One hundred fifty years ago today the Cleveland (OH) Herald published a report from the Philadelphia (PA) Press on how the New York Zouaves in Washington, DC were called in to put out a fire at the famous Willard’s Hotel. As the soldiers were unable to find any ladders, the Press‘ correspondent described how:

The New York boys…sprang to the windows of the telegraph office, between the burning store and the main entrance to the hotel; from the window they raised members of the company on their shoulders to the next window, and thence they continued from window to window until the top of the building was gained – an adventure worthy of great commendation, as it was accomplished only through heroic daring and effort. Hose pipes were immediately handed up, and water applied to the flames, which had then broken out on the roof of the wing…. The New Jersey and New York men worked heroically, and a prospect of saving the main building began to be realized.

John Hay, who worked as President Abraham Lincoln’s secretary, noted in his diary that “Ellsworths Zouaves covered themselves with glory… in saving Willard’s Hotel and quenching a most ugly looking fire.” “They are utterly unapproachable in anything they attempt,” as Hay concluded. Yet almost two weeks later the New York Zouaves’ commander, Elmer E. Ellsworth, was killed after he removed a Confederate flag from a building in Alexandria, Virginia. “So much of promised usefulness to one’s country, and of bright hopes for one’s self and friends, have rarely been so suddenly dashed as in his fall,” as President Lincoln told Ellsworth’s parents. You can learn more about Ellsworth in John Hay’s “Ellsworth,” Atlantic Monthly (1861) and Ruth Painter Randall’s Colonel Elmer Ellsworth: A Biography of Lincoln’s Friend and First Hero of the Civil War (1960).

One hundred fifty years ago today the New York Times argued that anyone who described the Civil War as a war “against the South” and “Southern institutions” had made “a great mistake.” The only reason that President Abraham Lincoln had called for 75,000 troops after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was to restore the Union. “What [northerners] demand of the seceding States is, not that they shall change their domestic institutions, their Constitutions, their policy or their laws, but that they shall return to their allegiance to the Government,” as the New York Times explained. While soldiers were prepared to “fight to the death against the traitors,” the New York Times noted that they “have no lust of conquest…[or] thought of subjugation.” Not only was slavery not an issue, but the New York Times pointed out that the new southern government  did not represent a significant change:

The Constitution of the Federal Government in all its essential features has been adopted as the organic law of the new Confederacy, while the Constitutions of the States themselves remain unchanged. Their relations to the central Government differ in no material respect from their relations to the Government at Washington.

Yet despite this fact southerners had “rush[ed] into rebellion as if the overthrow of government and the initiation of a bloody civil war were no crime.” In addition, the New York Times predicted what would happen after the war. While the “hanging of individual traitors and the scattering of demagogues” might occur, the New York Times believed that “the seceding States… will come back with all their rights unimpaired, their sovereignties fully guaranteed, and their domestic institutions as subject to their own control as are those of New York to-day.” You can read more about the New York Times during this period in Augustus Maverick’s Henry J. Raymond and the New York Press, for Thirty Years (1870) and Francis Brown’s Raymond of the Times (1951).

One hundred fifty years ago today the Fayetteville (NC) Observer refuted northern newspapers’ claims “about [the] indignities… heaped upon Northern men in all the Southern States.” As the Observer noted, one northern editor published a story on how:

“[Virginia] Governor [John] Letcher and his satellites had purposely inaugurated mob law and anarchy for the purpose of enriching themselves and their followers out of the private property of citizens who may be driven out of the State by the mob. Men of property, who are suspected of being loyal to the flag that has so long protected them, received notice to leave their homes at a few hours’ warning and they and their families are compelled to fly Northward with only the clothes they wear and what loose cash they may chance to have in their possession. The property they leave behind is clutched by the rebels.”

The Observer was surprised “that even that maddest of all mad fanatics, a Black Republican editor, can believe so absurd a story as that.” While these northern papers also claimed that “mob law and a reign of terror are unknown” in places like New York City, the Observer pointed out that the reality was different. “Witness the Southern men leaving that city by hundreds, and going round far out of their way to avoid the suspicion of being Southern men and thus to escape insult and violence,” as the Observer argued. This type of “abominable story-telling [from northern] papers” was dangerous and, as the Observer explained, “[had] brought the country to its present awful condition.”

One hundred fifty years ago today the Chicago (IL) Tribune published excerpts from two Kentucky newspapers that condemned former US Senator John Bell for announcing his support for the Confederacy. Bell was the Constitutional Union Party’s candidate for President in 1860 and he had opposed secession  after Abraham Lincoln’s victory. Yet in April 1861 after the attack on Fort Sumter and President Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops  Bell changed his mind. In a speech in Nashville Bell had been “clear and loud to every Tennessean – to arms! to arms!” Not only did the speech prove that Bell was “a rank secessionist, but a traitor and a coward” as the Tribune explained. In addition, the Tribune included excerpts of two editorials from papers based in Lexington, Kentucky. The Journal had supported Bell in the 1860 election and now noted that “we cannot but recall the striking advice given by some prudent sage – ‘Never praise a man till he is dead.’” The Democrat, which argued that Bell “never had brains enough to stand up in a storm,” also condemned Bell and concluded that:

“And thus John Bell has sunk without a ripple to mark the place where he went down. – As the Judge always says when he sentences a murderer, “May the Almighty have mercy on your soul.”

You can read more about Bell and the secession crisis in the Upper South in Daniel W. Crofts’ Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis (1989). You can listen to this article by clicking on the play button below:

Listen to the Chicago (IL) Tribune article:

One hundred fifty years ago today William P. Willey wrote his father to update him on the conditions in Carlisle and at Dickinson College. Willey, who was from western Virgina, was one of the few southern students at Dickinson College who did not return home after the attack on Fort Sumter and President Abraham Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops. While at one point “Southern students…could not walk the streets [in Carlisle] without being harassed with threats and nicknames,” Willey reassured his father there was “nothing to fear.” Willey reported that “several of the best citizens” had told him that “[he] would not be molested.”  “I feel just as safe as if I were at home,” as Willey concluded. Willey also believed it was in his best interest to stay since classes at Dickinson would continue. While “only about twenty [students were] left,” Willey explained that Dickinson College President Herman Johnson “[had] sent printed circulars to the parents” in an attempt to convince others to return. Even though “it [was] very lonesome” on campus, Willey noted that “the advantages for those remaining will only be better.” In addition, Willey described how some Carlisle residents reacted to the start of the war.  “The prominent desire seems to be… getting a hold on Jeff Davis” and, as Willey noted, “each man declares his intention of preserving an extra shot for him.” Willey also described the reaction on April 22 when reports  about an advancing “southern army” reached Carlisle:

On Monday night about 2 o’clock the report came that a southern army was marching in this direction, that they had burned Hanover, [Mount Holly Springs], and other small places beyond here, and were coming to Carlisle to take possession of the barracks, and burn the town. In about an hour the streets were alive with people. Women half dressed running through the streets with their children, men with their arms, asking the direction of the army, and before long the country people began to come with butcher knives and rusty shot guns, and I believe some of the Dutch women were clinging to the immortal broomstick. All the bells in town were ringing their loudest peal. Two persons have not yet recovered from the effects of the excitement. It was altogether the most exciting and ludicrous scene I ever saw. A few sensible citizens finally succeeded in showing the absurdity of the report and quiet was restored.

Willey was careful to remind his father that “the excitement here [in Carlisle had] abated to a considerable degree” since that event.You can listen to this letter by clicking on the play button below:

Listen to William Willey’s letter:

One hundred fifty years ago today C. P. Kirkland, Jr. wrote home and described his journey from New York City to Washington DC. Kirkland was a member of the 71st New York Infantry and his regiment had been sent to defend Washington DC after the attack on Fort Sumter. The 71st New York had to endure a number of hardships on their trip, including poor quality of food. In New York Kirkland boarded the R. R. Cuyler, which as Kirkland described, “was very filthy, redolent of decayed meat, [and] bilge-water.” The soldiers’ rations were even worse. “The eating was perfectly disgusting – the junk was served out to the men from the hands of the cook,” as Kirkland noted. While he “could not touch it” at first, Kirkland explained that he eventually “reconciled to it” and was now “capable of eating any thing.” After this experience, Kirkland noted that he would never “complain about dirty water, molasses, or any thing else, that may have a few hairs, croton bugs, or any such thing in it.” Yet despite their “sufferings,” Kirkland observed that the men of the 71st New York “are sustained by the conviction that we are actuated by the spirit of a pure and a holy patriotism, and that our course is approved by all the good on earth, and by our Father in Heaven.” After Kirkland’s regiment disembarked in Annapolis, they continued on to Washington DC. You can read Kirkland’s entire letter on House Divided. In addition, you can learn more 71st New York Infantry Regiment from the sources listed on this unit bibliography from the U.S. Army Military History Institute in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

One hundred fifty years ago today President Abraham Lincoln wrote General Winfield Scott about what he should do when the Maryland legislature met in Annapolis. While Lincoln had “considered… whether it would not be justifiable… to arrest, or disperse the members of that body,” he concluded that such action “would not be justifiable” since “they have a clearly legal right to assemble.” In addition, Lincoln noted that the United States Government could “not permanently prevent” the Maryland legislature from meeting. If arrested, Lincoln believed that upon their release from prison “they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action.” Yet if the Maryland legislature met and took action against the United States, Lincoln authorized General Scott to respond with force. If Maryland “arm[ed] their people against the United States,” Lincoln instructed Scott “to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract it, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities.” In addition, Lincoln was also prepared to authorize “the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” in Maryland. You can read more about the political situation in Maryland in David Detzer’s Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (2006) and in Chapter 23 of Michael Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life (2008).

One hundred fifty years ago today William Willey (Class of 1862) wrote to his father about whether he could remain at Dickinson College and described the conditions in Carlisle as residents prepared for war. Willey lived in western Virginia and his father was serving as a delegate at the Secession convention in Richmond, Virginia. As he told his father, “it is probable that they will not suffer any of us from the South to remain more than a day or two longer.” Willey, however, was not as concerned as other southern students. “The only ones that are in danger are the students from [South Carolina],” as Willey observed. Yet Willey hoped that he could remain at Dickinson College and graduate in 1862. “I will regret it more than any circumstance of my life, should I be compelled to go,” as Willey explained. In addition, Willey’s letter included his observations of Carlisle as residents prepared for war. “The depot is crowded with women bidding adieu to their husbands and sons, and all appear to be mad with excitement,” as Willey described. Carlisle residents even “compelled [Dickinson College] to hoist the stars and stripes,” as Willey noted. You can listen to this letter by clicking on the play button below:

Listen to William Willey’s letter:

One hundred fifty years ago today Mayor George W. Brown wrote Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew and described the riot that took place the previous day in Baltimore, Maryland. The Sixth Massachusetts Regiment had left Philadelphia in the morning of April 19, 1861, but while crossing the between the President Street and the Camden railroad depots in Baltimore they were attacked in the streets by southern sympathizing rioters. The Sixth Massachusetts reached their Washington-bound train but not before they had suffered three killed and others wounded and opened fire in response, killing thirteen rioters. “Our people viewed the passage of armed troops to another State through the streets as an invasion of our soil, and could not be restrained,” as Mayor Brown explained. As “all communication between this city and…Boston by steamers [had] ceased,” Brown noted that “the bodies of the Massachusetts soldiers” had to remain in Baltimore and that they were “placed with proper funeral ceremonies in the mausoleum of Greenmount Cemetery.” Governor Andrew later replied that he was “overwhelmed with surprise that a peaceful march of American citizens over the highway to the defence of our common capital should be deemed aggressive to Baltimoreans.” You can read more about the Baltimore riot in David Detzer’s Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (2006).

Listen to Mayor George Brown’s letter to Governor John Andrew:

Listen to Governor John Andrew’s reply to Mayor George Brown:

News coverage of Civil War events continued to run high this past week as the nation remembers the 150^th anniversary of the beginning of the conflict. The main event this week in history was Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration as president on March 4, 1861.

William C. Kashatus of the Philadelphia Inquirer provided a thoughtful overview of Lincoln’s first inaugural entitled “Speech that Launched the Lincoln Presidency.” The address, which was just 35 minutes, reflected the “balanced rhetoric of a shrewd politician,” according to Kashatus. Although Lincoln has become known as the “Great Emancipator,” his primary goal was to ensure that the Union was perpetual and vowed not to “interfere with slavery in the Sates where it existed.” Lincoln was both “firm and compassionate” in his first speech as president, and ended with an impassioned plea to his “dissatisfied fellow countrymen:”

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angles of our nature.”

David Jackson of the USA Today reported on a proclamation by President Obama in honor of Lincoln’s first inaugural. The President said that the “rugged rail-splitter” and “humble lawyer” helped heal the bloody divisions of Civil War through “simple eloquence and humble leadership marked by profound wisdom.”

“The Oval,” the USA Today’s project tracking the Obama presidency, also offered a concise take on the first inauguration.

Patrick Teegarden, contributing to the Colorado Statesman’s sesquicentennial column, wrote an article describing how “Lincoln’s Inaugural Addresses spearheaded our journey towards equality and freedom.”

Doug Kendall, Founder and President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, authored an interesting article entitled “Remembering the Civil War in the Tea Party Age.” As he discusses the debate about whether the Confederacy fought mainly over slavery or states’ rights, he points out that the Tea Party-infused politicians have been making arguments in favor of nullification and secession, as if the Confederacy had prevailed on its’ states rights’ platform. He says that we should celebrate the Constitution of our time, not “yearn for days long past when our Constitution, and our Union, were far less perfect.”

Andrew Glass of Politico provided a brief article commemorating Lincoln’s second inaugural address. Calling it one of Lincoln’s most powerful speeches, the magnanimous address was made even more powerful by his assassination, which occurred little more than a month after he delivered it.

In related news, Robert Redford is the director of The Conspirator (pictured above), a new movie about the plot to assassinate Lincoln to be released on April 15, 2011.