Book Review: “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Historians over the last century have ranked Abraham Lincoln has one of the top two presidents in the history of the United States—most rank him first by a long shot.  On the surface, the reason many cite is that his presidency coincided with the great turmoil and struggle in our history: the U.S. Civil War. 

Doris Kearns Goodwin, author and historian extraordinaire, has penned a classic that could be classified not simply under “History > American History > Civil War,” but could stand as one of the finest books on leadership in print.  Here is a description of the book from the Team of Rivals website:

Acclaimed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin illuminates Lincoln's political genius in this highly original work, as the one-term congressman and prairie lawyer rises from obscurity to prevail over three gifted rivals of national reputation to become president.

On May 18, 1860, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates, and Abraham Lincoln waited in their hometowns for the results from the Republican National Convention in Chicago. When Lincoln emerged as the victor, his rivals were dismayed and angry.

Throughout the turbulent 1850s, each had energetically sought the presidency as the conflict over slavery was leading inexorably to secession and civil war. That Lincoln succeeded, Goodwin demonstrates, was the result of a character that had been forged by life experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals. He won because he possessed an extraordinary ability to put himself in the place of other men, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires.

It was this capacity that enabled Lincoln as president to bring his disgruntled opponents together, create the most unusual cabinet in history, and marshal their talents to the task of preserving the Union and winning the war.

We view the long, horrifying struggle from the vantage of the White House as Lincoln copes with incompetent generals, hostile congressmen, and his raucous cabinet. He overcomes these obstacles by winning the respect of his former competitors, and in the case of Seward, finds a loyal and crucial friend to see him through.

This brilliant multiple biography is centered on Lincoln's mastery of men and how it shaped the most significant presidency in the nation's history.

According to the website, Steven Spielberg is making a movie based on this book, focusing on the last four months of Lincoln’s life and presidency. 

I cannot recommend this book highly enough.  Lincoln demonstrates how to reconcile and work with those who are not merely different from him in personality and ambition, but are indeed rivals—each having believed at one point they deserved the presidency more than he.  The way he earned their respect and loyalty is something to behold.

Remembering Gettysburg in the Greatest American Speech

Today marks the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered November 19, 1863.  Four months prior, Union and Confederate soldiers met in that small town to fight the bloodiest battle of the war.  The casualties on both sides were catastrophic, especially for the Confederates whose resources were small compared to the North, whose population more than doubled that of the South and whose industrial prowess would overwhelm the Confederate armies.

In the clip below you will hear the Gettysburg Address read by actor Jeff Daniels.  Daniels played Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in both Gettysburg (1994) and Gods and Generals (2002). 


I would like to take this greatest of American speeches and parse it out a bit.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

• It should be noted that Lincoln and most around him understood that the beginning of our country was in 1776 (fourscore and seven years equals 87 years; therefore 1863-87=1776) with the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence, not 1787 with the ratifying of the Constitution.  The “proposition that all men are created equal” was penned by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)—a man of enigma who, even though he held to this proposition, owned over 200 slaves.  It would take a great Civil War, Reconstruction, and a century more before this proposition would turn into more of a reality.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

• Keep in mind this was 1863—and the outcome of the Civil War was far from certain.  Lincoln’s popularity was low, the commanding generals were (to be kind) slow (George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, George Meade who lead them at Gettysburg), and lost significant battles during the first two years to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.  Lee took a significant gamble.  He knew Lincoln’s popularity was low, and if he could come into Pennsylvania and strike a victory, Lincoln would likely be out by the next election.  He banked that the North would grow tired of the war and would let the Confederacy have their independence.  Lee’s (over)confidence and questionable tactics (as brilliant as Lee was) along with the overwhelming resources of the North made Gettysburg a costly defeat for both, but especially for Lee who lost seven full divisions, six generals and 1/3 of his entire army.  Lincoln understood that this battle was the turning point of the war.  His “few appropriate remarks” made this clear.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

• Lincoln felt his words would be forgotten.  But it was not his words but the keynote speaker’s: the great orator Edward Everett.  He spoke for two hours (keep in mind that the American ear could and expected to endure speaking of this length.  The “new birth of freedom” is an interesting phrase.  The United States would be just that—united.  Although the policies of Reconstruction (1867-1877) left much to be desired in what many considered a second Civil War that many are still fighting even in 2010, James Robertson notes that prior to the Civil War, people would say, “The United States are… .”  After the Civil War, citizens would say, “The United States is… .”  This shift in mindset is significant, and speaks volumes that reverberate even to today.

Everywhere He Went, He Carried a Book With Him

“Everywhere he went, Lincoln carried a book with him.  He thumbed through page after page while his horse rested at the end of a long row of planting.  Whenever he could escape work, he would like with his head against a tree and read.  Though he acquired only a handful of volumes, they were seminal works of the English language.  Reading the Bible and Shakespeare over and over implanted rhythms and poetry that would come to fruition in those works of his maturity that made Abraham Lincoln our only poet-president.  With remarkable energy and tenacity he quarried the thoughts and ideas that he wanted to remember.  ‘When he came across a passage that Struck him, ‘ his stepmother recalled, ‘he would write it down on boards if he had no paper,’ and ‘when the board would get too black he would shave it off with a drawing knife and go on again.’  Then once he obtained paper, he would rewrite it and keep it in a scrapbook so that it could be memorized.  Word thus became precious to him, never, as with Seward, to be lightly or indiscriminately used.”

(Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006, p 52.)

Four American Presidents—But What Did They Have to Do With the Civil War?

Everyone recognizes that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln are intrinsically bound together, but Lincoln alone did not contribute to the Civil War.  In fact, each of the first fifteen presidents played a part and planted seeds for the great struggle that came between 1861-1865—much of which still lingers in the USA even today.

"Four American Presidents (But What Did They Have to Do With the Civil War?)," the annual symposium of the Museum of the Confederacy, was co-sponsored and hosted by the Library of Virginia on Saturday, February 20, 2010. 

George Washington

Anne Sarah Rubin talked about President George Washington and how his career, thoughts, and actions relate to the origins of the Confederacy and the coming of the Civil War. The unresolved disagreements about the status of slavery and the nature of the federal union created situations that presaged the dissolution of the union in 1861 since its founding. Professor Rubin focused on the way that the image of President Washington was used to justify and legitimize actions. She responded to questions from members of the audience.
Anne Sarah Rubin is the author of A Shattered Nation: The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy, 1861-1868 and "Seventy-Six and Sixty-One: Confederates Remember the American Revolution."

Thomas Jefferson

Peter Onuf talked about President Thomas Jefferson and how his career, thoughts, and actions relate to the origins of the Confederacy and the coming of the Civil War. The unresolved disagreements about the status of slavery and the nature of the federal union created situations that presaged the dissolution of the union in 1861 since its founding. Professor Onuf talked about President Jefferson's soci-political philosophy of nationhood and contrasted it with the Southern philosophy. He responded to questions from members of the audience. Peter Onuf is the author of Jefferson's Empire: The Language of American Nationhood (University Press of Virginia, 2001) and editor of Jeffersonian Legacies (University Press of Virginia, 1993).

Andrew Jackson: 

William Freehling talked about President Andrew Jackson and how his career, thoughts, and actions relate to the origins of the Confederacy and the coming of the Civil War. The unresolved disagreements about the status of slavery and the nature of the federal union created situations that presaged the dissolution of the union in 1861 since its founding.

William Freehling, a senior fellow at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy, is the author of Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 and The Road to Disunion in two volumes (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2).

John Tyler

Edward Crapol talked about President John Tyler and how his career, thoughts, and actions relate to the origins of the Confederacy and the coming of the Civil War. The unresolved disagreements about the status of slavery and the nature of the federal union created situations that presaged the dissolution of the union in 1861 since its founding.

Edward Crapol is the author of John Tyler, the Accidental President, published by The University of North Carolina Press.

Eyewitness to Abraham Lincoln’s Assassination (Garry Moore Show)

In the 1950's, Garry Moore hosted a show called "I've Got a Secret."  One of the guests was a 96-year-old man named Samuel J. Seymour from Maryland who was brought on as one who was an eyewitness to John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  He was only five years old at the time.

Was the Civil War Unnecessary? Ron Paul Thinks So

Communication Lessons According to Lincoln

Doris Kearns Goodwin provided all Civil War lovers with a wonderful book entitled Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.  As the title implies, Lincoln’s cabinet consisted of men who were running for president or were political rivals to Lincoln leading up to the 1860 presidential election.  I just learned that this book will become a movie (directed by Spielberg himself!).

As a pastor and preacher, I am always interested in how leaders communicate.  For us, it’s always a work in progress.  In reading this work, Goodwin relays the account of the beginnings of Lincoln’s rivalry with Stephen Douglas.  At the time, the issue of slavery was bringing the Union to a tipping point.  Western expansion of the United States brought the issue of whether to allow slavery into these new areas.  The newly passed Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed those new territories to decide for themselves if they would be slave or free—a doctrine known as popular sovereignty.  Stephen Douglas was the main proponent of this doctrine.  At the time, Lincoln was merely against westward expansion of slavery—a view that would increasing evolve into one who believed in emancipation.  Nevertheless, Lincoln, a young newcomer to Illinois political scene stood toe-to-toe with the veteran Douglas at the Illinois State Fair in 1854, soon after the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. 

In just a few short pages, Goodwin paints the picture of Lincoln’s communication skills, giving lessons to all of us who communicate. 

1. Preparation:  “Before speaking out against the Nebraska Act, Lincoln spent many hours in the State Library, studying present and past congressional debates so that he could reach back into the stream of American history and tell a clear, reasoned, and compelling tale.  He would express no opinion on anything, Herndon observed, until he knew his subject ‘inside and outside, upside and downside.’  Lincoln told Joshua Seed, ‘I am slow to learn and slow to forget that which I have learned.  My mind is like a piece of steel, very hard to scratch any thing on it and almost impossible after you get it there to rub it out” (164).
2. Conviction: “’He began in a slow and hesitating manner,’ Horace White noted.  Yet minutes into his speech, ‘it was evident that he had mastered his subject, that he knew what he was going to say, and that he knew he was right’” (165). 
3. Connection to their history.  “While Douglas simply asserted his points as self-evident, Lincoln embedded his argument in a narrative history, transporting his listeners back to their roots as a people, to the founding of the nation—a story that still retained its power to arouse strong emotion and thoughtful attention” (165). “In order to make his argument, Lincoln decided to begin with nothing less that an account of our common history, the powerful narrative of how slavery grew with our country, how its growth and expansion had been carefully contained by the founding fathers, and how on this fall night in 1854 the great story they were being told—the story of the Union—had come to such an impasse that the exemplary meaning, indeed, the continued existence of the story hung in the balance” (166). 
4. Clarity.  “Many of his arguments were familiar to those who had followed the Senate debate and had read Chase’s ‘Appeal’; but the structure of the speech was so ‘clear and logical,’ the Illinois Daily Journal observed, the arrangement of the facts so ‘methodical,’ that the overall effect was strikingly original and ‘most effective’ (165). 
5. Ordinary language.  “Instead of the ornate language so familiar to men like Webster, Lincoln used irony and humor, laced with workaday, homespun images to build an eloquent tower of logic.  The proslavery argument that a vote for the Wilmot Proviso threatened the stability of the entire Union was reduced to absurdity by analogy—'because I may have refused to build an addition to my house, I thereby have decided to destroy the existing house!’  Such flashes of figurative language were always available to Lincoln to drive home a point, gracefully educating while entertaining—in a word, communicating an enormously complicated issue with wit, simplicity, and a massive power of moral persuasion” (166). 

Book Review: “Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy” by David O. Stewart

David O. Stewart, “Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009).  464 pages.  $27.00 Hardcover.  $11.99 Kindle.  
As a Civil War buff, I find myself increasingly drawn to the dynamics of the American South.  The 19th century brought about a crisis of mammoth proportions, splitting our country in two long before the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861.  Everything came to a head on slavery.  While some abhorred the institution, many were more concerned about the spread of it into the newly acquired western territories.  Compromise and after compromise was set in place, but the election of Lincoln tore the North from the South and began a series of Southern states seceding from the Union.  Lincoln was elected without carrying a single southern state.  In their mind, if the country could do this without them, then let them go and have their independence. 

Lincoln fought to save the Union and soon realized the political and practical need of freeing the slaves.  This galvanized the North, bringing Lincoln back for a second term in 1864—and all but sealing the fate of the short-lived Confederate States of America.  In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he ends with a paragraph laced with healing and reunion:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Ten days later, the assassin’s bullet from the gun of John Wilkes Booth took the country on a different turn.  Enter Andrew Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who stayed with the Union and served from 1862-1865 as the War Governor of Tennessee was picked by Lincoln from a Southern state in order to work toward reunion.  As I blogged about at my preaching blog, Johnson’s first speech in Washington as the Vice President was inauspicious and disgraceful. 

David O. Stewart’s book, as the title shows, is about the events that led up to the first trial of a sitting American president (impeachment).  Johnson was a stubborn man who held grudges and clearly favored a states rights’ philosophy of government, which he believed Southern governments should be restored without interference from the federal government.  A racist, believing that the United States should be run by a “white man’s government,” he did not move forward with prosecution of the murder and horrors committed against the four million now-free blacks in the South.  The Ku Klux Klan began to take over whole counties, making no freed black or Unionist safe.  Whenever the federal generals who oversaw the various sectors of the South to make sure the governments established were loyal to the Union, Johnson resisted them.
As the book will show, Johnson’s greatest political foe (and the greatest American hero at the time) was a man by the name of Ulysses S Grant, the winning general in the Civil War!  Johnson felt grant was a rube, Grant distrusted Johnson and loathed his policies in the South.

This book shows one of the great low points in American history, some say even lower than the Civil War itself.  You will learn about Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, who not only sought the freedom of blacks, but sought to give them the right to vote—unlike most in the North and South who did not believe that blacks in that time were equal to whites, even those who sought their freedom. 

You’ll learn about War Secretary Edwin Stanton, a holdover from the Lincoln Administration whom Johnson detested and sought to replace, violating the Constitution’s Tenure of Office Act—thus bringing a showdown of Stanton barricading himself in the War Secretary’s office for weeks. 

Stewart does a masterful job of showing diligent research as well as bringing a novel-style of writing that moves the story along.  It shows so much of what goes on behind the scenes and the disturbing on-goings, compromises, bribes, and politics that come into play in the workings of our government.  A great read.  Highly recommended!

Watch David O. Stewart discuss briefly his book.

Bruce Kuklick, who teaches American history at the University of Pennsylvania, gives a great review in the Washington Post (2009).

How the Civil War Still Impacts American Life

James I. Robertson, Jr, history professor at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA, has an interesting lecture (yes, it’s an interesting history lecture) on how the Civil War still impacts our lives in ways that we often take for granted.  Originally aired on the Research Channel, this lasts almost 26 minutes, but it’s well worth your time.  Enjoy!

Book Review: “Christ in the Camp: The True Story of the Great Revival During the War Between the States” by J. William Jones

In a visit to Washington and Lee University, I had the pleasure of visiting the Robert E. Lee Chapel and Museum.  In their bookstore, I happened upon the book Christ in the Camp: The True Story of the Great Revival During the War Between the States by J. William Jones (Sprinkle Publications).  Jones was a chaplain in the Army of Northern Virginia, led by Confederate General Robert E. Lee.  In this, Jones seeks to show the world (as the subtitle shows) the movement of revival in the Confederate armies through the arduous work of the Confederate army chaplains with their preaching and tract distribution.

In the process, Jones gives extended sketches on the Christian generals who led the Confederate army, such as Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart among others—men who provided great access and liberty and encouragement to these chaplains and their efforts.  Included also are stories of great valor of Christian men such as Richard Kirkland who, as a recently converted Confederate soldier, raised the white flag to take water out to the wounded Union and Confederate soldiers who lay on the battlefield and provided each with a drink of water.  The move brought a cease fire from both sides, and left Kirkland with the name “The Angel of Marye’s Heights” (you may read about him here). 

Some reading this may wonder how such a revival could have taken place amongst the Confederate armies, since the Confederacy was a slave-based economy.  Some may ask, “How could there be a move of the Spirit of God among a people who enslaved others based on their race?”  A number of factors could be at play.

1. The cultural standards of the day played too great a factor in how Christians viewed the world, and thus a revival was needed in order to open their eyes to this scourge.  It should cause all of us to evaluate the institutions and mindsets we take for granted as part of our culture, but should never be a part of someone who names the name of Christ. 
2. Not everyone in the Confederacy was for the institution of slavery, just as not everyone in the Union was for the abolition of slavery.  In the decades after the Civil War, we see that the predominate view of both North and South was that the black man was inferior to the white (see the campaign slogan of Gov. Horatio Seymour (D-NY) who ran against Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, who had the campaign slogan, “This is a White Man’s Country: Let the White Man Rule.”)  This was the reigning view of many, who worried about the policies of Reconstruction and the violence that occurred in the South during this time.  Lee and Jackson were against slavery (although Jackson did own five slaves whom he taught to read and write, something that was bordering on illegal in that time).

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, even though the author is clearly pro-Confederate and pro-Lost Cause—which may be off-putting to some.  This author does not deal with the problematic issue of slavery.  He sticks to the chaplain’s work of preaching and tract distribution and the fruits therein. 

Book Review: “Upon the Altar of the Nation” by Harry S. Stout

Numerous books address the central characters of the Civil War as well as the tactical maneuvers of the battles.  Books on Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and countless others along with the battles (Gettysburg, Antietam, Fredericksburg, etc.) abound—but few address the morality of the war itself.  Whereas Mark Noll deals with the war’s theological crises from various religious sects, Harry S. Stout’s “Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War” (Penguin Books, 2006, $18.00) deals with one particular theological issues: was the Civil War a just war? 

He goes through the entire history of the Civil War, both politically, militarily, morally, and religiously.  He examines the rhetoric from both sides who invoked God’s name as One who was favorable to their cause.  Victories were seen as God’s favor, losses were seen as disobedience to the divine cause to which God called them. 

Most interesting (at least in the mind of this reviewer) were the messages resounding from the pulpits.  At the beginning of the war, the spiritual and the political were distinctly separate (for the most part).  As the war went on, the cause of the Union and the Confederacy melded into one with the spiritual—and, as Stout contends (and rightly so), a new civil type of religion was born.  Patriotism and the spiritual were one.  To be a good Christian was to be a good American—and vice versa.

Stout asks throughout the book the question few asked during the war: is this a moral war?  When the War began, the “West Point Code” prevailed—leave citizens and their property be and only go after the opposing troops in the field.  As the war wore on, the citizenry were seen more as the enemy, enabling the troops and being fair game.  This is why William Tecumseh Sherman’s burning of Atlanta and the March from Atlanta to Savannah in 1864 completely changed how succeeding armies engaged in warfare.  The “West Point Code” gave way to total war.  Warfare went from defeating armies to demoralizing and breaking the will of the people. 

The Civil War is the defining moment in American history that established our identity.  It settled all the loose ends left by the Founding Fathers.  Some of the answers may have been satisfactory, others not so much.  But Stout rightly reminds us never to assume that just because it’s our cause, it’s a just one.  If one invokes God’s name believing their cause just, one must beware of projecting their passions and convictions upon God, believing He approves. 

I highly recommend this work.

What is Your Reaction to the Confederate Battle Flag?

I am interested in knowing what comes over you when you see the Confederate flag?  As someone who is studying the Civil War, grew up in Virginia where the flag was displayed by many—and even seeing that flag on many vehicles here in Kentucky, I am curious as to what your reaction is in seeing this flag? (This is the Confederate Navy Jack, and also the flag of the Army of Tennessee which became the battle flag for the Confederacy during the American Civil War from 1861-1865).
Here’s a Wikipedia article on why many display this flag

The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over the nature of its symbolism.

Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism (especially directed toward African Americans), both for the history of racialslavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws bySouthern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcingracial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement. Some hate groups use the Southern Cross as one of thesymbols associated with their organizations, including racist groups such as the Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.^[18] The flag is also sometimes used by separatist organizations such as the Aryan Nations. The Aryan Nation also uses the U.S. flag as well as the Christian flag displayed in some Protestant churches.

Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of heritage and the freedom of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the oppression of Northern government. Also, in light of some schools and universities banning it as a racist symbol "speech codes", it could also be seen as a symbol of freedom of speech.^[19]

White southerners often claim that they see the flag as merely a symbol of southern culture without any political or racial connotation. An example of this would be the Bocephus Rebel Flag often sold at concerts performed bycountry music star Hank Williams, Jr or Kevin Fowler, heavy metal bandPantera, and southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. For some, the flag represents only a past era of southern sovereignty.^[20] Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Also some rockabilly fans hold the Confederate flag as their emblem.^[21]Also, the flag is a regular cultural meme, often appearing in association with a character who reflects Southerner stereotypes.

As a result of these varying perceptions, there have been a number of political controversies surrounding the use of the Confederate flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events, at Southern universities, and on public buildings. According to Civil War historian and native SouthernerShelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the South’s resistance toNorthern political dominance; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when fighting against desegregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.

Symbols of the Confederacy remain a contentious issue across the United States and have been debated vigorously in many Southern state legislatures over their civic placement since the 1990s.

In other countries, the Confederate flag can be used as a symbol for other things. For example, in Sweden it is used by people who drive and enjoy old American cars and enjoy the American life style from the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. In the United Kingdom it is frequently used by people who enjoy line dancing, country music and American life style.

So what think ye?

Honoring the Chaplains of the Civil War—The National Civil War Chaplain’s Museum

James I. Robertson, Jr. and others talk about a wonderful museum located in Lynchburg, VA known as the National Civil War Chaplain’s Museum.  It focuses on the role of priests, ministers, and rabbis during the tumult of the American Civil War. 

While I have not visited there, it is on my short list of historical places to visit.  I reviewed a great book entitled “Christ in the Camp” regarding the chaplains of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.  Currently, I’m reading through Faith in the Fight: Civil War Chaplains with contributions by John W. Brinsfield, William C. Davis, Benedict Maryniak, and James Robertson. 

For both the Union and Confederate soldiers, religion was the greatest sustainer of morale in the Civil War, and faith was a refuge in times of need. Guarding and guiding the spiritual well being of the fighters, the army chaplain was a voice of hope and reason in an otherwise chaotic military existence. The clerics’ duties did not end after Sunday prayers; rather, many ministers could be found performing daily regimental duties, and some even found their way onto fields of battle. Identifies for the first time 3,694 ministers who were commissioned as chaplains in the Union and Confederate armies and serves as a starting point for any research into the neglected area of Civil War chaplains (Product review on Amazon).

Also of interest is a ministry known as the Re-Enactors Missions for Jesus Christ.  These men seek to minister within the context of the Civil War re-enactments.  Here’s their description:

Welcome to the web site for the Re-enactor’s Missions for Jesus Christ (RMJC).  This site is dedicated first and foremost to the glory of Almighty God.  It stands as a tribute to the heroism of those men who comprised the ranks of the chaplaincy during the War Between the States (Civil War), to their unswerving devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the missionary work they began in the 1860s.

In like manner, the business of the RMJC is the spreading of the Gospel through the re-printed Civil War period Gospel tracts, the spoken word, this web site as well as the National Civil War Chaplains Museum.

Its members, who serve as chaplains and colporteurs, are sent into the field, not as sham play-actors bent on pretentious historical interpretation, but as men and women of God, solidly committed to preaching, teaching and sharing the Gospel to the winning of souls among the ranks of Civil War re-enactors and enthusiasts across the United States.

On this site is a great little 4:00 clip entitled, “Whose Side Was God On During the Civil War?”  This gives a marvelous answer. 

May we thank God for using such a tragedy like the Civil War to use these chaplains as instruments of bringing them (and the re-enactors) to Jesus Christ.

Book Review: “An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government” by William C. Davis

The Confederate States of America has long held an interest for this ‘son of Virginia,’ ever since my second-grade teacher took us on a field trip to Appomattox. It’s infused in every Virginian the history of his native state. William C. Davis’ book on the last four months of the Confederacy is a marvelous book in giving the grim realities of how ‘the Cause’ flickered out.

Now living in Kentucky, this book offered me my first glimpse at John C. Breckinridge. Against secession and against the notion of taking up arms against the Union, he did so nonetheless in defense of the South. He served as the only one who would stand up to Jefferson Davis’ stubbornness with some modicum of (as a previous reviewer noted) statesmanship. He knew when the Confederacy was over, unlike Davis who was willing to continue the cause in Texas, and he helped more than anyone in the South (along with Lee) to make sure the South wasn’t completely crushed in the aftermath of Lincoln’s death.

This book was meticulously researched–and imminently readable! I couldn’t put it down–especially at the part when Davis was captured by Yankee soldiers in Irwinville, GA, and how Breckinridge and Judah P. Benjamin escaped through Florida, survived over open water to Cuba, then the Bahamas. Benjamin went to England, Breckinridge returned to the North American continent, stayed with expatriate Confederates in Toronto until Andrew Johnson’ Universal Amnesty allowed him to return to his beloved Kentucky. Unlike Davis, Breckinridge did not continue the vitriol in who was to blame (unlike Davis), but remained quite, save a brief eulogy in 1870 for the death of Robert E. Lee.

Breckinridge was a noble man caught up in a bad cause. It’s because of him that the Confederacy contains any nobility at all. For some of you, that may not be a ringing endorsement for the man. But this book will help you see the warts and wrinkles of it all–and show that not everyone caught up in that cause was inherently evil. This book is worth your time.

For a more extended (and much better) review, check out Ryan McMaken’s review. 

The 2011 Bottimore Lecture at the Museum of the Confederacy: “Fire Eaters at War”

William Lowndes Yancey and Lawrence Massillon Keitt: two fire-eaters that will be discussed at the lecture.

Throughout the 1850s, they were accused of conspiring to instigate secession and to destroy the Union. Most southerners considered them extremists, their rhetoric shrill, their recommendations unrealistic and unnecessary.

But in the crisis of 1860-1861, the so-called “Fire-Eaters” gained the upper hand. Events apparently vindicated their shrill warnings and made their extremism seem like a rational reaction to the election of a Republican president.

Then what? Having succeeded in taking the lower South states out of the Union, what role did the Fire-Eaters play in the nation they helped to create and in the war they helped to cause?

Dr. Eric H. Walther will provide answers to these and other questions in the 2011 Elizabeth Roller Bottimore Lecture, “Fire-Eaters at War.” Co-sponsored by the University of Richmond’s Department of History, the lecture will be held in UR’s Keller Hall at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday, September 22^nd. 

A professor of history at the University of Houston, Walther is a leading authority on the fire-eaters. He is author of The Fire-Eaters, Shattering of the Union: America in the 1850s,and William Lowndes Yancey and the Coming of the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2006). The latter received the Museum’s 2007 Jefferson Davis Award and was an alternate selection of the History Book Club.

The Bottimore Lecture is free, but reservations are required. Click here to register. 

Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011
Time: 7:30 PM - 9:00 PM

Song of the Rebel Irish

This song was included in the 2003 movie Gods and Generals.  It is now included on the Blu-Ray version, but was originally a deleted scene.  It is the song from the Confederate Irish. 

LYRICS:
Oh, not now for songs of a nation's wrongs,
not the groans of starving labor;
Let the rifle ring and the bullet sing
to the clash of the flashing sabre!
There are Irish ranks on the tented banks
of Columbia's guarded ocean;
And an iron clank from flank to flank
tells of armed men in motion.

The Irish green shall again be seen
as our Irish fathers bore it,
A burning wind from the South behind,
and the Yankee rout before it!
O'Neil's red hand shall purge the land-
Rain a fire on men and cattle,
Till the Lincoln snakes in their own cold lakes
Plunge from the blaze of battle.

Whoe'er shall march by triumphal arch
Whoe'er may swell the slaughter,
Our drums shall roll from the Capitol
O'er Potomac's fateful water!
Rise, bleeding ghosts, to the Lord of Hosts
For judgment final and solemn;
Your fanatic horde to the edge if the sword
Is doomed line, square, and column!

Stonewall Jackson Honored in an African-American Church?: Deconstructing One Stereotype

This is a window from the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Roanoke, VA. On it, it depicts the last words of Confederate General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson: “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the tree”–spoken on May 10, 1863. Oh, one more thing: this is an African-American congregation! The descendants of this church sat under Jackson’s Sunday School class from 1855-1861 when it was illegal in Virginia for blacks to learn how to read and write, making Jackson a lawbreaker. They were so grateful for his work with them that these congregants chose never to forget the legacy of teaching Scripture. Take a listen.

How do we reconcile this matter?  Listening to many history classes and documentaries, all Southerners were racists and all Northerners were color-blind.  Just the closest of perusals will show a more moderate and middle-ground approach is needed.  To take our 21st century sensibilities and put them on 19th century mindsets is misguided at best, but arrogant at worst.  Few blacks in the North were permitted to vote.  Most people in the North may have believed slavery was oppressive and disgusting, but few believed the African-American on equal ground with the whites. 

Jackson breaks the stereotype by teaching slaves to read and write!  Not every Southerner saw them as animals or inferior.  While this does not excuse the institution of slavery so prevalent in the South, it does shed light that there were good men on both sides, regardless of the goodness of their cause.
Richard G. Williams in his book Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend observed:

It has been said that General Jackson “fought for slavery and the Southern Confederacy with the unshaken conviction that both were to endure.” This statement is true with regard to the latter, but I am very confident that he would never have fought for the sole object of perpetuating slavery. It was for her constitutional rights that the South resisted the North, and slavery was only comprehended among those rights. He found the institution a responsible and troublesome one, and I have heard him say that he would prefer to see the negroes free, but he believed that the Bible taught that slavery was sanctioned by the Creator himself, who maketh men to differ, and instituted laws for the bond and the free. He therefore accepted slavery, as it existed in the Southern States, not as a thing desirable in itself, but as allowed by God for ends which it was not his business to determine. At the same time, the negroes had no truer friend, no greater benefactor. Those who were servants in his own house he treated with the greatest kindness, and never was more happy or more devoted to any work than that of teaching the colored children in his Sunday-school.

As deplorable as aspects of this sound (“He found the institution a responsible and troublesome one” . . . “he believed that the Bible taught slavery, etc.”), he was devoted to teach those whom no one else would teach.  And, again, I just find it interesting that an African-American congregation in the heart of the South (Virginia) would put a monument to someone that everyone else all around says hated them because he fought for the Confederacy.  Maybe all the stereotypes we have constructed need to be reevaluated.

What think ye?

When Lincoln’s Honesty Did Not Serve Him Well

Whose Side Was God On in the Civil War?

“The will of God prevails.  In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God.  Both may be, and one must be wrong.  God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.  In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this purpose.  I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet.  By His mere great power on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest.  Yet the contest began.  And having begun, He could give the final victory to either side any day.  Yet the contest proceeds.”

--Abraham Lincoln, 1862.  From Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 5:419-25, 433-36.  Edited by Roy Basler, Rutgers University Press, 1953.  Quoted in Harry S. Stout, Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the Civil War, New York: Penguin Books, 2006.  p. 146.

My Trip to the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery

I made a trip to the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery in Lexington, Virginia back in March 2010 on my way to the IMB to see one of our former members commissioned to international missions in Africa.

Understanding the Confederate “Rebel Yell”

Waite Rawls, the President and the CEO of the Museum of the Confederacy, has done an excellent job of preserving and helping the understanding of the mindset of the short-lived Confederacy.  Below are two clips of the research on their part on what the Confederate “Rebel Yell” sounds like.  Again, I appreciate what Rawls has done to help us understand this important turning point in our American history.  In listening to this, you can understand how horrifying this sound would be to Union troops who came against them in battle.

Waite Rawls, President and CEO, the Museum of the Confederacy

Part II:

Book Review: “Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend”

This past week, I had the opportunity to read through a book recommended to me, but was skeptical of the premise.  The book?  Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend by Richard G. Williams Jr.  When looking at the cover, I noticed the foreword was by Dr. James I. Robertson Jr., who is the preeminent Civil War historian of our day, handing all things Union and Confederate in a very objective, even-handed way.  With this, I knew that Robertson would not put his name to a book that skirted over obvious issues that are tied to the Confederate cause. 

Can one who fought for the Confederate States of America as General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson did be in any way capable of being the “black man’s friend"?  Didn’t all Southerners see blacks as inferior?  Most everyone in 19th century America, North or South (see a previous post on this matter). This book presents how a man named John Lyle, who loved Jesus, his church, and books, poured into the life of Thomas Jackson a love for these things as well as the souls of all men, regardless of color.  So, in 1856, Jackson began a “colored Sunday School class,” in direct violation of Virginia law which said that blacks could not assemble, nor could they be taught to read or write.  Jackson, however, wanted them better themselves by teaching them to read the Scriptures and to pray.  Through this class, many came to know Christ. 

This book shows how various African-Americans were affected for the better.  In fact, I’ve posted in the past how an African-American Presbyterian church in Roanoke, VA, put up a stained glass in homage to Jackson.  Why?  One of the former pastors (Dr. Dunning, who pastored there for 42 years) was a part of that Sunday School that Jackson taught and was grateful for teaching Him the Bible and wanted them to do better for themselves than the surrounding culture said they could be. 

It is easy for us to simply label people and put them all in one category.  Yes, slavery existed in the South, but so did racism and problematic child labor laws in the North.  There is injustice everywhere in every period of our history.  Yes, under the Confederate flag slavery existed (but it also existed under the American flag for 80+ years prior to that).  And under our American flag now, 1.3 million unborn children are slaughtered every year because some believe they have the right to do this—but is this not the same argument that the Southerners used, saying they have the right to enslave others, using their superiority to overrun those who are seen as inferior?  Our military men are not all fighting for the right to abortion anymore than all those in the South were fighting for slavery.  They were fighting for their homes, with all their warts and wrinkles.  Both slavery and abortion are unconscionable and both need to be done away with for the atrocities they were and are. 

But we need to peel through the generalities and the broad brush strokes and look at the individual stories of men like Jackson and others and how they operated (even illegally) in order to better the plight of those of whom the greatest of injustices were taking place.  Jackson wanted to see both slave and free blacks in heaven and worked in the best way he knew how to not only care about their eternal souls but also about their earthly lives as well.  May we work just as diligently as best as we can by the help of God to do the same in our time. 

I hope you will give this book a read.  Very enlightening.

Richard Williams, Jr. spoke about this book and his talk can be found on C-Span here.