Charles Mount, 20th Ohio, Letters Home

I recently posted about a soldier in the 20th Ohio named Charles Mount

Four of his letters home survived the war and are in his widow’s pension file on Fold3.

Here are my attempts to transcribe them, though some words are unclear. I tried to add modern spelling, spacing, and punctuation to help make them easier to read. 

On the final letter, he wrote the start of it on the bottom half of the page, then the last half from bottom to top of the top half. It was a mess, and he also had a habit of writing in the margins, both on the sides and then back at the very top. I tried to put everything in a sensible order but could not find another closing that fit, so those lines seem to dangle, but at least they were generally legible and sensible.

Emphasis (underlining) is in the originals. I used italics for illegible words.  

—Letter 1

    

Camp King Dec. 10, 1861, Tuesday afternoon

My Dear Wife & Children

I hope you are well & sharing the blessing of health with me. I am writing in great haste with my sleeves up to my elbows, having just finished wiping dishes. Major Rigby is expecting to leave for home in a few minutes & I am in a great hurry to write you a few lines again. I wrote you yesterday. If it is as warm with you at home as it is here it will be very necessary that that pork should have a strong pickle put on it. If it has not been done already, request Mr. E. Estill to do it for me if G or Mr. – has one is not at hand. 

If there is anything that you want done that you deem it necessary for me to know about, please write. This is decidedly a romantic county in this locality. It is said that the land here, although in places very hilly, is worth $100 per acre. I was out one afternoon with 2 others after straw & I was delighted with the scenery. We called on some 4 farmhouses, one of which is said to be sesesh, notwithstanding we were treated with marked kindness & civility, had quite an interesting chat and when we left let us each have a paper of the latest date. 

My dear wife, believe that your Chas. is doing well & in good health. I wish that you was in such a case. It would rejoice my heart. 

I commend you & the dear ones to the protection of our Heavenly Father. 

With my love to you all & to inquiring friends, I remain your affectionate husband, Chas. Mt. 

I had a testament given me last night.

— Letter 2

   

Sat. Morning 10 o’clock, Dec. 14, 61

 My dear wife I would be glad if you & the children as good health as I am.

I made a great discovery in the bottom of the basket, a nice roasted chicken. A 1,000 thanks to you again. How shall I repay your kindness? The first opportunity I have of sending you cranberries or any other thing you will let me know you wish, I will send.

Get what cranberries you wish at Elliott’s or anything else he may have that may add to your comfort.

If Mr. Harmon has not taken the measure Sylvia or Ella a pair of shoes, it perhaps had better be done so that they can get them.

Shoes for Charley & Martha it may be had better be bought at Mr. Cox’ or illegible & though last not least you need a pair if you have not got them, you will please get. If you need money let me know, or there is a few accounts which if not paid in soon Gideon will look to these things. I hope you will not be backwards about writing to me in time, that you may be cared for in time. 

Those cakes which were put in my satchel, I have them except one. You will think it strange perhaps that I loved them so well at home & get here, have cared so little for them. Their turn will come by & by perhaps.

I would say that when Lieut. Rogers got in camp, it was night & had no supper & the men that came with him had no supper. I done what I could for their comfort & took W.R. into our tent & opened the basket of good things which you sent. He partook of the biscuit, butter & cakes & divided most of the apples to the boys that there happened to be in. I had not discovered the chicken there.

Mr. Dunedin(???)  gave us a pail full of apples as we passed his house. I have a few yet. We can get them here in camp 2 large ones for 5 cents, or small ones for 1 cent apiece.

I remain your affectionate husband, Chas.

— Letter 3

    
    

City Barracks – Cincinnati – January 24, 62

Good morning my dear Phebe. I hope you and the children are well as Corman & that you have rec’d 3 letters from me since a week ago last Wednesday, for they have been sent from my hand, and I am very sorry that they have not reached you. I am entirely well so far as I know except a cold & that, after coughing & spitting a while I am relieved for the day.

Will you suffer me to take the time to write to Gideon. I guess I will try to have a letter each for Frederick for him by Wednesday evening & one for you on Thursday evening. 

I write now go & eat breakfast for we have flights of stairs to descend before we reach our table. We cook & eat out-of-doors & sleep in the 2^nd story above the basement.

I will try & get my 2 shirts & white gloves washed as I hear that it can be done for 3 cents illegible to be illegible.

The Ohio River is higher than it has been for a number of years past, so I am told. I would like very much to see it.

I toasted some bread for myself & buttered it with some of that roll which you sent me & it helped a good deal as our cooks did not have a very good meal. 

There is a talk of the company being taken out this morning for recreation & to see the rivers.

Wm. Ball of Co. A who worked for me at Jms. Chambers has just come up from Warsaw on furlough & I expect to send this by him & it will reach you Saturday morning. Good for the luck.

It is now near noon & I have just finished washing our new bed tick & hung it up to dry. 

The men that went out in Company’s this forenoon are now in & I will try for a nap this afternoon.

I will be obliged to you to send a dozen illegible sticks by Will Baer when he returns. 

This from your husband Chas. 

— Letter 4 (it begins in middle of the first page)

    

Friday evening ½ past 4 o’clock

I have been out in the city about 3 hours taking a look at the river wholly & in part submerged.

Went to see the city reservoir, bought some foolscap paper 15 cents, illegible 8 stamps, 2 quarts dried peaches, at 10 cents a quart for you & ½ ¼ tea for self & Miles at the rate 1.50 lb., but I guess I could get as good elsewhere for 1.25. 

Coffee is 2 cents.

I would like to have got some apples  (move to middle of last page) for you, but I had nothing to carry them in. Can you get any in town & at what price? I can get fine apples 5 cents t or lb. What do you have to pay for them there?

I am glad of the opportunity of sending this to you as it will reach you so much sooner than I expected & I hope that you and the dear children are well as could be expected. 

Write often & much.

From your unworthy, Chas.

Top of first page: Friday evening ½ past 6.

While Billy Ball is blacking his boots & brushing his clothes I have been writing. I am writing more than I expected. I thought I would use the upper half of this sheet in writing to Sylvia, as you will see on the upper half of this on the other side is to be read from the bottom upward. 

We have so much confusion here I hardly know what I have written. 

You will make all allowances.  

I wish I was to be the bearer of this like I was the other time, but I guess it will not be so this time. 

From your affectionate husband, Chas. 

(Last section starts in left margin on final page, then moves to the middle of page and goes upward.)

I know exactly one man to my knowledge in this city to my present knowledge, that is Benjamin Fogal, illegible once but now in the provisions trade 39 Vine Street. Elliott & the merchants of our place do business with him J. Johnson particularly. 

He has been here to see me & I called on him in his office today. He told me Martha Young & her husband called at their house yesterday. Illegible – perhaps his? name I do (not) know nor could he recollect. He wished me to call & go to church with them. 

I have made an acquaintance with Wm. Waddle of Mt. Vernon, an illegible Presbyterian, a fine young man, I think.

 

Book Review: Murder on the Ohio Belle

 

Murder on the Ohio Belle 

Stuart W. Sanders 

Copyright 2020

University Press of Kentucky

Murder on the Ohio Belle is not a Civil War book, but covers the war era including the generation of people who brought on and fought the war, thus making it a worthwhile read for those focused on the fighting years. Mid-nineteenth century culture is the main theme of this work, as seen through the experiences of one steamboat, its crew and passengers.

 

As its title implies, Murder tells the story about a killing (actually two) that took place on the steamboat Ohio Belle, but it goes well beyond that, serving as sort of a biography of mid-nineteenth century steamboat and American culture, or at least many aspects thereof.

This book starts with a strong introduction. Many works use such a start to explain the author’s goals for the book, but few are as straight-forward and effective as the this one.

The hope of this book is to “help us better understand nineteenth century riverine culture.” (page 2) It explores the relationship northern owned boats and their crews had with slavery and slave culture along the Ohio River.The phrase “fluid border” between free states and slave states was literally true, since the waters of the Ohio formed much of that border. The author shows that these boats profited from, and thus supported, slavery with the business they conducted in the south.

Sanders further pledges to explore“how Americans contended with violence” (page 3) such as murder, lynching, and warfare, and argues “the history of the Ohio Belle also presents a portrait of how western antebellum society embraced retribution.” (page 4)

This work considers a variety of period cultural issues, such as “interpersonal violence, slavery, honor culture, and retribution.” (page 4)

The introduction comes to a definitive conclusion: “A single event…can illuminate a more important, broader narrative about our past.” The plan is to show readers “important themes from the nineteenth century that are still relevant today” (page 5), such as vigilantes, injustices, and others.

“History, including the tale of a murder on a steamboat, still matters” is an apt final sentence to this introduction.

The book lives up to the promises and goals listed in its beginning. It does so mostly in a chronological fashion, but does jump ahead and back at appropriate times to tell the story fully. 

This is not a long book. It has an introduction, eight chapters and a conclusion which combine to take up 111 pages, including the acknowledgements, but does also feature 30 pages of notes, some of which include information beyond the citations. This length, and the writing style of the author, make it a quick and easy read, so anyone worried about finding enough time to read an entire book should still consider this one.

Besides the telling of the story of the actual murders, and how it parallels mid-nineteenth century American behavior, this book also details the career of John Sebastian, the captain of the Ohio Belle, and how he dealt with those issues on his boat.

Another interesting aspect of this work is the story of Margaret Garner. Many people have heard or read  of her escape from slavery in Boone County, Kentucky, across the Ohio River to Cincinnati, where she killed her young daughter instead of letting slave catchers capture her. This book details more of her story after that incident, as she was sent downriver aboard a steamboat.This part of her story is not as famous as her attempted escape, but does include more heartbreak. Her tale was an unexpected but valuable addition to the study of the region's culture at the time. Few stories illustrate the nature of slave-state Kentucky’s proximity to the free state of Ohio as clearly as hers does.

Violence, revenge, honor, and the definition of a “gentleman” (and expectations of such a man’s behavior and interactions with others) are concepts that appear throughout the book, and are familiar to Civil War students. The use of alcohol, mixed with gambling and traits like pride, honor, and the tradition of carrying concealed weapons was a common contributor to problems, including occasional mob violence. This behavior on “the Ohio Belle, and other vessels was simply a reflection of behavior on land during this period.” (pages 58-9) This book provides examples of this, including in the river city of Louisville.

Class distinctions – particularly between wealthy planters and “lower” economic classes, but also between races – were ever present in how people behaved on land and water.

Of course, the defining event during the steamboat era of the mid-nineteenth century was the Civil War, and chapter seven dives into it, how it affected the Ohio Belle  (captured by the Confederacy) and John Sebastian (he lost his left arm during the conflict.) It was the ultimate example of violence during the era, but these years also continued to demonstrate the dangerous desire and search for vengeance, much like during peace time.

 

Overall, this is a fine book for anybody who enjoys history, but it also covers topics that should interest those focused on the Civil War, river history or social/cultural history in mid-1800s America. This book is a pleasure to read. I happily recommend it.

Book Review: Cincinnati in the Civil War: The Union’s Queen City

Cincinnati in the Civil War: The Union’s Queen City

David L. Mowery

Copyright 2021

The History Press

I admit my reading of books has been too slow in the past year or two, but I did just finish an enjoyable and informative book, one about a local topic.

David Mowery’s most  recent book, Cincinnati in the Civil War,seems like a fairly short book, 279 slightly undersized pages before the end-notes and index in the hardback copy I have, but is full of information and details about Cincinnati and even the northern parts of Kenton and Campbell Counties in Northern Kentucky. (Campbell County is my lifelong home.)

As I first heard of and purchased this book, I thought I had a good grasp on the basics of this subject, and though perhaps there was some accuracy to that egotistic belief, this work showed me just how basic that understanding was no how much more there is to Cincinnati’s Civil War story, far beyond the “Siege of Cincinnati” which was the subject most familiar to me. 

This book is quite readable, with a nice flow to it, and the various photographs and illustrations add more perspective to how Civil War Cincinnati appeared. The pictures of buildings long gone are especially intriguing (though perhaps additional illustrations of the forts and batteries constructed for the late 1862 panic may have contributed more to this work.)

 

The seven main chapters of the narrative do a terrific job of covering just what the title says, starting with the coming of the war, to concerns about Cincinnati's location near slave-state Kentucky, the importance of defending the city, then an apt description of the "Siege," followed by discussions of other southern support or threats north of the Ohio River and finally the ending of the war. It is not a review of the entire Civil War - it is a detailed look at one area's experiences in the war, the war's effects on that area, and, most of all, Cincinnati's impact upon the war. This book is exactly what its title says it is.

The seven chapters of the main text are followed by five separate appendices, touching on topics such as ship-building in Cincinnati, regional war-time fortifications, a very educational (at least to  me) look at the locations of Civil War sites in the area (even noting the locations of buildings, camps, etc. that no longer exist), a history of Spring Grove Cemetery and listing of notable period figures interred therein, and a table listing Civil War units in which men from Cincinnati (and its home of Hamilton County) served, noting which companies, regiments or other units were composed mostly of these men. The inclusion of so many people snd -laces in this section really adds a lot of value to the entire book. 

 

The book’s organization - the narrative description of the subject as included in the book's title, followed by the appendices, more focused on specific subjects that had contributed to the bigger story of the city's part in the war - works wonderfully.

Overall, I enjoyed this book because of the information it provides (and, perhaps selfishly, because of ideas it gives me for my project that I have discussed here.) It is, practically, a must read for those interested specifically in Cincinnati Civil War history, but is also a valuable work for other Civil War and local history enthusiasts. I certainly recommend this book.

“I am Fighting to Put Down Rebellion”

I found these stories in the Cincinnati Enquirer of January 26, 1862 and felt this perspective was worth sharing. 

It is not unusual to read of a Union soldier or group of soldiers opposed to the abolition of slavery as a war aim, so seeing anti-abolition sentiments in this letter from a soldier in the first few months of the war is not a shock. I do find myself wondering what this private felt about the Emancipation Proclamation, preliminarily issued about 8 months later, if he survived that long. 

This story further interests me because the 44th Ohio was one of the units in the northern Kentucky area around or just after the Siege of Cincinnati, a topic this blog has mentioned several times. It is kind of a local angle to this story. 

Also note that both this newspaper and the individual who wrote the letter were from Ohio, a “free state” in the North, yet both still expressed anti-abolitionist attitudes. That is not surprising from Cincinnati, which had many ties to the South, and is pretty typical of the Enquirer’s attitudes.

Abolition Tracts Among the Volunteers

Camp Piatt, January 12, 1862

To the Editors of the Enquirer:

SIR: Inclosed you will find a cursed Abolition document - it will speak for itself - which the negro worshippers are distributing among the soldiers in large quantities. Comment, if it is worth comment - and of course it is - I leave you to make. If I had time, I would write a long article on the subject, but I have not, as I’m but a private - and that is the reason I got the document. Privates are supposed to have no sense, or just sense enough to be made to believe and do anything; but the paper got into the wrong hands this time. And, further, I will say, or ask, if such papers are allowed to be distributed among the soldiers so profusely, when will this war end? This much I would like to say to them: I am not fighting to free negroes; and if they want them freed, let them do the fighting themselves. I will not. I would as soon shoot a real Abolitionist as a Secesh. I consider that they are as much the instigators of this war as any man in the South, and even more so; yet they claim to be Union men. Such Union men ought to be in purgatory. They now boldly declare their purpose, and are distributing their infernal trash among the ignorant soldiers, as they suppose; But there are some of them sharp enough to see what they are driving at. 

I am a native of Ohio, but not an Abolitionist, by any means; and I am fighting to put down rebellion, not to free negroes.

A Soldier,

Forty-fourth Ohio Regiment

———————

Here is how the editor reacted to this letter. In the first paragraph, I added the emphasis in bold because that is a line I’ve often seen or heard in discussions of slavery, but it is the first time I remember seeing it so explicitly stated in a period newspaper.

Cincinnati Enquirer January 26, 1862   

VOICE OF A SOLDIER 

We publish elsewhere a letter from a volunteer in the Forty-fourth Ohio Regiment  in relation to the distribution among the troops of Abolition documents. Accompanying the letter was a tract Entitled “CATECHISM FOR WORKINGMEN.”  It purports you have been  published by the “American Reform and Tract and Book Society of Cincinnati, Ohio.”  We have before noticed Abolition tracts issued from this manufactory, and designed for circulation among the troops. The one before us is filled with the usual Abolition sophistries, that slavery produced the war and ought to be destroyed. Purporting to be written “by the son of a blacksmith,” it makes an appeal to workingmen to aid in wiping slavery from off the face of the land. Every intelligent workingman knows that liberating four million slaves, to be the competitors in the field of voluntary labor with laboring whites, is not going to elevate but rather degrade the whites. The laboring whites at the South, though poor, know that they are not on a level with the blacks, as this tract asserts they are, but are a superior race. It is that knowledge that makes them take the interest they do in thwarting the schemes of the Abolitionists. The tract before us aims to induce the white laboring man and woman to aid in putting themselves on a level with the blacks. 

“A SOLDIER” sees through the game, and tells the intermeddlers, who are the primary cause of the war, that he regards them in the same light he does the rebels, that he is fighting to put down the rebellion, not to free the slaves, and that he can not be made their tool. That is plain talk, and we rejoice to hear it from such a source. 

Last Cincinnati Civil War Veteran?

I was doing some research on a different project and happened to find this story in the Cincinnati Enquirer of  September 21, 1947.   The Civil War part obviously caught my attention, but the story about his birth and his parents' deaths is also fascinating, though sad.

"Drummer Boy," 96, Dies; Arnold's Death Robs City of Last Civil  War Veteran

Cincinnati was without a former wearer of the Blue or the Gray last night after the death of Franklin Arnold, retired Chillicothe horse trainer who served 26 days as a drummer boy in the Union Army.

Mr. Arnold, who was within a month of being 97 years old, died at General Hospital from the effects of a right hip fracture suffered August 7 at the home of Mr. and Mrs. John Rhu, 688 S. Crescent Ave, Avondale, with whom he lived.

Although he could produce no documentary proof of his Civil War service, Mr. Arnold insisted during his recent stay at the hospital that he was 15 years old when he and 2 other youths enlisted as drummer boys at Newark, Ohio.

He explained that a discharge was not allowed him because of his short service and because he got only as far as Shilo, Ky., when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered in April, 1865.

"We just disbanded and went home," Mr. Arnold told interviewers at the hospital.

Mr. Arnold declared he was living in Steubenville, Ohio, with the family of William H. Anderson, friends of his parents, when he ran away to join the army.

After the war I went to Chillicothe, Ohio and hired out to a race horse man," Mr. Arnold said. "I was in the horse-training business for a long time."

Mr. Arnold said he had been living in Cincinnati since 1922 or 1923. He had lived in Avondale with the Rhu family for the last eight years.

Mr. Arnold was born on the Atlantic Ocean when his mother, a native of Ireland, was on her way to friends in the United States a month after the death of his father. His mother died at his birth and was buried at sea. His father, a native of Wales, died when the windjammer, of which he was captain, sank off the coast of Scotland.

--------

It says he could not document his story and my one quick search could not any evidence to back up his claim, but I think this is worth sharing anyway. Stories about boys running away from home and joining the army as drummer boys are not uncommon but for some reason I find myself skeptical about his story. I don't know why.

Perhaps the sad tale of how he became an orphan makes his "runaway" story more believable. It also seems unlikely that someone would make up a story with so mundane an ending as "getting there too late and disbanded."

Maybe someone has studied Civil War soldiers from Cincinnati and has seen this story or others about "last Civil War veteran" in the area, or maybe someone can research it further, but I thought it was interesting enough to post and share as is.

Advertising Card for “First Class Artificial Limbs”

This advertising card is one of my favorite pieces of war-related (even if distantly) ephemera. It absolutely fascinates me that someone thought to use this picture of a sweet, innocent young girl to sell artificial limbs, though a google search found two other similarly strange subjects on cards from the same company. (I tried to save the pictures to use here, but they were blurry and not worth using.) Perhaps mine is not as different as I at first thought, but I still like it.

 

 

It does mention “U.S. Soldiers” can get a limb and transportation to the office for free, so apparently that excluded Confederate veterans, which does make sense since it apparently was a U.S. government program. I wonder if any ex-Confederates ever tried to benefit from this offer. 

Google books has this information about the company. Mr. Evans had moved from St. Louis to Cincinnati, taking over business from a Dr. Bly, and had previously worked in New Orleans. According to this link (see image below), he moved to the address on this card in 1884, almost 20 years after the Civil War had ended.

Postcard From the Past: Reunion of the 9th Ohio Volunteer Infantry

I recently acquired this neat old postcard and after discussing it with a friend who is interested in the 9th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (9th OVI), decided to look at it more closely and discuss it here.

The unused card is in far from mint condition, but is still in good enough shape to be readable. It is unlike any other postcard I have or have even seen, and certainly different than what modern postcards show. Both the image and the amount of text on it are different than today’s cards.

It is not a surprise that this group had a 50 year reunion of their mustering into the army. People have always liked reunions and this occurred during the age of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) and other groups of former soldiers. Civil War veterans were quickly aging or passing away, so events like this were not uncommon. It is cool that they took this picture with these honorees, but turning it into a postcard seems a strange thing to do, though as a lover of history,  I’m glad they did and that it has survived the past century.

The card shows the men standing in front of a hard-to-see background, apparently a sign or banner, which includes the event name as well as a listing of the unit’s battles, much like regimental flags showed. It does look like somebody wrote in some letters to complete words that may have been hidden behind the men.

The following two lines appear at the top of the background image:
Nor shall their glories be forgot,
While fame the record keeps. 

These lines are a slight rewording of two lines from the poem “Bivouac of the Dead” (written by
Kentuckian Theodore O’Hara after the Mexican War.) They also are similar to lines I’ve seen on various GAR postcards, naturally focusing on the courage, victories and patriotism of those being honored.

The men are wearing dark suits, each with ribbons on them. The ribbons likely were specifically made for this reunion, as such decorations were popular at events like this.

None of the three men featured the long, thick facial hair that many Civil War soldiers wore fifty years previously, but perhaps it was not coincidental that the safety razor had been patented just a decade before this reunion.

I really like that it includes the names and ages of the three veterans. So many old pictures have survived without identification on them, so it is great that this one fortunately is different. It is truly cool to have such facts included with the image.

Seeing the men’s names listed here naturally made me curious about them. I have been able to find out a few details about their lives and service

Frank E Kaiser was born June 6, 1843 in Germany. He enlisted in Company C of the 9th Ohio on January 1, 1864 as a private. He was discharged, still a private, on June 7, 1864, when the unit’s 3-year term of service expired. He may have also been in the 1st U.S. Veteran Volunteer Engineer Corps, at least according to the National Park Service’s Soldiers and Sailors list of Civil War soldiers. If so, his correct discharge date was apparently September 2, 1865 when that unit was mustered out. He died on January 14, 1928 and was buried in the Vine Street Hill Cemetery in Cincinnati.

Gerhard Ferber was a corporal when he joined Company F of this unit on April 22, 1861, in the aftermath of the firing on Fort Sumter and beginning of the war. This was when the regiment mustered in at Camp Harrison, before reorganizing as a 3-year unit at Camp Dennison. Ferber was apparently one of the original members of this unit, which at first had too many volunteers as it organized in the midst of a great patriotic fervor. He still was a corporal when he mustered out with
the regiment 3 years later. He had been born on September 29, 1820 in Germany and passed away May 31, 1917 in Cincinnati, where he was interred in Spring Grove Cemetery.

Henry Spaeth enlisted in  Company C of the  9th OVI on May 27, 1861. He earned promotion to 2nd Lieutenant on in September 1, 1862 and perhaps changed companies at that time, to Company D.  He earned further promotion to 1st Lieutenant in February 1864 and was discharged with the rest of the regiment on June 7, 1864. He had been born December 25, 1838 in Wertenburgh, passed away on March 23, 1922 and was buried in River View Cemetery in Aurora, Indiana. He also was  a member of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States.

The phrase “Cumberland’s Iron Brigade” at the bottom is especially intriguing. I had not heard it before and asked for some help with it. Thanks again to social media, a friend found that this appears to have been a post-War nickname, possibly self-given by regimental members to make them seem as tough as the men of the famous Iron Brigade of the Army of the Potomac. This is based on an remark and note in the book We Were the Ninth: A History of the Ninth Regiment, Ohio Voluntary Infantry, April 17, 1861, to June 7, 1864, by Constantin Grebner, translated and edited by Frederic Trautmann (1987).

The 9th OVI was a nearly all-German regiment recruited in Cincinnati, apparently the same city where their reunion took place in 1911. Here is another picture from that reunion, from a regimental history site. That site has much more detailed information on this entire unit and its history than this entry will describe.

The book Cincinnati Germans in the Civil War, translated by Don Tolzmann discusses this unit briefly and here are a couple more sites that have some good information on this unit.

Ohio Civil War

Cincinnati Civil War Roundtable

Ohio Civil War Central

I never know what will attract my interest about the Civil War or specific pieces of it. In this case, it was a bent-up, torn old postcard that caught my attention and turned it one of the fascinating local units of the war. I’m sure I’ll start paying more att3ntion in the future when I see references to the brave men of the 9th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, as well as to other postcards I happen to see.

The George Grey Barnard Statue of Abraham Lincoln: Conclusion

This is the final installment in the series about this statue. See also  part one and part two.

Even with the decision to send a duplicate of Saint-Gaudens' statue to London finalized, the Taft family, who had commissioned Barnard's work, had other plans. The Tafts decided to offer a second casting of this monument to another English city, Manchester. Believing that an image of a "rough-hewn" man would fit well in that working-class city, and that it would be an appropriate location for a gift after it had supported the Union cause during the Civil War, (even during the cotton shortage that hurt local textile mills), Manchester accepted the gift. According to Adam I.P. Smith's article, a Manchester newspaper opined: "London, in posessing the St. Gaudens statue, will have Lincoln the President; Manchester has Lincoln the man." British author H.S. Perris thought highly of Lincoln and believed Barnard's statue would benefit humanity while giving the English people "a great lesson in Democracy," but even this was was not acceptable to at least one newspaper writer who preferred a figure of the "statesman" who had freed the slaves, who lived large in history and who should be remembered instead of the "awkward, stumbling" individual presented by Barnard. 

Manchester displayed this new monument in Platt Fields but when it was moved to the central section of the city, near what is now known as "Lincoln Square" in 1986, controversy arose when some of the text on it he statue's base, taken from a Lincoln letter to Manchester, was changed to say "working people" in place of "working men."

Lincoln statue, current location in Manchester, courtesy speel.me.uk

Another copy of Barnard's statue eventually arrived in Louisville, Kentucky, where it was called "gloriously ugly and at the same time touchingly pathetic." That phrase apparently came from someone who liked the monument.

Lincoln statue in Louisville, "standing on water"during 1937 flood, courtesy filsonhistorical.org

Today the original statue still stands near the central business district of Cincinnati, but it is a hidden secret. I worked near it for years before finding out it was there and have only visited it a few times. Perhaps this would be different if the city had followed Barnard's suggestion of putting the statue near the Tyler Davidson Fountain, the city's signature landmark, on Fountain Square, still a heavily visited center-of-downtown spot. Apparently the idea of trying to squeeze another monument into that area was one that went nowhere and the statue ended up in Lytle Park, near the house where Charles Taft lived (now the Taft Museum of Art.)

In his book, Percoco compliments Barnard's creation, but states: "Yet I think the right call was made in sending the duplicate cast of the Saint-Gaudens cast to London. I have seen that, too, and in that particular space, Barnard's Lincoln would have looked very out of place. Lincoln the statesman is to be preferred on the international stage as our exportable image (emphasis is mine) for another nation's capital." Even now, questions about Lincoln's image (and, thus, memory) still exist. Was he the Lincoln of "The Prairie Years" or of "The War Years?" Is one truly better than, or preferable to, the other? Does context matter? Who decides? In cases like this, should an artist use his/her interpretation of a figure, or try to gauge what the potential audience wants? Can these answers change over time?

i have not seen Saint-Gaudens' work, nor its location in London, but to me, it appears Barnard accomplished his personal artistic goals, even while not matching the expectations of much of the audience. His statue shows what appears to be a normal man, not a super-hero, in a fairly normal-looking stance, not someone striking a pose for a portrait or to project a grandiose image. 

To me, it is neither an overly romantic representation of its subject nor an insult to his memory. Perhaps placing Lincoln's hands by his side or behind his back may have made the statue look more natural, but if Barnard made a mistake, it may have been more in his choice to portray the younger Lincoln than in the execution of his vision. Even if his final product does not show a "statesman-like" figure, it remains a plain, honest rendering of an American icon, a rendering whose story is as fascinating as the statue itself.

Barnard's statue on left, St.Gaudens' on right

(Note on Sources

Most of the sources I used are linked or mentioned within the three posts, but I will add another post to list them in an easier-to-read format.)

The George Grey Barnard Statue of Abraham Lincoln: In the Eye of the Beholder

Courtesy Wikipedia

(Part two of three. See part one  about the origins of this statue and the disagreement surrounding its creation.)

The dedication of Barnard's sculpture in Cincinnati in 1917 did not settle the questions over his work as new debates soon arose nationwide, and even across the Atlantic Ocean. These disputes over the accuracy and attractiveness of his statue were more widespread than the localized questions about its creation.

As The "Great War" was taking place in Europe and discussion about possible American intervention in the war increased, a debate over image and memory began. The American Centennial Committee existed to commemorate the centennial of the end of the War of 1812 and, to celebrate one hundred years of peace with England, decided to send a copy of a statue of Abraham Lincoln to London as a gift to stand in front of the Parliament building. Even as the ongoing war delayed or cancelled some of the planned ceremonies, debate began about which statue to send. Some people wanted to send a copy of a statue by Augustus Saint-Gaudens, but others then proposed gifting a copy of Barnard's work instead. This idea ignited an intense scrutiny of Barnard's piece and his depiction of the martyred hero. The ensuing discussion led to harsh criticism of Barnard's sculpture, according to various sources such as this article by Harold E. Dickson.

Critics, including Robert Lincoln, disliked the overall appearance of the statue, including the long neck, slouched shoulders and oversized hands and feet. Even Barnard's casting of shoes instead of boots on Lincoln's feet drew ire. Many considered the statue undignified and ugly.  

Members of the American Congress joined the debate over the appropriateness of sending Barnard's work as the gift.  Many people opposed this possibility due to the statue's perceived ugliness. Robert Lincoln was among those who fought strongly against this idea. He called the thought of giving it to England "simply horrible," according to this link, and pledged he was "doing everything possible" to stop it. He described Barnard's work as "a monstrous figure which is grotesque as a likeness of President Lincoln and defamatory as an image." 

(An interesting suggestion comes from page 75 of the book  Summers with Lincoln: Searching for the Man in the Monuments (2009, Fordham University Press) as author James A. Percoco speculates that Robert Lincoln's disapproval of this image may have been due to youthful embarrassment over his father's appearance and how this work reminded him of that.)

Other descriptions of this monument included: "a mistake in bronze," "revolting as a portrait," "more simian than human" "colossal clodhopper," "a distressing statue,"and (my favorite and almost the title of this post) "misshapen, ugly, comic, cartoonist feet exhibiting plenty of sole, but no soul." The Literary Digest claimed: "people are somewhat startled by the stark realism" of the statue.

Gutzon Borglum, famed later for his work on Mount Rushmore, but who had lost out on the commission for the Lincoln statue to Barnard, also chimed in (probably with a vineyard full of sour grapes), calling it "the Barnard grotesque."

A very thorough and helpful  article by Adam I.P. Smith (which discusses Lincoln's memory/image in England and British-American relations in the early 20th century - it goes well beyond the scope of my posts, but is certainly worth reading) notes that Judd Stewart, who collected Lincoln-related items, wrote to the British Commissioner of Public Works that Barnard had represented Lincoln "as a weakling with an immature body, with atrocious hands and feet, and with a face that...shows an almost painful expression of insipidity and weakness" and that erecting this work in front of Parliament would be "a lasting shame to the donors and to the people of London."

It became known as the "stomach ache statue" due to Barnard's placing of Lincoln's hands on his abdomen, while other people felt it was not "statesman-like" enough. A recent eBay auction of a photograph of the statue described it as "sad, weary."

Screen capture of eBay auction

Despite this, condemnation was not universal, as other people liked it. John Stewart, who, according to Smith's article had suggested sending this statue to England, wrote to the British version of the centennial committee that Barnard's sculpture would be a good choice as it would "present a man and not an idealized effigy."

Barnard's work also impressed Theodore Roosevelt who wrote approvingly: "At last we have the Lincoln of the Lincoln-Douglas debates...This statue is unique; I know of no other so full of life."

Of Barnard, Roosevelt continued: "the greatest sculptor of our age...He has given us Lincoln, the Lincoln we know and love."

William Howard Taft, in his dedication speech, said: "The sculptor, in his presentment of Lincoln, which we here dedicate, portrays the unusual height, the sturdy frame, the lack of care in dress, the homely but strong face, the sad but sweet features, the intelligence and vision of our greatest American. He has with success caught in this countenance and this form the contrast between the pure soul and the commanding intellect of one who belongs to the ages."

Others in the art and journalism worlds also approved of Barnard's work. The North American, a Philadelphia newspaper, wrote of it, in words similar to Roosevelt's, that it was "the people's Lincoln and the people will know it as their own."

At the beginning of the project, the Cincinnati Enquirer expected an "heroic" and "colossal" statue and seven years later used similar language in a highly complimentary article the day after the dedication, calling it "heroic," and "an imposing and impressive work."  In May of 1918, the Enquirer reprinted a Washington Post article which quoted sculptor Jerome Connor as saying that Barnard's statue was "eloquent of power, of will and dominance" and that it demonstrated "the indomitable spirit and will of the Lincoln of history."

In his book, Percoco suggests that this issue was now more than an argument over the sculptor's vision or the statue's attractiveness, and had evolved into "a question of who owned Lincoln's memory. Barnard's vision of a rumpled hick rankled those who believed that Lincoln should be afforded greater dignity in a public sculpture" (page 62).

As Smith's article shows, the question of ownership of Lincoln's memory arose not just in the United States, but in England also. Some Englishmen, like famed Lincoln biographer Lord Charnwood, preferred Saint-Gaudens' interpretation, but others liked Barnard's work. Playwright John Drinkwater wrote of Barnard's statue that "in every basic principle of the art it is as profound and as exact as are the creations of Michael Angelo (sic) himself." Charnwood, Drinkwater and other British writers and thinkers tried to connect Lincoln to England through his genealogy, liberalism and similarities to British politicians, political philosophies and accomplishments of the past.

In early 1918, the American Centennial Committee asked its membership for its preference of which statue to send and the Saint-Gaudens work, featuring an older Lincoln in more formal pose, won easily. Polls by various newspapers produced similar results, with Barnard's creation consistently finishing at the bottom of the contests. Thanks at least partially to pressure from Robert Lincoln, American politicians and groups in England, this committee formally approved the choice of Saint-Gaudens' statue as the appropriate gift. With funding from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a copy of this work was cast and shipped to London, where it was dedicated in 1920. 

Saint-Gaudens statue in London, courtesy Wikipedia 

Thus, most of the controversy over the creation and appearance of this statue had reached its natural conclusion, but a few questions about this work remained. The next post, the final one in this series, will describe those, including the story of the two final copies of Barnard's sculpture. I will then post a separate entry listing the sources I used for this story.

The George Grey Barnard Statue of Abraham Lincoln: Cast in Controversy

Detail from undated postcard, author's collection

Creating a statue to a national hero and giving it as a gift to a city may sound like a fairly simple idea, but even a seemingly smooth path can turn out to be full of bumps, as in the following story of George Grey Barnard's statue of Abraham Lincoln in downtown Cincinnati.

Following up on a recent post about the possibility of this statue being moved within a renovated park, I found some truly fascinating history behind this monument. I learned that a book on this subject already exists, but have not read it, though I may look into buying it. Despite that, I believe I have found enough of the story to share here (so much, in fact, they I have separated it into three posts, plus a separate list of sources, in order to make it more readable.) It is an interesting tale of controversy which mixes memory and image with family, national and even international legacy, along with the question of who decides, creates or controls such historical concepts.

The idea for this statue originated when local businessman, Civil War veteran and Lincoln admirer Frederick Alms passed away. A few years later, his widow thought that donating $100,000 for a statue of Lincoln for Cincinnati, around the centennial of Lincoln's birth, would be an appropriate way to honor both her late husband and the martyred ex-president. She had attorney Harry Probasco create and preside over a Lincoln Memorial Committee, consisting of five trustees (Probasco and four others), to handle this project, in late 1909. The intention at the time was for a "heroic" or "colossal" statue according to the Cincinnati Enquirer of May 18, 1910.

When four of the trustees contracted sculptor George Grey Barnard to create the statue, Probasco, president of the committee and, who, along with Mrs. Alms, preferred to hire Gutzon Borglum as the artist, claimed or threatened to resign his position, though it is not clear if he actually did do. Shortly thereafter, with some question as to whether or not a unanimous decision on a sculptor was required by the committee's rules, Mrs. Alms then threatened to revoke her financial pledge if Barnard was hired. Charles P. Taft, one of the trustees, then decided to pay the $100,000 for it as a gift from the Taft family in place of the Alms family, and "after some rather heated correspondence" according to the Enquirer, the remaining four trustees, including Taft, resigned from the committee. It briefly appeared that Cincinnati might receive two Lincoln statues, one from Alms and another from Taft. Probasco, however, called this possibility "manifestly absurd" but noted that if Mrs. Alms did pay for a statue by Borglum, "it would be so far superior to anything that George Grey Barnard might execute - it would be as the sun at midday compared to a tallow candle."

Barnard, the sculptor whom Taft and the other trustees chose to create the Lincoln statue, was well-known throughout the country, though the linked biography notes that he had "endured a period of rejection due to his refusal to conform to others’ perceptions of what his work should be" early in his career, a foreshadowing of what he called his "journey through the heart of Lincoln." His goal for the Lincoln statue was to make it appear as real and human as possible. A 1916 Enquirer article quoted him as saying "I would not feel that his face could give its message if I had left out a single wrinkle of the network of lines, or even the wart on his left cheek." According to a booklet about the dedication ceremony, he felt that an "imaginary Lincoln" would be "an insult to the American people, a thwarting of democracy" and believed that "the tool Lincoln and God made - Lincoln's self - must be shown." He considered art "the science that bridges 'tween nature and man" and believed in "Sculpture being a science to interpret living forms," so this was the tool he would use to acoomplish his "intense desire to tell the truth about Lincoln's form."

He chose to portray the younger, clean-shaven Lincoln as he appeared before becoming famous instead of the familiar bearded Lincoln. (Perhaps this compares to the "young Elvis" or "fat Elvis" postage-stamp question of a few years ago.) He gave his subject an informal pose and wrinkled clothing instead of an idealized view of a famous leader decked-out in the nicest of clothes and perfect posture.

Courtesy aaa.si.edu

Courtesy Pinterest.com

Once finished, the 11-foot tall statue went on temporary display in New York City. It moved to its permanent home and was dedicated in Cincinnati's Lytle Park in a large ceremony on March 31, 1917 with former President William Howard Taft, a Cincinnati native and Charles' half-brother, giving a dedication speech. Edward Colston, a prominent local attorney who was married to a daughter of former Kentucky Governor John W. Stevenson, presided over the ceremony. Interestingly enough, he was also a former Confederate soldier. Perhaps this was symbolic of the spirit of reconciliation that existed throughout the country decades after the war. This brief article from the National Park Service discusses how reconciliation was a much more prominent theme of the creation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., (constructed in a similar time period as Barnard's work), than was emancipation.

Here is the booklet about the ceremony, including comments from Barnard, Taft's speech and an acceptance speech from Cincinnati Mayor George Puchta.

"The Unveiling" from the ceremony booklet

The creation of this monument, however, was just the beginning of the controversy. Once the statue was dedicated, the idea of sending a copy of it to England developed and this led to a close review of Barnard's work. The next two installations of this story will explore the various reactions the final product evoked.