The Charleston Riot - March 28, 1864
The Charleston Riot has already been memorialized and commemorated in various ways. What I intend to do, however, is to look specifically at the ways in which the Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry Regiment has been remembered and commemorated in regards to the Charleston Riot either as a whole or individual members. This study was conducted by examining how the riot was remembered by actual members of the Fifty-fourth through letters, telegrams, and official reports; later textual histories of Coles County; grave markers of men who were either killed or wounded in the riot; through reenactments which first took place in 1967; and through static exhibits. I hope to give as comprehensive a look as possible on how the Fifty-fourth’s role in the Charleston Riot has been remembered.
The Charleston Riot was of course, not an isolated and totally unexpected incident. Similar disruptions had occurred in other areas of central Illinois as well. On March 2, 1864, the Governor of Illinois, Richard Yates, sent a telegram to Secretary of War E.M. Stanton requesting that soldiers be sent to the town of Paris to keep the peace. He wrote, “Insurrection in Edgar County, IL Union men on one side, copperheads on the other. They have had two battles; several killed. Please order Lieutenant-Colonel Oakes…to send two companies of the Invalid Corps to Paris, IL, to put down the disturbance and keep the peace.” A disturbance between soldiers and copperheads also occurred in Mattoon; however, there was no loss of life.
The event now known as the Charleston Riot occurred on March 28, 1864. Much of the particular details of what happened have been disputed by different parties with differing motives. There are several things, however, that can be said about it with certainty. Obviously we know the date it took place, we also know the names of the men who were either killed or wounded during the skirmish. The nine men killed include: Major Shuball York, Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry; Privates Oliver Sallee and James Goodrich, Company C, and John Neer and Alfred Swin, Company G, Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry; Private William G. Hart, Sixty-second Illinois Infantry; John Jenkins, citizen (loyal); Nelson Wells, citizen (copperhead); John Cooper, citizen (copperhead). The wounded include: Colonel G.M. Mitchell, Fifty-fourth Illinois; Privates William H. Decker, Company G, Landford Noyes, Company I, and George Ross, Company C, Fifty-fourth Illinois; citizens Thomas Jeffers, William Giolman, Young E. Winkler, Robert Winkler, John W. Herndon, and George J. Collins. Colonel Mitchell prepared this list as part of a report he sent to Lieutenant Colonel James Oakes on April 8, 1864, as such, it one of the earliest remembrances of the riot. Newspapers published wide ranging accounts of the riot almost immediately. These appeared prior to Colonel Mitchell’s report. One of these accounts comes from the Charleston Plain Dealer printed on March 31, 1864. The article characterizes the riot in the following way:
"Early in the morning, squads of Copperheads came in to town, from various directions…armed and determined upon summary vengeance upon our soldiers. Some of the soldiers…were somewhat excited by liquor, and consequently rather boisterous, but not belligerent – more disposed for fun than fight. About four o’clock, a soldier Oliver Sallee, stepped up to Nelson Wells…and placing his hand good-naturedly against him, playfully asked him if there were any Copperheads in town. Wells replied, “Yes, God damn you, I am one!” and drawing his revolver shot at Sallee, but missed him. In an instant Sallee was shot from another direction, and fell, but raising himself up, he fired at Wells, the ball taking effect in his vitals."
This account clearly portrayed the Copperheads as the instigators of the conflict, meanwhile the soldiers were merely guilty of lighthearted, albeit drunken behavior.
Another source which reflected this blatantly negative view of the Copperheads was a reward poster published by the men of the Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry Regiment themselves. The poster was printed in local newspapers on April 2, 1864. The headline reads simply “Murder!” The poster includes a list of eight men who were wanted for their participation in the attack. The Fifty-fourth was offering a reward of one-thousand dollars for the apprehension of those men, “all of whom were engaged in the murder of Major York and four soldiers of the Fifty-fourth Regiment, and the wounding of several others.” Citizens of Coles County also offered to pay three-hundred dollars on top of the one-thousand dollars for the capture of Sheriff J.H. O’Hair and one-hundred dollars for any of the other seven men. The reward was to be honored whether the fugitives were dead or alive. It seems apparent that the men of the Fifty-fourth remembered the event as a massacre, an unwarranted and unprovoked attack on them by “murderers.” They did not want to feel in anyway responsible for their comrades’ deaths. The men of the Fifty-fourth, even the ones who did not participate in the riot, “remembered” it in this way as a result of the constructive and interactive nature of memory, as David Thelen so captivatingly puts it.
The commanding officer of the Fifty-fourth, Colonel G.M. Mitchell, wrote an account of the events of March 28, 1864 which differs from the Charleston Plain Dealer article in several ways. His report was sent to the Assistant Provost-Marshal-General’s office on April 18, 1864. Mitchell begins by stating that due to the expiration of the furlough, he was in Charleston “as many of the men lived at, or would pass through…on their way to camp.” Prior to the departure of the afternoon train at three o’clock, however:
"Nelson Wells, a so-called captain of a company organized some seven miles north of Charleston…commenced firing at Private Oliver Sallee, Company C, Fifty-fourth Illinois, so far as I can learn without the slightest provocation, lodging a ball in Sallee’s breast which has since caused his death. Sallee fell, but partially rising shot Wells dead."
This memory of events clearly differs from the one found in the Charleston Plain Dealer from March 31, 1864 discussed earlier. First of all, Mitchell makes no mention of the soldiers being drunk and even states that Wells was not provoked in any way before he shot Oliver Sallee. On the other hand, the newspaper article claims that Sallee playfully put his hand on Wells and escalated the situation. Mitchell also claims that it was Nelson Wells himself who shot Sallee, as opposed to the article which states Sallee was shot from another direction after Wells missed the initial shot. There is a further discrepancy about what time the occurrence actually happened. The Charleston Plain Dealer contends that it started around four o’clock; meanwhile Mitchell states that it was “before the afternoon train left for Mattoon about 3 p.m.” Colonel Mitchell continues his account, stating that there were roughly seventy-five Copperheads involved in the shooting against only sixteen soldiers, who were mostly unarmed and unsuspecting. Indeed, Mitchell was himself very nearly killed as well. He later states:
"Major Shuball York surgeon of the Fifty-fourth Illinois, was shot from behind as he was leaving the court room, expiring almost instantly. The attack could not have lasted over a minute, during which one hundred shots must have been fired, nearly all of my men being either killed or wounded. The fact that my men…were instantly shot down, and the systematic manner in which the sheriff rallied and drew off his party…leaves no room to doubt that a party of men came to Charleston armed with revolvers and shotguns with the knowledge and consent of Sheriff O’Hair, with deliberate intention of killing the soldiers."
According to Mitchell, the Charleston Riot was an organized, and coordinated attack on his men, it was essentially a massacre. Colonel Mitchell’s recollection of John Cooper’s death also differs from the other accounts. Mitchell states that as soon as reinforcements from Mattoon made it to Charleston, John Cooper “who had been in town all day intoxicated, wearing a pistol in sight and swearing he came to kill soldiers was accosted by a patrol, but turning to run was immediately shot down, citizens and soldiers firing without orders.” Other accounts state he was killed several days later after he was captured. Colonel Mitchell recounted virtually the same story of the riot in a letter to Joseph H. Barrett, Commissioner of Pensions, on February 26, 1865.
Another description of the riot can to be found in a later text from 1879 entitled The History of Coles County, Illinois. It was compiled by W.H. Perrin, A.A. Graham, and D.M. Blair. This book offers only vague descriptions of the actual details of the riot. Strangely enough, the authors conclude,
"Doubtless both parties, the citizens and the soldiers, were more or less to blame for the collisions which took place between them, and in like manner responsible for the melancholy result. The feelings engendered by the war…have long since toned down, and the participators in the deplorable affair doubtless regret the part they acted in it."
This account of the riot is especially peculiar in that it mentions no names or sequence of events. It also differs greatly from Col. Mitchell’s account in that it claims both sides were equally to blame for the skirmish; meanwhile Mitchell claims the soldiers were attacked without provocation. This account appears to almost excuse the actions of the Copperheads. Furthermore, how can the authors be sure that the men who participated in the killing of the soldiers regretted their actions? It seems unlikely that this assertion was true. Colonel Mitchell certainly never forgave the Copperheads and wanted them to be punished to the extent that the law would allow. In a February 7, 1871 letter to Congressman J.H. Moore, Mitchell requests the affidavits that were taken after the riot to use in the trials of several Copperheads. He was angry because the “O’Hairs and their gang of murderers propose to give themselves up to our present sheriff who is a full democrat.” He believed that they would be found innocent because of a Democratic sheriff and a sympathetic jury. The Copperheads clearly still held resentments too, as is shown in letters written by Colonel Mitchell to General James Oakes regarding lawsuits brought against him. Mitchell was being sued for stealing an Enfield rifle from one of the Copperheads on the day of the riot. Mitchell feared that if this suit was successful then others would be forthcoming. Luckily for him, thanks to help from General Oakes, the suit was dropped and no others were brought against him. Clearly, these men still felt a great deal of animosity towards one another. The History of Coles County, Illinois even manages to get the date of the riot wrong, claiming it occurred on March 29 instead of March 28, 1864. Another strange fact about this history is that it includes a brief biography of Colonel Mitchell; however, in this biography it makes no mention of his or the Fifty-fourth’s involvement in the riot. The writers did their best to gloss over any real details of the Charleston Riot.
Yet another History of Coles County, Illinois, by C.E. Wilson, included a much more detailed version of events. This text first appeared in 1905. The author, C.E. Wilson, also claimed to have witnessed the riot as a boy. One thing that sets this account of the riot apart from others is that it is the first to mention the practice of the soldiers halting men in the streets and asking them about their loyalty. If they were a Copperhead the soldiers would “take them before a Justice of Peace and have them take the oath of allegiance to the Government.” Of course, this was very humiliating for those who were forced to suffer through it. Wilson states that while some Southern sympathizers were smart enough to stay out of town, others felt that their liberties were being trampled upon by the soldiers. He states that the Copperheads “armed themselves and came into town several different days prior to the date of the riot, and bloodshed was only avoided by the narrowest of margins several times before it did occur.” This seems to back up Colonel Mitchell’s claim that the attack was planned and coordinated.
Wilson’s account of the initial confrontation between Private Sallee and Nelson Wells also differs from the previous descriptions. According to Wilson, it happened like this:
"About three o’clock in the afternoon Oliver Sallee and some other soldiers came into the west gate of the yard and sauntered up to the little building, and Sallee leaned against the south wall. Nelson Wells and some of his friends separated from the crowd and started as if going out of the west gate. As they got opposite the little brick house, something was said. What it was, or by whom, cannot now be told; whether a casual remark or a challenge by Sallee or someone about him is uncertain, but Wells stopped, faced Sallee and leveled his revolver. So instantaneously that it is doubtful which drew first, Sallee’s revolver was leveled at Wells. Two shots rang out and both men fell. There was a scattering fusillade of fire-arms thereafter lasting several moments."
Wilson’s description is clearly different from that of Mitchell or the article in the Charleston Plain Dealer. It was a big step away from what Mitchell described as essentially a massacre and entirely unprovoked. Wilson’s account also differed from the Plain Dealer article. He stated that whatever comment was made to instigate the riot “cannot now be told,” meanwhile, the newspaper article’s version of events stated exactly what the two men said to one another and Mitchell claimed nothing was said.
Remembrances of the Fifty-fourth Regiment and the Charleston Riot are not just found in documents, there are also several physical memorials. This includes the grave markers of a number of Fifty-fourth men who participated in the riot. Three graves that warrant particular interest are those of Major Shuball York, Private Oliver Sallee, (both killed during the riot) and Colonel G.M. Mitchell (wounded during the riot). These memorializations demonstrate the point made by Catherine Bishir in her article, “Landmarks of Power: Building a Southern Past, 1885-1915.” Bishir argues that southerners used monuments to “assert their own definition of the past and its relationship to the present and the future,” and that “by erecting public landmarks…they shaped both public memory and public life.” Of course, these grave markers are on a much smaller scale than the massive landmarks Bishir is referring to, nevertheless they still had the power to influence public memory.
Major York’s grave stands out in a big way. It is a rather large obelisk tombstone and can be found in the Edgar County Cemetery. It reads: “Major S. York – Surgeon – Of the 54 ILL. Vols. – Assassinated by Traitors of Charleston – March 28, 1864 – Aged 47 Years – Erected by the Members of his Regiment and Union Citizens of Edgar Co” (Image 1). It is clear that the members of the Fifty-fourth wanted all to know that York had been murdered by cowardice traitors of the nation. They wanted all to remember who had committed this act of treason. York’s grave is yet more evidence that the Fifty-fourth certainly did not view the events of March 28, 1864 as a riot, but rather, a massacre.
Private Oliver Sallee’s grave can be found in Chambers Cemetery in Charleston, IL. It is a much smaller headstone compared to Major York’s, and very commonly shaped (Image 2). A new tombstone for Sallee was put in place in 2007. It was paid for by the federal government after being requested by the local genealogical society, as the old stone was deteriorating and unreadable. On Sallee’s new tombstone it reads: “Oliver Sallee – Serg. Co. C – 54 ILL Inf. Civil War – Mar. 28, 1864 – First Union Solder Killed in Charleston Riot.” This inscription is clearly much more neutral than the one found on Major York’s tomb. Sallee’s grave does not place blame on any party, and refrains from calling the Copperheads traitors. The genealogical society did not want Sallee to be forgotten, they are less concerned, however, with placing any accountability. On a side-note, every other mention of Oliver Sallee refers to him as a Private, including the Fifty-fourth’s roster; it is unclear why his new grave stone lists him as a Sergeant.
Last but not least is the tomb of Colonel Mitchell (Image 3). His is the strangest of all. Much like the 1879 History of Coles County, Illinois, Mitchell’s tombstone makes no mention of his participation in the Charleston Riot or even that he served in the military in any capacity. It merely reads: “Greenville M. Mitchell – 1835-1895” (Image 4), a rather quaint tombstone for a man who also served as sheriff of Coles County for a time after the war. His grave can be found in Mound Cemetery just west of Charleston. It is unknown who made the decision to omit Mitchell’s military past.
Charles Coleman and Paul Spence wrote one of the earliest scholarly works on the riot with an article entitled, “The Charleston Riot, March 28, 1864.” The article was originally published in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society in March, 1940, and later reprinted in the Eastern Illinois University Bulletin on April 12, 1961. Coleman and Spence do not make judgments in their writing and present as many sides of the argument as possible. They discuss the headlines of different newspapers with different political leanings. The way the riot was portrayed had largely to do with the political leaning of the individual newspaper. The Republican papers were typically favorable to the soldiers, while the Democratic papers generally supported the Copperhead’s cause. The article also includes both Union and Copperhead accounts of how the disturbance played out. Coleman and Spence did make some assertions, however. They state, “It is impossible to say positively who fired the first shot, although it was probably Nelson Wells, the Copperhead. It is also impossible to say whether or not Wells shot in self-defense.” Theirs is also the first text to make reference to Colonel Mitchell’s account.
The Charleston Riot has been further commemorated through reenactments. In the 1960s, Civil War reenacting saw a major boost in popularity. The first two in Charleston took place in 1967 and 1968. An article in the Charleston Courier from March 31, 1967 gives background information on the riot and discusses the upcoming event. The reenactment was to include thirty people in total, with fifteen on each side. Most accounts list the number of Copperheads at seventy-five. Some say there were as many as one hundred. This compared to the fifteen to twenty soldiers on the square during the riot. The 1967 reenactment gave the appearance that the riot was a fair fight between an equal number of foes, even though the actual event was clearly lopsided by all accounts. The organizers of the reenactment apparently did not want to remember the riot as a massacre. If there had been an accurate number of Copperheads compared to soldiers, then how could it have appeared to be anything else?
The 1968 reenactment reflects a point made by Tony Horwitz in his book Confederates in the Attic quite well. Horwitz states, “Before, I’d assumed that reenacting was a marginal part of Civil War memory…my reading suggested something altogether different. Reenacting had become the most popular vehicle of Civil War remembrance. There were now over 40,000 reenactors nationwide; one survey named reenacting the fastest growing hobby in America.” As opposed to the 1967 reenactment which was just performed by locals, the 1968 event was carried out by “a private group called the 104th Volunteer Infantry Regiment…the infantry regiment, assisted by the 54th Regiment of Decatur, will present the program.” The 104th also led the annual Memorial Day parade in Chicago and performed at other events in Illinois. Perhaps the 1968 reenactment was more accurate than the previous year.
The riot has been further commemorated through more recent static exhibits. One that warrants further examination is a plaque located on Jackson Street in Charleston, IL. This plaque was put up in 1999 by Rebecca Sawyer-Spoon and is accompanied by a mural by her as well. The detail of events offered is extremely vague. The plaque reads, “On March 28, 1864, a gunfight erupted on the Charleston Square between Union soldiers and Civil War opponents known as ‘Copperheads’…fighting broke out between the two groups. Nine men were killed and twelve wounded before troops arrived from Mattoon to quell the riot. Hostilities between pro-Union Republicans and Copperheads were not new to Eastern Illinois. Prior to the Charleston Riot, Copperheads were killed in Mattoon and Paris. The Copperheads convicted were later pardoned by Lincoln.” Sawyer-Spoon’s portrayal almost seems to excuse the Copperheads actions because some had been killed in Mattoon and Paris before the riot. Even though men on both sides were killed in the conflicts in Paris, and it was disputed that anyone was actually killed by soldiers in Mattoon. It also makes no mention that most of the killed and wounded in the Charleston Riot were soldiers and the fact that the soldiers were greatly outnumbered that day. There is an issue with these attempts to “neutralize” the events in history because there is inevitably an agenda behind it. This account certainly omits large bits of information which presents an incomplete picture of what occurred and continues the narrative of equal blame and equal responsibility.
The final memorialization examined in this piece is the Civil War Exhibit found in Mattoon, IL. The exhibit is located on the lower floor of the old train station. It was installed in 2011 for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. The museum contains a vast amount of information on the involvement of Coles County in the Civil War. Like Coleman and Spence’s article, the museum account of the riot makes use of excerpts from Colonel Mitchell’s official report. The exhibit goes into great detail as opposed to the vague plaque located on the square. It also mentions the fact that the soldiers were heavily outnumbered by the Copperheads. However, the exhibit does not turn a blind eye to the behavior of the soldiers, and acknowledges the humiliating practice of forcing Copperheads to swear an oath of allegiance to the Union. The museum exhibit also discusses the previous confrontations that took place between the two groups in central Illinois. Jim Weeks demonstrates in chapter three of his book, Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine, the difficulty in creating a memorial or exhibit due to differing interests and disputes over how an event should be represented. Organizers must often attempt to please several groups with different agendas and memories of an event. Weeks states, “(People) realized that not only monuments, but their absence, made history.” The Civil War Museum in Mattoon faced similar challenges.
This paper has offered a look at how the Fifty-fourth Illinois Infantry Regiment has been commemorated and memorialized in regards to the Charleston Riot. I used accounts from men of the Fifty-fourth and compared them to other representations in later academic works, monuments in the form of grave markers, reenactment efforts, and static exhibits. In conclusion, several things should be noted. First of all, the account written by Colonel Mitchell and agreed to by the men of the Fifty-fourth had little influence on the popular perceptions of the Charleston Riot. The accounts of the riot that appeared after Mitchell’s largely glossed over the real carnage of the event. They did not portray it accurately as what it really appears to be, a massacre. Seventy-five armed and prepared Copperheads against sixteen unsuspecting soldiers. While it is true that some soldiers had harassed the Copperheads, it appears they did not start the violence on March 28, 1864. These facts have largely been forgotten or ignored. More recent accounts portray the riot as a skirmish with both sides equally to blame. Unfortunately for those who wish to preserve the image of the Copperheads, this portrayal does not fit the statistics and facts that are known about the riot.
Bibliography:
Barry, Peter J. The Charleston, Illinois Riot: March 28, 1864. Urbana: Peter J. Barry, 2007.
Bishir, Catherine W. “Landmarks of Power: Building a Southern Past, 1885-1915.” Southern Cultures Inaugural Issue (1993): 5-45.
“Civil War Exhibit.” Mattoon Depot. 1718 Broadway Ave, Mattoon, IL 61938. 11 October 2013.
Coleman, Charles H., and Paul H. Spence. “The Charleston Riot, March 28, 1864.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 37, no. 1 (March 1940): 78-112.
Crittenden, E.F. ed. “Shocking Occurrence: A Dreadful Fight between Copperheads and Soldiers.” Charleston Plain Dealer, March 31, 1864.
Horwitz, Tony. Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.
Official Records (War of the Rebellion – A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies), Volume 125. 152-3, 633-35.
Perrin, W.H., A.A. Graham, and D.M. Blair. The History of Coles County. Chicago: Wm. Le Baron, Jr., & Co., 1879.
Spoon, Rebecca Sawyer. “The Charleston Riot of 1864,” 7th St & Jackson Ave, Charleston, IL 61920. 1999.
Thelen, David. “Memory and American History.” The Journal of American History Vol. 75, No. 4 (Mar. 1989): 1117-1129.
Weeks, Jim. “A Memorial of the Whole Struggle,” Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine, 57-83. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Wilson, Charles Edward. History of Coles County, Illinois. Chicago: Munsell Publishing Co., 1905.
