NEW ON DVD

Jewish Soldiers in Blue and Gray:

Faith Under Fire in the American Civil War

Indigo Films Entertainment Group, Inc.  88 minutes

Mosby’s Combat Operations
in Fairfax County, Virginia

HMS Productions, Inc. 90 minutes

Reviewed By Gordon Berg

Ten thousand Jews fought in the Civil War; 7,000 for the North, 3,000 for the South.  Although largely ignored in the traditional historiography of the period, “Jewish Soldiers in Blue and Gray,“ a deftly produced, visually compelling DVD from Indigo Films, capably fills void.

Using the Ken Burns-like approach to documentary film making (expert talking heads interspersed with period graphics and contemporary video), the DVD is chock-full of interesting facts and compelling anecdotes about how Jews reacted to the coming of the war and the exploits of individuals on the battlefield and the home front.  

Profiles include Judah P. Benjamin, a lawyer and pre-war senator from Louisiana, who was the second most-powerful official in the Confederate government, serving as Secretary of War and later as Secretary of State. Abraham C. Myers served as the Confederacy’s Quartermaster General and Moses Ezekiel, the first Jewish cadet at the Virginia Military Academy, fought with his classmates at the battle of New Market in June 1864.

Union Brigadier General Frederick Knefler was the highest ranking Jewish officer in the Civil War; Captain Isaac Moses was the war’s first aerial battle observer, reporting on Confederate positions at Williamsburg, VA in 1862; and Sergeant Leopold Karpeles of the 57th Massachusetts was one of five Jews to receive the Medal of Honor.  

The video also describes what it calls the most blatant anti-Semitic act in American history, Ulysses S. Grant’s infamous General Order 11 of December 1862 that ordered all Jews to leave the territory under his command within 24 hours.  The order caused a furor throughout the North and, under pressure from Jewish leaders, President Lincoln ordered it rescinded.

Screenwriter and director John Milius, whose Jewish ancestors rode with rebel partisan rangers in Missouri, provides a clear narrative voice to move the action along and actor Sam Waterston confidently voices the words of President Abraham Lincoln.

In the early days of television, actor Todd Andrews portrayed the Confederacy’s most successful mounted partisan ranger, John Singleton Mosby in muted shades of black and white.  Now, six enthusiastic Mosby historians from Northern Virginia revive the exploits of this colorful cavalier by visiting 42 locations where he jousted with perennially frustrated Union horsemen.

While “Mosby’s Combat Operations in Fairfax County, Virginia” lacks some of the production values of professional video company, the historical expertise of the producers overcomes many unavoidable liabilities such as often shooting in locations that long ago succumbed to suburban sprawl.  Eric Buckland, Tom Evans, Don Hankerson, Charles Mauro, Stevan Meserve, and Mayo Stuntz also make effective use of period illustrations and each provides insightful on-camera commentary.   

A handsome map accompanying the DVD will allow modern day battlefield trampers to revisit the sites of Mosby’s exploits, now armed with the cogent commentary provided by this informative documentary.




______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (www.cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.

Lincoln’s Forgotten Ally:
Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt of Kentucky

Elizabeth D. Leonard

University of North Carolina Press, 2011, 432 pp., $40.00

 Reviewed By Gordon Berg          

If you happen to be writing a book about Joseph Holt, Abraham Lincoln’s Judge Advocate General and prosecutor of those who conspired to assassinate the martyred president, stop right now.  Elizabeth Leonard has already written the definitive biography of this worldly, wealthy, and erudite Kentuckian who suffered political disappointment and family ostracism because of his passionate anti-slavery beliefs and commitment to preserving the Union.

Leonard writes with clarity, energy, and assurance; much as her subject did. When only 17, Holt declared “While we tolerate slavery, we are only feeding and nourishing our own destroyer…”  Holt maintained that slavery was “contrary to every principle of justice, every precept of morality, every feeling of humanity, every sentiment of honor” and he held these beliefs throughout his life.  These views ran counter to those held by most of his family and friends.

A successful lawyer and rising star in the Democratic Party, Holt became Secretary of War in the waning days of James Buchanan’s administration.  By accepting this appointment, Leonard maintains, he “boldly, courageously, and with unshakable commitment chose the Union over Kentucky, over the states, over the South, and -- potentially -- over slavery.”   After the fall of Fort Sumter, Holt wrote to former president Buchanan and declared  “Now that the South has begun an unprovoked and malignant war upon the U.S., I am decidedly in favor of prosecuting the struggle until the citizens of the seceded States shall be made to obey the laws as we obey them."

Leonard reveals that after the fort fell, Lincoln called on Holt and asked him to return to their native state and undertake “an all-out effort to ensure Kentucky’s fidelity and… to transform its supposed neutrality into active military support.”  He crisscrossed the state giving speeches, supporting the recruitment of men loyal to the Union for military service, and clandestinely arranging to supply them with arms.      

Although Holt had no military experience, Lincoln appointed him judge advocate general of the army in September 1862 because, Leonard maintains, he was “a brilliant, rational, stunningly articulate, painstakingly careful attorney, and because he was a fearlessly determined supporter of the Union.”  With thousands of cases to evaluate, Holt was in almost daily contact with the president.  Some of the most interesting cases this former slave owner handled involved the legal, civil, and human rights of slaves and former slaves.  Holt evaluated the evidence evenhandedly, even when the crimes appeared to be perpetrated against white.

Holt vigorously supported Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus, Congresses enactment of the Second Confiscation Act, and the Emancipation Proclamation, believing them all to be legal as necessities of war.  His intention, Leonard concludes, “was to support the president and his policies unwaveringly…and to make use of all the legal means at his command to move immediately and boldly against the nation’s enemies…”  

One of these legal means was the right of black men to enlist and serve in the Union army.  At the request of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Holt issued an opinion that the Constitution held that men of African descent were people, not property, and therefore could be called upon to bear arms “in defense of the Government under which they live and by which they are protected.”  Holt also held that after the war, black veterans should enjoy all the rights that the Constitution bestowed upon its citizens.

During the trial of the Lincoln conspirators, Holt’s primary task was to gather evidence establishing the guilt of the eight defendants.  He also issued the opinion that they should be tried by military tribunal, not a civilian court.  He sought, in vain, to establish a link between the conspirators and members of the Confederate government.

After the turbulent tenure of Andrew Johnson, Holt looked forward to the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant.  In spite of a continuing heavy workload, Congress was determined to shrink the national army and its attendant bureaucracy.  It reduced the staff of the Bureau of Military Justice.  While some politicians and military officers advocated closing the bureau, Holt staunchly defended its existence.  “Some such establishment,” he declared, “is certainly necessary in every civilized country that proposes to submit its military administration to the guidance and limitations of law.” 

Holt remained a hard-working judge advocate general until 1875.  When he died in 1894, he was buried with full military honors in the family cemetery in Stephensport KY, next to relatives who had scorned his devotion to the Union.


______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (www.cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.

John Brown Descendant Looks Back—and to the Future

Interview by Gordon Berg

All families have secrets.  Imagine 16 year-old Alice Kesey Mecoy’s suprise when she found out she was directly related to John Brown, one of the most controversial figures in American history.  Mecoy is the great, great, granddaughter of Brown’s daughter Annie. Before her death in 1926, Annie insisted that all her letters be burned—presumably because she didn’t want to bring attention to her family’s history. Alice’s parents and grandparents knew of the relationship but kept quiet about it until a historian  interviewed them in the 1960s. For the past 15 years, Alice has devoted herself to researching the family, particularly its women, whose lives after Brown’s march on Harpers Ferry have long been unheralded.

How many direct descendants of John Brown are there?

There’s a few hundred.  I haven’t contacted all of them but I’ve found many that don’t want to discuss the family.

Brown’s widow, Mary, and surviving children moved from their farm in North Elba, NY, in 1863. Where did they go?

First they went to Iowa, where they put money down on a farm. But after six months, and the coldest winter on record, Mary, said, “I’m going on to California.” They originally went to Red Bluff, where people built them a house, after collecting pennies and nickels from all over the state. The family moved on within three years (there’s some disagreement whether it was because it was too hot near Sacramento or because there were a lot of ex-Confederates in the area who were threatening them). They went north to Humboldt County. Later Mary with Sarah and Ellen, the two youngest daughters, went down to the Santa Clara area. But Annie stayed in Humboldt County, where my dad, Paul Meredith Keasey, was born.

When did you first find out you were related to Brown?

My dad’s mother, Beatrice Cook Keasey, participated in a quilt-making group celebrating history.  Every woman sewed something different on her square; my grandmother chose  Harpers Ferry and mentioned her relationship to John Brown. When Jean Libby, a John Brown expert, heard about it, she wanted to photograph and interview our family. My dad said no, but my grandmother said she could take pictures of the grandchildren. I was 16 and my brother was 11. My first reaction was, “I’m related to that crazy guy!”  In my schoolbooks, that’s how he was portrayed.

Did your understanding of Brown change as you grew up?

I really didn’t care when I was 16.  I didn’t care until I had children of my own. Then I started doing a little research, and for the past 15 years I’ve been really getting into it. I think there are enough people out there writing about Grandpa that I leave it to them. I’m focusing on the genealogy and the women, and also what Brown’s ideas were on women’s rights. I have a great respect for him now.

Do Americans have a true sense of who he was and what he tried to do?

No, I don’t think so. It’s a lot better than it used to be. For a long time he was a villain, and depicted as a crazy man. Then some saw him as a saint; now he’s finally come back around to being just a man. He wasn’t just out to free the slaves, he wanted women and Indians to have the right to vote. He wanted equality across the board.  He was well ahead of his time.

 

What are you doing to improve the public’s understanding of Brown and his family?

I lecture on the Brown women and correct misinformation in public and on my blog. I also answer about 30 e-mails a week. I’m writing a book about the Brown women. We actually had the John Brown sesquicentennial in 2009. We reenacted the march from the Kennedy farm, the trial, the hanging, and the funeral. I stood on the exact spot where they built the gallows. That was very emotional for me.

Did any of Brown’s children renounce him?

No.  But Annie never spoke of him. She didn’t tell her children.  It was always a secret in my family—we didn’t talk about it.  But reading her letters you can tell she was frustrated at the way people interpreted who he was and what he tried to do.  Later in life, Annie did start speaking out. She was very adamant about women’s rights. She was a teetotaler, too, so she was for prohibition.

Why do you think Annie never spoke of him?

She was trying to protect her children, which is part of why the family came to California.They wanted the kids not to be burdened with the legacy of being John Brown’s grandchildren.They had been in the limelight so long.They would still give interviews if people found them, but they weren’t searching for it.

So none of the children tried to exploit the relationship?

No.  In fact, they gave away everything that they could later have sold—signatures, letters, a hand-written copy of his constitution—they just sent them off to people. And when Annie was asked to be at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago  she adamantly refused, writing: “I’m not going on display. I think it’s awful, I just can’t believe it, but they want my kids to go, and my kids are thinking about it.”  In the end, none of the Browns participated.

Do you think John Brown has a valid message today?

He wanted equality for everyone. When you read his articles and his letters, he was for equality of women, blacks and the Indians. He didn’t want to free the slaves and send them away. He wanted to free them and live with them. He wanted all people to live together in harmony and all people to be treated equal. That was a pretty radical thing for 1859, and in some places that’s still a radical thing now.

#   #   # 

Alice Keasy Mecoy lives in Allen, TX

Her blog can be found at jbrownkin@blogspot.com

______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (www.cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.

I Fear I Shall Never Leave This Island: 
Life in a Civil War Prison

David R. Bush

University of Florida Press, 2011, 224 pp., $34.95

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

For archaeologist David Bush, writing about Johnson’s Island is an intimate, deeply personal endeavor.  He has spent more than 20 years meticulously excavating the Union prisoner-of-war camp off the coast of Sandusky, OH and investigating the lives of the captured Confederate officers incarcerated there.  Using the letters written by Captain Wesley Makely of the 18th Virginia Cavalry, and his wife, Kate, Bush forges a detailed record of their day-to-day lives and how their families coped with the uncertainty surrounding the loss of loved ones

Rather than merely annotating these moving letters, Bush puts them in context with a myriad of physical remains unearthed from the 14-acre site over the years.  Almost nothing remains of the original facility but Bush conclusively demonstrates that “inclusion of the archaeological record recovered from the site and the broader historical accounts alongside these letters provides a fuller context in the exploration of the impacts of institutionalization.”   The Civil War was the first time the government sanctioned large-scale confinement of prisoners-of-war, an issue, the author maintains, that “still haunt us today.”

Captain Makely was captured July 8, 1863 near Hancock, MD.  His company was foraging for provisions for its horses while acting as the rear guard for Lee’s army retreating from Gettysburg.  He arrived at Johnson’s Island a week later and remained there for the rest of the war.  During his 19 months of confinement, Makely endured a confinement typical of most of the officers there.

Johnson’s Island was unique.  It opened in April 1862 and was the first Union facility designed specifically to be a prisoner-of-war camp and the only one set up strictly for officers.  More than 10,000 Confederate officers passed through Johnson’s Island during the war; when Captain Makely arrived there were less than 1,000. 

For readers used to reading about the horrors of Andersonville, Camp Douglas, and Elmira, Johnson’s Island might sound like Club Med.  Mail was sent and arrived with remarkable regularity; men could receive food and clothing packages sent from relatives; the captives participated in a thriving industry making rings and other trinkets for themselves and outsiders; and their wardens, men of the 128th Ohio, were relatively humane guardians.

Bush manages to bring both Captain Makely and Johnson’s Island into clear, albeit stark, relief.


______________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (www.cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.

Price’s Lost Campaign: 
The 1864 Invasion of Missouri

Mark A. Lause
University of Missouri Press, 2011, 264 pp., $29.95

Reviewed by Gordon Berg

If the devil is truly in the details, Old Scratch is alive and well in the pages of Mark Lause’s meticulous investigation of the Confederate invasion of Missouri in September-October 1864, a last ditch attempt to liberate the state from occupying Union forces and restore its pro-secessionist government in the upcoming November elections.  Lause explains why the South failed to achieve any of its unrealistic strategic goals and vividly describes the reign of death and destruction that erupted along the path of the invaders.

The author of several authoritative Civil War books and a proud son of the Show Me state, Lause, at times, lets his encyclopedic knowledge of Major General Sterling Price’s invasion get in the way of effectively conveying the important story he has to tell. Part of a historian’s responsibility is to sift and winnow an immense amount of information and mold it into a well organized, tightly knit, narrative. The book is punctuated with information culled from local histories and contemporary newspaper accounts that seem to have only tangential connection to events Lause otherwise so ably chronicles.

When he is not regaling the reader with his erudition, Lause tells a compelling story and dispels many of the myths which have grown up surrounding this often marginalized campaign.  Civil War Missouri was, in many ways, unique.  It was a slave state with an ideologically divided populace that remained in the Union.  Large swaths of its territory had to be occupied by chronically undermanned Federal forces in order to protect loyal citizens from their secessionist-minded neighbors.  Guerrilla warfare had been endemic there since the border wars of the 1850s and personal feuds and revenge killings permeated the landscape.  

Into this unsettled environment Price brought about 12,000 mostly mounted men divided into three divisions commanded by Major Generals James F. Fagan, John S. Marmaduke, and Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby.  "Protected by the rugged terrain and official incredulity in the Union command,” Lause relates, “the Confederate advance moved North” toward St. Louis.  To meet the threat, Department of Missouri commander, Major General William S. Rosecrans initially had about 11,000 garrison troops and state militia units of varying ability and uncertain loyalty, disbursed throughout the state.  For a long time, Rosecrans didn’t believe reports about the size of the enemy force or its intended objective.  Lause comes down hard on Rosecrans and other Federal commanders, contending that they were more concerned with protecting the state’s business interests than tracking down a marauding army of ragtag proletarians who posed a very real threat to the state’s rural population.

Price’s men swarmed into Missouri like a plague of locusts, commandeering supplies, pilfering luxuries, conscripting “volunteers,” and murdering Unionists and anyone else deemed worth killing.  While Federal forces foundered around the state, “The Army of Missouri had burned the depots, tank, and auxiliary structures up the Iron Mountain Railroad, as well as the bridges between them.”  Set piece actions at Fort Davidson, Pilot Knob, Leasburg, and Jefferson City combined with the rolling tide of destruction Lause describes as being wrought on towns like Pacific, Potosi, Union, Bourbon, Stanton, Sullivan, and St. Clair.  

But of all the depredations committed during Price’s invasion, the assault on Centralia by the guerrilla band of William “Bloody Bill” Anderson has come through history as the most atrocious.  On September 27, Anderson and 80 men rode into town, “looted every house and pillaged the depot where they found a barrel of whiskey to ease their rounds.”  Into this maelstrom rolled the midday train.  After robbing the 125 passengers, Anderson’s men then shot all the uniformed men.  When Major A.V.E. Johnson’s three companies of the newly formed 39^th Missouri arrived, the guerrillas slaughtered them, too, bringing Federal casualties for the day to more than 150.  “What befell Johnson and his men,” Lause concludes, “demonstrated how far the war had grown beyond the question of how the southern states should respond to the 1860 elections.”

Not all the Federals were befuddled or ineffectual.  Brigadier General Thomas Ewing, Jr., and his significantly outnumbered command, put up a spirited and tactically effectively defense at Fort Davidson, delaying Price’s army during the first week of it’s campaign and giving Unionists in St. Louis time to prepare the city‘s defenses.  Brigadier General Egbert Brown, one of Rosecran’s district commanders, organized an effective defense of Jefferson City when Price switched his objective to the state capital.  “On the outskirts of Jefferson City, Price’s expedition became the ’raid’ it was never intended to be,” Lause concludes.  “There, the Army of Missouri surrendered its ambitions about recapturing the state to the pragmatic goal of plundering resources and moving on.”  By November 2, it was all over.  Finally pursued by Union forces, Price got what was left of his bedraggled army across the Red River, headed for Texas and safety. 

A campaign of propaganda and recrimination sprung up in the wake of Price’s retreat.  Lause maintains that “No Confederate force in the war so systematically and consistently left such a trail of bitterness in their wake.”  Radical Unionists dominated the November elections, Thomas Ewing briefly became a hero, and subsequent generations of Missourians chose to recast the bloody events of their state’s Civil War history into more traditional, honorable, terms.  Mark Lause challenges us all to see things more realistically. 

_____________________________________
Gordon Berg is a past President and member of the Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia (www.cwrtdc.org).  His reviews and articles appear in the Civil War Times and America's Civil War, among other publications.