Social Studies Vocabulary Appomattox Court House civil war

The Civil WarWhat factors and events influenced the outcome of the CivilWar?

Introduction

The Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter in Charleston, SouthCarolina, ended months of confusion. The nation was at war, and thetime had come to choose sides. For most whites in the South, thechoice was obvious. Early in 1861, representatives from six of theseven states that had seceded from the Union met to establish a newnation called the Confederate States of America. Southerners believedthat just as the states had once voluntarily joined the Union, they couldvoluntarily leave it now. The men who fought for the South were prouddefenders of Southern independence.

For many Northerners, the choice was just as obvious. “There can be noneutrals in this war, only patriots—or traitors,” declared SenatorStephen Douglas after the attack of Fort Sumter. Most Northernersviewed the secession of Southern states as a traitorous act of rebellionagainst the United States. They marched off to war eager to defendwhat they viewed as their union, their constitution, and their flag.

Choosing sides was harder for the eight slave states located betweenthe Confederacy and the free states because they had ties to bothsides. Four of these states—Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and NorthCarolina—joined the Confederacy. The western counties of Virginia,however, remained loyal to the Union. They broke away to form a newstate called West Virginia. Although the other four slave states—Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri—stayed in the Union,many of their citizens were sympathetic to the South. These states,along with West Virginia, became known as the “border states.”

Americans began to see why a civil war—a conflict between two groupsof citizens in one country—is the most painful kind of war. It dividedstates, families, and friends. In this lesson, you will learn how this“brothers' war” became the most destructive of all American wars.

T H E C I V I L W A R

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

Social StudiesVocabulary

Appomattox Court House

civil war

Confederacy

Emancipation Proclamation

Gettysburg Address

habeas corpus

1. North Versus South


Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

1. North Versus South

President Abraham Lincoln's quick-and-clear response to the attack onFort Sumter was to call for 75,000 volunteers to come forward topreserve the Union. At the same time, Jefferson Davis, the newlyelected president of the Confederacy, called for volunteers to defendthe South. For the first time, Americans were fighting a civil war.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the North The North began the warwith impressive strengths. Its population was about 22 million,compared to the South's 9 million. Additionally, with about 90 percentof the nation's manufacturing and most of its banks, the North wasboth richer and more technologically advanced than the South.

The North had geographic advantages, too. It had more farms than theSouth to provide food for troops, and its land contained most of thecountry's iron, coal, copper, and gold. The North controlled the seas,and its 21,000 miles of railroad track allowed troops and supplies to betransported wherever they were needed.

The North's greatest weakness was its military leadership. At the startof the war, about one-third of the nation's military officers resigned andreturned to their homes in the South. During much of the war, Lincolnsearched for effective generals who could lead the Union to victory.

Strength and Weaknesses of the South In contrast to the North,the South's great strength was its military leadership. Most of America'sbest military officers were Southerners who chose to fight for theConfederacy, which was not an easy decision for many of them. ColonelRobert E. Lee, for example, was not a supporter of either slavery orsecession, but he decided that he could not fight against his nativeVirginia. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army to become commander inchief of the Confederate forces.

The South had geographic advantages as well. To win the war, theNorth would have to invade and conquer the South, but the sheer sizeof the South made this a daunting task. The South, in contrast, couldwin simply by defending its territory until Northerners became tired offighting.

The South did have an important geographic disadvantage. If the Uniongained control the Mississippi River, it would divide the Confederacy intwo.

The South's main weaknesses were its economy and its transportationsystems. The region's agriculturally based economy could not support a



long war, and the South had few factories to produce guns and othermilitary supplies. The Confederacy also faced serious transportationproblems because the South lacked the railroads needed to haul troopsand supplies over long distances.

Abraham Lincoln Versus Jefferson Davis The North's greatestadvantage was its newly elected president, Abraham Lincoln. Througheven the darkest days of the war, Lincoln never wavered from his beliefthat the Union was perpetual—never to be broken. Throughout hispresidency, Lincoln related the preservation of the Union to the ideals ofthe American Revolution. In his first inaugural address, he said that theUnion was begun by the American Revolution, “matured andcontinued” by the Declaration of Independence, and affirmed by theConstitution.

At the time of the secession crisis, Jefferson Davis was a U.S. senatorfrom Mississippi. A firm believer in states' rights, he resigned his seat inthe Senate when Mississippi left the Union. Like Lincoln, Davis oftenspoke of the American Revolution. When Southerners formed their owngovernment, Davis said in his inaugural address, they “merelyasserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 haddefined to be inalienable.” He believed the South was fighting for thesame freedom cherished by the nation's founders.



2. Bull Run: A Great Awakening

In the spring of 1861, President Lincoln and General Winfield Scottplanned the Union's war strategy. Step one was to surround the Southby sea to cut off its trade. Step two was to divide the Confederacy intosections to prevent one region from helping another. Step three was tocapture Richmond, Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy, and destroythe Confederate government. Journalists called this strategy theAnaconda Plan because it resembled the crushing death grip of ananaconda snake.

Rose Greenhow's Dilemma Most Northerners believed that the warcould be won with a single Union assault on Richmond. In 1861,thousands of volunteers poured into Washington, D.C., shouting, “On toRichmond!” A young widow and Washington social leader named RoseO'Neal Greenhow watched these eager troops carefully.

Greenhow was a strong supporter of the Southern cause and used herfriendship with government officials to learn just when and how theUnion planned to attack Richmond. Her challenge was to find a way todeliver this information to Confederate leaders without beingdiscovered.

The Battle of Bull Run On a hot July morning, long lines of Unionsoldiers marched out of Washington heading for Richmond. Their voices



could be heard singing and cheering across the countryside. Parties ofcivilians followed the army in hopes of seeing the end of the rebellion,adding to the excitement.

The troops would not have been so cheerful had they known whatawaited them at Manassas, a small town on the way to Richmond.Greenhow had managed to warn Southern military leaders of Unionplans by smuggling a coded note to them in a young girl's curls.Southern troops were waiting for the Union forces as they approachedManassas, and the two armies met at a creek known as Bull Run.

At first, a Union victory looked certain, but Confederate generalThomas Jackson and his regiment of Virginians refused to give up.“Look,” shouted South Carolina general Bernard Bee to his men, “thereis Jackson with his Virginians, standing like a stone wall.” Thus inspiredby “Stonewall” Jackson's example, the Confederate lines held firm untilreinforcements arrived. Late that afternoon, Jackson urged his men to“yell like furies” as they charged the Union forces. The chargeoverwhelmed the inexperienced Union troops, who fled in panic back toWashington.

Although the Battle of Bull Run was a smashing victory for the South, itwas a shocking defeat for the North. Lincoln and his generals realizedthat ending the war would not be easy.

Women Support the War Over the next year, both the North andthe South worked to build and train large armies. As men went off towar, women took their places on the home front. Wives and motherssupported their families by running farms and businesses, while otherwomen went to work for the first time in factories or found jobs asnurses, teachers, or government workers.

Women also served the military forces on both sides as messengers,guides, scouts, smugglers, soldiers, and spies. Rose Greenhow wasarrested for spying shortly after the Battle of Bull Run, and despitebeing kept under guard in her Washington home, she managed tocontinue smuggling military secrets to the Confederates. The followingyear, Greenhow was allowed to move to the South, where PresidentJefferson Davis welcomed her as a hero.

Women also volunteered to tend sick and wounded soldiers. DorotheaDix, who was already well known for her efforts to improve thetreatment of the mentally ill, was appointed director of the Unionarmy's nursing service. Dix insisted that all female nurses be over 30years old, plain in appearance, physically strong, and willing to do



unpleasant work. Her rules were so strict that she became known as“Dragon Dix.”

While most nurses worked in military hospitals, Clara Barton followedUnion armies into battle, tending troops where they fell. Latergenerations would remember Barton as the founder of the AmericanRed Cross, but to the soldiers she cared for during the war, she was“the angel of the battlefield.”



3. Antietam: A Bloody Affair

The Battle of Bull Run ended Northerners' hopes for a quick victory. Inthe months that followed that sobering defeat, the Union began tocarry out the Anaconda Plan.

The Anaconda Plan in Action Step one of the Anaconda Plan was toblockade the South's ports and cut off its trade. In 1861, the Unionnavy launched the blockade that, by the end of the year, closed offmost Southern ports to foreign ships. The South had long exported itscotton to Great Britain and France, so the Confederacy looked to GreatBritain to send ships to break through the blockade. The British,however, refused this request, and as a result, the South could notexport cotton to Europe or import needed supplies.

Early in 1862, the Union began to put step two of the Anaconda Planinto action. The strategy, which is similar to those used in future wars,was to divide the Confederacy by gaining control of the MississippiRiver. In April, Union admiral David Farragut led 46 ships up theMississippi River to New Orleans. This was the largest American fleetever assembled, and in the face of such overwhelming force, the citysurrendered without firing a shot.

Meanwhile, Union forces headed by General Ulysses S. Grant began



moving south toward the Mississippi from Illinois. In 1862, Grant won aseries of victories that put Kentucky and much of Tennessee underUnion control. A general of remarkable determination, Grant refused toaccept any battle outcome other than unconditional, or total, surrender.For this reason, U. S. Grant was known to his men as “UnconditionalSurrender” Grant.

Later in 1862, Union general George McClellan sent 100,000 men byship to capture Richmond. Again, a Union victory seemed certain, butdespite being outnumbered, Confederate forces stopped the Unionattack in a series of well-fought battles. Once more, Richmond wassaved.

The Battle of Antietam At this point, General Robert E. Lee, thecommander of the Confederate forces, did the unexpected. He sent histroops across the Potomac River into Maryland, a slave state thatremained in the Union.

By invading Maryland, Lee hoped this show of strength might persuadethe state to join the Confederacy. He also hoped that a Confederatevictory on Union soil would convince European nations to support theSouth.

On a crisp September day in 1862, Confederate and Union armies metnear the Maryland town of Sharpsburg along Antietam Creek. All day,McClellan's troops pounded Lee's badly outnumbered forces, and thefollowing day, Lee retreated to Virginia.

McClellan claimed Antietam as a Union victory, but many who foughtthere viewed the battle as a defeat for both armies. Of the 75,000Union troops who fought at Antietam, about 2,100 were killed andabout 10,300 were wounded or missing. Of the 52,000 Confederateswho fought at Antietam, about 2,770 lost their lives, while 11,000 werewounded or missing. In that single day of fighting, more Americanswere killed than in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American Warcombined. The Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest day of the war.

The New Realities of War The horrifying death toll at Antietamreflected the new realities of warfare. In past wars, battles had beenfought in hand-to-hand combat using bayonets, but improved weaponsmade killing from a distance much easier during the Civil War. Rifles,which replaced muskets, were accurate over long distances. Improvedcannons and artillery also made it easier for armies to attack forcessome distance away. As a result, armies could meet, fight, die, and partwithout either side winning a clear victory.



Medical care was not as advanced as weaponry. Civil War doctors hadno understanding of the causes of infections, and surgeons operated indirty hospital tents with basic instruments. Few bothered to wash theirhands between patients, so infections spread rapidly between patients.The hospital death rate was so high that soldiers often refused medicalcare. An injured Ohio soldier wrote that he chose to return to battlerather than receive treatment from a doctor, “thinking that I had betterdie by rebel bullets than Union quackery [unskilled medical care].”

As staggering as the battle death tolls were, far more soldiers died ofdiseases than wounds. Unsanitary conditions in army camps were sobad that about three men died of typhoid, pneumonia, and otherdiseases for everyone who died in battle. As one soldier observed,“these big battles [are] not as bad as the fever.”



4. Gettysburg: A Turning Point

While neither side won the battle of Antietam, it was enough of avictory for Lincoln to take his first steps toward ending slavery. Whenthe Civil War began, Lincoln had resisted pleas from abolitionists tomake emancipation, or the freeing of slaves, a reason for fighting theConfederacy. He himself opposed slavery, but the purpose of the war,he said, “is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroyslavery.”

The Emancipation Proclamation As the war dragged on, Lincolnchanged his mind and decided to make abolition a goal of the Union.Lincoln realized that European nations that opposed slavery wouldnever support the side that wanted slavery to continue. Freeing slavescould also deprive the Confederacy of a large part of its workforce.

On January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the EmancipationProclamation. The proclamation, or formal order, declared slaves in allConfederate states to be free. This announcement had little immediateeffect on slavery. The Confederate states ignored the document, and



slaves living in states loyal to the Union were not affected by theproclamation.

Still, for many in the North, the Emancipation Proclamation changed thewar into a crusade for freedom. The Declaration of Independence hadsaid that “all men are created equal,” and now the fight was aboutliving up to those words.

The Battle of Gettysburg In the summer of 1863, Lee felt confidentenough to risk another invasion of the North. He hoped to capture aNorthern city and help convince the weary North to seek peace.

Union and Confederate troops met on July 1, 1863, west of Gettysburg,Pennsylvania. The Union troops, about 90,000 strong, were led bynewly appointed General George C. Meade. After a brief skirmish, theyoccupied four miles of high ground along an area known as CemeteryRidge. About a mile to the west, some 75,000 Confederate troopsgathered behind Seminary Ridge.

The following day, the Confederates attempted to find weak spots in theUnion position, but the Union lines held firm. On the third day, Leeordered an all-out attack on the center of the Union line. Cannons filledthe air with smoke and thunder. George Pickett led 15,000 Confederatesoldiers in a charge across the low ground separating the two forces.

Pickett's charge marked the northernmost point reached by Southerntroops during the war. However, as Confederate troops pressedforward, Union gunners opened great holes in their advancing lines.Those men who managed to make their way to Cemetery Ridge werestruck down by Union soldiers in hand-to-hand combat.

Although Gettysburg was a victory for the Union, the losses on bothsides were staggering. More than 17,500 Union soldiers and 23,000Confederate troops were killed or wounded in three days of battle. Lee,who lost about a third of his army, withdrew to Virginia. From this pointon, he would only wage a defensive war on Southern soil.



Opposition on the Union Home Front Despite the victory atGettysburg, Lincoln faced a number of problems on the home front,including opposition to the war itself. A group of Northern Democratswere more interested in restoring peace than in saving the Union orending slavery. Republicans called these Democrats “Copperheads”after a poisonous snake with that name.

Other Northerners opposed the war because they were sympathetic tothe Confederate cause. When a proslavery mob attacked Union soldiersmarching through Maryland, Lincoln sent in troops to maintain order. Healso used his constitutional power to temporarily suspend the right ofhabeas corpus. During the national emergency, citizens no longer hadthe right to appear before a court to face charges, and people whowere suspected of disloyalty were jailed without being charged for acrime.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address In 1863, President Lincoln traveledto Gettysburg. Thousands of the men who died there had been buriedin a new cemetery. Lincoln was among those invited to speak at thededication of this new burial ground. The nation would never forgetLincoln's Gettysburg Address.

The president deliberately spoke of the war in words that echoed theDeclaration of Independence. The “great civil war,” he said, was testingwhether a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the propositionthat all men are created equal . . . can long endure.” He spoke of thebrave men, “living and dead,” who had fought to defend that ideal.



“The world . . . can never forget what they did here.” Finally, he calledon Americans to remain

dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that fromthese honored dead we take increased devotion to thatcause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall nothave died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have anew birth of freedom—and that government of the people,by the people, for the people, shall not perish from theearth.

5. Vicksburg: A Besieged City

The Civil War was a war of many technological firsts. It was the firstAmerican war to use railroads to move troops and to keep themsupplied. It was the first war in which telegraphs were used tocommunicate with distant armies, and it was the first conflict to berecorded in photographs. It was also the first to see combat betweenarmor-plated steamships.



The Merrimac and the Monitor Early in the war, Union forceswithdrew from the navy yard in Norfolk, Virginia, but they left behind awarship named the Merrimac. The Confederacy, which began the warwith no navy, covered the wooden Merrimac with iron plates and addeda powerful ram to its prow.

In response, the Union navy built its own ironclad ship called theMonitor in less than 100 days. Said to resemble a “cheese box on araft,” the Monitor had a flat deck and two heavy guns in a revolvingturret.

In March 1862, the Merrimac, which the Confederates had renamed theVirginia, steamed into Chesapeake Bay to attack Union ships. Withcannonballs harmlessly bouncing off its sides, the iron monsterdestroyed three wooden ships and threatened the entire Unionblockade fleet.

The next morning, the Virginia was met by the Monitor, and the twoironclads exchanged shots for hours before withdrawing. Neither washarmed, but neither could claim victory.

The battle of the Merrimac and the Monitor demonstrated that ironcladships were superior to wooden vessels, so both sides started addingironclads to their navies. The South, however, was never able to buildenough ships to end the Union blockade of Southern harbors.

Control of the Mississippi Ironclads were part of the Union'scampaign to divide the South by taking control of the Mississippi River.After seizing New Orleans in 1862, Admiral David Farragut moved upthe Mississippi to capture the cities of Baton Rouge and Natchez. At thesame time, other Union ships gained control of Memphis, Tennessee.

The Union now controlled both ends of the Mississippi, which preventedthe South from moving men and supplies up and down the river.However, the North was similarly unable to move along the river, aslong as the Confederates continued to control one key location—Vicksburg, Mississippi.

The Siege of Vicksburg Located on a bluff overlooking a hairpin turnin the Mississippi River, the town of Vicksburg was easy to defend anddifficult to capture. Whoever held Vicksburg could, with a few well-placed cannons, control movement along the Mississippi. Even Farraguthad to admit to fellow officer David Porter that ships “cannot crawl uphills 300 feet high.” An army would be needed to capture Vicksburg.

In May 1863, General Ulysses S. Grant battled his way to Vicksburg with



the needed army, and for six weeks, Union gunboats shelled the cityfrom the river while Grant's army bombarded it from land. Slowly butsurely, the Union troops burrowed toward the city in trenches andtunnels.

As shells pounded the city, people in Vicksburg dug caves into thehillsides for protection. To survive, they ate horses, mules, and breadmade of corn and dried peas. “It had the properties of Indian rubber,”said one Confederate soldier, “and was worse than leather to digest.”

Low on food and supplies, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, 1863. TheMississippi was now a Union waterway, and the Confederacy wasdivided in two.

Problems on the Confederate Home Front As the war raged on,life in the South became grim. Because of the blockade, imported goodsdisappeared from stores, and what few items were available wereextremely expensive.

Unable to sell their tobacco and cotton to the North or to othercountries, farmers planted food crops instead. Still, the South was oftenhungry. Invading Union armies destroyed crops and cut rail lines,making it difficult to transport food and supplies to Southern cities andarmy camps.

As clothing wore out, Southerners made do with patches andhomespun cloth. At the beginning of the war, Mary Boykin Chesnut hadwritten of well-dressed Confederate troops in her journal, but by 1863,she was writing of soldiers dressed in “rags and tags.”

By 1864, Southerners were writing letters like this one to soldiers onthe battlefront: “We haven't got nothing in the house to eat but a littlebit o' meal. I don't want to you to stop fighten them yankees . . . but tryand get off and come home and fix us all up some.” Many soldiersfound it difficult to resist such pleas, even if going home meantdeserting their units.





6. Fort Wagner: African Americans and the War

Early in the war, abolitionists had urged Congress to recruit AfricanAmericans for the army. At first, most Northerners regarded the conflictas “a white man's war,” but Congress finally opened the door to blackrecruits in 1862. About 186,000 African Americans, many of themformer slaves, enlisted in the Union army, and another 30,000 AfricanAmericans joined the Union navy.

The Massachusetts 54th Regiment Massachusetts was one of thefirst states to organize black regiments. The most famous was the 54thMassachusetts Infantry, commanded by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.Two of the 54th Infantry's 1,000 soldiers were sons of FrederickDouglass.

The men of the Massachusetts 54th were paid less than white soldiers.When the black soldiers learned this, they protested the unequaltreatment by refusing to accept any pay at all. In a letter to Lincoln,Corporal James Henry Gooding asked, “Are we Soldiers, or are weLaborers? . . . We have done a Soldier's duty. Why can't we have aSoldier's pay?” At Lincoln's urging, Congress finally granted blacksoldiers equal pay.



After three months of training, the Massachusetts 54th was sent toSouth Carolina to participate in an attack on Fort Wagner outside ofCharleston. As they prepared for battle, the men of the 54th faced theusual worries of untested troops, but they also faced the added fearthat if captured, they might be sold into slavery.

African Americans at War The assault on Fort Wagner was animpossible mission. To reach the fort, troops had to cross 200 yards ofopen, sandy beach as rifle and cannon fire poured down on them. Afterlosing nearly half of their men, the survivors of the 54th regimentretreated, but their bravery won them widespread respect.

During the war, 166 African American regiments fought in nearly 500battles. In addition to initially receiving less pay than white soldiers,black soldiers often received little training and poor equipment. Theyalso risked death or enslavement if captured. Still, African Americansfought with great courage to save the Union.

7. Appomattox: Total War Brings an End

During the first years of the war, Lincoln had searched for acommander who was willing to fight the Confederates. The president



finally found the leader he needed in General Grant, whom he madecommander of the Union forces in March 1864. Grant's views on warwere quite straightforward: “The art of war is simple enough. Find outwhere your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him ashard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on.”

Using this strategy, Grant mapped out a strategy for ending the war. Hewould lead a large force against Lee to capture Richmond, and at thesame time, General William Tecumseh Sherman would lead a secondarmy into Georgia to capture Atlanta.

Grant Invades Virginia In May 1864, General Grant invaded Virginiawith a force of more than 100,000 men and met Lee's army of 60,000in a dense forest known as the Wilderness. In two days of fiercefighting, Grant lost 18,000 men but still refused to retreat. “I propose tofight it out along this line,” he said, “if it takes all summer.” He followedLee's army to Cold Harbor, Virginia, where he lost 7,000 men in 15minutes of fighting.

By the time the two forces reached Petersburg, a railroad center 20miles south of Richmond, Grant's losses almost equaled Lee's entirearmy. However, Grant was able to reinforce his army with fresh troops,whereas Lee, who had also suffered heavy losses, could not.

Total War Grant believed in total war—war on the enemy's will tofight and its ability to support an army. With his army tied down innorthern Virginia, Grant ordered General Philip Sheridan to wage totalwar in Virginia's grain-rich Shenandoah Valley. “Let that valley be soleft that crows flying over it will have to carry their rations along withthem,” ordered Grant.



In May 1864, General Sherman left Tennessee for Georgia with ordersto inflict “all the damage you can against their war resources.” InSeptember, Sherman and his army reached Atlanta, the South's mostimportant rail and manufacturing center, and set the city ablaze.

The Reelection of Lincoln Any hope of victory for the South lay inthe defeat of President Lincoln in the election of 1864. NorthernDemocrats nominated General George McClellan to run against Lincoln.Knowing that the North was weary of war, McClellan urged animmediate end to the conflict.

Lincoln doubted he would win reelection, as Grant seemed stuck innorthern Virginia and there was no end in sight to the appallingbloodletting. Luckily for the president, Sheridan's destruction of theShenandoah Valley and Sherman's capture of Atlanta occurred just intime to rescue his campaign. These victories changed Northernopinions of Lincoln and his prospects for ending the war. In November,Lincoln was reelected.

Sherman's March Through Georgia After burning Atlanta,Sherman marched his army across the state toward Savannah,promising to “make Georgia howl.” His purpose was to destroy the lastuntouched supply base for the Confederacy.

As they marched through Georgia, Sherman's troops destroyedeverything of value that they found. They trampled or burned fields,stripped houses of their valuables, and burned supplies of hay and



food. Dead horses, hogs, and cattle that his troops could not eat orcarry away lined the roads. The troops destroyed everything useful in a60-mile-wide path, a strategy that was later used in future wars.

In December 1864, Sherman captured Savannah, Georgia, and fromthere, he turned north and destroyed all opposition in the Carolinas.Marching 425 miles in 50 days, he reached Raleigh, North Carolina, byMarch 1865, and there he waited for Grant's final attack on Richmond.

The War Ends For nine months, Grant's forces battered Lee's armyat Petersburg, the gateway to Richmond. On April 1, 1865, the Unionforces finally broke through Confederate lines to capture the city, andUnion troops marched into Richmond two days later.

Grant's soldiers moved quickly to surround Lee's army. Lee told hisofficers, “There is nothing left for me to do but go and see GeneralGrant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.”

On April 9, 1865, General Lee, in full dress uniform, arrived at WilmerMcLean's house in the village of Appomattox Court House . He wasthere to surrender his army to General Grant, who met him in a mud-splattered and crumpled uniform.



Grant's terms of surrender were generous and enabled Confederatesoldiers to go home if they promised to discontinue the fighting. Heallowed the soldiers to return home with their own horses and mules,which they would need for spring plowing, and officers were permittedto keep their swords and weapons. Additionally, Grant ordered thatfood be sent to Lee's men. Lee accepted the terms.

As Lee returned to his headquarters, Union troops began to shoot theirguns and cheer wildly. Grant told them to stop celebrating. “The war isover,” he said, “the rebels are our countrymen again.”

“Touched by Fire” No one who fought in the Civil War would everforget the intensity of the experience. “In our youth,” wrote OliverWendell Holmes Jr., “our hearts were touched by fire.”

The nation, too, had been touched by fire, with many comparing theCivil War to a great furnace that had burned away one country andforged a new one in its place. In this new country, neither slavery northe right to secession had any place. Just as Lincoln had said, the Unionwas a single whole, not a collection of sovereign states. Before the war,Americans tended to say “the United States are,” but after the war,they said “the United States is.”

These momentous changes came at a horrifying cost. Billions of dollarshad been spent on the conflict. With more than 620,000 Union andConfederate soldiers dead, almost every family had lost a member or afriend. Thousands more came home missing an arm or a leg. With two-fifths of livestock destroyed and acres of cropland left in ruins, it wouldtake generations for the South to recover from the environmentaldestruction wrought by the war.

Many historians have called the Civil War the first truly modern war. Itwas the first war to reflect the technology of the Industrial Revolution:railroads, the telegraph, armored ships, more accurate and destructiveweaponry. It also introduced total war—war between whole societies,not just uniformed armies.

As devastating as it was, the Civil War left many issues unsettled. Theold society of the South had been destroyed, but the memory of itlingered. Thousands of white Southerners clung to a romantic picture ofthe prewar South, and decaying plantation houses became shrines. Inthe years that followed, many in the South would try to re-create theirvanished way of life. Secession and slavery were gone, but conflictsover states' rights and the status of African Americans would continuelong into the future.





Lesson Summary

In this lesson, you read about the Civil War between the Unionand the Confederacy.

The North Versus the South Both sides had strengths andweaknesses as they entered the war. The North had a larger populationand more factories and railroads than the South, but it lacked strongmilitary leadership. The South had serious economic and transportationproblems, but it had better military leadership and the advantage offighting a defensive war.

Bull Run: An Awakening The Battle of Bull Run in 1861 was a victoryfor the Confederacy and showed the Union that ending the war wouldnot be easy. As the North and South built their armies, womensupported their families and the military forces.

Antietam: A Bloody Affair Using a strategy called the Anaconda Plan,Union forces blockaded Southern ports and gained control of theMississippi River. High death tolls at the Battle of Antietam reflected



new methods of warfare, including improved weapons.

Gettysburg: A Turning Point The Battle of Gettysburg ended theSouth's final attempt to invade the North. From that point on,Confederate forces fought a defensive war in Southern territory.

Vicksburg: A Besieged City In 1863, Confederate forces continued tohold Vicksburg, a key location on the Mississippi River. CapturingVicksburg would divide the Confederacy in two and allow the Union tocontrol the Mississippi River. After weeks of bombardment, Vicksburgsurrendered.

Fort Wagner: African Americans and the War African Americanswere permitted to join Union military forces in 1862, and theyeventually fought in nearly 500 battles. The most famous blackregiment was the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, which fought in theBattle of Fort Wagner.

Appomattox: Total War Brings an End In April 1865, Union forcescaptured the Confederate capital of Richmond and surrounded GeneralLee's Confederate army. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

Reading Further

Divided House, Divided Families

Before the Civil War began, Abraham Lincoln had warned, “Ahouse divided against itself cannot stand.” However, thenation did not pay attention to his words and instead begandrawing battle lines between the North and South. While thechoice was clear for most Americans, some—especially those



who lived in the border states—faced a difficult and painfuldecision. Not only was the country divided by the Civil War, butmany families were, too.

Even as the Civil War began, Benjamin Hardin Helm had the prospect ofa bright future in front of him. President Lincoln had offered him a jobthat many people wanted: a position in the Union army that paid welland also did not require Helm to fight. Although Helm told the presidentthat “the position you offer me is beyond what I had expected in mymost hopeful dreams,” he still struggled to decide whether or not totake it.

Helm came from a prominent family in Kentucky, a border state dividedin its loyalties between North and South. He had served in the statelegislature and had also been an officer in the U.S. Army. While Helmand many of his family members and friends favored the South, he alsohad friends and family who supported the North, including his father, aformer governor.

There was a further complication since Helm was married to EmilieTodd, a sister of Mary Todd Lincoln, President Lincoln's wife. BecauseHelm was the president's brother-in-law, he and Emilie were close tothe Lincolns.

Even though Lincoln's offer was generous, Helm struggled with hisdecision because, by accepting it, he would be turning against much ofhis family, including members who had already joined the Confederatearmy. However, by refusing it, he would cut himself off from othermembers of the family, such as the Lincolns. “I had a bitter strugglewith myself,” he told a friend.

In the end, Helm turned down the president's offer. It was “the mostpainful moment of my life,” he said, but he felt he could not take uparms against the South. Instead, he joined the Confederate cause tofight against the Union.

Helm's dilemma, though difficult, was not unusual by any means. Manypeople, especially those who lived in border states like Kentucky,Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, found themselves torn betweencompeting loyalties during the Civil War. Although these statesremained in the Union, many of their citizens felt sympathy for theSouth. Families in border states were often deeply divided over the CivilWar.



Lee's Decision

Virginia was a border state that ultimately decided to join theConfederacy. Robert E. Lee, one of Virginia's military heroes, faced atough decision similar to that of Hardin Helm. Like Helm, Lincoln hadoffered Lee a key position in the Union army that he chose to turndown, with great misgivings.

Before the war, Lee, a graduate of West Point, was one of the mostpromising officers in the U.S. Army and had served with distinctionduring the Mexican War. As the Civil War began, Lincoln sent word toLee offering him command of the Union army, which Lee felt honored toreceive.

Despite Lee's support of the Union and belief that secession was amistake, he considered himself to be a loyal Virginian above all andwould not turn against his home state. “With all my devotion to theUnion,” he wrote, “I have not been able to . . . raise my hand againstmy relatives, my children, my home.”



Lee resigned his position and became a Confederate general. The manwho might have led the Union army eventually became the topcommander of the Confederate forces.

Lincoln's Family Troubles

Robert E. Lee's decision probably came as little surprise to Lincoln, whoknew that Southern officers had divided loyalties in the same way thatstates and families did. Lincoln's own family was a case in point.

Although the president had little immediate family of his own, his wife'sfamily, the Todds, was quite large. Mary Todd Lincoln had 14 brothersand sisters, all from the border state of Kentucky. Of these, 6 supportedthe Union and 8 backed the Confederacy, and several of her brothersfought in the Confederate army.

The Todds were important to Lincoln, and he did everything in hispower to help them, even when they turned against him. Just as hetried to hold the nation together, he tried to keep the family together.However, this was too much for even the president to accomplish.

As Kentucky Goes, So Goes the Nation

President Lincoln, who had been born in Kentucky just 100 miles awayfrom the Confederate leader Jefferson Davis, saw the state as a symbolof the nation's divisions. With two-fifths of white soldiers from Kentuckychoosing to fight for the Confederacy and three-fifths for the Union, noother state was split so evenly between North and South.

Believing it to be essential to keep Kentucky in the Union, Lincoln said,“I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.”He continued, “Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think,Maryland.” Officially, Kentucky remained neutral in the war, and Lincolndid what he could to keep it from seceding. “I hope to have God on myside,” he supposedly said, “but I must have Kentucky.”

Fathers and Sons Divided

Among Kentucky families, some of the bitterest divisions arose betweenfathers and sons. The Crittenden family was one such example.

Early in the war, John J. Crittenden, a respected member of Congresswho had fought to prevent the Civil War, wrote to his oldest son,George, urging him to remain loyal to the Union. Kentucky “loves theUnion,” he wrote, “and will cling to it as long as possible. And so, I



hope, will you.” Despite his words, George joined the Confederatearmy, forcing Crittenden to cut off all contact with his son.

Another case of family strife involved the Breckenridge family. AlthoughRobert J. Breckenridge was a strong Union supporter, his son Robert Jr.decided to join the Confederacy and wrote his father, “Be . . . as lenientas possible in your thoughts of me.” Breckenridge was stunned andwrote to his other son, Willie, saying, “[Your brother] has hopelesslyruined himself.” When Willie also joined the Confederacy, Breckenridgewas doubly stricken.

A young Kentuckian named Henry Lane Stone left his home in secretone evening to join the rebel forces, knowing that his father andbrothers would object to his decision to join the Confederacy. One of hisbrothers had already joined the Union Army. A month later, Stone wrotehome to his father. “I can imagine how your feelings are, one son in theNorthern and another in the Southern army,” he wrote. “But so it is . . .Your rebelling son, Henry.”

Brother Against Brother

Stories of two siblings fighting on opposing sides during the Civil War,like Henry Stone and his brother, were not uncommon and led to thewar being nicknamed the “brothers' war.” One notable case of brotheragainst brother involved the Campbell brothers from Scotland.

After their parents died, James and Alexander Campbell chose to cometo America in the 1850s. Once they arrived, James settled in Charleston,South Carolina, while Alexander moved to New York. When the warbegan, both signed up to fight, though on opposite sides.

In June 1862, Alexander's regiment was part of an invasion force sent toretake Charleston from the Confederates. At the Battle ofSecessionville, Union troops attacked Ft. Lamar, one of the fortsguarding the city, and although neither brother knew it at the time,they were both involved in the battle. Alexander held the U.S. flag atthe base of the fort's walls, while James stood above, firing down on theattackers. James later wrote his brother,

I was astonished to hear from the prisoners that you [were]color Bearer of the Regiment that assaulted the Battery . . .I hope you and I will never again meet . . . on the Battlefieldbut if such should be the case . . . I will strive to dischargemy duty to my country and my cause.



The two brothers fought in other battles of the war, but never again inthe same place. After the war, they corresponded with each other andremained on good terms.

Another soldier, Matthew H. Peters, later recounted his own experienceof the brothers' war in a poem:

Both of us fought for what we thought right,But of duty each took a different view;Both of us entered the perilous fightAnd did our duty as patriots do—But he wore the gray and I wore the blue.—Matthew H. Peters, “My Brother and I,” 1893

Unlike these soldiers, Hardin Helm did not survive the war, and Lincolnwas devastated when he received the news that Helm had been killedat the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863. “I never saw Mr. Lincoln moremoved than when he heard of the death of his young brother-in-law,”said a friend. Although Helm had died fighting for the Confederacy, hewas still family to the Lincolns.

For Lincoln, Helm's death was yet another tragedy of the dividednation. Families and communities had been torn apart by the war, andit would take years for the wounds to heal.







Florida and the Civil War

Florida chose to secede from the United States on January 10, 1861. Ofthe Confederate states, Florida had by far the fewest people.Nevertheless, it sent about 16,000 soldiers to battle. Most fought withthe Confederate army. About 2,000 fought on the Union side.

Other Floridians served the Confederate cause by producing food andother supplies. Many men were away at war. So women did the work ofthe men as well as their own. The Union tried to block Confederatesupplies from reaching the battlefield. But Florida has a long coastline.Many ships got through the Union blockade. Florida supplied beef, salt,and other badly needed items to Confederate troops.

Florida was far from most Civil War battlefields. The state did seefighting, however.

Like South Carolina, Florida was home to a Union fort. It was called FortPickens and it was located at Pensacola. Several times Confederatestried to capture the fort. Union forces fought them off. The Union heldFort Pickens for the entire war. In 1863, the Union also captured Fort



Brooke, near Tampa.

In fact, Union troops held many places along Florida's coast. But theycould not keep Floridians from supplying Confederate armieselsewhere.

The Union tried to stop Florida's Confederate troops. On February 20,1864, a large Union force marched out of Jacksonville. They were toblock a shipment of beef from the state. Confederates under GeneralJoseph Finegan met them at a place called Olustee, near Lake City innorthern Florida. After the bloody Battle of Olustee, Union troopsmarched back to Jacksonville in defeat.

One place the Union never captured was Tallahassee. On March 4,1865, they tried. A Confederate force stopped them in the Battle ofNatural Bridge. Florida's capital was one of the few Confederatecapitals the Union never captured.

Elsewhere in Florida, small groups known as the Cow Cavalry helpedkeep people safe and working. They fought many small battles withUnion troops.

What Were the Causes of the Civil War?

In this lesson, you learned about some of the most important momentsof the Civil War. But what were the causes of the Civil War? Primarysources from this time period can help historians answer this question.Below, you will read four primary sources from different historicalfigures, all of which discuss events leading up to the Civil War.



The first excerpt is from a speech Frederick Douglass gave in 1877.Douglass was an African American escaped slave who played aprominent role in the abolitionist cause. In an attempt to abolishslavery, he often spoke at events and even published some books,most notably Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an AmericanSlave.

Next you'll read an excerpt of the Supreme Court decision in the caseof Dred Scott, an African American slave, who was attempting to sue forhis freedom in federal court. The majority opinion was written on behalfof the court by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, and delivered on March 6,1857. Scott had traveled with his owner to Illinois, a free state, andWisconsin, a free territory. When he returned to Missouri, Scott arguedthat his stay in Illinois and Wisconsin had made him a free man. Aftermuch legal debate, Scott's case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Then, you'll analyze U.S. Secretary of War John B. Floyd's account of theraid on Harpers Ferry that took place in 1859. During this raid, a whiteabolitionist named John Brown led a party of men who seized the U.S.armory located in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, with hopes of starting an



armed slave rebellion. Floyd was the former governor of Virginia.

Finally, you'll examine a speech given by Jefferson Davis, who went onto become the President of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In1861, after the election of President Lincoln, Southern states beganseceding from the Union. On January 21st of that year, Davis deliveredhis so-called “Farewell Address” before Congress to address thedeconstruction of the Union.

As you read, you should be considering how each of the eventsdiscussed in the primary sources led to the Civil War. Do these primarysources seem to support or condemn the idea of a civil war? Were thecreators of these sources justified or biased in their opinions? Howmight their actions have led to war?

Document #1: Excerpt from "Country, Conscience, andthe Anti-Slavery Cause," speech before the AmericanAnti-Slavery Society by Frederick Douglass, May 11,1847

You are aware, doubtless, that my object in going from thiscountry, was to get beyond the reach of the clutch of theman who claimed to own me as his property. I had writtena book giving a history of that portion of my life spent inthe gall and bitterness and degradation of Slavery, and inwhich I also identified my oppressors as the perpetrators ofsome of the most atrocious crimes. This had deeplyincensed them against me, and stirred up within them thepurpose of revenge, and my whereabouts being known, Ibelieved it necessary for me, if I would preserve my liberty,to leave the shores of America, and take up my abode insome other land, at least until the excitement occasionedby the publication of my Narrative had subsided. I went toEngland, monarchical England, to get rid of DemocraticSlavery; and I must confess that, at the very threshold, Iwas satisfied that I had gone to the right place. Say whatyou will of England—of the degradation—of the poverty—and there is much of it there—say what you will of theoppression and suffering going on in England at this time,there is Liberty there—there is Freedom there, not only forthe white man, but for the black man also. The instant Istepped upon the shore, and looked into the faces of thecrowd around me, I saw in every man a recognition of mymanhood, and an absence, a perfect absence, of



everything like that disgusting hate with which we arepursued in this country. [Cheers.] I looked around in vain tosee in any man's face a token of the slightest aversion tome on account of my complexion. Even the cabmendemeaned themselves to me as they did to other men, andthe very dogs and pigs of old England treated me as aman! I cannot, however, my friends, dwell upon this anti-Prejudice, or rather the many illustrations of the absence ofPrejudice against Color in England—but will proceed, atonce, to defend the Right and Duty of invoking English aidand English sympathy for the overthrow of AmericanSlavery, for the education of Colored Americans, and toforward in every way, the interests of humanity; inasmuchas the right of appealing to England for aid in overthrowingSlavery in this country, has been called in question, inpublic meetings and by the press, in this city.

Document #2: Excerpt from the Dred Scott Decision,Chief Justice Taney, 1857

The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestorswere imported into this country and sold as slaves becomea member of the political community formed and broughtinto existence by the Constitution of the United States, andas such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges,and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to thecitizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in acourt of the United States in the cases specified in theConstitution?

. . . The words "people of the United States" and "citizens"are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. Theyboth describe the political body who, according to ourrepublican institutions, form the sovereignty and who holdthe power and conduct the Government through theirrepresentatives. They are what we familiarly call the"sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people,and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The questionbefore us is whether the class of persons described in theplea in abatement compose a portion of this people, andare constituent members of this sovereignty? We thinkthey are not, and that they are not included, and were notintended to be included, under the word "citizens" in theConstitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights



and privileges which that instrument provides for andsecures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary,they were at that time considered as a subordinate andinferior class of beings who had been subjugated by thedominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yetremained subject to their authority, and had no rights orprivileges but such as those who held the power and theGovernment might choose to grant them.

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justiceor injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. Thedecision of that question belonged to the political orlawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereigntyand framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is tointerpret the instrument they have framed with the bestlights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it aswe find it, according to its true intent and meaning when itwas adopted. . . .

Document #3: Excerpt from "Report of the Secretary ofWar—Harper's Ferry" by Secretary of War John B. Floydon December 1, 1859

The recent conspiracy and effort at insurrection andplunder attempted at Harper's Ferry constitutes altogetherone of the most surprising and starting episodes in thehistory of our country. A fanatical man, stimulated torecklessness and desperation by the constant teachingsand intemperate appeals of wild and treasonableenthusiasts, unrestrained by the Constitution and laws ofthe land, by the precepts of religion, by the appeals ofhumanity or of mercy, formed a conspiracy to make asudden descend upon the people of Harper's Ferry, to robthe arsenal, plunder the public property, and stir up servileinsurrection. The plan devised and the mode of executing itwere such as to promise every hope of success. Theconspirators rented a farm in the State of Maryland, withina few miles of Harper's Ferry, where they remained forsome months, apparently following peaceful, probablyuseful pursuits; during which time they took effectualmeans to conciliate the kind feelings of the people of theadjacent country, and particularly those of the village ofHarper's Ferry. They became perfectly familiar with all thelocalities of the place, streets, houses, arsenals and



workshops, so that its contemplated seizure might beeffected at any hour of the night without confusion or anyusual movement calculated to attract attention or arousesuspicion. They knew, perfectly, the universal andunsuspecting security of the entire population. Up to thenight of that attack there never was a man, within theCommonwealth of Virginia, who went to his bed with theslightest apprehension of danger from attack by citizens ofthe United States in any numbers, from any region, or forany purpose whatever. The sense of profound security wasperfect and absolute. Having also no apprehensionwhatever of the slave population (and this assurance wasfully justified by the event), nothing could be morefavorable for the consummation of the diabolical designs ofthe conspirators. Having cut the telegraphic wires, theyentered, under the cover of night, unmolested andunobserved, into the village, seized upon the solitarywatchman placed at the arsenal as protection against fireonly, and possessed themselves speedily of all thebuildings containing arms or suitable for defense. The nextmovement was to seize the principal men of the place, withwhom their long residence near there had made themacquainted, and confine them securely under their owncontrol. These arrests were made singly, and, in everyinstance, by several perfectly armed men, who conveyedtheir prisoners to the place of confinement. This processwas carried on throughout the night, and extended not onlyto the village, but to the country around.

Document #4: Excerpt from Jefferson Davis's FarewellAddress on retiring from the Senate, January 21, 1861

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression ofmine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain inthe Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations bythe nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.Nullification and secession, so often confounded, areindeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedywhich it is sought to apply within the Union, and againstthe agent of the States. It is only to be justified when theagent has violated his constitutional obligation, and aState, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of theagent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of theUnion for a decision; but when the States themselves, and



when the people of the States, have so acted as toconvince us that they will not regard our constitutionalrights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrineof secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and whohas been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union,advocated the doctrine of nullification, because itpreserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seatedattachment to the Union, his determination to find someremedy for existing ills short of a severance of the tieswhich bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr.[John C.] Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification,which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limitsof State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be ameans of bringing the agent before the tribunal of theStates for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is tobe justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign.There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time maycome again, when a better comprehension of the theory ofour Government, and the inalienable rights of the people ofthe States, will prevent any one from denying that eachState is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants whichit has made to any agent whomsoever.

__________________________________________________

• “Country, Conscience, and the Anti-Slavery Cause," an addressdelivered in New York, New York, May 11, 1847.

Entire Selection: http://glc.yale.edu/country-conscience-and-anti-slavery-cause

Accessed March, 2017

• 60 U.S. 393. Scott v. Sandford

Entire Selection:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393#writing-USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO




• "Report of the Secretary of War—Harper's Ferry" by Secretary of WarJohn B. Floyd on December 1, 1859 in United States CongressionalSerial Set, volume 1023, Issue 5, 36th Congress, 1st Session, p. 227.

Entire Selection: https://books.google.com/books?id=LHRHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA227&lpg


• "On Retiring from the Senate," speech delivered in the Senate byJefferson Davis on January 21, 1861.

Entire Selection:https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/DavisSpeech1861.pdfL


Generals and Soldiers of the Civil War

The Civil War was a tragedy for the men who served on both sides.More than 3 million soldiers wore the uniforms of the Blue and Gray.They fought in over 10,000 engagements. Horribly, 620,000 died. It wasthe bloodiest war in American history.

Following are brief biographies and statements of four men who served.Two were generals—the most famous of the war. Two were men thatfew have heard of, but whose words speak for countless others.

First you will read an excerpt of a letter written just eight days after thebeginning of the Civil War by Robert E. Lee, the man who becamecommander in chief of the Confederate forces.Next you'll read anexcerpt from the memoirs of his Union counterpart, General Ulysses S.Grant, who had led the Union forces and been president of the UnitedStates when he wrote. Then we turn to two enlisted men, Robert W.Banks, who was a Confederate private when he wrote a letter to hissister, and Sullivan Ballou, a Union major who wrote to his wife. As youread, ask yourself what motivated these men to fight in such a terribleconflict.

Robert E. Lee (1807–1870)



The commander in chief of the Confederate armies was Robert E. Lee.He was born in Virginia, the son of a Revolutionary War hero. Leefollowed in his father's footsteps and joined the military. He graduatedfrom West Point in 1829 and distinguished himself in battle during theMexican-American War. Some of his fellow soldiers were men whowould become generals—Grant, Meade, McClellan, Hooker, Burnside,Beauregard, and Johnston. They would all meet again in war—but notall would be on the same side.

Lee was serving in Texas when he was called to Washington, D.C., inearly 1861. When Virginia seceded, Lee faced a terrible choice—toserve his nation or protect his state. After agonizing over the decision,he resigned from the army and went home to Virginia to commandConfederate troops. By 1862, Lee was commanding the entire Army ofNorthern Virginia. His skillful leadership was admired in the North andSouth alike. He wrote about his choice to defend the South in a letter tohis sister in 1861.

With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyaltyand duty of an American citizen, I have not been able tomake up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives,my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my



commission in the Army, and save in defense of my nativeState, with the sincere hope that my poor services maynever be needed, I hope I may never be called on to drawmy sword. . . .

Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885)

Ulysses S. Grant was born in Ohio. He graduated from West Point in1843. Like Lee, he served during the Mexican War. Later, after Grantmarried and had children, he was assigned to lonely military outposts inthe West. He began drinking and eventually resigned from the army.Afterward, he struggled to make a living in business.

When the Civil War broke out, Grant immediately offered his services.At first he was turned down. But with the help of a congressman, hetook commands in Missouri and Tennessee. Grant's success in battlecaught the attention of President Lincoln. Late in the war, Lincoln turnedto Grant to command the largest Union army and end the war.

Grant's fame as a general helped him win election as president in 1868.In his memoirs, Grant made the following statement about why hechose to serve the Union.

The 4th of March, 1861, came, and Abraham Lincoln wassworn to maintain the Union against all its enemies. Thesecession of one State after another followed, until elevenhad gone out. On the fifth of April Fort Sumter, a Nationalfort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, was firedupon by the Southerners and a few days after wascaptured. The Confederates proclaimed themselves aliens,and thereby debarred [excluded] themselves of all right toclaim protection under the Constitution of the UnitedStates. We did not admit the fact that they were aliens, butall the same, they debarred themselves of the right toexpect better treatment than people of any other foreignstate who make war upon an independent nation. Upon thefiring on Sumter President Lincoln issued his first call for . .. 75,000 volunteers . . . There was not a state in the Northof a million of inhabitants that would not have furnished theentire number faster than arms could have been suppliedto them, if it had been necessary.

Robert W. Banks (1843–1919)

Robert W. Banks served as a private in the Confederacy during the Civil



War. This excerpt from an 1862 letter to his sister, written when he was19 years old, reveals something about his motives for fighting.

Dear Sister Mat [Martha Jane Banks],

. . . I dread this winter very much—Many a poor fellow inour company will “yield his carcass to the dust” before 'tisover—I can stand it as well as any of them—I believe that'twill be no child's play for any of us. Infantry have an easytime in camp, but it is fully compensated for when, after aheavy march of a hundred or two miles, the bloody conflictcomes on—I do not regret one particle, enlisting, if 'twereto do over I would volunteer again, but would not go as aprivate—But enough of this, I will not repine at the past,but hope that before another moon shall have passed tostrike a blow for my country that will tell. Although, wehave so many hardships to undergo, if I am but able torender any assistance to the land of my nativity either bysending a Yankee home with a “bug in his ear” or merelyby following General Price on another “wild goose chase”,then all of my tolls will be repaid—Cannot write more now—remember I write under very disparaging circumstances,i.e. soiled paper, nothing but my knee to write upon, andlastly with the certainty of a hard day's march before me.

Sullivan Ballou (1829–1861)



Major Sullivan Ballou served in the Rhode Island Volunteers. By the timethe Civil War began, Ballou had risen from poverty to become a lawyer.He and his wife, Sarah, looked forward to raising their two sons, Edgarand Willie. Ballou was a strong Republican who had voted for Lincoln.He was killed at the Battle of Bull Run shortly after shortly after writingthis letter to his wife on July 14, 1861.

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a fewdays—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to writeyou again I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fallunder your eye when I shall be no more.

. . . I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in thecause in which I am engaged, and my courage does nothalt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization nowleans upon the triumph of the Government and how great adebt we owe to those who went before us through theblood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing—



perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to helpmaintain this Government, and to pay that debt . . .

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me toyou with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotencecould break; and yet my love of Country comes over melike a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with allthose chains to the battle field.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent withyou come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified toGod and to you, that I have enjoyed them for so long. Andhow hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes thehopes of future years, when, God willing, we might stillhave lived and loved together, and seen our sons grown upto honorable manhood around us.

. . . If I do not [return], my dear Sarah, never forget howmuch I love you, and when my last breath escapes me onthe battle field, it will whisper your name . . .

__________________________________________________

• Letter to Ann Lee Marshall (his sister) by Robert E. Lee, Arlington, Va.,April, 20, 1861.

Entire Selection:http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/robert-e-lees-letters-to.html


• Personal Memoirs by U.S. Grant, 1885, p. 137.

Entire Selection: https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5B-eOn_Pb4C&pg=PA137&lpg


• Letter to Martha Jane Banks (his sister) by Private Robert W. Banks,Ripley, Mississippi, October 1, 1862.

Entire Selection:http://www.mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/articles/175/index.php?



s=extra&id=185


• Letter to Sarah Shumway Ballou (his wife) by Major Sullivan Ballou,Camp Clark, Washington, D.C., July 14, 1881.

Entire Selection:http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/sullivan-ballou-letter.html


Abraham Lincoln's "A House Divided" Speech (1858)

In 1858, the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln to be acandidate for an Illinois seat in the United States Senate. Lincoln spokeat the Illinois Republican Convention in June of that year. He gave aspeech about an issue that was causing a great deal of disagreement inthe nation at the time. As new states formed and became part of ourcountry, some Americans wanted to allow slavery in these states, butothers opposed this idea. Those in southern states approved of slaverybecause it provided the region with a cheap source of labor that theSouth needed to maintain its agricultural plantation economy and dailyway of life. People in northern states thought that slavery was immoral.The North's economy was also based on industry, machines, andfactories, so the region did not need as much manual labor as theSouth did.

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Convention:

If we could just know where we are and whither we appear to betending, we could all better judge of what to do, and how to do it. Weare now well into our fifth year since a policy was initiated with theavowed object and confident purpose of putting an end to slaveryagitation.

However, under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not onlynot ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will notcease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A housedivided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave andhalf free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect thehouse to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become



all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrestthis further spread and place it where the public mind shall rest in thebelief that it is on a course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates shallpress it forward, until it shall become alike lawful in all of the States, oldas well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to this latter condition?

Let any one who doubts this contemplate that now almost completelegal combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded ofthe Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him considernot only what work that machinery is adapted to, but how welladapted. Also, also, let him study the history of its construction, andtrace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences ofdesign, of concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the verybeginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half ofthe States by State Constitutions, and from most of the nationalterritory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced thestruggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. Thisopened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first pointgained. But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement bythe people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the pointalready gained, and to give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked; it had been provided for, aswell as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,”and “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, thoughexpressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was soperverted in this particular application of it as to amount to just this: Ifany one man desires to enslave another, no third man has the right toobject. Well that argument was incorporated into the Nebraska billitself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent andmeaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State,or to exclude it there from; but to leave the people thereof perfectlyfree to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” That opened aroar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and“sacred right of self-government.” “But,” said opposition members, “letus be more specific, let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare thatthe people of the Territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said thefriends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

Now, while the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case



involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his ownerhaving voluntarily taken him into first a free State and then a Territorycovered by that Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for along time in each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court in theDistrict of Missouri. Both the Nebraska bill and the law suit werebrought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro'sname was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decisionfinally given in that case. Well, before the then next Presidentialelection, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Courtof the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after theelection. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of theSenate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state hisopinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally excludeslavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question forthe Supreme Court.”

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement,such as it was, was secured. That was the second point gained. Theendorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by somefour hundred thousand votes, and, I think, was not overwhelminglyreliable or satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annualmessage, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people theweight and authority of this endorsement. The Supreme Court metagain; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. ThePresidential inauguration came—still no decision of the court; but theincoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted thepeople to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it may be. Then,in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to makea speech at this capital building endorsing the Dred Scott decision,vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too,seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to endorse and stronglyconstrue that decision, and to express his astonishment that anyshould ever had any different view than that.

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the authorof the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether theLecompton Constitution was in fact, in any just sense, made by thepeople of Kansas; and in the squabble the latter declares all he wants isa fair vote for the people; he don't care whether it gets voted down orvoted up—slavery, that is.

I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery isvoted down or voted up, to be intended as anything other than an apt



definition of the policy that he wants—wants to impress upon the publicmind—the principle for which he declared he has suffered much andintends to suffer until the end. Well—Well may he cling to that principle.If he has any parental feeling at all, well may he cling to it for under theDred Scott decision “squatter sovereignty” has squatted right out ofexistence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding—like—like themould at a foundry served cast off into the sand—never to be usedagain. It helped to carry the election and then was kicked into thewinds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against theLecompton Constitution—it involved nothing of the original Nebraskadoctrine. The struggle was made on a point—the right of the people toform their own constitution—of which we and he have never evendiffered.

Well the several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection, withSenator Douglas's “don't care” policy, constitute a major piece ofmachinery, in its present state of advancement. And this was the thirdpoint gained. Now the working points of that machinery are:

First, no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendantof any such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense thatthat term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Now this pointis made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of thebenefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, whichdeclares “The citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.”

Secondly, that “subject to the Constitution of the United States,”neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery fromany United States territory. This point was made in order thatindividuals may fill up the Territory with slaves, without danger of everlosing their property in the slaves—thus to enhance the chance of thepermanency to that institution through all future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding of a negro in actual slavery in a freeState, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courtswill not decide, but they'll leave it to be decided by the courts of anyslave State where the master of that slave decides to take him.

This point was made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiescedin for awhile, endorsed by the people apparently at an election, then tosustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master maylawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every othermaster may lawfully do with every other one, or one thousand of likeslaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.



And then auxiliary to all this, and working in hand with it, we have theNebraska doctrine, or what's left of it, to educate, to mold publicsentiment, to not care whether slavery is voted down or up. This showsexactly where we are, partially, also, whither we are tending.

Now it will throw additional light on the—the latter, to go back, to runthe mind over this string of historical facts already stated. Severalthings will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did thenwhen they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,”“subject only to the Constitution” of the United States. What theConstitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then tell. Plainlyenough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decisionafterwards to come in, and declare that perfect freedom to be just nofreedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people toexclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of itwould have spoiled that niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was thecourt decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinionwithheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now:speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argumentupon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoingPresident's felicitation of the endorsement? Why the delay of thereargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation infavor of that decision, whatever it might be? These things look like thecautious patting and petting of a much-spirited horse, when it's a-feared that, upon mounting, he'll be thrown. Why the hasty after-endorsements of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the resultof preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, which we knowdifferent portions of which have been gotten out at different times andin different places by different workmen—Stephen, Franklin, Roger,James, for instance—and when we see these timbers joined together,and see that they exactly frame a house or a mill, all the tenons andmortices fitting exactly together, all the lengths and proportions of thedifferent pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not apiece too many or a piece too few—not omitting even scaffolding—or, ifa single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame where it isfitted and prepared yet to be put in. In such a case, we find itimpossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger andJames all understood one another from the beginning; all worked on acommon plan or draft drawn before the first lick was struck.

Now, it shouldn't be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of



a State as well as Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subjectonly to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislatingfor Territories, not for or about States. Certainly the people of a Stateare and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; butwhy is the mention of this lugged into a merely Territorial law? Why arethe people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumpedtogether, and their relation to the Constitution treated as beingprecisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief JusticeTaney, in the Dred Scott's case, and the separate opinions of all theconcurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the UnitedStates neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to excludeslavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declarewhether or not that same Constitution permits a State, or the people ofa State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this was a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, ifMcLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration ofunlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from theirlimits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalfof the people of a Territory, in the Nebraska bill;—I ask, who can bequite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as ithad been on the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaringthe power of a State over slavery was made by Judge Nelson. Heapproaches it more than once, using the precise [idea], almost thelanguage, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exactlanguage is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by theConstitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme overthe subject of slavery within its jurisdictions.”

In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the UnitedStates Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the samequestion, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left anopen in the Nebraska Act. Well when you put that and that together, wehave another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled byanother Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of theUnited States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits.And this may especially be expected if this doctrine of “care notwhether slavery is voted down or voted up” shall gain in the publicmind sufficiently to give promise that that decision will be maintainedwhen it's made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in allof the States. Welcome or [un]welcome, such decision is probablycoming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the politicaldynasty at present shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down



pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are about to make theirState a free one, and we shall wake up to discover that the SupremeCourt has just made Illinois a slave State. To meet and to overthrow thepower of that dynasty is the work now before all those who wouldprevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. But how canwe best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yetwhisper to us that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument for thiswork . . . with which to effect this object. They do not tell us, nor has hetold us that he wishes any such object to be affected. They wish us toinfer it, you see, from all the facts that he now has a little quarrel withthe present head of this dynasty; and that he has regularly voted withus on a single point, upon which we and he had never differed. Theyremind us that he is a very great man, and the largest of us are littleones. Well, let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a deadlion.” And Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least acaged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery?He don't care whether it gets voted down or voted up. His avowedmission is to impress the “public heart” to care nothing whether itsvoted down or voted up.

A leading Douglas democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superiortalent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.Does Douglas believe an effort to revive the African slave trade isapproaching? He's not said so. Does he really think so? If it is, how canhe resist it? For years he's labored to prove it a sacred right for men totake negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that itsless a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheaper?Unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.He's done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery toone of a right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreignslave trade—how can he refuse that trade in that “property” shall be“perfectly free”?—unless he does it as a protection to those who arehome producers. Well, then, as the home producers will probably notask for that the protection, he shall be wholly without any ground ofopposition.

Senator Douglas know that a man can rightfully be wiser today than hewas yesterday—that he can rightfully change when he finds himself tobe wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he willmake any particular change, of which he, himself, has never given anyintimation? Can we safely base our action upon some vague inference?Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position orquestion his motives, or do aught that would be personally offensive to



him. But whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principleso that our great cause may have the assistance of his great ability, Ihope to have imposed no adventitious obstacle upon him. But clearly,he is not now with us—he does not pretend to be—he does not promiseever to be.

Our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by, its ownundoubted friends—those whose hands are free and whose hearts arein the work—who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicansof this nation mustered some thirteen hundred thousand strong. We didthis under a single impulse of resistance to a common danger, withevery external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, evenhostile elements, we gathered from the four winds; we fought the battlethrough under the constant hot fire of a pampered, proud, disciplinedarmy. Did we brave all then only to falter now?—now, when that sameenemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is notdoubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wisecounsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay, but sooner or later thevictory is sure to come.

__________________________________________________

• Speech at the Illinois Republican State Convention, known as the "AHouse Divided" speech, by Republican Senate nomineee AbrahamLincoln delivered Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858, /p>

Entire Selection:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/abrahamlincolnhousedivided.htm


Historical Documents of Lincoln's Presidency

The words of our nation's leaders hold an important place in Americanhistory. Whether delivered as speeches or issued in writing, theycontinue to influence and inspire Americans long after the events thatprompted them. Abraham Lincoln, who served as president during theCivil War, frequently rose to the occasion with bold and unforgettablewords. His speeches and writings often revealed his ideas about liberty,equality, and government which he said sprung from “the sentimentsembodied in the Declaration of independence.”

His brief Gettysburg Address, for example, may be the most frequently



quoted speech of any president. Most Americans have heard Lincoln'sclosing plea that “government of the people, by the people, for thepeople, shall not perish from the earth.”

Like the Gettysburg Address, other primary sources from Lincoln'spresidency have lived on in American memory. When Lincoln enteredoffice in 1861, he was faced with the difficult task of keeping the Uniontogether.

He gave his First Inaugural Address knowing that several Southernstates had already decided to secede. Consequently, Lincoln's speechemphasized the theme of a shared American heritage and destiny.There was no mention of freeing slaves yet because his goal wasensuring the Union stayed together. But it was getting more difficult astensions grew and fighting increased.

In the middle of the war, Lincoln faced immense pressure to officiallydeclare that the war was being fought to free the slaves. Many slaveswere running away to Northern Union camps. The Union officersweren’t sure how to deal with fugitive slaves because the law requiredthem to be returned. Officers called them “contraband,” a term thatdeclared the slaves as stolen property, and also ultimately freed themfrom their bondage.

Lincoln saw that the South was using slaves to help its war effort whilethe North still wouldn’t allow slaves or escaped freedmen to enlist. Byfreeing the slaves, the Federal army would have to allow the enlistmentof black soldiers, thus greatly increasing the North’s numbers. Beyondmilitary strategy, a fight for freedom would deter Europe from helpingthe Confederates. The war had disrupted cotton supply and the Southexpected England and France to aid them in the war.

After the Union gained momentum at the Battle of Antietam, Lincolnissued the Emancipation Proclamation. It stated that all slaves inSouthern states were free on January 1, 1863. This meant that the warwas finally about more than just preserving the Union—it was a fight toabolish slavery. By 1865, the terrible war was nearly over. It was clearthat the Union had won. With his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln'stask was once again to reunite a divided nation.

As you read these three primary sources, ask yourself what Lincolnhoped to achieve with each one. In what ways are his thoughts andwords still relevant today?

Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address



March 4, 1861

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

In compliance with a custom as old as the Governmentitself, I appear before you to address you briefly and totake in your presence the oath prescribed by theConstitution of the United States to be taken by thePresident “before he enters on the execution of this office. .. .”

Apprehension [anxiety] seems to exist among the people ofthe Southern States that by the accession [assumption ofpower] of a Republican Administration their property andtheir peace and personal security are to be endangered.There has never been any reasonable cause for suchapprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to thecontrary has all the while existed and been open to theirinspection. It is found in nearly all the published speechesof him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one ofthose speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere withthe institution of slavery in the States where it exists. Ibelieve I have no lawful right to do so, and I have noinclination to do so.

Lincoln continues by promising to uphold the law. This promise includeslaws calling for the return of fugitive slaves. After this reassurance tothe South, he goes on to deny the right of states to secede from theUnion:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of theConstitution the Union of these States is perpetual[unending]. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in thefundamental law of all national governments. It is safe toassert that no government proper ever had a provision inits organic law for its own termination. . . .

[The] proposition that in legal contemplation the Union isperpetual [is] confirmed by the history of the Union itself.The Union is much older than the Constitution. It wasformed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. Itwas matured and continued by the Declaration of



Independence in 1776. It was further matured… by theArticles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, oneof the declared objects for ordaining and establishing theConstitution was “to form a more perfect Union. . . .”

It follows that no State upon its own mere motion canlawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinancesto that effect are legally void, and that acts of violencewithin any State or States against the authority of theUnited States are insurrectionary or revolutionary. . . .

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and thelaws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability,I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoinsupon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executedin all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple dutyon my part.

Lincoln has balanced his promise to respect the rights of the South witha pledge to preserve the Union. Next, he tries to narrow the conflictbetween North and South. The only issue, he argues, is whether slaverywill be extended into new territories. The Union should not break upover this issue. Lincoln ends with a ringing appeal to the heritageshared by North and South.

One section of our country believes slavery is right andought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrongand ought not to be extended. This is the only substantialdispute. . . .

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can notremove our respective sections from each other nor buildan impassable wall between them. A husband and wife maybe divorced and go out of the presence and beyond thereach of each other, but the different parts of our countrycan not do this. They can not but remain face to face, andintercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continuebetween them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercoursemore advantageous or more satisfactory after separationthan before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friendscan make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforcedbetween aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose yougo to war, you can not fight always; and when, after muchloss on both sides and no gain on either, you ceasefighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of



intercourse, are again upon you. . . .

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well uponthis whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by takingtime. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot hasteto a step which you would never take deliberately, thatobject will be frustrated by taking time; but no good objectcan be frustrated by it…. Intelligence, patriotism,Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yetforsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust inthe best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and notin mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. TheGovernment will not assail you. You can have no conflictwithout being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oathregistered in heaven to destroy the Government, while Ishall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, anddefend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. Wemust not be enemies. Though passion may have strained itmust not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords ofmemory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot graveto every living heart and hearthstone all over this broadland, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when againtouched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of ournature.

Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two,a proclamation was issued by the President of the UnitedStates, containing, among other things, the following, towit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord onethousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as



slaves within any State or designated part of a State, thepeople whereof shall then be in rebellion against the UnitedStates, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; andthe Executive Government of the United States, includingthe military and naval authority thereof, will recognize andmaintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act oracts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any effortsthey may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of Januaryaforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and partsof States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively,shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and thefact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that daybe, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the UnitedStates by members chosen thereto at elections wherein amajority of the qualified voters of such State shall haveparticipated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailingtestimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State,and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against theUnited States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the UnitedStates, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in timeof actual armed rebellion against the authority andgovernment of the United States, and as a fit andnecessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do,on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord onethousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordancewith my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the fullperiod of one hundred days, from the day first abovementioned, order and designate as the States and parts ofStates wherein the people thereof respectively, are this dayin rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St.Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St.James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St.Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of NewOrleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, SouthCarolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also thecounties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City,York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of



Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, arefor the present, left precisely as if this proclamation werenot issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, Ido order and declare that all persons held as slaves withinsaid designated States, and parts of States, are, andhenceforward shall be free; and that the Executivegovernment of the United States, including the military andnaval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain thefreedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be freeto abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases whenallowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such personsof suitable condition, will be received into the armedservice of the United States to garrison forts, positions,stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sortsin said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, Iinvoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and thegracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand andcaused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, inthe year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtythree, and of the Independence of the United States ofAmerica the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

March 4, 1865

Fellow-Countrymen:



At this second appearing to take the oath of thePresidential office there is less occasion for an extendedaddress than there was at the first. Then a statementsomewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemedfitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years,during which public declarations have been constantlycalled forth on every point and phase of the great contestwhich still absorbs the attention and engrosses theenergies of the nation, little that is new could be presented.The progress of our arms, upon which all else chieflydepends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and itis, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all.With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to itis ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago allthoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inauguraladdress was being delivered from this place, devotedaltogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agentswere in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seekingto dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation.Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would makewar rather than let the nation survive, and the other wouldaccept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves,not distributed generally over the Union, but localized inthe southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiarand powerful interest. All knew that this interest wassomehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate,and extend this interest was the object for which theinsurgents would rend the Union even by war, while theGovernment claimed no right to do more than to restrictthe territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected forthe war the magnitude or the duration which it has alreadyattained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflictmight cease with or even before the conflict itself shouldcease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result lessfundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible andpray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against theother. It may seem strange that any men should dare toask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from thesweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we benot judged. The prayers of both could not be answered.



That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty hasHis own purposes. If we shall suppose that Americanslavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence ofGod, must needs come, but which, having continuedthrough His appointed time, He now wills to remove, andthat He gives to both North and South this terrible war asthe woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall wediscern therein any departure from those divine attributeswhich the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mightyscourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God willsthat it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman'stwo hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk,and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall bepaid by another drawn with the sword, as was said threethousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgmentsof the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmnessin the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive onto finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds,to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for hiswidow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve andcherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and withall nations.

__________________________________________________

• First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln, delivered March4, 1861.

Entire Selection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp


• The Emancipation Proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln, January1, 1863.

Entire Selection: https://www.loc.gov/resource/lprbscsm.scsm1016/?sp=1L


• Second Inaugrual Address of President Abraham Lincoln, delivered



March 4, 1865.

Entire Selection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp


President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (1863)

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln spoke during theofficial dedication ceremony for the National Cemetery of Gettysburg inPennsylvania. The cemetery was located on ground where one of thebloodiest battles of the Civil War had occurred. The remarks thatPresident Lincoln made on that solemn day would later become knownas the Gettysburg Address.

Lincoln prepared his speech carefully because he wanted to talk aboutthe significance of the war. He felt that the conflict between the Northand the South was the ultimate test that would determine whether theUnion would survive, or whether it would “perish from the earth.” Hespoke about such things as the principles of human equality that arepart of the Declaration of Independence, the sacrifices of the Civil War,the desire for “a new birth of freedom,” the importance of preservingthe Union, and the idea of self-government. It took President Lincolnless than two minutes to say what he did, and the entire speech is onlyabout 270 words long. Yet, the Gettysburg Address is now regarded asone of the most important speeches in American history.

There are actually five versions of the Gettysburg Address. This versionis called “the Nicolay Copy.” Historians often call it the “first draft”because it is thought to be the earliest copy of the speech that exists.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon thiscontinent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that “all men are created equal.”

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, orany nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We aremet on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate aportion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that thenation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a largersense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow,this ground—The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, havehallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world willlittle note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can neverforget what they did here.



It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great taskremaining before us—that, from these honored dead we take increaseddevotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measureof devotion—that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have diedin vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and thatgovernment of the people by the people for the people, shall not perishfrom the earth.

Below is the text of the Gettysburg Address that is known as “the BlissCopy.” It is the version that has most often been used when theGettysburg Address has been reprinted. This is also the version that isinscribed on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.Abraham Lincoln wrote this version in 1864, after he had given theactual speech.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on thiscontinent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, orany nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We aremet on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate aportion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gavetheir lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and properthat we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—wecan not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, whostruggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add ordetract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather,to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who foughthere have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be herededicated to the great task remaining before us—that from thesehonored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which theygave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve thatthese dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God,shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people,by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

__________________________________________________

• Gettyburg Address—Nicolay copy, delivered by President Abraham



Lincoln, Gettysburg, November 19, 1863

Entire Selection: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gettysburg-address/ext/trans-nicolay-copy.htmlL


• Gettyburg Address—Bliss copy, delivered by President AbrahamLincoln, Gettysburg, November 19, 1863

Entire Selection:http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/gettysburg_address_2.html


Immigrants and Indians During the Civil War

The Civil War was a battle between Americans in the North and South ofthe country. However, both American Indians and immigrants played akey role in the fighting.

Approximately 20,000 American Indians served in the Union andConfederate armies during the Civil, including the famous battles ofAnteitam and Petersburg. The Delaware Nation had a strong allegianceto the U.S. government despite having been removed to Oklahoma andKansas. Declaring their support for the Union, Delaware Nation sent 170of 201 men to fight as volunteers in the army. In 1862, William Dole,the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, asked American Indians to engagein the war efforts. This resulted in the creation of the 1st and 2nd IndianHome Guard that included the Delaware, Creek, and Seminole, amongmany others. When the Civil War finally came to a close, it was amember of the Seneca tribe, General Ely S. Parker who drafted thearticles of surrender. Lee had originally been rejected for army servicedue to his race, but served as General Ulyssess S. Grant’s militarysecretary. The articles of surrender were signed by ConfederateGeneral Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House.

Many American Indians hoped that by supporting the war and fightingalongside white Americans they would gain favor with the federalgovernment. Many Indians also hoped that their service would endIndian relocation from tribal lands into new territories. However, thiswas not the case. Instead, the federal government continued to removeAmerican Indians and push them further westward.

Immigrants also had a significant rule during the Civil War. The United



States had, primarily in the North, received a large influx of Europeanimmigrants prior to the start of the war. This meant that the UnionArmy’s foreign population consisted of individuals of majority Germanand Scottish descent, as well as many British citizens from the colonyof Bermuda who fought on behalf of the Union. There was also a strongIrish population in the United States. Most famously, many Irishimmigrants came together to form the Irish Brigade, an immigrantmilitary unit. Consisting of three all-Irish infantries—the 63rd, 69th, and88th New York Infantry Regiments, these units were known for theirbravery. Irish-born Army captain Thomas Francis Meagher became theBrigadier General of the Irish Brigade. Meagher had previously beenexiled from Ireland for his role in the “Young Ireland” nationalistmovement. He hoped that his role as general would help the nationalistcause back in Ireland. The Irish Brigade led the Union in many of theArmy of the Potomac’s major battles, including the Battle of Antietamand the Battle of Fredericksburg. However, this meant that the IrishBrigade suffered large numbers of casualties.

Many Irish immigrants had hoped that fighting on behalf of the Unionwould end anti-Irish discrimination in the United Sates. However,tensions continued to rise. These tensions finally came to light in NewYork City in July of 1863. Following the National Conscription Act, whichestablished a draft for the war unless a fee could be paid, upset manyIrish working-class people. Thousands of Irish immigrants violentlyprotested in the streets for five days about the draft law, and manyassaulted African Americans. This protest marked the end of organizedIrish participation in the Civil War.

