Civil War Citizens

Front matter

fh, = j| it A ` Wd r a | i f : n Te At

Bem

WA R CITIZENS

Introduction

1 Yankee Dutchmen: Germans, the Union, and the Construction of Wartime Identity Stephen D. Engle

2 “With More Freedom and Independence Than the Yankees”: The Germans of Richmond, Charleston, and New Orleans during the American Civil War

Andrea Mehrländer

3 “Ye Sons of Green Erin Assemble”: Northern Irish American Catholics and the Union War Effort, 1861-1865

4 Irish Rebels, Southern Rebels: The Irish Confederates David T. Gleeson

5 The Jewish Confederates Robert N. Rosen, Esq.

6 Native Americans in the Civil War: Three Experiences William McKee Evans

7 The African American Struggle for Citizenship Rights in the Northern United States during the Civil War Joseph P. Reidy

About the Contributors Index

II

INTRODUCTION n September 10, 1861, applause shook the walls of Institute Hall in

Charleston, South Carolina. The audience cheered its local men, most of them German-born, who had volunteered as soldiers for the Confederacy. Having enjoyed a “stirring and patriotic address in the tongue of the Faterland [sic],” it was the gift from the German Ladies Society of Charleston that brought the audience to its feet. The women had sewn the company flag with the colors of the United States on one side and the colors of their homeland on the other. As Captain W. K. Bachman raised the banner and turned to address his men, the ladies rained flowers down from the balcony, which the young volunteers placed in their muskets. Addressing the enthusiastic crowd, Bachman cried out, “Comrades. This is our flag. Under it you are to go to take your place in the contest. . . . Recollect at all times who made [this] flag. All that they ask in return is that you will never bring dishonor upon their own loved German name.”

Twelve days earlier an even larger crowd had gathered in Jones’s Wood in New York City. Irish revolutionary Thomas Francis Meagher, a Captain in the 69th New York State Militia Regiment, spoke to a crowd gathered to honor the Irish men who had fallen the previous month in defense of the Union at the Battle of First Bull Run. The Wood, a New York Times reporter observed, “was crowded to an excess which can scarcely be described without apparent exaggeration.” Meagher cast his voice over the audience and called on the listeners to join him in honoring with “proud regard and duty . . . those whose husbands and fathers, fighting in the ranks of the Sixty-ninth, were slain in battle, sealing their oath of American citizenship with their blood.”*

Despite the wealth of scholarship on the U.S. Civil War, especially regarding how individuals and communities responded to the conflict, there is no comprehensive study of immigrants and nonwhites in the North and South during this era, who constituted nearly 15 percent of the U.S. population in 1860. Despite their numerical significance, as well as their influence on military and political policies and their active role in the armies and navies engaged, these groups have received relatively little attention from historians. Scholars have long used, and criticized, Ella Lonn’s classic books on immigrant service in the Union and the Confederacy. More recently, historians enjoyed William Burton’s study Melting Pot Soldiers: The Unions Ethnic Regiments and Lawrence Kohl’s excellent series of edited memoirs and letter collections relating to soldiers in the Irish Brigade. Since 2000, Walter Kamphoefner and Wolfgang Helbich published Germans in the Civil War: The Letters They Wrote Home, and Fordham University Press reprinted Grace Palladino’s study Another Civil War: Labor, Capital, and the State in Anthracite Regions of Pennsylvania, 1840—1868, addressing ethnic responses to war on the home front, as well as Christian Keller’s Chancellorsville and the Germans: Nativism, Ethnicity and Civil War Memory. Still, scholars lack a work that ties all this material together.

Historians need a book that highlights the complexity of the ethnic and religious responses to America’s bloodiest war. Such a work can show that there is no single “Irish” or “Jewish” reaction. Just as native-born white communities responded in different ways due to their social makeup or their economic infrastructure, immigrants, Native Americans, African Americans, and Jews also responded at times with one voice, and at other moments differed greatly, including within their own communities. Scholars understand this through individual studies, but not in a work that examines these groups side by side. That is what Civil War Citizens: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity in America’s Bloodiest Conflict offers. Contributors challenge the idea of immigrants and nonwhites volunteering to prove their loyalty while recognizing their frustration when such rewards were not forthcoming. They underscore the different expectations these groups had of citizenship and what they expected from their sacrifices for the survival of the Union or the Confederacy. The wartime responses of immigrants and nonwhites reveal an acute awareness that whatever actions their communities took would be carefully scrutinized not only by the dominant white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans but also within their own populations. This collection examines the momentous decisions made by these communities in the face of war, their desire for full citizenship, the complex loyalties that shaped their actions, and the inspiring and heartbreaking results of their choices that still echo through the United States today.

Introduction ea 3

While the excellent historiography of particular ethnic soldiers, politicians, and communities has been beneficial to scholars, Civil War Citizens is the first effort to gather into one book the wartime experiences of groups that fell outside of the dominant white Anglo-Saxon Protestant citizenry of mid-nineteenth-century America. For the sake of brevity, this volume collectively refers to these immigrant and nonwhite communities as “outside groups,” which is how they often saw themselves while also fighting against that image. Their efforts to secure the full rights of citizenship united immigrants and nonwhites in nineteenth-century America, even when they approached this goal in different ways and faced different obstacles. As Andrea Mehrlander shows in her chapter on the Southern German response to the war, the reactions of Richmond’s Germans differed greatly from those of New Orleans’s Germans, and the Germans of Charleston had an equally unique story. Similarly, William McKee Evans highlights the complexity within the response of the Western Cherokee community, which differed from the Eastern Cherokees mobilization for war. At the same time, however, these groups had shared motivations with each other and even with the native-born white population. They saw the war in terms of how it impacted their homes, their communities. Their mobilization, then, becomes a powerful tool with which scholars can interpret the values of these ethnic and religious populations and how they defined their place in America. By looking at the Northern African American response to the war, for example, Joseph Reidy is able to demonstrate the powerful motivation of citizenship that blacks would not simply request but would take for themselves. Thus this book highlights the different and similar approaches that ethnic, religious, and racial communities took in their internal battle for citizenship during America’s larger Civil War.‘

Two key themes thread through this work to explain the actions of the groups under study, which include Irish, German, African, and Jewish Americans, as well as Native Americans. The first theme involves outside groups’ efforts to obtain the full rights of citizenship; the second theme investigates their shared loyalties to the Union or to the Confederacy, as well as to their homelands. These two factors of citizenship and loyalty shaped outside groups’ responses to the war, which evolved along with the conflict, sometimes sustaining while at others times challenging immigrants and nonwhites’ actions.

4 Ce SUSANNAH J. URAL

Concepts of citizenship and individuals’ relationship with government were central to the Civil War. Even individuals born in the United States, such as free blacks, Native Americans, and the Catholic or Jewish children of immigrants, struggled to exercise rights stripped from them by legislation, court rulings, and the prejudices that defined the age. The guns of Sumter offered outside groups a unique opportunity to redefine their place in America, and many rushed into the contest. This was, after all, Meagher’s message to his audience when he spoke of Irish soldiers “sealing their oath of American citizenship with their blood.” The master orator portrayed men who took for themselves that most coveted American right, the one from which all other rights stemmed in the nineteenth century. Citizenship was the prize of the age, and nonwhites and immigrants recognized the opportunity this war offered them to stop requesting or insisting on their rights and to seize these for themselves.

This situation occasionally led to heated conflicts within the larger war. In his study Minorities and the Military, sociologist Warren Young observed that during hostilities, “minority-military service can take the theme of ‘quid pro quo, that is, full support of the war effort on the part of the minority and its leadership in return for full citizenship rights or other benefits for minoritygroup members.” The trouble with this, he observed, was that all sides did not always agree on what was expected in return for service. Governments and dominant social groups did not always wish to bestow the full rights of citizenship that minorities demanded, and minority communities did not always agree on what they sought through service. Miscommunication, accidental and purposeful, surfaced within ethnic and racial communities, and between them and the federal government, as they debated the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, including military service and a federal draft. Citizens and noncitizens waged this ideological struggle at home and on the battlefield, and that debate is key to scholars’ understanding of this era.

“Loyalty,” a word indicating constancy yet subject to various interpretations, is another thread woven through this collection. Like citizenship, loyalty is a central issue in any war, but it becomes more complex when one considers the experiences of outside groups. Most scholars accept that, as James McPherson argued, cause and comrades inspired Civil War soldiers to volunteer and to continue their fight. This does not, however, sufficiently explain the motivations of immigrant and nonwhite soldiers, whom McPherson

Introduction ea 5 noted were underrepresented in his study of Civil War soldier motivations in For Cause and Comrades.®

Many immigrant communities had shallow, if any, roots in the country in 1860, and the years immediately preceding the war, dominated by nativism, severely challenged their ties to America. Free and enslaved African Americans and native tribal groups had a longer history within the United States, but their relationship with the government was scarred by years of abuse, misunderstandings, and enslavement. Their troubled pasts in America put an entirely new twist on scholars’ understanding of these Civil War soldiers’ motivations and the experiences of their home front communities. Some responses to the war were shared between white and nonwhite or immigrant and native communities. They fought to preserve the Union or for the rights, limited though they were, that they enjoyed within the country. Others were defending a nation’s right to break away from an abusive federal power. But every individual working in an Irish Catholic neighborhood, worshiping in a synagogue, or serving in a black regiment had a unique set of shared loyalties to their past and their present that influenced their response to the war. Scholars cannot apply the motivations of white native-born soldiers to all soldiers in the conflict. Nor should historians look at the ethnic responses to the war in isolation. Their responses are unique, but there are common traits between these outside groups. Our failure to carefully consider this created a major void in the historical understanding of the war, and Civil War Citizens seeks to fill it

To address these complexities, each chapter of this book focuses on a particular outside group responding to America’s defining crisis. They have been selected because they were some of the largest immigrant or racial groups in the country (Irish Americans, German Americans, and Northern African Americans, for example) or because they are an understudied ethnic population in the Civil War era (Southern Jews and Native Americans). The largest immigrant groups of the age, Germans and Irish, had populations in the North and South that were significant enough in size to raise whole companies, regiments, and even brigades. Irish and German communities also wielded significant political power. President Abraham Lincoln recognized the sociopolitical influence that the 1.6 million Irish and 1.3 million German immigrants living in the United States could exert, along with their children, when he appointed ethnic generals like Franz Sigel and Thomas Francis Meagher.” While the majority of America’s immigrant populations lived in the

6 eð SUSANNAH J. URAL

North, the Southern cities of Charleston, Richmond, and New Orleans had sufficient Irish and German populations that single chapters on these unusually large ethnic populations would suffer from overgeneralizations. Thus this collection includes individual essays on Northern Irish and Southern Irish, as well as Northern German and Southern German communities and their responses to the war.

Susannah Ural’s chapter on the Northern Irish Catholics’ response to the war highlights the dual loyalties that ran through their communities. Every action was grounded in their ties to Ireland and their more tenuous links to America. They saw the war through these lenses and supported the Union cause when it supported their own interests. When that cause came to include emancipation and conscription, however, Irish Catholics largely abandoned the Union war effort, which they believed had abandoned them. David Gleeson shows similar motivations and responses among Irish men in the South. Here, however, Gleeson highlights the postwar influence of Irish Catholics on the “Lost Cause” and their success in placing their story into that myth. In both chapters, readers can see how Irish men, North and South, struggled to secure their place in America and to define for themselves their role as citizens.

Andrea Mehrlander and Stephen Engle found similar responses within the Southern and Northern German responses to the war. Mehrlander’s chapter emphasizes the vast differences in communities’ experiences as the focus shifts from Richmond to Charleston and to New Orleans. Economy and geography proved major factors in shaping the participation of Southern Germans in the war and their struggle to define that role. Stephen Engle highlights similar complexities in Northern German communities’ responses. He notes, though, the greater political power that Northern Germans could wield due to their large populations that would not always unite but would come together when they believed that native-born whites were harming their communities. Like every group in this study, Germans mobilized in hostile and sometimes violent responses when they saw the Lincoln administration and its supporters infringing upon the rights Germans claimed for themselves.

In a book examining outside groups’ reactions to this conflict, it is instructive to include a study of tribal groups that the United States actively placed in a position as outsiders. America’s longest military struggle focused on the suppression of these groups, and Native Americans’ efforts to protect their

Introduction ea 7 interests within a civil conflict offer fascinating insights into their communities. As contributor William McKee Evans notes, “In 1861, Native Americans . . . had few illusions about being on the winning side. . . . After the American victories [in the War of 1812], General [Andrew] Jackson . . . punished the pro-British Creeks by confiscating half of their lands . . . [and then he] confiscated half of the lands of the pro-American Creeks.” Evans shows how the memory of such betrayals, not simply to the Creeks but to other tribal groups as well, influenced responses to the war. Focusing on the western Cherokee, the eastern Cherokee, and the Lumbee of North Carolina as case studies, Evans argues that Native Americans served to receive recruitment bounties or as hired substitutes, and “more than the white poor, they acted from pressure from some powerful patron or protector.”

Free blacks were in a similar position to redefine their place and rights within the United States, not only as free men and women but also as those most closely linked by the color of their skin to the institution of slavery, as historian Edmund Morgan has argued. Like immigrants and Native Americans, free African Americans, who constituted 488,000 of the 4.4 million blacks in the United States in 1860, recognized the unique opportunity provided by the war to seize their rights as citizens.* As Joseph Reidy explains in his chapter, they defined citizenship in their own terms through their complex loyalties to the free black communities in which they lived, to the slave communities to which many Northern blacks had close ties, and to the dominant white society that influenced their lives.

In a chapter on the often-overlooked Southern Jewish experience in the Civil War, Robert Rosen offers insights into the ethnic and religious traditions of the United States and how Jews, especially in the South (historically viewed as intolerant of non-Protestant beliefs), adapted to the dominant traditions while preserving their heritage. He discusses their successes and failures in navigating the prejudices of the day and their ability to secure their own interests in such tumultuous times.

Taken together, these chapters present a wide variety of motivations linked to two key factors: loyalties shaped by ties to the Old World and the New, and each group’s ability to secure the rights and powers of citizenship. While the United States was no longer a republic by 1860, its roots were firmly planted in that tradition, and the groups studied here were aware of that fact. Their motivations varied between and within communities as factions responded

8 e SUSANNAH J. URAL in different ways to the war. The pro-slavery Ridge Party, for example, chose to rapidly support the Confederacy (and increased its power by doing so), whereas the Cherokee National Council was far more hesitant to do so and lost power within the tribe. Similarly, “Gray” Germans in the North, most of whom were conservative Democrats, challenged the more radical “Green” German immigrants’ support for the Republican Party, particularly its reform wing. Some Eastern Cherokee were more motivated by tribal loyalties than any ties to the Confederacy that they defended, just as some Irish Catholic volunteers fought more for Ireland than they did for the Union. The thread running through all their actions, however, links a desire to protect the community’s interests while promoting their rights within the United States or the Confederacy.

Despite the racial and ethnic themes threading through this book, this is not a racial or ethnic history of the war, nor is it a traditional military history of the era. This book lays between the home front and the battlefield; between the dominant white traditions of nineteenth-century America and the minority communities that insisted on their place in that story. The authors offer insights into the complex motivations that shaped ethnic communities’ responses to the Civil War and the impact these decisions had on them as well as the larger nation. Thus there is a significant racial and ethnic aspect to this book that is inextricably tied to an examination of cultures in conflict.

A Note on Sources

In each chapter, readers will note that specific individuals—usually leaders of the ethnic families, villages, and neighborhoods—often influenced a group’s decisions and actions. The focus on leaders is due in part to the fact that some of these groups suffered from high rates of illiteracy, which makes the source base small. It is also the result, however, of the recognition that leaders spoke for their communities: as elected officials or as individuals that the community unofficially recognized as leaders, perhaps for their economic or other influence within the group. Whether politicians, tribal leaders, or even in some cases military officers (appointed for their political influence), they represented the will of the people. When they failed to do this, the community, tribe, or faction replaced them. Thus, this work embraces social

Introduction ea 9 historians’ call for history from the bottom up while also recognizing the significant influence of community leaders on outside groups’ responses in this conflict.

Similarly, newspapers are a common source utilized by the authors. Editors could not stay in business if they failed to address the interests of their communities. Thus when source materials are limited, racial and ethnic newspapers are a valuable measure of a group’s hopes, fears, and frustrations. The authors also incorporate letters, diaries, and other traditional primary source material into this book to integrate the voices of less prominent members of these communities. Through intense research in consular records, church archives, tribal treaties and other negotiated agreements with local, state, and federal governments, newspapers, and private collections, the contributors reveal how the sometimes silent members of these ethnic groups supported the opinions more frequently expressed by their political, military, and social leaders.

1. Charleston Mercury, September 11, 1861.

2. New York Times, August 30, 1861.

3. Ella Lonn, Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951); Lonn, Foreigners in the Confederacy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1940); William L. Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers: The Unions Ethnic Regiments (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998); Walter Kamphoefner and Wolfgang Helbich, eds., Germans in the Civil War: The Letters They Wrote Home, trans. Susan Carter Vogel (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006); Grace Palladino, Another Civil War: Labor, Capital, and the State in Anthracite Regions of Pennsylvania, 1840-1868 (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006); Christian B. Keller, Chancellorsville and the Germans: Nativism, Ethnicity, and Civil War Memory (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007). Lawrence F. Kohl has edited a number of letter collections and memoirs written by Irish American soldiers. See his Irish in the Civil War series with Fordham University Press. Also, there have been excellent articles and essays on this subject over the last decade, such as Randall Miller’s chapter “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” in Religion and the American Civil War, ed. Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan Wilson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Kurt Hackemer’s study of immigrant enlistment patterns in Kenosha County, Wisconsin; and Russell Johnson’s work on the impact of Civil War military service in Dubuque, Iowa. All the authors in this volume have contributed to the historiography of race and ethnicity in the Civil War era.

IO ea SUSANNAH J. URAL

4. Total U.S. population in 1860 was 31.4 million. Four million immigrants are included in that total, approximately 500,000 free African Americans, and at least 40,000 Native Americans tallied in the 1860 census, though that number is far undercounted due to census-taking methods and definitions at the time. Population of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the 8th Census, under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior, by Joseph C. G. Kennedy, Superintendent of Census (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1864), 598-99.

5. Warren L. Young, Minorities and the Military: A Cross-National Study in World Perspective (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), 255.

6. James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

7. Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, “Table 4: Region and Country of Area of Birth of the Foreign-born Population, with Geographic Detail Show in Decennial Census Publications of 1930 or Earlier: 1850 to 1930 and 1960 to 1990,” in “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990,” Population Division Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., February 1999, http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twpsoo29/tabo4.html (updated January 18, 2001).

8. Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, “Table 1: United States—Race and Hispanic Origin: 1790 to 1990,” in “Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States,” Population Division Working Paper Series No. 56, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. September 2002, http://www.census. gov/population/documentation/twpsoos56/tabor.pdf.

o lo

Germans, the Union, and the Construction of a Wartime Identity or all the debate about states’ rights and slavery being the cause of the

American Civil War, the actual conflict was fought between military communities, no matter how large or small, no matter what their ethnic complexion. “This is essentially a People’s contest,” explained Abraham Lincoln in his July 1861 message to Congress. As such, immigrants, along with their fellow Americans, needed to embrace the notion that they were preserving a Union that was favorable to their plight, and perhaps in some way make inroads into establishing themselves as more acceptable to Americans. As Phillip Shaw Paludan so wonderfully argues in his work ‘A Peoples Contest”: The Union and Civil War, 1861-1865, Northerners came to understand the meaning of the Union more substantively. Never before had Americans participated in such a cause that forced them to travel more miles, over more landscapes, endure more hardships, and meet more people of ethnically diverse backgrounds than in the years of the Civil War. By joining the military, Northerners came to appreciate more fully the ethnically diverse nature of their Union. In some cases, such exposure to other groups during the war affected the way native-born Americans saw themselves.’

Because the war created small military communities at the regimental level that reflected the Northern population, it was no surprise that Americans were more likely to come into contact with Germans because of their presence in the military. While most Germans in the United States would agree that they were as uniquely different as were Americans (or any other ethnic group) and had yet to develop any singular “German identity,” Americans nonetheless typically perceived them as the same ethnically because the sole characteristic binding Germans to one another was language. Whether the war forced Anglo-Americans to accept or reject the ethnically diverse society they discovered in the ranks, those soldiers serving to preserve the Union at least came to recognize, because of the presence of their German comrades, that they were living in an ethnically diverse society, even if their views about the Germans did not change the kind of Union they wanted to preserve.?

Of all the ethnic groups that dotted the American landscape before the Civil War, none were more “generally distributed over the United States as were the Germans,” noted Ella Lonn in her seminal work Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy? Whether Germans settled into urban communities or the rural confines of states, by 1861 they had made a distinct impression on certain regions of the Northern landscape, adding significantly to the color and character of American culture. Wherever they resided, their customs, language, and cultural traditions stood out distinctly and, in many respects, provided Americans with their first exposure to ethnic difference, largely because it was the first time many Americans heard a language other than English. James Bergquist notes, for example, that the nineteenth-century Germans “were one of the most successful ethnic groups in establishing a tangible presence in American cities that went beyond a mere collection of institutions to advance ethnicity and became instead a community in the fullest sense.” Few Americans recognized the diversity within German communities that included Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Jewish, Freethinkers, old settlers, newcomers, farmers, artisans, businessmen, or simple laborers. Most Americans saw them as ethnically different first and foremost because of language.‘

By 1861, Germans who had felt the need to belong to a German community had established German neighborhoods in many American cities. Whether in New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis, or Milwaukee, Kleindeutschlands (Little Germanies) had become a significant and influential feature of the North, particularly in the urban areas. New York’s Kleindeutschland was the third-largest German-speaking community in the world behind Berlin and Vienna and was the first of the large ethnic urban settlements that came to distinguish American cities in the antebellum period. In Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Milwaukee, Germans constituted roughly one-third of the population. Other Northern cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Indianapolis, and Buffalo absorbed sizable portions of America’s German population; these Germans typically segregated themselves into ethnic neighborhoods, which more often than not were “more uniform in their origins than they were in the blocks they inhabited.” This urban concentration of Germans quite often

Yankee Dutchmen e n gave them a “disproportionate weight in many important centers of population and industry.” Fredrika Bremer, for example, described Milwaukee, or “German Town,” before the war as a place where “one sees German houses, German inscriptions over the doors or signs, German physiognomies.” “Here are published German newspapers,” she added, “and many Germans live here who never learn English, and seldom go beyond the German town.”ć Noted British reporter Edward Dicey, on assignment in America while walking the streets of New York City’s Kleindeutschland, observed the same characteristics of the German population, concluding that the Germans in that city “evidently [retain] the strongest individuality of any foreign class.”7

Other than New York, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, Cincinnati was perhaps the most German of all cities in the Civil War era. Strolling the streets of Cincinnati in the spring of 1862, Dicey remarked that what struck him most about the “Queen City of the West,” or “Over the Rhine” (as the Germans called it), was “the German air of the place and people.” It was hard to believe, he observed, “that you were not in some city of the old German vaterland.” Indeed, at least one-third of Cincinnati’s roughly 70,000 residents were German. “Almost everybody that you meet is speaking in the harsh, guttural, German accents,” remarked Dicey. “Ihe women, with their squat, stout figures, their dull blue eyes, and fair flaxen hair, sit knitting at their doors, dressed in the stuffed woollen petticoats of the German fashion,” he noted, and “the men have still the woollen jackets, the blue worsted pantaloons, and the lowcrowned hats one knows so well in Bavaria and Tyrol.” Here the old country prevailed. “There are ‘Bier Gartens,’ ‘Restaurations,’ and “Tanz Saale,’ on every side,” noted Dicey. “There are German operas, German concerts, and half a dozen German theaters,” and it was “here, in the free West, the Germans have asserted their right to spend Sunday as they like; and so ‘across the Rhine,’ the dancing gardens are open, and the Turner Feasts take place, and the first representations of the opera are given on Sunday as in their native land.”* Still, Dicey noticed perceptively that despite this strong German identity in Cincinnati, “the German element was being merged in the American.”