Collisions of Conflict Studies in

American History and Culture 1820

1920 1st Edition Sobieraj
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/collisions-of-conflict-studies-in-american-history-and-c
ulture-1820-1920-1st-edition-sobieraj/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Borneo Studies in History Society and Culture 1st

Edition Victor T. King

https://textbookfull.com/product/borneo-studies-in-history-
society-and-culture-1st-edition-victor-t-king/

American Cultural Studies An Introduction to American

Culture Neil Campbell

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-cultural-studies-an-
introduction-to-american-culture-neil-campbell/

New Approaches to Latin American Studies Culture and

Power 1st Edition Juan Poblete

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-approaches-to-latin-
american-studies-culture-and-power-1st-edition-juan-poblete/

Comparative North American Studies: Transnational

Approaches to American and Canadian Literature and
Culture 1st Edition Reingard M. Nischik (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-north-american-
studies-transnational-approaches-to-american-and-canadian-
literature-and-culture-1st-edition-reingard-m-nischik-auth/
The Melodramatic Moment Music and Theatrical Culture
1790 1820 Katherine G. Hambridge

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-melodramatic-moment-music-
and-theatrical-culture-1790-1820-katherine-g-hambridge/

American Illuminations: Urban Lighting, 1800–1920 David

E. Nye

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-illuminations-urban-
lighting-1800-1920-david-e-nye/

Marketing and American Consumer Culture: A Cultural

Studies Analysis 1st Edition Arthur Asa Berger (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/marketing-and-american-consumer-
culture-a-cultural-studies-analysis-1st-edition-arthur-asa-
berger-auth/

Cambridge International AS Level History The History of

the USA 1820 1941 Coursebook 2nd Edition Pete Browning

https://textbookfull.com/product/cambridge-international-as-
level-history-the-history-of-the-usa-1820-1941-coursebook-2nd-
edition-pete-browning/

The History of British Women's Writing, 1880-1920:

Volume Seven 1st Edition Holly A. Laird (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-history-of-british-womens-
writing-1880-1920-volume-seven-1st-edition-holly-a-laird-eds/
 5 Katowice Interdisciplinary and Comparative Studies
This book explores and analyzes the problems and challenges that have Literature, Anthropology and Culture
resulted from the Civil War, Reconstruction, slavery, and segregation in
North America. These painful chapters in American history have contin- Edited by Tadeusz Sławek
ued along racial and regional lines and are of particular interest today when
the USA are for the first time governed by an African American presi- Volume 5
dent. The postscriptum extends the main narrative by focusing on selected
writers’ activities and fiction during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Jerzy Sobieraj

Collisions of Conflict
Studies in American History
and Culture, 1820-1920

Jerzy Sobieraj · Collisions of Conflict

Jerzy Sobieraj’s research is in the American literature and history of the
19th and 20th centuries with a special focus on the American South. The
first Polish monograph about the Ku Klux Klan is among his books. He
teaches courses on American literature, culture, and history at the University
of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw (Poland). He has also taught
Southern fiction at the Universitat Jaume I in Spain. As a recipient of sev-
eral academic grants, he did research at Brown University, the University
of Tennessee at Knoxville, and Vanderbilt University. Professor Sobieraj is
currently working on a book-length study of the Civil-War era.

www.peterlang.com ISBN 978-3-631-64848-3

KIC 05_264848_Sobieraj_AM_A5HCk PLE.indd 1 06.05.14 11:58

Collisions of Conflict
KATOWICE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND
COMPARATIVE STUDIES
LITERATURE, ANTHROPOLOGY AND CULTURE

Edited by Tadeusz Sławek

VOLUME 5
 Jerzy Sobieraj

Collisions of Conflict
Studies in American History
and Culture, 1820-1920
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sobieraj, Jerzy, 1955-
Collisions of conflict : studies in American history and culture, 1820-1920 /
Jerzy Sobieraj.
pages cm. – (Katowice interdisciplinary and comparative studies, ISSN
2191-3277 ; volume 5)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-631-64848-3
1. United States–History–19th century. 2. United States–Race relations–
19th century. 3. African Americans–History–19th century. 4. United States–
Social conditions–19th century. I. Title.
E371.S63 2014
973.5–dc23
2014018788

This publication was financially supported by the

University of Social Sciences and Humanities.

ISSN 2191-3277
ISBN 978-3-631-64848-3 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-653-03836-1 (E-Book)
DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-03836-1
© Peter Lang GmbH
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Frankfurt am Main 2014
All rights reserved.
Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH.
Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙
Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any
utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to
prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions,
translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in
electronic retrieval systems.
This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com
Table of contents

Acknowledgements......................................................................................11
Introduction................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 1
The Seeds of War: From the Missouri Compromise to Secession.............. 21
Chapter 2
Fighting Slavery: Various Shades of Abolitionism..................................... 33
Chapter 3
Lincoln and the Civil War........................................................................... 47
Chapter 4
Black Learning, Land, and Labor in the Reconstruction South.................. 61
Chapter 5
The Invisible Empire: The Short Career of the First Ku Klux Klan
and Its Rebirth............................................................................................. 75
Chapter 6
Years of Shame: Lynching in the United States from the 1880s
to the Great War.......................................................................................... 87
Chapter 7
“Wounded in the House of Our Friends”: Segregation in the Republic...... 101
Postscriptum...............................................................................................115
1. The Civil War and the Writer...........................................................115
2. The Literature of Reconstruction.................................................... 126
Chronology............................................................................................... 131
Works Cited.............................................................................................. 133
Index of Names......................................................................................... 147
To Ewa
history is something unpleasant that happens to other people
Arnold J. Toynbee

our experience and understanding of ‘the past’ originates

from the unavoidable experience of separation we feel
between the past and our present
Alun Munslow, commenting on Frank Ankersmit
Acknowledgements

My deepest gratitude, difficult to express in words, goes to Professor Samuel

Coale of Wheaton College, Massachusetts, whose help, comments, and
advice on this project were priceless. The project could not be developed
without the invitation from the English Department of Brown University;
my special thanks go to Professor Philip Gould, head of the department, and
Professor Stephen Foley whose assistance was more than outstanding. As a
visiting scholar I had access to numerous resources indispensable to complete
this project. My work was easier due to professionalism and kindness of the
librarians at Brown’s Rockefeller Library.
I also appreciate the support of my Polish friends and colleagues,
Professor Marta Wiszniowska of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in
Warsaw and Professor Piotr Skurowski of Warsaw’s University of Social
Sciences and Humanities. I cannot omit mentioning a grant received from
the latter institution, which was much help in my work on this project.
I am extremely grateful to my wife, Ewa, my daughter, Kasia, and her
husband, Staś, for their constant interest and support.
Introduction

One of the fruits of the Civil War was the legislation abolishing slavery
and guaranteeing all citizens of the United States the right to vote. African
Americans, yesterday’s slaves, could for the first time be legally elected
to significant positions at the local, state, and federal level. The Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, abolishing
slavery, passed during the Civil War and ratified in December, 1865, became
at that time, as some stated, the most important legal act in American history.
More than 140 years ago in 1868, all Americans including the newly freed
slaves, could vote in the presidential election, and later several black activists
were elected to important state-level and federal offices. Hiram Rhodes
Revels of Mississippi became the first African American to sit in the United
States Senate in 1870 and 1871.
After the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, Wendell Phillips,
abolitionist and human rights activist, exclaimed, “We have washed color
out of the constitution” (qtd. in Quarles, The Negro 138). African Americans,
realizing its significance, celebrated the event in all parts of the country.
During one of such celebrations, Frederick Douglass, former slave and
well-known activist, exulted: “We have a future, everything is possible to
us” (138). Neither “black codes,” limiting the rights of African Americans,
nor the activity of the Ku Klux Klan, often aimed at creating obstacles that
would prevent freedmen from participating in elections, killed this belief in
a better future.
On May 17, 1954, the eve of the fifty eighth anniversary of the sanctioning
of racial segregation, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case
Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al. that
ended, de jure, racial segregation in the United States, though practically it
only legalized the long process of desegregation.
On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous
Washington speech, I Have a Dream, in which he reminded Americans of
the dream which defined the essence of their culture and civilization, the
14 Introduction

dream about equal rights for all, of the brotherhood of all Americans, in
which the descendants of the slaves would not be judged on the basis of the
color of their skin but by virtue of their character, about an America in which
young, dark-skinned Americans would be able to shake hands with their
white peers. When this happens, concluded King, all Americans, irrespective
of their faith and the color of their skin, would be able to sing the words of
the old spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free
at last!”
The election of Barack Obama as president in 2008 for many Americans,
irrespective of color, fulfilled the hopes that King expressed 45 years earlier.
Magic Johnson and Michael Moore talking to CNN interviewer, Larry King,
admitted that they never thought that what happened in the fall of 2008 could
ever happen in their lifetime. Jesse Jackson, whose tears after the returns
were shown on almost every television station, defined the reason for this
display of emotion as both “pain and joy,” probably referring to the long
and painful journey African Americans were forced to undertake to witness
this moment, taking great pride in what had happened. In 1920, if anybody
had expressed the conviction that in less than a hundred years an African
American would become the president of the United States, he could have
been at worst brutally treated by a local Klan or declared at best insane.
Many years also had to pass before a majority of the citizens in Indiana and
Virginia decided to vote for an African American as president.
Many commentators gave many reasons for Obama’s victory. Some
acknowledged the national disappointment with the Bush presidency; some
even talked about a politically liberal breakthrough. More than 60 percent of
young Americans voted for Barack Obama, including more than 50 percent
of women. Perhaps many saw in him the symbol of their own fight for equal
rights or of their own belief in a better future. Many emphasized the fact that
America after this election became a new, “post-racial” country. In his speech
after having been elected, Barack Obama addressed the people gathered at a
rally in Chicago’s Grand Park: “This is your victory.” He was also aware of
the fact that it was not only in recent decades that made his election possible
but that it was also the long history of injustice and conflict that brought him
and Americans to this moment:
 Introduction 15

The election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations.
But one that’s on my mind tonight’s about a woman who cast her ballot in
Atlanta. She’s lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their
voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106
years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were
no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote
for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her
skin. And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in
America – the heart ache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times
we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American
creed: Yes we can. (“Transcript”)
One can see Obama’s presidency as the realization of a “color-blind” America
and the fulfillment of the dream of equality for all people, irrespective of
their race. Some interpret it as the end of the long battle for civil rights.
A fine example of the “vitality” of history is the local and national debate
about the Civil War on the occasion of its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary.
In 2011, one hundred and fifty years after the conflict began, many American
papers and magazines started reporting various events to commemorate the
war. Claire Suddath entitled her article in Time, ”A Union Divided: South
Split on U.S. Civil War Legacy” and Laura Parker entitled hers, “Civil War,
150 Years Later, Still Divides our Nation.”
President Obama, commemorating the one hundred and fiftieth
anniversary, stated in his proclamation that “a new birth of freedom” was
brought to a country that is “still mending its divisions” (qtd. in Jackson,
“Obama”). He summed up the accomplishments of the victorious Union in
the following way:
As a result of the sacrifice of millions, we would extend the promise and
freedom enshrined in our constitution to all Americans. Through the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteen amendments, we would prohibit slavery and indentured
servitude, establish equal protection under the law, and extend the right to vote to
former slaves. We would reach for a more perfect Union together as Americans,
bound by the collective threads of history and our common hopes for the future.
We are the United States of America – we have been tested, we have repaired
our union, and we have emerged stronger. (qtd. in Jackson, “Obama”)
The Sesquicentennial raised a lively discussion about the Civil War, its causes
and final result, ranging from occasional, moderate commemorations of the
16 Introduction

event to extremely heated and opinionated debates. Apart from Obama’s

proclamation, there were obviously others, delivered by various institutions
and their representatives. Jim Lighthizer, the Civil War Trust President,
called on the occasion for the protection of the battlefields:
[W]e must remember the profound events of the Civil War, contemplating the
ways in which it has shaped our nation, we must also look to the future. We
must embrace the sesquicentennial period as an opportunity to improve our
intellectual perspective on the past. We must look upon it as our chance to
complete the altogether fitting and proper work of protecting these battlefields
for future generations. (“Reflections”)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
suggested treating the Civil War and its aftermath as a “teachable moment
for the generations to come” (qtd. in Fleming, “NAACP”). In a letter sent
to President Obama on April 7, 2011, the organization wanted all those
involved in the commemoration “to remain vigilant and to ensure that the
federal government does all it can to stay true to the message that this nation
ultimately grew and prospered because it ultimately remained a nation and
a people United and committed to the goal of freedom and justice for all”
(qtd. in Fleming, “NAACP). Locally, the NAACP objected strongly, first
of all, to the term “celebration” in reference to the anniversary and even to
the term “commemoration.” Georgia’s NAACP President, Edward DuBose,
said, “‘This was not something to commemorate …. Commemorate means
you’re honoring something. There’s nothing honorable about this period.
Nothing at all. We cannot somehow try to sanitize slavery. You can’t do
it’”(“NAACP”).
The NAACP was also concerned with the way some organizations had
started commemorating the event, fearing that the anniversary could turn
into political propaganda that celebrated the lost Southern cause more than
the legal and social results of the conflict. As early as December 20, 2010,
the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) gathered for a private gala not
without reason. The date was significant since it marked the sesquicentennial
of the day the first Southern state, South Carolina, seceded. Though on the
one hand, the SCV denounces all kinds of hatred and violence, on the other
the organization presents a rather controversial attitude towards American
 Introduction 17

history, blaming “the North for slavery” or calling President Abraham Lincoln
“’an aggressor against another nation, just as Hitler was an aggressor against
other nations’” (Suddath). Glenn McConnell, President pro tempore of the
South Carolina Senate, however, said that “[t]he War Between the States
triggered generations of disputes and controversies between regions, races
and cultures,” and, focusing on today, he added that “the time has come to
move beyond the petty disputes of the past” (qtd. in Smith, “Nation”).
Apart from all the institutional divisions over the commemoration/
celebration, one could observe a heated internet debate involving many
American citizens. There were several issues over which Americans from
both the North and South have been arguing. The most important ones,
returning often in the heat of the discussion, involved General Nathan
Bedford Forrest’s role in the conflict itself, Lincoln’s role in starting the war,
legal aspects of the sovereignty of Southern states, slavery, and the legacy of
the war’s outcome.
Forrest naturally emerged in the discussion, as he always had stirred up
controversy. Some condemned him as a leader of the early Ku Klux Klan,
others saw him as a hero, as for instance the Nashville Agrarians did, in the
person of Andrew Nelson Lytle, who once wrote the following about him:
“What the hero gives us is the image of his devotion and selflessness and
the knowledge that he can save us from the powers of darkness – at times.
Forrest had shown himself to be the hero who could save absolutely ...”
(XXVI-XXVII). The participants of the Time debate were well aware of
these sentiments. One of them, a Mr. Tugson, stated that “[h]e should not
be honored. Forrest was a cold blooded killer ... (Suddah and Debate).”
His respondent, Whit Denman, however, defended Forrest against such
accusations, and there were more various opinions about him that continued
to make him an important topic in the context of the debate.
Interestingly, President Lincoln himself faced even more severe attacks.
For Steve Overton “Lincoln was a murderer.” Alan R. Lee held that “Lincoln
did to the South the same thing that Hitler did to the Jews.” According to
Jason Jones, “Lincoln was a bigot who waged an illegal war against the
Confederate States of America” (Suddah and Debate).
18 Introduction

The problem of the (il)legality and the causes of the war was another
recurring issue in the debate. Steven Mirante disagreed with one of the
participants who saw the conflict as “a war in which Southerners fought to
defend their homes and families against an aggressive invasion by federal
troops.” He emphasized that, after all, the South seceded first, and he called
proponents of such opinions “stupid racist redneck southern revisionists.” In
reply, Manny Romero, stated that “[a]ny arguments put forward about states
rights and intrusions by the federal government do not change the fact that
the south’s attempt at succession [sic] was nothing more than unpatriotic
and treason.” Denman saw the war as “an unjust aggression, completely
unnecessary and the repercussions are still rampant today.” He also touched
upon the legal aspect of secession, believing that “the Southern states had
a perfect right to secede. They entered into the republic freely and should
have been allowed to leave without regress. There is no codicile [sic] in the
constitution that expressly forbids secession” (Suddah and Debate).
The slavery issue also received much attention in this Civil War debate.
For example Denman did not want Southerners to “dance around the issue
of slavery. When cooked down to the pot-liquor slavery was indeed one of
the causes, but frankly it was a tertiary cause.” Debbie Lewis, seemingly
seconding this statement, was convinced that “the south did not fight to keep
slavery. Lincoln told the south they could keep their slaves if they would not
leave the union. The south left anyway. So, if it was all about slavery, they
didn’t need to fight did they?” (Suddah and Debate).
Still in discussing slavery, Denman turned our attention to the aftermath
of the war. He thought of the emancipation of slaves as totally unsuccessful:
“The civil war is not over. Because the union and the northern alliance never
made any plans to assimilate the emancipated into society as productive
citizens.” Alluding to post-Civil War Reconstruction, he asked, “How could
any responsible government set free 4 million ill-prepared persons on an
unprepared societal infrastructure?” In a sense, the war did not end with
General Lee’s courthouse signature, as Denman interpreted Reconstruction’s
aftermath:
No, reconstruction was anything but. Most educated in the South call it the
second Civil War. And then there was the war from 1877 to 1964. Now we
 Introduction 19

are in the midst of 1965 to the present with no light at the end of any tunnel. I
live in Memphis and the war here is recognized daily. Thank God there are no
bullits [sic] in this war, but ignorance, poverty and power are all that is needed
to sustain the combats. (Suddah and Debate)
Reading this exchange of opinions, one is struck by the heat the discussion
still generates after so many years. Since certain participants disclosed the
state they came from, one can see them as supporters of their regional pride
or even as spokespersons, in the case of Southerners, for some sort of “neo-
Confederate nationalism, expressed through ‘civil religion’ of the Lost
Cause” (see Bone 200). Some tried to be objective and consider arguments
based on fact, while others spoke blindly for the North or South without
further explanation as is clearly the case in many internet discussions. Tracy
Thompson, writing from her Southern perspective about various significant
events that occurred in America in recent years commemorating the one
hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Civil War or an attempt to establish a
memorial to Sam Hose, a victim of 1899 lynching, stated that “[w]hat’s left
is coming to terms with the parts of our history that are excruciating to talk
about or remember – and even this is a gift, because we are far enough away
from those events to see them with some dispassion, but close enough to still
feel the horror” (234).
This book will examine and explore the history about Ann Nixon Cooper
that Barack Obama referred to. It will analyze the history of various conflicts
that occurred as having had an impact upon what happened during the election
of the forty-fourth president of the United States. History lives only as far as
it influences the present, and every “now” sheds new light on that past. As
John Dewey suggested, “It will, therefore, always be rewritten. As the new
presence arises, the past is the past of a different presence” (Dewey 239).
The period from 1820 to 1920 is, thus, viewed from our present perspective
with the passage of the Senate resolution condemning lynching, the election
of Barack Obama as president, and the Supreme Court’s controversial
decision to strike down Section Four of the Voting Rights Act. As Alun
Munslow would summarize our position, “human beings reflect upon not
just what happened in the past but we do so within the context of our own
personal experience of living on the receding edge of time” (157).
20 Introduction

Between 1820 and 1920 numerous social, political, and cultural conflicts
occurred. The conflicts “collide” in that they are interwoven with and overlap
one another. One cannot speak about racial issues without mentioning
the Civil War and segregation, for example. It is impossible to discuss
Reconstruction without reference to segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. This
mutual penetration of conflicting issues occurs in each of these narratives.
Chapter 1
The Seeds of War:
From the Missouri Compromise to Secession

What many critics and historians interested in the history of the Civil War
usually learn about it is a simplified version of the cause of the conflict,
slavery. The South tried doggedly to keep their slavery-based economic
system going, while the government attempted to preserve the union after a
chain of secessions and, at the same time, end slavery.
The thousands of books about the war and its context, however, which
have been published since the conflict as well as the views of many authorities
and others, show how various and equivocal the opinions and interpretations
of the Civil War can be. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, professor of modern
languages, who in 1862 declined an opportunity to do research in Europe to
join the Twentieth Regiment of Maine Volunteers, noticed almost a century
ago that “[h]istory is written for the most part from the outside. Truth often
suffers distortion by reason of the point of view of the narrator, some pre-
occupation of his judgment or fancy not only as to relative merits but even
as to facts in their real relations. An interior view may not be without some
coloring” (XI).
Robert Bradley, a participant in the academic program, The Civil War:
Crossroads of Our Being, compiled a list of different names of the conflict that
he, with a certain dose of humor, dedicated to “those who remain undecided”
(IV). The list illustrates the variety of attitudes toward the same historical
event. One can find not only such labels as the “War Against Slavery,” the
“War of Abolition,” the “Brothers’ War,” and the “War for the Union” but
also the “War for Southern Freedom,” the “War for States Rights,” the “War
for Southern Rights,” and the “War for Southern Nationality” (IV). One
of the official reports of the War defined it as the “War of the Rebellion”
(Hewett 43).
22 Chapter 1

The roots of the conflict run deep, and many professional and amateur
historians have connected the reasons for the war to the evils of slavery. With
the purchase of the Louisiana Territory in 1803 that led to the development
of new areas awaiting admittance to the Union as new territories, the
government had to take care of the delicate political balance between slave
states and free states. On the one hand, many Americans expressed their
enthusiastic attitude towards the purchase and thus gave strong support to
the Democratic-Republican party and certainly to Jefferson himself. On the
other, supporters of the Federalist Party often presented an ambivalent if not
outright opposition to acquiring the Louisiana Territory. A spokesman for
the Federalist party interpreted it as a danger to the future of the Republic,
something that “would destroy the balance of the Union” (Fleming 81).
The original states of the Union were either free states – New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania – or slave states – Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, North
Carolina and Georgia. Up to 1819, 9 more states were admitted to the Union.
Finally there were 11 free states and 11 slave ones.
In January, 1819, a geographer, Jedidiah Morse, wrote a letter to Senator
Waller Taylor, asking for information about the Missouri Territory, formerly
known as the Louisiana Territory, for a new edition of his Geography. That
made Taylor think seriously about the situation in the west. As he reported,
not yet knowing that the fears of a Federalist spokesman would prove real,
“[t]he people of the Missouri Territory have petitioned to be admitted into the
Union . . . and if there is time enough to act upon the subject, no doubt but their
wishes will be granted, as they have the number of people required” (Forbes
33). Soon the presence and future of the Missouri Territory would become a
matter of congressional and public debate. The Federalists, who once warned
that the territory would become a problem in the future, stuck to their negative
assessment. As Glover Moore put it, “[o]nce the Missouri controversy arose,
and entirely regardless of the motives of those who precipitated it, it provided
and outlet for twenty years of Federalist frustration” (15). The controversy
over the Missouri Territory, the debate about turning newly admitted states
into slave states or free states, many sensed, could initiate changes in the
entire party system and within individual parties themselves.
 The Seeds of War: From the Missouri Compromise to Secession 23

The first serious debate over admitting new states to the Union took
place in the U. S. Congress in February and March, 1820. In the middle of
February 1820, the Republican congressman, James Tallmadge, proposed
“that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be
prohibited . . . and that all children of slaves, born within the said state, after
the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five
years” (Forbes 35 – 36). Tallmadge’s proposition to amend the Missouri
statehood bill started a series of often heated debates in Congress. As James
Albert Woodburn wrote in 1894, reaching this compromise was “one of our
most violent political struggles, the outcome of one of the ablest, the most
prolonged and startling debates in the annals of the American Congress”
(251). Some time later during a debate, Tallmadge fiercely and passionately
defended his amendment, despite the consequences it might have produced:
If a dissolution of the Union must take place, let it be so! If civil war, which
gentlemen so much threaten must come, I can only say, let it come! . . . I have
the fortune and the honor to stand here as the representative of freemen, who
possess intelligence to know their rights, who have the spirit to maintain them
. . . . Here will hold my stand, until this floor, with the Constitution of my
country which supports it, shall sink beneath me. If I am doomed to fall, I shall
at least have the painful consolation to believe that I fall, as a fragment in the
ruins of my country. (Forbes 43 – 44)
The so-called Tallmadge Amendment was finally passed in the House
of Representatives by 87 to 76 votes, prohibiting slavery in the state of
Missouri and by a smaller margin for freeing slaves already residing in the
state the moment they turned 25. Tallmadge understood the significance of
the slavery issue in terms of the future potential expansion and development
of the Union. He expressed the importance of the moment reflecting Thomas
Paine’s words about the separation and union of the colonies in the 1770s:
“Now is the time. It must now be met, and the extension of the evil must now
be prevented, or the occasion is irrevocably lost and the evil can never be
controlled” (Woodburn 297).
The Missouri debate spread beyond Congress and transcended political
parties. It was conducted along sectional lines with a strong Southern voice
supporting slavery in future states. The opponents of slavery distributed
numerous pamphlets, in particular John Kenrick’s Horrors of Slavery,
24 Chapter 1

and referred also to the antislavery views of such national authorities as

Washington and Jefferson. Speaking about the Southern proponents of slavery
in the newly acquired states, Glover Moore distinguished three groups: “ (1)
those who were sincerely antislavery but regarded immediate abolition or
congressional restriction as unwise; (2) those who would have liked to defend
slavery per se but did not yet dared to; and (3) those (mostly Georgians and
South Carolinians) who openly defended slavery as a positive good” (346).
However, in what finally resulted as the Missouri Compromise, the Senate
decided to combine the admission of Missouri as a slave state with Maine as
a free state. The bill also drew a line in the Louisiana Territory dividing the
area into the northern free section and the southern slave section. Thomas
Jefferson, observing the development of the Missouri Compromise debates,
wrote 40 years before the secession of South Carolina in a letter to William
Short: “I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union
would be of long duration. I now doubt it much” (Primary Documents). The
law and especially the way it was debated, together with the attitudes of many
politicians and influential local leaders towards the place of slavery in the
newly acquired states, was for the co-founder of the Republic, “like a fire bell
in the night, signaling the death knell of the Union” (Fleming, A Disease 93).
During the Missouri controversy and in the decades to follow, one
more issue became quite visible, i. e., the growth of southern separatism,
sometimes referred to as southern nationalism. One might expect that this
sense of separatism would be one of crucial factors in any future debates
over the problem of admitting new states as free or slave ones. As David M.
Potter emphasized, “ [d]uring the fifties, the spirit of southernism continued
to grow” (462) and “[s]tate loyalty no doubt gave ground to regional loyalty
between 1830s and 1860s” (463). At various political meetings, the distinction
between the North and the South was strongly emphasized. Though “southern
nationalism was born of resentment and not of a sense of separate cultural
identity . . . the cultural dissimilarities of North and South were significant
enough to turn a campaign for the protection of Southern interests into a
movement with a strong color of nationalism” (469). Thus the division
between those who voted for making new states free and those who voted for
them as slave states crossed party but not regional and sectional lines.
 The Seeds of War: From the Missouri Compromise to Secession 25

Years later, when California was admitted to the Union as a free state, as
a result of the so-called Compromise of 1850, the territories of New Mexico
and Utah were organized without any debate over the issue of slavery,
meaning that the inhabitants of both could decide about their own future.
The compromise also introduced a more strict Fugitive Slave Law according
to which any and all escaped slaves had to be captured and returned to their
masters no matter where they were found. The law was criticized by many
northerners but welcomed by many southerners. In effect, the compromise
only heightened sectional tensions.
When in 1854, Congressman Stephen A. Douglas, a proponent of
territorial expansion and economic progress, supported the idea of creating
a transcontinental railroad, in which he was financially involved, he was
aware of the fact that such huge project would be very risky without being
able to rely upon the political stability of the new territories. He also saw how
many Americans believed, especially after the Californian gold rush, in the
opportunity and success that the West at that moment represented. Douglas
in his proposed bill, known first as the “Act to Organize the Territories of
Nebraska and Kansas,” wanted to divide a new region into two sections, in
which the existence of slavery could be decided by the local inhabitants and
thus by popular sovereignty. Since that was also when heated exchanges
between proponents and opponents of slavery flared up again, he tried to get
both parties to compromise. What Douglas offered, in effect, would result in
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
Similarly to the warnings James Tallmadge expressed years earlier when
he faced the potential failure of his proposals for the Missouri Compromise,
Senator Benjamin Wade, in a prophetic tone, spoke about the Kansas
– Nebraska bill that allowed citizens of these states to decide whether to
ban or allow slavery, that would also result in the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise: “Tomorrow, I believe, there is to be an eclipse of the sun, and
I think that the sun in the heavens and the glory of this republic should both
go into obscurity and darkness together. Let the bill then pass. It is a proper
occasion for so dark and damning a deed” (qtd. in Wunder and Ross 1).
The final document, known as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, popularly
referred to in Congress as the Nebraska bill, became law in May, 1854, and
26 Chapter 1

it infuriated both the opponents and proponents of slavery. Through the rest
of the year there were many heated debates between the supporters of the
new law and its opponents. In the famous exchange of speeches in Peoria,
Illinois, between Stephen Douglas and an up-and-coming Abraham Lincoln,
Douglas delivered a long speech that focused on his achievement, the Kansas
– Nebraska Act, while Lincoln criticized the new bill, speaking for nearly
three hours about the evils of slavery. Alluding to those who supported the
slave system and to those who presented an ambivalent attitude towards it,
like Douglas himself, Lincoln stated the following:
This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread
of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of
slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our Republican example of its just
influence in the world – enables the enemies of free institutions . . . to taunt
us as hypocrites – causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity;
and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves
into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty. (qtd. in
Holzer 41)
Though the rule applied in the bill was called “popular sovereignty,” its
application, according to many, could finally result in implementing slavery
in new territories without any possibility of federal reaction. The bill stirred
much heated controversies, which resulted in violence: “The raw principles of
democracy, and not solely race, . . . were unleashed by the Kansas-Nebraska
Act, leading to violent instability on the American frontier” (Wunder and
Ross 4-5). For Lincoln the new bill gave slave states everything, and thus it
was no bargain at all for the North (Paludan 102). He knew quite well what
the Kansas – Nabraska Act would lead to. In his Peoria speech he prophesied
the turmoil that would occur:
Through all this, bowie-knives and six-shooters are seen plainly enough . . . .
And, really, what is to be the result of this? Each party WITHIN, having
numerous and determined backers WITHOUT, is it not probable that the contest
will come to blows, and bloodshed? . . . And if this fight should begin, is it very
likely to take a very peaceful, Union-saving turn? Will not the first drop of
blood so shed, be the real knell of the Union? (qtd. in Paludan 104)
Many anti-slavery activists, including the active abolitionist, John Brown,
and his sons, left for Kansas to turn it into a free territory. Brown belonged to
 The Seeds of War: From the Missouri Compromise to Secession 27

the radicals who would react violently to those who attempted to turn Kansas
into a slave state, although the first serious steps towards violent action were
initiated by a proslavery group. The group, consisting of the inhabitants of
several Southern states, stormed Lawrence, an antislavery center in Kansas,
after a slavery-supporting sheriff was shot not far from the town; they burned
several houses and blew up a hotel. Brown and his company of about forty
men tried to face the destroyers, but when his people arrived at the scene, the
proslavery group had already fled.
Brown’s group moved on to places known for their proslavery sympathies,
killing people as they went, some not even connected with any proslavery
sentiments. The massacre, also known as the Pottawatomie Killings, was
described by Thomas Fleming as “butchery” (198). Later, when asked
whether or not he committed the murders, Brown replied, “I did not; but I
do not pretend to say that they were not killed by my order, and in doing so
I believe I was doing God’s service” (qtd. in Etcheson 111). What he and
his company achieved was interpreted as a crusade to save Kansas from
becoming a slave state, and his battle against slavery was praised by many
who saw him as a martyr, fighting for a just cause. However, others saw the
killings as “an aberration from the free-state strategy which hurt, rather than
helped, their cause” (Etcheson 111). Because of the relatively high death
toll, Kansas became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
In the following year of 1857, the abolitionists, who had gradually
become recognized as a significant anti-slavery movement since the 1830s,
were outraged at the result of what became known as the “Dred Scott case.”
The United States Supreme Court then declared that
all blacks – slaves as well as free – were not and could never become citizens
of the United States . . . . Referring to the language in the Declaration of
Independence that includes the phrase, “all men are created equal,” Taney
[Chief Justice of the Court], reasoned that “it is too clear for dispute, that the
enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of
the people who framed and adopted this declaration . . . .” (Dred Scott)
Dred Scott was taken by his owner from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a
free state. After some time when Scott’s owner decided to return to Missouri,
Scott claimed that the fact that his master lived in Illinois with the intention
28 Chapter 1

of staying there for a while automatically made his slaves free men. The
Supreme Court, in which the justices from the South held a majority, after
examining the case stated the following: “As Scott was a slave when taken
into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought
back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of
Missouri, not of Illinois” (Benton 10). According to the opinion of the Court,
the act of the Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning
property of this kind [Scott] in the Territory of the United States north of the
line therein mentioned [the one specified by the Missouri Compromise], is
not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void, and that neither Dred
Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this
Territory, even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of
becoming a permanent resident. (qtd. in Benton 18)
The decision, that stirred up ferocious criticism in the North, since it
authenticated the treatment of slaves as property and not as citizens, was
welcomed by the South, as Southerners could now freely transport their
slaves into all territories of the United States. Abraham Lincoln, commenting
on the final version of the Dred Scott decision, expressed his opinion on
equality and freedom:
I think the authors of [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all
men, but they did not intend to declare men equal in all respects. This did not
mean to say that all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or
social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they
did consider all men created equal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ (qtd. in Owens 115)
One year later, at the Illinois Republican convention, Lincoln, a candidate for
the United States Senate, delivered a speech, which expressed his criticism
of the Nebraska bill, leaving all people free to shape their own political
destinies in terms of slavery and condemning the Supreme Court’s decision
which had excluded African Americans from the American citizenship. It
made history as a perceptive diagnosis of the State and of Congress itself
and became known as the “House Divided” speech. In it, Lincoln expressed
his vision of the potential conflict over slavery, becoming, after Jefferson,
Tallmadge, Wade and others, one more politician who could be labeled
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
4010 Mercer John 12 July
F 26
14 July
4388 Malsby F Cav
A 31
19 Aug
4959 McDall R
A 7
38 Aug
5562 Manihan J
D 13
Aug
5618 Mageson J Cav 7A
14
42 Aug
5703 Mensome S, S’t
E 15
33 Aug
5713 Monroe S
F 15
80 Aug
5767 Montgomery R
F 15
Aug
5863 Michael S 7 I
16
30 Aug
6461 Mitchell J H
I 22
44 Aug
6521 Monroe H J, S’t
G 22
42 Aug
6566 Mathews M
K 23
Aug
7043 Milsker J 5D
27
42 Aug
7233 Matheny N, S’t
A 29
13 Aug
7272 McQueston J O
B 30
29 Sept
7510 Myers A
E 1
7820 Moore G, Cor 101 Sept
 F 4
Sept
7973 Mine John N 2H
6
101 Sept
8007 Miller W W
B 6
66 Sept
8176 McCoy W, S’t
B 8
Sept
8389 Murphy J 9E
10
93 Sept
8851 McElvain J
E 15
143 Sept
8925 Myers J
D 16
Sept
9575 Morrison J 4B
23
Sept
9600 Miller J Cav 7G
23
35 Sept
9856 Murgu A
D 27
Oct
10231 Monay G W 7E
2
93 Oct
10245 McFarney J
B 3
29 Oct
10394 Maples H
H 6
35 Oct
10891 Murphy F
B 13
74 Oct
10995 McDonald I
B 16
26 Oct
11166 Mills Milton
D 18
Oct
11271 Mitchell I 7K
21
11585 McCarty A 7A Oct
28
28 Oct
11665 McBeth I C
K 30
35 Oct
11680 Murphy F
C 31
Nov
11746 McCarty A 7A
2
Nov
11857 McCarty I 6A
6
30 Nov
11946 Miller F B
C 10
12 Jan
12548 Madlener L 65
K 27
30 Jan
12563 McFall I
A 31
Feb
12024 Manifold W Cav 6 I
9
Feb
12639 Montgomery W “ 5G
17
11 Feb
12709 Maloy I “
G 28
117 June
2007 Nossman G 64
G 15
Newcomb 22 July
3205
George A 12
July
3519 Nucha S Cav 3 I
18
Aug
4627 Napper W H, S’t 6 I
3
38 Aug
6528 Norton N A
B 23
10187 Note John H 39 Oct
 F 1
38 Dec
12226 Nichols J
G 5
Sept
9494 Newberry M Cav 7L
21
Apr
342 Oniel Thomas 6G
2
42 June
1874 Oliver John, Cor
- 12
July
2778 Oliver H H Cav 5M
2
120 Aug
5226 Oliver J
K 10
73 Aug
5361 Osborn J
E 11
19 Sept
7863 Oliver J
D 5
Sept
7911 O’Conner Thos Cav 5B
5
65 Oct
10940 Olinger E
A 14
35 Jan
12544 Ortell M 65
G 27
Feb
12590 Ousley W J 7A 65
5
66 Apr
287 Peache Cyrus 64
D 1
Apr
559 Pashby John Cav 6C
15
123 July
3484 Pavy W
A 17
42 July
3738 Palmer A
F 21
4008 Parker E, S’t 29 July
A 27
129 July
4171 Park John
B 28
53 Aug
4551 Pettis H
C 2
Aug
4553 Pruitt H C Cav 7K
2
22 Aug
5627 Prentice J M
K 14
Penat 38 Aug
6159
Alexander B 19
Aug
6278 Patterson E Cav 4G
20
65 Aug
6874 Parten D R
F 26
89 Sept
7710 Plough J W, S’t
D 3
29 Sept
8661 Pratt William
F 13
Sept
9196 Plumer A 2D
18
Sept
9705 Pope I T, S’t Cav 5G
24
93 Sept
9709 Patterson N S
G 24
39 Oct
10128 Packett T C, S’t
F 1
20 Nov
11880 Pangburn, S’t
B 6
99 Feb
12572 Potts I 65
H 2
12588 Phepps A 30 Feb
 D 4
May
1249 Packer Saml B Cav 6G 64
20
66 May
872 Remy John
B 4
57 May
944 Reed R
F 7
65 May
1065 Remcett L
H 13
117 June
1558 Roll N C
F 2
116 June
1696 Reese L
I 7
June
2140 Robinson L 7 I
18
38 July
4039 Rogman
I 26
39 July
4165 Reiggs K N
K 28
35 July
4400 Richardson I
I 31
117 Aug
5180 Rawlings J W
F 9
Aug
5259 Rains G D 4G
10
29 Aug
5454 Ritter Benjamin
K 12
68 Aug
5542 Ralph G
F 13
Roundbush Aug
6247 6B
Daniel 20
65 Aug
6383 Redyard A
F 21
6754 Russell J 7K Aug
24
Sept
7677 Ringold I Cav 7 I
3
Sept
8488 Russmore E Cav 2C
11
80 Sept
8577 Redman N E
F 12
Richardson 86 Sept
9521
John D 21
19 Aug
9547 Riggs L
E 23
42 Oct
10829 Reeves Wm
F 13
Oct
11410 Rierdon M D Bat 5 -
24
44 Oct
11451 Rutger W, Cor
D 25
13 Nov
11935 Russell W H
C 9
Jan
12454 Robinson R 8G 65
14
127 Jan
12523 Richardson E
E 26
35 May
1440 Ryan Martin 64
B 28
66 Aug
6707 Rawlings E, S’t
C 24
65 Mar
86 Smiley ——
I 21
66 Mar
129 Stein Thomas
D 23
205 Stonts —— 65 Mar
 I 28
Apr
768 Sanderson H Cav 6G
27
65 Apr
817 Sears I
I 30
20 May
901 Shick Eli
C 5
24 May
1039 Smith M C, Cor Bat
- 12
86 May
1331 Smith H
A 24
44 May
1400 Sapp A J
H 26
82 May
1430 Swindle T O, S’t
A 28
116 May
1501 Smith L
A 31
42 June
1611 Schroder W
A 4
66 June
1690 Sparks L D
D 7
June
1732 Search C Cav 5D
8
10 June
2079 Shigley T W
H 17
June
2083 Stinit D Cav 6L 64
17
June
2218 Smudley W 5E
20
30 June
2318 Swain J W
A 22
June
2420 Snow J Cav 5G
24
2447 Stafford J W 68 May
I 25
65 July
2740 Smith J
H 1
July
2799 Stanchley Wm 5K
2
29 July
2923 Stofer L, S’t
B 5
80 July
3416 Spencer M
K 16
128 July
4014 Shields J
F 26
38 July
4054 Smith J W
G 27
79 July
4062 Smith H
H 27
July
4088 Schneider S A Cav 3 -
27
35 July
4229 Sollman C, S’t
D 29
July
4418 Stevens M Cav 6M
31
117 Aug
4630 Snider D
K 3
29 Aug
4799 Summersvolt V
A 5
Aug
5254 Scott B 9D
10
Aug
5418 Smith Samuel E 9C
12
Aug
5513 Shoemaker E W Cav 5 I
13
5514 Sims S 101 Aug
 B 13
Aug
5571 Sackett J Cav 6G
14
68 Aug
5611 Stockman L M
E 14
66 Aug
5884 Standish M
B 16
19 Aug
5977 Stockhoff G
I 17
Aug
6044 Stout H 7G
18
82 Aug
6736 Sipe J
A 24
Aug
6830 Strong L 9F
25
80 Aug
7120 Spellman J
F 28
129 Aug
7264 Shaver F
I 30
Sept
7683 Snyder L Cav 6A
3
Sept
7822 Sanders D 7 I
4
66 Sept
8058 Suthien J H
E 7
Sept
8107 Starkey I Cav 6 I
7
123 Sept
8262 Sizeman I
B 9
Stagewald J M, 22 Sept
8313
S’t K 10
21 Sept
8623 Swillenger F
I 13
8666 Sylvanus J J 35 Sept
G 13
30 Sept
8727 Shoel J P
B 14
Sept
8910 Storm L M, S’t 6A
16
84 Sept
9093 Simmons J
I 18
13 Sept
9252 Sharp D M
E 19
43 Sept
9546 Sharpless W
G 23
17 Sept
9623 Smith S B
F 24
65 Sept
9807 Skeels W
A 26
131 Oct
10790 Smith George
D 12
39 Oct
10949 Smith I
I 14
44 Oct
11006 Sloat G W, S’t
B 16
Oct
11187 Seigfred G H Cav 4 I
19
Oct
11427 Sweitzer J 2G
24
99 Nov
11842 Shaw W R
B 5
74 Nov
11969 Shoe G W
E 12
29 Nov
11984 Steamer F
F 13
12113 Scarff F Cav 6D Nov
 21
93 Jan
12381 Starke M S 65
D 2
Jan
12492 Salts H C Cav 4F
20
12 Feb
12582 Smith D H “
H 3
66 Feb
12615 Sides G
A 8
Feb
12666 Smure C Cav 2G
17
38 Mar
12724 Stewart E B
E 3
72 Mar
12809 Staley G W
A 24
82 June
2625 Sattershwait A 64
I 28
117 Apr
518 Tenher James
I 13
65 July
3778 Tunblora B
B 22
July
3791 Thompson T Cav 6C
22
42 Aug
4733 Tooley G W
H 4
Aug
5065 Truman L H, S’t Cav 6G
8
63 Aug
5403 Taylor N 64
I 12
42 Aug
6509 Tooley W R, Cor
H 22
Aug
6719 Todd T 6B
24
7096 Thomas H D 42 Aug
I 28
Sept
7442 Taylor Geo H Cav 4M
1
30 Sept
8495 Trumble D A
A 11
25 Sept
8525 Taylor E
I 12
Oct
10438 Thomas M Cav 2 -
6
Nov
12337 Tucer B, Cit - -
26
Feb
12609 Terhune C Cav 9A 65
7
Tasnahet Chas, 33 Oct
10219 64
S’t E 2
Sept
10356 Underwood P Cav 7C
5
52 Oct
10760 Upton F M
A 12
June
1717 Voit T Cav 6K
8
30 Aug
5363 Venome James
K 11
93 Aug
6250 Vanose J
B 20
42 Sept
7691 Verhouse D
A 3
117 Mar
135 Windinger J
G 24
May
886 Walters J H, Cor Cav 6G
5
934 Williams A 6G May
 7
May
1194 Wright Saml Cav 6 I
18
June
1776 White P “ 6C
9
88 June
1812 Wise Eli
D 10
65 June
1918 Warren E
H 14
38 June
2107 Williams F
F 17
June
2242 West E Cav 7H
20
29 June
2363 Woodward W W
A 23
75 June
2417 Wilson J N
G 24
44 June
2467 Warden I
B 25
37 June
2554 Warren E
I 27
79 June
2670 Ward J
F 29
13 July
2900 Wyn W E
D 5
116 July
2929 Wislake I
I 5
July
2934 Wicks L Cav 6H
6
29 Aug
4528 Whitehead J
I 2
36 Aug
4639 Winship James
K 4
4826 Witt T 125 Aug
D 5
81 Aug
5399 Wade C
K 12
Aug
5547 Waynin J H Cav 4 I
13
Aug
6132 Washburn R H “ 6A
19
120 Aug
6405 Winders A
I 21
Aug
6524 Wagner M Cav 5 I
25
84 Aug
7184 Winters F W
C 29
42 Aug
7191 Wagoner E
A 29
Aug
7349 Witzgall John 2D
31
13 Sept
8943 Weiber Charles
F 16
Sept
9228 White W 7E
19
81 Sept
9316 Watkins J
A 20
129 Sept
6418 Wellington H
I 21
Sept
9501 Wilson J B 6E
21
Sept
9998 Wagner F 7D
29
29 Oct
10648 Ward J
G 11
11141 Whitehead N B Cav 5L Oct
 18
Oct
11424 White R B 6D
24
Oct
11602 Walters J 5 I
28
35 Nov
12708 Winebrook P
B 18
32 Dec
12316 Werper J
E 20
Dec
12341 White J 7A
26
13 Jan
12402 Wells J M 65
D 16
93 Jan
12497 What J
B 21
10 Mar
12737 Wade W Cav
M 6
July
3837 Weltz Ira, S’t 4B 64
23
Aug
6000 West S N, Cor 7B
17
38 Sept
9920 Williams J A, S’t
C 28
Aug
5055 Younce Chas A Cav 7 I
8
28 Aug
5838 Yorker Daniel
B 16
65 June
1540 Zuet J
H 1
Total
593.
 IOWA.
Aug
5560 Allen N 3K 64
13
Sept
8974 Ankobus L. Cor 6 I
17
11 Sept
9472 Ashford A W
C 21
31 Nov
11784 Alderman W W
F 4
Nov
11896 Austin Wm Cav 3A
7
May
1293 Bartche C P 5K
23
39 June
1570 Bingman W H
H 3
Aug
5276 Blanchard A 7A
10
Aug
6164 Bunsford M 7F
19
26 Sept
7779 Baird J J
H 4
15 Sept
8265 Buckmaster F
K 9
4 Sept
9301 Buell J
D 20
14 Sept
9456 Boylan C
G 21
Sept
9691 Boles M B - I
24
10749 Bellings J 5B Oct
 12
3 Oct
11334 Blakeley Geo
G 23
Collins Henry, 4 Mar
167
S’t G 26
April
328 Chenworth Wm 4K
2
27 Aug
4582 Cromwell G W
F 2
Aug
5101 Cooper S 5B
9
5 Aug
5244 Cox E E, Cor
G 9
5 Aug
5620 Cox W A
G 14
31 Aug
5999 Coder E
E 17
Aug
6378 Cox H 5 I
21
26 Aug
6604 Clamson Henry
I 23
Aug
6848 Collins M 3L
25
Culbertson S, 5 Sept
8062
Cor H 7
Sept
8352 Crow B 4E
10
Sept
9784 Coles J W, S’t 8K
26
3 Sept
9820 Cobb E Cav
C 26
Sept
10037 Cramer J M “ 5B
29
10901 Chapman J 3 Oct
G 14
Dec
12230 Chamberlain J B C 8A
6
June
2903 Davis S 3E
30
15 July
4206 Davis J
D 29
17 Sept
9229 Davis H
A 19
5 Aug
4675 Dermott L
G 4
26 Aug
6849 Discol S
I 25
31 Sept
9852 Dingman W
D 27
5 Oct
11098 Denoya W H
M 18
6 Nov
11753 Dutlin S Cav
C 2
12 Dec
12245 Durochis Wm
H 8
Derickson W W, 8 Feb
12657 C 65
Cor M 15
Mar
262 Ennis Wm 4B 64
31
Oct
11414 England G 9F
24
July
3705 Field Jacob 5K
21
2 Aug
4503 Farnsworth S
H 1
1316 Forney James M 10 May
 K 23
10 Sept
7715 Frue J
- 3
16 Sept
7378 Frederick J A
C 5
6 Sept
8380 Frussell G W
D 10
16 Sept
10048 Fordson Michael
H 29
Oct
11078 Fener J W Cav 3B
17
15 Feb
12701 Ferguson A W 65
A 28
6 April
750 Gain L 64
C 26
May
1484 Gender Jacob 5 I
30
4 Aug
5004 Gentle G
G 8
26 Aug
5836 Gunshaw C
- 16
11 Oct
10511 Gray J
C 7
8 Oct
10306 Gothard J
G 11
8 Aug
5461 Harris J Cav
H 13
11 Sept
8106 Hastings J, S’t
B 7
3 Sept
9379 Hird D, Cor
G 20
16 Sept
9417 Hudson M
B 21