Bounty Brokers, Substitutes, and the Frauds of Northern Free Labor: A Facebook Live Stream

Dr. Brian Luskey, Associate Professor of History and Director of Graduate Studies at West Virginia University, will join CWI Director Dr. Peter Carmichael and John Heckman (The Tattooed Historian) this Thursday, May 7th at 7:00pm for a Facebook Live stream. Dr. Luskey will be discussing his new book Men Is Cheap: Exposing the Frauds of Free Labor in Civil War America (University of North Carolina Press, 2020).

Earlier this year, Dr. Luskey answered some questions about his new book ahead of our (now cancelled) summer conference: Speaker Interview: Soldier of Fortune: A Union Army Recruiter and His Impressment Scandal Dr. Luskey has also provided a primary source document to read ahead of the stream. LuskeyDoc1LuskeyDoc2

 

 

Does tactical history matter? A Facebook Live stream

Dr. Andrew Bledsoe (Lee University) will join Dr. Peter Carmichael (Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College) and John Heckman (The Tattooed Historian) to share some thoughts on tactical/ military history and the Civil War. The livestream will be this Thursday April 23rd at 7:00PM. The stream will concurrently take place on bot the Facebook pages of the Tattooed Historian and the Civil War Institute.

Dr. Bledsoe is the author of Citizen-Officers: The Union and Confederate Junior Officer Corps in the American Civil War (LSU Press, 2015) and co-edited Upon the Fields of Battle: Essays On The Military History of The American Civil War. Dr. Bledsoe has graciously shared with our Compiler readers an article he wrote on the future of military history for The Journal of the Civil War Era. The article is available here.

 

Prison Escapes in the Civil War: A Facebook Live Stream Event

Dr. Angela Zombek, Assistant Professor of History at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, will join CWI Director Dr. Peter Carmichael and John Heckman (The Tattooed Historian) to discuss Civil War prison camp escapes. The livestream will take place on Monday, April 20th at 7pm EST. The livestream will happen concurrently on the Tattooed Historian’s Facebook page and the Civil War Institute’s Facebook page.

Dr. Zombek is the author of “Penitentiaries, Punishment, and Military Prisons: Familiar Responses to an Extraordinary Crisis during the American Civil War” (Kent State, 2018) and has provided a primary source that will be discussed during the livestream. This newspaper article comes from the December 5, 1863 edition of the Portsmouth Daily Times (Portsmouth, Ohio).

Zombek

 

 

Interpreting Chamberlain at Little Round Top : A Facebook Live discussion with Ranger Chris Gwinn

Please join the Civil War Institute and The Tattooed Historian for another Facebook Live discussion! Dr. Carmichael and John Heckman will be joined by Chris Gwinn, a 2006 graduate of Gettysburg College and current Chief of Interpretation and Education at Gettysburg National Military Park. The stream will happen on both the CWI’s Facebook page and The Tattooed Historian’s Facebook page this Monday, April 13th at 7:00pm and will last for approximately an hour.  The conversation will focus on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the interpretation of the fighting at Little Round Top.

The primary source for this discussion is Chamberlain’s report filed after the battle. Read the document and brainstorm some questions you would like to ask our historians! If you cannot make the livestream, tag the CWI in your questions and maybe they will be discussed during the stream, which will be available for playback on our social media.

For those who wish to print the document, it is available as a pdf here.

Headquarters 20th Maine Vols

Field near Gettysburg, Pa.

July 6th, 1863

Lieut,

In compliance with orders from Brigade Hd. Qrs. I have the honor to submit the following report of the part taken by the 20th Regt. Maine Vols in the action of July 2d and 3d near Gettysburg, Pa.

On reaching the field about 4 p.m. July 2d, col Vincent commanding the Brigade, placing me on the left of the Brigade and consequently on the extreme left of our entire line of battle, instructed me that the enemy were expected shortly to make a desperate attempt to turn our left flank, and the position assigned to me must be held at every hazard.

I established my line on the crest of a small spur of a rocky and wooded hill, and set out at once a company of skirmishers on my left to guard against surprise on that unprotected flank.

These dispositions were scarcely made when the attack commenced, and the right of the Regt. found itself at once hotly engaged. Almost from the same moment, from a high rock which gave me a full view of the enemy, I perceived a heavy force in rear of their principal line, moving rapidly but stealthily toward our left, with the intention, as I judged, of gaining our rear unperceived. Without betraying our peril to any but one of two officers, I had the right wing move by the left flank, taking intervals of a pace or two, according to the shelter afforded by rocks or trees, extending so as to over the whole front then engaged; and at the same time moved the left wing to the left and rear, making a large angle at the color, which was now brought up to the front where our left had first rested.

This hazardous maneuver was so admirably executed by my men that our fire was not materially slackened in front, and the enemy gained no advantage there, while the left wing in the mean time had formed a solid and steady line in a direction to meet the expected assault. We were not a moment too soon; for the enemy having gained their desired point of attack came to a front, and rushed forward with an impetuosity which showed their sanguine expectations. Their astonishment however was evident, when emerging from their cover, they met instead of an unsuspecting flank, a firm and steady front. A strong fire opened at once from both sides, and with great effect – the enemy still advancing until they came within ten paces of our line, when our steady and telling volleys brought them to a stand. From that moment began a struggle fierce and bloody beyond any that I witnessed, and which lasted in all its fury, a full hour. The two lines met, and broke and mingled in the chock. At times I saw around me more of the enemy than of my own men. The edge of conflict swayed to and fro – now one now the other party holding the contested ground. Three times our line was forced back, but only to rally and repulse the enemy. As often as the enemy’s line was broken and routed, a new line was unmasked, which advanced with fresh vigor. Our “sixty rounds” were rapidly reduced; I sent several messengers to the rear for ammunition, and also for reinforcements. In the mean time we seized the opportunity of a momentary lull to gather ammunition and more serviceable arms, from the dead and dying on the field. With these we met the enemy’s last and fiercest assault. Their own rifles and their own bullets were turned against them. In the midst of this struggle, our ammunition utterly failed. The enemy were close upon us with a fresh line, pouring on us a terrible fire. Half the left wing already lay on the field. Although I had brought two companies from the right for its support, it was now scarcely more than a skirmish line. The heroic energy of my officers could avail no more. Our gallant line withered and shrunk before the fire it could not repel. It was too evident – we could maintain the defensive no longer. As a last desperate resort, I ordered a charge. The word “fix bayonets” flew from man to man. The click of the steel seemed to give new zeal to all. The men dashed forward with a shout. The two wings came into one line again, and extending to the left, and at the same time wheeling to the right, the whole regiment nearly described a half circle, the left passing over the space of half a mile, while the right kept within the support if the 83rd Penna. Thus leaving no chance of escape to the enemy except to climb the steep side of the mountain or to pass by the whole front of the 83rd Penna. The enemy’s first line scarcely tried to run – they stood amazed, threw down their loaded arms and surrendered in whole companies. Those in the rear had more time and gave us more trouble. My skirmishing company threw itself upon the enemy’s flank behind a stone wall, and their effective fire added to the enemy’s confusion. In this charge we captured three hundred and sixty eight prisoners, many of them officers, and took three hundred stand of arms. The prisoners were from four different regiments, and admitted they had attacked with a brigade.

At this time Col. Rice commanding the Brigade (Col. Vincent having been mortally wounded) brought up strong support from General Crawford’s command, and 3,000 rounds of ammunition. The wounded and the prisoners were now sent to the rear, and our dead gathered and laid side by side.

Shortly after Col. Rice desired me to advance and take the high steep hill, called “Wolf Hill” or “Round Top” half a mile or more to our left and front, where the enemy had assembled on their repulse – a position which commanded ours in case the assault should be renewed.

It was then dusk. The men worn out, and heated and thirsty – almost beyond endurance. Many had sunk down and fallen asleep the instant the halt was ordered. But at the command they cheerfully formed their lines once more, and the little handful of men went up the hill, scarcely expecting to ever return. The order not to disclose our numbers – as I had now but two hundred guns – and to avoid bringing on any argument in which I was sure to be overpowered. I forbid my men to fire, and trusted to the bayonet alone. Throwing out two small detachments on each flank, we rushed straight up the hill. The darkness favored us, concealing our force and preventing the enemy from getting range so that their volleys went over our heads, while – they deemed it prudent to retire before us. Just at the crest we found more serious difficulty and were obliged to fall back for a short time. We advanced again with new energy, which the knowledge of our isolated and perilous position rendered perhaps desperate, and carried the desired point. We took twenty-five prisoners in this movement, among them some of the Staff of Genl. Laws. From these officers I learned that Hood’s whole division was massed but a short distance in front, had just prepared to advance and take possession of the heights, and was only waiting to ascertain the number and position of our force. I posted my command among the rocks along the crest in line of battle, and sent two companies in charge of judicious officers to reconnoiter the ground in front. They reported a large body of enemy in a ravine not more than two to three hundred yards distant. I therefore kept these two companies out, with orders to watch the enemy, while our main line, kept on the alert by occasional volleys from below, held its position among the rocks throughout the night. In the meantime the 83d Penn and the 5th and 12th Penna Reserves came up and formed as a support. The next day at noon we were relieved by the 1st Brigade.

We were engaged with Laws’ Brigade, Hood’s Div. The prisoners represented themselves as from the 15th and 47th Alabama and the 4th and 5th Texas Regts. The whole number of prisoners taken by us is three hundred and ninety three – of arms captured three hundred stand. At least one hundred fifty of the enemy’s killed and wounded were found in front of our first line of battle.

We went into the fight with three hundred and fifty eight guns. Every pioneer and musician who could carry a musket was armed and engaged. Our loss is one hundred and thirty six killed, one hundred and five wounded – many mortally – and one taken prisoner in the night advance. Often as our line was broken and pierced by the enemy, there is not a man to be reported “missing”.

I have to report the loss of a gallant young officer, Lt. W.S. Kendall, who fell in the charge. Also Capt. C.W. Billings mortally wounded early in the action, and Liet. A.N. Linscott mortally wounded on the crest of “Wolf Hill.” Our advantage was dearly bought with the loss of such admirable officers as these.

As for the conduct of my officers and men, I will let the result speak for them. If I were to mention any I might do injustice by omitting some equally deserving. Our role of honor is the three hundred eighty officers and men who fought at Gettysburg.

My thanks are due the 83 Penna, Capt. Woodman, Comdg. for their steady and gallant support, and I would particularly acknowledge the service of Adjt. Gifford of that Regt. who exposed himself to the severest fire to render me aid.

Very respectfully

Your obed. Servt.

J.L. Chamberlain

Col. 20th Maine Vols.

“Coming Apart at the Seams” : A Facebook Live Discussion

CWI Director Dr. Peter Carmichael, John Heckman (aka the Tattooed Historian) and CWI Fellow Cameron Sauers ’21 will be leading a discussion on Facebook Live this Thursday, April 9th at 7pm. The stream will be available on both the CWI’s Facebook, as well as The Tattooed Historian’s Facebook page. The trio will discuss the diary of Louisiana planter Kate Stone and the symbolic power of clothing in the Civil War South. We have attached an excerpt from Stone’s diary below so that viewers can join in on the discussion. We invite you to be a part of the discussion by sharing your comments and questions during the stream.  If you can’t be with us live,  send the Civil War Institute your questions on social media! (The livestream will be available for playback on our social media if you are unable to join us live or want to rewatch it).

Sarah Katherine "Kate" Stone
Kate Stone in an undated image. (Wikimedia Commons)

The following is an excerpt from the diary of Kate Stone, the 20 year old daughter of one Louisiana’s richest planter families. For those who wish to print the document, the excerpt is available as a PDF here

April 25 1863 “We walked in [to a neighbor’s house] and found Mrs. Hardison and the children all much excited and very angry, with flaming cheeks and flashing eyes. The Negroes had been very impertinent. The first armed Negroes they had ever seen. Just as were seated someone called out the Yankees were coming again. It was too late to run. All we could do was to shut ourselves up together in one room, hoping they would not come in. George Richards was on the gallery. In a minute we heard the gate open and shut, rough hoarse voices, a volley of oaths, and then a cry, “Shoot him, curse him! Shoot him! Get out of the way so I can get him.” Looking out of the window, we saw three fiendish-looking, black Negroes standing around George Richards, two with their guns leveled and almost touching his breast. He was deathly pale but did not move. We thought he would be killed instantly, and I shut my eyes that I might not see it. But after a few words from George, which we could not hear, and another volley of curses, they lowered their guns and rushed into the house “to look for guns” they said, but only to rob and terrorize us. The Negroes were completely armed and there was no white man with them. We heard them ranging all through the house, cursing and laughing, and breaking things open.

Directly one came bursting into our room, a big black wretch, with the most insolent swagger, talking all the time in a most insulting manner. He went through all the drawers and wardrobe taking anything he fancied, all the time with a cocked pistol in his hand. Cursing and making the most awful threats against Mr. Hardison if they ever caught him, he lounged up to the bed where the baby was sleeping. Raising the bar, he started to take the child, saying he waved the pistol “I ought to kill him. He may grow up to be a jarilla. Kill Him.” Mrs Hardison sprang to his side, snatched the baby up, and shrieked, “Don’t kill my baby. Don’t kill him.” The Negro turned away with a laugh and came over where I was sitting with Little Sister crouched close to me holding my hand. He came right up to us standing on the hem of my dress while he looked me slowly over, gesticulating and snapping his pistol. He stood there about a minute, I suppose. It seemed to me an age. I felt like I should die should he touch me. I did not look up or move, and Little Sister was as still as if petrified. [emphasis added] In an instant more he turned away with a most diabolic laugh, gathered up his plunder, and went out. I was never so frightened in my life. Mrs. Hardison said we were both as white as marble, and she was sure I would faint. What a wave of thankfulness swept over us when he went out and slammed the door. In the meanwhile, the other Negroes were rummaging the house, ransacking it from top to bottom….

Stone, Kate. Brokenburn : The Journal of Kate Stone : 1861-1865. Edited by John Q. Anderson. (Baton Rouge : Lousiania State Press, 1995), 195- 196.

 

Speaker Interview: Soldier of Fortune: A Union Army Recruiter and His Impressment Scandal

By: Dr. Ashley Whitehead Luskey

Brian Luskey is associate professor of history at West Virginia University, where he teaches nineteenth-century American history. He is the author of On the Make: Clerks and the Quest for Capital in Nineteenth-Century America (New York University Press, 2010), the co-editor of Capitalism by Gaslight: Illuminating the Economy of Nineteenth-Century America with Wendy A. Woloson (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), and the co-author of “Muster: Inspecting Material Cultures of the Civil War” with Jason Phillips, in Civil War History 63, no. 2 (June 2017). His most recent book, Men Is Cheap: Exposing the Frauds of Free Labor in Civil War America, will be published by UNC Press in spring 2020.

Luskey headshot

CWI: How does your book challenge the idea that the war was just about Union and emancipation?

Luskey: Historians agree that many northerners had come to believe, by late 1862, that the emancipation of enslaved people would help undermine the Confederate economy, society, and war effort. Republicans and even some Democrats believed that emancipation was a “military necessity” that would preserve the Union. My book suggests that we also need to appreciate the ways white northern employers framed the war aims of Union and emancipation in relation to a concept I refer to as “domestic necessity.” White northerners fought the war for Union to seize the fruits of free labor ideology that included employers’ ability to hire workers of their choice. The emancipation of enslaved people provided the northern states and northern employers access to economically vulnerable workers whom they could hire cheaply as soldiers and domestic servants. In Men Is Cheap, I examine the process through which former slaves (and others) were moved by the army and northern benevolent societies to the homes of eager Yankee employers. Northerners believed in free labor, slave emancipation, and accumulating profits because these things reinforced each other. The wartime doctrines of military and domestic necessity were linked in white northerners’ minds and illuminate what they thought the war for Union was over. In the process of winning that war, white northerners were able to assert the prerogatives of employers to amass principal through the labor of their workers as much as they realized the principle of abolition.

Recruiting tent
Recruiting tent: Recruiting for the war–scene at the recruiting tents in the park, New York. Frank Leslie’s illustrated newspaper, 1864, March 19, p. 404, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

 

CWI: You write about underground economies. What do you mean by that phrase, and what does this tell us about the relationship between the military and the home front?

Luskey: It’s not a phrase I use in the book, but it’s a concept that encompasses a number of economic transactions that Civil War Era Americans (as well as some historians) considered illicit, illegitimate, and marginal to the functioning of the economy as a whole. Actually, these “underground” economies were vital to the mainstream economy, and the project of defining them as “underground” economies was often initiated by economic actors who wanted to obscure their own misdeeds. The employment agencies I discuss were colloquially called “intelligence offices” in reference to the information about the labor market that was available within. Proprietors charged fees to workers and employers for access to that information, and both parties often felt cheated when intelligence office keepers did not find them good jobs or hard-working employees. The intelligence office keeper represented for many Americans the dangers of fraud in the labor market and the economy more generally. And yet, during the war for Union, white northerners depended upon labor brokers to assist in moving soldiers, former slaves, Confederate deserters, and substitutes for drafted men at their direction and for their benefit. The war, and the movements of armies it unleashed, made it possible for labor brokers to do their work. The ways the war forced people to move, coupled with brokers’ nefarious reputation, permitted employers to hire workers of their choice and obscure their own self-interest by casting brokers as the truly shady characters in the labor market. The work of labor brokers was indispensable for winning the war, helped move the workers necessary to add to the respectability and refinement of northern households, and shaped a cultural process through which certain economic practices came to be labeled legitimate and illegitimate.

bounty brokers
Bounty brokers: War views. No. 2042, Bounty brokers looking out for substitutes, New York : Published by E. & H.T. Anthony & Co., American and Foreign Stereoscopic Emporium, 501 Broadway, [between 1865 and 1869], Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
CWI: You have exposed widespread fraud and coercion with the impressment of Union soldiers. How did this occur and what does this reveal to us about Northern motivations during the war?

Luskey: The title of my book comes from the lamentation of a substitute broker who was not able to clear off enough profit in the wage labor market. Substitute brokerage, as historians have shown, was a business rife with deceptive practices. The Enrollment Act passed in 1863, designed to augment the manpower of Union military forces to crush the rebellion, included a clause allowing drafted men to hire substitutes to serve in their place. Especially in the final months of the war, substitute brokers cornered this new and anonymous labor market by connecting drafted men with strangers for high fees. What made these brokers notorious was that many also skimmed hundreds and thousands of dollars from unsuspecting enlisted men. Northerners condemned the brokers for their fraud. These men had sought to profit personally in their nation’s time of need. They stood opposite the virtuous citizen-soldiery who put their lives on the line to save the Union. Yet the brokers and the bounty jumpers they often employed were not the only people looking to profit from these provisions of the Enrollment Act. Substitutes and their wives hoped to accrue capital from drafted men who were increasingly forced to pay higher and higher prices for their services. These exorbitant wages would help substitutes’ families survive in a competitive economy that limited their access to resources. The fraud of substitute brokers, like the war itself, made wage earners vulnerable to exploitation and demonstrated how the conflict unmade the promise of free labor for working people. Yet drafted men could claim that they were not to blame for the brokers’ fraud, even as they employed other men to do the work of killing and dying for them.

Interpreting the Abraham Bryan Farm

By : Cameron Sauers

CWI Fellow Cameron Sauers ’21 tells the story of the Abraham Bryan farm on the Gettysburg battlefield. Bryan, a free African American, owned a portion of the land that Johnston Pettigrew’s men would make their July 3rd assault on. After the war and Bryan’s death, Union and Confederate veterans would shake hands over the stone wall on Bryan’s property. Cameron explores the paradoxes of the “High Water Mark of the Confederacy” and reconciliation happening on the land of a free black man at one of the most famous Civil War battlefields.

Speaker Interview: Northern Women at War

By Dr. Ashley Whitehead Luskey

Nina Silber is an award-winning teacher at Boston University where she teaches in both the department of history and the program in American and New England Studies. Her research and teaching have focused mainly on issues related to historical memory, gender, and the Civil War. A recipient of numerous awards – including fellowships from the Fulbright Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Harvard University’s Warren Center – Professor Silber has also published works that have helped to expand the scholarly horizons in the study of the Civil War. Among her most important publications are: The Romance of Reunion: Northerners and the South, 1865-1900 (1993); Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War (1992); Daughters of the Union: Northern Women Fight the Civil War (2005); and, most recently, This War Ain’t Over: Fighting the Civil War in New Deal America (2019). Professor Silber has also worked in the field of public history, consulting on projects with the Gettysburg National Military Park, the History Channel, and the National Park Service.  She currently serves as president of the Society of Civil War Historians.

Silber
Dr. Nina Silber (Boston University)

CWI: The crisis of the Civil War was clearly disruptive to the Northern home front when men left to join the Union armies. What were the expectations in the North for how women would factor into the war for the Union in 1861? Did these expectations shift during the course of the war? How did the war affect traditional gender roles in the North?

Silber: Unlike Confederates, who went to war to protect their homes and families, Northern men spoke explicitly about putting the fight for the country above the fight for home. Confederates, for example, said things like this: “We are fighting for matters real and tangible, our property and our homes.” In contrast, one Union soldier told his wife: “My duties to my country are of more importance now than my duty to you.” That’s a very different kind of sentiment. And I think that language reflected certain assumptions about women and gender: That Northern men expected women to fend for themselves, even doing chores (at least temporarily) that men normally carried out. One soldier from Iowa said precisely that to his wife: That she should “take hold and do for thyself and use thy own judgment about matters”. In other words, he urged her to become more self-sufficient, while Confederate men emphasized male protection and authority.

The one shift I noticed, mid-way into the war, was the way Northern men, perhaps because the war was not going well, urged women to show even greater patriotism and sacrifice than before. Women, I think, were increasingly becoming a convenient scape goat: Men were connecting their military failures to women supposedly failing to do their part, yet there’s not really any evidence to back that up. If anything, evidence points to active participation on women’s part, especially in procuring supplies for soldiers, sending aid packages to the front, and sponsoring fairs that raised significant funds for Union troops.

filling-cartridges LOC
Some women took up new jobs outside the home to assist the Union war effort and supplement their household income. Such jobs included the dangerous task of working with munitions and filling black powder cartridges, as depicted in this image of female employees at the U.S. Arsenal in Watertown, MA. (Image courtesy Library of Congress)

CWI: How did Northern women respond to these changes? Were women more willing, or even eager, to push these boundaries and move out of their traditional domestic sphere? Did their responses to wartime changes depend on certain external factors, such as their geographic region; socioeconomic status; or the type of work they took on?

Silber: Women often had no choice but to assert the kind of self-sufficiency that some Union soldiers expected. They often did take on new responsibilities – from going to work in factories to doing men’s jobs on farms (e.g., chopping wood; harvesting crops; bringing produce to market). Some moved in with other family members (their own or their in-laws) to relieve some of the financial and physical burdens. Still, I don’t think women usually did these new chores with a sense of liberation. Indeed, many were often frustrated when they discovered how little they knew of the work men did: Debts that may have been owed or even the overall state of the family’s finances. Additionally, I think many simply felt overwhelmed by how much was expected of them during the war. Many couldn’t wait until their husbands came home so they could turn those “male” responsibilities back to them.

One exception to this may have been the kind of pride and ownership many women demonstrated when it came to their heightened political involvement: They became invested in partisan struggles, supported specific candidates, and learned as much as they could about the political and military struggles of the moment. Recognizing how critical women’s input was to the challenges at hand, one Connecticut woman wrote a letter to her husband in which she asked “why don’t they let the soldiers’ wives vote” while the soldiers are away.

Working class women faced added difficulties in losing the regular income of husbands and fathers. Some of those women found jobs – for example sewing uniforms or making other military supplies – but because they often worked for sub-contractors, not directly for the US government, their pay was exceedingly low.   In some towns and cities, officials pledged relief money for struggling families, although women often had to wade through a considerable bureaucratic apparatus to procure this assistance. Increasing numbers of families, having no other means of support, found themselves turning to almshouses in these years.

Treasury
The U.S. Treasury in Washington, D.C. hired increasing numbers of women to help produce currency and serve as clerks over the course of the Civil War—a trend that continued even after the war years through the end of the 19th century. (Image courtesy U.S. Treasury Department)

CWI: Did the impact of wartime changes on gender roles extend beyond the war? What happened to the women who became wage earners or participants in politics or nurses? Did their engagement in wartime activism end when the conflict ended? Where do most Northern women find themselves in the late 1860s?

Silber: Some things changed, and others did not. Many women who went to work in factories lost those jobs when the war ended; there simply wasn’t the need for the kinds of factory jobs women had occupied– in arsenals or in workshops that made uniforms or blankets or tents. In the nursing field, there was a growing acknowledgement of nursing as a profession, something which required precise and scientific training. Nursing schools – which admitted women – opened up in the postwar years.

Other women, those who had been politically active for causes like abolitionism and women’s suffrage, continued the campaign for suffrage and also for protecting the rights of freed people after the war ended. There was, however, considerable disagreement about how to prioritize those campaigns with some, including many African American women, ranking the struggle for black men’s suffrage and civil rights for African Americans as more important than winning votes for all women. Other women’s rights activists chose a different path: Refusing to support the fifteenth amendment – which granted black men the right to vote – they sought to build a new campaign focused solely on gaining the vote for women, a campaign that increasingly put white women at the center.

Women7
“They Brought in Their Dead and Wounded on Hay Wagons.” Public mourning became an all-too-common ritual for many women during the Civil War whose personal grief became synonymous with patriotic suffering and sacrifice. (Image courtesy Library of Virginia)

 

 

 

Private William W. Halloway, Co E., 21st Maine

By Wesley Cline

During the Fall of 2019, a handful of first-year Gettysburg College students traveled down to the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. to conduct primary source research into a group of Civil War soldiers whose “dog tags” now reside in the collections of the Texas Civil War Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. This post is the third in a short series highlighting the stories of the men who wore these unique identification tags into battle.  For a short history of military identification tags, or “dog tags,” check out Savannah Labbe’s (’18)  2016 article on the evolution of the dog tag.

   Many thanks to Ray Richie, President of the Texas Civil War Museum, for his generosity in sharing these fascinating items from the museum’s collection with our students!

HallowayDogTag
Halloway’s identification ring on display at the Texas Civil War Museum

On October 13, 1862, William Halloway enlisted for a nine-month term in the 21st Maine Infantry regiment at age 34. After mustering at Augusta, the regiment marched to New Jersey and would eventually arrive by transport ship in New Orleans on January 31st, 1863. The Confederate city had fallen into Union hands the previous May. Shortly after they had disembarked, the 21st Maine proceeded to march in the direction of Baton Rouge, arriving on February 3rd, 1863. No doubt feeling warmer than he was used to in Maine, William Halloway spent the remainder of the month of February in Louisiana, peacefully serving in Company E as a private.

On March 7th, the regiment would “see the elephant,” conducting actions against Port Hudson along the Mississippi River. On March 20th, the regiment returned to Baton Rouge where it remained in the coming months, awaiting the likely order to begin assaults against Port Hudson.

That order would come on May 20th, with General Nathaniel P. Banks directing his army, including the 21st Maine, to advance towards the heavily fortified port to prepare for an attack concurrent with General Ulysses S. Grant’s assault on Vicksburg, just up the river. This action was intended to be the final Union offensive on the Mississippi River. However, not all went according to plan. Just one day after beginning its march, the 21st and the rest of the 19th Corps would encounter Confederate forces in what became known as the Battle of Plains Store, which ultimately forced the Confederates back into their defenses and cut off the 19th Corps’ retreat route. The Maine men would proceed to join over 30,000 other Federal troops, including former slaves fighting in multiple United States Colored Troops (USCT) units, in laying siege to Vicksburg and its surrounding ports and defenses.

The 21st would take part in an ill-fated assault of May 27th against the Confederate positions spanning their entire defensive line that would result in almost 2,000 Union dead, many of whom lost their lives in the ironically named “Slaughter’s Field.” Despite this setback, the Union 19th Corps remained in position, ready to again advance against the port’s earthworks. That opportunity came on June 14th, but would end in absolute disaster: The Confederate defenders inflicted over 1,800 casualties on the Union forces while themselves sustaining less than two hundred deaths. Port Hudson would hold out until Vicksburg fell on July 4th, 1863; without the major Confederate stronghold upriver in Vicksburg, Port Hudson served no practical purpose. The regiment lost 1 officer and 26 enlisted men killed and mortally wounded, and 1 officer and 144 enlisted men from disease. The 21st was sent home on July 24th, and officially mustered out on August 25th.

It is unknown if William Halloway participated in any of this fighting, as he is reported to have been diagnosed with rheumatism on May 20th, the very day the 21st began to advance towards Port Hudson. If Halloway was indeed absent from the ranks, his rheumatism ultimately may have spared his life during the spring of 1863.

Despite the war continuing for another two years, William Halloway did not reenlist after the expiration of his 9-month term that July. On April 25th, 1880, he died at 52 years old. It is possible that the rheumatism from his service had permanently damaged his body, leading to his untimely death. He left behind his wife, Larehta and his four daughters. At the time of his death, his youngest daughter was just under ten years old.

 

Sources:

National Park Service- Battle Details of the 21st Maine

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=UME0021RI

The American Civil War- The Battle of Port Hudson

https://www.americancivilwar101.com/battles/630521-port-hudson.html

American Battlefield Trust- Port Hudson

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/port-hudson

css.php