Bleached Bones from Shiloh to Corinth

As the Civil War progressed, the Union army picked up a new innovation, burying the bodies after a battle. During prior wars, the European armies did what armies had done forever, they focused on the moment and left their dead behind – or they burned the bodies. But, as the civil war commenced in 1861, the Federal government issued an order that each commander would be responsible for burying his dead. Even with this order, the Union forces often buried their dead quickly in graves which were quickly undone.

The Confederate Army issued no such order. Even if they had issued such an order, it is unlikely the Confederates had the resources to bury their dead. After the Battle of Antietam, Matthew Brady took pictures of the dead soldiers. Most of the dead soldiers we see today in his pictures are Confederates. The Northerners had already buried their dead by the time Brady took his pictures. Historian Katherine Jeffrey recounts the story that the retreating Confederate army had rescued the body of one young officer from behind enemy lines, only to leave it lying by the road along with other officers. This occurred during the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) and the army was hastily pulling back to Virginia. They Confederate army lacked the wagons necessary to transport even the dead officers to a proper burial.

So, after the war, there were tens of thousands of Southern bones left lying beneath the sun unburied and unremembered. In the North, the federal government had started collecting and burying veterans in 1862. In that year, the federals set up the first veteran burial ground. Prior to 1861, fallen soldiers would have been buried at the post cemetery or in some quick grave on the prairie. But, by 1862, that simple system was quickly overwhelmed. The federal government responded by creating what we know today as national cemeteries for veterans. By 1865, there were some 30 national cemeteries for federal veterans. See National Park Service website here.

After the end of the war. The federal army started the pains-taking laborious process of re-burying the fallen in these new national cemeteries. They did not bury the Confederate dead. The Confederate dead served a different government.

Gettysburg Battlefield

At the Battle of Gettysburg, 5,500 Southern boys were killed or suffered mortal wounds. Some 16,000 were wounded. In the ensuing retreat, hundreds of the wounded were left behind to die a slow, lingering death. Many of the dead lay in the open, to be feasted on by maggots and hogs. Those who received a shallow burial were uncovered by the heavy rains that fell soon after the battle. Two weeks after the battle, Southern bodies could be seen lying all over the battlefield out in the open, under the gray skies. One correspondent wrote:

“Day and night, rain or shine, cold or hot, there they lie. Hour by hour they die off, are carried to the trenches, a foot or two deep, in which they are to lie … and to remain there in continually increasing groups until the parties whose duty it is to come around to tend to their internment. It is awful, it is terrible, it is horrible beyond expression”

The Confederate dead at Gettysburg received a shallow burial or burial in trenches. None were buried in the national cemetery at Gettysburg. See Gettysburg Military Park website here.

“In the spring of 1864, there had been scattered calls in the Gettysburg Sentinel to collect the “Rebel remains,” in the name of “a common humanity,” but the pressures and politics of war-time had forestalled such.” See Gettysburg Military Park website here.

In 1869, at a dedication of a monument at Gettysburg to the Federal dead, Gen. George Meade called for a more respectful burial for the Rebel dead.  As he said, it is usual after a battle to afford the dead, even the enemy dead, a respectful burial. In the end, the different Southern ladies groups managed to re-inter some 3,200 remains to four cemeteries in Southern states from the Gettysburg battle field.

And, what of the other battles? There were dozens of major battles from Virginia to the Red River in Texas to upper Missouri to Southwest Louisiana. Some 450,000 Confederate soldiers died during the war. See Ohio State University eHistory website here.

And, how many of those 450,000 were buried? Not many. 482 dead Confederates were buried at Arlington cemetery. Arlington burials started in late 1864.

Wake County, North Carolina

There is no known figure for which or how many of the Confederate dead received a decent burial. Whatever burial the Confederate soldier received was ad hoc. For example, the ladies of Wake County, North Carolina first started making an effort to re-bury the Battle of Gettysburg dead Confederates in 1874. That means, nine years after the war, one group of women in one county made an effort to bury North Carolina bodies which had received a shallow burial at one battle.

Shiloh Battlefield

Confederate dead were often left where they fell. The remains might be moved aside to gather the remains of a federal soldier, but not buried. So, advertisements appeared in the newspapers of the day seeking funds for recovering the bones of their deceased loved ones, like this ad:

“The Shiloh Burial Association, formed for the purpose of purchasing a portion of the field, where the gallant Johnson fell, for interring the Confederate dead, whose bones lie bleaching from Shiloh to Corinth, have issued an appeal to the people. The object is to obtain two hundred acres of this sacred soil, fell the timber, make a fence, and plant Osage Orange for a hedge. Contributions may be sent to S.D. Lee at Columbus, or Maj. Upshaw at Holly Springs.”

S.D. Lee was Stephen D. Lee, who served in the Confederate Army. He graduated from West Point. He was not related to Gen. Robert E. Lee. He lived in Columbus, Mississippi after the war. The statement about the bones refers to the thousands of dead from the many battles up and down the Mississippi River valley, from Shiloh, Tennessee down to Corinth, Mississippi and still further south. Mr. Lee helped create the Vicksburg National Park Association which later led to the creation of the Vicksburg Battlefield Park. Stephen D. Lee died after giving a talk to Union veterans from Wisconsin and Iowa, regiments which he faced during the war. He was very active in planning and organizing veteran reunions.

Only in the early 1950’s, when the number of remaining Confederate veterans could be counted on one hand, were national cemeteries opened to Confederate veterans. Most Southern boys, especially in the western theater were simply left where they fell. So, in the South, those Confederate memorials took on added importance.

Sources:

Katherine B. Jeffrey, First Chaplain of the Confederacy, (Baton Rouge: LSU Press 2020), p. 57, 75

Were Lee, Jackson and Others Traitors?

These days, many folks argue flatly that Lee, Jackson and other Confederates were traitors. These folks never explain what they mean, but they seem to mean that Lee and Jackson and other Confederate officers took oaths to the U.S. Constitution. In taking up arms against the U.S., they violated those oaths. But, of course, that flies in the face of reality. Officers resign their commission often. Taking an oath on one day does not commit the officer to indefinite servitude forever. This author took that same oath. Taking that oath does not mean I cannot at some date in the future object to the current regime and fight against the U.S. military. If Donald Trump wins a second term and starts to physically attack Mexican immigrants, I can certainly resign my commission and fight for Mexico.

Now, there is also a street definition of treason. When Nick Saban agreed to coach Alabama in 2007, the LSU fans accused him of treason. For a couple of years, LSU hated Coach Saban. Those fans employed a street definition of treason. But, when not writing history blogs, I practice law. I want to know what is the legal definition of treason.

Caselaw on Treason

There is no clear caselaw or precedent for a person who fought against the U.S. There just have not been many cases in which a person renounced his U.S. citizenship and then served in an opposing military. But, in one case, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 US 717, 734 (1952), one young man went to Japan for college before World War II. He reached the age of 18 in 1942. Mr. Kawakita held citizenship in both Japan and the U.S. In 1943, Japan said he was an alien. So, he changed his address with the Japanese police from America to Japan. He changed his designation in the Koseki, a family census register, from American to Japanese. He did not take any steps to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

In 1945, Kwakita then applied for a U.S. passport at the Consul’s office. He said he was re-claiming his U.S. citizenship. He was, however, charged with treason. During World War II, he held a civilian job interpreting for Japanese industries who employed American workers. He was accused of helping the Japanese authorities mistreat the American POW’s working in those manufacturing plants. Kawakita argued that he had renounced his U.S. citizenship when he changed his registration with the Koseki. Since he was not a U.S. citizen, he could not be guilty of treason.

Citizenship

But, the Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion written by the great Justice William O. Douglas, he was troubled by the dual citizenship. With citizenship in both countries, that means Kawakita held responsibilities to both countries. The court found he did nothing that would remove or reduce his U.S. citizenship. Therefore, he could and did take actions that violated his responsibilities as a U.S. citizen. The dissent simply argued that he had indeed “lost” his U.S. citizenship. But, even the dissent does not explain how the young Kawakita lost it.

We learn from this opinion that holding U.S. citizenship is essential for a charge of treason. So, no, because Lee, Jackson and others did renounce their U.S. citizenship – in a very public way, they could not be accused of treason.

The Jefferson Davis Trial That Never Was

Lee and some other officers on his staff had papers promising parole, signed by Gen. Grant’s Provost Marshall. But, what about Jeff Davis? Was he ever charged with treason? Jeff Davis was held in a Yankee prison for two years. The Federals fully intended to prosecute him for treason. He was indicted for treason in 1868. Davis was said to be eager for a trial. He planned to argue the constitutionality of secession at trial. The government put off the trial several times, trying to prepare for his argument. But, Davis’ lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, saying the 14^th Amendment prohibited Davis from seeking any public office. That amounted to punishment. So, any trial would amount to double jeopardy. Eventually, the government prosecutors dismissed the case, because it was too political and too complicated.

For more about the Jefferson Davis trial that never occurred, see National park Service web page here.

Secession as a Viable Option

As late as 1861, the possibility of secession was accepted as a viable alternative.

In William Rawle’s A View of the Constitution, (1829 2d ed.), the author prescribed how to effect a secession in a lawful, binding way. Mr. Rawle, a well-trained lawyer, lays out the requirements for a stable, effective secession. His book remained the leading book on the Constitution through the 1850’s. To this day, Rawle is often cited when the courts look at the history of constitutional issues, such as Second Amendment questions and Presidential recess appointments.

In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of secession head on. In the case of Texas v. White, the court held that secession was absolutely “null and void.” And, then again in 1877, the Supreme Court addressed secession in a more thorough way, finding secession to be illegal. Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 189-190 (1878). But, prior to these decisions, secession was not considered to be inherently unlawful.

Mary Custis Lee, the First Freedom Rider

Mary Custis Lee, eldest daughter of Robert E. Lee, did not fit the mold of her time. At a time when marriage prospects were slim after the Civil War, most unmarried young women were expected to stay home and care for elderly parents. Mary never married. There just were not many men her age who survived the war. Neither did she stay home. Mary chose a different life. She spent decades traveling to Europe and other places.

Near the Exit

Coming back to Virginia in June, 1902, Mary passed through Washington, D.C.  She had a large collection of bags. Thinking herself fortunate, Mary and her African-American maid sat near the exit, at the rear of the railroad car. A new law had just been passed, effective in Alexandria, Virginia. The new law mandated that blacks, known as “Negroes,” sit in the rear, near the exit. There was no such law in Washington. But, in Alexandria, that was the law. It was the first “Jim Crow” law passed in Virginia. The conductor explained to Ms. Lee her error, but she preferred to remain in her seat. She refused to move.

She will be Arrested

At the next stop, A Negro man got on board. The conductor again tried to Mary to move to the front. Again, she insisted she would stay. The conductor returned to Mary, trying to persuade her to move. He told her she would be arrested. Ms. Lee remained. Upon arrival in Alexandria, she was indeed arrested. People began to gather on the street, realizing who she was. In post-war 1902, there were hundreds of Confederate veterans or family members in the city. On the way to the station house, the sidewalks were thronged with Lee supporters.

Men of the Caton Stripe

The new Jim Crow seating law was not entirely popular. It had been passed by James Caton, representative to the state legislature from Alexandria. Mr. Caton was described in a black owned newspaper as a “representative of the poor whites.” According to the Colored American, a Washington D.C. newspaper, the arrest of Ms. Lee stirred up discontent among the “better classes” of Virginia. The white newspapers, Alexandria and Washington, commented that the new seating law was working well. But, the Colored American expressed hope her arrest would lead to revocation of the new law. The editor believed the confederate veterans in Richmond would seek its reversal.

At the station house, gray-haired veterans surrounded Ms. Lee. The officer in charge was prevailed upon to release Ms. Lee with the understanding she would return the next day to face the charge. It was said that when Ms. Lee finally reached her destination in Alexandria, the home of a friend, she collapsed. Modern commentators suggest Ms. Lee was less interested in opposing a strange new law than simply annoyed that she was expected to sit apart from her trusted black maid. But, that seems unlikely. It was a major to-do for the name of a woman to appear in the newspapers of 1902 for any reason, much less for an arrest. The Colored American expressed sympathy for her plight, knowing she must have felt extreme embarrassment. The editor indicated he knew she was embarrassed, but appreciated her efforts. Ms. Lee was, said the Colored American, liberal regarding the rights of man. Meaning the newspaper knew she opposed these “petty racial animosities,” advanced by men of the “Caton stripe.”

More likely, the daughter of Robert E. Lee was aware of this new law and appreciated an opportunity to express her opinion. She likely did not expect to be arrested. According to one report, when she was brought to the doors of the station house, someone in the crowd protested against Ms. Lee being brought within. Ms. Lee responded that she did not believe the people of Alexandria would suffer her to be brought in as a prisoner.

In a time when women had few avenues for public discourse, Mary Custis Lee expressed her annoyance as she saw the opportunity. She was in the end, her father’s daughter.

Fore more about this incident, see this blog post.

Sources:

Washington Post, June 16, 1902, p. 4

Richmond Dispatch, June 14, 1902, p. 1

Washington, D.C, Colored American, June 21, 1902, p. 8

Views of Reconstruction Have Changed

Was Reconstruction good or bad? Your view on that topic will largely dictate whether you see the white Southerners of the Civil War time period in a good light or bad light. The view of Reconstruction was largely negative in white society until the 1980’s. With the publication of Eric Foner’s book, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution (Harper & Row 1988), the popular white view changed. A Colombia historian, Dr. Foner is widely respected. His tome received positive reviews. Reprinted several times, it has now become a classic history of the Reconstruction period in U.S. history.

Dr. Foner makes a critical point throughout the book, that with the end of Reconstruction, so ended the right to vote and other civil rights for Southern African-Americans. His research is exhaustive. Yet, he does diminish what had been accepted prior to his book, the degree to which Reconstruction was abused by both Northern politicians and local African-Americans. For example, we know that many African-Americans profited handsomely from their positions of power. The perception in the time before Dr. Foner’s book was that black men had been manipulated by the white Northerners, and that they may have allowed themselves to be manipulated.

Reconstruction Abuses

For example in a book widely read in its day, Charles Nordhoff traveled the South in 1875 on a tour requested by his boss, James G. Bennett, publisher of the New York Herald. Mr. Nordhoff’s mission was to find out the “truth” of Reconstruction. The northern public was aware of charges of corruption. Mr. Nordhoff was sent to either verify those charges or discount them. His resulting book, The Cotton States in the Spring and Summer of 1875, largely verifies the charges of corruption by “carpet-baggers” and by African-American males who appeared to be under the influence of white northerners now living in those Cotton states.

Mr. Nordhoff in his tour of Louisiana talks about seeing “colored” members of the Louisiana legislature – men who were slaves ten years before – now “driving magnificent horses, seated in stylish equipages, and wearing diamond breast pins.” He discussed a box containing election returns from an unnamed parish being carried into New Orleans by a Conservative politician to a house of prostitution in New Orleans. The Conservatives won their election in that parish. So, the unnamed politico concealed the box in the brothel, while holding it ransom for some large reward from the Conservatives in that parish. Norhdoff defined “Conservatives” as white voters who opposed Republican rule. They generally included former Democrats, Whigs and Know-Nothings.  [1]

Nordhoff visited one of the river parishes, to see the operation of a Negro jury. The court had to adjourn due to a lack of potential jurors. From a list of 48 potential Negro jurors, 36 were found to be fictitious. [2]

Failures of the Judicial System

Mr. Nordhoff reported in his book that while most murders in Louisiana since 1870, with two major exceptions – Coushatta and Colfax – were not political, few of the murderers received their just punishment. There were some 33 murders. Of these 33, 31 were of black on black. One was white on white. And, another concerned a colored man who shot a Republican from the North. The Republican served as a tax-collector. He seduced the black man’s sister, and turned the girl “adrift” with her baby. But, most of the assailants who were arrested broke out of jail. In the Fall of 1874, one Republican jailer was indicted for allowing three murderers and a defaulting tax-collector to escape from his jail. Those who were sentenced to life for murder were generally pardoned.  [3]

Mr. Nordhoff, an abolitionist before the war, explained that between 1865-1868, the white citizens of Louisiana did kill and oppress the freed black man. But, when Reconstruction began in 1868, the freed black man was given authority for which he was not prepared. Mr. Nordhoff saw black members of parish police juries (the legislative body for parishes) who could not read or write, or just barely so. Yet, those black police jury members had total control over taxes, roads and bridges. In 1868, the Louisiana legislature paid $4.2 million for 70 miles of railroad that was never completed. The railroad was billed as a connection from New Orleans to Mobile, but it never got beyond the first 70 miles. [4]

The Louisiana Levee Company

One issue always looming in New Orleans and Louisiana was the state of the levees. Without a system of levees, flooding would occur every year. Both Democrats and Republicans built levees with some corruption as part of the price. But, Nordhoff tells us, the corruption was worse during the Reconstruction years. Between 1868 and 1871, $4.7 million in state bonds were issued for the levee system. But, by 1875, when Nordhoff visited Louisiana, no such levees had been built. Most of the money was spent by the “State Board of Public Works.” Its member were appointed by the corrupt governor, Henry Clay Warmoth.

Warmoth was a carpet bagger’s carpet bagger. He had come south specifically to advance himself. He was openly corrupt. But, he did generally support voting rights for blacks.

In 1871, the job of repairing the levees – and the money – was turned over to a private corporation. The company was known as the Louisiana Levee Company. The state gave this corporation one million dollars. The state legislature allowed the corporation to charge sixty cents per cubic yard of work. But, this was a time when local plantation owners performed the same work on their own levees for a much lower rate of fifteen to eighteen cents per cubic yard. As far as Nordhoff could see, the Levee Company performed no actual work during his time in the state.

The members of the state legislature who supported the creation of the levee company were bribed to support it. One black member, named T.B. Stamps, missed the vote on the act. So, he wrote a letter to the Finance Committee of the Louisiana Levee Company asking that his bribe, if he had been present for the vote, be paid to a friend. Stamps was later elected as a state senator. He assured the Finance Committee that had he been present, he would have voted for the act. Stamps viewed his bribe as an entitlement and he wished to pass that entitlement to a friend, as if Stamps had indeed been present for the vote. [5]

The Louisiana Levee Company employed careless construction techniques. It allowed weeds to grow on the levees, preventing the growth of St. Augustine grass. It allowed the levees to be used as roads. Builders often used logs and stumps to reduce costs. In 1876, the act which created the Louisiana Levee Company was repealed.

Corruption

Dr. Foner allows that black Republicans were not immune to illicit gain, but he compares it to corruption practiced by white Democrats. He suggests that corruption was common throughout the country, not just in Reconstruction cotton states. Foner, Reconstruction, at pp. 388-389.

The Southern Economy

But, Dr. Foner’s book does not address the issues presented in the prior Reconstruction research, that the post-war economy plummeted in the South after the Civil War and after Reconstruction started. The 1874 value of real property in New Orleans had fallen to one-third of its value from 1868, the last year prior to Reconstruction. The Sheriff of Orleans Parish was paid $60,000 in 1868, a time when $500-600 was the typical yearly wage for skilled labor. This was in a city that did not particularly support secession.  [6]

Neither does Dr. Foner address another concern presented by the earlier scholarship on the subject, that many black males of the time simply voted as they were told by white Republicans. The White League, Robert Henry tells us, said the Negroes “invariably” voted like a body of soldiers obeying a command. The white Southerners accused the blacks of voting “blindly” based on how they were instructed. [7]

The Kirk-Holden War

In North Carolina, state Sen. John W. Stephens, who supported the Republican governor, William W. Holden, came to Caswell County seeking evidence to be used in prosecutions under the state’s “Ku Klux” law. He was seeking evidence to prosecute members of the KKK. While there, he met with Negroes at a meeting of the Union League. Sen. Stephens handed a box of matches to twenty Negroes. He suggested to them that the matches would be well used if they were used to burn barns. Nine barns were then burned in one night in the county. So claimed the local Democrats known as Conservatives. While still in the county, Stephens was abducted by the Klan and killed. [8]

The killing of Stephens then lead to Gov. Holden declaring two counties in a state of insurrection. He raised a regiment to put down said insurrection. The “regiment,” lead by a North Carolinian who had served in the Union army, George W. Kirk, tortured whites seeking confessions. They arrested 82 persons. The regiment, which was more like a mob, then roamed the state plundering and insulting the citizens. A Conservative (i.e. Democrat) and fifteen others signed a confession to Klux activity. It was known that the Conservative, James E. Boyd,  had previously been paid by the Governor to ferret out evidence against Kluxers. [9]

The Louisiana Metropolitan Police, created by Gov. Henry Clay Warmoth, were essentially a private army for the governor. Warmoth did not deny his corruption. Without Negro votes, he would never have been elected. Gov. Warmoth was replaced by William P. Kellogg, who was only more corrupt than Gov. Warmoth. See more about Henry Clay Warmoth here. [10]

Spike in Crime

In May, 1874, a white woman was robbed in broad daylight on a major street in New Orleans. The newspaper of the day proclaimed no one was safe due to Negro outrages. [10] That was surely hyperbole, but this was a time when even approaching an unknown woman was socially forbidden. That one white woman would be robbed during the day was shocking. Also in May, 1874, a home was entered while the family was out and all the silver was taken. The newspaper warned New Orleans white citizens to watch out for Gov. Kellogg’s men during the day. In other words, the newspaper believed the daytime burglar was a Republican. [12]

Dr. Foner’s book does not address this apparent spike in crime, or the perception that the crime was due to Republicans. In disregarding these issues, Dr. Foner’s book reveals a lack of balance, just as the earlier Reconstruction books lacked a different sort of balance.

The hysteria of the time did have racial tones. The Battle of Liberty Place quotes news stories of the day indicating widespread fear of “black militia” marching by and possibly storming saloons and businesses. White Southerners of the time felt an irrational fear of newly freed blacks. [13]

Dr. Foner never mentions the open corruption of two successive Louisiana governors. Neither does he acknowledge that unlike corruption in other states, in the South, open corruption was essentially sanctioned by the federal government. Dr. Foner never discusses the extent to which freed blacks were allowed, and even encouraged to harass the white Southerners. His book does help remedy the lack of attention to black suffrage and civil rights in prior Reconstruction research.

But, it appears Dr. Foner remedied that imbalance in part by overlooking the absence of fundamental state police powers. If the state cannot enforce criminal laws, then the state has failed its central function. Foner misses an important point about Reconstruction. When you impose a government on a people otherwise accustomed to democracy, that government must demonstrate some level of competence, tolerably free of corruption.

Notes:

[1] Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States in the Spring and Summer of 1875 (New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1876), p. 41-42, 45. When Nordhoff mentions specific “Conservative” politicians, he is generally referring to Democrats.

[2] Cotton States, at p. 43

[3} Cotton States, at p. 50

[4} Cotton States, at p. 58

[5] Cotton States, at p. 58-59

[6] Robert Henry, The Story of Reconstruction (New York: Konecky & Konecky 1999, originally published in 1938), p. 516.

[7] Story, at p. 517. See, also, Justin Nystrom, New Orleans After the Civil War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 2010, p. 85. Dr. Nystrom explains that while instances of Blacks voting as they were told was sometimes exaggerated, it did occur during the tenure of Gov. Clay Warmoth 1868-1872.

[8] Story, at p, 412.

[9] Story, at pp. 412-414.

[10] Joe Gray Taylor, New Orleans and Reconstruction, La. Hist. Assoc. (Summer, 1968), Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 196.

[11]  New Orleans and Reconstruction, p. 201.

[12] New Orleans Bulletin, May 8, 1874, p. 3.

[13]  Stuart Omer Landry, Battle of Liberty Place (Gretna, La.: Firebird Press 2000), first published in 1955.

The Civil Rights Plank, No. 4

By June, 1873, the white citizens of New Orleans were weary of the Republicans fighting over patronage spoils. The African-Creoles simply wanted stability. These two groups formed the Committee of One Hundred. They called themselves Fusionists, for bringing together various parties. They arrived at policy platforms, known as the Unification Movement. They adopted ten resolutions. These resolutions included all the civil rights planks that had percolated for the past few years. Full integration of public accommodations and public amusement. Integration of public schools, restaurants, taverns and hotels. These planks essentially represent what would later be codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Among the men behind the Unification Movement was Harry T. Hays, of the famous Hay’s Brigade and one of Lee’s most reliable lieutenants. P.G.T. Beauregard, then in charge of the Louisiana Lottery Company, was one of the 100. Perhaps no one single person had as much influence in New Orleans as Gen. Beauregard. Conservative whites (meaning they were moderate in their views) from the Reform movement in 1872 were involved. The African-Creoles included Aristide Mary, Charles Roudanez, Edmund Rillieux, and others. These African-Americans had been squeezed out by Henry Clay Warmoth. The Unification Movement represented an opportunity for them to regain influence.

Lack of Support

But, the movement attracted little or no support outside of New Orleans. The Committee of 100 also included a few black politicians who owed much to the Republican party, then controlled by the Custom House ring. Within weeks, Gen. Beauregard felt it necessary to defend his position regarding integration of public schools and transportation. Fr. Abram Ryan, the Poet of the Confederacy and editor of the Catholic Morning Star and Catholic Messenger,  claimed Beauregard’s arguments were “lame.”

The Unification Movement pledged to have a meeting in July at which it would announce these political goals. The meeting came, but many of the leading voices did not attend. Gen. Beauregard did not attend. The attendance was mostly black. One Republican, more loyal to the Custom House ring, attended. He congragulated the whites sarcastically, for finally seeing the light regarding racial equality.

Racial Polarization

The Unification Movement flamed out within just a couple of months. In the end, white support was not deep. The 1870’s saw a rising focus on racial purity among some elite whites. The ancient Creole system of plaçage became embarrassing for the French Creoles. Plaçage was a long-time Creole practice of forming a relationship with a “free woman of color,” whether as a mistress or otherwise. Starting in the 1870’s, many well-known Creoles stated to find it embarrassing that they shared last names with prominent African-Creoles. The ascension of William P. Kellogg to the governor’s office further polarized racial politics. See this site for more about plaçage here.

George Washington Cable’s short story, “Belles Demoiselles Plantation,” with its mixing of the races, was published in Scribner’s magazine in April, 1874. Much of New Orleans found it offensive, even though plaçage had been an institution since the city’s founding. Dr. Nystrom suggests the Unification Movement was partly a desperate attempt by the conservative whites to retain control and also a throw back to a more tolerant time in New Orleans.

Source:

Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans: After the Warr, Vol. 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 2010), p. 150-154

Pinchback and Badger, No. 3

Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback was not from New Orleans. He was not part of the African-Creole tradition of solid education and somewhat laissez faire attitude toward politics. He was a hard-nosed gambler from the Mississippi River. His father was a Mississippi planter and his mother was a freed slave. After the death of his father in 1849, he lead a hard-scrabble life. He worked as a steward on river-boats and as a part-time gambler. He learned from the notorious cardsharp, George Devol. When New Orleans was first occupied by the Union army, Mr. Pinchback made his way there and recruited a company of Native Guards. The Native Guards was the long-time militia composed of free men of color. They were then preparing to join the Union army.

But, after a year in Federal service, Pinchback resigned his commission. He went to Alabama, seeking political success. Not finding what he was looking for, he returned to New Orleans by 1867.

Pinchback’s light skin, impeccable manners and quality clothing helped him fit in well with the African-Creoles of New Orleans. See more about former Lt.-Gov. Pinchback here.

The Carpet Bagger

Like all African-Americans at the time, Mr. Pinchback supported Republican causes and politicians. He advocated for civil rights protections for blacks in New Orleans. He was never offended by Governor Warmoth, as some black leaders were. Warmoth was a scheming, ambitious, morally corrupt carpet-bagger, But, Warmoth was also successful. Pinchback likely appreciated Warmoth’s daring. Pinchback started a very successful factorage with a prominent African-Creole native of the Crescent City. Pinchback allied himself with Warmoth, perhaps to balance against the Lieutenant Governor, Oscar J. Dunn. Mr. Dunn was Pinchback’s chief rival for leadership of the black community in New Orleans. Unlike either Warmoth or Pinchback, Dunn was known as generally honest.

The Custom House Gang

The principal Republican rival to Warmoth’s power was a group known as the Custom House gang. One of their key leaders was Stephen Packard. Packard was the U.S. Marshall for New Orleans. His office was in the venerable Custom House building on Canal street. The Collector of customs was James F. Casey, brother-in-law to President U.S. Grant. Casey also officed in the Custom House. Those two Republicans, both ambitious for personal gain, gradually acquired more and more power. Eventually, Mr. Pinchback also allied himself with the Custom House gang.

The War Hero

At the same time, Algernon Sidney Badger was finding success as a leader of the Metropolitan police force in New Orleans. Badger, unlike Pinchback, served during the war with distinction. He was a Massachusetts native and African-American. He came to New Orleans with his Massachusetts regiment. He later transferred to a Unionist Louisiana cavalry regiment and did well. He was cool in battle and competent.

The Metropolitan police force was created by Gov. Warmoth to enforce his orders. He knew he could not rely on the Federal troops. The Metropolitans had members from all races, even though today, it is often remembered as solely African-American. It was designed to be a modern police force, with some modern innovations. Even if it was in effect a private militia for Governor Warmoth, it also represented advancements in the science of policing.

By 1877, Republican interests had changed dramatically. Some conservative whites had supported a moderate white, Francis T. Nicholls, for governor. He won. The Republican state legislators and Gov. Warmoth then set up a rival state Senate. Warmoth hid four of the state senators in the city, so he could control the quorum. Pinchback attended the rival state senate, to lobby for appointment as U.S. senator. Quickly realizing the situation, Pinchback, instead, talked with Warmoth and asked him how he would control the senate. Warmoth, apparently not seeing Pinchback as a threat, mentioned where he had stashed the four missing state senators.

The Bribes

Immediately, Pinchback obtained $8,000-16,000 per state senator from the Louisiana State Lottery Company. He persuaded the four state senators to come with him, with the inducement of bribes.

The Metropolitans by 1877 were much reduced from their prior prowess. Their numbers had been reduced by low morale and a skirmish with white citizens. But, they still had Superintendent Badger and a few trusted officers. Stephen Packard, now the rump Governor, ordered Badger, the acting Sergeant-of-Arms for the rump senate, to go to Pinchback’s mansion and bring back the absent four state senators.

Badger grabbed some of the remaining Metropolitans and proceeded to Pinchback’s mansion on First Street, the area known today as the Garden District. Badger still limped from the bullet wounds he received in the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874.

At first, no one answered the door. Eventually, Pinchback appeared, pointing a repeating Henry rifle and told Badger he did not think Badger would take anyone from his house. Badger threatened to assault the home. But, Badger reconsidered when he discovered a handful of White League citizens positioned behind the Pinchback mansion. Badger and his men withdrew. But, as they were leaving, the White Leaguers overtook them and arrested all but two of Badger’s men and took them to a nearby jail. Badger, a man universally respected by all who knew him, was left to make his way back downtown by himself. The man known for his integrity and physical courage lost to the man known for his lack of integrity.

Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans: After the War, Vol. 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 2010), p. 36-38, 101-104, 180-182.

The Committee of 51 and Reformers, No. 2

In 1872, after all the fighting over the New Orleans carcass, the white Democrats were becoming agitated. Some had allied with the Custom House faction, in order to get rid of Gov. Warmoth. Dozens gathered in Lafayette Square, off Canal Street. The meeting included many carpet-baggers and black Republicans, as well. It devolved into a meeting of the anti-Warmoth faction.

The State Militia

The Custom House leaders approached senior white officers in the state militia. Packard (the Custom House faction leader) and his supporters suggested the militia attack the Metropolitans guarding the state house, so as to provoke a crack-down by Federal troops. Eugene Waggaman, the commander, rightly asked Packard how he could be sure the Federal troops would not arrive and arrest the militia under the recently passed Ku Klux Klan law? Packard simply looked at him with his hands in his pockets. Waggaman, a former officer in the Washington Artillery during the war, was suspicious of the Custom House gang. Too, it simply struck him as dis-honorable to attack a force, simply as a ruse. The militia turned down the Custom House gang.

Eventually, Gov. Warmoth won. The legislators at Packard’s saloon eventually found their way back to the state house. The state house was securely guarded by the Metropolitans and the state militia.

Meanwhile, the white Democrats were more and more upset about this breakdown of government and order. They were anxious to restore New Orleans to something like normalcy. Many of them sought a middle ground, somewhere between the reactionary white radicals and the Warmoth carpet-baggers.

A group of merchants, including many members of the new Boston Club, formed the Committee of Fifty-One. They held a mass meeting on the steps of City Hall four days after the close of Mardi Gras. Thousands attended. The Committee included 162 Vice-Presidents. The Committee included the head of Leeds Foundry, Charles Leeds, prominent lawyers and doctors. It included well-known Creole African-Americans. New Orleans was unique in the South in that it had a long tradition of freed blacks who were well-educated and well-travelled. These Creole Blacks similarly sought a more stable government. The Committee also included many working class whites. The Committee included Frederick Ogden Nash, who in just a few years will lead the whites at the Battle of Liberty Place. Edward D. White, the future Supreme Court justice also joined the group.

The Reform Party

The Committee adopted resolutions supporting a return to work. The resolutions tossed aside any “Lost cause” sentimentality. They called for the creation of a new party, the “Reform” party. They called for a convention to select candidates, regardless of color and previous political association. They adopted a platform lamenting that the lack of “political sympathy” between the black and white races of Louisiana had rendered her a “victim to the most frightful spoliation and robbery.” The party platform attacked the Warmoth regime. But, they did not address the issues of sharing transportation between the races or discuss the many white and black men then supporting the Warmoth regime. That was still an issue too sensitive.

Lt-Gov. Pinchback’s newspaper, the Louisianian, criticized the Reform party as hypocritical. They would seek black support, but would not share a carriage or trolley car with a black man. Still, this was the first movement toward something like equality. Similar movements occurred across the South, as whites tired of Federal occupation.

Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans: After the Civil War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 2010), p. 118-120

Fighting for the Spoils, No. 1

By 1865 and the close of the Civil War, New Orleans had been occupied by Federal troops for three years. That time allowed many carpet-baggers, persons from outside the state seeking fortune, to infiltrate the city. Clay Warmoth was one such person. Former Lt-Col. Warmoth was sent to New Orleans during the occupation and stayed. By 1871, he was governor of the state, and not yet 30 years old. Gov. Warmoth made several enemies. Though he courted all factions, Republican, freed slaves, and former Confederates, it was another Republican, another carpet-bagger, who sought to elbow Warmoth side. Stephen B. Packard, a Union veteran with an undistinguished war record, secured appointment as the U.S. Marshall for New Orleans. Packard’s office was in the Custom House, a large, imposing granite building in the downtown area. Packard’s faction became known as the Custom House ring.

The Republican Party Convention

In the Summer of 1871, the two factions wrestled for control of the Republican party as the party convention approached. Warmoth, as governor, had his own semi-military force, known as the Metropolitan Police Force. The Metropolitans were a modern innovation in some respects, but they also answered only to Gov. Warmoth. They were a private militia. Marshall Packard had his own armed ruffians. The two competed for control and influence with the ward clubs all summer.

The Metropolitans Strike

At a meeting of the Tenth Ward Mother Republican club, the Metropolitans came in force, in civilian clothes. They occupied a large number of the seats, to prevent regular members from staying for the meeting. The meeting ended with a riot between the two factions. The Tenth Ward included many African-Americans. The Metropolitans who broke up the meeting and beat numerous attendees were lead by light-skinned Negroes. The Convention took place in August, 1871. Marshall Packard out-smarted Gov. Warmoth by holding the convention at the Custom House and arranging for Federal troops to provide security. The Metropolitans came to the conventions seeking to upset the proceedings. But, they were met by one well-manned gatling gun.

At the Republican convention, Packard tried to engineer a quorum in the state legislature which would impeach Warmoth. The plan collapsed only when Lt.-Gov. Dunn, a close ally of Packard’s, died. Some suspected foul play.

The Warmoth Faction is Arrested

The Louisiana state legislative session opened in January, 1872. Packard still hoped to impeach Gov. Warmoth,. A,B Pinchback, a prominent man of color was now the Lieutenant Governor. Lt.-Gov. Pinchback was a close ally of Gov. Warmoth. Warmoth engineered an invasion of the session to move aside the Speaker, George Carter, a close ally of Packard. Packard promptly swore out arrest warrants for Warmoth, Lt.-Gov. Pinchback, some dozen legislators and some of the key leaders of the Metropolitans.

The Warmoth faction, however, soon got themselves out of jail. Warmoth called in the Metropolitans to “guard” the state house and called up the state militia. The Custom House ring retreated to a saloon and organized a rival legislature. Such was Reconstruction politics in 1872 Louisiana.

For more about Gov. Clay Warmoth, see this site.

Source:

Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans: After the Civil War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 2010), p. 104-110.

Searching for the Bodies

After the Civil War, thousands of mostly Southern boys remained unburied. Edmund T. Corley, a farmer in East Texas (Shelby County), contributed four of his five of his sons to the cause. Two sons did not return home. He was 51 years old when the Civil War broke out. His means were modest. He owned one slave, a black girl, aged 13 years. One of the four brothers wrote a poem to his mother a few months before he was killed:

O, Mother, twas hate to leave you in age,

When the winds of winter were chilling your veins,

But, my country, it called me – I hasten away,

From my own native state and its fair verdant plan,

…….

But, O, if we meet not this side of the tomb,

God grant that we meet on the radiant shore,

Where the bells of the great city joyously boom,

A welcome for soldiers where warfare is o’er.

Winslow Corley

Winslow Corley was killed a few months later in 1864 at the Battle of Atlanta. After the war ended, at the age of 56, Edmund went in search of his sons’ bodies. He traveled by horse back for several months. All he found was waste and destruction, and the starving, wounded and maimed of the war. Most Southern boys were not buried. Burying bodies after a battle was a relatively new innovation. In the Civil War, only Northern armies took the time to bury bodies of the fallen. And, even that, the Federals did not do well. Countless Southern families did exactly what Edmund did, they searched the battle fields for the remains of their sons, usually in vain.

PBS, “Finding Your Roots: County Roots,” originally aired Feb. 23, 2021

Christmas Remembrance, 1866

In the first year after the end of the war, most veterans still felt the wounds of war. It has been estimated that some 60,000 amputations were performed during the war. And, of course, apart from the physical scars, there were the unseen wounds. Many accounts and poems appeared in Southern newspapers remembering their days and hard times. The Charleston Daily News published one such poem on Dec. 25, 1866 remembering the fallen:

        Shall happy bells, from yonder ancient spires
	Send their glad greetings to each Christmas fire
	Round which the children play?
	Shall the day be celebrated
	With feast, and song, and dance, and antique sports
	And shout of happy children in the courts
	And tales of ghost and fay?
        How could we bear the mirth
	While some loved reveler of a year ago
	Keeps his mute Christmas now beneath the snow
	In cold Virginia earth?

The poem evokes a long-time nineteenth Christmas Eve tradition of simply sitting by the family hearth and telling stories, many of them ghost stories. Think A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. “Fay” refers to stories about elves and fairies.

Tracy L. Barnett, “Holiday Toasts and Homesick Rebels,” Civil War Monitor, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Winter 2019), p. 54.