Civil War & Americana – Page 3 – The Intelligent Collector Magazine

As delegates hissed, Martin Van Buren became his party’s presidential nominee

Five miniature portraits of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Martin Van Buren, likely produced in Europe during Van Buren’s presidency, sold for $14,340 at a May 2012 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

Andrew Jackson had been denied the presidency in the election of 1824, despite winning most of the popular votes and electoral votes. In situations where a political candidate did not secure a majority, the House of Representatives decided which of the top three candidates (by vote totals) would become president. The top three in 1824 were Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. Henry Clay had finished fourth and was dropped from consideration.

The House then voted and picked Adams for president and he subsequently appointed Clay to be Secretary of State. Critics claimed that Clay had persuaded the House to vote for Adams in a secret quid pro quo for the Cabinet position. The dispute became notorious and was dubbed “the Corrupt Bargain” by Jackson supporters.

However, Jackson bounced back four years later and soundly defeated JQA for the presidency. This was the second time an incumbent president had been defeated. Thomas Jefferson had defeated President John Adams in the election of 1800. Both Adamses, father and son, were bitter about their defeats, and the “Era of Good Feelings” that existed for eight years (1817-1825) under President James Monroe came to an abrupt end. The deterioration into partisan politics was precisely what George Washington had warned about if political parties were allowed to flourish. He was a man wise beyond his years, as we know so well today.

After Jackson served two tumultuous terms (1829-1837), the Hero of New Orleans was tired and ready to go home. He had abandoned the idea of a third term and even seriously considered an early retirement that would allow close friend and adviser Vice President Martin Van Buren to assume the presidency. This would help ensure a peaceful continuation of Jacksonianism and put Van Buren in a strong place for the 1836 election. Van Buren consistently opposed this and finally the idea was dropped. Jackson would patiently wait for the end of his term.

However, earlier in 1835, Jackson had strongly urged party leaders to hold a national convention composed of delegates “fresh from the people” to pick the nominees. He made no secret of his personal preferences: Martin Van Buren for president and Col. Richard Johnson of Kentucky for vice president. This was not a popular choice, especially in the South, where many considered Van Buren a slick New York politician and Johnson worse … much worse. Johnson was anathema to Southerners. His common-law wife was a black woman and they had two children, which Johnson openly acknowledged.

To others, the “Van Buren Convention” was a farce. They complained that several states didn’t send delegates and others sent too many. They singled out Tennessee, which didn’t have delegates, but simply found a merchant from Tennessee who was in Baltimore on business at the time, quickly admitted him to the convention and allowed him to cast all 15 Tennessee votes for Van Buren and Johnson. His name was Edward Rucker and “ruckerize” (assuming a position or function without credentials) entered the jargon as a pejorative with an easy definition. Eventually, Van Buren and Johnson were selected as the Democratic-Republican Party ticket, with the delegates from Virginia hissing as they walked out of the convention.

Van Buren’s opposition in 1836 was composed of various anti-Jackson parties that had formed a new party called the Whigs. The old English Whigs had fought against royal despotism, and the American Whigs were dedicated to fighting “King Andrew the 1^st.” They were too dispersed to hold a national meeting, so they simply nominated regional favorite sons: Daniel Webster (New England), Senator Hugh White (South) and General William Henry Harrison (West). Their hope was to divide the electoral vote, deny Van Buren the majority and have the election settled in the House as in 1824.

The strategy failed as Van Buren got almost 51 percent of the vote and was elected president. Richard Johnson had a tougher time. Twenty-three of the Virginia delegates refused to vote for him as “faithless electors” and he was one vote short of the 148 requirements. This time, the VP election was tossed to the Senate and for the only time in history, the Senate elected the vice president of the United States, 34 to 16.

Concurrently, word was received in Washington that Sam Houston had taken the president of Mexico as a prisoner, and Texas was applying for annexation as a state. Jackson was hesitant to accept a new state over the slavery issue. However, on the last day of his term of office, he recognized Texas independence – setting the stage for future annexation. Two days later, after handing over the reins of government to now-President Martin Van Buren, he left Washington by train to return to his beloved Hermitage.

Intelligent Collector blogger JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is president and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as chair and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].

Here’s why DeWitt Clinton had real nerve, visionary leadership

This DeWitt Clinton memorial pewter rim went to auction in February 2018.

By Jim O’Neal

If you’re not weary yet of presidential politics, hold on. Bill and Hil Clinton are on a 13-city speaking tour using a conversational format followed by a Q&A session. They are most likely eyeing 2020 as yet another chance to move into a big white house in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. The current occupants do not seem to have a good chance of making it two more years, but next in line is a family named Pence.

The name “Clinton” was also prominent in Washington, D.C., and NYC during the 18^th and 19th centuries, and perhaps even more pervasively. George Clinton (1739-1812) is generally considered a Founding Father as he participated in the French and Indian War and was a brigadier general in the Continental Army. He was also a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1776, but opposed adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Like Samuel Adams, he finally relented when the Bill of Rights was added.

He then turned to politics and in 1777 was elected (concurrently) to become lieutenant governor and governor of New York. In the second presidential election in 1792, he came in third behind George Washington and John Adams, but ahead of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Clinton served four more years as governor of New York and held the record for longest-serving governor (21 years) until it was broken in December 2015 by Terry Branstad of Iowa. Branstad is now the U.S. Ambassador to China.

George Clinton then served as vice president for Thomas Jefferson in his second term (1805-1809) after Jefferson dropped Aaron Burr (presumably because he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804). Clinton then served as vice president for James Madison until Clinton’s death in 1812. This was the first time the office of vice president was vacant and also the first time a VP served for two different presidents. Later, John C. Calhoun would serve as vice president for two different presidents (John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson) as he unsuccessfully tried to position himself for the top spot.

However, we are more interested in George Clinton’s nephew, DeWitt Clinton (1769-1828), who challenged James Madison for the presidency in 1812. DeWitt was a U.S. Senator from New York, mayor of NYC, and the sixth governor of New York. It was during his time as governor that he made his mark on history.

At the time, the great American rivers on the Eastern seaboard – like the Hudson, Delaware and Connecticut – were woefully underutilized for transportation or commerce. The primary modes for river transportation were limited to the currents, wind, various animals or one’s own feet. And, of course, going upstream against the currents was difficult and essentially impractical. But there were exciting things going on in Europe that would help transform the United States.

James Watt’s coal-fired steam engines were powering the spinning machines that transformed cotton into high-grade cloth. The cost was so low that the material could be shipped all the way to India and still be cheaper than local hand looms. Since England was sitting on huge supplies of coal and the coalmines could use the abundance of labor, it was a near-perfect situation. The remarkable Industrial Revolution was in full swing, transforming a nation of shopkeepers into a modern nation. The same near-perfect balance occurred in steel production following Henry Bessemer’s technique that obsoleted iron.

Attaching a steam engine to a boat was the next big thing and America’s ingenuity took over. By 1807, an American who had spent most of his life in England and France decided to return to America and tackle this obvious opportunity. Robert Fulton’s boat, the North River Steamboat, was 133 feet long with a tonnage of 160. It literally dwarfed all other experimental steamboats and was ready for a trial run to Albany.

Most skeptics believed Fulton would not be able to ever move 1 mile per hour or be of any utility. With smoke plumes marking its progress, the North River headed north on the Hudson. It arrived in Albany in 32 hours, averaging nearly 5 mph … upstream. On the return, it was back in a mere 30 hours. Vindicated, Fulton predicted it would soon be providing quick and cheap conveyance on the Mississippi, Missouri and others. He was right, as the Mississippi, Ohio and every other major river would soon have steamboats churning up and down their waters.

Even as steam had conquered America’s rivers, other geographic features limited commerce. Mountains were near impossible, and flat lands required the considerable exertion of horses, oxen and people. Land-based commerce – which was rapidly becoming the major activity – was both limited and expensive. One solution was canals and that’s where Governor DeWitt Clinton re-enters the picture. He personally championed the Erie Canal when others (including Thomas Jefferson) thought the idea was “little short of madness.”

Thanks to Clinton’s unwavering efforts to overcome all objections, on July 4, 1817, construction began on a 363-mile canal that was dug all the way from Lake Erie to Albany, N.Y. … blasting its way through mountains with powder from E.I. Du Pont de Nemours; the powder was DuPont’s only product for the company’s first 60 years of its existence. It took eight years and a budget of $6 million, raised from bonds from the public rather than squabbling with state bean counters. It was a lot of money; for perspective, the entire federal government budget for 1811 was $8 million. So hats off to a Clinton with real nerve, perspective and the kind of leadership vision that built this nation.

As an aside, today the federal government spends $8 million every 56 seconds. Maybe that’s why we have bridges that crumble, airports that lag third-world countries and we owe someone $22 trillion.

We owe Thomas Edison, Henry Ford a debt of gratitude

This uncanceled Edison Phonograph Works stock certificate is dated 1888, the very year the company was founded, and was issued to “Thomas A. Edison.” It was sold at an April 2012 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

On Monday, Oct. 21, 1929, the Edison Institute was dedicated in Dearborn, Mich. It was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first incandescent light bulb that Thomas Alva Edison had invented and the strong friendship between Henry Ford and Edison. Although it was a relatively small group that joined in, it was loaded with luminaries: John D. Rockefeller, Orville Wright, Will Rogers, Marie Curie and, of course, Henry Ford and Edison, who was 82 years old.

President Herbert Hoover’s speech stated: “Every American owes a debt to him. It is not alone a debt for great benefactions he has brought to mankind, but also a debt for the honor he has brought to our country. His life gives confidence … our institutions hold open the door of opportunity … to all that would enter.” The ceremony was broadcast on radio and listeners were asked to keep all their electric lights off until a switch was flipped at the event.

One week later, the stock market was in a state of chaos as a series of events led to the Great Depression.

Ford (1863-1947) had grown up on a rural farm in Michigan and, like virtually every other American, was captivated by the remarkable inventions Edison was cranking out. Eschewing farm work after his mother died, he inevitably went to work at his hero’s company – Edison Illuminating Company – as an engineer.

Ford rose through the ranks to Chief Engineer, which allowed him more personal time to work on developing his version of an automobile. In 1896, at age 33, Ford developed his first experimental car, called the Ford Quadricycle. Edison had been working on an electric car and when the two men finally met, Edison reputedly slammed his fist on a table and exclaimed, “Young man, you have it!” He encouraged Ford to continue his development and this started a longtime friendship between the two geniuses.

Ford eventually developed his Model T, a series of improvements (not inventions) to the combustion engine, and a continuous assembly line. Introduced in 1908, the Model T would be extremely successful, eventually becoming one of the top-selling cars of all time. With the steering wheel on the left side, it is estimated that over 75 percent of everyone who learned to drive did it in some version of the Model T.

Along the way, Ford pioneered the eight-hour workday, reduced the cost from $850 and raised worker wages to $5 a day so they could afford to buy a car. He became a rich and successful businessman with a passion for collecting historic objects. President Wilson convinced him to run for the Senate since he was for peace and a Democrat, but he lost. After his death in 1947, the Edison Institute was renamed the Henry Ford Museum.

Today, the Henry Ford Museum of American Innovation includes Greenfield Village, a tour of the massive Ford Rouge factory, and even a dedicated IMAX theater. The museum has an astonishing collection of Americana, with over 200 cars, JFK’s limousine from his trip to Dallas, the bus Rosa Parks made famous, Lincoln’s rocking chair from Ford’s Theater, Edison’s laboratory, the Wright Brothers’ bicycle machine shop, steam engines and other historic items depicting the history of America.

The Henry Ford Museum is the largest indoor/outdoor museum in the United States, with over 1.7 million visitors a year. Somewhere in this vast collection of truly famous objects is a small test tube with Edison’s last dying breath. Ford convinced Edison’s son to hold a mask over Edison as he was dying and capture/cork the “last breath.” Whether it does or not is irrelevant. The fact is that there are a number of similar test tubes that were filled in the room when Edison actually did die. The Ford example represents the genuine friendship between these two remarkable men and the wheelchair races on their adjoining estates in Florida, the hunting trips that included Harvey Firestone and President Harding, and their quest for knowledge that makes our lifestyle so much better even today.

They were both deeply flawed men who have slowly melted into history, but President Hoover was right. We do owe them a debt a gratitude and can overlook some or most of their egregious sins as the famous door of opportunity is still wide open, as we see every day.

Union general had no patience with those who complained about war

William Tecumseh Sherman’s dress uniform as general of the Union Army sold for $62,500 at a June 2018 Heritage auction.

“I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and also about 25,000 bales of cotton.” – Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, Dec. 22, 1864, telegram to President Lincoln

By Jim O’Neal

From mid-November 1864, there had been no word from William Tecumseh Sherman or his Union Army. President Lincoln, anxious about the fate of 60,000 soldiers, tried to conceal his concern, telling one crowd, “We all know where he went in, but I can’t tell where he will come out.”

Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was far less concerned as he followed his lieutenants’ progress in the Southern press and assembled supplies to send to Savannah, along with the Union Army’s mail. In early December, his reports indicated that Sherman had arrived in Savannah on Dec. 10. Eleven days later, Sherman occupied the mostly evacuated city, but once again, they had failed to cut off the retreat of the Rebel Garrison. With this communication, Sherman brought to a conclusion his famous March to the Sea.

Arguments still flare up over the destruction that occurred during this critical episode of the Civil War, but Sherman’s primary target was property, not people, and his troops were not alone in terrorizing the countryside. The Confederate Cavalry, deserters from both sides, and bands of “bummers” both black and white contributed their share to the chaos. As Sherman observed, “Sweeping around generally through Georgia for the purpose of inflicting damage would not be good generalship.”

Rather, what he aimed to do was intimidate and terrorize Southerners to break their will to continue fighting. It was psychological warfare. “These people made war upon us, defied and dared us to come South to their country where they boasted they would kill us.” He had no patience with those who protested or complained. The strategy worked where there was total destruction and there was no means to fight on, but pride and ignorance kept the war alive in other places where leaders refused to accept the inevitable.

Critics of Sherman’s March that complain about his scorched-earth policy typically overlook his occupation of Savannah. He basically left it alone after the inhabitants accepted defeat, except when merchants tried to reclaim the cotton he had captured. Sherman was far more interested in their return to the Union than continual martial law that would only result in further alienation.

By conventional strategy, Sherman’s next move should have been the immediate transfer of his Army by water to Virginia, where Grant had Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia bottled up behind fortifications at Petersburg. The Federal Navy had the ships available. Both Lincoln and Grant supported this plan, but Sherman disagreed. Instead, he wanted to apply total war – as he had in Georgia – to the Carolinas.

He especially wanted to punish South Carolina, “the Palmetto State,” for its role in starting the war. He was convinced that by bringing the war to the Carolinas’ home front, his operations would have a direct bearing on the struggle in Virginia. Even the people in Georgia prodded him to pay their neighbors a visit. As Sherman later observed, “My aim then was to whip the rebels, humble their pride, to follow them to their innermost recesses and make them fear and dread us.”

By late January 1865, Sherman’s 60,000 veterans commenced the march into South Carolina and he stopped his communications. It would be late March before he commented on the most controversial issue of the campaign – the burning of Columbia, the state capital. His instructions to the commander of the Army of Georgia, Maj. Gen. Henry Warner Slocum, were direct: “The more of it you destroy, the better it will be. The people of South Carolina should be made to feel the war, for they brought it on and are responsible for our presence here. Now it is time to punish them.”

By the end of the month, he was on his way to North Carolina, with the end of the war coming into sight. “It is only those who have never fired a shot nor heard the shrieks of the wounded,” Sherman said, “who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.”

President Lincoln can teach us a little about working together

A scarce copy of *The Photographs of Abraham Lincoln* featuring nearly 150 images relating to the president sold for $5,250 at a June 2015 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

No matter where you stand on the current controversy over the Supreme Court nomination process, it’s almost a certainty that irrespective of the outcome, you haven’t changed your opinion (much). There are just too many places to find others who totally agree with you and who validate your position. Technically, it’s called an “echo chamber” and we are surrounded by it.

Never fear, someone will share your viewpoint and increase your confidence level in believing that you are right … irrespective of what others think.

The 24/7 cable news business model was built on this premise and increased eyeballs, resulting in higher ratings, which drive higher advertising rates. They probably caught on from analyzing newspapers, who learned early that good news doesn’t sell as well, just as their street vendors learned that shouting “Read all about it (fill in the blank)” sold newspapers. Living in the U.K. for five years finally broke my habit, but it was mostly sensory overload from all the tabloids rather than my preference for a juicy story, regardless of the topic.

People who study the echo chamber have been writing about the increase in “tribalism,” in the sense that people are actually moving to communities, joining clubs and sharing social media with like-minded people at an accelerating rate. I suppose this will continue, but I haven’t found a tribe that will have me. In fact, quite the opposite, since I much prefer hearing a broadly diverse spectrum of ideas.

I relish hearing opinions about climate change, gun control, border security, health care, policing our cities, the Electoral College, the Iraq War, media bias and so on … especially from smart people who have fresh ideas … instead of stale recycled talking points borrowed from others. I regularly read both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal to get basic balance. The only line I draw is at wild conspiracies, unless they’re packaged by people who are also highly entertaining (e.g. Oliver Stone and his JFK or Platoon).

Doris Kearns Godwin’s Team of Rivals does a terrific job of explaining this concept, using the election of 1860 and how Abraham Lincoln leveraged his administration by filling three of his top Cabinet posts with his main election rivals. They became part of the solution rather than critics. In my opinion, the U.S. Congress should practice this to gain consensus rather than relying on an appellate system and the Supreme Court to shape our legal landscape.

JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is president and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as chair and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].

Benjamin Franklin’s basement was literally filled with skeletons

A pre-1850 folk art tavern sign depicting Benjamin Franklin sold for $11,250 at a May 2014 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

The Benjamin Franklin House is a formal museum in Central London near Trafalgar Square. It’s a popular location for kooky political speeches and peaceful demonstrations. Although anyone is free to speak about virtually anything, many visitors are not raptly paying attention, preferring to instead feed the pigeons. I never had the temerity to practice my public speaking, although I’m sometimes tempted (“Going wobbly,” as my English friends would observe).

Known once as Charing Cross, Trafalgar Square now commemorates the British naval victory in October 1805 off the coast of Cape Trafalgar, Spain. Admiral Horatio Nelson defeated the Spanish and French fleets there, resulting in Britain gaining global sea supremacy for the next century.

The Franklin House is reputedly the only building still standing where Franklin actually lived … anywhere. He resided there for several years after accepting a diplomatic role from the Pennsylvania Assembly in pre-Revolutionary times. Derelict for most of the 20th century, the site caused a stir 20-plus years ago while it was being renovated. During the extensive excavation, a cache of several hundred human bones were unearthed

Since anatomy was one of the few scientific things Franklin did not dabble in, the general consensus was that one of his colleagues did, at a time when privately dissecting cadavers was unlawful and those who did it were very discreet. I discovered the museum while riding a black cab on the way to the American Bar at the nearby Savoy Hotel. I may take the full tour if we ever return to London.

However, my personal favorite is likely to remain the Franklin Institute in the middle of Philadelphia. A large rotunda features the official national memorial to Franklin: a 20-foot marble statue sculpted by James Earle Fraser in 1938. It was dedicated by Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller in 1976. Fraser is well known in the worlds of sculpting, medals and coin collecting. He designed the Indian Head (Buffalo) nickel, minted from 1913-38; several key dates in high grade have sold for more than $100,000 at auction. I’ve owned several nice ones, including the popular 3-Leg variety that was minted in Denver in 1937. (Don’t bother checking your change!).

Fraser (1876-1953) grew up in the West and his father, an engineer, was one of the men asked to help retrieve remains from Custer’s Last Stand. George Armstrong Custer needs no introduction due to his famous massacre by the Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapaho in 1876 – the year Fraser was born – in the Battle of the Little Bighorn (Montana). But it helps explain his empathy for American Indians as they were forced off their reservations. His famous statue titled End of the Trail depicts the despair in a dramatic and memorable way. The Beach Boys used it for the cover of their 1971 album Surf’s Up.

Another historic Fraser sculpture is 1940’s Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City. Roosevelt is on horseback with an American Indian standing on one side and an African-American man on the other. The AMNH was built using private funds, including from TR’s father, and it is an outstanding world-class facility in a terrific location across from Central Park.

However, there is a movement to have Roosevelt’s statue removed, with activists claiming it is racist and emblematic of the theft of land by Europeans. Another group has been active throwing red paint on the statue while a commission appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio studies how to respond to the seemingly endless efforts to erase history. Apparently, the city’s Columbus Circle and its controversial namesake have dropped off the radar screen.

How did cotton farmers give the Union a run for its money?

A three-piece coin silver coffee set, circa 1855, that belonged to Jefferson Davis and his wife sold for $28,680 at a June 2013 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

Newly elected President Franklin Pierce quickly selected his Cabinet and strategically picked a Southern Senator, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, to be his Secretary of War in 1853. Davis would become president as well, as the first and only president of the Confederate States of America (1861-65).

Jeff Davis, like so many others in the South, did not support the secessionist movement, since he was convinced the North would not allow this to occur peacefully. However, he was also convinced that each state was sovereign and had an unquestioned right to secede. When war finally came, loyalty to state was an easy choice to make, irrespective of personal views on slavery.

President Davis had an extensive military career and his four years as Secretary of War made him fully aware of the North’s vastly superior military and industrial power. Further, there were 21 million people in the North (mostly white), a 2-to-1 advantage over the South, which had several million slaves. Nevertheless, on April 29, 1861, Davis requested an Army of 100,000 volunteers, knowing full well it would be difficult to equip and arm them on a sustainable basis.

Another man familiar with this significant issue was Colonel Josiah Gorgas, head of the Confederate Ordnance Bureau. Gorgas had three stark sources of supply for the Confederate armed forces: inventory (on hand), home production, and foreign imports. By using arms seized from federal arsenals, Gorgas had (barely) enough weapons to outfit the initial 100,000 forces called out by President Davis. Then he turned his full attention to the future.

Unlike others in the South, Gorgas was savvy enough to know that the war would not be over quickly and realized his meager on-hand stocks of munitions would soon disappear. Given enough time, he planned to establish munitions plants that would make the new nation self-sustainable, but until then, “certain articles of prime necessity” would have to be imported from Europe. In April 1861, he dispatched Captain Caleb Huse to Great Britain to set up a purchasing arrangement to obtain foreign supplies. Only two things went wrong. First, no local munitions were ever produced and no supply lines from Europe were set up because the funding strategy failed due to “King Cotton.”

King Cotton was a political and economic theory based on the coercive power of Southern cotton. The British textile industry imported 80 percent of the South’s cotton. Deny them this supply and the severe impact on the British economy would force them to intervene in the war to help the South. The second tenet was that Northern textile mills were reliant on Southern cotton and starving them would disrupt the Northern economy as well.

Then the South curiously imposed an embargo on cotton shipments in the summer of 1861 and, although designed to bring the British into the war, really only deprived the European group of the funds to buy imported supplies.

The obvious question is how did this small group of cotton farmers … with limited supplies and munitions and a failed strategy to obtain more … fight a war against an armed group backed by an industrial powerhouse, and manage to last four years while inflicting great losses and sustaining even greater losses of lives and property?

My simplistic answer:

President Lincoln and his generals (especially George McClellan) were not focused on the total destruction of the enemy (hopeful of coaxing them back into the Union).
They were interested in winning battles rather than controlling territory.
They avoided destroying infrastructure (until William Tecumseh Sherman demonstrated its benefits).
The South was fighting for its future. I see similarities to both Vietnam and Afghanistan … people who would never surrender and, as the Taliban explained, “You have the watches. We have the time.”

Thank the Lord for generals Grant and Sherman.

Webster understood the power of words, common language

Webster used American spellings like “color” instead of the English “colour” and added American words that weren’t in English dictionaries like “skunk” and “squash.”

By Jim O’Neal

In 1802, a French mining engineer proposed a two-level tunnel under the English Channel to connect France and Great Britain. During the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, following the end of World War I, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George revived the idea as a means of assuring France that Great Britain was ready to help if Germany ever launched another invasion. Great Britain is the largest of the British Isles and the 9^th-largest island in the world.

Although a tunnel was not available to help France when Germany invaded again in World War II, construction of the Channel Tunnel – with high-speed Eurostar train service – was finally completed in 1993. Queen Elizabeth was a passenger on the inaugural trip from London to Paris after a one-day delay due to a small, embarrassing mechanical problem. We were living in London at the time and Nancy and I were able to get reservations on the second day. We got an impressive special commemorative stamp in our U.S. passports to celebrate the occasion.

The English have a long history of special stamps, and printing and copyright laws dating to the Statute of (Queen) Anne in 1710. This act of Parliament was the first to provide copyright regulation by the government, rather than by private parties. Prior to this action, the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 required printing presses to be approved by the e Stationers’ Company, a Royal Charter group that had a literal monopoly on the entire publishing industry.

They also had a Dr. Samuel Johnson, who published A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755. This two-volume set, and Dr. Johnson, dominated English lexicography for more than a century.

Copyright law in America dates to the Colonial period, however, the Statute of Anne did not apply for reasons that have been lost to antiquity. Instead, federal law in America was established in the late 18th century by the Copyright Act of 1790. We also did not have our own dictionary and even the spelling of words (as with their meanings) was generally left to the writer’s choice or presumed intent. Documents of that period are complicated to read and subject to varying interpretations.

Enter Noah Webster (1755-1843), who did much more than publish a dictionary. A Yale graduate with a law degree that he never quite turned into a job, he was a co-founder of Amherst College, started America’s first daily newspaper and worked for Alexander Hamilton on the Federalist Papers. With his legal training and publishing experience, he witnessed the flaws in our system and was continually lobbying Congress to pass copyright laws specifically applicable to America.

Webster was also adamant that we needed our own dictionary, not Dr. Johnson’s, which he attacked and scorned, perhaps extreme in his criticism. “Not a single page of Johnson’s dictionary is correct!” In his mind, we needed a dictionary that was clearly American, containing words unique to the young nation’s growing vernacular. Clearly, Webster also had his own agenda to advance. In the case of “equal,” he believed the Declaration of Independence was wrong in stating that “all men are created equal.”

Webster believed in equality of opportunity, but not equality of conditions. He also disagreed with “free” – that all men were free to act according to their will. That meaning threatened government, giving people the sense they were above authority. The tension with the meaning of “free” continues, and neither Webster’s dictionary nor any other can remove it.

But there is little doubt that a comprehensive American dictionary was a critical issue that had to be resolved as our society continued to grow and expand beyond the reach of English dogma.

Noah Webster thought an American dictionary would take him three to five years to complete and he bravely stated, “I ask no favors, the undertaking is Herculean, but it is of far less consequence to me than to my country…”

To prepare himself, he restudied his college Greek, Latin and Hebrew, perfected his French and German, then studied Danish, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Old Irish, Persian and seven Asiatic and Assyrian-based languages. His American Dictionary of the English Language had two volumes, 800 pages each, and sold for $20 in 1828, the year it was published. It had taken him nearly 20 years to complete.

Along the way to a common language, with common pronunciation, he included spelling books and improved teaching methods for Americans of all ages. Webster’s lasting place in the nation’s history derives from his conviction in the power of language and the necessity of fully understanding the language to exercise its power.

That conviction produced the final volume of independence from England.

Despite numerous failed examples, socialism still fascinates some people

An 1872 presidential campaign banner for Horace Greeley sold for $40,000 at a December 2016 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

Many credit the famous 19th century motto of “Go West, young man” to newspaperman Horace Greeley for a line in a July 1865 editorial. However, there is still a debate over whether it was first penned by Greeley or the lesser-known John Soule in an 1851 edition of the Terre Haute (Ind.) Express. Either way, the dictum helped fuel the westward movement of Americans in our quest for Manifest Destiny (“From sea to shining sea”). Clearly, Greeley helped more to popularize the concept due to the great influence of his successful newspaper.

Greeley was much less successful as a politician. He was sent to Congress in 1848 in a special election to represent New York. His colleagues groused that the brief three months he spent there were primarily devoted to exposing Congressional corruption in his newspaper rather than passing legislation. He was unable to generate any meaningful support for re-election, which relegated him back to his real interest, which was reporting on news and exposing crooked politicians.

Despite this setback to his political career, Greeley remained a powerful force in American politics throughout the entire Civil War period and beyond. After exposing the corruption in the first term of the Grant presidency (1868-1872), he found himself in the curious position of being the presidential candidate for both the Democratic Party (which he had opposed on every issue for many years) and the Liberal-Republican Party (which was an offshoot that objected to the corruption).

The 1872 presidential election was especially bitter, with both sides resorting to dirty tricks and making wild allegations against each other. Grant won the Republican nomination unanimously and as the incumbent, chose not to actively campaign. Greeley was a virtual whirlwind, traveling widely and making 20 or more speeches every day. A cynic observed that the problem was it was the wrong message to the wrong audience, but fundamentally, the issue was that Greeley was simply a poor campaigner and Grant was still a very popular president/general.

Grant easily won his re-election bid for a second term with 56 percent of the popular vote and Greeley died on Nov. 29 – just 24 days after the election and before the electoral votes were cast or counted. This is the first and only time a nominee for president of a major party has died during the election process. Grant went on to snag a comfortable 56 electoral votes as the others were spread among several candidates, including three for the deceased Greeley (which were later contested).

Thus ended the life of Horace Greeley (1811-1872), who had been founder and editor of the New-York Tribune, arguably in the top tier of great American newspapers. Established in 1841, it was renamed the New-York Daily Tribune (1842-1866) as its daily circulation exploded to 200,000. Greeley was endlessly promoting utopian reforms such as vegetarianism, agrarianism, feminism and socialism. In 1852-62, the paper retained Karl Marx as its London-based European correspondent to elaborate on his basic tenets of Marxism.

Great Britain had just finished its decennial census, which put the population at precisely 20,959,477. This was just 1.6 percent of the world’s population, but nowhere on the planet was there a more rich or productive group of people. The empire produced 50 percent of the world’s iron and coal, controlled two-thirds of the shipping and accounted for one-third of all trade. London’s banks had more money on deposit than all other financial centers … combined! Virtually all the finished cotton in the world was produced in Great Britain on machines built in Britain by British inventors.

The famous British Empire covered 11.5 million square miles and included 25 percent of the world’s population. By whatever measurement, it was the richest, most innovative and skilled nation known to man, and in London – where he was living the good life – primarily on his friend Friedrich Engels’ money – Marx was still churning out socialist propaganda. He made no attempt to explain that for the first time in history, there was a lot of everything in most people’s lives. Victorian London was not only the largest city in the world, but the only place one could buy 500 different kinds of hammers and a dazzling array of nails to pound on.

While Marxism morphed into Bolshevism, communism and socialism – polluting the economic systems of many hopeful utopians like Greeley – capitalism and the market-based theories of Adam Smith (“the father of modern economics”) quietly crept over America almost unnoticed. Despite the numerous failed examples of socialism in the real world, there will always be a new generation of people wanting to try it.

Tension Between Federal, State Governments Lingers Even Today

Slave hire badges were likely hung from the necks of slaves who were leased out by their masters for short-term hire. This 1801 Charleston badge sold for $11,875 at a May 2015 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

There have always been disagreements about the real cause(s) of the American Civil War. One major culprit – the differences between the North and South over the issue of slavery – is seen as a top reason. There are earlier academic arguments that the cause was really about differences over the dividing line between states’ rights and the authority of the federal government. Where did one authority stop or become superseded by the other?

A third reason was the simple motivation to keep our hard-won United States intact and not splinter into states that were merely loosely confederated, as opposed to “One Nation of States United.” President Lincoln added fuel to this logic when he publicly wrote, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”

In his historic Emancipation Proclamation, he literally freed only the slaves in the Confederate States, the only ones he had no authority over. Slaves in the so-called border states (slave states that did not declare secession) were unaffected by the Proclamation for fear of having more states secede. Maintaining the Union triumphed over all other objectives.

But what if the Civil War was really about something else, like, say, basic democracy? Sound crazy? Well, maybe, but consider the years after the American Revolution and the framing of the Constitution when the basic tenets of democracy were highly contentious. The Founding Fathers (both Federalists and Jeffersonians) clashed constantly and ferociously over the role of ordinary citizens in a new government of “We the People.” Who were these people and what rights did they have?

Even the ratification of the Constitution was delayed since there was not a specific “Bill of Rights.” Opponents of this argued strenuously that the rights already existed, and adding a special list could call into question other rights that were not specifically included. In the end, it was necessary to compromise and include a special list that was narrowed down to the ones in our current Bill of Rights. However, somewhat ironically, they generally cover what the government could not do, rather than specific rights for individual citizens.

The triumph of Andrew Jackson in 1828 modified this role on the national level, while city Democrats, anti-Masons, fugitive slaves and other Americans worked to carve out their interests on the local level. These cumulative decisions led inexorably to the beginning of a series of regional differences. The free-labor Northern states and the slaveholding South – loosely linked by an evolving federal government – were in reality two distinct political systems with fundamentally antagonist cultures. By the time of Jackson’s second inaugural address on March 4, 1833, he felt compelled to declare, “In the domestic policy of this government, there are two objects which especially deserve the attention of the people and their representatives, and which have been and will continue to be subjects of my increasing solicitude. They are the preservation of the rights of the several states and the integrity of the Union.”

The issue that smoldered and occasionally burst into flame was that of nullification. John Calhoun made himself the leader of the movement that declared that a state had the right to decide which federal laws it wished to observe and which to reject. Calhoun and his followers also felt that a state had the right to secede from the Union. Jackson was adamant and publicly declared, “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved!” National leaders from Martin Van Buren to Henry Clay were partially successful in mitigating the ever-growing chasm between these diametrically opposing views. However, the election of Abraham Lincoln signaled an end to this delicate balance. These two almost alien cultures began to quickly unravel, as the firebrands in the South were convinced the federal government was determined to change their fundamental democratic rights and were gleeful that they could stop the encroachment.

Rebellion in the form of secession led directly to the long-predicted armed conflict. Both sides were convinced they were right and were willing to sacrifice their lives.

Flash forward to today and we see the same fissures that are likely to worsen. We’re seeing battles between the states and the federal government over highly emotionally packed issues like voting rights, immigration, travel bans, free speech, inequality, religion, health care … all seeking redress (nullification) from an overloaded Supreme Court, as a highly partisan Congress has become more impotent.

United States Democracy, Act 2?