Frederick
A. Sawyer was a New England teacher and would later become a senator from South
Carolina after it was accepted back into the Union who had been contracted by
the school board of Charleston South Carolina to organize and superintend the
Normal school in 1859. Being of Northern heritage and persuasion, he of course
wanted to go back north when the war was approaching, but was persuaded to stay
in the south and continue to work. It wasn’t until September of 1864 that he
returned north, apparently kicked out by Confederates for his “persistent
loyalty” to the Union.
Upon returning
to the north, he spoke and supported the re-election of President Lincoln. Sawyer
was a Republican and was a political friend of Lincoln although they had never
met. Sawyer and a friend were present at Ford’s Theater on the night that
Lincoln was assassinated. According to the article, Sawyer was not aware that
the President would be in attendance, and being that he was an educated citizen,
I would have to speculate that most were unaware that the president would be
there. Sawyer wrote of what he had witnessed later that evening.
Sawyer recounts
that the assassination, from shot to escape was done in only eight seconds. At first
he was mistaken, thinking that it was part of the play, but soon realized/remembered
that there was no such scene. There was much confusion at the theater in the
wake of the excitement, Sawyer himself helped to call for help as someone in
Lincoln’s party was yelling “was there a surgeon in the house?” Sawyer was told by a ticket taker
that the assassin was John Wilkes Booth, and he was well known at the theater. Sawyer
and his friend were moved with the crowd out the door. It seems that there was
a sense of retaliation or vengeance in the crowd to apprehend Booth.
After
they left the theater, they learned of the other assassination attempt made
that night on Secretary Seward, but were assured that his injuries weren’t so
severe. Sawyer goes on to tell how excited (not in a good way) the city had
become.
I found
this article interesting because when we are taught about Lincoln’s assassination,
we read about how it happened in perfect sequence as if it were scripted. I feel
like Sawyer’s telling of the attack shows how chaotic and tumultuous it really
was. Everything had happened and was finished before anyone really know what
was going on.
Rietveld, Ronald D. "An Eyewitness Account of Abraham Lincoln's Assassination." Civil War History. no. 1 (1976): 60-69.
A first-person account of the assassination from a prominent member of politics would be interesting to read. Your summary of the article seems much like an abstract and was enjoyable to read. Senator Sawyer, being of Northern loyalty, was bold to remain in the south to continue his work. Unless he was in the Union-Loyalist parts of North Carolina or Western Virginia, it was potentially dangerous to remain in the south.
ReplyDeleteSawyer's account of the assassination taking only 8 seconds seems a little far fetched, but who am I to dispute it? It just seems like a short amount of time to fire a shot, leap from the Presidential Box, shout "Sic Semper Tyrannis!", and then flee off stage, but in the chaos and negative excitement of the event - I'm sure, like a car accident, it seemed like it was over in a matter of seconds. I agree with your statement that we learn the events of that night as if it were actually part of the play. To hear about an account of an audience member that was actually there is interesting.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that bands of armed men did try to hunt down Booth and attain retribution. There has not been a presidential assassination during my lifetime, but I'm sure that the chaos at the scene would be overwhelming, just as it was in the case of JFK or Lincoln. For a spectator, the occurrence would be understandably shocking, especially for an individual like Sawyer, who was doubtlessly excited to be watching a play in the same theater as President Lincoln. These kinds of accounts are always more meaningful to me than the cookie-cutter historical interpretation that winds up in text books. Viewing these events in context gives one a far better understanding. Presented in a way that considers their emotional tumult, these events can be appreciated for their humanity and as such, they become far more relevant to our own lives.
ReplyDelete