Having asked for input regarding who should be Virginia’s person of the year for 1861, I felt that I also had to ask the same for Maryland. This time, however, Robert E. Lee is not an option, creating what is, I think, a more challenging question to answer. Who stands out as “Person of the Year” for Maryland, for 1861?
Before you answer, however, I feel a need to point out a few things.
Just two weeks ago, in Washington Post’s “A House Divided”, the SCV’s Brag Bowling started-off (in a piece focused on the Baltimore Plot to kill Lincoln) talking about Maryland’s “Yankee problem”. There are a number of half-truths in this piece, and frankly, I feel the piece is a re-purposing of history. In addition to problems with the “Yankee problem” angle, I find it odd that Bowling writes, “No true history of this period in Maryland’s history would be complete without knowing more of the picture.” Indeed, perhaps he should take a lesson from his own words, because it’s clear he’s ignoring Maryland’s Unionists, I think, in order to bolster his “bad Lincoln, good Confederacy, poor downtrodden Marylanders” angle. Also, while true that Breckenridge carried the state, his margin was less than one percent (John Bell landing in a strong second). Bowling goes on to mention Lincoln’s ordering “the arrest and detention of anyone suspected of subversive deeds or utterances while suspending the writ of habeas corpus.” Yes, but, I always find it funny how Confederate celebrationists seem to remember this, yet forget (or aren’t aware of???) the oppression of its own citizens who didn’t embrace the Confederacy and its “cause”.
It’s not that I’m denying that those who were sympathetic to the Confederacy felt as Bowling suggests, but let’s be honest and really tell a more complete history of Maryland in the war. Let’s take care in also pointing out that, while some certainly must have felt oppressed under Lincoln’s decisions, other Marylanders likely felt a sense of relief. By the way, that’s an option that Virginians didn’t have.
So, with this in mind, who should we consider? I’ll ask similar questions to those that I asked in regard to Virginians…
The arrest of Kane, at his home, in the summer of 1861
Gov. Hicks
What, exactly, would make someone a “person of the year”? Would a consideration be, perhaps, that person’s demonstrated effort at preventing war…? Would the person be evaluated strictly on personal allegiance and/or adherence to personal principles? Does he/she have to be a warrior? A politician? Do we look only at people who had some bearing on the decisions that took place leading up to the crisis in Maryland over the issue of secession? Perhaps you find something favorable with Roger Taney, T. Parkin Scott, G.W. Brown, Thomas H. Hicks, Frances Key Howard, John Merryman, Francis Thomas, George P. Kane, or Bradley T. Johnson. Does it boil down to personal sympathy for Unionists or secessionists, or is it based on the man and his principles?
Who did Maryland and Marylanders a service? A disservice?
As with the vote on Virginia’s Person of the Year for 1861, I’m opening the floor to nominations, with explanation as to why YOU, the reader, would vote for a particular person. Remember, it’s just for 1861. Keep in mind, the people I named above are just a few names that come to mind on the fly. Certainly, there are more who might be considered. It doesn’t have to be a man. Perhaps there’s a woman, or perhaps an African-American who comes to mind.
Once (and if) I get enough nominations (accompanied by explanation… in 90 words or less… as to why), I’ll post a voting option on the blog.
Please give it some thought, and get back to me.
James F. Epperson
February 27, 2011
Someone should remind Mr. Bowling of the outcome of the votes on a secession convention the Maryland legislature held in April, and the Congressional elections in June, which saw 5 of 6 seats go to Unionists.
Robert Moore
February 27, 2011
I think Bowling needs to be reminded of a lot. Of course, in that it will not likely sink in, dealing with the half-truths he pitches is a necessity for those feeling a responsibility to the complexities and facts of history.
Michael
January 9, 2013
Those seats went to Unionists in a Union occupied state. The state was largely disloyal and the election results were more the product of compulsion than they were conviction. Not to mention the fact that those Southern loyalists in Maryland were either locked up or had flown south. They wouldn’t have wanted a seat in the Union Congress, and there was no way in Hell the Lincoln Administration would have allowed them to occupy one anyway.
As for Lincoln’s conduct and this popular perception of him as an oppressor, such interpretations are magnificently inaccurate and very convenient for scholars who love to preach of lost liberties–Mark Neely immediately comes to mind. If anything, Lincoln was too lenient.
Robert Moore
January 9, 2013
While I appreciate your taking the time to comment, I recommended you look further into this blog regarding my discussion of Maryland. My chief focus is on points west of Frederick. You seem to be judging the whole on what was more dominant in the eastern part.
Michael
January 9, 2013
Furthermore the state legislature’s vote on a secession convention is misleading. The state was in a precarious position. Hicks had stonewalled early efforts to vote on the matter in a special secession in Feb 1861. By late April, it was too late. Maryland had missed its window to act openly and officially against the Union. When legislators publicly disclaimed their right to secede, it was a ruse. Maryland would do its best to join the confederacy in fact if not in name.
Robert Moore
January 9, 2013
Again, please look at other posts relating to Maryland in the secession crisis, keeping in mind my focus on the western part of the state… specifically Washington County.
Robert Moore
January 9, 2013
Let me also ask you this, Michael… what year are you in your program at UMBC… and who has influenced your thinking in judging Maryland as a whole (in relation to secession and wartime sentiment)?
Michael
January 10, 2013
I have a Masters and a Ph.D. ABD from U of Md. I wrote my thesis on the subject and have a book due out in 2014. What has influenced my thinking is 10 years of researching the stacks at the library of congress, national archives, Maryland Historical Society, Forts Warren, McHenry, Lafayette, and too many other places to mention as well as my own rare document collection which includes letters from soldiers stationed at Forts Marshall, Federal Hill., and McHenry, Steaurt Mansion Hospital (aka Jarvis Hospital), Roger Taney, Severn Teace Wallis, Isaac Trimble, Kane, Brown, Robert McLane, John Dix, NP Banks, Ben Butler, George Steaurt, Harry Gilmore, Senator John Sherman, numerous contemporary pamphlets, etc.
Then there are the roughly 200 or so post war memoirs, diaries, regimental histories, as well as contemporary grand jury testimonies, and too many other things to mention.
No one is saying Maryland didn’t have her Unionists, but please, let’s not kid ourselves. You have a nice blog. Keep up the good work.
Robert Moore
January 10, 2013
Thanks for replying, Michael.
As I mentioned, the way in which your comments read (to me) sounded as if you were evaluating Maryland, on the whole, based on what we see more of in the eastern part of the state. I’ll need to go back and re-read those comments.
Of course, there were others (and we can see this in different examples of Marylanders who went into Virginia and joined regiments there) who were conflicted on the decision in the western part (H.K.D., as one example) as well. Much of what can be found in the conflicting Hagerstown newspapers mirror, almost exactly, that seen in Augusta County, Va… the back and forth banter between Unionism and Secesh spirit (thank you very much Valley of the Shadow Project), and then there seems to be silence regarding western Md. reactions over coercion (where we see Augusta County, and much of the Shenandoah Valley, turning away from Unionism and mobilizing for war). Then too… there was that period of hesitation in western Maryland units mobilizing, and the limits to which some would prefer to serve (Potomac Home Brigade). The limits to which those in the west would go, however, suggests that the standard on sentiment for that part of the state holds; that Unionism was more dominant there than in the east (and, as opposed to Augusta Co., Hagerstown’s Unionist paper gets the upper hand, whereas Augusta’s Unionist paper flips). As with most evaluations of sentiment… it’s complicated, as I imagine you have realized.
I am very interested in seeing your forthcoming publication, and especially look forward to seeing your take on Washington County in the big scheme of things in Maryland.
On a related note… my Maryland family was split; easterners (indirect kin) showing clear sympathy for the Confederacy, and westerners (direct kin) showing (through actions) more leanings toward the Union.
Robert Moore
January 10, 2013
Incidentally, without spilling too much info from your forthcoming publication, how much were you able to find on Lewis P. Firey? I’ve written a short, rough sketch of his life, but think there is significantly more to tap into.
Michael
January 10, 2013
I don’t have much on him, but I’d really like to talk to you about your family’s history. How about I ema you my contact info.
Robert Moore
January 10, 2013
I’ll send you an email.
Marg
January 21, 2013
Late comer to the discussion here! I’d like to have both of your e-mails as well. T. Parkin Scott was my g.g.great grandfather and I also have family from Augusta Co. My brother and I have been working on our family history so any primary source info is always appreciated.