A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times., Part 35

Author: Freeze, John G. (John Gosse), 1825-1913
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Bloomsburg, Pa. : Elwell & Bittenbender
Number of Pages: 594


USA > Pennsylvania > Columbia County > A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times. > Part 35


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


From other parts of the evidence it clearly appears that most of the squads never met afterwards, and that not the slightest attempt was made in any quarter to resist or annoy the soldiers when they came into the neighborhood. The squad movement which was foolish, improper and wrong, was abandoned or given up without any overt act, and resulted only in the exodus of a small number (of whom the witness Karns was one) to the North Mountain.


WHO WERE ARRESTED :- The men at the Rantz meeting who were open to censure, as we have already remarked, were not held responsible for their conduct. They escaped, or nearly all of them escaped, the stroke of power. But with innocent men or those


478


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY


little liable to blame, the case was different, and will now be our business to point out particular instances of arrest and punish- ment, for alleged participation in the Rantz meeting, which were, beyond all question, unjust and outrageous.


John Rantz :- We have already called attention to the fact that Mr. Rantz was absent from home about noon, two or three miles distant. The evidence of E. J. M'Henry on this point as given heretofore, was distinct and complete. Besides, upon the Rantz trial, John O. Dildine, a reputable gentleman, also testified as follows :- "I saw Rantz coming home about 4 p. m., on Sunday August 14th. He has a farm about five miles from where he lives, in the direction whence he was coming. I live three fourths of a mile from him. He has a son in the army who is a minor."


As Karns and others testify that there was nothing done in the forenoon, and as Rantz appears to have been absent from noon until about the time the meeting adjourned, he can hardly be held responsible for any proceedings which took place. Inde- pendent of the fact that this meeting was held on his premises, there was very little evidence against Mr. Rantz on his trial, ex- cept that he had made excited or extravagant remarks on several occasions, which were pretty well accounted for by Richard Stiles, (a witness examined against him,) who said :- "I consider Rantz a man who talks considerable." His loose talk however (suppos- ing it to be correctly reported) was accompanied by very distinct acts which gave it an innocent complexion. He furnished a minor son to the army, he subscribed $100.00 to raise a bounty fund for his district, he declared the "boys," (or volunteers) must be assist- ed, and he waited upon the soldiers and informed them that "they could hunt up all the drafted men and arrest them, and they would not be disturbed." Rantz was however arrested and severely punished. He was convicted (as we have heretofore shown) after an imperfect and unfair trial before the Military Commission at Harrisburg, and underwent more than eight months of dungeon life. But his prison doors were at last opened by Andrew John- son shortly after he succeeded to the duties of the Presidential office. We are informed that the cases of Mr. Rantz and of several of the other prisoners were pending before President Lincoln, for consideration, at the time of his death, and that they were taken


479


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


up, acted upon and disposed of by his successor without any new application, request or solicitation. Very promptly all the prison- er's remaining in custody were pardoned and discharged.


Samuel Appleman :- This gentleman is recorded as having undergone an imprisonment for 53 days. It appears in the evi- dence that he resides in the immediate neighborhood of Rantz ; that he went to the meeting in the afternoon, but was there only about 15 minutes and then returned home. He does not seem to have taken any part in the meeting, or to have given any other pretext for his arrest.


Joseph Coleman, another victim, aged 68, a surviving soldier of the war of 1812, was at Mr. Appleman's house on the 14th of August, when Daniel M'Henry arrived there, accompanied by his wife, child, and a niece, on his way to visit a relative. Mr. Cole- man spoke to M'Henry and referring to the Rantz meeting asked him to go up to it and induce the people "to go home to their business." In this request he was joined by Mr. Absalom M'Henry who was there at the time. Upon D. M'Henry's re- marking that they themselves should go up, they replied that he had better go ; that he was more competent than they were and could accomplish more. Thereupon D. M'Henry went up to the meeting accompanied by Absalom M'Henry. Ile left his people at Appleman's, and abandoned the visit he had intended to make. These facts are fully set forth in the testimony of Absalom M'Henry and of Samuel Appleman given before the Military Commission on the 16th day of December, 1864.


It will, then, be seen that Mr. Coleman was instrumental in sending a gentleman to the meeting to discourage and disperse it. We next hear of him as an arrested man. He was seized and taken to Fort Mifflin without any regard for his years or his in- nocence, and was kept there for a period of 49 days, when he was discharged without trial, under an order issued by Gen. Couch. Meantime, his farm was occupied for a military encampment and extensive depredations were committed upon his property. For these no compensation has ever been made.


Daniel M' Henry's arrest is the only additional one we will mention, in this particular connection, although many others, outrageous in character, might be named. The testimony of Ab-


480


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


salom M'Henry. to which reference has already been made, ex- plains clearly the circumstances under which D. M'Henry went to the Rantz meeting, and also what was said and done by him while there. We shall therefore give it in full, adding the testi- mony of John Baker given at the same time.


Absalom M' Henry, sworn :- "I live in Jackson township, Col- umbia county ; am a farmer, I know Edward M'Henry ; he is my son ; I know Daniel M'Henry ; saw him on the 14th of August. He came to Samuel Appleman's where I was. I was there a little before him. Joseph Coleman was present. I asked Daniel M'- Henry if he was going up to the meeting ; he said he had not in- tended to go, he was going another course. He then got out of his wagon and turned it. I told him I would like him to go up and see what they were doing there as they might go into meas- ures that I did not consider right and I would like him to go up and speak and discourage them. He went into the house and he said no word about going up. I again asked him and we went. We talked as we went along that we should advise them to dis- perse and not do anything contrary to law, and he advised me to speak to them as I was older. We walked up to the Rantz barn. He made a speech ; his speech was short. He talked very much as we had spoken. He told them they had better go home and if the soldiers did come and burn their houses they had the law to fall back on, and the neighbors would not leave them suffer. I think I heard the whole of his speech distinctly and that was the leading point. I was pretty close to him. He did not advise the men to stand together. If he had said it I would have remember- ed it. There was some conversation between us and he wanted drafted men to pay or report. Edward M'Henry said the drafted men should stand together and he would be with them.


Cross-Examined :- Daniel M'Henry did not say he believed the people were unanimous in what they had undertaken. The object of the meeting at Rantz's-they met to consult what they should do if the soldiers should come up; whether they should stand out and defend themselves if they should injure them. There was a good many drafted men there. Ed. M'Henry was at the further end of the barn and I could not hear all he said and I would have rather he would not have spoken. He advised the


481


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


drafted men to stick toget her if the soldiers came to carry out their plan. I did not understand that they intended to rebel against the laws unless it was in self-defence. The drafted men intended to resist if the soldiers came to arrest them ; so I thought.


Re-Examined :- Daniel M'Henry advised the people to dis- perse and go home."


John Baker, sworn :- "I reside in Benton township; a wagon maker. I was at the Rantz meeting on the 14th of August last. I saw Daniel M'Henry there about 3 P. M. or after. He spoke a little while ; could not tell the words. He talked to persuade the meeting to disperse. He thought they might be very cautious, that some malicious person might commit some depredations. His remarks were not in favor of the meeting; the substance of his speech was against the meeting. I saw Edward M'Henry there. I can't word his speech. He said they would have trouble and as for his part he would not go. His remarks were in favor of resist- ance. Daniel M'Henry is a true and loyal man I think.


Cross Examined :- I started from home after dinner ; got back at early supper time. The people were forming before I got to the barn. Daniel M'Henry was not there long. I did not see him long. I saw him come to the barn. I do not remember of seeing him after he made his speech."


To the same purpose with the foregoing was the testimony of James Evans, who was also present at the Rantz meeting and was examined as a witness for the defence.


The government witness, Silas Karns, stated M'Henry's remarks somewhat differently, though substantially to the same effect. He admitted that "Daniel M'Henry did not advise them to resist the soldiers," and that "he advised them not to go on but to hold on and see what was done in the matter."


Such then are the facts in relation to Daniel M'Henry's connec- tion with the Rantz meeting. He went to the meeting upon re- quest to oppose all violent and imprudent counsels, and to induce those who were there to disperse quietly and go home, and he carried out his intention faithfully and fully.


482


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


THE SPEECHES :- Remarks were made in the barn, as the wit- nesses inform us, by Samuel Kline, Daniel M'Henry and Edward M'Henry. They were brief but were not all to the same purpose or made with the same object. After some observations by Kline, D. M'Henry spoke in the manner already described and very prop- erly and wisely. Then Ed. M'Henry made some excited remarks. He said (among other things) as reported by the witness Karns, that "he was not as the man that had spoke before him; . that some men had promised to protect them and when the trial came refused-some men had done so. He did not name who they were. I could not tell what he did say ; I heard what I have stated ; some things said I could not recollect to tell here. Some men had backed out."


The meaning of all this is very evident. D. M'Henry's remarks in favor of doing nothing in the way of resisting the soldiers, that they should wait and see what was done and that even if property was burned they had the law to fall back upon, were very unwelcome to Ed. M'Henry, and angered him. Hence his bluster and protest; his disagreement with the previous speaker and his accusation that some men had backed out.


Protection of the property and families of drafted men and of other citizens against an apprehended raid upon them had been the topic of consideration, and squads of observation with refer- ence to this object exclusively were afterwards formed, composed however of a portion only of the persons present. Resistance to the arrest of drafted men does not seem to have been discussed at all or avowed as an object at the meeting, but it is likely that Ed. M'Henry and some others in his position desired to promote their personal safety by ulterior measures not then proposed. Be this as it may, there was a direct issue made at the meeting between Daniel and Edward M'Henry; between the man of peace and the man of violence; between the law-abiding citizen on the one hand and the draft-skulk on the other.


Now what was done by the military authorities in regard to these two men ? How were they regarded and treated respectively by the chiefs of the occupation and by the agents of military jus- tice ? We well know what was done. The man whose conduct was upright and worthy of praise was seized and put in prison for four months, and was persecuted and impoverished by an un-


1


483


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


just and malignant prosecution. The other, though arrested, was allowed to go forth free and unpunished and was put under government pay as a witness against the very man whose peace- ful counsels he had opposed and spurned !


-0 -----


THE CLUB MEETINGS OF 1863.


One of the principal charges made against our citizens in the trials at Harrisburg, was that they had organized a secret organi- zation or society to resist the draft. This charge (which was en- tirely false) appeared in all the cases tried and was contained in the printed form of accusation used by the Judge Advocate. Names and dates were filled in the printed form, in each case, but the substance of the accusation was the same in all the cases, and convictions upon it were had. The form of the accusation as it appeared in the charges and specifications against Stott E. Colley, one of the prisoners, was literally as follows :-


Specification :- "In this, that he the said Stott E. Colley, a cit- izen of Columbia county, Pennsylvania, did unite, confederate and combine with John Rantz, Rohr M'Henry and many other disloyal persons whose names are unknown, and form or unite with a society or organization commonly known and called by the name of the "Knights of the Golden Circle," the object of which society or organization was and is to resist the execution of the draft, and prevent persons who have been drafted under the pro- visions of the said act of Congress, approved March 3d, 1863, and the several supplements thereto, from entering the military ser- vice of the United States. This done at or near Benton town- ship, Columbia county, Pennsylvania, on or about August 14, 1864, and at divers times and places before and after said men- tioned day."


There are three averments in denial of this charge which were established beyond dispute by the evidence and which we shall now state and sustain.


1. That the (so-called) "secret meetings," referred to in this charge, were held in the spring of 1863 and none later than about


484


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


the month of May of that year ; consequently that they were held nearly one year and a half before the arrests were made at the end of August 1864.


2 That they were political clubs simply, and had no unlawful or improper object ; and particularly that they were not intended, nor organized and conducted, to oppose the conscription laws of the United States.


3. That they were not called or known, during their existence by the name of "Knights of the Golden Circle," nor was any such name ever assigned to them in any quarter until the time of the trials or shortly before.


On the Rantz trial, on this point we have the following evi- dence :


David Savage, sworn :-- I am a member of those secret Asso- ciations. The only secret about them was the pass word. We were sworn to support the constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania, and the laws. There was no organization to re- sist the draft. Almost all the persons belonging to this Associa- tion subscribed money to pay bounties, &c. The Associations were purely political. Rantz said to me he had been in to see the soldiers, and told them they could hunt up all the drafted men and arrest them, and they would not be disturbed.


Nicholas Kindt, sworn: - I was a member of these Associa- tions. They ceased last May a year I think. The password was the only secret in it. The obligation was to support the constitu- tion of the United States and of Pennsylvania and the laws ac- cording ther-to. There was no organization to resist the draft.


Martin Ammerman, sworn :- I was a member of these Associa- tions. They ceased last spring a year. The oath was as stated by the last witness. There was no organization to resist the draft. The only secret was the sign of recognition. Never heard these organizations called Knights of the Golden Circle, till lately, and that by outsiders.


On the trial of Stott E. Colley, the following very conclusive testimony was given for the defence :


Jacob Welliver, sworn :- "I reside in Benton ; am a farmer. I


485


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


knew of meetings in Jackson township. I was there twice. Knew of nothing secret about them but their signs. I was initiated; whether there or not cannot say positively. The strangers were only excluded when signs were given. They were called "Demo- cratic Lodges" as far as I heard. Those that could speak, spoke. We were to support the Constitution and laws of the United States ; nothing was said about the conscript act; nothing said that I ever heard of about resisting the conscription act.


Cross Examined :- Never heard the oath but twice; we were to support the Constitution of the State and of the United States, and all constitutional laws."


William Ash, sworn :- "I was at secret meetings in spring of 1863 in Benton township; I met Ed. M'Henry there ; there were a few initiated that evening ; Hiram Ash was there, William Ap- pleman, E. Boyd. The obligation was to support the Constitu- tion of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania ; nothing in the oatlı about resisting the conscription act. I was in when persons were initiated.


Cross-Examined :- I remember Ed. M'Henry because he spoke at meetings; I only attended two meetings ; he spoke at the first meeting. I could not tell all he said or give the substance. He did not advise the people to take up arms. I did not hear him say drafted men should not report. The oath only bound us to sup- port each other as far as the laws went. I was never a regular member. The signs were the secrets. I was no member and paid no attention to the signs. I was not in all the time; I was not present during the whole initiation. Did not see Stott E. Colley there. The oath was to support the Constitution of the United States, and State of Pennsylvania."


Wm. Brink, sworn :- "I live in Jackson township. I attended meetings in spring of 1863, I only attended one place : Ed. M'- Henry was there a couple of times. I was initiated. They called it their "Club Meeting." (Some have called it the 'Golden Circle,' but the name was 'Club Meeting.') There was nothing secret only the signs. There was a subscription to raise bounty money for volunteers one evening when I was in. We raised over $700 ;- how much more I cannot tell. They read fiom Constitution and


486


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


a newspaper. Once, a nine months' soldier spoke and Ed. M'Henry objected to a soldier being a leader, and I told M'Henry to behave himself ; it broke up the meeting. Nothing said about resisting the draft. Edward M'Henry had talked about it; he allowed they ought to raise funds to keep drafted men at home."


Hiram Ash, sworn :- "I was at school house in Benton, in 1863 ; Ed. M'Henry was there. I was initiated. The obligation was to support the Constitution of Pennsylvania and of the United States ; not a word in the oath about conscription act. They were trying to raise funds to raise volunteers. There was nothing secret about the meetings except the signs. A stranger could be in the room when the oath was administered. The meet- ings were called .Union Club' and 'Democratic Club.'


Cross-examined :-- We did not take an oath to support each other; never such an oath did I take. No such obligation taken by the members, at any such meeting I was at."


John Savage, sworn :- "I live in Jackson township; amn a farmer. I was at one so-called secret meeting in Jackson town- ship in 1863. We took an obligation to support the Constitution and laws of the United States. I called it same society it was over the township. I do not know that Ed. McHenry belonged to it. Nothing said in oath about resisting conscription act or draft. The secret was signs.


Cross-examined :- The signs were to know each other, and whenever got into trouble to let one another know. Took no oath to support each other. The sign was merely to know each other when we met. It runs in my mind there was nothing about helping each other ; that we would know each other by the signs if we were to meet one another ; some could help each other out."


Martin A. Ammerman, sworn :- "I live in Fishingcreek town . ship. I was initiated into the so-called secret meetings in Fish- ingcreek. * * * The oath was to support the Constitution of Pennsylvania and of the United States, nothing in the oath about the conscription act, nor anything about resisting the draft. The last meeting was in March or April, 1863, that I attended. The members of the Society raised money to pay volunteers."


487


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


We have heretofore given the testimony of Aaron Smith and William Evans, government witnesses, very much to the same purpose and effect with the foregoing testimony concerning the Club meetings. Charles Gibbons, another government witness, testified that he "attended three or four of the so-called secret meetings," but no question was asked him regarding the character or the proceedings which took place when he was present. The inference to be drawn from this fact is, that he could testify to nothing which would condemn them or cast suspicion upon the motives or conduct of the persons who attended them.


We have then one dozen reputable witnesses who testify to the innocent and lawful character of the Club meetings of 1863, against a single witness upon the other side. Every witness ex- amined in relation to those Club meetings whether for the gov- ernment, or for the defense, save Ed. M' Henry, pronounced their vindication from all censure or evil imputation.


-0 --


SPECIAL CASES.


THE CASE OF WILLIAM KESSLER.


The case of William Kessler of Jackson township in this county, occurring about the time under discussion, is both instructive and interesting. Kessler was improperly enrolled and his name was drawn in a draft. When the officer or person employed for the purpose gave notices to the men drafted at that time, he was in- formed that Kessler was non compos mentis, that he had recently escaped from the Harrisburg Lunatic Asylum, was utterly and notoriously unfit for military service and that notice to him would be idle and absurd. No notice was therefore served in the case, but some time afterwards Kessler was arrested as a deserter and hurried away from home for trial and punishment. Nothing can more fully show the unfitness of military tribunals for the ad- ministration of justice to the citizen, than the proccedings in his case. In the Congressional debates of 1867, we find the follow- ing remarks made by Mr. Buckalew, in the Scnate, in reference to this case :


488


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


"I know one case of a man fresh from the Pennsylvania State Lunatic Asylum who was reported upon one of these lists [of non- reporting drafted men;] no notice was served upon him or on any one else; he was carried off and tried before a military tribu- nal at Harrisburg and put in prison, and under the sentence pass- ed upon him he was loaded down with a ball and chain-an in- sane man. The case was heard rapidly, summarily; nobody ap- peared for him ; the court did not know that he was insane ; they asked him some questions, he gave absurd replies, and they sup- posed he was an incorrigible offender. It was necessary to ap- peal to the President in that case and have the man pardoned in order to discharge him from his prison and from bonds." Cong. Globe 1st Sess. 40th Con. P. 662.


The following letter was written, pending the application to the President for Kessler's pardon and discharge from Fort Mifflin.


"WASHINGTON, July 24, 1865. 2 Monday afternoon.


DEAR SIR .- I had an interview with the President, on Saturday and brought the case of Kessler to his notice. The record of the conviction not being among the papers I went to-day to the office of the Judge Advocate General (but Holt is absent) and found it. A report from that office will be ready at 10 o'clock to-morrow when I will go again to the President and have the case determin- ed. The record says the Defendant confessed the facts and said he never intended to report, whereupon the sapient commission gave him two years with ball and chain !


Yours very truly,


C. R. BUCKALEW."


COL. J. G. FREEZE.


We next give the order of discharge which was issued from the War Department:


WAR DEPARTMENT,


ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE


WASHINGTON, July 25th, 1865.


SPECIAL ORDERS, No. 397. (Extract.)


The unexpired portion of the sentence of the General Court Martial in the case of Private William Kessler, an unassigned


489


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


drafted man, from Pennsylvania, is remitted. He will be released from confinement at Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania (where he is now supposed to be,) discharged the service of the United States, and returned in charge of a guard to his home in Jackson township, Columbia county, Pennsylvania.




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.