When a Confederate soldier came-a-courtin’ a Southern Unionist’s daughter

While shuffling through some family history notes lately, I came across a story that I had forgotten about. A distant cousin (half first cousin, three times removed), George W. Hillyard, who served in the 12th Virginia Cavalry, and was a native of Winchester, Virginia, found time during the war to find romance with a young lady “down the road a ways”. Now, George “was a man of powerful build, a noted athlete in young manhood, and some notable exploits were credited to him”. When he started to court Miss Jemima Windle (seven years his junior), it didn’t set too well with her father, Samuel Windle.

Samuel was a native of Shenandoah County, and a farmer/merchant near Cedar Creek, but, more importantly, when it came to the war, he is said to have held firm to his Unionism.

So, the story goes…

When George W. Hillyard came to court his daughter, the prospective father-in-law denied him the privilege of the Windle home, and went so far as to secure assistance from some Union soldiers in removing the obnoxious suitor. George, seeing the party in blue coming, jumped through the window, taking the sash with him. Despite his hurried departure, when some distance away, he waited in ambush until the boys in blue came along. When George attacked, he proved the more capable fellow, ultimately drowning all of his pursuers in Cedar Creek.

That’s quite an interesting story, but… I couldn’t help but wonder if there was more info out there on “Papa” Windle. In fact, there is…

In the early 1870s, Samuel Windle prepared a Southern Loyalist claim, and left some interesting details about life, as he recalled them.

When reflecting on his loyalty, Windle informed the committee (in an interview and in the documentation):

At the beginning of the Rebellion I was for the Union and not for the Rebellion. I voted for the ordnance of secession. A man came to my house the night before the election and told me all that did not vote for the ordnance of secession would be tarred and feathered and drummed out. The security of my life required that I should vote for the ordnance. I was a Union man all the time.

Of course, it can’t hurt to let the committee know that a good Unionist has suffered at the hands of the Confederates either…

The Rebels took hay, corn, & goods from out my store, they robbed my house and took 150 dollars in Greenbacks from me. They threatened to burn my house on account of my being a Union man.

Then, of course, it’s important to let them know how one helped the Union army when it was around…

I went at the hour of midnight to give Gen. Milroy notice of the coming of Confederate forces. I gave him the information a few hours before the fight.

Even so, being a Southern Unionist didn’t guarantee safety from depredations at the hands of Union soldiers, as they came through the area… hence the root of the reasons behind why Samuel Windle made application to be reimbursed from losses incurred from their “visit”, in the fall of 1864. Samuel testified…

I was at home when my property was all taken – it was all the same Regiment that took my property – it was in command of a Col. Benjamin and belonged to Sheridan’s army. The Col. and a Capt. Bliss took breakfast with me the morning it was all taken and came upon my invitation – it was in the fall of 1864. – the regiment had encamped close to my house the night before. They were up the valley on the scout. Sheridan’s was in camp at Kernstown at the time. I think so. There was no others to take the property and was all taken that night and the next day and done while Col. Bliss was encamped there.

He also noted that, while hauling wood, Union soldiers took his saddle (worth $10) and horse, though the horse was later returned. Also claimed were, at least, 150 fence rails for camp fires, and 15 stands of bees, and all the honey, estimated at 300 lbs, to which the Union soldiers “made themselves welcome”.

Samuel’s son, James, backed his father’s story, adding the following…

I don’t know that there was any officer present. The sheep was in the Barn yard. The Hay in the Barn, the Potatoes in the patch. The saddle was taken from the horse in the road. The Corn was in the field. The rails enclosed the farm. The Honey was in the Hives. It was all removed by the soldiers. It was taken for the use of the U.S. Army. I saw it used by the army. A complaint was made to Captain Bliss who gave a receipt for the Sheep & Honey. The property was taken both night and day. Did not see the sheep taken but saw them using the mutton. They were the best sheep. Coats would [bring] five or six dollars a piece. I saw fifteen hundred pounds of hay taken. The hay was in the barn & I estimate the quantity from the bulk. It was worth 18 or 20 dollars a ton. I saw eight bushels of Potatoes taken from the ground. From the quantity of land I supposed there was eight bushels. They were worth about seventy five cents a bushel. I saw ten bushels of corn taken judged the quantity from the buck and supposed there was 10 bushels was worth about one dollar a bushel.

James also added that his father sent he and his two brothers into the Union lines “to keep us out of the Rebel service” and, that he [Samuel]…

…gave the Union men all the information he could and aided Rebel deserters to get into the Union lines. They threatened to burn his house and took his property on account of his being a Union man. I do not think the claimant could have staid here had the south gained her independence, and further deponent sayeth not.

Joseph W. Hodge also provided testimony on behalf of Samuel Windle. Having been conscripted in the summer of 1862, into the 11th Virginia Cavalry, Hodge deserted on December 20, 1862. Taking refuge in the homes of Southern Unionists in the Valley, by the summer of 1863, he finally made his way to Ohio. Taking advantage of Sheridan’s occupation of the Valley, in the fall of 1864, he returned home for a while, before returning to Ohio, where he remained until the close of the war.

I did not return until the fall of 1864, and was at Windles for a day or two when I left again for the North. I had come home to see my friends while the Union army was here, but I left again for feat that Sheridan would fall back and leave me in the hands of the rebels. I had a great many talks with the claimant about the war – in his conversations he always expressed strong Union sentiments.

Hodge also let the committee know that Windle’s three sons had been conscripted into the Confederate army. This is where things grow a little fuzzy… but only because all of what was being told… between Samuel Windle, James Windle, and Joseph Hodge… did not all neatly mesh.

In fact, as service records reveal, Windle’s three sons, Addison, James, and William, were all prewar militia, who were activated for Virginia’s service (and, thereby, the Confederacy’s service), in July 1861 (James was mustered-in with the 146th Virginia Militia, July 11, 1861, while Addison and William were mustered-in with the 136th Virginia Militia, July 21, 1861). Of course, as I’ve pointed out before, such service, in the militia, is not an indicator of loyalty to the Confederacy, as many considered themselves conscripts, under such activation, even before the Confederacy passed its first conscription act.

Ultimately, all three were excused or dismissed from militia service at various times prior to October 1861 (Addison and William, in September; and James in October).

From what I’m able to weed-out, (though I can’t tell when, exactly) it appears that Addison was the one who first took his father’s advice, and went to Ohio, to avoid further Confederate conscription. There he remained, until after the war.

James and William, on the other hand, appear to have taken their chances… and lost.

William was conscripted on December 8, 1863, and assigned to Co. E, 11th Virginia Cavalry, on March 9, 1864. He appears to have deserted not long after, finally taking refuge in Ohio. he returned to Winchester, in April 1865, where he received his parole from Federal forces.

James was conscripted as well, and, though not on the rolls of the 7th Virginia Cavalry (I suspect the term of service being so short explains why), having received a disabling wound at Jack’s Shop, received a discharge (at least according to his postwar application for a pension for his service to Virginia). Such a situation, of course, would have enabled James to remain on his father’s farm without further pursuit by Confederate conscript hunters… thereby giving him the opportunity to witness events in the fall of 1864… for which he gave testimony, as seen above.

Hodge, by the way, in his testimony, lent credence to Samuel Windle’s claim, that he sent his sons North (though, I must say, Samuel was a big vague as to the details, while he explained this to the commission). When Hodge fled the Valley, in June of 1863, he stated that he went to Ohio where “Mr Windle’s son was living”.

Of course, I have to wonder if the Claims Commission could see all that we are able to see, in records today, as they are available to us now. At this point, I’d be very confident in saying that Windle was, indeed, a loyal Southern Unionist. However, as in the case of several others I’ve seen, it’s often some fine detail that spoils the whole story. In fact, the Claims Commission found out that Windle sold 3,341 lbs of hay to the Confederacy, at Sharpsburg, Maryland, on December 20, 1862 (for a total of $141.50). But, really, it appears that this wasn’t the factor that brought them to their decision. Who knows… for all they knew, they may have considered such a sale made under duress.

Rather, it was that part about Samuel Windle having voted in favor of secession, that wrecked his claim (albeit, really, a rather small claim). The decision of the Commission, inevitably came down to this…

Claimant stated that he voted for the Ordinance of Secession. We regard a vote for the dissolution of the Union and the overthrow of the Government as inconsistent with local adherence to the Cause of the Union and the Government of the United States. We reject the claim.

… and there you have it. A Southern Unionist… I feel certain… but, not one who went to the point of defying secessionists who threatened him with violence, and perhaps his very life.

Oh yes… and about that romance between George Hillyard and Ann Jemima Windle… they still stuck it out, and were married. Ann died in 1878, while George went on to marry again. Still, in those 13 years after the war, between the end of the war and Ann’s death, one has to wonder just how those family holidays at the Windle house may have been…

Rebecca Wright: Winchester Unionist and Sheridan’s “Little Quaker Girl”

In January, 1867, while serving as the head of the Department of the Gulf, in New Orleans, Gen. Philip Sheridan penned a letter to Rebecca Wright, in Winchester, Virginia, regarding affairs in which she had played part, less than three years before. “You are not probably aware of how great a service you rendered the Union cause”, wrote Sheridan, “by the information you sent me by the colored man a few days before the battle of Opequon, on Sept. 19, 1864.”

Who was Rebecca Wright, and how big a part did she play in the Battle of Opequon?

Rebecca L. Wright (often seen in biographical sketches as “Rebecca McPherson Wright”) was born January 31, 1838, in Frederick County, Virginia, a daughter of Amos and Rachel Lupton Wright… “Friends”, or Quakers… who belonged to the Hopewell Meeting House, near what is now, Clear Brook, Virginia, just north of Winchester.

In her youth, Wright is said to have “enjoyed the advantages of a fair education, obtained in the schools at Winchester, Va., and, at the age of fifteen, she began her employment as a teacher.” A year later, however, she opted to continue her education with a year’s course of study at the Friends’ School in Loudoun County, Va., under the guidance of Samuel M. Janney. Upon completion, and for the three years that led up to the war, she taught a private school, sponsored by the Friends at Hopewell Meeting, and subsequently served as an assistant teacher in a private school of eighty pupils.

In the early days of the war, she stood against what seemed to be the popular leanings in the area, and “pronounced Union sentiments” that were “distasteful to the management and the popular feeling of the community”. Subsequently withdrawing from the private school, she opened another private school in Winchester, where “she taught the children of loyal parents, and never lost faith in the Union cause.” Furthermore, as the war came regularly to Winchester and Frederick County, she is also said to have never “refused to aid the friends of the National government and its armies”.

Certainly, considering the disposition of the Friends, this makes sense, but were these details of what appeared to be immense and long-term service to the Union made more extraordinary after the war, and because of her having assisted Sheridan with critical information that served him well in the Battle of Opequon? In the absence of detailing information, it’s difficult to project so much from only one documented incident. We’ll return to this thought in a bit. In the meantime…

Sheridan providing Laws with instructions for the delivery of the message

In the early stages of his 1864 Valley Campaign, Sheridan was in need of reliable information regarding the size and strength of Gen. Jubal Early’s army. In his memoirs, Sheridan recalled that some of Major H.K. Young’s special scouts (who often wore gray as part of their intelligence gathering operations) learned of “an old colored man”, Thomas Laws, who might prove useful.

They learned that just outside of my lines, near Millwood, there was living an old colored man, who had a permit from the Confederate commander to go into Winchester and return three times a week, for the purpose of selling vegetable to the inhabitants. The scouts had sounded this man, and finding him both loyal and shrewd, suggested that he might be made useful to us within the enemy’s lines; and the proposal struck me as feasible, provided there could be found in Winchester some reliable person who would be willing to co-operate and correspond with me. I asked General Crook, who was acquainted with many of the Union people of Winchester, if he knew of such a person, and he recommended a Miss Rebecca Wright, a young lady whom he had met there before the battle of Kernstown, who, he said, was a member of the Society of Friends and the teacher of a small private school. he knew she was faithful and loyal to the Government, and thought she might be willing to render us assistance, but he could not be certain of this, for on account of her well-known loyalty she was under constant surveillance. I hesitated at first, but finally deciding to try it, dispatched the two scouts to the old negro’s cabin, and they brought him to my headquarters late that night. I was soon convinced of the negro’s fidelity, and asking him if he was acquainted with Miss Rebecca Wright, of Winchester, he replied that he knew her well. Thereupon I told him what I wished to do, and after a little persuasion he agreed to carry a letter to her on his next marketing trip. My message was prepared by writing it on tissue paper, which was then compressed into a small pellet, and protected by wrapping it in tin-foil so that it could be safely carried in the man’s mouth. The probability of his being searched when he came to the Confederate picket-line was not remote, and in such event he was to swallow the pellet. The letter appealed to Miss Wright’s loyalty and patriotism, and, requested her to furnish me with information regarding the strength of condition of Early’s army. The night before the negro started one of the scouts placed the odd-looking communication in his hands, with renewed injunctions as to secrecy and promptitude.

Of course, were Laws and/or Wright found out for their efforts, it meant almost certain death. Still, Laws followed-through.

Making his way into town, he came to Wright’s private school, but… did he really know Wright so well, or… did the writer (Brevet Lt. Col. Theodore W. Bean) of the Wright-Sheridan sketch (The Loyal Girl of Winchester) design unfamiliarity between Wright and Laws to add drama to the story? The following passages from that postwar sketch make it appear that she was unfamiliar with Laws.

“It was while sitting at my desk in my little school room at the noon hour,” remembered Wright, “that I heard a ring at the front door, and was told a colored man wished to see Miss Wright.” Wright [er, uh... Col. Bean) continued...

He was thirty or thirty-five years old, closing all doors and looking about in such ways that alarmed me so that I demanded very positively business.

He immediately told me he had a note from Gen­eral Sheridan, who wanted me to tell him of the strength and position of the rebel forces in and around Winchester, at which I was greatly troubled, as the man was an entire stranger to me, and the thought that he might be trying to find out what I would do or say, and betray me to the rebels who were in possession of the place, was uppermost in my mind.

I asked him if he knew to whom he was talking and told him there were two of us. He replied, "Oh, yes; you are Miss Rebecca; your sister [Hannah A. Wright, who was 18 years old at the time] a rebel.” I then told him I did not have anything to do with the rebels and knew nothing about them, but he talked so intelligently, told me so much of the troops with Sheridan, and seemed so earnest and honest that I could no longer doubt him.

He quickly noticed the change and said, “will go now, Miss Wright, and come again at three, and I know you will have a line to send to the General.”

All this time I was nervously trying to get at the note, which was rolled in tinfoil, and was tearing the foil when he said: “Do not tear the foil, you will need it to wrap your reply in. I carried it under my tongue and was to swallow it if I was arrested and searched.”

Taking more care, she opened the contents, and read the note…

I learn from Major-General Crook that you are a loyal lady and still love the old flag.

Can you inform me of the position of Early and his forces, the number of divisions in his army and the strength of any or all of them, and his probable or reported intentions? Have any more troops arrived from Richmond, or are any more coming or reported to be coming?

I am very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major-General Commanding.

You can trust the bearer.

The note being read, Wright turned to her mother, Rachel, for counsel…

After talking it over with my mother, and know­ing the risk I was running, I sat down and wrote all I knew, and this [that?] was how I knew anything of Con­federate affairs:

Two evenings before, a rebel officer, convalescent, who boarded with our next door neighbor, asked the privilege of spending the evening in my company. But a sorry evening it proved for his cause. I asked questions (never thinking of using the information) and he answered truthfully. When Sheridan asked me I knew, therefore, what to tell, and wrote, putting my life in the keeping of a strange colored man.

Wright penned her response…

September 16, 1864.

I have no communication whatever with the rebels, but will tell you what I know.

The division of General Kershaw and Cutshaw’s artillery, twelve guns and men, General Anderson commanding, have been sent away and no more are expected, as they cannot be spared from Richmond. I do not know how the troops are situated, but the force is much smaller than represented. I will take pleasure here­after in learning all I can of their strength and position, and the bearer may call again.

Very respectfully yours,

Sheridan made note in his memoirs of the information he received on the evening of September 16…

Miss Wright’s answer proved of more value to me than she anticipated, for it not only quieted the conflicting reports concerning Anderson’s corps, but was most important in showing positively that Kershaw was gone, and this circumstance led, three days later, to the battle of the Opequon, or Winchester, as it has been unofficially called.

Laws delivers the first message. Close-up from the Virginia Civil War Trails marker, available online at the Historical Markers Database.

While we have no further record of Thomas Laws, as to whether he continued to convey information for Sheridan, or what became of him, in the days that followed the exchange of messages, Rebecca is said to have wondered about the disposition of the messenger, and whether the contents of the message had reached Sheridan. The following comes from Col. Bean’s sketch…

What Miss Wright remembers of the terrible day: Many times during the next day (17th) and the quiet Sabbath (18th), I wondered what had become of the colored messenger and of my note. When we were awakened on Monday morning, the 19th, before daybreak, by the roar of cannon, my first thought was whether my note had anything to do with the fight­ing. In the afternoon when the streets were filled with troops, artillery wagons and the poor suffering wounded, when buildings were burning all around us (our own fence was on fire several times), my mother asked me if the note I had written was the cause of it. But I still wondered if it had ever been received.

It was the most terrible day of all our experience in old Winchester. The shells fell so near us we went down cellar for safety. The rumbling and noise grew fainter and fainter, until it was so quiet I could not endure it, and said I must go up and see what I could see.

Nothing on the first floor; nothing on the second floor; but from the window of the garret I saw the old flag waving, and it was coming to town. I dropped on my knees then and there, and gave thanks to the Giver of all good for the sight; then started for the cellar, fairly flying down the stairs, screaming, “The old flag is coming in! Come up now, all will be safe! The fires will be put out and everything will soon be all right. The dear old flag is coming back again.”

We soon had the house open to receive our friends, and in the evening I learned whether my note had anything to do with that battle.

I heard sabers clamping against the steps, and on going to the door met two officers, to each of whom, without knowing their rank, I extended one of my hands, welcoming them as Union officers.

When one introduced himself as General Sheridan, I welcomed him indeed, and he told me it was entirely on the information that I had sent that he at once gave battle. He said the rebels were utterly defeated and would never come again. But I had heard that too often, and told him all who had gained a victory had told us that, so we had lost faith; but they never came again. He wrote the report of his battle at my desk.

Soon friends began to arrive, and though there were no decorations, no flowers, there never was a reception more thoroughly enjoyed or more fully appreciated, than the one held in the old house at the foot of Fort Hill on Main Street, Winchester, Va., by the Quaker girl who felt she had done her duty to her country.

Now, it seemed to me that Col. Bean’s sketch seemed to be “fluffing” things a little when we consider Sheridan’s 1867 letter to Wright. In fact, Sheridan’s words make it seem that only then, with that letter, did he make Wright totally aware of her contribution, and his appreciation. Recapping what was covered in the opening of this blog post…

“You are not probably aware of how great a service you rendered the Union cause“, wrote Sheridan, “by the information you sent me by the colored man a few days before the battle of Opequon, on Sept. 19, 1864.”

Still, Sheridan himself recalled, in his Personal Memoirs, when Gen. Crook conducted him to Rebecca Wright’s home, to prepare a telegram to General Grant. Therefore, Bean’s account seems to hold merit, despite the projection of meaning in Sheridan’s 1867 letter. The rest of Sheridan’s 1867 letter is as follows…

It was upon this information the battle was fought and probably won. The colored man gave the note, rolled up in tinfoil, to the scout who awaited him at Millwood. The colored man had carried it in his mouth to that point and delivered it to the scout, who brought it to me. By this note I became aware of the true condi­tion of affairs inside the enemy’s line and gave directions for the attack. I will always remember this courageous and patriotic action of yours with gratitude, and beg you to accept this watch and chain, which I send you by Gen. J. W. Forsyth, as a memento of Sept. 19, 1864.

I am your obedient servant,

PHILIP H. SHERIDAN,
Major-General

It’s unclear if the locals actually gained knowledge of Wright’s contribution to Sheridan’s victory, but circumstances suggest she may have been scorned by some, perhaps making any effort to remain in Winchester, a difficult affair. It may be that, from this difficulty, she was eventually appointed to a “position of honor” as a clerk in the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., thanks to efforts of Ulysses S. Grant, after he became president (whether Sheridan had a hand in it or not is unclear). It was while there, she married William Carpenter Bonsal, in 1871 (Bonsal was a veteran of the Civil War, having served as a private in Co. L, 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry). She retired from her position with the US Treasury in 1914. Though she was buried in Glenwood Cemetery, in Washington, D.C., the date of her death was not inscribed on her stone.

* Several biographical sketches carry the legend that Rebecca Wright’s father, Amos, died in a Confederate prison camp early in the war. Amos died, however, on August 27, 1865, and was buried in the “Friends’ burying grounds attached to Ridge Meet­ing, Virginia”. Rebecca Wright’s mother died June 21, 1874, in Rice County, Kansas, “while visiting her daughter [though it's unclear which daughter], and was there laid to rest in private burial-grounds.”

**A Virginia Civil War Trails Marker, seen here, in the Historical Markers Database, is in downtown Winchester, at the site of Wright’s residence.

***I’ve made a slight effort to find Thomas Laws. Sheridan never referred to him as a slave, and it appears more than likely that Laws may have been a free black, though doesn’t appear in the 1860 census for either Frederick or Clarke counties as such.

“The reign of terror in Loudoun, Va.”

The following comes from the July 24, 1861 issue of Hagerstown, Maryland’s Herald of Freedom and Torch Light:

A gentleman from Waterford, Loudoun county, Virginia, of a party of twelve Union men who escaped across the Potomac on Sunday night and reached here yesterday, represents the reign of terror in that county as unprecedented. The Union men are largely in the majority, but are totally unarmed and defenceless, and were all to be drafted in the militia yesterday by order of Gov. Letcher, and sent to Manassas. The river is closely guarded by pickets to prevent their escape, and a party of fifty were driven back on Saturday.

The party with which our informant crossed came over an old abandoned ford below the Point of Rocks, the existence of which was not generally known, and were each armed with such weapons as they could procure, determined to resist to the death.

Immediately on crossing they were arrested by the Federal pickets, and marched to the camp, much to their gratification, assuring them that they were just where they wanted to be. The[y] were well received, and furnished with provisions, and made as comfortable as possible. Passes were then given them, and a portion proceeded to join friends in Washington, whiles others came to Baltimore.

The people of Loudoun are not allowed to know what is going on in the country except through Secession sources, all newspapers being vigorously excluded from them. They have been robbed of the produce of their farms, and many hundreds of them would have made their escape long since were it not for the daily hope they entertained of being relieved of their oppresions by the arrival of Federal troops.

The election on the Secession ordinance is represented to have been a farce. A regiment from South Carolina was in the county on that day and the members voted, whilst the Secessionists voted as they choosed. it would have been at the risk of life for the Union men generally to have turned out, though they brought up a few to vote to make it appear that that there was no restriction upon Union voters.

The drafting for the militia that was progressing embraced every one that was able arms, including members of the Society of Friends and those known to be devoted Union men. The “coercion” principle was being carried out by the anti-coercionists to its fullest extent.

Looking for photos of Galvanized Yankees

While photos of Galvanized Yankees in blue uniforms might be near impossible to find (or haven’t been identified), I’m still on the hunt for them… as well as photos of these same fellows in postwar years (or, for that matter, even of them in gray!). Additionally, if there are any photos of the junior officers, in command of the Galvanized Yankee regiments, I’d be interested in seeing them.

Reuben Kite’s story

Not that I’ve found a great deal about Kite, but, I do know that he was one of four men from Page County, Virginia to actually be bold enough to vote against secession during the referendum.

Kite, a 34-year-old farmer, with $6,000 in real estate, not only voted against secession, but stuck it out in his home county after the referendum. After living in fear for better than a year before the first Union soldiers entered the county, in the spring of 1862, ironically, Kite was arrested by Union scouts who were in the advance of Gen. James Shields’ army. Fortunately, another local Unionist, James Lee Gillespie, who had also voted against secession in Page, was then serving as a guide for Shields, and vouched for Kite’s loyalty. Following the battle of Port Republic, in June 1862, Kite continued to exhibit his sentiment and opened his home for the body of a dead Union officer. In the days that followed, Kite also hosted several Union officers, and for giving the “enemy” comfort, was soon living in the county on borrowed time. Realizing the precarious state of affairs for Kite and his family, Shields offered to convey the family North.

Reuben took Shields up on the deal, and by 1880, we find him, his children, and his wife, Lydia Ann Koontz Kite, a third great grand-aunt of mine, living in Nebraska. Three of Lydia’s brothers, by the way, had served in the Stonewall Brigade, one being killed at First Manassas.

New markers in Waterford, Va. highlight Southern Unionism there

Over at the Loudoun County Civil War Roundtable site, blogosphere pal Craig Swain makes mention of the events of May 21, in Waterford, Virginia. The folks up that way are giving a good deal of attention to the Loudoun Rangers, and it’s great to see. Meanwhile, I hear that another blogosphere friend, Ron Baumgarten has a post coming up about his experience yesterday at Lydecker’s Store in Vienna, where he witnessed a reenactment of the referendum on secession.

So, yes Virginia, Unionism was alive 150 years ago, and it’s being recognized in Virginia Sesquicentennial events! Very good to see.

Who thinks that that only Lincoln did this? Silly goose…

Southern Unionist post-worthy is the fact that 149 years ago, on this day, Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia because of Union threats.

Gen. Winder

Two days later, the same was done in Richmond, Virginia; Gen. John H. Winder being declared military governor of the city. Part of the irony in this was that Winder was a Marylander. While there seems to be much talk in Confederate celebrationist circles about the appalling treatment of Marylanders as a result of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law there, Jefferson Davis (who, incidentally, had also been a student of Winder’s at West Point), as we can see here, did the same.

J.M. Botts

One of those taken into custody under Winder’s period of authority was John Minor Botts. Not unlike George P. Kane, who was taken from his home in the dead of night in Maryland (as a result of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus), Botts was taken from his bed in the dead of night, in March of 1862. Botts was then carried to prison, and held in solitary confinement for eight weeks. Botts’ crime against the Confederacy: suspicion that he was writing a secret history of the war.

Though a search was made for the manuscript, the Confederates could find nothing. After his release from prison, Botts returned to his home in Culpeper County, Virginia, though continually harassed by Confederate authorities.

Following the war, the manuscript which the Confederates sought was found, a portion of which had been entrusted to the Count de Mercier, French minister at Washington, D.C. This work formed the basis for Botts’ The Great Rebellion, its Secret History, Rise, Progress, and Disastrous Failure! (New York, 1866).

150 years ago today, the majority in Tennessee said “no” to secession convention…

On February 9, 1861, Tennessee said her peace… 69,387 voted against secession, while 57,798 voted in favor (I’ve seen stats that challenge these exact numbers, but the percentage is about the same).  Now, some folks are quick to point out that it was quite a narrow margin, however, as David Morris Potter points out in The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, at that same time, “votes were also cast for men who would have been delegates if this proposed convention had met, and the Tennesseans rubbed salt into the secessionist wounds with 88,803 votes for Unionists to 24,749 for secessionists.”

"Parson" William G. Brownlow

Among those who voiced strong opinion against secession were Andrew Johnson and “Parson” William Brownlow.

In referring to the secessionist crowd (more specifically, the slave-holding aristocracy that pushed for secession), Johnson called them, “a cheap purse-proud set they are… not half as good as the man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow”.

Brownlow’s remarks, especially his commentary in the Knoxville Whig, seem even stronger. Brownlow insisted that east Tennessee yeomen could “never live in in a Southern Confederacy and be made hewers of wood and drawers of water for a set of aristocrats and overbearing tyrants.” Considering the “hewers of wood and drawers of water” comment was drawn from Joshua 9:23, it’s particularly interesting considering the context in which Brownlow made the statement.

Even so, the final decision on secession in Tennessee was yet to come.

Virginians feel S.C. is dragging her into war…

From the Staunton Spectator, February 5, 1861:

As there is some conservatism in Virginia, and we seem anxious to secure an honorable settlement, South Carolina is about to apply the spur again.

She first rejects unanimously the resolutions of Virginia.

She secondly declares that her secession is final.

Lastly, she is going to force a collision. She has instructed Gen. Hayne to demand Fort Sumter at once, and if it is not surrendered, it is to be taken at all hazards.”*

They know this will shed blood, and blood is necessary to “fire the Southern heart.”

We trust Virginia will scorn South Carolina. Let her fight her own battles. She has kicked us enough. She has dragged us enough. We were for protecting South Carolina against coercion by the Federal Government. But she is not satisfied with this. We must enter upon a crusade with her for a civil war.

The prospects for a settlement are brightening every day. Mr. [John Singleton] Millson writes to Mr. [Alfred M.] Barbour, of Culpeper, that “he has never had so confident an expectation of a satisfactory adjustment.”

On the heels of this comes the effort to get up a collision. We cannot utter our indignation.–If the people of Virginia are fools enough to be dragooned any longer by South Carolina–we say, go ahead. God means to destroy you, and the efforts of man are vain.

*The statement now is, that Col. Hayne will not make this demand, but that the Convention which met at Montgomery on yesterday will do so.

“Fighting for the Union”

As published in the Staunton Spectator, January 17, 1861 (courtesy of the Valley of the Shadow site, this page).

It is a matter of surprise that any serious apprehensions as to the stability of the Union should now be felt in any quarter. With the exception of the insignificant faction of ultra abolitionists at the North and a few equally insane gentlemen of the fire-eating stripe at the South, nobody seems disposed at the present to tolerate dissolution. On the contrary the prominent men of all the great parties, of both sections of the confederacy, are bold in the declaration that the “Union must and shall be preserved.” The Democratic party, it is gratifying to perceive, are taking the true ground here at the South, that dissolution is no remedy for the evils under which we have naturally become very restive, and we are waking up to an appreciation that the Union and the Constitution belong to the South as well as the North, and that the rights and privileges guaranteed to us by the Constitution, which is the bond of the Union, may and ought to be maintained within the Union and under the Constitution.–It seems now to be the general opinion that it is not only unwise and ridiculous, but absolutely cowardly, to think of abandoning our rights under the and retreating ingloriously from the glorious American Union, because some of the parties confederate are disposed to trample upon and abuse us; but that, on the contrary, the true and manly position to assume is, that we have rights in the Union, guaranteed by the Constitution, which we mean to assert and maintain “at all hazards and to the last extremity,” Gov. Wise placed his foot upon this solid ground first, in his speech to the medical students at Richmond, and following his lead many of the prominent men and presses of the Democratic party have taken the same sensible position. Mr. Pryor, well known to be a champion par excellence of Southern rights and interests, has made up his mind to save the Union, and declared in Congress that the South does not intend to abandon the Union, but will vindicate her rights in the Union, “peaceably if possibly, by force if necessary.” Heretofore, says the Baltimore American “Southern politicians seem never to have thought it possible for the South to do anything but run away from Seward and his fanatics– dissolution (in other words, backing out) being the only resource of the “despoiled nationalities” below Mason and Dixon’s line. But Mr. Pryor, for the first time in the history of Southern Eloquence, takes a more courageous stand. He thinks it just as easy for the South to whip the North as for the North to whip the South in.–At all events, the South, according to Mr. Pryor rather than secede under any provocation, is fully bent upon violence–”force if necessary.” Instead of backing out, it is going to fight to keep in.

While this strong position is taken by Southern Democrats, Mr. Hickman, of Pennsylvania, an anti-Lecompton Democrat who has been voting with the Republicans, and therefore a representative of both, is equally positive that the Union shall not be dissolved. “No matter what the antagonism between sections,” says that gentleman, “the Union must and shall be preserved.”

In addition to these developments of a determination to preserve the Union, on the part of two great parties, both of which have heretofore been inclined to its destruction, we find a movement in progress under the lead of such men as Crittenden and Broom and Stuart, having for its object the organization of another great national party, to aid Messrs. Pryor and Hickman in their patriotic intentions.

In view of all of these facts who can apprehend any danger to the Union? Who is to accomplish the work of dissolution. As the American remarks, if Mr. Hickman shall resort to arms to prevent the South from leaving the Confederacy, and Mr. Pryor is resolved that the South shall urge war to keep from leaving, it is pretty clear that the Union is tolerably safe–we confess to like the idea of the South’s fighting to keep in, while the North is fighting to make the South stay in.