9780823268757.pdf

Home > Other > 9780823268757.pdf > Page 4
9780823268757.pdf Page 4

by Bean, Christopher B.


  cer during the war. Aft er Bureau service in Texas and Louisi-

  ana, he accepted a commission in the regular army and served until 1870. Having

  amassed a sizable amount of money (more than twelve thousand dollars in

  wealth in 1870), he soon entered Republican politics as Texas’s fi rst superinten-

  dent of public instruction. In this position he zealously performed his duties in

  the face of Democratic resistance. When Democrats regained control of the

  state, they removed him from offi

  ce, but he remained active in local, state, and

  national Republican party politics until his death in Austin in 1894.

  Hiram Seymour Hall, a native New Yorker and lieutenant in the 43rd

  U.S.C.T., participated in every battle and campaign of the Army of the Potomac

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 17

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 17

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  18 “A

  Stranger Amongst Strangers”

  from July 1861 through April 1865, receiving the Medal of Honor for “gallantry

  in action” at Gaine’s Mill. His bravery and skill brought him to the attention of

  Brigadier General Ambrose E. Burnside, who selected him to lead the ill- fated

  storming party aft er the explosion at the Battle of the Crater outside of Peters-

  burg. Losing his right arm in the attack, he later lamented its eff ect: “No more

  for me to lead my command on the fi eld of battle, no more for me the thrill of

  fi re that I had felt with my comrades on two- score fi elds of patriotic glory.”

  Post- Bureau, Hall resumed his private life in Missouri and Kansas to live out his

  days as a farmer. Another SAC, William H. Horton, lost his arm in battle and

  fi nished the war in the Veteran Reserve Corps. He left Texas aft er his tenure,

  retiring to Kentucky, where he worked for the Bureau of Internal Revenue until

  his death in 1893. A native of Pennsylvania, Frank Holsinger enlisted and even-

  tually became a captain in the 19th U.S.C.T. While on picket duty, a bullet struck

  his right arm, completely shattering the bones in the forearm. His wound left

  “his right arm and hand . . . completely disabled.” Holsinger, aft er leaving the

  Bureau, moved to Kansas with his family. Th

  ere he lived a rather normal (yet

  fi nancially successful) life (eleven thousand dollars total in wealth) as a farmer

  until his death in 1916. 

  Farmers were the second largest group of agents (n=18, or 17.1 percent).

  According to the statistics for the state at that time, a little more than one in

  three Texans listed farming or planting (non- slave labor, of course) as an occu-

  pation in 1870. If added to those who listed some other agricultural- related

  occupation, the number climbs to more than 70 percent of Texans. Th

  e Bureau

  clearly underrepresented men from this occupation, a fi nding similar to another

  state study of the Bureau. In his study of the Freedmen’s Bureau and local white

  leadership in Virginia, Richard G. Lowe found the agency demurred at select-

  ing farmers when choosing suitable offi

  ceholders for that state. Of the 18 agents

  in Texas who listed farming as their occupation in the 1870 census, only 7 had

  owned slaves according to the 1860 census. All were Southern born, with only

  one coming from a non- Confederate state (Kentucky). All were also civilians

  and, with the exception of one, signifi cantly older (51.3 to 36.33) than the average

  Bureau agent in Texas. From those who owned slaves, four qualifi ed as planters

  in the pre- emancipation sense: 20 or more slaves. Approximately one in fi ft een

  (6.7 percent) agents whose occupations were established (n=105) owned at least

  one slave prior to the war. Th

  ese percentages diff er greatly from those in Geor-

  gia, where almost half (49 percent) the agents had owned at least one slave.

  Texas numbers resembled those in Virginia, where only 10 percent of Bureau

  men were former slave owners. Th

  e paucity of former planters (slaveholders for

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 18

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 18

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?

  19

  that matter) in the agency in Texas refl ected the opinions of those heading the

  organization in the state. Both E. M. Gregory and J. B. Kiddoo distrusted the

  planter class “with the interests of the freedmen.” Bureau offi

  cials in Texas sim-

  ply did not trust former masters with the welfare of their former slaves. It

  appears that personal preferences of each state’s assistant commissioner, rather

  than any overall Bureau policy handed down from Washington, explain the

  disparities.

  Texas Bureau and census records indicate that Bureau men were generally in

  their late thirties (n=154, 36.33 years of age) in 1870. Th

  at would place the average

  individual generally in his early to mid thirties at the time of his appointment.

  In fact, nearly 44 percent of all agents were in their thirties at the time of their

  appointment (see Figure 1- 4). Th

  at holds steady when civilians are taken out of

  the study. Th

  ose with military service had an average age of 35.8 years (n=120).

  Civilians, however, were nearly a full decade older on average than their mili-

  tary counterparts, with an average age slightly more than 44 years of age (n=34).

  Th

  e discrepancy can best be explained by those who lacked military service due

  to age. Unfortunately, the census did not compute average age, so a comparison

  with the population as a whole is diffi

  cult. Further, such a comparison may not

  70

  60

  50

  40

  SACs

  30

  20

  10

  0

  20-29

  30-39

  40-49

  50-59

  60+

  Figure 1–4. Number of Bureau Agents by Age

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 19

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 19

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  20 “A

  Stranger Amongst Strangers”

  be a meaningful item considering the entire population includes children.

  Comparison to the military, on the other hand, is possible, and since the Bureau

  came under military control and drew from its ranks, the comparison is useful.

  Th

  e average Union soldier, according to historian Bell I. Wiley, was 26.3 at the

  war’s conclusion. Th

  e average SAC in Texas was about fi ve to ten years older

  than his Billy Yank counterfpart. 

  With many challenges inherent in Bureau work (long hours and inspection

  tours with little or no help), it was generally not a job for the old. Almost one-

  third (n=46, or 29.8 percent) in 1870 were forty or older, and of those whose age

  could be confi rmed (n=154), slightly more than 10 percent (n=16, or 10.4 percent)

  had reached at least fi ft y. Despite the selection of offi

  cers, oft en older than the

  men they led, these men would still have been young enough to meet the agen-

  cy�
�s demands. Prewar politics might also have played a part. As noted by Rich-

  ard G. Lowe’s study, the Virginia Bureau avoided members of the Democracy,

  the party identifi ed with secession and slavery. Th

  e average agent in Texas

  would have been barely voting age and less likely to have been identifi ed with

  the state’s (or the South’s) slaveholding politics.

  Th

  e Bureau generally drew from the wealthy (real estate and personal prop-

  erty combined for the 1870 federal census) between $1,000 and $4,999.  On

  average, they held approximately $2,540 in real estate and slightly more than

  $1,427 in personal property, which totaled approximately $3,967 in wealth

  (n=110). While some were worth tens of thousands of dollars, 63 individuals

  listed their total wealth (real estate + personal property) below $1,000, with a

  signifi cant portion with no valued wealth. Using measurements from the Ninth

  Census, Statistics of Wealth and Industry, and Historical Statistics of the United

  States, an average white head- of- household in 1870 had more than $2,141 in

  total wealth. Although SACs in Texas held almost twice the amount of wealth

  as the average head- of- household ($3,967 compared to $2,141) in the United

  States in 1870, nearly six in ten (n=63, or 57.3 percent) of Bureau men either had

  no wealth or were not fi nancially well- off (below $1,000 in wealth).

  Th

  e numbers reveal a dichotomy in wealth between SACs in Texas. A student

  of wealth in nineteenth- century America, Lee Soltow defi nes very poor as hav-

  Table 1- 4 Wealth of Subassistant Commissioners in Texas

  $ Value of Wealth

  

  –

  –

  –

  ,–, ,–,

  ,+

  Number of Agents

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Percentage .

  .

  .

  .  .

  

  Note: Determination of each agent’s wealth came from the 1870 U.S. Census.

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 20

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 20

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?

  21

  ing no real estate or personal property. He found that 61.6 percent of whites in

  1870 had at least $100 or more in wealth. Th

  ese numbers correspond with

  Bureau agents in Texas: 60.9 percent of Bureau men had real estate or personal

  property of at least $100. A closer look at asset holders shows that 40.9 percent

  held only real estate. Th

  at percentage corresponds with the 43.3 percent of white

  property holders in 1870. Slightly less than 42 percent (41.8) held only personal

  property. Th

  is equals almost 50 percent lower than the white male population

  in 1870 (61.6 percent). Broken down by age, those holding property in Texas

  corresponds with the country as a whole. 

  Th

  ese fi ndings diff er from those in other studies. Paul A. Cimbala, for

  instance, examining the Bureau in Georgia, discovered offi

  cials appointed men

  who, on average, were twice as wealthy as Texas agents (n~$8,000).  Cimbala’s

  population (including a much higher percentage of former slaveholders) helps

  explain the diff erence. Th

  e varying fi ndings for Texas and Georgia demonstrate

  that offi

  cials in Washington, D.C., did not impose one policy for the organiza-

  tion. Instead, offi

  cials in each state were free to implement policies of their

  choosing, according to conditions within their districts. Broken down by spe-

  cifi c occupation, those in the farming profession averaged around $3,861 in real

  estate (not unexpected) and slightly less than $2,678 in personal wealth. Former

  slave owners far exceeded those yeomen farmers (those who did not own slaves)

  in both categories. Individuals in the legal profession (n=12)—lawyers, judges,

  and law enforcement—held just under $2,367 in real estate and around $1,583 in

  personal wealth. Soldiers (those whose wealth could be established in the 1870

  census, n=43) possessed slightly more than $1,000 ($1,007) in real estate and

  slightly below $802 in personal (the average of other occupations was not

  included due to only one to three people).

  Why would the Freedmen’s Bureau turn to such fi nancially prosperous indi-

  viduals? Certainly offi

  cials wanted those inspired to help the freedpeople,

  imbued with good Republican ideology, and steeled for the trials and tribula-

  tions that awaited them in Texas; but these characteristics were hardly limited

  to those with wealth. Th

  e answer might partially lie with the high percentage of

  heads- of- households (84 of 105, or 80 percent) or married men (n=62, or 59

  percent), each contributing in its own way to increased wealth. Th

  e answer

  might be explained by the constant struggle for funds that plagued the agency

  from its inception. With restraints on spending, including salaries for civilian

  agents and allocations for supplies, Bureau offi

  cials wanted individuals not reliant

  upon the salary and men with some disposable income. Offi

  cials rarely counte-

  nanced complaints about pay (a red fl ag indicating commitment to money rather

  than to his duties), usually reminding the complainant of “[m]any requests for

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 21

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 21

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  22 “A

  Stranger Amongst Strangers”

  employment, the writers of which, are strongly recommended” and warning

  that “worthy and capable men can be procured to fi ll the vacancies.” A perusal

  of the records uncovers few complaints about monthly salaries (ranging from

  slightly less than $100 a month to $150 a month) and noticeable instances of

  SACs purchasing supplies and providing charity out- of- pocket. Th

  e intense

  scrutiny of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the nineteenth- century philosophy on

  government spending meant offi

  cials had to stretch every dollar, and solvent

  agents helped in this course.

  Measurements of wealth and demographic traits are revealing, but they do

  not explain why these men wanted to be Bureau agents. Despite the voluminous

  Bureau records for Texas, there existed only application letters for twenty- four

  men (these are only of those who received an appointment). As desirous as it

  would be to have many more, these two dozen applications, nonetheless, shed

  light onto what motivated someone to pursue Bureau service. References to

  military service, Northern origin, and other perceived indicators of Union sen-

  timent and loyalty litter these applications and letters of recommendations.

  Highlights of upstanding character and intelligence likewise appear. Few appli-

  cations referenced
only one reason for qualifi cation. Most, in fact, highlighted

  multiple reasons for applying (see Table 1- 5).

  Since the Bureau was a quasi- military organization, applicants naturally

  stressed their service during the war. With more than three- quarters of SACs

  for Texas having military experience, Bureau offi

  cials favored a martial back-

  ground. Th

  e prevailing opinion of the professional military at the time explains

  this. Discipline and regimentation, among other attributes such as patriotism

  and unionism, were generally believed to accompany any applicant with mili-

  tary experience. Military service notwithstanding, an appeal to one’s character

  and competence was the only other reason to appear in a majority of the appli-

  Table 1- 5 Primary Reason Agents in Texas Cited for Employment in Freedmen’s Bureau

  Patriotism,

  Protecting

  Character

  Unionism,

  Military

  Economic/

  the

  and

  and

  Anti-

  Reason Service

  Job

  Reasons

  Freedmen

  Competence

  Confederacy

  Number of Agents

  

  

  

  

  

  Citing in Application

  Percentage of

  .

  .

  .

  

  .

  Total Applications

  Note: Reasons came from letter or application for employment to Assistant Commissioner in Texas.

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 22

  18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 22

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  4/27/16 11:13 AM

  Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?

  23

  cations. It surpassed free- standing appeals to one’s patriotism, unionism, and

  hatred for the “so- called Confederacy” as well as clarion calls for protecting the

  freedmen. At fi rst glance, considering the nature of the work, this lack of ideal-

  ism and zealotry for the former slaves is surprising. But this quasi- military

  organization most likely preferred pragmatism and common sense above ideal-

  ism and zealotry.

  Such applicants fell into two main groups: those with military service and

  those without, with the former typically highlighting their service above all

  else. Th

  ey defi nitely believed their sacrifi ce for the Union was qualifi cation

  enough for an appointment. Th

 

‹ Prev