A Kentucky Editor on the Emancipation Proclamation

Kentucky, being a slave state that remained in the Union, found itself in a unique position when the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. The Bluegrass State, like Maryland and Missouri, felt that its slave interest could best be protected in the Union rather than out, so when the non-border slave states seceded, Kentucky remained. And, although Kentucky was not subject to Lincoln's edict, it realized that it would probably only be a matter of time before emancipation would make its way to the commonwealth.

Recently I found an article in the January 5, 1863 edition of the Frankfort Tri-Weekly Commonwealth that vehemently expressed what was probably the majority of white Kentuckians' feelings about the Emancipation Proclamation.

The editor of the Tri-Weekly Commonwealth explained that, "We have expressed our condemnation of this highhanded assumption of power by President Lincoln, in almost every issue of our paper since the appearance of his Proclamation on the 22d of September last [1862]." The following published article originally ran in the Louisville Democrat on January 3, 1863, but as the Commonwealth's editor explained, the article "so fully expresses our own opinions upon this subject, that we adopt them as our own:"

"The President's proclamation has come to hand at last. We scarcely know how to express our indignation at this flagrant outrage of all Constitutional law, all human justice, all Christian feeling. Our very soul revolts at contemplating an atrocity so heinous, and the feeling is intensified at the indelible disgrace which it fixes upon our country. To think that we, who have been the foremost in the grand march of civilization, should be so disgraced by an imbecile President as to be made to appear before the world as the encourager of insurrection, lust, arson, and murder! The people have condemned this in advance, and the President has raised a storm that will overwhelm him. It is not in the rebellious States he has to fear most, but the true, loyal States will not suffer their fame to be stained by him. It is not enough that Kentucky is exempt from its force; not enough that it is ineffectual even in the States it has reference to. The people cannot, in any State, bear to be so slandered by one who usurps authority."

These sentiments should be no surprise when one realizes that Kentucky was third nationally in 1860 in number of slaveholders; only behind Virginia and Georgia. And, although Kentucky was ninth out of fifteen states in 1860 in number of slaves - which of course meant that the average Bluegrass owner only held a few slaves - the commonwealth did hold more slaves in bondage than all three of the other slaveholding Border States (Maryland, Missouri and Delaware) combined. Kentucky also voted their anti-emancipation sentiments in the 1864 election when they cast 64, 301 (69.8%) votes for McClellan, and only 27,787 (30.2%) for Lincoln.

What a Great Idea...Sharing History!

I received an email from the Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission yesterday advertising their upcoming third signature conference. This year's offering is being held at Virginia Tech on Saturday, May 21, 2011 and is themed "Military Strategy in the American Civil War." The event will be chaired by James "Bud" Robertson. This sounds like a wonderful event and hopefully I can make it "over the mountain" to be there in person. But, interestingly this event isn't really what caught my eye in the announcement.

I was much more intrigued and please to see the following notice:

The Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission and the Library of Virginia are partnering in the Civil War 150 Legacy Project to identify and locate original source materials in Virginia that are related to the Civil War and emancipation. Materials may include letters, memoirs, pension materials, military passes, discharge papers, diaries, hand-drawn maps, and selected memorabilia and other Civil War era manuscripts. Of particular interest to the project are global and pacifist perspectives and the viewpoints of individual African Americans and women. Items must be owned by the individual presenting the materials for digitization.

The Library of Virginia is sending teams of archivists to scan privately-held manuscript material for inclusion on both the Library of Virginia and the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission websites. The teams are coordinating visits with local sesquicentennial committees to ensure coverage of the whole of Virginia.

Locate items within your family collections that document the Civil War and the Civil-War era. Items suitable for the Civil War 150 Legacy Project include:

Letters Military passes / discharge papers Diaries Photographs Hand-drawn maps Pension materials Hand-drawn sketches Other documentary materials not listed Claims for damages by the Confederate Army or Federal Army

Items must be owned by the individual presenting the materials for digitization. Materials that are photocopied and/or subject to United States copyright law may not be submitted for digitization.

To learn more about this initiative and to how to participate go to: http://www.virginiamemory.com/collections/cw150

I sincerely hope this project proves to be a success, but due to past personal experiences, part of me believes that a large portion of the public will be somewhat hesitant to share their family treasures. For some reason there are people out there that want to hoard very significant primary sources that could add to the historical record, especially when they relate to their ancestors. Obviously history is only as good as the sources that the researcher can find, so I wish the Library of Virginia the best with this great idea.

What Alabama Traitors Think of Kentuckians

While looking through some 1861 issues of the Frankfort Tri-Weekly Commonwealth for items for an upcoming teacher workshop on the Civil War, I ran into an interesting article in the March 15 issue that originally ran in the Louisville Journal.

The article was headlined as "What Alabama Traitors think of Kentuckians." This particular letter was written to the "Editors of the Louisville Journal" by L.B. Manning, and was sent from Cahaba, Alabama on February 28, 1861 and reads as follows:

"GENTLEMEN: You may exult as much as you please at what you call the conservative action of Kentucky in the present crisis - out here we are not much disappointed. We expected no better from a State settled by hoosiers from Western Virginia - a very low class altogether. You have behaved like dastards and deserve to be slaves. Lincoln is welcome to you and as many more such as you and Tennessee have shown yourselves to be. That State was settled by a poor class of North Carolinians. I do not believe there is a particle of well-descended chivalrous blood in the whole of either Kentucky or Tennessee. If the old State of Virginia should follow your example she will be beneath contempt. So you may glory in your accursed Union and your miserable rag with your stars and stripes. We will punish you by not allowing you to sell your negroes out here. The most you make is by raising them for sale, and when we stop that, and refuse to buy your corn and pork, we can reduce you to starvation very soon, and you will then wish you had joined our glorious and powerful Southern Confederacy; but it will be too late."

Only a four months before, Alabama had sent a representative, Kentucky native Stephen Hale (see October 28, 2010 post), to the Bluegrass state in effort to encourage the Commonwealth's secession, but it appears that some like Mr. Manning had quickly grown tired of waiting and wanted to attempt to shame Kentucky and Tennessee into the Confederacy. I also found it interesting that he acknowledged that Kentucky was a prime provider of slaves, as well as corn and pork, for the Deep South states. With his rant I was a little surprised that he didn't threaten to boycott Kentucky hemp products too. One wonders if Manning was pleased when Tennessee finally seceded in June. Surely it wasn't soon enough for him.

The short article ended with a retort from the Journal: "He [Manning] may look down the vista of the past for his family tree without finding it, but as to his future destiny, the gallows tree looms up with a bean sinister, a traitor pendant, and the motto form Alabama's name: 'Here we rest.'"

Cities and Towns, a Strong Draw for Runaway Slaves

This past weekend I finished reading Slavery in the Cities: The South 1820-1860, which was written by Dr. Richard Wade in 1964. While I have focused much of my recent reading on the latest studies of slavery, I have been interested for some time in going back to earlier scholarship on the subject. I have started this effort primary because I want to get a firmer grasp on the historiography of slavery and how interpretations have changed over the years. During my reading I have kept hearing from many recent historians that such and such historian said this, and so and so said that, so I wanted to read for myself what the earlier scholars had written and judge their interpretation by my own understanding.

I found Slavery in the Cities well researched a very good, fast read. I certainly understand why Dr. Wade kept his study to several selected Southern cities. And, he certainly chose a good geographical representation in his selection, but I would have preferred him to have used sources outside of his main focus cities of Baltimore, New Orleans, Louisville, Mobile, Charleston, Norfolk, Richmond, St. Louis, Savannah, and Washington D.C., and also to have looked a smaller cities and towns such as Lynchburg, Virginia, Columbia, South Carolina and Knoxville, Tennessee for example. Wade's thesis, that slaves in the cities experienced an existence much different than that of their rural plantation counterparts, was quite simple and well supported by his sources.

One chapter that particularly struck me was chapter eight, "Runaways and Rebels." Here Wade explained that, "Unlike those on plantations, 'where no visions visit him [the slave] to remind him of his servitude,' [in the cities] they saw all around them every day the possibilities of what they considered a better life." This revelation by the historian was not missed by Southern whites of the era under study; one of which Wade quoted as saying, "The cities is no place for niggers! They get strange notions into their heads and grow discontented. They ought, everyone of them, be sent back onto the plantations." Wade also noted that "Towns always attracted more fugitives than they lost. Rural runaways headed for the nearest cities and quickly lost themselves in the congestion, protected as much by the anonymity of urban life as the collusion of other Negroes."

While the cities and towns provided a camouflage for some runaway slaves, others stood out and were caught by the city slave patrol or night watchmen. These slaves were often remanded to the town jail and notices were posted in newspapers for their owners to come get them. The attached column of advertisements bear this fact out. These eight notices shown are part of actually nine that were posted by the Franklin County Jailer H.R. Miller in the Frankfort Tri-Weekly Commonwealth and ran for several weeks on end in the fall of 1862. Along with these are one other by Miller and two additional advertisements not shown; one from the Anderson County jailer (the neighboring county to the south) with three runaways listed, and one from the Owen County (the neighboring county to the north) jailer.

The advertisements are more similar than different. They all identify the runaway by their name, their approximate or actual age, their complexion and a description of their height and weight. They all end with some statement asking for "the owner of said boy...to come forward and prove property, and pay charges, or he will be dealt with as the law directs." Usually the law directed that the slave be held for a period of time and if not claimed he or she would be auctioned off, with the proceeds going toward the expenses for keeping the slave and the balance to the city treasury.

It is interesting that all of these slave were males and came from different places, so apparently they did not runaway together, at least not a first. They claimed to come from Louisville, two from Madison County by different owners, Rockcastle County, Springfield in Clarke County, Ohio, Washington County, Fayette County, Harrison County, and Laurel County. The advertisement from the Anderson County jailer claimed have three runaways from as far as Monroe County, Mississippi, George County, Alabama and Franklin County, Tennessee. The runaway listed from the Owen County jailer came from Pike County, Kentucky.

More than one of the supposed runaways claimed to be free. The man from Rockcastle County, Pat Gadliff claimed to be free, but the jailer included in the ad that he "is supposed to be the property of Wm. Brooks." The man from Ohio, John Smith, also claimed to be free and was "dressed in part with soldier clothes." His reason for wearing soldier clothes is supported by his claim that he was a cook for a "Capt. Smith, of the 93rd Ohio Inf. Vol. Reg."

The most unusual name of the runaways listed was Prophet, other unique names included one named Wash and another called simply Brown. The others had common names such as Bob, John, Tom, Pat and Anderson. Almost all were listed as being under 25 years of age, except for the runaways from Mississippi (36) and Tennessee (50). I wonder if the the ones from Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee were runaways from the Confederate army that had been occupied Kentucky that late summer and fall.

These advertisements tell a strong story in a small space. Here in one column of a Kentucky newspaper in 1862, 13 individuals were attempting to be free but were potentially being sent back to a life of slavery. One can't help but wonder, what their fates were. Were they eventually claimed by their owners? Did those that claimed to be free men of color have to spend some time in bondage again? If they survive, maybe the records of the Franklin County jail would answer these questions. Maybe I'll try to find out. After all, did curiosity ever kill the historian? Probably not.

Vandalizing a Slave Dealer's Charleston Office

I recently finished reading Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life, by Steven Deyle and found it to be a fascinating book. It is amazing to think how much money was tied up in buying and selling slaves in the early to mid-nineteenth century and how far slavery's reach extended in America. I say America, because the Southern states were certainly not alone in this "infamous business." Northern owned insurance companies and transportation lines such as ships and railroads moved thousands of slaves from place to place, most often taking those from the upper-South states to those of the Deep South as cotton fever raged.

I came across an interesting section in the book that described the fall of Charleston, South Carolina and the adventures of two Northern newspaper correspondents upon entering the city. The following the paragraph is found on pages 204 and 205:

"In February 1865, two war correspondents, Charles Carleton Coffin of the Boston Journal and James Redpath of the New York Tribune, accompanied federal troops as they entered Charleston, South Carolina. Knowing the interests of their readers, the two men quickly headed for Ziba Oakes's large slave mart on Chalmers Street and , after breaking down the door, ransacked the premises. Spying the auction block, Coffin thought 'that perhaps [Massachusetts] Governor Andrew, or Wendell Phillips, or William Lloyd Garrison would like to make a speech from those steps,' and he 'determined to secure them [the steps].' In addition, Coffin climbed a post and wrenched down the gilt star that hung over the front of the mart, and he took the lock from the iron front gate. The two men also carried off a bell and a sign, as well as most of Oakes's business papers, with Redpath noting 'what a tale of wickedness these letter books do tell!' Before departing, the two correspondents scribbled 'TEXTS FOR THE DAY' on the walls, leaving quotes from Garrison, the Bible, and John Brown."

Deyle explained that "Most of the souvenirs were sent to Boston and used to raise money for the freedmen. But some of these items were also given to William Lloyd Garrison in honor of his role in the antislavery movement." Many of the items taken from the Charleston slave mart were displayed to the public in a showing at the Music Hall in Boston on March 9, 1865. Admission was taken to raise funds and Coffin read from Oakes's papers. When Garrison made an appearance the "crowd went wild." Garrison's paper, the Liberator wrote, "The scene was one of unusual interest and excitement, the audience raising thunders of applause and waving hundreds of white handkerchiefs for a considerable interval."

In a little over a month I will be going to Charleston to attend the National Council for History Education's annual conference. Although I have been to Charleston a couple of times in the past, I haven't had the chance to really explore the museums and the old parts of town to the degree I would like. Hopefully I will get to change that with this visit as I plan to stay a few days after the conference to explore and learn. As they might say there "cain't hardly wait."

150 Years Ago: Texas Says Why It Is Out of the Union

Although Texas seceded from the Union on February 1, 1860, the following day they released a declaration of what "impelled" them to leave. Some states felt the need to publish such statements while others did not, but those that did emphasized the importance of slavery to their social and economic lives, and the refusal of certain Northern states to uphold the previously agreed upon fugitive slave act.
Not all Texans were for secession. Sitting governor Sam Houston, a leading Texas patriot from the war for Texas independence, was an avowed Unionist who refused to accept secession and was evicted from office. Houston died in 1863 of pneumonia.
When asked to speak to a crowd after his eviction from office Houston stated, "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

A Complete Victory in the Wilderness

I was so happy to receive the following press release today from the Civil War Trust. Many, many people had a hand in this being a successful preservation effort and should feel proud in their achievement.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 26, 2011

WALMART ABANDONS PLANS TO BUILD SUPERCENTER ON WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD

Preservation community pleased with decision by retail giant to drop plans to build a supercenter within historic boundaries of Wilderness battlefield

(Orange, Va.) – In an unexpected development, Walmart announced this morning that it has abandoned plans to pursue a special use permit previously awarded to the retail giant for construction of a supercenter on the Wilderness Battlefield. The decision came as the trial in a legal challenge seeking to overturn the special use permit was scheduled to begin in Orange County circuit court.

“We are pleased with Walmart’s decision to abandon plans to build a supercenter on the Wilderness battlefield,” remarked James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Trust. “We have long believed that Walmart would ultimately recognize that it is in the best interests of all concerned to move their intended store away from the battlefield. We applaud Walmart officials for putting the interests of historic preservation first. Sam Walton would be proud of this decision.”

The Civil War Trust is part of the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, an alliance of local residents and national groups seeking to protect the Wilderness battlefield. Lighthizer noted that the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition has sought from the very beginning to work with county officials and Walmart to find an alternative location for the proposed superstore away from the battlefield.

“We stand ready to work with Walmart to put this controversy behind us and protect the battlefield from further encroachment,” Lighthizer stated. “We firmly believe that preservation and progress need not be mutually exclusive, and welcome Walmart as a thoughtful partner in efforts to protect the Wilderness Battlefield.”

In August 2009, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a controversial special use permit to allow construction of the Walmart Supercenter and associated commercial development on the Wilderness Battlefield. A wide range of prominent individuals and organizations publicly opposed the store’s location, including more than 250 American historians led by Pulitzer Prize-winners James McPherson and David McCullough. One month after the decision, a group of concerned citizens and the local Friends of Wilderness Battlefield filed a legal challenge to overturn the decision.

The Battle of the Wilderness, fought May 5–6, 1864, was one of the most significant engagements of the American Civil War. Of the 185,000 soldiers who entered combat amid the tangled mass of second-growth trees and scrub in Virginia’s Orange and Spotsylvania counties, some 30,000 became casualties. The Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, composed of Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, Piedmont Environmental Council, Preservation Virginia, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Association, and Civil War Trust, seeks to protect this irreplaceable local and national treasure.

The Civil War Trust is the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation organization in the United States. Its mission is to preserve our nation’s endangered Civil War battlefields and to promote appreciation of these hallowed grounds. To date, the Trust has preserved nearly 30,000 acres of battlefield land in 20 states. Learn more at www.civilwar.org.

The Ubiquity of the Civil War

It never ceases to amaze me the places that references to the Civil War turn up. I suppose that speaks volumes to how much that conflict transformed America...and continues to transform our lives today. From a episode involving Civil War reenactments on Everybody Loves Raymond to the General Lee on the Dukes of Hazard, the Civil War is part of our cultural fabric. Now, whether that is always good is another topic for another post.

One place I never thought I would see a reference to the war was reading college football message boards and blogs. I am a passionate Oklahoma Sooners fan. I am almost as obsessed with Boomer Sooner as I am history...almost. I try to keep up on everything that happens with the team, and not just during the season. In order to do that I have to skim through lots of other non-Sooners information. But, the other day I ran across a post on the ESPN Big 12 Conference blog that caught my eye.

Every so often the ESPN blog lets readers write in and have the expert answer questions or comment on certain points that readers make. The Civil War references in this one made me chuckle.

Stephen in San Antonio, Texas asks: Can you call Bill Byrne and ask him to send us to the SEC? Maybe he will listen to an outsider, because he for sure doesn't listen to A&M Alums.

DU: Sure thing. I'll get to it right after I convince him to let loose a pack of wolves in his living room and build a fire pit underneath his bed. Nebraska to the Big Ten? Great move for the program. Colorado to the Pac-12? Another really good move. Texas A&M to the SEC? Program-killing move.

And for the record, overambitious Aggies fans, now that realignment has died down a bit, the SEC is pretty happy standing pat with 12 teams. That offer likely isn't still standing.

After all, SECeding worked so well for the South back in the mid-19th century. Dumb. Better hope Dan Beebe [Big 12 Commissioner] is as generous as Abe Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, right? Nobody wants to see Reconstruction 2.0.

Ha! SECeding!

149th Anniversary of the Battle of Mill Springs

Today is the 149th anniversary of one of those Civil War battles that has several names. This engagement in Pulaski County, Kentucky, near the town of Somerset, is probably best known as the Battle of Mill Springs, but it was also called the Battle of Logan's Crossroads and the Battle of Fishing Creek. Several interesting personalities participated in the battle, which was fought in a cold rainstorm. Union General George Thomas, who would go on to win fame for his defensive stand at the Battle of Chickamauga, and decisive win at the Battle of Nashville, commanded the Northern forces. Confederate general, Tennessean Felix Zollicoffer was killed here, allegedly by Kentuckian Speed Fry. Fry would later become a general and would issue the infamous order to expel USCT soldiers' families from Camp Nelson in the winter of 1864, causing numerous deaths. In overall command of the Confederate forces was George Bibb Crittenden, son of Kentucky senator John J. Crittenden, and brother to Union general Thomas L. Crittenden.

The following summary of the battle is from the Civil War Trust's website:

The Battle of Mill Springs
Logan's Cross Roads
January 19, 1862

Although Brig. Gen. Felix K. Zollicoffer’s main responsibility was to guard Cumberland Gap, in November 1861 he advanced west into Kentucky to strengthen control in the area around Somerset. He found a strong defensive position at Mill Springs and decided to make it his winter quarters. He fortified the area, especially both sides of the Cumberland River. Union Brig. Gen. George Thomas received orders to drive the Rebels across the Cumberland River and break up Maj. Gen. George B. Crittenden’s army. He left Lebanon and slowly marched through rain-soaked country, arriving at Logan’s Crossroads on January 17, where he waited for Brig. Gen. A. Schoepf’s troops from Somerset to join him. Maj. Gen. George Crittenden, Zollicoffer’s superior, had arrived at Mill Springs and taken command of the Confederate troops. He knew that Thomas was in the vicinity and decided that his best defense was to attack the Yankees. The Rebels attacked Thomas at Logan’s Crossroads at dawn on January 19. Unbeknownst to the Confederates, some of Schoepf’s troops had arrived and reinforced the Union force. Initially, the Rebel attack forced the first unit it hit to retire, but stiff resistance followed and Zollicoffer was killed. The Rebels made another attack but were repulsed. Union counterattacks on the Confederate right and left were successful, forcing them from the field in a retreat that ended in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Mill Springs, along with Middle Creek, broke whatever Confederate strength there was in eastern Kentucky. Confederate fortunes did not rise again until summer when Gen. Braxton Bragg launched his offensive into Kentucky. Mill Springs was the larger of the two Union Kentucky victories in January 1862. With these victories, the Federals carried the war into Middle Tennessee in February.

For more information on the Battle of Mill Springs including maps go to the Civil War Trust's page on the battle at: http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/mill-springs.html

CWPT - New Name, New Logo, Same Mission

As a member of the Civil War Preservation Trust, I received the following email message today from President Jim Lighthizer. The CWPT, now CWT, is changing its name and logo to help continue and increase the growth and name/brand recognition that it has developed since its inception in 1987. Personally I am all for anything that will help this wonderful organization reach more people in order to help save more acres and educate more people about our nation's greatest struggle.

Dear Friend in Preservation,

Today, I'm pleased to share with you some exciting news about the next step in the natural evolution of our efforts to preserve our nation's irreplaceable Civil War battlefields, as the Civil War Preservation Trust becomes, simply, the Civil War Trust.

Rest assured that there has been no change in mission or management -- we are every bit the same efficient, vibrant and dynamic organization that you and our 55,000 members believe in so passionately. I am incredibly proud of the outstanding reputation we have built in the historic preservation community, and the nearly 30,000 hallowed acres we have saved for future generations.

But after careful thought, deliberation and research, my staff, board and I determined that the time was right to modernize the Trust's name and logo to better reflect our mission and goals. Despite our many successes, our previous name was not widely recognized outside our immediate constituency. As we begin the commemoration of the Civil War sesquicentennial in earnest, we feel this shift will help us make more Americans aware of the work we do to preserve our nation's heritage. After all, what better way to commemorate the great struggle between North and South than to save the historic landscapes of the Civil War for our children and grandchildren?

I invite you to learn more about the thought and planning that went into this decision by visiting civilwar.org/logo. I hope you are as pleased with the result of our efforts as I am. And look forward to your continued passionate and generous support for our efforts.

Thank you again for your commitment to the Civil War Trust and our nation's heritage.

Jim Lighthizer, President Civil War Trust

PS: As always, we welcome thoughts and feedback from our members. You can reach Civil War Trust staff by emailinginfo@civilwar.org.

For the official press release click here: http://www.civilwar.org/aboutus/news/news-releases/2011-news/civil-war-trust-announcement.html

Point of Contention

I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity the write the following article which ran on Sunday, January 9, 2011 in the Frankfort State Journal.

Since the close of the Civil War, historians have debated where the first shots of that terrible conflict occurred. A number of scholars claim that fights between pro-slavery forces and free-soil settlers in “Bleeding Kansas” were the first fired; others credit Fort Sumter as officially being the first; still others claim that what happened at Harpers Ferry, Va. in October 1859 was the opening round of our nation’s worst tragedy.

On the night of Oct. 16, 1859, John Brown, a militant abolitionist who had participated in several “Bleeding Kansas” events, led an integrated group of men to the national arsenal at Harpers Ferry, (now West) Virginia in order to capture arms and instigate a slave rebellion.

Brown’s careful plans quickly fell apart as first town citizens, then local militias and finally United States Marines led by Col. Robert E. Lee, fired on Brown and his remaining men and then surrounded them in a fire engine house on the arsenal grounds. Brown’s refusal to surrender on the morning of Oct. 18 led to an assault on the engine house by the marines (in which one was killed) and brought the capture of Brown and his remnant of followers.

Brown’s subsequent trial was of short duration but was well covered in the media. After receiving a guilty verdict, Brown was executed on Dec. 2. Immediately following his death, he was considered a hero by some and a villain by others.

Two items that have a strong connection to both the Harpers Ferry events and Kentucky’s history are in the collections of the Kentucky Historical Society (KHS).

At Harpers Ferry, Brown had quite a collection of weapons at his disposal. Along with about 200 Sharp’s rifles and a like number of Maynard revolvers, Brown had almost 1,000 long spears called pikes that he intended to distribute to slaves who he assumed did not know how to operate firearms. One of these weapons housed in the KHS collections has recently been positively identified as being a John Brown pike.

Brown contracted with Connecticut blacksmith Charles Blair in 1857 to make 1,000 pikes at a cost of $1 each. The pike blade was modeled after a bowie knife Brown had captured from pro-slavery fighter Henry Clay Pate while in Kansas. At the time, Brown claimed the pikes were to be used against pro-slavery forces in Kansas, but the order was put on hold after Brown was unable to collect funds to pay for the weapons.

Finally, in the summer of 1859, Brown returned to Blair with payment. Under an alias, Brown had 954 of the pikes first shipped to Chambersburg, Pa. and then forwarded to the farmhouse he rented in Maryland, about six miles from Harpers Ferry. Brown and his men brought a number of the pikes to the arsenal on the night of the raid, while others were moved to a school house closer to Harpers Ferry, which the raiders used as a ready storage facility.

Pike sent to Kentucky

After Brown was captured, Virginian and vehement secessionist Edmund Ruffin collected some of the pikes and sent them to the governors of each slaveholding state with a label attached: “Sample of the favors designed for us by our northern brethren.” A pike was sent to Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin. It is believed that the one currently in the KHS collections is this pike. Some historical evidence supports this belief.

On the night of Jan. 10, 1860, barely a month after the execution of John Brown, emancipationist Cassius Marcellus Clay made a speech on the steps of the (Old) State Capitol. The Cincinnati Gazette had a reporter on hand to cover the speech, and as a lead to the story he wrote that, “The halter with which Brown was hung, the bloody lance [pike] which he used in battle – a present from [Virginia] Gov. Wise to Gov. Magoffin – was freely handed about and shown in Frankfort.”

In an edition of the Hartford, Ky. Herald from 1890, the pike is referenced as being at the (Old) State Arsenal in Frankfort. “In a stack of muskets near the front entrance is the pike used by John Brown at Harper’s Ferry in October 1859, and was captured with him in the engine house by Col. Robert E. Lee.”

The article also provides a description of the pike, which closely matches the pike in the KHS collections. “The point of the steel lance is badly turned, as if it had missed its aim and struck a wall of mason-work or some other hard substance.”

This pike had apparently been entered into the KHS records early in the 20th century as a “Confederate pike,” and had not been properly identified for its unique historical significance until recently. Measurements and photographs of the pike were taken and its serial number recorded and sent to a curator at the Kansas State Historical Society, who verified it as being a John Brown pike.

Kentucky as border state

In the wake of the failed Harper’s Ferry raid, and as the North and South grew further polarized over the issue of slavery, Kentucky, a border state, found itself in a unique and unenviable position. Kentucky had reaffirmed its commitment to slavery in its 1850 state constitution and the institution was one that a majority of white Kentuckians viewed as the best possible for both races at the time.

But, being a border state, Kentuckians felt particularly vulnerable to a John Brown-style raid from their free-state neighbors to the north: Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. In the weeks and months after the Harpers Ferry raid, efforts were made to expel known abolitionists from the state.

Only 10 days after Harpers Ferry, Newport, Ky. newspaper editor William Shreve Bailey witnessed his Free South office and printing press destroyed by an angry mob. In late December 1859, in Madison County, Ky., abolitionist and native Kentuckian John G. Fee and his Berea settlement brethren and their families were compelled to move out of the state after a committee of citizens informed them they were no longer wanted in the commonwealth because of their sentiments and teachings.

In addition, the Harper’s Ferry affair set off a firestorm of complaints by the state’s citizens that the Kentucky militia system was an outdated force and provided no practical protection against potential invaders. During the fall and winter of 1859, editors of newspapers in almost every town, along with Gov. Magoffin, called on the state legislature to order a reorganization of the state’s military force.

In March 1860, the Kentucky State Guard was created to meet this demand. From November 1859 and into 1860, rumors of slave uprisings – especially in the Bluegrass Region and in Western Kentucky – graced the newspapers and spread quickly among the citizens. Travelers and strangers were accosted in numerous communities and questioned when any suspicion of abolitionist sentiment was aroused.

Across the state, Kentuckians increasingly disregarded previously cherished constitutional principles such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech in effort to secure better assurances for their safety.

Portrait of Brown

Kentucky’s commitment to slavery is one reason that another John Brown item in the KHS collections appears to be so unique. It is a portrait of Brown painted by Kentucky native Patrick Henry Davenport.

Davenport was born in Danville in 1803, and as a young man worked as an itinerant portraitist, largely in Central Kentucky counties. In the late 1830s, Davenport purchased the Crab Orchard Springs resort in Lincoln County, where along with running the business, he created the majority of his works. After a number of years operating the spa, Davenport sold it in 1853 and moved to Lawrence County, Ill.

Apparently, in 1860, one of John Brown’s sons commissioned Davenport to paint a portrait of Brown based upon a popular image of the abolitionist. Davenport completed the image the same year and inscribed it on the back with, “A Martyr to the Cause of Freedom John Brown, who was hung at Harper’s Ferry, Va. Dec. 2, 1859 aged 63 (59) years.”

For unknown reasons, the Brown family did not accept the portrait. It eventually ended up in the possession of Sarah Bryan, who donated it to KHS in1982.

To the inquisitive historian, Davenport’s circumstances and the inscription on the back of the painting brings up a wealth of questions.

Did slavery have anything to do with Davenport’s move to Illinois in 1853? As a former Kentucky slaveholder, was Davenport conflicted over painting a dignified image of Brown the abolitionist?

Was Davenport just assuaging his customers (the Brown family) with the inscription on the back of the painting or had his ideas on slavery changed by 1860? The answer to these questions may never be known, but the historical significance of the painting and its association with Kentucky’s history makes the portrait worthy of note and justifies its inclusion with other treasures in the KHS collections.

Next, Quickly Mississippi...?

Songster Harry McCarthy stated in the third stanza of the "Bonnie Blue Flag" that,

"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand,

Then came Alabama and took her by the hand

Next, quickly Mississippi, Georgia and Florida

All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears the single star.

Hold on there Harry! It was first, South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860); second, Mississippi (Jan. 9, 1861); third, Florida (Jan. 10, 1861); fourth, Alabama (Jan. 11, 1861); and then fifth, Georgia (Jan. 19, 1861). Perhaps McCarthy found his order fit his music better. Regardless, Mississippi, like South Carolina, published "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." It too, much like the Palmetto state's declaration claimed, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-the greatest material interest of the world," and also identified closely with the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave law.

But, there is no need for me to interpret what you can read for yourself:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Another John Brown Song You Might Not Know

Courtesy: American Memory, Library of Congress

The Colored Volunteers

Courtesy: American Memory, Library of Congress

Ran Away...A Negro Man Named Ben

I ran across this runaway slave advertisement the other day while browsing through the Library of Congress' online primary sources. It is not unlike many of those that I have recently found. Like many others it offers a generous reward and provides a vivid description of not only the runaway, but also the circumstances that the owner suspects led to his running away, or "absconding" as the owner puts it here. Abscond...is that a great word or what?

Apparently this man, Ben Thomas, stole from his owner, Joseph Desha, about $300.00 and made off with the cash on the night of October 27, 1827. Ben was described as "about 30 years old," was about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches tall, weighted about 180 pounds, and was "unusually broad across the shoulders". Additional descriptions included his complexion, which Desha referred to as "uncommonly black," and instead of the common term, "likely," that masters used in many ads, Desha referred to Ben as having "tolerably good features," and it said that Ben was bearded when he ran away, but may have shave since then.

The ad states that Ben was from Washington D.C., where he was previously owned by a Colonel Hebb. Interestingly, a little extra searching found that Hebb had also sold some slaves to President Andrew Jackson when he was in Washington, and some of them later served "Old Hickory" at his retirement home Hermitage near Nashville, Tennessee.

Desha may have purchased Ben when he served as a congressman from 1807 to 1819. His service in the House of Representatives was briefly interrupted by his participation in the War of 1812, but Desha ran for governor of Kentucky in 1820. He lost the election to John Adair, but he ran and won the 1824 election, which he served for one term. Therefore, Desha was governor when he ran this advertisement in 1827.

Outside of Ben's physical description it was explained that he was "an excellent house and body servant," which makes his access to steal the money from Desha's desk easier to understand. Desha also claimed that Ben was "shrewd and artful" and "capable of telling a very plausible story," so he may have had a good chance of making his getaway permanent. It was not against the law in Kentucky to teach slaves to read and write as it was in most slave states, and Desha further explained in the ad that Ben "had made some progress in learning to spell." It would be interesting to know if Desha had a hand in Ben's education or if he had only found out about his learning. One more similarity of this ad with other ads is that a greater reward was offered if Ben was captured outside of the state than if caught in Kentucky.

Would it be possible to find out if Ben was caught or not? Possibly. Maybe Desha's census or tax records in following years would reveal his slaves' names and provide a clue. Maybe the Papers of Joseph and John Desha at the Library of Congress hold the answer. So many questions, so little time to research and satisfy curiousity.

Wishing Everyone A Very Merry Christmas

A Sample of Kentucky Runaway Slave Advertisements

I mentioned in a recent post on slave quarters that understanding slavery is not an easy thing to do. Reading the slaves' own narratives, scholars' historical interpretations, and various primary sources leads me to conclude that it seems as if almost no two slave's situations were the same. No matter how one looks at it, and even trying to avoid the tendency of presentism, slavery was little more than stealing another person's labor. It is little wonder then that so many slaves, especially those in the border-slaveholding states, tried to runaway from their masters.

Along with viewing where slaves lived, another way to try to help understand slavery, and how pervasive and diverse it was in American society in the first half of the nineteenth century, is to look at runaway slave advertisements.

The following advertisements are from Kentucky owners who attempted to locate their absconded bondsmen and bondswomen. The advertisements range from 1807 to 1860 and were by no means difficult to locate. Runaway slave ads were placed in Kentucky newspapers from before it became a state in 1792, to right up until the 13th Amendment outlawed the practice in 1865. Several of these listed were found with just a quick and random perusal of some Kentucky newspapers. Even more readily found, but not included here, are advertisements for slave sales in the Bluegrass state, but I try to cover those in a future post.

The above advertisement is from a Woodford County owner in 1807. Woodford County was a leading hemp producer, and by 1860 its population was just over 50% African American. Like many runaway advertisements, this one makes the reader wonder what happened for the slave to attempt to murder his master?
A number of advertisements provide physical descriptions of the escaped slave, especially height and complexion. Many of those descriptions like the one above give evidence of abuse; "Upon his body are several old marks of the whip, one of them straight down the back."

This advertisement from Farmington Plantation owner John Speed explained that the runaway, Charles, was a skilled slave. Not only was he a shoemaker, but he was also a butcher and brickmason. Speed assumed that Charles would make way for the free states of Indiana or Ohio and possibly by steamboat. Steamboats of all sizes plied the Ohio River waters and employed many free and enslaved African Americans, so becoming a stowaway would probably be easy and raise little suspicion for a runaway.

The following is a transcription of the above advertisement that was found in a May 1834 edition of the Tri-Weekly Maysville, Kentucky Eagle, provided since the copy is difficult to read:

"$ 50 Reward. Ran away from the subscriber, living in Bourbon County, Ky. on Thrusday the 24th of April, a negro man named MARTIN, 22 years old, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, tolerably made. He had with him a mixed janes [jeans] and and black cloth coat, a janes, a linsey (both blue) and a cloth or casinet (of a dark color) pair of panatloons, and had on a black fur hat. He is supposed to have rode off a bay horse with some white on his hind feet. The above reward will be given for said negro, if taken out of the State, or $25 if taken out of the county, or $5 if taken in the county, provided he be delivered to me, or secured in some jail, so that I get him, WILL HAZELRIGG"

It seems that few slaves actually had the classical names, such as Pompey and Caesar, that grace so many fiction works of the antebellum era. The runaway in this ad, Dread, had the most unusual name that I came across in my short search. This ad was from the December 16, 1826 edition of the Paris, Kentucky Western Citizen, and unlike the other ads included his wife Betty.

This ad explains that the couple were brought from South Carolina last spring, so they had been in Kentucky less than a year when they made their escape.

It seems that most runaways that absconded independently were men; most between 20 and 40 years old. This slave woman, Celia, fits the age range of the men runaways and was described as "heavy, stout made, of copper complexion, and" was "quick-spoken." One is left to wonder if "quick-spoken" means that she was quick and witty, or if she had a quick temper that got expressed verbally. The owner requests the slave to be "delivered at L.C. ROBARDS' jail in Lexington." Louis Robards was a notorious slave trader in Lexington.

The above advertisement from the May 9, 1850 issue of the Lexington Observer and Reporter sought out Ben, who was "raised in the Green River country." Like many of the advertisements the reward amount changed depending on where the slave would be apprehended. Usually, the farther away from where the slave escaped, the more the reward.

This slave ad, unlike the others, was a handbill or broadside instead of a newspaper advertisement. The owner was from Mason County which is in northeast Kentucky on the Ohio River. Across the river from Mason County was Ripley, Ohio a well-known Underground Railroad and abolitionist town that helped hundreds of slaves make their way to Canada. One can only wonder if Emily too made the long journey north or if she was returned to Thomas H. Williams.

This last advertisement is a handbill as well, but unlike the others was from western Kentucky. But, like the previous ad, it too was from an owner that lived on the Ohio River. Being so close to the free states must have been a strong temptation to slaves that lived in Kentucky towns and counties along the Ohio River. Of course the fugitive slave act of 1850 meant that they could be "returned to servitude" if caught in Northern states. The would only truly be free if they made their way to Canada.

Again, this just a very minuscule sample of the runaway advertisements that graced Kentucky newspapers and that were pasted on buildings and on fences across the Commonwealth. They serve as a reminder of how valuable slave property was to their owners, and they provide us with insight into what measures slaves would take to be free of their masters.