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 November 14, 2022
There are over 120 articles, blogs, special edition articles, and questions from readers (Q&A) in order from latest posted to the first post in 2014.
Posting Date Title
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
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!
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.
The General Was a Bishop (Article 123)
Although, he was probably a better Bishop than he was a General!
Leonidas Polk was an Episcopal Bishop and priest, whose wife owned several slaves through inheritance and he benefited from their toil. He had no problem with the concept of slavery and believed it justified and biblical. As a young man he was educated at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, from which he was graduated in 1827. He was a vocal supporter of secession, and he later became a General in the Confederate Army.
He had been raised in a religious family and said that as a young man, while he understood the values of a spiritual basis, he was not devout. But, before his graduation from West Point, he met and was influenced by an Episcopal Bishop and during his senior year as a cadet, had a life-altering religious conversion. Shortly after graduating, he requested to be relieved of his new commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and entered the Virginia Theological Seminary (Episcopal) in Virginia.
In 1831, following his religious studies, Polk was ordained a deacon and priest in the Episcopal Church. He was considered devoted, charismatic, well organized and a natural leader by elders of the church, and he advanced rapidly through the hierarchy. By 1841 he was named Bishop of Louisiana, although his primary residence was in Tennessee where his wife’s wealthy family held large tracts of land. He and his wife lived an aristocratic life on a large plantation with a significant number of house and field slaves. While it seems inconceivable today that a clergyman would support slavery, the Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches of the South, (and a few others) had developed a theology over the prior generations, which justified slavery as a benevolent, proper, and Biblical institution. Polk, unlike some other Southerners, was known to treat the slaves owned by his family as “God’s creatures”, although clearly a subservient race. He believed, similar to that expressed by Robert E. Lee, that God would determine a time (in the future) when slaves would be gradually freed. (But just not right then!) One reason he stated for his interest in founding a new Episcopal University was that it would, over time, educate Southern aristocratic families to become more responsible for improving the welfare of the slaves. In 1860, before the Civil War started, he acquired the land for the University of the South at Sewanee, Tennessee for just that purpose. He said that he hoped it could become a symbol of enlightenment similar to Oxford and Cambridge in England.
At the outbreak of the Civil War, Polk pulled his Louisiana diocese out of the Episcopal Church of the United States to form the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America.
Although he hoped that secession would result in a peaceful separation of the North and South, and suggested that he was reluctant to take up arms personally, he did not hesitate to write to his friend and former classmate at West Point, Jefferson Davis, President of the new Confederate States of America, offering his services in the Confederate States Army. Polk was commissioned a major general on June 25, 1861
When asked by a contemporary in Richmond if he was putting off the gown of an Episcopal bishop to take up the sword of a Confederate general, he replied, “No, Sir, I am buckling the sword over the gown.”
Soon after receiving his commission, however, Polk embarrassed Davis and harmed the diplomatic balance in the neutral state of Kentucky, when, without specific orders, he took a small contingent of troops to occupy nearby Columbus, Kentucky in September 1861. Polk’s action caused the Kentucky Governor to request Union assistance to "expel the invaders". Polk had unwittingly handed Kentucky to the Union and one contemporary said, “Polk lost Kentucky without a battle or a shot.” In fact, his troops would not see battle against Union Forces until November 1861. But, Jefferson Davis continued to support Polk, and that was all he needed.
Polk constantly argued about tactics and strategy with his subordinate Generals and even with superior officers. Once, resentful that a former West Point classmate, the highly regarded General Albert Sidney Johnston, was giving him orders, he wrote a letter of resignation to President Davis , who promptly turned it down.
One of the officers on the staff of General Braxton Bragg (Polk’s Superior) later said, “Besides being a basically incompetent general, Polk had the added fault of hating to take orders.”
Bragg despised Polk and once said "He is an old woman, utterly worthless", and thought he often failed to appropriately discipline his men. Unfortunately for Bragg, and possibly for the Confederate Army, Polk remained a favorite of Jefferson Davis. So, despite ridicule from Bragg, Polk kept getting important commands.
Perhaps because of his status as a Bishop and priest, unlike many officers, Polk never used profanity. Once he listened as one of his Generals yelled to troops, "Give 'em hell, boys!", and Polk wanting to share the enthusiasm, yelled, "Give it to 'em, boys; give 'em what General Cheatham says!"
Once, Polk disregarded orders from Bragg to attack a small group of Union troops and Bragg noted Polk’s failure in a battle report. Then, at a subsequent battle (Chickamauga), Polk was ordered to initiate an attack to prevent the Union Army from fortifying their positions, but he was late forming his troops. His delay allowed the Union defenders time to strengthen their defenses and then repel subsequent Confederate attacks.
Bragg’s exasperation with Polk is clear in his reports. He wrote to President Davis, "Gen'l Polk by education and habit is unfit for executing the plans of others. He will convince himself his own are better and follow them without reflecting on the consequences." And, Bragg wrote after the war that if Polk had attacked on time at Chickamauga, "Our independence might have been won." While the speculative statement was probably not accurate, it was still a very damning comment by one General about another!
But President Davis simply transferred his friend Polk away from General Bragg.
On June 14, 1864, Polk was scouting enemy positions near Marietta, Georgia, with his staff when he and his company were spotted by a Union artillery group, which then promptly opened fire. While the first two shells came close to General Polk, causing he and the others to scamper, the third round directly struck Polk, killing him instantly.
One historian wrote that the shell that killed General Polk was, "One of the worst shots fired for the Union cause during the entire course of the war, as Polk's incompetence made him far more valuable (to the Union) alive than dead.”
Bishop/General Polk died four years before classes opened at his planned University of the South.
POST SCRIPT: Even before this post, I had received numerous questions from readers about the fact that many Confederate leaders (including Polk, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis) were devout Christians, but they supported slavery a seemingly incongruous position to us today. After further research in the coming months, I will attempt to explain their theology which justified slavery, as they practiced it. However, as an amateur historian, I may prove to be an even weaker theologian, but I will try.
Lincoln’s Protector - Ward Hill (Article 122)
He was a large man, imposing, outspoken, vain, and stern faced, unless loosened up by a few drinks of whiskey. And he was absolutely dedicated to protecting Abraham Lincoln.
Ward Hill Lamon was known as “Hill” to most family and friends, including Abraham Lincoln. Lamon was born in Virginia but moved to Illinois when he was nineteen to live with relatives. He was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1851 and he married Angelina Turner that same year; and they had a daughter, Dorothy. After Angelina’s death a few years later, Lamon married Sally Logan, daughter of Judge Stephen Logan, a former law partner and friend of Abraham Lincoln.
Lamon and Lincoln became acquainted in 1852 when both were lawyers in the sprawling Eighth judicial district in central and northern Illinois. Although Lincoln lived in Springfield and Lamon in Danville, the two crossed paths frequently when both were “riding the circuit” for trials. Lamon, a Virginian, was vocal about his sympathies to Southern grievances and thought Northerners who proposed abolition were more interested in undermining the South’s economy than they were concerned about the Black slaves. On the other hand, Lincoln, even back then, was just as vocal that slavery was wrong and needed to be limited, if not abolished. Somehow, they became, and remained, friends despite their differences of opinion.
A newspaper publisher, Clint Tilton, who knew both men, wrote: “No two men ever were more unlike than Lincoln and Lamon, but each recognized some quality in the other that was a perfect foil. Lincoln trusted and depended upon the Virginian and the latter responded with a devotion and loyalty that would inspire a classic friendship.”
One contemporary wrote, “Whenever the circuit riders reached Danville, Lamon felt it his duty to act as host to the travelers. After completion of court business, when the cavalcade had assembled at the local hotel, the Danville lawyer would bring a pitcher of whiskey and bid his guests make merry. Lincoln never drank intoxicants but otherwise joined in the jollification. When the whiskey had made Lamon ‘mellow’ enough, he would strike up some nonsensical tune on his banjo, sing ballads, and be the life of the party.”
Another wrote, “Lamon’s vanity, self-importance and ego were in sharp contrast to Mr. Lincoln’s humility. Lamon was hard-drinking and hard-fighting – as careful of his appearance as Mr. Lincoln was negligent of his. Lincoln, however, closed his eyes to all of Lamon’s imperfections and clung tenaciously to their companionship.”
Lamon joined the then-emerging Republican Party and campaigned for Lincoln in 1860. Lincoln was up against three other experienced politicians for the Republican Presidential nomination, including New York Senator William Seward, who was expected to prevail. In a gambit that worked, Lamon and his associates printed extra tickets for the meeting hall where the nominating convention was held, rounded up non-delegates from the streets, and filled the building with Lincoln supporters. That tactic kept many of Seward delegates and supporters from entering the hall and the larger boisterous Lincoln throng was instrumental in influencing other delegates to vote for their man. A representative for Seward said that the shouting for Lincoln during roll calls “Became a test of lungs.” Lincoln, surprising most observers, including Lincoln himself, won the Republican nomination. Six months later, when Lincoln was elected President, Lamon hoped that his efforts on the new President’s behalf would earn him a foreign diplomatic post or a significant domestic position. Instead, he received a letter from his friend that said, "Dear Hill, I need you. I want you to go to Washington with me and be prepared for a long stay." Lamon then accompanied the new President-elect as he traveled from Springfield, Illinois, to Washington D.C. in February 1861 to prepare for the inauguration on March 4th.
Before they arrived in Washington, detective Allan Pinkerton uncovered a plot whereby Lincoln would be assassinated when he arrived in Baltimore on his way to his March 4th inauguration in Washington. Pinkerton advised Lincoln that rather than ride publicly through the city between train stations as planned, he should take a night-time train straight through to Washington. Lamon was chosen, perhaps after demanding the assignment, to accompany him.
Lamon, who considered himself responsible for Lincoln’s safety, clashed with Pinkerton over the President-elect's protection for the trip. Lamon even offered Lincoln a pistol to personally carry, but Pinkerton, perhaps more attuned to political realities, was adamant that the President-elect should not be seen as thinking he needed to be armed to enter the nation’s capital. Pinkerton later wrote of Lamon’s interference calling him, “a brainless, egotistical fool". Lamon did not learn of Pinkerton’s disparaging remarks until a few years later because Pinkerton had asked the recipient to keep the comments confidential. The recipient? None other than Lincoln’s former law partner William Herndon, who, as requested by Pinkerton, withheld the remarks until after Lincoln’s death.
But Pinkerton prevailed in the matter of the diversionary 1861 train route to Washington DC and Lincoln, wearing a cloth cap instead of his customary tall hat as a rudimentary disguise, rode a train around Baltimore on a secret route to the nation’s capital.
Lamon, however, never believed there was a serious plot in Baltimore and wrote later, “It is perfectly manifest that there was no conspiracy, – no conspiracy of a hundred, of fifty, of twenty, of three; no definite purpose in the heart of even one man to murder Mr. Lincoln in Baltimore."
While there were many secessionists in Baltimore, despite research by many historians, no one knows for sure whether Pinkerton or Lamon was right about an actual assassination plot.
Shortly after his inauguration, Lincoln appointed Lamon as a United States Marshal of the District of Columbia, which provided him with an official law enforcement position to keep Lincoln informed of issues within the city. Then a few days later, the President asked Lamon to accompany a small group of Federal representatives to Charleston, South Carolina, a state which had already seceded from the Union and declared itself an independent nation-state. The delegation had three purposes, (1) to assess the viability of defending Fort Sumter, a large Federal installation in Charleston Bay. (2) to assess the “mind of the people in Charleston as to secession and support for a civil war”, and (3) to seek an audience with the governor to assess his plans for governing the seceded state. But Lamon overstepped his authority and suggested to the governor that Lincoln might consider withdrawing from Fort Sumter, which was a major diplomatic blunder! We do not know what led Lamon to mis-understand his role in the meeting with the secessionist Governor, but Lincoln was angered and let Lamon know. Somehow, however, the two men repaired their relationship because Lamon continued to be close to Lincoln.
For the entire time President Lincoln served in Washington DC, Lamon was never far away. Although his title did not convey that Lamon was to be Lincoln’s bodyguard, he assumed that role. Most evenings he would walk around the Executive Mansion to satisfy himself that the guards were diligent. Occasionally, perhaps hearing of a rumor that the President might be in danger, he would literally sleep sprawled in front of Lincoln’s bedroom door.
As fate would have it, one of the few times Lamon was separated from Lincoln was Easter weekend, in 1865. Lamon had traveled the fifty miles to Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederacy, which was now in Union hands. He was to assess the level of public resistance to Union occupation troops and any danger that might imply for the President. Lamon claimed in his later biography of Lincoln that he cautioned the President to not go out at night while he was away. But Lincoln did go out, on Good Friday, April 14th, to Ford’s Theater. Some recent writers have questioned Lamon’s absence on the night Lincoln was assassinated, probably just to add drama to an already tragic event. Such speculation is a dis-service to Lamon because he was simply, as always, doing his duty on behalf of Lincoln in Richmond; and that is a historical fact.
Sadly, Lamon’s last duty for President Lincoln was to ride on the funeral train back to Springfield. Later, for $10,000, Lamon purchased the funeral rail car which had transported Lincoln's remains. The car remained in Springfield, stationery on a side rail, for many years.
In 1865, soon after returning to Springfield, Lamon formed a law partnership with Jeremiah Black, a local lawyer with a modest practice. And the partnership did well, boosted perhaps with Lamon emphasizing his relationship with President Lincoln. Then, in 1872, expecting a financial gain from his association with Lincoln, Lamon published a biography of Lincoln titled; The Life of Abraham Lincoln; From his Birth to his Inauguration as President. The book was co-written by Chauncey Black, the son of Lamon’s partner. The book included purported statements by Lincoln, many of which were likely made-up, and, in any case, such disclosures, even if true, were considered inappropriate violations of personal and private conversations by most people in the 18th century. As a result, many newspaper publishers denounced the book, the public at large was offended, and very few copies were sold. Although there were many other books published about Lincoln during that time which became best-sellers, Lamon’s self-serving book was an absolute financial failure. Today, most Lincoln scholars believe Lamon revised (or even made up) purported private statements by Lincoln on many subjects to more closely represent Lamon’s opinions rather than the actual quotations of the former President. As a result, even today, that “biography” is not considered a very useful source by most historians.
Because of the negative reception of the book, the law partnership with the senior Mr. Black suffered and was dissolved in 1879. For the next few years, Lamon managed a mediocre law practice on his own and he and his wife Sally enjoyed a quiet life until her death in 1892. Lamon was cared for by his daughter Dorothy until his death on May 7, 1893. He was 65 years old.
Two years after his death, Dorothy re-edited the original biography, and removed the more disturbing and exaggerated (and likely untruthful) sections. She also added anecdotes about the two men which she had discovered in her father’s notes and which she deemed reliable. The revised book titled “Recollections of Abraham Lincoln,” was well received by editors and critics and became a best seller! And, unlike the previous edition, it is considered a valuable resource by many Lincoln historians.
In his first book, Lamon had written, “No one knew Mr. Lincoln better, none loved him more than I. My friendship did not begin with his official career. I was near him in private life; I was near him in all the darkest hours of the late struggle; I was near him when the first rational hope of peace dawned upon the land. In truth, I might say without offense to the people of his State and mine, that I retained his confidence unshaken as he retained my affections unbroken, until his own life was offered up the last great sacrifice to domestic discord, on the very threshold of peace, and in the actual blaze and glory of the nation’s triumph.” Note that the focus here was clearly on Lamon as was much of the first book.
In the second book, however, his daughter included this note her father had written, “It was my good fortune to have known Mr. Lincoln long and well, – so long and so intimately that as the shadows lengthen and the years recede, I am more and more impressed by the rugged grandeur and nobility of his character, his strength of intellect, and his singular purity of heart. Surely, I am the last man on earth to say or do aught in derogation of his matchless worth, or to tarnish the fair fame of him who was, during eighteen of the most eventful years of my life, a constant, considerate, and never-failing friend.”
Note that in this last passage included by his daughter, Lamon seems to assure that the focus was now on Abraham Lincoln, his friend and his President.
Union and Slavery in Lincoln’s Words (Article 121)
From a young man until his death, Abraham Lincoln was committed to the concept of equal opportunity for all people and to the eternal values of the United States. Although his thoughts on preservation of the Union were formed as he entered adulthood, his thoughts on slavery were formed early as he was raised in a home by a father and mother (and step-mother) who all were opposed to slavery. Then, for the last thirty years of his life, he left a record of his commitment to those two ideals in speeches and letters. These are a few of the quotes by Abraham Lincoln on the peril of secession and the existence of slavery, which define his legacy.
On the role of government: “The legitimate object of government is to do for people what needs to be done, but which they cannot by individual effort do at all or not do so well for themselves such as making and maintaining roads and bridges, providing for the helpless, young and afflicted, common schools, and military and civil departments as necessary.”
As a young legislator, Lincoln said about an Illinois resolution to support fugitive slave laws: “We protest against the passage... we believe slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy.”
“Wherever slavery is, it has been first introduced without law - it is a monstrous injustice.”
About a proposed compromise to allow the expansion of slavery to territories. “With this act, slavery becomes a Sacred right on the road to extension and Perpetuity. It cannot stand, for no man is good enough to govern another man without his consent. Even our friends in Southern states agreed in 1808 that slave trade across the waters was piracy - so how can selling a slave in this country be justified.”
“The nation must decide about slavery because no country can exist, half slave and half free.”
“Indifference to slavery is really covert zeal for the spread of slavery that I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives (us) of our just influence and enables the enemies of freedom to taunt us as hypocrites.”
Upon another attempt at compromise between slave holding and non-slave holding states: “Unless popular opinion makes itself sharply felt, and a change is made in our present course, blood will flow on account of Nebraska, and brother’s hand will be raised against brother. We are from different principles but we are agreed, slavery must be kept out of Kansas. This Nebraska act is usurpation- it would result in making slavery national. No matter what will happen, we will say to the Southern Democrats, we won't go out of the Union and you shan't.”
To an allegation that non-slaveholding states were driving slave-holding states to secede: “Who are the true dis-Unionists, you or we? We, the majority in the Nation, would not strive to dissolve the Union, and if any attempt is made it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as dis-Unionists. But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword in our hands, you couldn't do it. We won't dissolve the Union and you shan't.”
“A house divided against its self cannot stand, this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I leave you hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created equal.”
About the Dred Scott Supreme court decision that intended to perpetuate slavery: “The slavery question is more than political and more than territorial. The Supreme Court decision was just one of a thousand things constantly done to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the Negro in every state of the Union. This is the “Special Problem” that vexed our writers of the Constitution. It enters churches and makes the Methodists and Presbyterians divide their churches. This question of slavery has operated on the minds of men and divided them in every avenue of society, in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals. We cannot endure half slave, half free.”
“….the eternal struggle between right and wrong, the common right of humanity set against the divine right of Kings and tyrants. It is the same inhuman spirit that says, you work and toil and earn bread, and I will eat it.”
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.”
“This was our founders' lofty and wise and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures, yes, to all of His creatures, to the whole great family of man. The founders knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants and so they established these great self-evident rules against the day when some man or some faction should set up a doctrine that none but rich men, or none but White men were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that their posterity could look again to the Declaration of Independence to renew the battle our founders had started.”
“Let us have faith that right makes might, and that in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
“If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong”, and “When a man argues in favor of it, I feel an impulse to see it tried on him.”
“You say slavery is good. As a good thing slavery is strikingly peculiar in this; that it is the only good thing, which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.”
“Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy….Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better, or equal hope, in the world?”
“You have no oath to destroy the Union but I have a most Sacred oath to preserve and protect it.”
“The issue of War, my fellow Countrymen, is in your hands.”
To a newspaper editor who deliberately mis-stated a Lincoln position: “I have stated my principles many times, you must have read them, they will not change. If papers like yours which have heretofore garbled what I have said will now fully and fairly place my thoughts before your readers, there can be no further misrepresentation. I cannot shift ground.”
“I hold that the Union of these States is perpetual. No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union and acts of violence against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary. I, therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution, the Union is unbroken and, to the extent of my abilities, I shall take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed in all of the states. There needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none, unless it is forced upon the national authority. If a minority will secede rather than acquiesce, they 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 fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of Civil War. This government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves, the aggressor. You have no oath in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it. I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. Those passions may have strained, but must not break, our bonds of affection.”
From 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. …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.,,,”
About securing votes in the House of Representatives for the Thirteenth Amendment:
“If not now when?” And, “I am the President of the United States, clothed with great power. The abolition of slavery by Constitutional provision settles the fate, for all coming time, not only of the millions now in bondage but of unborn millions to come; a measure of such importance that these two votes must be procured. I leave it up to you to determine how it shall be done. I expect you to procure those votes.” And his representatives went out and secured enough votes for passage!
In his Second Inaugural Address he urged the Northern citizens to be “sympathetic to our friends in the South” as there were no differences that could not be overcome and forgiven. He said: “We both read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.... Let us judge not, that we not be judged, as the prayers of both cannot be answered...”
Then in his only reference to the South's insistence that slavery was a right, he said: “Yet if God wills that this war continue until all of the wealth piled up by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, so it must be said, as it was 3000 years ago, that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
He concluded with the famous phrase: “With Malice toward none, with Charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are now in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and all nations.”
Of course, even after over 150 years, we have not fully reached the aspirations Abraham Lincoln had for our country. There are still lingering racial issues and inequality, and there are vociferous arguments and even threats between the Federal Government and various states.
Have we forgotten what that can lead to?
And isn’t it worth our continuing to try to reach the ideals he envisioned.
Compelled to Serve, Edward Baker (Article 120)
Edward Dickenson Baker was one of Abraham Lincoln’s true friends and confidants.
He was an experienced trial lawyer and part-time preacher both of which contributed to his development as an excellent public speaker and, over time, he became recognized nationally as a great orator, in demand at fairs, conventions, and political rallies. He lived in Springfield, Illinois and met Abraham Lincoln in 1835, as both men were active in Illinois politics and served in the state legislature. In 1844, Baker and Lincoln both sought the Springfield area’s seat in the U.S, House of Representatives, which Baker won as Lincoln chose to withdraw rather than have a Whig party fight. Despite their competition, the men remained great friends, with Lincoln and Mary naming one of their sons (Eddie) after Baker.
Baker was also a Colonel in the local militia and, in 1844, in a famous display of commitment to the Rule of Law and legal processes (as well as personal courage) he led the pursuit of the mob leaders who had murdered Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saints religious sect. Smith was in the Carthage, Illinois jail, along with a few others, awaiting trial when the attack occurred. Baker was opposed to the fledgling religious movement, but could not tolerate mob action. Although he and his small force were outnumbered, he and his few men crossed the Mississippi River into Missouri and captured the fleeing ringleaders. Interestingly, all were later acquitted of the murder by a stacked jury; however, Baker seemed satisfied with his role in their capture and did not participate in the subsequent trial.
When the war with Mexico broke out in 1846, he resigned his congressional seat to join the U.S. Army and fought in several battles, once cited for his leadership by General Winfield Scott, Commander of U.S. forces. After the war, Baker intended to run again for Congress, but when he learned Abraham Lincoln had already expressed interest, rather than run against his friend again, Baker moved to Galena, Illinois, in another congressional district, and won that seat.
But, by 1850, he had his eye on California and decided to move to the rapidly growing city of San Francisco where he opened a law practice and was soon thriving. Although California had been admitted to the United States in 1850 with a Constitution that prohibited slavery, the state was divided over whether new states should be permitted to choose to accept slavery or not; an issue of state sovereignty. There were even discussions that California might secede; however, Baker was an outspoken supporter of California’s current Constitution and a leader in the movement to keep California in the Union. (And, in some part due to his influence, the state remained in the Union!)
In the mid-1850s, a large contingent of Illinois residents migrated to Oregon, and Baker became acquainted with that group. They encouraged him to relocate, and in 1858, he moved with his family to Salem, Oregon and opened a new law practice there. He was immediately popular and was selected as a Republican to the U.S. Senate in 1859, upon Oregon’s statehood in February of that year.
Despite the distance between them, during his ten years on the west coast, in addition to correspondence, Baker returned several times to Illinois and he and Lincoln continued their friendship.
Throughout 1859 and 1860, there were continuing rumbles in the Southern states about secession, and some dissatisfied citizens in Oregon joined the chorus. In a speech in Salem on the 4th of July 1860, Senator Baker clearly established his position. He said, “If it be reserved for me to lay my unworthy life upon the altar of my country in defending it from internal assailants, I declare here today that I aspire to no higher glory than that the sun of my life may go down beneath the shadow of freedom's temple and baptize the emblem of the nation's greatness, the Stars and Stripes, that float so proudly before us today, in my heart's warmest blood.”
His oratory skills were obviously in full bloom!
Although he was an accomplished, and flowery, public speaker, at the inauguration ceremony of Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, Baker rose to introduce his close friend as the new President and simply said, “Fellow citizens, I introduce to you, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States."
There was some speculation in newspapers and in Congress that Lincoln would appoint Baker to a position in his new cabinet, but those voices must have never spoken to either Lincoln or Baker. Both men knew Baker’s position in the Senate would be important in the first few months of Lincoln’s first term, after all, the President was elected with only about 40% of the vote and the Senate was divided among several factions. If Baker had resigned his senate seat, the Governor of Oregon, a Democrat, would have named a member of his own party as a replacement, possibly even a pro-slavery or secession minded politician. Neither man wanted to take that risk!
On April 12, 1861, the future paths for both men changed when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, and then on April 15th, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to join the Union Army to put down the rebellion. On April 19, Baker travelled to New York City to help raise troops and gave a speech before a crowd of over 50,000 people. He implored the listeners to support the Union cause and said, "The hour for conciliation is past; the gathering for battle is at hand, and the country requires that every man shall do his duty. If Providence shall will it, this feeble hand shall draw a sword, never yet dishonored, not to fight for honor on a foreign field, but for country, for home, for law, for government, for Constitution, for right, for freedom, for humanity."
And, unlike a lot of hawkish politicians then and now, he was personally committed to fight for the cause.
He wanted to join the war effort, but he faced a problem. There was a legal barrier that seemed to prohibit a sitting senator from also holding a commission in the U.S. Army. So, as experienced politicians have always done, he devised a run-around. On April 16th, Baker asked Secretary of War Simon Cameron for permission to form a California Regiment, although he was a resident and Senator of Oregon, with himself designated as a Colonel and commander of the soon to be raised force. Baker then wrote to his friend, Abraham Lincoln, and requested that he be appointed a General, which would require Senate approval; and Lincoln quickly obliged. When it came time for the Senate to review Lincoln’s request that Baker be designated as a General, Baker told the Senate that he would refuse the General rank, if the Senate and Executive branch would agree that he could serve in the lesser rank of Colonel over a California Regiment. He had created a situation in which he would appear to be willing to accept the lower rank in order to serve his country, while remaining in the Senate.
He said, the rank of Colonel would be “Quite sufficient for all my military aspirations."
All sides agreed and, while his new regiment was being raised in California, Baker assumed command of a brigade responsible for protecting an area of the Potomac River outside Washington DC. He had no illusions about the risks of battle, writing, “I am certain I shall not live through this war, and if my troops should show any want of resolution, I shall fall in the first battle. I cannot afford, after my career in Mexico, and as a Senator of the United States, to turn my face from the enemy.”
On October 20, 1861, Baker visited Abraham Lincoln and the two retreated to a large tree on the lawn of the Executive Mansion. Lincoln was observed sitting against the tree as Baker laid out prone on the ground nearby. There is no record of what the two old friends discussed, but Baker and Lincoln finally rose and shook hands before Baker walked away.
It would be the last time they would meet.
The following day, October 21, Baker and his men were directed to check on a reported Confederate encampment across the Potomac and they found a small Union force exchanged in fire with a group of Confederates. Just as Baker was deploying his men, he was struck by several long rifle shots and died instantly.
President Lincoln was in a meeting when he learned of Baker’s death. An observer wrote, “With bowed head, and tears rolling down his furrowed cheeks, his face pale and wan, his heart heaving with emotion, he almost fell as he stepped into the street."
Abraham Lincoln’s dear friend was gone.
A few days after Colonel Baker’s death, Lincoln’s young son Willie, wrote a poem honoring Baker’s courage and commitment to the Union cause and his reputation as a popular orator, but concluded with these two verses:
“No squeamish notions filled his breast,
The Union was his theme.
No surrender and no compromise,
his day thought and night’s dream.
His Country has her part to play,
To’rds those he left behind,
His widow and his children all,
She must always keep in mind.”
An aide wrote that “Mr. Lincoln wept as he read the poem, and then embraced his son.”
After several days of funeral ceremonies in Washington, Edward Baker’s remains were returned to San Francisco, where his family decided to resettle. As the war raged and more young Californians died, the San Francisco National Cemetery was formed and Colonel Baker was one of the first to be laid to rest there.
(Footnote: For the military buffs, there remains a dispute as to Baker’s real rank. The Army has him listed as a Colonel, while the Senate records show appointment approvals as both Brigadier and Major General. I like to think Edward Baker would be satisfied with Colonel.)
General Pender’s Chip (Article 119)
“He fought like he had a chip on his shoulder.”
So said a contemporary of Confederate General William Dorsey Pender. And, the description was probably right!
The term “A chip on his shoulder” was common by the mid-nineteenth century. It alluded to a practice, perhaps hoping for a legal loophole, whereby a person, who had been disrespected, cheated, or insulted, wanted to retaliate against the other party, but did not want to be labeled as the primary aggressor. So, the aggrieved would place a wood chip on his shoulder and dare the other person to knock it off, when the offender obliged, it was no holds barred. The meaning has evolved over time, but still describes a person who feels they have been wronged and looks for ways to gain vindication.
That seems to describe, in part, William Pender.
He was born in 1834, in North Carolina where his family owned 500 acres of land and twenty slaves. They also owned a small mercantile store where William often worked as an apprentice to another relative. He was an intelligent and industrious boy and was accepted into the U.S. Military academy at West Point at sixteen years old. He graduated at the age of twenty, with a specialty in artillery, but was soon assigned to the cavalry in the U.S. Army, serving with distinction in the Northwest territories.
A famous story to describe Pender’s daring relates that his unit was in a skirmish with a larger Native American force, when he charged on his horse at the nearest Chief, pulled him off his horse, and carried him back to his line of cavalrymen. After a brief stand-off, the Natives withdrew and Pender released the Chief. The act was considered so brazen and courageous, that the Natives gave wide berth to Pender’s unit in the field from then on.
Some thought that Pender always had to prove himself. Even in the U.S. Army, before the Civil War, officers from Virginia seemed, to him, to have favored status. And it clearly bothered him. He did not suffer in silence, however, and his discontent was well known, as he often shared his feelings with other officers. However, his complaining did not affect his career as his otherwise exemplary leadership and battlefield results outweighed his personal issues in the eyes of his superior officers. In essence, he was a good United States Army officer.
In 1859, he returned home to North Carolina to marry Fanny Shepard, who he had known since childhood and, over the next few years, they had 3 children.
But Pender was a loyal Southerner and believed secession was warranted and he resigned his commission in the U.S. Army in March 1861 when the Confederate States of America was officially formed. He became a Colonel in the Confederate Army and, When North Carolina seceded in May 1861, he was placed in command of one of that state’s units. He was an effective battlefield leader and, within a year, he had been promoted to Brigadier General. After one of his battlefield exploits became known he received a personal commendation from Confederate President Jefferson Davis who said, “General Pender, I salute you.”
Despite these rapid promotions, Pender still expressed his concerns that the Confederate Senior officers from Virginia favored their own. He was not just selfish in his opinion as he thought other good generals from other Southern states were also overlooked. One contemporary wrote that General Pender could become “more than agitated” when discussing the favoritism shown to Virginians.
However, in the field, he did his job and did it well. With his determination to lead his men from the front, he was wounded several times in different battles, but with one exception, always remained in command on the battlefield. In that one instance, he was forced by his superior officer to move back for treatment, but after a brief respite, he was soon back with his men. Once, a shot grazed his head and he wrote to his wife that his head was a "little more bald of yore."
Confederate General A.P. Hill, wrote, “Gen. Pender has fought with the Division in every battle, has been four times wounded and never left the field, has risen by death and wounds from fifth brigadier to be its senior, has the best drilled and disciplined Brigade in the Division, and more than all, possesses the unbounded confidence of the Division."
Another contemporary wrote, “He was one of the coolest, most self-possessed and one of the most absolutely fearless men under fire I ever knew."
But the “Chip on his shoulder” still showed from time to time. Unlike most Confederate supporters, he did not like Stonewall Jackson, who is revered even today by most southerners. Pender said Jackson was one of the Virginians who received undeserved praise and that he did not want to be under Jackson’s command. He further noted that Jackson would "kill up the army the way he marches" and that Jackson was too forgetful of the fact "that one gets tired, hungry, or sleepy."
But Pender was a good soldier and was consistently given important missions.
Then Pender and his men were assigned to key positions in the looming battles at Gettysburg. As always, he was leading from the front when he received a wound in his thigh, brushing it off, he continued to rally his men. Soon, however, the wound began to bleed profusely, and Pender was taken back to the Confederate lines for care. Despite an amputation, the doctors could not stop the bleeding and it became clear General Pender would not survive his wounds. He dictated this final note for his wife, “I do not fear to die. I can confidently resign my soul to God, trusting in the atonement of Jesus Christ. My only regret is to leave her and our two children. I have always tried to do my duty in every sphere in which Providence has placed me."
And then he was gone.
Robert E. Lee wrote this: “The loss of Major-General Pender is severely felt by the army and the country. Wounded on several occasions, he never left his command in action until he received the injury that resulted in his death. His promise and usefulness as an officer were only equaled by the purity and excellence of his private life.”
William Pender was certainly a devoted, committed, and courageous Confederate officer; however, just maybe, the chip on his shoulder drove him to prove something to those Virginians.
Christmas with the Lincoln Family
About the time Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd, started their family, two literary events began to shape the manner in which Americans celebrated Christmas. First, a poem titled “A Visit From St. Nicholas” had been circulating anonymously for several years, but in 1837, the famous writer/poet Clement Moore admitted he was the author and the poem, under the new title of “T’was the Night before Christmas” exploded into American homes. Then, in 1843, an Englishman, Charles Dickens, published a book originally titled “A Christmas Carol. In Prose. Being a Ghost Story of Christmas” which conveyed Mr. Dickens’ wish that reading it would become as traditional as singing a rhyming Christmas carol. After all, he wrote it specifically to make a profit hoping to sell copies over future years. Of course, it did not take long before the public just called it “A Christmas Carol” and it began to affect traditions in both England and the United States.
By the time Abraham Lincoln and Mary were married and living in Springfield, Illinois, there were a few traditions already in place; such as religious services, special meals with family, and possibly a string of evergreen boughs over a door and/or hearth (but not likely a standing tree). It is reasonable to expect, but we do not know for certain, that by the 1840s, the Lincoln family was exposed to Mr. Moore’s poem and/or Dickens’ book, and over time, they would have accepted some of the evolving Christmas practices. While there were as yet no pre-printed Christmas cards, written holiday sentiment was often expressed in the form of personal notes to close friends and family. Stockings may have been “Hung by the Chimney with care in the hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there,” but gift giving, if any, was usually only for children (and, except for something in the stocking, not likely from St. Nicholas). We do know that Abraham and Mary loved their children, and we can presume that the Christmas holidays were a special time for their family. Certainly, before he became President in 1861, the previous Christmas holidays in the Lincoln home were happier. Lincoln enjoyed holiday activities with his family and he relished sharing time with friends. He was a popular lawyer and politician, and he and Mary participated in various social functions in their home and at the homes of friends and political acquaintances. All in all, Christmases, at the Lincoln Springfield home, were quite normal for that period, and in that place.
During the Christmas holiday in 1860, the family was still living in Springfield. However, a month earlier, in November, Lincoln had won the national election to become the sixteenth President of the United States, but he would not be inaugurated until the following March. Civil War was being discussed and South Carolina had already declared secession from the Union, with several other Southern states expected to follow; although, there was still hope that war could somehow be avoided. The Lincolns held a Christmas Eve reception in their home and many of their acquaintances stopped by, including one of Lincoln’s oldest friends and confidants, former Congressman and current Senator from Oregon, Edward Baker, who Lincoln had asked to introduce him at the coming Inauguration ceremony. All in all, Christmas, at the Lincoln Springfield home, in 1860, was relatively routine.
Then, the following March, Abraham Lincoln became the President of the United States; and about one month later, the Civil War, which he dreaded so much, began.
And his Christmases would never again be the same.
In 1861, for his first Christmas season as President, there was no tree, no cards, few gifts, and the President worked all day. A pattern which would be repeated for the next four years.
Historians have dissected every aspect of Abraham Lincoln’s life looking for reasons for certain of his behaviors; and many have opined about his seemingly austere Christmases as President. Some suggest that Lincoln was concerned with his public image and did not want to appear involved in trivial activities in the midst of a brutal war. Others have written that he rejected most religious rituals and always lacked interest in Christmas. Another wrote, in an over-reach, that his “melancholy or depression” peaked at the holidays. There are even critics who claim that he used work as an excuse to get away from his difficult wife. These are actually unfair characterizations of the man, disguised as historical explanations; however, the reasons for his Christmas schedules and habits when he was President are not very complicated and, I believe, are easy to understand and explain. They certainly do not require a trip down a darker, suspicious, path.
Foremost, during his four years as Commander-in-Chief, Abraham Lincoln wore the heavy duty of Presidential responsibility like a leaden cloak; it enveloped him and he could only rarely take it off. However, this was self-imposed, not due to any concerns about perceptions by his critics, to whom he paid little notice. To him, there was a destructive war tearing the country apart, young men were dying, and there were daily decisions to be made; and, ultimately, he was the one in charge.
Further, there were also practical reasons that the Lincoln White House did not have a tree, and that the Lincolns did not send cards or give many gifts for Christmas.
First, the placement of large Christmas trees in homes and public places was not a universal custom in the United States during the mid-1800s; more likely found in the northeastern regions and in settlements with a significant German or Scandinavian presence. Even if an ever-green tree had been desired by Lincoln, or any of his Presidential predecessors, it would not have lasted very long. The White House (still called the Executive Mansion then) was more open to the public, and relatively unguarded, in those days and “visitors” were already notorious for cutting snips from curtains and carpets and stealing any small trinkets; therefore, a large decorated Christmas tree in the White House would have likely been a target for the scavengers. Further, sending and receiving formal Christmas cards was not yet a wide-spread practice, and gift giving was more selective than today, even among family and close friends.
December 25, 1861, was the Lincoln family’s first Christmas in the Executive Mansion and since that last Christmas in Illinois, war had indeed struck the country. Tragically, his close friend, Edward Baker, who had introduced Lincoln at the Inauguration event, had been killed in battle. Also lost was Lieutenant Elmer Ellsworth, a young family friend, who had become one of the first to die in the war. And these were just two of the many casualties on Lincoln’s mind that December. So, it was a solemn White House, even with his two young boys, Willy and Tad, who ran through the halls, and engaged in other rambunctiousness; and who probably longed for a happier day. Robert, the oldest son, had been away at college, but returned for a few days around Christmas. Further, social activities, which were so important to both Abraham and Mary back in Springfield, were almost non-existent for them in Washington DC. Essentially, the Lincolns were considered outsiders by the long-entrenched congressional leaders, judges, and career bureaucrats who were the established Washington elite.
And the War raged on for another year.
December 25, 1862, was the second Christmas the Lincoln family spent in Washington DC, but that year may have been the saddest of all. Their youngest son, Willy, had died in February and Mrs. Lincoln could not seem to recover. Further, the war had become a stagnated mess of death and destruction, with some Union victories, but with a devastating defeat, just before Christmas, at Fredericksburg, Virginia, only about fifty miles from Washington DC. Three months earlier, Lincoln had announced the Emancipation Proclamation to be effective January first, 1863, and the public was split on the unilateral move the President had made. If there had been a presidential poll back then, his approval rating would have been very low. On Christmas afternoon, after a morning cabinet meeting, the President and Mrs. Lincoln visited wounded soldiers at several Washington hospitals. We can only imagine that it was a lonely Christmas for young Tad.
And the War raged on!
December 25, 1863, was their third Christmas in the White House. Mrs. Lincoln was again receiving visitors, Tad had found some new friends, and Robert visited from Harvard; however, the President was still subdued. Although the war news was better, with several major victories for the Union armies, including at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, casualties continued to mount and the President still worked through the day. Back in September, Lincoln’s brother-in-law, Benjamin Helm, a Confederate General, was killed in battle; a personal loss since Abraham and Mary were close with Benjamin and his wife, Mary’s sister Emilie. Lincoln even invited Emilie to stay with them in the White House for a while so that the two sisters could comfort each other; and he granted Emilie a pass so that she could cross Union lines into Washington. His gesture of true familial grief resulted in scathing political attacks of “giving comfort to the enemy” from some in Congress and newspaper editors. However, Lincoln simply replied that he and Mrs. Lincoln would choose their guests; and he otherwise ignored the criticism.
But the War raged on!
December 25, 1864, was their fourth Christmas in the Presidential mansion and the mood was different. President 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.) Also, he had just been re-elected to a second four-year term by a wide margin of both voters and the Electoral College. He even received a welcome telegram from General William Tecumseh Sherman, announcing that Savannah, Georgia was now in Union hands, it read, “Mr. President, I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah.” Robert came home from Harvard, but worried his mother because he wanted to join the Army. (Lincoln would soon arrange a non-combat role for Robert on General Ulysses Grant’s staff). Tad, the President’s young son, who still lived in the Executive Mansion, invited a group of newsboys, who sold papers around the area, to follow him home for dinner; without telling his parents. He knew his father would not mind, but he must have been at least a little concerned about his mother’s reaction; as she could be difficult at times. However, it appears that Mary Lincoln handled Tad’s surprise without drama. Over the holidays, President and Mrs. Lincoln held several receptions for Union military leaders, politicians, and foreign emissaries. With that in mind, 1864 was probably the closest to a “normal” Christmas for the Lincoln family during his Presidency.
The war would rage on for another five months; and, unfortunately, 1864 would prove to be Abraham Lincoln’s last Christmas. The President was assassinated less than four months later. He was only fifty-six years old!
For most of his life, however, Abraham Lincoln had enjoyed traditional Christmas customs, as they were practiced at that time, with family and friends. But for four years in Washington DC, with the circumstances he faced, it seems understandable that he could not fully enjoy the special holiday season. Although, I like to think this good man, and dutiful President, tried to keep the Christmas spirit for those four years, as best he could; despite the enormous problems he faced.
Shouldn’t we be able to do so as well?
Women at War (Article 118)
“I could only thank God that I was free and could go forward and I was not obliged to stay at home and weep." - Sarah Edwards Seelye
In July of 1863, a Union burial detail at Gettysburg found the body of a woman in a Confederate private’s uniform. She had no identification, and so she was buried in a mass grave like so many others at that battle; and we will never know who she was. But she was not the first, nor would she be the last woman to die fighting for her chosen side in the Civil War.
Neither North or South permitted women to join their Armed Forces, however, there were several hundred women who disguised themselves as men and joined either the Confederate or Union Army in units which engaged in battles. Of course, there were several thousand other women who served as nurses and caregivers; however those who joined active military forces were a special breed and had to be deceptive to serve. The best known of these “imposters” is probably Loreta Janeta Velazquez, who wrote a best-selling memoir and was even depicted in several early western movies. Most historians, however, doubt that all of the exploits in her autobiography actually occurred and some, including a recent biographer, believe she was a total fraud. But more on her later.
However, that un-identified female soldier who was found dead at Gettysburg, was one of many who really fought, and in that case died, in battles of the Civil War. Since so many young boys of 15-16 enlisted, it was relatively easy for a woman to disguise herself as a young man and mix in with the many other smaller, smooth faced, soldiers. Because these women had to assume false identities, it is impossible to know how many really served, but estimates range from 400-750. Unlike Loretta Velasquez, most ended their service after they were discovered, some after being wounded, and never sought to publish a memoir or accept speaking engagements. One reason many kept their service secret after the War was that, in the 19th century, they may have been falsely labeled as a prostitute and, unfortunately, some were. The women named in this article are only known today because historians researched letters which they had written, interviews they gave to home-town newspapers after the war, military arrest records (after all it was a crime to enlist under a false name and certainly a crime if it was a woman), and in a few cases, records of their capture as a prisoner of war.
But why did they enlist? Some joined to be with a loved one, others for the adventure, and for some who were very poor, it was a matter of food and shelter. But for others, they believed it was their patriotic duty.
Sarah Emma Edmonds (she married J.C. Seelye in 1868, after the war) was one of those who enlisted as a duty to her Country. She was an ardent Unionist, opposed slavery, and had already made her own way in the world. She would often disguise herself as a man under the alias of Franklin Thompson to earn a living as a street peddler of Bibles and household utensils (a job she could not get as a woman). When the Civil War broke out, she enlisted as Franklin Thompson in a Michigan unit. She served as a soldier until injured when thrown from her wounded horse. Fear of discovery, and the punishment that might bring, led her to discard her disguise. She then introduced herself to an unsuspecting officer under her real name and he agreed that she could serve as a courier. Her exploits became known, not because she wrote a memoir or sought recognition, but because she later wanted to clear Franklin Thompson’s name. Unknown to her, until after the war, the soldier, Franklin Thompson (actually her in disguise), had been listed in the official records as a deserter, a capital crime with no statute of limitations. Therefore, Thompson was a wanted man! When she learned of the desertion charge, Sarah waged a ten- year battle with the War Department, whose senior officers denied that she could have fooled so many Commanders (or other soldiers, for that matter). Further, some thought she may have actually harbored Thompson knowing he was a deserter; also a serious crime for which some believed she should be charged! As her petition with the Army turned contentious, she then turned to Congress for assistance and finally, after two more years, the record was corrected by an act of Congress. Then, in a last gesture to irritate the Army, she applied for a pension for her service and, finally the Army bureaucracy gave up the fight, her request was granted.
Sarah Emma Edmonds (Seelye) 1841 – 1898
Sarah wrote of her decision to enlist as a man, “I could only thank God that I was free and could go forward and I was not obliged to stay at home and weep."
But Sarah is only one example of these remarkable women! Following are a few of the other women who went to war and whose service was documented.
Margaret Catherine Murphy disguised herself as a man and enlisted in an Ohio unit as Joseph Davidson. But Margaret could not win for losing! When her unit commander discovered that she was a woman, he suspected that she was a Confederate spy and she was arrested and imprisoned. After a brief trial, she was exiled to the South where she was captured by the Confederates and, in an ironic twist, was suspected by that side of being a spy. She was sent back across Union lines by her Confederate captors and arrested again. She remained in a Union prison until the war ended. Some might say that, without bad luck, Margaret would have had no luck at all.
Mary Ellen Wise joined an Indiana regiment and was wounded at the Battle of Lookout Mountain, after which her identity was discovered. She still wanted to be of some service, as well as to avoid prison, and became a nurse in a hospital in Louisville. She did not write a memoir, but a Washington newspaper publisher heard about her and, in 1874, wrote a serialized version titled “Brave Soldier Girl”
Emily Frank was severely wounded at the Battle of Lookout Mountain and doctors discovered that she was a woman. Her injuries would prove fatal, but while dying, she dictated a poignant letter to her parents.
Jennie Hodgers, who fought as Albert Cashier, enlisted in Illinois and fought throughout the Civil War without being discovered. She evidently chose to continue living as a man and applied for and received an army pension. Years later, her true identity was discovered by the staff at a nursing home and they kept her secret until she died.
Mary and Mollie Bell, whose aliases were Tom Baker and Bob Morgan, were two cousins who served in the Confederate army. They were arrested after confessing their real identities to their commander and imprisoned until near the end of the War.
Melverina Peppercorn, enlisted in the Confederate army alongside her twin brother, Alexander, in 1862. After Alexander was wounded, Melverina admitted her true identity and was allowed to serve as Alexander’s nurse in the hospital.
Frances Clayton enlisted under the name of Jack Williams, in a Missouri unit. Her real identity was discovered after she was wounded in the Battle of Shiloh, and she was discharged as Jack Williams and sent home in 1863.
Mary Galloway was from Maryland and enlisted to stay close to her fiancée. Both were wounded at the Battle of Antietam and her real identity was discovered by Clara Barton, a famous nurse and later founder of the American Red Cross. Mary made a full recovery and returned home, in the meantime, Clara Barton helped reunite Galloway with her future husband by locating him in a Washington hospital and arranging for his transfer back home.
Sarah Rosetta Wakeman, enlisted in a New York regiment as Lyons Wakeman. She died of an unknown illness in 1864 and was buried as Lyons Wakeman. Her identity was revealed after her parents published her letters describing her military service. Her grave has two stones, one for Sarah and one for Lyons.
The names of most women soldiers of the Civil War are lost in history, but they made similar sacrifices as the men with whom they served: therefore, it would be appropriate if we remembered them in the same manner and with the same respect.
(Two books on this topic are “She Went to the Field” by Bonnie Tsui and “They Fought Like Demons” by DeAnne Blanton. Also, articles are available from the Smithsonian)
(FOOTNOTE: Loreta Janeta Velazquez, who was mentioned earlier in this article, wove a fascinating tale of her exploits as a disguised Confederate officer and spy in a book and a series of lectures after the Civil War. Most historians do not believe much of her story, but she included enough details to cause some to accept parts of what she said as, at least, possible. A later post will explore her story in more detail. Stay Tuned!)
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com or see other articles under BLOGS at the website www.alincolnbygadorris.com
Was it really “Pickett’s charge”? Article 117
On July 3, 1863, in a field near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, a force of nearly 12,500 Confederate soldiers began an assault that would cover nearly three quarters of a mile, over undulating but gradually inclining terrain, intending to dislodge a Union force at the top of the ridge overlooking their path.
They failed!
However, their attempt became known as Pickett’s Charge, named for the Confederate General in charge of many of the men. But not all! Recently historians have begun calling the unfortunate event “The Pickett–Pettigrew–Trimble Charge” which more accurately describes the leadership of the situation. Too late, however, to deflect the one hundred and fifty years of criticism for the many casualties in the failed assault, which have been directed at General George Edward Pickett. (Offset somewhat by admiration for the courage of his soldiers)
But who was this man, whose name became synonymous with a valiant, but deadly and futile, military action.
George Edward Pickett was born in Richmond, Virginia, in 1825, and raised on his family's small plantation nearby. The family owned slaves; however, the eight Pickett children were expected to work. It was not a leisurely existence and George decided early on that he did not want to be a farmer. With his father’s permission, when he was about sixteen years old, he moved to Quincy, Illinois to live with an uncle who was a lawyer to see if that career might better suit him. He did express an interest in becoming a lawyer and his uncle arranged for George to move to Springfield, Illinois to begin an apprenticeship under a qualified lawyer. That was an acceptable way to receive a law license in those days, as an alternative to attending law school. But he was only half interested in learning about the law at best. During his time in Springfield, he did meet a young influential lawyer/legislator named Abraham Lincoln, but the level of their friendship has never been substantiated by either man. However, he also came to know Lincoln’s former law partner, Congressman John Stuart, who nominated George to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He enjoyed that experience, maybe a bit too much, as he was considered a kind of happy-go-lucky young man and earned enough demerits to finish last in his class of 59 in 1846. But the cadet who finishes last, is still commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, and his military career started. He fought with distinction in the War with Mexico and then served in the western territories, reaching the rank of Captain. He became known for his elegant uniforms, flowing curled hair, eloquence in speaking, and as a bit of a ladies’ man.
Pickett then served for several years in the Washington Territory and, in 1856, he commanded the construction of Fort Bellingham in what is today Bellingham, Washington. He built a house there which still stands, referred to as the Pickett House, which is the oldest house in Bellingham. He married twice during those years; however, both young women died in childbirth leaving him a widower for nearly fifteen years.
In 1861, with his Virginia heritage weighing on his mind, he resigned his commission in the U.S. Army and joined the newly formed Confederate States Army. Based on his prior military experience, he was first commissioned as a Colonel, but then was quickly promoted to Brigadier General in the Army of Northern Virginia, soon to be commanded by Robert E. Lee. He was wounded in June, 1862, but returned to duty in September under the direct command of Major General James Longstreet.
In the spring of 1863, Pickett had become infatuated with Sallie Corbell, a young woman he had met ten years earlier when she was about nine years old, and he now began leaving his post regularly to meet her. Since General Longstreet did not specifically object to his absences at the time, Pickett continued seeing Sallie over the next few months, and they discussed marriage. Later, one of Longstreet’s aides wrote after the war, “I don't think his division benefitted by such carpet-knight doings in the field."
But he would soon be separated from Sallie. In June 1863, General Lee decided to lead an expedition of his Confederate army North into Union territory, toward Gettysburg Pennsylvania. Some fighting was initiated on June 30th, and major battles erupted on July 1st. General Longstreet positioned General Pickett’s men near the battlefield, but at first not in direct combat.
Until the third and final day.
Pickett was frustrated that his regiment was to be one of the last to be moved into position to confront the Union forces, but he could not publicly complain. Finally, General Longstreet ordered three units, totaling over 12,000 men, including Pickett’s, to jointly form and be prepared to attack a Union position on a strategic ridge of higher ground.
So, on the evening of July 2, Pickett led his men to his assigned position to prepare for a battle the next day. For the prior two days, General Robert E. Lee had ordered heavy artillery barrages to try to force the Union soldiers off the higher ridge; however, the Union troops absorbed the artillery punishment, and never moved back. On July 3, Lee still wanted the position and ordered a ground assault, across a generally open field, for three quarters of a mile, up toward the higher ground, at a place called Cemetery Ridge, an appropriate name for what was to come. Lee ordered General Longstreet to direct the assault by the three divisions formed the prior day, which were under the command of Generals Pettigrew and Trimble, whose men had already seen action for two days, and Pickett's fresh division. Enthusiastically, Pickett yelled to his men, “Up, men, and to your posts! Let no man forget today that you are from Old Virginia."
And the men began their march. Not so much a charge, at least for the first half mile. All three divisions received withering fire from the Union position and the casualties steadily mounted. But those still unharmed, kept moving forward and upward. Eventually only a few men from one brigade made it to the top, and those were quickly repulsed or captured, with their brigade commander mortally wounded and laying among Union soldiers. Some historians have designated that final push by that one brigade as the "High water mark of the Confederacy."
It was a bloodbath. The Confederates had over 6,000 casualties, with over fifty-percent of the three divisions, killed, wounded or captured/missing. But Pickett’s division suffered the worst. Out of about 5,500 men, he lost 224 killed, 1,140 wounded, and over 1,500 missing and/or captured. Generals Trimble and Pettigrew were both wounded and had to withdraw. While some criticized Picket for remaining toward the rear, rather than leading his men to the top, others came to his defense with one Confederate observer writing "He went as far as any Major General, commanding a division, ought to have gone, and farther."
As General Lee realized the result of his order he reportedly said, “It was all my fault." Pickett was angry and distraught and when Lee told Pickett to re-form his division, he is said to have replied, “General Lee, I have no division." Interestingly, Pickett's battle report which he would have given to General Longstreet, was never officially filed and there is suspicion that either Longstreet or Lee had it rejected because of its angry and accusatory tone.
So why did it become known as Pickett’s Charge, after all, General Lee and General Longstreet were superior to Pickett and two other Generals also led their men into that battle? Most historians place the blame on reporters from Virginia who wrote of the courageous charge led by Pickett, one of Virginia’s heroes. Over time, the episode was glamorized and became a microcosm of the entire Confederate “Lost Cause” mythology.
After the loss at Gettysburg, Pickett wrote to his fiancée “Well, it is all over now. The battle is lost, and many of us are prisoners, many are dead, many wounded, bleeding and dying. Your Soldier lives and mourns and but for you, my darling, he would rather, a million times over, be back there with his dead, to sleep for all time in an unknown grave.”
General Pickett, however, still had a war to fight. And his next engagement was neither glamorous nor heroic. Pickett was ordered to capture the town of New Bern in North Carolina which was occupied by the Union. Pickett and his men failed to liberate the town and, as they retreated, they encountered a group of twenty-two southerners, some wearing Union clothing. Quickly deciding they were deserters, he ordered them all executed. One boy was only fifteen. It turned out, Pickett was wrong. The men were never in the Confederate Army (a necessary element of desertion) and were instead former members of the North Carolina Home Guard, who had refused to fight against the United States.
With a few weeks between battles, Pickett returned to Sallie and the two would marry. She was nearing twenty and he was thirty-eight; however, after the wedding, they did not see much of each other until the war ended. Their marriage lasted until his death in 1875 and she never remarried. But, in 1865, Pickett’s war was about over.
General Pickett surrendered with his men as part of Robert E. Lee’s Army on April 12, 1865, at Appomattox Court House. He received a general pardon from General Grant, along with the 25,000 other Confederate soldiers, but his troubles were not over. As news spread of the executions at New Bern, investigations began, and Pickett took his family and fled to Canada to avoid potential prosecution. After a year, General Grant, who was urging the U.S. congress and new President Johnson to welcome former Confederates back into the fold, was instrumental in convincing Pickett to return home. And there was never any prosecution.
A year before his death, at the urging of former General and former President Grant, The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution which read in part, "to remove the political disabilities of George E. Pickett of Virginia" thus clarifying his full pardon.
Long after the war ended and her husband had died, an interesting story was told by Pickett’s widow, Sallie. She wrote that, when Abraham Lincoln went into Richmond, Virginia, on April 4, 1865, after the fall of that Confederate Capital, he visited her and her children and inquired about “His old friend from Illinois.” Most Lincoln scholars do not believe it happened, because Lincoln’s visit there was so well documented. Others, however, are not so sure because it sounds much like something Lincoln would do. Mrs. Pickett also wrote a biography of her husband which was so lavishly favorable that most historians will not use it as a reference. However, her book and stories cemented Pickett’s reputation among southern generations who latched on to her version of a heroic, focused, and dedicated Confederate officer.
Pickett always regretted the men he lost at Gettysburg and implied that he blamed General Robert E. Lee for forcing the assault at Cemetery Ridge, despite hearing misgivings by General Longstreet that the uphill trek was too risky. Pickett, complained once "That old man destroyed my division."
But, when asked why Pickett's Charge failed, Pickett frequently replied, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
An Unlikely Friendship of First Ladies (Article #116)
“Hello, I am Mrs. Grant” - Julia Dent Grant, widow of Ulysses S. Grant, former Union General and President of the United States.
“I am very glad to meet you. Please come in.” - Varina Davis, widow of Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederate States of America.
It was June, 1893 and Mrs. Grant had been staying for a few weeks at Cranston’s-on-the-Hudson, a lodge near the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, when she learned that Mrs. Davis had registered as a guest. The husbands of both women had graduated from West Point, although many years apart, and the widows just happened to visit at the same time.
And so began one of the more remarkable friendships in American history.
Julia Dent Grant circ 1888
Julia Grant had always been a friendly, compassionate person and had been a great help to her husband in both his military career and during his two terms as President. Whenever possible, she was nearby when he was a General and rarely not at his side when he was President. Grant appreciated Julia’s calm personality and her practical advice and, over the years, wrote many touching, and personally revealing, letters to his wife. This is part of an early letter; “You can have little idea of the influence you have over me, Julia, even while far away. If I feel tempted to do anything that I think is not right, I am sure to think, ‘Well now, if Julia saw me, would I do so?’ And only then set my mind.”
As an Army officer on duty away from home early in his career, Grant had the reputation of drinking to excess on occasion. The fact was, he missed the influence of his wife and his drinking ended whenever she was around. The rumors of indulgences, while no longer true, re-surfaced after a rival General exaggerated the situation, implying to the press and to politicians that Grant still had a problem with alcohol. Then, with his appointment by President Lincoln as the Union’s Military Commander in 1864, some newspaper publishers and politicians used the rumors to object to President Lincoln. The President replied (paraphrased) “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a barrel to all our generals!” Lincoln obviously appreciated Grant’s military strengths and knew the rumors were untrue.
Ulysses and Julia were a very close couple and by all indications had a successful marriage until his death in 1885. She was a long-time resident of New York and Washington DC and, as the wife of one of America’s great military leaders and as a popular former First Lady, Mrs. Grant was welcomed into the societies and the cultural activities in both cities. She also became friends with other First Ladies who were widows of former Presidents Hayes, Garfield, and Cleveland
On the other hand, Varina and Jefferson Davis had a more turbulent marriage with long periods of separation. While Varina enjoyed her time in Washington DC, before the Civil War, during her husband’s tenure as a U.S. Senator, she was opposed to his acceptance as president of the Confederate States. After the Civil War, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for two years before he was released, but never pardoned. He struggled to find meaningful work and his family largely subsisted through the generosity of wealthy (and dutiful) Southerners who respected Davis. It was not a stark existence, with travel to Europe and nice homes with wait-staffs in Mississippi and Tennessee, but Varina seldom stayed in those homes. Finally, with the successful publication of his two-volume Civil War memoir, and the inheritance of an estate in Mississippi from an admirer, Jefferson Davis was again independently wealthy; but they remained mostly separated. Varina had spent much of the time in Europe and New York, but returned to his side when he became gravely ill in 1889. She honored his memory by publishing a favorable account of his life after his death that year. Varina had always been a writer and by 1891 was living in New York and working for publications owned by Joseph Pulitzer, a leading media tycoon of the day.
Varina Davis circ 1891
Mrs. Grant remembered that, in 1885, Jefferson Davis was asked to contribute to a series of articles in which a Boston newspaper intended to publish derogatory interviews about General (and former President) Grant. At the time, Grant was near death and rushing to complete his memoirs, primarily to provide financial stability for his family. To his credit, Davis refused! He wrote, “General Grant is dying. Instead of seeking to disturb the quiet of his closing hours, I would, if it were in my powers, contribute to the peace of his mind and the comfort of his body.”
Similarly, Varina Davis recalled that, after the Civil War and during her husband’s two-year imprisonment, General Grant encouraged leniency for both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. Grant had said, “It would be Mr. Lincoln’s way.” She understood that the improvement in Davis’s conditions while a prisoner and his eventual release were due in no small part to Grant’s generous influence.
So, both women had good reason to respect the other’s husband.
On that June day in 1893, the two ladies went to the main dining area, sat together, and talked for hours. In New York City they would take carriage rides together and regularly would vacation at the same resorts. They were aware that the public was watching their relationship because the newspapers, both North and South, would lavishly report on their meetings; so, they knew they were a symbol that it was time to move on from the animosity of the war. But their friendship was real, not just symbolic, and grew into a warm trusting relationship that lasted until 1902 when Julia Grant passed away. Varina wept openly at the news.
Then, when Varina Davis died in 1906, U.S. Army General Frederick Dent Grant, son of Ulysses and Julia Dent Grant, arranged for a military guard and band to accompany her funeral procession to the railway station in New York to begin her final journey back to Richmond, Virginia. The mourners included both former Union and Confederate soldiers, some in their old uniforms.
While they both readily acknowledged their acquaintance and their time together, neither lady ever wrote of the private conversations they may have had; but we can assume they were respectful. The friendship of these two remarkable women was a small step, but an important one, in the healing process for a nation which had only recently been so violently divided.
Perhaps in our time, with political divisions so polarized, we can learn something from these two ladies. One reached out, and then the other graciously accepted.
Q and A September 2022
The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. I answer every (almost) correspondence from readers, except I have stopped responding to a few outlandish vulgar critics. The subjects this time are (1) Was the friendship between a Union General and Confederate General real. (2) More about the Richmond Bread riots. (3) Was Union General Dan Sickles respected by others. (4) Why do I use derisive terms such as neo-Confederate which may be offensive to some. (5) clarification of Fredericksburg monument to a Confederate soldier’s compassion.
(Q) You wrote a few months ago about the friendship of Lewis Armistead, a Confederate General, and Winfield Hancock, a Union General. In your version, the two were very close, noting that Armstead as he lay wounded, inquired of another Union officer if his friend was safe and then gifted his bible to Hancock’s wife. I recently read an article that said the two were not that close and that their friendship was another exaggerated Civil War story. I thought it was poignant, but is it true or not.
(A) There has always been some dispute among historians about the nature of their friendship. I wrote my opinion in article #106 – “Friends, But Now Enemies” and I stand by my version. To those who claim the two men were not close, I noted that when Armistead was mortally wounded, he was worried about Hancock. It would seem to me that, in those final moments of a soldier’s life, his thoughts would be of someone he loved such as a family member or a close friend. There is a tendency of some historians to debunk human interest stories that have survived the Civil War as melodramatic. However, I find that not every personal interaction at that time was violent, and some were inspirational. I’ll keep re-telling the ones I believe are true.
(Q) I had not heard about the Richmond Bread Riots in the South, until I read your article. You mentioned that there were other such confrontations in a few other Southern cities, but I wonder if there were similar food riots by wives and mothers in the North?
(A) The riots in Richmond in 1863, were led by women who could not obtain enough food for their children as it was either not available or priced out of reach. The Southern economy was in tatters and, in most cases, the men from the households were fighting in the Confederate Army and most of those were not getting paid. That left many families in dire situations. There may have been instances in the North where food supplies were inadequate, but I have not found any documentation. The economy of the North actually expanded during the Civil War and few northern towns bore the hardships seen in Southern communities. (The reader refers to article #111)
(Q) I read your article about Union General Dan Sickles. What a melodrama. The title captured the saga; Politician, General, and….Murderer? Someone should write a TV series, it would certainly fill five or six episodes. Do you think his military accomplishments were respected by fellow Union Generals, despite his notorious behavior off the battlefield?
(A) The short answer is that some did respect Sickles, but many did not. However, no one respected Dan Sickles as much as Dan Sickles! Much of the military controversy surrounding Sickles was due to an incident at Gettysburg where he did not follow an order given by General Meade, either on purpose or not. General Meade criticized Sickles in official reports, which started a feud between the men that lasted long after the Civil War was over. Generals loyal to Meade defended Meade’s action, including Generals Ulysses Grant, Irwin Mc Dowell, and William Sherman. On the other hand, a few Generals noted that Meade’s order may have been misunderstood (or wrong) and Sickles actions (or inaction), whether intentional or not, actually worked in favor of the Union. I doubt that either support for or criticism against Sickles by other Generals was driven by his earlier killing of his wife’s suitor or his acquittal as temporarily insane. It was more likely based on whether they believed Sickles’ or Meade’s story about Gettysburg. (The article was # 112)
(Q) I am offended by your frequent use of the term neo-Confederate and your recent use of the term irrational rationalizers to describe those of us who honor our Southern heritage. Why is it wrong to remember our ancestors who fought courageously for an ideal against overwhelming odds, and feel pride in their sacrifices. These people fought and many died for what they believed. Of course, slavery needed to end, but I am not sure an invasion of the South and a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands was the best plan.
(A) It is not my intent to offend Southerners who simply wish to remember and honor the courage of their ancestors, IF, they do not overlook the Confederate attempt to perpetuate slavery. After all, my family came from North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois and they were fine folks. On the other hand, in addition to neo Confederate and Irrational Rationalizer, I also use the terms Southern Avengers and Lost Causers to describe those who say slavery was a benevolent labor system, or that it would have died out sooner or later (with no regard for when it might end for the four million enslaved), or that the Civil War was fought over tariffs, or that Lincoln was a tyrant who invaded the South over money, or that the Confederate leaders were primarily interested in states’ rights rather than their real purpose of keeping slavery intact. I hope you are not in their camp and, if you are not, then the terms, as I use them, do not apply to you or to the large majority of Southerners who may take pride in the courage of the Southern soldier, but not in the Confederate position on slavery. And, I do believe most common Southern soldiers and a few of their officers honestly felt they were fighting invaders from the North, and made enormous sacrifices to defend their homes. However, I believe they were misled into an unwinnable conflict by a selfish slaveocracy of hundreds of plantation owners and politicians (including Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens- his VP) who were determined to retain slavery and even expand it into other regions. They chose to lead their states to secede rather than face the growing moral and political challenges to slavery. I just wish more of the neo-Confederates would include those simple facts as they reverently remember the courage and sacrifice of those who were misled into secession and the resulting Civil War. I will say that there are two truths often spoken by todays neo-Confederates who try to cloud the issues: (1) that the North, led by Lincoln, did not fight to end slavery. That is true as, at first, he only intended to break secession and maintain the Union and his commitment to end slavery, as a result of the war, only came later. (2) that, by in large, the Southern soldier did not fight to perpetuate slavery. That is also usually true, however, the plantation elite and Confederate politicians did intend to protect and enforce slavery. But those two truthful points only prove that one can leave in a little truth while constructing a big lie. So, I think it is fine to honor your Southern heritage and the courage of your forefathers, I just hope you temper your pride in your ancestors with some understanding of the inherent immorality of slavery and the peril the Confederate slavocracy placed upon a young nation. The United States was fortunate to survive. As for today’s neo-Confederate, Lost Causer, Southern Avenger, or Irrational Rationalizer, I believe those people are instilling divisions to new generations and are undermining our country. (Sorry for the long answer, but this topic can get me wound up like no other!)
Q) I have been to the Gettysburg battlefield and thought there was a monument to a Southern soldier who went into no-man’s land to give water to wounded Union soldiers. In your story, you named a Sergeant Kirkland, and wrote that the event took place at Fredericksburg, not Gettysburg. Were there two such very similar incidents? Has my memory failed me, again?
(A) I can’t speak to your memory, (I know mine is sometimes wobbly), but I am not aware of such a monument at Gettysburg. The story I wrote was about Confederate Sergeant Richard Kirkland, who became known as the Angel of Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, for his extraordinary courage in going into no-man’s-land to give water and blankets to wounded Union soldiers. That was in December 1862, but the Gettysburg battle to which you refer was in July 1863. There is a moving monument to Sergeant Kirkland at Fredericksburg which depicts him cradling a wounded soldier in his arms and giving him water from a canteen. If any reader knows of a similar monument at Gettysburg or any other battlefield, please let me know. I can tell you there are numerous stories of individual soldiers giving comfort to a suffering enemy out of pure human compassion. They probably all deserve a monument. (Note, this article was #108 published in November 2021.)
Q and A August 2022
The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. I answer every (almost) correspondence from readers, except I have stopped responding to a few outlandish vulgar critics. The subjects this time are (1) Was the friendship between a Union General and Confederate General real. (2) More about the Richmond Bread riots. (3) Was Union General Dan Sickles respected by others. (4) Why do I use derisive terms such as neo-Confederate which may be offensive to some. (5) clarification of Fredericksburg monument to a Confederate soldier’s compassion.
(Q) You wrote a few months ago about the friendship of Lewis Armistead, a Confederate General, and Winfield Hancock, a Union General. In your version, the two were very close, noting that Armstead as he lay wounded, inquired of another Union officer if his friend was safe and then gifted his bible to Hancock’s wife. I recently read an article that said the two were not that close and that their friendship was another exaggerated Civil War story. I thought it was poignant, but is it true or not.
(A) There has always been some dispute among historians about the nature of their friendship. I wrote my opinion in article #106 – “Friends, But Now Enemies” and I stand by my version. To those who claim the two men were not close, I noted that when Armistead was mortally wounded, he was worried about Hancock. It would seem to me that, in those final moments of a soldier’s life, his thoughts would be of someone he loved such as a family member or a close friend. There is a tendency of some historians to debunk human interest stories that have survived the Civil War as melodramatic. However, I find that not every personal interaction at that time was violent, and some were inspirational. I’ll keep re-telling the ones I believe are true.
(Q) I had not heard about the Richmond Bread Riots in the South, until I read your article. You mentioned that there were other such confrontations in a few other Southern cities, but I wonder if there were similar food riots by wives and mothers in the North?
(A) The riots in Richmond in 1863, were led by women who could not obtain enough food for their children as it was either not available or priced out of reach. The Southern economy was in tatters and, in most cases, the men from the households were fighting in the Confederate Army and most of those were not getting paid. That left many families in dire situations. There may have been instances in the North where food supplies were inadequate, but I have not found any documentation. The economy of the North actually expanded during the Civil War and few northern towns bore the hardships seen in Southern communities. (The reader refers to article #111)
(Q) I read your article about Union General Dan Sickles. What a melodrama. The title captured the saga; Politician, General, and….Murderer? Someone should write a TV series, it would certainly fill five or six episodes. Do you think his military accomplishments were respected by fellow Union Generals, despite his notorious behavior off the battlefield?
(A) The short answer is that some did respect Sickles, but many did not. However, no one respected Dan Sickles as much as Dan Sickles! Much of the military controversy surrounding Sickles was due to an incident at Gettysburg where he did not follow an order given by General Meade, either on purpose or not. General Meade criticized Sickles in official reports, which started a feud between the men that lasted long after the Civil War was over. Generals loyal to Meade defended Meade’s action, including Generals Ulysses Grant, Irwin Mc Dowell, and William Sherman. On the other hand, a few Generals noted that Meade’s order may have been misunderstood (or wrong) and Sickles actions (or inaction), whether intentional or not, actually worked in favor of the Union. I doubt that either support for or criticism against Sickles by other Generals was driven by his earlier killing of his wife’s suitor or his acquittal as temporarily insane. It was more likely based on whether they believed Sickles’ or Meade’s story about Gettysburg. (The article was # 112)
(Q) I am offended by your frequent use of the term neo-Confederate and your recent use of the term irrational rationalizers to describe those of us who honor our Southern heritage. Why is it wrong to remember our ancestors who fought courageously for an ideal against overwhelming odds, and feel pride in their sacrifices. These people fought and many died for what they believed. Of course, slavery needed to end, but I am not sure an invasion of the South and a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands was the best plan.
(A) It is not my intent to offend Southerners who simply wish to remember and honor the courage of their ancestors, IF, they do not overlook the Confederate attempt to perpetuate slavery. After all, my family came from North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois and they were fine folks. On the other hand, in addition to neo Confederate and Irrational Rationalizer, I also use the terms Southern Avengers and Lost Causers to describe those who say slavery was a benevolent labor system, or that it would have died out sooner or later (with no regard for when it might end for the four million enslaved), or that the Civil War was fought over tariffs, or that Lincoln was a tyrant who invaded the South over money, or that the Confederate leaders were primarily interested in states’ rights rather than their real purpose of keeping slavery intact. I hope you are not in their camp and, if you are not, then the terms, as I use them, do not apply to you or to the large majority of Southerners who may take pride in the courage of the Southern soldier, but not in the Confederate position on slavery. And, I do believe most common Southern soldiers and a few of their officers honestly felt they were fighting invaders from the North, and made enormous sacrifices to defend their homes. However, I believe they were misled into an unwinnable conflict by a selfish slaveocracy of hundreds of plantation owners and politicians (including Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens- his VP) who were determined to retain slavery and even expand it into other regions. They chose to lead their states to secede rather than face the growing moral and political challenges to slavery. I just wish more of the neo-Confederates would include those simple facts as they reverently remember the courage and sacrifice of those who were misled into secession and the resulting Civil War. I will say that there are two truths often spoken by todays neo-Confederates who try to cloud the issues: (1) that the North, led by Lincoln, did not fight to end slavery. That is true as, at first, he only intended to break secession and maintain the Union and his commitment to end slavery, as a result of the war, only came later. (2) that, by in large, the Southern soldier did not fight to perpetuate slavery. That is also usually true, however, the plantation elite and Confederate politicians did intend to protect and enforce slavery. But those two truthful points only prove that one can leave in a little truth while constructing a big lie. So, I think it is fine to honor your Southern heritage and the courage of your forefathers, I just hope you temper your pride in your ancestors with some understanding of the inherent immorality of slavery and the peril the Confederate slavocracy placed upon a young nation. The United States was fortunate to survive. As for today’s neo-Confederate, Lost Causer, Southern Avenger, or Irrational Rationalizer, I believe those people are instilling divisions to new generations and are undermining our country. (Sorry for the long answer, but this topic can get me wound up like no other!)
Q) I have been to the Gettysburg battlefield and thought there was a monument to a Southern soldier who went into no-man’s land to give water to wounded Union soldiers. In your story, you named a Sergeant Kirkland, and wrote that the event took place at Fredericksburg, not Gettysburg. Were there two such very similar incidents? Has my memory failed me, again?
(A) I can’t speak to your memory, (I know mine is sometimes wobbly), but I am not aware of such a monument at Gettysburg. The story I wrote was about Confederate Sergeant Richard Kirkland, who became known as the Angel of Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, for his extraordinary courage in going into no-man’s-land to give water and blankets to wounded Union soldiers. That was in December 1862, but the Gettysburg battle to which you refer was in July 1863. There is a moving monument to Sergeant Kirkland at Fredericksburg which depicts him cradling a wounded soldier in his arms and giving him water from a canteen. If any reader knows of a similar monument at Gettysburg or any other battlefield, please let me know. I can tell you there are numerous stories of individual soldiers giving comfort to a suffering enemy out of pure human compassion. They probably all deserve a monument. (Note, this article was #108 published in November 2021.)
Q and A July 2022
The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. Some are questions for which I had no ready answer, usually because I had not researched the specific person or event. Some comments challenged the historic accuracy of one of my posts or suggested my research for an article was incomplete. I answer every correspondence from readers, except a few uncivil ones. I am always glad to learn more myself and, occasionally, I try to correct a mis-conception by a reader. In any case, I am always pleased to hear from the followers of my articles or my books.
In this first comment and question, a reader (and friend) called me to task for a snide comment I made in the introduction to my April 2022 article about the Lincoln assassination. I had written that too many authors were overly dramatic and exaggerated certain events (making them non-historic) and that the book “Killing Lincoln” was an example. And in another, I am challenged to be more “fair” to Jefferson Davis by acknowledging that he adopted a Black child (not exactly true).
(Q) I appreciated your version of the assassination story, but couldn’t help but notice your dismissal of “Killing Lincoln.” Other than being overly dramatic and exaggerated, were there errors or misrepresentations in the book?
(A) My issues with the "Killing Lincoln" book had to do with the use of the hyperbolic phrases like "Lincoln had 48 hours to live" and that the authors missed numerous historical points that I thought they should have edited. After all, one was a noted historian. Although it has been over ten years since I read it, a few examples which I recall include: there was no "oval office" in Lincoln's Executive Mansion; it was not called the “White House” for another thirty years; and Booth fled over the Anacostia River, not the Potomac. While there was no clear evidence of Mary Surratt's involvement, the authors left the impression that she knew more than she admitted. I also thought they made Booth out to be a more successful, clever and philosophically dedicated person than I believe he was. Finally, I thought they were too ambiguous about involvement by any Confederate officials, which most historians disclaim. As a side note, in an interview the author left the false impression that there was a boxcar full of gold taken from Richmond, which over the last ten years has generated a lot of speculation and actual searches; although, as I wrote in an earlier article, there was no such fortune available to the Confederates. However, I must admit that I may be a bit jealous because they sold over 600,000 copies of their book and, although I was pleased with my sales, I only sold a fraction of that with my first Lincoln book. On the other hand, I should have left out the snide remark and I will edit it out of the archive and web-site copies. (That will cover up my mistake for posterity!) Thank you for writing and I am sorry for the epistle, I can get wound up.
(Q) I enjoyed your article about the assassination of Lincoln, but I thought you might include more of the side story about Samuel Mudd, the doctor who set Booth’s broken leg. You mentioned that he may not have been intentionally involved in the murder plot and that he was given a life sentence; however, the rest of his story deserves to be told. Would that be a future article?
(A) Perhaps at some point I will elaborate on the life of Doctor Mudd as I agree there was more to him than my brief summary. He did not serve out his full sentence and was pardoned in 1869 by President Andrew Johnson, primarily for his humanitarian and courageous role in caring for guards and other prisoners during an outbreak of Yellow Fever in 1867 at Fort Jefferson prison in Florida. Stirring testimony by the guards he saved contributed to President Johnson’s decision. After his release, he resumed his medical practice (and his tobacco farm) and otherwise led a quiet life. He did once try to explain his actions in an interview, which he later said he should not have granted because of mis-quotes and idle speculation by the reporter. He proclaimed his innocence until the day he died at age forty-nine in 1883.
(Q) Do you think any senior Confederate government official or Military officer, had any part in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
(A) No, I do not! I have never seen any scrap of evidence that gives rise to that speculation.
(Q) I recently read a beautiful Civil War story about the origination of the music “Taps” which is played often at military funerals. It seems a Union officer, whose son was a Confederate soldier, found the music on his son’s body which had been returned home. It was in a pocket of his son’s Confederate uniform, evidently composed by the boy, who was a musician. The father had a bugler play the Taps at his son’s funeral. The story brought me to tears. Have you written about it before?
(A) I have heard the story, but not written about it because it is not true. I like to think of these uplifting stories as parables, not lies, which someone invented and it then takes on a life of its own. If such stories aren’t true, in a perfect world, they would be. But the real story is also interesting. The underlying tune was a bugle call to “extinguish lights” and was used by French and American forces before the Civil War. In 1862, Union General Daniel Butterfield and his bugler revised (and simplified) the tune slightly, but still intended its use as a calming “lights out” signal. The new version was softer, and became known as Butterfield’s Lullaby. Later that same year, another Union officer ordered that the revised tune be played at a funeral, as an honor, for a young soldier whose rank did not qualify for a gun salute. The words we know today starting with “Day is done, gone the sun” were not added until after the war. It is a haunting piece of music that appropriately accompanies many military funerals.
(Q) I know you are anti-Southern, but will you tell your readers about Jefferson Davis adopting a black child? In that one gesture, he wipes away your negative comments about him and his relationships with Black people.
(A) Where to start? First, I am not anti-Southern, to be so would be to deny my heritage. However, I am opposed to the idea of succession and I reject any rationalization for slavery; especially the notion that it was a benevolent labor system (I know it was legal until 1865, but it was never morally defensible). Now to your Jefferson Davis question. Varina Davis wrote later of a black child who she “adopted” in 1864, named Jim Lindor (AKA James Henry Brooks). There was no adoption law in either Virginia or Mississippi (Jefferson’s home state), but the term usually meant “taken in and looked after” which did occur. The story is that the boy was being mis-treated in another home and, if so, her actions were surely compassionate. There is no evidence that Mr. Davis was directly involved, but Mrs. Davis certainly would have needed his acquiescence. Mary Chesnut, a famous Southern diarist and friend of Varina’s, met Jim at the Confederate Executive Mansion and wrote about the circumstances. Mrs. Davis also mentioned the boy in her later auto-biographies, writing that after Jefferson Davis was captured, she entrusted Jim to a Union General who promised to take the boy north to safety at a Freedmen’s Aid Society school. We know that he was educated there until about age sixteen, but after that, he is lost in history. There is no evidence or commentary by Mrs. Davis that there was any further contact between she and Jim. I still believe Jefferson Davis was a mis-guided leader who was significant slave-owner in Mississippi and supported secession to perpetuate slavery. Whether he was kind to certain Black individuals does not mitigate those facts.
Q) I read recently that thousands of Black slaves fought for the Confederacy. Is that true and if so, why haven’t we heard more about that part of Southern history?
(A) This is just more falsehood promulgated by the neo-Confederate movement (a minority of Southerners) which is on a mission to sanitize the public’s view of secession, slavery, and the Civil War. There were Black slaves who assisted the Southern war effort, but in almost all cases, it was hardly by choice. Keep in mind that there were nearly four million slaves in the Southern states in 1860 and, while it is possible a few willingly served, the percentage is minuscule and cannot be used to white-wash (pun intended) the practice of human bondage by today’s neo-confederates. I call these folks “irrational rationalizers” and they are trying to perpetuate myths that, I believe, do not serve our country well. As I said, fortunately, they are a minority of folks in the South, just very loud. We know of at least one former slave who did petition for a state provided pension for Confederate service in the 1870’s and it was granted based on his sworn statement. I do not doubt that he served, however, there is no record of an actual enlistment by the man. A photo and sketch of him in the early 1900s shows him in a uniform, but it was not one in use at the time and is considered by historians to be an embellishment. I am certain there were other examples, but not very many. If you have documentation supporting wider service by slaves in the Confederate Army, please provide it and, if authentic, I will publish the information.
(Q) You glossed over the origins of Memorial Day in a recent article. The practice of placing flowers on the graves of soldiers was a tradition started by Southern women, carried out in hundreds of towns honoring Confederate dead. Northerners picked up the tradition later. As a proud Southerner, my family celebrates two Memorial Days, one for the veterans of the United States, even those Yankee invaders, and one for the veterans of the Confederate States of America.
(A) The article to which you refer was a focus on one individual’s story, not specifically about the origins of Memorial Day. No slight was intended. The fog of time has obscured the origins of the special day, but I agree that Southern women significantly contributed to the manner in which we honor fallen soldiers. Your choice to observe a second Memorial Day is understandable.
(Q) In your article about the battles in New Mexico and Arizona, I was left wondering what officials filled the vacuum when the Confederate forces withdrew from the territory. Who maintained safety for the settlers from Natives and who kept law and order among the settlers? Did Union soldiers stay?
(A) Great question. There were a few additional Union troops assigned to the territories. But in general, the settlers and Natives resumed their stand-offs and any law and order in the territories was sporadic and provided by a few U.S. Marshalls and, in larger towns, by local sheriffs. It was a wild and wooly time and not a place for the faint of heart. The area really began to populate with eastern and southern born families after the Civil War. Of course, the Native American populations were gradually pushed from their ancestral lands by the influx.
The Secret List of Lost Soldiers - For Memorial Day (Article 115)
Officially, Memorial Day is set aside to honor those who lost their lives in service to our country; however, custom has evolved to also recognize all other veterans who have died. The placing of flowers (and more recently, flags) on graves, pre-dates the Civil War, but the practice became common during that conflict. This is the story of one young Union soldier’s quest to honor those lost, not in battle, but in an atrocious prisoner-of-war camp.
Because of his brave efforts, many families, who only knew that their loved one was missing, were finally able to receive some closure, and in some cases, to put flowers on a grave.
Dorence Atwater was from New York, and he was only fifteen years old when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, igniting the Civil War. Although he was too young to serve in 1861, he lied about his age and a recruiter willingly signed him up; however, his father intervened and the enlistment was vacated. But that did not stop young Dorence. He traveled alone to Washington DC, introduced himself to New York military units, and for the next two years, he volunteered to serve as a scout and courier and was on the fringes of several early battles. Finally, in early 1863, he formally enlisted in the 2nd New York Cavalry in the Union Army. In June, 1863, he found himself in Pennsylvania, near the town of Gettysburg.
He was exercising horses in the rear of the battle lines when he was captured by a group of Confederate soldiers and, along with his horses, was taken behind Confederate lines. As the battles ended at Gettysburg, he was transferred as a prisoner to Richmond, Virginia. He was evidently a persuasive young man and, although still a prisoner, talked his guards into a job as a clerk for the Confederate Army distributing supplies sent from the north to prisoners in the city. He quickly saw how some Confederate guards were stealing from packages sent to the prisoners by families and by charities in the North. He noted that clothing and blankets were often taken by guards and officers for their own use, or even sold on the streets of Richmond. He kept quiet at the time, but he testified in 1869 in a congressional hearing, that he noted one Confederate officer had stolen so much from prisoners’ packages, that he (Dorence) estimated the thefts to be worth more than $50,000.
But two years into the war, the Richmond prison was becoming overcrowded and some of the Union soldiers were to be transferred to other locations. The Confederate Army had completed a large prison compound in Georgia, officially called Fort Sumter, but which was becoming known as Andersonville because of its proximity to that community. Atwater was transferred from Richmond to Andersonville in February 1864. At that time, the stockade was already overcrowded; however, Atwater, nor any of the other prisoners (or guards for that matter), could imagine how horrific the situation would become over the next year. He became aware of the presence of a rudimentary hospital on the grounds and asked the resident doctor for any position where he might help. He was assigned the task of maintaining the prison’s death register, in which he would inscribe the names of the deceased soldiers, their unit, their home (if known) and the place of burial. These internments were not in individual graves, but in mass trenches which were then covered; however, each trench, at least under Atwater’s watch, was numbered as to its location and the names of those it contained. At first this was not a full-time task, but that soon changed. Within a month, two other clerks were needed as the death toll from disease and starvation rapidly climbed. Also, the task was not simple because many soldiers carried no identification, so the clerks often had to interview other prisoners to learn an identity. At some point about August 1864, Atwater began to realize the enormity of what was happening and decided to keep a secret copy of the death register. Based on conversations he overheard, he said he became convinced that the Confederate army, after the war ended, would never release the official reports with so many deaths recorded. He went to great lengths to find paper and even pieces of cloth to keep his secret list, and for nearly a year, did not even disclose its existence to the other clerks; as he knew he (and they) would likely be hanged for the offense.
As the war was winding down, Confederate officials decided to move many of the prisoners, who were able to walk, from Andersonville to other sites farther South and West. However, thousands of prisoners were too weak to move and were left at Andersonville, many of whom died over the following two months. Atwater was healthy enough to be designated for transfer from Andersonville in February 1865, and was able to sneak his voluminous copy of the burial list out with him in a large cloth bag; due to the minimum oversight by guards and the chaos of moving so many other prisoners. Then, in a stroke of luck, Atwater and hundreds of prisoners along with him were “paroled” by Confederate officers rather than tying up the guards to monitor them for a journey to other prisons. Dorence headed north and, by March 15, 1865, he was home with his family in Connecticut.
He showed the list to his father and siblings and made arrangements to meet with Federal officials to give them control of the record. The officials realized the importance of the list in both the humanitarian opportunity to identify burial locations at Andersonville (Dorence’s reason), but also for seeking prosecutions of Confederal officials when hostilities ended (the Union Army’s and politicians’ reason). He received a telegram from the Army directing him to come to Washington, DC and bring his list for review. While on the train, he heard that President Lincoln had been assassinated and upon arrival in Washington, found the city in chaos and his Army contacts unavailable. He had not yet fully recovered from illness and exhaustion, but decided to remain in the city until he could meet with Army officials.
When he finally met with Army officers, Atwater was reluctant to simply turn over the list, and insisted that some arrangements be made for him to go to Andersonville and personally help with the identification processes. After several negotiating sessions, Atwater and the Army agreed that he could lead a mission to Andersonville and use the list to document the grave sites. The hope was to return the remains of as many of the soldiers to their families and home towns as possible. Atwater also contacted Clara Barton, who was heading a similar project to identify soldiers lost on battlefields and hospitals so their families could receive some closure. In July and August 1865, at Andersonville, Atwater and Miss Barton went through his records to mark graves and to write letters to families. While they worked on their sad task, the Federal Government designated the site as the Andersonville National Cemetery.
As Atwater suspected, however, the Confederate officials either destroyed or “lost” the official death records and, if he had not made his secret copy, there would have been no list to work from in identifying grave sites.
Although they had worked diligently and had identified several thousand soldiers’ grave locations (many in mass graves), he and Miss Barton had run out of time (and money) for the mission and were preparing to leave Andersonville. Atwater was not sure what Army officers might do with the list, so he tried to take it with him. When the Union officers discovered his plan, they charged him with theft, ordered his arrest, quickly Court Martialed him, and placed him in jail. Before the short trial, he was able to get the list to Miss Barton, who protected it, and promptly petitioned President Andrew Johnson to direct Atwater’s release. Based on Miss Barton’s intercession, he was pardoned by the President and went to work with her in her designated Missing Soldiers Office.
He still had not given the list to the Army, whose agents he now distrusted, and he wanted to assure it would not be “misplaced” by those in charge.
In 1866 he, with Miss Barton's assistance (and probably her insistence as she was a force of nature), the New York Tribune published Atwater's Andersonville Death Register and the story of its origination. As a result, Dorence Atwater became famous to many Americans; however, he was infamous to certain Army Generals and politicians who were frustrated by Atwater’s recalcitrance to bend to their demands. But he said he did not care what the Army thought, since he said he served the lost soldiers and their families. Until his death, he was confident that he had made the right (and courageous) decisions to first create the secret list and then to keep it out of the Army’s bureaucratic hands; at least until as many families had been served as possible. He finally gave the original list to the Army, but only after it was published.
Atwater circ 1870
For the next four years, he toured the country with Miss Barton lecturing on Andersonville and Civil War battle sites to raise money for her Missing Soldiers Office. In 1870, he joined the State Department as a diplomat and consul, distinguishing himself in several foreign assignments, including in Tahiti where he is still considered a national hero for his commitment to helping improving the lives of the people. During his years there, he married a Tahitian princess, who was by his side when he died in 1910, at age 65.
So, in Memoriam, on this Memorial Day, thank you for your service, Dorence Atwater.
Soldiers’ Humor During the Civil War (Article 114)
War is a vicious, dirty, un-nerving, and terrifying experience; however, in the midst of the horror, soldiers have shown us sparks of humanity. We have seen deep friendships develop, unselfish acts of heroism, compassion for a fellow human being who happens to be an enemy, and care for civilians caught in the war. And, some retained their sense of humor, perhaps one of the most under-appreciated aspects of humanity.
These are a few of the humorous episodes and anecdotes from the Civil War. They are not so much jokes, as they are wry and witty responses to their surroundings. Some are well documented, some may not have happened exactly as remembered, and some may be apocryphal and probably didn’t really happen at all - but should have.
"You have no conception of what mosquitoes are down here. They are perfect devils, at first sight I thought they were birds….I'm also favored by a large company of cockroaches….They devour all the provisions I have. They eat my thread, clothes & paper & I think they even tried to devour my needles....I have become so used to them that I can go to sleep while they are performing pedestrian tours up my legs and over my body generally. I may name some of them for they are so familiar."
As the Union forces marched toward Gettysburg to try to halt the Confederate advance into Pennsylvania, the soldiers were ordered to not forage off the land or steal food from local farmers, to help assure the continued loyalty of citizens in the area. Despite those orders, one soldier suddenly ran from his column when he saw a turkey nearby. An officer yelled, “Halt there. Halt I say!” The soldier kept running and shot the turkey – dead! Realizing his predicament with the officer, the soldier yelled, “There, darn ye! I reckon you'll understand now that when the Major says halt, he means halt!"
Once, after Union General Phil Sheridan and his men overtook a Confederate position, he raised a flask of whiskey and in a salute to the Confederates who had retreated to an artillery position on a nearby ridge, yelled out, “Here is to you boys!” The Confederates fired a cannon in his direction and the shell landed nearby, splashing mud all over the General. He paused for a moment and then yelled, “That's %&# ungenerous of you! I shall take those guns for that." And he ordered his men to storm the cannon emplacement, and despite rapid cannon-fire from the Confederates, Sheridan’s men did just that and the enemy hastily retreated, leaving their cannons behind. When he got to the ridge, Sheridan jumped on one of the cannons like a horse, waived his hat in the air and yelled, “We got em, boys!” That must have been quite a sight, and the story should have ended there; however, a nearby Brigadier General wanted to enjoy the moment and he also jumped on a cannon. Big mistake! The cannon he chose had been the last one firing and was still very hot. The General was burned in a vulnerable spot and could not ride his horse for a while.
Confederate General Robert E. Lee was a deeply religious man and did not swear, even in the most dramatic times. And, he expected his other officers to watch their language, at least in his presence. One of his Generals, Henry Wise, was known to be able to string together epithets almost as an artform and occasionally slipped-up in front of General Lee. After one such outburst, Lee told Wise that he needed to control his intemperate language. Wise reportedly said, “General Lee, you certainly play the part of George Washington to perfection, and your whole life is a constant reproach to me. Now, I am perfectly willing that Jackson (General Stonewall Jackson, a very pious man) and yourself shall do the praying for the whole Army of Northern Virginia, but, in Heaven's name, let me do the cussin' for one small brigade” Reportedly, Lee just laughed and said, “Wise, you are incorrigible.”
Once a reporter asked Union General Ulysses Grant which songs were his favorite? Grant said, “I only know two songs, one is Yankee Doodle and the other isn’t.”
Confederate General John Magruder once set up his headquarters at a farmhouse. Hoping to have a nice meal with his senior officers, he directed that a full dinner be served in the dining room using plates and dinner-ware left in the house. The cooks and servers finished preparing the meal and put the food on the table. It was to be a nice, well planned, and elegant meal for the senior officers. The General and his staff were meeting nearby and were notified that the meal was ready and walked toward the house. Unknown to the cooks, the servers, or the General, a Confederate private had entered the house and, assuming the meal was for the farmer’s family, decided to help himself to probably the finest food he had seen for a while. He sat in a chair and started eating. When General Magruder entered the dining room and saw the private at “his” dinner table, he barked, “Do you know whose table this is?” the soldier, not looking up, and with a mouth full said, “No, whose?” Magruder, still not identifying himself said, “General Magruder, the Commander of this department.” Still with a mouthful, the soldier hardly looked up and said, “These being war times, I ain't particular where I eat or who I eat with, so sit down and make yourself at home." The rest of the story is lost in history.
In the Western campaign, a Union officer had the idea of loading mules with explosives to send into the enemy camp. He chose a couple of old animals, loaded then up, and he and another soldier rode out toward the enemy camp with the mules, lugging the explosives, in tow. They then tied their horses and snuck in closer on foot leading the mules by rope. When they were close enough for the mules to smell the horses and mules in the enemy’s camp, which they expected would be a draw for their two mules, they lit the fuses and ran back toward their horses. When they got back in their saddles, they saw the loyal old mules meandering after them. They barely got enough distance between themselves and the trotting mules laden with bombs before the great blast. “Two mules died today” simply read the commander’s daily log.
There is a story that Stonewall Jackson encountered a soldier running from the battle field and yelled, “Boy, why are you running?” The boy yelled back, “Because I can´t fly!”
In another story about Jackson (likely untrue, but insightful), supposedly he gave a quick speech to his troops before battle and ended by saying, “I believe the Yankees we kill today will go to hell!” A soldier turned to his companion and said, “Lord, I hope not, because the General will post you and me at the gates as a sentry to make sure they stay there.”
The drafts were highly unpopular in both the North and the South. One joke was that draft exemptions were only open to “dead men who can establish proof of their demise by two reliable witnesses.”
In battle areas, food was scarce and often barely edible. One soldier wrote home about meat so infested with bugs that “We had to have an extra guard assigned to the food stores just to keep them critters from packing it clear off”. If the biscuits (hardtack) became infested with bugs, the soldiers joked about finally getting some meat.
A general offered, “What is the difference between a soldier who is persistent and one who is obstinate? The first has a strong will and the second a strong won’t.”
One General noted, “There are pretend Patriots who will hold anything but their tongue, keep anything but their word, and lose nothing but their patience.”
One wounded soldier said that when he was home on furlough the local printer said, “I am also a true patriot.” The soldier was not impressed and told the printer, “I am shedding blood for $12 a month, while you are shedding ink at $1,200 a year. No sir, no comparison.”
Once, two stretcher bearers were carrying a soldier to the rear and the soldier was bellowing something awful. Then, when a cannon shot landed nearby, the two bearers dropped the stretcher, and all three men started running for cover, including the “wounded” soldier who actually led the race. After a few steps the stretcher bearers looked at the soldier they had been carrying and one said, “Ain’t God great. He can cure soldiers even before we can get them to the hospital.”
A Captain rides up and notices the General’s horse is lame and asks, “General, is your horse lame?” The General replied, “Not now Captain, but yours is.”
One young Confederate told another soldier, “If I am killed, bury me ten feet down and write my mother that I was a good lad.” “But,” replied the other soldier, “you have not been a good lad.” “I know,” the first soldier answered, “But ma always said I was a good lad deep down, so it wouldn’t be a lie.”
An officer approached a private who was sprawled on the ground said, “Soldier do you have any extra water in your canteen? The boy said, “Yep” and started to reach for the canteen. The officer yelled, “That is no way to speak to an officer! Stand up, salute and let’s try again. Private, do you have any extra water in your canteen?” The private rose, saluted, and said “No,.. Sir!”
After the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in April 1865, President Lincoln issued a call for volunteers for the Union Army and young men all over the North showed up to enlist for an adventure. There would be no heavy fighting until June, so many of the boys remained close to home, and close to sweethearts, and potential sweethearts. It became a custom for the young ladies to embroider a sash or sleeve band for their dashing soldier, usually with an uplifting or patriotic message. Some simply read, “Come Home Safe” but others were more imaginative. One young lady gave her beau a sash that read, “So Brave, to be willing to fight and accept possible death for our Country.” When he saw the message, the boy thanked her, but asked for a change to, “So Brave, to be willing to fight and accept possible wounds for our Country.” There is no record of how that turned out.
Long after the war ended, a reporter asked an aged former Confederate soldier to give him a sample of the “rebel yell” made famous by charging Confederate troops and a fearful sound to waiting Union soldiers. “I cannot do it here.” said the old soldier, “I would need the hunger, the fear and the other men yelling around me, but mostly impossible with a mouth full of false teeth.”
And finally, President Lincoln had a great wit and a lot has been written about his “yarns” and quick retorts, but I do not believe I have published this one. Lincoln was riding out to see General McClellan, who had built a magnificent army, with Lincoln’s support, but was now stalling and refusing to use it against the Confederates. As they stood on top of a nearby hill and could see the over one hundred thousand soldiers, all of their armaments, and the vast materials needed for such a large force, Lincoln asked his companion, “Hatch, what do you see?” Mr. Hatch replied, “Why Sir, that is the great Army of the Potomac getting ready to fight the rebels.” The President said, “No Hatch, no, that is not. That, my friend, is General McClellan’s bodyguard.” To which Hatch supposedly said while laughing, “Well, Mr. President, then he is very safe!”
Certainly, war is not humorous and Lincoln was cautious about the timing of his use of humor. Lincoln was asked at least twice how he could spin his yarns and stories during such serious times. The first instance he replied, “If I did not laugh, I would surely cry.” After a later similar inquiry he said, “If I could not laugh, I would surely die.”
And, I think he meant it both times.
The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Special Edition)
The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Introduction: The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is only one of many defining events in our nation’s past; however, the untimely death of this one man may have affected the course of history for our country more than the loss of any other single American.
In early 1865, the Civil War was about to end, the nation would soon be reunited, and slavery would be declared unconstitutional with ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. And, Lincoln had planned a “liberal” reconstruction program to return the eleven former rebellious states to full status within the United States; and even was willing to pardon the political leaders and plantation aristocracy who had led the Southern states to secede and then to fight a war against the United States.
1865 should have been a memorable year for those events.
Instead, Lincoln was murdered, an untalented bureaucrat became the new President, and retaliatory retribution policies were forced upon the Southern states and their citizens. Unfortunately, those harsh federal policies became intertwined with reconstruction laws designed to bring the seceded states back into the Union. The effect was to further decimate the southern economy and to prevent modernization for another generation.
It was not the “reconstruction” of the Union which Abraham Lincoln had envisioned.
Of course, the war did end, for which almost all Americans were grateful. And slavery was abolished. However, over time, without Lincoln’s forceful management of protections for the former slaves, the plantation aristocracy and the politicians, who opposed equal rights for the now freed Blacks, returned to power. Then, with the passage of Jim Crow laws, enforced by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the former slaves found themselves subjugated again.
I was never very much interested in the assassination story, as I have always been more interested in Abraham Lincoln’s life and the way he lived it, and, the effect his death had on our country’s future. So, although I had researched the events, the conspirators, and the murder of the President, I chose to not write much about those subjects. Until now.
But I have noticed that, over the past few years, the events around his assassination have been sometimes told by modern novelists with little regard for the historical importance of the loss of Lincoln, and have become similar to folklore; overly dramatized and exaggerated (for example the book “Killing Lincoln”). I believe, historically speaking, that is a shame. So, I decided to tell my version of the “Assassination Story.”
The Plot and the Death of a President
On Friday April 14, 1865, most residents of Washington DC were euphoric.
The long, deadly, Civil War was surely about to end. The former Confederate Capital of Richmond
was in Union hands, General Robert E. Lee had surrendered in Virginia, and General Joseph E. Johnston had asked for surrender terms for his large army farther south.
All in all, for those who supported the Union, this Good Friday was indeed a good day.
But Washington DC had always been a “Southern” city and some residents had hoped that the Confederate States of America, formed only four years earlier, would endure as a sovereign country. While these people were certainly saddened by the fall of the Confederacy, most were probably relieved that the Great War was ending; and many just wanted to resume their daily lives.
However, there were a few men in Washington who were committed to a plan which, if successful, might cause such chaos within the Union to allow Confederate military forces and political officials to re-group and, at the same time, exact revenge on the Union leaders who they believed were most responsible for the “War of Northern Aggression” against the South. John Wilkes Booth had chosen April 14 to have his co-conspirators carry out coordinated attacks that would attempt to murder Vice-President Andrew Johnson, General Ulysses S. Grant, and the primary target, President Abraham Lincoln.
But Booth had been plotting for months and, until the past few days, assassination was not even part of his plan.
In the late summer of 1864, according to friends, Booth said he wanted to serve the Confederacy in some “grand way,” but not as an ordinary soldier. He began to contemplate a mission to kidnap Lincoln, spirit him away to Richmond, and then use him as a pawn to trade for a large number of Confederate prisoners. Booth may have decided on this course of action after Union Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, declared an end to, what had been, frequent prisoner exchanges saying, “I am no longer going to release Confederates just to have them fight us again.”
From September 1864 through January 1865, Booth periodically traveled into Confederate held territory and even to Canada where there were numerous Southern operatives. But, despite one hundred and fifty years of research, and much speculation, no one knows for certain if he received any support, or even encouragement, from Confederate authorities for his plan.
We do know that Booth met with potential co-conspirators during that time with mixed success. In November, he discussed the kidnap plan with two friends, Samuel Chester and John Mathews, who both refused to join him, testifying later that they considered it just reckless talk. But, by January 1865, Booth had recruited at least seven men who were willing to attempt to kidnap the President of the United States. Ned Spangler, Michael O’Laughlin, and Samuel Arnold had known Booth for years and they were joined by four men Booth had only recently met; John Surratt, David Herold, George Atzerodt, and Lewis Paine.
Throughout February and March, Booth developed and discarded various plans to capture Lincoln and studied several possible escape routes into Confederate territory in Virginia. Booth even attended Lincoln’s Inauguration speech on March 4 and told a friend that he was close enough to the President to shoot him there if he chose; but kidnapping was still the mission.
Then Booth learned that Lincoln would attend a play given for wounded Union soldiers at Campbell Hospital on the outskirts of Washington on March 17; and he thought the time had come. He summoned the seven other conspirators, they found a grove of trees on the road from which they could spring their surprise attack, and waited for Lincoln’s carriage. As the carriage approached, Booth rode out to check the number and placement of the guards before ordering the charge. But, to his dismay, when the carriage passed, the occupant was Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase!
The kidnap plan quickly began to unravel as some of the men were concerned that authorities may have learned of the plot. Although Booth tried to rally the group, several began to express doubt that they could ever successfully kidnap the President; and Booth reluctantly agreed that they should separate for a few weeks. Booth went to New York for two weeks and must have been discouraged by the military advances by the Union Army in Virginia. When he returned to Washington in early April, he found the city in celebration over the abandonment of the former Confederate capital city of Richmond by its political leaders. He also learned that Lincoln had even walked through the streets of Richmond on April 4, unharmed!
And then, on April 9, Robert E. Lee surrendered.
Observers later noted that Booth was now alternatively despondent, or angry (even apoplectic), or resolved and focused, and it appears this is when he decided on a much simpler, and more deadly, plan than kidnapping the President.
On Tuesday, April 11, Lincoln scheduled a brief evening speech at the White House to publicly discuss his plan for reconciliation of the Southern states. Booth and Paine went to the White House lawn where Booth wondered aloud if Paine, who was armed, should fire at the President, who stood at an open window framed by candle-light. We do not know if he decided against the assassination attempt at that time because the area was too crowded or if he wanted to wait for an opportunity to kill more officials than just the President. However, when Lincoln said that the nation should consider allowing Negro veterans the right to vote, an angry Booth reportedly told Paine, “That will be the last speech he will ever make.”
While it seems that Booth trusted Paine and that they formed a bond, Booth may not have been aware that his friend’s name was not Paine, but was actually Lewis Powell. Many witnesses knew him only as Paine and, for several days, authorities believed Powell and Paine were different coconspirators. For the purpose of the rest of this narrative his birth name of Powell will be used.
On April 12, the morning after Lincoln’s White House speech, John Wilkes Booth called together Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt; the men who he believed would be willing to participate in the assassinations of three of the Union’s most influential leaders.
However, Booth was unsure of when and where to strike to ensure the murders would be simultaneous. Booth was reasonably sure that Vice President Johnson would be at the Kirkwood House, where he had remained out of public view since his embarrassing speech at the Inaugural ceremony which he delivered while “manifestly intoxicated.” Then Booth learned, through theatrical acquaintances, that Lincoln might attend Ford’s Theater on Friday April 14; but he still had no idea where to find General Grant, his third target.
Then, for Booth, the pieces seemed to fall into place!
He learned that General Grant and his wife would accompany Lincoln and Mary to a play, on April 14, at Ford’s Theater, where Booth knew the building layout and the staff very well. Booth decided that he and Powell would go together to assassinate Lincoln and Grant during the performance at a moment in the play, “Our American Cousin,” when he knew that the audience, including Lincoln and Grant, would be focused on the actors and laughing at a humorous line in the script.
But just as quickly as the plan had come together, circumstances again changed, and Booth needed another rapid revision!
On the morning of the 14th, Booth learned that General Grant had left Washington and would not be at the theater with Lincoln. Booth, Powell, Atzerodt, and Herold discussed alternate plans and decided that Secretary of State William Seward should now be a target and Powell accepted the new assignment. Since Seward was at his home recuperating from a carriage accident, Booth and Powell would have to separate for their missions. Booth already had planned for someone to have his horse waiting after he shot Lincoln and escaped the theater, so he assigned another accomplice, David Herold, to accompany Powell to Seward’s home as a lookout and to control their horses. Herold would then later meet Booth just across the Potomac River in Maryland. The final mission fell to George Atzerodt, who was to kill Vice President Johnson.
The three attacks were to occur at 10:15 pm.
About 7 pm Atzerodt, who was known for drinking to excess, went to the bar of the Kirkwood House where the Vice-President stayed, and began the first of many rounds of whiskey. But he never attacked Johnson and finally, about 10 pm, left the hotel and meandered a few miles north into Maryland to seek refuge with relatives. He said later that he never intended to go through with the assassination.
At 10:15, as David Herold controlled their horses, Powell charged into Seward’s home, and repeatedly stabbed the Secretary, his son, and another visitor; but remarkably, all of his victims survived. Powell then ran from the house, mounted his horse, and headed for a hideout in the city; while Herold rode off for his rendezvous with Booth.
At about 10:10 pm, John Wilkes Booth entered Ford’s Theater, where he had earlier set up a brace to block the stairway door from the inside. Booth had expected to see a guard at the door who he would need to either talk his way past or attack with a knife; so, he must have been astonished to see a vacant chair. The absence of John Parker, who was to guard the stairway, has never been adequately explained. Unhindered, Booth went to the second floor, entered the President’s box, shot Abraham Lincoln, dropped the derringer he had just fired, used a large knife to slash the arm of an army officer who was a guest in the box, and jumped from the balcony to the stage. He caught his spur in the bunting and landed awkwardly on the stage, breaking his left leg. Many in the audience thought the action was part of the play; then the screams began! Waving the knife to clear his path, Booth, limping badly, exited the theater, mounted his waiting horse, and escaped into the outskirts of the city to meet David Herold, as planned, in Maryland. Abraham Lincoln, mortally wounded, would die the following morning.
So, who were these assassins and their accomplices? Several of the early members of the Booth team balked at the change in objective from seizure to assassination and left the band; but four stuck together. They and a few secondary accomplices were an unlikely team. They each had some allegiance to the Confederacy, although their level of zeal differed, and only one had even minimal training as a soldier, let alone any experience as assassins. And, they did not really know each other very well.
John Wilkes Booth was from a famous family of actors and writers, was well educated, and had enjoyed some success as an actor himself. Although his family supported the Union, John, the youngest and least successful, gravitated toward support for the Confederacy. His family later commented that perhaps, at first, he did so as a mild rebellion against his family and allegiance to the Southern cause may have seemed more “romantic” to him. Only in the last year of the War did his public comments turn vociferous, and then usually when he had too much to drink. At one family gathering, his brother, Edwin, asked John to leave the house because his language became so disruptive and embarrassing. John was already jealous of Edwin’s greater fame and fortune and some biographers believe that episode turned John from only a vocal supporter to one committed, as John Wilkes himself said, “To make a mark for the Confederacy.”
Lewis Powell (aka Paine) had served a year as a Confederate soldier and was a prisoner of war for a short time; but he also had a violent civilian past. In early 1865, he applied for and received a certificate of pardon and signed a loyalty oath to the Union; however, he gave his name as Lewis Paine, an alias he would use until after Lincoln’s assassination. A trusted Booth ally, he readily agreed to the original kidnap plan and then, when Booth decided to instead assassinate Lincoln and other government leaders, Powell agreed to accept whatever target he was assigned; and, in the end, Booth asked him to kill Secretary Seward. A few modern conspiracy advocates have speculated that Powell’s pardon and use of the alias of Paine is an indication of a plot by Union officials to either infiltrate southern sympathizers in Washington DC or even to murder Abraham Lincoln; however, historians debunk those theories.
George Atzerodt was a part-time boatman for hire, often by thieves or purveyors of contraband, to cross the Potomac River, and on occasion, he had rowed Confederate couriers to the Virginia shore. Atzerodt participated in the kidnap plot because, as one acquaintance later testified at his trial, “He would do anything for a price, and often did.” Another said, “(He) was not very courageous and I have seen him in scrapes and I have seen him get out of them very fast.” And, while both of these witnesses told the court that, as far as they knew, Atzerodt had never been involved in murder, he accepted the assignment to kill the Vice President!
David Herold was, by most accounts, a bit dim-witted, loyal to his few friends and he seemed to support himself through odd jobs. Herold had spent his youth in an area of southern Maryland and Virginia near the Potomac and was originally expected to guide the kidnappers (with Lincoln as their hostage) through the countryside. When the plot changed to assassination, he was assigned to first assist Powell at the Seward home and then to help Booth escape south through Maryland and into Virginia.
These four, Booth, Powell, Atzerodt, and Herold were directly involved in the various plots, including participation in the attacks on the evening of April 14. But subsequent testimony implicated several ancillary accomplices and perhaps two who may have been falsely accused.
Michael O’Laughlin was once a neighbor of John Wilkes Booth in Baltimore where the Booth family maintained a residence. By all accounts the two were boyhood friends but saw little of each other as adults. O’Laughlin, who was working as a store clerk, may have been surprised to receive a note in early September from Booth asking him to meet at a Baltimore hotel.
Samuel Arnold had been a classmate of Booth’s at a private preparatory school and it is believed that Arnold and Booth had some contact over the years; therefore, Arnold may not have been as surprised as O’Laughlin when he also received a note to meet with Booth.
After Booth explained his plan to kidnap Lincoln, both O’Laughlin and Arnold agreed to participate; however, neither was later willing to become an assassin!
Ned Spangler was a carpenter and knew John Wilkes Booth because he was hired several times by the Booth family. By 1864, Ned was working as a stage hand at Ford’s theater and was a frequent drinking companion of Booth’s. While Spangler was a part of the original kidnap plot, he may not have known of Booth’s plan to murder Lincoln that night at Ford’s Theater. Spangler had been asked by Booth to hold his horse outside the theater, but Spangler instead recruited a part-time helper, Joseph Burroughs to control the horse. Certainly, the hapless Burroughs knew nothing of Booth’s plan that night, but he was caught in the dragnet and found himself in jail for several days.
John Surratt, who lived in his mother’s boarding house, was a low-level courier (for a fee) between Confederate agents in Washington and Generals farther south in Virginia; and had at least one assignment into Canada. Surratt had also hired George Atzerodt to row him across the Potomac on several occasions. Historians are unsure whether Booth was provided with an introduction to John Surratt by Confederate agents or simply by a Southern sympathizer, possibly by Dr. Samuel Mudd from Maryland. Whatever the source of the introduction to Booth, Surratt had willingly participated in the initial plot to kidnap Lincoln, but he withdrew from the group when Booth decided on assassination. Certainly, Surratt knew that President Lincoln and others were to be murdered, but he did not report the new plan to authorities.
Mary Surratt was a widow who ran a boarding house in Washington DC with the help of her son, John. She was clearly a southerner, having spent most of her youth in Virginia, but she was not an extremist and her neighbors and friends considered her a “woman of good character” who worked hard to maintain her business. Mary also owned a small tavern in Maryland, about 15 miles southeast of Washington, in a rural area known as Surrattsville; where her deceased husband’s family had settled years earlier. Many historians question Mary’s role in the kidnap and murder plots, and it is certainly possible that she was not guilty of any crime directly related to the President’s murder. The charges against her were determined, not by factual evidence of participation, but by her association with Booth, Powell and, of course, her son.
Dr. Samuel Mudd may have had some knowledge of Booth’s plot to kidnap President Lincoln; however, it is unlikely that he was aware of the plan’s change to assassination. The two men first met in November 1864 when Booth was in Southern Maryland ostensibly looking for land to create an estate, but was likely scouting escape routes and prospective sympathizers for the kidnappers and their planed hostage, Abraham Lincoln. Witnesses later said that Booth was directed by local residents to Dr. Mudd whose family owned several large tracts of land. Mudd was a trained physician but had largely given up his practice to manage the family farm, which had been ravaged by both Union and Confederate soldiers in search of provisions for their armies. There was some later testimony, but not conclusive, that Dr. Mudd may have provided Booth with a letter of introduction to John Surratt.
What we do know is that Dr. Mudd and Booth met again before dawn on Saturday April 15, when Booth, along with David Herold, arrived at Mudd’s home to have the doctor treat his broken leg. Mudd’s subsequent failure to personally and promptly tell authorities about his encounters with Booth was sufficient to label him a co-conspirator.
On Saturday morning, April 15, William Seward was still alive, despite having been savagely stabbed. Vice President Johnson was still unaware that he had been an intended target. Powell was hiding, Atzerodt was drunk, and Booth and Herold were on the run in Maryland trying to reach Virginia.
And, at 7:22 am, President Abraham Lincoln died!
The Hunt for Conspirators
At about 10:20 pm on April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth mortally wounded the President with a single shot from a small pistol.
Booth struggled for a moment with a guest who was in the President’s box, slashing the man with a knife. He then jumped from the box down to the stage, breaking his leg when he landed awkwardly; but was able to stumble to his feet and escape the building to a waiting horse. He then rode east to the Navy Yard Bridge to cross the Anacostia River into southern Maryland. When the sentries at the bridge stopped him, Booth gave his correct name and stated that he was returning to a friend’s home in Maryland; and, unaware that Lincoln had just been assassinated, the guards let Booth pass. Within a few minutes, David Herold, who had controlled the getaway horses at Secretary Seward’s home, approached the same bridge and was also allowed to pass. Booth and Herold then set out to ride nearly fifty miles through rural southern Maryland with a plan to cross the Potomac River into eastern Virginia at a point where the river was nearly two miles wide. They had decided on the longer escape route to avoid Union military units which for the past year had been massed near the west side bridges toward Alexandria, Virginia.
George Atzerodt, who decided to not murder Vice President Johnson, instead became drunk and left the city for a relative’s home in Maryland.
Lewis Powell, who had attacked Secretary Seward, was not yet a suspect and stayed out of sight in the city until Monday morning. Then, disguised in shabby clothes as a laborer, he headed for a place he thought he would be welcomed.
By Sunday, April 16, police and military officers knew Booth was Lincoln’s assassin, but they did not know who had attacked Seward. However, when they learned of Booth’s frequent visits to Mary Surratt’s boarding house, her son John, who was known to be a Southern sympathizer, became a suspect.
But authorities, when they went to interview Mrs. Surratt, had no reason to believe she was directly involved. When the officers first met her, they erroneously informed her that her son, John, had attacked Secretary Seward and asked if she knew where he could be found. The officers testified later that Mrs. Surratt seemed genuinely surprised and horrified that her son may have been involved in such a murderous scheme. She readily admitted that she knew Booth, but said that her son had not been home for several days; and she was telling the truth.
The officers noted that Mary Surratt was in deep despair over the accusation against her son, and it would be another day before she learned that John was not the person who had tried to kill Seward after all. Meanwhile, the boarding house was placed under full time surveillance and all who arrived were questioned.
But John Surratt would not be coming home.
While he had willingly joined the original kidnap plan, John Surratt refused to participate in the plot to murder Lincoln and others, and had left Washington DC several days before the assassination. He had been asked by a Confederate contact to go to Elmira, New York to determine if a small force could successfully liberate the Southern soldiers who were held in a nearby prisoner of war camp. While in New York, John heard about the assassination, and that there was a $25,000 reward for his capture. He slipped into Canada and was not heard from for two years.
Back in Washington DC, on Monday morning, April 17, Lewis Powell arrived at the boarding house and was identified as Seward’s assailant by a witness who was at the house. Powell gave his name as “Lewis Paine” which was the name on the pardon certificate he gave to the officers who arrested him. Mary Surratt must have been momentarily relieved to learn that her son was no longer a suspect in that crime; but the good news ended then and there. Although there was no proof of her personal involvement in the plot, authorities arrested Mrs. Surratt because she was clearly in contact with both Powell and Booth; now known to have carried out the attacks.
The authorities were after anyone who had been in contact with Booth, and his three friends who had participated in the kidnap scheme were quickly targeted. Based on a tip from someone to whom he had bragged about his friendship with Booth, Baltimore police arrested Michael O’Laughlin on Monday, April 17. Also, Ned Spangler, the stage hand, was arrested the same day as agents learned of his friendship with Booth. Samuel Arnold had been arrested a day earlier when police found a letter he had written to Booth in the room at the National Hotel which Booth had rented.
George Atzerodt was found on Thursday in Maryland at his cousin’s house, in a drunken sleep. His brother, a Baltimore policeman, gave his probable location upon learning that George was a possible suspect. The police were after Atzerodt because witnesses had seen him with Booth and Powell; but authorities were still unaware that he had been assigned to assassinate the Vice President.
But John Wilkes Booth and David Herold were still free and headed south through Maryland to find a safe haven in Virginia. To understand their travel route, it is helpful to know a bit about the geography of Washington DC, the bordering state of Virginia, the Maryland countryside, and the meandering course of the Potomac River. While there was a bridge over the Potomac from Washington DC westward into Virginia, the city was actually bordered more to the east and south by Maryland. In fact, after crossing the Anacostia River, a small tributary of the Potomac at the Navy Yard Bridge, Booth and Herold needed to ride nearly fifty miles south through Maryland. And, while the Potomac generally flowed to the southeast, there were stretches where it ran south, other parts where it ran east, and places where it actually turned north for a few miles; much in the shape of a fish-hook. So, Herold and Booth would cross the Potomac, about 45 miles southeast of Washington, into Virginia.
The two fugitives headed first to Mary Surratt’s tavern at Surrattsville. They gathered several weapons which were stored there, some knowingly by John Surratt and others possibly just left there over time by his mother and/ or his late father, and rode another 20 miles south to the Maryland farm of Dr. Samuel Mudd.
Booth’s broken leg needed medical attention.
Arriving at the farm about 6 am, less than eight hours after the assassination, Herold introduced himself as “Henson” and said he was traveling with a wounded Confederate soldier named “Tyson” who had a broken leg. Mudd set the break, fashioned a splint, and offered to let the two men spend the night. Mudd testified later at his trial that he had never met Herold before and that he did not recognize his patient as Booth while attending to the damaged leg. Mudd further said that he first learned that Lincoln had been shot when he went into town later that morning and was shocked when told that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin. Only then, according to Mudd, did he realize that it was Booth at his home. The doctor returned to the farm and ordered Booth and Herold to leave; however, he did not report Booth’s visit for another day and, even then, asked his cousin to give the information to Union authorities.
Historians are divided about Dr. Mudd. It is not known with certainty whether the fugitives would have stopped at Mudd’s farm were it not for Booth’s injury, or if Mudd really failed at first to recognize Booth as his patient. Even Mudd gave conflicting stories over time, but his hesitation to personally and promptly report his encounter with Booth sealed his fate.
After leaving Mudd’s farm, Booth and Herold still needed to traverse another 20 miles before they would reach the point on the Potomac where they planned to cross into Virginia. Since there were people in southern Maryland who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause, Herold’s story about the wounded soldier just trying to get home was sufficient to gain them meals and a few restful nights’ sleep.
When they reached their destination at the river’s edge, they traded their horses for provisions and a rowboat. Once on Virginia soil, they continued their journey by requesting rides in wagons with drivers they assessed as unlikely to betray the wounded Confederate soldier and his companion.
About 9 am on April 24th, after nine days on the run, they were approached by three actual Confederate soldiers who had recently been pardoned by a Union General and were headed home. Herold, not wanting the soldiers to think they were deserters, or Union spies, blurted out, “We are the assassinators of the President.” William Jett, who seemed to be the leader, said that they were aware of Lincoln’s assassination and that Booth was a suspect. Jett then said that he knew a local farmer, Richard Garrett, who lived a few miles away and who would likely be sympathetic to a wounded Confederate; but Jett advised Booth and Herold against revealing their real names. The three soldiers and Herold agreed to double up on two horses, giving Booth a horse by himself, and the five men headed for Garrett’s farm.
Jett chose to leave them near the farm rather than to make introductions to Garrett, so Herold walked a short distance to the farm house and introduced himself to Richard Garrett as David Boyd. Herold asked for a few days refuge for himself and a wounded companion; who was introduced as James W. Boyd, his brother. Garrett was a dedicated secessionist and readily agreed to let the men stay and said he would try to learn if there were any nearby Confederate units the two brothers might join.
Over the prior few days, Union authorities had questioned hundreds of people in Maryland and Virginia, and after assessing the locations of sightings of a wounded man and his friend, were able to focus more searchers along Booth’s route. Although none of the witnesses along the trail admitted to knowing the fugitives were Booth and Herold, several stated that they had helped the wounded young Confederate and his friend get back home by providing food, rest, and transportation.
Then, agents found William Jett! He said that he had met two “stragglers” and recommended that they might seek refuge with Richard Garrett; but he did not disclose that he knew the men were Booth and Herold. Word reached Garrett, likely by someone sent by Jett, that Union troops were on their way to his farm to search for two fugitives and the soldiers would probably arrive the following day.
What neither Jett nor Garrett knew was that the Union Commander, sensing that they were close to finding Booth, ordered an all-night ride.
Upon learning that Union troops were looking for the two men, Garrett asked Herold the reason that such a large force was tracking them. Herold, still not disclosing his or Booth’s identity, replied that he and his brother were wanted for “several transgressions” and that they would leave the area if Garrett would provide two horses. It is not clear if Garrett realized by this time who the men really were, but he refused to give them horses that evening to aid their escape. Garrett expected the troops to arrive later the next morning, so he allowed Booth and Herold to rest overnight in a nearby tobacco barn; but he wanted them to depart early, evidently on foot.
After a hard-night-time ride for over twelve hours, the Union troops arrived at Garrett’s house about 2:30 am and charged in. The startled Garrett told them two men were in the barn, which the soldiers then immediately surrounded. The Commander yelled an order for Booth and Herold to surrender and assured them the soldiers would hold their fire; as their orders were to take Booth alive if at all possible. The Commander and Booth had several conversations over the next hour, but these were not really negotiations; mostly Booth made statements about his willingness to die for his cause, and the senior officer repeated several times his demand that they surrender. Finally, the Commander ordered a small fire to be started at the rear of the barn to “smoke them out” and at first that seemed to work. Booth yelled, “There is a man in here who wants to surrender awful bad …. he is innocent of any crime whatsoever.” Then Herold, unarmed and with his hands raised, stepped out of the barn. He was immediately seized by soldiers who pulled him away from the barn and tied him to a nearby tree.
Booth, on the other hand, began to limp towards an area away from the flames and could be seen through cracks in the barn still carrying a rifle. Sergeant Boston Corbett, who later said it appeared that Booth was ready to shoot at one of the officers, fired a single shot that struck Booth in the neck. Booth fell, paralyzed from damage to his spinal cord, and was dragged from the burning barn by two soldiers. He remained conscious and spoke several times over the next three hours. He died at 7 am, April 26.
The twelfth day after he murdered Abraham Lincoln!
The Aftermath
Sergeant Boston Corbett, who had fired his rifle at John Wilkes Booth, was immediately arrested by the Commander for taking that shot against clear orders; however, the public saw him as a hero and, after several weeks of uncertainty, the army decided to drop the charges.
But the Union Government still had to deal with Booth’s body and determine the fate of the other conspirators.
Booth’s remains were taken overland back to the Potomac River and placed on a waiting ship for passage to the Washington Federal Navy Yard, where the process of identification took place. There were several points of identity noted by the examiners besides the familiar facial features. The left leg was broken, Booth had the letters “JWB” tattooed on his hand, a dentist recognized several fillings, and a surgeon who had removed a non-malignant tumor from Booth’s neck noted the scar that was left. Several of Booth’s theatrical acquaintances also identified the body. A few personal items were found, including a photograph of his sister and a diary, with the final entry on the day before his death. Satisfied that the corpse was Booth, a brief autopsy was performed, which verified the damage to the spinal cord. As often seen today following any tragedy, there was a morbid public interest in the manner of Booth’s death and in the condition of his body; and Secretary of War Stanton and new President Andrew Johnson did not want any burial site to become a curiosity to some and a martyr’s grave to others. The crew of the ship, which had transported the body to the Federal Navy Yard, was even ordered to stage a “burial at sea” to mislead any onlookers. They also decided that Booth would be secretly buried in a location known only to a few and controlled by the military. Booth’s remains lay buried in the secret location until 1869 when President Johnson, as one of his last acts in office, permitted Booth’s family to identify and then re-inter the body. They decided on a Baltimore cemetery where the family owned several plots; but they placed the body in an unmarked grave. Years later, researchers studied the cemetery records and, by a process of elimination, were able to locate Booth’s burial place.
One cannot help but contrast Booth’s ignoble end to the outpouring of grief by millions of Americans, who paid their respects to Abraham Lincoln in the Capital city and along the rail route through most northern cities for his final journey back to Springfield, Illinois.
But there are some authors, not historians, who speculate whether Booth was actually killed at Garrett’s barn; however, reputable scholars dispute their theories and agree that Booth was the leader of the initial kidnap plan and the subsequent assassination plot, that he died at Garrett’s farm, and that his body was appropriately identified. The speculative tales make interesting reading, but should not be considered American history.
With all of the suspects in custody, except John Surratt, Secretary Stanton and President Johnson directed that all conspirators be tried together in a military court. The trial began on May 9, 1865, and by June 29, the verdicts were in.
Lewis Powell, David Herold, George Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt were to be hanged. Dr. Mudd, Arnold, and O’Laughlin received life sentences; while Ned Spangler was sentenced to six years. Mudd later received a pardon for his heroic medical care for guards and inmates during a deadly outbreak of yellow fever. O’Laughlin died in the epidemic, but Arnold and Spangler also received pardons. Thereafter, those pardoned would lead quiet lives.
Because the trial was held in a military court, President Andrew Johnson had to approve any death sentences; and he did so for the four defendants on July 5; and then ordered that the executions be held in only two days, July 7.
Throughout the trial, Lewis Powell had steadfastly claimed that Mrs. Surratt knew nothing of the plot and said he regretted returning to the boarding house because it seemed to implicate her. There was a flurry of appeal activity, especially on behalf of Mrs. Surratt, including a writ of habeas corpus issued by a federal judge at 2 am on the day of her scheduled execution; but President Johnson quickly suspended the right to habeas corpus for all Lincoln defendants. On the gallows, Powell again declared, but to no avail, “Mrs. Surratt is innocent and should not die with us!”
After the sentences were carried out, the four bodies were buried near the gallows, in a secure military facility, where they remained for four years until the families were allowed to re-inter them.
But what of the others who were part of the kidnap or assassination plots, knew of Booth’s plans, or were simply caught up in the events?
John Surratt avoided capture for two years, until he was caught in Europe and returned to stand trial; but his case was tried in a Washington DC civil court rather than a military court. The jury deadlocked and the trial ended, but the federal prosecutors filed a motion for a second trial with new charges. In a remarkable example of incompetence, or as some believe a cunning plan to absolve John Surratt, the prosecutor chose charges that had a two-year statute of limitations; and the Judge dismissed the entire case. The irony was that, because Surratt was a fugitive and out of the country for two years, the limitation did not apply.
John Surratt was interviewed several times over the years and always bristled when asked why he chose to disappear rather than defend his mother; even if only by a written statement delivered to prosecutors or newspapers without revealing his location. His answers varied but, while proclaiming her innocence, were usually self-serving and unapologetic. In a presentation he gave in 1870 to a historical society, John Surratt gave his most thorough account of the kidnap plot, but claimed he left the group when Booth suggested assassination. He further claimed that a former classmate, Louis Weichmann, a clerk in the Union War Department who often stayed at the Surratt boarding house, was in fact a co-conspirator. Weichmann was the primary witness against Mary Surratt, and he testified that he saw her in “private sessions with Booth and Powell” which would suddenly go quiet when he entered a room. According to John Surratt, Weichmann committed perjury against his mother to save himself. No charges were ever filed against Weichmann and in a deathbed statement in 1902, he again swore that he was never Booth’s associate and that his testimony was true. John Surratt, who continued to incriminate Weichmann, died in 1916 at 72. Most historians believe Weichmann probably knew more about Booth’s plans than he said in his testimony, but few think he was a co-conspirator.
Richard Garrett was harassed by federal investigators and army officials for a while, but was never formally charged. William Jett, who had suggested Booth rest at Garrett’s farm and then told the pursuing military unit where Booth was hiding, was never charged, but he became severely depressed over regret that, “with one statement I betrayed both Booth and Mr. Garrett.” Jett died in an asylum a few years later.
And what about John Parker, the man who was supposed to guard the door to Lincoln’s box? Some said he left his post to get a better view of the play and another witness said Parker joined him for a drink at an adjacent bar after the President was seated. One investigator reported that Parker claimed Lincoln had dismissed him upon entering the box. The true reason the door was unguarded is unknown and remains a missing piece of the puzzle. Historians do know that Parker appeared about midnight at police headquarters with two prostitutes he had arrested, so he may have simply resumed a foot patrol after leaving the theater. Although initially charged with neglect of duty, Parker’s case was dismissed; but his absence from his post has provided fuel for speculation for 150 years.
So, did Booth accomplish his mission? Most historians think not. Instead of helping the Confederacy, Booth actually caused the Southern people egregious harm. Lincoln’s murder unleashed a torrent of anger at the South by otherwise tolerant Northern citizens and politicians who now thought Confederate officials were complicit in the assassination of their popular President. These admirers of Lincoln now joined forces with the “Radical Republicans” in Congress, who already wanted to punish the Southern population, and the result was a generation of punitive reconstruction policies.
Personally, I have always been more interested in the humanity lessons from historic events, rather than minutia surrounding the event. In my book, “Abraham Lincoln – An Uncommon, Common Man,” I wrote the following about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln: “Over time, the assassination has become a historical event, studied in detail by thousands of authors and often viewed as an academic exercise. In many cases, however, the human tragedy is overlooked. Mary lost her husband and witnessed his murder. Tad and Robert lost their father and Sarah Bush Johnson lost her son. William Herndon and Joshua Speed lost their best friend, and William Seward lost the one political leader and friend he most admired. The country lost a President who was willing to forgive his adversaries and, while denied by some, the South lost an advocate who would have welcomed them back into the Union without the retribution evident in the subsequent reconstruction.”
The President Goes Home
“Let the winds be lulled. Let the bells toll. Home, bear him tenderly home.” – Editorial in a Chicago newspaper
For the first time in American history, a President of the United States had been assassinated and the nation was shocked; but, while those closest to him were grieving, there were plans that had to be made.
Urgently!
Only a day earlier, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln, his associates, and indeed a majority of all Americans, had been rejoicing that the Confederate government had abandoned Richmond, Confederate armies were surrendering, and the four-year war was ending. But then, amid what must have been nearly overwhelming shock and grief, the President’s family, friends and Cabinet members had only a few days to plan funeral events which, they hoped, would somehow allow millions of people to commonly grieve for their tragic loss.
Except for the immediate elevation of the Vice-President to the Presidency under the Constitution, there was no protocol to follow, no funeral service outline, and not even a specific place for his burial. Further complicating the planning process, the President’s widow was in no condition to make decisions or even provide assistance to those who would take charge.
What emerged from this chaos was a heartfelt tribute to the fallen President, which gave the American people the opportunity to personally pay their respects during a remarkable twenty-day period after his death. The grieving funeral planners did their sad jobs, and did them very well. As a result, during the time from the first service on Monday, April 17, until the final service and burial on Thursday, May 4, 1865, the nation was able to say an extraordinary farewell.
Abraham Lincoln was going home.
He had died on Saturday morning, April 15, 1865, and on Monday, Robert Lincoln, the President’s son, invited close friends and cabinet members to a viewing at the White House; and on Tuesday, the public was permitted to pass through. On Wednesday, after a brief service, the funeral procession made its way down Pennsylvania Avenue, where all buildings were draped in black, to the Rotunda of the Capitol Building; under the new dome which President Lincoln had insisted be completed during the Civil War as a symbol of the continuity of the Union. Over 100,000 citizens filed past his coffin in Washington DC before it was placed on a nine-car funeral train, also draped in black, to re-trace the 1,700-mile journey Lincoln had taken from Springfield, Illinois to the Nation’s capital for his first inauguration; only four years earlier.
Over the next 12 days, the train made stops in Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York City, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Michigan City, Chicago and, its final destination, Springfield, Illinois; and processions and funeral services were held at each of those cities. Reliable historical records indicate that over ten million people witnessed the funeral events in some manner; over half of the combined populations in Washington DC and the states along the route. They assembled in the larger cities with scheduled stops, including Philadelphia, where the President lay in Independence Hall for 24 hours. And, in New York City, one million people lined the streets, including Broadway and Fifth Avenue, to watch the four-hour procession pass; the largest gathering of Americans in the country’s history until then. However, millions of others simply stood silently by the railroad tracks in the countryside and in numerous small towns just to watch the train pass.
For those who had to make the plans, and assure the events were appropriate and on schedule, the first few days must have been incredibly difficult. Most of the urgent decisions for the funeral were made by Cabinet member Edwin Stanton, the President’s two secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, his friend, Ward Lamon, and his son, Robert Lincoln. They knew that thousands, likely millions, of their fellow citizens would want the opportunity to personally show their respects to the President; however, they debated the best way to accommodate the public, while maintaining the appropriate solemn dignity. Certainly, a catafalque would need to be acquired upon which the President’s casket could be placed, but no one could recall one in Washington DC; so, they directed that three White House carpenters build one suitable for the occasion. The workmen must have been honored to be asked to use their skills in such a way, and to their credit, they designed and built the catafalque in only two days; and it was deemed a “Worthy and Grand Edifice” by one newspaper. Unfortunately for our country, that same platform would later be needed for three more assassinated Presidents; James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy.
One of the issues faced by those trying to plan the funeral events was that, in 1865, the fastest form of communication across distance was the telegraph. The people who prepared and coordinated the events in Washington, and those in various cities along the route, had to first dictate their message, have an operator translate into telegraphic code, which was received by another operator and decoded, before being presented to the intended recipient. Then, if there was any question or further discussion needed, the process had to be reversed; so, there was often a delay in any final decision. Despite these limitations, the hundreds of organizers pulled off nearly flawless events in numerous cities over 17 days with almost perfect timing.
For example, even the decision of the location for the burial place of the President was not decided without long distance communication and coordination during the first two days after his death. There was debate as to whether the President should be buried in Washington or back in Springfield, or possibly Chicago, since no prior arrangements, or even expectations, had been made by Lincoln or his family. Why would they have? After all, he was only fifty-six years old, had just been re-elected to a second four-year term, planned to travel to Europe and the Holy Land after his final term, and then return to his law practice in Springfield, where he thought he would live out the rest of his life. Robert recalled that, several years earlier, his mother had helped dedicate the new Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield and he inquired about availability there. Of course, there was no tomb suitable for a President, but there was a hill in the cemetery that friends of the family thought would be a good location to build a crypt. However, at the same time, with the best of intentions, but unbeknownst to the family, and in a rush to accommodate a suitable place for a Presidential tomb, some leaders in Springfield quickly purchased a six-acre site in the downtown area. On Monday evening, two days after the assassination, Mary regained some semblance of composure, and along with Robert, concurred in the decision to bury the President in the Oak Ridge Cemetery, but not before considerable telegraph traffic had been sent between Washington and Springfield to make the choice.
While officials in other major cities along the train route would have a few extra days to make their plans, those in Washington DC had no such advantage. Decisions had to be made quickly and then directives given to those who would carry out the assignments. For example, in addition to building a catafalque, arrangements for a horse drawn cortege had to be made and Cavalrymen selected to accompany the planned procession from the White House to the Capitol Building. Further, to accommodate the expected crowds, grandstands were ordered to be constructed. While it was a frantic pace, the cabinet members and friends of Abraham Lincoln worked so well together in this tragic situation that the commemorative events in Washington DC provided the city’s residents, and thousands of visitors, a fitting farewell to the President.
Then, there was also, “The President’s Train.” The concept of the special train with stops re-tracing Lincoln’s inaugural route was developed by Edwin Stanton, Ward Lamon, and Robert Lincoln, and the logistics of those arrangements required the coordination of hundreds of officials and workmen, but the train was still ready to leave Washington DC at 7 am on Friday, only six days after Lincoln’s death. The train was covered in black cloth, with large American flags. It had nine cars, including a car built earlier for the President, which contained a parlor, sleeping compartment, and a former reception area which was converted to hold the President’s coffin and catafalque; while other cars accommodated nearly 300 mourners, many of whom made the entire twelve-day trip. The train was ordered to never travel more than twenty miles per hour and the very detailed schedule, which gave anticipated locations in half-hour increments for the entire route, was printed in over one hundred newspapers along its expected path. Robert rode to Baltimore on the train, but from there, returned to Washington to help his mother. Also, on the train was the body of Willie, the young son who had died in the White House in 1862, and who had been buried in Washington DC.
Willie was going home with his father.
A reporter in Chicago, who knew Lincoln, tried to express the overwhelming sadness he observed throughout city and concluded his remarks poetically. “He who writes this is weeping. He who reads this is weeping. Hushed be the city. Hung be the heavens in black. Let the tumult of traffic cease. Let the streets be still. Let the lake rest. Let the winds be lulled. Let the bells toll. Home, bear him tenderly home.”
In Springfield, after the last funeral service, on May 4, 1865, the bodies of President Lincoln and his son, Willie, were placed in a temporary tomb, just below the hill where they would later be interred. Work soon started on what would become “Lincoln’s Tomb” which would be the final, and fitting, resting place for a special President.
Abraham Lincoln was home.
Edwin Booth Responds for his Family
The President had been assassinated and there was a sense of profound loss throughout the country.
One family’s grief, however, was unlike any others.
Whenever a good and decent family has a member who deliberately causes a tragedy, especially one of epic proportions, the family experiences grief on multiple fronts. They grieve for the loss of the innocent just as others, but they also may become victims to public outrage directed at them; and still, in some way, they also mourn the loss of one so close who inexplicably was to blame.
The remaining members of the Booth family were overwrought by Lincoln’s death and their brother’s actions. On April 20, while John Wilkes Booth was still a fugitive, his older brother Edwin, a celebrated actor and philanthropist, who was an admirer of Lincoln, wrote this letter (in part), addressed to “My fellow Citizens,” which was widely published in newspapers in America and in Europe.
“When a nation is overwhelmed with sorrow, the mention of private grief would, under the circumstances, be an intrusion, but I feel sure that a word from me will not be so regarded by you. It has pleased God to lay at the door of my afflicted family the life blood of our great, good and martyred President. I am yet but too sensible that other mourners fill the land. To them, to you, one and all, go forth our deep and unutterable sympathy; our abhorrence and detestation of this most foul and atrocious of crimes. For my mother and sisters, for my two remaining brothers, and my own poor self, there is nothing to be said. For our loyalty as dutiful, though humble, citizens and efforts to elevate our name, we appeal to the record of the past. For the present, we are not responsible.
For the future—alas! I shall struggle on with a heavy heart, an oppressed memory and a wounded name—dreadful burdens—to my too welcome grave.”
His final words, “to my too welcome grave,” convey the deep sorrow Edwin felt for the rest of his life. His brother, John Wilkes Booth, had murdered Abraham Lincoln and deprived the South of a magnanimous President who would have embraced their return into the United States.
His brother also destroyed his own family.
Reactions to Lincoln’s Death
Earlier, they had been doing the mundane things people did on a Friday evening in Washington DC, reading, working, resting, having a late dinner, even attending a play at a theater; but now, they had learned Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated. After the attack on the evening of Friday, April 14, 1865, and after his death the following morning, the public reactions began in newspapers, private letters, diaries, pulpits, homes, and even battlefields. Some of the quotes are sorrowful, some pragmatic, some angry, some thoughtful, and, unfortunately, but not surprisingly in a deeply divided country, a few were even celebratory. News of Lincoln’s death sped rapidly through the Northern states by telegraph and railway distribution; however, throughout the South, it would be several days before the news became widespread because of the near-total destruction of telegraph lines and railroads in that region during the War. As a result, reactions from Confederate officials and everyday citizens in the deep South only occurred several days later, or in some cases a full week, after the assassination.
But whether the person first heard about Lincoln’s death on April 15th, or as late as April 23rd, the following quotes were made moments after hearing the news, and the individual was expressing the raw emotions felt at the time. Some of these people later gave more articulate comments, after they had time for reflection, but their initial thoughts seem more compelling to us today.
“It is all over. The President is no more.”
-Said the doctor who had attended Lincoln, to Mary Todd Lincoln, as she rested in an adjoining room.
“My husband is gone! Why did you not tell me he was dying?
- Mary Todd Lincoln wailed upon learning that her husband had died a few minutes before. (She had earlier been overwhelmed and fainted, and had to be taken from the room.)
“They have killed Papa dead. They’ve killed Papa dead!”
- 12-year-old Tad Lincoln cried to Thomas Pendel, the White House doorkeeper, as the boy rushed into the White House. Tad had been at another theater when the owner suddenly walked out on the stage and said “The President has been shot!”
“It cannot be, it cannot be.”
- Said Robert Lincoln, the President’s oldest son, who was in the White House with John Hay, one of Lincoln’s secretaries, when he learned that his father had been shot. Unaware yet that the wound was mortal, the two young men rushed to the rooming house where the President had been taken. When he saw his father and realized that he would not recover, Robert spoke those words and began to weep.
“I know’d they’d kill him”
- Said Sarah Bush Lincoln upon hearing that her step-son had been assassinated. In their last visit, four years earlier, as Lincoln left for Washington DC and the White House, Sarah had said she feared that his enemies might kill him. Lincoln, attempting to soothe her fears, said, “No. No, Mother, they will not do that. Trust that the Lord will keep us well and we will see each other again.” Sarah’s sad premonition was finally proven!
“Will I be a slave again?”
- Asked an elderly Black man to a young Union soldier in the outskirts of Washington DC. The young man wrote home that he was (at the time) unaware of the assassination and asked the old man why he would ask such a question? When told “Marse Lincoln is killed” the soldier wrote that he replied, “That cannot be true,” but within a few minutes he heard others talking about the attack on Lincoln. He then wrote, “I sat on a low fence and cried.”
“The Moses of my people had fallen in the hour of his triumph”
-Said Elizabeth Keckley, a former slave and seamstress for, and friend of, the President’s wife.
“The President is dead”
– Cried William Seward, Secretary of State, who was savagely attacked as part of the assassination plot. Because of his very frail condition, no one had yet told Seward about Lincoln, but from his bed he noticed the flag at the War Department at half-staff. Hoping to calm Seward, the attending doctor tried to deny that Lincoln was dead. But Seward, now with tears streaming, said; “No. If he were alive, he would have been the first to call on me. But he has not been here, nor has he sent to know how I am, and there is a flag at half-mast.”
Frederick Douglass spoke the next day at the Rochester, N.Y., city hall in an impromptu gathering of city leaders. First, he repeated from memory these words from Lincoln’s second inaugural, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all of the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another, drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that judgements of the Lord are righteous altogether.” Douglass continued in his own words, “Those memorable words – words which will live immortal in history, will be read with increasing admiration from age to age.”
Newspapers were quick to print the news of the assassination attempt early Saturday morning, and then most issued a second edition after receiving word that Lincoln had died. These very similar headlines were coincidental, and even remarkable, as the newspapers were bitter rivals.
“Our loss, The Great National Calamity” - New York Herald
“The Great Calamity – The Nation’s Loss” - New York Tribune “Our Great loss – The National Calamity” - New York Times
On the other hand, a newspaper editor in Chattanooga, Tennessee wrote:
“Old Abe has gone to answer before the bar of God for the innocent blood which he permitted to shed, and for his efforts to enslave a free people.” This was an interesting choice of words since the “free people” of whom he wrote, were the Southern Whites, many of whom either owned slaves or tolerated slavery.
“Glorious News. Lincoln and Seward Assassinated.” - Headline in the Demopolis (Alabama) Herald.
But, the War’s two most famous Generals each expressed compassionate views.
“I have no doubt that President Lincoln will be the conspicuous figure of the war. He was incontestably the greatest man I ever knew.” -Union General Ulysses S. Grant
“Cowardly”, “Deplorable”, “A Crime.”
- Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s reaction to a reporter for the New York Herald. While there is no complete text of the responses Lee gave, the reporter placed these three comments in quotation marks. The reporter also included, without quotes, that Lee condemned the assassination and said he was devastated.
On April 19th, Confederate General Breckenridge located Jefferson Davis who had fled the Capital City of Richmond two weeks earlier. The General informed Davis that Lincoln had been assassinated and was dead and (mistakenly) that Secretary of State Seward was also killed. According to the General, he ended his brief report by offering that he was regretful because the death of Lincoln was unfortunate for the future of the Southern people, to which Davis replied:
“I do not know. If it were to be done, it were better if it were well done. If the same were done to Andy Johnson (Lincoln’s Vice-President), the beast, and to Secretary Stanton (Secretary of War), the job would then be complete.”
There is no evidence that Jefferson Davis was aware of the assassination plot and almost all historians believe he was not involved.
“All honor to J. Wilkes Booth. I cannot be sorry for their fate. They deserve it. They have reaped their just reward.”
-A southerner, Kate Stone, referring to Lincoln and Seward, wrote in her diary on April 16th.
“Hurrah! Old Abe Lincoln has been assassinated. It may be abstractly wrong to feel so jubilant, but I just cannot help it.”
- Another Southern woman, Emma Le Conte wrote in her diary on April 19th.
But many Southerners realized that Abraham Lincoln’s moderating influence would now be replaced by other leaders (including new President Andrew Johnson and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens), who were already seeking revenge against the South for the War. And, they would now likely blame all Southerners for the death of Lincoln.
“Lincoln, old Abe Lincoln, killed, murdered. Seward wounded. Why? By whom? It is simply maddening. I know this foul murder will bring down worse miseries on us.”
- Wrote Mary Chesnut, Southern diarist and wife of a Confederate General, on April 22nd when she first learned of the assassination. It was a full week after the attack, but news had traveled that slowly into the deep south.
“The South has lost her best friend in the future cases. This is the greatest possible calamity for the South.”
- Said Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston on April 17th, after being told by Union General Sherman that Lincoln was dead when the two men met to discuss surrender terms. Two days earlier, before Lincoln’s death, General Johnston had told Confederate President Jefferson Davis that he would surrender his army; and, when Davis suggested that they re-form an army of deserters and previously pardoned soldiers, Johnston replied that was only a wishful thought, and said,
“Our people are tired of war, feel themselves whipped, and will not fight.” Davis did not, at first, agree and remained defiant.
“The adjutant read the dispatch to the officers and men. The sad news was received in grief and silence, for we all feel that we have lost a friend…Lincoln was truly the soldier’s friend and will never be forgotten by them.”
- Wrote Elisha Hunt Rhodes on April 15th. Rhodes had entered the War as a sixteen-year-old private and subsequently, because of his battlefield courage and prowess, rose to the rank of Colonel.
While almost all Union soldiers would express similar grief, a few did not feel that way. Private James Walker publicly declared that; “Lincoln was a Yankee SOB, who ought to have been killed long ago.” Private Walker was immediately arrested, court-marshalled, and sentenced to death by his Commander; and only intervention by a superior officer kept the sentence from being carried out. An appeals court later commuted the sentence.
As was the custom then, people in mourning wore black arm bands or ribbons, and one seen often over those next few days quoted another famous Lincoln phrase, “With malice toward none; with Charity for all.”
“It would seem that Providence had exacted from him the last and only additional service and sacrifice he could give his country, that of dying for her sake. Those of us who knew him will certainly interpret his death as a sign that Heaven deemed him worthy of martyrdom.”
-Wrote John Nicolay, one of the President’s two long-time secretaries, who had left Washington DC and was on his way Paris to become the American Counsel when he received the news. He immediately wrote the above note to his fiancée.
And, perhaps the most eloquent and heartfelt response came from Edwin Stanton, the gruff Secretary of War, who originally thought Lincoln was unfit for the office as President, but quickly became an admirer; even saying later, “I came to love President Lincoln.” Stanton was present in the room and, at the President’s death, uttered the phrase that still rings true today: “Now he belongs to the ages.”
Confederates Eye New Mexico Territory (Article 113)
The ranchers, farmers and miners in the Southern part of the New Mexico Territory (which included the later designated State of Arizona) were an independent lot. They cared little for Federal policies originated in Washington DC and imposed by territorial governors they had not elected. To those settlers, the focus of the Washington bureaucrats seemed to be on the control of some of the more resistant Native-American tribes and protection of commerce in the larger settlements; and to that end, many small several forts had been strategically placed throughout the west. Slavery was not prevalent in those areas and neither was the issue of state’s rights, after all, the “territories” were not states. However, by early 1861, there was some sympathy for the new Confederate States of America, which had recently objected to federal authority and declared their independence. So, Confederate leaders thought they might find a receptive population in the Territory, which might eventually become part of the new Confederate nation.
At the outbreak of Civil War, many of the soldiers of the relatively small U.S. Army were stationed west of the Mississippi and scattered at outposts throughout the western states and the eight vast Territories, including the New Mexico Territory. But Abraham Lincoln perceived the greatest threat from the Confederacy to be in and around Washington DC, and he and his military leaders ordered most of the western troops back to defend the Capital city from possible attack. In the resulting vacuum in the west, some in the Confederate government saw an opportunity to take control of the New Mexico Territory, which was adjacent to the seceded state of Texas, and, perhaps, offer citizenship to the inhabitants; in effect, expanding the Confederacy westward.
The Confederates were not the only ones watching Union soldiers depart their western forts for duty in the east. Native tribes also began to attempt to reclaim lands west of the Mississippi. In large part, the Native Americans were thwarted, not by battles, but by Federal government initiatives to flood the west with new immigrants who would largely tend to be Union supporters. During the Civil War, the Homestead Act and the Transcontinental Railroad and Telegraph programs encouraged settlement west of the Mississippi and, in part, prevented the tribes from regaining control of their ancestral lands.
But the Confederates decided to occupy the New Mexico territory and in early 1862, less than a year after the Civil War started, the Southern Army sent detachments from Texas to bring those western lands under Confederate authority. They hoped to gain control of not only the major settlements, but also of the gold and silver mining camps that extended into what is now Colorado. Their long-term strategic plans even envisioned control of a swath of land across the Mexican and southern California borders to gain access to the Pacific Ocean; and then a possible run at the gold fields in central California.
With the transfer of most of the U.S. Army troops back east, President Abraham Lincoln authorized the raising of volunteers within the western states and territories "to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property." Such concerns for security were warranted, particularly in areas with populations sympathetic to the Confederacy, or where restive native tribes might try to regain control, or at forts where stores of weapons and ammunition had been left.
Although the New Mexico territory was a large expanse of land, it was inevitable that the patrolling Confederate troops would encounter the irregular Union forces, which were a combination of a few remaining western based Union soldiers along with volunteers raised from the Territories and California. Two of the better-known engagements were at Glorieta Pass in northern New Mexico and at Picacho Pass (or Picacho Peak), near Tucson, in what is now Arizona.
The first battle, near Glorieta Pass, occurred in March, 1862, after the Confederates had already taken effective control of both Albuquerque and Santa Fe, and decided to march with about 1,000 men northward to the Colorado mining areas. The Union commander still in New Mexico Territory was able to enlist the support of several hundred men from the northern part of the Territory, as well as others from the Colorado mining camps (also about 1,000 in all), to try to halt the Confederate advance. The Union soldiers and volunteers and the Confederate force met in the vicinity Glorieta Pass in late March. In a series of quick engagements and skirmishes, the Confederate advance northward was slowed, but the Southern soldiers began re-gain the advantage. Then, in an extraordinary bit of good luck for the Union (bad luck for the Confederates), a detachment of the Union forces happened upon the large contingent of Confederate supply wagons, necessary for the long trip to Colorado, and destroyed the essential materials. The Confederates had no choice but to abandon the mission and return to Santa Fe and Albuquerque. After assessing the situation, most of the Southern forces later moved back into Texas at San Antonio. To the soldiers on both sides who fought at Glorieta Pass, the words “engagements” or “skirmishes” must have seemed inadequate. Fifty-one Union men died over the few days and 78 were wounded, while others were missing. The Confederates lost forty-six dead and nearly 200 wounded and missing; and they had to bear the additional pain of retreating in defeat.
With some hyperbole, years after the Civil War, some writers of history dubbed the Battle of Glorieta Pass as the "Gettysburg of the West," but there was no legitimate comparison; except that the Union prevailed (barely) as it would on the Pennsylvania battle-ground over a year later in July 1863.
A month before the battle at Glorieta Pass, in February 1862, a Confederate unit of about 120 men had moved farther west from Albuquerque toward Tucson, a small settlement in what is now Arizona, but was then part of the New Mexico Territory. The Confederates were generally welcomed by the citizens, and, in a largely ceremonial event, the commander declared Tucson as the “Confederate Capital of the Western District of the Arizona Territory.” Concerned that Confederate forces might attempt to move even farther west, a “California Column” of over 2,000 men was formed to engage the Confederates before they could reach that Union (non-slave) state. A few weeks after the battle at Glorieta Pass, in April 1862, a group of ten Confederate soldiers were patrolling near Picacho Peak (or Picacho Pass), north of Tucson. A scouting party of thirteen of the California-based Union troops spotted the Confederates and the young Lieutenant in command, James Barrett, ordered his men to charge the enemy camp. It was an unwise decision, perhaps caused by excitement combined with over-confidence, as he had been instructed to report any enemy contact back to the larger force. Within an hour, three of the Californians were killed, including Barrett; however, the survivors managed to capture three of the Confederates. The other seven Southern soldiers returned to Tucson and alerted their commander, who decided to abandon their position in Tucson and return east into Texas. That action likely prevented an attack on Tucson by the much larger California Column, saving the Confederate unit to fight another day; but just not in the New Mexico-Arizona Territory. And, in fact, scouts from the “California Column” soon confirmed that the Confederates had withdrawn from Tucson, and those men then returned to their homes with their mission accomplished and their war essentially over.
While there were a few more battles west of the Mississippi (primarily in Arkansas and Texas), the Confederate hope for a far western presence effectively ended at Glorieta Pass and Picacho Peak.