“A Matter of Increasing Perplexity”: Public Perception, Treatment, and Military Influence of Refugees in the Shenandoah Valley During the American Civil War Noah Frazier Crawford Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In History Paul Quigley (Chair) Melanie Kiechle Brett Shadle May 7, 2021 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Refugee, Fugitive, Deserter, Unionist, Virginia, Civil War Era “A Matter of Increasing Perplexity”: Public Perception, Treatment, and Military Influence of Refugees in the Shenandoah Valley During the American Civil War Noah Frazier Crawford Abstract: This thesis examines the ways in which definitions and perceptions of refugees in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia evolved over the course of the American Civil War. It investigates perspectives from individuals in both the United States and Confederate States to illustrate how misconceptions about refugees—who they were, what they wanted, and how they could benefit each side—dominated how displaced people were discussed. I argue that despite significant attention to refugees in newspapers, military reports, and among the public, both sides failed to adequately assist refugees who were displaced as a result of the war. Utilizing a broadly chronological approach allows greater insight into how the situation in the Shenandoah Valley escalated over time with the addition of various refugee demographic groups, including white Unionists, Black self-emancipated people, deserters, and pro-Confederate civilians. This thesis discusses how each of these groups challenged Americans’ culturally-constructed definition of the word “refugee.” It also demonstrates how military commanders made use of refugees as sources of military intelligence who directly influenced the events of several military campaigns. This thesis argues that misconceptions about refugees hindered an effective and meaningful response to the Valley’s refugee crisis among government officials, military officers, and the general populaces of the North and the South. “A Matter of Increasing Perplexity”: Public Perception, Treatment, and Military Influence of Refugees in the Shenandoah Valley During the American Civil War Noah Frazier Crawford General Audience Abstract The devastation wrought by the American Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley of western Virginia sparked a refugee crisis that grew in size over the course of the war. From the earliest days of the conflict in 1861, Americans correctly predicted that the war would displace many people. However, mistaken ideas about who qualified as a refugee and what to do with or for refugees prevented an effective response that could have alleviated the suffering of many of these people. This thesis examines how Americans struggled to understand refugees as matters of gender, race, and loyalty appeared to complicate the subject. It offers insight into not only how Americans perceived refugees, but also explores refugee experiences in order to illuminate voices that were overlooked both in the 1860s and in the decades since the war. iv Acknowledgements Many individuals deserve my thanks for their parts in the formulation of this thesis. The members of my thesis committee provided invaluable assistance. Dr. Melanie Kiechle offered a perspective that not only resulted in greater clarity throughout the project, but encouraged the inclusion of incisive analysis that was absent in initial drafts. Dr. Brett Shadle assisted greatly in helping to crystallize my earliest undeveloped ideas about the topic and consistently provided insight into how to maintain an emphasis on the refugees themselves. Dr. Paul Quigley, my committee chair, deserves praise not only for his contributions to place the events described herein within the broader context of the Civil War, but for his observations, suggestions, and patience with my many half-formulated ideas from the very beginning of the project through the present. I am also grateful to the many members of the Virginia Tech History faculty and my peers in the graduate program for their mentorship and encouragement. Ben Olex, Dylan Settle, and Alfonso Zavala in particular provided not only academic insight, but also offered more relaxed topics of conversation related to American history that provided a welcome respite from work. Other friends, including John C. Settle, Joey Frazier, and Nate Eaton also deserve appreciation for the same reason. My grandmother, Christine Crawford, deserves especial mention; her recollections of life as a refugee planted the seeds of this project in my mind many years ago, and I am grateful beyond expression for her many kindnesses and inspiring this thesis. Additionally, Dr. Kitty Crosby’s encouragement and support throughout my academic endeavors was tremendously appreciated. My family—my mother, Lindsey; father, Gregg; and brother, Daniel—have been supportive of my academic endeavors (and infatuation with American history) from the very v beginning and I cannot thank them enough for not only tolerating, but encouraging me at every step. I appreciate their patience when I bothered them with a story, sent them something to read, or talked their ears off on car rides. Finally, I wish to thank Andi Crosby for her tireless support, encouragement, and love throughout the past five years. She has shown me what it means to live life and to work with a passion, and I could not have asked for a better person with whom to traverse the trials of graduate school. vi Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...……...……ii General Audience Abstract…………………………………………………………………….iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………..……………………….………....iv Introduction “What Shall Be Done With Them?”: Perceptions of American Civil War Refugees, Then and Now…………………………………………………………………………………..1 American Perceptions of Refugees at War’s Beginning………………………………..…4 Refugees in the War: Assumptions, Misconceptions, and Influence on the Conflict……..6 The History of the Shenandoah Valley Before the American Civil War…………………9 Historiography…………….……………………………………………………………..13 Chapter I “Neither Pity nor Protection”: White Unionists and Black Refugees in the Shenandoah Valley, 1861-1862……………………………………………………………………….24 Initial Refugee Flights and Encounters with Military Forces, May - December, 1861…………………………………………………………..26 Refugees and Military Intelligence, January - June, 1862……………………………………………………………..33 Refugee Experiences as an Indicator of an Evolving War, July – December, 1862…………………………………………….…………….41 Chapter II “An Immense Tide of Emigration”: The Developing Crisis in the Valley, January 1863 – April 1864………………………………………………………………….……………49 “A Great Exodus:” The Emancipation Proclamation in the Shenandoah Valley, January – June 1863……………………………………………………………...51 “Thankful It Is No Worse”: Refugee Activity Shifts Southward, April 1863 – January 1864……………………………………………..………..55 “Pathways Along the Mountain Sides”: The Rise of Deserters as a Refugee Demographic August 1863 – April 1864………………………………………………………..63 Chapter III “We Are Starving, I and My Children”: Refugees, Hard War, and the Conflict’s Uncertain End, April 1864 – October 1865…………………………………………………….....74 vii Sigel’s Campaign: April – May, 1864………………………………………………………………..75 Prayer Meetings and Ice Cream Socials: Northern Public Mobilizations for Refugees, Summer 1864…………………………………………………………………….80 Hunter’s Campaign: June 1864………………………………………………………………………...83 Sheridan Takes Charge: August – December, 1864………………………………………………………..88 “Feed Upon the Enemy”: January – October 1865………………………………………………………….96 Conclusion: The Shortcomings of Civil War Refugee Policy………………………………104 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...108 Introduction “What Shall Be Done With Them?”: Perceptions of American Civil War Refugees, Then and Now On the first day of June 1861, the New York Times ran an opinion piece in its morning issue that generated considerable controversy among that periodical’s vast audience. As war drums echoed across the United States, “The Problem of the Negro Fugitives” presented Times readers with a subject that, while familiar, was hardly foremost in their minds as the United States prepared to put down the rebellion of the Southern states. In a remarkably prophetic piece, an anonymous contributor to the Times predicted that the plight of many thousands of noncombatants would come to be prioritized as a byproduct of the war and would demand the same level of attention as supplying the troops or procuring victory on the battlefield. “The really embarrassing question growing out of the war, and which in its novelty, and in the difficulties surrounding it, transcends all others, is just beginning to show itself,” the article began. Before honing in on its purpose, the article discussed how certain rules of war had long since been regulated with such stipulations as prohibiting violence against civilians and demanding humane treatment of prisoners. But what shall we do with the slaves that may fall into our hands by the fortunes of the war, who to the South are chattels—to the North human beings?... We may yet find useful employment for ten or twenty thousand, but what shall we do with fifty or a hundred thousand? They must be presently fed and clothed, and though clearly contraband in reference to the rebels, we cannot treat them as other articles contraband of war, put them up to auction, and sell them to the highest bidder… Whatever may be the final event, we may have