ENGL 226: Adding to the Great Lakes Canon: Laura Lathrop’s Letters: Reading between the Lines

Audreyanna Pendrick

Dr. Coronado

English 226

9 December 2014

Laura Lathrop’s Letters: Reading between the Lines

Laura Lathrop was born in 1845, and resided in Racine Wisconsin where she became a school teacher like many of her friends. Laura Lathrop had several brothers enlisted in the Civil War who all had different experiences with combat or the absence of it. One of her brothers, William, was killed in the Civil war in after serving in numerous battles such as the battle of Bull Run. Another brother, Lucas, also faced a lot of action in the war, but he returned home unscathed. Austin Lathrop was Laura Lathrop’s youngest brother that served in the war, however he was remembered for his later career as a merchandiser. Outside of the letters that Laura Lathrop received in the early 1860s she was known for her marriage to a prominent agriculturalist in Racine County, William Crane. This brief biographical information of the Lathrop family in relation to Laura herself was included with the transcription of her personal letters in the University of Wisconsin-Parkside Area Research Center. Transcribed and compiled by Doug Hennig in 1987, this collection of letters and information was titled Dear Sister Laura. The letters are all written to Laura Lathrop, but her absence as an author does not exclude her from them. The empty space between these letters and who Laura Lathrop was is much like the void between the letters’ social commentary and history as we read it today. By looking at events, circumstances, and individuals in these letters—even if only in passing—a better understanding of Laura Lathrop and the moments in history that surrounded her may be achieved. Introducing Laura Lathrop’s letters into the canon of American Literature is essential in better personifying Laura herself, the time that she lived in, the people around her, and social interactions that have withstood time. One individual, Chief White Cloud, and one of his speeches in particular may only be recorded within Laura Lathrop’s letters. No matter how sparse or insignificant these letters may seem in regard to American Literature and history, their testimony to individuals and contexts such as these merit their inclusion into the canon.

At first glance, the letters written to Laura Lathrop are mostly social in nature. They comment on things such as weddings, fairs, love interests, and Laura’s apparent lack of Christian faith (Hennig). Even so, the Civil War acted as the main historical backdrop of Laura Lathrop’s young adult life and therefore the letters that she received. However, the war was not the main topic of conversation—even in letters from soldiers. Mysteriously, Laura Lathrop’s brother William did not write any of the letters in Hennig’s collection—unless he went by E.K. Lathrop instead of his known first name. The letters written by E.K. Lathrop, or Eddy, align with William’s encounters with the Civil War, one that was far harsher than either Austin or Lucas’ experiences. Eddy writes on the 12^th of December of an unknown year that he, “spoke of the battle that is now daily… here we have had some fighting since we came but not anything of note” (Hennig). This is the most that he speaks of the war in this letter that is very brief and fragmented. In another undated letter Eddy states: “I have been troubled with a very sore face, but I am in hopes that it will soon be well” (Hennig). In comparison Laura’s other brother Austin wrote in a letter from March 8^th, of 1865, that, “the boys are getting fat and lazy, but want to see the Paymaster” (Hennig). It is worth speculating that Austin’s lack of trials in the war lead to his being remembered as a merchandiser after the war, however moot. Eddy’s recounts of the war are like William’s were said to be—worse than Lucas or Austin’s—but all of their letters were predominantly social in nature.

Although the Lathrop brothers’ experiences with the Civil War varied, they were all enlisted in Union troops (Hennig). Events in support of war efforts in the 1860s raised funds and provided a social outlet simultaneously; the Northwestern Soldier’s Fair was one such event. The fair was planned to gain funding for the Union troops in 1863, and it raised over $100,000 (“Main Building of the Great North Western Sanitary Fair, Chicago”). Despite the fair’s purpose and substantial success for the Union troops that Laura Lathrop’s brothers were a part of, mentioning of the event in her letters held a separate connotation. Laura Lathrop’s friend Mary wrote her on November 18^th,1863, saying: “I suppose that you have attended the great Northwestern Fair, please tell me about it in your next [letter]” (Hennig). This is the only mention of the fair in this particular letter. What is interesting to notice is the primarily social implication of the event, rather than its practical function. Talk over prominent events and gatherings in passing is not new to the social interactions of today, and this letter among others bears witness to such a reality.

The most that any of Laura Lathrop’s senders talk about the war in their letters is not in one from a soldier or family member, but in one from a friend. One might expect that the place for such evidence would be in letters from soldiers themselves despite Laura Lathrop’s brothers’ brief accounts. Instead, this friend relates her account of a report that she read, and therefore had public access to. In a letter written on July 27^th, 1861, the friend, Nellie, wrote in concern for Laura Lathrop’s brother:

I hope he did not get wounded. How awful hard hearted those southern people are; I read the other day that they took some of our wounded men after the last battle, and set them up for marks to shoot at, and also that several who were giving our wounded wine and water—how wicked!! I shall be so glad when the war is over, it will be the cause of many heart aches. There are many hearts this morning who are aching with anxiety about their absent loved ones—God help them, and God bless our dear soldiers, too may right prevail. (Hennig)

As a form of social commentary that expands on the testimonies of soldiers and is in reaction to publicly accessible news, Nellie’s sentiments direct us towards the climate and opinion of war in 1861. Much like today though, as the war went on, it was talked about casually less and less. The later the letters to Laura Lathrop, the less the Civil War is mentioned. Not only does this commentary on the war come from a friend and not a soldier or family member, but it represents the most that the war is discussed in one single letter to Laura Lathrop. By reading in-between the lines of letters that are social in nature a commentary on war was found, even if that very commentary diminished much like it does today into remnants of relativity.

One fleeting piece of history found in Laura Lathrop’s letters is a speech made by a Native American chief, Chief White Cloud. In the context of Native American history in particular, “one thing is certain—context plays a role in the ways that the public renders judgments of discourse… Texts must be read in the temporally closest and most culturally plausible contexts that the scraps of fragments allow” (Black, 637). Jason Black’s analysis may have been in the context of another speech made by Chief Seattle (approximately ten years prior to Laura Lathrop’s letters), however the importance of “culturally plausible” evidence may be extended to Chief White Cloud and the letters examined as well. In one letter, the author writes: “White Cloud (an Indian chief) made an excellent speech. He was the first Indian I have ever seen and the only one” (Hennig). This mentioning of White Cloud speaking in Chattanooga was transcribed with no date, and similarly outside record of it is seemingly non-existent. The letter was certainly to Laura Lathrop, somewhere between 1857 and 1865, but no other information represents the nature of the speech or its context.

The lack of information in regard to the chief mentioned in Laura Lathrop’s letters should not deter interest in him, but strengthen it. Chief White Cloud was a chief of the Chippewas, and one record of his thoughts on the state of his nation and the United States is included in Report of the Condition of the Chippewas of Minnesota. Its inclusion though was not introduced or explained, but instead was titled “Exhibit A.” The only way to know it is actually from White Cloud is his own identification at the end of his passage where he says, “as for myself, as I look through that window, I see those white clouds; I am named White Cloud, and I pray God to keep my heart as white as those clouds to help those under me” (29). This record is hard to validate, and even harder to understand as a speech, writing, or translation of either from White Cloud. With so few records, especially ones with little certifiable integrity, this chief is at the hands of obscurity and historical retellings. This lack of evidence should only heighten interest in Chief White Cloud and the Laura Lathrop letters on its own, let alone with the addition of war and social commentary within the other letters.

Laura Lathrop and her family stand apart from what they are currently remembered by, much like Chief White Cloud. By entering Hennig’s collection, Dear Sister Laura, into the canon of American Literature and therefore history evidence of current similarities of social mechanisms and behaviors are attested to. More importantly, who wrote such social commentaries and what they were commenting on in the letters to Laura Lathrop tells society about the context of when they were written. Reading in-between the lines of letters like these offers information on the Civil War, reactions to the war, and specifically Chief White Cloud in a way they may not be expected. Marriage, events, and love interests will always be a part of our social dynamic in current structures, and war may never remain at the tips of common peoples’ tongues. Remnants of literature and history from specific moments in time, however, will be confined to the scraps of their eras—and entombed between the lines.

Works Cited

Black, Jason Edward. “Native Authenticity, Rhetorical Circulation, and Neocolonial Decay: The Case of Chief Seattle's Controversial Speech.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 15.4 (2012): 635-645. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Hennig, Doug. Dear Sister Laura. 1987. TS. University of Wisconsin-Parkside Area Research Center, Kenosha.

---. Nellie. 27 Jul. 1861.

---. Hattie. 6 Jan. 1862.

---. Fletch, Mary J. 19 May 1862.

---. Fletch, Mary J. 18 Nov. 1863.

---. Fletch, Mary J. 8 May 1864.

---. Lathrop, Austin. H. 8 Mar. 1865.

---. Fletch, Mary J. 3 Jun. 1865.

---. Louise. 12 Jun. 1865.

---. Lathrop, E.K. nd.

---. Eddy. Dec 12.

“Main Building of the Great North Western Sanitary Fair, Chicago.” The Civil War in Art. The Chicago History Museum. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.