USA > Tennessee > Notable men of Tennessee, from 1833 to 1875, their times and their contemporaries > Part 4
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
Notwithstanding that the Whigs had been taught from infancy to revere the Union, the events following the Presidential election of 1860 were so sudden and startling, and succeeded each other with such rapidity, the movement in favor of secession became so widespread and alarming that many of them, if not a majority, became confused as to their duty. When they heard an almost universal outcry in the South against the election of Mr. Lincoln and the ascendency of the Abolition party, and beheld State after State preparing to secede from the Union; when it was daily proclaimed from the stump and through the press that the direst calamity would befall the Southern people unless they declared their independence and forever separated from their enemies in the North; when the evil purposes of the Abolitionists were everywhere proclaimed in the darkest colors, the people naturally came to a pause. They began to consider whether there might not be some good reason for the course of the advocates of disunion. These suggestions arose in the minds of patriotic men in view of the new and alarming conditions that surrounded them.
The overpowering influence of slavery, the fear of falling under the condemnation of the mighty oligarchy of slaveholders, to some extent had paralyzed the minds of men. Not a man in the South dared openly to question the morality of slavery. No one dared any longer to suggest either its removal or its
35
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
amelioration. All, whether slaveholders or non-slaveholders, felt the crushing power and the omnipotence of this despotism of public opinion. The least suspicion of disloyalty to slavery, the least hint of anti-slavery sentiments on the part of anyone, brought upon such person infamy and the curse of social out- lawry. He was to be shunned as a loathsome leper. Never was this feeling so strong, so bitter, so pervasive, as during the first few months after the election of Mr. Lincoln. Combined with this was another feeling nearly as potent; that is, that Southern men should go with the South, with their section, their State, their neighbors and their friends. With all this there was con- stantly presented by the press, by public speakers, and often by the pulpit, the dark picture of the horrible desolation to be wrought in the South by Abolition rule. And amid all these things, and sounding far above them, was the noise of the prep- aration for war.
1142561
With such scenes in their midst,-new and wonderful,-it is little surprising that many, indeed most, of the best Union men were at first bewildered. Most of those whom I met were at this time cautious and hesitating. They were for the Union, but a vague dread of "something they knew not of" fettered their minds. In a few weeks this feeling passed away, notably after the great meeting in Knoxville on December 8, and after Mr. Johnson's bold speech in the Senate, December 19 and 20. It needed only brave leaders and brave words to reassure the timid and the hesitating.
Two weeks after the Presidential election I was in attendance upon the Circuit Court in Sevierville. I found the people in a fearful state of doubt and perplexity. South Carolina was then on the point of withdrawing from the Union. By request I ad- dressed the people on the condition of the country. I pointed out that secession was the causeless and ambitious project of a few Southern leaders, and explained at length that the triumph and ascendency of the Republican party did not menace the lib- erties of the people nor endanger the safety of the institution of slavery. This was the first Union speech made in Tennessee, or perhaps in the South, after the Presidential election.
On my return home a few days later I found a still more threatening aspect in the condition of public affairs in Knox- ville. The streets were full of secessionists-noisy, aggressive, and domineering. Federal Court was in session, and jurors were
36
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
wearing in the jury box secession badges, in a United States Court, presided over by West H. Humphreys, a United States Judge. Judge, clerk, marshal, jurors, and many witnesses and spectators were open and defiant in opposition to the govern- ment. A call had appeared in the newspapers for a public meet- ing to be held on the evening of the succeeding day, the 26th of November, to take into consideration the condition of public affairs. The object of this call was obvious. It was intended to get the citizens together, and in the confusion and doubt which prevailed in their minds, to pass resolutions favorable to the secession of Tennessee. On consultation with John M. Fleming I decided to attend the proposed meeting and take part in it, and, if possible, to defeat its object. When the meeting assembled the friends of secession were present in force; they were noisy and demonstrative. So great was the alarm and uncertainty among the Union men, and so timid were they, that it was difficult to get them to go to the meeting. As was anticipated, resolutions advocating the convening of the Legislature in extra session, a call for a State Constitutional Convention, and the endorsement of a conference of delegates from the Southern States were intro- duced by a committee and advocated with great earnestness by the leading secessionists. John Baxter and John J. Reese, both of whom were Union men, advocated that policy. The fight in opposition to these resolutions and measures was made by John M. Fleming, then a young man, and myself. Finally, after a long struggle and without a decisive vote, the meeting ad- journed to meet nearly two weeks later, on the 8th of December, in the daytime. If the vote had been taken that night on the resolutions, it was clear to those in the opposition that they would have been triumphantly carried. Why the leaders in that movement allowed the meeting to adjourn without a vote, and to reassemble in the daytime, has always been a mystery. The result of a favorable vote that night on the propositions before the meeting would have given an impetus to the cause of secession that could have been counteracted only with great difficulty.
After the adjournment of this meeting those who had been active in opposition to its purpose took immediate steps to arouse the people of the country to the necessity of attending the public meeting on the 8th of December. When the day arrived the town was full of excited men from the country. They were present from every part of the county, and in some in-
37
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
stances from adjoining counties. It was a day of anxious solicitude to those on the Union side who were to take part in the meeting, and one never to be forgotten. At an early hour the courthouse was filled and packed with people, with many on the outside. The same resolutions which had been presented at the previous meeting were again brought forward. They were advocated by John H. Crozier, John Baxter, William B. Reese, James W. Humes and Wayne W. Wallace, and by William H. Sneed. The fact was not disguised in the discussion that the object of the resolutions was to bring this meeting and the State of Tennessee into line with the Southern States. Secession was not openly advocated, but it was constantly in- sisted that common cause should be made with our brethren of the South. On the other side, the speakers who opposed this movement were Samuel R. Rogers and myself. Mr. Rogers spoke very briefly, but pointedly. Mr. William G. Brownlow was present, taking notes for his paper, but took no part in the proceedings until just before the close, when he made a few stirring and characteristic remarks against secession. The dis- cussion lasted four hours. It was animated and spirited, but at no time acrimonious. The solemnity of the occasion, the mo- mentous issues involved, the tremendous crisis that was impend- ing, the uncertainty in the minds of all present as to the opinions and feelings of the people in reference to the new questions which had arisen, seemed to moderate the tone of the speakers as well as the temper of the crowd. At last, toward four o'clock in the afternoon, the resolutions offered by the committee were put to a vote and defeated by a large majority. Then John M. Flem- ing arose and offered some ringing resolutions, condemning secession as a heresy, and endorsing the Union, which were re- ceived with the wildest enthusiasm. The resolutions were put upon their passage and adopted by three or four to one. A loud shout of triumph went up. The pent-up feelings of the crowd, hitherto restrained by a sense of the awful solemnity of the ques- tions at issue, at last burst forth in unrestrained demonstrations of joy. At this moment John J. Reese, who, as we have seen, started out a friend of the defeated resolutions, jumped upon the platform and proposed three cheers for the Union. The sound which followed in response was like the thunder of a cataract. The Union victory was complete and overwhelming.
No such public meeting as this perhaps was ever held in the
38
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
country. For nearly four hours a packed house had listened to speeches both for and against the dissolution of the Union. The people had patiently and quietly listened to all that could be said on either side, and had then pronounced their verdict. So calm and dispassionate a discussion of the great question involved was never before and never afterward heard. Its effect upon the public mind and the Union cause in East Tennessee was of transcendent importance. The news of it was carried abroad by those present, and proclaimed in exultant tones by Mr. Brown- low through his paper, until it became known to every intelligent man throughout East Tennessee. Soon public meetings were held in other counties, one after another, until nearly every county had declared for the Union.
It will be observed that neither Mr. Maynard nor Mr. Trigg was present at this meeting, and that Mr. Baxter, though a decided Union man, had a favorite remedy of his own. Mr. Trigg was absent from home, probably attending one of his courts. Up to this time, however, he had taken no part in poli- tics since his removal from Virginia in 1855. Mr. Maynard was absent in Washington as a member of Congress.
The part of leadership thrust upon me in these meetings was reluctantly taken by me. I shrank from the responsibility of this position, but I saw no alternative unless willing to see an irretrievable injury inflicted on the Union cause. Mr. Baxter was not in favor of secession, but was the author of the plan sup- ported by the secessionists. Mr. Maynard had declined to at- tend the meeting. Mr. Rogers was not a public speaker, and Mr. Fleming was a very young man. These were the only Union leaders who resided at Knoxville. It was therefore apparent to me that unless I took the lead in opposition to the movements of the secessionists, no one would do so. In the late Presidential canvass leadership had devolved upon me against my will by my party selecting me as elector for my district. It was therefore most natural that I should be forced to assume this position for this occasion, however reluctant I was to do so.
So far as the question of the Union was concerned, in 1861, when the greatest question that ever agitated this country arose, it was most fortunate that there were so many brave and able men in East Tennessee, capable of counseling the people and of assisting Mr. Johnson. Happily, there were avail- able the very men for such a crisis-men endowed with qualities
39
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
precisely adapted to stormy times. These possessed a power to control and guide the warring elements around them that was indeed sublime. No dangers could intimidate, no terrors silence them. Their courage rose with the magnitude of the peril. Nor were they distinguished for daring only. Some of them pos- sessed talents such as are bestowed only on a gifted few, admir- ably fitting them either to resist or lead a revolution. There were no other men of like number in the State who, as a whole, were their equals.
The men to whom I refer as especially noted for the qualities that make leaders were Andrew Johnson, William G. Brownlow, Thomas A. R. Nelson and John Baxter. Of these four, Mr. Johnson was the best known, and possibly the most gifted. Mr. Brownlow was a man of great natural power. He had a daunt- less spirit that knew no fear, and possessed a magnetism that attracted men with a force rarely witnessed. Mr. Nelson also had some of the highest qualities of a successful leader-elo- quence, honesty and rare courage. Mr. Baxter was an extraor- dinary man. His courage and determination were of the highest order ; in intellect he was equal perhaps, if not superior, to Johnson.
With his own political friends, no man had so much influence as Andrew Johnson. He had, however, bitter enemies in both parties. By his course in opposing secession he had separated from a large contingent of his old party friends. But he held a large number of Democrats who were by association and party affiliation inclined to go off into secession. He held others firm in the hour of temptation who could have been kept steady by no other man. But he was influential only with his own party. The Democratic party was in a minority in each of the three Congressional Districts in East Tennessee. The Whigs, who constituted the majority, were not accustomed to follow him. With them he had neither personal nor political influence. As a general rule they were for the Union anyway. They had been unmistakably so in the canvass of 1860, while Johnson was advo- cating the election of Breckinridge. They hated Johnson as they hated no other man, and had looked with cold distrust on his sudden change in December, 1860. He had been so bitter and brutal in his assaults on them in the past, his conduct as a poli- tician had been so narrow and selfish that he was regarded by them as being outside of the circle of honorable statesmen. In
40
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
fact, he never gained the full confidence of the Whig element. In Greene County, his home, the Whigs, who had long known him, seem to have gone into secession as they did in no other county. Why was this, unless from fear and distrust of him?
After his arrival at home from Washington, in the spring of 1861, Andrew Johnson entered the canvass for the Union with vigor and determination. This, it should be remembered, was the second canvass in the State. Previous to the election in the preceding February East Tennessee had been thoroughly can- vassed by local speakers. Mr. Johnson did not make a speech to the people until after his return. His position on the ques- tion of secession was, however, already known to all intelligent people by his speech in the Senate, to which reference will be made. But this speech had infinitely more influence in the North than it had in East Tennessee, except with his own party friends. With them it produced a revolution.
Horace Maynard did not at that time possess the popularity with the mass of the people which he acquired at a later day in his brilliant canvass in the State for Congress at large in 1872 against Johnson and General Cheatham. After the election in November he did not make a speech in East Tennessee until after his return in March or April, 1861. In the meantime, as in the case of both Johnson and Nelson, the overwhelming Union victory of February had been won by other men. Maynard came home soon after the adjournment of Congress, but was not so prompt as Nelson in taking the stump. He did good service, however, in the canvass preceding the June election. He was a good speaker, but his calm, dispassionate manner was not what the hour demanded.
So far as Mr. Nelson is concerned, he stands on a little differ- ent ground. No man has lived in East Tennessee who has more largely commanded the confidence of the people. No man has lived in the State, except possibly Gentry and W. B. Campbell, in whose honesty there was more universal confidence. His influence was therefore marked. All parties, even in times of the highest excitement, admired him. On the stump he was nearly the equal of Johnson, and in fiery eloquence his superior. Nel- son came home immediately after the adjournment of Congress, and without delay took the stump in defense of the Union. He entered the field with a heroic spirit, and never left it until the June election. He canvassed nearly all of East Tennessee. But,
41
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
like Johnson and Maynard, he also was absent in Washington when the contest of February had taken place, and none of the glory of that victory can be given to him. In reference to John- son as well as his supporters, each of the three named-Johnson, Maynard and Nelson-it must be remembered that while they took no part in the canvass preceding the February election, the weight of their names was used in favor of the Union. Neither Nelson nor Maynard, however, had electrified the country during the late session of Congress by a great, stirring speech in behalf of the Union, as Johnson had done, though one year before, on the third day of his career in Congress, Nelson had made an eloquent speech in the House in defense of the Union, which at once gave him national reputation, and which the London Times pronounced the "highest product of American oratory." Not- withstanding the ability and boldness displayed by Johnson, Nelson and Baxter, and in a less degree by other Union leaders, no one individual exercised such potent influence upon the minds of the old Whigs of East Tennessee as did Brownlow.
In this critical hour (the spring of 1861) Mr. Johnson's speeches were undoubtedly of great service. They helped to give courage to the timid and constancy to the vacillating of his own party. But I doubt if he made many converts at that late day. All his converts were made previously. Nearly every man had made up his mind in February. At this stage of the canvass (in April and May) the man who had been seized with the blind mania of secession was beyond all argument and hope. It was a time of wild passion and terror. The triumph of the Union men in the February election had been overwhelming. Except- ing the influence exerted by the names of these three men-John- son, Nelson and Maynard-and their generally known position on this question, and the immense influence exerted by Mr. John- son's speech in the Senate, the credit for this splendid victory is due to local leaders in the several counties and to the patriotic instincts of the people themselves.
In this work, Mr. Brownlow's paper played a most important part. The spirit of that dauntless man pervaded everything. Of all the leaders, Brownlow was both loved and hated as none of the others were. He had a Jacksonian will, and at the same time a kindliness of disposition that linked him to men "as with hooks of steel." No man in East Tennessee at that time moved and swayed friends as he did. This influence was direct and
42
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
personal. It arose from a mixed love and admiration. Through his paper for months he addressed larger audiences of people than Johnson and Nelson ever commanded. His trumpet gave forth no uncertain sound, but warned every man "to prepare himself for the battle."
So, in the contest of 1861 I hesitate but little in saying that Brownlow, through his paper and by his example and personal popularity, did more to mold and control the Union sentiment of East Tennessee than any other single man excepting Johnson.
The victory of February was won by a set of men compara- tively unknown outside of the State, several of whom possessed as much courage and nearly as much intellect as the recognized leaders. Among the many to whom credit should be given may be mentioned Brownlow, Baxter, Trigg, Netherland, Carter, Arnold, Milligan, Fletcher, Taylor, Senter, Butler, Brown, Deaderick, Fleming, Rodgers, Thornburgh, Swann, Staples, Blizzard, Trewhitt, Brabson, Crutchfield, Spears, Clift, Houck, and many others. But by far the larger part of the honor of winning that splendid victory is due to a small number, chief among whom were Brownlow, Baxter, Trigg, Fleming, Arnold, Netherland, W. B. Carter, Taylor, and one or two others. Unquestionably Johnson, Maynard and Nelson helped, at a later day, in the terrible frenzy of the hour, as did many others, to keep the Union men from being stampeded into secession. I distinctly recognize here and everywhere the wonderful influence of Johnson on the Democratic party in that February, as well as in that later June election.
But it was unquestionably the early speakers who did the most effective work-those of December, January and February, who spoke to men who had not yet decided as to their course. The pro-slavery sentiment still dominated the minds of men to such an extent as to make them timid, if not cowardly. An alli- ance with the Republican party was at first so revolting that even the warm friends of the Union shrank from it. In the face of the hatred entertained by nearly all the Southern people for the Abolitionists, it required, at first, the highest moral courage to oppose the movement in favor of Southern independence.
In order to show in the most conclusive manner to whom the credit shold be given of making East Tennessee loyal, I repeat with emphasis that the Union majority in round numbers was more than six thousand greater in the February election than
43
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
it was in that of June, though the question was precisely the same in effect in both elections. After the firing on Fort Sumter a considerable number of men fell away from the Union cause. This defection excited some uneasiness, and the local leaders re- doubled their energy, for they were determined to save East Tennessee, even if the State were lost. The contest became fierce and determined. It raged from Bristol to Chattanooga, and soon became red hot along the whole line. It is a noticeable fact that the largest Union majorities, the most unanimous Union sentiment in East Tennessee, was in the eight or ten counties around Knoxville, which felt the influence and heard the voices of these less well-known leaders.
By reason of Mr. Johnson's great influence over the Dem- ocrats, it must not be supposed that the Whig Union leaders had nothing to do and deserve no credit. Such a conclusion would be most erroneous.
Suppose the canvass of January and February, and I might say December also, had depended on what was done by the East Tennessee representatives in Congress at Washington, and that the local leaders had remained silent, can any man doubt what the result would have been? The Union cause would have been hopelessly lost, and lost, too, beyond the power of man to restore it. It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Johnson alone did not make East Tennessee loyal to the Union, though he did more than any one man, and that he did his part also in keeping it loyal no one will deny. The occasion was grand and full of awful interest. In the presence of momentous events constantly transpiring around him, his faculties and powers seemed to expand. He pleaded with thrilling words the cause of his country. In power, as a public speaker, Johnson was easily the first of the Union leaders in East Tennessee. Never did he make such speeches. He literally took his life in his hand. Whatever may be thought of him in reference to his subsequent acts, he certainly deserved and still deserves the gratitude of his countrymen for this brilliant campaign. The grandeur of the occasion and the stupendous consequences at issue seemed to soften his bitter spirit. He went forward with unfaltering steps, and as the gloom thickened he grew more carnest. That his speeches at that time were masterly efforts, none who heard them ever questioned. At no period of his life was he so great-certainly at no period did he so completely rise above
44
NOTABLE MEN OF TENNESSEE
himself. Had he died at the close of this great canvass, he would have lived in memory and in history as the ablest de- fender of the Union.
When the three members of Congress returned home, as we have seen, the second canvass was on hand. The local leaders were already in the field. The fight had gone on from February almost without ceasing. The members of Congress found the Union men a compact, determined body, solidified and united by the work already done. To attempt to make converts at that late hour would have been almost hopeless. The utmost that could be done was to hold the Union column steady, and prevent stampedes, desertions, and straggling. There was much hard work yet to be done. The startling and rapidly succeed- ing events daily taking place were calculated to unsettle the minds of men, and it required constant encouragement and sup- port to keep them steady. Under similar conditions, nearly the entire population of Middle and West Tennessee had deserted in a body almost in a day, going over to secession, and so, too, had the large loyal majority in Virginia melted away in an hour. Men were astounded by the masterly bold- ness of the secessionists, and dazzled and confounded by the audacity with which they played the game of revolution. Day by day the stars in the bright galaxy of the Union were dropping one by one from their accustomed places. Every- where in the South loyalty disappeared on that black and terrible 12th of April, 1861, but no such falling away occurred in East Tennessee. Scarcely a man wavered.
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.