Littlejohn Collection

John "Rip" Ford on the last battle of the American Civil War: Palmito Ranch

2008-11-13T13:30:52-05:00

Like the Battle of New Orleans, the final engagement of the War of 1812, the last battle of the American Civil War -- the Battle of Palmito Ranch -- was actually fought after hostilities had officially ceased. The major difference between these two battles, though, is that the Battle of New Orleans was fought because the news of thesigning of the Treaty of Ghent (in Belgium) had not reached then-remote Louisiana, while the belligerents on both sides of the Battle of Palmito Ranch were aware of the capitulation of the Confederate government and military of the previous month.
View Larger Map

As noted in Jeffrey Hunt's "The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch," Confederate leaders and the rank-and-file in southern Texas received confirmation (via a few copies of the New Orleans Times-Picayune dated April 29, 1865) that Generals Lee and Johnston had surrendered and that the Confederate government had effectively collapsed with the fall of Richmond. Many soldiers stationed in southern Texas left their posts to return home, but a number stayed despite -- or perhaps because of -- the tough talk coming from the North and the new President, Andrew Johnson, who was vowing to crush the Rebellion once and for all.

For reasons that still remain unclear, Union forces based on the coastal islands drove inward on May 12, 1865 with the apparent goal of taking Brownsville, Texas.

View Larger Map They were met and eventually repelled by Confederate forces that stood between the coast and Brownsville, commanded by Colonel John S. "Rip" Ford. (A Confederate force further inland was commanded by General Slaughter.) Ford explains here, in a letter from 1883:
The next day the Union forces were again repelled - some might say they were routed. The Union forces ultimately retreated back to the coastal area from whence they came.

After hostilities ceased, however, a court martial took place regarding the events of this battle. A Union officer, Colonel Morrison, who took part in the battle, was accused by Colonel Barret - the officer who initiated the battle in the first place - of incompetence during the fight. Both sides of the case were argued, with each side offering testimony from a variety of witnesses.

"But the most dramatic witness produced by Bigelow was John S. “Rip” Ford, late colonel in the Army of the Confederate States of America.
Ford had gone to Mexico when the last of his troops headed home prior to the Federal occupation of Brownsville. But he did not stay there long. General Steele, who commanded the Union forces along the Rio Grande, asked Ford to return to the United States and act as a parole commissioner for Rebel troops in southern Texas. Thinking his situationover, the famous cavalryman decided that there was 'no future for an American outside the . . . United States.' Besides, he felt that 'there was more chivalry in sharing the fate' of the former Rebels who had been unable to flee Texas and who were thus unable to escape the 'disagreeable results of the late, unfortunate war.'
So Ford returned to Brownsville, and he was thus on hand to testify at Morrison’s court-martial. This made the Indiana officer’s trial unique, to say the least. Seldom, if ever, is the enemy invited to tell the story of a battle from his point of view in a military courtroom. Ford’s presence at the trial made the record of the proceedings the most complete account of the battle of Palmetto Ranch. But at the time it did something else (Hunt, 161)."

Ford's testimony vindicated Morrison, and laid the blame for the loss at Palmito Ranch at the feet of Barret.

Change - Everybody's doing it

2008-09-30T17:06:43-04:00

Change. It's in the air. Everybody's talking about it. But one thing the Littlejohn Collection has on both presidential candidates is that we made some big changes way before all that convention hoopla in August.

First of all, the Littlejohn Collection has moved. It took a big chunk of the summer, but we finally got it done. The collection (and my office) are now located in the Sandor Teszler Library (a.k.a. the library), in the east wing of the upper floor. That's where the Writing Center was last year. "Where's the Writing Center?", you might ask. The Writing Center has new digs, too, but it's still in the library - it's now on the main floor, on the east side of the building. Here are some maps.

The Littlejohn Collection also now has its own proper, honest-to-goodness webpage that you can get to from the library's home page. The link is over in the right-most column near the Archives link. So now when you are telling people about this cool special collection over at Wofford, you can just say "Check out the webpage - you can get to it from the library's home page."

Lately I've been experimenting with putting some images of manuscripts up onto Flickr, the popular photo-sharing website. I've got to admit that it's still a work in progress, so be prepared to see things change a little bit in the future. My goal is to upload new images of manuscripts frequently. If you have any comments, complaints, or suggestions, I'd love to get some feedback, so please email me at meagherla [@] wofford [dot] edu. If you've got a Flickr account, let's be friends on there. And if you don't, why not make one? It's free, and it's a great site. Remember, once you have a Flickr account you can "tag" images or add notes -- please feel free to do either with wild abandon to the Littlejohn Collection images. See how interesting it got when the Library of Congress and other repositories starting uploading their images onto The Commons? (Obviously the Littlejohn Collection on Flickr owes much credit to The Commons and its contributors.) You can also get to the Littlejohn Collection's Flickr images from the Littlejohn Collection homepage mentioned above.

And since it's election season, Dr. Stone (from Archives) and I have put up an election-themed exhibit just inside the front doors of the library. Everything in the exhibit cabinet is taken from either the College Archives or the Littlejohn Collection, all with the aim of putting this significant election in local and historical perspective. Below is an image from the Littlejohn Collection that is featured in the exhibit - it's the cover of a memorial edition of "Look" magazine dedicated to Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968 just after winning the California Democratic primary.

If you can, stop by the library and have a look at the exhibit. And stay tuned for more from the Littlejohn Collection - this blog is back in action.

Lighten up

2008-05-12T16:41:30-04:00

So it's finals week here at Wofford and basically everyone is in an end-of-term frenzy. So this week I've decided to lighten things up and briefly meander away from the style and content of a normal post.

This time: no footnotes, no accidents of fate, no bravado, no political maneuvering -- this item speaks for itself.

It's a letter from young Jim Bruton from North Plainfield, N.J. He writes in his young man's handwriting to author Thornton Wilder:
Feb 18 '74

Dear Mr. Wilder,

My hobby is collecting the autographs of great writers. Naturally I would like to add your signature to my collection. Would you please send it to me on the enclosed first day cover? Many thanks.

Sincerely,
Jim Bruton
N. Plainfield, NJ

P.S. I'm just starting your new book - congratulations on it being a success.

You can see in the image of the letter that someone, perhaps Jim himself, has annotated this side of the letter in red crayon with the word "OVER."

So, let's turn it over. Check it out:

Yeah, that's right. It says:

I don't sign such things - especially not when authors I don't know have signed it first
Don't Trouble me
TW

You can't make this stuff up.

Now, I should say that the provenance of this letter is unclear, meaning, basically, we don't know where it came from, i.e. Jim Bruton or Thornton Wilder. The first day cover -- the philatelic collectible mentioned in Jim's letter -- is not with this item. So did TW send this note back to young Jim in order to crush his dreams and hamper his stamp collecting? Why? Documentary evidence (assuming the red crayon annotation was the last thing written on the document) would suggest that TW did in fact reply to Jim in this way. But what about the postal cover? Did Wilder keep Jim's collectible for himself? Judging by this note, it kind of seems within the realm of possibility.

Thanks for reading. Back to business in the next post.

GREAT AMERICAN SCANDAL: LETTER FROM THE XYZ AFFAIR

2008-04-22T13:59:36-04:00

Here is an item from the Littlejohn Collection that dates from just before one of the first major diplomatic crises of the young United States: the so-called “XYZ affair.” The item is a letter dated October 2^nd, 1797 from Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to Elbridge Gerry.

Here is the transcript:

Paris Oct. 2d. 1797

Dear S[i]r.

Your favour from Brussells & the one previous to it from Rotterdam arrived safe. I sympathize sincerely with you in the disagreeable inconveniences you have experienced on your journey; I trust they were not renewed after your quitting Brussells. I flatter myself that I shall have the pleasure of seeing you this evening or to dinner tomorrow at No. 1131 Rue de Grenell fontaine, faubourg St. Germain - In case Mrs. Pinckney, Gen’l Marshall & myself should chance to be out at the time of your arrival, I beg leave to apprize you that the apartments Major Mountflorence appropriated for you are on the right hand of the vestibule or antechambre - after entering the Court Yard; those of Gen’l Marshall are on the left. Mrs. Pinckney is much mortified that she finds she is not to have Mrs. Gerry's company, a pleasure she flattered herself she should enjoy, when first we heard of your appointment; she is exceedingly sorry to hear of your indisposition, & she will be happy to pay every attention to alleviate it. Gen’l Marshall & myself desired a friend to intimate to the Minister of foreign affairs that we did not intend to officially notify to him our arrival 'till you joined us, - this has been acquiesced in. With great regard & esteem I remain

Your sincere friend

CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY

Mr. Gerry -

The backstory to this letter and the XYZ affair is this: Pinckney (b. 1746, Charleston), a prosperous patriot-lawyer who served in the South Carolina militia (as a colonel, 1776 through 1777) and the Continental Army (as a brigadier general, 1782-1783) -- between which terms he had stint as a prisoner-of-war -- was tapped by then-President Washington to be minister to France in 1796. (Pinckney was also a signer of the Constitution.) By 1796, the warm relations between the revolutionary colonials and France that had characterized the American Revolutionary War period had cooled considerably (due mainly to the Jay Treaty of 1794) -- in the meantime France, too, had shed its monarchical trappings in favor of republican democracy, and a new regime was in power. This new French government was hostile to the Federalists (Washington's party), and appears to have had the intention of influencing the upcoming 1796 election in favor of the Republicans (Thomas Jefferson's party). As Marvin Zahniser put is in his book "Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Founding Father," "Pinckney was [thus] in the unenviable position of representing an administration which the French considered thoroughly discredited (p. 139)."

Yet Pinckney (and his wife and daughter) set sail for France in September of 1796. By the time he made landfall in mid-November, relations between France and the U.S had taken a turn for the worse: the French government "had 'suspended' diplomatic relations with the United States and was harassing American commerce" at sea (Zahniser, 140). Though he managed to make it from the coast to Paris, and even presented his credentials to a government official, Pinckney learned on December 12 that he would not be recognized or received as an American diplomat - France had grievances that would need to be addressed, or re-paid, before any meetings would take place. Thinly veiled threats from the French government persuaded Pinckney to evacuate he and his family to Amsterdam in early February of 1797.

Fast-forward to October, 1797: President John Adams (inaugurated March, 1797 and also a Federalist) decided to send a three-man diplomatic commission to France in order to ease the tensions that had only increased since Pinckney's expulsion eight months earlier. The other members of the commission were John Marshall (a Virginian, former Revolutionary soldier, future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) and Elbridge Gerry (from Massachusetts, signer of the Declaration of Independence, American statesman). As can be noted, Marshall is mentioned in the above letter, and Gerry is of course the addressee. At the time that this letter was written, the three plenipotentiaries were in the process of descending upon Paris in order to start relations afresh.

But it was not to be: to simplify a complex, nuanced chain of events, France, with a new foreign minister in place (Talleyrand) and flush with the recent continental military victories of Napoleon, was in no way amenable to renewing relations with the United States on its plenipotentiaries' terms. Over a number of days and weeks soon after the above letter was written, the U.S. commission opened informal talks with the French, who, through various channels, eventually demanded considerable sums of money (i.e. bribes) in order to open formal negotiations. The four French agents who made the demands were eventually anonymized in the publication of plenipotentiaries' correspondence in the U.S., which was occasioned by the uproar within the U.S. government that ensued following the commission's report of demands for bribes. The agents, in the publications, were referred to as "W,""X,""Y," and "Z." The agent known as "W' apparently played a small role, so the name of the altercation come to be known as the "XYZ affair." The fallout of this breakdown in relations between France and the U.S resulted in the "Quasi-War" between the two countries, in which France continued its aggression against American commercial vessels on the high seas and along the American east coast. This undeclared war lasted until 1800, when a treaty was signed to end it.

The story goes that Pinckney, when prodded by a French agent demanding bribes, finally, with a bitterness built up over nearly a year, exclaimed "No, no, not a sixpence."

Daniel Morgan says "No Thanks" to Henry Knox

2008-03-19T11:56:08-04:00

Above is a letter dated April 23, 1792 from Revolutionary patriot and soldier - and Spartanburg legend - Daniel Morgan. In the letter he thanks then-Secretary of War Henry Knox for the offer of appointment to the rank of Brigadier General in the Legion of the United States (U.S. Army). Then he refuses the position. Here is the transcription:

Sir

I am Honored with your letter of the 12th Instant In which you inform me of my appointment to the command of a Brigade in the army of the united states. - I am truly sensible of the Honor which the President & Senate have Done me by this appointment, and am sorry I cannot accept of it. - and these are my Reasons. The war with the Indians is a peculier one, and Differs so widely from the usual & regular system of warfare, that in my opinion few amongst the Brave officers of our Late army, are acqainted with it - I can not therefore, think of putting myself, and the Brave men who would Risque themselves with me, under the command of any man whose conduct, and abilities for this service, I am not acqainted with - you will therefore be pleased to consider me as not accepting this appointment – at the same time, I must once more Express the High sense which I Entertain of the Honor conferred upon me – By the President and Senate of the united states.
I have the Honor to be
your obedt. Hble servt
DAN 'MORGAN
The 23d April 1792

In 1792 Daniel Morgan was about 56 or 57 years old - his sensational victory at Cowpens was over ten years past. His vigorous youth, which he spent as a teamster and Ranger fighting or helping fight Native Americans, was even further in the past. And as far back as the Revolutionary South Carolina campaign of 1780-1781 Morgan had been periodically enduring painful sciatica. The sum of these considerations would lead one to believe that Morgan's refusal of this appointment would have been reasonable on these grounds, and this is the explanation posited in the modern biography of Morgan, "Daniel Morgan: Revolutionary Rifleman":

Morgan might have gained new triumphs had he returned to the army at this time. Indian tribes in the Northwest Territory had taken the warpath against American settlers. Two militia armies .... received thumping defeats while attempting to suppress them. Numerous frontier voices called for Morgan to head an expedition against the Indians. Though Washington and Secretary of War did not offer Morgan the supreme command in the west they asked the old Indian fighter to accept a commission as brigadier general in 1792. According to Otho Williams, Morgan declined the appointment because of his health; then it was offered to Williams, who also refused because of illness. By the following year, having regained much of his strength, Morgan agreed to become a major general in the state militia. In this capacity he fought no Indians. (p. 184; bolding and italics have been added.)

Obviously, the manuscript contradicts the account above - Morgan writes that he won't take the job because"few amongst the Brave officers of our Late army, are acqainted with [fighting Native Americans] - I can not therefore, think of putting myself, and the Brave men who would Risque themselves with me, under the command of any man whose conduct, and abilities for this service, I am not acqainted with." This seems a very polite way of telling Knox and Washington - rather boldly, it would seem - that he doesn't necessarily believe U.S. Army officers to be competent. And Morgan certainly understood the brutal brand of combat necessary to successfully fight Native Americans, that which "Differ[ed] so widely from the usual & regular system of warfare." Indeed, he learned that different system well enough to employ its tactics against the British during the Revolution.

In light of this manuscript (the existence of which was probably hitherto unknown) and Morgan's subsequent assumption of the position of major general of the Virginia militia, in which "he fought no Indians," it seems clear that (for whatever reason) Morgan had little interest in fighting Native Americans at this point in his life. He would be deployed again, however, in helping to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion."

The Dalton Gang - Famous Image from the Wild West

2008-02-22T16:28:13-05:00

Here is a small but fascinating item.

Below, pictured from left to right (all dead), are Bill Powers (aka Tom Evans), Bob Dalton, Grat Dalton, and Dick Broadwell (aka Texas Jack). This photo was taken on or about October 5, 1892 after these men, members of "The Dalton Gang," were killed in the firefight that ensued after their attempt to simultaneously rob two banks in Coffeyville, Kansas was thwarted by citizens and law enforcement.

Until coming across this item I knew next to nothing about the Dalton Gang, but somehow the image felt familiar - I felt I must have seen it before. And that's probably true - do a Google image search on "Dalton Gang" and you will see that this image or a version of it numbers about half of the results on the first results page. Such an apparently ubiquitous image must have passed across my eyes before and then been buried deep in the subconscious. Regardless, it would appear that this is an iconic image of the American Wild West.

In terms of content, it is not terribly groundbreaking - Matthew Brady took equally if not more gruesome photographs of the dead during the American Civil War nearly thirty years previous. But there is something about this photograph that differentiates it from the somber documentarian-ism of Brady. Perhaps it is the fact that the dead men were obviously posed and put on display like so. Perhaps it is the faintly pleasant expression on the face of Texas Jack. Perhaps it is that this image was re-printed, pasted on a card, and sold by the fortuitous local photographer who captured this image. (The price of the photo, 25 cents, is equal to almost $6 today.) Or perhaps it is that it testifies in such sharp contrast against the aura of romance that then (and even after) surrounded the "Wild West."

There is also an unmistakable American-ness to the image. Implicit in the photographer's marketing and sale of the image, and in the public's apparent willingness to pay for such a gruesome image, there is an almost libertarian, distinctly American pride, a faith in justice and community -- a message that says, "This is what happens to outlaws in Coffeyville, Kansas," or, on a larger scale, America. In fact, Coffeyville became famous after this incident as "the town that stopped the Daltons."