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

A Look at Numbers of Patents Issued in 1858

While looking for some information on the two earlier posts I made about the Patent Office (pictured) not issuing patents to slaves, I ran across a list that showed the number of patents issued per state or territory in 1858. I think it would be more informative to have a list of patent applications per state, but a list of those actually issued can be productive too for comparative purposes.

There were 5,364 applications made in 1858, and of those, 3,668 were actually issued patents. The breakdown is as follows:

NY - 1,075

PA - 447

MA - 438

OH - 302

CT - 211

IL- 155

NJ - 126

MD - 82

IN - 82

VA - 61

ME - 58

MI - 54

DC - 52

NH - 51

RI - 48

MO - 46

VT - 42

LA - 34

IA - 33

MS - 31

KY - 30

AL - 24

CA - 23

NC - 22

GA - 21

TN - 19

SC - 12

TX - 10

DE - 8

FL - 8

WA Territory - 4

AR - 3

MN - 2

KS Territory - 1

US Navy - 2

US Army - 1

Just looking at the list is clearly obvious that most of the patents issued in 1858 were to inventors in Northern states. That is probably not all that surprising considering that most of the nation's industrial capacity was in those states.  

Broken down per section it looks like this:

Free States = 88% of the total issued

Slave States & DC = 12% of the total issued

But, does industrial output equal inventiveness? I'm not sure, but I would probably argue that a free labor system encouraged inventiveness more than a slave labor system.

The same report that offered the state figure breakdown also indicated that the category that received the most number of  patents issued (1198) were for products associated with railroads. The North certainly had the greatest amount of mileage in railroads. The next most numerous category was agricultural implements and processes (561). Both the North and South in 1858 were overwhelmingly rural and depended on heavily on farming, so in my thinking, neither section would have had an advantage in that particular category.

What would be interesting would be to compare the free population percentages (since slaves couldn't receive patents) of both sections to the percentages of patents issued to the sections. Maybe I can do that with some research from the closest census (1860) in a future post.

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress

Pennsylvanians for the Crittenden Compromise

This petition to Congress is from 106 members of the Union Fire Company No.1 from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, presumed to be the oldest volunteer Fire Company in the United States. The petition, inscribed on a watercolor of the American Flag, was received by Congress on February 6, 1861, when concerns over Southern secession were still balanced with hopes of preserving the Union and averting war. In the petition, the Company asked Congress to pass the Crittenden Compromise (or a similar measure) to preserve the Union. The volunteer firemen noted, "where the fiercest flames threatened the greatest destruction, they never stopped to inquire the cause, but rushed to use their best efforts to subdue the devouring element." They hoped that Congress would also find a way for the nation to avoid the flames of civil war.

Image and text courtesy the National Archives

No Patents for Slaves - And now, the Rest of the Story

In my last post I had many questions about the primary source I shared. Little did I know that almost all of those questions were answered some 30 years ago. It was brought to my attention by a kind reader that there was quite a bit of scholarship in this specific incident that was available online.

One of these articles was published in the Spring 1980 issue of Prologue magazine, which has been offered by the National Archives for the past 40 years. This article, written by Norman O. Forness, fully explains the slave patent situation.

    

I quickly realized the letter I shared yesterday had some errors or misinterpretations. That letter referenced a Stewart, who turned out to be planter Colonel Oscar J. E. Stuart a prominent lawyer from Pike County, Mississippi. In 1857 Stuart had written to fellow Mississippian Jacob Thompson, the Secretary of the Interior (pictured above), asking about the possibility of getting a patent for a special plow that Ned, one of his slaves, had invented. Other documents at the National Archives indicate that Stuart understood and acknowledged that the patent laws required that to receive a patent the inventor had to swear that he had conceived the idea. Since Ned had invented the plow, Stuart could not do this honorably. Stuart argued that since he owned Ned, he also owned Ned's labor and ideas. Stuart therefore wanted the patent issued to himself "as master of the slave-inventor."

Thompson was head of the Department of the Interior, which included Patent Office branch. He referred Stuart's letter to Attorney General Jeremiah Black who did not respond immediately. Thompson responded to Stuart that a patent application had be filed before a ruling could be made.

  

Stuart filed an official application which reached Commissioner of Patents and Kentuckian Joseph Holt (pictured above in middle). Holt basically rejected the application since the inventor, Ned, could not swear an affidavit that he had invented the plow as Ned was a slave and therefore not a citizen. Stuart was disgruntled and thinking he could get more done through fellow Mississippian Thompson, attempted to go over Holt's head. Thompson referred the matter to Attorney General Black, who after a long delay eventually made the ruling shown in the letter shared in yesterday's post.

Naturally, Stuart was not pleased with the final ruling and attempted to get the patent legislation changed via his Mississippi representatives, however when that didn't work either, Stuart began making the slave invented plows without a patent and selling them for $40.00 each.

Another article, this one published in The Journal of Negro History in the Winter edition of 1984 (pages 48-52, accessible on JSTOR) provides even more documentation on this fascinating case. Included in this article was the letter that Stuart wrote to Senator John A. Quitman, a former governor of Mississippi and filibuster organizer, attempting to get the patent law changed. This letter describes Ned's plow and how it works.

Also intriguing is an endorsement letter by another former Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown. Brown touted the superiority of the slave invented plow over its nearest competitors. He closed his glowing recommendation for the product by stating "I am glad to know that your implement is the invention of a negro slave - thus giving the lie to the abolitionist cry that slavery dwarfs the mind of the negro. When did a free negro invent anything?"

Even more documentation on Stuart is held at Mississippi Department of Archives and History in the Stuart Family Papers. Their description of the papers indicate that two of Stuart's son's died fighting for the Confederacy during the Civil War and that Stuart moved to Kentucky in 1871 to "escape the excesses of Reconstruction in Mississippi."

I am so happy to find out this information and to be able to share it here. Thanks Mom!  

Images courtesy of the Library of Congress

No Patents for Slaves

While browsing through some digitized documents on the National Archives website yesterday, I came across the above letter.

I still don't quite know what to make of it, and I wish there had been other accompanying documents to help enlighten us about the situation, and help contextualize and corroborate, but alas, we have only what we have.

The letter reads as follows:

Attorney General's Office

June 10, 1858

Sir
I fully concur with the Commissioner of Patents in the opinion he has given on the application of W. O. J. E. Stewart of Mississippi. For the reasons given by the Commissioner, I think as he does, that a machine invented by a slave, though it be new and useful, cannot, in the present state of the law, be patented. I may add that, if such a patent were issued to the Master, it would not protect him in the courts against persons who might infringe it.

Very respectfully

yours &c

J. S. Black 

In "sourcing" this document the first thing that strikes me is the date, especially as it relates to what information the letter contains. The Dred Scott Decision, which basically said that African Americans were not citizens and therefore did not have rights, was handed down by the Supreme Court the year before this letter was written. So, it makes sense that a patent wouldn't be issued to slave.

Continuing sourcing, I would be interested in finding out more about J.S. Black. Where he was from and his politics would be of particular interest. A quick search shows that Jeremiah S. Black was President James Buchanan's Attorney General from 1857-1860 and then the president's Secretary of State from 1860 to 1861. He was also a conservative from Pennsylvania that opposed Congressional Reconstruction after the Civil War. Being attorney general, Black was well aware of the Dred Scott Decision, and based on his post war sentiments, probably fully agreed fully with that ruling.

I would like to know who W. O. J. E. Stewart is. Is he the master of the slave mentioned at the end of the letter? I doubt that Stewart is the slave who produced the invention. I think probably the master made application on behalf of his slave. But, what was this invention that was "new and useful?"

The last sentence of the letter is especially confusing. When it says ". . . it would not protect him in the courts against persons who might infringe it," does "him" mean Stewart of the slave inventor? Surely it must mean Stewart, but the way it is written I'm not certain.

Maybe a little more searching at the National Archives would answer some of these questions; regardless, it is an intriguing letter that gives us some - although limited - insight into race and society in 1858.

National Archives Records Show Death Continued After Civil War

A couple of weeks ago I caught the premier of a documentary, Death and the Civil War, on PBS. I was somewhat disappointed that it focused so much on battlefield deaths and seemed almost to ignore the even more numerous deaths caused by disease. It also did not mention to my satisfaction that dying continued long after the war. I suppose I can understand why one might think that once the armies stopped shooting at each other and the war ended that the dying soon stopped too. Unfortunately, though that was not necessarily true.

There were tens of thousands of soldiers that had been wounded or had contracted illnesses during the war years that lingered on with their debilities in the post war years - many passing on in the immediate months - some lingering for years. Others, particularly United States Colored Troops, contracted diseases while serving out their terms of enlistment, which sometimes lasted into the late 1860s.

Records of a number of these unfortunate men who served at Camp Nelson, Kentucky, are digitized on the National Archives website. Browsing through them shows that many did die after the war closed from a variety of ailments ranging from measles to chronic diarrhea to small pox to typhoid fever to dropsy. The pictured record above shows the death and interment of Alfred Brown of Company A, 13th United States Colored Heavy Artillery, who died of pneumonia on July 10, 1865.

Like Brown, it appears that numerous Kentucky African American soldiers died of lung ailments, such as "pneumonia," bronchitis acute", and "infected lungs." Viewing these conditions over and over in these records makes me wonder if these respiratory issues were not preexisting.

In the book A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky, the author, James F. Hopkins provided a quote from a hemp growing slave owner that described lung afflictions in his slave workforce, "from 2 to 3 of the spinners constantly off since you left home there [sic] complaints has been much as usual Roy has been sick ever since you started and I doubt very much whether he lives much longer or not he is very low with an inflammation of the lungs."  Hopkins commented in general that "Other manufacturers of hemp also found that their workmen were susceptible to some kind of ailment of the lungs. Dr. J. L. Phythian, who served as physician at the state penitentiary during the Civil War, applied the name 'hemp pneumonia' to what he described as 'a very fatal disease' which seemed to affect mainly those prisoners employed in hackling the fiber. He attributed the trouble to 'fine particles of dust settling upon and irritating the body' and prescribed, with complete success according to his own report, a thorough bath before bedtime for each person engaged in that work."

Regardless of whether many of these African American soldiers had a preexisting condition that was exacerbated by the conditions experienced in camps of war, or whether they contracted their illnesses anew, their deaths should be remembered as being as significant as those who died "in glory" on the battlefield.  

To view the National Archives records click here, and click on "Digital Copies."

Gov. Magoffin's Response to Commissioner Hale

Way back on October 28, 2010 I posted about Alabama secession commissioner Stephen F. Hale's late December 1860 visit to his native Kentucky to converse with the state legislature and Governor Beriah Magoffin (pictured here) to attempt to convince the Bluegrass State to seriously consider secession.  Hale thought the opportunity was prime as many of the slave states were at the time were meeting in convention to debate the proposition of leaving the Union.

While posting Hale's entreaty was certainly important, I must confess I should have quickly followed up that post with Magoffin's reply. Better late than never, I will do so here.

Magoffin opened his written response with a warm welcome to Kentucky for the native son and by mentioning that he agreed with Hale's opinion that the issue of sectional differences was currently alarming. He also concurred that the South had long suffered from wrongs by the North, particularly in regard to fugitive slaves. Magoffin explained that "the people of Kentucky, by reason of their geographical position and nearer proximity to those who seem madly bent upon the destruction of our constitutional guarantees, realize yet more fully than our friends father south the intolerable wrongs and menacing dangers. . ."

Magoffin wrote that it was important for the North to finally and formally recognize slavery as a valid institution and sanctioned by the Constitution. "The war upon our social institutions and their guaranteed immunities waged through the Northern press, religious and secular, and now threatened to be conducted by a dominant political organization [Republican Party] through the agency of State Legislatures and the Federal Government must be ended. Our safety, our honor, and our self-preservation alike demand that our interests be placed beyond the reach of further assault."

The governor explained that "Kentucky will never submit to wrong and dishonor, let resistance cost what it may." And further, that "When the time for action comes (and it is now fearfully near at hand) our people will be found rallied as a unit under the flag of resistance to intolerable wrong." However, unlike the heated, impetuous and fleeing Gulf states, Magoffin recommended calm debate, deliberation and diplomacy within the Union family. If that more prudent course was pursued "the firm alternative of ample guarantees to all our rights and security for future immunity or resistance, our just demands would be conceded and the Union perpetuated stronger than before."

Magoffin stated, at the present time, the difference between the Kentuckys and Missouris and the more hot-spurred South Carolinas, Mississippis and Alabamas was that the border states saw its best chance of redressing constitutional wrongs within the Union, while the Deep South states saw no chance of being appeased as a member of the United States. "You have no hope of redress in the Union. We yet look hopefully to assurances that a powerful reaction is going on at the North. You seek a remedy in secession from the Union. We wish the united action of the slave States, assembled in convention within the Union. You would act separately; we unitedly."

Magoffin closed his letter with an intriguing reference to the interstate slave trade, which in my opinion vividly demonstates its importance to the Bluegrass State at the time. "I regret to have seen in the recent messages of two or three of our Southern sister States a recommendation of the passage of laws prohibiting the purchase by citizens of those States the slaves of the border slave-holding States."  This type of blackmail "is not only liable to the objection so often urged by us against the abolitionists of the North of an endeavor to prohibit the slave trade between the States, but it is likewise wanting in that fraternal feeling which should be common to States which are identified in their institutions and interests."  The governor thought it would likewise be bad policy "for the border slave-holding States to prohibit, by their legislation, the purchase of products of the cotton-growing States, even though it be founded upon the mistaken policy of protection to their own interests."

To sum up Magoffin and thus Kentucky's position on secession at this early point, it would be that while Kentucky saw eye-to-eye with Alabaman and the Gulf States on this the problem and origin of sectional differences, they viewed the solution to those issues much differently.

Just Finished Reading

I love going to the library, especially my local library, because you never know what you are going to run across. I never expected to see this book, which was just published this year, but there it was - a great surprise.

Routes of War: The World of Movement in the Confederate South is one of those books that covers a topic that has always been "hidden in plain sight." It is amazing that someone hasn't explored it earlier, as one cannot read about almost any Civil War campaign without realizing that the ability to move men and supplies is of utmost importance. But, during the Civil War, not only soldiers traveled.  The conflict also caused civilian displacement - free, fugitive, and enslaved.

In this book author Yael A. Sternhell, a professor at Tel Aviv University, tells a story of Southerners on the move. Whether it is the 1500 mile journey of Texans to the Virginia front early in the war; escaping African Americans flowing to Union lines in the middle of the war; or soldier deserters late in the conflict escaping the terror and devastation of combat to head home - they all had something in common - they all hit the road to accomplish their goals.

Sternhell's explanation for looking at war through movement is thought provoking. "What is gained by leaving behind battlefields, plantations, and other traditional sites of Civil War history, by turning our gaze to the routes that ran between them, is a new understanding of how war is lived, how it is experienced by the human body, and how the most mundane action of going from one place to the other translates into complex processes of political change, social revolution, and the evolution of wartime culture."

One intriguing point that Sternhell made is that war has the tendency to turn some aspects of society upside down. As examples she provided long accepted dynamics in Southern society. Whereas slaves had largely been required to carry passes to move from place to place in the antebellum years, during the war, whites too were often required to carry passes provided by provost marshals in order to travel. Something they disdained and saw a humiliating encroachment on their personal liberties. Similarly, in the antebellum years, whites usually had little reason to hide out unless they had committed some crime, but this practice was common among slaves to escape punishments, avoid work, or make a final run for freedom. But, during the war, white soldier deserters often found themselves doing the same as slaves to avoid being captured, returned to the front or punished in some way.

One pet peeve I had with the book was found in the epilogue. Here the author used William Faulkner's The Unvanquished, a book published in 1938 "to show, marching, straggling, fleeing, and traversing formed the heart of the lived experience in the Confederate South."  I suppose I understand what the author was attempting to do, but I am not a big fan of using novels - especially those written decades after the conflict - as an example.

I enjoyed reading Routes of War. It brought out an aspect of the war that is too often overlooked for its ubiquity, but shouldn't be for its importance. On a scale of 1 to 5, I give it a 4.5.  

On the Air with Blogtalkradio

If you find yourself with nothing better to do tomorrow night (September 27) at 9:00 p.m. ET, log onto Blogtalkradio while I spend some time with host Natonne Elaine Kemp of the "Research at the National Archives and Beyond" show. We will be discussing my blog, historical research, and genealogical resources in Kentucky, among other things.

Here's a link to the show: Blogtalkradio 

Just Finished Reading

I know there are lots of Civil War enthusiasts that find faults with Lincoln's decisions and his handling of touchy issues during his administration, but the more I read about him and understand the full context in which those vital decisions were made, I find his political acumen more and more impressive. Many of those tough decision come to light in William C. Harris's Lincoln and the Border States: Preserving the Union.

Harris's book is the first full-length treatment of Lincoln's unique relationship with the ever-important border states during the Civil War in many decades. Professor Harris upends many former scholar's findings that by 1861 the border states were firmly in the Union's fold. Rather, Lincoln and the Border States shows that during the four year conflict the president had to deal time and again with the slaveholding Union states.

Harris focuses most of this attention on the three most significant border states: Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland. Delaware, due to its small population and geographic location, was tied largely to Maryland's fate. Each of the three principle border states had unique issues that taxed Lincoln's time and patience. He did not deal with all of the states the same, but looked at each one individually and took their unique situations into consideration. For instance, he pushed the envelope on constitutional issues in Maryland with arrests and quieting dissenting presses, but he was much more hands off - at least initially - in Kentucky and Missouri on those issues. In Kentucky, he refused to push black enlistments until the spring of 1864, but they occurred much earlier in the other border states.

Two of Lincoln's most troubling issues in the border states was emancipation and enlisting black soldiers in those states. Radical elements helped end slavery before the war closed in Maryland (November 1864) and Missouri (January 1865), but Kentucky resisted their native son's encouragement and kept slavery alive in the commonwealth until the 13th amendment was ratified in December 1865. Earlier in the war all of the border states, including tiny Delaware, had turned down Lincoln's offer of compensated emancipation, but it was his cautious and thoughtful attention to the border states that kept them in the Union, which ultimately helped win the war. Harris rightfully gives these twin thorns in Lincoln's side considerable attention.

I highly recommend Harris's excellent book on this largely over looked, but very significant topic. I don't think you won't be disappointed by the level of scholarship or readability of the book.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give Lincoln and the Border States: Preserving the Union a 4.75.

Richmond, Virginia's Emancipation Day, 1905

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Photo and Drawing - Done at the Same Time?

I came across the above amazing photograph a while back. It captures a moment in the Civil War, that in my humble opinion, we see too little, but obviously was not uncommon. An African American family, or possibly extended family, or perhaps it's even two families, is shown with a wagon drawn by two horses or mules while Union cavalrymen or officers stand nearby.  The photograph shows at least 15 people in the traveling group. Those 15 people were likely someone's property shortly before this photograph was taken. Some of the individuals have Union army caps and coats that they probably picked along their way. They apparently stopped in Union lines long enough to have a photographer record this moment.

A multitude of questions come to my mind when I see images like this. What are their names? Where did they come from? Where did they want to go? Did their owners abandon them to avoid the Union army (thus their having horses/mules and wagon), or did they runaway and take their conveyance? Are they happy or apprehensive about the future?  Maybe both. Have they had enough to eat? Are they keeping warm? How were they treated in slavery? Did they leave any family members behind? Did they have to avoid slave patrols? So many questions.....

After finding the above drawing another question came to mind. Was the drawing done at the same time the photograph was taken? There are some subtle differences between the two, but there is too much in common in both images to not be depicting the same scene.

The drawing was made by famous Civil War correspondent artist Alfred Waud. Waud's numerous works are easily recognizable to Civil War students for their detail and realism. But, here, Waud wasn't standing next to the photographer when he sketched this one.

Information provided by the Library of Congress explains that Waud made his sketch on January 1, 1863, the day the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, from the photograph. Waud titled the sketch "An arrival in Camp--under the Proclamation of Emancipation," and it was published in Harper's Weekly magazine on January 31, 1863.

Images courtesy of the Library of Congress  

Breaking the Backbone of Rebellion with Emancipation

In honor of the upcoming 150th anniversary of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (September 22), I thought I'd post this cartoon I found on the Library of Congress website. I remember seeing a somewhat similar picture in the the American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War a long time ago, but that particular image depicted Lincoln battling the gyascutus alone while symbolically being hamstrung by the Democratic Party and the Constitution.

Here, Jeff Davis holds his chained gyascutus - a mythological animal seemingly part dog, part alligator, part dragon - and marked "rebellion," and with the distinction of having "the stiffest backbone ever grown" that "can't be broken."  While one dejected man (not identified but maybe John J. Crittenden?) sits behind holding his head and a tiny hammer labeled "compromise," Gen. Henry Halleck prepares to hammer away at the animal's back with a mallet labeled "skill."  Gen. George B. McClellan does the same with a hammer labeled "strategy."

Standing on deck to take a swing at the beast of secession is Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton with the "draft," and says "Halleck may use his skill and Mac his strategy, but this draft will do the business."  President Lincoln, the "old railsplitter" tells Stanton, "You can try him with that, but I'm afraid this ax of mine is the only thing that will fetch him."  The ax is labeled "Emancipation Proclamation."  

1861 Border State Conference in Frankfort

At the end of May 1861, a Border State Conference was held in Frankfort, Kentucky. It was chaired by notable politician John Jordan Crittenden (pictured), who's compromise proposal had been unable to breech the nation's division the previous winter. At the conference's conclusion the committee made addresses to the nation at large and to the people of Kentucky.

In their message to Kentucky the committee explained that the state declined to fill Lincoln's order for troops after Fort Sumter out of a spirit of the "purest patriotism," rather than comply and be guilty of further fracturing the country.  The state's action was made for "self-preservation" and was thankfully "respected by the [Lincoln] administration."

The message confirmed Kentucky's continued loyalty to the Union: "In all things she is as loyal as ever to the Constitutional administration of the Government. She will follow the Stars and Stripes to the utmost regions of the earth, and defend it from foreign insult. She refuses alliance with any who would destroy the Union."

Kentucky sought to be mediator in the country's trouble, much as political hero Henry Clay in the past had done with offering compromises. "When called to take part in it, she believes that there is more honor in the breach than in the observance of any supposed duty to perform it." To do so the commonwealth "announced her intention to refrain from aggression upon others, she must protest against her sail being made the theatre of military operations by any belligerent. The war must not be transferred, by the warring sections, from their own to her borders."

This war was serious stuff the committee reminded anyone who would listen. "The day of mere party platforms has, we trust, gone forever. It has passed from being a mere struggle for place that may gratify personal ambition, to one for the present and future welfare of a whole people, for the safety of homes and firesides."  It came down to this: "Union or no Union--Government or no Government--nationality or no nationality. Before this grand and commanding question everything else gives way."

The committee recognized that the war was unnecessary as "it so happened that at this dangerous crisis, when a sectional President had been elected, there was a majority in opposition to him in both Houses of Congress, by which he could have been controlled, and the people protected." But, unwisely, as the Southern states seceded, their representatives left Washington "and placed a President who would have been in a minority at the head of a triumphant majority."

During this mess though "Kentucky remained true to herself, contending with all her might for what were considered to to be the rights of the people, and although one after another of the [slave] States that should have been by her side ungenerously deserted her, leaving her almost along in the field, yet she did not surrender her rights under the Constitution, and never will surrender them."  And, for a point of emphasis they remarked " She will insist upon her constitutional rights in the Union, and not out of it."

Much like rejecting Lincoln's call for troops, Kentucky also refused to secede, not out of submission to the Lincoln administration, but out of "exalted patriotism." By maintaining a neutral position, Kentucky hoped to avoid being desolated by the contending armies. "Already the cannon and bayonets of another section are visible on our most exposed border. Let these hostile armies meet on our soil, and it will matter but little to us which may succeed, for destruction to us will be the inevitable result. Our fields will be laid waste, our houses and cities burned, our people will be slain, and this goodly land be baptized 'the land of blood.'" To emphasize slavery's central role in the disagreements between the belligerents and importance to the state it was added, "And, even the institution, to preserve or control which this wretched was was undertaken, will be extermination in the general ruin."

The committee warned that no matter how much danger there was from outside the state there was potential trouble in the Bluegrass State too if they citizens did not stick together. "People of Kentucky, look well to it that you do not get to fighting among yourselves, for then, indeed, you will find, that it is an ill fight where he that wins had the worst of it. Endeavor to be of one mind, and strive to keep the State steady in her present position. Hold fast to that sheet-anchor of republican liberty, that the will of the majority constitutionally and legally expressed must govern."  And "Trust and love one another. Avoid angry strife. Frown upon the petty ambition of demagogues who would stir up bad passions among you."

Kentucky, of course, would not maintain their position of neutrality throughout the war. It probably was not possible as the war escalated. Unfortunately, too, when those tough decisions were made and lines were drawn Kentuckians did not "stick together."  Some fought for the Union, some fought for the Confederacy, some fought for their own material gain and to take from their neighbors, and some simply tried as best they could to sit it out. The Civil War in Kentucky should serve as an illustrated reminder of what results when compromise breaks down and minds are closed to diplomacy.

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress

Researching Georgia? No History For You!

I was disappointed to learn earlier this week, that due to budget cuts, the Georgia state archives would be closed to the public and its staff would be drastically reduced. I know first-hand what it feels like to lose a public history job due to circumstances beyond one's control and the results of our nation's economy. It is sad to think that the field I have chosen as my career is too often viewed as "nonessential."

I suppose it could be worse. Fortunately, Georgia is the only state archives that has closed - so far. I have no remedy other than to let our elected officials know the importance of having public history services continued. It would be great if somehow we could get these institutions to where they sustained themselves fiscally, but that is probably not realistic in many instances. However, in my humble opinion their continuance is worth the expense in maintaining them and making them available to the public. How are we to derive knowledge from the past to make informed decisions in the present and future if we do not have ready access to primary source evidence?

Here an article on this disappointing situation from the National Coalition for History:

On September 13, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp announced that due to budget cuts the Georgia State Archives would be closing on November 1. After that date, the public will only be allowed to access the building by appointment; however, the number of appointments could be limited based on the schedule of the remaining employees. Georgia will become the only state without a fully accessible state archives.

Kemp, whose office oversees the archives, said an order by Governor Nathan Deal to reduce state agency budgets by an additional 3 percent necessitated his action. The edict forced Kemp to come up with an additional $733,000 cut in his agency’s budget. Kemp refused to speculate how many of the agency’s employees would be laid off.

Kemp said he would seek to restore funding for the archives when the Georgia state legislature convenes in January. “I will fight during this legislative session to have this cut restored so the people will have a place to meet, research, and review the historical records of Georgia.”

The National Coalition for History will be working with historians, archivists and other affected stakeholders to have the decision reversed.

Official statement from the Georgia Secretary of State:

“The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget has instructed the Office of the Secretary of State to further reduce its budget for AFY13 and FY14 by 3% ($732,626). As it has been for the past two years, these cuts do not eliminate excess in the agency, but require the agency to further reduce services to the citizens of Georgia. As an agency that returns over three times what is appropriated back to the general fund, budget cuts present very challenging decisions. We have tried to protect the services that the agency provides in support of putting people to work, starting small businesses, and providing public safety.

To meet the required cuts, it is with great remorse that I have to announce, effective November 1, 2012, the Georgia State Archives located in Morrow, GA will be closed to the public. The decision to reduce public access to the historical records of this state was not arrived at without great consternation. To my knowledge, Georgia will be the only state in the country that will not have a central location in which the public can visit to research and review the historical records of their government and state. The staff that currently works to catalog, restore, and provide reference to the state of Georgia’s permanent historical records will be reduced. The employees that will be let go through this process are assets to the state of Georgia and will be missed. After November 1st, the public will only be allowed to access the building by appointment; however, the number of appointments could be limited based on the schedule of the remaining employees.

Since FY08, the Office of the Secretary of State has been required to absorb many budget reductions, often above the minimum, while being responsible for more work. I believe that transparency and open access to records are necessary for the public to educate themselves on the issues of our government. I will fight during this legislative session to have this cut restored so the people will have a place to meet, research, and review the historical records of Georgia.”

Just Finished Reading

I remember as a youngster how crushed I was when I found out that my native East Tennessee was largely Unionist in its sympathies.  As I have aged I have learned some of the reasons that the citizens in that part of the state chose the path they did.  I have also learned that there were Unionists in other parts of Tennessee, some of whom felt a stronger attachment to the nation and stayed Unionist throughout the war, and some that felt they ultimately owed their loyalty to the state and joined the Confederate cause.

Daniel Croft's Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis does much to explain the thinking and actions of those not only in Tennessee, but also in Virginia and North Carolina.  Crofts chose not include Arkansas because it was largely a frontier region west of the Mississippi River and it did not have a competitive party political system that allowed for proper comparisons as did the three eastern upper South states.

Crofts's book looks at different pushes toward secession in these states from Lincoln's election in November 1860 to his call for 75,000 volunteers in the wake of Fort Sumter. The first push came with the election of the "Black Republican" president.  That threat was enough to convince the Gulf states to leave the Union, but not the two tiers of state above them; the upper South states and the border states. The second move was a push back by those upper South states who at the time wanted no part of secession, but were also angered with the North and the president for threatening coercion against the seceded states. The final push came after the bombing of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's subsequent call for states to provide troops to put down the rebellion. The fight at Fort Sumter itself was not enough prompt the upper South states to leave. It took Lincoln's perceived coercive action for the straw to break the camel's back and prompt their secession.  Virginia went out first on April 17, then North Carolina on May 20, followed by Tennessee, who's June 8 referendum was largely for show as the governor had effectively already separated the state from the federal government. 

While much of this book focused on the parties and politics of these states during this time period, my favorite parts were the close looks at a number of the politicians involved and the ultimate decisions they made. Men like: Robert Hatton, a congressman from Middle Tennessee who held out until Lincoln's call and then became a Confederate officer that was ultimately killed rather early in the war; and Emerson Etheridge, a rare West Tennessee Unionist that remained loyal throughout the war; and North Carolinian John Gilmer who was actually considered for Lincoln's cabinet, but chose to go with his state to the Confederacy.  Other individuals that Crofts mentioned but that I wished he would have examined more fully are William G. Brownlow of Tennessee and John Minor Botts in Virginia.

I'll admit that Crofts lost me in a heavy flurry of statistical analysis and graphs in chapter 7, "Measuring the Unionist Insurgency." But, I enjoyed most of the rest of the book and it is well worth reading for the individuals and ideas it illuminates.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis a 4.25.