Abolitionism Defined

Here is another old article concerning abolitionists and their goals, at least as perceived by their opponents.  The Covington Journal of May 27, 1854 printed this brief story. Slavery was a huge issue throughout the country, as the Kansas-Nebraska Act was close to being passed when the paper published these few lines.


Senator Brodhead of Pennsylvania, in an admirable speech in favor of the Nebraska bill, thus defines abolitionism:

"Sir, the spirit of abolitionism is thoroughly venomous and implacable. No concessions will satisfy or appease it - Inspired by a deadly, indistinguishable hatred of our system of confederate government, it would rush to the accomplishments of its designs over a prostrate Constitution, and through the baleful flames of a civil war. Destructive in all its instincts and passions, it is to be resisted as an enemy to whom no quarter is to be given, and to conciliate whom is to betray our country.

This story refers to Senator Richard Brodhead.

From govtrack.us

A Period Kentucky Article on John Brown's Raid

From the Covington Journal of October 22 1859, this story is generally unremarkable, except I find it interesting that it never mentions John Brown's name, even while referring to the "impetuous leader."

I also note the term "established institutions" used as an euphemism for slavery. Placing blame on abolitionists and Henry Seward's famed "irrepressible conflict" speech was not unusual either. The reference to a "bloody drama" was rather accurate, though just how bloody it would be was something nobody could know.

The Abolition Insurrection

The Abolition insurrection at Harper's Ferry is a startling event.  We have had servile insurrections in the South. These, though serious, were neighborhood affairs, confined to blacks; entered upon without a digested plan of operation, utterly hopeless in their very nature and never repeated in the same locality. The insurrection at Haroer's Ferry was altogether different and much more formidable. A band of Abolitionists, after years of cautious planning, take up their abode in a slave State. They collect together arms and other warlike munitions sufficient to equipped fifteen hundred men. - they had the countenance of prominent and wealthy antislavery agitators, North and South, send the promise of aid from a host of desperate and revengeful fugitives. So complete were their arrangements that a plan for a provisional government had been agreed upon. The movement was doubtless precipitated by the impetuous leader. The aid promised was not at hand, and this, with the prompt action of the constituted authorities, brought the insurrection to a speedy termination. 

Take the affair altogether, it is one of the most daring attempts to subvert established institutions of which we have any account. It is practical Abolitionism, the result of the teachings of such men as Giddings and Garrison - the first act in the bloody drama prefigured in Seward's "irrepressible conflict."  

Will thus insurrectionary movement, so villainously fearful in its arrangement, so bloody in its termination, induce the masses of the North to turn a deaf ear to the incendiary teachings of heartless demagogues and canting fanatics, and impart to all a spirit of moderation and a determination to abide by the stable shed order of things? We may at least hope that such will be the result.

Image from Wikipedia 

Quick Book Review: Lincoln's Citadel: The Civil War in Washington D.C. By Kenneth J. Winkle

Lincoln's Citadel: The Civil War in Washington D.C. 
Kenneth J. Winkle

2014, W.W. Norton & Co.

This is a good, informative book. It has been a few months since I read it and I did not keep a lot of notes, but it is an interesting study, one that I had planned to review, so here it is. It has a nice flowing narrative, which makes it a pleasant and easy read. It is a bit long, but that is fine as it covers a lot of information.

This book is basically a biography of Washington D.C. during the war, though it starts with a good discussion of "the abolition house," where several pre-war anti-slavery Congressmen boarded while the government was in session. I really liked this part and it was a good way to start the book, discussing a key issue of the time.

The different chapters of the book cover many topics about the city during the war, including demographics (with a nice breakdown of the racial makeup in the city, including among various occupations), sanitation, safety (including a description of the conflict between city and Congressional responsibility and authority for providing a police force and how much authority military leaders had) and the influx of African-Americans, both "contrabands" from Virginia and fugitive slaves from Maryland. It also details other concerns like hospitals throughout the city, nursing, the presence of animals in the city and the as rival of thousands of soldiers throughout the war. The organization of the chapters and various topics is a real asset of this work.

This book is a good one that I do recommend. It gives a fine overview of the nation's Capitol during the Civil War. The author discusses many aspects of the city and its people during the war years, and how the war affected the city thorough the influx of soldiers, wounded men, African-Americans and other issues. It is well-organized and formatted and provides an interesting perspective of the city and the challenges it faced.

Down With Abolitionism

After a week without any posts, I turn back to the Covington Journal for a subject matter. Only a few more weeks of this paper are available, but it should still provide quite a few interesting articles.

In the edition from June 7, 1862, this paper continues its obsession with abolition and African-Americans, with a few more brief articles and stories. Here is one whose title makes the papers point of view very obvious.

Down with Abolitionism
DOWN WITH ABOLITIONISM! Let this be the motto of the truly loyal and conservative men of the North and West, until the monster is not only crushed, but killed. It was scotched at the spring elections - let us finish the job in the fall.

Down with the Abolitionists, and down with the men and presses, who, directly or indirectly, endorse and sustain them.

They must go down, or the country will go down. 

They must go down, or the Constitution will go down. 

They must go down, or the rights and liberties of the people will go down. 

They must go down, or the interests of the working man will go down. 

They must go down or the white race will go down.

There is no longer use in temporizing on the part of the conservative men. The radicals - led by Sumner, Wade et al- have been, and are as bitter enemies to the Union as the secessionists in the South. They prosecute the war solely that Abolitionism may be successful. Every day but furnishes additional evidence of their designs.

The Effect of Abolition Legislation in Kentucky

Here is an article from the May 17, 1862 Covington Journal, expressing some thoughts about how the progress of abolition in various legislatures was affecting Kentucky. It is a bit long, but I think is a worthwhile read. I have a couple more comments I have added at the end of the article, about the conclusions it reached and my view of them.

The Effect of Abolition Legislation in Kentucky
An Ohio contemporary says:

"We know the mischief that has already been done to the Union cause in Kentucky by the posiferous schemes of the Abolitionists, and we tell the country that a little more of the same sort from those agitators and irreparable injury will have been done to Unionism in that State." 

We are satisfied that all such statements as the above convey an incorrect impression of the effect in Kentucky of Abolition Legislation. When, months ago, the question whether Kentucky should remain as she was or cast her lot with the Southern Confederacy was regarded an open one a very respectable number of her people took the ground that her geographical position as well as her social and commercial interests called upon her to make common cause with her sisters of the South. The will of the majority of the people, as expressed through conventions and by their representatives in the State Legislature, was for a position of neutrality. The record bears us out in the assertion that the acquiescence in this determination was almost unanimous. When, at a later day, the Legislature gave up neutrality and took sides with the Federal government, many of the friends of the South, including nearly all who were  recognized as leaders, left Kentucky to join the Southern Confederacy. We have n o hesitation in saying that of those who remained a vast majority acquiesced in the action of the constituted authorities of the State, thus acknowledging their allegiance to the State Government at Frankfort and the Federal Government at Washington, and from that day to this have regarded the question of separation as closed.


We as freely admit that in thus acquiescing they did not believe they were under obligations to support the Administration in all its measures; nor did they feel bound to give up the opinion that it was the purpose of the leaders of the Republican party to make use of the war of Abolition purposes. Hence, they have not only not united with the so-called Union Party but have opposed, so far as opposition could be made without organization, such of its measures as they deemed objectionable. We need not remind the paper from which we have quoted the sentence at the head of this article that opposition to the measures of the dominant party in the North has been stigmatized as secessionism. So it has been in Kentucky. The charge is not a whit more just in one case than the other.


The men of Kentucky opposed to the policy of the Republican party and distrustful of the Union party - its vascillating course and uncertain principles, at first for a third confederacy, then against separation; for neutrality, then branding as traitors all who favored it; in New York strongly anti-slavery, in some parts of Kentucky strongly pros-slavery; yesterday vouching for the conservatism of Mr. Lincoln, to-day denouncing h is party friends an advisers as Abolitionists; here unconditional Union men, there for the rights of all the people of all the States under the Constitution  - have been looking for the reorganization of the Democratic party as affording the only ground of h ope for displacing the sectionalists and madmen who now control the government and restoring public affairs to their old channels. They believe the time for re-organization is rapidly approaching, and under the banner of the rising party, in the Union, and acknowledging their allegiance to the State and Federal Governments, they propose to make the fight for the Constitution as it is and the Union as it was; for the honorable adjustment of the difficulties which have well-nigh overwhelmed us, and for the restoration of the old fraternal feeling.


Unquestionably the Abolition measures passed and pending in Congress have alarmed the people of Kentucky. Unquestionable changes of opinion are going on; but the changes are the results of doubts as to the will or the ability of the so-called Union Party to resist the aggressive movements, and are from that organization to the Democratic party - not to secessionism. Abolition legislation may be weakening the Union Party, but it is aiding in building up a party for the Constitution and the Union - a party which has set its face like flint against the schemes of the Abolitionists, and which proclaims the same principles East and West, North and South.


Our contemporary will see in this view of the case that his article conveys a wrong impression to the public mind. 

--
I find it interesting that the author insists that the changing mindset in many Kentuckians is simply that of a change of political party, not of a change to support for secession. In the months ahead of this article, emancipation and abolition would become ever more powerful and present, and many have argued that it was the onset of abolition and the use of African-Americans in the army that eventually convinced Kentuckians to "secede after the Civil War." Perhaps the changes this author noticed were the start of that process, waiting for the spark of abolition to truly light it in the future years. Was this author that observant of changes in Kentuckians mindsets, or was it kind of a lucky guess?

Various Kentucky Newspapers Discuss Aboltionism

Here is yet another article from the May 3, 1862 Covington Journal. This particular edition had several stories about abolitionism that caught my attention and that that I think are worth sharing, including this collection of editorials from around the state.

The Covington Journal was published in Covington, Kentucky, on the opposite side of the Ohio River from Cincinnati, and it is evident that issues regarding slavery and abolition were very important to the publisher, and was becoming more so as the war and such legislation and talk progressed. With the war started, this issue is much more common on this paper's pages than others such as states rights. (And even when it mention state's rights, it often is in regard to slavery and abolition.) That's at least how this one border state newspaper viewed the war and its issues.

Abolition Legislation
Voice of the Kentucky Union Press

[From the Frankfort Commonwealth]

As the question of emancipation and colonization by the General Government becomes to be understood, their impracticability becomes more and more manifest, and the whole matter will at last, from the absolute impossibility of doing any thing else with it, have to be left where the Constitution placed it- that is, to the States themselves, who alone have the rightful control of it.

And, moreover, these abolitionists themselves should remember that they too are subject to all the pains and penalties with which they propose to visit secession. Garrison and Phillips and Sumner are this day as guilty as Davis, Yancey and Toombs, and when the conservative voice of the nation speaks with its power, the terms abolitionist and secessionist will be held as synonymes of disloyalty and hostility to the American Union, and they both will feel the weight of the censure that an outraged and idignant people will heap upon them.

[From the Henderson Weekly Union]

We think the time of Congress could be much better spent, at this time, than in the discussion of slavery issues. If that body shall longer continue in session, and give out many more signs of Abolitionism, the whole ground of contest will have to be fought over again. The army is passing South through blood, and at enormous expense, it is true, yet a vast amount of disloyal sentiment is left behind, and the stock is increasing at a fearful ration in this quarter, owing to the gross folly and wickedness of the treasonable Abolitionist of the North and North-west. When the leading Republicans disclaim abolition motives and sympathy with the Abolitionists, and yet set in perfect harmony with them, the loyal men of the South distrust, very naturally, their sincerity.

The time is now at hand when the whole energies of the friends of the Union and the Constitution should be blended in the common cause - when men should decide upon the naked question of Union of dissolution. The Abolitionists of the North and Secessionists of the South both pull the same string, and declared for dissolution. The tendency of the action of both is to Abolitionism. The object of each is disunion.

[From the Lexington Observer]

 The Thirty sixth Congress of the United States initiated  a civil war by turning an indifferent ear to the appeal of the Border States for a "compromise" on the slavery question. The Thirty-seventh Congress of the United States has committed a similarly vital error in abolishing, by a two-thirds vote, the institution of slavery in the District of Columbia. without first leaving the question to a ballot of the citizens. Let history, says a contemporary, in recording the fact, impartially place the responsibility where it belongs. Let the political majority and the political principles which have effected these changes distinctly enjoy, in the future annals of our country, all the credit that may be attached to them.

"The Coming Tempest": More Thoughts on Abolition

Let me start with a little bit of self-congratulation that I hope readers will excuse and forgive, but this post will be number 400 since I started on blogger on June 19, 2009. I realize many of these entries have involved transcribing articles and stories, and perhaps not as much original writing as I had hoped,  and I certainly make no claim that all 400 are of the highest quality, but I do feel a bit of pride about having stuck with this for so long. Looking for items to write about has opened my eyes to quite a few new perspectives not only about the war, but how people thought about it at the time, how it is studied and remembered today and how many different perspectives -some ground in emotion, some in serious study, others in wishful thinking or daydreaming - there really are. I do not live in a hotbed of the war so my perspective is probably much more limited than others, but I do think my understanding of the war and the people who study it has grown, though with much more room to improve. Anyway, I just wanted to make a brief note of this little milestone and also note that I have come up with a new research project and idea that will combine a couple of my passions and hopefully uncover some interesting stories about the Civil War and its participants.
 
With no further ado, here is post # 400.
----
 On April 26, 1862, theCovington Journal printed another story about abolitionism and what the future might hold. This editor seems to have picked up on the advancing momentum this idea had gathered in the north and was not afraid to comment about this movement.

THE ABOLITION ISSUE
"Either Slavery or the Republic Must Perish!"
On Thursday last, in the House, while the confiscation bill was under discussion, Mr. Lovejoy 
declared that: "Either slavery or the Republic must perish." 

He also said: 
 
"Those who defend slavery defend the rebellion, for slavery and rebellion are synonymous."

A few days ago, in the Senate, Mr. Wade said that

"Men who would talk of constitutional guarantees, of habeas corpus, the phrases 'that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,' &c., in this great crisis, is a traitor at heart." 

The Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune, in view of the Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, thanked god "even for this war with its present and prospective horrors." 

These declarations are more than straws, in dictating the direction of the wind. Coupled with the formal action of the party controlling the Government, in nullifying the constitution in regard to the rendition of fugitive slaves, the abolition of slavery in the District, the freeing of slaves by military order, &c., they are signs of the coming tempest.

No man can shut his eyes to the tendency of events. As our arms advance the fanatics of the North become more insolent, more exacting,  more determined in their purpose to abolish slavery or break up the Union - "Either slavery or the republic must perish."
Listen to the words of Henry Clay in describing the Abolitionists: 

"They are resolved to persevere in the pursuit of their object at all hazards, however calamitous it may be. With them the rights of property are nothing; the acknowledged and incontestable powers of the States are nothing; civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and the overthrow of the government in which are concentrated the fondest hopes of the civilized world, are nothing, A single idea  has taken possession of their minds, and onward they pursue it, overlooking all barriers, reckless and regardless of all consequences."
 
Will these men succeed in their hellish scheme? The struggle will be a terrible one. We believe a very large majority of the people are opposed not only to breaking up the Union but to the alternative presented by the Abolitionists - the destruction of slavery; but the Abolitionists have possession of the government with ist countless offices, its vast moneyed power, and its immense army. The border slave States seem to be bound hand and foot. Our only hope is in the conservative men of the North - the hardy yeomanry, the honest mechanics and laborers who know perfectly well that every great interest of the country is opposed to the reckless schemes of the theoretical fanatics who control affairs at Washington. All things considered, the world has never witnessed a more gallant contest than those true-hearted men of the North are making for the constitution as it is and the Union as it was.  

Benjamin Wade, courtesy senate.gov

Owen Lovejoy, courtesy wikipedia

An Article on "The Spirit of Abolitionism"

This article appears in the Covington Journal of April 26, 1862. It shows the Journal's usual feelings about the subject, and includes a nice amount of sarcasm in the concluding paragraph.

The Spirit of Abolitionism
"While looking at the scene on the floor of the House, I thanked God even for this war with its present and prospective misery and suffering. Hard as our present experience may seem, terrible as are the aggregate of present suffering, and frightful as are the burdens we must bequeath to our children, the glorious triumphs of right - of which the noisy procession of events is the only minister - could not have been purchased at a less cost. 'Less would not suffice for the agriculture of God. Upon a night of earthquakes he builds a thousand years of pleasant habitation for men. Less than thee fierce ploughshares would not have stirred the stubborn soil."


So writes the Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune in connection with the passage by the House of the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia."I thanked God." For what? For a victory on the field of battle? For an assurance of peace? For a hope of the restoration of the Union, and the renewal of fraternal feeling? Oh, no, for none of these things. Slavery is abolished in the District of Columbia! Thank God for this war, with its present and prospective misery and suffering - for its enormous debt which will be entailed upon our children's children; the widows and orphans it has made; the ten thousand dead at Bull Run and Ball's Bluff and Pittsburg Landing; the twenty thousand wounded men writhing in agony! "Less than these fierce ploughshares would not have stirred the stubborn soil" and brought forth the fruit of abolitionism! This is the exultation of a fiend.

Cincinnati Enquirer Comments on Wendell Phillips

From the Cincinnati Enquirer of March 31, 1862 comes this story, a virtual follow-up on the story about the riot at Pike's Opera House when Wendell Phillips spoke a few days previously. It sounds like the Toledo Blade really got under the editor's skin and struck a nerve with his kind words toward Phillips.


Note also the talk about maintaining good relations with southern states and the unstated admission that economic interest ruled the writer's passions. In that regard, the author was almost the stereotypical money-grubbing "Yankee," yet the opposition to abolitionism is quite evident.

The article, apparently, was titled Another Negro Agitation Bill, though that does not seem accurate. Maybe the indexing was mixed up.

Is it a wonder that a city that harbors and fosters the Cincinnati Enquirer should mob the scholar, philanthropist and Christian? - Toledo Blade (Rep)

Wendell Phillips, if he is all that the Blade says he is, may nevertheless be a very mischievous  person.  H acknowledges that he has labored for nineteen years to produce a dissolution of the Union, and that he is opposed to a restoration of it as it was. He further acknowledges that no period of his life was so agreeable to his conscience as the nineteen years he was laboring to dissolve the Union. The Cincinnati Enquirer never labored an hour or a moment for the dissolution of the Union, and is warmly for it as the fathers of the Republic made it. The Enquirer was laboring to aver the great calamity of a dissolution, while WENDELL PHILLIPS was laboring to bring it about. The Enquirer, during its long life, has been the supporter of the Union and the Constitution, while WENDELL PHILLIPS has been the reviler and opposer of both - pronouncing the one to be "a league with hell" and the other "a covenant with death." The Enquirer has never labored to sow seeds of discord and hatred between the sections, whose inevitable crops could not be other than tears and blood and national calamity. WENDELL PHILLIPS, on the contrary, as much as any man, North or South, is responsible for the present civil war, and for the lives and treasure it will cost, and the burdens it will impose on the present and coming generations in the way of grinding, oppressive taxation.


The whole interest of the Enquirer was and is wrapped up in the prosperity of Cincinnati and in her avenues of trade and commerce, and the great marts which they reached. What added to the business of the city increased the prosperity of the Enquirer. The constant hum of our workshops and manufactories, the noises made by the arrival and departures of steamboats and railroad trains, the rattling of drays and wagons, the click of the trowel, were all music to our ears, for the spoke of the industry, prosperity and peace of our city. Whatever was calculated to continue and make permanent, these things found in the Enquirer a constant friend and ready advocate. And on nothing did they depend more for success and permanency than in maintaining the most close and amicable relations with the people of the so-called slave States. Those relations the Enquirer strove most assiduously to cultivate. And while those relations were maintained, Cincinnati prospered almost beyond precedent. What has been the condition of the city since those relations were disturbed through the pestilent agitation of the slavery question by WENDELL PHILLIPS and is Abolition coadjutors, every intelligent man among us knows. Who, then, should be fostered the most by Cincinnati, the Enquirer or WENDELL PHILLIPS? The one has been her friend, has grown up with her, is identified with her prosperity and has labored for her success. The other, through the influence of his pernicious and successful efforts to break up the friendly relations between the two sections, and to bring about, alas! too successfully, the dissolution of the Union, has done Cincinnati irreparable injury. The candid reader can not hesitate as to the answer truth and justice demand should be given.

courtesy concordma.com

Another report of Wendell Phillips' Speech and the Riot

This version comes from the Cincinnati Enquirer of March 25, 1862. It is similar to the Covington Journal story in my last entry, but has more details, especially on the speech Phillips attempted to make.

Note also the different reactions in each story to how Phillips handled the first distraction.

WENDELL PHILLIPS AT THE OPERA-HOUSE
REPORT OF HIS SPEECH
DISGRACEFUL TUMULT
HE IS EGGED AND STONED

The announcement that Wendell Phillips would speak at the Opera-house caused much speculation upon the streets. Threats of disturbance were common, and the prediction that he would not be permitted to address his audience, was in the mouth of every body. Yet it is apparent that no one believed that nay serious attempt to molest him would be made, fora  large audience of ladies and gentlemen, representing all shades of political faith, were gathered soon after the doors were opened. How soon thee hopes were crushed, and how outrageous the disturbance, will soon be seen.

Mr. Phillips was accompanied by the following gentlemen, who occupied seats upon the stage: Messrs. Samuel Reed, editor of the Gazette; John P. Foote, Wm. Goodman, Judge Stallo, Orton Murray and William Green.

When Mr. Phillips stepped upon the stage he was greeted with a tumult of mingled groans, hisses and cheers, the latter greatly predominating and subduing the former.

When they had subsided Judge Stallo walked to the stand and began to introduce the speaker to his audience. The remarks of the Judge were factious and full of pleasantry, comparing Mr. Phillips to a piece of artillery, the report of which had disturbed the quiet of the Potomac. 

When Pr. Phillips arose to speak, he walked to the foot amidst a volley of hisses which, like the first, was drowned in the cheers of his friends. He said -

"I have been invited, ladies and gentlemen, to speak to you on the war - the convulsion which has divided the Union for a year and threatens, in the opinion of some, to divide it forever. No more serous subject can engage the attention of the American People, for I believe that within six months, perhaps within the coming hundred days, we, the people, are to decide what the future of these thirty-four States is to be. Certainly no question of deeper import can be presented to an American audience. It is easy to say at the war came no man knows how, and that it was the fault of this man or of that party, and that it will end in ninety days or a year. But i believe that the war is no man's fault, that it is the work of neither section. It will not end in our day, and it will be a fortunate Providence if our children can look around upon a clear sky and a united country.

I believe the war to be the result of a seventy years struggle with one idea. It comes to us as a duty which God lays upon this generation. Two or three questions spring out of the present state of things. How long will the war last? What will become of slavery? What will become of the Union? In regard to the first question none can answer. We are entering upon the great struggle which no people have ever avoided - a struggle between the few and the many - a struggle between aristocracy an democracy. The North represents a democracy, founded on industry, brains and money; the South an aristocracy, founded on slave labor - an aristocracy shoe right hand is negro slavery, and whose left is the ignorant white man."

At this point a heavy bowlder (sic)was thrown from the third tier of boxes. It struck a few feet from the speaker. it cam crashing among the foot-lights like a cannon shot. Simultaneously with the bowlder(sic) came a couple of eggs, that burst like bombs, dispensing a perfume more potent than fragrant. One of these odorous missiles struck the speaker. The eggs were thrown from the left of the second tier, and were accompanied by a series of yells, like nothing unless it be the war-whoop of a score of infuriated Indians; "Dow with the traitor," "Egg the nigger Phillips," and a dozen other opprobrious epithets. It is due to Mr. Phillips to say that he stood calm and collected, without moving a muscle or flinching an inch.

When the tumult had somewhat subsided, the speaker resumed his discourse. "Allow me one word more. I do not know what that fellow-man meant who sent that stone, but I meant no insult to the non-slaveholding white men of the South. I sympathize with them, for they suffer from a despotism whose right h and is power and whose left hand is ignorance. If South Carolina ever sees the utmost exaltation of her masses, it will be when the stars and stripes guarantee freedom to every member of the thirty-four States. There are many things which American citizens can not do, and one thing which I know they can not do , and that is to prevent this belt of the American continent from being, in seventy years or less time, one country, governed by one scepter, indissoluble as granite. For thirty years I have been an Abolitionist, and nothing else." [The hisses which had been intermittent, here became like a perfect hurricane]

As soon as his voice became audible, Mr. Phillips retorted: 

"Before we Yankees went to the Roanoke and Potomac we tutored ourselves to respect free speech, and I know that you will grant it to me. For sixteen years I have been a Disunionist. [At this word the row became general; eggs were thrown ad libitum, and the stage was odorous with their disgusting fragrance. Sulphurated-hydrogen was the popular perfume, and it was long before Mr. Phillips could gain a hearing. When he attempted to explain the obnoxious phrase, he was so inaudible amid the general tumult that we could not report his words.]

He resumed: "To-day the contest takes the form of battle. The war is nothing to me as an Abolitionist. It has no more interest to me as such than a novel has to you after you have found the hero and heroine happily married on the last page. Whatever your opinion may be, mine is that slavery has received its death blow in the house of its friends. The American people have opened that page of their history which will record the death of slavery. In due time and after a reasonable interval slavery will die. The cry has been "Cotton is King." South Carolina dragged Lyons and Lancaster to her feet, and said "Babies, keep quiet." She has starved them for eleven months, but at last account they were doing quite well.

Another idea was that the North would not fight. South Carolina tried that on in miniature, when she pitted Missouri against Kansas. When their orchards were grubbed up, the Yankees went home to New England and begged rifles. Let the war continue twenty-four months, and McClellan will be a jayhawker. The third idea of the death of slavery is derived from the message of the President. I believe the President is an honest man, but a very slow one. He desires to stand between the parties, and finding which way the tide was setting he warned the Border States that now was their time to sell."
Mr. Phillips continued to speak for over an hour, but the melee in the second tier created so much confusion that we should not be able to do him justice, did we attempt to report him further. 

Cries and exhortations resounded from all parts of the house. Eggs were occasionally hurled at the stage, one of which struck Mr. Murray.
The cries of "Lynch the Traitor," "Hang the Nigger," "Tar and Feather the Abolitionist" (we omit the profanity.) Ladies and timorous gentlemen made their escape.

The stage was in confusion, and gentlemen from the audience mounted it as a favorable stand point from which  to witness the row. The speaker vainly continued to speak, but could not be heard. 

The rowdies came down stairs with cries of "Lt us take the stage," "Lynch him," "Put out the gas." When they reached the middle aisle the melee became general, stools and umbrellas were freely used. Some ladies fainted, and others scrambled ungracefully over bench-tops. Mr. Pike and other gentlemen were struck while endeavoring to keep the peace. It being probable that some of the evil-disposed would find the "gas stop" and put out the lights, in which case the loss of life would have been frightful, Mr. Phillips was induced to cease speaking, and the meeting was dispensed. 

Both exits from the Opera-house were beset by gangs determined to lynch the obnoxious speaker.  After some delay he was disguised and passed out through the crowd undetected; but it was well on to midnight before the rowdies left the vicinity of the Opera-house.

Thus ended the attempt of Wendell Phillips to speak in Cincinnati. About eighteen or twenty eggs were thrown and a bottle of vitriol was found in the vestibule; it was not used.

Wendell Phillips Speaks in Cincinnati and a Riot Ensues

Wendell Phillips, courtesy nps.gov

On March 24, 1862, famed abolitionist Wendell Phillips delivered a speech at Pike's Opera House in Cincinnati, but many in the audience did not exactly appreciate the comments that this radical abolitionist and reformer delivered that evening. 

Below is long report from the Covington Journal of March 29, 1862.  The New York Times had a brief story about this incident at the time and here is another modern telling of this event. As the latter discusses, sentiment in Cincinnati was not altogether different than that in Kentucky, with a lot of support for the Union, but opposition to abolitionists and to extremists on both sides of the controversy - and Phillips was certainly an extremist.

Pike's Opera House, courtesy cincinnativiews.net

The Wendell Phillips Riot at Pike's Opera House
By an eye-witness

Monday night last some two thousand people assembled at Pike's Opera House, Cincinnati, to hear Wendell Phillips speak. A reporter looking in early in the evening would have classed the audience as "highly respectable." The people were dressed well enough, and as they came in took their seats quietly. There was perhaps an over-proportion of gaunt, long-haired men and ill-favored spectacled women - such as are recognized as among the elect at Women's Rights conventions or entertainments of spiritualists. At the appointed hour Phillips was introduced to the audience in a silly speech by Judge somebody, who likened him to a piece of heavy artillery, which had just made the echoes on the Potomac ring with its thunder ones, but feared that he was running counter to the order of the Secretary of War in speaking of the movements of the artillery, and  closed with the remark that the historian, in writing out the history of the war, would class his "distinguished friend" as one of its greatest heroes. Phillips then commenced his address, and spoke for fifteen or twenty minutes without eliciting any decided manifestation of approbation or disapprobation from the great body of the audience.

Upon the utterance of an ultra abolition sentiment there was some applause, but not quite enough to drown a few hisses. Phillips said that "the slaveholders were sustained on one hand by four million blacks in bondage, and on the other by about as many mean whites." He had scarcely given utterance to the sentiment before a small stone was thrown at him from one of the upper tiers. Men jumped to their feet, with cries of "Put him out!" "Put him out!" and an individual was named as the offender, but no person seemed inclined to undertake the job of putting him out. When the stone struck the stage Phillips at once stopped speaking, stepped back a pace or tow, and seemed at a loss what to do or say. Waiting until the noise and confusion had partially subsided, he stepped forward and undertook to explain away the offensive remark. He said he intended no offense, and had used the expression as it was used by slaveholders themselves in speaking of non-slaveholders. 

 Our readers who heard Yancey speak at the Opera House will remember how he met the first displays of the mob spirit - how in act and word he defied the disturbers, and thus commanded their silence, and a hearing for himself. At the critical moment Phillips hesitated. He lacked the tack or the boldness to meet the emergency, and from that moment his fate with the audience was sealed. At no time after the first outbreak was order restored, though snatches of what the speaker said cold be heard. With elevated voice he declared: "For thirty years I have been an avowed Abolitionist; for sixteen years a Disunionist." A shower of eggs - one or tow striking the speaker - greeted the declaration. "Put 'em out!" "Put 'em out!" resounded from all parts of the house. We were struck with the quite question of a lady: "Is it not strange that among so many men who want to "put 'em out" no one will undertake it?"

A fierce-looking little man in the parquet jumped up on his seat, and shaking his fist in the direction of the second tier exclaimed, "I dare you to come down here and do that!" There was a rush up stairs, supposed for a moment to be for the purpose of putting the rioters out; but, as events proved, it was a gathering together of those who sympathized with them. During all this time Phillips continued to speak, but not many could hear a word he uttered.

The rioters, now confident in their power came down to the first floor, occupying the space in the rear of the front boxes. The leader, with the voice of a Stentor (sic - Senator?) , called out, "Three cheers for the Union!"  and the "Three groans for the Abolitionists!" and both were given with a will. 

Then followed a sort of colloquy, carried on in loud tones: "He's the man that wants to put the niggers in the work-shops alongside of us, isn't he a pretty bird? "

"Yes; that may do for Massachusetts, but it smells to strong  for us." 

"He says the Constitution is a compact with the devil; to the devil with him I say." 

"Down with the nigger thieves and Abolitionists."

"Up with 'em, I say; hand 'em up!" 

In the meantime many of the women had left the house. Those who remained were of course excited and alarmed. 

At this junction one of the rioters jumped up on a seat and exclaimed: "For God's sake don't shoot till the ladies get out!" This settled the business. There was a general rush for the doors, and in the midst of the confusion Phillips made his bow and retired. 

Judging from what could be heard of the lecture, the purpose of the speaker was to show that the war was not caused by the acts of any man or set of men of the present day, bat was the natural an inevitable result of the attempt of the framers of the Constitution to reconcile two irreconcilable things - Freedom and Slavery; that this Constitution and the Union under it were broken into fragments; that the war ought to be prosecuted for the eradication of slavery; and that if this was not done a reconstruction of the Union was not desirable.

It is to be regretted that the speaker was not permitted to have his say in quiet. We do not doubt that hundreds of men, who have of late been acting with the Republican or Abolition party, would have left the house thoroughly disgusted with the ultra opinions of the speaker and of the party of which he is an oracle. The "disturbance" is to be regretted on higher grounds. It was a gross violation of the Freedom of Speech - a glorious and inestimable right, which, with the Freedom of the Press, ought neither to be invaded nor surrendered by American citizens.

The Heart of the Matter?

This little exchange printed in the Covington Journal on February 22, 1862 seems to capture the spirit of what many consider the main issue of the Civil War. It also shows that European intervention was something that concerned at least some people in the North.

The New York Tribune says:
"But for slavery we would have no civil war.

But for slavery, we would not now be menaced with the armed intervention of foreign powers, undertaken especially to consummate the disememberment (sic) of the nation.


Do you know how to put down the rebellion? DESTROY SLAVERY! 


Do you ask how to prevent European intervention by depriving it of its only occasion and only pretext? DESTROY SLAVERY!"


The Chicago Tribune replies: 


"But for abolitionism we would have no civil war.

But for abolitionism, we would not now be menaced with the armed intervention of foreign powers, undertaken especially to consummate the disememberment (sic) of the nation.


Do you know how to put down the rebellion? DESTROY ABOLITIONISM! 


Do you ask how to prevent European intervention by depriving it of its only occasion and only pretext? DESTROY SLAVERY!"

Covington Journal articles on abolition and race

These come from the February 8, 1862 edition of the paper

Abolition Cowardice
The Chicago Times says "If abolitionism was not the embodiment of the meanest cowardice, it would not seek to introduce the black element into the war while the white population  of the loyal States is twenty-one millions against seven millions in the disloyal States. If we cannot whip out the rebels with these odds in our favor, we had better abandon the contest and plead guilty to the rebel taunt that we are an inferior people."


The Poor Negro
The Boston Herald exposes the fact that a notorious Abolition firm in that city, the members of which have sighed and groaned and cast up their eyes of the sufferings of the poor negro, until they have obtained a rich contract for supplying the army with drawers, are paying women sixpence a pair for making them. By hard word and over hours, the women thus employed can finish two pair a day. Twelve cents for a day and half a nights work! Oh, the poor, overtasked, suffering negro!

untitled article
A short-haired, thick lipped negro from Chicago was  hustled out of Kenosha in double quick time on Friday afternoon, for attempting to marry a white woman who came with him for the delectable purpose. The "roughs" got wind of the affair, and after (word missing, perhaps catching?) the darkey, escorted him to the depot, and gave him some good advice for regulating his conduct in such cases hereafter. 


As the train moved off bearing this colored Caesar minus his fortunes, we mused on the uncertainty of human affairs in general, and the absolute inconsistency of Abolitionists in particular. This poor fellow had heard of the social equality doctrines of Wisconsin Abolitionists, and was "stabbed in the house of his friends." After all, "blood will tell."  [Kinosha (Wis) Sentinel]

Politicians Supervising Military Affairs - A Thrust at Slavery

Roscoe Conkling, courtesy of wikipeida

 
The January 11, 1862 Covington Journal included this article. Please note it used the phrase "commander-in-chief" instead of "general-in-chief."

Politicians Supervising Military Affairs-- Another Thrust at Slavery

A debate of more than ordinary interest sprung up in the Lower House of Congress last Monday. As much of it as the telegraph has furnished is given in another column.

Conkling's resolution is aimed at Gen. McClellan, and makes an issue that the new commander-in-chief cannot well evade. Apart from the particular case in view, the passage of the resolution must be regarded as important, as it establishes a precedent for the supervision of military movements by the politicians at Washington.

As usual the slavery question was lugged into the debate. Mallory, of Kentucky, rushed to the aid of the Abolitionists. He declared that "if slavery stood in the way of the Constitution he would wipe it out," and was applauded. In all the wild declarations of Abolitionists we do not remember one which has assumed that slavery stood in the way of the Constitution. Precisely the reverse is the fact. Abolitionists denounce the Constitution because it recognizes and protects slavery. The Constitution stands in the way of Abolitionism. Mr. Wickliffe hit the nail on the head when he declared that in a contest between Abolitionism and slavery - if one or the other must give way - he would throw Abolitionism overboard.

--
This article refers to a resolution by Roscoe Conklin (pictured above) asking for an investigation into the battle of Ball's Bluff. This request sparked a debate about the role of the civil government in military affairs, and, as this article points out, ended up with a debate about slavery and its impact on the army and war.

It also mentions two Kentucky Congressmen:  Robert Mallory, and Charles A Wickliffe. (Wickliffe was also a former Kentucky governor who returned to state service after serving as Postmaster General in the 1840s.)

Robert Mallory, courtesy wikipedia

Charles A Wickliffe, courtesy e-archives.ky.gov

The War and Slavery: A Speech by Union Colonel John Cochrane

John Cochrane, courtesy dmna.state.ny.us

  
Here is a story from the Covington Journal of November 23, 1861. All emphasis is repeated as published in this story.

A recent speech by Col. JOHN COCHRANE, his regiment stationed near Washington has been brought into prominent notice by the fact that SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War, was present at the delivery and heartily endorsed the sentiments uttered. The gist of Cochrane'e speech, to which we invite the close attention of the reader, is thus reported:

"Shall we not seize the cotton at Beaufort, the munitions of war? And if you would open their ports, seize their property and even destroy their lives, I ask you whether you would not use their slaves? Whether you would not ARM THEIR SLAVES [great applause] AND CARRY THEM IN BATTALIONS AGAINST THEIR MASTERS? [Renewed and tumultuous applause.] If necessary to save this government, I would plunge their whole community, black and white, IN ONE INDISCRIMINATE SEA OF BLOOD, so that in the end we should have a government which should be the vicegerent of God."


After Col. Cochrane had concluded, Secretary Cameron said: 
"I APPROVE OF EVERY SENTIMENT UTTERED BY YOUR NOBLE COMMANDER. All the doctrines he has laid down, I approve of, as if it were uttered in my own words. They are my sentiments, and the sentiments which will eventually lead to victory. It is no time to talk to these people about meeting them on their own terms. We must treat them as our enemies, and punish them as our enemies, until they learn to behave themselves. Every means which God has placed in our hands, we must use until they are subdued." 


In this connection we give an extract from an editorial article in a late number of the New York Tribune, the most influential Administration paper in the country:


"God favoring, circumstances permitting, the way opened by a Providence which will indeed be divine, SHALL WE NOT RID OURSELVES OF SLAVERY ONCE AND  FOREVER! Where is the intelligent Northern man, we care not how he may politically style himself,who will not say from the bottom of his heart, to such a question "Yes!" If this is to be an "Abolitionist," we should like to look in the face of the poor creature who will say that he is not one. This is no longer a question of morals, but one of common sense and of common safety; of ordinary prudence and the least possible foresight. We are arguing for no particular scheme; we are demanding no hasty action; we feel as much as any the need of a circumspect policy; BUT UPON THE NAKED QUESTION OF "ABOLITION" OR "NO ABOLITION" WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY HONEST, THINKING MAN WILL BE READY TO AVOW HIMSELF AN "ABOLITIONIST." 




Here we have as the programme not Abolitionism merely but the arming of slaves against their masters, and if deemed necessary by the North, and God favoring, "plunging the South, black and white, in one indiscriminate sea of blood."

We submit the facts, without comment. 


--
Cochrane's speech may have come across as quite controversial, at least according to this clarification of his intents that the New York Times published on November 24, 1861. He apparently did not wish to be associated with the term "abolitionist" in any way at all.

Simon Cameron, courtesy senate.gov