Thursday, January 9, 2014

Confederate Torpedoes or What We Call "Land Mines"





            On May 14, 1862, the Democrat and Sentinel printed dispatches from the War Department detailing the events of the recent engagement that occurred nine days earlier between the Union forces of Major General George B. McClellan and the Confederate forces of Major General James Longstreet near Williamsburg, Virginia. Nearly 32,000 Confederate forces had retreated from Yorktown when they were engaged by Hooker’s division. Longstreet counterattacked the advancing enemy and even threatened to overwhelm their numerically stronger force; but in the end, the battle would be considered a draw as the Confederates continued their withdrawal from the area during the night. However, before the Confederates would turn over the field of battle to the Union soldiers, they would leave behind several surreptitiously placed torpedoes that would herald in a new type of modern warfare.  
            McClellan reported that “the Rebels have been guilty of the most murderous and barbarous conduct in placing torpedoes within the abandoned works, near wells, near springs, near flag staffs, magazines and telegraph offices, in carpet bags, barrels of flour, etc.”[1] These torpedoes were not self-propelled metal tubes filled with explosives launched from a naval vessel, but they were stationary devices buried in the earth and rigged to explode on the slightest contact.[2] The Confederates would basically create the modern land mine. Union soldiers described the torpedoes as improvised explosives made from either “mortar or columbiad shells armed with friction primer fuses.”[3] As the Union soldiers advanced on the abandoned Confederate positions near Williamsburg, they triggered many of the mines by stumbling on the exposed wires attached to the fuses.[4] Union Colonel Charles Wainwright described the situation in more detail: “All that was visible was a foot or two of telegraph wire sticking out of the ground, the idea seeming to be that men or horse would get entangled, and so pull the wire, which was to fire the torpedo.”[5]
Union sources claim that the Confederates placed mines on the roads approaching the former Confederate position for up to three miles away.[6] The torpedoes were not only designed to explode when snagged by a passing infantryman on the march, but the Confederates also booby-trapped “any place that was likely to be visited by our men [Union forces].”[7] “Canteens, articles of clothing, and equipment were thrown aside to tempt the unwary relic-seeker; but the person who picked them up pulled the wire or cord which was fastened to the cap of a hidden shell.”[8]

 Confederate Brigadier General Gabriel J. Rains, the man attributed with developing the mines, reported to his superiors that he McClellan had exaggerated about the amount of explosives planted in the area before their retreat.[9] Rains explained that “wells, springs of water, barrels of flour, carpet-bags, &c. are places incompatible with the invention.”[10] Rains would downplay the extent of the mining operation most likely for fear of punishment from the Confederate high command in Richmond, who would first hear of the weapons use in newspapers days after the battle.[11] Rains admitted that he used “some four small shells…hastily prepared by my efforts” to cover their retreat and slow the enemy’s advance to give more time for the “sick, wounded, and enfeebled” to reach safety.[12] He also saw nothing morally wrong with the hidden mines, since Union forces were shelling civilian areas with “death-dealing fragments.”[13] Leadership on both sides of the war would agree with Rain, and both sides had men who would disagree with his weapon.
The Confederate Secretary of War George W. Randolph argued, “It is not admissible in civilized warfare to plant shells merely to destroy life and without other design than that of depriving your enemy of a few men, without materially injuring him.”[14] Rain would be arrested for his use of his explosive weapons at Williamsburg, but would be released shortly afterwards without a trial.[15] The Confederate government would have Rain organize the Torpedo Bureau in October 1862, where he would work with other specialists to engineer sophisticated water mines to guard the Confederate coasts and rivers.[16] These were the same weapons famously cursed by Union Rear Admiral David G. Glasgow Farragut at Mobile Bay in August 1864: “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”[17]

 Despite everyone’s disgust of seeing such weapons used on the field, both sides would move forward with their development and use. Both sides would also employ similar tactics in their removal from the field to protect their own troops, captured prisoners. Not long after the explosion of the first triggered mine, possibly killing Oliver H. Sargent,” a member of the 22nd Massachusetts [who] participated in the opening siege at Yorktown, Virginia,” Union forces set out disable the new weapon.[18] Soon after the fighting stopped, the Union forces captured a “free colored man” named Thomas G. Wright, who warned the commanding officer that their forces were in “grave danger of being destroyed.”[19] He went on to explain that he was forced under gun point to plant the mines by Confederate officers and explained where he had placed them “from Lee’s Mill to Causinham’s Battery practically in a straight line from Warwick River to the York River.”[20] McClellan employed Wright at $25 a day[21] to remove the explosives and had Confederate prisoners remove them “at their own peril.”[22]


Major General William T. Sherman would not disagree with the placement of mines to “retard the advance of the enemy,” but he would object to their placement in “occupied areas.”[23] He threatened: “Now if torpedoes are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to [be] put on the ground and tested by wagonloads of prisoners, or, if need be, citizens implicated in their use.”[24] In Fort McAllister State Park, there is a historical marker erected to inform tourists that on December 13, 1864, Sherman “personally gave orders that the captured Confederate garrison be required to remove the unexploded mines.”[25]
            Modern warfare would be forever changed with General Rain’s implantation of the land mine during the War Between the States. He would later make a statement that would be extremely accurate: “There is no fixed rule to determine the ethics of war….Each new weapon, in its turn, when first introduced, was denounced as illegal and barbarous, yet each took its place according to its efficacy in human slaughter….”[26]


[1] George McClellan, “The Pursuit of the Rebels,” Democrat and sentinel (Ebensburg, Pa.), 14 May 1862, accessed January 6, 2014. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86071378/1862-05-14/ed-1/seq-1/.
[2] Webb Garrison, Civil War Curiosities, (Nashville: Rutledge Hill Press, 1994), 149.
[3] Norman Youngblood, The Development of Mine Warfare: A Most Murderous and Barbarous Conduct, (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2006), 40.
[4] Heyward Emmell, The Civil War Journal of Private Heyward Emmell, Ambulance and Infantry Corps: A Very Disagreeable War, ed. Jim Malcolm (Lanham: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2011), 20.
[5] Norman Youngblood, The Development of Mine Warfare, 40.
[6] Henry N. Blake, Three Years in the Army of the Potomac, (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1865), 67.
[7] Norman Youngblood, The Development of Mine Warfare, 40.
[8] Henry N. Blake, Three Years in the Army of the Potomac, 67.
[9] Norman Youngblood, The Development of Mine Warfare, 41.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Michael Morgan, “The Confederacy increasingly used crude but effective land ‘torpedoes’ against the enemy,” Americas’ Civil War Vol. 15 Issue 5 (2002): 26.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Norman Youngblood, The Development of Mine Warfare, 41.
[16] Angus Konstam, Confederate Submarines and Torpedo Vessels 1861-65, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004), 23.
[17] Webb Garrison, Civil War Curiosities, 149.
[18] “Sargent, Oliver H.,” accessed on January 6, 2014. http://scdb.swem.wm.edu/?p=creators/creator&id=3237.
[19] U.S. Senate. 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, Marcus D. Wright, Executor, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1914, (Serial Set 518).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] George McClellan, “The Pursuit of the Rebels,” Democrat and sentinel.
[23] Michael Morgan, “The Confederacy increasingly used crude but effective land ‘torpedoes’ against the enemy,” 26.
[24] Ibid.
[25] “GeorgiaInfo,” accessed on January 6, 2014. http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/gahistmarkers/confedlandmineshistmarker.htm.
[26] Michael Morgan, “The Confederacy increasingly used crude but effective land ‘torpedoes’ against the enemy,” 26.

Friday, January 3, 2014

The Right to Secede




The debate over the legal right of secession has been disputed prior to and after the War Between the States (a more accurate term for the Civil War, since “a civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government,” and the South was only reasserting their independence from the Union).[1] Before that bloody war, secession had been threatened by the States over several issues besides slavery. Both the Northerners and Southerners contemplated secession over the issues of high protectionist tariffs, newly acquired land from the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War, and due to economic concerns over the disruptions to trade during the War of 1812.[2] Except for the colonies secession from Great Brittan during the Revolutionary War, only the theory of secession or the right to secede had been debated on up until several States actually seceded in 1861. The legality of the right of secession is often overshadowed by the evils of slavery when the War Between the States is discussed today, but it is still a topic addressed by modern day scholars.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and the colonies declared that they had a right to secede from Great Britain on the premise that when “any Form of Government becomes destructive…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”[3] What would later become known as the United States of America was established on a principle that people have the natural right to secede from tyrannical rule. For seventy-eight years after independence was declared, citizens from the various States would generally accept that they had a right to secede as a last resort when all other appeals to constitutional law failed. There would also be opponents to the idea of secession and their numbers would grow as the war for Southern independence neared. In the book, A Platform for All Parties, written in 1860, the argument on the legality of secession was clearly being debated: “Some say they have no right to secede, and they must be prevented by force from seceding. Others say they have a right to secede, and ought not to be prevented in any way. Mr. Buchanan says they have no right to secede, and we have no right to prevent them. The ‘Tribune’ says they have no right to secede, and we have a right to prevent them, but it will be inexpedient to exercise it.”[4]
Even after 150 years, there are still debates over whether the South or any state had a right then or even now a right to secede from the Union. Division over the meaning of the government and its role or power has been debated ever since its establishment after the Revolutionary War. As the role and purpose of government has changed over time, so has the philosophy of the right to secede. Today’s scholars of history and law are also divided over this argument.
Daniel A. Farber, has agreed with one lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, in that the States never had a right to secede in 1861 or any time after the citizens of the colonies gained their independence from England. In his article, “Much Older than the Constitution”: Lincoln’s Theory of Nationhood, he recounts Lincoln’s argument that the “Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.”[5] Lincoln would use the argument that the Union existed before the States, thus they were never sovereign and never had a right to secede. Farber also points out that Lincoln would argue that the creation of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation was to create a “more perfect Union.”[6] This point would give Lincoln the precedence he needed to say that secession would destroy that perfect union, and thus it was illegal. The lawyer from Illinois would create a chicken or the egg debate over State’s rights and secession.
 On the contrary opinion, Wesley Riddle, would argue in his article, Secession and the Moral Compact, that “No state ever voluntarily joined the Union to destroy what was unique about itself.”[7] He acknowledges that the Founders saw government as a necessary evil that needed to be limited in its power. The founding generation carefully chose the word federalism to describe the government during the constitutional convention for its Latin meaning of covenant. A covenant is a contract between two parties, and in this case, a contract between the federal government and the State governments. As with any contract, if either side was to break the agreement, the contract would dissolve. Riddle continues to illustrate why any State, which felt that if the original contract was broken, would be justified in withdrawing from the Union. “States joined to enhance or secure their uniqueness and to improve social conditions voluntarily over time…joining the national political Union was meant to insure societal independence. States were supposed to govern themselves differently, because their people and their circumstances differed.”[8]
In the case of a broken contract, often the matter is reviewed in a legal setting to determine the validity of the claim and to conclude a settlement. There were individuals in the antebellum period that agreed with the right of secession, but felt that no State would be justified in seceding without first there being a review of their claim of an infraction. John Thompson Brown spoke on this particular issue to the House of Delegates of Virginia and said, “When a State, alleging a wilful and material breach of the compact, should determine to secede, it would devolve on the twenty-three co-states to decide for themselves, whether they had, through their agent, the General Government, violated the compact to such an extent as to justify the withdrawal of the complaining State.”[9] This philosophy that all efforts must be taken to resolve the matter, especially political matters, through serious review and discussion before swords are drawn, is consistent with the role of the ancient Roman Fetials. The Greek historian, Plutarch, said that the duty of these special priests were to “put a stop to disputes by conference and by speech; for it was not allowable to take up arms until they had declared all hopes of accommodation to be at an end.”[10]
Attempts were made between the North and South to reconcile their differences and uphold the contract established through the Constitution; but a culmination of issues from perceived infringements of civil liberties, unconstitutional abuses of government authority, and uncompromising politicians would close the doors to further discussions. This came during the second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress when they formed the Committee of Thirteen, with the sole purpose to find a resolution to the growing problems between the North and South.[11] The committee primarily considered the compromise proposed by John J. Crittenden, Senator from Kentucky, to extend the Missouri Compromise line to California effectively extending slavery into the newly acquired territories.[12] On this issue, the Republican Party would not bend and inch; but not necessarily for humanitarian beliefs that all men are created equal, since Illinois Senator Lyman Trumball declared that “we, the Republican Party, are the white man’s party. We are for the free white man, and for making white labor acceptable and honorable, which it can never be when Negro slave labor is brought into competition with it.”[13] Southerners would see this as an attack against property rights, which the Constitution protected.
There were many attempts to reconcile the various issues from high protectionist tariffs, slavery, central banking, etc. over the years since the ratification of the Constitution; but by 1860, with the election of a Republican Party president, whose party’s first act was to pass the Morrill Tariff bill, “which proposed raising the tariff rate by as much as 250 percent on some items,”[14] many in the South had had enough. Regardless of all the complex issues, this uncompromising attitude would be the last straw for many in the Deep South. South Carolina and the other six States of the Deep South felt that the federal government and the various Northern States had violated their agreed upon contract.
Clearly, the topic of the right of a State to secede is still as hot a topic as it was during the War Between the States and before. There are people on both sides of the aisle contesting both viewpoints, and even though the smoke from the battlefield has cleared nearly 150 years ago, the war of words on the issue continue. Even Lincoln himself would reside on either side of the argument: “Any people, anywhere, being inclined, and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”[15] 





[1] Walter E. Williams, "States should challenge federal acts,"  Human Events 54, no. 49 (1998): 17.
[2] H.W. Croker III, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008), p. 19.
[3] “The Declaration of Independence,” The National Archives, accessed on January 1, 2014, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.               
[4] Austro Borealis, A Platform for All Parties, (Baltimore: J.P. Des Forges, 1860), 13.
[5] Daniel A Farber, "’Much Older than the Constitution’: Lincoln's Theory of Nationhood," OAH Magazine Of History 21, no. 1 (2007): 14.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Wesley Allen Riddle, "Secession and the moral compact," Vital Speeches Of The Day 61, no. 20 (1995): 636.
[8] Ibid.
[9] John Thompson Brown, Speech of John Thompson Brown (of Petersburg,) in the House of Delegates of Virginia, in Committee of the Whole, on the State of the Relations Between the United States and South Carolina, (Richmond: Thomas W. White, 1833), 27.
[10] Steve Bonta, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic: Lessons for Modern America, (Appleton, The John Birch Society, 2006), 5.
[11] William J. Cooper, Jr., "The Critical Signpost on the Journey Toward Secession," Journal Of Southern History 77, no. 1 (2011): 8.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Crocker, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, 10.
[14] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002), 127.
[15] David W. Bartlett, The life and public services of Hon. Abraham Lincoln: to which is added a Biographical Sketch of Hon. Hannibal Hamlin, (New York: A.B. Burdick, 1860), 332.