ose lacking this experience (usually too old for
military service) expressed their loyalty through claims of persecution by the
Confederate government or resistance to secession.
Civilian applicants followed expressions of loyalty most of the time with
claims of compassion for the freedpeople, an expression rarely seen in appli-
cants with a martial background. Th
e diff erence in the applications (besides the
obvious fact of military service) might be explained by the applicant’s locality.
Civilians, by and large, applied from the South. Th
ey needed to lessen skepti-
cism and doubts about their loyalty. Applicants from Union states, with mili-
tary service and location attesting to their devotion to republican ideals, did not
have to go as far in proving their loyalty. Such things certainly helped head-
quarters choose the “right kind of man”: one committed to the ideals of the Old
Flag. And certainly some of these men wanted to “reconstruct” a land seem-
ingly devoid of such ideals. Patriotism and republicanism appear to have
touched all the agents in one form or another, but ideals alone fall short in
explaining deeper and more personal motives. More practical reasons moti-
vated some.
Th
e applicants stressed the opportunities Bureau service aff orded to help the
emancipated slaves. One of the fi rst agents appointed, Eli W. Green, was moved
by such a desire and “determined that the Negroes shall not be imposed upon”
by unscrupulous whites. Th
e agent at Liberty, A. H. Mayer, took great pride in
his work, wanting “to make [the South] my home” and to protect the freedmen
in their contractual rights, “particularly so, for the just payment of their labor.”
Freedom and justice for the freedpeople appeared to move George C. Abbott to
service. Th
e veteran of the United States Navy believed black men and women
now “Free American Cittizens [sic],” and he “determined that no amount of
ignorance, rage, or wretchedness” would “bias” him in favor of “sleek and well-
fed ex- Rebels who for four years past have been amusing themselves by hunting
down and hanging Americans, who[se] only crime was loyalty to Government
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 23
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 23
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
24 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
which had protected them when they were too weak to protect themselves.”
He admitted never devoting much interest to them prior to emancipation,
and did not believe it “possible that I could become so deeply interested in
these people.”
“But now,” he confessed, “Freed men as they are, they seem to me more
utterly friendless and defenceless [sic] than any people on the face of God’s
earth.” Consequently, Abbott followed the Golden Rule, “Do as you would be
done by.” Th
rough his and others’ committed eff orts, Abbott augured a not
too distant time when the freedpeople “shall gain the rights that white men
have. . . .” William H. Farner, a “scalawag” and resident of Brazos County,
promised “that the rights and interests of the freedmen, women [and] children
will be guarded with the same fi delity that I would those of my own household.”
His future actions aft er leaving the Bureau, however, might cast doubt on his
words, when some accused him of abuse. Albert Evans, an offi
cer in the 116th
U.S.C.T., disregarded the possibility of personal harm. Th
e offi
cer stated his
concern “for the condition of the freedmen and their cries for help.” Evans
wanted “to render some real benefi t to them,” and believed any apathy on his
part would “hinder” the government’s eff ort. With his muster out imminent,
Evans begged superiors to allow him to help solve the many problems the for-
mer slaves in Texas faced: “I would much prefer going north . . . than to remain
here so far as my personal comfort were it not for the condition of the freedmen
and their cries for help. I want to render some real benefi t to them.”
“Scalawag” Philip Howard wanted to participate in the “best cause,” helping
the “poor and oppressed negro.” On several occasions, he helped poor freed-
people out of his own pocket. Regardless of his fi nancial situation, Howard
knew he was “doing a good service.” With a little tinge of patriotism, he stated
that his “convictions are to save the south from [another] Bloody Rebellion
[and] to arm the Blacks with armes [sic] and the Ballot. . . .” Former slave owner
James A. Hogue, who desired to protect “the freedmen from injustice and
fraud,” claimed to have “no selfi sh motive” and wanted the appointment “with-
out compensation.” Hogue promised to have a strong “moral infl uence” on his
charges.
John H. Morrison, a “scalawag” who called himself a refugee because he had
to leave the state during the war, also appeared moved by the plight of the
oppressed. Inspector and fellow Bureau agent William H. Sinclair described
him as an “out and out Union man,” who was concerned about the harassment
and threats against the freedpeople in Anderson County. “I think these things
should be nipped in the bud,” Morrison recommended, and he believed himself
the man to do so. “I feel an interest in the welfare of the freedmen,” he stated; he
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 24
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 24
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?
25
promised to always be “found battling for the rights of the unfortunate and the
prosperity of my country.”
Along with equality for the former slaves, a few agents also wanted to pro-
mote Radical Republican ideology. Th
is ideology certainly encompassed other
motivating factors, like free labor and political expediency, but the plight of the
freedpeople swayed most of those who called themselves Radical. William
Price, former soldier in the 1st Texas Cavalry (Union) and refugee (which might
show his loyalty to the Union through resistance to the Confederacy), came
highly recommended by Texas Republicans like Edmund Jackson Davis,
Andrew Jackson Hamilton, and Edward Degener for his Radical beliefs. So too
were Hardin Hart, Mortimer H. Goddin, and Edwin Miller Wheelock, who was
one of the few agents whose abolitionist past could be confi rmed. Although
some described themselves as Radical and others just subscribed to aspects of
the ideology, the evidence shows their numbers were quite small compared to
Texas Bureau agents who identifi ed themselves as conservative or moderate
Republicans.
Many men answered the call to duty because of patriotism. John Dix, a
strong Unionist from Corpus Christi, experienced great persecution during the
war. Because of his opposition to secession and resistance to the state Confeder-
ate government, Dix had his property confi scated and had his life and freedom
threatened
when indicted for treason late in the war. Nonetheless, Dix claimed
these actions “never in the slightest degree swerve[d] him from his loyalty.” Th
e
same could be said of J. Orville Shelby, a “gentleman of the highest personal
social and moral worth.” (Th
is is not the Confederate cavalry offi
cer with the
same name.) During the war, Confederates “insulted,” “outraged,” and “impris-
oned” Shelby for his principles. He claimed to be a “stirling [sic] patriot who
would rather have lost his life than seen the enemies of his country triumph.” It
seems men such as these two, having been persecuted for their Unionist beliefs
during the war, wanted to serve the U.S. government and deliver the same val-
ues and ideology, which prompted his persecution, to former Confederates.
Men like William H. Horton perhaps wanted Bureau service for a more prac-
tical reason. Aft er losing an arm at Chancellorsville, he transferred to the Vet-
eran Reserve Corps, a special branch of the military that allowed men with
debilitating injuries to continue the war eff ort. Th
e Freedmen’s Bureau drew
from the VRC to make up for those lost to mustering out. Edward Miller, who
lost an arm at Williamsburg, seemed “anxious to remain in the Service. . . .”
Samuel A. Craig, Henry H. E(d)dleson, J. Ernest Goodman, James F. Hutchison,
Isaac M. Beebe, Lemuel K. Morton, and Albert A. Metzner also served as offi
cers
in the VRC. Fift een men from the corps served as subassistant commissioners in
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 25
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 25
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
26 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
Texas. Motivated to some extent by patriotism, pride, and a desire to help the
emancipated slaves, these men most certainly wanted to prove their continued
worth to the country and society in general.
Others simply wanted to continue with the government. Charles Schmidt
wanted an appointment aft er clerking for the Bureau for an extended time.
Henry Young, who aided the agent in Austin for nearly a year, wanted to move
up the ladder with the agency. Michael Butler, former seaman with the U.S.
Navy, came to Texas with his brother aft er the war. He assisted the SAC at
Huntsville, becoming “somewhat acquainted with the people and the duties of
the offi
ce.” When that agent resigned, Butler asked to be considered as his
replacement. George Eber, already employed with the Bureau of Internal Reve-
nue, was told by his friend and Bureau man Charles Haughn that he could “get
a situation in the employ of the U.S. Government.” Robert McClermont wanted
to bring his family to Texas, but his service in the cavalry prevented “having any
permanent post [for his family] to remain at.” In order to continue with the
government and be at a post “two or more years,” McClermont applied to the
Bureau.
Men like Jacob C. DeGress, one of the fi rst agents in the state, on the other
hand, were more infl uenced by the Northern ideal of free labor, for nearly every
letter refers to the state of labor relations in his district. Th
e agent at Indianola,
Eugene Smith, noting few plantations in Indianola, also put high priority on
protecting contractual rights. “I cannot do the good here,” he stated, “that was
intended by the Bureau.” Some may claim that since the main objective of the
Bureau was to regulate the labor situation in the state, it would be natural for
these and other agents to include references to labor in their reports. A perusal
of correspondences between agents and headquarters does not exactly show
this, however, since not all fi eld agents focused attention on the same issues. In
fact, one way to help discern the motivations of applicants is to see what they
focused on aft er their appointment. How they comprehended their duties per-
haps sheds light into their motivations for entering the agency.
In the emotionally and politically charged Reconstruction era, it is certain
some entered Bureau service for other than noble motives. Some held a vengeful
spirit toward the vanquished, or wished “to show my former oppressors that
they were, and not I, ‘wrong.’ ” Consider the case of William Longworth, the
agent in Wilson County and author of that sentiment. He strove to make his
district a “model one,” by vigorously protecting the economic and civil interests
of the freedpeople. In his pursuit of justice for the former slaves, however, supe-
riors concluded “he has oft en done great injustice to them.” A Unionist during
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 26
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 26
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?
27
the war, Longworth used his offi
ce to exact revenge: “I am always in the Front
receiving the brunt of the battle, for me there is no recreation and to me there
will be no mercy shown by my political opponents. ”
As in war, Longworth believed one must never give quarter to or compro-
mise with the enemy. “Th
ere is no word in the language that causes my [blood]
to rise equal to that of, Conciliation,” he declared. “[Y]ou might as well try to
conciliate a pack of Hyenas by throwing one of your children to them with the
hope of saving the rest.” A later investigation found that Longworth unneces-
sarily antagonized the white community with his “vengeful spirit,” oft en
encouraging freedmen to continue suing employers in cases that had already
been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, and then would impose an
“arbitrary and unjust” fi ne. Considering his actions, a Bureau inspector admit-
ted being “truly surprised (considering the style in Texas) that he was not sum-
marily dealt with by some one” for “in many communities he would have been.”
In his application letter Longworth yearned “to ameliorate the condition of the
Negro,” but his unwise course and vindictive manner appeared only to have
worsened it.
Finally, the reality was most applicants simply needed employment, no mat-
ter how selfl ess their other motives. John H. Morrison’s application highlights a
realistic aspect of applying to the agency. Concerned for the “welfare [sic] of the
Freedmen” in Anderson County, Morrison nevertheless needed the appoint-
ment because he had “but little of this world’s goods,” informing he sacrifi ced
“for the good of the cause,” stating he had to leave his family, and “during my
absence all my property was squandered. . . .” Mahlon E. Davis, David S. Beath,
and a number of others also expressed desire for work as they faced fi nancial
uncertainty.
Aft er his muster out, Patrick F. Duggan, “with a view of becoming a resident
of the South,” wanted someone to “confer a favor on me by assisting me to a
position in some of the offi
ces of the other department of this State.” George
Johnson, needing such an appointment as his muster out neare
d, requested “the
appointment . . . at any Station in Texas you may designate.” He must have
found a better off er, because shortly aft er receiving his appointment, Bureau
headquarters revoked it due to his “having reconsidered his application.” Wil-
liam Holt, willing to go anywhere in Texas, also was prompted by his impend-
ing discharge from the military. N. H. Randlett had a more pressing reason for
his desire for employment. With his muster out imminent, Randlett worried
about providing for his family, which he had brought to Texas, and pressed for
reappointment as a civilian Bureau agent.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 27
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 27
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
28 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
Philip Howard also applied for monetary reasons. He complained the war
“crippled me in the way of money.” A. F. N. Rolfe, a graduate of Oxford Univer-
sity and college professor in the Northeast, found the academy “gave no [fi nan-
cial] prospects.” An appointment in the Freedmen’s Bureau would ease his
fi nancial problems. “I hope you may be able, without detriment to the Service,”
he wrote, “to please a stranger amongst strangers in a position of relief.” A
“scalawag” resident in Hill County, Edwin Finch professed to be “a thorough,
out and out Union man,” resulting in his destitution. Albert Evans, who yearned
to return north at some time, lacked the immediate funds and requested
employment until “I can get a settlement. ”
Th
en there is the case of James Burke. A native of the South, he claimed to be
an “original union man—a lifelong hater of slavery.” He certifi ed his unionism
as he voted against secession and gave no willing aid to the Rebellion. Burke
held a “deep interest in the education of Freedmen” and promised to “honestly
and earnestly, to the best of my ability, endeavor to discharge my duty.” Bureau
offi
cials later relieved him from duty when they discovered he ran (but lost) for
local offi
ce in Confederate Texas during the war. Perhaps Burke might have
been like countless other men who accepted change and embraced the current
course from Washington. Reconstruction historian Richard G. Lowe fi nds such
individuals in his study of prospective offi
ce holders in Virginia. But Burke
9780823268757.pdf Page 5