Prologue Spring 2010 Vol. 42 No.

Q U A R T E R LY o f t h e N AT I O N A L A R C H I V E S a n d R E C O R D S A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

ARCHIVIST of the
UNITED STATES
Editorial Policy. Prologue is published quarterly by the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). Its primary purpose is to bring
EDITOR’S NOTE
David S. Ferriero to public attention the resources and programs of NARA, the regional
Welcome to our special Civil War issue
archives, and the presidential libraries. Accordingly, Prologue in the main
DIRECTOR of of Prologue, published to coincide with the opening of the
publishes material based, in whole or in part, on the holdings and pro-
PUBLIC AFFAIRS and National Archives exhibit, “Discovering the Civil War,” to
grams of these institutions. In keeping with the nonpartisan character of
COMMUNICATIONS commemorate the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the
NARA, Prologue will not accept articles that are politically partisan or
Susan Cooper conflict in 1861.
that deal with contemporary political issues.
Articles are selected for publication by the editor in consultation with For this issue, we wanted to provide both an overview of
EDITOR of
PUBLICATIONS experts. The editor reserves the right to make changes in articles accepted mid-19th-century America and look at specific aspects of the
James Worsham for publication and will consult the author should substantive questions war and its aftermath that are seldom explored in history books
arise. Published articles do not necessarily represent the views of NARA and articles.
MANAGING or of any other agency of the U.S. Gov­­ernment. The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson pro-
EDITOR Prospective authors are encouraged to discuss their work with the editor vides overall context for us in “Out of War, a New Nation.” An
Mary C. Ryan
prior to submission. Articles may be submitted as either an e-mail attach- excerpt from a new book by historian Robert Remini captures
ment or as hard copy. The Prologue office uses MS Word but can accept any Henry Clay, architect of the Compromise of 1850, an attempt
EDITORIAL STAFF
Benjamin Guterman common word-processing format. Correspondence regarding contribu- to avert war but which only delayed it. And NARA senior cura-
Maureen MacDonald tions and all other editorial matters should be sent to the Editor, Prologue,
tor Bruce Bustard gives us a preview of the exhibit itself.
Rob Crotty National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania
In addition, historian Daniel
Hilary Parkinson Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408-0001; prologue@nara.gov.
Sutherland writes about guerrilla warfare
Subscriptions and Reprints. U.S. subscription rates are $24 for one year;
CONTRIBUTING between North and South. Historian
rates for subscribers outside the United States are $30. Single issues of the
EDITOR Craig Symonds discusses how Lincoln,
current volume are available for $6 each (add $3 shipping for orders up
Constance Potter
to $50). Send a check or money order to National Archives and Records famous for his relationships with his
Administration, Prologue Subscriptions, National Archives Trust Fund, generals, dealt with his admirals.
ART DIRECTORS
Cashier (NAT), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. “Discovering the Civil War” will be
Rania Hassan
Brian Barth Notice of nonreceipt of an issue must be sent within six months of its pub- shown in two parts in the Lawrence
lication date. Microfilm copies of Prologue are available from ProQuest F. O’Brien Gallery at the National Archives Building in
Information and Learning, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346. Washington, D.C. The first part, “Beginnings,” opens on April
Prologue’s web site is at www.archives.gov/publications/prologue. 30, 2010, and closes on September 6, 2010. The second part,
“Consequences,” opens on November 10, 2010, and closes on
Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration
April 17, 2011. The two parts will be combined for a nation-
(ISSN 0033-1031) is published quarterly by the National Archives
wide tour, whose schedule is not yet complete.
Trust Fund Board, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.
Periodicals postage paid at College Park, MD, and at additional mailing
As always, we hope you’re able to visit the National Archives
offices. Postmaster: send address changes to Prologue, National Archives at one of our many locations nationwide (see inside back cover).
and Rec­ords Administration, NPAC/Room 400, 700 Pennsylvania If you can’t, you can “visit” us online at www.archives.gov. You’ll
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408-0001. INDEXED in Acad. Abstr., also find other Civil War features on our YouTube site at www.
Amer. Hist. & Life. Bibl. Cart., Hist. Abst. (Pts. A & B), Hum. Ind., Mag. youtube.com/user/usnationalarchives and on our Facebook site at
Art. Sum., U.S. Govt. Per. Ind., Writ. Am. Hist., & Winter Prologue. www.facebook.com (search for US National Archives).
JAMES WORSHAM

Prologue 
from the archivist
taking the leading role on
declassification
by david s. ferriero
P
government.
resident Barack Obama has charged the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
with the important mission of helping him ful-
fill his promise of less secrecy and more transparency in
This mission for the Archives is outlined in an executive
order the President signed on December 29,
2009, in which he directed an overhaul of
the way documents created by the federal
government are classified and declassified.
The President’s order is consistent with his
aim of “open government.” He has directed
that all government documents be released
eventually—although some sooner than oth-
ers, depending on their sensitivity. He has
also ordered all agencies to review the way
they classify documents.
“Openness will strengthen our democracy
and promote efficiency and effectiveness in
government,” the President said in a memo-
randum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies.
“Transparency promotes accountability and provides informa-
tion for citizens about what their government is doing.”
To oversee this initiative and to implement the changes, the
President directed the creation of the National Declassification
Center (NDC), which is now located within NARA.
The NDC will lead the streamlining of the declassification
process throughout the federal government. In particular, it
will accelerate the processing of historically valuable classified
records in which more than one agency has an interest. It will
oversee the development of common declassification processes
among agencies. And it will prioritize declassification based
on researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification.
The President, in his order, adopted the principle that “no
information may remain classified indefinitely,” although rec­
ords vital to national security may remain classified for long
periods. These records would include information concerning
war plans, weapons of mass destruction, human intelligence
sources and methods, and in certain cases, diplomatic rela-
tions conducted with other nations.
Essentially, this gives NARA the opportunity to eliminate
the backlog of some 400 million pages of classified records, in-
cluding some pertaining to military operations and World War
II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War—all of which are of
great interest to historians of those periods in our history.
The 400 million pages have nearly all been reviewed by their
originating agency, but about 20 percent must be referred to
other agencies whose classified information is included in
them. In the past, this need for multiple reviews has signifi-
 Prologue
cantly slowed processing, since the documents in question
would need to be reviewed several different times by other
agencies or physically sent to other agencies for review.
The creation of the NDC will change this. Representatives
from agencies will work collaboratively, on site at our College
Park, Maryland, facility, accelerating the review process, re-
ducing the backlog, and allowing us to make
materials available much more quickly.
Even after a document has passed through
all its classification reviews, it must still be
processed archivally. Documents must be
organized and arranged into series, for ex-
ample by subject and date, and put in order
to make them easy for researchers to use.
In some cases, NARA archivists will create
finding aids for the documents.
The NDC will also seek to promote among
agencies effective, transparent, and standard
processes, training, and quality assurance
measures for declassifying documents. This
will enable other agencies, as well as the NDC staff, to rec-
ognize each other’s designation of classified information and
interpret them correctly during the review process.
In addition, the President has directed agencies to continu-
ally review their classification and declassification guidelines
to make sure they are up to date and do not result in un-
necessary classification or classification for longer periods
than necessary.
You can learn more about the NDC and its work at www.
archives.gov/declassification/.
The President’s order gives the National Archives a leader-
ship role in ensuring that millions of classified records are de-
classified and made available for the people to inspect and for
historians to mine to enrich the account of our nation’s his-
tory much sooner than otherwise would have been possible.
The National Archives has long embraced the mission of
providing to the public as much access as possible to the
records that document the rights of our citizens so they may
exercise them fully, the actions of our federal officials so they
may be held accountable, and the history of our America so
that future generations may learn from our experience.
The National Declassification Center, with its goal of “re-
leasing all we can, protecting what we must,” will work to
assist NARA in its mission and to help fulfill the President’s
promise of a more open government.
Archivist of the United States
Spring 2010
 contents

Volume 42 Issue No.1

Features
6 Out of War, a New Nation
James M. McPherson provides the historical context for ​
the deadliest war in American history—why it happened
and how it changed the nation.

14 At the Edge of the Precipice

Robert V. Remini shares an excerpt from his new book
about how Henry Clay sought to prevent war with
the Compromise of 1850.

20 Abraham Lincoln and the Guerrillas

Daniel E. Sutherland examines how Lincoln dealt
with unconventional warfare waged by both Unionists
and Confederates.

26 “A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude”

Claire Prechtel-Kluskens reviews how the pension
office handled the unprecedented growth in its caseload
during and after the Civil War.

36 Discovering the Civil War

Bruce Bustard introduces a new exhibit that takes a
fresh look at the conflict through little-known stories,
seldom-seen documents, and unusual perspectives.

42 “I have the honor to tender the

resignation . . .”
Trevor K. Plante presents a selection of letters from
p.36 Southern officers resigning their commissions in the
U.S. military as states seceded from the Union.

48
New Books Draw on Archives’ Holdings
for 75th Anniversary
Hilary Parkinson describes two new books illustrating the
breadth and variety of the records in the Archives’ custody
and the story of the National Archives Building itself.
 Volume 42 Issue No.1

p.26

In every issue
2 From the Archivist
Taking the Leading Role on

p.14
Declassification

52 Genealogy Notes
Slavery and Emancipation in the
Nation’s Capital

60 Authors on the Record

The Civil War on the High Seas

62 Events / News & Notices /

Publications

70 Foundation for the Archives

Supporting the Civil War exhibit
and honoring Annette Gordon-
Reed at the gala.
72 Pieces of History
A Seal of Guilt
Online
Prologue has published many articles on the
events leading up to the Civil War, the war itself,
and the aftermath. To read some of them, go to
www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2010/spring.

P To subscribe or view online
articles, log onto
www.archives.gov/publications/prologue
Front cover: The Battle of Antietam, September 17, 1862, in an 1888 lithograph.
Inside front cover: In a document from the new Civil War exhibit at the
National Archives, a Chinese-language message from Prince Kung states that
Confederate ships will not be allowed to enter Chinese ports.
Back cover: A Union Defenders Certificate for Sgt. Leonard E. Hotchkiss,
Company B, 30th Iowa Infantry, is part of the widow's pension file of his
mother, Hannah Hotchkiss.

 Prologue Spring 2010

 Marking Time

I
n 1952, the chief of the Still Picture Branch at the
National Archives, Josephine Cobb, discovered a glass
plate negative taken by Mathew Brady of the speakers’
stand at Gettysburg in 1863.
Photo enlargement later proved her theory correct that
Lincoln would be on that stand, making this the first known
photograph of Lincoln at Gettsyburg.
Cobb estimated that the photo was taken around noontime,
before Edward Everett arrived, and about three hours before
Lincoln delivered his famous address.

For more Civil War discoveries see …

p.20: The Civil War’s Guerrilla Front
p.42: “I have the honor to
tender the resignation . . .”
p.52 : Slavery in the Nation’s Capital
Out of War,
a New Nation
By James M. McPherson

The Battle of Gettysburg, possibly Pickett’s charge,

in an 1870 engraving. Over 620,000 soldiers died in
the Civil War, a conflict unmatched in the Western
world for its ferocity and destruction.
T he Civil War had a greater impact on American
society and the polity than any other event in the
country’s history.
It was also the most traumatic experience endured by
any generation of Americans.
At least 620,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war, 2
percent of the American population in 1861. If the same
percentage of Americans were to be killed in a war fought
today, the number of American war dead would exceed
6 million. The number of casualties suffered in a single
day at the battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, was
four times the number of Americans killed and wound-
ed at the Normandy beaches on D day, June 6, 1944.
More Americans were killed in action that September
day near Sharpsburg, Maryland, than died in combat in
all the other wars fought by the United States in the 19th
century combined.
 How could such a conflict happen?
Why did Americans fight each other with
a ferocity unmatched in the Western world
during the century between the end of the
Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the beginning
of World War I in 1914?
The origins of the American Civil War lay
in the outcome of another war fought 15
years earlier: the Mexican-American War. The
question whether slavery could expand into
the 700,000 square miles of former Mexican
territory acquired by the United States in
1848 polarized Americans and embittered
political debate for the next dozen years.
In the House of Representatives, northern
congressmen pushed through the Wilmot
Proviso specifying that slavery should be ex-
cluded in all territories won from Mexico.
In the Senate, southern strength defeated
this proviso. South Carolina Senator John
C. Calhoun introduced instead a series of
resolutions affirming that slaveholders had
the constitutional right to take their slave
property into any United States territory
they wished.
These opposing views set the terms of
conflict for the next decade. When 80,000
Forty-Niners poured into California after
the discovery of gold there in 1848, they or-
ganized a state government and petitioned
Congress for admission to the Union as the
31st state. Because California’s new constitu-
tion banned slavery, this request met fierce
resistance from southerners. They uttered
threats of secession if they were denied their
“right’ to take slaves into California and the
other territories acquired from Mexico. The
controversy in Congress grew so heated that
Senator Henry S. Foote of Mississippi flour-
ished a loaded revolver during a debate, and
his colleague Jefferson Davis challenged an
Illinois congressman to a duel. In 1850 the
nation seemed held together by a thread, with
war between free and slave states an alarming
possibility.
Cooler heads finally prevailed, however.
The Compromise of 1850 averted a violent
confrontation. This series of laws admitted
 Prologue
Slaves picking cotton on a Mississippi plantation,
undated. The issue of whether slavery could expand
into the territories became an increasingly bitter
debate and source of sectional tensions after 1848.
California as a free state, divided the remain-
der of the Mexican cession into the territo-
ries of New Mexico and Utah, and left to
their residents the question whether or not
they would have slavery. (Both territories
did legalize slavery, but few slaves were taken
there.) At the same time, Congress abolished
the slave trade in the District of Columbia,
ending the shameful practice of buying and
selling human beings in the shadow of the
Capitol.
But the Compromise of 1850 compensated
the South with a tough new fugitive slave law
that empowered Federal marshals, backed by
the Army if necessary, to recover slaves who
had escaped into free states.
These measures postponed but did not pre-
vent a final showdown. The fugitive slave law this region at latitude 36˚ 30', with slavery
angered many northerners who were com- permitted south of that line and prohibited
pelled to watch black people—some of whom north of it.
had lived in their communities for years—re- Considered by northerners to be an invio-
turned in chains to slavery. Southern anxiety lable compact, the Missouri Compromise
grew as settlers poured into northern territo- had lasted 34 years. But in 1854 southerners
ries that were sure to join the Union as free broke it by forcing Stephen A. Douglas of
states, thereby tipping the sectional balance Illinois, chairman of the Senate Committee
of power against the South in Congress and on Territories, to agree to the repeal of the
the Electoral College. ban on slavery north of 36˚ 30' as the price of
In an effort to bring more slave states into southern support for the formal organization
the Union, southerners agitated for the pur- of Kansas and Nebraska territories.
chase of Cuba from Spain and the acquisition Douglas anticipated that his capitulation
of additional territory in Central America. to southern pressure would “raise a hell of
Private armies of “filibusters,” composed a storm” in the North. The storm was so
mainly of southerners, even tried to invade powerful that it swept away many northern
Cuba and Nicaragua to overthrow their gov- Democrats and gave rise to the Republican
ernments and bring these regions into the party, which pledged to keep slavery out of
United States as slave states. Kansas and all other territories.
The events that did most to divide North An eloquent leader of this new party was
and South were the Kansas-Nebraska Act an Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln,
of 1854 and the subsequent guerrilla war who believed that “there can be no moral
between pro- and anti-slavery partisans in right in the enslaving of one man by another.”
Kansas territory. The region that became Lincoln and other Republicans recognized
the territories of Kansas and Nebraska was that the United States Constitution protected
part of the Louisiana Purchase, acquired by slavery in the states where it already existed.
the United States from France in 1803. In But they intended to prevent its further ex-
1820 the Missouri Compromise had divided pansion as the first step toward bringing it
Spring 2010
Northern congressmen pushed through the Wilmot
Proviso specifying that slavery should be excluded
in all territories won from Mexico. Southerners
defeated it in the Senate, arguing that slaveholders
had the constitutional right to take their slave
property into any United States territory.
eventually to an end.
The United States, said Lincoln at the
beginning of his famous campaign against
Douglas in 1858 for election to the Senate,
was a house divided between slavery and
freedom. “‘A house divided against itself
cannot stand,’” he declared. “I believe this
government cannot endure, permanently half
slave and half free.” By preventing the fur-
ther expansion of slavery, Lincoln hoped to
“place it where the public mind shall rest in
the belief that it is in the course of ultimate
extinction.”
Lincoln lost the senatorial election in
1858. But two years later, running against
a Democratic party split into northern and
southern factions, Lincoln won the presiden-
cy by carrying every northern state. It was
the first time in more than a generation that
the South had lost effective control of the
national government. Southerners saw the
handwriting on the wall. A growing major-
ity of the American population lived in free
Out of War, a New Nation
states. Proslavery forces had little prospect of
winning any future national elections. The
prospects for long-term survival of slavery
appeared dim. To forestall anticipated anti-
slavery actions by the incoming Lincoln
administration, seven slave states seceded
during the winter of 1860–61.
Before Lincoln took office on March 4,
1861, delegates from those seven states had
met at Montgomery, Alabama, adopted a
Constitution for the Confederate States of
America, and formed a new government with
Jefferson Davis as president. As they seceded,
these states seized most forts, arsenals, and
other Federal property within their bor-
ders—with the significant exception of Fort
Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South
Carolina.
When Lincoln took his oath to “preserve,
protect, and defend” the United States and its
Constitution, the “united” states had already
ceased to exist. When Confederate militia
fired on Fort Sumter six weeks later, thereby
inaugurating civil war, four more slave states
seceded.
Secession and war transformed the imme-
diate issue of the long sectional conflict from
the future of slavery to the survival of the
Union itself. Lincoln and most of the north-
ern people refused to accept the constitution-
al legitimacy of secession. “The central idea
pervading this struggle,” Lincoln declared in
May 1861, “is the necessity that is upon us,
of proving that popular government is not
an absurdity. We must settle this question
now, whether in a free government the mi-
nority have the right to break up the gov-
ernment whenever they choose.” Four years
later, looking back over the bloody chasm
of war, Lincoln said in his second inaugural
address that one side in the controversy of
1861 “would make war rather than let the
nation survive; the other would accept war
rather than let it perish. And the war came.”
The articles that follow focus on key as-
pects of the four-year conflict that not only
preserved the nation, but also transformed it.
The old decentralized republic in which the
federal government had few direct contacts
with the average citizen except through the
post office became a nation that taxed people
directly, created an internal revenue bureau to
collect the taxes, drafted men into the Army,
increased the powers of federal courts, created
a national currency and a national banking
system, and confiscated 3 billion dollars of
Prologue 
personal property by emancipating the 4 mil-
lion slaves. Eleven of the first 12 amendments
to the Constitution had limited the powers
of the national government; six of the next
seven, beginning with the 13th amendment
in 1865, vastly increased national powers at
the expense of the states.
The first three of these postwar amend-
ments accomplished the most radical and
rapid social and political change in American
history: the abolition of slavery (13th) and
the granting of equal citizenship (14th) and
voting rights (15th) to former slaves, all with-
in a period of five years. This transformation
of more than 4 million slaves into citizens
with equal rights became the central issue of
the troubled 12-year Reconstruction period
after the Civil War, during which the promise
of equal rights was fulfilled for a brief time
and then largely abandoned.
During the past half century, however, the
promises of the 1860s have been revived by
the civil rights movement, which reached a
milestone in 2008 with the election of an
African American President who took the
oath of office with his hand on the same Bible
that Abraham Lincoln used for that purpose
in 1861.
10 Prologue
The Civil War tipped the sectional balance
of power in favor of the North. From the
adoption of the Constitution in 1789 until
1861, slaveholders from states that joined the
Confederacy had served as Presidents of the
United States during 49 of the 72 years—
more than two-thirds of the time. Twenty-
three of the 36 Speakers of the House and 24
of the presidents pro tem of the Senate had
been southerners. The Supreme Court always
had a southern majority before the Civil War;
20 of the 35 justices down to 1861 had been
appointed from slave states.
After the war, a century passed before a
resident of an ex-Confederate state was elect-
ed President. For half a century only one of
the Speakers of the House and no president
pro tem of the Senate came from the South,
and only 5 of the 26 Supreme Court jus-
tices named during that half century were
southerners.
The United States went to war in 1861 to
preserve the Union; it emerged from the war
in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861
the two words “United States” were gener-
ally used as a plural noun: “the United States
are a republic.” After 1865 the United States
became a singular noun. The loose union
During heated debate over the Compromise of 1850,
Senator Henry S. Foote of Mississippi threatened
Senator Thomas Hart Benton (an opponent of the
measure) with a loaded revolver. Benton opened his
opened his vest and shouted “Let the assassin fire!”
of states became a single nation. Lincoln’s
wartime speeches marked this transition.
In his first inaugural address he mentioned
the “Union” 20 times but the “nation” not
once. In his first message to Congress on July
4, 1861, Lincoln used the word Union 32
times and nation only three times. But in his
Gettysburg Address in November 1863 he
did not mention the Union at all, but spoke
of the nation five times to invoke a new birth
of freedom and nationhood.
The Civil War resolved two fundamental,
festering problems left unresolved by the
American Revolution and the Constitution.
The first was the question whether this new
republic born in a world of kings, emperors,
tyrants, and oligarchs could survive. The re-
publican experiment launched in 1776 was a
fragile entity. The Founding Fathers were fear-
ful about prospects for its survival. They were
painfully aware that most republics through
history had been overthrown by revolutions
or had collapsed into anarchy or dictatorship.
Some Americans alive in 1860 had twice seen
Spring 2010
Above: The interior of Fort Sumter on April 17, 1861. The bombardment of the Below:  John Brown and his antislavery partisans took vengeance against proslavery
fort days before by the Confederacy effectively started the Civil War. guerrillas in the bloody civil war in the Kansas territory in 1856.
French republics succumb to the forces of re-
action. The same fate, they feared, could await
them. That was why Lincoln at Gettysburg
described the war as the great “testing” wheth-
er a “government of the people, by the people,
for the people” would survive or “perish from
the earth.” It did not perish. Northern victory
preserved the nation created in 1776. Since
1865 no disaffected state or region has seri-
ously tried to secede. That question appears
to have been settled.
At Gettysburg, Lincoln spoke also of a “new
birth of freedom.” He was referring to the oth-
er problem left unresolved by the Revolution
of 1776—slavery. The Civil War settled that
issue as well. Antebellum Americans had been
fond of boasting that their “land of liberty”
was a “beacon light of freedom” to the op-
pressed peoples of other lands. But as Lincoln
12 Prologue
had put it in 1854, “the monstrous injustice”
of slavery deprived “our republican example
of its just influence in the world—enables
the enemies of free institutions, with plau-
sibility, to taunt us as hypocrites.” With the
13th amendment, that monstrous injustice,
at least, came to an end.
Before 1861 two socioeconomic and cul-
tural systems had competed for dominance
within the body politic of the United States:
an agricultural society based on slavery ver-
sus an entrepreneurial capitalist society based
on free labor. Although in retrospect the tri-
umph of free-labor capitalism seems to have
been inevitable, that was by no means clear
for most of the antebellum era.
Not only did the institutions and ideol-
ogy of the rural, agricultural, plantation
South with its rigorous system of racial caste
Spring 2010
Above: The 13th Amendment completed the work of
the Emancipation Proclamation by abolishing slavery
in the United States. In doing so, it asserted the
power of the national government over the states.
Above left: The destruction of Richmond, Virginia,
1865. The devastating conflict resolved the struggle
between an agricultural society based on slavery
versus an entrepreneurial capitalist society based on
free labor, and laid the basis for the emergence of the
United States as an economic and political power in
the late 19th century.
Left: President Abraham Lincoln recognized the
fundamental historical importance of the war as first
a “testing” of the survival of the Union and second
as a “new birth of freedom” in which slavery was
abolished.
and slave labor dominate the United States
government during most of that time, but
the territory of the slave states also consid-
erably exceeded that of the free states and
the southern drive for further territorial ex-
pansion seemed more aggressive than that
Out of War, a New Nation
of the North. It is quite possible that if the
Confederacy had prevailed in the 1860s, the
United States might never have emerged as
the world’s largest economy and foremost
democracy by the late 19th century.
The institutions and ideology of a planta-
tion society and a slave system that had domi-
nated half of the country before 1861 went
down with a great crash in 1865 and were
replaced by the institutions and ideology of
free-labor entrepreneurial capitalism. For
better or worse, the flames of the Civil War
forged the framework of modern America.
Mark Twain remarked on this process in
1873. The “cataclysm” of the Civil War, he
wrote, “uprooted institutions that were cen-
turies old, changed the politics of a people,
and wrought so profoundly upon the entire
national character that the influence cannot
be measured short of two or three genera-
tions.” Five generations have passed, and we
are still measuring the consequences of that
cataclysm. P
Author
James M. McPherson, professor
emeritus of history at Princeton
University, is one of the nation’s fore-
most Civil War historians. His book
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era won the Pulitzer
Prize for history in 1989. Two other Civil War–related
books, For Cause and Comrades and Tried by War, have
won the prestigious Lincoln Prize. In 2008, McPherson
received the Records of Achievement Award from the
Foundation for the National Archives.
Prologue 13
 At the edge
of the precipice

henry clay
and the
compromise
of 1850

Henry Clay (standing at center) argues for political compromise before the assembled Senate in 1850. Senators pictured include
Daniel Webster (seated at left with head on hand),Thomas Hart Benton (seated far left),Vice President Millard Fillmore (seated
top right), John C. Calhoun (to right of Fillmore), Salmon P. Chase (left of Clay), and Stephen A. Douglas (fourth at left of Clay).
i n 1850, the Union of American states came close to being irreparably smashed. Several sets
of demands from slave states and free states—many of which stood in direct opposition to
one another—threatened to explode into secession. Only a compromise satisfactory to both
sides could prevent catastrophe.
Had war resulted between the North and the South in 1850, rather than a decade later, it seems
likely that the more militant South would have defeated the much weaker North and made good its
separation from the Union. It is arguable that two or more independent nations would have been
formed, thus permanently dissolving what was once the United States of America.
It would require an act of Congress to cool tempers and avoid a war. It would need to be legislation
that contained something for both sides. And most especially, it would take an extraordinary legisla-
tor to forge bipartisan congressional support for what would become the Compromise of 1850.

o
By Robert V. Remini
Fortunately, there sat on the floor of the
Senate a statesman who would find the
means of concocting a solution, a political
genius of the first rank. Though he was tired,
aging, and fresh from a losing presidential
nomination bid, the legendary Henry Clay
was dedicated to preserving the Union and
realized he must return to Congress to do
what he could to keep the country whole.
As he headed south from New York and
Philadelphia to Washington, Clay was
startled to find at the Baltimore depot an
enormous crowd who had been gathered, he
said, “without preconcert or arrangement.”
Here was a crowd in of all unlikely places, a
railroad station. That was surprising. These
people had come not only to salute him and
show their affection and support but also to
impress upon him their need and hope that
he would use his considerable gifts to find
a solution to the gathering crisis facing the
country. When he tried to escape, they fol-
lowed his carriage from the depot to his hotel
in town, cheering him, waving to him, and
calling his name. They did not relent when crowds pursued him. Each day they came to Above: Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, the “Great
he entered the hotel. Not until he appeared at his hotel, repeating the pleas he had heard Compromiser.” Opposite: Henry Clay’s proposals for
the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise averted
an open window on the second floor did they throughout his trip. Benjamin Brown French, sectional conflict for another 10 years.
slowly quiet in the hope that he would speak former clerk of the House of Representatives not seek reelection, said that Henry Clay was
to them. A few of them called out, “speak and a keen reporter of the Washington “my beau ideal of a statesman, the man for
to us.” Clay shook his head. “We are too far scene, marveled at what was happening. whom I fought all my humble life.”
apart, my friends, to do that,” he shouted to “It seems to me,” he wrote, “as if he [Clay] But Clay’s arrival at Washington and the
them. But he went on to say that he would was ‘the observed of all observers’ instead of adulation accorded him everywhere aroused
meet with them the next day and shake each the President.” At the White House the Great the jealousy and concern of the administra-
person by the hand. Compromiser was surrounded as he passed tion. President [Zachary] Taylor’s aides be-
And he kept his word. At 11 a.m. Clay through the East Room. “I could not but lieved that Clay intended to assume control
positioned himself between two parlors on think,” French continued, “that, after all, he of the Whig party and act out the role of
the first floor of the Barnum City Hotel and was the idol of the occasion. ‘Henry Clay’ is leader of the nation. And that belief did not
received the throng. First, he told them how a political war cry that will at any time and bode well for any close relationship between
delighted he was with the reception he had in any part of this Union create more sensa- the President and the Great Compromiser.
received and then he met each person indi- tion among men of all parties than any other On Monday, December 3, 1849, Clay ap-
vidually. To a very large extent the crowd left name that can be uttered. . . . He now stands, peared in the Senate for the opening of the
the hotel feeling reassured that Clay would at the age of three score years & ten, the beau 31st Congress. It was quite a moment. His
bring sanity and calmness to Washington and ideal of a patriot, a statesman, a great man!” arrival created a sensation. Other Senators
find the means to appease both North and That phrase, “beau ideal,” was repeatedly used rushed to his side to greet him, and a thun-
South, thereby ending the crisis. by others at the time. A young Representative derous ovation ricocheted around the cham-
When Clay finally reached Washington from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, who had just ber. He was really overcome by the emotion
he checked in at the National Hotel. Again completed his first term in Congress and did expressed on his return to Congress. “Much

At the Edge of the Precipice Prologue 17


Henry Clay was "the beau ideal of a patriot, a statesman, a great man!" Perhaps only he had the political stature
and influence to "calm the raging elements" amid the conflicting demands from both slave and free states.
deference and consideration are shown me by
even political opponents,” Clay commented
with a sense of pride. “I shall by a course of
calmness, moderation and dignity endeavor
to preserve these kindly feelings.”
But as Clay took his seat he looked old
and worn. He coughed a good deal, and his
cheeks were shrunken. Still, his wide mouth
was “wreathed in genial smiles,” just as in
years past. He was back where he belonged,
and not much had changed during his ab-
sence. At the age of nearly 73, he “generally
kissed the prettiest girls wherever he went,”
played cards in his room, and enjoyed a large
glass of bourbon whenever he relaxed.
As he looked around the chamber, Clay
recognized many old friends and enemies,
men who played a major role during the
Jacksonian years and still exercised consider-
18 Prologue
able influence in national affairs. There were
Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, Willie P.
Mangum of North Carolina, Lewis Cass of
Michigan, John Berrien of Georgia, and of
course, the other two members of the Great
Triumvirate, Daniel Webster and John C.
Calhoun.
But there were also new members who,
through their intelligence and leadership
would shape national affairs for the remain-
der of the coming decade. These included
Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, Stephen A.
Douglas of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio,
John Hale of New Hampshire, Jeremiah
Clemens of Alabama, and William H. Seward
of New York, among others.
The more he surveyed the scene, and con-
templated the heavy burden of the expecta-
tions placed upon him, the more Henry Clay
worried. “Upon the whole,” he told Mary S.
Bayard, a Philadelphia friend, “there is a very
uncomfortable state of things here both for
the Whig party, and I fear for the Country.
From both parties, or rather from individuals
of both parties, strong expressions are made
to me of hopes that I may be able to calm
the raging elements. I wish I could, but fear
I cannot, realize their hopes.” P
From At The Edge of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the
Compromise of 1850 by Robert V. Remini. Excerpted
by arrangement with Basic Books, a member of the
Perseus Books Group. Copyright ©2010.
Note on Sources
Henry Clay’s reception in Baltimore and his
remarks to the crowd at his hotel are recorded in
The Papers of Henry Clay: Candidate, Compromiser,
Elder Statesman, January 1, 1844–June 29, 1852
(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky,
1991), 10: 627–628. Clay’s reaction to his re-
ception in the U.S. Senate appear in a letter to
Thomas B. Stevenson, December 21, 1849, in the
Papers, 10: 635. Clay’s letter to Mary Bayard is
printed in the Papers, 10: 633.
Benjamin Brown French’s observations of Clay
appear in French, Witness to the Young Republic
(Hanover, NH: University Press of New England,
1989), p. 213.
Abraham Lincoln’s comments on Clay are re-
corded in Edgar De Witt Jones, The Influence of
Henry Clay on Abraham Lincoln (Lexington, Ky.,
1952), p. 21.
The observations of Clay at age 73 are from
Benjamin Perley Poore, Perley’s Reminiscences of
Sixty Years in the National Metropolis (Philadelphia:
Hubbard Brothers, 1886), 1: 363.
Author
Robert V. Remini is professor
emeritus of history at the University
of Illinois at Chicago and is cur-
rently historian of the U.S. House
of Representatives. He has written extensively about
President Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian era and
has written biographies of Henry Clay, John Quincy
Adams, Martin van Buren, and Daniel Webster. He won
the National Book Award for the third volume of his
study of Jackson.
Spring 2010
whats new in the past? For 40 years, Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration
has been telling readers about the rich resources and programs of the National Archives, its regional
facilities, and the presidential libraries.
In every issue you will find thought-provoking and enter-
taining articles—based on research in the Archives’ magnifi-
cent holdings of original documents—on American history
and on the activities of the agency.

Some recent articles in Prologue include:

✮ How some mischief found its way into an 1848 map of the
United States prepared for President James K. Polk.
✮ How President Dwight D. Eisenhower faced a threat as grave
as the one he faced as World War II’s Supreme Allied com-
mander.
✮
How a private Bess Truman emerges from not-yet-released
letters she wrote to Harry over the years.
✮
How the National Archives evolved over its 75-year history
by adapting to change and meeting new challenges.

Coming UP: Prologue will have articles that describe how

the first circumnavigation of the globe by air was accom-
plished, how the movement for pensions for ex-slaves was
undermined during the late 1800s, how American history
is preserved in motion pictures at the Archives, and how St.
Elizabeths Hospital in Washington served as the home for
many of society’s unwanted individuals.

Visit us online at: www.archives.gov/publicationsprologue/.

the annual subscription rate is $24 ($30 outside the United States).
To start your subscription, mail this form to the National Archives and Records Administration, Prologue Subscriptions,
National Archives Trust Fund, Cashier (NAT), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.
Make checks payable to the National Archives Trust Fund. Credit card orders may also call toll free 1-800-234-8861
or 202-357-5482 weekdays, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time.

Prologue Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration

1 year (4 issues) is $24. Subscriptions outside the United States are $30.

Check VISA MasterCard Discover American Express

Account number Card expires

Signature ________________________________________________________________________________________

Name ______________________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________________________________________________________ State ______________________________________ ZIP _________________________

Please allow up to 10 weeks for delivery of first issue.

 Abraham Lincoln
and the Guerrillas
By Daniel E. Sutherland
M uch has been written about Abraham Lincoln as a
wartime commander-in-chief. All of these analyses,
however, deal with Lincoln’s handling of the conventional
war, with armies, navies, grand strategies, and incompetent
generals. No scholar has considered the evolution of the
President’s response to the irregular war. Not that this is
strange, for scholars, until relatively recently, have treated
the entire guerrilla conflict as little more than a “side show”
of the larger war.
That will no longer do.
A growing body of literature, most of it concentrating on
particular communities or regions of the wartime South,
have demonstrated the pervasive nature of the guerrilla war.
It is time to put Lincoln in the mix.
First, to put things in perspective, it must be explained
that far more guerrillas fought in far more places and with
far graver consequences than students of the Civil War have
supposed. Not just Confederates either, which is the general
impression. The results were three distinct yet intercon-
nected guerrilla contests. One was a military affair, with
rebel guerrillas confronting and harassing the Union Army.
The second was a purely civilian affair, if “civilian” may
be applied to bands of armed men who engaged in arson,
torture, terror, and murder. These bands were composed of
Southern neighbors who had taken rival sides, Unionists
and Confederates, and who battled each other to maintain
political and economic control of their communities. The
third guerrilla contest had even less to do with military oper-
ations. Rather, it was simple outlawry, sometimes engaged in
by “legitimate” guerrillas, but more often pursued by bands
of deserters, draft dodgers, and thugs who held loyalty to
no side. Taken together, the three guerrilla conflicts created
utter chaos in many parts of the South and went a long way
toward crippling Confederate resources and morale.
Lincoln did not have to deal directly with the outlawry, a
problem he gladly left to Jefferson Davis. Even so, legitimate
rebel guerrillas posed mounting dangers to his army and
Southern Unionists. Like nearly all political and military
leaders on both sides, Lincoln was surprised by the scope
and ferocity of this guerrilla upheaval. Also like many politi-
cal leaders, he was slow to understand the consequences of
an unchecked guerrilla war. As this realization grew, Lincoln
either endorsed measures or took independent actions that
protected the Union Army and his Southern supporters
against rebel guerrillas.
Although he did not appreciate it at the time, the first
week of the war showed Lincoln what havoc even relatively
small numbers of irregular fighters could cause. Five days
after the surrender of Fort Sumter, what authorities called
a Baltimore “mob” attacked a Massachusetts regiment as it
marched through the city en route to Washington, D.C. The
so-called mob might just as easily have been labeled “urban
guerrillas.” They threw stones and fired guns at the troops.
The soldiers returned fire, the results being a total, for both
sides, of 16 dead and 85 wounded, the first casualties of the
war. The regiment, which had been summoned by Lincoln
to help defend his capital city, made it to Washington the
next day, but the countryside between Lincoln’s domain
and Baltimore burst into guerrilla activity. The rebels cut
telegraph lines, ripped up railroad tracks, and stole the live-
stock of Southern Unionists. When Lincoln sent troops
to restore order, guerrillas attacked Federal patrols, tried
to poison the Army’s provisions, entered Union camps as
spies, and plotted to kidnap public officials who aided the
invaders. Lincoln eventually suspended habeas corpus in
the state and arrested disloyal citizens, including members
of the state legislature.
Lincoln might easily have taken this to be an isolated inci-
dent had not one of the most ferocious of the guerrilla wars
then broken out in Missouri. In July 1861, Julian Bates, a
son of Lincoln’s attorney general, Edward Bates, reported to
his father from their home state, “There will be hard fighting
in Missouri, [but] not between the soldiers, & in many of
the Counties there will be ugly neighborhood feuds, which
may long outlast the general war.” The senior Bates surely
passed on to Lincoln this insightful analysis of the dangers
that awaited many parts of the South. The attorney general
may even have said something along the lines of his warn-
ing to Missouri’s new pro-Union provisional governor: “If
things be allowed to go on in Missouri as they are now, we
shall soon have a social war all over the State.”
Nonetheless, Lincoln remained slower to see the depths
of the situation in the far-off Trans-Mississippi than he had
been in his own back yard. Even when Union field com-
manders attested to the dangers facing loyal citizens and
U.S. troops, he was reluctant to endorse punitive measures.
In August 1861, the President balked at Gen. John C.
Frémont’s decision to court-martial, execute, and confiscate
the property of anyone taking up arms against the United
States in Missouri. Lincoln foresaw—correctly, as it turned
out—the potential for an endless cycle of retaliation and
counter-retaliation. By contrast, Missouri Unionists rejoiced
at Frémont’s order. A second son of Edward Bates declared,
“They [the rebels] should be summarily shot by thousands.”
Lincoln let Frémont’s order stand but replaced him a few
months later with Gen. David Hunter. More than that, the
President told Hunter that the guerrilla threat in Missouri
was all but over. “Doubtless local uprisings will for a time
continue to occur,” he told the new department command-
er, “but these can be met by detachments and local forces of
our own, and will ere long tire of themselves.”
Not until the summer of 1862 did Lincoln understand
the extent of the guerrilla menace, not only in Missouri but
across the entire Upper South. The result was a substantial
shift in Union military policy. Lincoln abandoned his con-
servative, conciliatory approach, based on the assumption
that the presence of Union troops in overwhelming num-
bers would be enough to turn Southerners against the rebel
government, to adopt the sort of drastic measures Frémont
had employed. The shift in policy was not inspired entirely
by the guerrilla war. Also pushing Lincoln in this direction
was the rising tide of public criticism of his conduct of the
conventional war, especially in light of the futility of military
operations in the East. With midterm elections due that
autumn, he simply had to change public perceptions. Still,
effective guerrilla resistance to the Army and the intimida-
tion of the Unionists, whom Lincoln had counted on to
lead Southern opposition to the Davis government, clearly
influenced his thinking.
Consider how many of Lincoln’s actions in the summer
Opposite: Taking rebel crops and livestock proved to be one of the
milder forms of confiscation by the Union Army.
Left: As the rebel guerrilla threat grew, Abraham Lincoln had to deal
with a type of warfare he had not anticipated.
Prologue 21
and autumn of 1862 struck directly at rebel
guerrillas. Consider, too, how many veterans
of the guerrilla war he depended on to imple-
ment the new policy. First, Lincoln reassigned
John Frémont to command in West Virginia,
a cauldron of guerrilla warfare no less roil-
ing than Missouri. Next, he brought Gen.
John Pope from the Western theater to com-
mand a new Union Army in Virginia. Pope
had taken retaliatory measures that exceeded
even Frémont’s directives in order to quash
guerrilla resistance in his Missouri district.
Pope now issued even stricter orders, with
the approval of Lincoln and Secretary of War
Edwin Stanton, in north-central Virginia.
Aimed not only at guerrillas but also at the
“evil-disposed persons” who assisted them,
Pope’s instructions allowed executions, fi-
nancial assessments, and the destruction and
confiscation of property. By then, Lincoln
had also brought Pope’s old department com-
mander in Missouri, Gen. Henry W. Halleck,
to Washington as commanding general of all
Union armies. Naturally, Halleck added his
blessing to Pope’s Virginia policy.
To endorse publicly the new direction
announced by Pope and Halleck, Lincoln,
toward the end of July 1862, sent a warning
to Confederate soldiers and civilians alike.
Anyone guilty of “aiding, countenancing,
or abetting” the rebel cause, he said, must
immediately cease their rebellion or suffer
“forfeitures and seizures” of their property.
When Andrew Johnson, the President’s new-
ly appointed military governor in Tennessee,
asked permission to apply Pope’s orders in
that state, Lincoln gave it.
Of course, Lincoln was not asking for
wholesale slaughter. Indeed, some politicians
complained that the “kind hearted” President
commuted or reduced the death sentences of
far too many convicted guerrillas. Still, de-
spite his own occasional references to tem-
pering justice with mercy, Lincoln tended
to send mixed signals to commanders in the
field, perhaps giving them wider latitude
than was wise. Explaining the new rules to
Gen. John S. Phelps, the military governor
of Louisiana and Arkansas, Lincoln wrote, “I
am a patient man—always willing to forgive
on the Christian terms of repentance. . . .
22 Prologue
Still, I must save the government if possible.
. . . [And] it may as well be understood, once
for all, that I shall not surrender this game
leaving any available card unplayed.”
His pragmatic approach soon touched the
Deep South, too. When Union troops moved
into northern Alabama, they faced the inevi-
table resistance from rebel guerrillas. When
the Army responded by burning the town of
Paint Rock, sacking Athens, Alabama, and
threatening to execute all saboteurs and guer-
rillas, Edwin Stanton informed the Army’s
commander, Gen. Ormsby M. Mitchel,
“Your spirited operations afford great satis-
faction to the President.” However, as details
about the Army’s mistreatment of noncom-
batants reached Washington, it became clear
that things had gone too far. Mitchel and
the officer responsible for sacking Athens,
the Russian-born Col. John B. Turchin, were
relieved of their commands.
Mitchel, whose more complex case also
involved cotton speculation and failure to
secure eastern Tennessee, was simply reas-
signed to South Carolina, but Gen. Don
Carlos Buell, the department commander,
insisted that Turchin be court-martialed. The
court found Turchin guilty of allowing his
men to run riot in Athens but decided that
his biggest sin had been in not dealing “qui-
etly enough” with the rebels. After initially
recommending that he be cashiered from
the Army, the court’s majority urged clem-
ency. Lincoln and Stanton concurred, and the
President promoted Turchin to general.
As for Buell, who had been a vocal oppo-
nent of the new retaliatory policies, he was
relieved of his command a few months later.
His removal surprised few senior officers, even
those who balked at the extreme measures of
men like Turchin. One officer, comparing
Buell to the Russian, declared, “Turchin’s
policy is bad enough; it may indeed be the
policy of the devil; but Buell’s policy is that
of the amiable idiot.” Buell became the target
of a congressional investigation that focused
largely on his failure to capture Chattanooga.
His principal defense, with which even the
commission concurred, was that he had faced
formidable opposition from Confederate cav-
alry and guerrillas. Lincoln also knew that

Above: Southern Unionists, who depended on the
Union Army to protect them, were frequently victims
of rebel guerrilla neighbors.
Opposite top: Gen. John Pope’s orders in Virginia
formed the basis of the first punitive policy endorsed
by President Lincoln.
Opposite middle: Gen. Henry W. Halleck endorsed
punitive measures against rebel guerrillas and their
supporters, but he also tried to establish a legal basis
for retaliation through the Lieber Code.
Opposite bottom: John C. Frémont was among the first
Union generals to use executions and confiscation
of property to retaliate against rebel guerrillas and
citizens who supported them.
Abraham Lincoln and the Guerrillas
to be true. In early 1863, he complained to
Buell’s successor, Gen. William S. Rosecrans,
“In no other way does the enemy give us so
much trouble, at so little expense to himself,
as by the raids of rapidly moving small bod-
ies of men.”
Not that these measures weakened rebel
guerrilla resistance to any appreciable degree.
Union politicians and generals continued to
press for sterner measures, especially in border
states, such as Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee,
and West Virginia, where the Federals strug-
gled either to maintain or establish loyal gov-
ernments. Indeed, there had been instances
since the first year of the war of rebel guerrilla
operations in the lower Midwest, where gov-
ernors from Iowa to Ohio worried about the
stability and security of their own states.
By the summer of 1863, the Union Army
had been recruiting heavily among Southern
Unionists for some time. Initially, the
authorities scattered these men willy-nilly,
to wherever the Army needed more bod-
ies, which was usually far from home. Now,
however, some officials realized that Southern
Unionists could provide better service in
antiguerrilla units assigned to their home
regions. Imploring the President to redeploy
Tennesseans serving in Virginia in this way,
Andrew Johnson explained, “They are willing
& more anxious [than Northern volunteers]
to restore the government & at the same
time protect their wives and children against
insult, robbery, murder & inhumane op-
pression.” Even more dramatically, Johnson
recruited local Unionist guerrillas to counter
rebel bushwhackers in Tennessee. David C.
Beaty, known as “Tinker Dave,” led the dead-
liest of Johnson’s loyal guerrilla bands. Beaty’s
principal opponent was the notorious rebel
guerrilla Champ Ferguson.
While seemingly not directly involved,
Lincoln no doubt gave his blessing to Henry
Halleck’s effort in the summer of 1863 both
to legalize the punishment of rebel guerrillas
and to curb the excesses of overzealous Union
field commanders. Halleck asked German-
born Francis Lieber, a professor of political
philosophy at New York’s Columbia College,
to provide the Army with legal definitions
of the variety of guerrillas and ethical guide-
lines for handling them. Lieber, who had sons
fighting in both the Union and Confederate
armies, eventually produced two documents,
one dealing specifically with guerrillas, the
other aimed more broadly at the treatment of
noncombatants. Both sets of guidelines were
distributed to the Army. The latter, known
as the Lieber Code, became the basis for
worldwide legal restrictions on the conduct
of warfare for a century thereafter.
The same month that Halleck issued
Lieber’s code to his armies, Lincoln respond-
Prologue 23
ed to a crisis in the Trans-Mississippi by
endorsing the most repressive U.S. military
measure of the war against Southern civilians.
At dawn on August 21, 1863, William C.
Quantrill, the war’s most notorious guerrilla
chieftain, led a raid on Lawrence, Kansas. By
mid-morning, his hardened band had burned
and looted most of the town and murdered
at least 150 men and boys. Gen. Thomas
Ewing, Jr., the Union commander respon-
sible for the security of the Kansas-Missouri
border, retaliated by expelling nearly all civil-
ians—loyal as well as disloyal—from three
Missouri counties and part of a fourth. The
order uprooted thousands of people from the
heart of Quantrill’s domain and produced
untold hardship, but Northern military and
political leaders thought it necessary. Gen.
John Schofield, Ewing’s department com-
mander, approved the drastic policy, as did
Halleck, Stanton, and Lincoln.
Lincoln’s climactic confrontation with the
guerrilla war came in the summer of 1864.
Believing he could not possibly be reelected
that autumn if rapid strides were not made
toward defeating the Confederacy, the
President kept a particular eye on the success
of his armies against rebel irregulars. No state
caused more concern than his own home of
Kentucky. Besides having known little respite
from guerrilla action, the Bluegrass State had
served as a springboard for guerrilla raids into
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. In the summer
of 1864, Gen. William T. Sherman, about
whom much could be said in telling the wid-
er story of the guerrilla war, demanded that
Gen. Stephen B. Burbridge, the department
commander in Kentucky, remedy the situa-
tion. Concerned primarily about the security
of his supply lines as he drove toward Atlanta,
Sherman ordered Burbridge to take drastic
steps to eliminate the “anarchy” in Kentucky.
Outlining a plan of action for the overly cau-
tious general, who was a native of the state,
Sherman reminded him that guerrillas were
“not soldiers but wild beasts unknown to the
usages of war.” Burbridge must arrest any
man or woman suspected of encouraging or
harboring guerrillas, Sherman insisted.
Burbridge did as he was told, and to won-
derful effect. He did not end the guerrilla war
24 Prologue
in Kentucky. Such notorious characters as
Jerome Clark (or “Sue Munday”) and Henry
C. Magruder continued to plague the state.
However, Burbridge did reduce the anarchy
substantially, enough to provide an illusion of
peace and security. In doing so, he had asked
the President for the power to impose eco-
nomic sanctions against guerrillas and their
supporters. Lincoln not only granted his re-
quest, essentially transferring that prerogative
from the civil government to the Army, but
he also urged Burbridge to act “promptly and
energetically” to arrest all “aiders and abettors
of rebellion and treason,” regardless of “rank
or sex.” In addition, Lincoln suspended ha-
beas corpus in the state, imposed martial law,
suspended the amnesty program in Kentucky,
and granted permission to arm employees
of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, the
state’s main artery, with repeating rifles to
ward off guerrilla attacks. Mindful of the po-
litical dimension of all this, he also sent the
Army’s judge advocate general, Joseph Holt,
a Kentucky native and close political ally, to
monitor the situation.
That same month, July 1864, Lincoln
signed one of the few pieces of U.S. congres-
sional legislation to deal with the guerrilla
war. The Shenandoah Valley had been an-
other key military target in the summer be-
fore the election, but events there had gone
badly for the Federals. Confederate general
Jubal A. Early, supported by rebel guerrillas
leaders John S. Mosby and John H. McNeill,
had completely flummoxed Union general
David Hunter, to the extent even of slip-
ping past Hunter’s army and threatening
Washington, D.C. Anticipating the arrival
of untold barbarian hordes, Congress quickly
passed and Lincoln signed “An act to provide
for the more speedy Punishment of Guerrilla
Marauders.”
Lincoln won reelection in 1864, but when
he died five months later, the war all but over,
the guerrilla conflict had still not spent itself.
The Union Army continued to track down,
capture, and occasionally accept the surrender
of rebel irregulars into October 1865. Indeed,
an argument could be made that a guerrilla
war against the United States continued in
parts of the South for another 12 years. As
white Southerners rallied to oppose the con-
gressional Reconstruction policy, paramilitary
organizations like the Ku Klux Klan oper-
ated against the Army and former Unionists,
whose ranks now included ex-slaves. How
Abraham Lincoln would have reacted to that
guerrilla war remains an open question. P
Note on Sources
The archival sources for this article are a com-
bination of personal writings (mostly letters and
diaries) by military and civilian participants in the
guerrilla war and governmental records. Essential
collections in the National Archives include court-
martial and civilian commission transcripts in
the Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate
General (Record Group [RG] 153); correspon-
dence to and from the U.S. and C.S. war depart-
ments (Records of the Office of the Secretary of
War [RG 107] and War Department Collection of
Confederate Records [RG 109], respectively); cor-
respondence, affidavits, and reports in the Union
provost marshal records (RG 109, and Records
of United States Army Continental Commands,
1821–1920 [RG 393]); and additional Union
Army records (RG 393). The governor and adju-
tant-general papers in the southern and midwest-
ern states are invaluable for understanding local
concerns.
The most important published government
documents, as for any Civil War topic, are the
U.S. War Department, War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union
and Confederate Armies, 128 vols. (Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 1880–1901),
and U.S. Navy Department, Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the
Rebellion, 35 vols. (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, 1894–1927). For a complete bib-
liography and the full story of the guerrilla war,
see Daniel E. Sutherland, A Savage Conflict: The
Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil
War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2009).
Author
Daniel E. Sutherland is professor of
history at the University of Arkansas
at Fayetteville. He is the author or
editor of 13 books about 19th-
century U.S. history, most recently A Savage Conflict: The
Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War.
Spring 2010
Above: The height of rebel guerrilla violence came with the raid on Lawrence, Kansas, by William C. Quantrill. Below: Union supply lines, especially railroads, were an
important target of rebel guerrillas.
 “A Reasonable Degree
of Promptitude”
civil war pension application processing,
1861–1885
By Claire Prechtel-Kluskens
he Civil War wrought monumental changes in many as-
T pects of American life, in both the North and the South,
that affect the nation’s social, economic, and political
character to this day.
The war not only strengthened the federal government,
it also made it bigger. One example is the veterans’ pension
system, which grew from a small government program to
one that for the first time affected hundreds of thousands
of families.
Before the rebellion, the cumulative number of persons
placed on the pension rolls had been relatively small—
25,000 Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary veterans
and widows. Twenty years after the war’s end there were
nearly 325,000 veterans, widows, and other dependents
26 Prologue
on the pension rolls, plus 20,000 War of 1812 veterans
and widows.
Researchers recognize the immense value of Civil War
pension files for genealogical and historical research, but few
are aware of the issues that faced the pension office. The best
sources of information are the annual reports of the com-
missioner of pensions, which were included by the secretary
of the interior in his annual report to Congress.
In 1860, the pension office had a stable workload. At the
end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1860, 11,284 pensioners on
the rolls received an aggregate of just over $1 million a year.
Since the workload had not changed much since the previ-
ous year, Commissioner George C. Whiting concluded on
November 16, 1860, “I am still of the opinion heretofore
Spring 2010

Above: James Heaton Baker served as commissioner of pensions
from 1871 to 1875 during the Grant administration. He had served
as colonel of the 10th Minnesota Infantry in the Civil War and then
as provost marshal general in Missouri. He was brevetted brigadier
general on March 13, 1865, for “faithful and meritorious services.”
Opposite: Gen. William T. Sherman (center front) poses with other
veterans, ca. 1884. Veterans’ groups were a potent political force that
repeatedly lobbied Congress to liberalize pension laws and awards.
expressed that the clerical force of the office may soon be
somewhat reduced.” By 1865, 2,688,523 men served under
Union orders, and the pension office grew accordingly. The
pension office workforce of 72 in 1859 would mushroom to
1,500 in 1885. Annual pension payment costs of $1 million
annually in 1860 ballooned to $36 million in 1885.
The outbreak of armed hostilities on April 12, 1861,
resulted in suspension of payments to pensioners living in
insurrectionary states, although some remained on the rolls
by transferring their names to pension payment agencies
in loyal states. Under an act of July 17, 1862, all persons
prosecuting claims with the government had to swear an
oath of allegiance; this law was still in effect in 1874 when
Commissioner J. H. Baker suggested its repeal. The pension
office suspended payments to those about whom “credible
and responsible information going to prove their active par-
ticipation or avowed sympathy with the southern insurrec-
tion” had been received.
“A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude”
civil war pension laws
Called “the most liberal pension law ever enacted by this
government” to that time, the pension act of July 14, 1862
(12 Stat. 566), increased pension rates and provided po-
tential eligibility for pensions to every person in military
or naval service since March 4, 1861, their widows and
orphans, and for dependent orphan sisters. Indeed, some
people feared the law would result in “an extravagant, if
not insupportable, annual burden,” even though it was “cer-
tainly no more liberal than simple justice demands toward
the armed defenders of the country in this day of trial.”
By November 15, 1862, 10,804 applications “on account
of the present war” had been received, but only 685 had
been granted because the pension process relied upon the
Adjutant General’s Office and the Navy Department to
confirm details of death or disability for each application.
Under pressure from veterans, Congress repeatedly modi-
fied pension laws to liberalize eligibility and increase pay-
ment rates. Between passage of an act of March 3, 1873 (17
Stat. 566), and June 30, 1874, the pension office reevaluated
30,000 claims of widows and children. An act of March 3,
1883, resulted in nearly 16,000 applications for increased
payments by June 30, 1883. The system was complex; in
1873, there were 88 different rates for Army pensions and
58 for Navy pensions. In 1882, there were 117 different
grades of pensions.
Minor variations in statutory language led to problems
of interpretation. The act of July 14, 1862, provided an $8
a month pension to private soldiers for “total disability”
for the performance of manual labor, while the act of June
6, 1866, provided a pension of $20 a month (increased to
$24 a month by the act of June 8, 1872) for a disability
incapacitating for the performance of “any manual labor.”
In 1874 Commissioner J. H. Baker explained that the words
“total disability” in the 1862 act “have been construed by
this Office to mean a total disability for the performance
of manual labor requiring severe and continuous exertion”
while the words “any manual labor” in the 1866 and 1872
acts “have been construed to include also the lighter kinds of
labor which require education and skill.” Baker believed that
this construction was “in accordance with the intention of
their framers; but, as it is difficult to draw a line of distinc-
tion between the two kinds of labor, there is to some extent
a conflict between the acts referred to, which renders their
execution difficult, and the decision of the Office thereunder
unsatisfactory to claimants.”
Another conundrum was the prohibition against pension
payments to “any person who in any manner aided or abet-
Prologue 27
ted the rebellion.” Some former Confederates
had subsequently joined the U.S. Army or
Navy but now found themselves unable to
obtain a pension for injuries received or dis-
ease contracted during their post–Civil War
military service. Also, volunteer officers and
privates received different pensions based on
rank as well as on disability, even though both
had “been drawn from and returned to the
same walks of civil life.” Commissioner W.
W. Dudley in 1882 suggested that men who
deserted after incurring a disability should
not forfeit their right to a pension, which
was not granted for meritorious service, but
as “payment for loss of physical ability to earn
a livelihood.” Although fewer in number,
claims related to veterans who were Native
American, imprisoned, insane, or residing in
a National Military Home also posed special
problems of various kinds.

medical examination
Some veterans returned home with tem-
porary disabilities. Commissioner Joseph H.
Barrett noted that “the number of soldiers
discharged on a certificate of disability is by
no means a measure of the number that are
entitled to receive invalid pensions” since dis-
ability for military service did not necessarily
mean the soldier was disabled from civilian
employment. Army and Navy medical officers
received no definite instructions on rating the
degree of disability of soldiers and seamen
to be discharged for injuries or disease. As
a result, in a study of 300 veterans consecu-
tively examined by William M. Chamberlain,
M.D., 10 percent had no current disability,
and the remaining 90 percent had disability
ranging from one-fourth to total, averaging
about two-thirds disabled.
While the 1862 act did not expressly define
disabled, the pension office continued to fol-
low the express language of the act of April 10,
1806 (2 Stat. 376) and the office’s established
precedents that disability was measured by the
veteran’s capacity “for procuring a subsistence
by manual labor”—not by whether he could
perform the particular kind of employment
he had before military service.

28 Prologue Spring 2010

 Most disabled pensioners were required to submit
to periodic examinations by physicians chosen by the
pension office. The doctors recorded their findings
and opinions on the front and back sides of this form,
the Surgeon’s Certificate.
Loss of limb or its extremity was always
rated as a total disability, but other types
proved more complex and troublesome to
rate. Was the disability permanent or tem-
porary? Incurable or treatable? An organic
or functional disease? “Superinduced” by
military service or “partly constitutional”?
An unavoidable result of climate, exposure,
or battle, or from carelessness or self-neglect?
(If from carelessness or self-neglect, disabil-
ity was not pensionable.) These complex
questions vexed the commissioner of pen-
sions, who at least three times requested that
Congress consider appointing a commission
of surgeons to prepare a scale of disabilities or
authorize the bureau to have its own supervis-
ing surgeon to wrestle with these details. He
eventually got his wish.
To ensure that veterans receiving pensions
remained entitled to them, the act of July 14,
1862, required invalids to submit to physical
examination every two years with a physician
chosen by the commissioner of pensions. An
act of July 4, 1864 (13 Stat. 387), authorized
special examinations of enrolled pensioners,
“as justice might seem to require,” resulting in
annual or semiannual examinations of some
pensioners “in cases of manifestly temporary
and variable disability.” Congress left the
number and locations of these civilian phy-
sicians to the discretion of the commissioner,
and 172 civilian doctors were appointed by
November 15, 1862, in those places “where
the convenience of applicants seemed to re-
quire such an officer.” As the number of vet-
erans needing examination grew, so did the
number of physicians appointed, from 172
in 1862 to 1,578 in 1877. Totally disabled
veterans were not required to go to biennial
examinations.
Ensuring that competent and scrupulous
physicians and surgeons did examinations
was an important concern. In most coun-
ties, a single physician conducted the ex-
amination; in larger cities, boards of three or

“A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude” Prologue 29

more physicians were established, with the
requirement that at least two of them jointly
conduct the examination. In 1882–1883,
the pension office changed the system so
that a board “of three first-class physicians
and surgeons” jointly conducted all exami-
nations. Although the cost of paying three
doctors $2 each was greater than paying a
single examining doctor, the more accurate
results saved the government money. Boards
were geographically established so that no
claimant was required “to travel over 40 miles
to reach one by rail,” an important concern
since roads were unpaved.
These examinations could sometimes re-
sult in reductions in pension payments or
complete removal from the pension rolls.
In 1865, George S. Jones, M.D., and A. B.
Bancroft, M.D., examined 407 pensioners
on the Boston pension roll whose payments
totaled $29,596 annually. After their ex-
aminations, four pensioners were dropped,
“a few” received increases, and determina-
tions of decreased disability in many others
resulted in savings of $6,520 annually (about
22 percent).
By 1871, the commissioner established a
Medical Division “of competent surgeons”
within the pension office to “rigidly inspect
all returned [examination] certificates and
to correct and adjust all medical questions.”
Efforts to ensure that physicians knew what
was required resulted in “increased care in
conducting the examinations and in the
construction of the certificates of examina-
tion” so that, in 1873, only 5 percent had
to be returned for correction or greater de-
tail, down from 40 percent two years earlier.
But it remained a constant struggle to get
medical examinations—arguably the most
important part of the claims adjudication
process—properly done and documented.
Doctors were predisposed to favor claim-
ants to maintain community favor, and the
judgment calls were getting harder. By 1876,
claims had mutated from being for “disability
contracted in the service” to questions “of
sequels to disabilities incurred in service.” In
1883, a 22-person “Medical Department”
30 Prologue
Chronic disease and permanent physical injuries
troubled veterans for the rest of their lives. Here,
William McQuown, who had served in Co. E, 67
Pennsylvania Infantry, and Co. G, 1st Veterans Reserve
Corps, exhibits his deformed right arm and elbow in
a photograph taken October 31, 1889. He acquired
varicose veins in the Confederates’ Libby Prison
(Richmond), and in July 1864 his arm was broken
and right elbow knocked out of its socket when
he was thrown from a train that lurched forward
unexpectedly.
dealt with these “intricate medical problems
[that] are multiform and perplexing” and
performed work “astonishing in quality and
quantity.”
Two alternative systems were proposed but
not enacted. One idea was a system of physi-
cians employed “at an ample salary to enable
them to devote their entire attention to the
duties” of examining claimants and writing
examination certificates to the satisfaction
of the pension office. A second idea was to
require examinations only when necessary,
which Commissioner J. A. Bentley proposed
after experiencing the difficulties of the first
biennial examination of his tenure (1877),
since it was clear that the survivors of the
war, whose average age was 41, would not,
due to their “advanced years,” experience less more than two months before a final deci-
disability than they now had. sion. Some cases languished due to “the in-
attention of applicants or their attorneys to
legal formalities essential requirements distinctly made known
As early as 1862, some people were un- to them” or because the pension office was
der “erroneous impressions” that there were waiting for other government departments to
“serious obstacles, and the interposition of provide necessary record evidence of service,
needless and burdensome formalities, in the death, or disability. In 1871 Commissioner
prosecution of a just claim for a pension.” On Barrett noted the “general policy” was “lib-
the contrary, the commissioner believed that eral construction” of the “manifest letter and
any claimant of ordinary intelligence spirit” of the pension laws without any “un-
and education can on applying directly reasonable or unwarrantable” requirements
to this office for forms and instructions yet “exacting a rigid compliance with such
suited to the particular case, establish his rules and regulations as are deemed essential
claim, and secure its prompt adminis- to guard against the admission of fraudulent
tration, without any other aid than that or improper claims.”
which will readily be given him by the Then, as now, claimants wanted swift ac-
magistrate before whom his declaration tion on their claims. Despite the “reasonable
is to be executed. Nothing is required degree of promptitude” with which the pen-
of the claimant which is not necessary sion office dealt with claims, “one of the prin-
and, in most instances, conveniently cipal sources of complaint” was the “failure
obtainable. to answer promptly letters of inquiry.” It was
In 1863, he noted that decisions on claims a perception problem because “the greater
with complete evidence would not be delayed number of claimants for pension are persons
Spring 2010
Beginning in 1881, Special Examiners investigating questionable claims gave the pension applicant a written service became more difficult due to “death
notice, such as this one to John W. Moore, that testimony would be taken regarding those claims.
and removal of witnesses by whom the facts . . .
who have but little idea of the extent of the day) responding to inquiries. (Postage was 3 could have been proved, [and] the difficulty
operations of the Government, and conse- cents per 1/2 ounce to U.S. addresses.) Even of obtaining evidence in support of claims.”
quently, the time necessarily consumed in with all this activity, some claims lingered Commissioner Baker noted that “a large pro-
attending to their demands appears to them unresolved for years due to difficulties in portion of cases presented in recent years re-
unreasonable delay.” During the fiscal year obtaining evidence. Of the 1,651 pension main unestablished” because, “although dis-
ended June 30, 1875, the bureau received applications filed before July 1862, fewer ability arising from obscure disease may have
24,494 pension claims, 51,000 reports from than half—721—were approved before July had its origin in the service, yet there being
the War Department about soldiers’ service 1865; another 126 were approved during no medical or other record of its existence . . .
and hospital treatment, 15,600 communica- 1866–1875; and another 204 were approved as they were not under medical treatment for
tions from other government departments, during 1876–1885. (The remaining 600 had the same for a considerable period after the
and 81,000 pieces of additional evidence been disapproved, abandoned, or remained date of discharge.” Moreover, “the difficulty
from other sources. The pension office used pending.) of rendering a just decision” was complicated
nearly $23,000 in postage (almost $74 a Over time, proving disability from military by “habits of applicants since the date of dis-

“A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude” Prologue 31

charge [that] are productive of disease.”
The pension office could allow a widow’s
pension based on evidence of cohabitation
but, ironically, could not legally terminate
a widow’s pension because of cohabitation.
Because marriage records had been created
haphazardly in many places, or not at all, pen-
sion office custom was “to accept evidence of
cohabitation and general recognition as hus-
band and wife, as sufficient proof of marriage
to entitle to pension in cases where it is clearly
shown that more satisfactory proof cannot
be furnished.” The pension files are replete
with affidavits of persons who may not have
witnessed the marriage ceremony but who
could testify that John Doe and Mary Doe
held themselves out as being husband and
wife and were so accepted in the community.
On the flip side, since remarriage meant the
loss of a widow’s pension, some “widows, in
increasing numbers, cohabit without marriage
. . . for fear of losing their pensions thereby,”
while others “openly live in prostitution for
the same object.” Thus the government was
placed in “in the strange attitude of offering a
premium upon immorality, of which it should
be relieved.” In the 1870s this “condition of
lewdness destructive of good morals” was still
rampant, but the pension office remained le-
gally powerless to end a pension by declaring
the cohabitation a remarriage.
special investigations
When government gives away money,
some people hope to benefit by fraudulent
means. Pension office policy was “to detect,
in advance, any intended frauds, so far as
possible,” and to promptly prosecute those
who committed fraud despite its vigilance.
Commissioner Christopher C. Cox acknowl-
edged in 1868 that “impositions are daily
practiced upon this bureau” despite its best
efforts at detection. Clerks investigated cases
of reported fraud, a “much sought for” assign-
ment, for it was “customary to intrust this
work to those who while on leave of absence
desire to defray the expenses of the journey by
some official occupation in via.” Thus clerks
conducted compensated government busi-
32 Prologue
ness in the middle of personal travel.
The work of the “special service,” as it was
often called, saved money. In 1873, for in-
stance, focus on “cases of suspected fraud,
where pension has already been allowed,”
resulted in “direct saving to the Treasury . . .
many times greater than the sum expended in
maintaining it” in addition to indirect savings
through deterrence of other potential offend-
ers. In 1874, 411 pensioners were dropped
whose claims had “had been established
through intentional violations of law” at an
annual savings of $41,525. Other special
agents were assigned to investigate pending
claims; in 1874, those agents recommended
rejecting 133 claims that probably would
have been allowed, saving $61,660. In 1878,
Commissioner Bentley bemoaned his lack of
authority “to go out and hunt for fraud” since
he was statutorily limited to investigate “only
as suspicion attaches . . . in the usual routine
of the office.”
On July 15, 1881, the Pension Office
changed the manner of conducting special
examinations. Before that date, special ex-
aminers obtained evidence without claimants
being notified or present to hear testimony
by others. Under the new quasi-judicial sys-
tem, examiners worked their cases “from the
ground up” as claimants were notified of a
hearing scheduled at their own home and
given opportunity to testify and to present
witnesses on their behalf. Testimony was re-
corded in the form of a narrative affidavit
made under oath. The new system was “con-
ducive to the establishment of a good feeling
between claimants and the Pension Office.”
During the 1883 fiscal year, 240 special ex-
aminers completed 6,290 investigations.
Two cases investigated by special examiners
show the breadth of their work. On, May 3,
1880, 75-year-old Mercy Ives of Denmark
Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio, finally
applied for a mother’s pension. Her claim that
she had been dependent upon son Harrison
P. Ives rang hollow due to the 15 years that
had passed between his wartime death and
her application. Special Examiner Joseph M.
McCoy took testimony from Mercy and oth-
Widows used a variety of evidence to prove their
lawful marriage to a deceased veteran, including
records from the files of local governments or
churches, testimony of witnesses, or family records.
This certified copy of the marriage record held by the
Jefferson County Court (Kentucky) was submitted
by the widow Anna Moore to prove her marriage to
veteran John W. Moore.
ers in July 1889 and concluded that Mercy’s
husband, Giles, who was still living, “has
been in comfortable circumstances all his life
and the idea of the claimant [Mercy] being
dependent on the soldier [Harrison] is not
entertained seriously in their neighborhood.”
Even after the death of another son, Lewis,
in 1873, “they were not cramped even then.”
The pension application was denied.
John W. Moore, a pensioner based on a
hernia caused by military service, later re-
quested an increase due to foot problems.
To determine the merit of this additional
claim, three separate special examiners went
to Indiana (Moore’s home), Kentucky (his
original home), and Nebraska (where one
comrade-in-arms lived) to take testimony
regarding whether Moore had developed
corns and bunions on his feet during mili-
tary service near Vicksburg, Mississippi. The
Nebraska special examiner, H. J. Brown,
concluded there was no merit to the claim
and that it should be denied “without further
expense to the Government.”
In 1871, Commissioner Baker suggested
that he be authorized to publish a list of pen-
Spring 2010
sioners so that each “would have to confront Despite the “urgency” originally declared in only upon the highest testimonials” from
his neighbors and the public as to his right 1862, the system remained in place for de- members of Congress and others. But once
to a pension” since invariably “suggestions cades. The number of agencies was reduced they left home, family, and friends and began
leading to the detection of fraudulent pen- from 58 to 18 in 1877. living in Washington, D.C., they discovered
sions” reached Washington from neighbors pension office that “they are accumulating nothing, but
in “the vicinity of the pensioner’s residence.” employees and buildings are actually worse off than those associates
This list was finally published in five volumes By 1866, pension office employees were left at home to pursue private vocations.”
as the List of Pensioners on the Roll, January already busy enough to be considered over- In 1871, Commissioner Baker noted that
1, 1883 (Washington: Government Printing worked and underpaid. Pension office clerks the workload had been “largely increased by
Office, 1883). held positions “eagerly sought, and secured new legislation, repeated modification of old
acts, necessary changes in the ruling resulting
payment
“A simpler system is urgently demanded,”
noted Commissioner Barrett in 1862. Under
the existing system a pensioner obtained his
semiannual payment from the designated
pension agent; there were 58 by 1871. If the
pensioner could not travel to the agent, he
could designate an attorney-in-fact to collect
the pension for him. This designee could be
a relative but more often was an enterprising
person who charged a fee for the service. In
1865 the commissioner again found himself
lamenting the exorbitant charge of $2 to $5
charged by intermediaries for their services,
“who, availing themselves of the ignorance
of the pensioner” create the impression that
“their services are indispensable to their
clients” despite the reality that free blanks,
“furnished, without expense, to all pensioners
who desire them,” could be “readily made out
by any intelligent person who can read and
write, requiring only the expense of fees for
administering the oaths required.” The pen-
sion office solved part of the problem in 1865
by requiring those who lived near payment
agencies to present themselves in person, but
the overall system required improvement.
Commissioner Barrett’s November 1864
report concluded that “there is apparently
general satisfaction with the present orga-
nization for the disbursement of pensions.”
In each file, an action sheet records the pertinent
facts and current status of the case file for efficient
handling the next time. This action sheet shows that
John W. Moore’s original pension declaration was
made on April 28, 1879, and that his current claim for
right inguinal hernia was recommended for admission
at $4 per month by pension examiner C. W.  Keyes
on April 8, 1882, approved by reviewer M. S. Roberts
on April 19, 1882, and approved by medical referee
John W. Rawlins on April 25, 1882.

“A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude”

therefrom, and . . . many of the claims now Pension clerks at work in the Pension Office Building ca. 1900. Each trifolded bundle is one pension claim.
pending are old and difficult, requiring more By 1885, the Pension Office employed 1,500 persons, including many women. Hiring decisions gave preference
to veterans and their widows and children.
time and care to establish or reject.” Over
the years, pension commissioners repeatedly
Number of U.S. Military Pensioners, 1861–1885
asked Congress for modest increases in staff
and increased pay rates, especially for key Year Army Invalids Navy Invalids Widows Etc.* Total
“clerks” (division heads) to place them on par 1861 4,723 427 2,766 7,916
with those performing similar duties at other 1862 3,878 421 1,968 6,267
agencies. Hiring decisions gave preference to 1863 7,248 544 5,397 13,189
veterans and to their widows and children. 1864 22,767 712 26,226 49,705
At the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1881, 1865 35,041 839 48,989 84,869
there were 784 pension office employees an- 1866 54,620 1,032 70,138 125,790
nually earning $931,350. Congress chose to 1867 70,802 1,054 82,621 154,477
1868 74,682 1,175 92,797 168,654
appropriate only $794,630 for salaries for
1869 81,579 1,280 105,104 187,963
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1881, which
1870 86,187 1,334 111,165 198,686
“made necessary a very large reduction of the
1871 91,290 1,377 114,101 206,768
force, already too small to keep up with the
1872 95,405 1,449 115,248 212,102
increasing annual influx of cases.” The reduc-
1873 99,804 1,430 113,858 215,092
tions in force, including the loss of “many ef-
1874 102,457 1,551 109,301 213,309
ficient men,” plus reductions in salary, “were
1875 105,478 1,636 106,669 213,783
soon and disastrously felt in the work of the
1876 108,390 1,643 102,911 212,944
office.”
1877 114,199 1,722 98,772 214,693
On July 2, 1881, President Garfield was
1878 119,461 1,781 88,624 209,866
assassinated. His long fluctuation between
1879 125,150 1,844 82,946 209,940
life and death, his funeral, and the inevitable
1880 132,924 2,060 80,616 215,600
distractions of a new presidential adminis-
1881 153,025 2,187 78,691 233,903
tration cost “the whole force” two months
1882 173,138 2,361 78,403 253,902
of work. Finally, about November 1, the
1883 198,643 2,468 76,280 277,391
reduced staff returned to its previously ef-
1884 218,956 2,616 77,774 299,346
ficient pace of work. The reduction was tem-
1885 241,456 2,745 80,767 324,968
porary; the staff grew to 1,500 employees by
June 30, 1885. * Includes dependent minor children under age 16, fathers, mothers, and sisters.

34 Prologue Spring 2010


Designed by Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs and constructed during 1882–1887 with over 15
million red bricks, the Pension Building was at one time the largest brick building in the world. Its impressive
Great Hall houses massive Corinthian columns that are among the tallest interior columns in the world.
In 1868, working conditions were rather
pitiful. The rooms in which clerks worked
were too crowded to efficiently conduct gov-
ernment business and unsanitary enough to
be blamed, in part, for “a number of deaths
from typhoid fever [that] have occurred in
the department within a few months.” In
1875, Commissioner H. M. Atkinson noted
he had the same objections to the continued
use of Seaton House and other nearby build-
ings as his predecessors. Pending claims files
were stored on the ground floor in the hope
that they could be extracted in case of fire.
But files of approved claims had to remain
elsewhere in the building. “In the event of
destruction of the building by fire, but a small
portion, if any, of them could probably be
removed,” judged Commissioner Atkinson.
He soberly concluded that the “destruction
of the valuable records of the Bureau would
be equally disastrous to the Government” as
it would be to claimants. Congress was again
“urged to provide for a building better adapt-
ed for the purposes of a public office.”
By September 15, 1876, thanks to Congress,
the pension office was able to lease “a better
building for an office.” However, accom-
modations at the “Old Kirkwood House” at
12th Street, NW, and Pennsylvania Avenue,
and the “Eagle Building” at 13th Street, NW,
and Pennsylvania Avenue, were still crowded
and not fireproof. Site work for a new pen-
sion building finally began on November 2,
1882, covering the entire block bounded by
Fourth and Fifth Streets, NW, and F and G
“A Reasonable Degree of Promptitude”
Streets, NW. By December 1885, the entire
workforce and all its voluminous records were
housed under one roof for the first time in
years. By September 3, 1887, $886 million
had been spent on this magnificent build-
ing, which today serves as the home of the
National Building Museum.
Military forces begin to stand down at the
cessation of armed hostilities, but a war’s ef-
fects do not end until the last veteran enters
the bivouac of the dead. Instead, war’s end
signals the ramping up of civilian services for
veterans. After the Civil War, the pension of-
fice expanded to handle the unprecedented
4,000-percent growth in its caseload from
1861 to 1885. It devised better policies and
procedures by which to fairly evaluate the
complex and evolving medical claims of
Union veterans as well as the marriage claims
of widows and the relationship and depen-
dency claims of other family members. The
requirement to submit adequate evidence and
records to prove claims was not insisted upon
to glorify the bureaucratic process, but to at-
tempt to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars were
not fraudulently or wastefully expended. P
Washington, D.C. She specializes in records of high
genealogical value and writes and lectures frequently.
Note on Sources
This article uses the generic term “pension office”
to describe the government agency that handled
veterans’ claims. The official agency name changed
many times, and has been called the Department of
Veterans Affairs since March 15, 1989.
Quotations in this article are mainly taken from
the annual reports of the commissioners of pen-
sions. The year mentioned in text matches the year
of the annual report. These reports were published
in the U.S. Congressional Serial Set. Statistical
data in annual reports pertain to the fiscal year
ending June 30. However, since they were fre-
quently written several months into the new fiscal
year (October or November), the commissioner’s
commentary frequently includes information
about the new fiscal year.
Statistics on the size of the pension office work-
force are from the Official Register of the United States,
Containing a List of Officers and Employés in the Civil,
Military, and Naval Service for the appropriate year.
The numbers of pensioners given in the first para-
graph understate the total number who had received
pensions to 1885, since some pensioners had been
dropped from the rolls for various reasons. There were
also many “dead” files, which claimants had aban-
doned. More claimants were yet to come; in 1882,
there were still 1 million living Union Civil War veter-
ans for whom no pension file had yet been created.
Complete rosters of the civilian doctors who con-
ducted medical examinations for the pension office
are provided in the 1863 to 1870 and 1872 to 1875
reports. The 1870 report included facsimiles of the
forms and instructions given to them.
The two cases of denied claims cited are docu-
mented in Report by Special Examiner Joseph M.
McCoy, July 21, 1889, in Harrison P. Ives (mother,
Mercy Ives), private, Co. E, 39th Ohio Infantry;
Civil War Pension File MO 264599; and Report
by Special Examiner H. J. Brown, Nov. 5, 1886, in
John W. Moore (widow Anna Moore), Private, Co.
I, 19th Kentucky Infantry; Civil War Pension File
WC 708353, both in Records of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15, National Archives
Building, Washington, DC.
For another examination of the pension office
during this period, see John William Oliver, History of
the Civil War Military Pensions, 1861–1885 (Bulletin
of the University of Wisconsin No. 844) (Madison,
WI: 1917).
Author
Claire Prechtel-Kluskens is a proj-
ects archivist in the Research Support
Branch of the National Archives
and Records Administration in
Prologue 35
Discovering the Civil War
A New Exhibit from the National Archives
By Bruce Bustard
By Bruce Bustard

Above: President Lincoln was well over the age to be eligible for the Civil War draft, but he
sponsored a soldier, 19-year-old J. Summerfield Staples from Pennsylvania, through a program
known as “representative recruits.” Staples has come to be known as Lincoln’s “substitute.”
Opposite, top: Civilians from both sides became refugees when they were forced to leave their
homes behind in the wake of the war. Opposite, bottom: In 1862 Louis Joubert patented this
multipurpose device that could serve as a tent, knapsack, or litter.
Discovering the Civil War
I
t ended almost 150 years ago, but Americans still
discuss, debate, and disagree about the Civil War. No
one alive today lived during this momentous con-
flict. Time and myth have filtered our views of the war.
So how do we know what happened?
Very often, we find answers and stories in records left by
the participants themselves. Much of this evidence—let-
ters, orders, maps, telegrams, photographs, and broad-
sides—is preserved in the National Archives.
“Discovering the Civil War,” a new exhibit that will
open April 30 at the National Archives in Washington,
D.C., takes a fresh look at the conflict through little-
known stories, seldom-seen documents, and unusual
perspectives. The exhibit invites visitors to consider and
ask questions about the evidence found in the records,
listen to a wide variety of voices from the Civil War era,
and make up their own minds about the struggle that tore
apart these United States.
The exhibit’s title, “Discovering the Civil War,” reflects
a belief that Civil War stories are constantly being uncov-
ered and reexamined and that, more often than not, the
records in the National Archives are at the center of these
new questions and answers.
The new exhibit will feature original and facsimile Civil
War documents in what will be the most extensive display
ever assembled from the National Archives’ incomparable
Civil War holdings, and it will invite people of all ages to
explore records usually seen only by historians. Displayed
alongside famous milestone documents such as Robert E.
Lee’s resignation from the U.S. Army and telegrams be-
tween President Lincoln and his generals will be hundreds
of less well-known ones, such as the unratified 1861 ver-
sion of the 13th amendment, a message from a Southern
governor rejecting Lincoln’s call for troops to put down
the rebellion, and the Constitution of the Confederacy.
“Discovering the Civil War” is also about re-discovering
a familiar subject. It attempts—in the words of historian
Edward L. Ayres—to “make the Civil War strange again”
for both the buff and novice. Included in the exhibit will
be unique discovery documents such as a hand-altered
federal court record in which a “foreign born” citizen
from New York petitions for Confederate citizenship.
Across the top of the page, the word “United” is crossed
out and “Confederate States of America is written in.
Also included will be patent drawings for a variety of de­
vices ranging from tents to weapons to artificial limbs. A
Chinese-language message from Prince Kung stating that
Confederate ships will not be allowed to enter Chinese
Prologue 37

ports will make the point that the Civil War was in a real
sense, a global war.
Finally, exciting interactive experiences will attempt to
bring the Civil War into the 21st century. Visitors will
use a social media–like device that will demonstrate the
38 Prologue
Top: When the Civil War began, Raphael Semmes was an officer in the
U.S. Navy. He resigned and offered his services to the Confederacy,
where he commanded the Confederate raiders CSS Florida and CSS
Alabama. Late in the war, Semmes was appointed a brigadier general
in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States. Above: In 1861,
Benjamin Bennett, “a native of New York” living in the South, suddenly
found himself an alien. He went to the District Court of Alabama
to change his legal status. On this form he declared his intention to
become a Confederate citizen and to “renounce . . . all allegiance and
fidelity to . . . the government of the United States.” Left This drummer
was one of thousands of young boys who served in the Union Army.
strong pre-war relationships among Northern and Southern
military leaders. A “word cloud”—a visual depiction of a
document’s content—will be the entry into an exploration
of an intriguing list of men who served as substitutes for
others drafted into the Union Army. Visitors will also be
Spring 2010
This impassioned 1861 broadside was issued in Augusta County, Virginia, by
Michael G. Harman—a wealthy hotel owner, planter, and slaveholder. He was also
quartermaster and chief recruiter for western Virginia. Many volunteers from
Augusta County formed the 52nd Virginia Infantry, which participated in several
battles including Seven Days and Cold Harbor in Virginia and Gettysburg.

Discovering the Civil War Prologue 39

40 Prologue Spring 2010
able to follow the story of Confederate raider Alabama and
its sinking by the USS Kearsarge while they create a graphic
novel depicting this story. The discovery continues beyond
the walls of the exhibit with a downloadable web-based app
to use a secret code from the Civil War.
In Washington, D.C., “Discovering the Civil War” will be
shown in two parts. Part one: “Beginnings,” will run from
April 30, 2010, through September 6, 2010, in the Lawrence
F. O’Brien Gallery in the National Archives Building. Part
two: “Consequences,” will open in the O’Brien Gallery on
November 10, 2010. After its Washington venue closes on
April 17, 2011, the two parts of “Discovering the Civil War”
will be combined and travel to up to eight additional venues
around the country beginning in June 2011. P
Author
Bruce Bustard is senior curator in the Center for the
National Archives Experience at the National Archives
in Washington, D.C. He was the lead researcher and
writer for “Discovering the Civil War.”

Opposite: The U.S. Navy used the threat of the draft and the possibility of prize money to encourage men to enlist. Above: Union sailors pose on
the deck of a monitor.  Below: The Corps d’Afrique, at Port Hudson, Louisiana, ca. 1864.
 “I have the honor to tender the
by trevor k. plante

M any southern-born U.S. Army officers waited until their native states voted to secede from the Union before tendering
their resignations. In some cases northern-born officers resigned their commissions and went south and southern-born
officers stayed true to the Union. The most famous cases are fellow Virginians Winfield Scott and George H. Thomas,
who both remained with the Union, and John C. Pemberton, who although born in Philadelphia, joined the Confederacy.
In June of 1860 the U.S. Army had approximately 1,080 officers and 14,926 enlisted men. Of the 1,080 active Army officers,
286 resigned or were dismissed to enter Confederate service in 1861. Approximately 26 enlisted men violated their oaths and went
south. There were 824 West Point graduates on the active list of Army officers. Of that number, 184 West Point graduates were
among the 286 officers who offered their services to the Confederacy.
In December of 1860 there were 1,554 officers serving in the U.S. Navy. In 1861, 373 of these officers resigned. Of that number
157 were dismissed from the Navy. Approximately 311 became commissioned or warrant officers in the C.S. Navy. In early 1861,
the United States Marine Corps had 1,775, men, including 63 officers. Nineteen of these officers tendered their resignations to
join the Confederate States Marine Corps.
Several years ago, while on a vault tour at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., the daughter of the Vice President
of the United States asked, after being shown Robert E. Lee’s resignation from the U.S. Army, why we chose to keep just that one.
We responded that we have hundreds of resignations from officers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and those of cadets at West
Point and Annapolis.
What follows are several examples of some of these resignations, some from famous officers, and some not. Many went on to
become famous while fighting for the Confederacy.
Additional letters of resignation are featured in the new exhibit “Discovering the Civil War,” at the National Archives in
Washington, D.C., starting April 30, 2010.

Capt. P.G.T. Beauregard,

U.S. Army
Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard was born
in Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana, on May 28,
1818. He graduated second in his class at
West Point in 1838. During the Mexican War,
he served as an engineer officer on the staff of
Gen. Winfield Scott and was honored several
times for gallantry.
Beauregard was assigned as the Superintendant
of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on January 23, 1861, and then
relieved a few days later on January 28. He wrote to the adjutant general
from New Orleans on February 9, 1861,“having ascertained positively on my
arrival here that Louisiana, my native State, has withdrawn from the Union
and resumed her State Sovereignty I tender to the President of the United
States my resignation from the Army to take effect on the 1st [proximo] or
sooner if practicable.” His resignation was accepted on February 20, 1861.
He was commissioned a brigadier general in the Confederate army on March
1, 1861.The following month, while commanding forces at Charleston, South
Carolina, he ordered the bombardment of Fort Sumter, thus starting the
American Civil War. He was promoted to full general following the battle
of Bull Run (First Manassas). Throughout the Civil War, Beauregard clashed
with his superiors. His Confederate career was highlighted by strong perfor-
mances at the Battle of Shiloh following the death of Albert Sidney Johnston
and during Ulysses S. Grant’s advance on Petersburg,Virginia, in June of 1864.
He was paroled at Greensboro, North Carolina, on May 2, 1865.

42 Prologue
resignation . . .” Col. Robert E. Lee, U.S. Army
Probably the most famous resignation
from the U.S. Army in the holdings of
the National Archives is that of Robert
E. Lee. Recently promoted to colonel
of the First U.S. Cavalry, Lee resigned
soon after the state of Virginia voted to
secede from the Union.
On April 20, 1861, Lee wrote two letters,
both from his home in Arlington,Virginia.
One letter was his resignation from the Army addressed to Secretary
of War Simon Cameron, in which Lee simply wrote, “I have the honor
to tender the resignation of my commission as Colonel of the 1st Regt
of Cavalry.” There was no reason given, and no explanation provided.
The second letter was addressed to Gen. Winfield Scott, commander-
in-chief of the Army. This letter was lengthier than the previous
correspondence, for Lee had a lifelong relationship with General Scott,
one he did not share with the secretary of war. After informing Scott
that he was tendering his resignation from “a service to which I have
devoted all the best years of my life and all the ability I possessed,” he
let his feelings for the aging general be known: “To no one, General,
have I been as much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and
consideration, and it has always been my ardent desire to meet your
approbation. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections
of your kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be
dear to me.”
The most quoted line from his letter followed next: “Save in defence of
my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.” Lee went on
to become famous as the leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, held
in high esteem, not only during the American Civil War, but throughout
military history.

Commander Raphael
Semmes, U.S. Navy
Raphael Semmes, born in Charles County,
Maryland, in 1809, joined the Navy as a
midshipman in 1826 and rose to the rank
of commander in September of 1855.
Semmes submitted his resignation to
Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey
on February 15, 1861. After beginning
the letter respectfully tendering his
resignation, Semmes explains, “In severing my connection with the
government of the United States, and with the Department over which
you preside, I pray you to accept my thanks, for the kindness which has
characterized your official deportment towards me.”
After resigning his commission, Semmes joined the Confederate navy
and was commissioned a commander on March 26, 1861. He was later
promoted to captain and rear admiral. He commanded the C.S.S Sumter
from 1861 to 1862 and C.S.S. Alabama from 1862 to 1864. He is most
renowned for the famous duel between the Alabama and the U.S.S.
Kearsage off Cherbourg, France, on June 19, 1864. He later assumed
command of the James River Squadron and the Semmes naval brigade.
He was paroled at Greensboro, North Carolina,  April 28, 1865.

Prologue 43
 Cadet John A. West, U.S. Military Academy
John A.West began his quest of becoming a cadet at West Point by writing to
Georgia Congressman Alexander H. Stephens in February of 1856. Stephens
passed on the young man’s letter to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.
With a later recommendation from Congressman John Hill, representing
the Seventh District of Georgia, West inked his name on his confirmation
in Madison, Georgia, on February 9, 1858. He was granted his father’s
permission and soon became a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy.
On January 19, 1861, the state of Georgia seceded from the Union. On
February 22, Cadet West’s father, William L. West, writing from Madison,
Georgia, granted permission for his son to resign. Cadet West resigned
three days later.
Before West’s resignation made its way to the secretary of war’s desk,
the superintendant at West Point pointed out that the name of J. A.
West appeared in a newspaper amongst a list of officers appointed by
the governor of Georgia to man the first two regiments from that state.
However, the superintendant could not determine if the John A. West at
the academy was the same person being appointed a second lieutenant in
one of the Georgia regiments. “In this case I find the name of J.A. West, as
having been appointed a Second Lieutenant by the Governor of Georgia. I
have no means to ascertaining Cadet J. A. West to be the same person and
only recommend the acceptance of his resignation.” The name appeared on
a list in the U.S. Herald dated February 24 (referenced as from the “Federal
Union Extra”). His resignation was accepted by the secretary of war on
March 7, 1861.

Brig. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston,

U.S. Army
Joseph E. Johnston was born on February 3,
1807, near Farmville, Virginia. He was a class-
mate of Robert E. Lee at West Point, before
graduating in 1829. He was commissioned in
the U.S. Army and served in the Seminole and
Mexican Wars and rose through the ranks un-
til being appointed quartermaster general with
the rank of brigadier general on June 28, 1860.
Like many U.S.Army officers from the state of Virginia, Johnston did not offer
his resignation until after his native state voted to secede from the Union on
April 17, 1861. Johnston resigned five days later, on April 22. “With feelings
of deep regret, I respectfully tender the resignation of my commission in the
Army of the United States.” He does not provide a reason for his resignation
other than to state, “The feelings which impel me to this act are, I believe,
understood by the Hon. Secretary of War.”
The following month, Johnston was commissioned a brigadier general in the
regular army of the Confederacy and placed in charge of Harpers Ferry. He
was instrumental in the battle of First Manassas, and his performance led to
promotion to full general on August 31, 1861, and command of the Army
of Northern Virginia. He would hold this command until he was wounded
during the Peninsula Campaign at the Battle of Seven Pines on May 31, 1862,
Robert E. Lee then assumed that command.
After recuperating from his wounds, he returned to the Confederate army,
where he held a variety of departmental and army commands for the
remainder of the war. He surrendered his Army of Tennessee on April 26,
1865, in Greensboro, North Carolina.

44 Prologue Spring 2010

 First Lt. Ambrose Powell Hill,
U.S. Army
Ambrose Powell Hill was born in Culpeper,
Virginia, on November 9, 1825. He graduated
from West Point in 1847 and served in the
First U.S. Artillery.
Unlike many officers who hailed from Virginia,
Hill chose to resign his commission before the
state voted to secede from the Union in April.
Writing to the adjutant general from Washing-
ton, D.C., on February 26, 1861, Hill wrote, “I have the honor to request that
the date of the acceptance of the resignation of my commission as an officer
in the U.S. Army may be changed from the 31st to the 1st March 1861.” Back
in the early part of October 1860, Hill requested a six-month leave of ab-
sence along with permission to resign his commission at the expiration of his
leave. Hill took offense to the response from the adjutant general concerning
his request. The adjutant general wanted a resignation showing the effective
date immediately, presumably believing Hill was trying to do both in his initial
correspondence. Hill was hurt, for he planned on submitting a separate res-
ignation letter at the end of his leave. In his response to the adjutant dated
October 12, 1860, Hill stated “[I] hereby tender the resignation of my com-
mission as a First Lieutenant in the 1st Regt. of Artillery, United States Army,
to take effect on the 31st day of March 1861.” Later in the letter he states,
“I must again repeat that I have been deeply wounded by this unusual course
upon the part of the Dept, as I do not feel conscious of having deserved it.”
Hill soon joined the Confederacy as colonel of the 13th Virginia Infantry. He
was appointed brigadier general on February 26, 1862, and after a strong
performance during the Peninsula Campaign, was promoted to major general
in May of 1862. After conflicts arose between him and his commanding
officer, Maj. Gen. James Longstreet, Hill was placed under Stonewall Jackson’s
command. His troops soon became known as the “Light Division,” serving
ably at Cedar Mountain and saving the day for Lee’s army at Sharpsburg.
After the mortal wounding of Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville, Hill
temporarily took over command of the corps before being wounded and
passing the command on to J.E.B. Stuart. He was promoted to lieutenant
general from May 24, 1863, and placed in charge of the Army of Northern
Virginia’s newly formed Third Corps. He led his corps at the battle of
Gettysburg and during the overland campaign the following year. He spent
the remainder of 1864 and the spring of 1865 with Lee’s army in the lines of
Petersburg, where he was killed by a Union straggler on April 2, 1865.

Acting Midshipman Dabney M. Scales,

U.S. Naval Academy
With secession looming in early 1861, Southern parents started contacting
their sons at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. As each state seceded,
the demand for their sons to resign increased. While some left the decision
squarely in their sons’ hands, others expressed their wishes in no uncertain
terms. Because midshipmen needed a parent or guardian’s permission to resign,
many of these communications were submitted along with their resignations.
One father, communicating directly to the superintendant from Marshall
County, Mississippi, wrote on January 28, 1861, “The relation in which
Mississippi now places herself with the Federal Government of the U.S.
would seem to impose upon her executive chief the propriety at least, if
not his duty, of asking her sons at the Naval Academy at Annapolis and the
cadets she may have at West Point to resign their positions in each school
and return to their State allegiance . . . therefore give my son Dabney M.
Scales my consent that he should resign immediately. . . . And may God, and
His goodness, Wisdom & Mercy, so govern the destiny of my boy, that he
may never have cause to regret his allegiance to the Stars & Stripes now
severed by the secession of his State.” His son submitted his resignation on
February 13, 1861, stating, “The separation of my state [Mississippi] from
the Federal Union, in my opinion, makes it my duty, to forward to you my
resignation as an acting midshipman in the U.S. Navy.”

“I have the honor to tender the resignation . . .” Prologue 45

 Capt. George E. Pickett, U.S. Army
George E. Pickett was born in Richmond,
Virginia, on January 28, 1825. He graduated last
in his class from West Point in 1846. He was
commissioned in the U.S. Army and served in
several infantry regiments. He was cited twice
for gallantry in the Mexican War and was
later promoted to captain. He served in Texas
and in Washington Territory, where he gained
some notoriety for his part in the “Pig War” of
1859 involving the British and San Juan Island.
Writing to the adjutant general from Camp Pickett, San Juan Island,
Washington Territory, on June 20, 1861, Pickett stated, “I have the honor
to transmit through the [Head Quarters] of the Dept. of the Pacific my
Resignation as a Captain in the 9th Infy.”
Pickett entered the Confederate army as a colonel. By the fall of 1862, he had
risen to the rank of major general and was in command of a division in the
Army of Northern Virginia. He participated in the battle of Fredericksburg,
Virginia, and is most well known for the charge at Gettysburg that bears his
name. The charge took place the third day of the battle, on July 3, 1863, in
which his division took part in the large assault on the Union front.
Pickett went on to various commands and by war’s end was put in charge
of the Confederate right flank at Petersburg, Virginia. Pickett failed to hold
the flank when a larger force of Union cavalry and infantry attacked his
position at Five Forks on April 1, 1865. Pickett was at a shad bake with other
Confederate officers when the attack began. Robert E. Lee relieved Pickett
of his command during the retreat toward Appomattox.

Captain J.E.B. Stuart, U.S. Army

James Ewell Brown Stuart was born in Patrick
County, Virginia, on February 6, 1833, and
graduated from West Point in 1854. He served
in the First U.S. Cavalry and was with Robert
E. Lee at the capture of John Brown at Harpers
Ferry, Virginia, in October of 1859. He quickly
rose through the ranks and was promoted
to captain on April 22, 1861. Ironically, this
last promotion was made possible by the
departure of several Army officers above him
who had resigned to join the Confederacy.
The state of Virginia voted to secede from the Union in April. The following
month, Stuart wrote from Cairo, Illinois, to the adjutant general on May
3, 1861: “From a sense of duty to my native state (Va), I hereby resign my
position as an officer in the Army of the United States.”
He soon joined the Confederacy as colonel of the First Virginia Cavalry. He
fought in the battle of First Manassas and was later promoted to brigadier
general. During the Peninsula Campaign the following year, Lee ordered a
reconnaissance of McClellan’s right flank. Stuart proceeded to ride entirely
around McClellan’s entire army, a feat that gained him much attention and
fame. Stuart, a daring cavalry commander, was soon promoted to major
general and served as the commander of the Cavalry Division, and later
Cavalry Corps, of the Army of Northern Virginia. Besides his daring raids
and ride around McClellan, Stuart is most known for his failure to provide
Robert E. Lee proper intelligence during the Gettysburg campaign in 1863.
He arrived at Gettysburg after the battle had already commenced. The
following year, he was mortally wounded at Yellow Tavern on May 11, 1864,
while confronting Sheridan’s cavalry force outside Richmond. He died the
following day.

46 Prologue Spring 2010

 Maj. James Longstreet, U.S. Army
James Longstreet was born in South Carolina
on January 8, 1821. He graduated from
West Point in 1842 and served in the Indian
campaigns and the war with Mexico. He
rose through the ranks, and at the time of
his resignation in 1861, he was a major and
paymaster.
Writing to the paymaster general from
Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 9, 1861,
Longstreet simply states, “I have the honor to tender my resignation as
a Major and Paymaster in the Army of the United States.” Longstreet’s
resignation was received in the adjutant general’s office on June 1 and was
accepted the same day.
He was appointed a brigadier general in the Confederate army on June 17,
1861. He was promoted to the rank of major general on October 7, 1861,
and to lieutenant general on October 9, 1862. He served in the eastern
theater and participated in First Manassas, the Peninsula Campaign, and the
battles of Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, and Gettysburg. He
then went west to participate in the Battle of Chickamauga in September
of 1863. He returned to the eastern theater in time to participate in the
Battle of the Wilderness, where he was wounded on May 6, 1864. He was
part of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia that surrendered at Appomattox
Court House, April 9, 1865. Robert E. Lee referred to his capable corps
commander as “my old war horse.”

First Lt. John R.F. Tattnall, USMC

John Rogers Fenwick Tattnall, the son of Flag Officer Josiah Tattnall, was born
in 1829. He was commissioned a second lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, on
November 3, 1847, and was promoted to first lieutenant on February 22,
1857.
At the start of the Civil War, Tattnall was serving with the African Squadron
on board the San Jacinto. He submitted his resignation to Capt. Charles
Wilkes on October 7, 1861, requesting the commanding officer of the vessel
to receive it and forward to the Navy Department. Wilkes refused. He tried
again on November 3, and Wilkes again refused.
On November 19, in a letter addressed to Secretary of the Navy Gideon
Welles, he summed up his attempts to resign. On November 22, 1861,Welles
handled the matter quickly, in a letter to the commandant of the New York
Navy Yard: “transmitted herewith is the dismissal of First Lieutenant J.R.F.
Tatnall, U.S. Marine Corps. You will send this officer under a guard, to Fort
Warren in the Harbor of Boston there to be delivered to the Commandant
of that Post, as a Prisoner.”
On November 27, 1861, Tattnall was sent to Fort Warren as a prisoner.
He was exchanged on January 10, 1862, and released from Fort Warren
on January 13, 1862. He was then commissioned as a captain in the C.S.
Marine Corps later that month. He served at various times during the war
in the Confederate Provisional Army and an Alabama infantry regiment
before returning to the C.S. Marine Corps. He organized Company E of
the Marine Corps, and his company was later surrendered on April 28,
1865, at Greensboro, North Carolina, as part of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston’s
command.

Author
Trevor K. Plante is a reference archivist in the Textual
Archives Services Division at the National Archives and
Records Administration who specializes in 19th– and early
20th–century military records. He is an active lecturer at the
National Archives and a frequent contributor to Prologue.

“I have the honor to tender the resignation . . .” Prologue 47

 Ne w Book s Dr aw
Archives’ Holdings
75 th Anniversary
by Hilary Parkinson
One of the hundreds of images in Records of Our National Life documents the historic joining of the tracks for the first transcontinental railroad,
Promontory, Utah Territory, May 10, 1869.
O
f the hundreds of documents and artifacts span-
ning the life and breadth of the United States
in the new book Records of Our National Life,
Maureen MacDonald’s favorite is the death mask.
“I wanted the death mask of Walter Gresham,” said
MacDonald, who was the NARA project manager on
the book, produced recently by the Foundation for the
National Archives. “He was the first person to be laid out
in the East Room of the White House—there were con-
dolences from all over the world. And this is someone that
the 21st century has no knowledge of.” Secretary of State
Walter Q. Gresham died in office in 1895 and received a
military funeral. His plaster death mask, a letter of condo-
lence, and a telegram regarding his death can be seen on
page 120 of the new book. It’s a piece of history forgotten
by the public but held in safekeeping by the Archives.
It’s an unusual choice, but it’s not the only one made
48 Prologue
on
for
by MacDonald and the Foundation’s publications and re-
search manager Christina Gehring, along with editors Anne-
Catherine Fallen and Kevin Osborn of Research & Design,
Ltd. The National Archives has textual records that include
the Constitution and Confederate currency; maps, charts,
and architectural drawings that range from World War I
reconnaissance notes to maps of Iwo Jima; still photographs
including both portraits and battlefields by Mathew Brady;
and artifacts like the contents of Eleanor Roosevelt’s wallet.
But how to choose which records would represent historic
moments and places?
When Thora Colot was hired as executive director of the
Foundation for the National Archives in 2002, she began
looking for what she called “the great all-inclusive book that
represented the National Archives.” The last such book had
been created for the 50th anniversary in 1984, but it was
out of print. When the Foundation staff started planning for
Spring 2010
the 75th anniversary of the Archives in 2009,
they decided to create a new book.
This book, which would eventually become
Records of Our National Life, was envisioned
as a large coffee-table book, with photographs
of the records. “Kevin and Anne-Catherine’s
design concept was to fill the book with the
imagery of the records themselves,” Colot said.
In the final layout, the records dominate the
book. The records are reproduced so clearly
that even older documents, like John Adams’s
letter regarding his meeting with George III,
can be read. Text explaining the history and
significance of the records was placed sepa-
rately at the back. “They wanted the records
to speak for themselves, be the predominant
image, and tell the story,” she said.
New Books Draw on Archives’ Holdings for 75th Anniversary
MacDonald noted that there were some
guidelines. Every President for which the
Archives has a presidential library—13 in
total—has at least one full-page spread.
Twenty-two regional facilities had to be in-
cluded, along with the Federal Register. And
a variety of still, moving, cartographic, and
aerial images, even a born-digital record for
9/11, had to be represented.
It was easy to become overwhelmed. The
first draft was 450 pages of material rather
than the targeted (and final) 300.
It was a collaborative effort to complete the
book, with MacDonald and Gehring work-
ing with Fallen and Osborn, as well as with
National Archives staff and Foundation staff,
including senior editor Patty Reinert Mason,
who helped research and write the text. The
digital laboratory put aside time to scan docu-
ments and images. Objects like the death mask
and fragile documents had to be carefully
handled when they were taken out to be pho-
tographed. “It was a huge task for them, and
they were just wonderful,” said MacDonald.
Even those who work at the Archives may
be surprised by the content of the book.
“Working at the Archives, you sometimes get
the feeling you can’t be surprised anymore,”
said Gehring, “and then you discover great
stories that haven’t been told.”
Gehring was also the project manager on
The National Archives Building: Temple of
American History, another 2009 book pub-
lished by the Foundation.
Prologue 49
 For author Mason, the challenge was not
to choose from billions of records to tell the
story of a nation but how to tell the story of
the building that was meant to hold those
records—a story that included architect John
Russell Pope and President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt.
“There’s never really been a book specifi-
cally about the National Archives Building,”
says Mason. “It was Thora’s idea to produce
a small book you could walk around the
building with—part guidebook, part treasure
hunt—so visitors could refer to it while at the
building and then take home to read and keep
as a high-quality souvenir of their visit.”
Mason spent several months research-
ing and writing. She went to the National
50 Prologue
Archives at College Park, Maryland, for
maps and architectural drawings. A former
reporter, she normally prefers writing, but
this time she enjoyed digging through the
boxes for research. She also visited the ar-
chives at the National Gallery of Art, another
building that Pope designed. The file on Pope
had “interesting tidbits that helped pull the
story together,” said Mason. By the end of the
project, she felt she knew Pope’s work. “One
of the things I find impressive about John
Russell Pope was how he could conceive of a
building in its entirety down to the landscap-
ing and the pediments,” she said. “It really
turned out to be what he envisioned.”
Staff at the National Archives helped meet
Mason’s vision of the book. “Everyone was
very generous with their time and research,
which gave me a starting point,” she said.
Senior curator Bruce Bustard gave Mason
access to his files from an earlier exhibit on
the building, and staff archivist Rick Blondo
provided a tour of the building that took
them up through a crawlspace to look down
into the Rotunda.
The book features unusual views inside and
outside the building, captured by architec-
tural photographer Carol M. Highsmith as
well as by Colin Winterbottom, who took
pictures from scaffolding while the building
was being cleaned in 2008. These new images
offer a different perspective of the building:
the only other images from this angle were
taken during the original construction.
Spring 2010
 The building’s sculptural detail inspired
the unusual cover as well. The book is
small, and the entire front cover is a close-
up—from a Winterbottom photograph—of
a face embossed into heavy paper. It’s the
face of Destiny, the main figure seated in
the middle of the Pennsylvania Avenue
pediment.
“We chose Destiny because of the intensity
on his face,” said designer Lance Rutter, of
the Chicago firm Legendre+Rutter.
Rutter and partner Yann Legendre were
recruited by the Foundation to design the
book after they produced similar projects for
the French National Archives. “We felt they
were the perfect design team for this proj-
ect,” Colot said. “They were really inspired
New Books Draw on Archives’ Holdings for 75th Anniversary
Records of Our National Life is available in hardcover ($60) and softcover ($45).The
National Archives Building: Temple of American History is available in softcover only
($18.95). Both can be purchased online at http://estore.archives.gov.
To receive a catalog of the Foundation’s most recent titles about the National Archives,
contact Christina Gehring at 202-357-5279.
by the Archives, and that comes through in sual that I was trying to convey in the text,”
their work.” said Mason. On one set of pages, an image
The designers chose a font called Joanna, a of toppled records is mirrored on opposite
typeface by Eric Gill from 1930, the year Pope page by a quote about the need for a Federal
was hired to design the National Archives archives: the topsy-turvy letters reflect the
Building. The script is from an open source haphazard state of the records.
typeface called “Declaration Script” and is “It’s a beautiful and meaningful book,” says
based on the handwriting in the Declaration Gehring. “We hope people will use it to ex-
of Independence. plore the building while they are here and to
“They knew how to make something vi- learn more about the Archives itself.” P
Prologue 51
genealogy NOTES

Slavery and Emancipation

in the Nation’s Capital
Using Federal Records to Explore the Lives of African American Ancestors

Above left: African Am­
ericans celebrated the
passage of the D.C.
Emancipation Act of
April 16, 1862. Fed-
eral court documents
concerning that newly
granted freedom teach
us much about the lives
of African Americans
in that era. Above right:
A slave coffle in Wash-
ington, D.C., ca. 1862,
possibly marching to
auction. Antislavery ac-
tivists argued that such
scenes in the nation’s
capital disgraced the
nation as a whole and
its ideals. Opposite: In a
document with the cir-
cuit court, Alice Addi-
son and her family filed
for freedom under the
Emancipation Act, and
their masters, the Sof-
fells, filed for compen-
sation. The document
provides the names
and ages of the Addi-
son family members.
Slavery and Emancipation in the Nation’s Capital
By Damani Davis
O
n October 6, 1862, in the nation’s capital, two fami-
lies appeared before a federally appointed board
of commissioners that administered all business
relating to the April 16 Emancipation Act that abolished
slavery in the District of Columbia.1 Alice Addison, the
head of a formerly enslaved African American family, was
accompanied by her two adult daughters, Rachel and Mary
Ann, along with Mary Ann’s three children, George, Alice,
and James. The other family, their former white owners, was
headed by Teresa Soffell, a widow. Her three sons, Richard,
John, and James, and her two daughters, Mary and Ann
Young, accompanied her. A mutual desire to officially regis-
ter the Addison family’s new status as freed persons prompt-
ed their joint appearance. The Soffells hoped to gain the
financial compensation promised by Congress to all former
slaveholders in the District who had remained loyal to the
Union; the Addisons simply desired the comfort and secu-
rity of having an official record certifying their freedom.
The Soffells had missed the July 15, 1862, compensa-
tion deadline mandated under the terms of the April 16
act.2 The Soffells explained to the commissioners that they
failed to petition by the deadline because the Addisons
were no longer residing on their property at the time the
act went into effect.3 The Addisons had fled the city three
days earlier on April 13, fearing that President Abraham
Lincoln and the federal government planned to forcibly
deport them—along with all other ex-slaves—to Africa.
The report noted that the Addisons had fled to their fa-
ther’s residence (the father of the two adult daughters)
who lived in Montgomery County, Maryland, and was
a slave owned by a Harry Cook. The Addisons remained
there until September 28, 1862, when they returned to
Washington, D.C.4
This glimpse into the lives of two Washington area fami-
lies—former slaves and slaveholders—is preserved in fed-
eral records that relate to slavery and emancipation in the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia before and
during the Civil War era. These records contain personal
information such as names, ages, physical descriptions, and
places of residence, as well as collateral information casually
provided in recorded testimonies. As shown in the Addison
family’s case, information concerning the daughter’s
enslaved father—including details concerning his residence
in Montgomery County and the full name of his owner—
is found in their testimony explaining their flight.
Slavery existed in the nation’s capital from the very
beginning of the city’s history in 1790, when Congress
created the federal territory from lands formerly held by
the slave states of Virginia and Maryland. Because of its ad-
vantageous location between these two states, Washington
became a center of the domestic slave trade in the 19th cen-
tury and was home of one of the most active slave depots
in the nation. The rapid expansion of cotton as the primary
cash crop for states throughout the Deep South generated a
renewed demand for slave labor. Planters and slave dealers
in the declining tobacco-centered Chesapeake region of
Maryland and Virginia sought to capitalize on this demand
by selling their surplus labor in a burgeoning domestic slave
market. As one historian notes, “Washington offered deal-
ers a convenient transportation nexus between the Upper
and Lower South, as the city connected to southern mar-
kets via waterways, overland roads, and later rail.”5
Within the District of Columbia, slave dealers housed
the slaves in crowded pens and prisons as they waited to
sell them. “Slave-coffles,” long lines of shackled blacks
marching from one site to another, gradually generated
controversy throughout the nation. As Washington became
the focus of abolitionism in the decades before the Civil
War, antislavery activists argued that such scenes in the na-
tion’s capital disgraced the nation as a whole and its ideals.
Prologue 53
The Compromise of 1850 abolished active slave trading slave (act of July 12, 1862). Several series of records relating
within the boundaries of the District, but the trade con- to slavery and emancipation in the District of Columbia
tinued to flourish in Maryland and Virginia. As tensions have been published on microfilm and reproduced on re-
increased nationally in the years leading up to the Civil search web sites such as Ancestry.com and Footnote.com.
War, slavery in the nation’s capital continued to be a subject Records of the Board of Commissioners for the Emancipation
of special focus, activism, and compromise.6 of Slaves in the District of Columbia, 1862–1863 (National
The numbers of slaves gradually declined in the District Archives Microfilm Publication M520) relates directly to
throughout the early 19th century—from approximately the management and dispensation of the emancipation acts
6,400 slaves in 1820 to 3,100 by 1860. Throughout the of April 16 and July 12, 1862. Records of the U.S. District
1800s, many owners voluntarily manumitted their slaves. Court for the District of Columbia Relating to Slaves, 1851–
Of the city’s black population in 1800, those who were 1863 (M433), and Habeas Corpus Case Records, 1820–
enslaved outnumbered those who were free by four to one; 1863, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
however, by 1860 the number of free blacks actually ex- (M434), contain records relevant to the broader history and
ceeded the number of slaves by three to one. social presence of slavery in the District of Columbia.7
In the years leading up to D.C. emancipation, the typi-
The D.C. Emancipa-
cal slave in Washington worked in some form of domestic The Board of Commissioners tion Act of April 16,
service, and female slaves outnumbered males. On the sur- for the Emancipation of Slaves, 1862–1863 1862, originally pro-
vided for immediate
face, the nature of the institution seemed relatively benign
These records relate to the board of commissioners that emancipation, com-
compared to the harsher forms of plantation slavery in pensation to loyal
administered the D.C. emancipation and document com- Unionist masters of
parts of the rural south, and most blacks in the District
pensation petitions by slaveholders, pursuant to the acts up to $300 for each
were free. Despite appearances, all African Americans in
of April 16 and July 12, 1862. For the first act of April slave, and voluntary
Washington—both enslaved and free—lived in a state of colonization of for-
16, a total of 966 petitioners submitted schedules claim- mer slaves outside
constant vulnerability. Those who were enslaved feared
ing and describing 3,100 slaves. Under the supplementary the United States.
being sold further south and separated from family and
loved ones. Free blacks were required to always have on
their person a copy of their “certificate of freedom,” and
the burden of proving their status was on them. Without
proof of status, free blacks could be jailed at anytime. Even
if they subsequently proved their status, detained blacks
still were responsible for paying for the cost of their stay. If
they failed to prove their free status in sufficient time, they
risked being sold further south into slavery.
Slavery remained legal in the District until April 16,
1862, when President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an
act abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia (12 Stat.
376). The D.C. Emancipation Act originally provided for
immediate emancipation, compensation to loyal Unionist
masters of up to $300 for each slave, and voluntary colo-
nization of former slaves outside the United States. The act
required owners claiming compensation to file schedules
listing and describing each slave by July 15, 1862. A sup-
plementary act of July 12, 1862 (12 Stat. 538) permitted
the submission of schedules by slaves whose owners lived
outside of the District of Columbia if the slave had been
employed with the owner’s consent in the District any time
after April 16, 1862. The emancipation records consist of
the schedules and supporting documentation submitted as
a result of these two acts.
The records are organized generally by the last name of
slave owner (act of April 16, 1862) or by the last name of

54 Prologue
 act of July 12, another 161 individuals submitted claims,
including formerly enslaved African Americans who were
authorized to do so if their owners had failed to claim
by the deadline of the first act. The board’s records are
found among the Records of the Accounting Officers of the
Department of the Treasury (Record Group 217).
The petitions include the names of the slaveholders,
the names of the slaves, physical descriptions of each slave,
and the monetary value for the each claimed slave. The
slaveholders often gave very detailed descriptions of their
slaves, apparently hoping to reap a greater compensation
for highly prized slaves. Eliza W. Ringgold estimated that
her slave, Perry Goodwin—who was a gift from her de-
ceased sister—was worth $1,500 and described him as a
“portly, fine looking dark mulatto, about 5 ft. 9 inches”
who was “healthy, of good address, a very intelligent young
man, an upholster by trade . . . a good rough carpenter,
and very handy at any kind or work” with no infirmities
or defects either “morally, mentally, or bodily.”
In the petition submitted by slaveholder Clark Mills,
Philip Reid—distinguished as the slave who crafted the
“Statue of Freedom” for the U.S. Capitol—is also valued at
$1,500 and is described as a 42-year-old man of “mulatto
color, short in stature, in good health, not prepossessing
in appearance, but smart in mind, a good work man in a
An arrest warrant
for the fugitive slave
Mary Ann Williams
ordered her cap-
ture and return to
Mary Massey of Al-
exandria,Virginia.
foundry, and has been employed in that capacity by the
Government, at one dollar and twenty five cents per-day.”8
Emancipation Papers, Manumission Papers,
Affidavits of Freedom, and Case Papers
Relating to Fugitive Slave, 1851–1863
The records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District
of Columbia (in Record Group 21) contain the bulk of
documents relating to both free blacks and enslaved blacks
who resided in Washington, D.C., and surrounding coun-
ties during the antebellum and Civil War eras. The circuit
court records include
• manumission papers for blacks who were voluntarily
freed by their owners during the decade before the
1862 act,
• emancipation papers for those freed as a result of the
1862 act, and
• affidavits or certificates of freedom (the official records
of proof certifying the status of free blacks).
These files reveal information about free and enslaved
individuals from a variety of backgrounds who were part
of the everyday life and culture of the region.
Philip Meredith’s emancipation petition documents that
the 30-year-old African American claimed to be the former
slave of “General Robert Lee of Virginia, late of Arlington
Heights.” Meredith stated that General Lee had hired him
out from his estate in Virginia to work for a third party in
Washington City. Meredith apparently submitted his own
schedule according to the terms of the supplementary act of
July 12. Since his owner, Robert E. Lee, had not petitioned
for compensation and Meredith was hired out, working
and residing in the District of Columbia at the time of
emancipation, the supplementary act qualified him to file
for freedom.9
The records of Thomas Sumerville, a free African
American from St. Mary’s County, Maryland, show that
Sumerville successfully purchased and freed his enslaved
family, which included his wife and three small children.
His proof of ownership, which documented the purchase
of his family from the original owner, Mary Watts, states:
Know all men . . . that I Mary Watts of St. Mary’s
County and State of Maryland for . . . the sum of sev-
en hundred dollars current money . . . paid by Thomas
Somerville F.B. [free black] . . . do grant bargain and
sell unto [him] . . . Maria aged twenty six years, one
Negro child named Sarah Ann aged six, one negro
child named Thomas Randolph aged three years, and
one other negro child named Mary Ellen aged one
year . . . 26 December, 1849.
Prologue 55
 The file includes Thomas Sumerville’s deed of manumis-
sion for his wife, who was officially freed by him several
years later, stating:
To all whom it may concern, Be it known that I,
Thomas Sumerville . . . do hereby release from slav-
ery, liberate, manumit, and set free my wife Maria
being of age thirty four years and able to work and
gain a sufficient livelihood. . . . I do declare [her] . . .
discharged from all manner of service or servitude to
me my executors or administrators forever.
The case of the Sumerville family shows how free and
enslaved blacks were often linked by familial bonds. It also
shows how free blacks would sometimes purchase enslaved
loved ones to grant their freedom.10
Alfred Pope, a notable figure in Washington’s African
American history, was originally owned by South Carolina
congressman Col. John Carter. Pope first appeared in pub-
lic records as a participant in “the Pearl Affair.” In April
1848, 77 slaves—including 38 men and boys, 26 women
and girls, and 13 small children or infants—embarked
on a schooner, the Pearl, and sailed up the Potomac with
hopes of making it to the North. A militia on a steamboat
overtook the Pearl at the mouth of the Chesapeake. The
majority of the slaves’ owners sold the captured fugitives
to states in the Deep South; a few, Pope among them, es-
caped that fate. Later as a free man, Pope became a highly
successful businessman, a landowner, a community leader
in Georgetown, and a leading member of the black com-
munity in Washington.11
Pope’s file contains a letter written by a white witness,
John Marbury, the executor of his deceased owner’s will.
Pope submitted the letter to the circuit court to confirm
that he was indeed free and to explain how he had lost
earlier documents proving his freedom.
The bearer, Alfred Pope, a coloured man, who will
hand you this note was a servant of the late Colonel
Jno Carter of this town. . . . By Colonel Carters will
Alfred was set free, & is now, with my consent as
Executor, in the enjoyments of his freedom. . . . Alfred
caused this necessary certificate of his freedom to be
entered on record in your office & had in his posses-
sion a certified copy. About a week since . . . his dwell-
ing house . . . took fire in the night & was destroyed
with all his furniture. . . . Alfred wishes to leave the
District in search of employment and wants to obtain
a copy from the record of the evidence of his being a
freed man. I would accompany him to your office to
offer in person my testimony to the aforegoing facts
but I am very unwell & unable to do so—will you be
so kind as to render him the service he needs, by giving
56 Prologue
him the renewed evidence of his freedom in the proper A woman being
held in a Washing-
form? very respectfully, Jno Marbury.12
ton, D.C., prison.
As part of the Compromise of 1850, the act of September District of Colum-
18, 1850 (9 Stat. 462) provided that claimants to fugitive bia court records
contain many pe-
slaves could recover their slaves, either by applying to fed-
titions for habeas
eral judges and commissioners for warrants to arrest the corpus by Africans
fugitives or by arresting the slaves and taking them before Americans wait-
ing to prove their
the judges or commissioners to establish ownership. The
freedom.
fugitive slave case records are organized by date and con-
tain warrants for arrest and documentation of proof of
ownership.
The file of Mary Ann Williams, a fugitive and accused
runaway, contains the warrant for her arrest.
Whereas Mary Massey of . . . Alexandria, State of
Virginia hath applied to the Circuit Court for the ren-
dition to her of a certain black negro woman named
Mary Ann Williams . . . You are hereby commanded
forth with . . . to arrest her . . . she being found in
your bailiwick, and her safety keep, so that you have
her body before the Circuit Court of the District of
Columbia, . . . immediately.
Upon the capture of Mary Ann Williams, she was deliv-
ered back to her owner, Mary Massey:
the said Mary Ann Williams being brought into Court
by the Marshal on a warrant issued by the Court in
these premises, her identity having been proved by
Rudolph Massey—it is thus . . . ordered . . . that the
Marshal . . . deliver her[e] the said Mary Ann Williams
to the said Mary Massey; and . . . Mary Massey is au-
thorized . . . to transport the said Mary Ann Williams
to the State of Virginia from where she escaped.
For those fugitives who successfully eluded capture,
there would be no record other than the initial warrant
for arrest.13
Spring 2010

Emeline Brown, Habeas Corpus Case Records, 1820–1863
a “free colored
woman,” petitioned A “writ of habeas corpus” is a court order instructing
the court in March
those accused of detaining another individual unjustly to
1862 for return of
her daughter Lucy bring the detainee before the court, usually to explain the
Brown, who was reason for the detention. Many of the habeas corpus re-
“unjustly and ille-
gally detained and
cords issued by the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of
held” against her Columbia concern African American detainees accused of
will in the custody being runaway slaves. The records in each file may include
of Benjamin F. Hunt
of Georgetown. petitions for habeas corpus, writs of habeas corpus, manu-
mission papers, statements of freedom, and other papers
needed for the proceedings of each case.
On March 22, 1862, Emeline Brown, described as a
“free colored woman,” submitted a habeas corpus peti-
tion. Her case highlights the reality that even free blacks
faced the danger of being subjected to involuntary servi-
tude. Brown petitioned for the recovery of her daughter
Lucy Brown, who was “unjustly and illegally detained and
held” against her will in the custody of Benjamin F. Hunt
of Georgetown. Emeline explained that, about a year or
two earlier, “her husband John Brown, the father of said
Lucy, and a slave for life belonging to Richard Pettit Esq.
of Georgetown,” had hired out Lucy to Benjamin Hunt.
Emeline contended, however, that Hunt had severely mal-
treated Lucy and that she now desired the return of her
child. Several months later, the records show that Lucy’s
father, John Brown—now emancipated and described as a
“free man of color of Georgetown”—submitted a second
Slavery and Emancipation in the Nation’s Capital
habeas corpus petition charging that “his child Lucy Brown
. . . about 11 years, is unlawfully detained and restrained
of her liberty” by the same Benjamin Hunt; and that Lucy
had “not been bound out or indentured” to Hunt “who
is in no wise entitled to detain her.” John Brown asserted
that he was the “natural guardian and protector” of the said
child. On November 10, 1862, the circuit court ordered
that “Lucy Brown be remanded to the custody and control
of her father, the said John Brown, and the said Benjamin
F. Hunt no longer detain or restrain her.”14
Elizabeth Contee, “a free colored woman residing in
Washington, D.C.,” petitioned for habeas corpus for her
detained brother, “a colored boy aged about 7 years named
Basil Barnes.” Elizabeth insisted that she was Basil’s nearest
legal relative and stated that he had been “fed and nour-
ished by her, and all his wants provided for” until July 28,
1850, “when one William A. Mulloy came to her residence
and forcibly took” him from her premises to some place
unknown. Elizabeth further claimed that Basil was free and
born of a free woman—their mother, Rachel Barnes—who
was “now dead long previous to the act complained of.”
Elizabeth provided to the court proof of her status—her
free papers and those of her deceased mother. Elizabeth also
gave information on Basil’s father, “John Olliday” [sic], who
was a slave owned by a “Mrs. Lyell or Lyells, residing in
the neighborhood of Georgetown.” A white witness named
Oswald B. Clarke testified in support of Elizabeth, claiming
that he “saw Mulloy take the child.” Detailing the incident,
Clarke revealed in his recorded testimony that
he saw William A. Mulloy, on the afternoon of friday
the 26th of July last, take from the yard, of Elizabeth
Contee a free colored woman . . . a colored boy aged
about seven or eight years. Said Mulloy was on horse-
back accompanied by a man on foot. Said Mulloy
placed the boy on the horse behind him. The boy was
evidently taken off forcibly. And said deponent further
declares that the boy was taken in spite of the entreat-
ies and protestations of said Elizabeth Contee.15
On August 8, 1850, the court ordered Mulloy to appear
with Basil before the court for a hearing, but there is no
record of the final outcome.
African Americans submitted petitions for habeas cor-
pus not only against white detainers but also against other
African Americans. Robert Nelson, a free black “minor
of about 17 years” was in a legal apprenticeship arrange-
ment with another free black named Alfred Jones. Robert
sued Jones for an annulment of the contract with the help
and support of his friend Edward Woodlond, another free
black. The official petition states:
Robert Nelson (a free boy of color) . . . is now held
Prologue 57
 and confined in the possession of one Alfred Jones (a
free man of color). . . . Alfred Jones claims the right .
. . by virtue of a certain deed of indenture executed by
his [Nelson’s] mother (Patsey Nelson, since deceased).
. . . [Of said indenture] your petitioner alleges is defec-
tive . . . having been executed while the orphan’s court
. . . was in session . . . and [yet had] never been . . .
filed among the records of the orphan’s court. [And
claims further that] Alfred Jones has treated [him]
with harshness and cruelty, often beating him, cuffing
him in the most cruel and improper manner—that he
has failed to supply him with proper food and cloth-
ing—that he has failed to send him to school and
church—and to teach him any trade—and that he
has failed in all respects to give him proper training
or make proper provisions for him.16
The records in this file show that the court required
Alfred Jones to release Robert Nelson so that he could plead
his case. Again, there is no record of the final outcome.
Granville Williams, a recently freed African American
from Christiansburg, Virginia, was arrested as a “runaway
slave” while passing through Washington, D.C. Granville
petitioned for habeas corpus after being detained for sev-
eral months in a D.C. jail. When notified of Granville’s
incarceration, R. D. Montague, a white witness and as- eling by train from Virginia to Ohio. He was first arrested Henry Lansdale’s let-
­­­ter to the court re-
sociate from his hometown, testified on Granville’s behalf, while passing through Richmond and again while passing
veals that he finally
confirming that he was indeed a free man. Montague’s through Washington, D.C. In Washington, Harris spent agreed to release
testimony coincidentally reveals biographical information nearly a year in jail. His petition for habeas corpus states, his young “trouble-
some” slave John
on Granville and an interesting family history. “Paten Harris respectfully represents to your honors that
Hawkins from prison
Dear Sir, I have just received your note . . . and has- he has been for the last eleven months and is now illegally only after the boy’s
ten to inform you that the boy Granville Williams is held in confinement in the jail of Washington County as a uncle agreed to pay
“the expense of tak-
free. he is the son of Solomon Williams who formerly runaway slave.” Edward H. Moselly, the executor of Harris’s
ing him out of jail &c,
resided here but left several years ago with a view of former owner, eventually sent a detailed letter to the court also to secure me
going to Liberia. as it was understood, this boy . . . was verifying that Paten was indeed free, and in doing so, he moneys I had paid
them for the Boy.”
at that time an indentured apprentice to Mr. Floyd revealed much information concerning his family history.
Smith; and several of us endeavored to procure his I was the [executor] of Ann H.W. Harris who died in
release by Mr. Smith, who refused to let him off, in 1832 . . . and by will directed that after all her just
fear that he might accompany his father and family to debts were paid, her slaves should be liberated. I suc-
Liberia. Mr. Smith was a Tanner, & having sold out, ceeded by keeping together and hiring them out for
transferred the remainder of his time to Mr. George several years in paying off all her debts and four or
Keister of Blacksburg. His whole story is correct, and five years ago in setting them all free—this boy Paten
if I thought that there would be any doubt about his went off with the rest and until last spring I supposed
release, I would furnish any amount of testimony in he was in Ohio but some time in April . . . I received
favour of his freedom. a note from him informing me he was confined in jail
The judge ordered Granville released on July 25, 1855, in Richmond. I immediately went down and had him
stating that, “Upon an examination of this case . . . I am set at liberty, carried him to the Railroad depot, and
satisfied that Granville Williams is a free man and do order put him in the care of one of [the] clerks to be sent on
him to be discharged from custody.”17 to Washington the next morning. I paid his passage
A similar case is that of Paten Harris, a free black who and gave him some money to pay his expenses on the
was arrested twice and jailed as a runaway slave while trav- way. I also gave him a deed of Manumission. I believe

58 Prologue Spring 2010

 I had the certificate of General Lambert the Mayor
of Richmond attached to it—Edwin Clarke a clerk
on the Richmond & Petersburg Rail Road gave him
certificates [to travel through] Washington without
interruption: Now if he has preserved these the proof
will be irresistible that he is the same boy and will I
think be set at liberty at once—but to test his identity
ask him the names of his fellow servants set free by his
mistress—There was Tom[,] Stephen[,] Davy[,] Ned
(I believe Paten’s brother), Antony, Betty (I believe the
mother of Paten[,] Ned & Matilda) and Ginny. I do
not recollect any marks that Paten has. he is about 25
or 6 years old, complexion black and about five feet
8 or 9 inches high.18
Paten Harris was set free in May 1843 after being ar-
rested in June of 1842.
Notes
1
The D.C. Emancipation Act was signed into law by President
Abraham Lincoln on April 16, 1862. It granted the immediate
emancipation of slaves, compensation to loyal Unionist slavehold-
ers of up to $300 for each slave, and voluntary colonization of
former slaves to colonies outside of the United States.
2
The April 16 Emancipation Act required that owners claim-
ing compensation for their freed slaves file schedules for the slaves
by July 15, 1862. A supplementary act of July 12, 1862 (12 Stat.
538) permitted submission of schedules by slaves whose owners
had neglected to file, and it gave freedom to slaves whose owners
lived outside of the District of Columbia if the slave had been
employed with the owner’s consent in the District any time after
April 16, 1862.
3
The April 16 act stipulated that emancipation and compensa-
tion applied only to slaves working and slaveholders residing in
the District of Columbia as of that date. Since the Addisons had
fled three days before the act went into effect, there apparently was
some initial uncertainty among the Soffells on whether they could
lawfully claim the Addisons.
4
Records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Relating to Slaves, 1851–1863, section 1 (National Archives
Microfilm Publication M433), roll 1.
The proposition that the freed African American population
should be somewhere outside of the United States, such as Africa,
the Caribbean, or Latin America, was a very popular idea during
this period. It was the subject of debate and was entertained by
President Lincoln.
5
Mary Beth Corrigan, “Imaginary Cruelties?: A History of the
Slave Trade in Washington, D.C.,” Washington History: Magazine
of the Historical Society of Washington, D.C., 13 (Fall/Winter
2001–2002): 5.
6
Ibid., pp. 5–6; Hilary Russell, “Underground Railroad
Activists in Washington, D.C.,” Washington History, 13 (Fall/
Winter 2001–2002).
7
See Dorothy S. Provine, District of Columbia Free Negro
Registers, 1821–1861 (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 1996);
Provine, Compensated Emancipation in the District of Columbia:
Petitions under the Act of April 16, 1862, 2 volumes (Westminster,
MD: Heritage Books, 2008); Helen Hoban Rogers, Freedom &
Slavery and Emancipation in the Nation’s Capital
The stories recounted above illustrate the diverse infor-
mation that can be gleaned from federal records relating to
slavery and emancipation in the District of Columbia. They
show how the political and cultural upheaval of the Civil
War era affected the lives of slaveholders, slaves, and free
blacks. The abundant personal and historical information
contained in these records make them a valuable resource
for genealogical and scholarly researchers. P
Author
Damani Davis is an archivist in NARA’s Research
Support Branch, Customer Services Division,
Washington, D.C. He has lectured at local and regional
conferences on African American history and geneal-
ogy. Davis is a graduate of Coppin State College in Baltimore and received
his M.A. in history at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
Slavery Documents in the District of Columbia 1792–1822: Bills of
Sale, Certificates of Freedom, Certificates of Slavery, Emancipations,
& Manumissions, 3 volumes (Baltimore: Gateway/Otterbay Press,
2007); and Jerry M. Hynson, District of Columbia Runaway and
Fugitive Slave Cases, 1848–1863 (Westminister, MD: Willow Bend
Books, 1999).
8
Records of the Board of Commissioners for the Emancipation of
Slaves in the District of Columbia, 1862–1863 (National Archives
Microfilm Publication M520, roll 6); Petition Nos. 29 and 741;
Records of the Accounting Officers of the Department of the
Treasury, Record Group (RG) 217; National Archives and Records
Administration.
9
Records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Relating to Slaves, 1851–1863 (National Archives Microfilm
Publication M433, roll 1); Records of District Courts of the United
States, RG 21.
10
Ibid., roll 3. The deed of manumission for his wife Maria has
his surname as “Sumerville,” but he is listed in the 1860 census as
“Sommerville.” Eighth Census of the United States, 1860 (National
Archives Microfilm Publication M653, roll 104); Records of the
Bureau of the Census, RG 29.
11
Russell, “Underground Railroad Activists,” Washington
History, 13: 32–35. Recent scholarship suggests that Alfred Pope
was actually his owner’s (Congressman John Carter) nephew. If so,
this relationship potentially explains the leniency of his owner, who
simply accepted Pope back unto his estate and manumitted Pope
when he died under the terms of his will. See Mary Kay Ricks,
Escape on the Pearl: The Heroic Bid for Freedom on the Underground
Railroad (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 109, 353.
12
Records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Relating to Slaves, 1851–1863, M433, roll 1.
13
Ibid., roll 3.
14
Habeas Corpus Case Records, 1820–1863, of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (National Archives Microfilm
Publication M434, roll 2), RG 21.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., roll 1.
Prologue 59
AUTHORS ON THE RECORD

The Civil War on the High Seas

by hilary parkinson

The Civil War is not usually considered in terms of its naval engagements, but Abraham Lincoln was
a wartime President who used the resources at his disposal, including the Navy.
In Lincoln and His Admirals, Craig L. Symonds details the development of the relationship between
Lincoln and his naval officers, Lincoln’s growing interest in how the Navy could be used in concert with
the Army during the war, and the technological advances that the Navy began to use during this time.
Symonds is the author of 12 other books focusing on military and naval history. He is professor emeritus
Craig L. Symonds

at the United States Naval Academy, where he taught naval history and Civil War history for 30 years. His
books have won the Barondess Lincoln Prize, the Daniel and Marilyn Laney Prize, the S.A. Cunningham
Award, the Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt Prize, and the John Lyman Book Award three times. In
2009 he shared the $50,000 Lincoln Prize with James M. McPherson.

You’ve written several books on the Civil War—what drew you
to write about Lincoln and his admirals?
At some point, every Civil War scholar (or student) needs to come
to grips with Lincoln. To me, using the prism of the Navy to do so
was a natural choice. Back in 1952, T. Harry Williams published
a thoughtful book entitled Lincoln and His Generals. Since then, a
number of excellent writers have investigated Lincoln as commander-
in-chief, but no one had dealt with his management of the Navy.
Given that there have been some 16,000 books on Lincoln, and
none on Lincoln’s relationship with the Navy, it seemed a logical
topic to pursue.
Historians seem to focus on the actions of the Army, and there
are few books about the role of the Navy during the Civil War.
Why do you think this area has been neglected by researchers?
Well, in all fairness, the Civil War was primarily a land war. The
Navy’s role was not insignificant, but neither was it decisive. In
exploring questions like: How did the North win? (or how did the
South lose?), the answer lies in the land war.
On the other hand, the Navy did help determine both the trajec-
tory and the length of the war. Within the last decade or so, a number
of scholars have turned to the naval war, including Michael Bennett,
Ari Hoogenboom, Ivan Musicant, William H. Roberts, Stephen
Taaffe, and Spencer Tucker. My own book, The Civil War at Sea, came
out in November 2009. So if the naval war has been neglected, we
are making up for it now.
The National Archives has many letters and telegrams from naval
officers in Record Group 45. Were you familiar with these docu-
ments before starting the book? Did you make any unexpected
discoveries in this record group?
I taught naval history at the Naval Academy for more than 30
years, and so I was very familiar with Record Group 45. The Naval
Academy has the complete microfilm set, and I not only used it
myself, I also sent midshipmen to read the original documents. They
would come back to me and say, “Professor, did you know you can
read the actual letters they sent to each other?”
As for making new finds during this project, one thing that both
surprised and enchanted me was the revelation of the relationship be-
tween Lincoln and Navy lieutenant Henry A. Wise. Lincoln saw that
he would have to act as the adjudicator between the Army and the Navy
during their turf battles in the Western Theater, and he used young
Lieutenant Wise as a go-between. Wise’s letter books in the National
Archives, which are not microfilmed, reveal an interesting relationship
in which Wise received telegraph messages at the Washington Navy Yard
from Cairo, Illinois, then rode over to the White House to read them
to Lincoln. Lincoln dictated his reply, and Wise went back to the Navy
Yard to tell the on-scene commanders what to do. Without those letters,
the degree of Lincoln’s hands-on involvement would be unclear. I am
greatly indebted to Rick Peuser at the National Archives, who helped
me with this collection and others.
One of the themes of your book is Lincoln’s development as com-
mander-in-chief. In addition to a steep learning curve in military
tactics, Lincoln also had to learn to manage the military officers.
Which do you think was more challenging for him?
The officers. Lincoln did have a steep learning curve with regard
to things military—he had no significant military experience. As
he had with other things in his life (literature, the law, speechmak-
ing), he taught himself as much about strategy and tactics as he
could. Not because he sought to become a strategist or tactician,
but in order to understand what it was his advisers and generals
were telling him.
In the end, his strategic views were more instinctive than a
product of study, and the same is true of his management of those
high-ranking officers who were supposed to apply that strategy. His

60 Prologue Spring 2010

greatest frustration was getting the officers
to appreciate the need for cooperation on
a continental scale: to ensure that armies
moved in conformance with an overall plan
rather than with regard only to their own lo-
gistical and tactical perceptions, or to get the
Army and Navy to work together. The phrase
was not in use then, but managing generals
(and admirals, too) was rather like herding
cats. Only Lincoln’s famous patience allowed
him to survive it.
What was Lincoln’s management style like
with Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles
and his assistant Gustavus V. Fox? Did it
change over the span of the war?
Lincoln did not know Welles when he
appointed him secretary of the Navy, an
appointment made mainly for political
and geographic balance in the cabinet. But
Lincoln came to appreciate Welles’s earnestness and loyalty. Welles
had little subtlety or nuance: he tended to say just what he thought
in plain language, and this made him enemies in the press and even
within the cabinet. But Lincoln appreciated his candor, and Welles
was one of only two men (Seward being the other) who remained
in the cabinet throughout Lincoln’s presidency. As for Fox, Lincoln
liked him at once. Fox briefed Lincoln on a plan to resupply Fort
Sumter in the first week of his presidency, and Lincoln put him in
charge of the effort. Even though it failed, Lincoln was impressed
throughout by Fox’s energy and professionalism, and he created the
post of assistant secretary of the Navy for Fox.
Lincoln seems to have been frustrated on several occasions by the
reluctance of naval officers to be more aggressive in their cam-
paigns. Why were the admirals so reluctant to engage—was it
personality, leadership, or tradition?
Probably tradition. In the antebellum Navy, a ship commander’s
first responsibility was to his vessel. If he ran it aground or damaged
it in bad weather, he could be sure that a court-martial would
result, and the outcome of that might be disgrace and dismissal.
Moreover, for half a millennium, ships fighting against forts was a
fool’s mission: forts always won (for one thing, they couldn’t sink). So
when Welles or Fox urged a squadron commander to attack a fort,
or at least to run past it, there was instinctive reluctance by many
officers to make the attempt. A few did it, and did so willingly—
Farragut damning the torpedoes comes to mind—but they were the
exception.
The naval campaign took place in rivers, harbors, and even the
waters of the Caribbean. Were there any places where naval
action occurred that surprised you while researching this book?
The Civil War on the High Seas
Not really, because I knew that the war
extended into virtually every corner of the
globe: the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the
South China Sea, and the northern Pacific.
There is a Civil War monument in Alaska!
One curious example of the long reach of
the Civil War is the visit of the Confederate
raider Shenandoah to Melbourne, Australia.
The Confederate cause was glamorized there,
and scores of local men sought to enlist in
the Confederate Navy. That would have
been a violation of the Foreign Enlistment
Act, however, so they hid out on board. Very
likely the Shenandoah’s commander was
complicit in this stowing away, for it is hard
to see how he could have been unaware of it.
Still, once the Shenandoah was back at sea,
scores of men came crawling out of the ship’s
hollow iron bowsprit to offer their service.
The Navy also saw the development and use of new technology in
the fleet. Did Lincoln hinder or advance this naval technology,
and do you think these advancements would have been made
without the pressures of the Civil War?
Many of the most important technological developments that we
associate with the Civil War were already well under way before the
first shot was fired at Fort Sumter: steam propulsion, the screw pro-
peller, heavy rifled guns, exploding ordnance shells—all these were
already in place. The Civil War proved a testing ground and a proving
ground for them, but they were coming even without the war. Other
changes, especially mines (called torpedoes at the time), armored
warships, and submarines, probably would not have emerged
until later without the pressure of the Civil War. As for Lincoln, he was
very interested in new technology. He actively supported the ironclad
ships, and particularly Ericsson’s rotating armored turret, as well as
other inventions. He regularly visited the Washington Navy Yard in
order to witness, or even participate in, the testing of some new device.
There were several diplomatic hiccups due to actions on the water.
Did any of these incidents truly pose a threat that Lincoln might
have to simultaneously go to war with a European power?
Yes and no. To be sure, several of these incidents, most notably
the Trent affair in the winter of 1861, did pose a real threat—the
English were genuinely prepared to go to war—but Lincoln knew
that the United States simply could not survive a war with both the
Confederacy and a European power at the same time. So while the
threat was real, Lincoln’s determination to avoid it made it unlikely
that it would have happened. He compromised when he had to (as
in the Trent affair), paid off complaining neutrals whose ships were
seized by over-eager blockaders, and all in all, he did what he had to
do to fight only one war at a time.
Prologue 61
Events
Washington, D.C.
For up-to-date event information, consult
NARA’s Calendar of Events. The free Calen-
dar is available from National Archives and
Records Administration, Calendar of Events
(NPAC, Room G-1), 700 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20408, or on the web at
www.archives.gov/calendar/.
Opening April 30. Exhibit: “Discovering the
Civil War.” National Archives Building. 202-
357-5000.
Permanent exhibit: “The Public Vaults.” National
Archives Building. 202-357-5000.
Abilene, Kansas
May 7–8. Exhibit: V-E Day Commemoration:
Russian-language version of Germany’s Un-
conditional Surrender Document. Eisenhower
Library. 785-263-6700.
Opening May 24. Exhibit: “Eisenhower and the
Righteous Cause: The Liberation of Europe.”
Eisenhower Library. 785-263-6700.
Through May 30. Exhibit: “The Working White
House: 200 Years of Tradition and Memories.”
Eisenhower Library. 785-263-6700.
June 1. Presentation: Prof. Harry Reicher on The
Holocaust. Eisenhower Library. 785-263-6700.
June 7–11. Holocaust Teacher Workshop.
Eisenhower Library. 785-263-6700.
Continuing exhibit: “The White House Gar-
den.” Eisenhower Library. 785-263-6700.
Anchorage, Alaska
Through May 1. Exhibit: “Pribilof Islands His-
torical Photographs,” National Archives im-
ages from the 1910s and 1920s. Alaska Heritage
Center. 907-261-7800.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Continuing exhibit: “Economy in Crisis.” Ford
Library. 734-205-0555.
Atlanta, Georgia
May 17. Author lecture: Anya Kamenetz, “DIY
U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming
Transformation of Higher Education.” Carter
Library. 404-865-7100.
Austin, Texas
Opening May 15. Exhibit: “Walter Cronkite:
Eyewitness to History.” Co-sponsored with
Briscoe Center for American History, Univer-
sity of Texas. 512-721-0200.
Boston, Massachusetts
Continuing exhibit: “The Making of a Presi-
dent.” Kennedy Library. 866-JFK-1960.
Opening May 7. Exhibit: “Winning West
Virginia: JFK’s Primary Campaign.” Kennedy
Library. 866-JFK-1960.
Chicago, Illinois
April 10. Teacher Workshop: “War-production
Factory to Shopping Mall: Tales, Tests, and
Trails of the WWII Homefront.” NARA–Great
Lakes Region. 773-948-9001.
Continuing Exhibit: “James B. Parsons: More
Than a Judge.” NARA–Great Lakes Region.
773-948-9001.
College Station, Texas
Continuing exhibit. “����������������������
The Culture of Wine.”
Bush Library. 979-691-4000.
April 24. Chilean Winemaker Weekend. Bush
Library. 979-691-4000.
June 10. George and Barbara Bush’s Birthday
Celebration! Bush Library. 979-691-4000.
April 21. Storytellers Guild: “Peter Rabbit”
and “Musical Storytelling.” Bush Library.
979-691-4000.
May 13. Storytellers Guild: “El Vaquero.” Bush
Library. 979-691-4000.
May 18. Storytellers Guild: “Texas History.”
Bush Library. 979-691-4000.
May 20. Issue Forum: Wine expert Bear Dal-
ton. Bush Library. 979-691-4000.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Through June 13. Exhibit: “America and the
Cold War.” Ford Museum. 616-254-0400.
April 24. Panel discussion: “Behind the Lens:
Five White House Photographers from Ford to
Obama.” Ford Museum. 616-254-0400.
Judge James B. Parsons, the first African American
appointed to the federal judiciary, speaks at Abraham
Lincoln's tomb in Springfield, Illinois, ca. 1962, in an
image on exhibit at the Chicago regional archives.
Hyde Park, New York
April 11. Lecture: Mel Marmer, “Baseball and the
Presidency.” Roosevelt Library. 845-486-7745.
April 15. Author lecture: Robert Klara, FDR’s
Funeral Train. Roosevelt Library. 845-486-7745.
Through May 31. Exhibit: “Treasures of a Pres-
ident: FDR and the Sea” at the South Street
Seaport Museum, New York, NY. Roosevelt
Library. 845-486-7745.
Through March 31: “Action, and Action Now!
FDR’s First 100 Days.” Roosevelt Library.
845-486-7745.
May 28. USO Show: An evening of World
War II–era entertainment. Roosevelt Library.
845-486-7745.
May 29–30. Bivouac: Living History Encamp­
ment. Roosevelt Library. 845-486-7745.
June 19. Seventh Annual Roosevelt Reading
Festival. Roosevelt Library. 845-486-7745.
Independence, Missouri
Continuing exhibit: “Memories of Korea.”
Truman Library. 800-833-1225.
Ongoing exhibit: “Harry S. Truman: His Life
and Times.” Truman Library. 800-833-1225.
Kansas City, Missouri
Through May 15. Exhibit: “Mapping Missouri.”
NARA–Central Plains Region. 816-268-8000.
Through June 10.s Exhibit: “Deadly Medicine:
Creating the Master Race” NARA–Central
Plains Region. 816-268-8000.
April 14. “Selling Murder: The Killing Films
of the Third Reich.” Roundtable and Film.
NARA–Central Plains Region. 816-268-8000.
April 21. Deadly Medicine Academic Round-
table: “Confronting Complicity: Professionals
in the Third Reich.” NARA–Central Plains
Region. 816-268-8000.
April 28. Author lecture: Leonard Zeskind,
“Racial Science in the United States Today:
What I Learned While Writing Blood and
Politics.” NARA–Central Plains Region. 816-
268-8000.
May 12. Lecture: Dr. William Meinecke, “The
Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg: Medicine in the
Third Reich.” NARA–Central Plains Region.
816-268-8000.
May 26. Lecture: Dr. Glenn McGee, “Eugenics
in Germany and the United States.” NARA–
Central Plains Region. 816-268-8000.
June 2. Lecture: Dr. Harry Reicher, “Medical
Ethics and Nazi Ideology.” NARA–Central
Plains Region. 816-268-8000.
Spring 2010
The Luke Lee family image, ca. 1892–1900, from the
Chinese Exclusion Act files, is part of an exhibit at the
Seattle regional archives.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Continuing exhibit. “A Great and Enduring
Gift”: President Clinton and the Oklahoma City
Memorial. Clinton Library. 501-374-4242.
Morrow, Georgia
Genealogy Events
Washington, D.C.
Genealogy workshops are conducted through-
out the year. For up-to-date information, con-
sult the monthly Calendar of Events.
east Region. Call to register. 413-236-3600.
June 22. “Using Military Records at the
National Archives.” Northeast Region. Call to
register. 413-236-3600.
June 23. ”Researching German Ancestors.” North-
east Region. Call to register. 413-236-3600.
San Bruno, California

Through April 15. Exhibit: “1920s: The Golden
Age.” NARA–Southeast Region. 770-968-
2100.
May 27. Workshop: Maritime Records in the
National Archives at Atlanta. NARA–South-
east Region. 770-968-2100.
New York, New York
Continuing exhibit: “New York: An American
Capital.” Federal Hall National Memorial.
NARA–Northeast Region. Call 866-840-1752
for more information.
April 15, May 20, June 17: Family History Game
Show at Ellis Island Museum, NY. NARA–
Northeast Region. 866-840-1752.
April 16, May 21. New York’s National Trea-
sures at Federal Hall National Memorial.
NARA–Northeast Region. 866-840-1752.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 10. Workshop: “Community Dialogue” in
conjunction with the Afro-American Museum
of Philadelphia’s “Audacious Freedom” exhibit.
NARA–Mid Atlantic Region. 215-606-0112.
Seattle, Washington
Continuing exhibit: “Faces in the Pacific
Northwest.” NARA–Pacific Alaska Region.
206-336-5115.
Simi Valley, California
Continuing exhibit. “Inside the White House.”
Reagan Library. 800-410-8354.
May 8. Annual Colonial America Experience.
Reagan Library. 800-410-8354.
West Branch, Iowa
Continuing exhibit: “Exploring Hoover’s Attic:
Treasures, Keepsakes and Surprises.” Hoover
Library. 319-643-5301.
May 31. Civil War Remembrance Day. Hoover
Library. 319-643-5301.
Yorba Linda, California
Continuing exhibit: “School House to White
House.” Nixon Library. 714-983-9120.
Events
April 14–15. Sixth Annual Genealogy Fair. April 16. “Passenger Arrival and Naturalization
National Archives Building. 202-357-5000. Records.” NARA–Pacific Region. $15 fee. Call
to register, 650-238-3488.
Chicago, Illinois
May 14. “Part One–Military Records in the
May 8. “Discover Historical Military Records National Archives, Revolutionary War to the
for Genealogical Research.” NARA–Great Civil War.” NARA–Pacific Region. $15 fee.
Lakes Region. 773-948-9001. Call to register, 650-238-3488.
Kansas City, Missouri June 18. “Part Two–Military Records in the
National Archives, Spanish American War to
April 10, 23. Indian Study Group: “Beginning Viet Nam.” NARA–Pacific Region. $15 fee.
Indian Genealogy.” NARA–Central Plains Call to register, 650-238-3488.
Region. 816-268-8000.
Seattle, Washington
May 8, 28. Indian Study Group: “Trail of Tears.”
NARA–Central Plains Region. 816-268-8000. May 13, June 10. “Brick Wall Genealogy
Discussion Group.” NARA–Pacific Alaska
June 12, 25. Indian Study Group: “Where to
Region. 206-336-5115.
Find Indian Records.” NARA–Central Plains
Region. 816-268-8000.
Waltham, Massachusetts
New York, New York April 21. Genealogy for Kids. NARA–
Northeast Region. 866-406-2379.
May 11. Lecture: “Finding Family: Preserving
Your Family Treasures.” NARA–Northeast May 4. “Records Related to Military Service in
Region. 866-840-1752. the 18th, 19th, & 20th Centuries.” NARA–
Northeast Region. 866-406-2379.
June 8. Lecture: “Finding Family: Memories,
Memoirs, and Family History: An Overview.” June 1. “Finding Your Ancestors in Maritime
NARA–Northeast Region. 866-840-1752. Rec­ords.” NARA–Northeast Region. 866-
406-2379.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
May 7, June 4. First Friday Open House.
NARA–Mid Atlantic Region. 215-606-0100.
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
April 8. “Researching Polish Ancestors.” NARA–
Northeast Region. Call to register. 413-236-3600.
April 16. “Using Federal Census Records.”
NARA–Northeast Region. Call to register.
413-236-3600.
April 23. “Using Military Records at the
National Archives.” NARA–Northeast Region.
Call to register. 413-236-3600.
April 30. “Finding Italian Ancestors–Parts
1 and 2.” Northeast Region. Call to register.
413-236-3600.
June 8. “Beginning Your Genealogy Research.
Northeast Region. Call to register. 413-236-3600.
June 12. “Research in Ireland. Northeast
Region.” Call to register. 413-236-3600.
June 15. “Using Federal Census Records.” North-
Prologue 63
News & Notices
President, Congress Provide $470M
For National Archives in FY 2010
The National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA) is operating under a budget for the current fiscal
year of $469,870,000, an increase of 2.31 percent over
last year’s $459,277,000. The funding was approved by
Congress and the President in December.
For operating expenses for FY 2010, NARA received
$339,770,000, an increase of $9,470,000 from last year’s
appropriation to cover the costs of inflationary increases in
rent, energy, security, and staff costs for NARA facilities
at 44 locations.
There is also funding for 12 new entry-level archivists
who will enter NARA’s Archivist Development Program,
as well as for personnel for the new Office of Government
Information Services and the new Controlled Unclassified
Information Office.
For continued development of the Electronic Records
Archives (ERA), Congress appropriated $85,500,000, up
from last year’s appropriation of $67,008,000.
For repairs and restorations at NARA-owned facilities,
the lawmakers appropriated $27,500,000. This includes
$17,500,000 as the last installment for repairs and renova-
tions at the Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park,
New York, the oldest of the 13 presidential libraries admin-
istered by NARA.
The National Historical Publications and Records
Commission (NHPRC), the grant-making arm of the
Archives, will receive $13,000,000, of which $4,500,000
is set aside for providing online access to the papers of the
Founding Fathers.
NHPRC Awards $2.9 Million in Grants
For Documentary Editing, Digitizing
The National Historical Publications and Records
Commission (NHPRC) in December awarded 32 grants
totaling $2.9 million for projects in 20 states and the
District of Columbia.
Grants totaling $1.6 million were made to 11 publishing
projects from the U.S. colonial and early national periods,
and three additional publishing projects received commis-
sion endorsement. A grant to the Wisconsin Historical
Foundation will support the 39th annual Institute for
Editing of Historical Documents, which provides train-
ing for new documentary editors.
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
at Simmons College received a grant to develop a virtual
64 Prologue
David S. Ferriero, right, takes the oath of office as 10th Archivist of
the United States from Associate Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S.
Supreme Court in a ceremonial swearing-in on January 13, 2010. He
was officially sworn in on November 13, 2009. To view a webcast
of the ceremony or read the text of the Archivist’s remarks, go to
www.archives.gov/about/speeches/2010/1-13-2010.html.
laboratory to support instruction in electronic records man-
agement, and the University of Denver will undertake a
two-year project to develop and test open-source records
managements software called Liaison. Seven digitization
projects were recommended, including the Historic African
American Education Collections in Atlanta; New York’s
Colonial Council Records, 1664–1781; and case files of
the Missouri Supreme Court, 1821–1865.
Mount Holyoke College, the Museum of Fine Arts,
Houston, and the Hawaii State Archives received funding
to establish electronic records programs, and Michigan
State University will begin Spartan Archive to manage
the university’s institutional memory through electronic
records management archives.
Nixon Presidential Textual Materials
Moving to Library in California
The final release of textual documents from the Nixon
administration was held at the National Archives in College
Park, Maryland, in January. This spring, the bulk of the
Nixon materials will move to their permanent home at the
Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California, and
future textual releases will be made there.
“It is fitting that at this last documents opening here,
we are able to release a significant briefing that President
Nixon gave the bipartisan congressional leadership in July
Spring 2010
 1969 where he begins preparing them for the opening to
China,” said Nixon Library Director Tim Naftali, “and
it is also fitting that this last opening includes additional
significant Watergate-related materials.”
Nixon Library openings of the White House tapes, which
will remain in College Park after the other materials leave,
will continue in College Park.
The January opening consisted of approximately 280,000
pages of materials, 12 hours of formerly restricted audio re-
cordings, and about 7,000 images of the Oliver F. Atkins
personal photographic collection. The Atkins collection—
photographs from his career before he became chief White
House photographer in 1969—was a gift from Dale Adler,
Atkins’s daughter, and her husband, Leonard Adler.
Archives Releases New Datasets, Invites
Public Comment on Open Government Plan
NARA has added three new high-value datasets to the
Data.gov web site and has developed an Open Government
Plan, focusing on transparency, participation, and collabo-
ration improvements in accordance with an executive order
from President Barack Obama.
The Open Government Directive of December 2009
was issued to promote new lines of communication and
cooperation between the federal government and the
American people. The directive is available at www.white-
house.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive.
“The Open Government initiative is central to the core
mission of the Archives. Making information as widely
available as possible and encouraging public input and par-
ticipation contributes to a strong democracy. The Archives
is excited about this program and intends to be among the
leaders in supporting the Open Government Directive,”
said Archivist David S. Ferriero.
The initial plan is to be published on April 7 and
will be open to continuing public feedback. For more
about what the Archives is doing on this initiative, go to
www.archives.gov/open.
The first milestone of the Open Government Directive
was met on January 22 with the release of new datasets
on Data.gov. Each major government agency has up-
loaded at least three datasets in this initial action. The
National Archives released the 2007–2009 Code of Federal
Regulations and two datasets from its Archival Research
Catalog. This is the first time this material is available as
raw data in XML format.
National Archives Announces New Ban
News & Notices
on Photography in Washington Building
The National Archives is now banning all photography
by the public in all exhibition areas in the National Archives
Building in Washington, D.C., because of concern that the
Charters of Freedom and other original documents on dis-
play were at risk from exposure to flash photography.
The original documents displayed in the Rotunda—es-
pecially the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights—are fragile and subject to fading
from light. For 30 years, NARA has had prominent signs
stating that flash photography was prohibited in the exhi-
bition area, and security guards constantly reminded the
visiting public of the policy.
However, Archives staff estimated that the documents
were subjected to approximately 50,000 flashes a year.
While enforcement of this policy was always a National
Archives priority, new cameras with automatic flash have
made the policy almost impossible to enforce. When light
is necessary in the Rotunda for special events, the Charters
are shielded by high quality facsimiles that prevent light
penetration into the display cases.
Visitors who want an image of the Charters of Freedom or
other original documents on display in the exhibition areas
may download them at no cost from www.archives.gov, visit
the Resource Room adjacent to the exhibition areas for a
free color copy, or visit the Archives Shop on the lower level
of the building.
NARA Joins the Flickr Commons;
Images to be Shared More Widely
The National Archives and Records Administration is
now a member of the Flickr Commons, a web site for cul-
tural institutions to share their photograph collections with
the public.
In the Commons, the National Archives joins the New
York Public Library, the Smithsonian, the Library of
Congress and many other archives, libraries, and muse-
ums worldwide.
The Archives’ initial photo set contains more than
200 photographs of the American West by renowned
American photographer Ansel Adams. The photographs,
taken between 1941 and 1942 as part of a Department
of the Interior mural project, feature the Grand Canyon,
Yellowstone, and Glacier and Zion national parks in ad-
dition to Death Valley, Saguero, and Canyon de Chelly
national monuments.
The Ansel Adams photographs join a larger selection of
Prologue 65
 more than 3,000 National Archives images that are part
of our Flickr photostream. See these images at www.flickr.
com/commons/.
Jeopardy! Comes to the National Archives,
Tapes a Double-Jeopardy Category
The popular long-running television show Jeopardy! in-
cluded a “Double Jeopardy” question category dedicated
to the National Archives in a recent episode, with host
Alex Trebek present in the National Archives Building
to pose the “answers” to the “questions” from that day’s
contestants.
Jeopardy! producers worked with Archives staff to develop
clues and answers, and Trebek and the show’s “Clue Crew”
spent a day shooting scenes and video clues in the National
Archives Building in Washington, D.C.
If you want to test your knowledge of American his-
tory, stop right now, and go to the YouTube channel at
http://tiny.cc/Jeopardy446.
For $200 – Q: “In 1940, in a letter to the President, this
then-14-year old future world leader asked FDR for a $10
dollar bill. Yet he doesn’t cash the checks we send him for
Guantanamo.” A: “Who is Fidel Castro?”
For $400 – Q: “American history might have been
very different if this future country had agreed to the of-
fer of statehood contained in Article 11 of the Articles of
Confederation.” A: “What is Canada?”
For $600 – Q: “No one knows how it got there, but
there is a handprint in the lower left hand corner of this
important national document, just beneath the concluding
words ‘and our sacred honor.’” A: “What is the Declaration
of Independence?”
For $800 – Q: “One of the Archives’ treasures is a 1912
wax cylinder recording, like this one, of this American
President talking about his Progressive Party’s movement
for social and industrial justice.” A: “Who is Theodore
Roosevelt?”
For $1,000 – Q: “The Constitution was signed by rep-
resentatives of each of the 13 colonies except for this one,
which opposed increasing Federal power. Because it was
the last to ratify, it is now our 13th state.” A: “What is
Rhode Island?”
Polar Exploration Artifacts on Display
at National Archives Building
The Public Vaults has added a spectacular display of
items from polar expeditions–including the first successful
attempt to reach the North Pole in 1909 by Robert Peary.
66 Prologue
Each year a different adventurer will be featured, beginning
with Matthew Henson—a pioneering African American
explorer who reached the North Pole with Peary.
The Arctic and Antarctic were considered the last great
frontiers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Explorers
from various nations, including the United States, mounted
expeditions to penetrate the polar regions, taking along
surveyors, scientists, artists, and even explorers’ relatives.
Expedition equipment, artwork, journals, and photo-
graphs bring these historic and death-defying journeys to
life. The displayed items include skis and poles belong-
ing to a member of Richard E. Byrd’s second Antarctic
expedition, sketches by Russell Williams Porter, entries
from Peary’s diary, and a toy belonging to Peary’s daughter
Marie, known as the “Snow Baby.”
Picture Credits
Front cover, pp. 6–7, 10, 18, 26, 53, 56, Library of Congress; Inside
front, General Records of the Department of State, RG 59; Back
cover, pp. 28–33, Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
RG 15; p. 5, 111-B-4975; p. 8, Dolph Briscoe Center for American
History, The University of Texas at Austin; p. 9, Records of the U.S.
House of Representatives, RG 233; p. 11 (top), 121-BA-914A; p. 11
(bottom), 79-CWC-3F-10; p. 12 (top), 165-C-777; p. 12 (bottom),
111-B-3658; pp. 13, 16, Records of the U.S. Senate, RG 46; pp.
14–15, U.S. Senate Collection, Center for Legislative Archives; p.
17, 111-B-4201; p. 20, Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, author’s
collection; p. 21, 111-B-3656; p. 22 (top), 111-B-3569; p. 22
(center), 111-B-681; p. 22 (bottom), 111-B-3756; p. 23, Thrilling
Adventures of Daniel Ellis (1867), author’s collection; p. 25 (top &
bottom), Harper’s Weekly, author’s collection; p. 27, 15-PC-6; p.
34, 15-M-49; p. 35, author’s collection; p. 36 (top), 200-CC-306;
p. 36 (bottom), Records of the Patent and Trademark Office, RG
241; p. 37, Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1780’s–1917,
RG 94; p. 38 (left), 165-JT-302; p. 38 (right), 39, War Department
Collection of Confederate Records, RG 109; p. 40, Naval Records
Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, RG 45; p.
41 (top), 111-B-246; p. 41 (bottom), 165-JT-433B; p. 42 (left),
111-B-5622; pp. 42 (right), 43 (left), 44 (right), 45 (left), 46 (right),
47 (left), Records of United States Army Continental Commands,
1821–1920, RG 393; p. 43 (top right), 111-BA-1186; p. 43 (bot-
tom right), Naval Historical Center; p. 44 (left), 111-B-1782; p. 45
(right), 64-M-103; p. 46 (top left), 111-BA-1191; p. 46 (bottom
left), 64-M-9; p. 47 (right), 111-B-2028; p. 48, 30-N-36-2994; pp.
49–51, Foundation for the National Archives; pp. 52, 55, 57, 58,
Records of U.S. District Courts of the United States, RG 21; p. 54,
General Records of the U.S. Government, RG 11; p. 60, Craig L.
Symonds; p. 61, Oxford University Press; p. 62, NARA–Great Lakes
Region (Chicago); p. 63, NARA–Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle); p.
64, photo by Earl McDonald; p. 69 (left), Product Development
Branch; p. 69 (right) Records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, RG
24; p. 71, photos by McArthur Newell; p. 72, Records of the Office
of the Judge Advocate General (Army), RG 153.
Spring 2010
Picture
this!
Over a thousand striking
images in the holdings of the
National Archives are now available to purchase.

Choose from photographs by Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange, drawings of lighthouses
and early sailing ships, and rare WW I and II posters. Also featured are unusual patent
drawings, colorful watercolor sketches of 19th-century landscapes of the American West,
and images from the World Wars and Vietnam.

Order a print, custom framed or unframed, in a variety of sizes, or gift items such as mugs,
T-shirts, greeting cards, mouse pads, and puzzles that feature the image of your choice.
Check back often as exciting new collections are made available.

Visit us at gallery.pictopia.com/archives
Publications
Citing Records in the National Archives of
the United States
Citing Records (General Information Leaflet No. 17) is a
valuable guide for the researcher in government documents,
providing examples on how to cite National Archives rec­
ords in a variety of formats: textual, nontextual, microform,
and electronic. It also provides guidelines for citing records
from affiliated archives. This revised edition contains exam-
ples for citing digitized documents available on the agency’s
web site as well as for additional categories of nontextual
records, such as aerial photographs. For a free copy, contact
the Research Support Staff (NWCC1), 700 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20408; telephone 202-357-
5400, 1-866-325-7208.
Microfilm Publications
Microfilm publications are produced by the National
Archives and Records Administration to make records
holdings more widely available for research. Current proj-
ects include the filming of records related to Nazi-looted
Holocaust-era assets and military service records of the
United States Colored Troops (Civil War). A description of
a recent publication is provided below. A descriptive pam-
phlet (DP) is available where indicated.
Logbooks of the USS Cumberland, October 1843–September
1859 (M2134, RG 24, 4 rolls)
This microfilm series reproduces the logbooks of the USS
Cumberland, active from 1842 to 1862. The logbooks for
the periods before October 4, 1863, and after September 8,
1959, are not extant. The Cumberland is best known for its
destruction on March 8, 1862, in the Battle of Hampton
Roads by the Confederate ironclad Virginia. However, it
served in various missions before then.
The Cumberland and her sister ships had a fully armed
spar deck, along with guns on the gun deck, resulting in a
heavily armed, 50-gun warship. She was launched May 24,
1842, at the Boston Navy Yard, Boston, Massachusetts.
The ship’s first mission was in the Mediterranean, in-
cluding Port Mahon, Genoa, Naples, Toulon, Jaffa,
and Alexandria. Cumberland was flagship of the Home
Squadron from February to December 1846. During the
Mexican-American War, she oversaw the blockade of the
eastern Mexican coast, and participated in several attacks on
Mexican ports before running aground, which caused her to
68 Prologue
retire to Norfolk, Virginia, for repairs. Cumberland returned
to Mexico to assist settlers fleeing a major Mayan insurrec-
tion (known as the Caste War of Yucatán). The Cumberland
made two additional cruises to the Mediterranean between
1849 and 1855 to uphold American neutrality. From 1857
to 1859 she cruised as flagship of the African Squadron,
patrolling for the suppression of the slave trade. Cumberland
became flagship of the Home Squadron in 1860 and made a
return trip to Vera Cruz, Mexico. With the American Civil
War, Cumberland sailed back to Hampton Roads and served
with the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, engaging
in several minor actions, and as part of the 1861 Hatteras
Expedition that captured the forts along the North Carolina
coast. On March 8, 1862—the first day of the Battle of
Hampton Roads—Cumberland lay at anchor in Hampton
Roads, when the Confederate ironclad Virginia steamed
up the Elizabeth River and rammed and sunk Cumberland,
which lost 121 men, including two officers. The engagement
between the two ships is considered to be a turning point
in the history of naval affairs as it showed the advantage of
steam-powered armored ships over sail-powered wooden
hulled ships.
The columnar sheets used in these logs contain detailed
meteorological and hydrographic data and instrument read-
ings indicating the position of the ship. There are also spaces
that were used for recording general drills and exercises,
ocean temperature and other information about the surface
of the ocean, and hydrographic and meteorological remarks.
The remarks sheet contains whatever narrative account or
information was considered important; it describes actions
engaged in and lists those wounded or killed in action. In
addition, logbooks often contain lists of enlisted men and
notes on the condition and movements of the ship, the
quantity of stores, and disciplinary actions taken.
Other Recent Microfilm Publications
Soundex Index to Supplemental Manifests of Alien Passengers
and Crew Members Who Arrived on Vessels at New York, New
York, 1887–1921, Who Were Inspected for Admission, 1915–
1921 (A3485, RG 85, 1 roll)
Manifests of Alien Arrivals at Ambrose, Antler, Carbury,
Fortuna, Noonan, Northgate, Portal, Sherwood, and Westhope,
North Dakota, January 1921–December 1952 (A3560, RG
85, 1 roll)
Manifests of Alien Arrivals by Airplane at Houston, Texas,
Spring 2010
 Above: The revised edition of Citing Records.
Right: A page from the logbook of the USS
Cumberland for July 17, 1858, records the
onboard visit of the American Consul at
Funchal Bay, Madeira.
December 1946–April 1954 (A4025, RG 85, 1 roll)
Records Regarding Intelligence and Financial Investigations
of the Financial Intelligence Group, OMGUS, 1945–1949
(M1925, RG 260, 9 rolls, DP)
OSS Washington Secret Intelligence/Special Funds Records,
1942–1946 (M1934, RG 226, 24 rolls, DP)
Indexes to Naturalization Records for the U.S. District
Court, 1906–1991, and the U.S. Circuit Court, 1906–1911,
Rhode Island (M2084, RG 21, 23 rolls)
World War II Draft Cards (Fourth Registration) for the State
of Wisconsin (M2126, RG 147, 118 rolls)
General Claims Against Russia, 1807–1881 (M2132, RG
76, 1 roll)
Correspondence of the Superintendent of Vicksburg National
Cemetery, 1879–1880 (M2133, RG 79, 1 roll)
Publications

For descriptions of the contents of National Archives
microfilm publications, visit the Order Online web page at
www.archives.gov. Consult the roll list or table of contents
for the series before ordering specific rolls.
Publications can be purchased for $85 per microfilm roll
or $125 per CD-ROM through Order Online or by submit-
ting an order form (available on www.archives.gov/research/
order) to National Archives Trust Fund, Cashier (NAT),
Form 72 Order, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD
20740-6001. Make checks payable to the National Archives
Trust Fund. VISA, MasterCard, Discover, and American
Express are also accepted. Provide the account number, ex-
piration date, and cardholder signature. Telephone: 1-800-
234-8861; fax: 301-837-0483.
Prologue 69
the foundation for the National Archives
Foundation Proud to
Collaborate With Great
Civil War Exhibit Team
From the beginning, one of the top priorities of the Foundation
has been to introduce new audiences to the National Archives
and its important work.
We have done this by supporting the National Archives
Experience in Washington, D.C., as well as educational initiatives
and traveling exhibits around the country. Through our outreach
and web-based initiatives, we also have been able to promote the
Archives around the globe.
This spring, we take our commitment further, partnering with
the wonderful archivists, conservators, curators, designers, and
exhibit specialists at the National Archives as well as a team of
outside exhibit designers and interactive technology experts to
present “Discovering the Civil War.”
Thanks to the commitment of the Foundation’s Board, as well
as contributions from generous corporate and individual donors,
the Archives’ latest exhibit will take visitors on a journey through
a war we thought we knew, but 150 years later are still discover-
ing. This ongoing discovery, like this world-class exhibit—is a
celebration of the very essence of the National Archives as a place
where citizens of our democracy gain access to and interpret for
themselves the original records of their government.
The stars of our exhibit team are the dedi-
cated employees of the National Archives
who interact with and help preserve these re-
cords every day. We are so proud of our part-
nership with NARA, allowing our executive
director, Thora Colot, and the Foundation’s
staff to work closely with Marvin Pinkert,
director of the Center for the National
Archives Experience, as well as Chris Rudy Smith, head of NAE’s
exhibits team, and Bruce Bustard, senior curator for “Discovering
the Civil War.” We are also pleased to bring to the team the
expertise of two Washington, D.C.–based firms, Jackson Brady
Design Group and Cortina Productions.
Together, the Foundation, the exhibits team at the National
Archives Experience, and our talented design partners have pro-
duced a superb exhibit that will educate the public in a new way
not only about the Civil War but also about the importance of
the National Archives and the treasures to be found here.
This unique exhibit will teach us not just about the politics and
the battles of the Civil War but about our fellow Americans—the
roles they played in the war and how they were affected by the
war. We hope those who experience the exhibit in Washington
and in cities around the country will discover a personal connec-
tion with their nation’s history and will be inspired to investigate
further by tapping the vast collection of government records held
by the National Archives.
KEN LORE
President, Foundation for the National Archives
70 Prologue
Foundation Develops
New Products to Accompany
“Discovering the Civil War”
Exhibit
The Archives Shop is dedicated to developing exciting
new collections of quality products and publications related
to the National Archives and its holdings, exhibits, and
programs.
Premiering this spring are several new items developed
by the Foundation’s staff and based on the “Discovering the
Civil War” exhibit. They include stationery products and
prints as well as a Civil War postcard book containing im-
ages of maps—some never before published—from the vast
collection of the National Archives’ cartographic archives.
Also available this spring is a line of jewelry, created ex-
clusively for the Archives Shop, featuring original red tape
once used to bind Civil War–era government documents.
Use of this type of binding gave rise to the popular expres-
sion “cutting through the red tape.”
In addition, the second in the shop’s annual Document
Ornament Series will be available during the exhibit. It fea-
tures a depiction of one of the most important documents
of the Civil War era: the rarely displayed Emancipation
Proclamation, which has been preserved and is held in trust
for the American people by the National Archives.
Also available in the shop this year will be an exhibit
catalog to accompany “Discovering the Civil War” as well as
several Civil War books. They include Drew Gilpin Faust’s
national bestseller This Republic of Suffering: Death and the
American Civil War, a finalist for the National Book Award,
and Robert Roper’s Now the Drum of War: Walt Whitman
and his Brothers in the Civil War. Also available in the shop
is A People at War: Civilians and Soldiers in America’s Civil
War, 1854–1877, by Scott Nelson and Carol Sheriff.
Members of the Foundation for the National Archives
and volunteers at the National Archives receive a discount
on all merchandise in the Archives Shop. All proceeds sup-
port the educational initiatives of the National Archives.
For telephone orders or inquiries, please contact the
Archives Shop at 202-357-5271.
The Foundation for the National Archives supports the National
Archives and Records Administration in developing programs,
projects, and materials that tell the story of America through the
holdings in NARA.
For more information on how you can help others experience
the National Archives, contact the Foundation at 202-357-5946,
or write to us at foundationmembers@nara.gov.
To learn more about the Foundation, visit www.archives.gov/nae.
Spring 2010
 Foundation Gala Honors Annette Gordon-Reed

Top left: Historian and Pulitzer Prize–winning author Annette Gordon-Reed accepts her Records of Achievement Award during the Foundation’s
2009 Gala. Top right: Annette Gordon-Reed (center) enjoys the Gala with her husband, Robert Reed (left), and Acting Archivist of the United
States Adrienne Thomas (right), along with Foundation President Ken Lore (back row, left), Foundation Executive Director Thora Colot (center),
and Sean McCormack (right) of The Boeing Company, which sponsored the event for the fifth year. Above left: Foundation Board member Cokie
Roberts (left) was joined at the Gala by her niece, Charlotte Davidson (right). Above right: Maureen Cragin of The Boeing Company attended the
Gala with husband, Charlie Cragin.

AT&T Supports “Discovering the Civil War”

A $100,000 contribution from AT&T in support of
“Discovering the Civil War” will enhance the strong educa-
tional components of the exhibit through the development
of public programming, online content, publications, and
outreach materials.
AT&T’s contribution will help to educate millions about
the untold stories of the real people who shaped the future
of our country during this critical period, as well as expand
the exhibit’s reach by attracting new and diverse audiences
from throughout the greater Washington, D.C., region and
nationwide.
“We are pleased to partner with the Foundation for the
National Archives to share the often-overlooked stories of
everyday men and women from vastly different backgrounds
whose lives were dramatically altered by the Civil War,” said
Laura Sanford, assistant vice president AT&T Corporate
Contributions. “AT&T also applauds the exhibit’s goal to
teach critical thinking and research techniques to students,
as these skills are critical to success, not only in school and
in the workforce, but also in life.”
With the help of state-of-the-art interactive technology
designed to engage learners of all ages and backgrounds, the
educational components of the exhibit will increase access to
and understanding of the historical documents and artifacts
in “Discovering the Civil War,” encouraging visitors to use
primary source records to learn from firsthand accounts of
our nation’s history.
“We are grateful to AT&T for its leadership as we embark
on our largest and most ambitious traveling exhibit to date,”
said Ken Lore, president of the Foundation for the National
Archives. “We thank AT&T for sharing our commitment
to civics education and innovative learning techniques and
our belief in the power of original records to bring history
to life for visitors of all ages.”

Foundation Prologue 71
pieces of history

A
SEAL
of
GUILT
I
n the spring of 1860, the enterpris-
ing and opportunistic George W. L.
Bickley embarked on a tour of the
southern United States to recruit mem-
bers for his secret society, the Knights of
the Golden Circle. Bickley had formed
the KGC in the mid-1850s to extend
Southern interests (i.e., slavery) to a “Golden
Circle” of territories that included Mexico,
Central America, parts of South America, and
the Caribbean. He visited several cities in March
1860, signing up recruits and gathering money to
invade Mexico. In early April, however, disgruntled
“Knights” in New Orleans denounced Bickley as a fraud
and imposter.
Bickley continued to solicit support and funds for his
schemes but changed his focus after the election of 1860
brought Abraham Lincoln to the White House. Instead of
colonizing Mexico, the KGC would defend Southern rights Bickley never realized his grand dreams, but enough
against Yankee interference. men joined units of the Knights of the Golden Circle that
the threat to the Union seemed imminent in the minds of
some Northerners. Claims of tens of thousands of mem-
bers in Midwestern states—notably Indiana, Illinois, and
Ohio—stirred fears of conspiracies against the Republican
government.
The die for the seal of the Knights of the Golden Circle
came into the hands of the U.S. Army when Bickley was ar-
rested in Tennessee in July 1863. Although he tried to tell the
arresting officers that he had no connection with the KGC,
the contents of his trunk proved otherwise. Along with this
seal the Army found several other documents relating to
the Knights, including a copy of the Rules, Regulations and
Principles of the Knights of the Golden Circle; a calling card for
“Gen. Geo. Bickley” bearing the Confederate flag and the
letters “K.G.C.”; and another card that listed the secret signs
of recognition known by Knights. P

Above: Metal die for the seal of the Knights of the Golden Circle.
Right: Card listing the KGC's secret signs of recognition.

Spring 2010
N ational A rchives and R ecords A dministr ation
National Archives and Records Administration NARA–Southeast Region NARA-Pacific Region (Riverside)
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 4712 Southpark Boulevard 23123 Cajalco Road
Washington, DC 20408-0001 Ellenwood, GA 30294-3595 Perris, CA 92570-7298
202-357-5400 404-736-2820 951-956-2054
E-mail: inquire@nara.gov E-mail: laguna.archives@nara.gov
NARA–Great Lakes Region (Chicago)
National Archives and Records Administration 7358 South Pulaski Road NARA–Pacific Region (Riverside)
8601 Adelphi Road Chicago, IL 60629-5898 23123 Cajalco Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001 773-948-9001 Perris, CA 92572-7298
301-837-2000 951-956-2000
E-mail: inquire@nara.gov NARA–Great Lakes Region (Dayton)
3150 Springboro Road NARA–Pacific Region (San Francisco)
NARA–Northeast Region (Boston) Dayton, OH 45439-1883 1000 Commodore Drive
380 Trapelo Road 937-425-0600 San Bruno, CA 94066-2350
Waltham, MA 02452-6399 650-238-3500
866-406-2379 NARA–Central Plains Region (Kansas City)
400 West Pershing Road NARA–Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle)
NARA–Northeast Region (Pittsfield) Kansas City, MO 64108-4306 6125 Sand Point Way, NE
10 Conte Drive 816-268-8000 Seattle, WA 98115-7999
Pittsfield, MA 01201-8230 206-336-5115
413-236-3600 NARA–Central Plains Region (Lee’s Summit)
200 Space Center Drive NARA–Pacific Alaska Region (Anchorage)
NARA–Northeast Region (New York City) Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-1182 654 West Third Avenue
201 Varick Street, 12th Floor 816-288-8100 Anchorage, AK 99501-2145
New York, NY 10014-4811 907-261-7800
212-401-1620 NARA–Central Plains Region (Lenexa)
17501 West 98th Street, Ste. 31-50 NARA–National Personnel Records Center
NARA–Mid Atlantic Region (Center City Philadelphia) Lenexa, KS 66219-1735 (Civilian Personnel Records)
900 Market Street 913-825-7800 111 Winnebago Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107-4292 St. Louis, MO 63118-4199
215-606-0100 NARA–Southwest Region 314-801-9250
501 West Felix Street
NARA–Mid Atlantic Region (Northeast Philadelphia) P.O. Box 6216 NARA–National Personnel Records Center
14700 Townsend Road Fort Worth, TX 76115-0216 (Military Personnel Records)
Philadelphia, PA 19154-1096 817-831-5620 9700 Page Avenue
215-305-2000 St. Louis, MO 63132-5100
NARA–Rocky Mountain Region 314-801-0800
NARA–Southeast Region Denver Federal Center, Building 48
5780 Jonesboro Road P.O. Box 25307 Washington National Records Center
Morrow, GA 30260-3806 Denver, CO 80225-0307 4205 Suitland Road
770-968-2100 303-407-5700 Suitland, MD 20746-8001
301-778-1600

Presidential Libraries
Herbert Hoover Library Lyndon Baines Johnson Library Jimmy Carter Library
210 Parkside Drive 2313 Red River Street 441 Freedom Parkway
P.O. Box 488 Austin, TX 78705-5702 Atlanta, GA 30307-1498
West Branch, IA 52358-0488 512-721-0200 404-865-7100
319-643-5301 www.lbjlib.utexas.edu www.jimmycarterlibrary.org
www.hoover.archives.gov
Richard Nixon Library Ronald Reagan Library
Franklin D. Roosevelt Library 18001 Yorba Linda Boulevard 40 Presidential Drive
4079 Albany Post Road Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3903 Simi Valley, CA 93065-0600
Hyde Park, NY 12538-1999 714-983-9120 805-577-4000/ 800-410-8354
845-486-7770 / 800-337-8474 www.nixonlibrary.gov www.reagan.utexas.edu
www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu
Richard Nixon Library–College Park George Bush Library
Harry S. Truman Library 8601 Adelphi Road 1000 George Bush Drive
500 West U.S. Highway 24 College Park, MD 20740-6001 College Station, TX 77845-3906
Independence, MO 64050-1798 301-837-3290 979-691-4000
816-268-8200 / 800-833-1225 bushlibrary.tamu.edu
www.trumanlibrary.org Gerald R. Ford Library
1000 Beal Avenue William J. Clinton Library
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2114 1200 President Clinton Avenue
200 Southeast Fourth Street 734-205-0555 Little Rock, AR 72201-1749
Abilene, KS 67410-2900 www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov 501-374-4242
785-263-6700 / 877-746-4453 www.clintonlibrary.gov
www.eisenhower.archives.gov Gerald R. Ford Museum
303 Pearl Street, NW George W. Bush Library
John F. Kennedy Library Grand Rapids, MI 49504-5353 1725 Lakepointe Drive
Columbia Point 616-254-0400 Lewisville, TX 75057
Boston, MA 02125-3398 972-353-0545
617-514-1600 / 866-JFK-1960 www.georgewbushlibrary.gov
www.jfklibrary.org
Prologue Spring 2010