<?xml  version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>





                

<rss version='2.0'>

<channel>
<title>NIAHD Journals</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/</link>
<description>Journal for the National Institute of American History and Democracy Program</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>Never before, never again</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13277</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>Today we stood in the center of one of the most important battlefields of the Revolutionary War, Yorktown. It was here that Washington, with the help of Rochambeau, defeated Cornwallis in a siege and forced him to surrender. The outcome is somewhat surprising when one considers the track record of Washington- after all he had won a total of one important battle thus far in the war, Saratoga. So how did this victory occur? Much like in the case of Jamestown, they succeeded through a combination of luck, talent, and English failure. Had certain events not unfolded in the pattern that they did, then it is very doubtful the same outcome would have occurred. </p>
	<p>The first step in this siege started in New York, not Yorktown. Here Washington was in conflict with General Clinton and was working on a plan with Rochambeau. Both Washington and Rochambeau knew that the French Navy was on its way, and when word came that they were sailing for Yorktown the two men decided to switch their efforts to Cornwallis. Washington wanted to make sure that his men would be able to match out of the area undetected by Clinton, they did not have the time nor the efforts to face him in battle. Washington set up an entire campsite to make it look as though the troops were still there- the plan. The men the marched out to Virginia under the cover of night- the luck. Clinton was unaware of their departure until they were too far away to be stopped-the English failure. </p>
	<p>Once Washington and Rochambeau reached Yorktown they were again met with a combination of skill and luck. Cornwallis never expected to face a battle, never expected the French Navy to show up in the York River, and certainly never expected to surrender. Because of this he made some dyer mistakes throughout the battle. Both Cornwallis and Clinton had thought that the French Navy would go to New York, and so Cornwallis sent half of his troops north to help Clinton. Then, once they realized that the Navy was in Yorktown it took time to repair the ships before the troops could go back south though all along Clinton said that he had given the troops the order to leave. Also, since they were under siege, Cornwallis slaughtered his own horses so that he would not have to feed them and also in an attempt to block up the river. He also went as far as sinking his own ships to keep the Americans and the French from advancing. After all, he never expected to need either; he thought that the English Navy was on its way and that they would simply get on the boat and leave. When he realized that there was no hope left he called for a retreat. 1000 men made it across the river to safety but foul weather damaged their boats and the rest of the men were stuck. Each of these assumptions and actions put America in a better and better place for victory.</p>
	<p>We know that Cornwallis was not a bad general, so why did he make so many mistakes? The answer is simple; he had no reason to assume that the English and the French would work well together to present a united front, that the French Navy, and that his troops would fail to reach him in time. Never before had the English and French worked so well together, and it would never happen again. Never before had the French Navy come to the aid of the Americans, and it would never happen again. Clinton told him that his own Navy was on its way, he had no reason to doubt him. But these odd turns of fate all collided into one gigantic failure. Cornwallis did the only thing he could. He surrendered. The next day, his ships did show up but it was too late. The English had lost the South.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>What a Crazy Random Happenstance</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13276</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>The siege of Yorktown, and the subsequent surrender of British forces to the revolutionists, seems almost accidental in light of all the events that had to happen at this precise battle to ensure Cornwallis&#39; defeat. To be fair, some of what happened was due to sheer folly. For example, he slaughtered his own horses to avoid feeding them on the assumption that British ships would be available to take him back home (and I think we all know the saying about assumptions). He also sank his own ships in an attempt to block the revolutionists from advancing upriver. This maneuver confused me the most as you would think someone attempting to sail back to England would want to hold on to his ships. The poor weather as well as the size of the revolutionists&#39; army, which was double the size of Cornwallis&#39;, contributed to his inability to retreat.</p>
	<p>To be fair to Cornwallis, he could not possibly have known that the French would actually ally with the rebels. Nor could he have known that Washington had set up an elaborate ruse including troop movements and empty tents to make him think New York was the happenin&#39; place to be in order to keep most of his ships out of the way. Likewise, he could not have known that Plymouth, while malaria infested, would possibly have not been the worst place for him and his troops to summer. Not only did Cornwallis not want to be in Plymouth, he didn&#39;t even want to be in Yorktown a town which reached its peak during the siege.<br />
The final circumstance that Cornwallis could not have predicted was that, although he delayed fighting as much as possible on the assumption he would soon be relieved, Clinton would not actually arrive until one day after he surrendered. All of these situations combined actually made me feel a bit sorry for Cornwallis. He was being ordered by Lord George Germaine who stayed in England throughout the conflict, he was chronically undersupplied and popular sentiment was against him. There doesn&#39;t seem to be much in his favor aside from a vastly superior navy, as well as better weaponry (as long as it didn&#39;t fall into the hands of the rebels as some cannons did). For all that then English began the war thinking it would be brief, they certainly lost in a most inglorious way. Not that that negatively impacted Cornwallis&#39; reputation; he went on to become governor- general of India twice and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. </p>
	<p>The English seem to have suffered from &#34;It works on paper&#34; syndrome in which the intended plans ought to work, but usually go terribly awry. The English assumed that most southerners would be loyalists due to their mercantile status. Trade with England was profitable and the areas of discontent had so far only occurred in New England. So, the idea was to cut off New England from the rest of the colonies to contain the rebels while acquiring supplies from Southern Loyalists. This worked about as well as when the same thing was attempted in 1607- in that it didn&#39;t. There were far more revolutionists in the south than previously supposed and they were not inclined to support Cornwallis. The fact that the colonists were in the habit of stringing up or driving out the loyalists certainly did not incline people to be overly vocal about their support of George III.</p>
	<p>The English also seem to have counted on dealing mostly with the militia, which would have been to their favor. The militias were undertrained, underfunded and more likely to run back home since they fought in familiar territory. These would be the &#34;farmers with pitchforks&#34; Cornwallis was so contemptuous of (line courtesy of the second worst movie ever made). Our discussions today reinforced the idea that after the Battle of Saratoga, the war was a foregone conclusion. At the very least, Cornwallis&#39; decisions combined with unforeseeable circumstances, made his defeat at Yorktown and near inevitability.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>General Lee, I Have No Division</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13269</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>I will confess myself guilty of holding General Lee in high regard. No man has been so loved by his men, or so idolized by his country. For a northerner, and a re-enactor to boot, this is complete heresy-I will probably be swamped with emails and facebook comments from my horrified re-enacting family shortly after I post this-but as someone who portrays southern civilians and is an ardent fan of Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg I try to see both sides. Sometimes, though, certain facts are inescapable. After being faced with plain and simple facts, numbers and tactical decisions from the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns, I cannot help but wonder how these men adored their general, and how he is still an icon today. All I can see now is an image and a man hidden behind an image, a pitiful shadow of his former glory.<br />
	The image I have so often found, and, I admit, believed in myself, is that of Lee as an old, benevolent grandfather figure who cared deeply for his men and led them into battle, an invincible man with foolproof tactics and battle plans. Lee was a West Point graduate, one of the best. He&#39;d served with distinction in the Mexican War as General Winfield Scott&#39;s aide and his information collected as a staff officer led to several crucial victories. He was even offered command in the Union army before war broke out. This man knew how to fight, and he knew how to fight well. Yet Lee kept taking wild risks, putting his army in great danger for no apparent reason. Supplies are the lifeblood of an army. Without them, an army cannot fight, it cannot communicate and it cannot eat. Knowing this, Lee chose to extend his supply line for the Maryland Campaign from Richmond up through Maryland practically just outside of DC, full well knowing that the Union army was gathered there en masse after its disastrous defeat at Second Manassas. All it would take was one cavalry scout to cut the telegraph lines, one quick skirmish to check the advance of the supply wagons and Lee&#39;s army would be in serious trouble. Yet Lee chose to go through with it. It was only after he&#39;d established his supply line and made his way up through Maryland that he realized it might be a good idea to change his supply line and decided to cut through the Shenandoah Valley and Harper&#39;s Ferry, secure behind the mountains. While one could say that this was a premeditated lure to draw McClellan out of Washington, it was terribly executed. Lee could have split his army, hiding part of it behind the mountains and letting them take Harper&#39;s Ferry, securing his supply line from the beginning. Other union garrisons like Winchester had been evacuated, so it would have been logical to assume that Harper&#39;s Ferry wouldn&#39;t put up much of a fight. With Harper&#39;s Ferry taken, Lee could easily fall back over the mountains and join with the rest of his army without any fears of being attacked from the rear or breaking his supply line, thus meeting McClellan with a united force. During Antietam, Lee left his army only one escape route over the Potomac, and it was only the last minute arrival of A.P Hill&#39;s troops that kept his army from being annihilated. If Hill had come just an hour later or if Burnside had been a little faster, Lee would have been cut off.<br />
	At Gettysburg, Lee was no different. No one is going to be thinking straight when they&#39;re spending most of their time running to the outhouse. But that does not excuse marching men across a mile of open ground when all your generals are against it, many of your men won&#39;t go through with it, the opponent is the Second Corps, led by Hancock, and many of the regiments you are throwing into the fight were absolutely decimated just two days ago. A good general asks at least twice about the welfare of his men-once when they come out of battle, and before he sends them into battle again. Lack of men should not have been an issue. If all that wasn&#39;t enough of a clue to not go through with the attack, this tactic had been used by the Union at Marye&#39;s Heights at Fredericksburg, leading to slaughter. Lee himself had seen this before, at Malvern Hill during the Seven Days, again with the same horrendous results. The idea itself is sound-break the center and the line will crumble. But this was during the age of Napoleon. Military technology had changed. Rifles had longer range and were slightly easier to load, meaning where as defenders could have gotten off one or two rounds with limited accuracy before engaging in hand to hand fighting, now defenders had time for four or five good shots before the enemy came within bayonet reach. Going up against the Second Corps, some of the best men in the Union army, with these changes in technology meant a severe pounding. Then there were the cannons on Little Round Top and Cemetery Hill, all firing away at the Rebel lines for all they were worth. Yankee artillery was better equipped and better trained than Southern artillery. Even with Alexander&#39;s bombardment earlier in the day to weaken the center, those cannons on the hills remained. With all this going against the Rebels, it is amazing that Lee even decided to go through with this idiotic plan, or that any men actually made it to the Angle and broke through for the time they did. Even if Pickett&#39;s men could have broken through as Lee planned, it would have required reinforcements to maintain the gap. These reinforcements saw the carnage on that open ground and turned tail-I would have too in their position-rather than make the march and be shot down like ducks in a row by the cannons on those hills. If Lee truly had even half the intelligence people credit him with, he should have known this attack would not only fail, it would be a complete and total slaughter. The South could not afford this. It simply didn&#39;t have the manpower to replace all those killed in battle, whereas the North could. Lee&#39;s actions here cannot even be called risks; it is simply madness.<br />
	The madness becomes even worse when one considers the battles when it appears. Antietam and Gettysburg were two battles Lee could not afford to lose. The entirety of the Southern plan for victory was based on getting England and France to come in on their side. England was the largest, most powerful empire in the world and France still had a reputation for power. With them on their side, the South could lift the blockade, allowing much needed food, arms and ammunition into the South as well as fresh troops. They would have stood a chance of winning. As it was, Lee&#39;s failure meant that Lincoln could publish his Emancipation Proclamation, effectively barring France and Britain from aiding much less recognizing the Confederacy. Gettysburg, as a great northern campaign designed to bring the war home to the Union might have pushed Lincoln toward signing a peace, or even brought a little aid from Britain, which still had observers within the Rebel army. Again, Lee&#39;s disastrous campaign lost them valuable foreign support, as well as strengthening northern resolve to see the south crushed. No other battles meant as much to the Civil War, to the Confederacy, as Gettysburg and Antietam. Lee, their beloved leader, was certainly not your average soldier. He held off the Yankee army for three years, and came within inches of winning. But when push came to shove, he became reckless, making dangerous and costly decisions that would in the end lose him, and the Confederacy, a war. I can only imagine how much blind love and trust his men must have felt for him that they and their descendants still believe in him. It is both very touching and very frightening, because it means many of us still see this war as a part of our lives, something that never ended, an ideal that must be strived for. As long as Lee remains on his pedestal, I think we can never really put the Civil War to rest.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Patrick Henry</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13274</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>This week we traveled to Scotchtown, the Hanover County Courthouse, and St. John's Church in Richmond, VA, to study a little more closely the life and times of Patrick Henry (1736-1799). First stop, Patrick Henry's home, Scotchtown. Patrick Henry lived at Scotchtown with his first wife Sarah from 1771-1778. She died there and is buried on the property and he went on to become the first governor of a free VA after the American Revolution, moving to the Governor's Palace in Williamsburg. While at Scotchtown, we got to see several pieces of 18th and 19th c. dress as well as a few pieces that can possibly be traced to the Henrys. But since there were so many family members (he had 17 kids and 65 grandkids), there is not much furniture original to the family available. After exploring the house from the basement to the attic, we continued on our trip to the Hanover Courthouse.<br />
	The Hanover Courthouse was built in 1735. Henry worked at a tavern near this courthouse and found that he really like law. He studied law and when he won the Parson's Cause case, he became locally famous for his eloquence. Once he argued against British "taxation without representation" with the VA Resolves in 1765, he became famous all along the eastern seaboard. Patrick Henry, while wanting to be accepted by the upper class people, was able to appeal to the common man and come to fame by an entirely different avenue than most. As Roeber talks about in his article "Authority, Law, and Custom," county courts were central to mid-18th c. life in VA and property and family were important indicators of status. So by coming to power through these all-important courts, Patrick Henry was able to appeal to not only the common people such as the many planters who sued/were sued for debts, but also to the more socially important justices.<br />
	From the Hanover Courthouse, we moved to St. John's Church in Richmond, VA, the location of Henry's famed "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. In 1775, the House of Burgesses, trying to evade Lord Dunmore, met at St. John's as the Second VA Convention with such notable figures as Thomas Jefferson, Peyton Randolph, George Washington, and Patrick Henry, among others, in attendance. This meeting and Henry's speech are often mentioned as factors leading toward the beginning of the American Revolution.<br />
	In "Popular Uprisings and Civil Authority in 18th c. America," Maier talks about how uprisings in the 18th c. were often started by mobs to protect rights and uphold values. So in Maier's article, the American Revolution is represented not as a radical venture by unruly subjects to overthrow authority, but rather as a conservative way for the people to uphold their rights in what they felt was an unfair system.<br />
	Also interesting about St. John's is the number of notable figures in its graveyard. Such graves include those of Elizabeth Arnold Poe, Edgar Allan Poe's mother, and George Wythe, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. Wythe is also known for being murdered by his grandnephew George Wythe Sweney who got away with the deed, a story chronicled in Longsworth's article "I am Murdered."
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Patrick Henry&#39;s Virginia</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13265</link>
<description><![CDATA[<br />
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Patrick Henry&#39;s Claim to Fame</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13263</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>In 1763 with the Parson's Cause, Patrick Henry established himself within the revolutionary scene. The Parson's Cause case allowed Henry to show off his orator skills and his passion for words. He was a very long winded but eloquent speaker. Patrick Henry was different from most of the men of the gentry class at this time. He was mostly self educated, except for some Latin that was taught to him by his father. He was very much a self made man. Henry wanted to gain political power and wealth, but he attempted to go at it from a different angle than Washington and others.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Our Victories Are Steeped In Blood</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13270</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>This is the second letter between Gabriel and Anne. However, we are going to assume that at least one other letter has been sent between March and July since the Confederate postal service wasn&#39;t so bad as to take all of four months to deliver a letter (at least I hope so).</p>
	<p>July 3rd, 1862</p>
	<p>Dear Anne,<br />
I am taking advantage of a brief respite in our march to write you and tell you that I am safe and well. I know you are scolding me as you read this for not having written before, but your letter took some days to reach me and I have not found pen or paper till this moment. </p>
	<p>I do not think that I ever truly saw war while I fought in the Shenandoah. A few hours of fighting, maybe a day, but nothing gained or lost, we simply hounded the enemy. But now, we have fought for seven days without end. Anne, it was as if demons of hell had fought on the battlefield instead of men and devoured everything in their paths. At Malvern Hill our men marched forward through an open field as Yankee cannon exploded around them. It was a slaughter. Even those places we mark as victories are steeped in blood. At Gaines Mill the Yankees had the high ground and surrounded it with three lines of fire. Generals ordered their men to attack. They marched forward through a hail of bullets and smoke so thick that more than one man tripped and could no longer march on. Sometimes all we had to guide us were the flashes of light as the Yanks fired at us. The 33rd arrived in the evening and we were immediately moved to the front of the line. Marching down that ravine was the hardest thing I have ever done. The ground was covered with bodies; we stepped more often on men than on actual ground. In the midst of all this carnage, someone, somewhere, broke through their lines. The Yankee line collapsed. We took the high ground, and we sent them running. Oh, what a chase it was, Anne! We chased them all the way to the James until we came within range of their gunboats and were forced to withdraw. But we beat them!</p>
	<p>The Yankees have taken refuge at Berkeley Plantation for now. Some of the men say that it was Mr. Harrison, who lived there during the Revolution, who wrote the Declaration and not Mr. Jefferson. I do not know how they came by this idea, but since both men are Virginians, I see no problems with it.</p>
	<p>Much of the talk around the campfire now, when not about this new history lesson, is of our new commander, General Lee. I must admit, I trust him more than I ever trusted Johnson. I would follow him into battle, even now, exhausted as I am, if he asked it. He has done a remarkable thing in the time since he came to command. This army is such a rag tag group of men, and so many are there to fight for their state; I cannot fault them for it, since I am here to protect Richmond and Virginia and those I love. This does mean however that some governments are reluctant to give up control of their troops and the threat is ever constant that they will call their regiments back to fight at home. We are dangerously divided. But Lee has created an army that speaks for the entire south, though we call it the Army of Northern Virginia. With this battle, this victory, we are more united in our cause than ever before.</p>
	<p>While I believe in General Lee and his abilities, I am still worried about our army. Malvern Hill proved that some of our generals do not have the courage or the intelligence to take the initiative and change suicidal orders. MacGruder, who many consider a fine general for his defense of Williamsburg earlier this year, has been sent west. Some of our commanders, such as General Pickett, have never commanded in such numbers before. Others, again, like General Pickett, are wounded, or even killed, in battle, leaving command of the troops to less experienced men. I will admit I would not feel confident marching into battle with such men leading us if General Lee were not in command to oversee things. </p>
	<p>These battles have also uncovered serious gaps in communications between divisions, and even brigades and regiments. General Jackson, it is said, did not attack when he was ordered to and instead waited till evening before moving forward. Attacks went awry because regiments could not find each other, or could not attack together. We are outnumbered, out gunned, and fighting a defensive war. The only way we can hope to end this war is to deliver a decisive blow to the North, and to accomplish this we must move quickly and with unity. Otherwise I fear we shall be drawn into a long war that we shall have little hope of winning without foreign assistance. Are the bureaucrats in Richmond making any progress at bringing England in on our side, Anne? Or do you think we will have to win this war on our own? We have the will to win-I have never been so sure of myself and our cause as I am now, and the men are now more than ever determined to defend their loved ones and their country-but we must channel this somehow into a mighty, unstoppable army. The sooner General Lee can unite us, the better. There has never been such a violent and sustained battle in this war before. The Yankees will not let this stand. I fear that they will set aside the gloves and will ransack the countryside, burn farms and plantations and take away as much food as they can carry. It is said that their generals only let Berkeley Plantation stand because it serves as a hospital. There is also the threat that they will raise more men to attack us. But if we strike soon, before they attack again, we may bring them to peace. Elections are fast approaching in the north. People are growing weary of the fight, and this battle will surely bring home to them just how terrible war is. Perhaps now those few Yankees with a conscience will elect those who understand our cause, and will let us create our own country. Perhaps now they will let us go.</p>
	<p>I wish to believe that the possibility is a strong one. Yet, if I were in their place, I would feel determined to commit all my resources. The Yanks have not been truly serious till now. I fear that now they will not be so easy to defeat as before. But Richmond is safe. Without the capital, the Confederacy will fall. And if the capital were to fall, I should lose you. I have seen enough of fighting, Anne. Sometimes I feel I can only fight on because if I do not, the Yanks may win, and then you and our families would be in danger. I will endure any hardship to prevent that.</p>
	<p>There is some good news that comes from this battle. I have seen your father and Joshua, your brother, though only in passing, for we were hurrying after McClellan. Neither is injured, and your father asked me to assure you that he will write soon, if only to escape a scolding from you and your mother. I hear rumors that the army may pull back to Richmond once McClellan is cleared from the Peninsula. If this does happen, I shall try to come and see you. Until then, I remain,<br />
											Yours,<br />
											Gabriel Donahan
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Were The Seven Days Battles the true end of the Civil War?</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13266</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>All Historians agree that the Civil War did not end with the Seven Days Battles. However, the Seven Days Battles would have been the end of the war if not for the military mishaps and lack of communication and misfortune by both sides. The result of Seven Days Battles, which was a stalemate, gave the Union a need to shift to a 'hard' war. Lincoln observed the peremptory determination of the Confederate forces. Lincoln realized that he needed to modify the war aims of the Union if he wanted to end the war and preserve the union. Although The Seven Days Battles were thought to be a stalemate from a military perspective, the outcome resulted in a new approach by the Union that ultimately led to the collapse of the Confederacy.<br />
	Lincoln knew that the Confederacy was not going to give up Richmond easily, but he thought he had a good chance of gaining control of Richmond by positioning his troops well and strategizing with his General George B. McClellan. He was always fearful that the Confederates would take Washington, so he was sure to always keep a bulk of Union troops between Washington and the Confederacy. As the Seven Days Battles continued, Lincoln grew skeptical of the Unions ability to take Richmond. In two of the most horrific battles, Gaines Mill and Malvern Hill, the confederates showed their desire to protect their Confederate capital. These two battles resulted in large amounts of casualties for both sides, but especially the Union who almost always had more men and reinforcements.<br />
	The Confederates defended themselves from the Union attacks and kept the Union away from Richmond. When Lincoln did not get the control of Richmond as a result of the Seven Days Battles, he realized that he needed to change his strategy to win the war. The Union shifted to a 'hard' or 'total' war strategy. The main shift in was not in military stratagem, but rather in political policy. As William Blair describes in his text The Seven Days and the Radical Persuasion: "Nearly two weeks after the Seven Days battles ended outside of Richmond, Abraham Lincoln revealed that he had changed his mind about emancipation… he now believed that emancipation 'was a military necessity absolutely essential for the salvation of the Union, that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued.'" (153)<br />
	The Union's shift to a 'hard' war resulted in their new approach to the war which was freeing the slaves and destroying rebel property. The Union army used slaves in their army as a way of using slaves against the Confederacy. As Blair explained, the radicals believed the "… the Union needed to use slaves in the army to deprive the South of a weapon and to preserve white soldiers of menial chores that could be life threatening in the hot southern climate. They adopted a racist approach that justified emancipation as benefitting white people more than African Americans." (154).<br />
	This new political war aim by the Union kept countries from overseas from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. It also is evidence that Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the Union. He used his new slavery policy to limit the power of the Confederacy and use their system against them. Many slaves ran away to the North and since they were now allowed to join the army, they fought for their own freedom. Lincoln was concerned with freeing the slaves because it would mean that he could preserve the Union. As he so famously stated in one of his letters to Horace Greeley, "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (http://www.brotherswar.com/Civil_War_Quotes_4c.htm)<br />
	The Seven Days Battles were the source of what motivated Abraham Lincoln to shift the Union to fighting a 'hard' war. This new strategy helped the Union to use the Confederate system of slavery ago end the war. It was a result of the Union forces being stopped from obtaining control of Richmond in the Seven Days Battles, that Lincoln switched his stance on emancipation that led to the north ending the war and preserving the Union.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>The forests of death</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13264</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>When you walk through the forest the first thing that you think of is not about battles, but rather about what nice scenery it is. When walking through the woods at Malvern Hill makes it hard to picture this luscious land to once be a battlefield where many men lost their lives. For me especially, seeing places that are now used for conventional uses like farmland make it harder to picture it being the location of a great battle between Confederate and Union forces. However, that is what many of the battlefields of then are today. It is just land that used to be where many fought and lost their lives, but today all we see is an empty field, and never think twice about it, and sometimes find it hard to think of it as battleground like it was to the men of the Civil War.<br />
Unlike Civil War battles like Gettysburg, the Seven Days Battle took place in a number of locations; it was not fought in only one place. There was strategizing to win the battles that were fought until dark. Historians have discussed about the Seven Days Battle and have many different perspectives about it; was it the women that caused the confederates to lose, what about Lincoln. For any side to win, they needed constant support from their people, which they did not always get from them, especially when it began to look dire that they would win this war. Lee used desperation to win his battles and would always fight on the offensive side, which may have led him to surrender earlier than could have happened if he fought defensively, which historians debate today about whether the Confederates could have lasted longer, or whether they are surprised about their lasting as long as they did. When it comes to battles, no matter what the outcome, there will always be debate about why it turned out the way it did, and whether or not it could have turned out differently if there were different scenarios occurring than the ones that were.<br />
The Battlefields that we saw were very interesting to think that there was once a battle fought there, because if one only looked at it that would never had crossed their mind. In fact, when troops were fleeing they were not expecting to come into confrontation with the enemy. When the Confederated were leaving, they did not expect to encounter the Union troops at the Battlefield of Gaines Mill because that place was not existent on Lee&#39;s map. Troops always had to be prepared for what could be around the corner. For me, seeing places that are for me a calming place is a revelation to realize that what we see as peaceful may not have always been like that. If one went through those trees during 1863, they would not think of it as a calming place like we do today; rather, they would think it a stressful place with all the gun shots coming from left and right making you fearful for your life.<br />
Berkeley&#39;s plantation is an interesting place because of its importance to American history like being where the military song at funerals was composed, or being the place of former presidents like Henry Harrison, or opening its door to 12 presidents over its history. This plantation has seen a lot of history from the Revolutionary War to today because it is still a working plantation with people still living in it even while people visit this historical landmark. Berkeley survived the civil war and was not burned, which is fortunate for them, and historians alike. Losing the history would matter to everyone today, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone will understand what history they have lost that existed in that plantation.<br />
If you just visit places like Berkeley plantation, or battlefield in the forest you do not necessarily understand the history behind it unless you study about it. Many of the places have a background to them, and we may not know about them all right away, or understand its true significance. However, studying it will improve our understanding of history and locations to see that even if it looks just like a farmland, it may have more historical significance than you think that helped shaped the nation to what it is seen as today.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>a convenient comparison </title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13253</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>It is extraordinarily easy to connect our class' trip on Friday, October 16 to our readings and our lectures. I believe this is because the cold and rainy weather put us in the correct mood to ponder the confusion, tension and great amount of pressure that the authors of our readings tried to convey. (Even though the actual battle was fought in the heat of summer). With the perfect stage set thanks to the weather, we set out onto some of the battlefields that were key during the Seven Days Battle. </p>
	<p>A crucial element of the Seven Days Battle was the moving of troops. Both the Union and Confederate forces were forced to engage in this drawn-out battle in many different locations without reliable means of communication and despite confusing terrain. How appropriate that, even though we were driving in a warm van along marked roads, we got lost on our trip! Confusion was rampant during this campaign. As Joseph T. Glatthaar writes in his chapter entitled, "The Battle For Richmond: The Seven Days Campaign," coordination proved to be a continuous source of problems, especially for the Confederacy. Jackson could not keep up with the timetables that General Lee gave to him. While perhaps the blame rests partially on General Lee for issuing too many orders and trying to participate in too much at once, because this was not the only source of confusion, it could not have bee Lee's fault entirely. </p>
	<p>Despite the Confederacy's confusion and delayed timetable, they won the Seven Days Battle. As Glatthaar observes, in a sense, this victory completely altered the fortunes of the Confederacy because Richmond was safe and they could turn their sights on the Northern territories. This would prove to be only short-term however; the Seven Days Battle had an even more significant impact upon the Union forces. The repercussions of this impact would be much more long-term. </p>
	<p>In his article, "The Seven Days and the Radical Persuasion," William A. Blair describes how after the Seven Days, the Union strengthened their battle tactics and became more invested in the war effort. Blair exposes these three main factors as the Union's weaknesses: the fact that some Union generals were sympathetic to the South, that the South has little unionist support, and the exclusion of slaves from the military that desperately needed increased manpower. It did not seem that the Union leaders were intending to destroy the South. As an example of their leniency, General George B. McClellan sent a guard for General Robert E. Lee's wife and house. To the Union soldiers, this act made it seem that General McClellan cared more about General Lee's family than his own soldiers. On the other hand, the Confederacy knew that if they wanted to win this war and defend their succession, they were going to have to sacrifice a lot. They were prepared for the hard years ahead and the challenges they would face by remaining loyal to the Confederacy. Blair explained how even in Union-occupied territories, Confederate sentiments were strong. The Union's recognition of the Confederacy's degree of commitment to the war was the most significant impact that the Seven Days Battle had on the Civil War.  </p>
	<p>The Union was forced in an uncomfortable balance between the abolitionists and the democrats; this balance was managed for the sake of the Border States. The Border States of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and West Virginia could have sided with either the Confederacy or the Union. As noted in James McPherson's response to Barbara Fields, as a moderate Republican, Abraham Lincoln knew that prioritizing the preservation of the Union would be the most effective and lasting way of emancipating the slaves. He could not alienate the Border States by making abolition his declared priority. Slaves were not allowed to participate the in military in an effort to appease these Border States; then, the Seven Days Battle occurred. The Union realized that if they wanted to even have a chance to defeat the Confederates, they would need to incorporate former slaves in their military. Blair notes the difference between war Democrats and peace Democrats. He also explains how the North increasingly recognized that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to people who wage war upon the US. Sentiments were increasingly of the opinion that, "if someone has to pay for the war, it might as well be the South."</p>
	<p>The "Radical Persuasion" that Blair references employs many methods. One of their primary points of persuasion emphasizes the barbarity of the Confederates. People trying to motivate and harden the Union highlight the Confederate use of torpedoes and the mistreatment of Union soldiers, both prisoners and casualties. The logic of this argument follows the form of "if our enemies are doing x, we are justified in doing x too." Congress finally amended the Constitution to allow President Lincoln the necessary power to mobilize additional troops and use former slaves for any purpose deemed necessary. Specifically after the Seven Days Battle, Congress passed a bill about the confiscation of rebel property. Blair argues that if the Union had won the Seven Days Battle, things would have been worse for them in the long run, and the Confederacy would have probably proved victorious. The loss at the Seven Days Battle was exactly the "push" the Union needed to jump into the war with both feet as the Confederacy had done a long time before them. </p>
	<p>It is an understatement to say that the challenges that that we faced paled in comparison to the cruel carnage that the soldiers faced. When we trekked across the wet grass of the battlefields, we complained of the wind. As the time approached noon, our grumbling stomachs interrupted our focus. Even on the ride back to William and Mary, our minds could not help but to begin to worry about the piles of work that awaited us, a weight on our shoulders that would probably last until the late hours of Sunday night. </p>
	<p>As I gazed upon the eerily serene "checkerboard" of battlefields and overgrown forests, I could not help but to think about the hellish scenes that occurred not 200 years ago. The bullets we saw in the basement of the Berkeley Plantation and the resulting conversation regarding amputation made it nearly impossible for me to even imagine engaging in a battle where bullet wounds and amputation were very likely to occur. I cannot begin to fathom how much courage the soldiers in the Civil War- as in any war- must have had in order to muster up the strength to fight. Especially in the South, young men ages 18-22 made up a significant portion of the army. They were full of energy and believed that becoming a soldier would provide hem with the constant adventure for which they hungered. With the unprecedented carnage of the 7 Days Battle, many of these young soldiers experienced horrors beyond their expectations. As DH Hill noted, it was not war, but murder. </p>
	<p>The confusion and tension of the Civil War did not cease when Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Courthouse. The road to reconstruction would be long, and the road to equality for former slaves would be even longer. When I feel sick with worry thinking about my midterms, I should consider the more serious concerns of soldiers, their families, and their friends. The consequences of their actions are much more serious.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13273</link>
<description><![CDATA[<br />
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Born a gambling man</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13268</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>What do three different families living in three separate homes have in common? The answer is simple; they all share the common lifestyle of the super elite. Each family was wealthy and wanted to make this known to the rest of society through visible markers and through actions. Essentially, the led lifestyle of the rich and famous- they gambled, drank, and maked themselves public showcases. An article by Breen, "Horses and Gentlemen", elaborates on this way of life. He discussed just how important it was to these men to be in the public eye and to advance themselves through the ranks of the upper-class. A common way of doing so was gambling. Often times large amounts of money were at stake simply because them men wanted to prove that they could afford to lose that much money and to shut out the lower classes. After all, what good would it have done William Byrd to beat a lowly farmer in a horse race, he would gain nothing and could stand to lose his status even if he won because he was associating with lower classes. It was also a common practice to marry those within the upper-class, preferabley as high up as possible, to protect status and secure ones standing in society. All of these trends are very visible in the lives of those living at Shirley Plantation, Westover, and Powhatan Plantation.</p>
	<p>Our day began at Shirley Plantation, built by Elizabeth Hill and John Carter. Amazingly, the same family has lived in this home for the last 11 generations and continues living there to this day. One only needs to glance at the home to see that it is a stunning example of the super-elite. Like other Carter homes, Shirley displays wealth and prosperity, the marriage of John to Elizabeth follows the pattern of marrying those within your class (a trend that is continued by their children, grandchildren, ect), and the gentlemen living there in the 18th century prescribed to the upper-class way of life. A parlor was set up in the home with playing cards, indicating that gambling was also big in this home.</p>
	<p>The next stop was Westover Plantation on the banks of the James River. This was the home of William Byrd III, a gentleman who earned the reputation of being a "bad man". Like Shirley, from the outside Westover oozes of wealth and importance. We approached the house from the river, viewing the home the same way that all of Byrd's visitors would have first seen the home. The architecture of the home alone would have shown people just how wealthy he was, but William Byrd III did not stop there. He also built two elaborate privies, one on each side of the house. Would his wife Lucy have gone out to use one of these? I doubt it. More than likely, this he was using these outhouses as another clear, visual marker of his wealth. He married Lucy Parke to increase his prospects as her grandfather was an important man in Virginia and her father in England. The label of "bad man" was earned because of his gambling habits. Byrd was a heavy drinker and an even heavier gambler. Treckel describes his habits in the article "The Empire of My Heart" and points out one particular incident where his wife had ordered a number of goods from England which made him so mad that he sold the goods. Perhaps he was one of the men who in reality could not afford to lose the large sums of money that he bet.</p>
	<p>The last stop of the day brought us back to Williamsburg for a tour of Powhatan Plantation, the home of the Taliaferro family. Once again we saw the same signs of wealth. The home, though no longer in the style of the 1700, was large and elaborate. The family made sure to advance their status through the marriage of their daughter, Elizabeth, by marrying her to George Wythe. Our time and the information we received at this home was very limited, but they do seem to fit the mold.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Shirley, Westover, and Powhatan Plantations: Getting Privy to the Details</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13262</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>This week we traveled in the 18th century and became "privy" to the details of plantation life even down to the privies outside. We started our day off at Shirley Plantation. This beautiful house with its impressive flying staircase was built in 1738 by Elizabeth Hill and her husband, Robert "King" Carter's son, John. This house is still in the possession of the Carter family with provisions for it to remain so in the future. The house has great traditions such as all of the Carter brides "proving the stones" in their rings by carving their initials into a glass window to ensure it is a true diamond. The house even has a ghost story about a woman in a painting who would not stay at rest in the house until she was moved downstairs into a first floor bedroom. But these traditions and stories have grown from years of the same family inhabiting the house and would not have been a big part of 18th century super gentry life.<br />
	In the 18th century, the upper class of gentry men were at the top of society. These men were able to build "great houses" and to participate in gambling. Breen writes of the importance of this gambling lifestyle in his article "Horses and Gentlemen." Breen shows the gentry as a competitive and materialistic group of men who gamble and bet on horses as a way to assert their social position. By gambling large amounts of money, they are showing that they have enough money to risk losing it. And by making the stakes so high, the poorer farmers are shut out from the action, once more elevating the gentry to a more superior level.<br />
	Our next stop was Westover Plantation where we learned some of the more personal details of gentry life. Westover was the home of William Byrd, probably built by Byrd III according to tree ring dates in the wood dating back to the 1750s. We came at Westover from the way Mr. Byrd would have wanted it to be seen: from the river. And the view was incredible. Most likely, Byrd chose this location to show off his great house to the merchants and other gentry traveling down the James River on business. As we traveled around the outbuildings at Westover, we came upon a brick 5-person privy complete with fireplace. This kind of extravagance (especially on a building that may not have even been used with any regularity by the house owners themselves) was another way to showcase the wealth of the super gentry people to others. If they could spend such money on necessaries, they were surely quite well off. After a quick trip down a random well, we were on the road again.<br />
	Our final stop was Powhatan Plantation. We had a quick tour of this plantation house, built for the Taliaferro family in 1735. Just as a side note, Taliaferro's daughter, Elizabeth, married George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. We soon departed for campus after another good day living our Virginia history.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Gents...Show your wealth!!</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13258</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>Families during the 17th century were in many different social classes. There were the Gentry, Middleclass, and lower class to name a few. During this time, individuals would want to show their neighbors their wealth, which also showed what their standing was in society. The gentry class expanded upon showing their wealth by building their large plantation homes along the riverfront. This was because the river was the main way of going places that was also quick. Some plantations that are built along the riverfront are Shirley, Westover, and Powhatan.<br />
	Plantations like Shirley and Westover are still functioning plantations today. Not only is the land still used, but there are also people living in those plantations to this day. Furthermore, they showed the rise of the gentry class and what it looked like during the time of the American Revolution. Men in the gentry class wanted to be able to be reached by the people so that they can see their wealth. In addition, especially in Westover, they wanted to show to the coming English that they were as good as the gentry that resided in England. They showed this wealth through the extensiveness of the house, its locations, artifacts they had, how they decorated, and how guests were treated and fed while in residence with that family of the gentry.<br />
	One way that men in the social rankings gained or lost their wealth was through gambling. Gambling was an efficient way of losing most of all of your money rather quickly. However, men still joined in it and they talked about other happening during this time together. Men would stay up to all hours of the day gambling their wealth away. According to Breen, once Horse racing came along, it was another way for these men to gamble away their money on horse races. However, horse racing back then was different than it is today. Men in the gentry would brag who had the fastest horse, and in turn would challenge another to a horse race in which the owner of the horse would race in the one on one competition between the horses. How it appeared is somewhat like what we see in the movie Sea Biscuit. Even though there are jockeys in the horse races then. The owner of Sea biscuit did all he could do to race the horse War Admiral to figure out who had the faster horse overall in a one on one race. The stakes are high, and many came to the competition, and like horse racing back then, one is gambling their wealth betting on which horse they believe is going to win the race.<br />
	Besides gambling, marriage was also a way to bring more wealth into the family. Like in the marriage of William Byrd II to Lucy Parke. Lucy&#39;s family was trying to increase her wealth and social standing. However, along with that came what each person believed to be one&#39;s rightful place in the family. Lucy and William have different views on a woman&#39;s role in the family. Even though they loved each other, there were still problems that appeared repeatedly throughout the relationship.<br />
	Plantations like Westover, and Shirley showed a gentry man&#39;s wealth to his fellow compatriots. During this time, many tried to improve their wealth by marrying into the higher statuses in society, which they would get through their proficientness at music, dancing, and activities. However, one could lose their wealth so quickly by just gambling it away with other individuals. The gentry class was growing, but they were also finding more ways to lose all the wealth that they had and took for granted.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>William Byrd and The Carters (who needs an heir?)</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13250</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>The Carters were and still are today one of the most prominent Virginia families. The house that now stands as Shirley plantation was the third structure that was built on the property. Edward Hill III owned the plantation, and he was the father of Elizabeth Hill who ended up marrying John Carter, who was the eldest son of Robert Carter. Elizabeth was smart because she was able to marry into one of the wealthiest families and she found the best qualified man in Virginia to run her plantation.</p>
	<p>	Shirley plantation was not completed until 1738, which was 15 years after John and Elizabeth married. In 1771 the house was passed from John to Charles, the son of John and Elizabeth. Charles made some changes to the house that are still there today such as the attempt at indoor plumbing in the dining room, painting the interior and adding windows and pocket shutters. He also added the portico on the river side as another feature to impress visitors, people arriving at the house, and guests that may have stayed for days or weeks. Shirley plantation saw several changes after Charles Carter owned it as well. Hill Carter, Charles' youngest son inherited Shirley at age seven. Because he was just a boy and not yet fit to run the plantation, it was unfortunately run into the ground by overproduction of tobacco. When Hill Carter returned to Shirley, he was able to revive the land through his experimentation of crop rotations. Hill Carter's older sister, Elizabeth, married into another prominent Virginia family, the Byrd's. Elizabeth married William Byrd III, increasing the wealth and power of both families. This was often done to keep the political power within the small circle of people that had been able to acquire it.</p>
	<p>	The Byrd family owned and lived in Westover Plantation that sat right on the banks of the James River. The plantation is a very impressive imposing structure that was meant to be first seen from travelers on the river. It was a way to show wealth and importance within the colony. Reputation is everything in Virginia. The way people acted dressed and socialized was a huge part of who they were. Virginia was a society of men and woman that were focused on appearance. The way the people were perceived to be was much more important than how they actually were. A good example of this is William Byrd III. His reputation (through history) is that he was a bad drinker and gambler. At one point he led a group of men to attack at a Baptist church service. His problem with the Baptists was the belief that everyone was equal in the sight of God, therefore everyone was [supposedly] equal in the sight of man. This pertained to slaves and lower class whites which did not make the gentry classes happy. </p>
	<p>	These two plantations were a huge sign of wealth and power in the colonial period. Appearance was everything from your house to the clothing you wore, even the clothing that your slaves wore. The Carter's and the Byrd's were two of the wealthiest and powerful families in Virginia and that was very apparent in seeing their houses alone.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Waterfront battle: here come the ironclad ships</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13260</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>The Civil War brought about many different battles between Union and Confederate troops both by land and by sea. There were battles between the ironclad ships, battles in these earthworks places, battles on the battlefield, etc. Everything that occurred during the years of the Civil War affected the war in some way or another.<br />
	The Earthworks location that dealt with the Battle of Williamsburg influenced the war more on the Confederate side. Confederates would use their slave labor to create these trenches where the troops would troops would hide, and when their enemy would travel by they would attack them when they least expected it. The trenches gave them a way of being hidden and an advantage because their enemy troops would not expect it because they were just traveling down the road minding their own business. However, battles did not only take place through these trenches, they also took place by water.<br />
	The battle of the ironclad ships is important because it was a battle between two ships: the Virginia and the Monitor. Both ships were made of iron, which made it almost impossible to destroy each other because both were strong. The monitor was protecting another ship, while the Virginia was determined to destroy all its enemy ships that it could. This battle between the two ironclad ships was called the &#34;Battle of Hampton Roads,&#34; and because each ship was so strong, the battle was considered a stalemate even though there is some debate about whether that is true or if one ship came out victorious later on. Nevertheless, this battle changed naval warfare because now they would build ships out or stronger material than wood and sails.<br />
	Fort Monroe was an important part of the Civil War. It was never taken over by Confederate troops and stayed in use by the Union throughout the wars entirety. However, Fort Monroe was also the place where the runaway slaves came to in Virginia. Being controlled by the Union, the slaves could run there to gain their freedom from their Confederate master. Nevertheless, Fort Monroe started being overrun by these runaway slaves so they were considering taking over Hampton and putting the slaves there. Knowing this, Confederate troops burned their city to the ground to prevent it being used as such, but even though this shocked the Union troops, they still ended up using the town, which the Confederates were trying to avoid.<br />
	A major debate between the articles read for class is about who actually freed the slaves. Fields says that the slaves freed themselves, while McPherson says that Lincoln whom actually freed them. Even though the slaves did contribute in part to their freedom, they would not have achieved it without the help of President Lincoln. Even though, freedom of slaves was not Lincoln&#39;s primary goal of the war at first, it ended up that direction as the war progressed and it was not until the thirteenth Amendment that the slaves got their freedom. However, if the war ended up with the Union losing, this would not have happened and show knows when we would have stopped slavery.<br />
	Even though there is debate over who really freed the slaves, Pace, Nelson, and Sheriff, and Faust take another approach about the Civil War through their articles. Pace, in his article focused on honor amongst college men and what they did to gain that honor. He explains about what these boys did to achieve honor, as well as what they did to get out of school, which was usually stealing the school bell. There was a change at what men in college did to gain honor, whether like boys or men as they were developing throughout those years. On the other hand, Nelson, Sheriff, and Faust discuss about the miseries that this war brought about. Nelson and Sheriff discuss about a black man&#39;s family who were constantly being robbed, and then the man of the house being shot. The people in the south were being left nothing to live on until many of them were not supporting their cause because of where it was leading them. Faust explains about this on the side of women. Women at first supported the war, but as they lost sons, husbands, brothers, and being left with doing everything the men of the house usually did they gave up. The war did not seem to be leading anywhere but destruction to the women so they ended up stopping encouraging their men to fight, instead they wanted them back home to help them on their land. This war was having a devastating effect on those that were not fighting in the war because of all they were losing and through many starving because what lack of food they had would go to the troops fighting the war.<br />
	Like many wars we see, the Civil War was no different. There was lots of destruction, starvation, etc. There is no good side of war, and Lincoln and union men were probably right that buying all the slaves off the Confederates would end up being cheaper in the long run. Nevertheless, the Civil War came and with it the destruction and pain that any war brings to people who live near and through it.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Richmond Under Siege</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13257</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>Having been a reenactor for most of my life, the best way I feel to write about the Civil War is from the point of view of the people who actually lived it. So, I decided to write this letter as the first in a series of letters between two fictional young people caught up in the war. Gabriel has joined the 33rd Virginia, part of Stonewall&#39;s Brigade, while his fiancée, Anne, is left on the home front to deal with the conflict there, giving both civilian and military views on the war. Gabriel&#39;s response to Anne&#39;s letter will come following the Seven Days Battle.</p>
	<p>March 11th, 1862</p>
	<p>My dearest Gabriel,<br />
My aunt wrote three weeks ago to invite us to live with her in Richmond, knowing we in the Shenandoah are constantly harried by the threat of Union troops. I have every faith and confidence in the abilities of the famous General Jackson and our gallant 33rd Virginia to protect us, and it is rumored that the Yankees have been, dare I say it, almost courteous and honorable in their treatment of many civilians, leaving many farms and families untouched as they pass through. But Mama has heard other stories of farms ransacked and burned, and yet others of people being forced from their homes so that the buildings may serve as hospitals and headquarters for this invading army. Everything is simply taken, with no promise of payment and no consideration for the occupants who are turned out with what they can assemble in a meager five minutes. These stories infuriate me immensely, and I can only say my resolve to persevere through this war is hardened by these tales. Mama, however, was afraid that such a thing would happen to us if we stayed in our house outside New Market and decided to accept Aunt Caroline&#39;s offer. So we are now within Richmond, though I fear it is even less safe than New Market.</p>
	<p>Work has been underway for some months now to construct forts on the Peninsula and around Richmond to keep the Yankees at bay. Now it seems the Yankees have landed at Fort Monroe and are planning a campaign up the Peninsula to take Richmond. When I can stifle my fear and see the matter as an observer, I have to wonder why we did not make more of an attempt to take Fort Monroe, since the Yankees are now using it so effectively as a stronghold in enemy territory. Often, though, I feel that we have simply escaped one danger only to be caught in another. Only two days ago word reached us of a naval battle fought at the mouth of the James as Genl. McClellan was landing his forces. The Merrimac, our own ironclad, decimated their fleet until the Union&#39;s own ironclad ship arrived, and then there was such a battle! Neither side could damage the other. Everything was set for a stalemate until a shot managed to strike the Monitor and she withdrew from the battle! The James is safe from the Yankee fleet, and Richmond free from bombardment.</p>
	<p>Yet I wonder if Richmond will not soon be under siege of a different sort. Once the fighting begins in the spring, Richmond will become a hospital. We shall have to find places to put them, food to feed them, bandages and medicine. It is no secret Richmond is the heart of the Confederacy. If we were to fall, so too would fall the South. The Union has made no secret of the fact that they are determined to take Richmond. Soon, I fear, the supply lines to the city will be cut off as McClellan&#39;s army advances and we shall be left to fend for ourselves. It is not a worry yet, but if this war continues, Richmond will suffer for it.</p>
	<p>My brother, it seems, has not suffered greatly from these thoughts. He has already managed to find boys of his own age living in the neighborhood. They spend their days loudly, to say the least, doing what sixteen year old boys are wont to do. If they are not inventing wild schemes of how to join to army as infantrymen they are invariably concocting tales of their future military prowess and bravery and condemning the others to lesser positions of glory. Most take it all in jest, but once or twice a young man has taken offense at a perceived slight to his bravery or honor and it has nearly come to blows. I believe it may only be Rob&#39;s common sense and his reminders of their duty to be fit and able to enlist the moment they turn 18 that have kept matters from escalating farther.</p>
	<p>It is startling to me that our brave army is formed of boys not much older than Rob, college boys, really, who are of much the same mindset as he and his fellows. I do not imply, my dearest Gabriel, that you are included among this group, since you but a few years their senior. But it seems to me that if the younger generation is like this, must it not come from somewhere? Is it possible that the men who lead this war, who spoke for the rights of our beloved south in the halls of Congress, perhaps overreacted when Lincoln was elected, much in the way these boys do to a perceived slight? I am expressing this very badly. What I mean to say is, is it not possible that this entire war came to be because those in the government could not stifle their pride and honor and find a compromise? Rob told me of an incident where two young men were caught pulling a prank on a priest by hiding his sermon notes. When they were discovered they immediately attempted to salvage their honor from the effects of the general outcry by challenging anyone who openly criticized them to a duel. They were so serious about the matter that they walked through town armed with pistols until cooler heads prevailed. I fear it is this mindset, honor and image above all else, that has brought us to this, my Gabe. Sometimes I confess I fear we do not fight to preserve our threatened south, or Virginia, or even our rights, but instead the &#34;honor&#34; of those men in power.</p>
	<p>I have asked myself what wrongdoing these men could have committed that they feel compelled to act in such a manner. Last Friday I was speaking with my dear friend Laura, who decided to accompany us with her family to the safety of Richmond. She declared that slaves on plantations to the south and east of Richmond, especially those plantations on the Peninsula where fighting will surely take place this spring, have been fleeing to Union lines in search of their freedom. These plantations belong to those who, if not in the government, have a great say it its policies, do they not? You know my position on slavery, Gabriel. I find it a distasteful, immoral institution, as I know do many in the north. Is this then the wrongdoing that these men feel they have been caught committing? It must follow then that these men realize what they are doing is wrong; otherwise they would not feel the need to defend themselves. But if indeed these men have honor, as they imply by so vigorously defending it, why do they do something so obviously dishonorable and wrong that then requires them to defend themselves? If they were truly honorable, I believe they would look beyond their own well-being and set these people free. That, I believe, is the truly honorable thing to do.</p>
	<p>Despite lack of action on the part of their owners, the slaves, as I have already related to you, are taking matters into their own hands and freeing themselves, taking refuge behind Union lines. Many people say Lincoln will free the slaves, that his very election and this war have ensured the downfall of slavery. Perhaps on paper, yes, Mr. Lincoln will liberate these people, but they still will not be truly free, for they will face reluctant masters and intense prejudice. It is one thing to say a man is free, and another for him to truly be free. By running away and seeking their freedom as they do, blacks are freeing themselves more than any piece of paper could have done. </p>
	<p>There is another thing that troubles me about blacks&#39; attempts to gain their freedom. There are rumors that black regiments will be formed up north. I must confess myself afraid that news of this will reach those slaves now working to build the walls and defenses that are so crucial to the survival of Richmond and the Peninsula. If there was ever a time to fear a slave rebellion, the time would be now. Why they have not done so already, I do not know, and I do not wish to tempt fate further by dwelling on such things. But I feel that if these people truly realized that freedom is so nearly within their grasp, we should all be in very great danger.</p>
	<p>The newspapers write that I should send letters of encouragement to you, to keep your spirits up and your faith in our great cause unwavering. Looking back at what I have written I am afraid I have done a poor job of it, telling you only of my doubts and worries. The ladies all say we must sacrifice everything to this great new country of ours. If we are to succeed we must give up parties and luxuries, spend our afternoons sewing clothes or writing patriotic poems. We must always have faith and be strong, so that you too may be strong. But I am a simple girl, and I cannot write something I do not feel, no matter how mighty or true the cause. I can only say, my dearest Gabriel, that I miss you greatly and I think of you always and wish you were here with me. Every day that goes by that I do not hear from you is torture, for I do not know if you have been injured or are well, sitting with your comrades and simply without the means to assure me of your wellbeing. Please, my dearest, write me soon so I may know that you are safe. Perhaps then I shall be able to find new courage and faith within myself to weather this war.<br />
	Ever yours,<br />
	Anne
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>The New View of The Emancipation Proclamation</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13255</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>The American Civil War is ordinarily thought to be fought by soldiers from the North and South who had a conflict regarding whether or not states had the right to break away from the union. However, the Civil War can also been seen as a giant slave revolt. Southern society forced the salves to be proactive in their own fight for freedom oppressing them to the point where slaves ran away and joined the Union Army. Roughly 100,000 slaves fought in the American Civil War. Emancipation was a pivotal issue in the Civil War that helped shape the outcome of the war and the future of our country. Abraham Lincoln addressed the issue of slavery in a way that: kept Europe out of the war, motivated his soldiers, and sustained his own power by keeping boarder states satisfied.<br />
	Slaves in the South we generally not being treated well and eventually in the nineteenth century as the Civil War began slaves joined the Union Army to help their fight for freedom. Many became &#34;servants, teamsters, laborers, and eventually soldiers in northern armies.&#34; (Who Freed the Slaves, James McPherson, 1) The concept of slavery was one in which the Union had to deal with delicately and immediately. Europe was a great importer of cotton from the South and it was speculated that they would enter the war on the side of the Confederacy. The Confederate society was based on their cash crop of cotton which mass produced on plantations all over the South using slave labor and exported all over the world.<br />
	The Upper Class in Europe, who were importing such goods from the South did not was to lose this source of cotton. Therefore, the wealthy and ruling class in Europe wanted to enter the war on the side of the South. However, the lower class servants in Europe did not want to enter the war because they would be the ones fighting in the war. More importantly, the servants in Europe did not want to fight against the Union aligned themselves with the effort of freeing servants and slaves. This would simply be too ironic for the lower class Europeans.<br />
	Abraham Lincoln knew of the class division in Europe, and used it to keep them out of the war by publically announcing that the Civil War a fight to free the slaves. He did this by writing the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in Confederate States. Initially Lincoln believed that this would cost him the war because he was not sure how his own soldiers would react. He felt that he would be criticized for violating the Constitution because slaves were viewed as property, and it was illegal to make such laws that inhibit men from their property. However, his men reacted with great enthusiasm. Many of the young soldiers were from the Midwest and with their strong tied to religion; they viewed slavery as a moral flaw.<br />
	Despite his apparent efforts to free slaves, it was not until the Seven Days Battles that Abraham Lincoln became an extreme abolitionist. The Emancipation Proclamation did not ban slavery in certain Union controlled territories, even in the South. As James McPherson stated &#34;Lincoln was more determined to retain the goodwill of the slave owners that to secure the liberty of the slaves&#34; (McPherson, 2) Lincoln, on multiple occasions, was embarrassed when Union commanders rushed the notion of emancipation before him. &#34;In August 1861 General John C Fremont proclaimed martial law in Missouri and declared free all slaves of secessionist owners Fremont refused Lincolns order that he amend the proclamation. Lincoln amended it himself and …relieved Fremont of command.&#34;(Barbara J Fields, Who Freed the Slaves, 180) Lincoln new that such bold action around boarder states, for slavery laws, could have negative consequences for his own efforts in preserving the Union. The result may even have cost him his own power as president and flipped the advantage over to the Confederacy by giving them more power.<br />
	The Emancipation Proclamation was filled with technicalities and loop holes that even allowed slavery in Union territories in the South. Lincoln was concerned that Europe would enter the war and as a result offered the Emancipation Proclamation to keep them at bay. Although he feared that this proclamation would hurt his Union support, it was accepted by the Union army and used as a moral justification for finishing the war. Abraham Lincoln was a skilful and articulate political craftsman who reached out to all in an effort of sustaining the Union during the American Civil War.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>peninsula campagin</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13252</link>
<description><![CDATA[<br />
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>When Iron met Iron</title>
<link>http://niahd.wm.edu/?browse=entry&#38;id=13247</link>
<description><![CDATA[	<p>This week, our class took a giant leap into the battles of the Civil War by looking at the Peninsula Campaign and the role that slaves had in this national conflict. Our destinations this time around was to a redoubt during the Battle of Williamsburg, the USS Monitor Center at the Mariners Museum and finally Fort Monroe. Each of these destinations was crucial in understanding the importance for the control of Virginia during the civil war. Intertwined with this was our discussion surrounding that ever elusive and controversial question of &#34;Who freed the Slaves?&#34; Our readings by James M. McPherson and Barbara J. Fields both address this question and come up with two very opposing yet equally convincing arguments as to who is responsible for freeing the slaves. Was it all thanks to President Abraham Lincoln or, do we accredit the slaves themselves with being able to procure their own freedom? Or, can we argue that neither could have succeeded without the other?<br />
 We started at a redoubt, which was important during the Battle of Williamsburg. This battle could be measured on the same scale as the first battle of Bull Run. This battle came about almost by accident as the Confederate troops were retreating with the Federal army in quick pursuit. The importance of this redoubt was to get an understanding for the way in which slaves and even free African Americans were used during the war. It is believed that over 100 000 African Americans were in the union army during the war, but not always fighting. This redoubt in particular was built entirely using African American labor. The trenches were very deep suggesting that it would have taken a great deal of time and manpower to create this redoubt. Having soldiers do this work would have seemed counterproductive because they needed the energy to fight. Therefore, most of the physical labor for creating redoubts as well as other battlefield fortifications were done by the African American or slave population of the Civil War. This battle was in 1861, the beginning year of the war where the retreat further towards Richmond would have meant an early conclusion to the war. One main event that almost brought this to head was the battle of the Ironclads.<br />
 On March 9, 1862 the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia met in an epic fight at the Battle of Hampton Roads. Never before had their been a battle between two Ironclad vessels. The previous day, on March 8, 1862, the CSS Virginia had showed the exemplary power of an iron warship over a wooden warship as it attack union vessel after union vessel suffering itself little to no damage. One can only begin to imagine the look of horror on the union soldiers faces seeing this monstrous battleship careening towards them firing cannon after cannon upon them and barely suffering any damage in return. When the CSS Virginia finally met up with the USS Monitor the following day, they expected to continue their assault without trouble and move upstream towards Washington. Yet after hours of fighting, the battle eventually ended in a draw. These two ironclads were a wonder of military invention. No one had ever seen anything like them before, nor were they prepared for the amount of destruction one ship could incur. Had the CSS Virginia defeated the Monitor, they may have continued their journey northward toward Washington. Similarly, had the USS Monitor come out victorious, they would have continued on towards Richmond, possibly the end of the war, and the end of slavery. The presence of the union army in Virginia did stay strong throughout the war at Fortress Monroe. This fort never fired a shot, nor was it ever fired upon, yet it played host to a strong union presence in the confederate south throughout the war. As it was, the war went one for three more years but slavery was quickly coming to an end.<br />
 This brought us into our major discussion for today&#39;s class. Who freed the slaves? This question was also conveniently the title for both Barbara J. Fields and James M. McPherson&#39;s articles. The answer is not simple by any means. Fields argues that it was not Lincoln who freed the slaves, but that it was in fact the slaves themselves who brought about their freedom. On the other hand, McPherson argues that while the slaves did have some action in acquiring their freedom, it was Abraham Lincoln who made the end of slavery an overall reality. Is there one clear-cut answer? Is it fair to argue that it was the act of only one person and not an entire group of people? Can we not also look at the possibility that one could not have been successful without the other? Slavery was an institution that was quickly beginning to deteriorate. More and more slaves were making efforts at escaping or trying to acquire their freedom. Abolitionists were beginning to garner more support and people were beginning to realize that these slaves were not property, but people. I don&#39;t think one could have achieved their goal without the other. The slaves were no longer willing to continue living in the conditions they were subjected too, and Abraham Lincoln was the one person who was able to give legal legitimacy to their cause.<br />
 This class only scratched the surface of the Civil War and the conflicts within it whether on the battlefield or the plantation fields. For the second time in less than one hundred years America was undergoing a complete societal and political change where they would emerge the other side a much different country than they had been merely four years before.
</p>
]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>