UNIVERSITY of CINCINNATI I, Stephen I

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:_June 17, 2005_______ I, _Stephen I. Rockenbach_____________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in: History It is entitled: “War Upon Our Border”: War and Society in Two Ohio Valley Communities, 1861-1865 This work and its defense approved by: Chair: ____Christopher Phillips__________ ____Linda_Przybyszewski_________ ____Wayne Durrill_______________ ____Mark Grimsley______________ “War Upon Our Border”: War and Society in Two Ohio Valley Communities, 1861-1865 A Dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of History of the College of Arts and Sciences 2005 By Stephen I. Rockenbach M.A., University of Cincinnati, 2000 B.A., Indiana University Southeast, 1998 Committee Chair: Professor Christopher Phillips i Abstract “War Upon Our Border”: War and Society in Two Ohio Valley Communities, 1861-1865 By Stephen I. Rockenbach During the American Civil War, guerrilla raids, military operations, economic hardships, political turmoil, and racial tensions upset the status quo of communities situated along the Ohio River border. This dissertation compares the wartime experiences of two border towns – Frankfort, Kentucky and Corydon, Indiana. These communities shared a legacy of white settlement and a distinct western identity, which fostered unity and emphasized cooperation during the first year of the war. However, the exigencies of war and the eventual demise of slavery in Kentucky divided citizens living on either side of the river border, including the people of Corydon and Frankfort. The Ohio River border was a cohesive economic and social unit at the beginning of the war, even though the river served as the legal boundary for slavery. Prominent Unionist citizens in both Corydon and Frankfort galvanized political support by strengthening connections with like-minded citizens throughout the river valley. The majority of white Unionists in the two towns believed that they could maintain peace by negating the radical notions of abolition and secession. Although white citizens in both places agreed on the importance of white supremacy to maintaining the stability of their respective communities, the Union government’s evolving policy on slavery, which culminated in the Emancipation Proclamation, ultimately strained the relationship between Unionists in southern Indiana and Kentucky. By the end of the war, Corydon’s residents had suffered devastation from raids and guerrilla violence, all emanating from Kentucky. Frankfort was engulfed in anti-government sentiment, guerrilla violence, and ii local resistance to the inevitable end of slavery in the state. The demise of slavery in Kentucky challenged white supremacy, while in southern Indiana most citizens welcomed the end of slavery if it meant an end to the war. Emancipation, violence, and material loss forged separate wartime experiences for the people of Corydon and Frankfort, causing them to, over the course of the war, come to view the Ohio River as a boundary between two societies, one northern and one southern. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with any scholarly work, this dissertation has benefited from the attention, support, and effort of a number of people and institutions. Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to everyone who took the time to listen, offer advice, or provide assistance during the completion of this dissertation. A number of academics lent their skills, time, and expertise to this project, allowing me to expand and improve my analysis. My advisor, Christopher Phillips scrutinized each chapter several times over, providing many thought-provoking comments and critiques. His attention to detail and his willingness to let me find my own interpretative voice has greatly enhanced this dissertation. The committee members provided a variety of perspectives and constructive criticism, which have helped me to produce a well-rounded piece of scholarship. Linda Przybyszewski read drafts of each chapter and offered many ideas that aided me in revising the dissertation. Wayne Durrill gave advice on the dissertation’s direction, along with providing suggestions on finding sources. Mark Grimsley, of the Ohio State University, served as outside reader and gave valuable feedback on the dissertation’s direction and focus. I was also fortunate to have the support of a group of excellent scholars and friends, who read various drafts of this dissertation during meetings of our reading group: Dissertations Anonymous. I thank J. Michael Rhyne, Kathleen Leonard-Bayes, William Bergmann, Kevin Bower, Clinton Terry, and Haimanti Roy for offering sympathetic ears and critical eyes when I needed them most. Several institutions and organizations that provided funding, which allowed me to dedicate my time and attention to this project. The Charles P. Taft Memorial Fund allowed me to dedicate a full year to research and writing, while also making several research trips possible. I benefited from a fellowship at the Filson Historical Society and the friendliness of the staff, iv including Mark Wetherington, James Holmberg, and Michael Veach. Finally, I have been fortunate to have the support and funding of the UC History Department throughout my graduate career, including teaching opportunities and travel grants. My journey through the deadlines and paperwork of graduate school was greatly facilitated by the helpful advice of the department’s admin secretary, Hope Earls. A number of archives and libraries greatly facilitated my research, and I thank the staff members who were so eager to help me find sources and access materials. I appreciated the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff at the Kentucky Historical Society Archives, especially that of Lynn Hollingsworth and Doug Boyd. Every time I visited I was greeted with new sources and research ideas. The Archivists of the National Archives in Washington D.C. provided the guidance and assistance I needed to access a number of hard to find sources, including files pertaining to the elusive Indiana Morgan’s Raid Claim Commission records. The staff at the Frederick Porter Griffin Center for Local History and Genealogy provided knowledge of Harrison County history. The staff of the Indiana Room of the New Albany Public Library helped me access their extensive collection of microfilm. Most importantly, I thank family and friends who strove to understand the often confusing patterns of graduate school and shared both the pitfalls and joys of the process with me. My parents, Ira and Marjorie Rockenbach, have always encouraged me to direct my interests and passions towards my choice of career. My mother-in-law, Harriette Weatherbee, has always been willing to listen to my latest findings and chat about the current state of Civil War scholarship. My wife, Tre, lived with this dissertation for three years, even though at times it seemed like an overbearing houseguest who refused to leave. She catered to this intruder with v diligence and care, reading and editing numerous drafts. I am grateful for her love and support, which made the completion of this project possible and worthwhile. vi Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Introduction 2 Prologue: “Excitement at Brandenburg” 10 Chapter 1: “Brothers, Relatives, and Friends” 17 Chapter 2: The Danger of War 41 Chapter 3: “To Protect the Community” 65 Chapter 4: “War for the Confiscation of Property” 99 Chapter 5: “The Negro is Improperly in this Contest” 127 Chapter 6: “The Wolf Was Upon Us” 156 Chapter 7: “Treason and Rebellion Have Wrought Sorrow and Distress” 189 Chapter 8: “The Ohio Was a Gulf of Raging Fire” 218 Appendix 273 Bibliography 275 1 Introduction The most recent scholarship on the American Civil War demonstrates that military, political, and social issues combined to change irreversibly the lives of citizens throughout the nation.1 But even with the recent focus on the intersection of military and social history, very little of the extant scholarship indicates how the war affected the fragile border regions. Even the infusion of race, ideology, and politics into areas of Civil War history once dominated by battles and leaders has not illuminated the complex and flexible nature of border society in wartime. In 1990, Maris Vinovskis asked social historians if they had indeed “lost the Civil War.” Vinovskis posited that these scholars had “lost” the war, because “most of the so-called new social historians have ignored the possible influence of the Civil War on the life course of nineteenth-century Americans.”2 Since then, scholars have rallied to the call for new interpretation of the war. Many historians have recently realized that researchers can achieve a broader understanding of the war only by ascertaining the interconnection of the military, social, and political aspects of the war. This dissertation examines the social and military aspects of the war along the western border, lying ostensibly outside the theaters of combat, specifically by comparing the wartime experiences of two communities in the Ohio River Valley. These two border communities experienced dramatic changes, in part because the war shattered westerners’ sense of regional identity and completely upset the racial and economic status quo in their locale but in larger part as a result of border residents’ often desperate attempts to

Load more