Kiddoo’s policies worked would be another’s concern. In late January 1867
Charles Griffi
n, commander of the District of Texas, relieved him as Bureau
chief. Since Griffi
n’s arrival in Texas, their relationship was anything but cor-
dial. Griffi
n, Kiddoo’s superior, made it policy to communicate through his
headquarters staff , rather than personally himself. Th
is greatly annoyed Kid-
doo. “I have never had any such trouble, or rec[eived] such discourtesy before,”
Kiddoo complained to Commissioner Howard. Kiddoo also resented the
way Griffi
n treated the Freedmen’s Bureau. Although subordinate by law, the
organization was allowed free rein by previous district commanders. Griffi
n,
however, consolidated the positions of district commander and assistant com-
missioner under one man. Th
is Kiddoo believed a “complete compromise of the
dignity of the Bureau.” Th
e relationship became unsalvageable when Kiddoo
sent a letter to Howard criticizing Griffi
n. Th
is was the last straw for Griffi
n,
who relieved him from command. Remembering his own previous censure of
Kiddoo “about his drinking and profane language in public” while visiting
Washington in late 1866, Commissioner Howard supported the decision.
Kiddoo had left his mark on the Bureau and on Texas. He oversaw its expan-
sion into the interior and greater focus on freedmen education. Th
is would be
his historical legacy for many. For white Texans, however, Kiddoo’s legacy was
his labor policy. Th
ey much appreciated Circular No. 14, which returned the
freedpeople to the cotton fi elds. “When Gen. Kiddoo came among us the people
received him kindly, and in parting with him we are glad the same spirit pre-
vails,” stated the Galveston Daily News. “Personally, our relations with him have
been most agreeable . . . General Kiddoo has managed the Bureau rather satis-
factorily which we think is more than can be said of any other of the heads of
the . . . Bureau. ”
Th
e agency greatly expanded under Kiddoo, with order being (despite
problems) brought to the labor situation in the state. Agents struggled with
these problems. Planters and hands tried to fi nd a satisfactory relationship aft er
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 109
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 109
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
110
The Bureau’s Highwater Mark
slavery’s demise, as a new labor situation developed. As fi eld personnel dealt
with labor, they also struggled to educate the emancipated to the ways of Vic-
torian societal norms. Th
e freed community needed to learn the sanctity of
marriage. Freedmen were lectured about their manly duties. Behavior coun-
tenanced during slavery, like promiscuity and “cohabitation,” was no longer
acceptable. Freedwomen, on the other hand, were reminded of their womanly
duties. At the time of Kiddoo’s departure, the Bureau had the look of a mod-
ern bureaucracy. In fact, those under Kiddoo had become not only protectors,
but information gatherers for headquarters. Th
ey would continue this role
under Kiddoo’s successor, Charles Griffi
n, who, suspicious of his predeces-
sor’s decisions and appointments, would continue the use of inspection tours
to dismiss anyone not meeting his standards. But those under Griffi
n would
also spend a great deal of time on something that previous Bureau men had
not, and something many in nineteenth- century white America believed
would protect the freedmen: politics.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 110
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 110
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
“Th
ey must vote with the
6
party that shed their blood
. . . in giving them liberty”
Bureau Agents, Politics,
and the Bureau’s New Order:
Th
e Charles Griffi
n Era,
January 1867–Summer 1867
When Charles Griffi n assumed leadership in early 1867, the Bureau
had reached its apex in power. At no other time would it be involved
in more aspects of the freedpeople’s lives with as little civil and state
interference. Griffi
n, however, would reverse this by transferring much respon-
sibility to civil authorities, believing Kiddoo’s policies caused unnecessary “col-
lisions.” Th
is delegation occurred at the very time Congress consolidated its
own, wresting the Reconstruction process from the president and passing
measures, making the governments created under Presidential Reconstruction
provisional. Th
e Reconstruction Act of 1867 called for voter registration of all
white and black men who did not voluntarily aid the Confederacy. Griffi
n
hoped to use the newly enfranchised to create a “new order” in Texas. With
voter registration, the Bureau would enter the maelstrom of politics.
Reversing Kiddoo’s policies, Griffi
n hoped his “new order” would further
freedpeople’s self- reliance with little interference (beyond protection of their
wages) by subassistant commissioners. Griffi
n, however, was not going to leave
them powerless. Th
rough his “jury order,” they became jurors to help ensure
their own justice and protection. Nor was Griffi
n going to leave subordinates
powerless. Although he transferred many responsibilities to civil authorities, he
also consolidated the Bureau and the military under one central command in
Texas. No longer were agents assigned to remote areas with little protection. Th
is
change in attitude would produce very suitable conditions in much of Texas.
Graduated from West Point, Charles Griffi
n served in an artillery regiment
during the war. A native Ohioan, he participated in the First Battle of Bull Run
in 1861. Th
e next year, aft er marrying the daughter of an infl uential Maryland
family, he transferred to an infantry regiment. With a “cool, quiet and precise”
demeanor, Griffi
n quickly rose through the ranks, receiving command of the V
Corps in the Army of the Potomac. He participated in every major battle with
the Army of the Potomac and was present for Robert E. Lee’s surrender at
Appomattox in April 1865. Aft er the war, he was placed in command of the
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 111
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 111
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
112
Bureau Agents, Politics, New Order
District of Texas by his friend and staunch opponent of Presidential Recon-
struction, Major General Philip H. Sheridan. His “gentle and generous disposi-
tion” and “sense of humor” showed during the war. At the time of his
appointment in Texas, Griffi
n had a no nonsense reputati
on and was “quick to
resent insult, fancied or real. ”
Griffi
n’s rather volatile temperament was, on several occasions, directed at
Kiddoo. Aft er Kiddoo’s removal, Griffi
n let it be known what he thought of his
predecessor’s policies. In General Orders No. 5, he wiped the slate clean, com-
pletely abrogating previous general and circular orders like the ban on entice-
ment (Circular No. 14) and its enforcement (Circular No. 17), Kiddoo’s contract
guidelines (Circular No. 25), and the order to agents to disregard the state’s
labor law (General Orders No. 2). Th
is policy simply conformed to the War
Department’s General Orders No. 26. With consent from Commissioner How-
ard, Griffi
n also moved to cancel Kiddoo’s order for fees approving labor con-
tracts. Although in place for only a couple of months, the payment order had
already caused much confusion. Griffi
n fi nally clarifi ed the boundaries for each
subdistrict (pinnacle of 57 in July 1867). Since Gregory’s administration, subdis-
trict boundaries remained unspecifi ed. Agents were simply informed their
jurisdiction extended to any case they could reach. Friction, naturally, occurred
when they investigated cases that another believed under his jurisdiction. Nev-
ertheless, superiors still expected agents to act in “all cases occurring when it
may be more convenient for you to act than any other sub asst com upon whose
jurisdiction it may be possible you are encroaching on. . . .” Field personnel were
either to render assistance, if possible, regardless of subdistrict boundaries, or
inform the adjacent agent of the situation. Either way, they had to act.
Th
is new course was laid down in General Orders No. 4, issued to bring
about a “natural sense” believed to be lacking in Texas. Griffi
n delineated
changes closer to the essence of free labor, with as few constraints as possible on
the choice of employment and compensation. Beyond ensuring that no labor
contract lasted longer than one year, fi eld agents were not to hinder the freed-
people’s choice of employer and wage. Griffi
n allowed local offi
cials, such as
county judges and clerks and justices of the peace, as well as subassistant com-
missioners, to approve contracts. Th
is marked a departure from previous policy.
Th
e AC wanted to end the constant collisions between local offi
cials and the
agency about authority. He reiterated, however, the state’s vagrancy and appren-
ticeship laws were to be enforced only if local offi
cials impartially administered
them. Agents still retained the right to annul any contract or interfere with any
civil case they deemed illegal or discriminatory. “I now propose to make inter-
ference with the state [authorities] the exception and not the rule,” Griffi
n
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 112
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 112
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The Charles Griffin Era, Early 1867
113
pledged, “but that every decision that the Bureau does make shall, if necessary,
be instantly backed up by the Military force necessary to command obedience
and respect.”
In early summer of 1867, Griffi
n issued a circular to all fi eld personnel. He
repeated his conviction that the path to success for the emancipated lay with
contracting. “Whenever you may think it necessary,” he wrote, “you will address
the freedmen urging . . . the necessity of industry & of close adherent [sic] to
their contracts.” Acknowledging the former slaves’ choice in the system, the
Bureau chief believed that choice should be an informed one. Finally, although
he wanted them to pursue moral persuasion, Griffi
n instructed subordinates, if
necessary, not to refrain from more forceful remedies to change behavior.
Simultaneous to altering the agency’s direction, he also moved to restructure
its fi eld operations. Already joint commander in Texas, Griffi
n further married
the army and the Bureau through his Circular Order No. 3. With it, the number
of fi eld personnel greatly increased. When Griffi
n assumed control, there were
29 men in the fi eld, including 2 civilian agents (those who had no military expe-
rience during the war). At the time of his death in September 1867, the number
had increased to 57 SACs, 10 ASACs, and 1 traveling agent, including 15 civil-
ians. Th
e circular order made all post commanders SACs (only if there was not
already an assigned agent to the area), and greatly expanded the number of
Bureau agents, peaking at 72 in July 1867 (61 SACs and 11 ASACs). Because most
military posts ringed the extent of white settlement in the state, rarely was a
civilian assigned to the frontier of Texas- Mexico border. Civilians were primar-
ily, though not always, assigned to the interior and coastal regions.
Griffi
n also appointed the most agents with 70: that is slightly more than J. J.
Reynolds’s 62 (his successor); signifi cantly higher than Kiddoo’s 44; and double
Gregory’s 35. Twenty- nine percent were civilians, a number similar to Gregory
and Reynolds. Despite his hostility toward civilian agents, Griffi
n, surprisingly,
had the highest number of appointed civilians. Overall, Griffi
n’s appointments
served slightly higher than the overall average: 8.6 compared to 7.8 months. Th
is
average correlates with Gregory’s 8.4 yet deviates from Kiddoo’s 10.2. Table 6- 1
shows the average length of service for agents appointed by Griffi
n.
Table 6- 1 Length of Service for Agents Appointed by Griffi
n
Type of Bureau Agent
Number
Average Length of Service (Months)
Civilian .
Military .
Note: Dates came from Freedmen’s Bureau Roster of Offi
cers and Civilians.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 113
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
114
Bureau Agents, Politics, New Order
As Table 6- 2 shows, slightly more than 50 percent of Griffi
n’s appointments
left the agency for bureaucratic reasons (Bureau operations and military). Th
is
is similar to Gregory’s, but nearly two- thirds above Kiddoo’s. Despite having
the highest number of civilians, Griffi
n had the lowest percentage (compared to
his predecessors’ 20 and 20.5 percent) terminated for criminality or unbecom-
ing conduct. Of the Texas ACs, Griffi
n had the highest percentage who died in
service.
Griffi
n’s expansion placed an agent within reach of all citizens, something
nearly one- half of Texans could not say under Kiddoo. General Orders No. 3
further increased the protection for agents through easier access to the full
weight of the United States A
rmy. No longer would they be unprotected. Each
received an escort (fi ve men), and, of course, those simultaneously performing
Bureau and post commander duties had their companies for assistance. Upon
request, all post commanders were to render assistance to agents. According to
William L. Richter, a student of the Bureau in Texas, “it was not merely the
numbers that were important, it was an attitude.” Griffi
n hoped to create a “new
order” in place of, what he considered, his predecessor’s chaotic and misguided
policies.
A change in attitude also came from Congress. Angered by a lack of remorse
from the former Confederates and frustrated by a stubborn president, Radical
Republicans wrested control of Reconstruction from him in early 1867. Both
houses of Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 over the president’s
veto. Under its provisions, all state governments in the former Confederate
Table 6- 2 Reasons Agents Appointed by Griffi
n Left Bureau Service
Reason Number
Percentage
Bureau Operations: Bureau ended, consolidation,
.
and transferal or reassignment within the agency
Military Operations: Mustered out or ordered to
.
new
assignment
Dropped on Request: Agent resigned appointment
.
Terminated: Dismissed for criminality, cruelty,
.
Confederate service, or appointment revoked
N/A: Reason for leaving undetermined
.
Died: Murdered, disease, or accidents
.
Total: All Griffi
n’s Agents
n=
Note: Th
e information in this table came from various sources, but much of it came from the
U.S. Census and the Freedmen’s Bureau’s Special Orders and Correspondences.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 114
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 114
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The Charles Griffin Era, Early 1867
115
states (except Tennessee) established under Presidential Reconstruction were
now provisional. Congress divided those states into fi ve military districts, with
a military offi
cer heading each district. In early 1867 the former Confederacy
was placed under martial law. Each district’s commander would call for a