Civil War Blockade Running on the Texas Coast
My new book, Civil War Blockade Running on the Texas Coast, will be released by the History Press on June 10. It’s available now for pre-order at the History Press, on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. An e-book version should follow this summer. This short volume discusses blockade-running in the western Gulf of Mexico, with particular emphasis on the last year of the war, when Galveston became the last remaining port in Confederate hands in the region. Running the blockade under sail, life aboard the Union ships of the blockade, and the lure of prize money are also discussed. The book includes an epilogue that discusses some of the archaeological work done on runners over the last 40 years.
Blockade-running in this area has been an active interest of mine for nearly 20 years, and I’ve been privileged to contribute to the documentation of four different ships involved — the famous runners Denbigh and Will o’ the Wisp, as well as Union vessels U.S.S. Arkansas and U.S.S. Hatteras. Lots of folks have helped me along the way, and I’m grateful to all of them.
____________

____________

U.S.S. Westfield Presentation, Houston, May 13


Folks in the Houston area will want to mark their calendars for next Tuesday, May 13 at 7 p.m., when Justin Parkoff and Jessica Stika speak about the USS Westfield preservation project. The Westfield wreckage lay in the murky waters of the Texas City ship channel until 2009, when the dis-articulated artifact debris field was recovered in Texas’ largest marine archaeology rescue project to date. Although the hull itself was not preserved, learn how the experts at Texas A & M University’s Conservation Research Laboratory have used modern technology to glean clues from this scant archaeological evidence. Admission is free and refreshments will be served.


__________

Is Cinco de Mayo an American Civil War Holiday?


I can’t let May 5 slip past entirely without flagging an article from CNN, asking whether Cinco de Mayo, the anniversary of the Battle of Puebla (above, in reenactment) in 1862, is fundamentally an American Civil War holiday. David Hayes-Bautista, Director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at the UCLA School of Medicine, believes it is:


I’ll have to cogitate some on this idea that Puebla was viewed by Hispanics in the Far West as, in effect, a proxy Union victory. It’s certainly true that a good many Hispanics served the Confederacy, as well. We do sometimes forget, these days, how fluid borders and cultures were in the Southwest 150 years ago. The hero of the Battle of Puebla, Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín, for example, was born at Presidio la Bahía, near present-day Goliad, Texas in 1829.
In the meantime, I think I’ll fire up Netflix streaming and revisit that period with Cinco de Mayo, La Batalla (2013). Here’s Zaragoza’s address to his troops before the battle from that film:


__________
(h/t Civil War Talk user KansasFreestater)
Tom Liljenquist Continues to Amaze


As many of you know, Tom Liljenquist is a longtime collector of Civil War-era images, particularly ambrotype portraits of soldiers, sailors and civilians. Starting with an initial gift of almost 700 images in 2010, Liljenquist has donated these images to the Library of Congress, where they’ve been indexed, scanned and put online in high-res format for the general public to use and download. Liljenquist’s perseverance in collecting these images is surpassed only by his commitment to sharing them with the rest of us.
One thing I didn’t realize until recently is that Liljenquist’s donation was not a one-time event, but continues as he acquires new material. I was initially surprised to find this image of an unidentified Confederate naval officer, sure I would have seen it before. But it turns out that Liljenquist only acquired the image last year, and it was cataloged and scanned by LoC as recently as last month, April 2014.



This particular image is interesting. Portraits of C.S. naval personnel are uncommon. This officer seems particularly well-accoutered, dressed in a standard naval uniform under the regulations adopted in 1861.



If you reverse the image left-to-right, and look closely under the hand-applied gilt paint, his cap appears to carry an Old English letter E within the wreath, which would be the badge of a Second- or Third Assistant Engineer (right). I wonder who he is.
____________

Canister!


I’d like to extend my thanks to the Laffite Society of Galveston, that invited me to give a short talk last Saturday at their annual research seminar on David Porter’s campaign against pirates in the Caribbean. (Above, Marines storm a shore battery at Fajardo, Puerto Rico in 1824, in a painting by the late Col. Charles H. Waterhouse, USMCR, Ret.) They’re a great bunch of folks, who have done solid work in sorting out fact, maybe-fact and total BS when it comes to documenting the lives of Jean and Pierre Laffite. If you’re interested in a good biography of those two, I’d recommend Jack Davis’ book.
More assorted items:

- Conservators in Charleston are embarking on a new phase in the Hunley story, a three-month process to remove the concretion inside and outside the boat’s iron hull plating. This might provide provide more specific evidence of what caused the craft to sink.
- Researchers in San Fransisco have found the wreck of City of Chester, a passenger ship that sank in the Golden Gate after a collision with the much larger steamer Oceanic in 1888. Interesting to maybe no one but me, Oceanic was the first ship of the famous White Star Line and pioneered the idea that transoceanic steamers should focus on luxurious accommodations and good food (at least for those in first class), a tradition that runs right down through the cruise industry today. Oceanic also carried round-the-world racers Nellie Bly and Elizabeth Bisland across the Pacific in late 1889 and early 1890, respectively.
- Ever seen a “zonkey”? Me neither, but they’re cute.
- Slate has an interesting article on female CW reenactors, if you can get past the smug “subculture-within-a-subculture” business.
- Remember on Seinfeld when George Costanza went to work for Donald Sterling and the LA Clippers? Good times.
-
I’ve long thought that, as much as I disagreed with their historical narrative, the UDC at least didn’t embrace the open, explicit racial nastiness that runs as an undercurrent through other “heritage” or southern nationalist groups. After seeing that the Alabama Division of the UDC hosted a speaker for a prominent event who openly posts trash like this to Facebook, I’m not so sure, now:



Ms. Clark, I’d love to hear a (plausible) explanation of why you and the Alabama UDC selected this person to headline your event. (H/t Brooks)

Finally, in honor of Willie Nelson’s 81st birthday this week, here are two of his songs. The first is Willie singing “Hello, Walls,” on the Porter Waggoner Show in about 1962, and the second is a favorite of mine, “Uncloudy Day.” Have a great weekend, y’all.



_________

“What will you do, Mr. & Mrs. White Southerner. . . ?”
Gary Adams is sorry.
It seems that on Tuesday someone posted a nasty little screed over at SHPG urging white southerners to band together against the “blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc.” who are set on “‘get[ing] even’ with the White Devils.” It was up for a couple of hours before it was removed and the person who posted it got booted from group’s membership. Gary assumed responsibility for the post, and apologized for it. And I am certain that he is sincere about that.
Nonetheless, Gary left out one really important fact about that post. It wasn’t some random new member who posted those paragraphs, but arguably the most prominent southern nationalist today, League of the South President J. Michael Hill:



I know Gary and other folks at SHPG are embarrassed by this, but they should also be embarrassed that some of their members obviously agree with Hill. If Gary and the rest of the leadership at SHPG were serious about calling out such vile people, they would do so by name. Hill’s post is only surprising for its location; his views, and the those of the League of the South, have been very clear for a while now. Whether they saw that particular posting or not, I’m sure nearly everyone on SHPG knows who Hill (right) and his group are; why protect them by giving them anonymity in their bad behavior? Is it because many prominent members at SHPG — John Stones, Robert Mestas, Valerie Protopapas, Carl Roden, Susan Frise Hathaway, David Tatum, Jimmy Shirley and Karen Cooper — are (as of this writing) social network friends of Hill’s?
While you’re at it, Gary, you might want to ask yourself why a smart, calculating man like Hill would think his message would have a receptive audience at SHPG — which, for at least some folks, it absolutely did.
I know that Gary and the other folks at SHPG won’t ask those questions. But one can hope.
If Confederate Heritage™ means covering up for reprehensible characters like Michael Hill, it damn well deserves to whither and die.
__________

Canister!

Small items that don’t warrant full posts on their own:
- Orange County, Texas has formally declared April as “Confederate History and Heritage Month” at the request of the local SCV camp. You may recall that these are the same folks building a Confederate monument on Martin Luther King Boulevard there, which is totally a coincidence. Totally.
- The planned miniseries To Appomattox has launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise $2.5M. It’s a huge amount, but I hope they’re successful.
- Speaking of Kickstarter, this one was kind of a bust.
- There’s also this page set up to raise funds to make a movie about Nathan Bedford Forrest, based on what the video says is Lochlain Seabrook’s “novel” about the man. That will be a screenwriting challenge, given that the novel is 822 pages long, almost twice as long as Jack Hurst’s well-regarded bio of the man.
- A while back I mentioned that it looks like a multi-agency team has found the remains of the steamship Planter, that Robert Smalls famously stole at Charleston and delivered to the Union fleet offshore. The team seems more and more confident of the find.
-
Rob Ford, the crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, is running for re-election. Let’s dance!
- St. Mary’s Cathedral in Galveston (above, during restoration) is set to reopen Sunday for Easter Mass after being severely damaged by Hurricane Ike in 2008. St. Mary’s, which was established in the 1840s, is sometimes called the “Mother Cathedral of Texas.”
- Back in January I missed Lt. Col. Robert Bateman’s observations on Charlie Goodson’s “New Confederate Army.” Better late than never. The video link doesn’t work, but there’s lots more here.
- And in Lexington, Brandon Dorsey is responding to the dispute over Confederate iconography at Washington & Lee by organizing a debate to establish Robert E. Lee’s reputation, or something. Naturally, he wants you to send him money to do it. I expect this will be as successful as his much-hyped boycott of Lexington and his plan to defeat that city’s mayor for reelection.
Got any more? Put ’em n the comments.
_____________
St. Mary’s restoration photo by Kevin M. Cox, Galveston County Daily News.
Understanding Fort Pillow: “Full and Ample Retaliation”

On another forum folks have been discussing the Battle of Fort Pillow in April 1864, and some of the factors that led to the “slaughter” — Nathan Bedford Forrest’s own term, from his report immediately after the action (“The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards.” AOR 57, 610) — of Pillow’s defenders. While there will always be room for historians to debate Forrests’ direct role in what happened there, one must also recall how black Federal troops and their white officers were viewed by Confederates, both as a matter of personal views and as a matter of official, governmental policy. Almost a year before Fort Pillow, the Confederate Congress had explicitly defined the Emancipation Proclamation and recruitment of African American troops as a form of inciting “servile insurrection” — think Nat Turner — and formally declared such practice as being “inconsistent” with the rules of warfare “among civilized nations.” Such cases, the Confederate Congress declared, should therefore be met with “full and ample retaliation,” without recourse to traditional military due process or the niceties usually afforded prisoners of war:
![]()
![]()
“Full and ample” retaliation against black Union troops and their white officers was an official policy, written into Confederate law.
This policy found its force in numerous ways across the South, through the remainder of the war. Just weeks after its passage, Lee’s army crossed again into Maryland, in what would come to be known as the Gettysburg Campaign. During their brief sojourn in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Confederate troops seized and brought with them hundreds of African Americans, some of whom were born free and had never set foot in slave territory, under the guise of capturing runaway slaves. Hundreds of people, perhaps as many as a thousand, were kidnapped this way, with the knowledge (if not explicit endorsement) of officers at the highest levels of Lee’s command. It’s a policy that reflects, codifies, the widely-held view of African American Union troops and their white officers as being not opposing soldiers, but something much worse — insurrectionists — who were an existential threat to the Confederacy and to southerners’ own homes and families.
Just to be clear — I’m not arguing that what happened at Fort Pillow is a result of the resolution passed in Richmond almost a year before, but rather that they both reflect the same attitudes when it comes to African American soldiers — that they and their white officers are beneath contempt, and undeserving of recognition as soldiers. Confederates like Howell Cobb understood this intuitively. In retrospect, right question to ask isn’t “why Fort Pillow?”, but why there weren’t more Fort Pillows?
What They Saw at Fort Pillow

![]()
While doing research on something else, I came across a couple of accounts of the aftermath of the Confederate assault on Fort Pillow, written by naval officers of U.S.S Silver Cloud (above), the Union “tinclad” gunboat that was the first on the scene. I don’t recall encountering these descriptions before, and they really do strike a nerve with their raw descriptions of what these men witnessed, at first hand.
These accounts are particularly important because historians are always looking for “proximity” in historical accounts of major events. The description of an event by someone who was physically present is to be more valued than one by someone who simply heard about it from another person. The narrative committed to paper immediately is, generally, more to be valued than one written months or years after the events described, when memories have started to fade or become shaded by others’ differing recollections. Hopefully, too, the historian can find those things in a description of the event by someone who doesn’t have any particular axe to grind, who’s writing for his own purposes without the intention that his account will be widely and publicly known. These are all factors — somewhat subjective, to be sure — that the historian considers when deciding what historical accounts to rely on when trying to reconstruct historical events, and to understand how one or another document fits within the context of all the rest.
Which brings us back to the eyewitness accounts of Acting Master William Ferguson, commanding officer of U.S.S. Silver Cloud, and Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell of that same vessel.
Ferguson’s report was written April 14, 1864, the day after he was at the site. It was addressed to Major General Stephen A. Hurlbut, commanding officer of the Union’s XVI Corps of the Army of the Tennessee, then headquartered at Memphis. It appears in the Army OR, vol. 57, and the Navy OR, vol. 26.
U.S. STEAMER SILVER CLOUD,
Off Memphis, Tenn., April 14, 1864. SIR: In compliance with your request that I would forward to you a written statement of what I witnessed and learned concerning the treatment of our troops by the rebels at the capture of Fort Pillow by their forces under General Forrest, I have the honor to submit the following report: Our garrison at Fort Pillow, consisting of some 350 colored troops and 200 of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, refusing to surrender, the place was carried by assault about 3 p.m. of 12th instant. I arrived off the fort at 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th instant. Parties of rebel cavalry were picketing on the hills around the fort, and shelling those away I made a landing and took on-board some 20 of our troops (some of them badly wounded), who had concealed themselves along the bank and came out when they saw my vessel. While doing so I was fired upon by rebel sharpshooters posted on the hills, and 1 wounded man limping down to the vessel was shot. About 8 a.m. the enemy sent in a flag of truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the terms proposed, and hailing the steamer Platte Valley, which vessel I had convoyed up from Memphis, I brought her alongside and had the wounded brought down from the fort and battle-field and placed on board of her. Details of rebel soldiers assisted us in this duty, and some soldiers and citizens on board the Platte Valley volunteered for the same purpose. We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. All the buildings around the fort and the tents and huts in the fort had been burned by the rebels, and among the embers the charred remains of numbers of our soldiers who had suffered a terrible death in the flames could be seen. All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops. Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate. As near as I can learn, there were about 500 men in the fort when it was stormed. I received about 100 men, including the wounded and those I took on board before the flag of truce was sent in. The rebels, I learned, had few prisoners; so that at least 300 of our troops must have been killed in this affair. I have the honor to forward a list(*) of the wounded officers and men received from the enemy under flag of truce. I am, general, your obedient servant, W. FERGUSON,
Acting Master, U.S. Navy, Comdg. U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud.
Ferguson’s report is valuable because it is detailed, proximate in time to the event, and was written specifically for reference within the military chain of command. It seems likely that Ferguson’s description is the first written description of the aftermath of the engagement within the Federal’s command structure. Certainly it was written before news of Fort Pillow became widely known across the country, and the event became a rallying cry for retribution and revenge. Ferguson’s account was, I believe, ultimately included in the evidence published by the subsequent congressional investigation of the incident, but he had no way of anticipating that when he sat down to write out his report just 24 hours after witnessing such horrors.
The second account is that of Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell (right), a 20-year-old junior officer aboard the gunboat. Critchell’s letter, addressed to U.S. Rep. Henry T. Blow of Missouri, was written a week after Ferguson’s report, after the enormity of events at the fort had begun to take hold. If Ferguson’s report reflected the shock of what he’d seen, Critchell’s gives voice to a growing anger about it. Critchell’s revulsion comes through in this letter, along with his disdain for the explanations of the brutality offered by the Confederate officers he’d met, that they’d simply lost control of their men, which the Union naval officer calls “a flimsy excuse.” Crittchell admits to being “personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels,” but also stands by the accuracy of his description, offering to swear out an affidavit attesting to it.
UNITED STATES STEAMER “SILVER CLOUD.” Mississippi River, April 22nd, 1864. SIR :-Since you did me the favor of recommending my appointment last year, I have been on duty aboard this boat. I now write you with reference to the Fort Pillow massacre, because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established. Our boat arrived at the fort about 7½ A. M. on Wednesday, the 13th, the day after the rebels captured the fort. After shelling them, whenever we could see them, for two hours, a flag of truce from the rebel General Chalmers, was received by us, and Captain Ferguson of this boat, made an arrangement with General Chalmers for the paroling of our wounded and the burial of our dead; the arrangement to last until 5 P. M. We then landed at the fort, and I was sent out with a burial party to bury our dead. I found many of the dead lying close along by the water’s edge, where they had evidently sought safety; they could not offer any resistance from the places where they were, in holes and cavities along the banks; most of them had two wounds. I saw several colored soldiers of the Sixth United States Artillery, with their eyes punched out with bayonets; many of them were shot twice and bayonetted also. All those along the bank of the river were colored. The number of the colored near the river was about seventy. Going up into the fort, I saw there bodies partially consumed by fire. Whether burned before or after death I cannot say, anyway, there were several companies of rebels in the fort while these bodies were burning, and they could have pulled them out of the fire had they chosen to do so. One of the wounded negroes told me that “he hadn’t done a thing,” and when the rebels drove our men out of the fort, they (our men) threw away their guns and cried out that they surrendered, but they kept on shooting them down until they had shot all but a few. This is what they all say. I had some conversation with rebel officers and they claim that our men would not surrender and in some few cases they “could not control their men,” who seemed determined to shoot down every negro soldier, whether he surrendered or not. This is a flimsy excuse, for after our colored troops had been driven from the fort, and they were surrounded by the rebels on all sides, it is apparent that they would do what all say they did,throw down their arms and beg for mercy. I buried very few white men, the whole number buried by my party and the party from the gunboat “New Era” was about one hundred. I can make affidavit to the above if necessary. Hoping that the above may be of some service and that a desire to be of service will be considered sufficient excuse for writing to you, I remain very respectfully your obedient servant, ROBERT S. CRITCHELL, Acting Master’s Mate, U. S. N.
![]()
Critchell’s note about the explanation offered by Confederate officers, who argued that the black soldiers “would not surrender and in some few cases [the Confederate officers] ‘could not control their men,’ who seemed determined to shoot down every negro soldier, whether he surrendered or not,” is worth noting. That was the excuse offered at the time, and it remains so almost 150 years later, for those Fort Pillow apologists who acknowledge that unnecessary bloodshed took place at all. Critchell observed at the time that “this is a flimsy excuse,” and so it remains today.
Critchell’s letter also seems to endorse retaliation-in-kind, “because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established.” This urge is, unfortunately, entirely understandable, and we’ve seen that within weeks the atrocity at Fort Pillow was being used as a rallying cry to spur Union soldiers on to commit their own acts of wanton violence. Vengrance begets retaliation begets vengeance begets retaliation. It never ends, and it’s always rationalized by pointing to the other side having done it before.
It never ends, but it often does have identifiable beginnings. Bill Ferguson and Bob Critchell saw one of those beginnings first-hand.
_____________
Critchell letter and images from Robert S. Critchell, Recollections of a Fire Insurance Man (Chicago: McClurg & Co., 1909).

Ryan Budget Would Axe National Endowment for the Humanities
Over at Past in the Present, Michael Lynch flags the new budget proposal of Representative Paul Ryan, that would eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities. “Not cutting it, mind you,” Michael says, “but doing away with it entirely.”


It is a terrible idea, particularly since it gains virtually nothing in terms of reducing spending. The NEH budget of $146M represents about 0.004% of federal spending. Need a visual representation? Here you go:

See that blue slice of the pie chart, right up at the top? That’s NEH funding as a share of the whole. Don’t see it? Well, good, you get the idea. NEH funding isn’t a drop in the bucket; it’s a drop in the damn lake.
Most Washington-watchers will argue that Ryan’s budget has little chance of becoming law. That’s true, but having now been part of his original bill, NEH funding inevitably becomes a bargaining chip in the sausage-grinding budget-writing process. It’s on the table, as they say. We saw this happen in Texas a few years ago when Governor Perry’s proposed state budget completely eliminated the Texas Historical Commission — not an agency that was exactly swimming in cash to begin with. The THC survived, largely because a good bit of what they do is mandated by both state and federal law, but it devastated the agency, resulting in a roughly 40% cut in its budget and multiple layoffs. It was a bad business, and damaging to the agency’s ability to continue its mission. The THC’s County Historical Commission services, Texas Historical Marker Program, Museum Services, Historic Texas Cemeteries, Military History services, and field archeological services all were cut back to reduced levels of both funding and staff support.
Please contact your U.S. Representative, and urge him or her to support continued funding of the National Endowment for the Humanities at current — or better yet, pre-sequester — levels. One hundred forty-six million dollars doesn’t buy very much out of government normally — it’s about one-third the cost of an F-22 Raptor, an aircraft that was such a dog that even the Pentagon wanted to cut its losses and abandon it — but it goes a long way when it comes to supporting museums, cultural heritage and education programs.
_____________






28 comments