Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War Along the Lower Mississippi

Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

Within weeks of the first volley at Fort Sumter, New Orleans bore witness to an altogether different salvo. On May 6, 1861, the docks at Algiers, Louisiana ignited into flames.

Nine commercial steamboats— General Pike, Editor, Grenada, Telegram, Baltic, Republic,

Madison, Dollie Webb, and Conqueror— mysteriously caught fire. In a matter of moments, over

4,500 tons of timber splintered into kindling and the combined investment of $28,500 disintegrated into ash. Yet, the event was unremarkable. Despite the magnitude of such a multi- vessel conflagration, the inferno drew little local interest or concern. After all, steamboat fires— usually attributed to boiler explosions— were fairly common in the nineteenth century. On average, twenty-one percent of all antebellum riverboats burned or exploded. Between 1847 and

1857 alone, 230 steamboats caught fire. Between 1816 and 1848, 1,433 people lost their lives in riverboat explosions. As citizens of a prominent port town, New Orleanians would have been cognizant of the innate danger and combustibility of steamboats. As such, local officials quickly dismissed the incident as an accident signifying that the notion of intentional boat burning had not yet entered into the public consciousness. 1

Interestingly, at least one party thought the 1861 New Orleans inferno was intentional.

The Cincinnati Daily Press reported that the fire was the work of a “negro incendiary.” Whether the newspaper meant that the culprit was an African American, an abolitionist Republican, or simply a degenerate was unclear. What was apparent was the paper’s declaration that the

1 United States War Department, The Annual Report of the Secretary of War (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1866), 195; Paul F. Paskoff, Troubled Waters: Steamboat Disasters, River Improvements, and American Public Policy, 1821–1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2007), 20; Louis C. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers: An Economic and Technological History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 287; Robert H. Gudmestead, Steamboats and the Rise of the Cotton Kingdom (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2011), 108. For more information on nineteenth century steamboat accidents and explosions please see Paul F. Paskoff, Troubled Waters: Steamboat Disasters, River Improvements, and American Public Policy, 1821–1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2007). For quantitative data on riverboat disasters please see C. Bradford Mitchell, ed., Merchant Vessels of the United States 1790-1868 “The Lytle-Holdcamper List,” (Staten Island: Steamship Historical Society of America, Inc., 1975) and Erik F. Haites, James Mak, and Gary M. Walton, Western River Transportation: The Era of Early Internal Development, 1810-1860 (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press), 1975. 1 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi steamboat burnings were the act of deliberate sabotage. The veracity of such an allegation remains unknown but it was definitely a portent of things to come.2

While locals quickly dismissed the 1861 New Orleans conflagration as an accident, by war’s end Union officials deemed all Mississippi River steamboat fires to be the act of sabotage.

As early as October 1863, Union Army Chief Quartermaster Robert Allen declared, “that there are disloyal men in disguise in the employ of every steamer, and it will be difficult to eliminate them….” After the war, unsubstantiated newspaper reports claimed that over 200 steamboats along the Lower Mississippi (St. Louis to New Orleans) fell victim to Confederate boat burners during the Civil War. While exaggerated—official reports attributed sixty steamboat fires to

Southern incendiaries—these reports signify a drastic change in public perception. During the latter half of the war, a small but vicious group of rebel incendiaries operated along the lower

Mississippi River, wreaking havoc and invoking fear along their fiery course.3

While not mainstream sailors, boat burners did in fact take their cause to the water, making steamships and river ports their battlefields of choice. Referred to as incendiaries or naval guerrillas by contemporaries, boat burners markedly differed from bushwhackers or partisan rangers. While irregular fighters such as William Quantrill and “Bloody Bill” Anderson flaunted their exploits, naval guerrillas intentionally operated in the shadows; they skulked along the docks, secreted themselves aboard vessels, or insinuated themselves as steamboat crew members. Shock and awe may have been their aims but secrecy and terror were their watchwords of choice. And while the boat burners may not have been guerrillas in the conventional context, it is important to note that their contemporaries classified them as such. Thus, I will

2 "Varieties," Cincinnati Daily Press, May 17, 1861. 3 United States War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, 1880-1901), Series 1, Volume 22 (Part II), 607—hereafter referred to as the OR; OR I:48(II):196; “The Rebel Boat-Burners,” American Citizen, September 27, 1865. 2 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi interchangeably refer to them as naval guerrillas, incendiaries, and boat burners—the terms ascribed to them by their nineteenth century peers.

It is important to note that it was not until the summer and fall of 1863 that the naval guerrillas began their assaults in earnest. With the fall of Vicksburg in July, the Union seemingly gained unfettered access to the mighty Mississippi. President Abraham Lincoln even proclaimed that “the Father of Waters again goes unvexed to the sea.” While conventional naval battles may have been ending, brown water irregular warfare was only just beginning. The Rebels had belatedly realized that they had failed to defend or maintain control of the Mississippi River—an essential transportation, trade, and communication route. But they soon realized that they could employ irregular warfare to thwart federal jurisdiction over the river. Thus, the Confederate naval war took on a more offensive posture after July 1863.4

One striking feature of the naval guerrillas was their definition of masculinity. By operating on the periphery of the conventional war, rebel incendiaries embodied a unique form of manhood—distinct from their enlisted or bushwhacking brethren. The boat burners redefined conventional notions of martial manhood to accommodate their seemingly savage, nefarious, and cowardly activities; they cast themselves as patriotic warriors taking explosive action. As J.W.

Tucker explained, “I feel, as intensely as it is possible to feel, the vital necessity of striking hard blows now, and striking at as many points and in as many ways as possible, so as to aid our cause and save our country…I propose to destroy the enemy’s transports, arsenals, navy-yards, stores,” etc. Tucker and his fellow saboteurs firmly believed that their aggressive tactics were in the service of the Confederate cause and that they were legitimate combatants. While contemporaries may have labeled them as spineless for skulking along the shadows in the dead

4 Abraham Lincoln, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953), VI: 409. 3 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi of night, setting fire to vessels, sneaking away, and never taking credit for their actions, they likely did not. Instead, they undoubtedly cast their own behavior as inventive and utilitarian; they did whatever was necessary, no matter the cost to their reputation, for the sake of the

Confederate cause. Thus, the rebel incendiaries embodied a definition of masculinity that embraced aggression and ingenuity at the cost of chivalry and fame. 5

If W.E.B. DuBois was correct in his assertion that “only murder makes men,” then the naval guerrillas were certainly men. Nearly seventy people died at the hands of an organized gang of boat burners operating out of St. Louis. For example, on July 15, 1864, the Cherokee’s porter died during a multi-vessel conflagration in St Louis. The August 4, 1863 burning of the

Ruth resulted in the deaths of twenty-six people—including a Union Paymaster, three Yankee clerks, one woman, and three negroes. Most of the casualties were drowning victims who fell into the water when the ship’s plank collapsed onto the deck. And, the forty-odd victims of the

Robert Campbell, Jr. inferno (September 28, 1864) included four Federal soldiers, two children, and one was an invalid woman. The total number of deaths attributable to naval guerrillas is unknown but likely in the hundreds.6

The naval guerrillas were not altogether different from their filibuster forefathers described by historian Amy Greenberg. The rebel incendiaries too “reveled in their physical strength and ability to dominate both men and women…[and] believed that the masculine qualities of strength, aggression, and even violence, better defined a true man.” They embodied

5 OR, IV:3:125. 6 W.E.B. DuBois, Black Reconstruction in America (1935; rept., New York: Athenaeum, 1969), 110; “The River News,” Daily Missouri Republican, July 16, 1864, 3; “Destructive Fire at the Wharf,” Daily Missouri Republican, July 16, 1864; “Steamboat Fire in St. Louis, Daily Intelligencer, July 16,1864, 3; “Terrible Calamity,” Daily Missouri Republican, August 6, 1863; “Burning of the Ruth-Additional Particulars, Daily Missouri Republican, August 7, 1863; “Affairs Down River,” Daily Missouri Republican, August 11, 1863; “By Telegraph,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 4, 1863. For the correlation between violence, freedom, and manhood in the Civil War era, please see Carole Emberton, Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence, and the American South After the Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). 4 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi the ideals of bravery, adventure, and bellicosity. The boat burners simply chose to challenge

Union control and assert their dominance via fire, terror, and secrecy. In fact, their choice to inflame violence (literally and figuratively) harkened back to an age old tradition of the marginalized to use arson for revenge against injury or injustice. 7

7 Amy S. Greenberg, Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 12. For more information on masculinity in American history please see E. Anthony Rotundo, American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: BasicBooks, 1993); Gail Bederman, Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Amy S. Greenberg, Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America: Cultural History, 3rd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Reid Mitchell, “Soldiering, Manhood, and Coming of Age: A Northern Volunteer,” in Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War, edited by Catherine Clinton and Nina Silber (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 43-54. For more information on the history of arson, please see Bernard Capp, “Arson, Threats of Arson, and Incivility in Early Modern England,” in Civil Histories: Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas, edited by Peter Burke, Brian Harrison, and Paul Slack (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Michael Fellman first explored notions of guerrilla gender. By utilizing Freudian theory to interpret the actions of male guerrillas, Fellman employed the “language of oedipal rebellion” to posit that irregular actions were metaphorical rebellions of Southern sons against their symbolic father—the Federal government. Fellman was also one of the first scholars to consider the role of the female guerrilla; “women were both victims and actors” in the irregular war.” Michael Fellman, Inside War: The Guerrilla Conflict in Missouri During the American Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 148, 193. More recently, LeeAnn Whites explored the gendered implications of guerrilla warfare. In 2011, Whites asserted that “although the war certainly had its victims of both sexes, women, like men, played a critical, systemic part in the waging of that conﬂict.” Arguing that women were the defacto quartermasters of the guerrilla forces, Whites uncovered the various ways that women participated in the irregular war: they provided food and clothing, they maintained a domestic supply line of war materiel, and they uncovered vital intelligence about the enemy’s whereabouts. Because the guerrilla war was a household war, “military victories could even revolve around kitchens.” Such agency on the part of guerrilla women contradicted the conventional female archetype of defenseless victim. LeeAnn Whites, “Forty Shirts and a Wagonload of Wheat: Women, the Domestic Supply Line, and the Civil War on the Western Border,” in The Journal of the Civil War Era 1, no. 1 (March 2011): 57, 62. Soon thereafter, Joseph M. Beilein Jr. delineated guerrilla masculinity. By analyzing a macabre photograph taken of Bill Anderson in his bloodied guerrilla shirt, Beilein revealed how the stripped, deceased Anderson symbolized “a clash of divergent concepts of manhood”: the savage, cowardly, fiendish guerrilla versus the civilized, enlightened regular soldier. In practice, guerrilla manhood was distinct from its stereotype; they were independent fighters beholden to their families. According to Beilein, “these garments, in particular the guerrilla shirt, were not only representative of the female-male bonds that fused them to their community, but their unique appearances allowed each guerrilla to stand out among his peers, other independent men.” Thus, the guerrilla needed a female embroidered shirt to assert his masculinity, freedom, and bellicosity. Joseph M. Beilein Jr., “The Guerrilla Shirt: A Labor of Love and the Style of Rebellion in Civil War Missouri” in Civil War History 58, no. 2 (June 2012): 153, 157. In many ways, Beilein echoed Stephen Berry’s assertions that southern white men’s notions of manhood required the love of a woman For more, please see Stephen Berry, All That Makes a Man: Love and Ambition in the Civil War South (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Earlier this year, Matthew C. Hulbert reminded readers that “domestic violation” was a cornerstone of guerrilla violence. According to Hulbert, the private sphere was the center of the guerrilla war; individual homes were the “command centers, communication hubs, and supply depots in this conflict—and so they also became battlefields.” Mothers and children “morphed into soldiers, messengers, and spies,” aiding the war effort in countless ways. This militarization of the home and the corresponding arming of civilians meant that wives and mothers became virtual 5 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

In many ways, the naval guerrillas came of age during the Civil War just as their enlisted and irregular counterparts did. They experimented with torpedoes and coal bombs, they perfected their methods, and they bathed the riverbank in sparks and embers. They too saw the infamous white elephant; the boat burners just happened to see warfare in the form of a conflagration or a bomb along an ill-defined battlefield made of water.8

Thus, naval guerrillas redefined martial manhood to accommodate their inflammatory aims and furtive tactics. In many ways, they were able to pursue such fiery exploits because of their martial manhood. Unlike their enlisted counterparts, the boat burners did not have to adhere to the demands or constraints of a conventional army or navy. As there were no officers to report to, the rebel incendiaries need not worry about a superior’s demands, bourgeoisie values, or preponderance for disciplinary actions. The naval guerrillas, therefore, enjoyed remarkable freedom in both their operations and field of combat; they did not suffer the restrained manhood required of the “gentleman in the roughs.” Such liberation allowed the Confederate boat burners to skirt conventional rules of combat. Yet they did show restraint of a different kind. They never sought publicity or celebrity for their actions; instead, they preferred to operate in secret, evoking fear through their anonymity and omnipresence. While not braggarts, the rebel incendiaries were

commanders, negotiators, and diplomats in the irregular war—redefining feminine roles in ways that women of the regular war could not even fathom. Matthew C. Hulbert, “The Regularly Irregular War: Domestic Violation, Women, and Remembrance in Missouri's Guerrilla Theater,” Common-Place 14, no 2 (Winter 2014) available at http://common-place.org/vol-14/no-02/hulbert/#.UuyEI_ldV8F (accessed January 21, 2014). 8Reid Mitchell’s essay “Soldiering, Manhood, and Coming of Age: A Northern Volunteer” explored how the war affected male identity and boys’ acceleration into manhood. An antecedent to The Vacant Chair: The Northern Soldier Leaves Home (1993), this piece equated the transition from civilian to soldier with that from boy to man as “going to war was proof of manhood.” He meticulously recounted the hardening of soldiers, uncovering a new masculine ideal inured to death and violence. 6 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi no less men or warriors than the Confederate sailors, partisan rangers, or Union soldiers they encountered. 9

In sum, by preferring anonymity, the naval guerrillas succeeded in a stealthy game of subterfuge, targeting Union steamboats and setting them ablaze via fire or torpedo. They usually besieged merchant and civilian vessels rather than Federal gunboats, exemplifying nineteenth century irregular guerre de course and terrorism. By targeting commercial vessels, naval guerrillas “distracted the Federals from their primary objectives, caused them to alter strategies, injured the morale of Union troops, and forced the reassignment of men and resources to counter threats” along the lower Mississippi River. As a result, the boat burners caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages—destroying the livelihoods of civilian steamboat owners as well as vital war materiel destined for Union troops. The victimization of innocent women and children only worsened the incendiaries’ crimes. In essence, naval guerrillas challenged the

Union’s control of the waterways, regularly denying “Northerners complete freedom to use the river by mounting many small-scale attacks on steamers for the remainder of the war.”10

Trying to paint the collective portrait of rebel boat burners is often a daunting task. Just as “the lack of such official records as enlistment papers, muster rolls, and discharges makes it impossible to create a profile of the typical guerrilla,” an official roster of naval guerrillas does not exist. Provost Marshal J.H. Baker did in fact provide Union officials with a list of nineteen

9 Lorien Foote explored the conflicting ideas of manhood in the Union Army in The Gentlemen and the Roughs: Violence, Honor, and Manhood in the Union Army (New York: New York University Press, 2010). According to Foote, “men’s experience in the army…exposed the conflict over how to define and measure manliness that centered on the attributes of moral character, gentility, physical prowess, honor, and social status.” The battleground for these competing notions of masculinity was the Union army itself—specifically its discipline practices and justice apparatus. How officers enforced discipline to impart their middle class morality, how enlisted soldiers resisted such regulations to assert their own masculine prowess, and how the military courts made decisions over proper wartime conflict all revealed the continued contest over nineteenth century manhood. Foote, The Gentlemen and the Roughs, 4-5. 10Earl J. Hess, The Civil War in the West: Victory and Defeat from the Appalachians to the Mississippi (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 199; Daniel Sutherland, A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), ix. 7 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi boat burners operating out of St. Louis and the Judge Advocate General identified thirty-five people, including Jefferson Davis, as part of a boat burning conspiracy, but such registers emphasized organized gangs of naval guerrillas; they completely ignored or dismissed individual agents or small groups of incendiaries operating along the river. Ultimately, historians must paint a collective portrait from old newspaper reports, provost marshal investigations, and official records—sources that so vilified the incendiaries, it can be difficult to take their human measure.

For example, newspapers cast the culprit of a July 15, 1864 inferno as “some Devil, in the shape o’ a human Being.” Despite the imagery of fire and brimstone that blazing steamboats certainly evoked, this incendiary was no devil but a man. They were all men.11

As naval guerrillas preferred shadows and secrecy, many remain lost from the historical record. Yet, a few profiles do emerge. Robert Louden was one such incendiary. Standing at approximately five foot nine with dark hair, large blue eyes, and a lean build of 160 to 170 pounds, Louden was a steamboat painter and pilot from St. Louis. During the war, Louden was a mail runner—as was his wife, Mary, and good friend, Absalom Grimes—covertly transporting correspondence into Confederate territory. No doubt such work experience and connections aided Louden in his fiery exploits; familiar with the culture, language, and layouts of steamboats, he could have easily insinuated himself as a member of a crew and then sent fire to the ship.

More than a dozen steamboat fires were attributed to Louden and his co-conspirators.

Furthermore, Louden was a fixture within St. Louis’s wharf culture. A frequent visitor to area bars and brothels, he likely plotted his nefarious machinations within their seedy walls.

Establishments like Mrs. Kate Clarke’s house of ill-repute—where Union officials captured

11 Daniel E. Sutherland, American Civil War Guerrillas: Changing the Rules of Warfare (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013), 7; “River News,” Daily Missouri Republican, July 16, 1864, 3; OR I:48: 194-195; US War Department, Court Martial Cases, 1809-94, Judge Advocate General Records, Record Group 153, Box 12, National Archives and Records Administration. 8 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

Louden—offered potential meeting places for Southern sympathizers like the St. Louis boat burners and mail runners. While the exact role that the soiled doves played in the plot may never be known, evidence suggests that Louden and other naval guerrillas tapped into St. Louis’s underworld to ignite their explosive plans.12

Louden’s local connections and ties to rebel mail runners also aided in his effort to elude

Union forces. In 1863, he snuck aboard the White Cloud in an effort to escape a Federal mandated death sentence. The provost marshal eventually captured and imprisoned Louden at

Gratiot State Penitentiary in St. Louis. General Orders 41 of 1864 sentenced him to death for his role in steamboat burning but Louden never saw the hangman’s noose. He managed to escape prison—and his execution—by heading south to New Orleans. No subsequent actions succeeded in recapturing him. According to Absalom Grimes, Louden became a painter in Mobile,

Alabama before dying of yellow fever several years after the war.13

Described as a faithful friend by Grimes, Louden purportedly “had unlimited courage and judgement [sic] for any dangerous work.” Yet, the historical record vilified him. One newspaper cast him as “surly” while the provost marshal caricaturized him as a villain with “square

12 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Robert Lowden on rolls F1195, F1363 and Mary Louden on Roll F1195; Union officials arrested Mary Louden for mail smuggling, conspiracy, and “abusing Federal officers” on April 25, 1863. At the time, her husband was evading authorities after escaping imprisonment for boat burning and espionage. Mary Louden refused parole and joined twenty odd other female male runners at Chesnut Female Prison in St. Louis. Eventually, Union authorities banished Mary Louden and several others south into Confederate territory. For more information on Confederate mail running, especially the role of guerrilla women in covert operations, please see LeeAnn Whites, “Corresponding with the Enemy: Mobilizing the Relational Field of Battle in St. Louis,” in Occupied Women: Gender, Military Occupation, and the American Civil War edited by LeeAnn Whites and Alecia P. Long (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009): 103-116. For more information on Kate Clarke and her brothel, please see LeeAnn Whites, "The Tale of Three Kates: Outlaw Women, Loyalty, and Missouri's Long Civil War," in Weirding the War: Stories from the Civil War's Ragged Edges edited by Stephen Berry (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2011): 73-94. 13 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Robert Lowden on rolls F1195 and F1363 and Mary Louden on Roll F1195; Union officials arrested Mary Louden for mail smuggling, conspiracy, and “abusing; OR, I:48:195, 197; Absalom Grimes, Confederate Mail Runner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926), 190. 9 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi shoulders, [fair complexion, and] large blue eyes constantly rolling [who displayed] a great deal of white, fair hair and whiskers.” If the rolling eyes were not dubious enough, reports claimed that Louden frequently wore a false mustache and backwards hat—either marked signs of wickedness or a deliberate effort to mask his appearance and explosive intentions. In the postwar era, Louden purportedly became the “murderer of the age” as he allegedly made a deathbed confession to being the sinister agent behind the Sultana explosion. According to an 1888 St.

Louis Globe-Democrat article, Louden supposedly told William Streetor, his former jailor at

Gratiot State Prison, that “a torpedo in a lump of coal was carried aboard the steamer at Memphis and deposited in the coal pile in front of the boilers for the express purpose of causing her destruction.” As Louden had a well-earned reputation for storytelling, heavy drinking, and cavorting with prostitutes, few contemporaries believed him. The facts that the official federal investigation cited a faulty boiler as the explosion’s cause and that the supposed confession came two decades after the fact casts doubt on the veracity of such a statement. Yet it was plausible.

And, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat’s willingness to print such rumors attested to the lingering fear that boat burners’ generated even decades after the ware ended.

Robert Louden’s colorful life sheds light on the shady dealings of naval guerrillas and their sense of martial manhood. Operating out of bars and brothels, masking appearances, setting fires in the dead of light, and choosing not to seek recognition at the time of action, signified an embodiment of masculinity that was cunning, violent and, above all, secretive. In essence,

Louden and his fellow incendiaries let their explosive actions speak for themselves. They internalized a notion of manhood that accommodated secrecy, celebrated getting one’s hands dirty, highlighted a need to risk one’s own life, and encouraged murder. They did whatever was necessary for the rebel cause, no matter the cost, and that was what made them martial men.

Taking a broader look at naval guerrillas besides Robert Louden, several recurring themes and attributes do emerge. Many had previous work experience aboard steamboats. For example, Isaac Elshire (Aleshire) had been a mate, deckhand, and watchman prior to the war while Edward Frazier (Frasier or Frazer) served as a second engineer aboard a steamboat. Boat burners like Eleshire, Frazier, and Louden, with previous steamboat experience, could have easily disguised themselves as members of a crew. In fact, Edward Frazier later testified that the agent who set fire to the Robert Campbell, Jr. in September of 1863 was in fact aboard ship during its incineration, explaining why she caught fire midstream; however, Frazier refused to identify the saboteur by name. Such intelligence justified Union Army Chief Quartermaster

Robert Allen’s allegations that “the incendiary, when it serves his purpose, becomes one of the crew, and thus secures himself from detection. I apprehend that there are disloyal men in disguise in the employ of every steamer.” While the likelihood of such universal deception is dubious, the terror created by even a handful of confirmed naval guerrilla attacks was immeasurable. Union authorities and river town populations perceived a pervasive threat because they never knew when or where the boat burners would strike—let alone who the saboteurs might really be. The sheer terror caused by steamboat sabotage was palpable during the latter half of the war14

However, as the infamous Confederate spy and mail runner Absalom Grimes revealed, one need not be a crew member to gain access to a ship; getting aboard was relatively simple. In his memoirs, Grimes recounted how he successfully boarded a Memphis steamboat simply because he knew the crew. Grimes also “managed to get half of [his] command aboard as deck hands and deck passengers,” stating that it “was easy to get the others aboard on various

14 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Edward Frazer and Isaac Elshire on roll F1311; Ben Pitman, ed., The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators, 49; OR, I:22:607. 11 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi pretexts.” Incendiaries along the Mississippi River likely followed Grimes’ method, utilizing their personal relationships and/or positions of authority to gain unquestioned access aboard commercial vessels. From there, they could either set fire to the vessel or hide a coal torpedo amongst the ship’s fuel supply. Whether their friends knew of their incendiary intent is unknown.15

Other boat burners were local men of influence who could utilize their power and authority to advantage. Judge Tucker was supposedly a former Missouri politician and newspaper man. Likewise, J.W. Frick was a newspaper editor. Such local celebrities could have easily found friends and supporters to aid them in their cause or in the evasion of Federal authorities. Likewise, Union officials arrested three former Memphis police officers as boat burners in 1863. It is not hard to imagine that incendiaries with law enforcement backgrounds could have boarded steamboats on the pretext of police business only to deceive the crew and sabotage the boat. Lastly, Edward Frazier (Frasier) was a bar owner—signifying a secondary linkage between the boat burners and St. Louis’s low-wharf culture. Frazier likey utilized his saloon as a secret meeting place for the incendiaries to plot out their explosive actions. 16

Furthermore, most boat burners were from river towns and therefore familiar with the local geography, peoples, and vessels. For example, William Murphy and Joseph Rasine were from New Orleans. John G. Parks and Edward Frazier were from Memphis, Tennessee.

Originally from Indiana, Isaac Eleshire worked as a steamboat mate out of St. Louis. John R.

Barrett, Harrison Fox, Peter Mitchell, and Thomas Courtney were also from St. Louis. Other reports indicated that certain boat burners, including Judge Tucker, were residents of Mobile.17

15 OR I:48: 194-195; Confederate Mail Runner, 63, 134. 16 OR I:48: 194-195; Ben Pitman, ed., The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators, 49. 17 OR I:48: 194-195. 12 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

By being a member of the local community and/or a prominent citizen of a river town, several naval guerrillas established networks of support—similar to those described by LeeAnn

Whites. For example, Provost Marshal reports indicated that Cornwell Keefer and George Foster, both of St. Louis, were known accomplices of boat burners; they often harbored incendiaries in their homes. Southern sympathizers, especially those living along the riverbanks or near the wharfs, could have easily hidden incendiaries while still giving them easy access to their intended targets: commercial steamships. As previously mentioned, ties between the boat burners and other Southern agents were common. Mollie Lewis, wife of suspected boat burner, Tip Fox, often boarded the wife of Edward Frazier, the suspected boat burner leader, at her house. As we know, Robert Louden was a mail runner along with his wife and friend, Absalom Grimes. This strong correlation between the St. Louis mail runners and boat burners likely provided the incendiaries with vital intelligence. The fact that several naval guerrillas had ties to area saloons and whorehouses was no accident either; places like Edward Frazier’s bar and Kate Clarke’s brothel loosened tongues with their spirits and wares. The intelligence gathered by the boat burners and their associates would have proven invaluable to the incendiaries’ mission. And while evidence suggests that wives, female friends, and prostitutes aided and abetted the naval guerrillas, no female boat burners have come to light. Though that the possibility certainly exists—especially since at least one fire, the October 1, 1863 blaze aboard the Chancellor, started in a ladies’ cabin.18

18 Please see Whites, “Forty Shirts and a Wagonload of Wheat,” 56-78 and Whites, “Corresponding with the Enemy,” 103-116 for more information on guerrilla communities; United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files, Two or More Civilians, 1861-1867.” Please see entries for Cornwell Keefer and George Foster on roll F1637 and entries on Mollie Levis, Tip Fox, and Edward Frazer on roll F1632; An officer aboard the Chancellor reported that “some scoundrel slipped on board unperceived and setting fire to a spread, placed it in a state room in the ladies’ cabin then locked the doors and dodged ashore undetected.” While authorities quickly smothered this October 1, 1863 fire, boat burners succeeded in destroying the Chancellor and two author vessels three days later. Please see More Steamboat Incendiarism-Attempt to Burn Boats at Carondolet,” Daily 13 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

Of the available descriptions left to us, a high preponderance of Irishman come to the forefront. William Murphy was of Irish descent as was the “Wild Irishman” better known as

Tom Kennen. Likewise, Thomas Courtney, the patent holder for a coal torpedo that the naval guerrillas used, was an Irishman of “considerable intelligence.” While such a correlation between boat burners and Irishman is notable it was more likely due to the press’s negative perceptions of the Irish than any sort of cultural predisposition to arson. After all, the press vilified the Irish for starting fires and rebellions throughout the nineteenth century.19

Notably, when individual boat burners do appear in the historical record, they were often reduced to exaggerated physical appearance. We already know that the provost marshal vilified

Robert Louden for wearing a false mustache and backwards hat. Newspapers were even more critical. One cast him as “surly” while another called him “fiendish,” a “boss dynamiter,” and a

“murderer.” Likewise, the provost marshal described Isaac Elshire —sometimes called Isaac

Aleshire—as five foot six with a slim build, wicked looking eyes, dark brown hair, a small nose, and, worst of all, a “slouchy and careless” appearance. Such vivid and exaggerated descriptions of incendiaries were rare; more often than not, the naval guerrillas escaped the historical record.

The highly embellished portrayals that did emerge highlighted the boat burners’ need for secrecy via disguises and pseudonyms. They also alluded to the savage effectiveness of the incendiaries and the fear their infernos evoked. That newspapers and official reports often maligned the naval

Missouri Republican, October 5, 1863 and “Another Extensive Steamboat Fire,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 5, 1863 for more information. 19 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files, of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Thomas Courtney on roll F1242. 14 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi guerrillas suggested a need to cast doubt on their martial manhood, calling into question the legitimacy of such aggressive, yet anonymous actions.20

The novelty of Louden’s and Elshire’s descriptions is confirmed when one considers that many lists of naval guerrillas lacked a physical description, a hometown, or even a first name.

An 1865 Provost Marshal list of parties “employed in the rebel Secret Service to burn steamboats and Government property” listed two men simply by their last name: ______O’Keife and

_____Stinson. Given the secrecy in which the naval guerrillas operated, the lack of intelligence over their names or locations is not surprising. It was for these reasons that many incendiaries operated without detection and continued to evade notice—again highlighting the effectiveness of their terror campaign.

The repeatedly vague descriptions of boat burners led to two additional problems. Firstly, it was easy to misidentify someone as an alleged boat burner. For example, a December 1864 circular described a gang of boat burners including Joe Ramsey, a “Lieutenant in charge of one division, [with a] dark complexion, black hair, black eyes,” and a height of 5 feet 19 inches. The circular also cast Ramsey as Creole from New Orleans last seen in Mobile. Based on such vague intelligence, officials wrongfully arrested and imprisoned Joseph Rasine, a dark skinned British subject who had been living in Mobile during the War. Likewise, initial newspaper reports indicated that J. Richard Barrett, a former Congressmen from Missouri was a member of the St.

Louis boat burning gang. However, subsequent reports revealed that the true culprit was James

Barrett of Springfield, IL. The latter Barrett was supposedly in Canada evading authorities and served as “a notorious leader of the Knights of the Golden Cross at the West.” And, in a perversely humorous turn of events, the Provost Marshal arrested a William Murphy in St. Louis

20 “Blew Up the Sultana,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 6, 1888; United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861-1866.” Please see entries for Isaac Elshire on roll F1311. 15 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi only to learn that they had captured the wrong William Murphy. While an incendiary of that name certainly existed, testimony of the imprisoned Murphy’s friends brought to light the confusion of the like-named men. Such misunderstandings revealed the benefits of anonymity— and explained why the vast majority of naval guerrillas evaded capture. More importantly, the repeated misidentification of steamboat saboteurs further fueled fears that the rebel incendiaries were a pervasive force that could strike anytime with impunity. 21

Secondly, misinformation, vague descriptions, and aliases, led to the frequent misspellings of naval guerrillas’ names. Reports of Robert Louden’s exploits listed him as

Robert Lowden, Bob Louden, and Robert Siden. Reports often spelled Isaac Elshire’s last name as Aleshire. Edward Frazier was also Edward Frasier, Edward Frazor, or Edward Frazer. And,

Tom Kennon, a “notorious guerrilla and boat burner,” had his name listed as Tompkinner or

Wild Lyman in several newspaper accounts. In some instances these misspellings may have been accidental and in others, they may have indicated aliases utilized by the boat burners. The combination of pseudonyms and faulty intelligence only added to the incendiaries’ mystique and effectiveness.22

Bearing all of these ideas in mind, a general portrait of the naval guerrilla does emerge.

He was a Southern sympathizer from a river town: St. Louis, New Orleans, Memphis, or Mobile.

He was a working man who did not directly benefit from slavery or the slave economy—

21 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Joseph Rasine on roll F1255; “The Latest News,” The Wheeling Daily Intelligencer, September 25, 1865, 3; “River News,” Daily Missouri Republican, July 16, 1864, 3; “From Missouri,” Daily Ohio Statesman, October 07, 1864, 3; United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861-1866.” Please see entries for Robert Lowden on roll F1363, Isaac Elshire on roll F1311, and William Murphy on roll F1249; Absalom Grimes, Confederate Mail Runner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1926), 63. 22 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see entries for Robert Lowden on roll F1363 and Isaac Elshire on roll F1311; “Railroad Accident- Robbed by Guerrillas,” Daily Intelligencer, October 7, 184, 3; “By Telegraph,” Daily Intelligencer, April 29, 1864, 3; “From St. Louis,” Cleveland Morning Leader, April 29, 1864, 1. 16 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi although plantation owners and slave traders may have frequented his saloon, travelled aboard his steamship, or stayed in his lodgings. Certainly, steamboat workers carried slave produced cotton if not slaves themselves aboard their ships. After all, between 1820 and 1860, the internal slave trade resulted in one million enslaved being sold down river. He was most likely white, although at least one alleged boat burner was dark skinned, and he may have been of Irish descent. Most importantly, he had strong ties to his communities, either by virtue of his position or his gregarious nature, that offered him a support network to aid in his nefarious activities and to hide him away from Union authorities whenever necessary.

While many naval guerrillas may have acted alone, some appeared to have worked in small groups. In October of 1863, the 6th Iowa cavalry captured three boat burners in Memphis.

In December, a Secret Service agent arrested a pair of boat burners at the mouth of the White

River. In July of the following year, two men faced trial for the contingent burnings of the

Cherokee, E.F. Dix, Glasgow, Northerner, Sunshine, and Welcome. Such duos and trios were not surprising. In all practicality, one naval guerrilla likely stood watch while his partner(s) boarded the vessel to either set a fire or stow away an incendiary device; their small numbers helped them to evade detection or public notice. 23

Further evidence suggests that a gang of boat burners did in fact exist. William Murphy, a member of organized incendiaries, gave a full confession to provost marshal J.H. Baker.

According to Murphy, Edward Frazier led a band of nineteen secret agents whose mission was to destroy Federal property and steamboats. Murphy further “confessed that they were employed by the rebel authorities” and that the rebel President and Secretary of State fully endorsed their actions. Murphy told Union officials that in exchange for destroying steamboats, the St. Louis

23 “By Telegraph,” Nashville Daily Union, October 18, 1863, 3; “Important Arrest of Rebels,” Nashville Daily Union, December 24, 1863, 2. 17 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi boat burners “were paid at Richmond by the Rebel Secretary of State.” He also claimed to have enjoyed a private audience with Jefferson Davis. 24

While Provost Marshal Baker noted that “It would be impossible to obtain a correct account of the property destroyed by these parties,” he believed them to be responsible for the burning of at least ten vessels, including the Catahoula, Champion, Chancellor, City of Madison,

Forrest Queen, Imperial, Hiawatha, Jesse K. Beall, Post Boy, and Robert Campbell Jr. By war’s end, newspapers were reporting that “the evidence on filed the Bureau of Military Justice against the gang of rebel incendiaries, who, during the war, combined amusement with business by burning steamboats and warehouses in the Southwest, implicates about thirty-five persons.”

Newspapers also elevated the damage caused by naval guerrillas, claiming that “during the war over two hundred steamers of all kinds valued at from 15,060 to $150,000 each, were destroyed by this chivalrous band, involving not only an immense pecuniary to the Government but the sacrifice of hundreds of valuable lives.” The elevated number of participants and sabotaged vessels revealed the effectiveness of the naval guerrillas in invoking fear. Terrorists, their greatest accomplishment was convincing Federal officials and local populations that their reach was much further that it actually was. Whether or not the naval guerrillas actually sabotaged 200

24 “By Telegraph,” The Nashville Daily Union, October 18, 1863,3; “The Latest News,” The Nashville Daily Union, December 24, 1863, 2; United States War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, 1880-1901), Series 1, Volume 48, 196— hereafter referred to as the OR. Other documents within the OR indicate that the Confederate government did sponsor and pay boat burners for their service. Please see OR, II:8:516; ORN, I:26:186; and “Every Steamboat Navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to be Destroyed by Rebel Emissaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 8, 1864, 3 for more information. “More Steamboat Incendiarism—Attempt to Burn Boats at Carondolet,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 4, 1863, 3; Hess, Civil War in the West, 238; “Every Steamboat Navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to be Destroyed by Rebel Emissaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 8, 1864, 3. 18 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi vessels was not important; the fact that the Union believed them to be the agents of such wholesale destruction was.25

The important thing to consider was that whether the incendiaries acted alone, in small groups, or as part of an organized gang, they all seemed to have the sanction of the Confederate government. Two boat burners captured in December of 1863 by S.B. Morehouse of the Secret

Service Department of Vicksburg carried papers resembling letters of marque; these documents authorized them “seize and destroy all Government transports and other property on the

Mississippi and its tributaries.” Likewise, both William Murphy and Edward Frazier told Union officials that in exchange for incinerating steamboats, the St. Louis boat burners “were paid at

Richmond by the rebel Secretary of State.” In both cases, Murphy and Frazier claimed to have the endorsement of the Confederate government, offering legitimacy to their explosive actions.

Furthermore, such statements reinforced the naval guerrillas’ notions of martial manhood; they were patriotic, albeit aggressive, agents asserting their masculine prowess in the name of the

Confederate nation. 26

While some incendiaries like Murphy and Frazier claimed to be diehard rebels, the naval guerrillas had varying motivations for their fiery actions. In general, rebel incendiaries pursued a strategic objective of offensively defending the Mississippi River. As they usually besieged merchant rather than Federal gunboats, their missions were as much economic, psychological, and even terroristic as they were military. The Father of the Waters may have been under Union jurisdiction but there was no way for the Yankees to retain complete control. Thus, the boat

25 Other documents within the OR indicate that the Confederate government did sponsor and pay boat burners for their service. Please see OR, II:8:516; ORN, I:26:186; and “Every Steamboat Navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to be Destroyed by Rebel Emissaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 8, 1864 for more information.; OR, I:48:195-6; “The Rebel Boat-Burners,” American Citizen, September 27, 1865, 2. 26 October 18, 1863. December 24, 1863; OR, I:48:196. See also “Every Steamboat Navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to be Destroyed by Rebel Emissaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 8, 1864 and “The Trial at St. Louis Complicity of Jeff. Davis, Seddon and Benjamin,” The New York Times, October 1, 1863. 19 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi burners continually challenged the Union’s control of the waterways, regularly denying

“Northerners complete freedom to use the river by mounting many small-scale attacks on steamers for the remainder of the war.” Like their land locked counterparts, these incendiaries diverted the Union war effort by causing Federal troops to alter their strategies, reassign their resources, and reconsider the nature of warfare to accommodate the irregular naval war along the

Mississippi River. 27

Secondly, naval guerrillas had economic motivations; they caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages—destroying lives, livelihoods, monies, and munitions. Partly, they wanted to hurt the Union economy by destroying commerce vessels carrying goods, cotton, and war materiel. A July 15, 1864 inferno resulted in over $500,000 in damages. While boat burners may not have actually known that Yankee paymasters and greenbacks were aboard the Ruth, her 1864 demise resulted in the loss of $2,600,000 in Union funds destined for General Grant’s army. This substantial pecuniary loss resulted in a Federal investigation. Additional conflagrations resulted in the loss of government provisions, war materiel, foodstuffs, cotton, private freight, and often times, human life.28

Likewise, some naval guerrillas engaged in fiery sabotage simply for the payday. Word soon spread that the Confederate government not only employed a band of incendiaries to

“destroy every steamboat navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio rivers” but they had

27 Notably, the boat burners differed notably from bushwhackers. While the rebel government sanctioned the nefarious actions of both groups, bushwhackers were irregular fighters who “concealed [themselves] in underbrush that lined the river’s banks [and] fired at will into gunboats and transports that carried soldiers upriver.” Daniel Sutherland, A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 70; Hess, Civil War in the West, 199; Sutherland, A Savage Conflict, ix. 28 For more on the Ruth fire and corresponding investigation, please see United States Department of the Treasury, “Statement R: Report of the Supervising Inspector of Steamboats,” in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances for the year ending June 30, 1863 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1863), 180; Nathan S. Brinton Papers, 1863-1864, Filson Historical Society; and Court Martial MM-1967, RG 153 Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Army), 1792 - 2010, National Archives and Records Administration. 20 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi incentivized the burnings as well; the Rebel government offered to pay naval guerrillas up to sixty percent of the damaged boats’ estimated value. A trio of former Memphis police-turned boat burners carried with them a list of all the boats travelling the Mississippi as well as the “the price which they were to have for burning them.” William Murphy and other boat burners validated these fears when they later testified to receiving financial rewards directly from James

Seddon, the then Confederate Secretary of War. Edward Frazier testified to meeting with

President Davis, Secretary of War Seddon, and Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin. According to Frazier, Seddon paid Thomas Clark, Dillingham, and himself $50,000 for the destruction of

Union steamboats and property. The payment included a $35,000 down payment in gold and a

$15,000 deposit to be paid upon confirmation of the conflagrations. Such statements underscored the financial benefit to the naval guerrillas’ pyrotechnics and confirmed the Confederate government’s complicacy in the boat burning schemes. 29

And while the majority pursued anti-Union agendas, some may have burned Northern steamers for their own amusement. Mail runner Absalom Grimes suggested as much is in his memoirs and his suppositions were supported by several incendiaries. George Dorrele declared that he took pleasure in witnessing the Sunshine sink. Likewise, William Gibson declared that

“the Ruth was a pretty boat and made a pretty fire.” Whether pyromaniacs who found their true calling or rebel agents who liked to witness theatrical acts of deviance, all naval guerrillas embraced the shock and awe that a substantial conflagration evoked. 30

Adding fuel to the fire—so to speak—reports emerged that the boat burners were employing “infernal machines.” Union officers learned that “amongst other devilish inventions

29 “More Incendiaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 4, 1863; Hess, Civil War in the West, 238; “Every Steamboat Navigating the Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to be Destroyed by Rebel Emissaries,” Daily Missouri Republican, October 8, 1864; Pitman, The Assassination of President Lincoln, 49. 30 United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files of Individual Civilians, 1861- 1866.” Please see rolls F1587and F1619. 21 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi

[of the Confederacy] is a torpedo resembling a lump of coal, to be placed in coal piles and amongst the coal put on board vessels.” Such torpedoes may have aided the naval guerrillas in their cause, allowing them to sneak aboard ship, hide their explosive device, and then escape long before the steamer exploded. In December 1863, scret service agent S.B. Morehouse arrested a Mr. Brown and a Mr. Tinley, two notorious secessionists who carried Confederate letters of marque, matches, and a torpedo-like device. One of the rebels, carried “a thing in the similitude of a tobacco pouch, filled up with a combustible fluid capable of burning under water, lighted with fuses calculated to burn one, to, three, or four hours.” Such a destructive device could be lighted and thrown into a ship’s hold providing the naval guerrilla with a delay and a distraction to escape the scene prior to the fire’s eruption. Likewise, when William Gibson purportedly made the comment about the Ruth making “a pretty fire,” he also put “his hand in his pocket out a substance resembling putty which he said was still” destined for another steamboat and another fire. Likewise, Robert Louden claimed to have used a coal torpedo to destroy the

Sultana. In his letter to President Jefferson Davis, W.S. Oldham explained that thanks to the scientific exploits of Professor McCullugh, “we have the means at our command, if promptly appropriated and energetically applied, to demoralize the Northern people in a very short time": coal torpedoes. Psychological warfare—via innovative tactics—was one of the naval guerrillas’ primary aims and greatest achievements.31

Above all, the naval guerrillas aimed to incite fear and terror amongst the civilian populace; this explained why they operated in the shadows. Most of the conflagrations occurred in the middle of the night, while a steamboat was docked in port. The Edward F. Dix fire, for

31 ORN, I:26:186; OR, I:22:607. “The Latest News,” The Nashville Daily Union, December 24, 1863, 2; “Blew Up the Sultana,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 6, 1888; Oldham to Davis, RG 94, Entry 12, NAB. The December 1863 arrest occurred twenty-five miles above the mouth of the White River; United States War Department, "United States, Union Provost Marshal Files, Two or More Civilians, 1861-1867.” Please see roll F1619. 22 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi example, occurred at four o’clock in the morning. Likewise, the Robert Campbell, Jr. fire arose at six o’clock in the morning. Such predawn activity allowed the incendiary the cover of darkness to pursue his fiery aim without detection. But not all steamboat fires occurred in the dead of night. The joint conflagrations of the Imperial, Post Boy, Jesse K. Bell occurred midday, illustrating both the naval guerrillas’ boldness and ability to evade detection. Meanwhile, the

Ruth incident occurred midstream when no clear agent could ever be detected. So whether the boat burners struck at night or at day, at dock or mid-travel, the results were the same: successful arsons and ensuing terror.32

Thus, fear and terror were in fact the boat burners’ greatest tools—and they were cognizant of these facts. A February 1865 letter to President Jefferson Davis shed light on the naval guerrillas’ terroristic motivations. W.S. Oldham advised that the rebels should "burn every transport and gunboat on the Mississippi river, as well as devastate the country of the enemy, and fill his people with terror and consternation."33 Notably, all of this was done under the veil of maximum secrecy; the boat burners never sought publicity or fame for their exploits.

The combination of such language and mystery suggested that the boat burners not only embraced terrorism but utilized it to bolster their sense of martial manhood. They defined themselves in terms of fiery actions rather than explosive words. They thrived on violence, chaos, and panic rather than on fame or celebrity. And they valued secrecy and anonymity because it ensured success, invoked fear, and convinced the Union of their comprehensive destruction. These devils in disguise were a new breed of enemy that challenged Yankee control over the Mississippi River and complicated nineteenth century notions of masculinity.

32 OR, I:48:195-6; United States Department of the Treasury, “Statement R: Report of the Supervising Inspector of Steamboats,” 180-181. 33 Sutherland, A Savage Conflict: 70, 165; W.S. Oldham to Jefferson Davis, Feb. 11, 1865, Record Group 94, Entry 12: General Records of the Adjutant General's Office, Correspondence, 1800-1947, Letters Received by the Office of the Adjutant General (Main Series), 1861-1870, National Archives Building, Washington, DC. 23 ©2014, Laura June Davis Please do not circulate or distribute with written consent of the author. Devils in Disguise: Masculinity and the Irregular Naval War along the Lower Mississippi