Book review: Kidnapped at Sea

Kidnapped at Sea: The Civil War Voyage of David Henry White

                                   By Andrew Sillen                                    

Copyright 2024

Johns Hopkins University Press

Reading this newly published book reminded me of how much important and interesting Civil War scholarship is taking place. I knew the basics of the story of the CSS Alabama and the name Raphael Semmes was a familiar one, but I knew nothing of the story of David Henry White, a young and free African American man who wound up on the Alabama through no fault of his own.

His tale deserves the attention that Andrew Sillen gives it in this work. 

Despite that introduction, this is not a true biography of White. There simply are not enough existing details of the everyday life of this man, who left no known written correspondence behind and whose presence in government records was minimal.

Nevertheless, Sillen uses the records that do exist, along with his exploration of the time and places in which White lived and worked, and the people and experiences involved in his life to describe the short life and sailing career the subject led. This required significant research, which the author clearly did, through the use of period records as well as other studies of Delaware (including its history, agriculture, relationship with slavery and proximity to Maryland), slavery, nineteenth century society, and the backgrounds and beliefs of the officers of the Alabama. He also studied other modern works on the Alabama’s story for other views on the matter and weaves these sources into a narrative that unwraps the world into which White was born and grew into a teenager, even when he finds misinterpretations in parts of these other accounts. It really is an effective approach to explore such an elusive subject who (may never have learned how to write or to otherwise tell his version of his life). In this work, Sillen finds a way to tell that story.

David Henry White was as far from a famous or influential figure in American history as possible, but his life and story were - and remain - important to study and to remember. His kidnapping (not impressment, as the author shows) was mentioned in the American media when it first happened, but his condition seemed of little concern to American consuls around the world, in countries where the Alabama stopped. When Britain made reparations to the U.S. for damages the British-made ship had cause, White’s family did not receive compensation. His story faded even more in the following years and decades and his name is unfamiliar even to many Civil War enthusiasts today. This book helps address that. 

Sillen’s emphasis on White’s prewar status as a free man, not a slave as other accounts have stated, is especially notable. His description of how a career in sailing provided opportunity for people like White, (though as free blacks became more populous, Delaware changed its laws to refuse such opportunity) stands out in the description if White’s blossoming life in his teenage years. Delaware was not a Derp South cotton state, but nor was it overly friendly to African Americans. 

The author perused the writings of Semmes and his officers to explore their attitudes towards naval service, the war, and slavery. Semmes and some of his officers came from slave-owning families, which naturally influenced their views. The culture of the navy, with its focus on glory since promotion was slow and difficult to achieve, certainly influenced Semmes. Also, the complete separation of the ship's officers and crew while not on daily duty symbolizes the important of class and hierarchy in American society. As a free black young man, David Henry White was another reminder of how customary such segregation was.

Sillen also notes how post-Civil War “Lost Cause” ideology affected Semmes’ thinking and writing, an astute observation. Semmes' training as a lawyer also influenced his written accounts of his service. 

One topic this book frequently discusses is the misbehavior of the Alabama’s crew and scenes that White may have witnessed. I especially noted the description of the ship’s roster as “entitled Confederate officers and undisciplined mercenaries” on page 101. The rest of the work supports that view of most of these men. 

I like how the book is organized. The chapters are short, which make them quick to read, but consist of appropriate topics and are in fine order, adding to the quality of the book. This work is not in pure chronological order. Sometimes that is a bit distracting, as there are a few mentions in parenthesis like “as discussed in chapter 8” or “see chapter 22” that appear in the text, but that’s a minor nit to pick. Adding such notes does give the reader opportunity to re-read a section or to know that more details will follow, a benefit that outweighs the occasional distraction, especially as the reader gets accustomed to it.

The additional details in the notes at the end of the story are another valuable addition that not all books provide, and the illustrations throughout the book also add a layer of understanding, especially the photographs taken on the Alabama.

Captain John Winslow, the leader of the Kearsarge in the final battle the Alabama fought, played a key role in this saga, or at least its end, so the mentions of his background and his Mexican-American War acquaintance with Semmes are helpful.

One noteworthy piece of Sillen’s work is the ending of chapter 22. After the Alabama had lost its final battle and sank to the bottom of the ocean, a list of the ship’s men who had perished in the contest was published in a British newspaper. It neglected to mention David Henry White. Sillen calls White “ever a ghost” and observes that the kidnapping victim “remained at the end, invisible." (p. 225)

Chapter 23, entitled Accounts, includes a discussion of how Semmes turned White into what Silken calls a “caricature.” (p. 232) He shows how the Confederate Captain used period stereotypes of “faithful” or “happy” servants. and uses the phrase “self-serving paternalism” to describe this attitude, while also giving examples of modern Confederate supporters adopting similar romanticized and false views of White.

Maybe the most fascinating chapter of the book is chapter 24, An Ocean of Lies, with its examination of false information Semmes and his comrades had written about White, his status, and his time on their ship. The author points out these lies and provides evidence that prove their inaccuracy. It is a very convincing chapter. 

David Henry White never enlisted in the military or agreed to risk his life for his country, but did end up giving his life in the conflict that kept the nation united and aided in freeing people of his race. Thankfully, Andrew Sillen shares his story, keeping White from becoming permanently invisible and just another anonymous member of the approximate 700,000 deaths of the Civil War. He was a human, and he was a young man. He was real and so is his story.

Overall, this a well-researched and written book. Andrew Sillen has produced an enjoyable and informative study of a lesser known yet important tale of a free black man kidnapped by Confederates during the Civil War. It is definitely a book that I happily recommend that others read. 

(I received a review copy of this book from the publisher, but all comments in this review are my true and honest opinions.)

Reaction to Lincoln's Proposal of Compensated Emancipation 1862

I'm still working on my book project and will hopefully publish another update on it soon, but had previously found this article and thought it was worth sharing here as well. I'll keep looking for stuff like this occasionally even as I work on my project. 

This editorial came from the Cincinnati Enquirer of March 8, 1862 and is in reference to President Lincoln's March 6, 1862 Message to Congress supporting compensation to states willing to emancipate all slaves inside its borders.


The Message of President Lincoln - Slave Emancipation

It is to be deeply regretted that President Lincoln has so far yielded to the radicals in his party as to send in a message recommending that the United Stated afford pecuniary aid to such States as are willing to abolish slavery. It will have an unfortunate effect in the South, as indicating a meddlesome disposition upon the part of the General Government to interfere with their domestic institutions and to bias their State Legislatures by its influence. It will be time enough for the General Government to talk about affording aid to abolish slavery when the Southern States, or any of them, ask it at its hands. At the present time, when the country is loaded down with debt and taxation in order to carry out the war, it is simply impossible for it to make an investment of some hundreds of millions dollars in negroes. If the scheme was ever, or will be ever practicable, it is not now.

Strange caprice and infatuation, in view of the uniform failure of negro emancipation in the British and French West Indies, to effect any result except ruin to the countries that embark in it, to recommend it in this Union! What reasonable man can desire to enlarge our population of free negroes? The President's own State of Illinois prohibits a free negro from coming into it; and in all the free States, as well as slave, they are regarded as a most undesirable population, yet the President would have the whites of the North exhaust their pecuniary resources and to be beggared by taxes in order to set free millions of African slaves!

The suggestion springs from that uneasy, restless, insane spirit of fanaticism that has already been of such immense mischief to the country, and which every man should frown down. Leave negro slavery alone, where the Constitution leaves it, to work out its own destiny. Leave it to time. We of the North are not called upon to interfere with it in any form or shape, and can not do it except at our great injury and disadvantage. Better by far appropriate, as a measure of humanity, hundreds of millions of dollars to alleviate the distresses of poverty in the North, among the whites, than to invest the sum in creating free negroes. We much mistake the temper of the Northern people if they ever consent to it. We doubt whether a single Congressional district out of New England and the Ohio Western Reserve would vote, if it had the opportunity, in favor of the President's scheme.

1854 Southern M.E. Church Conference and Slavery

I have taken this story from the Covington Journal, of June 10, 1854. This was shortly after the Kansas-Nebraska Act had passed Congress.


THE SOUTHERN M.E. CONFERENCE AND SLAVERY 

On the 25th inst. (says the Columbus Times,) the Conference acted upon the report of the committee appointed upon the 9th section of the Discipline. It will gratify the friends of the church everywhere in the South to learn that the 9th section was expunged, as well as all other parts of the Discipline which condemned the institution of slavery. The general rule, forbidding "the purchasing of men, women, and children, with the intention to enslave them," and which has reference to the African slave trade, was retained, though the vote upon the expurgation even of this rule, was 47 to 54." 

It is not a surprise that slavery was a major national issue in this time and that it affected even churches and their operation, but I have not come across a lot of specific examples like this in my own searching of  records, so I thought I would share this one.

The Covington Journal was published just one county away from where some of my ancestors lived at the time, so I think of this as a local newspaper and enjoy finding tidbits in it. Being located in a slave state, but along the Ohio River, just across from Ohio and not far from Indiana, it and its publishers were in a unique position regarding slavery support and opposition.

1862 Article: Impressment of slaves in Kentucky

This is a brief untitled story from the Covington Journal of August 30, 1862.

A special dispatch to the Cincinnati Commercial from Lexington, Ky., says that an order was issued Saturday to impress 1,200 slaves to repair the road between Lexington and Cumberland Gap. Impressment has been made in Fayette and Madison counties.

Loyal owners are to be paid laborer's wages, but rebels are to refer their claims to the Department at Washington for settlement. 

The rebels are in great distress. Many of their negroes have been taken while working in hemp fields. 

-------

Kentucky did not produce cotton like the states of the deep south. Hemp fields were one of the main areas where Kentucky farmers used slave labor.

This article was written during the Confederate invasion of the state, just one day before the Confederate victory at the Battle of Richmond, in the aforementioned Madison County, and just a few weeks before the Battle of Perryville ended Braxton Bragg's incursion into the Commonwealth.

This story also serves as an example of the strange situation in which Kentucky found itself. It remained part of the United States, yet still had thousands of slaves, similar to the Confederate states. Of course, this was three weeks before Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, so the abolition of slavery was not yet an official United States goal, though many people believed slavery had caused the war and that abolition would be a consequence of it. Even the Federal government was still willing at this point to use slave labor for necessary work. (The Confiscation Act of 1862, passed in July, would have allowed the federal government to take, without compensation, the slaves from Confederate officials who did not surrender, but it did not apply to Kentucky since the state was not occupied by the U.S. Army.)

Uncle Tom's Cabin - A Few Thoughts

I just finished reading this classic American novel byHarriet Beecher Stowe, and though I have no intention of trying to do a full review of it I would like to mention a few thoughts about it.

First of all, what words describe this book? Sad, sickening, astounding are a few that came to mind. Amazing, interesting, heart- breaking, heart-warming - those are a few more.

It's a book of slavery, race, faith, family, departures and arrivals, loss, love, belief. It tries to show differences in how a Southern character and his Northern cousin perceive slavery and slaves and ho living in a new locale provides her with a different view.

I did think that there were too many "happy coincidences" at the end of the story, but that's a small nit to pick. The story was very readable, though some of the scenes tough to read, with so much sadness and bigotry often dominating. It is easy to see how and why this book stirred up so much controversy when it came out, with how the author describes some of the slaveholders, salve traders and slave catchers, not to mention her gripping word pictures of the shaves themselves, particularly Tom and his family. 

I am glad I finally re-read this story. It took me longer to finish than I wish it had, but it was worth the effort. It is no new scholarly account of the war or the coming of the war, but I think it still is a valuable telling of various parts of mid nineteenth century life in the United States, particularly in the border and deep southern states. 

Religion and faith, family and friendship, buying and selling, departure and reunion, freedom and slavery - all themes found throughout Stowe's influential and still interesting work. If any readers of this entry have not read it, or have not done so recently, I certainly suggest you consider doing so. It is a fascinating perspective on the United States of so many years ago.

Now reading: Uncle Tom's Cabin

I read this famous novel in college, 20+ years ago (yikes!) and finally picked it up again recently. My reading is going rather slowly, I admit, mostly at lunch while at work and on the bus to and from work, but, wow! What a disgusting story, even at the start. I know "disgusting" is not a great word but as I started reading it, that was the first thought that came to mind.

I knew what the story was about and why it was so controversial, but I guess I had forgotten the specifics. On one hand, I can understand why I would forget such details due to time mainly, but I'm kind of sad that I had not remembered more of it. I guess reading it in college, with many other such assignments and a less mature than now (hopefully :) ) mind probably provides a reasonable explanation, but I do wish I had remembered more about this story.

It is very good reading, even when I struggle through the dialects in which Mrs. Stowe wrote many of the conversations and I am happy to have started reading it again. It is a powerful story of slavery and many of the different types of characters involved in it. That it is based in Kentucky and obviously concerns the northern Kentucky and Cincinnati areas does make it a bit more personal to me, especially as I ride a bus across the Taylor-Southgate Bridge that spans the Ohio River, one of the major boundaries between potential freedom and slavery in the mid 1800s and in this story.

I hope I can convince myself to read it more frequently and focus on this story, but I also want to think about what I'm reading and not just glance over words on a page. I know it is a novel and is fiction, but slavery was a real part of this country, this state, this region and even my family.

Families were split up, people were hurt and millions of African-Americans were treated like cattle or pieces of furniture or other such property. This story is re-opening my eyes to one period view of that institution and its affects on so many people no matter how young, old or innocent. I imagine I'll have at least one or two more entries about this book as I get deeper into it and ponder the issues it raises and the stories it tells.

courtesy http://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org

Helping Restore the Memory of a Local USCT

As I visited my grandparents last weekend, I found this nice story in the Falmouth Outlook, a small local weekly newspaper.I had hoped to come home, dig through various sites for more information on the soldier and write a nice, long entry, but that has not worked out.

Unfortunately, that link requires a subscription or registration in order to read it, so I will paraphrase it below, trying to avoid violating any copyright laws or committing any plagarism.

Basically, local resident Brandon Wilson helped restore a family cemetery this summer and that included a large stone for his ancestors John Wilson and his wife, who is not named in the article. John was a Civil War veteran, but both he and his wife had been slaves in both Virginia and Kentucky. (This article describes him as a "decorated Civil War veteran" and I am accepting this story at face value, though I hope to do more research on it.)

Brandon Wilson, with help from family friends and local business Peoples Funeral Home, cleaned the area and raised the stone, which the article says weighed a full ton. The article also includes a nice picture of the stone with Mr.Wilson and a representative from the funeral home next to it.

It is a neat story that Mr. Wilson is taking such an interest in preserving his family's history after the cemetery and stone had been neglected for so long. It also certainly caught my attention to see a story of a local African-American who had gone from bondage to warrior.

Unfortunately, John Wilson is a common name and the article included no other clues about his service, so I have very little additional information. I do have the newspaper clipping (yes, a real piece of paper from a real newspaper, not an online story) on my desk as a reminder of this research project. Hopefully I'll be able to dig into this a bit more in the upcoming weeks and try to illustrate John Wilson's story more than I can do now, but I thought this story as is deserved attention and recognition.

The cemetery is just south of Falmouth, a town in the northern part of Kentucky, connected to Campbell County where I live. See the map below.

Good job, Brandon Wilson and friends on this project.

Crossing the Ohio River

I'm not really sure how to approach this idea that popped into my head today, but it seems like a good idea or question to mention here and maybe help me think about it or about how to approach it. This will probably be kind of a stream-of-consciousness post as I figure out what to say or how to explore it.

I live in northern Kentucky and work in Cincinnati, so I cross the Ohio River every day, along with thousands (or tens of thousands) of others, some going north like me, but many heading south. It's not a big deal; I've even walked home from work many times, a distance of about 2.5 miles.

150+ years ago, however, even that short distance was much longer than it seemed, at least for many African-Americans. The Ohio River was an unofficial border between the slave state of Kentucky and the free state of Ohio (as well as Indiana and Illinois - check out a map - Kentucky has a long northern border along the Ohio.)

If a slave tried to run away, oftentimes reaching the Ohio River, with stations on the Underground Railroad along its banks, north and south, was a major goal and milestone. It did not guarantee safety - Cincinnati was not the most progressive city regarding racial relations (some people even today say Cincinnati is like part of Kentucky, while others claim Northern Kentucky is more like Cincinnati than the rest of the state) and if escaping slaves could cross the river, so could slave catchers.

Nonetheless, it was an important boundary between North and South, free and slave, and it made cities like Cincinnati and Louisville into important trading ports. The border along the Ohio River was a key reason Abraham Lincoln considered keeping Kentucky in the Union to be so important. If the Confederates could set up defenses along the lower banks of the river, they could devastate Union trade in the west, prevent Union forces from penetrating the Deep South in the West (think Vicksburg, Shiloh, Corinth, Nashville among the key southern cities in this theater) and perhaps have a launching pad for attacking the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio or other Northern states with more than an occasional John Hunt Morgan raid.

Despite this, I cross this river twice a day and until today never really thought about it in a historical context. Does it make sense for me to try to picture escaping slaves (like Margaret Garner for one famous, though unsuccessful, example) while I'm in an air-conditioned (in the summer, heated in the winter) bus? Should it help me appreciate my good fortune or to understand better the differences between now and the past? How many African Americans would have absolutely loved to have safe, reliable transportation from my beloved Kentucky into Ohio or another northern state?

To me, the Ohio River is just a piece of everyday life, nothing really special or noteworthy, except for an occasional flood. Historically, however, this was a key border, a major crossing point, a place of hope for people to try to reach freedom, to escape bondage, to try to have some control over their lives. It is not a famous battlefield of dozens or hundreds of acres, with monuments and gift shops and tourists taking pictures. It is simply a wonder of Nature that human mapmakers once used as a separation point of what we call states, and which continues to flow southwards, just as it did 150 years ago. It has no mind or desires or other human emotions, but steadfastly flows until it reaches the mighty Mississippi. Yet this river, one of many throughout the country, even as constituted in 1865 and before, was very important, as a border into potential freedom and as a goal, to countless people who wanted to better their lives.

I often wonder what it would be like to live near a really famous battlefield like Gettysburg or Antietam or Shiloh. My appreciation for Perryville grows as I understand it more, but even that is a couple of hours away.

Yet here is an important place, just a few minutes from my home, that absolutely played a role in 19th century America and in the slavery controversy that at least contributed (though I believe caused) the bloody Civil War.

This is a perspective I had not considered before. I'm sure I'll think about it more often now, as I routinely cross this border so frequently and easily.

The above is a picture I took in April 2009 from downtown Cincinnati, with a brief view of the river separating the states.

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

Slave Chose Death for Her Child

Many people may already be familiar with the story of Margaret Garner and her actions when she tried to escape from slavery, but here is a Cincinnati Enquirer account of her story. It is a remarkable tale and shows how unhappy she was in slavery, even though some slaveholders (and non slave-holding whites) insisted that African-Americans were content in their role as slaves. That she would prefer her child to die rather than to become someone else's property is a strong statement of her feelings about slavery.

I admit that the fact this story took place in Northern Kentucky, not terribly far from where I live, and Cincinnati, where I work, does make it more fascinating to me than it ordinarily might, but this also is a story of national importance and interest in terms of a slave trying to take control of a situation and fighting against the "peculiar institution" even though many Kentuckians at the time felt slavery in this state was less harsh than in the deeper south.

courtesy freedomcenter.org

Her story became an opera that premiered in 2006.  For those who appreciate and understand opera much more than I do, here is a YouTube excerpt from the Opera Company of Philadelphia's production on February 24, 2006.

I mentioned this story previously when I found an advertisement in a local newspaper. The man who took out this advertisement, offering to trade land for negroes was probably the same man who owned Margaret and likely fathered her children.

Here is a map of Kentucky (an image I've used several times) with Boone County, where the Garners lived, circled. Its northern and western borders lie along the Ohio River, with Cincinnati just across the river on its northern side. This river served as an unofficial dividing line between free states and slave states, as well as a popular escape route for slaves. Being a border state with free states just across the river was one of the challenges Kentucky slaveholders faced.

More Articles on Slavery/Emancipation

These come from the Covington Journal of March 8, 1862. They were published in the same column, one above the other as presented here.

Slavery Agitation
Abrogation of the Fugitive Slave Law
The lower house of Congress, by a vote of 83 yeas to 42 nays, has passed a bill, which forbids all persons, in the naval or military service of the United States, from returning to the owners or claimants fugitives from service or labor, under the penalty of dismissal from the service


Emancipation
In the Senate, Thursday, Mr. Harris, of New York, presented a petition for the emancipation of slaves. Mr. Harlan, of Iowa and Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, also presented petitions for emancipation.

On the same day President Lincoln sent in a communication recommending Congress to make appropriations for aiding States to abolish slavery. This is an extraordinary proposition. No State has asked the aid of the Federal Government in any such project, nor is it likely that any State will ask aid for such purpose. It is a party movement - an item in the Republican programme for keeping up the agitation of the slavery question.

--

Here is a link to Lincoln's March 6 Message to Congress making this emancipation proposal.

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.

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]

A Sensible Representative

William McKee Dunn, courtesy wikipedia

 
The Covington Journal of February 1, 1862 included this commentary from an Indiana politician.

Mr. Dunn, A Republican Representative from Indiana, in a recent speech in the House, said:

"I tell you that, if the general emancipation of Slaves is to be our policy, our Union is forever gone, and there is no redemption for it. We might still have a Union of free States - a great and powerful Union - a Union which would in time throw its shadow over any other Confederacy on this continent; but as to restoring the Union as it was two years ago, it is impossible if we make this a war upon slavery. With four millions in bondage, with all the value of that property as it is called, interwoven with every other interest in the South, and forming the support alike of old age, middle age, widowhood and orphan hood, the attempt to blot it out of existence by a fierce foray on the part of the Government is as wild and chimerical a scheme as ever entered the brain of a madman."

---

The "Mr. Dunn" referred to was  William McKee Dunn, who lost his 1862 re-election bid. This was likely part of the nationwide backlash against Republican policies, including President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and the progress (or lack thereof) in winning the war.  This link states that in the the October elections (after Lincoln's proclamation), the Democrats ended up "winning seven of the eleven congressional seats and a large majority in the state legislature."

Brief mention: Kentuckians Divided on Question of Slavery

Here is a brief report in the January 11, 1862 Covington Journal,reprinted from the Cincinnati Gazette.

The general verdict is that Lovejoy had the better of all his antagonists in the debate to-day. The remarks of the Kentuckians show a divided opinion among them, a part preferring the Union destroyed rather than Slavery, and part holding the opposite ground. Wickliffe is of the former category, and Mallory of the latter.

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

A Ridiculous Blunder

courtesy lrc.ky.gov

 
The Covington Journal of December 28, 1861 included this article about a recent action by the state legislature.

The Kentucky Legislature has committed an absurd blunder in requesting President Lincoln to remove Secretary Cameron from office. We don't often find in the Cincinnati Gazette an editorial we can commend to the approval of our readers, but in the following article from that paper there are points suggested which deserve consideration:


"KENTUCKY SOVEREIGNTY - The Kentucky Legislature has by resolution approved the President for modifying the Secretary of War, and called upon the President to dispense with Secretary Cameron's service. it is rather novel of a State Legislature to revise the private difference between the President and his Cabinet, which only became public by accident. It is a new feature also for States to interfere with the President's domestic arrangements, but the occasion is one to make precedents, and modesty is not a Kentucky failing. But certainly the Legislature has left its work very incomplete. There is just as much emancipation in the modified report and in the message, as in the report originally. So there is in Secretary Chase's report. The only difference is that Secretary Cameron thinks that if the negroes can be made to make daylight shine through the rebels in the regular way, according to military regulations, it would be both pleasing and fit to let them. 


Is it possible that the Kentucky Legislature has taken the unusual course of revising private Cabinet affairs, and calling upon the President to discharge a Cabinet officer on a question relating solely to the protection of the rebels from being hurt?


To be consistent, the Legislature should have demanded the resignation of the President, and that he should dispense with the services of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

What is the Kentucky Legislature going to do about it, if the President does not dispense with Mr. Cameron's services? Is that the ultimatum of Kentucky? Is there anybody else that Kentucky wants removed? Let her not lose anything for want of demanding; and since she has taken to revise the President's subordinates and recommendations, she will be held responsible if they are wrong." 


That the resolution was merely intended for Buncombe is evidenced by the fact that an officer of the Legislature who has heartily endorsed the infamous proclamation of Cameron, is allowed to retain his position undisturbed. This, however, only adds to the absurdity of the proceeding. 


The Gazette heads its article "State Sovereignty" - with a view, doubtless, to bring into contempt the good old doctrine that the State is supreme in everything pertaining to its domestic institutions. State Sovereignty, while resisting unwarranted interference, come from what quarter it may, claims no right to regulate or control the appointments of the Federal executive. The notion of the Kentucky Legislature in relation to Cameron, is nearer akin to that officious intermeddling inaugurated by politicians of the North, and which has had no small share in bringing on our present troubles.

President Lincoln's "Conservatism"

The Covington Journal of December 28, 1861 published this commentary on President Lincoln  what they considered his view of the government and slavery to be.

Within a month or two past we have heard a good deal said about Mr. Lincoln's conservatism on the slavery question. That Mr. Lincoln doesn't favor all of the extreme measures proposed by such impractical radical as Lovejoy and Sumner may be true; but we have no shadow of evidence that he is in any other sense than this a conservative man. We may be pointed to his modification of Cameron's report. The Cincinnati Gazette is about right when it says "there is as much emancipation in the modified report, and in the message, as in the report originally." At any rate Mr. Cameron is retained in the cabinet. The recent appointment by Mr. Lincoln of the notorious Helper to a responsible post, is a stunner to those good people who are willing to vouch for the "conservatism" of the President. 


On this subject we invite attention to the following extract from the Washington correspondent of the Chicago Tribune:


"I am able to correct the painful impression here noticed with regard to the President of the United States, and I do so with the more satisfaction and gratitude that I was deeply grieved, in common with nine tenths of the loyal citizens of the country, by the countermanding of Freemont's proclamation, and by the application of the check-rein to Secretary Cameron's just and wise inclinations. Mr. Lincoln assures his friend, without reserve, in conversation, that he is in favor of measures which shall enable to deprive every rebel, from Virginia to Texas of his slaves, and every other species of property, and that the only disagreement which can arise between himself and Congress will relate to the details of the bill which may be adopted. If any such disagreement shall arise, it will, I presume, relate to the possible involving of loyal masters in the consequences of emancipation to the slaves of their disloyal neighbors."
---

 Hinton Rowan Helpler caused much controversy with the 1857 publishing of his book The Impending Crisis of the South,with its anti-slavery arguments.

Here is a very good summary of Cameron's report and Lincoln's reaction to it on the excellent Civil War Emancipation blog

Hinton R. Helper, courtesy northcarolinahistory.org

Newspaper article: The Negro in Congress

This is from the Covington Journal of December 7, 2011.

The "Irrepressibles" in Congress are moving with a high hand.

Senator Trumbull has given notice of a bill to give freedom to persons in slave States.


Representative Elliott proposes to advise the President to emancipate all slaves in any military district in a state of insurrection against the government.

Representative Campbell proposes to confiscate the slaves of rebels.


Representative Stevens offers a resolution directing the President to declare free all slaves who may leave their masters. 

Representative Gurley proposes to apprentice the slaves to loyal masters and after a while colonize them. 


Senator Wilson has introduced a bill to punish officers of the army and soldiers who may return fugitives from slavery.

The same Senator has introduced a resolution directing the committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District.


All of this is the work of a day or two, and it is only the beginning. 

In this connection it is a significant fact that a resolution reiterating the Crittenden resolutions of last session to the effect that the only object in carrying on the war was to re-establish obedience to the Constitution and the Union, was on a motion of Mr. Stevens laid on the table by a vote of 71 to 65.

No one can mistake the purpose of the leading men of the party in power. If their counsels prevail the war will hereafter be prosecuted for the abolition of slavery. 

Lyman Trumball and Thaddeus Stevens