The Archivists' Bulldog
Newsletter of
The Maryland State Archives
August 9, 1999
Vol. 13, No. 15
www.mdsa.net
Photo of Mrs. Emma Whitney Ottenritter (seated) with her grandniece Elise Butler and Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse
Archives Receives the Whitney Collection of Baltimore County Surveyor's Plats, MSA SC 4959
by Nancy Bramucci

Through the generosity of Mrs. Emma Whitney Ottenritter and her family, the Archives has received the working papers of her father, William Whitney, who served as surveyor of Baltimore County in the 1920s and 1930s.  The collection consists of approximately 2,000 folders containing field notes, plats, deeds and other documentation relating to the survey of tracts across Baltimore County, providing supporting documentation for land surveys of the period.

One of the most significant items in this collection is an original Baltimore County Atlas by George Bromley (shown above) annotated by Whitney showing the tracts he surveyed.  The atlas serves as a valuable index to the collection.  When used in conjunction with the Plats Digital Image Reference System that the Archives has designed for use in the county courts, the collection assists historians and surveyors in documenting the recordation of tracts across the county. 

Researchers interested in the collection can find the inventory at http://www.mdsa.net/msa/speccol/sc4900/sc4959/html/box01.html.


The Archivists' Bulldog
Page 2
MARYLAND CIVIL WAR ENROLLMENT RECORDS: ENROLLMENT AND DRAFT 
(Part II of Three Parts) 
by Pat Melville 

In the process of trying to comply with the various federal calls for troops, the Adjutant General of Maryland generated a body of record material that is very useful for historical and genealogical studies. The people and situations come alive for subsequent generations. 

Marylanders regarded the recruitment calls of July and August 1862  as more than an enrollment of potential enlistees. They viewed the enrollment as a draft because the latter would be imposed where local quotas were not met. The military enrollment of 1862 was directed by an assistant Adjutant General, called the Superintendent of Enrollment, but administered locally by a commissioner in Baltimore City and each county and an enrolling officer in each Baltimore City ward and each county election district. One or more surgeons were appointed in Baltimore and each county to process applications for physical exemptions. 

State and local officials encountered resistance in trying to commission enrolling officers and surgeons. Joseph Hall of Calvert County had "heard of several threats to assinate me or rob me...." Isaac S. Lankford of Somerset County felt that outsiders should do the enrolling. "I have no objection to the Enrolement. It is something that] ought to be done but I think if it is done by one of its citizens his property will be endangered if not his life. This has been my opinion for some time and my ... fears have be[en] confirmed by Evidence. The officer in the district adjoining me received his commission some two or three days before I did. He entered upon his duty and the first or second night after he commenced his wheat stacks were set on fire and burned...." 

Apparently the situation was so dire in St. Mary's County that the superintendent of 

enrollment sent Randolph Jones three blank commission forms and gave him full authority to fill vacancies. Philip G. Love, who resigned as enrolling officer in that county, described the atmosphere as being "surrounded by a hostile foe. I occupy a very peculiar position in this County when I say there is no man that lives in the County that has been stigmatized and condemned more than I for my Loyal or union sentiments. It may be that I have talked too much.... Many men have left here at different times since the outbreak of the Rebellion and supposed to be in the Confederate service. Others have left here lately supposed to … escape the draft.... I do not believe that my Brother or myself could ride three hours in attempting to enroll our 
Dist[rict] without being shot. We have been openly and publicly threatened. We have also been advised ... that if we qualified for said office we would only be signing our own Death warrants." 

Even after local officials were appointed and functioning, troubles continued to plague the enrollment process. The Confederate invasion into Western Maryland in September 1862 created havoc for some enrolling officials. Isaac Nesbitt, enrolling commissioner for Washington County, reported that he had received returns from all but one district by September 1. He then began "to receive applications for exemptions, and continued in the discharge of that duty until the evening of the tenth, when, learning that the rebel Army was rapidly approaching this place I secured my books and papers connected with the enrollment, and retired a few miles into the country, believing from what had occurred in Frederick and Carroll counties, that if I remained I should be caused to surrender the Books of Enrolment to be destroyed as had been the case in those counties. After an absence of a few days I returned to my post...." 

Also causing great consternation among Marylanders, government officials and citizens alike, were the policies and procedures regarding exemptions from military duty, 


The Archivists' Bulldog 
Page 3
specifically for medical reasons. The exemptions were supposed to be granted when a disability rendered a man unfit for military duty for more than thirty days. 

Many people complained about the high number of physical exemptions being accepted. The most severe condition occurred in Calvert County where 62% of the 839 enrollees were exempted for medical reasons. Dr. John R. Quinan was ready with an explanation. Upon being asked about the prevailing diseases of the county, he replied "that our endemic affections are malarious in origin and almost universal in extent.... Nor is the extent of our endemic disease a matter of surprise, to one taking into consideration the topography of our county, but a few feet above sea level, with a coast of sixty miles, indented at short intervals with creeks and marshes, affording during the greater part of the year fruitful hotbeds of malaria.... What the exact proportion of our population may be who have been the subject of malarious disease, I am not able to say with certainty; but I feel assured that it cannot be less than four fifths of our adult residents." Several other physicians supported his statements. 

The Adjutant General's office overruled these decisions and canceled all physical exemptions in Calvert County. Any man subsequently drafted could resubmit his medical claim for exemption at the state level. 

In Frederick County the surgeon, Dr. J.J. Moran, was accused and found guilty of granting disability certificates for monetary considerations and of refusing to issue such certificates when the applicant would not pay. The Adjutant General's office vacated all medical exemptions and ordered a rehearing for all claims. 

While contending with incomplete and erroneous enrollments, Maryland officials tried to institute the draft. The War Department had set September 3, 1862, as the draft date, but 

had given each governor the power to postpone it. Gov. Bradford exercised this option three times. He first moved the date to September 15 because the enrollment was not completed. The invasion of Western Maryland caused the
second postponement to October 1. The third delay to October 15 resulted from the destruction of many enrollment records in the western counties and the need to reconstruct them. Many letters about these postponements revealed a decided opposition to the draft. John W. Crisfield from Somerset County wrote, "I wish it could be dispensed with altogether in this state. It has caused tremendous excitement
here, and if pressed, it will I fear drive many of the disloyal proclivities into the Southern Army. If on the other hand it could be understood there was to be no draft, there would be a very general feeling to serve in the militia, to drive the invaders from our own soil." 

The latter statement reveals another common theme - the desire to protect parochial interests as opposed to a national goal of preserving the 
 
 

(continued on next page)