INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeob Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 73-11,534 MASLOWSKI, Peter, 1944- "TREASON MUST BE MADE ODIOUS": MILITARY OCCUPATION AND WARTIME RECONSTRUCTION IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, 1862-1865. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 History, modern University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1973 Peter Maslowski ALL RIGHTS RESERVED "TREASON MUST BE MADE ODIOUS"* MILITARY OCCUPATION AND WARTIME RECONSTRUCTION IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, 1862-1865 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Peter Maslowski, B.A., M.A. * * * p * The Ohio State University 1972 Approved by Adviser Department of History PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Composing acknowledgments could be the most difficult task in writing this dissertation. Only the author realizes how deeply indebted he is to the kindness and advice of others. And only he realizes how inadequate the Englis language is to express his sincere thanks to those who have assisted him. Professor Allan R. Millett of The Ohio State University has been a constant help, both as an adviser and a friend, throughout the entire project. He suggested the original topic, gave direction to my research, and made excellent comments and criticisms aB the work progressed. It is a substantial understatement to say that he has always given unsparingly of his time and energy to me. Moreover, his own enthusiasm for life itself and the historical profes­ sion in particular has been a constant source of encourage­ ment. Professor Merton L, Dillon, also of The Ohio State University, read the manuscript and made several suggested changes which helped improve the final paper. My gratitude to Mr. Dillon spans almost my entire graduate student years ii at Ohio State. During that time/he has kindly assisted me many times and in a wide variety of ways* I am also indebted to the entire staff of the Tennes­ see State Library and Archives in Nashville, particularly the Archivist, Mr. John H. Thweatt. The cost of the paper and envelopes involved in the correspondence between the Library and myself must have added at least an additional zero to that institution's budget. While doing research in Nashville Mr, and Mrs, Irvin Wells very kindly took me into their home and treated me as a son, even though we had never met before my first research jaunt to that city. The warm hospitality of these fine people made my research task considerably more enjoyable. A word of gratitude also goes to Pern, my wife, who typed rough drafts like a demon, but provided sympathy and understanding like a saint. Finally, during the long hours of research and writing I was frequently kept company— unbeknown to them, of course— by Mick Jagger and the Stones. I am sure I could listen to "Gimme Shelter" and "Sympathy for the Devil" another five thousand times and still wish I was banging on a guitar rather than a typewriter. i i i PREFACE Historians of the Civil War have gallantly charged up Cemetary Ridge with General George E, Pickett's men too often. They have slugged their way through the Wilder­ ness with Grant until the death and maiming seem a part of their own lives, and they have agonized too many times in the War Department telegraph room with Lincoln and Stanton, In fact, it now seems that everything of importance is known about the tactical and strategic aspects of the military history of the Civil War, Even if another word is never written about the war there are already enough battlefield accounts to satisfy even the most avid student of American military history, THere is also a great amount of scholarly work on the Reconstruction era. Roughly speaking, there are two notable characteristics in almost all Reconstruction literature. First of all, though there may be radical differences in interpretation among authors, most of the studies of Reconstruction concentrate on the postwar years and emphasize political, social, and economic aspects of the period. Relatively recent works by John Hope Franklin, Kenneth M. Stampp, W, R, Brock, Lawanda and John Cox, and i v Eric McKitrick all fit this catagory, as do earlier volumes by historians such as William A, Dunning, Claude Bowers, and George Fort Milton.* A number of state oriented studies also concentrate on postwar social, political, and economic events. 2 Secondly, those volumes which do recognize that Reconstruction was as much a part of the Civil War as Chancellorsville and Vicksburg almost Invaribly focus on the national level, and view the situa­ tion primarily from Washington. Charles H. McCarthy and William B, Hesseltine differ on the question of whether “ or not Lincoln actually had a "plan* of reconstruction, but both wrote from a national perspective.^ a more recent book dealing with wartime reconstruction, written by Herman Belz, maintains the tradition of observing the reconstruc- h tion process through political events in Washington, In all of this writing covering the years 1861-1877 our knowledge remains deficient about the role of the Union army in both wartime and postwar reconstruction, and, more generally, about reconstruction at the local level. Only a very few articles and full length monographs lend much insight into these aspects of the era. Articles by A. H. Carpenter, Ralph H, Gabriel, Frank Freidel, and Robert J. Futrell give tantalizing overviews of the opera­ tion of military government in the South during the war. v but are sparse on actual details of civil-military rela­ tions, ^ Along with these relatively few major articles there are also scattered articles in state and local historical publications which deal with wartime occupation and civil-military relations. But these usually fail to view military occupation as a part of the reconstruction process and do not emphasize the ebb and flow of events between Washington and the local level,^ Two monographs of particular importance do give due recognition to the army’s part in wartime reconstruction and do make clear that the confusion and frustrations of wartime reconstruc­ tion were portents of what was to come after the war, Willie Lee Rose has written with great detail, perception, and understanding about wartime reconstruction efforts on the Sea Islands of South Carolina, and Gerald M. Capers* study of occupied New Orleans provides valuable insights 7 into the wartime attempt to reconstruct Louisiana, While scant attention has been given to wartime civil-military relations and the role the army played in wartime reconstruction, it is equally true that the role of the army in postwar reconstruction has been practically ignored. Indeed, although Union troops were stationed throughout the South for varying lengths of time during Reconstruction, no one is still very sure exactly what they were doing there, John Hope Franklin contends that v i the army garrisons in the South were so small that they had very little power and influence and that they were relatively inactive during Reconstruction.® James E. Sefton has recently taken vigorous exception to Franklin’s thesis. Sefton argues that the army, although essentially non-political, was still an important element in the South. His volume, which is an overview of the army's work from I865 to I8 7 7, emphasizes the army’s role as the only enforcer of federal authority in the South. He maintains that "power, influence, and activity are functions of much more than mere numbers."9 The only element of the army's role in postwar Reconstruction which has received a large amount of attention is the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, known more simply as the Freedmen’s Bureau. There is uncertainty, however, about the impact and importance of the Bureau, George R. Bentley con­ cluded that the Bureau "sought too much for the Negro too soon."**-® But William S.