A Tale Of… Two Civil War Volunteers

By Emily Hook

Curious about what exactly producing a film entails, I asked Dr. Endres of the Kent State journalism department if I could attend a couple of his Civil War documentary meetings, and maybe even assist in the information-gathering aspect of the process.

I was immediately overwhelmed by how much time and effort each member of the “team” devotes every week to seeking out more sources. They might spend five hours scouring an almanac they recently stumbled upon at a Hiram College library related to Northeast Ohio in the 1800s, only to find a paragraph’s worth of useable information. I was astounded; their work required an incredible amount of patience and diligence I didn’t think I had.

The team was mainly in search of stories of Portage County individuals or families related to the Civil War. Dr. Endres might get a lead on a soldier born in Brimfield who received a unique award for his service during the war and probably had the last name of “Harris”… With this little bit of information, the treasure hunt began.

I was delegated to investigate John and Sarah Cross—both citizens of Portage Country in the 1800s and volunteer medical practitioners during the war. Finding nothing on the couple on Google, I got a bit more creative and signed up for a one-month free trial to Ancestry.com, a massive database used by individuals who want to search for long-lost relatives and build their knowledge of their family trees. Knowing so little background information about Mr. and Mrs. Cross, the website was virtually unhelpful. I was able to locate John Cross in a Portage County census, which helped me find the names of his children, but this was the extent of my success. Thus, I had to go further.

In the world of the typical Kent State student, doing non-Internet research is seemingly unthinkable. But for Endres’ team, compiled mainly of undergraduate and graduate students (and now me), this “creative,” non-Internet research was the only option.

Luckily, Dr. Endres gave me a lead on some local newspaper headlines regarding the Cross’; after some extensive detective work at the library looking through microfilm (newspapers that have been converted to film negatives). Kent State University’s library contains tens of thousands of full newspapers, both local and national and ranging from the mid-1800s to present. Utilizing this very valuable, tangible database,  and after an hour or two of squinting at the tiny print, I was victorious (as you can see by the images below of the “Kent Courier,” the original “Record Courier”). As it turns out, Sarah Cross was a notable and distinguished nurse during the Civil War—and she was a native of Kent!

What this experience proved to me is the vitality of maintaining an organized record of history as it passes. It is our responsibility in the present to do so, for once the past becomes too past, it is all of sudden practically impossible to bring it back—as was illustrated by the aggravating struggle of Endres and his documentary team to uncover information that at one point was common knowledge to the general public.

If we have any hope to restore history, to remember it, we must keep up with recording the present.

A Historical Documentary and all it Entails

By Emily Hook

As we have all been made aware, the Kent State history and journalism departments have teamed up to produce a historical documentary depicting what was going on in Portage Country during the Civil War era, in commemoration of the war’s 200^th anniversary.

As an aspiring video producer/social documentarian, this project-in-the-making was of great interest to me. I am deeply intrigued by the power film can have on a person: the music, the angle of the shot, the colors, the timing, the movements, the spoken word and the written word, all synchronize to form an exactly perfect combination of stimuli—a masterpiece, that so naturally and profoundly effects the audience members in ways they are often not even aware of.

Driven by this passion, I e-mailed Dr. Endres, the head honcho of the documentary, to ask how I could get involved.

In hindsight, I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

Creating a movie isn’t all fun and games, like people might think while happily watching their favorite movies. The stages that precede the actual production and shooting of a film (the fun part, in my opinion), I realized, require A LOT of intense, grueling and diligent research if the videographer has any hope that his or her production will contain any sort of valuable content.

What’s more, documentaries require a larger breadth of factual and informational content than do narrative films. Furthermore, a historical documentary is going to be even more demanding, for it is unlikely that anything of relevancy will be happening at present that is of relevancy to the era of the documentary’s topic. Thus, the director/producer must seek out alternative images to use as the B-Roll (what the audience will see) for the documentary. For Endres’ Civil War documentary, this alternative comes in the form of photographs, paintings or artifacts from the 1800s in Portage County that can be recorded on a video camera and therein reproduced as digital film.

What the audience will hear is also a challenge to produce for any team behind a historical documentary. Even identifying what the general attitude or lifestyle any historical era is not an easy undertaking. Direct quotes from individuals during the Civil War era, just as in any time-frame, must come from some place—usually letters, diaries, or newspapers. But the questions then start streaming in—where are these letters and diaries and newspapers? And once we track down these hidden treasures, how do we go about filtering through them? Is it worth reading through hundreds of documents if all we’re looking for is one particular name or story?

Because the technological age was still a century off when the Civil War ensued, information regarding the war—let alone information regarding the war in Portage County, specifically—was lost or at least unintentionally hidden from the public. Thus, the information required to weave together the stories of life in Northeast Ohio in the mid 1800s is undeniably extremely difficult to locate. While there are some helpful databases and websites online related to Civil War history, few have information specifically geared toward individual counties.

And so, Dr. Endres’ team was forced to search elsewhere. And the investigation began.

The rather tedious process of creating a historical documentary upfront seems daunting and perhaps superfluous to the modern human being, but we must be patient and contemplative… How else are we to remember, recognize, comprehend, and appreciate, etc. the past without creating means and methods of doing so? A documentary, by definition, is an exact combination of entertainment and information—I couldn’t think of a better way to gain knowledge, especially when it regards our own local history.

Preemptive Emancipation

By Bill Strange

During the Civil War, the United States passed the emancipation proclamation which set the slaves “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free (McPherson 557).” Emancipation was not an exclusive Union measure. The Confederacy also contemplated emancipating the slaves. Confederate Emancipation is seen as a paradox to Southern principles and would not overcome the strong, pro-slavery sentiments.

Slaves were central to both the Confederate and Union war efforts. Originally, the Confederacy had impressed slaves into service before white men were drafted into military service; furthermore, slaves were contribute to over 50% of labor towards the war effort (354 McPherson). The slaves would build and maintain forts, build fortifications, dig trenches, and maintain camps (McPherson 354). The slaves were exclusively laborers, not soldiers.

Before the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, slaves would flee from their plantations and seek shelter in Union encampments. The first prominent occurrence happened at Fortress Monroe in Virginia. Three slaves had fled from confederate fortifications and sought shelter in the Union fort. Benjamin Butler, the commanding officer, turned away a confederate colonel when he came for his lost property (McPherson 355). The slaves who made it to Union lines are referred to as contraband, they are property confiscated from the belligerent South. Contrabands were employed in the North similarly to Southern implementation of slaves. They were teamsters, hospital attendants, and company cooks (McPherson 502).
The thousands of slaves that deserted the south did not necessarily hurt Southern production. The devastating blow would not come until the aftermath of Antietam, when the Emancipation Proclamation set the slaves “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free (McPherson 557).” Thousands of blacks would abscond from the south and seek their freedom in the nearest Union line.

As the war progressed, the tide shifted towards the Union. After the fall of Vicksburg and the defeat at Gettysburg, the Confederacy was at its lowest point. The Army of Virginia lost one third of its fighting forces in the span of three days in Pennsylvania; General Robert E. Lee offered his resignation after the loss at Gettysburg, but President Davis declined his resignation (Levine 21).

In order to revitalize the army, General Patrick Cleburne proposed a controversial resolution to emancipate slaves in the South. The resolution would organize black regiments and in return for military service, the slaves would be granted freedom (Levine 2). In Cleburne’s unit, fifteen high-ranking officers endorsed his proposal by signature (Levine 1). A meeting of high ranking generals was held to discuss the resolution, with the consensus that emancipation would be ill-advised (Levine 1); however, General Robert E. Lee did support the armament of blacks. General Lee’s private opinion was, “we should employ them without delay [even] at the risk which may be produced upon our social institutions (McPherson 836).” General Lee also wrote to a congressman saying, “The negroes, under proper circumstances, will make efficient soldiers. I think we could at least do as well with them as the enemy… Those who are employed should be freed, It would be neither just or wise… to require them to serve as slaves (McPherson 836).”

By enlisting slaves into the army, the confederacy would have an army size that rivals the Union Army. The Confederates were almost always outnumbered by Union forces. At this time, there around 3.5 million slaves in the South (Levin 17). Any number, whether it be 100,000 or 1 million, of black soldiers would have given the South a must-needed edge in the war. Virginia would be successful in raising two companies of black soldiers, but they never saw action (McPherson 837).

Another reason to manumit the slaves would be for foreign recognition. The Confederacy was holding out hope that Britain and France would intervene in the war by either mediating between the belligerent nations or ending the Northern blockade of the Confederate Coast (Levine 18). It was well known that Europe’s population were hostile to slavery, so some believed that the Confederacy could purchase European intervention with a promise to emancipate its own slaves (Levine 18).
Slavery was too ingrained into Southern Society for emancipation to take root. Slavery was the South’s main economic institution as the United States became the leading exporter of cotton (Levin 20). Plantation owners believed “…one man can own property in his fellow man Levin 20), and owning slaves was protected by the constitution (Levin 20). General William B. Bate, who was present at the generals meeting concerning Cleburne’s proposal, believed the proposition to manumit the slaves would, “contravene principles upon which I have heretofore acted.” The proposal would “discard our received theory of government, destroy our legal institution and social relations (Levin 40).” General Bate demonstrated the common view disavowing emancipation. Furthermore, creoles could not serve in the Confederate Army. To be eligible to join, a person must prove that they are “disconnected from negroes” (Levin 19). If a person could not, he would only be able to serve as a laborer.
Ultimately, the Union was not alone in reaching out to slaves.

There was much support for Emancipation in the South ranging from lowest class to sanctified heroes such as General Lee. However, in the words of Jefferson Davis it was “stark madness” to arm the slaves and “would revolt and disgust the whole South (Levin 18).” Confederate Emancipation would not pass in the South, slavery was too vital to the economy and also the social institutions in the South.

Works Cited

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Levin, Bruce. Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves During the Civil War. New York: OUP USA, 2005. Print.

Bibliography

Carlisle, Rodney P., and J. Geoffrey Golson. A House Divided during the Civil War Era. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2007. Print.

Heidler, David S. “Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History.” 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000. Print.

Schroeder-Lein, Glenna R., and Richard Zuczek. Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion. ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2001. Print.

 

The Union’s Adhesive

By Bill Strange

The Baptist Minister’s Union of Oakland recently held its annual Emancipation Proclamation commemoration, with remembering the document as freeing 4 million slaves. However, not every slave was given freedom under the Emancipation Proclamation. The law would only take effect in the states of rebellion, otherwise known as the Confederacy, but did not free the slaves in the Border States. Lincoln wanted to hold the Union together at all costs and would often drift away from the Republican Party platform of abolition; in order to hold the Union together, President Lincoln had to rally every resource available, but he would not do so at the expense of the Border States.

The American Civil War pitted the Union forces versus the Confederate forces, more often seen as free states fighting the slave states. Before the commencement of the Civil War, the Northerners were tolerable of slavery in the South, except for a handful of abolitionists; however, they were deeply concerned with the possibility that slavery would spread throughout the nation. The territories were the hotbed of turmoil. As Kansas applied for admission, both anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces rushed into the territory in order to prevent the other side from taking control of the state.

Bleeding Kansas, as it would be called, was the result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed each state before joining the Union, to decide by popular sovereignty if slavery would be legal in the new state (Heidler). This Act overturned the earlier Missouri Compromise, which divided the country into free and slaves states at the 30^o parallel (Heidler). The Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional after the Dred-Scott decision.

Lincoln opposed slavery strongly, but did not believe in equality of races (Carlisle 75). His main concern was with the spreading of slavery into territories (Heidler). Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery in the south, but halt its expansion into future states. The fear of slavery spreading into new territories heightened after the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott Decision. He believed the Constitution sanctioned slavery in the southern states (Heidler). Therefore, only the states could voluntarily liberate the slaves. Furthermore, President Lincoln suggested for an amendment that would gradually diminish slavery until it would finally end in 1900 (Heidler).

Primarily, the Civil War would be fought for the preservation of the Union. Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson Act which stated the Union would not interfere with “the rights or established institutions” of the seceded states (Rodriguez 65). The Northerners would be fighting to hold the United States together by bringing their misguided brothers back into the Union. Furthermore, Lincoln fired General Fremont after he declared the slaves in Missouri to be free (McPherson 352). In another incident, President Lincoln forced General Hunter to retract his declaration that the slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina to be free (Carlisle 78).

The cases of Generals Fremont and Hunter contradict the image of Abraham Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. The actions under taken by Lincoln were to keep the Border States in the Union, if Hunter and Fremont were left to their own devices then “the very arms we had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game (McPherson 357).” The Union would have been dealt a critical blow if the Border States were to secede. The Border States were critical for resources, manpower, and a buffer zone between the Union and the Confederacy.

Lincoln’s image as the Great Emancipator comes from a misunderstanding of his Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln’s act, declared after the Union victory at Antietam, freed the southern slaves, but did not every slave in the United States (Heidler). There were two Emancipation documents signed by Lincoln. The first would free slaves in rebellious states, which would take effect on 1 January 1863; however, the rebelling states could return to the Union within three months and keep slavery intact (Heidler). The second Emancipation Proclamation declared the slaves in the confederacy “shall be then, thenceforward and forever free” (McPherson 559). The Proclamations did not free the slaves in the Border States or the slaves in area under control of Union forces, such as Tennessee, Louisiana, and a portion of Virginia (McPherson 563).

As the war dragged on, the Union was looking for a way to bring the rebellion to a close. The goal of the Emancipation Proclamation was to weaken the enemy. The Confederacy had impressed slaves into service before a draft was initiated; these slaves would contribute to over fifty-percent of the labor in the war effort (McPherson 354). Without this large labor force, the Confederacy would be severely crippled. General Grant recognized the South’s strength but didn’t necessarily believe in emancipation, which was a common view in the north, by saying, “I have no hobby of my own with regard to the negro, either to effect his freedom or to continue his bondage… I don’t know what it is to become of these poor people in the end, but it weakens the enemy to take them from them (McPherson 502).”

Emancipation was not at all popular in the North. A prominent abolitionist, Wendell Philips could not travel into the Nation’s Capitol without danger to his life. Abolitionists were often attacked by mobs because they “provoked” the states to secede (McPherson 495). The Democrats were up at arms after the Proclamation, they declared the law to be “a proposal for the butchery of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, and of arson and murder” (McPherson 560). Furthermore, the black soldiers now legally allowed to serve in the army under the Emancipation Proclamation, were segregated from the white units and were sometimes regarded as “niggers” by their white-commanding officers (McPherson 565). These black soldiers were often met with extremely harsh treatment and were often murdered by Confederate hands. A Confederate Colonel recounted after capturing a squad of black soldiers, he ordered the whole squad to be executed when a couple of soldiers attempted to escape. (McPherson 565). The Colonel assisted in his order with his six-shooter.

Unfortunately, the slaves would suffer in bondage for a few more years until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, under the Radical Republicans. Even though the Emancipation did not free every slave in the U.S., the act achieved some of the goals from different factions in the Union. Abolitionists were happy with the thousands of slaves that rushed to the Union lines, the Union soldiers were joyful with the Confederate’s manpower being diminished, and Lincoln was content with freeing the slaves, crippling the confederacy, but most importantly he held the Union together by not alienating the Border States. President Lincoln carefully crafted the Emancipation Proclamation as to not affect slavery in the Border States, but he did warn those starts that slavery was nearing its end. Lincoln proposed different acts to the Border States, which would end slavery gradually but provide compensation. After the Civil War, slavery would be shall be then, thenceforward and forever dead.

Works Citied

Carlisle, Rodney P., and J. Geoffrey Golson. A House Divided during the Civil War Era. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2007. Print.

Heidler, David S. “Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History.” 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000. Print.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Schroeder-Lein, Glenna R., and Richard Zuczek. Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion. ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2001. Print.

Purpose Behind Hospital Sketches

“Louisa Alcott was a woman of energy, finding herself in action” (Harrison 267). As an active and lively woman, she decided to channel her energy in to something useful, helping others. She headed to Georgetown and became a nurse in a Civil War hospital ward. While nursing and tending to others, she kept note of her experience and later published her notes as Hospital Sketches. “These ‘sketches’ are important for what they say about Alcott—about her courage, her hatred of slavery and racial prejudice, her belief that women should be encouraged to grow and develop as individuals” (Meyers 68). Her account was intended to depict the events that took place in the hospitals but also portray her individual beliefs. Therefore, Louisa May Alcott fulfills her purpose of expressing her personal ethics and morals by incorporating them in to the events that occur in her narrative, Hospital Sketches.

In support of female individualism, she clearly states her beliefs from the very beginning of the narrative declaring, “I’m a woman’s rights woman…” (Alcott 17). Expressing her dedication to feminist rights, Alcott rebels against what is considered accepted social behavior for the women of her time. For example, when she confronted an unknown man with a few simple questions he, “answered very civilly, but evidently hadn’t been used to being addressed by strange women in public conveyances” (Alcott 27). Regardless of the fact that women were not supposed to talk to strange men, she freely converses with him and ignores this social etiquette. She travels alone, performs “unspeakable” tasks in the hospital, takes walks by herself and asserts her opinion to men of high rank such as doctors and priests. These are all unusual and unacceptable actions for women of her time. Alcott’s behavior of straying from traditional manners and rebelling against social etiquette shows her display of her own independence and her support of women’s rights because she is encouraging female individualism and freedom.

In the fifth chapter of her narrative, Alcott expresses her opposition to racial prejudice when she discusses the black people in the hospital. She says she felt, “…an urgent appeal to leave nursing white bodies, and take some care for these black souls” (Alcott 81). Her desire to ensure the blacks were cared for just as well as the whites displays her strong belief in equality and fairness. She talks about how much she likes the black people and about how they were almost always pleasant and cheerful despite their circumstances and treatment. She describes how she, “daily shocked some neighbor by treating the blacks as [she] did the whites” (Alcott 81). Her non-prejudice behavior surprised many but was simply standard and humane conduct in her eyes. The author continues her defense for the blacks by expressing her disgust of the other nurses who, “…were willing to be served by the colored people, but seldom thanked them, never praised, and scarcely recognized them in the street…” (Alcott 81). The fact that she is upset by the way the other nurses treat the black people shows that she is against being prejudice and does not appreciate the racist behavior of others. All these examples of Alcott’s disapproval of racist actions depict her morals and her hatred for racial prejudice.

Hospital Sketches provides several specific examples that represent many of Louisa May Alcott’s personal beliefs. She cleverly incorporates her own opinions and principles in to her description of the hospital wards and the events that occur within them. In doing this she is able to portray an accurate depiction of the Civil War hospitals, yet also express her personal morals in a discrete manner. She achieves her purpose of writing her narrative by expressing her principles and ethics to her audience through the events in the hospitals during the Civil War.

Works Cited

Alcott, Louisa May. Civil War Hospital Sketches. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006. Print.

Harrison, William Henry. The New England Quarterly Inc. Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jun., 1961) pp. 266- 268. Web. 14 February 2011.

Meyers, Katie Beaird. University of Nebraska Press. Legacy, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall 1988) pp. 68- 70. Web. 14 February 2011.

Memoranda blog topic ideas

Search through the Critical Ideas and Study Questions for blog post ideas on Whitman’s Memoranda During the War.   More questions coming soon!

http://www.classroomelectric.org/volume2/price/contents.htm

Alcott’s Ambition for Societal Acceptance

By Shannon Young

During times of war, nations face several questions. Louisa May Alcott’s Hospital Sketches is an example of one of those major questions- the question of the purpose and roles of certain groups and individuals within society. Feminism, the ideal Alcott continued to pursue, dates back, in American society, to Margaret Brent’s request to vote in 1648 (Baker). The demand for more female power was a recurring problem for hundreds of years and, although it is less of an issue now, still continues as a problem. During the Civil War, times were changing; technology, culture, the rights of individuals all went through radical development. As an embodiment of the wartime changes in the 1860’s, Louisa May Alcott, under the pseudonym Nurse Tribulation Periwinkle, breached the accepted norms of a woman in order to change society’s view of the typical housewife into a view of an independent female as she traveled to Washington to nurse the soldiers.

The very start of the novel portrays Tribulation as a woman with drive and initiative claiming, “I want something to do” (Alcott 1). A woman attempting to find a purpose in society rather than accepting her role as cooking and cleaning housewife was very ambitious. Although her mind is already set, she acts “lady-like” and caring in asking her family for opinions, only to continue on her own path and do what she had originally planned- go to Washington.

Tribulation’s revolutionary ways become much more evident as she starts her journey. A woman in that time travelling without a man to guide her and watch over her was nearly unheard of. Her adventure was not a smooth one at all. She was sent from strange man to strange man trying to obtain her tickets and directions for the trip (Alcott 4-10). A woman travelling alone was frowned upon, let alone a woman travelling alone and talking to unknown men. As she continued onwards despite the setbacks, she was disapproved of by a few but kept her pride stating, “I am a woman’s rights woman, and if any man had offered me help this morning, I should have condescendingly refused it, sure that I could do everything well, if not better, myself” (Alcott 7). Woman who did not like her speaking to their husbands scowled; men gave her roundabout directions and ambiguous answers. However, she forged onward past the hardships in order to reach her destination, silently cursing those who treated her badly based upon her gender and leaving an impression of an independent lady on those whom she crossed paths with.

Once on the way, she strived to be self-sufficient. She watched other, well-travelled passengers to find an idea of how to act and what to do. She looked on to other people on the boat for reassurance that if something went wrong she could hold on to someone, a heavy woman, to float rather than sink with the boat. She also found comfort in the fact that the changing times were somewhat accepted as a man of the church swigged his brandy in the dark with no repercussions (Alcott 12). Her viewing of other people breaking stereotypes and her independence along the trip allowed her to gain comfort and encouragement along her journey to social freedom.

After arriving at the hospital, Tribulation was asked to do a shocking task that would have been frowned upon under any other circumstance, bathe the soldiers as they came in. Her horror at this duty was indescribable in that the only words she could write to express her disbelief was “Really- really-” (Alcott 22). As Tribulation works with the men, she begins to get to know them. She becomes more comfortable in her surroundings. As she became at ease with her new location and job, she began writing about her solitary walks, another example is given of how she broke out of accepted societal norms and took her individuality to the streets as she paced them without a man at her side.

Her novel ends with the most shocking example of her new found self-respect. In a published letter she voices her opinion of the way the soldiers are treated. She openly tells doctors and surgeons how to better treat their patients and tells fathers how to keep better faith in their followers (Alcott 69-73). Tribulation telling men how to do their job better may be appropriate based on her extensive knowledge the patients; however, it was completely inappropriate at the time for a woman to tell a man what to do and how to do it.

Whether Tribulation meant to breach norms as a feminist trying to create a societal change or just found the lack of respect individually to be unfair, she managed to push the limits and gain some social standing. She became a published and prominent author due to her journey, and her independence was noticed around the nation. In this time of war, when our country was vulnerable to change, Tribulation had the potential to change society and she fulfilled it.

Works Cited:

Baker, Ann. “Margaret Brent Biography.” Maryland State Archives. Maryland State Archives, 1998. Web. 06 Feb. 2011. http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/002100/002177/html/brochure.html.

Alcott, Louisa May. Civil War Hospital Sketches. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006. Print