In the first installment of this series, I told of a Hoosier cavalryman lost in the Page Valley. For twenty-four hours William Watlington wandered about encountering guerilla bands, Mosby’s men, and the kindness of a rare Unionist woman who provided him vital help in eluding guerillas. His savior was a middle aged woman, Harrett Haines, who Watlington eulogized in his 1925 edition of his memoirs. Twelve years prior in 1913, he had visited Milford in the Page Valley in hopes of finding and thanking Harriett for her help 50 years ago. To his sorrow, he learned that Mrs. Haines had died in 1882.
There the story could have ended until research about Harriett revealed much more. The story of how Harriett Haines came to be in Milford and her Unionist views reveals a more sordid history. One has to go back to the fall of 1860 and the election of Abraham Lincoln to understand Harriett’s motives.
Harriett Haines was born to a Pennsylvania Quaker family as Harriett Frye. She married John F. Haines and moved to the tiny burg of Milford, Virginia (present day Overall). This small cluster of houses was located in the Page Valley on the border between Warren County and Page County. There, the family grew and prospered. Census records of 1850 show Haines with real estate valued at over $1,500 and a growing family – Ellis, William, Harriett, and Daniel. Also living with them was Phoebe Fadeley, a teenage free black girl.
By 1860, the Haines were running a mill in Milford. The eldest son, Ellis, age 20, had left home with a cousin for California. William, 17, Harriett, 15, Daniel 13 were still at home helping with the mill. Phoebe, now 25, still lived with them along with her two children, Andrew, 3, and Bird, 3 months.
We know little of John Haines’ involvement in the political fever in the years before secession. We know that he had started life as a Quaker but had converted to Methodism. The fact that a young freed black woman lived with the family as early as 1850 may speak to John and Harriett’s Quaker upbringing.
The presidential election of 1860 featured several candidates from the splintered Democratic Party and the new Republican Party. Lincoln was seen in the South as a radical candidate. County election returns of 1860 for Warren and Page counties showed little interest in the upstart political party or its candidate. Not one vote was cast for Lincoln in either county.
Yet, John F. Haines had seen something in the Republican platform and Abraham Lincoln for, in February, 1861, he departed Milford for Washington D.C. and the inauguration of Lincoln. Meanwhile, several southern states had formed the new Confederate States of America. As Haines traveled north to Washington, delegates were convening in Richmond to consider the question of joining the breakaway states.
Upon arrival in the capital, Haines was now over a hundred miles from home in an increasingly volatile political environment. Back in Page County, word had spread about where Haines had gone and for what purpose. His family became targets of local secessionists who warned them that John had better not return home. If he did, they were told, the elder Haines would pay for his support of the Union and Lincoln.
Harriett was able to get word to John not to return due to the threats. As John waited in Washington, Virginia was exploring its options. On April 4, the convention in Richmond held its first vote on secession and it was defeated. The delegates from Warren, Page, and neighboring Shenandoah counties voted for secession – the only Valley county delegates to do so. Two weeks later, after the attack on Fort Sumter, everything had changed. Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the rebellion – just the type of radical behavior the delegates in Virginia feared. On April 17, a second vote for secession was held and passed. Virginia was leaving the Union. All around the Valley, men rallied to the secession cause and military units began to form. In Luray, Company K of the 10th Virginia Infantry was mustered in early June.
For what was hoped to be a short time, John F. Haines continued to live in Washington, hoping to be able to return home. Instead, the war grew more violent and widespread with no end in sight. Over 16 months after leaving home, however, the opportunity to return seemed eminent.
Union troops had had success in the western theater of war. McClellan and the Army of the Potomac had advanced up the Peninsula to within a few miles of Richmond. In the Valley, “Stonewall” Jackson was stopped at First Kernstown in March of 1862 and retreated south. Union troops were following him and Haines took the chance to return home after an absence of over a year. Moving to the Valley (probably Winchester) he learned that a Union column would be marching up the Page Valley. Haines attached himself to the Union division commanded by Brigadier General James Shields in hopes of reaching home.
Brigadier General James Shields
On May 10, 1862, John was finally reunited with his family in Milford. One can only imagine their elation after being separated for nearly 16 months. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine the shock when, four days later, Shields and his men came marching back north and down the Valley.
This abrupt change in fortune was precipitated by Shields’ division being ordered to Fredericksburg. Shields stopped for a couple of hours to visit with Haines on the return march and encouraged him to go back north with the Union forces. The general knew that if Haines stayed in Milford, it would be hard for him. Haines thanked the general but stated that he would stay one more night as he had a cold. This decision would prove to be fatal.
Secessionist retribution came swiftly. His daughter would later write in a letter to a relative:
“…when Gen. Shields’ Division moved down this Valley, father thought he would leave with them; but thought he would stay till morning, as it was raining all day and he did not feel well, and all of Shields’s force had not got to Front Royal before eighteen of the rebels rode up here, arrested father, and guarded him all night. They would not let any of us go out of the house. Next morning they took him to Luray…”
The arresting group was also described in another source as “Louisiana Tigers”. Confederate General Richard Ewell’s command, in Luray at this time, did indeed, include the famed Louisiana Tigers. Another source says that the group was commanded by a Lieutenant Cox. Separately, about the same time, Samuel Beyler of Oak Hill was arrested and taken to Luray.
Little is known of Beyler. What we do know of him pre-war includes his surprise election as a local official in January, 1860. A report in an Alexandria newspaper stated “…Captain Beyler is an Old Line Whig and a man of fine talents. There were three strong Democrats running against him…(He) got a majority over all his competitors combined. The excitement was very great, he being the first Whig as was ever elected in this district.”
This “man of fine talents” seemed different than the one described in the divorce proceedings from his wife. Within the record posted the same month as his election, she alleged Beyler had beaten her, threatened to kill her, and imposed psychological and verbal abuse. The divorce decree indicated that Beyler’s wife was the owner of their land as a gift from her father. The land, as was customary for the times, were held in trust and was administered by a trustee. Samuel found himself with little to show for their 25+ years of marriage.
Beyler’s son, Thornton, had enlisted in Company K, 10th Virginia Infantry in June 1861, indicating that not all of his family were northern sympathizers. It is unknown if Thornton was a secessionist or swept up in the fervor of war and the pressured to join his friends. He did, however serve faithfully in the ranks having fought at First Manassas and in the Valley with Jackson. Among Thornton’s company mates was local wagoner John Sailor (an important figure in Part 3). Thornton and his comrades of the 10th Virginia Infantry had a homecoming in Luray in mid-May.
After defeating the Union army of John Sigel at McDowell on May 8, Jackson consolidated his forces around Luray and New Market. The connecting New Market Gap allowed him the option of moving north through the Page Valley or the Shenandoah Valley.
In the meantime, Union General Nathaniel Banks’ army was inching its way south from Winchester. Learning that Banks was as far south as Strasburg, Jackson saw an opportunity to defeat Banks. Jackson intended to march down the Page Valley – out of sight of Banks – rout a small Union force at Front Royal, race north to the Valley Turnpike, cut Banks off from Winchester, and bag the entire Union army. Jackson’s men started south flowing through the Gap to consolidate the army.
The short distance from Milford and Jackson’s first target of Front Royal was barely 10 miles. That Haines would be detained made military sense. He had arrived back home after 16 months in enemy territory in the company of an invading army. He was known to have sympathy for the enemy. Given his local knowledge, it is probable that Haines had given Shields information about the geography and roads of the area. Having someone like Haines along one’s invasion route was dangerous. Being detained by the military made sense.
There was no known application of civil law. No charges were filed, there was no trial, the men saw no judge – at least there is no record. Ultimately it appears that Haines and Beyler were held for military expediency. Though their ages – Beyler was 64 while Haines was 62 – made it unlikely for them to pose a threat individually, their knowledge and previous actions required them to be sequestered for the immediate future.
On the morning of May 22, barely 24 hours after Shields’ departure from Luray, Jackson began his march to Front Royal. Left behind were the two civilians in the Luray jail. No longer needed for military purposes, the prisoners would have reverted to civilian control. By that evening, no Confederate troops remained in Luray.
Colonel Turner Ashby
What happened next is confusing and includes several different versions of events. Some family members believed that the order of execution had come from Colonel Turner Ashby. In letters to relatives, reprinted in the Baltimore American and Sunbury (PA) Gazette, Haines’ daughter stated:
“…and by order of Col. Ashby, three of his men took father and another man out in the night and shot them, never burying them until Shield’s Division came up again…”
“…Jackson’s army passed down this valley and Col. Ashby ordered him (Haines) to be shot, and another Union man; and they took them out after night and shot them – did not even bury them…”
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported a different version of events based on an interview with one of John Haines’ sons:
“The General (Shields) has information that, at a meeting of several citizens of Luray, the question was discussed what should be done with these men, and a vote taken to put them to death. One of the men, who demanded the key of the jailor and was concerned in the murder, is named Gibbons. (Gibbons was the father of the colonel of the locally raised 10th Virginia who had been killed at McDowell.) He formerly lived neighbor to Haynes…”
As to who did the killings, again, there are varying stories. As mentioned above, one story was that the elder Gibbons was behind the murders. Another account written by Lt. Colonel Franklin Sawyer of the 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry appeared in the Fremont (OH) Intelligencer and described the killings in detail:
“They were taken out of the jail at midnight under pretense of being sent to Richmond, marched about two miles into the woods, and there told that they were to be shot. They were in charge of five citizens of Luray, one of whom was a Baptist preacher. Haynes asked for permission to pray and did so. His prayer was so affecting that the hearts of two of the murderers failed, and one of them seeing this, stepped up and shot Haynes while on his knees, and another one immediately shot Beeler. The bodies were left unburied until our army went up there. Our chaplain, Dr. Freeman, visited Mrs. Haynes yesterday, and tells me that she has not left her bed since the murder of her husband was learned by her.”
Lt. Colonel Franklin Sawyer
Other post war accounts pointed to other individuals. Who did the execution/murder? Were they ordered by military authority? Was there a civil trial condemning them to death? Was it vigilantism? There is no conclusive answer. What is known is that John F. Haines, age 62, and Samuel Beyler, age 64, on the night of May 22, were taken out of the jail, marched out of town southwest about a mile to the “Boneyard Woods” and shot. Their bodies were left where they fell, unburied, to be ravished by nature. It was not until the return of General Shields’ division over two weeks later on June 7 that the families learned the fate of Haines and Beyler.
Shields – livid about the killings – momentarily considered burning Luray down in retaliation before being dissuaded. Having just visited the Haines family on the way to Luray and learning of John’s arrest, he had promised to release the elder Haines when he reached Luray. Now, he wrote a personal message of condolences to the family and dispatched the quartermaster of the 1st Rhode Island Cavalry to inform the family and deliver the note.
The remains were retrieved and given proper burial, though it is not certain where. It is certainly possible that they were buried at the execution site, given the probable condition of the corpses. There is a stone simply marked “S.B.” – which might be Samule Beyler – that stands in a small family cemetery near Oak Hill. There is no record of any stone in Page County for John Haines. If buried by the family, it is probable he was buried near the family home in Milford. The truth is, nobody knows.
While we do not know about the Beyler family, we know that the Haines family was devastated. Harriett – William Watlington’s future savior – was prostrated by grief. Again, we return to the Haines’ daughter, 15 year old Hariett for the raw details of her mother’s grief. In a letter to a relative, Harriett reported:
“…My poor mother is lying very low. It has almost killed her. She was insensible for more than an hour and half the other day. Gen. Shields has been very kind to us. He sent a doctor fifteen miles to see mother. The doctor thought she was somewhat better. All the soldiers have been very kind to us. It was very hard for me to give up my dear father; I hope God will support us in this great affliction, and enable me to bear up under it, for the sake of mother; and that God will spare her to get well again, as she is my only hope. From you cousin, Harriett”
The story of the killings was reported widely in the northern press as far away as Cleveland, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, and Boston Massachusetts. Several Union soldiers remarked on them in letters home or in post-war reminiscences.
So what happened in Luray in May, 1862? That it was unusual for this time is, unfortunately, not true. There are other killings based solely on Union fealty recounted in these same letters and newspaper articles. What makes this one stand out is the breadth of coverage and the intimate details of its impact on the families – the Haines, in particular.
In the third and final part of our series, we will follow the impact of the killings on the Haines and Beyler families as well as the convicted murderer/executioner who received a presidential pardon. How the killings effected their lives and the intersections of their paths are a microstudy of the complicated history of war and post-war in the Page Valley.
The Haines family ordeal was well documented in a number of contemporary newspaper reports after the return of Shields’ division. Other sources consulted include census records, family histories, Page County court records and election results, the Official Records of the Rebellion, and histories of the Civil War in the Valley.
Shenandoah Valley's Civil War 
Nice research. Well-done.
Tom
LikeLike