DOCSLIB.ORG

Traceshim As Lee’S Reliable but Slow Lieutenant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traceshim As Lee’S Reliable but Slow Lieutenant Sam Hobbs Victim of the “Lost Cause”: James Longstreet in the Postwar South As a Confederate general in the Civil War, James Longstreet commanded the First Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia, serving as Robert E. Lee’s most trusted advisor and second-in-command. Longstreet led his men through almost every major engagement of the war in the eastern theater, from the First Battle of Manassas to the surrender at Appomattox, earning a reputation as one of the Confederacy’s best fghters and most capable generals. Yet less than ten years afer the war, most white southerners blamed Longstreet for the South’s defeat at Gettysburg, and history remembered traceshim as Lee’s reliable but slow lieutenant. How did Longstreet’s reputation fall so far so fast? Longstreet’s lengthy and controversial career in the postwar South is one of the most interesting and yet overlooked parts of his life. He was the only senior Confederate ofcer to become a Republican, and he joined the party of Lincoln and abolition just three years afer the war, at the height of Reconstruction. As a result, his standing among white southerners plummeted. Longstreet’s unpopularity thus made him the target of a campaign to exonerate Lee for the loss at Gettysburg by making Longstreet the scapegoat. Te campaign was highly efective and his damaged reputation did not 35 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History begin to recover for over a century. Te controversy surrounding Longstreet was a product of larger issues in the postwar South concerning politics and historical memory. Te South was devastated from the war both physically and psychologically. Its people struggled to cope with defeat and to adjust to the profound changes that defeat efected, particularly the emancipation of one-ffh of its population from slavery. White southerners sought to protect their society from what they saw as the distortions and designs of their Northern conquerors. In their view, Reconstruction was a punishment intended to prolong their sufering and to subjugate them to the rule of the newly freed and enfranchised blacks. In response to the challenges and insecurities of defeat and to the threat posed by Reconstruction, a movement developed among former Confederates known as the “Lost Cause,” or the “Confederate tradition.” Te “Lost Cause” was a broad movement that changed over time and lacked uniformity. Historians have accordingly struggled to defne its precise boundaries. It has been described as a myth, a civil religion, and a tradition, but the best defnition for the purposes of this essay is “the dominant complex of attitudes and emotions that constituted the white South’s interpretation of the Civil War.” It was the avowed purpose of the “Lost Cause” to preserve and interpret the “true” history of the Confederacy, to consciously shape the public’s memory in “one of the most highly orchestrated grassroots partisan histories ever recorded.”1 Some of the basic “truths” that the “Lost Cause” sought to establish were the causes of the war and the South’s defeat. According to white southerners, secession was a constitutional response to violations of their state’s rights. Slavery was not the cause of the war, merely an incident. Te South was not defeated, but was overwhelmed by the Union’s superior numbers and resources. Tese arguments helped restore the South’s sense of honor, which was a cornerstone of this efort to glorify the Old South. In addition to promoting its version of history, the “Lost Cause” was an attack on the policies of Reconstruction. Its advocates maintained that Reconstruction was an act of oppression, and they forcefully articulated their opposition to it in terms of white supremacy. Trough the “Lost Cause,” white southerners launched a war of ideas to determine the meaning of the war and the fate of 1 David Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 259. 36 Sam Hobbs Reconstruction.2 One of the earliest organizations for the promotion of the “Lost Cause” was a coalition of Virginians under the leadership of Jubal Early. Te Virginians focused on celebrating the military glory of the Confederacy, and they deifed Confederate heroes Robert E. Lee and Tomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Of course, their lavish praise of the Confederacy’s military prowess naturally raised the question of defeat, for which the Virginians relentlessly promoted two explanations. Te frst was the argument that the North’s advantage in manpower simply overwhelmed the South. Te second was the “Longstreet-lost-it-at-Gettysburg” explanation, in which Longstreet’s failure to attack at the time ordered cost Lee the battle, and subsequently the war. It was a grossly exaggerated and baseless claim, but that did not prevent it from resonating in white southerners’ memory of the war. In the postwar South, white southerners-turned-Republicans, or scalawags, were held among the lowest in esteem. Tey were thought of as traitors to their race, and for that reason white southerners ofen said scalawags were inferior even to freed blacks. White southerners’ portrayal of scalawags became a central part of the myth of Reconstruction that they created. Because Longstreet was the most prominent scalawag in the South, examining his experience helps to reveal some of the falsehoods of this myth. When Longstreet declared his support for Republicans and Reconstruction afer the war, he placed himself in opposition to the “Lost Cause,” which was tantamount to a betrayal of the South. His military record subsequently became the victim of “Lost Cause” dogma, a testament to its power and endurance in Southern society. Longstreet’s postwar career therefore provides a lens through which to examine the politics of Reconstruction in the South and the role of this mythology in shaping historical memory. Longstreet’s Early Life and Military Career Before considering how Longstreet’s enemies rewrote his history afer the Civil War, it is necessary to rehearse the trajectory of his early life and military career. Longstreet was born in Edgefeld, South Carolina, on January 8, 1821. He spent his childhood years living in the small north 2 Gaines Foster, Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause, and the Emergence of the New South 1865-1913 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 16; Blight, 259, 258-266. 37 The UNC-Chapel Hill Journal of History Georgia town of Gainesville, but at the age of nine he moved to his uncle’s cotton plantation in Westover, Georgia, to attend a preparatory academy in hopes of attaining an appointment to West Point. His uncle, Augustus Baldwin Longstreet, was “one of the fnest minds of the antebellum South,” an accomplished jurist, a newspaper editor, and a Methodist minister. When Longstreet’s father died in 1833, Augustus assumed the role of parent and was a crucial infuence during Longstreet’s youth.3 Because his mother lived in northern Alabama with her relatives afer his father died, Longstreet was able to secure an appointment to West Point from Alabama in 1838. He was a mediocre student at West Point, but he met many men who became famous during the Civil War. George Pickett, D.H. Hill, Lafayette McLaws, U.S. Grant and William S. Rosencrans were all close friends. He was known for being independent and exceptionally strong, and like his uncle, he enjoyed a game of cards and whiskey, and was typically well liked. He graduated third from the bottom of his class and was assigned to the infantry as a brevet lieutenant.4 During the Mexican-American War, Longstreet served from the Army of Observation to the occupation of Mexico City. He never commanded more than one hundred men, but his “conspicuous bravery” and proven competence earned him a promotion to brevet major by the end of the war. Serving in a variety of positions, Longstreet gained valuable experience in combat, tactics, and administrative duties. His experience was mostly on the ofensive, and he was lucky not to have been severely wounded, except for a leg wound at Chapultepec.5 Longstreet lived with his wife and children in Texas until he accepted a position as paymaster in New Mexico. As the crisis of 1860-1861 unfolded, he opposed secession, but felt he had no choice but to join the fght if his state passed ordinances of secession. Following the capture of Fort Sumter, he resigned his commission in the US Army and reported to Richmond for orders.6 Longstreet received a commission on July 1 as a brigadier general under 3 William Garrett Piston, Lee’s Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1987), 2-3. 4 Ibid., 4-5. 5 Ibid., 5-7. 6 James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1896), 29-30. 38 Sam Hobbs General P.G.T Beauregard, who gave him command of the Fourth Brigade, which was ordered to defend Blackburn’s Ford, a key position in the line behind Bull Run Creek from which to protect Manassas Junction. On July 18, three days before the Battle of Manassas, a Union brigade attacked Longstreet’s position. Although outnumbered, his men repelled several assaults and even attempted, briefy, to counterattack. At one point, when his raw troops faltered and broke the line, Longstreet “rode with saber in hand for the leading fles, determined to stop the break.” He was not involved in the Battle of Manassas, but his performance at Blackburn’s Ford earned him the praise of General Beauregard.7 Longstreet was promoted to major general, but both Beauregard and Joseph Johnston, the commanding general, tried to have him promoted further to be their second-in-command.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United Confederate Veterans Association Records
    UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS (Mss. 1357) Inventory Compiled by Luana Henderson 1996 Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections Special Collections, Hill Memorial Library Louisiana State University Libraries Baton Rouge, Louisiana Revised 2009 UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS Mss. 1357 1861-1944 Special Collections, LSU Libraries CONTENTS OF INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL NOTE ...................................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE ................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF SUBGROUPS AND SERIES ......................................................................................... 7 SUBGROUPS AND SERIES DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................ 8 INDEX TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 13 CONTAINER LIST ...................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Staff Officers of the Confederate States Army. 1861-1865
    QJurttell itttiuetsity Hibrary Stliaca, xV'cni tUu-k THE JAMES VERNER SCAIFE COLLECTION CIVIL WAR LITERATURE THE GIFT OF JAMES VERNER SCAIFE CLASS OF 1889 1919 Cornell University Library E545 .U58 List of staff officers of the Confederat 3 1924 030 921 096 olin The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030921096 LIST OF STAFF OFFICERS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES ARMY 1861-1865. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1891. LIST OF STAFF OFFICERS OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY. Abercrombie, R. S., lieut., A. D. C. to Gen. J. H. Olanton, November 16, 1863. Abercrombie, Wiley, lieut., A. D. C. to Brig. Gen. S. G. French, August 11, 1864. Abernathy, John T., special volunteer commissary in department com- manded by Brig. Gen. G. J. Pillow, November 22, 1861. Abrams, W. D., capt., I. F. T. to Lieut. Gen. Lee, June 11, 1864. Adair, Walter T., surg. 2d Cherokee Begt., staff of Col. Wm. P. Adair. Adams, , lieut., to Gen. Gauo, 1862. Adams, B. C, capt., A. G. S., April 27, 1862; maj., 0. S., staff General Bodes, July, 1863 ; ordered to report to Lieut. Col. R. G. Cole, June 15, 1864. Adams, C, lieut., O. O. to Gen. R. V. Richardson, March, 1864. Adams, Carter, maj., C. S., staff Gen. Bryan Grimes, 1865. Adams, Charles W., col., A. I. G. to Maj. Gen. T. C. Hiudman, Octo- ber 6, 1862, to March 4, 1863. Adams, James M., capt., A.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett
    Spring Grove Cemetery, once characterized as blending "the elegance of a park with the pensive beauty of a burial-place," is the final resting- place of forty Cincinnatians who were generals during the Civil War. Forty For the Union: Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett f the forty Civil War generals who are buried in Spring Grove Cemetery, twenty-three had advanced from no military experience whatsoever to attain the highest rank in the Union Army. This remarkable feat underscores the nature of the Northern army that suppressed the rebellion of the Confed- erate states during the years 1861 to 1865. Initially, it was a force of "inspired volunteers" rather than a standing army in the European tradition. Only seven of these forty leaders were graduates of West Point: Jacob Ammen, Joshua H. Bates, Sidney Burbank, Kenner Garrard, Joseph Hooker, Alexander McCook, and Godfrey Weitzel. Four of these seven —Burbank, Garrard, Mc- Cook, and Weitzel —were in the regular army at the outbreak of the war; the other three volunteered when the war started. Only four of the forty generals had ever been in combat before: William H. Lytle, August Moor, and Joseph Hooker served in the Mexican War, and William H. Baldwin fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Italian civil war. This lack of professional soldiers did not come about by chance. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, its delegates, who possessed a vast knowledge of European history, were determined not to create a legal basis for a standing army. The founding fathers believed that the stand- ing armies belonging to royalty were responsible for the endless bloody wars that plagued Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow of Napoleon Upon Lee at Gettysburg
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Military Park Seminar The Shadow of Napoleon upon Lee at Gettysburg Charles Teague Every general commanding an army hopes to win the next battle. Some will dream that they might accomplish a decisive victory, and in this Robert E. Lee was no different. By the late spring of 1863 he already had notable successes in battlefield trials. But now, over two years into a devastating war, he was looking to destroy the military force that would again oppose him, thereby assuring an end to the war to the benefit of the Confederate States of America. In the late spring of 1863 he embarked upon an audacious plan that necessitated a huge vulnerability: uncovering the capital city of Richmond. His speculation, which proved prescient, was that the Union army that lay between the two capitals would be directed to pursue and block him as he advanced north Robert E. Lee, 1865 (LOC) of the Potomac River. He would thereby draw it out of entrenched defensive positions held along the Rappahannock River and into the open, stretched out by marching. He expected that force to risk a battle against his Army of Northern Virginia, one that could bring a Federal defeat such that the cities of Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington might succumb, morale in the North to continue the war would plummet, and the South could achieve its true independence. One of Lee’s major generals would later explain that Lee told him in the march to battle of his goal to destroy the Union army.
    [Show full text]
  • A Campaign of Giants: the Battle for Petersburg: Volume One, from the Crossing of the James to the Crater
    Civil War Book Review Winter 2019 Article 28 A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg: Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater Benjamin F. Cooling [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Cooling, Benjamin F. (2019) "A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg: Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 . DOI: 10.31390/cwbr.21.1.28 Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol21/iss1/28 Cooling: A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg: Volume One, Fro Review Cooling, Benjamin F. Winter 2019 Greene, Wilson A. A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg. Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater. University of North Carolina Press, $29.95 ISBN 9781469638577 The conclusion of the Centenary of World War I may be the appropriate moment to re-visit America’s forerunner to modern siege warfare, the ten-month Richmond-Petersburg campaign which all but concluded the agonizingly long struggle in the eastern theater. Just as the Western Front in France eventually cracked, opening the way to the Armistice, so too did Robert E. Lee’s determined stand for the Confederate capital, thus leading to the Appomattox solution. In a comprehensive, labor of love based on encyclopedic knowledge of men and events, long-time Petersburg authority A. Wilson Greene prepares a three-volume treatise, the first of which covers what essentially can be found in essays in Gary Gallagher and Caroline Janney, Cold Harbor to the Crater: The End of the Overland Campaign (2015) or Earl J.
    [Show full text]
  • James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg
    “Such a night is seldom experienced…” James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg Karlton Smith, Gettysburg NMP After the repulse of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s Assault on July 3, 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee, commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, knew that the only option left for him at Gettysburg was to try to disengage from his lines and return with his army to Virginia. Longstreet, commander of the army’s First Corps and Lee’s chief lieutenant, would play a significant role in this retrograde movement. As a preliminary to the general withdrawal, Longstreet decided to pull his troops back from the forward positions gained during the fighting on July 2. Lt. Col. G. Moxley Sorrel, Longstreet’s adjutant general, delivered the necessary orders to Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws, commanding one of Longstreet’s divisions. Sorrel offered to carry the order to Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law, commanding John B. Hood’s division, on McLaws’s right. McLaws raised objections to this order. He felt that his advanced position was important and “had been won after a deadly struggle; that the order was given no doubt because of [George] Pickett’s repulse, but as there was no pursuit there was no necessity of it.” Sorrel interrupted saying: “General, there is no discretion allowed, the order is for you to retire at once.” Gen. James Longstreet, C.S.A. (LOC) As McLaws’s forward line was withdrawing to Warfield and Seminary ridges, the Federal batteries on Little Round Top opened fire, “but by quickening the pace the aim was so disturbed that no damage was done.” McLaws’s line was followed by “clouds of skirmishers” from the Federal Army of the Potomac; however, after reinforcing his own skirmish line they were driven back from the Peach Orchard area.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Was I So Depressed”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Was I So Depressed” James Longstreet and Pickett’s Charge Karlton D. Smith On July 24, 1863, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet wrote a private letter to his uncle, Augusts Baldwin Longstreet. In discussing his role in the Gettysburg Campaign, the general stated: General Lee chose the plan adopted, and he is the person appointed to chose and to order. I consider it a part of my duty to express my views to the commanding general. If he approves and adopts them it is well; if he does not, it is my duty to adopt his views, and to execute his orders as faithfully as if they were my own. While clearly not approving Lee’s plan of attack on July 3, Longstreet did everything he could, both before and during the attack, to ensure its success.1 Born in 1821, James Longstreet was an 1842 graduate of West Point. An “Old Army” regular, Longstreet saw extensive front line combat service in the Mexican War in both the northern and southern theaters of operations. Longstreet led detachments that helped to capture two of the Mexican forts guarding Monterey and was involved in the street fighting in the city. At Churubusco, Longstreet planted the regimental colors on the walls of the fort and saw action at Casa Marta, near Molino del Ray. On August 13, 1847, Longstreet was wounded during the assault on Chapaltepec while “in the act of discharging the piece of a wounded man." The same report noted that during the action, "He was always in front with the colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle of Gettysburg Day 1 Reading Comprehension Name: ______
    Battle of Gettysburg Day 1 Reading Comprehension Name: _________________________ Read the passage and answer the questions. The Ridges of Gettysburg Anticipating a Confederate assault, Union Brigadier General John Buford and his soldiers would produce the first line of defense. Buford positioned his defenses along three ridges west of the town. Buford's goal was simply to delay the Confederate advance with his small cavalry unit until greater Union forces could assemble their defenses on the three storied ridges south of town known as Cemetery Ridge, Cemetery Hill, and Culp's Hill's. These ridges were crucial to control of Gettysburg. Whichever army could successfully occupy these heights would have superior position and would be difficult to dislodge. The Death of Major General Reynolds The first of the Confederate forces to engage at Gettysburg, under the Command of Major General Henry Heth, succeeded in advancing forward despite Buford's defenses. Soon, battles erupted in several locations, and Union forces would suffer severe casualties. Union Major General John Reynolds would be killed in battle while positioning his troops. Major General Abner Doubleday, the man eventually credited with inventing the formal game of baseball, would assume command. Fighting would intensify on a road known as the Chambersburg Pike, as Confederate forces continued to advance. Jubal Early's Successful Assault Meanwhile, Union defenses positioned north and northwest of town would soon be outflanked by Confederates under the command of Jubal Early and Robert Rodes. Despite suffering severe casualties, Early's soldiers would break through the line under the command of Union General Francis Barlow, attacking them from multiple sides and completely overwhelming them.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Civil War: a War of Logistics
    THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A WAR OF LOGISTICS Franklin M. Welter A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2015 Committee: Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor Dwayne Beggs © 2015 Franklin M. Welter All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor The American Civil War was the first modern war. It was fought with weapons capable of dealing death on a scale never before seen. It was also the first war which saw the widespread use of the railroad. Across the country men, materials, and supplies were transported along the iron rails which industrial revolution swept in. Without the railroads, the Union would have been unable to win the war. All of the resources, men, and materials available to the North mean little when they cannot be shipped across the great expanse which was the North during the Civil War. The goals of this thesis are to examine the roles and issues faced by seemingly independent people in very different situations during the war, and to investigate how the problems which these people encountered were overcome. The first chapter, centered in Ohio, gives insight into the roles which noncombatants played in the process. Farmers, bakers, and others behind the lines. Chapter two covers the journey across the rails, the challenges faced, and how they were overcome. This chapter looks at how those in command handled the railroad, how it affected the battles, especially Gettysburg, and how the railroads were defended over the course of the war, something which had never before needed to be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle-Of-Waynesboro
    Battlefield Waynesboro Driving Tour AREA AT WAR The Battle of Waynesboro Campaign Timeline 1864-1865: Jubal Early’s Last Stand Sheridan’s Road The dramatic Union victory at the Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864, had effectively ended to Petersburg Confederate control in the Valley. Confederate Gen. Jubal A. Early “occasionally came up to the front and Winchester barked, but there was no more bite in him,” as one Yankee put it. Early attempted a last offensive in mid- October 19, 1864 November 1864, but his weakened cavalry was defeated by Union Gen. Philip H. Sheridan’s cavalry at Kernstown Union Gen. Philip H. Sheridan Newtown (Stephens City) and Ninevah, forcing Early to withdraw. The Union cavalry now so defeats Confederate Gen. Jubal A. Early at Cedar Creek. overpowered his own that Early could no longer maneuver offensively. A Union reconnaissance Strasburg Front Royal was repulsed at Rude’s Hill on November 22, and a second Union cavalry raid was turned mid-November 1864 back at Lacey Spring on December 21, ending active operations for the winter season. Early’s weakened cavalry The winter was disastrous for the Confederate army, which was no longer able is defeated in skirmishes at to sustain itself on the produce of the Valley, which had been devastated by Newtown and Ninevah. the destruction of “The Burning.” Rebel cavalry and infantry were returned November 22, to Lee’s army at Petersburg or dispersed to feed and forage for themselves. 1864 Union cavalry repulsed in a small action at Rude’s Hill. Prelude to Battle Harrisonburg December 21, McDowell 1864 As the winter waned and spring approached, Confederates defeat Federals the Federals began to move.
    [Show full text]
  • Gov. Andrew G. Curtin & the Union's Civil
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2012 For the Hope of Humanity: Gov. Andrew G. Curtin & the Union's Civil War Jared Frederick West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Frederick, Jared, "For the Hope of Humanity: Gov. Andrew G. Curtin & the Union's Civil War" (2012). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4854. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4854 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “For the Hope of Humanity: Gov. Andrew G. Curtin & the Union’s Civil War” Jared Frederick Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Aaron Sheehan-Dean, Ph.D., Chair Brian P. Luskey, Ph.D. Kenneth Fones-Wolf, Ph.D. Department of History Morgantown, West Virginia 20125 Keywords: History, American Civil War, Pennsylvania, Politics, Liberalism Copyright 20125Jared Frederick ABSTRACT “For the Hope of Humanity: Gov.
    [Show full text]
  • President Lincoln and the Altoona Governors' Conference, September
    Volume 7 Article 7 2017 “Altoona was his, and fairly won”: President Lincoln and the Altoona Governors’ Conference, September 1862 Kees D. Thompson Princeton University Class of 2013 Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe Part of the Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Thompson, Kees D. (2017) "“Altoona was his, and fairly won”: President Lincoln and the Altoona Governors’ Conference, September 1862," The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era: Vol. 7 , Article 7. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe/vol7/iss1/7 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Altoona was his, and fairly won”: President Lincoln and the Altoona Governors’ Conference, September 1862 Abstract This article explores the long-forgotten Altoona Conference of 1862, when nearly a dozen Union governors met at the Civil War's darkest hour to discuss war strategy and, ultimately, reaffirm their support for the Union cause. This article examines and questions the conventional view of the conference as a challenge to President Lincoln's efficacy as the nation's leader. Rather, the article suggests that Lincoln may have actually welcomed the conference and had his own designs for how it might bolster his political objectives.
    [Show full text]