ANOMALOUS CONDITION OF THE STATE—GREAT EXCITEMENT.
Border Slave State—Missouri State Convention—The Last
Hope—Virginia Convention—Missouri would not Secede—Rights in the
Union—Disappointment—Anomalous Position—Governor Jackson and
General Price—Great Excitement—Ministers Embarrassed—One False
Step Fatal—The Sword vs. Sympathy—Why the Innocent and Helpless
Suffered more in Missouri than Elsewhere—Constructive
Sympathy—Predatory Bands—Hon. Luther J. Glenn Commissioner from
Georgia—The Effect of the Fall of Fort Sumter and President
Lincoln’s Proclamation—The State Officers, Legislature and
Militia Adhere South—Assemble at Neosho, Pass an Act of
Secession, Elect Delegates to the Confederate Congress, etc.,
etc.—Preparations for War—Union vs. Price’s Army—State
Convention Meets Again—Its Acts and Doings—Two State
Governments—Sympathy, Property and Plunder—Ministers Again—Their
Course—Days of Fasting and Prayer—Conferences—Meeting in St.
Charles—Resolutions—Prudence and Prayer—The Press—Anti-Christ
Abroad—_Central Christian Advocate_ and a few Facts—Rev. Mr.
Gardner—“Men and Brethren Help”—State Convention again in
October—The First Oath for Ministers.
The people of Missouri contemplated the possibilities of civil war with
the peculiar interests of a border State, fearing that when it came the
border slaveholding States would be the main theatre of strife. They
looked with the deepest solicitude to every plan for the peaceful
adjustment of the troubles, and not until the failure of the “Crittenden
Compromise” did they consider the result inevitable. The much talked of
“Border States Convention” inspired hope in the less informed, but when
nothing came of it the last hope perished.
The Missouri Legislature, by an act, “approved January 21, 1861,” called
a State convention “to consider the then existing relations between the
Government of the United States and the people and Government of the
several States and the Government and people of Missouri, and to adopt
such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the
protection of its institutions as shall appear to them to be demanded.”
This convention assembled in Jefferson City February 28, 1861, and
organized and proceeded to the work for which it was called.
By the time of its session no less than seven of the Southern States
had, by their conventions, adopted ordinances of secession, declaring
themselves separated from the Government of the United States, and
organized for themselves a distinct national confederation. Other States
were in a greatly disturbed condition, had called State conventions, and
would inevitably follow their sister Southern States. War was imminent
and preparations for it were active—alarming.
Many still clung to the delusion that the national difficulties would be
settled without bloodshed, and that the very preparations for war would
prevent it.
Virginia, “the mother of Presidents,” had a State convention then either
in session or about to assemble, and the deepest anxiety was felt
throughout the whole country as to the course that sturdy old State
would take. It was believed that the action of Missouri and Virginia
would either prevent or precipitate war, by determining the true
position of all the border slave States; consequently, every act of
these conventions, and every sentiment uttered in them, was watched and
weighed with an interest and eagerness never before known in the history
of the country.
In Missouri the liveliest interest was taken by all the people in the
debate on the report of the committee on Federal Relations, and not
until it became an ordinance of the Convention could the majority of the
people in the rural districts believe that the State would not secede
from the Federal Union and unite her fortunes with the Southern
Confederacy. The simple fact that Missouri was a slaveholding State was
sufficient in the minds of many to determine her Federal relations, or
at least the policy of secession. Rights in the Union were considered
possible by the few; rights out of the Union were considered the only
hope by the many.
The fact that the State officers and Legislature, elected just the fall
before, were so nearly unanimous in their Southern sympathies that they
could, and did, secede in a body without disorganization, and without
taking the State with them, shows how strong must have been the Southern
feeling at the time of their election. Sectional issues were as clearly
and distinctly made in the State as in the Presidential election, and
with a unanimity rare in the history of elections the people endorsed
the pro-slavery party.
The action of the State convention in February, 1861, put the State in
an anomalous condition. The effect was to detach the State government
from the State and vacate the several departments of the State
government without a vacating ordinance. The representatives in the
State Legislature found themselves without a Constitution and the people
without representatives. It was soon evident that neither Governor C. F.
Jackson and his cabinet nor the majority of the General Assembly were in
sympathy with the action of the Convention. The President of the
Convention, Hon. Sterling Price, and a respectable minority dissented in
their feelings from the action of a majority, and conscientiously
believed that the true interest of the State was in political and
commercial alliance with the Southern Confederacy.
Notwithstanding the majority of the people were loyal to the Federal
Government when the delegates to the State Convention were elected, in
January, 1861, yet the course pursued by Governor Jackson, General
Price, and those high in authority who were associated with them, very
greatly unsettled the people of the State in their political faith, and
produced such general excitement amongst all classes, that the greatest
fears were entertained from the first of an intensity and bitterness of
strife in Missouri to which other States would not be subjected.
No one not then residing in the State can fully appreciate the condition
of things which this complication of public policy developed. Ministers
of the gospel and other non-combatants wore not prepared to meet the
novel exigencies arising out of such an anomalous state of things, in
consequence of which many of them were placed in very embarrassing
circumstances, and not a few found themselves forced into positions
which their cooler and better judgment afterward condemned. The pride of
some kept them in positions where their indiscretion had placed them,
and from which their sober judgment would fain extricate them; and in
this way many non-combatants were made combatants, and many were forced
from their families, their homes, their property and their country. The
people were all unused to civil revolutions and inexperienced in the art
of adjustment and adaptation. One false step in youth may be fatal to
all the objects and aims of life, blast all its hopes and promises, and
cause all its plans and purposes to miscarry—may be irretrievably
disastrous. So in the first stages of civil revolutions, a mistake may
be fatal; and fatal mistakes are common. Men who were not secessionists
found themselves fighting for secession, and men who were not Union men
were forced by a combination of circumstances to fight for the Union. A
man’s sword often cut through his sympathies, and his sympathies often
formed the scabbard for his sword; while the “aiding and abetting” was
as often by constraint and coercion as by choice. Even the regimental
colors of opposing armies did not always and faithfully reflect the true
sentiment of field and staff, rank and file. Sympathy was too confused
and policy too unsettled to admit of either infallible prescience in
choice or fidelity in the execution in all cases. Hence many good men
suffered for principles not their own, and sacrificed life and all for a
cause with which they were not in sympathy.
Popular excitements are never favorable to deliberate prejudgment or
right action, and in Missouri more than elsewhere the intensity of
excitement at this time dethroned judgment and defeated action. It is
believed that much suffering and many of the most shocking features of
the war could have been prevented by the party leaders on both sides in
Missouri.
It is confidently believed that when a true history of the war is
written, it will appear that, in its recklessness of life and wantonness
of destruction, and in all its most shameless, and revolting, and
nameless crimes perpetrated upon the unoffending, the innocent and the
helpless, the non-combatant population of Missouri has suffered more
than any other class of people in any State. And much of the sufferings
of this class of people is justly chargeable to those into whose hands
the conduct of the war in this State was first placed. The just judgment
of posterity and the just retributions of eternity will hold to a
righteous accountability those who, under whatever pretense, made war
upon ministers of the gospel, unoffending old men, and helpless women
and children, dragging them to prison and to death, while the pretext
for it was found only in the hasty expression of sympathy, or the
constructive connection with one side or the other based upon church
affiliations.
For instance, Southern Methodists, and Southern Baptists, and Southern
Presbyterians were by the Union men and forces constructively identified
with secession and rebellion, and put in sympathy with the Southern
cause. The first from the beginning, the last two after the virtual
disruption of those respective churches.
Under the heat of party passion many innocent victims suffered the
spoiling of their goods, and often the loss of life itself, only upon
this constructive evidence.
The principal portions of the State were always held by the Union
forces, and their subordinate officers and independent, predatory bands
were either commissioned to make war upon these innocent and defenseless
people or they did it without commission. Certain it is that it was
done, and done, too, relentlessly and indiscriminately. How far this
state of things is due to the converse action of the legitimate State
Legislature and the legitimate State Convention—the one elected in
November, 1860, and the other elected in January, 1861, and both
assuming to reflect the will of the people—and how far it is due to the
course pursued subsequently by Governor Jackson, General Price, and the
whole State Government, with the legislative branch thrown in, adhering
South, may be determined by others. The people of the State, who were
not accustomed to a long search after remote causes, were free—and many
of them are still free—to attribute these most inhuman features of the
war to those who were put in command of the Federal forces in this
department, the officers and men of the State militia, and the “Kansas
Redlegs,” as they were generally called.
The first session of the State Convention did very little more than
discuss and determine the Federal relations of the State. The State of
Georgia had an accredited commissioner present in the person of Hon.
Luther J. Glenn, a distinguished citizen of that State, asking Missouri
to secede and join the Southern Confederacy. The Convention heard him
respectfully, but, after due deliberation, rejected the proposition, and
resolved to remain in and try to preserve the integrity of the Union.
The Convention also appointed a Commission to attend the “Border States
Convention,” and adjourned to await results.
The people of the State were still in much of a dilemma until after the
fall of Fort Sumter, the proclamation of President Lincoln, and the
capture of Camp Jackson. Then it was discovered that the State
Government, with Governor Jackson at the head, was in sympathy with the
South, and would adhere South in defiance of the Convention. It was also
discovered that the “Missouri State Guard,” which had been raised,
officered, armed and equipped by the Legislature the previous winter,
would adhere South, with General Sterling Price in command. These
revelations excited and alarmed the people all over the State, and
presented new difficulties and embarrassments, which were greatly
complicated and enhanced by the simultaneous appearance in different
parts of the State of the U. S. forces equipped for war. Indignation and
consternation alternated in the public mind, until some definite line of
policy was disclosed and the people knew what to expect.
Governor Jackson fled the capital of the State with his officers and
army, taking the great seal of State and the official records of the
several State Departments with him, as far as it could be done. He
convened the Legislature in Neosho, organized and put into operation the
several Departments of the State Government. “An Act of Secession” was
passed by the General Assembly; delegates were elected to the
Confederate Congress; a proclamation was issued to the people of
Missouri, and many other things were done to force the State out of the
Union and commit her destinies to the fate of the Southern cause. This
meant war; and the wisest men abandoned for ever the idea of a peaceful
adjustment of the difficulties, and prepared for that which neither the
counsels of the prudent nor the prayers of the good could avert.
For the next few months the preparations for war on both sides were
active and general. Plows were left standing in the furrows; wheat stood
unshocked and ungarnered in the fields; mechanics and artisans closed
their shops and exchanged hammers and saws for guns and swords;
merchants dismissed their clerks and manufacturers their hands, and all
prepared for the war; saddleries, foundries and gunsmiths were pressed
out of measure with work, and the country was ransacked for mules and
horses for service. The policy was, “He that hath no sword, let him sell
his coat and buy one.”
President Lincoln’s call upon Governor Jackson for the quota of troops
from this State to help the Federal Government put down insurrection and
rebellion had been promptly and curtly declined by that official, and
yet ten times more than the President asked for stood ready to respond
to the call in defiance of Governor Jackson.
The cities and towns along the railroad lines especially turned out a
heavy surplus population for the Union army, while the river towns and
rural districts supplied men and material for “Price’s army,” as it was
familiarly called.
The state of things thus presented made it necessary to convene the
State Convention again, which was done by the Committee appointed for
that purpose at its first session. In pursuance of the call of a
majority of said Committee the State Convention assembled again in
Jefferson City, July 22, 1861.
A very different state of things existed now in the State, and the
Convention had to meet new questions and provide for new exigencies. The
Governor of the State, the president and many members of the Convention,
and the Legislature that originated and provided for the Convention, had
all cut themselves loose from the Convention and the people represented
by the Convention.
The State was virtually without a Governor, and the Governor was without
a State. The Convention did not hesitate in meeting these novel
exigencies promptly and decidedly. On the seventh day the Convention
passed “An Ordinance providing for certain Amendments to the
Constitution,” which ordinance vacated the offices of Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State and members of the General
Assembly, provided for the election of the first three by the Convention
immediately, and then ordered a general election the following November.
Hon. Hamilton R. Gamble was elected provisional Governor, Hon. Willard
P. Hall Lieutenant-Governor, and Hon. Mordecai Oliver Secretary of
State. Henceforth the people of the State had two State Governments, and
the divisions and strifes were distinct and complete.
The effect of this state of things was to unsettle the people more than
ever, and the lines were clearly drawn. The policy of the Federal and
State authorities was more positive and decided. “He that is not for us
is against us” was not only of frequent utterance, but of dogged
application. It was assumed that all men had sympathies for one party or
the other, and an expression of them in any way was sure to provoke the
hostility of those who assumed the guardianship of human sensibilities.
Property belonging to persons of opposing sympathies was confiscated and
appropriated to the use of the officers and men taking it; and at this
stage of the war the effort was made to force the sympathies of men
through their property. Many a well stocked farm was stripped of
everything that could be carried off and the dwellings burned to the
ground, because it was said the family had Southern sympathies; and many
a helpless man and woman, too, had to prove themselves innocent of
crimes of which they were assumed to be guilty to save them from an
uncoffined grave.
Armed brigands came down from Kansas and Iowa, and over from Illinois,
to plunder and rob the rich farmers of Missouri, and many of the poor
ones, too, in the name of the Union, and to preserve the Constitution.
They carried away wagons, horses, mules and stock of every description,
plundered houses of silver plate, jewelry, beds and bedding, carpets,
clothing of men, women and children—even the mementoes of ladies and the
toys of children—everything that could gratify their cupidity or vex and
mortify the original owners. All this for the preservation of the Union,
by enriching the houses and pockets of men who cared for no higher
distinction.
Ministers of the gospel suffered in common with others, especially those
of the Southern Methodist Church, and others who were suspected of
disloyal sentiments. Many of them had to “take the spoiling of their
goods joyfully,” or otherwise, and were wholly broken up and reduced to
penury and want, and yet many of them were honestly and earnestly
laboring to abate the feverish excitement, allay the bitterness of
feeling and promote “on earth peace and good will toward men.”
The Annual Conferences of the M. E. Church, South, in the fall of 1860,
recommended to all Christian people the observance of a “day of fasting,
humiliation and prayer” for the peace of the country and the amicable
adjustment of existing difficulties. This had been generally observed
throughout the State the week before the Presidential election, and,
doubtless, did much good in humbling the Church before God, and in
directing the hearts and faith of the people to the only “refuge and
strength and present help in time of trouble.”
After actual hostilities had been in progress a little more than one
month a number of ministers of different churches assembled in St.
Charles, Mo., May 21, 1861, and, after prayer and deliberation, adopted
the following:
“WHEREAS, In the Providence of God our country is now involved in a
civil war, which has already brought upon us many calamities, and still
threatens to introduce a state of ill will, discord and desolation
utterly inconsistent with our condition as a Christian land; therefore,
“_Resolved_, 1. That we meet together on this day in the fear of God,
and with a firm reliance on his divine Providence as a Christian people,
communicants of the respective churches in this city, to observe such
means as will at least tend to promote good will among ourselves during
the continuance of this war.
“2. That we regard all war as a sore calamity, contrary to the spirit
and teaching of the gospel, and more especially a civil war, as
revolting to our Christian teaching, unnatural, abhorrent to all our
Christian instincts, and subversive of the cause of Christ, whose
blessed mission was to establish peace on earth.
“3. That, as ministers of the Christian churches, irrespective of our
private opinions, we do hereby pledge ourselves, one to another,
ministers and people, to abstain as far as possible from all bitter and
exciting controversy upon the questions now agitating the public mind,
but will, each within the sphere of our influence, endeavor to promote a
spirit of brotherly love, and by calm and judicious counsel, animated by
the Spirit of Christ, our peaceful Master, suppress every act among
ourselves which may have a tendency to increase the present
difficulties.
“4. That we call upon the Christians of our land to band together to
stay, if possible, the further shedding of fraternal blood, etc., etc.
“5. That we will not forget our best refuge—prayer—and therefore humble
ourselves before God and supplicate our Heavenly Father to quell the
madness of the people and put away from us all bitterness, and anger,
and clamor, and evil speaking, and animate us with the gentle spirit of
peace on earth and good will toward men.
“6. That, with trustful resignation and humble faith in the strength of
the Lord of Hosts, we do cordially recommend to all Christian churches
to set apart Thursday, June 6, 1861, as a day of private and public
supplication, with fasting, humiliation and prayer,” etc.
Similar meetings were held in other places to avert the calamity of war,
or to abate some of its bitterness, and promote peace and good will
amongst neighbors and non-combatants.
Very few ministers, comparatively, espoused actively the cause of either
party, but pursued with a singleness of purpose their legitimate
calling, ministering to all alike, and seeking only to make the gospel
the “power of God unto salvation.” Individual ministers and
ecclesiastical bodies felt deeply the importance of prudence, quietness
and ministerial fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ, over which the
Holy Ghost had made them pastors; that the ministry be not blamed, that
the cause of the Master be kept above reproach, and that a pure
Christianity might always conserve the public peace.
Notwithstanding the good intentions and laudable efforts made by the
ministry of Missouri generally to promote the public peace, the press of
the State, both secular and religious, did very much to break the force
of their well-meant endeavors, and seemed determined either to drag the
Church into the most ultra partisan support of the war, or, in case of
failure, to place both under the suspicion and surveillance of the
military authorities.
The spirit of anti-Christ, which had been increasing and spreading for
years in Missouri, now assumed a boldness and a defiance that hesitated
not to use the party hatred of religious editors and preachers to make a
bold advance upon the doctrines and services of those who represented a
pure, non-political, unsecular Christianity. It was not uncommon for the
plainest facts to be perverted, if, by so doing, the cry of persecution
for loyalty’s sake could be raised and the most reckless passions of men
could be fired. In this kind of business the Northern Methodist
preachers and papers were more expert than others, and the hope of
wreaking a mean vengeance on the M. E. Church, South, supplied
sufficient motive. Such a declaration should not be made unless demanded
and supported by the plainest facts. Unfortunately they are not wanting,
and a few only must be selected from the many.
The _Central Christian Advocate_, published in St. Louis for the M. E.
Church, North, and edited by Dr. C. Elliott, seized every event that
could be tortured into an occasion for an inflammatory article against
the ministers and members of the M. E. Church, South.
Some time in September, 1860, the Northern Methodists held a camp
meeting not far from Utica, in Livingston county, North Missouri. The
preacher in charge was one Rev. Mr. Gardner, who had already rendered
himself obnoxious to the people by intermeddling with politics,
tampering with slaves and unministerial conduct in the social circle.
This camp-meeting was broken up on a Monday without service and in great
confusion. The cause was no matter of conjecture, nor of its
authenticity were the people permitted to doubt.
The Rev. Mr. Gardner had, the night before, been found in the wrong
tent, from which he was summarily ejected by the ladies. The public
indignation was too intense the next day to allow services to be held,
and the crime of the preacher was made too apparent by the separation of
a man and wife, the latter of whom had made herself rather conspicuous
by her great zeal in the service of Gardner and the Church.
The _Central Christian Advocate_ published it as a “great outrage,” and
made the breaking up of that meeting do good service in the persecution
of the ministers of the M. E. Church by the ministers and members of the
M. E. Church, South. The editor of that paper said so much about it that
good, honest, reliable men went to the place and investigated the
matter. It was afterward ventilated through the public prints, to the
infinite humiliation of the profession which the man disgraced and the
reproach of the cause which he shamelessly belied.
Many other things of similar character did much good service for the
party and the Church during the following winter and spring, doubtless
designed to manufacture prejudice against the people of the State, and
especially the Southern Methodists.
The _Central_, of May 15, 1861, contained the following:
“MEN AND BRETHREN, HELP!
“One of our preachers, last Sabbath week, some thirteen miles from
this city, was struck down, his meeting broken up, and members of the
M. E. Church, South, had oversight of the assault, which was conducted
under their superintendence. So said Bro. Miller, the preacher, and a
member of our Church, a Missourian, whose father and mother were
buried in Missouri, and in which he proposes to be buried, whether
killed by others or dying in the natural way.”
While the editor should be excused for writing a paragraph so awkward
and bungling, the real object will not be mistaken. It is only necessary
to state that an intelligent gentleman who was present pronounces the
whole thing utterly false. The meeting was not broken up, the preacher
was not knocked down, and there was but one member of the M. E. Church,
South, present at the service, and he left before the trouble, which
occurred outside of the church after services were closed, and grew out
of some insulting language used by the preacher to a gentleman present,
which was resented with only one slight blow which scarcely reached the
reverend offender. They were separated before any damage was done, and
left the _Central_ to do all the damage.
In this case, as in the Gardner case, the Southern Methodists were not
implicated; but for these and many other things of which they were
wholly innocent they had to suffer deeply and grievously, as these pages
will show.
During the summer of 1861 a number of ministers in different portions of
the State were robbed of all that they possessed of this world’s goods,
some were driven into exile, and some arrested and put into military
prisons. But more of these hereafter.
The State Convention assembled again, October 10, 1861, in St. Louis,
passed several vacating ordinances, and provided for the more efficient
prosecution of the war and the establishment of a more reliable sympathy
between the State and the Federal Administration. Amongst other things
it was ordained that all the civil officers of the State should take,
subscribe and file with County Court Clerks an oath of allegiance or
loyalty to support the Constitution of the United States and of the
State of Missouri, and not to take up arms against the Government of the
United States or the Provisional Government of this State, nor give aid
or comfort to the enemies of either, and maintain and support the
Provisional Government established by the State Convention of Missouri.
This oath of allegiance was required of _ministers of the gospel, as
such_.