Once again (as can be seen in my post from Friday), I’ve been perusing the Valley of the Shadow site. My focus in that post on Friday was on the two papers in Staunton, Virginia, at this particular time (the first week of February), 150 years ago. One of those papers happened to support secession, while the other was more in favor of Union. In fact, I started posting tidbits from the Spectator yesterday, on Twitter, and will follow-up later this week, with tidbits from the Vindicator. I’m hoping I can continue the pace for the next few months (at least through April), and post tweets from the respective papers, on the days that they appeared in 1861. I think you’ll find the opposing views of the papers of interest. *(I can be found on Twitter at “Cenantua”).
But… while I usually focus my attention on the Shenandoah Valley, I thought it would also be worthwhile to shine some light on sentiments in Franklin County, Pennsylvania (the other half of the Valley of the Shadow story). The dual focus provided through the VotS project is important, especially during the period between December 1860 and April 1861. Regretfully, Franklin County only had one newspaper at this point in time. While the two newspapers in Staunton can provide us with two opposing views of Virginians in the Shenandoah Valley, the lone paper in Franklin County provides us with the perspective of Democrats in south central Pennsylvania.
What’s so important about the Spirit, then? Like the Spectator, I find that the Spirit challenges popular memory of the war.
But, what do I mean about popular memory of the war? Here are some questions to consider…
How has memory of the war drifted so far from the reality?
In the broad-brush coverage over a century and a half, have we forgotten our own history and the details that happen to be contrary to how we understand that history?
Have we re-invented, or rather, re-manufactured memory of the war?
Has our memory reshuffled and re-purposed the history so much that we have become more ignorant of the history?
In fact, I can add a few more questions, but, for now, that will do.
Now, it’s not my intent to answer these questions, but rather, to focus on delivering information that I believe challenges popular memory of the war, as expressed by others in various ways. As you read, I hope that you find something new… something that you may have not been aware of prior to reading the pieces. I encourage readers, here and in Twitter, to also think about these “new-to-you” items under the light of the questions above.
I know, as I read through the papers, I find it, not so much new to me, but refreshing to read how 1) the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia was not falling head over heals in love with the idea of secession, and 2) how south central Pennsylvania was not chomping at the bit to hold the Union together by force. It seems to me that the sensible folks were seeking a way to a peaceful compromise, and disunion was not among the solutions, especially when considering a possible war that, because of geography, seemed certain to visit the respective doorsteps. What I’ve read so far, the folks at the Staunton Spectator and the Valley Spirit were the types who were closest in sentiment… those who were more interested in compromise. Of course, I also understand that to maintain the status quo would prove costly in its own way. Specifically… just how long would slavery continue, if a compromise could have been reached?
I’ll be posting these items of interest (with commentary), here and there, in different posts on this blog (keeping in mind that other posts focused on other items of interests will also appear here), and on Twitter. I hope you will find some items of interest, and value.
Richard McCormick
February 6, 2011
Sounds like a great project.
I may have to “borrow” this idea and see what I can find of local newspapers from Northern Kentucky. I know there is one that is online for 1861 & 1862, so that might work, and the local library has some other options as well. I’ll have to find some time to dig into it & see what I can find too.
Richard McCormick
February 6, 2011
Searching one of these papers, I found the following article that may interest you, with this perception of Virginia Unionists, from a Covington Ky newspaper. (Covington is on the south side of the Ohio River, across from Cincinnati – a “border city” perhaps.)
This was in the Covington Journal of Feb 9, 1861. I’ll transcribe it below, but if you want to see it, the link is http://genealogy.kentonlibrary.org/archives/news/cj/1861/02_09.pdf Look at page 2 (the link may take you straight to that page), and the 4th column about 1/3 the way down the page.
The Union men have carried a majority of the convention in Virginia. Let it not be understood, however, that the Union men of Virginia are like some other Union men we know of – in favor or coercion; in favor of holding the Union together by force; in favor of the Union, rights or no rights. The true Union men of Virginia propose Mr. Crittenden’s plan as the basis of settlement; but they require some action by Congress before the first of March next, looking to a final settlement. This failing, they are for secession.
Robert Moore
February 6, 2011
Hi Richard,
Thanks for that excerpt. Good information… and a description of Virginia Unionists that closelyfollows that given by the Staunton Vindicator in February 1861. The distinction between Virginia Unionists did indeed boil down to the issue of coercion. Many a Unionists flipped once Lincoln made the call for troops, but not everyone. Additionally, I’ve seen some waffling in some of those who flipped. I’ve also seen a similar definition in the Valley Spirit, from Chambersburg. Still, a positive vote for secession in the convention didn’t occur until Wise’s extralegal military activities came out (in the speech by Wise).
I find the story of Virginia’s convention one of the most interesting, if not the most interesting, out of all the southern states.
Robert Moore
February 6, 2011
I’m getting way ahead of things, but… this is a good summary of the final tense moments in which Virginia flipped toward secession (from the Encyclopedia Virginia):
“As Wise rose to speak, he brandished a revolver and shouted that ‘blood will be flowing at Harper’s Ferry before night.’ ‘We are here indulging in foolish debates,’ he said, in an attempt to cow the Unionist delegates, ‘the only result of which must be delay, and, perhaps, ruin.’
Baldwin rose to oppose Wise’s threats, questioning the former governor’s desire to behave as if Virginia were already seceded and at war. But when Baldwin declared that voters should have the chance to first decide the question of secession, Wise argued that by then it will be too late. The ‘enemy,’ as he referred to the United States government, will have pounced. In the end, Baldwin, who would later reluctantly wear a Confederate uniform, was no match for Wise’s brutal questioning of his loyalty to Virginia. ‘The future,’ he lamented, ‘looks dark—dark and dreary.’”
The disunionists pushed Virginia over the edge. At this point, what options were left for those who were Unionists. I can’t help but wonder… had it not been for Wise’s under-the-table military activities, would Virginia have gone to the Confederacy?