>> wheaton college history professor tracy mckenzie teaches the class on the evolving northern war aims during the civil war between unionism and emancipation. he describes how public support for emancipation. link andrgues that free election in presidential nomination were seen as unlikely because of the state of the war in 18. this class is about an hour. >> this morning we are really going to be more or less wrapping up that chronological overview of the war. moving at a very rapid pace. our focus today is going to be on the. lincoln'sfrom

commencement patient proclamation to the end of the war. that is going to be chronologically our focus. i will try to emphasize something magic emphases for the moment. i think it is always good to go back and touch base with what we think are our primary theories of concern. can i ask you guys just to help us our review major themes we are having in mind right now? one.ne mention we are trying to think carefully about what our interpretation of the american civil war tells us. hadthe popular american in his regards to slavery, racially quality. always reminding ourselves of the interrelationship between those two are very complicated. it is nine and he sends a very simple kind of relationship, say yes. that is one of the themes that will be central today. northernormation of

names. aims. wares how the aims of the starts as only a war of preserving the union. emancipatione the is added. those are probably the two things that are most relevant this morning. just keep those in mind as you interact, as you listen, and i think it will help us in gaining what is most important here. let's touch base with where we ended last time and that is just to remember that by december of

1862 abraham lincoln for a variety of reasons coming to the conclusion that there is a to achievepportunity emancipation of slavery that he did not anticipate when the war began. we talked about a variety of factors that were at play. the cost of war in itself is polarizing northern opinion. it is even creating a kind of opportunity to pursue a more aggressive war effort. that is part of what is going on. there is also a constitutional window of opportunity that lincoln believes the war has presented to him. slavese of the themselves in a laminating any kind of neutral role. that the north might play in regard to save you i think is a factor also. we mentioned to other things quickly. lincoln had been hesitant at the start in part because he was

concerned about the border states. one of the things that lincoln concluded by december of 1862 is at the border states don't play the role that they would have in 1861. part of that is because of what the war had been itself. has drawn about 100,000 pro confederates from the border states to his army. they seem to play political role at that point. they're not going to vote. there are not the union states that all anymore. the fear that the border states is noght switch sides longer pressing in lincoln's line. there were also concerns about having bipartisan support for the emancipation policy if he ever went that direction. he could never have any kind of bipartisan support for. it. the democratic party in the

north is a opposing him on just about every kind of congressional initiative. the idea of this war is not going to be one that divides the north politically is something that i think lincoln more or less had abandoned. old kinds of obstacles are on by the wayside. by august, if not earlier of 1862, lincoln has decided that when the time is right he will announce a new aim for the war effort that would add to the union, human freedom. that is going to come when it comes in september 1862 with lincoln's and naumann of what we remember today as the preliminary and emancipation proclamation. which effectively defines the proclamation of a war measure in slavery in any area actively rebelling against united states government. it is not going to apply to the

blue states, it is not going to apply to areas of the confederacy now subdued and ther military occupation, entire state of tennessee is excluded, part of virginia, part of louisiana. with those exceptions aside, no one denies that the war has been fundamentally redefined. what we want to focus on this morning is the aftermath of that. i thinks james mcpherson's book is very helpful for that. union has thehat potential to unify northern opinion, emancipation always a divides. after that in the years the announcement of the policy. i want to begin with some images that give us a sense of the way is inch northern opinion some degree polarize. this particular image. this is a painting that is done

in 1864. senseaimed at in some imaginatively re-creating the context of lincoln's fashioning of the amount -- emancipation policy. some of the details of sure are too small for us to pick up on. i think there are some things that call your attention. this is supposed to be lincoln study in the executive mansion. of paraphernalia scattered around. if you look at the far right hand, there is a map. a map of the united states. the artist has put this sword hanging down across the map. , sort of figuratively showing how war has divided the country. some of the pieces of papers to our right, to lincoln slept, our petitions from anti-savory organizations, that aren't playing the president to strike against human bondage.

is a copy of his presidential oath. why lincoln would have a copy of his as hanging up is hard for us to imagine, but the artist puts it there for a reason. lincoln isf opposite in fact a bust of andrew jackson. thehe context of 1860 it is kind of an embodiment of the preservation of the union. to use whatever is necessary to maintain national supremacy. on lincoln's left, a copy of the bible. the artist is telling us that this is the context in which the emancipation proclamation is ultimately -- from which it is emerging. can you think out loud with me about the message here? artist want to convey about the proclamation, about how american should think of it? any thoughts at all?

the bible is like an illustration of a more moral ideal when it comes to emancipation, but then his oath is what he is sworn to do, and that andrew jackson obviously preserving the unit. so we has his goal to preserve the union, but at the same time he has these moral obligations to free the slaves. >> does that resonate with the rest of you? you see that the artist is showing the complexity of the motives. the ways in which lincoln is bouncing these competing obligations, these competing loyalties? the bible, the sort of an embodiment of moral obligation. the oath on the wall, the embodiment of constitutionality. the idea that lincoln is trying that struggle between

constitutionality and more obligation. over the window and the bust of andrew jackson we had this commitment to union. this is i think the message. this very sympathetic message. and truly i think it is the way that lincoln would want northern opinion to view his policy. we talked about lincoln as being a constitutional anti-savory politician. always wanting to present his views is consistent with the calm -- constitution, but also with some kind of moral dimension there as well. now compare that image with this one. this is a kind of pencil sketch, not colorful as the other one. this comes from an immigrant in the united states, the united states before the civil war, from one of the german states. he lives in baltimore. he is a northern democrat who is very critical of the policy. note you can see the pale on this image to pick up on the image. can you see any details well

enough? what do you see there? >> he is standing on the bible, stomping on it. tracy mckenzie: rather than cherishing it, he is standing on it. >> it appears to be a demon on the table. tracy mckenzie: i think that is fair enough. yeah, ok. >> there is like a saintly representation of john brown. tracy mckenzie: you can see the framed picture, it is supposed to be john brown, with the raid on harpers ferry in 1859. it was built specifically to arm slaves after the rated harpers ferry was planned. there is a halo, st. john. what message is that, perhaps, sending?

the fact that brown is being shown favorably? what is the significance of that? any thoughts? samantha, a thought? >> maybe brown was sort of reckless, and they are considering other options. tracy mckenzie: brown is the embodiment of violent fanaticism. compared to the other picture where lincoln is weighing the constitution very carefully, brown does not do that. brown thinks the constitution is part of the problem, and violence is the answer.

anything else you see there? >> it looks like he was massive. but he was really laboring over the document, where here he is slashed in his seat. this insinuates it is a fabrication of his own thinking. tracy mckenzie: there is not those influences, the constitution, the petition. he is doing it either alone, or let's say, in consultation with the devil. and finally, what is this little devil offering lincoln? it is almost certainly meant to be alcohol. there is a decanter on the far side of the table. the devil is offering him a drink for inspiration. this encapsulates the kind of polarization that the emancipation policy creates in the north. to come back to david mcpherson, union unionized, emancipation divided. it is not the only thing in the middle of the civil war that is extra contentious. we will not have time to develop this, but we can list other factors that are at play. probably the most important link to emancipation is the recruitment of black soldiers

into the united states armed forces. the united states congress has authorized the president of the united states to employ men of color for military purposes as early as the summer of 1862. lincoln and the summer of 1862 is not prepared to take this stance, is far too controversial. he authorizes some experiments with the investment of black soldiers as early as the summer of 1862, but he keeps it under the radar. on areas close to south carolina, kansas, the far remote frontier, they will begin to be the enlistment of black soldiers. in areas of contingent, that does not happen. until the policy is announced. when it is announced, lincoln authorizes a very aggressive way

to recruitment of black soldiers. you begin to see posters like this one. this is in philadelphia in 1863. "come and join us, brothers." these appeals lead to the enlistment while of somewhere along the way, 180,000 men into the forces, always segregated, called the color troops. maybe as many as a quarter of a million other african-american males served in nonmilitary ways in labor details and other capacities with united states forces. a very large edition to the armed forces of the united states. i would argue that the sort of government on enlisting black soldiers, if anything is more controversial in the north then

emancipation. i made that claim, and i ask you why that might be. any thoughts? why is this kind of image more troubling? >> it implies a sort of equality between the two races that emancipation does not do on its own. tracy mckenzie: there is the implementation of the quality here. emancipation does not necessarily provide. taylor? >> they are putting weapons in people's hands that they enslaved, and so they worry that like, now they have weapons, they might turn against the white men with arms. tracy mckenzie: taylor raises the concern that in reality, it is often linked to the policy in southern perspectives that in putting weapons in the former enslaved people, it may even be inviting if not encouraging retribution, some sort of violent response against white civilians. i think that is a factor as well. i think, one of the things we

tried to identify already is that if you are an american in the northern states in the middle of the 19th century, you could oppose slavery for many reasons, separate from racial equality areas that may be your motive, but need not be. when we recruit black soldiers, they cannot separate that from a policy pointing toward racial equality. and so, and certain way, i think this policy is more controversial, even more divisive than emancipation itself. we can add to the list of controversial issues, i will not

go into as much detail, but i will mention that in the summer of 1862, the north begins to move to conscription policy, meaning forces of soldiers, they do that calling for volunteers in the summer of 1862 or nine months signees. in 1963, the move to an all-encompassing draft law, anyone between ages of [indiscernible] is subject to the draft. it has a very significant impact on popular opinion. one of the things you guys have been reading his a short excerpt of the diary of this new york republican named george templeton strong. george templeton strong is writing in the summer of 1862, he goes downtown, new york city. there is a major battle raging in virginia at the time, and strong describes what he sees in new york city as you would never know war is going on. he is acknowledging that men are fighting and dying. it is possible if you live remote on the theater of war, it was a total abstraction. conscription makes every adult male viable for military service, so you can imagine how that adds a kind of level of significace to political debates about war is about and if the war is going well. conscription is a factor, and the final factor i want to mention very quickly is lincoln's administration record on civil liberties. we dug about political

oppositions of the lincoln administration. civil liberties may be as important as emancipation in some areas as promoting opposition to republican leadership. lincoln. early on in his presidency determines the will be times when he will need to take it short and very steps to crack down on voices that might weaken the war effort. under the constitution article 169, the congress is given the authority to withdraw at least temporarily something called the privilege of habeas corpus. have you heard of habeas corpus? the phrase habeas corpus come from latin, literally, to have

the body. but the privilege of habeas corpus is preventing the government from arbitrarily imprisoning civilians and not giving them due process. not giving them their right to a trial before the body of their peers. under the constitution, if some government official or to throw you in prison without trial, someone to go through court on your behalf, request that a judge issue an order releasing this political prisoner, a writ order for heaviest corpus, and order to have the body. the constitution says this privilege may be withdrawn or repealed temporarily in terms of invasion. so lincoln, at different times during the war, as early as april 1861, sort of embroiling the policy into the late months of 1862, will authorize the arrest of civilians without trial. one historian who systematically reviewed that policy estimates that somewhere along the lines

of about 15,000 civilians are arrested at some point during the war. if our population today, it would be like 250,000. all of them released, but it is going on. so this is another factor that is a source of considerable political opposition. so we might have opposition to emancipation, the enlistment of black soldiers, conscription in some circles. concerns about civil liberties as well.

always, always behind these particular concerns our anxieties about the way the war is going. nothing informs popular support or opposition to the war more than the momentum on the battlefield. it is going to sound like a gross oversimplification, but it is more or less something that has been verified by systematic analysis, the signal most important factor that determines popular attitude toward war and the particular context is that it does appear the war is being won. wars are being won, wars where victory seems tangible and at hand are popular wars. wars that are not being won, wars in which victory seems

remote if at all likely seem to be on popular wars. this brings us back to the emancipation policy. because lincoln had rpresented emancipation as a military act. as a military act. as a military act which would bring victory and shorten the war. we see one other image. this is one of my favorite images from the civil war. this is one of the ways in which we see that emancipation embodied. here we have a print that is done, i do not know the exact date.

it is either 1862 or 1863. it is presented by currier and ives, a very popular house that made inexpensive artwork for private homes, places, and this particular drawing, you have the justification of emancipation as a military act. the symbolism to define fairly quickly. you have jefferson davis, president of the confederacy, on the far left. he called to the passing visitors of the carnival, step right up, give me to bits and try your and at such and such. he is tried to get people to break the backbone of the

rebellion. he is an enormous vicious looking dog with the word rebellion written on the back. a variety of northern figures that most readers would immediately recognize or know of. these northern figures had in various ways tried to break the backbone, bring union victory. in the back, with his head in his hands, is a man named john crittenden. john crittenden was a congressman who in 1861 tried to come up with a compromise that would avoid war. crittenden had a tiny little hammer labeled compromise. it is woefully inadequate. and then you have a variety of other northern figures, a general with a larger hammer labeled steel. and another labeled strategy.

other union generals. and next is the secretary of war, edwin stanton. stanton is talking to president abraham lincoln. stanton tells lincoln that these generals and try their skill, they may try their strategy, but i think my hammer is the one that is going to break the backbone of the rebellion. his hamer is labeled draft. this will put us over the top and bring military success. lincoln always with the stereotype of the rail splitter, his acts over his shoulder, talks to stanton, you can try him with that. but i believe that this ax of mine is the only thing that will touch him. it is the only thing that will do the trick. the ax is labeled emancipation proclamation. it is all about bringing victory, emancipation is justified. the military, as my authority in commander-in-chief. here we see the relationship

between success in the battlefield and popular support for emancipation. if we grasp support for emancipation in north, would correlate pretty closely with popular perceptions of whether the war was being won, weather progress was being made or not. if you are abraham lincoln or any republican advocate of emancipation, in the aftermath of the proclamation, the union more effort takes a nosedive. it is announced in late september of 1862. there is not a significant union military victory for the next nine months. and in that period, roughly until july 1863, popular support for emancipation, popular support for republican administration goes down, down, down.

now, we don't have a lot of time this class. it goes so quickly in the overview of the war to talk about specifics militarily. let me remind you of a broad overarching pattern. we have a map, you have seen this before. you have some sense of what is conveying. we've talked about that. the grand strategy the lincoln ministration began with his on three components. the confederate states, thrust the confederate capital which has been moved to richmond, and the campaign to take control of the mississippi river. i will make it broad generalization. in the first year of the war, in the eastern parts of the theater of war, particularly the round

of virginia, the confederacy was doing very well. but the farther west you went, the west theater of war, union success was more and more striking. they had this pattern of union victory in the west, confederate victory or at least union stalemate in the east. what happens in the nine months after the emancipation proclamation is that that pattern falls apart, and republicans cannot point to significant wins anywhere. it is bogged down in a costly siege in vicksburg. there is a very expensive, bloody battle in central tennessee that accomplishes nothing. there are major confederate victories in the eastern theater in virginia in 1862.

one string of successive confederate victories with staggering human costs. this is interrupted temporarily, july of 1863. in the span of 24 hours there is major union victory at gettysburg. gettysburg was at the top of the map. the next day vicksburg, the last stronghold on the mississippi river and the confederacy surrenders to union forces. by the end of that year, tennessee has been completely rid of confederate forces. union armies are now in georgia, threatening within 30 miles or so. everything is pointing toward a regain of union momentum and a likelihood the war will end by the following spring. one of the things that adds to that perception, victory is now likely, lincoln has identified a new general. lincoln has a difficult time

identifying a successful commander in the eastern theater of the war. lincoln brings this man, ulysses grant from the western theater to the east. he had been very successful fighting in mississippi. he is brought to command all union armies in all theaters of war. lincoln and grant talk a lot. lincoln is convinced grant has the plan to end the war as soon as the weather improves enough

to resume campaigning in the spring of that year. the story of 1864 in terms of the civil war is the story of the way in which that expectation ultimately comes crashing down. in the spring of 1864 there is significant fighting into areas. i don't care that you remember the specific details but i want you to put yourself in the perspective, northern civilians are already in the war that is vastly longer, more expensive than anyone had anticipated when the war broke out. ask yourself how they would inform your participation in the future. two areas of fighting primarily.

one is in virginia between washington dc and richmond. there is fighting starting in early spring, 1864 between ulysses grant and robert e. lee north of richmond. a series of maneuvers, they will move east and south, east and south, always trying to get around the confederate army and strike directly at the capital or get between the confederate capital in the confederate army. what it leads to is a series of very costly battles. the result is that from early may, 1864 to early june, 1864, there are a series of battles

with casualty levels that for anything recognize before this. the pattern of military history in the civil war in the first half is a pattern in which two large armies would come together and clash to -- reeking untold casualties. in the armies would separate and take weeks, often months to recover and requip themselves to resume the fighting. what changes is one battle gives way almost seamlessly to the next. the armies in northern virginia are constantly in contact with one another inflicting casualties on one another that are astounding. let me give you an example of grants army. grant strike south the first day

of may with 1600 thousand soldiers. that army will sustain 64,000 casualties. we will add to those 64,000 casualties, the terms of service of many soldiers are expiring. to those 64,000 who are taken out of action, 18,000 go home. their term has expired. the army grant began with in may, 150,000 men, has now only less than one third of that original army left. ultimately this campaign blogs down. it leads instead to a siege. a well defended city's of richmond called petersburg. it is pretty much in place by

mid-june. grant's hope for a quick campaign that would capture the confederate capital has been frustrating in the human cost has been staggering. the same time there is fighting going on, there is fighting in northern georgia. the union army struck south around chattanooga on the border

and was trying to move on that land. it is one of the important transportation crossroads at this time. as what is going on in northern virginia, this armie, constant conflict. let me add up for you what happens in these two campaigns. the total number of casualties, if you combine casualties in northern georgia and northern virginia, 89,000. it in an thousand and less than three months. 89,000 less than three

months. i don't know if that sounds like a lot to you are not. i hope that it sounds like a lot to you. the population of the free states is 20 million if we take those figures and try to translate them today, the united states forced us to experience the same proportional laws. today would require casualties of 1.5 million. the united states is involved in a war taking one-one half-million soldiers. that is killed, wounded and missing. out of action. what would be the popular response? think out loud with me. what do you think? >> overwhelmingly negative. prof. mckenzie: chris says overwhelmingly negative. this is hypothetical.

>> people would want it to be over. they probably wouldn't care about what they were fighting over. prof. mckenzie: some people are going to say i'm sick of this. the cost is too great. nothing can justify this sacrifice. >> some may think such a high human cost requires staying the course and justifying the sacrifice. prof. mckenzie: does that make sense to you? he is saying rather than the high human cost being an argument for disengagement, it becomes an argument for persistence. it is going to be if we back out now all those who have made this sacrifice will have done so in vain. which is the language abraham lincoln uses in his gettysburg address. that they have not died in vain. others may need to die.

more than one kind of response. we have bifurcated response. so what really happens -- there was more than one kind of response. we had a bifurcated response. more more americans say the cost is too high. more and more say we must do whatever it takes to vindicate the sacrifices that have been made. let me, give things a little bit more. let's imagine the united states is involved in a war. 1.5 million casualties have been sustained. the president goes before the american people in a press conference that would've never have it the 1860's but would today. he tells the country that he is "volunteers."re and the number of volunteers he needs he specifies clearly.

he says i need 8 million more. in volunteers we put quotation marks because there is a draft law in place. if volunteers are not forthcoming, there will be another way to ensure the manpower need is met. i'm putting that in our numbers today. inaham lincoln asked for, the aftermath of all those casualties, 500,000 more volunteers. that would be between eight and 8.5 million. final detail. imagine the united states is involved in a war. 1.5 million casualties in the last three months. the president who says i need 8 million more volunteers. finally that same president is running for reelection on his war record. let's add that to the mix.

at the same time that abraham lincoln is asking for half a million more volunteers he is also asking for the american people to support him for a second term. it is impossible for us to feel in theght of contingency summer of 1864 unless we let it sink and how unlikely abraham lincoln's reelection really was. lincoln at various times believed that his reelection was unlikely. remainingme we have let's take a quick visit of the 1864 presidential election. about the big themes war is a window into the attitudes of the american people, the attitudes toward slavery and racial equality.

you will find a lot that is embedded in the campaign that is relevant. a little bit of context. is seeking a nomination for the second term he is doing something that today we absolutely take for granted. that incumbent presidents will be candidates for the second term. and we assume they will get the nomination. we may not assume they will be reelected but we know that statistically incumbents have pretty good chances. that is not the case in the middle of the 19th century. president to be reelected to the second term was andrew jackson. that was in 1832.

32 years have transpired since the last time a president was reelected. the last time an incumbent was even nominated for the second term was 1840. almost a quarter of a century had passed since that happened. no one is automatically assuming in the party in the spring or early summer of 18 six before that lincoln's renomination -- 1864 that lincoln's renomination is possible or desirable. someone to replace them because of presidential aspirations of their own. member,s cabinet secretary of the treasury simon chase would really like to be president. there are others with presidential aspirations. there are other members of the party is simply don't think lincoln is reelected will. -- reelectable. concern for the war effort in the future of the party.

they believe replacing lincoln is probably the wiser course to follow. ultimately lincoln will be reelected -- renominated in the summer of 1864. -- pretty muted enthusiasm. almost by default. they were other wanting the nomination no person was able to develop a broad enough base of support to unseat lincoln. lincoln is going to be nominated in june of 1864. the way in which he is nominated and the rhetoric and the strategy that will be followed by the republican party is key. let's look at some images that would get us thinking about the strategy of the party. i want you to tell me what you see. inferences some about what this says about campaign strategy in that election.

let's begin with this. it's a poster that would have been widely circulated in the state of new york. it is showing nominations at various levels of public office, starting with president and going down to a variety of offices at the new york state level. look at a poster and tell me what you see or don't see. i know you can't read some of the fine print. christian, what do you see? >> it does not say republican nomination. it says union nominations. >> you notice that. in 1864s of the party will be using the label republican and talking about their rivals. republicans don't use the label very much at all. they are going to use the label "national union." nomination is

what we see. let's start there. talk to me about that. strategye about that and what it is suggesting. samantha? >> it is interesting because with the emancipation they demonstrated a shift in focus towards emancipation of slaves, but by using the word union their returning to their initial focus which was more popular. focused on keeping the union together. >> samantha says what we see is what might look as a kind of backtracking in the announcement of the emancipation policy there have been a clear definition of republican wargames. now this seems to be --

republican war aims and this is returning to the earlier focus. >> it seems like they are trying to attract northern democrats who are not sure they want to support the party. they support the union. >> is an obvious effort that bipartisan support. it is an obvious effort to say regardless of party, if you stand for what we stand for, you need to be with us. what do they stand for? according to their label, union. to pick up on something samantha said i think they would try to argue that in emphasizing national union we are not backtracking. we're perpetuating will be always emphasized. it had always been about preserving the union. i think that would be the argument. anything else you see here?

you may not be able to read it well enough. anything else that jumps out at you? pay in mind the vice presidential nomination. the nominee. and i won'tou, because we have never mentioned it because life is too short, if i asked you to lincoln's vice president was in his first term, you might not immediately know the answer. hannibal hamlin of maine. convention in june of jettisonrepublicans the vice presidential person on the ticket. hannibal hamlin has been a prominent anti-slavery politician from new england. -- in the 1860's republicans wanted to better prominent new englander with a prominent midwesterner. hamlin had done his job.

but his reputation was too strongly anti-slavery. 1864 as they wanted to deflect criticism of emancipation, not only do they drop the label republican but they dropped their vice president and replacing with andrew johnson. would talk about much more if we were moving into the reconstruction period. he will figure centrally in that era. what do we know about him? andrew johnson had been born, raised in the south. prominence in tennessee, slaveholding state. he owned slaves himself. and he was a democrat. the only other thing we might add is that he was a staunch, staunch unionist. the we think about it, national union ticket as the

northern antislavery republican southernaired with the -- i don't know if i would call him proslavery but is not opposed to it on any grounds. he is a democrat. what do they have in common? almost nothing, but they do have one thing in common. >> preservation of the union. >> they are unionists. two who hold these nothing in common and their political values except union is driving home the point. this is a union coalition aimed at preserving the union. that canig tent accommodate a lot of views on the issue of slavery. just a few more images. put is a campaign banner out by courier in dives. and ives.

the slogan says "liberty, union, and victory." those are broad, vague term. -- terms. the platform of the national union party has about 11 or 12 points. sayfirst one is going to this is paramount. of every highest duty american citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the union and the paramount authority of the constitution of the united states. to go on through this particular plank in the platform. they talk about crawling the rebellion, bringing traders -- traitors to justice. they are all about preserving the union. is this very long sentence.

-- it is a very long sentence. "layinglution says, aside all differences of political opinion, we pledge ourselves to this." it is a fiction largely. the strategy here is the say this is not the old republican party. this is a new movement. a new bipartisan coalition that has as its only cementing glue -- they will endorse emancipation. the national union platform in 1864 endorses the constitutional amendment that would and slavery in all the nights -- end slavery in all the united states. this is the third plank in the platform. resolved that as slavery was the cause and now constitutes the strength of this rebellion.

and as it is hostile to the principles of republican government we are in favor. it is understood a constitutional amendment to end slavery everywhere. you see the link? we are opposing slavery absolutely. we are doing so as part of our commitment to preserving for union. it must be and if we are to end if we are toended end rebellion. this is the approach of the republican party in 1864. lincoln as late as the end of the summer is basically resigned to the inevitability of defeat. the war has been going so poorly, the casualties have been so high, war weariness seems to be mounting. he does not expect to win. strikinge most

episodes in his presidency. to a cabinet goes meeting with a memo he has written where he basically says it is exceedingly probable i will not be reelected. he has concluded that. when he writes that memo the democratic party is preparing to meet at its convention in chicago, illinois. that convention will nominate as its standardbearers these two individuals. the presidential nominee on the left side. we have met before. this is george mcclellan, the commander of the army of the potomac early in the war. gary prominent and famous union general. it represented a faction known as war democrats.

war democrats or members of --thern credit party that northern democratic party that the report aggressively. they wanted to continue the war to preserve the union but always opposed emancipation. runningng man -- his mate is amending george pendleton. he was a congress and from ohio. he represents a faction of the party called p7 kratz -- peace democrats, or sometimes he recalled copperheads. peace democrats have arrived at the conclusion the war is a failure and continuing the war was a tragic mistake. the democratic party will put these two men together on the same ticket. peacemocrats and democrats. we talked about this before. earlier in the war he state that his position with regard abraham

lincoln. although he favored a war to i amrve the union he said not looking for the subjugation of the people, the confiscation of their property, whether forcible abolition of slavery. absolutely repudiate slavery. the democratic party is closely divided between the peace and war wings. there are a lot of these democrats -- peace democrats that are not have even: is the nominee. to assuage their feelings the party with them write the platform. that is utterly bizarre. they will have a war democrat lead the party and of the peace democrats write the platform. this is what they come up with. this is one of the major planks in their platform. failure toyears of

restore the union by the experiment of war, we demand that immediate efforts remain for a secession of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceful means, to the end at that, at the yearly's practical moment -- at the earliest practical movement piece can be restored. an immediate cease-fire, negotiation with the south, the only issue union. emancipation completely off the table. this is the two sides. they are drawn. then one very significant thing happens before the general election. the momentum on the field of battle turns. if there is a single critical event, it is the fall of atlanta, which event the object of union attention since the spring.

the fall of atlanta on the second of september. this is immediately reading the jubilation across the north. many individuals believe it may have been more than any other single thing what turns the tide of northern opinion. follows youion that see two very clear strategies. democrat, he will emphasize grace. willern democrats constantly remind northern voters this is an unnecessary war about racial equality. image ands over one mood to another one quickly. this is a drawing that appears 1864e summer of 1860 or -- picking up on a team that emerges in democratic strategy at the end of 1863. a democratic journalist

anonymously authored a pamphlet in which he says the republican party has as its agenda for the future of the united states what this author called "miscegenation." it's not much used anymore is a term. it's invented in 1863. it comes from two latin words. mix."rb for "to you would recognize the word "genus." tomeans to mix species, or talk about mixing the races. this particular author is saying the republican party wants not only racial equality, it as fires -- aspires to the intermixing of the races. the democrats run with this in the 1864 campaign. you see a drawing of the

miscegenation ball. this is what it will be like after abraham lincoln is reelected. at the inaugural ball you will have this kind of gathering. what jumps out as you as you look at the drawing? can you see it well enough to pick up on the message of the artist? lots of white people dancing with african-americans. >> if i have not missed something, every single couple is interracial. this is what we are moving towards. this is what the republican party wants. racial intermarriage. if you don't believe in that, you have no business supporting anyone other than george mcclellan and the democratic ticket. 1864, are a republican in you will do everything you can to deflect the emphasis on race. you cannot win the election defined in terms of racial

equality. you must win defining the issue in terms of union. what the republicans are going to stress is the disloyalty of the democratic party. they will link the democratic party with the south. they will emphasize the democratic party's support for a cease-fire. you have other images. i will skip over other images about miscegenation. here is one particular republican cartoon. it shows the democratic party in 1832 and 1864. we have studied 1832. this should resonate to some degree. the midst of the nullification crisis. in 1832g to this artist you have andrew jackson, prominent democratic general and now president, staunch advocate of the union forcing the south to ultimately submit to federal authority.

in 1864 what does the party look like? you have a union general, not thundering that the union must be preserved by towering before the president of the confederacy jefferson davis. this is how for the democratic party has declined. it is not quivering in its boots against the threat of the confederacy. a couple more images quickly. drawing donepaign by thomas nast. he goes on to a great deal of promise later. we have jefferson davis clasping hands with the union veteran. they are clasping hands over a grave and the tombstone says "in memory of union heroes fallen in a useless war." favorplication is if you democrats, what you are saying is that every sacrifice made to this point has been wasted.

we have a veteran who is clearly given the great sacrifice. we have columbia weeding by the grave. grave.ping by the a vote for mcclellan is a vote for clasping hands of -- with the seven traders -- southern traitors. this is my favorite one. the republican lampooning this ludicrous combination of commitments in the democratic party. you have mcclellan, the war democrat riding a warhorse with a sword while smoking a peace pipe and wearing a bonnet. that is supposed to be saying something about his masculinity. peaceaccompanied by the

democrat writing -- riding a donkey. this is a ludicrous, nation. -- combination. nothing matters more than the fall of atlanta. nothing matters more in the believe the war is again being won. you will see lincoln takes 91% of the electoral vote. is thing and want to stress that his opponent takes 45% of the popular vote. northerners vote for a party that is declare the war of failure and unanimously repudiated emancipation. when we think about a reunified united states in the aftermath, what conclusion must we draw? clearly a large majority of the american free population was not

enthusiastic about emancipation. and to come back to a final thing that has been the bedrock of this course, in a democratic majorityhere a large holds a particular value that is inconsistent with the interests of the minority there is not much reason to be optimistic for the rights of the minority. james madison said if the majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. i think that is a foreshadowing of the history of reconstruction for the rest of the 19th and into the 20th century's. very fast whirlwind overview. next time we will zero in on abraham lincoln. we will enter into conversation with him. what he is trying to do is shape how we remember, i mean us today, remember the meaning of

the war. they will think historically and christianly about what he had to say. have a great couple of days. we will forward to being together again next time, zeroing in on the discussion of this document. take care. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ >> i am a history buff. i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things work and how they are made. >> i love american history tv. idea they did history. that is something i really enjoy. tv ith american history gives you that perspective. >> i am a c-span fan. he had a couple of meals and

a steam shovel. i think it's one of the other ironies to be so rabidly anti-government and oh your your entiree fortune to the government. >> author sally denton talks about her book "the profiteers," it looks at one of the largest engineering and construction companies in the world. >> who else is the united states government 20th abilities projects throughout the world? i think it is fine for it to be , but it seems the american taxpayer should have some access to information about their -- the contracts, the amount of money. worker safety. the political relationships.

>> tonight at 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> monday on the communicators, george ford, chief economist for the phoenix center for advanced legal and economic public policy studies, and mark cooper, research director for the consumer federation of america, debate the fcc's proposal allowing consumers to buy their own set-top boxes instead of renting them from cable providers. a move to open up competition in the market. the are joined by telecommunications reporter for bloomberg. >> we need competition in the market. said competition, competition, competition. this is one place it really has not worked. we as the consumers have low prices and more choices if we got some vigorous competition. >> the first question is is there a market for set-top boxes?

what hasr in terms of been delivered over the cable network is no. it's a component of the network. that's the most efficient way to design and deliver cable television service. is the cheapest way to do it, the most efficient way to do it. the companies would prefer to do it that way. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. [crowd noise] >> welcome to tuscaloosa, alabama. located on the western side of the state on the black warrior river, the city served as the state capital from 1826 to 1846. is the home of the university of alabama. with the help of our comcast cable partners, over the next 90 minutes here have the civil war changed tuscaloosa. >> this