good question

Posted on April 19, 2019 by SUMPTER

Way back in its October 24, 1868 issue Harper’s Weekly seemed a bit miffed by a letter from Georgia, which asked a question: if universal suffrage for black men is such a good thing, why doesn’t the North adopt it? The editorial responded by saying that although voting qualifications were up to the States, the federal government had more say in the ex-Confederacy because of all the blood and treasure expended during the rebellion. The argument also touched on the original 1787 Constitutional compromise – if Georgia decides not to allow black men to vote, it can’t still count the African-American population to determine the number of representatives in Congress and the Electoral College. Because the Southern States wanted to do that, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts. The editorial seemed to give New York State a pass (“Colored suffrage is a matter of State policy in the largest sense.”) but did say that it urged the people of New York State to adopt “perfect equality at the polls” (at least for men).

The paper seems to have modified its position somewhat a few months later. In its February 13, 1869 issue Harper’s Weekly commented on a pending revision to the New York State constitution. Although a state constitutional convention had agreed to a new constitution in 1868, it hadn’t been voted on yet. If a bill in the state legislature passed, there would be an election with two ballot boxes – one for the new constitution as a whole and one for a clause that would eliminate the property qualification for black men:

…It is time that the absurd and barbarous discrimination against certain voters because of the color of their skin should be abolished, and it is humiliating that in such a State as New York there should be such a blot upon the present Constitution. A colored citizen, however intelligent, industrious, and prosperous, must have lived twice as long in the State as the rest of us and pay a tax, which is imposed upon nobody else, as the price of the right of suffrage. …

So the paper stuck to its guns that New York voters should ensure equal voting rights for all adult male citizens, but in a second editorial on the same page it seemed to no longer maintain that voting rights law was only a state issue. It endorsed the suffrage amendment that had  been recently introduced in Congress. Harper’s saw the proposed 15th amendment to the United States Constitution as sort of a natural extension of Republican Party ideals and reconstruction policy. Congress had the power to legislate equal suffrage, but an amendment would be more permanent and less objectionable to those who thought states should have the right to determine voting qualifications. The amendment wouldn’t infringe on the people’s right to determine suffrage because it would enforce the will of the people as a whole nation.

… The amendment is a also a measure of wise consolidation. It touches no right of which any State can justly be jealous, or which it can reasonably deny to the United States. The first essential condition of a popular national government is the equality of its citizens equally secured. Ours, indeed, is not a national government in the simplest form; but, on the other hand, it is not a league nor a confederacy of States. It is a national Union. It has a national substance and necessity, and the attempt to regulate a national policy upon the theory of State sovereignty as hitherto maintained is futile. The adoption of the amendment will be the declaration of the people that they perceive the legitimate conditions of a truly national Union.

It will also tend rapidly to remove an exciting question from politics. It is plain now that the current of our political progress, for more than a generation, has been toward the political equality of all the people. The Democratic party, which is the organized opposition to this result, has been constantly defeated upon every field, but still perplexes and delays it. The Democratic representatives in Congress voted in a body against the amendment, upon the ground that it was a subject to be left to the States, thus conceding to possible majority in a State the right to deprive a citizen of the United States of his share in its government, and to establish an unrepublican form if it should choose. But the Republican party, whose watchword is a constantly enlarging liberty as a condition of increasing intelligence, moves with the fraternal spirit of the age, and will not have accomplished its work until it has placed the United States in the hands of all the people.

According to Wikipedia Congress passed the amendment on February 25 and 26, 1869. The New York state legislature ratified it on April 14th. In its May 1, 1869 issue Harper’s Weekly claimed that the Democratic party was using racial fears and prejudices to oppose the Equal Suffrage amendment in the states. (There seems to be a contradiction between the Wikipedia article and the paper’s claim that twenty-one states had already ratified the amendment.)

hw 10-24-1868 p674 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

Harper’s Weekly
October 24, 1868

hw2-13-1869page99 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
February 13, 1869

hw 5-1-1869 page 274(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
May 1, 1869

Of course, eventually the suffrage amendment did become the 15th to the U.S. Constitution, but, according to the Historical Society of the New York Courts’ website, New York didn’t adopt a new constitution in 1869. The 1846 state constitution was still operational. Here’s what it had to say about suffrage:
ARTICLE II.
Section 1. [Qualifications of voters.]—Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a citizen for ten days, and an inhabitant of this state one year next preceding any election, and for the last four months a resident of the county where he may offer his vote, shall be entitled to vote at such election in the election district of which he shall at the time be a resident, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elected by the people; but such citizen shall have been, for thirty days next preceding the election, a resident of the district from which the officer is to be chosen for whom he offers his vote. But no man of color, unless he shall have been for three years a citizen of this state, and for one year next preceding any election shall have been seized and possessed of a freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts and incumbrances charged thereon, and shall have been actually rated and paid a tax thereon, shall be entitled to vote at such election. And no person of color shall be subject to direct taxation unless he shall be seized and possessed of such real estate as aforesaid.
§ 2. [Exclusion from right of suffrage.]—Laws may be passed, excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, larceny, or of any infamous crime; and fordepriving every person who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in, any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.
§ 3. [Right of suffrage not affected by certain occupations and conditions.]—For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence, while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.
§ 4. [Registration of voters.]—Laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.
§ 5. [ Elections to be by ballot.]—All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot, except for such town officers as may by law be directed to be otherwise chosen.
Voting rights were a major issue during the 1821 New York State constitutional convention:
The changes in the suffrage, however, aroused much more controversy and proved far more significant. The old constitution prescribed the possession of a twenty-pound freehold or the payment of a yearly rent of forty shillings as qualifications of voters for assemblymen. To vote for senator and governor the citizen had to possess still more property. To the dismay of the Federalists, the Republicans advocated clauses permitting voters to qualify by payment of taxes, by service in the militia, by work on the roads, or by established residence. In short, the Republicans were proposing the equivalent of universal manhood suffrage for white voters.
During the convention the Federalists didn’t deny that all citizens had rights to life and liberty but maintained that property owners had rights that poor people didn’t. Chancellor James Kent noted that in 1820 the population of New York City was almost six times larger than in 1773. “It is rapidly swelling into the unwieldy population, and with the burdensome pauperism, of a European metropolis. New-York is destined to become the future London of America; and in less than a century, that city, with the operation of universal suffrage, and under skillful direction, will govern this state.” Mr. Kent also warned that universal suffrage couldn’t be tried experimentally – once voting rights increase they can’t be removed – except “by the strength of the bayonet.”
Democratic-Republican Erastus Root denied that property had anything to do with suffrage. “…We are all of the same estate – all commoners.” The Federalists lost the battle. The constitution retained property qualifications for black men, but “virtual universal suffrage was established for white males.”[1]
Going back a bit further, yesterday I found out that the handwritten manuscript draft of New York’s first constitution is on display this week at the New York State Museum and State Archives in Albany. “The complete, official text was published as the state constitution in Fishkill in 1877. It was officially adopted in Kingston on April 20, 1777, establishing New York as a state.” There is no extant final copy; historians think it might have been destroyed in Fishkill. (The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York) April 14, 2019 page A2). Get a glimpse here; read the finished document here – it includes the Declaration of Independence.
  1. [1]Ellis, David M., James A. Frost, Harold C. Syrett, and Harry J. Carman. A Short History of New York State. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1957. Print. page 147.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

feeding frenzy

Posted on April 8, 2019 by SUMPTER

You could say it’s a (very brief) tale of five Union generals. When Ulysses S. Grant became President of the United States in March 1869 he promoted his friend William T. Sherman to be the Commanding General of the U.S. Army. Phil Sheridan replaced Sherman as head of the Military Division of the Missouri. I’m not sure if an army man would consider this a promotion or not, but John Schofield, who served as Andrew Johnson’s last Secretary of War, was told to go west and take General Sheridan’s place as head of the Department of Missouri. And, according to the March 27, 1868 issue of Harper’s Weekly, General George Custer was still out west pursuing hostile natives:

ISSUING BEEF TO THE INDIANS
AT MEDICINE BLUFF CREEK.

Our correspondent writes from Medicine Bluff Creek, where the different bands of Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, and Arrapahoe Indians are assembled, prior to their location on the reservations allotted them, and thus describes the scene which we present on page 205:

“The Indians are daily supplied with rations of beef, which is killed and piled up in a convenient location for distribution. Sometimes we issue the beef on the hoof, and the Indians kill it for themselves; but they seem to prefer to have the labor of killing and quartering done by our butchers, as they can then come for and receive the quantity that they may be apportioned to them. Nearly a hundred head of cattle are daily slaughtered to feed these, for the time, friendly Indians, who besides this draw rations of flour and bread. The Cheyennes have not yet come in. General CUSTER has gone after them to bring them in, quietly if possible; if not, he will attempt to force them.”

Our late Secretary of War is to take the field against the Indians in place of General SHERIDAN.

hw 3-27-1869 p204 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

it’s a snap – beefeaters on the plains

According to A.J. Langguth President Grant appointed a couple other Civil War officers after he took office:

As commissioner of Indian affairs, he named Brigadier General Ely S. Parker, a full-blooded Seneca from Galena. Grant had already checked with his new attorney general for reassurance that an Indian – not considered a citizen for tax purposes – was eligible for the appointment. Judge [Ebenezer Rockwood] Hoar, finding no precedent to cite, ruled in Parker’s favor.

To collect customs taxes at the Port of New Orleans … Grant turned to Pete Longstreet. Besides being one of Grant’s oldest friends, Longstreet had been the one Confederate general to urge his fellow Southerners to accept the Reconstruction Acts.[1]

Wikipedia says:
1) James Longstreet“was one of a small group of former Confederate generals, including James L. Alcorn and William Mahone, to join or ally with the nationally dominant Republican Party during the Reconstruction era. He endorsed Grant for president in the election of 1868, attended his inauguration ceremonies in Washington, D.C., and six days later was appointed by Grant as surveyor of customs in New Orleans. For these acts he lost favor with many white Southerners.”
2) Much of William T. Sherman’s “time as Commanding General was devoted to making the Western and Plains states safe for settlement through the continuation of the Indian Wars, which included three significant campaigns: the Modoc War, the Great Sioux War of 1876, and the Nez Perce War. The displacement of Indians was facilitated by the growth of the railroad and the eradication of the buffalo. Sherman believed that the intentional eradication of the buffalo should be encouraged as a means of weakening Indian resistance to assimilation. He voiced this view in remarks to a joint session of the Texas legislature in 1875. However he never engaged in any program to actually eradicate the buffalo.”
3) Ely S. Parker “was present when Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865. He helped draft the surrender documents, which are in his handwriting. At the time of surrender, General Lee “stared at me for a moment,” said Parker to more than one of his friends and relatives, “He extended his hand and said, ‘I am glad to see one real American here.’ I shook his hand and said, ‘We are all Americans.’ Parker was brevetted brigadier general of United States Volunteers on April 9, 1865, and of United States Army March 2, 1867.”
In the preface to his 1896 From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of The Civil War in America (at Project Gutenberg) James Longstreet saw some good in the  Civil War:
It is not my purpose to philosophize upon the war, but I cannot refrain from expressing my profound thankfulness that Providence has spared me to such time as I can see the asperities of the great conflict softened, its passions entering upon the sleep of oblivion, only its nobler—if less immediate—results springing into virile and vast life. I believe there is to-day, because of the war, a broader and deeper patriotism in all Americans; that patriotism throbs the heart and pulses the being as ardently of the South Carolinian as of the Massachusetts Puritan; that the Liberty Bell, even now, as I write, on its Southern pilgrimage, will be as reverently received and as devotedly loved in Atlanta and Charleston as in Philadelphia and Boston. And to stimulate and evolve this noble sentiment all the more, what we need is the resumption of fraternity, the hearty restoration and cordial cultivation of neighborly, brotherly relations, faith in Jehovah, and respect for each other; and God grant that the happy vision that delighted the soul of the sweet singer of Israel may rest like a benediction upon the North and the South, upon the Blue and the Gray.
496px-Ely_S._Parker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_S._Parker)

Ely S. Parker

General James Longstreet (General_James_Longstreet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Longstreet#/media/File:General_James_Longstreet.jpg)

James Longstreet

James Longstreet (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38418/38418-h/38418-h.htm)

Lee’s very old war horse

I’m not exactly sure where Medicine Bluff Creek is, but based on a recommendation at the U.S. Army site, it might be close to present day Fort Sill.
According to the Library of Congress, Ely S. Parker contributed a narrative of the Appomattox surrender to the annual commemoration of General Grant’s birthday in 1893.
ESParkerp1(LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss23333.a01_0381_0395/?st=gallery)

at Farmville

ESParkerterms (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss23333.a01_0381_0395/?st=gallery)

surrender terms carbon-copied

ESParker request (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss23333.a01_0381_0395/?st=gallery)

General Schofield was Commander of the Army in 1893

You can see the text and image from the March 27 1869 issue of Harper’s Weekly at the Internet Archive
The portrait of James Longstreet as an old man and his wounding at the Wilderness also come from his memoirs at Project Gutenberg
THE WOUNDING OF GENERAL LONGSTREET AT THE WILDERNESS, MAY 6, 1864. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38418/38418-h/38418-h.htm page 565)

God bless the Blue and Gray

  1. [1]Langguth, A.J. After Lincoln: How the North Won the Civil War and Lost the Peace. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Print. pages 254.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Aftermath, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

cabinet kerfuffle

Posted on March 30, 2019 by SUMPTER

The inauguration ball, Treasury Department, Washington, D.C. - the scene on the arrival of President Grant and his wife / from a sketch by James E. Taylor. (Illus. in: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 28, 1869 March 20, p. 12.LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2001695231/)

betwixt speech and Cabinet problems


In its March 5, 1869 issue The New-York Times kept coverage of Ulysses S. Grant’s inaugural address off its front page, unlike the previous two inaugurations. The times were certainly different, relatively crisis-free. After all, in 1861 a couple weeks before the federal inauguration, Jefferson Davis had been sworn in as president of the Confederacy, a union of seven breakaway states. After four years of brutal war the states were still disunited in 1865. From the northern perspective progress had been made, but two big armies were still locked in a months-long stalemate on the Eastern Front. Would the war ever end? If the Union prevailed, what was Abraham Lincoln’s approach toward the southern states? March 1869 might not have been as dramatic, but the divisive Andrew Johnson was leaving the White House and the Union’s preeminent war hero was taking his place.

President Grant’s speech might have been so bland that the Times decided to keep it off the front page, but A.J. Langguth has written: “No one had expected Grant on the podium to match the eloquence of Lincoln, but his address was warmly received, as were most of his cabinet appointments when he finally revealed them.”[1]

NYT 3-6-1869

The New-York Times
March 6, 1869

NYT 3-10-1869

The New-York Times
March 10, 1869

NYT 3-12-1869

The New-York Times
March 12, 1869

__________________

And the Times did headline the Cabinet appointments on its front pages. On March 6th it reported that all General Grant’s selections were immediately confirmed by the Senate, but it turned out that there was a problem. Retailer Alexander T. Stewart was President Grant’s pick for Secretary of the Treasury, but that choice violated a 1789 law prohibiting persons engaged in trade from that position. The Senate refused the president’s request to make an exception. Mr. Stewart diplomatically offered his resignation. President Grant replaced him with Radical Republican George S. Boutwell. A couple other changes were made and by March 11th President Grant’s Cabinet was ready to go.

In its April 3, 1869 issue Harper’s Weekly did praise the inaugural address and said that any cabinet would be a disappointment; Mr. Grant’s selections differed from the Lincoln Cabinet filed with “all his rivals”:

Grant in citizens clothes (Cincinnati, O[hio] : Published by Henry Howe & Middleton, No. 141 Main St. Cincinnati, O., [1868]; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004670273/)

“not a man to be dismayed by difficulties”

THE PRESIDENT.

THE President probably did not expect that he was going to avoid trouble by going into the White House, and he is not disappointed. The range of duties and the official methods are different from those to which he has been most accustomed; but he has the sagacity which swiftly adapts itself to changed circumstances, and a certain coolness which enables him justly to weigh reasons. Amidst the tempest of rumors and speculations from Washington, the wise man will fix his eye steadily upon what has been actually said and done by the President, if he would properly estimate the promise of his administration. It is well for every body to remember that for every office in the country there are probably a dozen or more applicants. Consequently the number of the dissatisfied will be enormous, and when a Republican shakes his head doubtfully over the new administration, it will be always an interesting inquiry whether he wished for any thing or had recommended any body, and whether his wishes and recommendation were successful. If, on the other hand, Mr. TOOTS, who thought nothing so democratic and delightful as a slave-holding despotism, suspects General GRANT of monarchical tendencies – why, Mr. TOOTS will be Mr. TOOTS.

The President’s first word was his inaugural. It was brief, pointed, decisive, and admirable. He said that the national honor must be maintained by fulfilling the spirit of the law, and that freedom of opinion must be every where protected. It was an unmistakable sound, the voice of an honest conviction, and a righteous purpose. Until ABRAHAM LINCOLN spoke upon a similar occasion, this country for many a year had not heard at an inauguration any thing becoming an American and a man. Since we have happily emerged from that baleful epoch let any man reflect upon the kind of person that was made President in the latter days of Democratic ascendency [sic], and he will comprehend the immense progress marked by the mere presence of such a man as GRANT in the White House.

hw 2-27-1869 p144(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Sam’s silence led to great expectations …
but at least he didn’t pick Seward

The President’s first act was his choice of a Cabinet. Undoubtedly it was a disappointment, as any Cabinet must have been, and the greater disappointment because the previous silence of the President had excited expectations that no that no result could satisfy. Mr. LINCOLN’S plan of calling into his Cabinet all his rivals in the nominating Convention was as severely criticised as that of General Grant in summoning those whom be believed fitted for the duties of their offices. Mr. BUCHANAN’s Cabinet was purely political, signally destitute of ability, and a mere conspiracy. Its single conspicuous member was General Cass, whose recommendation was that he was a thoroughly disciplined Democrat, who had held office immemorially, and had been a candidate for the Presidency. There are obvious reasons why the selection of a cabinet will always be a disappointment. …

[The first bill President Grant was a good law. The Tenure of Office should be repealed, but if not, the Senate shouldn’t hinder President Grant’s choices in his subordinates.]

… The President is not a man to be dismayed by difficulties, and with an able and harmonious Cabinet; with a Congress friendly and not[?] servile; and with the universal confidence of the country, his administration is not likely to disappoint the anticipations which the hope of his election excited.

Modern historian Eric Foner noted that Lincoln picked “the most powerful figures in his party”, but “Grant, coming from a military background, looked upon Cabinet members as ‘staff officers,’ whose main qualification was that they enjoyed his confidence or had done him personal favors. Composed largely of men with little political influence and ‘abilities below mediocrity,’ Grant’s Cabinet seemed oddly detached from the debates over Reconstruction.” Mr. Foner explained that Alexander T. Stewart was the nation’s largest importer, who “did more business with the department he had been chosen to head than any other citizen.” The refusal of Congress to repeal the 1789 law barring Stewart from the Treasury was partly due to his announced intention to replace all the official at the New York Custom House. More broadly, “the rebuff reflected Congressional displeasure at Grant’s evident desire to stand above partisanship.” Grant learned quickly and began to “rely on leading members of Congress for advice and guidance” and did replace Stewart with Radical Boutwell. The overall conservative nature of the Cabinet suggested the finality of Reconstruction. After all, Congress gave its approval to the 15th amendment in February.[2]

hw 4-3-1869 p216(hw 2-27-1869 p144(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5))

President Grant and his

hw 4-3-1869 p217 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

first operational cabinet

You can find all the material from Harper’s Weekly at the Internet Archive (February 27th and April 3rd). From the Library of Congress: ball originally published in the March 20, 1869 issue of Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper; portrait.
hw 4-3-1869 p212 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

more in his element?

  1. [1]Langguth, A.J. After Lincoln: How the North Won the Civil War and Lost the Peace. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Print. pages 252.↩
  2. [2]Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerennial, 2014. Updated Edition. Print. page 445.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, The election of 1868, The Grant Administration | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Sinn Fein Forever”

Posted on March 22, 2019 by SUMPTER
April 7, 2019: It looks like I made a mistake in the second paragraph below. There is evidence in the April 6, 1919 issue of the New-York Tribune at the Library of Congress that most of the “old 69th” was serving in the army of occupation in Europe at the time of the St. Patrick’s Day parade. I apologize.
69thInfRegColor2013.0022.jpg.pagespeed.ce.azaLQphWHU (http://dmna.ny.gov/historic/btlflags/infantry/69thInfRegColor2013.0022.htm)

presented to 69th New York Volunteers on November 18, 1861

The 69th Infantry Regiment
New York State Militia was organized in New York City in 1851. When the Civil War began it was one of the three month regiments; it operated in the Annapolis and Washington, D.C. areas and fought at First Bull Run. After it mustered out on August 3, 1869, “a large majority of the regiment volunteered for a period of three years, forming the nucleus of the 69th Volunteers.” The 69th served as a regiment in the Irish Brigade (or Meagher’s Brigade).

The “Old 69th” also served in World War I as the 165 Infantry Regiment. After the Armistice it did not serve as part of the Army of Occupation and had returned home by March 1919. It took part in the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade 100 years ago. [not true – see above] Although the November 1918 Armistice brought a relative peace, some parade marchers (not necessarily the 69th) over here displayed a similar antagonism toward the British that Michael Corcoran and the 69th exhibited almost 59 years earlier.

NY Times March 23 1919 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn78004456/1919-03-23/ed-1/)

colors of Irish freedom

NY Trib 3-23-1919 p2a (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn83030214/1919-03-23/ed-1/)

the watching wounded

NY Tribune March 23 1919p3 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn83030214/1919-03-23/ed-1/)

confrontational colleens

_________________________

1024px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Ireland.svg)

The Times mentioned the Green, White, and Orange flag of the “Irish Republic.” Thomas Meagher, who eventually served as a Union general in the American Civil War, reportedly received the flag in 1848 from some French women. He was the first to fly it publicly – on March 7, 1848. Mr. Meagher waxed pacific about the colors significance: “The white in the centre signifies a lasting truce between Orange and Green and I trust that beneath its folds the hands of Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics may be clasped in generous and heroic brotherhood.”

You can read about the April 1916 Easter Rising at Wikipedia. The momentum kept on going: “In December 1918, republicans, represented by the reconstituted Sinn Féin party, won 73 seats in a landslide victory in the general election to the British Parliament. They did not take their seats, but instead convened the First Dáil and declared the independence of the Irish Republic. The Soloheadbeg ambush [January 21, 1919] started the War of Independence.”

69th regiment. No. 4. Air: Sebastopol. H. De Marsan, Publisher, 54 Chatham Street, N. Y (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/amss.sb40484b/)

“We’ll destroy the Southern rebels”

Enlist to-day in the 69th infantry Join the famous Irish regiment [...] Go to the front with your friends [...] (N[ew] Y[ork] : Empire City Job Print, [1917] ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2001698253/)

From Bull Run to the Western Front

welcome home old 69th (https://www.loc.gov/item/2013564855/)

mission accomplished

_______________________________

x69thNYSMPoW2011.0008.jpg.pagespeed.ic.fpvrJ3PI6q (http://dmna.ny.gov/historic/btlflags/infantry/69thNYSMPoW2011.0008.htm)

commemorated 69th Militia’s protest non-march

Federal prisoners captured at battle of Bull Run, Castle Pinkney [i.e. Pinckney], Charleston, S.C., August 1861 (photographed 1861, [printed between 1880 and 1889] )

at Castle Pinckney

The fighting 69th patriotic march song ( 1918, monographic. D. Greenfest Music Co.,, Peekskill, N.Y. :D. Greenfest Music Co.,[1918], [1918].; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2013564866/)

high standards

Grand Marshal John W. Goff was born in Ireland the same year that the Frenchwomen gave the tricolor to Thomas Meagher. He emigrated with his family to New York City while he was still a boy. Thomas Francis Meagher was an Irish nationalist, who eventually made his way to New York City; he led the Irish Brigade in the Union army during the American Civil War.
Lexington recently touched on the relationship between nationalists and the new world: “And the heavy use Irish nationalists made of America, as a rear base and source of funds, through to the late 20th century, nurtured that [Irish nationalist] awakening. The Easter Rising was part-organized in America; a lecture by Yeats drew 4,000 New Yorkers in 1904.” (The Economist, March 16th-22nd, 2019, page28)
From the New York State Military Museum: Civil War regimental color and the “Prince of Wales: flag, presented to the militia unit on March 16, 1861. I got the Irish tricolor from Wikipedia.
You can read the newspapers at the Library of Congress – Times and Tribune.

Also from the Library: poetic justice; recruiting poster; your’e welcome home; federal prisoners captured during First Bull Run at Castle Pinckney, Charleston in August 1861. “Photograph shows group from the 69th New York Infantry (Fighting 69th), some seated, others standing in the rear, facing front. A sign above the door, No. 7 Musical Hall, 444th Broadway.” It seems possible it’s the 69th Militia; according to the New York State Military Museum: “where it lost, killed, 1 officer, 36 enlisted men; wounded, 1 officer, 59 enlisted men; captured 3 officers, 92 enlisted men; aggregate, 192;” patriotic (American) sheet music; historical emblems.

I think nowadays the Republic of Ireland is happy to be a Euro-using member of the European Union. Of course, it did enter the Union as a sovereign state.

Ireland's historical emblems / Eagle Litho. Co. ([United States] : [Eagle Litho. Co.], c1894. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/92501116/)

Emerald Isle indeed

Coda – March 25, 2019: I found out over the weekend that maybe not all of the 165th was home by St. Patrick’s Day

69th AC NYT 3-23-2019 ( LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn78004456/1919-03-23/ed-1/)

165th’s ambulance company

Posted in 100 Years Ago, World War I | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

please release men

Posted on March 15, 2019 by SUMPTER

let them go to war

Recently I heard a radio commercial in which the advertiser said it was going to commemorate Women’s History Month by recognizing local women who have contributed to the community. To extend my paraphrase, everywoman might not be Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but other women do help out in so many ways. That made me think of World War I. One hundred years ago New York City picture newspapers were full of different ways women supported the war effort. Since it’s already the Ides of March I might have to put my plans for a grand collage on hold, but I can start small. One of the themes of these papers was women taking on traditionally male roles to release men for the fight. Here’s an example from the November 18, 1917 issue of The New-York Times. Edna Coleman became a truck driver, thus “releasing a man for war service.” But it wasn’t just Edna; the page also pictured the highest ranking woman in the British army, French girls learning to plow, female police officers. Also, some women joining some men on stage and screen to presumably keep the home front entertained.

NYT November 18, 1917 (https://www.loc.gov/item/sn78004456/1917-11-18/ed-1/)

teamster farmer copper star

You can find this issue of the Times at the Library of Congress, where apparently all yellowing has been put on hold. The Library also provided the image of this poster
Women are working day & night to win the war / Witherby & Co. London. ( [S.l. : s.n., 1915]; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2003675265/)

support women supporting the war effort

Posted in World War I | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

nothing to hear here?

Posted on March 4, 2019 by SUMPTER
President Ulysses S. Grant delivering his first inaugural address on the east portico of the U.S. Capitol, March 20, 1869 (4 March 1869; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/00650932/)

Inaugural Address March 4, 1869

Back around the New Year a couple New York City periodicals seemed to be eagerly awaiting the March 4th 1869 inauguration of President-elect Ulysses S. Grant “with the guarantees of future peace and prosperity and of a final settlement of the reconstruction questions.” Presumably newspapers would make a big deal about the day when it arrived. There was precedent for that. Both the March 5, 1861 and March 5, 1865 front pages of The New-York Times headlined Inauguration Day events, including President Lincoln’s addresses. I looked at March 1869. The front page of the Times on the 3rd mentioned that “Politicians Still Baffled by the General’s Reticence” regarding his Cabinet selections and the 4th headlined the “General Excitement at the Capital.” And on the 5th? The news from Europe, specifically from England, Italy, and Spain took up the entire front page. What could explain the Times’s relative reticence about Inauguration Day 1869? One clue might be that modern historian Eric Foner quoted someone else as saying that President Grant’s address was “a string of platitudes that deserved praise only for its brevity.”[1]

NY Times March 5, 1861

The New-York Times
March 5, 1861

NY Times March 5, 1865

The New-York Times
March 5, 1865

NY Times March 5, 1869

The New-York Times
March 5, 1869

_________________________

Others have pointed out President Grant did endorse the “suffrage amendment,” which would become the 15th to the U.S. Constitution. And he thought it was important to study the proper treatment of “the original occupants of this land.”

Ulysses S. Grant’s First Inaugural Address as reproduced in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Ulysses S. Grant by James D. Richardson at Project Gutenberg:

hw 3-13-1869 p161(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
March 13, 1869

FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Citizens of the United States:

Your suffrages having elected me to the office of President of the United States, I have, in conformity to the Constitution of our country, taken the oath of office prescribed therein. I have taken this oath without mental reservation and with the determination to do to the best of my ability all that is required of me. The responsibilities of the position I feel, but accept them without fear. The office has come to me unsought; I commence its duties untrammeled. I bring to it a conscious desire and determination to fill it to the best of my ability to the satisfaction of the people.

On all leading questions agitating the public mind I will always express my views to Congress and urge them according to my judgment, and when I think it advisable will exercise the constitutional privilege of interposing a veto to defeat measures which I oppose; but all laws will be faithfully executed, whether they meet my approval or not.

I shall on all subjects have a policy to recommend, but none to enforce against the will of the people. Laws are to govern all alike—those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.

The inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant as president of the United States, March 4th, 1869 - Chief Justice Chase administering the oath of office - the scene on and near the east portico of the Capitol, Washington, D.C. / HWS [monogram]. (Illus. in: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 28, no. 703 (1869 March 20), pp. 8-9.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2008676788/)

Chief Justice Chase swears in the new president

The country having just emerged from a great rebellion, many questions will come before it for settlement in the next four years which preceding Administrations have never had to deal with. In meeting these it is desirable that they should be approached calmly, without prejudice, hate, or sectional pride, remembering that the greatest good to the greatest number is the object to be attained.

This requires security of person, property, and free religious and political opinion in every part of our common country, without regard to local prejudice. All laws to secure these ends will receive my best efforts for their enforcement.

A great debt has been contracted in securing to us and our posterity the Union. The payment of this, principal and interest, as well as the return to a specie basis as soon as it can be accomplished without material detriment to the debtor class or to the country at large, must be provided for. To protect the national honor, every dollar of Government indebtedness should be paid in gold, unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. Let it be understood that no repudiator of one farthing of our public debt will be trusted in public place, and it will go far toward strengthening a credit which ought to be the best in the world, and will ultimately enable us to replace the debt with bonds bearing less interest than we now pay. To this should be added a faithful collection of the revenue, a strict accountability to the Treasury for every dollar collected, and the greatest practicable retrenchment in expenditure in every department of Government.

Gallery of the U. S. Senate. Inauguration Day, March 4th, 1869. Admit the bearer. Geo. T. Brown, Sergeant-at-Arms. Wash., Philp & Solomons, [1869]. ( LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.2050400e/)

watch VP Colfax get sworn in

When we compare the paying capacity of the country now, with the ten States in poverty from the effects of war, but soon to emerge, I trust, into greater prosperity than ever before, with its paying capacity twenty-five years ago, and calculate what it probably will be twenty-five years hence, who can doubt the feasibility of paying every dollar then with more ease than we now pay for useless luxuries? Why, it looks as though Providence had bestowed upon us a strong box in the precious metals locked up in the sterile mountains of the far West, and which we are now forging the key to unlock, to meet the very contingency that is now upon us.

Ultimately it may be necessary to insure the facilities to reach these riches, and it may be necessary also that the General Government should give its aid to secure this access; but that should only be when a dollar of obligation to pay secures precisely the same sort of dollar to use now, and hot before. Whilst the question of specie payments is in abeyance the prudent business man is careful about contracting debts payable in the distant future. The nation should follow the same rule. A prostrate commerce is to be rebuilt and all industries encouraged.

President Grant's inauguration, 1869 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2017897852/)

Capitol crowd

The young men of the country—those who from their age must be its rulers twenty-five years hence—have a peculiar interest in maintaining the national honor. A moment’s reflection as to what will be our commanding influence among the nations of the earth in their day, if they are only true to themselves, should inspire them with national pride. All divisions—geographical, political, and religious—can join in this common sentiment. How the public debt is to be paid or specie payments resumed is not so important as that a plan should be adopted and acquiesced in. A united determination to do is worth more than divided counsels upon the method of doing. Legislation upon this subject may not be necessary now, nor even advisable, but it will be when the civil law is more fully restored in all parts of the country and trade resumes its wonted channels.

It will be my endeavor to execute all laws in good faith, to collect all revenues assessed, and to have them properly accounted for and economically disbursed. I will to the best of my ability appoint to office those only who will carry out this design.

In regard to foreign policy, I would deal with nations as equitable law requires individuals to deal with each other, and I would protect the law-abiding citizen, whether of native or foreign birth, wherever his rights are jeopardized or the flag of our country floats. I would respect the rights of all nations, demanding equal respect for our own. If others depart from this rule in their dealings with us, we may be compelled to follow their precedent.

Inauguration reception (invitation) March 4, 1869 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2003674465/)

look forward to after party

The proper treatment of the original occupants of this land—the Indians—is one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course toward them which tends to their civilization and ultimate citizenship.

The question of suffrage is one which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the ratification of the fifteenth article of amendment to the Constitution.

In conclusion I ask patient forbearance one toward another throughout the land, and a determined effort on the part of every citizen to do his share toward cementing a happy union; and I ask the prayers of the nation to Almighty God in behalf of this consummation.

MARCH 4, 1869.

His speech might have been full of platitudes, but that didn’t mean that the new president followed all traditional protocols. Bad blood began brewing between President Johnson and General-in-Chief Grant during the former’s Swing Around the Circle in the fall of 1866 and it seemed to get worse, especially during the spring of 1868 during the Tenure of Office crisis. Apparently things weren’t getting any better. Unlike eight years earlier, Mr. Grant refused to ride to the Capitol in the same carriage with his predecessor. A congressional committee had to arrange for two carriages. President Johnson’s reaction was to just blow off the entire inauguration ceremonies. He preferred to ‘finish at the White House’ and left there shortly after noon, taking a carriage to a friend’s house.[2]

President Johnson followed George Washington’s example and issued a Farewell Address. Unlike Grant’s inaugural address it wasn’t brief; much of it seems to have been self-justification. A couple New York City newspapers panned the address as bad-tempered, more appropriate for a political meeting down in Tennessee, with words that smelled of “chagrin, distrust, ill nature and bad blood.”[3]

Hans L. Trefousse wrote that Andrew Johnson didn’t need to vindicate himself with his Farewell Address. “Considering the effect of his policies upon the South, he had achieved at least in the long run what he wanted, the continued existence of viable Southern state governments within the Union and the maintenance of white supremacy. His boost to Southern conservatives by undermining Reconstruction was his legacy to the nation, one that would trouble the country for generations to come.[4]

David Jacobs quoted Mr. Johnson’s “prophetic” words during his last annual message to Congress in December 1868: “‘The attempt to place the white population under the domination of persons of color in the South … has prevented that cooperation between the two races so essential to the success of industrial enterprise. …’ Already the Ku-Klux Klan was riding and the seeds of lasting hatred were sown.”[5]

The press wasn’t going to have Johnson to kick around anymore, so cartoonists at Harper’s Weekly made the most of their last chance.

hw 3-13-1869 p176 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
March 13, 1869

hw 3-6-1869 p160(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
March 6, 1869

hw 3-13-1869 p171(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
March 13, 1869

hw 3-13-1869 p164(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

Harper’s Weekly
March 13, 1869

You can read and download Andrew Johnson”s Farewell Address at
Utah Government Publications Online, and you can see President Grant’s First Inaugural Address in his own handwriting at the Library of Congress. Andrew Johnson’s first paragraph reminded me of the left-hand cartoon from Harper’s: “The robe of office by constitutional limitation this day falls from my shoulders, to be immediately assumed by my successor. For him the forbearance and co-operation of the American people, in all his efforts to administer the Government within the pale of the Federal Constitution, are sincerely invoked.” And President Grant was even more prophetic than he knew: “The question of suffrage is one which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the nation are excluded from its privileges in any State.” The female half of the population agitated more and more in the fifty years between the adoption of the 15th and the passage 19th amendment.
You can find all the March 1869 material from Harper’s Weekly at the Internet Archive According to Wikipedia, Jesse Grant attended his son’s inauguration; his publicity-averse wife Hannah begged off and never visited the White House, even though her son lived there eight years.. From the Library of Congress: speech; the oath of office, which was originally published in the March 20, 1869 issue of Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper; ticket reminiscent of the impeachment trial about a year earlier; Capitol grounds; reception invitation.
hw 3-20-1869 p180 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

new president’s parents

hw 3-20-1869 p184 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

wonder what’s happening in Italy

  1. [1]Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerennial, 2014. Updated Edition. Print. page 444.↩
  2. [2]Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Print. page 351.↩
  3. [3]ibid. page 351.↩
  4. [4]ibid.↩
  5. [5]Jacobs, David. “Andrew Johnson” The American Heritage Pictorial History of the Presidents of the United States Volume 1. Editor in Charge Kenneth W. Leish. American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc., 1968. Print. page 438.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, The election of 1868 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

civvies lesson

Posted on February 22, 2019 by SUMPTER
His excy. George Washington Esqr. captain general of all the American forces / J. Norman. ( Illus. from: An impartial history of the war in America, between Great Britain and the United States, from its commencement to the end of the war: ... Boston : Printed by Nathaniel Coverly and Robert Hodge, ..., 1781.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004666689/)

birthday generalissimo

According to the February 23, 1869 issue of The New-York Times Washington’s Birthday 150 years ago was kind of a humdrum day in the great metropolis, a day that “had the air of something that has missed fire. It was neither like a holiday nor a business day, but a pale colorless negation of both. There were plenty of folks in holiday costume about the streets, but there was nothing to mark the anniversary of Washington’s birthday save a few flags drooping dismally over the City Hall, and a vast concourse of idlers thronging the steps and piazzas of the civic building.” Public offices and many stores were closed, giving much of downtown “a sort of semi-Sabbatical aspect, which, lowered upon by gloomy skies, was extremely depressing.”

The patient crowd at city hall waited in vain for parades or an appearance by the military or fireworks in the evening. There was a bit excitement when a man dressed somewhat in the garb of a Continental Army officer appeared. The people had a lot of fun with “General Washington,” but he turned out to be a photograph vendor. Veterans of the War of 1812 got together to talk over old times and learn about a pension bill stuck in the U.S. Senate. There were some regimental balls around town and a banquet for newsboys.

Things were slightly more exciting for the general public in the nation’s capital:

hw 2-15-1868 p112 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv12bonn)

Mum’s the word?

WASHINGTON, Monday, Feb. 22.

The torchlight display of the Boys in Blue to-night was quite brilliant, notwithstanding the rain. About 3,500 were in line. At 10 o’clock the procession reached the residence of Gen. GRANT, in front of which it halted, the band playing “Hail to the Chief.” A committee of gentlemen representing the organization were introduced to Gen. GRANT, who subsequently reviewed the procession. No speeches were made, Gen. GRANT remarking to the committee that it would be impossible to be heard by the great number, and desiring them to return his thanks to the “Boys in Blue” for their kind consideration. He was pleased to see them celebrating the anniversary of the birth of the “Father of the Country.” Afterward the line of march was again formed, and the procession moved to the residence of Speaker COLFAX, intending to pay their respects to that gentleman, and subsequently called on Senator-elect CARL SCHURZ. …

hw 2-27-1869 p129 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

“dignity and benevolence”

Another New York periodical put an image of George Washington on its cover and described an event from his life that it connected with the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Ulysses S. Grant. From the February 27, 1869 issue of Harper’s Weekly:

WASHINGTON’S RESIGNATION.

In connection with the approaching event of General GRANT’S inauguration as President of the United States – an event destined to be memorable in our history – there is one incident in the career of General WASHINGTON that is especially called to our minds: it is the resignation of his commission as Commander-in-Chief, at Annapolis, December 23, 1883.

"Evacuation day" and Washington's triumphal entry in New York City, Nov. 25th, 1783 (Phil., PA : Pub. [E.P.] & L. Restein, [1879]; LOC: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003652651/)

Redcoats out, Continentals in

For eight years WASHINGTON had devoted his life to the service of his country. The revolution had been accomplished, and the struggling republic began its career as an independent nation. The preceding month had witnessed the evacuation of New York by the British. On the 2d of November WASHINGTON issued his “Farewell Address to the Armies of the United States.” On the 25th he entered New York, where, a few days, later, he took a final leave of his principal officers. After this scene – one of the most touching that is recorded in military annals – he walked in silence to Whitehall, followed by a vast procession, and took his departure for Annapolis, where Congress was about to assemble. Here he arrived on the evening of December 19. The next day he informed Congress of his desire to resign his commission. That body resolved that it should be done at a public audience on the 23d, at noon.

hw 2-27-1869 p132 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)+-

farewell to armies

The day was fine, and around the State-house a great concourse was assembled. The little gallery of the Senate Chamber was filled with ladies, among whom was Mrs. WASHINGTON. The members of Congress were seated and covered; the spectators were all uncovered. WASHINGTON entered and was led to a chair, when General MIFFLIN, President of Congress, arose and announced the readiness of that body to receive his communications. The Chief, with great dignity and much feeling, delivered a brief speech. “Happy,” said he, “in the confirmation of our independence and sovereignty, and pleased with the opportunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable nation, I resign with satisfaction the appointment I accepted with diffidence – a diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which, however, was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our cause, the support of the supreme power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.” After other remarks he handed his commission to the President, who received it and made an eloquent reply.

After his resignation General WASHINGTON set out for Mount Vernon, All the way from Annapolis, as it indeed it had been from New York, his progress was a triumphal march. …

[The newspaper explained that the image of General Washington was from a painting by Charles Peale Polk. It then presented a detailed history of how the painting came to be in the possession of Lucy Bakewell Audubon, the widow of naturalist John J. Audubon.]

… Every thing relating to WASHINGTON is held in such reverence by mankind that it is an event to present an original picture, which, after a lapse of nearly ninety years, dating from its production, is brought from the seclusion of private life and given to the world.

I’m not an art historian, but I’m not sure the portrait Harper’s reproduced is supposed to be General Washington at Valley Forge. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar portrait said to be by Charles Peale Polk. If you visit Mount Vernon you can see a painting by Mr. Polk, “Washington at Princeton” that looks similar to but not exactly like the image on the Harper’s cover. There might be more research possible at Google.
According to the Times, General Grant declined to speak on the 22nd because he couldn’t be heard by the large crowd. I wonder if he realized in about ten days he was scheduled to speak to possibly even more people for his inauguration speech. The cartoon of the rather hirsute baby Grant comes from an issue of Harper’s Weekly way back on February 15, 1868 at the Internet Archive. Politicians probably thought Grant would be a candidate. Could they influence his policies? After the Republican party nominated him, the general was still relatively laconic as shown by the Republican Chart for 1868. His acceptance letter was about a third the length of his running mate Schuyler Colfax’s.
GW by Polk (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11778?searchField=All&sortBy=relevance&who=Polk%2c+Charles+Peale%24Charles+Peale+Polk&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=1)

at the Met

George Washington] / J. Norman sc. (1784; Illus. in: The Boston magazine. Boston, Mass. : Norman & White, 1784 April, frontispiece.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2004666693/)

commemorating Washington, 1784

Republican chart for the presidential campaign, 1868 / E. Baldwin eng. (New York : Published by H.H. Lloyd & Co., 21 John Street ; Boston : B.B. Russell, 55 Cornhill ; Concord, N.H. : D.L. Guernsey, c1868. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012648821/Republican chart for the presidential campaign, 1868 / E. Baldwin eng. (New York : Published by H.H. Lloyd & Co., 21 John Street ; Boston : B.B. Russell, 55 Cornhill ; Concord, N.H. : D.L. Guernsey, c1868. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012648821/)

terser at the top of ticket

The Times description of Washington’s Birthday in New York City reminded me of Monday holidays nowadays.
"I rather like that imported affair" / Grant Hamilton. (Illus. in: Puck, v. 56, no. 1438 (1904 September 21), cover. ; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2011645569/)

GW wouldn’t be king … or military dictator

Defender, martyr, father - U.S. Grant, A. Lincoln, G. Washington / Henry A. Thomas sc. (Boston : Chas. H. Crosby & Co. 46 Water St., c1870. LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2006678334/)

Abraham, Ulysses, and George

You can find all the material from Harper’s Weekly at the Internet Archive – 1868 and 1869. I got John Trumbull’s painting from Wikipedia. From the Library of Congress: Captain General; November 25, 1783 in New York City; GW medallion; Republican chart for 1868; Puck from September 21, 1904; the three Unionists. You can read an account of George Washington refusing the kingship at HowStuffWorks.
General_George_Washington_Resigning_his_Commission (John Trumbull, 1824; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#/media/File:General_George_Washington_Resigning_his_Commission.jpg)

John Trumbull’s original now at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Politics, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ethno-cupid

Posted on February 14, 2019 by SUMPTER

150 years ago Harper’s Weekly observed Valentine’s Day with a cartoon featuring six cupids representing different ethnic groups. The New-York Times noted that the post office was being swamped with valentine missives. That apparently wasn’t a new phenomenon – eight years earlier, as the United States was becoming less united and losing some of its states, Harper’s Weekly published a Valentine page that included a beleaguered postman. In 1909 black cupids made an appearance on the cover of Puck

hw2-20-1869p123(https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

more mosaic than melting pot?

Saint Valentine's Day ( Illus. in: Harper's Weekly (1861).; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2006679063/)

neither snow nor rain …nor the hearts attack

Teddy's valentine / Frank A. Nankivell. (N.Y. : Published by Keppler & Schwarzmann, Puck Building, 1909 February 10.; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2011647426/)

Africa beckons

I was stumped about “Teddy’s Valentine” – but according to Wikipedia the Smithsonian–Roosevelt African Expedition left for Africa on March 32, 1909. It lasted until 1910. You can watch a thirteen minute (silent) film of the expedition at the Library of Congress.

Theodore Roosevelt standing with mostly African men in traditional dress (c1910 April 9. LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010645481/)

Teddy’s African adventure

Hippo shot by Roosevelt (c 1910 Mar. 14.LOC: https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.36560/)

scientific specimen, shot by TR

Col. Roosevelt with his big bull rhino (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2010645479/)

“Col. Roosevelt with his big bull rhino”

Could it get any sadder? In the middle of February old Sumpter’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of 110 year old clips of TR in Africa. Although I should point out that one of the silent film’s titles that appears on the screen something like a PowerPoint slide reads “Zulu Belles.”
I didn’t really understand all the allusions in the Harper’s Weekly cupid cartoon, but I’m pretty sure the German is lying a stein of beer. It almost makes wish I had attended Oktoberfest last fall with the Bill and Hillary. You can see more pics at the Daily Mail

.

The cupid cartoon could have been Harper’s take on the wide world of love, but it seems more likely it was meant to represent ethnic groups within America. I’m pretty sure large numbers of Germans and Irish arrived in the United States during the first part of the 19th century (“I’m going to fight mit Sigel”; the 69th New York Infantry). I sorta wish there was a redux about 50 years later because I’ve heard that “amore” involves a big pizza pie. I noticed that the cartoon noticed Africans but not the most native Americans.
You can see the material from Harper’s Weekly in February 1869 at the Internet Archive. Search results at The New-York Times for “Valentine” on February 15, 1869 returns an article about the rush of Valentines at the Post Office continuing with full fury on the 14th. A clerk called it a “red-hot time.” From the Library of Congress: Valentine’s 1861 (I was happy to have a reason to check out the Son of the South to get a better view and find out that image was published in the February 16, 1861 issue of Harper’s Weekly); Puck February 10, 1909; adventure (it seems that Theodore Roosevelt’s son Kermit took many of the photographs of the African expedition); hippo and bull rhino
You can read the real seasonal quote at the Poetry Foundation
hw2-13-1869 (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

I can’t get started (YouTube)

Posted in Aftermath, American Culture, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

and all that ragtime

Posted on February 12, 2019 by SUMPTER

100 years ago some American troops were still occupying Germany after the November 1918 armistice that ended most of the fighting in World War I, but many were returning home. According to the “Rotogravure Picture Section” of the February 23, 1919 issue of The New York Times the first American veterans to parade in New York City were members of the 369th Infantry, a black regiment. Similar to the American Civil War the African-American troops were led by white upper-level officers. The unit was originally 15th New York National Guard Regiment. The regiment’s marching jazz band led the procession. While it was over there the band played for wounded American soldiers in France and Belgium and entertained many others.

NYTimes February 23, 1919 page1 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn78004456/1919-02-23/ed-1/)

“Hell Fighters” on Fifth Avenue

A week earlier the New York Tribune pictured three returning black officers, including Otis Beverly Duncan, “the highest-ranking African American in the American Expeditionary Forces at the end of World War I, serving as a lieutenant colonel in the 370th Infantry Regiment.” The 370th Infantry was originally the 8th Illinois National Guard.

NYTrib 2-16-1919 page5 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn83030214/1919-02-16/ed-1/)

“Three decorated negro officer heroes”

[Unidentified African American recruits for the 15th New York National Guard Regiment heading to Camp Upton, New York] (between 1917 and 1918; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2017648706/)

recruits for the 15th New York National Guard (later the 369th)

Harlem_Hell_Fighters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harlem_Hell_Fighters.jpg)

Harlem Hell-fighters (369th) during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive

NYTrib 2-23-1919 p2-3 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn83030214/1919-02-23/ed-1/)

“entire regiment was awarded the Croix de Guerre” Trib February 23rd

____________________________________

The 369th band’s leader was James Reese Europe, who “was the leading figure on the Black American music scene of New York City in the 1910s. Eubie Blake called him the ‘Martin Luther King of music.'” Mr. Europe died on May 9, 1919 in Boston during a performance. During intermission a disgruntled drummer stabbed him in the neck with a penknife. He bled to death at the hospital. “Europe was granted the first ever public funeral for a black American in the city of New York,” and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Genuine jazz for the yankee wounded In the courtyard of a Paris hospital for the American wounded, an American negro military band, led by Lt. James R. Europe, entertains the patients with real American jazz. (1918; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2016651602/)

Lt. Europe conducting for the wounded (Americans in Paris)

Harlem Hell-fighters band (On patrol in no man's land (1919; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2013562509/)

a man and his band (beware a drummer)

There’s a ton of information out there about the 369th and James Reese Europe. According to an eight minute YouTube video James Europe wasn’t over there just for the music:
“On April 20th, 1918 Lieutenant James Reese Europe accompanied a French night patrol across No Man’s Land under heavy enemy fire and became the first African-American officer to face combat during the war.”
And at the time of his death he wasn’t in Boston just for a show:
“On the morning of May 9th, 1919 Europe was in Boston scheduled to lay a wreath at the base of the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers, the first black regiment to fight in the Civil War.”
The video begins with words by Gerald Early:
“Jazz seemed to so much capture the absurdity of the modern world because of course the modern world had become absolutely absurd because of World War I.”
I went back to the Wikipedia well once again and learned something about the history of Black History Month in the United States:
“The precursor to Black History Month was created in 1926 in the United States, when historian Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History announced the second week of February to be “Negro History Week”. This week was chosen because it coincided with the birthday of Abraham Lincoln on February 12 and of Frederick Douglass on February 14, both of which dates black communities had celebrated together since the late 19th century.”
The Great Emancipator was born 210 years ago today.
True_Sons_369th (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:True_Sons_369th_02426v.jpg)

freedom fighters

From Wikipedia(media): Meuse-Argonne Offensive; with Lincoln. From the Library of Congress (besides the newspaper clippings): recruits; entertaining American wounded “with real American jazz”; sheet music
Posted in 100 Years Ago, World War I | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

scalped

Posted on February 4, 2019 by SUMPTER
hw1-16-1869p41a (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

not worth keeping

From the January 16, 1869 issue of Harper’s Weekly (pages 41-42):

THE INDIAN WAR.

THE Indian Peace Commission of 1867 accomplished greater harm than benefit. Treaties were entered into with The Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, Kiowas, Comanches, and at the recommendation of the Commission the Powder River country was abandoned. This latter action was construed as the result of timidity on the part of the Government, and immediately the Sioux extended their depredations to the Pacific Railroad, on the Platte, while the Indians south of the Arkansas attempted to drive the whites out of the Smoky Hill country.

Last August the Cheyennes took the war-path, and the valleys of the Saline and Solomon rivers became the theatre of a relentless and savage war. It was at first supposed that the Cheyennes were about to attack a hostile tribe, but the soon the mask was laid aside, and in less than a month one hundred whites fell victims to the tomahawk and scalping-knife. The chiefs of the Arrapahoes had promised to proceed to Fort Cobb and get their annuities, and thence withdraw to their reservation. Instead of fulfilling their promises, they began a series of depredations on the line between Fort Wallace and Denver, in Colorado Territory. The Kiowas and Comanches about the same time entered into an agreement at Fort Zarah to remain at peace, and left with that impression fixed on the minds of those who represented the Government. The next information was that the Kiowas and Comanches had joined the Cheyennes and Arrapahoes. General SHERIDAN, taking the practical view of the condition of affairs within the limits of his department, at once transferred his head-quarters to the field, and commenced preparations for a determined war. General SULLY’S fight near this point, FORSYTH’S gallant fight on the Arrikaree fork of the Republican, CARPENTER’S and GRAHAM’S fight on the Beaver branch of the Republican, General CARR’S fight in the same vicinity, and General CUSTER’S annihilation of BLACK KETTLE’S band in the battle of the Washita, besides a number of small engagements, is the fighting record of three months. It would be a low estimate to say that at least 300 warriors have been killed since the war broke out. Two hundred and fifty are officially accounted for. The dexterity of the Indian in getting off his dead would largely increase the official count, which is based upon an accurate knowledge of the Indian loss from the bodies seen carried off, or which fell into the possession of the troops. Nor have the wounded been estimated; and it is quite natural to suppose that in a loss of two hundred and fifty warriors killed many more were wounded, of which a fair proportion may be called mortally, and subsequently died.

hw1-16-1869p41b (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

red – white celebration

The desperation of the fighting at the battle of the Washita may be judged from the fact that no male prisoners over eight years of age were taken.

One of our illustrations on page 41 represents General CUSTER’S command shooting down the poor stock captured from BLACK KETTLE’S band. Another represents the Indian scouts of CUSTER’S command celebrating the victory over BLACK KETTLE. These scouts are Osages and Kaws. The celebration took place at night around a large wood-fire[?], encircled by officers and men who formed a ring comprising hundreds in number – the front rows sitting down or kneeling. The ceremonies were enlivened by music from the military bands. Inside the circle, by the Indian drummers, sat Generals SHERIDAN, CUSTER, and FORSYTH, and staff-officers. The Indians were highly painted, and adorned with shields, spears, war-bonnets, bows, whistles, and other “toggery.”

A third cut represents the body of RALPH MORRISON, killed and scalped by the Indians near Fort Dodge, Kansas. A correspondent from Fort Dodge sends us the following description:

hw1-16-1869p41c (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

the third cut

Messrs. Editors:

The above is probably the only picture ever taken on the Plains of the body of a scalped man, photographed from the corpse itself, and within an hour after the deed was done.

The 7th December Mr. RALPH MORRISON, a hunter, was murdered and scalped by the Cheyenne Indians within less than a mile of this post. Mr. WILLIAM S. SOULE, chief clerk in Mr. JOHN E. TAPPAN’S trading establishment, an amateur artist, availed himself of the opportunity to benefit science and gratify the curiosity of your readers, by taking a counterfeit presentment of the body literally on the spot.

The pose of the remains is delineated exactly as left by the savages, the horrible contortion of the ghastly features, the apertures left by the deadly bullet, the reeking sculp, the wounds, the despoiled pockets of the victim, all are true to life, anomalous as the presentment of death may seem.

It is a satisfaction to know that the Indians suffered severely for their bloody act, two being killed by a percussion-shell from a Parrott gun belonging to the ordnance of Fort Dodge, served by admirable precision by Ordnance-sergeant HUGHES.

The Indians were promptly pursued, and two more of their saddles emptied by our scouts, whose chief, Mr. JOHN O. AUSTIN, is represented on the right of the picture. The officer is Lieutenant READE, Third Infantry. In this connection it may not be amiss to say that Mr. AUSTIN referred to, although unknown to Eastern journals, is one of the most experienced and daring scouts on the Plains. He bears upon his person many marks of his adventurous life. Years ago he was wounded in the head and face by arrows in an encounter with the Kiowas, fourteen miles west of the present site of Fort Dodge. October 5 (6?), next year, while scouting with Captain Newby [Newdy?], of the Mounted Rifle Corps, his right hand was literally cut in two by a tomahawk thrown by a wounded Arrapahoe chief. In April, 1859, his left arm was broken by an Apache Indian in a fight between Fort Craig and Selden, New Mexico. In the summer of 1860 the Cheyennes sent an arrow into his right knee near Bent’s Fort, Colorado Territory; and during the succeeding year a band of Texas desperadoes left him apparently dead after a bloody fight about sixty miles from Fort Garland, New Mexico.

All of these mishaps, however, did not prevent this hardy frontiersman from doing invaluable service for the Union during the late war, in the execution of which he was wounded in the back the evening before the battle of Chickamauga.

Such men are seldom met with, and when known deserve well of the country.        A.B.C.

Scalped on the plains incidents in Mormon history. (1868; LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012648333/)

model for Harper’s engraving

Later in the same issue of Harper’s a cartoon featured General Sheridan taking it to the Indians. In Three Years on the Plains: Observations of Indians, 1867-1870 (at Project Gutenberg) Edmund B. Tuttle dedicated his book to William T. Sherman and included an 1870 letter from the general that seemed to endorse a policy similar to that reflected in the cartoon:

hw1-16-1869p48b (https://archive.org/details/harpersweeklyv13bonn/page/n5)

whip first, jaw-jaw later

LETTER FROM GENERAL SHERMAN

Headquarters, Army of the United States, Washington, D. C.,

June 13th, 1870.

Rev. E. B. Tuttle, Fort D. A. Russell, W. T.

Dear Sir,—I have your letter of June 8th, and do not, of course, object to your dedicating your volume on Indians to me. But please don’t take your facts from the newspapers, that make me out as favoring extermination.

I go as far as the farthest in favor of lavishing the kindness of our people and the bounty of the general government on those Indians who settle down to reservations and make the least effort to acquire new habits; but to those who will not settle down, who cling to their traditions and habits of hunting, of prowling along our long, thinly-settled frontiers, killing, scalping, mutilating, robbing, etc., the sooner they are made to feel the inevitable result the better for them and for us.

To those I would give what they ask, war, till they are satisfied.

Yours truly,

W. T. Sherman, General.

I know I’m looking forward to the Social Security and Medicare the federal government has been promising for decades it’s going to lavish on me.
In the Battle of Washita post I referenced a textbook that quoted General Sheridan as saying, “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.” It now seems that he wasn’t opposed to celebrating with some good, living Indians. Also,  I recently glanced through a Wikipedia post about him and noticed that while he was serving out West before the Civil War he lived for awhile with an Indian mistress. I’m pretty sure Phil was glad “Frances’ was alive.
Indian Country Today has a different take on the Battle of Washita than Harper’s Weekly. The article includes a photograph of captured Cheyennes and a white man said to be “U.S. Army chief of scouts John O. Austin.”
You can see a photograph of the Lieutenant in the story – Philip Reade – at Frohne’s Historic Military. He recollects the scalping occurring in June 1869. The date would seem to be impossible.
I grew up under the scourge of white heteronormativity (Money January/February 2019 page 8). I watched cowboy and Indian movies. I think I remember at least one real bad nightmare about being in a building surrounded by hostiles Indians, presumably with bows and arrows and tomahawks and such. A scalping sure does look scary.
The material from Harper’s Weekly comes from the Internet Archives – 1869, 1868. From the Library of Congress: the scalping; Indian War veterans with President Calvin Coolidge on February 16, 1927.
Coolidge & Nat. Indian War Vets Assn., 2/16/27 (LOC: https://www.loc.gov/item/2016842928/)

with the Great White Father at the White House

Posted in 150 Years Ago, Aftermath, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment