Friends, But Now Enemies (Article 106)
The Civil War left us many stories of families divided between Union and Confederate sentiments. Even some brothers chose separate sides. President Abraham Lincoln’s wife, Mary, was from a Kentucky family who had men fighting for both the Union and the Confederacy. Lincoln was especially close to Confederate General Benjamin Helm, his brother-in-law, who was killed in battle and he publicly acknowledged his grief (despite criticism by certain congressmen).
But there were also friends who, when faced with the decision to support the Union or the Confederacy, took different paths. For example, Union Commanding General Winfield Scott was a mentor and friend of (then) Union Colonel Robert E. Lee, both Virginians. It is reported that the two men wept at their final meeting as Lee announced his intention to resign his commission in the Union Army; although, as yet, Lee had not yet announced his decision to join a Virginia militia and later the Confederate Army.
Another friendship suffered from similar opposing interests and became the stuff of legend after their forces collided during a battle at Gettysburg. Union General Winfield Scott Hancock (no relation to General Scott) and Confederate General Lewis Addison Armistead served in the Union Army together before the war, although their backgrounds and experiences would not have foretold that a true friendship would develop. The Southern born Armistead was seven years older than the younger Pennsylvanian, but the U.S. Army officer corps was relatively small before the Civil War and many of the men came to know each other over time due to shared assignments.
Lewis Armistead was from a North Carolina family with a long military history dating to the start of the Revolutionary War. As part of that tradition, Lewis was appointed to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point as a cadet in 1834, but was dismissed in 1836. His departure was largely the result of poor scholastic ratings, but the fact that during a dispute, for which the purpose is lost, he broke a dinner plate over the head of cadet Jubal Early (a future Confederate General), did not help! However, with his family’s connections in the military, he gained a commission in the U.S. Army in 1839. He fought in the Seminole War in Florida and in the war with Mexico, and later served at forts in the western territories. He was considered an effective leader and was recognized for brave actions on several occasions. During those years, Armistead’s family life had been tragic as he suffered the loss of two wives and two children; his first wife died in 1850 and then a second wife, a widow he met two years later, died in 1855. However, by all accounts, he managed his grief and continued to do his jobs well; but he may have had private bouts of melancholy as evidenced by a few quoted remarks to others.
Winfield S. Hancock was from Pennsylvania and was a graduate of West Point in 1844. The two men had not met at West Point, since Armistead had already left the Academy several years before Hancock arrived. He became a career soldier and also served in the war with Mexico, as did Armistead; however, there is no reason to believe the two men met during that conflict. After returning from Mexico, Hancock held several staff positions and was considered a diligent, if sometimes strict and overly forceful, officer. He and Armistead served together at several posts in the Western territories, sometimes with their families who became acquainted; and, Hancock and his wife, Almira, were available to comfort Armistead during several of his tragic losses. Two years before the first states began to secede and the possibility of Civil War became a serious topic of conversation, both Hancock and Armistead were sent to California under the command of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston, who would later become a legendary Confederate General. During that period, the two men had the opportunity to spend even more time together and to further bond. Their friendship was certainly further helped by the kindness of Hancock’s wife, Almira, toward the widower Armistead who said, “They took me into their home and family at a time when I wanted for both.”
Photos
By late 1860, Armistead and Hancock must have discussed the subject of possible secession by some Southern states, but we have no correspondence by either man to confirm those conversations. One of their fellow officers in California asked Hancock about his thoughts on the matter and wrote the reply with Hancock reportedly saying, “I shall not fight upon the principle of state-rights, but for the Union, whole and undivided” On the other hand, Armistead was hoping only a few states might secede, and especially that Virginia and North Carolina would remain in the United States. If secessions could be minimalized, he believed war might be averted; however, if war did come, he had lamented that he would face a difficult, if not impossible, decision. But the die was cast after South Carolina militia fired on the Union’s Fort Sumter in April 1861, and the two friends must have known there would be a war. Then, when both North Carolina and Virginia seceded in May, Armistead let his loyalties be known as his home was in North Carolina and his ancestral lands were in Virginia; and, both men knew that Armistead would resign his commission in the U.S. Army!
Almira Hancock wrote of the scene as the group of officers, including her husband and his friend, had chosen their sides and planned to depart. After a farewell party, which she arranged, Mrs. Hancock wrote, “Hearts were filled with sadness over the surrendering of life-long ties.” She also wrote that Colonel Johnston’s wife began to play on the piano and sing an Irish melody called “Kathleen Mavourneen” which told of love lost: “Mavourneen, Mavourneen, my sad tears are falling. To think that from Erin and thee I must part! It may be for years, and it may be forever. Then why art thou silent, thou voice of my heart?”
Mrs. Hancock then added that Armistead and Hancock embraced and Armistead said, “Hancock, good-by; you can never know what this has cost me, and I hope God will strike me dead if I am ever induced to leave my native soil, should worse come to worse.” Armistead wanted his friend to know that he hoped war would not come, but if it did, he would fight only in defense of Virginia and/or North Carolina. His sentiments were very much like those of Robert E. Lee who said, about the same time, (paraphrased) that he would only raise his sword in defense of Virginia. (However, both Armistead and Lee would later take the fight into Maryland and Pennsylvania.) Armistead resigned his U.S. Army commission on May 26, 1861, joined a Virginia infantry unit, and was soon promoted to Brigadier General. He saw extensive action from 1861 until his unit found itself outside the small Pennsylvania community of Gettysburg in late June 1863.
Hancock, who had remained loyal to the United States and had fought in several battles, by then was a Brigadier General as well; and was also at Gettysburg, defending Union Lines.
Both men knew the other was in the vicinity! It was common for opposing Generals to be acquainted with their counterparts and to know the units to which they were assigned because that information was readily available. There was correspondence between people of the North and South, pickets regularly exchanged such information (as did prisoners-of-war), and newspapers often carried military details. In fact, one Southern diarist (paraphrased) wrote that, “The Yankees do not need spies, our newspapers tell them all they need to know.”
One of the many battles at Gettysburg over the first few days of July, 1863 was one that became known as Pickett’s Charge, a futile Confederate attempt to overcome a well-entrenched Union position. General Armistead would lead a Confederate charge that day, running with his hat held high on his sword so that his men could follow, and yelling, “Remember what you are fighting for – your homes, your friends, your sweethearts!” And, “Come on boys, give them the cold steel!”
Armistead, and several of his men were able to reach the Union lines, but then fell to withering fire and Armistead, wounded, was surrounded by Union soldiers. Armistead spoke with a Union Major who, as it turned out was on Hancock’s staff. Armistead asked about his friend and the Major informed him than Hancock had been wounded, but was alive. Reportedly, Armistead said, “My God no, not both of us on the same day.” When the Major asked if he could do anything for him, Armstead reportedly said: "Say to General Hancock for me, that I have done him, and you all a grievous injury, for which I shall always regret." Although initially he was told he would survive his wounds, Armistead’s condition worsened over the next two days. When he realized he would soon die, in a final gesture of friendship, he asked that his watch be given to Hancock along with a Bible and small prayer book for Hancock’s wife.
Historians have debated the meaning of Armistead’s apparent apology, which he confessed to the Major. Some believe Armistead had come to regret his allegiance to the Confederacy and point to the fact that he seemed uncertain at his last conversation with Hancock. Others, however, believe he was lamenting the injury to, and possible death of, his good friend Hancock. But no one knows for sure.
General Hancock’s injuries were severe, but he recovered; and he did receive Armistead’s final gifts. After the War ended, Hancock was an outspoken critic of the harsh reconstruction policies toward the seceded Southern states pushed by the Radical Republicans in Congress. Instead, he advocated that the United States should embrace the former foes, restore their congressional participation, and help rebuild the devasted Southern infrastructure. He was still a popular war hero when, in 1879, he agreed to become the Democrat party’s nominee as President of the United States. It was a time when corruption was rampant in the federal government and Hancock’s reputation for integrity was well recognized. He was not the best campaigner; however, believing any public mention of his own honesty, or his opponents lack thereof, was inappropriate. Even though his opponent, James Garfield, could have been an easy target for his political entanglements, Hancock scrupulously avoided any serious criticism of Garfield. He lost the popular vote by a relatively close margin, while Garfield more easily carried the electoral college. After the election, Hancock graciously accepted his defeat and even privately offered the new President any assistance he might request.
For all of his life, Winfield Scott Hancock was regarded as a man of honor and integrity. One acquaintance wrote, “I never knew him to speak ill of anyone, but many, many speak fondly of him.” President Rutherford Hayes said of Hancock; “If when we make up our estimate of a public man, conspicuous both as a soldier and in civil life, we are to think first and chiefly of his manhood, his integrity, his purity, his singleness of purpose, and his unselfish devotion to duty, we can truthfully say of Hancock that he was through and through pure gold.”
It appears that Hancock was the kind of man most of us, like Armistead, would like to have as a friend.
Over time, a few historians, and some writers who pretend to be historians, have questioned details about the story and infer that the deep friendship between the two men has been exaggerated. But, as he lay mortally wounded, Armistead was thinking about Hancock. It would seem that in those final moments, a soldier’s thoughts would be of those they loved, such as a mother, a father, a wife, a child, and in this instance,….. a very close friend.