What Historical Literature Must I Read?

Date: May 17, 2013 Author: Grant Comments: 2 Replies

As you can see from the attached flyer, Uncle Tom’s Cabin is referred to as “the greatest book of the age.” If this is truly the case, how come I was not forced to read this in school? I often find that I have skipped over significant historical literature during my educational upbringing. That being said, while never having read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, I am familiar with the themes and general overview. Another example of historical literature that I have not read would be The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I once read in a Reddit discussion board that one could not be a true historian if they had not read this historical work. What do you think, is that true?

This is not to say that I am not (somewhat) well-read. I have read the Diary of Anne Frank and the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. I have read the works of Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Edgar Allan Poe, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. I have studied Supreme Court opinions, correspondences from America’s Founding Fathers, and the documents that gained our country freedom and established her government. I steadily read more and more, but I find that there is so much to read, sometimes I need direction.

I often ponder, “What pieces of historical literature must I read?”

I would love to use this post as a conversation platform. I genuinely am interested in your responses. To truly appreciate and have a comprehensive understanding of history, what historical literature do I need to read?

Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren

Date: May 13, 2013 Author: Grant Comments: Leave a reply

Chief Justice Earl Warren

Recently I was asked to “choose the Supreme Court Justice who initiated the most change in U.S. Constitutional doctrine and who left the largest impression on the American people.” Let me tell you, choosing just one justice was no easy task. The following is an excerpt from a paper that I wrote that briefly explains why I believe that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren is the best answer to this question.

If one looks at the history of this country, it is broken down by three major events. 1)The birth of America came after the Revolutionary War, which led to the forming of a new government; 2) then the South seceded from the Union leading to the American Civil War, which in turn led to the freedom of slaves and the passing of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteen Amendments, as a result it pushed a reunited America into the Reconstruction Era; and lastly, 3) the National Civil Rights Movement gathered steam in the mid-to-late 1950s, ushering in the nation’s hope to truly ensure, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, that “all men are created equal.“

While it is certainly noticeable that the first two events were wars, which led to the destruction of several major cities and the death of thousands, the third event was predominately peaceful. Could it be that cooler heads prevailed, or was it that great men helped ensure that the National Civil Rights Movement was a success? Often civil rights activist such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, and politicians such as President Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert Kennedy steal the spotlight for their parts in this time period of turmoil and social change, yet the branch of the government that continually looks out for the minority is overlooked. How quickly we forget that the Judicial branch was established to protect vulnerable minorities against the tyranny of the majority. That being said, the efforts of Chief Justice Earl Warren, during this era of dramatic social and economic change, makes him—in my opinion—the Supreme Court justice who made the largest impact on U.S. Constitutional doctrine.

Warren Court (1953)

Now, it should go without saying that the Supreme Court is made up of nine members, so Chief Justice Warren hardly carried the entire load by himself. There is no doubt that as a legal scholar, Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and William Brennan surpassed Warren by leaps and bounds. However, first and foremost a politician, Chief Justice Warren had leadership skills that allowed him to bend the Supreme Court to his will. Examples of this shine through in all of the segregation cases that came before the Court. In every case regarding segregation, Warren was able to procure a unanimous vote. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Warren worked with all of the justices until his opinion was endorsed by each justice of the Court. This unified front was needed to fully support the desegregation of school in America and to bring an end to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

After the success of Brown v. Board of Education, the court shifted its focus from property rights to individual rights. Over the next decade, the Warren Court would work closely with criminal proceedings to ensure fairness across the board. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Court refused to allow evidence that was seized in an illegal search. In 1963 the Court would decide for two landmark cases—Griswold v. Connecticut and Gideon v. Wainwright. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court held that Connecticut’s law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy, and it was unconstitutional. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court unanimously held that state courts were required to provide counsel in criminal cases in which the defendant was unable to afford their own.

While the Court did look out for the rights of the individual, not all criminal cases which reached the Court were in favor of the defendant. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the police were extended the power, by the Court, to stop and frisk individuals which were believed to be carrying weapons.

Of course, not all of the Warren Court decisions were appreciated. Engel v. Vitale (1962) enraged a large portion of the country, and decades later this decisions is still frowned upon. In Engel v. Vitale, the Court outlawed the mandatory school prayer laws in place, in the state of New York. The following prayer landed this case in Supreme Court: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.” This case would open the floodgates to a slew of First Amendment cases.

In Melvin Urofksy’s A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States, Urofsky states that “the Warren Court produced a string of great cases matched by no other court in our history, not even that of John Marshall” (Urofsky 920). It would appear that this is true not just for the length of time that Warren was Chief Justice, because even though he retired from the Court in 1969, the Warren Court—in essence—remained in place in 1986, until the appointment of William Rehnquist as Chief Justice.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Date: May 9, 2013 Author: Grant Comments: 3 Replies

After decades of the President of the United States usurping powers well outside the realm of those enumerated power vested in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court finally pushed back in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). Even though most of the Supreme Court justices sat by and allowed the Executive branch to grow exponentially through legislation and Executive Orders issued during World War II, the New Deal, and the Fair Deal, these same justices saw an opportunity to suppress, what Justice Robert H. Jackson compared to, the “unlimited executive power…[that which was] exercised by [King] George III.”

On April 8, 1952, President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 10340: Directing the Secretary of Commerce to Take Possession of and Operate the Plants and Facilities of Certain Steel Companies. This presidential order granted the Secretary of Commerce the power to take possession of certain steel companies—specifically those that were about to start union strikes. President Truman believed that, in the interest of the public, he could seize any private property that he deemed necessary to support war efforts in Korea. Although there were legislative solutions in place to prevent issues such as the ensuing United Steel Workers Union strike, President Truman sidestepped these solutions—as they were slower—and took unconstitutional powers to continue the manufacturing of steel.

Ironically, the strike was caused because President Truman did not impose price control as the government had previously done during World War II; instead, he created the Federal Wage Stabilization Board on December 22, 1951. Its priority was to work with unions to keep labor disputes at bay, leaving both management and the unions happy. Logically, this would achieve the president’s goal of keeping consumer prices down during the crisis abroad. As the Federal Wage Stabilization Board was unable to mediate in the case of the United Steel Workers Union, President Truman seized the production facilities to keep them open. President Truman believed that the Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed to restrict the activities and powers of labor unions, and Section 18 of the Selective Service Act of 1948, which under article H specifically gave the president the authority to “take immediate possession of the plant…to insure compliance…” of steel manufacturing facilities, were both too risky as they were dependent upon cooperation from Congress. Truman saw this as an avenue which he was unwilling to go down.

On April 4, 1952, the steel Union announced that effective April 9^th, at 12:01 a.m., a nation-wide strike would commence. Before the strike could even begin, however, Truman issued Executive Order 10340 and seized the steel plants. The steel plant operators were not happy with this order from the president; however, they complied. To quote Justice Hugo Black’s opinion of the Court, the complaint from the operators of the seized steel factories was that “the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provision.” It was argued by the government that historical precedent and the emergency situation in Korea gave the president the powers to seize the steel plants. The government listed the following seizures, all of which were—at the time—necessary for public safety: the seizure of Smith & Wesson during World War I and the seizure of Montgomery Ward in World War II.

Justice William O. Douglas delivered an excellent concurring opinion which highlighted the reasons as to why Truman’s seizure of the steel manufacturing plants was unconstitutional. Justice Douglas started out in agreement with Truman, that there was indeed an “emergency;” however, “the emergency did not create power; it merely marked an occasion when power should be exercised. And the fact that it was necessary that measures be taken to keep steel in production does not mean that the President, rather than Congress, had the constitutional authority to act.”

Moreover, he further explained that powers to act in the way Truman did are left only up to Congress. The Constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment states that no “private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The president has no power to raise revenues and as Douglas put it, “[t]he branch of the government that has the power to pay compensation for a seizure is the only one able to authorize a seizure…” In addition to this, in a rather brazen manner, Douglas further acknowledged that while Truman is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” he is not the “Commander in Chief of the country, its industries, and its inhabitants.”

Justice William O. Douglas

On June 2, 1952, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that shocked not only President Truman, but the nation. Truman had been so confident in his decision, and the legality of his decision, that when a reporter asked him if the President could also seize the newspapers and the radio stations, Truman replied back, “under similar circumstances the President of the United States has to act for whatever is for the best of the country.” However, the Supreme Court decided that this was not the case and in a 6-3 decision, the Court declared that “[t]he Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand.”

The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb: A Leader’s Triumph or Epic Failure (Guest Post)

Date: May 7, 2013 Author: James Fuller Comments: 8 Replies

Technology has allowed for the furtherance of warfare, from the invention of gunpowder to the splitting of the atom, these findings have propelled the leaps of numerous nations in their ability to wage war against each other. Of these discoveries, the splitting of the atom spawned an invention that hurled the world from conventional warfare into the nuclear age. These ideals were the brainstorming of some of the greatest minds in America and abroad. Scientists began to formulate the creation of the atomic bomb, a device that changed the world in ways never imagined before. The birth of the nuclear age gave opportunity to lead from the front in regards to a unique type of warfare. Whereas the number of soldiers on the battlefield often determined the victor, this new technology would render that factor useless. The United States had now taken this knowledge and produced the world’s first atomic bomb. President Harry S. Truman had taken over after the death of President Roosevelt–who was not privileged to the new power America had in her grasp–and how to use this technology in war was now his decision.

President Harry Truman

Notwithstanding, the world changed the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, evoking a cataclysmic spiral in the morals and methods of how warfare would be carried out. Those in powerful positions felt they were omnipotent like God; however, in reality, they were as small and insignificant as those they preyed upon. No one will ever be able to go back in time and undo what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The option not to drop the bomb was made available to the leaders of America and her Allies. Nevertheless, history shows these options were either ignored or not given time to fully develop. This alone shows the citizens of the United States, and the world, what could have been formulated to save Japan from the nuclear horror unleashed that fateful day in 1945.

It has often been asked, “What was behind the dropping of the atomic bomb?” Was it greed with nations being captured, or bringing others under the regime of another? Alternatively, was it a precise move in which the execution was needed to highlight the country which possessed this power? It may never be known why President Truman gave the green light on a technology–one which he was well aware would cause death and devastation far beyond what the world had ever seen on the battlefield. It is well documented that President Truman did not act on a hunch or without advice from many within the both the American government and those who fully understood the capabilities of this weapon. Truman’s inner council was made up of high-level government officials including the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Asst. Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, Admiral William D. Leahy, General George C. Marshall, and all the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With this conglomerate of mentors, Truman sought the truth as well as the consequences with the decision to press ahead with this operation.

In a memorandum to President Truman from Secretary of War Henry Stimson, in an eye-opening statement, said, “Within four months we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history, one bomb which could destroy a whole city.” Did Truman not have a heart, knowing those who would be caught up in the collateral damage of war would be non-combatants? Is it adventitious to think Truman would have entertained other venues of peace with the delivery of such a statement? Not only did Secretary Stimson think the proposed dropping of the bomb was not within the moral arena of thought, others too voiced their opinions on the subject to the President. General Leslie Groves, Secretary of the Army, painted a bleak picture predicting a desolate civilization to Truman in a statement he made: “Atomic energy if controlled by the major peace-loving nations should ensure the peace of the world for decades to come. If misused it can lead our civilization to annihilation.” In Groves’ eyes this new technology, if put in the wrong hands, could spell disaster not only in America, but also in other peaceable countries around the world. (Groves was indeed a visionary of his time.) Even in today’s world, nuclear power has risen to such levels that the world is on constant alert for rogue nations attempting to start World War III, using these same nuclear ideals from the 1930s. Is it possible Truman completely ignored the advice of those men in pursuit of his own personal agenda, or was he formulating a plan that goes even deeper than has yet been brought to surface?

Hiroshima Atomic Bomb

In addition, advice given to Truman not only came from leadership within the American government, but from the scientific community which had an exhaustive understanding of not only the power of the atomic bomb but also what would put and indelible mark on Japan’s history. Arthur H. Compton, a well-known physicist, urged the Secretary of War against the use of the bomb. Compton wrote less than three months before “Little Boy” was dropped from the Enola Gay: “Nevertheless, the importance of the problem considered and the weight of the arguments presented for never permitting the bombs to be used in war, are such that I have considered it wise to bring the memorandum immediately to your attention.” Here again Truman is given the opportunity to reevaluate his decision to drop the bomb. The question now is: “What were his motives?” Truman was given numerous opportunities to look at other options, but it is clear to the world, he went forward with his decision and destroyed two cities within Japan’s borders.

American Civil War Nicknames

Date: May 6, 2013 Author: Grant Comments: 4 Replies

I started a new series on the site based on the book 1,001 Things Everyone Should Know About American History, by historian John Garraty. If you haven’t already, check out the first post in the series–His Accidency. Facts number 61-72 are Civil War nicknames. The list is as follows:

#61 Honest Abe
#62 Father Abraham
#63 Unconditional Surrender
#64 Stonewall
#65 Little Phil
#66 Beast
#67 Fighting Joe
#68 Slow Trot
#69 Rock of Chickamauga
#70 Young Napoleon
#71 Napoleon in Gray
#72 Copperheads

Some of these nicknames are well-known and will come as no surprise to you.

“Honest Abe” and “Father Abraham” are both nicknames for President Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln became known for his honesty long before he became a politician. While there are numerous tales as to how he received the nickname of Honest Abe, Father Abraham is more interesting to me. Not that the nickname Father Abraham in and of itself is interesting, but the meaning behind it. Also, the fact that the book mentions the name, but offers up no explanation seems strange. (Pictured right)

As best as I can tell, Lincoln received this nickname because he led the nation as Abraham led his nation in the Bible. I find it odd because it is well know that Abraham (from the Bible) had hundreds of slaves. As an owner of slaves, purchased with his own money, I would think it unwise to nickname President Lincoln after this man.

“Unconditional Surrender” was the nickname of Union General Ulysses S. Grant. This nickname originated when he sent word to Confederate General Simon Bolivar Buckner that ”no terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” As the Battle of Fort Donelson, which ended on February 16, 1862, was one of the Union’s first victories, word of it spread quickly and the U.S. in General U.S. Grant quickly became known as Unconditional Surrender.

“Stonewall” was the nickname of Confederate General Thomas J. Jackson. I had always heard that Stonewall Jackson received his nickname because he and his troops offered up a tough defensive barrier, stonewalling the Union troops. However, I am now finding out that there could possibly have been two meanings to the nickname “Stonewall.” The popular version which is a good nickname and flaunts General Jackson’s abilities, and the second is to assume that General Jackson was of no help–that Jackson was merely ”standing there like a stone wall!”

“Little Phil” was the nickname given to Union General Philip H. Sheridan. No story here–General Philip Sheridan was really just a little guy, only 5 feet 5 inches tall. He was described by Abraham Lincoln as “a brown, chunky little chap, with a long body, short legs, not enough neck to hang him, and such long arms that if his ankles itch he can scratch them without stooping.”

“Beast” was the nickname given to Union General Benjamin F. Butler. This nickname was not one gained for heroism on the battlefield, but for the proclamation he passed while acting military governor and commander of the city of New Orleans. It was here that he issued Order 28 which gave soldiers the right to treat women like prostitutes. Men and women of the South were so insulted that they started calling General Butler “Beast.”

“As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.”

Order #28 – Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, May 15, 1862

“Fighting Joe” was the nickname given to Union General Joseph Hooker. I hardly see why this nickname is worth mention. General Hooker received this nickname not for any action, but purely on the fact that the New York Courier and Enquirer made a typo and instead of reading an incoming transmission as “Fighting–Joe Hooker Attacks Rebels” it was relayed as “Fighting Joe Hooker Attacks Rebels.” He was never very fond of the nickname and hardly deserved it.

General George Thomas

“Slow Trot” and “Rock of Chickamauga” are both nicknames for Union General George H. Thomas. General Thomas received the nickname “Slow Trot” because of the speed with which he organized for battle. He was an excellent tactician; however, for the troops it was a slow and careful process that took entirely too long. General Thomas received the nickname ”Rock of Chickamauga” due to his ability to endure the onslaught which the Confederacy unleashed at the Battle of Chickamauga. While the battle ended in a victory for the Confederacy, General Thomas and his men stood their ground much longer than were expected of them.

“Young Napoleon” was the nickname given to Union General George B. McClellan. Where all the above mentioned nicknames were given in a loving manner, or out of fear, “Young Napoleon” was not. It was thought that General McClellan resembles Napoleon Bonaparte, not only in physical appearance, but in his inflated sense of self-worth and importance. Funny, even today calling someone Napoleon is no compliment.

“Napoleon in Gray” is not very original in its origin. Confederate General Pierre G. T. Beauregard was both of French descent and very skilled in planning and executing military tactics, as was Napoleon Bonaparte. Seeing that General Beauregard fought for the Confederacy and had gray uniforms…you get the picture.

Lastly, the “Copperheads” were Northern Democrats that opposed the Civil War and wanted to end it. Whether the issue of slavery was decided, let alone ended, was of no concern. This group was very concentrated in some areas and were against President Lincoln. The Copperheads were an interesting political group that was most famous for their use of the press. For more on that check out A Nasty Bite from a Civil War Copperhead.

Hankering for History

Hanker: (verb) To have a strong, often restless desire, in this case for–you guessed it–History!