Thanksgiving 1865 in Washington City

Each year during the Sesquicentennial I wrote a post focused on Thanksgiving at the corresponding time 150 years ago. I looked at holiday celebrations in camp or in the streets, hospitals, and churches of Washington and Alexandria. Now that the four-year commemoration is over, I wasn't sure what to do for this Thanksgiving. Many people are turning their attention to the aftermath of war and the start of Reconstruction so I decided to check out the Washington papers for the end of 1865, as the reunited nation prepared to observe the first Thanksgiving holiday since the end of the war.

President Andrew Johnson declared a day of national Thanksgiving for Thursday, December 7, 1865. In his Proclamation, the President reminded the American people that "it has pleased Almighty God during the year which is now coming to an end to relieve our beloved country from the fearful scourge of civil war and to permit us to secure the blessings of peace, unity, and harmony, with a great enlargement of civil liberty. . . ." He recommended that "the whole people make confession of our national sins against His infinite goodness, and with one heart and one mind implore the divine guidance in the ways of national virtue and holiness."

On December 6, the day before Thanksgiving, the Washington Daily National Republican published the following editorial:

The editorial surely reflected the thoughts of many loyal Americans about the ground the nation had traversed since the previous year and just how much the country had reason to give thanks as the end of 1865 approached. Some, however, may have disputed the characterization of President Johnson, who had just given his State of the Union address on December 4. (The speech is referenced in the article.)

Two Winslow Homer views of Thanksgiving Day, 1865 from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated:  Hanging up the Musket and The Church Porch (courtesy of streetsofsalem).

Thanksgiving in Washington City was a relatively subdued affair. As was typical in previous years, businesses were closed. The Washington Evening Star reported that "the churches were opened for divine worship, and were well attended, while the services at each were appropriate to the occasion." (Dec. 8, 1865.) The paper was also pleased to observe that "throughout the day there were fewer displays of improper conduct than usual on such festive occasions." (Dec. 8, 1865.) According to the Daily National Republican, Bostonians were nowhere near as well behaved as the "staid and proper" Washingtonians. (Dec.8, 1865.) The paper reported that during the evening in Boston, "many persons were slewed, with great carnage." (Dec. 8, 1865.) Perhaps high rates of celebratory drinking had something to do with ruining the holiday up north. In any event, whether in Washington City or elsewhere, Thanksgiving gave Americans a day of rest and relaxation as they prepared to deal with the difficult issue of reconstruction and the future of the reunited country.

On a personal note, I'd like to wish all of my readers a Happy Thanksgiving! Enjoy the good times with family and friends, eat plenty of turkey and fixings, and see you next month!

Civil War History & Wine -- a Great Combination!

Living in Northern Virginia has its perks. After all, Civil War history surrounds us everywhere. As a added bonus, wineries dot the rolling countryside just beyond the inner suburbs. On Father's Day, my wife and children took me to The Winery at Bull Run, which offers the best of both worlds. Opened in 2012 by Jon and Kim Hickox. the winery sits on land adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield Park and the famous Stone Bridge.

During the Civil War, the property was the site of Hillwood. The Weir family, who owned the estate at the time, lived at their nearby plantation known as Liberia and left the property in the hands of a tenant or caretaker. (Liberia served as Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard's headquarters around the time of First Manassas.  Gen. Irvin McDowell also did a stint there in 1862.) On July 21, 1861, soldiers under then-Colonels William T. Sherman and Erasmus Keyes marched across Hillwood on their way to ford Bull Run and join the Union attack. Capt. James Carlisle's battery of U.S. artillery also took position on the ridge line at Hillwood. During Second Manassas in August 1862, Confederate troops under A.P. Hill crossed the property en route to link up with the remainder of Stonewall Jackson's wing of the Army of Northern Virginia. As the Union forces retreated across the Stone Bridge following their defeat on August 30, they too passed by Hillwood. In other words, this land is an important piece of the story of both battles.

Following the devastation of the Civil War, the property was returned to family farming and other economic activities. The Hickox family purchased the land in 2008 and set to work on establishing their winery. Today, the winery's two vineyards are planted with Norton and Traminette varieties. The Winery at Bull Run also farms grapes on 115-acres in Rappahannock County, Virginia.

The remains of the Hillwood house (c. 1840s/50s) on the winery grounds. A fire nearly destroyed the historic structure in 1990. In 2008, Jon Hickox took down the damaged walls but preserved the foundation.

The Tasting Room represents two styles of Virginia barns. The darker wood structure built of reclaimed stone and wood is about the same size as the 19th century barn that stood at Hillwood. The white structure is typical of the 1920s dairy barns that were seen across Northern Virginia until the 1950s. 

The Tasting Room at the winery features display cases filled with relics that were found on the property and at other places nearby. Pictured above is a variety of artifacts from a field hospital that was located in front of the Hillwood house.

Additional artifacts in the Tasting Room, including artillery shells, Minie balls, and a State of New York belt buckle.

A view over the vineyard. Both Union and Confederate troops crossed this property at the time of the fighting at Manassas in July 1861 and August 1862. US-29, the Warrenton Turnpike during the war, is beyond the distant treeline.

What I believe to be a reconstructed winter cabin, similar to those used by Confederates in Centreville during the winter of 1861-62. 

One of several historical markers placed on the grounds at the winery. This one has a rather fanciful depiction of Hillwood, the Stone Bridge, and environs, during First Manassas.

The Winery at Bull Run represents a successful marriage of preservation and agricultural tourism. Large swaths of commercial and residential development have largely spoiled this part of Northern Virginia; the Hickoxes ensured that the pastoral and historic landscape of Hillwood would be preserved for generations to come. An outing to the winery is a must for any Civil War enthusiast. And the allure of wine tasting will make it easy for other family members to indulge in your love of history.

Sources & More Information
Local historian Chuck Mauro has written an interesting history of the Hillwood property and winery. The booklet is available for purchase at the winery's Tasting Room.

For more information on visiting The Winery at Bull Run, go to the vineyard's website here.

A Talk with Eugene Schmiel, Author of "Citizen-General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era"

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Gene Schmiel during a Savas Beatie Author Enclave at South Mountain and Antietam. At the time, Gene was putting the finishing touches on his biography of Union Gen. Jacob Cox. The book, Citizen-General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era was published by Ohio University in 2014. Gene's biography received many favorable reviews and has been featured as a History Book Club Reading Selection. Gene was nice enough to take the time to answer some questions about his book and Cox. I think you'll find his responses interesting, to say the least. And if you'd like to meet Gene and hear him speak about "Jacob Cox and the West Point-'Political General' Divide in the Union Army," be sure to head to the Loudoun County Civil War Rountable next Tuesday, June 9, at 7:30 p.m.

Q. First off, tell readers a little about yourself.

A. I am a retired U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer who served overseas in Sweden, South Africa, Djibouti, Kenya, and Iceland. I was Charge’ d’Affaires at three embassies and Consul General in Mombasa, Kenya. I now work part-time at the State Department on international political-military and terrorism-related issues.

Before joining State, I was an Assistant Professor of History at St. Francis University (Pennsylvania). I earned my Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, where I met my wife, Bonnie Kathryn. We have two children, David and Jennifer, and five grandsons. My wife and I wrote a book in 1998 about our life in the Foreign Service entitled, Welcome Home: Who are You?  Tales of a Foreign Service Family. We live in Gainesville, Virginia

Q. Why did you choose Jacob Cox as the subject for a biography? 

A. My focus in grad school was 19th century U.S. history, and Jacob Cox’s life (1828-1900) was in many ways a microcosm of the most important developments during that era. His military career, his role in Ohio and national politics, his tenure as both a railroad and a university president, and his authorship of highly-respected histories of the Civil War all made him one of the most important figures from the era about whom no one had written a biography. He even became one of the world’s most renowned amateur microscope scientists and wrote thirty-two articles about that topic for scholarly journals. In sum, he was a “Renaissance Man in the Gilded Age.” My dissertation was the “first draft” of that biography, and my book Citizen General: Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era was the conclusion of that process.

Q. What sources helped you the most? 

A. The Cox papers at the Oberlin College archives were by far the most important. Cox was not only an avid correspondent, but also someone with a sense of history, who saved his letters and most of those he received from other prominent individuals. Thankfully, he also had good handwriting! Among other important sources were the Official Records, the papers of Cox’s contemporaries and friends such as James A. Garfield and Rutherford B. Hayes, and Cox’s writings, especially his histories and extensive number of reviews of Civil War books.

Q. How would you describe the thesis of your book?

A. In my preface I noted that in his book, The Civil War Dictionary, Mark Boatner wrote that it “might well be titled, ‘What ever happened to J.D. Cox?’” His thesis was that Cox, like many others in the war, had served well, but had been forgotten. So, in effect, my goal was to answer Boatner’s question, as follows: Jacob Cox was one of the best Northern “citizen generals” in the Civil War, an influential postwar political leader, and the ablest participant-historian of the war, one whose writings have been both recognized as authoritative and objective and quoted by serious Civil War historians ever since.

Q. How do you rate Cox among Civil War Union generals?

A. I think it would be fair to say that a consensus of Civil War historians would place Cox in the top five of the “political” generals, along with men such as “Black Jack” Logan, Joshua Chamberlain, and Alpheus Williams. [William T.] Sherman clearly agreed – he thought so much of Cox’s ability that not only offered him a chance to command the 23rd Corps on the March to the Sea, but he also offered Cox a brigadier generalship in the Regular Army at the end of the war. The fact that Sherman and Grant both suggested to President Andrew Johnson that he choose Cox as Secretary of War to resolve the dispute with Congress over the “Tenure of Office” Act is additional evidence of Cox’s abilities and reputation.

Q. What sets Cox apart from other political generals in the Civil War? 

A. One key difference was that Cox was not politically prominent before the war, having served just one term as a back bencher in the Ohio Senate. Most historians, when using the term “political generals,” point to men like Logan, Butler, and Banks, all of whom were prominent already in national or state politics, and who could “demand” senior positions and commands. By contrast, Cox worked his way up and was given increasingly important positions by the senior generals whom he impressed with his ability, e.g. Rosecrans, McClellan, Burnside, Sherman, and Schofield.

Secondly, Cox was not a self-promoter – often to his detriment.  In his letters to his wife he often expressed dismay that incompetents (both political and West Pointers) were getting good press and that others were more successful in lobbying Congress for promotions.

Third, he always sublimated his political views to military necessity.  For example, when he served under John Schofield, a Democrat, during the Atlanta, Franklin-Nashville, and North Carolina Campaigns, Cox wrote to his wife that Schofield’s views were irrelevant on the battlefield and that he would carry out his orders without question.

Fourth, whereas McClellan and Sherman, among others, looked down on volunteer officers, they seemed to make an exception for Cox, whose abilities they respected as they offered him substantive responsibilities. They knew that Cox was, as I put it in the book, the “quintessential subordinate” officer, and that they could rely on him totally.

Q. Tell us about Cox’s relationship with Gen. George McClellan. 

A. In the beginning the two were very close, but after the war, Cox adjudged both that McClellan had critical weaknesses as a commander and that he was two-faced when dealing with his subordinates and superiors.

McClellan began the war as commander of Ohio’s troops and Cox was the military chief of staff of Ohio Governor William Dennison. They clearly got along well, and McClellan was impressed by Cox’s study of military tactics and history, as well as his intellectual command of military matters. McClellan, despite his prejudice against “volunteers,” chose Cox to command troop training at Camp Dennison and gave him an autonomous command in the West Virginia Campaign.

During the Maryland Campaign, Cox’s “Kanawha Division” was the advance element of the Army of the Potomac in taking Frederick and helping win the Battle of South Mountain. At the Battle of Antietam, Cox was tactical commander of the Union left wing, and he came within minutes of sweeping Lee’s forces from the field. McClellan praised him for his efforts and supported his promotion to Major General, even as he regretted Cox’s orders that October to go back to West Virginia to push back a Confederate offensive.

Cox noted in his letters and writings that he always respected McClellan during the war and believed he was the general best qualified to command Union troops. However, when he began doing research for his book reviews and his books, he came to a very different set of conclusions. He was especially taken aback when reading McClellan’s Own Story, from which he discovered that McClellan was two-faced and inclined to blame others for his failings. While preparing his review of that book, Cox made multiple notes in the margins of his copy of the text. Among his outraged comments were, “I don’t believe a word of it”; “Quintessence of nonsense!”; “What Stuff;” and “Always a lion in the way!” In his review, his wrote that that the book was “full of blinding self-esteem,” in which “everyone is a rogue and incapable except McClellan.”

In many ways Cox’s review and his articles about McClellan in West Virginia and the Battle of Antietam in the Battle and Leaders of the Civil War, and his section on the latter battle in his Military Reminiscences set the historiographical foundation for the judgment about McClellan’s shortcomings as a commander. As he wrote in the Antietam article, noting acerbically McClellan’s claim in his memoirs that because he led the Maryland Campaign without written orders, the administration could have charged him with usurpation of command, “The suggestion of McClellan twenty years afterward that it had all been a pitfall prepared for him, would be revolting if…the absurdity of it did not prove that its origin was in a morbid imagination.” Finally, underscoring that throughout his campaigns McClellan’s army greatly outnumbered the enemy and his equipment and supplies were far better, Cox commented that “McClellan’s persistent outcry that he was sacrificed by his government destroys even that character for dignity and that reputation for military intelligence which we fondly attributed to him.”

Q. Why do you think Cox hasn’t attracted the attention of other Union generals like Winfield Scott Hancock? 

A. Not being a West Pointer, he had no major command positions, and partly as a result he suffered from what he called the problem of being a second in command and being forgotten in the writing of history. In fact, that was a key impetus to his career as an historian.

Also, Cox was what might be called “colorless.” That is, he was a staid, stoic, and unemotional intellectual who lacked the common touch.  He had been a divinity student at Oberlin, and for some time a career as a minister and professor of theology seemed likely in his future. While his men respected him, they never “loved” him in the way McClellan’s did. These characteristics made him an effective commander since he never lost control of himself and was always a voice of calm reason, even during the most tempestuous moments of the conflict – except once (see the next item).

Finally, as noted above, he was not a self-promoter, so while others sought and got the limelight, the reticent Cox always said he would rely on history to recognize his contributions.

Q. In your view, what was Cox’s most important military accomplishment during the Civil War?

A. If I had to pick one, it would be his command of the defensive line at the Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864. His commander, John Schofield, made Cox acting commander of the 23rd Corps and most of the 4th Corps and ordered him to set up a defensive line to protect the withdrawal of troops and the wagon train on its way to Nashville. Schofield did not even visit Cox during the day, so confident was he that Cox would, as always, perform his responsibilities effectively.

When John Bell Hood decided to attack frontally at Franklin, most generals on both sides were surprised. Cox too thought Hood would try to outflank the Union forces, but having seen Hood attack frequently on the Atlanta Campaign, he decided to set up a strong bulwark against a frontal attack. The only problem was that he had to leave a gap in the line for the wagon train and withdrawing troops.  He set up a second line behind the first in case Hood did in fact attack. When that happened and fleeing Union troops, with rebels just behind them, poured through the opening, Cox faced a major challenge. At that moment, everything he had fought for and all of the contributions he had made to the Union war effort were at risk.

In the book I wrote that it was at that moment that, for one of the few times in his life, Cox dropped his stoic veneer and became an emotional “warrior” – though even then in a controlled manner. He rode to the front, waving his sword and screaming at his men to meet the challenge. But he still was calm enough to, at one point, calm his nervous horse, which was bucking wildly because of the noise. The Union forces met the challenge, and Cox’s leadership was the critical element of their success.   He was the “unsung hero” of the Battle of Franklin.

Q. What were Cox’s most enduring contributions outside of the war? 

A. Cox was the ablest participant-historian of the Civil War, and his books and articles about the war are his enduring legacy. His two-volume Military Reminiscences, in particular, is frequently cited by modern Civil War historians not only because it is a primary source, but also because Cox has been shown to be a superb historian. His books on the Atlanta Campaign, on the Battle of Franklin, and on Sherman’s March to the Sea, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, and the North Carolina Campaign all have stood the test of time. His five articles in the Battles and Leaders of the Civil War volumes, as well as his 161 reviews of books for the Nation magazine from 1874-1900, are further evidence of the quality of his research and historical writing.

Q. Why didn’t Cox ultimately succeed in politics like some other well-known Ohioans?

A. When the war ended, most political observers would have said that Cox was someone whose rise to national political prominence was inevitable. He had a sterling war record, was one of the founders of the Ohio Republican Party, and had close friends in the national political and military leadership. Also, his home base of Ohio was important because that state was the home of five of the next six presidents, all of whom had war records (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley). When Cox was elected Governor of Ohio in 1865, he could have used that position as a springboard to be as Grant’s ultimate successor. (In fact Grant’s successor was Cox’s successor as governor, Rutherford B. Hayes).

Instead Cox’s established reputation as an uncompromising intellectual intent on speaking his own mind at all times proved to be his political downfall. He also lacked charisma and tended to give political speeches which were academic-oriented.  His first political problems came when he suggested in the Ohio campaign (in his famous “Oberlin Letter”) that a possible solution to the racial problems of the postwar South was the creation of a special area where blacks would be given special privileges and protected from white reaction. The practical politicians all told him to say nothing about the issue, but he insisted that he wanted to contribute to the national debate. The plan was considered too radical – even if the blacks would not be forced to go there – and political leaders now knew that Cox had a strong independent streak.

Then, as the division between Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republicans widened, Cox supported Johnson for some months, and then tried to play a peacemaking role between the two. He was soon seen as insufficiently “loyal” by both sides, and decided not to run for re-election. Finally, in 1870 Cox resigned from Grant’s Cabinet on another matter of principle, civil service reform, and became a leader of the Liberal Republican party. Its loss meant that whereas in 1865 his political future seemed wide open, by 1873, he was in permanent national political exile. He did serve one term in the House of Representatives, where he hoped to help implement the policies of his wartime subordinate, Rutherford B. Hayes, but again his stubborn commitment to principle and refusal to become a “practical politician” convinced him to leave politics.

In an introspective letter written to a friend in 1885, Cox said that he well knew that he had a golden political future in 1865, but that:

My experience of public life had probably been about as great as may come unsought to one who has stubbornness of opinion.  Enough, at best, to warrant me in thinking that I too could have cut a more prominent figure had I thought the game worth the candle…and so without disappointment or envy, regret or longing, I have been able to go my way thinking my own thoughts, advocating my own opinions, calling no mob master.

Q. How did Cox’s early Whig views influence his stance on issues like racial equality?

A. Cox’s first political affiliation was with the Whigs, which he joined just as it was undergoing its death throes in the early 1850s.  He joined the Whigs rather than the Free-Soilers, in great part because the former’s membership was representative of Anglo-Saxon elites with moderate views on slavery and its expansion. Despite Cox’s education at Oberlin College, he was not a radical on racial issues, though he was, of course, intensely anti-slavery.

Like other Whigs who joined the Republicans, he believed that blacks should be free, but that they would inevitably be second-class citizens. Unlike many Whigs, he didn’t support overseas colonization, but during the war he suggested in a letter that black soldiers who performed well might be given land in Texas which would be off-limits to whites. That idea was the germ of his proposal in the “Oberlin Letter.” Cox, who as a former divinity student and potential professor always wanted to stimulate intellectual thought, saw this as an attempt to stimulate a dialogue about possible solutions. His political friends, including Garfield, warned him not to do it, but his instinct was always to be “tutelary.” It was exactly the wrong approach at that point in his political career – he paid the price, but as noted above, he was always his own man.

Q. Are there any other Civil War books on the horizon?

A. Not for a while, if at all. I do have an article coming out in October in an Ohio history magazine, Timelines, about Cox’s near-miss at Antietam, when his forces, on the verge of taking Sharpsburg and breaking the Confederate right wing, were hit in the flank by A.P. Hill’s men and forced to halt their advance.

I also might do some articles about related topics from Cox’s life. One would be about his close friendship with Jack Casement, who was his subordinate during the war. Casement, who was the main builder of the Union Pacific Railroad, was Cox’s complete opposite in personality: brusque, abrasive, coarse, etc., but also, like Cox, a quintessential subordinate.   It was a friendship of complete opposites.
---------------------------
Thanks so much to Gene for taking the time to answer my questions. Cox is truly a fascinating subject for a biography, all the more so given his relative obscurity among Civil War generals!

Christmas 1864 in Washington City

Just as with Thanksgiving, I have been covering Christmas for each year of the Sesquicentennial. Over the past week, I've re-posed to Facebook my previous entries covering the first three Christmases of the war. Now we've at long last come to the final holiday season celebrated by a divided nation.

During the first winter of the war, Washington was surrounded by the sprawling camps of the Army of the Potomac. Soldiers talked longingly of home at Christmas, and many anxiously awaited their first encounter with the enemy in battle. By the end of 1862, this same army had experienced much carnage and scored few successes. Military hospitals lined the streets of Washington, and caring citizens mobilized to feed the sick and wounded. The following year, the inhabitants of the nation's capital celebrated the major Union victories of the past summer and fall. The press coverage was enthusiastic and hopeful. However, by Christmas 1864, the war had taken a tremendous toll in death and suffering. The papers describe a somewhat subdued holiday observance. Perhaps people were just a tad more jaded this year, after the bloodshed at places like the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, and the continuing grind of siege warfare before Petersburg. The end was drawing near, but it hadn't come just yet, and it couldn't come fast enough.

"Christmas Morning," Harper's Weekly, Dec. 31, 1864 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).

A "drizzling rain" fell on Sunday, December 25, and Washington's streets "were merged in mud." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.)  Despite the dreary weather, congregants filled the churches in the nation's capital. As the Daily National Republican reported:

The Episcopal and Catholic churches (as is their custom) were appropriately and beautifully decorated with festoons, garlands, and wreaths of evergreen, and the anniversary exercises in commemoration of the natal day of the Saviour of the World were of the most impressive character. In all of the churches choirs, rich in melody, chanted the praises of him whom the wise men of the East came to worship over eighteen hundred years ago, and at the announcement of whose birth the shepherds of Judea were astounded. 

With the religious community the day was one, therefore, of peculiar pleasure and satisfaction, for the pulpits were all occupied by eloquent and feeling divines, who, for the time, dropping sectarian and doctrinal feelings, plead the merits of the Savior. . . .(Dec. 27, 1864.)

The paper also made a few other observations about the holiday among the non-churchgoing crowd:

With the irreligious portion of the community, or those who did not attend church, the day was also a comparatively quiet one. There was no rowdyism upon the streets, but all was quiet and peaceable. True, guns, pistols, and "villainous gunpowder" in the shape of squibs and firecrackers were let off to the annoyance of some, but this was confined to a few localities, and the police and other authorities were indefatigable in their efforts to prevent the breach of Sabbath day order and propriety. (Dec. 27, 1864.)

As in years past, the patients in the city's military hospitals also took part in the holiday celebrations. At Campbell Hospital, the men sat down to "a table laden with turkeys, vegetables, sauces, preserves, jellies and a multitude of other eatables to which they did ample justice." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.) That evening, a social ball was held in the "gaily decorated" reading-room hall, "where "patients, officers and visitors mingled, and all enjoyed themselves to the fullest extent; the excellent band of the hospital adding largely to the pleasures of the occasion." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.)

"The Union Christmas Dinner," Harper's Weekly, Dec. 31, 1864 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net). As the newsweekly described the theme of the illustration: "Today, then, under the Christmas evergreen, the country asks only for peace, and breathes only good will to all men. Despite the sharp war, its bountiful feast is spread, It stands, as Mr. [Thomas] NAST represents in the large picture in today's Number, holding the door open to welcome the rebellious children back to the family banquet. It does not forget one of their crimes. It remembers the enormity of their attempt. It will take good care that the root of bitterness is destroyed forever, and that the peace of the household shall be henceforth secure. But it asks what it can command. It invites where it can enforce. It says now, as it has said from the beginning, 'Submit to the laws made by all for the common welfare, and there will be no more war.'"

At Stanton Hospital, the patients took dinner in the dining hall "beautifully decorated with evergreens, American flags and shields being displayed from prominent positions." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.) In the middle of the room "stood a large Christmas tree, tastefully trimmed, which attracted the attention of all present, and which many of the patients declared reminded them of Christmas times at home." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.)

At Lincoln Hospital, "an examination of the colored school (composed mostly of the children of the contraband laborers employed about the hospital. . .) took place in the presence of the parents and friends of the scholars, numbering about 100, and after its conclusion. . . each scholar received a Christmas gift of a cornucopia with candies. . . ." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.) Following a big Christmas dinner, an effigy of Jefferson Davis was lit on fire over the stove in plain view of the patients, "giving a vivid representation of the Union soldier's idea of the arch traitor's 'hereafter.'" (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 27, 1864.) According to the Evening Star, "[t]his affair caused great excitement and Jeff was groaned lustily, while many exclaimed 'Amen' to the doom foreshadowed to him." (Dec. 27, 1864.)

Presumably because Christmas fell on the Sabbath, Monday "was observed as the grand festival-day." (Wash. Daily Natl. Rep., Dec. 27, 1864.) That morning the residents of Washington awoke to the boom of a tremendous 300-gun salute at Franklin Square in honor of Gen. William T. Sherman's recent capture of Savannah. The rest of the day was a bit more low-key:

The prominent business places of the city were closed, no papers were issued during the day, and all gave themselves up to enjoyment. There was more shooting and more noise than upon the Sabbath, but all must acknowledge that it was one of the most quiet Christmas celebrations known here for a long time. There was but little intoxication and no serious brawls, and it is safe to assert that no city the size of Washington, and its mixed population, passed a more orderly holiday. (Wash. Daily Natl. Rep., Dec. 27, 1864.)

That evening, "social parties were given, and the theatres and other places of amusement were open, and the citizens and strangers gave themselves up to enjoyment." (Wash. Daily Natl. Rep., Dec. 27, 1864.)

Overall, Christmas 1864, despite the two-day holiday, seemed a bit subdued in the streets of Washington. Inhabitants of the war-weary capital attended services and headed to various performances around town, but if press reports shed any light, intoxicating beverages played a less prominent role! The patients at the military hospitals also enjoyed bountiful dinners and in-house entertainment, although without many of the high-profile guests who had attended in previous years. President Lincoln, for his part, had received a rather satisfying "Christmas gift" from General Sherman, and the news of the latest victory surely helped to boost spirits and engender hope that the Confederacy's fate would soon be sealed.

Last, but not least, I'd like to wish my readers a Very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Thanks for following the blog, and see you next year!

Sources

Washington Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1864; Washington Evening Star, Dec. 27, 1864).

Thanksgiving 1864 in Washington City

As Thanksgiving Day fast approaches, I wanted to take a look like I do every year at how the holiday was celebrated in and around Washington during the Civil War. For each year of the Sesquicentennial I've been concentrating on Thanksgiving at the corresponding time 150 years ago. It's hard to believe that we have at long last come to the final Thanksgiving of the Civil War. In a year, the war would be over, and the long process of reunion and reconstruction begun. But in 1864, Sherman was on the march in Georgia, Grant was dug in before Petersburg, and Lincoln had just won reelection. The nation gathered around the table on November 24, hopeful that the bloodshed would soon end and peace would return to the land.

Like other places around the country, Washington City greeted Thanksgiving with enthusiasm. The Washington Evening Star provided readers with an overview of the holiday in the nation's capital:

Yesterday, the day designated by President Lincoln as a day of Thanksgiving, was very generally observed. Public offices, banks and places of business were closed, and the people set themselves to a hearty observance of the day, not forgetting to pay due attention to that estimable feature of the occasion, the Thanksgiving Dinner, which sent up its appetizing odor throughout the length and breath of the city. The weather was just the thing for thanksgiving day purposes, with a mild crispness, not cold, but cool enough to be bracing, and to make it pleasant to gather about the glowing fire and the smoking board at nightfall. (Nov. 25, 1864.)

The papers in particular discussed the Thanksgiving celebrations at the military hospitals in Washington, which were decorated for the occasion with patriotic banners and festive greenery. Convalescing soldiers feasted on a full Thanksgiving dinner thanks to the generosity of public and private donors. The menu for 500 patients at Armory Square Hospital was typical:

Roast beef, roast veal, boiled ham, roast turkey, roast goose, chicken pie, cranberry sauce, cranberry tart, apple pie, mixed cakes, jellies, smoked beef, bologna sausage, bread, butter, celery, oyster stew, oysters raw, cheese, crackers, ice cream, baked rock fish, boiled cod fish, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, [cole] slaw, picked cucumbers, pickled beets, apples, almonds, raisins, figs, coffee, tea, cocoa. (Wash. Daily Natl. Rep., Nov. 25, 1864.)

Other hospitals across the city served similar feasts, but "the non-receipt of the poultry" at the Quartermaster's Hospital caused a postponement of the holiday until Saturday! (Wash. Even. Star, Nov. 25, 1864.)

"United We Stand," Harper's Weekly, Dec. 3, 1864, by Thomas Nast (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net). The newsweekly offered some words of thanks: "THE American people have this year such reason as they never had before to give humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God. . . . First of all by a singular unanimity the people have resolved that the authority of their Government and the order of civil society shall be maintained, and have expressed their will by the re-election of the President whose name is identified with the defense of the Union and the perpetuity of the American principle. . . . They thank God that the great State of Maryland, torn by civil war, has deliberately renounced the system from which all our woes have sprung, and has led the march of the Slave States in the path of equal liberty and justice, the way of permanent peace. . . . They thank God that the defeat of rebels and the consternation of foreign foes foretell the triumph from which peace and prosperity shall flow."

Following dinner, the patients enjoyed speeches, musical entertainment, and dancing late into the night. At Campbell Hospital, Gov. Oliver Morton of Indiana paid a visit. According to the Daily National Republican, the governor, "with his characteristic good nature, yielded to the pressing demands of the company, and, curing a pause in the dance, addressed them in a brief speech, full of patriotic wisdom and fervor." (Nov. 25, 1864.) The patients and guests  "were most enthusiastic in their praise of this gallant champion of the good cause, and gained new enthusiasm from this eloquent appeals," so much so that the dancing last until 11. (Nov. 25, 1864.)

"Thanksgiving-Day in the Army. After Dinner: The Wish-Bone," Harper's Weekly, Dec. 3, 1864, by Winslow Homer (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).

On November 25, the Daily National Republican offered the following editorial to readers recovering from Thanksgiving Day excesses:

Second only to the American eagle is that other great American bird, the turkey. How many of the latter were laid upon the altar of their country yesterday we can state only approximately. Sheridan's army had turkey dinners, the armies of the Potomac and the James feasted on turkeys, and the soldiers in our hospitals had turkey to right of them, turkey to left of them. The gallants tars of the navy received cargoes of turkeys, which were duly stowed away under their hatches.

Sherman's brave boys probably dined upon sweet potatoes and spring pork, commonly called "shoat,"in the southern plantations. Sherman being beyond the reach of the Commissions and State Agencies, is obliged to forge upon a country where turkies (as well as the American eagle) are scarce, and his men are themselves "gobblers" about this time, unless they have been gobbled by the rebs. This last supposition has but little probability, however, for Sherman's army would make too heavy a meal for rebel digestion.

The soldiers in the camps and in the hospitals of the military department of Washington, fared sumptuously. . . and our citizens enjoyed the festival in their own houses with the unusual zest, after having duly attended service in the churches. Turkies were rather high, but "the goose" was higher, and the American Eagle soared above all. (Nov. 25, 1864.)

After a fully satisfying day of rest and celebration, the busy work of the nation's capital would resume in earnest. There was unfinished business to conduct; a war to be won. And as much as the citizens of Washington City had to be thankful for in 1864, they would have even more blessings to count in a year's time.

On a personal note, I'd like to wish all of my readers a Happy Thanksgiving! Enjoy the good times with family and friends, eat plenty of turkey, and see you in December.

Sources

Washington Daily National Republican,Nov. 25, 1864; Washington Evening Star, Nov. 25, 1864.

A Few Book Reviews

Publishing companies often contact Civil War bloggers to review their latest and greatest works on the nation's bloodiest conflict.  I enjoy seeing what's new in the world of Civil War publishing and welcome the opportunity to get the most recent releases.  And who am I to turn down a free book?  Of course, the books come with strings attached since I am supposed to write a review or at least spread the word.  Given how busy I am outside of my Civil War pursuits, I barely have enough time to read the books that I buy, let alone receive on a complimentary basis.  That being said, when I get a noteworthy book from a publisher, I like to follow through and write a review.  In today's post, I take a long overdue look at a couple of books that publishers have sent my way.

The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War by Margaret E. Wagner, Little, Brown and Company (2011): I'll admit it. I am a sucker for so-called coffee table books. As an avid bibliophile, I like to acquire, admire, and display attractive books. My collection naturally focuses on the Civil War. From the moment I received the The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War, I was hooked. The richly illustrated book, which marches through the war on an almost daily basis, draws from the extensive archives at the Library of Congress. More than a mere recitation of the war's chronology, the book offers a visual feast on each and every page. The author has chosen a striking array of photographs, engravings, maps, drawings, and other illustrations. Readers will find the usual suspects, but the book also contains a myriad of rare and previously unpublished images. The text, although necessarily concise, also benefits from a thoughtful use of quotations from primary source documents. 

E.B. Long's classic work, The Civil War Day by Day, presents a more comprehensive, in-depth chronology of the war than the Library of Congress book.  Wagner sometimes overlooks events, including aspects of the war in Northern Virginia during the second half of 1861 and the start of 1862.  Her book also skips entire days.  But the Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War more than compensates for these shortcomings with the quality of the writing and illustrations.  Long's massive book, although more detailed and better suited to research, is less captivating by comparison.  The Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War is the kind of book to browse through casually and enjoy.  Think of it as a printed companion to the Sesquicentennial, particularly for those with less knowledge on the history of the war.  All told, The Library of Congress Illustrated Timeline of the Civil War is a valuable, and handsome, addition to the world of Civil War reference books.  And it doesn't look bad on a coffee table either.

The Iron Way: Railroads, the Civil War, and the Making of Modern America by William G. Thomas, Yale University Press (2011):  This year I promised myself that I would read more about the economic and social history of the Civil War.  Being a bit of a train buff, I also wanted to dig a little deeper into the subject of railroads and the war.  The Iron Way was a perfect place to start.  William G. Thomas, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, offers a sweeping and ground-breaking examination of railroads before, during, and after the Civil War.  He combines strong scholarship with a thoroughly readable style.  The book, incidentally, is paired with an excellent digital history project, Railroads and the Making of Modern America.

Thomas shows just how critical railroads were to regional identities in the antebellum period and dispels old myths about the South as an economic backwater. In fact, the region was building and expanding railroad networks at a rapid pace during the 1850s. Rail penetration continued to grow and in many instances approached the level in the Northern states. Thomas explains just how intimately connected slavery was to this spectacular development. Companies bought and rented slaves to help construct and maintain railroads. Ironically, the technological progress brought by the railroads also ensured the very survival and perpetuation of the peculiar institution. So much for the argument that modernization would lead to the demise of slavery. Meanwhile, the North's own views about free labor and the advance of American civilization were tied up with the expansion of the railroads to the West.

As the war descended on the country, railroads naturally played a pivotal role.  They transported troops and moved supplies.  But the railroads also served as avenues of destruction and violence.  Thomas explores the growth of irregular warfare along the rail corridors throughout the South as men like John Mosby and John Morgan targeted Union supply lines and the soldiers protecting them.  This fighting became increasingly brutal and contributed to the ruin of the very rail infrastructure that the South had built before the war.  Thomas's interpretation is a valuable addition to the current body of scholarship on guerrilla warfare as popularized in Donald Sutherland's A Savage Conflict.

Thomas also focuses on the evolution in strategic thinking about the railroads.  Both sides had to figure out how to assimilate the new technology and create what Thomas calls a "railroad generalship."  George B. McClellan, however unfairly, is singled out for his failure to grasp the importance of railroads during his 1862 Peninsula Campaign.  By contrast, Stonewall Jackson ranks among the military leaders who clearly understood the role that railroads could play in winning the war. 

Thomas reserves his highest praise for William T. Sherman, who mastered the art of railroad generalship.  The greater part of an entire chapter examines how Sherman incorporated the railroad into his campaign to take Atlanta and beyond.  As Thomas writes, "[t]he maneuvers were carefully planned reconfigurations of the southern landscape, aimed at crippling railroad networks and severing southern communities from one another."  (p. 157.)  The March to the Sea, moreover, "was another, even more elaborate maneuver to control the Confederacy's network of railroads."  (p. 158.)  The Union's successful application of railroad generalship resulted in the destruction of track, bridges, and other infrastructure throughout the South.  Ironically enough -- in a book filled with irony -- the Union military in Georgia and elsewhere helped to put the railroads back together again during and after the war.

Thomas shows convincingly that the railroads also played a key part in the African-American struggle for emancipation and civil rights.  Before the war even started, fugitive slaves like Frederick Douglas were riding the rails northward to freedom.  During the war, contrabands flocked to the Union lines around railroad centers.  Here the escaped slaves could find work on the rails or enlist in the Union Army.  In the post-war South, racists sought to undermine black advances and imposed segregation on the railroads.  Thomas tells the story of a brave African-American wash woman, Catherine Brown, who successfully challenged such segregation in court, but her story was the exception and not the rule.
 
The Iron Way amazingly covers a lot of ground in only 274 pages of text and endnotes. If you are looking for a purely military study on railroad strategy and tactics in the Civil War, or a history of the U.S. Military Railroads, Thomas's book is not the one for you.  However, for those readers seeking a comprehensive account of the social, economic, and military importance of railroads in the Civil War era, Thomas has put together a definitive work that will set a standard for years to come.

McDowell and Civilians in Northern Virginia: Trying to Do the Right Thing (Part II)

As I discussed earlier this week, by the middle of July 1861 Federal commander Irvin McDowell had already taken several measures to protect civilians in Northern Virginia from the impact of war.  McDowell's orders reflected a conciliationist approach towards non-combatants, but not all men in the ranks shared his view.  As the Union Army prepared to move on the Confederate position near Manassas, the raw, undisciplined recruits would put McDowell's policy to the test.

The Union Army left camp in and around Washington on July 16, 1861 and headed into the heart of Northern Virginia.  During their march over the next couple of days, the Union soldiers grew increasingly unrestrained.  Colonel William T. Sherman commanded the men in his brigade to respect private property and refrain from foraging, but to no avail.  Volunteers ignored his orders, questioned his authority, and took whatever they pleased.  According to one account, Sherman reprimanded a Wisconsin solider for stealing mutton.  The solider countered that he was hungry and asserted that "it was rebel mutton, anyhow."  Sherman arrested the soldier; the mutton, however, was cooked and served to Sherman's staff at mealtime.  (William C. Davis, Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War, p. 96 (1981 ed.); Ethan S. Rafuse, A Single Grand Victory: The First Campaign and Battle of Manassas, p. 85 (2002).)

Meanwhile, some soldiers resorted to more drastic forms of pillage.  In Vienna, Federal troops in Brigadier General Daniel Tyler's division ransacked a grocery store that belonged to an alleged secessionist.  The ringleaders were Ohio boys who may have been motivated by a desire to avenge the Confederate attack on their fellow Ohioans in Vienna the month before.  Sergeant Dan Littlefield of the 3rd Michigan "did not think it was right to steal and destroy private property in that manner."  He worried that "if we go through the country that way, many would join the southern [sic] army that otherwise would not."  (excerpted in Steve Soper, The "Glorious Old Third": A History of the Third Michigan Infantry, 1855 to 1927, Ch. 9 (2007).)  McDowell would have agreed.

General William T. Sherman, later in the Civil War (courtesy of Library of Congress).  On the march to Manassas, Sherman tried in vain to keep his soldiers under control.

Around midday on July 17, Colonel David Hunter's division entered Fairfax Court House without a fight.  The soldiers found that the Confederates had abandoned the town and put a torch to a few buildings before retreating.  Some Union troops raised a flag over the courthouse, and then things rapidly deteriorated.  As an ashamed regimental chaplain wrote the following year:

I am sorry to say, that the occupation of Fairfax by our troops was marked, in some instances, by pillage and destruction. Several unoccupied houses were forcibly entered, their furniture injured or smashed to pieces, and many articles stolen and carried away. There was no reason for such wilful destruction of property, and there was no excuse for it. It left enemies behind us, when we might have secured friends. Men, who would have scorned to do such a thing at home, seemed eager and more than ready to lay their hands upon what was not their own. Many things were taken which could not possibly be carried upon the march, and which were thrown aside the next morning, and left upon the road. There was such an element of meanness and of cowardice in all this, that I could not help condemning it then, and I condemn it now. There is some glory in winning a trophy in a fair fight. But the appropriation of private property in a defenceless town, is nothing better than theft. It does not rise even to the dignity of burglary, for that requires a certain amount of courage. (Augustus Woodbury, A Narrative of the Campaign of the First Rhode Island Regiment, in the Spring and Summer of 1861, p. 82 (1862).)

Wartime photo of Fairfax Court House (courtesy of Library of Congress).  Advancing Union troops looted the county seat on July 17, 1861.

Around the same time, Federal soldiers under General Tyler, including Sherman's men, marched into the hamlet of Germantown.  As William Lusk of the 79th New York wrote to his mother, "soon the soldiers were ransacking the houses for food, destroying and burning what they could not use themselves."  However, he was "happy to say the boys in my company had little hand in these doings, as such paltry work finds little countenance from its officers." (William Thompson Lusk, War Letters of William Thompson Lusk, p. 52 (1911).)  A few bad seeds decided to burn down the village, and before long, Germantown was in flames.  

The 69th New York came upon one of the burning houses.  Major Thomas F. Meagher of the 69th, future leader of the Irish Brigade, disavowed any involvement by his men and condemned this spiteful act.  He wrote:

Whose was the scurvy and malignant hand that fired the deserted homestead? It is for the regiments of the Brigade, in advance of the 69th to answer. With them rests the responsibility of this savage riotousness and mischief. The house was doomed irrevocably when the 69th came up. The Irish regiment swept by the blazing ruin, cursing the ruffians who had played the barbarous prank, and maddened with the thought of the disgrace it would bring on the Federal Flag. (Thomas F. Meagher, "The Last Days of the 69th in Virginia," in Michael Cavanaugh, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher, p. 393 (1892).)

McDowell witnessed what his men had done at Fairfax Court House.  He was angered by the behavior of his men and their blatant disregard for his orders to respect civilian property in Northern Virginia. On July 18, McDowell dashed off General Orders No. 18 (OR, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp, 743-44), in which he began:

It is with the deepest mortification the general commanding finds it necessary to reiterate his orders for the preservation of the property of the inhabitant of the district occupied by the troops under his command.

Hardly had we arrived at this place when, to the horror of every right-minded person, several houses were broken open and others were in flames by the act of some of those who, it has been the boast of the loyal, came here to protect the oppressed and free the country from the domination of a hated party.

He followed with a dose of guilt and shame:

The property of this people is at the mercy of troops who we right-fully say are the most intelligent, best-educated, and most law-abiding of any that were ever under arms. But do not, therefore, the acts of yesterday cast the deeper stain upon them? 

It has been claimed by some that their particular corps were not disgraced. This is of but little moment; since the individuals are not found out, we are all alike disgraced.

McDowell adopted measures to stop further acts of plunder and destruction, and reiterated his previous order to protect the civil liberties of the local inhabitants:

Commanders of regiments will select a commissioned officer as regimental provost-marshal, and ten men as a permanent police force under him whose special and sole duty it shall be to preserve the property from depredation, and arrest all wag-doers, of whatever regiment or corps they may be. Any one found committing the slightest depredations, killing pigs or poultry, or trespassing on the property of the inhabitants, will be reported to headquarters, and the least that will be done to them will be to send them to the Alexandria jail. 

It is again ordered that no one shall arrest or attempt to arrest any citizen not in arms at this time, or search or attempt to search any house, or even to enter the same, without permission.

McDowell concluded:

The troops must behave themselves with as much forebearance and propriety as if they were at their own homes.  They are here to fight the enemies of the country, not to judge and punish the unarmed and helpless, however guilty they may be.  When necessary, that will be done by the proper persons.

The commander once again proved his commitment to a policy of conciliation, and we know that at least some Federal volunteers like Lusk, Meagher, and Woodbury were more than likely pleased with the renewed effort to impose discipline.  In any event, the army was soon on the march again, and within a few days it engaged the Confederates on the battlefield of Bull Run.  The war was going to be a long one after all, and as the months turned into years, McDowell's early attempts to restrain his troops and protect civilian property looked almost quaint. Unfortunately for the residents of Northern Virginia, the war and Union occupation would mar the countryside and transform everyday life, and the Bull Run Campaign was just the beginning.