It has been called the most written about war in history and the most discussed event in America. The Civil War was a momentous occasion in the development of the nation that defined the future direction of many aspects of American life. Like Mandelbrot’s intricate fractal designs, the singular event of the war was comprised of many locations, battles, human figures, and events that each had its own story and repeating sub-themes. Together, they constituted the mosaic of the great conflict between the States. And thus it has been the inspiration for such an extensive body of historical works, novels, poems, songs, and stories.
Camp William Penn was one of those contributing elements in the mosaic of the conflict. It existed for only a relatively brief moment in time, June 1863 to May 1865. Largely forgotten today, often just a footnote in discussions of emancipation and the quest for racial equality in the mid-nineteenth century, the establishment of Camp William Penn nonetheless dramatized the many elements of the great social issues of the day. Studying it presents a window into mid-nineteenth century life itself: but even more importantly, it displays a microcosm of the disputes that afflicted society and resulted in the murderous chasm not only between two sets of states, but between two sets of citizens of the republic. Its success was also one step - a surprisingly influential one - in the resolution of those divisions.
The present work will examine the Camp William Penn phenomenon from the perspective of a “documentary narrative.” It will follow the events that led to the creation and ultimate operation of the camp in the words of the people who lived with the Camp at that time. This book assembles selected but key newspaper articles, speeches, circulars, rarely seen letters, and government orders that together tell the story of Camp William Penn. By doing so, the modern reader will be able to experience the particular flavor of the language and modes of expression of the day, the arguments on both sides of the issue, as well as see the details unfold in the same manner as residents of the time. Be forewarned, some of the language is offensive and brutish to modern ears and sensibilities, yet those aspects formed a common mode of discourse and thinking about the issues of the moment.
It is also possible to detect for oneself the often frustrating blinders that impeded and influenced the thinking of persons of that era. Many of them were leaders, and good and well-intentioned persons who nonetheless were trapped in a mode of thinking that prevented complete dedication to the remedy for the racial ills of society. One of the benefits of studying history such as this is to reflect on the possibility that we are inadvertently and unknowingly subject to our own set of modern blinders in the way we perceive the world.
Citizens of the day generally learned about the war from two sources: newspapers and, to a lesser extent, conversations, verbal or written with friends and acquaintances. One hundred years after the Civil War, The Washington Post publisher Philip Graham called journalism “the first rough draft of history.” Like railroads, which were the high-tech phenomenon of the day, newspapers were on the brink of a new modern era when the war broke out. Most were still printed on a low-volume hand operated press, producing a large sheet, folded in half, which allowed for four pages of “news.” The news was usually “letters” from “correspondents.” Customarily signed only with initials; authors’ names did not become common until General Joseph Hooker, frustrated and desperate for some measure of control over war reports, ordered correspondents to sign their full names to dispatches, thus inventing the “by-line.” Innovations abounded during the war that greatly improved the journalistic enterprise. These included full-time reporters, steam powered presses that increased the output of newspapers, and use of the telegraph to transmit information. We are fortunate in this study that the Philadelphia Inquirer, a major source of information, was considered a creditable newspaper, though unabashedly Republican in view, and it was printed on a double size sheet, allowing for eight pages of news.
The multitude of newspapers and the private ownership of those vehicles also provide an occasion for reflection on the power of the press and the partisan political and philosophical viewpoint often expressed by various newspapers. Our Society has apparently developed a new standard and expectation of objectivity for the press in this day of more limited newspaper activity - (or have we?) But in 1860, each newspaper was expected to offer a partisan viewpoint. In that year, 80% of the newspapers published in the United States were considered “political in their character.” A good example is the petulance and apparent glee of The daily age, a Democratic Newspaper, in reporting the Ridley shooting incident of August 1863, as proof of the dangers of allowing black men to serve as soldiers. The newspaper did not hesitate to invent “facts,” or at least twist them, in order to justify their point of view: blacks could not and should not be soldiers.
If the reality of history is that Camp William Penn is largely forgotten, this book is a testament to the proposition that it ought not to be.