Part 39

Joseph Dickson, the fourth son of John Dickson, emigrated west about the close of the Revolution; but, being dissatisfied, soon returned to his native county, where he reared a large family consisting of one daughter, Anne, and eight sons. He served in the capacity of Register of Deeds and also as county surveyor of Duplin, and represented his county in the House of Commons in 1780 and 1797. Anne Dickson, his oldest child and only daughter, married James Pearsall, many of the descendants of whom now reside in Duplin and adjoining counties. Later in life Joseph took his entire family of eight grown sons, together with other Dickson relatives, and moved to Tennessee in quest of large landed estates, a desire for which had become common in the family. Dickson County, Tennessee, takes its name from a member of the Duplin family.

Alexander Dickson, the fifth son of John Dickson, following the dreams of his brothers, and searching for fortunes elsewhere, emigrated to Virginia about 1781, and afterwards to Maryland; but returned in 1784 and took up his permanent abode in Duplin, where he accumulated considerable wealth. He died leaving no family, and bequeathed his property, as an educational fund, to the poor children of his county. This fund has commonly been known as the “Dickson Charity Fund”; but, through years of mismanagement and ill-directed investments, it has almost come to naught, and like most bequests of this kind has not served the high purpose for which it was intended.

Edward Dickson, the sixth son of John Dickson, had no ambition for political honors, but was one of the foremost and most prosperous citizens of Duplin. He married and reared a family in Duplin, and there was no man more highly esteemed and respected. His oldest daughter, Rebecca, married Rev. Jacob Williams, by whom she had a daughter, Ann, who married Dr. Stephen Graham, a noted physician of Duplin County in his day. Sarah Rebecca Graham, daughter of Dr. Stephen Graham and Ann Graham, and sister of the late Stephen Graham of Kenansville, married Owen R. Kenan, and, as a result of this union, left the following children: Thomas S. Kenan, of Raleigh; William R. Kenan, of Wilmington; James G. Kenan, and Annie Dickson Kenan, of Kenansville.

James Dickson, the youngest son of John Dickson, spent his entire life in Duplin County. He married twice and had fifteen children, eight boys and seven girls. We are told that as a reward for military services he received large grants of land in Tennessee from the United States Government; but we have no information as to what services he performed, and William Dickson in one of his letters says none of the brothers except himself actually took up arms and joined the army. He may have rendered some services in the war of 1812, but we have no direct information on this point. However, James Dickson owned large estates in Tennessee and his three oldest sons, Edward, William and Alexander, emigrated there in the early part of this century and took possession of them. Robert Dickson, the youngest son of James, married Mary Catherine Sloan, and was the grandfather of the writer.

Mary Dickson, the only daughter and youngest child of John Dickson, married William McGowan at the age of eighteen, and she has many descendants in this and other states. She was the great grandmother of Benjamin F. Hall of Wilmington.

The first three letters, which are made a part of the publication, and the fourth, which is an extract taken from an old copy of the _Fayetteville Examiner_, were written by William Dickson to his cousin, Rev. Robert Dickson, a Presbyterian clergyman, at Narrow Water, near Newry, Ireland; and are printed for their historical and literary value. The fifth letter was written by William Dickson to Linda Dickson, his niece, who was at the time visiting her older sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Johnson, of Charleston, S. C., and is printed to show the character of the writer in his domestic relations.

The originals of the first three letters are still in existence and bear on them the marks of having served their mission as a messenger of good news to a far-away cousin. Years after they were written, two young men, the sons of Rev. Robert Dickson, we think, came to this country, and in order to identify themselves brought the original letters with them. One of the young men was drowned, the other returned to Ireland, and the letters fell into the hands of John Dickson, of Cumberland County; and the family of the late Robert K. Bryan, Sr., of Scott’s Hill, N. C., and the Evans family of Cumberland County, who are descendants of the Dicksons, have carefully preserved them.

The fourth letter, or rather extract, is taken from an old copy of the _Fayetteville Examiner_, and the original cannot be produced, but there is conclusive evidence that it is genuine.

John Dickson, the father of William Dickson, had a brother by the name of William Dickson, who moved from Pennsylvania and settled in the Western part of the State, where he died on the first day of January, 1775. We have no record of his family, but it is reasonable to suppose that he was the father of General Joseph Dickson, of Lincoln County, who rendered valuable service in the Revolution, and was Congressman about 1800.

In editing these letters the writer has preserved intact the wording and phraseology of the original manuscript, but has made some slight changes in regard to capitalization, spelling and punctuation, and this has been done only for the purpose of making them conform to our modern usage in this respect, and where the change would in no way impair the sense or expression of the originals.

GENERAL JAMES SHIELDS, HERO OF THE MEXICAN AND CIVIL WARS AND UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THREE STATES.—THE FRENCH-IRISH BRIGADES IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.—BISHOP BERKELEY AND HIS PLANS FOR A GREAT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY.

BY HON. WILLIAM J. ONAHAN OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

[Three very interesting articles on widely differing historical subjects.]

GENERAL JAMES SHIELDS, HERO OF THE MEXICAN AND THE CIVIL WARS; U. S. SENATOR FROM THREE STATES.

In the Statuary Hall of the National Capitol, Washington, may be seen statues of the distinguished men of the different states of the Union, placed there under authority of a resolution or act of Congress, which provided that each state could place there two figures of its choice.

The State of Illinois, by an act of the General Assembly, determined that the statue of General James Shields should be one of those selected to represent Illinois. An appropriation was accordingly made for the statue of the soldier statesman, and it now stands in the “Hall of Fame” at the Capitol, where it was formally installed with befitting and notable public ceremonies.

Certainly, by this act the State of Illinois gave to the nation and to the world unequivocal testimony of the respect and esteem in which the soldier statesman is held by the people of the state where he first won recognition, and which he served in so many and so various public capacities with fidelity and renown.

A most interesting and unique figure in the history of Illinois is that presented by the career and character of James Shields. Member of the state legislature in early days, he became subsequently auditor, judge of the Supreme Court, general in command of a brigade of Illinois volunteers in the war with Mexico, and finally United States senator. These various offices and distinctions came to him from Illinois; and these, it might reasonably be supposed, would have sufficed to crown and complete the public career of a man so favored by political fortune. But this was not the end.

Failing of re-election to the United States Senate at the expiration of his term, because of changed political conditions, Shields removed to Minnesota, then a territory, and on its subsequent admission as a state he was elected one of the senators, the other being Henry M. Rice. Having drawn lots for the respective terms, Shields drew the short term, which terminated in 1860, and, having again failed of re-election from the same cause that defeated him in Illinois—the growing ascendency of the Republican party—he once more removed to another and more distant state, California, where he was settled at the outbreak of the Civil War. His sympathies and his military experience led him to offer his services to President Lincoln, who promptly commissioned Shields as brigadier general, and he was assigned to service in General Banks’ corps, then operating in West Virginia.

* * * * *

While in detached command he won the celebrated victory over the hitherto invincible Stonewall Jackson. Shortly after this he was nominated by the President as major general, but the Senate refused to confirm the nomination, being influenced partly, no doubt, by political considerations—Democrats were not at the time in great favor—and partly, also, no doubt, from misrepresentations regarding General Shields’ conduct in relation to a defeat suffered by a portion of his command at Port Republic. This defeat, as was demonstrated later, was due to the disregard of Shields’ orders; at all events, the hostile action of the Senate caused his withdrawal from the army. He resigned his commission and returned to California.

Shortly again his restless spirit stirred him to another change, and this time he sought a home in Missouri, acquiring a farm near Carrollton in that state. Here in 1877 political fortune once more opened to him the doors of the United States Senate. He was elected to fill an unexpired term, so that he now had the unique distinction of having been chosen to represent three different states of the Union—at, of course, different periods of time. This fact, unexampled, I believe, in his history of the Senate, excited wondering comment at the time, and may justify an inquiry into the circumstances and character of the man who was able to win for himself this remarkable degree of public favor from so many different states.

* * * * *

Born in the County Tyrone, Ireland, in 1806, James Shields came of a fighting stock. His progenitors had fought at the Boyne and Aughrim for the Stuart king and several had followed Sarsfield after the surrender of Limerick, to serve under the banners of King Louis on the continent. So it was that young Shields inherited the warlike tastes and the “rebel” sympathies common to his countrymen. The story of his boyhood shows that he early manifested a taste for military pursuits. He was the drill-master of his boyish companions at school, and headed them in many juvenile skirmishes and exploits.

He never gained the opportunity and advantages of a college or university education, but he made up for this by the industrious and persevering use of his opportunities in later life, so that he came to be recognized as an excellent classical scholar and even linguist.

His youthful attention was early drawn toward America—as indeed, is the case with nearly all Irish boys. In the instance of young Shields he was spurred to emigrate by the counsels of an uncle who had seen service in the revolutionary war, and who had written to the mother telling her that if James did not leave the country he would surely be shot or hung as a rebel! In 1823, when 17 years of age, James Shields set out for America. He first landed at Quebec. The uncle who had counseled his leaving Ireland and from whom he naturally expected aid and counsel, was dead, and he was thus left to his own scanty resources. He made his way to the States, and pushed westward to Illinois, until he reached Kaskaskia, then the capital of the state, and it was there he commenced his career, first as a school teacher, employing his leisure hours in reading law. That he made good use of his time, and had the knack of making friends, may be judged by his early election as a member of the legislature.

Shields had been admitted to the bar in 1832 and was elected to the legislature in 1836. In 1841 he was elected auditor and in 1843 he was elected judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois—pretty rapid promotion for the young Irishman.

He quickly entered the arena of national renown. President Polk in 1845 appointed Shields commissioner of the general land office in Washington, and when the war with Mexico was declared Shields offered his services and was appointed brigadier general of volunteers—this in 1846. His military career in the campaign in Mexico I scarcely need recall. It is to be found in the history of that war and in the official reports of the chiefs of the army. His dash and bravery as well as his signal military capacity were shown in every engagement from Cerro Gordo to Chapultepec and the City of Mexico.

He was reported by General Scott in dispatches as fatally wounded at Cerro Gordo, a ball having passed “clean through” his body. Happily the skill and dexterity of a Mexican surgeon—a prisoner—saved him. Some accounts say this surgeon was an Irishman who had seen service in the French army. This brings to mind an incident in the general’s later life. During a visit to Chicago on a lecturing tour I introduced the general to some of the “sights,” among other places to the board of trade, of which I was then a member. When the fact became whispered about that General Shields was on the floor the “pits” were quickly deserted, the operators evidently being eager to testify their respect or gratify their curiosity. As he stood acknowledging the salutations of the throng around him, a member of the board shook hands with him, saying: “General, do you remember me?” The general evidently did not and said so.

“Don’t you remember the soldier who tore off a piece of his shirt to stanch the blood from your wound when you lay on the field of Cerro Gordo?”

Sure enough, it was the very man! He, too, was a veteran of the Mexican war. I regret that I cannot now recall his name, which I heard at the time. Of course, there was a cordial reception and hand-shake between the two old soldiers.

On his return from Mexico at the close of the war, Shields was brevetted major general, and was nominated by the president governor of the territory of Oregon. This appointment Shields declined. In 1849 he was elected United States senator from Illinois, as associate to Senator Stephen A. Douglas.

There was a question raised in the Senate as to the regularity of Shields’ election. My impression is—I have not the data before me as I write—that the irregularity was on the issue of citizenship; at all events, the legislature cured the defect by electing Shields over again.

According to the record, it was Shields who reported the bill making a grant of lands to aid in the construction of the Illinois Central Railroad, the credit of which is usually given to Senator Douglas who was no doubt also a warm champion of the measure. It was Shields who likewise introduced and pressed the passage of a bill granting “bounty lands” to the soldiers and sailors who had served in the war with Mexico. When England was threatening with her naval forces the little republic of San Salvador on some pretext, Senator Shields promptly introduced a resolution on the subject, invoking the authority of the Monroe doctrine.

Bills to aid other railroad projects in Illinois were favorably reported by him. At that time the West was clamoring for railroads, which were indispensable to its development. In these days the country seems to forget how much of its progress and prosperity has been due to the much maligned railroads. Space will not admit of even a summary of the important public measures that Shields had part in framing. The files of the Congressional Record bear testimony to his unceasing industry during his senatorial career. It is worthy of note that Shields was consistently opposed to the extension of slavery and his record shows it, although in this regard he was not always in harmony with his party.

* * * * *

The State of Illinois, by vote of the legislature, presented to General Shields a costly sword in recognition of his gallant services on the battlefields of Mexico. The State of South Carolina in like manner voted him a sword, “in testimony of her admiration of his gallantry in the Mexican war, and as a tribute of gratitude for his parental attention to the Palmetto regiment.” This regiment was in Shields’ brigade in several engagements.

At the expiration of his term in the Senate he failed to secure a re-election, Lyman Trumbull being chosen to succeed him. This result was due to dissensions in the party ranks in consequence of the slavery issue, and to the growing power of the incipient Republican party.

Shortly after this Shields removed to Minnesota, gathering about his new home the nucleus of an Irish colony which has since become the populous and prosperous settlement known as “Shieldsville.” In fact, this was the beginning of the colonization movement in that state to which Archbishop Ireland afterward lent his powerful aid.

It was during Shields’ sojourn in Minnesota that the overture was made to him to take the command of the papal army. This was at the time when the revolutionary movement in Italy threatened the invasion and integrity of the papal states during the reign of Pius IX. Shields declined to accept. I had the details of the overture from the general’s own lips at a late period of his life.

When Minnesota was admitted as a state in 1858 Shields was chosen one of the two senators, his colleague being Henry M. Rice. Lots being drawn to determine the respective terms, the short one—two years—fell to Shields. At the end, as in Illinois, and from like cause, he failed of re-election, and soon he was again on the wing—this time for California.

* * * * *

The general opened a law office in San Francisco, and it was there he married. Soon the tumult and agitation of the secession movement, followed by the call for volunteers, stirred his patriotic spirit and martial ardor. He offered his services to President Lincoln, who commissioned him as brigadier general, assigned to General Banks’ corps in the army of West Virginia.

The veteran was quickly in the field of operations, soon at the head of a division. It was while in this command he encountered the renowned Stonewall Jackson, inflicting on this hitherto invincible confederate general a defeat which sent him “whirling up the valley.” The tidings of this remarkable victory caused great rejoicing throughout the North and gained great applause and commendations for General Shields. The army of Virginia up to this time had suffered a succession of disasters. The government was in a dilemma.

The command of the Army of the Potomac was at this juncture offered to General Shields. I make this statement on the authority of General Shields himself. Following his victory at Winchester, he said, a member of the cabinet arrived in his camp and on the part of the President proposed to him the command of the Army of the Potomac. The reasons suggested for this tender appeared to be, as I recall them, the necessity for a change of leaders owing to previous ill success; Shields’ established capacity for high command, as shown by his career in Mexico, his recent campaign and the enthusiasm and confidence his appointment would arouse in the ranks of the army, but the controlling motive appeared to be a political consideration—that Shields, because of his foreign birth, could not in the event of his success become a political factor or rival in the field of national politics—that is to say, in no event would it be possible to make of Shields a candidate for the presidency.

* * * * *

The suggestion appears to have been given to Shields in this same interview that the President was then contemplating and preparing to issue the emancipation proclamation. This latter determined Shields’ decision. He rejected the proposal made to him. This, in substance, is my recollection of the statement made by the general during one of his visits to Chicago late in the 70’s. Others besides the writer heard General Shields make this statement at the time.

The President sent Shields’ name to the Senate for confirmation as major general, and as the appointment was not ratified by that body Shields resigned and withdrew from the army. Likely this may have been partly in protest against the threatened emancipation policy. At all events, Shields returned to California. From there he shortly afterward removed to Missouri, settling on a farm near Carrollton in that state and devoting himself to the labors and duties of farm life. In 1877 he was elected member of the general assembly of Missouri, and the same year appointed adjutant general of the state militia. The death of Senator Bogg the next year caused a vacancy in the representation of Missouri in the United States Senate, and General Shields was appointed, thus giving him the distinction of having served in the United States Senate from three different states.

The term was short, and with its termination may be said ended General Shields’ public service as a legislator and statesman. He nevertheless continued an interesting figure before the public, appearing on many occasions in different cities as a lecturer and for addresses on various subjects of general interest. It was while engaged in a lecturing tour that the end came. He died suddenly while visiting a convent in Ottumwa, Iowa, June 1, 1879.

* * * * *

Few men in public life have filled so many and so various offices and employments. He had been school teacher, lawyer, legislator, jurist, state auditor, land commissioner, general in the Mexican and Civil wars, United States senator, adjutant general, farmer and lecturer. He might have been governor of Oregon, commander of the papal army and of the army of the Potomac (possibly), and he could have led the Fenians in their foolish raid on Canada had not his good common sense rejected the offer and condemned the project.

General Shields was warm and earnest in his Irish sympathies, and he showed this on many public occasions. It is to his honor that he lived and died a poor man. He never profited or sought to profit by the multiplied opportunities for personal gain which must have been open to him during his public career. In his old age, after all his notable services, he was receiving a pension of only $34 per month, and when he died all that he left his family was the farm, the swords voted to him by Illinois and South Carolina—and an untarnished name.

Illinois has since honored the memory of her one-time senator and general by causing his statue to be placed in the National Capitol. This was due largely to the active efforts and enthusiasm of a well-known Chicago attorney, William H. Condon, since dead, who also published the life of General James Shields.

THE FRENCH-IRISH BRIGADES IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

The signal and important services of the French-Irish regiments in the American revolutionary war have scarcely ever found adequate recognition and acknowledgement at the hands of historical writers. Indeed, the same may be said of the great part France had in that war.