Category: Civil War

Huguenin Family History

Posted on adminPosted in Civil War, People

HUGUENIN FAMILY HISTORY

by Edward Ulric Huguenin

The first appearance of the name Huguenin in France goes back to the year 1292. The Census Parisiorum refers, at that date, to the presence in Paris of a so-called Huguenin le Bourguignon, this name suggesting a Burgundian origin. We can find also, in Burgundy, a certain Hughes Bourgogne, called Huguenin, born in 1260 and dead in 1288. In fact the name HUGUENIN comes probably from the slopes of the Jura mountains where it is still alive and well referenced, particularly in the swiss areas of Neuchatel and La-Chaux-de-Fonds as well as on the French part of the mountains. It is probably from this French part of the so-called “Franche-Comte” that some Huguenin families could have emigrated during the 13th and the 15th centuries to settle in Switzerland, attracted by the freedoms conceded by the landlords of Neuchatel and Valanges to help them to settle and develop the mountain land.

In Switzerland, a large Huguenin family comes from Le-Locle, little town in the higher part of the Neuchatel district and specialized in clock making. The known ancestor, named Outhenyn Chiez Heuguenin, was a free-burgher and lived here at the end of the 15th century. Counting his descendants still living in Switzerland, those emigrated to the States or to Australia, and others, they are still about 8500 who bear the name, either simple or compound. They are numerous in the United States and also in Holland.

In France, according to the INSEE data, we can find about 3613 persons bearing this name, setting it at the 2158th rank of the most borne french names. This name is frequent in the eastern part of France, particularly in regions such as Lorraine, Champagne-Ardennes, Burgundy and Franche-Comte. Somebodies try to do a connection between the name “Huguenin” and the calling of Huguenot given in 1550 by the Genevian catholics to the Calvinists. But, the name was living long before this calling and so, the connection is without any foundation. The name derives probably from Hughes, itself coming from Hug , an old germanic name meaning “spirit” or “thought”. In France and in Switzerland, the name is present under different forms or variations: Hugounin, Hugounenq, Huguenet, Hugonin, Hugueny, frequently completed by a prefix or a suffix such in Petithuguenin or Huguenin-Virchaux… These double names are very typical of the Neuchatel swiss district and of the french Franche-Comte.

Near the end of the 19th century, a Parisian branch of the Huguenin family, by the marriage of Edouard Huguenin, son of Bonaventure Alexis Huguenin, from the french Champagne, was allied with the family Drieu, from Saint-Lo in Normandy. This family is from an old Norman ascendance, one of its known ancestor being a man called Drieu Le Normand, born in 1045, and fellow of William the Conqueror in 1066 during the conquest of England. He was still living in 1086 and his descendants in England, by his son Walter Drieu, shall bear the successive names of Drui (1200), Drury (1300) then Drewry after the emigration in North America of Robert Drury, in 1635. This name of Drieu could come from an old medieval French word meaning “love-token”. The Drury were, in medieval England, a very prominent family. They counted 18 Knights, 5 Sheriffs of the Norfolk and Suffolk County and 4 Earl Knights. Some members of the family were councellors of the Kings of England and among the richest families of the Kingdom.

 

Roseland Plantation Avenue

Roseland Plantaton near Coosawhatchie, South Carolina was purchased in about 1782 by David Huguenin, a descendant of Outhenyn Chiez Huguenin, after it was confiscated from a Tory baron named John Rose. Roseland has been home to descendants of David until the present day. The oak trees in the picture are near the family cemetery, which dates back to the 1790s.

A description of Roseland written in late 1864 by Dr. Henry Marcy, a surgeon with the Union army, appears in the next column. In 1865 the mansions were burned by troops of the 144th New York Volunteers under the command of Gen.William T. Sherman. In a twist of fate, the sergeant in charge of burning Roseland was another Huguenin, a descendant of David Huguenin’s father.

Over the years, Roseland grew to about 25,000 acres and then gradually was sold to other owners. However, it is now expanding again as parts are being repurchased by David L. Huguenin, a descendant of the original owner. Roseland was the childhood home of David L., his brothers Edward and Julius, and their sister Kathy.

Dr. Henry Orlando Marcy, 1837-1924
35th Regt. U.S.C.T.
Diary of a Surgeon, U.S. Army, 1864-1899
Sunday, Dec. 4, 1864

At noon we halted near the plantations of the Huguenin’s about a mile from Roseland, the name of the mansion’s house. In company of several others I went down. I think it one of the most lovely spots I have ever seen. Pen would fail to do it justice. It is near the Coosawhatchie River situated on high ground, in a splendid grove of live oaks of a centuries growth. Outhouses and all at a distance bear the look of a country village. Every outhouse was nicely whitewashed. The grounds were beautifully laid and splendidly kept. The mansion was huge and eloquently furnished. We found a detachment of the Navy here raising mischief. They were drinking and destroying property most shamefully. The slaves had been all removed. I obtained a few books. Among others a copy of the Confederate States Regulations which showed that one of the Huguenins was a Capt & a QM. in service. From a colored man I learned that the father had died a few years previous and left 9 plantations and several hundred slaves to two sons and two daughters. The property lay so near the coast they did not dare to trust the slaves to work here and have moved them into the interior. Only a few old men and woman had been left to care for the whole tract. The sons are both in service. We returned at evening without loss. Spent the day more happily there in camp, yet should have preferred, if the exigency of the service would have permitted, to make our movements other than on Sunday. We were trying to find where the Bee’s Creek Battery is located. We shelled where we suffered it lay and our gunboats have been firing all day with their heavy guns, but they have remained silent. ‘Tis said to be a strong work.

 

Beck, Ann (Huguenin), b. 25 Mar 1773, d. 12 Mar 1836, Wife of Rev. John Beck

Beck, Jane Amanda, d. 16 Oct 1817, daughter of Rev. John & Mrs. Ann (Huguenin) Beck

Beck, John David, d. 18 Sep 1826, 21y 7m

Beck, John, Rev., b. 19 Aug 1755, d. 19 May 1818, 62y 9m

Bryan, Thomas S., d. 29 Sep 1859, Only child of ?.J. & M.S. Bryan, 5y

Colcock, Sara Rebecca, (Huguenin), d. 1 Jul 1829, Wife of W.F.Colcock, 21y

Huguenin, Abraham, b. 7 Aug 1778, d. 11 Apr 1846, 67y

Huguenin, Abram, Capt., b. 5 Oct 1838, d. 11 Feb 1885

Huguenin, Anna Marie, (Gillison), b. 14 Jul 1785, d. 25 Jan 1854, Wife of Abraham Huguenin

Huguenin, Beulah Irene, (Corbett), b. 18 Jul 1886, d. 10 Sep 1970, Wife of Edward Percy Huguenin, Sr.

Huguenin, Cornelius M., Col., b. 23 Feb 1817, d. 31 Jul 1856, 40y

Huguenin, Edward Percy, Jr., b. 22 Jul 1918, d. 21 2 1982

Huguenin, Edward Percy, Sr., b. 4 9 1885, d. 27 10 1966

Huguenin, Eliza Louisianna, (Morrell), b. 29 Mar 1815, d. 7 Feb 1861, wife of Julius G. Huguenin

Huguenin, Frances Martha (Rice), b. 24 Apr 1918, d. 28 Mar 2000, Wife of Edward Percy Huguenin, Jr.

Huguenin, Julia Adelaide, d. 18 Jul 1849, Second daughter of Cornelius M. & Adelaide Huguenin, 7y 3m 4d

Huguenin, Julia Theodore, d. 26 Aug 1838, Only daughter of Julius & Theodora Huguenin, 10y

Huguenin, Julius Abram, b. 23 Oct 1925, d. 29 Apr 1954

Huguenin, Julius Gillison, b. 19 Dec 1806, d. 16 Aug 1862

Huguenin, Lawrence Augustus, b. 12 Jul 1814, d. 14 Jul 1816, Infant son of Abraham & Anna Huguenin

Huguenin, Mary Ella (Stroud), b. 23 Feb 1937, d. 18 Mar 1982, Wife of Edward Percy Huguenin, Jr.

Huguenin, Theodore, b. 31 Dec 1812, d. 31 Dec 1812, Infant son of Abraham & Anna Huguenin

Huguenin, Theordora Octavia (Gaillard), b. 5 10 1806, d. 5 11 1831, Wife of Julius Huguenin, youngest daughter of Theodore & Martha Gaillard, 25y 1m

Huguenin, Thomas Edgar, b. 19 Jan 1811, d. 8 Jun 1812, Infant son of Abraham & Anna Huguenin, 16m 20d

Huguenin, William John, b. 27 Oct 1791, d. 1 Nov 1818, 27y 5d

 

To learn more about the Huguenin Family please visit the link:

https://hugueninfamily.wordpress.com/

General Order No. 11 – Freeing the Slaves

Posted on adminPosted in Civil War, Freeing the Slaves

 

General Order No. 11 – HDQRS Dept. of the South, Hilton Head, Port Royal, S.C.

“The three States of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, comprising the military department of the south, having deliberately declared themselves no longer under the protection of the United States of America, and having taken up arms against the said United States, it becomes a military necessity to declare them under martial law. This was accordingly done on the 25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three States — Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina— heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free.”

General David Hunter achieved fame by issuing an unauthorized order in April 1862 freeing the slaves in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Upon hearing of Hunter’s “Emancipation Proclamation” Abraham Lincoln immediately declared that order null and void.

Hunter graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1822 and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the 5th U.S. Infantry regiment. From 1828 to 1831 he was stationed on the northwest frontier, at Fort Dearborn, Illinois, where he met and married Maria Kinzie, the daughter of the city’s first permanent white resident, John Kinzie. He served in the infantry for 11 years, and was appointed Captain of the 1st U.S. Dragoons in 1833. Hunter later resigned from the Army in July 1836 and worked as a real estate agent in Illinois. He rejoined the Army in November 1841 as a paymaster and was quickly promoted to Major in March 1842. A Whig turned Democrat and a one-time Chicago businessman, Hunter was a professional soldier before the Civil War but lacked any real military experience.

In 1860, Hunter was stationed at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Being politically astute and connected, he seized opportunities to advance his career. Hunter began corresponding with Abraham Lincoln with topics concerning his strong anti-slavery views. This relationship had long-lasting political effects. With strong divisions between the Northern and Southern states simmering, Hunter expressed his concern for President Elect Lincoln’s safety prior to the inauguration . Hunter volunteered and was invited to ride on Lincoln’s inaugural train from Springfield, Ill. to Washington D.C. in February 1861. Four years later, as an army general, he over-saw President Lincoln’s funeral and escorted President Lincoln’s body back to Springfield. Later, he presided at trial of those charged with conspiring to murder the President.

His actual military career was undistinguished. Upon arrival in Washington in 1861, he sought to command the city’s defenses; instead, he was briefly appointed to take charge of the security of the White House. He worked with Cassius Clay and Kansas Senator James H. Lane to organize volunteer militia companies to protect the Executive mansion. For a few days, they bedded down in the White House East Room

Soon after the firing on Fort Sumter, Hunter was promoted to Colonel of the 3rd U.S. Cavalry, but three days later, May 17, 1861,his political connection to the Lincoln administration bore fruit and he was appointed the fourth-ranking Brigadier General of volunteers, commanding a brigade in the Department of Washington.

Hunter was wounded in the neck and cheek while commanding a division at the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. In August he was promoted Major General of volunteers. He served as a division commander in the Western Army and was appointed as commander of the Western Department on November 2, 1861. That winter he was transferred to command the Department of Kansas and in March 1862 was transferred again to command the Department of the South at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. At that time, preparations to retake the Confederate held Fort Pulaski on the Savannah River in Georgia, was already underway. Hunter sent a flag of truce to the fort that was immediately ignored. Union troops opened fire on Fort Pulaski on April 10, 1862, and within 30 hours had forced the surrender of the massive fortress.

With his duties as the Commander of the Department of the South, Hunter advocated arming freed blacks as soldiers for the Union. This action caused deep concerns on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. He proclaimed by General Order No. 11, the emancipation of the slaves in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida on April 13, 1862, which was rescinded by President Lincoln. That reversal may have influenced an opinion Hunter expressed in early October 1862 that President Lincoln was a “man irresolute but of honest intentions – born a poor white in a Slave State, and, of course, among aristocrats – kind in spirit and not envious, but anxious for approval, especially of those to whom he has been accustomed to look up to, hence solicitous of support of the Slaveholders in the Border States…”

After General Order No. 11, Hunter began enlisting black soldiers from the occupied districts of South Carolina and formed the first such Union Army regiment, the 1st South Carolina (African Descent),which he was initially ordered to disband, but eventually got approval from Congress for his action. This order was quickly rescinded by Abraham Lincoln, who was concerned about the political effects that it would have in the border states, driving some slave holders to support the Confederacy. (Lincoln’s own Emancipation Proclamation was announced in September, taking effect in January 1863.) Nevertheless, the South was furious at Hunter’s action and Confederate president Jefferson Davis issued orders to the Confederate Armies that Hunter was to be considered a “felon to be executed if captured.

Hunter’s ideas on public and military policy were often more fanciful than practical, but his role in burning the Shenandoah Valley earned him a reputation for viciousness and hatred from Southerners. His ineptness in command – leaving the way clear for Gen. Jubal Early to attack Washington in July 1864 – led to his replacement by the more aggressive General Philip Sheridan. Historian Edward G. Longacre wrote: “Lincoln’s and Stanton’s panic over the raid drove Grant to make a major decision. After visiting the president at Fort Monroe on July 31, the commanding general went to Frederick, Maryland to confer with David Hunter. He came away from the meetings convinced that a more enterprising and energetic officer than Hunter should command the Army of West Virginia and other troops as well.”

Hunter was essentially unemployed for the rest of the war – relegated to conducting court martials.
He retired from the Army in July 1866. He was the author of Report of the Military Services of Gen. David Hunter, U.S.A., during the War of the Rebellion, published in 1873. Hunter died in 1886 in Washington, D.C., and was buried in Princeton, New Jersey.

Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Posted on adminPosted in Civil War, Secession

Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments– Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: “ARTICLE 1– His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were– separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860