Surrender

April 9th, 1865. Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant meet at the home of Wilmer McLean near Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, to discuss the surrender of Lee's battered Army of Northern Virginia, which had by then dwindled to about 28,000 men. While Lee's surrender effectively ended the American Civil War, this was not the last nor even the largest Confederate surrender of the conflict. The latter distinction belongs, in fact, to the capitulation later that month of Joseph E. Johnston to William T. Sherman at Bennett Place just outside Durham, North Carolina. Johnston, in addition to surrendering his ~39,000-man army, saw to it that an additional 50,000 Confederate soldiers operating in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida laid down their arms.

While Appomattox Courthouse is seared into our collective American psyche, Bennett Place--the largest troop surrender of the Civil War--is often overlooked or even forgotten. But why? (Full disclosure: I actually knew nothing about Bennett House myself until a few years ago when my sister and I visited the park. Bennett House belongs to North Carolina's wonderful collection of State Historic Sites. That same day, we visited Alamance Battleground, which is another interesting historical episode of which I was completely unaware.) On November 16th, Durham Technical Community College (DTCC), as part of its Social Sciences/Humanities Speaker Series, invited Dr. Stephen Cushman to offer an answer to this question.

Cushman, a poet and historian in the Department of English at the University of Virginia, is interested in how literary expression (letters, poems, books, etc.) shapes memories of the Civil War. In other words, how did those who lived through the conflict actually write about it, and how did their writings influence the way they, and others, remember and commemorate the war?

There are several commonly cited reasons why Bennett House plays second fiddle to Appomattox. The first is what Cushman referred to as "Virginia-centrism." There were, of course, several battles fought outside of Virginia, but many of the largest and most well-publicized were fought within that state. That the Appomattox surrender occurred in the Virginia theater, then, and the fact that it involved the war's two most celebrated generals (Grant and Lee) helped ensure its central place in memories of the war. Bennett House also lacked the pomp and circumstance and pathos of the Appomattox performance. Appomattox thus contributed to and exemplified the powerful and appealing idea of a valiant, but defeated, Confederacy. (This so-called "Lost Cause" myth still permeates contemporary remembrances of the Civil War.) What is more, the events at Bennett House were drawn out over several days (as opposed to the relatively short and sweet event at Appomattox) and were ultimately overshadowed by the assassination of President Lincoln. Cushman acknowledged that all these elements contributed to the primacy of Appomattox. However, his reading of Civil War-era literature suggested a different, and much less-well known, factor: the nature of the personal relationship between Johnston and Sherman.

To grasp Cushman's thesis, we first need to understand the dual meanings of the word "surrender." It can mean "to cease resistance to an enemy" or "give up the fight," which are, of course, what we typically think about in a military context. However, it can also refer to the act of giving up something, either an object (usually weapons in a military context) or even one's self.

The second key component of Cushman's argument is the way Johnston and Sherman wrote about their relationship with each other. Unlike Grant and Lee, who faced each other on the battlefield only during the last year and a half of the war, Johnston and Sherman squared off several times going back to 1861. In his memoirs, Sherman often refers to Johnston as a friend (Johnston, however, never uses such language when speaking of Sherman) and repeatedly praises Johnston's generalship. While Sherman no doubt respected Johnston, the assessments of Johnston's skill as a commander also served to elevate the impact of his (Sherman's) triumph at Bennett House.

The last issue revolves around how later authors wrote about the relationship between the two men. Johnston served as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral in 1891 and died himself of pneumonia only ten days later. It was reported afterwards in Oliver Otis Howard's autobiography that Johnston refused to protect himself from the chilly February weather, stating in response to someone's plea that he put his hat on, "If I were in his place and he [Sherman] standing here in mine he would not put on his hat."

While this is unlikely to be a word-for-word quote, this exchange was repeated in slightly modified form by later authors and probably reflects the gist of Johnston's response. Given the way that people wrote about this episode, Cushman argued that it was only after Johnston's death--and the symbolic surrender of his body to his "close friend" Sherman--that the surrender at Bennett House finally reached its conclusion. In doing so, writers essentially created the myth of reconciliation that the country yearned for some twenty-five years after the end of the Civil War.

Cushman's analysis testifies to the power of the written word and its ability to shape memory. 

New perspectives on the Harper's Ferry raid of 1859

On February 21st I attended a presentation by Dr. Peter Wood, an Emeritus Professor of History at Duke University (as someone who grew up in Colorado, I was interested to hear that he now lives in Longmont, Colorado). The presentation, entitled "The Harper's Ferry Five," was sponsored by the Durham Library Foundation's Humanities Society in celebration of Black History Month. This presentation is part of a broader movement within the historical community to reevaluate much of Civil War (and, indeed, American) history through the lens of the Black Experience. This change is particularly evident in explorations of the Civil War's beginning. The "White Version" is, naturally, the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861. However, one can easily trace the conflict's origins to Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831, the Christiana Revolt of 1851, the Wellington Rescue of 1958 and, of course, the Harper's Ferry Raid of 1859.

Dr. Wood began by running through the relatively well known history of the raid and its major characters: John Brown, Robert E. Lee, Jeb Stuart, and John Wilkes Booth. His main focus, though, was on two less well-appreciated aspects of the raid that, to Dr. Wood's mind, help dispel common misconceptions about this important historical event.

Misconception 1: John Brown attempted to stir up a full-scale slave insurrection, a plan that was at best quixotic and, at worst, utterly preposterous. Many thus see Brown as a mentally unstable fanatic willing to risk his life and the lives of his co-conspirators (including some of his own sons) on a mission that was certain to fail.

There is no doubt that Brown couched his hatred for slavery in fire-and-brimstone religious terms that fueled his strong abolitionism. He is also well-known for his participation in violent attacks against, and the murder of, pro-slavery individuals in Kansas in the 1850s. However, Dr. Wood argued that his intentions for the raid were much more nuanced and could be traced, at least in part, to a trip he made in 1840 to Tyler County, Virginia (now part of West Virginia) to survey land plots. Brown made two very important observations about this part of the Upper South on his travels. First, it was extremely rugged and thus difficult for large groups of people to access and, second, that slaves, and slave-holding, were rare. Voter rolls and enlistment records from 1861-1865 show that northwestern Virginia was pro-Union, something that Brown may also have picked up on in 1840.

When Brown later outlined his plans to Frederick Douglass, he thought that the mountains of northwestern Virginia (the region within which the arsenal at Harper's Ferry was located) would be the key to freeing slaves, since the rugged topography could serve as a protective barrier against pursuit by militia, the military, and slave-catchers. Dr. Wood thus argued, compellingly in my opinion, that Brown's true goal was to acquire guns from the arsenal and retreat with as many slaves as possible to the protective confines of the mountains--all with little or no bloodshed. Once a safe refuge for escaped slaves had been established, Brown hoped that an exodus of slaves would lead inexorably to the collapse of the Southern economy and, ultimately, slavery itself. Of course, Brown's plans misfired badly, and he recognized that his failure left no alternative than for slavery to be swept away through the spilling of much blood.

Misconception 2. While the Harper's Ferry raid attempted to free black slaves, it was a white man's affair.

It is clear that Brown was the driving force behind the raid, and it is also well known that five of Brown's companions were black men. However, these men, both free and formerly enslaved, are often viewed as passive hangers on, rather than active agents, in the events leading up to the Harper's Ferry raid. In fact, as Dr. Wood emphasized, each of these men had very strong convictions about their participation and many were politically astute. To take just one example: Lewis Leary was born free in North Carolina and, after moving to Ohio in 1856, became a member of the Oberlin Anti-Slavery Society and participated in the rescue of the fugitive slave John Price in 1858 (this is the Wellington Rescue referenced above). Dr. Wood's final slide emphasized that these men should not be forgotten. 

Bookmarks Festival 2014

So, this past weekend (9/6) Noell and I went to Winston-Salem to check out the 2014 Bookmarks Festival. This is our second visit (I posted on last year's event here), and this year's events were housed in some shiny new buildings and very nice auditoriums. What drew us this time around was the presentation by Sam Kean, who talked about his newest book, The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons, which presents stories of individuals suffering brain damage and what they can tell science about how the brain works. Kean is an insightful and witty writer, the perfect sort to present science to a popular audience. I was about 3/4 of the way through the book when we saw him speak (I've since finished it, and it was great). Some interesting points:

• Kean said that what originally interested him in the topic was skepticism: he simply didn't believe some of the stories he had heard about. For example, neurologists reported that some people simply could not recognize plants, while others had no idea how to deal with animals. It turns out, however, that there are in fact particular areas of the brain that deal with different types of things, and damage to these areas can compromise our ability to recognize those objects, and only those objects. 
• The main irony is that, in order to study how the brain actually works, neurologists, because it is in many cases unethical to operate on healthy brains (although this was not always the case), often had to wait for an accident or disease to knock out particular areas to determine their function. One example from the book is the case of S.M. (initials are used in the medical literature to protect patients' identities), who suffers (she is alive and well and living in Iowa) from a rare condition that leaves her with a non-functioning amygdala. This part of the brain, among other things, helps to process our fear response. Neurologists have been studying S.M. for many years now (with her informed consent), and she is not afraid of snakes, death threats, assaults, or robberies. (Actually, a recent paper suggests that she did experience the fear of suffocation, which suggests that while the amygdala controls our response to external fears, other pathways must process fear associated with internal threats like suffocation or heart attacks.)
• Noell asked a question about amnesia and whether or not Kean ran across any examples of people who completely lost track of their own identity. He responded, in an echo of one of the book's major points, that it seems as if someone's identity or sense of self is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, aspect of the mind to wipe out completely. 
• Kean also talked about his writing style, which is story-focused. He said that people seem to learn best when issues are presented as stories: a beginning, a middle, and an end, all populated with characters. Perhaps this can be a lesson for those of us trying to teach science.   

After lunch at one of the many food trucks, we went to see Karen Abbott talk about her new book Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy: Four Women Undercover in the Civil War. Abbott is a former journalist who contributes to the Smithsonian Magazine's history blog. The book is the story of four women, two from the North and two from the South, who lied, slept, seduced, and killed their way into spy networks. One of the most interesting points that Abbott made was that these (and other) women were able to exploit 19th century notions of femininity to conceal messages and contraband. Hoop skirts, for example, which most males would never search, were regularly used to smuggle items like guns. I have not yet read the book, but after her presentation I will definitely add it to my "to-read" list on Goodreads.

References:

Kean, S (2014). The tale of the dueling neurosurgeons: the history of the human brain as revealed by true stories of trauma, madness, and recovery. Little, Brown and Company, New York.

Abbott, K (2014). Liar, temptress, soldier, spy: four women undercover in the Civil War. Harper, New York.

Bookmarks Festival

Last Saturday (11/7) my wife, Noell, our son Simon, and I went to this year's Bookmarks Festival in Winston-Salem. It's really a wonderful event that brings authors from around the country together to interact with readers. Simon is at the age (just over 3 months) were he is unfortunately too young to enjoy the made-for-kids events like story time but, fortunately, also too young (and immobile) to get overly bored with the adult presentations.

I wanted to go because the eminent Civil War historian James McPherson was talking about his new book War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865, which examines an under-appreciated aspect of the conflict. Actually, Professor McPherson gave a talk at UNCG the day before, but I was unable to attend.

McPherson framed his discussion around the issue of foreign intervention: the American Civil War was, he pointed out, a rare example of an internal conflict that did not require official intervention by foreign powers (the recent hostilities in Syria, on the other hand, reflect the more common pattern). The Union and Confederate navies played key roles in determining how nations such as France and Britain decided to deal with the belligerents. Three events were particularly important:

• The Trent Affair. In November of 1861 the Union navy intercepted the British mail ship Trent and, with it, two Confederate envoys whose aim was to secure British and French recognition of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Without permission from Washington, the Trent was boarded and the two envoys arrested. Although the ship was allowed to continue on its journey, Britain protested that the boarding violated her neutrality and demanded a formal apology and the release of the prisoners. Wanting to avoid an armed conflict, the Lincoln Administration eventually freed the captives. While Britain was focused on maintaining her neutrality throughout the affair, a Union bungling of the situation could certainly have significantly worsened its relationship with Britain (the latter, in fact, had ordered additional troops to Canada and ships to the Atlantic).
• The Union blockade. Almost as soon as hostilities broke out, Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of the entire Confederate coast. This was, of course, a nearly impossible task given that the cordon would need to extend from the Texas border with Mexico all the way to northern Virginia−a distance of around 2,500 miles. According to international law, the legitimacy of a blockade rested partly on its successful implementation; that is, a legitimate blockade is one that can successfully prevent outgoing ships from leaving and in-going ships from entering. The Confederacy pointed to the numerous ships that were able to run the blockade, while the Union maintained its legitimacy. Eventually, foreign powers recognized the blockade. Professor McPherson pointed out that Britain likely took this stance in part because blockading was an important tool for the Royal Navy itself and a failure to acknowledge the Union blockade would have set a potentially damaging precedent.   
• Construction of Confederate ships in foreign ports. Several ships, disguised as merchant vessels, were built in British yards and eventually served as Confederate commerce raiders. Protests from the American government convinced both Britain and France to seize other ships intended for Confederate service.     

My wife and I took a couple of photos during the talk, and you can see Professor McPherson's BookTV on War on the Waters here.

Professor McPherson giving his book talk. Photo by Noell Egeland.

My wife also pointed out that Adrian Miller would be speaking at the festival, reminding me that we had heard him on NPR a while ago discussing his research on Soul Food. So, we decided to stick around and listen to him, and I'm glad we did. Most importantly, he's a fellow Denverite, something I learned when he came around before his talk and introduced himself to the audience to thank them for coming. He spoke about his book Soul Food: The Surprising Story of an American Cuisine, One Plate at a Time. The most fascinating point that Miller made was that "Soul" or "Southern" food, while partly a modification of African cuisines brought to the New World by slaves, actually partitioned itself by socio-economic status, and not race. That is, both whites and blacks used the same ingredients to make very similar dishes. His point was borne out by how the audience−black and white−nodded in agreement when he would list off classic southern ingredients.

References:

McPherson, J (2012). War on the waters: the Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Miller, A (2013). Soul Food: the surprising story of an American cuisine, one plate at a time. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

The end of slavery and the Old South

I just finished Bruce Levine's book, The Fall of the House of Dixie: The Civil War and the Social Revolution that Transformed the South. Most of what I've read on the Civil War, while not ignoring the southern perspective, is typically written through northern eyes. I therefore found two things particularly interesting in Levine's book:

• Southern opinion was actually quite diverse on the question of succession and the war. The inevitability of succession was by no means shared by all southern whites, and there were several southern-based groups that actively fought against the Confederacy throughout the war. In fact, Robert E. Lee and other Confederate officers were forced to dispatch regiments from the regular army to help with home defense. 
• While most southern (and northern, for that matter) whites shared a common belief in white supremacy, only a select few at the top of the social hierarchy owned most of the slaves. This means that many of the soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were non-slave holders, and as the war dragged on many of these poorer folks developed a deep resentment for the planter elite. They began to wonder why they should fight such a destructive war to preserve an institution that they never had, nor likely ever would, benefit from.

Levine, in his BookTV lecture (you can also check out an NPR interview here), cites a recent national survey in which 50% of Americans polled "deny that slavery was the main cause of the U.S. Civil War." This view is even more prevalent among those below 30 years of age (nearly 3 out of 5). One of the key points of the book, and most of the contemporary sources appear quite clear on this, is that slavery was in fact a major, if not the major, impetus for the war. Other motivating factors, like the defense of state's rights or the maintenance of southern honor, while certainly important to some individuals, were largely concocted by elite slave owners to inspire the non-slave holding majority to participate, or drudged up years later to justify the war in a postbellum society hostile to slavery.

Although I didn't plan it this way, the North Carolina Museum of History is currently exhibiting an original copy of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln issued in September of 1862 and warned the Confederacy of the Union's intention to grant freedom to slaves within areas still in active rebellion. My wife and I stopped by the exhibit yesterday, and two pages of the proclamation (they never have all seven on display at once), written in the hand of one of  Lincoln's secretaries (I would guess either John Hay or John Nicolay, although I have not been able to confirm this), are on display. The museum will also be showing North Carolina's original copy of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in the United States:

References:

Levine, B (2013). The fall of the house of Dixie: The Civil War and the social revolution the transformed the South. Random House, New York.