Books about Kentucky Civil War Politics and Reputation

Over the years, I have read a few books on Kentucky in the Civil War and found that several of them focused on politics and social attitudes as much, or more than, pure military topics. This topic - Kentucky politics and the state’s Confederate image - has become a strong interest for me as I find it to be a complicated, confusing, and, yet, fascinating subject. It currently is one of my main interests in the Civil War.

I do not have any specific family or genealogical connections to the topic, but I had many ancestors in the state during this era, and I do wonder what their life was like or what their beliefs were. At least one of my Kentucky ancestors owned slaves but had a son and multiple grandsons fight for the Union. Did this family’s attitude shift like those of many other Kentuckians as the war progressed and Emancipation and the enlistment of African-American soldiers became realities? Did any of my other ancestors change views during this time? Questions like that help guide me in the direction of such studies. 

I figured I would compile this list in a post and perhaps soon on a separate page. This will help remind me of these books in case I want to look something up and might help others find some interesting reading as I truly enjoyed each of these works. This list is in no particular order, other than how I remembered or thought of them when compiling this post.

Pre-War: 

Kentucky Rising: Democracy, Slavery, and Culture From the Early Republic to the Civil War by James Ramage and Andrea Watkins. (I consider it to be a good “prequel” to the books listed below and wish I had read it before the others.)

War and Post-War:

Kentucky Rebel Town: The Civil War Battles of Cynthiana & Harrison County by William Penn

For Slavery and Union: Benjamin Buckner and Kentucky Loyalties in the Civil War by Patrick Lewis 

Wild Wolf: The Great Civil War Rivalry by Ronald Wolford Blair

Kentucky Confederates: Secession, Civil War and the Jackson Purchase by Berry Craig 

How Kentucky Became Southern: A Tale of Outlaws, Horse Thieves, Gamblers, and Breeders by Mary Jean Wall

Creating a Confederate Kentucky: The Lost Cause and Civil War Memory in a Border State by Anne Marshall

My Old Confederate Home: A Respectable Place for Civil War Veterans by Rusty Williams

Lincoln’s Forgotten Ally: Judge Advocate Joseph Holt of Kentucky by Elizabeth D. Leonard 

(Kentucky politics is not a main focus of Lincoln’s Forgotten Ally, but it does touch on the topic and Holt’s life story serve as a wonderful example of how this state’s mixed political identity, especially late in and after the war, affected individual lives and families. How many other books are like that - not primarily concentrating on the political climate of the state, but nonetheless discussing it in terms of how it relates to their main subjects?)

The links are all to my reviews, except for Kentucky Rising. I wrote a long review of it, but accidentally hit the delete button and lost it all and was too frustrated to redo it, so that link is simply to the book’s amazon.com page.

I do realize there are likely many books I have not read or even heard of on this subject, so I will appreciate any suggestions in the future.

Sexy Abraham Lincoln Statue?

In the last few years, I've had a lot of interest in the story of the Abraham Lincoln statue in Lyle Park, downtown .Cincinnati. What especially has intrigued me about it are the various controversies around it, starting from the commissioning of the project through the unveiling of the finished work and the idea of sending a copy to London. A lot of people, especially Robert Lincoln, thought this statue to be ugly, undignified, and even inappropriate as an image of the former President. Some people liked it, but many did not.

Author's picture, Lytle Park

In this link I have posted some other pictures I took of this monument as well as a link to my previous stories about it. I also gave a presentation to a local group about this issue, covering the same material.

Recently, and thanks to social media, I saw an article about a different Lincoln statue, a "sexy" or "hot" Lincoln. This is certainly different, especially the reactions mentioned in this story from near Chicago. The statue is over 70 years old, but apparently this view of the attractiveness of it is fairly new.

I have, of course, not seen the statue in person, but from what I've seen in the few pictures in the article, I'm not impressed. It does not look much like Lincoln to me at first glance, similar to some of the reactions in the story. It uses the young and beardless version of Lincoln as is seen in Cincinnati, but not the same pose or overall image.

The face looks too smooth, even for the younger man, and even too shiny, though that may be a photography issue. The hair somehow seems wrong as well. The shirt being open until the middle of his chest also looks inappropriate, though I admit I'm no expert on the fashion trends of the day, especially for someone doing farmwork. Maybe he wore clothes like that, including the rolled-up sleeves, to be cooler while he rested. The sleeves seem more reasonable to me than the open shirt.

He also appears to have a slight smile or smirk on his face, which photographs at the time did not use, but as the statue was designed to show him resting after doing work, who is to say that is not accurate? He probably was happy to sit down and pick up a book, though the look on his face is not familiar to us. The bare feet are a nice touch and seem realistic.

Ironically, the statue in Cincinnati became mockingly known as the "stomach ache statue" because the artist George Barnard Grey had placed Lincoln's hands over his abdomen, leading some viewers to believe Lincoln looked ill. On this statue, the hands at first appear to be in a similar position, but the seated pose and the book he is holding makes that less apparent.

His clothing is also much less wrinkled than in the Cincinnati statue and I do wonder if they would look so nice after a few hours of work outside.

I don't mean to criticize the statue too much, especially just judging by a few photographs. It is different than others and is not unrealistic, though I still find the face and head to be barely recognizable as Lincoln. I'm not sure I can explain it, but that part just seems to be wrong. The side angle picture in the article is especially noteworthy to me as it appears to be any man, not specifically Lincoln.

From the linked story at dnainfo.com

From eBay 

Perhaps the statue is fine and the issue is my own personal image of Lincoln. As asked in my previous stories, who owns his memory or determines his image - the artist, the audience, or someone else? Is it just "beauty/image is in the eye of the beholder?" This is just another example of how different people produce different images or have varying memories of a historical figure, even someone as famous and as photographed as Lincoln was. Maybe the lack of photographs from Lincoln's youth affects this, though there are images of the unbearded man that help us see his pre-presidential looks. With that said, I just do not see a good image of Lincoln in this statue, especially the facial features. For this beholder, the beauty is simply not there.

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.

Book Review: How Kentucky Became Southern

How Kentucky Became Southern: A Tale of Outlaws, Horse Thieves, Gamblers and Breeders by MaryJean Wall

http://www.amazon.com/How-Kentucky-Became-Southern-Gamblers/dp/0813126053

Though not a true "Civil War" book, Wall's book discusses Kentucky, it's horse racing industry, it's image and other topics from the Civil War era.  The title is not totally accurate - most of the book is about horse racing and it does not really discuss Kentucky's image as becoming southern until late in the narrative, though once it does, the author does a fine job explaining the treatise and providing examples. I wish the book had more of that type of discussion. 

The book is a bit similar to Anne Marshall's Creating a Confederate Kentucky, especially in discussions of the violence around the state and region and in showing how popular literature ("plantation literature" in Wall's words) contributed to the how peoples round the country came to view the Bluegrass State. Marshall's work, which I admittedly read a couple of years ago,  struck me as being more detailed and is a longer work, but that foes not detract from Wall's fine writing.

Wall's book is well-written and a pleasure to read, perhaps not a surprise given her long time in the field of journalism. It flows well and is a quick read.

One Civil War  related tidbit that stood out to me and that I will remember and maybe use in the future is the role of August Belmont in the horse racing industry. While reading the book, I looked up his name online and found that the Belmont Stakes was named in his honor. 

The Civil War tidbit is that Mr. Belmont was the president of the 1864 Democratic National Convention where General  George B.  McClellan was nominated as that party's Presidential candidate. 

Overall, this is an enjoyable, informative look at pieces of Kentucky's history and image, including horse racing and several of the characters involved in that sport. It does discuss the post-Civil War era more than the war, but the ties of Southern and Confederate images to the state make this a good choice for those interested in that era and/or Kentucky history.