Nick Vulich - 1861: Civil War Beginnings

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1861

Civil War Beginnings

Copyright 2018 Nick Vulich

ENTER
ABRAHAM LINCOLN

A braham Lincoln was a cartoonist's dream. He was tall, and lanky, with leathery skin, warts on his face, and big hands. He stooped as he walkedmost likely, to compensate for his immense height. His face was gaunt and wraithlike. His big ears were too large for his head.

His friends were unsure how to describe him.

Abram J. Dittenhoefer said Lincoln was a homely man. His tall, gaunt body was like a huge clothed skeleton. So, large were his feet, and so clumsy were his hands that they looked out of proportion to the rest of his figure.

His long-time friend, Ward Lamon said: His cheeks were flabby, and the loose skin fell in wrinkles or folds; there was a large mole on his right cheek, his hair was dark brown in color, stiff, unkempthis complexion was very dark, his skin yellow, shriveled, and leathery.

Before you think his friends were insensitive or rudeLincoln was the first to joke about his looks. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, when Stephen Douglas suggested he was two-faced. Lincoln replied, If I was two-faced, would I show you this one?

Whatever you think of Abraham Lincoln, he was one of the few presidents to display a sense of humor while in office.

Since his assassination Americans have idealized Abraham Lincoln as this tall, stoic, bearded giant who wore a black stovepipe hat and never smiled. The real Abraham Lincoln was nothing like that. He was a jokester who enjoyed entertaining people with his stories. William Howard Russell noted, Mr. Lincoln raises a laugh by some bold west-country anecdote and moves off in the cloud of merriment produced by his joke.

His friend, Joshua Speed said, humor was an integral part of the wayMr. Lincoln created and cemented friendships.

William Herndon, remembered Lincolns voice as somewhat squeaky, maybe even high-pitched and shrill. It may have also occasionally cracked as he spoke.

George Alfred Townsend wrote: No man ever told so many stories, and he was seldom known either to repeat one twice or tell one that was hackneyed. It is also true that some of these stories were more cogent than delicate.

That was an understatement. In his private conversations, William Herndon said Lincoln was often downright nasty. He enjoyed swearing and telling ribald tales. Of course, Herndon sanitized his account after the Great Mans death. He understood it would be suicide to publish anything negative about Lincoln.

Lamon confirmed this, saying Lincolns humor was not of a delicate quality. It was chiefly exercised in hearing and telling stories of the grosser sort. Lamon said telling and hearing ridiculous stories was one of his[Lincolns] ruling passions. A trifling incident reminded him of a story, and that reminded him of another until everybody marveled that one small head could carry all he knew.

And, yet, for all his love of humor, Abraham Lincoln would be the catalyst that would unleash a four-year battle that would tear the country apart, pit brother against brother, and leave more than 672,000 dead in its wake. Like General Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln felt the entire burden of the contest thrust on himself. After tens of thousands of men died during the Battle of Petersburg, it is said Grant laid down on his bed and wept all night. Lincoln, used humor to mask his depression over the young boys he was sending to their graves. Each man blamed himself for the death and devastation they left in their wake.

But, in hindsight, we can say no one man or event served as a catalyst for the Civil War. It was not the John Brown Raid, no matter how many historians say it was the pivotal event. It was not the election of Abraham Lincoln and the war was not about slaverynot in the beginning anyway.

The Civil War got its start seventy-three years earlier when the Founding Fathers set aside the hot potato that was slaveryso they could ratify the Constitution. The signers knew they were passing the issue on to a future generation. Their hope was their progeny could answer the questions they could not.

And, now, that odd-looking, story-telling, rail-splitter was the man at the helm. He would soon be telling A. G. Riddle: I am the President of one part of this divided country at least but look at me! I wish I had never been born! Ive a white elephant on my hands, one hard to manage. With a fire in my front and rear, having to contend with the jealousies of the military commanders, and not receiving that cordial cooperation and support from Congress that could reasonably be expected, with an active and formidable enemy in the field threatening the very lifeblood of the Government, my position is anything but a bed of roses.

Forget Frankenstein. Lincolnstein is in office and the game is afoot.

PRESIDENT,
OR TRAITOR

M any historians say James Buchanan was a weak, timid, old man

But, was he?

The obvious comparisons are Andrew Jackson and George Washington. Andrew Jackson stood firm during the South Carolina nullification crisis. He threatened to kick the nullifiers in the ass and hang all the traitors from the nearest tree branch if they laid a single hand on Federal property or fortifications. During the Whiskey Insurrection, George Washington marched 13,000 troops to western Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion.

James Buchanan by comparison hid away in the White House while the nation splintered apart. He issued this message to Congress on January 8, 1861. No state has a right by its own act to secede from the Union or throw off its Federal obligations at pleasure. He continued, To [Congress] belongs the power to declare war, or authorize the employment of military force

In effect, he said, I am president. Secession is illegal, but I do not have any power to act or stop the individual states from seceding. It is up to Congress .

That is a wimpy response, at best.

To better understand it we need to take a more in-depth look at Buchanans presidency. Just days after his inauguration the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision which stated African Americans whether freemen or slaves had no standing to sue in Federal courts. Many observers assumed it meant Congress had no authority to regulate slavery in states or territories acquired after the formation of the United States.

Buchanan thought the Dred Scott decision had settled the slavery question once and for all. Instead, Northerners worried the decision would cause slavery to be legalized in the newly organized Western states and then possibly restored in the Northern states. For the South it was a vindication that slavery was legal. It strengthened their belief abolitionists were enemies of the Union.

Tensions continued to flare throughout Buchanans presidency. In 1857 he supported the Lecompton Constitution, a document that would have protected the rights of slaveholders in Kansas. Northern Democrats, notably Stephen Douglas (architect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act), were outraged by the document. One result was the split in the Democratic Party during the 1860 election that enabled Abraham Lincoln to win the presidency.

Perhaps the most significant problem was Buchanans failure to make a standfor, or against, slavery. He believed slavery was a constitutional issue not one the executive could decide. He said: The Constitution expressly recognizes the right to hold slaves as property in states where slavery exists. This, then, is not a question of general morality affecting the consciousness of men, but it is a question of Constitutional law.

And, after that, our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil warCongress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hands to preserve it by force.