REVS. D. B. COOPER, H. N. WATTS AND THOS. GLANVILLE.
_Rev. D. B. Cooper_—Attempt Made to Ride him on a Rail—Defeated by the
Timely Appearance of Soldiers—Particulars Furnished by Dr. N. W.
Harris—_Rev. H. N. Watts_—A Native of Missouri—Efforts Made to Place
the Old Ministers under Disability or Run them out of the State—Mr.
Watts Arrested—Silenced—Correspondence with Provost-Marshals Reid
and Sanderson—“Test Oath”—_Rev. Thos. Glanville_—An Englishman by
Birth—Early Life—Peculiar Trials—Manner of Life as a Citizen and a
Minister—Driven from Home in 1863—Returns and Obtains Written
Permission to Preach—Warned not to fill his Appointment on Sabbath,
September 20, 1863—Remains at Home—That Night he is Shot Through his
Window—Shot a Second and Third Time, and Expires Praying for his
Murderers—His Eldest Son Shot and Killed the Same Night—Details
Furnished by J. H. Ross and Rev. John Monroe—Conclusion.
REV. D. B. COOPER.
The following account of an attempt to mob and ride on a rail this
humble and worthy minister of the gospel will be perused with interest,
as it is furnished by an eye witness and an intelligent physician, whose
statements will not be called in question. But for the fact that he is
“not a professor of Christianity,” and authorizes the use of his name
with respectable references, the language would be somewhat toned down
and tempered to a milder moral zone. But it is thought best to give the
communication as received, as it details some important facts, and
throws light upon the _animus_ of others:
“PILOT GROVE, COOPER CO., MO., April 25, 1869.
“_Rev. P. M. Pinckard, St. Louis, Mo._:
“In the summer of 1863 Rev. D. B. Cooper, now of Mt. Sterling, Ky., was
on the circuit in Linn county, Mo. He is one of the purest men I have
ever known, and remarkably reticent. I knew him intimately and well,
being his physician and a personal friend. He never preached or talked
politics, even to his most intimate friends and acquaintances. If there
was but one man in Missouri during those wicked years of horror walking
humbly before God and acting uprightly toward his fellow-men, that man
was D. B. Cooper.
“On Sunday he was preaching in Laclede, my then residence; some one
whispered to me that some soldiers were outside intending to ride the
preacher on a _rail_. I went out and sure enough there were some
half-dozen soldiers who had come up from Brookfield, had gone into a
‘loyal’ doggery, imbibed freely, and meeting some ‘loyal Methodists,’
were told that a rebel was preaching. Under the _stimuli_ of bad whisky
and the worse hearts of the ‘God and morality’ Methodists, they had come
to the church with a fence-rail intending to commit an outrage upon this
gentleman. But ‘man proposes and God disposes.’
“I tried to dissuade them from their purpose, but could not, and went
back into church to a lieutenant of Col. McFerran’s regiment, then
stationed in Laclede, and told him to go to Col. McFerran and tell him
to send a file of soldiers immediately. I knew McFerran could be relied
on, as he was a Democrat and a gentleman. There was no time to lose;
service was nearly over, and neither Mr. Cooper nor his congregation
knew anything of the impending outrage. The upper floor of a ‘loyal’
Methodist’s house near by was full of ‘God’s elect’ to witness the fun.
Just before the service closed the braves crowded into the house, and
when the congregation was dismissed they, the soldiers, were so situated
that they had to leave the house last. When they came out and were about
to lift their rail at the side of the house and seize Mr. Cooper—who was
yet in ignorance of their designs—they, and all but myself, were
surprised to see two files of soldiers, with fixed bayonets, marching
down on us so as to encompass the entire crowd. As no violence had been
done, no arrests were made. The miserable tools of the bad-hearted
fanatics slunk away like whipped curs, leaving their pious (?)
instigators gnashing their teeth and calling down curses upon McFerran
and myself. I don’t think their prayers were ever answered.
“These maudlin soldiers were not to blame. They were mere tools in the
hands of the base-hearted men and women who instigated the outrage. This
act is only a type of the general conduct of this people during the war
who are now whining for union with you.
“I am no professor of Christianity, but if such people are Christians,
or your union with them would compose a Christian body, I pray the Giver
of all good to incline my heart to heathenism rather than such a mongrel
abomination.
“I was living in Boonville when they committed the theft of your church
there, and know all about it; but you will get the particulars of that
honest (?) act from others.
“I have given you the facts, but have taken no pains, as you see. You
may have to re-write it. You are at liberty to insert it in your book
over my signature if you wish.
“Your friend, N. W. HARRIS.”
References wore furnished amply sufficient to endorse the veracity of
Dr. Harris, had it needed such endorsement.
A complete history of those perilous times would unveil many similar
acts nipped in the bud, or plotted and projected, but defeated by the
timely interference of good men.
Many Southern Methodist preachers were threatened with a ride on a rail
and a coat of tar and feathers; but the presence of peaceable citizens
and the fear of military interference deterred the rabble in most cases
from committing the deeds to which they were instigated.
The Rev. B. R. Baxter, now in Montana, and the Rev. H. H. Hedgepeth, now
in heaven, and others, were forced to leave their work in Andrew, Holt
and adjoining counties in consequence of such threats. Even the persons
and lives of all Southern Methodist ministers were in constant peril in
that portion of the State until after the Supreme Court of the United
States had declared the test oath of the New Constitution
unconstitutional. Indeed, not until 1867 was it safe for one of the
proscribed and threatened of the M. E. Church, South, to be seen or
heard in that part of the State northwest of St. Joseph, as facts
hereafter to be narrated will show.
But for the present, and for the sake of some little chronological
order, events in Southeast Missouri claim attention; and, first,
REV. HENRY N. WATTS.
Why were native Missourians in the ministry marked as the special
objects of displeasure? Were they sinners above all the men who lived
and labored in this goodly State, that such exceptional notice should be
taken of them in the administration of pious loyalty? Possibly the
discrimination was made upon the ground of personal influence with the
people. That they had more influence with the people and stood higher in
public estimation than any imported men will not be questioned; but that
their influence was used for evil purposes, either political, social or
moral, is distinctly denied. That others were envious of their
well-earned position, and jealous of their power over the people and
consequent ability to control the moral forces of the State for
ecclesiastical advancement and distinction, is too true to escape the
notice of history; for upon this fact the only rational hypothesis can
rest that accounts for the noteworthy pre-eminence given to the old
native Missouri ministers in these persecutions. A man who had been so
long and so well known in the Missouri pulpit as the Rev. H. N. Watts
could not escape the heavy hand of the persecutor, and the distinction
in suffering he had gained in the ministry.
Mr. Watts was admitted on trial in the Missouri Conference, M. E.
Church, South, at St. Louis, in 1844, and appointed to Ripley Mission,
Cape Girardeau District.
From that time on he has been a faithful laborer in his Master’s
vineyard—always ready to go where the Bishop appointed him without
murmuring or gainsaying. At times he has been called to fill the chair
of Presiding Elder, and also to represent his Conference in the General
Conference. His fidelity to the sacred claims and obligations of the
gospel ministry has only been equaled by his loyalty to the Church of
his choice and his fidelity to her distinctive peculiarities. He was
always a man of one work, and never concerned himself particularly about
the civil and political affairs of the country.
The policy of the Church and the saving principles and power of the
gospel of grace were more to him than all “the things which belong unto
Cæsar.” He thought that there were men enough to attend to Cæsar’s
business, but none too many ministers to keep God’s business with men
and man’s interest in the “kingdom of heaven” from suffering. Hence he
kept himself free from political strifes and attended, with singleness
of heart and life, to his holy calling. Thus he was engaged when the war
broke out, and up to the summer of 1863 he had suffered very little
molestation. He had taken no part in the strife and committed no act of
treason against the Government; was a peaceable, orderly citizen.
In 1863 Mr. Watts was living in Charleston, Mississippi county, Mo., and
on the 23d of July was arrested at his house by a squad of soldiers,
accompanied by Meeker Thurman, Aaron W. and John Grigsby, and taken to
Columbus, Ky. He was charged with no crime, and no offense against the
laws or peace of the Government was ever alleged against him. In vain
did he plead the protection of the Constitution of the United States. He
was threatened with banishment or imprisonment during the war, unless he
would take and subscribe a military oath, which was as repugnant to his
feelings as it was oppressive to the rights of conscience. After taking
the oath to secure his liberty, and receiving some personal abuse as a
minister of the gospel, he was released and permitted to return to his
home after an absence of several days.
In the spring of 1864, and while Capt. Ewing’s company of militia were
stationed in Charleston, and Lieut. Jas. A. Reed was Ass’t
Provost-Marshal, Mr. Watts was prohibited from preaching the gospel for
several weeks by military authority. He continued, however, to travel
his circuit and hold religious services. He would read the word of God,
sing, pray and exhort the people to “flee from the wrath to come” and
“lead peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and honesty.”
The following is the correspondence between the Assistant
Provost-Marshal and Mr. Watts. It will serve to develop the nature of
the persecutions he suffered in the light of the official records:
“OFFICE ASSISTANT PROVOST-MARSHAL, }
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 17, 1864. }
“_Parson Watts_:
“SIR: You will greatly oblige me, and at the same time not inconvenience
yourself, perhaps, by calling at this office on or before the 19th
inst., for the purpose of complying with ‘Special Order No. 61,’ issued
by the Provost-Marshal General, St. Louis, Mo., March 7, 1864, requiring
ministers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance therein
prescribed.
“Your non-compliance with this notice will be taken as a refusal and
will be acted upon accordingly.
“JAMES A. REID,
“1st Lieut. and Ass’t Provost-Marshal.”
To which Mr. Watts returned the following reply:
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 18, 1864.
“_Lieut. James A. Reid, Ass’t Provost-Marshal_:
“SIR: Your note of the 17th inst. has been received, asking me to appear
at your office on or before the 19th inst., to comply with ‘Special
Order No. 61,’ concerning ‘convocations, conferences, councils,
assemblies,’ &c.
“1. I have written to St. Louis for certain information on this and
other subjects. I would greatly prefer getting said information before
taking action in this matter.
“2. I assure you I have not violated said order by attending any synod,
council, conference, or any such assembly under any other name, since
said order was issued.
“3. And as you think preaching would be a violation of said order, I
have ceased preaching since I have heard of this order. And a private
citizen is not required to take that oath, yourself being judge.
“4. As a private individual I have taken the oath of allegiance, a copy
of which I have; and,
“5. I have not at any time, and do not design violating that order, and
with this assurance I hope I shall not be hurried in this matter.
“Respectfully, H. N. WATTS.”
Mr. Watts addressed the following letter to the Provost-Marshal General,
St. Louis:
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 18, 1864.
“_J. P. Sanderson, Pro.-Marshal Gen’l, St. Louis, Mo._:
“DEAR SIR—Special Order No. 61, from your office, dated the 7th inst.,
‘concerning religious convocations, synods, councils, conferences, or
assemblies under any other name or title,’ not being understood as to
the extent of its application, will you be kind enough to answer the
following inquiries:
“1. Under these terms, ‘convocations, synods, &c., or assemblies _under
any other name or title_,’ does this include congregational worship, or
a congregation met in open church, with free seats, for preaching and
other public services? and will each one so assembled be required to
take the oath prescribed in Special Order No. 61?
“2. When an assembly of divines have met to transact the business of the
Church, and have taken the prescribed oath, are they expected then to
oppose secession and treason publicly from the pulpit, or only in
private circles?
“3. A minister who has within the past year taken the oath of allegiance
in another State, but is now traveling in this State, must he again take
the oath before he can meet his congregation for public worship?
“Answers to these inquiries will be gladly received, if you can find
time to answer
“Your obedient servant,
“H. N. WATTS.”
The Assistant Provost-Marshal at Charleston received the following
letter from the Provost-Marshal General in answer to the inquiries of
Mr. Watts:
“HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
OFFICE OF PROVOST-MARSHAL GENERAL.
ST. LOUIS, MO., March 24, 1864.
“SIR—I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st, enclosing your
correspondence with the Rev. Mr., Watts, and asking for further
instructions; and, also, I am in receipt of a letter from the same Rev.
gentleman, propounding to me the following questions:
(_See questions above._)
“It can not be necessary, either for your guidance or that of the Rev.
gentleman who has propounded these questions to me, to answer them
categorically.
“The order referred to is too plain and distinct to be misunderstood. It
applies, as the language used unmistakably indicates, to conferences and
all other representative assemblies convened to promote the cause of
religion and morality, and _not_ to the ordinary meetings of Christians
assembled for the business purposes of a congregation, or benevolent
society, or for the worship of God. All the objects of it are answered
when its enforcement is confined to the assemblies indicated in it, and,
as a matter of course, it forms no part of its purpose or requirements
that persons should take the prescribed oath before proceeding to
worship their Maker when assembled for that purpose.
“In case of the attendance at any assemblage of the character indicated
in said order of any one who has already taken the oath of allegiance
prescribed by the laws of this State for the clergy _to_ legalize
marriage, &c., any certificate or evidence of the fact will be
sufficient to render him eligible without again taking the prescribed
oath.
“But, while such is the liberal construction of the Order No. 61,
requiring no oath of those divines who have already taken the required
oath to enable them to perform all their functions, it is no less the
determination of the undersigned to enforce a rigid compliance with the
ordinance of the State Convention of June 10, 1862, requiring licensed
and ordained preachers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance
therein prescribed before assuming to discharge the duties pertaining to
their avocations under the laws of this State.
“Those who have failed to do so, and who, under the pretense of
preaching or worshiping God, meet really for seditious purposes, and, in
truth, to desecrate and violate the laws of God and their country, can
not be allowed so to meet or carry on their seditious purposes, and will
be held to a strict accountability.
“I have no inclination, nor do I conceive it to be any part of my duty,
to answer the Rev. gentleman’s second interrogatory, and thus instruct
him in his ministerial duties. My respect for his profession obliges me
to presume that he is familiar with the Bible, and needs no such
instruction from me. For the information asked in that interrogatory he
will, therefore, have to refer to the Bible, whose expounder he
professes to be. He need but do so in the proper spirit, and with an
earnest desire to be guided by its teachings, to insure unto him a flood
of light as to his duty in the premises.
“You will furnish the Rev. Mr. Watts with a copy of this letter, and be
guided in your own actions by its instructions.
“Respectfully, J. P. SANDERSON,
“Prov.-Mar. Gen’l.
“Lt. Jas. A. Reid, Ass’t Pro.-Mar’l, Charleston, Mo.”
The letter of the Provost-Marshal General was forwarded to Mr. Watts,
through the Assistant Provost-Marshal’s office at Charleston,
accompanied by an order from the latter office requiring him to take the
Convention oath of ’62, or cease to preach, and report himself at
headquarters, St. Louis. He went to St. Louis, took what was called the
“Gamble oath,” returned home and resumed his ministerial labors.
The correspondence here given is specially valuable for the light it
throws upon the spirit and bearing of the military authorities in the
direct issue they made with the clergy of the State. Many ministers of
the gospel were more oppressed and persecuted, but all of them did not
so far yield to military authority on the one hand, nor so sharply
contend for the rights of conscience on the other.
The “Special Order, No. 61,” has a history of itself that will be
unveiled in due time, and the true nature of the proscription and
persecution under it will be better disclosed in another place.
This forcing the conscience of ministers by prescribing “test oaths” is
not a new thing. It is as old as the second great persecution under
Domitian, A. D. 81, and as cruel as the Spanish Inquisition.
When State Conventions and military commanders in Missouri prepared
political “test oaths” for ministers of the gospel as a class, and
ordered all non-juring ministers under disability, the object was not
doubtful in the minds of those acquainted with the history of religious
persecutions.
Another martyred minister of the gospel, the horrible murder of another
of God’s chosen messengers of salvation, and _scene first_ of the great
Missouri tragedy closes, the curtain falls, and both writer and reader
may seek temporary relief from what Dr. Summers, in a private note,
calls “a terrible narrative.” When the curtain rises again it will
unveil other scenes in this wonderful histrionic drama, of which those
already presented are but the preparation and prelude.
The trials and persecutions of the faithful men of God already narrated
are sufficient to present the moral and religious phases of the war in
Missouri to an intelligent public. Would to God the pall of oblivion
could settle down upon the whole history. But if the world still retains
its interest in truth; if the Church is still the repository of the
testimony of Jesus and the divinely accredited authority for works of
righteousness; if the ministers of the gospel are yet responsible for
the “faith once delivered unto the saints,” for the purity of the gospel
and the integrity of the kingdom of God on earth, and if history is
valuable for the lessons it teaches and the principles it vindicates,
then that truth, that righteousness, that faith, that history, all
demand the record here made, the lessons taught and the principles
vindicated in the trials and sufferings of God’s annointed servants
during the recent reign of terror.
The following shocking narrative of murder must, according to the
decision of the publisher, close the first volume.
REV. THOMAS GLANVILLE AND SON.
The subject of this sketch was long and favorably known to the Church in
Missouri, and was highly esteemed for his integrity, honesty and
fidelity to principle as well as for his general usefulness as a
minister.
Others who knew him better have furnished the following account of his
life and labors, together with the circumstantial details of the dark
and bloody tragedy which closed his career of usefulness on earth—one of
the most heartless and cruel assassinations in all the dark history of
martyrdom in Missouri.
The following sketch has been furnished by an intimate friend of the
martyred minister, and will be read with mournful interest:
“_Rev. Thomas Glanville and Son._—It was the privilege of the writer to
be intimately acquainted with the subjects of this sketch for more than
a score of years. Without reference to official documents or private
papers, I write mostly from memory, hoping thereby to preserve the
precious memory of two worthy men.
“Rev. Thomas Glanville was born in England about A. D. 1811, and came to
America when about sixteen years of age. He was converted to God in
early life, and after much mental agony yielded to the conviction that
it was his duty to preach.
“Soon after he began to preach, he joined the St. Louis Conference M. E.
Church, South, and traveled several years. But family afflictions came
upon him—his wife died and left him three children. He married again and
soon afterward located.
“Time rolled on and ever found him diligent in business, fervent in
spirit, serving the Lord; and laboring efficiently as a local preacher.
“In the fall of 1852 a camp-meeting was held in his neighborhood by the
lamented Leeper, Anthony and Bond. Bro. Glanville’s three children were
at the altar as penitents. All the tenderest sympathies of a father’s
heart went out after them. How pointed his instructions! and his prayers
O, how fervent!
“He told the writer that he had made a vow that if the Lord would accept
his three children at that meeting, he would rejoin the Conference and
travel and preach as long as his way seemed open. The Lord did
mercifully accept his three children; and, true to his vow, he rejoined
the Conference and remained an acceptable member till the day of his
death.
“When the late civil war commenced and the flock in Southwest Missouri
was left for the most part without a shepherd, he and the local
preachers a his neighborhood met in council and went out ‘two and two’
and held meetings in the most destitute neighborhoods.
“After a time he was ordered by a militia Captain to discontinue his
preaching. This grieved him much, but he yielded and remained silent for
almost a year.
“In February, 1863, a meeting was appointed in one of those destitute
neighborhoods, which he attended. The ‘fire was shut up in his bones,’
and in company with a friend he waited on the Captain then in command in
that vicinity and requested permission to resume his duties as a
minister. To his great joy he received a written permission, and the
next night he preached a sermon full of joy and comfort.
“In July or August following three men called at his gate one dark night
and ordered him to leave the country on pain of death. A few days after
he remarked to the writer that he would love to live to see peace
restored to the country, and he hoped he would, and then added, ‘Those
fellows may kill me, but I think not. Of one thing I am certain, they
can’t harm me; death has no terrors for me, and has not had _for fifteen
years_.’
“He was a bold and fearless man. ‘Conscious innocence knows no fear;’
but through the entreaties of friends he left home for a month or more;
and it is to be regretted that he made up his mind to return, and did
so, saying that he would ‘risk the consequences.’
“He published an appointment for preaching, and a few hours before the
time came, two militia soldiers waited on him and informed him that he
would not be permitted to hold the service. He remained at home that
Sabbath, and remarked to a neighbor, ‘Those fellows will kill me, I
believe; but they shall never have it to say that they shot me in the
back.’ That holy Sabbath was his last on earth.
“When night came on and good men laid them down to peaceful slumbers,
his murderers approached his quiet dwelling. A ball discharged from a
revolver passed through his window, entered his face and he fell to the
floor. To make sure of his victim the murderer raised the window and
reaching in shot him through the chest. They then went round, forced the
door and three men entered. After a few words with Bro. Glanville’s son,
one of them remarked that he had better finish the old man, and so
saying shot him again. Thus died the Rev. Thomas Glanville, in the
fifty-third year of his age.
“After threatening to burn the house and ordering the family to leave on
short time, they rode two miles to the residence of Bro. Glanville’s
eldest son, Mr. A. C. Glanville, a man of fine mind and respectable
literary attainments, with a meek and quiet spirit, and a member of the
M. E. Church, South. They called him up, and, all unconscious of his
father’s fate and his own danger, he made a light. No sooner was the
light made than a ball passed through his window, entered his head and
he fell lifeless on the hearth. Thus perished father and son in one
night.
“Since their death little has been said in reference to them; but they
still live in the hearts of many friends, and it is well known that they
bore the highest type of manhood.
“Bro. Glanville had for many years been an ordained elder in the M. E.
Church, South, and while as a preacher he was neither profound nor
brilliant, yet he possessed a sound mind, a good understanding in the
things of God, was a good sermonizer and improved every year, so that
his last days were his best. Peace to his memory.
“JOHN H. ROSS.”
The Rev. John Monroe, of the St. Louis Conference, one of the oldest
ministers in Missouri, furnishes the following sketch of the lamented
Glanville:
“The Rev. Thomas Glanville was born in England, May 15, A. D. 1811. Came
to this country about the year 1829 or 1830, and a short time afterward
was married to Miss Donnell, of Green county, Mo. Not long after this
event he embraced religion and united with the M. E. Church, and in 1841
was received on trial in the Missouri Conference.
“In 1843 he was appointed to Buffalo Circuit, where he endured much
affliction, both of body and mind. His wife died and he married again,
and the next year he located. For a time he traveled under the Presiding
Elder and was readmitted into the St. Louis Conference in 1855, and then
traveled regularly until the war came up. He did not cease to preach in
his neighborhood. He had an appointment the day he met his awful fate,
but dared not attend it, as his avowed enemies were watching his
movements. This was Sabbath, Sept. 20, 1863. At night three outlaws,
guided, no doubt, by another who was not responsible to any military
organization, approached his peaceful home and shot him. And what for?
No one knows. He, like all good men, was self-denying and made no
compromise with sin, wicked men or devils; reproving sin in all its
forms and in all places, he had enemies who threatened him years before,
and this was a good time to put their designs into execution.
“At first he was ordered from home; he went, remained some three weeks
and returned. Then they compelled him to take an oath and give bond, in
which he was bound to stay at home—just what he wanted to do. But in a
few days after giving bond there came a stripling of a boy, purporting
to have orders from a Lieutenant of the same family whence all his
troubles came, ordering him to again leave home forthwith, and be quick
about it. He then, as a law-abiding man, went to Captain Allen, then at
Hermitage, for protection to enable him to keep his obligation, and to
know how to act under the circumstances. But the Captain refused to
protect or instruct him, only to tell him that he had better leave
quickly, knowing at the same time that such a course would forfeit his
bond. He had made up his mind to leave the next morning, but, as stated,
three armed men came after dark and shot him some three or four times,
and he expired instantly. His last and dying words were, ‘Lord, have
mercy on my enemies.’
“He was buried without a song; not even a prayer was permitted to be
offered in behalf of his disconsolate wife and weeping children. But the
good man exchanged a world of woe for a land of rest.
“Thomas Glanville was always known to be a law-abiding man and a
peaceable citizen. He often boasted of the privileges he enjoyed under
this benign Government, and only claimed his rights under its
Constitution and laws. He was never known to violate any law, abhorred a
mean thing and would speak out against it. He strenuously opposed all
bushwhacking, stealing, murder, and any and all infringement upon the
rights of others. He stood up squarely for the rights of the M. E.
Church, South, and contended boldly for the principles of religious
liberty. In view of these things it is not difficult to account for his
shameful and brutal murder.
JOHN MONROE.”
It is quite a relief to turn away, for a time at least, from the
contemplation of such scenes of barbarity and more than savage cruelty
as the history of the terrible past presents to our faith and
philosophy.
Three long chapters, prepared for this volume, are laid over for the
second, by the decree of the publisher, to prevent the enlargement of
the present volume to an improper size. By it the next volume will be
enriched beyond measure. What is lost to this will be gained for that,
and neither the work, as a whole, nor the reader will be damaged.
The deferred chapters contain an account of the “Rosecrans oath,” in
“Special Order No. 61,” of March 7th, 1864, and its designs upon the
common laws and facts of religious liberty; the persecutions, trials,
banishment, etc., of the Rev. Drs. McPheeters and Farris, of the
Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Tyson Dynes, of the M. E. Church, South,
the long imprisonment and peculiar sufferings of the Rev. Dr. McAnally;
the effort to crush or confiscate the publishing house at St. Louis, and
its preservation and security by the agent, the Rev. P. M. Pinckard; and
a “Chapter of Martyrs,” detailing with careful minuteness the
cold-blooded murder of the Rev. John L. Wood, the Rev. George L. Sexton
and the Rev. Edwin Robinson.
The history of the indictments, trials, imprisonment and persecutions of
ministers under the “test oath” of the New Constitution will form a
prominent and extensive feature of the second volume, with due attention
to the particulars of the murder of the Rev. SAMUEL S. HEADLEE and
others, which will invest the work with thrilling interest. The future
historian will assign to these names a conspicuous place upon the long
roll of martyrs, and the future Church will reap a rich harvest of
souls, with multiplied agencies and resources, from the blood they shed
“for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God.”
“They lived unknown
Till persecution dragged them into fame,
And chased them up to heaven. Their ashes flew,
No marble tells us whither. With their names
No bard enbalms and sanctifies his song:
And history, so warm on meaner themes,
Is cold on this. She execrates, indeed,
The tyranny that doomed them to the fire,
But gives the glorious sufferers little praise.”
END OF VOLUME I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
4. Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.