The page numbers I cite are from the Nook version.
The Good
At 376 pages, the book is quite a thorough study of the story of the woman who called herself Loreta Velazquez. Davis does a good job using newspaper articles, provost records, letters, diaries, service records, and other documents to trace her steps and expose the inconsistencies that plague the claims that she made in her memoirs. He discusses the schemes she was involved in, and I agree with his assessments of her being a shrewd con artist....in some regards.
There are valuable nuggets throughout the book that has led me to update my own research.
For what it's worth, I did enjoy the period photographs of people she encountered and the places she had been.
The Bad
Davis fumbles around in the first chapter of the book as badly as he stumbles through his attempt at trying to document the initial stages of Lauretta's life. I had to reread the thing multiple times. The main problem I have with him identifying who pre-war Lauretta was can be found in the excerpts below:
"Court records and newspaper accounts from the spring and fall of 1862 reveal she had lived in New Orleans for some years, probably since at least the later 1850s. They identified her as Ann, Anne, Annie, or Mary Ann Williams, but unfortunately Ann Williamses were rather plentiful in New Orleans just then, which makes distinguishing the Ann who became Lauretta a challenging task. Some cases from the early 1850s can be dismissed because she would have been too young to fit. By 1855, however, Lauretta might have been the Ann Williams arrested in February for shoplifting gingham from a store on Poydras Street and then again in May for stealing meat from a market on the same street. Such petty theft was much in character for a girl of the streets in her early teens. In the fall of 1856 a court fined Mary Ann Williams $ 10 for disturbing the peace, probably meaning she was drunk or disorderly in a saloon or brothel." (p. 23)
Three pages later, he's back to listing multiple women with names of Ann, Mary Ann, Mrs. Williams, etc. who committed crimes in New Orleans. I have no idea why he even threw this in there if he wasn't sure that these women were Lauretta. It adds no value to his argument. Indeed, it's unnecessary data that just muddies the water for the reader.
Prostitute
So with all of the finalists introduced, Davis crowned a nineteen-year-old prostitute named Ann Williams as the winner. According to the 1860 census, she was born in New York and worked in Clara Fisher's bordello. I think the winning combination was an 1862 newspaper article and that Lauretta claimed later that she was from New York. The article is from the New Orleans Daily True Delta from November 2nd, 1862, where the reporter says, "It appears that she resided in this city several years ago in a house of unquestionable [questionable] character." And then the New Orleans Bee from November 3rd, 1862, specifically mentions that she had worked for Nelly Bremer, who was a madam. This pretty much establishes her connection with prostitution. Yet, she left the institution before the war.
Shiloh and Military Service
Davis acknowledges that between late February/early March through late April, Lauretta's whereabouts were unknown and that "She could have been anywhere in Louisiana or Mississippi...even in or near Shiloh, though only her own claims substantiate that." (p. 41) To give Davis credit, he also admits that "...evidence to dismiss it [Shiloh claim] conclusively is also lacking." (p. 50)
He further notes that John Newman, major of the 21st Louisiana, provided the only eyewitness observation of Lauretta serving in the field anywhere (p. 205 and 207).
On p. 304, Davis states, "It is worth reiterating that only three actual instances of Lauretta posing as Buford are independently documented."
There are three references that Davis neglects or more than likely was simply unaware of.
 |
| An Older Job Foxworth www.7miss.org |
This regiment was organized on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and remained here until February 26th, 1862, when it started for Tennessee, arriving at Jackson (TN) on March 3rd. From there it was sent to Corinth and then on to Shiloh. Sims was Foxworth's lieutenant in Company D and also served as a quartermaster. Was Sims referring to Lauretta? We can't say for sure. We don't know the regiment this woman was in, nor do we know exactly when and where Sims saw her, but it was in Tennessee prior to the Battle of Shiloh. Nevertheless, the combination of this woman being spotted as a lieutenant in the Shiloh area and recognizable as a woman is strongly suggestive. It may be merely circumstantial evidence, but it is interesting nonetheless and must be considered.
Another possibility was that this woman was Mary Ann Pittman who claimed to have served at Shiloh as "Lieutenant Rawley." But her regiment was the 15th Tennessee Infantry. In his comment about the female lieutenant, Foxworth mentioned Louisiana and Arkansas regiments (more than likely part of Randall Gibson's brigade, which camped near the 7th Mississippi). This points towards Lauretta who claimed to have served in Louisiana and Arkansas regiments.
The second account can be found in a letter written by Pvt. Robert Hodges of the 24th Texas Cavalry to his father on August 7th, 1863. "...among the curiousities I have seen since I left home, one I must mention, a female lieutennant! I had heard of her deeds of bravery in several battles and a few evenings I was [at a point] to [near] the station about a quarter of a mile distant from the camp. I discovered quite a crowd. Approaching, I enquired what was up. One of the soldiers directed my attention to a youth apparently about seventeen years of age well dressed with a lieutennant's badge on his collar. I remarked that I saw nothing strange. He then told me that the young man was not a man but a female." (Darst, Maury (1971) "Robert Hodges, Jr.: Confederate Soldier," East Texas Historical Journal: Vol. 9: Issue. 1, Article 6, p. 36-37).
Hodges then quoted nearly verbatim parts of an article appearing in the Jackson Mississippian on December 30th, 1862, that details the background of Mary Ann Clark who traveled through Jackson after being exchanged as a POW at Vicksburg. (Vicksburg was established by the Dix-Hill Cartel as the exchange point in the west and City Point in the east.) As a result, historians have always believed Hodges' account to be about Clark. However, the fact that the woman Hodges saw was a lieutenant and recognizable as a woman (although not initially by Hodges) lends weight to my argument that he saw Lauretta instead of Mary Ann. For the latter to be the case would mean that Clark would have had to have found a new unit and work her way up to lieutenancy within approximately seven months, which is an obtainable feat, but is a bit of a stretch. Plus, Mary Ann Clark herself - who was a civilian orderly to officers - stated she had no desire to formally enlist. I believe Hodges saw Lauretta and assumed she was Clark based on the article in the Mississippian. It was widely distributed and appeared in newspapers in many of the Southern states. So Hodges would have had access to one. He just assumed the woman he saw was the one he had read about in the article in the newspaper, which he assuredly had in his possession when he wrote the letter. And besides, Lauretta claimed her last name was Clark at one time. (Davis, p. 51)
Davis goes on to claim that she could not have been involved in espionage for General A.P. Stewart because "There is no evidence that she [Lauretta] was ever in Chattanooga." (p. 108)
Yes, there is.
Hodges wrote the letter while stationed at Tyner's Station in the Chattanooga area. So if the person he saw was Lauretta, she was obviously in Chattanooga. Furthermore, on August 5th, 1863, two days before Hodges wrote about spotting the woman soldier at the station, Van Buren Oldham, a soldier with the 9th Tennessee Infantry, wrote in his diary, "Some time since a Mrs. P Williams was arrested and found in army uniform and passing herself as Lieut. Buford. She was sent to [the] castle. No charges being preferred against her. She was released and is now in Chattanooga with her uniform and still persists in being known as Lieut. Buford." Since Hodges and Oldham wrote about seeing a female lieutenant at the same time in the same place, Hodges must have seen the same person as Oldham. Oldham saw Lauretta. So Hodges saw Lauretta. And they both saw her in the Chattanooga area. So Lauretta was indeed in Chattanooga.
These sightings are corroborated by Bromfield Ridley's account in Battles and Sketches of the Army of Tennessee (1906), p. 495. Ridley, who served on General A.P. Stewart's staff said, "One evening she [Lauretta as Buford] came to General Stewart's headquarters, at Tyner's Station [emphasis added], with an order from Major Kinloch Falconer to report to him as a scout. Immediately discovered to be a woman, she was sent back." Unfortunately, Ridley never mentioned exactly when he saw her. But Stewart's headquarters was indeed located at Tyner's Station when Hodges wrote his letter. Did Hodges describe Lauretta's arrival at the station en route to General Stewart's headquarters? Or perhaps she was leaving the area.
Davis dismisses Ridley's account because it was over forty years old and "...obviously based on reading about Lauretta rather than witnessing the alleged incident." (p. 346 note 27). I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I would be surprised if Davis himself didn't use sources that were forty years old or older in his other books. Furthermore, I'm not sure what makes Ridley's account so obviously based on second-hand knowledge. This is another assumption made by Davis. Couldn't Ridley have actually seen Lauretta during the war as he claimed but forgot her name or never learned it and later used the accounts about her to put a name to a face? But he never considers this. Indeed, Davis is too quick to assume everybody associated with Velazquez was a liar.
He further states that Lauretta wouldn't have had time to travel to Chattanooga between her trips to Montgomery and Atlanta. This, combined with his dismissal of Ridley's aged account, is reason for him to discount Lauretta's claim of her involvement in secret service activities for General A.P. Stewart. However, Davis' time frame for her travels is based merely upon his own estimates. Plus, Hodges' and Oldham's accounts corroborate Ridley's. As a result, we know that Valazquez was indeed in Chattanooga just as she claimed she was, and so I don't think her claim of being on an espionage mission can be completely debunked.
Fannie Bliss
Davis believes that publicity regarding Fannie Bliss influenced Lauretta. On p. 335, note 10, Davis mentions that Bliss "volunteered in early 1862 with the 1st Tennessee..." Here's the truth. On March 26th, 1862, the New
Orleans Times Picayune reported that
a company of “perfectly drilled” female artillerists from Mississippi announced
they would be coming to the Crescent City in order to garrison one of the forts in
the area so that the current defenders could then be free to answer General
P.G.T. Beauregard’s call for ninety-day volunteers. The women were inspired by Fannie Bliss’ plea
appearing in the Memphis Avalanche. As “Coloneless commanding the 1st
Tennessee Regiment Female Volunteers,” Bliss called for women to form a
regiment in order to protect “…our brave young knights of the quill, yard stick,
and also our young cashiers…” because it was “…very necessary that the dry
goods establishments should have stout, healthy and brave young men to handle
the yard stick, and do various other hazardous and dangerous duties.” The mocking tone of Coloneless
Bliss reveals that her goal was undoubtedly to shame the men of Memphis into
enlisting as opposed to actually recruiting a regiment of women. Amusingly, Mississippi’s female artillerists apparently
failed to recognize the witty banter for what it was and took the call for
female recruits in earnest. So did Davis. Bliss was no soldier and never seriously claimed to be, only in jest. It is interesting that Davis accepts a woman soldier who wasn't, yet vehemently dismisses an account of one who may have been. It is enough to make one doubt Davis' ability to discern truth from fiction in some instances.. Regardless, he is correct in that Bliss could have certainly served as an influential factor for Lauretta even though Fannie never served.
And by the way, it appears that the account of Mississippi's female artillerists may be an All Fool's hoax.
And by the way, it appears that the account of Mississippi's female artillerists may be an All Fool's hoax.
Women In New Orleans Weren't Arrested for Wearing Men's Clothes
Davis says:
"There was no ordinance prohibiting women from wearing men's clothing, and no one in New Orleans was arrested for so dress." (p. 49)
"...nonexistent ordinance against women appearing in men's clothing..." (p. 141)
"...dressing as a man was not in fact a crime in the city [New Orleans]." (p. 201)
WOW! Really???? *FACEPALM* I can't believe Davis makes these claims. Women were in fact arrested for wearing men's clothes in New Orleans.
See?
 | |
| Times Picayune, January 11th, 1855 |
 | |
| Times Picayune, February 8th, 1855 |
 | |
| Times Picayune, August 28th, 1856 |
Ah, and yes, there apparently WAS an ordinance!
 |
| Daily Delta, August 28th, 1856 |
 |
| Times Picayune, November 21st, 1862 |
 | ||
| Times Picayune, February 25th, 1863 |
 |
| Times Picayune, December 7th, 1864 |
 |
| Times Democrat, November 27th, 1865 |
These accounts were all from New Orleans. All but two are from the Times Picayune, which was (still is) a prominent paper of the area and one that Davis utilizes extensively. It took me maybe five minutes to find them, and this is just a sampling. I chose articles that cover a ten-year time span of before, during, and after the war. And it just didn't happen in New Orleans. There are accounts from all over the country of women arrested for wearing male clothing, even after the war. And one can readily find the newspaper articles to document it. There is absolutely no excuse for Davis making such a careless claim. Indeed, it makes one question the veracity of his research.
So Lauretta could have very well been arrested for wearing male clothing. Yet again, Davis accuses her of lying when she may have been telling the truth.
On p. 323, note 3, Davis explains how his book could not have happened without modern technology, specifically, all of the newspaper articles, documents, letters, etc. that have been digitized and available on such websites as genealogybank.com, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and chroniclingamerica.loc.gov. He boldly proclaims that, "Any historians hereafter who ignore these sites knowingly compromise the content of whatever they produce." Davis should heed his own warning. Those articles above weren't hard to find. So it appears that he did not check the digital sources in his list when he made such a careless claim that women weren't arrested in New Orleans for wearing men's clothing. He is as guilty as those he chastises.
The Ugly
Davis warns against researchers bending historical accounts in order to push a social agenda. I agree wholeheartedly. But Davis' treatment of women soldiers in general places him dangerously close to those he berates.
On p. 301, he states that the number of women soldiers has been "seriously exaggerated." I'm a math teacher. Be careful when working with numbers. And show your work, which Davis does not. He obviously hasn't performed any type of statistical analysis. His statement is based on his own belief instead of hard research because he never explains why he thinks those numbers are skewed. Absolutely, there weren't that many of them. Nobody will deny that. Does that make the ones who undeniably served any less significant? Should we not honor the ones who gave their lives on the battlefield because there weren't that many of them?
And yes, Davis does admit - begrudgingly it seems - that there were legitimate women soldiers. But he does his best to undermine and mock them by considering the ones who did serve as marginalized individuals. And he offers no proof to support his claims.
Davis acknowledges that motivations for women to enlist include higher pay and adventure and also that some went to "look after their husbands." Curious choice of wording and not what I would have used. And I can't help but wonder if there is some underlying mocking tone present.
Continuing on p. 30, Davis says, "A few suffered from genuine gender confusion, and one or two were mentally unbalanced."
Who was gender confused? He never says. I've been researching women soldiers for over ten years and I have yet to find definitive evidence showing any of these women to be homosexual or "transgendered." If he's referring to Jennie Hodgers, she never claimed to identify as a male. As a matter of fact, none of these women soldiers expressed a desire to be a man. But they did seek the freedom that living in disguise as a man afforded them in a strict and oppressive Victorian society. There's a difference. So no, I haven't found any evidence of "alternative lifestyles" among the rank and file of women soldiers. Davis apparently has, yet he offers no further elaboration other than a mere accusation.
Who was mentally unbalanced? He never says. If he's referring to Mary Ann Clark, there is no question that she was severely depressed. That's understandable considering that she was mentally, physically, and emotionally abused by her husband, a tidbit Davis fails to mention. And then her brother-in-law to whom she was close was murdered by a pro-Unionist mob. Yeah, so it's easy to understand why she wasn't in the happiest of places during the opening phases of the war. On p. 55, Davis even goes so far as to diagnose Clark as suffering from dementia for claiming in a letter to her mother "what a good rebel soldier" she was. So what part about her claim is cause to declare her mentally unbalanced? The soldier part? She was exchanged at Vicksburg as a POW, so military officials considered her a part of the military. The good part? Davis has no way to prove she wasn't a good soldier. So his disparaging comment about Clark suffering from dementia is unfounded, unprofessional, and rather immature. How insulting to those who are genuinely suffering from the disease and their loved ones.
He displays more poor research when he claims on p. 54 that Clark "...probably [emphasis added] did acquire somehow a semblance of a uniform, and she was arrested briefly as a result." So, according to Davis' line of thinking, she probably decided to put something together that looked like a uniform, left home, and then just wandered around for approximately five months until she was picked up and arrested? Hmmmm......
Here's a more complete picture of Mary Ann Clark's initial service: she left home in disguise in October 1861 to seek enlistment. Davis said she was unsuccessful, but that's not necessarily true. She was denied enlistment because she was too small. But Captain T. B. Collins of what would become John Hunt Morgan's 2nd Kentucky Cavalry hired her as his servant with a promise to allow her to formally enlist later if she proved herself....and if she grew to be bigger and stronger. Because he personally hired her, Collins would have provided her with a uniform, equipment, and payment out of his own pocket since she wasn't enlisted and, therefore, wouldn't have received anything from the government. She served in this capacity for approximately four months until she was discovered and sent home. She remained there until June when grief - and probably a thirst for vengeance - over the murder of her brother-in-law by a Unionist mob drove her back into military service. Instead of acquiring a "semblance of a uniform," she more than likely just put on the one she was wearing when she was sent home in February 1862. While serving with her second unit, she was captured and exchanged. The newspapers once again printed her account as they had done after she was initially discovered.
It is true that the stories she told reporters about her serving with her husband and burying him on the battlefield were false. Davis says it was all mere "fantasy" (p. 54) and implies that her tales were the result of mental instability. He never considers that she may have simply been trying to defend herself in the press. A strict society could be more sympathetic and forgiving if a woman who overstepped the bounds of propriety did so for romantic reasons.
Davis doesn't even get her name right. It was not "Anne or Anna" (p. 54). Census records, letters, and other documents show her name was Mary Ann Clark, and I assume Davis would be pleased to know that she survived the war, recovered from her "dementia," and remarried.
Davis' own words indicate that he does not respect the service of women soldiers in the Civil War. He even has a hard time simply acknowledging them. He thinks Clark is crazy for believing she was a "good rebel soldier" without disproving her claims. And then there's his choice of wording. On p. 14, he says "...women who attempted to pose as men during the war." On p. 123, he says, "....many other women attempted to pass as men to take part in the war." (emphasis added) Just attempted? And then he notes on p. 218 that Sarah Emma Edmonds "...unquestionably did pass for a soldier." What is it with this "passing" stuff? Sure, their disguises had to be good enough so that they passed as men. But for the ones who were successful, like Edmonds, they didn't just pass or merely get by.....these women were legitimate soldiers! They performed the same duties as male soldiers, suffered the same hardships, gave their lives, and lie buried right next to their male comrades with whom they served.
On p. 30, Davis warns against using Lauretta's "invented adventures" to bolster the research surrounding women soldiers. I will also add that the content in Davis' book should not be used to detract from the service of legitimate ones, especially considering that much of Davis' content is based upon suppositions. And some of it is just downright incorrect.
Conclusion
There is very little that Davis has proven or debunked. While he summarily dismisses Velazquez's claims of serving with the Confederate army and secret service, I have shown through eyewitness accounts that she was indeed in the Chattanooga area and more than likely at Shiloh. Does this absolutely prove that she was a soldier or spy? No. But it shows that she was in places where she claimed and that perhaps her story isn't as fallacious as Davis presumes. Yet, I think that this is a convincing book when it comes to the schemes she was involved in after the war and one that needed to be written. Davis has added a whole other dimension to Lauretta's story and has come closer to uncovering the truth than anyone else has. Yet, Davis acknowledges that the full, accurate account of her life may never be known. With that being said, the anemic research he presents about women soldiers in general, combined with unprofessional and unfounded jabs he takes at them, detract from the work and should have been excluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment