The Ruinous Influence of Arbitrary Power

This selection will be that last I will share from Slavery Unmasked. While in Charleston, author Philo Tower witnessed some disturbing scenes and according to him, spoke to some individuals that were against slavery in principle if not in practice. Those people were apparently disturbed by the violence that often comes from one person owing another. By legally owning someone a sense of superiority and tyranny arises - something that Tower described as "the ruinous influence of arbitrary power."

One woman (her name was not given) told Tower about another Charleston woman that, on the surface was well respected in the community, but at home, terrorized her slaves.

The informant said, "I have known her thus on the watch . . .scolding for more than a hour at a time, in so loud and boisterous a voice that the whole neighborhood could hear her; and this without the least apparent feeling of shame. Indeed, it is no disgrace among slave-holders, and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a Christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved."

This woman was apparently vicious. "This mistress would occasionally send her slaves, male and female, to the inquisition (slave pen) for more savage punishment than she could possibly inflict at her house. One poor girl whom she sent there for torture, was stripped naked and whipped so horribly that deep gashes were made in her back sufficiently large to lay my whole finger in them - large pieces of flesh had actually been cut our by the torturing lash. I have seen it in the hands of the most unmerciful inquisitors; may God have mercy on them for it, for the devil never will . . . .

This professedly Christian woman was a most awful illustration of the ruinous influence of arbitrary power upon the temper. Her bursts of passion upon the heads of her victims were dreaded even by her own children, and very often all the pleasure of social intercourse around the domestic board was destroyed, by ordering the cook into her presence and storming at him when the dinner or breakfast was not prepared to her taste, and in the presence of all her children, commanding the waiter to slap his face. . . It was common for her to order brothers to whip their sisters, and sisters their own brothers; and yet no woman visited among the poor than she did, or gave more liberally to their wants. But her own slaves must feel the power of her tyrannical arm, and know and keep their places."

A Northerner's View of Slaves

In Slavery Unmasked, author Philo Tower took time to give his observation of what he saw as "the most disgusting sites" of slave life in Southern cities. This seemingly unkind portrayal is his attempt, I think, to show the degrading influence slavery had on African Americans.

"But to the descriptive part of this article; and here I am forced to remark (notwithstanding all my sympathies are enlisted on the side of the poor slaves) that one of the most disgusting sights presented to a Northerner, in walking the streets of a Southern city, and one that meets him at every corner, not only in the streets, but on the quays, levees, and on the the public walks and squares, is the mighty, rolling, headlong mass, or tide of negro servants, male and female, black, brown and yellow, their squalid, filthy, careless appearance as they pass along, up and down, to and fro, now bearing you along in the press, now retarding your advance, now cutting your path at right angles, then comparatively deafening you with a loud laugh or a shrill whistle, is anything but agreeable to one of any amount of refined feeling. But the facts in the case are, the cruel, unnatural, debasing servitude in which these poor creatures have been bred has so effectually crushed and ground every ennobling principle of humanity out of them as to render them almost insensible to shame or fear, unless their master or overseer should chance to be close by. You encounter them on the public walks from six in the morning until nine at night, and they are clad for the most part in the most fantastic style conceivable, from the gaudy household livery of a Southern nabob, to the tattered costume of a wandering Gipsy, many of them bare-headed, bare feet and legs, men, women and children. I have seen them during the all the winter months, singing, whistling, chatting, running, jumping, and dancing along the walks, with sundry other monkey shines too tedious to mention, with scarcely any regard to the thousands of whites they meet, unless it should be their overseers. One moment you run against one of them with a pile of wood on his head; the next your encounter an old woman with a wash-tub half full of water on hers; now you meet a grinning, bare-headed Topsy drawing a two-wheeled cradle, with some two or three white babes in it, singing her lullaby to them, as unconscious, apparently so, of any other presence, as though she were in the centre of her mistress' nursery; now a stocky woolly-headed chap passes you with a piece of board, some two by three feet platted on his pate, heaped up with fresh fish, singing out at a deafening rate, startling every disordered nerve in one's body - fish, fish, here's your good fresh fish. And then, to bring up the rear, and fully consummate your disgust, you see that hyena of the human race, the slave-drover, come up the street with some two or three hundred men, women and children in a drove, some in chains, some in rags, and come half naked. All these are to be placed on the block on the morrow for public sale."

Southern Morality and Ruffianism - Fearful Revelations

In Chapter 13, of Slavery Unmasked,which is titled "Southern Morality and Ruffianism - Fearful Revelations," there was a short section that said it was "clipped from southern papers." The author does not say what newspaper this selection came from or what day it ran so that it can be checked, but under the heading "Horrid affair in Maysville - Negro Burned to Death" a tragic story is told.

"We are informed that on the Kentucky Thanksgiving Day, a couple of young men of Maysville, whose family connections are described as of the 'highest respectability,' were on a drunken spree at the Parker House, in that place, and protracting their frolic until a very late hour, after all the household had retired to bed, attempted to arouse the bar-keeper to procure more liquor, and failing in this, and succeeding in finding a yellow man, one of the waiters, asleep, they concluded to set fire to him in order to awaken him! With this view, they took a camphene lamp, and, pouring the fluid over his whiskers, ignited it, and the poor fellow's neck and head became instantly wrapped in an intense blaze, which continued until the fluid was consumed.

The sufferings of the victim were dreadful in the extreme. No refinement of torture could have produced more excruciating misery. But, strange to say, death did not release him from torment until after the lapse of two weeks. The poor creature was the slave of Mr. Ball, keeper of the Parker House, who says, as our informant tells us, that no human suffering could exceed that of his boy during the fortnight that he lived after the burning. The young men 'respectably connected,' whose drunkenness resulted in this horror, are said to allege that they burned the negro by accident - that when holding the lamp to his face, they managed to break it, and spill the fiery fluid upon him. The young men are rich. They have agreed to pay Mr. Ball $1,200 for the loss of his servant. Our informant says that no one in Maysville speaks of this transaction without a shudder of horror, but that no movement has been made towards a legal investigation of the matter, and that the 'high position' of the parties implicated will overawe any such movement."

A Period Look at Cassius M. Clay

I am about to finish up reading Slavery Unmasked: Being a Truthful Narrative of a Three Years' Residence and Journeying in Eleven Southern States (gotta love those 19th century extended titles) by Rev. Philo Tower published in 1856. And, instead of writing a review of it, I thought I share some of the parts that struck me as interesting over the next few posts.

I have read a number of these Northern travelers' accounts the past. My favorites are probably those from the pen of Frederick Law Olmstead; the future renowned landscape architect. These accounts almost always come from a biased perspective, but if one understands that fact, they can offer so much context on how one section saw the other.

In Chapter 8 the Rev. Tower visited Louisville, Kentucky and took the opportunity to share some thoughts on Cassius M. Clay's reputation. I found them good reading so I will give the quotes here:

"One of [Kentucky's] daring native sons appears to be devoting his life to such a consummation, at least: I allude to the famous Cassius M. Clay. Reader, did you ever hear this singular man in public? I presume you have, while on some of his eastern lecturing tours. Well, just allow me here to describe to you, reader, how he harangues his native Kentuckians, on the subject of SLAVERY. He sends an appointment to a given place, to lecture at a certain time; perhaps some of the citizens will send word that he will not be allowed to lecture there; he sends word back to them that he will lecture there, according to previous notice. The time comes, a great crowd is collected to hear the lecturer or to see the mob; presently the lecturer comes, he passes directly through the crowd, mounts the forum, waves his hand for attention, all eyes are turned towards the speaker. He commences with a firm, clear, and decided tone of voice, the following remarks:

Gentlemen, says he, I have a few preliminaries to settle, previous to entering upon the main subject of discussion. I want to make three short appeals to three classes of persons, whereupon he holds up a small Bible. There, gentlemen says he, is the great charter record of human rights, on which all law and equity is based, deserving the name of law - this is my last appeal to the religious portion of society - and lays it down upon the stand before him. Then he holds up the Constitution of the United States. Here, gentlemen, says he, is the bond of our Union, the noble Constitution of our Glorious Republic, which says that all men are born free and equal, with certain inalienable rights, &c., &c. This is my appeal to gentlemen, to patriots, and to all true hearted Americans, and places it with the Bible before him. Then he puts his hand into his pocket and brings out and enormous six shooter: holding it up before the audience, he exclaims: and here, gentlemen, is a six shooter, every barrel of which is heavily charged with powder and cold lead. This is my appeal to the mobocrats, and I will blow its contents through the heart of the first man who offers to lay his hands on me; to silence men in my native State, or to gag free speech in my presence. This he also lays down upon the stand with his two former appeals, ready for action; then he commences a perfect storm against the peculiar institution, enough to wring the sweat our of old Kentucky from every pore. Such, sir, is the celebrated nephew [actually cousin] of old Henry Clay, in his own State. Success to his efforts. May he live to see the chains fall from every slave in the land of his birth."

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress

Just Finished Reading

I have said it on this forum a number of times in the past, but Reconstruction is without a doubt the most important yet under-taught period in America's history. I would argue that understanding the years that immediately followed the Civil War are as significant as understanding the four years of war.

How our nation attempted to "bind up its wounds" and become one country again is certainly not a pretty story. As one might image, there was much resistance on the part of the former slave states, and much spite delivered by the Northern victors. Both legal and extralegal measures were taken to thwart the important constitutional changes that challenged former racial distinctions in both those slave states that had remained loyal (border states) and those that had seceded. The road to reunion was filled with speed bumps and pot holes; both sides guilty of transgressions and vengeance.

The set of 11 essays contained in The Great Task Remaining Before Us: Reconstruction as America's Continuing Civil War (edited by Paul A. Cimbala and Randall M. Miller) go a long way toward helping us better understand this confusing and contentious era. In my opinion, the editors did an excellent job of selecting the articles it contains.

I was especially happy to see that two of the essays discussed the unique role Kentucky played in these years. "'I Wanted a Gun': Black Soldiers and White Violence in Kentucky" by Aaron Astor, and "'The Rebel Spirit in Kentucky': The Politics of Readjustment in a Border State, 1865-1868" by Anne E. Marshall, both provide new scholarship about a state that is not commonly thought to have been deeply affected by Reconstruction. Kentucky's unique defiance - holding on to slavery - past the war's end, made sure that it would experience Reconstruction differently than its sister border states of Maryland and Missouri.

Other essays cover a diverse set of topics such as individual's stories (Wade Hampton), gender studies (antislavery women), class discussions (the poor whites of Georgia), race examinations (free people of Color in New Orleans), and even sectional studies (Northern Republicans) in Reconstruction. In fact, this is probably the best set of essays on a wide variety of subjects that have focused on the post-war period that I have ever encountered.

I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better comprehend the diverse issues that have largely been overlooked in Reconstruction scholarship. A lot can be learned here. On a scale of 1 to 5, I give The Great Task Remaining Before Us a 4.75.

Kentucky Gov. Robinson and the Emancipation Proclamation, Part I

On January 8, 1863, Kentucky Governor James F. Robinson addressed the General Assembly upon that body's adjournment. Robinson had replaced Beriah Magoffin with the later's resignation in August 1862 - just before Confederate forces advanced into the state.

In this speech Robinson noted the difficult position in which Kentucky found itself and the troubles it had faced by being occupied by both Federal and Confederate troops. Of particular mention in the address was that "the rights of property have not been respected." He complained that "farms have been laid waste, provisions have been seized, forage has been collected, and instead of being brought in open market where the supply would be ample and the competition fair, commissaries have gone with teams and soldiers, taking grain and other commodities from the farmers at whatever price the commissaries chose to affix to them . . . " He also asked rhetorically - or possibly just inquisitively   "Why is it, that all supplies are bought and paid for in Ohio, the Government coming in as any other purchaser, while the same things are unceremoniously seized in Kentucky?" He and other Kentuckians saw this practice as being unfair, even in war.

But, however disturbing that disrespect for property was, "there looms up before . . . a more gigantic evil - one, the bare contemplation of which, sickens the heart and fills all with gloomy and dreadful forebodings." If one could not guess, Governor Robinson was referring the tampering of "slave property of Kentucky."

Robinson declared that it did not matter now if it would have been better or not to have admitted slavery into Kentucky from the beginning - "It was brought from our old mother Virginia and by men who had fought the Revolutionary war . . . " and was now established.

The governor claimed that slavery had advanced the "African captive, the creature of superstitious ignorance and savage cruelty . . . ." According to Robinson the African's positive evolution was due to him being "under the tutelage of a humane but necessary subjection to a superior race . . . ."

He continued that Kentucky wrote slavery into their state constitution and that document certainly agreed with the Federal Constitution's sanction of slavery. Robinson claimed that Kentucky had suffered more from the loss of slaves than any other state of the Union but "she never attempted violence in its recovery." And although Kentucky had "complaint against fanatic citizens of the North Western States," she noted the difference between individuals and their state governments and held the individuals not the states responsible.

Robinson declared that Kentucky was well aware that the constitutions of the federal government and state governments "constituted her best safeguard for her slave and every other species of property . . . ." And, Kentucky had refused the enticements of the Southern Confederacy because of this fact. During the Bleeding Kansas years, Kentucky "looked on with indifference" and let the matter be settled as the laws allowed. Too, Kentucky, although their candidate of choice was not selected, had been encouraged that the Republican Party had a platform that disavowed "any right or purpose to interfere with slavery in the States where it already existed by law."

Robinson said that at the outbreak of the war Kentucky assumed no move would be made that could not be undone to fix "a peaceful adjustment of all pending difficulties. She never allowed herself for one moment to stop to discuss the value of the Union. In her estimation nothing could compare with its value, or compensate its loss; and hence, when Southern politicians made bare their treasonable purposes, regardless of the disruption it made in her own social fabric, and the utter derangement and ruin of her commercial interests, she took her stand on the side of the Union and had maintained it with her treasure and her blood. The Constitution of the Union has not yet been changed and with her consent never shall be." [Emphasis in original]

To be continued...
Image courtesy of the Kentucky Historical Society

Clay, the Hunter of Kentucky

Henry Clay is the hunter, and various Democrats his quarry. Clay wears a fringed buckskin outfit and coonskin cap reminiscent of Davy Crockett and the Western characters of the contemporary stage, such as Nimrod Wild-Fire or Jibbenainosay. (In Bucholzer's earlier cartoon "Treeing Coons," no. 1844-20, James Polk wears a similar costume.) He grasps a rattlesnake with the head of incumbent President John Tyler. In his belt are two trophies, the Van Buren fox and Polk goose. He stands on the trunk of a felled "Hickory" tree (an allusion to Democratic patriarch Andrew Jackson), while an eagle hovers over him displaying a ribbon with the Whig campaign slogan, "Honor To Whom Honor Is Due." Clay says, "Thus perish the enemies of my Country, and of the People, who have honored me with their suffrages!" To the left stands Clay's running-mate Theodore Frelinghuysen, holding John C. Calhoun and Thomas Hart Benton by the seats of their trousers. He addresses Clay, "Here, noble Hunter! I have found two non-descript Animals! One of them is continually bawling about mint drops! and the other is yelling about disunion and nullification!" "Mint drops," slang for gold coin, were popular symbols of Benton's hard-money philosophy. Calhoun's leadership in the South's 

movement for nullification of the federal tariff of 1828 marked him as an advocate of disunion.

Interpretation and image courtesy of the Library of Congress

Lincoln's Appeal to the Border States

On July 12, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln invited the senators and representatives from the border states to hear his offer of compensated emancipation to their states' slaves.

Lincoln explained to those gathered that he wanted to take this opportunity to speak to them since congress was set to adjourn soon. He believed that the border states men held "more power for good than any other equal number of [Congressional] members" and thus felt obligated to make his appeal.

He told them that if they had accepted gradual compensated emancipation back in March that "the war would now be substantially ended." He believed that if the seceded states saw that the border states would give up their slaves and never join their cause, those seceded states would quickly surrender, but he emphasized  "you can not divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states."

Lincoln asked them, "Can you, for your states, do better than to take the course I urge?"  He understood that they preferred "that the constitutional relation to the states to the nation" should be "practically restored, without disturbance of the institution," and that if it could be done he would be doing his whole duty under the constitution. But it was not being done, and thus they were "trying to accomplish it by war." Lincoln wanted them to know that war changed things and it would surely change slavery ". . .the institution in your states will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion-by the mere incidents of war. It will be gone, and you will have  nothing valuable in lieu of it. Much of it's value is gone already."

With this clear he asked how much better would it be to do something to help end the war, end the bloodshed, and at the same time receive some remuneration for it? He did not call for "emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually."  He suggested that there were accommodations in South America for colonization of those freed and that they would be willing to go when sufficient numbers settle there.

The president mentioned his repudiation of General David Hunter's proclamation freeing slaves and that he was feeling pressure from those that disagreed with his decision. Lincoln told the border state men that their acceptance of his offer could relieve that pressure and help the country all pull in the same direction to win the war.

Lincoln closed asking for due consideration. "You are patriots and statesmen; and, and such, I pray you, consider this proposition; and, at the least, commend it to the consideration of your states and people."  He continued that "Our common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views, and boldest action to bring it speedy relief. Once relieved, it's form of government is saved to the world; it's beloved history, and cherished memories are vindicated; and it's happy future fully assured, and rendered inconceivably grand."

Twenty of the border state senators and representatives issued a majority reply two days later spurning Lincoln's offer. They claimed that the federal government couldn't afford the compensation to the owners and that freeing slaves would make the Confederacy even more determined, not less.  Too, they believed that emancipation would fire up the secession impulse in their states.

The next day a minority reply was made by eight men in approval of Lincoln's appeal.

I would argue that it was not a matter of money. The president could have offered $1000.00 for each slave and the border states still would have turned him down. I would content that the issue was much more social than economic. Border state whites did not want freed African Americans living in their midst - they knew most freedmen would not willingly colonize and if they were free then there was the possibility of them becoming citizens and thus potentially equals - something they were not willing to consider.

So, over the next couple of years Lincoln's prophecy came true - the war wiped away slavery, albeit faster in some states than others. Maryland gave up slavery in November 1864, and Missouri in January 1865. Kentucky and Delaware held out until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment forced the issue in December 1865.

Just Finished Reading

I apologize for the moratorium on posts over the last two and a half weeks, but I have been in the air and on the road, both traveling for work and taking some personal vacation time. The time away afforded me opportunities to finish reading a new book.

The historical record gives us many examples of men who made their escape from slavery, but enslaved women's perspectives are much rarer. To Free a Family: The Journey of Mary Walker, by Duke University history professor Sydney Nathans, provides such a perspective. Using an extensive collection of both Walker's Southern owners' and Northern allies family papers and diaries, along with other impressive primary sources, her story comes to life.

In 1848, Mary Walker took advantage of her position as maidservant for the wealthy Cameron family of North Carolina to make her escape. When Mary went with a Cameron daughter to Philadelphia to receive treatment for consumption, she used the opportunity to run away. In fear of the newly enacted fugitive slave law, she was later persuaded to move to Boston for better protection.

Throughout much of Mary Walker's amazing Northern existence she pined to reunite with those family members she left in North Carolina, her mother, her daughter and her son. Her Northern allies attempted several schemes to bring the family out of slavery, all without success. However, her plight put Mary and her benefactors in contact with a number of the era's leading abolitionists such as African Americans William Still, Lewis Hayden, and the eminent Frederick Douglass, as well as Samuel Gridley Howe and his wife, and Henry Beecher Stowe, and Oliver Otis Howard.

During the Civil War Mary even went to the sea islands in South Carolina to work with and help freed people there, but it took the capture of Raleigh, North Carolina by Union troops in 1865 to finally free Mary Walker's family from slavery. Mary's mother had passed away, but daughter Agnes and son, Bryant were eventually reunited with their mother in Boston.

Mary Walker's journey from enslaved woman to free person shows the great risks, sacrifices, and patience individuals had to endure to find liberty. It also shows that they were active agents in their own pursuit of freedom, not only for themselves, but for their fellow slaves as well. To Free a Family: The Journey of Mary Walker is a great story that is well researched and written and that should be required reading for all Americans. On a scale of 1 to 5, I give it a 4.75.   
  

Lee Demands John Brown's Surrender at Harpers Ferry

After a day and a half of shootouts and standoffs Colonel Robert E. Lee demanded the surrender of John Brown and his remaining raiders via Lieutenant James Ewell Brown Stuart.

On the morning of October 18, 1859, Stuart, who would become a dashing cavalry general under Lee in the Civil War, approached the barred door of the fire engine house at the Harpers Ferry armory. The door creaked and opened only a few inches. Inside, peering out at Stuart, was Old John Brown. Stuart had run into "Old Osawatomie Brown" during his stint serving in Bleeding Kansas. The lieutenant handed the old man Lee's demand for immediate surrender.

"Colonel Lee U.S.A. Comm. the troops send by the President of the U.S. to suppress the insurrection at this place; demands the surrender of the persons in the Armory buildings.

If they will peaceably surrender themselves & restore the pillaged property; they shall be kept in safety to await the orders of the President.

Col. Lee represents to them in all frankness that it is impossible for them to escape; that the Armory is surrounded on all sides by troops; & that if he is compelled to take them by force he cannot answer for their safety.
R.E. Lee
Col. Commd.
U.S. Troops"

Brown refused the surrender demand.

Stuart gave the signal and the Marines rushed the fire engine house with sledge hammers. The hammers didn't work, so a heavy ladder was used to batter the door down.

It a very few minutes it was all over. Brown was wounded in the fight; a nasty gash in the head.

If the old man had been killed in the assault, history may have been much different. But, he didn't. He went to the gallows and died as a martyr in the eyes of many Northerners - and a heinous villain to most Southerners. The seeds of war were sown.

Image courtesy of the National Archives

John Brown's Constitution

On this date 153 years ago Northern militant abolitionist John Brown and his men descended on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and changed American history.

After the shooting stopped, the dust settled and Brown and his men were captured, killed or put to flight, among the items found at the Maryland farmhouse Brown used to fine tune and launch his attack, were copies of his Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the United States.

Brown composed the document while a visitor in Frederick Douglass' Rochester, New York home in 1858. His goal in writing the laws of his utopia was a society where blacks and whites were equal before the law. The document's preamble bears this out.

"Whereas, slavery throughout its entire existence in the United States, is none other than the most barbarous, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war of one portion of its citizens upon another portion, the only conditions of which are perpetual imprisonment and hopeless servitude or absolute extermination; in utter disregard and violation of those eternal and self-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence: Therefore

We the Citizens of the United States, and oppressed people, who, by a recent decision of the Supreme Court [Dred Scott Decision] are declared to have no rights which the White Man is bound to respect; together with all of the people degraded by the laws thereof, Do, for the time being ordain and establish ourselves the following Provisional Constitution and Ordinances, the better to protect our Persons, Property, Lives, and Liberties; and to govern our actions:

Article 1

Qualifications for membership

All persons of mature age, whether Proscribed, oppressed, and enslaved Citizens, or of the Proscribed and oppressed races of the United States, who shall agree to sustain and enforce the Provisional Constitution and Ordinance of this organization, together with all minor children of such persons, shall be held to be fully entitled to protection under the same."

And, while Brown's constitution was racially radical for the time, it was also subjective in regard to his views on moral behavior. One later article states, "Profane swearing, filthy conversation, indecent behavior, or indecent exposure of the person, or intoxication, or quarreling  shall not be allowed or tolerated; neither unlawful intercourse of the sexes."

To read Brown's constitution in full check out the following link to it at the National Archives:
John Brown's Constitution 

Photograph: Spreading Hemp in Kentucky

I found the above picture of African American workers spreading out hemp in a Kentucky field for the crop to dew rot. Once cut and shocked, hemp was spread on the ground to collect dew which naturally rotted the stalk. The stalks were finally collected together and broken to get the fibers inside.

This image was taken in 1896 for a report on hemp and jute culture in the United States by the federal government.

Image courtesy the Filson Historical Society.

1870 Voting Trouble in Kentucky

As we approach election time I thought I'd post a short article that shows that nasty campaigns, and charges of election fraud, violence, and disfranchisement are nothing new. This short notice was printed in the November 11, 1870 edition of the Lexington Daily Press.

The 1870 election was particularly contentious in Kentucky. It was the first opportunity for African American men to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment was passed (February 1870). Not only was there violence by white Democrats in attempt to keep African American Republicans from casting their votes, but apparently intraracial violence occurred too when those of one's race did not vote as they were expected.

The notice read:
"Robert Harris, colored, who voted the Democratic ticket, and worked at Scott's [hemp] factory, lost his place as hackler, besides was rather roughly handled, and cut by negroes at that factory. This mode of treating those of the colored people who vote their principles is rather a dangerous business and intolerable in a community like ours."

Reconstruction Kentucky Judge Ignored 14th Amendment

The year following the Civil War the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by Congress. Its provisions were added to the Constitution two years later in the form of the Fourteenth Amendment. This vital change to the laws of our land included in its first section the provision that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Kentucky, a proslavery and loyal border state during the Civil War, resisted to the bitter end the demise of slavery. The state rejected to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery, but was still naturally subject to that law, however, that didn't mean they were ready to accept it. Similarly, Kentuckians rejected the Fourteenth Amendment and the later Fifteenth Amendment, which allowed African American men to vote.

Kentuckians' conservative hesitancy to embrace these amendments, which they viewed as being radical, came through in a newspaper article I recently came across. On October 18, 1870, the Lexington Daily Press printed a story under the headline - "Negro Testimony --- A Test Case."

Since the end of the Civil War Kentucky's African American's had pressed for the necessity to testify in court cases. They correctly believed that there was no way they could receive any sense of justice for the atrocities that were committed on them in the Reconstruction years if they could not provide testimony against their attackers.

This article read:
"The grand jury of the United States Circuit Court yesterday returned an indictment against Hop Price, Judge of the Louisville City Court, for refusing to receive the testimony of a negro against a white man, who had been arrested upon the charge of assault and battery on the negro. The laws of the Commonwealth conflict with the [Fourteenth] amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to negro testimony, and Judge Price, conceiving it his duty to support the Constitution of Kentucky in preference to all other laws rendered his decision in accordance therewith. The punishment for the offense is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both, at the discretion of the court."

I found a short followup article in an issue a few days later that this case was to be tried on November 9, 1870, but when I tried to find out what happened I couldn't locate the court's decision in this particular newspaper.  

Bourbon Ballads and the Exodusters

Extra edition number 52, published by the New York Tribune in September 1879, was titled "Bourbon Ballads: Songs for the Stump."

As the paper said the special edition "contains nearly all of those humorous political songs which have been written for the Tribune by Mr. William A. Croffut, under the general title 'Bourbon Ballads.' These poems have been copied by the Republican press of the country and their flavor is pretty well known. Nearly all of them are written from what is assumed to be the Democratic point of view, but members of that party will perhaps hesitate to adopt the utterances as their own."

The reason the Democrats probably wouldn't have used them was because they were largely satirical. The "Bourbon" in the title is a reference to the Southern states that returned to local control after Recosntruction officially ended in 1877, and is taken from the Bourbons of France who returned to power following the First French Empire under Napoleon.

One of these "Ballads" caught my attention for its references to Kentucky and apparently the Exoduster Movement of African Americans to Kansas in the late 1870s to seek opportunities. It is titled -

THE AUCTION-BLOCK AGAIN - WHO BIDS?
Uncle Sam:
Who bids? Again for the blacks are up at auction!
The man and babe and mother - who's the bidder?
Peremptory - without regard to section -
Impartial - 'tis our purpose to consider
With favor the first guaranty that comes,
Of fair play, freedom, peace and happy homes!

Ah Gentlemen! This is a happy session!
Come Mississippi, Kansas and Kentucky,
Now speak up! Give us lively competition;
The buyer of this labor will be lucky!
Bid sharp! This is your crisis of your fate,
For work is wealth and underlies the State.

Kentucky:
I bid - a home for every pickaninny
Whose dad or mam'll earn it by their workin';
O, fer the times we had in Ole Virginny,
Wen nigs was nigs an' white folks did the shirkin'!
I'm good at shirkin', an I can't agree
Thet any nigger is ez good as me!

Uncle Sam:
You hear the bid - who goes a triffle better?
Who guarantees the ballot? Who proposes
To have the spelling book replace the fetter,
And wreathe this rugged auction-block with roses?
Who offers to protect the rights of men,
And turn the slave into a citizen?

Mississippi:
I'll make 'em free! The mandate of the Maker!
Men serve themselves the best, it stands to reason;
And land that's $5 by the acre
I'll rent 'em for $10 by the season.
I'll let 'em vote. If rifle clubs use force
And say they sha'n't, why, then they can't, of course.

Uncle Sam:
Too late by far! You promise no protection!
To make the free - but merely free to suffer;
A voice rings hither from another section;
Your bid is beaten by another offer!
Now raise it Mississip, or you are flat;
I hear a dozen bids as good as that!

Kansas:
I bid! - a home for every man and woman,
A school for every child: - a field to labor;
The guaranty of every right that's human;
Respect that sees in every man's neighbor;
The richest soil a farmer ever saw,
And equal rights for all before the law!

Uncle Sam:
Do I hear more? This is a happy session;
Come, rally, Mississippi and Kentucky!
One! Two! Now going! Is there competition?
Just going! O, the buyer will be lucky!
Going! From where the torrid fever tans us -
Last call! A-going! - going! - gone! - to Kansas!

To see this edition the Library of Congress American Memory website click here.

Nathan Bedford Forrest and Treason Charges

In September 1864, a grand jury in Union held Memphis indicted a number of the town's men including Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest.

The idictment read in part:
". . .that Nathan Bedford Forrest, late of the said district being an inhabitant of and resident within the United States of America and owing allegiance and fidelity to the said United States of America, well knowing the promise but not weighing it regarding the duty of his allegiance and fidelity . . . was a traitor . . . withdrew the allegiance and fidelity and obedience which every citizen of the United States of America ought to bear toward his Government . . . by conspiring, contriving and intending by all the means in his power to aid and assist . . . the said Confederate States of America by the prosecution of said rebellion, insurrection and war, to wit:

On April 21, 1864, and divers other days and times before as well as after that day at the county of Shelby within the jurisdiction of this court . . . wickedly devising and invading the peace and tranquility of the United States of America to disturb and to stir, move, excite, aid and assist in the rebellion . . . with force and arms unlawfully, falsely, maliciously, and traitorously did raise and levy war . . . and the said Nathan B. Forrest on August 21, 1864 at the County of Shelby with a great multitude of persons . . . [did] arm and arrange and appear in a war like manner, that is to say with guns, swords, pistols and other war like weapons . . . contrary to the form of the Statutes in such cases and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America." (Quoted from Brian Steel Wills, A Battle from the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest)

Apparently, little came of this indictment at the time as the war was on. But, as the above writ of habeas corpus indicates, Forrest was again indicted for treason in September 1865 by Salmon Chase, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In the spring of 1866 Forrest appeared before the Memphis court in regard to the 1864 indictment and posted a $10,000 bond. Although he prepared for the case and had to again post the bond amount the following fall, the trial never took place.

It appears, too, that the September 1865 treason charge went without arrest and trial. The U.S. marshal who was to arrest Forrest responded - probably wisely - that "Defendant not to be found in my district."

Although Forrest did not end up in a Memphis court for treason, he did end up in court in Coahoma County, Mississippi in 1866 for killing a freedman worker with an ax on his plantation after an argument arose apparently because the freedman was abusing his wife in the quarters. In October 1866, Forrest was acquitted of manslaughter by the court's jury.

Image courtesy of the National Archives.

150 Years Ago Today - The Battle of Perryville

In honor of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Perryville, Kentucky, I would like to share a private soldier's comments on the fight. These words come from Sam Watkins of Columbia, Tennessee, who was a member of Company H, 1st Tennessee Volunteer Infantry Regiment, and it truly expresses how hard fought this too often overlooked clash was.

"In giving a description of this most memorable battle, I do not pretend to give you figures, and describe how this general looked and how that one spoke, and the other on charged with drawn sabre, etc. I know nothing of these things - see the history for that. I was simply a soldier of the line, and I only write of the things I saw, I was in every battle, skirmish and march that was made by the First Tennessee Regiment during the war, and I do not remember of a harder contest and more evenly fought battle than that of Perryville. If it had been two men wrestling, it would have been called a 'dog fall." Both sides claim the victory - both sides whipped."

A little later in his narrative Watkins continued,  "The battle now opened in earnest, and from one end of the line to the other seemed to be a solid sheet of blazing smoke and fire. Our regiment crossed a stream, being preceded by Wharton's Texas Rangers, and we were ordered to attack at once with vigor. Here General Maney's horse was shot. From this moment the battle was a mortal struggle. Two lines of battle confronted us. We killed almost every one in the first line, and were soon charging over the second, when right in our immediate front was their third and main line of battle from which four Napoleon guns poured their deadly fire.

We did not recoil, but our line was fairly hurled back by the leaden hail that was poured into our very faces. Eight color-bearers were killed at one discharge of their cannon. We were right up among the very wheels of their Napoleon guns, and we were soon in a hand-to-hand fight - every man for himself - using the butts of our guns and bayonets. One side would waver and fall back a few yards, and would rally, when the other side would fall back, leaving the four Napoleon guns; and yet the battle raged. Such obstinate fighting I never had seen before or since. The guns were discharged so rapidly that it seemed the earth itself was in a volcanic uproar. The iron storm passed through our ranks, mangling and tearing men to pieces. The very air seemed full of stifling smoke and fire which seemed the very pit of hell, peopled by contending demons.

Our men were dead and dying right in the very midst of this grand havoc of battle. It was a life and death to death grapple. The sun was poised above us, a great red ball striking slowly in the west, yet the scene of battle and carnage continued."

The horror that was Civil War combat had to have been truly terrible. Still, these men seemingly thought their lives were worth sacrificing for their respective causes; something difficult for most of us who are not in our nation's military service have a difficult time imagining. For them, their families and their willingness to defend our rights, I give thanks.

Kentucky's Confederate Representatives

Although Kentucky's legally elected legislature stood by the Union, and their congressmen remained in Washington D.C., the divided state also had a Confederate provisional government that sent representatives to Richmond. 

The above item is the credentials for those men appointed to the Confederate House of Representatives who were named on December 14, 1861. The Kentucky Confederate state government first met in Russellville in October 1861. Later Bowling Green was established as the state's Confederate capital city.

In late November this Confederate state government, which had delegates from only 68 of the states 100 counties, petitioned to be admitted to the Confederacy and were formally admitted on December 10, 1861. The men named on the document above were designated as representatives four days later.

The Kentucky Confederate government remained in Bowling Green until General Ulysses S. Grant's twin military successes to the west at Forts Henry and Donelson in February 1862. As Confederate commander Albert Sidney Johnston retreated from Kentucky into Tennessee, the Kentucky Confederate government had to follow by necessity. Kentucky Confederate governor George W. Johnson was present when the armies fought at the Battle of Shiloh in April, where he was wounded and died. Richard Hawes was named as Johnson's successor and was actually inaugurated as the provisional governor of the state when the Confederates captured the state capital of Frankfort in the fall of 1862. But, his stay in the state was short as the Rebels were forced to flee the city the same day Hawes was sworn in. After the Battle of Perryville on October 8, 1862, the Confederates retreated from the state and did not return as an organized force.

  

Image courtesy of the National Archives

Just Finished Reading

Among the numerous tragedies of the Civil War and Reconstruction was the suffering and death of thousands of former slaves due to displacement, confinement, sickness and disease. Even before Union armies advanced into the Southern states, enslaved men, women, and children - especially those in the upper South - fled toward freedom. The number involved raised drastically as invasion occurred and as word spread from town to town, farm to farm, and plantation to plantation. Many of these freed people ended up in contraband camps and were at the mercy of either the Union army or Northern benevolent societies to provide employment, clothing, shelter, food, and medical care. Too often all were lacking.

With the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau in the spring of 1865 a concerted effort was put in place to attempt to alleviate some of the suffering  Unfortunately, the problem was larger than the resources committed to solve it.

As freed slaves hit the road to experience freedom, find relatives that were sold in previous years, or to search for jobs, they unexpectedly experienced suffering, and inadvertently contracted and spread diseases. Unhealthy conditions such as living in crowded, leaky, dirty tents led to afflictions such as small pox, yellow fever, typhoid, and measles, which plagued efforts to make new lives. In Sick From Freedom: African American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction, historian Jim Downs digs into the records of the Medical Division of the Freedmen's Bureau to tell this unpleasant but important story.

Downs contends that much of the effort and expense put into the Medical Division was made to keep a healthy workforce in the Southern states on the abandoned farms and plantations that the federal government confiscated, and for black soldiers that were enlisted in the Union army. Women, children, the elderly, and disabled were too frequently of secondary consideration.

The level of disease experienced by the freed people was unexpected by both they and the government. Downs explains that freedmen hospitals were established in the former slave states, but that they usually popped up in response to an outbreak or epidemic. Most of the freedmen hospitals were very inefficient in operation and lacked success. One of the terrible epidemics experienced by freed people was small pox. The outbreak was wrongly perceived by many as problem unique to the African American former slaves and thus the treatment became understood in terms of race - that blacks were more susceptible than whites - and therefore treatment was not administered as it should have been.

Of special interest was the epilogue in Sick From Freedom. Here, Down's explains that Reconstruction's heath measures were often applied to American Indians in the West, who experienced many of the same problems with disease when placed in reservations.

A few irritating error were noticed in the text.  When Downs covered a particularly heartbreaking instance that happened at Camp Nelson in Kentucky he incorrectly named the camp commander as Pry instead of Fry. It was incorrect in more than one place and also in the index. Downs also wrote "When soldiers in the North reached for the rifles that hung above the mantles of their front doors and marched off to war, they did so in the name of ending slavery." I would argue that ending slavery was far from being a representative motivation for Union soldiers, especially early in the war.  Most Northern soldiers fought for preserving the Union, not freeing slaves. Additionally, most did not take their rifles off their mantles - Union soldiers were well armed by the federal government and fought with standardized rifled muskets, not their own from home.

Despite the above mentioned minor quibbles, I enjoyed reading Sick From Freedom. It is a sad story of the Civil War and Reconstruction that more people need to know and understand. On a scale of 1 to 5, I give it a 4.5. 

Cool Civil War Era Photograph

Courtesy of the Library of Congress