The Beast Butler of the Shenandoah Valley

Benjamin “Beast’ Butler was not the only Union commander who imposed harsh discipline on Southern civilians beneath his boot. Robert Huston Milroy was the Southerner’s worst nightmare. His brand of abolitionism was fanatical. Certainly, today, we can appreciate his zeal for freeing persons who had long been enslaved. Burt, his zeal also marked him as an extremist in his time period. Milroy, raised in Indiana, graduated from Norwich Military Academy in Vermont. The young Robert Milroy’s earnest desire was to attend West Point. But, his farther would not support his goal. Even though the Milroys had for two generations been involved in the military, they had served in volunteer or militia units. Robert’s father may have had an aversion to a professional military. Norwich University still exists today as a military college. [1]

Robert Milroy served in the Mexican war without particular distinction. Although, even at this early stage, he demonstrated a zeal for combat and a strong irreverence toward authority. After the Mexican war, he returned home to Indiana, practiced law, became a judge and became an ardent abolitionist. [2]

“Known” Confederate Sympathizers

In early 1861, Milroy started recruiting a regiment. He was gung-ho for the war from the very start. By 1862, he was serving under Gen. McClellan, In 1862, he was now a Brig-General overseeing the war in West Virginia. In that new state, the Southern partisans were very active. It was a closely divided state. Unable to catch the partisans, Milroy devised a new strategy. Focusing on the “known” Confederate sympathizers. He decided that Union supporters who suffered from the partisan raids would present a bill for the value of lost property. Local commanders would then apply that bill to “known” Confederate supporters in their area. If the Confederate supporter failed to pay, the sympathizer’s house would be burned and the Confederate supporter shot. Thus, one West Virginian had to pay $1,000. Another 82 year old German immigrant – who was crippled and infirm – had to pay $285. Brig-Gen. Milroy’s scheme order produced some $6,000 within just a few months.

So, the Virginia government sent a protest through Gen. Robert Lee to General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck. Halleck found Milroy’s order to violate the rules of war and that Milroy lacked the authority for such measures. Thus began long antagonism between Brig-Gen.Milroy and Halleck. Milroy had little patience for military etiquette or for West Point officers. [3]

Brig.-Gen. Milroy was promoted to Maj.-Gen. and to command of the Second Division, Eighth Army Corps headquartered in Winchester, Virginia. It has been estimated that the town of Winchester changed hands some 70 times during the war. But, for many months in 1863, it was held by one ardent abolitionist, Maj.-Gen. Robert Milroy. The Emancipation Proclamation had just been issued in January, 1863. But, it had not yet been enforced in Winchester. Milroy rectified that oversight immediately. Even on the road to Winchester on Jan. 1, 1863, he would excitedly proclaim to the marching troops that today was “Emancipation Day, when all slaves will be made free.” [4]

Exile

But, like any fanatic, he did more than just enforce this critical Presidential decree. Milroy also ruled the city with an iron fist. As he said to his wife, his will was “absolute law” in Winchester. He required Winchester citizens to swear a loyalty oath if they wished to buy supplies from the Union Army sutlers. They had to swear an oath if they simply needed a pass with which to leave town. He exiled Winchester families for violating his rules. He exiled folks who provided goods or information to Confederate forces. And, he also exiled folks who simply voiced support for the Confederate forces in which their sons, fathers and neighbors served. He exiled folks who wore a ribbon for the deceased Stonewall Jackson in May, 1863. Stonewall was from the nearby town of Lexington and was much mourned throughout the Shenandoah Valley. But, Milroy did not care. He exiled “scores” of families. [5]

In practical terms, exile meant the Union soldiers would transport a Winchester family with little notice in a wagon to some place 20 miles south of town. The family would then be deposited by the side of the road, sometimes in bad weather.

Maj.-Gen. Milroy exiled the Logan family at the corner of Braddock and Picaddilly streets because they harassed a “Jessie Scout” – a Union soldier dressed as a Confederate. But, the Winchester residents say he exiled the Logans mainly because his wife wanted their house. He saw himself as fulfilling the role of an Old Testament prophet ending slavery and he would brook no opposition. [6]

The Rules of War

Serving under Maj.-Gen. Milroy was Brig.-Gen. Gustave P. Cluseret. French-born, Cluseret objected to “fighting for Negroes.” But, he also objected to arresting women. And he believed that it violated the rules of war to refuse to feed prisoners – in which belief he was correct. And, he believed that maintaining some accommodation with the locals would assist in the Federal occupation. Milroy reversed Cluseret’s more accommodating policies. Cluseret would eventually resign. While, at the same time, Milroy was seeking leave to relieve Cluseret. [7]

In June, 1863, one Confederate Corps advanced upon Winchester. Gen. Halleck told Milroy to withdraw. But, Maj.-Gen. Milroy persuaded his superiors that he had built fortifications which would withstand any invasion. Milroy, ever sure of himself, said it was not possible for Lee to have moved so many troops to Winchester in such a short time. But, on June 13, a key defense was seized by Dick Ewell’s troops. And, on June 14, 1863, Milroy finally realized he was virtually surrounded by Gen. Jubal Early. He ordered an evacuation back to Harper’s Ferry. Leaving behind artillery and wagons, they started moving that night. But, his forces were ambushed during the retreat by Confederate forces. The surprise was complete. Milroy, ever brave in combat, rushed to the scene of the worst fighting and held his men together. Still, some 3,300 Union soldiers were captured. His army essentially ceased to exist. [8]

Milroy was relieved of command and arrested. It was not entirely his blunder. He was later found not guilty of malfeasance. And, he even obtained a new command later in the war. But, through that long process, Gen. Halleck for one always viewed him as an inferior officer – starting with those reckless orders in West Virginia.

Notes:

[1] Cary C. Collins, “Grey Eagle: Major General Robert Huston Milroy and the Civil War,” Indiana Magazine of History, vol. 90, No. 1 (March 1994), p. 51-52.

[2] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 53-55.

[3] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 60-63.

[4] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 64; Jonathan A. Noyalas, Slavery and Freedom in the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War Era (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2021), p. 88.

[5] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 64; Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District website, at https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/robert-milroy, accessed Jan. 8, 2023; National Park Service website at https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/occupied-winchester-1863.htm, accessed Jan. 8, 2023.

[6] Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District website, accessed Jan. 8, 2023.

[7] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 65.

[8] Collins, “Grey Eagle,” p. 66-67.

“Damn Little Duty England Would Get”

The First Missouri Confederate Brigade had large numbers of Irish soldiers. Missouri had a large population of Irish born numbering about 43,000 in 1860. Fr. John B. Bannon, described as the “fighting chaplain” of the Missouri Brigade, often compared the struggle of the South to the struggle in Ireland against Great Britain. He believed it was a struggle for self-determination or “Home Rule.”

“Home Rule” was a concept well-known in Ireland. Irish long believed its biggest problem was that Parliament was in England and that Ireland lost its own parliament in 1800. Fr. Bannon believed that Roman Catholicism as it existed in the South was morally superior to the “bankrupt and corrupt morality of northern liberalism and Protestantism.” He noted in a letter to Pres. Jefferson Davis that Catholicism had been the victim of “northern fanaticism.” He believed the Catholic faith held more respect in the Southern cities of Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans than in any city of the northern states.

Fanatics

References to “fanatics” in this context likely meant the Abolitionists, who were often zealous Protestants. These were not Anglican or Episcopal church-goers. The Abolitionists tended to be Anabaptists, Baptists, Quakers and Presbyterians, the newer, less traditional faiths. Fr. Bannon was saying the extremist Protestants were harsher on Catholicism in the North than in the South.

Later in the war, the Missouri Brigade became heavily engaged at the Battle of Franklin. The brigade would suffer 70% casualties at the battle. The young captain, Patrick Canniff, born in Ireland was killed. He was the commander of the Third and Fifth Missouri Infantry (Consolidated). He was 24 years old and a saddle-maker from St. Louis. As the Missouri Brigade was about to launch its ill-fated, suicidal charge upon the Union fortifications, tension was high. The men had been through many battles this late in the war in 1864. One common soldier quoted the Admiral Horatio Nelson who famously said at the Battle of Trafalgar, “England expects every man to do his duty.” A St. Louis Irishman of the First and Fourth Missouri Infantry (Consolidated) responded with a laugh, “It’s damn little duty England would get out of this Irish crowd.”

Source:

Phillip T. Tucker, Irish Confederates (Abilene, Tx: McWhitney Foundation Press 2006), pp. 20-37.

One Irish Union Soldiers’ View

So, how was it for Irish immigrants who joined the Union army? It was difficult for some of them to join the Union army because it was ultimately controlled by former members of the Know Nothing party and Protestants. We find some clues about Irish sentiment from a letter written in 1863. Christopher Byrne was younger brother to one famous Irishman, “Blind” Patrick Byrne, said to have been the last of the great Irish harpers.

A Horde of Fanatics

Christopher expressed pride in his brother’s fame. He expressed regret that their family was now scattered all over the world. Christopher joined the Union army, but had his regrets. Writing from Minnesota, he described the state of Northern politics. He described the Union leadership as a “Horde of Fanatics” – likely referring to the ardent abolitionists – who would rather “rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.” “When they are not interfering with the rights of foreigners or proscribing Religious Denominations, they are Speech Making in favour of Abolition.” Here, Christopher is clearly referring to what was then overt discrimination against immigrants and especially against Irish Catholic immigrants. The abolitionists often based their views on religion. Of course, now we know the abolitionists chose the moral side of the issue. But, it appears the abolitionists also reminded at least one Irish immigrant of the evangelical Protestants in Ireland.

Cristtopher discusses slavery several times in the letter. Yet, he never addresses the morality of slavery. Instead, he insists the Northern U.S. had no business in meddling in the business of the South. He adds, writing in 1863, that the North can prevail in the war only if it guarantees the South’s autonomy in the matter of slavery.

He rose to Sergeant by the end of the war. Yet, he admits in the letter he enlisted only because “the excitement of the time and the misrule of the administration has forced me and thousands like me into it.”

He describes the civil war in 1863 as one for which “Magnitude has no parallel on record.” Coming from an Irishman in 1863, that does suggest a great rebellion indeed.

See “Irishman’s Diary about the American Civil War”in the Irish Times, Sept. 6, 2017 here.

Irish Immigrants and Slaves

How did the Irish get along with slaves in the South? A very few bought slaves. Maunsel White in Plaquemines Parish, near New Orleans, owned four plantations and some 192 slaves. Frederick Stanton, of Natchez made a good living as a cotton factor. By the time of his death in 1859, he owned 333 slaves across sixteen plantations in Mississippi and Louisiana. For that time period, to be a planter was the height of society. City Directories in England and Ireland listed the gentry and the local nobility. The gentry and nobility held a special place. They were an economic engine in the old world. Similarly, the City Directories in the Southern cities reserved a special section for planters. Planters were the gentry and nobility of the new world.

But, most Irish who owned slaves owned just a few. In Mississippi, merchants P.H. McGraw and P.J. Noonan each owned one slave in 1860. In New Orleans, Dennis Donovan, drayman, owned three slaves, who probably worked as teamsters for him. Fr. Mullon, the hero to Irish in New Orleans, owned two slaves. I previously wrote about Fr. Mullon here.

Buying Slaves as a Kindness

We do not know now the circumstances of Fr. Mullon owning slaves. It may be that he bought slaves as a kindness. Some slaveowners, such as Thomas Jackson, future Civil War general, purchased slaves to help a particular slave remain near his/her family. This author’s ancestors owned one slave in Louisville, while operating a boarding house. Another Irish ancestor owned a slave also while running a boarding house in New Orleans. At least in the Price family, those instances of slave ownership were brief and did not last longer than a few years. Patrick Murphy came to Natchez to work on construction projects. He saved his money and speculated in slaves. He sold one African-American slave, George, for $1,500 on the eve of the Civil War.

Living in Proximity

The more common experience for most Irish was simply living in close proximity to slaves and freedmen. Mobile’s sixth ward housed Irish immigrants and slaves. It was common for slaves to have some measure of relative freedom in the cities. So, the white establishment saw the closeness between Irish and slaves as a concern. City officials responded by passing laws preventing “illicit” trade between free persons, white and back, and slaves. In Vicksburg, in 1859, John “Red Jack” McGuiggan was convicted of selling forged passes to slaves. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The timing, in 1859, probably contributed to the harsh sentence.

Martha Ann Logan of Mobile, was brought to court for having interracial sexual relationship with a slave named David. A local reporter described the offense as “disgusting,” but what would be described in Boston as “goodly and fashionable.” Catherine Harrington was prosecuted for “trafficking” (i..e., selling liquor) with slaves. Kitty Donigan was prosecuted for “harboring a slave.” Irish saloon keepers throughout the South illegally sold liquor to slaves.

Irish Were not Abolitionists

Of course, the over-arching question in the 1850’s was slavery and the fear of abolitionists. Some Southern leaders saw the Irish as potential abolitionists. But, the Irish fear of evangelical Protestants rendered such a possibility unlikely. Too, there were instances of Irish attacking slaves. Employers of workers on the Brunswick canal had to separate the Irish workers form the slaves, to prevent the attacks by the Irish. Patrick Murphy slapped a slave girl in Natchez for alleged insolence. When the white owner told Murphy he could not strike slaves on his property, Murphy packed up his tools and left. On another occasion when a slave owner let a slave sit at the same table as Murphy, the proud Irishman said he was “not one of them to sit at second or nigroes [sic] table.”

P. Kennedy in Virginia insisted slaves were better fed and clothed than the poor Irish farmers. He complained about Yankees who went to Europe to make money, complain about slavery and stir up English ladies. He said it would be better for the Irish laborer if he was half as well-fed and taken care of as the slaves in whom the owner had an interest. Kennedy was saying the slaves was treated better because his owner had invested money in him. Kennedy allowed there were some bad masters. But, he added, there was no comparison to bad landlords in Ireland. Irish landlords would drive out their tenants to the roadside to starve. He believed no one could justly criticize slavery. We might disagree today, but certainly, the state of the Irish tenant farmer was quite bad at the time.

Like most slavery questions of the time, the Irish interaction with slaves was complicated.

David T. Gleeson, The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press 1995), p. 122-125.

Accused of being Abolitionists

Perhaps the worst accusation made against the Know Nothing party, in the mind of the average Southerner, native born or not, was that the Know Nothing party secretly supported abolitionism. As a secret organization, with secret handshakes and the like, it was easy for outsiders to view Know Nothings with suspicion. In the South, abolitionists were seen as evangelical extremists. For the average Irish Catholic, extreme Protestantism awoke their greatest fears. The accusation of supporting abolition of slavery hurt the Know Nothings more than the anti-Irish prejudice.

Father Patrick Lynch, also a slave holder, wrote an article entitled, “The Secret Sect.” He argued that the blatant Americanism so prevalent in the North was wedded to abolitionism. By “Americanism,” he meant the anti-immigrant fervor. He argued that Irish Catholics were loyal to the South and its institutions, while the American Party was not. Fr. Lynch lived in Charleston, and was one of the first native born priests in America. Abolitionists were indeed quite evangelical. They were often seen as fanatics. In truth, the Know Nothings tried to remain neutral on slavery. In a time when the slavery divide was increasingly pronounced, neutrality itself raised suspicion. The nascent Republican party became more attractive. Many Northern Know Nothings joined the Republican party by 1860. Southern Know Nothings were then left with a party seen as un-patriotic. The Democrat party gained even more members.

And, in the process, the Irish became more secure in their Irishness.

David T. Gleeson, The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press 1995), p. 79-80, 119-120.

Bishop England and Schools

His name was England, but he was Irish. Bishop John England was the prelate in Charleston, South Carolina. Bishop England was an active defender of the Irish in early America, at a time when defenders of the Irish immigrants were rare. Like many Irish immigrants to the Southern U.S., he accepted slavery at face value. He did not question the society that gave him a freedom he did not know back in Ireland. But, he also recognized things about slavery.

He started a free school for children of “free colored.” This was seen as a challenge to the white supremacists of the time. There were laws against teaching slaves to read. Children of free colored men and women were a gray area, that many whites preferred not to broach. But, Bishop England was different. He did not mind annoying the Protestant ascendancy here in the U.S.

What he did not expect was the mail campaign launched by Northern abolitionists. They inundated the Charleston post office with mail. Nativists used the excessive mail to claim the offensive mail was destined for Catholics. Alarmed by this twisting of his intentions, Bishop England closed the school in 1835. Too, he was probably concerned about so much mail from Northern abolitionists, who were universally fervent Protestant Evangelicals. To any Irish Catholic, fervent Protestants caused severe nervousness.

Bishop England responded by describing the abolitionists as fanatics. His newspaper said the school had to be closed due to the “saints” interfering with a society with which it had no understanding. He meant the abolitionists did not understand the South. His newspaper continued pointing out that in Great Britain and Ireland, the “saints” were seeking Negro emancipation, and the better observation of the Sabbath, they were issuing tracts with the worst calumnies and straining every nerve to exterminate Catholics. It was hard for Catholics to trust Protestants in any country after 200 years of Protestant efforts to exterminate Catholics.

David T. Gleeson, The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press 1995), p. 128-129.

The Irish Temperance Movement

Most folks do not realize there was a very strong temperance movement in Ireland in the 1840’s. Fr. Theobald Mathew, a Capuchin priest in County Cork, started a temperance movement seeking to reduce the reliance of so many Irish on alcohol. He found a very receptive audience and quickly built a large successful organization. The movement jumped across the Atlantic ocean. In New Orleans, Fr. James I. Mullon, pastor at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church, organized the St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society. Fr. Mullon, a very popular priest in his own right, administered “the pledge” after High Mass every Sunday. In 1842, the society was the pride of the city’s St. Patrick’s Day parade.

In 1850, Fr. Mathew crossed the ocean and visited the South. In New Orleans, he collected 13,000 new pledges. At Memphis, he gathered 700 new pledges. At Natchez, he preached to Catholics and Protestants at St. Mary’s Cathedral. “Throngs” pledged abstinence at the altar rails.

Before Fr. Mathew was welcomed by the Southern Irish, he had to assure them that despite his meetings with abolitionists in the North, he had no intention of interfering with slavery. He assured the Southern Irish that while in the South, he would only address temperance.

Fr. Mathew arrived just in time to help dedicate a new church for the growing Irish immigrant population in New Orleans. He dedicated the new St. Alphonsus church during his visit. That first 1850 edifice was much smaller than the current St. Alphonsus church building.

David T. Gleeson, The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press 1995), p. 61-62, 132.

“Damn Little Duty England Will Get”

“Home Rule” was a concept well-known in Ireland which for decades believed its biggest problem was that Parliament was in England and that Ireland lost its own parliament in the late 18^thcentury. Fr. Bannon believed that Roman Catholicism as it existed in the South was morally superior to the “bankrupt and corrupt morality of northern liberalism and Protestantism.” He noted in a letter to Pres. Jefferson Davis that Catholicism had been the victim of “northern fanaticism.” He believed the Catholic faith held more respect in the Southern cities of Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans than in any city of the northern states.

As the Missouri Brigade was about to launch its ill-fated, suicidal charge upon the Union fortifications, tension was high. The men had been through many battles this late in the war in 1864. One common soldier quoted the Admiral Horatio Nelson who famously said at the Battle of Trafalgar, “England expects every man to do his duty.” A St. Louis Irishman of the First and Fourth Missouri Infantry (Consolidated) retorted with a laugh, “It’s damn little duty England would get out of this Irish crowd.”

Phillip T. Tucker, Irish Confederates(Abilene, Tx: McWhitney Foundation Press 2006), pp. 20-37.

FOR more information on the Missouri Brigade, visit this website.

The View of One Irishman in the Union Army

So, how was it for Irish immigrants who joined the Union army? It was difficult for some of them to join the Union army because it was ultimately controlled by former members of the Know Nothing party and by Protestants. We get some clues about Irish sentiment from a letter written in 1863. Christopher Byrne was younger brother to one famous Irishman, “Blind” Patrick Byrne, said to have been the last of the great Irish harpers.

Christopher expressed pride in his brother’s fame. He expressed regret that their family was now scattered all over the world. Christopher joined the Union army, but had his regrets. Writing from Minnesota, he described the state of Northern politics. He described the Union leadership as a “Horde of Fanatics” – likely referring to the ardent abolitionists – who would rather “rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.” “When they are not interfering with the rights of foreigners or proscribing Religious Denominations, they are Speech Making in favour of Abolition.” Here, Christopher is clearly referring to what was then overt discrimination against immigrants and especially against Irish Catholic immigrants. Many of the abolitionists were clergy or were otherwise very religious. We forget today how deep was the religious divide throughout the 1800’s. Ardent Protestants must have caused alarm for any Irish Catholic immigrant.

Cristtopher discusses slavery several times in his letter. Yet, he never addresses the morality (or lack thereof) of slavery. Instead, he insists the Northern U.S. had no business in meddling in the business of the South. He adds, writing in 1863, that the North can prevail in the war only if it guarantees the South’s autonomy in the matter of slavery.

He describes the civil war in 1863 as one for which “Magnitude has no parallel on record.” Coming from an Irishman in 1863, that does suggest a great rebellion indeed.

See “Irishman’s Diary about the American Civil War” in the Irish Times, Sept. 6, 2017 here.