Walter Coffey's Blog, page 194

Wilson’s Naive Fourteen Points

After the U.S. entered World War I in April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson secretly convened a group of 150 academic experts to devise a lasting peace that would prevent future wars. Over the next nine months, the group produced some 2,000 reports and 1,200 maps.

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson

On January 8, 1918, in a speech before a joint session of Congress, Wilson unveiled the group’s results to the unsuspecting public, which became his “War Aims and Policy Terms.” These included what became known as the “Fourteen Points” for world peace.

Details of the Fourteen Points

The fourteen points were an idealistic, progressive attempt to avoid future wars. They also reflected Wilson’s vision for a postwar world, which did not necessarily coincide with the visions of other world leaders. The points had been itemized and written so they could be easily interpreted by the average European.

The first five points addressed international relations, while the last eight points addressed territorial claims after the war. The fourteenth point called for creating an international organization to deliberate and promote disarmament, democracy, and human rights. And, if needed, it would act as international policeman in future conflicts. This was the centerpiece of Wilson’s fourteen points, and it proved to be the most controversial of them all.

International Response

The fourteen points sought to undermine the Central Powers’ will to continue fighting by inspiring the Allied war effort. They were also an effort to extend Wilson’s progressive domestic agenda into foreign policy. The points were broadcast throughout the world and were showered from rockets and shells behind enemy lines.

The leaders of U.S. allies Great Britain and France were generally unimpressed by Wilson’s points. Moreover, they were dismayed by his presumptiveness in telling them how to dictate peace when the U.S. had not yet even been involved in the war for one year. After reading the fourteen points, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau proclaimed, “Even God Almighty has only ten!”

Before the points could be fully absorbed, Wilson added more principles and particulars throughout 1918 as the war was finally concluding. All these ideas (delivered at different times) gave the Central Powers the impression that they were changing and therefore negotiable. In October 1918, they agreed to an armistice based on Wilson’s original document—the fourteen points.

Peace Negotiations

Wilson traveled to Paris to directly participate in the peace process in December 1918, becoming the first sitting president to attend peace negotiations in a foreign country. During the process, Allied leaders used Wilson’s points to place sole blame of the war on Germany, even though Britain and France (and even Russia and Serbia) bore responsibility as well. This “war-guilt clause” attached to the final treaty oppressed the Germans and created animosity from which a new nationalism, led by Adolf Hitler, emerged.

Among Wilson’s points was the idealistic notion of self-determination, or the right of people to decide their own political fates. From this came many new nations, including carving Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland from Germany. Because these new nations were dominated by German-speaking people, Hitler later invaded and annexed them back into Germany by citing Wilson’s own principle of self-determination as justification.

The greatest source of contention was Wilson’s insistence on creating a League of Nations, his fourteenth point. Allied leaders used this insistence against Wilson by threatening not to join the League if various other points were not withdrawn. As a result, many points were not implemented, even though Germany had agreed to stop fighting based solely on the fourteen points. This caused more resentment that later fomented into the Nazi movement.

American Opposition

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919. Although it did not contain many of Wilson’s fourteen points, it did create his coveted League of Nations. As such, Wilson returned to the U.S. to persuade Americans to support the treaty. But when he returned, he found much more opposition than he had anticipated.

Treaties require a two-thirds majority approval in the Senate to be ratified. At the time, the Senate was controlled by Republicans who generally opposed the Democratic president. Many senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, expressed reservations about the treaty. In particular, they worried that involving the U.S. in a League of Nations would surrender national sovereignty, which was unconstitutional. Instead of working with the senators on a compromise, Wilson stubbornly embarked on a nationwide speaking tour to appeal directly to the people in favor of the treaty.

Wilson traveled throughout the country and delivered 40 speeches denouncing his opponents and pleading for support. However, the violence and unrest occurring in the U.S. after the war had caused a general resentment among the people, and consequently most of them opposed the treaty. Wilson worked himself into exhaustion and suffered a debilitating stroke after returning to Washington.

Legacy of the Fourteen Points

President Wilson’s refusal to compromise destroyed any chance for the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. And although the League of Nations was established, the U.S. never joined. Ironically, Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the treaty and the League, even though his country never endorsed either one. The U.S. did not make peace with Germany until two years later, when Congress passed a resolution declaring the war over.

Wilson’s idealistic internationalism, calling for the U.S. to fight for democracy, progressivism, and liberalism, has been a contentious aspect of U.S. foreign policy, serving as a model for “idealists” to emulate and “realists” to condemn.

The fourteen points, while steeped with good intentions, reflected a naïve outlook on international affairs that was mostly scorned by other world leaders. Wilson’s insistence on invoking the points during the peace process indirectly created more animosity among the warring nations and set the stage for the German ascendancy in the next decade, which would lead to World War II.

This Week in the Civil War: Dec 31, 1862-Jan 6, 1863

Wednesday, December 31.  In Tennessee, the Battle of Stone’s River (or Murfreesboro) began, as Federal General William Rosecrans and Confederate General Braxton Bragg resolved to attack each other. Both commanders planned to move left and crush the enemy right, but Bragg moved first and put the Federals on the defensive. After several Confederate assaults, the Federals withdrew to the Murfreesboro-Nashville Pike, pinned against Stone’s River.

Confederate General Braxton Bragg

Both sides inflicted heavy casualties, but the fighting was inconclusive and the Federal lines held. Bragg and Rosecrans remained within range of each other, each hoping that the other would withdraw. The Confederates entrenched, and the Federal command discussed the situation. Bragg prematurely wired the Confederate government that his men had scored a victory.

In Mississippi, General William T. Sherman’s Federals continued exploring various plans for attacking the bluffs north of Vicksburg.

In Tennessee, General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederate cavalry was surprised by Federal forces at Parker’s Crossroad. After raiding General Ulysses S. Grant’s supply lines, Forrest was confronting a Federal force in his front when a second force unexpectedly attacked from behind. When his staff asked for orders, Forrest said, “Split in two and charge both ways.” They followed the order and escaped, losing 300 troops.

Thursday, January 1.  In Washington, the traditional New Year’s reception took place in the White House. After receiving guests, President Abraham Lincoln retired to the Executive Office, where administration officials witnessed him signing the Emancipation Proclamation. Copies were sent to the press, and news of the signing was spread throughout the world. Although the proclamation technically freed nobody, it gave the U.S. a foreign relations advantage over the Confederacy. It also opened the path to permanently abolishing slavery. And perhaps most importantly, it authorized the recruitment of blacks into the military, giving the North an overwhelming manpower advantage. Celebrations and salutes were held among free blacks, former slaves, and abolitionists in Boston’s Tremont Temple.

Federal General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the Army of the Potomac, met with Lincoln to discuss a new plan of attack following the disastrous defeat at Fredericksburg the previous month. Lincoln informed the general that several army subordinates had no confidence in him. Burnside offered to resign, but Lincoln refused because he had no practical replacement. Hoping to redeem himself, Burnside promised to strike “a great and mortal blow to the rebellion” by moving north along the Rappahannock River and attacking Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s left flank. Lincoln reluctantly approved the plan.

In Texas, General John B. Magruder’s Confederates landed at Galveston to free the town from Federal occupation. Improvised gunboats landed on the lowlands, while cotton steamers attacked Federal ships in Galveston Harbor. When the Federal flagship was run aground, the naval flotilla abandoned the town, and the Federal garrison at Kuhn’s Wharf surrendered. The Confederate capture of Galveston temporarily broke the Federal naval blockade.

In Tennessee, General William Rosecrans’s Federal Army of the Cumberland and General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee remained in their positions from the previous day, poised to strike each other at Stone’s River. In South Carolina, Robert Yeadon of Charleston offered a $10,000 reward for the capture of Federal General Benjamin F. Butler, dead or alive.

Friday, January 2.  In Tennessee, the Battle of Stone’s River (or Murfreesboro) resumed after a one-day respite. Braxton Bragg’s Confederates resumed their attacks, but the Federal lines had been strengthened and the attacks were repulsed. By nightfall, both armies fell back, and rain turned the battlefield into a quagmire.

Saturday, January 3.  In Tennessee, Braxton Bragg’s Confederates began withdrawing to Tullahoma. William Rosecrans was surprised by Bragg’s withdrawal and did not pursue. This prompted Bragg to claim a tactical victory, but it soon became apparent that this was a significant Confederate defeat. The Battle of Stone’s River secured Kentucky and Tennessee for the Federals. It also boosted the morale of pro-Union eastern Tennesseans and demoralized Confederate sympathizers in central Tennessee and Kentucky. Many Confederates saw this as a missed opportunity to destroy the northern war effort after the Federals had been so soundly beaten at Fredericksburg the previous month.

In Mississippi, William T. Sherman’s Federals began withdrawing from the bluffs north of Vicksburg across the Mississippi River to Milliken’s Bend. Their effort to capture Vicksburg ended in failure, but the overall commander, General Ulysses S. Grant, soon began developing another plan of attack. John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates recrossed the Cumberland River after raiding Federal supply lines in Kentucky. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederates crossed the Tennessee River at Clifton after attacking Ulysses S. Grant’s supply lines.

Sunday, January 4.  General John A. McClernand’s 30,000-man Federal force began an unauthorized move up the Arkansas River with 50 transports and gunboats commanded by Admiral David D. Porter. McClernand’s force included the corps belonging to William T. Sherman that had just withdrawn from Mississippi, and this move sought to avenge the Federal defeat at Chickasaw Bluffs last month. Their target was Arkansas Post, or Fort Hindman, on the Arkansas River.

Federal General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck ordered Ulysses S. Grant to rescind his controversial General Order No. 11 expelling all Jews from his military department. President Lincoln endorsed Halleck’s order, and Grant complied on January 7.

In Tennessee, various skirmishes occurred as Braxton Bragg’s Confederates continued withdrawing from Murfreesboro. In the New Mexico Territory, Federal forces began operations against various Indian tribes that continued until May. U.S.S. Quaker City captured a Confederate blockade-runner carrying important dispatches off Charleston, South Carolina.

Monday, January 5.  In Tennessee, Federal troops entered Murfreesboro as skirmishing continued. President Lincoln wired William Rosecrans, “God bless you and all with you… I can never forget… that you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, if there had been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have lived over.” Rosecrans soon began planning a Federal advance on the vital railroad city of Chattanooga.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis returned to Richmond after completing his southern tour. Davis told a serenading crowd that the Confederacy was the last hope “for the perpetuation of that system of government which our forefathers founded–the asylum of the oppressed and the home of true representative liberty.” Davis added, “Every crime which could characterize the course of demons has marked the course of the invader.” Noting the recent victory at Fredericksburg, Davis quipped that the only Federals who had reached the Confederate capital thus far had been prisoners.

Tuesday, January 6.  General John Marmaduke’s Confederates raided Missouri and fought skirmishes at Linn Creek and Fort Lawrence, Beaver Station.

Condemning Joe McCarthy

In December 1954, the Senate condemned Joseph McCarthy for behavior unbecoming a U.S. senator. McCarthy’s sensational accusations about Communists infiltrating the U.S. government made national headlines, and he was ultimately disgraced as a paranoid fanatic. But classified documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union have shown that maybe McCarthy wasn’t so wrong after all.

Joseph McCarthy was a Democrat-turned Progressive Republican from Wisconsin who became a U.S. senator in 1946 by attacking his opponents and exaggerating his World War II military record. In the Senate, he was generally disliked because of his hot temper and hard drinking, but he managed to form close friendships with the Kennedys. The Kennedy family patriarch, Joe Kennedy, liked McCarthy’s Irish Catholic heritage and his hatred of Communists, and he sought to use McCarthy to help advance his sons’ political careers.

The Accusations Begin

In the years after World War II, national security was a major issue, as many feared that Communist spies were working within the federal government. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover tried to get officials to act on evidence of Soviet infiltration but was ignored. A confidential Senate report concluded that many State Department employees were either Communists or sympathizers. Classified Soviet documents uncovered in the 1990s revealed that hundreds of Soviet infiltrators worked in sensitive and high-level positions in the U.S. government in the 1940s and 50s.

Based on this evidence, Joseph McCarthy began sounding warnings that went largely unheeded. In many ways, McCarthy was his own worst enemy because his boorish manner and his tendency to claim that unsubstantiated information was the absolute truth caused many to question his credibility. This clouded the general fact that McCarthy had legitimately identified serious breeches in national security.

By 1950, Asia was becoming a Communist continent. China had fallen to communism, the Soviets were arming the North Korean Communists, and communism was threatening Indochina. Moreover, the Soviets were developing an atomic bomb. These events heightened American fears that Communists were infiltrating the U.S. government. At this time, McCarthy was ready to make a startling revelation.

In a Lincoln’s Birthday speech before the Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1950, Senator McCarthy held up papers and declared, “I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.” The list was actually an FBI file that contained information on old investigations of Communists in government jobs. McCarthy later changed the number from 205 to 57, and this changing number damaged his reliability.

On the Senate floor, McCarthy revealed State Department dossiers on suspected Communists. Although the dossiers were over three years old, and most of persons named were no longer State Department employees, they certainly had ties to communism and should not have been working in such sensitive positions in the first place. Nevertheless, opponents claimed that the evidence had no merit because of its age and the fact that many mentioned were no longer employed. And McCarthy’s crude personality and his tendency to exaggerate the truth did not help his cause.

In response to McCarthy’s charges, several fellow Republicans denounced his tactics and the term “McCarthyism” was coined to refer to McCarthy’s abusive manner and reckless accusations. Despite this, McCarthy’s accusations created a sensation and he soon became an extremely popular national figure.

The Tydings Committee

A committee was created in February 1950 to investigate McCarthy’s charges. Many Democrats, including committee chairman Millard Tydings of Maryland, were outraged by McCarthy’s attacks on Democratic President Harry S Truman and thus hoped to discredit him. The committee concluded that those accused by McCarthy were neither Communists nor sympathizers, and McCarthy’s charges were a “fraud and a hoax” intended to “confuse and divide the American people… to a degree far beyond the hopes of the Communists themselves.”

Later evidence refuted the committee’s findings. In one case being investigated by McCarthy, journalists and government officials had been arrested for divulging classified information to Communist sympathizers, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute them. It was later revealed that Democratic lobbyists had conspired to bury the case. Thus, the Tydings Committee was not created to refute McCarthy as much as it was created to cover up his investigation of a cover-up.

The Tydings Committee’s findings did nothing to stop McCarthy’s hunt for Communists in the government. His approval rating rose, and he gained a powerful national following. McCarthy scored a measure of revenge in the 1950 mid-term elections when he campaigned against Tydings’s reelection and saw him defeated. This gave McCarthy a reputation as a key campaigner, and by 1952 he was one of the most powerful men in the Senate.

McCarthy’s Rise to Power

Senator McCarthy regularly accused President Truman of harboring Communists in his administration. When the Republicans won the presidency and control of Congress in 1952, they hoped that McCarthy would tone down his rhetoric. But he would not.

In 1953, McCarthy changed his “20 years of treason” mantra against preceding Democratic administrations to “21″ to include Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s first year in office. Publicly, Eisenhower stated that he agreed with McCarthy’s goals but disagreed with his methods. Privately, Eisenhower sought to diminish McCarthy’s power and influence.

McCarthy was named chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which allowed him to investigate suspected Communists in government. McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn and Robert F. Kennedy as counsels to the subcommittee (Kennedy served only briefly).

The subcommittee investigated the State Department’s information program, its Voice of America, and its overseas libraries, which panicked the department into banning about 40 books written by suspected Communists. Eisenhower urged, “Don’t join the book burners…”

The Army-McCarthy Hearings

In the fall of 1953, McCarthy began investigating suspected subversion in the U.S. Army. When General Ralph Zwicker refused to answer some of McCarthy’s questions, the senator berated Zwicker and said he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” This attack on Zwicker, a World War II hero, prompted outrage from the military, the press, veterans, politicians of both parties, and the president.

In the press, acclaimed journalist Edward R. Murrow aired clips of McCarthy’s bluster on his CBS news show See It Now. McCarthy later appeared on Murrow’s show to counter the portrayal, but he further damaged his credibility by accusing Murrow of colluding with the “Russian espionage and propaganda organization” VOKS.

The Army-McCarthy hearings began on April 22, during which McCarthy accused the Secretary of the Army of interfering with McCarthy’s investigation of Communist infiltration in the army. By turning his accusatory temperament against the military, McCarthy suffered a massive public backlash that destroyed his popularity. His crudeness and exaggerated manner of speaking astonished and outraged many of the 20 million Americans who watched the hearings live on national television.

The highlight of the hearings came on June 9 when U.S. Army counsel Joseph Welch publicly berated McCarthy by stating, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Lost in many history books was the fact that after the hearings, the committee exonerated McCarthy from any wrongdoing (although it found that McCarthy’s counsel Roy Cohn had engaged in “unduly persistent or aggressive efforts” to uncover evidence). The committee also found that the Secretary of the Army had attempted to block subpoenas by lobbying certain committee members. Despite this, McCarthy’s bullying style prompted many of his fellow Republicans to side with the Democrats in opposing him and his investigations.

McCarthy is Condemned

After two months of hearings and deliberations, a special Senate committee recommended that McCarthy be censured for contempt of a subcommittee that had called him to testify (he had refused to appear), and for his abuse of General Zwicker. The second count was dropped and the censure was downgraded to a “condemnation.”

On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted 67-22 to condemn McCarthy for “conduct… unbecoming a Member of the United States Senate… contrary to senatorial traditions.” Senate Minority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson led the moves both to pass the measure and to keep it within the bounds of personal conduct. None of McCarthy’s anti-Communist accusations were criticized or refuted.

All Democrats voted to condemn McCarthy, while the Republicans were split. The lone Democrat not voting was John F. Kennedy, who was hospitalized for back surgery. Being McCarthy’s close friend, it is unknown if Kennedy would have defied his party and voted against the condemnation. Kennedy never indicated which way he would have voted and never publicly criticized McCarthy.

Epilogue

While McCarthy’s supporters argued that the Senate resolution was a lesser condemnation, it has been generally regarded as a censure. Following this, most of McCarthy’s supporters turned against him and public support quickly eroded, despite his pledge to continue his anti-Communist inquiries.

With his career ruined, McCarthy continued railing against communism, but few people continued taking heed. His health quickly declined, and he died in 1957 at age 48 from cirrhosis of the liver. It was hinted in the press that he died of alcoholism.

Ironically, even as McCarthy was being condemned, Congress indirectly acted upon the evidence he had produced by introducing a series of anti-Communist bills. Democratic Senator Hubert H. Humphrey even introduced an amendment outlawing the Communist Party.

Classified documents uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union have proven that McCarthy actually underestimated the number of Communists in government. KGB material has shown that some U.S. officials worked to shape foreign policy to the Soviets’ advantage, and that the KGB regularly debriefed prominent State and Justice Department officials, along with many sympathetic journalists and Hollywood personalities.

Critics have argued that McCarthy conducted a “reign of terror” on freedoms of speech and expression. But even at the peak of McCarthy’s popularity, the Communist Party was never outlawed, Communist publications such as the Daily Worker were never suppressed, and nobody testifying before McCarthy was indicted, tried, or jailed for any crime.

Although Joseph McCarthy intimidated witnesses and behaved miserably, his assertions that Communists were infiltrating the federal government were essentially true. His unethical methods clouded his accusations and made him seem more of a zealot than he actually was. But in the end, perhaps McCarthy was closer to the truth than those who ridiculed and condemned him.

Civil War Spotlight: The Battle of Chickasaw Bluffs

150 years ago today in Mississippi…

A Federal army-navy expedition under General William T. Sherman and Admiral David D. Porter moved south in an effort to capture Vicksburg by surprise. However, a secret telegraph line in the city warned the Confederate defenders of the Federal approach.

Sherman’s forces landed on the south bank of the Yazoo River near Steele’s Bayou, seven miles north of its confluence with the Mississippi River and four miles northwest of Chickasaw Bluffs. The Federals moved slowly through the swamps and marshes, arriving at the bluffs protecting Vicksburg on December 28, 1862.

With the Federal secret exposed, Sherman’s forces were repulsed by heavy fire from General John C. Pemberton’s Confederate defenders on the foot of the bluffs near Chickasaw Bayou. The Federals suffered 1,776 casualties out of about 31,000 effectives, while the Confederates lost only 207 from roughly 14,000. Fog disrupted a second attack, and Sherman admitted failure as he withdrew across the Mississippi to Milliken’s Bend.

To many northerners, this battle seemed painfully similar to Fredericksburg. The disruption of Tennessee supply lines, the destruction of the Holly Springs supply depot, and Sherman’s repulse at Chickasaw Bluffs marked a discouraging beginning to Ulysses S. Grant’s campaign to capture Vicksburg.

Consequences of the Louisiana Purchase

The purchase of Louisiana Territory from France doubled the size of the United States and made it a continental power. However, it also created tension in Congress concerning the balance of slave and non-slave states, and it started talk of secession.

Louisiana Purchase Treaty

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Mississippi River was vital for transporting goods because of its access to the western frontier and the Gulf of Mexico. The center of river trade was New Orleans, a part of Louisiane (or Louisiana Territory) originally ruled by France. In 1762, the French gave Spain control of New Orleans, and the Spanish gave Americans the right to trade in the city.

In 1798, Spain revoked the Americans’ right to trade in New Orleans, which greatly upset U.S. officials. Soon thereafter, Spain returned control of Louisiana to France with the agreement that Spain would continue administering New Orleans and France would not sell the territory. The treaty was secretly signed in 1800.

Because the Mississippi River was becoming increasingly important as American settlers moved west, U.S. officials continued lobbying Spain for the right to trade in New Orleans. However, when France’s archenemy–Great Britain–informed the U.S. of the secret treaty between France and Spain, President Thomas Jefferson dispatched envoys to France to make an offer to buy New Orleans.

The French Predicament

France was ruled by Napoleon Bonaparte, who had initially sought to build a western empire headquartered in Louisiana Territory. However, the French army in the Caribbean had been nearly wiped out by yellow fever while trying to put down a slave rebellion in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). This deprived the French access to the rich Caribbean sugar plantations. Without profits from those plantations, Louisiana held little value to Napoleon.

Moreover, Napoleon was planning to conquer Europe, which required both troops and money. As Napoleon’s focus shifted to Europe, the Western Hemisphere was no longer a priority to him. As a result, Napoleon impulsively offered to sell not only New Orleans but the entire Louisiana Territory.

The Negotiations Unfold

After learning that control of New Orleans had gone back to France, President Jefferson dispatched Robert Livingston to negotiate the U.S. right to trade in the port city. Through Livingston, Jefferson hinted that the U.S. could ally with Britain against the French, thus putting more pressure on France to open New Orleans to the U.S.

When negotiations faltered, Jefferson sent future President James Monroe to assist Livingston. Monroe had been expelled from France on his last diplomatic mission, and Jefferson’s decision to send him was intended to show that the president meant business.

Jefferson directed Livingston and Monroe to make an offer to buy both New Orleans and Spanish Florida for $10 million. While initially reluctant, the French changed their stance after the yellow fever epidemic ravaged Saint-Domingue and Napoleon launched his European war. On April 11, 1803, French Treasury Minister Francois de Barbe-Marbois offered the U.S. envoys all of Louisiana Territory. The envoys were stunned, for Jefferson had only instructed them to negotiate for New Orleans and Florida.

The French offered Louisiana for $15 million (or less than three cents per acre), paid with $3.75 million in French debt to the U.S. and $11.25 million in cash. Fearing that Napoleon could change his mind at any time, Livingston and Monroe quickly accepted the offer. The purchase treaty was drafted on April 30 and signed on May 2. However, external forces threatened to destroy the deal.

Constitutional Objections

In the U.S., many Federalists who opposed Jefferson accused him of hypocrisy. Jefferson prided himself on his strict interpretation of the Constitution, which had no provision enabling a president to purchase territory. Some argued that had a Federalist effected the purchase, Jefferson surely would have objected on constitutional grounds.

Federalists also objected because the purchase tied the U.S. closer to France when most Federalists favored closer ties to Britain. Others, primarily in New England, feared that the territory would eventually be carved into several southern pro-Jefferson states. Those states would most likely allow slavery, thus upsetting the balance between slave and non-slave state representation in Congress. Some New England Federalists even considered seceding from the Union and forming a northern confederacy.

Nothing in the Constitution authorized either Jefferson or his envoys to make such an enormous purchase with taxpayer money. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution enabled the federal government to grant U.S. citizenship to the many French nationals living in the territory. And ironically the purchase was made with proceeds from U.S. bond sales begun by Jefferson’s archrival, Federalist Alexander Hamilton, in a sale that Jefferson had deemed unconstitutional.

Jefferson later admitted he had stretched his power “till it cracked” to buy Louisiana. He recognized that such an acquisition could erode states’ rights by enhancing executive power beyond the constitutional scope. On the other hand, he saw a French presence in Louisiana as a threat to free U.S. trade in North America. As a result, Jefferson proceeded with sending the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Spanish Objections

Spain was outraged by the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. Under the secret treaty with France, the French had pledged not to sell New Orleans to any foreign country. But that is exactly what Napoleon did by selling New Orleans and all of Louisiana to the U.S.

Moreover, since Spain and France had shared the boundaries between Louisiana and Florida in the past, the exact boundary lines were unclear. Spain argued that West Florida extended to the Mississippi River, while the U.S. maintained that Louisiana began west of the Perdido River and stretched all the way to the Rio Grande River and the Rocky Mountains, including the Spanish colony of Coahuila y Tejas (now Texas). This sparked an international conflict that ultimately resulted in the U.S. acquiring Florida from Spain nearly two decades later.

The Louisiana Purchase Treaty

The treaty reached Washington on July 14, 1803. In the U.S. House of Representatives, a motion to deny the purchase request failed by only two votes. Some Federalists even tried proving the land still belonged to Spain and not France, which would have made the purchase invalid.

Nevertheless, the Senate ratified the treaty by the necessary two-thirds majority, 24 to 7. The next day, President Jefferson was authorized to possess the land and establish a temporary military government. France turned New Orleans over to the U.S. on December 20 at The Cabildo. Louisiana Territory was transferred to the U.S. at St. Louis in a formal ceremony on March 10, 1804.

The territorial boundaries with Spain notwithstanding, the U.S. acquired about 828,000 square miles of land in the Louisiana Purchase, which included all or part of the present-day states and provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Napoleon declared, “This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride.”

While Americans celebrated the vast expansion of their country, the Louisiana Purchase would soon become part of the slavery issue as southern slave states were created from the land just as the New England Federalists had feared. With the addition of this new southern territory, it became apparent that slavery would not be ended anytime soon.

This Week in the Civil War: Dec 24-30, 1862

Confederate General John Hunt Morgan

Wednesday, December 24.  In Texas, Federal forces occupied Galveston, which had already been partially occupied by naval forces since October. Galveston had been used as a port for Confederate blockade runners, but it was too far from the Confederate heartland to be an effective base.

In Kentucky, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederate raiders occupied Glasgow. A portion of General Ulysses S. Grant’s Federal army under William T. Sherman moved down the Mississippi River from Memphis toward Vicksburg. Skirmishing occurred in Tennessee.

Thursday, December 25.  On Christmas Day, President and Mrs. Lincoln visited wounded soldiers at Washington hospitals. In Mississippi, William T. Sherman’s Federals approached Milliken’s Bend, north of Vicksburg. In Kentucky, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates skirmished with Federals at various points. Skirmishing occurred in Virginia and Tennessee.

Friday, December 26.  In Mississippi, William T. Sherman’s Federals landed on the south bank of the Yazoo River near Steele’s Bayou, seven miles from its confluence with the Mississippi River and four miles northwest of Chickasaw Bluffs.

In Tennessee, General William Rosecrans’s Federal Army of the Cumberland moved out of Nashville to confront General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee at Murfreesboro. Rosecrans was slowed by attacks on his Kentucky railroad lines by John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates. General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederate cavalry withdrew after disrupting major parts of General Ulysses S. Grant’s supply lines in Tennessee and Mississippi.

In Minnesota, the largest mass execution in U.S. history took place, as 38 condemned Dakota Sioux Indians were hanged at Mankato for participating in the Dakota Sioux War earlier this year. The bodies were buried in a trench on the riverbank. The other 265 Indians convicted for participating in the war remained in military prisons. By this time, there were over 1,000 Dakota Sioux imprisoned throughout Minnesota for various crimes.

Saturday, December 27.  In Mississippi, William T. Sherman’s Federals continued moving slowly through the swamps, marshes, and bayous north of Vicksburg;  Confederate General John C. Pemberton began rushing troops in to defend the town. In Tennessee, various skirmishing occurred as William Rosecrans’s Federals continued advancing toward Braxton Bragg’s Confederates. In Kentucky, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates captured a Federal garrison at Elizabethtown. Skirmishing occurred in Virginia and North Carolina.

Sunday, December 28.  Various skirmishes occurred as William T. Sherman’s Federals advanced on Vicksburg and William Rosecrans’s Federals advanced on Murfreesboro. Skirmishing occurred in Virginia, and Federals evacuated New Madrid, Missouri. In Arkansas, James Blunt’s Federal Army of the Frontier defeated Confederates at Dripping Springs, drove them through Van Buren, and captured about 40 wagons, four steamers, and other equipment.

Monday, December 29.  In Mississippi, the Battle of Chickasaw Bluffs occurred as William T. Sherman’s Federals were repulsed by heavy fire from John C. Pemberton’s Confederate defenders on the foot of the bluffs near Chickasaw Bayou. The Federals suffered 1,776 casualties, while the Confederates lost only 207. Fog disrupted a second Federal attack, and Sherman admitted failure. To many northerners, this battle seemed painfully similar to Fredericksburg. This defeat, combined with constant raids on Federal supplies, marked a discouraging beginning to Ulysses S. Grant’s campaign to capture Vicksburg.

In Tennessee, skirmishing continued between William Rosecrans’s Federals and Braxton Bragg’s Confederates. In Kentucky, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates skirmished at Johnson’s Ferry and captured a stockade at Boston.

Tuesday, December 30.  In Mississippi, William T. Sherman’s Federals remained pinned at the foot of the Chickasaw Bluffs north of Vicksburg. In Tennessee, William Rosecrans’s Federals came within range of Braxton Bragg’s Confederates at Murfreesboro. In eastern Tennessee, S.P. Carter’s Federals captured Union and Carter’s Depot. In Kentucky, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederates fought various skirmishes as they began withdrawing.

In Washington, President Lincoln presented a draft of the final Emancipation Proclamation, to be issued on January 1. He also wired General Ambrose Burnside about dissension and low morale within the Army of the Potomac: “I have good reason for saying you must not make a general movement of the army without letting me know.”

The first Federal ironclad warship, U.S.S. Monitor, sank in stormy seas while being towed off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Sixteen men died in the sinking ship, while 47 survivors were rescued by nearby steamer Rhode Island. Though Monitor had defeated C.S.S. Virginia in the famed Battle of the Ironclads in March, she had never been very seaworthy.

Civil War Spotlight: Lincoln’s Cabinet Crisis

After the Federal disaster at Fredericksburg in December 1862, Radical Republican senators discussed reorganizing President Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet. The Radicals felt that the cabinet was too conservative to effectively prosecute the war, and their main target was Lincoln’s top policy advisor, Secretary of State William Seward. Radical supporter Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune called Seward the “President de facto” who kept “a sponge saturated with chloroform at Uncle Abe’s nose.”

A Radical deputation of nine senators met with Lincoln and demanded that he replace cabinet members who did not meet their standards of commitment to the war. They accused Seward of being a negative influence who favored negotiated peace over total victory. Lincoln strongly defended Seward, but he pledged to consider the senators’ demand. Seward, aware of the Radical resentment against him, submitted his resignation to Lincoln.

Lincoln called another meeting with the Radical senators, this time with his cabinet (except Seward) present. Some senators eased their demand while in the cabinet’s presence. The Radicals’ main cabinet ally, Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, awkwardly tried explaining his differences with Seward. When Lincoln asked the senators if they still demanded Seward’s resignation, they could not reach a consensus.

Lincoln then expressed disappointment in Chase’s criticisms of Seward, which prompted Chase to submit his resignation. This played right into Lincoln’s hands, as he informed the Radicals that if Seward were dismissed, then their ally Chase would have to go as well. The Radicals ultimately withdrew their demands, Lincoln refused the resignations of both Seward and Chase, and all cabinet members resumed their duties. But this incident would have political consequences in the months to come.

The Controversial Case of Sacco and Vanzetti

The execution of Italian immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 sparked protests around the world. Many protested that they were only being executed because of their immigration status and political beliefs. After over 80 years, this notorious case still sparks controversy.

Sacco and Vanzetti

The Crime

Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were followers of Luigi Galleani, an Italian anarchist who supported the violent overthrow of the government through labor strikes, political agitation, and mass murder. Galleani had been deported from the U.S. because Italian anarchists were suspected of several bombing and assassination attempts, an attempted mass poisoning, and the bombing of the U.S. attorney general’s home. Thus, Italian anarchists topped the government’s list of dangerous enemies.

Sacco and Vanzetti were also friends with Andrea Salsedo, an anarchist who fell to his death from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation building in New York. There was speculation as to whether Salsedo fell or was thrown.

In April 1920, two men were murdered and $15,776.51 stolen in a payroll robbery at a shoe factory in South Braintree, Massachusetts. Authorities recognized that these types of crimes were often committed by anarchists and other radical groups to raise money for their causes. Several suspects were investigated, including four Galleani followers. Police sprung a trap to catch them, but two escaped. The other two were caught on a streetcar in Brockton, Massachusetts. They were Sacco and Vanzetti. Neither had a previous criminal record.

Once in custody, Vanzetti was also charged for attempted robbery and attempted murder in Bridgewater. These crimes would be tried first.

Vanzetti on Trial

In Vanzetti’s trial for the Bridgewater crimes, the prosecution produced several witnesses who identified Vanzetti as being at the scene. However, not all the witnesses agreed on Vanzetti’s description. Physical evidence included a shotgun shell retrieved from the scene that matched a shell found on Vanzetti when he was arrested on the streetcar.

The defense produced several Italian witnesses who could speak little English. One boy admitted he had rehearsed his testimony. Vanzetti did not take the stand in his own defense, later claiming that his lawyers had advised him against it. His lawyers maintained that they left the choice to Vanzetti, but they did warn him that the prosecution would use his political beliefs against him.

On July 1, 1920, after deliberating five hours, the jury rendered a guilty verdict for both attempted robbery and attempted murder. The second charge was later dismissed because the jury had tampered with evidence. On August 16, Judge Webster Thayer gave Vanzetti the maximum sentence: 12 to 15 years in prison. The defense only mildly objected in an appeal that was defeated.

Sacco and Vanzetti on Trial

In the trial for the Braintree crimes, Judge Thayer again presided and Sacco and Vanzetti pleaded not guilty. Vanzetti, a fishmonger by trade, claimed that he was selling fish at the time of the crimes. Sacco claimed he had been in Boston applying for a passport at the Italian consulate that day. The consulate employee signed a sworn deposition that he had met with Sacco. Sacco also claimed to have lunched with several friends that day, each of whom testified on his behalf.

The prosecution countered that the deposition was too vague, thus making Sacco’s visit to the consulate uncertain. Prosecutors also pointed out that all of Sacco’s lunch friends were fellow anarchists, making their credibility questionable.

Prosecution evidence included matching the .32-caliber bullet that had killed the security guard to bullets found in Sacco’s pockets when he was arrested. Prosecutors also asserted that the .38-caliber gun found on Vanzetti had been taken from the security guard during the crime; they traced the gun to a Boston repair shop where the guard had dropped it off a few weeks before. A flop-eared hat found at the scene was said to belong to Sacco, and a witness testified that Sacco had fired from the getaway car.

The defense countered that the test firings of the .32-caliber gun were inconclusive in proving that it was the same gun used in the crime. They also noted that only one of the four bullets in the dead man was a .32-caliber, despite witness testimony that the suspect had fired several bullets into him. In addition, nobody testified that Vanzetti took the .38-caliber gun from the guard, and there was no record that the guard had ever picked the gun up from the repair shop.

Moreover, defense lawyers argued that the flop-eared hat supposedly belonging to Sacco did not fit him. And the witness identifying Sacco in the getaway car refused to identify him at an earlier inquest; the witness also confirmed having seen the car for only a second from a half-block away.

After deliberating three hours, the jury returned with guilty verdicts for both defendants on all charges. When questioned, each juror insisted that Sacco and Vanzetti’s radical beliefs played no part in their decision. Since the verdicts meant that the men were eligible for the death penalty, the case quickly gained international attention. Demonstrations occurred in 60 Italian cities and many other Latin American cities.

The Appeals

The protests and appeals of the Sacco-Vanzetti case brought forth potential irregularities in the administration of justice as defense attorneys sought a retrial. The irregularities included:

Three key prosecution witnesses claimed they had been coerced into identifying Sacco at the scene of the crime. However, when confronted by the district attorney, the witnesses denied any coercion. One witness had told authorities that she was forced to sign an affidavit stating that she had wrongfully identified Sacco and Vanzetti. She signed a counter-affidavit the next day. Another witness claimed he was drunk while testifying, then signed a counter-affidavit denying that claim.

Defense attorneys tried casting doubts on Judge Thayer’s impartiality. Thayer was a prominent opponent of anarchism and anti-Americanism, and he had publicly referred to Sacco and Vanzetti as those “anarchist bastards.” Thayer denied all defense motions for a new trial. The defense then appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

The SJC was only empowered to adjudicate whether Thayer had abused his power during the trial, not whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty. In 1926, the SJC unanimously ruled that they found “no error” in Thayer’s rulings.

The Medeiros Controversy

Meanwhile, a felon named Celestino Medeiros confessed to committing the Braintree crimes for which Sacco and Vanzetti had been convicted. Sacco and Vanzetti’s lawyers speculated that a gang headed by Joe Morelli to which Medeiros belonged had committed the crimes. The lawyers argued that the gang had been known to rob shoe factories, and Morelli closely resembled Sacco.

The defense filed a motion for a new trial, which was once again reviewed by Judge Webster Thayer. The Medeiros-Morelli theory was presented, along with a charge that the U.S. Justice Department was colluding with the prosecution to withhold vital evidence. Thayer denied the defense’s motion, citing Medeiros’s lack of credibility and the notion that the defense had “a new type of disease… a belief in the existence of something which in fact and truth has no such existence.”

The Boston Herald reversed its longstanding support of Thayer and called for a new trial. Future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter published an article in Atlantic Monthly also calling for a retrial. No other publications supported a retrial. The defense appealed once more to the SJC, but their appeal was denied in 1927.

The Death Sentence

In 1927, after hearing final statements from Sacco and Vanzetti, Judge Thayer sentenced them both to death by electrocution. The execution date was postponed twice while Governor Alvan T. Fuller considered requests for clemency. Fuller also appointed a three-member advisory committee to review the case. Defense lawyers argued that the committee members were biased against Sacco and Vanzetti. Nevertheless, the committee concluded that the trial had been fair and no new trial was warranted. The executions would proceed.

Many notable progressives, socialists, communists, anarchists, radicals, and libertarians protested the conviction and demanded a retrial. Protestors included physicist Albert Einstein and writers H.G. Wells, Upton Sinclair, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini requested clemency through diplomatic channels to no avail. Writers John Dos Passos, Dorothy Parker, and Edna St. Vincent Millay were arrested for disturbing the peace during a protest outside the Massachusetts State House.

For their part, Sacco and Vanzetti consistently maintained their innocence. They claimed to be unjustly persecuted because of prejudice against their ethnicity and their political beliefs. Both men insisted they had been framed, at the same time asking fellow anarchists to avenge them. They even hinted at assassinating Judge Thayer.

After the Supreme Court refused to grant a final reprieve, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed on August 23, 1927. Celestino Medeiros, who had claimed to have committed the crimes, was executed as well for a different crime. Their death sparked protests and violence, along with controversy that has continued to this day.

The Aftermath

Over 10,000 mourners attended Sacco and Vanzetti’s funeral. Their coffins were wreathed with flowers labeled Aspettando l’ora di vendetta (Awaiting the hour of vengeance). Motion Picture Association President Will Hays ordered all film footage of the funeral destroyed to prevent riots. Nevertheless, massive demonstrations took place in New York, London, Amsterdam, and Tokyo. Riots erupted in Paris, Geneva, and Johannesburg, and civil unrest occurred in South America.

Radical allies of Sacco and Vanzetti retaliated. The U.S. embassy and other U.S. interests in Buenos Aires were bombed. President-elect Herbert Hoover was targeted for assassination by anarchists while visiting Buenos Aires in December 1928, but the plot failed. The homes of one the jurors, the executioner, and Judge Thayer were also bombed. Thayer lived under armed guard for the rest of his life.

Many historians claim that Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted by an unfair system simply because of their immigrant status and political beliefs. However, the men belonged to a militant organization that had conducted bombings and murder, and had often robbed businesses such as the shoe factory in Braintree to finance their operations. Some argued that authorities simply used Sacco and Vanzetti to stop the militant activities since conventional law enforcement tactics were not working.

In later years, old anarchists who had known the men concluded that Sacco was guilty but Vanzetti’s only crime was knowledge of Sacco’s guilt. Later ballistics tests confirmed the bullet that had killed the security guard came from Sacco’s gun.

In 1977, on the 50th anniversary of their execution, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis proclaimed that Sacco and Vanzetti had been unfairly convicted and that “any disgrace should be forever removed from their names.” This proclamation brought protest and an attempted censure by the state legislature. Dukakis later expressed regret that he failed to recognize the families of the crime victims.

This Week in the Civil War: Dec 17-23, 1862

General Ulysses S. Grant

Wednesday, December 17.  General Ulysses S. Grant issued a controversial order expelling all Jews from his military department in Tennessee and Mississippi. Grant sought to end the widespread illegal speculation along the Mississippi River, but his order equated peddlers and speculators with Jews. This caused resentment among the Jewish people and carried social and political consequences for years.

Secretary of State William H. Seward and his son Frederick submitted their resignations due to ongoing political conflicts with Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. President Abraham Lincoln did not accept the Sewards’ resignations.Ongoing Federal expeditions continued in North Carolina, Virginia, and Missouri.

Thursday, December 18.  In Tennessee, General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederates defeated Federal cavalry in Forrest’s ongoing campaign of disrupting Ulysses S. Grant’s supply and communication lines. Grant’s army was formally organized into four corps led by William T. Sherman, Stephen A. Hurlbut, James B. McPherson, and John McClernand.

President Lincoln met with a caucus of nine Republican senators at the White House who demanded that he reorganize his cabinet, including dismissing Secretary of State Seward.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis continued his southern tour by visiting Chattanooga. He wrote to Secretary of War James Seddon that the troops at Murfreesboro were in good spirits, but he expressed concern over anti-Confederate sentiment in eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama, as “there is some hostility and much want of confidence in our strength.”

The South Carolina legislature passed a law allowing the use of slave labor to bolster defenses.

Friday, December 19.  In Washington, President Lincoln met with the Republican caucus and all his cabinet members except Secretary of State Seward. Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, another target of the “Radical” Republicans, offered to resign. Lincoln also summoned General Ambrose Burnside to Washington to discuss the disastrous Battle of Fredericksburg.

Skirmishing occurred in Tennessee and Virginia, with Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederates attacking Ulysses S. Grant’s supply lines at Jackson, Tennessee.

Saturday, December 20.  In Mississippi, Confederates under General Earl Van Dorn attacked Ulysses S. Grant’s huge supply depot at Holly Springs, captured at least 1,500 Federals, and destroyed about $1.5 million in military supplies. North of Holly Springs, Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked railroads and skirmished at Trenton and Humboldt. These raids forced Grant to withdraw his forces to La Grange, Tennessee. The raids also disrupted Grant’s plan to send William T. Sherman’s corps down the Mississippi River to the Chickasaw Bluffs north of Vicksburg.

In Washington, Treasury Secretary Chase submitted his resignation to President Lincoln. This gave Lincoln political leverage because the Radical Republicans supported Chase, and Lincoln informed them that if they insisted on removing Secretary of State Seward, then Chase would go as well. The Radicals relented, and Lincoln informed his cabinet that he would accept no resignations.

Sunday, December 21.  In Tennessee, John Hunt Morgan’s Confederate raiders left Alexandria to begin a raid on Federal supply lines in Kentucky. Skirmishing occurred in Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia. Various Federal forces also began expeditions in Virginia and Arkansas.

In Mississippi, President Jefferson Davis visited Vicksburg, where he wrote to General T.H. Holmes that it seemed “clearly developed that the enemy has two principal objects in view, one to get control of the Missi. River, and the other to capture the capital of the Confederate States.” However, Davis believed that the Federal defeat at Fredericksburg had stopped moves against Richmond for the winter. To prevent the Federals from capturing the Mississippi and “dismembering the Confederacy, we must mainly depend upon maintaining the points already occupied by defensive works: to-wit, Vicksburg and Port Hudson.”

Monday, December 22.  In Washington, President Lincoln conferred with General Burnside about the Fredericksburg debacle and the widespread blame going around for it. Lincoln issued an order congratulating the Army of the Potomac for its brave performance and called the defeat an “accident.”

John Hunt Morgan’s Confederate raiders crossed the Cumberland River and invaded Kentucky. Skirmishing occurred in Virginia.

Tuesday, December 23.  President Davis visited Jackson, Mississippi, where he issued a proclamation calling Federal General Benjamin Butler a felon, an outlaw, a common enemy of mankind, and if captured he should not be held prisoner under articles of war but hanged immediately. This was a response to Butler’s tyrannical and corrupt military occupation of New Orleans; he had recently been replaced as commander of occupation forces by General Nathaniel Banks. Davis also wired Secretary of War Seddon, “There is immediate and urgent necessity for heavy guns and long range field pieces at Vicksburg.”

General Simon B. Buckner assumed command of the Confederate District of the Gulf, and General E. Kirby Smith resumed command of the Confederate Department of East Tennessee.

Skirmishing occurred in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri.

Primary source: The Civil War Day-by-Day by E.B. Long and Barbara Long (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1971)

Civil War Spotlight: The Battle of Fredericksburg

Today marks the 150th anniversary of one of the worst U.S. military defeats in history.

In Virginia, the new commander of the Federal Army of the Potomac, General Ambrose Burnside, prepared to attack General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Lee’s army was positioned near Fredericksburg; Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s corps assembled in the woods outside the town and James Longstreet’s corps was entrenched in the heights behind the town.

Burnside’s slow advance on Fredericksburg gave Lee time to arrange his troops in nearly impregnable positions in the high ground past the town. When the fog lifted on the morning of December 13, the Federals advanced. Their objectives were the hills southeast of town defended by “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates. Heavy attacks threatened to break Jackson’s lines, but the Confederates ultimately held their ground.

A second Federal force advanced from Fredericksburg across a plain to attack Longstreet’s Confederates entrenched on Mayre’s Heights, a high ridge outside the town. To capture the heights, the Federals had to charge uphill across open ground, where they were completely exposed to artillery and small arms fire.

The Federals managed to reach a stone wall along a narrow road at the foot of Marye’s Heights, but they were soon repulsed by murderous fire. The attackers were virtually annihilated as the Confederates successfully held off fourteen futile charges. The Federals fell back into Fredericksburg, and the wounded were stranded on the plains.

Burnside had tried to show more aggression than his predecessor, George McClellan, by forcing a fight that he had no chance to win. The result was a horrible failure. The Federals suffered 12,653 killed, wounded, or missing out of about 114,000 effectives, while the Confederates lost only 5,309 from roughly 72,500. Most of the Confederate losses were soldiers on winter furlough, not battle casualties.

Burnside planned another frontal assault the next day, but he relented when his subordinates unanimously rejected the plan. The Federals recrossed the Rappahannock and abandoned Fredericksburg in a driving rainstorm. Meanwhile, Lee’s Confederates remained entrenched in the high ground outside the town with their guns trained on the retreating Federals.

Southerners celebrated the victory. The Richmond Examiner proclaimed a “stunning defeat to the invader, a splendid victory to the defender of the sacred soil.” The Charleston Mercury wrote that “General Lee knows his business and the army has yet known no such word as fail.” However, some criticized Lee for not counterattacking, even though the Federals still had superior numbers and massed artillery on the heights across the Rappahannock.

Northerners were horrified by the defeat. The Cincinnati Commercial stated, “It can hardly be in human nature for men to show more valor or generals to manifest less judgment, than were perceptible on our side that day.” Federal soldiers had displayed tremendous bravery for no gain, leading officers and soldiers to openly  question Burnside’s decisions. Burnside tried blaming Washington for the loss, citing a delay in delivering the pontoon bridges needed to cross the river.

President Abraham Lincoln also became a target of northern rage. Chicago Tribune publisher Joseph Medill declared that the “central imbecility” lay with the Lincoln administration. Senator Zachariah Chandler of Michigan called Lincoln “a weak man, too weak for the occasion, and those fool or traitor generals are wasting time and yet more precious blood in indecisive battles and delays.” Lincoln lamented, “If there is a place worse than hell, I am in it.”