9780823268757.pdf
Page 34
North could not change what white Texans felt in their hearts and believed in
their minds. Only time could transform their attitudes about the freedpeople
and allow for a situation conducive to “peace.” Subassistant commissioners in
Texas realized their (and the nation’s) expectations far exceeded their capabili-
ties. Th
e true reconstruction of Texas, the one that aimed at the hearts and
minds, would have to be left for future generations and a diff erent federal gov-
ernment. As historian Joe M. Richardson states, “what the freedmen needed
aft er their emancipation was something that no federal agency could secure for
them, a change in the attitude of the white South. ”
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 180
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 180
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Conclusion: The Subassistant Commissioners in Texas
181
Bureau men protected the freed workers as independent laborers, secure in
their rights to receive just wages and to choose an employer. With the help of
federal and state law, they established their right to set up a household (and to
be protected within in it), they worked to recognize their marriages, and,
despite the practice of apprenticeship, they tried to establish their parental
rights. Th
ese men further ensured freedpeople had the right to an education
and their day in court. And fi nally, they protected their right of mobility, some-
thing they never had while in bondage. Certainly the emancipated’s condition
in late 1868 was far from what Americans in the late twentieth and early twenty-
fi rst centuries would consider ideal. It nonetheless was also far from “chattel
slavery.” “[T]he diff erences between slavery and freedom,” wrote historian Wil-
lie Lee Rose, “is about the greatest diff erence in status we can imagine, no mat-
ter how kindly a view some historians want to make slavery, no matter how
limited and curtailed freedom may have turned out to be.” Th
eir freedom was
neither curtailed nor circumscribed by the eff orts (or lack thereof) of Bureau
agents. Th
eir freedom instead was limited by circumstances at the time, which
were well beyond any institution’s or person’s control. Critics must remember
not all things were possible aft er the Civil War. Th
ose so- called failed promises,
in other words, were incapable of being fulfi lled. Th
at any were ever promised
(whether due to the optimism of the war’s outcome or the naïveté that all things
were possible with slavery’s demise) is the real tragedy of Reconstruction.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 181
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 181
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Appendixes
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 183
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 183
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
If the reader has reached this point in the work, I thank you for reading. If not
for at least glancing the work. To be sure, this work includes large amounts of
numbers. It is based on extensive and expansive accumulation of data. Th
e data
are from a myriad of sources. Personal information, such as ages, origins,
wealth, comes primarily from census sources. When that proved insuffi
cient,
other sources were used. Unlike the numbers for wealth, which fl uctuates over
time and thus had to come from a single source (1870 census) and at a single
time, the other personal information could be gleamed from applications for
employment, obituaries, newspaper articles, service records, pension records,
offi
cial/personal correspondences as well as any census within the subassistant
commissioner’s lifespan. Birthplace would be the same for the agent whether
listed in the census as a dependent in 1850 or head- of- household in 1900. Fur-
thermore, one’s age is obtainable with relative accuracy with a simple arithme-
tic. For example, an agent may not be found in the 1860 or even 1870 censuses.
He, however, was found in 1880 and 1900. If he was 50 years of age in 1880 and
71 in 1900, it is safe to assume he would be 35- ish in 1865. I would simply add an
additional year until the agent’s appointment say in 1867. I listed that man in the
data as 37 years old.
Information on an agent’s tenure and reason for dismissal came specifi cally
from Bureau records. Tenures came from Special Orders and the Freedmen’s
Bureau Roster of Offi
cers and Civilians. Special Orders were specifi c actions by
headquarters, such as an appointment to the agency. Headquarters offi
cials
issued a roster of personnel on a monthly basis for informational purposes for
the civilian population in Texas. Listed were the SACs and the counties that
comprised their subdistricts. In order to determine an agent’s tenure I calcu-
lated the time from his appointment to departure. When a specifi c date was
unavailable, I referred to the roster and placed that agent’s starting date as the
fi rst of that month. If an agent appeared for the fi rst time on the July 1868 roster,
his starting date would be July 1.
I determined the reason for departure from the agency through diff erent
Bureau records. Sometimes it came from a letter from the departing agent, list-
ing his reason for leaving. Other times it came from headquarters that agent
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 185
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 185
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
186 Appendix
A
so- and- so had been dismissed due to criminality or incompetence. Still others
would be a notifi cation of death. Additional information came from the numer-
ous inspection tours dispatched by headquarters. Such tours and subsequent
reports not only apprised superiors to conditions in the state, but also of the
actions of their subordinates.
Other records determine whether someone left the Freedmen’s Bureau due to
military service. On occasion, headquarters issued a special order releasing an
offi
cer from Bureau service. Most of the time, however, there rarely existed an
order relieving an offi
cer simultaneously serving as post commander and sub-
assistant commissioner in the subdistrict. To fi nd that man’s reason for leaving,
I looked in future censuses to see if he was still serving in the military. I consid-
ered his reason for leaving a military one if found in any census aft er 1860.
Th
e most voluminous, and time- consuming I might add, of the data came
from the agency’s Register of Complaints. For each subdistrict, the agent com-
piled a list of complaints for redress. As noted, these complaints overwhelm-
ingly involved a black plaintiff against a white defendant and concerned
generally minor incidents. Rather than use the list of complaints located in the
Assistant Commissioner Records, I instead used those from the Records of the
Fi
eld Offi
ces. Despite being the same data, the number at the subdistrict level
exceeds those at headquarters. Records were lost in transit, destroyed by loot-
ers, or simply not sent in by those in the fi eld. Th
us, the total of cases from the
fi eld offi
ces equals 6,794 cases, far surpassing the total at headquarters.
I enumerate the cases according to criminal off ense, race of plaintiff and
defendant, and outcome. Th
is study has twelve categories of off enses. Th
e fi rst,
second, and fourth consist of complaints concerning settlement of crop, money
owed, or contract violations. Th
ese three combined represented the vast major-
ity of complaints, with 640, 3,324, and 475 cases respectively. Rounding out
those cases of an economic nature was the sixth category. Numbering 615, these
were disputes about possession of property, destruction of property, requests
for damages, and theft .
Economic issues were not the only issues brought by aggrieved parties. Th
e
third category consisted of assaults, threats, and fi ghting and equaled 948.
Superiors preferred SACs to settle assaults of a minor nature only, but some
were of the serious kind. Th
e ninth category involved accusations of abduction
and retention. Th
is represented the smallest number of complaints with only
four cases.
Some of the cases involved a familial element. Th
e fi fth and seventh categories
included apprenticeship and domestic issues. Complaints about apprenticed chil-
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 186
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 186
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Appendix A
187
dren numbered 184, while those of a domestic nature, generally involving disputes
arising between sexual partners and husband and wife, equaled 246.
Th
e remaining complaints consist of the eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelft h
categories. Th
is included slander and defamation, cases categorized under
other, off enses combining two or more of the above complaints, and fraud,
embezzlement, and blackmail. Eleven cases of slander and defamation were
arbitrated. I designated complaints that did not fi t into any of the above catego-
ries as other: such as an agent listing the off ense as “violation” or no off ense at
all. Added to these included cases of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, false
imprisonment, but to name a few. Collectively, these equaled 218 cases. A com-
bination of any of the aforementioned categories, such as fraud and assault or
contract violation and abduction, totaled 93. Accusations of fraud, blackmail,
and embezzlement came before agents in the fi eld 36 times.
Of the 6,794 cases, there was a defi nite winner in 3,336: 2,826 in favor of the
plaintiff and 510 in favor of the defendant. Th
e rest of the 3,458 cases subassis-
tant commissioners described as settled (772), continued (245), dismissed (311),
referred (531), compromised (30), transferred (8), adjourned (11), or disposed (1).
Included in those were the cases in which the agent listed no outcome at all—
there were 1,549 such instances.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 187
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 187
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Th
e breakdown of complaints within each subdistrict and region of Texas are as
follows.
Gulf Coast
Houston, Harris County, had 850 cases: settlement of crop/contract (18), money
owed, wages, or debt (625), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (48), contract
violation/interference (15), apprenticeship (11), possession of property, destruc-
tion of property, or theft (92), domestic issue (20), slander or defamation (1),
abduction of person (1), other (10), combination of above (5), and fraud, black-
mail, embezzlement, or swindling (4)
Richmond, Fort Bend County, had 319 cases: settlement of crop/contract
(20), money owed, wages, or debt (172), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting
(37), contract violation/interference (7), apprenticeship (8), possession of prop-
erty, destruction of property, or theft (11), domestic issue (14), slander or defa-
mation (0), abduction of person (0), other (49), combination of above (1) and
fraud, blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
Beaumont, Jeff erson County, had 31 cases: settlement of crop/contract (1),
money owed, wages, and debt (5), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (16),
contract violation/interference (0), apprenticeship (0), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (6), domestic issue (0), slander or defamation
(0), abduction of people (0), other (3), combination of above (0), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
Wharton, Wharton County, had 87 cases: settlement of crop/contract (19),
money owed, wages, or debt (22), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (16),
contract violation/interference (5), apprenticeship (4), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (9), domestic issue (3), slander or defamation
(0), abduction of person (0), other (6), combination of above (3), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
Hallettsville, Lavaca County, had 58 cases: settlement of crop/contract (6),
money owed, wages, or debt (18), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (14),
contract violation/interference (8), apprenticeship (4), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (5), domestic issue (2), slander or defamation
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 189
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 189
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
190 Appendix
B
(0), abduction of person (0), other (1), combination of above (0), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
Liberty, Liberty County, had 106 cases: settlement of crop/contract (12),
money owed, wages, or debt (46), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (14),
contract violation/interference (10), apprenticeship (4), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (10), domestic issue (3), slander or defamation
(1), abduction of person (1), other (2), combination of above (2), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (1)
Columbia, Brazoria County, had 93 cases: settlement of crop/contract (11),
money owed, wages, or debt (27), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (16),
contract violation/interference (14), apprenticeship (2), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (15), domestic issue (3), slander or defamation
(0), abduction of person (0), other (1), combination of above (3), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (1)
Galveston, Galveston County, had 337 cases: settlement of crop/contract (2),
money owed, wages, or debt (204), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (50),
contract violation/interference (7), apprenticeship (11), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (24), domestic issue (27), s
lander or defamation
(4), abduction of person (0), other (8), combination of above (0), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
Columbus, Colorado County, had 291 cases: settlement of crop/contract (40),
money owed, wages, or debt (131), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (56),
contract violation/interference (11), apprenticeship (8), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (30), domestic issue (5), slander or defamation
(0), abduction of person (0), other (10), combination of above (0), and fraud,
blackmail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
North Texas
Meridian, Bosque County, had 70 cases: settlement of crop/contract (1), money
owed, wages, or debt (52), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (10), contract
violation/interference (0), apprenticeship (3), possession of property, destruc-
tion of property, or theft (2), domestic issue (0), slander or defamation (0),
abduction of person (0), other (2), combination of above (0), and fraud, black-
mail, embezzlement, or swindling (0)
South Texas
Gonzales, Gonzales County, had 8 cases: settlement of crop/contract (1), money
owed, wages, or debt (1), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (1), contract viola-
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 190
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 190
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Appendix B
191
tion/interference (0), apprenticeship (1), possession of property, destruction of
property, or theft (0), domestic issue (4), slander or defamation (0), abduction of
person (0), other (0), combination of above (0), and fraud, blackmail, embezzle-
ment, or swindling (0)
Clinton, DeWitt County, had 5 cases: settlement of crop/contract (0), money
owed, wages, or debt (0), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (1), contract vio-
lation/interference (2), apprenticeship (0), possession of property, destruction of
property, or theft (1), domestic issue (0), slander or defamation (0), abduction of
person (0), other (1), combination of above (0), and fraud, blackmail, embezzle-
ment, or swindling (0)
San Antonio, Bexar County, had 67 cases: settlement of crop/contract (2),
money owed, wages, or debt (44), assault, threats, fi ghting, or shooting (5), con-
tract violation/interference (4), apprenticeship (3), possession of property,
destruction of property, or theft (3), domestic issue (0), slander and defamation