9780823268757.pdf
Page 10
required oath. In the spring of 1867 Shelby claimed that the Bureau owed him
pay for his service. Superiors, however, reminded him that he served as a civil-
ian with no pay.
In the meantime, as agents dealt with Circular No. 14, a more pressing prob-
lem attracted their attention: uncertainty about the details of contracts. Ques-
tions about payment (specie or paper), work hours (sun- up to sundown or a
ten- hour system), and other specifi cs to be listed in each contract fl ooded their
offi
ces throughout the spring and summer of 1866. Th
is stemmed primarily
from vagueness and ambiguity in Gregory’s policy. Th
is situation led A. H.
Mayer to ask, “If any form of contract has been decided upon at your Hd Qrts
please send me a copy immediately that I may be able to answer some of the ten
thousand questions asked of me in the reference to contracts.” In a series of
circulars (Nos. 19, 21, 23, and 25) partly based on the recommendations of
Bureau inspector William H. Sinclair, Kiddoo attempted to replace the uncer-
tainty with more defi nite guidelines. Upon a complaint, SACs could place a lien
on the crop. It constituted a claim for fi rst payment of wages owed to hands
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 50
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 50
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. B. Kiddoo Era, May 1866–Summer 1866
51
“regardless . . . [of] any claims whatsoever.” Monthly payment was in specie,
with paper money not acceptable. Employers were required to pay their hands
before shipping their crops. Although freedpeople could contract for monthly
wages, Kiddoo preferred that agents dissuade them from doing so and instead
urge contracts for a portion of the crop. Contracts considered fair were to be
approved (only by an agent). When time came to sell the crops, fi eld agents were
to issue certifi cates that indicated hands had already received their share of the
crop, guaranteeing its safe passage. Despite greater oversight and protection,
Kiddoo, nevertheless, prohibited agents from interfering with the freedpeople’s
disposal of their crops, for they had the right to dispose of crops as they wished.
Th
e new regulations helped, but confusion still remained. A number miscon-
strued Circular No. 23, which not only required planters to pay their hands
before the crops were shipped, but also allowed Bureau agents to halt the ship-
ment of products. Seizure was to happen only upon complaint, not otherwise.
But some overlooked this feature and detained shipments anyway. Equally det-
rimental to the fl ow of commerce were idleness and destitution. Kiddoo partly
created his labor system to reduce what he saw as an increase of the two. In the
spring and summer of 1866 men in the fi eld described scenes of idle freedpeople
not mentioned since immediately following emancipation. Vagrants and insol-
vents made up a small fraction, with a majority having yet to contract or too sick
or young to work. In a market economy, these dependents had little value. Car-
ing for workers’ needs aff ected planters’ profi ts, and few wanted to invest in the
well- being of these people. Planters, now absolved from the responsibility to look
aft er slaves’ welfare, thought more like businessmen and less like “authoritarian
fathers.”
Agents reminded county offi
cials that state law held them accountable for
their poor regardless of color. In some cases, the county offi
cials did. Th
is, how-
ever, was defi nitely the exception. Local offi
cials resisted, citing either insuffi
-
cient funds or arguing that such destitution fell to the Freedmen’s Bureau.
Kiddoo, wanting to clarify who exactly was responsible for the poor, issued
Circular No. 16. In it, he reiterated that state law vested responsibility for “all
paupers and indigent freedmen to . . . the respective counties.” As the Bureau
steeled its resolve, local offi
cials did as well. Th
is tug- of- war would last through-
out the agency’s existence in Texas, and caught in the middle were agents and
the freed community. Th
e feud at Marshall, Harrison County, in early 1867 was
fairly typical. A doctor and New Yorker, Charles F. Rand persistently informed
county judge Obadiah Hendrick about his responsibilities for black indigents.
An annoyed Hendrick claimed the county lacked the means to support them.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 51
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 51
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
52 Conservative
Phoenix
He also turned to Governor James Webb Th
rockmorton for help. “I forward you
this [Rand’s letter] to show in what esteem he holds the civil authorities,” stated
Hendrick. Th
e governor appealed to Charles Griffi
n, commander of the District
of Texas, for redress. Th
rockmorton claimed that state and local offi
cials were
doing all that could be done. He even questioned the need for relief and called
on Bureau offi
cials to use congressional appropriation to care for the poor. As
offi
cials at headquarters and state authorities dueled about jurisdiction, agents
took matters into their own hands. For them, there were few options but to act.
Little did Bureau agents realize their problems with state offi
cials had only
just begun. As the legislature “met” benchmarks set down by President Andrew
Johnson, he declared Reconstruction complete, prompting whites to reassert
greater domestic autonomy. Th
e recently elected governor, Th
rockmorton, a
Unionist during the war but a man imbued with racial beliefs of an ardent fi re-
eating Democrat, opposed federal intervention in civil aff airs aft er the war. An
adherent of Johnson’s view of Reconstruction and critic of the Radical Republi-
cans, Th
rockmorton, who one Union general called a disrupting force, inter-
preted the president’s proclamation to mean the military had to relinquish
domestic control to local and state offi
cials. Th
e governor believed that Texas’s
completion of Johnson’s Reconstruction plan subordinated federal organiza-
tions to state control in civil matters. Of particular concern was the resented
Bureau, which he sarcastically called “one of the grand Institutions of the coun-
try.” Th
rockmorton announced that he would not “countenance any wrong or
outrage” by it. He construed such “wrongs” to be any actions by agents other
than caring for destitute freepeople. His belligerence not only caused confl ict,
but also emboldened local offi
cials to resist.
With the governor’s backing, local offi
cials insisted on greater control over
county matters, which placed them at odds with agents, who believed their
authority beyond state interference. Superiors reminded subordinates “you
must not pay any
attention to any action they [local offi
cials] may take to inter-
fere with you and in the discharge of your duties.” Th
ese words had meaning at
headquarters, but for fi eld agents they were of little consolation. When written
appeals for redress (both to state executives and Bureau offi
cials) proved inef-
fective, local offi
cials resorted to more forceful maneuvers, i.e., attempted arrest
of SACs. Crockett offi
cials indicted Stanton Weaver for interfering with a freed-
man’s arrest. Bryon Porter similarly informed the Harris County sheriff issued
a warrant for his arrest. Backed by the local post commander, however, Porter
ignored the writ. Because of his actions in preventing the re- arrest of a freed-
man who had escaped local custody, Jacob C. DeGress also feared arrest if not
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 52
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 52
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. B. Kiddoo Era, May 1866–Summer 1866
53
for the local garrison’s presence in Harris County. A few unlucky men did not
have troops nearby, thus making it easier for local authorities to detain them
when they “interfered.” Generally, a simple “reminder” that an agent’s power
rested in federal authority and subjected to no state oversight defused the situa-
tion. But on rare occasions, that reminder had to come armed with bayonets.
State offi
cials caused most of the confrontations with the Bureau, by refusing
to fulfi ll their obligations under law. In a few instances, however, disputes arose
not from obtuse civil offi
cers, but rather belligerent SACs. Th
e cases of William
Longworth and Samuel A. Craig are instructive. Th
ese two agents had great dif-
fi culties—for diff ering reasons—with local offi
cials. Although born in New York,
Longworth was called by white Texans a “scalawag,” since he lived in the state for
many years prior to the war. He experienced much animosity and abuse for his
Unionism during the war. In fact, behind “[John] Hancock and [Andrew Jack-
son] Hamilton,” he claimed to be the most persecuted man in west Texas. His
Unionism and persecution at the hands of Rebels probably helped secure
appointments as chief justice of Wilson County in Governor Hamilton’s admin-
istration and as an agent under Gregory. Despite his travails during the war and
his subdistrict’s size, Longworth exuded confi dence, bordering on hubris. “I
think I am equal to the extent of the whole territory asked for,” he boldly wrote,
“and am in the bosom of almost every individual within the same. ”
Longworth did not wait to test the people’s love for him. He immediately
confl icted over apprenticeship. As local offi
cials used it to procure labor for
employers, the practice could easily transition into “legalized kidnapping” or
“cruel injustice.” As chief justice as well as agent, Longworth heard many com-
plaints by freed parents that their children had been apprenticed out to former
masters. Moved by these pleas, he believed the system’s negatives far outweighed
any benefi ts, since the “unity of families must be maintained.” As a result, he
refused to apprentice freed children and returned all apprenticed to their par-
ents or guardians. For example, Longworth ordered James L. Dial to return two
freed children apprenticed to him. Longworth wanted to make a point. Rather
than simply order the two children returned, the agent held a hearing with all
parties present and fi ned Dial ninety dollars. He further charged Dial with
kidnapping and false imprisonment and had him detained. Th
e incensed defen-
dant believed Longworth had disgraced “and continues to disgrace” his posi-
tion and petitioned Kiddoo against this “tyrannical and oppressive course.”
Dial, however, found little sympathy from Kiddoo.
Th
e story might have ended there if not for Longworth’s confrontation
with William C. Wiseman, judge of Guadalupe County. Believing the SAC had
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 53
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 53
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
54 Conservative
Phoenix
violated state law, Wiseman demanded (and received) Dial’s release. Judge
Wiseman wrote to Longworth asking him to cease interfering with the county
court’s operations regarding apprenticeship, threatening a charge of kidnap-
ping if there were any more problems. Wiseman continued by stating that any
further diffi
culties between the court and the agent would be solely the fault
of Longworth. Th
e judge ended with a terse warning: “A word to the wise is
suffi
cient.” Not one to be cowed, Longworth responded in kind. “[I will not]
tamper with the majesty of the laws of the United States, or the offi
ce I fi ll as
to comply with your preemptory command.” Although he thought his course
to be sound, superiors began to wonder. Longworth received a letter from
headquarters enumerating the many complaints about his conduct. Regret-
ting only timidity in fi ning whites to the maximum and “doing a fraction of
what might be done . . . for which the Bureau was established,” Longworth
dismissed such charges as unfounded attempts to besmirch him, calling the
indictments “false, absolutely and unqualifi edly false” and “transparent.” For
having to answer them, he even chided Kiddoo and his staff for wasting the
Bureau’s already scarce paper. If there ever was any doubt to the justness of his
cause, he continued, these critics, particularly Judge Wiseman, were the very
men “I was sent here to counteract and keep in check.” Longworth even asked
for a court martial to clear his name.
Kiddoo assured his subordinate a court martial was unnecessary. Long-
worth, nevertheless, lectured the AC that such an inquiry would embarrass
those, both in and out of the agency, who doubted his sincerity. Wanting
certainty, Kiddoo dispatched William H. Sinclair, the agency’s inspector in
the state, to investigate. In a surprise move Kiddoo decided not to wait for the
inspector’s report. Whether because of his “unnecessary” actions against the
white citizens or his generally abrasive manner toward superiors, Longworth
was relieved and replaced by James B. Moore, an offi
cer in a colored regiment.
(Th
e offi
cial explanation was Kiddoo’s desire to replace civilian agents with
army offi
cers.) What Sinclair found confi rmed headquarters’ suspicions: Long-
worth caused unnecessary strife. Th
e report concluded he exceeded his author-
ity, engaged in arbitrary justice, and threatened the free labor interests in his
subdistrict. Sinclair, in fact, recommended his delivery to civil authorities to
answer for his actions.
Agent Samuel A. Craig had a similar yet diff erent experience. Appointed in
early spring 1866, Craig got into a dispute
a few months later with the pro-
Southern editor of the Southern Banner, Daniel Leonidas McGary. A former
Confederate and ardent Democrat, McGary hated the Freedmen’s Bureau and
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 54
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 54
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. B. Kiddoo Era, May 1866–Summer 1866
55
used his newspaper as a sounding board against it. Within his “Red Hot Demo-
cratic Journal,” he mocked the organization’s name, questioned its reason for
being in Brenham, and editorialized that Bureau teachers instructed their
pupils to spell the state’s name “Taxes” for the federal government’s insistence
on collecting back taxes from the war. He also personally attacked Craig, claim-
ing he looked “like a half way cross between a peacock and a jay bird.” Offi
cials
in Galveston told Craig to warn the editor his words had consequences and, if
“untrue and calculated to do injury, will subject [him] to offi
cial action.”
Craig brushed off the editor’s remarks as nothing more than a mere nuisance.
But McGary persisted, accusing the agency of misleading the freed community.
When Craig showed him Kiddoo’s letter, McGary responded defi antly with,
“Well, what are you going to do about it?” Kiddoo, believing the Bureau’s integ-
rity impugned, ordered Craig to arrest and fi ne McGary for “persistent abuse
[and] libelous and false” assertions “calculated to do injury.” Craig fi ned the man
two hundred dollars. Th
e editor off ered to pay one hundred dollars, which was
refused. He then asked if he could have a little more time to get all the money,
which Craig granted. Instead of raising the money, McGary used the time to
appeal to the post commander at Seguin, Captain George W. Smith, who was
swayed by his appeal. Captain Smith informed the Bureau agent that he was
taking charge. Craig adamantly refused to yield jurisdiction. In kind, Captain
Smith refused any assistance in arresting the editor. Emboldened by this dispute,
McGary refused to pay the fi ne. Craig referred the matter to the military and
Bureau superiors, and military offi
cials sent the Bureau man a detail of soldiers.
Kiddoo also warned his subordinate not to back down. Reading between the
lines, Craig arrested the delinquent editor and placed him in the county jail. For
his action, the Galveston Tri Weekly News anointed the agent as “perhaps the