One hundred fifty years ago today the New York Herald reported on problems with the mail delivery to Union soldiers stationed around Washington DC. “Nothing is more frequent than to hear complaints of the non-receipt of letters at the various camps in and Washington,” as the Herald explained. Yet after the Herald investigated the problem it found that “the Post Office authorities [in New York] or at Washington” were not responsible. Instead, the problem was created by New York residents who were not mailing the letters properly. As the Herald described,

In most instances letters addressed to the members of the various regiments in service are dropped into the lamppost boxes in various quarters of the city, without bearing the extra one cent stamp in addition to the three cent stamp – the regular postage for letters deposited at the General Post Office.

If residents remembered to include the correct postage, the Herald hoped that “there will be no more complaints of missing letters.”

One hundred fifty years ago today the Savannah (GA) News published a short report on the serious conditions that existed in Missouri. The News characterized the situation as one in which the Republicans were trying to take over the state with force. They “are making open war upon the people of that State who refuse abject submission to Abe Lincoln,” as the News explained. In addition, the News described an incident in St. Louis in which Republicans had apparently killed civilians:

According to the newspaper accounts, the late massacre by his troops in St. Louis was of a more serious character than at first reported. – Some twenty persons – men, women and children – were killed, and a large number were wounded. It is further stated that no attack was made upon the troops by the people, who hooted and jeered the Lincoln troops, when three of the German companies fired upon them.

Yet even though northerners were “collecting supplies to be sent immediately to the Lincoln forces in Missouri,” the News remained confident “that the day of retribution… is not far distant.” As the News concluded, “there is a spirit of resolute resistance in both Missouri and Maryland, that will not be easily subdued.” You can learn more about the war is Missouri in Bruce Nichols’ Guerrilla Warfare in Civil War Missouri, 1862 (2004) and Donald L. Gilmore’s Civil War on the Missouri-Kansas Border (2005).

One hundred fifty years ago today the Chicago (IL) Tribune reported on the recent announcement that the United Kingdom would not intervene in the struggle between the United States and the Confederacy. “The only crumb of comfort for Jeff. Davis…[is] that the Southern Confederacy will be recognized, not as a power, not as a Government, but simply as a “belligerent,” as the Tribune noted. As a result, “Jeff Davis’s privateers [would] not be seized” unless they interfered with English merchant ships. Some Confederates had predicted that the United Kingdom would immediately intervene in the Civil War, but the Foreign Secretary’s announcement had dashed those hopes. “The wild idea that England will send out a naval force to break through the blockade established by the United States Government, is not mentioned as a thing which has ever been dreamed of in Downing street,” as the Tribune explained. You can read more about this issue in Howard Jones’ Union in Peril: The Crisis Over British Intervention in the Civil War (1992), Blue & Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (2010), and Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire: An Epic History of Two Nations Divided (2010).

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).