Project Director: William H. Mulligan, Jr.
Project Historian: Darian Mock
Project Historian: Jerry T. Wooten

This project has been funded, in part, through a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, through the Kentucky Heritage Council. However, the contents and opinions herein do not necessarily reflect the views and/or policies of the Department of the Interior nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Kentucky Heritage Council.

This project received Federal funds from the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, orhandicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service PO Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013-7127

I. Introduction

II. Project Narrative

III. The Jackson Purchase in the Civil War: A Brief Narrative History

IV. Bibliography

V. List of Civil War Incidents in the Jackson Purchase Region

VI. Analysis and Recommendations for Future Work

---

I. Introduction 

During the academic year 1993-94 the Department of History, Murray State University conducted a survey of sites and structures related to the Civil War in the Jackson Purchase region of Kentucky under a grant from the Kentucky Heritage Council (Grant number 21-93-80135). The purpose of the survey was to identify resources in the region related to the Civil War, assess their significance and integrity, and make recommendations for future work either to insure the preservation of resources or to develop their interpretation. In this project the Jackson Purchase has been defined as the eight modern Kentucky counties west of the Tennessee River, specifically: Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle (part of Ballard County during the Civil War), Fulton, Graves, Hickman, and McCracken. The area known during the Civil War as "the land between the rivers," now the "Land between the Lakes" was excluded from this survey.

The project was directed by Dr. William H. Mulligan, Jr. who was visiting assistant professor of history at the University during the project year. He was assisted by Jerry T. Wooten and Darian Mock, graduate students in the history program at Murray State at that time.

This report presents the results of this year-long project and is organized in several sections to facilitate access to information by interested individuals. The first section provides a brief description of the methodology of the project; discusses the research design followed, particularly the sequence of project activities; and provides other information descriptive of the project itself.

The second section offers a brief narrative of the course of the Civil War in the Purchase region to provide an overall context for assessing the significance of the various sites and incidents. Following this essay we have included a bibliography of the sources used in the project, several that have appeared during the preparation of this report, as well as those consulted in preparing the final draft of the narrative. The first draft of the essay was prepared by Darian Mock. After review and comment on the draft by Jerry T. Wooten it was substantially rewritten by William H. Mulligan, Jr.

The next section is a listing of events in the Purchase region related to the Civil War. Each entry has the date the incident occurred, a brief description of the event, the location where the incident took place, and the sources that documents the incident. Messrs. Mock and Wooten compiled preliminary drafts of the list, Dr. Mulligan put it into final form. This list formed the basis for the field survey work that was undertaken during the project. It began as a chronological list to help insure completeness and ease of use when checking various sources. Before the field survey work began it was reorganized by location for more efficiency. It is presented in that form.

Finally, the report concludes with an analysis of what has been found and discusses issues and problems related to the interpretation and preservation of Civil War sites in the Purchase in the future.

We are very grateful to the Kentucky Heritage Council for the grant that supported the project and for their patience in waiting for this final report. Joe Brent of the Heritage Council staff deserves special thanks for his patience in listening to long previews of this report and in gently urging it toward completion. His comments on a preliminary draft greatly improved the final project. His work in supporting and encouraging Civil War preservation in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is well known and greatly appreciated by all who care about preserving this aspect of our nation's heritage. Getting to know him has been one of the most pleasant parts of this project and, I hope, one of its lasting legacies.

James W. Hammack, Jr., chair of the Department of History at Murray State University, and Joseph H. Cartwright, Dean of its College of Humanistic Studies, have been very supportive of this project throughout its duration. Their provision of release time for this work and other support, both for this project and for the public history program at Murray State generally, are very much appreciated.

Lesley J. Gordon joined the history department at Murray State while this report was being prepared and graciously read and commented on an earlier draft. Her knowledge of the Civil War, generously shared, has improved this report considerably.

Darian Mock and Jerry T. Wooten devoted a great deal of energy, enthusiasm, and talent to the nitty gritty of research and field work that provided the basis for the project. Jerry, especially, went well beyond the call of duty on numerous occasions. They both have my sincere thanks for their work on this project.

As with all historical works, this is far from the final word on the Civil War in the Purchase. We do hope that it will be useful to others as they pursue specific events and particular aspects of the Civil War in the Jackson Purchase. There remain many interesting stories to tell.

William H. Mulligan, Jr.
November 1995

The survey of Civil War sites in the Jackson Purchase project began in August 1993 with the assignment of Jerry T. Wooten and Darian Mock, (l) graduate assistants in the department of history at Murray State University, as researchers on the project under the direction of William H. Mulligan, Jr., visiting assistant professor of history.(2) Wooten already had a strong interest and extensive knowledge of the Civil War before the project began, which was a strong plus for the project. The team agreed to define "Civil War-related" events as those occurrences that related to the debate over secession in Kentucky, the raising of troops, guerrilla activities, and mob actions -- as well as formal battles and troop movements during the period 1861 to 1865.

The project began with a search of the literature for material on the Civil War in Kentucky generally and in the Purchase region specifically. We then proceeded to review the secondary literature, beginning with studies of the Purchase region. Hunter B. Whitsell, "Military Operations in the Jackson Purchase Area of Kentucky, 1862 -1865," Robert D. Whitsell, "Military and Naval Operations between Cairo and Columbus," and Berry Craig, "The Jackson Purchase Region of Kentucky in the Secession Crisis of 1860-61" were especially helpful, both for specific information and as guides into the primary sources(3).

Every incident from these works was listed, initially chronologically, with its location noted and the sources including primary sources, where cited, that documented it. This list became the basic working document of the project and incidents identified in sources consulted during the project were added as they were uncovered.

As soon as the list was established we began to review the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (hereafter referred to as OR) to bring the full documentary record of those incidents identified from secondary sources into the purview of the study and pursue other incidents as they were identified. Further, the indices of the OR were thoroughly checked for all place names in the Jackson Purchase and for the names of officers and regiments known to have been active in the area during the Civil War. All of these leads were investigated for evidence of Civil War activities in the Purchase region.

Once we were reasonably sure all relevant sources for identifying incidents (as opposed to sources that could provide details about the location of incidents) had been reviewed an effort was made to review all of the incidents and assign them to categories based on their significance. This exercise, while useful, proved not to be very helpful. The value was in assessing the relative significance of factors such as the strategic importance of an incident, the success of the party initiating the action in reaching its goal, or the number of individuals killed or wounded was instructive. However, the nature of the action of the Purchase made it hard to apply these criteria, even if there had been agreement on a ranking schema. Actions in the Purchase region were primarily small scale actions, most often characterized as guerrilla activities.

It was useful to group incidents geographically since most involved actions seeking to control river or, to a lesser extent, rail transportation routes. The result was that communities on the rivers and along the railroads saw a great deal of action while those not in these corridors saw relatively few incidents.(4)

Once the list was established and events "clustered" by location field investigation was begun. The entire project team went to the site of Fort Heiman to conduct a site survey that could serve as an orientation. Fort Heiman was selected because it is already on the National Register and easily accessible from Murray.(5) Following this the sites were divided among project staff for site visits to locate and document each site and photograph it when indicated. Wooten had primary responsibility for field work in Calloway, Fulton, Hickman, and southern Graves counties. Mock had primary responsibility for field work in northern Graves, Ballard, Carlisle, McCracken, and Marshall counties.

Mulligan and Wooten surveyed a number of sites along the Kentucky-Tennessee border, including Island #10.

Field work revealed a tragedy closely related to the nature of the War in the Jackson Purchase. Because so much of the military activity in the region was focused along the rivers, the shifting courses of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and the flooding of the Tennessee as a result of the completion of Kentucky Dam in 1944 have severely eroded or flooded many, if not, most, of the potential historical resources of the region from the Civil War era. This had an impact on the course of project field work and an even more profound impact on the recommendations for future action. The extent to which resources have been lost to the rivers was not expected and was very disappointing and discouraging.

Once the field work was completed, survey forms were typed and photographs collated with the completed forms. This report is the final step in the project.

Although there were few military engagements large enough to be called "battles" in the Jackson Purchase region of Western Kentucky during the Civil War, control of the area was a strategic objective for both Union and Confederate forces from the beginning of the War. There were a large number of incidents and a great deal of activity as both sides sought to control the region. Although Kentucky never seceded from the Union, pro-Southern sentiments were so strong in the Purchase region that Union troops were a de facto occupying Army and there were numerous incidents between them and the local population especially in Paducah and Columbus. A major source of friction was the garrisoning of African American troops in the region.(6)

The area of Kentucky west of the Tennessee River is known as the Jackson Purchase because it was part of the land purchased by Andrew Jackson and Isaac Shelby from the Indians in October 1818. During the Civil War its 2100 square miles were divided into seven counties -- Ballard, Calloway, Fulton, Graves, Hickman, McCracken, and Marshall. Carlisle County was set off from Ballard in 1886. The Purchase region is surrounded by strategically important, navigable rivers on three sides: the Mississippi on its western boundary, the Ohio on the north, and the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers on the east. Control of these rivers was critical to the success of the strategies of both the Union and the Confederacy in the early days of the War and gave the area great strategic significance. It was along these river systems that the majority of fortifications in the region were built and numerous skirmishes occurred.

The Purchase played a prominent role in the overall strategies of both sides. The Confederacy anchored its initial defensive line in the west at Columbus where it intended to control movement on the Mississippi as well as begin a defensive line across southern Kentucky. This strategy sought to protect the Confederate west from Union invasion. The Union sought to divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi and needed to control the western rivers to accomplish this. Implementing this strategy brought Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant to prominence, beginning with the occupation of Paducah early in September 1861 and the events leading up to the surrender of Fort Donelson early in 1862. The Purchase region figured prominently in the early stages of the western campaign with Paducah, Columbus, and Fort Heiman playing especially important roles.

The importance of the western theater in the outcome of the Civil War is only beginning to be fully appreciated by historians and others interested in the Civil War. Grant's gaining control of the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mississippi rivers quickly after his occupation of Paducah denied the Confederacy a foothold on the Ohio and seriously undermined the South's ability to wage war. The fall of Fort Donelson in February 1862 was a critical event, not only as far as the role of the Purchase was concerned, but for the War as a whole. The popular perception, from the time of the War to the present, that the South was "winning" early in the War is only true if one ignores the western theater. Grant was not only emerging as a "star" in the West, he was dealing devastating blows to the South's ability to fight.

As the theater of activity moved south the Purchase was occupied by the Union army and was the scene of mostly pro-Southern guerrilla activity and many Confederate cavalry raids led by Nathan Bedford Forrest.

A second important feature of the area which drew attention were the railroads which ran from Paducah to Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee and then further south. These lines ran through, or from, the major Purchase towns of Mayfield, Columbus, Hickman, and Fulton. Control of the railroads was a secondary concern after control of the rivers. In the early 1860s water was still the more effective way to move large numbers of troops and the huge quantities of supplies an army needed, but the railroad was starting to show its potential.

The following is a brief, narrative account of the major activities that occurred in this area during the Civil War period, beginning with the secession debate and the question of Kentucky's neutrality in 1861 and ending with the final guerrilla actions that took place in 1864 and 1865. This essay will provide a context within which to place the sites and stretchers identified during the survey phase of this project and a framework for assessing their significance.

It is important to realize the strategies of the two sides to appreciate the location of the actions. The Union used Southern Illinois, primarily Cairo initially, as a geographical wedge piercing the South. Cairo is further south than much of Kentucky. Paducah and Columbus became important targets as the Union began to implement its strategy to control the rivers. By controlling the Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers the Union could isolate the western portion of the Confederacy from the eastern. These rivers, in connection with the Ohio, could also serve as supply routes for Union armies operating deep in the heart of the Confederacy.(7) With control of the rivers and railroads the Union Army could effectively cut off transportation and supplies to the South as well as use them for their own operations.

The citizens of the Purchase strongly supported the Confederacy and that gave the war in the region an unusual character. Kentucky was a Union state but the Union army faced a hostile citizenry in the Jackson Purchase that supported and aided guerrillas and Confederate raiders whenever possible. Nearly every Purchase county saw four or five times as many of its men join the Confederate army as joined the Union army.

Confederate strategy in the area was similar to and mirrored that of the Union. They needed to control the area as part of their plan to create a buffer across southern Kentucky to protect the Confederate heartland from Union attack. By controlling the area in Kentucky from Columbus to Russellville, then east through Bowling Green to the Cumberland Gap, the Confederacy could keep the Union army from the heart of the South. This involved controlling not only the territory, but more importantly the rivers that ran through it. This would keep the Union army, and presumably the destruction of war, away from the Confederate heartland where food and other necessities could be produced.

With the secession oft Southern states and the formation of the Confederacy, Kentuckians were put in a very difficult position, asked to decide which side to take in the impending struggle.

Kentucky was a slave state with strongly pro-slavery views. It was also a state with a deeply Unionist political tradition. Its great political leaders, Clay and Crittenden, had been strong Union supporters. The state as whole was clearly anti-secession -- the legislature consistently opposed pro-Southern Governor Magoffin's steps -- from the beginning of the crisis and increasingly pro-Union after Confederate General Leonidas Polk occupied Hickman and Columbus in September 1861. Every statewide election and the actions of the legislature in Frankfort bear this out. Kentucky's "neutrality," embodied in a joint legislative resolution of May 1861 calling on Kentuckians not to participate in the war on either side, was short-lived and seems more a part of the conflict between Magoffin and the pro-Union legislature, it may well have been his way to keep Kentucky out of the war on the Union side.

While the Commonwealth as a whole was strongly pro-Union in its sentiments most of Western Kentucky, and all of the Jackson Purchase, was strongly sympathetic to the Southern cause consistently voting for secessionist or State's Rights candidates to the 1861 General Assembly, Congress and in other elections. Statewide, secessionist candidates may have won only thirty of the state's 109 counties in 1861, but they won all seven in the Purchase.(8)

Following the election of 1861 Governor Beriah Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer confronted with a pro-Union legislature, asked President Lincoln to acknowledge Kentucky's neutrality in the event of war. Lincoln did this, but it did not alter Kentucky's strategic location between the two sections as they moved rapidly toward war. Control of the border states, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, was a key element in Union war planning and these states were equally important in Southern strategic planning.

Although there were relatively few slaves in the Purchase its population was closely aligned with the South economically, culturally, and socially. When it became clear Kentucky would not join the Confederate States of America public meetings were held throughout the region, beginning early in 1861, to discuss secession oft region from Kentucky so that it could join the Confederacy. One such plan involved uniting the Kentucky and Tennessee areas of the original Jackson Purchase as a new, Confederate, state. One of these pro-Southern meetings was held in the Mayfield courthouse square on April 22, 1861. This was followed by a formal Jackson Purchase-wide secession meeting held on May 10, 1861 at the same site.(9) The Purchase was also very well represented at the secession convention held in Russellville in November 1861 which set up a Confederate "government" for Kentucky.

In late April 1861 in order to insure Kentucky's "neutrality," Governor Magoffin ordered Simon B. Buckner, head of the Kentucky State Guard and later a Confederate general, to fortify Columbus on the Mississippi so that neither Union or Confederacy could establish control of this strategic point on the Mississippi, eighteen miles south of Cairo, Illinois. On June 10, Buckner ordered General Lloyd Tilghman, also a future Confederate general, and six companies of the State Guard to Columbus to maintain the Commonwealth's neutrality.(10) On June 6, a few days earlier, Union troops from southern Illinois had been found at Elliott's Mill in Ballard County harassing secessionists, and on that same day Tilghman had urged young men, mostly Confederate sympathizers, not to leave the state to fight for the South.

During the summer of 1861 the area witnessed a series of events which clearly revealed its Confederate sympathies. In July, Captain Henry King of the Kentucky State Guard violated the Commonwealth's neutrality policy when he and his company secured a load of some 400 weapons from the Mayfield depot and moved them to Union City, Tennessee in Confederate territory.(11) Also in July, White Fowler raised a pro-secession vigilante group in Paducah, known as the "Committee of Thirteen." Other such groups, the "Central Vigilante Committee," and the "Lesser Committees" were formed in Benton in Marshall County.(12) Late in the summer of 1861, a Milburn man was hung by some Ballard County men for his Union sympathies, and the following month a Murray secessionist shot and killed a Union man. On August 26, a peace meeting was held in protest of the war tax in Murray. Also in mid-August the U.S.S. Lexington captured the W.B. Terry, a steamer with supplies destined for the South, in what became known as the "W.B. Terry Incident.''(l3) The Terry was owned by Paducahans seeking to trade with the South in defiance of an embargo declared by Union commanders in the region on such trade. On August 8, a party of Union soldiers crossed the river at Cairo, IL. and captured two suspected Ballard County Southern sympathizers. These varied, wide spread incidents show how strong pro-Southern sentiment was in the Jackson Purchase area during 1861.(14)

The official neutrality of the area, and the Commonwealth, was fatally compromised on September 3, when Confederate General Leonidas Polk occupied Columbus with 2,000 troops and later that month Confederate troops began construction of extensive earthworks to defend their position and placed a 4,200 pound chain across the Mississippi River to block Union ships. Columbus quickly became one of the most heavily fortified places in North America. Hickman was also occupied by the Confederates on September 3, when General Gideon J. Pillow moved in with 1,500 troops. About the same time Camp Henry C. Burnett, named for the former U.S. representative from the Purchase who had become a Confederate senator, was established near Clinton primarily as a Confederate recruiting post. The 7th Kentucky (Confederate) was raised in the area and trained at Camp Burnett, totaling some 1,200 men. In Graves County, Camp Beauregard was established near Feliciana and garrisoned with troops primarily from Mississippi.(l5)

The Union army in the west, led by General Ulysses S. Grant, countered these Confederate moves by occupying Paducah early in September. Grant established Fort Anderson to the west of the downtown area on the Ohio River.(16) The people of Paducah shared the Purchase's strongly pro-Confederate sentiments, which led to a great deal of friction during the rest of the war between the community and Union troops. Despite Grant's proclamation that he came to protect the Purchase from Confederate invaders, he and his troops were not welcomed.

Besides a naval encounter near Columbus in September, the only notable confrontation in 1861 between the two sides in the region was at Belmont, Missouri across the Mississippi River from Columbus. On November 7 Union troops attacked a Confederate camp there. In this battle Union troops advanced and seemed to have taken the camp, but celebrated prematurely and after the Confederates reorganized they forced a Union retreat.(l7) The guns from Columbus forced the Union forces to withdraw and Grant's gunboats were unable to silence them. The Battle of Belmont, Grant's first action in the Civil War, is properly considered a part of the action in the Purchase, although fought in Missouri, since it was intended to secure Union control of the fortifications at Columbus and open the way for Grant to move south down the Mississippi from his base in Paducah. Despite his failure to achieve his aims at Belmont, Grant the moved decisively to gain control of the Tennessee River that same winter.(18)

There was relative peace during the fall and winter of 1861-62 until February. Confederate troops, and their supporters in the Purchase, had felt increasing pressure from the presence of the Federal Army in the region after Grant's occupation of Paducah.

Lloyd Tilghman, now a Confederate general, was sent to command hastily constructed Fort Henry on the east side of the Tennessee River during the winter of 1861-62. Tilghman immediately realized that Fort Henry was indefensible, being built on low ground that was susceptible to flooding and directly across the river from higher ground. In January 1861 he ordered the construction of a new fort on the high ground on the opposite side of the river, known as Fort Heiman. The new fort was still being built when Grant launched his offensive against Fort Donelson. Tilghman recalled the troops building the new fort to assist in the defense of Fort Henry, but they were unsuccessful . The Union army captured both Fort Henry and the uncompleted Fort Heiman, which was occupied by troops under General Lew Wallace on February 6. Wallace moved on to the attack on Fort Donelson and Fort Heiman was garrisoned by troops from the Fifth Iowa Cavalry under Col. W. W. Lowe.

On February 16 Grant forced the surrender of the Confederates at Fort Donelson on the Cumberland. The Union now controlled the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and Grant was continuing to press forward.

Grant's victory at Fort Donelson made Confederate positions in the Purchase increasingly untenable. Union troops under General C.F. Smith had captured Camp Beauregard, which had been swept by a series of devastating epidemics, on January 17, 1862 . Retreating Confederates burned railroad bridges in the area.(19) On the first of March 1862, Union troops were seen just outside Confederate positions in and around Columbus. General Polk, realizing the potentially disastrous consequences of an all out battle, evacuated Columbus the next day, when some 2,000 Union troops, the 27th and 55th Illinois regiments and 54th Ohio Regiment, arrived.(20) On the same day a detachment of the U.S. Navy converged on Columbus from Cairo, Illinois.(2l) Grant's success at Fort Donelson resulted in the abandonment of the Purchase by the Confederate army and left the Union with military control from strategic points at Fort Anderson in Paducah, Columbus, and Fort Heiman, which they completed.

At Cayce, in Hickman County, on March 31, 1862 a Union force patrolling from Hickman was repulsed by Confederates following a vigorous skirmish.(22) Aside from these actions in March, the only other notable action had taken place at Moscow in Hickman County on Christmas Eve, when the Rebels attacked a Union camp there. In the skirmish the Union troops retreated and the Rebels burned the trestle works in the area.(23) Although these were the only other recorded actions, the majority of confrontations, as with the majority of actions as a whole in this area during the entire Civil War period, involved "guerrilla style" tactics. This system of warfare consisted primarily of small raiding parties which caused relatively little actual damage, but were a constant annoyance and created a feeling of uneasiness among the Union troops occupying the region. These raids also caused friction between an increasingly frustrated Union army and local citizens. The reprisals ordered by commanders in the field were almost always overruled by higher authorities, but served to strengthen support for the Southern cause in the region. Most of the guerrilla activities in the Purchase were directed against Unionists and the Union army.

In 1863 there was a general buildup of Union troops in the Purchase region. In March 1863 the Union troops abandoned Fort Heiman which they had occupied since the advance against Fort Donelson in Dover, Tennessee.(24) Despite its strategic location, neither side made a sustained effort to occupy Fort Heiman once the war moved south into Tennessee.

July 1863 saw increased activity in the area. On July 10, Union forces were sent from Columbus to aid troops in Union City, Tennessee. On the 15th, Rebel troops raided local stores in Hickman and Columbus and captured a Union steamboat forcing a retreat by the Union army to the Columbus fortification.(25) Also in late July Union troops established camps at Mayfield, Murray, and Feliciana to provide greater control of the region than they could effect from Paducah, Columbus, and Fort Heiman.(26) The Mayfield camp included fortifications surrounding the courthouse, built with conscripted labor of local residents from as far away as Feliciana.(27) The camp at Feliciana was at the site of the recently abandoned Confederate Camp Beauregard. The camp in Murray had 300 troops, but was soon abandoned. There were no recorded actions of any significance during the remainder of 1863, which raises an important problem in studying the War in the Purchase region. Few incidents are recorded in the OR or other documents from the period, yet local histories contain many incidents that are vaguely described. Several Union sympathizers were murdered during the war including an unnamed man at Milburn and J. B. Happy of Mayfield.(28) Several accounts mention the hanging of "Pud" Diggs for the murder of George Miller of Calloway County as an event related to the War. While Diggs is referred to as a guerrilla it is never clear in any account what side he, or Miller for that matter, was on.(29) To what extent violence related to the disruption of war and the breakdown of civil society and general order was attributed to the Civil War is not clear, but some of these accounts raise questions as to how clearly such a line has been drawn.

The History of Calloway County - 1931 refers to Union soldiers under General Smith doing "a great deal of damage to the citizens of Murray and surrounding country. . . in the spring of 1862." The same source refers to Murray being burned around the time the Union troops built a fort near the town, which would have been the summer of 1863. Another source refers to Murray being burned several times. The north and east sides of the court square were burned in reprisal after the Battle of Paducah (March 1864) although a reference to a diary in the same discussion mentions burning the same area during the winter of 1863-64 slightly earlier. There is also a reference to Murray being burned "late in the war" quoted from Collins' History of Kentucky.(30) Is March of 1864 late in the War? How many times was Murray burned? Undoubtedly it was at least once, but the nature of the guerrilla activity in the Purchase area has left many such events poorly documented.

1864 was the pivotal year in the struggle for control of the Jackson Purchase. On February 28, 1864 there was a skirmish at Dukedom. One Confederate and some supplies were captured. On March 6 there was a Confederate attack on the fort at Columbus. On March 10, Confederate guerrillas were reported raiding Clinton.(3l) On March 22, as many as fifty pro-Confederate guerrillas attacked a train at Fancy Farm In this raid, the postmaster was shot, the Catholic chapel was burned, and several citizens were taken hostage.(32)

On March 25, the greatest confrontation in the Purchase during the entire Civil War occurred when Confederates attacked Fort Anderson at Paducah. In this battle. some twenty three Confederate troops were killed and wounded, including Colonel Albert P. Thompson, a native of the Purchase serving under Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Union reported fourteen soldiers killed and forty six wounded, but successfully defended Fort Anderson. The next day, Union troops burned houses within view of the fort in retaliation for local support of the Confederates.(33) Confederate troops had used the roofs and upper stories of the buildings to fire into the fort and the Union commander wanted to establish a clear zone to protect the fort from such action in the future. Forrest could claim some measure of success because his primary goal had been fresh horses, which he obtained, not the Union fort.

At roughly the same time as the Battle of Paducah Confederate and Union troops clashed twice at Hugh Arand' s farm near Benton. Seven were killed over the course of the two encounters as both sides sought horses for their use.(34)

On March 26, a Union patrol ambushed Confederate Colonel Edward Crossland's 7th Kentucky Regiment at Priorsburg, six miles southeast of Mayfield. Most of the regiment was killed, but somehow Crossland, despite being seriously wounded, escaped. This skirmish occurred at the farm of Bill Pryor, a friend of Crossland's and a Confederate sympathizer.(35) On the last day of March, Union troops captured three Confederates, two guerrillas, and two other men at Moscow.(36)

In April 1864, Confederate troops made a major effort to regain control of the Purchase area. On April 2, fifty Confederates attacked the fort at Columbus capturing a Union officer and wounding another.(37) Two weeks later on April 14, the Confederates staged maneuvers near Columbus to divert the attention of Union soldiers while General Abram Buford attacked Fort Anderson. They were successful in capturing supplies, including some 150 horses, during the battle.(38) The next day 100 Confederate guerrillas from Kentucky attacked a Union gunboat harbored at Mound City, Illinois, which is adjacent to Ballard County.(39) On April 27, guerrillas captured a Union corporal and nine soldiers "near Mayfield."(40)

Confederate troops under Nathan Bedford Forrest continued this offensive for the remainder of 1864. On May 1, they killed three Union soldiers in Graves County between Dublin and Baltimore.(4l) On May 20, Confederate guerrillas attacked a train going from Paducah to Mayfield. In the encounter one Union soldier was killed, one Confederate soldier was killed, and the train's engineer was reportedly fatally wounded.(42) The next day the "James Guerrillas" burned a rail bridge over the Little Obion River between Columbus and Clinton. There were also reports of twenty-five guerrillas capturing one Union soldier.(43) The Confederates continued their advances on May 23, when the 3rd Kentucky Regiment converged on Feliciana and Dukedom. Two days later there were reports of Confederate cavalry units near Hickman and Clinton.(44)

In mid-July of 1864 there was a Union ambush, approximately a mile south of Clinton, in which there were four Union troops wounded, five Confederates wounded, and three killed.(45) In mid-August, a Union Cavalry raid captured six to eight Confederates who were attending Sunday services at the Bethel Church on the Mayfield-Dukedom Road near the Tennessee border in Graves County. Later that day, the cavalry dispersed some sixty Confederates south along the same road.(46) On September 18 fifty Union troops from the 7th Tennessee Cavalry captured two Confederates just south of Columbus towards Hickman.(47)

Perhaps the greatest Confederate military success in the Purchase came in late October 1864 when Forrest and his troops occupied Fort Heiman. The fort had been permanently abandoned by Union troops earlier. On October 28, using the fort as their base, Forrest's cavalrymen fired upon and captured the Union steamboat Mazeppa.(48) Two days later they disabled several other Union boats, including the Anna and Undine. In this bottleneck of the river Forrest forced the Union Navy to surrender the Venus and to abandon the J. W. Cheeseman. Forrest obtained a large quantity of food and supplies from these actions. The Confederates took a Union vessel and headed up river where they engaged the Union navy. Eventually Forrest burned all the seized ships once they had been stripped of their cargoes. In the encounter only one Confederate was wounded, while eight Union troops were killed, eleven wounded, and forty-three captured, including one officer.(49) The greatest Confederate victory in the area came just four days later when on November 3, troops under Forrest destroyed four Union gunboats, fourteen transports, twenty barges, and twenty-six pieces of artillery. The Confederates suffered the loss of two troops, with nine others wounded while capturing 150 Union soldiers.(50) These events in late October and November were undoubtedly the greatest military achievement in this area by either side. As a result, the Confederates were successful in maintaining effective control of the lower part of the Jackson Purchase area. Their control was such that they openly recruited troops and men were able to go home on furlough openly. Even though these successes fueled the legend of Forrest, they came just a little too late. A few months later, on April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomatox Courthouse in Virginia, effectively ending the Civil War.

It seemed as though the action in the area faded as the war and Forrest, especially, moved further South. There were few reports of incidents occurring in 1865 and they are vague. The only notable incident was a report of a "desperate fight, thirty miles from Paducah" in which two Union officers were killed.(51) This probably refers to an action in Princeton, outside the Purchase region.

Undoubtedly there were more incidents, most small scale, but the sources available do not mention them. Autobiographies as well as the official records from the time and published histories offer little help in locating such small skirmishes because soldiers rarely were told their exact locations, they merely guessed their position based upon the last town they were in when writing about their experiences.

The Jackson Purchase region of Kentucky experienced a number of changes in military control, but none in sentiment, during the Civil War. The area was strongly pro-Confederate at the beginning of the secession crisis when the Commonwealth supported the Union cause at least to the extent of staying in the Union. The area remained consistently pro-Confederate throughout the War providing many troops for the Confederacy, especially those who served under Forrest. The Union army was viewed and treated as a hostile, occupying force even though the Purchase remained officially part of the United States. Control of the area was contested early in the War with both sides establishing bases for operations the Union initially in Paducah and the Confederates along a line from Columbus, the Gibraltar of the West, to Fort Henry (and then east along southern Kentucky through Bowling Green to the Cumberland Gap). While the Union held key points such as Paducah, Columbus, and, for much of the war, Fort Heiman the Confederates dominated and controlled the countryside, particularly in 1863 and 1864 when Forrest was most active in the region. As indicated by the locations of actions which were reported and documented, nearly all the incidents that took place in the Purchase involved either a river port or rail access. These two factors are indicative of the importance that the rivers and railroads were to success for both sides. While the South held the loyalty oft people oft Purchase, the Union held the key points they needed to insure control of the rivers and this provided one of the keys to Union victory in the War beyond the confines of the Purchase.

1. Jerry T. Wooten is a graduate of Austin Peay State University and received his masters degree in history from Murray State University in 1994. He is now (1995) lead interpreter at the Pamplin Park Civil War Site in Petersburg, Virginia.

Darian Mock is a graduate of Murray State University and was a graduate student there during the 1993-4 academic year. He is now (1995) in business in Paducah, Kentucky. BACK TO TEXT

 2. William H. Mulligan, Jr. is a graduate of Assumption College and has his masters and doctoral degrees from Clark University. He has been active in public history since 1974 and joined the history faculty at Murray State University in August 1993. He is currently (1995) Assistant Professor of History and Director of Public History Projects. BACK TO TEXT

3. Hunter B. Whitsell, "Military Operations in the Jackson Purchase Area of Kentucky, 1862-1865," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 63 (1965), 140-167; 240-267; 323-348. Robert D. Whitsell, "Military and Naval Activity Between Cairo and Columbus, Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 61 (1963), 107-121. Berry Craig, "The Jackson Purchase Region of Kentucky in the Secession Crisis of 1860 - 61," unpublished masters thesis, Murray State University, 1973. BACK TO TEXT

4. Incidents were defined as events mentioned in the OR or a contemporary newspaper that happened in an identifiable place. BACK TO TEXT

5. Fort Heiman is one of the more significant sites in the Purchase region, especially since nearly all of its complement, Fort Henry, is underwater as a result of the creation of Kentucky lake in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Unfortunately, it is also a prime example of the dangers that await an unprotected historical resource with attractive views of water. The integrity of the fort has been seriously compromised in recent years by development. Public access is now blocked (as of November 1995) by a metal gate and warning signs erected by the property owners. BACK TO TEXT

6. Kentucky frequently protested both the recruitment of African American troops within its borders and their being stationed in the region. Writers about the war in the Purchase, some writing many years later, comment bitterly on the use of black troops to supervise whites conscripted into construction projects at Columbus and Mayfield. There were numerous "incidents" between citizens and black troops in Paducah. The extent to which this contributed to Kentucky's "conversion" to the Confederate cause after the war remains a fruitful topic for investigation. BACK TO TEXT

7. The importance of rivers in Civil War strategy is also shown by the intense activity along the Green River, especially over control of the Lock and Dams on that river. BACK TO TEXT

8. Berry Craig, "The Jackson Purchase Region of Kentucky in the Secession Crisis of 1860 - 1861," (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Murray State University, 1973), 84. BACK TO TEXT

9. ibid., 33. BACK TO TEXT

10. ibid., 48, 59. BACK TO TEXT

11. ibid., 71-73. BACK TO TEXT

12. ibid., 77-78. BACK TO TEXT

13. ibid., 78, 80, 88-89. John E. L. Robertson, Paducah 1830-1980: A Sesquicentennial History (privately printed, 1980), 37-8. BACK TO TEXT

14. Craig, 90. BACK TO TEXT

15. For an account of the history of Camp Beauregard see Philip M. Shelton, "Camp Beauregard, Graves County, Kentucky," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 61 (1963), 148-157. See also, Lizzie Lowe Fuller, "A History of Camp Beauregard," typescript, Pogue Library, Murray State University. BACK TO TEXT

16. U. S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation from the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880-1901) Series 1, Vol. 4,196-7. (Hereafter referred to as OR.) BACK TO TEXT

17. Robert Whitesell, "Military and Naval Activity Between Cairo and Columbus," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 61 (1963), 113-4,116-7. BACK TO TEXT

18. Nathaniel C. Hughes, Jr., The Battle of Belmont (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) provides a full account of events leading up to the Battle of Belmont and the battle itself. BACK TO TEXT

19. OR Series 1, Vol.7, 897-98. BACK TO TEXT

20. ibid., 121, 677. BACK TO TEXT

21. Junius Browne, Four Years in Secessia, (New York: Arno, 1970), 87-8. BACK TO TEXT

22. Carol Major, Hickman Courier, December 20, 1973,11-2. BACK TO TEXT

23. Thomas Jordan and J. D. Pryor, Campaigns of Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest and of Forrest's Cavalry, (Dayton: Morningside,1973), 205. BACK TO TEXT

24. OR Series l, Vol.24, Part 3, 94, 99-100. BACK TO TEXT

25. ibid., Vol.23, Part l, 822-23; Part 2, 537-38. BACK TO TEXT

26. ibid., Part 1, 827; Part 2,549-50, 569. BACK TO TEXT

27. D. Trabue Davis, Story of Mayfield Through a Century 1823-1923 (Privately printed,1923)14-15; Lizzie Lowe Fuller, "History of Camp Beauregard," (typescript, Pogue Library, Murray State University). BACK TO TEXT

28. On Happy see Lon Carter Barton, "The Civil War in the Jackson Purchase," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 17 (1989), 79-91. Barton also mentions that the father of Confederate soldier William Cargill was hanged in Mayfield during the War. Few details on either episode or references to contemporary sources are provided. BACK TO TEXT

29. See, History of Calloway County - 1931 (Murray: The Ledger &Times,1931), unpaginated. The account is repeated in later histories. Robert W. Caldwell, "The Civil War in Murray, Calloway County, Kentucky," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 17 (1989),113-123 summarizes the existing secondary literature most extensively. BACK TO TEXT

30. Dorothy and Kirby Jennings, The Story of Calloway County l822-1976 (privately printed 1980), 36-7; 31. The Jennings draw heavily on the History of Calloway County - 1931 and Collins. BACK TO TEXT

31.OR Series 1, Volume 32, Part 1, 485,492-3. BACK TO TEXT

32. ibid., 628; Part 3, 131. BACK TO TEXT

33. ibid., 547-8. BACK TO TEXT

34. Leon Lewis Freeman and Edward C. Olds, The History of Marshall County Kentucky (Benton: The Tribune & Democrat,1933), 19. BACK TO TEXT

35. Henry George, History of the 3d, 7th, 8th and 12th Kentucky CSA, (Lyndon, KY: Mull-Wathen, l911), 79-81. BACK TO TEXT

36. OR Series 1, Volume 39, Part 1,652-3. BACK TO TEXT

37. Ibid., 552-3. BACK TO TEXT

38. George, 78. BACK TO TEXT

39. OR Series 1, Volume 32, Part 3, 395. BACK TO TEXT

40. Ibid., Volume 39, Part 2, 24-6. BACK TO TEXT

41. Ibid., 126. BACK TO TEXT

42. Ibid., 35. BACK TO TEXT

43. Ibid., 45. BACK TO TEXT

44. Ibid., 50-l . BACK TO TEXT

45. Lewis Collins, History of Kentucky, (Lexington, KY: Henry Clay Press, 1968), I, 135. BACK TO TEXT

46. OR Series 1, Chapter 39, Part 1,463. BACK TO TEXT

47. Ibid., Part 2, 268. BACK TO TEXT

48. Charles Moss, "Forgotten Ft. Heiman, Land of Late Victory," reprint Nashville Banner 1957, 6. BACK TO TEXT

49. Ibid.,7. BACK TO TEXT

50. Ibid., 8-9. BACK TO TEXT

51. Collins, 158. BACK TO TEXT

Allen, Hall. Center of Conflict. Paducah, KY: The Paducah Sun Democrat, 1961.

Ash, Stephen V. When the Yankees Came: Conflict & Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Barton, Lon Carter. "The Civil War in the Purchase," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 17 (1989), 79-91.

Battle, J.H., W.H. Perrin, and G.C. Kniffin. Kentucky: A History of the State. Louisville: F. A. Battey Publishing Co., 1885.

Browne, Junius. Four Years in Secessia. New York: Arno, 1970.

Caldwell, Robert W. "The Civil War in Murray, Calloway County, Kentucky," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 17 (1989), 113-123.

Campaigns in Kentucky and Tennessee including the Battle of Chickamauga, 1862-1864. Papers of the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts Volume VII (1908).

Cleft, G. Glenn. Civil War Engagements, Skirmishes, Etc. in Kentucky, 1861-1865. Kentucky Historical Society, Research Contributions No. 2. (1960)

Collins, Lewis. History of Kentucky, revised by Richard H. Collins, 2 Vols. Louisville: John P. Morton and Company, 1924.

Coulter, E. Merton. The Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1926.

Craig, Berry. "The Jackson Purchase Region of Kentucky in the Secession Crisis of 1860-61," Unpublished Masters Thesis, Murray State University, 1973.

Craig, Berry. "Jackson Purchase Confederate Troops in the Civil War," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 2 (1973), 4-11.

Craig, Berry F. "Kentucky's South Carolina: The Jackson Purchase in the Secession Crisis of 186061," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 3 (1975), 28-34.

Craig, Berry F. "Henry C. Burnett and the Secession Movement in Kentucky," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 4 (1976), 45-50.

Craig, Berry. "Kentucky's Gibraltar [sic]" Kentucky Living, April 1993, 25-9.

Cupples, Douglas W. "Silent Sentinels: A Photographic Documentation of Existing Civil War Fortifications in West Tennessee," The West Tennessee Historical Society Papers 41 (1987), 19-47.

Daniel Larry J. and Lynn N. Bock. Island No. 10: Struggle for the Mississippi Valley. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996.

Davis, D. Trabue. Story of Mayfield Through a Century, 1823-1923. Privately printed, 1923.

Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Dayton, OH: Press of the Morningside Bookstore, 1978; reprint of 1908 edition.

Eisterhold, John A. "Fort Heiman: Forgotten Fortress," The West Tennessee Historical Society Papers 28 (1974), 43-54.

Fiske, John. The Mississippi Valley in the Civil War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909.

Freeman, Leon Lewis and Edward C. Olds. The History of Marshall County, Kentucky. Benton, KY: The Tribune-Democrat, 1933.

Fuller, Lizzie Lowe. "A History of Camp Beauregard." Typescript, Pogue Library, Murray State University.

Fulton County Souvenir Book 1974.

George, Henry. History of the 3d, 7th, 8th, and 12th Kentucky ZOO. Lyndon, KY: Mull-Wathen Historic Press, 1911.

Hamilton, Charles Greenville. "Between the Rivers: The War from the Tennessee to the Mississippi," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 10 (1982), 1-11.

Harrison, Lowell H. The Civil War in Kentucky. The Kentucky Bicentennial Bookshelf. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975.

Henry, Robert S. "First with the Most" Forrest. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1944.

Henry, Robert S. As They Saw Forrest. Jackson, TN: McCowat-Mercer Press, 1956.

Hickman Courier. December 15, 1910; December 12, 1964.

History of Calloway County. Murray, KY: The Ledger and Times, 1931.

Hughes, Nathaniel C. Jr. The Battle of the Belmont: Grant Strikes South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Hurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Jennings, Dorothy and Kirby. The Story of Calloway County. Privately printed, 1980.

Johnson, J. Stoddard. Kentucky Volume 9 of Clement A. Evans. ed. Confederate Military History. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1962; reprint of 1899 edition.

Jordan, Thomas and J.D. Pryor. The Campaigns of Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest and of Forrest's Cavalry. Dayton: Morningside Bookshop Press, 1973.

Kentucky Heritage Commission. Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky: Ballard County. Frankfort: Kentucky Heritage Commission, 1978.

Livingston, Donald L. Fulton Countians in the Civil War. Privately printed, 1985.

Louisville Daily Courier.

Louisville Daily Journal.

Lytle, Andrew N. Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company. New York: Minton, Balch and Co.,l931.

Magee, Juliette. Ballard's Brave Boys. Wickliffe, KY: The Advance-Yeoman, 1974.

Maness, Lonnie E. An Untutored Genius: The Military Career of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Oxford, MS: Guild Bindery Press, 1990.

Maness, Lonnie E. "Columbus: Gibraltar of the West," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 10 (1982), 23-33.

Maness, Lonnie E. "The Confederate Western Defense Line Crumbles: The Story of Island Number 10," Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 11 (1983), 35-44.

Mathes, J. Harvey. General Forrest. New York: Appleton and Company, 1902.

Memphis Daily Appeal.

Memphis Daily Avalanche.

McDonough, James Lee. War in Kentucky: From Shiloh to Perryville. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994.

Moss, Charles. "Forgotten Ft. Heiman, Land of Late Victory," Nashville Banner, 1957 reprint.

Mullen, Jay Carlton. "The Turning of Columbus," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 44 (1966), 209-225.

Report of the Adjutant-General's Office of the State of Kentucky, 1861-1865. Frankfort: John H. Harney, State Printer, 1866.

Robertson, John E. L. "West to the Iron Banks" Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Louisville, 1961.

Robertson, John E. L. Paducah, 1830-1980: A Sesquicentennial History. Privately printed, 1980.

Russell, Sir William Howard. My Diary, North and South. Toronto: C. W. Rollo and Adam, 1863.

Shelton, Philip M. "Camp Beauregard, Graves County. Kentucky," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 61 (1963), 148-157.

Shuffett, Chuck. "The Second Battle of Fort Heiman," West Kentucky Montage (May 1995), 7-14.

Simon, John Y., editor. The Papers of U.S. Grant, 20 volumes to date. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-date.

The Soldier in Our Civil War. Ed. by Paul Mottelay and T. Campbell-Copeland, 2 Vols. New York, 1890.

Speed, Thomas. The Union Cause in Kentucky. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1907.

Treas, James W. "Island Number Ten and Its Strategy Significance During the War Between the States" Unpublished seminar paper, University of Tennessee - Martin, 1991.

A Unified Movement to Secure for Columbus-Belmont Designation as a National Battlefield. (c. 1989.)

U.S. Navy Department. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, 20 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1894-1922.

U.S. War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 130 vols. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880-1901.

Whitesell, Hunter B. "Military Operations in the Jackson Purchase Area of Kentucky, 1862-1865," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 63 (1965), 140-167, 240-267, 323-348.

Whitesell, Robert D. "Military and Naval Activity Between Cairo and Columbus," Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 61 (1963), 107-121.

Wills, Brian Steel. A Battle from the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.

Wyeth, John A. That Devil Forrest. New York: Harper, 1959.

TOP

Updated 3/14/98 Comments to: William H. Mulligan, Jr.