On the evening of February 22, 1861, a man waiting in Philadelphia sent a telegram to Harrisburg. His question was brief: “Where is Nuts”. The sender signed himself J. H. Hutcheson. Behind that ordinary name was Allan Pinkerton, and behind the code word was Abraham Lincoln. The president-elect was being brought back from Harrisburg so that he could travel through Baltimore earlier than the public expected. Pinkerton needed to know whether the arrangements were holding. At a quarter past nine, a reply reached him at the St. Louis Hotel, addressed to Hutcheson, confirming that Lincoln had left at six and that everything was in order.
The exchange catches the assumed name doing an essential piece of work. A message had to reach the right man without announcing his real identity or his business. By then, Hutcheson had already been useful in offices and drinking rooms in Baltimore, where Pinkerton had been introducing himself as a stockbroker sympathetic to the South. The name gave people something to call him, an address at which to find him and a reason to accept his company. Its possible origins lead back to Glasgow; its documented purpose belongs to the dangerous weeks before Lincoln’s inauguration.
Pinkerton’s assignment began with a railway. Samuel Morse Felton, president of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, feared that secessionists would interfere with the line connecting the northern cities to Washington. Bridges, tracks and the river crossing at Havre de Grace offered vulnerable points along the route. In the winter of 1861, with states leaving the Union and Lincoln preparing to take office, an attack on that connection could have consequences far beyond a railway company’s accounts. Felton brought Pinkerton into the matter to investigate threats and help protect the road.
Railway work was already part of Pinkerton’s business. The detective agency he had built in Chicago served clients who needed information, protection and investigations across distances that local police forces could not conveniently cover. That experience mattered in Baltimore. His employer needed reports from people inside the city, gathered quietly enough that anyone planning trouble would continue talking. An investigator arriving openly on a railway president’s behalf would have made those conversations much harder to obtain.
.jpg){kind=link}
John H. Hutcheson supplied a different introduction. Pinkerton established an office at 44 South Street and presented himself as a newly arrived Southern stockbroker. Daniel Stashower’s account of the operation explains the advantages of the choice: a broker could cultivate businessmen, receive visitors and take an interest in the fortunes of Southern trade without attracting much curiosity. The premises also gave Pinkerton a place to receive his operatives’ reports. An office supported the appearance of settled business while allowing an investigation to run behind it. A stranger asking about politics might be treated cautiously; a businessman sharing another man’s anxieties about commerce and the future of the South could become a welcome acquaintance. Pinkerton offered his listeners an apparent ally, then encouraged them to explain what they knew. The cover made use of the connections between business and politics in a slaveholding city whose place in the approaching conflict was still being contested.
One acquaintance was James H. Luckett, who brought Pinkerton into conversation with the barber and secessionist Cypriano Ferrandini. Pinkerton’s record of the February 15 encounter describes threats against Lincoln and an atmosphere in which violent declarations could be made to a man accepted as sympathetic. Luckett addresses him as Hutcheson in the surviving account; Ferrandini’s address appears as “Mr. Huchins”. According to the report, the supposed stockbroker had been admitted to a conversation in which Ferrandini spoke of giving his own life to prevent Lincoln from becoming president. The commercial introduction had carried Pinkerton into a discussion of political violence.
The variations in the name have followed the story ever since. Hutcheson appears in the telegrams recorded during the operation, while Hutchinson appears in later accounts, including Pinkerton’s own. The shorter Huchins occurs in the reported conversation. Each spelling needs to be read in its setting, with attention to the date, the people involved and the document’s history. Together, these records describe a recognizable identity whose spelling was less consistent than its usefulness.
Why Pinkerton chose that particular surname is a less settled question. He was born in the Gorbals in 1819 and left Scotland for North America in 1842. By the time he took an office in Baltimore, he had spent nearly two decades building a life in Illinois, first as a cooper and then as an investigator. A name drawn from the Glasgow he remembered would have been readily available to him. The connection is plausible, though the surviving evidence leaves the moment of selection out of view.
Hutchesontown offers the most familiar explanation. The district took its name from Hutchesons’ Hospital, one of the bodies that had owned the lands of the Gorbals. When those lands were divided in 1790, the hospital’s portion became the basis of the new suburb. Hutcheson was therefore embedded in the geography of Pinkerton’s home district long before his birth. Stashower points to Hutchesontown when discussing the detective’s assumed name in The Hour of Peril. It is an intelligible association: a familiar place could supply an unremarkable surname for use thousands of miles away.
A place-name explanation still leaves several possibilities open. Pinkerton might have remembered the district itself, a person bearing the surname, or some association that he never put into writing. The geographical connection establishes that the name belonged to his early surroundings. Establishing his personal reason for choosing it requires a statement or a chain of evidence closer to Pinkerton himself.
There is also a more particular Glasgow lead. An index to an 1824 Scottish court investigation identifies Isobel Edgar, whose maiden surname was Pinkerton, as a grocer and changekeeper in Rutherglen Loan in the Gorbals. The entry describes her as the widow of William Edgar and the wife, or possibly widow, of Robert Hutcheson. The case title identifies her as a witness. Here the surnames Pinkerton and Hutcheson occur together in a household in Allan’s home district while he was a child. Her relationship to Allan remains unestablished. The entry supplies a specific person and a specific record to investigate, with the original papers held by the National Records of Scotland under reference AD14/24/197.
That household makes the Scottish question more interesting, but the American documents currently give the clearer account of what the alias accomplished. In February 1861, Hutcheson was becoming useful beyond the Baltimore office. As Pinkerton’s attention shifted toward Lincoln’s journey, the name travelled with him into the arrangements for reaching the president-elect and changing his route.
On February 21, Lincoln arrived in Philadelphia with his travelling party. Pinkerton needed access to Norman B. Judd, the Illinois politician accompanying him, so that the warnings from Baltimore could be put before Lincoln. In Pinkerton’s later account, George H. Burns of the American Telegraph Company delivered a slip directing Judd to the St. Louis Hotel, where he was to ask for J. H. Hutchinson. Pinkerton explained that he had registered there under that name to avoid attracting attention to his presence. Judd’s own retrospective account also remembers the hotel rendezvous under the assumed name. The identity that had helped Pinkerton approach secessionists now helped an ally locate him discreetly.
The danger was closely connected to Baltimore’s railway geography. Lincoln’s announced itinerary required a transfer between stations, exposing him to a city through which his movements were already public knowledge. The revised journey brought him back to Philadelphia from Harrisburg on the evening of February 22 and sent him south aboard an ordinary overnight train. Pinkerton accompanied him, as did Ward Hill Lamon. In Baltimore, the sleeping car was drawn by horses from President Street to Camden Street, where it could continue toward Washington. Lincoln remained in the car during the transfer.
Seen against those arrangements, the telegram to Burns becomes more than a colourful scrap of code. It shows the alias functioning in a network of hotel rooms, railway employees, messengers and telegraph offices. The recipient had to recognize the sender; hotel staff had to know where the reply belonged. Hutcheson could conceal Pinkerton from an unintended reader while identifying him perfectly well to the people managing the journey. The cover depended on selective recognition.
Lincoln reached Washington on the morning of February 23. Pinkerton’s record then introduces another name into the same sequence of events. At Willard’s Hotel he registered as E. J. Allen of New York, and his messages announcing the party’s safe arrival were signed Allen. Within the space of a night, the man waiting in Philadelphia as Hutcheson was communicating from Washington as Allen. Both names were in use during the Baltimore operation itself.
This overlap matters because the familiar outline of Pinkerton’s career can make the aliases seem to belong to separate chapters: Hutcheson for the Baltimore plot, Major Allen for the Union army. The February record shows a more flexible practice. Pinkerton could use different names with different people while conducting the same assignment. Each name gave its recipient a usable identity for the sender, and each spared him the need to put Allan Pinkerton on every register or dispatch.
Pinkerton continued investigating after the passage through Baltimore. He returned to the city on February 23 and resumed contact with Luckett. A further dated reference appears in Michael Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life, which cites a letter from J. H. Hutcheson to Felton, written in Baltimore on February 25, 1861. The citation occurs in Burlingame’s discussion of continuing warnings against Lincoln after his arrival in Washington. It places the correspondence among the Felton Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
The original letter has yet to be examined for this account. Burlingame’s precise citation nevertheless provides an important extension to the familiar sequence: correspondence under Hutcheson’s name continued after Lincoln had reached the capital. The date belongs to the aftermath of the same assignment, when Pinkerton and his employer still had reasons to communicate about danger. It carries the name beyond the overnight train without requiring a new explanation for its use.
As the country went to war, E. J. Allen became the better-known name in Pinkerton’s intelligence work for George B. McClellan. Pinkerton and his operatives gathered information, examined reports and maintained contacts across military lines. The scale and setting of his work had changed. For later readers, the army identity would largely eclipse the stockbroker who had occupied the Baltimore office. The earlier name survives most clearly where a message, a remembered introduction or a piece of correspondence required it to be written down.
Then, in a collection centred on one of Pinkerton’s operatives, Hutcheson appears again. The detailed finding aid to the Pryce Lewis Collection at St. Lawrence University lists a handwritten signed letter from Washington dated March 23, 1863. It describes the writer as “Hutcheson, T.H.” and the recipient as Pryce Lewis. An accompanying note by the researcher Harriet Schoen identifies it as “Allan Pinkerton original.” The entry also marks the presence of a typescript.
Lewis had worked for Pinkerton during the war, including on dangerous assignments in Confederate territory, and later served at Washington’s Old Capitol and Carroll prisons. His papers provide a setting in which a private communication from Pinkerton would make sense. The finding aid preserves a valuable attribution, although the initials it prints are T. H., rather than the J. H. familiar from 1861. Reading the original and Schoen’s typescript is the necessary next step in resolving that difference and learning what the letter actually says.
At present, the March 1863 item is evidence at the level of an archival description and a researcher’s identification. It gives the name a possible life more than two years after the Baltimore journey, in correspondence with a former operative. Its contents could clarify whether Pinkerton was reviving an old cover, using a familiar signature with Lewis or conducting some particular piece of business. The catalogue supplies the date, the place and the attribution; the letter holds the explanation.
The same folder further complicates any simple succession of aliases. It lists an E. J. Allen letter dated November 8, 1860, with Schoen’s identification of Pinkerton, and Allen telegrams to W. P. Wood dated October 1, 1863. Taken alongside the February 1861 record, these entries point toward overlapping names maintained for different occasions. Hutcheson’s possible reappearance in 1863 belongs within that broader practice.
The survival of the evidence has helped shape the way the story is told. Pinkerton returned to the Baltimore affair in later correspondence and publications, defending his conduct and the importance of the warnings he had gathered. His 1883 The Spy of the Rebellion gave readers a developed narrative accompanied by dramatic illustrations. Those later accounts preserve useful recollections, including the hotel registration, while the recorded telegrams show the name at work in the arrangements themselves. The distinction matters whenever a remembered episode is used to establish a precise date or spelling.
There are also substantial gaps in the underlying archive. The Chicago fire of 1871 destroyed much of the agency’s early material, and surviving papers are dispersed among collections concerned with railways, Lincoln, the agency and individual operatives. A search therefore follows several routes at once: Pinkerton’s public name, the variants of Hutcheson and Hutchinson, and the names of the people receiving his letters. The records located for this article cluster in February 1861, with the March 1863 catalogue entry providing the significant later lead. A continuous history of the alias remains to be recovered.
Pinkerton became John H. Hutcheson because the work in Baltimore required a man whom strangers could meet, talk to and trust for reasons of their own. A stockbroker’s identity gave him that opportunity. The name then served the less visible business of the operation: finding a man in a hotel, addressing a telegram and corresponding after Lincoln had reached Washington. Those uses explain why Pinkerton needed Hutcheson and why the identity could remain useful after its most famous night.
The choice of the surname still leads back toward the Gorbals, where Hutchesontown was part of the landscape and a Pinkerton–Hutcheson household appears in an earlier court record. How either connection entered Allan Pinkerton’s thinking remains open. In the American evidence, however, the assumed name has a distinct and recoverable history. For the people who encountered him under it, John H. Hutcheson was the person they had been given a reason to know.