List of Posted Articles (Note: This list is NOT interactive - scroll down to choose an article)
This list is not interactive. To read a specific article, please go to the individual articles which follow and search by date published as shown on this list.
Posted Blog List at: www.alincolbygadorris.com as of March 12, 2025
There are over 150 blogs, special edition articles, and questions from readers (Q&A) in order from latest posted to the first post in 2014.
Posting Date Title
02-15-25 Love lost and Found- The Halliburton Story # 133
01-15-25 Sam Davis- Boy Hero of the Confederacy # 132
11-19-24 Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address # 131
11-01-24 The Lost Gettysburg Address # 130
10-01-24 Q & A October 2024
07-01-24 Q & A July 2024
05-28-24 Memorial Day reflection-The Sultana
04-06-24 A hurricane delays the Blockade # 129
03-04-24 A Confederate Rationale, The Lost Cause # 128
02-06-24 Sacrificing Montgomery Blair #127
12-15-23 Christmas- Four men Celebrate
12-02-23 Families at War #126
11-01-23 The Lady was a soldier (or not) # 125
08-15-23 Q & A August 2023
07-15-23 Q & A July 2023
05-28-23 Memorial Day- Gettysburg Father
04-14-23 Lincoln’s Dream #124
03-15-23 The General Was a Bishop #123
03-01-23 Lincoln’s Protector - Ward Lamon # 122
02-15-23 Union and Slavery in Lincoln’s Own Words #121
01-29-23 Compelled to Serve - Edward Baker #120
01-15-23 General Pender’s Chip #119
12-15-22 Women Soldiers, North and South #118
11-01-22 Was it really “Pickett’s Charge”? #117
10-15-22 An unlikely friendship of first ladies #116
09-01-22 Q and A September 2022
08-01-22 Q and A August 2022
07-01-22 Q and A July 2022
05-30-22 The Secret list of lost Soldiers - A Memorial Day Story #115
05-01-22 Soldiers’ Humor in the Civil War #114
04-15-22 The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (six chapter special edition)
04-01-22 Confederates Eye the New Mexico Territory #113
03-01-22 Politician, General, and…Murderer? #112
02-01-22 The Richmond Bread Riots #111
01-15-22 The Angel of Andersonville #110
12-21/21 1864 - Two Presidents Keep the Spirit
11-21-21 Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Hope
11-15-21 Soldier or Spy - John Yates # 109
11-01-21 Compassion on the Battlefield #108
10-15-21 The Confederate Fire Eater #107
10-01-21 Friends, But Now Enemies #106
09-01-21 Q & A September 2021
08-01-21 Q & A August 2021
07-01-21 Q & A July 2021
05-30-21 The Last Full Measure (Memorial Day) #105
05-01-21 Mr. Hunley’s Submarine #104
04-01-21 The Truth Teller Named Sojourner #103
03-15-21 The folly of the 128th Illinois #102
03-01-21 The Railroad with no Tracks #101
02-15-21 Laughing with Lincoln #100
02-01-21 The Unexpected President #99
01-15-21 A Tragedy in Minnesota #98
12-27-20 And the Bands Played On - A New Years Eve Story
12-21-20 Christmas with the Lincoln’s
11-24-20 Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Messages
11-15-20 The General vs. The Husband #97
11-02-20 Lincoln on Tolerance and Reconciliation (an election special edition)
11-01-20 Husband and Wife Warriors # 96
10-17-20 Surviving Vicksburg #95
10-01-20 Those Custer Boys #94
09-01-20 Q&A (Boston Union Monument, Davis pardon, Eisenhower and R.E. Lee)
08-01-20 Q&A (1st book critique, slaves escape by boat, Union prisons)
07-10-20 Q&A (Ellsworth death-3, Custer Boys, John Pemberton-2, Libby Prison)
05-28-20 Lincoln’s Young Friend #93
05-18-20 An Escape Aboard the Planter #92
05-05-20 The Great Train Caper #91
04-14-20 Abe Lincoln – Father of the Income Tax #90
04-07-20 For Love of Hs wife #89
03-15-20 General Arthur MacArthur #88
03-01-20 The Yankee Poet #87
02-12-20 A Presidents Day Rant!
02-01-20 Return to Ft. Sumter #86
01-17-20 The Great Escape – Ft. Libby #85
12-30-19 The Bands Played On (A New Year’s Eve story)
12-15-19 Lincoln’s Christmas in the White House
11-22-19 Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Day Messages
11-17-19 The Lady Became a Lawyer #84
11-04-19 The Last Slave Ship #83
10-18-19 Dixie Boy, Union Spy #82
08-01-19 Q&A (Unreconstructed Confederates, flags, La Amistad, 5th Amendment)
07-19-19 Q&A (Picacho Peak, Museum, Lincoln relatives at war)
05-22-19 A Fallen Soldier’s Family #80 to be read with
The Life of Sgt. Amos Humiston #81
05-05-19 A Gathering of Old Foes #79
03-31-19 Children Go to War #78
03-06-19 The Amistad Affair #77
11-01-18 The Hampton Roads Peace Conference #74 # 75 and #76
Three parts: Part 1, The Niagara Peace Conference Fiasco
Parts 2 & 3, The Hampton Roads Conference.
10-17-18 Sherman’s Andersonville Dilemma #73
10-04-18 Simon Cameron – A scandal in the Cabinet #72
08-15-18 Q&A (Lincoln-Douglas, Stanton and the Assassins, Lincoln misquoted)
07-15-18 Q&A (Davis pardon, Southerners and secession, two first ladies, Navies)
05-15-18 The Saga of Jefferson Davis #70 and 71
05-02-18 The Will Thomas Legion #69
04-12-18 Quotes at Lincoln’s Death #68
04-05-18 A Teacher Becomes a Stonewall #67
03-18-18 The Militarization of the South #66
03-03-18 Lincoln and Douglas – Beyond the Debates #65
02-14-18 A Nation Divided – The Cherokees #64
02-01-18 Native American Dilemma – Which Side to Choose # 63
01-15-18 General Lincoln? #62
12-15-17 Christmas at the White House # 61
11-21-17 Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamations #60
11-04-17 Can we Defend Washington City #59
10-16-17 They Called Her Moses – The Harriett Tubman Legacy #58
09-30-17 Descriptive Art of Civil war Letters # 57
09-01-17 Q & A (Liberal or conservative, more Lincoln Memorials)
08-15-17 Q & A (Lost Cause, Underground Rail Road, Confederate memorials)
07-15-17 Q & A (earlier assassination attempt, Tomb, New Orleans, Women in Combat)
07-01-17 Q & A (Women Spies, Lincoln Baited the South, Reasons for secession)
06-15-17 Bringing the War Home – The Photographers #56
06-01-17 Did President Lincoln Offer to Step Aside? #55
05-14-17 Reminiscences of Lincoln – By Those Who Knew Him #54
04-17-17 Remembrances of Lincoln – A Deferred Eulogy #53
03-25-17 “ But Will I Be A Good Enough Officer?” Joshua Chamberlain #52
03-15-17 Lincoln’s Eagle Quill Pen #51
02-12-17 More to do than Fight This Awful War #50
01-31-17 The Reflections of Pvt. Sam Watkins #49
01-13-17 Battle Hymn of the Republic #48
12-14-16 Lincoln on Reconciliation # 47
11-21-16 Lincoln’s thanksgiving Messages #46
10-20-16 Lincoln’s Condolence Letters #45
10-01-16 A Good Swap- An Arkansas Farmer and the U.S. Army #44
08-01-16 Q & A (Lincoln and Lee, Lee and slavery, Marfan’s Disease)
06-14-16 The Profiteers # 43
06-15-16 Lincoln’s Use of Humor #42
05-30-16 Letters Home – A Memorial Day Tribute #41
05-14-16 Angels of the Battlefield #40
05-01-16 The Final Journey of Abraham Lincoln #39
04-15-16 The Texas Secession #38
04-03-16 Robert E. Lee and Slavery #37
03-15-16 Uncle Tom’s War? #36
03-01-16 Reflections on Washington and Lincoln #35
02-12-16 Presidents’ Day – A History # 34
02-01-16 More Than a Museum #33
01-18-16 The Letters of Elisha Rhodes #32
01-06-16 The south’s Life-line – Blockade Runners #31
12-01-15 Lincoln and the Press- 2 Parts #29 and #30
11-16-15 The Diary of Mary Chesnut #28
11-03-15 At the Crossroads – Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee #27
10-20-15 A Southern Belle, And Union Spy #26
05-29-15 Mary Lincoln’s Story #25
05-13-15 A Yankee in Mississippi – The Newton Knight Story #24
04-10-15 The assassination of Abraham Lincoln 2 Parts #22 and #23
03-30-15 Appomattox – A Meeting of Giants #21
03-14-15 To Divide or Preserve – The Critical Election of 1864 #20
02-28-15 Spies in Petticoats #19
02-16-15 Lincoln as Protector and Defender #18
01-29-15 The Thirteenth Amendment – If Not Now, When? #17
01-15-15 Lincoln’s Leadership Traits #16
12-29-14 Emancipation Proclamation – Facts and Fictions #15
12-14-14 The Partisans – Guerrilla Warriors of the Confederacy #14
11-21-14 Lincoln, Mrs. Hale, and Thanksgiving Day #13
11-14-14 Lincoln Through a Southern Lens #12
11-02-14 Confederates Raid St. Albans, Vermont #11
10-01-14 Lincoln and the Sultana Tragedy – 2 Parts #9 and #10
09-19-14 Lincoln’s Unsteady Indian Diplomacy #8
09-01-14 Lincoln’s Mrs. Bixby Letter #7
08-13-14 Lincoln Warns About Secession #6
07-30-14 Edwin Booth-Robert Lincoln Incident #5
07-16-14 Lincoln, Black Bill, and the N-word #4
07-04-14 Lincoln and the 4th of July #3
06-20-14 Abraham Lincoln, Dad #2
06-15-14 Why This Book, Why Now #1
Love Lost and Found - Halliburton (article 133)
Otis Henry Halliburton was born in Bangor, Maine in 1837. We don’t know anything about his childhood; however, as a young man, he left Maine and found his way to Missouri. Based on later experiences, we believe Otis was trained to care for horses, and worked primarily on farms in Missouri. He probably did not own any of the land because he was not financially secure enough to propose to a young girl he had met. Her family was better off, and she was well educated for that time, which were both impediments to a courtship. So, he waited, but then fate interfered. Her family moved, likely to Texas, and they lost track of each other. But he never forgot Susan Mary Payne.
When the Civil War broke out in April 1861, Otis did not at first join up, possibly because Missouri, as a slave state, had leanings toward the new Confederate States of America. But, in April 1862, Otis joined the newly formed 25th Missouri regiment to serve in the Union Army. In some records his name is listed as Otis Halliburton Burton, rather than Otis Henry Halliburton, which was not unusual for either side during the Civil War when less care was taken with records than today. The regiment fought several battles in Southern Missouri and Arkansas and, in October 1862, Otis was severely wounded; in fact, he was not expected to survive. With the help of a caregiver, he wrote a final letter to his mother and lingered on for a few weeks.
Then, he began to recover!
While he was not capable of returning to active service in his unit, he remained with the regiment and served as a wagon master moving supplies to and from battlefields.
Near the end of the War, Otis was asked to join a small caravan of wagons to deliver supplies to an outpost in Kansas. On the way, the group was attacked by a Native American raiding party and only Otis survived, but he was again seriously wounded and was taken captive. The tribes lived in the mountains in New Mexico and Colorado, and they headed home with Otis. The Native Americans must have thought he could be of some value because they treated his wounds and helped him regain his health. There was no doubt that he was their prisoner, but over time, he earned their trust by helping with horses and by not attempting to escape. Yet!
Otis had decided he would choose the right time and opportunity to escape, and he waited for over six months!
Then, a raiding party returned with a small herd of horses and Otis noticed that one of the horses was healthy and built for speed. One day he made his decision, jumped on the horse he had selected, and rode off. His captors quickly noticed and gave chase; however, Otis had chosen well and, with his horse possessing both speed and stamina, he was able to outrun his pursuers and eventually lost them. Several days later, he came upon a small farmhouse and decided to seek shelter and food.
He knocked on the door and when the lady stepped out,……. it was Susan Mary Payne!
The shock for both of them must have been breathtaking. As it turned out, Susan had married a Southerner who joined the Confederate Army but was killed in 1863. Her husband’s family had owned the farm in Texas, and she had moved there with her nine year old daughter. Otis remained in the area using the name on his army records of Otis Halliburton Burton. Over the next few years, the two courted and they married in 1870.
Otis and Susan had five more children including one son, Otis Halliburton Burton II, who lived until 1960. Their son left a newspaper clipping which told the story of his father and mother along with a photograph of the couple, presumably taken for their wedding in 1870.
Their story, while not thoroughly documented, is compelling and should not be forgotten!
Otis passed away in 1898 and Susan, who died later, is buried with him.
Boy Hero of the Confederacy (Article 132)
Although he was twenty-one when the events unfolded, Sam Davis became known as the “Boy Hero of the Confederacy.”
Born in 1842, Sam grew up on a small plantation in Tennessee, where his family-owned slaves, adding a few each year through both births and purchase. (A child born to a slave became a slave, regardless of the status of the father.) By the time Tennessee joined the Confederate states in early 1861, the family owned over fifty slaves, and they were to be Sam’s birth-right as the oldest son. As was common among aristocratic southerners, he began his primary education at a military school, the Western Military Institute.
He joined the 1st Tennessee Infantry Regiment early in the war as a private and his unit saw combat in several battles, most notably at Shilo in April 1862, a Union victory but with horrific casualties on both sides. Davis was wounded at Shilo but stayed with his regiment as it repositioned after the battle. Later, in the next battle at Perryville, he suffered more serious wounds and, rather than continue as a front-line soldier, he volunteered to act as a courier between Confederate units operating in Tennessee. For over a year, his knowledge of the terrain and locations of farms which had food needed by the Southern army made him a valuable gatherer of information in addition to delivering messages to commanders among different units.
By this time, Tennessee was largely controlled by Union forces and was being governed under an appointed magistrate. So, it was hostile territory for Sam Davis, especially near Nashville.
Unfortunately, he was captured on November 20, 1863, by Union soldiers tasked with rooting out spies and informants. If he had only been carrying messages between Confederate units, he probably would have been considered just one more of the thousands of southern boys to be held as a Prisoner-of-War. However, Sam also had drawings of Union fortifications at Nashville, the locations of Union regiments, and notes on the likely sympathies of several nearby towns.
He was taken to Pulaski, a town under the control of Union General Grenville Dodge, who quickly charged Sam as a spy. General Dodge did order a trial, but the outcome was pre-determined. Sam was found guilty and subject to hanging.
But General Dodge had been impressed with Sam’s earlier courageous refusal to name informants, other couriers and the Confederate officers for whom he served. So, General Dodge, once more, gave Sam the opportunity to “name names” and avoid execution. But Sam reportedly replied, “Would you betray a friend? I had rather die a thousand deaths.”
General Dodge then declared that Davis would be hanged on a hill overlooking the town, and when some of the towns leaders protested, General Dodge said, “I want him hung where you all can see him." Sam was calm in the few days before his execution, conversing courteously with his guards and other soldiers who came over to see the young man who was adamantly standing his ground.
Davis wrote a letter to his mother on the day before his execution. "Dear mother. O how painful it is to write you! I have got to die to-morrow --- to be hanged by the Federals. Mother do not grieve for me. I must bid you good-bye forevermore. Mother, I do not fear to die. Give my love to all." And, as a postscript for his father, he added, "Father, you can send after my remains if you want to do so. They will be at Pulaski, Tenn. I will leave some things with the hotel keeper for you."
On the morning of the 27th, he was transported to the execution site in a wagon, sitting on his own coffin. Union soldiers lined the way and many, who admired Sam’s resolve and courage, shouted out for him to change his mind and give up the information the General wanted. There are reports that the officer in charge of the execution seemed reluctant to proceed and Davis said, "Officer, I did my duty. Now, you do yours."
Legend says that Sam Davis’s last words were, "Tell the boys they will have to fight the battles without me." At 10:30 am, on November 27, 1863, Sam Davis died.
His father did retrieve his body, and Sam was buried on the family land. Not unlike thousands of other boys from both armies, laid to rest in family plots, most to be forgotten by all except family and friends.
But the Sam Davis story did not end there. Numerous Union officers and soldiers wrote to their families about the young man and a reporter chronicled the event. Word began to spread, reaching Confederate troops as inspiration (and perhaps to promote revenge against Union forces as a motivation).
While it was an inspiring story at the time, too many more young men kept dying until the war finally ended and the saga of Sam Davis grew quiet. It was then lost to most people, except those personally affected.
But the story did not die, it just lay dormant for another thirty years!
Then Sam Davis was again remembered, this time by many. A newspaperman attended a Civil War reunion in 1895 and heard about Sam Davis. He researched records, interviewed his family and former Union soldiers who were witnesses, and decided to memorialize the young man who so willingly gave up his life for what he believed. He wrote, “I resolved to print the story and to reprint it until that typical hero should have as full credit as (I) could give him.”
And it worked!
The soldier Sam Davis is not remembered for heroic actions in battle, but for the quiet courage he displayed when offered a choice to live. He chose instead to protect his friends.
He deserves our respect!
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (Article 131)
“These dead shall not have died in vain”
A ceremony had been arranged for Thursday, November 19, 1863, as a dedication of a new National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, commemorating those who died there in battle the prior July. President Lincoln was an afterthought, as the primary speaker was Edward Everett, an internationally known and respected orator. Lincoln invited his Cabinet members to attend but only Secretary of State William Seward, Secretary of Interior John Usher, and Postmaster General Montgomery Blair agreed to go. Secretary of War William Stanton chose to not attend, but did order a special train to depart a day prior to the event so Lincoln could have a less hectic trip and could return when he chose.
The organizers expected him to give a relatively brief commemoration, possibly twenty-thirty minutes, following Everett's anticipated two-hour oration. As it was, Lincoln really needed some quiet time to revise the early draft to assure it was meaningful, but was still brief enough to be delivered within the time-frame he was allotted.
And, as we all know today, twenty minutes is usually not enough time for any politician (then or now) to complete a public speech and then give up the podium to someone else!
Lincoln, Ward Lamon, his guard, and John Nicolay, who was one of his secretaries, along with Seward, Usher, and Blair, boarded the train in the afternoon of the 18th and arrived in Gettysburg about 5 PM. Lincoln had his draft with him before departing but, contrary to many reports, he did not revise the text on the back of an envelope while traveling because Nicolay said, “Mr. Lincoln rested, relaxed, engaged with his fellow riders and told a few stories to the delight of the other passengers.” At Gettysburg, he went to the home of David Wells, where he, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Edward Everett would spend the night. After supper with the other guests, Lincoln went to his room to work on the speech.
About 11 PM, Lincoln walked over to see Seward, who was a close friend and trusted advisor, and it is presumed Lincoln shared his final text.
The next morning, he rode a horse to the ceremony area, rather than a carriage, and sat on the raised platform in front of an estimated 9,000 people, many of whom were probably more interested in listening to Everett than to Lincoln, after all, as one author proclaimed, he was the “popular rock star” of his day. Everett spoke first, and for nearly two hours gave what was then regarded as a great speech.
Just what the crowd came for. Then it was Lincoln's time to speak.
A reporter noted: “The President rose slowly and when the welcoming commotion had subsided, spoke in a high pitched, clear carrying voice.” He finished in under three minutes, even too soon for the photographer who was preparing for a picture. The crowd, stunned by the brevity, was silent for a few moments, and then gave Lincoln a polite, but not enthusiastic, ovation.
When he went to sit down, Lincoln told Ward Lamon that the speech “Did not scour and the people are disappointed.” In using the farming term “did not scour” the President was saying that he had not conveyed what he hoped. However, Edward Everett, one of the great orators of his time, was visibly moved and told reporters that Lincoln’s speech was better in every way than his. That evening, Mr. Everett wrote to Lincoln and stated that Lincoln said more in two minutes than he had in two hours and asked for a copy. Lincoln then wrote several hand versions over the next few days, sending one to Everett, three for fund-raisers for soldiers, and one to his host at Gettysburg. John Nicolay, his secretary, protected the original draft and the copy from which he read, and later gave them to the Library of Congress.
Nicolay noted later that, when Lincoln spoke, he had changed the wording from his handwritten final text in two ways. He had written “they have consecrated it far above our “poor” power to add or detract,” but he left out the word “poor” when he spoke. Also, he did not include the words “under God” in the text but spoke those words in the speech and included them in a subsequent copy.
Please, take an extra moment to carefully read and contemplate Lincoln’s words.
THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who fought here, have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that, government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Now, that was a Presidential speech! And, contrary to what Lincoln thought, the world has long remembered.
The Lost Gettesburg address (Article 130)
After the main dedication ceremony for the new National Cemetery at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863, many of the dignitaries found their way to the First Presbyterian Church for additional memorial presentations. Earlier, from a podium overlooking the cemetery, Edward Everett had given the keynote speech, which was followed by Abraham Lincoln’s now famous (and much shorter) address. Among the two hundred people who packed the small church were President Lincoln, Secretary of State Seward, and Mr. Everett; and all three later praised the special late afternoon speech by Ohio Lt. Governor Charles Anderson, which concluded the day’s events.
Why is it that we, who are interested in almost anything about the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, and his Gettysburg Address, (and we have copies of Everett’s speech as well) are only recently studying Anderson’s speech? What events at Gettysburg led to his speech? And, what was the message that he delivered which so impressed Abraham Lincoln?
Certainly, Edward Everett was expected to be the focus of the day’s events. After all, he was one of the most prominent orators of his day and people would travel miles to hear him speak. As usual, Mr. Everett, provided copies of his remarks prior to the event to newspapers, knowing the speech would be widely published the following day. President Lincoln, whose presence was considered only a courtesy, had not provided the press with copies of his speech. Further, because his remarks were so unexpectedly brief, many reporters missed transcribing what they supposed were only introductory remarks. Fortunately, Lincoln made several copies, some with very minor changes, so his address was preserved. On the other hand, Anderson’s speech, while well regarded by those in attendance, was not provided to the press and his own notes were tucked away in his private papers and “lost” for nearly one hundred and fifty years. We are now able to study the speech today because of a happenstance discovery followed by a well-written book about the “Lost Gettysburg Address” by David Dixon, which was published in 2015.
But, although an exact copy of Anderson’s speech was not published at the time, the public already knew his position on key issues, as he had given numerous other speeches which clearly stated that he considered that the Union was perpetual, and the Civil War was justified. Anderson believed that an elitist planter/merchant society in the South selfishly promulgated secession to assure the perpetuation of slavery. He also believed, unlike Lincoln, that secession was treason. Anderson firmly believed that a slave-holder/merchant alliance had duped the people of the South, and that Confederate political leaders, and a few senior military officers (but not ordinary soldiers), were traitors.
In his speech, Anderson used the phrase “of the people, by the people, and for the people” as did Lincoln. While the phrase had been around for years, it appears to have just been coincidence that both men used it on the same day. Although Anderson had heard Lincoln use the phrase in his speech earlier that day, he had written his speech several days earlier and must have seen no need to delete that phrase from his own remarks.
The following are samples of Anderson’s fiery one-hour speech. The capitalizations used for emphasis in several phrases were either underlined or enlarged in Anderson’s hand-written copy.
“We are standing over many dead. They have been laid thus low, neither by the regular gradations of natural diseases, nor by the chances of accidental calamities. They all fell fighting side by side, heart with heart, as if the multitudes were one, for their native land and their native institutions of equal laws and free government.
A few weeks ago, a vast army, with a fanatic zeal of insane delusion against your prosperity, your peace, your liberties, and our common National Unity, marched to this very spot, - to invade, to conquer, and to destroy. BUT THEY WERE CONFRONTED.
Our men, the lovers of their country; the friends of equal rights, liberty and the enemies only of oppression, injustice, and despotism; leaving their own sweet homes and their dear kindred confronted that foe on the field on which we stand…the Army of Patriotism and Liberty was victorious. The Army of treason and Despotism was decisively beaten. That host of rebels, deluded and sent here by conspirators and traitors, were vanquished.
This great war then, is that conflict between Freedom and Despotism. Some among us cannot believe that at this era of civilization, Christianity, and Freedom in this republic, there could be found numbers of men, so wrongheaded, or else falsehearted, as to love despotism, rather than liberty and who vigorously conspire, betray, rebel, and wage vast war against these fundamental principles of our government and society.
Oligarchs and Despots have alone done this deed. Men, who were born to the inheritance of unjust power, nurtured by the milk of slaves; rocked in their cradles by servile hands; have been yet more indulged into an arrogance as boundless as the sea; - This is the class of men which alone has contrived and perpetuated this blackest crime of history. It is the spirit of Oligarchy, born in the purple of Despotism that has contrived, plotted, betrayed, rebelled, and warred against our national existence as a government, against our liberty, morality, our very civilization.
And my dear countrymen, here lie in their bloody graves, the slain victims of that treachery and cruelty. Their blood cries out from the ground below us.
And of all the manifold shams and counterfeits, none have ever been so base and bald, nor yet as successful, as the counterfeit democracy of our own southern states. Their ruinous heresy of “States Rights” has been from the beginning merely a mask for the conservation and propagandism of slavery.
We come now to consider the CHARACTER of these dead. They were the bravest and the best, rich and poor… who, when this war was begun against the principles of our nation, swept into the ranks of our National Army. These soldiers died to save our National life. Here was the first fair trial of self-government, of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
(The Southern States) is to be an Oligarchy, pure and simple. This is a government which, as a class is cruel, and full of warlike vigor, - that the inheritance and possession of domestic slaves only enhances these vices. A slavery-Oligarchy, the worst government imaginable.
This war will decide – one way or another – whether the risen dawn of this better era shall be quenched in eternal gloom, or shall spread and shine and glow until the black night of Despotisms shall blanch into an unending Day of universal Liberty and of calmest peace.
David Dixon’s book, “The Lost Gettysburg Address” is part archeological search, part a biography of Charles Anderson’s life, and part an analysis of the three Gettysburg addresses. He captures the theme of each speech and correctly assesses that all three speakers accomplished their individual goals; although Lincoln was at first uncertain if he had been successful.
I do disagree with Mr. Dixon on one major point. In the book, Dixon makes the assertion that Abraham Lincoln, or someone working on his political agenda, orchestrated the three speeches. According to Dixon, Edward Everett’s speech was to outline the history and describe the events of the battle while Lincoln’s purpose was to consecrate and inspire. Then, Charles Anderson’s mission was to enflame the North to fight on and place blame for the war squarely on the shoulders of the Confederate elite. While that was the outcome, I believe it was happenstance.
First, the organizers of the Gettysburg event were determined to schedule the ceremony to accommodate Edward Everett’s availability. After all, he was, as David Dixon correctly points out, the “Oratory rock-star” of his day. Everyone expected a dramatic speech, likely close to two hours, and Mr. Everett did not disappoint his audience. On the other hand, Lincoln was invited as a courtesy and was asked only to present a few commemorative remarks, not a long speech; but of course, no one expected only three minutes.
Second, Anderson’s inclusion was not a selection by the committee, but of the Ohio Governor, who asked Anderson, the newly elected Lt. Governor to take his place. He knew Anderson was a vociferous critic of the Confederacy and also had a grand and passionate speaking style.
Third, Lincoln kept his speech to himself, until sharing it with Secretary of State Seward the night before. No one, not even Lincoln, would have presumed to try to influence the famous Edward Everett nor could anyone influence Charles Anderson either, as he was one of the most independent, some would say inflexible, men of his time.
So, who was Charles Anderson and what brought him to Gettysburg?
Anderson’s family was deeply rooted in the American Revolution, where his father served under George Washington. Although educated and trained as a lawyer, Charles started several business ventures, usually related to farming and land speculation but each time, he had to resume his legal practice which provided a more stable income. In 1858, he moved to Texas to start another agricultural business.
But, that turned out to be a mistake! His timing was terrible.
In 1860, as the debates over secession escalated throughout the South and specifically in Texas, he spoke against secession and was arrested as a Union sympathizer when Texas voted to leave the Union. He was offered a pardon if he would swear to not fight against the Confederacy, but he refused and remained a prisoner in Texas while his family was allowed to migrate back to Union territory. However, he escaped and, after a harrowing trip across Texas, he returned home to a hero’s welcome and joined the Union Army. He was an effective officer but suffered from severe asthma and, when he was wounded in battle, he had to leave the army in 1862.
Charles’s older brothers, Larz and Robert also supported the Union. Larz was a wealthy lawyer and prominent in Republican politics, and Robert was a career Union officer, who became a Civil War legend. Robert was in command at Fort Sumter when it fell in April, 1861 and then returned to the Fort near the end of the war to again raise the same “Old Glory” flag he had to take down four years earlier.
When Charles had to leave the army, he entered politics in 1863, became Lt. Governor of Ohio, and, as we now know, was offered the opportunity to speak at Gettysburg by the Governor.
Later in his life, Anderson placed letters and documents he had accumulated over the years into storage containers. Among the documents was his hand-written thirty-nine-page copy of the address he gave at Gettysburg; and those containers remained within the Anderson family for several generations. In 2002, a researcher found the speech, but it was untitled and un-dated and did not identify a location. It was obviously for a memorial service but there were literally hundreds of such sites scattered across various states and, since the Gettysburg dedication, and the addresses by Everett and Lincoln, were so well known, the researcher did not connect the document to that event. A year later, he literally stumbled across a newspaper account from November 1863 about the Gettysburg ceremony which listed Anderson as a speaker at the church later in the day; and described parts of Anderson’s speech.
The dots were connected! The “Lost Gettysburg Address” had been found, Mr. Dixon met the researcher, and wrote his book. And now we all know.
Q & A (September 2024)
Questions and Comments from readers. These are a few I received last year. I answer them all.
Q: In several of your posts you indicate a lack of respect for the famous Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was a tactical cavalry genius, he won far more than he lost, and his troops loved him as their leader. I and many others consider him one of the great heroes of the Southern rebellion. You are off-base with your assessments.
A: I agree that he was an effective Cavalry officer, dedicated to his mission, and his men willingly followed him into battle not only because he was a good tactician, but he led from the front. However, while he showed courage on numerous occasions, he had character flaws which I cannot overlook. First, before the War, he not only had a plantation and owned slaves, he also was an active slave trader at his slave auction house, Forrest & Maples, in Memphis. There, his company bought and sold slaves, broke up families, and severely punished any infractions by the “commodities” he was trading. Certainly, it was a legal activity at the time, but in no way was it morally justified. Most telling, however, he led his men into what became known as the Fort Pillow Massacre on April 12, 1864. Forrest watched as his men murdered at least 300 of the Union soldiers who were surrendering after the successful Confederate assault on the fort. Most of those killed were black soldiers in uniform. One historian called it….. “one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history." Survivors later recalled that almost all of the Union soldiers surrendered and dropped their weapons, but were shot or struck with bayonets by the Confederates who repeatedly shouted, "No quarter! No quarter!" Some Confederates later said, as justification, that there were Union soldiers who ran, but kept firing, and were killed in self defense. That is probably true, but a letter from Confederate soldier, Achilles V. Clark, to his sisters on April 14, tells, the rest of the story. “The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negros would run up to our men fall on their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The white men fared but little better. The fort turned out to be a great slaughter pen. Blood, human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time had partially succeeded but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased.” Forrest was charged with War Crimes, but the charges were dropped as the country became more interested in reconstruction and reconciliation than vengeance. While he remained dedicated to White supremacy, at the end of the War, Forrest told his men to: “Go home, the Confederate experiment had failed, and conduct yourselves as citizens of the reunited country, obey the laws, and preserve your honor.” After the War, for a while, he embraced the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which he hoped would influence political issues, accelerate pardons for former Confederate officials, restore some confiscated lands, and again permit some forms of servitude. There are some reports that he was the first “Grand Wizard”, but he was not, although he was considered a leader by the membership. But by 1870, he left the organization as it turned more toward violence against individual Negroes and interference with voting rights of anti-slavery Whites. In June 1871, he testified in Congress that he was no longer a member of the KKK. All things considered, his is a mixed legacy. His military prowess might earn a degree of respect, however, his ownership of the Forrest and Maples slave auction house and his loss of control at Fort Pillow, far outweigh any positives in his character; in my opinion.
Q: I understand that Abraham Lincoln wanted to continue to build the Capitol Building during the Civil War. I believe the dome was completed at his insistence. But the Washington Monument was also half finished at the start of the War, and he evidently did not seek to finish it. Do you know why he chose one over the other?
A: I am not sure he purposefully made that decision. Speaking just to the Capitol Dome, Lincoln stated that the country needed to see that the government’s work would not be interrupted as a symbol that the union would stand. Congress narrowly approved funds for the completion of the dome (as well as renovations of the White House). However, there was even less enthusiasm (read money) in Congress for continuing the Washington Monument at the time. Lincoln always carefully selected his battles with Congress and he chose to leave the Washington memorial until later. He did not live to see it finished.
Q: I recently watched an older movie called, “The Gangs of New York” and it included scenes of draft riots in the city during the Civil War. The implication in the movie was that Union troops killed many of the rioters. Is that true?
A: Partly true. Because the Union conscription laws permitted a draftee to pay $300 to be excused and allowed others to pay a substitute, many in the North were calling the draft a “poor boy’s army”, and some were calling on young men to resist. But their outrage was further inflamed by some who called it a draft for “Lincoln's Negro War” or a “Slave War” which were actual headlines in the Democratic Daily News a few days before the protests began. On Saturday, July 11, 1863, the first names of new draftees were read in New York City, ironically on the same day the names of New York casualties at Gettysburg were published. On Monday evening, July 13, several organized anti-draft groups in New York carried out preplanned and coordinated attacks on the main draft office, several post offices, the home of the U.S. Postmaster and the home of the Republican mayor. The attacks were carefully planned to be several quick strikes, ending early in the morning of Tuesday, July 14. Part of the methodical plan included several hundred New York police and militia who agreed to not respond if and when called by authorities. However, as news spread of the attacks, others not involved in the original plan began sporadic violence against unplanned targets. During the day and night of July 14, the chaos also brought in several well established criminal gangs, and the violence began to include looting of stores, homes, and armed robbery. Even worse, there were several mob attacks on innocent pedestrians, including many Negroes; and two young Negro men, spotted by different mobs, were chased and beaten to death. One mob even attacked and burned an orphanage for Negro children. The original organizers were intending to only disrupt the draft and probably had less than 2000 members assigned to attack specific targets. However, with those added who wanted to join the protest, plus the criminal element, there were probably 10,000 men rioting in New York on Wednesday, April 15. Lincoln hesitated at first to intervene, but by late Wednesday afternoon, he ordered Federal troops to end the riot. When two different mobs each with over 500 men attacked two small detachments of about 150 soldiers each, the resulting gunfire from the mobs killed one soldier, mortally wounded another, and left another 40 with various injuries. Soldiers initially reported that their return fire killed at least 12 in the mobs, and wounded about 100 more, some probably with mortal injuries. Police records indicate the final civilian death toll from the soldiers' fire may have reached 30. The Federal troops quickly restored order and the violence stopped. Most people in the state of New York were not anti-war or even against Lincoln, as he carried the state in both 1860 and 1864. In fact, by in large, they supported the concept of preserving the Union, and there had already been about 50,000 men who had volunteered to join the Union Army and Navy in the prior two years. The draft was the issue; and linking the draft to “Lincoln's Negro War” further inflamed the resistance. Some modern authors incorrectly imply that the New York draft riots in July 1863 were spontaneous and that the riots only ended when Union troops were ordered to fire into the crowds, and some falsely claim that the troops killed over a thousand civilians and wounded many more. The facts are that the protests were not spontaneous but had been planned for at least six weeks to coincide with the next draft in New York. The riots did lead to casualties: we know there were about 30 White rioters killed in fighting among rival gangs, another 20 White pedestrians and two young Black men were killed when they inadvertently encountered the criminal elements that had joined in the riots, perhaps 30 civilian protesters were killed by the military, and two Union soldiers died of their wounds. This loss of civilian and military lives was a terrible price to pay to demonstrate disapproval of the draft; however, the recorded deaths and injuries, especially those caused by the military, were nowhere near the numbers made up by some of Lincoln's critics in his day and by some modern authors, and, as your question indicates, also by some modern day screen writers.
Q & A from readers July 2024
Questions and Comments from readers. These are a few I received last year. I answer them all.
Q: I recently watched a movie on Amazon Prime (I believe) called “Manhunt” which told the story of the search for Lincoln’s assassin and other conspirators. Did you watch it, and if so, how accurate was it?
A: I did watch it. Like all dramas, there were parts which displayed an event historically, parts which either exaggerated or deemphasized historical information, and parts, unfortunately, which were totally made up. Overall, it was probably better than most such movies or TV shows about this period. The characterization of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War covered all three parts; some accurate, some partly accurate, and some dead wrong. For example, I do not understand why he was depicted as a slender, clean-shaven, younger, and courteous man than he was. Actually, Stanton was large, imposing, had a great bushy beard with two streaks of white, intimidating, and gruff. It is true that he was involved in directing the strategy of the manhunt, however, he did not personally search throughout Maryland and Virginia for the assassin. He pretty much left the horse-back riding to the military and stayed in his Washington office. After all, the president was dead, replaced by an unqualified vice-president, and a war was still going on. Also, I thought the depictions led the viewer to believe that Dr. Samuel Mudd and Mrs. Surratt, were, without a doubt, certainly guilty in the conspiracy, and was at best an exaggeration as most historians believe they were unaware of the assassination plot. But, possibly aware of the earlier kidnap plot. Finally, most of the dialogue between Booth (the assassin) and his companion as they eluded authorities, was made-up by the writers, and I felt some of the conversations made Booth appear more noble than I believe he was. On the other hand, the depiction of Stanton’s efforts to follow Abraham Lincoln’s ideas on re-construction after the war, and the conflicts he had with new President Johnson over the matter, were generally historic. Johnson was impeached over these differences.
Q: You wrote in a recent article that you thought the Northern blockade of Southern ports was effective. How can you believe that when the Confederacy was able to maintain a continuing battlefield presence for nearly four more years. I would call that ineffective. They never caught the Alabama or Savannah, and hundreds of blockade runners successfully ran around the blockade.
A: I did not say the blockade stopped all supplies coming into the Confederacy, but that it slowed the importation of both military and consumer supplies more and more as the war continued. I give credit to the Union Navy for what they accomplished in squeezing incoming resources and I give credit to the Confederate logistical managers for keeping their fighting forces operating in the field with dwindling supplies. Confederate consumers, however, were nearly cut off from ordinary necessities and suffered greatly from the embargo. As to the two Confederate War ships you mention, the Alabama and Savannah, they were not deployed to break the blockade but to search for and destroy Union shipping, and they compiled a remarkable record. I have researched their accomplishments, and their respective ends and have even drafted an article about them. Your question may cause me to dust off the draft and publish it. So, thank you, although we disagree on the effectiveness of the embargo.
Q: One of my favorite Civil War historians is Shelby Foote. I especially enjoyed his commentary on the series Civil War by Ken Burns. Have you read any of his books or articles? Do you respect his work?
A: I have and I do. But Mr. Foote was first a novelist (usually with historical undertones) before he was recognized as a historian. His book “Shilo” weaved history and fiction so seamlessly that for years I believed some episodes were true. (Not his fault, mine.) But then, over about ten years, he produced a three volume work “The Civil War”, in which he dropped fiction, and created a compelling narrative. He still embellished some events with drama, but I understand that made the books more readable to a larger audience. I did (and do) the same in my stories. However, in my view, he did write with a certain bias for the Confederate perspective and did play favorites. One example, in my opinion, is that he almost single-handedly made Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest a household name and made him out to be a more heroic figure than he deserved. The guy was a slave merchant, rabid white supremist, and an early leader of the Klu Klux Klan, although he later rejected their more violent and illegal actions. It is true that he was a daring and successful cavalry officer and willingly used his own money to pay his troops. However, he once allowed his men to massacre defenseless wounded Black soldiers. Mr. Foote was aware of these facts, but chose to instead write and talk about the brilliance of Forrest’s successful cavalry exploits. I do not think that omission (and bias) disqualifies him as a historian. Actually, I have been accused of the same errors in my research and writing as I tend to favor the Union side. I usually try, however, to show the “warts and all” when describing Union leaders. Shelby Foote became famous in the early 1990’s as one of the contributors, and primary narrators, of the Ken Burns series The Civil War. Burns said Foote’s casual mannerisms and deep Southern drawl made him perfect for the part. Shelby Foote passed away at 88, in 2005. He was a veteran, having served as an Army officer in Europe during WWII. He certainly has my respect as a veteran and historian.
Q: I was moved by your recent post about the sinking of the Sultana in the Mississippi River in 1865, with the tragic loss of so many recently released Union prisoners of war. Besides the crew, I know the ship also carried some other civilians, because a distant relative of mine from St. Louis was killed and a friend injured when the ship went down. In my family, there was always some suspicion that it may have been torpedoed, bombed, or otherwise sabotaged? Do you know anything about that?
A: Of the more than 2,300 people, there were about 300 civilians on board. Your relative’s surviving friend must have had some story to tell. Many of those who were rescued gave accounts to local papers and a few to the official military inquiry. The numerous rumors of outside reasons were found to be false by those hearings. The facts around the hasty boiler repair and descriptions of the way the blast damage occurred were clear evidence of the cause. Conspiracy theories have always been developed after tragedies; the old “I know a guy who knows a guy” kind of stories usually surface. The “conspiracy” crowd is even more prevalent today with the internet. I find it sad because it clouds real history.
Contact the author at gadorris@gmail.com and find other articles under Blogs at the website www.alincolnbygadorris.com
Memorial Day 2024 Sultana
Imagine this, if you can.
He had just been repatriated from one of the worst Confederate prisoners of war camps, after nearly two years of captivity under horrific conditions. Somehow, he managed to survive but had seen thousands of his fellow prisoners die in the camp from malnutrition, rampant disease, and a lack of medical care for their wounds. And, he had left behind several thousand others who were yet too weak to be moved. But he was going home! He had endured three days of travel overland to the Mississippi River port of Vicksburg where he found himself in the midst of five thousand other former POWs who are all also anxious to begin the river journey to Cairo, Illinois and from there home to their families. He followed the officers’ orders to move forward to begin to board a large riverboat at the end of the dock and he realized that he will be very crowded for the three day voyage upriver. But, he knew he was going home! Despite being packed in so tightly, over the next two days he could feel his spirits rising along with the other men and some began singing the patriotic songs of the Union, others sang sacred hymns and rejoiced, and still others sang the ribald verses it seems only soldiers and sailors know. He was content to listen quietly. Home. Home was on his mind. The ship got quiet about midnight and he tried to get as comfortable as possible. Then, in a split second, he was engulfed in scalding steam and fire, and in that moment, he knew he would not be going home.
Neither would over 1,700 others who died that night on the Sultana, including some civilian passengers. And nearly 500 others were injured. Unfortunately, the story is not well known. By comparison, however, when the Titanic sank with the loss of 1,517 passengers and crew in 1912, that tragedy received worldwide attention then, and still does today.
The Sultana was a 260 foot long, triple decked, coal fired, steam driven riverboat built in 1863 and it was considered to be one of the most modern and safest ships to ply the Mississippi River. On April 27, 1865, less than two weeks after the assassination of President Lincoln and ten days after the surrender of the last of the larger Confederate Armies, the Sultana exploded in a ball of fire just north of Memphis, Tennessee. Because most newspapers were still focused on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the capture of the conspirators (and death of the assassin), as well as the looming end to the War, the Sultana tragedy received little attention by newspapers for the next few days. There would later be, of course, official investigations and, while some suspected sabotage, the War Department concluded that one of the Sultana’s four large boilers had failed and when it exploded, the other boilers also destabilized; causing a rapid and catastrophic release of steam and fire. Many were killed instantly while hundreds more died in the frigid water of the Mississippi, still cold from spring run-offs.
In the few days following the disaster, a few newspapers reported some basic facts, but it would be several more days before the extent of the human loss was fully understood. As survivors began to tell of their experiences, it became clear that the Sultana was vastly overloaded with an estimated 2,300 passengers and crew, but a certified capacity of only 392! The term “estimated” must be used because there was no accurate manifest being verified as hundreds of men boarded the riverboat.
What circumstances would cause a ship’s Captain to sail under those conditions and Army officers to put so many men on board that specific riverboat?
While a boiler explosion caused the destruction of the ship, the tragic, and preventable, loss of so many lives was caused by the following convergence of human error and malfeasance. (1) Understandable eagerness of the former prisoners to get on the first possible riverboat out of Vicksburg and go home. (2) Poor decisions by Army officers who assembled so many men near the docks. (3) Greed of the Captain to load up on these lucrative passengers. And (4) perhaps the presence of one Army officer, Lt. Colonel Rueben G. Hatch, who had twice been reprimanded for graft and incompetence but had received recommendations in the past from General Ulysses S. Grant and from President Abraham Lincoln. Yes, Abraham Lincoln.
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) has developed a documentary on “The History Detectives” about the disaster on the Sultana. The show accurately described many of the details, however, and unfortunately, the program unnecessarily injected overly dramatized scenes and, in a sensationalized story line, speculated that Abraham Lincoln bore some responsibility for the tragedy.
He did not!
But first, some basic, historical, facts.
Two days before the accident, an engineer noticed a bulge on one of the four massive boilers that provided the steam to power the Sultana and he recommended an immediate repair. This required shutting down all four boilers and riveting a large plate over the bulge to reinforce the defective boiler. This was actually a very common type of repair if done correctly; however in this case, the repair was made in haste to meet a departure deadline and may not have been properly done.
J.C. Mason, Captain of the Sultana, was also a part owner and knew that the Army would pay a fare of $5.60 for each soldier transported to Cairo, Illinois at the convergence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Therefore, it was in the Captain’s best financial interest to board as many passengers as possible, but he certainly did not want to over-load the riverboat to the point he might lose his ship. The Sultana had three large holds designed for the shipment of cattle and other goods, which the Captain had converted to accommodate more passengers; but the certification was still only for 392 people. Mason told an Army officer on the dock that the large ship “would be crowded but not over-loaded.”
When the nearly empty Sultana first docked at Vicksburg there were over 5,000 former prisoners of war within two miles of the dock anxiously awaiting their passage home. Army officers, who should have known better, moved most of the men toward the docks where they could see the waiting ship; and they began to press forward. Originally, officers were assigned to each of the several boarding stations to compile an accurate manifest as each man boarded and gave their name, unit, and home town; but the crush began to overwhelm those compiling the manifest. At some point, the officer in charge of the boarding process, Captain Frederick Speed, (no relation to Lincoln’s good friend Joshua Speed) decided to just let the men board first and then to later have his staff move among the passengers to record their names on the manifest. Captain Speed was unaware that another group of over 400 men had pressed onto the ship after his staff had boarded to complete the manifest, but they had gone to an area where passengers had already been recorded; so those additional men were never included in the final passenger manifest. This undercount was only discovered when survivors were interviewed.
When the Sultana steamed away from Vicksburg, Mississippi, on April 24, 1865, there were probably more than 2,300 passengers and crew on board. What we do know is that at least 1,700 perished and, while over 500 were rescued, many of those had terrible injuries.
Abraham Lincoln’s assassination on April 14th, the capture of the conspirators and death of the assassin which occurred over the next two weeks, and the gradual surrender of the Confederate forces throughout late April and early May, still dominated the news in the weeks after the loss of the Sultana. However, a few regional newspapers began to look into events surrounding the deaths of so many recently freed Union prisoners, and the news accounts universally alleged that the riverboat was grossly overloaded, the large loss of life was avoidable, and that there was evidence that the ship’s Captain bribed Army officials to get more passengers. By late May, 1865, the Army began a formal investigation and the panel of inquiry into the Sultana incident reported that the primary cause of the ship’s loss was a faulty boiler repair. However, the panel also found that the extremely high death and injury toll among the passengers and crew was avoidable and occurred because the Army officers in charge of the boarding process, with approval of the ship’s Captain, permitted over 2,300 people to board a ship certified to carry only 392! And, the panel decided, greed and bribery played a part.
The Army inquiry panel also heard testimony that Lt. Colonel Reuben G. Hatch (sometimes spelled as Reuben B.) was at least partly responsible for the vast overcrowding. Earlier in the war, Hatch had twice been reprimanded for graft and incompetence, but was never charged by a military Courts Martial. Witnesses told the Sultana investigators that Hatch, an Assistant Quartermaster assigned to Vicksburg, was accepting $1.00 (or more) of the $5.60 fare for each military passenger he would direct to board a specific ship. The owners and/or Captains of several riverboats, including J.C. Mason on the Sultana, were willing to pay the bribe to fill their ships with these lucrative passengers. Captain Mason died in the explosion, so he paid the ultimate price for his greed in allowing so many to board his ship.
Captain Frederick Speed, the Army officer who had responsibility for the boarding process, was charged with negligence and convicted but the finding was reversed before his sentencing. However, Lt. Colonel Hatch, who was at least as culpable as Captain Speed, had quickly mustered out of the army before the inquiry was completed and disappeared to avoid several subpoenas; so, he was never officially charged. Therefore, after all of the investigations, even congressional hearings, no one was ever held personally accountable.
So, who was Lt. Colonel Hatch and how was he connected to President Lincoln?
Reuben G. Hatch was the younger brother (or possibly cousin) of Ozias M. Hatch, a respected Illinois merchant and political leader, who was a longtime friend and early supporter of Abraham Lincoln. Throughout Lincoln’s time as President, Ozias was the Illinois Secretary of State as well as often the “acting” Governor during frequent absences of the elected Governor.
There is no question that Lincoln respected and valued the advice of Ozias Hatch. However, the PBS documentary ominously stated that Ozias was a “Major Contributor” to Lincoln’s campaigns, using a term that, in the 21st century, conjures up images of large, manipulative, and improperly influential political donations. However, political races in the mid-19th century were much simpler than today and the most valuable contributions from any supporter was not financial but speeches, sermons, and letters written to friends, colleagues, and especially to newspaper publishers. Since most newspapers were unabashedly partisan, the endorsement by a publisher was important to political success. On the other hand, little money was spent on campaigns except for travel and printed materials and Lincoln paid almost all of his own modest political expenses.
Reuben G. Hatch was five years younger than Ozias, was never very successful at school or business and seemed to get along as a young adult only through the generosity of Ozias. But then came the War!
On July 26, 1861, three months after the start of the War, President Lincoln wrote to his first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, “Please let Reuben B. (sp?) Hatch be appointed an Assistant Quartermaster assigned to General Prentess,” who was then the Commander of new Illinois regiments.
Certainly Ozias must have requested Lincoln’s recommendation and Reuben received the rank of Captain in an Illinois Quartermaster unit and, for once, had a real job handling transportation and supplies. He quickly made it more than a military task, however, and it soon became known that Reuben expected some payment for his influence in awarding contracts. He was one of those mid-level bureaucrats who, when involved in the vast expenditures that occur in war-time, was greedy enough to siphon off some money but was not bright enough to either become wealthy or to evade discovery. In 1862, he was charged with graft and incompetence by the Illinois Adjutant General, but avoided a Courts Martial through the intervention of Ozias who asked several prominent Generals, including Ulysses S. Grant, to intercede.
During the next two years, Reuben remained in the Quartermaster Corps, by then part of the Union Army and, apparently, kept a low profile and stayed out of trouble, even receiving a promotion to Major. In October 1864, he requested a transfer to the Louisiana division as a “Chief Quartermaster”, an important position responsible for supplies and transportation throughout the Mississippi River area. Although the selection for the post would be made by General Meigs, General Grant, by then Commander of all Union forces, received a copy of a recommendation for promotion of Reuben which we can assume was initiated by Ozias and forwarded through military channels. Grant, as well as Lincoln, received hundreds of similar recommendations and both frequently added some brief note and then forwarded the letter to the appropriate Commander. In this case, Grant added that, “Major Hatch might be considered for a lesser position, perhaps Assistant Quartermaster,” but he left that decision to General Meigs. Lincoln, in his added note, wrote that he “concurred with General Grant”; which was the last known connection between Reuben and Abraham Lincoln.
Four months later, in February 1865, Reuben, now a Lt. Colonel, was appointed as an Assistant Quartermaster by General Meigs and assigned to Vicksburg, Mississippi, which had been in Union control since July 1863. Reuben quickly found the opportunities for bribery were abundant and set up schemes for payment from many Captains of riverboats and owners of railroads. Clearly, he was directly involved in the massive, and improper, overcrowding of the Sultana, although he managed to avoid a Courts Martial despite clear evidence of illegal activity. How? (1) The military inquiry was haphazard due to the end of the War. (2) Reuben Hatch was quickly discharged as the Quartermaster Corps largely disbanded. (3) He then hid from investigators, likely with help from Ozias, so he never testified.
It is not historically accurate, or even basically fair, for the PBS documentary to have exaggerated the involvement of Abraham Lincoln. Certainly Lincoln knew and respected Ozias Hatch, but it is not clear that he even knew Reuben.
It would seem that the untimely and preventable deaths of so many who were very close to home and reunion, would be a sufficiently tragic, and dramatic, human-interest story, without adding speculation and blame directed at Abraham Lincoln. But that, I suppose, is modern media storytelling.
Memorial Day is meant to observe the loss of all those who served this country; although sometimes the circumstances of such loss can compound the tragedy. This coming Memorial Day, as we pause to remember and honor all of those lost, perhaps a special thought for these soldiers who fought in and survived the war, only to lose their life, not on the battlefield, but on their way home.
A Hurricane delays the Blockade (Article 129)
In June, 1861, shortly after the start of the Civil War, Union military leaders, in coordination with President Abraham Lincoln, Secretary of State William Seward, Secretary of War Simon Cameron (who would soon be replaced) and Secretary of Navy Giddeon Welles, decided on a plan to blockade the primary ports of the Confederate States to impede commerce by sea. The blockade was planned to affect the flow of weapons and consumer goods into Southern states and to limit the export of cotton and tobacco out of the South to other nations. The plan looked great on paper, but there was one major problem.
The Union Navy, for all practical purposes, did not exist!
The Union Navy only had about 40 ships in service with another 50 in various stages of repair. Even if those 50 had been sea-worthy, there were no trained crews to sail them. Of these 90 ships, most were older sailing vessels and the newer and better ships were on patrol across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and nowhere near the Southern states’ coastline. With over 3,500 miles of Confederate coast and more than 180 possible ports of entry to patrol, the blockade would be the largest such effort ever attempted. As it was, President Lincoln learned that only three battle ready ships were in the vicinity and available to start the blockade; while the plan required nearly 200 ships to have any chance to be effective.
The blockade plan would have to be deferred!
Navy Secretary Welles quickly added to the logistics staff to repair ships as needed. Warships patrolling abroad were recalled, a massive shipbuilding program was launched, and civilian merchant and passenger ships were purchased for naval service. Recruiting the needed ten thousand sailors and officers quickly reached a fever pitch and intensive training began. Remarkably, after only three months, by September, 1861, nearly 80 steam driven or steam assisted, and 60 sailing ships, were added to the fleet, and the total number of battle ready ships available, with trained crews, rose to 160. Plus, another 52 warships were under construction.
Secretary Giddeon now had his Navy!
Although a bit short of the number needed under the complete blockade plan, it was time to start. In the first phase, by late October 1861, more than 80 ships carrying US sailors and soldiers had assembled at the massive Hampton Roads port in Northern Virginia, which had been captured by the Union, and set sail for the South Carolina coast. That state had been the first to secede and was home to the first shots fired of the Civil War in Charleston Harbor earlier in April 1861. Its several large ports were handling much of cargo in and out of the Atlantic seaboard of the Confederate states and would be one of the primary targets of the new blockade fleet.
The plan was finally being implemented.
The ships formed three long columns, sailing in parallel and for the first few days, the seas were calm and the winds favorable. But in 1861, weather forecasting was not as sophisticated as today and communication at sea about weather changes was by line-of-sight flags only, with little advance warning. (Obviously, there were no radios back then.) Unknown to the officers in command of the fleet, they were sailing directly into the path of a hurricane.
As it would turn out, the sailors and soldiers on board those ships would have to fight for their lives, not against Confederate forces as planned, but against a raging sea!
On November 1, the winds gained speed, and over the next few hours turned dangerous. The orderly columns of ships, each in a struggle for its own survival in the gale, began to separate, and the fleet scattered. The stress on the (mostly) wooden ships was beginning to show as the ships rolled and pitched in the storm. The passenger soldiers, not trained in seamanship, were called upon to help keep the ships afloat. Although the waves were large enough for seawater to flood the upper decks as they washed over the ships, many of the ships also had breeches in their hulls, allowing water to pour in below decks. Masts broke, steam stacks toppled, paddle wheels came apart, and supplies lashed to the decks were washed overboard.
With superb seamanship by officers and crews, (and unbelievable luck) only one of the 80 ships was lost, but there were over 700 men aboard that ship. Two other nearby vessels undertook a dangerous rendezvous in high seas, and rescued almost all of the men before the ship sank. But unfortunately, seven perished and became the first casualties of the Union blockade; five were soldiers, not sailors, and may have been doomed due their lack of experience at sea.
On November 4, the damaged fleet began to assemble off the South Carolina coast and, after necessary repairs, the formations were ordered to begin the blockade. The first major confrontation with Confederate ships and land forces occurred at Port Royal Sound, near Hilton Head, SC. By November 7th, the fleet had driven off the Confederate ships in the Sound, and soldiers from the fleet had captured the forts which were protecting the harbor. From there, the Union fleet dispersed to blockade other major Confederate Ports and harbors.
Over the next three years, elements of the blockade fleet patrolled the seas off the Confederate coast, interdicting traffic in and out of the hundreds of ports.
But was the blockade successful? By most measures, yes. It slowed the out-flow of cotton, the south’s main source of foreign revenue, which helped devalue the Confederate currency, and caused irreparable harm to the southern economy. However, it was not as successful in preventing incoming weapons and military supplies, which helped enable the Confederate army keep fighting into 1865. How did Southern forces partially evade the blockade by the Union Navy? By using “Blockade Runners!” Although 1,500 of these smaller and faster ships, which could dock in the many small inlets along the coast, were intercepted, hundreds more avoided capture, many achieving multiple voyages. They delivered critical supplies into the Confederacy and were a nemesis for Union ship Captains charged with the blockade.
To most historians, the decision to blockade Southern ports was instrumental in the outcome of the Civil War. But it also affected the United States even after the war, because the blockade plan forced the government to build and form a modern Navy, which became the largest Naval force in the world.
And that legacy continues today.
A Confederate Rationale - Lost Cause (Article 128)
“The South will rise again.” - Anonymous
The term “Lost Cause” originated in 1866, after the Civil War ended, when William Pollard, a newspaper publisher, wrote “The Lost Cause, a New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.” He stated that, although their cause had failed, secession was necessary to protect rights of individual Southern states from Federal interference. He believed that the eleven states which had joined the Confederacy, and the Southern White citizens, were victims of Northern states’ greed and an effort to control the Southern economy. He believed further that the North had shown a callous willingness to sacrifice thousands of young men in a war of attrition to meet those goals. He also added that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant who pushed an unconstitutional war and emancipation mandate to destroy southern culture.
And he had plenty of supporters among the leaders of Southern states who needed someone to blame for a lost war and the devastation their people suffered as a result. Preservation of States Rights probably seemed like a more palatable explanation by the Southern leadership, which had touted secession and was willing to go to war, than the actual reason stated in almost all of their written declarations of succession; the preservation and perpetuity of slavery. Not States’ Rights, but Slavery.
For two centuries prior to 1860, the agrarian South had developed a culture which, in many ways, represented a more European aristocratic influence than that of the more industrialized North with its much larger population of immigrants. The South was perceived by many Americans and Europeans as more genteel, courteous, and refined, especially among the plantation ownership class. (Of course, the slaves did not enjoy a genteel and refined existence, nor did most of the poor White farmers.)
While secession was driven by political leaders who intended to perpetuate slavery through the formation of the Confederacy, the War was fought, in large part, by hundreds of thousands of southern young men who did not own slaves. Their reasons varied, but might be summed up by one captured foot-soldier who was asked by a Union officer, “Why do you fight us so?” The young man said, “Because you are here!” Their gallantry and sacrifice deserved a nobler justification than the preservation of slavery.
The “Lost Cause” rationale helped serve that purpose. But it was also intended to raise the spirits of the millions of other southerners who survived, but who had lost so much!
The Civil War had devastated much of the South’s financial base, including large areas of farms, plantations, and transportation infrastructure, and had removed the economic system driven by slave labor. By 1866, a year after the war ended, the South’s antebellum culture was in danger of being lost in the chaos.
William Pollard hoped to give Southerners a rallying cry; so he came up with “The Lost Cause!”
The stated goals of the “Lost Cause” movement were to help retain a sense of pride in Southern citizens for their “righteous” effort and to salvage as much as possible of the 200-year-old aristocratic Southern culture. Those goals were understandable, but other unfortunate beliefs of the “Lost Cause” were that slavery was benevolent, the Black race was suited to their fate, and the forced loss of that labor system on the South as a result of the Civil War was an unfair, and unconstitutional, imposition by the North. In fact, in the South, the term Civil War was often replaced by the terms “The War of Northern Aggression” or “The War of Northern Invasion,” or “Lincoln’s war against the South,” or, the more benign, “The War Between the States.”
Jubal Early, the Confederate General who had harassed Washington DC on occasion with rapid in and out attacks near the city, became an outspoken adherent and leader of the “Lost Cause” movement. Early was a proponent of slavery and White supremacy, and in 1870 (five years after the War ended and four years after the abolition of slavery) wrote: “Reason, common sense, and safety of the White race, required that the inferior race should be kept in a state of subordination, the condition of domestic slavery as it existed in the South before the war.”
Perhaps he may have been upset that he did not get his way!
After the Civil War, Early became committed to the preservation of the “Antebellum” Southern culture and to the personal legacy of Robert E. Lee, who he considered “As near a saint as any man who ever lived.” Early saw the “Lost Cause” movement as a way to favorably portray the sense of dignity, honor, loyalty, and chivalry of the Confederate civilian and military leaders, and the women who stood by them. In 1867, Early, working with William Pollard, formulated six tenets of the Lost Cause:
1. A commitment to State’s Rights led to secession, and was the cause of the “War of Northern Aggression,” not the need to preserve slavery. Secession was both Constitutional and necessary due to Northern political degradation of Southern interests. The South was morally and constitutionally correct to fight for state sovereignty, which the Southern states had not surrendered when they signed the Constitution in 1789.
2. The Confederacy was defeated militarily only because of the Union’s overwhelming advantages in men and supplies, and the North’s willingness to fight an immoral war of attrition without regard to the number of lives lost.
3. Confederate Officers, and the men under them, were heroic and honorable because of their willingness to stand and die for their beliefs. Their refusal to attack northern cities and civilians was gallant and moral.
4. Robert E. Lee should be revered above all other Southern officers and gentlemen as an honorable, heroic, and even saintly, figure.
5. Southern women were loyal to their men and their cause, and their sacrifices deserve reverence.
6. Africans were faithful slaves, loyal to their masters, served in a benevolent system, and were unprepared for free status. Slavery was, therefore, morally justifiable.
As biographies and memoirs of former Confederate leaders began to emerge, the “Lost Cause” rationale was frequently woven into their renditions; especially those of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, General Nathan Bedford Forrest, and of course Jubal Early. One notable exception was former Confederate General, Robert E. Lee, who never penned a memoir, and who did not directly support or join a specific “Lost Cause” group. However, General Lee did provide historical records and wrote letters about his recollections of troop strengths, heroism of others in battle, and sacrifices of Southern civilians. Several of his biographers speculated that Lee probably believed and would have supported four of the Six Tenets; but not his individual accolades nor the tenet describing slavery as benevolent.
But, by 1870, Jubal Early sadly noted that he could already see a decreasing interest in the “Lost Cause” among Southerners who he felt were moving on, “without the reverence for the Confederate sacrifices I hoped would last for generations.”
That year, however, two events occurred which recharged the movement. In January, the Commonwealth of Virginia was readmitted into the United States with federal troops withdrawn from civilian areas. Then, on October 12, 1870, Robert E. Lee died, and the outpouring of grief, respect, and the reverence which Early had thought was waning, again embraced the South. Confederate veterans’ groups were formed, and women started organizations like the “Daughters of the Confederacy” and similar historical societies, all with elements of the “Lost Cause” as part of their foundations. While some of these groups fostered a persistent hope that “the South will rise again,” in most cases, all that these people wanted was reasonable respect for their past and hope that the positive aspects of their culture would endure. In fact, the “Daughters of the Confederacy” organization made it a mission to erect memorials and statues to the Confederacy and its heroes throughout the south. And, for the next fifty years, the group commissioned hundreds of commemorative works that were placed on university campuses, town squares, and cemeteries.
However, not all “Lost Cause” adherents were satisfied to simply try to preserve a genteel and honorable culture.
While some historians link the rise of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) during this period to the “Lost Cause” movement, most note that five of the Six Tenets were about self-appreciation, and none were about violence and retribution. However, when Southern states regained the right to have their own civilian political structures, rather than those imposed by reconstruction laws imposed by the Federal government, some proponents of the “Lost Cause” pushed for new “Black Code” laws to keep the former slaves downtrodden.
These laws carefully avoided the legal definition of slavery but could force involuntary servitude on former slaves who were convicted of a crime, whether real or fabricated, unable to pay debts, or even tricked into agreeing to serve “voluntarily” for years if provided a small parcel of land. The KKK was instrumental in the development of the “Black Code” laws, and frequently, and violently, enforced the provisions.
Until near the end of the 20th century, in some areas of the South, there would be periods of resurgence of the KKK, and violence would accelerate against individual Negroes, sympathetic Whites, and civil rights organizations; but most historians attribute that to cultural racial discrimination and do not directly connect the “Lost Cause” movement to these events.
Late in the 19th century, some historians began to note a subtle shift in the organizations, other than the KKK, which supported the “Lost Cause.” They seemed to move from solemn memorialization of the Confederacy to designated holidays and celebrations; probably because the last of those who were directly involved in the war were dying out. There are still many Southern groups that celebrate the more positive goals of the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy, (courage, honor, fighting for a belief) and strive to keep those relevant in today’s South.
Remember that the “Lost Cause” was formulated after the end of the Civil War, but there are some who are still ready to fight old battles!
There are a few groups who still embrace the “Lost Cause” in its entirety, defending the right of states to secede, lamenting that the war was either an unconstitutional invasion of the South or that it was needless because slavery would have eventually died out, and promoting segregation as an appropriate racial philosophy. These groups often refer to themselves as “Confederate Avengers” in their publications, and some even celebrate the birth date of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin to show their contempt for Lincoln and his determination to preserve the Union by defeating the Confederacy. Unfortunately, White supremacy still rears its ugly head within these groups.
The position of some with Southern heritage still is that, if the North had not “invaded” the southern states, slavery would have died out over the next few generations without a devastating Civil War. Of course, they give no consideration to the four million men, women, and children who were slaves in 1865; and for those who would have been born over the next few generations who would also have become slaves. Further, they usually do not offer a date at which slavery might have “died out” or ceased to be economically feasible. Was it to be twenty years, thirty years, fifty years,…. or more?
Fortunately, while still seen in some pockets, the impact of the “Lost Cause” on the Southern culture has waned as the population shifted with immigration from other parts of the country, civil rights laws were passed, and of course, simply the passage of time. By in large today, even those with a long-term Southern heritage, disavow White supremacy and the intolerance it brings, and are loyal citizens of the United States. However, we must acknowledge that there are some “Lost Causers” who espouse bigotry, intolerance, and even another secession, and they are teaching that to another generation. That is why we should be aware and still keep watch.
Sacrificing Montgomery Blair (Article 127)
Abraham Lincoln was a master, and very practical, politician and, early in his career, as an Illinois legislator, he showed that he was not above trading votes or favors to obtain an outcome he desired. He did not lose that willingness to deal and compromise when he became President of the United States.
Abraham Lincoln was grateful for the early support the politically influential Blair family from Maryland gave him as he considered his chances for Vice President, or a long-shot chance at President at the Republican Convention in 1860. After Lincoln’s nomination as President, Montgomery Blair, son of the family patriarch, Francis Preston Blair Sr., worked on his behalf to help him win the election. The Blairs probably did not swing too many Republican votes over to Lincoln, but they served to deflect some of the criticism coming at Lincoln from the faction of Democrats who supported the candidacy of Stephen A. Douglas. Although the Blair family had switched to the new Republican Party a few years earlier, Francis (senior) still held some influence with those more moderate Democrats, especially those who opposed secession.
Lincoln saw Montgomery Blair as a soothing political voice and asked him to serve in the new Cabinet; in which Lincoln had already appointed at least three political opponents who did not get along that well with each other. Montgomery was expected to be a moderating influence when issues became heated. Equally important, Montgomery had excellent credentials to become a Cabinet member; he was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, a proven administrator, and a successful lawyer. Lincoln selected him as the Postmaster General, which was a powerful Cabinet position at that point in American history.
And Blair became a successful Postmaster General. He cleaned out pockets of corruption, replaced several incompetent postmasters, incorporated a standard postage rate system based upon weight and distance, and established the postal money order system which minimized the need to mail currency and, which in turn, drastically reduced postal theft. He also helped negotiate the first postal treaties under which mail could be sent internationally using the postage stamp (or mark) of the country of origin. All in all, a good run as Postmaster General.
Unfortunately, he was not as successful as a mediator of Cabinet disputes as Lincoln had hoped. In fact, Blair, Salmon Chase, the Attorney General, and Edwin Stanton, who had replaced Simon Cameron as Secretary of War, could not stand each other and rarely even had civil conversations. Historian Doris Kerns Goodwin, called them a “Team of Rivals” not just because some had opposed Lincoln for President, but also because they were all opinionated, strong willed, politically astute, and saw each other as rivals for power in the administration. In reality, Abraham Lincoln himself was the only person who seemed to be able to quiet the arguments (and tolerate the ambitions) of the various members.
But, in early 1864, Lincoln was unsure if he would be re-nominated by his Republican Party, and, even if he won the nomination, he thought his chances for reelection as President seemed remote. The reason; the war was proving longer, more destructive, and more deadly than the voters in the North, and Lincoln himself, had expected. Even Lincoln said that the people had good cause to turn-out his administration.
And, within the Republican Party, an old antagonist was rising to challenge Lincoln for the nomination in 1864.
John C. Fremont had been a General early in the Civil War who, without the permission of the President, decided to impose a degree of martial law in an area under his control, and even granted emancipation to some slaves in the conquered territory. This was long before Lincoln was ready to consider emancipation, so he directed the General to reverse the order; however, instead, Fremont hesitated and sought political support against the President. He even sent his wife to Washington to ask Lincoln to reconsider. But the President stated that he was concerned about “Government by the generals” and replaced Fremont. However, Fremont’s stance had won him supporters from the Radical Wing of the Republican Party who wanted harsh treatment of Southerners and were ready to grant emancipation to slaves in areas captured from the Confederates. Now out of the military, Fremont resurfaced in early 1864 as a Republican candidate for the nomination as President.
He was after Lincoln’s job!
In the mid-1800s, new political parties seemed to rise, flourish for a while, and then fragment over internal issues, and disappear. Lincoln and other moderate Republicans had good reason to fear that a campaign by Fremont might divide their party and permit the Democrats to regain the Presidency. That was exactly what had happened to the Democrats in 1860 when they splintered into three factions and allowed Lincoln to win the election with only about 40% of the popular vote. (His Electoral College count was, however, a substantial majority.)
Montgomery Blair, and his family, were opposed to Fremont’s policies and those of other Radical Republicans, especially those in Congress, such as Thaddeus Stevens in the House and Charles Sumner in the Senate. Stevens and Sumner were relentless in their attacks on Lincoln and his administration for the slow pace of victories in the war and objected to any sign of leniency toward the South. Fremont catered to their interests and hoped to receive their support for the nomination. The Blair family vehemently fought against any consideration of Fremont as a nominee for President; however, their animus was personal, as well as for political reasons. Earlier in the War, General Fremont had ordered the arrest of Colonel Frank Blair, Montgomery’s brother, for insubordination! Although the charges were quickly set aside by Fremont’s superior officer, the incident caused extreme embarrassment for the Blairs.
And the Blairs never forgave, nor ever forgot.
The Blair family actively worked for Lincoln’s re-nomination through the months leading to the 1864 Republican convention, but also worked just as diligently to thwart any hope Fremont had of defeating Lincoln. We do not know much the Blairs’ contributed to Fremont’s failure to unseat Lincoln at the Convention; however, Lincoln’s supporters were well organized, Fremont never gathered any traction, and Lincoln won the nomination (again).
But Fremont, and his supporters did not go away!
They contemplated a run that same year for the Presidency as a separate party; a prospect that could doom Lincoln’s already shaky opportunity for a second term. There was no likelihood that Fremont could gather enough votes to actually win the election as President, but it was probable that he would drain away enough votes from Lincoln to permit George McClellan, the Democratic candidate, to be elected. If that happened, Lincoln believed that McClellan, who would then become President of the United States in the middle of a Civil War, would likely negotiate a peace agreement that left the Confederacy (and slavery) intact. After all, McClellan promised as much in his campaign. Such an outcome was abhorrent to Lincoln after so much sacrifice to restore the Union.
Abraham Lincoln had many good qualities, but he was also a practical politician with all of the manipulative characteristics which that can imply. So, Lincoln did what politicians have always done.
He made a deal.
Fremont agreed that he would not form a third party and would withdraw his candidacy, and the Radical Republicans would then support (or at least not oppose) Lincoln in the General election. The price; Montgomery Blair would resign as Postmaster General. It appears that Fremont likewise never forgave nor forgot the Blair family’s intrusion in his military career or in his attempt at a political career.
To Montgomery Blair’s credit, he graciously resigned his Cabinet post. While the agreement did not assure Lincoln would win the election, it removed a major obstacle at the time. But, war is unpredictable, and that summer and fall of 1864, the tides began to turn in favor of the North, and Lincoln won the election handily for a second term.
Montgomery Blair and his family, who all understood more than most how the world of politics really worked, remained close to Lincoln. In the early months of January, 1865, (before Lincoln’s death) the family’s work behind the scenes was critical to help secure passage, in the House of Representatives, of the Thirteenth Amendment, which, when ratified by the states later in the year, would abolish slavery in this Country.
But before such landmark legislation and a Constitutional Amendment could become law, Abraham Lincoln needed to win a second term. He would need a sacrificial lamb to fend off Fremont; and, fortunately, Montgomery Blair willingly accepted the role.
Think of that. A politician who put his Country’s well-being ahead of his own ambition. Strange then, and stranger today!
Christmas 1864- Four Men Celebrate
One was a Union soldier, one a Confederate soldier, and two were Presidents. They all sought a brief respite on December 24th and December 25th, 1864, when, as best they could under their circumstances, and in their own way, they celebrated Christmas.
Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier, was near Petersburg, Virginia, just outside Richmond, the Confederate Capital. He and his men were preparing for an assault on Richmond, but did not know when the orders might occur. However, if and when the order came, the men were organized, well supplied, and ready. The Confederate Army trenches were close enough to hear voices and an occasional crack of a rifle whenever some southern soldier would attempt a long shot, which was usually more disruptive than deadly. On Christmas Eve, two chorale groups of Union soldiers had come into Elisha’s area and sang Christmas carols and popular ballads. The food was plentiful, warm, and tasty by Army standards; and they had all of the coffee they wanted. His unit had constructed new tight tents, which kept out the wind and most of the cold. He wore a clean uniform and had a warm coat. On that Christmas morning, which was on Sunday, there was a brief service, but there was work to do, as they continued to improve their housing and water supply and to train for their coming mission. Of Elisha’s four Christmases in the Union Army, Christmas 1864 was probably the most comfortable, and least dangerous (for now). And, as his letters home indicated, Elisha was becoming more confident that the Union would defeat the Confederacy within a few months and the war would end. And, perhaps, if he was lucky, he would get to go home.
On December 24th and 25th, Sam Watkins, a young Confederate soldier, was near Nashville, Tennessee, actually not too far from his home. The weeks leading up to Christmas, 1864, had been fraught with deadly encounters against Union troops and several friends had recently been killed. He had no shelter, a threadbare coat, and their officers had ordered that no fires be built to prevent the Union batteries from determining their exact location. Food was sporadic, so the men were both cold and hungry. They too waited orders for an assault, but Sam was worried they lacked leadership since so many of their officers had been killed, or some wounded so badly they had been sent away from the front. Sam felt the troops were too dis-organized to be successful and worried the carnage, which was sure to follow, would not accomplish anything. Although he had mentioned Christmas earlier in the war, it must have been far from his mind as he huddled on a frozen hill those two days and nights in Tennessee. He wrote that he had lost hope of a Confederate victory and the dream of a Confederate nation, and he was unsure if he would ever see home again. In his four years in the Confederate Army, 1864 was likely his most miserable Christmas.
On December 24th and 25th, 1864, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, was at the executive mansion in Richmond with a massive Union Army, including Elisha Rhodes, only a few miles away. While he would not have then admitted to even the possibility of defeat, he must have known the cause he championed was in trouble. He was receiving reports from his Generals that were not encouraging nor heartening as they spoke of retreats, entrenchments, and minimal supplies, not of victories. But at least he would spend Christmas 1864 surrounded by his wife, Varina, and their children. The mood was subdued in the Executive Mansion, as the inhabitants reflected on the solemnity of the times they faced. Because most of the Southern ports were controlled by Union forces in December 1864, the flow of goods was limited. Even agricultural supplies from the Shenandoah Valley, the so-called bread-basket of the South, were restricted and the citizens of Richmond were dealing with severe shortages. The cupboards of the Southern Executive Mansion, although not bare, had to be carefully managed to stretch the supplies. That Sunday Christmas morning the Davis family attended a worship service before returning to the Executive Mansion. There was a Christmas tree in the house and Mrs. Davis tried her best to keep the spirit of Christmas alive, especially for children. Mrs. Davis frequently devoted time to a local orphanage which housed children of soldiers killed in the war. These children were often deprived of even the basic necessities, and she was determined to give them at least one happy day. She gathered as many presents as the local ladies could muster, certainly some gave up gifts for their own children, and gave the gifts to the orphans. But Mrs. Davis wanted to lift the spirits of some adults too, so she invited many of the local young ladies, and as many young officers as could be excused from duty, to a dance on Christmas evening. Because there would not be an elaborate food and beverage array at this dance, she referred to it as a Starvation Party to make light of the circumstances. Jefferson Davis joined in the festivities, perhaps relieving some of stress he was certainly under. Christmas 1864, for Jefferson Davis, was to be the last with his family for several years. He would spend Christmas 1865 in a Union prison.
Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, had just been re-elected to a second term. The Washington White House was well stocked for the holidays, with plenty of food for dinners and receptions, The mood in the White House, and of its primary occupant, was on the upswing. On December 22, President Lincoln received word from General William T. Sherman that Savannah, Georgia, had surrendered, completing a Union march across that state, dividing the South, and securing the coastal ports in that area. The telegram to the President read “I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah.” While there was no Christmas tree in the Lincoln White House (because visitors were prone to stealing decorations), there were evergreen wreaths and other festive decorations, and several formal receptions were scheduled over the holidays. Lincoln knew that the war would not last much longer, the Confederacy would be defeated, the Union would be preserved, and slavery would soon be outlawed. (The Senate had already passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which would make slavery illegal, and he was prepared to press the House of Representatives on the issue.) His wife Mary, and two sons, Robert and Tad, were with him, adding to his joy at the occasion. The family attended a church service that morning and had dinner together that evening. (Lincoln, as usual, worked for a while in the afternoon.) With that in mind, 1864 was probably the closest to a “normal” Christmas for the Lincoln family during the four holidays of his Presidency. However, Abraham Lincoln would not see Christmas 1865.
Of these four men, only Sam Watkins and Elisha Hunt Rhodes, returned home to their families in 1865. Jefferson Davis, never having given up hope for a Confederate victory, was captured by Union troops in May 1865 as he tried to escape to Texas and fight on. He would be in prison for the next two years. Of the four, Abraham Lincoln was the only one who never had the chance to return home after the war.
For most of us, with our circumstances not nearly as perilous as what these four men and their families faced, we should also be able to embrace the Christmas spirit. So, as Elisha Rhodes, Sam Watkins, Jefferson Davis, and Abraham Lincoln might have said one hundred and fifty-nine years ago, “Merry Christmas!”
Families at war (Article 126)
During World War II, the United States Military, for the first time, faced public pressure to not put several brothers together in harm’s way. When the five Sullivan brothers all perished in 1942 while serving on the U.S.S. Juneau, which was sunk by Japanese submarines, Generals and Admirals were forced to amend their policies. Actually the Navy had an advisory policy to inform enlistees that multiple family members should consider not serving on the same ship, but the Sulivan brothers wanted to serve with each other. For many Naval officers until then, if there was any thought given to brothers (or fathers and sons) serving together, it was believed to be good for morale or that they could watch out for each other. But no concern was given to the mothers and wives who would suffer multiple tragedies from which they might not ever recover. A side note to this tragedy was that the brothers decided to enlist because the husband of their sister had died on the U.S.S. Arizona during the attack at Pearl Harbor. The grief from the loss of these five men combined with the husband’s death earlier must have been unimaginable for their mother and sister.
During the Civil War (and probably most earlier and later conflicts) it was common for multiple family members to serve in either the Union and Confederate militaries, and for some to even serve in the same units. Since entire regiments in the two armies were raised in local communities and counties, often the recruited soldiers were connected by family (fathers, sons, cousins) or they at least knew each other.
Many of the new soldiers realized that they should not serve in the same units as their fathers or brothers, however, they still wanted to serve. So numerous families had multiple members serving at the same time, many at great risk, but just on different fronts. But while the death of even one family member in battle is deeply tragic for any family, the loss of multiple members must lead to compounded despair for those remaining, and those family were subject to that greater risk.
In 1864, Abraham Lincoln was told that a mother in Massachusetts had lost five sons in battle for the Union. Although, it would be learned later that two had actually been killed in action, while three were unaccounted for at the time but survived, neither President Lincoln, nor the mother, knew there would later be some better news. Here is the letter, he felt compelled to write:
To Mrs. Lydia Bixby
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln.
(That letter was highlighted in the movie “Saving Private Ryan” which told the fictional story of the search to find and return home a young soldier whose three brothers had been killed in action.)
But there were many, many families during the Civil War, from both sides, who watched large contingents of their fathers, sons and brothers march off to war, and who learned later that some of them would not be coming home.
These are only a few such stories of real families who faced this hardship.
Five brothers of the Shaver family served the Confederacy in Tennessee units, and two were killed in action and another spent two years in a Union Prison camp. These were rural farmers, who did not own slaves to work their fields, so the women and younger boys were left to handle the hard work without them. Actually, that was a story of numerous families throughout the South. Many of those farms failed because there wasn’t sufficient help to plant, maintain, and harvest crops or because the women and children could not defend against marauding soldiers from both armies who would steal crops and animals.
Eleven members of the Hershey Family from Keytesville, Missouri, served in the Confederate Army (several served as sharpshooters, snipers in today’s parlance) and everyone of them survived the war. With a casualty rate of over 15% for both sides, having all eleven come home was nothing short of a miracle.
Then there were the “Fighting McCooks” of Carrollton, Ohio. Two brothers, both in their sixties at the time, Dan and John Cook, and their fifteen sons joined the Union Army, although only three sets of younger brothers served together in the same unit. Six members of the family became Generals, and all but two became officers. Five of the men were killed in action or died while in service. Some historians credit the McCook family with having the largest number from any one family to serve in that war, but this writer is not so certain and suspects that some families, especially in the rural south, may have had more members in service to the Confederacy. While neither army kept the type of meticulous records we are familiar with today, clearly, the Confederate Army was the worse of the two, making it impossible to use enlistment records to compile a list of all family members who may have served. As alternatives, old letters, newspaper stories, and family lore, contributed to the knowledge available today.
On a personal note, in the Dorris family, my great grandfather (Josiah M. Dorris), two of his brothers, and five of his cousins, all joined the Union Army, in the same Illinois regiment, in Williamson County. All came home!
And, although not as common as multiple members of the same family serving in the same Army, there were also those family tragedies where there were divided loyalties between the Union and Confederate causes. In these cases, we find fathers against sons and brothers against brothers, perhaps the saddest family situation when Civil War erupts. Another future article will describe some of these families’ turmoil.
A short essay such as this cannot list all families who suffered the absence, and sometimes loss, of multiple family members in the war between the states. So, these are only a few examples.
If any readers have other similar stories from their Civil War ancestors, especially if they had divided loyalties and served separate causes, please let me know.
Thanksgiving Special (2023)
We might not celebrate Thanksgiving Day, as we do, if Abraham Lincoln had not responded to a letter from a lady named Sarah Hale.
Most of us today, and possibly even Abraham Lincoln as a child, were taught that Pilgrims in North America declared a Day of Thanksgiving in 1621 to celebrate their first harvest and there is an enduring tale of members of the Wampanoag tribe joining with the new settlers in a feast. It is believed that they shared deer, lobster, fish, oysters, squash, carrots, and maize; and possibly turkey, duck and goose as one report said the men went “fowling”.
Over the next hundred and fifty years, there were occasional proclamations by civic and religious leaders which encouraged people to be thankful for a historical or recent special event, a good harvest, or even a political or military victory; but those were singular celebrations with no recurring annual similar holidays.
In 1777, while the Revolutionary War was still being waged and victory was uncertain, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation designating Thursday December 18, as a Day of Solemn Thanksgiving.
Then, on October 3, 1789, President George Washington proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day for Thursday, November 26. However, since Washington was not prone to issue any type of religious orders, he began the proclamation with this disclaimer, “Both houses of Congress have requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed.”
Thereafter, a few Presidents issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; however, none designated a recurring November holiday. Also, several Governors proclaimed Thanksgiving Days, but they were scattered all over the calendar.
In 1830, a determined woman named Sarah Josepha Buell Hale made it her personal mission to have an annual National Day of Thanksgiving! She was a well-known editor and novelist, who wrote Mary had a Little Lamb, and who also wrote, in 1828, a popular novel, “Northwood, Life in the North and the South” in which she envisioned a future of regional reconciliation after an end to slavery. This was nearly twenty-five years before Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the more impassioned and successful anti-slavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” For thirty years, Sarah used her public persona to lobby individual states and Congress to declare a Thanksgiving Day and, by 1860, thirty-one states had done so; however, she had no success with Congress or with the four Presidents who preceded Lincoln . As editor of the popular Godey’s Lady Book and The Ladies Magazine, she and her readers continued to “encourage” (her word) and “pester” (one congressman’s word) national politicians to establish a specific day for Thanksgiving.
Then, Abraham Lincoln became President and in the midst of a Civil War that continued with no victory in sight, in 1861 he and his Secretary of State, William Seward, decided to issue a proclamation requesting the nation’s citizens pray for guidance. And then, in April 1863, the two men collaborated to issue another proclamation for prayer.
But soon, Lincoln would have to deal with Mrs. Hale! She knew that he had issued the two earlier proclamations for prayer, however, she wanted a designated day “for all Americans to put aside sectional feelings and local incidents” and “to be thankful for the blessings of life, not of war.” In late summer, 1863, she wrote of her hopes in a letter to President Lincoln, which he promptly shared with William Seward, and he asked Seward to draft a Presidential Proclamation which would include the universal and conciliatory themes that Sarah Hale had proposed. Lincoln only made a few changes to Seward’s draft which, for the first time, established a fixed date of the last Thursday in November for the national observance. The two men issued “Thanksgiving Proclamations” in November 1863 and again in 1864.
Seward was a devout Episcopalian and his wording tended to be more ecclesiastical, while Lincoln, who was no less spiritual, tended to use simpler terms. Between them, they produced four memorable documents. The reader can find the full proclamations by searching for (1) 1861 Proclamation for Prayer, (2) April 1863 Proclamation for Prayer, (3) 1863 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, and (4) 1864 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.
(Note that Congress later adopted a resolution making Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday in November to avoid confusion in those infrequent years when there are five Thursdays in the month.)
However, because of an assassin’s bullet on April 14, 1865, the 1864 proclamation became President Lincoln’s last. On the other hand, Sarah Hale lived to see her vision become a treasured special day “to be thankful for the blessings of life.” By Thanksgiving Day 1865, the Civil War had ended and a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery was nearing ratification by the states; however, unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln did not get to see the changes. That year’s Thanksgiving proclamation was issued, unenthusiastically, by Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln as President.
But as Mrs. Hale, Lincoln, and Seward had wished, the National Day of Thanksgiving is still observed across all lines that, on other matters, may divide us; such as geography, ethnicity, religion, and politics. Hopefully, in a year of serious political divisions, we will try to honor that message as we celebrate this special holiday.
My family will celebrate this special Day and be “Thankful for the blessings of life” as Mrs. Hale and Abraham Lincoln hoped. I hope you also have a wonderful, and reflective, Thanksgiving Day. Abe would!
The Lady was a Soldier (or not!) Article 125)
“She has led a remarkable life” – The New York Herald
“I loved my country and was prepared to die to see the Confederate cause live.” -Loreta Valasquez”
“The Kardashian of the Civil War” – William Davis, author of “Inventing Loreta Velasquez”
What to believe? Was she a young woman who disguised herself as a man and fought in several Civil War engagements? Or, was she a fraud who wrote a fictious book of her exploits after the war for money? Or, is the truth somewhere in between?
According to her narrative, Loreta Janeta Velázquez was born in Cuba in 1842 to a Spanish father and a mother of French and American ancestry. Her father owned a large ranch in Mexico where the family often resided; but he lost the ranch and most of his wealth in 1848 in the Mexican War. He returned to Cuba and quickly regained his financial position, becoming a leader among the Cuban aristocracy. He resented the United States for its “invasion of Mexico” and instilled in his daughter a distrust of the American government. He appreciated education and sent Loreta to New Orleans to attend school where she lived with a French aunt and became fluent in French, to go along with her command of English and Spanish.
In 1856, at fourteen years old, she became engaged to a young Spaniard, whose family had ties in both New Orleans and in Cuba. The engagement was arranged by the two families, but Loreta was already beginning to display the independence that would mark the rest of her life. It is unclear from her memoir whether she actually married the Spaniard in a formal ceremony, which she later referred to as a marriage of convenience; however, she soon eloped, at age of fifteen or sixteen, with a U.S. Army officer. For the next few years she moved with her husband to several military assignments and grew permanently estranged from her family.
This earlier information seems to be historically accurate; however, the rest of the story, as they say, is a bit murky. Most of what we understand came from a “memoir” written by Loreta ten years after the Civil War titled, “The Woman in Battle.” She sub-titled her book, “A Narrative of the Exploits, Adventures, and Travels of Madame Loretta Velasquez; Otherwise known as Lieutenant Harry T. Buford, Confederate States Army.” Evidently, long subtitles were common in that period.
The following episodes are from her memoir. (Note that she varied the spellings of her name, even within her memoir, as either Velasquez or Velázquez.)
According to her account, at the outbreak of the American Civil War, Velasquez’s husband resigned his U.S. Army commission and joined the Confederate Army. At first, her husband supported her request that he help her enlist, after, of course, she was disguised as a man; but he soon decided the idea would not work and would put his career in jeopardy. She would not give up her plan, however, and obtained a uniform, wore a fake mustache, adopted the name Harry T. Buford, and enlisted. With her obvious education, she was given the rank of Lieutenant and asked to travel to Arkansas to recruit troops to be stationed in Florida; ironically, where her husband had been stationed. She was successful and recruited over 200 men and travelled with them to Florida; where she placed them under the command of her husband. She did not record whether her husband was astonished, or proud, or both; nor whether they resumed any semblance of husband and wife. Her husband was killed shortly thereafter in an artillery accident and Velasquez (Lt. Buford) asked to be relieved and to be assigned to Confederate forces preparing to engage the Union Army in Virginia.
This is where her story becomes even more murky, but this is what she claimed.
She fought at the first battle of Bull Run (called Manassas by the Confederacy) and survived fierce contact with Union soldiers. She wrote that she would also occasionally wear female clothes and move through Washington DC, undetected, return to a battle area, re-don her disguise and uniform, and report her findings to Commanding Officers
The battles farther west in Tennessee and Mississippi were raging and she managed to be re-assigned again to fight with Confederate units there. While in Tennessee, she received a wound in battle; but it was not serious and no one discovered (yet) that Lt. Buford was really a woman.
At Shiloh, Mississippi, she found the battalion she had raised in Arkansas and fought with them in that famous battle where she was again wounded, this time more seriously, and was taken to a doctor. He quickly discovered he was treating a woman and she decided that Lt. Buford had served enough; and she never again wore the Uniform.
She went to Richmond, Virginia and offered her services as a spy and went frequently into Washington DC and even into Union battle camps, then reported her findings back to Confederate officials. At some point, she married again to Captain Thomas De Caulp, who also died of wounds soon after. Not yet finished with her efforts for the Confederacy, she went to Ohio where she hoped to organize a rebellion by Confederate prisoners of war, but she was unsuccessful.
After the war, she married again to and moved to Venezuela; however, that husband died in Caracas and she returned, penniless, to the United states. At some point in these travels, she had had a baby boy, who accompanied her on all of her future exploits.
And, according to her book, she had more exploits.
She wrote that she traveled to mining towns in Nevada, where she received several offers of marriage and accepted one; but never mentioned the man’s name. After that, her son became her only companion.
Her book was published in 1876 and she clearly stated in the preface that she wrote the book for money to support her family. However, she insisted it was a truthful account of her life.
If only half of her story is true, she led a remarkable life. If it was all fiction, it was one imaginative tale!
When her book was first published, a few newspaper reporters attempted to verify her claims by interviewing Confederate veterans who had served in the battles she mentioned, but none could specifically recall her. Confederate General Jubal Early responded on more than one occasion when asked, that he did not believe she could have fooled other soldiers. (Although we now know that several women did get by with a similar masquerade as noted in the postscript to this article.) Generally, historians dismiss most of her claims, but the book contains so many specific details of camp life, battleground actions, and conversations with historical figures, that much of it seems, at least, plausible. Several of her biographers over the years have agreed that some of her experiences likely occurred, but were “enhanced” in her book. However, William Davis, who published a recent biography, believes she was “a fraud and a liar” with regard to her Civil War exploits and wrote that she was the “Kardashian of the Civil War”, in no uncertain terms. According to Davis, Loreta Janeta Velázquez died on January 26, 1923 as Loretta J. Beard in an asylum for the insane in Washington DC.
Her full life story, at least as she told it, is certainly fascinating. She may have served as Lt. Buford in the early days of the War and may have spent some time in army camps. But as for me, I think she took a basic story of her brief experiences and wove a grand (but largely false) memoir.
But, give her credit, she was a great storyteller!
(Postscript: There are better documented cases of women who joined either the Confederate or Union Army disguised as a soldier; perhaps as many as several hundred. A blog which I published earlier, Article 118, Women Soldiers, North and South, covers some of these women including, among others, Sarah Edwards Seelye, Jennie Hodgers, Mary and Molly Bell, and Mary Ellen Wise. It may be found under “Blogs” at the website www.alincolnbygadorris.com
Q & A September 2023
I recently received the following two questions from readers. Over the years, I have answered similar questions about whether slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but the issue keeps coming up; so I tried again this year. I did think the perspective of the reader was interesting. My response to the second question is just my historian streak still trying to combat a continuing misrepresentation about the origin of some political axioms.
(Q) My family had an interesting and near chaotic conversation over the 4th of July. While we are all from South Carolina, some of us now live in other states. The conversation turned to the reasons Southern states, including South Carolina, seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861. Was it because SC wanted to retain slavery, or because SC wanted to exercise States Rights, or for purely economic reasons? Those in my family who stayed in South Carolina were vehement in their belief that it had nothing to do with the retention of slavery and was only about a State’s right to control its own destiny, with maybe a few economic issues thrown in. I and my group of those who left the South, just as vehemently argued it was, above all else, to perpetuate slavery. My ancestors at that time were merchants, doctors, lawyers, and clergymen and none of us believe they owned field slaves, but may have owned or rented house servants. Since several of the ancestors fought for the South, the group still living in South Carolina was offended by the tie to slavery and asserted that they would have had no reason to join in the fight to preserve slavery. According to them, our ancestors believed the North wanted to control the South so they fought against tyranny. They argued that Lincoln invaded the South and was a tyrant, thus, they had no choice by to defend their honor and their State. Some of them were angry that Slavery is even discussed and some of us are ashamed that it is part of our legacy. What do you think?
(A) Slavery was the root cause that North and South could not resolve their differences. First, let me quote Jefferson Davis (who became the first and only president of the Confederacy) when he was still a U.S. Senator, before secession occurred. “Secession is possible unless something is not done. I again ask, what is to stop this agitation before the great and final object of which it aims, the abolition of slavery in the states, is consummated. Is it then not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?” (underlines are mine). There it is, Slavery or secession, not states’ rights was his position. Jefferson certainly thought that a state had the right to secede from jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution if it felt aggrieved by the federal government; but he chose to exercise that State’s right to assure the perpetuation of slavery. Next, let me quote from South Carolina’s secession declaration: “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws (The fugitive slave acts) to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” This was in response to several Northern states refusing to recognize fugitive slave laws which directed an escaped slave who had been captured (or who may have surrendered to Northern authorities) be returned to the Slaveholder. The protection and perpetuation of slavery was the foremost reason why the slaveocracy and political leaders of 11 states chose to secede, and risk a devastating Civil War. Of course, that is just my opinion. On another note, I sincerely hope your family can mend fences over this matter. You can’t settle this old argument by arguing even more.
(Q): I was recently sent a document which contained a list of axioms for success for our nation that have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln. They were called “Lincoln on Limitations of Government” and they include the following: (1) You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. (2) You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. (3) You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. (4) You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. (5) You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn, (6) You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. (7) You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves. (8) You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. (9) You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. I really believe these are true and I know Lincoln was a wise man who I admire. Did he say these things and if not, do you know who did?
(A): Thank you for asking rather than just re-posting on the internet and sharing. This myth keeps coming up, however, Abraham Lincoln never said it. In fact, the quote is a compilation of comments used by William Boetcker, a minister and public speaker, in the early 20th century. Boetcker was a proponent of industrialization as the proper way to national prosperity, and these were what he called "nuggets" in a series of lectures. When compiled into one document, they became known as "The Industrial Decalogue" or the "The American Charter." Then, someone decided (falsely) to credit the sayings to Lincoln. Ronald Reagan mistakenly, on several occasions, attributed some of these quotes to Lincoln, but he was not the first nor the last to do so; Governor Kasich made the same mistake in his campaign in 2016. Historians like me always try to correct the errors in responses, but the media lazily does not even try to help; and the uninformed on the internet just repeat the quote which perpetuates the myth. I even found a poster in a Springfield souvenir shop with these words on paper made to look old and with Lincoln's image over-laid; (I should have made a scene, I suppose). In his political career, Lincoln did make comments on government’s role in the lives of citizens. In one instance, when he was in the Illinois legislature, he said (paraphrased) that the government’s duty was to do for the people what they could not do individually for themselves; but he was referring to building roads, bridges, and waterways. As to these axioms, I think the message is a good one, but the wrong messenger is given credit. Remember, Lincoln is also quoted as saying “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
Old Abe was certainly wise!
Q and A from Readers August 2023
The following are questions and comments from readers I have received over the past year. I answer every one, as long as they are courteous, even if they disagree with my point of view.
Q. I recently ran across a mention of a guerilla raid by Union Cavalry that confounded the Confederate forces from Tennessee to Louisiana. The author said it was the longest, most continuous, and most successful such operation of the Civil War, surpassing the exploits of the Confederate Partisans like Mosby. It was only a footnote to the main story about Mosby’s Raiders. Do you know more about the story?
A. I can only guess that the author was referring to what became known as Grierson’s Raid. The location certainly fits. I wouldn’t, however, compare this unit to the Confederate’s Mosby’s Raiders. Colonel Benjamin Grierson was a Union Officer, commanding a Union Cavalry unit under the overall command of Ulysses S. Grant, while Mosby’s unit usually operated more independently from Confederate commanders. During General Grant’s campaign to control the Mississippi river and capture the strategic city of Vicksburg, he wanted the Confederate leaders to be unsure of his specific plans, so he created feints and distractions to keep the enemy off-guard. Colonel Grierson’s orders were to travel south through Confederate territory and cause as much havoc as possible to draw resources from the potential defense of Vicksburg. He was successful! They left Tennessee in April 1863 and rode (and battled) their way to Baton Rouge, which was already under Union control. He arrived there in May and, along the way, they destroyed Confederate supply depots, railroads, bridges, and fought skirmishes with Southern troops guarding the facilities. Col. Grierson would occasionally divide his over 1,600 troops and attack different targets simultaneously, which gave the Confederate officers the impression that his force was much larger than it was and caused confusion as they tried to figure out his mission’s goals. Meanwhile, General Grant began a siege of Vicksburg and captured the city in early July 1863. The Union controlled the Mississippi river thereafter and Col. Grierson and his men contributed to that victory. He lost about 20 men during the “raid” but killed, captured, and wounded over 500 Confederate soldiers. Not bad for a guy who did not like to ride horses! The story is told that he was kicked by one as a boy and never forgave the breed.
Q. I read an article about Abraham Lincoln’s willingness to make deals to get things done; it seems he recognized that compromise is better than stalemate, which is a noble part of democracy. But, the article also pointed out that he was willing to trade favors to get ahead politically, which is not so noble. One claim was that he fired a cabinet member, not because the man was doing a poor job, but to satisfy another powerful politician who despised the man’s family and who, in return, agreed to not run against Lincoln for his second term. Was Lincoln that ambitious?
A. Short answer, yes. He was certainly ambitious, but a person would have to be to run for that office; even then as much as now. As to the incident to which you refer, I believe it involved Montgomery Blair, Lincoln’s Postmaster General and son of Francis Blair, a powerful Republican leader. The antagonist was John Charles Fremont, a potential rival for the 1864 Republican nomination. First, you must understand that Lincoln’s popularity in early 1864 was not very high and many thought that he might lose the Republican nomination or, even if he was re-nominated, lose the election to a Democrat (likely to be George McClellan). Fremont was a formidable challenger and despised the Blair family for an incident that occurred when he and another Blair son were both in the Army. The Blair son reported that Fremont had committed some alleged impropriety and Freemont vehemently denied the charge. It was never settled to either man’s satisfaction, but the enmity was never forgotten. Fremont, who became known as “The Pathfinder” was already a national hero for his explorations of the western territories and was a popular Union general early in the Civil War. In 1862, Lincoln removed General Fremont from command for declaring that slaves in his jurisdiction were free, before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was effective. Lincoln said he wanted to prevent “Government by Generals.” Fremont then began a campaign designed to oust Lincoln as the Republican nominee in 1864. In a behind the scenes maneuver, Lincoln agreed to fire Montgomery Blair and Fremont agreed to drop his campaign. However, it wasn’t just about self-preservation for Lincoln. He was convinced that Fremont would be such a radical president that there could never be reconciliation between North and South and that Fremont would not have the political will to drive the 13th Amendment which could end slavery for all time. It was certainly a trade with the devil, but one Lincoln thought was worth it. Interestingly, the Blair family remained supportive of Lincoln in both the 1864 election and the fight for passage of the 13th amendment. I had written earlier about this episode titled, “Sacrificing Montgomery Blair” but it was not widely published. I may re-issue it for the readers of this blog.
Q. I recently saw a factoid that stated that Elias Allred was a Southern preacher, a Confederate officer, an abolitionist, and helped Union prisoners-of-war escape. Those are serious contradictions. Have you heard of him? Can this strange combination of activities in one man possibly be true?
A. Yes, most of it is true. I would say that his personal moral code made him always a champion of the underdog, even if that placed him in conflict with his other commitments. Elias Walker Allred was a Baptist preacher with a large following. But, even as a devoted Georgian and southerner, he was also opposed to the expansion of slavery, hoping the ugly institution would die out over time. With that position, however, he could not be considered an abolitionist (who wanted slavery abolished now!). He did recognize other legitimate Southern economic grievances so, when the Civil War broke out, he was appointed an officer in the Georgia militia, but did not serve directly in the Confederate Army. As an officer, he believed that prisoners-of war should be treated humanely and respectfully and demanded the men under his command do so. On one occasion, when he learned that a small group of Union prisoners was being mistreated by another Confederate unit, he arranged for their pardon and return home (but not really an escape) At the time the Civil War started, he was a significant land-owner, but used his land for cattle and timber and owned no slaves. He had a lucrative tanning business, owned a hotel and was serving as a representative in the State legislature. However, an incident in 1864, created lasting friction between Elias and some of his neighbors and within the Confederate Army. The Union Army had sent a cavalry unit in the vicinity of Elias’s home to end raids on Union trains and other supply lines by a small group of Confederate sympathizers. The Cavalry also intended to protect the many local residents who were no longer supporting the Confederate cause. Elias, and five other area businessmen, met with the Union Commander and agreed that if the Union would arm a few local residents (presumably under Elias) they could defend themselves and end the raids by Confederates. Although not specifically pro-Union, their small militia successfully protected citizens and thwarted the Southern raiders, but as you can imagine, his actions cost him the friendship of a large number of Georgians. After the Civil War ended, some of those who opposed his more enlightened views and thought he had not given full commitment to the Confederacy, looted his properties and left him nearly penniless. It did not seem to deter him. Later in his life, he organized roving squads to protect farmers who testified against moonshiners who had stolen their crops. All in all, an interesting life! I may try to put together a more informative article about him.
Q and A From Readers July 2023
The following are questions and comments from readers I have received over the past year. I answer every one, as long as they are courteous, even if they disagree with my point of view.
Q. In a recent article you wrote about women soldiers in the Civil War. One lady you mentioned was Loreta Velasquez, who has been featured on the History Chanel and in several stories about the Civil War. You do not seem to accept the historical accuracy of these accounts. Have you researched her life enough to have an informed opinion?
A. When I first started writing about Lincoln and the Civil War era over ten years ago, I ran across information about her. A few years later when I decided to write specifically about women soldiers who served on either side, I actually reviewed her original book and some magazine articles by others written in the 19th century. A friend wrote about her last year, but I respectfully disagreed with some of his conclusions. So, I have begun to research her once more and plan to publish an article in the fall. Let us just say that I probably won’t be as kind to her as was he. Stay Tuned!
Q. You wrote recently about Leonidas Polk who was an Episcopal Bishop and a Confederate General. I am a life-long Episcopalian, and our creed would not allow the ownership of another human being. How could he, as a theologian, justify supporting slavery? I know it was nearly 200 years ago, but still, even then?
A. This would require a much longer answer to be complete, but, in essence, the Southern Catholic and Protestant clergy had developed a theology, beginning in the late 1600s, that accepted slavery as a normal human condition. (At least for some “other” humans, certainly not themselves.) Polk was a supporter of slavery, but held a fairly compassionate view of how slaves should be treated as compared to many slaveholders. To justify slavery, he would cite that slaves were common in Old Testament times and slavery was not condemned by Christ in New Testament times. Plus, it had been legal in the English colonies before the United States was formed, and still legal in the new country at the time of the Civil War in 1861. Most slave owners encouraged their slaves to accept a unique version of Christianity which called for obedience to masters and acceptance of toil as righteous, while patiently awaiting a better life after death. I have read three books on the subject that ave me some insight on the subject and might help you. (1) “Cotton is King” (a compilation of 19th century essays) (2) “Charles Hogue” by Barnes. Hogue was a theologian and philosopher of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and (3) “Mastering America” by Bonner. I caution you that none are easy reads and you will shake your head at some of their reasoning. As a postscript to the Article (#123) you referenced about Polk, I added that I would research the matter of “Slavery within Southern Theology” and “try” to write an objective article for next fall. That research has not yet started.
Q. In your article about Ward Lamon, Lincoln’s friend and body-guard, you did not mention whether the two men discussed Lamon’s support for slavery and Lincoln’s opposition to it. Do you know if the subject was discussed?
A. As far as I know, there is no record of such discussions; however, I suspect they had conversations about the issue. I am not sure of Lamon’s level of support for slavery, but he was sympathetic to other Southern grievances. Lincoln was always ready to discuss his views on slavery (he hated it) and Lamon was a very outspoken character, so it is not hard to imagine that the subject came up. I can say with confidence that any differences they had on the matter, did not seem to negatively affect their common trust.
Q. I learned about Edward Baker’s friendship with Lincoln by reading two Lincoln biographies, including the one you wrote. I think he is a fascinating historical figure, even without his connection to Lincoln. Are there any biographies about Baker you recommend?
A. I enjoyed my research into the life of Edward Baker in preparation for my short article. However, there are not many full biographies of the man, and that is unfortunate because he was a colorful guy. “Edward Dickenson Baker” by Thomas Bowers, is one I could recommend. If I ever write another book like “The Lincoln Era” I would include a longer article about him.
Q. Well, I see you did it again. Your Memorial Day article honored another Union soldier. I find it astounding that you never recognize the courage, honor, and loss of Confederate soldiers. I enjoy your articles, but I believe you have a blind-side.
A. My Southern friend, I think you know I have never denigrated the courage and honor of the Confederate soldier. I do, however, frequently denigrate the politicians and the slaveocracy of the South for being willing to break this country apart to preserve slavery. And make no mistake, secession was about preserving slavery, or if you will, “a state’s right” to retain slavery.
(Q) I am sure you are aware of the Civil War Memorial in Boston to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment of Black soldiers and the unit’s commander Colonel Robert Shaw. I wrote to you a couple of years ago about my concerns about vandalism and possible removal. Now, I understand there is a new controversy brewing about the memorial and whether it should be moved. Evidently, some are objecting that the memorial depicts the White commander riding a horse, while the Black soldiers are relegated to walking beside him. Isn’t the story one of uplifting Black men and recognizing their courage? What is your opinion?
(A)The monument you reference is in front of Massachusetts State House in Boston. A few years ago, the city enclosed it with a plywood wall to both protect it from further vandalism and to repair a section damaged earlier. Fortunately, the vandals had not caused extensive damage. I visited the memorial last summer (2022) and it was fully visible and restored. A few more explanatory signs about the formation and battle history of the unit have been added, which may help prevent future misunderstandings. I am not sure why vandals chose this monument in the first place. The memorial was intended to commemorate the heroes of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, an all-Black unit of Union soldiers and the Regimental Commander, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, who was White. Colonel Shaw, and most of his men, were killed during an ill-fated land assault on Fort Wagner, a Confederate facility on Charleston Bay. Colonel Shaw, whose family were leaders in the abolitionist movement, had volunteered to train and lead the new regiment. The city of Boston, however, was not the original intended site for the memorial. The initial plan, envisioned soon after the Civil War, was to erect the memorial in Beaufort, South Carolina, near Fort Wagner; however, some White citizen groups in the area objected to the project. When the decision was made to erect the monument in Boston, numerous abolitionist societies joined with survivors of the 54th Massachusetts and emancipated former slaves to pay for the project. It would seem to me to be a memorial that should garner respect, not condemnation. I had not heard about this latest controversy, but it seems silly. During the Civil War, Senior officers rode horses and infantry soldiers marched. That is what the monument depicts to me as well the fact that they were willingly going into battle, together!
Memorial remembrance (2023)
(Note: This is a revised version of articles first published in 2019)
“Whose father was he” – Headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer
After the battle at Gettysburg, in July 1863, the body of a soldier was found by a young girl within the city in a location removed from the main battles. He wore a blue Union private’s shirt, but otherwise carried no identification, not even a unit insignia. He was, however, clutching a small glass plate image, called an ambrotype, of three children, which he had removed from his pocket for a final look before dying of his wounds.
But who was he?
The girl notified one of the many burial details around the small community which were moving bodies of fallen soldiers to a central area for identification before burial. Unfortunately, determining the name was not always possible. In the Civil War era, identifying dog tags, which are so ubiquitous today, did not exist; so, the process of recording the names of war dead was more happenstance. Some soldiers carried personal information in a pouch or folder as a means of identification. If survivors of a unit were still in the immediate area, they could help provide names and essential information such as the home state or hometown. Officers and senior Sergeants would check-off the soldiers still alive after a battle and often could record in official records, the names of those who had died. But in the chaos of battle, there were soldiers who remained unidentified and were simply buried with a marker as “unknown” or, even more tragic, in a mass grave.
The burial detail she summoned permitted the young girl to keep the plate image of the three children, to whom she now felt a connection. Her father ran a small tavern and boarding house in a village nearby, and the girl placed the picture in a prominent location as a way to honor the unidentified soldier. Patrons would note the display and soon people came into the tavern just to see the image and ponder the sad circumstances. It was not unusual for Gettysburg artifacts to be on display in businesses and homes in the area, as the great battlefield was littered with weapons, hats, badges, and other paraphernalia carried by soldiers. But this item struck a chord with many who saw it.
The girl had asked the burial detail to inter the soldier’s body in an individual grave, marked with the date and location where his body was found, and the words “A Father” added as a reminder. A local resident provided a plot, and they all hoped that someone, somehow, sometime would eventually provide a name.
Within a few days, one person, who just happened upon the tavern and saw the display, decided to try and identify the family. John Bourns, a physician from Philadelphia was on a volunteer mission to Gettysburg to help care for the several thousand wounded who were still near the battlefield. Dr. Bourns asked the tavern owner if he could take the image and show it to some of the wounded men in the hope that the unusual item might be recognized. Unfortunately, he found no one who recalled the image.
However, Dr. Bourns did not give up. First, he located the grave, which had been marked as requested, and placed a more permanent sign explaining the image held by the dying soldier. Then, when he returned to Philadelphia, he had copies printed on small cards with his contact information and, began to hand out the cards and sent them to various publications.
On October 29, 1863, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a letter, not from Dr. Bourns, but from someone who had received one of the cards. The Inquirer re-printed the letter with the image on the front page. The caption read, “Whose Father is He” and continued with, “How touching, how solemn.” The writer then went on to tell the story he had heard about the soldier’s dying effort to see his children’s faces and added, “What pen can describe the emotions of this patriot-father as he gazed upon these children, so soon to be made orphans!” The writer then encouraged all who might see the letter and the image to contact other newspapers and magazines throughout the north in an effort to locate the family. Within days, the image and the story were appearing all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and throughout New England. At a time with no radio, no TV, and no internet, this story had quickly captured the attention of an entire region.
On November 3, the publisher of the “American Presbyterian” made room to include the article from the Inquirer. However, the newsletter did not have the capability of printing an image so the editor tried to describe the picture of the three children as best he could. The American Presbyterian newsletter was circulated throughout the Northeast and a copy went to a subscriber in Portville, New York, who reprinted it and circulated copies to other parishioners and churches in the area. One recipient took the letter to Mrs. Philinda Humiston, the mother of three small children, whose husband had not been in contact with her for months. Of course, she feared the worst, but had heard nothing from the Union army and knew that many Union soldiers were held as prisoners by the Confederacy. After reading the description of the image of the three children, Mrs. Humiston said that she had sent a similar picture to her husband the previous May and that she had received a letter from him acknowledging the gift, in which he wrote, “I got the likeness of the children and it pleased me more than anything thing that you could have sent to me. How I want to see them and their mother is more than I can tell. I hope that we may all live to see each other again if this war does not last to long.”
Dr. Bourns was contacted and he quickly had a copy of one of the cards delivered to Mrs. Humiston. When she finally saw a copy of the glass image, she knew that her husband would not be coming home and that her children would never again see their father.
Sergeant Amos Humiston of the 154th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, had died in the service of his country, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, nearly four months earlier.
This image of Sergeant Humiston was taken before the war. Artists later added a beard and uniform for souvenirs.
The American Presbyterian, in its publication of November 19, 1863, announced the details of the search and the resolution. Ironically, that was also the day that Abraham Lincoln gave his famous Gettysburg Address at the new National Cemetery, where Sergeant Humiston was later moved to a final resting place. This time to a well-marked grave.
As it turned out, most of Sergeant Humiston’s 154th New York Regiment had been captured by Confederate forces on the day he was killed, so no one who knew him was available to identify his body. Therefore, without a young girl’s compassion, and Dr. Bourns’ willingness to devote time to the effort, Sergeant Humiston’s family would never have had closure and his sacrifice would not have been honored.
And, he has been honored.
Bourns raised several thousand dollars selling the cards he had made and gave a portion, as well as the original ambrotype, to Mrs. Humiston. He then used the rest of the proceeds, plus fees from the sales of a poem about the story, to build an orphans’ compound in Gettysburg. Amos Humiston’s family was the first to live there.
And, in addition to his grave, which visitors can visit today, a commemorative plaque can be found near the place where he fell. Sergeant Humiston may still be the only enlisted soldier with an individual memorial at Gettysburg.
Rest in Peace, Amos Humiston and all of the other hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in service to this nation.
POSTSCRIPT
But who was Sergeant Humiston? Why was he found alone? Certainly, there must have been more to his life story than his unfortunate death and more to the man than a brief obituary.
And there was.
Amos Humiston was born in New York, in 1830 and spent his childhood there. Before he settled down, Amos wanted to see the world and when he was nineteen years old, he joined a whaling crew; although, he had never been on a ship! Amos was not reckless, just eager, and he learned that the ship “Harrison” was captained by a man known to be fair (but firm) and he was accepted as a “green” sailor. This was a hard life, with danger at every whale encounter. And it was a long tenure. The Harrison took almost three months to sail into Pacific waters and then the ship reversed course and followed the whale migration into the North Pacific and back into the South Pacific; for three years! There were ports along the way where their cargo of whale oil and whale bone could be sold or traded for more supplies, so Amos Humiston did get to see the world. He said in a letter, however, that the “work is much harder, much bloodier, and much smellier, and the storms are more frightening” than he imagined. But, once on a whaling vessel, there is no opportunity for a change of heart, so his home was the Harrison and Amos became an experienced sailor.
When he finally returned to New York, he went into the leather finishing business a few miles from his boyhood home. He was skilled and industrious, and his business flourished. Amos was twenty-three years old when he met Philinda Smith and he wrote “It was as if struck by lightning” and within weeks, they married on July 4, 1854. Over the next five years, the Humiston’s had three children and life was good for their family.
But the United States, after only about eighty years as a new nation, was in peril! Amos was a vocal supporter of the Union and, when the first seven states did secede and form the Confederate States of America, he believed that President Lincoln was right to force the seceded states back into the Union through military action. Amos did not immediately join the army or the local militia because, after all, like almost everyone else in the North and South, he thought the war would quickly end; and he had a business to run, a family to care for, and he was already thirty years old. However, a year after the war had started, and after a few Confederate victories, Amos decided it was his patriotic duty to serve, and on July 26, 1862, he enlisted in the 154th New York regiment.
Amos regularly wrote to his family, describing army life, but his letters also indicated that he was ready for battle and prepared for the dangers involved. Also, he had been promoted to Sergeant. On May 2, 1863, Sergeant Humiston and his men were thrust into battle at Chancellorsville and were handed a stunning defeat. Of the 60 men under Sergeant Humiston, 12 were killed or missing and another twelve severely wounded, a staggering forty percent casualty rate. While he was struck in the chest by a bullet, it must have already lost speed, because he only received a bad bruise. He wrote to Philinda that night, “It could have been worse, but it made me think of home and you and the children.”
A few days later, Sergeant Humiston received the special gift from his wife, the ambrotype image of his three children. He quickly wrote back to her the same day, writing in part,“…it pleased me more than anything you could have sent to me. How I want to see them and their mother is more than I can tell. I hope we may all live to see each other again….”
Then, Sergeant Humiston and his men were given orders to march out of Virginia, toward Pennsylvania, to a small town called Gettysburg.
They arrived on July 1, 1863 and were ordered into the outskirts of Gettysburg, to help halt a Confederate charge that threatened to break through the Union lines. It was a poor decision by Union officers, because Sergeant Humiston’s 154th New York unit was vastly outnumbered and most of the 154th regiment who did not die in the quick engagement, were surrounded and captured by the Confederates. A few Union soldiers who were not captured attempted to flee back toward the town. Among those who retreated, evidently, was Sergeant Amos Humiston. At some point in his scramble, he must have lost his personal pack, which would have contained some identification and, probably, letters from his wife.
But he never made it. Sergeant Humiston fell to the ground on the outskirts of Gettysburg. He propped himself up against a fence, removed the ambrotype from his pocket, and looked at his children for the last time.
Lincoln’s Dream (Article 124)
“Although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since.” – Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln would often tell others about dreams he had and would try to understand if the illusions held any meaning. Some historians have speculated that he thought the dreams foretold the future, but it is more likely that he understood they just may reflect a concern he carried during the day, which continued the thought process at night; although certainly greatly distorted.
Ward Lamon, Lincoln’s close friend and self-appointed bodyguard, wrote of a conversation Lincoln had with him and Mary, Lincoln’s wife, in early April, 1865, a few days before Lincoln’s death. According to Lamon’s account, Lincoln's wife Mary noticed that the President was in something of a gloomy mood, and, when she inquired, he described a disturbing dream he had earlier that was troubling him. Lamon was often close to Lincoln, even in the White House family quarters; and on this occasion, he was present, as well as another person who Lamon did not name. (According to a later version, one or both of Lincoln’s children may have been present.) Lamon wrote that, within minutes after the conversation he made notes, in an attempt to accurately re-create Lincoln’s words, which he later expanded into a more full account. As Lamon explained, “I give it as nearly in his own words as I can, from notes which I made immediately after its recital."
Lamon quoted Lincoln as saying, "I retired very late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front. I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible. I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. It was light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as if their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise. Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, some gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. 'Who is dead in the White House?' I demanded of one of the soldiers. 'The President,' was his answer; he was killed by an assassin!' Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which awoke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since."
Lamon continued with his recollections by commenting that, as if the dream itself wasn't disturbing enough, it was followed by an odd set of coincidences that only deepened the effect on Lincoln. We know that Lincoln read Bible passages almost daily, which offered him a few moments of solitude and time for reflection. After the dream, the next occasion when he opened his Bible, it fell to the twenty-eighth chapter of the Book of Genesis, which told of a wonderous dream experienced by a man named Jacob. Now curious, Lincoln flipped through the Bible again and again and almost every page he opened had a reference to dreams or visions. If Lamon’s recollections are correct, these added circumstances probably increased Lincoln’s discomfort (he said annoyance) about the dream.
However, Lamon’s was not the only written account of the episode and, depending upon who might be telling the story, certain details were different; but the main theme remained the same. The following narrative from a newspaper article did not mention Lamon, but stated that the “President’s family” was present. In this version, Lincoln was reading chapters from the Bible to Mary and “the children” which would have been Tad and Robert. We know that Robert was not at the White House until April 11 as he was on Grant’s staff in Appomattox at the surrender of Robert E. Lee on the 9th and only then came to Washington. (No other individuals are mentioned in this account.) After Lincoln would read a passage, the family would discuss the meaning of the scriptures. One of verses mentioned “dreams” and the family then discussed dreams that each had which seemed, at least to them, may have had some deeper meaning. Mary related dreams about their young son Willie, who had died two years earlier, and said that she often felt his presence for days afterward. When Lincoln mentioned that he had recently had a disturbing dream, Mary and “the children” wanted to hear more about it and Lincoln supposedly said; "About ten days ago I retired one night quite late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front, and could not have been long in bed when I fell into slumber, for I was very weary. During my slumber I began to dream. I thought there was a stillness about me, and I heard weeping. I thought that I got up and wandered down stairs. The same stillness was there. As I went from room to room, I heard moaning and weeping. At length I came to the end room, which I entered, and there before me was a magnificent dais on which was a corpse. Here there were sentries and a crowd of people. I said to one of the soldiers: 'Who is dead at the White House?' He answered: 'The President.' 'How did he die?' I asked. 'By the hand of an assassin,' was the reply. Then I heard a great wailing all over the house, and it was so loud it seemed to awaken me. I awoke much depressed and slept no more that night. Such was my dream."
Later, on the night Lincoln was assassinated and lay unconscious and dying, some accounts of the scene report that Mary Todd said, at one point, "His dream was prophetic." Most recollections of those present indicate that Mary was inconsolable and blurting phrases that might be expected from a wife who just witnessed the murder of her husband. She may have said those words about his dream, which would have had meaning only for her, and possibly for Robert, their oldest son, who was also in the room.
There is no way to know for sure if Ward’s recollection of Lincoln’s comments, or the subsequent newspaper article, is more accurate, but most historians believe that the President had the dream, somewhat as described, and shared with others his “annoyance” at the apparitions.
Ward Lamon was always convinced that there would be attempts on Lincoln’s life and wanted Lincoln to stay away from crowds where he could not be protected, but Lincoln regularly placed himself at risk. He was, as he often said, “The people’s President” and thought that he must be available and move freely among them.
On Wednesday April 12, 1865, Lamon left Washington for Richmond, Virginia, the recently captured Capital of the Confederacy, to assess public sentiment and whether there were any plots being developed against Union forces or the President. Meanwhile, back in Washington, the “Peoples President” and his wife chose to attend a play on the evening of April 14, 1865, when the “dream” became a tragic reality.