San Francisco National Cemetery

The San Francisco National Cemetery in the old Presidio, the first West Coast burial ground in the national cemetery system, is a stunningly beautiful final resting place. It is a quiet, tranquil spot sheltered from the bustling city by the long-time army post turned national park. It's one of my favorite places in my favorite metropolis. In the coming weeks I will post a series of short vignettes about some of the people buried there, particularly those with Civil War or Indian Wars connections. 

I took the photo at top last Sunday. In all the times I've visited over the past 30 years, it was the first time I'd looked over at the Pacific Garrison Memorial from this particular angle, and saw the Trans-America Pyramid through the trees in the distance. The monument was erected on Memorial Day in 1897, and dedicated to the Union Regular Army and Navy (it would be another 75 years before the completed skyscraper become part of the picture). 

Abraham Lincoln, online and searchable

Thanks to the Abraham Lincoln Association

Harry Willcox Pfanz, 1922-2015, wrote the essential Gettysburg trilogy

Historian Harry Pfanz made arguably the greatest contribution to the literature on the greatest battle of the American Civil War, and I was sorry to hear of his passing. I never met him in person, but had the pleasure of speaking to him on the phone once, to conduct a Question and Answer session for the Civil War Forum. He was a gracious interviewee, and generous with his time. I've reprinted that phone conversation below.

Gary Gallagher, one of America's preeminent Civil War historians, shared his memories of Harry Pfanz at this UNC Press site. This brief obituary for Harry was printed in the Gettysburg Times. The bloggers at Emerging Civil War shared some thoughts about the towering Gettysburg historian from the perspective of today's "emerging" set of Civil War enthusiasts.

Civil War Forum transcript. . .

Harry Pfanz

Author of Gettysburg, the First Day, Gettysburg, the Second Day, and Gettysburg, Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill.

TOPIC: The Battle of Gettysburg

Tonight we are especially fortunate to have as our guest Harry Pfanz, author of Gettysburg, the Second Day (University of North Carolina Press, 1987), and Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill (UNC Press, 1993), two of the most important studies we're ever likely to see on the fighting at Gettysburg. Harry W. Pfanz worked at Gettysburg as a historian from 1956 to 1966 and was Chief Historian of the National Park Service. He is a native of Ohio with a life-long interest in the Civil War, having had three great-grandfathers who served in Ohio regiments (none of them were at Gettysburg, however, his wife had kin there with the Army of Northern Virginia). Mr. Pfanz served in the U.S. army as a lieutenant of field artillery during WW II, which, he acknowledges, has had some influence on how he reacts to and interprets the Civil

CWF: Thank you for joining us. Your work on the second day at Gettysburg, and the follow-up on Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill, are two of the most important, most detailed studies of that climactic battle, and first I would thank you for those contributions. Can you tell us a little bit about how your interest in the Civil War developed, and specifically how you came to dedicate so many years of your life to recounting the struggle at Gettysburg?

Harry Pfanz: Well, I grew up with an interest in the Civil War, back as far as I can recall, perhaps because I did have three great-grandfathers in it, and one lived until I was in high school, so the Civil War was very real to me as a boy. After WWII, I worked for 4 years with the army as a historian, then heard of an opening at Gettysburg, and I applied for it and got the job. That was in 1956, and after I retired from the Park Service I thought I would start writing, and since nothing had been written in a detailed way about the 2nd day and the Culp's Hill areas, I thought I would give them a try.

CWF: In the Epilogue to Gettysburg, the Second Day, you conclude that "General Lee's opportunity to win a decisive victory at Gettysburg had all but passed when complete success had eluded his attacking divisions on the afternoon and evening of 2 July." Do you believe that Lee's plans for July 3rd were doomed to failure?

Harry Pfanz: I don't know that they were doomed to failure, but it seems likely to me that it was a high probability. He had suffered perhaps 12,000 casualties in the 2 days of fighting on the 1st and 2nd. He had lost the services of three division commanders, Heth, Pender, and Hood, and of course with the casualties and the losses of these men and other leaders, his organization was not what it had been when the battle had started. As he had grown weaker, the Union forces, although they had suffered losses, were growing stronger, and would continue to grow stronger. The Union position was practically impregnable. He had attacked on both the left and the right and had been beaten in both places—or was being beaten at Culp's Hill. The Union army was thoroughly in position. As somebody said, they had been driven there, and they could afford to await an attack, whereas Lee, of course, either had to attack to leave.

CWF: It is ironic, as you pointed out in Gettysburg, Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill, that with respect to the latter, "Actions do not always speak louder than words"—referring to Lincoln's address later at the cemetery there overshadowing the fierce fighting in that sector. In fact, you indicate that Cemetery Hill may have held the key to Confederate fortunes. Was Cemetery Hill the keystone of the Union position?

Harry Pfanz: Yes, it seems to me ironic that when he said the world will not long remember what we say here, but it cannot forget what they did here, the Gettysburg Address is probably much better known, certainly worldwide, than the battle, and as you go into the National Cemetery there today, of course the Gettysburg Address is the thing of greatest interest. And yet Cemetery Hill was the principal rallying point for Union forces on July 1st, and it was a strong point in the Union line—a bastion in the Union line—and an important artillery position. It was an anchor, in a sense, of the Union line, at the center of the line, but it seems to me that as people walk through the cemetery where the gun positions were, they see the cannon there and they look like decorations, I do not think they appreciate the significance of where they are, as Lincoln probably did.

CWF: In your opinion, what factors were involved in the length of time that Longstreet took to get in position on the second day after the movement began: how much of it was such things as the requirement of concealment, the route, the guide, and how much of it, if any, was the intentional "slowness" of which he is often accused in that movement?

Harry Pfanz: I doubt that there was intentional slowness as such. He certainly was not pleased with what he was doing. I think they attempted, of course, to march in a concealed way, which they could have done just as easily by turning off to the right at the stopping point and going down toward Willoughby Run. But in any case they elected not to do that. It seems to me that Longstreet's attitude aside, it took a lot of time to do things, and it's hard for us to imagine the degree of slowness that seemed to permeate many things that were done then. For instance, I have always wondered why they felt obliged . . . to hold to the roads as they did, when presumably they could have cut across the fields, and save time. Yet they did turn around, and reverse themselves, and follow these bad farm roads all the way to the south end of the battlefield. And there, of course, they found out when they were taking position, that things were not as they planned. And then of course, instead of Hood going first, Longstreet insisted that McLaws lead the way, because that was what was planned, and then Hood followed him until he reached the Wheatfield road area. To recapitulate, I think some of this, perhaps, resulted from Longstreet's pique, but a lot of it was just that they took a circuitous route for purposes of concealment over what I think would be bad roads.

CWF: Tell me what you think of General Ambrose “Rans” Wright and his reported claims of breaking through the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, only to fall back. Could this have made a difference? Was the position significant and defensible?

Harry Pfanz: Wright's Brigade was able to move across the fields there. The attack was a sweeping attack, an excellent one. He captured two batteries and was able to reach the crest of Cemetery Ridge because there was a gap there left by Union troops who had been sent south along the Ridge. Thus, although he was able to penetrate, or get onto the Ridge line there, the terrain was flat. He had no defensive works or anything of that sort, and the probably few men—we don't know how many he had, or I don't remember how many he had when he was up there—were relatively easily brushed off the ridge by Union troops on the shoulders of his penetration. Of course this was made easier by the fact that the brigades—the Confederate troops on his left flank—did not move forward far enough to support him. No one did support him. This is where the attack broke down.

CWF: Was there any strategic importance to Emmitsburg with respect to the dispositions of the gathering armies before Gettysburg?

Harry Pfanz: Emmitsburg, of course, was on the route to Gettysburg. The First and Eleventh Corps stopped there on the 29th of June. The 11th remained there over the 30th, whereas the 1st Corps moved up the road a few miles to the Marsh Creek, a few miles over the state line. Before General Reynolds, who commanded the left wing of the Army of the Potomac, before he knew that he was going to move on to Gettysburg and the Confederates were concentrating in Cashtown, he much feared that they would move from Cashtown and Fairfield—from that area—down southeast along the mountains to the Emmitsburg area, perhaps to the Mt. St. Mary's area, and thus be on the flank or rear of the Union left. And so they made sure even when the 1st and 11th corps moved to Gettysburg on July 1st, the 3rd Corps, which was east of Emmitsburg, moved to Emmitsburg to guard against any flanking move by the Confederates. I suppose, therefore, that it had some strategic importance because it was on the road from Cashtown to Frederick. It is a route the Confederates might have used if they had been able to.

CWF: What is your overall opinion of Sickle's movement of his division out into the cornfield? Was it a profound blunder, as some have suggested; or did it weaken Longstreet's attack sufficiently enough to prevent a break in the Union line?

Harry Pfanz: I think that although Sickles movement forward to the Devils Den, Wheatfield, Peach Orchard area—the high ground along the Emmitsburg road-- set up a breakwater that slowed the Confederate assault, I think that basically it was a grave error. He moved from a position that was assigned to him, and took up a position that he was unable to man with the troops that he had. He left the left flank of the 2nd Corps in the air, and disrupted Meade's plans. He did it because he said that the high ground along the Emmitsburg Road dominated a portion of his line, and because he feared an attack against his left flank if he stayed where he was. But the fact remains that he did not occupy Little Round Top, as he should have done, and he moved forward to a position that required his being reinforced, and upset Meade's plans.

CWF: Who really deserves credit for Union forces occupying Cemetery Hill on the first day of the battle?

Harry Pfanz: Cemetery Hill, the position on Cemetery Hill, was selected by Howard. No question about that. When Howard arrived with the 11th Corps and took control of the field, he left one of his divisions, his 2nd division, on the hill, plus a battery (initially three batteries) as a rallying point in case the Union forces north and west of town were driven back. Now there was a question back when the veterans were still alive and writing as to whether or not Reynolds had selected Cemetery Hill as the fallback position. There is reason to think that he did, or would have, but the fact remains that he was shot at the opening of the battle, and did not communicate with Howard, so that Howard made this decision on his own, without Reynolds' input or orders. Now insofar as Hancock is concerned, he did not reach Cemetery Hill until the Union forces were falling back to it and some had reached it. And of course at this time portions of Steinwehr's division, which Howard had placed on the hill, were in position and awaiting whatever would happen. So the credit, I believe, must be given to Howard.

CWF: What's your read on George Meade’s performance at Gettysburg?

Harry Pfanz: I should say his leadership was an important factor in the battle and in the campaign. If you'll remember, Hooker commanded the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville, and did poorly—lost the battle. Lincoln and Halleck then looked for an opportunity to replace him, but before doing that they had to find someone who could take his place .General Couch, who was a logical appointee, refused to take it. It was recommended that Meade be given the post, but before doing this, they asked Reynolds to take command because Reynolds was both a fine general, and I think, because he outranked Meade, Reynolds was allowed to decline the post, but Meade was ordered to take it, and could not decline it.

I think that as I have said, few men in our history have had such a heavy burden cast upon them with so little warning. However, Meade took over the job, he moved the army north, he planned the defensive position in case that was needed, and when the meeting engagement at Gettysburg took place, he saw that the army was rushed to it. He commanded the army, of course, for the 2nd and 3rd days of the battle, and as someone said, I can't give the quote exactly, for the first time the army's reserves were used in a timely and proper way, so that he was able to defeat the Confederates there. He showed great character, I think. Down south of Hagerstown, at the close of the campaign, when he was pressured to attack the Confederates there, but was not ready to do so, he declined to attack without being thoroughly prepared, and perhaps saved his army a defeat there. I think Meade is certainly one of the outstanding heroes of the war.

CWF: How important was the role of Brig. Gen. George Sears Greene on Culp's Hill to holding the Union right, and why did he get so little credit for it?

Harry Pfanz: His role was very important. He did a thing for which he has had too little recognition. Part of this, I think, is because when the reports of the battle were turned in by the corps commanders, he was not given credit in Slocum's report that he might have been given, because, if I remember correctly, Slocum thought that General Williams would make the report covering Greene's action. And Meade based his report on Gen. Slocum's report, and did not see William's report. Now, beyond that, Culp's Hill, the battle on Culp's Hill, perhaps because it is off to the side, has not received the attention given the fighting at Little Round Top, and on Cemetery Ridge. I think, therefore, that Greene's role in the battle has been lessened because the area in which he fought has not had the attention it deserves.

Brian Pohanka: Regarding Hancock—it seems that his greatest strength was in his presence—rather than tactical ability per se. What is your "take" on his Hancock's role in the battle?

Harry Pfanz: Hancock—I think his role was paramount under Meade - he was second only to Meade. Hancock was sent forward to evaluate the situation at Gettysburg on July 1st, and to take command on the field if need be. His role there was that he, I think, inspired the troops, his principal role. On July 2nd, after Sickles was wounded, Meade gave him command of the whole left end of his line, I should say the 3rd Corps and the 2nd Corps, and of course, on July 3rd, it was his corps, basically, that repulsed Pickett's Charge. I certainly think Hancock's great importance was in his being able to inspire the men under him. Certainly at Gettysburg he exhibited no tactical deficiencies, except perhaps in not allowing his artillery to cease fire before the attack began, and thus having them run out of ammunition at a critical time. He was Superb.

CWF: In your present study of the 1st Day conflicts, you must be doing a good deal of work with the Iron Brigade.

Harry Pfanz: Yes, you cannot avoid the Iron Brigade. They obviously played an important role in the battle in the McPherson's Woods area, and on Seminary Ridge, but also in one of the most important regimental actions of the battle. It was the 6th Wisconsin regiment of the Iron Brigade that was primarily responsible for the capture of the Rebels in the Railroad Cut, and the driving of Davis's Brigade from that portion of the field.

CWF: In regards to the tying up of Jeb Stuart's cavalry, how important was the Battle of Hanover on June 30, 1863?

Harry Pfanz: Hanover's importance is tied in wholly with Stuart. Obviously we cannot know what would have happened had the Battle of Hanover not taken place. It in itself was a small affair, and if it had importance, it was in encouraging Stuart to continue to move north toward Carlisle.

Brian Pohanka: Barksdale's charge on July 2 seems to me one of the most hard-hitting brigade actions of the War. Would you agree?

Harry Pfanz: I hesitate to compare it with others in the entire war, but there's no doubt, however, that it was hard-hitting, and probably the hardest-hitting at Gettysburg. It's hard to compare these things.

CWF: How critical was the role of Col. Freeman McGilvery and Bigelow's battery in preventing the Army of Northern Virginia First Corps from penetrating the gap between the Third and Second Corps created by Sickle's move?

Harry Pfanz: McGilvery, as an artillery commander, played an exceptionally important role. Had he not plugged the gap on the left of the 2nd Corps, where Caldwell's Division had been, we can assume that the 21st Mississippi would have gotten onto the Ridge there and perhaps Wilcox's Brigade to the north would also have had greater success. However, we can't be too certain of these things because there were other troops that could have been brought there. But certainly, McGilvery played an important part in the battle.

Thank you and good night.

American Civil War exhibit at the National Library of Scotland

Deed of sale of slave-woman and child, Edgecombe County,
North Carolina, 1829. [NLS shelfmark: H.S.632 (3)]

Yankee cries and Rebel yells is an exhibit on the American Civil War drawn from the collections of the National Library of Scotland, in Edinburgh. The exhibit runs from January 21 to March 22, 2015. A number of items can be viewed on-line. Check it out here. 

Regarding the document above, the NLS site reads: "This document states that planter Theophilus Parker, having sucessfully bid $278, owns Lettice, and her child Whinny. Children born into slavery often were separated from their mothers. While it is recorded that Parker's sons entered the Confederate States Army, the fate of Lettice and Whinny is unknown."

the Rebel Yell

Civil War Veterans Come Alive in Audio and Video Recordings

Deep in the collections of the Library of Congress are ghostly images and voices of Union and Confederate soldiers

 

Read the full Smithsonian article here. 

Largest mass execution in U.S. history — December 26

December 26, 1862 — Mankato, Minnesota (Library of Congress)

From This American Life. . .
Growing up in Mankato, Minnesota, John Biewen says, nobody ever talked about the most important historical event ever to happen there: in 1862, it was the site of the largest mass execution in U.S. history. Thirty-eight Dakota Indians were hanged after a war with white settlers. John went back to Minnesota to figure out what really happened 150 [now 152] years ago, and why Minnesotans didn’t talk about it much after. Listen to the full episode here: #479: Little War on the Prairie

Real Housewives of Gettysburg

Hat tip to Dana Shoaf, and to The Gettysburg Compiler.
Meg Sutter ’16 and Megan McNish ’16 report from Gettysburg College’s Special Collections in Musselman Library. In this episode, they present a Civil War housewife used by Lewis W. Tway of the 147th New York.

Hard times in the Cradle of Secession. . .

The Keeping Room debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival three months ago. It is "a film that tells the story of 3 Southern women (2 of them sisters, and the third, their long-silent family slave) who are forced to defend their home in the last days of the war, against a large group of soldiers who have broken off from the Union Army."

Read a review by Zeba Blay here. 

Horwitz on Sand Creek: 150 years ago

The Horrific Sand Creek Massacre Will Be Forgotten No More
The opening of a national historic site in Colorado helps restore to public memory one of the worst atrocities ever perpetrated on Native Americans.
Read it at Smithsonian.com

Also on this date, 150 years ago:
The Madden Creek Massacre
The incident served as an example of Sherman’s maxim that “War is Hell” and typified the ugly and almost forgotten war-within-a-war that sprang up in the mountainous regions of the South.
Read the full essay on the Emerging Civil War blog

American Civil War. . . some recent news items

Children of Civil War Veterans Still Walk Among Us
150 Years After the War — To their living sons and daughters, the soldiers in blue and gray are flesh and blood, not distant figures in history books.

Medal Of Honor
For American
Civil War Hero
A distant cousin of Union Army Lt Alonzo H Cushing pushed Congress to see the military honour bestowed on her ancestor.

Virginia couple
find Civil War
graffiti in home
If walls could talk. . .
 

Historians and Preservation Groups Announce Landmark National Campaign to Save Revolutionary War Battlefields
Dubbed 'Campaign of 1776,' new initiative led by Civil War Trust will focus on preservation and interpretation of the hallowed battlefields where a young America was forged

Politically-challenged:
Texas Tech Edition

After 50 years, Gettysburg's
Soldiers National Museum to Shut its Doors
After Five Decades of Showcasing Civil War History, the Famous Soldiers National Museum will Hold an Auction for its Wartime Relics

McAuliffe accepts Sailor’s Creek, High Bridge land from
Civil War Trust

Sunken treasure: Civil War-era perfume resurrected for
modern senses

Hawaii soldier who fought in the Civil War
finally honored
Recognition comes 137 years later

Civil War soldiers identified,
names added to memorial
350 soldiers previously unknown
have been identified

November 19: Lincoln at Gettysburg

In 1952, the chief of the Still Photo section at the National Archives, Josephine Cobb, discovered a glass plate negative taken by Mathew Brady of the speaker’s stand at Gettysburg on the day of its dedication as a National Cemetery. Edward Everett would speak from that stand later in the afternoon for two straight hours. Moments later, a tall, gaunt Abraham Lincoln would stand up and deliver a ten sentence speech in two minutes. It was the Gettysburg Address.See the uncropped image, and read the full Prologue article here.

Harvest the History: Brian Pohanka

150 Years Ago, November 11 — President Lincoln reveals mystery document

NOVEMBER 11, 1864

Cabinet meets.  President gives John Hay sealed document and asks him to open it.  Cabinet members learn contents for the first time, although they signed it on Aug. 23.  Contents pledged them to support President-elect after November election. Hay, Diary.  Atty. Gen. Bates presents several of his friends to President. E. Bates, Diary.  President discusses with J. W. Forney and F. Carroll Brewster, city solicitor of Philadelphia, case of Cozzens, charged with supplying tents to government in violation of army regulations. DLC—RTL, Forney to Lincoln, Nov. 5, 1864.  Confers with Sec. Seward on seizure of steamer “Florida” in Brazilian port. Washington Chronicle, Dec. 31.  Receives from Gen. Grant congratulations on victory at polls. Washington Star, Nov. 11.  

From Lincoln Day by Day, a Chronology, 1809-1865
(Morningside, 1991)

The Free State of Jones

With the recent news that Matthew McConaughey signed on to play the role of Newton Knight in a film version of The Free State of Jones, I thought this would be a good time to reprise an interview with Professor Bynum, who visited the Civil War Forum several years ago to discuss her book on that subject. It will be interesting to see what Hollywood does with the story, but however it turns out, the film is sure to steer a lot more people to Victoria's book.

Victoria Bynum

Distinguished Professor Emerita, History, Texas State University in San Marcos, and author of, The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War. Bynum is also the author of, Unruly Women: the Politics of Social and Sexual Control in the Old South, and The Long Shadow of the Civil War: Southern Dissent and its Legacies.

We are very pleased tonight to have with us Dr. Victoria Bynum, professor of history at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, discussing the subject of her new book: The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001). Let's get started.

CWF: Welcome Dr. Bynum. Since this is probably a fairly obscure topic even among Civil War buffs, can you begin with an overview of Jones County, and what set it apart from the rest of Mississippi (e.g., the paucity of slaves there), and the events that gave rise to stories of the so-called "Free State," or Kingdom of Jones?

Victoria Bynum: Jones County was founded in 1826, and it's part of one of the earlier-settled sections of Mississippi (because of Native Americans already being pushed out of that part of the state, but not out of the more fertile portions of Mississippi). Many of the earliest settlers were veterans of the War of 1812, especially. I won't go too much into it, but because it was the Piney Woods region, you didn't have a great many slaveholders there. Slavery was important—there were slaveholders—but not many “big” slaveholders. It had the lowest number of slaveholders of any county in the state, and almost 80 percent of those slaveholders owned fewer than four slaves.

So, just to leap forward to the Civil War itself, this was a region that was pretty ripe—by around 1862—for seeing the war as a "rich man's war" and "poor man's fight," because they were the poorest men in the state. I don't want to imply that they were landless, because they were small landowners, but in terms of slaveholders, they were the poorest in the state. The county voted almost 2-1 against secession.

Moving ahead to the 20th century about how all these stories got started—what made this story so legendary and why it has persisted so long is that the leader of this band of deserters crossed the color line. Now, it's not that crossing the color line was so unusual, it's the way that Newton Knight did it. He not only crossed the line, but two of his children intermarried with the children of the slave woman who was his chief collaborator (it was after the war that they intermarried—she was his collaborator during the war). And that resulted in a mixed-race community that's still very vibrant today—a very large mixed-race community that claims descent from Rachel the slave, and Newton, the leader of the deserter band.

So, you've had this ongoing battle—this is why I make the second part of the title, "Mississippi's Longest Civil War," because factions of this family have been debating the meaning of this uprising since the Civil War. And with the racial aspect, it has made the debate particularly volatile. Those who wanted to defend the Unionism of the Knight band generally just erased the story of the race-mixing, and those who were pro-Confederate . . . used the racial mixing as just further examples that these were deviant men who committed treason against the country, against the Confederacy, and against their race. That's why the story has lasted, and because there have been several books written, and a novel, and even a movie made from the novel.

CWF: One of the fun things about reading your book is the spirit of investigation, or discovery, in unmasking the past. Can you recall any major breakthroughs during the course of your research, or any particular surprises you encountered upon digging deeper?

Victoria Bynum: I believe some of the most delightful surprises were the ongoing discoveries I made about the Collins family—I believe that their story is one that was buried because of the notoriety of Newt Knight. The discovery that their ancestors were both Regulators back in the 1760s and Populists in the 1890s kind of gave me a whole view of Southern descent as represented by this family, in a way that just stood right out—and made them the core of the Unionist group there, rather than Newt Knight.

And I want to add that probably the biggest surprise was that the Collins's had brothers in Texas who were leaders of their own deserter band, so there were actually two deserter bands which existed simultaneously. It just showed the uncompromising nature of their Unionism, but not nearly all the deserters were as Unionist as the Collins's. There was a core group of about five different families that I would call truly Unionist. Putting that together was very exciting, because I kept finding connections between the very distant past, and the Civil War era, and connections between the various families as well.

CWF: What was the reaction of the Confederate authorities? Was it as brutal as the suppression of the earlier East Tennessee Unionist uprising?

Victoria Bynum: I'm not sure just how brutal that was, in terms of making an exact comparison, but the Confederacy did send two expeditions into Jones County to put down the uprisings there, and in the Official Records there is quite a bit of discussion of Jones County. The most important example is Colonel Lowry's raid on Jones County. In the space of a few days, they executed ten members of the Knight Company --the Knight Band. That was the worst experience that the Jones County group experienced. I imagine that it was probably worse in East Tennessee due to the geographic location. Jones County was still pretty remote, and there weren't as many raids.

CWF: The next question is about Unionist sentiment in Jones County. How many precincts of the county voted to remain in the Union? Here in Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, three of 16 precincts voted to remain in the Union.  Overall, the county voted 2:1 to secede.

Victoria Bynum: All I know—that I've been able to find—is that 166 people voted against secession, and I believe it was about 89 who voted for it. Let's see, yes, 166 for the Cooperationist Candidate, and 89 for the Secessionist Candidate. In fact, neighboring Perry county (I don't have those numbers with me) was even more Unionist. So Jones County was not isolated in that respect. The Perry County delegate held out longer.

CWF: Did any of the Jones County Unionists articulate why they supported the Union? The pressure must have been intense in the Deep South for secession?

Victoria Bynum: Yes, of course in their county they didn't feel that so directly—more so when the war began—but (after the war) they cited the 20 Negro Law when citing reasons for their desertion from the Confederacy. The only articulated Unionist statements are by the Collins family, who did not believe that the election of Abraham Lincoln was grounds for secession. And there's a quote of a certain Collins brother counseling men to try to get duty in the hospitals as nurses if they did join the service—that they should not fight against the Union. And one more statement attributed to the Collins's is that while they didn't believe in slavery, they also did not believe that the federal government had the right to end it.

CWF: Early in the book, you describe rivers that were dammed to provide power for mills, but preventing fishing for those needing to do that. It seems such a conflict! I know the Jones County deserters were really against the 20 Negro Law, which was the objection to "government" in their era.

Victoria Bynum: One of the things that I found, as you no doubt noticed, were that these were people who were very touchy about the government's role in their lives. And again to use the Collins's as an example, since they were always in the thick of it—as they moved across the frontier they continued petitioning the government to respect their rights as citizens and to provide them protection, not only against Indians, but against corrupt local officials. So this is a theme that runs throughout their history, and I think that's the point that you're making with your comment.

CWF: It sounds like your research benefited nearly as much from elderly locals and descendants as it did from archival work. That is, they were able to show you things, like the grave sites of Newt and Rachel Knight. Could you have written this book 20 or 30 years from now, after many of these people are gone?

Victoria Bynum: I agree that my personal contacts with descendants was really crucial to the book, and no I couldn't have written the same book. I could have written a book—a study—but in fact when I started writing this book I had no idea that I would achieve the kind of contact with local people that I did. It brought perspectives that I just don't think I could have pieced together from archival documents. In particular, I don't think I could have described the mixed race community if I hadn't spent a lot of time among the descendants of Rachel and Newton Knight. . . And I don't believe I could have written nearly the kind of study of their community without that personal contact. That was crucial.

CWF: Tying into an earlier question, I've seen some opinions that many of the Unionists areas in North Carolina, etc., in the mountains had had no experience with the U.S. government, except for the postal system and the first experience they had with an intrusive government was Confederate authorities enforcing the conscription and impressment laws?  Is that what you saw?

Victoria Bynum: I would say that in general that was true, once they settled in Jones County, that they had a lot of local autonomy. Some writers suggest there was no real government in Jones County before the war, but that just isn't true. But it is fair to say that they had very limited contact with state government at the top, or federal government. However, I would still point out that their frontier petitions do show quite an interest in the Federal government and its power. They have a long history of protest of corrupt local government, and I suspect that during the Civil War they developed a similar relationship with the Federal government, because they saw the Confederacy as another example of corrupt local government. That tradition goes all the way back to the Regulators.

CWF: You include a photograph of the Leaf River in your book, "site of Deserter's Den—the Knight Company's Civil War hideout." Were you able to pinpoint the actual location, and what is there today (presumably private property)?

Victoria Bynum: It is private property today. I took the photo myself and I was taken there by one of those local old-timers. Not very far from that river—the section of river in the photograph—is the cemetery of Newton Knight's grandfather. That land is now in the hands of a private company, and we had to be escorted into the cemetery by someone who had a key, but all of those lands used to be owned by the core members of the deserter band.

CWF: On the subject of "intrusive" government, how much intrusion did Jones County see during the war from officials on either side? The territory between Hattiesburg and Meridian was pretty much no man's land, wasn't it?

Victoria Bynum: I think it was pretty much considered no-man's land between those areas. The Confederacy managed to have a Home Guard unit down in Jones County, headed by a local Confederate officer, and that was Amos McLemore, reputed to have been murdered by Newt Knight and his men. By April of 1864, when more and more reports were reaching Confederate officials elsewhere that Jones County was under the control of deserters, and they had murdered some of the tax agents, then they sent the two expeditions I mentioned earlier. . . Col. Maury, in March (1864), subdued the deserters a bit but they came back just as strong, so then they sent Col. Robert Lowry in April. Now that really did splinter the band. He executed ten of them, and that's when a number of them fled to New Orleans and joined the Union army. About 40—they weren't all members of the band—about 40 Jones County men joined the Union Army in New Orleans. . . And then about 15 men were captured and forced back into the Confederate army. That left about 20 more whom they never caught, including Newt Knight, still out in the swamps.

CWF: You describe the prominent role of women in the book. Using "polecat musk and red pepper" to throw off the scent of the men from the dogs was rather emphatic. How did that come to be known as the thing to use?

Victoria Bynum: Well, according to Ethel Knight, who wrote the best known book (The Echo of the Black Horn), the white women learned it from Rachel, the slave. I don't know where she got her information from.

CWF: In your opinion, at what point did the Civil War become "inevitable"? 

Victoria Bynum: I would suppose that once Lincoln called for troops from the South, and even many who opposed secession turned the other way—when the image of invasion became a vivid one, the firing on Fort Sumter and the call for troops, one could say that's when it began to appear inevitable. Or you could look at it more broadly, and simply say that when the Northern states put in their constitutions gradual emancipation while the South simultaneously began designs for expanding slavery into the Southwest, some would say that's when war became inevitable. But I'm not real big on "inevitability."

CWF: When did you first hear of the legend about Jones County in the Civil War? And what first drew you to this as a subject of scholarly research?

Victoria Bynum: I first learned about Jones County around 1976 when I was an undergraduate in college. I saw it in a footnote in the Randall and Donald—the old Civil War text [Randall, James G., and David H. Donald. The Civil War and Reconstruction]. I did not hear about it from within my own family, even though my father was born in Jones County. What drew me to it as a subject of scholarship was writing my first book, Unruly Women. I have two chapters on the Civil War there, and one of those chapters centers on a county very similar to Jones County in many ways, and that's Montgomery County, North Carolina. But I just became fascinated with the topic of Southern Unionism, and the way that entire families were involved in resisting the Confederacy.

It was both the class element in it, and the participation of women and free blacks in North Carolina that made me then want to look at Jones County. So, it was only as I developed as a historian myself that I decided I would like to do a study of Jones County.

CWF: Would you talk a little bit about the so-called "white Negro" community in Jones County after the war, the trial of Davis Knight in the 1940s, and why this is such an important part of the story of "The Free State of Jones."

Victoria Bynum: I think it's incredibly important because it reveals how 20^th-century race relations and segregation buried the story of the Free State of Jones beneath all these stereotypes about race-mixing, and then combined with the myth of the Lost Cause, which presented Unionists as treasonous. The story had just become so distorted. And so I began and ended the book with the trial to basically look at why race was such a volatile part of the story, and then to move from there to look at the story of a class-based uprising of white men that is an important story in its own right, and would not have been buried so deeply if it had not been for the obsession with Newton Knight's interracial relationship with Rachel. And so I was determined to tell both stories, and particularly to try to bring back the stories of all these other members of Knight's band who had just sort of been lost from the picture.

Thanks everyone. The questions were good ones, I enjoyed them.