Disunion, the New York Times, and Lee’s Difficult Decision

Every now and again the media does something right. Shocking, I know. But have you been paying attention to the New York Times Disunion Series? Since the beginning of the year, the NYT has been publishing opinion pieces interpreting events and people of the Civil War. Of course, they are doing this because this year marks 150 years since the war between the states (but about slavery, yes I said it) began. And if there’s something that everyone (Republican, Democrat, Independent) in our nation loves to do, it’s remember a war. And Americans love the Civil War. It seems to me that the reasons for this love is unending: the end of slavery, states rights, Southern pride, the new military technology of the war, brother versus brother… and it just keeps going.

Anyway, the NYT series is an interesting one because it encompasses all of these ideas. Each article takes on an issue, event, or person. The authors make arguments and the pieces often conflict with each other. Many of the articles are also written not by journalists but Civil War historians. And not the pop ones like Doris Kearns Goodwin (Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) but ones like Stephanie McCurry (Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South) or Ethan J. Kytle (Strike the First Blow: Romantic Liberalism and the Struggle Against Slavery in the United States, 1850 -1865). I love the Disunion Series because it demonstrates what’s exciting and interesting about history. It’s not about memorizing the dates and battle names of the War, but about picking apart the war, making interpretations, expressing arguments, and having a discussion. Fun with History’s new blogger expressed this type of sentiment about making and reading history in his recent post “Made Everyday.”

From NYT article, "The General in His Study" Courtesy of Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial Mary Custis Lee

I haven’t read nearly enough of the articles in the series but the ones I have read are interesting, fresh, and illuminating. Today’s piece, “The General in His Study” takes up the oft-argued point that Robert E. Lee struggled between his loyalty to union and his loyalty to his beloved Virginia. Of course, we know he sided with Virginia and served as a great military leader for the Confederacy until 1865. Elizabeth Brown Pryor (Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee through His Private Letters) presents a letter by Lee’s eldest daughter Mary Custis Lee (pictured above) that describes the difficult decision her father made. (The online version of this article includes a scan of this letter!) Lee worried about what his family would think of his decision to take up arms against the Union, apologizing “I suppose you will all think I have done very wrong.” What Brown introduces here isn’t that Lee made a difficult decision, but just how painful, how personal, and how un-inevitable it really was. History is never destiny, any number of realities can change the course, and Brown demonstrates this powerfully in her discussion of Lee.

It’s just this type of discussion and carefully writing of a historical figure’s decision that makes me love this series. In a moment when we remember the Civil War through endless reenactments and Charleston’s disturbing secession ball, the Disunion Series provides a serious and thoughtful discussion of America’s War.

Update: Just found out, you can also follow this series on Twitter: @nytcivilwar

Hey, Hey LBJ – Happy Birthday!

From the minute he (unnecessarily) took the presidential oath following the assassination of JFK, Johnson moved the nation forward.

Today is Lyndon B. Johnson’s birthday. Our 36th president has been remembered most for his leadership of the doomed Vietnam War. And while his leadership of this war, well his foreign leadership in general, was poor, this should only be a small part of our national memory. LBJ wanted to be a remembered president, and he has been – but for all the wrong reasons.

LBJ might have had little insight about foreign policy, but his presidency also led one of the great moments of social and domestic reform in the United States. He championed the Civil Rights movement. Unlike JFK, who had been hesitant to throw his support behind the movement, LBJ made it a priority. And his keen political insight allowed him to get away with it. In 1964, he pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act. Recognizing the power of Kennedy’s death, he begged Congress to vote yes on the bill in the honor of the slain president. This explains some of the reason why historically we associate Kennedy with Civil Rights and less so with Johnson. Then the following year, Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act – allowing most African Americans to vote for the first time (despite having been enfranchised nearly a century earlier).

LBJ also dreamt of a Great Society, one that included all Americans – not just the middle and upper class. The Great Society extended the ideals of FDR’s depression-era New Deal. Unlike its predecessor, the Great Society extended social programs to people of color, poor whites, and the elderly. And LBJ acted quickly – he knew that support for these programs would be short-lived. However, such programs greatly improved the lives of almost all Americans both then and now. Great Society programs include:

Project Head Start (1965) – provided food, health, & day care to impoverished preschool age children.

Medicare Act (1965) – medical insurance for those 65 and older. Extended to those with disabilities. Also paid for prescription drugs and nursing care.

Medicaid (1965) – Health insurance for low-income families.

National Endowment for Humanities & Arts (1965) – Funding for scholars, writers, musicians, & performers.

Public Broadcasting Act (1967) – Created corporation to fund PBS & NPR (one the great success stories).

Immigration & Nationality Services Act (1965) – Rolled back the restrictive 1924 Immigration Act that had aimed restrictions targeted at Asian & Latin American immigrants.

Fair  Housing Act (1968) – Prohibits discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, familial status, or disability in selling or renting homes.

VISTA – A domestic version of Kennedy’s Peace Corps, dedicated to improving the lives of Americans.

Why do we forget about all this and only remember Vietnam? Well, for one LBJ most definitely led some of its largest blunders. While he recognized the problems inherent with Vietnam, the path had been set in motion by the presidents before him (starting with Truman and lasting through JFK). In his 1964 election year, he felt pushed to escalate the war by his staunch hawk Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater. Johnson also lacked the savvy to navigate relations with foreign leaders or even acknowledge cultural differences. This led him to decide, often recommended by his cabinet and military leaders, to attack the Viet Cong with full force. He could not consider the reactions of the Viet Cong enemy or even recognize their will to maintain autonomy. Finally, even LBJ’s most strident supports (namely Civil Rights leaders) found themselves turning their back on the president due to the war. In 1968, LBJ felt he had no choice but to withdraw from the presidential election – and he was right.

Today is a good day to remember both sides of our former president.

Dropping The Bomb

Hiroshima after the Bomb

Today in 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb (the Enola Gay) on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, the we did it again, dropping another atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered two days later.

What we learned about the atomic bomb that year changed the world’s understanding of warfare. Immediately, the bomb killed 80,000 people (60,000 in Nagasaki). However, those who survived the initial blast suffered for the rest of their lives. Many grew ill from radiation poisoning, some died soon, with the death toll reaching 140,000 by the end of 1945. Others suffered the effects for decades.  The U.S. chose Hiroshima as an atomic bomb target since it remained relatively untouched throughout the war but became the most devastated after August 6. Despite the horrendous results of the bomb, an enormous atomic arms race followed the end of WWII in the Cold War.

The dropping of those bombs remains controversial. Many claim it was unnecessary, that too many innocent people died and Japan would have surrendered without the bomb. Others claim that while it killed too many Japanese, it save hundreds of thousands of American lives in the event of a Japanese invasion and ended an already long and costly war. Historical documents lack proof that the U.S. government had planned for a Japanese invasion as an alternative to the bomb. Yet, the documents are also unclear on whether Japan had a surrender in the works. Even the Smithsonian has had difficulty in how it remembers the dropping of bombs. In 1995, controversy erupted over their plans for a 50th anniversary exhibition. What are your thoughts on the bomb? Did it prevent years of more war and the loss of even more lives? Or was it a horrendous decision that the U.S. should continue to regret?

On today, the sixty-fifth anniversary of the bomb’s dropping the U.S. paid tribute to the lives lost and the pain the atomic bombs caused Japan. For the first time, the U.S. sent a representative to the Hiroshima memorial ceremony. Unsurprisingly, Japan remains one nation steadfastly against nuclear warfare.

And on a different note, please give your thoughts about history here. Thinking about moments such as the dropping of the atomic bomb and how we understand/teach/learn about it seem all too relevant when thinking about how we define History.

Fight the Rich Man’s Fight

I’ve been thinking about who fights our wars. I don’t know why I thought about it today, but its been on my mind since we discussed it in this quarter’s Vietnam section. The reality of the United States’ wars (and perhaps everywhere) is that privileged leaders and politicians decide our involvement but the impoverished youth give their lives.

Consider this, in the American Revolution, most people who fought participated through militias. They joined when the battle rolled through town, provided their own arms, and then disbanded. This worked for many men, particularly farmers who could not abandon their land for long periods of time to fight in the war. Logistically this was a poor system and George Washington knew it. He wanted (and had) a standing army. However, poor men (sometimes without their own shoes) filled its ranks and suffered the largest causalities. These men needed the salary (however trivial) the Constitutional Army provided because they did not have property.

Fast forward to the Civil War. Much of the nation resorted to a draft system to fight this horrendous war. More Americans died in this war than in all the other wars the U.S. has participated combined. However, wealthy plantation owners often sent their slaves to fight for them or paid others to serve their draft notice. And the poor took the cash and died. This happened across the Union as well, but seemed more prevalent in the South.

World War I partially fills this example, but the U.S. short involvement (just over a year) makes it a poor case study. And the Great Depression combined with the attack on Pearl Harbor made World War II a popular war to fight in.

Moving forward, the impoverished and minorities (often one and the same, due to Jim Crow and practiced segregation in suburbia) fought the first several years in Vietnam. In fact, part of the militant tone that overtook the Civil Rights movement in the latter half of the 1960s came directly from an understanding that African American men fought and died in the war at a much greater rate than their white counterparts. A draft that allowed college enrollment as a reason for deferral partially allowed for this discrepancy in the troops.

But the draft is over now. We are in locked in two (seemingly unending) wars. And yet, the impoverished make up much of our military troops (though not all). These men and women have little economic opportunities outside the military.

It’s an interesting historical dilemma. Invoking a draft (as has been done through much of our history) did not prevent class and racial discrepancies in our military. Removing the draft has left us again with a class discrepancy in the troops. For historians, it poses an interesting question: what does this demonstrate about military in the U.S.? What does it mean (or does it mean anything)?

For you readers: does it even matter?

Hot Skirmishes in a Cold War

Today in 1950, the Cold War became very hot! President Harry Truman announced that U.S. air and naval forces were being ordered to democratic South Korea to help protect it from communist North Korea. Though war was never technically announced, the U.S. engaged in a major military action that would last until 1953. Truman explained that this would enforce the United Nations resolution that had called for an end of hostilities and an attempt to stop the flow of communism in Asia. Truman, like nearly all of the Cold War presidents, bought into the Domino Theory. This theory stated that if one nation (specifically in Asia) fell to communism, all of the nations could fall (like dominos, get it?).

Korea had been divided during the Yalta Conference following World War II. Above the 38^th parallel, the Soviet forces occupied the region with American occupying the area south of the parallel. By 1949, the two new nations of Korea seemed relatively stable and both the USSR and the U.S. had brought the majority of their troops home. On June 25, 1950, 90,000 North Korean troops invaded South Korea. The southern nation was caught unaware and quickly retreated. The U.S. immediately requested for an end of hostilities and that North Korea withdraw. In the U.N., both the U.S. and the USSR had veto powers. The USSR had the right to veto this action. However, they were boycotting the U.N. due to its refusal to admit the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, the USSR could have prevent U.N. action in Korea, but lost its opportunity.

Despite the fact that war was never declared, Congress voted to extend the draft and Truman was authorized to call up reservists. The U.N. met again and again sans USSR. They passed a resolution that approved the use of force against North Korea; U.S. ground forces left for Korea on June 30 and the U.N. placed Korea under U.S. control on July 7.

General Douglas MacArthur led the U.N. forces in Korea. He was determined to show that the U.S. meant business when it came to stopping the spread of communism, which seemed like a good idea to Truman since they were only dealing with Korea. Then Chinese communist troops entered, calling off all bets. MacArthur began to speak loudly and publically about his desire to bomb China, despite the fact that this went against Truman’s policies. MacArthur continued to speak out of turn and in April 1951, Truman relieved him from command, showing the nations.

By May 1951, the North Koreans had been pushed back to the 38^th parallel. A little of two years later, an armistice was signed and Korea remained divided. This “hot” Cold War cost South Korea, the U.S. and the U.N. around 150,000 troops and cost North Korea lost approximately 800,000 troops. Over one million Korean civilian lives were also lost.