Death of a Union Man

Posted on October 26, 2025 by SUMPTER

Early on the morning of July 31, 1875 former president and U.S. Senator Andrew Johnson died at his daughter Mary’s home after suffering a couple strokes. An editorial in the August 1, 1875 issue of The Chicago Daily Tribune (Page 4) found some good and some bad in the man:

Senator Johnson, March 1875

ANDREW JOHNSON DEAD.

Ex-President ANDREW JOHNSON died yesterday in Tennessee, from the effect of a paralysis with which he had been stricken on Friday. He was born Dec. 29, 1808, and was in the 66th year of his age. His public record is a remarkable one. At 10 years of age he was apprenticed to a tailor, and worked at that in Raleigh, N. C., until he was 18, —teaching himself to read. With his widowed mother, he moved to Greenville, in East Tennessee, where he worked at his trade and married. At 20 years he was elected an Alderman of the town; was Mayor from 23 to 26; a member of the Legislature from 27 to 31; canvassed the State as Presidential Elector at 32; elected to State Senate at 33; to Congress at 35; and, during ten years’ continuous service, took an important and conspicuous part in legislation; served four years (until 1857) as Governor of Tennessee; was then elected United States Senator for six years; arrayed himself on the side of the Union and against Rebellion; was appointed Military Governor of Tennessee from 1862 to 1865; was elected Vice-President November, 1864; inaugurated March 4,1865; succeeded as President of the United States April 15 in the same year; retired March 4, 1869; and in February, 1875, was elected United States Senator, taking his seat on the 4th of March. From his election as Village Aldermen in 1820 to the time of his death he was continuously in elective office, except during the time he served as Military Governor, and the six years following the expiration of his term as President.

ANDREW JOHNSON was no ordinary man. Indeed, he was an extraordinary character. His success was due to no advantages of wealth, family, or education. He was poor at the outset, and remained comparatively poor to the end. He was thrifty and sparing in his expenditures. He was a man of great natural abilities, which made themselves conspicuous despite his illiteracy and want of education; they enabled him to surmount obstacles that were fatal to others. He enjoyed the personal confidence of his immediate neighbors, and of the people of his State, and that confidence had even a wider constituency among the American people.

tailor shop in Greenville, Tenn

There was one particular in his character that should never be forgotten, and which should serve as an incentive to all classes, and especially to men holding public station, and that was his inflexible personal honesty. No suspicion of any official turpitude ever existed of ANDREW JOHNSON; and it was to the public faith in his integrity that he owed the victories which he gained in his contests in his own State.

ANDREW JOHNSON’S public career, of course, reached its zenith in the Presidency. The extraordinary events of his Presidency are fresh in the memory of the public. He succeeded Mr. Lincoln under the awful and unprecedented circumstances of assassination. He succeeded at the close of a long bloody civil war, when the Government had to deal with even the more difficult question of the reconstruction of twelve millions of people, four millions of whom had been elevated from the personal condition of slavery to that of freedom and political citizenship. Between the two races, the line which separated the superior from the inferior had been broad and impassable for a century; it had been intensified by the comparative ignorance of the one race and the cultivation of the other; and the problem which met the Administration of Johnson was how to create, upon an enduring basis, Governments for these people in which there should be no distinctions of race or color, and where the master and slave were to be on a common level of right, of freedom, and political equality.

“unbending pertinacity or
obstinacy”

One of the peculiar traits of ANDREW JOHNSON’S character was inordinate egotism, — his complete confidence in himself and in the unbending pertinacity or obstinacy with which he adhered to his own ignorant convictions. Before the meeting of Congress he had marked out his “policy” of negro serfdom, and sought to so commit the Government thereto that Congress would have to acquiesce. But Congress refused, and for three years there was a constant and bitter struggle between the Executive and Legislative Departments. The President vetoed all the measures of Reconstruction, and, so far as he was able, used his authority to nullify and defeat them. Congress, on the other hand, resorted to legislation having for its practical effect to deprive the President of the power to remove and appoint the civil officers of the Government, including even the members of his own Cabinet. The President was not amiable under the controversy. He was defiant and aggressive, and was especially abusive in his speech. The Congress, fortified by an overwhelming verdict of the people, at last resorted to the extreme measure of impeachment, and a formal conviction and deposition failed only by a single vote in the Senate. We do not think it extravagant to say that the general action of Congress in the matter of Reconstruction, as opposed to that of ANDREW JOHNSON, was sustained by five-sixths of the American people; and the actual reconstruction of the ex-Rebel States was only accomplished in spite of and against the unrelenting opposition of the President. This is hardly the occasion to discuss the opposing policies of the President and of Congress in the matter of Reconstruction. Reconstruction is now completed, and the excitements and passions and vindictive feelings that prevailed in 1865 – ‘8 had so far relaxed and faded away that the people of the North, of all parties, generally were gratified when the Legislature of Tennessee, last winter, elected the ex-President to the United States Senate. His election was a personal triumph. He defeated the caucus, through the voluntary demands of the common people of the State that he be elected.

Military Governor of Tennessee

ANDREW JOHNSON, however, by his conduct in 1861, in opposing Secession and Rebellion in Tennessee, gained a place in his country’s history which even a subsequent successful impeachment could not have wholly obscured. He faced Disunion, Treason, Secession, and Rebellion on the soil where these flourished, and where it required courage and patriotism of the highest order to do so.

ANDREW JOHNSON could, however, have hardly adopted any other course. He had bean a living protest against the aristocracy which was founded upon Slavery. He was a man of the common people. Ha had no ancestry or lineage to refer to; he was not a descendant of a family rich in lands or slaves; he was a laborer, living upon the wages which his own hands earned; his appearance as a leader in politics was resented as an encroachment upon the domain of those born to rule; he might be tolerated as a useful retainer, but as a Captain never! Every office he obtained he forced from the “upper class” of his party. At last he reached Congress, and for ten years he was content to represent his immediate neighbors and friends. His party refused to recognize him further. In the Presidential election of 1852 the State had voted for the Whig candidate, and, in 1853, ANDREW JOHNSON was essential to the success of the party, and thus he forced the old nullifiers, abstractionists, secessionists, and aristocrats to take the Tailor of Greenville and make him Governor of the State. Two years later he was again called upon to meet Knownothingism, and succeeded. He made war on the aristocratic wing of the party, and so strong had he become that Tennessee was one of the strongest Union States at the South. It refused to secede in 1861, and, in the end, was declared to have seceded, by fraud and swindling upon the part of its executive officers.

monument at the grave of Andrew and Eliza Johnson in Greenville Tennessee

ANDREW JOHNSON had his faults, personal and political. He had many very wild political vagaries, which, however, despite their absurdity, he honestly believed in. He was excessively dogmatic. He was intolerant in his opinions, and always extreme. Owing to his deficient education, and his residence among a people who at that time were hardly as well improved as himself, and the personal antagonisms he had to encounter because of his humble origin and his mechanical occupation, he in early life had to resort to language in his popular addresses which was far more forcible than elegant. In the vituperation common on the stump in Tennessee he had but one rival, and that was the Whig Parson BROWNLOW, and for nearly fifty years these men led a life of bitter denunciation. JOHNSON was perfectly at home in such a strife, and there were few men, in Tennessee or out of it, who would venture a second time into that kind of discussion with him. In after life, when in more elevated positions, he could not get rid of this rude style altogether. It followed him to the last, attracting more unfavorable comment in his exalted positions than in his earlier days.

He lived to an advanced age, and has gone down to the grave bearing many honors. His own intense combativeness provoked a counter warfare on him. The country will hear of his death with no revival of unkindness. Though condemned by the nation, and at times regarded as a dangerous man, nevertheless, at the grave of the Village Alderman, Mayor, legislator, Congressman, Governor, Senator, Vice-President, and President, all his faults and errors will be overlooked in the brightnes [sic] of the epitaph, — “In the day of treason, he was an American patriot.”

death of an “American patriot”

From the Wikipedia article about Andrew Johnson – the March 1875 photo; the photo the Johnson’s monument is from the National Park Service. From the Library of Congress: 1865 photo of the Johnson tailor shop in Greenville, Tennessee; Andy Veto sheet music from 1866; military governor; Currier & Ives’ 1875 portrayal of Andrew Johnson’s death.
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Impeachment, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

twists of fate

Posted on September 22, 2025 by SUMPTER

teacher vs. student

General Beauregard

It’s been about fifteen years since the American Civil War sesquicentennial began with the 1860 election campaign. After Abraham Lincoln was elected U.S. president, southern states began to secede and by April 1861 rebel forces were threatening Union-held Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. General P.G.T. Beauregard commanded the Confederates and opposed his West Point artillery instructor Major Robert Anderson in charge at the fort. As the above National Park Service brochures says, Beauregard was “determined to evict the Federal troops from Fort Sumter, [but] did not welcome the prospect of firing on his old friend and former instructor.” But Beauregard did fire; Anderson surrendered after a 34 hour shelling. Ten years later Mr. Beauregard was reportedly working and living a peaceful civilian life in New Orleans. From the September 18, 1875 issue of the Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee – page 1):

Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard

Pierre Gregoire Tousaint Beauregard is now a resident of New Orleans and daily wanders through the haunts of men one of the most quiet and unobtrusive of gentlemen. He is now fifty-eight years of age, but such is his careful and rigid system of living that he looks to be only fifty and promises to live to a ripe old four-score or more. Since he doffed the gray and yielded to the fate of war, Beauregard has philosophically accepted the situation, and has made it a ruling principle of his later life to shun as a plague political discussions, and sternly frown upon the slightest incident dealing in even the remotest degree with the reawakening of the dead issues of the war. I have said that he is a quiet gentleman. I may add that he is intensely so. To look at him he gives you the impression that he loves not the society of mankind and prefers to keep himself to himself. Although exceedingly wealthy at the outbreak of the war, he suffered the reverses of fortune incident to so many thousand Southrons during that epoch, and now enjoys but a moderate competence derived from his services as President of a street railway company, and the rental of the remnant of his once vast property. His daily life is a quiet one, and leads him but little within the scope of public observation; he is simple and unostentatious in manner, and appears rather to avoid than to court popular notice, moving along in the even tenor of his way, contented to pursue his peaceful and modest mission in life undisturbed by useless regrets over the past, or longing ambitions for the future.

According to Wikipedia, Beauregard was involved in politics after the war. In 1872 he helped found the Reform Party of Louisiana, which wanted to “replace the Democratic party and sought to end Radical Republican taxation.” In 1873 he was involved with the Reform Party’s effort to create the Louisiana Unification Movement, which supported less discrimination and more rights for blacks in exchange for black support for some political goals the white members hoped to achieve. “The chant of the Unification movement was ‘Equal Rights! One Flag! One Country! One People!'” The Unification Movement invited fifty white and fifty black leaders to attend a meeting held in New Orleans on June 16, 1873. The blacks were “Creoles of color, who were well-off and had been free before the war.” Beauregard, as chairman of the resolutions committee, submitted the Unification Movement’s resolutions at the meeting. The New Orleans Republican reported on the meeting and the resolutions in its June 18, 1873 issue (page 3). Among other policies, the resolutions supported the end to discrimination in public places and an equal division of state political offices between whites and blacks.

On July 1, 1873 a letter from General Beauregard was published to his “fellow citizens.” The letter responded to criticism of the Unification Movement and its proposals after the movement’s resolutions were made public. It’s a long letter. Here are the last few paragraphs:

I take it that nothing but malice or stupidity could find anything either in the letter or spirit of the unification resolutions which contemplates any interference or dictation in the private social relations of the people. These lie entirely outside the domain of legislation and politics. It would not be denied that, in traveling, and at places of public resort, we often share these privileges in common with thieves, prostitutes, gamblers, and others who have worse sins to answer for than the accident of color; but no one ever supposed that we thereby assented to the social equality of these people with ourselves. I therefore say that participation in these public privileges involves no question of social equality. By the enjoyment in common of such-privileges, neither whites nor blacks assert, or assent to, social equality, either with each other or even between individuals of the same race.

I have not proposed to myself any advantages from the resolutions referred to. I do not seek or desire office or emoluments. I have in view but the restoration of Louisiana to the place of honor from which she has fallen.

I surrender no principle, nor do I separate from any friends. I unite with those who, upon a candid consideration of the circumstances they do not control, have to extract from them the greatest amount of good that they allow of.

If there be any who can propose other and better means, I shall not be backward in adopting them. But it is very clear to my mind that the strength of a State consists in the harmonious, cordial, contented union of all the good men of the community in honest efforts for the improvement and progress of the whole. It is equally clear that strife, discord, disunion and distracted efforts and pursuits will produce nothing but weakness and disappointment. The base, selfish, unscrupulous and mercenary always profit from confusion, disorder and the disintegration of society.

This is a full, candid, and to my mind, accurate view of the situation, and I shall regulate my conduct accordingly, so as to free ourselves from ‘“ carpet-bag” rule, and the improper interference of the Federal Government in our State affairs.

G. T. BEAUREGARD
NEW ORLEANS, July 1, 1875.

Note — By“ carpet-baggers” I refer to those corrupt and unscrup viduals [unscrupulous individuals] who come here only to occupy office and despoil our peo [people]

This is General Beauregard’s letter from the Library of Congress:

In 1873 Republican “carpet-bagger” William Pitt Kellogg was Louisiana governor. In its July 5, 1873 issue Harper’s Weekly was skeptical of the Unification Movement’s sincerity and stated that black and white Louisiana Republicans would still want federal protection until the proposed reforms were actually carried out.

New Orleans Republican June 18, 1873 from page 3

Harper’s Weekly July 5, 1873 (page 570)

Harper’s Weekly July 5, 1873 (con’t)

___________________

mass meeting
New Orleans Republican July 15, 1873 page 2

A 1962 thesis by Vincent Marsala (downloadable at LSU) provides a great deal of information about the Unification Movement. Although many people in New Orleans favored Unification, there was little support for Unification in the rest of Louisiana. A mass meeting was held in New Orleans on July 15th for “public ratification” of the Unification platform. A black leader “ridiculed and scolded the whites.” Also, a letter signed by black leaders stated that blacks would work with whites to get rid of carpetbagger rule after the whites demonstrated their support for black political and civil rights. This sine qua non did not go over well at the meeting. The meeting effectively ended the movement for unification. G.T. Beauregard and another white leader were not at this July 15th meeting. Mr. Marsala believed it probable that Beauregard realized the movement would never achieve statewide support and didn’t want to be embarrassed at the meeting. In his conclusion Mr. Marsala described Louisiana’s dire economic situation during Reconstruction. White businessmen and planters wanted to use the Unification Movement to help alleviate the extremely high tax rates made possible by freemen voting for Republicans. General Beauregard and other businessmen thought they could control the black votes after the freemen left the Republican party. The white motivation for unification was economic and not primarily concerned with guaranteeing equal rights for blacks. The movement failed because of a lack of white and black support and a lack of political expertise. [1]

Eric Foner wrote that the Unification Movement failed “since most freedmen distrusted the motives of its white organizers, while its genuine concessions to blacks alienated the bulk of the white electorate.” Democrats reverted to the “open racism” for the 1874 elections. In Louisiana the White League violently worked for white supremacy and fought the Battle of Liberty Place, which caused a strong federal intervention. Mr. Foner quoted one of whites involved in the Unification movement who, by 1874, supported the white supremacy tactics: In 1873 the unifiers humbled themselves to gain black cooperation for better government; that effort failed, but there was no way blacks would rule the whites. [2]
Possibly the failure of the unification movement along with White League violence and Governor Kellogg’s reelection caused Beauregard to seem non-political by the time of the 1875 article on top, which I’m pretty sure got Mr. Beauregard’s second name wrong. According to Walter L. Fleming’s The Sequel of Appomattox (1919, page 147-148, at Project Gutenberg), General Beauregard had a pretty consistent view of blacks between 1867 and 1873. Discussing the federal military administration in the post-war South, Mr. Fleming wrote:
The military administration was thorough, and, as a whole honest and efficient. With fewer than ten thousand soldiers the generals maintained 147 order and carried on the reconstruction of the South. The whites made no attempt at resistance, though they were irritated by military rule and resented the loss of self-government. But most Southerners preferred the rule of the army to the alternative reign of the carpetbagger, scalawag, and negro. The extreme radicals at the North, on the other hand, were disgusted at the conservative policy of the generals. The apathy of the whites at the beginning of the military reconstruction excited surprise on all sides. Not only was there no violent opposition, but for a few weeks there was no opposition at all. The civil officials were openly unsympathetic, and the newspapers voiced dissent not untouched with disgust; others simply could not take the situation seriously because it seemed so absurd; many leaders were indifferent, while others—among them, Generals Lee, Beauregard, and Longstreet, and Governor Patton—without approving the policy, advised the whites to coöperate with the military authorities and save all they could out of the situation. General Beauregard, for instance, wrote in 1867: “If the suffrage of the negro is properly handled and directed we shall defeat our adversaries with their own weapons. The negro 148 is Southern born. With education and property qualifications he can be made to take an interest in the affairs of the South and in its prosperity. He will side with the whites.”
From the Wikipedia article: Beauregard was appointed Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy on January 23, 1861. “However, when Louisiana seceded from the Union, the Federal Government immediately revoked his orders and he subsequently relinquished his office after only five days.” After his work as president of the street railway company, Beauregard worked as a supervisor of the Louisiana State Lottery Company and as adjutant general for the Louisiana state militia. “An equestrian monument by Alexander Doyle in New Orleans depicted him. The monument was removed on May 17, 2017” in the aftermath of the Charleston church shooting.
The Reconstruction topic at 64 Parishes has a very instructive one paragraph summary of the Unification Movement. The paragraph is under “The Kellogg Era, 1873–1877” – the movement’s resolutions represented advanced thinking on race and were very similar to Civil Rights Act of 1964.

c1896: Jackson, Beauregard, and Lee

1917: same heroes, different flag

c1941: Camp Beauregard in Louisiana

Beauregard house at 1113 Chartres St., New Orleans

Courtyard of Beauregard’s home in New Orleans

General Beauregard’s old uniform

The statue of General Beauregard on horseback is from Wikipedia: Infrogmation of New Orleans’ October 2008 image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Also from Wikimedia: Matysik’s August 30, 2014 image of the “uniform worn by Brigadier General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard (CSA), Confederate Memorial Hall museum in New Orleans, Louisiana” – it is licensed under ” Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication”
From the Library of Congress: NPS Fort Sumter brochure from 2006; a Matthew Brady photo of the general; P.G.T. Beauregard between 1860 and 1870; Confederate heroes and flags about 30 years after the Civil War; sheet music from World War I – the Confederate generals were fighting for liberty just like the later doughboys; Camp Beauregard around 1941 – camp originally used for World War I training; Carol M. Highsmith’s photo of the Beauregard courtyard in New Orleans; front view of Beauregard house at 1113 Chartres St., New Orleans (1937-1938); the mass meeting announcement from the July 15, 1873 issue of the New Orleans Republican – the next day’s issue (page 1) described the meeting, it headlined “The Manifesto Ratified” and closed with “After Colonel Lewis sat down there were loud calls for General Beauregard and others, but none of them appearing, a motion to adjourn was made, put and carried.” – I was surprised that the manifesto was ratified but not that Beauregard didn’t appear
Harper’s Weekly 1873 is available at HathiTrust

1915–2017: Beauregard statue in New Orleans

  1. [1]Marsala, Vincent, “The Louisiana Unification Movement Of 1873” (1962). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 8275. https://repository.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/8275↩
  2. [2]Foner Eric, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerenial ModernClassics, 2014. Page 547-551. ↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago, 150 Years Ago This Week, Postbellum Society, Southern Society, Veterans | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Channel swim

Posted on August 25, 2025 by SUMPTER

150 years ago this morning Englishman Matthew Webb became the first known human to swim across the English Channel without artificial aids. He landed near Calais after about 22 hours in the salt water. From the October 2, 1875 issue of Harper’s Weekly (page 796):

CAPTAIN WEBB’S GREAT SWIM.

Harper’s Weekly October 2, 1875

The hero whose portrait accompanies this sketch has fairly earned the title of champion swimmer of the world, having accomplished the marvelous feat of swimming from England to France without touching any support from the time he dived off the Admiralty Pier at Dover until he landed himself on the sands at Calais. This unparalleled effort occupied just twenty-one hours and three quarters.

Captain WEBB has an interesting history. He was born at Dawley, in Shropshire, England, in 1848, and is therefore only twenty-seven years of age. His father is a surgeon, and has had a family of twelve children, of whom MATTHEW is the eldest but one. After spending some time at school, young MATTHEW entered the training ship Conway, lying in the Mersey. He had learned to swim when seven years old, and his first life-saving feat was achieved while he was on board the Conway, when he and the companions who formed the crew of his boat received each a silver pencil-case for rescuing a comrade who had fallen overboard. He was subsequently apprenticed on board an India and China merchantman, and when his indentures were expired he served first as second officer and afterward as chief officer on board various ships in the Calcutta trade, and while taking a vessel through the Suez Canal he dived and cleared away a hawser that had fouled her. In April, 1873, having shipped before the mast in the CUNARD steamer Russia, he jumped overboard in a gale of wind to save the life of a man who had fallen into the sea from the yard-arm. The Russia was going fifteen knots an hour at the time, and though the life-boat was immediately lowered, it was thirty-five minutes before he was with difficulty picked up, having failed in his noble endeavor to save the life of his shipmate, who had probably been stunned and sank at once. For this deed of gallantry he received the medal of the Liverpool Humane Society, as well as the silver medal and the gold STANHOPE medal of the Royal Humane Society, which latter were presented to him by the Duke of Edinburgh, and a present of £100, subscribed by the passengers of the Russia. Since then he has made several voyages as chief officer of the Ballina and as captain of the Emerald, and in June last, hearing of Captain BOYTON’S feat, the idea occurred to him to outdo it by swimming from England to France without any artificial aids. He made one or two experimental excursions, swimming from Blackwall to Gravesend, from Dover to the Varne Light, and from Dover to Ramsgate. A few days before his successful attempt he started for Calais, but was compelled to turn back on account of the weather

an example of Stanhope Medal

According to Mr. G. TOMS, who piloted him across, Captain WEBB must have swum between fifty and sixty miles; in fact, he was as near the land at 3 A.M. as he was five hours afterward, but the tide carried him past Cape Gris-Nez, and into a bay. He had to swim through four tides, getting two whole ones and a portion of each of the others. He describes the last three hours of his swim as cruel work. He was excessively drowsy, and the water got into his eyes till he was almost blinded. However, to use his own words, he went into the water resolved either to reach the other side or sink. At one time he was stung by a jelly-fish, and felt very faint for some minutes, but the effect soon wore off. The only refreshment he took was an occasional sup of brandy or coffee; once, cod-liver oil was administered, but it did not agree with him. On landing he went straight off to bed, slept three hours, then ate some fish, and went to sleep again. Next day he was “all right,” and returned to England in the Castalia, dined with the garrison and the yacht club at Dover, and when he walked out could scarcely move for the crowds of people who wanted to shake hands with him. On Saturday he went home to see his father, and was féted in his native county, and on Tuesday came back to London, and was enthusiastically cheered wherever he was recognized. Subscriptions have been started in London, Liverpool and other places, and a national testimonial is proposed, to which the working-men are to be invited to contribute. The only inconvenience which Captain WEBB appears to have suffered in consequence of his exploit is a stiffness and soreness of the neck, caused by his long exposure to seawater. He is five feet eight inches in height, and measures forty-three inches round his capacious chest. Our engraving of the arrival at Calais is from a sketch by a resident there, taken from the end of the West Pier. To the extreme left is the old and disused light-house, next is the picturesque belfry of the Town-hall, and a little beyond the Établissement des Bains. On the right is Cape Blanc-nez, and about midway between it and the établissement is the village of Sandgatte, concealed by sand hills, where the Channel Tunnel will come will come out on the French shore.

Harper’s Weekly October 2, 1875

According to Wikipedia, Paul Boyton crossed the English Channel from France to England on May 28-29, 1875 in 23.5 hours. He wore a rubber immersion suit and paddled himself feet first. He might have had a sail attached to his suit, which aided him in his failed first attempt to cross the Channel from England to France. Boyton was born in Ireland and grew up in Pennsylvania. Boyton won the only race vs. Webb that had a clear winner. Wikipedia lists has occupation as “Showman.”
Matthew Webb died on July 23, 1883 during an attempt to swim the Whirlpool Rapids below Niagara Falls. His body was found four days later and buried in Oakwood Cemetery, Niagara Falls, New York. “The autopsy revealed that he died from paralysis caused by water pressure, leading to respiratory failure.” You can read more about Captain Webb at Royal Museums Greenwich

Paul Boyton suited-up

Whirpool Rapids

Richmond’s Daily Dispatch August 26, 1875

From Wikipedia: Stanhope Medal The picture of Whirlpool Rapids is from Project Gutenberg’s The New Book of Niagara: Scenes in Summer and Winter (c.1901) – “The Whirlpool Rapids begin within sight of the Falls. The gorge narrows to 300 feet and the current rushes onward at a speed of 40 miles an hour and the foam-crested waters are entrancingly beautiful.”
From the Library of Congress: Paul Boyton from an 1887 cigarette card in the Champions of Games and Sports card set; a clipping from the August 26, 1875 issue of Richmond’s Daily Dispatch (page 1).
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

public–private partnership

Posted on August 7, 2025 by SUMPTER

We seem to like anniversaries, counting the years with our trusty calendars. I’m pretty sure I was vainly proud to graduate from school the year of the United States bicentennial, and I know I was very enthusiastic about the Civil War sesquicentennial. 150 years ago Americans began to celebrate the U.S. centennial with commemorations at Lexington-Concord and Bunker Hill. 1875 also marked 50 years since the “Wedding of the Waters,” the official opening of the Erie Canal, but people weren’t exactly celebrating. In 1875 the New York State canal system was an example of public-private corruption. Harper’s Weekly covered New York Governor Samuel Tilden’s initiative to end the ongoing “Canal Ring” fraud. From the August 28, 1875 issue of Harper’s Weekly (page 694):

THE NEW YORK CANAL FRAUDS.

THE first report of the commission of investigation into the New York canal frauds is devoted to a thorough examination of the noted DENISON contract, and sets forth in the plainest way the elaborate and ingenious system of swindling practiced by the Canal Ring. The commission has evidently been diligent and intelligent. It has sought the truth sagaciously, and has found it. The DENISON contractors, leading members of the Canal Ring, which the report states appears to be the only permanent political power in the State, influencing and controlling the State officers, have appealed to the courts not to be forced to testify, and Judge LEARNED has decided in their favor. He says that the law which authorizes the commission “to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers,” and even to bring witnesses before it by force, does not empower it to compel them to testify. The learned judge rules that the Legislature has given the commission every power but that which is indispensable, and he has thus invited those who know the essential facts and are interested to conceal them to say nothing. The commission has, of course, appealed, and, pending the decision of the higher court, it reports what it has already ascertained.

The report itself must be read to understand how in the work upon the canals every requirement of law is perverted or evaded, and how thousands of dollars are stolen from the State Treasury by means of official falsehood. If the reader should be depressed by the reflection that so important a branch of the public business is corrupt, he may be consoled by two other reflections — one, that it ought not to be the public business, for the government ought neither to own nor to manage the canals; and the other, that if the corruption is deep and systematic, the honest purpose and intelligence to expose and abolish it are not less evident. It will help the reader to some apprehension of the system and of the amount of the frauds if we state that the DENISON contract covered a space of canal repairs less than eight miles in length, and that DENISON agreed to do the work for $74,183.40, and that when it was about two thirds done he had received $491,260. This enormous sum was made up by false measurement and computation; by charging the State twice for work not done, as by pretending to make excavations that were never made, and putting back the same rock and earth as embankment, although they had not been disturbed. Fully one third of the whole amount paid by the State upon this contract, $150,337 02, is for work which has not been done. It is a sheer theft from the Treasury. The surveys, maps, and estimates which the law requires were never made. The Canal Commissioners certified that they had seen maps and plans and estimates which did not exist. The Canal Board resolved that these imaginary documents should be adopted. The contract was advertised and let without any authority having the knowledge of the work and the materials which the law requires. A large percentage of the money paid upon the contract was paid with a full knowledge that the work had not been done. Not a single yard of the work done corresponds to the specifications. No assistant has been removed or rebuked for making false measurements and estimates, or for accepting dishonest work. Yet had the laws of the State and the regulations of the Canal Board been enforced, the work could have been already done for the sum originally appropriated. The commission concludes that the false and fraudulent measures, estimates, and allowances were only possible through the culpable neglect or connivance of the Canal Commissioners, O. BASCOM and JOHN D. FAY, the engineers, and the inspectors in charge.

no “mere political trick”

All good citizens are indebted to the gentlemen of the commission for their fidelity and efficiency in investigating and exposing these frauds, and to Governor TILDEN for calling the attention of the Legislature and of the State to them, for recommending the inquiry, and for instructing the Attorney General to bring suit, which he has done. Orders of arrest have been issued, with the bail fixed at $200,000. Those who say that the Governor’s action is a mere political trick, and that he means nothing, evidently forget that they are speaking of the man who, when he once took hold of the TWEED prosecution, joined in pushing it relentlessly to the end. The war upon the Canal Ring is not a party question, and only the merest party spirit would decry it. What ever honest men may think of the character and tendencies of parties, they are agreed upon the necessity of punishing corruption. The accomplices in the canal frauds are men of all parties, for it is only by such a union that the system is made permanent. And if either party gains an advantage when in power by vigorously prosecuting and punishing evil-doers and by promoting public honesty, it will not be deplored by any honorable adversary, who will gladly see that it will compel his own party to be even more vigilant in the same direction. When party contests have become only competitions for honest and economical administration, we shall be approaching the millennium.

Which millennium is that?
Governor Samuel Tilden made taking on the “Canal Ring” one of his administration’s major projects. Harper’s Weekly published a lot of information about the Canal Ring throughout 1875. In its April 17, 1875 issue the newspaper questioned whether the state should even be in the business of running the canals. The governor said he was not planning on selling the canals, just cleaning up the abuses. The newspaper’s November 13, 1875 Supplement explained how the Canal Ring worked – contractors undercut other bidders for a canal project, then the state legislature would direct the canal board to increase the prices paid to the contractors. Civil War veteran and New York State Attorney General (January 1, 1872 – December 31, 1873) Francis C. Barlow courageously confronted the Canal Ring. Barlow also prosecuted the Boss Tweed Ring.

HW 4-17-1875 -sell the canals?

HW 4-17-1875 state ownership: “prolific of abuses and
corruption.”

HW supplement 11-13-1875 – how Canal Ring evaded state constitution

In 1871 as chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, Samuel Tilden investigated the Tweed Ring corruption and won election to the state assembly as an anti-Tammany Democrat. As governor his most notable achievement was destroying the Canal Ring:

The Canal Ring was a bipartisan alliance whose members illegally pocketed a share of the money appropriated for repairs on the Erie Canal and its feeders. By assuring a few favored firms of canal work at prices far beyond cost and a reasonable profit, the Ring was able to obtain from the contractors a percentage of the funds paid by the state for canal repairs. Tilden alluded to the Canal Ring in his first message as governor, but as in his attack on the Tweed Ring, he refused to take the offensive until he had obtained enough evidence to ensure convictions in court. By March 1875, when he had completed his research, he delivered to the legislature a detailed account of the machinations of the Canal Ring. Despite the opposition of the Ring’s adherents in both the Senate and Assembly, the legislature authorized the governor to appoint a commission of investigation. Under the chairmanship of John Bigelow, the commission in its three-thousand-page report of February 1876 substantiated all of Tilden’s charges. Suits were immediately instituted against the Ring’s leaders and their accomplices. Although some of the guilty managed to escape jail, Tilden succeeded in smashing the Canal Ring and saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. Perhaps even more significant in an age of extreme partisanship was the fact that all but two of the men indicted for canal frauds were Democrats. [1]

Samuel J. Tilden

Francis C. Barlow

Harper’s Weekly October 16, 1875 – but the Rings were smashed

You can read more about Francis C. Barlow at the Library of Congress and the National Park Service.

During the Civil War, John Bigelow served as diplomat to France and worked with Charles Francis Adams (U.S. minister to the U.K.) to prevent France and Britain intervening in the war to help the Confederacy.
Maybe the Harper’s editorial was talking about Millennialism, a concern with the final 1000 earthly years: “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years and threw him into the pit and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be let out for a little while. — Revelation 20:2–3”.
Harper’s Weekly for 1875 is at HathiTrust. The top image of a canal boat comes from U.S. History Images. From the Library of Congress: Tilden campaign song and chorus; postcard of Erie Canal Boat float from the 1909 Hudson–Fulton Celebration (speaking of historical anniversaries); Samuel J. Tilden; the photo of Francis C. Barlow; the group picture of Generals Barlow, Birney, Gibbon, & Hancock, USA

age of innocents?

“metropolis of the New World”

Harper’s Weekly June 5, 1875 p464 – corrupt times

General Barlow on the left

_______________

  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 362-363.↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago, American History, Postbellum Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

right to fight

Posted on July 6, 2025 by SUMPTER

On April 19, 1775 American colonists fought British troops during the Battles of Lexington and Concord with 393 estimated combined casualties. The two sides went at it again a couple months later during the June 17th Battle of Bunker Hill – 1,532 estimated combined casualties. According to documentation at the Library of Congress, 250 years ago today the Continental Congress officially declared why American colonists were forced to take up arms against the mother country.

bearing arms for Boston

A DECLARATION By the Representatives of the United Colonies Of NORTH-AMERICA, now met in General Congress AT PHILADELPHIA, Setting forth the CAUSES and NECESSITY Of their taking up ARMS.

IF it was possible for Men, who exercise their Reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our Existence intended a Part of the human Race to hold an absolute Property in, and an unbounded Power over others, marked out by his infinite Goodness & Wisdom, as the Objects of a legal Domination, never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain, some Evidence, that this dreadful Authority over them has been granted to that Body. But a Reverence for our Great Creator, Principles of Humanity, and the Dictates of common Sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the Subject, that Government was instituted to promote the Welfare of Mankind, and ought to be administered for the Attainment of that End. The Legislature of Great-Britain, however stimulated by an inordinate Passion for a Power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very Constitution of that Kingdom, and desperate of Success in any Mode of Contest, where Regard should be had to Truth, Law, or Right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic Purpose of enslaving these Colonies by Violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last Appeal from Reason to Arms.—Yet however blinded that Assembly may be, by their intemperate Rage [for] unlimited Domination so to slight Justice and the Opinion of Mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by Obligations of Respect to the rest of the World, to make known the Justice of our Cause.

where General Congress met

Our Forefathers, Inhabitants of the Island of Great Britain, left their native Land to seek on these Shores a Residence for civil and religious Freedom. At the Expence of their Blood, at the Hazard of their Fortunes, without the least Charge to the Country from which they removed, by unceasing Labor and an unconquerable Spirit, they effected Settlements in the distant & inhospitable Wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike Nations of Barbarians.—Societies or Governments, vested with perfect Legislatures, were formed under Charters from the Crown, and an harmonious Intercourse was established between the Colonies and the Kingdom from which they derived their Origin.—The mutual Benefits of this Union became in a short Time so extraordinary, as to excite Astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing Increase of the Wealth, Strength and Navigation of the Realm, arose from this Source; and the Minister who so wisely and successfully directed the Measures of Great Britain in the late War; publicly declared, that these Colonies enabled her to triumph over her Enemies.—Towards the Conclusion of that War, it pleased our Sovereign to make a Change in his Counsels.—From that fatal Moment, the Affairs of the British Empire began to fall into Confusion, and gradually sliding from the Summit of glorious Prosperity to which they had been advanced by the Virtues and Abilities of one Man, are at length distrated by the Convulsions that now shake it to its deepest Foundations.— The new Ministry finding the brave Foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate Idea of granting them a hasty Peace, and of then subduing her faithful Friends.

seeing red

These devoted Colonies were judged to be in such a State, as to present Victories without Bloodshed and all the easy Emoluments of statuteable Plunder.—The uninterrupted Tenor of their peaceable and respectful Behaviour from the Beginning of Colonization, their dutiful, zealous and useful Services during the War, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honorable Manner by his Majesty, by the late King, and by Parliament, could not save them from the meditated Innovations.—Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious Project, & assuming a new Power over them, have in the Course of eleven Years, given such decisive Specimens of the Spirit and Consequences attending this Power, as to leave no Doubt concerning the Effects of Acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our Money without our Consent, tho’ we have ever exercised an exclusive Right to dispose of our own Property; Statutes have been passed for extending the Jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty and Vice Admiralty beyond their ancient Limits: For depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable Privilege of Trial by Jury in Cases affecting both Life and Property; for suspending the Legislature of one of the Colonies; for interdicting all Commerce of another; and for altering fundamentally the Form of Government established by Charter, and secured by Acts of its own Legislature solemnly confirmed by the Crown; for exempting the “Murderers” of Colonists from legal Trial, and in Effect, from Punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring Province acquired by the joint Arms of Great Britain and America, a Despotism dangerous to our very Existence; and for quartering Soldiers upon the Colonists in Time of profound Peace. It has also been resolved in Parliament, that Colonists charged with committing certain Offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.

more Bunker Hill

But why should we enumerate our Injuries in Detail? By one Statute it is declared, that Parliament can “of Right make Laws to bind us IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER.” What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a Power? Not a single Man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our Controul or Influence; but on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from Operation of such Laws and an American Revenue, if not from the oftenmost Purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own Burdens in Proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the Misery to which such Despotism would reduce us. We for ten Years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as Supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament in the most mild and decent Language. But Administration, sensible that we should regard whose oppressive Measures as Freemen ought to do, sent over Fleets and Armies to enforce them. The Indignation of the Americans was roused it is true; but it was the Indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate People. A Congress of Delegates from the united Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth Day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful Petition to the King, and also addressed our Fellow Subjects of Great Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful Measure, we have even proceeded to break off our commercial Intercourse with our Fellow Subjects, as the last peaceable Admonition, that our Attachment to no Nation upon Earth should supplant our Attachment to Liberty.— This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate Step of the Controversy: But subsequent Events have shewn, how vain was this Hope of finding Moderation in our Enemies.

George III (1762)

Several threatening Expressions against the Colonies were inserted in his Majesty’s Speech; our Petition, though we were told it was a decent one, that his Majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his Parliament, was [huddled]into both Houses amongst a Bundle of American Papers, and there neglected. The Lords and Commons in their Address, in the Month of February last, said, “that a Rebellion at that Time actually existed within the Province of Massachusetts Bay; and that those concerned in it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful Combinations and Engagements, entered into by his Majesty’s Subjects in several of the other Colonies; and therefore they besought his Majesty, “that he would take the most effectual Measures to inforce due Obedience to the Laws and Authority of the supreme Legislature.”— Soon after the commercial Intercourse of whole Colonies, with foreign Countries and with each other, was cut off by an Act of Parliament; by another, several of them were intirely prohibited from the Fisheries in the Seas near their Coasts, on which they always depended for their Sustenance; and large Reinforcements of Ships and Troops were immediately sent over to General Gage.

General Gage

Fruitless were all the Entreaties, Arguments and Eloquence of an illustrious Band of the most distinguished Peers and Commoners who nobly and strenuously assessed that Justice of our Cause, so stay, or even to mitigate the heedless Fury with which these accumulated and unexampled Outrages were hurried out.—Equally fruitless was the Interference of the City of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable Towns in our Favour. Parliament adopted an insidious Manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual Auction of Taxations where Colony should bid against Colony, all of them uninformed what Ransom would redeem their Lives, and thus to extort from us at the Point of the Bayonet, the unknown Sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, Ministerial Rapacity, with the miserable Indulgence left to us of raising in our own Mode the prescribed Tribute. What Terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless Victors to conquered Enemies? In our Circumstances to accept them would be to deserve them.

Lexington April 19, 1775

Soon after the Intelligence of these Proceedings arrived on this Continent, General Gage, who, in the Course of the last Year, had taken Possession of the Town of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and still occupied it as a Garrison, on the 19th Day of April, sent out from that Place a large Detachment of his Army, who made an unprovoked Assault on the Inhabitants of the said Province, at the Town of Lexington, as appears by the Affidavits of a great Number of Persons, some of whom were Officers and Soldiers of that Detachment, murdered eight of the Inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the Troops proceeded in warlike Array to the Town of Concord, where they set upon another Party of the Inhabitants of the same Province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the Country People suddenly assembled to repel this cruel Aggression. Hostilities thus commenced by the British Troops, have been since prosecuted by them without Regard to Faith or Reputation.—The Inhabitants of Boston being confined within that Town by the General their Governor, and having in order to procure their Dismission, entered into a Treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said Inhabitants having deposited their Arms with their own Magistrates, should have Liberty to depart, taking with them their other Effects. They accordingly delivered up their Arms, but in open Violation of Honor, in Defiance of the Obligation of Treaties, which even savage Nations esteem sacred, the Governor ordered the Arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their Owners, to be seized by a Body of Soldiers; detained the greatest Part of the Inhabitants in the Town, and compelled the Few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable Effects behind.

Bunker Hill and burning Charles Town

By this Perfidy, Wives are separated from their Husbands,  Children from their Parents, the Aged and Sick from their Relations of Friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in Plenty, and even Elegance, are reduced to deplorable Distress.

The General further emulating his ministerial Masters, by a Proclamation bearing date on the 12th Day of June, after venting the grossest Falsehoods and Calumnies against the good People of their Colonies, proceeds to “declare them all either by Name or Description to be Rebels and Traitors, to supercede the Course of the common Law, and instead thereof to publish and order the Use and Exercise of the Law martial.”—His Troops have butchered our Countrymen; have wantonly burnt Charles Town, besides a considerable Number of Houses in other Places; our Ships and Vessels are seized; the necessary Supplies of Provisions are intercepted and he is exerting his utmost Power to spread Devastation and Destruction around him.

General Carleton

We have received certain intelligence that General Carleton, the Governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feels, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword, and famine.-We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.-The latter is our choice.-We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.-Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

President John Hancock

Our Cause is just. Our Union is perfect. Our internal Resources are great; and if necessary, foreign Assistance is undoubtedly attainable.—We gratefully acknowledge, as signal Instances of the Divine Favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severs [severe] Controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in Warlike Operations, and possessed of the Means of defending ourselves.—With Hearts fortified with these animating Reflections, we most solemnly, before GOD and the World declare, that, exerting the utmost Energy of those Powers, which our benificent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the Arms we have been compelled by our Enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every Hazard, with unabating Firmness and Perseverance, employ for the Preservation of our Liberties, being with one Mind resolved, to die Freemen rather than to live Slaves.

In our own native Land, in Defence of the Freedom that is our Birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late Violation of it— for the Protection of our Property, acquired solely by the honest Industry of our Fore-Fathers and ourselves, against Violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when Hostilities shall cease on the Part of the Agressors, and all Danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

Secretary Charles Thompson

Left this Declaration should disquiet the Minds of our Friends and fellow Subjects in any Part of the Empire, we assure them, that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.—Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate Measure, or induced us to excite any other Nation to war against them.—We have not raised Armies with ambitious Designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent States.—We fight not for Glory or for Conquest. We exhibit to Mankind the remarkable Spectacle of a People attacked by unprovoked Enemies, without any Imputation, or even Suspicions of Offence. They boast of their Privileges and Civilization, and yet proffer no milder Conditions than Servitude or Death.—

With an humble Confidence in the Mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine Goodness to conduct us happily through this great Conflict, to dispose our Adversaries to Reconciliation on reasonable Terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the Calamities of civil War.

By Order of CONGRESS, JOHN HANCOCK, President.

Attested, Charles Thompson Secretary,
Philadelphia, July 6th, 1775
Sold at the Printing Office in Portsmouth.

Three weeks before this declaration, the Continental Congress appointed George Washington as commander in chief for the provincial armies. On a June 15th motion from John Adams, Congress unanimously appointed Washington to “command all the continental forces.” It was a decisive step, “an act second in importance only to the Declaration of Independence the following year.” Washington accepted “in a speech of simplicity and modesty.” He refused any compensation beyond his expenses. [The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six (edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, Castle Books 2002, pages 138, 140]. In its July 14, 1775 issue (page 3), The Virginia Gazette published correspondence between the New York Provincial Congress and General Washington. The New Yorkers congratulated the general on his appointment but expected him to return to private life after the war was won. Washington wrote that he was planning to do just that after the “establishment of American liberty, on the most firm and solid foundations”. Peter Van Brugh Livingston “was a delegate to the New York Provincial Congresses, and was President from May 1775 to August 1775 and from September 1776 to March 1777.”

Virginia Gazette July 14, 1775 page 3

(continued)

taking command at Cambridge, Mass

While Congress was considering the declaration to take up arms, it also passed the Olive Branch Petition, which “was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 5, 1775, and signed on July 8, 1775, in a final attempt to avoid war between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies in America. The Congress had already authorized the invasion of Canada more than a week earlier, but the petition affirmed American loyalty to Great Britain and entreated King George III to prevent further conflict. It was followed by the July 6, 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, however, which made its success unlikely in London. In August 1775, the colonies were formally declared to be in rebellion by the Proclamation of Rebellion …” John Dickinson wrote the Olive Branch Petition. During this time, “differences of opinion over the fundamental question of separation or reconciliation were deep, and grew deeper with the swift rush of events. What is most interesting is that these differences were not merely between radicals like John Adams or Jefferson and conservatives like Dickinson or [James] Wilson; they were differejnces in the hearts and minds of individuals. … John Adams and John Dickinson found themselves equally torn by doubts and misgivings.” [The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six (edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, Castle Books 2002, page 277]
The Declaration of the Necessity to Take up arms mentioned reconciliation but labeled the British government and troops as enemies. On July 5th Benjamin Franklin wrote a note to his British friend William Strahan. The National Archives indicates that Franklin never actually sent the letter:

Philadelphia, July 5, 1775
Mr. Strahan,
You are a Member of Parliament, and one of that Majority which has doomed my Country to Destruction. You have begun to burn our Towns, and murder our People. Look upon your Hands! They are stained with the Blood of your Relations! You and I were long Friends: You are now my Enemy, and I am, Yours,
B. Franklin

From Wikimedia: Howard Pyle’s 1898 Battle of Bunker Hill; Allan Ramsay’s 1762 portrait of King George III; John Singleton Copley’s painting of General Thomas Gage; General Guy Carleton; John Singleton Copley’s painting of John Hancock; Joseph Wright’s portrait of Charles Thomson, the Secretary of both Continental Congresses throughout their existence.
From the Library of Congress: the declaration – I used the American Battlefield Trust’s interpretation of the declaration to make a few changes to the Library’s rendition – according to Battlefield Trust, Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson wrote the declaration, and Wikipedia says, “Dickinson also reworked Thomas Jefferson’s language to write the final draft of the 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” ; 1752 image of the Pennsylvania state house (now known as Independence Hall after several modification); E. Percy Moran’s c1909 image of Battle of Bunker Hill; battle of Lexington; Bunker’s Hill and the burning of Charles Town; Currier & Ives c1876 take on General Washington assuming command of colonial armies at Cambridge on July 3, 1775; the July 27, 1774 issue of The Pennsylvania Journal; And The Weekly Advertiser.

unite and fight

Posted in 250 years ago, American History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“3½ or 4 miles per hour”

Posted on June 9, 2025 by SUMPTER

Replica: the Montezuma

This year is the 200th anniversary of the official opening of the original Erie Canal. On October 26, 1825 New York Governor DeWitt Clinton boarded the packet boat Seneca Chief in Buffalo at the western terminus of the canal. The governor and an entourage consisting of several other canal boats traveled the entire length of the canal to Albany, where the Erie met the Hudson River. A steamboat towed the Seneca Chief down the Hudson to New York City. On November 5th Governor Clinton poured Lake Erie water into the Atlantic Ocean for the ceremonial Wedding of the Waters.

at the Montezuma Heritage Park

But people were traveling on the canal long before the official opening. According to a historical marker in Montezuma, the middle section of the canal was completed in 1819. A canal boat traveled from Montezuma to Syracuse in 1820. In its May 30, 1820 issue, the Edwardsville Spectator in Illinois published a report (page 3):

Grand Canal.—The Onondaga Register, of April 25th announces the arrival at Syracuse, (Salina) of the Canal barge Montezuma—she has two commodious cabins, with a kitchen—is 76 feet long and 15 wide. At Syracuse a party of ladies and gentlemen amounting to 100 persons went on board of her, when she started for Salina, a distance of one mile and a half, which she performed in 22 minutes. On her return to Syracuse 150 persons were on board. The shores of the Canal was lined with spectators, who manifested the greatest joy at her success. At the rate the boat travelled, it is computed that one horse will convey 100 persons at the rate of 3½ or 4 miles per hour. The water in the canal was two and an half feet deep—the barge drew but twelve inches of water, notwithstanding she was heavily laden. The distance from Utica to Montezuma, 94 miles, is now navigable. The canal boat Chief Engineer has performed the whole route.

Chief Engineer

Middle section completed first

You can read more about the Montezuma’s first trip on April 20th to a very young Syracuse at syracuse.com. Apparently, 4 mph wasn’t the speed limit on the canal. The packet boat arrived late because of a delay when a team of fast horses was hooked up to it. The horses arrived at a full trot, “kicking up a wake that soaked many of the onlookers.” Comfort Tyler, who built the Montezuma purchased The Chief Engineer (along with Simon Dexter Newton). The two boats began a regular service between Montezuma and Utica. The Erie Canal Museum provides more information about the canal in 1820 – other boats also started using the middle section of the canal in 1820.
200 years ago a famous visitor also traveled on the Erie Canal before its official opening. During his 1824-1825 grand tour of the United States the Marquis de Lafayette rode on the canal for much of his trip from western New York State to Albany on his journey to Boston for the 50 year commemoration of the Battle of Bunker Hill. Lafayette was feted at many places on his journey, but he to keep moving to make it to Boston in time. In Buffalo he had a reunion with the famous Native-American Red Jacket. The general and his entourage went by land from Rochester to Syracuse by detouring through the northern part of some of the Finger Lakes. This past Saturday Auburn, New York celebrated Lafayette’s June 8, 1825 visit and the new historical marker commemorating it. You can read an account of Lafayette’s journey off and on the Erie Canal in Auguste Levasseur’s 1829 Lafayette in America in 1824 and 1825, Vol. 2 at Project Gutenberg (Chapter XII).

canal boats travel over the Seneca River

Richmond Aqueduct remains

Ditch marker

The image of canal boat Chief Engineer is from Family Photo Collection, Palmyra Community Library. Canal Boat. Retrieved from New York Heritage Digital Collections. The 1832 profile of the canal is from Wikipedia.
I took the other photos in this post during the first few months of 2025 at The Montezuma Heritage Park. The park features the remains of the Richmond Aqueduct built during the Erie Canal’s “first enlargement,” but there are other interesting sites throughout the park, including a portion of the original ditch. The Montezuma Park’s webpage includes three virtual tours of the park with historian Mike Riley. The Erie Canal provides lots of information and includes more about the Montezuma Aqueduct.

Remnant: The Grand Canal (or Clinton’s Ditch)

Posted in 200 Years Ago, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hallowed for how long?

Posted on May 30, 2025 by SUMPTER

150 years ago May 30th fell on a Sunday, so it appears that many communities observed Memorial Day on either the 29th or the 30th. According to an editorial from Portland, Maine, many people were surprised that ten years after the end of the Civil War the Decoration Day was still being The paper thought it was right to honor those who died “while battling for human freedom and popular government” and wondered if the tradition would continue after every Civil War veteran had died. The editorial went on to say that it was good that the sections were reconciling, but it wasn’t right to honor Confederates dead in the same way as the deceased Union military personnel.

From the May 31, 1875 issue of the Portland Daily Press (in Maine):

Memorial Day.

It has been predicted by many that Memorial day would be observed but a few years; and there certainly was reason to fear that the intense zeal of our people to secure the greatest amount of present good, the past with its labors and sacrifices would to be forgotten. But those who have made such predictions or entertained such fears, are doubtless surprised to observe that the days set apart for memorial services of the nation’s dead this year, are more generally observed than at any previous time, proving that the American people are not unmindful of or ungrateful to the memory of the patriot dead. In view of the general purpose of the people to render tribute to their fallen defenders, may we not expect that when the last veteran of the late war has been added to the roll of the dead, the succeeding generations which reap the blessings secured by their devotion and valor, wilt hallow Memorial Day?

It should be so; for no generations or nation can monopolize the fame or the achievements of those whom we honor to-day, nor is their patriotism or devotion exclusively the product of the age in which we live. The men whom we honor to-day have fallen in one of the battles in that century-long conflict between freedom and oppression. That same immortality which pours its golden light down through the vista of centuries upon the defenders of Thermopylae, is theirs. Names are lost; faces are forgotten; time and space are annihilated; deeds alone live; so that by that kinship which unites heroic purpose and self-denying devotion in all ages, the souls who tasted immortality at Thermopylae, the martyrs who died in hopeless conflict with the brutal tyranny of the feudal ages, the men who crimsoned the slope of Bunker Hill or at Valley Forge, displayed such fortitude and endurance, and the men who fell by thousands for freedom in our late war — all these martyrs have fought under one banner, and their deeds, their victories and their examples are our priceless heritage.

How fitting are these reflections on these memorial days, when it is remembered that under the green mounds upon which are placed the floral offerings, lie stranger forms, who, as men, would be no more to us than others, but resting from life’s battle in graves hallowed by martyrs’ deaths, the memory of their deeds makes them our dead, as is the country they saved our heritage. To-day we would not recognize the faces of many of those we honor. Their voices would awaken no chord of memory. Many wanderers, many from beyond the sea, many whose tongues had not learned our speech, many to whom our flag was the emblem of deliverance, are among them; but lying there we know them all, and the benediction of the Republic falls like rain upon them, and when the first waves of vendure break in spring flowers upon our Northern hill – sides, we gratefully gather them for our annual offering to them.

We know there are many whose extreme devotion to the practical leads them to look with little favor upon Memorial Day and its exercises. They ask: Of what good, not to the dead, how to the living? It is useful, Mr. Gradgrind, to save the nation from your sordid mold. We need to pause once in a while to think of something else than the mad pursuit of wealth and to step out of the round of every -day work, which makes us little better than machines. We need to recall the past with its great deeds. We need to pay the memory of heroic men the reverence there [sic] due and thereby call down upon ourselves the inspiration of their devotion and the fragrance of their memories. We must not forget that into that sublime half decade of war was profusely pored the highest hopes, the grandest ambitions, the most exalted sacrifices and the most precious life of the nation. It is, indeed, a sad day for the nation, if it has come to pass that the generation which laid life and temporal prosperity upon the country’s altar, has come to place a slight value upon that high devotion which led it to brave death for principle. Dark, indeed, to-day, if before the arms are rusted or the old uniforms moth-eaten, the American people should forget to hallow these days. We must not forget that upon our dead in the war, the blood-stained mantle of freedom was consigned by the fathers. Dying while battling for human freedom and popular government, they have transmitted that heritage, richer by their lives and costlier by their deaths.

To-day, as we stand amidst the graves of the nation’s saviors, we thank God that the jealousies and heart-burnings of the war are dying out — that manly forgiveness and brotherly love are succeeding. Standing above our dead, the man who wore the blue offers his hand to the man who wore the gray. Tears glisten a reconciliation which quivering lips cannot speak. Their clasped hand is a token of the Union which is to be.

But while we have tears, pity and kindness for the gray, we should reserve our garlands and honors for the blue. There are many who would go further — who would put the man who died fighting against national existence on a level with him who poured out his life to preserve it. We do not desire to have treason punished, but we do protest against making that crime a virtue to be rewarded alike with loyalty. Neither do we think this course is necessary to show our good will to our Southern brethren. Hundreds of occasions present themselves to show our friendliness. The summer pestilence of 1873 and the Mississippi floods of 1874 were occasions for us to show our brotherly regard, and right generously did the North respond. The Christian world had as well be asked to show its conciliation toward those who crucified the Lord by paying the same homage to those who put Him to death as to the Master himself. When we put the men who died in defense of Right on a level with those who died to perpetuate Wrong, we strike their names from the roll of the world’s martyrs. Let us rather cherish our dead because they were a nation’s redeemers; because in the thick night, with strong faith, with godlike devotion, with blood-stained colors, they wrought the salvation of fatherland.

Here are some clippings from the same issue of the newspaper. Washington D.C. observed the holiday on May 29th. President Grant and cabinet members attended the memorial service at Arlington National Cemetery. Citizens also went fishing had picnics, and enjoyed steamboat excursions on the Potomac. The Southern Memorial Association would decorate Confederate graves on the next Tuesday. The GAR decorated graves in Portland on May 31st, and P.T. Barnum’s Hippodrome was in town for three performances on the “The Nation’s Saddest Holiday.”

D.C. observance

Gen. Forrest in favor of reconciliation

Portland GAR decorating graves on May 31st

“Nation’s Saddest Holiday”

part 2 of Barnum ad

excursion trains to Barnum Hippodrome

__________

The Fayetteville, Arkansas chapter of the Southern Memorial Association is still in operation: “The next Southern Memorial Day Ceremony will be held on Saturday June 7, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at the Confederate Cemetery.” The site’s history page echoes the Portland editorial: “When another hundred years have passed, will the Confederate Cemetery on East Mountain still stand as a tangible reminder of the brave men who died for a way of life they held dear and the proud women who loved and honored them?”

The front page of the May 31, 1875 issue of the Portland Daily Press says it’s Monday May 30, 1875, but it must be the 31st – the paper wasn’t published on Sundays. I corrected many words to avoid a whole lot of [sic]. From the Library of Congress: the May 31, 1875 issue of the Portland Daily Press; Carol M. Highsmith’s photograph of the Breakwater ‘Bug’ Light built 150 years ago..

Portland’s Breakwater ‘Bug’ Light built in 1875

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Aftermath, American Culture, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Centennial self-control

Posted on April 8, 2025 by SUMPTER

150 years ago Americans were beginning to celebrate the United States Centennial. On April 19, 1875 large crowds were in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts to commemorate the battles that took place a century earlier. In an editorial in its May 8, 1875 issue (page 375) Harper’s Weekly praised the good behavior of the crowds in Lexington and Concord, especially given the dearth of police officers at the sites:

Harper’s Weekly May 1, 1875 Supplement page 369

THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL.

THE imposing spectacle of the first great Centennial anniversary of the Revolution, the day of Concord and Lexington, is the beginning of a long and proud series of holidays which will continue for seven years. They open in Massachusetts, and they will close in Virginia. Every event of the long struggle was but a logical consequence of the 19th of April, and Yorktown was the natural result of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill. The next great day is that of Bunker Hill, within less than two months — the day of PRESCOTT, PUTNAM, and of “him, ah! him” — JOSEPH WARREN. It falls in the loveliest season of the year, and it commemorates the most familiar and famous of the Revolutionary battles, and will be observed with an enthusiasm which all that of the late great day will not abate. General DEVENS, now upon the Massachusetts bench, an accomplished and magnetic orator, will deliver the address, standing where DANIEL WEBSTER stood fifty years ago. LAFAYETTE was then here, and sat by the orator. Revolutionary veterans were grouped around him, and as the orator apostrophized them, the air rang with grateful acclamations. The speaker of to-day will be inspired with the glorious remembrance, and the emotion of the hour will have a fitting utterance.

Nor can there be any doubt of the happy moral and patriotic effect of these Centennial holidays. They will teach the whole country its heroic early history, and make it familiar with the soldiers and statesmen of the Revolution; and they will show that quality of character and the nature of those institutions which have made republican government possible. The celebration of the 19th of April was a pleasant illustration of the habit and power of popular self-control in New England. The throng of people in the two villages of Concord and Lexington was immense and unprecedented, and there could be very little management except that which the people themselves chose to provide. The police were few, and could make only a show of authority against such overwhelming odds. But the vast crowd in both villages, although there were necessarily confusion and disorder, was not riotous nor headstrong, and while there were more than a hundred thousand holiday strangers in the two towns, there was no serious accident or mishap. Every man was used to taking care of himself. He was a son of independence. During a sudden tumult in the tent at Concord the president of the day, Judge HOAR, said that the sovereign people of America are gentlemen, and when they assemble upon such an occasion, they will keep order and preserve silence. And they justified his words. The quality to which he appealed, and of whose existence he was conscious, is just that which has made the country. It is, in the best sense, conservative, as Mr. DANA showed in his masterly discourse at Lexington when he was speaking of the colonists. When this power of self-control is lost, popular government becomes impracticable, and until it exists such a government is impossible. The dependence upon the army, which is so familiar a fact in France, is the powerful argument against a French republic.

The Chicago Daily Tribune April 20, 1875

There is another aspect of the Centennial anniversaries which is interesting and valuable. They will present to the popular mind, in speech and essay, the actual superiority in general condition of the American citizen. When all exception is made and criticism is exhausted, there remains the fact that every man has a fairer chance in America than elsewhere. In many special points we are surpassed in other lands, but upon the whole the well-being is greater here. The poor man does not instinctively turn to Europe, but to America. Again, and just at this time, the Centennial holidays, by kindling the most generous patriotism, tend to reunite the country. It was a very striking spectacle at Lexington, that of the Governor of South Carolina responding cordially, and with sincere, not formal, cordiality, to the hearty greeting of Massachusetts. He was not, indeed, a South Carolinian by birth, but he was a fair representative of the new South Carolina, which will be again as closely bound with Massachusetts as the two colonies were a hundred years ago. And on the 17th of June the Georgian who may answer as warm a welcome will not propose to call the roll of his slaves on Bunker Hill, but to call his State upon the roll of freedom.

A revival of a just and noble national pride will be a renewal of the national character, and that is what we have the right to expect of the Centennial days. It will inspire every American with an interest in the great Centennial Fourth of July which nothing else could produce; and when at the Concord dinner General HAWLEY, the president of the Centennial Commission, appealed to the audience in behalf of the due celebration of the victories of peace which are not less renowned than those of war, there was a hearty and universal response. The greatest and happiest result of the Centennial years will be the promotion of a new era of national good feeling, founded not upon disastrous compromise, but upon sound, original, and eternal American principles, which are now sure to be freshly considered and approved by the American people.

Lexington Centennial souvenir cover

from Lexington souvenir

still hadn’t failed

Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar was born in Concord, Mass and served as U.S. Attorney General from 1869-70 and one term (1873-75) as U.S. Representative. The South Carolina governor was Daniel Henry Chamberlain, who was born in West Brookfield, Massachusetts, served as an officer with the Fifth Massachusetts Cavalry, a black regiment, during the Civil War, and moved to South Carolina in 1866. Joseph Roswell Hawley served as an officer throughout the Civil War and mustered out of the army in 1866 as a Brevet Major General. The Pratt Street Riot occurred on April 19, 1861 as Union troops tried to change trains in Baltimore.
At the Minute Man National Historical Park you can see webpage devoted to the semiquincentennial with links to Lex250 and Concord250.

news made it to Williamsburg April 29, 1775

Pratt Street riot

800px-Lexington_and_Concord-2c

Sesquicentennial commemoration

Harper’s Weekly for 1875 is at HathiTrust. The material in this post came from the May 1st and 8th issues. In its May 1st Supplement (pages 369-372)the magazine reprinted an oration by George William Curtis at Concord on April 19, 1875 and included the image of the Minute Man statue by Daniel Chester French, which was unveiled for the Concord Centennial when the sculptor had just turned 25 years old. Henry Hudson Kitson sculpted Lexington’s Minute Man statue, erected in 1900.
The image of the postage stamp comes from Wikipedia.
From the Library of Congress: The April 20, 1875 issue of The Chicago Daily Tribune – page 2 has the Lexington and Concord report; the Lexington Centennial Souvenir; the Williamsburg broadside; Currier & Ives’ take on the Pratt Street riot; Carol M. Highsmith’s photograph of the Minute Man statue in Lexington.
[April 15, 2025 – I corrected a page reference for Harper’s Weekly]

Lexington’s Minute Man statue

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, American History, United States Centennial | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

a separate equality?

Posted on March 23, 2025 by SUMPTER

Harper’s Weekly December 26, 1874

In 1870 Charles Sumner introduced a Civil Rights bill in the United States Senate. While on his deathbed in March 1874, Senator Sumner implored his onlookers to make sure the Civil Rights bill did not fail. That plea might have taken on a greater urgency after the 1874 midterm elections in which Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. Republicans would probably need to get the bill passed before the last session of the 43rd Congress ended in March 1875. In its “Domestic Intelligence” section, the December 26, 1874 issue of Harper’s Weekly noted that the House Judiciary Committee discussed the Civil Rights bill on December 8th. A subcommittee was appointed to draft a new bill. One member of the subcommittee, Alexander White, a Republican from Alabama, proposed a bill that would ensure that in many public businesses and in public education black people would have “separate accommodations, but equal in convenience,” so that there would be equal privileges but no association between blacks and whites. Apparently a bill was reported that only applied the separate but equal concept to public education. Harper’s Weekly excoriated separate but equal public education in its January 9, 1875 issue:

AN ACT TO CONFIRM PREJUDICE.

THE probability of the passage of a civil rights bill is not great, but that is no reason for the introduction of such an act as has been presented to the House by the Judiciary Committee. If, as the opponents of the bill constantly declare, we cannot abolish prejudice by law, we are certainly not called upon to sustain and perpetuate it by law. Yet this is what the proposed bill does. It is an act to stigmatize a class of American citizens on account of color and previous condition of servitude. This it does by authorizing any State to maintain separate schools or institutions with equal facilities in all respects to all classes entitled thereto. But as separate schools are demanded only on account of color, this is the authority to establish them. Of course such a provision makes the whole bill ridiculous, as any shrewd Democrat could instantly show by moving to amend by making the provision which applies to schools apply also to “inns, public conveyances on land and water, theatres, and other places of public amusement.” If the prejudice against color is to be respected in the school-house, why not in the theatre and the tavern and the railroad car? It is no harder for a white child to sit beside a colored child at school than for a white parent to sit beside a colored parent in a car or at a public table or in a theatre. The distinction is without a difference. The bill as reported is an insult to every intelligent colored citizen, as it is a humiliation to every white citizen who remembers that the Constitution guarantees to all the equal protection of the laws — a guarantee which is deliberately violated when the law stigmatizes any class of innocent citizens under any pretense whatever.

The folly of such a rule was shown by Mr. CONWAY’S letter describing his experience as Superintendent of Schools in Louisiana, and by the daily reports from New Orleans, which state that “the color line in schools promises to be the momentous question, as it is difficult to settle who are colored.” As for the alleged prejudice, it is now frankly confessed that before the war the lighter-colored children — quadroons and others — were admitted to the schools, and no issue was raised; while it is perfectly well known that some of the most refined, cultivated, courteous, and wealthy citizens in that city were “tainted” with color. But not only is it impracticable to decide who is “colored,” but even if every child who is to be stigmatized by this law were coal-black, so that no question could arise, the mischief lies in the obloquy thus cast by law upon certain citizens to whom the Constitution secures equality. Suppose any other class against whom there is a similar feeling should be selected for this leper-like segregation, its enormity and injustice would be at once conceded. If, for instance, the Jews were by law separated from the rest of their fellow-citizens in schools and other public institutions, the sense of shame in all decent American breasts would soon burn out the law from the statute-book. In darker ages and more barbarous countries than ours the Jews were the victims of an inhuman prejudice. What does the honorable American think of those times and countries? And does he wish that his country to-day shall follow that example? There is, indeed, a difference in the cases. The feeling against the Jew was the growth of a Christian tradition of hatred against those who had crucified the Son of God. The feeling against the colored race is the American tradition of hatred against those whom we have foully wronged.

The prejudice unquestionably exists, but why should a Republican Congress propose to strengthen and perpetuate it by law? Is any member of Congress so amusingly stupid as to suppose that a prejudice strong enough to separate the schools would permit them to be equal “in all respects?” or that it is of any practical use to enact that a pariah who is excluded from the schools and cemeteries may have “full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water, theatres, and other places of public amusement?” Moreover, it is as impossible to determine what is a full and equal enjoyment of such privileges as it is to decide who is “colored.” The bill will not pass, and it certainly ought not to pass.

president signed bill

Actually, a bill did pass. President Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 on March 1st, but that law did not mention public education: “… all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement …” Those who did not provide the equal accommodations could be held liable in civil or criminal court. The civil penalty was $500. Federal courts had jurisdiction. The act did not mention anything about “separate but equal.”

Daily Dispatch March 2, 1875

In its March 2, 1875 issue Richmond’s Daily Dispatch called the act an abortion. The law was not what the negroes wanted, and whites saw the law as “an attempt to insult the superior race and stir up strife.” Harper’s Weekly criticized the act for excluding public education. It published some cartoons and a letter by Congressman Benjamin Butler, who maintained the act only covered rights that blacks should already have had under common law. In July reproduced an article from a southern newspaper that anecdotally suggested that at least one train did have separate cars for blacks and that whites had a sly way to keep blacks out of the white car without forfeiting the $500. In a report from Nashville The Chicago Daily Tribune (page 5) reported on some Southern reaction, including the act’s legality: “Both Republican and Democratic lawyers say that the law in unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate domestic affairs, that power alone being vested in the States.”

The Supreme Court agreed with that last point. According to the Federal Judicial Center, “In The Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state, and not to private, action.”

Harper’s Weekly March 20, 1875 page 231

Harper’s Weekly July 24, 1875 page 1063

Ben Butler explains Civil Rights Act (HW April 24, 1875 p336

Federal law applies to heaven

church still segregated?

The Chicago Daily Tribune March 2, 1875

According to Eric Foner: “Despite having been shorn of its schools provision, the law represented an unprecedented exercise of national authority, and breached traditional federalist principles more fully than any previous Reconstruction legislation…” But the act “was more a broad assertion of principle than a blueprint for further coercive action by the federal government. It left the initiative for enforcement primarily with black litigants suing for their rights in the already overburdened federal courts. Only a handful of blacks” tried to avail themselves of the law’s provisions, “and well before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1883, the law had become a dead letter.” [1].
From Mr. Foner’s book I also learned that the idea of separate but equal was around before Alexander White introduced his bill. From 1865 – 1875 there were great gains in the rights Northern blacks enjoyed. “Although, state courts generally held that segregated facilities, if truly equal, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, discrimination in transportation faded in many parts of the North.” Black gained access to public education in many areas throughout the North, and “in a few states, integrated education now became the norm,” but “Some cities with sizeable black populations, like New York and Cincinnati, maintained separate schools…”[2]. Harper’s Weekly was published in New York City.
You can read about the act and see a handwritten copy of the law with signatures of Speaker, Vice President and President Grant at the United States Senate. The text is also available in a PDF at the University of Baltimore. According to the U.S. House’s History, Art & Archives section, the 43rd Congress ended on March 3, 1875. The United States Supreme Court ruled “Separate but equal constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). One of The >Harper’s Weekly cartoons above referenced the Catholic 1875 Jubilee – according to Wikipedia there were Jubilee riots in Toronto in September and October.
HathiTrust has the Harper’s Weekly material for this post – 1874 and 1875.

incentivized

  1. [1]Foner Eric, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerenial ModernClassics, 2014. Page 556. ↩
  2. [2]Ibid, page 471↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Reconstruction, The Grant Administration | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

banditti busters?

Posted on February 26, 2025 by SUMPTER

riding to the city of New Orleans (The Chicago Daily Tribune December 29, 1874)

Louisiana’s political affairs were still unsettled in the aftermath of the September 1874 Battle of Liberty Place, in which the white supremacist White League began an insurrection to take control of the state government. At that time federal troops put the insurrection down. In December 1874 President Grant sent General Philip Sheridan to Louisiana to investigate the situation and possibly take command of the Department of the Gulf. Sheridan made it to New Orleans a few days before the organization of the state legislature on January 4, 1875. On that day, even though they were outnumbered 52-50, Democrats attempted to take control of the assembly by installing five Democrats who had not been declared elected by the “Returning Board”. Affairs were confusing and chaotic. United States General Régis de Trobriand and a few soldiers arrived in the hall and eventually removed the five non-elected Democrats. The Democratic members then marched out of the assembly. General Sheridan assumed command of the Department of the Gulf on the night of January 4th after the events in the legislature. The next day he contacted Secretary of War William W. Belknap to suggest that the federal government declare White League ringleaders to be “banditti,” so they could be tried by military commission.

General de Trobriand during Civil War

“banditti” (Harper’s Weekly January 30, 1875)

Sheridan’s report: unparliamentary procedure (HW 1-23-1875)

_____________________________

The federal troop intervention in the state legislature and Sheridan’s banditti comments caused a major brouhaha throughout the country – north and south. Eric Foner has written that the public supported federal troops putting down the Liberty Place insurrection but opposed the military’s intervention in the state legislature on January 4th, which showed “the dangers posed by excessive federal interference in local affairs.” United States troops taking charge in the state assembly caused “more Northern opposition than any previous federal action in the South.” Citizens in Boston met “at Faneuil Hall to demand Sheridan’s removal” and praised the White League as “defenders of republican freedom.” Wendell Phillips was at that meeting. When he said President Grant should have the power to protect the interests of the freed slaves, the crowd hissed, laughed, and told him to sit down. Louisiana affairs “divided and embarrassed the Grant Administration.” Things settled down after a Congressional committee headed by William A. Wheeler from New York came up with a compromise in February – Republicans would control the Louisiana Senate, Democrats would get control of the lower house, and Republican Governor Kellogg, considered a usurper by the Democrats, would remain in office. The Louisiana problems led the Republican party to become more hands-off in the South.[1]

Here are a few clippings from reaction around the country. According to a page 1 headline in January 5, 1875 issue of The Memphis Daily Appeal, the January 4th incident was “the last straw.” The accompanying article detailed the events in the legislature. In it’s January 13, 1875 issue Richmond’s Daily Dispatch said more Republicans would oppose the Grant Administration’s handling of Louisiana if they weren’t afraid of strengthening the Democratic party. The paper was glad Sheridan had to explain his “banditti” comments and stated that “The White League is mainly composed of gentlemen superior in every civil virtue to Sheridan himself.”

The Memphis Daily Appeal January 5, 1875

Daily Dispatch January 13, 1875 page 2

Daily Dispatch January 13, 1875 page 2

Harper’s Weekly provided a lot of coverage and had much to say about the events in Louisiana. Louisiana Governor Kellogg did not have the constitutional right to use federal troops without the permission of the U.S. president and the governor could make the request only when the state legislature was not in session. The paper opposed any desperate policy ventures to reunite the Republican party or restore its prestige. A couple cartoons summarized President Grant’s January 13th message to Congress. (According to the front-page article in The Memphis Daily Appeal on January 5th, General De Trobriand first appeared in the hall by himself after Democrat L.A. Wiltz took over the speakership and the five extra Democrats were seated. During the swearing in ceremony the sergeants at arms tried to prevent Republicans from leaving the hall. “Several scuffles ensued, when, on motion of Mr. George DuPre, General De Trobriand was sent for, who cleared the lobby of the police and spectators at the speaker’s request.” About 15 minutes later the general returned with troops and two letters from Governor Kellogg requesting the troops to remove the members not validated by the Returning Board. After the removal L.A. Wiltz eloquently protested the federal interference.) Another cartoon printed a letter to the editors of the New York Tribune that seemed to support assassinating President Grant. Also, some Democrats and members of the White League were pushing back.

Harper’s criticizes Republicans (1-23-1875)

don’t try desperate ventures (1-23-1875)

Harper’s Weekly January 30, 1875 page 92

Grant explains Sheridan’s actions in New Orleans

fed troops good – depending

Harper’s Weekly January 30, 1875 p101

William A. Wheeler

Louisiana Compromise (HW 3-20-1875)

compromised (HW 2-13-1875)

Sheridan didn’t turn out to be a banditti buster. According to Eric Foner, in the same section of his book cited above, Grant sent Sheridan to Louisiana to “protect the colored voter in his rights,” and ordered Sheridan to use federal troops to keep Governor Kellogg in office and squelch the violence. Too much of the country didn’t like the events of January 4th and Sheridan’s baditti letter. General Sheridan got married on June 3, 1875. He and his wife moved to Washington, D.C.

Kellogg still governor

You can read more about Sheridan’s famous Ride during the Civil War at the National Park Service. French-born Régis de Trobriand was naturalized in 1861 and served in the Union army throughout the war. His brigade performed courageously at the Wheatfield during the Battle of Gettysburg. He fought in the Indian Wars, and in 1874 President Grant assigned him to New Orleans.
From the Library of Congress: the December 29, 1874 issue of The Chicago Daily Tribune; Régis de Trobriand; the Murder of Louisiana: “President Ulysses S. Grant and Congress turned a blind eye to the disputed 1872 election of carpetbagger William P. Kellogg as governor of Louisiana. In this scene Kellogg holds up the heart which he has just extracted from the body of the female figure of Louisiana, who is held stretched across an altar by two freedmen. Enthroned behind the altar sits Grant, holding a sword. His attorney general, George H. Williams, the winged demon perched behind him, directs his hand. At left three other leering officials watch the operation, while at right women representing various states look on in obvious distress. South Carolina, kneeling closest to the altar, is in chains.”
I got the stamp at the Wikipedia article about Philip Sheridan. That’s the reference for his marriage, along with the Harper’s Weekly cartoon. Most of Harper’s Weekly for 1874 is at HathiTrust.

Harper’s Weekly June 5, 1875

not easy in New Orleans


_____________________

  1. [1]Foner Eric, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: HarperPerenial ModernClassics, 2014. Page 554-555. ↩
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Postbellum Politics, Reconstruction, The Grant Administration | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment