Ohio History Journal

Back to results

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 thistime. 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.

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 Nov13 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 fillsa 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

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. Thistook 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.²Colonel 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.⁵Meanwhile, 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.⁷Few 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.²⁰Dennison 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.²⁴McClellan 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."²⁵Dennison, 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."²⁸On 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.³²Such 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."³⁴But 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.³⁷Moreover, 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."³⁹Wise 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.⁴¹Rosecrans 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."⁴²Convinced 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."⁴⁴With Morris in close pursuit, McClellan then wired

Brigadier General C. W. Hill at Grafton to cut off his retreat.⁴⁵Garnett'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."⁴⁶Garnett

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.⁴⁷Even 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.⁴⁸On 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.⁴⁹In 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.⁵²For 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."⁵⁴Finally, 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.⁵⁷In 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.⁵⁸Even 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.³Still 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.⁴By 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."⁶Thus 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.²³Two 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.²⁴By

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.³⁴Other 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.36The 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.⁴⁸But 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.⁴⁹The 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.⁵²But 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.⁵⁹In 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."⁶¹In 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."⁶²Contributions 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.⁷⁵The 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."⁷⁷The 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.^"81The 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,⁸⁴and 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.⁸⁵The 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.⁸⁶This 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."³The 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."⁴Even 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."⁵Applying 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,⁷the 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."¹⁵As 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."²⁰At 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,²³it 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.²⁴With 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.^"25At the

hotel, however, where he was introduced to the assembled Democrats by

Mayor Albert Cash as "a leader of unflinching courage,"²⁶Truman 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.²⁸The 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,"²⁹the Des Moines reporter observed, as

Truman, making a "natty appearance" in his blue pin-stripped suit,³⁰lashed

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."³⁴Turning

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,"³⁹a 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."⁴⁰Still 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.⁴¹Those 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."⁴³This

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.⁴⁴At 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,⁴⁶Truman 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."⁴⁸Whatever 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 hisservices 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.⁷By 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.⁶Woodrow 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.⁷The 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.¹²As 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.¹⁸During 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.¹⁹The Anglo-Saxon spirit of resistance to oppression helped explain

why the Confederacy fought so courageously,²⁰Anglo-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.²⁴Rhodes 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."²⁹Also, 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.³⁴It 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.³⁹He 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.⁴¹As 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.⁴⁸As 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.⁴⁹Evidence 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,⁵⁰so 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.⁵⁶To 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

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.³What 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.⁴I 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

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.⁸I 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

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.⁹News 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 doas 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

Chandler¹²the 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

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

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 stuck^14--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. Pendleton¹⁵is 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.

THE EDITOR: Lee N. Newcomer is an

associate professor of history at Wisconsin

State College, Oshkosh. He is a native Ohioan.

COLLECTIONS

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

hisgloves, 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.