In a short diary entry dated 2 August 1862, Lucius Smith, a 27-year-old farmer and sometime schoolteacher living near New Albany, OH with his parents and seven younger siblings, notes that he "Helped at Hay & oats" half the day on his family’s farm, worries about his own sorghum operation, reports on a war meeting in New Albany, and refers to a discussion with a neighbor about a piece of farming equipment. What Smith's diary lacks in depth or analysis on any particular topic, it makes up for by revealing how diverse elements of rural culture in central Ohio during the Civil War weave into an individual life. No internal or external evidence suggests that Smith intended his diary to serve as anything other than a personal record. An account book, inventory, or personal almanac would likely exhibit more structure, but Smith blends those genres by recording business transactions, accounts of equipment, and comments on the weather with observations on a number of other recurring topics. Regarding the Civil War, Smith writes about the draft and appeals for enlistments at war meetings, arrests for treasonable language, news of battles and debates over slavery, and the fate of friends and acquaintances serving in the Union Army. Writing about work on his cane mill and his family's farm, Smith speaks of digging wells and hauling stone, brick, and wood. He describes equipment for farming, milling sorghum, making molasses, and he records details about the weather and the progress of his crops. Writing about the social life of his community, he speaks of helping one another with chores, attending parties, participating in hunting competitions, and listening to speeches and sermons. In sum, as we discuss in more detail below, Smith provides an eye-level view of diverse aspects of rural life and work in Ohio during the Civil War.
Mid-nineteenth-century Family Dynamics
In 1862, when Lucius Clark Smith penned this diary, he would have been a young man roughly 27 years old. Modern observers are apt to question the normalcy of a man this age residing at home with his father, mother, and seven younger siblings. Yet, in the context of mid-nineteenth century agricultural life, there is little abnormal about this living situation.
Demographic historians provide ample data suggesting that the household configuration of the Smiths in the early 1860s was not unheard of. The Smith household, numbering nine individuals as of the 1860 Federal Census, was somewhat larger than the national average of six (1860 Census). Rural families, however, were more likely to experience higher rates of fertility than those in more urban areas. Moreover, five of these children would have been under the age of 18 at the time of the census, so their residence at home is unsurprising (Easterlin, Alter, and Condran).
To explain the continued residence of the three eldest sons well into their twenties requires an examination of contemporary understandings of adulthood and familial relationships in agricultural settings. Our modern understandings of the teenage years and young adulthood are largely by-products of the twentieth century and would have been unknown to those living in the 1860s. Adulthood was vested not in a specific age-bracket, but in an understanding of status based on dependence or independence. The nature of parent-child relationships on farms led to what we would think of as a protracted period of dependence, resting on the mutual obligations that existed between fathers and sons. Fathers were obligated to provide a practical education for sons to ensure that they had prospects as they moved into adulthood; children were in turn bound to provide labor and obedience as long as necessary. Quite often, sons labored on the family farm till at least the age of 21 or beyond, at which point, they would ideally establish themselves on nearby farms. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, however, increasing land scarcity had some sons staying on the family farm for longer periods of time.
The alternative to establishing an independent farm near one's parents' home was often to escape agriculture altogether and take up an urban occupation. As industrialization and urbanization increased in the second half of the 1800s, farmers feared that their sons would leave the farm never to return. Articles in magazines and newspapers gave voice to that fear. One specifically provided advice to young men thinking of abandoning the family farm: “Again, it is your duty to ‘Stick to the Farm;’ your father has already reached the meridian of life, and has commenced to descend the ‘western declivity.’ He has long looked forward to the day when he could relinquish the active labors of the farm to his son. To this end he has taken special pains to instruct you in all things connected with good husbandry, and now, when he needs you most, when he feels the infirmities of age creeping on, when he needs your aid, will you leave him to struggle on?” ("Boys, Stick to the Farm"). Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century, more farmers focused on keeping at least one of their adult sons on the farm rather than seeing them flee the area when unable to become settled on a nearby farm of their own (Frank 147).
The period of dependency for young farming males most frequently ended upon one of the hallmark ritual passages into adulthood: marriage. As historian Stephen Frank notes, “Until a son came of age, married, and established an independent household, he labored primarily for his father rather than for himself” (Frank 142). Again, demographic historians illustrate that the bachelorhood (and its corresponding state of home-residence) of Lucius Clark Smith was not anomalous for the time. During the period from 1850 through the Civil War, the median age for native-born white men to marry was 26.6 for men (22.9 for women) (Fitch and Ruggles 63). At 27 in 1862, Lucius Clark Smith, as well as the rest of his twenty-something brothers, were well within the normal range to be unmarried and thus dwelling at home.
Perhaps the only thing abnormal about the Smith household was the degree to which Lucius was able to engage in his own economic operations. The establishment of his own mill on his father’s land indicates a degree of autonomy that places Lucius well on the way to independent adulthood. Without examining the will of Archibald Smith, it is difficult to determine the status of this land grant precisely, but it likely represented Archibald’s patrimony to Lucius: the father’s obligation to see the child set up with some means of economic self-sufficiency during a time of declining availability of land. Whatever the case, it is clear that work done on Archibald Smith's farm and on Lucius Smith’s mill operation were both family affairs.
Milling and Mill Operations
The explosion of farm mechanization that marked the 19th century, including the sorghum mills that Lucius Smith invested in, called for an equal increase in the rise of farm power to operate those new mechanisms. Before this time, water-powered mills – almost exclusively flour mills and sawmills – had been sufficient for most farmer’s needs, but not all of these new farm mechanisms could be conveniently located close enough to a source of running water. Instead, new farm mechanisms embraced the technology of modular power, having a simple belt pulley by which power could be delivered from any source.
Chief among these new power sources were animal power and steam power. However, as portable steam engines were still a relatively new, and expensive, innovation – the first portable steam engine was patented in 1849 – farmers were much more likely to use animal power—horse power specifically, in which a long wooden beam, or “sweep,” was attached on one end to a horse’s harness and on the other end to the outside of a main gear wheel. The horse would then be lead around the "power," turning the main gear wheel, and this rotation was transferred through smaller gears and shafts to another belt pulley, which would drive the belt, which would in turn power the mechanism. This arrangement was not only cheaper and more proven than steam power, it was also more portable and flexibile than traditional water power. Further, horse power could be geared up or down to provide high-torque/low-speed or low-torque/high-speed power to a variety of mechanisms.
Sorghum mills, even though they were relatively new innovations in the mid-19th century, were fairly simple mechanisms, familiar to anyone who has ever seen an old-fashioned laundry mangle: two (or more) large steel cylinders were situated very close together and rotated counter to each other. Cane was fed into the mill and between these cylinders, which squeezed juice from the cane. Lucius Smith’s initial mill, with which he is so preoccupied in the first half of this journal, was undoubtedly a horizontal mill, in which the cylinders are placed horizontally and powered by a belt-pulley attached to a separate "horse-power." However, the weaknesses of this system becomes apparent in Smith’s own account of his operations. Though he had just gotten a new one turned on September 6th, the counter-shaft of his horse-power broke on October 2nd, less than four weeks later, due to the sheer stress of the torque applied in night-and-day operations.
Smith’s second mill, however, avoided this problem. The John L. Gill and Son No. 6 Vertical Cane mill, which Smith purchased for $88 on October 3rd, had one central 12” roller and two secondary 9” rollers arranged vertically with an integrated horse-power. This integrated horse-power, two sweeps attached to the drive shaft above the mill, obviated the need for the counter-shafts and tumble-shafts that would deliver power from a separate horse-power, and thus eliminated two potential points of failure. It is worth noting, however, that even with this new, more advanced mill, Smith had enough cane supply in the autumn of 1862 to continue using both mills simultaneously to keep up with the demand for his services.
Sorghum and the Production of Molasses in Nineteenth-Century Ohio
Production of molasses from sorghum was a fairly new agricultural activity during the mid-nineteenth century, and it carried cultural and economic implications. In History of Ohio Agriculture (1900), Charles William Burkett mentions that sorghum was introduced to Ohio by the early settlers in the nineteenth century. These early settlers were interested in developing family farms. In Soils and Crops of the Farm, George Espy Morrow and Thomas Forsyth Hunt observe, “Sorghum is the only agriculturally important plant which has been introduced into the United States since the American Revolution . . . and was widely distributed during the decade prior to the war between the states” (260).
History and Technology
Sorghum cane, native to China, came to United States via France in the 1850s. Before the introduction of sorghum, maple sap, juice from beets, and sugarcane were used to produce sugar. However, those sources posed specific difficulties for local industries trying to find a national market: the sugar produced from the other kinds of canes dried up fast. In Ohio, sorghum was initially raised on a small scale and molasses made from it was sold in local markets. In the Springfield market, for instance, molasses from sorghum was sold for 75 cents a gallon. The Leffel sorghum mill at Springfield thrived during the 1860s. Its owner Joseph Leffel had two acres of cane which he crushed using horse power, while some of Leffel's contemporary sorghum mill owners like Rev. Abraham Myers harnessed the water of the Mad River for power (Prince 84-5). The standard stages in making sorghum molasses included growing the sorghum cane, followed by grinding the cane at the Cane house using horse power, and then boiling the juice in large vessels.
Mid-nineteenth century Ohio may have used more large-scale agricultural machines than any other state at the time (Documents, Messages . . . 504). Steam threshers and sugar mills were used for grinding sorghum. The latter was invented around 1856-57 for specifically this purpose, unlike the steam thresher, which was used for grinding several other kinds of grains. Both the steam thresher and the sugar mill helped cut down labor costs. Some late nineteenth-century documents also suggest that most of the molasses was used at home, and only the surplus was sold. Evidently, for many mill owners in nineteenth-century Ohio, the sorghum industry was geared more toward domestic use rather than large-scale commercial enterprise. At the same time, the potential of the industry to grow rapidly was recognized by farmers and mill owners alike.
On 7 January 1862, a State Sorghum Convention was held in Columbus, Ohio. The convention not only discussed the culture of growing sorghum and manufacturing molasses from it but also promoted certain kinds of pans and mills for their ability to produce better molasses than others. Apparently, these agendas sometimes clashed. The Ohio Cultivator documents a debate between a sales agent of "Implements and Machinery" and the secretary of the convention on the subject of advertising at the convention (Bateham and Sullivan 156-57). Be that as it may, sorghum molasses played an increasingly important role in mid-nineteenth century agricultural in Ohio. But the industry grew slowly. H. Talcott, a member of the Jefferson Sugar Manufacturing Company, presented a paper at the Agricultural convention recorded in the Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture (1883), to endorse the promotion of the sorghum-molasses industry in Ohio: he proposed growing sorghum as a rotation crop with corn and listed its many uses, which included preparation of sugar, cooking molasses, rum vinegar, and prepared coffee. Talcott's presentation was prompted by the rather scattered nature of the sorghum industry until the 1880s and the fact that "no very good results or much practical use [was being] made of the crop" (90).
Thus, Lucius Smith's investment in a Cane House, which figures in most of his journal entries from August to December 1862, represents a relatively novel agricultural and industrial development in the state. Smith adopts state-of-the-art technologies for producing molasses and visits different cities in search of the right apparatuses for his mill.
The Civil War and Civic Life
The State of the Draft in Ohio
Throughout the months of August and September, Lucius Clark Smith expressed anxiety about the draft and referred to men volunteering out of fear of being drafted. On August 4, 1862, the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, issued an order to draft 300,000 men into the military to serve for nine months. Although each state was called to supply their required quota of men by the fifteenth of August, Ohio was granted repeated extensions due to the mounting pressure to provide regiments in the defense of its southern border. The draft was first postponed to September 16 ("In Relation to the Draft") and then for a second time until October 1 ("Drafting Postponed").
During each postponement, Ohio's Unionist governor David Tod encouraged citizens at large to voluntarily enlist. He also urged the commissioners responsible for organizing the draft in their respective district to do likewise. It was during the first postponement that Tod encouraged the county commissioners directly to use this time to recruit more regiments in order to fulfill Ohio's quota of 23,000 militia men through volunteers, "thereby sav[ing] the trouble, expense and vexation of resorting to drafting in Ohio" ("In Relation to the Draft").
Just two days before the first postponement was set to end, Tod announced the second extension and concluded with an impassioned plea to Ohio's men to answer the call to service: "The necessity for the force called for by the President is now apparent to all. Our very firesides are threatened in the desperate efforts of the rebels to destroy our glorious Government. Rally then, noble men of Ohio, and with the grand effort to fill up the ranks" ("Drafting Postponed"). Between September 15 and October 1, however, about 8,000 men voluntarily enlisted, which left some 12,000 still to be drafted. Thus, in spite of the Governor's efforts to solicit voluntary enlistment since the initial announcement of the draft in August, three-fourths of the counties in Ohio commenced the draft on the first of October in order to meet their respective quotas ("The Draft in Ohio").
While many counties and townships held meetings to encourage enlistment and "devis[e] ways and means to raise each town's quota and avoid the draft," the men of Ohio were clearly reluctant to voluntarily enlist ("How to Avoid a Draft"). Part of the difficulty in attracting volunteers was attributed to the requirement in Ohio that volunteers provide three years of service rather than the nine months required of draftees. The Daily Cleveland Herald in late December of 1862 characterized the draft as a failure that "engendered much bad feeling in portions of the State, and has proved a slow process in filling up the Union army rank and file." The article concludes by suggesting, "The same effort and expenditure in enlisting nine months volunteers would have filled the muster rolls sooner and fuller" ("The Draft a Failure"). For those counties who secured their full quota through voluntary enlistment, however, the increased service requirement of the volunteers was held up as testimony to their collective patriotism - that they sent "three year soldiers" rather than "nine months [sic] men" ("The Draft Over").
Partisan Politics During War: the Arrest of Edson B. Olds and Opposition to the DraftOpposition to the 1862 draft seemed to have taken on a different character in contrast to the well-known opposition of 1863. Around the time of the Conscription Act of March 1863, there was bitter opposition against the exemption which allowed for a wealthy draftee to hire an able-bodied substitute in his place. Such resistance appeared not to take such precedence a year earlier. A letter to the editor in 1862, written under the pseudonym "Justice," expressed specific outrage that state and county officers, deputies, and clerks were exempted from the draft altogether. The author asserts that "they are the only men in the State, (excepting contractors) who are making money, and consequently, if drafted, are better able to employ substitutes than any other class of individual in the State" ("Editors Herald"). "Justice" did not, like his compatriots would a year later, single out wealthy Ohioans for criticism.
In August of 1862, The Crisis accused a "Black Republican postmaster" of using his position to shield his three sons from the draft, instead of shouldering his nationalistic duty to God and country ("Republicans Creeping Out of the Draft"). While such a criticism might have been legitimately leveled at Columbus' wealthy elite, several citizens instead chose to aim their ire at Ohio's civil servants. This fit well with other examples of Democratic attacks toward Republicans. The Ohio Statesmen decried the practice of Pennsylvania and New York, both of which postponed their drafts. The newspaper accused the two states of providing "fewer men to the war than the Democrats or Conservatives" (Newark Advocates). In both cases the Democratic papers used the draft to critique Republicans' administration and avoidance of the draft without opposing the draft itself.
During 1862, those who openly criticized the draft were liable to be arrested on charges of disloyalty, treasonable language, and discouraging enlistment. One such notable arrest that is directly referenced in Smith's diary is that of Edson B. Olds. Olds had served as a congressional representative from 1849 until his failed bid for re-election in 1854.Before the draft was officially announced in August, Olds delivered a speech about the draft that eventually led to popular uproar and later to his arrest. In July, 1862, the Lancaster Eagle published a response from Olds defending his speech. He claimed his views were misrepresented and that he was not discouraging men from enlisting. Rather, Olds argued he was only presenting a vision of what might happen should the Republicans institute a draft. He wrote, as long as the war focused on the "putting down of rebellion, and the 'maintenance of the Constitution as it is, and the Union as it was,' the Democracy would freely shed their blood, and liberally give their money, but so soon as it ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and became an abolition war, no Democrat would be found willing to volunteer. I further remarked: that the Government in all probability would make a draft for soldiers, and that drafting would be in the hands of Republicans; that the party would want to keep Republicans at home to vote, and that no fair draft would be made; and that if any Democrat believed that he had been fraudulently drafted, he would refuse to go, and that a file of soldiers would be sent after him, and that under such circumstances he would resist, even at the point of the boyonet [sic], and that in this way civil war would be brought upon us in Ohio. Not one word was said as advising resistance, but all was told as a vision of what would be future events" ("Dr. Old's Vision").
His defense, however, was ultimately ineffective. Olds was arrested for treasonable language later that month. On the one hand, local Democratic papers like The Crisis characterized the arrest as "arbitrary" and as a "kidnapping" ("Arrest of Edson B. Olds"). On the other hand, Republican papers characterized Olds as a "notorious traitor" ("Dr E.B. Olds"). While imprisoned in Fort Lafayette, he was elected as a member of the State House of Representatives. The Daily Cleveland Herald attributed Olds' election to his arrest and imprisonment, stating that "the arrest and imprisonment of the notorious E.B. Olds has resurrected him from what, otherwise would have been a final political sleep. . . . he fills a much larger space in the world behind the bars of a prison than he would in the open air" ( "Arrest and Imprisonment of the Notorious E. B. Olds").
Smith wrote in his private diary that the arrest and imprisonment of Dr. E.B. Olds manifested "considerable feeling" among the Democrats. Olds' arrest and the subsequent partisan squabble illustrate the contentious nature of politics during wartime. Discontent over the draft in 1862 served, like any other issue, as a divisive battleground for Ohio's politicians. Democrats used the draft and the imprisonment of predominantly Democratic citizens to mount a trenchant critique of Republican administration of the government.
Borderlands and Hinterlands: Cincinnati and the Ohio River During the Civil War
Located just over 100 miles southwest of Lucius Clark Smith’s home, Cincinnati functioned as an important source of supplies and soldiers for Union forces during the Civil War, a role largely consequent of its position on the Ohio River and its status as—in the words of one contemporary newspaper—“the commercial emporium of the West” ("Field Operations"). These two facts are, of course, related: Cincinnati developed as a bustling city for trade largely because of the emergence during the 19th century of the steamboat, which made river trade a substantially less burdensome undertaking in the region. Propelled by the development of railways—“By the eve of the Civil War, Ohio boasted some 3,000 miles of track, . . . the most of any state in the entire nation” (Phillips)—Cincinnati became host to an influx of immigrants, particularly from Ireland and Germany. By 1850 “47.2 percent of Cincinnatians were immigrants, and more than 70 percent came from either Ireland or Germany” (Phillips).
These immigrants tended to be Catholics, and, coupled with large swaths of transplanted southerners, they constituted a largely Democratic voting bloc—one frequently opposed to the War and to emancipation. Contemporary sources reveal that at the root of this opposition lay unease about their own security in a post-emancipation world: as a foreign observer touring Cincinnati in 1863 remarked, “The jealousy of the low Germans and Irish against the free negro was sufficient to set them against the war which would have brought four million of their black rivals in competition for that hard and dirty work which American freedom bestowed on them” (qtd. in Klement 100). Propagating this alarmist sentiment, Ohio Democratic Congressman Samuel Sullivan Cox, in a speech published in the September 9, 1862, edition of the Daily National Intelligencer, stated, “The right and power to exclude Africans from the States North, being compatible with our system of State sovereignty and Federal supremacy, I assert that it is impolitic, dangerous, degrading, and unjust to the white men of Ohio and of the North to allow such immigration” ("Speech"). These feelings of dissent largely undergirded the more visible role Cincinnati played in providing supplies and combatants.
The Defense of Cincinnati
Throughout his entries for September, 1862, Lucius Clark Smith repeatedly makes reference to the goings-on in Cincinnati—later to be referred to as the Defense of Cincinnati—whereby the city was threatened by Confederate forces. Contemporary sources paint a vivid portrait of the struggle.
The September 4, 1862, edition of the Milwaukee Daily Sentinel reports that, on September 1st, “[Confederate Major General] Kirby Smith’s army appeared in the suburbs [of Lexington], and demanded the surrender of the city, which was complied with by the citizens” ("War in Kentucky"). With the Confederates having taken Lexington, they prepared to mount an attack on Cincinnati; consequently, Union Major General Lew Wallace declared martial law and seized sixteen steamboats to be armed. Wallace would organize residents of Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport for defense. The Sentinel reports that on September 2nd, “Citizens are enrolling themselves rapidly in the different wards” and that “[t]he Forty-fifth and Ninety-ninth Ohio are falling back slowly to Covington. . . . All steamboats are ordered to remain on the Ohio side of the river. . . . Some apprehension is felt for our safety” ("War in Kentucky"). Indicative of this apprehension, Cincinnati mayor George Hatch ordered all businesses closed.
On September 3rd, Ohio governor David Tod announced—in a declaration printed in the city papers and telegraphed throughout the state—the need for men to defend Cincinnati, stating that “all such bodies of men who are armed, will be received. They will repair at once to Cincinnati and report to Gen. Lew Wallace who will complete their further organization” ("Noble Response"). The response was so overwhelming, however, that on September 5th, Tod announced to the public that “no additional volunteers would be needed for the defense of Cincinnati” ("Noble Response").
An account of the events that followed, published in the Cincinnati Gazette, reports that “On the 10th, it was ascertained that the rebels were within five miles of the city, in force, under Gen. Heath [sic], and the Governor again called on the Minute Men to rally in defense of Cincinnati. On the 11th, they began to pour in again . . . .” However, the sheer number of men defending Cincinnati made it invulnerable to attack, and “On the 13th, Gen. Wright telegraphed Gen. Tod that the enemy was retreating, and not to send any more troops” (reprinted in "Noble Response").
The Ohio River as (Cultural, Political, Military) Border
It is difficult to overestimate the Ohio River's importance during the Civil War. As the southern border of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, the river served as a border between slave states and free states and functioned as an obstacle for Confederates attempting to cross over into the north. Contemporary sources reference gunboats patrolling the river on a daily basis and also mention steamboats being used to transport Union troops throughout the region. Describing the fortifications being erected in and around Cincinnati, one newspaper cites the river’s importance to the area’s defense: “The Ohio river, from Columbus to Sedamsville, forms the segment of a circle, the length of the arc being nearly 12 miles, with a range of hills on the south of Covington and Newport for its base . . . completely commanding all the river and road approaches from the South” ("Defences").
This edition belongs to a series of collaboratively produced electronic editions of previously unpublished nineteenth-century American manuscripts held in the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library (RBMS) at The Ohio State University Libraries. Other editions include "My Dear Elizabeth," five letters written by Sophia Peabody Hawthorne to her sister Elizabeth Palmer Peabody between ca. 1837 and 1868; "Dear Wife," twenty-one letters written by riverboat captain William B. Anderson to his wife Louisa while he plied the Ohio river during the height of the American Civil War, 1862–1864; "Journal of a Tour to Europe," by Samuel Sullivan Cox; and Louisa A. Doane's "Journal of Two Ocean Voyages (1852-1853)."
Each text was initially edited in connection with an undergraduate or graduate course on electronic textual editing offered by H. Lewis Ulman, Associate Professor of English at The Ohio State University. The courses provided students with an opportunity to explore issues of textuality and mediation that arise when our cultural archives spread from page to screen and from library shelves to networked databases. Electronic textual editing served as each class's context for examining what happens—and envisioning what might happen—when artifacts in one medium are represented in another medium, especially with regard to the interpretive work of reading. Electronic textual editions also provided a contact zone that helped students reflect on what manuscript, print, and "born digital" artifacts can tell us about their unique properties and their relationships to one another.
While the students' work focused on providing reliable textual editions, they also explored four threads inextricably woven into the work of electronic textual editing: the lives and historical milieu evoked by the texts; the history, characteristics, and preservation of physical and digital texts; the editorial processes and decisions that shape particular interpretations and presentations texts; and the mediation of electronic delivery systems.
These conceptual focuses, along with the time constraints of academic terms and the need to train students who had, typically, no prior experience in textual editing or the various technologies employed in electronic textual editing, strongly influenced the selection of texts in this series. Working with curators in the RBMS, Professor Ulman identified previously unpublished manuscript materials that were of potentially broad interest and that reflected a curatorial focus of the RBMS collection—for example, letters and personal diaries that connect private lives with larger historical contexts. Focusing on unique manuscript materials not, in all but one case, associated with other copies or later published versions also eliminated the need to compare multiple copies or states of the same work, perhaps held in other archives, an impractical task in the course of an academic term. Other practical matters also informed the choice of materials, including the possibility of scanning the source documents before the class so that students could work with both the original documents and high-resolutions facsimiles as they transcribed and encoded the source texts.
Thus, the editions in this series are documentary editions—interpretations and representations of single documents—designed to provide wider exposure and access to manuscript materials that might otherwise be overlooked, and to provide users with a variety of tools for studying those texts.
Over the course of several years following the classes in which students worked on the editions, Professor Ulman revised the introductory materials to ensure stylistic consistency and proofed the transcription and encoding. He also redesigned the structure of the editions to meet the requirements of Ohio State's institutional repository, evolving accessibility standards, and feedback from peer reviewers. However, he did not undertake a complete retranscription of the source text or revision of the students' introductory essays and annotations.
About the Source Document
Title: "Diary Continued from Sunday Novem 17th 1861 Old Book"
Extent: 188 pp.
Selection of the Source Text. The Rare Books and Manuscripts Library at The Ohio State University Libraries holds two bound manuscript volumes of Smith's diaries, one covering the year 1859, the other 1861-1862, as well as a recent transcription of a third diary covering the period November 12, 1869, to August 12, 1871. The 1869–1871 diary is privately held, but the transcription is available for Kindle via Amazon (Smith and Saveson, The 1869-71 Diary of Lucius Clark Smith: In an appendix, some selections from Lucius' 1861-62 Diary). The pedagogical goals and the constraints mentioned above, as well as a small class size (and, therefore, a small editorial team) dictated that the editors focus on a selection from one of the manuscript volumes. We chose a contiguous period from the 1861–1862 volume—30 July 1862 to 31 December 1862—that encompasses several key themes, including Smith's experiments with growing and milling sorghum cane, and reactions to several significant Civil War events (e.g., the proposed draft, the Defense of Cincinnati).
Collation: 182 mm x 150 mm. 94 leaves. Unlined paste-down endpaper; [1-2] blank unlined leaf; [3-4] blank lined leaf; [5-25] entries from 18 Nov. 1861 through 31 Dec. 1861;  blank; [27-188] entries for 1862; unlined paste-down endpaper with final entry for 31 Dec. 1862.
Paper: Off-white paper with blue lines spaced 8 mm apart and a 2 cm unlined top margin.
Binding: 15 cm x 19 cm leather cover with decorative marbling. Page edges contain decorative marbling.
The Lucius Clark Smith diary is the property of the Rare Books and Manuscripts
Library of The Ohio State University Libraries. Any use of the material should
acknowledge such ownership.
The Lucius Clark Smith diary is the property of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library of The Ohio State University Libraries. Any use of the material should acknowledge such ownership.
Columbus, OH, 2015-12-01.
About the Electronic Edition
Title: Selected Entries from the Lucius Clark Smith Diaries, 30 July 1862 to 31 December 1862
Editors: Emily J. Arendt, W. Michael Broughton, Amber Camus, Torsa Ghosal, Matthew Poland, H. Lewis Ulman.
Creation of digital scans of manuscript pages: Lisa Iacobellis, Ohio State University Libraries.
Creation of initial machine-readable transcript: Emily J. Arendt, W. Michael Broughton, Amber Camus, Torsa Ghosal, Matthew Poland, H. Lewis Ulman.
Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup: Emily J. Arendt, W. Michael Broughton, Amber Camus, Torsa Ghosal, Matthew Poland, H. Lewis Ulman.
Scanning. The manuscript pages were scanned as 24-bit TIFF images at 400 dots per inch (dpi), then coverted to 8-bit JPEG images at 400 dpi and full quality before being loaded into an image serve application. All edges were overscanned by at least 1/4 inch. No color correction was used at any stage of image preparation, but a scan of a photographer's 18% grey card on the same scanner produced RGB values at the center of 91/95/107 after applying a 150% Gaussian Blur in Adobe Photoshop to average color values. Thus, a properly configured monitor should provide a reasonable approximation of colors on the manuscript pages.
Production Location and Archiving of Digital Assets. The TEI P5-encoded transcription of the Smith journal, along with XSL style sheets used to provide variant "views" of the edition, TEI ODD documents used to produce custom schemas based on the TEI markup language and the resulting schemas, high resolution scans of the manuscript pages, HTML output of XSL transformations of the base TEI document, and all other media used in the edition are stored in The Ohio State University Library's institutional repository, The Knowledge Bank. Readers may download copies of those source files via a menu at the top of this page.
Markup of Physical Structure and Page Layout. The manuscript pages, encoded by the empty page break or <pb/> element, are the primary physical structures represented in the markup. Each <pb> element includes a "facs" attribute identifying the high-resolution scan of that image in the Knowledge Bank. Line breaks (i.e., lineation determined or influenced by the physical constraints of the page rather than compositional choices by the author) are encoded with the empty <lb/> element. No attributes are included in the <lb> element. Smith does not use hyphens to indicate words broken across lines, and we follow that usage in the "MS Page" view of the diary. In the "Entry" view, which does not reflect line breaks, words broken across lines are rendered unbroken. Because Smith wrote on lined paper, when he skips a line printed on the paper for any reason, we encode a <lb/> that, in the view arranged by manuscript pages and lines, will appear as an empty numbered line.
Markup of Textual Structure. The diary entry, encoded by a <div> element with the attribute-value pair "type='Entry'", constitutes the primary textual structure represented in the markup. Each entry contains a <dateline> element and one or more paragraphs. Each dateline may include a <date> element with a @when attribute whose value is in the form YYYY-MM-DD. The value of the @when attribute represents the editors' judgment about the actual date when the entry was composed; the contents of the <date> element represent what Smith actually wrote, even if he entered the date incorrectly.
Entries consist of a series of paragraphs. Where indicated by context, indentation of a line from the left margin of a page, line breaks part-way across a page, or additional white space between lines, paragraphs are encoded with the <p> element and no attributes.
If present, any prefatory text preceding the dateline may be encoded as a <head> element at the beginning of an entry (i.e., within the <div>element and before the <dateline>).
Level of Transcription/Encoding. Whenever possible, the basic transcription follows the manuscript verbatim. Conjectural readings of illegible text are encoded as unclear. Various manuscript features (e.g., cancellations, the placement of interlinear or marginal additions, tears in pages) are encoded, as are regularized versions of proper names and dates as well as standard versions of Smith's frequent nonstandard spellings (designation of "standard" and "nonstandard" nineteenth-century spellings follows the chronological "Forms" listings in the Oxford English Dictionary). This markup scheme supports a modest range of presentations, including views that focus on daily entries, manuscript pages, and side-by-side comparison of the transcription and facsimiles of manuscript pages (see "Views of the Diary" in the main menubar above). Further, a button allows toggling between a view that preserves Smith's spelling and one that standardizes spelling. For more information about the encoding, see the "Markup Guidelines" under "Appendices" in the menu bar above.
Customization of the TEI P5 Schema. Customization consisted primarily of restricting encoding to certain modules and elements as well as enforcing some attribute values. For complete details, see the ODD file listed under the "Source Files" menu above. For technical reasons related to how Web browsers and the institutional repository handle the TEI customization file (with an .odd extension) and the schema file (with an .rng extension), their extensions have been changed to .txt so that they will display in the browser, from which they can be downloaded using the browser's "Save" command. The .txt extension can be removed after downloading.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This license does not transfer any rights regarding material used in the edition by permission of a third party.
List of Works Cited
Cooke & Co. Illustrated Catalogue of General Machinery and Supplies for Machinists, Manufacturers, Mills, Mines, Railroads, Steamships, etc., etc. New York: Standard Printing and Publishing Company, 1883. Web. 25 November 2012.
Easterlin, Richard A., George Alter, and Gretchen A. Condran. "Farms and Farm Families in Old and New Areas: The Northern States in 1860." Family and Population in Nineteenth-Century America. Princeton:Priceton University Press, 1978. Print.
Fitch, Catherine A. and Steven Ruggles. "Historical Trends in Marriage Formation: The United States 1850-1990" in The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter Inc., 2000. Print.
Smith, Lucius C. The 1869-71 Diary of Lucius Clark Smith: In an appendix, some selections from Lucius' 1861-62 Diary. Edited by John Saveson. New Albany, OH: New Albany Plain Township, Ohio Historical Society, 2014.
List of People Mentioned in Lucius Smith's Diary
Beach, Lewis (b. 1818). Smith mentions "Uncle" Lewis Beach sporadically throughout his diary, usually in reference to a visitation of some sort. For instance, Smith makes reference to spending the night at Lewis's, along with Homer, in early September. References like these indicate that Beach and Smith were close.
Bennet, Daniel Jr. (b. 1828). On 2 August 1862, Smith writes that he "went to see Mr. Bennit who has a horse power witch [sic] He sayes [sic] I can Halve[?]." Six days later, he reports that he looked at some other horse-powered winches, then engaged one of "Daniel Bennits." He may be referring to Daniel Bennet, Jr., whose father, Daniel Sr., settled "near the center of" neighboring Harlem Township, Delaware County, Ohio, in 1809 and died there in 1861 ("Daniel Bennet" [Sr.]; "Daniel Bennet" [Jr.]).
Brownlow, William Gannaway, 1805-1877 (b. 1805; d. 1877). Smith mentions hearing "Parson" Brownlow speak in Columbus on 10 December 1862.
Collins, Gilbert (b. 1831; d. 1885-05-07). Lucius Smith mentions that Gill Collins went to speak at a war meeting in Albany on 2 August 1862. During his trips to Columbus Lucius sees Gilbert Collins on at least two occassions seeking legal aid. On 9 August 1862 Lucius visits Collins to put his property in his father's name "so that if I am drafed he can take and them Patent Right men can stand off." In December Lucius notes that he found out he found out he was being sued by "those Patent right men" when Gilbert Collins wrote to the Clerk of the U.S. Court at Cleveland. It is the likely that Lucius is referred to the lawyer Gilbert G. Collins who was later elected mayor of Columbus from 1879-1880. Collins lived in Plains Township with his parents, Andrew and Mary Collins until their death. He relocated to Columbus to study law 1858 and was admitted to practice in March 1861 ("Collins, Gilbert G"; "1850 United States Federal Census"; "1860 United States Federal Census"; "Pvt Gilbert George Collins" ).
Coons, John W. (b. 1834; d. not before 1900).
Cox, Samuel Sullivan (b. 1824-09-30; d. 1889-09-10). Smith mentions Samuel Cox giving a war speech, along with Cancey Olds and Sam Galaway, at a large gathering on August 13th. It is likely that Smith is here referring to Ohio Democratic Congressman Samuel Sullivan Cox, who gave a number of speeches in central Ohio during this period.
Dague, John. On the 10th of August, 1862, Lucius went to visit John Dague to call in a promise Dague made to help Smith dig his well. However, it seems that Dague's promise came to little. While several later entries mention "John" helping Lucius with the well, the familiar usage of the name makes it much more likely that this "John" was Smith's brother, Johnathan Wesley Smith ("1850 United States Federal Census"; "US Civil War Draft Registrations Record, 1863-1865").
Evans, Rowland "Reece"; Rowland "Roll" Evans. Census records indicate that there were two Rowland Evans residing in Albany in the 1860s, possibly a nephew and uncle duo. Presumably one of them was referred to as “Reece” and the other as “Roll,” but it remains unclear which was which.
Galaway, Samuel (b. 1836). Smith mentions Samuel Galaway as giving a war speech, along with Cancey Olds and Samuel Cox at a large gathering on August 13th.
Goodrich, George Asbury (b. 1833; d. 1903). George Goodrich is frequently mentioned in Smith's entries from August through December for helping Archibald Smith and Lucius Smith at the Cane House. Goodrich seems to be involved in chores like boiling, making, and cleaning pans at the Cane House. Lucius Smith and Goodrich, probably, also wanted to collaborate on a fur mill business with Mr. Watterman from Delaware. Goodrich reportedly moves to Delware between 14th and 20th December of 1862. In the last week of December, Lucius Smith mentions writing to Goodrich in Delaware.
Grovenbery, Garret (b. 1808; d. not before 1880). Garret Grovenbery is mentioned several times throughout Smith's diary. Smith mentions spending the night at Grovenbery's on the night of August 9th and obtaining "a load of corn" from him in late September. Most notably, Smith borrows a horse from Grovenbery on September 12th to work his mill. On November 24th, he discovers that the horse has broken a bone in its back and has to be put down. Near the end of December, Smith trades a two-year-old colt to Grovenbery in exchange for the dead horse and an additional $3.00.
Montgomery, Misses. "Misses Montgomery," identified as the sister-in-law of Lucius's uncle, Charles Beach, visited the Smith household twice in the course of the journal. On the 24th of November, she is reported as visiting with Aunt Eliza and other relatives "on their way to the Robertses," and on the 31st of November, she is reported as visiting over Sunday on her return trip.
Smith, Archibald (b. 1803-09-15; d. 1883-08). Lucius Clark Smith's father. Lucius mentions him with great frequency throughout his diary, almost always in reference to the work the two are doing.
Smith, Archibald Homer (b. 1851; d. not before 1880). Referred to as "Homer," Archibald Homer Smith is Lucius Clark Smith's brother. Homer helped Lucius in setting up the mill and doing work around the property. Lucius also mentions engaging in social activities, such as hunting, with Homer.
Smith, Charles Augustine (b. 1836). Charles "Augustine" Smith is Lucius Smith's brother. On Sunday, August 31st 1862 Lucius Smith states that Augustine "last week had a tower of fits getting Better." The other two references to Augustine report that he did not attend the Celebration Sunday School on August 13 or a basket meeting on August 17. ("1860 United States Federal Census")
Smith, Isaac Newton (b. 1824-02-16; d. 1912-06-27). Lucius Smith's brother, Isaac Newton, is frequently referered to as Newton in Lucius's diary. Most of the references to Newton in Lucius Smith's entries note the labor that Newton performs from "hawling" materials to digging the well and thrashing wheat. Census records indicate that Isaac Newton Smith married and relocated to Blendon, Ohio by 1900 and identified his occupation as a physician. ("1900 United States Federal Census")
Smith, Johnathan Wesley (b. 1838-08-16). John is Lucius Smith's second younger brother. Lucius refers to him throughout the journal, commonly in reference to labor shared by the brothers on family farm. John was particularly noted as helping Lucius with the labor on his well and his Mill. In the week of August 23rd 1862, Lucius also mentions that John was considering enlisting in the company that was presently raising, but expressed doubt that he would actually commit. However, Lucius's prediction proved wrong within a year, as John and brother Newton both enlisted in June of 1863 ("1850 United States Federal Census"; "1860 United States Federal Census"; "US Civil War Draft Registrations Record, 1863-1865" ).
Smith, Lucius Clark (b. 1834-11-24; d. 1915-02-10). Archibald Smith's oldest son, the author of this diary.
Smith, Samuel (b. 1838; d. not before 1870). Lucius Smith mentions Samuel Smith twice in his diary: first, in reference to a visit he makes with his (Samuel's) mother on August 27th and second, in reference to a letter that Lucius writes to him on September 7th. There isn't any evidence that Samuel is a direct relation, but his occupation as a plow maker may explain Lucius's connection to him.
Wells, Eliza (nee Beach) (b. 1804; d. not before 1880). Lucius Clark Smith's aunt, the sister of his mother, married to Thornton Wells, mother to son of the same name. A frequent visitor the Smith household in Albany, particularly on her way to and from Columbus. She also hosted Lucius at her home in Liberty (Licking County) on numerous occassions.
Wells, Thornton E. B. (b. not before 1843; d. 1869). Lucius Smith's cousin. Son of Eliza Wells (nee Beach), Lucius Smith's mother's sister. He stops by Smith's house in Albany while traveling to and from Columbus. He often helps Smith with cutting and hawling of wood ("1860 United States Federal Census"; "Thornton E B Wells").
Wilson, George (d. not before 1890). In the entry dated 24th August 1862, Lucius Smith mentions that George Wilson is one of the few people who have been discharged from the army. Smith also mentions visiting Wilson's house quite a few times in August and December. Wilson helps Smith with grinding and looking after the "little boyes" who work at the mill.
List of Organizations Mentioned in Lucius Smith's Diary
John L. Gill and Son: John L. Gill, Sr. was a Columbus Tinner and one of the founding partners of the Franklin Foundry. Gill took over sole proprietorship in 1852, then associated his son with the business in 1857, taking the name "John L. Gill and Son" for the business. The foundry was a major metal casting concern in Columbus in the 1850's and 1860's, specializing in farm mechanism such as plows, mills and harvesters. However, "John L. Gill and Son" is also a name associated specifically with sorghum production in Ohio, being mentioned both in the first "Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture" to Congress in 1862 and the Ohio State Department of Agriculture report of the same year. While both Gill Jr. and Sr. were both active in this aspect of the family business - both are mentioned in the Sorgo Journal and Farm Machinist of 1865 - John L. Gill, Jr., the eponymous "and Son," seemed to have taken a more active role, being both the Secretary of 1862 and 1865 Ohio Sorghum Convention and appointed to a committee "to correspond with or visit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and secure, if possible, some mitigation of the duty proposed to be assessed on Sorghum." Nor were the Gills slow to capitalize on the advantage that their duel family businesses provided. In the 1862 Ohio Cultivator, Gill Jr. responds to criticism that the Ohio Sorghum Convention, of which he was the Secretary, was monopolized by "the inventors, manufacturers and agents of Mills and Evaporators, and was made an advertising medium" for them.
List of Places Mentioned in Lucius Smith's Diary
Cincinnati. United States; Ohio (Lat/Long: 39.1500 -84.4500). Several times throughout September, Smith mentions Cincinnati in reference to the events transpiring there. On the week ending September 6th, Smith mentions that the Rebels under General Smith are advancing onto the city and that it has been put under martial law, along with neighboring towns. On the 12th, he writes that thousands of people are going to Cincinnati to defend it, taking theirs guns, etc., and that the governor is already refusing people. Finally, on the week ending September 20th, Smith writes that Cincinnati has been saved after "some of the severest fiting of the war." The trajectory of these events describes what has come to be known as the Defense of Cincinnati, about which the Editorial Introduction includes additional information.
Columbus. United States; Ohio (Lat/Long: 39.9500 -82.9833). On 1st September 1862, Smith mentions going to Columbus with his father to get some equipment like a cast cog wheel and cistern pump. On 12th September, he goes to Columbus again with his father and Eliza to get some things for his Cane works, and during the week ending 25th October, he sends someone to Columbus to get a pipe. He also mentions corresponding with Samual Smith from Columbus on 7th September 1862.
New Albany. United States; Ohio (Lat/Long: 40.0667 -82.8000). On 2 August 1862, Smith mentions going to "Albany" to do business.
|2017-03-27||Ulman, H. Lewis||Redesigned site, improved accessibility, and proofed transcription in response to reviewers for NINES. Resubmitted to NINES for review.|
|2016-02-15||Ulman, H. Lewis||Prepared site for submission to NINES for peer review.|
|2015-12-01||Ulman, H. Lewis||Redesigned site to meet requirements of the Ohio State University Libraries' Knowledge Bank; proofed entire site.|
|2012-12-20||Ulman, H. Lewis||Continued revision of layout/interface, no changes to text of transcription.|
|2012-12-06||Ulman, H. Lewis||Numerous changes to layout/interface, no changes to text of transcription.|
|2012-12-03||Editorial team released a public working draft of the edition.|
|2012-08-27||Ulman, H. Lewis||Created first drafts of TEI customization files, Relax NG schemas, and XSL stylesheets.|
About this Editorial Introduction
Text on this page is derived from the edition's XML source document, LCSmith-Diaries.xml.