Civil War Soldiers, North and South, Motivated by Patriotism

Why did the Southern and northern soldiers fight? If we could survey both sides, what would be the results? We cannot survey those soldiers now. They are long gone. Dr. James McPherson conducted a survey of sorts. In For Cause and Comrade by James McPherson (Oxford Univ. Press 1997), Dr. McPherson did the next best thing to a survey. He looked at personal letters and diaries of both Union and Confederate soldiers to ask the fundamental question, what motivated them to join, and then to say in a very harsh military service.

Dr. McPherson reviewed the personal letters and diaries of some 400 Confederate soldiers. He looked at the contemporary correspondence and diaries of some 647 Union soldiers and 429 Confederate soldiers. In his career, he explains that having looked at perhaps 25,000 such records, he believed this was a representative sample. For Cause, p. viii. Dr. McPherson is a well known Civil War historian. He received a Pulitzer for his book, Battle Cry of Freedom.

As a combat veteran I can attest that the willingness to endure hardship and danger is not an easy choice. As Dr. McPherson mentions, once the choice is first made, the typical combat soldier is forced to re-examine his choice at least two more times, once after his first battle and then again when/if he re-enlists. So, the average Confederate soldier had to choose to risk his life and the lives of his family (because life in a rural society without the men was extremely hard) not once, not twice, but three times.

According to Dr. McPherson’s study, some 57% of Confederate soldiers espoused patriotic fervor for the South. That is, their service was motivated by patriotism. For Cause, p. 102. Some 20% of Confederate service members espoused pro-slavery views during the war. For Cause, p. 110. The number of Union soldiers who espoused anti-slavery views was much higher. As the author explains, slavery was a political issue among the Union army. It was discussed and debated more. It was not such an issue among the Confederate army. So, perhaps, if there was more actual debate, then the pro-slavery view might have bene higher among Confederate soldiers. But, the point remains, if they fought to maintain slavery, as some suggest, they did not discuss it much.

Compare that result to some 62% of union soldiers who mentioned a sense of patriotism as their motive for serving.

That gibes with my family’s experience. One ancestor, Luke Hart, Irish Catholic, served in Hobby’s Regiment in Galveston, which saw little combat. He left after some months, deserted. Later, he raised his own cavalry company and went off to the war, making it as far as Louisiana before the war ended. Luke Hart made the choice to serve at least twice, once at his expense. Yet, in 1860, his home, San Patricio County, only had some 100 slaves. Their economy was ranching, not cotton.

Many Southerners fought to avoid enslavement by the North. They believed the North sought to subjugate the South in some way. For Cause, p. 21. Many enlisted to defend their home from the invading Yankees. For Cause, at p. 22.

John Mitchel, the Irish rebel and editor for a time of two Richmond newspapers during the war, insisted the North was seeking to subjugate the South as Great Britain had subjugated Ireland. The Republican party was the heir of the remnants of the Know Nothing Party. Most Irish suspected the Republican party of harboring anti-Irish and anti-immigrant sentiment at the time.

One million Confederate soldiers did not fight solely for the right to maintain slavery. That would be a big stretch. Yes, some contemporary documents make it clear that several states seceded to maintain slavery, among many other listed reasons. But, it is doubtful any soldier actually read those documents. Soldiers don’t contemplate these things. Serving your country – or state – is not a political act.

On May 18, 1865, one 1LT William T. Mumford went to the home of my ancestor’s aunt in New Orleans. Entertained by the ladies, likely, including my GGG grand-mother, the lieutenant spoke the words all veterans would like to utter when s/he first returns home, “we could not have received a warmer reception. . . . The New Orleans ladies shall long be remembered for their devoted patriotism.” My GG grandfather likely met his future wife that day.

Consider the persons likely present at that gathering. William Agar and his wife, Theresa. Their cousin, Dick Price, was a captain in the First Louisiana Heavy Artillery Regiment. This author’s ancestor, 1LT George P. Crane served in the same regiment, as did 1LT Mumford. Theresa was sister to Anastasia Crane Chism. The Crane/Chisms lived next door to the Agars. Living a block away was Theresa’s other sister, Katherine and her husband, Edward Rice. George P. Crane likely met his future wife, Katherine Judson, at this gathering. Katherine Judson was daughter to Mills Judson, a well-known and well-love merchant and banker in New Orleans. Mills was a native of Connecticut. Cyrus Chism, husband to Anastasia, was born in Maine.

William Agar and Edward Rice were both commission merchants. They sold crops for a commission. They were heavily dependent on rice, sugar and some cotton crops. Cyrus Chism sold bags and ties, often for rice crops. Mills Judson was deeply involved in general New Orleans business. By the time of 1LT Mumford’s visit, all the men and their families had gained considerable wealth from the slave based economy. William Agar, Edward Rice, and the three sisters, Theresa, Anastasia and Katherine were Irish born. Everyone present for that gathering were looking at economic ruin. Everyone present were likely to lose everything they had gained. Yet, Mumford records in his diary no whining about the loss of slavery and the slave based economy. Instead, his one mention is the of the “patriotism” of the ladies.

Folks claim the confederate memorials represent Jim Crow and an attempt to intimidate blacks. But, that was not the case in San Antonio. At the dedication of the Confederate memorial in 1900, John H. Reagan spoke. Judge Reagan had been the Postmaster General of the Confederacy. After the war, he urged reconciliation between the North and the South. They called him the “Old Roman” for his efforts to make peace between the two regions. Later, he became the first head of the Railroad Commission in Texas and was noted for his opposition to the unbridled power of the railroad.

If the Confederate soldiers fought to maintain slavery, they never expressed that motive – not in their letters, not in their diaries, not in their first gathering after the war, and 40 years later, not when they erected their memorials.

Old Relationships, Part 8

What of the slaves who served the McHattons faithfully for years? Cuba and Spain had outlawed slavery long before the Mchattons arrived. Zell and Martha were free once the McHattons arrived in Mexico. The McHattons then moved to Cuba and purchased the sugar plantation that became their home. Zell and Martha were free in Cuba, as they were in Mexico. At the Cuba plantation, the family encountered bandits, a violent uprising by Chinese “coolies,” a hurricane and the more mundane hard work necessary to start a plantation in a strange country. Through all those adventures, Zell was right there, bravely defending the family.

James and Eliza tried to teach Zell to read and write. But, he resisted. Yet, Zell learned to speak Spanish better than James or Eliza. He became their interpreter. When Zell became a young man, Eliza noticed he was looking at women differently. She suggested he open a bank account, if he wanted to marry. She wanted to help Zell safeguard the money he had accumulated. Zell married and started a family. After some ten years in Cuba, James and Eliza returned to the United States. They came to miss the company of others who they could understand better and they missed their “fatherland.”

But, Zell stayed in Cuba with his family. Eliza and James helped him reach an agreed contract with the new owners of the plantation. Zell sent the McHattons letters every year, always written by one of the Spanish workers at the old plantation. He relayed news of the neighborhood and the plantation. And, he always signed his letters “Your devoted and faithful slave (esclavo).” Even then, the common expression was “Your devoted and faithful servant (serviento).” Eliza assumed the word “servant” did not express enough for Zell.

Zell died a few years later. Eliza was not shy in her book. She insisted he was no slave, but their faithful friend.

In the U.S., the McHattons helped Martha apply her accumulated savings to buy a house in Virginia, close enough for the McHattons, then living in New York, to visit Martha every year. Eliza would say after Martha’s passing that she was no slave but a companion who was a tender, faithful soul. And, she was their last connection to a long ago way of life.

Eliza McHatton-Ripley, From Flag to Flag (United Kingdom: Dodo Press 2009) (reprint), pp. 187, 189.

Be Safe.

Confederate Memorials Remember Those Who Fell

Cary Clack, usually a careful and thoughtful writer, penned a piece recently regarding Confederate memorials. His piece betrays a superficial understanding of Confederate memorials. See his opinion piece here in the San Antonio Express News. Mr.  Clack argues that the Civil War was primarily caused by slavery, as though someone disagrees with him. Not even Pres. Trump has claimed the civil war was not about slavery.

The Confederate memorials were largely erected by women. According to Kelly McMichaels’ book, “Sacred Memories,” of the 65 Confederate memorials which used to stand in Texas, about 50 were erected by women. A couple of those were started by male veterans of the war, but they could not get it done. The women had to step in and raise the necessary funds. Why were women so successful at a project the men could not accomplish? Dr. McMichaels suggests women were the “rememberers.” They were the ones most likely to safeguard the small things of a lost loved one.

The money for these memorials was raised ten, twenty-five, and fifty cents at a time over years. Mr. Clack engages in stereotypes to suggest the memorials were erected in the early 1900’s when Jim Crow laws were becoming common. Mr. Clack essentially suggests all white folks were trying to diminish the black man. So, these statues must share the same motive. Mr. Clack does not mention that this was also a time when many Civil War veterans on both sides were dying. The union veterans erected their memorials about the same time. Both sides generally purchased their memorials and statues from the same sources.

Neither does Mr. Clack mention that in a time when women could not work, could not vote, and often could not own property, they were raising the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s money.

These memorials sometimes depict generals, sometimes the common soldier. Yet, they always call on the viewer to recall those who fell. This veteran cannot forget those who fell in any war. Mr. Clack looks at the statues with no notice of the message at the foot of the statue.

During the Civil War, armies did not collect and bury the dead. There were no funerals back home. There were no honor guarded processions. There were no gifts of a flag to the grieving family. After the war, hundreds of families, North and South, wandered these battle fields looking for lost loved ones. One historian estimated there were 35,000 dead, lying unburied, unmarked between Baton Rouge and Vicksburg. That was just one small corner of the war.

Mr. Clack conflates respect for those who fell with respect for secession. He suggests the cause was unjust because contemporary documents pointed to slavery. I deployed to Iraq in 2005. I did not consult the Congressional Resolution that authorized the war. It is very unlikely any Confederate soldier reviewed Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” before enlisting. Soldiers don’t do that. They just serve.

Mr. Clack never addresses the words which actually appear on every memorial: “Lest we forget.”

Mr. Clack ends his piece by asking where is the statue that honors his enslaved ancestor? Indeed. Where are the memorials to our country’s enslaved ancestors? Why remove Confederate memorials, when Mr. Clack could just as easily raise the funds for a memorial to his enslaved ancestor? Removal is relatively easy. Erecting is much the harder task. Those Southern women who could not vote and could not work, however, showed it can be done.

July 4 in Vicksburg

For decades, Vicksburg, Mississippi did not celebrate July 4, at all. In 1945, as part of a wave of patriotism washing across the country, they held a “Carnival of the Confederacy.”  That celebration lasted a couple of years. Then in 1947, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower spoke in Vicksburg on July 4. And still, July 4 remained a subdued holiday in Vicksburg, through the late 1990’s.

On July 4, 1863, Confederate Gen. John C. Pemberton surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. For 47 days, the small city of 5,000 endured the Yankee siege. Although reduced to eating rats and mules, the Confederates believed they could have held out another week. But, Gen. Pemberton, a native of Pennsylvania, believed Gen. Grant would offer better terms on July 4. Although from the North, Pemberton had sided with the Confederacy during the war. His two younger brothers both served in the union army. But, the career US Army officer had married a woman from Virginia and had spent much of his career in the south.

The siege was tough on both the Confederates and on the Federals. But, it was devastating for the civilians. Much of the town is situated high on hills and a bluff overlooking the Mississippi river. Vicksburg was a thriving river port before the war. See the picture above. Because the town was situated high atop hills, the Union forces, dug into the low lying areas, was always shooting up hill. The town became the inevitable target of Union shot and shell.

Mary Longborough, a resident of Vicksburg, kept a diary that was later published as My Cave Life in Vicksburg. Her eyewitness accounts attest to many poignant incidents that occurred during the siege of the city:

“One afternoon, amid the rush and explosion of the shells, cries and screams arose—the screams of women amid the shrieks of the falling shells. The servant boy, George…found that a negro man had been buried alive within a cave, he being alone at that time. Workmen were instantly set to deliver him, if possible; but when found, the unfortunate man had evidently been dead some little time. His wife and relations were distressed beyond measure, and filled the air with their cries and groans.”

The families pitched tents in the ravines for protection. One family and their Negro servant (to use the contemporary term) pitched a tent a couple hundred yards from their house in one such ravine. In the morning, as young Lucy McRae woke, she watched as a spent artillery ball rolled into their tent. She screamed. The mother shouted to Rice, the negro servant, to take down the tent. The mother, the various children and Rice dashed to a wooden bridge to get back to town. Rice dropped the tent. The mother dropped the basket with their meager provisions. They tried to stay beneath a dirt embankment. Jumping behind trees, fences, diving into trenches, shells exploding over their heads. The children were crying, the mother praying. They finally approached the Glass Bayou bridge, indicating the edge of town. A mortar shell landed on the far end of the bridge. Mother shouted, “run!” The children all ran to their cave, where they felt safer. Finding their home later, they saw it had been struck several times, but remained intact. A minie ball had creased their father’s whiskers while he sat in the hallway of the house, but he was otherwise unhurt. This was day 34 of the siege.

That was the siege for the civilians. Today, the Vicksburg July 4 celebration is larger, but these sorts of memories endure.

For more information and a picture of the cave homes, see the Abbeville Institute website here.

“Lee to the Rear!”

In the annals of military warfare, it was so extraordinary. There is no record of this happening to Julius Caesar, Hannibal or Napoleon. In May 1864, in a Battle known as the Battle of the Wilderness, Gen. Robert E. Lee tried to lead the charge of the Texas Brigade. Commanding generals do not typically attempt to lead a charge themselves. It just is not done. The commanding general has to keep the entire battle in mind. He has to forecast chess moves three or four moves in advance. He must respond to aides hurrying back and forth with urgent messages seeking aid, warning of supply shortages, and he must press recalcitrant commanders. The heat of battle is “prime time” for a commanding general. Yet, when the Texas Brigade moved up to block a penetration by Union General Winfield Scott’s forces, he knew the moment was dire. He knew too that the Confederates were being pressed in ways they had never been pressed. He wanted to be sure the charge succeeded.

Gen. Lee cheered as the Texans moved into position to plug the gap created by Gen. Scott. The Corps Commander, Gen. Longstreet planned to move one brigade into the gap, followed by a second brigade and then a third. When the Texans first arrived, Gen. Lee urged them, “We must drive these people back.” A man not given to frequent displays of emotion already showed more emotion than his soldiers were used to. “The Texans always drive them,” he added.  The commander of the Texas Brigade, Gen. Gregg, told his men, “The eye of Gen. Lee is on you.” The Texans responded with cheers. With a shout of “Forward,” the Texans and Arkansans started forward with a yell.

Immediately, the men noticed Gen. Lee was moving with them. Capt. Bedell noticed the general advancing with them well into the enemy fire. Dozens would later insist they were there and they held the reins of Traveller, pulling Lee back to the rear. Traveller was the name of Lee’s horse, named after the horse used by Gen. Washington during the American revolution. Gen. Washington was Gen. Lee’s step-grandfather.

Capt. Bedell had been wounded twice in prior battles. He was one of the original recruits into Co. “L” of the Texas Brigade. Co. “L” came from Galveston. Capt. Bedell implored Lee to stop. Gen. Lee responded, “I want to lead the Texas Brigade in this charge.” From commander to his men, bypassing three or four layers of command was unusual in itself. But, the overall commander was negotiating with his men. He could have simply told them to shut up and let him do his job. But, he was negotiating, asking them to let him do what he thought he needed to do ensure success.

It is hard for civilians to understand this remarkable military relationship during war. There is an unspoken understanding that each person, male or female, will do his/her best at all times to ensure success of the military unit. That principle is a sacred duty. It stays with you all your life. In this instance, the Commanding General was asking his men to let him do what he believed he had to do to plug this gap. His men were telling him, “no.” They were assuming the responsibility for the success of this charge. They were saying, “sir, we got this.” They were not just assuring him they would ensure the success of this charge, they were insisting. They were telling their boss, “no,” in terms that did not allow for negotiation.

The tender feeling in that moment cannot be overstated. They were also saying the possibility of losing Gen. Lee was too high a price to pay for the success of one charge. That is an extraordinary honor, one probably never made to a general of Robert E. Lee’s caliber. Napoleon’s soldiers respected the general, but they did not love him. I am happy to say my soldiers generally liked me. But, I am very doubtful they would have insisted I minimize risk. It just isn’t done.  

Other soldiers joined in. “You will get killed dad[d]y.” “We won’t go forward until you go back,” said another. One soldier watching this unheard of display remarked years later, “I would charge hell itself for that old man.” One soldier in a friendly way kicked at Traveller, saying, “Get out of the Wilderness with General Lee, you old looney!” That alone would merit court martial in today’s army. In the Confederate army, assaulting the general’s horse in other circumstances would have resulted in lashes or worse.

The general finally turned toward the rear, as the Texas Brigade surged forward into the fire. Dozens of Texans fell. But, Gen. Lee lived.

See more about the Battle of the Wilderness here.

Susannah J. Ural, Hood’s Texas Brigade (LSU Press 2017), pp. 212-213.

Gen. Banks’ Red River Campaign, Fire and Looting

The Yankees occupied New Orleans and its surrounding environs from April, 1862 until the end of the Civil War. In 1863, Gen. Nathaniel Banks left New Orleans to start an advance toward Shreveport. He followed the Red River, then a busy inland commercial waterway. He was defeated and had to retreat. On the way back, his troops burned and looted their way back south. They burned literally every farm house and plantation between Shreveport and Alexandria. Alexandria, about midway between Baton Rouge and Shreveport was then a prosperous river town. The Unionists appeared to take particular delight in firing the town.

Of course, Gen. Banks issued orders that no looting or burning would occur,. But the orders were not enforced. As one Union soldier would write years later, “We were like the Israelites of old, accompanied by a cloud [of smoke] by day, and a pillar of fire by night.” One resident of Alexandria watched as the invaders poured in, helpless to stop them. The forced their way into every store, every house on Front street. The cases, windows, iron chests, shelves, and more were broken into and smashed. Officers and enlisted alike participated in the melee, grabbing whatever they could carry. The resident, E.R. Blossat watched, helpless to intervene, as two Federal privates grabbed the silver watch from his black servant. He then saw two Marines and a naval officer enter the Second Street home of Mrs. Caleb Taylor, grab the clock off her mantle, wrap it in her quilt and then dart out the door. Two other marines plundered the Episcopal church.

A little boy of four years old, son of a Confederate captain, loudly proclaimed before a crowd of Yankees that he was a rebel. One of the soldiers then wrapped a rope around his neck and drew him up, choking the boy and asked if he was still a rebel. Gasping for breath, the toddler insisted he was indeed still a rebel. He was again drawn up. Some by-standers then insisted the soldier release the boy.

The Catholic church, St. Francis Xavier, it is said, was almost burned during this infamous campaign. It was the only river front building that was not burned. The story is that the priest, Father J.P. Bellier, saw the Federals approaching his church to set it afire. Disguising his voice to impersonate Gen. Banks, he ordered that the church be spared. The soldiers then left the church alone. See waymarking post here.

Twenty two blocks of the river port were burned. The Federal troops violated the rules of war. for more information about the firing of Alexandria, Louisiana, see the post here.

Walter Brian Cisco, War Crimes against Southern Civilians (Gretna, La.: Pelican Publ. 2016), p. 96.

Confederate Memorials are Veteran Memorials

In the Iraq war, like all wars, we lost a few buddies. Each death carries with it these tremendous ripple effects. For every death, 5, 6 soldiers or more say, “If I had been there SGT Saenz would still be with us. I should have gone out on that patrol.” The guilt, as irrational as it might be, can be devastating. Multiply those ripple effects some 20 or 30 times and you get the U.S. Civil war. The casualty rate in that war was 20-50% in combat units, compared to .02% in the Iraq war for all units. During the Civil War, armies did not collect and bury the dead. There were no funerals back home. There were no honor guarded processions. There were no gifts of a flag to the grieving family. After the war, hundreds of families, North and South, wandered these battle fields looking for lost loved ones. One historian estimated there were 35,000 dead, lying unburied, unmarked between Baton Rouge and Vicksburg. That was just one small corner of the war.

So, after the war, communities across America built memorials to the confederate dead. Northern communities did the same. Those memorials applied a much needed salve to deep, emotional wounds. But, how did a South with its economy in shambles raise the money for memorials?

In her book (“Sacred Memories”), Kelly McMichaels describes the process employed by male veterans and the female United Daughters of the Confederacy in erecting hundreds of veteran memorials across America. Overwhelmingly, most were built by the women. Dr. McMichaels attributes that to the nature or role of women in the 1890-1930 time frame when most of these memorials were built. Women were often the “rememberers.” They tended the graves. They laid aside the old baby slippers and the old worn hat from lost loved ones.

One of the first memorials was the Robert E. Lee statue in New Orleans. Fund-raising started the year of Mr. Lee’s death in 1870. The fund-raising committee included bankers and leading merchants of the city. But, these were banks and merchants who had no money. The economy was reeling. The committee came close to disbanding in 1876. But, they re-organized and added many more merchants and former Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard. By 1884, the committee raised the $36,000 necessary for a very large, beautiful Lee statue.

But, to reach that huge figure, they held hundreds of bake sales and public entertainments. The public entertainments included militias performing close order drill, a play titled “Cinderella,” for the children; lectures on Robert E. Lee and his life. Admission was generally .25 cents for children and .50 cents for adults. In 1877, 98 persons pledged $100 each which brought them close to the stated goal of $30,000. Contributors included Sen. Charles Furlong, a Republican Senator from Mississippi and union veteran.

This author’s ancestor, George P. Crane, supported one such public entertainment as part of his social club. He recorded in his diary for May 16, 1878, that the old Opera House had never seen such a “jam.” Thousands, he said, had to be turned away. From a building that could seat 1,600 souls. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the white folks of New Orleans supported their Confederate memorials. For more information about the beautiful old Opera House, visit this site.

But, the Lee monument in New Orleans was unique. Most memorials were erected by women, usually the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In a time when women could not work, could not vote, often could not own property, they got the job done. Among the 65 Confederate monuments in Texas, two were started by men, but finished by the women. Of the 65 Confederate memorials, twelve were erected by the male veterans. The remaining 50 or so were erected by the UDC. The San Antonio chapter of the UDC relied on hundreds of bake sales and quilting bees to raise the $3,000 necessary for their memorial in 1899. The San Antonio memorial depicted the common soldier. The Grand Army of the Republic, the veterans organization for union veterans, contributed to the San Antonio monument and participated in the unveiling ceremony. The Grand Army of the Republic followed right behind the United Confederate Veterans in the lengthy procession.

Both Union and Confederate veterans generally supported each other’s memorials and attended each other’s reunions. The replacement cost of the San Antonio memorial has been valued at $450,000 in today’s dollars.

Some of the monuments, typically those found in the larger cities, depicted Confederate generals, but most Texas memorials depicted the common solder. All included some words on the pedestal asking the community to remember those who fell. “Lest We forget,” a then recent poem by Rudyard Kipling, was a familiar refrain carved into the base. These memorials filled a void. These were the funerals those families never had.

Dr. McMichael states in her book that the statues were also intended to support white supremacy. But, her citation does not support her assertion. Dr. McMichael points to John J. Winberry’s article, “Lest We Forget: The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape.”  Mr. Winberry offered four reasons for the erection of Confederate monuments across the South. None of his reasons include sending a message of white supremacy.

Even when the men erected the monument, it was often the women who did the actual work. To some folks today, those memorials represent vestiges of racism. But, in reality, they represent hundreds of bake sales, bazaars (similar to yard sales), public entertainments and thousands of ten, twenty-five and fifty cent contributions. Seeing those beautiful memorials spat on, spray-painted and pulled down unceremoniously deeply saddens this Iraq war veteran.

Kelly McMichael, Sacred Memories, The Civil War Monument Movement in Texas (Denton: Tex. State  Hist. Assoc. 2009), p. 8.

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Amusement This Evening,” May 16, 1878, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lee Monument Benefit,” May 18, 1878, p. 2

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “An Appreciated Contribution,” Feb. 10, 1876, p. 5

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lecture on the Life of Lee,” June 19, 1877, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “The Lee Monumental Prospect,” June 5, 1877, p. 1

New Orleans Daily Picayune, “Lee Monumental Association,” May 6, 1876, p. 4

John J. Winberry, “Lest We Forget: The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape,” Southeastern Geographer, 23 (Nov., 1983): 107-121.

San Antonio Express News, “Who Paid to have the Confederate Statue in Travis Park Made and Then Placed in the Park?” Aug. 14, 2017

San Antonio Express News, “Union Veterans Joined Confederaste Veterans in Celebrating Monument at Travis Park,” Sept. 2, 2017

Leadership in the Texas Brigade, John Bell Hood

Way back when, back when I was a young Infantry Officer attending the Infantry Officer Basic Course in the 1980’s, we had a course called “Leadership.” How do you teach leadership to a group of some 40 lieutenants? The IOBC cadre used the case method, the same method you see in Business school or law school. We looked at a wide variety of stories and examples from real life about good and bad leaders. There was no one ultimate answer to how to be a good leader. But, the point the IOBC cadre drove home with us was that in regard to United States soldiers, the best approach was egalitarian or democratic. Authoritarian leaders did not do so well in U.S. military history. The truism we arrived at was that we, as Infantry leaders, should always expect to explain to the soldiers why a given order made sense. Don’t just tell them. Expect that you will also need to explain to your soldiers why they must follow a given plan or order. We in the U.S. have a different tradition, when compared to Europe and other places.

Some leaders failed the Texas Brigade long before the war began. J.J. Archer, from Maryland, was appointed the first colonel of the Fifth Texas Infantry. He was not well-liked, partly because he was from Maryland – too close to “Yankeedom” said one soldier. But, the fact that he was not from Texas probably played a greater role. The lieutenant-colonel of the regiment faced even greater scrutiny. Frank Schaller, a German émigré, on paper had all the credentials. His grandfather and father served in the French army. He graduated from a military school in Germany and college in France. He served briefly in the Crimea. But, as one descendant explained, he was shy and lacked social skills. He was short, slim and high-strung. In early October, 1861, he rode into the Fifth Texas Infantry Regiment camp. He wore gold lace and stars on his uniform, a regiment that prided itself on officers with well-worn boots and appreciated one officer who rode into battle with a pistol in one hand and a frying pan in the other. Upon seeing the elegant officer, one soldier asked “What is it? Is it a man, fish, or bird?” The last the men saw of Lieut-Col. Schaller, he was riding out of camp on his horse, the mane sheared and the tail cut off. And, the men laughed heartily at their prank. So much for one appointed officer.

John Bell Hood understood how this worked. He might be appointed, but he still had to earn the respect of his men. Not the first, but one of the best commanders of “Hood’s Texas Brigade,” he knew instinctively to treat the citizen-soldiers as equals, or as near equals. The Texans were difficult. They complained about some commanders and found ways to force them out. Not so with John Bell Hood. Gen. Hood was from Kentucky originally, but he had lived many years in Texas. He was a West Point graduate. So, he was “regular Army” when compared to the Texas volunteers. The Confederate army could elect their company grade officers, but regimental and above officers were appointed by the central government. So, the Texas Brigade did not ask for him. But, they took to him right away.

How did Gen. Hood succeed where others failed? He would say later that he devoted the entire winter quarters to show he valued his men, both as soldiers and for their pre-war status. Many men were persons of standing in their home communities, but were now just another soldier. In his way, Gen. Hood recognized they had a place of significance before the war. He made a distinct effort to make the junior officers better junior officers. He said later he lost no opportunity to “arouse” their pride and to impress upon them that they would be the best soldiers. That goal of being the best appealed to the brash Texans. He urged them to police themselves, to look out for soldiers not doing their best and to take steps to fix the problem.

Gen. Hood mentioned that his predecessors did not take the time to explain the “why” of a given order. They would just issue the order and expect instant obedience. Hood, on the other hand, would take the time to explain. For example, he had a rule that lights had to be out by ten o’clock at night. He explained to the Texans that in keeping a light on, the soldier would not just keep himself awake, but all the others in his tent or cabin. An army must have its sleep if it was to do well the next morning. The general insisted that officers had to explain the reason for orders, not simply issue the orde

I have to say that same approach certainly worked for me during my Army time. I spent almost all my time during a drill weekend talking or counseling with soldiers. A decent soldier always responds to respect and simple listening. I learned from IOBC and Ft. Benning. Col. Hood likely learned from simple trial and error and good instincts.

Susannah J. Ural, Hood’s Texas Brigade, (Baton Rouge, La.: LSU Press 2017), pp. 48-49, 79-80.

1868 New Orleans Race Riots, Part 2

Riots broke out the next day, Sunday in adjoining parishes.

The Metropolitan police force, a new creation, came in for a round of criticism from the white newspapers. The Metropolitans were seen as all black, but in reality, blacks simply made up a large percentage of the force. Traditionally, for decades, Metropolitans were scorned in the same breath as carpetbaggers and scalawags. It was probably more nuanced than that. This author’s family was generally dedicated Confederates. But, one cousin practiced law during the 1870’s at a small law firm which advised and defended the Metropolitan police force.

In any event, many black members of the Metropolitan force refused to report for duty after the city-wide melee. Commentators of the time, outside of the Democrats, sympathized, noting that any Negro who left his home may not return. Gov. Warmoth was forced to ask  Federal troops to restore order. The concern was that the Federal commander, Gen. Rousseau, was a Democrat. See a piece about Gov. Warmoth here.

The following Monday, violence resumed. Cooler heads met with Gen. Rousseau. The Democrat leaders agreed they would call on their political clubs to refrain from violence until the election on Nov. 3. Apparently not receiving that message, some 3,000 white Democrats gathered and offered their services to the Mayor that night. They offered to patrol the city and enforce order. Again, cooler heads stepped up. The Mayor, the former, redoubtable Confederate general, Harry T. Hayes, and two other Democrat leaders spoke to the crowd. They urged the crowd to return home. They assured the white Democrats that Gen. Rousseau would keep order. Most of those listening did indeed return home. But, not all.

The Innocents were not done. Later that night, about 10 p.m., they were parading through the city with their captured trophies, one of the banners of the Republican clubs and captured Republican caps. It was a deliberate provocation intended for the Negro Republicans. Shots were fired from upstairs balconies. The Innocents returned fire. Edward Malone, a 36 year old native of Ireland and a member of the Innocents was killed. His body, retrieved later by the authorities, had six bullet holes and several cuts and slashes apparently inflicted by a meat cleaver.

The Innocents continued to seek revenge throughout the night, now joined by many whites. The federal troops could not be everywhere. They were not able to stop the attacks. Roaming bands of whites started to attack random homes of blacks. Whites broke into the home of a Dartmouth educated teacher, destroyed $1200 worth of furniture and school equipment, took jewelry and carried away cash. Other homes of prominent black Republicans suffered the same fate. Black barber shops, grocery stores and churches were similarly ransacked and destroyed.

Dawn on Tuesday, Oct. 27 did not see a respite from the violence. The Metropolitans were now thoroughly demoralized and were not present at all. The few federals for a city of 191,000 were not enough. Fighting centered on the French Market, Canal Street and on the levee. At the Innocents headquarters, the body of Edward Malone lay. Federal reinforcements arrived from Mississippi. White gangs conducted more attacks and invasions on Tuesday. Gen. Rousseau announced a prominent Democrat, Gen. James B. Steedman, would assume control if the Metropolitans. Even though, Gen. Steedman had only agreed to assume control for a few days, that announcement helped restore confidence in the much maligned police force. The violence did wane. The election took place a few days later, removing the impetus for strife.

In the end, six and perhaps seven whites were killed. Thirteen blacks or more were killed. The Democrats largely won the Nov. 3 election. The election day itself saw no violence and a few complaints of harassment. The governor admitted later that he advised many Republicans not to vote, because he did not believe they could do so safely. The whites could not accept that blacks, their former slaves, could now compete with them for votes. But, compete with them, they did.

See Smithsonian article on the 1868 riots here.

Melinda Meek Hennessy, “Race and Violence in Reconstruction New Orleans: The 1868 Riot,” Louisiana History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter 1979), p. 77-91.

1868 Race Riots, Part One

After the war, how did the whites and blacks work things out? Or, did they work anything out?  In New Orleans, the federal soldiers had been in control for years. New Orleans also had a strong, vibrant freed Negro (to use the contemporary term) culture. For decades, many blacks had succeeded in business and had acquired first-rate educations. New Orleans, a major world port and the largest city in the South, was cosmopolitan and sophisticated. Prior to the Civil War, the freed blacks had their own militia, the Native Guards. The Native Guards had served with distinction in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Even before, the fall of New Orleans to the Yankees in 1862, the Native Guards were prepared to defend the city.

So, during Reconstruction, the blacks generally responded to white supremacy with considerable strength and skill. By 1868, there was an uneasy truce. The Metropolitan police had been created, which included many black policemen. Federal troops remained. But, many whites were, nevertheless, determined to diminish the black and Republican vote.

This was a time of political clubs. Groups formed their clubs generally based on their wards. They would hold barbacues and parade through the city advocating their candidate. The New Orleans blacks took to this mode of politics right away. They formed clubs named Warmoth Guards (for the Republican governor), Colfax Defenders (for the site of a massacre of black voters), Grant Invincibles, and Pinchback Zouaves (named for the well-known black Louisiana politician). These were the black Republican clubs.

The white citizens also had their political clubs, also generally formed along the ward or neighborhood lines. The white clubs were all Democratic. The largest club, limited to 1200 members, among the Democrats was the “Innocents.” The Innocents was named for a political club in Sicily. They had members who were Sicilian, Italian, Maltese, Latin Americans, Portuguese, Spaniards and American. The Innocents were conspicuous with their garb, a red shirt and red cap. They also had perhaps the most incendiary banner. Their banner depicted a black man on the ground about to be stabbed. Most whites and blacks of the time believed the Sicilians were hot-headed, stealthy, and prone to revenge.

The Democrats lost in the April, 1868 election. In the lead-up to the November, 1868 election, the clubs turned to violence. On Sept. 22, 1868, several of the black political clubs paraded through the streets. At Canal and Bourbon streets, there was a saloon and restaurant known as Dumontiel’s. It was frequented by wealthy white persons. The fracas likely started when a few whites cheered the Democrat candidate when the black clubs paraded by. Some blacks gave chase. The whites dashed into Dumontiel’s. The blacks followed. Entire Republican clubs entered. On an upstairs balcony, a white began to fire into the crowd of blacks. The blacks returned fire. The shooting spread. Many were injured, but just one black man was killed. Suddenly, the fighting ended.

Saturday night was a popular time for the political clubs to parade. Canal street is said to be the widest main street in the country. There is room for parades on both sides of the street. On Oct. 24, 1868, the Republicans, including the Grant Guards, Colfax Guards, Tenth Ward Club, Eleventh Ward Club, and others, were parading on one side, while the Democrat Workingmen’s club was on the other side. Several men and boys jumped from the center of the street, from the area known as the neutral ground, a tree-lined boulevard. They started firing into the Republican groups. The Republicans dropped their torches and ran. The blacks returned fire. But, they were surprised and got the worst of it. Seven blacks were killed. Five were members of the Republican clubs. One was unidentified and the seventh was a ten year old boy. The boy appeared to have been trampled by the fleeing crowd.

The blacks were furious. They went home to gather their weapons. By 11:30 p.m., large number of Negroes were in the streets attacking every white person they could find. A streetcar was stopped. One white passenger was severely injured by an axe. Other white passengers were stabbed or shot. A carriage maker was hacked to death by hatchets. A former Confederate officer and former policeman was shot to death. Federal soldiers eventually brought an end to the butchery.

Melinda Meek Hennessy, “Race and Violence in Reconstruction New Orleans: The 1868 Riot,” Louisiana History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter 1979), p. 77-91.