“The Cannon Salvo that thundered over Springfield, Illinois, to greet the sunrise on November 6, 1860, signaled not the start of a battle, but the end of one…Election Day was finally dawning.” – Historian Harold Holzer

Abraham Lincoln, however, was not one to rush and vote right after the polling places opened in the morning. He apparently waited until 3:30pm when, as the New York Tribune explained, “the multitude…[had] diminished sufficiently to allow tolerably free passage.” The Tribune’s correspondent described what happened once the crowd realized that Lincoln had arrived:

“at that moment he was suddenly saluted with the wildest outbursts of enthusiasm every yielded by a popular assemblage. All party feelings seemed to be forgotten and even the distributors of opposition tickets joined in the overwhelming demonstrations of greeting…there was only one sentiment expressed – that of the heartiest and most undivided delight at his appearance. Mr. Lincoln advanced as rapidly as possible to the voting table and handed in his ticket, upon which, it is hardly necessary to say, all the names were sound republicans. The only alteration he made was the cutting off of his own name from the top where it had been printed.”

As Holzer explains, “Lincoln modestly cut his own name..from his ticket” and “vot[ed] only for his party’s candidates for state and local office.” Later that evening Lincoln went to the local telegraph office, where he waited for reports on election returns from across the country. “All safe in this state,” as Thurlow Weed explained from Albany, New York. Simon Cameron sent word from Philadelphia, Pennsylvanian, while a report from Alton, Illinois, noted that “[Republicans] have checkmated [Democrats’] scheme of fraud.” “Those who saw [Lincoln] at the time,” as the New York Times observed, “say it would have been impossible for a bystander to tell that that tall, lean, wiry, good-natured, easy-going gentleman…was the choice of the people to fill the most important office in the nation.”

On May 23 and 24, 1865, Union soldiers paraded through Washington D.C. for a grand review of the troops, a celebration from the grateful citizens to the Union soldiers for their efforts and service in winning the Civil War. Noticeably missing from the celebration were the over 180,000 United States Colored Troops who fought along side these troops being honored in the nation’s capital. While denied participation in the “Grand Review of the Armies,” black regiments from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts gathered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on November 14, 1865 for their own Grand Review. Thomas Morris Chester, a prominent Harrisburg resident and recruiter of black soldiers served as grand marshal of the Grand Review. The troops marched through the main streets of the Pennsylvania capital to the home of Senator Simon Cameron who delivered a speech honoring the black troops and commending them for their service and sacrifice to the Union. Cameron, an abolitionist and one of the early advocates for using black troops in the war, gratefully acknowledged the soldiers in the speech that was reprinted in the North American and United States Gazette in Philadelphia the following day.

“I cannot let this opportunity pass without thanking the African soldiers for the compliment they have paid me, but more than all to thank them for the great service which they have been to their country in the terrible rebellion. Like all other men, you have your destinies in your own hands, and if you continue to conduct yourselves hereafter as you have in the struggle, you will have all the rights you ask for, all the rights that belong to human beings.”

The report called the celebration a success throughout and estimated that nearly seven thousand blacks attended the Grand Review as well as a sizable white population who came to pay their respects to “those who escaped the perils of a contest in which they risked their lives in defense of the nation honor and support of the constitutional authorities.” One of the prominent black participants was Reverend John Walker Jackson who offered a prayer that served as “a beautiful acknowledgment of the services which the black man rendered in the struggle for American nationality, civilization and freedom. The orator of the event, William Howard Day, discussed the attitude of the colored man and “the prospect which lay before him for improvement, social elevation and the acquirement of political rights.” The Grand Review concluded with a grand ball where the soldiers and those honoring them convened one last time.

After the Republican National Convention selected Abraham Lincoln in May 1860 as their candidate for the 1860 election, some Republican newspaper editors noted that Lincoln was a moderate politician. Lincoln opposed the further extension of slave territory, but he did not call for the end of slavery in the South. Yet some southern editors were quick to characterize him as a dangerous radical who would destroy slavery and the Union. The Fayetteville (NC) Observer, which supported the Constitutional Union party, called Lincoln an “ultra abolitionist.” Republicans “[had]… selected [him] to split the Union,” as the Democratic Charleston (SC) Courier explained. Other editors focused on the threat from the Republican party’s “objects” rather than a specific candidate. The (Jackson) Mississippian, a Democratic paper, observed that the “Black Republican’s” overall objective “[was] to degrade the southern States from their positions of equality in the Union and to destroy their social and political institutions.” One might assume that these editors would support secession after Lincoln’s victory. While that was true for the Charleston (SC) Courier and the The (Jackson) Mississippian, the Fayetteville (NC) Observer supported unionists until President Lincoln called for volunteers after Confederates attacked Fort Sumter in April 1861.

Cumberland County History, a historical journal compiled annually by the Cumberland County Historical Society, has provided nearly three decades of research into the county’s long history. The journal has published several articles on Civil War soldiers from the surrounding community. They utilize several primary documents and effectively offer insight into the emotional departure from loved ones, the lives of soldiers during the war, and the enemy just beyond the Mason-Dixon Line.

James A. Holechek features the Civil War experiences of John Cantilion in his article “From Carlisle and Fort Couch: The War of Corporal John A. Cantilion.” By tracing his service in the United States army through to his untimely death in November 1863, Holechek surmises the emotions inherent to leaving loved ones behind as a soldier and, conversely, watching a loved one leave to fight in battle. Letters became the only connection between Cantilion and his wife and children. Accordingly, Holechek used these letters as a window into how the separation affected both parties.

The letters of Lt. Thomas William Sweeny are discussed and provided in part in “Carlisle Barracks –1854-1855: From the Letters of Lt. Thomas W. Sweeny, 2nd Infantry,” edited by Robert Coyer. Sweeny stayed in the Carlisle Barracks for some time during the 1850s before moving to Missouri as a general recruiter for the Union. His time spent in Missouri, as argued by Coyer, “played a major part in keeping the state from seceding.” Most of Coyer’s article centers around several letters he wrote to his wife through 1854 and 1855, part of the time he spent at the Barracks. Though these letters could not note the anguish of separation of loved ones during the war, the tense and difficult relations between the couple become apparent when reading even the first letter.

Patricia M. Coolmeyer collects the perspectives of Civil War soldiers from southern Pennsylvania through the extensive use of personal letters, diaries, and local newspapers. Her article, “Southern Sentiments: A Look at Attitudes of Civil War Soldiers,” illustrates the ways Carlisle, given its geographic proximity to the Mason-Dixon Line, often exchanged its culture and relations with the South. As a result, towns like Carlisle did not uniformly despise the South but rather saw an “active pro-Southern element.” This lack of uniformity emerged in Pennsylvanian soldiers. From one perspective, Union soldiers saw Southerners as “quite a fine looking, gentlemanly set of fellows. Others shaped their perceptions based on the beautiful landscape of the South. Each soldier found different ways to build their allegiance to the Union, but, as Coolmeyer makes clear, it did not always emerge out of a hatred of the South.

The Cumberland County Historical Society has granted us special permission to publish these articles. We encourage readers to utilize their resources, for they have compiled an extensive library filled with primary documents and modern scholarly research. Please consult their website for more information including how to contact the Society.

“We must for the last time warn all republican voters to look to it that they have the real republican ticket.” – Boston (MA) Advertiser, November 6, 1860

Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. As a result, voters had to be careful to ensure that they received a legitimate ballot. One only has to read some of the editorials published before election day to see that fraud was a serious concerns in some parts of the country. If a voter failed to closely examine their ballot, they could end up voting for a different party than they intended.
The Raleigh (NC) Register, a Democratic newspaper, revealed one such “scheme:” “tickets [would have] the caption on them of Douglas and Johnson, but following that will be the Breckinridge and Lane electors.” Political operatives who became involved in these plans only had to find a printer who was willing to create the ballots. “Bribing engravers to engrave the Republican ticket, to violate their pledge of private and professional honor, and make a counterfeit of it, [was] one of their devices,” as the Republican Chicago (IL) Tribune explained. While “read[ing] your ballot before…deposit[ing] it in the box” remained important, one editor also noted that the best way for voters to avoid any problems was simply to not take a ballot from someone they did not know. “The only way to be entirely secure is to take no ballot except from one whom you know to be a regular republican distributor,” as the Boston (MA) Advertiser observed.

Republicans selected Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the 1860 at their convention in Chicago, Illinois, but few newspaper editors had predicted that outcome in the months before the convention. One of the other prominent Republican politicians, such as New York Senator William Seward, seemed to be the more likely choice. While the Republican Milwaukee (WI) Sentinel admitted that “it was not yet clear who the Chicago nominee may be,” they believed that “the chances [were] decidedly in favor of Senator Seward.” The San Francisco (CA) Evening Bulletin had a similar opinion. “We have on previous occasions stated our well-settled conviction that Mr. Seward would certainly be the candidate,” as the Evening Bulletin concluded. The Democratic Raleigh (NC) Standard went so far as to explain that “Seward has in all probability been nominated” several days after the convention had actually selected Lincoln. Yet some editors had warned that selecting someone like Senator Seward would be a mistake.“The nomination of a Radical Republican for President may result in the loss of even the New England States,” as the Republican Chicago (IL) Press and Tribune observed. Seward was one of the radicals that the Press and Tribune was referring to. While Seward was a prominent politician, some Republicans considered him a liability. Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison publicly supported Seward, which only reinforced the idea that Seward was a radical. If Republican wanted to win in November 1860, it seemed that a moderate had the best chance of getting enough votes. As the Democratic Newark (OH) Advocate concluded explained, Republicans selected Lincoln “with the sole aim of getting the votes of men who could never have been brought to the support of [radicals like] Chase, Seward, or Giddings.”

“The irrepressible conflict has rent the Democratic party asunder, and it has ceased to exist as a national organization.” – Chicago (IL) Democrat, May 1, 1860

When the Democratic National Convention opened on April 23, 1860 in Charleston, South Carolina, the delegates’ objectives were to set the platform and select candidates for the 1860 election. Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas was one of the politicians who hoped to receive the nomination. While some Democratic newspaper editors considered him as the best hope for victory in November 1860, others argued that he exemplified the sectional divisions within the party. Douglas, as the New York Herald explained, was not “a moderate man who can unite the whole party.” The divide within the Democratic party became clear when the convention ended on May 1 without delegates selecting any candidates. Instead, Democrats would reconvene in Baltimore, Maryland on June 18. Republican newspapers like the Chicago (IL) Press and Tribune were quick to use the Charleston convention to characterize the Democrats as “an intensely sectional organization.” Abraham Lincoln, as the Press and Tribune noted, had predicted such a development during his debate with Senator Douglas at Galesburg, Illinois on October 7, 1858: “I see the day rapidly approaching when [Douglas’] pill of sectionalism, which he has been thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be [crowded?] down his own throat.” While Northern Democrats eventually selected Douglas as their candidate, Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge.

Dickinson College‘s 1860 commencement exercises occurred on Saturday evening, July 7, 1860.  Two local papers’ contrasting reports on the evening demonstrate the partisan nature of nineteenth century newspapers.  The Carlisle paper, The Herald, founded by Ekuries Beatty in 1799 originally supported the Whig party, but by 1860 printed articles with a strong Republican bias. In contrast the American Volunteer (another Carlisle paper) founded by William B. and James Underwood in 1814, reported the Democrat Party’s view of the news.  The Volunteer charged Dickinson’s commencement speakers with attacking the “vulnerable” democratic president James Buchanan, himself a Dickinson alum from “when the institution was worthy of the name of a college.” According to the Volunteer many of the commencement speeches were full of dangerous “Abolitionist preaching” which must “be stopped.” Mr. George A. Coffey, of Philadelphia, spoke at an alumni gathering on the Wednesday before commencement and particularly offended the writers of the Volunteer who labeled his speech as “fierce and outrageous.”  While the Herald admitted that Mr. Coffey introduced “topics which were offensive to many in the audience,” the paper concluded “it was a masterly speech.” Overall, the Herald presented a very different picture of the commencement exercises, carefully listing the names of the student speakers followed by a brief, usually complimentary, analysis of their speeches.  The two Carlisle papers’ distinctly partisan accounts of Dickinson’s 1860 commencement reflect the political spin of the press throughout the Civil War era.

For modern scholarship on the subject of partisanship and the press see David T. Z. Minchin’s Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism (1998). The Library of Congress also provides an online newspaper directory to find more information on newspapers from across the country.

James Smith Colwell, who worked as a lawyer in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was one of the men who answered President Abraham Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers after Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Colwell joined the Carlisle Fencibles, a local volunteer company under the command of Robert Henderson, as a first lieutenant. Six weeks later the Fencibles left Carlisle for Camp Wayne in West Chester, Pennsylvania, where they received training and were designated Company A of the 7th Regiment, Pennsylvania Reserve Corps. His wife, Ann, had not been happy with that decision. “You left me without talking about it,” as Ann reminded him. While James admitted that “[he] err[ed] frequently,” he observed that “it [was] nearly always an error of the judgment & not of the heart.” Yet in this case he argued that it was impossible to get out of the army. “I do not see how I could get out of the service without bring[ing] disgrace and dishonour on myself & my little family,” as Colwell explained. Colwell had in mind his four children – two sons and two daughters. Colwell’s oldest daughter, Nannie, was about six years old in December 1861 when she announced in her “first letter” that she “[could] read” and “[sent him] a big kiss.” Colwell was able to return to Carlisle on furlough, but on September 17, 1862 he died during the Battle of Antietam. Local newspapers published obituaries, including the Carlisle (PA) American, which noted that “[Colwell’s] high moral character and exemplary life had made him a bright example in our midst.”When Civil War veterans in Carlisle established a local chapter of the Grand Army of the Republic in February 1881, they decided to call it the Captain Colwell Post.

Albert Hazlett was among several of John Brown’s raiders who were not with their leader on the morning of October 18, 1859 when US Marines attacked the engine house at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Instead, Hazlett and Osborne Anderson watched the short battle from afar. The two men had left Harpers Ferry undetected late on October 17. After they could not find the five raiders who also escaped, they decided to head north – which eventually brought them into southern Pennsylvania. While Anderson lived to publish a book in 1861 about his experience, Hazlett was arrested in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on October 22, 1859. Local authorities, however, at first thought that they had in custody “a man supposed to be Capt. Cook.” (John E. Cook was arrested three days later outside of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania). The initial confusion offered an opportunity for Hazlett, who claimed that he was actually William Harrison and had nothing to do with Brown’s raid. On October 29 Hazlett appeared before a judge in Carlisle on a writ of habeas corpus, but Hazlett’s claim that he was the wrong person failed to convince the judge. While “there is no evidence that we have any man in our custody named Albert Hazlett,” the court ruled that “we are satisfied that a monstrous crime has been committed [and] that the prisoner…participated in it.” Hazlett was sent back to Charlestown, Virginia on November 5 for a trial and was executed on March 16, 1860. Historian David Reynolds, who wrote John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, notes that the judge sent Hazlett back to Virginia “even though the evidence linking him to Harpers Ferry was circumstantial.”