USA > Missouri > St Charles County > History of St. Charles, Montgomery, and Warren counties, Missouri, written and comp. from the most authentic official and private sources, including a history of their townships, towns and villages, together with a condensed history of Missouri > Part 64
USA > Missouri > Montgomery County > History of St. Charles, Montgomery, and Warren counties, Missouri, written and comp. from the most authentic official and private sources, including a history of their townships, towns and villages, together with a condensed history of Missouri > Part 64
USA > Missouri > Warren County > History of St. Charles, Montgomery, and Warren counties, Missouri, written and comp. from the most authentic official and private sources, including a history of their townships, towns and villages, together with a condensed history of Missouri > Part 64
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120
When Jackson's letter appeared, soon thereafter the Breckinridge men called a State convention and put in nomination Hancock Jack- son, of Howard, for Governor, and Monroe M. Parsons, of Cole, for Lieutenant-Governor.
Being encouraged by the feuds in the Democratic party, the Bell and Everett men had high hopes of electing their gubernatorial can- didate at the August election, and carrying the State for " Bell, of Tennessee," the ensuing November. To this end they did everything possible to foment additional discord and widen the breach between the two wings of their opponents ; but they over-did the business. The Democrats saw through their tactics, and agreeing to disagree as to Presidential candidates, practically united in the support of C. F. Jackson and Thos. C. Reynolds, at the August election, and triumph-
598
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
antly elected them by a plurality of about 10,000. C. F. Jackson, Douglas Democrat, 74,446 ; Samuel Orr, Bell and Everett, 64,583 ; Hancock Jackson, Breckinridge Democrat, 11,415; J. B. Garden- hire, Republican, 6,135.
In this Congressional district the candidates were John B. Hender- son, who had been nominated by the Democrats, and received the support of both factions of that party, and James S. Rollins, of Boone county, the nominee of the Bell and Everett party, and who was sup- ported by the Union party, the Republicans, and all anti-Democrats.
Henderson and Rollins stumped the district - at least a portion of it - together, and made a most exciting canvass. The famous Muench or " Minch" letter figured in this contest very conspicuously. It is, perhaps, worthy of remark that although in 1860, in their race for Congress, both Rollins and Henderson labored hard to convince the people that they were strong pro-slavery men, they are now, both of them, strong Republicans with all that the designation implies. Maj. Rollins was elected in 1860 by a vote of 11,161 to 10,908 for Henderson ; and it is an undoubted fact that this was accomplished by the several hundred Republican voters in the district who voted for the Major.
Nothing daunted by their defeat in August, the Bell and Everett men in Missouri kept up the fight for their Presidential candidates, ยท and came within a few hundred votes of carrying the State for them in November, the vote standing : -
For the Douglas electors
58,801
For the Bell electors
58,372
For the Breckinridge electors
31,317
For the Lincoln electors 17,028
Douglas' majority over Bell
429
Douglas' majority over Breckinridge
27,484
It is said that many Democrats voted for Bell because they thought he was the only candidate that could defeat Lincoln. In the October election the Republicans had carried Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, and Lincoln's election was almost inevitable. Fusion tickets against the Republicans had been formed in New York, New Jersey, and other States, and many thought the Tennessee statesman might be elected after all.
In Montgomery county the vote stood : -
For the Bell electors
658
For the Douglas electors
612
For the Breckinridge electors
83
For the Lincoln electors
Total vote cast, 1,398.
45
599
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
For the first time in its history Republican votes had been given openly in Montgomery county. It was known that there were a few Republicans here, but the number was not supposed to exceed 10 or 12, and when 45 men walked up to the polls and announced Abraham Lincoln as their choice for President, there was great astonishment, mingled with indignation. The expulsion of this class of voters was demanded by many, and it is said some of them received written notices to leave the county at once. At that date the method of voting was viva voce-that is, by word of mouth -and each voter was compelled to announce openly for whom he voted.1 Therefore all the Republicans were known. It is perhaps only the truth to say that Judge Walter I. Lovelace and Dr. W. B. Adams were the leading Republicans of the county in 1860. They were in constant cor- respondence with Frank Blair, Edward Bates and the other prominent Republicans of the State.
AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
The news of the election of Lincoln and Hamlin was received by the people of Montgomery county generally with considerable dissat- isfaction ; but, aside from the utterances of some ultra pro-slavery men, there were general expressions of a willingness to accept and abide by the result - at least to watch and wait. A number of citi- zens avowed themselves unconditional Union men from the first - as they had every year since 1850, when they met in convention from time to time, and these were the men who had voted for Bell, and men who had voted for Douglas, and even men who had voted for Breck- inridge. Upon the secession of South Carolina and other Southern States, however, many changed their view. Indeed, there was nothing certain about the sentiments of men in those days, but one thing - they were liable to change ! Secessionists one week became Union men the next, and vice versa. There was withal a universal hope that civil war might be averted.
Already the best men of the country feared for the fate of the Re- public. Northern fanatics and Southern fire-eaters were striving to rend it asunder. The former did not want to live in a country ( so they said) whereof one-half depended for prosperity on the begetting and bringing up of children for the slave market, and so the constitu- tion which permitted slavery was denominated an instrument of
1 The law prescribing the viva voce method was not changed to the present system of voting until in 1863, and the first voting by ballot was in that year (see Laws of 1863, p. 17; Statutes of 1865, p. 61).
33
600
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
infamy. The fire-eaters of the South were blustering and complain- ing that their "rights " had been, or were about to be, trampled on by the North, and therefore they were for seceding and breaking up a government which they could not absolutely control.
A majority of the people of the county, it is safe to say, believed that the interests of Missouri were identical with those of the other slave-holding States, but they were in favor of waiting for the devel- opment of the policy of the new administration before taking any steps leading to the withdrawal of the State from the Federal Union. " Let us wait and see what Lincoln will do," was the sentiment and - expression of a large number. A respectable minority were in favor of immediate secession, and so declared publicly.
Very many professed to believe that the election of Mr. Lincoln would not seriously injure the institution of slavery ; that he was not an Abolitionist, or in favor of negro equality, and the following ex- tracts were quoted from his speeches during the memorable series of debates with Douglas in Illinois, in 1858: -
We must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an effic- ient fugitive slave law because the constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withold such a law. * * * In regard to the fugitive slave law, I have never hesi- tated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the constitution of the United States, the people of the United States are entitled to a congressional fugitive slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing fugitive slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency.
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter- marry with white people ; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I be- lieve will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and in- ferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.1
1 See "The Lincoln and Douglas Debates," under the heading of "The Discussion at Alton."
601
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
THE LEGISLATURE OF 1861.
On the last day of December, 1860, the Twenty-first General Assem- bly of Missouri met at Jefferson City. The retiring Governor, "Bob" M. Stewart, delivered a very conservative message, taking the middle ground between secession and abolitionism, and pleading strenuously for peace and moderation. He declared among other things that the people of Missouri " ought not to be frightened from their propriety by the past unfriendly legislation of the North, or dragooned into secession by the restrictive legislation of the extreme South." He concluded with a thrilling appeal for the maintenance of the Union, depicting the inevitable result of secession, revolution and war. Many of Gov. Stewart's predictions were afterward fulfilled with start- ling and fearful exactness.
The inaugural of the new Governor, Claiborne Fox Jackson, in- dorsed the doctrine of his famous resolutions of 1849 -that the inter- ests and destiny of the slave-holding States were the same ; that the State was in favor of remaining in the Union so long as there was any hope of maintaining the guarantees of the constitution ; but that in the event of a failure to reconcile the differences which then threatened the disruption of the Union, it would be the duty of the State "to stand by the South," and that he was utterly opposed to the doctrine of coercion in any event. Gov. Jackson concluded by recommending the immediate call of a State convention, in order that " the will of the people may be ascertained and effectuated."
In accordance with the Governor's recommendation, the Legisla- ture, on January 17, passed a bill calling a convention, to be composed of three times as many members as in the aggregate each senatorial district was entitled to State Senators-that is, three delegates from each senatorial district in the State - and appointing February 18, as the day on which they were to be elected, and February 28, the day on which the convention should assemble.
Hon. H. C. Wright, of Warren, the Senator from this district, was absent when the vote was taken in the Senate, but Hon. W. R. Harris, the county's Representative, voted for the convention bill, the 10th section of which contained the following important provision : -
No act, ordinance, or resolution of said convention shall be deemed to be valid to change or dissolve the political relations of this State to the Government of the United States, or any other State, until a
602
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
majority of the qualified voters of this State, voting upon the ques- tion, shall ratify the same.
The author of this section was the Hon. Charles H. Hardin, then a Senator from the Boone and Callaway district, and Governor of Mis- souri in 1874-76. Thus the secession of the State was made an im- possibility without the consent of the majority of the voters. After a much disturbed and very turbulent session, the Legislature ad- journed March 28.
CHAPTER VII.
LEADING EVENTS OF 1861.
Election of Delegates to the State Convention - The Work of the Convention - The Winter of 1861 - After Fort Sumpter- The First Federal Troops - First Bloodshed in the County - Atrocious Murder of Maj. Benj. Sharp and Lieut. A. Yager, by Alvin Cobb's Men - A Skirmish - Retaliation -Murder of Terrill, Nunnelly'and Bishop by the Federals - Military Operations - Troops for Gen. Price's Army - Miscellan- eous War Items During the Year 1861 - Murder of McGlatchey, a Union Man, near Bluffton - The Raids on the Railroads-A Montgomery County Company for Price's Army - Mount Zion Fight - Invasion and Occupation of the County by Federal Troops.
ELECTION OF DELEGATES TO THE STATE CONVENTION.
There was short time for the election of delegates to the State con- vention. The first senatorial district was composed of the counties of St. Charles, Warren and Montgomery. As the district was entitled to three delegates, it was agreed that each county should have one. The matter was so discussed in the newspapers and there seemed to be no objections to the plan.
The district was largely in favor of the Union, unconditionally. Montgomery county was largely that way in sentiment. But there was a large number of conditional Union men, and many open seces- sionists. The latter two elements combined and determined to have a representation in the State convention.
A joint convention of the district was to be held at Warrenton to nominate " Union " candidates for convention delegates. A meeting was held at Danville to select delegates to the Warrenton convention. Both " unconditional " and "conditional " Union men were present in considerable numbers. The " unconditionals " were in the majority and succeeded in organizing the meeting. The " conditionals " bolted and organized another meeting, presided over by Frank Skinner, who appointed delegates to the district convention. The " unconditi- onals," or " submissionists," as the secessionists called them, also sent a delegation.
When the Warrenton convention met it was presided over by Rev. James E. Welch, an unconditional Union man, but the secretaries, A. N. Overall and Dr. Geo. R. Milton, were considered " conditionals " or secessionists. In the Montgomery county case the convention
(603)
1
604
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
admitted the conditionals or Skinner delegates, and rejected the regulars, or unconditional Union men with Maj. Benj. Sharp at their head. Each county named its candidate, who was indorsed by the convention, as follows : St. Charles presented Robert B. Frayser, Warren named Joseph G. Waller, and Montgomery (the Skinner dele- gates ) nominated Dr. Geo. B. Bast.
Among some of the Union men there was dissatisfaction with the result of the district convention, and two independent candidates - W. W. Edwards, of St. Charles, and A. T. Franklin - ran as uncon- ditional Unionists. But when the election came off they were defeated and the regular candidates, Messrs. Frayser, Waller and Bast, were chosen by large majorities.
THE WORK OF THE CONVENTION.
The convention assembled at Jefferson City, February 28, 1861. Sterling Price, of Chariton county, afterwards the distinguished Con- federate general, was chosen president. On the second day it ad- journed to meet in St. Louis, where, it re-convened March 4, contin- ued in session until the 22d, when it adjourned to meet on the third Monday in December, subject, however, to a call of a majority of a committee of seven. Before adjourning, a series of resolutions was adopted, two of which were of superior importance, and here proper to be noted : 1. Containing the explicit declaration that there was no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union. 2. Taking unmistakable ground against the em- ployment of military force by the Federal government to coerce the seceding States, or the employment of military force by the seceding States to assail the government of the United States.
Judge Redd, of Marion, on behalf of himself and Mr. Harrison Hough, of Mississippi, presented a minority report from the commit- tee on resolutions, of which Hamilton R. Gamble was chairman. But Redd's report was almost unanimously rejected.
The assertion of the unconditional Unionists that Dr. Bast was really a secessionist seems to have been well founded. He was the only member of the convention that voted " no" on the following resolution : -
1. Resolved, That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union, but on the contrary she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality, of all the States.
605
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
It was an open secret among the secessionists of the county that Dr. Bast was in sympathy with them. But when the convention reas- sembled July 22, on the call of a majority of a committee appointed for the purpose, Dr. Bast attended as he did other sessions up to July 1, 1863, and never himself " seceded " or took up arms at any time. He was excused from voting when Claiborne Jackson was deposed from the governership of the State and Hamilton R. Gamble appointed in his stead. He and his colleagues, Frayser and Waller, voted " no " on the " Gamble test oath " and he and Mr. Waller " no " on the emancipation ordinance adopted by the convention July 1, 1863, declaring that slavery should not exist in Missouri after July 4, 1870. He always denied, however, that he was a " rebel " and never admit- ted openly that he was a secessionist.
THE WINTER OF 1861.
During the months of January, February, and March, 1861, there was great interest manifested in public affairs by the people of the county. The prospect of war was fully discussed, and many prepared for it. A large portion openly sympathized with the seceded States, but the majority preferred to take no decided steps to aid either side. Many declared that Missouri had done nothing to bring on a war, and would do nothing to help it along should one break out. " We are neither secessionists nor abolitionists," said they, " and we are neither fanatics nor fire-eaters."
February 8th a shooting affair came off in Danville, which grew out of politics. As previously stated men's sentiments underwent sudden and radical changes in these days. Mr. Nathaniel Patton, then a hotel-keeper at New Florence, had been a strong Union man and anti- secessionist in December and the first part of January, but saw proper to change or modify his views as events progressed. Daniel M. Draper was the editor of the Danville Herald, a strong Union paper, and took occasion to comment, in what Patton conceived to be disrespectful and insulting language, on his, Patton's, change of heart. Patton attacked Draper on the street in Danville, and proceeded to cowhide him. Draper was taken somewhat unawares as he was walking from his dinner, but he drew a pistol and contrived to shoot his assailant in the leg, and that is why Nat. Patton " walks lame " to this day.
Meantime, and especially in February and March, numerous secret meetings were held in the county by both Union men and secession- ists. Every man's politics were known (or were thought to be) by every other man, and invitations were sent out to attend these meet-
606
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
ings only to those who were known to be . "sound." Each side knew that the other side was meeting secretly, and yet there was no. attempt at interference. Both parties met and were friendly. The policy seemed to be that of the "I'll let you alone, if you'll let me alone " kind.
The secessionists met from time to time, and deliberated. Hon- estly believing that the best interests of Missouri would be served if she should unite her fortunes with those of her sister Southern States, these men worked zealously and faithfully. They met in secret con- clave from time to time. They got ready for any emergency that might come. They were encouraged by emissaries from Gov. Jackson and the secession cause in the central portion of the State, who promised them plenty of arms if the time should come to use them, and plenty of powder when the time should come to burn it. Very many of this class of our citizens deprecated civil war, and sincerely hoped that it might be avoided, but resolved that, if come it did, they would bind their fate to that of the Southern cause, allied as they were to that section by ties of kinship, of birthplace, of self-interest, of common- alty of sentiment, of sympathy. It may be that no men were ever more mistaken, but certainly no men were ever more in earnest and more honest in opinion than were the secessionists of this country in the winter and spring of 1861.
A few secession flags were hoisted. One at High Hill went up in the winter when a fair sized meeting adopted secession resolutions and were addressed by Robert P. Terrill, of Danville. Another " lone star " flag was raised at Wellsville, and Grandville Nunnelly had one for a day or so at his hotel in Danville. At Jonesburg the secessionists were noisy and demonstrative.
AFTER FORT SUMPTER.
The firing on Fort Sumpter by the Confederates, April 12, 1861; the proclamation of President Lincoln calling for 75,000 volunteers ; Gov. Jackson's indignant refusal to respond to the requisition on Mis- souri ; the excitement throughout the South; the uprising in the North - these are incidents in the history of the country, the partic- ulars of which need not be set forth in these pages.
The reception of this remarkable intelligence caused the most in- tense excitement in Montgomery county. Many who had opposed secession until now changed their views, denounced the administra- tion for its policy of coercion, and avowed themselves " on the side
607
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
of the South." Only the staunchest Union men had the nerve to indorse Mr. Lincoln and to oppose Gov. Jackson.
April 22, Gov. Jackson ordered the Legislature to convene in extra session May 2, " for the purpose of enacting such laws and adopting such measures as may be deemed necessary and proper for the more perfect organization and equipment of the militia of the State and to raise money enough and such other means as may be required to place the State in proper attitude for defense." The Legislature was in session twelve days. It passed Jackson's famous military bill on the reception of the news of the capture of Camp Jackson, but Harris, of Montgomery, was absent when the vote was taken.
In the middle of June, or even before the first Boonville fight (which was June 14), a number of secession troops, or companies of the Missouri State Guard, from Lincoln and Pike, and the northern and western parts of St. Charles and Warren, passed through this county on their way to Gen. Price's or Gov. Jackson's army, at Boonville, or in South-western Missouri. These companies were joined by a few Montgomery county men, and more were preparing to follow.
Some of the Unionists were preparing for organization, it being evi- dent that there was to be fighting here at home and elsewhere, and that nothing could be accomplished except by organization.
THE FIRST FEDERAL TROOPS.
When it was certain that Missouri would be one of the States wherein the battles of the Civil War would be fought, the immense importance of preserving and holding the North Missouri Railroad was early realized by the authorities of the Federal government. If it was kept intact, troops could be moved rapidly from one side of the State to the other, supplies and munitions of war sent, and all of North Missouri kept under Federal or Union domination. The great thoroughfare would also be of incalculable service in keeping open communication with the first line of offense adopted by the Union commanders - the Missouri river. It was of the utmost impor- tance, therefore, that the road should be well guarded from the actual and threatened assaults of the secessionists, and kept in run- ning order continually.
The authorities of the railroad were all loyal, and the secessionists regarded it as the great enemy to the Southern cause, to be assailed whenever practicable, and when troops were passing upon it, to be attacked vigorously and with deadly intent. Time and again threats
608
HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
had been made by the zealous secessionists to destroy the bridges and track, to prevent the sending in of troops and supplies for the subju- gation of the State.
About the 15th of June two companies of Col. B. Gratz Brown's regiment of Union Home Guards, under Maj. Shaw, were sent up from St. Louis to St. Charles and vicinity, for the purpose of guard- ing bridges, and to exercise a general superintendence of the country. A day or so later they were joined by Col. Kallman's regiment of Home Guards, and went on an expedition still further up the railroad. Near Wentzville they arrested John G. Cook and took some guns from him. At Wentzville they took complete possession of the town, searched the houses of several of the citizens and took a number of the citizens prisoners. They also found a secession flag hid away in a hay loft. The prisoners were all released upon taking the oath, except the railroad agent, Wm. M. Allen, whom, together with Cook, they retained and carried off to St. Louis. This is believed to have been the first invasion of this part of the State by Federal troops.
A large force of secession troops, under Gen. Tom Harris, was known by the Federal commander in St. Louis to be near Fulton, Callaway county, threatening an attack on and the capture of Jefferson City. July 10 Harris had an engagement with a Federal force at Monroe Station, on the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad, in the northern part of Monroe county. This force was cooped up in an academy building, and though Harris surrounded it with a large force he did not attack it, and Federal re-enforcements coming up Harris inconti- nently retreated and made his way down into Callaway.
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.