USA > Illinois > The era of the Civil War, 1848-1870 > Part 28
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
34 J. M. Palmer to Trumbull, February 3, 1862, Koerner to Trumbull, January 2, 26, 1862, Trumbull manuscripts.
286
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL, WAR
brave volunteers; the governor and legislature of that state formally extended their congratulations to the victors, singling out the Illinois troops for special mention for their heroic conduct.35
This victory brought to Grant his first significant military laurels. A West Pointer who had seen service in the Mexican War and in the west, he had reentered civilian life and in the crisis of 1860 was adjusting himself to the obscurity of a clerk- ship in his father's leather business in Galena. Then, as a Douglas democrat, he took the lead in the raising of a volun- teer company at Galena and accompanied it to Springfield. His appearance on that occasion was not "very prepossess- ing;" "hardly of medium height, broad-shouldered and rather short-necked, his features did not indicate any very high grade of intellectuality." 36 His friends brought him to the notice of Governor Yates and secured an appointment as assistant quartermaster-general at two dollars a day. Soon his abilities as a military commander began to evidence themselves and led Governor Yates to assign him to the command of cantonments at Springfield, at Mattoon, and at Anna. Later he in all modesty accepted the colonelcy of the Twenty-first regiment; on August 23, after two months of efficient service in the field, he was promoted brigadier general with a commission dated May 17. Now following the capture of Fort Donelson, Grant received the rank of major general, his commission fitly dated February 16, the date of the surrender of the fort. Already his courage, his clearness of judgment, his knowledge of mili- tary science and of men, his ability to command the confidence of his subordinates had been demonstrated in a way that pre- pared the minds of Illinoisians for his future achievements.37
Simultaneously with Grant's movement against Fort Donel- son, an expedition under General Pope moved down the Mis- sissippi and captured the confederate positions of Island Number 10. A general advance was then made on the next confederate line from Memphis to ,Chattanooga; moving up the Tennessee, Grant's army was suddenly attacked at Pitts-
35 Rockford Republican, February 20, 1862; see resolutions and letters of Governor Washburne, Illinois State Journal, April 8, 1862.
36 Koerner, Memoirs, 2: 126.
87 Eddy, Patriotism of Illinois, 1: 178-189.
287
RECRUITING GROUND
burg Landing, and the battle of Shiloh took place on April 6 and 7. Only the arrival of reinforcements saved the hard- pressed union army, many officers of which charged General Grant and General Sherman with negligence. "Good general- ship would have saved us thousands of valuable lives and have carried our army in triumph into Corinth," declared one Illinois officer.38 John M. Palmer cursed the fates which brought the calamitous losses to the union army: "No sadder day will I hope ever come for Illinois than that sad Sunday when the flower of her soldiers were decimated at Pittsburg unless the day Grant was made a Brigadier General or that upon which he was promoted may be regarded as more unfortunate." 39 Grant was in a measure superseded by General Halleck, who assumed chief command for a time. Tales of Grant's addiction to drink began to circulate in camp, but seemed to be founded on small talk; 40 at any rate, the advance was successfully con- tinued until Corinth was occupied, after which Memphis fell into the hands of the union forces. The federal army followed the retreating confederates, but operations were uneventful until they pressed hard upon the defenses of Vicksburg. Illinois troops to the number of about 20,000 accompanied Grant on this expedition against Vicksburg, and 25,000 more were with Rosecrans when he attacked Bragg at Murfreesboro on the last day of 1862. In both expeditions the Illinoisians acquitted themselves creditably and were in instances conspicuous for their gallant behavior.
Illinois troops under able leadership were winning fame everywhere. John A. Logan had a brilliant military career and won promotion to a brigadier generalship. Even his old republican antagonists supported the proposition to have him advanced to the rank of major general; and, since Grant and McClernand were rivals for the laurels of the Vicksburg cam- paign, the military leadership of the Illinois troops was thus, strangely enough, committed to democrats.41 Party-minded
38 George T. Allen to Trumbull, April 25, 1862, Trumbull manuscripts.
39 John M. Palmer to Trumbull, April 24, 1862, ibid .; Koerner, Memoirs, 2: 214-220.
40 George T. Allen to Trumbull, May 11, June 7, 1862, Trumbull manu- scripts.
41 H. McPike to Trumbull, February 23, 1863, ibid .; Koerner, Memoirs, 2 :205-206.
288
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
republicans challenged their devotion to the cause and doubted whether they possessed the stuff of which heroes are made, but were not willing to claim altogether superior endowments for their own leaders like gallant "Dick" Oglesby and General Hurlbut.
The surrender of Vicksburg, July 4, 1863, after it had been invested for months and repeatedly stormed with shot and shell, opened the Mississippi throughout its entire length. The capture was an undisputed victory for Grant; John A. McClernand had been eliminated during the campaign, for Grant, after severely criticizing his generalship, had relieved him of his command. McClernand never admitted any culpa- bility on his part and claimed that a grave injustice had been done him; restored by order of President Lincoln and assigned to operations in Louisiana and Texas, he remained in the field until the early part of 1864, when he resigned his commission, claiming that he had been discriminated against in promotions. 42
Illinois troops had taken their full part in the task, assumed at the outset of the war, of severing the confederacy along the line of the Mississippi river; but their services did not end there. Illinois regiments were an important factor in the capture of Chattanooga by Rosecrans in September, 1863; others marched with Grant a few weeks later to relieve the beleaguered union army there and to establish federal control in that region. Over seventy regiments then came under the immediate command of General Grant, only to be transferred to General Sherman when Grant was called to Washington to assume, under the military title of lieutenant general, the com- mand of all the armies of the United States.
Nor had the volunteer soldiers of Illinois been idle else- where. Illinois regiments had participated in the Peninsular campaign; and they had met the enemy in the bloody battles of Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and Chancellors- ville. Illinois cavalry had taken conspicuous parts in the fight- ing in the west and in Virginia, especially in April and May, 1863. The brilliant raid of the Sixth Illinois cavalry under
42 John A. McClernand to Trumbull, January 14, 1864, Trumbull manu- scripts; see correspondence in War of the Rebellion, Official Records, series I, volume 17, part 2, P. 555, volume 24, part I, p. 6, 169-186.
289
RECRUITING GROUND
Colonel Grierson - from Tennessee through the states of Mis- sissippi and Louisiana as far as Baton Rouge-astounded the rebel leaders, who saw the heart of the confederacy penetrated for the first time. The Eighth and Twelfth cavalry regiments tried to equal this exploit when in Stoneman's expedition they dashed into the rear of Lee's army, within a few miles of Rich- mond. 43 Illinoisians marched with Sherman "from Atlanta to the sea " and northward through the seaboard states. They backed up Grant in his "Wilderness campaign," steadily cut- ting down the distance to Richmond. By land and sea they operated in the department of the gulf under the command of Major General Hurlbut to complete the conquest of the lower Mississippi valley.
In the early months of 1865 they saw their efforts crowned with success on every hand. The battle-scarred veterans of the gulf poured into New Orleans with the well-earned laurels of their campaign; Sherman's forces pressed on toward the rear defenses of Richmond; while two regiments, the Thirty- ninth infantry, or "Yates Phalanx," and the Twenty-third, or "Irish Brigade," followed Grant into the streets of the con- federate capital and were present at Lee's surrender at Appo- mattox. When the shouts of victory began to subside, Illinois was thrilled to learn that it was the silk flag of the Thirteenth Illinois regiment, a rebel trophy rescued and hoisted by a Massachusetts soldier, that was the first to proclaim the union occupation of Richmond. 44
It was not long then before the regiments of war-weary boys in blue, their flags emblazoned with deeds of glory on scores of battlefields, began to return to their homes and peace- ful callings. Glorious was the welcome which they received from friends and loved ones whom they had left to serve their country. Proudly did they recount exploits that brought honor to their state. Yet no more eloquent testimony to devotion to the union could have been offered than that which came from silent battlefields consecrated by the blood of fallen heroes.45
43 Rock River Democrat, May 13, 1863.
44 Illinois State Journal, May 23, 1865.
45 The Eighty-fifth regiment of Peoria, which had started out in 1862 nine hundred strong to fight its way to Savannah and up to Richmond, returned with three hundred and fifty men in the ranks. Ibid., June 17, 1865.
XIII. THE NEW ABOLITIONISTS AND THE COPPERHEADS
F ROM the time the first call went out for volunteers through the years of fighting in the field President Lincoln wrestled with the colossal task of preserving the federal union. With unquestionable sincerity he grappled with the worst tangle of problems ever confronted by an American executive and with persistence, energy, self-control, and a high degree of tact, prepared to carry the nation through its greatest crisis. It was impossible, however, for his former associates in Illinois to gauge the difficulty of his position; as they impatiently awaited results which they felt ought to reveal themselves at once, they turned to each other with the question: "Is it pos- sible that Mr. Lincoln is getting scared ?" 1
Within Illinois, as throughout the nation, the atmosphere of war had generated a passion for freedom quite novel to the sectional controversy; even before the clash of arms Wil- liam H. Herndon had demanded that slavery be met boldly and extinguished. "Liberty & Slavery," he declared, "are absolute antagonisms; and all human experience- all human philosophy says-'Clear the ring & let these natural foes- these eternal enemies now fight it out-To separate them now is murderous to the men - women & children of the future.'" 2 Another Illinois republican had urged that the southern states be warned that in seceding and relinquishing their equality in the union, they would fall back "into territorial pupillage again," subject to the right of congress to prohibit or abolish slavery in the territories-a state suicide theory older than the war itself.3 This suggestion furnished a way of striking directly at the institution of slavery; many who had been
1 William Butler to Trumbull, March 14, 1861, Trumbull manuscripts.
2 W. H. Herndon to Trumbull, December 21, 1860, ibid.
3 W. B. Slaughter to Trumbull, February 15, 1861, ibid.
290
ABOLITIONISTS AND COPPERHEADS 291.
extremely conservative on the question of slavery had come to feel that, while the point in dispute was union v. rebellion, slavery was at the bottom of the whole situation and that its continued existence must become the real issue.
A line of cleavage appeared between the new abolitionists and the conservative defenders of the union. Congress, under conservative leadership, adopted the position presented by John J. Crittenden of Kentucky that the war involved the preservation of the union and not an interference with the domestic institutions of any of the states; and Lincoln and the Illinois congressional delegation excepting Senator Trum- bull cooperated in giving the loyal slaveholders of the border states this assurance. At the same time, however, "radical republicans" in Illinois set up a plea for emancipation; they demanded that the real issue be dragged into the light-that the battle cry of freedom be proclaimed.
The belief spread that the war would have to continue until all the causes which produced it had been removed- slavery must be put in process of extinction. The Chicago Tribune was busy preparing the public mind for the first step, pointing out that, "every day the rebellion lasts increases the probabilities that slavery will receive its death wound before the struggle is ended."4 When, however, democratic papers protested against making the object of the war the extermi- nation of slavery, the very journals that were working toward emancipation denied categorically the existence of any such danger; it was shortly after such a denial that the Central Illinois. Gazette, edited by a veteran abolitionist, urged that " freedom should be proclaimed to all the sons of Africa that would fight on the side of the Government." 5
Just at this stage came the report of Fremont's proclama- tion providing for the confiscation and emancipation of the slaves of rebel planters in his military district. The news of this action met with an outburst of applause on the part of thousands of republicans, who welcomed it as an assault upon the institution of slavery; even independent papers were able
4 Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1861; Central Illinois Gazette, June 26, 1861.
5 Ibid., July 24, August 28, 1861; Jonesboro Gazette, September 21, 1861; Rock River Democrat, October 8, 1861; Ottawa Free Trader, October 19, 1861.
292
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
to indorse it, on the principle that a slave owner forfeited all rights to protection of property when found in arms against the government.6 When the news of President Lincoln's dis- allowing order followed, it brought bitter disappointment to those who had thought that a long step forward had been taken.
Although some Illinois republicans approved the presi- dent's decision, the great preponderance gave their support to General Fremont's proclamation. The Rock River Democrat, an opponent of a general emancipation policy, declared that "the Proclamation had received the endorsement of the free people of the West-it was just the thing needed, and Fre- mont was just the man to execute it. We believe the principle enunciated in the Proclamation will yet have to be adopted by the Government-it is right, the magnitude of the stake for which we are playing demands it, and we say God speed the day."7 John Russell, the Bluffdale educator, in his disappointment, expressed the opinion that "the repudia- tion by Mr. Lincoln of the clause of Fremont's Proclamation, manumitting the slaves of Missouri rebels, gave more 'aid and comfort to the enemy' in that state than if he had made the rebel commander, Sterling Price, a present of fifty pieces of rifled cannon."8 The Germans of Chicago and of the Belleville district, who had become noted for their zeal for liberty and fundamental democracy, were especially strong in their admiration for Fremont.
It seemed clear that Lincoln's policy was to preserve slavery intact. This was extremely vexatious. William H. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, grew restive to the point of declaring: "Good God! if I were Lincoln I would declare that all slaves should be free. What does Lincoln suppose he can squelch out this rebellion while he and the North in common are fighting for the status of slavery? Good Heavens. What say you?" 9 Many felt con- vinced that the government had "a higher and holier mission to perform, than to lavish hundreds of millions of Treasure,
6 Ottawa Free Trader, October 19, 1861.
7 Rock River Democrat, September 24, October 8, 1861.
8 John Russell to Trumbull, December 17, 1861, Trumbull manuscripts.
9 W. H. Herndon to Trumbull, November 20, 1861, ibid.
ABOLITIONISTS AND COPPERHEADS 293
and to sacrifice tens of thousands of the lives of our noblest young men, to see how strong it can hold a Traitor's negro with one hand and how successfully it can fight his master with the other." 10 More and more was the argument brought forward that the abolition of slavery, a cancer which must be cut out and cauterized, was the only remedy that could save the union. "The South has made Slavery the issue," declared the Central Illinois Gazette, November 27, 1861, "and Con- gress must enable the people to throttle rebellion and break its head with this 'bone of contention.'"
Lincoln, however, again placed himself in the way of fur- ther progress. His first annual message to congress, on Decem- ber 3, 1861, took no advanced ground on the question of emancipation; he contented himself with the suggestion that the states might be allowed to confiscate the property of rebel citizens and that congress might secure the forfeited slaves by crediting their value against their tax quotas.11 To the root and branch abolitionist, which many republicans were fast becoming, this seemed "one of the most unjust, & humiliating propositions that could be conceived." 12 Disappointed Lin- coln supporters voiced their sentiments in varied expressions of regret, disgust, and even anger. The editors of the Chicago Tribune condemned it as a piece of cowardice, "a horrible fiasco." 13 The radicals, becoming more and more violent in their hatred of the rebels and their cause, charged their bitter- ness to the extreme mildness with which the "giant crime " had been treated.14
Better things, however, were expected of congress. There Senator Trumbull, the author of the first confiscation act, led the fight for another measure which would drastically extend
10 Shubal York to Trumbull, December 5, 1861, W. Kitchell to Trumbull, December 10, 1861, ibid. The Rockford Republican, June 24, 1862, objected to this "playing war," "with a tract in one hand and a rifle in the other," "for the purpose of giving the black-hearted cut-throats and scoundrels of the barbarous South a chance to repent."
11 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 6: 54.
12 Grant Goodrich to Trumbull, December 5, 1861, Trumbull manuscripts. 13 C. D. Ray to Trumbull, December 6, 1861, ibid.
14 See Cole, "President Lincoln and the Illinois Radical Republicans," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 4:422-423. One aggressive critic called it " a tame, timid, time serving common place sort of an abortion of a Message, cold enough with one breath to freeze h-Il over." Shubal York to Trumbull, December 5, 1861, Trumbull manuscripts.
294
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
freedom to slaves of all persons resisting the union. The repub- lican voters of Illinois rallied to Trumbull's support in spite of the efforts of the democratic journals to arouse conservative republicans to their duty of resisting "the plot of Trumbull, Sumner, and Co." 15 Lincoln, in setting himself in opposition to the step advocated by Trumbull, aroused the impatience of those who felt that the administration was neglecting the very means best calculated to hasten the suppression of the rebellion. J. M. Sturtevant of Illinois College could not understand Lincoln's position, while John Russell of Bluffdale boldly denounced "the imbecility of President Lincoln," whom he accused of having "done more to aid Secessia than Jefferson Davis." 16
Oblivious to these criticisms, Lincoln continued his efforts to attach the border slave states more securely to the union. In a special message to congress on March 6, he recommended the compensated emancipation of the slaves in the border states and was able to secure from that body a joint resolu- tion favorable to that policy. This almost unexpected recom- mendation recognizing slavery as the cause of the rebellion was as warmly welcomed by the republicans as it was deplored by the democrats; and when next Lincoln agreed to the aboli- tion of slavery both in the District of Columbia and in the terri- tories, he won more golden opinions. Those, however, more thoroughly cognizant of his position on slavery found cause for impatience; they chafed at his persistence in pressing till midsummer the proposition for compensated emancipation and were nettled at his reluctance, on account of certain " objection- able " emancipation provisions, over signing the second con- fiscation act.17
Meantime, the pressure upon Lincoln in favor of some general emancipation scheme began to have its influence. His mind was already at work on this most serious problem of the
15 Illinois State Register, September 11, 14, 21, December 15, 1861; Ottawa Free Trader, January 25, 1861.
16 J. M. Sturtevant to Trumbull, December 28, 1861, John Russell to Trumbull, February 4, 1862, Trumbull manuscripts.
17 Joliet Signal, March 11, 1862; Chicago Tribune, March 11, 1862; Writings of Abraham Lincoln, 6:87-90, 94-99. He submitted his objections in the form of a proposed veto message which he had originally intended to submit to hold up this act.
Lyman Zambull
[ From photograph in possession of Mr. L. C. Handy, Washington, D. C.]
ABOLITIONISTS AND COPPERHEADS 295
war. Inclining more and more to the position recommended by the radicals, he refused them the satisfaction of even a hint as to the new policy he was considering. He gave them no comfort when Governor Yates on July II formally addressed him to urge that sterner measures be used against the rebels. His reply to Greeley's plea for emancipation as the prayer of twenty millions was a mere equivocal union- saving pronunciamento. When, as late as September 13, 1862, a delegation in behalf of a large meeting in Chicago presented an address in favor of an emancipation proclamation, he replied that, while the subject lay very near his heart, a decision was difficult on account of the practical difficulties involved and on account of the uncertainty as to the value of such a course when entered upon.18
The desire of certain republicans to see slavery put in process of extinction was reinforced by practical political con- siderations; they felt, indeed, that were emancipation post- poned indefinitely, it would be fatal to the party. Discontent raged within the union ranks; the radicals criticized the Lin- coln administration for its caution, and the conservatives looked askance at the steps leading toward emancipation. In the intimacy of republican counsels, charges were passed of mis- management of army contracts and incompetence in military leadership. Members of the state administration complained of being " tired of traitors from West Point." 19 Even General Grant came in for his share of complaint. He was charged by republican army officers with being intemperately devoted to intoxicants. His abilities as a military leader were seriously called into question. With so much uncertainty as to the prowess of the federal armies and as to the political future of the republican party, republican leaders regarded an eman- cipation policy as the one clarifying agency; yet they con- fronted the unanswered enigma : why did not Lincoln see this and strike boldly?
It was probably only the irony of fate that during this summer so full of disappointment and uncertainty for the rad-
18 Ibid., 6: 123-124, 135-139; Illinois State Journal, September 17, 1862.
19 D. L. Phillips to Trumbull, March 22, 1862, Trumbull manuscripts. They wanted to compel the democrats to "go before the people on the issue of reenslavement." Joseph Medill to Trumbull, June 5, 1862, ibid.
296
THE ERA OF THE CIVIL WAR
icals Lincoln was developing his plan for the inauguration of the very policy so insistently demanded by them. When, there- fore, the battle of Antietam made possible the promulgation of the preliminary emancipation proclamation on Septem- ber 22, 1862, it was received with mingled feelings of surprise, satisfaction, and relief. To some it came as a great act of justice, wisdom, and mercy which would immortalize the name of Abraham Lincoln and save the nation from destruction; others regarded the delay as so serious that, while they rejoiced at the actual course taken, only continued evidence of firmness, self-assertion, and energy on the part of the president could wipe out the disgrace of his protracted inaction.
It was Lincoln's expectation that in the congressional elec- tions of 1862 the results of the emancipation proclamation might reveal themselves as favorable to his general policy. In Illinois, however, republicans had relaxed their efforts after the defeat of the new constitution and looked with favor upon the advice of prominent war democrats like John A. Logan, I. N. Morris, John E. Detrich, A. J. Kuykendall, Washington Cockle, and others that "party lines and partizan feelings should be swallowed up in patriotism." 2ยบ Republican leaders, thereupon, arranged for the cooperation of all administration backers in a union fusion party. They agreed that an extra session of the legislature would be suicidal for the party, and there was much reluctance about holding a state convention. When finally a union convention did meet, Eben C. Ingersoll, a war democrat from Peoria, was given the nomination for congressman-at-large; and candidates representing both old party affiliations were put in the field in the various districts.
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.