USA > Pennsylvania > Columbia County > A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times. > Part 34
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
467
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
"the South would eventually whip us and there would be a rising up of the people in the North against the prosecution of the war." So far we have a denial by three witnesses against one that cer- tain words were spoken at the interview in question. But the contradictions did not stop there. Campbell having denied on cross-examination that he knew "that Daniel M'Henry was filling the quota of his (M'Henry's) township," and asserted also that he and M'Henry "did not come to high words" by his (Campbell's) attempt to get volunteers out of M'Henry's township, the three witnesses above mentioned proceeded to narrate the conversation which actually took place, which consisted mainly of a dispute between Campbell and M'Henry, about the attempt of the former to get volunteers from Fishingcreek to fill the quota of Centre, and recited the "high words" which really passed between them on that subject, thus showing the complete unfairness and false- hood of Campbell's story.
Again, Campbell having stated (in order to show that no dis- pute about obtaining volunteers from Fishingcreek had taken place) that he (Campbell) "had gone into Benton township to raise men to fill the quota" of Centre, and that he "had accom- plished his business and was about to return home" when the con- versation with M'Henry occurred-that "he had got the men he needed."-Andrew Freas, Esq., of Centre, was called to contradict him upon that statement. The testimony of Mr. Freas was as follows :
Andrew Freas, Esq., sworn :- "I reside in Centre township, Columbia county, I'm a farmer. Samuel Henderson, Tilghman Noblet, Andrew Freas, Dr. Elisha Low, and Nathaniel Campbell, [were appointed to act for Centre township in raising men to fill her quota] and he, Nathaniel L. Campbell, went up Fishingcreek. Mr. Campbell, told me on the 27th of February (when the citizens came together) that he did not get any men above M'Henry's ; he got them two miles above Bloomsburg. One young man's name was Chester Dodson. He had none when he got to Daniel M'- Henry's. He got two men on the 27th of February, near us or Bloom. They were going to Philadelphia, Campbell said."
Campbell having testified that he had "no other conversation with M'Henry, but that one time," and that that "was previous to
468
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
the 27th of February," the contradiction of him by Andrew Freas was complete. In point of fact he had not obtained "the men he needed" and "accomplished his business," before his interview with M'Henry, at Stillwater. It follows, that the testimony of Edgar, Kline, and M'Henry, about the dispute concerning volun- teers from Fishingcreek to fill the quota of Centre, was reasona- ble and probable, and that Campbell's denial of such dispute was not according to the fact.
The testimony of the witnesses for the defence, to which we have referred in the foregoing exhibit, was as follows :
James Edgar, sworn :- "I know Nathaniel L. Campbell, that is about all. I was present at a conversation between Daniel M'Henry and Campbell, and heard the whole till they went to dinner. They were pretty much excited towards the last of their conversation, but no violent language passed between them. The conversation started from getting volunteers. Campbell was out from his township to hire volunteers in M'Henry's township. Dan- iel M'Henry did not say anything about having five hundred men to resist the draft, nor about dying at home, nor that men who went south should be killed, nor about half a million of men, nor about a rebellion in the North. Campbell said he wanted to hire men, M'Henry said they could not be got in his township; Camp- bell said he had a right to hire where he pleased, M'Henry told him he had, but it would not be a very gentlemanly act ; he would not do so in his (Campbell's) township. Campbell said it was no more than he expected from a disloyal or secession township. Then M'Henry got pretty well excited and the bell rang for din- ner. That is about all I know.
Cross- Examined :- I heard all the conversation in the bar-room where I was. I do not know that I could recollect every word that was said-not word for word. They talked fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five minutes, might be longer, though I think not. That was all was said as I recollect. It might have been longer. I do not think I heard Campbell tell M'Henry if he was drafted he would be obliged to go. M'Henry did not say anything about men being shot if they volunteered for the war. He did not say so in the bar-room. They were talking about the war and about trying to fill their quotas. They talked about their quotas ; what
469
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
they said about the war I cannot say further. I do not recollect that M'Henry said it was a negro war. I do not recollect about the South. After Campbell said it was a disloyal township they both got a little mad-what I meant by a spat. M'Henry said he would test his loyalty with Campbell, or the loyalty of their township with Campbell's township ; that he bad done as much to get volunteers as Campbell, and his township had done as much as the other township."
W. B. Kline, sworn :- "I reside in Fishingcreek township ; a tanner. I know N. L. Campbell. I was present at the con- versation between Daniel M'Henry and Campbell, and heard the whole of the conversation. Nothing was said about five hun- dred men to resist the draft, nor about half a million of men, nor did M'Henry say that those who went to fight the South ought to be killed, nor did he say anything about resisting the prosecu- tion of the war or that the South would whip us etc , nor about a man of nerve nor any such sentiments. Daniel M'Henry has helped to fill quota. I said I would give one hundred dollars. He said he would do that much more and would help us-would double the amount if necessary. That was about the time the draft was ordered. I heard him tell drafted men they had better report instead of skedaddling round. I met Campbell a few rods from defendant's residence. I accompanied him into the bar- room.
Cross-examined :- Daniel M'Henry did not say anything in particular about the war at that time. I remember the substance of what he said ; I cannot word it word for word. Nathaniel Campbell inquired if there were any volunteers to be had there. M'Henry replied that he thought there were no more than for their own township. Campbell said he was going to have some of the men. M'Henry said he should not if he could help it, until our own township was filled. Campbell made answer they could not expect anything better from a disloyal township. M'- Henry replied he was ready to test loyalty with Mr. Campbell for himself or the township. The bell rang for dinner; it was a short time, five or ten minutes or longer, could not fix the time. I do not remember anything said about the draft except as to raising quota. I might have joined in conversation but do not
470
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
remember that I did. After the insinuation of disloyalty they were both excited and rather rough words passed. I do not know but the lie was given and taken. The rough words were the lie given and taken. M'Henry said Campbell had uttered dis- loyal sentiments there ; Campbell said in reply that he could not expect anything better of M'Henry when he called him a liar. As far as I remember that is the substance. Campbell returned the lie to the defendant. In connection with what I said I wish to add-Campbell replied 'you are a liar and I did not expect any- thing better of you,' and then the bell rang for dinner. Mr. M'Henry said he had subscribed to raise substitutes or volunteers. I do not remember that he said the war ought to stop. I do not know anything said about the draft or about his going.
Re examined by defence :- Campbell, Daniel M'Henry, Moses M'Henry, James M'Henry, William Raber, James Edgar and my- self were present. William Raber is an old man-about 60 or up- wards.
By Commission :- "M'Henry did not say that he was armed ; no mention was made of five hundred men or half a million."
Moses M' Henry, sworn :- "I am a merchant and reside in Fishingcreek township, I was present at conversation between defendant and Campbell. Heard the whole of the conversation, Daniel M'Henry did not say anything about five hundred men to resist the draft, nor speak of being armed, nor about half a mil- lion of men in the North to go to war, nor of dying at home if drafted. Campbell came to defendant and said he would like to get some of our men to fill quota of coming draft. Defendant said he did not think we would have any men to spare as we were making preparations to fill our own township. He said we would have to work to get men enough to do it. Campbell said he would like to have some or must get some. Defendant asked him why he did not get them nearer home, out of his own town- ship ; if we did not interfere with their men he did not think it right for him (Campbell) to come to our township and interfere with ours. Campbell said he had a right to get men wherever he could get them. Defendant said he knew he had but he did not think a gentleman would act in that style when he knew we were trying to clear our own township. Daniel M'Henry told him he should not have a man if he could help it till we
471
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
could see what"we could do with our own men, and the bell rang for dinner. I have lived over ten years with Daniel M'Henry. There was nothing said at dinner concerning the draft. They ap- peared a good deal excited and could not agree, and stopped it.
There was a man named Wolf drafted into the army and while there his wife was confined. Defendant gave me orders to give her anything she wanted. Wolf owed him at the same time. He died after his return and defendant forgave her the debt. I am a nephew to defendant. A young man named M'Henry had been in the army aud came home wounded. Defendant got up an extra dinner, went with a horse and carriage and brought them to a free dinner and told him if he wanted to ride out he could have his horse and carriage. Wolf was no relation. Last Feb- ruary Zimmerman came home on furlough, &c. I met Campbell first in the bar-room. I went in with him to dinner and dined with them.
Cross examined :- I am a nephew of the accused ; was his clerk four or five years and then became his partner. We dissolved last spring a year. The conversation was a quarter of an hour. It lasted a little bit. Towards the last they were a good bit ex- cited; there was some pretty rough language. I think the lie was exchanged between them-used some oaths. I think Camp- bell gave the lie first. Daniel was talking about secession; Camp- bell said it was a lie. Defendant said our township had done more than theirs ; Campbell said it was a lie. Campbell said some thing about secession ; Defendant said it was a lie. He said he considered himself as loyal a man as Campbell ; he had done as much for the war and would test loyalty with him in any way he had a mind to. Defendant said if Campbell called him 'secesh' he was a liar. Campbell said he had come there for volunteers and he had a right to get them he thought. Nothing was said about drafted men that I heard of. I do not know that he said at that time that he would go if drafted; I have heard him say at other times he would go or get a substitute. Campbell did not say he had got all the men he wanted; I do not know that he said he had got any. Defendant did not say there would be trouble in the North if continued to draft men. I could remember the whole conversation; there was some general conversation which I cannot remember unless my attention is directed to it. I have
472
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
given all the conversation about the volunteers; they conversed but a short time, they conversed about bounty and volunteers, perhaps not over ten minutes. I have stated all that was said.
-0
THE RANTZ MEETING.
But a single reserved point (on which evidence for the prosecution was given) remains for further exposition, in or- der that the whole strength of the case against our citizens shall be completely presented. We refer to the meeting held at the house of John Rantz in Benton township on the 14th day of August, 1864, in consequence of the arrival of troops in the county, and of the circulation of reports that property was to be burnt and destroyed by them, and by persons from the lower end of Luzerne county. We have at hand in the records of the trials the means of judging what were the objects of that meeting, what was said and done by those who attended it, and what character is to be assigned to it in our history. But in treating the subject of that meeting we shall not confine our- selves to the testimony given by the government witnesses, nor even strictly to the military records before us. We shall use the testimony given on both sides at the trials, and resort, as occasion may invite, to other and independent sources of information.
THE TIME WHEN IT WAS HELD :- The date of the Rantz meet- ing deserves particular notice. It was the 14th of August, 1864, the day following the arrival of troops at Bloomsburg, and most of those who attended it came to it in the afternoon. It was called suddenly and it assembled because the troops came, and because exciting and alarming reports were abroad. That meeting did not cause the military inroad ; on the contrary, the armed occupation caused and produced it. Troops did not come to the county because of the Rantz meeting. They were ordered here, and a part of them were in fact here, before the meeting was held. On August 13th, eighty mounted men and forty infantry with two pieces of artillery, arrived in Bloomsburg. They were followed by other troops, no doubt under orders issued prior to the 14th. On the morning of the 16th, two huudred and fifty
473
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
more arrived, and within a few days, by additions, the army of occupation was made to number one thousand men.
It is perfectly plain then and undeniable that the Rantz meeting cannot be plead as an excuse or justification for sending troops into our county. Those troops were ordered here without any possible reference to a meeting which had not then been held or projected and which never would have been held or thought of, if the troops had not been sent.
WHO COMPOSED IT :- The meeting was made up of several classes of persons who are to be carefully distinguished from each other, and it is to be observed also that some attended earlier and some later in the day, that a part left before the meeting ended, and that Rantz himself was absent a part of the time. Taken al- together, the persons who attended may be described as follows : -First, Non reporting drafted men, of whom (so far as we now remember) not one was ever seized and punished hy the military authorities ; Second, citizens who attended from curiosity and without any formed or definite object, (these constituted the lar- gest class ;) Third, several persons who attended to prevent, by their advice and influence, any imprudent or improper action by the meeting. We repeat, these several classes of persons are not to he confounded with each other and the same judgment applied to each, for the same motives and conduct were not common to all. It is not our purpose to acquit all who attended, from cen- sure for imprudence, or to justify those men who had been draft- ed in their failure to respond to the call of the Government, but it is our purpose to show from the testimony which we shall pro- duce that the meeting together of the citizens was not criminal, that it was produced hy reports of danger to person and property in the neighborhood, and that a just discrimination must be made between the motives and conduct of the different classes of per- sons who attended. Having done this we shall next show that the military authorities, (obviously from political reasons and in- stigated by men in this county who had their ear,) proceeded to seize and imprison men whose conduct at the Rantz meeting was innocent and in fact laudable, while they passed by, uncensured and unpunished, those who were to blame. In fact, it will appear, that the man most prominent at that meeting in counselling vio-
474
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
lence and who was properly liable to punishment under the law as a non-reporting drafted man, was the very man taken into their confidence and favor and used by them as their principal witness to secure the conviction of innocent and upright citizens.
ITS CAUSE :- Nathan J. Hess, (a government witness, now dead,) testified on the trial of D. M'Henry, that "on the morning of the 14th of August, abont 7 or 8 o'clock, Rantz notified him of the meeting; that he went to Rantz's through curiosity to see what was going on ; that he went there about ten o'clock in the forenoon and left about noon, and that he heard at the meeting that the soldiers at Bloomsburg and the Harveyville men were coming up to burn the property in and around Benton."
Upon the trial of John Rantz, the same witness, being more fully examined, testified with still greater completeness on this point. He said, "it was reported around by different persons that soldiers were coming up to help some citizens who had been try- ing to take drafted men, and that they would burn the buildings of those that were drafted and of them that resisted. There was no opposition made or resistance offered to the soldiers when they came up" * "I heard the report as to the object of soldiers a day, or three or four, before this meeting, I heard afterwards that the object was because they heard the soldiers were going to burn and destroy-was to protect their property from soldiers and citi- zens from other places ; from Fairmount who had been trying to arrest drafted men, and that brought on the shooting." * It
* * was reported among the men who met at the barn that citizens were coming from Fairmount and Harveyville to burn and assist in burning property. * * "I heard that report four or five days before the meeting."
Confirmatory of this evidence was the testimony of a number of other witnesses examined upon the trials for the prosecution and for the defense. But we shall confine ourselves to the testi- mony of government witnesses. R. L. F. Colley testified on his brother's trial, "there was great excitement in the neighborhood. It was a common talk that the soldiers would burn the houses of the drafted men."
Silas Karns, testified, in the M'Henry trial, "that he heard the story that the soldiers were coming there to burn and destroy
475
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
property ; he heard it that day at the meeting." Chas. Gibbens also, testified, "that he heard it said at the meeting that the sol- diers were coming to burn houses and kill children."
It thus appears with sufficient clearness from the evidence for the prosecution (without resorting to other sources for information) that exciting and alarming reports were rife in the neighborhood when the meeting was held, and before, and that they constituted one of the leading causes of the meeting if they did not alone produce it. A great part of those who attended went to it like Nathan J. Hess, from motives of curiosity, but it was a curiosity stimulated by alarm and without any formed intention regarding the action which should take place. As to all such persons, (and they constituted the great mass of the meeting,) there can be no imputation of any criminal design or unlawful purpose.
It may be said that the reports to which we have referred and the fears founded upon them were alike groundless ; that there was in fact no danger to the persons or property of citizens and no necessity for consultation in regard to the impending invasion. If all this should be conceded, the explanation we have given of the Rantz meeting would still remain ; it might still be regarded as the result of excitement and of a real apprehension of danger among the people. But we are not at all certain that there were no good grounds for excitement and alarm. Threats had been freely uttered at Harveyville and in this county against the so- called "Fishingcreek insurgents," and troops in large numbers, beyond any public requirement for the arrest of drafted men, were being introduced into the country. The idea of visiting the Fish- ingcreek country with fire and sword was certainly entertained and such visitation was openly threatened, and troops were pre- pared or collected apparently for that very work. Therefore, an expectation or fear among the people that violence would be used and injury inflicted upon them, was not unreasonable or prepos- terous.
ITS PROCEEDINGS :- There was no organization of the meeting by the choice of officers, nor any record kept of what was done. No resolutions were adopted or proposed, nor was any question whatever submitted to a vote. It was therefore quite informal and had no official or regular character as an organized body. Be-
476
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
sides, as already mentioned, the same persons did not compose it throughout. Some attended in the forenoon and. then left; others came in the afternoon. Rantz himself must have been absent a good part of the time, for upon his trial, E. J. M'Henry testified as follows :
"I saw Rantz at my house on Sunday, August 14th, about 12 o'clock. I live three miles from him. He has a farm about five miles from where he lives, which he must pass my house to go and see."
Now it is obvious that to a meeting of this irregular kind, without organization and shifting in its membership, we cannot apply the same rules or reasoning which would apply to one of a regular character and uniform composition. An individual mem- ber of the meeting can only be held responsible for what occurred while he was actually present and to which he directly contribu- ted by speech or conduct. Presumptive or implied responsibility upon him as a member of the meeting for the acts of his associates, is out of the question and cannot be assumed. Hence it becomes important, in order to form a proper judgment of the Rantz meet- ing, to distinguish and discriminate between the different classes of persons who were there, and to explore the motives and trace the conduct of each. Some men, it is said, came armed to the meeting ; squads were at one time formed in the highway; three persons made brief speeches or remarks in the barn, and there was much of conversation during the day among those present. These are the salient facts presented by the testimony for our ex- amination ; but in examining them the remarks we have already made must be kept steadily in view, so that an intelligent, dis- criminating, complete, and satisfactory judgment shall be reached upon our general question, and at the same time fair treatment and full justice be extended to all individual citizens concerned.
DRAFTED MEN PRESENT :- These, as distinguished from other citizens, were in a position of contempt to the conscription laws, for they had not responded to the draft. Their number was not large nor was there any formed association to resist their arrest as was falsely pretended; but some of them were no doubt dis- ' posed toward violent counsels, or at all events to continued eva- sion of their duty under the law. They constituted, therefore,
477
HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.
the objectionable ingredient of the meeting and to all of them the advice given by Daniel M'Henry upon another occasion was most appropriate, to-wit: that instead of "skedaddling around" they should report for duty. But it is to be remembered that not one of the drafted men present at the Rantz meeting (so far as we can learn) was ever tried or punished by the military authorities, although some of them were subsequently in their power. On the contrary two of them were produced as notable witnesses for the government upon the trials at Harrisburg and were treated rather as objects of favor and commendation than of censure or punishment. We allude to Edward M'Henry and Silas Karns, whose testimony, though given under some degree of coercion and imperfect in quality, was used with fatal effect against inno- cent and upright men.
THE FORMING OF SQUADS :- Karns (who was the fairer witness of the two) stated in his testimony, that at the meeting "they formed into companies and squads to be placed in different places to protect property. Nothing was done during the day until some time in the afternoon." * * * "There were different companies or squads of men formed ; could not tell how many. I belonged to one of these squads. Hy. Kline commanded it. We propose to go to the mountain and stay there to see what the result was. This company was mostly composed of drafted men. We went to the mountain to see what the soldiers were going to do ; to see the result of the soldiers coming up." * * * "I am drafted in first three year's draft-in the fall of 1863."
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.