A Southern View of History: The War for Southern Independence
PART XIV. AFTER THE WAR
In Part 14 we will briefly review major events that followed the end of hostilities, which include treatment of Confederate States government officials and leaders, military leaders, Confederate prisoners, and the Southern citizens. A very limited introduction to Reconstruction will be presented. It would be impossible to bring forward all the implications of Reconstruction and their continued effects on the Southern people. Perhaps at a later date a course covering just that issue will be forthcoming.
Objective: To identify major events that followed the surrender of the Confederate men at arms.
What some in the North called “Reconstruction” meant something completely different to the people of the South. During the period of 1865 until the late 1870’s, the South was divided into military districts, occupied by United States Army troops and given U.S. Federal Government appointed military governors. Confederate veterans were not allowed to vote nor wear any part of their Confederate uniforms, including the buttons in public. Although Northern contention was that the Southern states remained part of the United States, they charged that the states lacked loyal governments. The Northern federal government needed to invent mechanisms to erect was they called “loyal state governments”. Men of honor in the South would fight these continually changing and increasing terms. Since the strong willed, honorable Southern leaders could not be controlled by the Northern Republicans, they simple would purge the leaders, unseat them, and either appoint or cause a re-election of officials to be conducted. They would not allow due process and democratic rule. They wanted puppet governments to follow blindly whatever notion they had. The Southern economy and society were decimated. The Southern land lay in ruins from the invading armies. Entire cities were destroyed, all food and supplies were, in large areas, destroyed.
During this time there were many Southerners who lost all that they had. Nearly everyone lost family, friends and neighbors in the war. Many lost their ability to make a living, lost their homes and farms and if they did have anything left after the war ended, the U.S. federal government punished the South with high taxes. Southerners, who were already devastated by the ruin of war and now skyrocketing taxes became the last straw. Many just simply could not pay the demands of the U.S. government tax so they lost their property. Observers in the South found discouraged men, eager to sell their property and move elsewhere. Advertisements of plantations for sale at far below their pre-war value filled the newspapers. As little as $2.00 an acre would buy prime Virginia land that commanded fifty times that price before the war. The figures differed, but the facts remained the same all over the South. The South’s economic system had broken down.
The upper Shenandoah Valley, traversed again and again by both armies, lay in waste. Between Winchester and Harrisonburg not a horse, cow, pig, chicken, crop, or a fence, could be found. Travelers described the area between Richmond and Washington as a desert, with burned farmhouses, untilled land, and no livestock. In the track of Sherman’s army, across Georgia and South Carolina, the distress was enormous. Reports told of women and children who had walked miles in search of bread; of others who were found crouching half-naked beside old brick chimneys, which was all that remained of their homes; of ten counties in northern Georgia that produced less food than could be found on any ordinary Northern farm.
A visitor to Charleston, South Carolina, described the city as one “of ruins, of deserted streets, of vacant houses, of widowed women, of deserted warehouses, of weed-wild gardens, of miles of grass-grown streets.” Once admired for its broad avenues, shaded by beautiful trees and flanked by fine lawns and gardens, the city had become a wilderness of ruins.
Knoxville, Tennessee, had suffered as well. “Burnt houses and solitary chimneys over one whole quarter of the city, showed that the heart of East Tennessee loyalty had not been without its sufferings,” reported newsman Whitelaw Reid. Atlanta was clearly stamped with the signs of Sherman justice, left with gaping windows and roofless houses, heaps of ruins on the principal corners and traces of unsparing destruction everywhere.
Abraham Lincoln, while the war was still in progress, had turned his thoughts to the great problems of reconciliation and devised a plan that would restore the South to the Union with minimum humiliation and maximum speed. But there had already emerged in Congress a faction of radical Republicans, sometimes called Jacobins or Vindictives, who sought to defeat what they felt was too generous of a reconciliation program.
Motivated by a hatred of the South, by selfish political ambitions, and by crass economic interests, the radicals tried to make the process of reconstruction as humiliating, as difficult, and as prolonged as they possibly could. With Andrew Johnson’s succession to the Presidency upon Lincoln’s assassination, the old Jacksonian Unionist took advantage of the adjournment of Congress to put Lincoln’s mild plan of reconstruction into operation. On 29 May 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a “Proclamation of Amnesty” to the majority who fought for the Confederacy. He excluded the benefits of amnesty to many Southern leaders including civil and diplomatic officers and agents, officers above the rank of colonel in the army and lieutenant in the navy and all who had been educated at either West Point or the Naval Academy. Two years later he issued another proclamation on 7 September 1867 that reduced the exceptions to brigadier generals in the army and captains in the navy. Finally on Christmas 1868 Johnson issued a proclamation for unconditional pardon, with the formality of any oath and without exception to all who in any way sided with the Confederacy.
In December of 1865, when Congress assembled, President Johnson reported that the process of reconstruction was nearly completed and that the old Union had been restored. But the radicals unfortunately had their own sinister purposes: they repudiated the government Johnson had established in the South, refused to seat Southern Senators and Representatives, and then directed their fury against the new President. After a year of bitter controversy and political stalemate, the radicals, resorting to shamefully demagogic tactics, won an overwhelming victory in the congressional elections of 1866.
The seceding states would be required to repeal all the CSA related legislation and to ratify the 13th amendment. When this was done, the states and their citizens were to receive all the rights guaranteed under the constitution for all states. Having done this the Southern sent elected senators and representatives to Congress, but the rules changed again as the Congress of 1865 with it’s republican majority refused to admit the Southern members unless their states would now ratify the 14th amendment. This would transfer powers from the government on the state level to the government on the federal level. This would also, for the first time, define a citizen of the United States. Legislation by coercion. The states refused and Congress passed an act declaring another state of rebellion existing in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. This new act now overturned the existing governments in those states and divided them into five military districts, each to be governed by an officer of the Federal army and called for new conventions in all states again.
The 14th Amendment was a radical departure from the original letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Southern states would not vote for the 14th Amendment as it was in direct conflict with the beliefs that supported their secession in 1861. Of the 37 States voting on the 14th Amendment, 28 were needed to ratify the measure. Only 22 states voted in favor of it, 12 voted against it (all 12 were Southern States) and 3 did not vote. Mississippi’s rejection resolution did not reach Washington, and it is numbered with the non-voting states.
After the implementation of the Reconstruction Act the 14th Amendment was then passed by the remaining Northern states in the Union. This drew protest from the state of New Jersey who said that one of its Senators had been excluded from voting and that his seat had been vacated in the federal Senate when the 14th Amendment was proposed. The states of Oregon and Ohio also repealed their ratification of the 14th Amendment.
One by one each Southern state accepted the U.S. government’s demands and were readmitted to the Union, under their conditions. The State of Georgia was the last state to be readmitted, which took place, first in 1870, then again in 1878.
This kind of “government” was forced on the Southern states for many years. If they could not get the states to ratify the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution with the body selected by the people, the Federal Congress would simple issue a new proclamation to purge the officials and replace them with new representatives. They continued this tactic until they could find submissive and kowtowing individuals who would do the Northern Republican’s will. Not only did the Northern Republican treachery reach into the capitals and legislative branches of the Southern people, but also their judiciary system. Lawyers could only practice law if they had not had any connection to the Confederate states and judges were appointed that were sympathetic to the Republicans.
Riding roughshod over Presidential vetoes and federal courts, the U.S. Congress put the South under military occupation and formed new Southern state governments. The South, decimated by the war, was powerless to offer resistance. Not satisfied with reducing the South to political slavery and financial bankruptcy, Congress even laid their obscene hands on the pure fabric of the U.S. Constitution. They impeached President Johnson and came within one vote of removing him from office. Congress denied the power to raise state militias of their own to all of the former Confederate states. Arkansas, among others, begged Congress to repeal the law, and Congress obliged after some debate. In March 1869, Alabama, Arkansas, the Carolinas, Florida, and Louisiana were once more granted the power to establish militias. In 1870 Congress extended the privilege to Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
After the end of the War there were laws which were passed that were specifically written against Confederate Partisan Rangers, groups for the most part came out of Missouri. The laws prohibited any Confederate veteran of the Partisan Rangers from voting, holding any public office and from holding office in their local churches. This is just one example of how Reconstruction’s harshness was aimed at a specific group of Southern individuals.
The South was then invaded by what became known as “carpetbaggers,” which Webster defined as “a Northerner who went South after the Civil War to profit from the unsettled conditions of the war and Reconstruction period or any person, especially a politician who takes up residence in a place opportunistically.” These individuals from the North who came to make money off of the misery of a shattered South. The carpetbaggers bought land for practically nothing from poor and starving Southerners, or simply purchased it from the government because of back taxes due. They were aided in their enterprise by the “Scalawag” as Webster defined as ” a scamp, a rascal, a Southerner who supported Republican policy during Reconstruction often for political and/or economic gain.” The scalawag allied with the carpetbaggers using the Radical Republican Reconstruction policies to punish the loyal Southerners and profit from their pain.
The United States Congress established the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands after the passage of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves, in 1865. It was to provide food, medical care, education, and other assistance to the homeless freed people in the South.
The Freedman’s Bureau, headed by Major General Oliver O. Howard, might be termed the first federal welfare agency.
Instead of undertaking the noble road of helping to educate, train, and provide for the refugee citizens, they chose instead to encourage racial tension and hate, directing oppression to the Southern white population. It soon became a despised institution in the South not because of its purported mission, but because its actual practice in subjection of the former Confederate Nation. The illustration to the right was from Harpers Weekly 1868 and was the image the North had of the Bureau job as protector. The Southern feelings of the times are represented in these passages from the Southern Historical Society Papers: “With the progress of Northern arms grew up an institution founded ostensibly, perhaps really, for the protection of the rights of the newly emancipated slaves. This institution, known as the Freedman’s Bureau, became for the time the ruling power in the State. It interfered in all the concerns of whites and blacks, its officers were generally men who not only had no love for the South, but who made it their mission to foster in the minds of the blacks a bitter hatred and mistrust of the whites. They were, on all occasions, the champions of the negroes’ rights, and never failed to instruct them that it was to the Republicans that they were indebted for all the rights which they enjoyed. In the train of the Bureau came the school mistresses who instilled into the minds of their pupils the same lessons of hatred and hostility. The consequence was, that though the personal relations between the races were friendly, though the blacks invariably addressed themselves to the whites as to true friends for all offices of love and kindness, of which they stood in need, they would never listen to them, if the latter wished to speak about politics. This feeling was intensified by the introduction of the Union League, a secret society, the members of which were solemnly bound never to vote for any but a Republican. The negro has a large development of secretiveness, and this association which bound the souls of all by its solemn oaths and which on holidays paraded the streets with the Bible borne by the president and the superior officers at the head with mystic symbols, had a rare fascination for them. By such means the negro presented a solid phalanx of Radicalism, bound by superstition and fanaticism to the service of the party, and it is not wonderful that when the bonds of the League began to break that the Republican party suspected that only violence on the part of the whites could have estranged them from their allegiance to that party which had claimed them so long as their bounden servants.
Bad as all this was, even this might be borne had the Republican party contained the average number of good and honest men as in other parts of the country. With Republicans who had a real love for the State, the negro, under their training might have developed into good and useful citizens. But it was otherwise ordered. The Constitutional Convention, which met in pursuance of the Act of Reconstruction, consisted principally of negroes, without any kind of training, and who necessarily were but tools in the hands of designing persons. The whites who were in it were either renegade Carolinians, or men whose war record had been good, and who now hoped to make themselves powerful by early joining the party in the ascendant; or Northern men who had come hither to make their fortunes out of the new order of things; many had been attached to the Freedman’s Bureau; many were men of infamous character at ‘home, and came like buzzards to prey upon the carcass of the ruined State; all were men upon whom dark suspicion hung, and these were the ruling spirits of the Convention. The Convention made a tabula rasa of the whole State. All officers were displaced; the judiciary destroyed; the whole field cleared for the grand experiment which Republicanism was now going to make in the State.
At an election, which was held soon after the adjournment of the Convention, Scott of Ohio, the chief of the Freedman’s Bureau, was raised to the office of Governor, and the satrap displaced Governor Orr to make way for him. Chamberlain was made Attorney-General, and Parker, Treasurer. He had once been a bartender in Haverhill, N.H. His house was destroyed by fire, and the insurers refused to pay for the loss; but Parker did not deem it prudent to prosecute his claim. We have seen how he was indicted for embezzlement, and the farcical termination of that prosecution.
The Legislature was composed largely of negroes; but in almost every delegation were men, who having come to Carolina to carve out fortunes for themselves, were afterwards known by the significant appellation of carpet-baggers. These were the men who controlled the Legislature. As no property qualification was required for a seat in that body, it was by many regarded as a pleasant and easy way of making money, and it was not long before it was discovered that besides the salaries, which were unprecedentedly large, every member had the means of making an honest penny by the sale of his vote. A new business arose and prospered in Columbia, a sort of political brokerage, by which men contracted with speculators to buy the votes of members when they were interested in the passage of any measure. Here was a corruptible Legislature under the influence of men utterly corrupt. This corruption was barefaced. The corrupt men who governed the Legislature had no sense of decency, no compunction, provided they got what they wanted. In all civilized communities the rights of a minority are secure, even if utterly un-represented, there is a public opinion which restrains even corruption and checks it in its mad career. In South Carolina there was no public opinion. Society was divided into the conquered whites, who were destined to satisfy the voracious appetites of the carpetbagger, and the needy and ignorant negro, directed by his hungry teachers.
The whites had no rights which they were bound to respect; if they paid the enormous taxes which were levied upon him, the negro was satisfied; he had done all that it was necessary for him to do in the degenerate State. It was utterly vain to arraign any one on the charge of corruption. The more corrupt a man was supposed to be, the greater was his power with the party. The wretched Whittermore had been expelled from the House of Representatives in Congress for the petty crime of selling a cadetship. This disgraceful petty crime never lost him any of his power. He continued as before to govern the Peedee country, and was, doubtless, the more esteemed because of his cleverness in making a corrupt bargain. So, too, the infamous Leslie, who did not even deign to deny the charges of huge fraud in the land commission swindle, but defied his accusers, threatened to expose their crimes and lodge them in the penitentiary; and he continued to govern and to represent the county of Barnwell as long as he chose.
Not only were charges of corruption unavailing to destroy their power among the ignorant masses, they were impotent to weaken their influence with the leaders. Every one of them accused every other of crimes which ought to be followed by ignominious punishment; but such is the cohesive force of plunder, that all these robbers, as they called each other, would, when their power was in danger, knit anew the bonds of friendship and present a solid and unbroken front against all who dared attempt to rid the State of their destructive and blighting presence.
And all this seething mass of corruption was sustained by the moral power of the government. The infamous Patterson had the ear of the President. The garrisons of soldiers posted in the different parts of the State were always represented to the negroes as placed there to protect them from their enemies-the whites; and on more than one occasion it seemed as if they regarded the whites as not only a conquered, but a seditious and rebellious people. The Governor, too, studiously kept them in the position of a suspected race.
When Governor Scott was organizing the militia, he refused to enroll white companies, and the whole military organization was confined to the negroes. A few white Radicals were honored with offices, but the white citizens of South Carolina were entirely disfranchised. Arms of the best and most approved patterns, and ammunition to suit, were lavishly bestowed on this militia of Scott’s making, and many a citizen of the State, black as well as white, fell victims to this reckless arming of a semi-barbarous race. At Hamburg, in the Elberton riots, and at Cainhoy, the rifles which the whites had paid for were used freely against them, and they were denounced for their outrageous treatment of the poor and heavily oppressed negro.
It has been asked why did not the whites join with the Republicans and reform the abuses which were ruining the State ? Twice they made the attempt. Twice did they join with those members of the Republican party who seemed disgusted with the course of their own party. Once they supported Judge Carpenter against Scott, and once Green against Chamberlain. On both occasions they were utterly defeated. The movement was regarded as an unwarrantable intrusion into the sacred fields of the party. The State seemed bound to the car of Radicalism forever.
Such was Republicanism as it was known to the people of South Carolina. Is it to be wondered at that the white people eagerly embraced the party of Democracy? That party, at least, had no corruption like that of the Republicans of this State. That party repudiated the doctrine that the army of the United States might be employed, under pretext of protecting one party, to undermine the liberties of all; and the leader of that party had lately signalized himself as the determined foe of corruption. In the election of Samuel Tilden the humiliated Democracy dared to hope for a return to better things. Another cause also was operative. Eight long years of misrule had not been without their pernicious effects. It was not alone the loss of property–the confiscation of their estates by taxation that weighed heavily upon the people. They could bear the loss of property. They had submitted without a murmur to the results of the war. But the iron of oppression was entering their souls and producing its most fatal effects–a pathetic hopelessness. A tale of corruption caused but a shrug–we had become too much accustomed to the story to be keenly moved by it. We gazed on the picture with listless apathy, and only wondered what would be the next development, and the secret cry of every one was, How long, oh Lord, how long !”
In the spring of 1877, the Tragic Era finally came to an end when President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew the federal troops from the South and restored home rule. But the legacy of reconstruction remained in the form of a solidly Democratic South and embittered relations between the races. To give you an idea of just how far the U.S. controlled Southern state governments of the reconstruction era, consider this: In 1868 in South Carolina, the Republican Party, the ruling party at that time, raised a state tax to cover the cost of the South Carolina constitutional convention. This convention wound up its proceedings by transforming itself into the Republican state convention and nominating a full ticket for the party. The total cost that the convention levied against the taxpayers of the state was more than $2,250,000. This tax alone was almost six times larger than the entire state tax that was collected in 1860, when South Carolina was one of the wealthy commonwealths. The convention membership was 73 black and 51 white. Of the 51 white men, 23 were actual residents of the state. Tim Hurley, a wandering jockey from Northern race tracks, was chosen to call the assemblage to order. Of the 73 black members only 13 paid any taxes at all.
The first General Assembly under the new constitution consisted of 85 black men and 72 white men, the vote on joint ballot being 136 Republican and 21 Democratic or “Conservative.” Of the black senators, only 3 paid any taxes which amounted to a total of $2.19. Of the black representatives 58 were non-taxpayers. The state was passed officially from control of the United States army, under General Canby, on July 25, 1868.
One of the first acts of the new legislature was to appropriate $800,000 with which to buy land to be sold to actual settlers on easy terms. This was a definite beginning for the “forty acres and a mule” promise to each black citizen, but it failed to materialize because most of the money was stolen outright. One investment was Hell Hole Swamp, which was bought by the commissioners for $26,000 and sold to the state for its colored wards for $120,000. This land enterprise was the third or fourth of the series of open, bare-faced thefts of public money that continued seven years unchecked. In that time the state’s bonded debt was increased from less than five million to more than seventeen million in six year. Then in one year the bond jumped to twenty million, or more than ten per cent of the total taxable values. The speaker of the House and president of the Senate gave pay certificates, sight demands on the treasure, on any pretext that struck their fancy and to anybody they chose to bribe or pay, including their gambling losses. In one year $1,168,000 of such certificates were issued.
In 1874 in the county of Charleston 2,000 pieces of real estate were forfeited for taxes. In nineteen counties 93,293 acres were sold and 343,891 forfeited for taxes. This is but a brief sample of some of the things that happened in one state. The stories like these continue on from one Southern State to another. It was during this period of time that black and white relations in the South would take a considerably sharp downward turn. The U.S. federal government found opportunity after opportunity to drive a wedge between the black and white communities in the South. Even still, race relations in the South remained much better than they ever were in the North. As you remember many laws that passed Northern State legislatures outlawed immigration by black citizens, or assessed fines and jail terms for those just traveling through their territory.
There is no justification for the terrible ten year period from 1867 to 1877 known as reconstruction. North’s strange and unconstitutional concept was that although the Confederate States never left the Union, the populace of the Southern States had abrogated all their constitutional rights through rebellion, but still retained all their obligations as citizens of the United States. Under this concept the Southern States never left the Union because the land couldn’t rebel; however, the people could and they had to be “transformed” or “reconstructed” into loyal citizens. Of course, the Union never even attempted to determine who, in the Southern States, had remained loyal, and who had been rebellious. Lincoln appears to have invoked a strange concept that the State could mean the land itself devoid of any people. It was their view that the Confederates had put themselves outside the Union and it was now necessary for them to be reconstructed before they could resume their former state as true citizens. It was the contention of the Northern Republican Congress that the Southern States should be punished before being allowed back into the union. It was very important to the Northern Republicans that they maintain their voting majority in the congress. They feared that the return of the Southern Democrats would take away from their majority and for that reason they sought to keep their new found power.
Cotton was one of the principal resources left to the people after the war. Cotton production was down which figures due to diminished resources, capital, labor, etc. Those left at home did what they could to raise food for themselves and for the troops and if any resources were left they were put into something that might be converted to cash, such as cotton. In late 1864 cotton was declared a 50 cent per pound crop and the CSA government had attached at 10% tax, or 5 cents per pound to help with war finances. Cotton could be bought for gold at 20-35 cents per pound. The Federal government had made it its policy to confiscate cotton held by the Confederate government, but greedy generals and government officials soon extended this confiscation to private citizens who were considered “disloyal” to the government. In Boston the greedy speculators were selling cotton from $.81 to nearly $2 a pound. What the Yankee armies could not confiscate, steal or horde, they destroyed.
At the end of the war the worldwide supply of cotton was scarce so prices rose. In 1865-1866 3 million bales (@ 400 pounds per bale) of cotton were confiscated by the Federal government. Since the war was over, the government shifted their confiscation plans from the army to “agents”, who received a 25% commission on all cotton “recovered” for the government. Treasury records of 1866 show that only 114,000 of the 3,000,000 bales were turned over to the US Government. If the commission on 3 million bales would have been 750,000 bales and the US Government take was 114,000 that would account for only 864,000 bales or 28.8% leaving 2,136,000 bales unaccounted for, or in other words stolen.
Figures for the value of the cotton at that time ran between 20-65 cents per pound, using an average low figure of even 40 cents per pound the values here would be 1 bale = 400 pounds, @ .40/ lb = $160 per bale; 3 million bales taken x $160 = $480 million, 25% commission = $120 million, 114,000 to US government treasury $23 million, leaving $337 million in the STOLEN category. While some certainly could have been damaged and destroyed, it still leaves a lot to question. To compare 1866 dollars with current dollars, using a conservative times 10 figure we see a 48 Billion confiscation and a missing 33.7 billion in assets. So go the spoils of war to the Union.
Protests were sent to the government at all levels and lawyers made attempts to sue the government via the Supreme Court to recover the value of the cotton. A few Southern farmers obtained some compensation, but most claims were ignored. When it could no longer steal the commodity, the US Treasury Department went back to its old tricks of extracting taxes. A 2-½ cent per pound tax was imposed on cotton from 1865. Southern members of Congress and sate legislatures, distinguished citizens, commercial bodies and eminent lawyers rose arguments that the tax was not legal because it was imposed without the consent of the Southern people and they were not wholly represented in Congress and because the men who raised cotton paid the same taxes as others paid and this was an extra tax on cotton, deemed unfair punishment. The US Government response was to raise the tax to 3 cents per pound in 1866-68. Finally in March 1868 efforts succeeded to cancel this unfair tax. Senator Lee Overman of North Carolina introduced bills to Congress to get the refund of over $68 million dollars (nearly a billion in today’s dollars) in taxes to the growers. Even the US Supreme Court heard cases from the states on this issue as late as the 1920’s, but justice was not served.
Reconstruction was the contention of the Northern Republican Congress to maintain their power without any true Constitutional legal justification whatsoever. Contention, not justification, is what brought about the era after the war known as Reconstruction. No other section of the present-day United States has ever suffered such devastation.
References and Details:
“The South Was Right” By James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter 6 & 10
“The Truths of History” by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 15
“The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of the War of the Confederates”, by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 64
“The Tragic era”, by Claude G. Bowers
“The Story of the Confederate States” by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3, Section 5, Chapter 2
Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. I. Richmond, Virginia., January, 1876. No. 1 Editorial Department. Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. V. Richmond, Virginia, January – February, 1877. No. 1-2. Fifth Annual Meeting Of The Southern Historical Society, October 31st., 1877. The “Last Chapter in the History of Reconstruction in South Carolina.”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Volume XII. Richmond, Va., April, 1884. No. 4
“The Last Chapter in the History of Reconstruction in South Carolina”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Volume XII. Richmond, Va., May, 1884. No. 5- PAPER NO. 2
“The Last Chapter in the History of Reconstruction in South Carolina”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Volume XII. Richmond, Va., June, 1884. No. 6. PAPER No. 3
“Reconstruction in South Carolina”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Volume XII. July-August-September. Nos. 7, 8, 9 PAPER NO. 4
“The Last Chapter of the History of Reconstruction in South Carolina.”, Southern Historical Society Papers Volume XII. October, November, December. Nos. 10, 11, 12 PAPER NO. 5
“The Last Chapter of the History of Reconstruction in South Carolina”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XIII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1885 PAPER NO. 6
“Address of Honorable B. H. Hill February 18th, 1874”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XIV. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1886
“Grant and Reconstruction”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1889
“Reconstruction In Texas”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXIV. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1896.
“Hampton And Reconstruction”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXV. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1907
“From Good Old Rebels Who Don’t Care. Hell in Peace”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXVI Richmond, Va., January-December. 1908
“Southern By The Grace Of God”, by Michael Andrew Grissom
B. The Southern Exodus To Brazil and Mexico
After the War For Southern Independence had ended, many Southerners simply refused to remain in a land that they considered to be ruled by a tyrannical government. As Generals Lee and Johnston surrendered their forces to officially end the war, many Southerners embarked on a journey to new lands.
Confederate Brigadier General Joseph Shelby never surrendered, but led his brigade into Mexico in 1865, tossing their battle flags into the Rio Grande as they crossed. Confederate General Mosby Parsons also refused to surrender and he and his staff crossed into Mexico and enlisted in the army of the Imperialist Mexican forces. Other Confederate Generals would likewise make their way into Mexico. Some were John Magruder, William P. Hardeman, Henry W. Allen, Sterling Price and Thomas C. Hindman.
Another place that many Southerners left for after the close of the war was Brazil. Some 20,000 Southerners packed all of their belongings and boarded ships with names like “Talisman,” “Vixen,” “Red Gauntlet” and “Mariposa” at the ports of New Orleans, New York City, Mobile and Galveston.
The Brazilian government was very sentimental to the Confederate cause. When Southerners disembarked in the town of Santos there was a band there to greet them, playing “Dixie.” Sometimes the leader of the band was Emperor Dom Pedro. The Emperor’s government had arranged for inexpensive transportation to Brazil for the Southern emigrants. He offered them land at 22 cents per acre. Settlements were begun in the states of Espiritu Santa, Para, Parana, Minas Gerias, Pernambuco, Bahia and Sao Paulo. Only the colonies in Sao Paulo state – in Vila Americana and in the surrounding villages of Campinas, Bom Retiro and Santa Barbara d’Oeste – have survived.
These emigrants came to be known locally as “Confederados.” There was one short-lived settlement along the Amazon River at Santarem. Even today, certain Amazon tribes decorate their pottery with the design of Confederate flags, the result of having encountered the colonists who chose to settle in the vast jungle. Two Confederate Generals, A.T. Hawthorne and W.W. Wood, emigrated to Brazil. Also, Ben and Dalton Yancey, sons of the Alabama secessionist Senator William Lowndes Yancey, joined the colonists in Sao Paulo state. A Texan, Fran McMulland and 152 other colonists also emigrated to Iguape (Sao Paulo state).
In the town of Vila Americana there exists a Protestant Chapel that descendants of Confederate colonists attend services in on each Sunday. Upon the altar are draped the banners of Brazil, the United States and the Confederate States of America. “Dixie” is played at the services where sermons are preached in Portuguese and in English. A Confederate monument exists there also. In the same village Confederate veteran Napoleon Bonaparte McAlpin is buried. Upon his tombstone is inscribed “Soldado descansa! Tua luta acabou…” “Soldier rest! Thy warfare o’er…”
References and Details:
“Fallen Guidon. The Saga of Confederate General Jo Shelby’s March to Mexico”, by Edwin A. Davis
“The Lost Colony of the Confederacy”, by Eugene C. Harter
“The Confederados: Old South Immigrants in Brazil”, edited by Cyrus B. Dawsey, James M. Dawsey
“The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico.”, by Andrew Rolle
“The Elusive Eden: Frank McMullan’s Confederate Colony in Brazil” by William Clark Griggs
“Admiral of the Amazon: John Randolph Tucker, His Confederate Colleagues, and Peru”, by David P. Werlich.
C. The Capture and Imprisonment of President Jefferson Davis
As the Confederate capitol at Richmond, Virginia fell into the hands of U.S. troops the Confederate government retreated to Danville, Virginia on April 2, 1865, where President Jefferson Davis issued his last order. What was left of the Confederate cabinet would remain in Danville for one week before retreating further southward. General Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9th and General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered on April 26th. Lincoln had been assassinated on April 14th and the North cried for President Davis’s head.
Orders for the capture of Confederate government officials were quickly issued and the flight of President Jefferson Davis began. As Davis and his escorting party headed southward some of the party would break off from the rest at different points in an effort to divert the pursuing U.S. troops. It was the goal of the Confederate escorts to get President Davis into Texas and then Mexico.
On May 10, 1865 President Davis was captured at Irwinville, Georgia. Propaganda surrounding his pursuit and capture was rampant and inaccurate, as was much of the northern media’s coverage of the South. President Davis was even accused of being part of a conspiracy that led to Lincoln’s assassination. Harper’s Weekly, on June 17, 1865 said: “Davis is as guilty of Lincoln’s murder as is Booth. Davis was conspicuous for every extreme of ferocity, inhumanity and malignity. He was responsible for untold and unimaginable cruelties practiced on loyal citizens in the South.” Propaganda such as this had Northerners demanding the immediate execution of President Davis. The New York Tribune, in 1861, said: “The hanging of traitors is sure to begin before the month is over. The nations of Europe may rest assured that Jeff Davis will be swinging from the battlements of Washington at least by the Fourth of July. We spit upon a later and longer deferred justice.”
One northern writer even went as far as to accuse President Davis of theft and questioned his manhood. Cheney, who wrote “History of the Civil War”, said in his book: “Davis had in his possession $100,000 in gold belonging to the Confederate government.” and “He was arrested near Macon disguised as a woman, with a shawl over his head and carrying a tin pail.” This account of Davis trying to disguise himself as a woman has been one of the first “urban legends” picked up in the North, not based on truth, but based on what the North wanted to believe, and hence wanted to spread. It is just one of many falsifications about Southern History that has been written into the annals of American History textbooks.
Those who captured and arrested President Davis testify to the falsity of this charge. There are also many first hand accounts that tend to be ignored by the Historians. We quote a few here.
“We regret to see that in an article in the Philadelphia Times General Wilson revives the stale slander that President Davis was captured in a woman’s disguise. We hope to present before long a full statement of the facts; but in the meantime we give, without alteration, the following statement of a Federal soldier who was present, and which fully offsets the statement of General Wilson, who was not present at the capture: Jefferson Davis’ Alleged Disguise. — Portland (Maine) Argus. I am no admirer of Jeff. Davis. I am a Yankee, born between Saccarappa and Gorham Corner; am full of Yankee prejudices; but I think it wicked to lie even about him, or, for the matter, about the devil.
I was with the party that captured Jefferson Davis; saw the whole transaction from its beginning; I now say — and hope you will publish it – – that Jefferson Davis did not have on at the time he was taken any such garment as is worn by women. He did have over his shoulders a water proof article of clothing — something like a “Havelock.” It was not in the least concealed. He wore a hat, and did not carry a pail of water on his head, nor carry pail, bucket or kettle in any way. To the best of my recollection, he carried nothing whatever in his hands. His wife did not tell any person that her husband might hurt some body if he got exasperated. She behaved like a lady, and he as a gentleman, though manifestly he was chagrined at being taken into custody. Our soldiers behaved like gentlemen, as they were, and our officers like honorable, brave men; and the foolish stories that went the newspaper rounds of the day, telling how wolfishly he deported himself, were all false. I know what I am writing about. I saw Jefferson Davis many times while he was staying in Portland several years ago; and I think I was the first one who recognized him at the time of his arrest.
When it was known that he was certainly taken, some newspaper correspondent — I knew his name at the time — fabricated the story about his disguise in an old woman’s dress. I heard the whole matter talked over as a good joke; and the officers who knew better, never took the trouble to deny it. Perhaps they thought the Confederate President deserved all the contempt that could be put upon him. I think so, too; only I would never perpetrate a falsehood that by any means would become history. And, further, I would never slander a woman who has shown so much devotion as Mrs. Davis has to her husband, no matter how wicked he is or may have been.
I defy any person to find a single officer or soldier who was present at the capture of Jefferson Davis who will say, upon honor, that he was disguised in woman’s clothes, or that his wife acted in any way unladylike or undignified on that occasion. I go for trying him for his crimes, and, if he is found guilty, punishing him. But I would not lie about him, when the truth will certainly make it bad enough.
James H. Parker. Elburnville, PA”
The following article was written and ready for publication a few weeks after the appearance of that of General Wilson, which was the proximate occasion for its preparation. It was sent to the Philadelphia Times, in which General Wilson’s paper had appeared, and which had agreed to publish it. In consequence, however, of protracted and unexplained delay in the fulfillment of this agreement, it was withdrawn from the office of that journal, after lying there for some months, and is now submitted to the readers of the Southern Historical Society Papers, with this explanation of the delay in its publication.
“The publication, in the Philadelphia Weekly Times of July 7th, 1877, of an article by Major General James H. Wilson, professing to give an account of the capture of the Confederate President in 1865, has not only revived a fictitious story circulated soon after that event occurred — perhaps still current among the vulgar, though long since refuted — but has surrounded it with a cluster of new embellishments, which had heretofore been either “unwritten history” or unimagined fiction. To which of these classes they belong, the reader may be better able to determine after an examination of the evidence which it is one of the objects of this paper to lay before him.
The keynote to the temper, as well as the truthfulness of General Wilson’s narrative, may be found in its first paragraph, which I quote entire:
“On the first Sunday of April, 1865, while seated in St. Paul’s church in Richmond, Jefferson Davis received a telegram from Lee, announcing the fall of Petersburg, the partial destruction of his army, and the immediate necessity for flight. Although he could not have been entirely unprepared for this intelligence, it appears that he did not receive it with self possession or dignity; but with tremulous and nervous haste, like a weak man in the hour of misfortune, he left the house of worship and hurried home, where he and his more resolute wife spent the rest of the day in packing their personal baggage. Those who are acquainted with the character of Mrs. Davis, can readily imagine with what energy and determination she must have prepared her family for flight, and with what rage and disappointment she resigned the sceptre she had wielded over the social and fashionable life of ‘Richmond on the James.’ They may be sure, too, that although heartsick and disgusted, there was nothing irresolute or vacillating in her actions. At nightfall everything was in readiness; even the gold then remaining in the treasury, not exceeding in all $40,000, was packed among the baggage, and under cover of darkness the President of the Confederacy, accompanied by his family and three members of his Cabinet, Breckinridge, Benjamin, and Reagan, drove rapidly to the train which had been prepared to carry them from Richmond. This train, it is said, was the one which had carried provisions to Amelia Courthouse for Lee’s hard pressed and hungry army, and having been ordered to Richmond, had taken those supplies to that place, where they were abandoned for a more ignoble freight. As a matter of course the starving rebel soldiers suffered, but Davis succeeded in reaching Danville in safety, where he rapidly recovered from the fright he had sustained, and astonished his followers by a proclamation as bombastic and empty as his fortunes were straightened and desperate.
Whether the tone of this extract is that of chivalrous generosity and courtesy, or of coarse and bitter vulgarity, is a minor question, which it is not necessary to discuss. Whether its statements are true or false, is one of more interest, with regard to which it will be found on analysis that there is but one positive truth in the whole passage. There are at least four positive falsehoods in relation to matters of fact, susceptible of proof; one assertion of a sort perhaps not capable of being finally tested for positive evidence, but contrary to the statements of witnesses and to all moral and circumstantial proof to which it can be subjected; and two others, with regard to which I am not fully informed, but which are at least improbable and not in harmony with known facts.
To come to particulars, the one truth is that contained in the first sentence, that a certain telegram was received on a certain day by President Davis, while seated in St. Paul’s church, Richmond.
The statement immediately following, that he did not receive this dispatch “with self possession or dignity,” but that be left the house “with tremulous and nervous haste, like a weak man in the hour of misfortune,” is that which have classified as one perhaps not capable of being tested by positive proof; and this not from any doubt as to its entire untruth, but on account of the subjective character of the only evidence that can be applied to it. Two observers, the one self possessed and impartial, the other, either frightened himself, or imbued with the malignant spirit that seems to animate the pen of General Wilson, might form very different estimates of the demeanor of the object of their observation. General Wilson does not profess to have been a witness of what he describes, nor does he give the name of his informant, although his account is directly contrary to all the statements of actual witnesses that have heretofore been generally received. Whatever other accusations may be entertained, no one familiar with the character and history of Jefferson Davis, whether honest friend or candid foe, will believe that he ever exhibited weakness or lack of self possession in time of peril or calamity.
Let us hurry on, however, to an examination of the positive patent falsehoods in respect of matters of fact, contained in General Wilson’s first paragraph. (I am very desirous of avoiding hard words, but really know no euphemism for falsehood at all applicable to this case.)
1st. “He left the house of worship and hurried home.”
President Davis did not hurry home at all. On the contrary, he went to the executive office, which was not in the same part of the city with his home, and there called a meeting of his Cabinet, which continued in session for several hours. At this session there was no hurry or confusion. On the contrary, the calmness with which the grave questions under consideration were discussed by the principal member of the council, and his apparent indifference to his personal safety and private interests, were subjects of remark by others present. He did not go to his home until late in the afternoon.
2nd. “He and his more resolute wife spent the rest of the day in packing their personal baggage,” This statement and the highly colored description which follows, of the “packing” and of the “rage and disappointment” of Mrs. Davis, are pure fiction, presumably of General Wilson’s own invention; for it is well known that Mrs. Davis and all the President’s family had left Richmond some time before, and were at this very time either in Raleigh or Charlotte, North Carolina. The “packing” of Mr. Davis’ official papers was done by the gentlemen of his personal staff; that of his wearing apparel by his servants.
It would be beyond the scope of my present purpose to pause here to pay more than a casual tribute to the soldier like and chivalrous magnanimity that could invent a story like this for the sake of making an opportunity to jeer and sneer at the distress of a lady in time of danger and calamity.
3rd. “He drove rapidly to the train, * * * accompanied by his family.”
This statement is merely a variation of the previous fiction, without even an atom of foundation in fact, and needs no further comment.
4th. He was also accompanied, says General Wilson, by “three members of his Cabinet, Breckinridge, Benjamin, and Reagan.” He was really accompanied by five members of his Cabinet, Messrs. Benjamin, Mallory, Reagan, Trenholm, and Davis; General Breckinridge was not among them, and did not leave Richmond until the next morning. The misstatement in this case is altogether immaterial. It seems to spring out of the very wantonness and exuberance of untruthfulness in the narrator; but it serves to show how much reliance may be placed upon the accuracy of his assertions in minor matters, as well as in greater.
The two other statements which, by way of abundant caution against doing any injustice even to General Wilson, I have designated merely as “improbable” and scarcely consistent with known facts, are first, that the gold in the Confederate treasury was “packed among the baggage,” which from the context seems to be intended to mean that it was packed among the President’s baggage; and second, that the train in which the party traveled, “it is said,” was one which had carried provisions to Amelia Courthouse for Lee’s army, had thence been ordered to Richmond, and had abandoned the supplies for a “more ignoble freight” accompanied With regard to the first of these statements, it need only be said that the gold which was taken was in charge of Mr. Trenholm, the Secretary of the Treasury. How and where he “packed” it, I am not informed; but it is not at all likely that it was packed among the President’s “baggage.”
As to the other point, waiving all question of the nobility or ignobility of the Confederate President and Cabinet, considered as freight, it is enough to say that they traveled by a passenger train, not adapted nor employed for carrying provisions; and moreover, that, if supplies had been sent by this or any other train to Amelia Courthouse, a village on the Richmond and Danville railroad, they were no doubt sent through it, on the way to Richmond. The Commissary General of the Confederate army has shown in a recent publication (Southern Historical Society Papers for March, 1877), that no requisition for supplies to be sent to Amelia Courthouse was ever received by him or his assistants, and that the Secretary of War had no knowledge of any such. Mr. Harvie, the president at that time of the Danville road, also testifies (ibid.), that ample supplies could have been sent to Amelia Courthouse for an army twice the size of Lee’s, but that neither he nor the superintendent had any notice that they were wanted there. General Wilson qualifies this particular statement by the vague limitation, “it is said,” but the on dit seems to be entitled to little more credit than if it had been his own assertion.
Passing over all subordinate and incidental matters we come, in the next paragraph, to a yet more astounding historic revelation, as follows:
“It is stated upon what appears to be good authority, that Davis had, many weeks before Lee’s catastrophe, made ‘the most careful and exacting preparations for his escape, discussing the matter fully with his Cabinet in profound secrecy, and deciding that, in order to secure the escape of himself and principal officers, the Shenandoah should be ordered to cruise off the coast of Florida to take the fugitives on board.’ These orders were sent to the rebel cruiser many days before Lee’s lines were broken. It was thought that the party might make an easy and deliberate escape in the way agreed upon, as the communications with the Florida coast were at that time scarcely doubtful, and once on the swift sailing Shenandoah, the most valuable remnant of the Anglo-Confederate navy, ‘they might soon obtain an asylum on a foreign shore.’
General Wilson, it will be observed, adopts this remarkable story from some source which he does not indicate otherwise than as “what appears to be good authority.” He does injustice both to its inventor and his readers, in failing to specify the authority, for it surpasses in reckless audacity of invention anything else that he has told us. To appreciate this, we must remember that the Shenandoah was at that time on the other side of the world. Indeed, if I mistake not, she had never been and never was, on or near the American coast. Cruising in remote seas, her commander was not informed of the fall of the Confederacy and close of the war until long afterward. It was late in the autumn of 1865 before she was surrendered by him to the British authorities. Blockaded as the Confederate coast was, there could have been no reasonable hope that such orders as those described could reach her and be executed, within six or eight months at the least. And even if she had been within reach, an order to a ship of war to cruise “off the coast of Florida” a coast of more than a thousand miles in extent, with all its ports in possession of the enemy — to take off a party of fugitives at some point which could not possibly be designated beforehand, would have been too stupid a thing to have been done, or discussed even “in profound secrecy” by a government, the members of which have never been charged, even by their enemies, with total insanity.
Although the facts above stated with regard to the Shenandoah are well known, the following letter from a distinguished authority on Confederate naval history may serve to confirm them. The death of the illustrious author soon after it was written invests it with a painful interest:
Letter From Admiral Semmes. Mobile, Alabama, August 13th, 1877. Major W. T. Walthall:
Dear Sir: You are quite right as to the locus in quo of the Shenandoah. She was either in the North Pacific or Indian ocean at the time of the surrender. The news of the final catastrophe to our arms reached her in the latter ocean, when she struck her guns below in her hold, made the best of her way to England, and surrendered herself to the British government in trust for the conquering belligerent.
It is well known to the country that only a few weeks before the surrender of Lee, President Davis had no thought of surrender himself. His speech at the African church in Richmond, after the return of the Commission from Old Point, is ample evidence of this. If he had meditated flight from the country, as is falsely pretended by General Wilson, and to facilitate this, had desired to communicate with the Shenandoah, three or four months must have elapsed before a dispatch could reach her, and an equal length of time before she could return to the coast of Florida — even if he had known her precise locality; which was a matter of great improbability under the discretionary orders under which the ship was cruising.
I was, myself, commanding the James river fleet in the latter days of the war, and was in daily communication with the Navy Department, and if any such intention as that mentioned had been entertained by the Executive, I think I would have been consulted as to the whereabouts of the Shenandoah and the means of reaching her. Nothing of the kind transpired. I remain very truly yours, Raphael Semmes.
General Wilson continues:
“When Davis and his companions left Richmond in pursuance of this plan, they believed that Lee could avoid surrender only a short time longer. A few days thereafter the news of this expected calamity reached them, when they turned their faces again toward the South. Breckinridge, the Secretary of War, was sent to confer with Johnston, but found him only in time to assist in drawing up the terms of his celebrated capitulation to Sherman. The intelligence of this event caused the rebel chieftain to renew his flight; but, while hurrying onward, some fatuity induced him to change his plans and to adopt the alternative of trying to push through the Southwest toward the region which he fondly believed to be yet under the domination of Forrest, Taylor, and Kirby Smith, and within which he hoped to revive the desperate fortunes of the rebellion. He confided his hopes to Breckinridge, and when he reached Abbeville, South Carolina, he called a council of war to deliberate upon the plans which he had conceived for regenerating what had now become in fact ‘The Lost Cause.’ This council was composed of Generals Breckinridge, Bragg, and the commanders of the cavalry force which was then escorting him. All united that it was hopeless to struggle longer, but they added that they would not disband their men till they had guarded their chieftain to a place of safety. This was the last Council of the Confederacy. Davis, who had hitherto commanded with all the rigor of an autocrat, found himself powerless and deserted. From this day forth he was little better than a fugitive, for although his escort gave him and his wagon train nominal company and protection till he had reached the village of Washington, just within the northeastern boundary of Georgia, they had long since learned the hopelessness of further resistance, and now began to despair even of successful flight.”
In all this, as in what precedes it, there is scarcely an atom of truth. When Mr. Davis left Richmond he did not expect Lee to have to surrender. His preparations for defense at Danville would have been wholly inconsistent with such an expectation. Breckinridge was not “sent to confer with Johnston,” nor did he find him “only in time to assist in drawing up the terms of his celebrated capitulation to Sherman.” On the contrary, he arrived at Greensboro’ on the 12th or 13th of May, in time to take part in a conference already in progress between President Davis and some of his Cabinet, Generals Johnston and Beauregard. Several days afterward he again met General Johnston, in response to a telegraphic request from the latter, in full time to take part in the negotiations with General Sherman, which resulted, on the 18th, not in the final “capitulation,” but in the armistice which the Government of the United States declined to ratify. General Breckinridge was not present and took no part in the celebrated capitulation. See Johnson’s Narrative, pages 396-407.
There was no such change of “plan”, fatuous or not fatuous, as represented by General Wilson. No “council of war” was held at Abbeville. General Bragg was not at Abbeville. No cavalry commander was a member of “the last council of the Confederacy.” Mr. Davis had no wagon train. But it would be tedious and unprofitable to follow the misstatements of General Wilson and expose them in detail. They are too manifold even for enumeration. Enough has been said to show how utterly unworthy of credit is his evidence in support of any statement whatever. Admiral Semmes, in the letter above copied, has briefly noticed the falsity of the representation that President Davis had been preparing to leave the country, or had even entertained any thought of surrender. The removal of his family from Richmond was not in anticipation of such an event, but as an example to encourage what the government was recommending to the citizens in general, that all should leave that city who conveniently could, on account of the increasing scarcity of supplies. It is reasonable to presume – – and I speak only from presumption, not from any positive information — that the possibility of having to abandon the capital had been considered by the Confederate authorities for nearly three years previous, and that some degree of preparation for removal of the archives of the government in such case may have existed during all that period; but no expectation of the necessity for an early evacuation had been entertained until General Lee’s telegram of the 2d April was received. General Lee himself had expected to be able to hold his position at Petersburg at least “until the roads were hardened,” (to use his own expression,) and continued to entertain that hope until his attenuated lines were broken at Five Forks, on the 1st of April; nor did he anticipate, in leaving Petersburg, the series of disasters which compelled the surrender of his army, within a week afterward, under circumstances which made the surrender more illustrious than the conquest.
As to the charge that President Davis was preparing for “flight” from the country, there is not even the pretence of any evidence to support it. It is a mere calumny, without any basis of truth whatever. The only proposition of that sort of which we have any evidence, proceeded from a very different quarter – from the headquarters of the Federal army. General Sherman, in his Memoirs (pages 351-52), says that, in a conference with his general officers, pending the negotiations for an armistice, they discussed the question whether, “if Johnston made a point of it,” he (Sherman) should assent to the “escape from the country” of the Confederate President and Cabinet; and that one of the council insisted that, if asked for, a vessel should be provided to take them to Nassau. He does not say whether he himself favored this proposition, or not; but General Johnston, in a note to his account of the negotiations, which Sherman pronounces “quite accurate and correct,” says “General Sherman did not desire the arrest of these gentlemen. He was too acute not to foresee the embarrassment their capture would cause; therefore, he wished them to escape.”
Comparing these statements with each other, and with impressions made upon others who were participants in the events of the period, there can be no doubt as to General Sherman’s inclinations in the matter, “if Johnston had made a point of it;” but General Johnston made no such point. He knew, no doubt, that any proposition to abandon the country would have been promptly rejected by President Davis, and no Confederate General would have made so offensive a suggestion to him.
A week or two later, when it was proposed by one or more of his friends, that he should endeavor to reach Havana or some other West Indian port — not for the purpose of escape, but as the best and safest route to “the Trans-Mississippi” — he refused, on the ground that it would require him to leave the country, although it were only for a few days. Some allowance ought perhaps to be made for General Wilson’s offences against truth in this particular, on the score of his inability to comprehend the high sense of official honor by which Mr. Davis was actuated. Men’s ethical standards are very diverse.
General Wilson shows as little regard for common sense, or consistency for truth and candor. Thus, we find him saying that “Davis, instead of observing the armistice, was making his way toward the South with an escort.” And again: “I still felt certain, from what I could learn, that Davis and his Cabinet would endeavor to escape to the west side of the Mississippi river, notwithstanding the armistice and capitulation.” The armistice was one thing, and the capitulation another. The capitulation of General Johnston did not take place until after the armistice had been repudiated by the United States Government and the forty eight hours allowed for notice of its disapproval had expired. President Davis became a party to the armistice by giving it his consent and approval, but had nothing to do with the capitulation. So far was he from failing to observe the former, that he remained in Charlotte, quiescent, not only until he was informed of its rejection at Washington, but until the forty eight hours were completed, when he mounted his horse and rode off, having scrupulously observed it to the letter and the minute. This was on the 26th of April. On the same day took place, near Durham’s Station, the capitulation of “the troops under General Johnston’s command,” which certainly did not include the President of the Confederate States, who was not “under General Johnston’s command,” and who had no part whatever in the transaction. Leaving General Wilson to describe the disposition made of his own troops, and to recite their movements — a task which, in the absence of any other information, I can only presume that he has performed with more fidelity to truth than is exhibited in the other parts of his article — I now proceed briefly to narrate the facts immediately connected with the capture of President Davis.
In doing this, it will suffice to repeat the substance, and, in general, the very words of a narrative published more than a year ago (in the Mobile Cycle of May 27th, 1876), which probably met the eye of but few who will be readers of the present article. Proceeding in either case from the same pen, it will be unnecessary to designate such passages as are repetitions of the same language by quotation marks.
The movements of President Davis and his Cabinet, after the evacuation of Richmond, on the night of the 2d of April, are related with substantial accuracy in Alfriend’s “Life of Jefferson Davis” — a great part of them in the words of a narrative written by the late Mr. Mallory, Secretary of the Confederate Navy — until the dispersion of the party at Washington, Georgia, where Mr. Mallory parted with him. It is not necessary to go over this ground. The incidents that follow have not been so well known, but I am enabled to give them on the best authority. If there is any inaccuracy or uncertainty, it is merely with regard to minor matters of dates, places, names, &;c.
Mr. Mallory’s narrative mentions the passage of the Savannah river “upon a pontoon bridge” (which was really only a ferry flat), by the President and his escort, about daybreak on the morning of one of the early days of May. The main body of the troops (perhaps a thousand cavalry, or more,) which had accompanied them, were left, under command of General Breckinridge, to follow as soon as they could cross the river, the President pushing forward with only a few gentlemen of his Cabinet and personal staff, and an escort of a single company, commanded by Captain Campbell, to the little town of Washington, in Georgia. On the way he was informed that some Federal troops in the vicinity were preparing to attack the village and capture some stores which had been deposited there, and he sent back a messenger to the officer commanding the advance of the troops left at the river, urging him to come on with his command with all possible speed.
Arriving at Washington, the President was hospitably received and entertained at the house of a private citizen, and preparations were made to resist the expected attack as effectually as possible with the small force at his disposal. He soon ascertained, however, from the reports of scouts sent out into the surrounding country, that there were none but small and scattered squads of Federal soldiers in the neighborhood.
Meantime, advices were received from General Breckinridge, to the effect that, in the demoralized condition of his troops, it was almost impossible to hold them together. They were demanding money, and he asked that the Secretary of the Treasury should send some specie, to make a partial payment to the troops, hoping by this means to prevent a disintegration of the command. The specie was sent, but the troops did not come forward.
Under these circumstances the President determined to abandon the design of taking the troops with him, and to endeavor to make his own way, with only a small party, by a detour to the southward of the parts of the country occupied by the enemy, across the Chattahoochee. It was believed that Generals Taylor and Forrest were yet holding the field in Alabama and Mississippi, and that many soldiers who had not been surrendered and paroled in Virginia or North Carolina, would join those commands and might constitute a formidable force. In the event, however, of finding the position in those States untenable, it was then his purpose to cross the Mississippi river, in the hope of continuing the struggle with the forces yet free to operate in the “Trans Mississippi Department,” until the Government of the United States should agree to such terms of peace as would secure to the States of the Confederacy at least those rights which it had declared there was no intention to invade.
Calling for Captain Campbell, the President announced his purpose, and asked for ten volunteers of that officer’s company, if they were to be had, with the understanding that they were to incur any danger, or endure any hardship, that might be necessary; to obey any order, and to ask no questions. The whole company promptly volunteered when the call was made, but ten trusty men were selected. With these, under command of Captain Campbell; Mr. Reagan, Postmaster General, and Colonel William Preston Johnston, Colonel John Taylor Wood (formerly of the Confederate Navy), and Colonel Lubbock, of Texas, Aids to the President, he set off on his journey toward the southwest.
How long or how far they had proceeded, we are unable to state with precision – certainly, however, not more than a day or two when they learned from some persons met with on the way that Mrs. Davis and her party were in danger of being attacked by some marauding banditti, composed of deserters and stragglers from both armies, who were prowling through the country. (The President’s family, it should be understood, had been sent, by his direction, several weeks earlier, from North Carolina southward, and after a delay of some days at Abbeville, South Carolina, had passed through Washington, Georgia, only a day before his own arrival there. They were traveling in ambulances, or wagons, under escort of a few paroled Confederate soldiers. Aiming to reach East Florida, their route diverged from his own, being more to the southward and less to the westward.)
On receipt of this intelligence, Mr. Davis at once changed his course. Four of his small escort had already been detached to assist and protect a quartermaster’s train going to the southward with some valuable stores. With the remaining six, and the gentlemen of his personal staff already mentioned, he struck off in the direction of his family, intending to see them safely through the immediate danger and then prosecute his own journey. Riding rapidly and without halting, they came, near midnight, to a ferry, where they learned that his family had not crossed, and must have taken another route. Here Captain Campbell reported the horses of his men to be exhausted, and proposed to wait until morning. The President, unwilling to wait, and attended only by his staff officers and two colored servants, pressed on by a bridle path to the road which it was thought Mrs. Davis’ party had followed. A little before daybreak they encountered a party of men on foot, but with a number of bridles and other suspicious articles, who, on being questioned, said they belonged to the Thirty sixth Alabama regiment, and stated that a party in which were some women and children were encamped not far off. It was afterwards ascertained that these men were of the band of marauders who had been heard of. The moon, which bad shone brightly during the night, was just sinking below the tree tops, and the dark hour that precedes the dawn was probably what they were waiting for.
Riding on a little further, the President was challenged by a sentinel on guard in the woods, whose voice he recognized at once as that of his private secretary, Barton N. Harrison, Esq., who had accompanied Mrs. Davis and family, and was now keeping watch for their protection from imminent peril.
Mr. Davis remained with his family two days, until he had reason to suppose that they had passed the range of immediate danger. On the evening of the second day (which was the 9th of May) preparations were made for departure immediately after nightfall, when Colonel W.P. Johnston returned from a neighboring village with the report that a band of one hundred and fifty men were to attack the camp that night. The President, with abiding confidence in and attachment for all who had been Confederate soldiers, did not doubt that, if any such were in the party, they would desist from the attack on his appeal to them, and even take sides with him in case of conflict with others. He remained, therefore, fully confident of his ability to protect his family.
Meantime his horse, already saddled, with his holsters and blanket in place, was in charge of his body servant, and he himself was lying clothed, booted, and even spurred, when, a little after day break, the alarm was given that the camp was attacked. Springing to his feet and stepping out of the tent, he saw at once, from the manner in which the assailants were deploying around the camp, that they were trained soldiers, and not irregular banditti, and returning he so informed Mrs. Davis.
As we have said, the President was already fully dressed. He hastily took leave of his wife, who threw over his shoulders a water proof cloak or wrapper, either as a protection from the dampness of the early morning, or in the hope that it might serve as a partial disguise, or perhaps with woman’s ready and rapid thoughtfulness of its possible use for both these purposes. Mrs. Davis also directed a female servant, who was present, to take an empty bucket and accompany him in the direction of the spring –his horse, on the other side of the camp, being cut off from access by the interposition of the assailants.
He had advanced only a few steps from the door of the tent, when he was challenged by a mounted soldier, who presented his carbine and ordered him to “surrender.” The answer was: “I never surrender to a band of thieves.” The carbine was still presented, but the man refrained from firing — it is but fair to presume from an unwillingness to kill his adversary — while the President continued to advance. This was not from desperation or foolhardy recklessness, but of deliberate purpose. I take the risk of going perhaps a little beyond the limits of the authorized use of information obtained in the freedom of personal confidence, in stating that, with the rapid process of thought and formation of design which sometimes takes place in moments of imminent peril, Mr. Davis recalled an incident of his own experience that had occurred many years before. On the field of Buena Vista, while riding along a ravine in search of a slope that his horse could ascend, he was fired at and missed by the whole front rank of a squadron of Mexican cavalry on the crest of the bank above.
Remembering this, and observing that the man, who was finely mounted, was so near as to be considerably above him, he had little apprehension of being hit, and believed that, by taking advantage of the excitement of the shot, he might easily tip him from the saddle and get possession of his horse. The feasibility of this design was not to be tested, however, for at this moment Mrs. Davis, seeing only his danger, and animated by a characteristic and heroic determination to share it, ran forward and threw her arms around his neck, with some impassioned exclamation, which probably none of the parties present would be able to repeat correctly. The only hope of escape had depended upon bringing the matter to an immediate issue, and, seeing that this was now lost, the President simply said, “God’s will be done,” as he quietly turned back and seated himself upon a fallen trees near which a camp fire was burning.
While these events were occurring, there had been some sharp firing around the camp. It appeared afterward that the assailants had been divided into two parties, and, approaching from different directions, had encountered and fired upon each other by mistake, killing and wounding several of their own men. In the confusion consequent upon this, some of the Confederate party escaped — among them Colonel Wood, who afterwards accompanied General Breckinridge in his perilous and adventurous voyage in an open boat from the coast of Florida to Cuba.
After some delay, an officer with a paper, on which he was taking a list of the prisoners, approached the spot where the President was sitting, and asked his name. This he declined to give it telling the questioner that he might find it out for himself, but Mrs. Davis, anxious to avoid giving provocation as far as possible, gave the required information.
When Colonel Pritchard appeared upon the scene, President Davis, under the influence of feelings naturally aroused by certain indignities offered by subordinates, and by the distress inflicted upon the ladies of his family, addressed him with some asperity. It would probably be impossible (as it always is unclear such circumstances) for any participant, or even any witness, to recite with accuracy the conversation that ensued. I may say, however, that Mr. Davis has never made any complaint of the language or demeanor of Colonel Pritchard to himself, personally. Among the remarks made in that, or some subsequent conversation, by that officer, was one to the effect that, having refused to surrender, Mr. Davis had given the soldier who demanded the surrender the right to shoot him — a right, under the laws of war, of which President Davis was well aware at the time, and which he did not deny. As to the conversation recited by Wilson, Colonel Johnston, in his very temperate, cautious, and conscientious statement, appended to this article, avers most positively that no such remark was made (about Mr. Davis’ “garb,” means of “rapid locomotion,” &c.,) as is there attributed to Colonel Pritchard.
It would require too much space to point out in detail all the misrepresentations in General Wilson’s account of this affair. I shall copy merely a paragraph. After quoting from the account of the capture given by Pollard, who, although one of the most virulent and unscrupulous of President Davis’ enemies, has rejected the contemptible fiction of the “petticoat story,” he says:
“Between the two explanations given above, nearly all the truth has been told, for Davis certainly had on both the shawl and waterproof, the former folded triangularly and pulled down over his hat, and the latter buttoned down in front and covering his entire person except the feet. In addition to this he carried a small tin pail and was accompanied by his wife and his wife’s sister, one on each side, both of them claiming him as a female relative and both trying to impose him upon the soldiers as such. The articles of the disguise are now in the keeping of the Adjutant General of the army at Washington, and I am assured by him that they correspond in all respects to the description given of them. From the foregoing it will be seen that Davis did not actually have on crinoline or petticoats, but there is no doubt whatever that he sought to avoid capture by assuming the dress of a woman, or that the ladies of the party endeavored to pass him off upon his captors as one of themselves. Was there ever a more pitiful termination to a career of treachery and dishonor? What greater stigma was ever affixed to the name of rebel? Many loyal men have declared that Davis should have been tried by drum-head court martial and executed — but what new disgrace could the gallows indict upon the man who hid himself under the garb of woman, when, if ever, he should have shown the courage of a hero?”
With regard to the exact form of the fold of the shawl and the extent to which the “waterproof” was “buttoned down,” General Wilson’s assertions may pass for what they have already been shown to be worth. I have no evidence, and have not thought it necessary to seek any, as to the shape of the one or the dimensions of the other. Those who are curious might possibly ascertain, something on the subject by inquiry and examination at the War Department, if permission can be obtained of the Adjutant General of the army, who, according to General Wilson, is the custodian of the stolen articles of Mr. Davis’ wearing apparel. It is enough to know that they were both articles which he “had been accustomed to wear.” Colonel Johnston testifies, in the letter subjoined, that he himself had a “waterproof” of exactly the same sort, except in color, and that he turned this over to Mr. Davis, who wore it, after his capture, to supply the place of that of which he had been robbed. The very name (“Raglan”) by which Col. Johnston describes it, and by which it is commonly known, sufficiently indicates its origin and use as an article of masculine attire. Indeed, there was no female grenadier in the President’s party, whose cloak would have been capable of “covering his entire person except the feet” – he being a man of nearly six feet in height. It is also positively untrue that he “carried a small tin pail”. As already stated, there was a bucket in the hands of a colored female servant, whom the narrators seem to have indiscriminately confounded with President Davis, or with Miss Howell, (who was not in company with him,) as it might serve a purpose.
But why this persistent effort to perpetuate a false and foolish story, which seems to have been originally invented for sensational purposes by a newspaper correspondent? Even if it had been true, there would have been nothing unworthy or discreditable in it. Princes and peers, statesmen and sages, heroes and patriots, in all ages, have held it permissible and honorable to escape from captivity in any guise whatever. The name of Alfred has never been less honored because he took refuge from the invaders of his country under the guise of a cowherd. It has never been reckoned as a blot on the escutcheon of Richard Coeur de Lion, that he attempted to evade the recognition of enemies (less ruthless and vindictive than those of the Confederate President) by assuming the garb of a pilgrim — although the attempt was a failure, and he was detected and imprisoned. Not to cite the scores of instances of a like sort scattered through the pages of ancient and modern history, I do not find in our own generation any disposition to traduce the character of a late President of the United States, held in high honor by a great many Americans — a President from whom General Wilson held his own commission — on account of a certain “Scotch cap and cloak,” which, according to the current accounts, he assumed, on the way to his own inauguration, as a means of escaping recognition by a band of real or imaginary conspirators, and in which he slipped through Baltimore undetected, and (in the words of Horace Greeley, who, nevertheless, approves the act,) “clandestinely and like a hunted fugitive.” Far be it from me, in retaliatory imitation of General Wilson, to sneer at this incident as the “ignoble” beginning of a bloodstained administration, which was to have a “pitiful termination” amidst the desecration of a day hallowed by the sanctity of eighteen centuries of Christian reverence. No Southern writer has spoken in such a strain of the departed Chief, although known to us while living only as the chief of our foes. The dignity of death, no less than the respect due to the feelings of the thousands of our countrymen who hold his memory in honor, protects his name and fame from opprobrious or vindictive mention. Yet such language as we have supposed, would be less coarse, less churlish, less offensive, less brutal, than the terms which General Wilson employs in exulting over the calamities of an illustrious enemy, whose reputation is dear to myriads of his countrymen. His relations to that enemy, as captor to captive, would have created in the heart of any truly generous and chivalrous soldier an obligation of respect, forbearance, gentleness, and courtesy. Such a soldier feels toward such a prisoner a sentiment which renders him a defender and protector, rather than a defamer and calumniator.
The terms “treachery,” “dishonor,” “disgrace,” applied by Wilson to Jefferson Davis, admit of no reply that I care to make, and require none. They are indeed “foul, dishonoring words,” but the reader needs not to be told who it is that they dishonor. ”
Upon President Davis’s capture he was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia. There he was shackled and chained in a damp cell. He had absolutely no privacy as he was put in an open casemate where guards and the curious were allowed to watch him at their leisure. A light was kept burning twenty-four hours a day, giving him virtually no rest, until after many months his wife was allowed to make him a mask for his eyes. The above quoted article referring the statements of General Wilson now continue:
“General Wilson gives a brief account of the march to Macon, but says nothing of the horses, watches, and other articles of plunder secured by the captors, of which we have information from other sources. It must be remembered that all, or nearly all of the thirteen private soldiers of whom be speaks — if that was the correct number — and some of the officers, were paroled men, not arrested in any violation of their parole, but merely acting as an escort to a party of women and children, for their protection from the thieves and marauders who were roaming through the country. The horses of these men were their own private property, secured to them by the terms of their surrender. This pledge was violated, as was also the pledge of personal immunity — for some of them were remanded into captivity. The writer of an account of the capture, in the “Atlantic Monthly” for September, 1865, who is identified by General Wilson as an officer of his command, chuckles over the appropriation of what he elegantly and politely styles “Jeff’s wines and other ‘amenities'” — that is to say, the private stores of Mrs. Davis and her family — for Mr. Davis carried no stores — in a tone of sportive exultation, as it were a very good thing. He tells it in a vein that reminds one of Master Slander’s desire to have Mrs. Anne Page hear the capital joke about his father’s “stealing two geese out of a pen.” The same writer gives us, in the same jocose vein, an account of a brutal indignity offered by his “brigade band” to the illustrious prisoner, of which — if it ever occurred — the object of it was happily unconscious. He also tells us that “Mrs. Davis was very watchful lest some disrespect should be shown her husband;” whereas the true and manifest cause of her anxiety was the wifely apprehension that some pretext might be devised for his assassination.
General Wilson fails in some respects to do himself justice. His reception of Mr. Davis on his arrival at Macon, was more courteous and respectful than he represents it. The troops were drawn up in double lines, facing inward, and presented arms to the Confederate President as he passed between them. He was conducted, with his family, to private rooms at the hotel where the Federal commander was quartered, and a message was brought, inquiring whether he preferred to call on General Wilson, or to receive him in his own apartments. The answer was, that he would call on General Wilson, to whom he was accordingly conducted. (There was a reason for this use of the option offered, which it is not necessary to state.) The conversation that followed is not correctly reported by General Wilson, except that part of it relating to West Point, which was introduced by himself. Those who know Mr. Davis’ keen sense of social and official propriety will not need to be told that what is said of his criticisms upon the principal Confederate leaders is purely fictitious. No such conversation occurred, and it is simply impossible that it could have occurred under the circumstances.
I deny the statement on the best authority, but no authority besides that of the moral evidence would be necessary to refute the assertion that the Confederate President could talk to a stranger and an enemy in a strain of gushing confidence which he never indulged in conversation with his own familiar friends. It is but charity to presume that General Wilson has confounded opinions attributed to Mr. Davis by popular rumor (whether right or wrong) with imaginary expressions of them to himself.
In the course of the interview, General Wilson abruptly and rather indelicately introduced the subject of the reward offered by the President of the United States for the arrest of Mr. Davis, and the charge against him of complicity in the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, inquiring whether he had heard of it. “I have,” was the answer, “and there is one man who knows it to be a lie.” “By ‘one man'” rejoined Wilson, “I presume you mean some one particular man?” “I do,” answered Mr. Davis; “I mean the man (Andrew Johnson) who signed the proclamation; for he knows that I would a thousand times rather have Abraham Lincoln to deal with, as President of the United States, than to have him.” This was said with the full expectation that it would be reported.
The statement that he expressed apprehensions of the charge of treason, as one which it would give him “trouble to disprove,” is manifestly absurd. For two years of imprisonment, and another year while on bail, the most strenuous efforts of Mr. Davis and his friends were to bring this charge of treason to the issue of a trial. This issue the Government of the United States never dared to make, but, after delays and postponements from time to time, under various pretexts, finally dismissed the charge with a nolle prosequi.
The remark about Colonel Pritchard is not correctly stated. No expression of a choice of custodians or request of any sort was made by Mr. Davis, who, from the time of his capture to that of his release, adhered to the determination to ask nothing of his captors; nor did he say or intimate to General Wilson that he had shown any lack of “dignity and self possession,” or express “regret” for anything said or done at the time of his capture.
There are so many other misstatements in General Wilson’s narrative that it would be a waste of time to point out and contradict them. With regard to one only of them, I may say that, in the light — or rather under the shadow — of the incomparable fictitiousness already exposed, it would be a sort of injustice to the people of Georgia to give any attention to what General Wilson would have us believe of their lack of sympathy with their President and his family in the hour of calamity.
To revert for a moment to the foolish and malignant “petticoat story,” which, with some modification of its original draft, General Wilson has attempted, at this late day, and in opposition to the slowly returning tide of peace and good will, to revive and reconstruct; it has no support from any contemporary official statement that has been given to the public. It has been repeatedly and positively denied by eye witnesses on both sides. One such denial by a Federal soldier, which was published in a Northern paper a few years ago, and has been copied more than once since its first appearance, was republished in the Southern Historical Society Papers for August, 1877. The statement of James H. Jones, President Davis’ colored coachman, now a respectable citizen of Raleigh, N.C., recently republished in the Philadelphia Times, is clear and satisfactory on the same point, although it has some mistakes in names of persons, places, &c., — as might be expected from a witness of limited education, after so long a lapse of time. Appended, also, will be found interesting letters from Colonel Wm. Preston Johnston and F.R. Lubbock, (Ex Governor of Texas), both of whom were aids to President Davis, and both in company with him when captured, and also from the Hon. George Davis, of North Carolina, who was a member of his Cabinet. Colonel Johnston’s letter (from which some passages of a merely personal interest have been omitted), is singularly clear, dispassionate, and temperate in tone, and bears on its face the impress of intelligent and conscientious truthfulness. Governor Lubbock writes more briefly and with freer expression of honest indignation, but the two statements (made without any sort of concert) fully confirm each other. Mr. Davis’ letter — received after the foregoing narrative was written — substantiates all that has been said as to events occurring at the time of the evacuation of Richmond.
Still later, but entirely independent of all other evidence, has appeared the letter of the Hon. John H. Reagan, Confederate Postmaster General, published in the Philadelphia Times, entirely corroborating the statements hereunto appended, and giving emphasis (if that were possible) to their exposure of the untruthfulness of General Wilson’s narrative in its beginning, its middle, and its end. ”
September, 1877. Letter From Colonel William Preston Johnson Late Aide To President Davis Lexington, Va., July 14th, 1877.
“Major W.T. Walthall, Mobile, Ala.:
My Dear Sir: Your letter has just come to hand, and I reply at once. Wilson’s monograph is written with a very strong animus, not to say virus. It is in no sense historical. It bears upon its face all the marks of special pleading. He states, as matters of fact, numberless circumstances which could not be of his own knowledge, and which he must have picked up as rumor or mere gossip. Single errors of this sort are blemishes; but when they are grouped and used as fact and argument, they become, what you truly call them, “calumny.”
For instance, Mrs. Davis is represented as leaving Richmond with the President. My recollection is that she left some weeks beforehand. Breckinridge left on horseback, and went to General Lee, rejoining Mr. Davis at Danville. I do not doubt that all the account of “the preparations for flight” is purely fictitious. His statement of the conditions of the armistice is incorrect.
You will have the facts of our retreat and capture from many sources. My best plan is to tell you only what I know and saw myself. My testimony is chiefly negative, but in so far as it goes will probably aid you. My understanding was that we were to part with Mrs. Davis’ train on the morning of the 9th. We did not, and the President continued to ride in the ambulance. He was sick and a good deal exhausted, but was not the man to say anything about it. The day previous he had let little Jeff. shoot his Derringers at a mark, and handed me one of the unloaded pistols, which he asked me to carry, as it incommoded him. At that time I spoke to him about the size of our train and our route, about which I had not previously talked, as he had said nothing and I did not wish to force his confidence. It was, however, distinctly understood that we were going to Texas. I that day said to him that I did not believe we could get west through Mississippi, and that by rapid movements and a bold attempt by sea from the Florida coast, we were more likely to reach Texas safely and promptly. He replied: “It is true — every negro in Mississippi knows me.” I also talked with Judge Reagan and Colonel Wood on this topic. The impression left on my own mind was, however, that Mr. Davis intended to turn west, south of Albany; but I had no definite idea of his purpose, whether to go by sea or land. Indeed, my scope of duty was simply to follow and obey him; and, so long as I was not consulted, I was well content to do this and no more. I confess I did not have great hopes of escape, though not apprehensive at the time of capture, as our scouts, ten picked men, were explicit that no Federals were near and that pickets were out. Both of these were errors. On the night of the 9th I was very much worn out with travel and watching, and lay down at the foot of a pine tree to sleep.
Just at gray dawn Mr. Davis’ servant, Jim, awakened me. He said: “Colonel, do you hear that firing?” I sprang up and said, “run and wake the President.” He did so. Hearing nothing as I pulled on my boots, I walked to the camp fire, some fifty or less steps off, and asked the cook if Jim was not mistaken. At this moment I saw eight or ten men charging down the road towards me. I thought they were guerrillas, trying to stampede the stock. I ran to my saddle, where I had slept, and begun unfastening the holster to get out my revolver, but they were too quick for me. Three men rode up and demanded my pistol, which, as soon as I got out, I gave up to the leader, a bright, slim, soldierly fellow, dressed in Confederate grey clothes. The same man, I believe, captured Colonels Wood and Lubbock just after. One of my captors ordered me to the camp fire and stood guard over me. I soon became aware that they were Federals.
In the meantime the firing went on. After about ten minutes, maybe more, my guard left me, and I walked over to Mrs. Davis’ tent, about fifty yards off. Mrs. Davis was in great distress. I said to the President, who was sitting outside on a camp stool: “This is a bad business, sir.” He replied, supposing I knew about the circumstances of his capture: “I would have heaved the scoundrel off his horse as he came up, but she caught me around the arms.” I understood what he meant, how he had proposed to dismount the trooper and get his horse, for he had taught me the trick. I merely replied: “It would have been useless.”
Mr. Davis was dressed as usual. He had on a knit woolen visor, which he always wore at night for neuralgia. He wore cavalry boots. He complained of chilliness, and said they had taken away his “Raglan”, (I believe they were so called,) a light aquas-cutum or spring overcoat, sometimes called a “waterproof.” I had one exactly similar, except in color. I went to look for it, and either I, or some one at my instance, found it, and he wore it afterwards. His own was not restored.
As I was looking for this coat, the firing still continuing, I met a mounted officer, who, if I am not mistaken, was a Captain Hodson. Feeling that the cause was lost, and not wishing useless bloodshed, I said to him: “Captain, your men are fighting each other over yonder.” He answered very positively: “You have an armed escort.” I replied: “You have our whole camp; I know your men are fighting each other. We have nobody on that side of the slough.” He then rode off. Colonel Lubbock had a conversation nearly identical with Colonel Pritchard, who was not polite, I believe. You can learn from Colonel Lubbock about it.
Not long afterwards, seeing Mr. Davis in altercation with an officer, Colonel Pritchard, I went up. Mr. Davis was denunciatory in his remarks. The account given by Wilson is fabulous, except so far as Mr. Davis’ remark is concerned, that “their conduct was not that of gentlemen, but ruffians.” Pritchard did not make the reply attributed to him; I could swear to that. My recollection is that he said in substance, and in an offensive manner, “that he (Davis) was a prisoner and could afford to talk so,” and walked away. Colonel Hamden’s manner was conciliatory, if he was the other officer. If I am not mistaken, the first offence was his addressing Mr. Davis as “Jeff,” or some such rude familiarity. But this you can verify. I tried just afterwards to reconcile Mr. Davis to the situation.
On the route to Macon, three days afterwards, Mrs. Davis complained to me with great bitterness that her trunks had been ransacked, the contents taken out, and tumbled back with the leaves sticking to them.
I had not seen Mr. Davis’ capture. I was with him until we were parted at Fortress Monroe. Personally, I was treated with as much respect as I cared for. The officers were rather gushing than otherwise, and talked freely. Some were coarse men, and talked of everything; but I never heard of Mr. Davis’ alleged disguise until I saw it in a New York Herald, the day I got to Fort Delaware. I was astonished and denounced it as a falsehood. The next day I was placed in solitary confinement, and remained there. I do not believe it possible that these ten days could have been passed with our captors without an allusion to it, if it had not been an after thought or something to be kept from us. Very sincerely yours, Wm. Preston Johnston.”
Letter From Ex Governor Lubbock, Of Texas, Late Aid To President Davis, Galveston, Tex., August 2d. 1877.
“Major W.T. Walthall:
Dear Sir: Yours of 28th came to hand a day or two since, finding me quite busy. At the earliest moment I perused the article you alluded to in your letter, which appeared in the Weekly Times, of Philadelphia, of July 7th. It does really appear that certain parties, with the view of keeping themselves before the public, will continue to write the most base, calumnious, and slanderous articles, calculated to keep the wounds of the past open and sore. Such a writer now appears in General James H. Wilson, whose sole aim seems to be that of traducing and misrepresenting the circumstances of the capture of President Davis and his small party, who, it would appear, were pursued by some fifteen thousand gallant soldiers, commanded by this distinguished general. I shall leave it to you and others better qualified than myself, to reply to this “Chapter of the Unwritten History of the War.” I have this, however, to say: I left Richmond with President Davis, in the same car, and from that day to the time of our separation (he being detained at Fortress Monroe and I sent to Fort Delaware), he was scarcely ever out of my sight, day or night.
The night before the morning of our capture, Colonel William P. Johnston slept very near the tent. Colonel John Taylor Wood and myself were under a pine tree, some fifty to one hundred feet off. Our camp was surprised just a while before day. I was with Mr. Davis and his family in a very few moments, and never did see anything of an attempted disguise or escape until after I had been confined in Fort Delaware several weeks. I then pronounced it a base falsehood. We were guarded by Colonel Pritchard’s command until we reached Fortress Monroe. I talked freely with officers and men, and on no occasion did I hear anything of the kind mentioned.
Judge Reagan and myself had entered into a compact that we would never desert or leave him, remaining to contribute, if possible, to his well being and comfort, and share his fortune, whatever might befall. My bed mate, Colonel John Taylor Wood (one of the bravest and purest of men), having been a naval officer of the United States, and having been charged with violating the rules of war in certain captures made, deeming it prudent to make his escape, informed me of his intention and invited me to accompany him. I declined to avail myself of the favorable opportunity presented, telling him of my compact with Judge Reagan. He did escape.
The conduct of the captor, on that occasion was marked by anything but decency and soldierly bearing. They found no armed men — my recollection is that there was not one armed man in our camp. Mr. Davis, Judge Reagan, Colonel William Preston Johnston, Colonel John Taylor Wood, a young gentleman (a Mr. Barnwell, of South Carolina,) who escaped, and myself, constituted the President’s party. Colonel Harrison, the private secretary of the President, and a few paroled soldiers, were with Mrs. Davis and party, protecting their little baggage, &c.
Upon taking the camp, they plundered and robbed everyone of all and every article they could get hold of. They stole the watches, jewelry, money, clothing, &c. I believe I was the only one of the party not robbed.
The man and patriot, who a few days before was at the head of a government, was treated by his captors with uncalled for indignity; so much so that I became indignant, and so completely unhinged and exasperated that I called upon the officers to protect him from insult, threatening to kill the parties engaged in such conduct.
I cannot see how Mr. Davis could speak of Colonel Pritchard or his command with any degree of patience, as we all know that Mrs. Davis was robbed of her horses (a present from the people of Richmond). The money that she sold her trinkets, silverware, &c., for, was stolen, and no effort was made to have it returned to her. Time and time again they promised that the watches stolen on that occasion should be returned, that the command would be paroled, and the stolen property restored to the owners; but it was never done, nor any attempt made, that I can recall to my mind.
A Captain Douglass stole Judge Reagan’s saddle, and used it from the day we were captured. They appropriated our horses and other private property. But why dwell upon this wretchedly disagreeable subject? I hope and pray that the whole truth will some day be written, and I feel assured when it is done we of the South will stand to all time a vindicated people. As for him who is the target for all of the miserable scribblers, and of those unscrupulous and corrupt men living on the abuse heaped upon the Southern people by fanning the embers of the late war — when he is gone from hence history will write him as one of the truest and purest of men, a dignified and bold soldier, an enlightened and intelligent statesman, a man whose whole aim was to benefit his country and his people.
I know him well. I have been with him under all circumstances, and have ever found him good and true. How wretched the spirit that will continue to traduce such a man! How miserably contemptible the party that will refuse to recognize such a man as a citizen of the country in whose defense his best days were spent and his blood freely spilt! I have the honor to be, Yours very respectfully, F. R. Lubbock ”
Letter From The Late Hon. George Davis, Late Attorney General of the Confederate States, Wilmington, N.C., September 4th, 1877.
Major W.T. Walthall:
Dear Sir: Your favor of the 14th ult. and the copy of the Philadelphia “Times” were duly received, but my engagements with the courts have prevented an earlier reply.
I regret that I can give you but little information in aid of the purpose you have in mind, as I parted from Mr. Davis and the rest of the Cabinet at Charlotte; and the narrative of General Wilson professes to deal chiefly with events which occurred afterward.
I was not present at the Cabinet meeting on the first Sunday in April, 1865, when the telegram was received from General Lee announcing that his lines had been broken at Petersburg. I had that day attended service at a church to which I was not in the habit of going, and in consequence did not receive the message until about 1 o’clock, P.M. I went immediately to Mr. Davis’ office, and found him alone, and calm and composed as usual. He informed me of the orders that had been given and the dispositions made for the evacuation of Richmond. After some conversation I left to make my own preparations for departure. I believe that even the intensity of Northern hatred has never doubted Mr. Davis’ courage; and certainly none who know him can doubt his pride of personal character. And these admitted qualities were quite sufficient to preserve him from any unmanly display of weakness, such as General Wilson has pretended to relate. A brave man may be unnerved by a sudden and unexpected danger, but never by a danger that has been anticipated and prepared for during many weeks, (as he relates). During my intimate association with Mr. Davis, I have seen him often in circumstances of extreme trial and excitement, and sometimes of imminent danger. Especially do I recall that other Cabinet meeting which was interrupted by the intelligence that Dahlgren was at the outworks of Richmond, with nothing in his way but a raw battalion of Department clerks. And never yet have I seen him “tremulous and nervous,” as “without self possession and dignity.” Assuredly, such language does not truthfully describe his conduct and demeanor as I saw him on the first Sunday in April, 1865.
The unfortunate are always in the wrong; and the men of the Confederacy have had little reason to expect magnanimity, or even fairness, from their adversaries. But a generous tribute of respect and honor has been universally and ungrudgingly yielded to their women. And the soldier, professing to deal with history, who cannot sufficiently belittle a great enemy without invading the sanctity of his home to hold up his wife in half sneering, half complimentary contrast to him, does not commend himself to the confidence of an impartial world. And the judgment of the world in this instance will probably be a near approach to the truth; for the “energy and determination,” the “rage and disappointment” of Mrs. Davis, so graphically described by General Wilson, are all pure fiction. That admirable lady had left Richmond some time before the evacuation, and was then in North Carolina.
This candid soldier further says: “It is stated, upon what appears to be good authority, that Davis had many weeks before Lee’s catastrophe made `the most careful and exacting preparations for his escape, discussing the matter fully with his Cabinet in profound secrecy, and deciding that, in order to secure the escape of himself and his principal officers, the Shenandoah should be ordered to cruise off the coast of Florida, to take the fugitives on board.’ These orders were sent to the rebel cruiser many days before Lee’s lines were broken.”
Who this “good authority” is we are left to conjecture; but General Wilson himself is responsible for the assertion that “these orders were sent,” as he does not quote even a dubious authority for that. Was ever a more daring statement given to a credulous world? Mr. Davis and his Cabinet were so extremely concerned for their personal safety that they took the one impossible way to secure it! The Shenandoah was then, and long had been, on the broad bosom of the Pacific ocean, hunted on all sides by Federal cruisers, and without a single friendly port in which to drop her anchor. Were these orders sent around the Horn, or overland from Texas? How long would it have taken them to find her and bring her to the coast of Florida? And how long would the Federal navy have permitted her to remain there waiting for “the fugitives”?
Again: The narrative deals in pure fiction, too absurd for the wildest credulity. No such orders were issued. There were no discussions in the Cabinet, no “careful and exacting preparations for escape,” and no preparations of any kind until the fall of Petersburg rendered them necessary; and then the anxiety was for the preservation of the Government, and not for the safety of its individual members. Day by day, for many months, the varying fortunes of the Confederacy were the subject of grave and anxious deliberations in the Cabinet. But never was there any plan proposed, or any suggestion made, or even a casual remark uttered, regarding the personal safety of its officers. Bad as General Wilson may think them, they were neither selfish enough nor cowardly enough for that. And as to Mr. Davis, it was well known in Richmond that his unnecessary and reckless exposure of himself was the cause of frequent and earnest remonstrances on the part of his friends.
The Northern people triumphed in arms, but they can never add to the glories of that triumph by endeavoring to depreciate and degrade the men whom they found it so difficult to conquer. Very respectfully yours, George Davis. ”
Brevet Lieutenant Colonel John J. Craven, M.D., was the physician assigned to President Davis during his confinement from May 25, 1865 to December 25, 1865 Fortress Monroe, Virginia. Dr. Craven attended to President Davis under the authority of a vindictive General Miles, who resented all evidences of humanity in dealing with Davis. This eventually led to an order by General Miles to Dr. Craven that he give no order for the prisoner, such as one ordering woolen underwear and a thick overcoat, without prior notice to him. General Miles also ordered that Dr. Craven should confine his conversations with Davis to medical matters. Not satisfied with these evidences of his character, General Miles had Dr. Craven relieved from duty on Christmas Day, 1865.
President Davis’s health deteriorated dramatically during his imprisonment. He was in shackles and chains until they had to be removed for medical reasons. . No where can it be found that Jefferson Davis or other CSA National leader was guilty of any crime, yet he was imprisoned for two years. President Davis was first accused of being an accomplice in the Lincoln assassination. There was no evidence of any involvement on his part in this assassination. Next the Northern government charged Davis with cruelty to prisoners of war. Again no case could be made here that Davis was directly or even indirectly responsible for any suffering of prisoners of war. Finally a charge of treason was entered against Davis, but after some of the best legal minds reviewed the facts, the charge was dropped. Finally, on May 11, 1867, Davis was taken to the Federal court room in the Custom House at Richmond, VA to be released on $100,000 bond provided by prominent Northerners, among them old abolitionists Gerrit Smith and Horace Greely. Although still scheduled to be tried for charges of treason, he would never be tried. Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial on any violation of law by the United States government. Had the U.S. government persisted with their charges it would have been possible and likely that President Davis would win in a court of law what was lost on the field of battle President Davis was excluded from the general amnesty of Confederates, through the ambition and vindictiveness of Senator James G. Blaine of Maine. President Davis would live out his life without holding U.S. citizenship until it was restored in 1978 as a token gesture.
Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, was also imprisoned after the close of the war. Although his imprisonment was not as lengthy as that of President Davis it was still a cruel experience. Vice President Stephens was arrested and sent to Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor, where he would spend six months in prison.
In 1866 Stephens was elected to the Senate but would be refused his seat. In 1869 he became crippled when an iron gate fell on him, confining him to a wheelchair. Stephens would later be elected Governor to the state of Georgia. Four months into office, in 1882, Stephens passed away. In Virginia, flags were flown at half-mast. In Vermont, state offices were closed. Flags were lowered over the U.S. capital as newspapers around the country reported his death.
References and Details:
“Was Jefferson Davis Right?”, by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy
“The Shackling of Jefferson Davis”, by T.K. Oglesby
“The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis” by John J. Craven, M.D. Carleton
“The Truths of History” by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 13 & 19
“The Story of the Confederate States”, by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3, Section 5, Chapter 1
“The Trials And Trial Of Jefferson Davis.”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXIX. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1901
“Jefferson Davis. A Statement Concerning the Imputed Special Causes of His Long Imprisonment by the Government of the United States”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXVII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1909
“Chaplain Matthew O’Keefe Of Mahone’s Brigade”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXV. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1907
“The Capture Of Mr. Jefferson Davis, President Of The Confederate States “, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. IV. Richmond, Virginia, August, 1877. No. 2
“The True Story Of The Capture Of Jefferson Davis”, Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. V. Richmond, Virginia, March, 1878. No. 3.
D. The Execution of Major Henry Wirz
Major Henry Wirz was the commandant of Camp Sumter, the infamous Confederate prison located at Andersonville, Georgia, from March of 1864 until the close of the war. On May 7, 1865, Major Wirz was to spend the last day of his life with his ten-year-old daughter. On that day U.S. Captain H. E. Noyes came to Andersonville on orders from General Wilson. Captain Noyes demanded the records of the prison from Wirz, and then advised Major Wirz that he had been directed to take him to General Wilson’s headquarters. Major Wirz was taken to Macon, Georgia, where he was questioned at considerable length about the prison records. In the course of about two hours the General told him that that was all he wanted and that he could return to his family. Major Wirz bid General Wilson goodbye and went to the train depot to go to Andersonville. The train was a few hours late, and after waiting at the depot for more than an hour, an officer with a few soldiers from General Wilson’s headquarters came to the station and arrested Major Wirz and put him under guard. A few days later he was sent to Washington, D.C., and placed in the Old Capitol Prison on May 10, 1865.
On August 23, 1865, Wirz’s trial began. He was charged with 13 murders, one of which supposedly happened in February of 1864, which was before Wirz even arrived at Andersonville. Of the other 12 charges of murder, each and every one of the “victims'” names were unknown.
Of the 160 witnesses called by the prosecution, 145 testified that they had no personal knowledge of Wirz ever killing or mistreating anyone. Only one of the 160 could give the name of a prisoner allegedly killed by Wirz. The problem with this testimony was that the date given by the witness did not agree with any date used in the charges against Wirz. The court “corrected” this situation by simply changing the date in the indictment to match the testimony already given.
The court decided which witnesses it would allow the defense to call. Several key witnesses were not allowed to testify on behalf of the defense. While the U.S. court restricted the defense, it would compliment prosecution witnesses for their “spirited testimony.” One defense witness was arrested and jailed when he arrived to testify on behalf of Wirz. Major Henry Wirz was found guilty of murder. After spending six cruel months in prison and on the day of his death, Major Wirz sent a letter to Mr. Louis Schade, an old friend:
“Dear Mr. Louis Schade:
It is the last time that I address myself to you. What I have said often and often I repeat – accept my thanks, my sincere, heartfelt thanks, for all you have done for me. May God reward you. I cannot. I still have something more to ask of you, and I am confident you will not refuse to receive my dying request. Please help my poor family, my dear wife and children. War, cruelest, has swept everything from me, and today my wife and children are beggars! My life is demanded as an atonement. I am willing to give it, and hope that after a while I will be judged differently from what I am now. If any one ought to come to the relief of my family, it is the people of the South, for whose sake I have sacrificed all. I know you will excuse me for troubling you again. Farewell, dear sir. May God bless you. Yours thankfully, H. Wirz”
Major Wirz had, on November 6, 1865, written President Andrew Johnson, asking him to please pass his sentence upon him as he had lived for six months in prison, alive yes, but only “the mechanical functions I perform, and nothing more.” Major Wirz rejected an offer of a pardon the night before his execution. The offer was conditioned on his agreement to testify that former Confederate President Jefferson Davis was responsible for the deaths at Andersonville. Wirz advised that “such a statement would be untrue and he would not base his freedom on a lie.” On November 10, 1865, after saying parting words with his weeping wife, Major Wirz was led to the gallows in front of U.S. troops, pounding the butts of their rifles into the wooden planks, chanting “Andersonville, Andersonville” and then Major Wirz was hanged.
The most outrageous injustice of the court proceedings was connected with the prosecution’s key witness. A man claiming to be one De la Baume testified that he personally saw Wirz shoot two prisoners. His testimony was so compelling that the court gave the witness a written commendation for his “zealous testimony” and rewarded him with a government job. Eleven days after Wirz was hanged, De la Baume was recognized by Union veterans as one Felix Oeser, a deserter from the Seventh New York Regiment. The veterans were so outraged they went to the Secretary of the Interior and had the deserter fired from his government job. Upon his discovery, the deserter admitted that he had committed perjury in the Wirz trial. But the only reason that the Union veterans were angry was because the deserter was on the government payroll, not because he had perjured and aided in the killing of an innocent man.
The unfair treatment accorded the defense caused three of the original five defense attorneys to quit early in the case. The remaining two finally gave up and quit after their motion for time to prepare their closing argument was denied. The court then allowed the prosecution to present the closing arguments for both the prosecution and the defense!
References and Details:
“The South Was Right”, by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter 1
“The Story of the Confederacy” by Robert S. Henry, Chapter 28
“The Lost Cause”, by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 38
“The Truths of History” by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 7
“Andersonville: A Southern Perspective”, by J.H. Segars
“The True Story of Andersonville Prison” by James Madison Page
“The Treatment Of Prisoners During The War Between The States”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. I. Richmond, Virginia., March, 1876 No.3
“Prisoners Of War North And South”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXIV Richmond, Va., January-December. 1906
“Andersonville Prison. A Northern Witness for Captain Wirz”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXVI Richmond, Va. January-December. 1908
“The Monument To Captain Henry Wirz”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXVI Richmond, Va., January-December. 1908
“Memorial Sermon”, Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXVII. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1909
Part 14 Questions
In short essay format given and support an opinion for at least six of these questions:
1. What was the purpose of Reconstruction?
2. If the US Government position was that the Southern states were never considered legally out of the Union, how was Reconstruction against the South justified?
3. What hardships did Reconstruction pose to the Southern people?
4. What violations of the Constitution could be seen with implementation of Reconstruction?
5. Some Southerners chose to leave the South, often heading west to avoid the effects of Reconstruction. Describe the aspects and ramifications of this decision.
6. Who were the Confederados?
7. What distortion (lies) did Northern Press and some Yankee Officers publicize regarding the capture of Jefferson Davis?
8. Which particular facts regarding the capture of Jefferson Davis were refuted by eye witnesses?
9. What charges were brought against Jefferson Davis?
10. What conditions did Jefferson Davis endure while imprisoned for two year?
11. Did Jefferson Davis ever receive a conviction or trial for any of the charges?
12. Why did the US Government use the Wirz trail as their keystone event to persecution of Southern officers and leaders?
13. Why did US Government officials offer Wirz a pardon and why did he refuse?