REV. B. H. SPENCER.
His Character and Position as a Minister—Order of Banishment—Interview
with General Merrill—Note to Colonel Kettle—Cause of
Banishment—Letter to A. C. Stewart—Provost-Marshal at
Danville—Frank, Manly Reply—Second Letter to Mr. Stewart, and
Petition to General McKean—The Latter Treated with Silent
Contempt—Strong Loyal Petition Endorsed by H. S. Lane, U. S.
Senator, and O. P. Morton; Governor of Indiana—“Red Tape”—Petition
Returned—Hon. S. C. Wilson Counsel for the Exiles—General
Schofield Finally and Unconditionally Revokes the Order of
Banishment—Indictment for Preaching Without Taking the “Test
Oath.”—Why he Declined to Take the Oath—Prayer for his Persecutors.
REV. B. H. SPENCER.
Neither goodness, kindness, humility nor usefulness in a minister of the
gospel could disarm malice or shield the servant of God from the
persecutions of wicked men. It is truly astonishing how many and how
diverse the pretexts framed for the arrest, robbery, banishment,
imprisonment or murder of those whose only crime was that they were
ministers of the gospel in connection with the M. E. Church, South.
Infidelity was never at a loss for expedients and Antichrist was never
without efficient agents.
The Rev. B. H. Spencer is almost a native of Missouri, being only six
months of age when his parents came to Missouri from North Carolina, and
has received regular appointments from the Missouri Annual Conference,
M. E. Church, South, consecutively since 1843, when he was first
admitted on trial. No man has a cleaner and purer record in the Church,
both in his personal and ministerial character; and few men have
occupied so many places of high trust and responsibility. He is one of
the old Presiding Elders, and has often been called to represent his
Conference on the floor of the General Conference, and has always proved
himself to be prudent in council, wise in legislation, correct in
administration and eminently useful in the pulpit; distinguished,
perhaps, for his scriptural, practical and forcible expositions of the
distinctive doctrines and duties of Bible Christianity. He is zealous,
humble, earnest, energetic and Methodistic in all his ministerial work;
extensively known and highly esteemed in love for his works’ sake all
over the State.
Long associated with the honored names that will live in the annals of
Missouri Methodism, and taking a high rank with them, the sentiments
that introduced the Rev. W. M. Rush to these pages, and the reader, may,
with but little alteration, introduce Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer is a representative man in his character and position in
Missouri, and while his persecutions were severe and protracted, his was
not an isolated case. He represents in his cruel and wanton exile a
large class of Missourians, and especially of Missouri ministers, some
of whom will, perhaps, never return to this State. B. T. Kavanaugh, L.
M. Lewis, E. K. Miller, B. R. Baxter and many others are possibly lost
to the State forever. They may have gone out for different causes, but
the peculiar proscription and persecutions to which ministers in
Missouri have been subjected kept them out.
Few if any cases of persecution in Missouri present more deliberate
meditation, cooler cruelty and more heartless inhumanity than the one
disclosed in the following narrative, made in Mr. Spencer’s own quiet,
clear and forcible style. His letters to the various military officials,
written in exile, and while all the finer sentiments and feelings of his
manly, Christian heart were writhing under the cruel injustice he had to
bear without the means of vindication or the hope of redress, are worthy
the pen of Cranmer, and would have given a higher tone and temper to the
moral courage of Latimore.
The reader must, however, measure the man and his persecutors by the
following paper:
“ORDER OF BANISHMENT.
“DEAR DOCTOR: The first item that I send you is in regard to my
_banishment_, as an act of _ecclesiastical persecution_.
“In the town of High Hill, Mo., on the 16th January, 1863, I received
from the hands of a Federal soldier the following order, viz.:
“‘HEADQUARTERS N. E. DISTRICT MISSOURI, }
“‘WARRENTON, MO., Jan. 13, 1863. }
“‘_Provost-Marshal, or Commanding Officer, Danville, Mo._:
“‘SIR: You will cause the following persons to leave the State of
Missouri, within a reasonable time after the receipt of this order, and
reside, during the war or until permitted to return, at some place north
of Indianapolis, Indiana, and east of Illinois. They will be required to
report to you, by letter, once a month, and are not permitted to leave
the State by way of St. Louis, but directed to go by Macon City and
Hannibal, Missouri. Rev. B. H. Spencer, * * * * * * *.
“‘By command of Brigadier-General Merrill.
“‘GEO. M. HOUSTON, A. A. G.’
“The above order was accompanied by the following:
“‘HEADQUARTERS 67TH REGIMENT E. M. M., }
“‘DANVILLE, MO., Jan. 16, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer_:
“‘SIR: The above is a true copy of Gen. Merrill’s order to me. You will
obey said order within six days from this date. You will report to these
headquarters on the day of departure.
“‘By order of J. G. Kettle, Col. Commanding.
“‘J. F. ANDERSON, Adjutant.’
“On the day of receiving this order I went to Warrenton, being Gen.
Merrill’s headquarters, to see if I could not induce him to revoke it. I
found him at the supper table, and unwilling to give me a hearing
anywhere else, when the following conversation took place between us:
“‘Gen. Merrill, I have received from you an order of banishment from the
State, and wish to see you in regard to it.’
“‘Then what is your name and place of residence?’
“‘My name is B. H. Spencer, High Hill, Mo.’
“General (in a passion)—‘I can do nothing for you!’
“I replied—‘It seems that the tongue of slander has reached you
concerning me; will you hear evidence in my favor?’
“His reply was peremptorily, ‘_No, sir!_’
“I inquired, ‘Will you then read documents?’
“Answer in same manner—‘_No, sir!_’
“He then inquired—‘Does the order allow you to go by St. Louis?’
“I answered, ‘No, sir.’
“‘Then,’ said he, ‘see that you _don’t go that way_!’
“I replied, ‘I don’t expect to.’
“He said, ‘_see that you don’t!_’ And then added, ‘You may think
yourself very fortunate that you are not hung, and should feel that you
are _very mercifully dealt by_!’
So the conversation ended, and I returned home and wrote the following
note to Colonel Kettle:
“‘HIGH HILL, MO., Jan. 19, 1863.
“‘_Col. J. G. Kettle, Danville, Mo._:
“‘HONORED SIR: Some time ago I promised to marry a couple in this
vicinity on to-morrow night, and as it will not be in violation of Gen.
Merrill’s order, and will furnish me some means with which to carry out
that order, _will you permit me to do so_?
“‘I am, very respectfully, B. H. SPENCER.’
“The following is his reply:
“‘HEADQUARTERS 67TH REGIMENT E. M. M., }
“‘DANVILLE, MO., Jan. 19, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer_:
“‘SIR: Your request to marry the couple and to preach is granted. I
would say that you had better not speak of your banishment in your
sermon.
“‘Yours, &c., J. G. KETTLE, Colonel.’
“On the 25th of January, 1863, I preached the sermon alluded to; and
then, in company with four others, made my report to military
headquarters at Danville, Mo. But, in consequence of an accident on the
railroad, I was permitted to remain with my family until the 28th of
that month, when, with a sad heart, I was compelled to leave my
distressed wife and six little children and go into a land of strangers,
and remain in exile for ten long months.
“Dr. H. W. Pitman, Rev. D. W. Nowlin, Rev. J. D. Gregory and Rev. Wm. A.
Taylor were banished in company with me. We had no trial, either civil
or military, nor would they condescend to tell us what were the charges
against us, or whether, indeed, there were any. Nor to this
day—September 7th, 1869—have we found out why it was done, except
through private and unofficial sources. The information thus received as
to the cause of my banishment was as I expected—_I was banished because
I was a Southern Methodist preacher!_ One of the officers was asked by
one of my friends: ‘What are the charges against Spencer?’ He answered,
‘_I never heard that there are any; but he is a man of influence, and,
if disposed, can do a great deal of harm!_’ Another officer was asked by
another friend, and he replied, ‘The fact that he is a _Southern
Methodist preacher is all I want to know_!’ There never was a more clear
case of ecclesiastical persecution than was my banishment. Certain men
sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E. Church,
South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things in the
nation; I opposed them, and they became my enemies and had me banished.
If any one doubts this let him attend to the following documents:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, IND., April 22, 1863.
“‘_Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo._:
“‘SIR—There are reasons which induce me to believe that my case is
wholly at the disposal of the officers and Union men of Danville and
vicinity. If this be so, I wish to solicit your attention to a few
considerations in regard to my case. And, first, I was banished from my
home and family _without a trial or a knowledge of the charges against
me_, or who preferred them. Now, sir, is this right? Is there any law,
civil or military, that will punish an _innocent_ man? How could the
officer who banished me know that I was guilty of any crime without
giving me a trial and hearing evidence in the case? Have I ever had such
a trial? When? Where? Who were the judge, jury, witnesses _pro_ and
_con_? Where was the prisoner during the trial? And where was my legal
counsel to see that justice was done me? With what was I charged, and
who were my accusers? Three months have passed since my banishment, and
I am still left in ignorance of why it was done. Was it done merely to
gratify official ambition? or rather, was it not done to gratify the
malice of _secret enemies_? Can the interests of the Government be
secured or protected or its dignity increased by such treatment of one
of its citizens? Do you say that I am a great rebel, and therefore such
treatment is good enough for me? How do you know that I am a rebel at
all, much less a great one? Did you learn it from mere _rumor_, or from
a trustworthy witness, sworn to tell the truth before a proper tribunal
and in the presence of the accused? In the absence of such evidence how
can an intelligent gentleman make such a charge, if, indeed, any one
does make it? If it be stated, or insinuated, that I have been, or am,
disloyal or disobedient to the Constitution of the United States, or to
any of the laws made in pursuance thereof, or to the constitution and
laws of any State where I have ever lived, or to any military order or
edict—_this most unjust and oppressive one banishing me from my home and
family not excepted—I deny the allegation and defy proof by competent
testimony_! Have I not silently borne injustice and oppression long
enough? Can you blame me for entering my earnest protest against such
treatment? Has it not been said by officers who ought to know, ‘_that
there are no charges against me, but that I am a man of influence, and,
if disposed, could do a great deal of harm_?’ Now, if there are no
charges against me, in the name of everything that an American citizen
holds dear, why suffer me to be thus persecuted and oppressed without an
effort to prevent it? Are you not a sworn officer—sworn to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States? and does that Constitution
allow such treatment of an American citizen against whom there are no
charges? and can you allow it to be done without an effort to prevent it
and be innocent? And suppose I have _influence_, is that a crime? and
what reason has any one to fear that I would use it for evil? Is it
proposed to banish men of character and influence from the State for
fear they will exert their influence for evil? If not, why send off, and
keep off, so humble a person as myself? Is this the way an officer
should fulfill his oath of office? Was he clothed with authority for
this purpose? Is this the only protection I am to expect from the
officers of my native State? Is not my banishment, under the
circumstances, an unmitigated outrage upon civil and military order, as
well as upon my liberties as a citizen? I love and almost venerate the
Government of the United States as established by our patriotic
ancestors! Among earthly institutions I expect and want nothing better.
With _it_ I find no fault. My complaint is against certain of its
_officers_ for the injustice and oppression with which they treat me. If
you were in my place and I in your’s, what course would you wish me to
pursue? If a peaceable and quiet citizen, such as I have always been, is
not free from imprisonment or banishment, _who is safe_? Has justice
forsaken the land? And is there no place where the oppressed may find
redress? If there be any place where justice may be had, will you tell
me where it is, and how to approach it? I must candidly believe that my
banishment was caused by _ecclesiastical persecution_—that I am banished
for an _ecclesiastical_ and not for a _political_ reason! Certain
persons sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E.
Church, South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things
in the nation, and I opposed them, because I not only loved _union in
the nation_, but also _in the Church_—hence they became my enemies, and
for this cause _alone_, as I believe, they secured my banishment! I
believe the officer who did it was deceived, and induced to believe me
_a bad and dangerous man_, or surely he would not have acted so hastily
and rashly! But you know, and so do all my enemies, that such is not my
character. Who would be injured by my return to my family? Can anybody
tell? Does anybody fear it? Shall my secret enemies be allowed to
continue the gratification of their malignity at my expense under
pretense of friendship to the Government? Will my continued _religious_
persecution do the Government any good? Why, then, suffer its
continuance? Why keep a man in exile without just cause, who is in
feeble health, with limited means, and a wife and six dependent children
needing his attention? _Will you not then allow me to come home at
once?_ Do not even the instincts of humanity, to say nothing of the
higher obligations of justice and official duty, urge compliance with
this request? I honestly believe that you and the Union men of your
vicinity can get me home if you will—just as easily as to say the word.
I may be mistaken, but I honestly believe that my whole case is in your
hands, and that I remain in exile or return to my family, just as you
will the one or the other. I have reasons for this opinion, and if I am
mistaken would like to know it. I wish to say that in all that I have
written I have not _intentionally_ used a single word that was
_disrespectful_ toward those in authority. In all that I have said, I
have _aimed_ to speak plainly, candidly and _earnestly_, but also
_respectfully_. I respect you on account of the _authority_ with which
you are invested and the _Government_ which you _represent_. But I
protest against the way I am treated, and who can blame me for it? And
if this protest shall be disregarded now, perhaps it may live and speak
in vindication of my character when I am dead, and when the voice of
_injured justice_ shall be _heard_ and _respected_. If you can not
release me, will you tell me who can? And will you answer this at your
earliest possible convenience, and let me know what you intend to do in
my case.
I am, most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“The answer of the Provost-Marshal was _prompt_, _frank_ and _manly_,
and does honor to the head and heart of its author. Unlike every other
officer, civil or military, to whom I had applied for information or
redress, he did not treat me with silent contempt. _He answered._ And
the answer is important, because it shows clearly that he not only had
no hand in the banishment of myself and my companions in exile, but that
he also had been kept in ignorance of the intention to do it, as also
for the reasons why it was done. Surely there could have been no public
charges against us, or proper trial in our case, or the Provost-Marshal
in our immediate vicinity could not have thus been kept in ignorance of
such an intention till after it was done.
“It proves, furthermore, that by order of Gen. McKean, it was left to
the so-called loyal men of Montgomery county, Mo., to say whether we
should return or not. And we have the names of those who gave their
sworn opinions as to whether it was _proper_ for us to return or not,
and could give them, but in mercy we withhold them. And, finally, it
proves that our efforts to obtain a revocation of our order of
banishment, to be successful, had to be kept to _ourselves_. Why? Simply
because if our secret enemies found it out they would thwart our efforts
at the headquarters of the Commanding General of the district. But the
letter speaks for itself. It is as follows:
“‘OFFICE PROVOST-MARSHAL, DANVILLE, }
MONTGOMERY CO., MO., April 26, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer, Ashby’s Mills, Ind._:
“‘DEAR SIR—I have just received yours of 22d inst., and must acknowledge
I am utterly at a loss to comprehend it.
“‘I want to say, once for all, to yourself, as also to Doct. Pitman and
Judge Nowlin, that I had no hand in your banishment whatever, either as
a private citizen or as an officer; that I never had, either directly or
indirectly, an intimation that such a thing was contemplated. An order
was issued by General McKean, who is Commanding General of this
district, headquarters at Palmyra, to J. G. Lane, Provost-Marshal of
Wellsville district, to take the testimony of the loyal men of
Montgomery county in relation to the _propriety_ of your return home.
Lane was removed from office and his district thrown into mine, and the
order was sent to me by General McKean, which I executed by taking the
evidence of loyal men, both at High Hill and Montgomery City, as well as
Danville. The evidence was sworn to and sent by order of the commanding
General to his headquarters.
“‘Now, sir, I have given you the facts in regard to everything I have
had to do with this case. And, although you protest against any
intention to insult or offend in your communication, I must frankly
admit that the whole tenor of your letter seems to savor of both. ‘How
can you consent, without just cause, to keep one in exile who is in
feeble health,’ &c., is one extract from your letter. ‘_Will you not
then allow me to come home at once?_’ is another. Now, sir, you must
know that I have no direct control of this matter! Why ask me such
questions? Why not ask me, as a private citizen, to use my influence to
obtain a revocation of the order? The authorities that issued the order
of your banishment have never asked, neither have I _given_, my opinion
as to the propriety of the order. Notwithstanding I consider your letter
as invidious, and, as I understand it, full of insinuations against me,
yet, under the circumstances, I will allow humanity to step in, discard
all feeling that your letter may have excited, and give you the best
advice I am capable of.
“‘Judge Nowlin, Doct. Pitman and yourself get up a letter, directed to
Brig.-Gen. McKean, Palmyra, Mo., through me as Provost-Marshal of
Montgomery county. Take _humanity_ for your text; appeal to him through
the tears of your wife and helpless children; let Government officers
alone; agree to report to me once a week in person, if it should be
considered necessary; give every assurance that your lips will be sealed
in future as to the utterance of treason, directly or indirectly; send
the letter to me and I will forward it, with such recommendation as I
may deem proper and right, and, if that fails, I am at the end of my
row. The success of this thing will very much depend on keeping my
advice to yourselves. I may be mistaken, but I believe your liberation
may be effected in that way. Give my respects to Judge Nowlin and Doctor
Pitman.
“‘Yours, &c.,
“‘A. C. STEWART, Prov.-Marshal.’
“To the above noble letter I made the following reply:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, MONTGOMERY CO., INDIANA, }
‘May 4, 1863. }
“‘_Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo._:
“‘DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26th April is to hand, has been read and
contents noted. And in reply let me say, I regret that you considered my
letter in its whole tenor ‘invidious, offensive and insulting,’
notwithstanding my protest against such a construction. I knew the task
I had undertaken was difficult, for there seems to be something about
_official position_ which is always more or less _impatient of
contradiction_. And hence it was reasonable to conclude that this is
true of military officers, who feel that it is theirs to _command_ and
for others to _obey_ or _submit_, and not to _reason_ or _question_. The
difficulty was to so employ language as to convey some idea of my
_righteous indignation_ at the injustice of my treatment, and which
would at the same time be _respectful_ and _courteous_ toward those in
authority. And I question very much whether you yourself, in my
circumstances, would, if you could, have done better. I was, with only a
few days’ notice, forced away from the fellowship and pastoral oversight
of hundreds of beloved brethren; from a most dependent and afflicted
family; from my only means of their support; from the graves of my
kindred, and every thing of earth that was dear; was denied the
privilege of going by St. Louis, where I might have reached the ears of
power and have gained a revocation of my order of banishment; with
limited means, was compelled to travel a circuitous and expensive route
to my place of exile; was denied the privilege of living in the loyal
State of Illinois, where I had kindred, and it would have cost me
nothing; was denied the sympathy of friends who would have helped me
financially, but were afraid; was sent into a land of strangers, under
Government censure, where, without _sympathy_, if without _money_, a man
had better be dead; was not allowed to know the charges against me, who
were my accusers, or even the semblance of a trial, though I had sought
one of Gen. Merrill, of Gen. Curtis, of Gen. Halleck, of Gov. Gamble, of
Attorney-General Bates, of Secretary Stanton and of President Lincoln,
and had done this, directly and indirectly, through men of commanding
influence, whose loyalty was above suspicion, and all this without
success; felt, yea _knew_, that I was _innocent_; that there could be
_no truthful_ evidence of my being guilty of any crime; knew that I was
suffering all this to gratify the malignity of secret enemies who had
deceived the military commander and secured my banishment; enemies who,
like the midnight assassin, did their work and then slunk away to gloat
over the misery they had caused; felt satisfied that I was thus
persecuted for an _ecclesiastical_ and not for _a political_ reason; was
sure the Government could not be benefited by my persecution nor injured
by my return to my family; and, finally, became thoroughly convinced
that the _influence_ that controlled the action of those who had the
power to release me from the binding force of this order, or to keep me
in exile, was in or near Danville; and, in a word, was satisfied that I
had found out the _locality_ of the authors of my trouble and why they
persecuted me, but the identical names of my persecutors I did not know;
and hence, in view of the foregoing considerations, I wrote you in the
way I did. Now, interpret my letter in the light of my circumstances,
and imagine _yourself in my condition_, and you will be able to
‘comprehend it,’ and to _excuse_ anything that may _seem_ ‘discourteous
or insulting,’ especially when I _assure_ you nothing of the kind was
_intended_. You have my thanks for your _prompt_ and _manly_ reply to my
letter. There are times when I would rather a man would _abuse me a
little than not answer me at all_, and this is one of those times. You
are the only officer who had the condescension, kindness, humanity, or
whatever else you may please to call it, to answer a single one of my
numerous appeals for deliverance from oppression, or for instruction as
to where or how I might obtain it. To your praise be this spoken. It
affords me much pleasure, also, to learn from yourself that you had no
hand in securing my banishment, or knowledge of it until after it
occurred. I wish I could think the same of every other citizen of
Danville.
“And now that, in accordance with your wish, I am addressing you as _a
private_ citizen, may I ask, and confidently expect, that you will give
me the names of my accusers, and the nature of their accusations against
me, if there are any, together with the names of those loyal men whose
sworn testimony was sent to Gen. McKean in regard to the ‘_propriety_’
of allowing me to come home, and the substance of what each one said? As
that is the nearest a trial of anything else I have had, should not the
accused be allowed to know his accusers, the names of the witnesses and
the nature of their testimony against him? You reprehend me very
severely for insinuating that you have any ‘direct control of my case.’
Well, I did not suppose you had authority to _revoke_ the order of
banishment; but I did suppose, and do still suppose, that you and your
friends of that vicinity can influence Gen. McKean to revoke the order
or not, just as you wish; and that you have control of my case in _that
way_. And hence it is that I am so thankful to you, and so much
encouraged by your kind offer to use your influence with the commanding
officer to set aside this order and permit me to return home. And I am
sure if you do promptly and vigorously exert your influence in that
direction you are _certain_ of success.
“Among your items of advice you say, ‘Give every assurance that your
lips will be sealed in future as to the utterance of treason, directly
or indirectly.’ Now, as this is, to my mind, an intimation that some
one, or all three of us, are charged with having been guilty of
treasonable utterances, and hence are required to give assurance that we
will do so no more, I wish to say for myself that, if such be the
intimation, I deny the allegation _in toto_; for I have neither
_uttered_ nor _acted_ treason, nor do I expect to do either in future.
And if I am permitted to return, and you can protect me from the tongue
of slander, and the _secret enemies_ that with consummate mendacity
hound my steps and torture and misrepresent my language and conduct, you
will hear nothing of treason, either in _utterance_ or _action_. But, if
_that_ can not be done—if the tongue of slander and falsehood against me
can not be silenced in any other way—then give a _fair trial_, and make
these _secret liars_, who _whisper_ falsehoods into official ears
against those they hate, ‘_face the music_,’ and I will vindicate my
_innocence_. Upon that subject I can make no further promises. A mere
_charge of treason_, you know, is no _evidence of guilt_. The
_immaculate_ Son of Man was accused of _rebellion_, _sedition_ and
_treason_, with _blasphemy_, and with being the _agent_ of the _prince
of devils_! Of _Innocence itself_ they said, ‘_He is not fit to live;
away with him! crucify him! crucify him!_’ And ‘If they have done these
things in the _green tree_, what will they not do in the dry?’ And the
same divine authority has said, ‘If any man will live _godly in Christ
Jesus_, he must suffer _persecution_,’ and I have made my calculations
accordingly. As to your other suggestions, I wish to say that I will
herewith transmit to Gen. McKean, through you, a request, or petition,
for the revocation of this order in my case, accompanied with a few of
the reasons why I make it, which I will thank you to send to him, if you
please, together with such remarks and recommendations as you may think
proper to make. Please let me hear from you at an early day, and much
oblige,
“‘Most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“The petition was sent to General McKean, through the Provost-Marshal of
Montgomery county, Mo., together with the best appeal that he could make
in our favor. But the only notice he seems to have given it was to treat
it with silent contempt.
“The following is a copy of that petition:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, IND., May 7, 1863.
“‘_Brigadier-Gen. McKean, Com., Palmyra, Mo._:
“‘DEAR SIR—Will you please to revoke the order of Gen. Merrill, of the
13th January, 1863, banishing me from the State of Missouri? A few of
the reasons why I ask you to do this are—
“’1st. _The order was unjust._ The General who issued this order did not
_know_ me, was dependent upon _others_ for his information concerning
me, and was evidently _deceived_ by my _personal enemies_, or he never
would have issued it.
“’2d. I have never engaged in this rebellion in any way, nor violated
any law, civil or military; and, therefore, am _not deserving_ of this
punishment.
“’3d. I have a wife and six small, helpless children, whose ages range
from _two_ to _twelve_ years, from whom I have been forcibly separated
for more than _three months_, and who very much _need_ my attention,
and, therefore, _humanity_, to say nothing of the higher claims of
_truth_ and _justice_, demands compliance with this request.
“’4th. If permitted to return, _I expect to be, as I have ever been, a
law-abiding and good citizen_, and, therefore, the Government can not be
_benefited_ by my remaining in exile nor _injured_ by my return to my
family.
“’5th. As it is the duty and glory of a Government to protect its
citizens in the possession of all their _legitimate rights_, I ask, and
hope it will be your _pleasure_ to grant, that I may return to my family
in the enjoyment of the _untrammeled liberty_ that I had before my
banishment.
“‘This petition will be sent to your headquarters by Mr. A. C. Stewart,
Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo., accompanied by such remarks and
recommendations as he may think proper to make.
“‘In the confident expectation that you will grant this just and
reasonable request at an early day,
“‘I am, most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“After being compelled to remain long enough in exile to form character
and make friends amongst strangers, at the end of nine months some of
the most prominent Union men of Indiana, on the 31st August, 1863, sent
the following petition to the Provost-Marshal General of the department
of the Missouri:
“‘_To Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead, P. M. G. of Missouri, St. Louis,
Mo., or to whomsoever this petition should be addressed_:
“‘The undersigned petitioners beg leave respectfully to represent to the
proper authorities in the State of Missouri, that we are citizens of the
United States, residents of the counties of Montgomery and Putnam, in
the State of Indiana; that we are now and ever have been loyal and
devoted to the Government of the United States; that we are supporters
of the present Administration thereof, and that we are in favor of using
all lawful ways and means for suppressing the present rebellion and
preserving the Union established by our fathers; we, therefore,
cordially endorse all and every one of the measures of the Government
having these much desired objects in view.
“‘We beg leave further to represent that there have been residing in our
midst, in our immediate vicinity, for the past six or seven months,
three individuals, said to be citizens of Montgomery county, in the
State of Missouri, and to have been banished from that State by the
military authorities there, viz.: H. W. Pitman, B. H. Spencer and David
W. Nowlin. While we can not know the causes that led to the banishment
of these men, we would state that they came among us under the ban of
the Government, and we looked upon them as objects of suspicion. They
and their conduct have been closely observed and narrowly scrutinized,
not to say strictly watched by our party, and we deem it but sheer
justice to declare, candidly and emphatically, that after an observation
of the length of time indicated above we have seen nothing in these men
that in our judgment would require that they longer be kept in exile.’
“‘They are represented to us as men having families dependent greatly on
them for support, and every feeling of humanity is enlisted in their
behalf, if the interests of the Government do not imperatively require
their continuance in exile. With the lights before us, and in view of
the facts that these men have resided for the past six or seven months
in a population greatly excited on political issues, and among whom
sundry disloyal practices have been rife, in which they have had ample
opportunities to have partaken if they had been so inclined, and yet our
observation has not been sufficient to detect them as aiders or abettors
in these disloyal practices; we feel free, therefore, to declare
emphatically our convictions that the interests of the Government will
not be advanced by a longer continuance of their exile; but, on the
contrary, we are satisfied that those interests would be promoted by a
revocation of the order banishing them from Missouri. We, therefore, in
behalf of these exiles, pray the authorities in Missouri who are
empowered to do so to revoke the order banishing the said H. W. Pitman,
B. H. Spencer and David W. Nowlin from the said State of Missouri, and
to release them from further pains and penalties in the premises; and as
loyal citizens in duty bound, we will ever pray, &c.
(Signed) “‘JOHN W. HARRISON,
“‘DR. H. LABARRE,
“‘FRANKLIN M. MCMURRAY,
“‘DR. GEORGE W. MILLER,
“‘JAMES KNOX,
“‘J. J. BILLINGSLEY,
“‘A. D. BILLINGSLEY.’
“The undoubted loyalty of these petitioners, and their prominence in
social and political circles during Mr. Lincoln’s Administration,
received the following endorsement, which accompanied their petition and
formed a part of it:
“‘I have known the signers of this paper long and well; they are true
and loyal citizens of Indiana, and are all supporters of the
Administration. They are gentlemen of the highest character, and their
statements are entitled to full credit.
“‘H. S. LANE, U. S. Senator.’
“‘The gentlemen who signed the foregoing statement are of undoubted
loyalty, and their representations are worthy of credit.
“‘O. P. MORTON, Gov. of Indiana.’
“And now, by way of showing how difficult it was for those in prison or
exile to obtain a hearing at headquarters, in consequence of _official
routine_, _etiquette_, or what is technically called ‘_Red Tape_,’ I
give the following _inscription_, which was written on the outside of
the above petition before it was returned to the petitioners. It seems
first to have come into the hands of some _sub_-official, who read it
and then wrote on it a digest of its contents, as follows:
“‘_Petition._ Citizens of Indiana. _P. 102 (P. M. G.) 63._ That H. W.
Pitman, B. H. Spencer and D. W. Nowlin, exiles from Montgomery county,
Mo., be permitted to return to their families and homes, as they have
been closely watched while here and have always conducted themselves as
Union men. These petitioners are indorsed by the Governor of Indiana.’
“This sub-official then seems to have sent it to the P. M. General of
the Department, who, without granting or promising to grant the
petition, sent it back to Gov. Morton, with the following explanation
written on it:
“‘HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, }
“‘OFFICE OF THE P. M. G., }
“‘ST. LOUIS, MO., Sept. 3, 1863. }
“Respectfully returned to his Excellency, O. P. Morton, Governor of
Indiana, with the information that there are no papers on the cases of
the persons named in the within petition in this office. Neither does
their names appear upon the records. They were probably banished by
order of some district commander.
“‘By order of Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead.
“‘H. H. HAINE,
“‘Lieut. and A. P. M. G. Dept. of the Missouri.’
“Upon receiving it Governor Morton sent it to Senator Lane, who sent it
to the petitioners with the following explanation:
“This paper was to-day returned to me by Governor Morton, with the
indorsements on it. Sept. 7, 1863.
“‘H. S. LANE.’
“Just think of it! No trial, no charges, nothing for us or against us,
not on the records, no papers in our cases, and yet we in exile and
compelled to stay there! But we employed one of Indiana’s noblest
lawyers, the Hon. Samuel C. Wilson, of Crawfordsville, to take that
petition and go with it in person to Gen. Schofield’s headquarters. The
result was an unconditional revocation of the order of banishment, on
the 16th Sept., 1863, which is as follows:
“‘HEADQ’RS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, }
ST. LOUIS, MO., Sept. 15th, 1863. }
“‘_Special Orders No. 252._]
“‘I. Dr. H. W. Pitman, David Nowlin and B. H. Spencer, citizens of
Montgomery county, Missouri, heretofore banished to Indiana, to remain
there during the war, are permitted to remain in any part of the United
States, outside of the limits of this Department. They will report their
places of residence the first of each month during the war to the
Provost-Marshal General of this Department.
“‘By command of Major-General Schofield.
“‘WM. W. ENO, Ass’t Adj’t-Gen’l.
“‘B. H. Spencer, per Maj. Dunn.’
“The foregoing facts and documents are a mere tithing of what might be
given to the same effect, and go to show most clearly that I was
persecuted in various ways, and banished from my helpless family for ten
long months, for no higher and _no other crime_ than that I was a
_Southern Methodist preacher_!
TEST OATH.
“The following is a mere sample of numerous other indictments against me
for preaching without taking the Missouri _test oath_:
“‘Know all men, by these presents, that we, B. H. Spencer, as principal,
and Thomas Kemble and A. Bigelow, as securities, are held and firmly
bound unto the State of Missouri in the sum of one thousand dollars, the
payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our
heirs, administrators and executors, firmly by these presents. The
conditions of the above bond are, that whereas B. H. Spencer has been
indicted by the Grand Jury of Montgomery county for preaching without
taking the oath; Now, if the said B. H. Spencer shall personally appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court on the first day of the next term
of said Court, said term of said Court to be held at the court house in
the town of Danville, in and for said county, on the fourth Monday of
next May, and answer to said indictment, and not depart therefrom
without the leave of said Court, then said bond to be void, otherwise to
remain in full force and effect. Witness our signatures this the 18th
day of May, A. D. 1866.
“‘B. H. SPENCER,
“‘THOMAS KEMBLE,
“‘ABNER BIGELOW.’
“My refusing to take this oath was not the result of an unwillingness to
obey the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, for I had
already taken the ‘Convention oath,’ the ‘Halleck oath’ and the
‘Rosecrans oath,’ and had sworn fealty to the State as often, and in as
many ways as _reason_, _conscience_ and _loyalty_ would allow. And
hence, when civil authority came between me and my Divine Master, and
virtually said, _I will allow you to obey your Master if you will swear
fealty to me first_, I believed it to be _wicked_ thus to surrender the
claims of Christ to the demands of Cæsar, and resolved, at the hazard of
fines and imprisonments, yea, even of life itself, that I would refuse
compliance with this unrighteous requirement. I believed they had as
much right to say _what should be preached_ as to say _who should preach
it_! Hence I refused, and numerous indictments were the result.
“Having scarcely commenced the recital of my persecutions as a Southern
Methodist preacher, I find this article already too long, and therefore
close, with the kindest wishes for all my persecutors, and an earnest
prayer for their salvation.
“I am, truly and fraternally,
“B. H. SPENCER.”