USA > Washington DC > Washington DC > Centennial history of the city of Washington, D. C. With full outline of the natural advantages, accounts of the Indian tribes, selection of the site, founding of the city to the present time > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79
Major - General Winfield Scott arrived in Washington, October 13, 1814. On that day the following officers captured at Bladensburg were released on their parole: Joshua Barney, commander of the United States flotilla; John Reagan, lieutenant of militia; Samuel Miller, captain of marine corps; Dominick Bader, captain of militia; G. Von Harter, lieutenant of militia; Robert M. Hamilton, master in United States navy; Thomas Duketant, acting master; Jesse Huffington, sailing master; Davidson Robertson, acting midshipman; John M. Howland, Fifth Regiment Baltimore Volunteers; J. B. Mar- tin, surgeon, besides forty-one privates captured at Bladensburg and twenty-six captured at Baltimore.
But little of interest occurred in Washington after the battle of Bladensburg and the capture of the city, until the famous victory of General Jackson at New Orleans, January 8, 1815. The news of this victory reached Washington February 4, and in the evening of that day, which was Saturday, a general illumination of the city occurred in honor of the event. Rumors of peace were abroad in the city on February 13, and on the 14th the treaty of Ghent, signed on the 24th of December preceding, fifteen days before the victory at New Orleans, was delivered by Mr. Henry Carroll to the Secretary of State, and laid before the Senate of the United States on the 15th; and on Saturday night, February 18, 1815, there was a general illumination of the city and a grand celebration in honor of the peace secured by that treaty, which had been ratified by the Senate that day.
The next war in which Washington was engaged, in common with the rest of the country, was that with Mexico, brought on by
230
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
politicians favoring the extension of slavery in order that the balance of power between the Slave States and the Free States might be maintained as nearly equal as possible. The details connected with the origin of this war have been so well presented in numerous histories that it is not deemed necessary to attempt to present them here. It may not be amiss, however, to call attention to the faet that two methods of annexation of the State of Texas to the Union attracted widespread attention, and were of universal interest to the American people in connection with this movement, -the one by treaty, the other by joint resolution of Congress. President Tyler negotiated a treaty with Texas for her annexation, which was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 35 to 16. According to Hon. Thomas H. Benton, who, with great power and vehemence, opposed the pur- poses and methods of the war, the rejection of this treaty postponed the war two years, and if the wisdom and patriotism of the Senate had had any influence with the executive department of the Gov- ernment, there would have been no war with Mexico, and Texas would at the same time have been annexed.
Besides annexation by treaty there was but one other method by which that end could be peacefully accomplished, and that was by joint resolution. So far as Mexico was concerned, it would make but little or no difference as to the method by which her territory was procured, provided it were a peaceful one; but to the United States the question of method was all-important. To annex Texas by treaty would be to treat with that republic as an independent power or nation; and after annexation was accomplished she would seem to be always in a position of observing the treaty or not, as she might choose; and of pretending that the provisions of the treaty had been violated by the United States, whether such violation had or had not occurred; and by such pretense she would at any future time be able to influence her people to favor the abrogation of the treaty on their part; or, in other words, to secede from the Union. While on the other hand, if the whole matter were referred to the law-making power of the Government, instead of to the treaty- making power, as would be the case if Texas were invited to assume the position of a Territory of the Union, and then be admitted as a State, as had been all the other States, by the consent of Congress, she would become a member of an indissoluble Union, and would thereby become powerless to peacefully secede.
In accordance with this view a joint resolution, introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Douglas, December 23, 1844, for
231
MILITARY HISTORY.
the annexation of Texas to the United States, "in conformity with the treaty of 1803 for the purchase of Louisiana," after a stormy debate, was passed, January 25, 1845, by a vote of 120 to 98. In the Senate the resolution was so amended on motion of Mr. Benton as to gain his support and that of one other Senator, and then passed by a vote of 27 yeas to 25 nays. The next day, February 28, as amended, it passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 132 to 76. The Congress somewhat marred its work by adding to the joint resolution what ivas and is known as the " Walker Amendment," by which the President was authorized to set it aside and to proceed to "agree on the terms of admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Congress," which part of the amendment was perhaps, however, offset by the provision in the amendment itself, that the Republic of Texas " shall be admitted into the Union by virtue of this act on an equal footing with the existing States," etc. But the President, notwithstanding his predilection for the method by treaty, having on the 2d of March approved the legislation embodied in the joint resolution, chose to set aside the Walker Amendment, and on the next day, the last of his term of office, knowing that Congress did not intend to entrust him with the discretionary power, sent one of his relatives, a Mr. Waggaman, as an express to hasten to communicate to the Republic of Texas that he, as President of the United States, had made his election as to the alternative contained in the Walker Amendment looking to the admission of Texas into the Union, and that he had chosen the alternative by joint resolution. The proposition as thus submitted by President Tyler was accepted by Texas through her Congress and a convention, so that Texas was finally admitted into the Union under the authority of the joint resolution, and thus assumed a position as a part of the United States precisely similar to that maintained by each of the other States, and without any right to secede.
The assumption by President Tyler of the right to choose the alternative method of procedure effectually committed President Polk to the method thus chosen, especially as the Senate, on March 10, laid on the table by a vote of 23 to 20 a resolution introduced by Mr. Ber- rien, of Georgia, to the effect that the President would best conform to the provisions of the Constitution by resorting to the treaty-making power, for the purpose of accomplishing the objects of the joint reso- lution. But had President Polk attempted to secure the consent of Mexico to the annexation of Texas, and had he been satisfied with
232
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
the proper boundaries of that republic, it is altogether probable that peaceful annexation would have been the result; but it appears perfectly clear to the student of the history of the entire movement that it was continuously the purpose of President Polk's administra- tion to add very largely, if not as largely as possible, to the area of the United States. In pursuance of this policy President Polk, while carrying on a quasi negotiation with the President of Mexico for the settlement of the whole subject in dispute, gave orders on January 13, 1846, to General Taylor to proceed to the Rio Grande. General Taylor received these orders on February 4, left Corpus Christi on the 8th, and arrived at Matamoras on the 28th of that month. Inasmuch as at that time the Neuces, and not the Rio Grande, was the recog- nized boundary of Texas, the march of General Taylor's army to the Rio Grande was an invasion of Mexican territory, and was so consid- ered by that country. As an act of invasion it was the real cause of the war, and drew from Mexico a declaration of war. On April 4, 1846, the Government of Mexico sent an order to General Arista to attack the forces of General Taylor with all the force at his command. The war thus having been brought on by the invasion of Mexican territory and by the consequent declaration of war by Mexico, the Congress of the United States, on May 12 following, declared that "by the act of the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists between that Government and the United States," and on the next day President Polk issued his proclamation to the American people, informing them of the fact of war, and of its declaration by Congress, and exhorting them, "as they love their country, as they feel the wrongs which have forced on them the last resort of injured nations, and as they consult as to the best means under Divine Providence of abridging its calami- ties, to exert themselves in observing order, in promoting concord, in maintaining the authority and the efficacy of the laws, and in sup- porting all the measures which might be adopted by the constituted authorities for obtaining a speedy, just, and honorable peace."
Thus, after the war had been in existence for more than two months by the action of the army under the orders of the President, without any necessity and without any justification, was the Congress brought to its sanction, and to the giving of a false reason for the part it took, by the declaration that war existed "by the act of the Republic of Mexico."
In pursuance of a call issued a few days before, a large and respectable meeting was held at the City Hall, May 15, 1846, which, on motion, was temporarily organized by the election as chairman of
233
MILITARY HISTORY.
Major Malay. Major Malay, after a speech explanatory of the object of the meeting, suggested the name of E. Brook for permanent chair- man and Thomas M. Gleason as secretary, both of whom were unanimously elected. Mr. O'Brien then moved that a committee of five be appointed to wait upon Ex-President Houston, of Texas, and Senator Jarnagin, of Tennessee, to request their attendance at an adjourned meeting to be held at the same place Saturday evening, May 16. William O'Brien, E. Brook, Thomas M. Gleason, John W. Mount, and Major Malay were appointed. This adjourned meeting was organized by the election of Dr. Bronaugh, of Missouri, as chairman. Lieutenant W. D. Porter delivered an address, alluding to the many depredations committed on the people of the United States by Mexico, and trusting that the young men of the city of Washington would come boldly to the rescue. Hon. Barclay Martin, of the Sixth Con- gressional District of Tennessee, followed in a very eloquent speech, telling the young men the necessity of buckling on their armor and going to the war. Colonel R. M. Johnson then spoke "in his usual style of oratory," saying he was not in favor of stopping at the Rio Grande, but would march into the interior of Mexico, and cut their departments right and left. He spoke of cutting off California from Mexico and annexing that country to the United States. Hon. F. G. McConnell then entertained the meeting, as did also Hon. F. P. Stanton and Mr. St. John, of New York. The latter urged the young men to enroll themselves for the war, and at the close of his speech forty-five of them presented themselves as volunteers.
On May 18, a meeting was held at the Franklin Engine House, of which J. Cooper was made chairman. J. E. Norris addressed the meet- ing, and a company of volunteers, called "Washington Volunteers, No. 1," was organized by the election of John Waters captain, William Parham first lieutenant, and Eugene Boyle second lieutenant. No men were to be taken in this company who were under eighteen years of age.
At a meeting at the City Hall, addresses were delivered by Robert Ratcliffe, Robert Bronaugh, and Hon. John Wentworth of Chicago. Thirty-five young men enrolled themselves, which ran the number in this company up to eighty-six. The name adopted for this company was the " Washington City Riflemen," and its officers elected as follows: Robert Bronaugh, captain; Phineas B. Bell, first lieu- tenant; William O'Brien, second lieutenant, and four sergeants and four corporals. Dr. W. L. Frazier was chosen surgeon. The sergeants were as follows: John W. Mount, Josephus Dawes, Lewis F. Beeler,
234
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
and William A. Woodward; the corporals, Andrew Kemp, John Kelly, Jacob C. Hemmrick, and John P. White. These companies went into the United States barracks to drill, preparatory to going to the front. Three companies from Baltimore, namely, the first and second companies of the Baltimore Volunteers, and the Chesapeake Riflemen, were also in the barracks at the same time. These several companies were removed to Fort Washington June 10, 1846, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Watson, to await embarkation for the southern army, the steamship Massachusetts having been char- tered by the Government of the United States to take the entire battalion to the Rio Grande. A company of volunteers was formed in Alexandria June 12, which elected officers as follows: Captain, M. D. Corse; first lieutenant, C. S. Price; second lientenant, T. W. Ashly, and first sergeant, Benjamin Waters, Jr. The Secretary of War was, however, obliged to decline their services at that time, as the battalion from this city and Baltimore was already filled. June 16, the battalion from Baltimore and Washington sailed from Alex- andria in the ship Massachusetts for the Rio Grande. The officers of this battalion were as follows: Lieutenant-colonel, William H. Wat- son; adjutant, F. B. Shaffer; surgeon, G. M. Dove. Company A -Captain, J. E. Stewart; first lieutenant, B. F. Owen; second lieu- tenant, Samuel Wilt. Company B-Captain, James Piper; first lieutenant, M. K. Taylor; second lieutenant, I. Dolan. Company C- Captain, Robert Bronaugh, etc., as already given. Company D -Cap- tain, John Waters, etc., as given above. Company E - Captain, J. R. Kenly; first lieutenant, F. B. Shaffer; second lieutenant, Odon Bowie. Company of light infantry -Captain, James Boyd; first lieutenant, Joseph H. Rudduch; second lieutenant, R. E. Hustel.
The battle of Monterey was fought September 21, 1846, the bat- talion from Baltimore and Washington being engaged in the storming of the place, and Lieutenant-Colonel Watson was killed. James E. Stewart, who succeeded to the command, wrote from the camp, near Monterey, September 26, as follows:
"The battalion of Maryland and the District of Columbia volun- teers, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Watson, connected with the First Regiment of Infantry, the whole under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, were ordered to march at about eight o'clock in the morning of the 21st inst., for an attack on Monterey. The battalion were out in their full strength, save Company C, Captain Bronaugh, which was ordered to remain on guard duty at the camp, and Lieutenant Owen, of Company A, with a detachment
235
MILITARY HISTORY.
of twelve men, were ordered on pieket duty by General Twiggs. The battalion marched toward the city, and charged in a most gallant manner on a battery, under a galling fire, in which it sustained some loss. The point of attack was then changed by order of Colonel Garland, and we entered the city exposed to a destructive fire from several batteries, supported by a large number of infantry, which raked the streets. We remained in the city for nearly half an hour, when we were ordered to retire. In doing so the battalion became separated. Colonel Watson fell by a musket shot whilst gallantly leading on to a second assault on the city. A portion of the battalion was then formed under Captain Kenly, and remained on the field of battle until it was ordered back to camp by General Twiggs, having been under a heavy fire for nearly nine hours, losing in the action six killed and eighteen wounded. I take pleasure in noticing the gallant conduct of the battalion throughout."
On Sunday, November 22, 1846, Captain Samuel HI. Walker arrived in Washington from the battlefields in Mexico, and was given a most hearty reception in Odd Fellows' HIall. Speeches appropriate to the occasion were made by Messrs. Ratcliffe, C. S. Wallach, E. II. Harri- man, Joseph H. Bradley, D. Wallach, Lewis F. Thomas, and Mayor W. W. Seaton. Captain Walker responded, expressing his gratifica- tion at receiving such a flattering testimonial of respect, and the entire number present- about one thousand -took him by the hand. Cap- tain Walker, in January, 1847, raised a company of mounted riffemen for the regiment to which he belonged, in Washington and its vicinity, and on February 6 his company left Washington for Baltimore in a special train en route for the seat of war. Twenty of the young men in this company were from Prince George's County, Maryland.
A meeting was held at the city Council chamber Friday evening, January 22, 1847, for the purpose of raising a company of soldiers for the Mexican War, the Mayor of the city making the address. The company was organized by the election of officers as follows: Cap- tain, John M. Thornton; first lieutenant, Edmund Barry; second lieutenant, Hume Young; orderly sergeant, David Westerfield, Jr. The name adopted for this company was "Washington's Own." About April 25, 1847, the Secretary of War called upon the major-general of the District to furnish three companies of volunteers, to form, with two companies from Maryland, a battalion for immediate active service, to be under the command of Lientenant-Colonel Charles Lee Jones. This was the last recruiting done in Washington for the war.
On February 21, 1848, a treaty of peace signed by Mr. N. P. Trist
236
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
on the part of the United States, and by the Mexican authorities, was received in Washington, and on March 10, after two weeks' debate on the part of the Senate, was ratified by that body by a vote of 38 to 14. On May 25, it was ratified by the Mexican Senate by a vote of 33 to 4. July 4, President Polk issued a proclamation declaring peace established, and on the 6th of the same month sent a message to Congress announcing the end of the war.
Article V. of this treaty was as follows: "The boundary line between the two republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, other- wise called Rio Bravo del Norte, opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence westwardly along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico [ which runs north of the town called Paso] to its western termination; thence northward along the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila, or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same; thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean."
By Article XII. of this treaty, the United States agreed to pay to Mexico for the territory acquired from her, Texas and Upper Cali- fornia, fifteen millions of dollars, -three millions immediately on the ratification of the treaty by the Mexican authorities, and thereafter three millions per year until the whole should be paid, and also interest on what remained unpaid at the rate of six per cent. per annum.
Hon. A. H. Sevier, United States Senator from Arkansas, and the Attorney-General, Nathan Clifford, were appointed commissioners to exchange ratifications, and the latter was ordered to remain in Mexico as the resident minister from the United States.
The War of the Rebellion really began many years before actual hostilities commenced in 1861. That the existence of slavery was the cause thereof, no one can now seriously doubt who is tolerably well informed. Slavery came near preventing the formation of the Union in the first place, and was, so long as it existed, a constant menace to the existence of the Union. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the entire country was a slaveholding country; but while that
237
MILITARY HISTORY.
war was going on, the New England and some of the Middle States, perceiving the inconsistency of striving for their own liberty and at the same time striving to perpetuate the subjection of another race, passed acts of immediate or gradual emancipation of the slaves within their boundaries. Massachusetts passed an act of immediate emanci- pation in 1780, and Pennsylvania in the same year passed an act of gradual emancipation. Indeed, there were many individuals in the South as well as in the North who were deeply impressed with the inconsistency of fighting to establish freedom for themselves while they were denying freedom to others, who, under the laws of nature, had the same right to it as they. Rhode Island and Connecticut gradually emancipated their slaves. In 1799, New York passed a gradual emancipation act, and in 1817 another act declaring all slaves free July 4, 1827. New Jersey passed a gradual emancipation act in 1804, and thus slavery was abolished in all of the New England and Middle States long prior to the breaking out of the Rebellion.
But the States south of Pennsylvania adhered to the institution, and indeed some of them, notably South Carolina and Georgia, made its perpetuation by constitutional provision a condition of the ratifi- cation by them of the Constitution itself. This condition is thus expressed: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three- fifths of all other persons." Thus was the Constitution of the country made the bulwark of the institution, and the country divided into two hostile sections, which continually became more hostile to each other as time rolled on. The joy and gratitude felt by the people of both sections for the success of their arms in the struggle with Great Britain, and for the successful establishment of a national gov- ernment of their own, were such that for years but little attention was given to the institution of slavery. It was known to all that under the Constitution the importation of slaves must cease in 1808, and also that in the States Congress by that Constitution had been rendered powerless to interfere with the institution. Little could therefore be done in a practical way, except to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, for which consummation petition after peti- tion was presented to Congress, causing more and more acrimonious debate as the years rolled by. The Missouri Compromise came, and then its repeal. Afterward came the Nebraska Bill, designed to give
238
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
two more States to the Union, but which in reality gave two more Free States, Kansas and Nebraska, to the Union, and this effect proving to be the practical working of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, demonstrated to the South that the ultimate result of the struggle, of the irrepressible conflict, that was not only irrepressible but certain to continue until either freedom or slavery should win a final victory if the South should remain in the Union, determined for her her course with reference to the Union.
It is not proper to attempt to relate in this volume with any degree of minuteness the steps in either section of the country which led to the secession of the Southern States, for in the first place, that is not the object for which the work is written, and in the second place, that work has been done by others much better than it could be done herein; yet, while this is the case, it is proper to refer briefly to a few of the facts and incidents which preceded and produced that secession. While, during many years previous to 1850, there had been heard here and there in both the East and the South a few voices demanding the dissolution of the Union, yet no great alarm was felt for the safety of the Union previous to that year. But the question had been raised in the First Congress by the introduction of a memorial to the House of Representatives from the " Annual Meeting of Friends," of New York and Philadelphia, in October, 1789, in obedience to a sense of duty they felt incumbent upon them as religions bodies, etc. It was not long after this that a memorial was presented from "The Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery." signed by Benjamin Franklin, president, praying for the abolition of slavery. In this way, as has been said, by the presentation of petitions to Congress upon the subject, a subject upon which Congress was powerless under the Constitution as it then stood, was the question persistently kept under discussion, with but little fear of danger until the debate upon the admission of California into the Union as a Free State, in the session of 1849-50, when the subject assumed alarming proportions to all those, both North and South, who desired that the Union should be preserved, and even to those who desired its preservation merely as secondary to the preservation of the institution of slavery. For a long time the specter of the Nashville Convention, which convened in Nashville in 1850, was a dreaded thing to lovers of the Union in both sections; but when it was discovered that the Southern States were slow to elect delegates thereto, and when it had been held and had resulted in failure, there not being then sufficient disunion sentiment to give it sustenance, that
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.