Company F, Sixteenth Iowa, Etc.

Madison R. Laird, youngest brother of Frank and Jacob M. Laird of this city, was eight months in a rebel prison from which he escaped. He died December 4,1866. John W. Dewey, Q. M. Sergeant, and Thomas J. Allaway, are also numbered among the dead of this Company; also J. F. Redman of Company K.

[Just above this paragraph also appears:]

Levi R. Hester, Sixteenth Iowa, died of wounds received at Iuka.

SOURCE:  Polk County (Iowa). Board of Supervisors, Centennial History of Polk County, Iowa, p. 121

Victor Balluff

VICTOR BALLUFF, a veteran of the late war and a leading farmer of Cass Township, was born in Wurtemberg, Germany, September 11,1842. His father, F. Conrad Balluff, was a mechanic by trade, and in 1848 emigrated to America, settling in Erie County, N. Y., where he bought a small tract of land. In 1856 he removed west to Iowa and located upon the farm now owned by our subject. Here his death occurred at the advanced age of ninety-two years in December, 1893. His wife died in New York State in 1853.

There were nine children in the parental family, all of whom attained years of maturity, and four are now living. Margaret is the wife of John Putz, a farmer and cooper of Elkport, Clayton County. John P., who died in Clayton County in February, 1881, was a soldier in the Union army, being a member of Company H. Sixteenth Iowa Infantry. He participated in a number of the leading engagements of the Rebellion and accompanied Sherman on the march to the sea. At Iuka he was taken prisoner and for fifty-nine days was confined in Andersonville. At the expiration of four years' service in the army he was honorably discharged. Theresa, who died in 1879, was the wife of W. Hammer, a farmer of Delaware County. Hannah died unmarried in 1886. Timothy passed away in 1868. Josephine married Sebastian Putz and lives in Warren County, Iowa. Joseph passed from earth in 1890. Mary Amelia, the wife of Jacob Miller, lives near York in Delaware County.

When the family emigrated to the United States our subject was a child of six years. The eight succeeding years were passed in New York, and thence he came to Iowa in 1856. In the schools of Strawberry Point he was for some time a student, and by his fellow-students was given the nickname of "Professor" on account of the fact that one day when his teacher was giving instruction in German he reached a point beyond which he could not go, and young Balluff made the necessary explanation for the teacher and other pupils. In his studies he was keen and quick, and the information gained in the common schools has been supplemented by self-culture and close observation.

When the war broke out, Mr. Balluff was cultivating the home farm. With the enthusiasm of youth he was desirous of enlisting at once in his country's service, but his father forbade him. However, in 1864 his name was enrolled as a member of Company H, Sixteenth Iowa Infantry, and in that regiment he served until the close of the war. He accompanied General Sherman on the march to the sea and participated in the Grand Review at Washington. He was mustered out at Louisville, Ky., and honorably discharged at Davenport, Iowa.

In August, 1866, Mr. Balluff married Miss Mary Mullen, a native of Hancock County, I1l., and they have ten daughters and one son. Alma, formerly a school teacher, is now the wife of Fred Everet, a farmer of Delaware County. Amelia married M. J. Everet, also a farmer in Delaware County. Francis was educated in the Business Department of Upper Iowa University, and now aids his father in the management of the farm. Josephine is a teacher in the public schools. Gertrude, Nettie, Jane, Estella, Eva, Georgia and Susan are with their parents.

After tilling the soil in Clayton and Fayette Counties, Mr. Balluff in the year 1882 bought the old homestead, and here he has since resided. As an agriculturist he is energetic and efficient, and his place bears evidence of the thrift of the proprietor. The farm buildings are commodious and substantial, well adapted to their varied uses. He has given his entire attention to his farm, never aspiring to public office. However, he is a staunch Democrat and always supports the enterprises and measures of his party. Socially he is identified with the Grand Army of the Republic.

SOURCE: Portrait And Biographical Record Of Dubuque, Jones And Clayton Counties, Iowa, Chapman Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1894, p. 428-9

Subjugation of the South – Loyalty in Dixie

(From the Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 26th.)

The Yankee nation, elevated by the recent victories of its hireling armies, is entirely certain of the speedy and thorough subjugation of the South.  It laughs to scorn any idea of any other possibility, and exults in delicious daydreams of the degredation to which its enemy will be reduced.  It glories in the consciousness of its brute strength, and intends to exercise it in the spirit of a brute.  All the enormous self complacency and self conceit which for a while were humbled by the battle of Manassas have renewed their ancient exultation, and they fancy themselves the masters of the universe and the predestined conquerors of all mankind.  But the work of subjugation is as distant now as ever – more distant, more impracticable than it was before the shadow of disaster had been cast upon our flag.

If our early victories had been followed up, and a blow struck which would have paralyzed the north and compelled a peace, it would have been a temporary paralysis, and a peace which would have subjugated the South more completely than she is ever likely to be by the hands of her enemies.  The inevitable consequences of a speedy peace would have been the restoration of the old commercial and manufacturing dependency of the South upon the North, with no other results of her nominal independence than a temporary exemption from abolition legislation, and the heavy expenses of a separate Government, with none of those sources of wealth to support it which commerce, manufactures, and trade supply.  Such a condition, call it by what name we may, would be essentially subjugation; and if the North had taken counsel of wisdom instead of pride, malignity and revenge, it would, in the first instance, never have permitted the war to be waged, or, when it had begun to have brought it to a termination as speedily as possible.

When we say that the subjugation of the South is now more remote than it would have been after an early peace, we have no reference to that small minority which, in the South, as well as every community, is willing to purchase peace at any price.  There are tories in the South, as there were tories in the Revolution, whose only sympathies are with the enemies of their country, who lament its victories and rejoice over its defeats.  The subjugation of these is not the question; for all the tyrants who threaten to oppress us, they, in the event of an opportunity, would be the most revengeful and inexorable.  The tories in the Revolution committed atrocities which far surpassed the most cruel oppressors of the British invaders, and we are prepared to expect from Southern tories – happily not so many in number, nor so capable of mischief as their illustrious predecessors – the exhibition of a similar spirit.

There is another and more numerous class who may be subjugated, because they are already subjugated by their apprehensions of the evils and calamities which are incident to a state of war.  Whilst generally honest and patriotic, they look upon national honor as an abstraction, not to be weighed against personal comfort and security and material gain.  “Dying for one’s country” they consider a very pretty poetical sentiment, much to be admired in novels and tragedies; but like many other poetical sentiments, nonsensical and Quixotic when reduced to practice.  Self indulgence is the rule of life with many men who are patriotic, honest, virtuous and moral, as long as the exercise of those qualities costs them no sacrifice.  But of any higher life than the life of the flesh they have not the faintest conception, nor can they imagine any greater evil than the loss of money, the deprivation of physical comforts, and, above all, the loss of life.  No one will deny that the subjugation of this class is practicable, even with a moiety of immense forces which Lincoln has brought into the field.

But such is not the spirit of the great majority of the Southern people.  They are devoutly attached to their country, to its institutions, to its habits and modes of life, and they have in innate and ineradicable antagonism to the political and social system of the invading race, to their character and habits of their very modes of speech, which the present cruel war has intensified into such passionate and profound detestation that sooner than acknowledge the Yankees as masters, they would rather see the whole Southern country sink to the bottom of the ocean.  As a whole the South is proud, sensitive to the last degree to a stain upon her honor, and holding death an inferior evil to degradation.  Such men may be overrun, may be exterminated, but they cannot be subjugated. – They will resist as long as resistance is possible, and if conquered, they will not stay conquered.  When the spirits of a people are indomitable, they can never be enslaved, and so long as the South is true to herself, she will maintain her freedom of independence.

What can the enemy do with such a people?  If driven from the cities they will retire to the country, and their cities altogether could not make a town half the size of New York.  To follow them to the country, in the vast territory of the South, would require an army more numerous than that of Xerxes.  They will retire to the country and take their arms with them, each man his trusty rifle, and be prepared to seize the first opportunity to re-assert their rights.  They will at once destroy the cotton and other staples which the North is endeavoring to force from them by the sword, and will never cultivate them again till they can do so for their own benefit.  Every bale of cotton in the Southern States will be burned, and the proprietors will raise wheat and corn and other articles which they have hitherto purchased of the North.  They will return to the simple and frugal ways of their forefathers, in dress, furniture, and all the comforts of life, manufacturing for themselves such plain and useful articles as their simple wants and absolute necessities require.  If the Yankees chose to hold their cities, and be masters of the only spots where their enemies are quartered, these will be but islands in the midst of a vast ocean, and will not affect the freedom and independence of the people so long as they are constant to their cause and true to themselves.

In the very worst aspect of the Southern cause, this is the extreme limit which Yankee subjugation can reach, even if our armies would be driven from every battle field, and every Southern city, and fort fall into the enemy’s hands.  But the accomplishment of even that result, with all their superiority of numbers, is an achievement beyond their power.  They have taught us, by the perseverance with which they contrived to fight us after their signal reverses at Bethel, Bull Run, Manassas, Springfield, Belmont, Carnifex Ferry, Leesburg, Green Briar River, Alleghany and others, not to be dismayed and disheartened by reverses, but to make them incentives to new energy and fresh determination.  We shall rise, like Antreus, refreshed by every fall.  The farther the enemy penetrates into the interior and extends his line of march, the more costly and perilous will be his means of aggression, and the more economical and practical our means of defence.  Every where he will be met by desperate and prolonged resistance, until the foreign world, dependant as it is upon Southern commerce, would become impatient of the eternal contest, and itself interpose to put an end to the mad dreams of Southern subjugation.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

Senator Trumbull on Confiscation

The bill for the confiscation of Rebel proper[ty] being under consideration in the Senate on the 25^th ult.

Mr. TRUMBULL said:  But what seems to embarrass some minds is the difficulty of treating these men both as citizens and traitors. – These rebels in the Southern States occupy just exactly that position.  When an insurrection assumes such formidable proportions as this has, and when armies are arrayed against the Government and against each other, all the writers on international law agree that the Rebels are entitled to be treated as belligerents and as enemies, and we have been treating the Rebels at the south as belligerents during this present war.  We have sent flags of truce to them and taken them as prisoners, and whenever a rebellion becomes of such magnitude as to be entitled to be called a civil war, the parties are to be governed by the ordinary rules of war, while it lasts, and in the prosecution of the same rules as it would observe if in a war with an independent nation.  But that does not prevent the government, after the war is over, from trying as a traitor any person that may be in its hands, and that is the way, I take it, which this rebellion is finally to be put down.  Nobody expects to try all of the 300,000 men now in arms against the Government and hang them though they are undoubtedly traitors.  But we will give them the rights of belligerents, and take them as prisoners of war, and when they return to their loyalty again, those who have been seduced from it we will release them; but the ringleaders of this rebellion, in the instigators of it, the conspirators who have set it on foot, will I trust, be brought to the halter, and never be discharged unless they are discharged by Petit Jury, who shall say they are not guilty of treason.  These are our rights as against these people, but our right as against an enemy is a right of confiscation.  We have now the right to take the person and property of the enemy and destroy it wholly if necessary.  I know that according to modern usage of civilized nations, total destruction does not follow.  I know that in our modern times prisoners who are captured are not put to death or reduced to slavery, and property has not generally been confiscated; but the right to confiscate property real or personal, for there is no distinction, is undoubted.  Look at the condition of things at Port Royal, where all the inhabitants have fled, and left the country desolate.  Is it to remain unoccupied, and a wilderness, or shall we treat it as the European nations did the places on this continent, when savages fled and left the territory unoccupied?  How does the conduct of the people at Port Royal differ from that of the Aborigines?  They leave everything to waste, abandoning the country and we may take possession of that country and apportion it out among the loyal citizens of the Union; and this act of confiscation by which we do this is not a bill of attainder.  Some have objected to the constitutional power to pass this bill, because they say it is a bill of attainder.  It is not a bill of attainder at all.  It does not corrupt the blood of a person; it operates upon his property.  The Supreme Court has expressly decided, in the case of Brown agt. The United States that Congress has authority to pass a confiscation bill.  And if Congress has the power to confiscate the property of an enemy, then an act of confiscation must be something different from a bill of attainder, for the constitution expressly declares that no bill of attainder shall be passed.  Again, Sir, if Congress declares the property of a rebel forfeited – declares his estate forfeited – I want to know who is to controvert that question?  If it is contended that, according to international law, Congress has no right to confiscate the real estate of a Rebel, who is to interpret international law?  There is no common tribunal to which all nations submit their questions.  International law is nothing more than a uniform usage of civilized nations, and each one at last interprets if for himself, running the hazard it is true, of bringing upon himself the condemnation of other nations.  I suppose if a nation should violate a well settled principle of international law, such as violating the rights of an embassador or of a passport it would bring upon itself the condemnation of other nations.  But to confiscate the property of your enemy is not a violation of the principles of international law.  Suppose Russia in these interminable wars going on between that country and Circassia, should take the land of the Circassians and apportion it out among the Nobles of Russia?  And if other nations would not interfere, who would interfere?  Can our courts give a different construction to international law from what a Sovereign Power gives it? – Certainly not?  The courts are bound by international law as the Nation establishes it. – They cannot overrule an act of Congress, because in their opinion it does not harmonize with international law.  They have no such power.  The Supreme Court said in this case of Johnson agt. McIntosh (5^th Curtis, 513), that conquest gives a title the Courts cannot deny.  That is settled by judicial decision.  It does not lie in the power of Congress to settle international law.  It only involves a question of policy and expediency, and that, I think is so manifest with regard to this bill that I need not to discuss it.

The second section of this bill forfeits the claim of any person to any person held in service or labor, if the person so claiming has in any manner engaged in this rebellion, and makes the person owing such service forever, afterward free.  I take it there can be no doubt of the power of Congress to pass this law. – Congress has the power to raise armies and it may draft soldiers.  It may take from my friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Davis) his hired man, whom he has hired at a stipulated price to work upon his farm for the next year.  Right in the middle of the contract, in the midst of his harvest, the Government of the United States may draft that man into its service. – What becomes of the contract?  Can you keep it?  Can the courts decide that you are entitled to the services of this man, and can the Court give them?  No.  Here comes the paramount authority of the United States and takes this man, if it is necessary to use him for the defense of the country.  It is a question of power, and power to do this cannot be questioned.  Des the master hold his slave by any stronger tenure?  You cannot draw a contract so strong by which one person shall give his time and services to another, that the paramount authority of the Government cannot abrogate that contract, and take from your control that person, and bring him into the service of the country.  This can be done also in reference to your own child.  By the laws of nearly every State in the Union, a parent has control of his child till the age of 21 years, but notwithstanding that, if the public necessity requires it, the Government may take your son at 18 years of age, or even younger, from under your control, and bring him into the army of the United States, and into the battle field, in defense of the honor and integrity of the nation.  And does the master hold his slave by any stronger tenure than this?  Why, the person and property and everything connected with your enemy may be taken and condemned and destroyed if it be necessary for the preservation of the country and not only your enemy, but you may take the property of your friends.  We are taxing the loyal men of this country now to the furthest limit in support of this war, and we may call upon them personally to serve in the army.  While we can do all this, can it be pretended that we cannot control the negroes and the men who fight against the Government?  I know this seems to have been the course pursued.  I know that while loyal men have been suffering in person and property, the property of the disloyalists has been untouched.  I know that while my people are to be taxed to support this war, we are not to touch the property of Rebels in arms against the Government.  But it is said that you cannot enforce the laws in these Southern States now.  True, we cannot till the armies advance, and when they do advance, let us take that property, and make it contribute toward the expenses of this war, and save the property of loyal men; and let the men, who have instigated the war pay the expense.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

From The Capital

(Correspondence of the Hawk-Eye.)

DES MOINES, Feb. 28.

MR. EDITOR:  Considerable interest is now felt in the various railroad questions before the Legislature and in the dearth of more exciting news a succinct statement of the posture of affairs and the matters of difference may be read with some degree of interest.

In 1846 Congress made a grant to aid in improving the navigation of the Desmoines [sic] river.  Subsequently a question arose whether that grant extended above the Raccoon Fork of the Desmoines river.  This question remained unsettled, sometimes being decided by the executive officers at Washington in one way, and sometimes another.  It was held by some to extend only to Raccoon Fork; by others the northern boundary of the State; and still by others to extend to the surveys of the Desmoines in Minnesota.

The question, however, was purely a judicial one, depending upon the construction of the act of Congress making the grant to the State.

In 1859 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the question in the case of the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company vs. Litchfield, against the claim to lands above the Raccoon Fork.  Pending the question, however, the State sold some of the lands claimed above the Raccoon Fork to occupying claimants and settlers, and subsequently conveyed all the interest of the State in such lands not before disposed of to the Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company.  This latter Company should have completed by last December 75 miles of road up the Des Moines Valley from Bentonsport, but has completed only 50 miles as required by law.  The Mississippi and Missouri River Company, it is understood, is also in default, not having quite completed the length of road required by the act granting the lands to that Company, by the first day of December last.  The Cedar Rapids and Missouri Railroad Company have completed the length of road required by the second section of the act.  But this Company was required by the State law granting the lands to it, to build a short line, commonly characterized as a “Plug,” from Lyons to Clinton – by the first day of January, 1861, and that they should not commence the construction of their road farther west than Marion in Linn county, and provided that the Governor should not certify any of the lands to go to the company until the Lyons and Marion “Plugs,” so called, should be constructed by the Company.  These “Plugs” have not yet been built, and the Company commenced their road at Cedar Rapids west of Marion.  The Dubuque and Pacific (now Dubuque and Sioux City) Company, are in default in not completing the length of road required by the law granting the lands to that Company.

The State having conveyed to actual settlers some of the lands claimed under the Des Moines River grant, which are now claimed by the Railroad Companies under the Railroad grants; it is deemed incumbent on the State to adjust these matters in such a manner as to protect the interests of the settlers.  In the same manner there is a conflict of claim between the Railroad Companies crossing the Des Moines River above the Raccoon Forks and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Companies; the latter claiming lands within the limits of the Railroad grants which remain undisposed of by the State to actual settlers.

The Governor in his annual message advised the legislature to relieve the State from embarrassment in regard to the settlers to whom the State had conveyed, by requiring the railroad companies to release their claims to the settlers, or refuse any lenity towards the companies.

The Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company asks the legislature to compel the delinquent railroad companies above the Raccoon Fork, to release their claims to the lands claimed by that company, and quiet their title.

To these propositions, the Railroad Companies interpose the following objections:  First, that no legislation will avail for the purpose contemplated in the Governor’s Message and in the memorial of the Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company, for the reason that it is a matter depending upon the construction of former laws, and not the enactment of new ones.  Second, that the State possesses such power over the land granted for the railroad purposes only as the act of Congress confers, and could not if the railroad companies were out of the question, do what is proposed, and as the companies derive their power from Congress through the State, they cannot give a title to the settlers or to the Navigation and Railroad Company, for the plain reason that the act of Congress expressly prohibits any disposition of the lands, but to aid in the construction of the respective roads for which they were especially granted.  It may be added that those Railroad Companies which have failed to comply with the conditions of their grants, ask for an extension of time, and the Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Company ask to be relieved from building the “Plugs” before referred to.

The above is a fair statement of the questions and issues on the important subject of railroads in Iowa, and much interest is elicited on account of conflicting local interests involved.

It is very desirable that the conflicting and embarrassing interests involved as above shown should be amicably and justly settled.  The State is bound to relieve the settlers on the one hand, and on the other to discharge its sacred trust in regard to the Railroad grant.  It is also to be hoped that the legislature will exercise an enlightened wisdom in treating the subjects presented, and especially, by all means, deal liberally with the Railroad Companies and encourage them in the investment of the capital necessary to build their roads, without which Central and Western Iowa can never be prosperous.  It is a plain duty of the legislature to protect these enormous investments, and offer every reasonable inducement to Capital to come into Iowa – for these questions do not merely affect the interests of the present inhabitants of the State, but unborn thousands will rise up on the vast and fertile plains, stretching between the two great American rivers, to bless the wisdom or deplore the folly of the present legislature of Iowa.

A further difficulty arises from the fact that most, if not all of the Railroad grants infringe upon the Swamp Lands granted to the Counties.  In some instances, we have a County, a Railroad Company, and the Des Moines Navigation and R. R. Company, all claiming the same tracts of land!  Thus you will see, Hawk-Eye, that Railroad and Land Grant issues are almost inconceivably mixed up.

DACOTAH.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

James Bass

Prominent among the citizens of Webster county who have witnessed the marvelous development of this section of the state in the last half century, and who have, by honest toil and industry succeeded in acquiring a competence, and are now able to spend the sunset of life in quiet and retirement, is the gentleman whose name introduces this sketch. For many years he was actively engaged in agricultural pursuits, but is now living a retired life in Dayton.

Mr. Bass was born in North Carolina April 27, 1832, a son of Edward and Mary (Saffley) Bass, who were of German descent. His paternal grandfather fought for American independence in the Revolutionary war, and participated in the battle of Bunker Hill. From North Carolina the family removed to Indiana when our subject was three years old, and in 1855 his parents came to Iowa, purchasing a farm of two hundred and forty acres of land in Boone county and later forty acres of timber land. The father, who was born January 17, 1789, died February 3, 1883, and the mother passed away July 15, 1886.

This worthy couple were the parents of the following named children: Jesse married Polly Landreth and both died in Boone county; Patsy became the wife of Fennel Landreth and both are now deceased; Hannah married Thomas Landreth and they spent their last days in Webster county; Matilda is the widow of Matt Cole and makes her home at Mineral Ridge; Betsy married David Spark, of Boone county, and both are now deceased; James is the next of the family; John married Maggie Getzman and lives in Ogden, Boone county; Sarah first married Jesse Maguire and second David Landreth and died at Missouri Valley Junction.; David married Maggie Conrad and they reside near Boone; and Rachel, deceased, was the wife of Cyrus Haller.

James Bass was reared and educated in Owen county, Indiana, pursuing his studies at a subscription school, the building being made of logs. He laid aside his books at the age of fourteen, and then assisted his father in the operation of the home farm until he attained his majority. In the fall of 1852 he came to Webster county, Iowa, and by working as a farm hand managed to secure enough capital to purchase eighty acres of government land, for which he paid from one dollar and a quarter to one dollar and a half per acre. This was situated seven miles northeast of Dayton and became his homestead.

In 1857 Mr. Bass was married in Boone county, Iowa, to Miss Cassie Halloway, who was also born in North Carolina, March 24, 1837, and died February 3, 1901. Her parents were natives of North Carolina, and there the mother died, but the father came to Boone county, Iowa, and made his home with our subject until his second marriage just before the Civil war. He died in February, 1881, and was buried in Beem cemetery, Webster county. By his first union he had six children, four sons and two daughters, but Elizabeth, wife of William Fry, of Yell township, Webster county, is the only one now living. Two sons were killed and another died while taking part in the Civil war.

Mr. Bass had nine children, namely: (l) Mary Jane is now the wife of Taylor Scott, of Gowrie and has seven children, Hubert, Nellie, Grace, Clifton. Cassie, Wilson and Leo. (2) Rachel A. is with her father. (3) Addie is the wife of Thomas Bragg, a farmer of Gowrie and their children are Alva and Mina. (4) Sherman, a resident of Dayton, married Julia Casebolt and has three children, Orville, Effie and Fay. (5) Grant married Cora Guthrie and has two children, Halsey and Sylva. (6) Miles, a farmer of Yell township, married Jennie Nelson and has two children, Raymond and Marie. (7) Mina and (8) Elsie are both at home with their father. (9) Ella is the wife of Dr. L. E. Estick of Rockwell City, and they have one child, Lewis Howard.

There was an Indian scare in this section of the state right after the Spirit Lake massacre and about three hundred men. including Mr. Bass, organized under the command of Johnson McFarland and Joe Thrift for the purpose of defending the settlers. They marched from Boonesboro to Hooks Point and on to Homer, and from the last named place were ordered to Webster City, where they spent three days and nights. The companies were then disbanded and the men returned to their homes.

In 1863 Mr. Bass volunteered to fight against the Indians under Captain Williams of Fort Dodge and went to Chain Lake on the boundary line between Iowa and Minnesota, where they established barracks, building stockades and several houses with port holes, through which they could fire on the red men and still be protected. At that time there were two other posts between Chain Lake and Spirit Lake, Captain Ingams being in command of one of these, and each day during the entire time spent there communication passed from one post to the other. At the end of six months the company marched back to Fort Dodge and was disbanded.

Mr. Bass joined the regular service in 1864, enlisting on the 18th of November, in Company K, Sixteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry, under Captain Stattman. Being too late to join General Sherman on the march to the sea, they were ordered to Nashville, and on arriving in that city were quartered on the seventh story of the Jolly Coffer House, where they spent the night and were given a very poor supper and breakfast. The next morning the company to which our subject belonged was detached from the regiment and its members assigned to different regiments, Mr. Bass becoming a member of the One Hundred and Thirty-second New York Infantry. As soon as he drew his gun he was placed on the picket line and bullets were flying thickly about him in less than two hours. He was detailed as guard at Fort Negley one day and night, and at Fort Lookout the following day and night. He saw a negro brigade make a charge on the rebels, and then shell the woods all one night. The soldiers were often compelled to wade in the swamps around Nashville where the water was almost neck deep, although the weather was bitter cold, it being between Christmas and New Years, and would make piles of rails and brush on which to stand in order to keep out of the water. When Hood was driven out of Nashville the Union troops went in pursuit, but their supplies were cut off by the rebels and for seven days had only two days' rations. On the night of the seventh day, Mr. Bass and his messmates secured three ears of corn when the mules were fed, and parched one-half of the amount for their supper, saving the remainder for breakfast next morning. The same evening our subject noticed one man eating a piece of raw backbone as he was marching along, so famished had the soldiers became. Mr. Bass and his comrade marched all that day with nothing to eat except the ear and a half of corn which they shared between them. Our subject participated in the battles of Kingston and Goldsboro, North Carolina, and at the latter place rejoined his old regiment under the command of General Sherman. With his command he next marched to Raleigh, where they remained two weeks before Johnston finally surrendered, and then took part in a two days' review at that place. They proceeded to Washington, D. C., by way of Richmond, and took part in the grand review in the capital city. With his command Mr. Bass then went to Louisville, Kentucky, where he remained until discharged from the service July 19, 1865. Fortunately he was never wounded, but during the battle of Louisa Fords a bullet split the rail he was carrying for breastworks between his hands and almost knocked him over. Besides the battles mentioned he took part in a number of minor engagements, and was always found at his post of duty, valiantly defending the old flag and the cause it represented.

After his return home Mr. Bass engaged in farming until March, 1896, when he laid aside active labor and removed to Dayton. In business affairs he has steadily prospered and is to-day the owner of eight hundred acres of valuable land in Webster county. He also owns the American House; half a business block north of the hotel; and other property in Dayton, including a nice residence on Main street, where he makes his home. He also has a business lot in Stratford, Hamilton county. Although now nearly seventy years of age he has never made a deed or given a mortgage, but is still the possessor of all the property which he has purchased. Starting out in life for himself with no capital his success is due entirely to his Own industry, perseverance and good management, and he well deserves the prosperity that has come to him. Fraternally Mr. Bass is an honored member of the Grand Army of the Republic, and politically is a staunch supporter of the Democratic party.

SOURCE: S. J. Clark Publishing Company, The Biographical Record Of Webster County, Iowa, p. 575-7

Joel Clark

Joel and Betsey (Hill) Clark, natives respectively of New York and New Hampshire.  Mr. and Mrs. Clark were married in New York and remained there until 1842, he meantime farming, also working in the timber and rafting lumber down the rivers. During 1842 they settled in Bureau county, Illinois, where they remained eleven or more years, in the meantime cultivating their farm. Coming still further west they settled in Webster township, Webster county, Iowa, in 1854, and here the mother died in June, 1859. Removing to Homer, Iowa, in 1865, Mr. Clark remained there for a time and then established his home in Burnside, Webster county, where he died in March, 1888. Two years after the death of his first wife he married Lovina Meade.

When the Civil war began the sympathies of Joel Clark were at once aroused in behalf of the Union. He was opposed to slavery and to the establishment of the Confederacy. On January 25, 1862, he enlisted in Company D, Sixteenth Iowa Infantry, and soon went to the front, but on account of illness was honorably discharged and returned home in 1863. Throughout all his active life he voted with the Republicans. About 1859 he served as deputy sheriff of Webster county and at different times he held all of the township offices. For years before his death he was a member of the Methodist Episcopal church, and in its faith he passed from earth in March, 1888. Since then his widow has removed to Nebraska.

To the marriage of Joel Clark and Betsey Hill seven children were born, namely: Mary Jane, Mrs. John Crumby, of Grundy county; Sarah, Mrs. Daniels; Euretta, wife of Harvey Brooks, of Boone county, Iowa; Eugenia, (twin sister of Euretta), who married T. McNealy and lives in Duncombe, Iowa; Hannah, Mrs. William Gardner, of Fayette county, this state; Trypossie, Mrs. Samuel Scoville, of Border Plains; and Eltha, wife of Emory Ford, a resident of Duncombe. By his marriage to Lovina Meade, Joel Clark had five children, namely: Willis, who died in Boone county, Iowa; Carrie, who died unmarried at Burnside, Iowa; Boyd, of Ames, this state; Effie, who died in childhood; and Cora, who married John Nuby and lives in Arkansas. The founder of the Clark family in America came from England, while through his maternal ancestors Joel Clark traced his lineage to Germany and also to Scotch-Irish stock. His father was a soldier in the Revolutionary war.

SOURCE: S. J. Clark Publishing Company, The Biographical Record Of Webster County, Iowa, p. 551, abstracted from the biographical sketch of his son-in-law, David M. Daniels.

James B. Ingalls

James B. Ingalls was born in Hancock county, Illinois, December 29, 1839, and was reared in Jefferson and Webster counties, Iowa. During the years of youth he worked on a farm in the summers and attended school in winter. At Border Plains, January 25, 1862, he enlisted in Company D, Sixteenth Iowa Infantry, which was mustered into the Union service in Davenport, and drilled at Benton Barracks, later being ordered south and taking part in the battles of Shiloh and Corinth, and the campaign in front of Vicksburg under General Grant. In 1863 he returned home on a furlough, and at the expiration of thirty days rejoined the army at Cairo, proceeding up the Tennessee river to Clifton, and then across the country to join General Sherman at Buzzard's Roost. On July 22, when Hood made the move against the left wing of Sherman's army, he and eighteen other soldiers were captured by the Confederates and taken to Andersonville, where he remained for sixty days, meantime suffering all the horrors that made the prison famous throughout the world. After his release he joined Sherman at Atlanta and accompanied him on the march to the sea, thence went to Washington and took part in the grand review. Next he was ordered to Parkersburg, Virginia, and there took a boat for Louisville, Kentucky, where he was mustered out of the service. He was honorably discharged at Davenport, Iowa, July 26, 1865. Returning home, he resumed work on the farm and also was employed for a time in railroading.

The marriage of Mr. Ingalls was solemnized at Border Plains, July 23, 1885, and united him with Mrs. China (Hendricks) Crawford, who was born in Marion county, Tennessee, November 5, 1845, a daughter of Mark and Mary (Standerfer) Hendricks, natives respectively of Indiana and Tennessee. Some years after their marriage Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks removed to Missouri, in 1855, and there both died, the father in 1862 and the mother in 1872. Their family consisted of ten children: Blackstone, deceased; Anderson, who was killed while in the service of his country during the Civil war; Caroline, Mrs. Jeremiah Prior, deceased; Jane, widow of Lafayette Prigmore, and a resident of Marion county, Tennessee; Phoenix, who died in California; Skelton, who died during the Civil war; Amanda, Mrs. Josiah Conn, who died in Hickory county, Missouri: Harrison, who married Susan Steinbaugh, and lives in Indian Territory; China, Mrs. Ingalls; and Fatten, deceased.

By her first marriage Mrs. Ingalls had four children. No children were born of her union to Mr. Ingalls, but they have adopted a daughter. Winnie May, who was born in Lehigh, Iowa, November 14, 1885. Mrs. Ingalls is connected with the Order of Rebekahs, and Mr. Ingalls is a member of the Odd Fellows, and also the Grand Army of the Republic. They attend the Church of Christ in Lehigh, and contribute to its maintenance. Politically he is a Republican, firm in his allegiance to the party, and interested in public affairs. His home property comprises forty acres on section 25, Washington township, and in addition he owns property in Lehigh.

SOURCE: S. J. Clark Publishing Company, The Biographical Record Of Webster County, Iowa, p. 415-6

Albert G. Corbin

Mrs. [Clarissa L. (Spring)] Dowd was married near Lehigh, Towa, January 21, 1858, to Albert G. Corbin, the ceremony being performed by Ellis Mercer, an old settler and justice of the peace. Mr. Corbin was born in Huntingdon county, Pennsylvania, January 27, 1831, and was a son of Benjamin and Margaret M. (Park) Corbin, who traveled life's journey together for almost seventy years. His father was born in Huntingdon county, Pennsylvania, February 19, 1807, and died in Story county, Iowa. January 27, 1900, while the mother was born in Hunterdon county, New Jersey. February 22, 1809, and died in June, 1899. They removed to Ohio in 1834, and on coming to Iowa in 1853, first located in Webster county, but in 1800 removed to Story county, where they ever afterward made their home. During the Civil war Albert G. Corbin enlisted in Company D. Sixteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and was seriously wounded in the battle of Shiloh, from the effects of which he died on the l0th of April, 1862, after having a limb amputated. He left two sons: Wilbert N., now a resident of Nevada, Iowa, married Ella McKee and their children arc Elaine, Clara, Lloyd, Mabel, Fay, Bertha, Lee, and Eva. William, the younger son, was killed on the railroad, December 19, 1882, at the age of twenty-two years.

SOURCE: S. J. Clark Publishing Company, The Biographical Record Of Webster County, Iowa, p. 247-8, abstracted from the biographical sketch of William V. Dowd.

Amaziah M. Shaeffer

Among the veterans of the Civil war residing in Boone county is Amaziah M. Shaeffer, who is also numbered among the early settlers of this section of the state. He has been active along many lines of life which have contributed to the public welfare as well as to individual success. For many years he held political office, and he has been equally active in church work so that his labors, have been far-reaching and beneficial. He has been a resident of Iowa since 1855, at which time he settled in Boonesboro, and he was born in White county, Indiana, near Delphi, January 26, 1843. His paternal grandfather, John Shaeffer, was a native of Germany, it is believed. However, in early life he lived in Pennsylvania and thence removed to Ohio. He served as a soldier in the Mexican war and died in White county, Indiana. His son, Peter Shaeffer, was born in Pennsylvania and when quite young was taken by his parents to Muskingum county, Ohio, where he lived to the age of eighteen years, and then removed to White county, Indiana. He wedded Nancy Merriman and in 1855 they left the Hoosier state for Iowa, settling in Boone county, where the father died at the age of fifty-seven years. He had long survived his wife, who passed away in this county at the age of thirty-three years. He married again, his second wife being Martha Price, who passed away in West, Iowa. Seven children were born to Peter Shaeffer, as follows: John R., who enlisted for service in the Civil war with the Forty-sixth Indiana Volunteer Infantry and was killed at the battle of Champion's Hill; Tillmann H., a resident of Hotchkiss, Colorado; Amaziah M.; Jasper, living in Oklahoma; Newton, whose home is in Marshalltown, Iowa; William, deceased; and George W., who makes his home in Fraser, this county.

Amaziah M. Shaeffer was reared to the age of twelve years in the place of his nativity and then became a resident of Iowa. He is indebted to the public school systems of Indiana and of this state for the educational privileges he enjoyed. On the 28th of February, 1862, he enlisted in Boonesboro as a Union soldier, becoming a private of Company K, Sixteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry, for three years, or during the war. On the 18th of March, 1864, he veteranized and was honorably discharged at Goldsboro, North Carolina, on the 28th of March, 1865. His first captain, Michael Zetter, was killed at Shiloh. His next captain was Jesse Lucas, Alexander Weingardner being first lieutenant, while Colonel Alexander Chambers commanded the regiment. Mr. Shaeffer participated in many of the most important battles of the war, including the engagement at Shiloh, the siege of Corinth, the battle of Iuka, the siege of Vicksburg, the Meridian raid, the battles of Kenesaw Mountain, Nicajack Creek, Chattahooche river, Atlanta, and the celebrated march to the sea under Sherman, Later he was on detached duty for a time in a hospital at Atlanta and afterward participated in the battles of Savannah, Pocataligo, Cambechee river, Orangeburg, North Edisto river, Fayetteville and Bentonville. He then proceeded to Goldsboro with his command and was there honorably discharged.

Following his return home Mr. Shaeffer recuperated and then took up active farm work, purchasing eighty acres of land in Hamilton county, Iowa, where he lived for two years. He then came to Boone county, settling in Dodge township, where he purchased two hundred and forty acres. There he carried on farming for sixteen years, after which he sold that property and invested in one hundred and sixty acres, upon which he lived for seven years. Later he disposed of that farm and bought eighty acres a mile east of Boone, which he improved. In 1906 he once more sold out and, retiring from active farm life, took up his residence in Boone, where he now makes his home. He has greatly improved all of these different properties and has thus added to the agricultural progress of the county. He now owns one hundred and sixty acres of land in Potter county, South Dakota. His life has been a busy, useful and active one, and his labors have brought to him a measure of success which now numbers him among the men of affluence in his section of the state.

Mr. Shaeffer was married in Boone county, December 31, 1865, to Miss Dorothy Getzman, of this county, a daughter of Barnhart and Mary Getzman. Six children were born to Mr. and Mrs. Shaeffer as follows: Leora M., who died in September, 1878, when twelve years of age; Lafayette M., who passed away in July, 1878, at the age of ten; Samuel R., whose death occurred in 1898 when he was twenty years of age; Maggie L., who married George Shafer and who departed this life in 1910; Elsie who became the wife of William Phipps of Idaho; and Russell G., who married Juanita Sifford and lives at New Hartford, Iowa.

Mr. Shaeffer belongs to C. W. Crooks Post, No. 329, G. A. R., of which he is the present commander, and through his association therewith he keeps in close touch with many of his old army comrades. He is also a member of the Methodist Episcopal church. High and honorable principles have guided him in all life's relations, molding his character and making him a man worthy the high regard and confidence of all with whom he has come in contact. While living in Dodge township he held office almost continuously, serving as road supervisor, as constable, justice of the peace and school director, and in all these positions he discharged his duties with promptness and fidelity. He has also been township trustee and as such managed well the interests committed to his care. He has been equally active in the church, serving as steward and as chairman of the building committee during the erection of the Bethel church, to which he was a generous contributor. He possesses an even disposition and kindly spirit and has been very popular among his fellow townsmen. He was considered one of the best farmers and stock-raisers in this section of the state and did much to promote agricultural activity and to raise the standards of farming. His life has indeed been one of far-reaching influence and benefit and has won for him a good name, which is rather to be chosen than great riches. Nevertheless he has gained a substantial measure of this world's goods, and his record proves that success and an honored name may be won simultaneously.

SOURCE: Nathan Edward Goldthwait, Editor, History of Boone County, Iowa, Volume 2, p. 372-6

David Bass

David Bass . . . at the time of the Civil war he felt that his duty to his country was paramount to all other interests and went to the front, serving for four years as a private in Company K, Sixteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry. He participated in a number of hotly contested engagements and on one occasion was wounded in the elbow. He died November 11, 1911, at the age of seventy-two years. The community regarded him as a representative citizen. In politics he was a stanch democrat, and his religious faith was that of the Baptist church. In early manhood he married Susan Harter, who was born in Baden, Germany, and when six years of age was brought to America. She was reared to womanhood in Ohio and then came to Boone county, where she married. At the age of seventy-one years she now lives on the old home place in Des Moines township and she is a member of the German Reformed church. Unto Mr. and Mrs. David Bass were born eight children, of whom two died in early life, while six are yet living, namely: Will M.; Mrs. Albert S. Beckett, of Des Moines township, whose husband follows farming; Mrs. Charles Ross, also of the same township; Mrs. Clark Ross, living in Estherville, Iowa; Samuel, who is single and resides on the old homestead; and Mrs. Charles Sturtz, of Des Moines township.

SOURCE: Nathan Edward Goldthwait, Editor, History of Boone County, Iowa, Volume 2, p. 635, abstracted from the biographical sketch of his son, Will M. Bass.

Jefferson D. Gildea

Jefferson D. Gildea, who deserves mention in this volume as one of the honored soldiers of the Civil war and a representative citizen of Boone county, now makes his home on section 27, Worth township, where he has resided for the past fifty years. Here he owns a valuable and well improved farm of one hundred and twenty acres and also has another tract of forty acres on section 22 of the same township, and forty in section 29, and he is successfully engaged in general farming and stock raising. He was born in Louisville, Kentucky, April 20, 1840, his parents being Thomas B. and Mary (Boyd) Gildea. His father was a native of England and was a young man when he emigrated to America. His paternal grandfather, Captain James Gildea, followed the sea and was commander of a vessel. He was born in Ireland and married an English lady, after which he made his home in England for some years. Coming to America, he secured a farm in Harrison county, Indiana, but he continued to follow the sea and was eventually captured by pirates and put to death. His widow afterward married John Zenor, and they located on the farm in Harrison county, Indiana, continuing to make their home there throughout the remainder of their lives.

James Gildea, a son by the first marriage, and the uncle of our subject, came to Boone county, Iowa, in the early '50s and secured the land in Worth township now occupied by Jefferson D. Gildea. The uncle remained here until his death, an honored and highly esteemed citizen of the community. Prior to coming to this state he had been engaged in the mercantile business in Bowling Green, Indiana, in partnership with Robert Wingate, who also came to Boone and at one time owned the site of the northwestern part of that city, it being still known as Wingate's addition.

Thomas B. Gildea, father of our subject, accompanied the family on their emigration to America and after living in Indiana for some years came to Boone county, Iowa, locating in section 22, Worth township, where he secured one hundred and twenty acres of land. He later bought eighty acres on section 29 and continued to make his home here until he passed away at the age of about seventy-three years. At the age of sixteen years he became connected with the boating business on the Ohio river and eventually became captain of a vessel which he owned. He continued to follow the river until his removal to Iowa, when he turned his attention to farming in Boone county. In Indiana he was a member of the United Brethren church, but here joined the Methodist Episcopal church. He was also identified with the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and served as trustee of Worth township for many years. His wife, who also held membership in the Methodist Episcopal church, was a native of Ohio and survived him for twelve years. They had five children, of whom three died in infancy, those now surviving being Jefferson D., of this review; and Susan, the wife of Jacob Hoffman, of Boone. The father was twice married, his first wife being Susan Lloyd, by whom he had one son, Thomas J., the father of John T. Gildea, whose sketch appears elsewhere in this volume.

Jefferson D. Gildea was in his fourteenth year when the family came to Boone county, Iowa. He attended the subscription schools during the winter months, while throughout the summer he aided in the work of the home farm until his marriage. He then built a house upon that farm, but eventually became the owner of the home of his uncle, as previously stated. He has followed farming with marked success and has devoted considerable attention to stock raising.

Mr. Gildea was married May 3, 1863, to Miss Sarah Doran, who died on the 20th of May, 1906, at the age of fifty-nine years. She was born in Ohio, but in the early '50s was brought to this county by her parents, George and Lydia Doran. She has three sisters living, namely: Mrs. George Millard and Mrs. William R. Dyer, of Boone; and Mrs. George Bennett, of Oregon. She also had a half brother, Andrew Doran, who now resides on the western coast. Of the eight children born to Mr. and Mrs. Gildea, seven are living, while Charles, died at the age of nineteen years. Teresa became the wife of Nathan Burlingame, formerly a railroad engineer who is now engaged in farming in Worth township, and they have one child, Merrill. Carrie is the wife of J. E. Hoffman, a farmer, and they have six children: Mabel, the wife of Charles Elliott of Boone; Clarence, operating our subject's farm; Mrs. Iva Yeager, of Colfax township; Iona and Ross, at home; and Mrs. Daisy Killion, of Worth township. Mary, the third daughter of our subject, is the wife of Tyler Hoffman of Luther, who carries on business as a liveryman and farmer. They have four children, Archie C., William C., Opal and Harold. Anna and Rosa are both at home. Charles was the next in order of birth. Ella is the wife of Philip Hoffman, a farmer living in Clear Lake, Iowa. John H. is engaged in farming on section 22, Worth township. He married Daisy Boone, daughter of Virgil Boone, and they have one son, Harry, aged nine years.

During the dark days of the Civil war Mr. Gildea felt that his country needed his services and in October, 1861, he enlisted in Company D, Sixteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry and was mustered in the following December. He served under General Sherman for nine months and was then discharged on account of disability and returned home. His discharge papers were lost, however, and owing to that fact he was afterward drafted (a most peculiar and unusual circumstance) and then became a member of Company D, Thirteenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry. At Goldsboro, North Carolina, he met his old regiment and went with them to Washington, D. C., where he participated in the grand review at the close of the war. He is today an honored member of the Grand Army of the Republic post at Madrid, Iowa. By his ballot he supports the men and measures of the republican party and he is an earnest member of the Methodist church, to which his wife also belonged.

SOURCE: Nathan Edward Goldthwait, Editor, History of Boone County, Iowa, Volume 2, p. 581-3

The True Cause

If a man commits a single robbery he is arrested and punished by imprisonment.  If he burns down a dwelling or takes a life he is hung.  The Southern rebels commit innumerable arsons and murders, and there are now in our midst those who advocate their full and free pardon.  Why is it?  They say these rebels are ignorant and deluded, and committed their atrocities under wrong impressions.  But the robber, the incendiary and the murderer may have been ignorant.  Yet he is punished.  The legal presumption is that all men understand the law.  The rebels know the consequence of their acts.  Their crimes have been ten-fold greater than those of the individuals who now fill our [penitentiaries].  The plea of ignorance cannot avail, and those who urge it in their behalf urge it simply as a cover to another and true reason – sympathy with the rebels and aversion to the rule which makes their acts treason.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

Do Not Burn The Cities

The Augusta (Ga.) Constitutionalist in remonstrating against the policy of burning the cities of the South as the Federal army advances, says:

A captured city, for instance, may serve only as a temporary convenience to an enemy, for the occupation of troops.  If it be a strategic point, he would hold it though its buildings were a heap of smouldering ruins.  His tents would be pitched among the rubbish, or on the outskirts.  No General would leave it because his troops did not have houses to live in.  Nor would he keep his army in the best built city, on account of its fine houses, if the plans of the campaign required them elsewhere, or if the position could not be held against a superior force moving to repossess it.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

A Breeze in the Confederate Congress

In the lower house of the Confederate Congress at Richmond, nearly the whole of the third and fourth days of the session were occupied by a fierce discussion upon a resolution offered by Foote of Tennessee, denouncing the Davis administration for its defensive war policy and demanding a change.  Mr. Boyce of South Carolina also proposed to raise a committee to investigate the conduct of the war, and both made severe attacks upon the Davis administration charging to its inefficiency the late reverses. – Mr. Tripp, of Georgia, also took the same side.  Mr. Jenkins of Virginia defended the Confederate Government, and both parties grew so warm that there was talk about holding Foote to “personal account” before they got through.  The various propositions and resolutions were finally referred to a special committee.  Mr. Foote said, among other sharp things:

“Beauregard was known to be in favor of an aggressive policy, and President Davis himself is said to have expressed surprise that our army did not advance and seize Louisville months ago.  It is said that we must not question the policy of the administration, but he (the speaker) had no respect for persons when the cause of his country was at stake, and he here arraigned a portion of the cabinet as negligent in their duties.  He was opposed to the discussion of the question of such vital public importance in secret session.  The people are yet masters, thank God, and it was just that their wishes should be taken into consideration.  Rome existed seven hundred years, yet never debated a war question in secret session, nor had England done so.  The practice of discussing all State questions with closed doors , was, he believed, peculiar to Mexico, however.  He was not afraid to do his duty here, so long as his conscience sustained him.

“He never would endorse the Secretary of War and Navy.  He intended to make one day developments that would astonish at least somebody; he had facts, startling facts, which he intended to bring to bear on the subject.  He had censured them and he would not take back a single word of what he had said.  They alone are responsible for the deplorable non-action of our forces.  The speaker then pointed out the advantages which, to his mind might have occurred to us, had a vigorous onward movement been adopted immediately after the battle of Manassas.  And of such a movement he was yet in favor; he desired that the Yankees shall be made to pay the whole expenses of this war, that the commercial magnates of New York, Boston and Philadelphia be made to unlock their strong boxes, and to indemnify the South for losses which they had imposed upon her.  He desired, above all things to drive the enemy beyond our borders.  All this he would have, and nothing less.”

Mr. Boyce, of South Carolina, was quite as severe as Foote.  He said;–

“It was his opinion that the policy to have been pursued at the outset was a very clear one.  He had thought that we should proceed with all possible energy.  We should have aimed at an offensive warfare.  All the slave States should be included.  In his opinion the war between the North and South might last a long time, and that hostilities might exist forever.  We cannot afford to give up one inch of our southern soil.  The North now exceeds us to the number of eighteen or twenty millions of white people. – We should have pursued, from the very first, more of an aggressive policy, which would have given a position to the Southern states; it would have encouraged our friends and discouraged our enemies, and such a policy had been indicated by our distinguished president, from Mississippi, when on his way to be inaugurated as president of the provisional government – that we should wage war on the enemy’s own ground.  Mr. L. P. Walker, the former Secretary of War, had said at an early day that the flag of the south should float shortly over the capitol at Washington.  He, the Speaker, had thought the expression unwise at that time. – We should have talked peace and acted war; used powerful terms, but prepared for active war.  Audacity! – audacity! – audacity! – is the key to success.  Make no show of fear; prosecute the war with great vigor.  Talk of risks, have not we risked a revolution? and shall we see it fall.  Shall it be said, in after days of us, the enlightened South, and be told by the genius of history, these men of the South dared to inaugurate a great revolution, but had not the courage to carry it out?  Shall this be said?  Never!  See what France did.  She not only removed a man from the army, but cut his head off.  She carried a guillotine in one hand for domestic traitors and a sword in the other for her enemies.  He did not want to see people beheaded, but he would adopt some measure just as decisive.  This was no revolution to be conducted with kid gloves; it was a desperate contest.  We should act with the spirit of the Prince of Orange.  When army after army was cut to pieces, he gave orders that the dykes should be cut and the sea let in, to lash its waves over the land, rather than the Spanish flag should wave over it in triumph.  This is the spirit in which we should act.  If the Secretary of War is incompetent, he must be removed.  The safety of our wives and daughters demand, our country demands, that these vandals of the North be beaten back; our country must live, no matter how many reputations perish.  In the Speaker’s opinion, the gentleman from Virginia could not have passed a severer sentence on the officers of the Executive when he said there had been ‘no plan of war.’”

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

The following letter was written by T. B. Bonar . . .

. . . 17^th Regiment Illinois Volunteers, to his father, mother, brother, and sisters at Oceola Clark [sic] County Iowa.

FORT DONELSON TENNESSEE,

February 20, 1862.

Dear father, mother, brother and sisters:  With pleasure I will write you a few lines to let you know that I am alive, but, I cannot say that I am well, although I am able to be up and around.

No wonder that I am not well, for I laid out three nights, with but one blanket to cover with, and two nights it rained and snowed.

We had the hardest fight that has been fought in this campaign, it commenced the 13^th and lasted until the 16^th, during which we were under their fire all the time.

On Sunday morning the glorious news came that the rebels had surrendered; and we all marched into the fort.  We got 10,000 prisoners and a lot of artillery, in fact all they had.

They have taken the prisoners to St. Louis.  It is not worth for me to write anything about that, for you will see it in the papers.

When we left the Cape we went to Fort Henry on the Tennessee river, 12 miles from here, and stayed there one night, and then came here.

Father, I cannot write much this time, but I thought I would write to you, so you would not think that I was dead.

I tell you it looked rather scaly to see those big shells coming at us, it makes a fellow feel kinder bashful that’s so.  I was in one of the hardest fights that we had.  It looked hard to see boys shot down.  We went within 40 yards of their breast-works.

I expect we will leave here before long but I cannot tell where we will go.

Direct via Cairo, not to any particular place.  Write soon, and I will do better next time.

I remain your affectionate Son,

T. B. BONAR,

17^th Regiment, Co. D. Ill. Volunteers

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

Gen. Lauman

A correspondent of the Philadelphia Press says:

In the telegraphic accounts of the capture of Fort Donelson, published in the Press of yesterday morning, it was stated that General Lauman’s brigade, of Gen. Smith’s division, was the first to enter the upper end of the fort. This Gen. Lauman is a native of York county, in this State; but for the last ten or twelve years has resided in Burlington, Iowa.  At the breaking out of this wicked rebellion, he raised a regiment of Iowa volunteers, and has been in service ever since.  He participated in the fight at Belmont, and was severely wounded on that occasion.  His mother, a brother and two sisters now reside in the town of York. – General Lauman is a man of undoubted courage and generous impulses, and we are glad to observe that he is not among the killed or wounded on this occasion.  Long may he live to defend our time-honored flag and enjoy the blessings which it dispenses!

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

It is said that during the winter . . .

. . . the infantry regiments on the Potomac have made great improvement in their bayonet drill, and some of them can defy a cavalry force, so dexterously do they thrust, parry, and guard with the musket and bayonet.  Cold steel will be freely used when the advance is made.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

Washington Correspondence

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 1862

FRIEND DUNHAM:  You may have noticed in the Senate proceedings yesterday, the introduction of a resolution by Senator Grimes inquiring of the Secretary of War whether any contract for the construction of a railroad under authority of the War Department had been made, etc.  The resolution refers to a matter of interest, and I will state some facts concerning it.  The road is to connect Danville, Kentucky, with Knoxville Tennessee, and will be 180 miles in length.  A contract for its construction has been made with a Mr. Stone, (Amasa I think his Christian name is,) of Cleveland, Ohio, formerly contractor on the Chicago & Milwaukee Railroad, which road I am informed he left with a somewhat suspected reputation.  He is said, and by many members of Congress believed, to have already forwarded twenty miles of iron in furtherance of his contract.  The road, it is admitted by those favorable to the project here from Kentucky, in private talk, (for the whole thing is substantially private yet,) cannot and is not to be done short of a year, when it is certainly to be hoped that it will not be needed for military purposes.  And yet, the question arises for what other purpose can the War Department undertake its construction?  Also is there authority under any existing law for the Department to undertake the construction of the road at all?  Again, the cost, $15,000,000, is calculated to provoke criticism, under present circumstances.  In connection with the affair, yesterday, in the House, Frank Blair reported from the Military Committee a bill to organize an engineer force to consist of a number not exceeding a stated amount, 100 I think, from each brigade, making in all a force of about 13,000 men.  Mr. Wilson (of Iowa) desired that it might be put over to Friday, for examination.  The purpose is to appoint a Brigadier of Engineers, who is to command this force.  In other words, the Brigadier will be a Superintendent of construction, and the 13,000 soldiers will build the road under his management.  Now, would you believe it?  This man Stone, the contractor, has been nominated to the Senate as a Brigadier.  But, an inkling of the affair getting out, the Senate refused his confirmation – or, at least, put the case over for inquiry, and I doubt now he will ultimately be rejected, even if the scheme, itself, after it gets an airing should go on.

You may also have noticed, in yesterday’s proceedings in the House, perhaps with some surprise, as things go, but doubtless with quite as much pleasure, that that body passed an act creating an additional article of war, forbidding officers in the service from returning fugitive slaves.  This was the first triumph, of any account in the House, of that popular sentiment to which such an act is agreeable.  The bill was reported, and passed, in response to the resolution some time ago introduced by our member, Mr. Wilson, and referred to committee with instructions.  To Mr. Wilson belongs the credit of inaugurating and designating the terms of the act.  It can easily pass the Senate, and doubtless will.  These facts are given to me on authority that I cannot doubt.

The Judiciary Committee is not happily constituted, as times are, I think; and so, I believe are the mass of the loyal men of the North convinced.  All the various confiscation bills presented in the House have been referred to that committee.  The matter has been fully considered by it, and the committee will soon report the bills to the House, with a recommendation that they do not pass.  However, Messrs. Bingham and Wilson make a minority report, recommending the passage of Mr. Bingham’s bill. – That bill is quite similar to the bill of Senator Trumbull, now under discussion in that body, with a probability of its passing during the week.

IOWA.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1

The public ear is again stunned with . . .

. . . the noise and clamor of the base northern politicians who went out of office one year ago with Mr. Buchanan, execrated in every loyal quarter as among the guilty authors of the civil war and rebellion.  They then were pleasant comforters who consoled us, as did Job’s friends.  They said States had no right to secede, but having seceded we had no right to COERCE them!  They exhorted our troops that the President had no right to call out the militia – that the militia could not be taken out of the State – that none but Back Republicans should enlist – that they had made the war and must fight it out.  And then they stood upon the street corners, when our brave boys marched towards Dixie – when the 1^st Iowa marched from Burlington – and openly proclaimed their ardent wish that every man who crossed the line might be killed!  They openly rejoiced over the murder of Ellsworth and the death of Lyon and felt exceedingly happy at Bull Run.

Time has taught these treacherous mercenary scoundrels caution, but has made then no better.  They are the same false, heartless brawling villains who have for years earned their bread by swearing black was white, virtue vice, truth falsehood.  Now they throw up their hats and utter a deal of stinking breath in huzzas over Federal victories and Rebel defeats.  They have quit sniveling over “our misguided Southern brethren.”  They tell us no more about the chivalry being unconquerable.  Their programme now is to blacken every man in the Cabinet, in Congress, in the field, whether Democrat or Republican, who is laboring effectively to put down the Rebellion.  They are howling “Abolitionist,” “Abolitionist” – the old cry – with the pertinacity of famished wolves.  They are looking for a restoration of the old pro-slavery rule of Davis, Mason, Hunter, Rhett and other worthies to their imperial sway at Washington.  They desire a reconstruction of the Union, the loyal States paying all the expenses of the war and restoring the broken scepter to King Cotton.  They are looking forward to a restoration of the “good time” when northern doughfaces shall again feed upon the bounty of Southern nigger drivers and the life of no man opposed to slaver and slavery extension be safe at the National Capital.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1