Part 27 (1/2)

Lincoln turned Grant over to Secretary of State Seward, who introduced him all around. Shouts went up, ”Grant, Grant, Grant,” accompanied by cheer after cheer. It was one of the few times the president of the United States was not the center of attention, but, smiling, Lincoln seemed perfectly pleased to cede the spotlight. He hoped that the arrival of Grant as the new commander of all the Union armies would mean the beginning of the end of the war. Although quite willing to defer to his new military commander, as commander in chief, Lincoln also relished the opportunity to sit down with Grant to talk together about the upcoming campaigns.

TWO AND A HALF WEEKS LATER, on March 26, 1864, Lincoln received three visitors who had traveled all the way from Kentucky to give the president an earful about growing resentment in their native state over the recent recruiting of African-American troops. Kentucky governor Thomas E. Bramlette, former United States senator Archibald Dixon, and Albert G. Hodges, editor of the Frankfort Commonwealth, Frankfort Commonwealth, met with Lincoln for an unusually long Sat.u.r.day morning interview. At the conclusion, Lincoln asked if he could make ”a little speech.” He wanted them to understand why he had changed course from the pledge in his inaugural address that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed, to his decision to issue the Emanc.i.p.ation Proclamation and subsequently deploy black troops. met with Lincoln for an unusually long Sat.u.r.day morning interview. At the conclusion, Lincoln asked if he could make ”a little speech.” He wanted them to understand why he had changed course from the pledge in his inaugural address that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed, to his decision to issue the Emanc.i.p.ation Proclamation and subsequently deploy black troops.

Lincoln's ”little speech” made such an impact on Hodges that the editor came back in the afternoon to ask if he could take a copy of the president's remarks to Kentucky. Lincoln replied that what he had said was extemporaneous, but he told Hodges he would write him a letter re-creating his words.

Lincoln's public letter to Kentucky editor Albert G. Hodges spoke of his att.i.tude toward slavery and his own ”agency” in the Civil War.

On April 4, 1864, Lincoln sent his promised letter, which, in the intervening nine days, had become a public letter meant for an audience beyond the three Kentucky leaders. The content and style rose to the level of the president's best public rhetoric. His letter began forcefully: ”I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel.” These initial words were unambiguous. The president, who often acted as a moderator between extremes, now unequivocally owned his personal position as ”anti-slavery.”

The words achieve additional resonance when we remember to whom Lincoln was speaking. He was not talking with strong abolitionists such as Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson of Ma.s.sachusetts, but with leaders from a key border state. Next, he spoke about the tension he felt between his loathing for slavery and his duty under the Const.i.tution.

And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Const.i.tution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery.

He reminded his audience that he had overruled attempts at emanc.i.p.ation by General John C. Fremont, former secretary of war Simon Cameron, and General David Hunter in South Carolina. He recalled his own three appeals for compensated emanc.i.p.ation in 1862, all of which the leaders of the border states rebuffed.

Lincoln reiterated this narrative in some detail so that the Kentuck-ians might appreciate that, in the latter part of 1862, he had been ”driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Const.i.tution,” or arming Southern slaves. If at the beginning of his letter Lincoln spoke of his antislavery beliefs in moral terms, by the middle of the letter he discussed the arming of black soldiers in strategic terms.

Lincoln was remarkably candid in admitting the uncertainty in his decision. ”I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident.” Lincoln's willingness to openly discuss his doubts is a distinguis.h.i.+ng characteristic of his political leaders.h.i.+p.

As Hodges came to the end of the ”little speech,” he must have been surprised to see that the letter continued beyond what the president had said in their meeting. ”I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation,” he wrote.

In telling this tale I attempt no complement to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. G.o.d alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If G.o.d now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of G.o.d.

Some observers have used one sentence from this paragraph, ”I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me,” to emphasize the overall pa.s.sivity of Lincoln's leaders.h.i.+p. They have suggested, with this sentence given as proof, that Lincoln's essential nature was more responsive than initiatory.

But if one reads the whole paragraph, it is clearly not about pa.s.sivity. Lincoln, as if a lawyer in a courtroom, began his case with three negative statements: 1. ”no complement to my own sagacity”; 2. ”I claim not to have controlled events”; 3. ”the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised or expected.”

These negative a.s.sertions, building in crescendo from a singular negation of Lincoln himself, to the wider negation of ”either party,” to a universal negation of ”any man,” were meant to prompt the question: What was the source of ”the nation's condition”?

Lincoln answered in four positive a.s.sertions that more than balanced the three negative ones.

1. ”G.o.d alone can claim it”; 2. ”If G.o.d now wills the removal of a great wrong”; 3. ”wills that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong”; 4. ”to attest and revere the justice and goodness of G.o.d.”

The central meaning of the paragraph becomes clear. By employing the verb ”devised,” Lincoln spoke about the agency-the politicians and generals-responsible for carrying out the war. He did not exempt himself. The trajectory of the paragraph meant to underscore the ”agency” of G.o.d. Crafted with a lawyer's logic, the letter pointed beyond Lincoln as president to G.o.d as the primary actor. Lincoln was quite willing to acknowledge his pa.s.sivity as a way to emphasize the larger truth of the activity of G.o.d.

Hodges received Lincoln's letter with delight. Lincoln, in person and now by letter, made such a strong impression on the influential Kentucky editor that he began to correspond regularly with the president, supplying information and opinions about affairs in Kentucky. Starting on April 22, he would write twelve letters to Lincoln in 1864 and two more in 1865.

The ideas and language of the last paragraph of the letter to Hodges did not stay put. Eleven months later, that final paragraph would become the basis of the opening sentences of the third paragraph of Lincoln's finest speech.

AT SOME POINT during the latter part of his presidency, Lincoln put his pencil to a small piece of lined paper to ruminate on the question of the presence of G.o.d in the Civil War. during the latter part of his presidency, Lincoln put his pencil to a small piece of lined paper to ruminate on the question of the presence of G.o.d in the Civil War.

The will of G.o.d prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of G.o.d. Both may may be, and one be, and one must must be, wrong. G.o.d cannot be, wrong. G.o.d cannot be for be for and and against against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that G.o.d's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party-and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true-that G.o.d wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that G.o.d's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party-and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true-that G.o.d wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved saved or or destroyed destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds. the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

Lincoln's private reflection ”Meditation on the Divine Will,” unknown during his life, is a signpost revealing his developing beliefs about the activity of G.o.d in the Civil War A question is often asked of Lincoln's speeches: As a shrewd politician, did he use religion in his speeches because he knew it would play well with the largely churchgoing American public? This private reflection is critical in answering that question, for its theological ideas were never meant for public consumption.

As in his letter to Hodges, he started with an unambiguous affirmation. Lincoln brooded here not on an abstract problem in philosophy or theology; the impetus for his musing grew out of the very real forces of war pressing in upon him as president. He had received claims on a regular basis from delegations telling him that ”G.o.d is on our side.”

In this reflection, Lincoln weighed the validity of these claims. His first response: ”Both may may be, and one be, and one must must be wrong.” This language is typical of Lincoln as he thinks his way into a problem. At first he is tentative in his judgments. His tendency is to look at all sides of a problem. The rational Lincoln, as if working through the logic of a syllogism, comes to the conclusion that both of the claimants may be wrong and one must be wrong. Why? ”G.o.d cannot be wrong.” This language is typical of Lincoln as he thinks his way into a problem. At first he is tentative in his judgments. His tendency is to look at all sides of a problem. The rational Lincoln, as if working through the logic of a syllogism, comes to the conclusion that both of the claimants may be wrong and one must be wrong. Why? ”G.o.d cannot be for, be for, and and against against the same thing at the same time.” His answer presumed something about the nature and purposes of G.o.d. For Lincoln, this G.o.d was not the original first cause of Jefferson. Lincoln's meditation is about a G.o.d who acts in history. the same thing at the same time.” His answer presumed something about the nature and purposes of G.o.d. For Lincoln, this G.o.d was not the original first cause of Jefferson. Lincoln's meditation is about a G.o.d who acts in history.

One sentence may be the best clue to Lincoln's understanding of G.o.d's purposes in the Civil War. ”In the present civil war it is quite possible that G.o.d's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party-and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose.” Lincoln appears to be seeking an equilibrium between G.o.d's action and human actions. Forced by the war to think more deeply, Lincoln emerged broader than his contemporaries in discerning the ways of G.o.d. While nearly everyone else, North and South, was declaring ”G.o.d is on our side,” Lincoln wrote that ”G.o.d's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party.” As the war was beginning to turn in the Union's favor, Lincoln had arrived at a remarkable declaration about G.o.d's purposes.

On the trip from Springfield to Was.h.i.+ngton in 1861, Lincoln had called himself one of those ”human instrumentalities” on several occasions. In this reflection, he adds that ”human instrumentalities” are ”the best adaptation” to do G.o.d's work in the world. The noun ”adaptation” suggests the act or process of adjustment to external conditions. With the word ”almost,” Lincoln suggested a point of view to which he was only now arriving. He qualified this affirmation further by the use of the second adverb, ”probably.”

Even more surprising was his judgment that G.o.d ”wills that it shall not end yet.” In public, Lincoln, as commander in chief, was working night and day to bring the war to an end; in private, he was writing that G.o.d seemed to be deciding that the war should continue.

Who, then, is this G.o.d of whom Lincoln speaks? Four times, in the brief 147 words of the reflection, Lincoln described G.o.d as a G.o.d who ”wills.” Lincoln's repet.i.tive use of that active verb underscored the main point of his meditation: G.o.d is the primary if ”quiet” actor in the war.

The content of this private reflection illuminates how far Lincoln had traveled on his journey from fatalism to providence. The modern suggestion that fatalism and providence are part of a continuum would have surprised Protestant theologians in the nineteenth century. The two constellations of ideas had different origins and different outcomes. In fatalism, events unfolded according to certain laws of nature. In 1859, Francis Wharton, author of A Treatise on Theism and Modern Skeptical Theories, A Treatise on Theism and Modern Skeptical Theories, described fatalism as ”a distinct scheme of unbelief.” Wharton, an Episcopal minister, who after the Civil War would become a professor at the new Episcopal Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts, singled out fatalism as an opponent of Christianity because it did not acknowledge a G.o.d who acted in history. Wharton contrasted fatalism with the G.o.d of Christianity known by ”his watchful care and love.” described fatalism as ”a distinct scheme of unbelief.” Wharton, an Episcopal minister, who after the Civil War would become a professor at the new Episcopal Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts, singled out fatalism as an opponent of Christianity because it did not acknowledge a G.o.d who acted in history. Wharton contrasted fatalism with the G.o.d of Christianity known by ”his watchful care and love.”

Lincoln's brief contemplation would remain unknown during his lifetime. John Hay would find it after Lincoln's death. In 1872, Hay gave it the t.i.tle ”Meditation on the Divine Will.” But in 1865, this private musing, along with the letter to Hodges, would form the core of what would become Lincoln's best address.

WHAT WERE THE SOURCES of Lincoln's thinking about the purposes of G.o.d? Phineas Densmore Gurley, the minister of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, an often-overlooked person in the Lincoln story, is a chief resource. Lincoln's attendance at New York Avenue Presbyte rian coincided with his deepening struggles to understand the meaning of G.o.d's activity in the war. of Lincoln's thinking about the purposes of G.o.d? Phineas Densmore Gurley, the minister of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, an often-overlooked person in the Lincoln story, is a chief resource. Lincoln's attendance at New York Avenue Presbyte rian coincided with his deepening struggles to understand the meaning of G.o.d's activity in the war.

Beginning in March 1861, Abraham and Mary sat in their reserved pew eight rows from the front of the church sanctuary. Attorney General Edward Bates noted their attendance, as did Illinois senator Orville Browning. Noah Brooks, correspondent for the Sacramento Daily Union, Sacramento Daily Union, observed the Lincoln's from the gallery at New York Avenue ”where they habitually attended.” He wrote, ”Conspicuous among them all, as the crowd poured out of the ailes, was the tall form of the Father of the Faithful, who is instantly recognizable.” observed the Lincoln's from the gallery at New York Avenue ”where they habitually attended.” He wrote, ”Conspicuous among them all, as the crowd poured out of the ailes, was the tall form of the Father of the Faithful, who is instantly recognizable.”

As a young adult, Lincoln had reacted against his father's Baptist tradition with its low tolerance for questions and doubts. As president, he was drawn to Gurley's learned preaching with its steady punctuation of questions. Lincoln's Illinois friend Leonard Swett said of Lincoln, ”The whole world to him was a question of cause and effect.”

One of Lincoln's requirements for choosing a minister and a church was politics, or the lack thereof. In consulting Montgomery Blair, who may have recommended New York Avenue, Lincoln is reported to have said, ”I wish to find a church whose clergyman holds himself aloof from politics.” When asked about Gurley and his sermons, Lincoln is said to have replied, ”I like Gurley. He don't preach politics. I get enough of that through the week.”

Many times Lincoln heard Gurley preach sermons that were both intellectual and theological. Over and over again, Gurley highlighted G.o.d's loving providence in the world. Gurley's chief mentor at Princeton Seminary, Professor Charles Hodge, taught that the recognition of the personality of G.o.d was the key to the distinction between providence and fatalism. In his three-volume Systematic Theology, Systematic Theology, Hodge said of providence that ”an infinitely wise, good, and powerful G.o.d is everywhere present, controlling all events great and small, necessary, and free, in a way perfectly consistent with the nature of his creatures and his own infinite excellence.” In Christian theology, according to Hodge, G.o.d's divine power is able to embrace human freedom and responsibility. Hodge said of providence that ”an infinitely wise, good, and powerful G.o.d is everywhere present, controlling all events great and small, necessary, and free, in a way perfectly consistent with the nature of his creatures and his own infinite excellence.” In Christian theology, according to Hodge, G.o.d's divine power is able to embrace human freedom and responsibility.

A fellow minister described Gurley's ministry as ”Calvinism presented in his beautiful examples and spirit and preaching.” In Gurley's Calvinist emphasis on providence, he acknowledged, as Lincoln would increasingly do, elements of ambiguity and mystery. The Presbyterian minister called attention to the potential logical contradiction of free agency and G.o.d's governance. By the use of various metaphors, he heightened, not lessened, this paradox. ”Man devises; the Lord directs.” Or ”man proposes; proposes; G.o.d G.o.d disposes.” disposes.” And, ”man's agency, and G.o.d's overruling sovereignty.” This theme of human agency and G.o.d's sovereignty, Gurley said, was the best way to understand ”the probable fruits and consequences of the terrible struggle in which the nation has been engaged.” And, ”man's agency, and G.o.d's overruling sovereignty.” This theme of human agency and G.o.d's sovereignty, Gurley said, was the best way to understand ”the probable fruits and consequences of the terrible struggle in which the nation has been engaged.”

The president was present on August 6, 1863, when Gurley preached a sermon in response to Lincoln's recent call for a national day of public humiliation, prayer, and fasting. Gurley's sermon, ”Man Projects and G.o.d Results,” was based on a text from Proverbs 16:9: ”A man's heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directs his steps.”

”Man is a rational, a free, and, therefore an accountable moral agent,” Gurley preached, adding, ”while this is true, it is also true that G.o.d governs the world.” Gurley went on to affirm, ”He accomplishes His fixed and eternal purposes through the instrumentality of free, and accountable, and even wicked wicked agents.” That these themes in Gurley's preaching struck a responsive chord in Lincoln would become clear in the coming months. agents.” That these themes in Gurley's preaching struck a responsive chord in Lincoln would become clear in the coming months.

IN LINCOLN'S NEWFOUND WILLINGNESS to speak outside Was.h.i.+ngton, he welcomed the invitation to address a sanitary fair in Baltimore on April 18, 1864. The Sanitary Commission had become a chief organization aiding soldiers, and Lincoln decided to lend his presidential hand in raising money for it. The memory of pa.s.sing through Baltimore in disguise on his way to Was.h.i.+ngton in February 1861 remained one of the lowest moments in his life. He told the crowd he accepted the invitation because ”the world moves,” and he came to Baltimore to mark the moving. He reminded his audience that at the beginning of the war three years ago, Union ”soldiers could not so much as pa.s.s through Baltimore.” to speak outside Was.h.i.+ngton, he welcomed the invitation to address a sanitary fair in Baltimore on April 18, 1864. The Sanitary Commission had become a chief organization aiding soldiers, and Lincoln decided to lend his presidential hand in raising money for it. The memory of pa.s.sing through Baltimore in disguise on his way to Was.h.i.+ngton in February 1861 remained one of the lowest moments in his life. He told the crowd he accepted the invitation because ”the world moves,” and he came to Baltimore to mark the moving. He reminded his audience that at the beginning of the war three years ago, Union ”soldiers could not so much as pa.s.s through Baltimore.”

In his speech, Lincoln offered compelling remarks on the meaning of liberty. ”The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are in want of one.” Lincoln believed in clear definitions. ”We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word word we do not all mean the same we do not all mean the same thing.” thing.” Lincoln explained: ”With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleased with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor.” Lincoln underlined the tragic truth that these two ”incompatable things” were called by the same name-liberty.” Lincoln explained: ”With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleased with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor.” Lincoln underlined the tragic truth that these two ”incompatable things” were called by the same name-liberty.”

He drove his point home with a metaphor whose meaning no one could miss. ”The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially if the sheep was a black one.” while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially if the sheep was a black one.”

As Lincoln came to the end of his speech he abruptly changed his tone. ”A painful rumor, true I fear, has reached us of the ma.s.sacre, by rebel forces, at Fort Pillow,” a fort high above the Mississippi River forty miles north of Memphis.

Everyone in his audience had recently learned about the ma.s.sacre. Early on the morning of April 14, 1864, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked Fort Pillow. Forrest was a guerrilla fighter revered in the South. Possessing no military education, he despised the West Point doctrine that called for holding one-third of one's forces in reserve. He achieved a reputation as the master of cavalry, using horses for lightning attacks by which his outnumbered troops could suddenly gain the advantage. To General William Sherman he was ”that devil Forrest,” who should be ”hunted down and killed if it costs 10,000 lives and bankrupts the [national] treasury.” Union major Lionel F. Booth had defended the fort with 580 troops, 292 of whom were African-American.

What followed became the subject of controversy, not just for weeks, but for years. The surviving Union soldiers reported that as the defenders of the fort were overwhelmed, the soldiers threw up their hands to surrender. They charged that the Confederate troops, disregarding the clear signs of surrender, proceeded to ma.s.sacre the black soldiers. General Forrest's own report to his superior, General Leonidas Polk, stated, ”The river was dyed red with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards.”

In Baltimore Lincoln announced plans for a congressional investigation. He concluded his speech forcefully. ”It will be a matter of grave consideration in what exact course to apply the retribution; but in the supported case, it must come.” Lincoln, who up to this point in the war had downplayed all cries for revenge, plainly was caught up in the escalating talk of retribution.

On April 22, 1864, the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War began public hearings. In a highly charged atmosphere, their report mixed fact-finding and propaganda. The cries to execute Confederate prisoners in eye-for-eye reprisals grew.

On May 3, 1864, Lincoln asked his cabinet ”to give me in writing your opinion as to what course the government should take in this case.” He received long and quite different replies. Seward, Chase, Stan-ton, and Welles argued that Confederate troops equal in number to the Union troops ma.s.sacred should be held as hostages and killed if the Confederate government admitted the ma.s.sacre. Bate and John P. Usher, who had succeeded Caleb Smith as secretary of the interior, advocated no retaliation against innocent hostages, but argued execution of the offenders if apprehended.

There is no record of Lincoln's opinion in response to the recommendations of the members of his cabinet. He rarely had a heart for revenge and may have simply allowed the discussion of retaliation for Fort Pillow to be overtaken by more pressing events on the battlefield demanding his attention in the spring of 1864.

MEANWHILE, LINCOLN'S NEW COMMANDER, Ulysses S. Grant, pressed ahead. Grant had told his best friend, General William Sherman, that he feared if he came to Was.h.i.+ngton he would get stuck behind a desk, so he established his headquarters in the field at Culpeper Court House in Virginia. What a contrast to George McClellan's command from his opulent rented Was.h.i.+ngton home. Lincoln met with Grant three times at the White House in March and April and antic.i.p.ated accepting Grant's invitation for a fourth meeting at Grant's Virginia headquarters in April, but the president was unable to keep that date.

Grant's plan for the 1864 spring offensive directed his senior commanders to move simultaneously on five fronts. In the past, Confederate generals, although almost always outnumbered, had s.h.i.+fted their interior lines to meet the often disjointed attacks of the Union forces. In the East, Grant ordered General George Meade's Army of the Potomac to cross the Rapidan River in northern Virginia and attack Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia without letting up. General Franz Sigel would drive his army south up the Shenandoah Valley and apply pressure on Richmond from the west, while General Benjamin Butler, coming up from Fort Monroe at the tip of the Virginia peninsula, would push toward Richmond from the south. In the West, Grant directed William Tec.u.mseh Sherman, his successor as leader of the armies of the c.u.mberland, Ohio, and Tennessee, now one hundred thousand strong, to slice southeast through Georgia to capture Atlanta, a valuable railroad center. In a secondary move, Nathaniel Banks would overcome Mobile, Alabama, and push north to unite with Sherman.