Washington Territorial Civil War Read-In
1
Washington Territorial Civil War Read-In
Frequently Asked Questions
Welcome! If you’re interested in this FAQ, you’re considering volunteering as a reader for the Read-In. I hope that you will read with us. The Washington Territorial Civil War Read-In is a project of the Washington State Historical Society to involve hundreds of citizens in documentation of the territorial experience of the late antebellum, wartime and early Reconstruction periods. This project is an opportunity to participate in conducting basic research, in doing history from scratch. For so long, Washington Territory’s Civil War experience was dismissed as marginal at best, beneath notice at worst. But over the last five years, as we have moved toward the Civil War’s sesquicentennial, we’ve learned enough about Washington Territory during the wartime period to know that there are great stories waiting to be discovered in the record. No one person could possibly read everything of interest, so we’ve invited hundreds of you to work together to frame the territorial experience of the Civil War. Among us, we will leave a lasting legacy to the future.
Interested? Please keep reading….
What was the Civil War in Washington Territory?
Between 2011 and 2015, Americans commemorate the sesquicentennial – the 150th anniversary - of the Civil War. Most Americans – including Washington residents – think of the Civil War as a war of battles. Since there were no battlefields in Washington, they reason, there was no experience of the Civil War here. However, a quick review of the primary sources for Washington Territory, from the Dred Scott decision in 1857 to five years into Reconstruction, 1871, shows deep difference of opinion about the issues that led to war. Wherever settlers came from, they brought the ideas of the Civil War with to Washington Territory – they brought the war as surely as they brought garden seeds and butter churns. Their ideas and convictions were captured in territorial words and deeds, and can be rediscovered.
Convictions about race and slavery, treason and secession, military preparedness, international relations and wartime suppression of civil liberties divided settlers in Washington Territory as they divided Americans in the Confederate States of America from those in the United States. Washington’s governor resigned to “go South,” and so did many officers of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy who had been stationed in Washington. Not every settler partial to the Confederacy or opposed to the Lincoln administration left the Territory. Those who stayed behind ranged across a spectrum from Peace Democrats to the secret, paramilitary society known as the Knights of the Golden Circle, extremists who drilled for the assassination of Lincoln’s political appointees and advocated the secession of the Pacific Republic. There was one celebrated fugitive slave case on Puget Sound, and at least one other African-American slave in the Territory. Settler attitudes toward race were enormously complicated in Washington Territory, where the racial hierarchy included Asians from the “Sandwich Islands,” Native and mixed world people, blacks from Africa, and African-Americans, slave and free. While some Republicans were abolitionists, few at any point on the political spectrum were advocates of black social, economic or political equality. In other words, one could oppose slavery but not favor free blacks. As far as we know at present, no anti-war, anti-Lincoln newspaper in Washington Territory was shut down by military authority; the northernmost newspaper to be closed was the Portland Advertiser in the new state of Oregon. Territorial residents had subscribed by mail to the Advertiser as well as a number of other Oregon antiwar newspapers; Republican appointees delivered the mail in Washington Territory and were partly responsible for the suppression of those newspapers, seen as treasonous. And, as far as we know right now, there were no territorial instances of the suspension of habeas corpus. The Crown Colony of Victoria was the destination for at least one fugitive slave from Washington Territory, fleeing to a substantial black community; however, Victoria was also the haven for pro-Confederate sympathizers and Confederate agents, seeking to purchase and equip a war steamer to harass coastwise shipping.
The Washington Civil War Read-In is intended to increase our understanding of these and other topics. Here are some of the questions to be explored:
What were the political attitudes in the territory prior to the war? How did settlers perceive the issues?
What issue-related or war-related evidence is there for the economic and political development of Washington Territory during the war?
What were the experiences of people of color in Washington Territory?
Washington Territory’s first governor, Isaac Ingalls Stevens, headed the national campaign in 1860 for John Breckenridge and Oregon’s Joseph Lane – the southern Democratic ticket. Territorial residents could not vote; did they have opinions about this campaign?
Who “went South?” Who “went North?” Who left the territory and headed back east, to fight on either side? Can we find evidence that soldiers and sailors corresponded with settlers in Washington territory?
What pro-Confederate activities can we document in Washington Territory during the war?
What was Washington Territory’s military history during the war?
What was the territorial effect of the Homestead Act? The arrival of the telegraph? The chartering of the Northern Pacific railroad?
What were the war-related activities of women in Washington Territory?
What evidence can we find for the Knights of the Golden Circle or other such extremist groups in the Territory? Did the Knights disappear, or morph into something else? (For instance, is there a link to the postwar Ku Klux Klan?)
What were the racial attitudes in Washington Territory? Did wartime events like the Emancipation Proclamation have any effect here?
What evidence can we find for or against secession of Washington, Oregon and California as the Pacific Republic?
What was the political history of the Territory during the war? Did the Republican appointees get along? How about the out-of-office Democrats?
What effects did the Civil War have on Native people in Washington Territory?
How did settlers respond to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
How did settlers regard the Crown Colonies and the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1857-1871?
Who were the early veterans who immigrated to Washington Territory after the war? Which army or navy had they served in? Where did they settle? What did they do for a living?
Can we find evidence that the Ku Klux Klan arrived postwar with Confederate veterans? Or by any means?
How did Washington Territory’s demography change after the war? So from census to census, 1860 to 1870?
Is there evidence in current or past place names to show areas of settlement by either Confederate or Union veterans in the Territory?
Were there any veterans’ groups or organizations in Washington Territory prior to 1871?
And many, many more questions, that we can’t anticipate because we don’t know what you will find.
What is this Read-In about, in a nutshell?
The Read-In is a statewide program of the Washington State Historical Society to recruit and train hundreds of readers throughout Washington State to carefully read newspapers, archival collections and Washington history classics to find evidence concerning Washington Territory’s experience of the Civil War. The Read-In will take place from January through August, 2013. The readers will build a database of citations and scanned documents, which will be hosted by the Washington State Historical Society.
How will readers be trained?
Every reader must attend a day-long training at one of the eight sites, listed below.
YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND A TRAINING – PLEASE DO NOT SIMPLY SHOW UP!
The training will include a presentation sketching what we currently know about the Civil War in Washington Territory, 1857-1871. Then, readers will work through three case studies – in a newspaper, an archival document and a classic of Washington history. They will practice the hard work of figuring out what evidence is in the selections, and how to record the required information in the digital format. Then, they will be trained in logging that data and uploading it to the Omeka holding queue, our online database. At the end of the training session, each reader will receive his or her assignment. The assignment is designed to be carefully read in a month of spare time, but the reader may take as long as two months to complete the reading and review. There will be plenty of time at the training for questions and discussion – the Read-In is a community, not just a project.
Here are the training dates, times, and locations – please note that the second Seattle training is on a Wednesday and the Walla Walla training is on a Sunday.
Saturday, February 9, 10-4 Seattle
National Archives and Records Administration, 6125 Sand Point Way, NE Seattle 98115
Wednesday, February 13, 10-4 Seattle
National Archives and Records Administration, 6125 Sand Point Way, NE Seattle 98115
Saturday, February 16, 10-4 Vancouver
Clark County Historical Museum, 1511 Main Street, Vancouver 98660
Saturday, February 23, 10-4 Olympia
Washington State Capital Museum, 211 SW 21st Avenue, Olympia 98501
Saturday, March 2, 10-4 Tacoma
Washington State History Museum, 1911 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma 98402
Sunday, March 10, 12-6 Walla Walla
Fort Walla Walla, 755 Myra Road, Walla Walla 99362
Saturday, March 23, Yakima
Yakima Valley Museum, 2105 Tieton Drive, Yakima 98902
Saturday, April 13, 10-4 Cheney
Washington State Archives – Eastern Regional Branch, 960 Washington Street, Cheney 99004
Saturday, April 20, 10-4 La Conner
Skagit County Historical Museum, 501 South 4th Street, La Conner 98257
Choose your training, and email us to let us know!
So that’s Darby Langdon
Lorraine McConaghy
What do readers do with the evidence that they find?
Readers will describe the evidence they’ve found and provide its citation and source on a digital record which will be uploaded to the “holding queue,” and then be reviewed by the project manager (Lorraine McConaghy) and coordinator (Darby Langdon). In the very, very few instances where readers cannot digitally record their information, they will write it out longhand and we will transcribe it for the database.
If the readers are able to, we will ask that they made a scan, smartphone photo, PDF or photocopy of the document where they found the evidence. They will then upload their scan or photo, or the PDF, or snail mail the photocopy. If they are not able to do any of these things, they should contact Lorraine or Darby and we will find someone to help.
If the reviewers have questions about the queued record, they will contact the reader for clarification. When the record is complete, it will be uploaded to an on-line Omeka database, developed by Tamara Myers, of Washington State Historical Society (WSHS).
What will the on-line database be like?
The purpose of the database is to provide researchers with a powerful and intuitive on-line searchable list of evidence and citations to specific documents. The debut edition of the Read-In database will include scans ofthe particularly interesting documents that readers have identified.
What will the form be like that readers will fill out?
The reader form will be digital and as simple as it can possibly be to accomplish a big job, and we will thoroughly review it with readers at their training. These completed forms will create references and resources for a future researcher who is interested in learning about the territorial Civil War experience. So the form asks the reader to briefly describe the evidence s/he has found and we will provide a thesaurus to follow in describing that evidence. This digital thesaurus will list frequently used names, subjects and localities. Researchers will be able to search fields for topic, personal name, time period and locality; they will also be able to search a notesand quotes field. We will review this form slowly and thoroughly in our training.
What if I find evidence that doesn’t fit into the standard format or isn’t in the thesaurus?
If you do, that’s absolutely great! If we knew everything that readers would find, the Read-In would be a pointless exercise. So if you read an article that concerns an individual, subject, locality or time period not in the thesaurus, you can stop and email the project manager and coordinator and ask for help. And help will be cheerfully given. Or you can decide to follow the template, and enter a new topic, name, locality or time period. So, for instance, you might find a newspaper article about vigilante night riders in the Palouse in 1867, and you might be unsure whether this is related to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a definitely an article worth noting, and you might have to develop and enter your own topic for “vigilante activities” and your own term for “Palouse.” Be assured that we will read every digital form you submit and get back to you with questions if we have them. Don’t worry about making mistakes.
What is worth adding to the subjects field?
This is the field that most researchers will search first, looking for keywords and key phrases like “slavery” and “Knights of the Golden Circle” or “Gholson, Richard Dickerson.” So this is an important place to identify and clarify what you’ve found, and it is a judgment call whether to stick with a subject from the thesaurus or to develop your own. Often, this will mean the choice between using the general subject in the thesaurus or developing a more specific one. When in doubt, be in touch with Darby or Lorraine, and we’ll figure it out together.
What about documenting general history of Washington Territory, not clearly related to the war?
We must depend on your good common sense, here. While it isn’t necessary to record everything, you may read an item of general history that seems significant to you because of its relation to the war. It is of clear significance if the trustees of the University of Washington were casually reported to be Copperheads in the Republican press. It is of clear significance if someone mentions receiving mail from a relative fighting on either side of the conflict, back east. But many other items are less clear – and we must take them case by case, and rely on your judgment. If the price of goods sold in the territory and manufactured back east skyrockets, that is certainly fair game because it is a consequence of the war that was experienced by territorial settlers. If territorial settlers believe that the British were using the opportunity of the war to encourage Native piracy on Puget Sound or Native attacks on the mainland, that is certainly fair game because it is characteristic of wartime international relations and the settler experience. But is impractical and unfair to ask you to note everything. Use common sense, and ask yourself this question: Is this evidence for the territorial experience leading to, during and as a result of the Civil War? And email us if you’re not sure.
Who is worth adding to the names field?
It is tempting to write that everyone is. In a newspaper article that lists delegates to a particular political convention, you may find two dozen names. No one can predict whether one of those individuals – serving as a Democratic delegate in 1860 – will be of interest to a researcher. So it seems sensible to me to key in those two dozen names, tedious as it might be. I am tempted to write that we’re not developing a genealogical resource but we are certainly developing a biographical one, and there really is no difference. When in doubt, stop and email us.
What is worth adding to the localities field?
Every place is. At present, we know most about the Civil War experience of places mentioned in the newspapers which, in general, means places near the town where those newspapers were published. That leaves out huge areas of the territory. So don’t hesitate to add to the localities field. When in doubt, stop and email us.
What is worth adding to the time period field?
We have provided models for six-month stretches of time in each year from 1857-1871 and also for specific dates and some smaller date spans. So just mimic them, as you need. Some correspondence, newspaper articles, autobiographies and classics in Pacific Northwest history may be quite specific and others quite vague in referring to time period, just mentioning “during the war” or “after the war.” “During the war” is less difficult, since it just means the longer datespan of 1861-1865 – not very helpful to a researcher but often the way events are remembered. “After the war” is far more difficult. The period we are studying ends in 1871, but your source may mean well into the 1880s or beyond. We think in that case, that “after the war” is the only reasonable time period and have included it, “during the war,” and “before the war” in the thesaurus. If, of course, the writer is more specific, you will be able to be more specific, too. When in doubt, stop and email us.