General Barlow and General Gordon Meet on Blocher’s Knoll

 | America's Civil War  | 0 comments  |  Print This Post  |  Email This Post

There is no reason to doubt Gordon and Barlow’s meeting at Potter’s dinner party. Potter, a Democratic congressman from New York, chaired a committee that investigated charges of voter fraud during the bitterly contested 1876 presidential election. The committee had no power to overturn the outcome of the election, which a special electoral committee had decided in 1877. Rather, Potter and his Democratic colleagues used the inquiry to rake up charges of Republican corruption.

Although the committee initially concentrated on a situation in Louisiana, it also revisited the recount in Florida. Barlow had played a controversial role in the Florida recanvass. A committed — if maverick — Republican, he was sent to join his party’s recount team in Florida as President Grant’s personal representative. He became convinced, however, that the Republicans were engaged in fraud. At that point he publicly broke with his party and declared that the Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, had actually won Florida by a handful of votes. If Barlow’s assessment had been accepted, Tilden would have taken the Southern state’s electoral votes and with them the election. Although Democrats made the most of Barlow’s contentions, his report was ignored by the Grant administration, and in the end the election and the presidency was given to Rutherford B. Hayes.

Not surprisingly, Potter called Barlow to testify about what he had seen in Florida. Republicans, who had been infuriated by Barlow’s actions, took the opportunity of his appearance before the committee to excoriate him in the press. It would have been natural for Potter to invite the star witness for the Democrats to dinner, and Barlow would have found such an occasion a welcome respite from the political firestorm that destroyed his career in government. Gordon was a staunch Democrat. His presence at such a function is consistent with his views, and he would certainly have been supportive of Barlow’s position. Significantly, the story of their wartime encounter began to gain widespread currency at that point — and all evidence points to Gordon as the source. But the two generals were to have another, more conspicuous, meeting directly connected to their Gettysburg experiences.

On July 1, 1888, the 25th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg was commemorated with a reunion of both Federal and Confederate veterans, as well as the unveiling of monuments and events featuring major participants in the battle. James Longstreet and Gordon were the most distinguished ex-Confederates to attend. While former Union corps commanders Daniel Sickles and Henry Slocum received most of the attention on the Northern side, Barlow was also present, arriving in town on July 2.

The following morning, Barlow and Gordon met on the site of the first day’s battle. According to The New York Times: ‘The two men met for the second time in 25 years and the meeting was rather affecting. Gen. Barlow was left on the field on the first day’s fight. He was found by Gen. Gordon, who not only saw that he was taken care of, but allowed Mrs. Barlow to come through the lines to nurse her husband.’ The Times account of the generals’ personal reunion at Gettysburg provides more evidence supporting the veracity of their wartime encounter. Furthermore, the story’s appearance in a major New York daily gave Barlow a superb opportunity to dismiss it as bogus. He did not.

There should be no mistaking, however, that parts of the Gordon-Barlow story are fanciful. The romantic convention of the mortally wounded Barlow asking Gordon to read his wife’s words before tearing her letters to shreds is one example. Badly wounded though he was, Barlow was quite capable of destroying letters. He retained enough presence of mind that he ripped up two letters discussing his impending appointment to one of the early forms of the Freedmen’s Bureau, a Federal agency intended to help newly freed slaves. In the July 7 letter to his mother, written after he was once again in Union hands, General Barlow explained that he had destroyed the letters because, had he remained in Confederate hands, the Rebels ‘might not be inclined to parole so important a functionary as the Superintendent of the Freedmen throughout the US.’ Surely, he could have dealt similarly with Arabella’s letters. (As it turned out, his wounding and long convalescence ended the possibility of his taking command of the Freedmen’s Bureau.)

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to

Tags: 19th Century, America's Civil War, American Civil War, Historical Conflicts

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.