logo
‘Midnight on the Potomac' Review: The Civil War's Last Gasp

‘Midnight on the Potomac' Review: The Civil War's Last Gasp

Twelve months before Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Union victory in the Civil War was far from certain. The capture of Vicksburg in 1863 had riven the Confederacy, but in the spring of 1864 Lee's Army of Northern Virginia remained a powerful force. Commander in Chief Abraham Lincoln worried not only about military prospects but also an impending presidential election in which he would face George B. McClellan, the popular Democratic candidate. Defeat would frustrate Lincoln's plans to stamp out the Southern rebellion, end slavery and reunite the nation.
The stakes are high in Scott Ellsworth's fast-paced 'Midnight on the Potomac: The Last Year of the Civil War, the Lincoln Assassination, and the Rebirth of America.' Mr. Ellsworth, a former historian at the Smithsonian Institution and the author of 'The Ground Breaking,' about the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, argues that, in early 1864, 'the fate of the United States of America lay in the balance.' He takes readers on an action-packed journey, beginning with the launch of Grant's Overland Campaign that spring and ending with Lincoln's shocking murder at Ford's Theatre one year later.
Mr. Ellsworth has crafted a suspenseful narrative brimming with engaging insights, highlighting some lesser-known historical episodes and individuals. For instance, most Americans think of Gettysburg as the war's deadliest battle: More than 51,000 soldiers perished, were wounded or went missing in July 1863 on the blood-soaked fields of Pennsylvania. But Mr. Ellsworth draws our attention to a different encounter. After Grant launched his Overland Campaign, the first two clashes between Gen. George Meade's Army of the Potomac and Lee's troops lasted from May 5 to May 21, 1864, and resulted in more than 60,000 casualties. 'Taken together as one single conflict,' Mr. Ellsworth writes, 'the bloody side-by-side battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania was the largest battle ever to occur in the Americas.'
Neither side could claim victory afterward, a fact that must have produced deep anxiety in Lincoln and the members of his administration. The president recognized, Mr. Ellsworth argues, that the war had become one of attrition and 'the trick now, as the summer weather rolled in, was to hang on.' But June and July brought new troubles. Munitions exploded at the Washington Arsenal on June 17, killing 21 workers and producing a damaging fire. The city came out in full force to honor the dead, with Lincoln joining the long march to the cemetery. One month later, Gen. Jubal Early brought his Confederate troops within 5 miles of the White House and contemplated an invasion to level the president's home as well as the U.S. Capitol. For unknown reasons, he decided not to attack. Union reinforcements reached the District of Columbia the following day and Early was forced to retreat. 'The audacious plan to capture Washington—and possibly end the war,' Mr. Ellsworth concludes, 'disappeared as quickly as it had begun.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SA fires back at US human rights report, calls it ‘fact-free' hypocrisy
SA fires back at US human rights report, calls it ‘fact-free' hypocrisy

News24

timea minute ago

  • News24

SA fires back at US human rights report, calls it ‘fact-free' hypocrisy

SA rejected the state department's human rights report as 'deeply flawed' and accused US of using distorted facts. The dispute centres on US claims about farmworker killings and land expropriation while cases are still in courts. Report highlights US hypocrisy by America which withdrew from UN Human Rights Council. South Africa has launched a scathing counterattack against the US, rejecting a damning human rights report as 'deeply flawed' and turning the spotlight on America's record in a dramatic diplomatic showdown that exposes the politics behind international criticism. On Tuesday, the department of International relations and cooperation registered 'profound disappointment' with the US state department's recent human rights assessment, which claimed SA's situation had 'significantly worsened' and accused government of taking 'substantially worrying steps towards land expropriation of Afrikaners'. Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for International Relations and Co-operation Minister Ronald Lamola, expressed fury over what he called fundamental distortions, including the US citing a case where farmworkers were allegedly killed and fed to pigs as an 'extrajudicial killing' despite the matter being actively adjudicated by SA's independent judiciary. The report's reliance on a-contextual information and distorted facts is highly concerning. We register our profound disappointment with this report. We reject it, it's inaccurate and deeply flawed. This is not only premature but a fundamental distortion of the facts, as the individuals are formally arraigned before a court of law. Chrispin Phiri In a pointed counterattack, SA questioned America's moral authority to judge other nations, highlighting that the US had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council and 'therefore no longer sees itself accountable in a multilateral peer review system'. Significant and documented concerns about human rights within the US, including the treatment of refugees and breaches in due process by its agencies, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. According to The Guardian newspaper, the controversy reflects a broader pattern under Donald Trump's administration, which has dramatically softened criticism of some countries that have been strong partners of the Republican president, such as El Salvador and Israel, which rights groups say have well-established histories of abuses. Instead, the US state department has 'stepped-up criticism of Brazil and SA, both of which Washington has clashed with over a host of issues'. The publication noted that criticism of governments over LGBTQ+ rights, prominent in former president Joe Biden administration's reports, 'appeared to have been largely omitted' from Trump's version. The diplomatic spat highlights stark contradictions in international assessments. While the US condemned the Land Expropriation Act, the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva, Switzerland, praised the same legislation as a 'critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership'. This recognition from the UN's primary human rights body underscores the integrity of our legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner. Chrispin Phiri The US report accused SA of multiple violations, including arbitrary killings, detention, repression of racial minorities and inflammatory rhetoric against the Afrikaners. It claimed government failed to take 'credible steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses'. However, SA pointed to its transparency. Transparent systems, where information is freely available from our law enforcement agencies and Chapter 9 institutions, which are constitutionally mandated to protect and advance human rights. The controversy extends beyond SA. In Brazil, where Trump has clashed with the government over former president Jair Bolsonaro's legal troubles, the US found the human rights situation had declined after previously reporting 'no significant changes'. Trump has called Bolsonaro's prosecution for allegedly conspiring to overturn his 2022 election loss a 'witch-hunt' and threatened 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods. SA announced it would release 'a set of documents for public perusal during the week' to provide 'a complete and accurate picture' and counter what it called US distortions. Government pointed to reports from reputable sources, including the AFP fact-checks and BBC coverage, as evidence supporting their position on contested cases. The diplomatic clash reveals how human rights assessments have become increasingly politicised tools in international relations, with countries using moral authority as leverage against rivals while protecting allies from similar scrutiny.

Gavin Newsom Just Announced California Is Drawing New Electoral Maps In The Most Hilarious Way
Gavin Newsom Just Announced California Is Drawing New Electoral Maps In The Most Hilarious Way

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gavin Newsom Just Announced California Is Drawing New Electoral Maps In The Most Hilarious Way

Gavin Newsom has announced that California will draw new electoral maps. On Monday, he sent a letter to Donald Trump, essentially warning that unless Texas backed down, he'd be forced to redraw California's maps: "If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states. But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it." GovPressOffice/Twitter: @GovPressOffice Related: He also started tweeting EXACTLY like him. It started with a 24-hour warning. Related: "DONALD TRUMP HAS 24 HOURS LEFT TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S LETTER. IF HE DOES NOT STAND DOWN, THERE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." He followed that up the next day with another warning: "DONALD TRUMP, THE LOWEST POLLING PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY, THIS IS YOUR SECOND-TO-LAST WARNING!!! (THE NEXT ONE IS THE LAST ONE!). STAND DOWN NOW OR CALIFORNIA WILL COUNTER-STRIKE (LEGALLY!) TO DESTROY YOUR ILLEGAL CROOKED MAPS IN RED STATES. PRESS CONFERENCE COMING — HOSTED BY AMERICA'S FAVORITE GOVERNOR, GAVIN NEWSOM. FINAL WARNING NEXT. YOU WON'T LIKE IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." Related: That evening, he issued his final warning: "FINAL WARNING DONALD TRUMP — MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT WARNING IN HISTORY! STOP CHEATING OR CALIFORNIA WILL REDRAW THE MAPS. AND GUESS WHO WILL ANNOUNCE IT THIS WEEK? GAVIN NEWSOM (MANY SAY THE MOST LOVED & HANDSOME GOVERNOR) AND A VERY POWERFUL TEAM. DON'T MAKE US DO IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." And boom, just like that, after that 24-hour deadline, he tweeted: "DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA.' THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! — GN" Related: From the "MORE BEAUTIFUL MAPS" line to the multiple exclamation points to the classic THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!" I'm sorry, but he nailed it. As this person said, "If you can't beat em, join em (in their style of writing.)" Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:

Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store