NY Times Disunion Blog: Fall of the House of Underwood

The Fall of the House of Underwood is an excellent story from one of the blogs I try to read frequently about one specific example of the mixed sentiments (Union or Confederate) that existed among people in Kentucky (even slaveholders) and some f the reactions to those feelings.

Many Kentucky slaveholders remained loyal to the Union when the war started, feeling that keeping the Union together would be the best way to protect slavery, while rebellion would most likely lead to the end of the institution. As I've mentioned before, Creating a Confederate Kentucky by Anne Marshall does an excellent job of explaining this.

Unfortunately, this incident in early 1862 destroyed the Underwood estate before the Emancipation Proclamation and the use of African-American soldiers became issues for those slaveholders who remained loyal. Some of these started questioning or changing their loyalties because of these issues, thinking the Federal Government had betrayed them. How would the Underwoods, with their apparent strong support of the Union, have reacted to these issues?

I also find it notable that both Confederate and Union soldiers caused much destruction in the area. It was not just one side that behaved more badly than the other, though apparently the actions by men on the Union side did more harm than good to the Union cause.

Here is a map of Kentucky showing the location of Bowling Green.

Why New York City is for the War: One Opinion

Broadway, New York city, 1860 courtesy of Wikipedia

 
From the Covington Journal of May 25, 1861, comes this piece.

We have never been at a loss to know why Abolitionists, ambitious men in the military line, and would-be army contractors should favor a "vigorous prosecution" of the war, but we have been at a loss to account for the furor displayed by the city of New York in behalf of measures to "wipe out the South." A New York correspondent of the Cincinnati Enquirer throws some light on the point. He says: 

"I inquired of a leading citizen what was the cause of New York having on her such an extra military fever? He replied: 'Her bread and butter is in imminent danger now and hereafter. Successful secession of the Southern states would ruin her. She would not be one half what she is now with the Union divided. We all know it, all feel it, all see it. This is what makes our moneyed men shell out so freely. If rebellion is put down New York is made forever. WE COULD STOP THE WAR; BUT TO STOP IT, AND SECESSION SUCCESSFUL, WOULD BE OUR DEATH.' This same gentleman led me into some secrets. Railroad interests have considerable to do with the war. THE MOST SOUTHERN ROUTE LEADING FROM THE GREAT NORTH-WEST TO THE EAST MUST BE DESTROYED - THAT IS THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO ROAD, AND WITH IT BALTIMORE ITSELF. There must be no rival north of 36 36 to New York. You find in that idea the reason for much of the military feeling here, both in the camp and in the bank parlors."

This pocket patriotism will be duly appreciated and remembered by the South. 

---
It's kind of interesting that they seem to ridicule New York's apparent self-interest in the war, but make no mention that the reasons for secession also were based on similar motives.

Pardons for people who helped slaves escape in KY?

The article I am linking here is from May of 2010, and I don't know how I missed it the first time, but I find it interesting and a good idea.

The timing is actually not bad for me, as I'm currently reading Creating a Confederate Kentucky, a very fine book by Anne Marshall, and this article mentions how Kentucky's role in the Civil War was "ambivalent," a description much more understandable when considered alongside Marshall's book. Also the concept of offering pardons for this type of crime, yet no  descendants of those convicted of these offenses offers an interesting perspective on how the war and slavery are remembered in current times.

This article does not mention the names of all 44 who were to be pardoned, and I have not yet found out if the pardons have yet occurred, but I will look into it more and see what I can find.(One quick question: did the people undertaking this project ever list all of the names or publicize them somehow? If not, then it is no wonder at all that no descendants have expressed interest in this work.)

Also, I do wonder if it is accurate for the writer of the article's headline to use the word "abolitionists." I tend to think of that word as being for those who wanted slavery eliminated, but does it also count for those who simply helped (or tried to help) slaves escape? Is it safe to assume that these people (I've seen them called "operators" on the Underground Railroad) favored the abolition of slavery? Is helping a slave escape the same as wanting the entire institution prohibited? I'll have to think about that some more while wondering if I'm being too finicky in asking these questions.

I also recommend reading the New York Times' Editorial on this story. The article linked above includes a link to it as well, but I am also linking it in case that makes it easier to find. It is worth the click.

(And again, it is interesting to find this commentary in the New York Times, a newspaper frequently referred to in Marshall's book for its observations and thoughts about Kentucky in the late 1800s. The use of the phrase "Modern Kentucky" in the editorial quickly caught my attention, presumably because I'm reading the book about Kentucky of the past.)