The deeper I get into the history of events in central and western Maryland, the more I am convinced that the “despot’s heel” argument really holds little weight. Not only is the state song out of date, it never really reflected the Civil War era opinion of the state as a whole.
What prompted today’s thought was my seeing a comment made elsewhere about why Maryland didn’t jump in as a seceding state. More or less, the argument was that it was because there were so many Federal troops present that the legislature couldn’t make the move to secession that they (maybe I should place emphasis on “they”, knowing how some legislators in the deeper South made it clear that “they” felt that they often knew better what to do than the citizens) really wanted. This was just part of a larger discussion and Maryland wasn’t THE focus of it all.
In regard to the presence of Federal troops suppressing Maryland’s “will”, I think this is exaggerated. True, we have the incident in Baltimore with the boys from Massachusetts on April 19, 1861 (but they were just passing through), and… even from Unionists, I’ve seen that there was plenty of hub-bub about the control over the legislature (even in the western part of the state) and Governor T.H. Hicks’ handling of situations. Nonetheless, even in the midst of this, there was plenty of pro-Union sentiment being expressed by Maryland’s citizens… especially in the central and western part (keep in mind that this region is the greater focus of my work and I haven’t spent a great deal of time with the eastern part of the state).
There is no doubt that there were plenty who wanted secession, and we can see that more than a fair number of Marylanders ended up wearing gray. I’m sure most of them felt oppressed, repressed, and depressed by the continual downturn of events against their interests, BUT, and this is a critical point… was it any different than the feelings of Unionists in neighboring Virginia? Furthermore, in the aftermath of all that took place in the first half of 1861, Unionists retained a voice in Maryland and it wasn’t by any means weak. Quite a few expressed their support (and, perhaps, may have been able to do so because of keeping the secessionists in check) for the Union by enlisting in Maryland’s Union regiments and many continued to express it in other ways. When we realize the numbers of these people, why is that some still see Maryland as a state under the despot’s heel? Sure, some people felt it, but not the state as a whole.
I think there is a lot more to learn from the Civil War-era Maryland than that presented through the narrow understanding offered through the state song. I especially think that an understanding of Maryland’s secessionists may help us to better understand the feelings of the unwavering Unionists in the secessionists states. In fact, I’ve encountered some interesting experiential parallels between the two groups. As I’ve mentioned before in other posts, in examining my home county in Virginia, I’ve discovered stories that reveal a number of heavy-handed methods used by secessionists against anyone who posed a threat to secession and the success of the Confederacy. In turn, I’ve encountered some instances of mob-rule (no different than that which I’ve seen in Virginia) in Washington County, Maryland where secessionists have been not only driven out, but beaten down, literally! I’ll eventually share a story that I found about one rather vocal secessionists and what he experienced at the hands of mob-rule in Williamsport, Md. in 1861.
James F. Epperson
January 8, 2010
It needs to be remembered that MD held Congressional elections in June, and sent 5 (out of six) unconditional Unionists to Congress. Also, I think the number of Marylanders who wore gray is exaggerated; if you look at the number of MD formations in Lee’s army, you only have enough organizations to account for at most 10,000 men, probably less. Sure, some men from MD enlisted in regiments from other states, but to get the kinds of figures claimed in some sources, you would have to have a Maryland company in every regiment in Lee’s army!
Robert Moore
January 8, 2010
Hi James, I haven’t delved into a number analysis of those who wore gray compared with those who wore blue, but I know that in writing about the Stuart Horse Artillery, I saw that a number of Marylanders later left the organization (a Virginia unit) and went to Maryland units (just as in the case of the men from the 1st Va. Cav. to the 2nd Md. Cav.), but there were some Marylanders who stuck it out with Virginia units. Even so, I don’t think that they measure up in numbers against Maryland’s boys in blue. The whole heritage argument (which I suspect will surface again soon) upholding the retention of Maryland’s state song needs to be questioned as it is not a reflection of the reality that was Maryland’s story in the Civil War.
James F. Epperson
January 8, 2010
One of my online friends (Bob Huddleston) has a canned comment on this: If you go to the appropriate shelves in the Archives were the enlistment info is kept (I’m working from memory so may have some details wrong), the section on MD Unionists is *much* larger than that for MD Confederates. Also, MD never formed a “government in exile” like Kentucky and Missouri did.
Robert Moore
January 8, 2010
I didn’t think of the Archives thing, but that is correct. I’ve been there digging in the Maryland unit files and the Union part is larger.
James F. Epperson
January 8, 2010
The problem is, it is an article of faith with some people that Maryland was held in the Union by brute force. The geography did impose a “take no chances” mentality on the Lincoln Administration, but I really think that Maryland, like Kentucky, did not join the Confederacy until after the war was over.
Robert Moore
January 8, 2010
Yes, as a matter of fact, I was looking on FB the other day for Maryland related CW groups and found that Confederate heritage-related stuff (though more reenactment units than anything) abounds where the absence is of Union heritage is astounding. The passion for a more middle ground in Maryland has been eclipsed by a false memory… as you indicate, becoming more Confederate after the war than during the war. I’ve heard that statement frequently applied to Ky.
Craig Swain
January 9, 2010
Robert, just look at the public displays on the town squares. How often do we find a pedestal inscribed “to the defenders of the Union”?
I can’t make a statistical judgment, but it appears to me few of the CS memorials in Maryland are of the type seen in Virginia or the Carolinas, or even Kentucky. Here’s one example that I would say fits the description of a “county Confederate memorial”: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=3300
You see the statue holding the flag, the list of names, and the dates. But none of the mournful expressions about the cause. However this is a 1916 memorial, which I would argue was placed more by actions of the son/daughters generation.
Many of the memorials in Maryland are specific to individuals, AND placed more recently. Admiral Semmes didn’t get a memorial until 1993 (http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?MarkerID=942). And Private Owens got his in 1999 (http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=22147).
Robert Moore
January 9, 2010
Craig, You know, come to think of it, despite the strong Union sentiment, I can’t say that I have seen a single monument in western Maryland (apart from on battlefield sites) that reflects on the men from the area who wore blue. Out of all the regiments of the Potomac Home Brigade, I think the only monument is to the 1st Regt. Inf. and it is at Gettysburg.
Craig Swain
January 9, 2010
Robert, I’d say that one is a bit different, being a monument, as opposed to a memorial. The intent of the two types of public displays differs.
I would submit that Maryland is not unique in this regard. In Missouri, there are scarcely any memorials to the Civil War (the town square memorials that is). Yet the state sent sizable numbers to both sides. Around 110,000 Federal volunteers (based on MOLLUS tallies the number is 200,000). And common figure for Confederate Missouri troops is 40k.
Reading reconstruction era court records, letters, journals, and perhaps most telling, letters to editors of newspapers, one gets the sense that the veterans would much rather let a sleeping dog lie than to start another fuss. Notably in the more affluent sections of the state, very few public displays about the war date to a time when those veterans were alive.
A large number of the Federal veterans were German, which may work into this lack of public displays. At the same time, many of the key leaders on the Confederate side either died during the war or faded rapidly from the scene for many reasons after the war.
Robert Moore
January 9, 2010
I haven’t tapped-into the postwar stuff for the area just yet, but am aware that there were G.A.R. posts that were quite active. As you say, perhaps they wanted to “let a sleeping dog lie”, but I also wonder if they felt that doing so would be in the best interests of the larger community in which there could be found many people with opposing opinions of the war.
True, there were many German Federal vets, but that’s not so much the case with (just as an example) the companies of the Potomac Home Brigade that were formed in Washington County, Md. A lot of them were of German descent, but the families had been in the area for quite some time.
Craig Swain
January 9, 2010
I think the Washington Co. Germans and the Missouri Germans would be of different cloth. The former were separated by many generations from the 48ers in central Missouri. While the war experience gave those 48ers some recognition, they were still immigrants or at best first generation Americans. Guess that was my point regarding the German vets. Still that would only represent about a third of the Missouri veterans.
But overall there is a sense of “live and let live” that stands out from the sources I noted (from veterans of both sides, from many backgrounds). I would contend this was largely due to economic factors. Why would anyone in what was still an agrarian dominated society, offend a neighbor or business partner discussing something as trivial as old politics?
Although I tend to view these “why did they fight” studies of the soldiers with great skepticism, perhaps the “let sleeping dogs lie” sentiment can tell us something of the soldier’s motivation.
Robert Moore
January 9, 2010
Well, actually, when we look at the original purpose for the Potomac Home Brigade, I think we can understand a lot. They were originally formed with the intent of protecting the home front, the B&O RR, and C&O Canal. When it came to “why they fought”, there were some striking similarities with many of the boys in gray. In fact, that’s what makes these folks so interesting; it’s not your standard fare when it comes to reasons for wearing the uniform.