We apologize for this most egregious delay in the publication of Kentucky History Friday. Today, we are temporarily interrupting our Perpetual Disunion series in commemoration of two events: the 29th of March represents the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Appomattox Campaign; furthermore, the 1st-4th of April shall denote the sesquicentennial of the Fall of Richmond. In light thereof, we are to furnish a work written for the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site via myself which relates to the theme U.S. Grant and the Enduring Legacy of Appomattox. Moreover, the subsequent Friday - the 3rd of April - we will recount Richmond's demise and the sesquicentennial events thereof. Thereafter, on the ensuing Friday, we will properly resume our Perpetual Disunion initiative with Volumes III and IV: Terrible Swift Sword and Say, Brothers, Will You Meet Us? Our aforementioned article today is not a constituent thereof, but is likewise entitled Perpetual Disunion: the American Civil War and its Sociopolitical Implications. “The Union is Dissolved!” heralds the Charleston Mercury newspaper of the South Carolinian capital amidst the December of 1860; thus was the great experiment of these United States to accost its potential deterioration. A federation – born of immense sectionalism which perpetuated its initial fragility, that which asserted its dominion within the very wordage of its Constitution via the clause of considering 3/5 of all other persons for purposes of numerical legislative representation – whose naïve and erroneous democratic foundations were subject to immense scrutiny was nearing its inevitable collapse. Though such a narrative retains a natural familiarity among its posterity, many elect to cast before it a fallacious shroud of simplicity; well versed are numerous citizens in the annals of emancipation – of Father Abraham the Great Emancipator – as well as its interminably enjoined reunification of a nation. Yet those of the historian’s inclination must note a proper inconsistency therewith; the innumerable complexities of the American Civil War and its perception throughout subsequent centuries are quite oft forgotten. We must therefore seek to rectify this worriment; we must engage in the complex narrative of emancipation, of Reconstruction, of Appomattox. Let us afford context to this intriguing human account: the American Civil War represents a culmination of the contentious social and political developments of the 19th century. The youthful Union of North American states had long been incapable of unanimity regarding its governance and procedures; the institution of slavery had been inherited – in its African American form – from preceding centuries, with its effectual inauguration upon the earliest embryonic settlements of Jamestown. Due to the vast geographic variety of the continent which instilled varying economic possibilities, as well as prohibited a universal system, the institution had witnessed gradual decline within Northern societies such as Massachusetts and New York wherein its agricultural potential was significantly diminished via poorer soils and differing economic/commercial exploits, i.e. ship construction or fishing; further, the general extensive dispersion of the familial estates of Southern counterparts encouraged a forced labor arrangement as the spacious properties could not yield profits without proper cultivation, whereas the comparatively densely populated Northern townships were not truly conducive to such a practice. One may thus logically advance the notion that the abolition of slavery was perceived as hostile to a majority of Southern states; although abolition had not been a Federal policy unto 1863 (if we are to furnish the earliest date; one could propose the year of 1865 instead,) conflicting opinions predicated their influence throughout the entirety of the Antebellum Period. Indeed, scholars need only examine the eruption of bellicosity circa 1856 which was termed Bleeding Kansas, which foreshadowed the massive subsequent conflict and offered to militant abolitionist John Brown his first massacre at Pottawatomie Creek, in order to uncover the most recent of slavery-centered quarrels prior to 1861. John Brown Abraham Lincoln’s policy of gradual abolition – asserting the geographic containment of the practice, permitting it a natural death – was itself capable of imparting critique, fiery repudiation, and outrage. Southern constituents preferred to grant their electoral ballots for prominent Kentucky statesman John C. Breckinridge during the Presidential campaign of 1860; Breckinridge championed the legality of slavery, promoting Federal intervention to ensure its survival in newly organized US territories. Lincoln’s eventual victory, garnering 39.8% of the popular vote, seemed the greatest inflammation of secessionist sentiment; the banners of secessionism had been hoisted before, notably in the course of the Jacksonian Republic due to disagreeable desiderata regarding what many titled the Tariff of Abominations which seemingly decimated Southern economic abilities, hence the renewed manners thereof were received as mere cries into an empty sea of threats. South Carolina’s ordinance of secession, adopted during the December of the same year, was consequently of considerable shock to some. Immediately prior thereto, attempts at Southern appeasement had been once raised – as they had been during the course of the century, given the social receptions of such adjudications as the Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska Act – via John J. Crittenden, whom was perhaps heir to Henry Clay’s cathedra of the Great Compromiser, and his proposed Crittenden Compromise. The thunderous bellows of war – the fateful lightning or terrible swift sword, if you will – which ravaged the United States thereafter were seldom of insignificance. Its proportions are most finely beheld in the prophetic musings of Lincoln’s Antebellum House Divided speech, “In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” Appomattox Courthouse shall forever be enshrined as the wondrous epicenter of the termination of the great conflict; whilst the war continued unto June of 1865, the surrender of Appomattox is certainly the de facto closure of major hostilities. Inquiry understandably abounds when Appomattox is introduced: what is its legacy? Upon the succumbing of the Army of Northern Virginia, a mutual disheartening had keenly arisen; Ulysses S. Grant extended quite amiable terms of surrender to his opponent Robert E. Lee. Thereby Lee’s officers may retain custody of their horses and side arms, and were guaranteed non-disturbance by United States authorities so long as they return home and do not violate their paroles. Grant’s formal stipulations embody the bilateral semblance of utter sorrow; though the stirring rally cries of the Battle Cry of Freedom and the ardent call for Southern rights of the Bonnie Blue Flag had impressed, to posterity, a perception of great romanticism, the citizenry were of a heavy weariness engendered by circa four years of frightful toil, horrid clashes, and the atrocious slaughter of circa 650,000 individuals. Successive generations are then assured a legacy of lionized peace on behalf of Appomattox, are they not? Regrettably to the dismay of the afore’s heinous doctrine, the heritage of Appomattox Courthouse mustn’t enjoy such a stature. Rather, it is symbolic of the ignition of Reconstruction, in which Grant would serve another pivotal position; as the American Civil War had been battered into a de facto closure by Grant, the government and its constituency must hence formulate their response to numerous complications which had been established by the conflict. Foremost of our political affairs was the very seed from which a century of fervent sectionalism had been derived: the slavery narrative. Mr. Lincoln’s War – as it was so branded by many who bestowed fault upon its namesake – realized the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 as well as the incorporation of African Americans into the armies of the Union via regiments entitled the United States Colored Troops. Easily a scholar could learn of this and enact the presumption that these individuals were henceforward and forever free as the Marching Song of the 1st Arkansas boastfully reaffirms to the melody of John Brown’s Body: We have done with hoeing cotton, We have done with hoeing corn; We’re colored Yankee soldiers now As sure as you are born! When the masters hear us yelling, They will think it’s Gabriel’s horn As we go marching on! Although the Emancipation Proclamation was undoubtedly a tremendous achievement for the eventual abolition of the institution, it proclaimed the liberty of those slaves who resided only in states that were in rebellion; given the questionable constitutionality thereof, Lincoln – utilizing his legal acumen acquired in New Salem and Springfield – recognized that he wielded no valid pathway whereby those in states which had retained their Unionist loyalties could be emancipated by the executive order, as the order itself was granted legality as a war measure. An end to the persistent warfare, Lincoln feared, would thus invalidate the document and reinstitute compulsory labor. The only suitable alternative is a Constitutional amendment, the true probability of which appeared unfavorable; Unionists cannot be equated to abolitionists, as they were separate appellations, just as Confederates cannot be immediately equated to racial bigots or slave owners. Many citizens of Northern society perpetuated racial inequality; furthermore were Southern states to be reinstated to their prior positions within the Union as Lincoln advocated, they would reserve the right to non-ratification. Despite potential hindrances, Lincoln sought to persevere therewith. We of a contemporary society are inherently well acquainted with the knowledge of the passage of the 13th Amendment; however it was far from assured during its conception and proposition. Our war has now been laid to rest, and we are free to explore the annals of Reconstruction; yet we shall soon discover that the Civil War’s vestiges remain as the primary sociopolitical worriment. Slavery shall not exist in the United States or territories subject to their authority is the foundational assertion contained in the 13th Amendment. These African Americans were now constituents of a nation; not a nation born of 1776, nor of 1787, but rather of 1865 with the closure of a magnificently terrible societal revolution and the death of its Captain. Dirges swarm the cemeteries of this newly formed nation, as its commonalty laments that we will meet but we will miss him; there will be one Vacant Chair. We shall linger to caress him, as we breathe our evening prayer. Should this people then celebrate the irrevocable emancipation of circa four million enslaved persons? Or must it grieve its circa 650,000 fallen and its martyred Chieftain? Appomattox signaled the proper timing for the passage of the 13th Amendment; however should the former represent a mighty triumph to these slaves? If one is to consider only their legal emancipation, the answer is unquestionably yes. Appomattox did not bind up the nation’s wounds though. Grant surely made a paramount contribution thereto via Appomattox on the 9th of April, 1865 yet he did not resurrect the Union thereupon. Whilst the Union had been legally renewed, it remained in a state of perpetual disunion; prior to his untimely demise, Lincoln had expressed his Reconstruction sentiments in the 2nd Inaugural Address within the careful wordage with malice toward none, with charity for all; the sociopolitical atmosphere created by the Civil War ensured a differing result, with malice toward some. Let us recall that the 13th Amendment emancipates all enslaved individuals, while simultaneously offering no provision for their societal incorporation or their citizenship. Initial Reconstruction efforts fixated on this fault; the Presidency of Andrew Johnson saw his considerable incompetence in successfully confronting Radical Republicans, who endeavored to trample Southern governments as an authoritarian retribution for their unlawful secession. Johnson enacted the 10% Plan which provided that states may reenter the Union at the status quo antebellum upon the oaths of allegiance of 10% of the respective populations, with the added provision that they must ratify the 14th Amendment (the nearly fruitless attempt of rectification to ensure the birth-right citizenship of former enslaved persons, as well as the defense of their civil liberties;) his ideology, in such aspect, aligns partially with that of Lincoln’s therefore. Regardless of the passage of three amendments – the 13th, 14th, and 15th – social customs, prejudices, and the internal disparity of North and South – that which still silently encroaches on our contemporary society via the eternal distinction of one North, one South – culminated in the continuation of the struggle for equality; a majority of African Americans remained the melancholy class of, as Harriett Beecher Stowe had years prior entitled it, life among the lowly. These are the distressing factors which plague a new nation that exists in years of yore; that has bequeathed to its people a new birth of freedom whilst also depriving its citizens of such freedom; that boasts although they may be poor, not a man shall be a slave as it grows ever hostile to those it emancipated; that is inherited by Ulysses S. Grant in 1869 upon his ascension to the Presidency. None would deny the leadership of Grant; he was, assuredly, a leader of some form. His victory at Appomattox had secured his romanticized heroism amongst masses. Whereas we may well bestow upon Grant the laurels of a military doyen, we must likewise acknowledge that a statesman he was not. Grant too found animosity with the Lincolnian Reconstruction policies of Johnson, instead aligning politically with Radical Republicans. Though an honest fellow, his political acumen, or rather the lack thereof, appeared disastrous. Often Grant was dependent on Congressional policy in order to determine his action; the Reconstruction strategies of the Radical Republican Congress were detrimental to the reconciliation of North and South, albeit somewhat conducive to the promotion of civil liberties. We then approach a treacherous path: shall we further alienate Southern governments yet enforce the incorporation of the 14th and 15th Amendments, or shall we allow the Southern governments to restore their statures yet degrade their citizens? Our perpetual disunion is evident in its manifestation of the failed New South seeking to acquire commercial opportunities for the regeneration of a depleted Southern economy, as well as forge an image of the dissolution of Southern prejudices. Equality of citizenship – the equality of universal suffrage and civil liberties – would not be realized unto nearly one century thereafter via the outcry for civil rights during the late 20th century. Rather, our newly born nation would uphold Jim Crow laws which deprived citizens of suffrage; it would retain restrictive legislative adjudications which instigated a de facto forced labor system; and its highest judicial entity would endorse all thereof in Plessy v. Ferguson. The narrative of these United States is one of torrential complexities; it cannot be justifiably condensed into a sampler of simplicities. Nor can the constituent legacies of Appomattox and Ulysses S. Grant: though Grant would retire the Presidency riddled with his contemporaries’ scandalous misfortunes, to bequest the reigns of a shattered Union to his successor, we may interpret Grant in a positive manner; his is the annals of ardent leadership, determination, and honesty. Most notably, his success at Appomattox is representative of the initiation of those questions and issues which continually haunt the governments of men. As we reflect thereupon, let us yield recognition that the comprehension of the events of April 9th, 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse is essential to very comprehension of ourselves. We hope you have enjoyed this article; return next Friday for the Fall of Richmond, and the Friday thereafter for Volume III. - Austin R. Justice, History of Kentucky Group McLean residence, Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia Depiction of the Surrender at Appomattox Emancipation Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 The 13th Amendment The 14th Amendment The 15th Amendment United States Colored Troops
0 Comments
Welcome once more to Kentucky History Friday! This evening’s article is in relevance to the second installment of our new 5-part series. We are to discuss the ignition of the American Civil War, its ramifications in the Commonwealth, and our government’s response thereto. Our discussion is entitled Perpetual Disunion Volume II: Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Kentuckian Neutrality and its De-Facto Dissolution. Whilst sympathies flooded the minds of citizens throughout these United States – severing, indefinitely, familial relations and friendships – there existed no clarity as to the persuasions of Kentucky. A fragile union, born of disunity, had erupted into a hail of confusion as is the typicality of warfare; the legislature of South Carolina had adopted its ordinance of secession during December of 1860, and had since witnessed the ignition of a magnificently horrible shedding of life via the assault on Fort Sumter. As it was bestowed a description by one Captain Stephen D. Lee, …that shot was a sound of alarm that brought every soldier in the harbor to his feet and every man, woman, and child in the city of Charleston from their beds. A thrill went through the whole city. It was felt that the Rubicon was passed. A majority seemed to propose the possibility of two options: one is to rally around the Bonnie Blue Flag – an early variant of the Confederate standard which was never formally adopted, though did inspire the well-known rally cry of the same name proclaiming We are a band of brothers and native to the soil, fighting for our liberty with treasured blood and toil; and when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far: Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star! – or leap to the aid of the Unionist cause and Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers of April 1861. Given the natural implications of an act of war – which was, indeed, instituted upon the assault of Fort Sumter in Charleston – retaliation was to be mounted; Federal executive Abraham Lincoln invoked the standard practice of a call for volunteers for such purpose. As the regular army was of a considerably poor condition (when subject to comparison with those of European states) the United States, unto the 20th century, had so elected to establish a call-to-action dependency wherein volunteers were requested only when required; as an ancient historian, one may grant a partial parallel to the classical Hellenic poleis (a majority of which employed militias of citizenry when conflict arose.) Thus, in compliance with the Militia Act of 1795, Lincoln declared a formal call for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 3 months; inadvertently, the call to arms resulted in the secession of several Southern states that refused to furnish the requested volunteers, i.e. Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. With specificity to our Commonwealth, Governor Beriah Magoffin sought to assert Kentuckian neutrality; his government was not to provide volunteers to a Northern army intent on subjugating our Southern brethren. Wigfall meets Anderson at Fort Sumter Governor Magoffin retained no beliefs which perpetuated the ideology of abolition; nor did he support secessionism, although simultaneously opposing the coercion of Southern states. Neutrality therefore, he reasoned, remained the proper stance. His house divided could not, with unanimity, afford favor to either belligerent. In cooperation therewith, the Kentucky General Assembly reaffirmed Magoffin’s neutrality doctrine via a resolution upon the 16th of May, 1861 which adopted legal neutrality. The actuality of such a position was of an immensely greater complexity however; Kentucky’s vast river systems and agricultural economy had bound it to its Southern neighbors, yet its Northeastern regions gradually fell beneath the persuasions of Unionist ideologies. Citizenry were oft of harrowingly opposing opinions; as the state would not furnish an army to aid in either cause, Kentuckians of varying sympathies amassed to collect regiments which sought to hoist secessionist banners or to put down the rebellion. Bequeathed the titles State Guard and Home Guard, respectively, these militias gathered considerable numbers; those wishing to serve on behalf of the Confederate States often were left little alternative than to attach themselves to the Army of Tennessee – wherein the perhaps most noted regiment was ordained, the 1st Kentucky or Orphan Brigade whose marching song laments We were driven forth in exile from our old Kentucky home. Sympathies for the Confederate States garnered circa 40,000 Kentuckians, whereas circa 100,000 would cast their military loyalties to the Union; such proportions are representative of the balance of ideologies, and are furthermore upheld via the Unionist ascension to 9 of 10 US Congressional seats for Kentucky, as well as a Unionist majority in the General Assembly. Let us not presume the sheer clarity thereof although, as neutrality was once again undermined by political manners; rather than accept a neutral Kentucky, many sought to mandate secession via the courses of governmental reformation. The 18th of November bore witness to a convention of 200 delegates who organized a usurping government which adjudicated an ordinance of secession; though unrecognized by the proper Commonwealth, this “state” (claiming the city of Bowling Green as its capital) received incorporation as the 13th Confederate state. Prominent statesman and 1860 Presidential candidate John C. Breckinridge endorsed the newly established geopolitical entity, as did numerous others; in light thereof, and with the effectually collapsing doctrine of neutrality, Governor Magoffin would resign his authority during the subsequent 1862, which shall be discussed in Volume III. The new, authority-less governmental body held George W. Johnson as its Governor rather than Magoffin throughout 1861. Whilst the American Civil War ravaged lives throughout the North American continent, a storm was silently forming above Kentucky. Due to the vitality of its “border state” geographic location, as well as its enjoinment with the Mississippi River, the Federal and Confederate governments sought to acquire the state regardless of its objections. Lincoln is reputed to have said I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky. A Unionist encampment, Camp Wildcat, had been erected in Laurel County upon the outbreak of the sorrowful endeavor of war; despite governmental protest, Lincoln asserted that the camp’s constituency was composed entirely of the state’s citizens in order to repudiate any supposed violations of sovereignty or neutrality. We shall thence come to note an order to Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant via General John C. Fremont upon the 28th of August to …occupy Columbus, Ky., as soon as possible. Columbus was situated on the banks of the Mississippi, thus ensuring its significance as a port city. Anticipating a likewise maneuver, Major General Leonidas Polk (an officer of the Confederate ranks) sought a siege of the town on the 3rd of September. Regardless of his fervent attempts to salvage Kentuckian neutrality, Governor Magoffin was unwillingly thrust unto the reigns of consorting. Whereas Polk descended upon Kentucky from the Southern boundary, Grant swiftly invaded to capture Paducah with aspirations of also forming authority amongst northern Kentucky. The results of this are to be given to discourse and examination within our succeeding Volume III a week from now; suffice it to say, for this evening, that Magoffin and the General Assembly were thereby compelled to invite Federal armies into the state to decimate Confederate objectives therein. We hope you have enjoyed this article and gained knowledge therefrom. Join us next week for another Kentucky History Friday! Next week we shall publish Volume III: Terrible Swift Sword. In light thereof, begin to ponder the question: what are the social receptions of the invasion of Kentucky? Email us your thoughts! Email questions to: [email protected] For further information: www.historyofky.weebly.com - Austin R. Justice, History of Kentucky Group Kentucky Cat Fight political cartoon, 1861 Battered extremities of Fort Sumter post-surrender, 1861 Kentucky State Guard at Camp Boone, 1861 State Guard hat insignia. George W. Johnson "Resolution of Neutrality, May 16, 1861 "BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:A PROCLAMATION Due to the potentially extraordinary length of our Perpetual Disunion series, each installment shall be published within hours between 6-9:00 PM EST rather than the standard 6:00 Pm.
Welcome to another Kentucky History Friday! Although last week we stated that our next article was to be of relation to the uncharacteristic culture of Frontier Lexington, we have elected to alter the agenda thereof. Rather, we shall hereby instigate a series of sorts; as many will note, the years 2011-2015 denote the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War (1861-1865) and thus we are swiftly approaching the closure of such celebrations and commemorations. Our Commonwealth wielded no insignificant position therein, and hence from this day unto the 12th of April 2015 (the sesquicentennial of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln) we are to focus upon immediate Antebellum and Civil War Kentucky. This series is entitled Perpetual Disunion and our discussion this evening is given as Perpetual Disunion Volume I: A House Divided: Antebellum Kentuckian Society and its Wartime Implications. Well acquainted are most with the annals of historiography which lend dedication to the legacy of the American Civil War (known by numerous nomenclatures, i.e. the War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression, and Mr. Lincoln’s War) and its Unionist leadership of Abraham Lincoln; yet how many may, with non-erroneous honesty, claim familiarity with the involvement (or lack thereof) of Kentucky therein? Likely few, unfortunately. Our series – which is to be comprised of five volumes – seeks to rectify this. There are numerous factors for which we must account; let us, in brevity, examine the societal, economic and cultural development of Antebellum (1792-1860) Kentucky. That peculiar institution of slaveholding had arisen centuries earlier (in the African American sense, that is; slavery itself has existed since nearly the dawn of civilization) and had since rooted itself firmly in the soils of the North American continent; Kentucky indeed seceded from the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1792, the latter retaining numerous proportions of enslaved individuals as was of a Southern typicality. Given the natural implications of the Western Frontier – i.e. the Illinois and Indiana Territories, as well as the newly founded state entitled Kentucky – one could reasonably, and correctly, presume the fervent spread of slavery within Kentuckian society. Industrialization of these United States was not to occur in a significant manner unto decades succeeding; that which had discovered partial incorporation was predominantly within major urban societies such as Boston or Philadelphia. Rather, these now-15 states remain a primarily rural social construction; those of the Frontier especially so, given its non-inhabitance via settlers prior to the expeditions of those so inclined (notably Daniel Boone.) An agriculturally dependent economy was swift to be established within the state; therewith slavery is fostered. Circa 1830, the population of the Commonwealth was comprised of 24% enslaved persons. Let us then sway our attention to the immediate Antebellum Period (circa 1860); ardent sectionalism had been instilled within the United States, perpetuated by the relentless clashing regarding the issue of the institution of slavery. Those who bequeathed the Federal Constitution to their posterity had endeavored to let alone the problematic concept; rather, they offered little yet as to state that the numeric of representation – as determined via population – of states was to consider only 3/5 of all other persons. Unquestionably, they too sought to avoid the dissolution of a fragile, infant union. The 19th century had thus witnessed continued battery of the inquiry of slavery; as recent as 1854 (persisting unto 1861) the call to action had been bellowed for abolitionists and pro-slavery sympathizers to flood the Kansas Territory, resulting in Bleeding Kansas or a violent clash of militant abolitionists and their opponents. Within the halls of the US Congress years prior, the preeminent Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois sought the incorporation of the doctrine of popular sovereignty whereby a territory’s people may determine the existence or lack thereof of slavery within their borders; rival statesman Abraham Lincoln earnestly rejected such a notion, favoring the halt of the institution’s expansion (though not its immediate abolition) such that it may die a natural death. A depiction of Bleeding Kansas. Kentucky retained the stance of the mediator. Our state’s adopted son, Henry Clay, had been bestowed the title the Great Compromiser. He and others tirelessly endeavored to ensure the reconciliation of both ideologies; the Missouri Compromise of 1850 had adjudicated the admission of Missouri as a slave state, whilst asserting that such an institution shan’t exist within the Western territories at any latitude above that of Missouri’s southern border. Yet but 4 years thereafter, the Kansas-Nebraska Act (despised by Lincoln and promoted by Douglas) would repeal the former and give causation to Bleeding Kansas. The Act then became a primary subject of critique during the Lincoln-Douglas debates (both of which were in competition for a senatorial seat); Lincoln, upon accepting the Republican senatorial nomination, captured an eerie sentiment within his speech: In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will be cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Now befalling the Federation was the Presidential campaign of 1860; incumbent and out-going James Buchanan had left to his successor a tangled, angry Union. Much of the candidates’ platforms were centered upon the peculiar institution; Lincoln proposed gradual abolition via geographic restriction; Douglas, the candidate of the Northern Democrats due to severe internal divisions within the Democratic Party, proposed popular sovereignty; John C. Breckinridge, candidate of the counterpart Southern Democrats, championed states’ rights and Federal defense of the constitutionality of slavery in territories; John Bell of Tennessee, candidate of the Constitutional Union Party, was relatively silent on the issue though did not favor gradual abolition. Due in part to misinterpretation as well as fear, various states threatened secession from the Union were Abraham Lincoln to be elected; likely to the aggravation thereof, Lincoln and Liberty – a campaign song composed by the Hutchinson Family Singers – proclaimed Our David’s good sling is unerring, the Slaveocrats’ giant he slew; though shout for the Freedom-preferring, for Lincoln and Liberty too! to the melody of Old Rosin the Beau. The banners of secession had been raised before; the Jacksonian Era beheld the fiery backlash of South Carolinians during the implementation of what they termed the Tariff of Abominations. Many therefore viewed these renewed ideals as mere cries into an empty sea of threats. Lincoln did not appear on numerous Southern ballots in fact; his name prohibited to the Breckinridge-preferring states. Kentucky – in conjunction with Tennessee and Virginia – had been one of only three states to cast its electoral manners toward John Bell, fearing the abolition of their treasured economic tradition; Kentuckians had failed to support either of the Commonwealth’s native sons of Abraham Lincoln and John C. Breckinridge, with Lincoln only garnering circa 1% of the votes thereof. Breckinridge had overwhelmingly swept the deeper Southern states; the Electoral College system granted the victory to Lincoln though, who had attained 39.8% of the popular vote. It is here that the seeds of chaos are sown; the State of South Carolina detested the election of the frontier illiterate (again, political rhetoric dissuading the Southern opinion of Lincoln) and claimed it would bind itself to the winds of secessionism once more. Once more the US Senators of Kentucky took to their compromising manners to resolve the matter; John J. Crittenden authored and henceforth proposed the Crittenden Compromise during the December of 1860. Its foundational assertions were the reinstatement of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (differing from that of 1850) as well as the irrevocability of the act. Such was an attempt at slavery appeasement; though it amassed considerable support amongst Southern statesman, as well as Secretary of State William Seward, it was to ultimately fail due to the opposition thereto via President-Elect Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Republican contemporaries. Upon the 20th of December, 1860 the Charleston Mercury newspaper of Charleston, South Carolina began the heralding of a realization: the Union is Dissolved! As states began adopting ordinances of secession, the legislators of Kentucky were confronted with a harrowing alarm; the Commonwealth was situated amongst three free states – Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio – as well as three slave states – Tennessee, Virginia, and Missouri. Its population consisted of 19.5% slaves; slaveholders were circa 38,000 in number, thus positioning Kentucky as the third greatest holder of slaves (following Virginia and Georgia.) Furthermore Kentucky was economically linked with Southern states via its intricate river systems which converged with the ever-powerful Mississippi River. Despite this, the Northeastern portions thereof were slowly drifting toward the ideological solidarity with free states, destructing the institution of slavery by waning its laborious agricultural opportunities whilst cultivating horse breeding. Contrastingly, Kentuckians of the Southwestern regions were largely tobacco and hemp farmers who relied heavily upon slave labor. Following South Carolina’s secession in 1860, the year 1861 beheld the rapture of a long-delayed struggle: the American Civil War, a culmination of the events of the 19th century, erupted before the ramparts of Fort Sumter. Whereas many were responding to a call to arms or rallying around the Bonnie Blue Flag, our Commonwealth remained the very embodied manifestation of a house divided. We hope you have enjoyed this article and gained knowledge therefrom. Join us next week for another Kentucky History Friday! Next week we shall examine Volume II: Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory. In light thereof, begin to ponder the question: what are the implications of Kentucky neutrality? Email us your thoughts! Email questions to: [email protected] For further information: www.historyofky.weebly.com - Austin R. Justice, History of Kentucky Group Electoral map of 1860 Lincoln gave his noted House Divided speech in the House of Representatives of the Illinois Old State Capitol (then-Capitol) in Springfield, Illinois. Political cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln the Rail Maker Statesman and Stephen A. Douglas, 1860 Political campaign flag (Lincoln), 1860 Political campaign flag (Douglas), 1860 A map of Kentucky and Tennessee, circa 1860 Charleston Mercury The Union is Dissolved!, 1860 *Note: any and all potentially offensive terms utilized herein are not endorsed by the Order of DeMolay or the History of Kentucky, and are provided solely for historical purposes.
Hello and welcome once more to another Kentucky History Friday by the History of Kentucky Group and River Cities DeMolay. Today we are to discuss the origins of well-known Antebellum composition Oh, Shenandoah; hence our examination this evening is entitled On the Curious Origins of Oh, Shenandoah. Rarely should one stumble upon an individual having not, at the very least, heard of the Shenandoah Valley – most notably the significance thereof during the American Civil War; likewise, Oh, Shenandoah has attained quite a degree of popularity. The latter is an Antebellum North American musical composition of questionable origin. We as historians must rely upon an array of manners by which to compose the human narrative; among these are archaeological evidence, primary sources, and secondary sources when appropriate (as this article would be an example of a secondary source.) Such being established, it is understandable that massive quantities of information are to be lost to the annals of time; humanity has, since the very ignition of civilization in the unconsolidated lands of antiquated Mesopotamia, been one to decimate itself with war and other atrocities. Indeed, the most recent notes of the destruction of cultural heritage has occurred in recent weeks (even days) wherein civilization itself originates; Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer – a leading physicist of the 1945 Manhattan Project – quoted the Christian doctrine upon the endeavor’s completion: I am become Death; the Destroyer of worlds. Similarly, Oh, Shenandoah seems to defy the obtaining of its origins. We know not who composed this moving piece, nor are we certain as to what the piece refers. Earlier we made mention of the Shenandoah Valley; let us afford context. The Shenandoah Valley is a major geographic feature of the Commonwealth of Virginia – from which Kentucky seceded in 1792 – which also gives birth to the Shenandoah River; it was utilized for various movements and campaigns in the American Civil War (1861-1865), including the First Battle of Manassas/Bull Run. Most may presume – understandably – therefore that the song is a tale of longing for the Shenandoah Valley and/or River; evidence for this is contained in the lyrics Away, you rolling river! Away, I’m bound away, across the wide Missouri! as well as Shenandoah’s my native valley; away, you rolling river! Whilst these appear compelling, there are vital faults therein; the least of which could be that the river referenced in the former could be the Missouri River rather than the Shenandoah River. A primary concern is the adaptation and evolution of lyrics; the powerful and popular Battle Hymn of the Republic of Julia Ward Howe is an adaptation of the earlier – and more popular amongst armies due to its easier recitation – John Brown’s Body, which itself has been misinterpreted such as to stir an alternative set of lyrics He captured Harper’s Ferry with his nineteen men so true; he frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through. They hanged him for a traitor, they themselves a traitorous crew; his soul goes marching on. referring to the militant abolitionist John Brown, with whom the original song had no connection. The Shenandoah Valley One may easily infer that some soul may have misinterpreted the piece and composed alternative lyrics, or that it has been distorted via the oral tradition. Oral traditions, whilst valuable, shift rather often; there exists among ancient historians and classicists a debate as to whether Homer – the author of The Iliad and the Odyssey – actually composed the stories, or even if he actually existed, or rather if the epic poems are writings of earlier oral traditions which took prominence post-collapse of Mycenaean civilization; these same traditions give us Hellenic mythology. It is known that numerous sets of lyrics exist for Oh, Shenandoah; there is speculation that the composition instead speaks of the courtship of a seaman and the daughter of Algonquian chief Shenandoah, evidenced by the lyrics The white man loved an Indian maiden; with notions his canoe was laden. Still other variations incorporate both interpretations, such as Oh, Shenandoah, I love your daughter; away, you rolling river! For her I’d cross your roaming waters; away, I’m bound away, across the wide Missouri! Given the copious amounts of speculation, what is generally accepted about this piece? Numerous folklorists and historians agree that the piece most likely originated amongst French-Canadian fur trapping voyageurs operating along the Missouri River – North America’s longest, which converges into the Mississippi River. Its lyrical structure suggests that it was originally a sea shanty, or a song sung by sailors; although some others assert that it was first composed in Virginia itself. We cannot obtain certainty as to whether this piece – presumably originating within the early Antebellum North American West, primarily inhabited by its natives – is an endeavor of longing for home, or longing for the Indian maiden. Regardless, it is generally agreed to contain a mixture of African American and Irish elements in its musical structure. During the period, it was known by varying names, including: Across the Wide Missouri, Shennydore, The Wide Mizzourye, Rolling River, The Oceanida, and The World of Misery-Solid Fas. Our earliest recorded publication of Oh, Shenandoah is found in Harper’s Magazine in 1882 by WJ Alden. Given the implications of its lyrics, as well as its known usage prior thereto, it is believed to have existed since at least 1820 (thus classifying it as Antebellum.) Unfortunately, little else than this is agreed upon regarding this stunning piece. We hope you have enjoyed this article and gained knowledge therefrom. Join us next week for another Kentucky History Friday! Next week, we will discuss the uncharacteristic culture of frontier Lexington; in light thereof, begin to ponder the question: how influential was Kentucky in the progression of Southern culture? Email us your thoughts! Email questions to: [email protected] For more information: www.historyofky.weebly.com - Austin R. Justice, History of Kentucky Group The Shenandoah River A depiction of the Algonquian tribe. Variations of the song are believed to have originated along the Ohio River, Kentucky’s northernmost boundary.
Lyrics Variation #3: Missouri, she's a mighty river Way-aye, you rolling river The redskin's camp lies on its borders, A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! The white man loved the Indian maid, Way-aye, you rolling river! With notions his canoe was laden A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! Oh Shenandoah, I love your daughter Way-aye, you rolling river I'll take her 'cross yon rolling water A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! The Chief disdained the trader's dollars, Way-aye, you rolling river My daughter you shall never follow A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! For seven years I courted Sally, Way-aye, you rolling river For seven more I longed to have her A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! She said she would not be my lover Way-aye, you rolling river Because I was a tarry sailor A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! At last there came a Yankee skipper Way-aye, you rolling river He winked his eye, and he tipped his flipper A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! He sold the Chief that fire-water Way-aye, you rolling river And 'cross the river he stole his daughter A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! Oh Shenandoah! I long to hear you, Way-aye, you rolling river Across that wide and rolling river. A way - we're bound away 'cross the wide Missouri! *Note: any and all potentially offensive terms utilized herein are not endorsed by the Order of DeMolay or the History of Kentucky, and are provided solely for historical purposes.
|
Admin
Hi, I'm the website Admin. I look after the website as well as the chapter social media accounts. Austin R. Justice
PMC of River Cities Chapter and Lincoln Forum & Colloquium Student Scholar. Adjunct ContributorsSpencer M. Dayton Archives
April 2016
Categories |