Genealogy……..A well polished look at history?

I’m sure you have noticed that most genealogies are what I would call a well-polished look at history.  Family historians and family stories usually leave out the nitty-gritty tales of our ancestors’ misdeeds.  It’s too bad because I think these might be some of the most interesting stories.

I am always searching for details that tell me more about who my ancestors were.  Some scrap of personal information that goes beyond names and dates.  The rare personal description, is almost always a glowing one, with faults or negative personality traits left unmentioned.  Well, of course, that would be the case!  We aren’t so cruel a people as to normally put in print the worst characteristics of our friends, neighbors, and relatives.

I like this description of a GGGG grandmother, Adeline B. Spotswood Goodall:

"They (Peter and Adaline) gave many private dancing parties, and other elegant entertainments.  Mrs. Goodall was taught dancing in Virginia when reels, jigs and contra dances were fashionable and before cotillions and round dances were introduced.  She was a graceful and finished dancer, and exceedingly fond of the amusement." 

I  picture her, young and full of life, dancing, partying and having a wonderful time.  She married when she was only 15, and by the time she was 23 she had four children.  When Adeline was 25, her husband Peter died.   But, before this tragedy, I imagine them throwing their dancing parties in little Glasgow, Kentucky and living life, while it lasted, to the fullest.

For the bad stuff we usually have to dig a bit deeper.  I know there are many stories of darker times in the lives of my ancestors.  As I said, history forgets them and frankly they don’t look so good on those illustrious DAR applications.  We know they are there, just as we know those glowing “Family Christmas Letters” that arrive during the holidays leave out just as much as they proudly include.  Am I the only one who reads those “Family Christmas Resumes” and thinks “why isn’t my life so perfect and full of accomplishments?”

One of my ancestors “near do wells” was Adeline’s grandfather Fielding Lewis Jr. (1751—1803).  He was the nephew and godson of George Washington.  Yes, the president.  Ok… so I’m bragging a bit there but although I can say I am related to “Uncle George”, I must also confess that it is through his most immature and irresponsible nephew.    Fielding was the oldest son of George’s sister Betty Washington and her husband Fielding Lewis, Sr.  

Fielding Jr. looks to have lived a life that focused on his pleasures rather than his contributions.  Maybe he was spoiled.  Maybe he was just a party boy by nature.  The historic records tell us bits about his life that paints a picture of someone, who despite connections and privileges, had a hard time finding and keeping his way in the world.

In 1769, when he was 17 years old, Fielding Jr. married Nancy Ann Alexander.  According to some sources she was only 13 at the time.  His father appears to have given him control of a 1000-acre farm in Frederick Co., Virginia, sometime after his marriage.  But, four years after his marriage, it is recorded that he began to sell some of his possessions.  He did serve in the Virginia militia some during the Revolutionary War, so we must admire him for that contribution. 

It appears that Fielding was always in debt.  His father wrote him in 1779, “It is the business of the debtor to carry the money to the creditor… come down as soon as your business will permit and get money from me to discharge what you are owing.”  Or, in other words, pay your bills son!   In a letter to him dated 1784, his Uncle George Washington writes, “You very much mistake my circumstances when you suppose me in a condition to advance money.”   Ahh.. the irresponsible relative always asking for money!!  And Uncle George adds this bit of advice, “I have heard with pleasure that you are industrious. Convince people by your mode of living that you are sober and frugal also; and I persuade myself your creditors will grant you every indulgence they can.”  I’m guessing that there was some doubt to his sobriety and frugality.

Fielding Jr.’s wife died in 1788, leaving several young children.  That same year he apparently funded a lavish wedding for his eldest daughter, Elizabeth (my ancestor).  Then, the following year he married Elizabeth Dade, with whom he had two additional children.  By 1790, when he was 39 years old, records show that Fielding had sold or forfeited all his land and personal property.  He sold much of his “worldly goods” to his half brother John.  One of his many creditors sued him, and then there was a court hearing that resulted in him being sent to the debtors prison in Winchester, Virginia.  We don’t know how long he stayed in prison, but records of his mother, Betty Washington Lewis (sister of President George), indicate that she took care of raising some of his younger children from his first marriage and also was sending him money for the care of children that he still had in his household.  

At some point we know that Fielding Jr. moved to Fairfax County, Virginia and we must hope that perhaps he had grown up a bit and become more responsible, as I've found no records of problems with debt after that point.  We also have no record of what he did to support himself after the move to Fairfax County.  When his uncle George died in 1800 he received one of 23 shares of the estate.   Fielding Lewis Jr. died in 1803 at the age of 52.

Now, if that isn’t juicy enough for you, you might like the version of this story told by L. Myers.  He claims that Fielding Jr. and his young wife Nancy Ann actually had an illegitimate child before or soon after their marriage.  Larry tells me that this child was named Alexander Lewis and was taken to be raised by Native American relatives of the family.  Explaining who those Native American relatives are is another elaborate story that seems to have its root in Mr. Myers imagination.   But, I do have an open mind, so I asked Mr. Myers for his sources.  He sent me a brief list, but frankly I’m not sure they would prove anything much, and I suspect that the story is more fantasy than fact.  I’m still curious as to how he put this wild idea together so I’m being polite in my correspondence with him.  Hopefully he won’t happen upon this blog and call my bluff. 

-Mary  

Kentucky Politics—Not For The Faint Of Heart-Part 2

(Continued from last week-- You must read Part 1 first)
Link to part 1 of the story

The fight was not over!  The Goebel Democrats filed a protest with the legislature, accusing the L&N Railroad and the American Book Company of corrupt use of funds to get Republican William Taylor elected.  At this time, Taylor, even though inaugurated, still needed to receive his commission from the legislature to officially be the governor.  The joint committee, to pass the election of state officials, was essentially chosen by a names out of a hat type drawing and, not surprisingly considering that the legislature consisted mostly of Democrats, only one Republican name was drawn.  Perhaps Goebel still had a chance if the committee refused to pass the election.

Across the state, the divisions and power plays going on at the state capitol in Frankfort outraged many citizens.  It is reported that people flocked to the capitol, including a large number of armed mountaineer Republicans who felt as if it might be time for them to show a different, more violent, form of power.  The mood was volatile, and on January 30, 1900, as the Democrats were discussing the possibility of unseating the Republicans, Goebel and two associates approached the capitol office building.   Suddenly, a concealed rifleman fired five shots.  One hit Goebel in the abdomen and he was taken immediately to the nearby Capitol Hotel.  Doctors were summoned and his condition was pronounced dire.

In the meantime Taylor, fearing further violence, declared Kentucky in a state of insurrection and called out the state militia.  Taylor also instructed the legislature to meet in London, Kentucky, on the pretense of safety.  London, a town about 100 miles south of Frankfort, just also happened to be strongly Republican.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats refused to meet in London and were enraged that the state militia also prevented them from entering the statehouse in Frankfort.  In retaliation, the Democratic majority of the General Assembly secretly met at the Capitol Hotel on Jan. 31 and declared enough of the ballots fraudulent to declare Goebel the winner.  On his deathbed, Goebel was administered the oath of office.  He died on February 3rd, four days after being shot, and the Democrats proclaimed Goebel’s lieutenant governor, John Beckham, the acting governor. 

At this point emotions were high and some believed that the state was close to civil war over the election.  In an effort to restore peace, order and civility, seven Republican and seven Democratic leaders of the state met at the Galt House Hotel in Louisville on Feb. 5th, to negotiate some type of peaceful agreement.  Joseph Blackburn was the spokesman for the Democrats and Louisville lawyer, David Fairleigh, led the Republican contingent.  The group agreed to seven points or terms that dealt with the controversy at hand.  Essentially this “Louisville agreement” would allow for the adoption of Beckham as acting governor, the release of the state militia, and a prohibition on further legal action, such as charges of treason, for the Republicans involved in the dispute.  This agreement was crafted by Blackburn and Fairleigh and signed by all 14 represented, including Goebel’s successor, John Beckham.  But, in order to proceed in good faith and without further conflict the agreement needed to be signed by Taylor, who still maintained that he was the true governor of Kentucky.

By February 7th, Taylor had still not signed the “Louisville agreement.”  He said that he didn’t agree to the terms, and many Republican holdouts were urging him not to sign.  Two days later, February 9th, attorney David Fairleigh and Judge Barr, who had represented the Republicans in the “Louisville agreement” negotiations, took the morning train to Frankfort to consult with Taylor.  One presumes that perhaps they worked hard to try to get Taylor to sign as they met with him that day.  Maybe they realized that, in the end, this fighting and politicking was not going to lead to anything positive for the Republican Party or the state.  But Taylor would not sign the agreement so, at the end of the day, Fairleigh and Barr headed back to Louisville on the train.

Eventually both sides essentially agreed to let the courts decide the matter.  In the meantime, both Taylor and Beckham each continued to act as governor, making political appointments to the same posts and issuing pardons.  It was a mess, with the state essentially having two acting governors.  Threats of violence continued and at one point Taylor tried to ship arms and ammo from the state armory to London.

On March 10 Taylor lost his first court battle when the circuit court found Beckham to be the legal governor.  Taylor appealed, and on April 6, the state appellate court upheld the earlier decision and found in favor of Beckham.  Finally, the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which again decided against Taylor on May 21.  Then, in a special election on November 6, to determine who should fulfill Goebel’s term, Beckham defeated the Republican candidate.  And three years later, in 1903, Beckham was elected for a full term as governor.  

William Taylor didn’t return home to Kentucky after the Supreme Court decision in Washington on May 21st of 1900.  He went directly to Indianapolis instead.  In Kentucky, indictments were being brought against Taylor, claiming that he was an accessory in the assassination of Goebel; so returning to Kentucky he would have risked arrest.  The state of Indiana refused to extradite, so he remained in Indiana, only returning to Kentucky occasionally after the next Republican governor of Kentucky pardoned him, in 1909.  He became an insurance executive and died in 1928.

According to Kentucky historian Thomas Clark, this whole election fiasco “forced Kentucky into a long period of partisan and factional war which prevented passage of much-needed progressive legislation.”

Now, perhaps you are curious to find out what ancestor of mine is hidden in this story.  I must admit that I’m glad it wasn’t Goebel, who by all accounts does not appear to be someone you’d be proud to have in your family tree.  No, my ancestor and great great grandfather was, David William Fairleigh, the Louisville lawyer and Republican leader who tried to make peace with the Louisville agreement that was rejected by Taylor.  Fairleigh also played a supporting role as part of the legal team who represented Taylor in his move through the circuit, appellate, and Supreme courts.

David Fairleigh was born in Cloverport, Kentucky but grew up mostly in nearby Brandenburg, where his father was the court clerk.  He was admitted to the bar in 1874, after graduating from the University of Louisville Law School.  He practiced law in Brandenburg until 1887, when he moved to Louisville and formed a partnership with Frank P. Strauss.  He later taught at the University of Louisville, served on the board of trustees, and from 1911 to 1914 was president of the university.  He died in 1924 at the age of 70.  His granddaughter, Emma G. Fairleigh, is my maternal grandmother.  

Sources: The New York Times (online archives),The Kentucky Encyclopedia (John E. Kleber, ed.), and A History of Kentucky (Thomas D. Clark).

-Mary

David W. Fairleigh

Kentucky Politics—Not For The Faint Of Heart

The 2000 Presidential election is now 7 years into our past and as time marches on, it slips further and further from our thoughts.  It doesn’t seem like we will ever forget the TV coverage of election workers scrutinizing those punch cards in Florida, but eventually we will forget, and the term “hanging chad” will be just another piece of trivia.  And who, even now, remembers that many blamed Ralph Nader for “throwing” the election to Bush by pulling those Green Party votes away from the Democrats?

I suppose the same fate has fallen to this political story that took place over 100 years ago in Kentucky.  It is certainly one that, until recently, I was unfamiliar with and unless you are a student of Kentucky political history, I would guess that it is unknown to you also.  This is a complicated story, and even more volatile than our 2000 Presidential election.  Its events were covered daily in the New York Times and other papers across the country.  I will attempt to tell you enough of the basics so that you can comprehend the drama, but please investigate further if you are interested because there is much more to the story.  And yes, buried somewhere in this tale, is an ancestor.

The story really begins with the 1895 election of William Bradley as governor of Kentucky.  Remarkably, he was the first Republican elected to that office in a state that was almost completely controlled by the Democratic Party.   After the end of the Civil War, the state’s Democrats had pretty much split into two factions.  There were the “Bourbon Democrats” who represented the bluegrass aristocracy and tended to favor the old southern plantation values and lifestyles.  Then there were the “New Departure Democrats”, based in Louisville, who tended to be more progressive and aligned with the national party on many policies.  But despite these differences, the two factions came together and always elected a Democrat as governor.  In 1895, for various reasons that I won’t go into here, these two Democratic factions failed to close their ranks.   Many of the “New Departure Democrats” aligned with William Bradley, the Republican candidate in that election, which resulted in Bradley’s victory.  During Bradley’s term the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House. 

The next significant event in this story was the passage in 1898 of what became known as the Goebel Election Law.  This law, passed even over Bradley’s veto, gave control of disputed elections to a three-man commission.  Most viewed the law as the attempt of its sponsor, state senator William Goebel, to strengthen his own political power.  Kentucky author and humorist Irvin Cobb described William Goebel as a “Mussolini of politics.”   Cobb also said of Goebel “he loved power as drunkards love their bottle” and “would have waded through blood up to his armpits to have his own way.”  Sounds like a prince of a man doesn’t he?   Of course there are others who described him as a compassionate and dedicated reformer.  Goebel was able to get his election law passed but there were many citizens from both political sides that were strongly opposed to the formation of this potentially partisan commission and the power they would have over elections.  What is important to know here was that the Goebel Election Law helped fuel the fire of later discontent and mistrust of the political system.

The Democrats were determined more than ever to win the 1899 election and again gain control the governor’s position.  The Democratic convention was held in June of 1899 at the Music Hall in Louisville.  The race for the Democratic nomination for governor was between Goebel and two other candidates.  There were back room agreements that were made and then broken, fights over contested delegates, and a good share of yelling and general chaos.  The New York Times reported that it was “without a doubt the most uproarious and disorderly body of men ever gathered together for the transaction of political or other business.”  In the end, Goebel secured the nomination, but many Democrats were disgusted with his conniving and dirty politics.   

The state’s Republicans nominated William Taylor, the attorney general, as their candidate.  He wasn’t particularly popular, but most didn’t think anyone had a chance against the Goebel political machine anyway.  Some of disgruntled anti-Goebel Democrats got ex-governor John Y. Brown to run, and the People’s Party ran John Blair.  So, it was a four-way race for governor.

The first results on Election Day seemed to show that Goebel and Taylor were in a dead heat, but in the final and “official” count, Taylor was given the majority and declared the winner.  Without time for a quick breath, the Democrats began to challenge votes.  One of their most ludicrous claims was the charge that many of the votes in the mountainous eastern counties (a Republican stronghold) were cast on tissue paper ballots.  It was proposed that because they were not on legal weight paper, that they were thus invalid.   The fight over the election returns lasted over a month and a half and the Goebel Democrats demanded that the state election board examine the results of the elections.  Now, remember that Goebel Election Law I mentioned before?  Yes, Goebel himself had set up that board of three.

Surprisingly, the election board, after examining the evidence, returned with a decision of two in favor of a Taylor win and one in favor of a Goebel win.  According the board’s accounting, Taylor had won the election by only 3,000 or so votes.  Goebel had essentially been defeated by the anti-Goebel votes that were cast by his fellow Democrats for Brown.  The report of the election board seemed final and on December 12, 1899 Taylor was inaugurated as governor.

It would be too simple for the story to end here.  Tune in next week for part two. 
Link to part 2 of the story

- Mary

l

Goebel  (the Democratic nomination for Governor)

John Beckham (Democrat & Goebel's Lieutenant Governor)

Taylor (Republican nomination for Governor)