General U.S. Grant on the Military vote

American Founding documents contend that people have a natural right to form and reform governments. The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." 

Under that principle, elections are sacrosanct. 

Despite a raging Civil War, the United States held elections on November 4, 1863. As Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Ulysses S. Grant had to set the policy for military voting. On September 27, he wrote the following letter (abridged) to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

The exercise of the right of suffrage by the officers and soldiers of armies is a novel thing. It has, I believe, generally been considered dangerous to constitutional liberty and subversive of military discipline. But our circumstances are novel and exceptional. A very large proportion of legal voters of the United States are now either under arms in the field, or in hospitals, or otherwise engaged in the military service of the United States. Most of these men are not regular soldiers in the strict sense of that term; still less are they mercenaries, who give their services to the Government simply for its pay, having little understanding of the political questions or feeling little or no interest in them. On the contrary they are American citizens, having still their homes and social and political ties binding them to the States and districts from which they come and to which they expect to return. They have left their homes temporarily to sustain the cause of their country in the hour of its trial. In performing this sacred duty they should not be deprived of a most precious privilege. They have as much right to demand that their votes shall be counted in the choice of their rulers as those citizens who remain at home. Nay, more, for they have sacrificed more for their country.

 I state these reasons in full, for the unusual thing of allowing armies in the field to vote, that I may urge on the other hand that nothing more than the fullest exercise of this right should be allowed, for anything not absolutely necessary to this exercise cannot but be dangerous to the liberties of the country. The officers and soldiers have every means of understanding the questions before the country. The newspapers are freely circulated, and so, I believe, are the documents prepared by both parties to set forth the merits and claims of their candidates. Beyond this nothing whatever should be allowed. No political meetings, no harangues from soldiers or citizens, and no canvassing of camps or regiments for votes.

 As it is intended that all soldiers entitled to vote shall exercise that privilege according to their own convictions of right, unmolested and unrestricted, there will be no objection to each party sending to armies, easy of access, a number of respectable gentlemen to see that these views are fully carried out.

Modern Americans should follow suit and ensure that secure, honest, and fair elections are a binding principle of this nation.

 

The Timeworn Apostate: A Short Story for the Ages

I have a new short story available on Amazon. I'm reminded of the Monty Python classic introduction: "And Now for Something Completely Different." This short story is nothing like my prior work but it has already become one of my favorites. I hope you enjoy it.

A person can have so much wealth that boredom encourages odd pastimes. John Armstrong buys other people’s dreams, then a chance encounter changes the course of his listless life.

Will his reward match his deeds?

Steve Dancy Short Stories Published

In addition to the seven novel-length Steve Dancy Tales, Amazon now offers two Dancy short stories. "Snake in the Grass" was fun to write because the story is told in third person from Joseph McAllen's point-of-view. (All of the series novels are written in first person from Steve Dancy's point-of-view.)

I hope you enjoy the stories.

Snake in the Grass

A lone wrangler with a fine herd of horses goes berserk in the middle of nowhere. Steve Dancy and Joseph McAllen must decide whether to ride off or help the crazed boy.

Relentless

In a remote wilderness, a band of outlaws chase Steve Dancy. They want his horse. They want his gear. They want his money. And they want his life.

The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861 by H W Johnstone

 

This booklet was published in 1921 by a veteran of the Civil War. The author’s intent is to advocate for The Cause and expose the “truth.” I’ve read several modern-day defenses of The Cause, but I wanted to get the perspective of someone closer in time to the conflict. A participant was even better, although Johnstone served for only an unexplained eight months. Unfortunately, time and participation provided few novel insights. I shouldn't have been surprised because years earlier Jefferson Davis had articulated the dogma of The Cause in his two histories of the Confederated States of America.

Johnstone presents the case that a duplicitous President Lincoln started the war by reinforcing Forts Sumter and Pickens, the last Union military presence in the seceded states. First, the duplicitous part. In his inaugural, Lincoln said, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government.” All other military installations had been confiscated prior to his inaugural, so he could only have been speaking about Sumter and Pickens.

What act started the war? Secession of seven states in response to the election of a Republican or Lincoln taking office despite threats of assassination? The confiscation of Federal property under threat of physical attack or denial of weapons, munitions, and battlements to a belligerent? Does relentless bombardment of Sumter constitute an act of war or providing food and water to those starving soldiers? The South had been threatening war ever since a split Democratic Party guaranteed the election of a Republican. They made good on their threats.

Despite the reality of the situation, Johnstone paints Lincoln as despotic for not surrendering to the demands of the seceded states. Prior to inauguration, did he distance himself from Seward and the Peace Conference? He did. In his mind, he did not yet have authority to intervene. Did he dispatch war ships to accompanying the resupply ships? He did, but he sent the South Carolina governor a message that he would peaceably resupply the fort unless met with resistance. To deal with resistance if encountered, he needed naval war ships. Did Lincoln maneuver to put Jefferson Davis in a box? He did. And he did this successfully because he was a better politician.

Johnstone was right about one thing. The war could have been avoided if Lincoln had acceded to every demand. Forever. 

Since the Constitutional Convention, slave states had been demanding that the North acquiescence to their peculiar institution or they would bolt. Bolt they did. Not over slavery in their own states, but because the Republican platform vowed to use federal powers to stop any further expansion of slavery.

Perhaps the war was inevitable. Once the South was independent, new demands of their neighbor would never cease. Sooner or later, there would be one demand too many.

LAND OF LINCOLN: ADVENTURES IN ABE'S AMERICA by Andrew Ferguson

The Land of Lincoln

This is a fun memoir of a modern-day search for the real Abraham Lincoln. In childhood, Andrew Ferguson had been a Lincoln buff but had developed other interests in adulthood. The enigmatic and “shut-mouth” Lincoln provided pundits an open field for speculation. As a result, a plethora of interpretations have been tossed around that purport to explain his personality, beliefs, motivations, administration, family, and even sexual orientation. Glorifying tributes stand beside hate filled censures. Ferguson trekked across the country to get a fix on the man. He traversed the Lincoln Heritage Trail with his family, visited major and not-so-major memorials, interviewed Lincoln collectors, gawked at Lincoln impersonators, and talked to guides, academics, and park rangers. Lincoln remained elusive, but Ferguson’s wit and lively writing style kept the quest entertaining and educational … although the reader may learn more about modern-day Americans than they learn about our sixteenth president.

I enjoyed the journey. Thanks, Andrew, for taking me along on the ride.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry

When writing a historical book, sometimes you need a recess from hard history. I thought The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry would provide an appropriate break. Instead of relaxing, I found the book annoying. The Lincoln Myth interlaces Mormon history and a trendy premise about Abraham Lincoln into a modern-day thriller. The premise probably came from The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a popular 2009 book that contended that the South had a right to secede, and the Civil War was unnecessary. DiLorenzo went further stating that eliminating slavery was not a goal of the conflict and only afterwards used as a justification. I believe this premise an over-simplification, but I’ll postpone explaining why until I review The Real Lincoln.

What drew me to the book was the Lincoln and Constitution history interwoven into the story. I wrote my own Lincoln mystery/thriller (The Shut Mouth Society) and a novelization of the Constitutional Convention (Tempest at Dawn), so I found it jarring to read Madison’s convention notes and finding material I knew wasn’t present. Berry had a viewpoint with little evidence to support that his viewpoint was correct, so he altered existing documentation and invented entirely new documentation. I objected less to the invented documentation because it disappeared with a novelist sleight of hand. Perfectly legitimate. Altering Madison’s notes, however, seemed lazy and unnecessary to support his plot. Berry was making a political point by modifying the historical record. If omitted, the plot could have moved along the same path without a jarring interruption that defiled Madison's notes.

As a thriller, The Lincoln Myth succeeds but not as well as Berry's other novels. 

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

 

Bitterly Divided by David Williams makes sense. If the political establishment in a bunch of states decided to secede, there would obviously be inhabitants who retained a stronger loyalty to the United States of America. After all, they had been proud U.S. citizens for their entire life. I bet you saw a but coming. The but is that although Williams presents voluminous evidence of insurgence within the CSA, it is not clear that it materially hampered the Confederacy’s war efforts until the last year or so.

The catchphrase, ‘rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,’ may have been a truism, but Southern men continued to fight until victory became hopeless or they received news from home that their families were starving. Williams contends that slaveholders masterminded the war but, for the most part, non-slave holders fought it. Three-fourths of southern whites owned no slaves, so arithmetic alone proves Williams correct. 

Statistical data shows that by every economic measure, the North far outperformed the South. The only area where the South exceeded the North was in income disparity. Williams writes: “On the Civil War’s eve, nearly half the South’s personal income went to just over a thousand families.” The rich were very rich and few in number. The uneducated poor white were as omnipresent as slaves. 

At the start of the war, a recruitment broadside oddly read, “To arms! Our Southern soil must be defended. We must not stop to ask who brought about the war, who is at fault, but let us go and do battle… and then settle the question who is to blame.”

Today, that poster may not appear convincing, but decades of Democrat propaganda had bred hatred for Yankees and instilled fear of “Black Republicans.” Repeatedly, poor whites were told that freed slaves would “come into competition, associate with them and their children as equals—be allowed to testify in court against them—sit on juries with them, march to the ballot box by their sides, and participate in the choice of their rulers—claim social equality with them—and ask the hands of their children in marriage.”

When the conflict began, relentless propaganda claimed the North had invaded the South, but the Confederate Army was a reality well before Manassas. Prior to that opening battle, the North had only resisted Confederate confiscation of United States property in the seceded states. Still, men believed that they went to fight an enemy that had violated the hallowed land of the South. Why?

Jefferson Davis believed slavery gave every white person an elevated position in society independent of their lot in life. Were the poor fighting to retain this artificially elevated position? Not sure, but I’ll keep reading to find the answer.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

Can you find the difference in the photographs?

 

If you said five were in America and one in communist China, you would be correct. 

Respond by email to claim your prize ... a free mask.

Democrats are not as good as their word.

A version of this article was originally published at American Spectator

 

Democrats sure know how to talk.

They espouse lofty goals, heartfelt sympathy, and strident vows to instill fairness for all Americans.  They promise to fulfill every aspiration and repair all grievances.  Democrats unselfconsciously paint themselves as the good guys … and Republicans as rapacious villains.

However, when Democrats act, it’s counter to their good words.  Here’s a few examples.

They profess support for the working class but act to harm their livelihood. 

When outsourcing became the rage, the working class needed a powerful advocate.  Democrats abandoned them.  Instead of championing industrial union members, they dropped them like hot potatoes to advocate for unionized government employees.  Secondly, the livelihoods of the middleclass fell when Democrats encouraged illegal immigration.  The one-two punch devastated the American working class.

They say they’re fighting voter suppression but rig the system to steal elections. 

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, fight every check against voter fraud, support every change that opens a new path to fraud, push to legalize vote harvesting, and fight the cleansing of voter rolls.  Democrat controlled states and cities provides sanctuary, benefits, and driver licenses to illegals.  They talk a good game, but in truth, Democrats act against the principle of fair elections.

They profess support for the downtrodden but act to harm their future.

Democrats have controlled many major cities and a few states for decades.  These bastions of progressivism are stark examples of how they govern.  Most Americans who are deprived of hope reside inside these districts.  Words don’t put food on the table, keep children safe, or provide the tools for a better future.  But words are all they get.

They preach social justice but act inconsistent with the goal.

Equal opportunity for all?  Not really.  Democrats deny or rip away support if anyone speaks contrary to the Democrat Party Line. Political obedience determines social justice. They talk big in support of LBQ and women’s issues but import intolerant cultures who do them harm. Democrats ruthlessly pursue Republicans accused of sexual crimes but stubbornly cover for accused Democrats. They promise affordable higher education but direct government money to college administrations who keep raising tuition. Social justice is not really about people. It’s a misanthropic tool to gather up political power.

They claim concern for pandemic deaths but act to increase death count.

Democrats say they want fewer virus deaths, but New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (all Democrat run states) made it illegal to turn away or test nursing home returnees, knowing full well that over a third of virus deaths occur in nursing homes.  They say they’re horrified at the death count but provide financial incentives for doctors to attribute every death to the virus.  Additionally, lockdowns and vaccination mandates have increased the risk for every other terminal ailment through non-diagnosis, non-treatment, and delayed surgeries.

They say nobody is above the law but constructed a duel justice system.

Democrats holler incessantly that no one is above the law, but shield elected Democrats, illegal aliens, and convicted criminals from the law.  They release prisoners back into society while arresting Americans for overzealously protesting government officials.  They coddle illegals and give them rights and benefits American citizens don’t enjoy.  Elected Democrat officials are seldom indicted despite endless exposed crimes, government corruption everyone can see, and grievous violations of our national security laws.  Democrats clamor for equal justice, but their actions built a two-tiered justice system.  One for them … and another for the rest of us.

They tout democracy but act totalitarian

Democrats invoke the Framers, the Bible, and altruistic intentions to prove their democratic bona fides.  Not only do they portray themselves as the true champions of democracy, but Republican opponents are Nazis, fascists, murders, racists, and haters of every imaginable hue. Yet their actions speak otherwise.  They cheer the police state tactics of the FBI, see nothing amiss in federal agencies working on their behalf, and ignore the wishes of the populous that go against their doctrines.  Nothing exposes leadership style more than a crisis.  Republican governors impose sensible restraints for the shortest time possible.  Democrat governors impose draconian measures beyond CDC guidelines and extend them indefinitely.

Talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Your word is your bond.  All these axioms are foreign to Democrats.  Instead they believe perception is reality.  A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.  Principles are malleable to the moment.  And a sucker’s born every minute.

Fortunately for the United States of America, the public is catching on.  Perhaps the greatest gift of President Trump has bestowed upon this great nation is to expose Democrat Party leaders for who they really are.  It’s not pretty a pretty sight.

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.

Lincoln on the Verge, Ted Widmer

Lincoln on the Verge, Thirteen Days to Washington

Over 15,000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln, supposedly more than any other person except Jesus. This tower of books at the Ford's Theatre Center for Education and Leadership is a tribute to the man and the authors who have written about him. (This is actually a metal sculpture using replicas of about half the books.) The Center is across the street from Ford’s Theater where the president was assassinated.

Because I intend to add to the pile, I own about forty of these books. Every Lincoln author looks for a unique perspective. Some see themselves as myth busters. Others delve into a niche of his supposed psyche to unearth a differently tempered person. Responsible historians frequently zero in on a single event or unusual theme to add fresh insights. Entire books are dedicated to a single speech, battle, or political issue.

Ted Widmer made a great choice of subject matter. Lincoln on the Verge concentrates on the thirteen days it took Lincoln to journey by train from Springfield to Washington. It’s a fascinating story and it illustrates the political savvy of this supposed country bumpkin. Widmer introduces us to the president-elect as he travels across a great land he knows will soon be thrown into turmoil. What could Lincoln accomplish on this tedious trip? You’ll discover he could do quite a bit. He engineered the journey of the Presidential Special so he could more easily save the nation after inauguration.

Widmer has a clear and concise writing style that keeps the narrative moving, and his matter-of-fact presentation allows the reader to mine for new insights without being led to the trough. 

If you’re a Lincoln enthusiast, or merely curious, you’ll enjoy this book.

              (This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

War on the Waters, James M. McPherson

 

With the exception of the Monitor vs. Merrimack (CSS Virginia), naval battles get short shrift in Civil War books. McPherson certainly fills that gap with War on the Waters, The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865. Land battles were certainly decisive, but the Union may have lost the war without Gideon Welles and the Navy Department. McPherson even makes a strong argument that Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut deserves to be ranked with generals Grant and Sherman when giving credit for the Union victory.

Inventions and innovations by both the Confederate States and the United States revolutionized naval warfare. Steam-powered ships, screw propeller driven ships, ironclads, submarines, weaponry, and naval tactics all made major advancement during those four years. By Appomattox, the United States owned the largest navy in the world, and arguably the most technologically advanced.

War on the Waters does an admirable job of describing blue water and brown water (river) battles and in explaining the significance of each clash. I found the battles that required cooperation between the Army and Navy of particular interest. As an added bonus, International law on blockades is more fully described than in other history books.

McPherson’s no nonsense writing style can sometimes verge on dull, but he always pulls the reader back to the narrative in the nick of time.

I recommend this book to all those who have an interest in the Civil War, naval battles, technology advancement, or military politics. War on the Waters is informative and a good read.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)