Confederates Raid St. Albans, Vermont (Article 11)
Throughout the Civil War there were Confederate operatives based in Canada. Some were on diplomatic missions to observe Canadian and British neutrality, while others were merchants who brought Southern cotton, rice and tobacco into Canada for sale or barter to return funds to the Southern states.
But there were also Confederate military forces based in Canada which, despite that nation’s neutral position, conducted raids into the northern most parts of the United States. Confederate Captain John Yates Beall led a group that harassed docks on Lake Michigan, damaged rail tracks, and even planned, but failed to initiate, an attack to free Confederate prisoners of war held in Ohio. Captain Beall was captured in the United States and charged by the regional military commander as a spy, rather than held as a prisoner of war; and he was sentenced to death by a military court. President Lincoln was asked by numerous northern politicians and citizens, who knew Beall’s family before the War, to commute the sentence but he refused to intercede. Later, Lincoln said, “It was a lack of decision I now regret because the boy was surely a soldier.”
However, the most audacious raid by Confederate soldiers, and the one farther north in the United States than any other, was at St. Albans, Vermont on October 19, 1864.
Lieutenant Bennett Young, a Confederate officer stationed in Canada, had proposed to his superiors in the South that his unit of about twenty men conduct various raids in Maine, Vermont, and New York, but had not received permission to enter the United States. The Southern leaders were concerned that Canada, and the rest of the British Empire, would consider such forays as a breach of their neutrality.
By 1864, however, the Confederate government’s financial situation was grim with their currency devalued to near zero and no new opportunities to raise money from other countries. Further, they desperately needed a successful military action which might demoralize northern citizens, energize their own people, and distract Union forces which were pushing deep into the South. So, they gave Lt. Young permission to raid into the U.S. from his base in Canada.
The military action he chose was never anticipated by any Union officials, authorities in the state of Vermont, and certainly not by the people of small towns in upstate Vermont; and probably not even by his superiors down in Richmond. He decided to rob banks!
His target was the town of St. Albans, Vermont, about 15 miles from the Canadian border, which was a central commercial hub for the area and boasted three banks. Also, the Governor of Vermont had a residence there and Lt. Young planned to burn that house and other buildings in the town, as retaliation for similar acts by Union troops in the South.
Lt. Young sent several men into town to scout the banks, any police or military presence, and find the best escape route back into Canada. They checked into two hotels in town and some passed themselves off as Canadian businessmen looking for opportunities, while others claimed to be part of a group planning a hunting trip. On October 19th, the rest of Lt. Young’s men, dressed in civilian clothes, rode into town and joined the group already there waiting on horseback. The combined force began riding through town firing their weapons and rounding up citizens who were on the streets or in nearby buildings, and herded the crowd into the town’s central park. The raiders told their captives that they were only a part of a larger force of 100 Confederate soldiers who were there to take over the town; not a true number, but certainly effective crowd control, at least for a while. Selected soldiers in three teams then charged into the three banks at the same time, overwhelming the small staffs and a few customers. In later testimony, one soldier said that they did not expect much resistance, and had no intention of hurting anyone; however, they were heavily armed and had additional men stationed on the outskirts of town to fend off any pursuit by citizens or authorities.
The first few minutes of the robberies went as planned and all three units emerged from the individual banks and onto the streets at about the same time, with their bags full of cash; a surprising amount of over $200,000! (Adjusted for inflation, the haul was worth over $5 million).
But then, Captain George Conger, a Union officer on leave, broke free from the containment at the park and ran through several buildings to an area not controlled by the soldiers. He rounded up a few men and they all quickly found arms and began firing at the Confederates. In the exchange of gunfire, one citizen was mortally wounded and died three days later, while one Confederate soldier also died a few days later of wounds. As they hastily retreated from St. Albans, Lt. Young’s men, on orders to burn the town, threw incendiary devises into several buildings, but they failed to ignite and the raiders never even made it to the Governor’s house.
The Confederate force returned into Canada where all were eventually captured by Canadian authorities and most of the money was confiscated as evidence. But, using a defense that theirs was a military mission, carried out only in the United States, the Canadian prosecutors and courts determined that no crime had been committed in their territory. When Secretary of State William Seward demanded that the soldiers be extradited to the United States, Canadian courts again blocked the move. Some politicians and other leaders in the U.S. recommended that Union soldiers be sent into Canada to capture and return the Confederates; however, President Lincoln would not allow any such action across the border. In the long term, Lincoln’s careful response was appreciated by the British who made it clear to the Confederate government that further “expeditions” from Canadian territory would be considered a “belligerent act” upon the British Empire. In 1865, Canada returned some of the stolen funds, but, in the year since the raid, much of the money had just mysteriously disappeared.
In 1911, when he was seventy one, the former Lt. Young returned to Canada and a contingent of St. Albans citizens met with him in Montreal. He told the group that despite the controversy his raid caused in Canada, he appreciated that a few sympathetic Canadians had helped him get some of the money to Richmond. And, he said, that while he regretted the loss of life, it was a wartime raid and he considered his mission a success.
On October 19, 2014, St. Albans commemorated the 150th anniversary of “The northernmost military action by Confederate forces.”
One resident noted that, this time, although there were several “Southerners” in town again, the only shots were taken by photographers and bar patrons.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
The Sultana Tragedy (Articles 9 and 10)
(Part 1 explores the event and the official findings of the investigations. Part 2, takes a closer look at the connection to Abraham Lincoln.)
Imagine this, if you can.
You have just been repatriated from one of the worst Confederate prisoner of war camps, after nearly two years of captivity under horrific conditions. Somehow, you managed to survive but you have seen thousands of your fellow prisoners die in the camp from malnutrition, rampant disease, and a lack of medical care for their wounds. And, you are leaving behind several thousand others who are yet too weak to be moved. But you are going home! You endure three days of travel overland to the Mississippi River port of Vicksburg where you find yourself 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. You follow the officers’ orders to move forward to begin to board a large riverboat at the end of the dock and you realize that you will be very crowded for the three day voyage upriver. But, you are going home! Despite being packed in so tightly, over the next two days you can feel the spirits rising among the men and some begin singing the patriotic songs of the Union, others sing sacred hymns and rejoice, and still others sing the ribald verses it seems only soldiers and sailors know. And, you are all going home! The ship gets quiet about midnight and you try to get as comfortable as possible. Then, in a split second, you are engulfed in scalding steam and fire, and in that moment, you realize you will not be going home.
Neither would over 1,700 others who died that night on the Sultana!
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 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 at the time. There were, 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.
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; but more about that in part 2.
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently aired a documentary on “The History Detectives” about the disaster on the Sultana. The show accurately described many of the details, however, in my opinion, unnecessarily injected overly dramatized scenes and in a sensationalized story line, speculated that Abraham Lincoln bore responsibility for the tragedy.
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 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, 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 went to an area where passengers had already been recorded; so those additional men were never included in the final passenger count.
When the Sultana steamed away from Vicksburg, Mississippi, on April 24, 1865, we can only estimate that there were more than 2,300 passengers on board. What we do know is that at least 1,700 perished and, while over 500 were rescued, many had terrible injuries.
I certainly believe it is past time that the Sultana disaster receives historic attention and, for that, I applaud “The History Detectives” documentary. I only wish the tone had been more somber and thoughtful, and less dramatic and sensationalized.
Part 2, The connection to Abraham Lincoln.
When the Sultana exploded about 1AM on April 27, 1865, more than 1,700 people died and over 500 were injured, and all but 300 were recently repatriated Union prisoners of war. Unfortunately, the story is not well known; but, by comparison, 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.
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, 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.
A recent PBS documentary on “The History Detectives” covered most of these facts, but may have left the mistaken impression that Abraham Lincoln bore responsibility for the tragedy. That is a stretch of facts, but deserves review.
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 long time 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 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? (a) The faulty boiler was the official cause. (b) The military inquiry was haphazard due to the end of the War. (c) Reuben Hatch was quickly discharged as the Quartermaster Corps largely disbanded; and he then hid from investigators. (d) And, as before, likely more help from Ozias.
I do not believe, however, that it is 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 seems to me 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.
To learn more about the Sultana, I recommend the following sources. “Disaster on the Mississippi” by Gene Saleker, Naval Institute Press, 1996 and, for a brief review, an article available on line in the American History Magazine June 6, 2006.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Lincoln’s Unsteady Indian Diplomacy (Article 8)
Abraham Lincoln was noted for his reasonable approach to personal conflicts and, as he grew into the Presidency, his willingness to listen and not act in haste was helpful when faced with serious diplomatic problems. However, Lincoln was not at his best when dealing with Native American issues and it may have been a result of his family history.
Lincoln’s grandfather, also named Abraham, had been killed in a Shawnee raid in 1786, and Lincoln’s father, Thomas, then only five years old, witnessed the murder. Thomas himself narrowly escaped death in the same incident when his older brother shot and killed an attacker who was ready to strike young Thomas. After the death of the elder Mr. Lincoln, the surviving family lost their Kentucky homestead, and the story was told and retold with some bitterness by Thomas to his young son Abraham. Although there were several small tribes near their later homes in Indiana and Illinois, the Thomas Lincoln family had little interaction with Native Americans for many years.
However, in 1832, a group of several hundred Sauk and Fox Indians crossed the Mississippi river and raided settlements in Northern Illinois. At the request of the U.S. Army Commander in the area, the Illinois governor called for volunteers for the State Militia to attack and expel the Indians. Abraham Lincoln, then 23 years old, was elected as the Captain of a unit, the customary way to select officers in militias, and he led his men in preparation for what became known as the Black Hawk War. His unit never engaged in battle but he did see the aftermath of the conflict. One of his friends said later that Lincoln could not understand why the first response by so many Indians was often violent; as if he could not recognize that the Indians may have endured prior indignities by White settlers. Lincoln’s narrow view of the issues facing the indigenous tribes was certainly learned at an early age from his family and others who had immigrated to the frontier.
During the period from 1840-1860, Lincoln resided in Springfield, Illinois where almost all Native Americans had left the area, moving farther west and north; so he only had a few contacts with individual Indians, and almost no encounters with tribal issues for those years. In letters from that time, he only made minimal references to Indian affairs, but clearly he believed that that the White expansion westward was a benefit to the Country; and he accepted the fact that the tribes would be impacted. Actually, Lincoln, like many of his countrymen at that time, believed that the “civilizing influence of the culture of the new Americans” would eventually prove advantageous for the Indian societies.
In 1862, however, he was forced to face a serious situation when, as President, he sent Union troops to Minnesota and the Northwest Territories to quell an uprising by a force of several combined tribes of Sioux. General Polk’s U.S. Army units captured over 500 Indian warriors and, through military courts, condemned 303 to death; and then he planned a mass execution. When Lincoln read the dispatches from General Polk, he intervened and ordered that no executions were to occur until he could personally examine the charges against each man. Lincoln said that he wanted to assure that, “only those who were directly involved in killing, mutilation, and rape” were subject to the death penalty, and he eventually reduced the sentences of most of those who were convicted. However, he did not commute the sentence for 38 of the men in what then became the largest mass execution in American History.
Soon thereafter, Lincoln was scheduled to host a delegation of Indian Chiefs from different parts of the country at the White House, arranged by Indian Agents who were government representatives to the various tribes. The meeting’s purpose was to diffuse conflicts arising because some tribes were assisting the Confederate forces and others were expected to oppose the new intercontinental railroad and telegraph systems. In a planning session to discuss protocols, before the actual meeting, Lincoln said he intended to ask those Chiefs who had tribal members supporting the “rebels” if they had considered their fate when the Union won the war; however the Agents suggested a “softer tone.” Then Lincoln, in an undiplomatic moment, said that it might be difficult to reach agreements with the Indians because “we are not as a race so much disposed to fight and kill one another as our red brethren.” Most in the planning session thought it was an incongruous statement considering the terrible loss of life continuing on both sides in Civil War battles. Lincoln quickly realized the gaffe and began to speak of the nobility of the tribal leaders. Later, at the official meeting, Lincoln was cordial and respectful to the assembled Chiefs but allowed the Agents to cover the more serious matters. However, his earlier comments probably reflected his true sentiments.
Like all of us, Abraham Lincoln had a few “blind spots” where even his usual calm and compassionate nature could not overcome deeply embedded perceptions. By 1864, however, through dispatches from reliable Western Generals who honestly explained the Indian perspectives, discussions with honorable civilians, including missionaries, who worked with various tribes, his ongoing conversations and growing respect for Cherokee Chief John Ross (in Cherokee “Guwisguwi” or “Little White Bird”), and probably his own introspection about his uncharacteristic bias against American Indians, Lincoln began to seek to improve relations with the tribes and to explore ways the government could provide assistance.
It seems that even good people, with honorable intentions, may have a paternalistic attitude toward those who are different, rather than what should be respect and tolerance. Lincoln usually sought to become better acquainted with those with whom he disagreed or anticipated conflict, once saying, “I don’t like that man, I think I should like to get to know him better.” It was only late in his life, however, that he was able to apply that philosophy to American Indians. But, he did finally change!
Perhaps there is a message here about overcoming personal biases, even if the epiphany is somewhat delayed.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Lincoln’s Mrs. Bixbey Letter (Article 7)
Most of us have read or listened to this famous letter Abraham Lincoln wrote to Mrs. Lydia Bixby on November 21, 1864 and had it hand delivered by William Schouler, the Massachusetts Adjutant General.
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 word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering 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
Historians consider this letter to be one of Lincoln’s most eloquent commentaries and parts of the letter appear on numerous Civil War memorials; and it was used to frame the reason for the mission behind enemy lines in the fictional movie “Saving Private Ryan.”
However, as with all things “Lincoln” the story is not as simple as it seems. Although Lincoln was told that Mrs. Bixby’s five sons had died when he penned this heartfelt letter, in fact three of her sons survived the War. At the time she received the letter, she knew that two of her sons had been killed in action and their bodies returned for burial and that two other sons were missing in action and could be presumed dead; however she knew that her youngest of the five sons was safe. What she did not know was that the two sons who were missing were actually alive and held as prisoners of war by the Confederate Army. No one knows for sure why the War Department records were so incorrect and it seems to be just one more example of the “fog of war;” but that should not diminish our appreciation for Lincoln’s sincere condolences and for Mrs. Bixby’s sacrifice and grief.
However, some authors have exploited the circumstances surrounding the letter and have clouded the history with speculation.
One claim is that perhaps Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay, may have written the letter, citing that Mr. Hay could closely mimic Lincoln’s distinctive handwriting and that Hay used the word “beguile” more frequently than Lincoln in personal correspondence. However, both Hay and John Nicolay, Lincoln’s other secretary, noted that Hay was very cautious and respectful about using his ability to write in a manner similar to Lincoln’s and usually only did so when the President requested assistance; but never to circumvent him. Also, Lincoln and Hay used the word “beguile” differently with Lincoln using the definition “to distract” but Hay using the alternative meaning “to charm” and, to me, Lincoln’s definition seems appropriate in the letter while Hay’s would not.
This controversy erupted after Hay’s death when an acquaintance conveniently “remembered” a conversation when Hay confided that he had written the letter. But almost all Lincoln historians point out that both Hay and Nicolay wrote extensively about Lincoln, were the guardians of the “Lincoln Papers,” and neither left any personal indication that Hay may have been the author.
Others charge that Mrs. Bixby was actually aware that “only” two sons had been killed in action but that she managed to convince a Massachusetts official that she had lost all five sons. Her reason, they speculate, was to gain a larger survivors’ benefit. However, I think it seems callous to even suggest that the loss of “only” two sons would somehow cause the mother to grieve less.
Some authors add the claim that Mrs. Bixby was really a deceptive individual who was well known to the Boston Police Department for other schemes, but of course, these stories only circulated after most of the principals had died.
Finally, other writers, noting that Mrs. Bixby had been born in Virginia, speculate that she was sympathetic to the Southern cause and that she destroyed the original copy of the letter out of anger at Lincoln and the War. Since the original has never been found, we cannot discount the story about its destruction; but we do have a lithograph of the original letter, which was made on November 24, the same day she received it. Also, The Boston Evening Transcript printed the complete text on the following day and implied that the editor had seen the letter and received permission to re-print it from Mrs. Bixby. Further, General Schouler noted that she only spoke of her gratitude when he delivered the letter to her. With this in mind, I do not believe she destroyed the letter in a fit of anger and I still hope that the original copy is found some day.
I do believe Mrs. Bixby knew that her youngest son was alive but she still must have mourned the deaths of four sons until months later, after Lincoln’s death, when she received word that two other sons would be coming home.
And, I believe the letter, with the sentiments so eloquently expressed, was written by Abraham Lincoln.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Lincoln Warns About Secession (Article 6)
For ten years before the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had been warning of the perils that could result from secession. However, there were numerous threats to secede made by Southern politicians and the plantation aristocracy who were willing to separate from the United States, and even risk war, to preserve their slave-based antebellum culture.
On the other hand, by 1861 with Lincoln as President, the U.S. government was only willing to engage in war to preserve the Union; not to change the status of slavery in those states where it was authorized by the Constitution. Most leaders in the North did, however, oppose the expansion of slavery to any additional states; while Southern political leaders feared that unless more states permitted slavery, the eventual result would be new federal laws interfering with, or abolishing, slavery.
Jefferson Davis said that secession is inevitable but war is not, while Lincoln said secession is unconstitutional so war is inevitable only if secession occurs. A clear clash of ideals!
As late as 1862, while the war was raging, Lincoln reiterated his position by saying (in part),”My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves I would do it.”
As a purely legal matter, Lincoln had long believed that, after a state had ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the Union was perpetual, the individual states were thereafter subordinate to the Federal government, its people were U.S. citizens, and secession was illegal; therefore no state could ever be permitted to separate from the United States. Of course, that view was not held by most Southern leaders.
However, as a purely practical matter, Lincoln also believed that if secession were permitted, the various departed states would likely further divide over time as their self- interests and cultural differences would cause future breaches. He believed the result would be several small nation-states unable to defend against foreign intervention or attacks from other states. He called it, “The worst of Europe.” Lincoln saw his duty as President to bring those “misguided state governments” back into the Union; first through diplomacy if possible, but through force of war if necessary.
His early warnings about secession included this comment in 1854 about an ill-fated attempt to keep Southern states in the Union by extending slavery to other states, “This Nebraska act is usurpation. We will say to the Southern Democrats, we won’t go out of the Union and you shan’t;” adding later, “We will stop you!”
In 1856, a Democratic candidate for President said, “If the Republicans are elected the Union will be dissolved.” Lincoln replied (in part), “We in the majority of this nation would not strive to dissolve the Union, and if any attempt is made it must be by you. But the Union won’t be dissolved. If you attempt it we won’t let you. With the purse and the sword in our hands, you couldn’t do it.”
In 1859, abolitionist John Brown was executed for his failed raid on the Harper’s Ferry arsenal, which he hoped would arm a slave revolt. Hearing new threats to secede, Lincoln said that Brown was wrong to resort to violence and his sentence was justified; but he continued with this warning to the South, “If Constitutionally we elect a President, and thereafter you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with.”
By the time of his Inauguration speech on March 4, 1861, seven of the eventual eleven states had already seceded, but war had not yet started. President Lincoln said (in part),”I hold that the Union of these states is perpetual. No state upon its mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union and I shall take care of the laws of the United States. If a minority will secede rather than acquiesce, they will make a precedent which will divide and ruin them. The central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. In your hands my dis-satisfied countrymen, is the momentous issue of Civil War. You have no oath in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to protect and defend it.”
Southern leaders certainly knew Lincoln’s position but, in my opinion, they underestimated his resolve, believing he would be an ineffective President and, if conflict came, he would not fight a war for very long. As Jefferson Davis believed, and said, “There is no fire in his fight.”
Clearly Lincoln entered the war to preserve the Union and expected that the eventual victory over the “rebellion” would restore the Union and “forever settle the issue of secession.”
Of course as the war dragged on, Lincoln saw an opportunity to abolish slavery by Constitutional Amendment and end, once and for all, the divisive issue of slavery among the states.
He just did not start out with that in mind.
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Posted in Uncategorized
Edwin Booth - Robert Lincoln Incident (Article 5)
The final version of my book, “Abraham Lincoln-An Uncommon, Common Man,” does not include this encounter between Robert Lincoln, eldest son of Abraham Lincoln, and Edwin Booth, the older brother of Lincoln’s assassin. However, it is a fascinating irony of the times and deserves a brief narration.
In an odd coincidence, Robert Lincoln was once saved from possible serious injury or even death by Edwin Booth, who was the country’s most famous actor. Edwin’s brother, John Wilkes Booth, who was also an actor but with lesser talent and public recognition, would later murder Robert’s father, President Abraham Lincoln.
The incident took place on a train platform in Jersey City, New Jersey and, while neither man could later remember the exact date, it took place in early 1864, about a year before the President’s assassination in April 1865. Robert Lincoln wrote the following explanation of the encounter:
“The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance to the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move and, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.”
However, it seems that while Robert recognized Edwin and profusely, and nervously, thanked him, Robert evidently failed to introduce himself; not surprising considering his emotional state immediately following the harrowing escape.
After Edwin’s swift rescue actions, but before Abraham Lincoln’s death, Robert was in the Union Army serving as an officer on the staff of General Ulysses S. Grant. Robert recalled the events in a conversation with a fellow officer, Colonel Adam Badeau, who happened to be a friend of Edwin Booth. Colonel Badeau then sent a letter to Edwin, recounting Robert’s story and complimenting the actor for his heroism. Booth later said he remembered that the young man very graciously thanked him but the two separated before being introduced. Until Colonel Badeau’s letter arrived, Edwin had been unaware that the man whose life he had saved on the train platform was the President’s son. Presumably at the request of Colonel Babeau, General Grant also sent a letter to Edwin stating his appreciation for Edwin’s selfless actions.
Following John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of the President, the family and friends of Edwin said that the opportune encounter and quick response to save Robert was of great comfort to Edwin who, while not overly political, had supported the Union cause and admired President Lincoln.
Robert had earlier graduated from Harvard and, after the War ended in 1865, he left the Army and began a legal career. Although he was never a politician, Robert went on to become the Secretary of War under President James Garfield, then became the Ambassador to Great Britain under President Benjamin Harrison, and later a successful railroad executive. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
This is a fine example of the old proverb, “A life saved should become a life well lived!”
contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Lincoln, Black Bill, and the N-Word (Article 4)
In the preface to my book, “Abraham Lincoln – An Uncommon, Common Man,” I wrote the following paragraph (in part) about Lincoln’s avoidance of racially disparaging language contrary to the common norm of the day.
“I have read numerous quotations by Lincoln with the words Negro, Black, and African, but not one validated quote using the pejorative of Negro or any words intended to be disrespectful.”
I was recently reminded by a reader about an incident in which Lincoln used the pejorative of Negro, often referred to these days as the “N-word” to avoid actually using it. The reader was correct. I should have been more clear in the preface because I was aware of Lincoln’s use of the N-word in a slander trial in 1856.
Lincoln agreed to represent as a plaintiff a man named William “Black Bill” Dungy, a dark skinned Portuguese who had recently married a White woman. The brother of Dungy’s new wife began to tell neighbors that he believed “Black Bill” was a Negro, and as was common with the language of that day, chose to use the N-word, as he re-told his suspicions throughout the community. Lincoln knew there were really two issues at stake; first a slander case against the brother-in-law but, even more important, he needed to avoid a criminal trial for Dungy because it was illegal in Illinois at that time for a Negro to marry a White person and the penalty could be severe, in some cases death!
During the trial for slander, Lincoln repeated, in court, the language used by the brother-in-law and then said, “If the malice of the defendant had rested, satisfied with speaking the words once or twice, my client would have borne it in silence; but when the defendant went gabbling, yes gabbling, about it, then it was that my client determined to bring this suit.”
Lincoln won the slander suit and the brother-in-law was required to pay Dungy $ 600.00 but Lincoln suggested that Dungy agree to only $400.00 as a “gesture of good-will.” The defendant was also ordered to pay all legal fees, and Lincoln asked the Judge and a few other lawyers how much he should charge. He then astounded all of them, including the defendant, when he set his fee at only $25.00 rather than the $100.00 others suggested.
By winning the slander case, Lincoln stated publicly that no other party should bring a criminal case as the point had been made moot in a court of law; and no criminal case against Dungy was ever filed.
Some abolitionists in the 1860′s and other critics of Lincoln from the safe perch in the late 20th century, argued that he should have taken the criminal case to court and attempted to use the subsequent trial (and probable appeals) to change Illinois law. One of Lincoln’s friends later remarked that “I suppose Lincoln didn’t see what good that would do for his client, Mr. Dungy, as a loss would have had terrible consequences for the man and his wife.”
In another irony of history, some of Dungy’s later descendants believed that “Black Bill” was not Portuguese after all. But, thankfully, in today’s world it wouldn’t be a criminal matter in any event.
So, although Lincoln used the N-word in the trial, I still maintain that he did not use such disrespectful language in his conversations among friends or in public discourse, despite its common usage by many people at that time.
William Seward, then a Senator but later Lincoln’s Secretary of State, once told Senator Stephen Douglas that no man who spells Negro with two G’s should ever be President. I don’t believe Abraham Lincoln spelled Negro with 2 G’s, and he became a fine President.
contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Lincoln and the 4th of July (Article 3)
Abraham Lincoln celebrated the 4th of July much as we do. He enjoyed fireworks, flags, parades, band concerts, and social gatherings with family, friends, and neighbors. The food was more likely to be hams, biscuits, and apples rather than barbecue, hot dogs, and hamburgers, but pies and even ice cream were favorites too. However, the 4th of July was more commemorative than we see today. Although it was not declared a National holiday until 1870 and only became a paid holiday in 1938 for federal employees, in Lincoln’s day the country was only a few generations removed from its beginnings and there was a deep appreciation for the date. Before the Civil War, and even during the war, both North and South celebrated the day and the founding fathers, especially George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
For Lincoln, however, after about 1846, the day also became a time to reflect on the meaning of equality as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the disassociation he saw between that noble document and the constitutionally protected institution of slavery. He wrote letters and articles for newspapers, gave speeches and made statements in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Congress condemning slavery, while admitting it was permitted by the Constitution. He proposed plans to gradually eliminate the “ownership of one human being by another” and to compensate slave owners who would voluntarily free the men, women, and children they held in bondage. By 1850 he felt he had to confront a new wave of pro-slavery activism, primarily from Southern states, which attempted to re-enforce slavery and to justify its expansion to other states and territories. He called slavery “this national abomination” and “our national shame.” He thought the country was “losing its way” and called for a return to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence; and he used the 4th of July as a focal time to express his views against any measure that might perpetuate slavery.
On July 4, 1861, his first as President, and at a time when Confederate military forces had given the Union several early defeats, Lincoln gave an impassioned speech against secession with a call for national sovereignty and unity. He stated that “a few Southern leaders had been drugging the public mind in their section for thirty years” to assure that the slave owners, not the larger public, would benefit from secession, which was intended to keep slavery in perpetuity.
Then in 1863, as the President of a country still divided and embroiled in a devastating Civil War, he wrote a 4th of July speech as a message to Congress and the American people; but, he did not deliver the speech until July 7th! A major battle was raging near Gettysburg between large armies of the Union and the Confederacy and the long siege at Vicksburg was ongoing, with the outcome of both of these epic engagements not yet known. So, Lincoln waited several days until it became clear that the Union would prevail in both areas. For the first time since the War began, Lincoln had reason to be optimistic about the eventual outcome; and his speech reflected his belief that the Union would be perpetual, but secession and slavery would not. Also, unknown to any except a few members of his Cabinet, at the same time he was drafting what would become the Emancipation Proclamation.
Unfortunately, Lincoln was murdered in April 1865 so we can only speculate about a speech he might have written for that 4th of July. The Civil War was over and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery had passed the Senate and the House and was in the ratification process by the states; so can you imagine his message? I personally think it would have been astounding!
I hope you have a wonderful, and reflective, 4th of July.
Abraham Lincoln Dad (Article 2)
Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary, had four sons. They suffered together through the deaths of two of the boys; Eddie in 1852 at three years old and Willie in 1862 at eleven. Mary also survived Tad, who died in 1871, six years after President Lincoln’s assassination. Only their first son, Robert, lived through adult-hood.
But those are only basic historical facts. Lincoln relished his role as a father. Of course, both he and Mary were devastated by the deaths of Eddie and Willie and grieved for some time. But Lincoln knew he had to still be a caring father to Robert, Willie and Tad after little Eddie’s death; and then especially to young Tad after Willie’s death (Robert was already seventeen and away at school). Mary, however, experienced incapacitating grief for much longer than Lincoln and one contemporary, speaking of Tad, noted that Abraham was now the only parent for the little boy.
There is a modern saying that almost any man can become a father, but not all become a Dad. So, how was Lincoln as a Dad?
Abraham Lincoln did not have a close relationship with his father, Thomas, who was very strict and showed no support for young Lincoln’s determination for self-improvement, including his desire to become better educated. Perhaps as a result of the restraints his father placed upon him, Lincoln became a very supportive, and permissive, father to his sons. As is common with most parents, Lincoln seemed to become even more lenient with each boy born after Robert. To be fair to Lincoln regarding his relationship with Robert, he was often traveling for weeks at a time throughout central Illinois as part of the legal circuit during Robert’s early years; however, he was at home much more as the other boys were growing up. Robert acknowledged that he knew his father loved him, but their relationship, while supportive and kind, was more formal. The younger boys certainly enjoyed more “rollicking” time with their father,
And rollick they did!
The boys were almost always welcome in Lincoln’s law offices, sometimes to the consternation of his partners. Most of them commented that Lincoln would happily sit by while his sons had the run of the office, frequently leaving a mess in their wake. Then, when the Lincolns occupied the White House, Willie and Tad had almost complete run of the place; with one Cabinet member remarking that the boys “rambunctiousness” did not bother Lincoln a bit. In fact, after Willie’s death in 1862, Tad had even fewer limitations and would frequently enter Cabinet meetings and perch on his father’s lap. Stories were told by neighbors in Springfield that Lincoln was often met by the “exuberant” boys in the street as he walked home from work; they could not wait to spend time with him. Once, when three sons were clamoring over him, a neighbor asked what the “ruckus” was about this time and Lincoln laughingly replied that he only had two coins and all three boys wanted one. In his Lincoln biographies, Carl Sandburg includes many such anecdotes and recollections by family, friends and neighbors illustrating Lincoln’s deep love for, and his relationships with, all of his sons.
So, I believe Abraham Lincoln was a Dad, in the best sense of the word.
contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com
Why this book, why now? (Article 1)
I wrote “Abraham Lincoln-An Uncommon, Common Man” to give readers what I call the “basic” Lincoln life story.
Two years ago, a teacher told me “a lot of history has occurred since you were in school that needs to be covered in the class room and, out of necessity, Abraham Lincoln is allocated less time today.” Of course, she was right. Among other newer history lessons are several tragic wars, new Presidents (including another Presidential assassination and other attempted assassinations), civil rights movement, international terrorism, technological advances, development of the space program, and the changes resulting from the word-wide internet and social media. However, that means that today’s young people, including my grandson, do not have sufficient classroom opportunity to learn about the extraordinary legacy of Abraham Lincoln.
She also reminded me that the “story of Abraham Lincoln” has been modified over time to include criticism of some of his personal traits and Presidential decisions. She was again correct as, over the past 30 years, there have been numerous books and articles that focus on a very narrow aspect of Lincoln’s life. Some delve deeply into his relationships with long-time friends, political allies and opponents, his Cabinet and Generals; whether he suffered from Clinical Depression; whether his 1863 directives to stop draft protests were violations of the Constitution and even impeachable; whether he really cared about the issue of slavery; and a few even speculated about his sexuality. Many of these authors had a scholarly purpose to provide valuable insight into his personality and political philosophy. However, there have also been revisionist attempts by some authors to inappropriately, and incorrectly, challenge his legacy to either sell more books and/or to promote a personal cause
How does a reader separate the earnest scholars from the those who only have a defamation agenda? I believe we first need to return to his basic life story, without getting lost in the minutiae. Not to disregard his faults (and he had a few) nor to embellish his attributes (and he had many), but to re-introduce Lincoln who, like all of us, made mistakes and had self-doubts, but he still managed to achieve great objectives. It is also helpful to put his statements and decisions, which some modern authors have criticized, into the perspective of the times in which he lived and the societal norms of his day. I hope my book “Abraham Lincoln-an Uncommon, Common Man” may remind those who have extensively studied Lincoln that his broad life story is still an important character lesson; and, I hope it may give to those others who are not as well acquainted with Lincoln an introduction that may result in a desire to learn more about him.