Oliver Otis Howard: A Great American, Term Paper Example

There are generally two means with which to analyze the historical significance of an individual, although these means are ultimately fundamentally interrelated. Firstly, there is the largely empirical sense in which a particular individual shapes the course of history, making fundamental decisions that affect the lives of the multitude: in this case, existential choices register themselves beyond the individual life that makes them and determines those around them in a profound manner. Secondly, there is another means of becoming historically pertinent, whereby the individual decisions made during the course of a life somehow anticipate the social normativities and the ethical discourses that make up the time period which seeks to look back at the historical figure: in this case, we can retroactively understand these existential decisions as having been the right decisions, insofar as they set a standard to which others should aspire. The difference between these two approaches allows us to consider someone to be a “great” historical figure: they not only influence history, but create a set of normativities that retroactively we can view as having been correct. Oliver Otis Howard is one such historical personage. Not only was he an important figure in the American military history of the nineteenth century, making substantial contributions as a general to the Union Army during the Civil war, but moreover, Howard’s life is perhaps more significant as a champion of equal rights between the races. Howard thus anticipates the logic of the social values that we take for granted today: an equality that applies to all. Yet in the context of his day, such social normativity’s were not as self-evident as they seem to be in the early twenty first century, but rather were merely one set of values existing amongst a complicated and antagonistic ideological terrain. Howard’s ethical commitments are thus what primarily make him relevant as a significant historical figure.

Certainly, such ethical commitments that Howard made explicit throughout his life occurred in a context that allowed for his own individual ideological choices to reverberate on a greater social scale. Howard was a life-long military man, serving in the U.S. military. What makes Howard a significant historical figure in the sense of a great historical figure, however, is not found in his military ventures. Historians have, for example, classified Howard as a “competent but unspectacular general.” (Eicher, 182) This is because of the various failures in his career, which are explained below. Certainly, Howard’s military career can be considered successful to the extent that he rose to the rank of general and played a significant role in the Civil War. In particular, Howard was active in two of the crucial battles of this conflict, that of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg respectively. Yet both of these conflicts resulted in Union defeats, as Howard’s “Civil War generalship proved mediocre, and he was routed at the Battle of Chancellorsville.” (Fredriksen, 348) Howard’s shortcomings as a military officer during the Civil War were both strategic and tactical: he did not possess the thorough military mind of his contemporaries, such that his defeat in Chancellorsville resulted from “fail(ing) to adequately protect his left flank.” (Fredriksen, 350) Furthermore, at Gettybsurg, Howard was “driven out of the town” (Fredriken, 350), by the Confederate forces, resulting in his dismissal and the decision to appoint an “officer with less seniority, Winfield Scott Hancock, to command the field.” (Fredriksen, 350) Accordingly, from the perspective of military history, in which military genius is ultimately only evaluated in terms of victories and defeats, Howard has not received an overwhelmingly positive reception, as he is most often associated with significant losses for the Union side during the Civil War.

Nevertheless, what makes Howard a compelling figure in U.S. history is that he has emerged as an important historical personage precisely in spite of his performances in the Civil War as a commander, which have been largely labeled mediocre and uninspiring in the military historical literature. Howard, rather, although viewed as a military man, is more importantly received as representing a certain uncompromising ethical position, an ethical position which foreshadows the notion of the universality of the rights of man that would become a key ethical component of Western political and ethical discourses in the twentieth century. Howard’s ethical position, in particular towards minorities such as blacks and the Native Americans, was one of a radical social justice and the envisioning of an America that was fundamentally inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Howard’s worldview stemmed from his Christian religious beliefs, as he was considered as being both a “humanitarian and deeply religious leader who gained a reputation as the “Christian soldier.”” (Fredriksen, 349) Accordingly, Howard gained respect in the military, social and political contexts not because of his particular achievements in the field of military practice, but rather because of an underlying ethical belief system that seemed to transcend his particular professional and occupational position.

The respect which Howard had garnered as a “Christian soldier” is made clear by events in the period after the Civil War. Despite the aforementioned defeats and the somewhat humiliating (from a military perspective) stripping of his authoritative power after the Gettysburg catastrophe, Howard nonetheless remained a significant figure in the American political and military apparatus. Howard was named the “commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau in 1866”, an organ intended to “address the needs of refugees and freedmen within the states under reconstruction.” (Santoro, 93) Accordingly, the Freedmen’s Bureau was a government initiative conceived along broader humanitarian principles: after the defeat of the Confederates, it was not merely enough to declare the end of slavery and take a laissez-faire approach, but rather for the government to become actively involved and attempt to make the transition to a nation not based on slave labor for its economy as smooth as possible for the former slaves. That Howard was appointed the head of the Freedmen’s Bureau clearly expresses the high regard which his contemporaries held for his moral character. Hence, in the context of a post-war environment, it seems that to quell any lingering tensions between the South and the North, the decision that a more moderate figure should be the head of the Freedmen’s bureau would be a more rationale and common sense choice: Certainly, from the perspectives of those who opposed abolition, the appointing of Howard to the head of the Freedmen’s bureau could be viewed as a provocation. The fact that Howard was nevertheless chosen to this position demonstrates that his contemporaries considered him to be an authoritative moral figure, more reminiscent of a philosopher than a warrior. Whereas questions may have lingered about his competence as a military commander, it was clear that there were no questions concerning his ethical stance and the strength of his convictions. This is made all the more clear by the fact that it was General Ulysses H. Grant, future president, who recommended Howard to the position of commissioner. (Santoro, 93)

Howard proved to be a “radical on racial issues and advocated voting rights for former slaves and distribution of former plantation lands to them.” (Fredriksen, 351) This is demonstrated with what he endeavored to accomplish on the Freedmen’s Bureau. The policies Howard introduced as the commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau anticipate contemporary discourses about social rights without exception. The “basic policy which Howard laid down for the Freedmen’s bureau” (Santoro, 93) was as follows: “assure to the former slaves equal rights under the law, extend to them every possible educational advantage, and bring the work of the Bureau to an end as quickly as safety for the Negro would permit.” (Santoro, 93) In the post-war period, these policy decisions by Howard seem radically ambitious. Despite a delicate political situation throughout the United States after the South’s defeat in the Civil War, Howard did not envision the need for any type of compromise. He wanted to eliminate as quickly as possible the slavery legacy of the American state, fully integrating the African-American into United States society, and thereby create a generally inclusive society. Howard considered, therefore, that the African-American could make rapid and relevant contributions to American society: there was no discourse of inferiority in Howard’s approach, as he essentially adhered to a principle that “all men are created equal.” All that was needed was the opportunity, an equal playing field. Hence, one of the crucial legacies of Howard’s policy for the Bureau was the establishment of Howard University in 1867, only one year after his appointment to head of the Freedmen’s Bureau. The university, obviously, was “named in his honor”, and he “served as president of the university from 1869-1873.” (Santoro, 93)

Part of the logic behind Howard’s belief that such ambitious policy decisions could be realized despite a devastating war that had only recently concluded can be traced back to his Christian values. Howard embodied a radical sense of Christian equality, believing not only in the need for universal equality, but also that the majority of human beings are fundamentally ethical in character. This was demonstrated in his actions that emphasized Christian ideas of brotherhood and the equality of man: “He believed that the Southern whites, or at least a sufficient number of them, through their humanitarian instincts and sense of fair-play, or if not that, through enlightened self-interest would deal fairly and justly with the freedman, would aid in his education, and would give him the same civil and legal rights as the white man.” (Carpenter, 93) Whereas more cynical individuals would perhaps consider Howard’s views to be fundamentally naïve, Howard’s ethical commitments were entirely sincere: this is evinced by the respect he garnered throughout the military as the “Christian soldier.” By believing the South would receive the freedman, Howard demonstrated a fundamental Christian value of forgiving, thus demonstrating his belief that all men on an essential level believe in the universality of human rights.

Howard thus designates a Great American, not because of the successes or the failures he experienced in his particular field, that of the military. Rather, his singular contribution lies in the steadfastness of an ethical commitment to the universality of human rights. For example, Howard’s aforementioned policies as part of the Freedmen’s Bureau and his aforementioned opinion that Southern whites also fundamentally believed in these same rights show a viewpoint of man that does not make distinctions along cultural, economic or racial lines. Certainly, many historical figures have their own ethical worldviews which they attempt to make a reality. But what makes Howard so decisive is that his ethics wholly anticipate the value systems that we hold to be self-evident and commonsensical today. Howard is a Great American because he believed in these commitments at a time when they were not unanimous. Yet through this belief he provided the foundations for a future society in which such an ethical framework is, in fact, possible.

Works Cited

Carpenter, John A. Sword and Olive Branch: Oliver O. Howard. New York: Fordham University Press, 1999.

Eicher, David J. The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibiliography. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, 1997.

Fredriksen, John C. American Military Leaders. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1999.

Santoro, Nicholas J. Atlas of Slavery and Civil Rights: An Annotated Chronicle of the  Passage from Slavery and Segregation to Civil Rights and Equality Under Law. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2006.