Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I, Part 91

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company
Number of Pages: 1074

USA > Missouri > Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I > Part 91

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

829

RECONSTRUCTION THROES

"How long did the conference continue?"

"Three hours. It was nearing noon when the President said what I have just quoted. That seemed to be the signal to end the conference. Mr. Drake stepped forward and addressing the President, who was standing, said, with deliberation and emphasis: 'The hour has come when we can no longer trespass upon your attention. Having submitted to you in a formal way a statement of our grievances, we will take leave of you, asking privilege that each member of the delegation may take you by the hand. But, in taking leave of you, Mr. President, let me say to you many of these gentlemen return to a border state filled with disloyal sentiment. If upon their return there the military policies of your administration shall subject them to risk of life in the defense of the government and their blood shall be shed-let me tell you, Mr. President, that their blood shall be upon your garments and not upon ours.'"

"How did the President receive that?"

"With great emotion. Tears trickled down his face, as we filed by shaking his hand."

Mr. Lincoln's Diagnosis on Missouri.

In an old scrapbook kept by Enos Clarke in the war and reconstruction period is preserved the reply of Mr. Lincoln to the "seventy radical Union men of Missouri." On the evening of the day that the seventy were at the White House they were given a reception by the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Chase. This was considered significant. At that time there was much talk of Chase for the Presidential nomination by the radical opposition to Mr. Lincoln. The secre- tary was alleged to be intriguing for the nomination.

From Washington the seventy Missourians went to New York City to be honored by the anti-slavery people at a great mass meeting in Cooper Institute. Charles P. Johnson was the orator chosen by the Missourians to reply to the welcome.

On the 5th of October, only five days after he received the Missourians, the President sent his reply. There are few letters by Mr. Lincoln as long as this one on the Missouri situation. The analysis of causes and conditions in this state, when the war was half over, has no equal in print. It showed complete comprehension of the troubles and suggested common sense remedies. It is a revelation of Mr. Lincoln's clear vision in the midst of the most conflicting and confusing reports. This letter, in its entirety, deserves prominent place in the war period of the history of Missouri:

Executive Mansion, Washington, October 5, 1863.

Hon. Charles D. Drake and others, Committee :

Gentlemen : Your original address, presented on the 30th ultimo, and the four sup- plementary ones presented on the 3rd instant, have been carefully considered. I hope you will regard the other duties claiming my attention, together with the great length and im- portance of these documents, as constituting a sufficient apology for my not having re- sponded sooner. These papers, framed for a common object, consist of things demanded, and the reasons for demanding them. The things demanded are-

First. That General Schofield shall be relieved, and General Butler be appointed commander of the Military Department of Missouri;

Second. That the system of Enrolled Militia in Missouri may be broken up, and na- tional forces substituted for it; and

Third. That at elections, persons may not be allowed to vote who are not entitled by law to do so.

830

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

Among the reasons given, enough of suffering and wrong to Union men is certainly, and I suppose truly, stated. Yet the whole case as presented fails to convince me that General Schofield, or the Enrolled Militia, is responsible for that suffering and wrong. The whole can be explained on a more charitable, and, as I think, a more rational hypothesis.

We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound-Union and slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the " Union, saying nothing of those who are against it. Thus those who are for the Union with but not without slavery, those for it without but not with, those for it with or with- out but prefer it with, those for it with or without but prefer it without. Among these, again, is a subdivision of those who are for gradual but not for immediate, and those who are for immediate but not for gradual extinction of slavery.

It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. Yet all being for the Union, by reason of these differences each will prefer a different way of sustaining the Union. At once sincerity is questioned and motives assailed. Actual war coming, blood grows hot and blood is spilled. Thought is forced from old channels into confusion. Deception breeds and thrives. Confidence dies, and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feels an impulse to kill his neighbor lest he be killed by him. Revenge and retaliation follow. And all this, as before said, may be among honest men only. But this is not all. Every foul bird comes abroad and every dirty reptile rises up. These add crime to confusion. Strong measures, deemed indispensable but harsh at best, such men make worse by maladministration. Murder for old grudges and murders for pelf proceed under any cloak that will best cover for the occasion. These causes amply account for what has occurred in Missouri, without ascribing it to the weakness or wickedness of any general.

The newspaper files, those chroniclers of current events, will show the evils now com- plained of were quite as prevalent under Fremont, Hunter, Halleck, and Curtis, as under Schofield. If the former had greater force opposed to them, they also had greater force with which to meet it. When the organized army left the state, the main Federal force had to go also, leaving the department commander at home, relatively no stronger than before. Without disparaging any, I affirm with confidence, that no commander of that department has, in proportion to his means, done better than General Schofield.

The first specific charge against General Schofield is, that the Enrolled Militia was placed under his command, whereas it had not been placed under the command of General Curtis. The fact I believe is true; but you do not point out, nor can I conceive, how that did or could injure loyal men, or the Union cause.

You charge that upon General Curtis being superseded by General Schofield, Franklin A. Dick was superseded by James O. Broadhead as provost marshal general. No very specific showing is made as to how this did or could injure the Union cause. It recalls, however, the condition of things, as presented to me, which led to a change of com- mander for that department.

To restrain contraband intelligence and trade, a system of searches, seizures, permits and passes had been introduced, I think, by General Fremont. When General Halleck came he found and continued this system, and added an order, applicable to some parts of the state, to levy and collect contributions from noted rebels to compensate losses, and relieve destitution caused by the rebellion. The action of General Fremont and General Halleck, as stated, constituted a sort of system, which General Curtis found in full opera- tion when he took command of the department. That there was a necessity for some- thing of the sort was clear; but that it could only be justified by stern necessity, and that it was liable to great abuse in administration, was equally clear. Agents to execute it, contrary to the great Prayer, were led into temptation. Some might, while others would not, resist that temptation. It was not possible to hold any to a very strict accountability ; and those yielding to the temptation would sell permits and passes to those who would pay most, and most readily for them; and would seize property, and collect levies in the aptest way to fill their own pockets. Money being the object, the man having money, whether loyal or disloyal, would be a victint. This practice doubtless existed to some extent, and

831

RECONSTRUCTION THROES

it was a real additional evil that it could be, and was plausibly, charged to exist in greater extent than it did.

When General Curtis took command of the department, Mr. Dick, against whom I never knew anything to allege, had general charge of this system. A controversy in re- gard to it rapidly grew into almost unmanageable proportions. One side ignored the necessity and magnified the evils of the system, while the other ignored the evils and magnified the necessity; and each bitterly assailed the motives of the other.

I could not fail to see that the controversy enlarged in the same proportion as the professed Union men there distinctly took sides in two opposing political parties. I ex- hausted my wits, and very nearly my patience, also, in efforts to convince both that the evils they charged on each other were inherent in the case, and could not be cured by giving either party a victory over the other.

Plainly the irritating system was not to be perpetual; and it was plausibly urged that it could be modified at once with advantage. The case could scarcely be worse and whether it could be made better could only be determined by a trial. In this view, and not to ban or brand General Curtis or to give a victory to any party, I made the change of commander for the department. I now learn that soon after this change Mr. Dick was removed, and that Mr. Broadhead, a gentleman of no less good character, was put in the place. The mere fact of this change is more distinctly complained of than is any conduct of the new officer, or other consequences of the change.

I gave the new commander no instructions as to the administration of the system mentioned beyond what is contained in the private letter, afterwards surreptitiously pub- lished, in which I directed him to act solely for the public good, and independently of both parties. Neither anything you have presented me, nor anything I have otherwise . learned, has convinced me that he has been unfaithful to this charge.

Imbecility is urged as one cause for removing General Schofield, and the late massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, is passed as evidence of that imbecility. To my mind, that fact scarcely tends to prove the proposition. That massacre is only an example of what Grier- son, John Morgan and many others might have repeatedly done on their respective raids had they chosen to incur the personal hazard, and possessed the fiendish heart to do it.

The charge is made that General Schofield, on purpose to protect the Lawrence mur- derers, would not allow them to be pursued into Missouri. While no punishment could be too sudden or too severe for those murderers, I am well satisfied that the preventing of the threatened remedial raid into Missouri was the only safe way to avoid an indiscriminate massacre there, including probably more innocent than guilty. Instead of condemning, I therefore approve what I understand General Schofield did in that respect.

The charges that General Schofield has purposely withheld protection from loyal peo- ple and purposely facilitated the objects of the disloyal are altogether beyond my power of belief. I do not arraign the veracity of gentlemen as to the facts complained of; but I do more than question the judgment which would infer that those facts occurred in accord- ance with the purpose of General Schofield.

With my present views, I must decline to remove General Schofield. In this I decide nothing against General Butler. I sincerely wish it were convenient to assign him a suitable command.

In order to meet some existing evils, I have addressed a letter of instruction to Gen- eral Schofield, a copy of which I enclose to you. As to the Enrolled Militia, I shall en- deavor to ascertain, better than I now know, what is its exact value. Let me say now, however, that your proposal to substitute national force for the Enrolled Militia, implies that in your judgment the latter is doing something which needs to be done; and, if so, the proposition to throw that force away and to supply its place by bringing other forces from the field where they are urgently needed, seems to me very extraordinary; whence shall they come? Shall they be drawn from Banks, or Grant, or Steele, or Rosecrans?

Few things have been so grateful to my anxious feelings as when, in June last, the local force in Missouri aided General Schofield to so promptly send a large general force to the relief of General Grant, then investing Vicksburg, and menaced from without by General Johnston. Was this all wrong? Should the Enrolled Militia then have been

832

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

broken up, and General Heron kept from Grant, to police Missouri? So far from finding cause to object, I confess to a sympathy for whatever relieves our general force in Mis- souri, and allows it to serve elsewhere.

I therefore, as at present advised, cannot attempt the destruction of the Enrolled Militia of Missouri. I may add, that the force being under the national military control, it is also within the proclaination with regard to the habeas corpus.

I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, and have as you see, directed General Schofield accordingly. I do not feel justified to enter upon the broad field you present in regard to the political differences between Radicals and Conservatives. From time to time I have done and said what appeared to me proper to do and say. The public knows it well. It obliges nobody to follow me, and I trust it obliges me to follow nobody.

The Radicals and Conservatives each agree with me in some things and disagree in others. I could wish both to agree with me in all things; for then they would agree with each other, and would be too strong for any foe from any quarter. They, however, choose to do otherwise, and I do not question their rights. I hold whoever commands in Mis- souri or elsewhere responsible to me, and not to either Radicals or Conservatives. It is my duty to hear all; but, at last, I must, within my sphere, judge what to do and what to forbear.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

A Prescription for Peace.

Mr. Lincoln enclosed in this long letter to the committee a copy of the in- structions to General Schofield as the result of the address of the Missourians.

(Copy.)

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C., Oct. 1, 1863.

General John M. Schofield :

There is no organized military force in avowed opposition to the general government now in Missouri; and if any such shall reappear, your duty in regard to it will be too plain to require any special instruction. Still, the condition of things, both there and elsewhere, is such as to render it indispensable to maintain, for a time, the United States military establishment in that state, as well as to rely upon it for a fair contribution of support to that establishment generally. Your immediate duty in regard to Missouri now is to advance the efficiency of that establishment, and to so use it, as far as practicable, to com- pel the excited people there to leave one another alone.

Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies or newspapers, when they may be working palpable injury (Mr. Lincoln underscored the word palpable) to the military in your charge; and in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be inter- fered with violently by others. In this you have a discretion to exercise with great cau- tion, calmness and forbearance.

With the matters of removing the inhabitants of certain counties en masse, and of removing certain individuals from time to time, who are supposed to be mischievous, I am not now interfering, but am leaving to your discretion.

Nor am I interfering with what may still seem to you to be necessary restrictions upon trade and intercourse. I think proper, however, to enjoin upon you the following: Allow no part of the military under your command to be engaged either in returning fugitive slaves, or in forcing or enticing slaves from their homes; and so far as practicable, enforce the same forbearance upon the people.

Report to me your opinion upon the availability for good of the Enrolled Militia of the state. Allow no one to enlist colored troops, except upon orders from you, or from here through you. Allow no one to assume the function of confiscating property, under the law of Congress, or otherwise, except upon orders from here.

833

RECONSTRUCTION THROES

At elections, see that those, and only, those, are allowed to vote, who are entitled to do so by the laws of Missouri, including as of those laws the restrictions laid by the Mis- souri Convention upon those who may have participated in the rebellion.

So far as practicable, you will, by means of your military force, expel guerrillas, marauders and murderers, and all who are known to harbor or abet them. But in like manner you will repress assumptions of unauthorized individuals to perform the same service, because under pretence of doing this they become marauders and murderers them- selves.

To now restore peace, let the military obey orders; and those not of the military leave each other alone, thus not breaking the peace themselves.

In giving the above directions, it is not intended to restrain you in other expedient and necessary matters not falling within their range.

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN.

Blair on the Permit System.

President Lincoln spoke of the evils and abuses of the permit system which had been applied by successive commanders to Missouri. Blair, on the floor of Congress, illustrated the operation of the system.

"Until within the last six months a man living in Missouri, twenty miles from St. Louis, could not get a barrel of salt or flour from the city without paying for a permit. I am told that a judge of our supreme court living in the adjoining county of St. Charles paid for a permit in St. Louis to take a picture of General Washington to his home as a Christmas present to his child. This thing has been continued to within the last twenty days; and for the last six months no organized force of the enemy has penetrated north of the Arkansas river. The permit system has finally been abandoned in Missouri, but the agents and the officials who formerly spread this network over our desolated state and pinched its ruined inhabitants still remain."

To leave St. Louis by train or boat or by other vehicle or afoot, during the continuance of martial law, a passport was necessary. Between August 14 and November 20, 1861, there were issued 85,000 of these passes. On the back of the first issues was: "It is understood that the within named subscriber accepts this pass on his word of honor that he is and will ever be loyal to the United States; and if hereafter found in arms against the Union, or in any way aiding the enemy, the penalty will be death." When Capt. George E. Leighton suc- ceeded Gen. Justus Mckinstry as provost marshal he changed this form to a pledge and omitted the death penalty.

Charcoals Gain Control.

The Radicals, as the Charcoals had come to be more commonly called, car- ried Missouri in the general election of 1864. The vote was not large. Not only were thousands away fighting in the South, but many more who were living quietly and peaceably at their homes could not or would not take the oath of allegiance required of voters. The Radicals elected their state ticket, of which Thomas C. Fletcher was the head. They controlled the legislature by a large majority. They carried eight of the nine Congressional districts and eighty of the counties. Lincoln had about 40,000 majority and the state ticket nearly as much. Many Conservatives or Claybanks remained away from the polls because, while they could truthfully have taken the strict oath of allegiance.

Vol. I-53

834

CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF MISSOURI

they resented the practice of the Charcoals in challenging and rigidly questioning any one with whom they disagreed.

Thomas K. Skinker, in a very interesting address before the Missouri His- torical Society on February 20, 1914, gave this origin of the names applied to the two factions: "To the dominant element in Missouri all democrats were rebels, and they were commonly called by that name, or something worse. The other party was at first called the Union, or Unconditional Union party; but that soon split into wings, or branches, the Conservatives and the Radicals. These were commonly called, respectively, the Claybanks and the Charcoals. The republicans had long been called by their political adversaries 'Black Repub- licans.' This was easily converted into 'Charcoals'; and these latter gave their conservative fellow-unionists the name of 'Claybanks,' as denoting a colorless sort of politics, which did not much distinguish them from out-and-out rebels; or else Copperheads, after the deadly snake of that name, which strikes without warning. It was meant to be a synonym of hidden danger and secret hostility to the Union cause."

The Ousting Ordinance.

Delegates to the constitutional convention were chosen at this election of 1864. The Radicals had won over the legislature. The act providing for the convention conferred extraordinary powers upon the delegates. The convention passed an ordinance for immediate emancipation and framed a new constitution containing a test oath, or as it was called an "oath of loyalty." The constitution not only limited the franchise and the holding of public office of any kind to those who could take this oath, but it required preachers and lawyers as well as teachers to take the oath before they were allowed to practice their profes- sions. There was provision for repentance and forgiveness of those who could not immediately subscribe to the oath. The twenty-fifth section said that the general assembly might repeal the oath so far as it related to voters after 1871. But the test oath must apply to lawyers, preachers and teachers until after 1876, when the legislature might extend amnesty to these classes if it saw proper.

In order that the work of the convention might not be undone by the courts the delegates proceeded to enact what was called the "ousting ordinance." The title declared that the purpose of the ordinance was "to vacate certain civil offices, to harmonize the workings of the government, and to protect citizens from injury and harassment from persecution for acts done by them in support of the government." A committee headed by Henry A. Clover of St. Louis reported this ousting ordinance and made a long report in support of it.

"The committee is of opinion that, to harmonize the working of the state government in all its departments, it is necessary to vacate throughout, and in detail, all the judicial offices of the state. The convention has already enacted an ordinance emancipating slaves. Should the judicial department of the state government be held at liberty to impeach the entire lawfulness of this act? Property in man exists and has always heretofore been recognized in this state, and if rightfully existing at one time, it may always rightfully exist. The convention, or the majority of the people, have no right or lawful authority to deprive a citizen of property without compensation, not even pretended to be taken for public use. The right or authority so to do is denied in the very nature of the social con- tract. Upon this plea the lawfulness of this act of the convention may be denied by the judges. Should it be permitted, if it can be prevented?

835

RECONSTRUCTION THROES

"Again, the convention has considered a measure for preserving in purity the elective franchise, and, in so doing, to disfranchise the rebel and rebel sympathizer. Shall the effect of this measure be allowed to be frittered away by unfavorable and hostile construc- tion and interpretation of term and phrase?"

This ousting ordinance was suggested to the convention in a resolution offered by Mr. Green of Marion county, which declared that to carry out the progressive spirit of the people of Missouri it was necessary to reorganize the judicial system and to vacate all judicial offices from the supreme bench down.

One Thousand Offices Vacated.

The ordinance applied to about 1,000 office holders. It included the judges and clerks of all courts in the state, the county recorders, the circuit attorneys and their assistants and all sheriffs. These offices were to be vacated on May 1, 1865. The governor was to appoint successors. In his address, Mr. Skinker said :

"It is plain from the report Judge Clover and his committee fully realized that in declaring the abolition of slavery they were committing an act of revolution and con- fiscation. Property in negro slaves had always been recognized by the law of the land; there was not a single state in the Union in which this was not true at some time in its history. In Missouri it was distinctly recognized at that very time, and the very con- stitution, which the convention was then submitting to the people for adoption, contained a provision, the same as in the earlier constitution, and in all the constitutions of all the states in this country, both before and since that time, declaring that no private property ought to be taken by the state without just compensation to the owners. In violation of this accepted principle, this convention was undertaking to take away from their owners this kind of property without making compensation. At the time this was denounced by a large element of the people as the extreme of lawlessness. Today it is, to socialists and communists, the supreme precedent in favor of their theory that the state may do as it will with all private property.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

Centennial history of Missouri (the center state) one hundred years in the Union, 1820-1921, Volume I, Part 91

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939 Publication date: 1921 Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company Number of Pages: 1074

Author: Stevens, Walter Barlow, 1848-1939
Publication date: 1921
Publisher: St. Louis, Chicago, The S. J. Clarke publishing company
Number of Pages: 1074