An Easter Story: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “Begins with a Vowel”

A Girl Called Easter: Unusual Name for a Spring Baby

Easter Brumley Vanlandingham Kimbley: 1782-1847 (Maternal Third Great-Grandaunt)

 

Easter Brumley Vanlandingham was given a striking, unusual first name—a name that was often misspelled and misrecorded as “Esther” on documents and records. Her name begins with two vowels (corresponding with this week’s prompt), and evokes positive energy that seems to promise new beginnings.

Easter Vanlandingham was born April 30, 1782 in St. Stephen South Parish in Northumberland, Virginia. According to my research, the holiday of Easter fell on March 31 that year. Did her parents, Ezekiel Vanlandingham and Elisabeth Oliver Brumley, name her Easter due to her spring birth date, just 4 weeks after Easter Sunday? Had they perhaps expected her to be born on Easter, and were surprised that she didn’t arrive when expected? Did they choose the name as a reminder of the Easter story’s message of rebirth and renewal? We will never know.

Easter appears to be the oldest of their three children. I have found no primary source materials that provide Ezekiel and Elizabeth’s wedding date; some secondary sources gave a marriage date for the fall following Easter’s birth, which is incorrect. The record of her birth is contained in Virginia Colonial Abstracts, and lists her parents as husband and wife. Easter’s siblings, Oliver Cromwell and Elizabeth Vanlandingham, were born in 1785 and 1788.

In 1796, the Vanlandinghams joined a group of pioneers headed for the newly opened Kentucky territory. Ezekiel died during the journey, leaving his wife and three children to continue to Kentucky without him. A history of  Muhlenberg County, Kentucky reported that:

“After burying her husband Mrs. Vanlandingham and the other members of the party resumed their trip and finally arrived near Paradise where she procured some land. There she and her…children worked hard and soon placed themselves in comfortable circumstances. She was a well-educated woman, and up to about the time her children were married devoted practically all her evenings to their education.”

Easter was 14 when she arrived in Kentucky. Her youngest sister was only 8, so Easter probably helped to care for her. In addition, her mother remarried and had other children. Easter was probably a vital member of the household, providing support for her mother.

This probably explains Easter’s late marriage. She was 30 years old when she married Francis Kimbley on February 14, 1813.  He was only twenty at the time of the marriage, so she was a full decade older than him! Some later documents shave a few years off her age—she probably didn’t want to admit how much older she was! Her younger sister, Elizabeth, married the same year.

Francis Kimbley was a farmer and slaveowner. His property was mostly in Ohio County, Kentucky, but Easter and Francis’s children were born both in Ohio County and neighboring Muhlenberg County, so I expect the Kimbleys had property in both counties.

Easter gave birth to their first son, Oliver Christopher Vanlandingham Kimbley (named for Easter’s brother) on December 23, 1813—ten months after their marriage. Daughter Elizabeth was born two years later, followed by sons Ezekiel Vanlandingham Kimbley in 1817, Andrew Jackson Kimbley in 1819, Francis Edward Kimbley in 1822, and John Franklin Kimbley in 1823.

Easter died on Christmas Day, 1847 at the age 65. She was buried in Nellie Davis Cemetery in Ohio County, Kentucky. Her husband Francis lived another fourteen years, dying in 1861 at age 70.

Easter’s children went on to raise families of their own in the Ohio and Muhlenberg County area. The 1860 census shows son Ezekiel, his wife and three children living next to Francis, and son Andrew Jackson Kimbley, his wife and three children farming on the other side of Francis’ property. 

Son Francis Kimbley a few farms from brother and father--1860 Census

Ezekiel Kimbley family, and father Francis on the 1860 census

Two properties away was the farm of Oliver Kimbley’s widow Elizabeth and their four children.  A few farms away, son Francis lived with his wife and children.

Andrew Kimbley family at top, Oliver's widow Elizabeth Kimbley and family below

Interestingly, Easter’s only daughter, Elizabeth, married John Everett Vaught Smith, brother of second-great-grandfather Elijah Smith, so the two ancestral lines crossed. Elizabeth and John had several children and lived in neighboring Mclean County, Kentucky.

Easter’s final child was the most well-known, and the only one who didn’t go into farming. John Franklin Kimbley became a doctor, and he served as a Union physician during the Civil War. He returned to Owensboro, Kentucky following the war to practice medicine. He married Sarah Lucetta Ray, the daughter of Indiana Governor James Ray. The couple had two children.

Easter’s name was carried on to the next generation. Easter’s daughter named one of her children Easter, but the name was often misspelled as Esther—even her headstone reads “Esther Smith Kirtley”. 

Easter Smith Kirtley misspelled as Esther

Son Ezekiel gave his daughter Susan the middle name Easter. Son Francis Kimbley named his eldest daughter Easter Ann in honor of his mother.

I wonder how these women felt about sharing a name with a religious holiday. I love the name, and enjoyed writing about Easter Vanlandingham Kimbley just in time for Easter 2023. Easter is a name rich both in vowels and in meaning.

Sources:

Abstract of Birth Record from “Virginia Colonial Abstracts. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/340765:48429?tid=81812584&pid=262448858851&hid=1037581386036&_phsrc=Jng22546&_phstart=default

A History of Muhlenberg County by Otto A. Rothert. John P. Morton & Company. Louisville, KY 1913. Accessed through Google Books

Findagrave photo by Anita Austill. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/109614346/esther-elizabeth-kirtley?_gl=1*27c0ny*_ga*MTQ5MDkwODUzMi4xNjI2MjI0NDE0*_ga_4QT8FMEX30*MzY4MzVkNTItZThlYy00MDE3LWE0M2MtNDY3ZDFiNzg2MzJmLjQ3NC4xLjE2ODAzMDU3NTIuMjQuMC4w

Murdered By Her Husband: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “Light a Candle”

 

A Vicious Crime Destroys a Family: The Murder of Lydia Smith Calvert

Lydia Jane Smith Calvert: 1807-1840 (Maternal First Cousin 4x Removed)

Late in June of 1840, George Rudolphus Smith (Third Great Granduncle) was near death. He was almost seventy years old—not a great age, but he may have been feeling ill for some time since he had made his will some months previously. He was confident that his children would be provided for once he had died. One of the heirs named in his will was his daughter Lydia. George probably had no idea that Lydia, a mother of five who was only 33 years old, would be murdered by her own husband just weeks after George’s death. Not only were her five little children suddenly left without their mother, but they also lost their maternal grandfather, and their paternal grandmother, who died right after Lydia did. And they also lost their father after he was indicted for Lydia’s murder.

So what led up to this tragedy? Lydia Jane Smith was born January 6, 1807, the fourth child of George Rudolphus Smith and his first wife Lydia “Jenney” Tait Smith. Lydia’s life began with tragedy as well—her mother died giving birth to her. George R Smith remarried three years later, and little Lydia soon had eight half siblings.

Lydia married Robert Patrick Calvert on May 3, 1827. They were both twenty years old. Robert had a farm in Posey County, Indiana where they lived. Their first child, Eudoxy, (also known as Emily) was born in 1829. Two little boys, Patrick and George, were born in 1830 and 1832. Daughter Elizabeth was born in 1835, and their final son, Jordan, was born in 1838.  

Lydia’s death was brutal. A descendant has posted the handwritten murder indictment the Posey County Grand Jury brought against Robert. The indictment stated that on August 10, 1840, Robert Calvert:

“with force and onus in and upon one Lydia Cavett wife of said Robert Cavett feloniously, willfully and with malice aforethought did make an assault and that said Robert Cavett then and there felonious, willfully and of his malice aforethought did strike, beat and kick the said Lydia Cavett with his hands and feet in an upon the belly, breast, sides and other parts of the body of the said Lydia Cavett and did then and therefore feloniously willfully and his malice aforethought cast and threw the said Lydia Cavett down with great force and violence…”

This attack caused “several mortal strokes wounds and bruises in and upon the belly, breast, sides and other parts of the body of her said Lydia Cavett to wit one mortal bruise and wound on the belly of her the said Lydia Cavett between the left nipple and navel…”

First page of Grand Jury Indictment

It took her a day to die of her injuries. I have to guess that at least some of Lydia’s children witnessed the assault, as the details about him kicking her and throwing her forcefully onto the ground sound like eye-witness testimony. Given the brutality, it is likely that this attack was but one of many she suffered over their thirteen years of marriage. Men generally don’t commit murder the first time they beat their wives. He seems to have been a violent person from childhood, as another descendant posted a story about young Robert attacking a child his father was caring for with an axe, cutting off the boy’s foot. I shudder to think of the horrors Lydia suffered over those long years, and the terror her children experienced.

Calvert was arrested in August of 1840 and was fortunate that his father, Patrick Calvert, chose to post the huge sum of $5000 bond to get him released.

Father Patrick Calvert puts up bond for son

Robert came to trial in March of 1841. Despite the Grand Jury report and the efforts of the prosecutor,

“twelve good and lawful men who being elected tried and sworn upon their oaths do say ‘We the Jury find the Defendant not guilty.”

Not guilty verdict document

Of course the jury was composed only of men, since women had no rights in the 1840s. Apparently those supposedly good and lawful men believed Robert Calvert was perfectly justified to beat his wife to death.

Luckily for Lydia’s five traumatized children, they were not sent to live with their father, the murderer. Instead, Robert’s father Patrick took them in and raised them. Robert seems to have disappeared from records following his acquittal. I believe he left Posey County and may have died in the 1850s, but I have no records to verify this.

Robert’s father Patrick died in 1861. Four of Lydia’s children—Eudoxy, Patrick, Elizabeth and Jordan survived at that time and were beneficiaries in Patrick’s will, each receiving $244.57. The remaining child, George, died at age 23 in 1855, and was buried near his grandfather Patrick on Patrick Calvert’s farm. I will write about George and Patrick’s graves in a future post.

Section of Patrick Calvert's will dealing with Lydia's surviving children

As for poor Lydia, she was laid to rest in the Smith Cemetery in Posey County where her parents and other relatives are buried. Sadly, the cemetery is on private property and is inaccessible. Her grave is unmarked.

Smith Cemetery in Posey County--courtesy of Findagrave

Lydia never received justice. Her killer, her own husband who had taken--and broken--vows to protect and honor her, went free despite strong evidence that he beat her to death. She deserves to have candles lit in her memory, and to have prayers offered up that she can somehow rest in peace.

 

Sources:

Posey County documents posted on Ancestry.com.

Learning About Marriage Bonds: 52 Ancestors 2023 “Education”

 

Something Old, Something New: The Use of Marriage Bonds in 1800s America

George Rudophus Smith: 1771-1840
Lydia “Jenny” Tait: 1770-1807

 

While researching Elias Guess Smith’s siblings, I ran across a new type of record I had never seen before: a “marriage bond”. The marriage bond index available on Ancestry provided only the names and dates of the people involved. No transcription was provided, or information on what the document meant. The 1800 North Carolina record involved Elias Smith’s brother, George Rudophus Smith, and the woman he married, Jenney Tait, and Jenney’s father Zacheus Tait. I knew who and when, but I needed to learn what the document was and why it was required.

Luckily I discovered that another family historian had posted a scan of the actual bond record on Ancestry. Rather than a standardized, printed form, the bond was a hand-written legal document dated December 20, 1800. The scan below shows the original.

Here is my transcription of the document:

“Know all men by these presents that we George Smith & Zacheus Tait are held afirmly bound to Benj. Williams reg. Governor,  the Just and full sum of five Hundred pounds to be paid to the Lord Benjamin Williams and his succession in office and assigns, to which payment is well and truly to be made we bind ourselves one hun. Each and admit Jointly adversely afirmly by these presents sealed with our seals and dated the 20^th day of Dec. 1800.

“The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas the above bondsman George Smith hath obtained a license to be joyned in Holy Matrimony, with Jenney Tait, if therefore there shall be no Lawful Impediment why the said George Smith & Jenney Tait should be joyned together then the above Obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force & effect.”

The document was signed by both Zacheus Tait and George Smith, as well as the Governor’s representative.  

I was shocked by the huge amount of the bond requested—500 pounds in 1800 would be the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars in today’s money. I thought if people had to put up a bond of this amount today to get married, everyone would probably choose to live in sin!

I did some research on marriage bonds, to find out exactly what they were and why they were required. The Family Locket website (see 1 below) explained:

“In 1741, “An Act Concerning Marriages” was created in North Carolina by the General Assembly, in order to curtail unlawful marriages. This law required couples desiring to be married obtain a license or publish the banns in church for three Sundays. To obtain a license, the groom was required to post a bond of fifty pounds with the condition “that there is no lawful Cause to obstruct the Marriage for which the License shall be desired.”1 The penal sum on the bond was collected from the groom or bondsman if the marriage was found to be illegal. The bondsman was sometimes called a surety – he shared the groom’s obligation. This money was a protection for the future children of the marriage.2

Marriage bonds were used in North Carolina until 1868.3 For most of this time, they were the only record of marriages, until in 1851. A law that year required justices and ministers to return the licenses with certificates showing they had performed the marriage.4

Ancestry provides a shorter explanation: (see 2 below)

“When planning to marry, the prospective groom took out a bond from the clerk of the court in the county where the bride had her usual residence as surety that there was no legal obstacle to the proposed marriage.”

The bond essentially protected the woman in case the wedding failed to occur. The money could be used to support her, or to support any out-of-wedlock offspring that might result. Impediments that might lead to a broken marriage contract would include bigamy, if one of the parties was too young to be wed, or if one of the parties was some sort of criminal.

An article by Tamie Dehler published in an Indiana newspaper provided further information (see 3 below):

“Think of a marriage bond as an intention to marry – a reflection of an official “engagement.” A man who had proposed to a woman went to the courthouse with a bondsman (often the father or brother of the prospective bride), and posted a bond indicating his intention to marry the woman. The bond was an amount of money that the prospective groom would have to pay as a penalty if an impediment to the marriage was found. No money literally changed hands at the time of posting the bond. But if the groom was discovered, for instance, already to have a wife whom he had abandoned, the marriage could not go through and the man would have to pay.

George and Jenney had no impediments to their marriage, so George and his father-in-law Zacheus Tait never had to pay the 500 pounds. George and Jenney married and after several years in Caswell County, North Carolina, they eventually moved to Posey County Indiana. They had at least four children before Jenney’s death during childbirth in 1807.

Old map of Caswell County, NC

I am so glad I ran across this document, as it gave me an education in the use and purpose of marriage bonds. It is interesting that they were still charging the bond fees in British pounds as late as 1800, despite America’s independence decades earlier. I will have to further educate myself on when the dollar was adopted as American currency.

 

Sources:

1.      The Family Locket.com website: https://familylocket.com/back-to-the-basics-with-marriage-records-part-1-marriage-bonds/#:~:text=Marriage%20bonds%20were%20used%20in%20North%20Carolina%20until,practice%20of%20marriage%20bonds%20with%20them%20from%20England.

2.      https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/4802/

3.      “Genealogy: Think of a marriage bond as an intention to marry”, By Tamie Dehler Aug 11, 2007. https://www.tribstar.com/news/lifestyles/genealogy-think-of-a-marriage-bond-as-an-intention-to-marry/article_0d4c0f38-f3a7-5e83-a556-e75bbaca2bd4.html

A Slave Singled Out: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “Lucky”

Not Lucky Enough: A Slave Receives Special Treatment in the Will of Peter Smith

Peter Smith: 1736-1797 (Maternal 4^th Great-Grandfather)

 

Willis Smith’s great-grandfather Peter Taylor Smith died in Caswell County, North Carolina in 1797, leaving a detailed will dividing his estate among his twelve children. Unfortunately, Peter Smith was a slave owner, and his will included numerous human beings amongst his property, human beings who were distributed among his children along with saddles and household furnishings. However, one enslaved man had a slightly different fate than Smith’s other slaves—a life with a few limited choices. But how fortunate was this “lucky” slave in reality? What can we learn from his fate?

Peter Smith’s will basically divides his enslaved humans into three categories. First were individual slaves given to one specific child. Peter’s two daughters were each given a female slave. Elizabeth received an adult named Jane, while Martha received a child named Bess. In addition, his son Jesse was given a “boy name Lewis” and son Moses was given a “boy name Edmond”. Aron (also Aaron) received a “Negro girl name Fanney.”

The will states that all Peter Smith’s remaining property, including the rest of his slaves, be divided amongst his six remaining sons. However, there was one notable exception:

“Except my Negro man Anthony who tho not absolutely free I will that he have liberty to have his own free choice from time to time to serve which of my children he shall chose and not to be confined to one-particular but if ill treated by one to have free liberty to go to another as he shall think fit & not to be sold to any other person.”

This is a fascinating passage. What can we learn from this?

Passage from Peter's will about Anthony

First, Anthony is described as “my Negro man”, which sounds like he was a personal servant, perhaps the equivalent of a valet. In addition, Anthony was an adult—Peter made a distinction between young slaves, referring to them as boys and girls, and adult slaves, referring to them as men or women.

Peter obviously felt a friendly attachment to Anthony and cared about his welfare. However, he did not see Anthony as a true friend or equal, for he kept him in bondage when he might have chosen to set him free in the will. He obviously saw Anthony as a valuable part of his estate, too valuable to be given away.

It is also obvious that Peter did not trust his children to treat slaves with decency or humanity. He obviously felt it likely that some of his children might abuse Anthony. Where would they have learned such callousness toward other human beings if not from him? Were his other slaves mistreated? Was this commonplace on his property and was Anthony’s “liberty” to be free from abuse a contrast from the manner in which other enslaved people were treated on Smith’s land?

Caswell County NC mid-1800s map

I wonder which of Smith’s children Anthony chose as his owner. And did he stay with that family, or did he exercise his right to switch households?

Many of Peter Smith’s children ended up moving to Kentucky. Did they take their slaves with them, or did they sell their slaves before they left North Carolina? Did Anthony end up in Kentucky, or did he spend his life in North Carolina?

And what of Anthony’s family? Did he have a wife? Children? Only Anthony was protected from being sold out of the extended family—any family members he might have had could have been sold away from him. Even for this “lucky” slave, his life was filled with uncertainty, misery, disrespect and terror.

Since Anthony was already an adult in 1797 when Peter Smith died, it is unlikely he lived long enough to benefit from the Emancipation Proclamation. I hope that his children achieved the freedom that Anthony was denied.

Sources:

Will Records, With Some Inventories, Estates and Settlements, 1777- 1963; Author: North Carolina. Superior Court (Caswell County); Probate Place: Caswell, North Carolina. Accessed via Ancestry.com. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/9061/images/004779974_00187?pId=2191221

Blog Post Leads to New Insights: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “Social Media”

Kentucky Genealogy Blogger Gives Me a Critical Hint to New Branch of Family Tree

Peter Smith: 1736-1797 (Maternal 4^th Great-Grandfather)
Elias Guess Smith: 1775-1830 (Maternal 3^rd Great-Grandfather)

While researching a different blog topic, I tried the following Google search: “Muhlenberg County, Civil War”. I was trying to find out information about two Smith brothers, Samuel and Elias Guess Smith II, who served on opposite sides of the war. I wanted to learn about army units that were formed in their home county in Kentucky. The first search result was a post on “Kentucky Kindred Genealogy”, a blog by genealogist Phyliss Brown. The January 2019 post was titled “Muhlenberg County’s Civil War Soldiers” and profiled four soldiers who were included in a county history written by Otto A. Rothert. One of those four soldiers was William H. Smith. A Smith from Muhlenberg County—surely he was related somehow to my two Smith soldiers. But how? I decided to investigate—an investigation that led to a whole new set of family tree branches. That social media post led me to some amazing discoveries!

Ms. Brown’s post said that William Smith was the son of Leonard Smith and the grandson of “pioneer Aaron Smith.” That caught my attention, as my two soldier’s grandfather, Elias Guess Smith Sr., had also been described in materials I’d read as a county “pioneer”. Could Aaron and Elias Guess Smith be brothers or cousins?

I began researching Aaron Smith, and looked at other trees on Ancestry that included him. I discovered that his father appeared to be a Peter Smith, who was born in Virginia and died in North Carolina. Attached to those Ancestry trees was Peter Smith’s probated will, which was dated 1793 but was probated in October 1797 following his death at the age of 61.

Peter T Smith will dated 1793, probated 1797, part 1

The images of this will proved to be a treasure trove of information, including, most importantly, the names of Peter’s surviving children. And this list of progeny included Elias Guess Smith and Aaron Smith.

The children and their inheritances were listed as follows:

Elizabeth: a slave named Jane, a horse saddle and bridle, and a feather bed.

Martha: a slave girl named Bess, a horse saddle and bridle, and a feather bed and furniture.

Jesse: a slave boy named Lewis.

Moses: a slave boy named Edmond

Aron: a slave girl named Fanney

Peter Smith Will probated 1797, part 2

The remaining “property & Estate consisting of land, Negroes, Stock, Household furniture” was to be “equally divided between the rest of my sons to witt James, William, Presley W. George, John B., Elias & Elijah”. One slave was not included in the property division, but had detailed instructions as to his fate which I will write about in a separate post.

I was thrilled by the information in this original document! Elias Guess Smith not only had a confirmed set of parents at last, but he also had two sisters and nine brothers! The tree was expanding at a phenomenal rate!

So due to a single social media post, I was able to not only confirm that the William H. Smith featured in the Kentucky Kindred blog post was truly related to Elias Guess Smith and his descendants, but I was also able to add Elias’ eleven siblings to the tree and start trying to verify accounts in other trees that possibly seven of Peter Smith’s children ended up moving to Kentucky. I am grateful to the work of other genealogy bloggers like Ms. Brown. Their posts not only help to answer questions I already have, but they can also identify entirely new paths of inquiry. I hope my own blog will prove helpful to other researchers in the future.

 

Sources:

https://kentuckykindredgenealogy.com/2019/01/13/muhlenberg-countys-civil-war-soldiers/

https://archive.org/details/historyofmuhlenb00roth/page/74/mode/2up

Will Records, With Some Inventories, Estates and Settlements, 1777- 1963; Author: North Carolina. Superior Court (Caswell County); Probate Place: Caswell, North Carolina. Accessed via Ancestry.com. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/9061/images/004779974_00187?pId=2191221

Echoes of Gone with the Wind: Post-Civil War Crime Riles Louisiana

 

Cordelia Vanlandingham Cheatham: 1841-1924 (Maternal First Cousin 4x Removed)

While reading Gone with the Wind recently for my book club, I was struck by Mitchell’s use of two attacks on white women by black men as a sort of justification for the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. I questioned whether such type of attacks actually took place. Did women truly fear black-on-white crime during Reconstruction and the following decades, or was it all a pretext to make the Klan seem like a necessary instrument of vigilante justice? While researching the Vanlandingham family, I ran across news articles from May 1907 describing an attack on the elderly Cordelia Vanlandingham Cheatham by a black man apparently intending to rob her family. I was surprised by the event itself, by some of the ugly references in the news articles, and also by the realization that I may have misjudged Margaret Mitchell.

Cordelia Vanlandingham, born in 1841 to Oliver Cromwell Vanlandingham and his wife Mary Drake, had married an editor and clerk named Edward Cheatham in 1860. They settled in the Baton Rouge area where they raised four daughters and a son. Following Edward’s death in 1899, Cordelia lived with her unmarried daughters Elizabeth and Clara (known as Cheappie and Tal for some reason) in a rather rural area of Baton Rouge’s Third Ward. According to the news account, the home “was on the Bayou Sara road, and is in a sparsely and somewhat isolated section” ten miles north of the city.  

On May 18, 1907, a black man came to the Cheatham door at 10:30 p.m., claiming to be an employee of Cordelia’s son Ed who needed to deliver packages to her. When Cordelia stepped outside, the man attacked her, saying, “If you holler or make any noise, I’ll kill you.”

Cordelia struggled with the man and called to her daughter Cheappie, who came running with an ax. According to one news account, she threatened to “split his head open if he did not let her mother go, and made an effort to brain him with the ax.” The other newspaper said she swung at the man several times and managed to get him out of the house so she could lock the door. The man, “still bent on his murderous design” according to one newspaper, shot a gun through a window at the women and then ran. The newspaper said that only his poor aim kept him from killing the women.

One news article had an interesting detail:

“The screams of Mrs. Cheatham by this time had attracted the attention of an old negro woman, who, with her husband, lived in the yard. She yelled out to ask what was the matter and said that the old man would be there in a few minutes.”

I found it interesting that both the perpetrator and some of the rescuers were black. I was also intrigued to not that one newspaper failed to include the black woman’s intervention.

The article noted that:

“Mrs. Cheatham can give no description of her assailant, owing to the intense darkness surrounding the scene of her struggle. She remembers that the negro was very black.”

Ed Cheatham’s employee named Robert Pigeon was grilled by the local sheriff and a whole posse of angry neighbors the next day, but luckily was able to prove his innocence—someone had impersonated him to get Cordelia to open the door. The other news report stated that the sheriff had actually arrested the employee, and only released him when Cordelia Cheatham denied he was the perpetrator.

Poor Mr. Pigeon had a lucky escape. It appears lynching the robber was a real possibility. There was a chilling line in the New Orleans article:

 “It is probable that if the perpetrator of the deed is captured by the residents of that section before the sheriff’s officers can secure his arrest and identification, there will be some public demonstration.”

Lovely euphemism: public demonstration. The Shreveport newspaper was more forthright, and called it a “lynching”.

I found no articles relating to an arrest. Three days later, a posse was still searching. Another hapless man had been arrested but eventually released when they could find no evidence against him.

So how did this crime compare to those in Mitchell’s novel? Gone With the Wind featured two crimes. The first instance involved Tony Fontaine killing a former slave for verbally harassing his widowed sister-in-law in a sexual manner. The second instance was a physical attack on Scarlett as she returned from her sawmill. The perpetrators intended to rob her, but also probably intended to rape her as well. In that instance, the perpetrators included a white man as well as a black man, and Scarlett was rescued by one of her former slaves, also black. This paralleled the Cheatham incident, as black neighbors helped rescue Cordelia. In the novel, Scarlett’s husband Frank, a Klansman, gathered the Atlanta Klan members and sought to avenge her attack. The perpetrators were killed, but so was Frank.

I found it interesting that several of the articles relating to Cordelia Cheatham’s attack specifically stated that they believed the motive and intent of the criminal was robbery, not “a criminal assault” which must have been a delicate way of referring to rape. They were trying to calm the citizens of Baton Rouge, probably hoping to avoid the murder of a suspected perpetrator, where in Mitchell’s book, murder was the accepted fate of the perpetrators.

Still, the existence of these articles and the attention the attack on Mrs. Cheatham drew statewide shows that Mitchell was probably basing her novel’s crimes on real attacks that occurred in Georgia—crimes that would have been extremely rare, but would have inspired great fear and anger among white residents during Reconstruction and the decades that followed.  

 

Sources:

Newspapers.com - The Shreveport Journal - 21 May 1907 - Page 4 1907 Attack on Cordelia Cheatham

Newspapers.com. The Shreveport Journal. 21 May 1907, Tue · Page 4

Newspapers.com. Mrs Edward Cheatham assaulted, the Shreveport Times 20 May 1907.

Newspapers.com The Times-Democrat, New Orleans, Louisiana · Monday, May 20, 1907.

Confederate POW Brothers Escape Union Custody: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “Flew the Coop”

 

Vanlandingham Brothers Among Mass Escape from Union Press Prison in New Orleans

Oliver Cromwell Vanlandingham: 1826-1905 (Maternal First Cousin 4x Removed)
Ezekiel Posey Vanlandingham: 1827-1895 (Maternal First Cousin 4x Removed)

 

The Vanlandingham brothers did nearly everything together, from running the cotton plantation their father bought near Baton Rouge, to enlisting in the Confederate Cavalry when the Civil War broke out. They served together, and both were captured by Union troops in 1864, and were sent to the same prison in New Orleans. But perhaps their most interesting and exciting shared adventure was breaking out of that prison along with nearly forty other Confederate POWs.

Oliver Cromwell “O.C.II” and Ezekiel “E.P.” Vanlandingham joined the 14^th Confederate Cavalry Regiment in 1862. They were privates in Company G under the command of Captain John B. Cage. The researchonline website describes the unit as follows:

“This unit was comprised of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama companies. It appears that this regiment did not serve together, but each company saw separate service….However, Co. A of Miles' Louisiana Legion refused to recognize its assignment to the new regiment as Co. E and maintained its independence; in fact, all the companies from Miles’ Legion tended to act separately from the rest of the new regiment."

Another site explained the Regiment was part of a group called Miles’ Legion, and was one of three cavalry regiments combined with six or seven infantry companies that served independently from the rest of the Confederate army. John Cage seems to have assumed command of the regiment in 1863, and at that time the Regiment was comprised of 250 cavalrymen.

It appears from the records that Company G spent most of the war in Louisiana and Mississippi, skirmishing with Union Troops led by Sheridan and Grant. In spring 1863, they were patrolling near Port Hudson north of Baton Rouge along the Mississippi River, and then moved into Mississippi to fight in the battle of Champion Hill and Big Black in mid-May, which the Confederates lost. The 14^th Regiment helped cover the Confederate retreat.

Louisiana 3rd Cavalry Regiment members--gives an idea of uniforms the brothers wore

Following that campaign, Company G and other Miles’ Legion cavalry companies apparently moved back and forth between the Meridian area and the site of the Big Black River Bridge battle just to the east of Vicksburg. In February 1864, Company G was patrolling along the Comite River as Sherman’s troops headed towards Meridian, Mississippi. Oliver Vanlandingham was captured during that campaign. His muster record cards contain two conflicting capture dates: February 1, 1864 and March 24. Both cards state “Comite River” as the location of his capture.

Just weeks afterwards, Ezekiel was also captured. Like O.C., Ezekiel’s muster cards show two conflicting dates of capture: March 30 and April 14, 1864. His location of capture was “Baker Farm”, which probably refers to the area near Baker, Louisiana. This area is not far from the Comite River, so obviously Company G was skirmishing slightly northeast of Baton Rouge. 

Comite River and Baker area where brothers were captured in 1864

The brothers were probably fortunate to have been captured when they were, as their unit went further east to fight in the Battle of Harrisburg near Tupelo in July 1864. The regiment suffered heavy losses, and commanding officer Lt. Col. John Cage was killed in battle.

The two brothers were sent to New Orleans and were imprisoned in one of the city’s several POW facilities run by the Union Army. Some soldiers were held at the old Parish Prison, while others were held at various warehouse-type facilities, including a “cotton press” and a Customs House where many Confederate officers were held. An illustration of that facility was published in Harpers’ Weekly. The reporter found the conditions to be reasonable if not comfortable, noting that the nearly 250 officers were decently fed and had plenty of space to move around and socialize. I expect conditions for privates like the Vanlandingham brothers were not as decent, especially during the hot, muggy summer days in New Orleans. The enlisted men’s prisons were more crowded.

Customs House Prison for Confederate Officers; Illustration from Harpers' Bazaar

 Oliver and Ezekiel’s service records include a quite extraordinary muster card. The cards read as follows:

“Roll of Prisoners of War who escaped from military prison, New Orleans, La., Aug. 14, 1864.

Roll dated N. Orleans La. Aug. 15, 1864.”

Below was another passage with some incredible details:

“REMARK: ‘The prisoners borne on this Roll escaped from one of the prisons in this City on the night of the 14 inst. Their escape was effected through a vault in the room where they were confined.”

I immediately noticed that the information on the form was printed rather than handwritten. Typesetting in the 19^th century was done by hand, making it an expensive, time-intensive proposition. So to have printed these cards, there had to have been a large number of soldiers to whom the card would apply—a large prison break, in other words.

I tried to find mention of the event in historical records, but information on smaller Union prisons is difficult to find. However, I was able to find reports written by the Union Commissary of Prisons in New Orleans, and found a lengthy letter to his superiors that includes his report of escapes during the month of August 1864. I have transcribed the letter as best as I could as follows:

 “I ____ to report that of the 68 Prisoners of War who escaped during the month of August, 40 of the number escaped from the Camdelot (or Earndelot or Rampart?) St Prison and before I entered upon the duties of Commissary of Prisoners. The Majority of the others escaped from the Union Press by cutting through one of the brick walls.

At the time of their escape I had made repeated applications for the Guards at that Prison to be relieved as they had been on duty for eight (?) consecutive days and nights and although I attributed their escape to the negligence of the Guard I could not expect men to be as vigilant and watchful whose labors had been so severe as the nature of the service demanded.”

I am unsure which of these two prison breaks involved the Vanlandingham brothers. I have determined that the “Union Press” was a Cotton Press building (sort of a cotton warehouse) that was pressed into service as a temporary prison. The detail in the letter about cutting through the wall sounds similar to the Confederate Army record that referred to escaping through a “vault”. Either way, the brothers were among the boldest and bravest prisoners who were willing to risk death to escape.

I found no further muster cards indicating the two brothers had returned to service following the prison break. Records from the Louisiana Soldiers Military Index show that both Oliver and Ezekiel were paroled in Gainesville, Ala., May 12, 1865, which means that following the final surrender of the Confederate armies, the Vanlandinghams, like all other Confederate troops, were required to sign a parole slip that read:

“May ________, 1865. In accordance with the terms of the Military Convention, entered into the twenty-sixth day of April, 1865, between General Joseph E. Johnston, commanding the Confederate army, and Major-General W. T. Sherman, commanding the United States Army in North Carolina, [soldier's name] has given his solemn obligation not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly released from this obligation, and is permitted to return to his home, not to be disturbed by the United States authorities so long as he observes this obligation and obeys the laws in force where he may reside.”

It is unclear if the Vanlandinghams actually travelled to Gainesville to sign these documents, or if the paperwork was signed in Baton Rouge and sent to Gainesville for Union signatures.

What we do know is that once the paroles were signed, Oliver and Ezekiel were free to go home and try to pick up their lives.

After so many years of working and living side by side, the brothers elected to part ways. Oliver collected his family and moved to Vanlandingham land in Kentucky. Ezekiel moved his family west to Rains, Texas. I have no idea if the two brothers ever saw each after they parted, or if they ever visited their two sisters who remained in Louisiana with their husbands and children. However, I am sure that Oliver and Ezekiel shared one last thing:  regaling their families with the tale about the day they flew the coop from a Union prison in New Orleans—the one victory they could claim against the Union.

Sources:

Miles’ Legion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles%27_Legion#Organization

Letter from Capt. Duffy, Commissary of Prisons. https://archive.org/details/selectedrecordso0104unit/page/n162/mode/1up?view=theater

Conditions at the Customs House where POW officers were held. Picture/drawing in file Harpers Weekly, Aug 29 1863. Pg 551. THE REBEL PRISON IN NEW ORLEANS.

https://laahgp.genealogyvillage.com/MilitaryIndex/louisianasoldiersv1.html

Selected records of the War Department relating to Confederate prisoners of war, 1861-1865 [microform] (Volume Reel 0001 -SELECTED RECORDS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT RELATING TO CONFEDERATE PRISONERS OF WAR 1861-65 -Registers of Prisoners, Compiled by the Office of the Commissary General of Prisoners: 1 OCGP 1 1863-65) -United States. National Archives and Records Service. Accessed via https://www.ahgp.org/military/confederate-prisoners-of-war.html

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/louisiana.htm