "Caesarism", which was defined as unchecked ambition; in other words, ambition was equated with danger. Hamilton saw one person that not only seemed to be the most ambitious, but in addition had all of the worst combination of passions possible: Aaron Burr, of whom Hamilton labeled an "Embryo-Caesar." Complicating the landscape for Hamilton, et. al., was their passion of protecting their honor at virtually any cost; it was the era of the "Honor Culture."
Picture
     Hamilton's last major service for President Washington was drafting/proofing his Farewell Address (pictured: The Farewell Address Wordle). Hamilton expanded on Madison's 1792 draft for Washington, and it was printed in newspapers on 19 September, 1796; in a way, the Farewell Address was the last collaboration between Hamilton and Madison (Washington made dozens of changes in Hamilton's draft, making the Address sound even more like him). Ironically, Hamilton, the Founding Father that wrote and spoke more than any other (with the possible exception of Franklin), did not write or talk about his service to Washington . . . it was one of the few things that Hamilton didn't talk about when there was at least one other person in his presence.
     Once it was confirmed that there would be a new President, passionate behind-the-scenes politicking occurred at the state level, which as a result of the Election of 1796, meant that the Federalist John Adams was President, and the Republican Thomas Jefferson was Vice-President. In so many ways, President John Adams was limited in what he could accomplish; among the reasons was his Cabinet. For obvious political reasons, Adams retained all of Washington's Cabinet, but that group was mediocre at best, and they were far more loyal to Hamilton than to the President. In Hamilton's mind, this was more-than-fine, in that he was able to "check" a fellow Federalist that had stated, years earlier, that certain aspects of monarchy may be desirable in America (Hamilton had campaigned hard in the Election of 1796 for Thomas Pinckney over John Adams, and it nearly cost Adams the Presidency).
Picture
     During the Summer of 1797, newspaper publisher James Callendar (loyal to Jefferson), brought the "Reynolds Affair" back to public attention and scrutiny. Hamilton now had to publicly defend himself in order to remain politically relevant (he had privately done so with members of Congress a few years earlier), and stated that while he did indeed cheat on his wife, he didn't use any money from the Treasury to pay off his blackmailers. Hamilton believed that corruption was far more heinous than adultery, and that was the card he played. One of the ironic results of the resurrection of the "Reynolds Affair" was that James Monroe (one of the people to which Hamilton privately confessed) was so bent-out-of-shape by Hamilton's defense that he wanted to challenge Hamilton to a duel . . . but Aaron Burr calmed Monroe down, and the duel never occurred.
     In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts; the Federalists felt more-than-justified in passing these restrictions due to the Whiskey Rebellion and the Genet Affair (basically, this was a brazen attempt by the Federalist Party to destroy Jefferson's and Madison's Republican Party). Due to recent tensions with France ("XYZ Affair") and the perceived internal threats, Washington was called to command an expanded U.S. Army (his commission took effect on 4 July, 1798). General Washington refused to leave Mount Vernon unless the U.S. was attacked, so the Second-in-Command would be the actual commanding officer, and there was quite the "Depth Chart" for that rank. Vying for that title/rank, among others, were Henry Knox, Charles Pinckney, and Alexander Hamilton. President Adams wanted to remove Hamilton from any consideration for that rank (revenge for 1796?), but for political reasons, had to keep him in play. Hamilton held some kind of rank in the Army for almost two years, and since there was no fighting, he became obsessed with the "little stuff" (e.g. marching formations, buttons on uniforms, etc.). After Washington's death in 1799, and the de-escalation of tensions with France, Congress downsized the Army in June, 1800; Hamilton was the officer that took care of the necessary details to carry out that Act of Congress.
(Below: A segment from the "John Adams" miniseries - President Adams and "2nd-in-Command" Hamilton")
Picture
     In the months leading up to the Election of 1800, the Federalists were divided over President Adams' second peace mission to France. Hamilton wrote and circulated a pamphlet to SELECT Federalists, which called on them to unite in order to keep Thomas Jefferson from being elected President. Aaron Burr, a Republican, got a copy of the pamphlet, and circulated it EVERYWHERE. Burr also outmaneuvered Hamilton in the New York state legislature when it came to the state's Electoral Vote in 1800. The twelve Electoral Votes that went to Adams in 1796 now were in Thomas Jefferson's pocket (and Burr's as well, since he was TJ's VP candidate). 
     After all the Electoral Votes were counted, Jefferson and Burr were deadlocked at 73 votes each (the voter that had the honor of sending his Vice-Presidential Electoral Vote to someone other than Burr apparently forgot to do so). For the first time, the House of Representatives had to elect the President (each state's delegation votes, and each state counts as one total vote), and after the first ballot, Jefferson and Burr each had eight states.
    Aaron Burr's main problem was that he was a Narcissist (exceptional interest in or admiration of oneself); he was able to talk a good game, but following through was problematic . . . he was all interaction, with nothing at his core, and it would cost him dearly, starting at this point. General Washington was among the first to figure out that Burr was a Narcissist (Burr only lasted ten days as an aide to Washington), and Hamilton viewed Burr in much the same way. Hamilton took it further than Washington, however, in that he didn't want Burr to hold any major elected office at all. Hamilton not only viewed Burr as a Narcissist, but also as someone that could be a serious threat to the future of the U.S., and he wrote numerous letters to Delaware's only Representative, James Bayard, imploring him to change his vote from Burr to Jefferson. On the 36th ballot, James Bayard abstained, and Thomas Jefferson became the 3rd President (8 states to 7 for Burr); little did Burr realize that he had already reached the pinnacle of his political career.
Picture
     To Hamilton, his arguments were the essence of his being; this was so much a part of him that he believed that failure to persuade threatened his existence. Among the topics in which he endeavored to persuade others was bullying, especially mobs (and those that organized and instigated mobs). He also equated other behavior with bullying, including intriguing, lying, and even silence; this behavior was among the reasons why there was a huge rift between Hamilton and Jefferson, and Hamilton and Burr. 
    According to Brookhiser (pictured), there are three modes of leadership: The highest is "Inspiration", which is also the most rare. Next is "Demonstration", which is sharing your reasons with everyone, and model appropriately. Last is "Flattery", which is all talk with little-or-no action; this type can lead to situations where the leader fools the followers, or worse yet, the leader and the followers are both fooled. "Flattery" usually occurs when the leader(s) and followers can't think of anything else to do (e.g. lack of vision). Hamilton rarely reached "Inspiration", and he refused to resort to "Flattery" - Hamilton was a "Demonstrator." Jefferson inhabited all three, but mostly he exhibited "Inspiration" (Declaration of Independence) and "Flattery", which further fueled the rift between Hamilton and Jefferson. Aaron Burr spent virtually his entire political life in "Flattery", which also explains much as to why Hamilton viewed Burr as a "dangerous man." 
Picture
     America in the late-1700s / early-1800s was a rights-based society (much like the U.S. from 1946 - 1965), but Hamilton did not share his fellow citizens' confidence with the Bill of Rights. Hamilton placed far more value and reliance on British Common Law and Natural Law; in other words, Precedent and Theory meant more to Hamilton (remember, he was a very successful lawyer in New York City) than the specific liberties listed in the Bill of Rights.
     Specific applications for Hamilton's beliefs concentrated on contracts. Contracts were related to debt, which helped explain his plan as SecTreas to repay the massive Revolutionary War debts incurred by the government. According to Hamilton, special privileges were the hallmark of despots and slave-owners, while contracts were the handiwork of free men. In yet another reason for the chasm between Hamilton and others was that in a way, Jefferson, Madison, and Burr were "Born on 3rd Base", with a very short trip to "Home Plate". Hamilton, on the other hand, had to work his way around all the bases, and the key to his success was the contract. 
     Hamilton did not have a violent temper; his pride and stubbornness far exceeded any rage in his machine. What Hamilton had plenty of was ARDOR (enthusiasm, passion); he loved his ideas, his work, and family and friends. Like most of the other Founders, Hamilton also had the passion of lust, but he was the only Founding Father to freely admit his lust (to this day, Hamilton's admission of adultery remains the most frank among politicians). It must have galled Hamilton to no end that Jefferson denied any involvement with Sally Hemings, or Burr's continuous attendance at whorehouses, yet the media focused on Hamilton and Maria Reynolds, due to his candor.
Picture
     In November, 1801, nineteen year-old Philip Hamilton died in a duel after being given advice by his father. Hamilton's advice: let your opponent fire first, then fire in the air, and by doing so, the affair of honor is over (it was actually a violation of the Irish Code Duello). Hamilton was consumed with depression and guilt; Hamilton's father was a deadbeat who abandoned his family, but he never gave lethal advice to his son.  
    Aaron Burr was struggling as well in late-1801; his (calculated?) indecision in the House phase of the Election of 1800 had cost him his political future; President Jefferson made sure that in the Republican Party, Vice-President Burr was persona non grata. Yet Burr was still seething with ambition, and he started to focus his political energies in New York state-level politics in an effort to re-start his career. 
     Hamilton's ambition had been ebbing away since he lost his high rank with the dissolution of most of the U.S. Army in the Summer of 1800, and the death of his son Philip in 1801, but he still distrusted Burr, and he basically made it his business to block Burr's efforts in their home state of New York. In 1804, Burr was a FEDERALIST candidate in the New York gubernatorial election; he used his many connections among prominent Federalist families to gain his spot on the ballot. However, Burr was soundly defeated, in part due to being associated with New England Federalists that wanted to secede from the Union, but also due to the tireless efforts of Hamilton's anti-Burr letter-writing campaign. Burr (remember, he was a Narcissist) in no way saw his situation as his fault, and President Jefferson was untouchable, so Burr started to focus on Hamilton as the reason for his political failure. The only one that was open about opposing Burr in the election was Hamilton, and dueling was considered an acceptable political weapon by many to restore one's reputation. Actually, in the "Honor Culture", it was very common for a losing candidate to challenge the winner to a duel; it was the only way to publicly save face and be "electable" in the future. However, almost all of those challenges were resolved long before they reached the stage of firing pistols on the "Field of Honor"; such was not the case with Burr and Hamilton . . .
     The question has been debated by historians for over two centuries: why did Hamilton go through with the duel when he hated the practice? Did Hamilton have a desire to be politically useful and relevant again; Brookhiser argued no, that his life had become somber - he was like a sinking fox pressed by a desperate old hound. It was more likely that Hamilton, due to extreme guilt and depression, had decided to pursue the same advice that he gave his son Philip, for better or for worse. And, if he could derail Burr's attempt at political resurrection, that would have certainly been an added bonus in his point of view.
    On 11 July, 1804, at Weehawken, New Jersey (the same site where Philip was killed), Vice-President Aaron Burr faced former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the most famous duel in American History. We'll never know the true circumstances and sequence of the duel, but it's almost certain that both men fired at the same time. Hamilton's shot went high, clipping a cedar branch, while Burr's shot was mortal, hitting Hamilton in his abdomen. 
     Assuming that this duel was with light sabres instead of pistols, it could have been possible that Hamilton saw Philip off to the side, and decided to let Burr shoot him; maybe by his death he could thwart Vader's, I mean Burr's, efforts at political ascendancy. In the "Reynolds Affair", Hamilton chose to save his public life at the expense of his personal life, not once, but twice. In his duel with Burr, it's possible that Hamilton chose to risk his life in order to protect the nation from Burr. I would argue that if he had not been so depressed and consumed with guilt over the advice that he gave Philip almost three years before, he almost certainly would have figured out that one of his enemies, President Jefferson, had his Arch-Enemy, the Narcissist Burr, well-contained, and he was no real threat to anyone at all but himself. 
  (Below: A segment from "The Duel", from the flagship PBS documentary series "The American Experience";
                  it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen about the Burr-Hamilton Duel)

The Duel from Mitch Wilson on Vimeo.

0 Comments

Alexander Hamilton: The Man That Made Modern America

8/3/2014

0 Comments

 
          Source: Richard Brookhiser. Alexander Hamilton, American (1999)
Picture
     Among the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton would probably be the only one that would recognize (and appreciate) modern America. His vision of a financially sound nation that produced and traded manufactured goods was in conflict with the vision of Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned a far more self-sufficient, pastoral nation. When Hamilton proposed a National Bank in late-1790, the creation of the first political parties became inevitable. Viewed not only as a threat to the nation, but to their way of life, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spearheaded ferocious opposition to Hamilton's vision of what America should become. By 1795, the vast majority of Hamilton's Economic Plan had been enacted by Congress, and his Federalist Party dominated all three branches of the new federal government. Hamilton resigned as the first Secretary of the Treasury early that same year; always achievement-oriented, he felt that he had succeeded in establishing a sound foundation for America to flourish in the future.
Picture
     Although Alexander Hamilton sometimes stated that he was a "Bastard Child From a Caribbean Whore", in actual fact, his mother was a good businesswoman on the island of St. Croix (southeast of what is now Puerto Rico). While her business affairs were in good order, she did face difficulty in her personal life. She remarried before her divorce was finalized, which created a social scandal on the small island. Ironically, Hamilton's father was a bum, walking out on his family, but only moving a few islands away, and never provided any assistance. 
     It was in this situation that Hamilton started working full-time as a nine year-old boy, in what would eventually be called a General Store. Hamilton so impressed his adult mentors that arrangements were made to send the teenage Hamilton to Princeton to study. Even at that age, Hamilton wrote responses (editorials) in newspapers that were well-received. When the Revolutionary War started, Hamilton volunteered, serving in Henry Knox's artillery regiment at Trenton and Princeton.
Picture
     Two months after the victory at Princeton, Hamilton was promoted to Lt. Colonel, and joined General George Washington's official family. Being Washington's aide was demanding and exhausting - the General wanted people that were excellent administrators, but also the ability to solve problems on their own. To illustrate Hamilton's capabilities, he served as an aide to Washington for four years; Aaron Burr lasted ten days. In Washington, Hamilton, for the first time (and probably the only time) met a man greater than himself. Hamilton was quicker in terms of analysis and drawing proper conclusions, but in everything else, Washington was equal or better.
     Both Washington and Hamilton wanted order; the General wanted things done right, and Hamilton knew he was the man that could do everything the way Washington wanted. Before the Battle at Monmouth (1778), Hamilton's duties were administrative and in the battlefield, but after the battle, his duties became entirely administrative. In short, Hamilton was Washington's main conduit to all the groups outside the army, including the national legislature under the Articles of Confederation. By the end of the Revolutionary War, Hamilton saw pressing problems in the nation, the army, and Congress, and he started to think about how those problems could be solved.
Picture
      In trying to find answers to those problems, Hamilton educated himself, especially with economic data and theory (unlike his future opposition, Jefferson & Madison). Ironically, both Hamilton and Madison wanted to expand the power of the national government, especially with a new Executive. But Hamilton was the one that studied markets and industry, and worked hard to try and figure out what worked in Europe. Among Hamilton's many conclusions was that Great Britain became a superpower due to the Bank of England; they were able to expand their economy at a tremendous rate due to financial organization and being able to issue loans.
     When Hamilton married Betsey Schuyler, he entered Upstate New York high society; people who viewed themselves as equal, or even superior, to any Planter in the South. In was often said in New York that the Clintons had the power, the Livingstons had the numbers, but the Schuylers had Hamilton. While Hamilton married into New York society, he was never really truly embraced, since he was an achiever, while the "Gentlemen" were simply "possessors". 
Picture
     Hamilton was sent to the Congress of the Articles of Confederation as a representative from his district in New York; soon after arriving, he met a Virginia representative by the name of James Madison. Almost immediately they started to collaborate, and did so for the rest of the 1780s. There main difference during that decade was that Hamilton was driven by finding solutions to problems, while Madison was driven by theories.
     Hamilton developed a reputation in Congress as that of an impatient, impolitic reformer; his desire to achieve solutions to problems ran into a brick wall called "The Status Quo", and after eight months, he returned to New York to continue his law practice (while he was always in demand as a lawyer, he never got rich). Hamilton's desire for law and order was seen as he represented many former Loyalists in court, trying to reclaim their property under the Trespass Act.
     Before long, Hamilton was sent back to Congress, and he and Madison organized a convention to be held in Annapolis in 1786; problems over commerce was the stated reason for the convention. When only five of the twelve states convened in Annapolis (no enough for a quorum), Hamilton and Madison issued a statement that there would be another convention the following year in Philadelphia; Madison convinced Hamilton to reword part of that statement to read ". . . and adjust to the federal system."
Picture
      Hamilton was one of three New York delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787. However, the other two were loyal to George Clinton, and Hamilton was constantly out-voted 2-1 in the New York Delegation. He felt that he had no impact on the agenda for the convention: he disliked both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans, but was powerless to say or do anything of consequence. Also, his idea of an "Elected Monarch" as the new Executive went nowhere; in short, he left the convention because was didn't feel that he was allowed to be a full participant.
     While Hamilton was in Philadelphia, Madison agreed with him that state debts from the Revolutionary War should be "assumed" by the new government - for political reasons a few years later, Madison will completely change his stand on the issue of "Assumption". Both also agreed that the idea of "Assumption" should stay in the background, and not even be debated on the floor of the convention. Hamilton was the only New Yorker to sign the Constitution on 17 September, 1787; Clinton had basically recalled his two men after getting reports that the national government would likely change. 
Picture
     While Hamilton was at best a minor supporting character at the Constitutional Convention, he would run point during Ratification; his main problem was to get the state of New York to ratify the document in the face of stout opposition from George Clinton. Hamilton turned to the press, writing over twenty Federalist Essays, and then enlisting the help of James Madison to join the battle. In reading the Federalist Essays from Hamilton and Madison, it seemed that future disagreement would have been impossible. But they had their own points-of-view on certain topics: Madison wanted to block tyranny, while Hamilton focused on the potential greatness of the nation under the Constitution. 
     During the Ratifying Convention in New York, Hamilton employed a Madisonian strategy of analyzing each clause of the Constitution, while arguing it merits. Hamilton's arguments did indeed change some votes; the New York convention voted 30-27 to ratify the Constitution.
Picture
     To President George Washington, the only choice for the first Secretary of the Treasury was his former trusted military aide, Alexander Hamilton. Washington also named Henry Knox (his artillery officer) as SecWar, and fellow Virginian Edmund Randolph as Attorney General. The only member of Washington's Cabinet that Hamilton did not know was SecState Thomas Jefferson, fourteen years his senior. Jefferson's "pedigree" of a Virginia Squire ruffled Hamilton's feathers; merit and achievement were the true mark of a man according to Hamlton, not his origin. 
     SecTreas Hamilton determined that the key to Great Britain's greatness was the Bank of England, which in issuing loans was able to influence the "Velocity of Money", and expand the economy, and their empire. Hamilton also concluded that a nation can thrive if it is in debt, but only if the debt is manageable, and the nation has great standing in terms of credit. As Hamilton would discover, opposition to forming a national bank was based mostly on economic ignorance, and fear of losing state-level control (and a certain standard-of-living).
     The Treasury department was by far the largest, and most difficult to run, segment of the Executive Branch in the early years of the Constitution. Hamilton worked FAR harder than Jefferson at his Cabinet post; State was a far more leisurely endeavor. Hamilton needed to establish procedures & precedents for the Treasury; the other three Cabinet level departments had no such dilemma. 
Picture
     On 14 January, 1790, Hamilton issued his "Report on Credit"; he wanted to re-establish America's foreign and domestic credit. The U.S. was in debt to Revolutionary War veterans, speculators, states, foreign nations, and European banks (especially Dutch banks). Hamilton wanted to issue securities, which he believed would provide immediate revenue to repay debts, and increase the level of trust among citizens for the new government. Hamilton wanted to lift the U.S. economy by creating capital (the word was not yet used that way), and the best way to create that capital was to issue securities (citizens loaning money to the government). 
     In order to repay the domestic debt to veterans, Hamilton proposed to pay fifty cents on the dollar: if a person presented $10 in Continental Dollars, he would receive $5 in new currency. It was impossible to keep word of that plan secret, and hordes of speculators roamed the countryside, offering to buy Continental currency for ten cents on the dollar. At about the same time, Hamilton released his plan of "Assumption", in which the federal government would take over state debts (the vast majority of the states were in deep debt due to the war).
     Madison opposed Hamilton on both issues, further stating that only the original holder of the Continental Dollars should be paid, not the unscrupulous speculators (even though in the 1780s he had the opposite position on both issues . . . Virginia politics of the early-1790s was the reason for his reversal). Madison wanted to cripple "Assumption" in the House by including all state debts, those that had been paid, and those that had not (Virginia would be "in the black" as a result), gambling that the amount would be too much for his colleagues to support.
     Faced with organized opposition for the first time in his life, Hamilton responded with his best political move of his career. At a very small dinner party, hosted by Jefferson, Hamilton agreed to support a future capital city on the Potomac River. In response, Madison would vote against "Assumption" to save political face, but he and Jefferson would work behind-the-scenes to secure its passage. In effect, Hamilton sacrificed his state of New York (NYC was the current capital) in order to advance his vision of a financially-secure United States.
Picture
     Alexander Hamilton officially called for the formation of a National Bank in December, 1790, citing numerous advantages in his statement. He proposed raising $10m in initial capital (the total of all U.S. banks was $2m), $8m from investors, and the remaining $2m from various revenues (e.g. tariffs). The Bank Bill easily passed the Senate, but ran into stout opposition with James Madison in the House; he raised the question of whether-or-not the Bank was Constitutional. Madison reversed himself once again from his views during the 1780s; one of his fears was that Philadelphia would become the permanent national capital, despite the Potomac agreement. Hamilton argued that the National Bank was not only Constitutional, but it would also be able to provide money quickly in an emergency, or for the national military. Hamilton's arguments overwhelmed the Madison faction, the House passed the Bank Bill, and Washington signed it into law (it was informally-yet-universally understood that the capital would be on the Potomac). 
     Hamilton released his "Report on Manufactures" in December, 1791, which provided another opportunity to communicate his idealized industrial vision for America. Hamilton relied heavily on Tench Coxe, the new Deputy SecTreas (the first, William Duer, had fallen from Hamilton' graces); to Hamilton and Coxe, industry represented national salvation. Hamilton argued that industry would enhance and support agriculture (a win-win), and would also increase individual enterprise and initiative. Money for all this manufacturing would come from domestic banks (especially the National Bank) and foreign investors. Paterson, New Jersey became the test-center for this industrial vision - it was none other than Hamilton's Showcase (a water-powered plant near Monmouth)
Picture
     The second-half of 1791 was not all wine-and-roses for Hamilton. Hamilton was tremendously gullible when dealing with attractive young women, as the "Reynold's Affair" showed. Maria Reynolds claimed to be a New Yorker from a prominent family who: a) Needed money, and; b) Was afraid of her husband. The gullible SecTreas not only loaned her money (personal, not from the Treasury), but also "visited" Mrs. Reynolds over the next several weeks. Hamilton was being blackmailed: Maria was a whore, her husband was a pimp, and they were conspirators in extorting money and patronage from the Secretary of the Treasury . . . the nation would learn of this affair soon enough.
     On other matters, the SecTreas knew what he was doing. In settling debts by issuing securities, he solidified the nation's credit, which allowed industry to develop. The economy would generate revenue that would fund the pay-back of those securities, with interest. This cycle would be repeated again-and-again, expanding America's economy, and increasing the overall standard of living. While there was significant opposition to Hamilton's "Scheme", the votes were simply not in existence in either house to block his financial/industrial program.
     The National Bank was an entirely different matter, in part due to the reality that the Bank could change the national landscape almost immediately to the benefit of some, and to the detriment of others. The debate over the National Bank was the crisis that led to the creation of political parties (Federalists & Republicans). As stated earlier, Hamilton had never experienced this level of organized opposition, as orchestrated by Jefferson and Madison. Hamilton's Economic Plan was to the detriment of the Planters, who were accustomed to living in luxury by running up huge debts that they never really had to pay-off. In short, Southern Planters were afraid that they would lose their power and wealth in their state / region. Some Northerners opposed Hamilton as well, since there was a huge level of inherent distrust with banks in America.
Picture
     The "Rupture" occurred in April, 1791 during a Cabinet meeting that took place without President Washington. In attendance were SecTreas Hamilton, SecState Jefferson, SecWar Knox, and V.P. John Adams. After listening to Hamilton's arguments in defense of the National Bank, Jefferson concluded that the Banks would be a clone of Great Britain's, and therefore a threat to the nation. It was at this point that Jefferson, by his own admission, started the "Newspaper War" in 1792 that further polarized the fledgling political parties. 
     Hamilton's foreign birth also complicated things at this point; Jefferson's minions in the press concluded that only a "Low-Born" (Hamilton) would stoop to corruption in service of the public. As a result, there was no way Hamilton and Jefferson could work together in any meaningful or productive manner, due to their competing ambitions, vision, origin, and base characteristics (e.g. Hamilton was achievement-driven, Jefferson less so). 
     The year 1792 featured more problems for SecTreas Hamilton. His former Deputy SecTreas, William Duer (corrupt to his core; Hamilton refused to enable him) was sentenced to debtor's prison. Jefferson and Madison pounced on that event, claiming that if Duer was corrupt, then Hamilton must be as well. Jefferson's main newspaper publisher / pitbull, William Freneau, featured constant attacks on Hamilton, to which Hamilton obviously felt the need to respond.
A quote from a personal letter that Jefferson sent to Washington, complaining about Hamilton, was telling: "A man whose history, from the moment history stooped to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country." This quote is telling, not only showing that Jefferson was a "Virginia Squire Snob", but also that he didn't consider Hamilton a fellow Founding Father, due in part to his Caribbean origin. 
Picture
     In December, 1792, three members of Congress visited Hamilton about his involvement with Maria Reynolds (remember her?), including Senator James Monroe (by now a protege of both Jefferson and Madison). When confronted with the evidence (both anecdotal and written), Hamilton freely admitted the affair. In essence, Hamilton chose to protect his public life at the expense of his private life (namely, his wife, Betsey). The good news for Hamilton was that the three members of Congress believed Hamilton, and strongly advised Jefferson to let the matter rest, at least for the present . . . the affair would become public knowledge, but not due (directly) to Jefferson.
     In January, 1793, a Congressional investigation commenced, trying to prove that Hamilton had defrauded the Treasury (Jefferson & Madison figured they might as well attack his public life). Congress demanded a full accounting of the Treasury during its first three-and-a-half years of existence. In only four weeks, Hamilton responded in great detail, and exposed the opposition's ignorance of finance, as well as their political bias. Congress kept investigating Hamilton nonetheless; the investigations didn't stop until he resigned as SecTreas in 1795.
     The entire political tone in America changed for the worse in 1793, featuring actual conflict on many fronts. The French Revolution divided Americans - there were riots and privateers galore, much of which was caused by the actions of the French Ambassador Edmund Charles Genet. The Federalists supported Britain, while the Republicans supported France; it seemed that any opposition to one's views was tantamount to treason.
Picture
      The largest armed uprising before the Civil War occurred in Western Pennsylvania in 1794: The Whiskey Rebellion. Among the causes of the revolt was Hamilton's excise tax on whiskey, from which he anticipated quite a bit of revenue for the federal government. Among the "political" rebels (there were nasty "radical" rebels as well) was Congressman Albert Gallatin, who ironically would become SecTreas in the early-1800s, and would distinguish himself in that capacity. Fortunately for Gallatin and the other "political" rebels, Hamilton had concluded that they did not commit any crimes against the federal government . . . but that wasn't the case with the "radical" rebels, who physically took up arms and marched on Pittsburgh. 
     President Washington ended the revolt with an offer of amnesty, after leading a few thousand militiamen far enough west to intimidate the rebel leadership; he turned over command to Hamilton, and returned East. Shortly after the Whiskey Rebellion, Hamilton notified Washington that he would resign as SecTreas early in 1795. He felt he had accomplished as much as he possibly could, especially after the Whisky Rebellion established the precedent that the federal government could and would enforce their own laws. Also, his family finances dictated that he return to his profitable law practice in New York City.
Picture
     In 1795, Great Britain issued the "Orders of Council" which in essence turned back the clock to the days of Mercantilism: the British started to confiscate U.S. ships that were suspected of heading towards France. British captains that did so were de facto privateers, since they were able to keep a large quantity of what they confiscated. Adding humiliation to injury, the British also still held ten forts in the Northwest (e.g. Fort Detroit), and were able to monopolize the lucrative fur trade. Washington needed to send a diplomat of stature to try and negotiate improved relations with Britain, and although many thought Hamilton would be the special envoy, Washington instead sent John Jay (he thought Jay was a better choice, and would be far-more diplomatic than Hamilton). Interestingly, Hamilton was tasked with drawing up Jay's instructions as the special envoy, which Jay made sure his counterpart was aware (Hamilton was very much admired in most of the circles of British government). 
     The Jay Treaty came back to the U.S. in March, 1795 (negotiations had actually started before the Whiskey Rebellion); even the Federalists didn't like most of the treaty . . . at best, Britain "promised" to do certain things; at least war with Britain was avoided. Washington turned to his former SecTreas for advice and assistance in trying to get the Senate to ratify the Jay Treaty. Once again, Hamilton's essays supporting and analyzing the Jay Treaty dampened enough of the opposition where it was ratified without a vote to spare (20-10) in the Senate, and signed by President Washington.
     Hamilton was assailed (verbally and even physically) at mob protests in New York City against the Jay Treaty; Hamilton never quite figured out that it was impossible to talk some sense into a mob. Hyper-Passion was in fashion, and angry mobs became the norm. In terms of politics, it seemed that everyone had lowered himself after 1793; among the few that hadn't resorted to that "lowering" was Hamilton. 
     That was the Hamilton as of 1795; a very different Alexander Hamilton would surface in the following years, he was influential in determining the the outcomes of two Presidential elections, and he would be a participant in America's most famous duel . . . 
0 Comments

James Madison: President & Beyond (1809 - 1836)

7/21/2014

0 Comments

 
                 Source: Richard Brookhiser. James Madison (2011)
Picture
     Thomas Jefferson and James Madison each served two terms as President. Jefferson's popularity plummeted by a large margin not long after he easily won re-election in 1804. By the time Jefferson left office, his popularity as a politician was at its lowest. In contrast, Madison barely won re-election in 1812, and his popularity nosedived even more halfway through his second term in office due to the War of 1812. However, in rallying his nation to what was seen as an American victory over the British, James Madison left office almost as popular as George Washington was during his first term, and far more popular than John Adams and his mentor, Thomas Jefferson. Usually, when a President's popularity falls off a precipice, there is very little chance to climb back into favor (e.g. Nixon, President George H.W. Bush in 1992). President James Madison found a way to do so as the first President to be in power during a major war.
Picture
     President Madison decided that it was time that the U.S. should at long last possess West Florida and New Orleans. In what would today undoubtedly be called a "Black Op", Madison authorized a clandestine operation against Spain that was headquartered in Baton Rouge and Mobile. Faced with such a popular uprising, Spain ceded the territory to the U.S. Government in 1810; the full potential of the Louisiana Territory could be realized, with the added bonus that Spanish influence was minimized in the Gulf Region.
     In June, 1809, Congress passed the Non-Intercourse Act, which lifted the embargo for U.S. ships heading to ports in Great Britain and France; Brookhiser referred to the act as "profitable dishonesty." As a result, the Atlantic was flooded with American merchant vessels heading to Great Britain. Great Britain, however, did not honor the act, and used the "Rule of 1756" to strangle American trade heading to Europe, and relations between the two nations chilled.
     In the Spring of 1810, Macon's Bill #2 became law; the U.S. would trade with the nation that lifted their trade barriers first. The Republican doctrine of projecting American strength through trade never worked, and Madison was stunned to see that impact to U.S. trade was even worse than the Embargo of 1807. Napoleon offered to resume trade, but Madison chose to ignore the offer since there were too many obvious loopholes that would be to the disadvantage of the U.S. The British were beyond-incensed that the U.S. seemed to be negotiating with its European nemesis - slowly but surely, Madison was leading America to a war with Great Britain in a roundabout, sideways fashion.
Picture
      President Madison, unhappy with SecState Robert Smith's disunity and indiscretion, asked for his resignation, and replaced him with James Monroe - it was the creation of the "Virginia Dynasty." This was also the moment that Madison realized that he was the Chief Executive, no longer a legislator or a Cabinet member . . . but Madison was still too passive to be an effective President, and he still focused too much attention on intra-party matters.
     In February, 1811, Congress voted to enforce the Non-Intercourse Act against Great Britain, which was a significant step towards war. Congress also wanted the National Bank to expire, contrary to SecTreas Albert Gallatin's advice and wishes. Ironically, it was also against Madison's wishes as well; he had come to see the Bank as Alexander Hamilton argued years before, an institution that was "Necessary and Proper." Madison was unwilling to lead the fight to renew the Bank's charter, however, and Gallatin (whose statue is in front of the Treasury Building) was left to fight the battle himself. The House voted to postpone their vote (which was decidedly anti-Bank) until the Senate conducted their vote. The Senate was deadlocked 17 - 17, but Vice-President George Clinton (NY; still sore that he didn't become President) broke the tie, and voted against the Bank. Madison would realize too late that if he had exercised any executive influence at all, the bank would have been saved, and would have been a very useful tool during the War of 1812 (imagine, the U.S. fought the War of 1812 without a National Bank!).
Picture
     The 12th Congress convened in 1811, and Henry Clay (KY) was voted Speaker of the House in his first term. For the first time in U.S. History, Clay used his position as Speaker to advance his personal and party's politics, and one of the things he most wanted to see was war with Great Britain (he believed it would benefit western states). There was "New Blood" in the 12th Congress, with John C. Calhoun (SC) on the Foreign Relations Committee, also pushing for war. These young "War Hawks" (Calhoun was only 29) consistently pressured Madison for war.
     This Republican Congress was "stripping for a fight" with Britain, but the "War Hawks" were basically clueless that they were in no position to hold their own against a superpower. The revenue stream for the government trickled to virtually nothing, since there was no longer a National Bank which meant no regulation of the economy, no trade of note, and taxes were low. Their desire for war was high, but they were beyond-naive in grasping the true reality of what it would take to even have a chance at success in clashing with Great Britain. 
     By the Summer of 1812, Great Britain had not rescinded their trade barriers against the U.S., impressment of American sailors continued, as was British support for Native tribes on the frontier (e.g. the Tecumseh). On 1 June, Madison sent a war message to Congress, listing many grievances against the British; couched behind those grievances was a strong desire for national self-respect. After two-and-a-half weeks of debate, Congress voted 74-49 to declare war, while the Senate voted 19-13 (both houses largely along partisan lines). On 16 June, the British repealed their "Orders in Council", which eliminated most of the American grievances, but due to slow communication, there was no way either government could know of the actions of the other (and given the political climate in the U.S., one wonders if it would have made any difference). 
     In the Election of 1812, President Madison won re-election, defeating the Federalist candidate DeWitt Clinton (who also received the support of anti-war Republicans), but only because he carried Pennsylvania. The Electoral tally was Madison, 128, and Clinton, 89, but if Clinton would have won Pennsylvania, the result would have been Clinton 114, and Madison, 103. It was the strongest showing of a Federalist candidate since President John Adams narrowly lost to Vice-President Thomas Jefferson in 1800. 
Picture
     The early results were in: so far, James Madison had failed as a war-time President, due mostly to the reality that he had the wrong people in charge of the wrong things at the wrong time. Madison had a chance to change all of that, but in 1814, Madison was unwilling to unleash his star, James Monroe, by naming him as acting SecWar while he was also SecState. So, Madison named John Armstrong as SecWar, whose qualifications for the position were lacking to most . . . the Republican party's disdain for all-things-military came back to haunt Madison early in the war (only Monroe and Gallatin were worthwhile Cabinet members). 
    As the British landed in force in Maryland, SecWar Armstrong believed that the British would leave Washington, D.C. alone, and instead attack Baltimore. Madison, after consulting Armstrong, allowed the decision to remain, and after the "Bladensburg Races", the British entered D.C. without any opposition. After this debacle, Madison named Monroe as acting SecWar in addition to his duties as SecState - that move provided real leadership when it was needed most. However, Madison had appointed Armstrong (and the feeble General William Winder at Bladensburg), plus numerous others that failed to make the grade. And yet, Armstrong was right on one thing - the British did indeed want Baltimore. 
Picture
     By the end of 1814, Madison and Washington, D.C. were no longer major players in the war. The focus shifted to negotiations in Ghent, Belgium (lead by John Quincy Adams), General Jackson in New Orleans, and the Federalist Convention in Hartford, Connecticut. Madison received the news of these three events in the following order, which lifted Madison's popularity as President to a level only surpassed by Washington in his first term. 
     First came word of Jackson's miraculous victory at New Orleans on 8 January, 1815 (The American army was outnumbered at least 10:1). Then came news from Ghent of a treaty that was signed in late-December, 1814, ending the war. And lastly, news of the desire of the New England Federalists in Hartford to secede from the Union. The sequence of events to the American public were processed like this: the miraculous victory in New Orleans meant the British have had enough of the war, so therefore we WON THE WAR, and those Federalists are traitors! For his remaining time as President, Madison was lauded as a hero by the vast majority, his party was once again united, and the Federalist party became extinct. Ironically, in March, 1816, Congress and President Madison authorized a Second National Bank of the United States.
Picture
     As America basked in its newfound total independence from Great Britain (political, social and economic), there was a Presidential Election in 1816. James Monroe edged William Crawford (GA) for the Republican nomination, and then cruised to the White House by soundly defeating the token Federalist candidate Rufus King (Electoral Vote: Monroe 183, King 34).
     James Madison refused to be a spectator to his own Presidency towards the end of his second term, as Thomas Jefferson had decided to do. For example, on 3 March, 1817 (his last day in office) Madison vetoed a bill providing federal money for roads and canals. While Madison wanted improved transportation for expansion, he viewed federal spending for roads and canals as unconstitutional - it was a matter reserved for the states (Monroe would do the same with his famous veto of the Cumberland Road).
     In the years after his Presidency, Madison refused to publish his notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as long as he was alive; he thought the impact of their release would be greater after his death (historians treasured his notes, but ironically the general public didn't embrace his account nearly as much at that time). Madison lived for almost twenty years as an ex-President. His most notable contribution was during the Nullification Crisis in the early-1830s, when he joined Jackson (a man he truly did not like or trust) in his pro-Union stance against those that wanted to secede. 
     James Madison was the last Framer of the Constitution to die (he even outlived James Monroe, who died on 4 July five years to the day after J. Adams and Jefferson). Madison died on 28 June, 1836; his doctors offered to extend his life to 4 July so he could join John Adams, Jefferson, and Monroe, but he politely-yet-firmly declined. 
     James Madison accomplished something that the vast majority of two-term Presidents could not claim. Not only did Madison's second term surpass his first, but Madison reached his greatest popularity as he exited office after eight years. Think of the two-term Presidents in our history that did not have the "Madison Exit": Jefferson, Grant, Wilson (LBJ, Nixon), Reagan, Clinton, and Bush ("The Younger"); even Washington and Monroe didn't exit office at the same level of popularity as Madison.
     The only two-term Presidents that I can think of whose popularity remained high after eight years in office were Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower; even FDR suffered a drop in popularity and effectiveness during his second term. There was no doubt that Madison benefited from luck and timing, but he also made crucial decisions that not only buttressed his popularity, but led the U.S. to a favorable end to its first major war under the Constitution.
       (Below: The Presidency of James Madison, from the History Channel's "The Presidents")
0 Comments

James Madison: Secretary of State (1800 - 1809)

7/19/2014

0 Comments

 
                 Source: Richard Brookhiser. James Madison (2011)
Picture
     The political life of James Madison could be compared to a mountain range, in that his experience consisted of peaks and valleys. James Madison reached his first political peak in 1789 with the Ratification of the Constitution and George Washington selected as the first President. His first "Valley of Political Despair" occurred in the early-to-mid 1790s, when the opposing party, the Federalists, scored significant political victories, most notably with the National Bank and the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. By 1796, Madison's political standing in his own party was such that he was bypassed as the candidate for President in favor of a semi-retired Thomas Jefferson. However, by the late-1790s, the Federalist overreaction in enforcing the Sedition Act brought Madison (and the Republicans) near the pinnacle once again; by 1800, the political tide seemed to be turning in favor of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and the Republican party, with a Presidential Election in the offing.
Picture
     As a result of Jefferson's victory in the Election of 1800 ("The Peaceful Revolution"), the Republicans held a 3:2 advantage in the House of Representatives, reversing the Federalist advantage. The Republicans also nearly pulled even with the Federalists in the Senate - the Republicans were transformed from an impotent minority faction to the party-in-power almost overnight. 
     Jefferson stocked his Cabinet with people he knew and trusted, with the most significant members being James Madison as SecState and Albert Gallatin as SecTreas. This triumvirate of Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin would stay together and united, unlike the first trio of Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson (and the nightmare that was John Adams' Cabinet). One benefit that Jefferson experienced by having Madison in his Cabinet is that his Secretary of State became the "Lighting Rod of Hate" for the Federalists, taking much of the attention away from the new President (e.g. Marbury v. Madison). 
     James Callendar, however, kept his focus (and newfound contempt and hatred) on Jefferson; he was out for political revenge against a President that did not find a position for his loyal newspaper publisher in his adminstration. Callendar, now writing for a Federalist newspaper, "outed" Jefferson in terms of his illicit relationship with one of his African slaves, Sally Hemings. In an event that reeked even then of conspiracy, James Callendar was found dead in 1803, having drowned in the James River. While it was true in those days that journalists were often attacked and assaulted, many Americans (especially Federalists) believed that Callendar's death was not an accident.
     As Secretary of State, Madison shared two goals with President Jefferson: peace and expansion. They were also in agreement in terms of how they viewed nations in Europe, most importantly France (awesome!) and England (root of all evil!). The main advantage of their relationship was consistency, with the main disadvantage being that their mutual agreement / world view blinded them to difficulties and failures.
Picture
      In November, 1801, Madison learned of the secret treaty between Spain and Napoleon; America's new neighbor to the west was France, a superpower that wanted to build another empire in North America. In response, Madison (a Francophile) actually threatened France with aligning the United States with Great Britain. The situation was serious enough where Madison sent James Monroe to France to serve as an additional diplomat, under instructions to purchase West Florida and New Orleans (maximum price limit: $10m). 
     Two events changed France's empire-building west of the Mississippi River: a "Polar Vortex" so severe that all of France's ports on the Atlantic actually froze solid in 1803, and an African slave revolt in the Caribbean sugar cane island of Santo Domingo (led by Toussaint L'Ouverture). The impulsive Napoleon decided that the stars were no longer in alignment for his goals in North America, and he offered the Louisiana Territory to the United States for purchase. Robert Livingston and James Monroe signed the document agreeing to purchase the territory from France, and Jefferson and Madison started to work to get votes in Congress to finalize the transfer of land (ironically, the LA Purchase DID NOT include West Florida or New Orleans; it wasn't until Madison was President in 1810 that the U.S. gained what it most desired in the Gulf region). 
     In 1804, Jefferson easily won re-election, receiving 162 Electoral Votes, with the Federalist candidate, Charles Pinckney, garnering only 14. The Republicans also gained an astounding 80% of the seats in the House and the Senate. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory and the results of the Election of 1804 went to the heads of Jefferson and Madison. In short, they both believed that they could do no political wrong; they would not be ready for the foreign difficulties that lay ahead in Jefferson's second term as President.
Picture
     President Jefferson and SecState Madison made efforts to purchase West Florida and New Orleans from Napoleon, but to no avail; the U.S. had the tremendous expanse of the Louisiana Territory, but did not have possession of the port city that would really make the purchase come to its full potential . . . and there was still the unwanted presence of Spain in the extreme southeast.
     In 1805, Jefferson's and Madison's relatively idyllic time in office came to a halt, when in July the British Government changed the rules of the game in the Atlantic Ocean. In recent years, the U.S. had been able to trade under what was called "The Broken Voyage" rule, which meant that U.S. ships could sail the expanse of the Atlantic, but had to stop at specified British ports on their way to their final destination. It was a win-win situation for both the U.S. and Britain, but with the threat from Napoleon, Great Britain reinstituted the "Rule of 1756", which in essence put up trade barriers exclusively to Britain's benefit; it was a de facto return to Mercantilism. 
     Madison published an argument that laid the basis for "Freedom of the Seas" in America's foreign policy, and instructed the U.S. Minister to Britain, James Monroe, to make an issue of impressment. Impressment now became an additional "affront" when combined with the British trade barriers. By late-1806, Britain and France had created a situation where the U.S. couldn't trade with either nation. The main source of revenue (and jobs in cities) was revenue from free trade, and it was in sharp decline; the Jefferson/Madison vision of a totally self-sufficient nation was taking some painful body-blows. 
     In July of 1807, the British warship Leopard attacked the U.S. frigate Chesapeake, killing three Americans and wounding eighteen more; the British took four sailors, and one was hanged. To the Federalists (and a growing number of Republicans), this situation seemed to epitomize the foreign policy of Jefferson / Madison . . . it seemed to be "Wussyville." 
     The Embargo Act of 1807 showed the "I'm too good for this world" streak in Jefferson's character. His mountaintop mansion (Monticello), his extreme dislike of face-to-face arguments, and his small invitation-only dinner parties also confirmed that aspect of his character (as would his ultimate reaction to the failure of the Embargo of 1807). While Jefferson supported the embargo by signing it into law, the embargo was actually Madison's brainchild - he (and Jefferson) believed in the power of commercial warfare. SecTreas Gallatin objected to the embargo; he understood that the U.S. was not truly self-sufficient, and was not in a position of power to benefit from the trade barrier. He also (correctly) pointed out that enforcing the embargo would in-and-of-itself be a nightmare. But, Gallatin was loyal to his President and his party, and he publicly supported the Embargo of 1807.
Picture
     As a result of the embargo, by 1808 exports had declined by 80%, and imports by 60%; yet Jefferson and Madison stood fast by their trade barrier. In enforcing the Embargo of 1807, the Republicans were acting just as irrationally and badly as the Federalists had with the Sedition Act in the late-1790s. Madison and Jefferson never saw that correlation - they valued and understood free speech, not free trade. Jefferson became physically sick when his popularity plummeted (e.g. severe migraines); again, his "I'm too good for this world" streak manifested itself when he decided to end his presidency as a spectator, mentally if not physically resigning as President. Both Jefferson and Madison were stunned that they had fallen so far and so fast - it must have seemed like the early-1790s to them all over again. 
     Before the Presidential Election of 1808, Madison had to defeat James Monroe within his party without burning any political bridges in the process. Dolley Madison's skill as a hostess-extraordinaire helped her husband the most, since he needed as many Republicans in Congress to support him as possible to get the nomination. In addition, Madison was able to secure the nomination during the caucuses in that he had the support of SecTreas Gallatin, and the effects of the embargo hadn't become a reality (or political liability) yet. When the full negative impact of the embargo came to fruition, the Republican delegates were already committed to Madison. In the Electoral College, Madison easily won re-election with 122 votes to Charles Pinckney's 47 as the Federalist candidate.
     The Embargo of 1807 did not end until the Republicans and Federalists in Congress acted in concert on their own (it took that political and economic disaster to get both parties to work together); both Houses voted to end the embargo on 4 March, 1809 (Jefferson's last day in office). Jefferson signed the bill into law, ending the embargo, attended Madison's Inauguration, and then retired to Monticello for good.     
Picture
     By 1809, James Madison had reached yet another political peak by climbing out of a deep valley (at least somewhat of his own making) becoming the nation's fourth President. However, James Madison inherited a small-but-angry opposition in the Federalists, and a divided Republican party (many were vocal in their preference for Gallatin). As President, Madison would climb out of one more deep valley to reach yet another political peak. He would initially fail as a War-Time President before rallying to lead his nation to what was perceived (and packaged) as a victory against Great Britain in the War of 1812.
   (Below: The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, from the History Channel's "The Presidents")
0 Comments

James Madison, The Father of Politics, Part 2 (1789 - 1799)

7/17/2014

1 Comment

 
                        Source: Richard Brookhiser. James Madison (2011)
Picture
     James Madison was on top of the world in 1789. The Constitution was ratified due in no small part to his efforts, there would be no question that George Washington, a man firmly in his corner, would be the first President, and Madison was the leader of the new House of Representatives. Although Madison knew there would be challenges concerning the new federal system of government, in 1789 he did not (and could not) envision the development of political parties. Political parties developed largely due to events in Europe and the battle over how to interpret (and who should interpret) the Constitution. In leading the opposition to Hamilton's Economic Plan, and supporting (at least in spirit) the French Revolution, Madison became the "Father of Politics." Madison, who skillfully used politics to extend the sphere of influence of the national government by 1789, used politics in the 1790s to contain the influence of the Federalists, the Anglophiles, and even the federal government that he helped create. As a result, by 1800 Madison's and Jefferson's political party, the Republicans, were poised to capture the Presidency and the majority of both houses in Congress.
Picture
     While there was no doubt that Washington would be the first President and John Adams the first Vice-President under the Constitution, all other elective offices were up for grabs. Washington wanted James Madison to be one of Virginia's U.S. Senators, but Patrick Henry was out for political revenge from losing the battle for Ratification. Henry had the state legislature appoint two anti-Constitution Virginians to the Senate (before the 17th Amendment, state senators selected U.S. Senators), and he also redrew district lines in the state for the House of Representatives. By doing so, Henry made it very difficult for Madison to win an election from his district to the House; and (Henry must have really despised Madison) he made sure that Madison's opponent would be James Monroe, a young politician that Thomas Jefferson had also brought into his orbit.
     Madison learned from his defeat from the first time he ran for elective office, and campaigned for votes. He made it very clear that he supported a Bill of Rights, and opposed a new Constitutional Convention, which he believed would be the "End of Days," so-to-speak. Madison garnered 1,308 votes to Monroe's 972; Baptists and Lutherans rallied to Madison's side, due to his stance on free exercise of religion, but also for his support of a Bill of Rights. On 30 April, 1789, George Washington took the Oath of Office as the first President, and soon thereafter Madison was sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives. Once sworn in, Madison wanted to get the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution as soon as possible.
Picture
     Very soon in the First Congress, James Madison became the leader of the House of Representatives. Although Pennsylvania's Frederick Muhlenberg was elected Speaker of the House, he (and his successors until Henry Clay in 1811) didn't believe in using the position to pursue his political goals. Madison had no qualms at all about using his position in the House to advance his politics, and he decided to write out the draft of the Bill of Rights. Madison's draft featured twelve rights, drawn from centuries of Anglo-American precedents.
      Two of his twelve proposed rights were defeated. The first was a proposal that wanted to force the state governments to honor the rights of citizens; that would eventually become the 14th Amendment. Among the reasons why that proposal was defeated was that many pointed out that it seemed inconsistent with Madison's argument in Federalist Paper No. 45 during the Ratification debate. The other one that was defeated wanted to be sure that members of Congress couldn't vote themselves a raise during their term in office - that proposal would become the 27th Amendment. Members of Congress also made their preference clear that the Bill of Rights should be listed at the end of the Constitution; Madison envisioned that they would be embedded within the appropriate Articles.
     There was no magical reason why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are listed; it was merely the order that was in Madison's draft based on how his brain operated. Once the ten Bill of Rights were ratified, Madison became a "Secular Moses" in Congress, and the ratification of the first ten amendments also killed opposition to the Constitution. As Brookhiser stated, the Constitution (with the Bill of Rights) had "A Thousand Fathers", but Madison was it midwife.
Picture
     Early in Washington's first term, Madison defended the President's dignity and power. Now the clear leader of the House, Madison spearheaded the successful effort to make the official title "Mr. President" (even Washington thought the title should be more grand - his suggestion: "Your Elective Highness"). Madison also garnered support in the House to be sure that Washington had the "Power of Removal" in the Executive Branch (while not really used until Jackson's Presidency, Washington wanted the power to remove nonetheless). 
     Madison labored hard in pushing Thomas Jefferson to become Washington's SecState, and he initially supported Alexander Hamilton as SecTreas. While Hamilton was flat-out bursting to be the Secretary of the Treasury (no one else was even remotely close to his abilities, and he knew it), Jefferson played hard-to-get. While it was the tradition to be "reluctant" to hold office (the behavior was modeled after Cincinnatus in Rome), Washington became tired of the act, and Madison had to convince Jefferson to basically "get over himself." Finally, in 1790, Jefferson was confirmed as the nation's first Secretary of State, and Washington's first Cabinet was complete (including SecWar Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph). 
     President Washington's "team" started to fragment early, due to Hamilton's proposed Economic Plan. Hamilton first wanted to repay the foreign and domestic debt incurred from the Revolutionary War. Hamilton knew that the U.S. needed to make good on its foreign debt in order to be able to effectively trade and to have a good credit rating abroad. Hamilton also wanted to repay the domestic debt (calling it "Assumption")  by having the federal government "assume" the state debts, which would not only increase the trust in the new government from the citizens, but would also mean that states would become beholden to the national government. This was the moment that Madison aligned himself as an opponent to his former ally, mostly due to his belief that Hamilton's plan extended the sphere of influence of the national government at the expense of the states - it was the genesis of the debate on how to interpret the Constitution.
Picture
     Although political parties didn't exist in 1790, opposing factions had formed around "Assumption", in particular. Jefferson hosted a very small dinner party; among the very few in attendance were Madison and Hamilton. The task at hand, as directed by President Washington, was to discuss the possibility of relocating the nation's capital to the shores of the Potomac in exchange for enough votes in Congress to pass "Assumption."  As a result of the dinner party, the capital would, after another stay in Philadelphia, be permanently located in what was already rumored to be called "Washington's City". 
     Very soon after that compromise, Hamilton unveiled his plan for a National Bank. Hamilton viewed repaying the foreign and domestic debts as a short-term strategy, but he saw the National Bank as a long-term safeguard for the nation's economic future Hamilton wanted twenty percent of the National Bank start-up capital to come from customs duties and tax receipts, with the remaining eighty percent from investors, who would have a (in)vested interest in the success of the institution. Hamilton's vision of a National Bank that largely controlled the flow of money and the liquidity of assets stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition, with Madison leading the charge.
     Hamilton's argument that the bank was authorized due to the "Necessary and Proper" clause in the Constitution did not resonate with Madison (or Jefferson). For political reasons, Madison had become a "Strict Constructionist" in terms of interpreting the Constitution. We can tell that politics (the art of who has the power to make the rules) motivated Madison to oppose Hamilton, because in Federalist #44, authored by Madison, he argued that the "Necessary and Proper" clause was not only valid, it was good government. 
     In 1791, Congress rejected Madison's claim that the National Bank was unconstitutional, and although Washington signed the National Bank into law, he (behind the scenes) had secured his flank by having Madison write a veto statement, just in case he was of a mind to do so. The "Political Score" so far by 1791: Hamilton, 1.5, and Madison/Jefferson 0.5, with Hamilton securing a clear victory with the National Bank.
Picture
      European politics also created opposing factions within Washington's Cabinet and Congress, with Hamilton and his followers supporting Great Britain, and Jefferson's and Madison's followers supporting France (it seemed to have the fervor of the World Cup). As early as 1789, Madison tried to convince Congress to trade less with Great Britain, and more with France, using trade barriers if necessary. The House passed the bill, but the Senate killed it (commercial  self-interests were far stronger in the Upper House). Madison's bill had no basis in economic reality - it was actually very bad economics, but he viewed the world around him politically, and acted accordingly. Madison's problem at this juncture was simply this: he was only basing his political views on his planter class background - most Americans were not of the same social standing. Soon, though, Madison would revolutionize politics by including many of those Americans that at this point he had ignored . . .
     In 1789, the French Revolution started with the Fall of the Bastille, and that conflict started to affect American politics in 1791. Madison & Jefferson believed it was necessary to fully support France; to them it was de facto payback for losing to Alexander Hamilton on the National Bank. Madison and Jefferson had no intention of creating and organizing a political party, yet it happened in 1791. Both disliked factions, but they never admitted to themselves (based on their letters, etc.) that they were in fact partisan politicians. 
     In 1791, Madison AND Jefferson traveled north in order to recruit Aaron Burr (New York) to their camp - who better to challenge Hamilton in his home state than Burr, who had worked with and opposed Hamilton over the years . . . they seemed to be creating an Anti-Hamilton League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. During their trip north, Madison and Jefferson found political disciples and "worker bees", such as Philip Frenau and his newspaper, The Gazette. Using Frenau's newspaper in 1791, Madison espoused his long-term views of what would secure America's future, in direct opposition to Hamilton. Agrarian over Industrial, and Self-Sufficiency over Markets were the Madison and Jefferson watchwords of the day (only Madison, as President, will see the error of these politics), countering Hamilton's very influential "Report on Manufactures." 
     Madison introduced something new in political theory in the early-1790s: public opinion and its role in government. Madison came to believe in more than "popular choice" (voting); people should be "partners" in government as well. This was a key development, in that in the not-too-distant future, Madison would prevail against at Hamilton, in part due to Hamilton's rigid belief that only a small talented elite should be involved in the business of government. It was this new political theory that allowed Madison to create a political party that he and Jefferson would call Republicans in 1792, and their party would have far more voters than the opposing party, the Federalists, by the late-1790s.
Picture
      In 1792, there was a potential catastrophic calamity that was about to hit the new government under the Constitution: President Washington wanted to retire to Mount Vernon. This may have been the only time since 1790 that Madison and Hamilton agreed on anything - both men were key in convincing Washington to continue for a second term. Not long after Washington's "Official Family" convinced him to stay in office, they went back to abusing each other whenever they could. To Hamilton, Jefferson was dangerous, and Madison was devious - both were a threat to the nation. Madison and Jefferson believed that Hamilton would drag America down into the same industrial cesspool as Europe, and both thought that Hamilton was a threat to the nation. For many of the early years of our nation, if anyone disagreed with someone else's politics, it was common and logical to see them as a threat to the nation, and therefore political passions ("Hyper-Passion") ran high, with the two political parties fanning the flames.
     In January of 1792 the King of France, Louis XVI, was beheaded, and in February, Great Britain declared war on France. As a leading Francophile and Republican, Madison was thrilled with the events unfolding in France; unfortunately, Madison (and Jefferson) often denied or excused the massacres and atrocities that were common in that revolution. What existed of the French Government sent Charles Genet to America as the chief diplomat in charge of securing American assistance in helping them in their war, using the Treaty of Alliance (1778) from the Revolutionary War as the legal framework. Washington issued his neutrality stance, and Madison saw the policy as Anti-French. Madison's and Jefferson's political party, the Republicans (with Genet's help), used their newspapers to attack not only Washington's policy, but Washington himself. The mistake that Madison, Jefferson, and Genet made was that Washington was far more popular in America than the far-off French Revolution . . . Madison discovered that there were limits to what public opinion could accomplish, especially if he tried to manufacture / inflate public opinion.
Picture
      In 1793, Jefferson resigned as SecState (it was yet another of his grand gestures that showed he believed he was the center of things), leaving Madison in charge of the Republican party, just as events in Western Pennsylvania started to reach a crescendo. Hamilton's Excise Tax (one of the pillars of his Economic Plan) was viewed by Western Pennsylvanians much the same way that colonists viewed the Stamp Act - a far-off government was oppressing them, they felt, and in the tradition of the day, many picked up their muskets, and tried to change the landscape to their favor. One of the myths surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was that the only way Western Pennsylvanians could ship their grain was by distilling it into whiskey . . . yet there were no ads in Philadelphia's newspapers for people to buy whiskey from that region of the state. Western Pennsylvanians had a ready market for their grain and whiskey: the U.S. Army was in the West, and the Western Pennsylvanians did a good job themselves of consuming their grain and whiskey. 
     Madison didn't believe that an excise tax was a good enough reason for a revolution. Not only that, but he also believed that the actions of a minority were a threat to the majority - he viewed the rebellion in much the same way as did Washington & Hamilton, but offering his support would not be good politics. It must have galled Madison to no end to see that the Federalists linked the rebellion to the many "Democratic Societies" that had sprouted up in America (groups of Republicans meeting in homes, for example); Madison saw them as using public opinion against his own party. It was the Federalists that scored another huge win against the Republicans when Washington peacefully ended the conflict, in part by offering amnesty to the rebels. All the while, Madison kept looking for any political leverage or advantage to use against the Federalists in 1794 - it must have seemed to Madison that the Federalists still held most of the cards . . . 
Picture
     In 1794, James Madison married Dolley Payne (she lost her first husband to Yellow Fever in 1793); Madison now had an extension of his personality, in that Dolley completed him as a public figure. 
     The Jay Treaty, negotiated in 1794, and ratified in 1795, all in secret, became public in the Summer of 1795. Alexander Hamilton strongly supported the treaty (he was the main reason why it was narrowly ratified), and although the Republicans thought Jay sold-out the United States, Madison was reluctant to engage in a "Word-War" with Alexander Hamilton again. The partisan politics over the Jay Treaty is what finally ended the connection between Madison and Washington (it had been steadily declining since 1792, when the Republican party was established). On 30 April, 1796, the House of Representatives voted 51-48 to appropriate money to put the Jay Treaty in effect. Over twenty Republicans flipped, and voted for the appropriation - it was official, in political terms - James Madison had become damaged goods.
Picture
    Even before the Election of 1796 occurred, James Madison decided to retire from the House of Representatives at the end of his term that would end in March, 1797. As far as the Election of 1796 went, Jefferson was truly reluctant to run; in essence, he was drafted into service by his party, mostly due to James Madison's downward political spiral. Vice-President John Adams received 71 Electoral Votes, while Jefferson received 68, and under the rules of the day, became Adams' Vice-President (Jefferson is sometimes called the "1-2-3 Man", because he was the first SecState, the second V-P, and the third President). 
     Jefferson actually wrote a rather nice letter to John Adams after the results of the election were made official, but before he sent it to Adams, he sent it to Madison for some feedback. Madison convinced Jefferson that he should not sent the letter, in that it would be disloyal to his supporters, and the Federalist President John Adams would soon attack Jefferson anyway. In short, Jefferson had tried to reach across party lines, but Madison nixed it. In the same spirit, John Adams actually thought about appointing Madison as the Minister Plenipotentiary to France, and contacted Madison feeling him out in terms of the posting. Madison made it clear to President-Elect Adams that he would not accept the position, doing so for political reasons. To Madison, it seemed counterintuitive and counterproductive for a Republican help a Federalist President. 
     At about the same time, Hamilton was taken down by the Republican political machinery, but not by Madison; by that time, Albert Gallatin (who would become an absolute historical superstar during the Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) was the leader of the party. Under Gallatin's leadership, and using the newspaper controlled by James Callendar (the "Pitbull Publisher" of the Republicans), the "Reynolds Affair" was resurrected, and Hamilton lost favor with many Americans, regardless of party, with his out-of-proportion defense of his actions.
Picture
     France continued to affect American politics; in the Spring of 1798, it was widely believed that the French had insulted America's honor during the "XYZ Affair", and a "Quasi-War" with France ensued in the Atlantic. Then, that summer, both houses of Congress passed, and John Adams signed into law, the Alien and Sedition Acts (the Sedition Act was actually set to expire on 3 March, 1801, the last day of the presidential term in office). Madison and Jefferson responded with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, with Madison writing the latter - they were basically Republican position papers. In essence, they both argued that the states have the authority to interpret the Constitution, plus Jefferson established "Nullification" as a political tool. Madison wanted the states to supersede the courts, which were in the hands of the Federalists.
     The initial reaction to the resolutions was overwhelmingly negative; Madison and Jefferson were way-out on a political limb, but the Federalists broke ranks and over-reacted. The Federalists enforced the Sedition Act to the point where they actually lost political support across the nation. The over-reaching by the Federalists resulted in a political goldmine for the Republicans, and James Madison was able to begin his political comeback, winning election to the Virginia Assembly in 1799, the same year that George Washington died. James Madison claimed that Republicans were the real defenders of liberty (back then, liberty was defined as state's rights), and the Federalists, in their zeal to destroy the opposing party, wound up being the Republicans' best friend.
     In many ways, James Madison was a changed man by 1799. In 1789, he was a champion of extending the sphere of influence of the new federal government under the Constitution. But Madison then wrote the Bill of Rights, limiting the power of the federal government that he was instrumental in creating. With the emergence of political parties, which Brookhiser argues was due to the actions and ambitions of Madison, he changed his views on how the Constitution should be interpreted, and who should have the power to interpret the document, all in the name of furthering the influence of the Republican Party at the expense of the Federalists. The "Father of Politics" was just getting started, for he would shortly become Jefferson's Secretary of State, and then the fourth President, and undergo more political transformations, especially during the War of 1812.
                      NY Times Book Review of Brookhiser's James Madison
1 Comment

James Madison: The Father of Politics, Part 1 (1774 - 1789)

7/14/2014

0 Comments

 
                    Source: Richard Brookhiser. James Madison (2011)
Picture
     In Washington, D.C., there are many famous memorials for historically significant figures, such as the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, FDR Memorial, MLK Jr. Memorial, and south of D.C., Mount Vernon. While I was in Washington, D.C. in June, 2014, I wondered why there wasn't a memorial constructed for James Madison; but then, he does have a memorial - the U.S. Constitution. Madison was the only one that played a central role at every level in the creation of the Constitution: the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Annapolis, Philadelphia, Ratification, and the Bill of Rights. In popular history, James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution", due in part to the fact that he took laborious notes during the Constitutional Convention (they were published after his death). Richard Brookhiser argued that he should be remembered as "The Father of Politics", in part due to his involvement and leadership in not only crafting the Constitution, but also steering political and public opinion in favor of Ratification.
Picture
     James Madison graduated from Princeton in 1774, and very soon thereafter became involved in the politics of his time. When Virginia's Anglicans tried to purge the Baptists from the colony, Madison, even when he was young and powerless, became a champion of religious freedom. When the British Gov't closed the Port of Boston (part of the "Intolerable Acts"), he was galvanized to action with the rest of the Virginia Gentry. In April, 1776, Madison was elected to represent Orange County at the Virginia Convention. Once there, he was named to be part of the committee that was chosen to draft the "Declaration of Rights" for Virginia. Madison actually worked on the draft on his own, much to the appreciation of most of the other members. Many of the phrases from his draft were eventually included in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Madison also made sure to include a clause in his draft guaranteeing the "free exercise of religion" in Virginia.
     Flush from his success from being an important and valued member of the Virginia Convention, Madison ran for state-level office in the spring of 1777. He lost his first election due to the fact that he was not an effective campaigner . . . he didn't buy enough rounds of drinks in his district to get people to vote for him! Madison learned that too much pride can be detrimental (he thought buying drinks was "beneath him"), and also that losing an election is not the same thing as losing a political argument; those would be important lessons down the road.
     From 1777 - 1783, Madison served as a representative to the National Government (basically the Legislature of the Articles of Confederation), and due to his close-up view, Madison was able to analyze the problems inherent of a confederation. Due to term limits, he had to vacate his seat, and was selected as a representative of the "Governor's Council", which was also seated in the nation's capital, until he was able to win another election as a representative from his district. During his involvement in national politics during the Revolutionary War, Madison supported the Treaty of Alliance (1778) with France, so much so that he became an avowed Francophile.
Picture
     During the Revolutionary War, Madison became connected with many influential and wealthy Virginians (remember, Madison was born in to the Virginia Gentry), including the first Governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry (never a favorite of Madison's). As time went on, James Madison believed that the national government should be armed with coercive powers; for example, the Articles of Confederation could not force the states to pay taxes. That belief in coercive powers at the national government level would eventually connect him with New York's Alexander Hamilton. 
     In June, 1779, Thomas Jefferson was elected Governor, and unlike Henry, Jefferson recognized and appreciated Madison's talents. If Jefferson and Madison were not working together, they wrote each other. They were bound together by their similarities (e.g. books) as well as their differences (TJ was the visionary, while Madison was the pragmatist). They both benefited tremendously from their personal and political friendship; Jefferson very much needed Madison's practicality to balance his idealism. 
     James Madison finally met General George Washington in person in the Winter of 
1781-1782 in Virginia. Washington decided to bring the talented young up-and-coming Virginian into his circle of advisors, where he appreciated Madison's advice and humor.
Madison met Alexander Hamilton in November, 1782 in the national legislature as a fellow Congressman. They initially drew together over money and reform issues, but they disagreed on the strategies for reform. Both were geniuses, but Madison was far more circumspect, while Hamilton liked to tell anyone and everyone what was on his mind.
     After the Revolutionary War, America had won its political independence, but it started life as a as a "deadbeat" nation, not even trying to pay back fractions of the loans from Dutch banks and the government of France. While Alexander Hamilton gravitated towards economic matters and the soon-to-be-proposed executive, Madison had moved to the center of national politics, and was learning how to be a politician . . . something that Hamilton never figured out. In the pitched political battles of the early-1790s, Hamilton understood America's economic reality, while Madison viewed the struggles of the nation through a political lens.
Picture
     In 1784, Madison was elected to the lower house in the Virginia state legislature; later that same year Jefferson left for Paris. They kept in touch by writing letters; if eight or nine months passed without a response, they assumed that their letter(s) were lost . . . but at least they had time to reflect and think before writing again. Madison wrote Jefferson that the essence of government is "tacit assent", not only with the people to the national government, but also with the majority & minority . . . in these letters, Madison was trying to define freedom in a stronger national government.
    Before Jefferson left for Paris, Madison and Jefferson steered a bill into law in Virginia, guaranteeing religious freedom - it was the precedent for the "Separation of Church and State." Later in 1784, Madison teamed up with Washington on what he called the "Potomac Project", trying to link the population of the coastline inland via the river. Madison actually thought that the Mississippi River was more important than the Potomac, but he wanted to get closer to Washington. As a result, Madison was Washington's "Right Hand Man" in the Virginia legislature for the project - he had reached a point of such importance in Washington's life that Madison was invited to Mount Vernon in the Fall of 1785. As time went by, the most common job that Madison performed for Washington was that of Ghost Writer (he wrote Washington's Farewell Speech . . . for 1793, at the end of his first term). 
     In 1786, a convention in Annapolis was scheduled to discuss commerce concerning the Articles of Confederation - delegates from only five states attended. But, among those delegates were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and they pulled a political "fast one." They scheduled another convention to be held in Philadelphia in 1787, and then left town so there couldn't be any debate on the matter. In issuing the call for another convention, Madison made sure that the statement appealed to the ruling political class as well as the general public, something that was anathema to Hamilton. To those around him (e.g. Jefferson), Madison compared the Articles of Confederation to the failed political systems in Europe; he thought that there must be a way to bring order out of chaos . . . legitimate, recognized authority was needed at the national level.
Picture
     The Virginia delegation in Philadelphia in 1787 consisted of Madison, Edmund Randolph (now Governor), and the wealthiest Virginian, George Mason (Patrick Henry refused to attend after being asked to do so). But Madison felt that he needed to find a way to get Washington involved in the convention, and he let it be known to members in the national legislature that Washington would ("reluctantly") serve as the President of the Convention, if asked. So, with the exception of Patrick Henry (whose absence Madison did not lament), the "Who's Who" of Virginia was at the Constitutional Convention, with Washington at the helm.
     Madison was the primary author of the "Virginia Plan"; Randolph presented the plan to the attending delegates on the third day of the convention. Madison believed in majority rule that featured some coercive, legitimate authority. After Randolph presented the plan (and ruffled a few feathers in the process), Madison led the struggle to gain its passage. The only steady ally that Madison found was James Wilson of Pennsylvania; he continued to support Madison on many issues during the Constitutional Convention. However, William Paterson's "New Jersey Plan" (maintaining the status quo of the A of C) appealed to the smaller-population states.
     On 16 July, 1787, the "Great Compromise" was negotiated, which basically combined the major elements of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. Packaged with that compromise was the "Three-Fifths Compromise", establishing a formula for African slaves in terms of representation in the new (federal) "Lower House." Madison was the most dispirited and disappointed of all the Virginia delegates, but he kept going (and complaining), trying to save something from what he considered a political wreck. Again, he applied the lesson that losing his goal of representation based on population did not mean that he had lost his goal of extending the sphere and influence of a new national government. 
     Madison's main motivation to take copious notes of what was discussed and done at the Constitutional Convention (he agreed that he would not publish them any time soon) was to use the information from the notes in the future for political purposes, in private . . . the "Father of the Constitution" was already morphing into the "Father of Politics." Madison, Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania (one of the few that was respected and admired by virtually all of the other delegates) were tasked with writing the final draft of the Constitution - Morris was responsible for writing the Preamble. 
     On 17 September, 1787, George Washington gave his seal of approval of the document, albeit by indirect means. While the convention was in session, he was basically unable to directly participate in the floor debates (he participated and influenced much outside the sessions), so he, through a motion on the floor, gave his "indirect" blessing, and the Constitution was signed.
Picture
      James Madison proposed that the Constitution needed to be ratified as written by only nine of the thirteen states; he knew that if even one amendment was added to the draft, then under the rules of the Articles of Confederation, all thirteen states would be needed for Ratification. Madison also knew that once drafted and proposed, the Constitution entered the world of politics. 
     Ratification in Virginia was fraught with difficulty from the beginning. George Mason, an original supporter, stated that he would refuse to attend the Ratification assembly, and campaigned against the document. Mason believed that the proposed Executive (President) had too much power at the expense of the Legislative branch, and the states. Edmund Randolph was also against Ratification, but Madison was able to work his political magic (in private), and Randolph was in public support, at least.
     In New York, Ratification was more difficult than in Virginia; Governor George Clinton was "all-in" against the proposed Constitution. He wanted New York to continue as a semi-sovereign state, which he believed would be impossible with a more powerful national government. In response, Hamilton wrote his first Federalist Essay, which was the start of a propaganda blitz supporting the Constitution in the nation's newspapers. Hamilton wrote five essays, and John Jay wrote four, but Jay started to suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, and Hamilton asked his political ally, James Madison, to join him. Since Madison and Hamilton lived close to each other in New York City (they were both still representatives), it was easy to collaborate. In his twenty-nine Federalist Essays, Madison consistently argued that the sphere of the national government's influence should be extended. Unlike Hamilton, Madison needed to learn how to be a journalist, writing quality product while meeting deadlines; like he had done, and would continue to do, Madison stepped up and mastered a brand new (academic) skill. 
     In 1788, Madison was back in Virginia, at least in part due to Washington's request that he needed to organize opposition to George Mason and Patrick Henry in the upcoming Ratification convention. Mason, Henry, et. al. focused their arguments on the lack of a Bill of Rights; even Jefferson (in Paris) made the same argument in letters to Madison. Madison decided to run for a seat for the Virginia Ratification Convention that would be held in June, and easily won. On 
2 June, 1788, the Virginia Convention convened; among the delegates were two soon-to-be significant historical figures: John Marshall (for) and James Monroe (against). 
     Patrick Henry held the floor for approximately one-quarter of the convention, opposing Ratification. Henry's ally, George Mason, made the mistake of making a motion that the delegates should analyze each clause of the Constitution, which then gave the advantage to James Madison (and his giant brain). But, Madison, the politician, could see that the tide for a Bill of Rights was irresistible, so he compromised on that point . . . but which rights to include, and where in the document should they be listed?
     Even though New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, it would have been a relatively meaningless document without the support of Virginia and New York.
The votes were close in both state's Ratification conventions: in Virginia, the vote to ratify was 89-79, and in New York, it was 30-27.
     During the Constitutional Convention, and then Ratification, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", became the "Father of Politics." Even before the Constitutional Convention, Madison made meaningful personal and political connections in Virginia (e.g. Jefferson and Washington), and outside the state (e.g. Hamilton). He also learned that losing an election or a vote on an issue wasn't the end of the world, and that he could still, with political skill and adroit strategies, accomplish the vast majority of what he felt was necessary to achieve. What James Madison wanted most was a new national government that, unlike European regimes, had legitimate authority to extend its influence, and by 1789, his goal seemed to be on the verge of becoming a reality.
   (Below: Richard Brookhiser narrates a short video on James Madison and the Constitution)
0 Comments

JQA: His Post-Presidency (1829 - 1848)

7/5/2014

0 Comments

 
             Source: Harlow Giles Unger. John Quincy Adams (2012).
Picture
     John Quincy Adams had a gift of being able to make meaningful personal connections with European diplomats and heads-of-state, as well as those in high society. That ability served him (and his nation) extremely well at his diplomatic posts in The Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain, as well as eight years as President Monroe's Secretary of State. When JQA was elected president in 1824, that gift became a curse - he was unable to connect with the vast majority of the American people, which explained, in large part, his immense unpopularity as the nation's chief executive. After his decisive defeat in the Election of 1828 to Andrew Jackson, JQA returned to Massachusetts in his mid-sixties, assuming he would live the rest of his life in political exile as a disgraced former President. Little did JQA realize that in a little over a year, he would start down a path that would lead to perhaps the most significant and productive Post-Presidency in U.S. History, and that his death would be mourned by millions of Americans.
Picture
     Not long after JQA returned home, a long-time member of Congress from his district retired, and to JQA's surprise, he was actively recruited to replace him. As always, JQA was upfront, telling his supporters and voters that he would be an independent representative of the district, focusing on their needs, but also issues that were important to him. JQA was in a state of "joyful disbelief" at going back into politics in Washington, D.C., and he was one of the new members sworn in to the 22nd Congress in early-1831.
     Back in Quincy, Massachusetts when Congress was in recess, JQA gave a speech on 4 July attacking the principle of Nullification, calling state sovereignty a "hallucination." JQA received news later that day that former President James Monroe had died (he joined J. Adams and Jefferson as former Presidents that died on 4 July). JQA's eulogy of Monroe was published in most newspapers, and was very well received - his reputation was being restored. That fact wasn't lost on the Democratic House leaders, who thought that JQA was making another run at the Presidency. Instead of placing JQA on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he was named the Chairman on the Committee of Manufactures - it was an attempt to isolate JQA, similar to what the Massachusetts state legislature tried to do when the kicked JQA "upstairs" to the U.S. Senate in 1802. 
     JQA became an expert on the procedures and rules of the House (more so than his colleagues), and he flaunted House tradition and used his right as a committee chairman to read citizen petitions that had nothing to do with industry or manufactures. On the first day the 22nd Congress was in session, JQA read fifteen petitions that attacked slavery - in the early-1830s, Abolitionists had a voice in Congress.
Picture
     It was not a great time to be an Abolitionist in 1831; most Americans, even in the North, viewed them as extremists that threatened the social order. 1831 was also the year that the Nat Turner Revolt occurred (the largest and worst of the African slave revolts in the South), which resulted in very restrictive slave codes being enacted throughout the South. It was in this volatile atmosphere that JQA packaged himself as a representative of the whole nation, not just his district. JQA took his job as a member of the House very seriously - from 1831 to his death in 1848, he had perfect attendance when the House was in session. With his dogged passion for certain issues, and his expertise of House procedures, he was in effect that era's Ernie Chambers - JQA would not go away, which caused a high level of consternation among his colleagues. 
     JQA became a student of industry and manufactures, and discovered that the Northern textile industry was addicted to Southern cotton and African slavery. So, as chairman, he broadened his committee's sphere of influence via tariffs; the Tariff of 1832, a compromise of the Tariff of 1828 (the "Tariff of Abominations") was largely JQA's doing. Even though that tariff lessened the burden on Southern states, South Carolina used the tariff as an excuse to threaten to secede from the Union at the height of the Nullification Crisis. In typical JQA fashion, focusing on the issues, he voted yes for President Jackson's Force Bill against South Carolina in 1833, and then opposed Jackson's efforts at eliminating tariffs.
Picture
     In December of 1835, James Smithson left $500 million to the U.S. Government for the purpose to increase and diffuse knowledge in the U.S. JQA was named the chairman of the committee that was responsible for the disbursement of Smithson's financial windfall, largely because the Democratic leadership in the House didn't really know what to do with the money, and that "Egg-Head" Adams should know what to do with the money. JQA was ridiculed as President for wanting to develop and spread knowledge in America, and in the mid-1830s, JQA must have felt totally vindicated. Ironically, as chairman of the committee responsible for spending Smithson's money, JQA had far more power than he did as President, and he used that power well and wisely. JQA can rightly be called "The Father of the Smithsonian Institution", in that he made sure that the money wasn't siphoned away for other reasons. He also successfully argued that the Constitution did not prohibit a public institution like the Smithsonian, since it was based in the District of Columbia, not in a state. Among the first things JQA made sure the money was spent on was construction of what became known as the Smithsonian Castle.
     The 1830s was the decade in which the "Gag Rule" originated, banning the debate of slavery in the House - it started when the Speaker of the House, future President James Knox Polk, refused to recognize JQA during a debate on a resolution restricting free speech against slavery. "Am I gagged, or am I not" was JQA's response after the 95-82 vote in favor of
limiting free speech on the topic of slavery. JQA was an expert on parliamentary procedure, and he kept finding ways around the "Gag Rule"; for example, JQA would read a PRAYER against slavery, reminding his irate colleagues that a prayer was not a petition. JQA made sure he kept his arguments on the right of petition instead of the abolition of slavery, which also skirted much of the "Gag Rule." JQA also pointed out, on the record, that there sure were a lot of mixed-race kids in the South - he was the only one at that point in Congress that spoke out against the hypocrisy of African slavery. JQA kept winning rhetorical battles in debate, and somehow avoided censure - he had earned the nickname "Old Man Eloquent", even by those that despised his politics.
Picture
     John Quincy Adams continued to be a political meteor in the House, fighting against what he termed "Slaveocracy"; his new focus was to oppose the admission of territories into the Union as slave states. JQA led the fight in the House against the recognition of Texan Independence in 1836; he was able to avoid the "Gag Rule" in talking about the potential expansion of slavery by getting enough representatives to overrule the Speaker. By 1836, JQA had become a national presence, which he never achieved in his single term as President.
     In 1836, Jackson's 2nd Vice-President, Martin Van Buren, became the 8th President, and John Quincy Adams renounced party affiliation, officially becoming an Independent. When Congress resumed in 1837, JQA was determined to save his nation from destroying itself from within by opposing the practice of slavery. Desire was one thing, but the political realities were another - the "Three-Fifths Compromise" was still in effect, and by increasing the number of African slaves, Southern states were able to increase their number of representatives in the House by 35%. The increase in Southern representatives meant that JQA faced the real possibility of being expelled from the House of Representatives.
     In 1839, the first attempt to expel JQA from the House began; however, stalemate gripped the House in terms of organizing leadership positions and populating committees. So, ironically, JQA was named Speaker Pro-Tem (temporary Speaker) in order to get the House organized - even those that hated his politics viewed him as fair, honest, and impartial, a true patriot. Once the House was organized and the committees established, the "Gag Rule" was put back in place, and efforts continued to censure and expel JQA from the House.
Picture
     In 1839, an event occurred that focused attention away from the attempted expulsion of JQA from the House: the Amistad Incident (Steven Spielberg directed a movie about the event in 1997). The Amistad was a Spanish slave ship, and a mutiny occurred on board as it was crossing the Atlantic. As a result of a bizarre set of circumstances on board, the ship wound up in Connecticut, and President Martin Van Buren had a political hornet's nest with which to contend. Were the Africans property, or were they people with rights (e.g. habeas corpus)? Did the U.S. Government even have jurisdiction in the matter? Ellis Gray Loring, a friend of JQA, and Roger Sherman Baldwin (grandson of Roger Sherman, a Founding Father), asked JQA to join them pro bono on behalf of the Africans; JQA agreed to do so, at the age of 73. 
     Once again, JQA argued a case in front of the Supreme Court (among his previous cases were Fletcher v. Peck in 1810) on 24 February, 1841. JQA's arguments on behalf of the Africans from the Amistad lasted four hours, and the Supreme Court justices were transfixed. An associate justice suddenly died after the events of the day, and arguments were postponed for a week. On 1 March, 1841, JQA continued his arguments by using humanistic and spiritual principles. In essence, JQA triple-dog-dared the Court to be the equals of their predecessors (he even named their predecessors). The Supreme Court voted unanimously to free the 30+ Africans, allowing them to return to West Africa. In his mid-70s, JQA decided to continue serving in the House; the Amistad Incident had re-energized him; he also knew that if he quit, he would wither instead of prosper.
Picture
     William Henry Harrison won the Election of 1840, becoming the first President from the Whig Party; about a month in his term as President, he suddenly died of pneumonia, and his Vice-President, John Tyler, became the 10th President. With Tyler's approval, the House prepared to censure AND expel John Quincy Adams from the House of Representatives.
     (JQA had always been fascinated with technology, and in 1843, he became the first President to be photographed; the first photograph was in 1842, but it was lost, and JQA's 1843 daguerreotype became the famous image)
     While opposing forces tried to remove JQA, he kept up his fight against slavery. He read a petition that supported dissolving the Union, and then to show the political inconsistency and hypocrisy involved, had the Declaration of Independence read into the record. JQA had now become even more famous and admired across the nation (except in the South, of course). The Prentiss-Adams Act outlawed dueling in the District of Columbia; JQA likened dueling to slavery, in that a better pistol shot could control / blackmail / intimidate an inferior shot. 
     Letters came pouring in to the House supporting JQA from citizens across the nation, which led to the motion censuring JQA to be tabled. Immediately, JQA introduced 200 petitions against slavery, and then spoke, summarizing the petitions . . . those words became the Constitutional basis for President Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. By the early-1840s, JQA had become even more popular than President John Tyler, and had rejoined a prestigious circle of celebrated (and despised) politicians that included Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. 
Picture
      Few Americans understood President John Quincy Adams, but EVERYONE understood Representative JQA. In the early-1840s, JQA had not only became one of the most sought-after American politicians, he had become one of the most celebrated Americans in the Western World; Charles Dickens even wanted to meet the esteemed Representative from Boston.
     Finally, in 1844, Congress abolished the "Gag Rule", 105-80; it was the first victory of the North over the South in the battle over slavery. As JQA traveled the nation promoting the sciences (e.g. the study of astronomy at universities), he discovered, ironically enough, that he actually enjoyed campaigning, something he had steadfastly refused to do all his political life.
     As Congress voted to go to war with Mexico in 1846, JQA was one of 11 members of the House that voted against the declaration of war. In 1847, JQA suffered a stroke, but he mostly recovered; however, he was markedly weaker than he was before the stroke. When Congress reconvened, JQA received a warm round applause from the House; among those that applauded was a freshmen representative from a district in Illinois - Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln became one of JQA's greatest supporters against the expansion of slavery, and for federal funding for transportation (e.g. railroads). On 11 July, 1847, John Quincy Adams celebrated his 80th birthday.
Picture
     On 6 December, 1847, Congress resumed, but JQA's strength was ebbing away. Still, JQA never missed a day when Congress was in session - he no longer walked to the Capitol, though. Soon, he became too weak to even write in his diary, something he had faithfully done for about 70 years. On 21 February, 1848, President James Knox Polk sent the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to the Senate for ratification. In the House, proposed resolutions concerning the treaty were debated, with JQA in opposition to virtually every resolution supporting the recently-concluded war with Mexico. During these debates, JQA suffered a massive stroke on the House floor; he never left the Capitol building, dying two days later in the Office of the Speaker on 23 February, 1848. Before he died, JQA asked to see Henry Clay, who arrived weeping, and left the office inconsolable. Clay wasn't alone: not since the deaths of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had America experienced as intense a level of collective mourning. As JQA's "Mourning Train" traveled back to Quincy, Massachusetts, thousands of Americans stood by, paying their respects.
     As a Representative, JQA connected with the American people, something he was unable to do when he was President. JQA had lived in the shadow of his father, John Adams, one of the most important and accomplished Founding Fathers, the only one that was involved in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Treaty of Paris, 1783. As President, John Adams had some notable achievements, especially avoiding war with France. But John Quincy Adams was able to achieve something that his legendary father never could - as a result of his time in the House of Representatives battling against slavery, he was truly mourned by the American people when he died (except in the South, of course . . .).
          (Below: segments from Steven Spielberg's "Amistad" featuring John Quincy Adams, 
                                  portrayed by Oscar-winner Sir Anthony Hopkins)
0 Comments

JQA: Secretary of State and President (1817 - 1829)

7/4/2014

0 Comments

 
              Source: Harlow Giles Unger. John Quincy Adams (2012).
Picture
       In many ways, John Quincy Adams was the most qualified person to be President in the short history of the United States. True, JQA didn't have the military background of Washington or Monroe, and he wasn't the only candidate to have been SecState or to have experience abroad, like Jefferson. But JQA had been involved in foreign affairs since he was a teen, and compared to his predecessors, he presided over a far-more complex and influential State Department; for eight years, JQA was the second-most powerful executive in the U.S. Government. So the question is this: how could this eminently qualified person be such an unpopular and ineffective President - so much so that he was unable to have a singular achievement in his four years in office.
     JQA brought order out of chaos in the State Department - he established the Bureau of Weights and Measures, providing a uniform system for markets for the first time in U.S. History. On foreign policy, he issued a standing order to follow the "Alternate Protocol" on international agreements (the U.S. needed to be listed first among the nations involved in at least one copy of the negotiated treaty), making sure that the U.S. was an equal partner in global affairs.
Picture
     In 1818, JQA and Britain negotiated a treaty that extended the U.S./Canadian border
along the 49th Parallel, from the Lake of the Woods all the way to the Rocky Mountains. As far as the Oregon Territory was concerned, both nations agreed that it should remain open to U.S. settlement (de facto dual sovereignty). Both nations wanted to put the boundary issue to rest: the British wanted to focus on events in Europe, while the U.S. wanted to focus on Spain in North America, especially in Spanish Florida.
     SecState JQA was the only one in Monroe's Cabinet that supported General Andrew Jackson's invasion of Spanish Florida (the others, like Crawford and Calhoun, were jockeying for position to pursue the Presidency in 1824). JQA argued that Jackson's invasion was justified in that the Spanish were allowing warriors from the Seminole nation to attack Americans in Georgia (Georgia was the homeland of the Seminole Nation). JQA convinced President James Monroe to support Jackson, which was a shrewd maneuver, in that Spain was now worried that Jackson could reek even more havoc on Florida. JQA was now able to negotiate with Spain for the purchase and transfer of Florida from a position of strength.
Picture
     In 1819, the Adams-Onis Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate; Spain renounced all claims to Florida and Oregon (it was also agreed that Texas was still a Spanish possession). The treaty also defined the western limits of the Louisiana Territory - the Adams-Onis Treaty was the real agreement that created the American Empire. Almost immediately, however, a major problem arose: should the expansion west include the expansion of slavery? SecState (and former lawyer) JQA issued a formal statement saying that Congress can only ban slavery where it doesn't exist . . . for many in the U.S. Government, that didn't go far enough. Therefore, on the heels of the Adams-Onis Treaty came the Missouri Compromise, which stayed in effect until the 1850s.
     In the Election of 1820, President James Monroe received all of the Electoral Votes except one - JQA was the only other recipient of an Electoral Vote (that voter wanted Washington to be the only unanimous selection as President). After the election, JQA issued a prediction: Monroe's second term would be very fractious, and in that, he was correct. He understood that since there was only one political party (it wasn't a national political party yet, that would happen under the guidance of Martin Van Buren in the 1830s/1840s), and that would naturally lead to more competition and in-fighting within, especially among the various regions in the U.S.
     SecState JQA was the author of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which in essence stated that European nations were no longer welcome to colonize in the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine worked because Europe (especially Britain, who actually enforced the Doctrine for a few decades) figured out that it would be far less-costly and far-more profitable to trade with America. With no more worries of foreign invaders, western expansion intensified with the construction of turnpikes and canals (almost entirely funded by and constructed at the state level). Also, with no more worries of foreign invaders, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, William Crawford, and Andrew Jackson were able to focus on the Election of 1824; only JQA stayed loyal, silent, and above the fray during Monroe's second term. JQA refused to actively campaign - he believed that merit and conduct should be the main qualifiers. So, JQA's wife, Louisa, pulled a page from the Dolley Madison playbook, and used levees (receptions) as a de facto political tool for her husband.
Picture
     Candidates for President in 1824 (and in the years prior) were "Favorite Sons" nominated by state legislatures. The candidates for the Election of 1824 (all from the same party) were: JQA from Massachusetts, Andrew Jackson from Tennessee, Henry Clay from Kentucky, William Crawford from Georgia, and John C. Calhoun (from South Carolina, but he basically nominated himself). Calhoun eventually announced that he would be a candidate for Vice-President for BOTH Jackson and JQA; he gambled that the Vice-Presidency would be a new stepping-stone for the Presidency. William Crawford suffered a stroke in 1823, which effectively ended his campaign. The only major candidates remaining were Clay, Jackson, and JQA, and it was at this point that JQA was forced to come up with a campaign strategy if he truly wanted to become President. JQA invited Jackson to one of Louisa's social receptions, and offered Jackson the Vice-Presidential slot on the ticket (I'm sure that made Calhoun ecstatic). Jackson (politely) refused the offer, and JQA actually abandoned his campaign, since Jackson was the clear front-runner.
     The Electoral College results for the Election of 1824 were as follows: Jackson, 99; JQA 84; Crawford, 41; Clay, 37. Since no candidate received a majority, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives (only the top three were eligible). During deliberation in the House, Clay (who was again Speaker) convinced the representatives of Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri to support JQA. Shortly thereafter, JQA announced that Clay would be his SecState - JQA's victory appalled most Americans, and Jackson took full advantage, calling the result in the House a "Corrupt Bargain." Jackson (and most other politicians in Congress) would spend the next four years making life very difficult for President John Quincy Adams.
     JQA's Inaugural Address did not resonate with most Americans - the former diplomat / SecState had spent so much time abroad, and was so well-educated, that he didn't have his finger on the pulse of the nation. JQA advocated federal funding for transportation, which very few Americans supported at that time, and he used many quotes from his classical education, which meant that his address was that of an "Egg Head", so to speak. The Inaugural Ball would be the last joyous moment of his Presidency - no President in our history had such a short honeymoon in office.
Picture
     The Presidency of John Quincy Adams was notable for the sheer lack of achievement. Perhaps the only notable highwater mark that occurred was that JQA held a formal reception for the Marquis de Lafayette - it was the last time he would be in America. JQA did not believe in patronage (a.k.a. the "Spoils System"); as a consequence,  many tried to undermine his Presidency. At the same time, President JQA kept undermining himself with his constant rhetoric favoring the federal government over state governments, which fueled Andrew Jackson's efforts in building a political base for his run for the Presidency in 1828. 
     JQA's erudition meant that he was constantly misunderstood in his speeches; he even seemed to be against the "Common Man", which Jackson used to his advantage. JQA (far ahead of his time) envisioned an educated, literate America with the federal government providing assistance. The reality of JQA's time was that America was a nation of small land owners and laborers that had big expectations; these citizens wanted their physical needs to be met far more than their intellectual needs. As a result, JQA was roundly ridiculed and rejected, and was not only seen as irrelevant, but also as an obstacle to the progress of the nation. The overall feeling of most Americans was that less government, not more, was preferable. JQA became severely depressed, and he basically stopped working, and became a spectator in his own Presidency.
Picture
     John Quincy Adams recognized that he would be the first President that contributed nothing to his nation. First Lady Louisa Adams started her levees again, but JQA was unable to even enjoy small-talk at these events. JQA would quote such figures as Tacitus, and he would roll with laughter based on the humor or irony in the passage, but very few understood his references, which increased JQA's level of frustration. 
     The off-year elections of 1826 added to the Jacksonian majority in both houses, further increasing JQA's malaise. The best-prepared, most experienced person to become President to that point in history was by far the least effective and the least-popular of the first six Presidents. JQA did not understand why he was so reviled - he never quite made the connection that he was a master at relating to the Czar, but that skill-set did not transfer in terms of connecting to the average citizen.
     The Election of 1828 was a rematch, and a mismatch - Jackson had 178 Electoral Votes to JQA's 83 . . . for JQA, the results were a mix of humiliation and relief. JQA went back home to Massachusetts, but in 1830, he made a decision that would not only bring him back into national level politics, but would also make him a prominent (and admired/hated) national figure - JQA became the only former President to be elected to the House of Representatives, and the first major political figure that championed the abolition of slavery . . . 
 (Below: A segment from a History Channel documentary on the American Presidents, focusing
    on the Election of 1824, the Presidency of JQA, and the Election of 1828)
0 Comments

John Quincy Adams: Before 1817, Part 2

7/3/2014

0 Comments

 
             Source: Harlow Giles Unger. John Quincy Adams (2012).
(Below from the John Adams HBO Miniseries: VP John Adams insists that JQA should begin to practice law - this conversation occurred before the year 1794, when President Washington sent JQA to Holland)
Picture
     When the Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson won the Election of 1800, the Federalist John Quincy Adams' days as the American Minister in Prussia were over (actually, JQA's father, John Adams, recalled him before leaving office to save his son political embarrassment). But by 1817, President James Monroe, one of Jefferson's main proteges, named JQA as his SecState. What follows is an account of how JQA came back from a political abyss, and became one of a very small group of men that could be elected as the next President after James Monroe left office.
     In 1802, JQA won election to the Massachusetts state senate, and immediately went on the attack against corruption, both in the chamber, and in the state, which rankled his colleagues to no end. His fellow Federalists decided to send JQA to the U.S. Senate, which was designed to be a de facto political exile without upsetting his father, John Adams (for many decades in our early history, serving in a state legislature was more prestigious and important than being a U.S. Senator - that changed with the ratification of the 
17th Amendment).
     In 1803, Northern and Western Europe experienced a once-in-a 500 year Arctic blast; the French harbors on the Atlantic actually froze; it was this arctic blast that started Napoleon down the path of selling the Louisiana Territory to the U.S. JQA was alone among the Federalists in the Senate that was in favor of what became known as the Louisiana Purchase. JQA made a motion to include the phrase "with the assent of the French Government" added to the document of purchase, which then, in effect, made the document a treaty. JQA's maneuver provided Jefferson a "political out", since he was able to then argue that the President's power to negotiate a treaty made the purchase Constitutional. More immediately, JQA's ploy meant that Jefferson was able to line up the Democratic-Republican vote to purchase Louisiana.
     JQA was attacked by the Federalists in both houses, and became persona non grata within the ranks; JQA even started to attend (via invitation) President Jefferson's dinner parties. Then, in an abrupt turnabout, JQA opposed the Jeffersonians over their program of taxation in the Louisiana Territory - JQA believed it violated self-determination. The taxation program easily passed in the Senate, but JQA showed that he was by no means Jefferson's lackey. In his time as a U.S. Senator, JQA consistently outraged Federalists and Democratic-Republicans alike, and was labeled a malcontent for his efforts. Even his close friend James Madison became upset when JQA blocked his proposed border treaty between the U.S. and Canada; JQA wanted the border to be at the 49th Parallel towards the west. Despite irritating and challenging members of both parties, JQA remained essential in committees, due to his legal background and his almost unmatched expertise on foreign affairs. Also, JQA remained popular with President Jefferson, since they had known each other since JQA was a teen, and his worldliness also appealed to the third President, but TJ always appreciated JQA's efforts at providing him the Constitutional justification to purchase Louisiana from France.
Picture
     John Quincy Adams' popularity with Jefferson was put to the test towards the end of his first term as President. Jefferson and SecState James Madison were determined to change the makeup of the Supreme Court by replacing Federalists with Democratic-Republicans. Their strategy to change the Supreme Court: Impeachment. The end-game was to remove Chief Justice John Marshall, but in order to establish political and legal precedent, the first (and only) attempt at removing a Supreme Court justice centered on Samuel Chase, who drank and talked too much for his own good . . . therefore, he was the easiest target. JQA led the opposition in the Senate trial to remove Chase from the bench, and in doing so, he kept Jefferson & Madison from criminalizing free speech. 
     The Federalist "Shunning" of JQA became even more intense in 1807, when JQA sided with Jefferson and Madison in their support of an embargo against Great Britain after their attack on the U.S. frigate Chesapeake. JQA saw the embargo as middle-ground between going to war and doing nothing - he was the only Federalist to support the embargo. JQA, Jefferson, and Madison believed that the U.S. was a self-sufficient economy, but they found out otherwise very quickly. In the ensuing economic collapse due to the Embargo Act of 1807, Massachusetts blamed JQA for their misery, and JQA was removed as U.S. Senator by the state legislature. John Adams thought his son's dream of upward trajectory towards the Presidency was shattered forever.
              (Below: a short segment from a documentary tracing the Embargo Act and its 
                              impact from Jefferson's Presidency to that of Madison
Picture
     In 1808, JQA, despite being one of the foremost experts on foreign relations in the U.S., was once again a lawyer in the private sector. Members of the Democratic-Republican Party kept sending cases JQA's way, and he even argued some cases in the Supreme Court, most famously Fletcher v. Peck (the court ruled that state cannot interfere with the pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, which was then defined as property). 
     In the Election in 1808, another Democratic-Republican, James Madison, was sent to the White House. Madison asked JQA to be the American Minister to Russia, and JQA quickly agreed (he didn't even consult his wife). JQA viewed the appointment as the only way to re-enter national level politics (his own party, the Federalists, had made it their mission to make life miserable for JQA); he saw going to Russia as a "Honorable Diplomatic Exile", and he arrived in St. Petersburg in 1810. Madison's motive in appointing JQA was to improve relations with Russia by appointing a former President's son, and it worked out wonderfully for America in the years ahead.
     By the time JQA arrived in St. Petersburg, the European landscape had changed - Napoleon dominated the continent, even Western Russia. JQA worked hard to develop a personal relationship with Czar Alexander I (the Czar was captivated by the "Cultured Commoner"), and in addition, JQA sent more intelligence back to President Madison than any other foreign minister in Europe, by far. John Quincy Adams convinced Czar Alexander I that it would benefit both nations if he eliminated the existing trade barriers. JQA's stock was again on the rise, and President Madison actually nominated him for an associate justice opening in the Supreme Court, and the Senate confirmed that nomination . . . JQA was a Supreme Court justice! But, JQA turned down the appointment/confirmation (he didn't want his pregnant wife to travel a great distance), and yet again his father thought it was the end of the line for his son.
Picture
     Eventually JQA regretted turning down the opening in the Supreme Court, but he would soon be a very busy foreign minister. Napoleon's invasion of Russia and America's invasion of Canada (during the War of 1812) occurred concurrently. Madison sent JQA to Ghent, Belgium, to be in charge of American negotiations with Great Britain to try and end the war through diplomacy. Madison made it very clear to JQA what his reward would be if he succeeded: he would be Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain, which was the highest-paid and most prestigious diplomatic position in the American array. 
     Joining JQA in Ghent were Henry Clay from Kentucky (the current Speaker of the House), Albert Gallatin (Senator from Pennsylvania, and eventually Alexander Hamilton's equal as SecTreas), as well as James Bayard (Senator from Delaware) and Jonathan Russell (Minister to Sweden). This group, with JQA in charge, was a "Diplomatic Dream Team", and proved to be a very cohesive unit, despite Clay's predilection to play cards late into the evening. Negotiations at Ghent ebbed and flowed based on the pattern of the war in the U.S., and impasse was the result. JQA and his British counterpart decided, in late-1814, to negotiate an end to the war, and let others sort out the mess. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war, and it was a stinging result for both sides, in that the treaty was an agreement to return to the status quo before the war began. True to his word, Madison sent JQA to Great Britain - JQA had reached the pinnacle in the World of Diplomacy.
Picture
     After the War of 1812, America experienced it greatest economic growth in its short history, due mostly to Western Expansion. A "Revolution" took place: a whole new class of property owners emerged due to the expansion west, and the American political landscape changed. Now, the "Common Man" could directly participate in politics instead of being forced to the sidelines by the powerful elite. Also after the war, Americans celebrated their war heroes: Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, James Monroe, and JQA. 
     Not long after the War of 1812 ended, Napoleon returned to power, and JQA was on one of the last ships that was allowed to leave France. Once back in Britain, JQA was joined by Clay and Gallatin to negotiate a treaty of commerce and maritime law (part of the "sorting out" after Ghent). Stephen Decatur's victory over the Barbary Pirates at Tripoli surprised the British, and JQA was able to negotiate better terms from America's victory in the Mediterranean. Once the treaty was drafted and ready to sign, JQA refused to sign it! JQA insisted that the U.S. appear as "first signatory" in one of the documents (which was the protocol, and the British were trying to minimize America's global stature), and on 3 July, 1815, the treaty was completed to JQA's satisfaction. 
     JQA developed an effective working relationship with his British counterpart, Robert Stewart, a.k.a. the Viscount Castlereagh. Castlereagh valued JQA's education, and they connected; JQA never equivocated, and was always up-front with what the U.S. Government wanted from Britain. Both JQA and Castlereagh viewed disarmament on the Great Lakes as a key component towards reconciliation between their nations. While Great Britain would not become an ally of America until Grant's Presidency, JQA's talents and efforts did lead to a "detente" between two nations that had recently fought two major wars with each other.
Picture
     James Monroe won the Election of 1816 without facing any meaningful opposition (one result of the War of 1812 was the demise of the Federalist Party). Monroe named JQA as his SecState (JQA was the 8th Secretary of State), which was not only viewed as the stepping-stone to the Presidency, but also by far the most powerful Cabinet position. The Secretary of State in the early-1800s was today's equivalent of being in charge of the Secret Service, CIA, the Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, and Transportation. Basically, JQA was in an executive position, second only to Monroe, which was also great training for being President. 
     In addition to JQA as SecState, President Monroe's Cabinet featured William Crawford of Georgia as SecTreas, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina as SecWar (Henry Clay wanted SecState, and turned down the offer of SecWar, and returned to the House as Speaker). JQA thought the Cabinet might be another "Dream Team", a la Ghent, but his optimism was soon dashed. JQA's fellow Cabinet members promoted themselves and attacked others in their pursuit of the Presidency; they especially attacked JQA, who had become Monroe's most trusted advisor, similar to the relationship that Lincoln and Seward forged. JQA focused on advising Monroe, then supporting whatever decision the President made, unlike most of his predecessors (e.g. Thomas Jefferson).
     John Adams must have been very proud of his oldest son by 1817; JQA had achieved the upward political mobility envisioned by his father years ago. JQA served as SecState for both of Monroe's terms in office, and after the dust settled, became President as a result of the controversial Election of 1824. Stunningly, JQA, despite being eminently qualified, was a tremendously ineffective and unpopular President. His years as the sixth President of the United States, 1825 - 1829, proved to be the nadir of his political life . . .
           (Below: A Mini-Biography of JQA, reviewing his diplomatic accomplishments, and 
                   previewing his years as SecState, President, and Congressman)
0 Comments

Dolley Madison: The "First" First Lady

6/23/2014

0 Comments

 
             Source: Catherine Allgor.  A Perfect Union: Dolley Madison and the 
                                 Creation of the American Nation (2006).
           Dolley Madison is remembered in history by most for securing a portrait of George Washington as thousands of British soldiers advanced on "Washington's City" during the War of 1812 (and sadly, she's remembered by some for snack cakes). In addition to being the "First" First Lady, Dolley Madison should be remembered for introducing the "process" of politics via the "Unofficial Sphere" in the U.S. Government. James Madison was one of the key figures that created political parties, but Dolley Madison was the person that figured out how the political parties could actually conduct the business of government. She, more so than her husband, was the one that created a place with an atmosphere in which politicians of different parties actually talked to each other, and the government was able to function.
Picture
     Dolley would have never felt comfortable combining politics and social events creating the "Unofficial Sphere" if she wasn't an extrovert. The definition I like for an extrovert is an individual that is "recharged" by being with other, even many, people. If Dolley was an introvert (one's energy is "drained away" by being with other people) like her husband, then she would not have been able to "re-invent" American politics. 
     In history, timing is crucial. James Cameron wanted to release "Titanic" in the summer of 1997, but editing delayed the release, and it reached theaters in late-1997. I'm convinced that if "Titanic" had been released in the summer, it would not have become such a mega-hit; it was much-better suited for a "winter release". Other famous examples of excellent timing (whether on purpose or by accident) would include the Beatles in 1964, and "Star Wars" in 1977. Dolley entered Washington at the best-possible time, in terms of politics. As the wife of the Secretary of State in 1801, Dolley was in a unique position to diffuse the tension in America's "Honor Culture." 
Picture
    With the development of the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists as rival political parties, a "zero-sum game" had been established in American politics, in that if one party gained, the other party thought it experienced a corresponding loss. Every politician had to play the "Virtue Game"; which in the end meant opposing political opinions / philosophies were viewed as a threat to the well-being of the nation. I'm often amused with the mass media when, perhaps a network news anchor, states that American politics have never been more contentious. I have started to, for my own benefit, imagine a crawler below the screen which has words to the effect of "please understand as you are listening to this broadcast that he/she may not know the history of our nation . . ." For those that think our current political climate is contentious, I wish they would be able to go back to the late-1790's / early-1800's, when the "rules of behavior" that are institutionalized today were being created, and the catalyst of those "rules" was Dolley Madison. What Dolley was able to do with her "Drawing Room", among other venues, was to find other avenues to diffuse this political tension. In these social/political gatherings that Dolley started hosting during Jefferson's presidency, the first steps of networking occurred, allowing an atmosphere to develop of "political intimacy", even among some Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. I liked Allgor's comparison of Jefferson's and Dolley's social events. She compared Jefferson's dinner parties to a "protective tariff", while Dolley's were like "the free market." 
Picture
     While Jefferson's dinner parties were remarked upon very favorably in correspondence by its participants in terms of food, drink, and company, it was a tightly-controlled affair in which Jefferson could listen to the dinner party's gossip to gain political advantage, especially against the Federalists. Dolley's "Drawing Room", on the other hand, featured far more guests, due to the fact that she, in essence, put out at open invitation to anyone that wanted to attend. In Jefferson's dinner parties, there wasn't a realistic expectation for a private conversation, while with Dolley, larger crowds meant more private political conversations. The language of the "Unofficial Sphere" was gossip, and whether one was a politician or the wife of one, the end-result of private gossip at Dolley's "Drawing Room" was that political tension had "avenues of escape." Now, political discussions and/or decisions could be made, in a public setting, as required by Republicanism, with a veil of privacy. Not only was Dolley the star attraction with her "Wednesday Nights" in the Drawing Room, but it was the only "guaranteed" time that President James Madison would be available in public space. 
     For James Madison, these "Wednesday Nights" presented a "win-win" situation for 
his introverted personality. Dolley was able to institutionalize what progressive reformers decades later would call "Association". Instead of the middle class and working class "mixing" together at an amusement park, which reformers hoped would reduce class conflict, Dolley mixed political parties and genders, and succeeded in reducing political tension and conflict. Dolley knew from the beginning that women needed to be involved in this "Association"; women were key in the "Unofficial Sphere." In this setting (and also with correspondence), women were able to exert their influence in the political arena, without being seen as leaving the private sphere. Dolley positioned herself perfectly, in that she was able to influence politics, and was seen (by most, anyway) as a lady that remained in "her sphere" - Aaron Burr wasn't so lucky. Burr's motives weren't the same as Dolley's, but he also wanted bipartisanship, and was one of the very few politicians in his era that could-and-would work with the other party (John Quincy Adams was another of the few politicians that also worked with the other party). But, Burr was labeled a "traitor to his class", in particular by Jefferson, and, in the East anyway, became a political persona-non-grata. Dolley was not seen as a "traitor to her class", or as a "trespasser in the public sphere." She was able, through great effort, ability, and skill, to conduct a balancing act between aristocracy and democracy. 
Picture
     One of her methods in doing so was to feature "extremes" in her social gatherings. Dolley dressed very well for social events, knowing that clothing was the "vocabulary for power"; but also, she would feature some food items that some people, then-and-now, would refer to as "low-brow". I think P.T. Barnum would have appreciated this kind of combination, as someone that specialized in presenting extremes to attract paying customers. Dolley used her charm to disarm, so to speak, which was a similar charismatic trait shared by other prominent historical figures such as FDR. The difference between Dolley and FDR in this regard is that once FDR was done "turning on the charm", he may not have any need for that person, and was moving on to something else. Dolley was creating a permanent network for information and influence, which meant that very few, if anyone, were dismissed as irrelevant or inconsequential. 
     The importance of Dolley Madison's "Unofficial Sphere" was seen when it ceased to exist for a time during the "Eaton Affair." The "ruling class" feared the rise of democracy, which they perceived as a threat to their power and status, and Margaret Eaton became the "Lighting Rod of Hate." Her social bona fides were not near the equal of these "ladies of quality", and, in essence, Margaret and her husband, Jackson's 1st Secretary of War, were "shunned" from the social events. And, when the Eatons hosted, there were many no-shows, adding insult-to-insult. The result of these actions was that the business of Washington, D.C. ground to a halt; discussions and decisions were not being conducted or made because the "Unofficial Sphere" of government was temporarily absent. Something, or rather, someone else was absent as well - Dolley Madison. It would be hard to fathom how the "Eaton Affair" would have reached this critical point had Dolley, or someone similar, been "running point" in the "Unofficial Sphere" of government. 
         (Below: a daguerreotype of Dolley Madison (seated) late in her life in the 1840s)
Picture
     James Madison was the last of the Founding Fathers that signed the Constitution to die (in 1836); Dolley Madison (who died in 1849) was the first in a long list of First Ladies that found a way to influence politics and exert political power as well - Dolley Madison proved to be the right First Lady at the right time in American History.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All
    19th Century
    20th Century
    Actor
    Biography
    History

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.