Circa1865

The following is a glimpse of the Debates in the House of Representatives of the US during the First Session of the Fourth Congress, Part II, upon the subject of the British Treaty. Members of the House, especially those of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were surprised that compensation for the loss of slaves by Americans during the war was not within the document. The following was written by William Renwick Riddell of Toronto, September 24, 1927.

Post-Revolution Dispute over Slaves

When Britain accepted the Treaty, Washington proclaimed it on February 2, 1796, and sent a copy to both Senate and House.

In reading these debates I was struck by the prominence given to the claims for Negroes taken away [by the British] in 1783 and earlier. This was not one of the matters as to which [negotiator] John Jay was instructed to be insistent . . . But the greatest number of protests in the House were concerning these Negroes.

Mr. Maclay of Pennsylvania, on April 14, gave as his first objection to the treaty “that it did not provide for the loss of the Negroes” (p.34). Mr. S. Lyman of Massachusetts thought that Jay should have told the British Minister at the very first interview: “You have carried off our Negroes” (p.52).

Mr. Nicholas of Virginia complained that “of the Negroes [carried off by British troops] nothing is said in the present Treaty. Some Representatives, like Mr. Hillhouse of Connecticut, thought “Negroes, horses and other property were . . . placed on the same footing and that it was as much a violation of the Treaty to carry away a horse as a Negro.” He asked, “will any man say after reviewing the circumstances, that the 7^th Article was meant to secure the restitution of Negroes and other property taken in the course of the War?”

Mr. Findley of Pennsylvania considered that “the claim for recompense for Negroes was as strong as that for the recovery of British debts and as equitable (p.177).” Mr. Holland of North Carolina thought it strange that in things that were self-evident, there should be so great a difference of opinion and that the war-emancipated Negroes should be returned to their former masters in America (p.99). Mr. Gallatin of Pennsylvania agreed and said that the British ministry had agreed to this interpretation during Mr. Adma’s embassy, but the American ‘negotiator (Jay) had for the sake of peace waived that claim.

At his day we might ask ourselves, what would be thought of the United States if they had sent back South . . . the slaves emancipated by Lincoln? In the end, for the sake of peace Britain in 1826 paid $1,204, 960 for those slaves taken, though none were returned to the US.”

(Great Britain, Canada and the Negro. Journal of Negro History, Carter G. Woodson, ed., Vol. XIII, No. 2, April 1928. pp. 188-180)

A bronze equestrian monument of Maj. Gen. John F. Hartranft stands majestically outside the capitol building at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This memorial still stands today despite Hartranft waging war against Americans in the South who fought for political independence as did their ancestors in 1776. Under the Constitution Hartranft swore fealty to, Article III, Section 3 is clear regarding treason as waging war against a State.

After the death of Lincoln, Hartranft served as a special provost marshal during the show trial and predictable convictions, including that of Mary Surratt. He afterward personally led these Americans to the gallows in early July 1865.  In 1872 he became governor of Pennsylvania governor and won a second term in 1876 despite being accused of bribing leaders of the Molly Maguires to induce members to vote for him.

Monument to a War Hero Politician

Just prior to the battle of First Manassas in July 1861, the enlistment period of then-Col. Hartranft’s Pennsylvania regiment had expired, and they returned home. Assigned as an aide to another command during the battle, he was unsuccessful in his attempt to stem the wholesale retreat of Northern soldiers. For this latter action Hartranft was to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1886.

In April 1862, Hartranft was colonel of the 51^st PA regiment during Gen. Burnside’s invasion of North Carolina’s Outer Banks. The resulting occupation of the islands and afterward New Bern was marked by the wholesale looting and pillaging of businesses and civilians.

In May 1863, Hartranft’s 51^st Pennsylvania Regiment was near Jackson, Mississippi as Grant approached Vicksburg. At that time, the Lieber Code which would govern the conduct of northern armies in the field was being promulgated – it forbade the waging of war against innocent civilians.

At Jackson, one of Hartranft’s officers later wrote in 1866 of the 51^st Pennsylvania troops who “broke ranks and ransacked the town of Jackson for tobacco, whiskey and valuables . . . Grocery, dry goods, hat, shoe, millinery and drug stores were broken open and “cleaned out” of every vestige of their contents: private dwellings entered and plundered of money, jewelry and all else of any value were carried off; crockery, chinaware, pianos, furniture, etc., were smashed to atoms; hogsheads of sugar rolled into the street and heads knocked in and contents spilled . . . and soon some very splendid buildings were reduced to ashes.”

The writer continues: “As the 51^st Pennsylvania Regiment was marching out [of town] it made quite a ludicrous appearance, for the men were clad in female attire, some with hats having crowns a foot high, some with masks on, shawls, frock skirts, with crinoline all over instead of underneath . . . marching with bonnet and bandboxes in their hands.

They were followed by the colored females, screaming with delight and begging the “Yankees” to “gib us dat bonnit,” and “Massa, do please gib me dat frock.” By the time they reached their destination the colored ladies were in possession of nearly every particle of female wear which the men had stolen.”

(History of the Fifty-first Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers. Thomas H. Parker, King & Baird, Printers, 1869, pp. 85; 363-365).

Gen. Robert E. Lee authorized leaflets sent to his adversaries encouraging desertions to his lines, parole and safe passage northward – thus preventing the soldier from being conscripted at home. Forced to draft unwilling northern men which produced riots, Lincoln found that greenback bounty money lured many but created another problem in the form of paid substitutes and bounty-jumping.

Gen. Grant admitted in late 1864 of receiving perhaps one effective soldier out of five sent, and among whom existed many bounty-jumpers seeking another opportunity to desert and reenlist in another State for its bounty.

Deserters and Bounty Jumpers

“A scrutiny of Union desertion by States reveals the largest actual numbers from New York with 44,913; from Pennsylvania with 24,050; from Ohio with 18,354; from New Jersey with the startling figure of 8,468; and from little Rhode Island with 1,384 to its credit.

The figures for several of the Border States prove interesting: notably, Maryland which produced 5,328 deserters; Tennessee which furnished 3,690; Kentucky which yielded 7,227; and Arkansas, which contributed 2,245. Likewise, Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa, where there was considerable disaffection with the war, rank relatively high in desertions in proportion to their population.

Usually, the recorded statements of specific instances of desertion, whether in Union of Confederate reports, show the slipping away of individuals or of small groups, varying from five to sixteen or twenty. At Pittsburgh, complaint was made that more than 300 men from two Pennsylvania regiments had absented themselves since their muster; from an Illinois regiment at Cairo, Illinois more than 700 men had deserted; 347 soldiers succeeded in making their escape from another Illinois regiment places at Memphis.

There were also cases of considerable bodies of soldiers departing. One conspicuous case savored of open mutiny as some 400 draftees departed from the forts around Washington on the 29^th of August 1864. They continued in a body with arms until they had secured civilian clothes, and then scattered in all directions.

A Confederate officer reported in January 1863 that he had gathered from the army opposing him some 2,000 deserters, with many others were seeking an opportunity to surrender in order to be paroled.”

(Desertions During the Civil War. Ella Lonn. University of Nebraska Press, 1998, pg. 152-153. (original American Historical Association, 1928)

The author below records that when Gen. Hooker took command of the Army of the Potomac in late-Jan. 1863, desertions were occurring at a rate of several hundred a day – with about 25 per cent of his assumed strength missing. Senator Henry Wilson stated on the Senate floor in March 1864 that some 40,000 soldiers had already deserted despite executions occurring almost daily in that army.

Northern Desertions, 1863

“Perhaps Lee and the commanders in the South saw with the eyes of the Union scout who wrote from Virginia on November 20, 1862, that desertions form Union lines were so frequent as to be disgusting to Southerners as well.

It is about this time that Lincoln recognized and presented the situation in realistic terms. He pointed out to a group of women calling upon him that while Gen. McClellan was constantly calling for more and more troops, that deserters and furloughed men outnumbered the new recruits; and that while that general had 180,000 men on the rolls for the Antietam battle, he had had only some 90,000 with which to enter the fight, as 20,000 men were in hospitals and the rest “absent,” and that within two hours after the battle, some 30,000 had straggled and deserted.

Northern General Pope in September of that year had reported the straggling as so bad that unless something were done to restore tone to the army, it would “melt away before you know it.”

No less a figure than Gen. Halleck charged that not a few Northern soldiers voluntarily surrendered to the enemy in order to be paroled as prisoners of war. Even the vigilance of escorts and guards was materially affected by the alluring thought that captivity meant liberty and relaxation. Many Northern soldiers, according to Generals Meade and McClellan, dispersed and left during the Antietam battle.

Every Northern defeat was marked by a long line of stragglers and deserters, who, if the outcome had been different, would probably have remained to press on the advantage. And the number absent without leave in late December 1862, after Gen. Burnside’s disaster at Fredericksburg, worsened the losses and the demoralization of Lincoln’s army was complete.”

(Desertions During the Civil War. Ella Lonn. University of Nebraska Press, 1998, pg. 144-145. (original American Historical Association, 1928)

Before condemning the American South for its use of African labor in its agricultural production, one must first highlight the roles of the African tribes who sold their own people into slavery. One must add to this the Portuguese, Spanish, British and French – and later New Englanders who conducted the transatlantic slave trade. Below, prominent Wilmington attorney and Attorney General of the Confederate States, lamented postwar the inauguration of slavery into Carolina by British Colonial Governor Yeamans.

A Most Portentous Event

“We draw a veil over the sad scenes enacted there, but we recall the fact that it was not until after the slave traders of the North had received full value of their human merchandise from their Southern brethren that our neighbors began to realize the enormity of the institution of slavery.

With reference to the introduction of slavery into Carolina by the Colonial Governor John Yeamans, from Barbados in 1671, the late George Davis said:

‘This seems to be a simple announcement of a very commonplace fact; but it was the little cloud no bigger than a man’s hand. It was the most portentous event of all our early history. For Yeaman’s carried with him from Barbados his negro slaves; and that was the first introduction of African slavery into Carolina. (Bancroft, V2, p. 170; Rivers, p169.)

If, as he sat by the camp-fire in that lonely Southern wilderness, Yeamans could have gazed with prophetic vision down the vista of two hundred years, and seem the stormy and tragic end of that which he was then so quietly inaugurating the beginning, must he not have exclaimed to Ophelia, as she beheld the wreck of her heart’s young love:

“ ‘O, woe is me! To have seen what I have seen, see what I see’”!

(Tales and Traditions of the Lower Cape Fear, 1661-1896. James Sprunt. LeGwin Brothers, Printers & Publishers, 1896.

The following is noted as “a summary of the report made by Tyler to Virginia Gov. Letcher on his return from Washington. The text of this report, with the letters passing between Tyler & Buchanan, was published in the Richmond Daily Dispatch, February 1861.”     The fortress was built to protect Virginia, not wage war upon it.

American Citizens Targeted

“Tyler left Washington on January 29 with the expectation of returning to the Washington Peace Convention, which was to assemble on February 4. On the day before leaving, he sent another letter to President James Buchanan, in lieu of a call which other engagements prevented. In this letter he expressed appreciation of the courtesies that had been shown him and pleasure at hearing the President’s message read in the Senate.

Tyler’s letter also spoke of a rumor that at Fortress Monroe the cannon had been put on the landward side and pointed inland. His comment of this report was “that when Virginia is making every possible effort to redeem and save the Union, it is seemingly ungenerous to cannon leveled at here bosom.”

To this letter Buchanan sent a very courteous reply, stating that he would inquire into the rumors with reference to Fortress Monroe’s cannon.”

(John Tyler, Champion of the Old South. Oliver Perry Chitwood. American Political Biography Press, 1939 – pg. 438)

It is said that England in 1861 ran twice as many spindles as all other countries combined, with Lancashire at the center. The London Times editorial of September 19, 1861, stated that one-fifth of the entire British population was held to be dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the prosperity of Southern cotton, which accounted for 80 percent of the total English importation of raw cotton. Additional cotton was sent north to the busy cotton mills of Lowell, Massachusetts.

And it cannot be forgotten that it was Massachusetts tinkerer Eli Whitney who brought forth the cotton gin. This invention replaced the slow method of pulling seeds by hand, increased cotton crop yield and helped perpetuate African slavery in America.

Cotton for the North and England

“For ten years past whenever Southern threats of secession had been indulged in, the writers and politicians of that section had expanded upon cotton as the one great wealth-producing industry of America and as the one produce which would compel European acquiescence in American policy, whether of the union, before 1860, or if the South, if she should decide upon independence.”

A writer in DeBow’s Review declared “the South annually throws upon the world for the poor & the naked, [and] we are doing more to advance civilization . . . than all the canting philanthropists of New England & Old England will do in centuries. Slavery is the backbone of the Northern commercial as it is of the British manufacturing system . . .”

Before the Civil War was underway Charles Greville wrote to Clarendon: “Any war will be almost sure to interfere with [the South’s) cotton crops, and this is really what affects us and what we care about. With all our virulent abuse of slavery and slave-owners, and our continual self-laudation on that subject, we are just as anxious for, and as much interested in, the prosperity of the slavery interest in the Southern States, as the Caribbean, as the Carolinian and Georgian planters themselves, and all Lancashire would deplore a successful insurrection of the slaves [by northern abolitionists], if such a thing were possible.”

(Great Britain and the American Civil War. Volume II. Ephraim Douglass Adams. Alpha Editions, 2018 (original 1924), pp. 300-301)

Yankee Deserters

“The rigor of treating Yankee deserters as prisoners of war appears to have relaxed during the winter of 1862-1863 when so large a number of them had accumulated in the military prisons that the Secretary of War gave instructions to allow such of them as were willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Confederate States of America, and then to permit them to seek work where it could be found.

Accordingly, a number were employed by a director of the Tredegar Works at Richmond, who forwarded them to labor in Rockbridge County, Virginia, where their presence duly alarmed the Confederate House of Representatives.

Somewhat more than a year later, in June 1864, an enrolling officer attempted to conscript some Yankee deserters, who, under an oath of neutrality, preferable to an oath of allegiance as it could not be broken by conscription, had secured work near Salisbury, North Carolina, where their conduct had been unexceptional, against the protest of the captain commanding the post.

The War Department, as consistency demanded, discharged the men as protected by their oath of neutrality. But at the same time there were deserters from the northern army who preferred to be treated as prisoners of war.

Beginning with the middle of 1862 a distinct effort was made by Confederate State authorities to encourage desertion from the north’s armies. It was at first directed to the inhabitants of Tennessee in the hope of detaching the State from northern strength to at least neutrality.

General Lee was not mistaken in believing that the Confederacy’s offer of stimulating deserters with release to the north – many printed in German – so that they may spread the story of kind treatment from Southerners.

Grant admitted in a statement that bounty and substitute men had been deserting immediately upon their arrival at the front to take advantage of the Confederacy’s offer to send them through the lines. The Richmond papers on September 4, 1864, announced that several hundred Federal deserters had already availed themselves of the offer and were waiting to be sent north. It may possibly have affected several thousand soldiers all told.

(Desertion During the Civil War, Ella Lonn. Bison Books, 1998 (original 1928). pp. 184-185; 190-191)

The Washington Peace Conference was urged on by Southern States as a last-ditch effort to salvage political union with the north through compromise – and they could rightly be referred to as the true “Unionists.” Working against Southern efforts for peace was Lincoln, who feared any compromise would weaken his minority party and limit his power.

Party Above Union

Early in the session (February 7^th) the Washington Peace Conference paid its respects to the outgoing President James Buchanan as a body. The members were received in the East Room of the White House and presented to the Buchanan by former-President John Tyler.

A similar courtesy was extended to Lincoln when he arrived in Washington on February 23^rd. As Tyler presented several distinguished delegates to him, Lincoln made brief comments, some of which were of a jocular character. His humor, however, was not particularly happy and hardly in keeping with the occasion. It may be said that Lincoln was using this method to ward off any embarrassing questions that might be asked. If this were his object, he was successful, as no commitments were made.

The strained amenities and the simulated courtesies exchanged between the ex-President and the President-elect were in the nature of a little drama typifying the end of one era and the beginning of another. Or, it might be regarded as a pleasing, trivial curtain raiser to that awful tragedy that marked the transition from the Second to the Third Republic. For the Second Republic was soon to undergo the pangs of death and the Third Republic to experience the painful throes of birth.

There was also the striking contrast in the personalities of the two men. In the case of Lincoln, tradition has so exaggerated his virtues and covered up his faults that one of the most human characters in history has been idealized into a demigod. With Tyler, on the other hand, his virtues have been so minimized and defects so magnified that the reputation of a refined and well-meaning gentleman has been handed down to us as that of a wicked renegade.”

(John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Oliver Perry Chitwood. American Political Biography Press. 1939, pp. 448-449)

The political development of the United States has passed through three stages since independence from England. The stages are characterized as those of the First Republic (1776-1789); the Second Republic (1789-1861); and the Third Republic (since 1861).

Lincoln’s Great Blunder

“Former-President John Tyler wrote his wife the day after Virginia’s withdrawal from the 1789 Constitution.

“The die is cast and Virginia’s future is in the hands of the god of battle.” The contest will be one full of peril, but “there is a spirit abroad in Virginia which cannot be crushed until the life of the last man is trampled out. The numbers opposed to us are immense; but twelve thousand Grecians conquered the whole power of Xerxes [Darius] at Marathon, and our fathers, a mere handful, overcame the enormous power of Great Britain. Do, dearest, live as frugally as possible in the household, – trying times are before us.”

Tyler regarded the conflict between the North and the South as a great blunder, the chief blame for which must be laid at the door of Lincoln. For by reinforcing Fort Sumter, he had brought on a clash which could have been avoided. Lincoln had made the terrible mistake of “having weighed in the scales the value of a mere local fort against the value of the Union itself.” He even accused the new president of acting not from patriotic motives but from a desire to consolidate behind him his faction of the Republican party.

The South, he implied, was justified in its attack on Fort Sumter. “If the Confederate States have their own flag, is anyone so stupid as to suppose that they will suffer the flag of England or France or of the northern States to float over the ramparts in place of their own?

As Tyler believed in the sovereignty of the States, he considered that under existing circumstances secession was legal and coercion revolutionary. The breakup of the union was not caused by the secession of the South but by the nullification practiced by the North. The latter section’s disregard of the fugitive slave law, its rejection of decision of the United States Supreme Court, and the commission of other unconstitutional acts had really destroyed the union of 1789. If there was any rebellion involved in this dissolution of the partnership, the “rebels” were not the Southerners, but the Northerners.

For the former had been true to the principles of the Constitution and the latter had violated them. The North had thus pulled down the house and the South had only left its ruins.”

(John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Oliver Perry Chitwood. American Political Biography Press. 1939, pp. 455-456)