Ohio and the Civil War In Manuscripts

John Weatherford served for three years as manuscripts librarian of the Ohio Historical Society and on July 1, 1957, became assistant to the director of libraries at Miami University. Ohio and the Civil War In Manuscripts JOHN WEATHERFORD t? begin wrra a caveat: there are many reasons for staying away from Civü War manuscripts. The pubUshed materials seem prodigious enough to keep anyone so busy that he need not go looking for unprinted trouble. Looking for letters and diaries concerning Ohio and the Civü War is a task easüy begun but never finished. No one knows how many of them stiU lie in the trunks of descendants of veterans who long since have moved from Ohio westward. StiU other letters and diaries are hidden in the safes of private collectors. Even those in Ubraries are an unknown quantity, since local societies and even smaU public libraries sometimes hoard manuscripts. Add to these the soldiers' diaries left buried in the South like the men who wrote them, and it is easy to see that we shall never have a complete list. Moreover, those manuscripts which do come to light are sometimes iUegible, often iUiterate, and frequently uninfonnative. Not the least difficulty in their use arises from the fact that often the curators who have to care for them are jacks of all centuries and masters of no decade, and but green recruits to the Civü War. However, many of the unpublished manuscripts are well-worth an examination. In general these appeal to two distinct types of Civü War students: those interested in Ohio's part in the war and those interested in the War in Ohio. They had best be discussed separately. OHIO IN THE WAR Ohio probably did more in the war than the war did in Ohio. Only New York and Pennsylvania put more men into the conflict Only New York lost more. Sherman, Rosecrans, Buell, McPherson, Schenck, McDoweU , Grant, Sheridan—all these and more are claimed by Ohio by birth 307 308JOHN WEATHERFORU or adoption. Take away the Ohioans good and bad and the Union command is thinned as if by grape. But these great generals wiU not play a large part in this survey, for several reasons. First, a just consideration of them would take too much of our space. Second, there is such a general famüiarity with them that any superficial observations would be common knowledge. Third, it does not seem to matter much whether they came from Ohio or not. States, like people, ought to eschew name-dropping. It may be useful, however, just to mention the location of some of these papers. Those of Grant, Sherman, and McPherson are in the Library of Congress, along with those of McCleUan, whom more ardent Ohioans also claim. Schenck's papers are understood to be in private hands. Not aU commanders, of course, were so exalted that their names were on every tongue. The papers of James A. Garfield (Library of Congress ) and of Rutherford B. Hayes (Hayes Library at Fremont, Ohio) are on the brigade level, as it were for our purposes. A few other examples from the Ohio Historical Society in Columbus wül show what is to be hoped for among manuscripts of this kind. James S. Robinson has left about 200 letters with clear and detaüed accounts of his experiences at ChanceUorsviUe , Gettysburg, Atlanta, and Savannah. James M. Comly, a friend of Hayes and commander of the 23d Ohio Infantry, has left highly readable dispatches and memoirs of Hunter's Raid on Lynchburg and of the Battle of Winchester, as weU as a detaüed history of his regiment during the previous two years. T. C. H. Smith, an Ohioan on Pope's staff, has a great deal to say about the Second Battie of Bull Run. Those interested probably recaU that this was a weU-documented battle, due largely to the protracted and famous controversy between Pope and Fitz-John Porter over ascribing blame for the debacle. Smith coUected voluminous notes on Pope's behaU (including his own experiences) and wrote a history of the battle—a book designed to demonstrate Porter's dereliction. Both notes and book are...