THE FILSON CLUB HISTORY QUARTERLY

Vol. 28 LOmSVmLE, Kv-wrvc•, JANWmY, 1954 NO. 1

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S TREATMENT OF KENTUCKIANS

BY J. T. Donms Paper read before The Filson Club, October 5, 1958 I am appearing before The Filson Club tonight with a subject gleaned, for the most part, from my long study of Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and 1ohnson, which the University of Press is now publishing. This book is the first thorough account of "The Restoration of the Confederates to their Rights and Privileges, 1861-1898." The late Dr. James G. Randall, noted Lincoln and Civil War authority, and President of the American Historical Association last year, suggested the study and prepared the nine pages of introduction to the volume. My paper tonight is only a small fragment of this study. I dare say that other phases treated in the book are much more interest- ing and valuable. Since our Club is particularly interested in history, however, I am confining myself to "Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians." But I must admit that my informa- tion on the subject is not definitive, nor is the title of my paper entirely satisfactory. I think it is advisable to note Lincoln's connections with Ken- tucky before becoming President. He and his wife were not only natives of the Blue Grass State, but there were certain influences in Kentucky that molded his political outlook and largely deter- mined his course of action before and even after he became President. Lincoln read two Kentucky newspapers for many years before going to Washington, in 1861. The Louisville ]our- hal, edified by George D. Prentice, evidently was one cause of his espousing the pohtical principles of and the Whig party. The reading of the Lexington Observer and Re- porter, especially after his marriage to Mary Todd, in 1842, 8 4 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28 certainly kept him informed on Times in Kentucky and the fortunes of his political idol, Henry Clay? Perhaps Lincoln s most intimate friend, in his early life, was a Kentuckian, Speed of Louisville. Speed and Lincoln roomed together for a time, in Springfield, Illinois, where Speed ran a store for seven years. The friends corresponded after Speed returned to Louisville, where Lincoln was a guest in the Speed home.2 , Joshua's brother, was Lincoln's Attorney- General. Most wives have-or should have-a wholesome influence on their husbands' thinking. Surely Mary Todd's political turn of mind influenced Lincoln during their courtship in Springfield. Moreover, her admiration for Henry Clay and her reading of political, economic and social information in the Whig Lexington Observer and Reporter with Lincoln after their marriage con- tributed much to Lincoln's knowledge of politics and conditions generally in Kentucky. In this connection, we should also remem- ber that Lmcoln• ,s Wt[es, • Home Town3 and Henry ClayI s ,,Ash- land" were much the center of political influence in the nation from 1820 to 1860. Nor should we forget that Lincoln was not an abolitionist like and John G. Fee. On the other hand, like Henry Clay and Cassius M. Clay, he was an emancipationist; that is, he believed in some gradual, compen- sated and constitutional plan of freeing the slaves.4 Lincoln's visit in Lexington with his family late in 1847, while on the way to Washington to sit as the only Whig representative from Illinois in the thirtieth Congress, gave him an opportunity to observe slavery at its worst-and also at its best•On this visit he heard Clay speak at great length, denouncing the administration at Washington for precipitating the war with Mexico. Lincoln's "Spot" speech, later in the House, also criticising President Polk, indicates Clay's recent influence on the speaker? Again, in 1848, Lincoln heard Clay address a convention of the American Colonization Society in the House of Representatives. And what is indeed more significant, Lincoln visited Clay at "Ashland," in 1849, while on a second visit to Lexington.6 More- over, Lincoln delivered a forty minute eulogy on Clay at the memorial exercises held in Springfield after the death of the Great Pacificator, in 1852. In this speech Lincoln expressed the depth of his appreciation of Henry Clay•He said of him, "As on a question of liberty, he knew no North, no South, no East, no West, but only the Union which held all in its sacred circle...,,T Lincoln was eulogizing a statesman who had held the states to- 1954] Lincolr•s Treatment of Kentuckians 5

get.her until he, a native Kentuckian, who had risen to fame in Illinois, would be able to save the Union, when separation was actually attempted. In other words, if it had not been for Clay, there might not have been a Union for Lincoln to preserve,s Perhaps Edgar DeWitt Jones gives the best appraisal of Clay's influence on Lincoln in his recent essay on The Influence of Henry Clay upon (1952). Jones believes that Clay's early speeches were largely the cause of Lincoln's becom- ing a Whig. He also says that Lincoln quoted Clay forty-one times in his seven debates with Senator Stephen A. Douglas, in 1858,9 some years after the Whig party had disintegrated. Yes, Lincoln was a Southerner-at least, a Kentucky South- erner. And nearly every one, past and present, has regarded Ken- tucky as a Southern State. The late Dr. Randall says, in his small volume on Lincoln and the South (1946) ( a series of lectures delivered on the campus of State University) that, "The relation...of Lincoln to Kentucky...is a solid and sub- stantial fact. Kentucky had sentimental memories to him .... It was natural that when he thought of Kentucky he did not think merely of something on the map; he thought instead of his parents, . . . , of Knob Creek, of the Rolling Fork, of boyhood escapades, of hunting and fishing, of dropping seeds into the ground-things that were elemental.''1° And again Dr. Randall says: "One never fully throws off the feeling he has for the state of his birth. So it was with Lincoln. [Even] His speech in mature life has been identified as the Kentucky idiom. TM Lincoln often appeared conscious of his Kentucky connections. As late as February, 1861, in a speech in Cincinnati, he addressed much of what he said to Kentuckians, for he was aware that some were in the audience. He saluted them as "Fellow-citizens of Kentucky! friends! brethren!" and asked them if he might not so regard them in his "new position" as President-elect. "I see no occasion, and feel no inclination, [he said] to retract a word of this [salutation]."12 .Thus, in spite of the fact that Lincoln had received ouly 1364 votes in Kentucky for President the previous November, he wanted the people of the state of his and his wife's nativity, the state whose native sous and daughters had been his neighbors in Illinois, the state of his political idol, the state that was to give him his greatest concern during his presidency-he wanted Ken- tuckians to regard him as a fellow-citizen, as a friend, and as a brother. And if this could not be, he assured his hearers that the fault would not be his. 1'• This was President-elect Lincoln, who 6 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28 was on his way to Washington to become the chief magistrate of the nation. He wanted Kentuckians to know that he was their friend-that he knew no North, no South, no East, and no West. Nevertheless, he would have them understand that he would maintain the Union at all costs. Everyone should know something about the struggle to keep Kentucky from joining the Confederacy. An extended account of the controversy, however, is not desirable here. Perhaps a para- graph from the late Dr. Randalrs Lincoln and the South will sut•ce. "'Lincoln showed himself a diplomat in his handling of the Kentucky situation," the learned scholar says, "He did not rush proceedings or force the issue. Much of his Kentucky policy was handled behind the scenes, by messenger, by conference, by influences centering in Cincinnati, by word of mouth, or by confidential statement. He used conciliation without selling the Union cause down the river. He maneuvered to exhaust his op- ponents" trumps, but only by playing the game. He listened to protests from the other side, even restraining his own supporters lest they become too ardent or premature in action. When he wrote a paper on Kentucky affairs, in this di•cult April-to- September period of 1861," Randall continues, "it was couched in language that would reassure and satisfy, yet make no stultify- ing commitment. So long as Kentucky committed no active re- sistance to the Federal government, he preferred to avoid provocative action; yet he declared his intention of enforcing the laws so far as he was supported in doing so by the people of the . His Kentucky policy was such a balancing of delicacy with fin'nness, of delay with watchfulness, of Unionism with self-determination, that he, as much as any [other] man, must be given the credit for keeping Kentucky [in the Union].''•" Nevertheless, the Southern sympathizers held a convention at Russelville which passed a declaration of independence and an ordinance of secession, on November 18, 1861. The existing state constitution was retained and a government organized with Bowling Green as the capital. On December 10, 1861, Kentucky was admitted to the Confederate States of America.1• Though the Blue Grass State had its quota of representatives in the Confederate Congress, its Confederate state government never amounted to much. Of course, the numerous sympathizers with the South in the state made it necessary for the government at Frankfort to enact laws to cope with the situation. On October 1, 1861, the legislature enacted a law providing severe punish- ment for Kentuckians who enlisted in the Confederate army or 1954] Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians 7 invaded Kentucky. A little later citizens of the state who aided the Confederacy were declared expatriated, and their citizenship could only be restored by act of the legislature. The loyalty of teachers and jurors was tested and other punitive measures en- acted. Fines and imprisonment were provided for offenders. A person displaying a Confederate flag might be fined as much as one hundred dollars. TM While the "Lincoln government" of Kentucky, as the Southern critics derisively called the government at Frankfort, was adopt- ing measures to punish supporters of the Confederacy, President Lincoln and Congress were enacting even more drastic punitive laws. An act of July 31, 1861, provided that anyone found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government or to prevent the execution of its laws should be fined from $500 to $5,000. Such person might be imprisoned instead for not more than six years, or he might be both fined and imprisoned. Other laws passed a few days later provided for the confiscation of property and the punishment of persons found guilty of recruiting soldiers and sailors to serve against the United States.17 Lincoln's and Congress's most drastic punitive measure was enacted on July 17, 1862. Death was made the penalty for "the crime of treason," or imprisolament for not less than five years and a fine of not less than ten thousand dollars. A person con- victed of an offense less than treason against the United States was to "be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by the liberation of all his slaves, if he have any, or by both of said punishments.... " Moreover, those convicted were to be dis- qualified to hold office in the United States forever. TM There were other punitive measures aimed at Confederates enacted at Washington, but they need not be mentioned. All such legislation, of course, applied to offending Kentuckians, who found themselves confronted by both state and national authori- ties determined to stamp out rebellion. The Federal circuit court at Frankfort began returning indict- ments for treason in November, 1861. Thirty-two prominent Kentuckians, including John C. Breckinridge, John M. Brown, Benjamin Desha, Humphrey Marshall, and , were on the list. County courts were also active. In April, 1862, thirty-four citizens were indicted in Bourbon County. And after the invasions of Bragg and Smith, late in 1862, Fayette County produced 208 and Bourbon 195 treason indictments. TM 8 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

Many persons, like Breckimidge and Morgan, were beyond the reach of the authorities. There were many more, however, who felt the rigor of the courts. Consequently a large number were imprisoned here and there in Northern prison camps, or other- wise kept in civil or military custody until they had given bond for good behavior or had been released on other terms. Reuben T. Durrett, one of the founders of The Filson Club, and ex-Governor Charles S. Morehead were arrested and taken to Fort Lafayette in New York City. On the other hand, John B. Clay, a son of Heury Clay, was released on bail.2° Many arrests were made on the most trivial grounds. Even John C. Breckinridge accused Lincoln of ordering the seizure of Morehead at midnight in his own home, and hurrying the old man off to prison in a shameful maimer. It is not likely that Lincoln had anything directly to do with it. But abuses were so evident that the legislature passed a resolution in December, 1861, calling for the return of Morehead and other political prisoners.•1 It became evident, therefore, that many imprisoned persons were innocent of charges against them, and that others.had re- pented of their imprudent acts and were willing to declare their loyalty to the Union. When this became clear to the President, he directed, on February 14, 1862, "that all political or state • prisoners...be released on...engaging them [selves] to render no aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States." Such per- sons were regarded as being pardoned and their past offenses against the Government placed in oblivion. Lincoln's order did not apply to spies or others whose liberty seemed unwised• In reality, the authorities had deemed it advisable for months earlier to extend clemency to certain political prisoners, and many hadbeen released on taking the oath of allegiance to the United States, or on giving their parole of honor not to aid the rebellion. In Kentucky, apparently, most of the business of han- dling such cases was done by both state and national officials. The five volumes of records of the United States Circuit Court, now in the Federal building in Louisville, give the magnitude and nature of this oathtaking, bonding, and paroling business in the Blues Grass State. The amount of bond required ranged from five hundred to twenty thousand dollars, with principals, and their sureties usually sharing equal amounts. For example, on June 24, 1862, William W. Adams and his sureties, Jacob Vanmeter and C. E. Adams of Warren County (Bowling Green, 1954] Lincoln's Treatment o[ Kentuckians 9

county seat) had their total bond for $5,000 acknowledged; and the next day Henry Adrian, principal, and his surety, Louis Jacquis of Louisville, gave their bonds in equal amounts of $1,000.23 It should be noted that a principal and his surety were not required to deposit money with the court to satisfy the bond. They agreed instead that the amount fixed should '%e levied and made of" their "respective lands and tenements, goods and chattels," and rendered to the use of the Government of the United States, ff the parole were violated. But ff the principal kept "the peace" and was "of good behavior towards file Govern- ment," and otherwise conducted himself as "a loyal citizen dur- ing the present rebellion," the bond became void.2' Occasionally special stipulations were made part of a bond for good behavior. Dr. John Orr of Campbell County, for example, was arrested on charges of disloyalty and taken to Camp Chase, near Columbus, Ohio, but was soon released on taking the oath of allegiance and giving bond for $5,000 (June 24, 1862). He also agreed to give immediate information to the nearest officer in command "ofany hostile movement, gatherirl•, or conspiracy, knowledge of which he might learn, and to notiiy the authorities of any person attempting to enlist recruits, or encouraging others "to join the so-called Confederate army or to give aid or comfort thereto. If he did not do this, the nearest post commander might "seize and sell or otherwise dispose of any and all" of his and his sureties' properties "without having recourse to any proceedings of law.''2• The records in Louisville contain peace bonds from many Kentucky counties. Such obligations were usually attested by the county judges. Sometimes the justices of the peace and city judges attended to the business. The names of many citizens in the state, therefore, are thus recorded as court officials, princi- pals and sureties. In Madison County, Judge James N. Embry administered the oath and determined the bond for George and A. M. Deatherage, Caleb and W. K. Oldham, Jeremiah Rucker, H. L. Christopher and Alfred C. Turner.:6 But Justices Peter T. Phelps and John W. Brown officiated when Robert Chenault and Hezakiah Oldham respectively took the oath and gave bond for $1,000 each. In Jefferson County most of the business was done by Judge Bland Ballard, though some bonds were acknowledged before the judge of the city court, George W. Johnson. Where indictments for treason existed, a person thus em- barrassed might take the oath and receive a pardon, which he 10 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28 would offer in court with a plea that the indictment be dismissed and the case dropped. This procedure appears to have been com- mon in Kentucky. The case of William N. Stephens of Shelby County illustrates such action: Stephens had been indicted for treason, his case docketed in the United States Circuit Court at Louisville, and the law firm of Caldwell and Caldwell engaged to defend him. Sometime thereafter (June 5, 1863) he took the oath of allegiance, and on being recommended to the President for clemency by "many loyal citizens of Kentucky," received a pardon on September 2. His attorneys forthwith presented the pardon in court with a plea to have the indictment dismissed and the defendant discharged. The attorney for the Government, Joshua Tevis, admited the plea, and, on October 12, Judge Bal- lard, for the court, ordered the accused discharged.•7 In another instance, William Murray Brown of Shelby County was charged with robbing the mail. Before his indictment he had resigned his commission as captain ha the Confederate army, had taken the oath of allegiance and had henceforth "conducted him- self as a law abiding citizen." Consequently, being petitioned by "many other loyal citizens of Kentucky," Lincoln pardoned him on December 26, 1863, and Judge Ballard dismissed his case about two months later.2s No bond was executed in this case, since he was pardoned, but in that of Paul King of Floyd County conditions were different. King was indicted for treason on May 29, 1862, and on July 2 gave bond for $20,000 for his appearance in court. The case remained on the docket with some attention until January 5, 1864, when the accused man gave another bond for $5,000 to keep the peace.•9 Pardon, of course, was not a deter- mining factor in this case. As time passed the contents of oaths were often made to in- clude the penalty one might receive ff convicted of violating his parole. By August, 1862, Provost Marshall D. B. Howlett of Paducah was requiring persons to swear, in addition to the oath of allegiance, that they would "well and faithfully perform all the duties which" might be required of them by the United States, "with a full and clear understanding that death, or other punishment by the judgment of a Military Commission," would be the "penalty for the violation" of their solemn oaths and paroles ofhonor. These words, of course, were expected to cause the oath-taker to observe his solemn obligation more faithfully,a° Perhaps the actual form, or words, of a Lincoln Pardon should be given. The following is from a copy of a pardon, retained in Washington, which was issued to William Duke of Boyle County. 1954] Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians 11

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.81 To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: Whereas William Duke, of Boyle County, Kentucky, has been charged with divers offences against the United States, by him committed, in aid of rebels in open arms, and levy- ing war against the United States, within the Common- wealth of Kentucky;- And whereas, the said William Duke has returned to his allegiance, and given sureties for his future good conduct, in the sum of $5000.00;- And whereas, General , of Kentucky, a near relative of the said William Duke, has earnestly solic- ited his pardon;- Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, have granted and do hereby,•rant unto the said William Duke, a full and free pardon of all treasons, felonies and misdemeanors by him, the said William Duke, committed within the Common- wealth of Kentucky, on or before the Fifteenth day of De- cember, 1862." In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-eighth day of August, A.D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth. L.S. Abraham Lincoln By the President: F. W. Seward, Acting Secretary of State. Lincoln's pardons had no common form; each was worded to suit the case involved. A pardon issued in January, 1864, to Ed- ward Stevenson of Logan County indicted for treason, and rec- ommended by "Hon. Henry Grider and many other loyal citizens of Kentucky," stated that the charge against Stevenson was "friv- olous and untrue" and that his expense in defending himself would "be a great and unjust burden.''82 Such variation was not followed by President Johnson. Instead a uniform style for indi- vidual pardons was adopted for use during the period of restor- ing the Confederates to their rights and privileges after the war.as 12 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

Before passing to the last phase of this discussion, I should mention Lincoln's proclamations of amnesty. The first was issued on December 8, 1863, and was intended to encourage Confeder- ates to return to their loyalty to the Union. At the same time the measure was also to provide a satisfactory and workable number of citizens in a given seceded state to organize a loyal state goverrm3ent. Six classes of persons were excepted from the proclamation's general application or benefits. They were: "... all who are or shall have been civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so- called Confederate Government; all who have left judicial sta- tions under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are or shall have been military or naval officers of said so-called Confed- erate Government above the rank of colonel in the army or of lieutenant in the navy; all who left seats in the United States Con- gress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the army or navy.., and afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war,.. ,,s4 Those who availed themselves of this offer of pardon took an oath of allegiance to the United States, and had their rights and privileges restored. On March 26, 1864, Lincoln supplemented his first proclama- tion of amnesty by excepting "persons in military, naval, or civil confinement"-from its benefits. He also made it clear that those excepted from amnesty might apply to him for special pardon, which he would freely grant if the applicants were worthy of clemency. Notwithstanding Lincoln's excepting persons in military con- finement from the general application of his amnesty, authorities continued to release prisoners of war on taking the oath of alle- giance. The number thus liberated is difficult to determine. One instance of the release of Kentuckians should be mentioned. In January and February, 1865, the law firm of Curtis F. Burnam and James W. Caperton of Richmond, Kentucky, was engaged bv a number of citizens of Madison County to secure the release of their Confederate kinsmen from Camp Douglas and other prison camps. The loyalty of these lawyers to the Union and their known friendship with Lincoln apparently encouraged this ac- tion. At any rate, they agreed to obtain the release of thirty-four prisoners. It was strictly a business proposition in every instance, and the fee was one hundred dollars in nearly every case. Burnam went to Washington and secured the President s order for the 1954] Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians 13 releases, and Caperton took the approved list to Camp Douglas. In this manner, on taking the oath of allegiance to the Union, liberty was obtained for twenty prisoners. Others whose freedom " the lawyers had undertaken to secure were released before Caperton arrived in Chicago, and consequently his firm received nothing for those cases.85 It might also be noted in this connection that Burnam and Caperton received (February 21, 1865) three hundred dollars for obtaining permission from the Federal authorities in Madison County to allow three escaped Confederate prisoners to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. These soldiers, who had been confined in Camp Douglas, were 'qaiding out" in the country near Richmond and were in danger of being arrested and re- turned to prison. Relatives of the men paid the lawyers for their service. Some of the prisoners in whose interest Buruam and Caperton were active had been in John Hunt Morgan's brigade, which was captured in the summer of 1863 and whose soldiers and minor commissioned officers were confined in Camp Doug- las, from which manywere not released until the spring of 1865.86 One other brief account of opposition to Lincoln in Kentucky should be given. Notwithstanding the rather generous granting of paroles, releases, and pardons, indiscriminate and often sense- less arrest and imprisonments continued through 1862. Viola- tions of personal liberties were so common that the United States Senate was moved by the Kentucky Legislature, in May, 1862, to ask the President for a report on such activities. Lincoln refused the request as incompatible with public interest. His answer •orieVously displeased Kentuckians, and many more left the state the Confederarcy. Women and children were disturbed, and in Newport a "prison was set up for "rebel females." '" In fact, "women were often arrested throughout the war, for no other reason than that they had near relatives in the Confederate army.TM Spies and informers were everywhere, even among one's relatives, and conditions in that respect suggest certain behaviors charged at present against authorities behind the "Iron Curtain." Appeals were made to Washington for relief from such oppres- sion. Arrests became fewer in August 1862, and in September (1862), on complaint by Governor Robinson (of Kentucky), Secretary of War Stanton ordered General Boyle, commanding in the state, tb make no other arrests except on the Governor's order. Conditions improved for a while, but they soon became as bad as ever, and by January, 1863, "Garret Davis declared that 'fully one third of the state were disloyal.' " Indeed, Lincoln was •4 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

losing ground in his native state, and when the Emancipation Proclamation was proclaimed (January 1, 1863), the slave owners of Kentucky were despondently angry. Had not Lincoln assured them that the institution of slavery would not be dis- turbed? Had he not later talked of compensated emancipation? Now he declared the slaves free in states and parts of states in rebellion on January 1, 1863. Even though the measure did not apply to a loyal state like Kentucky, Lincoln was charged with providing for the "deportation from the country [at large] of $1,600,000,000 worth of producing labor, and the substitution of an interest-bearing debt of the same amount.''88 From this time forth the confidence of Kentuckians in Lincoln decreased rapidly. This meant politically that Union Democrats would not support him for President in 1864. Instead they sup- ported the candidacy of General McClellan, believing that he would not only preserve the Union, but that his election would end their grievances against Lincoln's government. Perhaps Squire Turner's letter, published in September, 1864, in a Rich- mond, Kentucky, paper and again in The Filson Club History Quarterly, in January, 1951, summarizes the opposition to Lin- coln. Turner declared his constant loyalty to the Union, but as- serted his lack of confidence in Lincoln. He charged the President with acts of oppression, with the denial of trail by jury and other constitutional guarantees in the courts, with the violation of prop- erty rights in slaves as well as in other property, with impressing people into the army, with increasing taxes, and with endeavor- ing to subjugate the Southern States by the confiscation of South- ern property and the destruction of slavery. Though Lincoln was re-elected, McClellan carried Kentucky by a vote of 61,478 to 26,562. Even the vote of Kentucky soldiers was nearly three to one for McClellan.8• In conclusion I shall give somewhat in detail two of Lincoln's cases in dealing with Kentuckians seeking clemency. The first had to do with paroling the sou of George D. Prentice. The father was editor of the Louisville ]ournal, a paper which surely con- . tributed to influences that caused Lincoln to become a Whig. Moreover, Prentice had done much for the Union cause in Ken- tueky, and that was something to be appreciated. At any rate, Prentice's twenty year old son, Clarence J., had entered the Con- federate service, had quickly won a major's commission, and had been a serious menace to the Federals in Eastern Kentucky. The youthful officer's fortune had suddenly changed, however, for one night in April, 1863, he slipped into Louisville to see his 1954] Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians 15 parents and baby, and in a few hours was captured. He was con- fined in Camp Chase, and soon ordered to be tried as a spy.4° The young major's parents had already lost their other son while he was fighting with General John Hunt Morgan, and now they became frantic over the prospect of losing their only living child. The father first implored the President by telegram to allow Major Prentice to be exchanged as a prisoner of war. Three days later he followed with a long letter describing his son's predicament and urging the President to allow the young man to take a simple oath of allegiance and then go "anywhere outside of the United States and the rebel Confederacy. I know his plans," he continued. "His mother will go with him and he will never bear arms against us again. I will be surety for this with my fortune and life." The President, however, was advised by Judge-Advocate Joseph Holt, another Kentuckian, not to grant the petition for a parole, but to allow the prisoner to be exchanged instead. On May 6 the father wrote Lincoln again, emphasizing his own past sacrifices for the Union cause and stating that he was "likely, even at the best, to suffer and sacrifice much hereafter." He closed his petition with these words: "And now, Dear Sir, pray grant me what I ask in behalf of my only son. His mother is half delirious, and so am I. I am scarcely capable of performing my daily duties to the country, but if my request were granted, I feel I should be buoyant with new life." The letter had the desired effect. Notwithstanding Holt's rec- ommendation that the petition not be granted, President Lincoln instructed Stanton to order General Burnside "to parole Major Clarence Prentice . . . to remain outside the limits of both the loyal and disloyal States... during the present rebellion, and to abstain from in anywise aiding or abetting said rebellion." On this condition the parole was granted. Nevertheless, as Holt had predicted, young Prentice soon appeared on the Kentucky- border, authorized by the Richmond authorities to raise a battalion or regiment for the Confederarcy, and for more than a year longer he fought against the Union.'1 In December, 1864, Lincoln again went to the Editor's aid to get his son out of trouble by granting him a pass through the Union lines to visit the boy in Richmond Virginia, where he was charged with murder.42 Before reciting the second instance of Lincoln's befriending a Kentuckian, I should give briefly a case, by way of contrast, where clemency was denied a citizen of Virginia, one Captain 16 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

John Y. Beall. This Confederate and twenty other men, dressed as citizens, had overpowered the crew of a Union vessel on Lake Erie and gained possession of the craft. Beall was captured later and charged with being a spy, robber, brigand, and pirate, be- cause of his many questionable activities during the war. James G. Brady, an able attorney of New York, defended the Captain, but despite his learned argument that his client was not a spy and that his activities came within the scope of international law, Beall was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Much sympathy was manifested for the. exemplary, young, educated Virginian, whose family was wealthy and prominent socially, and a tremendous effort was made to have his punish- ment commuted to life imprisonment. Men of great personal in- fiuence were enlisted to save him from the gallows, and President Lincoln was urged to prevent the execution. Senator Orville Hickman Browning advised clemency and presented a petition in behalf of the prisoner, signed by ninety-one members of Con- gress. Postmaster-General Montgomery Blair, John Andrew, and even desired leniency. Six United States sena- tors formally petitioned Lincoln to commute the sentence, since it was admitted that Beall was "a Captain regularly commis- sioned in the rebel service and that ... assumed all responsibility for his actions."•8 General John A. Dix, commanding in New York State, and Naval Solicitor, Major John A. Bolles, however, insisted on the execution, with which Lincoln declined to interfere, though it was evident that his conscience was greatly disturbed. If there ever was an instance when he could have justified mercy, it was on this occasion. With the President of the Confederacy assum- ing responsibility for Beall's acts and with such an array of august petitioners for clemency, Lincoln's refusal was a reliable testi- mony to his strength of purpose when death appeared the proper penalty for conviction, notwithstanding extenuating circum- stances that might have justified contrary action on his part. .The second Kentuckian in dire distress, whom Lincoln pro- posed to befriend, was Captain John Breekiuridge Castleman of Fayette County, who had been an omcer under General Mor- gan. Like Captain Beall, Castleman was caught while operating under the direction of the Confederate Commission in Canada, whose purposes were to incite insurrection in the North and liberate and arm the prisoners in the prison camps there. Posing under the assumed name of Clay Wilson, he moved about in the region from Chicago to St. Louis. A number of men operated 1954] Lincoh•s Treatment of Kentuckians 17 under him, doing what mischief they dared without being appre- hended. Their activities were finally frustrated, however, by the arrest of Castleman at Sullivan, Indiana, on October 1, 1864, and his imprisonment at Indianapolis. The yotmg captain's mother soon visited the prison and left with her son a Bible, in which a fellow officer, Captain Thomas H. Hines, another Morgan man, had caused a sympathetic bookbinder in Chicago to secrete three small saws and $3,000 in currency. The Holy Bible, the little saws and the good United States money were intended to be both con- soling and useful to the anxious prisoner, who was charged with the serious offenses of being a spy, of distributing money for malicious and incendiary purposes, and of conspiring to free and arm prisoners of war. As in the case of BeaU, conviction would certainly be followed with a death sentence. On returning home, Mrs. Castleman engaged Judge Samuel Breckinridge of Lexington to secure her son s release. Breckin- ridge soon went to Indianapolis and, after interviewing Castle- man, employed the able law firm of Porter and McDonald to defend the prisoner, who was his kinsman.44 Late in November, 1864, the Judge went to Washington to enlist the President's beneficent interest in the case. Being a Kentuckian and a Union man, Breckinridge expected his mission to be favorably con- sidered, and he was not disappointed. Lincoln was glad to receive the visitor from his wife's home town, and the two men talked until late about subjects of mutual interest. Finally the President penned and signed the following note: "Major General Hovey, or Whoever may have charge at the proper time: Whenever John B. Castleman shall be tried, ff convicted and sentenced, suspend execution until further order from me, and send me the record.''• This order that Lincoln entrusted to Judge Breckinridge was written on November 29, 1864. The President's advice was heeded, and Castleman was never brought to trial. Instead, an exchange was arranged between Grant and Lee, and the prisoner was taken to Washington for that purpose. Before this could be effected Lincoln was assassinated, and Castleman was soon taken from the Old Capitol Prison and returned to Indianapolis, and the determination of trying him as a spy was revived.4° Generals Halleck and Hovey and Judge-Advocate Joseph Holt demanded that "The same justice which required the trial and execution of Beall" be required of Castleman. But Hovey wrote the authorities at Washington on May 25, 1865, recommending that the prisoner be either tried or banished from the country. 18 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

The latter recommendation was followed, and Castleman was paroled, banished, and sent across the border at Detroit." He went to Europe, and, being excepted from President Johnson's amnesty, his influential friends, in due time, sought his pardon. Seventeen citizens of Lexington petitioned President Johnson, reminding him that Lincoln's plan to have Castleman exchanged should have been carried out. But not until August 27, 1866, did tJhOhnson revoke the exile's parole, on condition that he return to e United States and take the oath of allegiance.'s This he did, and thus the will of the martyred President was ultimately car- ried out, though in a somewhat different manner. Lincoln's leniency in dealing with Captain Castleman incites some speculation as to the causes therefor. Lincoln allowed Captain Beall to be executed, even though pressure for clemency •reater than that exercised in Castleman's behalf was brought to ear upon him. Bea]l was tried and convicted, and executed, while Castleman, who was certainly a spy, was never even brought to trial, but was to be exchanged as a prisoner of war. Perhaps Beall's actual offenses were more serious; but certainly there should not have been such difference in the treatment of the two offenders. It might be that the effect of Beall's execution on February 24, 1865, influenced Lincoln to be more considerate of Castleman. It should be noted, however, that Lincoln en- trusted his order concerning Castleman to Breckinridge nearly three months before the execution of Beall; so no conscientious scruples on account of that could have influenced, him to write the note of the previous November. Finally one might suppose that the request of a loyal Kentucky Breckharidge had much weight with Lincoln, who was also a native of Kentucky. Not all Breckiuridges were supporting the Union. Moreover, was not Mrs. Lincoln also a Kentuckian--even a Fayette County Ken- tuckian, whose kin were neighbors of the Breckinridges and Castlemans? Kentuckians undoubtedly enjoyed a choice place in Abraham Lincoln's affections and were likely to be recipients of his extra- ordinary beneficence. But who knows exactly why Lincoln al- lowed BeaU, a Virginian, to be shamefully hanged as a spy, while he was willing that Castleman, a Kentuckian, who was also a spy, be exchanged as an honorable prisoner of war?4. Indeed, the acts of the great Civil War President were often enigmatical and hardly understandable by applying standards of appreciation applicable to ordinary persons. And notwithstand- ing the dissatisfaction with him in Kentucky during the war, 1954] Lincoln's Treatment of Kentuckians 19

pointedly expressed in the election of 1864, when McClellan easily carried the state for President, Lincoln undoubtedly re- tained to the last an affection for Kentuckians that stemmed from sentimental connections of nativity and other personal associa- tions with the Blue Grass State.

FOOTNOTES 1 William H. Townsend, Lincoln and His Wife's Home Town (Indianapolis, 1929), 88-90. S/averg Times in Kentucktl is the title of a book by J. Winston Coleman, Jr. (Chapel Hill, 1940). See also J. G- Randall, Lincoln and the South (Baton Rouge, - 1946), 27-28. 2Ruth Painter Randall, Marg Lincoln: Biography o[ a Marriage (Boston, 1953), 11, 19, 55, 59-64, 97-98, 104. a Using the title of Towsend's book referred to in note 1. Most people make no difference between the real meanings of the terms abolition and emancipation. See Jonathan Truman Dorris, O/d Cano Springs (Louisville, 1937), 155-56. 5 Townsend, op. dt., 152-56, 162-68. €Ibid., 163. r Edgar De Witt Jones, The Influence of Henrtt Clag upon Abraham Lincoln (Lexing- ton, 1952), 28-29. s Ibid., 27. 9 Ibid., 19, 20, 21. 1o j. G. Randall, Lincoln and the South, 6-8. 11 Ibid., 9. 12 Ibid., 1O-ll. 1• Ibid., 11. 14 Ibid., 70. 18 E. Merton Coulter, The Civil War and Readiustment in Kentucky (Chapel Hill, 1926), 188. lc Ibid., 138-40. 7 See the winter s Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and ]ohnson: The Restoration of the Confederates to their Rights and Privilege.s, 1861-1898 (Chapel Hill, 1958), 4. 18 Ibid., 6. 19 Coulter, op. cit., 140-41. 20 Ibid., 148. m Ibid., 148, n. 10. 22 Dorris, Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and ]ohnson, 10. 2a These items are from entries 4 and 13 in Volume I, which contains 620 names of persons for whom bonds were acknowledged and filed. Another volume contains only 348 names. Only three men, Henry Pope, Greenberry Roberts, and William Nelson, all of Jefferson County, were each required to give bond for $20,000. There were sureties on the bonds. 24 The bond thus,,quoted is the first recorded in Volume I of "Bonds and Custody For Good Behavior of the United States Circuit Court of Louisville, Kentu,,cky. The principal was William A. Abbott, and the surety, John B. True, who were held and firmly bound unto the Government of the United States in the penal sum of $1,0O0 . . ." Acknowledgment was made on January 18, 1868, before Judge George W. Johnson of the Louisville City Court. 2•Ibid. There is a great quantiW of records among the archives in Washington relating to the subject of arrests, indictments, oaths and bonds for good behavior. 28 Granville Deatherage was George Deatherages surety for $1,OOO of a bond for $2,000, while John Hisle was obligated for $300 of A. M. Deatboragn s bond for $1,000. Coleman Covington Amos Allison and Elijah Yeats, respectively, were suretie• for Ca eb, W. K. and Hezaldah Oldham. Cabell Chenanlt, who had four sons in the Confederate army, signed Robert Chenault's bond, and Robert Covington was H. L Christopher s surety. Sinclair Ogg signed for Jeremiah Rueker, and James B. MeCreary for Alfred C. Turner, whose bond was $5,000. Robert Covington also was William M. Thomass surety for half of $1,0OO, and Robert French obligated himself for $200 of William Scudder's bond for $500, which was acknowledged before Jus•ce Phelps. Many of these Madisonians lived in the part of the County known as Old Cane 20 The Filson Club History Quarterly [Vol. 28

Springs " where there were many Confederate sympathizers and slave owners. See the writer's Old Cane Springs, etc., pass/re. Order Book A, Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky, p. 520, Case No. 837. Order Book B contains similar eases prior to December. 1868. t:s Ibid., Order Book B, Case No. 489. There were no details of the robbery or date thereof. 29 Order Book, U.S. Circuit Court records, Fraulffort, Kentucky, pp. 223, 234, 265, 318 319, 414. This volume contains some 250 or 300 indictments lor treason. Joh/a W•iams, Lucius Desha, and two or three others were sureties for $10,000 of .•ng s bond to appear in Court, with the principal responsible for the othax half. williams and Desha signed the peace bond without any division of obligation. The case was in Judge Ballard s court. so Professor R. A. Edwards of Richmond, Kentucky, has the certificate of such an oath sworn to byhis grandfather, A. Gallemore, on August 11, 1862. The clerk misspelled Gallemore s name in writing it in the certificate. , . Sl The original is in the Pardon Records of Lincoln s and Johnson s admimstratiovs, VUl. VII in The National Archives. as Ibid. See also Dorris Pardon and Amne,stg under Lincoln and Johnson, 68-60, for the wording of General Jame• W. MeHenry s pardon of December 7, 1864. s3 Don'is, op. tit., 143. s• Messages... of the Presidents. VI, p. 214. as This information was found in the "Fee Book" of the law firm of Curtis F. Burnam and James W. Caperton covering the period of 1863 to 1869, now in the possession of Caperton's daughter, Mrs. Paul Burnam, Richmond, Kentucky. See the writer's Old Cane Springs, 210-11. as The writer's Old Cane Springs 123-28 210-12, 218-30. Burnam was First Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for a time during Grant's adminis•ation. He supported Bell for the presidency in 1860. Caperton and his father, W. H. Caperton, supported Lincoln and spoke in the interest of his election during this campaign, being two of the 1864 Kentuckians who voted for the Republican candidate. s7 Coulter, op. cit., 147-56. as Ibid., 153, 158 ft. so Ibid. Ch. IX. 4o Offlc. Rec., I Set., pt. 2, p. 280 (Boresides to Halleck, April 11, 1863 ). An account of the Frentiee case is in Dorris, Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and 1ohnson, 81-82. 4xIbid., I Ser., XXVII,,pt. 8, p. 1007. For an account of Lieutenant Clarence J. Prentice s later service •or the Confederacy, see Ibid., XXIX, XLII, XLIH, XLV. 4s Ibid., XLV, pt. 2, p. 504. Sandb,rg, Abraham Lincoln in the War Years, 4 vols. (New York, 1939) has no mention (ff this case. 4Slsaae Markens, President Lincoln and the Case of lohn Y. Beau (pamphlet, 1911 ), pass/m. A letter by Beall to Confederate Agent of Exchange Robert Ould, dated Feb. 15, was not delivered until (27th) after the execution. Had Ould received it when he should he might have prevented the death ,s,e.ntence from being carried out. He said that the "cruelty of the enemy was so swift that nothing could be done to stay the execution. Offlc. Ree., 2 Ser., VIII, 400 (Ould to President Johnson, March 11, 1865). Also Dorris, Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and Johnson, 67-79. 44 Albert Gallatin Porter of this law firm later became first complxoller of the United States Treasury and then governor of Indiana. 4s John B. Castleman, Active Service (Louisville, 1917), 184 ft. The Baston Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 16, 1935, reproduced this letter of Nov. 29, 1864, in an account of the affair. 4c The order to take Castlaman back to hadianapolis was dated April 25, 1865. See facsimile, Ibid., 185. 47 Ibid., 188. A fuller account of this case is given in Dorfis, Pardon and Amnesty under Lincoln and 1ohnson, 82-85. 4s Ibid., 200. Charles H. Cole, an accomplice of Castleman and others, was dis- charged from Fort Lafayette, Feb. 1O, 1866, by habeas corpus proceedings. Ibid., 739, 873, 878, 881. 49 Castleman became a prominent lawyer and served as brigadier-general during the Spanish Amencan War. Hines became Ch'ef Justice of Kentucky's highest court. The men were lifelong friends.