DIARY OF IMPRISONMENT 51 Saturday 29. Very cold night--heavy frost. No ax to be had. My mess tried to make an apology for last nights treatment, but I told them that I had been with my friend--"out upon such selfishness." Such is the action of a large portion of the prisoners. Cannot send letters through without a C.S. stamp on them. Wrote yesterday to wife but am waiting to get a stamp. Lt Thos Hare gave me a stamp and I put the letter in the box. Slept with Lt Anderson[,] 3rd Iowa[,] in Lt Hare's hut. Not very cold. Sunday 30th Oct 1864 Not up till after sunrise. Two or three shots were fired during the night by the guards but no one hurt. Beautiful day. Capt Dircks & Lt Hare made arrange- ments with guard to let four of us out to night. Started at 8 PM and Capt D and Lt H in advance [with] Capt Smith & I following. We crawled towards the line. When the leading men were within a rod of the line one of the guards fired and shot Capt D through the thigh. We retreated and gave it up for this time. The guards had been changed. Warm and cloudy all night. Monday 31st Oct Cloudy forenoon. Reed a letter from my wife dated Sept 25th[,] one from B W Pease Sept 9th[,] and one from Cousin Mattie B. Whipple Sept 21. All well at home, but no news of Ex[change]. Tuesday Nov 1st 1864 Our mess com[mence]d building a house. Got about half done. Made arrange- ments to escape to night and at half past 11 PM crawled out in co[mpany] with Capts J H Smith 16th Iowa[,] W J Rannells 75th Ohio[,] Jno L Poston 13 Tenn Cav[,] and J L Elder 11 Iowa. Took up our line of march South through the dense undergrowth for about one mile [,] thence S E for about the same distance striking the C[harleston] & C[olumbia] road about two (?) m[ile]s from Columbia. Travelled about 8 m[ile]s further in this road South and at daylight had to stop in a little skirt of timber near the road. It was cloudy all night and comm[ence]d raining about daylight |
|
52 OHIO
HISTORY
Wednesday Nov 2d
And rained all day almost completely
drenching us and making us chilled through.
A long day it was and when night came on
we started in and walked about five
miles and at about 11 PM being very
tired and sleepy we turned into a woods on
Henry Bakers plantation [and] built a
fire to warm us. Being very sleepy Capt
Smith [,] Rannells & I lay down on
one blanket and one for a covering[,] we
slept till daylight.
We got up with feet & legs nearly
benumbed with the cold. Finding ourselves near
a house we put the fire out and moved
farther into the timber. Rained all day.
Capt Poston & Elder made a
reconnaissance to our material benefit.
Thursday Nov 3d
Started about dark and taking a by road
came near the Congaree river and building
a fire at the end of an old house dried
ourselves by 11 PM and lay down on the
floor and slept till day break when Capt
Smith and Elder went to reconnoiter the
river for a boat. While they were absent
I found some Persimmons which were
eaten with a relish which a hungry man
[three words unintelligible]. They returned
with a good report. We cooked some rice
in our tin cups and ate our scanty breakfast.
On
Friday Nov 4th 1864
Moved to a thicket and parched some corn
for our subsistance [sic] down the river.
At dusk, as we were going to our old
cabin hiding place, we met three [men ?] of
our escaped officers. At 12 Midnight we
got started in a flatbottomed boat[,] five
of us, and the other three took another
boat. The river being pretty good stage we
got along quite well but had to stop at
daylight about 12 m[ile]s above the RR
bridge which we have to pass in the
night. We were nigh chilled through[,] so we
warmed up and ate a goodly breakfast of
cold chicken and baked sweet Potatoes
and will trust our fortunes to another
day. At sundown we got in our boat and
started running till about midnight when
becoming very cold we landed and built
a fire and warmed up. Lay by till 2 AM
Sunday 6th
We passed easily under the bridge and
found our 3 comrades about a mile below.
Passed on till after daylight when we
landed on an island in the Santee about one
mile below the Wateree.
Built a good warm fire and eat [sic] breakfast.
Toward noon some friends came
up the river and gave us some dinner. At
dusk started on the most beautiful of
rivers of a [moonlit ?] night and made
20 miles passing the Reb obstructions and
deserted battery at one mile and landed
just as the moon was setting at Rice Bluff,
a deserted plantation. Built a good fire
on the [Plateau ?], and all lay down to
sleep but me as watch. This river
abounds with wild ducks and the woods on each
side with raccoons & owls.
Monday 7th
We lay till day break[,] got up, picked
up a Kid, and getting in our boats we went
eight miles and landed in the [cane ?]
on the left bank of the river where we camped
for the day. Dressed our kid and cooked
up a portion in several ways. Baked some
DIARY OF IMPRISONMENT 53 [oat ?] cakes, stewed some turnips and boiled some sweet potatoes, generally faring pretty well. Started at dark [,] came to [Tabs ?] Ferry in 5 miles. Found some negroes who had just ferried a soldier over. They were very friendly [,] got us Sweet Potatoe meal and also told us there was no danger. One old man named Prince was present. He was very glad to see us Yankees. Ran all night till 7 AM Tuesday 8th Nov 1864 When we tied up on an island. Supposed distance run 40 m[ile]s. Roasted the balance of our Kid and made quite a good breakfast of sweet Potatoes and cold Kid. We suppose that we can reach the N[orth] E[astern] RR bridge in about 4 hours run. Started at dark and with a light fog and thick overhead the moon did not mar our progress. Passed the N[orth] E[astern] RR br. at 10 PM (supposed very close), ran 20 m[ile]s and tied up on the Right bank at 12 midnight to wait for the moon to go down so that we could run the Reb Pickets at the Ferry 15 m[ile]s below the RR br. At 2 AM |
|
Wednesday Started and saw neither Ferry nor pickets. Landed on an island on the left bank at day light after 3 hours run or 5 hours from the bridge. Supposed [distance] 20 m[ile]s. There must be a large plantation opposite, but some distance back. Nothing happened to disturb our quiet little island retreat and after partaking of a hearty supper of sweet potatoes and goat grease we started at dark and passed several plantations on the right bank (the left is all swamp). We stopped at 8 mi[les] and found a potato patch. Dug a bag full. 6 of our party went to the negro quarters and got something to eat and some valuable information. They told |
54 OHIO
HISTORY
us that we had a Battery to pass 5 miles
further down, to go down Chicken Creek
which is 2 m[ile]s long, into South
river, 2 m[ile]s further to Mazyck ferry and a
picket 6 m[ile]s further and to go to
Mullen island a distance of about 40 m[ile]s
where our gunboats visited daily. So on
we started. Passed the Battery without
being seen although it was bright moon
light. Got to Chicken C[ree]k at about
12 m[ile]s and camped on the left bank a
half mile from its head at about 3 AM of
Thursday Nov 10th 1864
Weather pleasant. Secreted our boat in
the cane which lines the banks and had a
good fire built. Slept about 2 hours
before day light. The land is about one foot
above the water and is covered with a
dense growth of trees[,] bushes and grape
vines. The day passed quietly and at
sundown we launched on the C[ree]k. The
Tide being in our favor we glided into
South river in one mile and found it a wide
and beautiful stream with South
Carolina's best rice Plantations on each bank.
Passed Mazyck Ferry unmolested at 5
m[ile]s. Many islands on the left hand and
reached the coast at about 11 PM[,]
dist[ance] about 25 m[ile]s. Visited the wreck
of an iron clad supposing it to be a
steamer but badly landed on a sand bar of
South Island. Built a fire and took a
short nap.
Friday 11th Nov 1864
Saw one of our Blockaders about 6
m[ile]s from the shore. Hailed her but unseen.
Capts Smith, Rannells & Dickerson
tried twice to reach her in one of our boats but
the wind being against them they failed.
It was a fruitless undertaking and I ex-
pected to see them go to the bottom. At
night we went into an old Reb Fort, built
a good fire, roasted some Potatoes and
stayed till
Saturday 12th Nov 1864
When, the day being fair, Capts Smith,
Dickerson & Burke started in one of our
little boats with the determination of
reaching the vessel or perishing in the attempt.
After they had been gone some time we
came across some marines on shore who
belonged to the vessel which proved to
be the Canandagua [sic], Commander Harri-
son. They were glad to meet us but not
more so than we were. We treated them to the
balance of our sweet potatoes and they
in return gave us hard tack & tobacco. At
about 11 AM a boat was seen coming
ashore. [It was from] another Steamer which
proved to be the Flambeau, Lt Ed Cavendy
[,] Commanding. The boat took us off
to the Candagua [sic] where we found
our boats crew had safely arrived. We were
regaled with the best the vessel
afforded and at 2 PM were transferred to the
Flambeau and immediately got under weigh
for Charleston, where we arrived off
at 1 AM
Sunday Nov 13 1864
Got a good breakfast on b[oar]d the
Flambeau and passing the forenoon very
pleasantly we were sent in the Tug Iris
to the Sloop of War, Jno. Adams, Capt
Gown. Took dinner on the Iris and were
transferred to the Tug Gladiolas [sic],
Acting Ensign Napoleon Brighton,
Master[,] and at Sundown we got under weigh
for Hilton Head. Passed out the Morris
Island Channel 3 m[ile]s to Light ship and
then tacked to the S W. Had an excellent
supper on board.
The view from the outside is grand, giving
a view of the Rebel works, ours and
the city.
DIARY OF IMPRISONMENT
55
Providence has in every instance of
danger interposed for our safety. And while
watching for the RR Bridge on [the]
Columbia RR, which we could not pass in
moonlight, we landed before we saw it
and it so happened that we were almost in
sight of it. And when we started a fog
covered the river at the bridge. Such was
the case at the N[orth]E[astern] RR
Br.[,] at the Ferries, and at one Ferry a
Confed Soldier had just crossed before
we arrived.
Monday, 14th Nov 1864
We arr[ive]d at Hilton Head at one AM
this morn and were reported to Rear
Ad[mira]l Dahlgren who sent for us to
take breakfast with him but we were being
provided with an excellent breakfast on
the Gladiolas, after which we steamed up
to the Flag ship and were very agreeably
entertained by the Adl. who ordered us
to be clothed by the Naval Dept. and
then sent us to Gen Foster at Hilton Hd who
reed us very gladly and regaled us with
a repast & very pleasant chat [,] with some-
thing good to take--apples & grapes.
He ordered that we be paid 2 mo[nths pay]
and have Transportation to New York on
to morrow. We called on Maj Jos [More ?]
who paid us two mo[nths] pay for July
& August amounting to for me 233 doll[ar]s.
My Serv[an]t black--John, 5 ft. 6 in.
high.11 Tax $3.50, making Capt[ain's]
pay
120$.
I learned that a box went up to Columbia
for me on the 3 of this mo[nth] and that
a letter with 20 doll[ar]s in gold went
up on the 26 Oct. I wrote to Lt. Fairfield to
use the same, and gave him a sly hint
what route I came.
We found the Fed officers here could not
do too much for us. Every favor and kind-
ness asked or needed was extended to us.
A Steamer or cat boat with an officer
and men to work it[,] as Admiral
Dahlgren said to day "You shall have a steamer.
You shall not go in a row boat."
We put up at the Port Royal House.
Tuesday 15th Nov.
Had a good nights rest in a good clean
bed[,] with good fare, and this morning
turned out to make some purchases-- a Vest 6.00, Portmanu [sic] [1.00?],
4
Collars .20, Pens .35, Hat 7.00, Hdkf.
.75¢, Gloves .80¢, Chessmen $2.00, Tobacco
.30¢. For Hotel bill 2.50[,] Apples
.20¢. [Tub ?] to N. Y. 8.00. Total $29.10.
Went on board the Fulton at 2 PM and got
underweigh at 4 PM. Slept well to night.
Wednesday 16th
All well. Fine weather and smooth sea.
We have very pleasant times there being
but few passengers. Capt Smith has the
military command of the vessel. At noon
we were off Wilmington[,] N C about 60
m[ile]s from the coast. Pleasant night.
Thursday 17th Nov.
Passed Cape Hateras [sic] at 3 AM
this morning. Sea a little rough. Wind changed
to Eastward so that we can use a fly
sail.
Slightly colder. At noon off Roanoke
island. Prospects to be in N Y by 2 PM
to-morrow.
Yesterday I wrote a letter to Mrs E M
Coffin of Nantucket and to day made my
report to Adjt Gen U S A, to be sent on
arrival in N Y City.
By request of Maj Gen Foster we made a
statement regarding the treatment of our
56 OHIO
HISTORY
officers in Reb prisons and signed the
same officially. This was to be sent to War
Dept.
Friday Nov 18th 1864
Weather a little rough. The latter part
of the night the Jersey Coast in sight with
several vessels on either hand. Cool and
rainy. Feel quite well. Passed around
Sandy Hook. Two vessels aground on our
Starboard quarter. Passed the Forts Hamil-
ton on L[ong] I[sland] and Old Fort
Layfayette [sic] on the Staten I[sland] side and
landed at Pier 36[,] N[orth] River. Went
to PM Genl Hays in St Marks Place.
He refused to give us transportation
west so Capt Smith and I[,] after getting dinner
at the Tremont House on Broadway, went
to the Jersey City Ferry at the foot of
Duane St, bought Tickets for Home. I pd
23 doll[ar]s to Cin[cinnati].
Started at 5 PM on the Erie RR. Got to
Elmira at daylight.
To N[orth] East [near Erie,
Pennsylvania] at dark[,] Cleveland at 9 PM [the] 19th.
Got supper and at 12 midnight Capt Smith
took the Chicago train at Crestline and
I arrived in Cin at 10 AM Sunday, [the]
20th, having dropped a letter at Milford
for E A Parker and one for J F Avery to
let my family know of my arrival. Took
dinner at the Indiana House and went to
Mr. C. W. Bunkers and stayed till Monday.
Nov 21st 1864
When I went home per the
"Buss" where I arrived at 8 PM and found all well and
some what surprised to find the dead
alive, the Captive Free, and our Prayers
answered. God be praised.
THE EDITOR: Louis Bartlett is a teacher
in the New York public school system. He
holds an M.A. degree in history from
Columbia
University, where he has also been
working on
his doctorate.
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS REMBRANDT and |
|
THE OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY by WILLIAM C. KEENER |
A FEW MONTHS ago the Metropolitan Museum of Art shocked the public, and certainly surprised the museum world, by paying the remarkable sum of $2,300,000 for Rembrandt's painting of "Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer." It was an historic occasion and one filled with more than its share of drama. So- cialites, art dealers, critics, collectors, and museum people gathered for the sale in the austerely furnished main auction room at Parke - Bernet Galleries, New York, while less fortunate ticket holders were dispersed to nearby quarters and forced to participate via closed-circuit television. Not a few prominent and no- ticeably irate public figures were turned away. Excitement ran high, for although other fine paintings were to be sold, the Rembrandt commanded the attention-- and aroused the speculation--of every person present. Parke-Bernet auctions are especially |
well managed and move very quickly. Tension mounted steadily as the monoto- nous voice of the auctioneer droned the opening bid on the "Aristotle" -- one million dollars. Raised hands or subtle nods and other obscure bidding devices rapidly raised the price to the successful pinnacle, the highest price ever paid for a painting. In the weeks that followed, conscienti- ous reporters solicited opinions on this amazing purchase from all classes of peo- ple from cab drivers to bank presidents, and many thousands who had never set foot in a museum trekked to the Metro- politan to contemplate "Aristotle." For many it was the greatest painting they had ever seen; it evoked an emotional and aesthetic response of unequaled mag- nitude. But to almost everyone who saw it or read about it, it posed two nagging questions--why did it cost so much, and why did the museum buy it? |
58 OHIO HISTORY |
It is not our purpose here to discuss the Rembrandt's uniqueness, quality, or aesthetic appeal, nor the wisdom of the Metropolitan Museum's decision to buy the picture. But this single event that so effectively captured the imagination of the public, also focuses attention on those two legitimate questions that go to the heart of museum and historical society acquisition policies. They are the ques- tions that any curator must ponder as he considers an object for acquisition. He does so, however, with a conception of the museum's purpose that is often much different from that of the casual visitor. The first question is easier to answer, or, perhaps, to understand, than the sec- ond. At the same time that the American people have become increasingly appre- ciative of the past, their affluence has encouraged competition in the acquisition of those objects that represent significant expressions of the cultural heritage of their civilization. As a result of this ri- valry, which is dominated primarily by private collectors and certain museums, the prices of the rare and distinctive pieces of times gone by have risen sharply, sometimes, it seems, as in the case of the Rembrandt painting, to fan- tastic heights. The fact is that many of the relics of former periods, such as art objects, household furnishings, orna- ments, textiles, tools and implements, publications, and manuscripts, have mone- tary value. The museum that would ac- quire any of them must pay for them or receive them by gift, and if they are given, the donor may be credited with their monetary value. The answer to the second question is involved with the very purpose of the institution known as the museum. Con- trary to a still widely held opinion, mu- seums are not, or should not be, large, dusty depositories for curios. The modern museum serves many masters and many causes. It must accommodate the needs |
of the scholar, the student, the collector, the casual visitor--and posterity. Each of these groups, and others, requires par- ticular attention, and it is the duty, indeed the obligation, of the institution to develop its collections so that all may be served. Obviously, the purpose of the collecting program of a museum must be somewhat broader than the aims of the private collector. He can indulge a serious inter- est, a whim, or an idiosyncrasy to the extent of his needs or of his wealth. His responsibility is only to himself. This is not to say that many great private col- lections have not been formed, but to point out that the private individual has no obligation to develop his collection to meet any requirements other than his own. The museum, on the other hand, must consider its acquisitions, both indi- vidually and collectively, in terms of pub- lic or general use. An object, whether it is a Rembrandt painting or a stoneware crock, has a va- riety of uses in a museum collection. First, and perhaps most important, the museum item is a fact; it is a physical document of a moment, of a taste, of a craft or an industry, of a culture, and of an age. It can be used, much as a manu- script is used, as historical evidence. Fre- quently, the object is the only form of evidence that sheds light on a particular facet of social or cultural history, or, when used in conjunction with other types of documentation, it provides a broader understanding of a particular subject under consideration. Archaeolo- gists have long understood and made effective use of artifacts as documents, and some modern historians have devel- oped a similar appreciation in recent years. In the same context, a group of like or related objects can prove even more use- ful in developing documentation in depth. Just as a diary or collection of letters |
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 59 |
provides a deeper insight than a single document into the thoughts and actions of an individual, so also a collection of fire- arms, for example, gives a clearer view than a single weapon of the development of the military, protective, and hunting techniques and abilities of a given his- torical period. The object is presented to the public generally, however, as an interpretive piece in a museum's exhibition. Here the full impact of its aesthetic and visual ap- peal can be combined with its documen- tary qualities to illustrate a particular point or to delineate a whole culture. Its exhibition is the ultimate moment of truth for the object, for here, transported through time to the present, it speaks of its own environment, of the events in which it participated, and, to some extent, of the men who made and used it. The degree to which it is successful in com- municating its message depends upon the merit of the object and upon the ability of the museum to display it. The acquisition program of the Ohio Historical Society is based upon its obli- gation to fulfill these needs of preserving documentation of our culture and, through the documentation, of interpret- ing our past. Each object considered for the historical collections, therefore, is evaluated in terms of its significance as a document, its intrinsic merits, its impor- tance to the collections, and its value to the Society's exhibition programs. The object, to be acceptable, must also meet high standards of quality and condition. The large stoneware crock pictured on the cover provides an excellent illustra- tion of these considerations for acquisi- tion in practice. It is not difficult to visualize this massive container gracing the premises of the American House in Columbus during the mid-1840's, nor does a finer means exist for helping to develop an understanding of the early pottery craft in the Ohio Valley. Its pro- |
venience is well authenticated by marks impressed on the body. In form and dec- oration it is one of the finest examples of stoneware in existence. This piece is also a desirable addition to the Society's ex- tensive collection of salt-glazed stoneware, and it clearly shows the development of the technique of scratched or incised dec- oration. Finally, it can be utilized in a variety of exhibitions. It is apparent, in this instance, because of its singularity, that the significance and quality of this object override its defective condition. The fact that the handles of this unique crock are broken and missing does not detract from its ability to fill all of the acquisition requirements. Another recent addition of consider- able importance to the Society's collec- tions is the silver tea kettle and warmer illustrated here. It was made and sold by |
|
|
Edward and David Kinsey of Cincinnati about 1845 and is one of the few extant marked hollow pieces of Ohio silver. The Kinseys were active separately and in partnership for several decades before the Civil War and were perhaps the most prolific silversmiths in the state. Their work on this particular piece can hardly be judged by comparison with that of the great American silversmiths of the eigh- teenth century, but within the context of its period, it excels in craftsmanship and restrained ornamentation, not often found in the early Victorian years. It is an im- portant document, not only of the craft of silversmithing but also of the taste and furnishings of its period as well. While the significance of a single ob- ject is sometimes difficult to appreciate, it generally takes on added meaning when it is viewed along with similar objects and also with objects made from the same ma- terial or by the same method. One of the goals of the museum is to build collec- tions of comparable objects in order to achieve an understanding of the whole production of a particular category. On occasion a museum finds itself in a for- tunate position to acquire a large group of similar or comparable materials for its collections at one time. Usually these are selected from a major private collection that has been assembled by an informed and discerning collector over a period of years. Recently the Ohio Historical So- ciety was privileged to make a selection of more than 350 pieces of American |
blown glass and blown molded glass from the collection formed by the late George S. McKearin, an eminent collector of early American glass and an authority on that subject. This acquisition swelled the Society's holdings in this important field to approximately one thousand items. This fine collection helps to document the historical impact of glassmaking on the economy of the state and on the con- sumer habits of its citizens. As early as 1815 a small factory in the Zanesville area was producing bottles, tableware, and window glass for local consumption, and within a few years similar enterprises sprang up at Kent, Ravenna, Mantua, and Cincinnati. Calling upon experienced craftsmen who had been trained in the East and in the flourishing Pittsburgh factories, the Ohio firms maintained the production of a steady stream of blown- glass tableware and containers through- out the first half of the nineteenth cen- tury. With the discovery of glass-pressing techniques, an even greater volume of production literally swamped the glass market after mid-century. On this page is a picture showing sev- eral examples from the collection. At the left is an amber, broken-swirl globular bottle, typical of thousands that were made between 1815 and 1830 as contain- ers for spirits and a variety of household liquids. Beside it are two blown three- mold pieces--a bar bottle and a flask-- which were made at Kent during the rage for this type of imitation of the more ex- |
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 61 |
pensive cut glass. One hundred and twelve patterns and fifteen colors produced by this remarkable technique are represented in the collection. Flanking these pieces on the right are three of the historical, or figured, flasks that became so popular in the 1830's and 40's. The concentric-ring eagle flask is one of today's great rarities among the extant products of the New England Glass Company, of Massachu- setts. The other two were made at Zanes- ville by Murdock-Cassel and Shepard. These are but three of more than two hundred flasks in the collection. These objects help to illustrate the kind of effort that the Society is making to de- velop its collections. It is designed to meet a variety of purposes and to serve a number of publics, and it is applied to a number of collecting areas, including furniture, textiles, household utensils and furnishings, paintings, prints, firearms, tools, hardware, and metal products. It is an effort that must continue unabated and on an increasing scale if the Society is to meet its obligations to the citizens of Ohio. THE AUTHOR: William G. Keener is the curator of history of the Ohio Historical Society. |
|
|
NEWS and NOTES THROUGH the efforts of a group of Colum- bus citizens, organized as the Kelley House Committee, Inc., and the Franklin County Historical Society, the famous Alfred Kelley mansion, located at 282 East Broad Street, has been carefully dis- mantled and removed to Franklin Park, where it is to be reconstructed and re- stored. At Franklin Park the stonework of each wall has been laid out on the ground in the same position it had vertically. Each of the three thousand stone blocks in the structure was marked to indicate its precise position. Some three hundred photographs were taken, and careful measurements and drawings were made, to record all exterior and in- terior architectural features. Walter L. Davis, construction super- intendent of the Ohio Historical Society, and Cyril H. Webster, who was on the staff of the Society as building superin- tendent of the Ohio State Museum before his retirement in 1958, supervised the dismantling and recorded the structural and architectural details. Members of the Columbus chapter of the American Institute of Architects served as con- sultants. The Alfred Kelley House was one of the largest and finest homes built in the Old Northwest at the height of the Greek Revival period. Erected in the 1830's, it was then the most imposing house in Columbus, and was until its dismantling one of the few examples of Greek Re- |
vival domestic architecture still standing in the heart of a large city. Its design is one of dignity and simplicity, featuring four Ionic porticoes and an unusual, if not unique, masking stepped parapet. The structure was built of Ohio standstone, probably brought to Columbus by canal boat. The house had many important his- torical associations. As the home of one of Ohio's ablest statesmen from 1838 to 1859, it was the center of hospitality for all important state and local political leaders. Sixty delegates to a convention in 1840 were entertained there at the same time. Alfred Kelley was one of the "fathers" of the Ohio canal system and supervised much of its construction. He became the architect of Ohio's financial and tax structure during his service in |
|
the general assembly and on the canal commission. At mid-century he turned his energies to the introduction of the railroad to Ohio. THE Ohio Historical Society will hold its seventy-seventh annual meeting at the Ohio State Museum, Columbus, Friday, April 27. The theme of the meeting is to be the Early American and Ohio Decorative Arts, and a special feature will be the opening of a new decorative |
NEWS AND NOTES 63 |
arts gallery at the Museum. The luncheon for members of the Society, guests, and officers and staff will be served in the galleries of the Arthur C. Johnson Audi- torium. RAYMOND S. Baby, curator of archaeology of the Ohio Historical Society, has been appointed by the Society for American Archaeology to participate in its abstract- ing program. As collaborator of the latter organization he is charged with preparing abstracts of all current pub- lished materials that concern the archae- ology of the Ohio area. The abstracts are to be published in the series known as Abstracts of New World Archaeology, be- ing prepared and issued by the Society for American Archaeology. Two volumes of this series have appeared to date. TWO new publications on the general sub- ject of Ohio and the Civil War have been issued by the Ohio Historical Society and the Ohio State University Press for the Ohio Civil War Centennial Commis- sion. They are Ohio Negroes in the Civil War, by
Charles H. Wesley, president of Central State College, and Ohio Forms an Army, by
Harry L. Coles, professor of history at Ohio State University. Other publications in this series, which is being prepared under the direction of the Advisory Committee of Historians of the centennial commission, are Ohio Troops in the Field, by Edward T. Downer; The Ohio Press in the Civil War, by
Robert S. Harper; and Ohio Politics on the Eve of Conflict, by Henry H. Simms. Future publications scheduled to appear during the coming year are Ohio's War Governors, by
William B. Hesseltine; Ohio Military Prisons in the Civil War, by Phillip R. Shriver; Ohio Agriculture During the Civil War, by Robert L. |
Jones; The Sherman Brothers and the War, by
Jeannette P. Nichols; Ohio Churches and Religion During the Civil War, by
Richard W. Smith; Cincinnati and the Civil War, by Louis L. Tucker; Vallandigham and the Civil War, by Frank L. Klement; Lucy Webb Hayes Views the Civil War, by Mrs. Ralph Geer; The Bounty System in Ohio Dur- ing the Civil War, by Eugene C. Mur- dock; Ohio Colleges in the Civil War, by G. Wallace Chessman; and Gunboats on the Ohio During the Civil War, by Robert Seager, II. The members of the Advisory Com- mittee of Historians are Thomas L. LeDuc, Oberlin College; Paul McStall- worth, Central State College; Paul I. Miller, Hiram College; Eugene C. Mur- dock, Marietta College; Virginia B. Platt, Bowling Green State University; James H. Rodabaugh, Ohio Historical Society; Robert Seager, II, Denison University; Phillip R. Shriver, Kent State University; Henry H. Simms, Ohio State University; Duane D. Smith, University of Toledo; H. Landon Warner, Kenyon College; Harris G. Warren, Miami University; Harvey Wish, Western Reserve Univer- sity; and Everett Walters, Ohio State University, chairman. The publications may be purchased or ordered from the Ohio Historical Society, 1813 North High Street, Columbus 10, Ohio. WILLIAM T. Utter, professor of history at Denison University, Granville, since 1929, died suddenly in a Newark, Ohio, hos- pital, January 12, 1962. Dr. Utter is re- membered as a contributor to and warm supporter of the work of the Ohio His- torical Society. He was the author of The Frontier State, 1803-1825, which was Volume II of the six-volume History of the State of Ohio, published by the |
64 OHIO HISTORY |
Society between 1941 and 1944. In the early 1950's he served as a consultant historian to the Society on improvements at Zoar, Adena, and the William T. Sher- man Birthplace. His most recent major publication was a book entitled The Story of an Ohio Village, a history of Granville issued in 1956. At the time of his death he was serving as chairman of the Ohio His- torical Advisory Committee of the Gov- ernor's Committee for Commemorating the Sesquicentennial of the War of 1812. Dr. Utter was the recipient in 1957 of an honorary life membership in the Ohio Historical Society. THE annual meeting of the Ohio Academy of Medical History will be held in Cleve- land, Saturday, April 28, 1962. The morning session is scheduled at the West- ern Reserve Historical Society, the lunch- eon and afternoon session at "Gwinn," the former Mather estate, located on the shore of Lake Erie at 12407 Lake Shore Boulevard. THE Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, has announced plans for a new building. For many years housed in a section of the University of Cincinnati Library, it will erect its new structure as an addition to the Cincinnati Art Museum. The society will house its valuable collections in air-controlled sec- tions of the new quarters, enjoy modern reading rooms and offices, and have access to lecture hall and exhibition facilities. The January issue of the Bulletin of the Historical and Philosophical Society is a special edition devoted to the subject "Germany and Cincinnati." Among its nine articles and notes are an article on "The Germans of Cincinnati," by Carl Wittke, vice president of Western Re- serve University, another on "German |
Philosophy in Nineteenth Century Cin- cinnati," by Loyd D. Easton, chairman of the department of philosophy at Ohio Wesleyan University, and a third on "Some Architectural Aspects of German- American Life in Nineteenth Century Cincinnati," by Carl M. Becker, associate professor of history at Sinclair College, Dayton, and William H. Daily, a Dayton architect. THE Jonathan Hale Homestead, a museum of the Western Reserve Historical Society located near Peninsula, Ohio, is the sub- ject of a book recently published by the society. Written by John J. Horton, an |
|
associate for research of the society, the 160-page volume is entitled The Jonathan Hale Farm: A Chronicle of the Cuyahoga Valley. Jonathan Hale came from Connecticut to the Western Reserve in 1810. There he settled on the farm, which remained in the possession of the Hale family until 1956. In that year the Western Reserve Historical Society inherited the property from Miss Clara Belle Ritchie, who in- structed the society in her will to "take the necessary steps to establish the Hale Farm and buildings thereon as a museum for the display of books, paintings, furni- ture, household goods, farm and house- hold implements, china, silver, plate, ornaments, and similar objects, belong- |
NEWS AND NOTES 65 |
ing to the period and culture of the Western Reserve." The Hale house, a large three-story brick structure, built about 1827, has been restored and furnished in period by the society and opened to the public. Open also are the old sheep barn, which houses a museum of tools and imple- ments and methods of farming, and the Forge Barn, which is a museum on the skills and crafts of the early settlers of the Western Reserve. TWO significant research projects in Ohio history were given financial assistance by the American Association for State and Local History at its meeting in Washington, D. C., December 29, 1961. They were a study entitled "Internal Im- provements and Economic Change in Ohio, 1820-1860," by Harry N. Scheiber, assistant professor of history, Dartmouth College, and "A History of the Society of Separatists of Zoar," by Edgar B. Nixon, editor, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. Working under a Social Science Re- search Council Fellowship, Dr. Scheiber spent the year 1959-60 pursuing his re- searches for his study in the collections of the library of the Ohio Historical So- ciety. Dr. Nixon, a former resident of New Philadelphia and a descendant of Zoarites, has also worked in the Society's library in its extensive holdings of Zoar materials. A total of ten grants were made by the American Association for State and Local History at its December meeting. Such grants are made each year by the association as a part of its program to stimulate research and publication in state and local history. THE Fifth National Assembly for the centennial commemoration of the Civil War will meet in Columbus, May 4-5, |
1962. Invited to Ohio by the Ohio Civil War Centennial Commission and the Ohio Historical Society, the assembly will bring to the state capital the officers of the national Civil War Centennial Commission, representatives of state com- missions and historical societies through- out the country, and the nation's leading Civil War historians. Heading the federal delegation will be Allan Nevins, newly appointed chairman of the national commission, and James I. Robertson, Jr., the new executive di- rector. A feature of the program of the as- sembly will be the exhibition of "The General," the famous railroad engine of the Andrews Raid, popularly known as "The Great Locomotive Chase." The en- gine is being sent to Columbus by its owner, the Louisville and Nashville Rail- road. THE Western
Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, announces that negotiations are under way for the removal and dona- tion of the Thompson Auto Album, a mu- seum of antique automobiles and air- planes, to the society. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc., now owns the collec- tion, which it displays in a building at East 30th Street and Chester Avenue, N.E., Cleveland. The architectural firm of Charles Bacon Rowley & Associates, Inc., which designed the Norton addition to the historical so- ciety's property several years ago, has been engaged to prepare plans for a sepa- rate building to house the auto album. The automobile museum was started in 1937 by Thompson Products, Inc., the predecessor of Thompson Ramo Wool- dridge, Inc., under the leadership of the firm's president, Frederick C. Crawford. EUROPEAN backgrounds
of western civili- zation are to be stressed in a fifty-five day, twelve-country, group study-tour of |
66 OHIO HISTORY |
Europe this summer, sponsored by Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland. The tour will leave New York by non-stop jet on June 30 and arrive in Amsterdam on July 1. From there it will visit his- toric and contemporary sites and cities in Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ger- many, Switzerland, the principality of Liechtenstein, Austria, Italy, Greece, France, Monaco, and England. The tour instructor and supervisor will be Dr. Stanton Ling Davis, associate pro- fessor of history at Case Institute, who has directed summer study-tours in Europe for ten years. Case Institute will grant six semester hours of credit to those who wish it and meet the customary academic requirements. Teachers may use the tour and Professor Davis' accom- panying course in the European Back- ground of Western Civilization to meet in-service credit requirements. For further information write to Pro- fessor Stanton L. Davis, Department of Humanities and Social Studies, Case In- stitute of Technology, Cleveland 6, Ohio. THE Presbyterian
Historical Society, lo- cated in Philadelphia, announces that it will microfilm any paper or thesis which the society "considers to have sufficient interest for the study of the history of Presbyterianism or material relating to Presbyterianism." The microfilming of any item will be done at no expense to the author. "This service," the society states,
"is intended primarily for the reproduction of graduate theses, seminar papers, re- search projects, scholarly manuscripts, and other results of original research." The society proposes to make the micro- film available to any interested persons and institutions. Authors are urged to correspond with the society at 520 Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania, before send- ing manuscripts. |
THE American
Association for State and Local History, which has had its offices at the State Historical Society of Wis- consin, has moved to new quarters at 151 East Gorham Street, Madison 3, Wis- consin. The association will occupy the second floor of a brick building in a sec- tion of fine old houses, many of which have been converted to business use. It was formerly the residence of a prominent Madison family. The association, which was organized to promote interest and work in state and local history and to serve as a clear- ing house of information for historical societies and agencies, has greatly ex- panded its activities under its present di- rector, Dr. Clement M. Silvestro. The association issues a monthly magazine entitled History News and also Bulletins that are generally aimed at assisting local societies in organization, administration, and operations. Among the latest Bulle- tins are A
Guide to the Care and Admin- istration of Manuscripts, by Lucile M. Kane, and The Management of Small His- tory Museums, by
Carl E. Guthe. Membership in the association is open to all interested persons. It particularly welcomes local historical societies and their officers. THE National
Archives is issuing a series of small pamphlets to describe its various collections and explain its services to the American people. Of several that have particular interest for Ohioans are three entitled as follows: Pension and Bounty- Land Warrant
Files in the National Archives; Genealogical Records in the National Archives; and Age and Citizen- ship Records in the National Archives. For copies of these and other pamphlets, write to The National Archives, Wash- ington 25, D.C. |
|
BOOK REVIEWS THE LIBERTY LINE: THE LEGEND OF THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD. By Larry Gara. (Lexington: University of Ken- tucky Press, 1961. xi+201p.; index. $5.00.) "Although the underground railroad was a reality, much of the material relat- ing to it belongs in the realm of folklore rather than history. . . . Most legends have many versions, and the story of the underground railroad is no exception. Few people can provide details when asked about the institution. Specific in- formation is usually crowded out by vague generalizations. The underground railroad is accepted on faith as a part of America's heritage" (p. 2). The above quotation gives the cue to Professor Gara's monograph. First, he examines the legend. Most of the slaves were longing for freedom and large num- bers of them sought it in the "Promised Land of freedom." Abolitionists, bravely facing danger and hardship, perfected a vast and methodical network known as the Underground Railroad, by means of which the slave attained his objective of freedom. Innumerable tunnels and sta- tions existed, and secrecy in operations was essential, since the conductors often found their lives endangered as a result of their efforts. A part of the tradition, too, is the essential morality of the New Englanders and the Quakers as opposed to the wickedness of the southerners. The author examines also the factors in the persistence and strengthening of the |
legend. Prior to the Civil War, stories of escaping slaves and their benefactors were repeated, oftentimes with embellishments. Abolitionists magnified the numbers of fugitives so as to suggest the unstable nature of the southern institution and to show the extent to which they were help- ing to undermine it. Southerners exag- gerated the numbers escaping in order to show the magnitude of their property losses and the extent of the concerted efforts in the North to violate a provision of the constitution. After the war, count- less reminiscences of elderly people, ac- cepted in uncritical fashion by numerous historians, perpetuated the legend. Professor Gara utilizes a variety of sources in his revisionist study, and from them successfully demonstrates that too much that is fanciful has been associated with the Underground Railroad. He feels that most slaves preferred freedom to servitude, but looked upon their existence in a practical way, and hence did not at- tempt escape. Those who did, frequently did not go to the North, which, with its considerable degree of race prejudice, was not as much a land of freedom as it was pictured. He points out that many fleeing slaves traveled long distances and long periods of time without assistance, and hence actually were the heroes to a greater extent than those who assisted them. Organized assistance was confined mostly to localities, and widespread se- crecy did not exist. The author feels that Professor Wilbur |
68
OHIO HISTORY |
H. Siebert of Ohio State University, through his writings based partly on un- critical acceptance of abolitionist evidence at a time when the psychological atmos- phere lent itself to glorification of the Underground Railroad, did much to per- petuate the legend. An examination of his writings and of many others that follow the same line leads to the conclusion that the sources used in producing them were not entirely authoritative. HENRY H. SIMMS Ohio State University THE MIDWEST: MYTH OR REALITY? Edited by Thomas T. McAvoy, C.S.C. (Notre Dame, Ind.; University of Notre Dame Press, 1961. vii+96p. $3.50.) This record of a symposium held at the University of Notre Dame in April 1960 examines the Midwest from sociological, economic, political, and cultural angles. The six panel members deal with "the chief criticisms of the Midwest in the second half of the twentieth century"-- questions of the region's identity, its attitudes, its problems and prospects. Historically there has been a definite and distinctive Midwest. It began as the West, then it was the Northwest, and by 1850, when the West moved beyond the Missouri, it became the Midwest. Under all these names it was distinct and differ- ent, newer, more energetic, and more adaptable to change than the older sec- tions of the United States. "Europe," said Ralph Waldo Emerson in the 1840's, "reaches to the Alleghenies; America stretches beyond." Lord Bryce called the Midwest the most American part of America. Is the Midwest, a century later, a sepa- rate entity? To this underlying question the panelists answer that it is less sepa- rate but still an entity. Professor Russel B. Nye finds the region still capable of protest; Professor Jay Wylie, with the help of statistics, demonstrates the integ- rity of its economy; Father Thomas McAvoy points out the melding of Yan- |
kee, southern, and immigrant strains in the Midwest mind, a melding which pro- duced a combination of tolerance, indi- vidualism, and practicality. This con- siderable claim could probably have been documented if Father McAvoy had had more space than his twenty-two pages. The liveliest essay comes from a journ- alist, Donald R. Murphy of Wallace's Farmer, who
discusses the dilemma of the Midwest farmer who tries to beat declin- ing prices by increasing production, which depresses prices further. He makes a persuasive plea for the family farm, a sociological aim which in the face of eco- nomic realities is easier to agree upon than to realize. In his essay on midwestern literature John T. Flanagan provides a balanced and enlightening survey of a big subject. He stresses the realism of Midwest writing, its use of the vernacular--as in Mark Twain, Kirkland, Eggleston, and Ade-- and its healthy criticism of the status quo in both rural and urban life. In a final brief comment John T. Fred- erick brings the Midwest into the clearest focus. He sees the region's diversity, its continuing processes of change, and its unawareness of its own identity. To help people examine their society is the pur- pose of a book like this. WALTER HAVIGHURST Miami University THE WELSH IN AMERICA:LETTERS FROM THE IMMIGRANTS. Edited by Alan
Con- way. (Minneapolis: University of Min- nesota Press, 1961. 341p.; bibliography and index. $6.00.) AMERICA'S POLISH HERITAGE: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE POLES IN AMERICA. By Joseph A. Wytrwal. (Detroit: Endur- ance Press, 1961. xxxi + 350p.; bibli- ography, appendix, and index. $6.50.) These two volumes illustrate the ex- tensive research which is currently being done on the contributions of various immigrant groups to American life. In each case the author has facility in the |
BOOK REVIEWS 69 |
language used by the people involved, an advantage not generally claimed by present-day scholars. The first volume contains 197 letters, most of them originally written in Welsh, edited by a lecturer in American history at the University College of Wales, Ab- erystwyth, Wales. The letters are ar- ranged chronologically and geographi- cally, beginning with those which tell of the voyage across the Atlantic. Additional letters are from the farming areas of New York, Pennsylvania, and various midwestern states; from Welsh settle- ments on the Great Plains; from the coal mines and the iron and steel produc- tion regions of Pennsylvania and other states; from the mines of California and Colorado; and from the Mormon com- munities of Utah. Ohioans will be espe- cially interested in letters from Granville, Paddy's Run (Butler County), Van Wert County, and other areas of Welsh settle- ment. Many of the letters are written in a tone of deep discouragement, but those from Ohio are universally optimistic. The volume on the social history of the Polish-Americans fills a very large gap. The author, who knows well the Polish-American milieu, has his doctorate from the University of Michigan and during the past year has taught at the University of Detroit. He has used li- braries in Poland and in various centers of Polish culture in the United States. There are chapters dealing with the Old World historical background, Polish mi- gration in colonial times, migration prompted largely by political motivation before 1870, and that stimulated espe- cially by economic causes after 1870. Extensive treatment is also given to the Polish National Alliance, to the Polish Roman Catholic Union, to Polish-Ameri- can participation in each World War, and to other phases of Polish-American life. The author states in his introduction: "It is still correct that the history of immigration in the United States, espe- cially in its relation to other phases of |
history, has been, comparatively speak- ing, sadly neglected in detail and in general" (p. xxvii). In view of the vast amount of research published regarding German, Scotch- Irish, Swedish, Norwegian, and other groups in the United States, this may well be an overstatement, more true of Polish-American groups than some others. Indeed, the author's extensively docu- mented chapters are revealing as to the great strides which have been made in research relating to Polish-American com- munities and institutions. Ohioans will be interested in the numerous references to Ohio areas. The author exhibits a firm intention to be objective, but he certainly minimizes the importance of the Polish National Catholic Church, which sepa- rated from Roman Catholicism in the United States. He states that this or- ganization has about 75,000 members (p. 103), but the World Almanac, 1961 (p. 696) places the membership at 282,411. FRANCIS P. WEISENBURGER Ohio State University SAMUEL ROBERTS: A WELSH COLONIZER IN CIVIL WAR TENNESSEE. By Wilbur S. Shepperson. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1961. xi + 169p.; illustrations, appendices, bibliography, and index. $5.00.) The story of Samuel Roberts (1800- 1885) illustrates many of the problems, frustrations, and rewards of European immigrants in the last century. The Welsh preacher, journalist, and reformer decided in 1857 to move to the United States, where his cousin, William Bebb, had already been governor of Ohio. In eastern Tennessee he established a colony as a refuge for his oppressed fellow- countrymen from Wales. Reluctance of the Welsh to migrate, the preference of those who did for Ohio, and other diffi- culties too great to be overcome led Roberts to return to Wales ten years later, where he died. The experiment was a failure. In Shepperson's account the first |
70 OHIO
HISTORY |
chapter covers Welsh backgrounds, the next three deal with conflicts over land titles in Tennessee, Roberts' associates, and his developmental and promotional projects (among them vineyards, sheep raising, mining, and railroads), the fifth with his work as a journalist, preacher, and political leader, and the sixth with the final years in Wales. A brief con- cluding chapter offers a balanced and perceptive summary of the reformer's career. The story contains far more about the Welsh in Ohio than about the Civil War in Tennessee, and the proportions are a wholesome reminder that the im- migrant's experience was often quite different from the oversimplified "in- terpretations" of the American past now widely current. Failure rather than suc- cess, repatriation instead of new founda- tions, and a thorny, uncompromising individualism rather than democratic blending, leveling, reconciliation, and co- operation are strikingly evident. The author, a graduate of Western Reserve University and long a student of British emigration to America, has searched a wealth of records in Wash- ington, London, Wales, Huntsville, Tennessee, and elsewhere and produced a narrative (not a biography) that is readable, impressively detailed, clear, and illuminating. Although it does not center on a major topic, it will be of much interest to all who are seriously concerned with Ohio and Tennessee history, the Civil War period, the Welsh, and the story of immigration. HARRY R. STEVENS Ohio University REMEMBER THE RAISIN! KENTUCKY AND KENTUCKIANS IN THE BATTLES AND MASSACRE AT FRENCHTOWN, MICHIGAN TERRITORY, IN THE WAR OF 1812. By G. Glenn Clift, with a prologue by E. Merton Coulter. (Frankfort: Kentucky Historical Society, 1961. xiii + 281p.; end-paper maps, appendix, bibliog- raphy, and index. $6.00.) On the eve of the sesquicentennial of |
the War of 1812, it is fitting that the Kentucky Historical Society has pub- lished this account of the role of Ken- tuckians in the prelude, battles, and massacre at Frenchtown on the River Raisin, the present site of Monroe, Michigan. Glenn Clift, assistant director of the society since 1950, has compiled an interesting, oft-times fascinating record of what was once optimistically styled the "Army of Canada" from its departure from Georgetown, Kentucky, on August 19, 1812, to its destruction in the snows of the Raisin Valley, January 18-23, 1813. Preceded by a lengthy prologue dealing with the causes of the war, the story of this ill-fated expedition has been skill- fully pieced together from such letters, diaries, and memoirs as have survived. From these accounts, valued insight is afforded for such figures of controversy as William Henry Harrison, James Win- chester, and Henry A. Proctor. Harrison emerges as a general who could do no wrong in the estimation of his men. In striking contrast, Winchester appears as a bungler bent on achieving success at Frenchtown in order to further his own advancement. How detested he was by some of his troops is evidenced by the following humorous excerpt from the diary of Private William B. Northcutt (p. 31): I always had some misgiveings about Winchester's Success with his Army, Knowing that he was not loved by his men, for they all despised him, and were continually playing some of their tricks of[f] on him. At one Encampment, they killed a porcupine and skined it and stretched the Skin over a pole that he used for a particular purpose in the night, and he went and sat down on it, and it like to have ruined him. At an- other Encampment they sawed his pole that he had for the same purpose nearly in two, so that when he went to use it in the night it broke intoo and let his Generalship, Uniform and all fall Back- wards in no very decent place, for I seen his Regimentals hanging high upon a |
BOOK REVIEWS 71 |
pole the next day taking the fresh air. Somehow it seemed almost fitting that Winchester's "Regimentals" would end up on the person of his captor, a drunken Indian known by the sobriquet of "Brandy Jack," who subsequently strut- ted about the battlefield at Frenchtown garbed in the general's cocked hat, coat, and epaulets. As for Henry Proctor, his culpability for the Indian massacre of the wounded prisoners left behind by his departing troops at Frenchtown on January 23, 1813, while not diminished by the evi- dence of his prior assurance of protection for these prisoners, is at least made un- derstandable in terms of his fear that Harrison's army was about to attack and that his return to the safety of Fort Maiden and Detroit would be hampered by the wounded Kentuckians in his custody. Genealogists will be pleased with the biographical sketches of the key figures of the campaign as well as with the troop rosters of the Kentucky companies in- volved in the debacle at la Riviere aux Raisins. PHILLIP R. SHRIVER Kent State University THE ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY: A STUDY IN POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY. By Wil- liam R. Willoughby. (Madison: Uni- versity of Wisconsin Press, 1961. xiv + 381p.;
illustrations, bibliography, and index. $6.00.) This timely volume is concerned with the history of the improvement of navi- gation on the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River system from the period of its earliest improvement to the end of the 1950's. Professor Willoughby devotes some sixty pages to the years before 1900, another seventy or so to the period from 1900 to 1930, and the balance (some 150 pages) to the years from 1930 to 1960. This obviously means that earlier developments have to be treated rather cursorily, but on the whole Pro- |
fessor Willoughby skillfully summarizes the early progress on the improvement of the waterway system. His greatest con- centration, however, is on the long strug- gles that finally led to the carrying out of the St. Lawrence Seaway project in the 1950's. As the subtitle of the work indicates, Professor Willoughby is concerned pri- marily with the political and diplomatic discussions and arguments on this con- troversial subject, and he deals with economic questions only in so far as they affect the political and diplomatic de- velopments. The author succeeds in pre- senting the many ramifications of the struggle with clarity. He successfully demonstrates how the obvious problem of the cost of improvement has been com- plicated at least since 1783 by national and sectional rivalry. A major problem was that the successful struggle for American independence meant that the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence system was artificially divided by the Canadian- American boundary. The uncertainty of British-American relations in the nine- teenth century considerably complicated the task of those who wished to establish an improved and unified water route to the sea. Even when British-American relations ceased to be a major obstacle, the task of agreement was complicated by American and Canadian nationalism, the Americans fearing dependence on a route that would pass through a foreign coun- try, and the Canadians fearing domina- tion by their powerful southern neighbor. Professor Willoughby shows the sensi- tivity of opinion in both Canada and the United States, and traces with care the tortuous and at times seemingly intermin- able negotiations that made the seaway possible. He also delves perceptively into the internal disagreements in both Canada and the United States, and shows how the difficulties posed in Canada by the prov- inces of Quebec and Ontario were matched in the United States by the |
72 OHIO HISTORY |
problems posed by the state of New York and by many special interest groups. Even the politicians who generally favored the seaway were limited by the difficulties of gauging popular support. Professor Willoughby's examination of the role of the various pressure groups has an in- terest that transcends the particular sub- ject with which he is concerned. In short, this is not a work hastily produced to take advantage of the current interest in the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is a carefully prepared and thoughtful book, and it deserves to reach a wide audience. REGINALD HORSMAN University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee TRIMMERS, TRUCKLERS, & TEMPORIZERS: NOTES OF MURAT HALSTEAD FROM THE POLITICAL CONVENTIONS OF 1856. Edited by William B. Hesseltine and Rex G. Fisher. (Madison: State Historical So- ciety of Wisconsin, 1961. xiv + 114p.; index. $3.50.) Historians long have profited from Murat Halstead's Caucuses of 1860, which Hesseltine and Fisher correctly describe as "a basic source book." Perhaps be- cause of preoccupation with Lincoln and the Wigwam intricacies, fewer scholars are familiar with Halstead's 1856 con- vention notes. By assembling the jour- nalist's earlier reports in this attractive little volume, the editors have performed a valuable service. Henceforth there will be less excuse for ignorance about maneuvers preceding James Buchanan's election. Whether written in '56 or in '60, Hal- stead's appraisals were partisan. The Ohio newspaperman made no secret of his allegiance to Republicanism or of his devotion to the antislavery cause. Over- simplifying complex issues as a propa- gandist to the manner born, he hoped for the nomination of candidates who would fight for fundamentals. In a sense, he was more disappointed by the Repub- licans' selection of John C. Fremont than by the Democrats' choice of Buchanan. |
Halstead thought that liberty would be served well if the people were given an opportunity to be disillusioned by "Old Buck." Halstead's characterizations suggest his lack of reverence for prominent politicians --or should we call it realism? Buchanan was an "experienced and veteran camp follower"; Millard Fillmore, "a mere consequent"; Franklin Pierce, "com- mander-in-chief of office holders"; Stephen A. Douglas, "a dishonest truck- ler" and "an ill-conditioned ape." Per- haps by coincidence, the Cincinnatian enjoyed identifying northwesterners with denizens of the animal kingdom. "Imagine a bull frog played upon by a steam whistle and you have" John Pettit of Indiana. As for Henry S. Lane, he was "a man about six feet high, marvelously lean, his front teeth out, his complexion between a sun blister and the yellow fever, and his small eyes glistening like those of a wild cat." The editors say that Halstead "made no pretense of objectivity" but had "a skepticism that bordered on objectivity." There are typically partisan tricks in his different attitudes toward Douglas before and after Buchanan's nomination, and in the altered reaction to John C. Breckin- ridge between June and September. Halstead made a fine contribution in covering the second Know Nothing con- vention. He missed the significance of John Slidell and Slidell's Democratic inti- mates in Cincinnati. Cynicism, color, controversy, humor, accurate and mis- leading predictions, "Colonel" Abraham Lincoln, and at least one prevarication are included in these reports. It is re- grettable that Halstead did not attend the Whigs' Baltimore convention in Septem- ber 1856. HOLMAN HAMILTON University of Kentucky FROM HUMBLE BEGINNINGS: WEST VIR- GINIA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, 1903-1957. By Evelyn L. K. Harris and |
BOOK REVIEWS 73 |
Frank J. Krebs. (Charleston: West Vir- ginia Labor History Publishing Fund Committee, 1961. xxv+553p.; illustra- tions, appendix, and index. $5.00.) Professors Harris and Krebs have pre- sented social scientists with a carefully written and well documented history of the West Virginia State Federation of La- bor from the date of its formation, with an uncertain future, in 1903 through 1957, when the organization stood as a symbol of the new AFL-CIO. From Hum- ble Beginnings supplies the kind of in- formation that will enable historians of the labor movement to give a better em- phasis to grass roots developments. Al- though this project was subsidized by the federation, the authors have been especi- ally fair in their treatment of moot ques- tions. The volume is admirably organized. The titles of the twelve chapters literally give the reader a synopsis. By way of illustration the first chapter is entitled "Organization and Dissolution, 1903- 1907." The title of the fifth chapter, "The Fight for Survival, 1905-1929," is equally suggestive. Many labor histories stress only to- getherness. The story of the West Vir- ginia Federation of Labor also demon- strates the presence of schisms, jealousies, internal rivalries, and the conflicting goals found in the world of labor. The federation was brought into exist- ence primarily through the efforts of old- time leaders. In fact, some of the spon- sors and founders had been members of, and were greatly influenced by, the de- funct Knights of Labor. On many occa- sions the federation was reduced to a skeleton membership. Certain craft un- ions, however, were determined to give the organization life. The entire story reveals the importance of experienced craft unions, such as the typographical and carpenters unions, in guiding the for- tunes of the federation. What were the accomplishments of the federation? Basically it cooperated with |
other groups in demanding social legisla- tion. It helped bring about a sound work- men's compensation act and woman's suffrage. It fought to strengthen the role of the West Virginia Labor Commis- sioner. There is, however, another ser- vice that has been so frequently over- looked. The federation aided in the organization of new unions, and it as- sisted small unions engaged in long strikes. In any history of labor in West Vir- ginia, obviously, the miners play an im- portant role. The relations between the craft unions and the industrial mining unions are discussed in some detail. From Humble Beginnings is not dra- matic. No one individual is singled out as the hero. In a sense the authors play the role of reporters--but very good re- porters. Professors Harris and Krebs have digested their materials and have told their story well and honestly. The illustrations have been chosen with some care. The great body of information relegated to the appendix should be help- ful to many specialists. The very com- plete index leaves the reader with a good taste. SIDNEY GLAZER Wayne State University OLD GENTLEMEN'S CONVENTION: THE WASHINGTON PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1861. By Robert Gray Gunderson. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. xiii+168p.; illustrations, appendix, bibliography, and index. $5.00.) The secession of the six cotton states by February 1, 1861, stemmed from fears that the election of the Republican Lin- coln on a platform opposing the extension of slavery would end the political domi- nation of the national government by the slave states and that the eventual extinc- tion of slavery impended. Lincoln, along with many in the North, believed that se- cession was a temporary crisis, and the general policy of northern moderates be- came one of retaining the border states in |
74 OHIO HISTORY |
the Union and providing additional time for the gulf states to reconsider their hasty action. Attempts at compromise were made to achieve this goal but were rejected by Republicans in the "lame duck" congress as yielding to slavery by permitting its extension into the terri- tories, a cardinal point demanded of con- ciliators by the South. Although the 1860 election results indicated that moderation was approved by the majority both north and south, "radicals" in one section and "fire-eaters" in the other managed to nullify all compromise endeavors and thus precipitated the Civil War. The Wash- ington Peace Conference, which met from February 4 through 27, 1861, was one such effort at conciliation. It was insti- gated by Virginia, one of the border states that stood to lose the most in a North-South struggle. This volume is a distinct contribution to the understanding of the purposes and achievements of this assembly, which de- rived its title from the age of the dele- gates. Most of them were the elder states- men of the nation, endeavoring to com- promise sectional differences once again. The author's theme is the necessity of these mediators to organize the nation's moderate majority into cohesive action to offset the activities of the more radical controlling minorities of both sections and thus avoid conflict. In an age that vener- ated and was influenced by elocution, the old gentlemen utilized their oratorical abilities in a sincere effort to alleviate the sectional strife. The extremists of the two sections, unwilling to yield, were not represented. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan refused to arbitrate with "trai- tors," and the seceded states sent dele- gates to Montgomery instead, where, meeting on the same day as the Washing- ton Conference, the Confederate States of America was formed. But the delegates from the twenty-one states that responded to Virginia's call were successful in nego- tiating a settlement quite similar to the Crittenden proposals, which they sub- |
mitted to congress as a proposed thir- teenth amendment to the constitution. But the principal point, like Crittenden's, was the extension of the Missouri Compromise line. Congress was controlled by a Re- publican minority and, already having re- jected the Crittenden plan, refused to sub- mit the amendment to the states for con- sideration. The major contributions of the confer- ence were, as Professor Gunderson as- serts, its support of moderate forces in the February elections held in some of the border states on the question of se- cession, and its assistance in holding the border states in the Union until Lincoln was inaugurated. This latter point should have received more stress as it was the major objective of Seward's strategy dur- ing this period. Seward, Lincoln's spokes- man in congress, was bending all his efforts toward delay in secession in order to retain the border states and to make certain that Lincoln could be inaugurated peacefully. Lincoln and Seward believed that the seceded states would soon realize their folly and that the Union then could be reconstructed peacefully. But the pos- sibility that Seward initiated the peace conference as part of his plan of delay, as declared by Henry Adams, is categori- cally rejected by Professor Gunderson, and the fact that this convention contrib- uted much to Seward's success with his policy does not receive the emphasis it de- serves. And although the author rejects the "irrepressible conflict" doctrine, the book is studded with speeches and actions of the more radical spokesmen of both sides, leaving the impression that the con- ference was futile from the beginning. The title of the last chapter, "Better Now Than Later," is taken from a letter from Lincoln to William Kellogg in response to a request for Lincoln's views on com- promise. The president-elect is quoted as saying, "If the tug has to come, better now than later," but Lincoln was refer- ring to the extension of slavery and not to the inevitability of conflict as implied. |
BOOK REVIEWS 75 |
And Lincoln's words were more positive than the citation indicates, for he actu- ally declared, "The tug has to come & better now than later." But this short volume, including only one hundred pages of narrative, accur- ately recreates the political atmosphere of this turbulent period in a very read- able style. Using primary sources, the author manages to convey to the reader the tense situation that existed between Lincoln's election and his inauguration and the compelling need for compromise if belligerency was to be averted. Al- though it is questionable whether this topic can be treated adequately with such brevity, this is a book that will attract the general reader and add to the knowl- edge of the expert. R. ALTON LEE Central State College, Edmond, Oklahoma HISTORY OF SOUTH DAKOTA. By Herbert S. Schell. (Lincoln: University of Ne- braska Press, 1961. xiii + 424p.; maps, charts, supplementary reading list, and index. $5.50.) The history of a state is always in- teresting because it brings to light sig- nificant details which have not previously been easily available, and, if the work has been done by a competent scholar, it provides a valuable source of material for writers on the national level. The History of South Dakota is both interest- ing and scholarly. The author, Herbert S. Schell, dean of the graduate school and professor of American history in the State University of South Dakota, has been engaged in research on the history of his state for thirty years. Besides numerous articles, he has previously pub- lished three books about South Dakota. This book contains a comprehensive account of the development of the state to the present time. Chapter 1 deals with the natural setting and Chapter 2 with the Indians who inhabited Dakota. Then, beginning with the first appearance of |
French explorers in the region, the au- thor relates the history of South Dakota chronologically, except in the last four chapters, which are summaries of special subjects. Entitled in general "Reap- praisal," they deal respectively with the Sioux, the farm and ranch economy, manufacturing and mining, and social and cultural aspects of the state. After having made two constitutions, in 1883 and 1885, and without an ena- bling act of congress, South Dakota was admitted to the Union in 1889. As was the case in other territories, discontent with control from Washington spurred the people to demand self-government. Politically, the state has been Repub- lican except for brief periods. In 1912 the electoral vote was cast for Theodore Roosevelt, and in the following years a broad progressive program to promote social and economic welfare was carried out under the leadership of Governor Peter Norbeck. In dire straits as a result of the depression, the people in 1932 gave a majority to Franklin D. Roosevelt and elected Democrats to every state office. Although Roosevelt won again in 1936, Republicans regained control of the state government. In spite of attempts at industrialization, South Dakota is primarily agricultural, with farms east of the Missouri River and stock-raising ranches to the west. Flour milling and meat packing are the principal industries, and the production of metals and non-metallic materials is important in the state's economy. There are a number of maps and charts, and the end paper is a map of South Dakota. Unfortunately, so few towns are shown that the reader is often puzzled about the scenes of action in the text. A headpiece for each chapter is an attractive feature, and thirty-two pages of photographs are inserted in the center of the book. A section of "Supplementary Reading" and an index follow the text. F. CLEVER BALD University of Michigan |
NOTES
PICTURE OF A YOUNG
COPPERHEAD
1 Biographical notes on John W. Lowe by
Thomas O. Lowe, in Lowe Manuscripts Collection,
Dayton Public Library. All Lowe
manuscripts cited hereafter are in this collection. For an account
of John W. Lowe's life, see also the Xenia
Torchlight, September 18, 1861.
2 J. L. Rockey, History of Clermont
County, Ohio (Philadelphia, 1880), 137. Fishback had some
illustrious sons: George was an editor
of the St. Louis Democrat, and William was a law partner
of Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis.
3 U. S. Grant to John W. Lowe, June 26,
1846. The original letter is not in the Lowe Collection,
but the copy in that collection,
according to the penciled notes of Thomas Lowe, was made from
the original in the possession of his
brother William. The copy is identical with the copy pub-
lished by Hamlin Garland in "Grant
in the Mexican War," McClure's Magazine, VIII (1897),
366-380. In his biography of Grant, Captain
Sam Grant (Boston, 1950), Lloyd Lewis calls attention
to the friendship between Lowe and Grant
while they were living in and around Batavia.
4 Letters to his father of November 20,
1853, and March 12, 1854, contain vivid accounts of
these debates.
5 Freeman Cary to John W. Lowe, June 23,
1853; Thomas O. Lowe to John W. Lowe, March
12, 1854.
6 Thomas O. Lowe to John W. Lowe,
December 30, 1855.
7 Thomas O. Lowe to John W. Lowe, August
24, September 7, 1856. A fuller account of Tom
Lowe's youth may be found in Carl M.
Becker, "The Genesis of a Copperhead," Historical and
Philosophical Society of Ohio, Bulletin,
XIX (1961), 235-253.
8 Journal of Thomas O. Lowe.
9 An excellent definition of the factions in the wartime Democratic party
may be found in
William F. Zornow's "Clement L.
Vallandigham and the Democratic Party in 1864," Historical and
Philosophical Society of Ohio, Bulletin,
XIX (1961), 23.
10 Eugene H. Roseboom and Francis P.
Weisenburger, A History of Ohio (Columbus, 1956),
189; Wood Gray, The Hidden Civil War (New
York, 1942), 43, 74.
11 Thomas O. Lowe to John Wallace,
August 14, 1861.
12 Thomas
O. Lowe to John Wallace, August 24, 1861.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
January 20, 1862.
16 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
January 8, May 16, 1862.
17 Thomas O. Lowe to Members of the
Session of the Deacons of the First Presbyterian Church,
October 7, 1861.
18 Thomas O. Lowe to Dr. Thomas E.
Thomas, October 22, 1861, in Alfred A. Thomas, ed.,
Correspondence of Thomas E. Thomas ([Dayton?], 1909), 119-120.
19 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
April 27, 1862.
20 The story of political life in Dayton
during the war is described in Irving Schwartz, "Dayton,
Ohio, During the Civil War"
(unpublished master's thesis, Miami University, 1949).
21 Dayton Daily Journal, June 23, 1862; Dayton Weekly Empire, June 28,
1862.
22 Dayton Daily Journal, June 23, 1862.
23 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
June 28, 1862.
24 George H. Porter, Ohio Politics
During the Civil War Period (New York, 1911), 107, 139-140.
25 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
July 12, 21, 1862.
26 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
July 12, 1862.
27 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
August 9, 23, 1862.
28 Speech delivered at Pyrmont,
Centerville, Harshmanville, Alexandersville, Miamisburg, and
Dayton. Journal of Thomas O. Lowe. A
summary also appeared in the Dayton Daily Empire,
September 26, 1862.
29 "Peace," a speech delivered
sometime in October at Hamilton, Germantown, and New
Lebanon. Journal of Thomas O. Lowe.
30 Speech delivered in Dayton, August 2,
1862. Journal of Thomas O. Lowe. See also "Jacobins,"
in the Lowe journal.
31 See footnote 29 above.
NOTES
77
32 See footnote 28 above.
33 The main points of Crittenden's plan
were these: slavery should be prohibited in national
territory north of the line 36?? 30' but
given federal protection south of that line; future states,
north or south of that line, might come
into the Union with or without slavery as they wished.
34 Dayton Daily Empire, August 7,
1862.
35 Clermont Sun (Batavia), August
20, 1862. Clipping in Thomas O. Lowe's Political Scrapbook.
36 Clermont Courier (Batavia),
August 27, 1862. Clipping in Thomas O. Lowe's Political
Scrapbook.
37 Clermont Courier, August 29, 1862.
38 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
August 2, 1862.
39 Dayton Daily Journal, November
3, 1862.
40 Dayton Daily Empire, November 3, 1862.
41 Ibid., November 21, 1862.
42 "Social Proscription,"
April 3, 1863. Journal of Thomas O. Lowe.
43 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
March 28, 1863.
44 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
January 23, 1863.
45 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
February 21, 1863.
46 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
March 7, 1863.
47 Thomas
O. Lowe to William R. Lowe, March 23, 1863.
48 Dayton Weekly Empire, February
7, 1863. Tom signed this article as "Hampden."
49 Besides
prohibiting the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy, General Order No. 38
announced that "the habit of
declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this depart-
ment." The order suggested that the
department would take a loose construction in judging
whether words were spoken in sympathy
with the enemy.
50 See Dayton Daily Empire, May
5, 1863.
51 Dayton Daily Journal, May 6,
1863.
52 This account is based primarily on
Tom's letter of May 11 to Will. The letter presents a vivid
description of the violence of the day.
53 Dayton Daily Journal, May 7,
1863.
54 Ibid.
55 Anderson, a resident of Dayton, was
the Union party's candidate for lieutenant governor
in 1863.
56 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
May 14, 1863.
57 Dayton Daily Journal, May 8,
1863.
58 Ibid., May 12, 1863.
59 Ibid., May 14, 1863.
60 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
May 27, 1863.
61 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
May 14, 1863.
62 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
May 30, 1863.
63 Martha Lowe to William R. Lowe, June
24, 1863.
64 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
February 7, 1863. At this time Tom fully expected to
receive a nomination from his fellow
Peace Democrats.
65 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe, June 14, 1863.
66 Thomas
O. Lowe to Martha Lowe, June 23, 1863.
67 Martha Lowe to Thomas O. Lowe, August
28, September 8, 1863.
68 Thomas O. Lowe to Martha Lowe, August
3, 1863.
69 Martha Lowe to Thomas O. Lowe, July
14, August 1, 1863.
70 Martha
Lowe to Thomas O. Lowe, August 17, 1863.
71 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
October 25, 1863.
72 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
November 8, 1863.
73 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
October 26, 1863.
74 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
January 3, 1864.
75 Dayton Daily Journal, January 5, 1864.
76 Dayton Daily Empire, January
6, 1864.
77 Dayton Daily Journal, January
9, 1864.
78 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
March 6, 1864. See Dayton Daily Journal, March 4,
1864.
79 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
February 6, 1864.
80 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
April 2, 1864.
81 Dayton Weekly Empire, July 2, 1864.
82 Cleveland Morning Herald, June
25, 1864.
78
OHIO HISTORY
83 Ibid.
84 Dayton Weekly Empire, July 2,
1864.
85 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
August 14, 1864.
86 Thomas
O. Lowe to William R. Lowe, August 25, 1864.
87 Speech
delivered in Miamisburg and Wayne School House. Journal of Thomas O. Lowe.
88 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
October 2, 8, 1864.
89 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
October 16, 1864.
90 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
October 29, 1864.
91 Thomas O. Lowe to William R. Lowe,
November 11, 1864.
92 Dayton Daily Empire, May 13,
1865.
93 Dayton Daily Journal, September
2, 1865.
94 See Dayton Weekly Empire, September
2, 9, 16, 1865, and Dayton Daily Empire, September
4, 9, 1865.
95 Dayton Daily Empire, September 11, 1865.
96 Ibid., September 12, 1865.
97 Dayton Daily Journal, September 22, 1865.
98 Dayton Daily Journal, November 11, 1865.
99 Dayton Daily Journal, September 27, 1866.
100 Address by Reverend Thomas Lowe,
"The Eternal Warfare," given at the Presbyterian Church
of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, May 24, 1885,
before the Joe Hooker G.A.R. Post.
JOHN BROWN AND THE
MASONIC ORDER
1 Charles C. Cole, Jr.,
"Finney's Fight Against the Masons," Ohio State Archaeological and
and Historical Quarterly, LIX (1950), 270-286.
2 Ernest C. Miller, John Brown: Pennsylvania Citizen (Warren, Pa.,
1952), 10.
3 Kansas City Journal, April 8, 1881.
4 Manuscript note by George B. Gill in
the Richard J. Hinton Papers, Kansas State Historical
Society, Topeka.
5 Masonic Beacon (Akron, Ohio), October 7, 1946.
6 Miller, John Brown, 10.
7 Henry L. Kellogg, "How John Brown
Left the Lodge," in Christian Cynosure (Chicago),
March 31, 1887. The article is based on
an interview with Owen Brown.
8 A good short account of the
anti-Masonic crusade is found in Alice F. Tyler, Freedom's Ferment
(Minneapolis, 1944), 351-358.
9 Edward Conrad Smith, Dictionary of
American Politics (New York, 1924), 15-16.
10 Milton W. Hamilton,
"Anti-Masonic Movements," in James Truslow Adams, ed., Dictionary
of American History (New York, 1940), I, 82.
11 One Hundredth Anniversary of
Crawford Lodge No. 234, F&AM (Meadville, Pa., 1948), 4-5.
12 "His Soul Goes Marching
On," in Cleveland Press, May 3, 1895, quoted in Oswald Garrison
Villard, John Brown, 1800-1859: A
Biography Fifty Years After (Boston, 1910), 26.
13 Kellogg, "How John Brown Left
the Lodge."
14 Interview by Katherine Mayo with
Sarah Brown, September 16-20, 1908. Villard Papers,
Columbia University Library.
15 Interview by Katherine Mayo with
Henry Thompson, September 1, 1908. Villard Papers.
16 Interview by Katherine Mayo with
George B. Gill, November 12, 1908. Villard Papers.
17 John Brown to Owen Brown, June 12,
1830. Original letter owned by Dr. Clarence S. Gee,
Lockport, New York.
18 The Crawford Messenger of
April 29 and May 20, 1830, reprinted the entire Anderton
pamphlet, titled Masonry the Same All
Over the World: Another Masonic Murder. Articles in
subsequent numbers discussed the
statement and branded Anderton as a fraud. Several articles in
Volumes I (1830) and II (1831) of the Boston
Masonic Mirror offer proof that Anderton was an
impostor and that the incident described
could not have occurred.
19 The quotation is taken from the
original Brown manuscript as reprinted in the Appendix to
Villard, John Brown, 659-660.
20 Interview by Katherine Mayo with
George B. Gill.
21 Salmon Brown to Frank B. Sanborn,
November 17, 1911; Salmon Brown to William E. Con-
nelley, May 28, November 16, 1913. These
letters are in the author's own collection. See also
Salmon Brown, "John Brown and Sons
in Kansas Territory," in Louis Ruchames, John Brown
Reader (London, 1959), 189-197, reprinted from Indiana
Magazine of History, XXXI (1935),
142-150.
NOTES
79
22 James Cleland Hamilton, "John
Brown in Canada," Canadian Magazine, IV (1894), 119-140.
23 G. D. Smith, "A Well-Kept
Secret," in Clarksburg Exponent-Telegram, February 12, 1933,
quoting John J. Davis at the dedication
of the Masonic Temple at Clarksburg in 1915.
24 Harrison County Circuit Court
records, Clarksburg, West Virginia.
25 Joseph H. Diss Debar, "Two Men,
Old John Brown and Stonewall Jackson, of World-Wide
Fame, by One Who Knew Them Both,"
in Clarksburg Telegram. Undated clipping, about 1894.
26 Le Monde Maconnique (Paris), January 1860, reprinted in translation in Anti-Slavery
Standard (New York), October 6, 1860.
CAPTAIN T. W.
RATHBONE'S "BRIEF DIARY OF IMPRISONMENT"
1 Rathbone still showed his indignation
at being forcibly deprived of his personal property when
he added the following in the first of
the notes later appended to his diary:
"When captured the Rebs, that is
the men of the 18th & 23d Cav were robbing my men of all
the loose property and hats, blouses and
shoes. This took place even after they had us in ranks.
One burly fellow came up behind me and
struck me in the back of the head with his fist [and] took
my hat. Another grabbed my watch
guard[,] broke it in several pieces [and] took my watch &
knife. I threw my revolver into the
river when a Reb jumped in and got it. While this robbery
was going on I asked who the Commander
of the Rebels was and was shown and told that this was
Gen Imboden's command. When shown to me
I appealed to him to stop the robbery of my
command. He replied 'It is no more than
you deserve you damned Yank.'"
In the final sentence of the note he
added some information about their fight: "After the war
I learned from one of the Rebs who was
in the engagement there we killed 16 and wounded 40."
2 Here the text of the diary is followed
by this statement in parentheses: "Note, these particulars
are not full." Rathbone apparently
was referring to his fourth appended note which reads as follows:
"As soon as taken Prisoners we were
put on the road and marched as fast as we could be made
to go, and a part of the way over the
same roads that we had come on. In six or eight miles we
overtook our other detachment and with
it was Col. Leeds and the men taken with him: They
kept us on the jump till nearly night[,]
halted us awhile[,] and then marched us nearly all night.
"Very many of the prisoners were
about run off their last legs. Many overheated and exhausted.
Some could go no further and were put on
to ambulances or on horseback, and thus kept along
with the Rebel force. Col Leeds seemed
to feel the effects of the over march more than any one
and had to ride. He seemed to be
prostrated by the sun and to have taken cold in his throat and
was chilled whenever we got in a shade.
"I had been nearly prostrated by
the march of the 2d July over and across some very steep and
high hills or ridges and the march,
after the capture, about took the little of life that I had left.
I was like a windbroken horse, couldn't
breathe half way down.
"This lasted me through all my
imprisonment. It also caused severe symptoms of Heart-trouble
and threatened paralysis[,] and later on
the food produced scurvy and diarrhea and constipation."
3 This is known as the skirmish at South
Branch Bridge. Another of Rathbone's notes to the
diary adds a little to the account in
the text:
"When the Rebs fell back from South
Branch they didn't say much. Gen Imboden came back
propped up in a carriage. He was said to
be wounded. They marched us hard till way after night
till they got to forks of Cacapon when
they crowded us close together and placed a heavy guard
around us, gave us some meal but no way
to cook it or carry it."
4 Note three at the end of the diary
describes his quarters at Lynchburg and an incident that
took place there involving Col. Leeds:
"While confined in the old Tobacco
warehouse at Lynchburg, our room was perhaps 40/20 ft.
with windows in one end, and that end 4
stories high while in front or on the street our floor was
but one story, or the second floor. We
were assigned to and placed in the end of the room where
the windows were, but we couldn't see
anything for the windows were strongly barred. We occupied
about half the room and the one door
opened into our part; two guards, one on each side of the
room kept us separate from the occupants
of the other end of the room. The stench was horrible.
Among the men confined in the back end
was a civillian [sic] or citizen from East Tennessee.
He was a Preacher and was about 65 years
old. He had been in Prison for more than a year and
was nearly naked. He was Union to the
death. I heard him say one day that 'I'll rot in Prison
before I'll deny the good old Stars and
Stripes.' His name was James Floyd. One day a cowardly
assault was made on him by a Deserter
who knocked the old man down, jumped on him and was
beating him when Col Leeds regardless of
the guards sprang through the guard line seized the
Reb, pulled him off and holding him at
arms length as if his touch was contamination, shook him
80
OHIO HISTORY
as if he was but a toy, saying 'You cant
abuse a good Union [man] that way in my presence.'
The guards looked on in amazement
without interfering or saying a word. The Col walked back
to us, and we heard no more from the
boastful coward."
5 On a cavalry raid from the vicinity of
Atlanta into central Georgia, Major General George
Stoneman led his division to the
outskirts of Macon, where he was turned away by the state militia.
Shortly afterward he was surrounded and
taken prisoner, with many of his men. Mark Mayo
Boatner, III, The Civil War
Dictionary (New York, 1959), 801-802.
6 It was evidently at this point that
Captain Rathbone concluded his narration of the events of
the first two and a half months of his
captivity. The daily entries quite obviously begin with
September 19.
7 Beyond Rathbone's notation in the back
of the diary that he received two hundred dollars from
"Blockade Runner," Quinby is
unidentifiable. Obviously he was buying drafts on northern banks
with Confederate money. He appears again
in the diary on two occasions.
8 O.P. Fairfield was an old acquaintance
from home.
9 General Early's two defeats were at
the hands of Major General Philip Sheridan in the
Shenandoah Valley. The first was at
Winchester on September 19, and the second at Fisher's Hill
on September 22. Richard B. Morris, ed.,
Encyclopedia of American History (New York, 1953),
243.
10 Major General George B. McClellan was
a prospective candidate for the nomination for the
presidency on the Democratic ticket in
1864. At their national convention late in August, the
Democrats repudiated the war by putting
a "peace plank" in their platform calling for an imme-
diate cessation of hostilities.
McClellan was nominated, but he subsequently rejected the peace
plank. Morris, Encyclopedia of
American History, 244.
11 John would appear to have been an
orderly put at Captain Rathbone's service, though the
insertion of the statement at this point
makes it rather puzzling.
|
BY THE SOCIETY THE WESTERN BOOK TRADE: CINCINNATI AS A NINETEENTH- CENTURY BOOK-TRADE CENTER, by Walter Sutton. xvi??360p. (1961) $8.00 A lively account of the spirited age in which Cincinnati flourished as a publish- ing and book-trade center, this book con- stitutes the first definitive treatment of the activities that earned the city the epither "Literary Emporium of the West." In res- cuing Cincinnati's early publishers and publishing houses from oblivion, this vol- ume reveals the pattern of a regional industry which helped to shape American civilization. UNDER THE FLAG OF THE NATION: DIARIES AND LETTERS OF A YANKEE VOLUNTEER IN THE CIVIL WAR, edited by Otto f. Bond. xii ?? 308p. (1961) $5.00 This is the war story of Owen Johnston Hopkins who enlisted in the 42d O.V.I. regiment, September 25, 1861, at the age of 17. Compiled from his diaries and letters to his family, friends, and sweetheart, this volume gives an exceptionally clear picture of the motives, attitudes, and sentiments of a Yankee soldier in the Civil War. Experiences such as the loneliness of picket duty, the threat of Rebel skirmishers, and the necessity of foraging for food when rations were short pro- duced in the young man an awareness of reality that enriched his accounts of the Cumberland and Vicksburg campaigns in which he participated. A HISTORY OF OHIO, by Eugene H. Roseboom and Francis P. Weisenburger. xiv ?? 417p., illustrations (5th printing, 1961) $7.50 Here is a comprehensive story of the first state created out of the Old North- west. It presents a concise and detailed account of the political, economic, social, religious, literary, and artistic life of Ohio from the time of the prehistoric Indians to the present day. Some 300 illustrations, including paintings, drawings, prints, and photographs of Ohio people, places, scenes, buildings, Indian structures, tools and implements, and transportation facilities add to the value and interest of this book. Members of the Society are entitled to a 20 percent discount on prices quoted. A state retail tax of 3 percent should be added to the cost price. Address your orders to Order Department, The Ohio Historical Society, 1813 North High Street, Columbus 10, Ohio. |
|
As the secession crisis in the Old Dominion approached its climax in May 1861, the Unionists of northwestern Virginia looked anxiously to the state of Ohio for "deliverance from tyranny." On May 26, 1861, only three days after Virginia formally seceded from the Union, Major General George B. McClellan, commander of the department of the Ohio, launched his invasion to preserve western Virginia for the Union. To his troops McClellan issued the first in a series of colorful, if exaggerated, manifestoes that helped to earn him the title, "The Young Napoleon of the West." NOTES ARE ON PAGES 193-194 |
84 OHIO HISTORY
"Soldiers!" he began,
You are ordered to cross the frontier,
and enter upon the soil of Virginia.
Your mission is to restore peace and
confidence, to protect the majesty of the
law, and to rescue our brethren from the
grasp of armed traitors. You are to
act in concert with [loyal] Virginia
troops, and to support their advance. ...
Preserve the strictest
discipline;--remember that each one of you holds in his
keeping, the honor of Ohio and the
Union. If you are called upon to overcome
armed opposition, I know that your
courage is equal to the task;--but remember,
that your only foes are the armed
traitors,--and show mercy even to them when
they are in your power, for many of them
are misguided. When, under your
protection, the loyal men of Western
Virginia have been enabled to organize
and arm, they can protect themselves,
and you can then return to your homes,
with the proud satisfaction of having
saved a gallant people from destruction.1
At 5 A.M. on the morning of May 27,
1861, the First (West) Virginia
Regiment accompanied by four companies
of the Second (West) Virginia
Volunteers proceeded southeast from Wheeling
along the line of the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad toward a
Confederate encampment in the interior.
The Sixteenth Ohio, stationed at
Bellaire, across the river south of Wheeling,
was ordered to support the movement. To
the south, the Fourteenth and
Eighteenth Ohio regiments occupied
Parkersburg.2 Colonel Frederick W.
Lander, aide-de-camp to McClellan,
directed the invasion at Parkersburg,
while Colonel Benjamin F. Kelley,
commander of the First (West) Virginia
Volunteers, led the spearhead south from
Wheeling.3
On learning that Kelley had reached
Fairmont, some twenty miles from
his position at Grafton, Colonel George
A. Porterfield, the Confederate
commander, withdrew his troops to
Philippi, fifteen miles further south.4
Kelley continued his advance without
opposition.5 Meanwhile, the Fourteenth
Ohio moved east from Parkersburg. On
June 1 Lander joined the Fourteenth
near Clarksburg and ordered Colonel
James B. Steedman to prepare his
troops for a night march on June 2 against
Porterfield at Philippi. Lander,
accompanied by an advance guard, pushed
on to Grafton. There he found
Kelley, who had been joined by Indiana
troops under Brigadier General
Thomas A. Morris, planning an attack on
Porterfield also. A council of war
followed and the decision was made to
march on Philippi in two converging
columns--one wing directed by Kelley,
the other by Lander.6
At noon on June 2 Kelley's troops were
transported by rail to a point
eight miles east of Grafton and marched
south. Lander, reinforced by the
Eighteenth Ohio and the Sixth and Ninth
Indiana regiments, detrained at
Webster, a few miles west of Grafton. As
a result of a forced march on a
rainy, moonless night Kelley and Lander
arrived at Philippi almost simul-
taneously before dawn on the morning of
June 3.
WESTERN VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN OF 1861 85 The attack was scheduled to begin at 4 A.M. Unfortunately, neither Lander nor Kelley was able to get into position on time. Moreover, Kelley took the wrong fork of a road leading into Philippi. As a consequence, both Union columns approached Porterfield's encampment on the same side of town. By 4:30 A.M. Lander's guns were in position; but he had not yet com- municated with Kelley. On observing the Rebels breaking camp, Lander's batteries opened fire and the Ninth Indiana moved forward. As fate would have it, Kelley's arrival on the scene coincided with the beginning of Lander's bombardment. As a result, the (West) Virginia volunteers led the attack. The Confederates fled in confusion. Within minutes the "Philippi Races," the first land battle of the Civil War, was over. Had the attack proceeded |
|
according to plan, Porterfield would not have escaped. As it was, his com- mand was shattered. The Confederates lost 750 stand of arms, and all of their ammunition, supplies, and equipment.7 Few casualties were suffered by either side; but federal troops took a number of prisoners, including Lieutenant Colonel William J. Willey.8 The encounter at Philippi, better described as a skirmish than a battle, nevertheless had profound implications so far as the future of western Virginia was concerned. On June 7 General Thomas S. Haymond, at Rich- mond, received an urgent telegram from the northwest. "Our troops at Philippi," it read, "have been attacked by a large force with artillery under McClelland [sic] and drew back to Beverly. We must have as large a number of troops as possible from Richmond without a moments [sic] delay or else abandon the Northwest."9 Shortly thereafter Brigadier General Robert S. Garnett took command |
86 OHIO
HISTORY
of Confederate troops in the northwest;
but never was Garnett in a position
to launch offensive operations against
the superior forces thrown into western
Virginia from Ohio. From his
headquarters at Laurel Hill, Garnett apprised
General Robert E. Lee, in command at
Richmond, of the difficulties he faced.
Arriving at Huttonsville on June 14,
Garnett reported:
I found there twenty-three companies of
infantry . . . in a miserable con-
dition as to arms, clothing, equipments,
instruction, and discipline. Twenty of
these companies were organized into two
regiments, the one under Lieutenant-
Colonel Jackson and the other under
Lieutenant-Colonel Heck. Though wholly
incapable, in my judgment, of rendering
anything like efficient service, I deemed
it of such importance to possess myself
of the two turnpike passes over the Rich
and Laurel Mountains, before they should
be seized by the enemy, that I left
Huttonsville on the evening of the 15th
with these two regiments and Captain
Rice's battery, and, by marching them a
greater portion of the night, reached
the two passes early in the afternoon of
the following day. . . .
I regard these two passes as the gates
to the northwestern country, and, had
they been occupied by the enemy, my
command would have been effectually
paralyzed or shut up in the Cheat River
Valley. I think it was a great mistake
on the part of the enemy not to have
remained here after driving Colonel
Porterfield's command over it. . . .
This force I consider more than
sufficient to hold these two passes, but not
sufficient to hold the railroad, if I
should get an opportunity of seizing it at
any particular point; for I must have an
adequate force in each of the passes
to secure them for our use.10
Lee had urged Garnett to destroy the
Cheat River bridge on the Baltimore
and Ohio. Even though Garnett recognized
the importance of this objective,
he advised Lee, "My moving force
(say three thousand) . . . will not be
sufficient, I fear, for this
operation."11 At no time did Garnett's army exceed
4,500 (including a Georgia regiment
which did not arrive until June 24),
while McClellan was to have nearly
20,000 men at his disposal in the
northwest alone. Garnett himself had a
rendezvous with death at Carrick's
Ford on July 13. In retrospect, the
feeble efforts made by the authorities at
Richmond to hold the northwest were
doomed from the beginning.
Porterfield had been ordered to Grafton
on May 4 by Lee to "select a
position for the troops called into the
service of the State, for the protection
and defense of that part of the
country." Using Grafton as a base of oper-
ations, Porterfield was directed to
occupy Parkersburg and Wheeling and
prevent the Baltimore and Ohio
"from being used to the injury of the
State."12 Obviously, Lee
expected an invasion from Ohio. Yet, his orders
to Porterfield were totally unrealistic
and therefore impossible to implement.
By far the largest number of troops to
be used in these operations were to
WESTERN VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN OF 1861 87
be raised in the northwest itself. On
May 3 Governor John Letcher had
ordered the militia of nineteen
northwestern counties to rendezvous at Park-
ersburg and Grafton.13 The
major difficulty in this plan was the fact that
twelve of those nineteen counties were
Union strongholds. Few militiamen
answered a Confederate "call to
the colors" from these areas; and the seven
secessionist counties listed in
Letcher's proclamation did not contain the
manpower necessary for carrying out
Lee's instructions.
Furthermore, adequate provision was not
made for supplying Porterfield
with arms, ammunition, and equipment.
On May 4 Lee informed Porterfield
that two hundred muskets had been sent
to Colonel Thomas J. "Stonewall"
Jackson at Harpers Ferry and would be
forwarded to Grafton.14 Ten days
later Lee shipped Porterfield another
six hundred muskets.15 If these sup-
plies arrived, they were not nearly
enough. On May 29 Porterfield reported
that during his retreat from Grafton to
Philippi, he was met by an unarmed
company of volunteers from Upshur
County which he was compelled "to
send home, for want of arms to supply
them with." Earlier he had been
forced to dismiss two cavalry
companies--one each from Barbour and
Pocahontas counties for the same
reason.16 As a result, Porterfield, with
only a thousand poorly equipped and
untrained militiamen under his com-
mand, was in no position to occupy
Parkersburg and Wheeling; nor could
he systematically destroy the railroad
bridges along the line of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad after the invasion
began. Unable to oppose Kelley at
Grafton, he withdrew to Philippi.
"As soon as I can organize my com-
mand," he wrote, "which I
hope to do soon, I will return to some more
eligible point in the neighborhood of
Grafton, which will enable me to
command both railroads."17 Porterfield
was "whistling in the dark." The
major flaw in his strategy under the
conditions he had to face was the fact
that he did not retreat far enough fast
enough.
Although George B. McClellan won glory
and the command of the army
of the Potomac for his military
exploits in northwestern Virginia, Governor
William Dennison of Ohio must be given
a full measure of recognition for
making the invasion of northwestern
Virginia possible. His efforts have not
been fully appreciated.
As early as January 1861 Dennison
warned Governor Letcher that the
"entire power and resources of the
State of Ohio" were to be offered to the
president of the United States to
coerce and subjugate seceding states.
Naturally enough, Letcher considered
this letter an implied threat against
Virginia.18 And indeed it
was! When the Virginia Convention of 1861
passed an ordinance of secession on
April 17, Dennison launched a vigorous
program to defend Ohio against
invasion.
88 OHIO HISTORY
One of the first important decisions
made by Dennison was his choice of
McClellan to command the Ohio
volunteers. The appointment, on April 23,
was received with general approbation
throughout the North.19 In addition to
McClellan, the appointment of Jacob
Dolson Cox and William S. Rosecrans
as brigadier generals proved to be
salutary. If not brilliant commanders,
these two were competent officers. In a
day when politics often determined
the appointment of officers to high
command their selection was no mean
achievement in itself.
On April 26 the Ohio legislature passed
an act conferring war powers on
Dennison. The Ohio governor acted
swiftly. On May 1 he advised R. W.
Taylor, auditor of the state of Ohio,
that he planned "to call into active
service nine regiments of Infantry and a
proper proportion of artillery and
cavalry." He requested that funds
be made available immediately for
expenses incurred.20 Dennison
then dispatched purchasing agents to Illinois
and New York City to acquire arms and
made arrangements to buy addi-
tional quantities in Europe. He also
took steps to give the military top
priority in the use of rail and telegraph
lines. As the national government
had to rely on state governments almost
exclusively in the early stages of
the war for troops, arms, ammunition,
and supplies, governors such as
Morton of Indiana and Dennison exercised
great influence on Lincoln and
the war department.
On April 27 the Ohio governor wrote to
Lincoln recommending that
McClellan be placed in charge of all
military forces west of the Alleghenies.21
A week later McClellan was chosen to
command the newly created depart-
ment of the Ohio, composed of the states
of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.22
But Dennison was not satisfied. On May 7
he again contacted Washington,
urging that western Virginia be placed
under McClellan's jurisdiction also.
The next day this request was granted.23
Dennison's purpose was quite clear.
He immediately wrote McClellan at
Cincinnati, urging him to occupy Park-
ersburg.24 McClellan
hesitated. The information he received from the
"frontier" indicated
"that the moral effect of troops directly on the border
would not be very good--at least until
Western Virginia has decided for
herself what she will do."25 Dennison,
however, was not disposed to await
the outcome of the vote on the secession
ordinance on May 23. While he
did not attempt to interfere with
McClellan's conduct of military operations,
he continued to make strong suggestions.
On May 20 Dennison received word from
Wheeling informing him of
Confederate troop movements in the
vicinity of Grafton.26 Immediately the
Ohio governor wired Winfield Scott, the
federal general in chief, and Mc-
Clellan of these developments. Scott's
reply apparently was vague and
90 OHIO HISTORY
indecisive. Later that same day Dennison
sent a second dispatch to Mc-
Clellan and urged the immediate invasion
of western Virginia without
specific instructions from Washington.
It can never be said of Dennison
that he was not a man of action. In his
dispatch to McClellan he said:
Enclosed I send you [a] copy of my
telegram to Genl Scott and his reply
from which you will see he is not
disposed to share any of the responsibility
in taking care of Western Virginia. This
being so will it not be better for you
to take this part of your military
district under your immediate supervision
and provide whatever you may deem
necessary for its protection! Will not the
responsibility justify your asking for
an increase of the Ohio Contingent and
for all the arms and accompaniaments [sic]
that will be needed for its vigorous
discharge: It seems to me to so open the
way as to enable you to command all
the area and means necessary for the
prompt assured occupation of Western
Virginia and for carrying out your plan
of campaign in respect to that part
of the Union. Whatever aid I can render
is at your command.27
Scott's reasons for declining to issue
specific orders to McClellan re-
garding western Virginia are not clear.
Possibly he felt that direct action
before the ratification of the secession
ordinance by the Virginia electorate
would be premature. On April 27 Scott
had commented in a note to Lincoln
that "a march upon Richmond from
the Ohio would probably insure the
revolt of Western Virginia, which if
left alone will soon be five out of seven
for the Union."28 On the
other hand, Scott sent a strongly worded communi-
cation to McClellan on May 21 expressing
displeasure at McClellan's com-
plaint to the secretary of war that he
was without "instructions or authority."
Said Scott: "It is not conceived .
. . what instructions could have been needed
by you. Placed in command of a wide
Department . . . it surely was unnec-
essary to say that you were expected to
defend it against all enemies of the
U. States."29
If Scott's dispatch can be accepted at
face value, it might well be argued
that he expected McClellan to use his
own best judgment as to what action
was necessary within the boundaries of
his own department. Finally, on
May 24, four days after Dennison had
telegraphed Scott urging immediate
action, and only one day after the vote
on secession, Scott wired McClellan
in Cincinnati:
We have certain intelligence that at
least two companies of Virginia troops
have reached Grafton, evidently with the
purpose of overawing the friends of
the Union in Western Virginia. Can you
counteract the influence of that
detachment? Act promptly, and Major
Oakes, at Wheeling, may give you
valuable assistance.30
Certainly this telegram was not a
specific order instructing McClellan to
WESTERN VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN OF 1861 91
launch offensive operations in western
Virginia. But it is clear that Mc-
Clellan believed that Scott now expected
action. Following Philippi he wrote
Scott, "I trust, General, that my
action in the Grafton matter will show you
that I am not given to
procrastination."31
In the final analysis, it is plain that
McClellan's contention in later years
that he had acted entirely upon his own
authority and of his own volition,
"and without any advice, orders, or
instructions from Washington or else-
where," cannot be accepted at face
value.32 Such a view overlooked the
unqualified support McClellan received
from the influential Dennison.
Moreover, while Scott's telegram on May
24 may not have issued instructions
per se, it seems clear that McClellan
was expected to take such action as he
deemed necessary "to counteract the
influence of that detachment," located
one hundred miles from the Ohio River,
the exact size of which had not been
clearly determined. Conversely, Scott
appeared to be hedging throughout
as if he were attempting to avoid direct
responsibility if McClellan met
defeat or if an invasion proved to be
premature politically. Scott's fears
of possible political repercussions from
military intervention were as un-
founded as McClellan's later estimates
of Confederate military strength
were exaggerated.
McClellan arrived in Grafton on June 21
to take personal command of
operations against Garnett. He met with
unbridled enthusiasm all along his
route. Describing his reception, he
wrote to his wife:
At every station where we stopped crowds
had assembled to see the "young
general": gray-headed men and
women, mothers holding up their children to
take my hand, girls, boys, all sorts,
cheering and crying, God bless you! I
never went through such a scene in my
life.33
To his troops McClellan announced his
arrival in more dramatic style.
"Soldiers!" he wrote, "I
have heard that there was danger here. I have
come to place myself at your head and to
share it with you. I fear now but
one thing--that you will not find foemen
worthy of your steel."34 But Mc-
Clellan revealed a different attitude
when he wrote to Lieutenant Colonel
E. D. Townsend, the assistant adjutant
general, in Washington:
Assure the General [Winfield Scott] that
no prospect of a brilliant victory
shall induce me to depart from my
intention of gaining success by maneuvering
rather than by fighting. I will not
throw these raw men of mine into the teeth
of artillery and intrenchments if it is
possible to avoid it. Say to the General,
too, that I am trying to follow a lesson
long ago learned from him; i.e., not to
move until I know that everything is
ready, and then to move with the utmost
rapidity and energy.35
92 OHIO HISTORY
McClellan wrote this letter from
Buckhannon, "the important strategical
position in this region," from
which he would launch his attack against the
Confederate forces under Lieutenant
Colonel John Pegram at Rich Moun-
tain. Pegram had about 1,300 men, while
Garnett and the main body of
troops, composed of about 3,000 men, was
entrenched about twelve miles
north at Laurel Mountain. "I shall,
if possible," McClellan said to Town-
send, "turn the position to the
south, and thus occupy the Beverly road in
his [the enemy's] rear."36
McClellan planned his strategy with
precision. While concentrating about
8,000 men at Buckhannon for the main
attack on Pegram, he left 4,000 men
at Philippi under Brigadier General
Morris, whose major function lay in
"amusing the enemy" on Laurel.37
Moreover, McClellan had a large number
of troops concentrated at several other
points--including Weston, Clarks-
burg, Bulltown, and Grafton--which could
be called upon as exigencies
demanded. In addition, he ordered
Brigadier General Jacob D. Cox to the
Kanawha Valley with four full regiments
to dislodge Brigadier General
Henry A. Wise, who arrived in Charleston
on July 6. Wise's "Legion,"
composed of 2,700 raw militia troops,
was ordered to hold the Kanawha
region.38 Yet, McClellan
believed, and rightly so, that Garnett would
attempt to use Wise's command as a
diversionary force. If Wise could
threaten McClellan's rear, Garnett
reasoned, "the enemy would have to draw
from his force in my front to meet
him."39 Wise was eliminated as a poten-
tial threat, however, by Cox's
appearance on July 10 and by the swiftness
of McClellan's movements against Pegram.
Lee was not able to send
Garnett's urgent request on to Wise
until July 11, the same day that
Confederate hopes of holding the
northwest were destroyed by Pegram's
crushing defeat at Rich Mountain.40
Clearly perceiving that he would suffer
heavy losses if he stormed the
heavily entrenched western slope of
Rich, McClellan dispatched Rosecrans'
brigade of four regiments on a flanking
maneuver.41 Rosecrans was in luck.
A young Virginian by the name of David
Hart led Rosecrans to the summit
of Rich on Pegram's left flank by way of
an unguarded mountain trail. A
small force of three hundred
Confederates delayed the verdict for three
hours; but Pegram's doom was sealed.
Gathering the remnants of his com-
mand, a group of bewildered and
terror-stricken men, Pegram tried to make
his way "over the mountains, where
there was not the sign of a path, toward
General Garnett's camp."42 Convinced
of the futility of flight on learning
the next day that Garnett had abandoned
Laurel Mountain, there was
nothing left for Pegram "but the
sad determination of surrendering ourselves
prisoners of war to the enemy at
Beverly."43
|
As McClellan had hoped, Garnett found his position at Laurel untenable. As soon as the issue at Rich had been decided, McClellan "advanced . . . on Beverly and occupied it with the least possible delay--thus cutting off Garnett's retreat toward Huttonsville and forcing him to take the Leadsville and St. George road."44 With Morris in close pursuit, McClellan then wired Brigadier General C. W. Hill at Grafton to cut off his retreat.45 Garnett's capture seemed inevitable. As one Union officer expressed it, "Between 2,500 and 3,000 of a defeated army, in a disorganized condition, were in a position where escape did not come within the chances of war."46 Garnett himself was killed in a rear guard action at Carrick's Ford; but incredibly, |
94 OHIO HISTORY
the main body of his army escaped. Even
though it was twenty-five miles
from Carrick's Ford to the nearest pass
through the Alleghenies at Red
House, Garnett's command arrived at this
place two hours ahead of Union
troops and made good its escape. Two
major factors were responsible: a
delay in the transmission of McClellan's
telegram to Hill, and Hill's lack
of knowledge of the mountainous terrain,
which led him to conclude that
Garnett's line of retreat would be north
instead of east.47 Even so, Mc-
Clellan's victory was total.
The scene of action in western Virginia
then shifted to the Kanawha
Valley. Cox arrived at Point Pleasant on
July 10 and immediately began an
advance on Charleston.48 On
the afternoon of July 17 his advance guard of
1,200 men encountered 800 Confederates
from Wise's Legion at Scary
Creek, fifteen miles west of Charleston.
Although Cox was repulsed, the
battle at Scary was little more than a
delaying action.49 In light of Garnett's
crushing defeat in the northwest, Lee
ordered Wise to abandon the Kanawha
and withdraw towards Covington to
protect the Virginia Central Railroad.50
On learning that Cox had been checked at
Scary, McClellan planned to
take personal command of military
operations in the Kanawha Valley.51
But on July 22, the day after the
federal disaster at First Manassas, the
"Young Napoleon" was ordered
to Washington. In western Virginia he
was succeeded by the hero of Rich
Mountain, William S. Rosecrans. Cox,
however, continued his advance. On July
25 he entered Charleston; and
on July 29 he occupied Gauley Bridge,
the gateway to the Kanawha Valley
from the east.52 For all
practical purposes, the campaign in western
Virginia, if not over, had been won
beyond recall. Yet the northwest was
too great a prize to surrender without
an attempt being made to recover it.
In mid-August General Robert E. Lee,
accompanied by a force of 15,000
troops, arrived in the valley of
Virginia. Lee's first objective was to regain
the passes through the Alleghenies at
Laurel, Cheat, and Rich mountains.
Offensive operations in the northwest
would then be possible. On September
12 Lee launched an attack against the
federal troops at Cheat Mountain
near Huttonsville. But a combination of
factors, including mud, rain, sick-
ness, and bungling on the part of his
subordinates, conspired to make Lee's
debut as a field general a failure.53
The Confederates also made an
unsuccessful attempt to reconquer the
Kanawha Valley. Brigadier General John
Floyd, secretary of war under
Buchanan and an ex-governor of Virginia,
had raised a force of about 1,200
men in the southwest to protect the
Virginia and Tennessee Railroad.
Soon after Wise evacuated the Kanawha
region, Floyd was elevated to the
command of the army of the Kanawha. Wise
and his legion were ordered
WESTERN VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN OF 1861 95
to support Floyd. If any degree of
success were to be achieved, close coop-
eration between these two political
generals was imperative. Their personal
relations, however, were marked by
extreme bitterness. Henry Mason
Mathews, a representative in the
legislature from the region, wrote to Jeffer-
son Davis urging him to intervene.
"They are as inimical to each other as
men can be," he said, "and
from their course and actions I am fully satis-
fied that each of them would be highly
gratified to see the other annihi-
lated."54 Finally, on
September 21, a dispatch was sent to Wise relieving
him of command and ordering him back to
Richmond.55
Floyd did manage to win a skirmish at
Cross Lanes on August 26.56 And
he repulsed Rosecrans at the battle of
Carnifex Ferry on September 10. Yet,
in all probability, Floyd's army would
have been destroyed if Rosecrans
had pressed the issue.57 In
any event, neither Lee nor Floyd was in a
position to challenge federal supremacy
in northwestern Virginia. With the
exception of the brief reoccupation of
the Kanawha region by Major
General William W. Loring in September
of 1862, Union supremacy was
not challenged.58 Even
Loring's brief success came by default. Most federal
troops were withdrawn from western
Virginia when Lee moved north.
Union soldiers returned in force,
however, after the battles of South Moun-
tain and Antietam.59
The most obvious result of McClellan's
conquest of northwestern Virginia
was that it propelled the "Young
Napoleon" into the national limelight and
the command of the army of the Potomac.
Moreover, his mountain campaign
provided a psychological cushion for a
nation and an army that were shaken
by defeat at the first encounter at
Manassas. The strategic importance
of northwestern Virginia to the Union
cause, however, has not been appreci-
ated by most students of the Civil War.60
Northwestern Virginia served first of
all as a buffer zone for the states
of Ohio and Pennsylvania, a protective
covering for Pittsburgh and the
Ohio Valley. It also covered the western
flank of any Union army operating
in the Shenandoah Valley. In addition,
the line of the Baltimore and Ohio
ran through northwestern Virginia--a
railroad of great strategic importance
which provided the only connecting link
by rail between Washington and
the Middle West. The seizure of the
Baltimore and Ohio virtually intact
largely accounts for the rapidity with
which the northwest was conquered in
the first place. Finally, whether or not
Union occupation of northwestern
Virginia was a prime factor in
preserving Kentucky for the Union, the im-
portance of federal supremacy in both
areas in paving the way for the
occupation of eastern Tennessee can
hardly be exaggerated.61
It should be stressed also that
McClellan's invasion of northwestern Vir-
96 OHIO
HISTORY
ginia established the authority of the
Reorganized Government of Virginia
under Francis H. Pierpont, Union war
governor of the Old Dominion; and
it made a separate-state movement in
(West) Virginia possible. After
Garnett's defeat at Rich Mountain and
Wise's withdrawal from the Kanawha
Valley, northwestern Virginia no longer
was in danger of falling under the
control of a Confederate army of occupation.
But in view of the divided
loyalties of the inhabitants of western
Virginia and the persistence of
guerilla warfare in this region until
1865, it is clear that a liberal dose of
force was one of the prime ingredients
used by northwestern Unionists in
their magic formula for state-making.
In truth, West Virginia was a war-
born state.
THE AUTHOR: Richard O. Curry is a
visiting assistant professor of history
at the
University of Pittsburgh. His doctoral
dis-
sertation was a study of statehood
politics in
West Virginia.
AN ACT For the relief of the families of volunteers
in the State or United States service. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the
General Assembly of the State of
Tax levied, Ohio, That for the relief of the necessities of the families of volun- three-fifths of a teers who now are, or hereafter may be, in the service of this state mill
on the or the United States, there be and hereby is levied and assessed, for dollar
valua- the year 1862, three-fifths
of one mill on the dollar valuation on the tion. grand list of the taxable property of the State; and the amount so Collected
as levied land assessed shall be collected in the same manner as other taxes. state taxes are collected. LAWS OF OHIO,
1862 Title and first section of an act passed by the Ohio General Assembly, February 13, 1862 |
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES IN OHIO DURING THE CIVIL WAR by JOSEPH E.
HOLLIDAY One of the aspects of the Civil War on the home front
which has received scant attention by historians is that of aid for the
families of men in the armed services. The work of the United States
Sanitary Commission and the United States Christian Commission has been
recognized, but the ex- tensive work of these commissions was chiefly for
the welfare of the soldiers themselves. The impact of the war on those who were
left behind when the breadwinner was called to serve at the front has
received little attention. Yet to the communities both North and South in which
these families lived, common justice, humanity, and the level of morale
demanded that the soldiers' dependents be reasonably secured against
real privation. A number of methods for the relief of soldiers'
families were used in the state of Ohio. During the Civil War it was the
third most populous state in the Union, with a population in 1860 of
2,339,511. The complete story of this relief can never be told, inasmuch as a great
deal of it was given through local and private sources and data are
either lacking or are too difficult to trace. However, some information
regarding this phase of it is available for the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton
County. At that time Cincinnati was the largest city in the
state--indeed, it was the largest city west of the Alleghenies, with a population in 1860
of 161,044. The various methods of aiding the families of soldiers in that
city can serve as some indication of those used in other cities in the
state and in the West. Communities in Ohio were little prepared in 1861 to
take care of the unforeseen needs of soldiers' families, except by
the existing system of NOTES ARE ON PAGES 194-196 |
98 OHIO HISTORY
outdoor relief (that is, of needy
persons living in their own homes). It was
at first expected that bounty money and
part of the soldiers' pay would
supply most of their needs. But this did
not prove to be true even during
the first year of the war, and local
governmental units and private charity
supplemented the private resources of
many of these families. Few could
foresee the magnitude of the problem and
the continuation of the war for
four long years.
By the end of 1861 it became apparent
that the local governmental units
and private benevolence could not
sufficiently provide for them. State taxa-
tion for this purpose was first used in
Ohio in 1862, and the pressure for
voluntary gifts was accelerated. The
condition became especially serious
during the winter of 1864-65. By the end
of the war considerable sums
from a variety of sources were being
expended for the relief of the families
of the men fighting to preserve the
Union. By that time additional depend-
ents had made their appearance--war
widows, orphans, and disabled
veterans--for whom somewhat different
methods of relief came to be devised.
Among the first actions of the Ohio General
Assembly after the outbreak
of hostilities in April 1861 was the
protection of the property of citizen-
soldiers while they were away from home.
An act of May 1, 1861, ex-
empted from execution the property of
any soldier in the militia of Ohio
mustered into the service of the United
States during the time he was in
that service and for two months
thereafter.1 It was later (March 10, 1862)
extended to all volunteers from the
state in the service of the United States.2
In February 1862 the general assembly
sought to protect citizen-soldiers
charged with criminal offenses by
providing that judges should postpone
their trials until they were discharged.3
Still later, in March 1864, certain
relief was given to debtors in the armed
services who might have judgment
rendered against them without defense;
they were given the right to reopen
the case within one year after their
discharge from the army.4 By such
legislation the property of the citizen-soldier
and his family was given a
measure of protection while he was
serving his country.
After the first flush of patriotic
enthusiasm had passed, one of the strong
inducements to enlistment was a
financial one--a bounty, and, at a later
date, the advance of the first month's
pay. A complete discussion of the
complicated bounty system is beyond the
scope of this article, but some
consideration of it is necessary, since
bounty money was generally used for
family aid. The system was, of course,
not new at the time of the Civil
War; its origins go back to the colonial
wars. In his first address to the
soldiers of Ohio on May 17, 1861,
Governor William Dennison reminded
them that
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 99
the [federal] government, with
solicitous care, makes provision for the families
of those who may fall or be disabled in
the National cause.
It offers a bounty of one hundred
dollars to all who may enlist, payable at
the close of the service, or to the
soldier's family, if he should not survive.
The system of bounty lands is also a
permanent one.5
Provost Marshal General James B. Fry
stated after the war that to stimulate
recruiting it had been necessary to
offer "inducements intended to compare
favorably with the price of ordinary
labor and at the same time provide
means for the support of the family or
others dependent on the labor of
the recruit."6 Thus it
was generally assumed that all or part of the bounty
money would be given to his family by
the volunteer. After a study of the
subject many years ago Professor Emerson
D. Fite wrote that "undoubtedly
one-half" of the bounty "was
turned over by soldiers to their needy relatives
and may be looked upon as a form of
relief."7
During the Civil War, bounties came from
three sources--the federal
government, local governmental units,
and private subscription. (In Ohio
there was no bounty offered directly
from state funds.) The federal govern-
ment, at the beginning of hostilities,
offered a bounty of $100, payable upon
honorable discharge. Its post-service
payment, however, was of little help
in the family emergency immediately
following the enlistment of the bread-
winner. Consequently, by action of
congress in July 1862, one-fourth of
this sum was to be paid upon muster and
the balance at the expiration of
the term of service. By later acts of
congress the bounty was increased to as
much as $400 in some cases, payable in
installments at certain periods during
the soldier's service as well as upon
his being mustered in and mustered out.
By 1863 the volunteer could expect $75
from the federal government at
the time he was mustered in, $13 of the
amount being his first month's pay.8
To the federal bounty there came to be
added bounties provided by local
governmental units and private
subscription. Indeed, as the provost marshal
general wrote, the federal bounty paled
into "comparative insignificance"
when compared with "the exorbitant
bounties paid in advance by local au-
thorities." These, he believed,
were the most mischievous in encouraging
desertion, bounty-jumping, and other
evils connected with the system. So
great was the stigma of the draft that
local authorities were highly competi-
tive in the amounts offered to
volunteers. Furthermore, they paid all the
sum in advance. The primary objective of
these payments, as General Fry
put it, came to be "to obtain men
to fill quotas."9
Localities began by offering moderate
bounties. In 1862 the average
local bounty in Ohio was estimated at
$25; in 1863 it advanced to $100;
in 1864 it bounded to $400; and in 1865
the average bounty was $500,
100 OHIO HISTORY
although in some localities it was as
high as $800.10 The Hamilton County
Board of Commissioners levied a tax of
two mills in 1863 to take care of
local bounty payments. On a tax
duplicate of $128,432,065 this levy
yielded about $256,864.11 This appears
to be the only year of the war in
which a county levy for bounties was
made in Hamilton County. The next
year (1864), however, the city of
Cincinnati began to borrow in order to
offer city bounty payments, and during
that year 1,811 volunteers were
paid bounties of $100 each.12
After the war the adjutant general of
Ohio estimated that $54,457,575
had been paid in local bounties
throughout the state, of which amount cities
and counties had paid about $14,000,000
and private subscribers, $40,-
457,575.13 The private subscriptions
usually represented ward or township
bounties, offered to encourage
volunteering to avoid the draft in a city ward
or township. Ward military committees
were very active in securing private
contributions for this purpose, as well
as in securing volunteers. Bounties,
then, must be considered an important
source of income for the soldiers
and their families throughout the war.
Another way in which the individual
soldier was able to help his family
while in the armed services was to
assign all or part of his pay to his
relatives back home. This method was
known as the "allotment system."
Although the navy had developed an
allotment system before the war, the
army had not done so. At the beginning
of the war the soldiers used a
number of informal methods to send money
home. Congress then made it
possible for the states to establish
systems of collection for this purpose.
Early in the war great expectation was
placed in this source to provide an
income for soldiers' families. The pay
of a private soldier was fixed at $13
per month soon after the beginning of
the war; in May 1864 it was raised to
$16 per month. As Bell I. Wiley has
pointed out, "in comparison with that
[the pay] of World War II it was
lamentably low."14 But in addition to
their pay, most of the volunteers received
installments of their federal
bounties at stated intervals while they
were in the field, and the amounts
they often received there were larger
than might be inferred. Allotments
were arranged directly by the men in the
field; they were not automatically
deducted from their pay in a central
office far behind the lines. When General
William T. Sherman's army arrived in
Atlanta in September 1864, the men
had not been paid for a number of weeks.
In writing to the secretary of
war, Sherman said he believed that only
one-tenth or one-eighth of their
pay would be necessary in cash--the
balance would be returned North to
their families.15 This
indicates a rather large allotment by the average
soldier to his family back home.
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 101 |
|
In the absence of an official method at the beginning of the war of re- turning their pay home, the soldiers resorted to various schemes. In some cases they sent it by express or through the mail and there was considerable loss by these means.16 At one time the Tenth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, com- manded by Brigadier General William H. Lytle, sent to Cincinnati by one of its sutlers, John Ferguson, about $13,000 to be distributed by him to relatives.17 On several occasions German soldiers sent sums to Benno Speyer, a highly trusted and prominent leader of the German element in Cincinnati. In April 1862 he received $14,000 from the Twenty-Eighth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Second Regiment; two months later he received $25,000 from the same regiment. Notice was placed in the newspapers, and relatives were asked to call at his office to collect.18 In the autumn of 1861 the Hamil- ton County Board of Commissioners, besieged with requests for relief from the families of soldiers, sent Leonard Swartz to western Virginia, where several companies of Hamilton County volunteers were stationed, to per- suade them to send part of their pay home with him.19 A few days later the Cincinnati City Council authorized its representative, Theodore Marsh, to go to the same area for the same purpose. He returned with $13,250 from the Fifth Ohio Volunteer Infantry.20 Such methods were the only ones available to the soldiers during the early |
102 OHIO HISTORY
months of the war, and they were
unsystematic and irregular. Clearly a
more satisfactory means was needed. In
July 1861 congress hastily author-
ized the secretary of war to introduce
among the volunteers "the system of
allotment tickets now used in the navy,
or some equivalent system," but the
secretary failed to act.21 In December
1861 Congress passed the basic
allotment act for army volunteers. Upon
nomination by state governors, the
president could appoint not more than
three commissioners from each state
to visit the several army departments to
procure allotments. Such commis-
sioners were expressly denied any
"pay or emolument" from the federal
treasury. It was clear that congress
expected that the states would take the
initiative and the responsibility for
allotments. This law also repealed an
act of 1858 which gave to sutlers a lien
on the pay of soldiers.22
In February 1862 the general assembly of
Ohio passed a law enabling
soldiers "to transmit their pay to
their families or friends." Allotments
were to be paid into the state treasury;
the state auditor would then notify
the various county auditors of the sums
and to whom payments were to be
made; and the county officials would
then disburse such money. These sums
were expressly exempt from any
attachment or other legal process for the
satisfaction of any debt or liability.23
Two months later (April 14, 1862)
this basic law was implemented when
state pay agents were authorized who
would visit the various army departments
to procure allotments.24 By
channeling this money through the state
treasury, its safety was assured.
The state auditor believed the method to
be "simple, direct and certain,"
but the first use of pay agents was only
partly successful, and by the end of
1862 there was only one pay agent in the
state's service.25 A supplementary
law was enacted in April 1863 under
which three state officials, known
as allotment commissioners, were to be
recommended to the president and
appointed by him. They supervised the
collection of allotments.26 Gover-
nor Tod recommended Ridgley J. Powers of
Youngstown, Henry N. Johnson
of Cleveland, and Loren R. Brownell of
Piqua. By the end of the war Ohio
had sixteen pay agents at various
points.27
The treasurer of state reported at the
end of the war that $8,470,494.76
had been received in the allotment fund
of the state treasury since it was
established in February 1862, "without
cost to the soldier, and without fee
or charge by the officers of the State
or county treasuries."28 But nearly half
of that amount was collected during
1865. There is no doubt that the Ohio
system protected the payments from any
embezzlement or dishonesty. The
chief criticisms were based on the
irregularity of payments and the delays
involved. For example, during the year
1863 the monthly receipts paid into
the Ohio state treasury in this fund
varied from $12,104 to $310,338.95.29
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 103
Moved by complaints, in February 1864
the Ohio General Assembly passed
a joint resolution requesting members of
congress from Ohio "to use their
influence for the adoption of a more
safe, easy, and expeditious mode of
transmitting money by soldiers in the
army to their families and friends";
but no change was authorized by congress
during the war.30 Considering
the need for the collection of these
allotments in the field, the number of
hands through which the money had to
pass, and the paper work involved
at each stage, the transactions were
necessarily slow.31
These sums provided by the individual
soldier from his bounty money
and pay did not prove to be adequate to
take care of the financial needs of
many families left at home; too many of
them were living on marginal
incomes. The temporary business
paralysis in Cincinnati that followed the
outbreak of hostilities contributed to
the initial distress in that city, since
it reduced the possibility of wives
finding work. In 1862 the establishment
of an army clothing depot in Cincinnati,
at which seamstresses were em-
ployed, helped to give employment to
many wives and mothers of soldiers.32
But some provision was necessary to care
for needy dependents through the
first stages of the war. During this
early period the Cincinnati city authori-
ties found that their Soup House was of
great help in dealing with the
emergency.
The Soup House, located in the Medical
Institute building, had been
organized in 1860 by three
public-spirited citizens, Miles Greenwood, Ed-
ward Dexter, Jr., and D. B. Sargent, as
a pilot experiment to find an
economical way of dealing with outdoor
relief. It proved its usefulness
and was taken over by the city in June
1861.33 From that date until March
1, 1862, 3,049 families were supplied
with rations at a cost of about one-half
cent per ration. Of course, the ration
was only one-third of a loaf of bread
and a bowl of soup.34 Other
departments of the city outdoor relief distribut-
ing fuel and medicine, also showed a
great increase, which the directors
attributed to the unemployment immediately
following hostilities and "the
large number of families whose providers
have joined the army, who never
before sought relief."35
The peace-time relief services, however,
could not long take care of the
great numbers in this new class of
persons affected by the crisis. Nor did
all citizens believe that volunteers'
families should be merged in this way
with the general set of indigent
persons. Throughout the year 1861 the Cin-
cinnati City Council appropriated, in
piecemeal lots, a total of $54,366.75
for the relief of soldiers' families.36
The early regulations regarding the
distribution of city funds indicate that
the sums paid to individual families
were almost trifling. They varied from
$1.00 to $3.00 per week to each of
104 OHIO HISTORY
1,100 to 1,200 families.37 By
October 1861 it was definitely stated that
not more than $2.00 could be given to an
applicant for one week.38 After
the first eight months of the war, the
city government, except in a few crises,
permitted the county and state
authorities and private individuals to carry
the burden of family relief for
soldiers.
In the crisis produced by the outbreak
of war the Hamilton County Board
of Commissioners could not vote a levy
for this specific purpose until the
general assembly granted them the right
to do so. They were soon given
such authority. Within a month after
Fort Sumter was fired upon, the
general assembly passed an act
permitting county commissioners to levy
in 1861 a tax not to exceed one-half
mill, and to borrow in anticipation of
the receipts from that tax,39 and the
general assembly extended that authority
throughout the remaining years of the
war. The Hamilton County Board of
Commissioners promptly levied the
maximum amount for 1861.40 This levy
of one-half mill probably brought in
about $59,000 in 1861. It was not
felt necessary to make a county levy in
1862, since the state then began
its special levy for that purpose, and
it was hoped that this would be
sufficient. It did not prove to be so;
consequently, during the remaining
three years of the war a county levy for
soldiers' family relief in Hamilton
County was required in addition to the
state levy. During the crucial year
of 1864 a county levy of one mill was
assessed; for the other years it was
one-half mill. A conservative estimate
of the amount raised by county
levies in Hamilton County for this
purpose would be about $345,000 for
the war years.41
It was a cardinal principle in
nineteenth century America that poor relief
was a matter of local responsibility.
This meant that it should be locally
financed and locally administered for
local residents. In a crisis of the
magnitude of the Civil War, however,
local resources were not sufficient;
the state had to assume a share of the
burden. Professor Charles M. Rams-
dell has shown that in the Confederacy,
as long as it was expected that the
war would be a short one, provision for
the families of soldiers devolved
on the county authorities. By the end of
1862 local relief was inadequate
in most Confederate states, and during
the winter of 1862-63, the character
of relief legislation changed from local
to state and from a money tax to a
tax in kind.42 The state of
Ohio assumed responsibility for raising funds
for this purpose early in 1862, but
these funds were always locally admin-
istered for local residents. The earlier
law of May 10, 1861, already re-
ferred to, was simply permissive,
authorizing counties to levy a tax for
this specific purpose. The first state
levy was assessed by the act of Feb-
ruary 13, 1862.
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 105
One of the members of the Ohio General
Assembly most active in
advocating state taxation for the relief
of soldiers' families was Benjamin
Eggleston, a member of the state senate
from Cincinnati. Eggleston was a
merchant and legislator who frequently
came to the help of the more un-
fortunate. In 1857 a shortage in the
supply of coal in Cincinnati produced
a severe crisis, during which the poorer
families of the city were unable
to pay the exorbitant price asked for
that scarce commodity. Eggleston,
as a member of the city council, took
the leadership in having the city buy
coal and sell it at a low price. He had
also been especially helpful to the
families of soldiers during the early
months of the war. As a member of
the upper house of the general assembly
in 1862 he helped to carry through
the first law for state relief for
them.43 By this act (February 13, 1862),
a state tax of three-fifths of one mill
was levied on the dollar valuation
of taxable property in Ohio to create a
fund "for the relief of the necessities
of the families of non-commissioned
officers, musicians and privates." It
was known as the Volunteers' Families
Relief Fund. The local assessors
were ordered to make an enumeration of
volunteers in their respective
localities and the number of dependents
in their families. Each county would
then be granted an amount in proportion
to the number of its men in the
service.44
Since the revenues from this tax would
not be received until the following
year, the county commissioners were
authorized to borrow in anticipation
of them. This the Hamilton County Board
of Commissioners proceeded to
do. They used the various war military
committees and township trustees
to investigate applicants for relief and
certify those who were in need. The
commissioners also set up a scale of
payments. A wife without dependents
would receive $2.00 every two weeks;
with one child she would receive
$2.50; with two children, $3.00; with
three or four children, $3.50; and
with five or more children, $4.00.45 For the first
payments under this new
law the Hamilton County Board of
Commissioners paid $6,212 to 2,281
necessitous soldiers' families in the
city.46
During the spring of 1862 a minor crisis
occurred in Cincinnati after
army payments fell into arrears. The
regular allotment plan was not yet in
operation and the Peninsular campaign in
the East and the Shiloh cam-
paign in the West had prevented regular
payments to the army. Also, war
casualties had increased. A crowd of
over one hundred wives, many with
children in their arms, came to the
courthouse to wait on the commissioners.
Police were summoned and the crowd
dispersed. Within the next few
months the situation worsened. Civic
leaders and philanthropists called a
public meeting "to devise means of
relief for those families of soldiers
106 OHIO HISTORY
who have not received their pay, and of
those who have lost husbands and
fathers in the service." Testimony
given at this meeting indicated that
private gifts were no longer an adequate
supplement to public relief. There
was little doubt that "large
destitution" prevailed among families of volun-
ters as well as among "'the
floating population.'"47 It was decided to under-
take a concerted effort to collect funds
from private sources, but the
threatened invasion of Ohio by the
Confederate General Kirby Smith and
the subsequent "siege of
Cincinnati" (July 1862) merged this minor
crisis into a major one for the
threatened city.
The first state levy in 1862 produced
about $510,000, with each county
receiving $6.30 for each volunteer
credited to it.48 But the number of
volunteers rapidly increased after the
law was passed, and Governor Tod,
in his message of January 5, 1863, urged
an increase of the levy to one
mill. The general assembly complied.49
The higher levy of 1863 produced
about $900,000, but the amount paid to
each county was only $5.33 for each
volunteer--almost one dollar less than
in 1862. Yet the cost of living was
rapidly rising. Both Governor Tod and
the newly inaugurated Governor
John Brough recommended an increase in
this tax for 1864. A major
portion of Governor Brough's inaugural
address dealt with this problem of
family relief. While recognizing the
great assistance given by benevolent
men and women to the suffering in their
communities, he believed that
private contributions did not properly
spread the burden. Nor did he be-
lieve that private charity was always
acceptable to recipients of this class.
"We should divest this fund of the
appellation of charity," he urged.50
The general assembly was willing to
increase the state levy for 1864 to
two mills, and it also required that
county commissioners levy an additional
amount, not to exceed one mill, if the
income from the state tax was in-
sufficient. It likewise made it possible
for cities and towns to levy still
another tax, not to exceed one-half
mill, if necessary. For those township
trustees who were recalcitrant in
granting relief to soldiers' families, this
law provided that the county
commissioners could transfer its administra-
tion to two persons appointed by them;
if the commissioners neglected to
grant relief the governor could appoint
one or more persons to administer
it.51 A new set of soldiers' families
was now included in those eligible for
relief--families of Negro soldiers, for
whom the state of Ohio had opened
volunteering in 1863. At the time Ohio
began to raise Negro regiments,
these volunteers were not eligible for a
federal bounty, and were paid only
$10 per month. Nor were their families
eligible for relief from state funds.
To meet their just claims for help,
Governor Tod had appointed a state
committee to receive private
subscriptions and distribute aid to the neces-
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 107
sitous families of these Negro troops.52
But beginning in 1864 they were
eligible for state aid.
The year 1864 was the most difficult of
the entire war for many families
of soldiers from Ohio. In his message to
the general assembly on January 3,
1865, Governor Brough stated that the
tax levied in 1864 had proved to be
inadequate. So great was the drain on
the regular state fund during that
year, particularly for the relief of
families of the so-called Hundred Days
Men, that he found it necessary to
appropriate $5,000 from the extraordi-
nary contingent fund for this purpose.
He strongly urged that the general
assembly increase the state levy to
three mills.53 The general assembly,
however, rejected his proposal and
placed the burden of additional funds
on the local governmental units.
Counties were enabled to increase their
additional levies up to two mills, and
municipalities could increase their
levies to an additional one mill.
Families of disabled veterans were still
entitled to relief under this act. Since
the number of war widows had
increased, the law explicitly stated
that the receipt of a pension should not
exclude a war widow from the benefit of
this relief. More important, how-
ever, was the change in the method of
distribution of the funds to the
counties. Heretofore it was distributed
on the basis of the number of
soldiers enlisting from each county;
under the new act of 1865 it was to be
distributed on the basis of the number
of necessitous soldiers' families in
each county.54
During the year 1865 the state of Ohio
collected $2,137,932.69 for the
families of soldiers--the largest sum
for any one year. Since hostilities
ended in April 1865, this large amount
was not needed, and the general
assembly later transferred $800,000 to
the state sinking fund and appropri-
ated $100,000 for the state soldiers'
home. The unused balance was distrib-
uted among the several counties in the
proportion in which it was collected.55
At the close of the war the adjutant
general of Ohio reported that a grand
total of $5,618,864.89 was collected by
the state for the purpose of relief
for soldiers' families during the war
years.56 A comparison of this amount
with those collected by some of the
states of the Confederacy shows that
this was not a very large sum for the
third most populous state of the
Union. The state of North Carolina
appropriated $6,020,000 for this
purpose during the war years;57 Louisiana appropriated
$9,700,000,58
while Virginia appropriated only
$1,000,000, preferring to rely chiefly
on the system of county aid.59 In
Wisconsin the state tax brought in $2,-
545,873.78 for this purpose.60 Such
figures, however, may be misleading
in that they do not include county and
town levies, nor the important source
of private contributions.
108 OHIO HISTORY
Not even the most patriotic leaders in
the state assumed that public funds
would be more than a part of the
support for the relief of soldiers' families.
Private benevolence was expected to
supplement public support. In his
message to the general assembly in
January 1863 Governor Tod told the
members, "We are proud to know
that every neighborhood of our state is
blessed with generous and benevolent
souls."61 In 1864 Governor Brough
stated in his inaugural that "in
many counties . . . the private collections
for soldiers' families have
considerably exceeded, and in some cases doubled
the amount of the [state] tax."62 Contributions
from these generous and
benevolent persons were obtained in a
variety of ways.
One of the most important and active
agencies in Cincinnati giving aid
to soldiers' families was the
Cincinnati Relief Union. It had been organized
in 1848 with the following objectives:
to prevent vagrancy and street beg-
ging; to prevent imposition on the
benevolent; to provide work for those
who needed it; to place the youth in
schools and Sunday Schools; and to
give relief by gifts of food, clothing,
and fuel. Money was seldom given to
the recipient of its charity.63 An
annual canvass for funds was undertaken
each year; business houses and private
homes were solicited. With the
advent of the war and the needs of
soldiers' families, the union expanded
its activities. With its headquarters
at 99 West Sixth Street it had an or-
ganization to collect and distribute
funds and supplies. By the year 1862
nearly three-fourths of its cases were
families of soldiers.64 In the following
year (1863) it distributed fuel,
groceries, and clothing at the rate of nearly
$100 per day; its annual report for
that year stated that it had aided 3,400
families, of whom 2,448 were families
of soldiers.65 During the month of
January 1865--one of the most trying
months of the war--the union cared
for 2,000 families, of whom 1,500 were
those of needy soldiers.66 Its
officers and solicitors were nearly all
businessmen. One of its most active
workers in soliciting funds was C. W.
Starbuck, editor of the Cincinnati
Daily Times.67
Ward military committees likewise
solicited and distributed funds for
this purpose, in addition to securing
volunteers and bounty subscriptions.
In 1863 the eleventh ward committee in
Cincinnati gave an oyster supper
to help raise funds for the relief of its
needy families of soldiers, at which
Judge Alphonso Taft and General William
S. Rosecrans spoke.68 The
fifteenth ward committee was unusually
active in distributing about $3,000
during 1863.69 During the
holiday season of 1863 the Cincinnati branch
of the United States Sanitary
Commission sponsored its great fair for
soldiers' relief. On January 6, 1864,
there was held a grand donation ball,
and, on January 8, 1864, a grand
supper, the proceeds from both being for
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 109
the relief of soldiers' families. About
$7,500 was raised by these events
for family relief.70
Such efforts, however, were not
sufficient for the year 1864. There were
four heavy calls for troops during that
year, including the Hundred Days
Men. During the spring and summer these
members of the national guard
from the states of Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa were called
into active service for one hundred days
in order to release more seasoned
veterans from guarding railway lines,
garrisoning forts, and other behind-
the-lines duties. It was hoped that
these men, with those already in the field,
could supply the necessary manpower to
win the war that year. In Cincinnati
three regiments and one battalion of the
national guard were called up at
the busiest season of the year. Nearly
all of these men had dependents;
this, coupled with the suddenness of the
call and the fact that they were not
entitled to a bounty, worked a great
hardship on their families.71
In 1864 the Union armies embarked on
massive sweeping movements. In
the spring Generals Grant and Sherman
began their final grand strategy
that eventually wore out the Confederate
armies. The battles of the Wilder-
ness and Cold Harbor and the siege of
Petersburg in the Virginia theater
added to the casualty lists; Sherman's
invasion of the South and his march
to the sea culminated in the capture of
Atlanta on September 2 and Savannah
in December. Due to these extensive
campaigns of the armies, soldiers'
pay was in arrears, and allotments were
long delayed. The government
clothing depot in Cincinnati, which had
given employment to many soldiers'
wives as seamstresses, closed in 1864.72
The winter of 1864-65 was indeed
a bleak one. By November 1864 it was
estimated that 4,000 families of
soldiers were on relief in Hamilton
County.73
The necessity of securing additional
funds was understood by officials.
On November 14, 1864, Governor Brough
sent an urgent message to the
various county military committees
throughout the state calling on them to
act at once to prevent extreme hardship
among soldiers' families during that
winter. He suggested the Thanksgiving
season as an appropriate time to
seek funds, and urged rural areas to
share the burden with the towns. He
called for gifts in kind as well as in
money. Since fuel was so important,
he suggested that farmers bring in
supplies of wood as well as part of their
garden produce from the previous summer.
"I do not ask charity for the
families of these men," he wrote,
"I ask open manifestations of gratitude."74
Spurred by the urgency of the local
situation and the official appeal of
the governor, the Hamilton County
Military Committee called a public
meeting to make plans for meeting the
emergency. It was determined to
undertake a city-wide solicitation of
funds. All organizations in the city
110 OHIO HISTORY
were encouraged to contribute, and the
various churches were asked to
send ladies to a general meeting to plan
their part of the drive.75 The ladies,
remembering the success of the sanitary
fair held during the previous year,
which had netted $235,000, decided to
undertake a similar project for the
families of soldiers but on a somewhat
more modest scale.76 In addition
to the fair, there was a series of
entertainments, both social and dramatic.
The entire project was known as the
Testimonial to Soldiers' Families.
The first event was held at Wood's
Theater on December 12, with a
benefit performance of the drama,
"All That Glitters Is Not Gold; or the
Factory Girl's Diary."77 The
Union Dramatic Association of amateurs
staged an entertainment at the residence
of Judge James Hall, consisting of
two short plays, "A Pretty Piece of
Business" and "Box and Cox," which
the newspapers reported as being
"both piquant and spicy." This effort of
the amateurs netted $300.78 At the other
end of the cultural spectrum was
a recital of sacred music at the Seventh
Presbyterian Church, which brought
in $335.79 Among the last events was a
great amateur performance of
Shakespeare's Hamlet at Pike's
Opera House, in which Lieutenant Governor
Charles Anderson took the leading role
and Thomas Buchanan Read recited
the prologue. This affair netted
$5,227.30.80
It was the fair, however, which occupied
the center of public attention.
It was housed in a large four-story
building at 94 West Fourth Street.
General Joseph Hooker, who was stationed
in Cincinnati in command of
the northern department of the army, was
the honorary president. He
visited the fair each day and evening. Other
military leaders who were
in the city, such as General William S.
Rosecrans and General August T.
Willich, also paid visits. At various
booths were sold all manner of articles
and refreshments; Christmas trees, with
their decorations, were sold in
large numbers; and the floral displays
were unusual. There was a fish
pond and a post office. At the latter,
the reporter for the Cincinnati Gazette
wrote, "was a circle of young
ladies, . . . [and] the fact that their own
tapering fingers write the pretty
nothings they give to any who may call . . .
combined with . . . their own wit, . . .
does not constitute the least attractive
feature of the elegant establishment."81
The fair closed with an elaborate
grand supper and ball held at the Burnet
House on the evening of December
30, at which it was claimed 4,000
persons were fed by "ladies of the elite
of the first social circles of the city,
in elegant toilettes." The families of
the soldiers were served a New Year's
dinner on December 31 from the food
remaining.82
Although reports on gifts and proceeds
were published almost daily in
the local newspapers, a final report
cannot be found. Some contributions
RELIEF FOR SOLDIERS' FAMILIES 111 were being received as late as March 1865. The money in hand, however, was distributed at once. On February 28, 1865, the fourth installment of $10,000 was distributed to families--a total of $40,000 up to that time.83 It is probable that about $50,000 was earned from all of the events and solicitations comprising this testimonial. The sanitary fair of the preceding year and this Testimonial to Soldiers' Families were the most strikingly dramatic and colorful episodes in the war-time life of Cincinnati. Butler County, Ohio, had staged a similar event at its county seat, Hamilton, in 1863, at which $9,600 was received,84 and it is probable that other cities and towns had similar events throughout the war for this purpose. They offered a constructive outlet for popular support and an escape from war- time tensions, particularly for women. They were also dramatic reminders that the needs of the families of soldiers were on the public conscience. In the case of the Cincinnati testimonial, it provided a boost needed to carry on relief during the remainder of the stark winter of 1864-65. |
|
For the number of soldiers' families receiving relief in Ohio during the war, accurate figures are not available. The ratio at which officials at Columbus estimated the number of necessitous families during 1862 and 1863 was one of every four.85 The enumeration made by assessors in 1865 indicated that there were 44,090 families of soldiers in the state at that time, of which 37,118 were necessitous. These necessitous families in 1865 included 121,923 persons.86 This represents a sharp rise in necessitous families during the war from twenty-five percent to eighty-four percent. This was due to the casualties over the war years, the prolonged absence of |
112 OHIO HISTORY
soldiers in the field, and the sharp
rise in the cost of living. The change in
the law in 1865 by which counties
received state funds in proportion to the
necessitous families within the county
also probably led to more liberal
standards of need.
It was probably inevitable that charges
would be made of political parti-
sanship in local administration of this
type of relief. This was true in
Ohio in 1863 and 1864 during the heat of
the state and national election
campaigns. In April 1864 Governor Brough
asserted that there "were almost
daily complaints" of townships
trustees in certain localities--that women
were rudely treated by the local
officials when they sought relief; that they
were compelled to travel distances to
obtain signatures for papers, causing
considerable inconvenience; or that they
were "insultingly catechised" as
to their means of support. "I am
mortified that these things are so," he
wrote to the county military committees
in urging them to investigate such
complaints. In a few extreme cases it
was found that the relief funds had
been diverted to bridge funds and other
local projects.87 In his message to
the general assembly Governor Brough
later stated that recalcitrant trustees
had not so much refused to conform to
the law as they were dilatory in
granting relief; that it was their
manner rather than their denial of relief
that was objected to.88
The end of the war in April 1865 and the
rapid demobilization consider-
ably lessened the problem of family
relief. There were still the war
casualties to be helped--the orphans,
widows, and disabled soldiers, many
of whom had families. The Ohio Volunteer
Family Relief had provided a
transitional form of relief for this set
of needy casualties, and, before the
end of the war, plans were already in
operation for more adequate means of
help for them. The federal government
would undertake a major part of
this relief through its pension system,
the soldiers' homes, and other
methods. Except in occasional times of
local disaster, it is probable that
this relief for soldiers' families
during the Civil War was more extensive
and continued longer than any other type
of relief in the state before that
time.
THE AUTHOR: Joseph E. Holliday is assist-
ant dean of the college of arts and
sciences and
professor of history at the University
of Cin-
cinnati.
|
WHISTLE-STOPPING Through Ohio by RICHARD O. DAVIES |
Ohio played an important role in returning Harry S. Truman to the White House in 1948. Prior to the election he had been foredoomed to defeat by all reputable political seers. Ohio was seen as being safely within the Republican fold, and was supposedly prepared to take part in a nation- wide Republican blitz. Elmo Roper, for example, quit taking samples of voter preference as early as September 9, with the comment that only a "political convulsion" could prevent New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey from winning the presidency.1 The prognostications were ignored by the voters, however, as Truman executed the most startling upset victory in the history of American presidential elections. Ohio went Democratic by over seven thousand votes, while Truman was returned to the White House by a popular-vote margin of over two million. In the electoral college he scored impressively with a 303-189 margin.2 NOTES ARE ON PAGES 196-197 |
114 OHIO HISTORY
Election analyst Samuel Lubell explains
the Truman victory as a result
of the "Roosevelt Revolution."3
The New Deal, creating a Democratic
majority in the nation's electorate, was
the major factor which enabled
Truman to coast to victory. Lubell
insists that the real surprise would have
been a Dewey victory; in fact, had the
turnout of voters been larger, "Dewey
would have been buried in a landslide."4
Even Henry Wallace, with his
1,157,000 popular votes, and Strom
Thurmond, with his thirty-nine Dixie-
crat electoral votes, failed to derail
Truman.
If Lubell is correct, how do we then
evaluate the campaign? To Lubell,
"often the campaign oratory is but
the small talk which conceals the almost
instinctive predispositions which all of
us carry in the backs of our minds.
Certainly no basic reshuffling of party
alignment is possible unless the sub-
conscious, emotional loyalties of the
voters are reshuffled."5 Applying this
idea specifically to Ohio, can we
relegate the Truman whistle-stop journey
through the state to
"small-talk"? Would Truman have won Ohio had he
not waged a strenuous campaign for the
Buckeye vote? Is it not possible
that such a campaign is necessary in
order to remind the voters to be certain
to vote in order to take advantage of
this party domination? Or, is it not
equally possible that such a campaign is
necessary, even vital, to reaffirm
the "almost instinctive
predispositions" of each voter? In other words,
would the 1948 voter have remembered the
New Deal if he had not been
reminded of it?
By examining closely the Truman campaign
in Ohio it is possible to
understand more fully the 1948 election
as well as obtain a detailed view
of a limited but significant part of one
of the most intriguing campaigns in
the nation's history. And, perhaps, such
an examination will suggest that
the whistle-stop campaign was of signal
importance in the election of
Truman.
In view of the supposedly overwhelming
odds facing Truman in Ohio,
it is surprising that he even bothered
to campaign in the state at all. In
1944 Dewey had won the state by almost
twelve thousand votes, defeating
Franklin D. Roosevelt and his relatively
unknown running mate in the proc-
ess. With a hard core of Dewey strength
theoretically already in existence,
there seemed to be little doubt about
Ohio's intention in 1948.6
Although all political experts believed
that "Truman had his back to
the wall" in Ohio,7 the
determined Missourian waged a whistle-stop cam-
paign into the heart of the state on
Monday, October 11. Beginning with
a breakfast speech in Cincinnati and
ending with a state-wide radio broad-
cast from Akron that evening, Truman
covered three hundred miles and
delivered eleven speeches. In the
process, he was cheered by several hundred
WHISTLE-STOPPING THROUGH OHIO 115 |
|
thousand persons; ominous predictions of a Republican romp notwithstand- ing, Truman did not concede a single vote, at least not until he had "told the people the facts."8 The Truman strategy in the Buckeye state, as well as throughout the nation, was not complex. It aimed to achieve two basic objectives, both of which Lubell uses as the key to his interpretation of the election: (1) to get out the vote in order to take advantage of the Democratic preponder- ancy, and (2) to speak clearly on a few easily understood issues which would make the Republican party appear to be the lackey of "big business" and "the vested interests," while at the same time extolling the Democratic party as the "party of the people." In order to accomplish this Truman followed the counsel of Democratic National Committee Research Director William Batt, who suggested in a memorandum to the Truman campaign advisors that in order for Truman to reinvigorate a party split by internal squabbling, the president "should not just exude confidence, but confidence with reasons. He should give our side some good solid substance upon which to hinge the campaign arguments. Platitudes and truisms should be avoided like the pox." And, to take advantage of Truman's homespun midwestern qualities, Batt urged that the wording of the speeches "should be short, homely, and in character. This is no place for Churchillian grandiloquence," he said.9 |
116 OHIO HISTORY
As a result, throughout Ohio as well as
the nation, Truman addressed
himself directly to the labor and farm
blocs, pointing out the advantages of
past Democratic rule. "The
Democratic Party thinks in terms of doing
things for the people--higher
wages--broader social security--protection
in old age--better schools and
homes--and a better life for the men and
women who do the world's work," he
told the Ohio voters.10 While describ-
ing his own party in the meaningful
terms of the New Deal and Franklin D.
Roosevelt (a vote-attracting name which
he did not hesitate to invoke),
Truman placed upon the Republicans the
stigma of depression, and declared
that the opposition party was controlled
by "special interests" which acted
only "at the behest of the
lobbies." Having drawn the images of the two
parties in such black and white terms,
Truman then exhorted his audiences
to "think it over when you go into
the voting booth next month. Think of
the gains you've obtained in the last 16
years--higher wages, social security,
unemployment compensation, federal home
loans to save your homes, and
a thousand other things--and then think
of the Tafts and Tabers."11
Thus the issues discussed by Truman were
those which would appeal
mostly to the middle and lower income
groups. Not afraid to tell his
audience to "vote in your own
interest," he put the campaign upon an
individual level; he simply said that
the working man and his family would
benefit more from his administration
than from that of the Republican
candidate. Bidding for the vote of
organized labor--or at least attempting
to keep it within the Democratic
fold--Truman declared that the Taft-
Hartley act, enacted by the Republican
eightieth congress, had "put the
handcuffs on labor."12 He
told city dwellers that their acute housing prob-
lem was the result of the refusal of the
"do-nothing eightieth congress" to
enact the comprehensive housing bill
which he so ardently championed.
In Dayton, for example, he reminded the
citizens that they had twelve to
fifteen thousand familes living in
substandard homes. "I have been trying
for over three years to get the congress
to pass the kind of housing laws we
need, but the Republican leaders in
congress are now more interested in
what the real estate lobby says than
what the people of this country need."13
He emphasized time and again the rapidly
rising prices and, naturally, laid
the responsibility at the feet of the
opposition: "You know that the Repub-
licans said if we got rid of price
controls, prices would adjust themselves.
Well, they have. They have gone clear
off the chart."14 On taxes, he told
his listeners, the Republicans
"delivered to the rich by passing a rich man's
bill."15 As for the
farmers--traditionally Republican in their politics--
Truman simply reminded them of their
remarkable gains in income since
1933: "Under the Democrats you are
getting a fair share of the whole
WHISTLE-STOPPING THROUGH OHIO 117
country's prosperity. Our federal farm
program is based on a solid truth--
farmers have a right to be sure of a
market for their products at good
prices."16
Because of these facts, Truman
explained, the Republicans did not want
to face "the issues." If the
Republican candidate refused to answer his
challenge, everyone could clearly see
that the Republican leadership was
out to destroy the gains made by the New
Deal. The reason why Dewey did
not speak out was clear--his party's
record was too weak on the major
(Truman-selected) issues. In Hamilton,
for example, Truman berated his
opponent for remaining upon a
supercilious plane, blandly calling for
"national unity" but never
getting down to "the facts." "This campaign
is . . . a crusade to enable the people
of the United States to realize what
this election means. I must face you
personally, or you don't find out.
That's what I'm doing. My Republican
opponents don't discuss the issues.
They are trying to make you believe
there are no real issues," he said.17
In addition to the big
"issues," the veteran campaigner from Missouri
knew the effectiveness of references to
items of local interest. In Dayton he
told his audience that if Daytonian
James M. Cox had been elected president
in 1920, "we never would have had .
. . that boom and bust program which
followed the election of a Republican
candidate."18 In Sidney, recalling his
senatorial committee which investigated
war production, Truman said he
had heard a lot about the war effort in
Sidney. "Sidney has elbow grease,"
he told the crowd, "and we need
this for continuing prosperity."19 In
Rittman, having been presented with a
block of locally produced salt, he
responded with a ready quip; "And
don't think I'm not going to put it on
the tail of the opposition."20
At Fostoria he used the time-tested political
device of praising the virtues of small
town and farm life. Referring to a
recent sarcastic remark made by Robert
A. Taft that "Truman is hitting
all the whistle-stops," Truman
retorted that such towns as Fostoria "are the
backbone of America." And, too, he
was careful to point out that as an
ex-farmer, he had observed from his
train window that Ohio's farm land
appeared to be the "finest in
America," and was, in fact, "almost as good"
as that back home in Missouri.21
Throughout the trip Truman cast down
from the train platform an image
of honesty, sincerity, and simplicity.
This image was further enhanced
by the presence of his wife and daughter
Margaret on the train platform
with him. Here was a man of humble
origins who was not only the leader
of his people but one of them as well.
He was not afraid to trust the judg-
ment of the "people," for he
knew them well from his own Missouri back-
ground. He knew well those who gathered
excitedly around the rear of the
|
train to catch a glimpse of the president. His ability to reach them was not an unimportant aspect of this trip. "He's the President," a Lima News editorial writer observed, and yet, "he's just an ordinary family man, proud of his wife and daughter. He has something in common with many who heard him."22 Although the Ohio campaign on October 11 would be considered "very successful" by state party leaders,23 it could hardly have begun upon a more dreary note. Arriving in Cincinnati at 7 A.M. on a rainy Monday morning, the president's motorcade from Union Terminal to a Netherland Plaza breakfast gathering of about two thousand Democrats drew just a few hundred spectators. Only scattered clusters of early risers lined the "almost deserted" streets, braving the chilling light rain, as the presidential entourage quickly passed by.24 With no cheering crowd to welcome him to a state he knew he had to win, and with a bleak, grey sky threatening |
WHISTLE-STOPPING THROUGH OHIO 119
to dampen the day's all-important bid
for votes, Truman's spirits visibly
sagged. A veteran political reporter for
the Des Moines Register, who had
traveled with Truman throughout the
campaign, noted that "he looked like
a man who had received bad news but felt
the show must go on."25 At the
hotel, however, where he was introduced
to the assembled Democrats by
Mayor Albert Cash as "a leader of
unflinching courage,"26 Truman re-
sponded with one of his typical
speeches--he vigorously attacked his
opponent. Dwelling upon the theme of
Dewey's refusal to discuss the issues,
Truman noted that while he and
Cincinnatian Robert A. Taft were "as far
apart as the poles on the welfare of the
people, at least you know where
Taft stands, and that is more than you
can say for some Republican candi-
dates." Continuing this line of
attack, Truman said, "You know where I
stand. We are just trying to find out
where the other fellow stands." Turn-
ing to his favorite whipping boy, the
eightieth congress, he charged that
its Republican majority leadership had
"led the fight against price controls"
and "consistently opposed a
national health program" while supporting
"measures which took social
security away from a million people."27
At nine-thirty the president, with his
family, advisors, and a host of Ohio
Democratic candidates headed by
gubernatorial candidate Frank Lausche,
boarded the chartered train and headed
northward. Stopping at industrial
Hamilton at 10 A.M., Truman was greeted
enthusiastically by a crowd
estimated at ten thousand persons.28
The rain had stopped and a brisk
autumn breeze whipped around the train's
rear platform as the Democratic
candidate, obviously very much pleased
with the large crowd, stepped for-
ward to deliver a ten-minute speech on
the evils of Republican congressmen.
The unexpectedly large crowd quickly
restored Truman to his usual fighting
self and erased all thoughts of the
sparse crowd in Cincinnati. It produced
"the most striking change in the
Democratic candidate's demeanor I have
witnessed in all of our trips,"29
the Des Moines reporter observed, as
Truman, making a "natty
appearance" in his blue pin-stripped suit,30 lashed
the Republican congressional leadership
for its dilatory action on the bi-
partisan Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing
bill.31 Explaining in oversimplified
but politically effective terms the
reasons why the comprehensive housing
bill was not enacted despite the
greatest housing shortage in the nation's
history, Truman charged that "they
killed the housing bill at the behest of
the real estate lobby." This was,
he concluded, just one of several reasons
why the Republican candidate did not
desire to discuss the issues.32
By eleven-thirty the diesel-powered
train had arrived in Dayton, where
Cox and Mayor Louis W. Lohrey were at
the station to welcome the presi-
dent to the Gem City. Because he had
arrived during the lunch hour, and
120 OHIO HISTORY because the city schools had been dismissed to allow the students to see the president, a very large, excited crowd lined Main Street as Truman and his family were driven to Memorial Auditorium, where he delivered a thirty-minute speech. An estimated fifty thousand persons had gathered along the route to the auditorium, and amid the carnival-like atmosphere that prevailed on a "no-school" day, a young schoolboy, his political symbols slightly confused, was heard to ask, "I wonder if he will ride in on a mule?"33 Truman might not have arrived upon a mule, but he certainly was figuratively astride the Democratic donkey as he opened fire upon the "do- nothing eightieth congress" for opposing all effective price controls. Ob- serving that the "boom and bust" economics practiced by the Republicans had led to the Great Depression in 1929, he pointed out that "they still refuse to give us the protection we need against another crash."34 Turning to housing, he said that when he had given them an opportunity to enact the housing bill in his special session of congress in July, the Republicans had refused to comply.35 |
|
WHISTLE-STOPPING THROUGH OHIO 121
Leaving a cheering crowd at the station,
the train continued its northward
journey, making a five-minute stop at
Sidney, where he urged, as he did at
every city visited, the election of
Lausche and local Democratic congress-
ional candidates. "Vote the
straight Democratic ticket, and you vote against
special interests," he said.36
Arriving at 2 P.M. in Lima, which is
centered in Allen County's rich
farming area, the apparently tireless
sixty-four-year-old campaigner re-
minded a gathering of over four thousand
how the New Deal had revived
the national economy after the
depression. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt
had taken office, he pointed out, farm
income alone had increased over nine
times. To insure continued prosperity,
he said, his reelection was im-
perative.37
From Lima the train moved on to Ottawa,
Deshler, Fostoria, Willard, and
Rittman for short stops as it headed
towards Akron. At each stop Truman
spoke in generalities about farm prices,
inflation, and housing, always con-
cluding with his own practical bit of
advice: "Vote in your own interest
or you will be voting for special
privilege." Obviously, the Democratic
party's interests and those of his
listeners coincided perfectly. The short
speech concluded, he would ask his
audience, "Do you want to meet my
family?" and amid a chorus of
cheers, Mrs. Truman and Margaret would
step onto the front of the platform to
smile and wave their greetings to the
assembled Ohioans. Then, with the local
high school band blaring, the
train would pull away slowly, the
nation's first family smiling and waving
goodbye.38
At Akron, where Truman had already
promised to "take the hide off the
Republicans,"39 a very
large and enthusiastic throng, estimated to be near
three hundred thousand in number,
welcomed the president into the Rubber
City as "the rubber workers and the
Democratic machine put on the biggest
political show in the city's
history."40 Still fresh despite the long day of
traveling, hand-shaking, and speaking,
Truman made a strong bid for the
state's labor vote in his 9 P.M.
state-wide radio speech from the Akron
Armory.41 Those who had hoped
for a Truman-type speech were not dis-
appointed, for in an extremely partisan
address he criticized the Republican
congressional leadership for the
Taft-Hartley act and, in doing so, blandly
assumed that all Republicans were
anti-labor. He reminded the armory
audience of twenty-five hundred, and
untold numbers listening on the radio,
that the Republicans had vowed to kill
the gains made by labor during the
New Deal. Fully embracing the New Deal,
Truman said: "The Republicans
don't like the New Deal. They never
liked the New Deal, and they would
like to get rid of it." They were
"waiting eagerly for the time when they
|
can go ahead and do a real hatchet job on the New Deal without inter- ference," he warned.42 Thus, on a plane of high partisanship, Harry S. Truman ended a fifteen- hour campaign during which he made his major appeal to the Ohio elector- ate. By eight o'clock the following morning he had retraced his trail across northern Ohio and was entering Indiana to begin an equally extensive cam- paign in Hoosierland. What effect did this whirlwind whistle-stop trip have upon the Ohio electorate? Although he was greeted by large crowds throughout the state (except for his early morning visit in traditionally Republican Cincinnati), Truman was probably seen by little more than a half-million persons; and a large number of these were school children. He did not say anything in his speeches that he did not utter time and again in other states. He did not visit many of the major Ohio cities; in fact, he spent valuable time in small towns. However, the psychological impact of the president taking the time to stump representative sections of Ohio asking for support cannot be under- estimated. This is especially significant in view of the fact that Dewey did not actively campaign in the state, for he apparently accepted the opinion of the "experts" that the state was all wrapped up in a Republican gunny sack. Because of the very large shift in the farm vote in Ohio, the time spent in the rural areas seems not to have been wasted. The short visits to representative small rural communities added an important dimension to the Ohio whistle-stop campaign At the end of the day, Frank Lausche, destined to sweep to an easy 215,000-vote victory in his quest to regain the governorship, wholeheartedly endorsed the Truman candidacy in a near-poetic statement which came as a surprise to many Ohio politicians. "Harry Truman," Lausche said, "possesses a soul that reflects the soul of America. He is a good man, a fearless man. He has tried to conduct the affairs of this country so as to bring the greatest good to the greatest number. I will cast my ballot for him in the belief that the nation will be secure by his guidance."43 This ringing endorsement certainly did Truman's cause no harm and possibly |
WHISTLE-STOPPING THROUGH OHIO 123
helped attract independent voters,
among whom Lausche was strong. What
greatly impressed Lausche was the
surprisingly large crowds. "At every
village, town and city, the crowds
waited in startling numbers," one national
magazine reported.44 At one
city the amazed Lausche is reported to have
told Truman, "This is the biggest
crowd I ever saw in Ohio."45
Despite the emphasis upon the issues of
labor, housing, and inflation,
the election returns indicated a slight
loss from the 1944 level in the vote
of labor. It was the radical switch in
the Ohio farm vote which returned
Ohio to the Democratic column. While he
lost slightly in such industrial
areas as Akron and Dayton,46 Truman
made huge gains in the rural areas.
In Putnam County, for example, where
Truman spent ten minutes at Ottawa
discussing the gains made by the farmer
under Democratic rule, the vote
changed from 71.8 percent for Dewey in
1944 to 50.5 percent for Truman.
In Allen County, where he stopped at
Lima, Truman cut the 1944 Dewey
margin by more than fifty percent; the
county went from a 21,024 to a 12,564
popular vote Republican romp in 1944,
to a much closer 17,380 to 13,161
Dewey victory. In Shelby County, where
he visited Sidney, which in 1944
had voted for Dewey by about 1,500
votes (7,084 to 5,622), Truman re-
versed the margin (6,939 to 5,406).47
In the industrial areas, such as
Hamilton, Dayton, and Akron, while the
Democratic margin fell slightly
from 1944, the margin of victory was
still substantial. In these areas his
aim undoubtedly was merely to maintain
his party's strength, and in large
measure he was successful. However, as
the vote returns show, the foray
into the rural areas certainly did not
hurt the Truman cause.
While it is impossible to establish
completely the efficacy of such a cam-
paign trip, the evidence does clearly
suggest that the whistle-stop visit by
Truman to Ohio was an important factor
in determining the final outcome.
Mr. Truman maintains that this trip was
"most decisive," although he is
quick to point out, "I knew I
would win all the time."48 Whatever the
actual effect, the nation-wide Truman
whistle-stop campaign, which covered
22,000 miles and entailed 351 prepared
speeches within a six-weeks period,
is an important event in American
political history. Recalling with obvious
pleasure the Ohio phase of this
campaign, Truman notes that it proved to be
"a grand time" for him as he
presented "the facts as I saw them" to the
hundreds of thousands who heard him on
a cool, windy, sometimes rainy
October Monday in 1948.49
THE AUTHOR: Richard O. Davies is a
graduate student and part-time
instructor in
American history at the University of
Mis-
souri. A native of Ohio, he holds
degrees
from Marietta College and Ohio
University.
|
SHIPS IN THE WILDERNESS A NOTE ON THE INVASION OF CANADA, 1813 by HOWARD S. MILLER and JACK ALDEN CLARKE At the beginning of 1813 Lake Erie was dominated by a British naval force. The English with their flotilla of transports came and went as they pleased, supplying the troops that had occupied the whole of Michigan and now threatened Ohio. It became increasingly apparent to President Madison and his closest military advisers that there was little chance of recovering Michigan, and even less of invading Upper Canada, until the American navy gained supremacy on the Great Lakes. Accordingly, in mid-February 1813, Oliver Hazard Perry, commander of a group of gunboats at Newport, Rhode Island, received orders from the navy department to report at once with his ablest seamen to Commodore Isaac Chauncey at Sackett's Harbor, New York, for service on the Great Lakes. Soon after, Secretary of War John Armstrong ordered Captain Thomas Sidney Jesup to proceed to Cleveland and there to construct a fleet of troop transports for General Harrison's Army of the Northwest. Thomas Jesup, though scarcely twenty-five years old, was already a sea- soned officer. Born in 1788 in Berkeley County, Virginia, and later a resi- dent of Cincinnati, Jesup in 1808 was commissioned a second lieutenant in NOTES ARE ON PACES 197-198 |
SHIPS IN THE WILDERNESS 125
the Seventh Infantry Regiment and served
several years on the frontier.1
During the campaign of 1812 Jesup served
as brigade major and adjutant
general under General William Hull. He
was captured in the surrender of
Detroit, but soon arranged for his
exchange. Jesup had a strong drive to
succeed as a military officer. "I .
. . intend to direct all the energies of my
mind to my profession," he confided
to a friend in February 1812. "I am
determined to become compleat master of
every branch of it."2 Convinced
that his talents had gone unnoticed by
the war department, Jesup often com-
plained that promotions had passed him
by. "Did I not consider it cowardly
to leave my country at the present
crisis," he wrote, "I would abandon all my
prospects here and court danger and
distinction in the patriotic ranks in
South America."3
Happily for Jesup this was not
necessary. The war department recog-
nized his services by
promoting him to captain, January 20, 1813. Then
Secretary of War John Armstrong's
decision to entrust him with the con-
struction of a fleet of
transports--vital to the projected invasion of Canada--
gave the young captain an opportunity to
demonstrate the judgment and
administrative ability that were to mark
his long and distinguished career
in the United States Army as its
quartermaster general from 1828 to 1860.
Jesup's orders, sent on March 9, 1813,
instructed him to proceed to
Cleveland and there to build
a number of boats on Lake Erie for the
purpose of transporting troops from
place to place on that Lake. . . . These
Boats will be of the kind known by the
name of Schenactady [sic] Boats,
narrow & sharp a-head & flat-bottomed. They
will carry from 40 to 50 men each, with
their Baggage Arms & accoutrements &
provision for the voyage.4
Jesup subsequently noted that he was to
build a sufficient number of boats,
each forty-five feet long and three feet
deep, to transport a force of three
to four thousand men.5
Even before he arrived on the scene,
Jesup was well aware of the prob-
lems confronting him. There was timber
in abundance on the southern
shore of Lake Erie, but virtually all
other naval stores, not to mention
skilled shipwrights and carpenters, had
to be brought from Pittsburgh and
points east. This meant, at best, a
four-day journey over wilderness roads.
Moreover, the presence of the British
fleet and of hostile Indians in the
area added to Jesup's difficulties.
"I deem it my duty to apprize you that
a Guard will probably be necessary for
the protection of the boats and
materials," he warned the secretary
of war in March 1813. "Cleveland
and Grand river are extreme frontier
positions--their population is small--
126 OHIO HISTORY
and the enemy cou'd easily land and
destroy the transports before a militia
force sufficient to repel him cou'd be
collected."6
Jesup also reported late in March that
he had arranged with a contractor
for sixty-five boats at a cost of $125
apiece. Forty boats were to be delivered
on or before May 15, the rest within
the following month.7 By the third of
April Jesup's small shipyard on the
banks of the Cuyahoga River was in
full operation, and he wrote
enthusiastically that "such arrangements have
been made that I feel confident the
work will be compleated early in June."8
His optimism, however, was soon shaken
by reports that "the enemy are
making great exertions to collect an
Indian force from the North West,"
and by the knowledge that the British
at Fort Malden on the Detroit River
were likewise "engaged . . . in
building vessels for the Lake." Describing
them in some detail, he wrote:
"They have one calculated to carry eighteen
guns ready to launch. The keel of
another, to be of equal force, is laid, &
they have three or four gun boats on
the stocks." Jesup warned again:
"Serious apprehensions are
entertained for the safety of this place. The
large quantity of forage, provisions
& stores collected here invite deprada-
tion, and the Enemy will certainly
visit us if he possesses the smallest
particle of enterprize."9
By the second week in June, Jesup had
more than fifty transports ready
for service. Then, on June 13, it
seemed that his worst fears were to be
realized.
Two British vessels made their
appearance yesterday morning off this port [he
wrote to Secretary Armstrong]. One of
them carrying three masts, was known
to be the Queen Charlotte, the other
carrying two, was supposed to be the Lady
Prevost. They continued during the whole
day, within view, and not more than
seven or eight miles from the shore. A
tremendous thunder storm which com-
menced about 12 o'clock, and continued
during the greater part of the afternoon,
probably prevented them from attempting
to get in. The fog is so intense this
morning that I have not been able to
discover whether they have departed. I was
prepared to expect a visit from the
enemy. Shou'd he make the attempt he will
meet with a warm reception.10
When the fog lifted, the British ships
were gone, and a month later Jesup
reported that his task was nearly
finished. His men had completed seventy-
seven transports on schedule. Of these,
sixty-nine had passed inspection
and had been delivered to General
Harrison. "Gen'l Harrison set out for
Lower Sandusky to day," Jesup
wrote. "He has ordered all my transports
thither, where, I understand the army
is concentrating. I shall have a suf-
ficient number of transports for from
three to four thousand men."11 On
August 1 Jesup reported that a total of
seventy-eight boats had now been
128 OHIO HISTORY
"inspected and received, and I
calculate that the whole number will be
completed this week."12
Jesup, who from the outset had
realistically assessed the military situa-
tion in the Northwest, had done his job
well. The transports were ready,
the men assembled. Only one obstacle
remained. "Unless we obtain the
command of the Lake immediately,"
he observed on July 20, "nothing can
be accomplished by this Army. I have
provided boats sufficient for the
transportation of three thousand men;
but it will be impossible to put them
in motion unless we have armed vessels
to protect them."13
Perry's naval victory at Put-in-Bay,
September 10, provided that pro-
tection and cleared the way for the
military expedition into Canada. Harrison
concentrated his force of some 4,500
troops near the mouth of the Portage
River (the site of present Port
Clinton). On September 20 be began to
transport them, by ship and by the boats
built at Cleveland, across the
lake, island hopping to Put-in-Bay on
South Bass Island, then to Middle
Sister Island, and finally on September
27 to the Canadian shore near
Amherstburg. There the landings were
made in the small transport boats,
under the protection of the guns of
Perry's fleet. Harrison immediately
began his pursuit of the retreating
British army, and on October 5, 1813,
defeated it at the battle of the Thames.
THE AUTHORS: Howard S. Miller and Jack
Alden Clarke are on the staff of the
University
of Wisconsin. Mr. Miller is an
administrative
teaching assistant and Mr. Clarke an
assistant
librarian.
|
James Ford Rhodes And the Negro A STUDY IN THE PROBLEM OF OBJECTIVITY |
by ROBERT CRUDEN The continuing debate among historians as to the scientific nature of their discipline involves, as a basic element, the problem of objectivity. Is it possible for history to be objective in the sense that the physical and biologi- cal sciences are objective: namely, that its findings "do not depend in any important sense on the personal idiosyncrasies or private feelings of those who reach them, but are marked by a process in which complete abstraction is made from these"?1 If so, by what standards may we determine its objectivity? The purpose of this article is to examine some of the factors involved in these questions as they emerge from a study of the work of one of America's most noted historians, James Ford Rhodes. To pinpoint the issue, discussion is limited to that aspect of Rhodes's writings in which the problems are most clearly delineated: namely, Rhodes's treatment of the role of the Negro in the period of which he wrote, 1850 to 1877. Rhodes, it may be recalled, was the prosperous Cleveland businessman (one of his partners was his brother-in-law, Mark Hanna) who, in middle NOTES ARE ON PAGES 198-199 |
130 OHIO HISTORY
age, turned to the writing of history
with such success that his interpretations
of the Civil War and Reconstruction
strongly influenced American thought
in the generation prior to World War I.
Even today, two of the most eminent
of American historians, Samuel Eliot
Morison and Henry Steele Commager,
believe that his seven-volume History
of the United States from the Com-
promise of 1850 to the Final Restoration
of Home Rule at the South in
18772 "is still the best detailed history of that
period although shot full of
holes by the research of the last fifty
years." They commend his treatment
of Reconstruction as "notably
impartial."3
That phrase admirably sums up Rhodes's
own appraisal of his work.
Although he thought of himself as a
literary rather than scientific historian,
he insisted that in writing his History
he sought "to get rid so far as possible
of all preconceived notions and
theories," for, as he said,
such is the constitution of the human
mind, or at any rate my own, that as I
went through the mass of my material I
would have seized upon all the facts
that made for my theory and marshalled
them in its support while those that
told against it I would have
unconsciously and undoubtedly quite honestly
neglected.4
He was persuaded that in dealing with
the Negro, he was, as he put it, "an
earnest seeker after truth, . . . trying
to hold a judicial balance and to tell
the story without fear, favor or
prejudice."5
In this belief Rhodes was confirmed by
the almost unanimous verdict of
his contemporaries, both lay and
scholarly. When Albert Shaw, editor of
the Review of Reviews, praised
Rhodes's work as "like finality itself" he
summarized similar comments by such
diverse figures as Theodore Roose-
velt, Gamaliel Bradford, and Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and by
such disparate publications as The
World's Work and the International
Socialist Review.6 Woodrow Wilson's judgment that Rhodes's History was
"perhaps the finest piece of
historical writing yet done by an American,"
represented, in extreme degree, the
conclusions of other historians, including
Albert Bushnell Hart, Edward Channing,
William E. Dodd, and Frederic
L. Paxson.7 The awesome
confidence of the American public in Rhodes's
fairness, objectivity, and integrity is
demonstrated with almost embarrassing
frankness in a letter to Rhodes from
John T. Morse, Jr., the editor of the
American Statesmen series:
You are absolutely the most fair-minded
man who ever dealt with matters of
controversy. . . . Of course you manage
to infuse a certain kindliness and
gentle mercy into your justice, as we
are told that God does--(though I would
rather trust you than him).8
JAMES FORD RHODES AND THE NEGRO 131
Much the same opinion of Rhodes's work
was entertained by such distin-
guished English historians as Samuel R.
Gardiner, W. E. H. Lecky, and
Charles Harding Firth.9
Yet Rhodes it was who set it down as
"scientific truth" that Negroes
constituted "one of the most
inferior races of mankind."10 Capable of only
limited mental development, they early
in life turned aside from intellectual
to sensual pursuits; incapable of love
or affection, they showed that a lack
of chastity was "a natural
inclination of the African race."11 Much of the
horror of slavery was mitigated by the
fact that the griefs of the Negro were
transient.12 As to
public morality, wherever the Negro had been given
political freedom he had shown himself
"greedy for office and emolument,"
while demonstrating both indifference to
movements for political reform
and incapacity for matters of
government.13 The history of the race indicated
that it had contributed little to human
progress.14
It followed, then, that Reconstruction
was not only a failure but also "an
attack upon civilization," for it
was essentially an effort to impose upon a
highly developed Anglo-Saxon culture the
rule of this "ignorant mass of
an alien race," a rule made all the
worse because it embraced also "knavish
white natives and the vulturous
adventurers who flocked from the North."15
As Rhodes saw it, "Intelligence and
property stood bound and helpless
under negro-carpet-bag rule" while Negro
legislators and their depraved
white allies wrote a "sickening
tale of extravagance, waste, corruption and
fraud."16 Despite the
frequently devious and violent means used by the
enemies of the Reconstruction
governments, the eventual overthrow of such
governments was a development at which
"all lovers of good government
must rejoice."17 This
interpretation became almost standard among his-
torians, and, as has been noted, even in
our own day some historians find it
"notably impartial."
Use of the racial formula led Rhodes to
quite different conclusions about
Anglo-Saxons. American greatness, he
wrote, was due basically to the
energetic and independent character of
the people, deriving from their
Protestant Anglo-Saxon forbears.18 During
the Civil War, northern Demo-
crats showed the Anglo-Saxon sense of
political responsibility; the Union
troops at Gettysburg displayed
Anglo-Saxon zeal in defense of the home-
land.19 The Anglo-Saxon
spirit of resistance to oppression helped explain
why the Confederacy fought so
courageously,20 Anglo-Saxon respect for
law, on the other hand, was symbolized
in the career of Abraham Lincoln.21
Lincoln's plan for reconstruction
displayed Anglo-Saxon practicality, while
that of Senator Sumner "smacked of
the logic of the French."22 As for
132 OHIO HISTORY
southern Anglo-Saxons, Rhodes fully
endorsed the description of them by
Senator George F. Hoar of Massachusetts:
They are a noble race. . . . Their love
of home; their chivalrous respect for
women; their courage; their delicate
sense of honor; their constancy . . . are
things by which the people of the more
mercurial North may take a lesson.
And there is another thing--covetousness,
corruption, the low temptation of
money has not yet found any place in our
Southern politics.23
So much for the racial content of
Rhodes's History. Let us briefly
examine Rhodes's use of sources.
First, he relied almost entirely on
white sources for his treatment of the
role of the Negro: white scientists,
white magazines (particularly The
Nation), and white newspapers. To be sure, the Negro press of
the day was
not the extensive enterprise that it is
today, but there were some Negro
newspapers available for the period, and
certainly after 1870 there was a
steady growth in the number of such
newspapers.24 Rhodes showed no
familiarity with them at all. Likewise,
he paid no attention to the proceed-
ings of the various public bodies of the
Reconstruction governments, pre-
ferring to rely on second-hand accounts
by unsympathetic white observers.25
When Negro sources were called to his
attention, such as the works of
John R. Lynch and Kelly Miller, he
refused to read them on the grounds
that they were partisan and
controversial.26
Second, Rhodes chose to accept only
certain types of white testimony.
Thus in the conflict between the reports
of U. S. Grant and Carl Schurz on
conditions in the postwar South, he
believed Grant rather than Schurz
because the general "possessed one
of those minds which often attain to
correct judgments without knowing the
how and the why."27 Likewise, in
the conflict between the majority and
minority reports of the Ku Klux Klan
committee he chose to accept that of the
Democratic minority, for, as he
put it,
the minority report comes nearer to the
truth. At many points the Republican
document halts and boggles. . . .
Consciousness of a bad cause may be read
between the lines. . . . While the
Democrats attempt to prove too much, . . .
they are straightforward and aggressive
with the consciousness of a cause based
on the eternal principles of nature and
justice.28
Much of Rhodes's treatment of
Reconstruction in South Carolina was
based on The Prostrate State by
James S. Pike, although one might expect
an historian "trying to hold a
judicial balance" to exercise caution in
accepting uncritically the reports of a
newspaperman who believed that "a
JAMES FORD RHODES AND THE NEGRO 133
large majority of all the voting
citizens of the state are habitually guilty of
thieving and of concubinage."29
Also, had Rhodes been more careful, he
might have discovered that Pike, a year
before he set foot in South Carolina,
had written for the New York Tribune an
article which "made practically
every major point he made" in the
book, which, of course, purported to be
a first-hand eyewitness account.30 In
any case, Pike's testimony was flatly
contradicted by General Oliver O.
Howard, head of the freedmen's bureau
and a man with some experience in the
postwar South. Rhodes, however,
rejected Howard's testimony as
"another of these extraordinary apologies
for ignorance when covered by a black
skin."31 Perhaps the same reasoning
explains his passing over James G.
Blaine's tribute to the integrity of Negro
congressmen and senators, although
otherwise he drew heavily upon Blaine
for his discussion of postwar politics.32
These examples have been cited, not to
discredit Rhodes, but to point up
the problems raised in this article: How
could an historian who honestly
strove to tell the story without fear,
favor, or prejudice have fallen so far
short of what we conceive to be basic
standards of objectivity? And perhaps
even more important, how can one account
for the tribute paid to his work
by historical scholars on the grounds
that it was almost godlike in its
objectivity?
There are many explanations why Rhodes
fell short of his own ideal of
objectivity. He lacked professional
historical training, and indeed, appar-
ently believed that if a person
possessed such attributes as diligence, accur-
acy, love of truth, and impartiality,
training was not really necessary.33
It is not surprising, then, that he
showed only dim awareness of problems
of methodology and interpretation.
Also, and perhaps more important, Rhodes
did not possess a keen,
inquiring mind. Study of his work, as
well as the testimony of those who
knew him personally, shows that he
shrank from analysis of the personal
feelings and attitudes of people,
including his own.34 It is
hardly to be
wondered at, then, that he did not succeed
as well as he believed in divesting
himself of "preconceived notions
and theories," particularly since he did
not fully appreciate the various
influences which shaped his conscious
thought.
Paramount among these was his father,
Daniel P. Rhodes, who played a
decisive role in determining James's
upbringing, education, and choice of
business vocation.35 Daniel was a
militant Democrat in the Civil War period,
a political campaigner for Clement L.
Vallandigham, a man who objected
to Mark Hanna because, in his view,
young Hanna was "a damned screecher
134 OHIO HISTORY
for freedom."36 James said he drank
in his father's opinions "eagerly."37
In this context it is easy to understand
why young James, on a trip to the
South in 1872, had only to look at the
"faces and manners" of the Negroes
to understand why southern whites were
fearful of "robbery, killing, burn-
ing and rape."38
On a more conscious level, Rhodes, like
most middle-class Americans of
his day, was deeply influenced by
Herbert Spencer. He himself explained
that he was not "emancipated"
from Spencer until he was in his forties, but
Rhodes's emancipation was more fancied
than real.39 He accepted Spencer's
basic concepts of survival of the
fittest and of racial evolution which pro-
duced superior and inferior varieties of
the human race, and in his History
he frequently cited Spencer as an
authority.40
Of equal significance, perhaps, was the
influence of Edwin L. Godkin,
editor of The Nation, a journal
which Rhodes read religiously from youth
to old age.41 As Rhodes put
it, "his influence was abiding. . . . Godkin
preached to us every week a timely and
cogent sermon."42 For his treat-
ment of Reconstruction, Rhodes relied
heavily upon The Nation, which, he
said, provided "excellent
historical material."43 Godkin's attitudes may
be gathered from his reference to
leaders of Reconstruction governments as
"rogues" and "ignorant
thieves" and his endorsement of segregation in
schools, together with his
recommendation to Negroes that they earn the
respect of white men while reconciling
themselves to the fact that "most of
the work has to be done by the lower
class."44
Apart from such specific influences,
Rhodes's approach to matters of
race was deeply colored by the accepted
opinion of his own day, that period
which Rayford Logan has so aptly named
the nadir of the Negro in Ameri-
can life and thought. Rhodes matured in
a society the dominant cultural
theme of which he himself outlined:
"It was an age of science--the era of
Darwin and Spencer, of Huxley and
Tyndall. The influence of heredity and
the great fact of race was better
understood than ever before."45 Rhodes
was especially impressed by the arguments
of Louis Agassiz, who testified
that "from the very character of
the negro race" social equality with whites
was a "natural impossibility."
Historically, wrote Agassiz, the Negroes had
remained at a low sensual level; they
"groped in barbarism and never
originated a regular organization
among themselves."46 To this
Rhodes
added: "What the whole country has
only learned through years of costly
and bitter experience was known to this
leader of scientific thought before
we ventured on the policy of trying to
make negroes intelligent by legislative
acts."47
JAMES FORD RHODES AND THE NEGRO 135
Such attitudes explain in part Rhodes's
cavalier treatment of sources
favorable to the Negro; it must be added
that his treatment also sprang from
his conception of the historian as judge
rather than inquiring scholar.
In his opinion, the most important
quality of the historian was the judicial,
not the inquiring, mind.48 As
judge, the historian evaluated the evidence
placed before him--and in Rhodes's case
this was literally true, for much
of his research was done by others.49
Evidence which the judge deemed false
or prejudiced, he rejected; the honest
testimony of honest men, he accepted.
It did not occur to him that such
testimony, when rooted in preconceptions
as to race shared by the judge, might
also be false or prejudiced or only
partly true.
Further, the historian, as judge, was
not to go beyond the valid testimony
presented; he was under no obligation to
scour the most unlikely places for
data without considerations of race or
color. Since it was generally agreed
that the Negro was the most inferior of
human beings, responsive only to
sensual stimuli, why should his
testimony be admitted in a court governed
by the rules of reason? As to white
sources favorable to the Negro, it was
obvious to Rhodes that they were tainted
by either interest or emotion, and
were thus inadmissible. In short, just
as Rhodes believed that the antislavery
historian could best write objective
history of the Civil War,50 so he assumed
that the white historian with
Anglo-Saxon sympathies could best write
objective history of the Reconstruction
period.
Finally, it should be noted that Rhodes
believed that history had a
didactic purpose: quoting Tacitus, he
declared that purpose to be, "to let no
worthy action be uncommemorated, and to
hold out the reprobation of
posterity as a terror to evil words and
deeds."51 Within the framework of
American history, the purpose was to
inculcate patriotism and to encourage
the young to "follow in the path of
the distinguished."52 It is indicative of
the unreflective character of Rhodes's
mind that he saw no apparent contra-
diction between such attitudes and his
avowal that he tried to write history
without fear, favor, or prejudice.
So much for Rhodes himself. How are we
to explain his reputation
among historians for sound, critical
scholarship?
First, so far as scholars of his day
checked his sources they found them
generally to be accurately cited.
Indeed, this was a source of considerable
praise by scholarly reviewers.53
As to his use of purely white sources, and
then only white sources unsympathetic
with the Negro, Rhodes's judgments
seemed so consonant with obvious
"truths" in relation to race that the issue
of bias rarely arose. Belief in his
fairness was strengthened also by his
136 OHIO HISTORY
frequent avowal that there was room for
difference of opinion and by his
stated willingness to make corrections
of fact in future editions of his work.54
His failure to include Negro opinion
within this framework naturally elicited
little objection from a scholarly
community predominantly Anglo-Saxon in
origin and attitude which shared the
general belief in Negro inferiority.
Acceptance of Rhodes as a model of
objectivity rested also on the fact
that he and his public, lay and
scholarly, shared a set of assumptions about
race which they believed to be
scientific truths. Rhodes's effort to buttress
the accepted notion of Negro inferiority
with the weight of scientific opinion
seemed to prove once again his
conscientious effort to be fair and objective.
His exclusion of testimony favorable to
the Negro, whether from white or
Negro sources, seemed so much in the
nature of things as to pass almost
unnoticed. In this respect, Rhodes
differed little from other historians of
the early part of the twentieth century,
as may be seen from examination of
the works on Reconstruction which
appeared at that time.55
Finally, Rhodes, in his role of didactic
historian, handed down not only
historical but also moral judgments.
These judgments, stated explicitly
throughout the seven volumes which
appeared in that fateful period between
1892 and 1906, validated the traditional
middle-class virtues of hard work,
thrift, and sobriety; and the
traditional beliefs in "hard money," laissez
faire, and Anglo-Saxon supremacy.56
To a middle class shaken by the
panic of 1893 and its consequences, such
as the Pullman strike and the
Populist revolt, the intoning of the
ancient litanies in the calm, authoritative
accents of the historian brought comfort
and reassurance. To the reawakened
spirit of nationalism which marked the
sectional reconciliation of the 1890's,
Rhodes supplied reinterpretations of the
Civil War and Reconstruction which
brought a glow of satisfaction to
readers in both North and South. To the
confident, expansive America of the
early twentieth century, Rhodes carried
the message that the American people
were sound at the core, representing,
indeed, one of the foremost civilizing
influences of the period. Scholars as
well as laymen responded warmly to such
genial assurance. As John T.
Morse, Jr., put it: "Precisely such
a book had been keenly desired, but by
whom it should be written no one had
been able to suggest. Now this secret
was made known. . . . There was one
universal acclaim of praise."57
What does all this have to do with
discussion of the scientific nature of
history?
It has been shown that Rhodes strove to
write objectively and indeed quite
honestly believed that he had done so.
It has been noted that the scholarly
critics of his day shared the opinion
that he was a model of objectivity.
JAMES FORD RHODES AND THE NEGRO 137
It has also been indicated that from the
vantage point of our own day it
appears that Rhodes fell far short of
that ideal. This study of an individual
historian, therefore, suggests the
following conclusion:
That until we have devised some means
whereby the historian may isolate
his judgments as historian from the
influence of his own past and his own
cultural milieu; and, perhaps more
importantly, some means whereby the
community of historical scholars may
abstract its critical judgments from
the unexamined assumptions which it
makes about the nature of knowledge,
of man, and of society, it seems
premature to talk of history as a genuinely
scientific discipline. Until that happy
day, the historian will have to con-
tinue to beware of the lies of honest
men--including his own.
THE AUTHOR: Robert Cruden is an associ-
ate professor of history at
Baldwin-Wallace Col-
lege. He is the author of a recent life
of James
Ford Rhodes (reviewed in this issue).
His article
was first given as a paper at the annual
meet-
ing of the Ohio Academy of History in
1960.
A Northern Businessman Opposes the Civil War EXCERPTS FROM THE LETTERS OF R. G. DUN edited by JAMES D. NORRIS |
|
A number of rather prominent northern businessmen opposed the Civil War and the Lincoln administration for both sound business reasons and personal political commitments. Robert Graham Dun's letters to his family and friends in Ohio during the Civil War present an excellent portrait of one such businessman. Imbued with a deep-seated hostility toward both Lincoln and the war, Dun saw the conflict through the eyes of a businessman who was also a conservative Democrat. In his view, the war disturbed business, endangered the nation's solvency, and eventually would cost billions of dollars. More- over, it was an assault upon the rights of the states. Not only did Dun believe the South had a right to secede, but he was convinced she would be independent sooner or later regardless of the outcome of the war. In discuss- ing the condition of the country, bitterness frequently overcame him. How- ever, near the end of the war, during the election campaign of 1864, his feeling moderated, to the point where he considered voting for Lincoln; but only, it would seem, because he feared McClellan would be the greater threat to the South. Even after the war was over Dun could not bring himself to be hopeful of a quick return to good business relations. NOTES ARE ON PAGE 200 |
LETTERS OF R. G. DUN 139
Born on August 27, 1826, of well
educated and cultured parents, R. G.
Dun grew to young manhood in
Chillicothe, Ohio, and received his formal
education in the local academy. He
entered business at the age of sixteen
as a clerk in a general merchandise
store in Chillicothe. Five years later,
when he became of legal age, Dun became
a small-percentage, profit-sharing
partner. In 1850 Benjamin Douglass,
Dun's brother-in-law, induced him to
give up his Chillicothe interests and
take a position in the newly formed
mercantile agency of Tappan and
Douglass, in New York, one of the first
credit-rating services in the United
States. R. C. Dun's business letters
indicate that he was an exceptionally
talented, hard working, and scrupu-
lously honest businessman. Evidently
Benjamin Douglass recognized these
talents, because in 1854, when Douglass
became the sole owner of the
agency, he gave Dun a small profit-sharing
interest.
In 1859 Douglass, desiring to enter the
booming real estate business, sold
the mercantile agency to R. G. Dun. Dun
probably paid Douglass a total of
about $150,000 for the agency in the
form of a promissory note and a
percentage of the profits for five
years. By the end of 1865 Dun had paid
Douglass off, despite the great decline
in sales and profits during the war.
Although Dun now owned the agency free
and clear, he found himself
constantly short of operating capital and
always under financial stress.
The struggle during the Civil War years
undoubtedly explains some of his
hostility to the Lincoln administration
and the "War Party."
In the six years following the war the
business prospered beyond Dun's
wildest dreams; in 1872 sales amounted
to $2,500,000 and profits to over a
quarter million, half of which he shared
with his three principal associates.
To the public Dun's associates were
partners, but actually they had no
proprietary rights; for although Dun now
largely removed himself from
actual management to pursue other
interests, he remained the sole owner
of the mercantile agency until his
death.1
Pertinent parts of twenty-five letters
Dun wrote between August 1861 and
May 1865 are reproduced here. The
letters were addressed to seven close
relatives. One was a younger brother,
James Angus Dun, who had left his
home in Ohio to seek his fortune in the
West. Four of the others were Dun's
double first cousins, Robert George Dun,
John G. Dun, Walter A. Dun, and
James Dun, all of them brothers and all
large landholders of Madison
County, Ohio. Another was John Dun of
Chillicothe, an uncle, and the
seventh was John Wood, a brother-in-law.
The original letters are in the
library of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.,
99 Church Street, New York.2
140 OHIO
HISTORY
To James Angus Dun, August 16, 1861
I suppose you have heard the news of
another "Bull run" in Missouri.3 What do
you think of it? Of course, I suppose
you construe it into a victory for the Federal
troops. I reckon a few more such
victories will open the eyes of "Lincoln hirelings"
as to the extent of this undertaking
& the strength of the South. Better acknowledge
their independence now: for it will have
to be so in the end even if it is fifty years
hence.
To Robert George Dun, September (no
date), 1861
I am sorry you could not hold on to Jim
[James Angus Dun] longer. I am afraid
he'll get into trouble in Missouri.
Union men don't live in his neighborhood-at least
dare not speak their sentiments. Jim is
a rampant war man, badly humbugged by
the desires of this niger [sic] administration
& really there seems to be no reason in
him. He is perfect[ly] rabid. How a man
of his sense can be humbugged into the
support of a big John Brown raid (for
this war is nothing else) I can't conceive.
The condition of the country distresses
me terribly as a patriot as well as in my
business & the worst feature is we
can see no encouragement ahead. I say that unless
the Southern independence is recognized
neither you nor I, nor any man living, will
see peace in our country again. I don't
look for it as long as the present adminis-
tration is in power. How do you all feel
in regard to the War? I have heard you
all favor the Southern cause &
believe in recognizing the South. Am I right? You
must not blow my views; for if expressed
here would do me much damage-if not
quarter me at Fort Lafayette for a while.4
I am as good a Union man as ever lived
if it can be maintained in peace, but do
not believe in a forced one, nor do I believe
such a Union ever will exist in these
United States. (I better say disunited).
To John G. Dun, September 25, 1861
How does this infernal Black Republican
War affect you in a business way? It is
playing the h---l with us all here. It
has no doubt curtailed my receipts in the
past year one hundred thousand dollars.
Of course I have had to curtail expenses
accordingly but with all the reduction I
can make I fear I shall come out minus at
the end of the year. Aside from my own
interests being affected I have never had
the slightest sympathy with the Federal
Gov't in such a wicked & sectional war. I am
a firm believer in States rights--in the
sovereignity [sic] of States; & think the Gov't
at Washington has no right to declare
war against any State or States.
To Robert George Dun, October 17, 1861
Things drag along here about the same as
they have done ever since the war
broke out & I think they will
continue so till it ends. Bright future isn't it? I some-
times feel so mad & disgusted with
the country that I wish I was out of it. In fact I
begin to think as Uncle Joshua used to
preach--that democratic government is a
LETTERS OF R. G. DUN
141
humbug & the sooner we turn it into
a monarchy the better. I really believe we are
fast drifting to it. One thing is
certain we shall never have so free a Gov't again.
Free Gov't done [sic] very well
in the early history of the country when we had
honest men in office, but now since
politics has become a profession there is nothing
but polution [sic], bribery,
treachery & everything but honesty in the rulers of the
country, from the pettiest office of a
back-house inspector up to the President of the
U. S. The consequences we are now
realizing. I believe that all Democraties [sic]
or free Gov'ts will result in the same
thing. D---n free suffrage I say. It will be the
ruin of any great country.
I have no doubt we shall have great news
now within 60 days. The great Federal
fleet sailed from here, Boston, &
Phila. yesterday. It numbers some 200 vessels in all
& I suppose the plan is to make a
simultaneous attack on all the Southern ports. I
shall be greatly surprised if it does
not result in another grand failure. Will see.
To Walter A. Dun, January 22, 1862
I often wish I was out of this country
& if I had a fortune should certainly leave
for some foreign country. I am disgusted
with this [war].
To Walter A. Dun, February 15, 1862
For a long time I have been trying to
pump out the political opinions of you all,
but no one, heretofore, has been brave
enough to express them. I was delighted with
your views & am confirmed in my
opinion that the blood of the family runs pretty
much alike. Jim Angus being the only
exception. The recent Federal victories5 does
[sic] not alter my opinion as to the results of this conflict
which I have always
said will be the independence of the
South.
To John G. Dun, March 15, 1862
Politically I stand about the same as I
did when I last wrote you, notwithstanding
the recent reverses of the South6 (i.e.) I do not
see that peace or a settlement of our
National troubles are any nearer at
hand--indeed I think rather further removed;
for now the North will be so elated with
her recent successes that she is further
than ever removed from any disposition
to compromise by a recognition of the South.
While I don't think the South is the
least dispirited or discouraged, nor any more
disposed to succumb to the North. The
ridiculous stories about strong Union feeling
at the South I am convinced is all
humbug. These stories are got up to humbug the
"dear people" that they may
continue to be bled freely by the Administration & just
as long as the people continue to have
their eyes sanded & pour their money into
the Public Crib this war will be waged.
I may be like the man who when drunk
thought he was sober & every body
else drunk, but it does seem to me as tho' the
people at the North are all crazy &
mad to believe for a moment that this Union can
ever be restored . . . . No! The South
can only be kept subdued by a standing army
of a million men, the cost of which to
this government would be at least one thousand
million dollars pr-an [per annum]. When
this comes to happen then you may look
142 OHIO
HISTORY
for a restoration of common sense. I
think the probabilities are this war will be
continued during the whole time of the
present Administration & if at the end of
that time we have not a Military
Dictator or Monarch in Power the Democrats will
elect a Peace Party who will settle the
difficulties. In the meantime, of course, this
country must be ruined.
To Robert George Dun, May 27, 1862
The crazy infatuation of the North in
trying to carry out its "irrepressible con-
flict" doctrine has you may say
wholly bankrupted the country & I for one would
not care to invest much in the Govt.
Securities.
Comparatively I don't see that we are
much nearer the end of the trouble than
when it began--indeed it seems much
further off to me. I see no end to it--no
daylight ahead. As to a reunion of all
the states I never expect to see it. My opinion
is, however, that this war--this wicked
war--will continue as long as this Niger [sic]
Administration is in power; as long as
there is a dollar in the Treasury for the
vampires in office to gloat over. By the
time this administration runs out, the dear
people will begin to get a little sick about the belly (I mean
the pocket) & begin to
open their eyes & see how they have
been deluded. But even before that I think
quite probable we shall have our hands
full of France & England. I believe that
before sixty days we shall hear of their
interference which will hasten what is sure
to be the result-the independence of the
South.
The recent reverses to the South7 have
not altered my opinion at all as to the final
result. I fear, however, that the clown
fool at the Administration will develop itself
[sic] in confiscating all the Slaves of the South. You will
observe that the latest
news from Va. is not so encouraging to
the Unionist.8 I don't believe we have had
half the story yet. This being steamer
day it's all glazed over with a little sugar
coating. I understand that some of the
newspaper reporters whose dispatches were
not allowed to pass by censors of mail
& telegraph came on in person with their
budgets but on arrival here were nabbed
& carried off to Ft. Lafayette for their
pains. There is no mistake about it--we
don't hear of one quarter the disasters
met with by the Federals. My consolation
is that some day there will be a day of
reckoning for the devil incarnate at the
head of this government now.
To James Dun, June 10, 1862
Jim Angus is on his way to Salmon River,
Washington Territory. . . . I reckon
Jim has made up his mind he can't hold
the Union together & has concluded to leave
it in disgust. He has probably come to
my conclusion that the Union has gone to the
Devil & that while this Nigger
administration is trying to force the fragments together
it will be rendered in divers other
places. The next step will be the west sustaining
her right of secession--a repudiation of
the Gov't debt &c.
To John G. Dun, June 17, 1862
The great cry here now is emancipation
of the slaves. The cloven foot is beginning
to show itself.
LETTERS OF R. G. DUN
143
To John Dun, July 2, 1862
I fear you are right in your predictions
as to the total ruin of the country--both
North & South, as you say, all in
consequence of fanatics shutting their eyes to
consequences. 'Tis truly a deplorable
state of affairs when madmen hold the reigns
of power. Future history will point to
this era as a black spot in the history of the
country & censure other powers for
their non-interference for humanity's sake. I
can't but believe that France &
England will yet interfere. But the spirit in which
their overtures may be met will
determine whether we are to be benefitted or other-
wise by the step. Should we be involved
in war with them at this juncture, the result
would be the total ruin & end of
Republican Government in this country. Mediation,
however, I think is certain to be
offered & that very soon. Foreign powers have been
humbuged [sic] with our
assurances of a short war. . . . They now see our difficulties,
apparently, are further from settlement
than ever. The South never felt her strength
& ability to fight out her
independence more than today. Her armies are increasing
& her determination is stronger than
ever.
It is evident McClellan has been badly
whipped at Richmond & I shall not be
surprised to hear of the retreat of his
whole army.9 News is all suppressed ( a sure
omen that it is not good) & a new
call of 200 m [200,000] more troops will bear
out my impressions. We may look for
exciting news when it does come.
To John G. Dun, October 20, 1862
I must congratulate you on your glorious
Democratic victory.10 What a rebuke
to the Administration & Abolitionist
generally!! Good for Ohio! I am not ashamed
to own her now as my native State. Now
if we can do as well in N.Y. & elect
Seymour11 I think the jig is up with the
radicals & the reigns [sic] of the whole
Gov't will soon be in Democratic hands
again. Then we will have freedom in the
country again. The war will stop even if
separation is necessary to accomplish it &
the country will soon become prosperous
again. This is looking on the brightest side
of things. I don't like to contemplate
the other.
To Robert George Dun, January 27, 1863
On politics & the War I have but
little to say. The truth is I am thoroughly dis-
gusted with both & the country
generally for the latter has gone to the Devil & there
is no help for it. I have but little
faith in Seymour's living up to the platform of
his inaugural; for there are few, if any
politicians, who would not sell their birth-
rights, like Esau, for a mess of potage [sic].
Seymour I think is already getting weak
in the knees. Everything now indicates
that the Southern Confederacy is to be the
future Garden spot of this continent.
She will soon gain her independence & you
will find that the development of her
resources, under her pressing necessities will
show her to be wealthier at the close of
this war than at its outset, while the North
will wilt in Bankruptcy.
144 OHIO
HISTORY
To John Dun, March 2, 1863
We are bound, hand & foot now by the
one man power [sic] & nothing but revo-
lution will save us. The enforcement of
the conscription act will, I believe, be the
torch to the magazine. There is a very
common impression here that the War powers
dare not attempt it; & that the maneuver was carried out
more as a menace to the
South than anything else. The South,
however, will understand it as another
"[crime] against the country."
I thank God, that the time of this iniquitous & hellish
Congress lasts but a few hours. Yet
there is no telling what mischief they may do
the country in these few short hours.
They seem to be such devils incarnate. The
report in the city, this afternoon, is
that the new Congress is to be convened imme-
diately on the adjournment of the old. I
don't know that we can expect much good
from the new body, tho' it is to be
hoped there is salt enough in it to at least stay
the destruction of all liberties of the
people. But as I said before nothing but revo-
lution will save us. States must assert
their rights & put down the occupations [sic]
of the mere agency called government at
Washington.
To John Wood, March 5, 1863
I see but little prospect of an early
peace notwithstanding the "Copperhead" fra-
ternity seems to be rapidly on the
increase--but the people are tied hand & foot by
this nigger congress & can do
nothing--their liberties & rights are gone. It may
result in revolution at the North. I
look for it--at least a conflict for States rights
but I do not care to discuss politics--I
am completely disgusted with the country
& its people.
To James Angus Dun, April 16, 1863
Ben [Douglass] has just been in. He has
written a long letter on the subject of
slavery to his son Bob which I have had
to read. It is proslavery of course & his
arguments are based on Bible Doctrine.
While I don't admit his basis of Divine
Origin, or God's authority for slavery,
I must do Ben the credit to say I think it
quite an able letter, & fully
endorse his views as to the righteousness and justice of
slavery on other grounds. My belief is
that we have no revelations from God, but
those of nature & its irrevocable
laws. I can't think that God ever violated his own
laws, either by miracle or otherwise.
But in accordance with these laws it is plain
that God intended the Negro to be the
servant & slave of the superior race. This is as
plain to me as that it is natural for
the parent to govern the child; for the mind of
the Negro is as that of a child when
compared with the Caucasian. Ben intends to
publish his letter anonymously--I will
send you a copy.
There is no war news since the terrible
repulse of the the Federal Fleet at Charleston
& the job of taking that "pest
hole" given up sine die. I had a letter from Senator
Chandler12 the other day. He
says the Rebellion is on its last legs & will be sub-
stantially put down by 4th July. I must
say "I don't see it" & what's more I don't
believe it ever will be; nor the War
ended till the South gains her rightful inde-
pendence. I am sick of politics &
don't talk it anymore--am patiently awaiting the
end, which I have faith to believe will
come out all right.
LETTERS OF R. G. DUN
145
To John G. Dun, June 27, 1863
Politically, there is a good deal of
excitement here about the advance of the Con-
federates. I hope & believe Lee is
bent on taking Washington. If he attempts he
will succeed; for our main army is
thoroughly demoralized & won't fight & the raw
recruits will scatter before the Rebels
as chaff before the wind. With the rout of
our Army & Capture of Washington I
shall look for a little of reason in the North
which I hope may lead to an early
settlement. Victories on the part of the South is
the only hope of an early peace. I
should not be surprised to hear of Lee's attacking
Phila. & capturing it & then
dictating terms of Peace in old Independence Hall.
To James Angus Dun, July 23, 1863
I suppose you will have heard of the
Great riot in this city last week. It was
gotten up in opposition to the Lincoln
conscription. The rioters first glutted [sic] &
burned the drafting office, then a good
deal of other property, some few private dwell-
ings. They done [sic] pretty much
as they pleased for 3 or 4 days when sufficient mili-
tary force arrived to put it down &
all has since been quiet. During the riot there were
killed on both sides (soldiers &
rioters) about two hundred. Of course the draft was
stopped but it is said it will yet be
carried thru. If it is I look for further trouble.
The people won't stand any such
usurpation of power by the "Machine" at Wash-
ington. I suppose you think the jig is
up for the Southern Confederacy, but let me
tell you I have faith yet & believe
the south will ultimately triumph.
To John Dun, August 29, 1863
I agree . . . on your criticisms of the
party in power. In these days of corruption
& iniquity in government affairs, I
think your remarks will apply to most all poli-
ticians, for with them it is a mere
squabble for spoils. Indeed I am down on Repub-
lican government. It is very good in
theory but won't work practically.
We have unofficial reports that the
Federal flag now floats over Sumter & Wagner,
but I don't believe it yet, nor do I
believe that Charleston is going to be taken yet
a while. If it is at all it will be at
immense cost & loss of life. But what if Charleston
is taken? It would be but a very small
thing compared with the subjects of the
war (i.e.) subjugation &
emancipation. I have not lost my confidence a whit in what
I think will be the final result of the
war & that is Independence of the South, there
can't be any other finale.
To John Dun, September 16, 1863
I fear the frauds you anticipate in your
coming election will be fully realized. I
have no doubt but what the Democrats
will be swindled out of the election of their
candidates. The enforcing of the
conscription in Ohio will be a pretext for Marshall
[sic] Law & Lincoln's proclamation (out this morning)
suspending the writ of
habeas corpus will Bastile [sic] all
who say a word in opposition. I shall regret to see
blood shed in Ohio, but I hope the
democrats will fight for their rights to the
last man.
146 OHIO HISTORY
To Robert George Dun, October 3, 1863
I am sorry to hear you express any
doubts of Vallandigham's election. A little
ray of hope for the country was left in
the certainty of his election to the governor-
ship of Ohio. Seymour has lost his
backbone, if he ever had any and now amounts
to nothing. Val, however, I believe will
act up to his principles & hesitate in no duty.
Do your best to elect him. After all I
fear it is now too late to save the country from
ruin, as the abolitionists have the sway
& power.13
To James Angus Dun, March 24, 1864
Gold is selling today at 1.70 in
Greenbacks. So you see it begins to look as tho'
the back of the Federal Gov't was
getting weak as that of the Confederacy & mark
my word you will find its back
completely broke before "Old Abe" or any other
power, annihilate the Confederacy. It
seems strange to me how or where you could
have imbibed such prejudice as you have
against the South. I can conceive how
even intelligent men can support this
administration & oppose states rights, but on
no other grounds than that of bigoted
fanaticism or pocket interest; but how you,
or any man who makes pretenses to common
sense, can do so is an enigma to me.
Now, my dear Jim, I fear your error of
judgment is based on prejudice & ignorance
of the fundamental principles of
government & I hope you will read the history of
its organization. For your enlightment [sic]
I enclose an article cut from one of
our daily papers [New York Daily
News, March 7, 1864] which contains facts you
probably never heard of. If you can get
over the argument contained therein & still
deny the right of Secession,
please let me know & I will pile up on you "a little more
of the same sort." Of course, if
you grant the right of a state to secede then you must
condemn this wicked &
unconstitutional war. But on the other hand, suppose the
Southern states had not the right
to withdraw--we possibly might have whipped a
single one into subjection, but how are
we going to help ourselves, now that nearly
half the States are united in the
resolve. Are we, for a mere abstract idea, to
squander millions of lives & bankrupt
the country financially, trying to prevent it
when any man of common reason should see
it an impossibility? Yes an impossibility.
This war may go on until you & I
have hoary heads, but the end & object (if subju-
gation be it) will not be attained nor
can it ever be. When you talk about "speedily
annihilating the rebellion," you
certainly can't comprehend the undertaking or know
what you are talking about. I have seen,
& told you before, what would be the
result from the beginning & I am now
encouraged in seeing so many returning to
common sense. I have always said this
war would last during the life of the present
administration & that the issue
between aspirants for succession would be peace or
war. It is beginning to strongly manifest itself now &
the peace element will be in
the ascendence [sic] by the time
the election comes off. Should the present adminis-
tration undertake to sustain itself in
power by force of arms (which it no doubt will)
then look out for an upheaving at the
North, which will so weaken the North that the
South can dictate her own terms--but in
any event there will be no end to this war
until she has her independence. Now let
me beg of you, Jim, to ponder over &
consider this matter well--give up your
superficial ideas & dig into the merits of the
LETTERS OF R. G. DUN
147
whole affair--but you must study some to
do it intelligently & if I can aid you by
sending you any books on history bearing
on the subject I will do so cheerfully. I
trust you will not take any offense at
my plain talk for I have no hard feelings against
you because of your opinions (I regard
every man's rights in this respect) but I do
most heartily condemn & despise the
doctrines you preach. I rely on your good
judgement & common sense to come out
all right yet--only don't let your reason be
influenced by prejudice.
To John G. Dun, May 16, 1864
Well what do you think of the War now.
It strikes me Grant has gone up "like a
rocket & will come down like a
stick." I rather think, notwithstanding all the blow
& bluster, he is rather stuck14--instead
of walking into Richmond this week, it is
reported that he has deferred the time
to 4th July.--Maybe he'll get there then. I
shall be surprised if the Confederates
do not get New Orleans before Grant or Butler
get Richmond.
To John G. Dun, September 7, 1864
How do you like the Chicago nomination?
I don't like McClellan at all & think
seriously if I vote at all, it will be
for Lincoln & I think every true friend of the
South & of state rights should do
the same. While the present administration remains
in power the South will be a unit &
the North will continue to become more & more
divided until a split takes place
between the East & West. On the other hand
McC[lellan] is about the only man to
galvanize the Northern Army & put new life into
it. Radically he is as much a war man as
Lincoln & as determined to subjugate the
South. By profers [sic] of peace
& rights to the South & reunion I fear he may dis-
affect a portion of the people there
& divide them in sentiment. Many no doubt are
sick & tired of the War & in
their anxiety for peace would accept the bait. With this
view of the case I think all true
friends of State Sovereignity [sic] had better let
matters rest as they are & this will
be sure in the end to come out triumphant--Hurrah!
for Lincoln & the War
Democrats--they only want power and plunder. I have no
doubt but what Mr. Pendleton15 is
all right but as the ticket is arranged the cart is
before the horse. You may rest assured
McClellan means war to the bitter end. I
should like to know how you & the
peace Democrats around you feel.
To John G. Dun, May 1, 1865
Some think we are to have a great demand
for goods from the South, but in that
I think they will be disappointed--this
year at least. The people of the South are
not in a condition to buy much--nor will
there be a disposition to buy from
Yankees if they could.
THE EDITOR: James D. Norris is an assis-
tant professor of history at Hiram
College. He
came across the Dun letters in doing
research
for his doctoral dissertation, "The
Maramec
Iron Works in Missouri, 1826-1876."
"Think Kindly of Us of the South" A LETTER TO WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN edited by LEE N. NEWCOMER |
|
The following letter to William Tecumseh Sherman dates from a short and almost forgotten era of United States history, the few years following the Civil War in which the South thought well of General Sherman. Southern liking for Sherman, though short-lived, was well-grounded in fact. Before the war Sherman taught at what later became Louisiana State University; he liked the southerners and they liked him. Secession and war temporarily alienated these affections, but with the war drawing to a close Sherman was not vindictive. Grant was generous to the defeated Lee at Appomattox; Sherman was even more generous to the defeated General Johnston at Raleigh. For this leniency Sherman received some brickbats from the North but only plaudits from the South, and the latter was delighted by Sherman's speaking out after the war with gruff eloquence in the cause of peace and reconciliation. "Our country ought not to be ruled by the extreme views of Sumner or Stevens," he wrote.1 The reunited Union was in danger of being doctored to death: "I do want peace and do say if all hands would stop talking, and writing, and let the sun shine, and the rains fall for two or three years, we would be nearer reconstruction than we are likely to be with the three and four hundred statesmen trying to legislate amid the prejudices begotten for four centuries."2 Early in 1869, the year of this letter, the general returned to Louisiana, was welcomed by a friendly populace, and even was invited to stop at NOTES ARE ON PAGE 200 |
A LETTER TO GENERAL SHERMAN 149
Jackson, Mississippi, a city twice
burned by his forces during the war. "I
do think," he told his brother
John, the senator from Ohio, "some political
power might be given to the young men
who served in the rebel army for
they are a better class than the
adventurers who have gone South purely
for office."3
This rapprochement between the South and
Sherman came to an abrupt
end in 1875 with the publication of the
general's two-volume Memoirs. Can-
didly, the old campaigner surveyed in
dispassionate terms the destruction
he had wrought in the South to shorten
the war. It was a classic example
of untimely publication. The South,
distraught by carpetbagger and scala-
wag, seized upon the grim general,
marching through Georgia, as a vent
for and the focus of its bitterness.
General Sherman became the symbol
of horror, of heartless cruelty, joining
and in time replacing Ben Butler on
the "pedestal of infamy" in
southern minds. The Sherman myth went into
reverse; he became, as Gerald Johnson
has said, a "diabolical hero."4
The writer of this letter, Harvey W.
Walter of Holly Springs, Mississippi,
was born in Ohio of Virginia parents,
and grew up in Fairfield County,
where he and young Sherman as schoolboys
attended the academy at Lan-
caster. In 1838 Walter, a youth of
nineteen, went to Mississippi, read law,
and soon became a prominent and
public-spirited citizen of Holly Springs.
An unsuccessful candidate for governor
in 1859, he opposed secession but
entered the Confederate service, serving
until the end of the war as judge
advocate on General Bragg's staff. When
he wrote to Sherman in 1869 he
was again practicing law. Nine years
later he and several of his sons died
while ministering to the sick during a
yellow fever epidemic in Holly
Springs.5
In his letter Walter discusses with
Sherman the character and condition
of his fellow-southerners. The general's
reply has not been preserved.
Holly Springs, Miss.6
21st Sept. 1869.
Dear Genl.
Your letter has been before me a week. I
must say a few words to "exclude a
conclusion." The Southern people
are not a bad people. Their vices lie on the sur-
face. They are hot, hasty, passionate,
but fraud, falsehood, & assassination are not
their vices. They are not hypocritical.
They do not profess for their late foes a false
love, but they act a manly part toward
them. Occasional wrongs are done, but not
more than in other communities of like
number. These wrongs are of an open,
sometimes startling character. They are
magnified by rumor with her ten thousand
tongues until they reach you of the
North so distorted by falsehood that the original
wrong is not recognizable. The Southron
is too proud to complain & too indifferent
to explain. Crimes too are frequently
alledged against him, which on investigation
150 OHIO
HISTORY
are found to be wholy false or
justifiable. Crimes are committed (not more than
elsewhere) but rarely or ever by a true
rebel soldier. The men who would not fight
in war are warring in peace. It is the
skulker or deserter or coward, who maltreats
the Yankee because he is such or the
negro because he is black. With you, I wish
sincerely these persons could be
punished. But their number is not large though
their offenses are startling. I have
been a leading lawyer, (pardon egotism) in this
part of my state for thirty years &
I can truthfully say that our criminal calendar
has been smaller since the war than it
ever was before. It does not suit our Public
Informers to represent the truth on this
point. They are our office holders & a
Government of Constitution & laws
would take away their loaves & fishes.
If slander would cease her vocation, if
our informers would tell the truth, if
"falsehood were not suggested by
suppression of truth," if real offenses were pun-
ished the Southron people would be
vindicated in character & would not complain.
But Genl. we are both too old & know
too much of this world to wish to ever kill
off all that is bad or corrupt. God has
fashioned it just as it is & it would cease
to be His world if the bad were all out
of it.
Jehu! Suppose we could remove them all.
What a cry for emigrants would be
raised. The vexed question of laborers
would be overwhelming in complexity. Emi-
grants would be demanded from Heaven or
tother place--but I think from the latter,
just to make it what God intended it to
be--a mixed world of good & evil. So don't
let us kill off all the rascals lest a
greater evil befal us.
And you are a man of too much intellect
to believe in decimation. Civil Govern-
ment does not permit it & Military
Rule only tolerates it as an evil. In the Camps
where none can "break ranks"
you stand a chance of getting the one scoundrel
in ten men. In Civil life the rascal is
shrewd enough to get away before the lot is
cast. God does not tolerate this mode of
judgment. He punishes each for his trans-
gression only, & permits vicarious
suffering only in Himself & never in His creature.
I know you only said this in order to
allude to our old teacher, whom I believe all
hated, not even excepting you &
myself who won his favour by our hard labour.
And now Genl. I have made my protest.
Burn this, think kindly of us of the
South & believe me.
Truly
Your Friend
H. W. Walter
Genl.
W. T. Sherman
Washington
D. C.
P.S. Judge Dent will be my guest part of
this week. I wish you could be with him
& see something of the people of
this part of Mississippi. If ever you get into this
region, come & see me. We are not
savage & do not, I think, deserve a whipping.
W.
THE EDITOR: Lee N. Newcomer is an
associate professor of history at
Wisconsin
State College, Oshkosh. He is a native
Ohioan.
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS COLLECTIONS OF THE RUTHERFORD B. HAYES STATE MEMORIAL |
|
ONE OF OHIO'S finest historical properties is the Rutherford B. Hayes State Memo- rial, located in Spiegel Grove, the twenty- five-acre home estate of the nation's nine- teenth president at Fremont. Administered jointly by the Ohio Historical Society and the Rutherford B. Hayes and Lucy Webb Hayes Foundation, this public memorial includes the stately Victorian brick mansion of the president and his family; the graves of Mr. and Mrs. Hayes, marked by a monument of Ver- mont granite; and the Rutherford B. Hayes Library, an Ohio sandstone struc- ture which houses the personal papers and library of President Hayes, the pa- pers of members of his family, a library and research center devoted primarily to the history of the United States from |
by WATT P. MARCHMAN and JAMES H. RODABAUGH 1860 to the end of the nineteenth century, and a museum which emphasizes the life of the president. Spiegel Grove became public property in 1910, when it was given by the presi- dent's children, through a son, Colonel Webb C. Hayes, to the state of Ohio. In return for the gift the state promised to erect a fireproof building to house the president's papers, library, and memo- rabilia. The building and its contents were to be open free to the public for- ever. The structure was completed in 1916, and a second and larger building, paid for by Colonel Hayes, was added to it in 1922. The museum rooms contain hundreds of items that belonged to President and Mrs. Hayes. There the visitor may see |
152 OHIO HISTORY |
the dress Mrs. Hayes wore at her wed- ding in 1852, as well as several of her gowns when she was the nation's first lady. President Hayes is represented in part by displays of equipment he wore or used during his service as major, lieu- tenant colonel, colonel, brigadier general, and brevet major general in the Civil War, including uniforms, swords, revol- vers, holsters, field glass, mess kit, saddle, saddle bags, bridle and bit, bed roll, camp chest, field officer's desk, and regi- mental flags. Among the things associated with the presidency are a landau made by the Brewster Company of New York, carriage manufacturers, and purchased by the president in March 1877, a walnut, roll-top, high desk and chair and a wal- nut, marble-top water table, both of which were purchased by Lincoln and used in the second-floor cabinet room in the White House until Theodore Roosevelt redecorated, and a piano which was given to the president by the Bradbury Piano Company. Another notable item from the presidential period is a three-story doll house, which was exhibited at a fair in Baltimore and then presented to Fanny Hayes, the president's only daughter, when she was ten years old. There are also pieces of the Hayes White House china, made by Haviland and Company in Limoges, France, and decorated in an American flora and fauna pattern by an American artist, Theodore R. Davis. Also associated with Mr. and Mrs. Hayes are a number of family portraits and numerous photographs. Other inter- esting family items include the grand- father's clock purchased by Rutherford Hayes, the president's father, at the time of his marriage to Sophia Birchard, the president's mother, in Vermont in 1812. There are two old flintlock rifles which were used in the War of 1812, one by Rutherford Hayes, the other by James Webb, Mrs. Hayes's father, of Lexington, |
|
Kentucky. The latest addition to the mu- seum exhibits is the jewelry that belonged to the president and his wife, which was discovered recently in a vault in a Fre- mont bank. The second principal collection in the museum is that of Colonel Webb C. |
|
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 153 |
Hayes. Webb began his collecting hobby as a young man, when, on a number of hunting trips in the Rocky Mountains with his godfather, Major General George Crook, he brought together a collection of hunting and Indian relics. Among the pieces of hunting equipment are three guns given Webb by General Crook, a very rare Sharps rifle with the mono- gram "G.C.," a Winchester rifle with a telescopic sight especially mounted for Crook, and a fine Marlin repeating rifle, all of which were used by Crook on the Rocky Mountain frontier. Webb's big collecting efforts, however, were con- nected with his military service during and after the Spanish-American War. In 1898 he served in Cuba and Puerto Rico as a major of the First Ohio Cavalry, returning with a quantity of curios of the war. Shortly after his return from Cuba, he sailed for the Philippines, where he served as a lieutenant colonel of the Thirty-First United States Volunteer In- fantry Regiment in putting down the Philippine Insurrection and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for gal- lantry in the campaign against the Moros on Mindanao. From the Philippines he sailed to China as a member of Major General Adna R. Chaffee's staff in the China Relief Expedition against the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and several years later he was an observer in the Russo-Japanese War, at one point with the Japanese army on its march through Korea to the Yalu River, and at another time with the Rus- sian army near Mukden. In the Philippines and in China, Webb made a special effort to add to his and his father's growing collections, especially of Oriental weapons. Now, to the presi- dent's collection of antique Japanese swords and knives, some of which are jewel-encrusted, Webb added numerous pieces. Among them was a cannon used first in the Manchu conquest of China in |
the early seventeenth century and finally captured from the Boxers as they were attacking the foreign legations in Peking. Another piece, a single-barreled Spanish lantaca, or culverin, from the royal barge of the sultan of Mindanao, was a present from the sultan, who also offered Lieu- tenant Colonel Hayes ten of his three hundred Moro wives. Along with the collection of Oriental and Spanish weapons, the museum con- tains a small but valuable group of other guns. Several, representing the first four wars in the nation's history, are of par- ticular interest. One is a bronze cannon inscribed with the British coat of arms and the royal ciphers of the kings of England and France, and marked "R. Gilpin Fecit 1761." It was captured near Saratoga, October 7, 1777, by Benedict Arnold. His name was in the inscription recording its capture placed on the can- non at Arnold's order, but apparently was removed after he was found guilty of treason. Another is a British coehorn taken during the War of 1812. A third is a bronze cannon, inscribed "San Juan," which was captured during the Mexican War. It was one of four guns known as the Apostles' Battery, or the Four Apostles, which were given to Cor- tez by the Spanish sovereigns and used in the conquest of Mexico. The fourth is a brass six-pound gun, inscribed "Louisiana," captured by Union forces during the Civil War. In addition to these materials, there are collections of relics of the Civil War and World War I, of things associated with Lincoln, including his slippers, a pair of his gloves, and a handbill of the perform- ance at Ford Theater on the night of the assassination, of political badges dating back to the campaign of 1840, and many other items. Letters bearing the signa- tures of all of the presidents of the United States are also on display. |
154 OHIO HISTORY |
More significant than the museum ma- terials, however, are the library collec- tions, which have grown through the years and have transformed the Hayes State Memorial into an important re search center in American history. With three-quarters of a million manuscripts, over sixty-five thousand volumes, hun- dreds of scrapbooks, many thousands of pamphlets, booklets, periodicals, and newspapers, well over fifty thousand photographs and pictures, a sizeable group of maps, and a considerable col- lection of microfilm, the Rutherford B. Hayes Library has become a notable source of primary information on Presi- dent Hayes and his administration, the Civil War, reconstruction following that war, civil service reform, monetary re- form, prison reform, education, especially in the South, the history of the Negro, the Spanish-American War, and the his- tory of the Sandusky Valley in Ohio. The president's personal library of over ten thousand volumes and a quantity of ephemera, contains valuable materials for the serious student of the West, In- dians, American literature and biography, and the literature of travel in America. Another distinguished collection of books consists of over four hundred volumes of first editions and variation copies of the writings of William Dean Howells. The principal manuscript collection in the library is that of the personal papers of Rutherford B. Hayes, ranging from 1834 to the time of his death in 1893, which constitutes one of the nation's most important sources on the history of the United States in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The chief groups among the papers are Hayes's diary of 34 volumes, which he started in 1834 and continued throughout his life; 5,000 let- ters and drafts written by Hayes; 60,000 letters received; messages and speeches, consisting of 2,500 pieces; Civil War |
papers; and about 300 volumes of letter- books, notebooks, appointment records, scrapbooks, and newspaper clipping books. The library continues a constant search for original R. B. Hayes letters and has added also photographic copies of Hayes letters in the papers of many of his correspondents located in libraries throughout the country. A second valuable group of manu- scripts is made up of the Hayes family papers. Among these are the correspond- ence and other papers of Lucy Webb Hayes, the president's wife (7,500 pieces); the correspondence, diaries and journals, and miscellaneous notes of So- phia Hayes, his mother (215 pieces and 6 volumes); the diaries and journals of Chloe Smith Hayes, his grandmother (4 volumes, 1821-42); and the papers, total- ing more than 4,000 pieces, of Sardis Birchard, a Fremont merchant and banker, and Hayes's uncle. There are pa- pers of Hayes's sons and daughter-- Birchard A., Rutherford P., Scott R., Webb C., and Fanny--and the diaries, journals, and papers of Mary Miller Hayes, Webb's wife (8 volumes, and many thousands of pieces of correspond- ence.) The papers of Colonel Webb C. Hayes are the most numerous and com- plete and reflect his business interests and those of his father, and his service in the Spanish-American War and World War I. In this collection are twenty thou- sand pieces of correspondence and other papers, 1862-1934, four volumes and a hundred and fifty pieces of military pa- pers, 1898-1902, thirteen volumes of ac- count and note books, four volumes of diaries and notebooks kept while Webb was in school in Columbus, 1871-74, seven volumes of diaries and journals of the presidential period, three volumes of diaries and journals kept on his jaunts to the Philippines and China, 1899-1900, and three volumes of diaries and journals |
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 155 |
of travel in various parts of the world, 1900-1909. The diaries and journals of Colonel Webb Hayes and his wife are of great interest and have seen little use. Among them is the colonel's account of his fan- tastic voyage to the Philippines in 1899 with a body of troops under his com- mand. Assigned to the British ship Manauense, he
was quarantined in port for some time when a contagious disease broke out aboard. Once afloat, the ship turned out to be a leaky old tub and water in the hold wrecked the electrical system and destroyed food supplies. Webb Hayes was finally forced to seize command of the ship to keep it afloat. The calm Pacific turned on him too and churned up a typhoon in which the Man- auense was
lost from its convoy. Among Mary Miller Hayes's diaries is an account of the Hayeses' reaction to the outbreak of World War I. On a trip to Cleveland when war was announced, they called back to Fremont to order that their bags be packed and a quantity of gold money be gotten from the bank for them. They returned to Fremont quickly, and immediately set out for England--without passports. Their arri- val in London in brilliant moonlight prompted them to order a car and take a midnight ride through the city instead of going to bed. They were soon on their way to Paris and their good friend Am- bassador Myron T. Herrick. Webb was determined to see the war. He managed transportation through "No Man's Land" to Brussels, where he had old friends in Ambassador Brand Whitlock and the German commandant, who had lived in Cleveland for a time. With the comman- dant's help, he traveled to Berlin and back to Brussels, and eventually met Mrs. Hayes and sailed for home. Other groups of papers in the library include a quantity on the Civil War, |
among them rosters, muster rolls, lists of casualties, records of officers, orders, and letters of the Twenty-Third, Forty-Ninth, and Seventy-Second Ohio Volunteer In- fantry regiments, recollections of the Twenty-Third O.V.I. by James M. Comly, Russell Hastings, and an unnamed au- thor, the diaries of Colonel F. W. Swift, the letters of General B. F. Coates, a letterbook containing over 500 letters plus 75 photographs of military installa- tions which belonged to General Henry W. Benham, and records of Sandusky County men in the conflict. There are 750 pieces of White House correspondence of presidents who pre- ceded Hayes between 1860 and 1875. In addition there are other papers of a number of men who served as president or vice president, including James Bu- chanan (14), Abraham Lincoln (180), Andrew Johnson (158), Ulysses S. Grant (255), James A. Garfield (30), Chester A. Arthur
(16), Benjamin Harrison (42), and Schuyler Colfax (34). Seven "diaries" for the daily information of the president, kept by Benjamin Frank- lin Montgomery, White House telegrapher under McKinley and Roosevelt (1898- 1902), are also in the collections. They contain important messages sent and re- ceived concerning the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and the Boxer Rebellion. The largest single manuscript collec- tion obtained since the direction of the library passed from Colonel Hayes's hands early in the thirties, is the corre- spondence and business papers of Arthur L. Conger, a resident of Akron who was a prominent manufacturer and chairman of the Republican state committee and a member of the Republican national com- mittee in the 1880's. Its more than fifteen thousand pieces and fifteen volumes con- stitute a valuable source on the political history of Ohio and the nation in the |
156 OHIO HISTORY |
1880's and 1890's, as well as on the his- tory of the industrial development that accompanied the gas boom in Ohio and Indiana. Conger had a wide correspond- ence with such notable figures as Russell A. Alger of Michigan, James G. Blaine, Charles W. Fairbanks of Indiana, Ohio governors Charles Foster (1880-84) Jo- seph B. Foraker (1886-90), and Asa H. Bushnell (1896-1900), Murat Halstead, Cincinnati newspaper publisher, Ben- jamin Harrison, Congressman J. Warren Keifer of Springfield, Ohio, who was speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 1881-83, Charles L. Kurtz of Columbus, one of Foraker's chief lieutenants, Cyrus H. McCormick, William
McKinley, and Senator Henry C. Payne of Ohio. Other manuscript collections include those of William K. Rogers of Columbus, Ohio, and Duluth, Minnesota, who was a personal friend and early law partner of Hayes, served as his private secretary during the presidency, and joined Hayes in land development in the Duluth area (3,018 pieces); Robinson Locke, editor of the Toledo Blade (among these papers are a number of Petroleum V. Nasby items by Locke's father, David Ross Locke) (3,000
pieces); William and Mary Buckland Davenport Claflin, gov- ernor of Massachusetts and United States Congressman and author respectively (8,500 pieces); Benson J. Lossing, jour- nalist and historian (several thousand pieces); Stanley Matthews, United States Senator from Ohio, justice of the United States Supreme Court, and warm friend of R. B. Hayes (several thousand pieces); William Dean Howells (323 pieces); George William Curtis, author and edi- tor of Harper's Weekly (279 pieces); Benjamin H. Bristow, solicitor general and secretary of the treasury under Grant (182 pieces); Mary Clemmer Ames, nov- elist of Utica, New York (145 pieces); |
Charles O'Neill, a naval officer from Massachusetts (408 pieces for the years 1895-99); General Jay J. Morrow, an officer in the campaign against the Philip- pines in 1899; Henry Ward Beecher (187 pieces); Harriet Beecher Stowe (68 pieces); and John G. Whittier (81 pieces). There are also letterbooks (1841-45) of Andrew E. Douglass, an astronomer who is best known for his studies of the use of tree rings in establishing the dates of prehistoric sites; the diaries (1857- 1914) of William A. Hart, "an ordinary citizen of Connecticut," a farmer, and a Democrat; and two official letterbooks of Major General George Crook for the years 1871-90. Finally, among the manuscript mate- rials are a number of items concerning Fremont and the area around it. There are some papers of Thomas L. Hawkins pertaining to his business interests and to the establishment of Croghansville, the early village located on the east side of the Sandusky River, which, with Lower Sandusky on the west side, later became Fremont. There is also a collection of papers of John R. Pease, a Fremont mer- chant with whom Hayes lived when he set up his law practice in 1845-47. Three important personal collections of Fremont citizens of the nineteenth century are those of Dr. James Wilson (1,350 pieces), Dr. John B. Rice, who served in the United States House of Representatives (1,800 pieces), and Colonel William E. Haynes, who was a leading merchant and banker as well as a congressman (1,200 pieces). The Lucy Elliot Keeler collec- tion of over 1,000 letters and other pa- pers, 14 volumes of diaries, and 66 vol- umes of notes and memoranda, covering the period from 1885 to 1925, is a valu- able source of local history. While adding to its manuscript files, the Hayes Library has been expanding its |
COLLECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 157 |
|
microfilm collections, including copies of papers of many of Hayes's contemporaries and the important newspapers of the pe- riod which are located in other libraries or in private hands. Included among the personal papers microfilmed are those of William Henry Smith, one of Hayes's closest friends and general manager of the Associated Press; W. D. Bickham, for many years editor of the Dayton Journal and a leader in the campaign to nominate Hayes in 1876; Carl Schurz, who became Hayes's secretary of the in- terior; James A. Garfield; Benjamin H. Bristow; William E. Chandler; Samuel J. Tilden; Samuel Sullivan ("Sunset") Cox; Senator John A. Bingham; Salmon P. Chase; William Dean Howells; and James M. Comly, editor of the Ohio State Journal. In connection with Hayes's in- terest in education in the South and his work on the Slater and Peabody funds, papers of Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry, agent for the Slater Fund, and Daniel Coit Gilman, president of Johns Hopkins University, have been microfilmed, along with selections from the Peabody Fund Papers at the George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, and the Slater |
Fund Papers in the Southern Education Foundation, Inc., Washington, D. C. The library is also gradually acquiring copies of the government records created by the Hayes administration in Washington. The Rutherford B. Hayes Library was the first presidential library to be estab- lished as a research center on the home grounds or in the home town of a presi- dent. It became the model which was fol- lowed in the establishment of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park, New York, which in turn led to the erection of the Harry S. Truman Library in Inde- pendence, Missouri, the Dwight D. Eisen- hower Library in Abilene, Kansas, and the Herbert Hoover Library in West Branch, Iowa. The Hayes Library, how- ever, is the only one to be maintained and operated by the native state of the president it honors. THE AUTHORS: Watt P. Marchman has been director of research of the Hayes State Me- morial since 1946. James H. Rodabaugh, editor of Ohio History, was assistant director of re- search from 1940 to 1944. |
DIARY OF IMPRISONMENT 51 Saturday 29. Very cold night--heavy frost. No ax to be had. My mess tried to make an apology for last nights treatment, but I told them that I had been with my friend--"out upon such selfishness." Such is the action of a large portion of the prisoners. Cannot send letters through without a C.S. stamp on them. Wrote yesterday to wife but am waiting to get a stamp. Lt Thos Hare gave me a stamp and I put the letter in the box. Slept with Lt Anderson[,] 3rd Iowa[,] in Lt Hare's hut. Not very cold. Sunday 30th Oct 1864 Not up till after sunrise. Two or three shots were fired during the night by the guards but no one hurt. Beautiful day. Capt Dircks & Lt Hare made arrange- ments with guard to let four of us out to night. Started at 8 PM and Capt D and Lt H in advance [with] Capt Smith & I following. We crawled towards the line. When the leading men were within a rod of the line one of the guards fired and shot Capt D through the thigh. We retreated and gave it up for this time. The guards had been changed. Warm and cloudy all night. Monday 31st Oct Cloudy forenoon. Reed a letter from my wife dated Sept 25th[,] one from B W Pease Sept 9th[,] and one from Cousin Mattie B. Whipple Sept 21. All well at home, but no news of Ex[change]. Tuesday Nov 1st 1864 Our mess com[mence]d building a house. Got about half done. Made arrange- ments to escape to night and at half past 11 PM crawled out in co[mpany] with Capts J H Smith 16th Iowa[,] W J Rannells 75th Ohio[,] Jno L Poston 13 Tenn Cav[,] and J L Elder 11 Iowa. Took up our line of march South through the dense undergrowth for about one mile [,] thence S E for about the same distance striking the C[harleston] & C[olumbia] road about two (?) m[ile]s from Columbia. Travelled about 8 m[ile]s further in this road South and at daylight had to stop in a little skirt of timber near the road. It was cloudy all night and comm[ence]d raining about daylight |
|