Sun Tzu: Waging War

"When employing [an army] in battle, a victory that is long in coming will dampen their ardor. If you attack cities, their strength will be exhausted. If you expose the army to a prolonged campaign, the state's resources will be inadequate.

"When the weapons have grown dull and spirits depressed, when our strength has been expended and resources consumed, then the feudal lords will take advantage of our exhaustion to arise. Even though you have wise generals, they will not be able to achieve a good result.

"Thus in military campaigns I have heard of awkward speed but have never seen any skill in lengthy campaigns. No country has ever profited from protracted warfare. Those who do not thoroughly comprehend the dangers inherent in employing the army are incapable of truly knowing the potential advantages of military actions."

--Sun Tzu

from Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Ralph D. Sawyer, (Trans.) and Mei-chun Sawyer. Barnes & Noble Books, by arrangment with Westview Press, 1994 (pp. 173, paragraphs 2-4). I recommend it!

Part of the Terra-cotta Army of Xi'an. Picture by Maros at Wikipedia.

Sunday, January 16: Honoring our Dead in Iraq.

Last week, I posted the U.S. dead for 2010 in and around Afghanistan. But we should never forget the many casualties of the Iraq War, sixty of which occurred this year. I found these names at icasualties.org, an organization which has been tracking the losses for the coalition forces for a long time.

I hope you will take a minute to read through these names, listed two or three across.

Please also remember their families, friends, and comrades who needed them. Please remember these men and women who are still with us, still serving. Remember the wounded, the permanently injured, and their caregivers. Their battles are not done.

--Finch, David D.--Luff Jr., David J.--Gandy, Loleni W.--

--Jones Jr., David R.--Reid, Dylan T.--Whisenant, Marc C.--

--Carrillo Jr., John--Noonan, Gebrah P.--Burner III, John F.--

--Hansen, James A.--Jenkins, Philip C.--McClamrock, James F.--

--Maggart, Brandon E.--Rhett, Jamal M.--Hinkley, Faith R.--

--Runyan, Michael L.--Tuttle, Jordan E.--Lumpkin, Johnny W.--

--McBeth, Morganne M.--Haynes, Bryant J.--Dohrenwend, Jacob P.--

--Cassidy, Michael P.--Opat, Christopher W.--
Obryan, Israel P.----Yauch, William C

.--Theobald, Steve M.--Guardado-Ramirez, Francisco J.--

--Sessarego, Alvaro R. Regalado--Culver Jr. Ronald W.--
--Gonzalez, Amilcar H.--Sokolowski, III, Stanley J.--

--Mena, Ralph--Gonzales, Esau S.A.--

--Magee, Anthony O.--Coe, Keith A.--Worrell, Christopher D.--

--Antonio, Charlie C.--Patton, James R.--Collins, Robert W.--

--Blount, Anthony--Kruize, Kurt E.--Pacleb, Raymond N.--

--Rieckhoff, Robert--Jordan, Richard J.--McLyman, Erin L.--

--Bishop, Steven J.--Arthur, Aaron M.--Bailey, Lakeshia M.--

--Spencer, William C.--O’Leary, Daniel T.--Grinder, Billie J.--

--Alford, Marcus R.--Caughman, Sean L.--Alvarez, Adriana--

--Barnett, Scott G.--Hurt, Gifford E.--Hopkins, Ryan J.--

--Jarrett, Michael R.--Croft Jr., David A.--Anderson, Brushaun X.--

Our Homeless Veterans: The Human Face

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates nine thousand veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are homeless. Others say it's more. To me, nine thousand is too many, by about nine thousand.

The other thing is, contrary to narrative, it doesn't have to happen all at once. There's slippage: a military man is trained to react to a crisis. When he or she comes home and it's totally different, they may cope for awhile in crisis mode. Then one thing happens, or another. The mask cracks. They end up on the street.

It's easy to say something needs to happen. There's a feel-good level to that. But then there's the part where people back from war actually have issues: broken families, the community safety net broken since they left. Others have hypervigilance, drug abuse, alcoholism. Still others: organic brain damage, or constant pain. Those things aren't pretty. Neither is war. We know who endured the most. Still endures the most.

Of the homeless population, it's estimated that 47% of them are Vietnam veterans. We failed these vets: it was partly our popular culture at the time, which I have never understood but must accept. It was also a failure on the part of  military culture, the VA culture. The lack of advance in psychology over PTSD. The enduring contribution of the Vietnam Veteran Homeless may well be that the current returning veterans are getting treatment sooner.

Good word is coming out from Eric Shinseki's work with the VA. But as I have said before, the VA doesn't work for everyone. Or it isn't the only thing a person needs.  Hey: hire a vet. Or if you're not in a hiring position, maybe just talk to one sometime. Every hello and how are you is part of their return to us. It may lead to something deeper or better. Try to know what you can in the way you can do it.

There's a few interesting stories out there. This one is from ABC News.

At Vets Edge dot Org: A true story of a veteran who nearly failed twice, written by himself.
From the Beloit Daily News: about two-thirds of the way down, the veterans' accounts start in this story.

Sunday, January 9: Honoring Our Dead in Afghanistan

In late December, I went to iCasualties.org and learned that the United States lost 498 military personnel in and around Afghanistan this year. 

Year  2010

Jan 30

Feb 31

Mar 26

Apr 20

May  34

June  60

Jul 65

Aug 55

Sep 42

Oct 50

Nov 53

Dec 32

Below are the names of the men and women we lost. This does not count the 16 Canadian dead, the 103 from the United Kingdom, the ninety-three others who died from around the world in Afghanistan. If I did not note your country, icasualties.org did. You can find your countrymen listed there.

The Americans died at an age somewhere between 18 and 45 years old. I hope you will take a minute to read through these names, listed two or three across. 

Please also remember their families, friends, and comrades who needed them. 

Please remember these men and women who are still with us, still serving. 

Remember the wounded, 

the permanently injured, and their caregivers. Their battles are not done.

I am sorry if this page takes awhile to load, but I am not hiding any of these names after a page break. They are listed from most recent death to January 1, 2010.

--Nguyen, Tevan L.--Misener, Garrett A.--Corzine, Kenneth A.--

--Crouse IV, William H.--Javier Jr., Conrado D.--

--Torbert Jr., Eric M.--Maldonado, Jose L.--Osterman, Sean A.--

--Cutsforth, Sean R.--Schmalstieg, Justin E.--Hernandez, Jose A.--

--Collins, Sean M.--McLawhorn Jr., Willie A.--Deans, Patrick D.--

--Necochea Jr., Kenneth E.--Simonetta, Derek T.--Villacis, Jorge E.--

--Goncalo, Ethan L.--Green, Stacy A.--Mixon, Kelly J.--

--Ayube II, James A.--Geary, Michael E.--Peto, Jason D.--

--Rusk, Colton W.--Wyatt, Derek A.--Aleman, Nicholas J.--

--Reeves, Jason A.--Ashlock, Vincent W.--Scott, Lucas C.--

--Thode, James E.--Abbate, Matthew--Wade, Chad S.--

--Milley, Scott F.--Jarvis, Barry E.--Oakes, Curtis A.--

--Ramsey, Matthew W.--Gassen, Jacob A.--Staggs, Austin G.--

--McLain, Buddy W.--Harris, Devon J.--Donnelly IV, William J.--

--Buenagua, Ardenjoseph A.--Middleton, William K.--Flannery, Sean M.--

--Robinson, David S.--Smith, Jason T.--Holder, Kyle M.--

--Culbreth, Justin E.--Locht, Gwendolyn A. Ortiz Rivera, Javier O.--

--Pape, Kevin M.--Senft, David P.--Ahmed, Shane H.--

--Lillard, Nathan E.--Nagorski, Scott T.--Warriner, Christian M.--

--Snow, Jesse Adam--Carroll, Jacob C.--Carver, Jacob R.--

--Rivadeneira, Juan L.--Chihuahua, Shannon--

--Fannin, Shawn D.--Bubacz, Andrew S.--

--Lutes, David C.--Bolen, Edward H.--Stack, James B.--

--Huse, Dakota R.--Kelly, Robert M.--Vargas, Anthony--

--Hutchins, Andrew--Cruttenden, Aaron B.--Kridlo, Dale J.--

--Braggs, Randy R.--Reifert, Shane M.--Paranzino, Michael F.--

--Whipple, Blake D.--Emrick, Jordan B.--McCluskey, Jason J.--

--Pearson, Brandon W.--Broehm, Matthew J.--Young, James C.--

--Harris, Todd M.--Zimmerman, James R.--Meari, Andrew N.--

--Curtis, Jonathan M.--Land, Brett W.--Solorzanovaldovinos, Diego A.--

--Maldonado, Pedro A.--Dickmyer, Adam L.--Honeycutt Jr., Terry E.--

--Kirspel Jr., Michael D.--Tanner, Phillip C.--Sadell, Charles M.--

--Dupont, Steven L.--Moffitt, Thomas A.--Pallares, Ronnie J.--

--O’Malley, Aracely Gonzalez--McAninch, Kenneth K.--Jenkins, Gerald R.--

--Jackson, Francisco R.--Cullins, Joshua J.--Villarreal Jr., Jorge--

--Tawney, Ian M.--Boelk, James D.--Catherwood, Alec E.--

--Benitez, Carlos A.--Martinez Jr., Rafael--Billingsley, Tramaine J.--

--Lopez, Joseph C.--Ceniceros, Irvin M.--Newman, Eric C.--

--Cain, Justin J.--Vinnedge, Phillip D.--Rodewald, Joseph E.--

--Dew, Victor A.--Byrd, Jordan--Johnson, Raymon L. A.--

--Powell, Matthew C.--Zaehringer III, Frank R.--Weigle, Dave J.--

--Hess, David A--Sparks, John T.--Gonzalez, Edwin--

--Sockalosky, Stephen C.--Lynch, Scott A.--Johnson, Daniel J.--

--Clark, Ryane G.--Prentler, Joseph T.--Campbell, Karl A.--

--Board, Cody A.--Pedro, Brian J.--Vogeler, Lance H.--

--Matteoni, Anthony D.--Harley Jr., Willie J.--Rabon Jr.,Luther W.--

--Jackson, Timothy M.--Officer, Justin A.--Harrison, Calvin B.--

--Forester, Mark Andrew--Fabbri, Ralph J.--Morrison, Donald Scott--

--Simpson, Mark A.--Springer II, Clinton E.--Dawson, William Brandon--

--Petree, Jaysine P. S.--Rosa, Anthony J.--Buras, Michael J.--

--McClellan, Jonah D.--Baldwin, Robert F.--Calhoun Jr., Marvin R.--

--Powell, Joshua D.--Wagstaff, Matthew G.--Miranda, Denis C.--

--Smith, Adam O.--McLendon, David B.--Looney, Brendan J.--

--Ose, Joshua S.--Vieyra, Barbara--Yates, Eric--

--Harton, Joshua A.--Carron, Paul D.--Grider, Ronald A.--

--Newman, Jaime C.--Fleming, Scott J.--Snow, Deangelo B.--

--Johnson, Timothy L.--Kramer, Aaron K.--Sanchez, Daniel R.--

--Weaver, Todd W.--Bishop, John C.--Charte, Philip G. E.--

--McMahon, Jason T.--Balthaser, Jesse M.--Carver, Ross S.--

--Montoya, Diego M.--Twigg, Joshua T.--Rodgers, Christopher B.--

--Roberts, Cody A.--Bovia, Joseph A.--Adkinson III, Vinson B.--

--Alcaraz, Raymond C.--George, Matthew Eric--Page, James A.--

--Goetz, Dale A.--Infante, Jesse--Kessler, Kevin J.--

--West, Matthew J.--Clements, Chad D.--Noziska, Mark--

--Grochowiak, Casey J.--Holley, Floyd E. C.--Wallace, Ellery R.--

--Raver, Bryn T.--Ide, James R.--Castro, Andrew J.--

--Durham, Patrick K.--Robinson, James C.--Fedder, Daniel L.--

--Coleman, Chad D.--Novak, Adam J.--Swink, James Michael--

--Shoecraft, Justin B.--Newton, Robert J.--Rodriguez, Ronald A.--

--Deluzio, Steven J.--Southworth, Tristan H.--Meletiche, Pedro A. Millet--

--Calo, Jason D.--Maldonado, Alexis V.--Schultz, Nathaniel J. A.--

--Childers, Cody S.--Wright, Christopher S.--Lugo, Martin A.--

--Thomas, Collin--Boyd, Christopher J.--Oratowski, Kevin E.--

--Roberts, Edgar N.--Farley, Derek J.--Chisholm, Benjamen G.--

--High, IV, Charles M.--Bock, Michael A.--Karch, Christopher N.--

--Saenz III, Jose L.--Greer, Kristopher D.--Cuzzupe, Paul O.--

--Rappuhn, Bradley D.--Nicol, Andrew C.--Andrade, John E.--

--Gammone III, Vincent E.--Cornelius, Kevin M.--Donahue, Max W.--

--Van Aalst, Jared N.--Stout, Kyle B.--Stansbery, Michael L.--

--Holbrook, Jason E.--Warren, Kyle R.--Martin, Shane R.--

--Howard, Abram L.--Vazquez, Frederik E.--Mora, Conrad A.--

--Lim, Daniel--Bauer, Joseph A.--Hand, Andrew--

--Newlove, Jarod--McNeley, Justin--Oquin, James J.--

--Weis, James M.--Carazo, Mario D.--Vargas, Julio--

--Piercy, Brian F.--Miller, Paul J.--Wrightsman, Joe L.--

--Eastman, Christopher L.--Bennedsen, Robert N.--Santiago, Anibal--

--Allen, Justin B.--Weikert, Matthew W.--Tilton, Jesse R.--

--Bartelt, Justus S.--Santos, Dave M.--Winters, Leston M.--

--Jarrell, John H.--Stanley, Chase--Reed, Jesse D.--

--Johnson, Matthew J.--Fisher, Zachary M.--King, Brandon M.--

--Goeke, Christopher S.--Stout, Christopher T.--Tate, Sheldon L.--

--Moon, Christopher J.--Garvin, Nathaniel D.--Antonik, Christopher J.--

--Mittler, Shaun M.--Negron, Carlos J.--Ainsworth, Jesse W.--

--Crow, Robert W.--Edgerton, Donald R.--Roads, Tyler A.--

--Dimock II, Joseph W.--Raney, Daniel G.--Simmons, Anthony W.--

--Arizmendez, Marc A.--Pridham, Michael S.--Lee, Roger--

--Fastuca, Louis R.--Cabacoy, Christopher F.  Wood, Edwin C.--

--Osborne, Jerod H.--Cooper, Keenan A.--Creighton, Andrew J.--

--Dennis, Jacob A.--McGarrah, Clayton D.--Wisniewski, David A.--

--Jefferson, David--Grady, Ryan J.--Harris Jr., Larry D.--

--Hennigan, Matthew R.--Rogers, John M.--Chapleau, Kristopher D.--

--Shaw, Eric B.--Thomas, David W.--Richards, William T.--

--Caskey, Joseph D.--Holmes, David A.--Plunk, Jared C.--

--Thompson, Blair D.--DeBoer, Daane Adam--Repkie, Robert K. L.--

--Loredo, Edwardo--Madden, Russell E.--Justesen, Anthony T.--

--Dumaw, Joshua R.--Turner, Eddie--Patino IV, Claudio--

--Cueto, Kevin A.--Looney, Andrew R.--Miller, David T.--

--Andrews, Scott A.--Serwinowski, Timothy G.--Silk, Brandon M.--

--Hunter, James P.--Park, Benjamin J.--Ortega, William--

--Cox, Nathan W.--Bailey, Michael C.--Johnson, Joseph D.--

--Hotchkin, Gunnar R.--Standfest, Jeffrey R.--Osborn, Benjamin D.--

--Anderson, Brian M.--Rodriguez, Mario--Adams, Christian M.--

--Hoover, Bryan A.--Fike, Robert J.--Brummund, Gavin R.--

--Plank, Michael G.--Flores, Michael P.--Gentz, Joel C.--

--Smith, David C.--White, Benjamin D.--Klusacek, Erick J.--

--Walters, Zachary J.--Shanfield, Derek L.--Catlett, Matthew R.--

--Jirtle, Charles S.--Barton, Robert N.--Lukeala, Joshua A.--

--Redding, Blaine E.--Rankel, John K.--Neenan, Brendan P.--

--Bury, Brandon C.--Hernandez, Derek--Marler, Donald M.--

--McGahan, Michael E.--Theinert, Joseph J.--Peney, Jonathan K.--

--Dilisio, Anthony A.--Suter, Jake W.--Leicht, Jacob C.--

--Rivera, Edwin--Barton, Christopher R.--Fingar, Jason D.--

--Barnard, Shane S.--Clark, Philip P.--Xavier Jr.,Patrick--

--Tomlinson, Joshua A.--Tieman, Richard J.--Belkofer, Thomas P.--

--Bartz, Paul R.--McHugh, John M.--Paradarodriguez, Nicholas D.--

--Anderson, Billy G.--Perkins, Adam L.--Wood, Zarian--

--Kisseloff, Denis D.--Desforges, Joshua D.--Lamar II, Donald J.--

--Johnson, Jeffery W.--May, Jr., Kenneth B.--Shea, Kurt S.--

--Brown, Jeremy L.--Comfort, Kyle A.--Davis, Joshua M.--

--Slack, Wade A.--Penny, Richard R.--Rangel, Christopher--

--Barrett, Brandon A.--Benson, Austin H. Gates--Coleman, Mark W.--

--Finniginam, Eric M.--Corma, Salvatore S.--Rivers Jr., Thomas E.--

--Kennedy, Nathan P.--Wichmann, Grant A.--Kubik, Ronald A.--

--Santora, Jason A.--Laborde, John K.--Barrett, Robert J.--

--Sigley, Randolph A.--Ingram Jr, Michael K.--Caron, Joseph T.--

--Durkin, Sean M.--Jankiewicz, Michael D.--Lackey, James B.--

--Voas, Randell D.--Hall, Jonathon D.--Borio, Roberto E. Diaz--

--Swenson, Curtis M.--World, Frank J.A.--Griffin, Tyler O.--

--Zilberman, Miroslav--Brunkhorst, Scott W.--Miller, James L.--

--Heck, Randy M.--Ross, Jacob A.--Centanni, Rick. J.--

--Cottle, Robert. J.--Wilson, Justin J.--Santos-Silva, Carlos M.--

--Brown, Adam Lee--Clarkson, Joel D.--Gilbert II, Robert L.--

--Whetten, Glen J.--Porto, Jonathan D.--Gamble, Garrett W.--

--Kropat, Jason M.--Richardson, Jonathan J.--Cook, Nicholas S.--

--Dikcis, Alan N.--Paci, Anthony A.--Olsen, Nigel K.--

--Owens, Vincent L.C.--Aragon, Carlos A.--Gelig, Ian T.D.--

--Huston, Matthew D.--Crumpler, Josiah D.--Ricketts, William S.--

--Gorra, Marcos--Hanson, Matthias N.--Ward, Eric L.

--Peak, Adam D.--Salvacion, JR Robiniol--Eckard, Christopher W.--

--Cardenaz, Michael David P.--Stultz, Gregory S.--Birchfield, Joshua H.--

--Dunn, Kielin T.--McQueary, Jeremy R.--Coutu, Kyle J.--

--Johnson, Larry M.--Yazzie, Alejandro J.--Currier, Eric D.--

--Pier, Noah M.--Estopinal, Jason H.--Turbett, Jacob H.--

--Reiners, John A.--Wittman, Jeremiah T.--Pagan, Bobby J.--

--Ray, Adam J.--Williams, Charles A.--Foxx, Dillon B.--

--Hartman, David J.--Sluss-Tiller, Matthew S.--Stets, Mark A.--

--Lovejoy, Zachary G.--Whitten, Daniel--Freeman Jr., Michael L.--

--Thompson, David J.--Decoteau, Marc Paul--Christian, Rusty H.--

--Smith, David J.--Gill, Carlos E.--Smith, Zachary D.--

--Angus, Daniel M.--Poole, Timothy J.--Kane, Jeremy M.--

--Qi, Xin--Montgomery, Thaddeus S.--Pena, Paul--

--Ginett, Adam K.--Shannon, Michael P.--Donevski, Robert--

--Hrbek, Christopher R.--Wright, Kyle J.--Beachnaw, Lucas T.--

--Merriweather, Daniel D.--Whitsitt, Geoffrey A.--Ingham, Matthew N.--

--Lowe, Jamie R.--Uzenski, Nicholas K.--Meinert, Jacob A.--

--Juarez, Mark D.--Hickman, Jason O. B.--Smith, Bradley R.--

--Dion, John P.--Lengstorf, Joshua A.--Bowman, Brian R.

Plantation Architecture: part 2, Arlington House

The following pictures show pieces of the Robert E. Lee plantation home, called the Custis-Lee Mansion or Arlington House. Robert E. Lee married a Custis cousin. They share family with Martha Washington.

The mansion used to overlook orchards. Part of the war reparations (which besides describing payment also describe 'repair' of injury) was that 624 acres of land surrounding this plantation was deeded to the nation for a military grave site, the place we call Arlington National Cemetery. Later, the house was purchased by the Federal Government. The history of the transaction is itself a sign of Northern resentment and shady dealings, later made right with the Custis family in part by Abraham Lincoln's own son, Robert Todd.

It's interesting to note that the first Memorial Service at Arlington National Cemetery was officiated by President Herbert Hoover in 1929, a man that most of the U.S. despised at the time. And interesting that the Lincoln Memorial is sited to architecturally answer Arlington House, starting from 1867 when the site was only swamp. Every single marble slab on the Lincoln Memorial is a specific planned inclusion; every possible message that could be made is reinforced in the execution of it. Just as the Custis-Lee House was meant to advance one family, the Lincoln Memorial was always meant to include every state and every citizen of the United States. It was built to advance Union: to honor the man who stood for Union.

President Lincoln faced off Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in his last, most fateful years. Now the Lincoln Memorial faces and answers Arlington House. The arc between these two historical tacticians calls and answers to victory and defeat, personal sacrifice to personal loss, classical Greek to classical Roman, justice to injustice, a temple in a flat park to a home on a hill. Along this arc rests the costs of victory, defeat, ultimate effort, and ideals in contention: our nation's military casualties.

Arlington National Cemetery is administered by the Department of the Army. The Custis-Lee home is administered by the National Parks Service. It is currently undergoing some renovation, but it needs a lot more.

Yesterday, I posted on my ambivalence to historic preservation of plantation architecture. But for this site, I have none. Because it stands amidst Arlington's hallowed ground, because the Lincoln Memorial answers it in full, I believe it should be restored to the utmost. Every strength we give the building shows what Lincoln was up against. Every trapping we add to its interior gives Lincoln's complex simplicity and stern but compassionate code all the more significance.

The next pictures are not so beautiful. I could have cropped them to be, but I wish to show you what kind of work preservation might entail.

A humidity sensor on a marble mantel with oak-leaf carvings.

Probably much more than a simple paint job required.

Cracking lintel.

The slave quarters have been partially preserved and provide their own answer to the house and to Lincoln himself. The Parks Service exhibit inside shows that they tried to preserve as many memories as possible from these slaves, through the gathering of geneologies and spoken or written accounts.

Mrs. Lee liked to entertain, whether General Lee was home or not. She had a built-in chaperone, a cousin who never married, and whose economic health was therefore precarious. As a family hanger-on, she was apparently irritatingly cheerful. The slave quarters exhibit recalls a slave who used to do a good imitation of her. It called to my mind that the woman's suffrage movement and the abolition movement were entirely linked in their first years--that women could rarely own property, and that no slave could.

But most of all, the story was exceedingly funny. And I think that is also worth memorializing:

Next to the house on the hill, a tiny cabin held a contingent of oppressed people. But even oppressed, they still had intelligence, and opinions, and many tactics for endurance, including humor. These slaves are part of Lincoln's self-perceived care and duty; his Memorial looks to them as well. The slave quarters also represent the Custis-Lee stake in the argument: their right to extract care and duty. The argument expressed in the architecture is therefore three-fold. The slaves were more than a class or concern: They were individuals with wit. The account also recalls that history is full of little moments. The slave's humor under duress is akin to the humor of military men who endure under duress.

Well-built but small, and no amenities inside.

The Custis-Lee Mansion and its slave quarters make Lincoln's memorial complete: they recall the totality of moral argument and military effort, political certitude and uncertain outcomes stated whole in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address. The slave cabin finishes out the Custis-Lee argument in a moral sense, reminding us that grandeur lived through the toil of others. The slave quarters also resonate to that other answer: those that lie all around, out of pain at last and some for over a century, in Arlington National Cemetery. They remind us that those that suffered in war are more than a number. They were individuals who did not attain, for the most part, their full span of years and its expression.

May they rest in peace, along this arc of conflict and care, under flat turf or on the hill. May we care over these questions, and these dead, forever.

Every Day could be Veteran's Day

One month after Veteran's Day, the Ann T. Hathaway blog is remembering veterans.

In September, when it was still very hot around here, my sister and I went to Arlington National Cemetery. You know there is a scandal running about mis-handled burial sites. That is a failure of trust and care, and it should be rectified.

But the interred don't know of it. All the world's untrustworthiness is over for them. We fix this so that we can know honor and respect has occurred. And I think we should make sure it is a good resting place as well as an honored one. That means they have to water and renew the grass. I know space has gotten limited, but I think they ought to add a few more trees. They should be hardwoods that stand for the backbone these men had; willows for their sorrow; and evergreens, because we want to symbolize that we flourish and renew from their sacrifice. But that's only my opinion.

The truth of sacrifice is very stark.

There is a beautiful arbor there for services. Those pictures are below the jump.

Lincoln, the Domestic Diplomat

In the three posts about "Lincoln's Political Economy," I tried to show that Foreign Powers were constrained from acknowledging the CSA. First, they did not want to back the wrong side. Second, in the community of nations, sovereignty counts. To assist in a domestic insurrection is the same as waging war on the legitimate government of that country. For this reason among many, Lincoln did not acknowledge, and could not afford to acknowledge, the new nation of the Confederate States of America.
To Lincoln, the federal government retained authority over all thirty-plus states were under his jurisdiction. By holding to the belief of a rightful Union, he continued to exercise some level of authority over all them, even if it was only blockade south of the Mason-Dixon line.

More than once he corrected General Henry Halleck for using phraseology that did not conform to a usage of  a United States: "You know I did not like the phrase, in Orders, No. 68 I believe, "Drive the invaders from our soil." (Letter, July 6, 1863). They were not invaders--they were fellow citizens of the U.S.

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland, April 1861 to 1862, is an early exercise in Lincoln's assumption of that authority, backed up by force. But Lincoln also had to practice diplomacy within his community of individual states: they were turning on each other. And governors frequently wrote Lincoln, telling him exactly how little support they would give for [x] or how much support they needed for [y].

Even More Complicated 

In most formulations of Civil War America, the U.S. map is divided into three useful categories: North, South, and border states. The border states were mostly slave-holding states that held with the Union.

The question of slavery was united with many other issues, red herrings or not. Popular sovereignty and states' rights was a rallying cry in pockets of nearly every state of the Union. The Democratic party was a major party in every state, not just Southern ones; they might decry any Republican measure. Some were anti-war, or at least, anti-Civil War: the Peace Democrats, and more flagrantly in opposition, the "Copperheads". The famous habeas corpus Valladigham Case was in Ohio, a Union state with Clement Valladigham potentially a Copperhead governor. Ultimately, Lincoln declined to hold Mr. Valladigham. Instead, he was allowed to go South, into sympathetic territory.

Local Terrain and Cooperation
With the blue states and the light blue ones above, Lincoln had to work with the Governors and officials that would let him, and make war on those who would not. He needed political and military forecasts, a way to bolster pro-Union officials and to cajole or contain those who would let Union break to pieces.  For every suspension of habeas corpus, there were hundreds, even thousands of efforts to  hold Union together without playing hardball--or, by granting exceptions to hard rules in the name of decency, mercy, or even expediency. 

An Early Diplomacy: Stay on Point. Do Not Speculate.
During the 1859 presidential election, Lincoln wrote constantly to delegates and campaigners about staying 'on message'. The message without variation was contentious enough. He also stayed aloof from personal attacks, devising tactics for countering smear campaigns that left him carefully above. Post-election, the calls for further explanation of his policies continued. Lincoln stayed low-key in Illinois, generally providing only references to his previous record. Along with this demand for explanations, he had to field the calls of patronage. On December 15, 1860, he partly broke his silence to answer a letter containing rumors about "stacking the deck" using patronage:

"As to the use of patronage in the slave states, where there are few or no Republicans, I do not expect to inquire for the politics of the appointee, or whether he does or not own slaves. I intend in that matter to accommodate the people in the several localities, if they themselves will allow me to accommodate them."

This letter came before the second wave of secession or even before Lincoln's inauguration ceremony. He was already attempting to hold onto everyone who would stay. As reported in a  previous post, the attack on Fort Sumter caused Lincoln to break his silence. By calling for militia to defend the Union, he may have precipitated the second wave of secession. Such perilous outcomes only made Lincoln more determined to hang on to what he could. Another look at the map's light-blue states shows you how much strategic territory he was trying to hold.

Under Suspension of Habeas Corpus: Limiting Military Rule
This letter to General John M. Schofield, local commander of Union forces in St. Louis, Missouri
July 13, 1863

I regret to learn of the arrest of the Democrat editor. I fear this loses you the middle position I desired you to occupy.  . . .  Please spare me the trouble this is likely to bring   [.]

A translation: you stupid jerk. Let him go. Another one, a few months later, to the same man:
October 1, 1863

"Your immediate duty, in regard to Missouri, now is to advance the efficiency of that establishment, and to so use it, as far as practicable, to compel the excited people there to leave one another alone."

In other words, Schofield was to let the state take the lead whenever possible in local police matters. Not that there was a police. There was only military and home guard. Lincoln's instructions are explicitly to keep the peace:

 ". . . you will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies, or newspapers, when they may be working palpable injury to the Military in your charge; and in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others."

This instruction shows that Lincoln did not want to deny Missourians their civil rights, even under the suspension of the writ.  Also important to Lincoln's concerns, however, is a strong with not to alienate state voters used to considering liberty their birthright. Lincoln was constantly on watch to make sure that his local militaries were secure. The civil rights were to be left alone--unless necessary for military security. It also shows that his military, then as ever, were expected to be, partly, diplomats.

There are hundreds of letter where Lincoln listens to personal appeals from the parents of deserters, the wives of fallen Confederate heroes, mothers in poverty whose sons are in stockade for some infraction were not paid, former Senator's sons in Federal prison, et cetera. Each one of these letters, whether giving way or not, is calculated to offer a mercy when it did not interfere with a rational military principle.

These are efforts at diplomacy, to right wrongs and keep state officials happy, newspapers a little more quiet, and citizens calm. But the best example of Lincoln's domestic diplomacy especially concerning the Border States brings us where we started.

The Emancipation Proclamation
My first post on Lincoln was about this important document. There, above, and elsewhere, I said Lincoln did insist he had jurisdiction over all states. With the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln paid the secessionist states an economic ultimatum for a political one. For the border states, it is different. It required diplomacy, or, not giving the first ultimatum that would get him an answering one back. Insisting on emancipation there would lose him whatever shred of political or military support he had.

Though Lincoln wrote some adamant letters to Tennessee's governor, and allowed some punitive regimes in Kentucky, et cetera, he was nevertheless at least partly sympathetic to their plight. Missouri's, Tennessee's and Kentucky 's economies were closely tied to other slave states, particularly in regard to shipping their cash crops downriver via the Mississippi. Their existing commerce was essentially ruined by staying in the Union. To take away the last prop of their economy, however heinous that prop might be, would be to lose them forever--and maybe the war.

All states paid heavily in the Civil War. Lincoln's soft-pedal on slavery in the border States via the Emancipation Proclamation acknowledges their particular economic hardship, their uneasy (and sometimes enforced) yet ultimate loyalty. These border states took the brunt in most of the battles of the Civil War: militarily, politically, and economically.

Today, Lincoln's detractors have revived old tired arguments against this great, beleaguered, and frequently unpopular leader. They have counted on our failure to examine Lincoln's historical context in full.  But Lincoln's words reveal the great care he took in his leadership, in both big and small matters. His milieu was one of cantankerous states used to deciding for themselves. The Union was ripping at every seam.  Lincoln had a stiff spine but also a compassionate view. His letters and speeches reveal his profound understanding of lasting and humane principles, military leadership, economic necessity, diplomacy, and the context of his age.

---
I hope you have enjoyed this (12 part) series, which was originally intended to be three posts. :-)
Thanks to Slamdunk for suggesting it! What an adventure!  And especially thank you to all who commented along the way. You kept me going, through many lamps of midnight oil.

References:
Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865. The Library of America. Available.
The American Civil War: Habeas Corpus, at etym online, especially useful and linked above, here
Shelby Foote, The Civil War, Volume I. Random House. Available.
A fine paper written by C.R. Smith, posted here.
US Government Info at About.com, with Lincoln's 1862 Proclamation suspending the writ of habeus corpus, here. This is short.
Wikipedia, Border States. From that Wikipedia page you can access pages such as "Kentucky in the Civil War" that give more details to what I have quickly glossed. Kentucky is particularly interesting in that it was under a very tough general and under conditions of guerilla war.

Related articles by Zemanta [Wow, you guys, I'm already in the system!]

• Lincoln, the Constitution, and Habeus Corpus, part 2 (auntiehathaway.blogspot.com)
• Lincoln and the International Economy, part 2 of 3 (auntiehathaway.blogspot.com)
• Lincoln, the Constitution, and Habeus Corpus, part 1 (auntiehathaway.blogspot.com)

An Impoverished Army

This is from my favorite fiction account of the Civil War. It is written from the South's point of view, in a humanistic and somewhat stream-of-consciousness style: The Black Flower. The author, Howard Bahr, lives in Oxford Mississippi. For a time, he ran William Faulkner's home and museum. He has been acquainted Shelby Foote and other Southern writers and historians of note.  None of that is important compared to how well he describes the near-end of the Confederate effort, through the medium of one man and one woman.

In the book, a single woman, Anna Hereford, has lost two Confederate suitors already to war. She befriends an exhausted and mildly-wounded Confederate soldier in Tennessee in 1864. The plantation house is surrounded by troops about to go into battle. In true Southern style, the Confederate leader brings his compliments, and asks if the house may be used as an infirmary. Thus it is filled with soldiers: exhausted, dragging, hungry.  Some are bent on rape and pillage; others, decent men with no luck at all.

For instance, Bushrod Carter's mild wound is not mild for long.

Bushrod's body was white, hairless, frail, etched with grime . . .  Anna wondered dully how such a slight frame could be a soldier's.

The surgeon offered only a glance at Bushrod's arm. 'It has to come off," he said.

"No!" said Anna.

The surgeon shrugged. "Then he will die. You can see that for yourself."

Anna could, indeed, see that for herself. The arm was beginning to turn the color of blackberries. It was swelling too, and the red streaks coursed through the puffy flesh from the hand to the elbow. It was already beginning to smell.

"It came so fast,' said Anna. 'It was just . . . . . so fast!"

"It is how it happens," said the surgeon, gentler now. "These boys--they live on parched corn and bacon and coffee, they never sleep, never quit, and when somethin happens to em they got nothin to prop em up. It is a wonder any of em can still put one foot in front of another."

The black flower is a bullet wound, and perhaps a symbol of other things. Every page in this book gives some idea of what the culture of the Confederacy wrought, how it withered, and what remained: then, for years after, and into the present day.

I did not enjoy Bahr's sequel quite as much. But I would pick this first novel over Cold Mountain, although with some regrets; I would quickly choose it over Shaara's fictional Killer Angels. Michael Shaara presumes too much into the mind of Lee to please me, and I think he thereby trivialized Lee's intellect and strategy. But that is just another opinion. . . on yet another book.

The Black Flower. Howard Bahr. Available.

Picture below: Dead soldier, near Fredericksburg.

"Varnish is Injurious to Leather"

One of the prizes in my book collection is the "Revised U.S. Army Regulations, 1861". It is somewhat damaged; I can't access the title page and publication information without ruining them. I do know it was published sometime after July 25, 1861. It is available online, too!

I doubt many field copies survived. The book is heavy; stuff such as 'close-order drill', so carefully explained, was useless in the war; each man knew what he was supposed to do; and the pages are a soft newsprint type, excellent for use as toilet paper.

ARTICLE I.

MILITARY DISCIPLINE.

1. ALL inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to execute with alacrity and good faith, the lawful orders of the superiors appointed over them.

2. Military authority is to be exercised with firmness, but with kindness and justice to inferiors. Punishments shall be strictly conformable to military law.

3. Superiors of every grade are forbidden to injure those under them by tyrannical or capricious conduct, or by abusive language.

On page 24, Sections 128-130, it specifies that four laundresses are to be attached to each company; how on pay-day, the laundress would receive monies owed to her by individual soldiers (immediately collected) as well as pay for her company duties.  Other pages detail the number of nurses for camps and hospitals, and the forms required for furlough, recruiting, subsistence, and quartermaster requests.

There is a section on how to handle insane soldiers (send them to Washington!). An order that soldiers be vaccinated (against smallpox, presumably, and a good idea). The book lists the instruments required for amputating limbs, how many for each outfit (Twelve needles per surgeon). How much the sutlers, (supply-entrepreneurs to the common soldier) would be taxed (ten percent).  On page 226, Form No. 46, I see that a Major-General made  $96.00 for fuel allowance plus $120.00 per month. A Brigadier-General only received $30.00 for fuel and $80.00 salary.(p.226).

The title of this post refers to Article XIII, "Companies", where (p. 22):

104. Cartridge-boxes and bayonet scabbards will be polished with blacking; varnish is injurious to the leather, and will not be used."

On page 499, we come to the Appendix; The Articles of War [Approved July 25, 1861].

Art. 7. Any officer or soldier who shall  begin, excite, cause, or join in, any mutiny or sedition, in any troop or company in the service of the United States, or in any party, post, detachment or guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as by a court-martial shall be inflicted.

Art. 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, who being present at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his utmost endeavour to suppress the same, or coming to the knowledge of any intended mutiny, does not, without delay, give information thereof to his commanding officer, shall be punished . . . (etc).

I am sure these articles have been standard in any military handbook through the ages. But they seem to have special meaning, and early placement, in the Articles of War of 1861.

The real value to me, however, is in learning what was considered standard or desirable. For instance,

117. The bread must be thoroughly baked, and not eaten until it is cold. The soup must be boiled at least five hours, and the vegetables always cooked sufficiently to be perfectly soft and digestible.

It might make you laugh, but in two sentences, the regulations have partially destroyed the corrupt preference of working in the camp kitchen (no snitching hot biscuits, everybody gets the same) and in essence ordered the cooks to plan ahead and work with resolution (soup to boil long enough). This last also tended, like the vaccinations, to quell sickness in a time when germ theory was not known. If only they had done that with their surgical instruments.

The phrase "varnish is injurious to leather" applies greatly to Union soldiers in the field. They lived in mud or grit and steamed or froze at Nature's whim; could not wait around for cold bread or digestible soup, or got no food at all. Officers of cavalry with raised swords at the charge were routinely shot first by the enemy, and were, to the rest of the soldiers on both sides of the war, considered pathologically stupid.

The varnish stripped off. The leather was blackened, and then the blacking wore away. The war dragged on, with tools scavenged, repaired, and stripped to bare leather.
--
Picture below: Online Little Rock, of a sutler's tent on the Potomac. Do you think they sold whiskey? You bet they did.

Lincoln, the Constitution, and Habeus Corpus, part 2

The suspension of habeas corpus was an untested measure in Constitutional history. As such, Lincoln had to decide how, in the division of powers, he could ease through the Constitutional question.  This involved either soothing, or ignoring, calls to account from the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Lincoln's circumstances might justly be called an emergency, and I think fit the definition of the stakes required for suspending habeas corpus. His response to the emergency waited neither for Congress nor the federal courts in a. calling for militia without a declaration of war from Congress, and b. the suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln made them both an Executive function, but not without dissent.

On the same day that Lincoln called for militia, he called for special session:

Congress Convenes its Special Session, July 4, 1861

Lincoln's Special Message to Congress is long. (Sixteen pages worth in my book, too long to summarize in full.) In it, Lincoln refers to the extraordinary measures he has taken, explaining his reasoning and asking for their approval. In today's parlance, we might say he presented it to them as a colleague, alone on watch, who had done what he thought they would do.

As to habeas corpus specifically, and the stretching of Executive Powers in general, he first gives his reasoning for taking that power as President. Then he asks:

  . . .. are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?

In Lincoln's mind, the answer was no. His purpose then, as always, was preservation of the Union in full.

"Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled--the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it.

Then he gives assurances:

"Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is to be the course of the government, towards Southern states, after the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the Executive deems it proper to say, it will be his purpose then, as ever,  to be guided by the Constitution . . . 

But the Courts did not see it this way. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that judges were individuals, with individual opinions as to the question of slavery, secession, and executive power. Any one of those three might garner opposition to Lincoln's assumption of authority.

Ex parte Merryman

What followed, most famously, was Lincoln's complete and total disregard of judicial orders to free prisoners, a legal suit called ex parte Merryman. In this suit, Judge Taney ordered that Mr. Merryman, a Baltimore citizen taken up by General Winfield Scott, be released. This was on the grounds that Congress was the proper party to issue writs of suspension of habeas corpus. Taney was afraid of military rule:

"I can only say that if the authority under which the constitution has confided to the judicial department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."

In a letter (June 12, 1861)  48 days after Lincoln bestowed this power on Scott,  Taney wrote: 

"The paroxism of passion into which the country has suddenly been thrown -- appears to me to amount almost to delirium. I hope that it is too violent to last long -- and that calmer and more sober thoughts will soon take its place -- and that the north as well as the south will see that a peaceful separation with free institutions in each section -- is far better -- than the union of all the present states under a military government & a reign of terror -- preceded too by a civil war with all its horror & which[,] end as it may[,] will prove ruinous to the victors as well as the vanquished."

Lincoln ignored Taney's order. All of this was, in insurrectionist circles and to Jefferson Davis' government, a rallying cry against that monster in the White House. 

Finally, in November 1862, Congress passed a law indemnifying Lincoln in the matter. It passed both houses in early 1863. With the legislative body giving Lincoln permission, it tended to take the Constitutional question of who could issue such a writ, off the table. Lincoln lifted the suspension and granted amnesty on February 12, 1862.

But on and off, Lincoln would suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the war, when things were going badly in particular areas. He had promised Congress a limited application of suspension, and a fidelity to the Constitutional measure: rebellion, insurrection, and public safety. Nevertheless, to constitutional scholars or those who remained concerned over human rights, this on-and-off application was still a measure of grave concern.  Lincoln may have been a stickler to the criteria, but he, and military officers, were the ones to decide. It lends itself to the charge of capricious measures. And we were hell-bent to avoid capricious dictators when we made this country.

The Valladigham Case

Clement Valladigham was running for the office of  Ohio governor. He had outsized Southern sympathies, and his campaign could be a huge rally for anti-Union activity. He was incarcerated. Upon applying for a writ of habeas corpus, the local judge declined, saying that he was not empowered to overthrow decisions made by military tribunals.

On June 12, 1863, Lincoln wrote to a Committee of Unionists who decried the suspension of civil liberties, especially in regard to Valladigham. The letter is another long one, (almost ten pages in my book). I think Lincoln wished to carefully explain, and make them realize, every point at which he was beset. He could not trust a jury, with possible confederate sympathizers, for one thing. Moreover:

. . .in [the insurgent's] own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union, Constitution, and law, all together, the Government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same Constitution and law from  arresting their progress. Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the Government and nearly all communities of the people. From this material, under cover of "liberty of speech" "liberty of the press", and "habeus corpus", they hoped to keep on foot among us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. (p. 456).

He also wrote:

"Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? . . . I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy."

First Conclusion 

Suspending habeas corpus interfered with freedom of speech and freedom of association, freedom of movement--and maybe even who had the right to bear arms. Where on this list of priorities comes national security? Lincoln said it came first: would you have every other law broken save this one? 

He did not make this opinion from nothing. Thomas Hobbes wrote, early in the philosophy of political science, that the function of a state is to create security within, displacing anarchy to its borders. Before that, Thucydides wrote in the Melian Dialogue that loss and occupation are the miserable fates for nations that do not defend themselves. Lincoln was already aware that the confederacy was seeking outside help. In a worst-case scenario, the United States could have been rent to pieces, not just by inside agitation but interference by foreign powers. The first defense against this was organized force against insurrection and interference.

It is important to view Lincoln's circumstances, and his thinking, before passing judgement one way or the other. I believe Lincoln considered this measure as one specialized power among those he had to preserve the Union. This means he was careful but not reluctant. I do think he was a stickler for applying the Constitutional imperative. So caprice does not apply, nor does dictatorship. He built his reasoning on philosophical antecedents, Constitutional prescription, and practical concern, and he made those part of public record.

Letters such as these may have changed nothing about the Constitutional question. They did tend to reinforce that Lincoln was a careful man, thoughtful but adamant. Such a letter would have been, very quickly, a public property, an open letter to the public. By explaining his reasoning, he made what you might call a personal guarantee that dictatorship was not about to ensue. 

Next I am going to take on how habeas corpus was a weapon for diplomacy and moderation in Lincoln's consistent and agonizing diplomacy with individual states.

Lincoln, the Constitution, and Habeus Corpus, part 1, Revised.

One of the charges against Lincoln, today and in his time, was that he was a rampant believer in big government. Those that say this point to his suspension of the writ of Habeus Corpus.

What is habeas corpus?

Suspending habeas corpus compromises human rights and civil rights. According to Wikipedia, it is a way that prisoners may seek to end an imprisonment for which there is no corpus, or body, of evidence. It is not a way to stop a false arrest, but a way to nullify an imprisonment that has become a kind of warehousing, where accusers have time to find elusive evidence or forget the prisoner altogether.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

In this post, I concentrate more on Lincoln and his rationales or defenses against his accusers and detractors. In the meantime, I think I found that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus marks an early determination to be the Commander-in-Chief that a military could actually function under.

Many of Lincoln's letters to generals have suggestions. Others have direct orders. In every case, it seems that Lincoln is determined to assure his military command that he supported them. That he knew life was difficult on the ground. It is a conducted military diplomacy, designed to ensure that his thinking was understood and carried out with regard to the war. It was calculated to the single purpose of preserving Union, through military and non-military means. These first months show his first steps toward that end.

A Short, Eventful Timeline:
In April of 1861, Abraham Lincoln had been president less than two months. The 'First Wave' of states had already seceded from the Union.
April 15:  Lincoln called Congress back in session. He also called for 75,000 militia from the states. This turned out to be, at least in Shelby Foote's estimation, a grand mistake. The call for militia led to the secession of the second wave of states, including Virginia--right next door.

April 18: The first soldiers show up: 500 untrained and unarmed men from Pennsylvania arrive from Maryland. They report a cold reception, but no incidents.
April 19:  The 6th Massachusetts showed up with 21 less able-bodied than when they started. In Baltimore, while on the train, they had been stoned and shot at by Marylanders. Four died; 17 wounded. They had returned fire, killing twelve and wounding more.

On the 19th of April, Lincoln ordered the blockade against the rebellious states.

April 22: a delegation of Marylanders came to Lincoln, protesting the "pollution" of Union soldiers crossing their state. Lincoln told them this would be impossible to prevent. In response, Maryland citizens tore up their railways, cut telegraph lines, and wrecked bridges. Washington was now cut off on all sides. (Foote, I, pp. 52-53).

Popular sentiment in Maryland--a slave state--was running high against Lincoln and for secession. People high in government, such as Baltimore's mayor, were pro-secession.  Governor Thomas Hicks was pro-Union, but sympathetic to slavery; the Legislature was not so inclined. If Maryland had seceded from the United States, the District of Columbia would be completely surrounded on all sides by insurrection.

April 24: Lincoln writes Maryland State Legislator Reverdy Johnson (a Union sympathizer): "I do say the sole purpose of bringing troops here is to defend this capital. I do say I have no purpose to invade Virginia . . ."

Mostly Lincoln is trying to avoid writing people. He wants to avoid making promises that he might break, or saying something else that upsets people all over again. He wants to avoid rumors.

Because Maryland was on the brink.

Fort Stevens on Map shows the site of the District of Columbia.

The situation continued to deteriorate.  Lincoln sent two letters to Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott, the head of the U.S. Army:

April 25, 1861

My Dear Sir: The Maryland Legislature assembles tomorrow at Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would or would not be justifiable , upon the grounds of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable; nor, efficient for the desired object.

First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can  not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their action.

Secondly, we can not permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we can not long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated, they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. They will immediately re-assemble in some other place. 

I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities--and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 

Your Obedient Servant

Lincoln was faced with a dilemma between national security and civil liberty. He explained his reasoning to Scott. Rather than arrest anyone on mere suspicion, or drive them to conspire in secrecy, Lincoln instructed Scott to wait and find out what the Legislature actually did, first. If events were not favorable, then Scott was empowered for the drastic.

It was an early taste of what Civil War really was: to fire on neighboring cities. To know that people were committed to destroying government, in secret, in public, by harassment and by battle.

Two days later, Lincoln completed the instructions: the last step required for Winfield Scott. And perhaps, a significant step in Lincoln's understanding of his role as Commander-in-Chief of his nation's military. With this letter, Lincoln took the responsibility for suspending habeas corpus:

April 27 1861

To the Commanding General of the Army of the United States

You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line, which is now between the City of Philadelphia and the City of Washington, via Perryville, Annapolis City, and Annapolis Junction, you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety, you, personally, or through the officer in command at the point where the resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.

You might note there is no "Obedient Servant" at the end of this letter. Lincoln is taking charge with no ambivalence.

Of the 85,000 Maryland volunteers to soldier in the Civil War, nearly 25% fought for the Confederate side. Maryland, standing so to speak at our capital's back, was a place of unrest and perhaps insurrection. The situation was well within the definition of need specified by the Constitution. Lincoln therefore believed he could suspend habeas corpus.

Or somebody could. The next post is about Lincoln's maneuvers to get the constitutional question out of the way, or, answered, at least in part.

References:
Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865. The Library of America. Available.
The American Civil War: Habeas Corpus, at etym online, especially useful and linked above, here.
Shelby Foote, The Civil War, Volume I. Random House. Available.
A fine paper written by C.R. Smith, posted here. It pointed the way to things I looked up in Lincoln's letter in re: Valladigham.
US Government Info at About.com, with Lincoln's 1862 Proclamation suspending the writ of habeus corpus, here. This is short.
Wikipedia, Maryland in the Civil War
Wikipedia, also on Habeus Corpus, linked above.

Lincoln's Political Economy, part One of Three

You can't read this document very well. It's a letter from Salmon P. Chase, a former rival and loyal Cabinet member to Abraham Lincoln, recommending George Boutwell as Commissioner for the first Internal Revenue agency in the United States. It's dated January 3, 1862.

Lincoln advocated, and Congress passed, the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War, which included an income tax. The law was adjusted in 1862, then cancelled ten years later (about five years late, maybe?).  The income tax we pay now comes from the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913.

This is from an essay on Lincoln's "Bank War," which discusses other aspects of Lincoln's 1861 push for control.  When banks were not regulated, they issued their own currency and made few or no guarantees to depositors. Local economies were always going bust on bank failures. State-controlled banks may have aided states' rights, but created variable local exchanges. Without a stable and unified currency of its own, the U.S. was dependent on the rates and fortunes of foreign currencies as well. By having our own banking system, we took a large step toward national sovereignty. It took power from the states. It also took power from foreign powers.

In December 1861, President Lincoln's own financial plan was presented by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase (a free-trade liberal sweating and agonizing in the President's harness), and by Lincoln himself. Its measures included:

·         a nationally regulated private banking system, which would issue cheap credit to build industry;

·         the issuance of government legal-tender paper currency;

·         the sale of low-interest bonds to the general public and to the nationally chartered banks;

·         the increase of tariffs until industry was running at full tilt;

·         government construction of railroads into the middle South, promoting industrialism over the Southern plantation system.

Income Tax
Lincoln didn't dream up income tax. William Pitt the Younger used it to fund the Napoleonic Wars starting in 1798. Like Lincoln's odious tax, the British Income Tax was repealed at war's end. Earlier than that, in 10 A.D., the Han Dynasty instituted one, hastening their end. The rulers fell to the Later Han Dynasty in 23 A.D.

From these examples, I would say that income tax looks like a solution to governments who are preparing for war, and have a burgeoning middle class. The first condition describes Lincoln's and Pitt's instigations, and all three examples satisfy the latter condition. A rising professional, merchant, and skilled tradesman classes look like uncaptured revenue sources, when the traditional tax source has always been land. Most personal taxes are either land taxes or head taxes. Then there are the taxes on property transfers--such as inheritance, luxury taxes, and the dreaded Tea and Stamp Taxes that made the U.S. revolt in the first place.

From this heavy hand, (at the time, 3% flat rate for anyone making the equivalent $19K or more these days) , many libertarians have decided that Lincoln was a "big government" man who would cheerfully be in restraint of trade today.

He was for progressive taxation, a term which means not (increasing numbers of taxes), but rather tailoring the tax bill to the ability to pay. A sales tax, by contrast is a regressive tax, which means it takes a greater percentage of a poor person's expenditures, especially if applied to staple goods.

Would it have been better to run a larger deficit in the budget of the United States? Would the libertarians revile him for that? Could the South have been plundered any harder for War Reparations?  I cannot answer these questions. I merely pose them as the devil's advocate.

Lincoln's 'Heavy Hand'
Lincoln was concerned that he be able to pay his military and supply them. This is from his Annual Message to Congress on December 8, 1863:

The operations of the treasury during the past year have been succesfully conducted. The enactment by Congress of a national banking law has proved a valuable support of the public credit; and the general legislation in relation to loans has fully answered  the expectations of its favorers. Some amendments may be required to perfect existing laws; but no change in their principles or general scope is believed to be needed.

Since these measures have been in operation, all demands on the treasurer, including the pay of the army and navy, have been promptly met and fully satisfied.

This is in stark contrast to the Napoleonic Wars, where the future Duke of Wellington wrote letter after exasperated letter, trying to get his troops their pay from Britain's Parliament and its War Secretary. Since Wellesley/Wellington was in Spain, he did not want his troops plundering the locals--he needed the goodwill of Spain's and Portugal's partisans. Without pay, he was not likely to enforce this discipline.

In fact, the war did cause the government to run a war-time deficit. Lincoln detailed the deficit in his Annual Message to Congress in 1863 and again on December 6, 1864:

"I concur with [the Secretary of the Treasury] that the proportion of moneys required to meet the expenses consequent upon the war derived from taxation should be still further increased . . .

In 1864, the deficit was $1,740,690,489.49, and he thought it might go up another five hundred million. He did note that the bulk of that debt was held by the American people, in part through the use of U.S. government bonds. Apparently Lincoln's administration also brought about the forerunner of the U.S. Savings Bond. Or perhaps, the Liberty Bond.

The standardized government bond was also an idea from England in part: during the 18th century, the British government standardized the contract and rate of the government bond in order to facilitate the system of government debt. Their act was an improvement over the Dutch model of the previous century (individual contracts, open to corrupt deals and abuse) and the Venetian salt futures bonds of the 12th Century. Lincoln (or perhaps Salmon P. Chase, his SecTreas) modified the idea to fit in with his new national banking system. Thus the nationally-registered private banks allowed him a venue to sell bonds within the state rather than outside of it.

Other Signs Government Interference in Trade during Lincoln's Administration. Coming to this blog soon:
1. Lincoln was for tariffs, briefly described above.
2. The Father of Egyptian Cotton.
Then there is the habeus corpus issue, so I'm thinking two more posts.

References:
Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865. Library of America.
Chaitkin, Anton. (1986) 'Lincoln's Bank War," published in American Almanac, The New Federalist Newspaper, the Economic Intelligence Review. Here's the site.
Wellington: The Years of the Sword by Elizabeth Longworth
Wikipedia on Taxation, History of.
Niall Fergusson, The Cash Nexus, recommended by Brandeis.edu linked above.