work uncompleted. Many of the same problems that had plagued his predeces-
sors were still unresolved. Th
e transition from slave to free labor was still an
ongoing process with many kinks yet unresolved. Although Griffi
n’s labor
measures, such as the no- lien policy, were to protect the freedpeople’s wages,
whites still found ways to evade payment. Evasion of payment coupled with the
confusion agents had with the no- lien policy helped to limit the eff ectiveness of
Griffi
n’s policies. Further hindrance was increased violence. In the fi rst half of
1867 white violence had abated in much of the state, attributed to the “new
attitude” from headquarters and Congress. In the latter half of 1867, however,
this respite ended. Violence increased to levels not seen since late 1866, espe-
cially as registration commenced. Failure to win political favor with the freed-
men caused white Texans to focus their frustration on fi eld agents. Several were
assaulted and others murdered. Increasing the organization’s death toll in the
latter half of 1867 was the yellow fever epidemic. Brevet Major General (and
former Bureau agent in Brownsville) Joseph J. Reynolds would replace Griffi
n.
He not only would have his opportunity to solve these problems that bedev-
iled his predecessors, but he would also oversee the Bureau’s end in the Lone
Star State.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 147
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 147
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
General Orders No. 40
8
and the Freedmen’s
Bureau’s End
Th
e J. J. Reynolds Era,
September 1867–December 1868
Shortly before Griffi n’s death, the Freedmen’s Bureau had the highest num-
ber of agents and subdistricts it would have in its more than three years in
the state. From then on, however, it gradually lessened operations, trans-
ferring authority to civil authorities until it ceased operations (except for educa-
tional programs) at the end of 1868. While SACs wound down their operations,
preparing the emancipated for life “aft er the Bureau,” events beyond their con-
trol aff ected the process. Some military offi
cials, particularly the commander of
the Fift h Military District, Winfi eld Scott Hancock, preferred civil control with
little interference. In General Orders No. 40, he transferred the main responsi-
bility for protecting the freedpeople to local offi
cials. Nearing the agency’s end,
whites resisted in intensity not seen since the Bureau entered the state in 1865.
Most whites saw a fi nal opportunity to strike at this most despised symbol of
defeat. In the Bureau’s last year, Reynolds still held subordinates to high stan-
dards, not hesitating to dismiss any for dereliction. Reynolds worked diligently
to ensure the agency and its personnel remained professional. If the Bureau was
to “be crushed down by the weight of public opinion,” it would at least go out
dignifi ed and honorable.
Born in Kentucky in 1822, Brevet Major General Joseph Jones Reynolds was
graduated from West Point in 1843. He served in Texas prior to the Mexican
War. Aft er the war, he was an instructor at West Point, before returning to duty
in Indian Territory. Reynolds resigned from the military to accept a teaching
position at a university in St. Louis in 1857. When the Civil War started, he was
appointed colonel of an Indiana militia unit. Within months, he reached briga-
dier general of U.S. Volunteers. He participated in the major battles of Chicka-
mauga and Chattanooga in 1863 before being appointed commander of the
New Orleans defenses in early 1864 and later that year to the command of the
Department of Arkansas. He remained there until the army’s reorganization in
July 1866, when he took command of the 26th Infantry Regiment. Th
e following
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 148
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 148
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. J. Reynolds Era, Sept. 1867–Dec. 1868
149
year, Reynolds was brevetted brigadier and then major general in the U.S. Army.
He served for a short time as U.S. senator from Texas. He lost the seat aft er the
election was challenged. Following his tenure as AC in Texas, Reynolds was
aho and Northern Cheyenne. Having captured Crazy Horse’s “winter hideout
and pony herd,” Reynolds prematurely retreated without engaging the warriors.
His oversight contributed to General George A. Custer’s defeat months later.
Superiors, in fact, off ered him command of Custer’s ill- fated expedition. He
declined because of poor health. Reynolds was court- martialed for actions dur-
ing another Indian campaign (subsequently found guilty, receiving a suspended
sentence) and retired shortly aft erward in 1877. He died in 1899 and is buried in
Arlington National Cemetery.
Meanwhile, Reynolds immediately made his mark on Bureau operations. He
relocated agency headquarters from Galveston, where it had been since Septem-
ber 1865, to Austin. Better climate dictated the move. He also appointed men of
his own choosing as his headquarters staff , even as Griffi
n’s staff remained in
Galveston and still functioned as a headquarters staff . He also began appointing
his own fi eld personnel. At the time of Reynolds’s appointment in Texas in Sep-
tember 1867, there were 57 SACs, 15 ASACs, and 1 traveling agent. In all, the new
assistant commissioner appointed 62 agents, with more than 70 percent with
military service. Table 8- 1 shows the length of service for agents appointed by
Reynolds.
Like Kiddoo, Reynolds had few terminated for malfeasance, as shown in
Table 8- 2. Surprisingly, none of Reynolds’s appointees voluntarily quit their
positions. Even with the problems ceasing operation, the number and percent-
age who died in service was lower than all, except Gregory’s.
Military offi
cials in Washington wanted to muster out all remaining mili-
tary men, especially those VRC offi
cers still in Bureau service. By late 1867, only
four served in Texas. Th
ey, according to Reynolds, were superb agents. He
greatly desired their retention since they “proved themselves able and effi
cient.”
Commissioner Howard agreed and off ered each a civilian appointment aft er
Table 8- 1 Length of Service for Agents Appointed by Reynolds
Type of Bureau Agent
Number
Average Length of Service (Months)
Civilian .
Military .
Note: Dates came from the Freedmen’s Bureau Roster of Offi
cers and Civilians.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 149
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 149
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
150
The Freedmen’s Bureau’s End
Table 8- 2 Reasons Agents Appointed by Reynolds Left Bureau Service
&nbs
p; 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 Reynolds’s Agents
n=
Note: Th
e information came from various sources, but much of it came from the U.S. Census and
the Freedmen’s Bureau’s Special Orders and Correspondences.
their muster out. Of these (Edward Miller, Charles F. Rand, N. H. Randlett, and
Albert A. Metzner), all but Miller accepted. Although overseeing the agency’s
contraction, Reynolds still needed men for an orderly delegation of its control.
When it ceased operations, fi ft y- seven men were still in the fi eld. Only twenty-
one were offi
cers in the military.
Many of Reynolds’s policies were to prepare the freedpeople for the day with-
out the agency. In General Orders No. 17 he ordered subordinates to allow the
freedpeople to “dispose of their crops as other people dispose of their own
property—without restraint from anyone.” Reynolds thought they had come to
rely too heavily on the government (because of Griffi
n’s orders) and less “on
themselves.” Agents could advise but “are not directed to recommend certain
commission houses for purchase to the exclusion of others.” Reynolds also can-
celed the no- lien policy, believing it unfair to planters and quite confusing.
Liens now could be placed on the worker’s shares but only with the approval of
a SAC, who was to enforce all fair debts.
Reynolds realized the agency’s temporariness and proposed a plan to Com-
missioner Howard to “replace Sub Asst throughout the state” with “county
offi
cers.” Th
is plan, he argued, would ease the transfer of responsibilities and
help to “secure a more harmonious and satisfactory administration of the
Bureau than can be attained under the present system.” Reynolds sent a copy
for Howard’s approval. As he waited, the military command made Reynolds’s
plan unnecessary. In New Orleans Winfi eld Scott Hancock, the new com-
mander of the Fift h Military District, “reconfi rmed” his preference for civil
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 150
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 150
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. J. Reynolds Era, Sept. 1867–Dec. 1868
151
rather than federal control of state matters. He did this by revoking Griffi
n’s
Circular Order No. 13 (jury order) and removing Reynolds’s ability to make
political appointments, a power Hancock believed Bureau offi
cials had abused.
Going even further, Hancock issued General Orders No. 40 in late 1867. Th
is
greatly circumscribed military interference with civic duties. In other words,
the “right of trial by jury, habeas corpus . . . [and] freedom of speech . . . must be
preserved.” Hancock believed the “maintenance of the civil authorities in the
faithful execution of the laws as the most effi
cient [approach] under existing
circumstances.” He based the order on the powers as district commander in the
Reconstruction Act of 1867, which “exempt[ed] no class of persons” from civil
tribunals and required him to protect “all persons in their rights of person and
property. ”
According to Hancock, the Bureau was too meddlesome and abusive. His
idea of the proper relationship between SACs and state offi
cials matched that of
the society at large: the government’s recent actions threatened federalism.
Hancock wanted that “proper” relationship reestablished, intended “to confi ne
Agents . . . [to] their legitimate authority,” and determined to lessen the unnec-
essary disputes between agents and civil authorities about jurisdiction, disputes
he believed contrary to the military’s role to preserve the peace. Although Han-
cock appeared to make jarring changes, much of what he implemented was
already in place. He, in fact, did not “make any extraordinary change in policy,”
but simply “spell[ed] out the conditions that [had already] legally existed” under
his predecessors. To be sure, he “instituted a change in attitude.”
Th
is “change in attitude” was not well received by fi eld personnel. Th
ey
believed it contradicted the Reconstruction Act’s intent and inhibited their per-
formance. Of particular concern was G. O. No. 40, which they reported greatly
hindered their attempts to protect the freedpeople. Th
eir letters expressed their
frustration. Some whites now believed the Bureau “played out.” Th
ere was an
impression “the offi
cers of the Bureau have no power to take action in any case
wherein the parties litigating are White & Black that all such cases must be
referred to the Civil Courts,” reported A. H. Mayer from Austin. “Th
e only
power vested in the S.A. Comm. is to arbitrate cases wherein both parties litigat-
ing are freedmen.” Mayer further described “a bitter feeling” between white
employers and their employees. Whites now viewed the agency as “a thing that
was” and dared agents to sue in the civil courts and “be d- d.” James P. Butler at
Huntsville complained civil offi
cers have “become . . . elated with the idea of
‘Civil law in Texas.’ ” From Richmond, William H. Rock informed whites were
“being infl uenced” by the recent order. Th
ey even threatened to arrest him. It “is
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 151
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 151
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
152
The Freedmen’s Bureau’s End
beginning to become adverse,” he continued, “and in every way very unfair [for]
the [freed] people under Genl. Hancock’s orders,” for the whites “refuse to them
(the f. m.) their wages & tell them to ‘sue in court.’ ” A frustrated Rock wanted
advice about how to proceed if “I meet with the reply that [the Bureau agent]
must now sue me at the Civil Courts [because] General Hancock orders you to
refer all cases to the civil authorities except cases between the niggers and you
have no authority over me.” One local white C. C. Clark wrote to D. F. Stiles, the
agent at McLennan County. “Allow me Sir to remind you,” he mockingly stated,
“one Bell Co. has civil offi
cers and if you will get some competent man to read the
order of Gen Hancock you will fi
nd out that you have no business with me. ”
Hancock’s general order also made it more diffi
cult to regulate labor. A freed-
man complained to John H. Morrison that his employer had won a judgment
against him in civil court. He discovered the two had a verbal contract for fi f-
teen dollars a month, and the planter had actually broken the contract. Morri-
son thought a “great injustice” had occurred and nullifi ed the judgment. Th
e
planter appealed to Bureau headquarters. Superiors contacted Morrison for a
report. “I hope you [sustain] my action in the case,” he responded. In the end,
superiors ordered Morrison to allow a new trial in civil courts, but he was to
“supervise it.” And “if they [civil authorities] fail to render a decision according
to law and evidence,” Morrison was to “report . . . the case . . . to this offi
ce for
action.” Another had similar problems with civil authorities in Huntsville, as
they had “the idea that General Hancock has taken away all authority and power
from the Bureau and its offi
cers.” James P. Butler reiterated his displeasure with
Hancock’s course when he wrote that “every civil offi
cer in the Town & County
is a rampant, notorious rebel, and they adhere to the old principles of Democ-
racy and Slavery with a tenacity that would shame Napoleon.” Butler asked,
“Now upon what grounds were such men elected to offi
ce?”
Although agents were no longer to adjudicate disputes, numerous letters from
white Texans detailing agents adjudicating and punishing them still arrived at
Fift h Military District headquarters in New Orleans. Th
ey claimed SACs had
“been in the habit of sitting as Judges, holding Court, and adjudicating upon
complaints and cases brought before them. . . .” Hancock asked Reynolds for an
explanation since such actions violated General Orders No. 40. “Such being the
fact, many . . . seem not to be aware of it,” he told his subordinate in Texas. “In
Texas some are yet holding Courts, trying cases, imposing fi nes, taking fees for
services and arresting citizens for off enses over which the Bureau is not intended
by law to have jurisdiction.” Reynolds responded that Hancock had been mis-
led. Agents were not “ ‘judges’ in the legal sense.” He stated white Texans adopted
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 152
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 152
4/27/16 11:13 AM