tv Lectures in History CSPAN April 10, 2016 12:01am-1:11am EDT
>> you can watch the entire film on reel america sunday at 4 p.m. eastern. this is american history tv on c-span3. wheaton college history ieofessor tracy mckenz teaches a class on the civil war between unionism and emancipation. he describes how public support correlated with whether union forces were perceived to be winning the civil war. he also argues that lincoln's reelection and even his presidential nomination was seen as unlikely because of the state of the war in 1863. his classes about an hour.
it is always good to go back and touch base with a we think are areas of concern for this part of the course. can i ask you guys to help us review the major themes we have in mind right now? please?mentioned, going back to over and over again, time to think carefully about what our visitation of the american civil war tells us, about popular american reality it's into regards. equality,ds to racial always reminding ourselves that the relationship between those a simplet in any sense
relationship. so yes, one of the themes. it will be very essential. christian? christian: transformation of northern names. wary: we see how the civil begins as a war in which the only focus is preservation of the union. abraham lincoln is repudiating any broader goals than that. in a short time, it comes a different way. a lot of what we will talk about this morning is the way in which northern popular opinion response to that transformation. and if we think about that, i think it will help us do what that first thing is, the relationship of the attitudes between slavery and attitudes towards race. those are the things most relevant this morning. and just keep those in mind as you interact, listen, and i think it will help us in gleaning what is most important here. so let us touch base with where he ended last time. and that is just to remember
that by the summer of 1862, abraham lincoln for a variety of reasons comes to the conclusion that there is a window of opportunity to strike at slavery that he did not anticipate when the war began. we talked about a variety of factors that were at play. the lincoln cost of the war in and of itself, right? it is polarizing northern opinion, at least creating a kind of opportunity come in terms of popular opinion to pursue a more aggressive war effort. that is part of what is going on. ad there is also constitutional window of opportunity that lincoln believes the war has presented to him. slave peopleof the themselves, in a limiting any kind of neutral role that the with regardplay to slavery is a factor also. two other things quickly,
lincoln have been hesitant to strike in 1861. in part because he was concerned about the border states. you recall that. one of the things he concluded by the summer of 1862 was that the border states do not play the way they would have a 1861. the war has gone about 100,000 confederates into the confederate army. and in a very interesting way now they seem to play a political role in that point. they are not going to vote. they're not in the union states at all in most cases. and the fear that the border states now might switch sides and support the confederacy is no longer very pressing in lincoln's mind. and yet also been concerned about having bipartisan support for the emancipation policy, if he ever went in that direction. knowing that he could not have any kind of bipartisan support for it. of 1862, i think lincoln has given up on the
possibility of bipartisan support for the war. partylly, the democratic in the north is opposing him on just every kind of congressional initiative. the idea that this war is not going to be one that divides the north politically is some thing that lincoln more or less has abandoned. so what we see now are new factors making emancipation desirable, all the kinds of obstacles by the wayside. with a result that by august, if lincolnier, of 1862, decided that when the time is right he will announce a new angle for the war effort that would add to union human freedom. that is going to come when it 1862, withptember of his announcement of what we remembered today as the preliminary emancipation proclamation. it defined it as a war measure, ending slavery, actively rebelling against the authority
of the united states government. it is not going to apply to the border states, not going to of theo areas confederacy now subdued and under union military occupation. the entire state of tennessee is excluded. part of virginia is excluded. part of louisiana is excluded. even with those exceptions, no one denies that the war has been fundamentally redefined. while we want to focus on this morning the aftermath of that, one of the things that james mcpherson is very helpful for, union has thehat potential to unify northern opinion. emancipation always divides. it is always a divisive issue in northern opinion, and we see the in the years after announcement of the policy. so i want to begin with just some images that give us a sense of the way in which northern opinion is to some degree polarized. let us start with this
particular image. this is a painting that is done in 1864. at, in somemed sense, imaginatively re-creating the context of lincoln's fashion of emancipation policy. some details are, i am sure, just too small for us to pickup on. there are things to call your attention to. first of all, this is supposed to be his study. in the executive mansion. kinds of paraphernalia scattered around him. if you look at the far right-hand, there is a map of the u.s. the artist has put this sword ap,ging down across the mpa figuratively showing how war divided the country. pieces of paper to our right, his left, various petitions from slavery organizations, that are
imploring the president to strike against human bondage. behind lincoln is a copy of his presidential oath. why lincoln would have a copy of his oath hanging up his hard-pressed to imagine. but the artist puts it there for a reason. shelf opposite lincoln is in fact a bust of andrew jackson, who in the context of the 1860's, is probably the embodiment of the kind of staunch preservation of the union, whatever means necessary to maintain national supremacy. a copy of the bible. so the artist is telling us this is the context in which the emancipation proclamation is ultimately, from which it is emerging. can you think out loud with me? a little bit about the message here, what is the artist wanting to convey about the proclamation, about how americans should think of it?
any thoughts at all? christian? christian: well, the bible is currently an illustration of a kind of more moral ideal when it comes to emancipation. but then the oath is like what he is sworn to do, and andrew jackson obviously preserving the union. so his goal is to preserve the union. but at the same time, he has these moral obligations to free the slaves. tracy: does that resonate with the rest of you? he is trying to show the complexity of motives for the way and a difficult way that lincoln is balancing these competing obligations. these competing loyalties, the bible for the embodiment of moral obligation. the oath on the wall the embodiment of constitutionality. right? we have a sense of the artist is saying what lincoln is doing is tensiono resolve that
between moral obligation and his constitutional responsibilities, and we are supposed to see the emancipation policy as successfully doing that. window, flag over the with a bust of andrew jackson, we have the commitment to the union. and this is i think the message. very sympathetic message, really the way that i think lincoln would want northern opinion to think of his policy. we talked about lincoln as being a constitutional anti-slavery politician. always wanting to present his views, having some kind of moral dimension how mobile if possible. compare that image with this one. so this is a kind of pencil sketch. it is not colorful in the way that the drawing that we just looked at is worried this comes from an immigrant to the united states, who comes before the civil war from one of the german states. he lives in baltimore. he is a northern democrat.
he is very critical of the policy. the not know if you can see detail on the image one of the pickup on the message. can you see any of the details well enough? kyle, what easy there? kyle: he is standing on the bible. tracy: rather than having it on his lap, he is showing content. michael: there appears to be a demon on the table. tracy: i think that is fair enough. a hint of hell, yes. >> a saintly representation of john brown. picture onfriend the the wall that joe is calling attention to is supposed to be john brown. best known for the raid at harpers ferry. he is carrying one of those things he had built specifically to arm slaves after the rate at harpers ferry was planned. there is a halo, the st. john.
and what messages that perhaps sending? just the fact that brown is being shown favorably. what is this an evidence of that? any thoughts? samantha? samantha: maybe that brown was sort of reckless, overly violent, did not really consider a way of other possibility or option. tracy: he is sort of the embodiment of violence. compare it again to the previous picture where he is weighing the composition. brown does not that. the constitution is simply part of the problem in violence. that is the answer. anything else? >> the last picture the study was a mass. it looked like he was really laboring over the document, kind of slouched in his seat.
this one kind of insinuates this is the provocation of thinking. fair enough. there is not the constitution here. oris doing this either alone when i say in consultation with the devil, right? those of the influences. finally, i don't think you know this, but what is this little devil offering lincoln? almost certainly meant to be alcohol. far sidethe table, the devil is offering him a drink for inspiration. these pictures sorted encapsulate the kind of polarization that the emancipation policy creates in the north. i will have to come back to unionmcpherson's theme, is always divided. in larger context for us really quickly, emancipation is not the only issue that makes the middle of the civil war in the north and extremely contentious period.
we will not have time to develop this a lot, but we can list other factors that are at play. probably the most important is linked to emancipation, the recruitment of black soldiers into the u.s. armed forces. the united states congress had authorized the president of the united states to employ men of , asr for military purposes early as the summer of 1862. so lincoln in the summer is not prepared to take that step. he's even as far too controversial. he authorizes some experiments with the enlistment of black soldiers, as early as the summer of 1862. but he keeps it under the radar. so with areas on the coast of south carolina, areas out in kansas, the far remote frontier, there will begin to be the investment of black soldiers. attractrea that would proper attention, that doesn't happen until after his emancipation policy is announced.
when it is announced, he authorizes a very aggressive way the recruitment of black soldiers. so you begin to see a poster like this one. this is a poster that is published in philadelphia in 1863. come and join us, brothers. these kinds of appeals ultimately will lead to the enlistment of somewhere along men in theof 180,000 american armed forces, always in segregated forces called the colored troops. maybe as many as a quarter of a million other african-american males served in nonmilitary ways, and labor details and other capacities with the u.s. forces. addition to large the armed forces of the u.s. i would argue that the sort of government imprimatur on listing
black soldiers, if anything, more controversial in the north then emancipation. if i make that claim and i ask you why that might be, do you have a thought? why is this kind of image even more troubling? michael: it implies a sort of equality between the races that emancipation does not really do on its own. tracy: michael says there is the implication of equality. emancipation does not necessarily provide that. taylor?? people you are putting enslaved, worried that they have been freed. you give them a weapon, now they might turn against. taelor raises a concern that, in reality, is often southern the policy in white perspectives. that putting weapons into the hands of former enslaved people
may even be inviting, if not encouraging, retribution. some sort of violent response against white civilians. and i think that is a factor, as well. thatnk one of the things we have tried to identify are an is that if you american in the northern states in the middle of the 19th century, you can oppose slavery for many reasons. separate from the commitment to racial equality. that might be your motive, but it need not be. we begin to talk about the recruitment of black soldiers. northern popular opinion cannot separate that from a policy pointing towards racial equality. and so in a certain way, i think this policy is more controversial, more divisive itself.hem emancipation we can add the list of controversial issues, i will not go into much detail. but i will mention that in the
summer of 1862, the north begins to move towards conscription policy. meaning the forcible draft of soldiers, and they do that calling for nine-month volunteers in the summer of 1862. and in the spring of 1863, they move toward and much more all-encompassing draft law. anyone between the ages of 20-45, any white male is subject to the draft. and it begins to have a very significant impact on popular opinion. one of the things that you guys have in reading is short excerpts of the diary of this new york republican named george templeton strong. i don't know if you recall that, but he is writing the summer of 1862. he goes downtown to new york city, there is a major battle raging in virginia at the time. describes what you would see, you would never know what is going on. dear number that?
o you remember that? be booming.seems to no one seems to be a knowledge inc. that men are fighting and dying. in a sense, before construction is added to the formula, it is possible that if you live remote from the theater of war, the war could be a total abstraction. conscription makes at least potentially every adult male rival to military service. you can imagine how that as a kind of level of significance to the political debates about what the war is about whether the war is going well. is a factor.ion a final factor i would mention, very quickly, the lincoln administration's record on civil liberties. one other thing that strong writes about in his diary as well, the political opposition to the administration, he says that civil liberties may be as important as emancipation in
some areas, opposition to republican leadership. lincoln very early on in his presidency determines that there will be times when he needs to take extraordinary steps to crack down on voices that might weaken the war effort. now under the constitution, article one, section nine, the congress is given the authority to withdraw, at least temporarily, something called the writ of habeas corpus. have you guys are that? the phrase kbs orbis means literally to have the body. prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning civilians and not giving them due process, not giving them the right to a trial before the jury of their peers. and under the constitution, you have a government official throwing you in prison, without
trial, some to go to accord on your behalf, request a judge issue an order releasing this political prisoner. order, of habeas corpus. the constitution says this privilege may be withdrawn or repealed temporarily in times of insurrection or invasion. lincoln, at different times during the war starting as ofly as april of 1861, sort broadening the policy on into the lake months of 1862. he will authorize the arrest of civilians without trial. one historian who was very systematically reviewing the policy estimates that somewhere lines of about 15,000 civilians are arrested at some point during the war. relative to our population
today, they'll be summing like 250,000 civilians. typically for a few months of time, almost always release. but yet, this is going on. nothing informs popular support or opposition to the war more than the momentum on the battlefield. it is going to sound like a gross over several occasion, but it is more or less something that has been verified by
systematic analysis. the single most important factor that determines popular attitudes towards war, in particular contexts, is that does it appear the war is being one? won? wars where victory seems tangible and at hand are popular wars. wars that are not being won, where victory seems remote, if at all likely, they become e unpopular war. how had lincoln resented emancipation? as a military act, right? act under his authority as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, as a military act that would help to bring victory and shorten the war. we see that just one other image, one of my favorites from the civil war.
this is one of the ways in which we see emancipation in body. here we have a print that is done, i don't know the exact bye, 1862-1863, produced courier and ives, producing expensive artwork for public homes and places. this particular drawing, you have a justification of emancipation as a military act. of iymbolism we can sort think defined fairly quickly. we have jefferson davis, the presidency of the confederacy on your far left. we are supposed to think of jefferson davis sort of like a sideshow barker at a carnival. where he calls for the passing of visitors to step right up. bits and try her hand and such and such.
he is inviting people to step up and try to bakreak the rebellion. we have this enormous vicious dog with the word rebellion written along the background. we have a variety of northern figures that most readers would immediately recognize or know of. these northern figures have come in various ways, try to break union victory. and in the back, sitting dejectedly with his head in his hands, is a man named john crittenden. he was a congressman, who in the winter of 1861, at try to come up with a compromise that would avoid war. and so crittenden has a tiny little hammer that is labeled compromise. we are supposed to see how woefully inadequate that was. we have a variety of other northern figures, one general with a much larger hammer. another with a hammer labeled
strategy. these are well-known union generals. next come the secretary of war, edwin stanton. he is talking to president abraham lincoln. stanton tells lincoln that they may try their skill, their strategy, but i think my hammer is going to be the one to break the backbone of the rebellion. ultimatelyled draft, want to put us over the top and bring military success. with theln, always rail splitter with his acts over his shoulder, you can try him with that. ax ofbelieve that this mine is the only thing that will fetch him, the only thing that will do the trick. is labeled the emancipation proclamation. it is all about bringing
victory, emancipation is justified as a military authority as my commander in chief of the army and navy of the u.s. so we see the relationship here between success on the battlefield and popular support for emancipation. support in the north, it would correlate pretty popular perception whether the war was being won. progress being made or not. now the unfortunate thing if you are abraham lincoln or any republican advocate for emancipation, in the aftermath of the proclamation, the union war effort takes a nosedive. the preliminary emancipation proclamation was announced in late september of 1862. and there is not a significant union military victory for the next nine months. period, roughly
until july of 1863, popular support for emancipation, popular support for republican administration, goes down, down, down. now we do not have a lot of time this class, we are going so quickly in the overview of the war, talk about specifics militarily. but let me just remind you a little bit about the broad, overarching pattern. ap, you havehis mpa some sense of what it is conveying. we have talked about that. the grand a of the lincoln administration when the war began was primarily centered on the three components. blockade of the confederate states, thrust towards the confederate capital which of the moved to richmond, and a campaign to take control of the mississippi river. we are going to make a broad generalization. you heard this for me before. in the first year of the war, in
the eastern theater of the war, particularly the fighting around virginia, the confederacy was doing really well. but the farther west you went, the western theater of the war, union success was more and more striking. so you have this pattern of union victory in the west, confederate victory, or at least sort of union stalemate, in the east. what happens in the nine months after the emancipation proclamation is that that pattern falls apart. and republicans cannot point to significant success anywhere. the campaign for control of an sv river is going down badly -- mississippi river is going down badly in a costly siege in vicksburg. there is a very expensive, bloody battle in central tennessee that accomplishes nothing. in the late 1862. there are major confederate
victories in the eastern theater in virginia in 1862. on into the spring of 1863. one string of successive confederate victories with staggering human costs. now, this is interrupted temporarily, july of 1863. it is a hugely significant moment in the civil war. because in the span of 24 hours there is major union victory at gettysburg. blunting a confederate invasion of pennsylvania. gettysburg is of the top of the map. the next day vicksburg, the last stronghold on the mississippi river and the confederacy surrenders to union forces. the rest of 1863, it appears that union military momentum is building on that. by the end of that year, tennessee has been completely rid of confederate forces. union armies are now in georgia,
union armies are threatening within 30 miles or so. everything is pointing toward a regain of union momentum and a likelihood the war will end by that following spring. one of the things that adds to that perception, victory is now likely, lincoln has identified a new general. if you know anything about the military history of the civil war, you know that lincoln has a difficult time identifying a successful commander in the eastern theater of the war. lincolnnd of 1863, brings this man, ulysses grant, from the western theater to the east. he had been very successful fighting in mississippi. and in tennessee. now he is brought to command all union armies in all theaters of
war. lincoln and grant talk a lot. 1863-1864,winter of lincoln is convinced grant has the plan to end the war as soon as the weather improves enough to resume campaigning in the spring of that year. the story of 1864 in terms of the civil war is the story of the way in which that expectation ultimately comes crashing down. in the spring of 1864 there is going to be significant fighting into two areas. now i don't care that you remember the specific details but i want you to put yourself in the perspective, northern civilians are already in the war that is vastly longer, more expensive than anyone had ever anticipated when the war broke out.
and ask yourself how they would inform your participation in the future. two areas of fighting primarily. it is more complicated than this. but we can focus on these areas. one is in virginia between washington, d.c. and richmond. there is fighting starting in early spring, 1864 between an army commanded by ulysses grant and robert e. lee north of richmond. and a series of maneuvers, they will move east and south, east and south, always trying to get around the confederate army and strike directly at the capital or get between the confederate capital in the confederate army. does it succeed? in one sense, what it leads to is a series of very costly battles. the result is that from early may, 1864 to early june, 1864,
there are a series of battles with casualty levels that for anything recognize before this. the pattern of military history in the civil war in the first half is a pattern in which two large armies would come together and they would clash, a monumental clash of humanity. reeking untold casualties. and then the armies would separate and take weeks, often months to recover and requip themselves to resume the fighting. what changes in the spring of 1864 is that one battle gives way almost seamlessly to the next. and for a period of almost six weeks, the armies in northern virginia are constantly in contact with one another
inflicting casualties on one another that are astounding. let me give you an example of grant's army. grant strikes south the first day of may with 16,000 soldiers. that army will sustain 64,000 casualties. that is killed, wounded of and missing. we will add to those 64,000 casualties, the terms of service of many soldiers are expiring. many had listed, served for three years. to those 64,000 who are taken out of action, 18,000 go home. because their term has expired. so the army grant began with in may, 150,000 men, has now only a little less than one third of
that original army left. just six weeks later, it is a degree of devastation that no one in the western hemisphere had witnessed before. ultimately this campaign blogs down. it leads instead to a siege. it is fairly, k, i will not go into it. a well defended city's of richmond called petersburg. it is pretty much in place by mid-june. it would not be broken until early april of next year. grant's hope for a quick campaign that would capture the confederate capital has been frustrating in the human cost has been staggering. the same time there is fighting going on, there is fighting in northern georgia. i will not go into much detail at all, except to say that there is a union army struck south
around chattanooga on the border and was trying to move on that to atlanta. is one of the important transportation crossroads in the western theater at this time. as what is going on in northern virginia, this command under william sherman. constant conflict, engaged in a two-step dance for the defense of atlanta. let me add up for you what happens in these two campaigns. in the spring of 1864, the total number of casualties, if you combine casualties in northern georgia and northern virginia, 89,000. in less than three months. i don't know if that sounds like a lot to you are not. i hope that it sounds like a lot to you. the population of the free
or loyal states in 1864 is about 20 million. if we take those casualty figures and try to translate them today, the united states forced us to experience the same proportional laws. today would require casualties of 1.5 million. so if we want to imagine in the span of less than three months, the united states is involved in a war taking one-one half-million soldiers. those are not all fatalities. that is killed, wounded and missing. one half-million out of action. what would be the popular response? what would be the popular response? hypothetical, but just think out loud with me. what do you think? kristin, what you think? >> overwhelmingly negative.
prof. mckenzie: chris says overwhelmingly negative. this is hypothetical. what do others think? >> i think people would want it to be over. they probably wouldn't care about what they were fighting over. they would just wanted to end. prof. mckenzie: some people are going to say i'm sick of this. the cost is too great. nothing can justify this sacrifice. any other kind of response? joe? joe: some may think such a high human cost requires staying the course and justifying the sacrifice of so many people. prof. mckenzie: does that make sense to you? joe is taking a different track. he is saying rather than the high human cost being an argument for disengagement, it becomes an argument for persistence. the argument is going to be if we back out now all those who have made this sacrifice will have done so in vain. which is the language abraham lincoln uses in his gettysburg address.
we hear the high resolve that these men have not died in vain. to make sure they did not die in vain, others may need to die. more than one kind of response. we have kind of a bifurcated response. greater polarization. more people say this is too high, and more say we must do whatever it takes to vindicate the sacrifices that have been made. let me, kate things just a little more. imagine the united states is involved in a war in the last three months, 1.5 million casualties have been sustained. the president goes before the american people in a press conference, which would never have happened in the 1860's but happened today. and reading from the teleprompter tells the country he is calling for more
"volunteers." the number of volunteers he needs he specifies clearly. he says i need 8 million more. "volunteers." tatian marks why? because there is a draft law in place. and if volunteers are not forthcoming will be another way to ensure the manpower they need is met. now when i say 8 million, i am putting that in our numbers today. what lincoln asked for in the aftermath of all those casualties is 500,000 more volunteers. which in our numbers today would be between 8 million and eight and a half million. final detail. imagine you are currently involved in the war. 1.5 million casualties in the last three months. a president says i need 8 million more. finally that president is running for reelection on his war record.
let's add that to the mix. because at the same time abraham lincoln is asking for half a million more volunteers, he's also asking for the american people to support him for a second term. it's impossible to feel the weight of contingency in the summer of 1864. unless we let it sort of sink in how likely abraham lincoln's reelection was. certainly, lincoln at various times believes his reelection is unlikely. so what i would like us to do is to take a quick visit to the 1864 presidential election. keep those big things in mind. about the war is a window into attitudes.
and in particular, the attitudes toward slavery and racial equality. i think you will find a lot that is embedded in the campaign that is relevant. first of all, a little bit of context. when lincoln is seeking a nomination for a second term, he's doing something that we today absolutely take for granted. we assume that incumbent presidents will be candidates for second terms. and we assume they will get the nomination. we may not assume they will be reelected but we know statistically incumbents have good chances. that is not the case in the 19th century. the last president to be reelected to a second term was andrew jackson.
and that was 1832. so 32 years have transpired since the last time a president was reelected. the last time an incumbent was even nominated had been 1840. almost a quarter of a century had passed since that happened. so no one is automatically assuming in the republican party in the spring of 1864 that lincoln's nomination is inevitable or even desirable. in fact, there are a lot of individuals that would like to replace lincoln. someone to replace them because they have aspirations of their own. lincoln's cabinet members, someone who would like to be president. there are others with presidential aspirations. other members of the republican party don't think lincoln's re-electable. and for that reason, with a concern for the war effort, they
believe replacing lincoln is probably the wiser course to follow. ultimately lincoln is going to be reelected. what with muted enthusiasm, there were other aspirations for the nomination, no one person was able to create a broad enough base of support to unseat lincoln. so lincoln is going to be nominated in june 1864. but the way he is nominated and the rhetoric and the strategy followed by the republican party is key. we will look at some images that will get us thinking about the strategy of the party.
i want you guys to tell me what you see. make some inferences about what this tells us in that election. let's begin with this poster that would have been widely circulated in the state of new york. it's showing nominations at various levels starting with president and going down a variety of offices at the new york state level. so just look at that poster and tell me what you do or don't see. i know you cannot read some of the fine print. what jumps out? christian: it doesn't say republican nomination. it says union nomination. prof. mckenzie: let's start there. did you notice that? opponents of the republican party in 1864 are going to be using the label republican. republicans don't use the label very much at all in 1864. they are going to use the label
national union. national union. national union nominations here. let's start there. before we move to anything else talk to me about that. talk to me about that. talk to me about that strategy and what it seems to be suggesting. samantha? samantha: it is interesting. emancipation demonstrated a shift in focus. emancipation of slaves, they are returning to their initial focus, more popular. focused on keeping the union together. prof. mckenzie: what might look even as a backtracking in the announcement of the emancipation policy, a clear redefinition of
republican war aims. now this seems to be returning to the earlier focus. anyone else have thoughts about that? they areseems like trying to attract northern democrats who are probably on the fence about whether they want to support the party. because they were not originally supporting the party. but they support the union. prof. mckenzie: it's an obvious effort at bipartisan support to say regardless of party, if you stand for what we stand for you need to be with us. now what do they stand for? according to their label, the union. now to pick up on something samantha said, i think they would try to argue emphasizing national union, we are not backtracking. we're perpetuating the embracement of emancipation, it had always been about
preserving the union. i think that would be the argument. anything else that you see here? you may not be able to read it enough. anything that jumps out at you? keep in mind the vice presidential nomination. or the nominee. if i asked you, and i will not because life is too short, who is lincoln's vice president was, in his first term, you might not immediately know to answer hannibal hamlin. hannibal hamlin of maine had been his vice president in the convention in june of 1864 the republicans calling themselves national unionist kick out there vice presidential person on the ticket. hannibal hamlin had been an anti-slavery politician from new england. and in 1860 republicans and wanted to balance the ticket putting a prominent new
englander with a prominent midwesterner. hamlin had done his job. but his reputation was too strongly anti-slavery. and so, in 1864, as they deflect criticism of emancipation, they drop the label of republican. and they drop their vice president. they replace them with andrew johnson. andrew johnson we would talk about more if we were moving into reconstruction. because we know he will figure centrally in that era american history. really quickly, what do we know about him? he had been born and raised in the south. he rose to prominence in tennessee, a slave-holding state. he had owned slaves himself. and he was a democrat. the only other thing we my ad is he was a staunch unionist.
when we think about that, the ticket in 1864 was the northern, anti-slavery republican lincoln paired with the southern -- not that i would call johnson proslavery but now opposed to slavery on moral grounds. what do they have in common? almost nothing. but they do have one thing in common. christian: preservation of the union. prof. mckenzie: they are unionists. so the very pairing of these two, driving home the point. this is a union coalition aimed at preserving the union. it is a big tent that can accommodate lots of views on the issues of slavery. we see this in a variety of ways.
just a few more images. they label again, grand national union banner. the slogan at the bottom says liberty, union and victory. but those are very broad, vague terms. the platform of the national union party, 11-12 points. the very first one is going to say this is paramount. it is the highest duty, rest are , right? the highest duty of every american citizen to maintain against all their enemies, the integrity of the union and the constitution and laws of the united states. if you go through this particular plank in the platform, we talk about quelling the rebellion, bringing traders to justice. and the national union party is
all about preserving the union. but look at a phrase, the resolution says laying aside all differences of political opinion , we pledge ourselves. so it is a fiction, largely. but the strategy is to say this is not the old republican party. it is a new bipartisan coalition that has its own cementing glue. it is the commitment to the union. they will endorse emancipation. and the national platform in 1864 actually endorses the constitutional amendment that would end slavery and all of the united states. but look at how it phrases that. this is the third plank in the platform. resolving that slavery was the
cause, and now constitutes the strength of this rebellion, as it is hostile of principles of republic. not republican party, but government and the consent of the republic. we are in favor. it says the constitutional amendment to end the slavery everywhere. but you see the link. that gets to something you said, samantha. we are opposing slavery, as part of our commitment to preserve the union. this was the cause of the rebellion. this is what sustains the rebellion. it must be ended if we are to end the rebellion. right? this is going to be the approach of the republican party in 1864. lincoln, as late as the summer of 1864, is basically resigned to the inevitability of his defeat. the war has been going so poorly, the casualties have been so high, war weariness is
mounting. he does not expect to win. in fact, we do not have time to sketch all of the details, one of the most striking episodes and his presidency, the 23rd of august he has a memo in which he says it is exceedingly probable that i will not be reelected. he has concluded that. when he writes that memo the democratic party is preparing to meet in its convention in chicago, very near us. chicago, illinois. and that convention will ultimately nominate as its standardbearers these two individuals. on the left side of the banner, we have met him before. this is george mcclellan, the commander of the army of the potomac early in the war. a very prominent, very famous and well known union general.
mcclellan represented a faction known as war democrats. war democrats were members of northern democratic party that favor the prosecution of war aggressively. they wanted to continue the war to preserve the union but always opposed emancipation. his running mate is a man named george pendleton. you have never heard of him, you never will again. he is a congressman from ohio. he represents a faction of the party called peace democrats. sometimes a nickname was copperheads. they basically arrived at the conclusion the war is a failure and continuing the war was a tragic mistake. the democratic party will put these two men together on the same ticket. mcclellan, even earlier in the
war he staked out his position with regard to abraham lincoln. he says i do not favor a war with the subjugation of the people, the confiscation of their property or the forceful interference with slavery. the democratic party is closely enough divided that there are a lot of democrats that are not happy mcclellan was the nominee. he's a war democrat. so to assuage their feelings, the party let them write the platform, which is bizarre. they are going to have a war democrat lead the party and let the peace democrats write the platform. so at chicago, this is what they come up with.
this is one of the major planks in their platform. after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war we demand immediate efforts be made forces station of hostilities -- for secession of hostilities. peace may be for stored on the basis of the federal union. what the platform is saying, immediate cease-fire, negotiation with the south, the only issue is the union. emancipation is completely off the table. this then is the two sides. the two sides are drawn. one very significant thing happens before the general election. the momentum on the field of battle turns. if there's a single critical of that, it is the fall of atlanta, the object of union attention since the spring.
the fall of the atlanta on the second of september. this is immediately greeted with jubilation across the north. many individuals believe it may have been more than any single thing what turned the tide of northern opinion. in the election that follows, you see two very clear strategists. if you are a democrat, it will emphasize race. democrats are going to do is constantly remind northern voters this is an unnecessary war fought to establish racial equality.