;

Civil War Blog

A project of PA Historian

Contact Information for Local Historical Societies in the Lykens Valley Area

Posted By on May 8, 2013

Triangle

 

——————————-

HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MILLERSBURG AND UPPER PAXTON TOWNSHIP

324 Center Street, P.O. Box 171, Millersburg, Pennsylvania  17061

Phone:  (717) 692-4084

E-Mail Contact:  mbhist@epix.net

Contact Person:  Leslie Smith

Museum has Civil War display.  Open on Saturdays and Sundays, and at other times by chance or appointment.  Call or e-mail for further information.

—————————–

MAHANOY & MAHANTONGO HISTORICAL AND PRESERVATION SOCIETY

P.O. Box 143, Dalmatia, PA  17017.

Phone:  (570) 758-2216

Summer meetings at restored historical house in Dalmatia.  Other regular monthly meetings are at the Trinity Church in Dalmatia.  Call or write for further information.

——————————-

HALIFAX AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Market Street Methodist Church Building, P.O. Box 562, Halifax, PA  17032

Phone:  (717) 896-8010

Contact Person:  Pearl Hain

——————————

PILLOW HISTORICAL SOCIETY

167 Union Street, P. O. Box 67, Pillow, PA  17080

Phone:  (570) 758-4498

Web Site:  www.pillowhistoricalsociety.org

E-Mail Contact:  slamenza@pillowhistoricalsociety.org

Contact Person:  Sandra Lenker Lamenza

——————————

ELIZABETHVILLE AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY

P.O. Box 329, Elizabethville, Pa 17023

Contact person: Marilyn Henninger

Phone (717)362-8991

2017 Bicentennial Planning Committee Contact Person:  Ed Bechtel, (717) 362-9935.

[updated 3 February 2015]

——————————

WILLIAMSTOWN-WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP HISTORICAL SOCIETY

15 W. Market Street, Williamstown, PA  17098

Phone: (717) 647-9220

Web Site:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Williamstown-Historical-Society/130773703658248

E-Mail Contact and Contact Person:  Janice Culton

——————————

LYKENS-WICONISCO HISTORICAL SOCIETY

G.A.R. Building, North Second Street, Lykens, PA.

E-Mail Contact and Contact Person:  Sally Reiner.

——————————

GRATZ HISTORICAL SOCIETY

8 West Market Street, P.O. Box 507. Gratz, PA  17030-0507

No Phone.  No Internet.

 

Corrections and additions are welcome.

 

 

John Botdorf of Herndon – Killed at Po River, Virginia

Posted By on May 7, 2013

BotdorfJohn-Census1890W-001a

BotdorfJohn-Census1890W-001b

The Widow Mary Botdorf, living in Jackson Township (Herndon Post Office), Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, reported to the 1890 Census that her husband John Botdorf had served in the 136th Pennsylvania Infantry, Company C, as a Private, from 7 August 1862 through his discharge on 29 May 1863 (nine months and 22 days), that he was a re-enlisted veteran who also served in the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry, Company K, as a Private, and was killed in battle.  She did not have the dates of his latter service and claimed that the papers were lost.

According to the records of the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry, John Botdorf was killed at the Battle of Po River on 10 May 1864. Combining the available information from the Pension Bureau, the Pennsylvania Veterans’ Index Cards (Pennsylvania Archives), and other sources, the following is known about John Botdorf and his family.

John Botdorf first served in the 136th Pennsylvania Infantry, Company C, as a Private, although that information was not reported to the Pension Bureau and therefore does not appear in the Widow’s Pension Application.

BotdorfJohn-PensionIndex-002

Pension Index Card from Fold3.

BotdorfJohn-PAVetCardFile-001

Pennsylvania Archives Card – 136th Pennsylvania Infantry

BotdorfJohn-PAVetCardFile-003

Pennsylvania Archives Card – 148th Pennsylvania Infantry

John Botdorf, was 42 years old when he first enlisted, and was therefore born about 1820.  While no other physical information appears on the above-shown records, the Pension File has a more complete description:

BotdorfJohn-Pension-008a

The letter from Provost Marshal Patterson noted that John Batdorf had hazel eyes, brown hair, light complexion, and stood 5 foot, eight inches tall.  Prior indication (on the Pennsylvania Veterans’ Index Card, above) noted that he was serving as a “Sub,” without mentioning for whom.  The Provost Marshal’s letter stated that John Botdorf was a substitute for Henry Knarr of Jackson Township.

The history of the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry (from the Union Army, Volume I) states the following:

On Oct. 29 [the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry] received 125 drafted men and towards the middle of November 158 more were added to the ranks. Many of these were good recruits, though a few were worthless and depraved. The command went into winter quarters near Stevensburg, Va., where 120 more recruits were received. It lost only 1 man killed at the Wilderness, as it acted mainly as support to the other troops. It was heavily engaged at the Po River and Spottsylvania, where it lost 31 killed, 235 wounded and 33 missing, a total of 301, the greatest loss inflicted on any infantry regiment at Spottsylvania.

The fighting in which the regiment was engaged, began at the Wilderness on 4 May 1864, and for John Botdorf, ended at the Po River, on 10 May 1864.  The pertinent battle chronology for the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry follows:

Fought on 4 May 1864 at Wilderness, VA.
Fought on 7 May 1864 at Wilderness, VA.
Fought on 9 May 1864 at Po River, VA.
Fought on 10 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 10 May 1864 at Po River, VA.
Fought on 12 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 13 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 14 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.

Apparently, the body of John Botdorf was not identified.  In order to receive a widow’s pension, Mary Botdorf had to prove that her husband died in the war.  There was no indication in the official records as to how he died, so a witness or witnesses had to be obtained.  For this purpose, testimony of two members of Company K was provided in the Pension Application:

BotdorfJohn-Pension-019a

Peter Klock, a Private in Company K of the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry, who had to make “his mark” with witnesses present because he could not read or write, swore that he knew John Botdorf and witnessed “the death of John Botdorf by a gun shot wound through the breast on the the tenth day of May  A. D. 1864 while in battle and in the line of his duty which caused his death instantly.”

If the testimony of Peter Klock was insufficient to satisfy the Pension Bureau that John Botdorf died in the line of duty, Mary Botdorf presented the testimony of the 2nd Lieutenant of Company K, John Ward:

BotdorfJohn-Pension-009a

In testimony in the form of a letter (signed by him), Ward indicated that he witnessed the death of John Botdorf “on the 10th day of May 1864 on the bank of the Po River, by a gun shot wound, received in the breast.”

Having proven that John Botdorf was a member of the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry and was killed in the line of duty (per witnesses), all that remained for Mary Botdorf was to prove that she was married to John and the four children, for whom she was also claiming benefits, were hers and John’s.  She had lost all records of her marriage and for marriage proof, she offered testimony that she lived with John as his wife.  Somehow, the date of their marriage was established as 11 June 1845 – and this fact was accepted by the Pension Bureau.

For the four minor children, Henry Alfred Botdorf, born 5 July 1851; Edward Franklin Botdorf, 25 June 1853; Samuel Botdorf, born 7 June 1858; and William Francis Botdorf, born 23 December 1860; she had to submit testimony of friends, family and Dr. R. H. Muth, who had delivered William, the last child.   Two persons whose names appeared in the Pension Application and who claimed they were present at the birth of her children were Elizabeth Deibert and Lovina Hartman.  For her efforts and those who testified on her behalf, Mary Botdorf was awarded, under the Pension Act of 14 July 1862, a sum of $8 per month plus $2 per month for each child under the age of 16.  Accordingly, her amount was increased several times over her lifetime, but as each child reached the age of 16, the benefits for that child ceased.  Thus, by 1876, Mary stopped receiving child support.  The Pension Bureau records note that Mary died in 1907 and that the last payment to her was made 4 May 1907.

At the beginning of this research, all that was known about John Botdorf was that he was killed in action at the Po River on 10 May 1864, while serving as a Private in the 148th Pennsylvania Infantry, Company K.  While there is still a great deal to be learned about him – including his family connections and his sons and their descendants – the examination of the Pension Application File has proven again to be a very valuable resource that will undoubtedly lead to getting a more complete picture of his service and his life.

Readers are invited to fill in any missing details.

——————————

The Story of Our Regiment:  The 148th Pennsylvania Volunteers, is available as a free download from GoogleBooks.  The Widow’s Pension Application file of Mary Botdorf is available from Fold3 (30 pages).

 

Daniel Binkley – Wounded at Spotsylvania, Died While a Prisoner

Posted By on May 6, 2013

On 9 April 1866, from his home in Llewellen, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Henry Brodt, who had served as Captain of Company A of the 50th Pennsylvania Infantry, provided a sworn statement in support of the pension application of the widow Harriet Binkley so that she could receive government support for herself and her young daughter:

BinkleyDaniel-Pension-019a

Llewellen, 9 April 1866

I certify that Daniel Binkley was a Private of my Company A, 50th Regiment Pennsylvania Veteran Volunteers and that he was taken prisoner while in the line of his duty and actively engaged with the enemy, 12 May 1864 at the Battle of Spotsylvania, Virginia, also that he was not considered a deserter, and that I have never heard anything of him since.

Henry Brodt

Late Captain, Company A, 50th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers.

While the information from Capt. Henry Brodt was important to confirm the honorable service of Daniel Binkley, it was not sufficient to prove that Harriet was entitled to a widow’s pension.  Appearing before a prothonotary in Berks County, Harriet had to swear that she was married to David Binkley.  More than one piece of evidence was required.  Fortunately she had a statement from the preacher who had married her and Daniel, the Rev. Charles A. Pauli:

BinkleyDaniel-Pension-006b

The statement from Rev. Pauli had to be examined by the prothonotary and entered on the official application form – she had married Daniel Binkley on 10 August 1863 at Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania.

So that she could get supplementary support for her daughter, Harriet also had to prove the date of birth of the daughter.  She supplied a baptismal record:

BinkleyDaniel-Pension-004a

Mary Elizabeth Binkley had been born on 12 December 1863 and had been baptized at the German Reformed Church in Reading by Rev. B. Bausman.

The pension file indicates that Harriet [Nixen] Binkley was awarded a pension, with benefits starting on 13 May 1864, one day after the supposed date of death of her husband.

But, did Daniel Binkley die on 12 May 1864?  And, what was his cause of death?  Although the Pension Bureau accepted the date of 12 May 1864, other records are not so clear.  For example, the Pennsylvania Veterans’ File Card, available from the Pennsylvania Archives, gives the following information:

BinkleyDaniel-PAVetCardFile-001

Daniel Binkley, who was 22 years old at the time of his enrollment at Pottsville, 26 February 1964, as a Private, was born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, was a laborer, had dark hair, a fair complexion, hazel eyes, and stood nearly 5 foot, 5 inches tall.  He was mustered into service at Pottsville the next day. The file card notes that his date of death was unknown and that he died of disease, “while in Rebel hands.”

The database, American Civil War Soldiers, actually gives a date of death – which supposedly references Bates – a date that is different that that accepted by the Pension Bureau:

BinkleyDaniel-ACWS-001In the American Civil War Soldiers database, the date of death is given as 17 June 1864 – at Petersburg, Virginia.

The following dates are given in the chronology of battles fought by the 50th Pennsylvania Infantry:

Fought on 6 May 1864 at Wilderness, VA.
Fought on 9 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 10 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 11 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 12 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 13 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 15 May 1864 at Spotsylvania Court House, VA.
Fought on 25 May 1864 at North Anna River, VA.
Fought on 25 May 1864.
Fought on 30 May 1864 at North Anna River, VA.
Fought on 1 Jun 1864 at Cold Harbor, VA.
Fought on 2 Jun 1864 at Cold Harbor, VA.
Fought on 3 Jun 1864 at Cold Harbor, VA.
Fought on 7 Jun 1864 at Cold Harbor, VA.
Fought on 15 Jun 1864.
Fought on 17 Jun 1864 at Petersburg, VA.

Fighting at Spotsylvania, which occurred from 9 May to the 15 May 1864, was one month prior to the 50th’s fighting at Petersburg.  If Daniel Binkley was captured at Spotsylvania, and died shortly thereafter, he could not have fought at Petersburg.

One final piece of evidence was found in the Pension Application File:

BinkleyDaniel-Pension-008a

The above document, from the Adjutant General’s Office, confirms that the date of death of Daniel Binkley was unknown and that the “evidence” that he died was found on the muster rolls, which were dated 30 July 1865:  “Died of disease while in Rebel hands date unknown.  Date, place and cause of death not stated.”  It was this statement, along with the statement of Capt. Henry Brodt, that satisfied the Pension Bureau that Daniel Binkley died  – but it is still unclear as to whether additional corroboration was needed in order to determine that he died on 12 May 1864.

No actual record of his death has been located – other than the date accepted by the Pension Bureau – and no actual Prisoner of War record has been located.  It appears that without the statement of Henry Brodt, a date of death could not have been established.

Following her receipt of the widow’s pension, Harriet [Nixen] Binkley raised her daughter in Reading.  The daughter, Mary Elizabeth Binkley, eventually married George W. Phillips, moulder, around 1881 and continued to live in Reading where she raised a family.  Their known children were:  Charles M. Phillips, corn around 1882; Ellen A. Phillips, born around 1886; Walter D. Phillips, born around 1890; and George W. Phillips Jr., born around 1896.  Harriet lived with her daughter and her daughter’s family until her death, believed to be around 1900.  She never re-married.

——————————

Pennsylvania Veterans’ Index Cards are from the Pennsylvania Archives.  Twenty-three pages of the Widow’s Pension Application are available at Fold3.  The database, American Civil War Soldiers, is available at Ancestry.com.

Jonas Swab – Civil War Letters to His Father

Posted By on May 5, 2013

Jonas Swab of the 210th Pennsylvania Infantry carried on a regular correspondence with his father during the Civil War.  Several of the letters he sent to his father were preserved by a family member and transcribed and published in The Johannes Schwab Family: 240 Years in America. a copy of which is available at the Gratz Historical Society.

On New Year’s Day, 1865, Jonas noted that he believed the campaign was over for the winter… and he thanked his father for the gloves he sent him:

“I’m glad for them cloves. I got a pair from Uncle Sam, but these pair suit me much better….

“I expect the campaign is over for this winter.  The army is laying still in winterguaters now and the canons are pretty quite…. Two days pricket duty to do and live with small rations if it wouldn’t be for my little money which I have yet, I would starve.  But we can buy as much bread as we want….”

On 21 January 1865, Jonas asked his father to send a box:

“I’ll take a box if it ain’t to much trouble.  Send me one for all the boys in my tent.  Each of them get a box….

“About the articles, you may put in whatever you want though I will mention some.  I would like to have some writing paper, envelopes, black thread, and a needle to patch my old slacks… but don’t put in anything that will spoin in two weeks.  It takes two weeks for a box to come out here.

“You have wrote me that you have so many snows up there.  The most snow we had, I was out on picket…  but rain plenty…. You have wrote me that there are many children sick and dieing in our valley.  It’s about the same with soldiers out here.  There are a great many sick in the army….”

From “Camp Skear,” Jonas wrote on 10 February 1865:

“We are trilling pretty hard….  About fighting is no use to tell much because they fight almost every day.  But our regiment don’t fight yet.  They take old sodiers in first and they whift them off always so that no chance to fight.  Last Thursday I have seen a little fight.  The rebs stand only to valleys of firing and then they fall back.  We had only few wounded….  On Saturday we had another fight about a mile from out camp.  There was a big white house and a reb fort…. They fired two canons on the white house and threw shells in it and it burnt down….

‘”Please send my tax receipt.  I can’t vote without my tax receipt…. Send it to me as soon as you can because we must all stick to getter to get in Mac.  About half the soldiers are for Mac.  I have seen reb prisoners.  They said of we get Maccledlon in the war, it will be over in three months….”

The last sentences of the February 1865 letter are curious since the election of Lincoln (vs. McClellan) had taken place in November 1864.

Jonas Swab was a staunch Democrat throughout his life.  When he returned to Elizabethville, Dauphin County, he learned the trade of blacksmithing and later established the Swab Wagon Company.  The story of Jonas Swab was previously told in the post entitled:  Pvt. Jonas Swab – Wagon Manufacturer.

——–

The biography of Jonas Swab appears on pages 97-100 of the aforementioned, The Johannes Schwab Family: 240 Years in America, where complete transcriptions of the letters to his father can be found.

Cinco de Mayo, the Confederacy, and Gen. Jo Shelby

Posted By on May 4, 2013

 

Tomorrow is Cinco de Mayo (Fifth of May), a holiday that had its origins during the American Civil War.  It commemorates the Mexican army’s victory over the French forces of Napoleon III at the Battle of Puebla.  The holiday was actually created by Mexicans living in California who supported the cause of Mexican freedom.  Ironically, it is primarily celebrated in the United States today and focuses on Mexican heritage and pride.

Following the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 and several subsequent wars, the Mexican treasury was nearly bankrupt.  On 17 July 1861, the Mexican President Benito Juarez called for a two-year moratorium on debt repayment, but this was not accepted by the European powers holding the debt.  As a result, France, Britain, and Spain sent their naval forces to Veracruz to collect payment.  After negotiation, Britain and Spain withdrew, but Napoleon III, then ruler of France, decided to establish the Second Mexican Empire which was to be controlled by French interests.

In late 1861, the French took the port city of Veracruz and advanced toward Mexico City.  Under surprisingly heavy resistance from the Mexicans, the French, who outnumbered the Mexicans two-to-one, were defeated at Puebla.  This victory was significant in that one of the strongest European powers had been soundly defeated in its imperialistic attempt to establish control of part of the North American continent.  But the French were able to re-group.  A year later, and with significant reinforcements, the Mexican army was defeated and Mexico City was taken.  The French established Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico.

The United States was helpless to fully support the Mexicans while the Civil War was raging.  But after 1865, assistance was provided and the French were expelled in 1867.  Maximillian I was executed along with the Mexican generals who had supported him.

The significance of the Battle of Puebla cannot be underestimated.  Many historians believe that the French goal was broader than establishing influence in Mexico.  Clearly, the French favored the Confederacy and by the Mexicans defeating the French at Puebla, direct aid to the Southern cause had to be postponed for a least a year – enough time for the Union army to strengthen and repel the rebels at Gettysburg.  By 1864, when the French finally were able to get control of Mexico, it was almost too late to use Mexico as a base to supply the Confederate army.  Thus, the Mexican victory at Puebla helped influence the outcome of the American Civil War.  At the conclusion of the American Civil War, the United States then supported the Mexicans in their efforts to repel the French.

One of the generally unknown stories of the post-Civil War period was the role that former Confederates played in Mexico in the period between 1865 and 1867.  Anthony Arthur, in his book General Jo Shelby’s March, has provided us with a vivid and detailed account of of those in Shelby’s “Iron Brigade” who refused to surrender to the Union forces and instead, fought their way into Mexico for what they hoped would be a new life.   The band of Confederate soldiers under Shelby arrived in Mexico City on 3 September 1865.  Although their political views were ambiguous (they had supplied weapons to the rebels), they found great sympathy for their social views with Maximillian‘s wife Carlotta who was charmed by Jo Shelby‘s “blue blood” heritage and warmly welcomed him into Mexico.  Shelby helped convince the Emperor that he could recruit tens of thousands of former Confederates who were greatly upset by the surrender and entice them to come to Mexico as “colonists”.  Many of these Confederates were ineligible for the general amnesty proposed during “reconstruction”.  This migration, Shelby and other argued, would elevate the educational and scientific levels of Maximilian‘s empire.

In one of Shelby’s first encounters with Maximilian, he proposed to recruit an elite army of 40,000 Americans who would serve as a protection for Maximilian and who would be much more competent that the Emperor’s “demonstrably incompetent Mexicans” who were then defending Maximilian.  Shelby tried to convince the Emperor that should the French withdraw, Maximilian would be left defenseless with what he then had as an army.  From Shelby’s own experience, and from his family history (his cousin was Frank Blair), he was convinced that diplomatic efforts by the United States would result in the French withdrawing support for Maximilian and leaving him defenseless in Mexico.  But Maximilian was not convinced that the French would abandon him and rejected Shelby’s offer to raise an army.  Instead, Maximilian issued an invitation to Shelby and all foreigners to become “land colonists” (farmers) in Mexico.  Thus began the efforts to recruit former Confederates with land grants of up to 640 acres per family.  The former Confederates could bring whatever they wished – farm animals, slaves, machinery – all duty free and with tax advantages for a period of five years.  Shelby accepted the officer and bade farewell to the men of his “Iron Brigade” who had followed him into Mexico.  Some joined Shelby as “land colonists” and other chose to join Maximilian’s existing army; few decided to return to the United States.

Thus, in September 1865, Shelby received a significant grant of land in the Cordoba Valley about 150 miles southwest of Mexico City.  Although it was a tropical area, it was high enough that yellow fever, common along the coast, was not a problem.  He sent for his wife Betty and two sons who booked passage from New Orleans to Veracruz and who joined him in November.

Maximilian had grandiose plans for the new colony which was named Carlota (after his wife), but the efforts were probably doomed from the start.  Agents were sent throughout the Old South to recruit colonists but few took up the offer.  Meanwhile, competition for economic franchises and social distractions within the court threatened to derail the Emperor’s plans.  And, diplomatic efforts by United States Secretary of State William Seward had a great effect of getting France to withdraw its support for Maximilian.

All Jo Shelby could see was that he was about to begin a new life.  But his bitterness remained. In a letter to a friend in Missouri in November 1865, he wrote:

I am here as an exile; defeated by the acts of the southern people themselves [who loved their lands] more than principle…. Let them reap what their deserved, eternal disgrace.  Damn ‘em, they were foolish enough to think that by laying down their arms they would enjoy all the rights they once had.  [My] heart [is] heavy at the thought of being separated from you all forever; but I am not one of those to ask forgiveness for that which I believe to day is right.  The [Republican] party in power had manifested no leniency.

Returning to the United States would be dangerous, but there were challenges for the colonists, that although minimized at the time, would soon bring about the undoing of the colony.  The most formidable of these was the restlessness of the native population who had no say in the colony or in the political future of the country.  Maximilian tried to earn their loyalty by “good works” but was forced to issue decrees that punished “disloyalty” with execution.  Shelby and other colonists were forced to pay “protection money” in order to survive and it began to seem that Maximilian was losing enthusiasm for the venture. Shelby’s friends, who had accepted the land grants, began to abandon Mexico and fewer new immigrants were arriving to take their places.  In 1866, the Omealco Indians attacked a group of Confederate settlers and force-marched them to the coast where they could board ships back to the United States. Frequent nighttime raids by rebels left colonist’s property looted and burned, and many were taken prisoner and summarily executed or severely beaten.

In February 1867, the French, admitted their defeat in Mexico by withdrawing the last of their supporting armed forces.  But Shelby and Maximilian saw this as a positive.  They believed that the United States would then abandon any plans to challenge the regime since it seemed to them that the greatest annoyance to the United States was the French support for Maximilian and the presence of European troops in Mexico.  Shelby believed that with the number of former United States citizens (Confederates) having influence in Maximilian‘s court, the United States would never send an army into Mexico to overthrow Maximilian.

But events in Mexico were moving too quickly.  In July 1866, a third son was born to Jo and Betty Shelby, who they named Benjamin Gratz Shelby after Shelby’s step-father who helped raised him.  Now feeling more vulnerable than ever, Jo Shelby sent his wife and sons to Mexico City where they could be better protected.  As best he could, he maintained  his economic interests in Cordoba, but rebel activity forced him to seek safety in Mexico City.  He briefly considered returning to Missouri, but the news that Jefferson Davis was still in prison quickly changed his mind.  In October 1866, Maximilian‘s wife Carlota, hysterical and paranoid, was removed to Belgium to an asylum for the “mad” where she remained until her death nearly 61 years later.  Maximilian contemplated abdication but was persuaded from it by reports that he would not receive any leniency from the rebels.

Meanwhile, back in the War Department in Washington, General Philip Sheridan was pursuing the idea of marching an army into Mexico to extricate the former Confederates and bring relief to the Mexican rebels.  Sheridan believed that the continued presence of those having antipathy towards the United States and the harboring of them by Maximilian‘s regime was not a good thing for the future of either country.

Sensing Maximilian‘s indecisiveness and the rapidly eroding support for the regime, Shelby took steps in March 1867 to book passage for his wife and children back to New Orleans.  Staying in Mexico only to try to salvage some of his business interests, Shelby rightly concluded that Maximilian was doomed.  In June 1867, Shelby boarded the American gunship Tacony at Veracruz and headed back to the United States, his confidence in eventual amnesty bolstered by the news that Jefferson Davis had been released from prison in May.  A few days after Shelby boarded the Tacony, despite pleas from the international community, Maximilian was executed.  The new president of Mexico would be Benito Juarez who had signed the death sentence for Maximilian.

The reconciliation period for Jo Shelby began in 1867.  His return to Missouri to raise a family – eventually eight children (seven boys and a girl) – and re-establishment of business interests – as well as appointment to the post of U.S. marshal for western Missouri – will have to be left to others to recount.

Thus, the events of Cinco de Mayo, 5 May 1862, celebrated today as a holiday in the United States, although not conclusive in driving the French from Mexico, eventually resulted in a period of French-supported rule in Mexico and the establishment of Maximilian whose “empire” lasted until 1867.  The significance of the Mexican victory at Puebla was the postponement of French aid to the Confederacy until it was too late in the American Civil War to have any meaning or effect.   But coinciding with the rise and fall of Maxmillian‘s empire was the establishment of  colonies of Confederate exiles and the adventures of Jo Shelby and others in supporting Maxmillian‘s regime.

For historians of the Gratz family and those interested in the history of Gratz, Pennsylvania, it is noted that Benjamin Gratz, who was the step-father of Jo Shelby, was the younger brother of Simon Gratz, the founder of Gratz, Pennsylvania.

The picture,  “Charge of the Mexican Cavalry at the Battle of Puebla” was posted on Wikipedia and was released into the public domain.  Information for this post was taken from Wikipedia and from the aforementioned book, General Jo Shelby’s March.  See also: Civil War Descendants of Nathaniel Gist.