Source: Painting by Richard Caton Woodville, 1848 via Wikimedia (Public Domain)
In the spring and summer of 1863, Union General Ulysses S. Grant laid siege to the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg, Mississippi. During the 47 days of the siege, the city was bombarded every day, and civilians and the rebel soldiers defending the town struggled to keep their spirits up.
One main means of bolstering morale as the siege dragged on was the town’s last remaining newspaper, the Vicksburg Daily Citizen.
A Confederate Newspaper Helps Keep Up Morale
The publisher of the Daily Citizen was J. M. Swords, a man thoroughly committed to the Confederate cause. He understood the role his paper played in maintaining morale among citizens and soldiers alike, and was determined to keep publishing even as the city suffered under continuous bombing from the Union army and navy.
As the siege continued, with the Union forces maintaining a blockade that prevented any supplies from getting into the city, the shortage of food for both citizens and soldiers became acute. When all available beef had been consumed, the population turned to other sources of meat.
As inhabitants were reduced to eating first mules, then dogs, cats, and even rats, the Daily Citizen did its best to keep up their will to resist by making light of their predicament:
We Should Be Erecting Statues of Ulysses Grant, Not Tearing Them Down
The protestors who pulled down a statue of Grant got it totally wrong!
In June of 2020, during the protests sparked by the killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd, activists tore down a statue of Ulysses S. Grant in San Francisco. As a reflection of our national commitment to rid the land of monuments that glorify those who fought to maintain slavery, racial discrimination, and white supremacy, their zeal is commendable. But their apparent lack of historical understanding is not.
What seemingly raised the ire of the protestors who pulled down the Grant statue was the fact that at one point in his life Grant owned a single slave. But if that fact is used to characterize Grant’s entire life and historical persona, the perspective it provides is almost entirely false.
When it comes to his attitude toward African Americans before and during the Civil War, and his efforts as President to gain fair treatment for them in the post-war South, Grant was, in his time, a powerful force for good.
Continue reading →