Articles the United States' Civic Myth of the Citizen- Soldier in the Era Of

Articles

The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen- Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction

Brook Thomas

Abstract Civic myths are stories a country tells itself that help determine a sense of national belonging. An important one in the United States evokes the legend of Cincinnatus, who allegedly abandoned his pastoral retreat to save Rome from military defeat only to return to his farm rather than assume political power. In the wake of the Civil War, when the Union was saved and slavery abolished by an army made up primarily of citizens rather than professional military men, the myth of the citizen-soldier took on increased importance, with conflicting ef- fects. On the one hand, it helped immigrants and African Americans who served as soldiers make a case for citizenship. It was also used to criticize the inequities of postbellum society that adversely affected some veterans. On the other hand, the myth’s implied distrust of standing professional armies played a part in undermining the occupation of the South during Reconstruction, which was needed to protect freedmen after the war. White supremacists went so far as to exploit it in justifying the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, it shaped opinion on how former Confederate soldiers should be reintegrated into the national community, as they were memorialized more than former African American soldiers.

Keywords: citizen / soldier; U.S. Reconstruction; Cincinnatus; Ku Klux Klan; expatriation

In Edward Everett Hale’s “The Man without a Country” (1863), the young soldier Philip Nolan is tried in a military court during the Jeffer- son administration for joining Aaron Burr’s conspiracy to take over the Louisiana Territory and create a separate country. After his conviction, he is asked if he has anything to say to prove his loyalty to his country. His response is: “D---n the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!” (667). Shocked, the presiding officer grants him his wish. From that day, September 23, 1807, until his death on

Amerikastudien / American Studies 65.4 (2020): 383-403 383 Brook Thomas

May 11, 1863, he is transferred from one U.S. naval vessel to another and never allowed to set foot on U.S. soil or hear of his country again. As his name suggests, he is a man of “no land,” but over the course of his life he repents his youthful folly and dies a model patriotic citizen. Written in the midst of the Civil War to induce patriotism in citizens by showing the consequences of betraying one’s country, Hale’s story harkens back to the founding of the United States during the Revolutionary War. On Nolan’s deathbed, “He had something pressed close to his lips. It was his father’s badge of the Order of the Cincinnati” (679). The Order of Cincinnati was founded in 1783 by Henry Knox for officers who had served at least three years in the Continental Army. It was named after the soldier and statesman Lucius Quinctius Cincin- natus, who, according to legend, was called from his pastoral retreat to save the Roman republic. Temporarily establishing a dictatorship, he relinquished power once his mission was accomplished and returned to his farm. George Washington was imagined as an American Cincinna- tus. Having abandoned his agrarian life in order to secure the republic in war and then serve as its first president, he refused the powers accorded to a monarch and returned to Mount Vernon for the rest of his life. American art offers numerous images of Washington as a citizen- soldier. John Trumbull’s painting of Washington resigning his military commission at the Maryland State House in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1783 hangs in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Jean-Antoine Houdon’s statue of Washington as Cincinnatus is in the State Capitol in Rich- mond, Virginia. Washington was also the first president of the Order of Cincinnati. Celebration of the citizen-soldier is about more than Washington and the Order of Cincinnati. It generates what Rogers Smith, in his comprehensive Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History, calls a civic myth, which influences how people imagine national membership. Smith contrasts civic myths with liberal civic ideals. Whereas Smith embraces aspirational civic ideals, such as equality under the law, he criticizes civic myths for containing “elements that are not literally true” (33). Thus, he urges teachers and scholars to replace civic myths “as far as they can, with complex truths” (504). There is no doubt about the importance of looking skeptically at what Smith calls ascriptive myths that limit national membership, such as the one that says that the United States is an Anglo-Saxon country. Nonetheless, Smith’s dismissal of civic myths is misleading, for civic myths and civic ideals are not mutually exclusive. Equality under the law is as much a myth as an ideal; the citizen-soldier is as much an ideal as a myth. Smith’s disparagement of civic myths because of their “fictional em- broidery” (33) indulges in what Hans Blumenberg identifies as the great myth of the Enlightenment: the belief that replacing myth with truth 1 For a more detailed 1 description of “civic can leave myth behind. The fictional elements of myth do not turn myths,” see Thomas. them into lies. Like legal fictions, they can have important social func-

384 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction tions. Thus, Blumenberg defines our task as working on / with myth. Recognizing the need to scrutinize myths critically, Blumenberg also believes they have an anthropological function. Claude Lévi-Strauss helps explain why: myths, for Lévi-Strauss, are narrative responses to social contradictions. Confronted with contradictions, people tell stories to make sense of them. The myth of the citizen-soldier was a defining feature of American exceptionalism. A proud republic, the United States disparaged professional standing armies made up of subjects forced to serve the will of the sovereign monarch. In a republic, the people are sovereign, but the republic still needs to defend itself. The ideal of the citizen-soldier solved that potential contradiction. In a moment of crisis, citizens like Cin- cinnatus will abandon their peacetime activities to defend the republic, only to return to their civilian lives once the crisis has passed. As the Romantic historian John Lothrop Motley puts it, “every citizen becomes a soldier” when “great principles or […] national existence is at stake,” only to have “great armies resolve themselves again into the mass of people, becoming ennobled by their military experience, and even better citizens than before” (59). In this essay, I focus on how the myth im- pacted the era of the U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction as well as how the era influenced the retelling of that myth in literary and other texts. This era was the most contentious in U.S. history. A bloody war was followed by a heated debate about the makeup of a reunited country. Those debates about the definition of national membership persist today. The Civil War was precipitated when Southerners in eleven states decided that they no longer wanted to belong to the Union. “The Man without a Country” was a warning to those who might mimic that dis- loyalty. Influenced by Hale’s story, Congress passed a law on March 3, 1865, expatriating those who left the country to escape serving in the army. But “The Man without a Country” also provided a model for how Confederates could repent and regain the status of citizens. Most importantly, in vanquishing the Confederacy, the Union victory led to the abolition of slavery. The status of freedmen had to be deter- mined. Amidst controversy, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Four- teenth Amendment granted African Americans citizenship. Rejecting definitions based on descent, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, conferred citizenship on anyone born within the territory of the United States, with some exceptions. It was left to Congress to determine the criteria by which immigrants could become citizens. The myth of the citizen-soldier intersects with these issues and more. It is especially complicated because the use of the military did not stop with the end of formal hostilities. Even after the Confederacy ceased to exist, the military occupied the defeated South to ensure loyalty and to protect the rights of African Americans. Armed occupation of the nation’s own territory in peacetime posed a major challenge to the republican ideal of the citizen-soldier.

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 385 Brook Thomas

Employed by those on different sides of these issues, a myth growing out of a potential contradiction in republican beliefs about the use of the military could not escape the contradictions of the era. In what follows, I identify historical complications that affected and were effected by the myth, often relying on the views of men of letters and turning to works of culture, especially literature. Those works are about fictional characters, but they do not exist in a realm separate from history. On the one hand, they help us understand how versions of the myth were imagined. On the other, they influenced how people understood the myth, often in conflicting ways. Paradoxically, by the end of the era many in the reunited nation honored the former citizen-soldiers of the rebel states more than the African American soldiers that those states tried to hold in bondage. The myth of the citizen-soldier was not solely responsible for that reversal, but it did play a role.

With their distrust of standing armies, the authors of the Constitu- tion placed faith in state militias, which are made up of civilians, not professional soldiers. The Second Amendment of the Constitution, when interpreted properly, is about the right of members of state militias, not individuals, to bear arms (Peltason 168). Because a “well regu- lated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” Congress cannot infringe “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” (US Const. Amend. II). Congress does, however, have the power to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union and suppress insurrections and repel invaders” (US Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8). Under the Constitution, Congress and the states cooperate in the maintenance of the National Guard, which normally operates under the direction of the states, subject to provisions made by Congress. When called into the service of the United States, however, the National Guard becomes part of the U.S. military forces and is subject to government by Congress and the president, a civilian who is commander-in-chief. When the insurrection of the southern states began in 1861, the national government had a very small standing army. Immediately, a call went out for states to raise militias to create a massive army of citizen- soldiers to save the Union. The success of those citizen-soldiers had an effect around the globe. Initially, conservatives in other countries point- ed to the Civil War as proof that republicanism did not work. Without the power a large standing army gave to the central government, they argued, the United States could not hold itself together. Proving them wrong, the Union victory was a boon to republicans worldwide. Motley, for instance, considered Britain’s 1867 Reform Act “the fruit of the Ap- pomattox apple-tree” (63). Responding to Thomas Carlyle’s attack on the Reform Bill, Walt Whitman wrote the essay “Democracy,” praising citizen-soldiers who fought “of their own choice […] dying for their own

386 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction idea” against the “secession-slave-power” (921). Those heroes fought “not for gain, nor even glory, nor to repel invasion […] but for an emblem, a mere abstraction—for the life, the safety of the Flag” (921; emphasis in original). The American belief in the superiority of citizen-soldiers over pro- fessionals is illustrated by an encounter between Ulysses S. Grant and Otto von Bismarck. After commanding the army that defeated Robert E. Lee, Grant became president. His presidency over, he took a trip around the world, with a stop in Berlin. When Bismarck sympatheti- cally remarked how difficult it must have been to fight a war against his own people, Grant insisted that it had to be done, not only to preserve the Union but also to destroy slavery. Acknowledging that point, Bis- marck suggested that the war would have been shorter if the Union had maintained a larger standing army. Grant, however, was not convinced. A professional army, he speculated, “might have gone with the South” (McFeely 470). Trained at West Point, Grant knew the conservative leanings of many professional military men, having witnessed former colleagues join the Confederacy. For Grant, it was “providential” that the war lasted as long as it did because a shorter conflict might have allowed slavery to survive (McFeely 470). The great triumph over slavery was all the more significant because it was accomplished by an army of citizen-soldiers. Unlike Bismarck, Grant was a confirmed republican, lodged within the myth of Cincinnatus. When Bismarck invited him to review a military parade, he responded, “[t]he truth is, I am more of a farmer than a soldier. I take little or no interest in military affairs” (Waugh 160). Motley had a typical attitude toward standing armies. He knew them well, having studied in Germany, where Bismarck was his best university friend. Later he spent years in Europe researching his his- tories of the Dutch Republic and as minister to the Habsburgs and to Great Britain. In an 1868 talk called “Historical Progress and American Democracy,” Motley expressed grave concern about Europe’s standing armies. Listing the size of major ones, he decried their costs. Mostly, however, he regretted the “heart of life taken systematically out of all these citizens” (59-60). For years these men “lose their family, their home, their country; becoming citizens only of that dangerous military commonwealth which hold potentates and subjects alike in its iron grasp” (60). Americans thought that their system was far superior. Some Europeans agreed. The Grand Duke of Hesse told Romantic historian George Bancroft: “Your Nation is like a prudent man who uses an umbrella only when it rains and puts it aside when the rain is over. But we in Europe with our armies are like a man who holds up an umbrella in good weather as well as bad, alike in sunshine and in storm” (zu Stol- berg-Wernigerode 66). Indeed, once the major Confederate armies surrendered, most citizen-soldiers could not wait to return to their civilian lives. In the poem

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 387 Brook Thomas

“A Carol of Harvest, for 1867,” Whitman celebrates that return. After recalling the “deafening noises of hatred, and smoke of conflict,” he proclaims: But now I sing not War. Nor the measur’d march of soldiers, nor the tents of camps, Nor the regiments hastily coming up, deploying in line of battle. No more the dead and wounded; No more the sad, unnatural shows of War (606). Drawing on the myth of Cincinnatus and the classical republican distrust of standing armies, Whitman celebrates citizen-soldiers turning swords into ploughshares. Former “blue-clad soldiers” dispersed to the “South or North, or East or West” turn their energies into reaping a fecund harvest for a united nation in peace (608): Lo! prairie, orchard and the yellow grain of the North, Cotton and rice of the South, and Louisianan cane (608). In Whitman’s poem, citizen-soldiers save the country in war and make it prosperous in peace. But other writers who lionized citizen-soldiers as much as Whitman painted a different picture. The period after the war was known as the Gilded Age as well as Reconstruction. With a growing disparity between the rich and the poor, some questioned the fair- ness of the country for which citizen-soldiers had fought. Having risked his life to preserve the Union, the citizen-soldier in Hamlin Garland’s “The Return of a Private” (1890) suffers ruined health. He returns home only to find his Wisconsin farm in decay under an “insatiable mortgage.” His fate is compared to “the millionaire” who sat out the war and “sent 2 his money to England for safe-keeping” (119, 120). In A Hazard of New Fortunes (1890), William Dean Howells raises some of the same questions as Garland and adds the complication of depicting his citizen-soldier as an immigrant. A Hazard of New Fortunes is about the attempt of Basil March and his business partner to found an innovative literary journal in the commercial climate of the Gilded Age. The novel brings together a representative cast of characters, including Dryfoos, an uneducated German American businessman who has made a fortune because oil was discovered on his farm; Dryfoos’s idealistic son, who sympathizes with labor; a “Colonel” from the South, who still defends slavery; and the socialist Berthold Lindau, who left Germany in 1848 and lost his hand and lower arm fighting for the Union. Extremely learned, Lindau taught March German, introducing him to Die Räu- ber, Die Theilung der Erde, and Die Glocke, but refused to take a cent in return. For March, Lindau embodies the ideal of the citizen-soldier. He tells his business partner that “Lindau was fighting the anti-slavery battle just as naturally at Indianapolis in 1858 as he fought behind the bar-

2 For an account of ricades in Berlin in 1848” (Howells, Hazard 95). His wife dead, Lindau veterans in fiction in this lives in poverty, scraping by as a model for beginning painters and doing period, see Marten. other odd jobs. March gives him some translation work for the journal,

388 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction which is bankrolled by the German American tycoon. Lindau hates ev- erything the capitalist stands for. He rails to March: “Do you think I knowingly gave my hand to save this oligarchy of traders and tricksters, this aristocracy of railroad wreckers and stock gamblers and mine slave drivers and mill serf owners? No; I gave it to the slave; the slave—Ha! Ha! Ha!—whom I helped to unshackle to the common liberty of hunger and cold” (193). At a dinner party at the tycoon’s mansion, Lindau gets into an argument with the former Confederate, both of whom criticize commercial society. Soon, however, Lindau’s wrath turns to the capitalist when he learns that he busted a labor union. Speaking in German to March, Lindau asks: “What kind of man is this? Who is he? He has the heart of a tyrant” (343). Lindau would normally be too polite to insult a host, but he thinks his comment will not be understood. Dryfoos, however, retains enough German to comprehend the insult. The next day, he demands that Lindau be fired. At the end of the novel, Lindau attends a strike, is hit by a police- man on the stump of his arm, and dies in an operation attempting to amputate the remainder. His body, disfigured while trying to make the United States more egalitarian, stands for a dismembered body poli- tic in which economic and racial injustices, along with anti-immigrant rhetoric, denies full citizenship to deserving people. Earlier in the novel, when told his politics are “un-American,” Lindau replies: “On-Amer- igan! […] What iss Amerigan? Dere iss no Ameriga anymore!” (How- ells, Hazard 318). Howells’s novel registers contradictions growing out of the myth of the citizen-soldier. On the one hand, Howells knew that, in the America of the 1890s, he could get sympathy for socialism only through the mouth of a citizen-soldier. On the other, the treatment of Lindau points to the failure of the country to live up to its republican ideals. In addition, Howells addressed the growing anti-immigrant sentiment of the time. Stressing the bravery of Confederate soldiers, advocates of the “Lost Cause” in the South attributed defeat to the overwhelming mate- rial resources of the North, not to the justice of its cause. The North prevailed because it relied on numerous immigrant soldiers dismissed as mercenaries, not citizens. This belief became so widespread that Grant had to protest that his army was made up of citizen-soldiers, not “hire- lings and Hessians” (Blight 119).

III

As an immigrant, Lindau points to another complication of the myth. When he fought in the war against slavery, his U.S. citizenship was not recognized by his home country. Numerous immigrant citizen- soldiers faced the same dilemma, because most European monarchies did not recognize the right of expatriation. Instead, they adhered to the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance. Anyone born subject to the sov-

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 389 Brook Thomas ereign remained a subject for life. The debate between the United States and European countries over a right of expatriation and naturalization was long-standing, having been one of the causes of the War of 1812, when the British impressed sailors from U.S. vessels, claiming that anyone born before the United States was established was a British subject. This failure to recognize the U.S. citizenship of immigrants especially affected Irish Americans, who were not happy about being British subjects in the first place. A number of former Irish American soldiers joined the Fenian movement hoping to free Ireland from British rule. Some set sail to Ireland on Erin’s Hope; others tried to invade Canada. Militarily unsuccessful, they created a diplomatic dilemma. Those who were captured were considered British subjects and charged with trea- son. One of the leaders captured in Ireland was Civil War veteran John Warren. Warren defended himself by drawing on his service as a U.S. soldier. If citizens became soldiers, those who served as soldiers gained the right to be citizens. Rejecting claims that he was a British subject, he insisted that he was a U.S. citizen “by the law and the sword” (Salyer 68). Through examples like Warren’s, the myth of the citizen-soldier affected the rights of citizenship. The Fenians attracted plenty of support from politicians wanting to capture the Irish American vote. Irish Americans generally voted Democratic. But Republican Congressman Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts, who had begun his career as an anti- immigrant Know-Nothing, saw a political opportunity. Having served as a general in the war, Banks commanded many Irish Americans and became their vocal supporter. As chair of the powerful Foreign Rela- tions Committee in the House, Banks proposed a law designed to get international recognition of immigrants’ U.S. citizenship. It included a provision that retaliated against countries that detained people they refused to recognize as naturalized U.S. citizens by requiring the Unit- ed States to take reprisals against these countries’ subjects living in the United States. This bill passed only when stripped of the reprisal measure. Banks then proposed a bill declaring the right of expatriation. That bill became so popular that in the 1868 campaign the right to expatriation was endorsed by both major parties in their platforms. This needed reform passed. Thus, the same year that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed birthright citizenship, the Expatriation Act gave those born in the United States the right to change allegiance. Of course, that right meant little unless other countries agreed to it. That was a task being accomplished by George Bancroft. The son of a minister, Bancroft was born in 1800. He graduated from Harvard and then studied in Germany. He made a name for himself by publishing early volumes of his best-selling History of the United States and becoming a leader in the Democratic Party. During the Civil War, he supported the Union and was rewarded with the honor of delivering the official eulogy for Lincoln to Congress, as years earlier he had done for Andrew Jackson. With a Ph. D. from Göttingen and fluent German,

390 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction when he became minister in Berlin to the newly formed Northern Ger- man Confederation, he was a social, intellectual, and diplomatic success. Bancroft considered international agreement on the right of expatriation one of the most important issues of the nineteenth century. He knew the issue well. Earlier, as a minister to London, he had faced a crisis when the British imprisoned as British subjects two naturalized Americans suspected of intrigue in Ireland. As minister in Berlin, he faced a contentious conflict between the American system of the citizen-soldier and the system in Prussia and other German states of universal conscription for a professional army. German immigrants who had become naturalized U.S. citizens were still considered subjects of the land of their birth, even if they had fought in the Civil War. A number of them were advertised as criminals for evading the draft by living abroad or impressed into the military during visits to their birthplace. In early 1868, Bancroft and Bismarck agreed on a treaty recognizing the right of expatriation but also making it impos- sible for someone to use naturalization as a way to avoid the military and then permanently return home. The latter provision was criticized by some Americans, especially Irish Americans. But as the founder of the Naval Academy while serving as Secretary of the Navy under Pres- ident Polk, Bancroft sympathized with Bismarck on this issue. This agreement was the first of what became known as the Bancroft Trea- ties negotiated with other European powers (including Great Britain, thus ending a long-standing dispute between the United States and its “mother country”). In the meantime, Bancroft negotiated slightly different treaties with other German states. Both the right of expatriation and the myth of the citizen-soldier fed the American belief in government by consent. Whereas despotisms demanded perpetual allegiance and forced subjects into military service, the United States claimed to allow citizens to change allegiance and relied on volunteers for the military. But there was a dark side to the myth. At one point in Howells’s novel, we learn that Lindau’s poverty was increased because he had been denied his military pension after apply- ing late and having his individual appropriation vetoed by a cost-saving president. The president alluded to was Grover Cleveland. Intent on bal- ancing the budget, Cleveland constantly vetoed governmental spend- ing, including pensions to former Union soldiers. Ironically, although the United States condemned European standing armies, most German states had a better record on military pensions than Lindau’s adopted country. Indeed, as much as the United States condemned the unrepub- lican nature of standing armies, the army of citizen-soldiers that fought the Civil War was put together with various undemocratic practices. During the Civil War there was a draft. The draft has always created problems for the myth of citizen-soldiers. During World War I, pro- tests against it as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude led to some of the country’s most important

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 391 Brook Thomas freedom of speech cases. It was so unpopular during the Vietnam War that a retired Marine proposed a “Philip Nolan Law” that would make escaping the country to avoid the draft “a voluntary and deliberate re- nunciation of U.S. citizenship, requiring a penalty of permanent exile” (Adams, Edward Everett Hale 37). During the Civil War, resistance pro- duced violent riots in New York City, which were depicted in Herman Melville’s “The House-Top: A Night Piece” (1866). There was a clear class bias to the draft. Howells’s Dryfoos did not fight in the war. When his turn came, he used a provision that allowed people with means to hire a substitute. At the dinner party, the host reveals: “My substitute was killed in one of the last skirmishes—in fact after Lee’s surrender— and I’ve took care of his family, more or less, ever since” (Howells, Haz- ard 335). Cleveland also hired a substitute. In The Rise of Silas Lapham (1885), Howells suggests another problem. Many who fought to preserve the Union and end slavery did not support Radical Reconstruction’s effort to bring about racial equality after abolition. For instance, Howells’s Silas Lapham, who fought in the war, cherishes an Italian statue of Lincoln freeing the slaves, but hates “to see them stirring up those Southern fellows again […] Seems to me it’s time to let those old issues go” (Rise 79). Silas is a more sym- pathetic businessman than Dryfoos. Having served in the war, he sup- ports the family of a fallen soldier—and not just “more or less.” The soldier, he believes, took a bullet intended for him. Nonetheless, on Re- construction, Silas is similar to Dryfoos, who treats the ex-Confederate better than Lindau.

The issues Silas thinks should be let go were about whether white Southerners should have control over racial issues. To make sure that did not happen, Congress approved military occupation of most of the former Confederate states even after formal hostilities were over. The occupying army was not made up of citizen-soldiers. As we have seen, for the most part, they had returned to civilian life. Thus, in a very short time, an enormous army was reduced to a small one, made up primarily of professional soldiers. This small army was not adequate to police the entire South. But the longstanding republican distrust of standing armies made it controversial. When former general Grant took over as commander-in-chief, the distrust grew. Even some who supported African American rights looked with suspicion on the use of standing armies in peacetime. In 1870, when a bill was proposed to increase the number of soldiers, Congressman John Logan, head of the veterans’ organization the Grand Army of the Republic, worried that “this country shall be subverted into the hands of powerful military men who are to become aristocrats as they are in Europe” (Downs 223). Benjamin Wade, who during the war sponsored the radical Wade-Davis Bill for Recon-

392 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction struction, which Lincoln rejected, was so suspicious of a standing army that he wanted to shut down West Point and Annapolis. Perhaps the most significant opponent of standing armies was Charles Sumner. Sumner was chair of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of the architects of Radical Reconstruc- tion. As debates were being waged over increasing the size of the occupying army in the South, the Franco-Prussian War was destroying peace in Europe. On October 26, 1870, Sumner gave a speech on the lesson that war offered for civilization. For Sumner, war was like a duel between individuals and, like dueling, should be outlawed. Supposedly necessary for defense, standing armies were in fact a major provocation of wars. “The habit of wearing arms in private life,” he argued, dark- ened society “with personal combat, street-fight, duel, and assassination. The Standing Army is to the nation what the sword was to the modern gentleman, the stiletto to the Italian, the knife to the Spaniard, and the pistol to our slave-master […] The Standing Army may become the in- centive to war” (Sumner 18: 223). He went on: “An army is a despotism; military service is a bondage; nor can the passion for arms be reconciled with a true civilization” (248). The answer was disarmament. “Already individuals have disarmed. Civilization requires that nations shall do likewise” (227). The failure to acknowledge the incompatibility of standing armies with civilization “is only another illustration of how the clear light of truth is discolored and refracted by an atmosphere where the cloud of war still lingers. Soon this cloud must be dispersed. From war to peace is a change indeed; but Nature herself testifies to change” (248). Nonetheless, Sumner was not against all use of military force. He had, for instance, supported the army of citizen-soldiers that won the Civil War. That war, for him, was an example. “Dismissing to the arts of peace the large army victorious over slavery, our Republic has shown how disarmament can be accomplished” (228). But, as we have seen, disarmament had not been complete. With Sumner’s support, the military was needed to occupy the South during Reconstruction. For instance, at the very time he delivered his speech, the Ku Klux Klan was rising up to “redeem” southern states and restore them to their full rights. Nation magazine, well aware of the threat, claimed that if such an insurrection were to take place in Europe, thousands of troops would “patrol the roads with clouds of cavalry, and fill the streets with swarms of police” (Lang 211). To do so in the United States, however, would risk violating republican principles. Even so, with Sumner’s support, the Ku Klux Klan Act was passed, allowing unprecedented military force during peacetime to combat armed conspirators. Its provisions were so sweeping that even some progressives opposed it for giving too much power to the central government. Sum- ner’s response was contradictory. Although he knew that troops were needed to enforce the Ku Klux Klan Bill he endorsed, he voted to reduce the size of the army.

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 393 Brook Thomas

Sumner was one of the great defenders of African American rights. The contradictions he faced are mirrored in the effect of the myth on African Americans. African Americans had fought in previous wars. In the Revolutionary War, Agrippa Hull fought with Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish nobleman who volunteered his services to Wash- ington. Kościuszko was so impressed that in his will he set aside funds to emancipate a number of African Americans. Due to Thomas Jeffer- son’s neglect, this part of the will was never executed. At the nation’s centennial celebration, the African American artist Edmonia Lewis was commissioned to design a statue of Richard Allen, who also fought in the Revolutionary War and later founded the African Methodist Epis- copal Church. But service in the Civil War had special meaning. At the outbreak of hostilities, no African Americans, even those who were free, were legal citizens of the United States. In the infamous Dred Scott decision (1857), Justice Roger Brooke Taney had declared that no one of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. Free African Americans could be citizens of their state, if the state allowed, but they could not be U.S. citizens. Taney gave two reasons. First, in a republic there is only one class of citizens, and African Americans were second class. Second, as a race they did not belong to the ‘We, the People,’ who ratified the Constitution. Having played a part in bringing about the Civil War, Dred Scott would be overturned by the war and its aftermath. But that process took time. When Lincoln finally brought himself to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, it was a military measure, constitutionally justified by the president’s executive powers as commander-in-chief. Because slaves were helping the South’s efforts at war by doing labor that freed white males to fight, slaves were set free, but only in the rebel states, not in the loyal ones. At the start of the conflict, freed slaves were considered contraband of war. Nonetheless, after the Emancipation Proclamation, Congress issued a call for African Americans to enlist. With the South fighting to preserve slavery, African Americans were especially moti- vated. In the North they joined their state militias, although in segregated regiments with white officers. Those fleeing from the South joined different state militias, thus helping those states meet their quotas of soldiers. The most famous African American regiment was the Mas- sachusetts 54th that gained glory through its assault on Fort Wagner. The statue by Augustus Saint-Gaudens on the Boston Commons honoring the regiment is the subject of Robert Lowell’s “For the Union Dead.” Frederick Douglass’ two sons served in the army. Martin Dela- ny became its first African American major. Such service was readily acknowledged. In his eulogy for Lincoln, Bancroft asserted that the Emancipation Proclamation “decided the result of the war. It took from the public enemy one or two millions of bondmen, and placed between

394 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction one and two thousand brave and gallant troops in arms on the side of the Union” (764). Justice Miller, in The Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), said of them, “when hard-pressed in the contest, these men (for they proved themselves men in that terrible crisis) offered their services and were accepted by thousands to aid in suppressing the unlawful rebellion” (68). Benjamin Butler introduced the 1875 Civil Rights Act to Congress by appealing to the obligation “to defend the rights of those men who have given their blood for me and my country” (Foner 533). Praise of African American soldiers pervades literature. In 1863, Frances Harper wrote the poem “The Massachusetts Fifty-Fourth.” Her Iola Leroy (1892), one of the first novels written by an African American woman, starts with scenes of wartime emancipation peopled with brave African American soldiers. The title character’s brother serves in an Af- rican American regiment even though he could pass as white. Pauline E. Hopkins has a character proclaim that African Americans earned their rights at “Wagner and Fort Pillow” (232). Hopkins and Harper were influenced by William Wells Brown, who, in his post-Civil War, 1867 version of Clotel, added four chapters extolling the wartime heroism of African American troops. Lawyer-novelist Albion W. Tourgée was so impressed by the bravery of his fellow African American troops that, after the war, a southern newspaper complained that according to him, African Americans “alone ‘crushed the rebellion’” (Elliot and Smith 8). He began an 1868 speech at the North Carolina Constitutional Conven- tion by praising the “dusky martyrs” of Fort Pillow, who imparted the “noble lesson of manhood” (Kennedy-Nolle 92). In Bricks Without Straw (1880), Tourgée describes the defeated South as “stricken at last most fa- tally by the dark hands which she had manacled, and overcome by their aid whose manhood she had refused to acknowledge” (105). In the same work, he gives us the courageous African American soldier Nimbus. In Toinette (1874), the heroine’s brother is a color-bearer who wraps the flag around his body rather than surrender at Fort Pillow. His body is discovered with his deed of manumission, a photograph of Lincoln, and a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation covered with his blood. In A Fool’s Errand (1879), there is Bob Martin, who fought alongside the 54th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner. The myth of the citizen-soldier benefitted African Americans and influenced legislation. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural came the day after Congress expatriated those who left the country to escape the army. Congress marked that eventful day by rewarding African Americans who served. Although slavery still existed in the border states, African Americans who volunteered to serve had been given freedom, but their wives and children remained enslaved. The new Enlistment Act granted freedom to their dependents, numbering almost 100,000 former slaves. This act was followed by the Thirteenth Amendment, which finally abolished slavery when ratified in December 1865. Although President Johnson was not convinced that emancipation should lead to citizen-

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 395 Brook Thomas ship, it came when Congress overrode his veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, followed by ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Military service was frequently cited in arguments in favor of grant- ing citizenship to all African Americans. Tourgée, one of the great advocates of African American rights, has the protagonist of A Fool’s Errand proclaim to a group of Southerners that “the colored man […] was allowed to testify on the battle-field, and will be allowed to testify in courts of justice. When he took the oath of service, he acquired the right to take the oath of witness” (65). Suffrage, especially, was seen to follow logically from military service. Both were forms of self-defense, and casting a ballot was compared to wielding a bullet. A Congress- man argued that “[t]he bullet is the inseparable concomitant of the ballot. Those who practice the one must be prepared to practice the other” (Downs 165). Visiting President Johnson with African American leaders in February 1866 to make a case for citizenship, Douglass argued that the right to vote should follow from the fact that African Americans “are subjects of the Government and subject to taxation, to volunteer in service of the country, subject to being drafted” (4: 21). Despite the reward of citizenship, African Americans were still treated differently. Unlike their white counterparts, many African American citizen-soldiers were not excited about resuming civilian life. Although segregated, the military offered prestige and better pay than most other options. Indeed, those who had been slaves had little civilian life to resume. Furthermore, most recognized that the task of the war was not over with the surrender of Confederate armies. Freedmen still had to be protected from their former owners. Grant, however, while still in charge of the army, worried that to have African American troops policing former slaveholders would create unnecessary tensions. Also, because life in the army was preferable to civilian life for most African Americans, he worried that their presence might undercut efforts to transform former slaves into free laborers. Thus, he ordered most colored regiments “as far West as possible,” and in March 1866 endorsed “the withdrawal of colored troops from the interior of the Southern states to avoid unnecessary irritation and the demoralization of labor” (Lang 207).

Discriminatory as it was, Grant’s order acknowledged the resent- ment many white Southerners felt toward military occupation. Whereas belief in the myth of the citizen-soldier generated contradictions in those supporting occupation, those opposed to what they called “bayo- net rule” appropriated the myth to their advantage. Southern whites justified the use of extra-legal violence against Reconstruction by evok- ing the Battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War, when valiant citizen-soldiers known as Minutemen resisted the British

396 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction occupying army. This appeal to the myth was popularized in literature. In Thomas Dixon’s The Clansman (1905), the Ku Klux Klan is depicted as a militia helping to redeem the state of South Carolina from illegitimate rule. Alluding to the British view of the founding fathers, the leader of the Klan defends himself against the charge that he is a “conspirator” by calling himself a “revolutionist” (335). As he tells his fellow Clans- men, “[y]our fathers who created this Nation were first Conspirators, then Revolutionists, now Patriots and Saints” (337). Declaring himself a “successful revolutionist” at the end of the book, he no longer needs to operate outside the law, because the militia of citizen-soldiers has triumphed. Armed African Americans were special targets of the Klan. De- spite Grant’s policy for the U.S. military, some state governments raised African American militias for protection against white supremacists. In Red Rock: A Chronicle of Reconstruction (1898), Thomas Nelson Page condemns what he sees as illegitimate activities done in the name of the Klan, such as the burning of schools and lynchings, which for Page do not represent the Southern people. In fact, the leader of the illegitimate Klan in Page’s novel is a Southerner who sides with the occupying force when it serves his interests. But for Page, concern about African American militias is legitimate, because freedmen should not have control over whites. Thus, the book’s protagonist temporarily joins the Klan and serves as its leader to disarm an African American militia organized by the local Freedmen’s Bureau agent. Enamored with the new power they had over their former masters, African Americans had taken home “their arms and accouterments, with all the pride and pomp of newly decorated children” (237). In response, “ghostly riders” meet one night at an old, dilapidated hospital, intent on restoring health to the community. “In the dead of night,” with “the most perfect organization” the “visitation” from the Klan comes (237). In most cases the disarming is accomplished quietly by “awful forms wrapped like ghosts in winding- sheets,” but “in some few places there had been force extended and violence used” (238). As the narrator sums up, “[a] new and unknown force had suddenly arisen. The negroes were paralyzed with terror. Many of them believed that the riders were really supernatural, and they told, with ashy faces, of the marvelous things they had done” (239). The local white citizens are presented as justified in this act because, in arming emancipated slaves, the Freedmen’s Bureau agent has broken down the social and economic fabric of the community. In a reversal of the Bib- lical imperative to turn swords into ploughshares, freedmen “became insolent and swaggering. The fields were absolutely abandoned. Should they handle hoes when they could carry guns! Should they plough when they were the State guard!” (232). When the companies drilled, “they filled the streets and took possession of the sidewalks, yelling, and hus- tling out of their way any who might be on them. Ladies walking on the street were met and shoved off into the mud” (232). This is an allusion to

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 397 Brook Thomas a racial massacre in Hamburg, South Carolina, when an African Amer- ican militia celebrating the nation’s centennial on July 4, 1876, were told by two whites driving a carriage to let them pass on a public road. The two were responding to reports that whites in town, including ladies, were being forced to give way on streets for militia parades, an “insult [such] as no white people upon earth had ever had to put up with before” (Foner 571). In response, the next day armed white supremacists came to town and massacred seven African Americans. The Hamburg Massacre became the basis for a scene in Dixon’s The Leopard’s Spots (1901). Dixon, however, displaces events to 1898 and combines details from the Wilm- ington Racial Massacre, which is the setting for Charles W. Chesnutt’s The Marrow of Tradition (1901). Despite their fears of African American militias, both Dixon and Page imagined a role for African Americans in the military. Page tells of an African American fighting Native Americans in the West, safely distant from the South. Dixon depicts African Americans serving with valor in the Spanish-American War. That depiction might seem a contradiction, because the African American militia precipitating a massacre in The Leopard’s Spots fought in the Spanish-American War. But, unlike the troops Dixon praises, they were not commanded by a white. For Dixon and Page, African American troops can be trusted with arms only when they are completely subject to white control. Their African Americans may be soldiers, but they are not citizens. In A Man of the People (1920), Dixon even approvingly alludes to Robert E. Lee’s plan to free slaves and have them fight for the Confederacy. The assumption was that African Americans would naturally obey their former masters. Indeed, by the turn of the century, the popular image was that Af- rican Americans had not fought for their freedom, but that it had been given to them by whites. In 1890, Alabama Senator John Tyler Morgan expressed the widely held opinion that, unlike Native Americans, Af- rican Americans had passively submitted to slavery. For Morgan, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments themselves were proof of Afri- can Americans’ “natural inability to preserve their freedom, and to enjoy in its blessings” without the government giving “them higher and more definite security for their liberties than was provided for the white race” (64). Even some African Americans bought into that stereotype. The protagonist in Sutton E. Griggs’ Imperium in Imperio (1899) pronounces: “When at last the war came to set us free we stayed in the field and fed the men who were reddening the soil in a deadly struggle to keep us in bondage forever […] We know that our patient submission in slavery was due to our consciousness of weakness; we know that our silence and inaction during the civil war was due to a belief that God was speaking for us and fighting our battle” (242-43). The demise of widespread praise for the heroism of African Ameri- can troops combating slavery coincided with the rise of praise for Con- federate soldiers who defended it. Intent on reunion after a bloody civil

398 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction war, many felt the need to recognize the heroism of those who fought for a lost cause. One way they did so was to erect statues to citizen-soldiers on both sides of the conflict. As Henry Field, a New England minister and the brother of a Supreme Court justice, put it a few years earlier,

If there is nothing so terrible as Disunion, there has been nothing more glorious than Reunion […] Foreigners do not know what to make of it. […] We are raising monuments to those who fought and fell on both sides […] These heroic monuments are the proud possession of us all. (180)

These monuments, so controversial today, were the responsibility of the nation, not just the defeated South. They indicate the extent to which the story of African Americans earning citizenship through military service had been supplanted by one in which former Confederates were reintegrated into the national community. The posthumous treatment of Robert E. Lee is a case in point. Lee became a southern version of Cincinnatus, accorded honors rivaling those of Washington. After fighting with valor during the war, he accepted defeat and in retirement became president of Washington Col- lege, which is now Washington and Lee University. Lee’s and Washing- ton’s families intermarried, and the Custis-Lee mansion in Arlington, Virginia, overlooks Washington, D.C. It became the site of the Arling- ton National Cemetery, for those who served in the military. The poem honoring the fallen at the cemetery is Theodore O’Hara’s “The Bivouac of the Dead,” originally written to honor those from Kentucky killed in the Mexican American War. But O’Hara became a Confederate, and his poem decorated many cemeteries for the Confederate dead. The heroine in Henry Adams’s Democracy (1880), who is from New York, is related to the Lees. Characters in the novel make patriotic pilgrimages not only to Mt. Vernon, but also to the Custis Lee mansion and the cemetery. In 1902, Adams’s brother, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., pub- lished Lee at Appomattox and Other Papers. It included Adams’ speech called “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?” that uses the recent controversy in Great Britain over whether Cromwell should finally get a statue near Parliament to make a case for erecting a statue of Lee in Washington, D.C. According to Adams, Lee deserves a statue, not only because he fought with bravery and honor, but primarily because he had accepted defeat and re-embraced the Union. “Lee’s monument will be education- al […] it will symbolize and commemorate that loyal acceptance of the consequences of defeat” while also marking “the patient upbuilding” of a reunited people. “The Confederate, as well as the Unionist, enters as an essential factor into the Nation that now is, and, in the future is to be” (429). The reintegration of former Confederates was not unequivocally opposed by those who championed African American rights. Tourgée’s white protagonist in Bricks without Straw fought for the South. So too did Chesnutt’s protagonist in The Colonel’s Dream. What mattered was

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 399 Brook Thomas

how they responded to Reconstruction. They earned citizenship not as Confederate soldiers but because they fought for racial equality after defeat. In contrast, most Confederate monuments depict soldiers in Confederate uniforms. That includes most monuments to Lee. Lee accepted defeat, but he did not embrace racial equality. He supported the restoration of the Union, not its reconstruction. The veneration of Lee raises an issue that returns us to “The Man without a Country.” Hale’s Philip Nolan was a model for how those who disowned their country, such as Confederates, could become worthy of citizenship by repenting and expressing renewed loyalty. Indeed, in 1876 Congress restored citizenship to all living former Confederates except 3 Jefferson Davis. Lee, however, had died in 1870. Even so, Nolan’s dying reverence for the nation’s founding gives insight into how it honored Lee in its centennial year. Lee’s father, “Light-horse Harry,” like Nolan’s father, was a founding member of the Order of Cincinnati. Because the Order defined membership according to the feudal principle of primo- geniture, Lee was not a member; nonetheless, one of Lee’s ancestors had proposed independence in 1776. To affirm the continuity between the nation’s birth and reunion after the Civil War, organizers of the centennial celebration gave a member of the Lee family the honor of reading the Declaration of Independence. Intent on reconciling former enemies, the centennial looked backward to the nation’s founding just as Justice Taney had in Dred Scott when he defined national membership by descent. That homage to the past gave Lee a better claim to citizenship than the many immigrant and African American soldiers who fought to preserve the Union. To be sure, those immigrant and African American soldiers helped to bring about a victory that during Reconstruction led to the Four- teenth Amendment’s rejection of Taney’s racial definition of citizenship. Legal definitions, however, do not control how people perceive what makes an American. By the end of the era, the reactionary, though by no means universal, belief that racial descent should determine who be- longed to the nation coexisted with increased egalitarian attention given to the common soldier. Although the Order of Cincinnati was supposedly representative of the virtue of citizen-soldiers who fought for foun- dational republican ideals, membership was reserved for officers. After the Civil War common soldiers on both sides were commemorated more often than officers. For instance, the Civil War gave rise to the official holiday of Memorial Day, which at the time honored all who fell—so long as they were white. In this era, the civic myth of the citizen-soldier was used in conflicting ways as it intersected with other myths. On the one hand, it served 3 Congress posthu- the needs of the Union threatened with destruction, and, as it continues mously granted citizenship to Lee in 1975. It to do today, helped marginalized groups who served as soldiers make granted Davis posthu- a case for citizenship. It also helped expose the inequities of postbel- mous citizenship in 1978. lum society. On the other hand, its implicit distrust of standing armies

400 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction played a part in undermining the occupation of the South, which was needed to protect freedmen after the war. White supremacists went so far as to exploit it in justifying the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, it shaped opinion on how former Confederate soldiers should be reintegrated into the national community. The disparity between civic myths and empirical reality means that they can be used to legitimate and to contest just and unjust practices. As a final example, let me return to how Charles Sumner’s belief in the myth of the citizen-soldier led him to call the power to declare war the highest sovereign prerogative. In monarchies that power rested with the king, but in a republic it should rest with the people, who are sovereign. Thus, the Constitution grants the power to the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch is presided over by the president, who is the civilian commander-in-chief. The legislative branch is the voice of the people. For Sumner, legislative approval meant that just as service as a soldier promotes citizenship, so too should citizens have final say over when soldiers are deployed. That belief caused Sumner to oppose President Grant’s effort to annex the Dominican Republic while com- mitting troops without legislative approval. A vocal ally of Sumner was Carl Schurz, who, like Howells’s fictional Lindau, left Germany in 1848 and fought bravely to eliminate slavery. “The Emperor of Germany,” Schurz proclaimed, “cannot declare war without the consent of the Fed- eral Council. […] Concede to the President, in addition to the patronage power which he yields, the war-making power, or even so much as he arrogates to himself, and you are in a fair way of making him in some respects more absolute than the Emperor of Germany himself.” Aware that Sumner was a hereditary and Grant was an honorary member of the Order of Cincinnati, Schurz urged the president to follow Washington’s example when “instead of grasping the crown” he “modestly retired to the plow of Cincinnatus” (245). This appeal to the myth of Cincinnatus continues to resonate today. But Schurz’s position on Grant’s domestic deployment of troops in peacetime was more complicated. Grant’s plans for annexation coincided with his order to send federal troops to help African American militias combat the Ku Klux Klan. Invoking fears of centralized power and arbitrary use of the military in peacetime, Schurz joined those denouncing Grant as “Kaiser Ulysses” (Simpson 155). The country is still living with the consequences of the failure to provide suf- ficient military support for African Americans at that time.

Works Cited Adams, Charles Francis, Jr. “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue.” Lee at Appomattox and Other Papers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1902. 376-429. Print. Adams, Henry. Democracy. 1880. Democracy, Esther, Mont Saint Michel and Chartres, The Education of Henry Adams. New York: Library of America, 1983. Print. Adams, John R. Edward Everett Hale. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1977. Print.

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 401 Brook Thomas

Bancroft, George. “The Place of Abraham Lincoln in History.” Atlantic Monthly June 1865: 757-64. Print. Blight, David W. “Decoration Days: The Origins of Memorial Day in North and South.” The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture. Ed. Alice Fahs and Joan Waugh. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2004. 94-129. Print. Blumenberg, Hans. Work on Myth. Trans. Robert Wallace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985. Print. Brown, William Wells. Clotel, or, The President’s Daughter: A Narrative of Slave Life in the United States. Boston, MA: Bedford, 2000. Print. Chesnutt, Charles W. The Marrow of Tradition. Stories, Novels, and Essays. 1901. New York: Library of America, 2002. Print. Dixon, Thomas. The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan. 1905. Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1970. Print. ---. The Leopard’s Spots: A Romance of the White Man’s Burden 1865-1900. New York: Doubleday, 1902. Print. ---. A Man of the People: Drama of Abraham Lincoln. New York: D. Appleton, 1920. Print. Douglass, Frederick. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass. 5 vols. Ed. Philip S. Foner. New York: International Publishing, 1953. Print. Downs, Gregory P. After Appomattox: Military Occupation and the Ends of War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2015. Print. Dred Scott v. Sandford. 60 US 393. Supreme Court of the US. 1856. Print. Elliot, Mark, and John David Smith. Introduction. Undaunted Radical: The Se- lected Writings and Speeches of Albion W. Tourgée. Ed. Mark Elliot and John David Smith. Baton Rouge: Louisiana UP, 2010. 1-21. Print. Field, Henry M. The Life of David Dudley Field. New York: Scribner, 1898. Print. Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1977. New York: Harper and Row, 1988. Print. Garland, Hamlin. “The Return of a Private.” Main-Travelled Roads. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922. 112-29. Print. Griggs, Sutton E. Imperium in Imperio: A Study of the Negro Race Problem, A Novel. 1899. New York: Arno, 1969. Print. Hale, Edward Everett. “The Man without a Country.” Atlantic Monthly 12 Dec. 1863: 665-79. Print. Harper, Frances. “The Massachusetts Fifty-Fourth.” The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History with Documents. Ed. Thomas J. Brown. Boston, MA: Bedford, 2004. 114-15. Print. Hopkins, Pauline E. Hagar’s Daughter: A Story of Southern Caste Prejudice. The Magazine Novels of Pauline Hopkins. 1901-1902. New York: Oxford UP, 1988. Print. Howells, William Dean. A Hazard of New Fortunes. 1890. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1970. Print. ---. The Rise of Silas Lapham. 1885. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1971. Print. Kennedy-Nolle, Sharon D. Writing Reconstruction: Race, Gender, and Citizen- ship in the Postwar South. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2015. Print. Lang, Andrew F. In the Wake of War: Military Occupation, Emancipation and Civil War America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana UP, 2017. Print. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books, 1963. Print. Lowell, Robert. “For the Union Dead.” For the Union Dead. By Lowell. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1964. 70-72. Print. Marten, James. “A Running Fight against Their Fellow Men: Civil War Veterans in Gilded Age Literature.” The Journal of the Civil War Era 5.4 (2015): 504-27. Print. McFeely, William S. Grant: A Biography. New York: Norton, 1981. Print.

402 Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 The United States’ Civic Myth of the Citizen-Soldier in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction

Morgan, John Tyler. “The Race Question in America.” Plessy v. Ferguson: A Brief History with Documents. Ed. Brook Thomas. Boston, MA: Bedford Books, 1997. 62-75. Print. Motley, John Lothrop. Historic Progress and American Democracy: An Address Delivered Before the New-York Historical Society, December 16, 1868. New York: Scribner, 1869. Print. O’Hara, Theodore. “The Bivouac of the Dead.” Mobile Register 1858. Print. Page, Thomas Nelson. Red Rock: A Chronicle of Reconstruction. New York: Scribner, 1898. Print. Peltason, J. W. Corwin and Peltason’s Understanding the Constitution. 11th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1988. Print. Salyer, Lucy E. Under the Starry Flag: How a Band of Irish Americans Joined the Fenian Revolt and Sparked a Crisis over Citizenship. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard UP, 2018. Print. Schurz, Carl. “Grant’s Usurpation of the War Powers in San Domingo.” Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz. Ed. Frederic Bancroft. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913. Vol. 2: 177-252. Print. Slaughterhouse Cases. 83 US 36. Supreme Court of the US. 1873. Print. Simpson, Brooks D. Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861-1868. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1991. Print. Smith, Rogers M. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1997. Print. Stolberg-Wernigerode, Otto Graf zu. Germany and the United States of America during the Era of Bismarck. Reading, PA: Henry Janssen Foundation, 1937. Print. Sumner, Charles. Charles Sumner: His Complete Works. 20 vols. New York: Lee and Shepard, 1900. Print. Thomas, Brook. Civic Myths: A Law-and-Literature Approach to Citizenship. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2007. Print. Tourgée, Albion W. Bricks without Straw: A Novel. 1880. Ed. Carolyn L. Karcher. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2009. Print. ---. A Fool’s Errand by One of the Fools. 1879. Ed. John Hope Franklin. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1960. Print. United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8. Print. ---. Amendment II. Print. Waugh, Joan. U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2009. Print. Whitman, Walt. “A Carol of Harvest, for 1867.” Galaxy 4 Sept. 1867: 605-09. Print. ---. “Democracy.” Galaxy 4 Dec. 1867: 919-33. Print.

Amst 65.4 (2020): 383-403 403