USA > Missouri > Missouri the center state, 1821-1915 > Part 47
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
"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 regard 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 exhausted 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. Broad- head, 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 sur- reptitiously published, in which I directed him to act solely for the public good, and independently of both parties. Neither anything you have presented me,
.
332
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
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 Grierson, 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 Law- rence murderers, 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 people 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 accordance 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 General Schofield, a copy of which I enclose to you. As to the Enrolled Militia, I shall endeavor 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 some- thing 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 broken up, and General Heron kept from Grant, to police Missouri? So far from finding cause to object, I confess to a sym- pathy for whatever relieves our general force in Missouri, 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 proclamation with regard to the habeas corpus.
"I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, and liave, 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
333
RECONSTRUCTION IN MISSOURI
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 Missouri 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."
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, they resented the practice of the Charcoals in challenging and rigidly questioning any one with whom they disagreed.
334
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
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?
"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
335
RECONSTRUCTION IN MISSOURI
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 I, 1865. The governor was to appoint successors.
"It is plain from the report," said Mr. Skinker in his address, "Judge Clover and his committee fully realized that in declaring the abolition of slavery they were committing an act of revolution and confiscation. 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 Mis- souri it was distinctly recognized at that very time, and the very constitution, 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 mak- ing 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.
"Fully realizing all of this, as their report candidly shows, Mr. Clover and his committee also knew that no lawyer could be trusted to depart from this fundamental principle, who was not schooled or pledged in advance to overthrow it. Hence they were determined to reorganize the judiciary, as they called it, by putting into the courts men who could be depended upon to approve the action of the convention, at all cost, and in spite of all principle. That is what the com- mittee meant when it spoke of 'harmonizing the government.'"
The ousting ordinance had easy going in the convention. It was passed after some debate. Isidor Bush tried to put through an amendment by which the governor would be authorized to vacate any of the 1,000 offices when it was proven to him that the holder was disloyal. He obtained only four votes for his proposition. He tried another amendment which provided that no member of the convention should be eligible to any one of the offices to be vacated. That suggestion received only five votes. The ordinance was carried by a vote of forty-three to five,
Supreme Court Judges Removed by Force.
The application of the ousting ordinance reached its revolutionary climax when the judges of the supreme court were removed from the bench by force
336
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
and taken before a police justice. This was done with the street full of soldiers to suppress any riotous demonstration. Governor Fletcher, acting under the ordinance, appointed David Wagner and Walter L. Lovelace to take the places of William V. N. Bay and John D. S. Dryden. Mr. Skinker's account of the proceedings and description of the scenes constitutes a very valuable contribution to the history of Missouri :
"On the 13th of June, Messrs. Wagner and Lovelace met and made an order requiring Andrew W. Mead, then clerk of the supreme court, to surrender the records of the court to their clerk, Mr. Bowman. Mr. Mead declined to comply, and immediately applied to the circuit court for an injunction against Wagner, Lovelace and their associates to prevent them from meddling with the records of the court. Circuit Judge Moodey, an original Republican, was of the opinion that the ousting ordinance was void, and accordingly issued the injunction. He had already decided the identical question in the case of Alfred C. Bernoudy, whose office of recorder of deeds fell within the same ordinance, and was claimed by Mr. Conrad, an appointee of Governor Fletcher. On the next day, June 14th, the governor issued an order to Gen. David C. Coleman of the state militia, to be served by him upon Judges Bay and Dryden, warning them that they were usurpers and that he would deal with them summarily if they failed to vacate. The general went to the court house in St. Louis, found Judges Bay and Dryden holding court, and presented this order. They declined to yield to the governor's threat, declaring that he had no authority of law for interrupting them in the discharge of their duties. They claimed that, as they had been elected pursuant to the constitution and laws of the State, they had a right to remain in office until their terms expired. They denied that the con- vention had power to pass the ousting ordinance, because it was not one of the matters named as a subject of legislation in the act of the legislature calling the convention. They denied its validity because it had not been submitted to a vote of the people. They insisted that it was in effect an abolishment, as far as it went, of the old constitution, without the consent of the people; that it was the business of the courts to pass on the constitutionality of laws, and not of the governor, that it therefore belonged to the old court, and not to the appointees of the governor, constituting the new court, to decide the question; else the whole theory of liberty based on a constitutional judiciary was at an end. The argument of Messrs. Bay and Dryden was undoubtedly strong in point of law, but in practice it was weak because it had no bayonets to back it.
"After the refusal of the judges to submit to the governor's order, General Coleman withdrew, but shortly returned with another order from the governor, again declaring Bay and Dryden to be usurpers, directing Coleman to put the new appointees in possession of the supreme court room, with all the records, seals, furniture, books and papers of the court, and also directing him to use such force as he might deem necessary, and to arrest all persons who might oppose him. The judges refused to recognize the authority of this order also, and again protested against any interruption of the business of the court. Gen- eral Coleman then informed them that as an officer he must obey the orders of his superior, and asked them to consider themselves removed by force. They declined this. He then proceeded to lay his hands upon them and asked that they should consider this an arrest. This was also declined, and he was told
337
RECONSTRUCTION IN MISSOURI
that they would only yield to the presence and command of a force which they could not successfully resist. Coleman then called in a detachment of police who were held in readiness, and at his order the judges were taken from their seats by the police and were escorted as prisoners to the office of Recorder Wolff, a police justice. A complaint was there lodged against them as having disturbed the peace by interfering with the supreme court. Fletcher, Wagner, Lovelace, Holmes and Bowman were named as witnesses. The case was set for trial next morning, but nobody appeared to prosecute, and so the complaint was dismissed.
Bayonets in the Street.
"After the judges were removed from the court room the police remained in and about the room for several hours. A military force also was stationed outside the court house, consisting of the 48th Regiment of Missouri Infantry, some 600 or 700 men. These were posted in Chestnut street, from Tenth street eastward, and were under the command of our genial friend, Col. Wells H. Blodgett, then a young warrior, but now and for many years last past known to us all as the bland, wise and efficient general counsel of the Wabash Railroad Company.
"It also appears from the Republican of June 13th and 15th that a company of the Seventh Regiment of Enrolled Militia was called out and stationed at their armory on Walnut street on the 12th, and that Company A of the Third Ward Militia relieved the other company after two days' service. It would seem that the authorities either expected forcible opposition to their measures or were determined to forestall and prevent opposition. The Democrat of June 15th mentioned that a large military force was held in readiness 'in case of an outbreak.'
"Judge Dryden promptly sued Governor Fletcher for $50,000 damages. His attorneys were Thomas T. Gantt and Samuel T. Glover. These had been among the staunchest and promptest supporters of the Union from the beginning. But they had not kept pace with the growth of Radical sentiment, and so they had been sent to the back seat, next to the out-and-out rebels. As might have been expected with such lawyers for his counsel, the petition in Judge Dryden's suit was a model of good pleading. But the cards were stacked; the judges before whom the case was to come owed their positions to the very ordinance whose validity the petition attacked. The case lingered for a while in court and was then dismissed.
"The Radicals had the military power under their control, and they had used it-with the skill of experts, as they thought; with the brutality of bandits, as their adversaries thought."
Vol. [ - 22
CHAPTER XVIII. MISSOURI AND THE CONFEDERACY.
Secrets of State-The Unpublished Memoirs of Thomas C. Reynolds-Missouri "A Sov- ereign, Free and Independent Republic"-Democratic Differences at Jefferson City-The Lieutenant-Governor's Animus-Pricc's Hesitation to Take Command-The Secret Plan of Campaign-Reynolds Starts for Richmond-The Harncy-Price Agreement-Major Cabell Commissioned by Governor Jackson-The First Interview with Jefferson Davis- Refusal to Send an Army to Missouri-Price's Call for 50,000 Men-McElroy's Analysis of Price's Leadership-A Great Name to Conjure With-Admission of Missouri into the Confederacy-The Meeting at Neosho-First Congressional Delegation-The Movement against Davis-A Proposed Northwest Confederacy-Pricc's Disclaimer -- The Alleged Quarrel with Davis-Shelby's Promotion-Quantrell and Lowrence-Recollections of a Participant in the Attack-The Palmyra Affair-An Account Written at the Time- Jefferson Davis' Demand for the Surrender of McNeil-Execution of Ten Federal Offi- cers Threatened-Gen. Curtis' Reply-Narrow Escape of Gencral Cockrell-A Letter from John B. Clark-The Days of Rapid Reconciliation-Shelby and the United States Marshalship-Frost and Davis on the Confederate Policy.
The acts of President Lincoln having been indorsed by Congress and the people of the Northern States, the war thus commenced by him has been made the act of the government and nation over which he ruled; therefore, by the acts of the people and government of the United States, the political connection heretofore existing between said States and the people and government of Missouri is and ought to be totally dissolved; and the State of Missouri, as a sovereign, free and independent republic, has full power to levy war, con- clude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and to do all other acts which independent States may of right do .- Proclamation of Claiborne F. Jackson, August, 1861.
In midsummer of 1861 the addresses and proclamations to the people of Mis- souri came in rapid succession. The convention which, on the 30th of July, set up a provisional state government issued an address. About the same time Lieutenant-Governor Reynolds issued at New Madrid a proclamation in which he said: "I return to the State to accompany in my official capacity one of the armies which the warrior, whose genius now presides over one-half of the Union, has prepared to advance against the common foe."
He said that the authority of Missouri as a sovereign and independent State would be exercised with a view to "her speedy regular union with her southern sisters." He announced that a Confederate army under command of General Pillow had entered Missouri "to aid in expelling the enemies from the State."
Immediately following the proclamation of Lieutenant-Governor Reynolds, Brigadier-General Jefferson Thompson issued a proclamation, also "to the peo- ple of Missouri." The picturesque personality among the brigadiers of the Mis- souri State Guard was Jeff Thompson. He was called the "Missouri swamp fox." His division of the State was the southeast corner. The fox was a writer of poetry and of proclamations. At the same time he had courage and did some
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.