THE ALMANACK "OUTPOST" BLOG | 2012 ››› An outpost for history, travel photography, verse, musings & random scraps of substance ›
Complete "Outpost" Index | 2012 Index | 2011 Index | 2010 Index // The Almanack //
Tuesday January 24, 2012 : HISTORY, IN THE MARGINS / Margaret Leech › "Reveille in Washington"
I have an entire shelf overflowing with Civil War histories. Almost all are devoted to specific battles and campaigns, specific armies, subjects, or central figures. Most deal tangentially with Washington, D.C., during the war—and most of this is in reference to Lincoln. Digested in parts over time, these descriptions had—I felt—provided me a decent understanding of the city, its character, its day-to-day existence from 1861-1865. But then, through an InHeritage documentary project, I was introduced to "Reveille in Washington" by Margaret Leech. I quickly realized my understanding was anecdotal, not linear or anything near complete. Like most Civil War buffs, my historical perspective was from out-in-the-fields looking back at D.C. Leech flips this view entirely. You view the era through the lens of Washingtonians, a city on the border of North & South (some would argue more South, than North) with strong camps supporting either side. Leech's storytelling narrative provides the reader a view from the inside looking out. It is a 'looking at something you have seen a thousand times, in a new light' moment.
I must also drop kudos to Leech who, though a member of the distinguished post WWI literary club, The Algonquin Roundtable, researched, wrote and published this solid work of history during an era when history depts and publishing in general seemed like an all-male fraternity. As if that gender-busting achievement was not enough, this book won a Pulitzer in 1942. It is a rare blend of literary-readability wrapped around groundbreaking research. And though time and discovery have given us a much broader understanding of not just the facts but their long-term impact since this book was published, it stands the test-of-time. In part, this is due to Leech recognizing the emerging current of that era, which sought to tell the truth about the war: that it was no simple political argument over rights & honor, but a comprehensive reinterpretation on how America would move, as a nation, into the future. Published during another cataclysmic war, this story shows Washington as the central city in the war itself. Everything was on a pivot around it. And like the war itself, Leech shows the transformation of D.C. in parallel with the soldiers who fought and the civilians that supported the effort: from green, exuberant and nervous, to hardened, fatalistic, yet resolved. With that in mind, here are a few great quotes from the hundreds marked 'in the margins':
With hostilities opening in early April 1861, many believed Washington could fall quickly to a Rebel force; Union volunteers finally arrived to shore up the defense of the 'National' capital … "For six days at the very outset of hostilities, it had shivered at its fate—a border town, divided within itself, and nakedly exposed to danger in a time of great rebellion."
Disastrous defeats were plentiful for the U.S. Army of the Potomac early in the war; but the defeat at Second Mannasas in August 1862, was devastating to morale. Leech captures the mood of the beaten now-veteran Union soldiers falling back on their capital … "They flooded back in disorder on the Alexandria road, flopped down to rest, indifferent to the tumult of the retreating infantry and cavalry, artillery and wagons. Their great fires illuminated the whole countryside. Across the bridges, they crowded into the capital, congregated in low groggeries and staggered drunken and loud-mouthed in droves on every street."
Here is a fascinating instance in which New York troops harbored African Americans who had run off from Virginia into the Union lines around D.C. Until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, the U.S. government was still bound by law (Dred Scott) to return 'runaways' to a slaveholder if they could show proof and a warrant was issued. But as we see the order was not always met with compliance … "Next morning, when a deputy marshal went down to get them, with his warrants and an order from the provost marshal, he was admonished by officers and soldiers that they would see him in hell before they gave the Negroes up."
A great telling of the official White House event welcoming U.S. Grant, who took over command of U.S. forces in early 1864 … "Wild cheers shook the crystal chandeliers, as ladies and gentlemen rushed on him from all sides. Laces were torn, and crinolines mashed. Fearful of injury or maddened by excitement, people scrambled on chairs and tables. At last, General Grant was forced to mount a crimson sofa."
As well as the seat-of-gov't, Washington was transformed into a mass hospital with buildings re-purposed and makeshift structures built up all over the city. Here is a tragic, common scene following the start of the brutal bloody spring campaign of 1864 … "There were three days and nights in which the procession of ambulances never ceased."
New Year's Day, 1865 … "With high heart, the New Year's Eve merrymakers went singing, "When This Cruel War Is Over." The New Year's reception at the White House—held on Monday, January 2—was a surging crush of people."
Lincoln's funeral day … "The columns of the White House were shrouded and somber folds were looped on the Federal buildings, and on residences and places of business in all parts of town. Sorrow seemed universal amongst the poor. Hovels and huts had their scraps of black cloth or ribbon. On the Avenue before the White House, hundreds of colored people stood wailing in the rain."
SOURCE : Leech, Margaret. Reveille in Washington. New York: Harpers & Brothers, 1941.
The Almanack | The Complete "Outpost" Index |
Wednesday January 18 : UNDER THE BIG TENT
The other day an obscure selection popped up on my 'internal' playlist. It did so with no external prompting that I was aware of, nothing aside from being its turn in the near-constant soundtrack running through the background of my days. For those who know me, it might seem an odd selection: The Louvin Brothers' "Broadminded," its fundamentalist drenched opening line …
"That word broadminded is spelled S-I-N …"
No, I don't subscribe to the orthodox witnessing to be found in a lot of The Louvins 1950's catalog. But that's of no mind; or at least I feel it shouldn't be. This song has a great hook and the 'Lord-guided' blend of Charlie & Ira's harmonies set atop their signature clever song-craft is on full display. It stuck in my head for hours. I hummed along all the while. And, despite my Eastern-leanings in life & spiritual philosophy, this never struck me as an odd selection. I have long been a fan of The Louvins, turned onto them by band-mates present & former (all of equal questionable orthodox pedigree). There is an honesty to their music, to the traditions and environment that produced them, and most important to the song-craft itself. They were (Ira dying in a car wreck in the early 60s, Charlie dying only a few years ago) true craftsman of a unique blend of very old musical traditions. I'll even go a step further to say my favorite Louvins' recordings may be a toss-up between two tracks on an album sporting the fist-pounding title: "Satan Is Real" … "He Can Be Found"—a sweet testament to the personal presence of God's grace in all things, and/or "The Christian Life"—an ode to the starched narrow-living indicative of the seriously faithful (and ironically covered by hellion/heathen, Gram Parsons, with The Byrds—but done so with nothing save a true heartfelt reverence for the original, and The Louvins themselves). In fact, that I even thought twice about "Broadminded" showing up on the in-skull playlist was due only to its juxtaposition to a quote I'd re-read just that morning while scanning a past journal. Jotted down while visiting a small botany-themed exhibit last October, the quote was an exemplary synopsis of a very different creative personality, a quote with a similar power to hook the reader/listener, John Muir long ago writing …
"I seek to spell out by close inspection things not well understood."
A patently broadminded statement of purpose … So, how to reconcile the two? My answer: why would I bother!? And here's my (admittedly broadminded) reasoning:
There was a term that was often heard in political discussion prior to a rigid zero-sum ideology moving in to suffocate contemporary politics (not to mention social-cultural-economic and spiritual discourse). It was a term used to describe the vast range of diverse ideological positions to be found in a national political party. In my lifetime I recall journalists referring to the Republican Party as a "Big Tent" filled with economic libertarians, social moderates who just happened to be foreign-policy hawks, staunch Christian conservatives and all the shades in-between. In the early-mid 20th century a similar vast range of diversity could be attributed to the Democratic Party, holding pro-labor/blue-collar workers and Southern conservatives (hidebound to the 19th century conservative Dem Party of their fathers), alongside well-educated intellectual technocrats professing the necessity of gov't intervention in the economy and the cause of social progress. Both of these not-so-long-ago diverse realities seem astounding set alongside the lock-step definitions that cudgel views into rigid alignment on either side of the aisle today. And yet, take a single glance at the nation as-a-whole and you see a breathtaking array of unique, ranging beliefs, lifestyles, ethnic backgrounds and individual characters—certainly the most diverse population the world has ever known. It's a "Big Tent." Have we lost the ability to if not celebrate, at least tolerate the concept of the "Big Tent"? I'd have to answer a partial no; for despite the recent public failings of living up to the concept, most individuals do not have to look far in their own life's interests & loyalties to discover contradictory—often wildly contradictory—items residing side-by-side on the bleachers …
The Louvin Bros statement of knowledge-acquisition as a slippery slope that could only lead to a fall from grace residing alongside a progressive's self-motivational reminder that knowledge-acquisition is itself a sacred act—both hovering within the same mental space—does seem a flat contradiction, at best a paradox. And yet, there they were a few mornings ago: side-by-side on the bleachers under my own personal "Big Tent." The combination of instinctual & environmental factors that allows such prevalent contradiction to occur is a mystery. But I challenge anyone reading this to do a quick-scan of their internal playlist, and then honestly say there aren't a pile of surface ideological contradictions in the character of those contents. Though the "Big Tent" might seem absent in much of the public discourse these days, I sense it is alive and well as a reality—and can't be kept down for long in a functioning democracy. If that awful day comes when it has become a dead letter from the past—when diversity as a tolerated, if not celebrated, trait has gone away—that is the day we all need to worry for real. In the meantime, I'm not too worried, and will continue to do my small part … By the way, '70s arena-rock & modern hipster-indie stylings? Robert Frost & Jack Kerouac? TR & FDR? I love them all and humbly offer up their odd co-existence inside my head as a win for the "Big Tent."
The Almanack | The Complete "Outpost" Index |
January 4, 2012 : HISTORY, IN THE MARGINS / "The Debates on the Constitution" › Part 1 of 3
The most logical place to start in highlighting the well-marked/well-loved favorite works of history crammed onto our bookshelves, is with this two-volume Library of America set that covers the fervent, intellectual and emotional ratification debates in both the press and state Constitutional Conventions, 1787-1788. This feat of a collection digs deep into the functional beginning of the United States. Almost 2000 pgs worth of letters, articles, and speeches—meticulously edited by Bernard Bailyn—make up this challenging, yet rewarding reading 'project' (and it is nothing short …). You are immediately struck by subjects & concerns that sound awfully familiar: size & role of gov't, distribution of taxation, balance of public & private powers, drawing the line between individual liberty & fed'l infringement, even the debt. What is also familiar is the jousting of individuals w/strong ideals & egos. It is pointed, direct, often unsparing. But then you are reminded (if only through use of language & spelling alone) this is the 1780s, not now. Here is our democracy in uncharted waters. The immediacy and risk is palpable, as you realize no one in this debate knows how it is going to turn out. What a moment. As much as Americans claim to dislike barbed partisanship these days, it is easy to forget that to the point in history when this debate was occurring the usual alternative for competing factions had been bloody battle in the streets. There is plenty to dislike in modern-era partisanship; but layer in that historical context—which this collection does without ever having to say it—and you see clearly how this first great debate set the template: discussion, even heated arguments in which egos are bruised, ideals are bloodied, and the reality is: 'you win some and you lose some,' is still an astronomically superior societal plan than perpetual armed conflict, and-or aristocratic control. In this—our great original argument—a framework was established.
In addition, you are constantly reminded that so much of this is groping in the dark. It was largely a precedent-less time, as are most of the debated points. It was a time of intense salesmanship (lots of "trust us on this people") and intense paranoia (lots of "you cannot trust these people"). I was stunned that I came to see some views of those in steadfast opposition of the Constitution's ratification, simply because they put up articulate historical examples for "why standing armies would degenerate into tools for the ambitious," or (something that will resonate brightly in this can't-trust-Washington-era) the regular cry of: "leaders given such broad powers-of-the-purse could never be trusted, ever!" And yet, ultimately, those who take on this reading 'project' have to marvel at the accomplishment of it all—in that our nascent republic would defy the historical record—and there were those brave enough to intellectualize it, promote it, defend it and take the chance that this thing would work.
In the margins of Part 1 of Vol I: "Debates in the Press and in Private Correspondence / Sept 17, 1787 - January 12, 1788," I noted many superior quotes. Here is the first batch:
From "An American Citizen I" [Tench Coxe] … "In that country [Britain] the king is hereditary and may be an idiot, a knave, or a tyrant by nature, or ignorant from neglect of his education, yet cannot be removed, for 'he can do no wrong.' In America, as the president is to be one of the people at the end of his short term, so will he and his fellow citizens remember, that he was originally one of the people; and that he is created by their breath."
From: "A Citizen of America" [Noah Webster] … "The power of entailing estates is more dangerous to liberty and republican government, than all the constitutions that can be written on paper, or even than a standing army." (among many still topical subjects, this in reference to estate taxes and the danger of landed plutocrats, as opposed to perceived threats embedded in this 'new' Constitution)
From: "Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith" … "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" (in fact, many argued for the Second Amendment as a way to 'keep authority honest,' something irrelevant today what with the mobilized force of police, national guard, and other local/homeland security forces)
From: "Resolution of the Inhabitants of Pittsburgh" … "we have no reason to expect anything better from any other body of men assembled in convention …" (frontier fatalism? or just 'saying it like it is' !?)
SEE NEXT POST › PART 2
SOURCE : Bailyn, Bernard, ed. The Debate on the Constitution (Volume 1). New York: The Library of America, 1993.
January 4, 2012 : HISTORY, IN THE MARGINS / "The Debates on the Constitution" › Part 2 of 3
Part 2 highlighting the great Library of America's "The Debate on the Constitution" set. Here is a second batch from the first part of Vol I: "Debates in the Press and in Private Correspondence / Sept 17, 1787 - January 12, 1788."
From: "A Countryman II" [believed to be Roger Sherman] … "If you suffer any man to govern you who is not strongly interested in supporting your privileges, you will certainly lost them." (a blunt reminder to a people unfamiliar w/the democratic discipline required to exercise and protect individual freedom: 'vote! every election matters')
From: "Brutus IV" … "It is not expected that a legislature will be found in any country that will not have some of its members, who will pursue their private ends and for which they will sacrifice the public good." (this is one of the more fascinating traits that is seen everywhere in these debates: that these men were so honest in confronting the darker motivations of individuals; it was a nearly universal agreement: that we should not simply trust the 'better nature' of public officials to always shine through—a group-think that wisely accepted and anticipated corruptibility … [see next, as well])
From: "Americanus V" [John Stevens, Jr.] … "Can any man, who has a tolerable acquaintance of human nature, imagine that men would so eagerly engage in public affairs, from whence they can hope to derive no personal emolument, merely from the impulse of so exalted, so pure, so disinterested a passion as patriotism, or political virtue? No! it is ambition that constitutes the very life and soul of Republican Government."
-
From: "A Landholder VII" [Oliver Ellsworth] … "A test in favor of any one denomination of christians would be to the last degree absurd in the U.S." (though 'diversity' in those days often meant 'what type of Christian are you?' the debates are largely silent on any religious litmus test, expect when denying it should have anything to do with elected office—this strong secular desire finding its inspiration in the catastrophic history state-sponsored religion had played in Europe through the Middle Ages)
SEE NEXT POST › PART 3
SOURCE : Bailyn, Bernard, ed. The Debate on the Constitution (Volume 1). New York: The Library of America, 1993.
January 4, 2012 : HISTORY, IN THE MARGINS / "The Debates on the Constitution" › Part 3 of 3
Part 3 highlighting the great Library of America's "The Debate on the Constitution" set, here is a final batch of great quotes from the first part of Vol I: "Debates in the Press and in Private Correspondence / Sept 17, 1787 - January 12, 1788."
From: "Reply to Pennsylvania Minority" [Noah Webster] … "The very attempt to establish a permanent, unalterable Constitution, is an act of consummate arrogance. It is a presumption that we have all possible wisdom—that we can foresee all possible circumstances—and judge for future generations, better than they can for themselves." ('originalism' v. 'organic' = an old argument)
From: "A Cumberland County Mutual Improvement Society" … "the names of the majority [who voted for ratification], and their ignorant tools will be spurned and execrated by the succeeding generations as the pillars of slavery, tyranny and despotism." (though in the minority, many thought this new Constitution an eventual tool for despots in-the-wings)
From: "The Genuine Information" [Luther Martin] … "slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression." (again, this is written in 1787)
From: "Centinel VIII" [Samuel Bryan] … "It was not the mere amount of the duty on stamps, or tea that Americans opposed, they were considered as signals of approaching despotism."
From: "Americanus VI" [John Stevens, Jr.] … "Let us be thankful to an all-ruling Providence, which has enabled us to discover the clue by which we may finally extricate ourselves from that labyrinth of profound darkness and perplexity in which mankind have hither to wandered, with only now and then a glimmering of light."
SOURCE : Bailyn, Bernard, ed. The Debate on the Constitution (Volume 1). New York: The Library of America, 1993.
Complete "Outpost" Index | 2012 Index | 2011 Index | 2010 Index // The Almanack //