Have you ever heard the phrase used, “the Great Hog Swindle”? Ever stop to wonder what it means or where it might have originated? Well, neither have I, but I stumbled upon the sources by accident while looking for information on the controversial Union General Stephen G. Burbridge. Many of you are probably aware of who this man was: successful in the Vicksburg Campaign, military commander of the District of Kentucky, author of the order requiring the execution of four Rebels for each Union man killed by guerrillas, commander of the ill-fated first Saltville Expedition, hated by Kentuckians of all stripes, and the man behind the “Great Hog Swindle.” While it may sound like the title of a Disney movie, this is not some Rebel story passed down through the generations. This actually happened, and the only part which is unclear is whether General Burbridge was a willing partner or a dupe in this sad episode in the colorful history of our state.
On October 28th, 1864, following a steep rise in pork prices due to speculation, Brigadier General Stephen Gano Burbridge caused the following order to be published:
Those owning or feeding hogs in Kentucky are informed that the U.S. government desires to secure the surplus hogs in the state. A fair market value will be paid for all that are for sale . . . It is not intended to limit the amounts deemed necessary to be packed for family use; but it is hoped that all will willingly sell to the government any excess of personal wants, and not allow so much to be packed in the country as to invite raids for its capture . . . Major H. C. Symonds, commissary of subsistence U.S. army at Louisville, is instructed with the details of this business, and will give all necessary information (Collins 144).
Lowell Harrison offers that the idea was Major Symonds’ brainchild, devised to supposedly save the government money by buying directly from Kentucky farmers and contracting the packing to a select group of Louisville meat-packers. Convinced that the pork speculators and packers were united against him, “he awarded bids illegally to packing houses which had promised to cooperate” (100). Ross A. Webb adds that the fact that the agents selected by Burbridge were all “Unconditional Union” men in their politics and that it probably added greatly to the perception of impropriety, though all were apparently honest men (42). Their assignees for the most part, however, proved to be of a different character. To compound matters and make them worse, on November 5th, Colonel Swain, the Union commander at Covington and Newport, acting under the direction of General Burbridge, issued orders that prohibited the shipment of hogs across the Ohio River from Kentucky. Guards were ordered to turn back anyone who tried to cross with their swine and any who still resisted the order after the 9th were to be threatened with arrest and the confiscation of their hogs (Collins 144).
The Louisville Democrat reported on November 7th that only certain Louisville packing houses were permitted to operate under the government contracts, while other plants languished under this Federally-supported monopoly of the meat-packing trade. To many Kentuckians, it appeared that General Burbridge and his agents were working together with that favored group of meat-packers to the disadvantage of the average farmer (Webb 42). Collins noted that Symonds requested the order prohibiting out-of-state sales of Kentucky hogs to be certain his Louisville packers would be able to complete their contract (145). Additionally, Mr. Webb states that the “Great Hog Swindle” just happened to take place at election time and Governor Bramlette’s Union Democrats made the most of the opportunity: Burbridge’s involvement in the scheme figured strongly in the Democratic win in Kentucky in the November ‘64 presidential elections (42).
On November 14th, in an attempt to intercede on the behalf of Kentucky’s farmers, Governor Bramlette addressed a letter to President Lincoln stating that:
Considerable commotion has been produced amongst the farmers and pork-packers by some orders recently issued -- and more especially by the manner of their carrying out -- in relation to the hog crop. The agents sent out have been attempting to force the farmers to let their hogs go to them at greatly less than the market price -- by falsely telling them that the government had fixed the price; and unless they received it willingly, their hogs would be taken at that price any how; and if they attempted to sell, or if packers attempted to purchase and pack, their hogs would be confiscated, and they arrested and imprisoned. Some large houses in Louisville that have paid their tax, are thus held in check and cut off from business; although they offer to sell to the government their hog product at one dollar less per hundred than the Cincinnati market -- if permitted to go on with their business (Collins 144-5).
A clarification must be made: While Burbridge appointed certain “agents” to act in the government’s behalf regarding this episode, not all of these men were involved in swindling the farmers. Burbridge’s men also chose their own agents who were apparently appointed on a regional level and acted often in their own interests. Many of Burbridge’s hand-picked agents were among the best men in the Commonwealth, though their subordinates were apparently not the most scrupulous candidates for the position of government pork buyers.
Not all Union officers went along with the “hog swindle.” Colonel C. L. Kilburn, supervising chief commissary of subsistence, in direct opposition to the order created by Symonds and published by General Burbridge, published the following order on November 15th:
No hogs are to be seized in Kentucky by agents or commissioned officers. All persons holding hogs are permitted to sell them, in such markets and to such persons as they may see fit -- subject only to obtaining permits if to be shipped out of the state (Collins 145).
On the 16th, Colonel Kilburn removed all restrictions regarding transporting hogs to market, and further requested that anyone having information on the Kentucky “hog question” to place such information in writing to be forwarded to Washington. When the commissary department in Washington sided with Major Symonds, Colonel Kilburn asked to be relieved (Collins 145).
To correct the damage to the scheme made by Colonel Kilburn, Major Symonds issued another proclamation on November 17th, apparently in reference to the controversy between himself and the Colonel, that claimed, “the subject of packing hogs at Louisville is left to his [Symonds’] judgment; it appears to be the almost universal wish that he receive hogs directly from the owners . . .” In the same communication, Major Symonds made some muted threats to the effect that anyone unwilling to sell his hogs to the government might be in danger of having them confiscated anyway (Collins 145).
On November 18th, the Louisville Democrat reported that General Burbridge had disavowed any connection with the current controversy related to the Kentucky “hog question,” stating that the entire matter was under the discretion of Major Symonds and Colonel Kilburn (Collins 145). Perhaps he realized at that late moment that he had been duped. His apparent complicity in the scheme had far-reaching consequences, for both himself and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Governor Bramlette estimated that Kentucky farmers had lost as much as $300,000 in the “Great Hog Swindle,” but, because it was stopped before too long, another million dollars had been saved by the intervention (Collins 145). Major Symonds guessed that his policies had saved the U.S. government nearly $200,000 (Webb), but that savings was made at the expense of those who could least afford it: Kentucky’s farmers. Most farmers held back and did not sell to the government during November, 1864. However, with the publication of the following order on November 27th, many farmers, with relief, did finally sell their hog crop: “All orders from these headquarters affecting the hog trade in Kentucky are revoked” (Collins 145). In the end, the intervention of President Lincoln, at the request of Governor Bramlette, re-secured free markets for Kentucky’s hog farmers.
After a succession of scandals (the “Great Hog Swindle” was not the last scandal of his military tenure in the Commonwealth), Stephen Burbridge was removed from command of the Military District of Kentucky by President Lincoln on February 10th, 1865, and replaced with General John M. Palmer (also very controversial during his command). The Louisville Democrat noted “Thank God and President Lincoln!” General Burbridge resigned from the army on December 1st, 1865. Despised in his native state, he moved to Brooklyn, NY, where he died on November 30, 1894 (Kleber 142).
Why did the “Great Hog Swindle” take place? It seems that the military authorities had no concept of or regard for the workings of a free market. The lack of understanding for free markets possessed by Burbridge and Symonds caused a great deal of hardship for Kentucky farmers. The ultimate and most lasting result was a complete alienation of the majority of Kentuckians from the Republican policies of Washington. The state, to this day, remains strongly Democratic because of the oppressive policies of Kentucky’s last two military district commanders. Combined with many of General Burbridge’s policies regarding the treatment of Confederate guerrillas, the “Great Hog Swindle” helped push Kentucky away from Republican-controlled Washington during the last years of the war and for long afterward. Democrats today don’t understand how much they owe Stephen Burbridge for the long-time hold they maintain on the state’s politics, due in part to his policy of habeas porcus.