Elizabeth D. Leonard

Covers the history of black troops in the US army during the latter part of the 19th century – from the end of the Civil War through the “Indian Wars” years. (There’s some mention of blacks fighting in the Revolution and the War of 1812, and in the Spanish-American War, but these are outside the main focus). Author Elizabeth Leonard contrasts Frederick Douglas’ impassioned speech “Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters US; let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder, and bullets in his pocket, and there is no power on earth or under the earth which deny that he has earned the right of citizenship in the United States” with what actually happened.

Starting with the Civil War, Leonard contrasts the service of the United States Colored Troops during the war with their exclusion from the grand victory parade in Washington. I think Leonard might be exaggerating a bit here; other accounts of the Grand Review mention black pioneer units marching at the head of each division in Sherman’s Army of the West on the second day of the Grand Review.

Leonard continues with black service in the infantry and cavalry during the Indian wars. Of interest is Leonard’s eschewal of the common term “Buffalo Soldiers”; although it’s usually considered a complement, Leonard isn’t sure and uses “Black Regulars” instead.

I note Leonard has praise for Richard Henry Pratt. Pratt was a veteran of the black Tenth Cavalry, as a white officer, and took extremely egalitarian attitudes for the time, commenting that “… the Negro {was entitled} to be treated in every way as other citizens…”, that the Army should be integrated, and even supporting intermarriage: “…if individuals see their affinities crossing the races, that is, in my judgement, entirely their affair.” The catch is Pratt is notorious for founding the Carlisle Indian School, infamous for stripping Native Americans of their culture. The Indian School actually fits with Pratt’s expressed ideas about racial equality – essentially that American citizen would blend together, not remain diverse. (Leonard notes that Pratt’s ideas mesh with those expressed by Frederick Douglas when Douglas spoke of a “composite” American culture).

Pratt’s suggestion that the Army be integrated was actually proposed in 1874; Congress was interested in reducing the military and it was suggested that the black regiments be disbanded and future Army recruits be selected without regard to race. Ironically blacks and their supporters opposed this idea, supposing (probably correctly) that recruiters would choose only white applicants. The bills for Army desegregation were rejected.

Pretty enlightening. As mentioned, I’m a little skeptical of Leonard’s comments about Sherman’s “pioneers”; otherwise everything is scholarly and thoroughly researched. Appropriate illustrations; endnotes.… (más)

Yet another example of a somewhat unconventional angle on the Lincoln assassination, this book explores the aftermath of the president's murder by focusing on judge advocate general Joseph Holt, the man responsible for the prosecution of the conspirators. Leonard also places the trial and subsequent legal proceedings concerning John Surratt, Jr. and Jefferson Davis in the context of the early Reconstruction period, which offers a very useful narrative framework.

Well researched and a lively read; recommended.… (más)

This is a non-fiction examination of 3 different northern women who became active in supporting the civil war effort. One served as an army nurse, one as an organizer of a relief effort to provide supplies to soldiers, the third as a medical doctor. The author's main focus was on the gender roles of middle-class people before, during, and after the war. I thought she did an adequate job of demonstrating that middle class women before the war were expected to provide care and nurturing to their families and communities, but were not permitted to be active outside this protective sphere, and certainly not allowed to perform services for pay. During the war, women wanted to become involved in the union cause, and were able to make a case that nursing and providing other kinds of charitable support (providing food, clothing, medical supplies, etc) to the soldiers from local regiments fell within the socially acceptable roles they had been allotted. However the question of receiving a salary for performing "women's work" was a controversial one. But while the upper class ladies could afford to volunteer their services, the middle class women had families to support while their husbands and fathers were away fighting. They were WILLING to serve, but could not AFFORD to do so unless they were paid. Lower class women do not figure into this argument at all - they were forced to work for pay even before the war. The arguments became more convoluted when the facts revealed that men serving in these roles during the war received salaries as a matter of course, that the women were doing excellent work - even compared to the men, and that allowing women to perform these supporting tasks freed men up for more active military duties.

The third example, the woman doctor, did not follow the same eventual course to acceptance. However, I never fully understood whether Leonard believed this to be due to the higher level of skill and responsibility involved in her work compared to the other ladies, or whether it was due to the particular traits of this one woman. By all accounts, she was "odd" and did little to cause others to want to accept her.

The last part of the book consists of an examination of the postwar historical writings about the role of women during the war. Leonard seems to believe that most of society (that is, the men) just wanted the women to go back to the way they were before, and tried to write the histories to indicate that this is exactly what happened. In fact, it was not exactly what happened. Because of their efforts during the civil war, professional nursing and charitable organizational work became acceptable for middle class women. On the other hand, the case of female medical doctors was a different matter. For any number of reasons, female (or negro) medical doctors were not generally accepted until the mid-20th century - many years after the civil war ended.

It was this last section of the book that broke down for me. I'm not sure what points she kept trying to make, but the last 30 or 40 pages seemed very repetitive. No new arguments made, no new conclusions reached. The book has extensive footnotes and bibliography, which I admittedly did not examine closely. The book isn't long - only 200 pages of text - but I found it slow going. The writing seems forced and wooden, more like the regurgitation of facts by a student than the authoritative assertion and support of a theory by an expert in the field that I would have prefered. However, the topic and facts were new to me so I am able to rate the book 3 stars. Someone who is more familiar with the subject might rate it differently.… (más)