The most influential single person to the young men of Talbot County in 1861 would undoubtedly have been General Tench Tilghman, the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Division of the Maryland militia comprised of men from Talbot, Caroline and Queen Anne’s Counties. Let’s take a look at who this man was, what he did in Talbot County and the influences he imparted.
General Tilghman was the grandson of a famous patriot, Lieutenant Colonel Tench Tilghman, the trusted Aid-de-Camp and personal friend of George Washington. Though he did not know his grandfather he was raised and greatly influenced by the Lieutenant Colonel’s widow on Plimhimmon outside Oxford. After receiving a liberal education from Dickinson College, General Tilghman went to West Point where he received his commission in the US Army. During his time of active duty he served and became personal friends with General Winfield Scott who became the army’s senior military officer at the commencement of the Civil War. After active duty Tilghman returned to Plimhimmon and continued military service by participating in the local militia eventually rising to the rank of its Commanding Officer. General Tilghman was a visionary and believed in societal advancement through public works of modernization and education – towards which he contributed greatly. General Tilghman was responsible for bringing the railroad to Talbot county along with the establishment of the military academy in Oxford, the first in Maryland. He was also attributed for the establishment of the Trinity Church in Oxford.
General Tilghman however was mainly recognized for his substantial contributions to the advancement of agriculture throughout Maryland and surrounding States. Tilghman realized that agriculture based on slave labor was not viable. Tilghman believed that the future of agriculture laid with mechanical mechanization and towards which he contributed many advancements.
Tilghman was the first person in the State of Maryland to own a mechanical reaping machine and he continually tested and reported on new implements to improve agriculture productivity. He imported numerous agriculture inventions to Maryland and conducted demonstrations of new harvesters both at Plimhimmon and throughout the Eastern Shore. He was on the Board of the Maryland Agriculture Society and eventually became President of the United States Agriculture Society. He was one of the most highly regarded and influential citizens of Talbot county.
As the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Division of Maryland’s militia, along with his close ties to General Winfield Scott, General Tilghman was kept updated on the current military events happening within Maryland. In April 1861 General Tilghman issued an order for his militia to prepare for action. In this order he stated that Maryland was being occupied by Federal forces against her will, that private citizens have been slaughtered in Baltimore and the Federal government was waging war against Maryland’s institutions of government. General Tilghman ordered his men to prepare for deployment to protect the citizens of Maryland from Federal forces.
After issuing his order, General Tilghman was arrested, and the guns and munitions of his militia confiscated. However, his message had been sent and it rapidly spread throughout Talbot and the surrounding counties. The words from such a highly revered and respected Talbot County citizen with direct lineage to our Founding Fathers carried enormous weight.
In a previous article, I discussed how Frederick Douglas reminded all that abolition was not Lincoln’s objective until the third year of the conflict. I discussed in greater detail the Constitutional and civil abuses Marylanders suffered during that war. These abuses included the arrest of Maryland’s General Assembly, Baltimore’s Mayor, city council, and police chief. That the first and second amendments were suspended, the press censored, and militia and civilian guns confiscated. That Habeas Corpus was suspended, allowing Federal Troops to imprison anyone without trial and how troops came in the middle of the night to whisk away suspected political dissenters.
I wrote how Marylander’s were not allowed to vote unless they first took an oath to the current administration and then only under the supervision of Federal troops. I stated how our Talbot County Judge was pistol whipped, dragged from his bench and imprisoned for attempting to enforce the Constitutional protections of our citizens. I also stated how Marylanders were brutalized by theft, murders and rape.
Finally, I stated how President Lincoln, in April 1861, ordered General Winfield Scott to deploy artillery around Maryland’s cities and authorized the bombardment of our citizens if his commander saw fit – an act that would have killed countless men, women and children.
These men of Talbot County are now accused of fighting to protect slavery, racism and white supremacy. History does not support this. History does support that these men were fighting against the government that was oppressing their homeland. Maryland’s history during the Civil War is separate and unique from all other States, both Union and confederate, and Talbot county plays a unique and important facet of that history. This history should be cherished not changed.
Paul Callahan
Oxford
Carol Voyles says
Thank you for reminding us how complex these issues can become. Tilghman made great strides for Maryland, but his reality was that our federal government was waging war against the Confederacy. And Maryland, a slave-holding border state, and our Eastern Shore in particular, harbored sympathies for the Confederacy.
Abolition may not have been a stated Union objective at the beginning; but Confederacy’s constitution stated their position clearly, and they attacked first.
Maryland’s constitution would be amended in 1864.
Paul callahan says
The US constitution protected slavery until its amendment in December of 1865 after the war was over. However my letter was not about the confederacy – it’s about Maryland’s history. You are correct that the Maryland Constitution also protected slavery when General Tilghman issued his order to prepare his militia to protect Maryland’s citizens.
I’ll stick with the General’s account of things – he was there.
Charles Zvirman says
Perhaps I missed it in your earlier posts, but would you please share your sources?
James Deerin says
General Tench Tilghman along with the so-called “Talbot Boys” were traitors to the United States and fought to sustain a system that used enslaved peoples to sustain an agricultural economy. It is entirely wrong to allow a statue to stand on public property that honors these men. The Confederate battle flag draped across the shoulders of the “Talbot Boy” says it all. Take the statue down.
paul callahan says
Please re-read the letter that states what the General thought about the future of agriculture. Then please note his stated reasons why he was activating his militia.
Some would argue that a President that orders artillery around a civilian population and gives his commander authorization to kill civilians would be a traitor against the US Constitution. Likewise, citizens that resist such Constitutional abuses would be protected by the same.
Pamela R Getson says
So many ways to view the same “history”….but there is only one proper way to continue onward to only HONOR specific parts of it. Note: I did not say erase any, I said ‘honor’ only honorable parts.
To me this means remember and teach precise specifics…..if you prefer, the most likable about mechanizing agrarian life and the access to railroads, this Tench being president of the M&D for a time. But please do NOT propose by that history that it is a reason to also honor treason. And though I enjoy your wonderfully written accounts, it seems there is continued conflation of happenings of the mid-1860s with reasons for statue erection in 1914-16 to HONOR and preserve, treason… and as Mr. Foster claimed of the women dashing to erect that Talbot Boys statue 50 years after the war: it was to honor their Lost Way of Life. (StarDem, Viewpoints, 2004)
Why not move the Talbot Boys statuary to the Oxford cemetery where General Tench Tilghman is buried if there is desire to continue its standing somewhere accessible to local descendants of those who served under his command?
I see a HUGE difference between the honorable Lt. Col. Tilghman of the Revolutionary War and dishonorable General Tilghman of the Civil War. The latter who ended up destitute when slaves no longer could be commanded to support his agrarian, or any other, ventures, and the railroad failing his intent to open larger markets, as well. Of course this could happen to anyone of the time and his status, and at least he tried more novel improvements.
But it seems he had earlier incited his poor eastern shore Confederate contingent to, among other things, race to Baltimore to prevent peaceable 6th regiment Massachusetts troops from merely transferring on foot to Camden Yard rail station to continue on to DC, troops federalized to travel to protect the capitol. In fact as I wrote you earlier, that regiment from Massachusetts had specific documented orders not to fight or provoke the “Southern mob” that was anticipated to be waiting their arrival. The fact that the 6th reg. was indeed viciously attacked, BEFORE any 6th regiment soldier fired a shot and the riots ensued, meant it was even more clear that insurrection was widespread (after S. Carolina seceded only the prior week, following the first Confederate attack of the war which occurred at Ft Sumter ), so of course this caused the later widespread Federal orders. Yes, severe and overbearing and probably completely illegal, even for the times. But I suppose exactly the things that would have occurred or been ordered if sides were reversed.
And there seemed many reasons for the shenanigans played with Constitutions and amendments; I agree. On both sides. In fact, living to the age of 91, another ancestor, General Oswald Tilghman, managed to have a hand in that too—there were four amended versions until finally Maryland actually supported their constitution in 1867.
But one fact check please on the voting you say was being forced upon eastern shore residents….unless I misunderstood what you were writing about…(It has always been hard for me to carefully ascribe and separate amendments to constitutions which apply to the US, and others as those of States. Initially so too, it was the same when I tried to keep track of all of the various ‘military’ Tilghmans.) My understanding: the Constitution of 1864 in question failed support by only a very small margin of about 2,000 when tallying locally voting eastern shore people (approximately 29K vs 27K) , but then the votes of Maryland troops who fought for the Union were added, and a clear overall support was tallied. Was it right to add them? It would seem so; they were also citizen-voters of the time. “”By design, the constitution disenfranchised those Marylanders who had left the state to fight for or live in the Confederacy or who had given it “any aid, comfort, countenance, or support.” It also made it difficult for them to regain the full rights of citizenship and required office-holders to take a new oath of allegiance to support the state and union and to repudiate the rebellion.”” IMO again, why not ask this allegiance?…not of mere citizenry, but of office holders? Much was still in play, but the war was supposed to be over….
The fact that we still needed the 14th amendment to the US constitution in 1868 as a Reconstruction Amendment, should be adequately telling. Especially as it became one of our most important in so many matters still lingering for redress or attention in the 20th century!
Yes, it was ALL a shame for our country. Every bit of it actually. The enormous, barbaric bloodshed, the ill-will among even some of today’s citizens more than 150 years since that war ended, but also that none of the protracted wrangling over “reasons and details” addresses what was done to our state’s slaves and the length of time to even give thought to where their lives fit among the other warfare going on around them…they remained almost an afterthought…if not otherwise soon used as accounting towards apportionment of early state Assembly seats.
No one likes to be on the ‘losing side’ of anything, neither then nor now. But we could try to peaceably end at least this small part of honored continuance of the shame. Just move the statue and preserve it and the family names of its era as a properly placed headstone, not on public property and nowhere near a court of law.
Paul callahan says
You allude that Tilghman financially lost in agriculture and in the railroad. Please state your references or is that your opinion? Secondly I can not find a single confederate leader found guilty of treason.. not a single one. But you repeatedly allude to traitors. You must have a reference on this also… please provide who was found guilty of treason or again is that your personal opinion? Finally you allude to have great knowledge on the Constitution and its amendments…. Please provide the reference in the Constitution where the President has the authority to bombard his citizens with artillery… I must have missed that one.
I have taken great pains to ensure my writings are factual and unbiased so others can make informed decisions. If you read it again you will note I have taken no position on wether the statue should remain on the courthouse – that is because my mind is open to that subject. Yet you “assume” I do which is a form of bias, either conscious or unconscious, which never the less makes you prejudice. However you mislead with pompous verbiage of authority presenting your opinions as facts. I would advise you to take to heart and learn from Mr. Douglass “truth is proper and beautiful at all time and in all places”. I and our readers look forward to your answers to these important questions.
Pamela R Getson says
My apologies for writing what you have considered “pompous”, and which was also poorly referenced. Good points. I abhor both issues in what others write, or choose to support as history presenting only one-sided POV. But with one exception as below, I used published material references and will try to improve herein by providing some of them as you request. Mr. Douglass’ words ring ever true.
The best recent summary for why you can find no de facto adjudication of Confederates for their treasonous activity can be found in: https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/07/11/were-confederate-soldiers-tried-for-treason/. When General Milley made his recent statements about this issue as related to renaming US forts and bases, I simply became intrigued to know more. This one reference is easiest to cite here, although there is so much more written on the topic(s): As with other aspects of the war and its aftermath–it is complex. There was much to learn of the various procedures and how they related to any party’s constitutional rights. I think it is fairly presented here by Dunlap and my summaries.
As to the feeling and furor of the time remaining and related to the sudden placement of statuary of the diminished South, please see Crenson (2017) Baltimore: A political history, and/or Valelly (2004) The Two Reconstructions.
As to the reference to General Tench’s postwar issues I recall, but less well, that it was either in commentary of his daughter Rosalie and her then connection to OC or an old Maryland historical magazine clipping in the museum there. But it was not my opinion. Afterall, General Tench was otherwise described as quite interesting and of course, as gallant in battle. Your article was very supportive of his efforts.
Unlike you, I do indicate my support for relocating the statue because of the undeniable feelings of the era in the early 1900s when it was erected and how it is still a memento to THOSE times and unwarranted for continuing or causing ill will or disruption in our region… still, again or now.
Specifically, I refer readers to the full interval of dates of these onerous amendment attempts. The Digges Amendment seems most bold and obvious. It was proposed as an amendment to the Maryland Constitution in 1910 to curtail the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and disenfranchise black voters in the state with the use of a property requirement. It was an initiative by Democratic Party members in the state. After a brief period of Republican control in Maryland from 1896 to 1900, “Democrats regained control of the government on a white supremacist platform, responding to the rise of African American Republican politicians in the ranks of municipal and state politics. There were three separate attempts to amend the Maryland Constitution so as to disenfranchise the black votes: the Poe Amendment of 1905, the Strauss Amendment of 1908-1909 and the Digges Amendment of 1910-1911. All three of the proposals were subsequently defeated by voter referendums” op. cit. Valelly)
As I mentioned earlier, Maryland only has a veto referendum procedure so these were voter vetoes. I do not know why this is not the history to provide to simply support replacing the statuary on private, not courthouse grounds, where it can be specifically admired by descendants to provide honor to those under General Tench’s command. Hearing more of who fought for whom and why during that war, seems less relevant today than what happened afterwards to perpetuate the worst goals.
I’ll stop adding new commentary which could appear to refute what you have written (without that intent, nor does it), though I have indeed refuted that of others (with intent). I remain historically intrigued even more daily and of course had no such deep instruction of the era in school. When time allows I simply read more, and am midway through several of James MacPherson’s writings and highly recommend them to others: eg. For Cause and Comrades: Why men fought in the Civil War.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct omissions and commissions of my prior response to you. Peace.
Lynn Mielke says
Ms. Gerson, in your diatribe, you misstate the Foster article I had brought to your attention. Glad you took the time to find it and read it. However you are plain wrong when you say that in his article he claims that women were “dashing to erect that Talbot Boys statue 50 years after the war: it was to honor their lost way of life”. (StarDem, Viewpoints, 2004)”. He states no such thing in his article; and there are not facts to support such an allegation. Many of your other contentions are not supported by any facts or sources for those facts. To borrow a phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Paul Callahan says
Mrs. Getson, I apologize to you for using the word “pompous” that was not appropriate. I appreciate anyone providing input on this important topic. I hope there can be a way to remove the confederacy from these men and let them stand on the merits of Maryland history – not the confederacy’s
Pamela R Getson says
Ms. Mielke- it is hardly a diatribe to state the actual facts, and especially with a bit of emphasis when seeing only partial ones of Foster’s reference you provided earlier. It certainly piqued my curiosity for returning to the full source, because your selected portions initially made me think it was a different article. I stand by all that I indicated was paraphrased in more vernacular terms, and I am further surprised you would choose Mr. Foster’s piece (excellent as I find it) to make your case for reasons the statuary should remain or that there is a big plot or wholly current political aspect to the topic, and even that somehow the interest is only new and woke-aligned. (I find that term so funny—woke–I missed noticing when it first became so popular).
Here again Foster’s full newspaper page for readers https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=3568735
I easily could infer a rush by the women soliciting funds via Foster’s stating that “it was not at all surprising, then, that monument fever was rife. The Union had struck first (and only years later) the South discovered the auto transported (!)-Foster’s emphasis showing dismay and surprise?) Delegation for recommission, and fired the next volley”. ” funds were being solicited and it was confidently predicted the statue would be up and dedicated in a year. Matters appeared to be settled in July when the County commission quickly (and quietly) approved the site and a foundation was laid almost overnight.” Fast even by today’s standards. The Lost Cause attribution, capitalized by Foster as Their Way of Life, is as below*
Foster’s entire account seemed rather tongue-in-cheek, and then at times quite descriptively pejorative of the people and politics of that early period in 1900 which includes the statue’s creation and placement. It stunned me; I had to read it over at least twice to be sure I was not misunderstanding, but he was your reference, not mine. .
Phrases like: “return please to our beloved community in the year 1913”
mentioning “Sambo in de Booth” regarding how the southern democrats of the time tried to frighten the populace to regard the threat of allowing African-Americans a ballot.
” pulling back the curtain a bit farther on Talbot life we find a totally segregated society…”
” the first proud contribution” to the statue derived from a parish that “preached Biblical justifications for slavery”
” cool heads were in short supply especially that year with Griffith’s stirring paen to the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy ‘The Birth of a Nation’ was filling music halls and rallying the unconstructed.”
and this one was really amazing for its disdain of the women:
” The Confederate Memorial bears, after all, some of the oldest most revered names in Talbot County‘s history and to force their descendants (from a tea at the Historical Society) to look across the lawn at a memorial to the Union troops who had destroyed Their Way of Life*, including many black soldiers who had once been counted among their families assets seemed impossible to swallow”
“….. by the 20s segregation had become even uglier on the Eastern shore.”… “Clan politics and Jim Crowe social attitudes were in high cry and never again was a Union statue seriously considered for the courthouse lawn.”
Foster, in the article, saying rather than just a statue to Douglass, he’d rather see annual Douglass events honestly looking at Talbot’s slave history and says “part of the celebration I suggest might take place in front of the Talbot boys memorial with a reading by alternately, local African-American students and the county council members, of the names of the local slaves who had the heroism to flee their masters and fight in that war by whatever name your family’s tradition prefers to call it” Hmmmm. One of our elected State representatives suddenly seems to suggest something similar.
Foster opined at the end that Douglass would have been insulted and perhaps nauseated to be anywhere nearby.
Well, as I said….I remain dumbfounded…
Paul Gilmore says
The early paragraphs herein that related to General Tilghman were very interesting. Thanks for the perspective of that time in our history.
The monument to the Confederacy that sits on our courthouse lawn was erected not immediately after the war but 50 years later. It’s purpose had nothing to do with the historical events noted above. It was clearly intended to deliver a message to the local black population. While it has a historical purpose it does not belong on government property. Who wants to change history? Who has suggested any such thing? All that needs to be done is to move it to an appropriate place. No change in history, just a change of location.
Lynn Mielke says
Huzzah Paul!
Indeed, history does not support that the Talbot Boys fought for slavery, racism and white supremacy. Of course one must read the history, local as well as that of renowned prize winning historians like Bruce Catton, Daniel Boorstin (those I studied as an American Studies major at Washington College), Joseph Ellis, and James McPherson, to learn that.
For instance you reference the pistol whipping of Judge Carmichael by federal agents, a violation of constitutional separation of powers. The impact of that event alone is reported by our local historian Dickson Preston in “Talbot County: A History” as follows: “[e]ven the staunchest Union supporters were revolted by the spectacle of a judge, no matter how misguided, being beaten and arrested in his own court. The Judge Carmichael affair has been called the most important single nonmilitary event of the war in Maryland; and it certainly was the most dramatic event in turning Talbot public opinion against the Union.” Indeed both of Talbot County’s newspapers, the pro south Star and the republican Gazette, were critical of the action.
The current movement to remove confederate statutes is in large part driven by a notion that they are representations of myth, not fact. The Talbot Boy statue is unique because it is based upon fact as you so eloquently note, real soldiers, Talbot County citizens, who were “fighting against the government that was oppressing their homeland [Talbot County]”.
I agree our local civil war history should be cherished not changed. Nor should it be torn down and erased. We have better and more important tasks to devote time, energy, and money to in order to achieve racial justice than obsessing over removing statues and erasing our history.
Pamela R Getson says
Ms. Mielke–You send a cheer to Mr.Callahan as if there is some competitive warfare. This is more nonsense. Not with you and not with him, albeit you have both been personally insulting vs only objecting to content or lack of reference. My last response to his latest selected piece of history (re:Gen. Tench) was written too quickly and did indeed leave out annotated resources. He was right. Mr. Callahan asked for some or any and was clearly perturbed they were not initially provided. I’m certain he does work hard to choose and accurately relay his historical accounts of the regional Confederate actions. I did not want to argue with him over his opinion that I was prejudiced about his essay choices, so I simply provided the fully supporting references to statements I had made. You will note a few are even the same preferred historians you mention from your studies at Washington College.
I am ashamed to read what Mr. Pack apparently heard from some senior Black residents when queried about the statue in 2017 …that the general sentiment was that “by and large I don’t think about the statue, it doesn’t really move me in that way, when I go to the courthouse I go in there and take care of my business and I leave out I DONT LOOK UP AND I DONT LOOK OVER …” Really? No one on Council at that time pointed out that these very words were chilling and extremely familiar of the slave’s required comportment around any white citizen or institution? Perhaps Messrs Pack and Lesher have now.
I am still waiting to hear what the strong supporters for the courthouse location are in such fear and fury they will lose by respectful relocation of the statue to a true, properly commemorative, private site. Maybe I will soon hear more “alternative facts”. I agree that we should cherish history–teach and remember it accurately–but relegate questionable statuary that only impedes social mending to a more appropriate location.
Pamela R Getson says
Thanks, Paul. I appreciate your writing today (or was it yesterday? Moderated communication is tough. Hats off to our editors) Your comment about separating the history portions … of at least the men who fought for their various reasons…is a fascinating one. Would that it was easy to do, because it’s a commendable POV.
When one thinks even more about it, some of these men may have been later chagrined if they had lived to see that statue to their service not as a headstone placed honorably near their commander, and even to witness the earlier social issues still roiling or worse, 50 years hence. Today it might be they averting their eyes from those of Mr. Douglass staring at them nearby.
Then this morning…the news of so many other troubling aspects in our nation today… and loss of other strong leaders. Onward for all of us trying to help to understand each other in our County and country… some issues definitely loom larger than others, but none should linger wholly unaddressed.
Please keep writing. There aren’t many individual “voices” in the Maryland Room , and it’s clear we’d benefit from even more of those of our present day. Best regards. -PRG
Dominic "Mickey" Terrone says
Sorry, Paul, I believe Tench Tilghman, in coopetration with Judge Carmichael committed very serious crimes in 1861, along with some community leaders in the county. While the state legialature was voting to keep Maryland in the Union, Tilghman and other leading secessionists were declaring effective martial law in the county against the wishes of the majority of citizens. Tilghman was commanding officer of the Maryland State militia organization in Talbot County and thus had a responsibility of loyalty to this state.
Yet he was declaring Talbot County effectively would support the Confederacy. He and the other secessionist leaders declared that Maryland’s destiny was with the South. This is after decisively losing a county-wide vote in January by 847-666 against secession. Per Dickson Preston, “A Committee of Dafety composed chiefly of the County’s leading secessionists was set up, and the county commissioners were requested to levy a special tax of $20,000 for its expenses. The Committee of Safety “took it upon themselves to govern the county even to the utmost minutia of conduct.” Citizens were commanded to stay at home; stores were ordered to be closed; all expressions opposing the Confederacy were suppressed; and blacks were placed under rigid surveillance.
So while I recognize Tilghman’s accomplishments, his acts on behalf of the Confederacy are at the very least dishonorable because he didn’t first resign his commission in the state militia. While the majority of his fellow citizens in Talbot County had every right to demand his encarceration you seem to forget or cover up for this overt act of tyranny in our county. That his name is on the Talbot Boys monument after not spending so much as a day in the confederate army makes one wonder about other well-placed families and the possible desertion status of some of the men.
And certainly, there can be no claim as there was noted 4 years ago from a County Council member that the Talbot Boys all died for the confederate cause. The vast majority returned.
With respect to you comments about Lincoln and Carmichael, I have serious doubts about the specific order you mention regarding Baltimore and ask again that you share it; and Judge Carmichael was giving legal cover to secessionism, impeding justice in allowing the Committee of Safety to declare and maintain martial law. Your comments are the essence of how Lost Cause myths have overtaken the facts in Talbot County’s civil war collective memory.
Tilghman was among the county’s most staunch slavery advocates. His urging of young men to join the confederate army very likely had everything to do with protecting slavery (for people like him) and for them to fight against their state. This conversation is pecisely about singling out secessionist leaders would could/would not abide by the state of Maryland or Talbot County and its majority of Unionists. Their memories are not to be condemned , but they are not to be glorified on the grounds of our County Court House.
That you would single out Gen. Tilghman and just happen to miss or neglect to acknowledge this heinous, unamerican acts, all the while condemning President Lincoln is troubling. This is not minutia. This is about understanding reality from myth and knowing history rather than believing myths and falsehoods.
Talbot County’s leaders of a century ago were outright white supremacists, as was most of Maryland society. Talbot County’s leaders today have a responsibility to correct the acts of that society while acknowledging to the families of those fought for the Confederacy that while their ancestors may well have been fighting in an army to protect the permanence of slavery and against their state, that the monument will be treated as an artifact of our county’s history. The symbolism of that flag, however, requires that it not rest on the grounds of the county courthouse as an honored symbol of equal justice for all in the 21st Century in the USA, the state of Maryland or Talbot County. It has a place in the immediate area where some of the men are buried or in a museum.
Paul callahan says
Mickey, I am just absolutely astounded. It is obvious by your writings that you never heard of Tench Tilghman before I mentioned him and you still don’t. Yet you act like an expert and espouse diatribes as if you were an expert. Tilghman was not an advocate for slavery, he had nothing to do with the confederacy, nor did he stand up his militia to support the confederacy. It’s sooo darn obvious that you have never read his order to his militia. Yet you make accusations on a history you know little of. This is just a long list of your editorial misstatements in various contributions to the Spy while pretending to be an expert.
Let me point out a few: You stated that you didn’t believe Lincoln would have arrested our General Assembly – OMG! that history is in every book written about Maryland during the civil war – You stated you had no knowledge about Lincoln Authorizing Scott to Bombard Maryland’s cities (Lincoln to Scott 25 April 1861) and didn’t think it was true, WOW! That is also where Lincoln authorized Scott to suspend Habeas Corpus. My god Mickey you can google and download Lincoln’s handwritten copy on your cell phone! You have no knowledge of Judge Carmichael, our Talbot county judge and dismissed his pistol whipping and being dragged bloodily from his bench by stating he must have been a traitor and shouldn’t have resisted, REALLY! He was attempting to uphold the US Constitution. You called him a traitor? That is a HUGE piece of Talbot county history and you know nothing of it. You called a US Supreme Court justice a traitor and the evidence you provided was Hogan removed his statue.
OK now… You deny the Maryland vote was suppressed or our first, second and fourth amendments rights suspended. Did you not know the editor of the Easton Star was jailed for over 2 years! He spent time in Fort McHenry and a couple other forts all without a trial. You state that that you didn’t think troops came in the middle of the night to arrest citizens. You wrote that you believe that our men from Talbot County fought so people of color would not exceed them in the social hierarchy. Do you really believe that bunk? You wrote above that the leaders of Talbot County were outright white supremacists as was most of Maryland society. Is that what you folks from New York think of Southerners? My god Mickey please read a book on Maryland’s history during the civil war so I don’t have to keep pointing out how little you actually know of it.
Dominic "Mickey" Terrone says
Paul, Lincoln’s order was to retaliate if attacked by secessionist forces in Baltimore. What is so unusual about that? Lincoln was in a defensive posture in late April, 1861. He didn’t order firing without provocation into the city. That was a standard practice.
But regardless of the order, the purported context of which I am dubious, the Confederate Talbot Boys statue is a reflection of the 1915 Talbot County Commissioners’ white supremacist attitudes. If you read Preston’s history, he wrote (on Page 280) “By this time, it was widely believed in the county that Talbot had been solidly Confederate in its sympathies during the so-called “War Between the States”, and was held in check only by the “despot’s heel” imposed by federal troops. This myth was fostered by the former slave holding families who were still Talbot’s social leaders in the early 1900’s.” Do you understand this? It was a myth that Talbot was a confederate stronghold. It was BS then, and it still is.
I hope you will agree with me that the current county council has an historic responsibility to differentiate our current society from that of a century ago. At that time, Jim Crow Law ruled over a rabid, white supremacist society, the symbol of which remains the confederate battle flag. Without making any personal judgments about the 85 men, the clear choice is to move the statue and pedestal away from the county courthouse grounds. We are now well into the 21st Century but that statue drags the county back into a dark age that America, Maryland and hopefully, the Eastern Shore have progressed beyond.
Regardless of any order issued by Lincoln, today, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racist hatred and white supremacy that has been recognized as such throughout the country. Statues of individual Confederate generals are coming down in former Confederate states. Maryland, which was never a Confederate state, still has a bronze representation of the Confederate battle flag standing on the Talbot County Courthouse grounds glorifying the Confederate cause.
Talbot County was Unionist-dominated but for the wealthy minority trying to control society through the local militia. The wealthy minority wasn’t trying to protect the community from the federal government. They were trying to promote slavery and the Confederacy. The wealthy minority were not loyal Marylanders or loyal Americans.
Paul, maybe its you that have the blind bias. Maybe your defensiveness about Lincoln to obfuscates your ability to acknowledge the essence of the Confederacy’s very establishment – slavery. You merely need to read those states’ articles of secession. Its virtually all about slavery. The reason why Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky remained in the Union was because they believed slavery was safer within the US Constitution and because political leaders knew that the borders slave states would be come the battleground of a civil war. Give Maryland’s leadership credit for grasping that. The noisy minority that would neither abide by Maryland’s decision to remain in the Union nor join the Confederate army sought to undermine this state’s determination to support the Union. Call it disloyalty or call it treason but it is disingenuous to suggest overt dissent that endangers the lives of loyal soldiers and citizens can be tolerated in society as local men are killed and wounded. In fact, the presence of Union troops in Baltimore likely saved the lives of many secessionists who may well have been mobbed or murdered. Most locals knew who were the Unionists and the secessionists. In a city that had a well-earned reputation for mob violence, Baltimore could easily have turned into a civilian blood bath. It was certainly an imperfect process, but it was successful overall.
In fact, many opposition newspapers were printed throughout the civil war, people spoke out against the Lincoln Administration and Habeas Corpus was suspended only with 20 miles of the B&O RR tracks to protect transportation.
The only true instsnce of martial law was declared and perpetrated by Talbot County secessionists with Tilghman as a key leader in this illegal effort. It was perfectly reasonable to arrest him for a time. Just read Dickson Preston and stop denying reality. Talbiot was never a secesskionist stronghold and for that reason alone, gthe confederate flag doesn’t belong on our courthouse ground.
Julie Heikes says
Here’s a little more history pertaining to Gen. Tench Tilghman.
Talbot County had 3,725 slaves in 1860. (U.S. 8th Census, 1860, Population, p. 211-213.) The 1860 U.S. Federal Census Slave Schedules, an inventory of slaves (each represented by a number, no names) lists pages and pages of slaves here in Talbot County a year before the Civil War started, offering only their ages, genders, whether they were fugitives (runaway) and their owner’s name. In Easton township, page 25, line 21, there are 25 slaves listed under the ownership of Tench Tilghman, the general discussed in recent letters here. Also in Easton township, pages 11 to 16 list 412 slaves owned by Edward Lloyd of Wye House. Readers of Frederick Douglass will remember Douglass’s grim experiences as a slave there.
Maryland Historical Society shows a broadside, or poster, for a Talbot runaway slave dated May 4, 1861, after the Civil War started. It reads in part: “RUNAWAY $150 REWARD! RANAWAY from the subscriber near Oxford, Talbot Co., Md, on May 4th, a likely young negro man, named PHILIP ADAMS, about 22 . . . I will pay the above reward if he is caught out of the State; $100 if caught out of the county, and $50 if caught in the county. In all cases to be secured in some convenient jail, so that I can get him. TENCH TILGHMAN, near Oxford, Md.” https://www.mdhs.org/digitalimage/broadside-runaway-slave-phillip-adams
To be clear, I offer no opinion, argument or judgment. I write to share information.
Paul callahan says
Julie, My letter on Tilghman did not suggest he did not use slave labor but that he did not believe slave labor was the future of agriculture, and that he was at the for front of mechanization replacing human labor. The fact you revealed that Wye plantation had 416 Slaves where Plimhimmon had 25 certainly underscores this point. Still ugly but better than 400+. Slavery ended in the Northern states due to mechanization and it took time and was not an instant process. Mr. Tilghman was the lead contributor to that process in Maryland’s agriculture. Some want to re-brand all our fore fathers who owned slaves. This creates a huge dilemma about our Nations founding fathers. The solution is found in the words of Frederick Douglass that it is proper to honor these men due to their contributions in creating a society that eventual leads to freedom of all. I believe General Tilman falls into this category for his contributions in drastically reducing the need for human labor in agriculture.