changes to his reports.
Later that night, aft er the groups had returned to their respective neighbor-
hoods, local offi
cials met with one of the leaders of the freed community in
Millican and a participant in the earlier incident, George E. Brooks. Brooks
declared “he would not agree to any terms of peace,” which “caused intense
excitement in town.” With so much “excitement,” things were bound to esca-
late. For several days in Millican, a group of whites attacked prominent freed-
people. Randlett, however, quickly intervened to stop the assaults, but not
before fi ve freedmen had been killed, including Brooks, whose body was never
recovered. Although lives were lost, federal offi
cials realized it could have been
far worse if not for the “prompt and effi
cient” actions of Randlett. His problems,
however, had only begun. Aft er the “Millican riot,” Randlett reported he had
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 158
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 158
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. J. Reynolds Era, Sept. 1867–Dec. 1868
159
been “assaulted, insulted and my life threatened.” He normally paid “little
notice of this,” dismissing such slights as mere nuisances. But with increased
frequency, he believed them credible and requested protection. Without it,
he wrote, “no business can be transacted.” He asked superiors not to publish
his communication “as it would render my stay very unpleasant if not dan-
gerous.” Randlett remained in Millican until October, when he tendered his
resignation.
As the Bureau’s end neared, the Rebel element needed little to get parting
shots on the soon to be departed symbol of what had been lost. A few examples
should suffi
ce. DeWitt C. Brown described Paris as “the most demoralized
community that I have ever had the misfortune to live in.” An unknown assail-
ant even made two attempts on his life in one day. He attributed it to Cullen
Baker and his gang, who “have a particular spite at me.” He further suspected
they did the work for others. “Th
e citizens of this place are in confederation
with them,” he declared. “Th
e program . . . is to get rid of me and force the
negroes into the Democratic ranks for protection.” Leading Democrats off ered
protection to any freedperson supporting the Democratic party. Two months
aft er requesting assistance (which headquarters declined), Brown “was com-
pelled to fl ee from my station” as a “band of desperadoes hover[ed] about the
city.” Th
e “Bureau is a dead letter in this country,” he declared from “exile,” and
“is like the grass that grows beneath a plant—it is crushed down by the weight
of public opinion supported by the revolver, the bowie knife and the shot gun.”
In early 1868 Alex Ferguson had his offi
ce broken into, and “all my papers,
Records, Contracts . . . carried into the streets.” He also received four anony-
mous notes warning him that he would have to leave once the troops had left .
Ferguson was confused and a little ignorant about Southern attitudes, because
he had performed his duty impartially and ably with little reason for such criti-
cism. He penned a letter to Nacogdoches citizens to ask them “if I had not done
my duty as an agent . . . they inform me of the fact to my face and not in such a
manner.” Superiors off ered a reward for information that would lead to the
arrest of the vandals, but no one came forward with information.
Agent Nesbit B. Jenkins predicted once troops left Wharton County, he
“would be subjected to every kind of abuse and indignity if indeed his life was
not sacrifi ced.” He even asked to be relieved if he could not be protected from
such outrages. Reynolds denied his request. Aft er the soldiers left , Jenkins’s
concern was justifi ed. His time was “marked by continual disturbance and
attempts [by] the disloyal element to bring on a confl ict.” In that hostile commu-
nity, one man stood out. It all began when George Quinan, a lawyer, disrupted a
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 159
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 159
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
160
deposition to a “most foully and brutally” murder. Th
e freedman was “mutilated
by cutting off his penis.” Quinan verbally abused court offi
cials in a “shameful
and disgraceful manner” and threatened Jenkins with death if he tried to
arrest him.
Lacking troops, Jenkins was powerless to arrest Quinan. Such fecklessness
encouraged others to resist. For example, whites held a Democratic party rally
at the courthouse “for no other purpose than to abuse or hear the abuse of the
military appointees.” Jenkins was listening to the speeches when some white
men entered. One began criticizing the Radical party and then “turned his
attention to” Jenkins, calling him a “God damned Son of a Bitch[,] a G- d d- d
liar and other such terms. . . .” Not wanting to escalate the situation, the agent
simply ignored the rant and left for his room. Th
e speaker followed and asked
permission from the agent’s roommate to enter. “Very soon however,” Jenkins
recounted, “he began to talk politics . . . and turned to me and asked me what
my politics were.” Jenkins politely refused: “I never discuss politics and that I
did not wish to do so now.” Th
is refusal only further angered the unwelcomed
guest, who began “making many insulting insinuations.” Jenkins, annoyed by
this aff ront, told him he had no right to talk to him in that manner and that he
“did not feel warranted to engage” him.
At that moment, the man lunged at Jenkins. He believed he would have struck
him if not for the action of his roommate, who “half pushed, half persuaded” the
attacker from the room. Th
e verbal berating continued from the street, with
Jenkins called “every opprobrious term” and threatened with physical harm.
Ignoring the insults, Jenkins could not ignore the threats because of witnesses.
He arrested the man, charging him with “personally insulting and using the
most abusive language.” Jenkins fi ned him twenty- fi ve dollars and jailed him
until payment. Th
e man’s attorney, Wells Th
ompson, wrote Reynolds for a writ
of habeas corpus. Superiors wrote Jenkins for a report on the incident. While
not excusing the incident in his room, he did attribute it to “the outrageous
conduct of George Quinan,” which Jenkins had to endure “in silence.” He fur-
ther reminded superiors about the diffi
culty to perform his duties in a fair and
honest manner minus protection. Self- preservation explained his actions. Th
ese
people “imagine or pretend to imagine that they have a perfect right to insult and
abuse me as soon as my foot has left the offi
ce,” he wrote. “If their view . . . is right
and sustained, I could not stay in Wharton a day.” Jenkins, despite the problems
in his district, remained in service until the Bureau’s last days.
In early October one of the most celebrated acts of Reconstruction violence
in Texas involved the SAC at Jeff erson, Marion County. It all started when for-
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 160
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 160
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. J. Reynolds Era, Sept. 1867–Dec. 1868
161
mer Union offi
cer and “carpetbagger” George Washington Smith relocated
from New York. Smith, a local merchant, angered many white Jeff ersonians
with his insistence on payment of debts and especially his political beliefs and
activism. An ardent Radical, he preached racial equality, allegedly socializing
with freedpeople in ways off ensive to white sensibilities. With freedpeople’s
help, he was elected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1868–1869.
Returning from that convention, Smith had a bag stolen by members of a local
vigilante group, the Knights of the Rising Sun. Occurrences over the next
twenty- four hours would result in Smith and some freedmen being arrested by
local authorities and held in an enclosure in the middle of town.
Th
e town’s agent and post commander, James Curtis, was responsible for
guarding the prisoners. Although he ordered a detail of soldiers to the enclo-
sure, Curtis worried it was insuffi
cient. His intuition was correct. Later that
night some Knights approached the enclosure where the prisoners were held.
Th
rough deception, they were able to enter the enclosure. Hearing the commo-
tion, Curtis rushed to the scene. He immediately began to plead with the
Knights, even placing himself between them and Smith (Smith was being held
in an iron structure located within the enclosure and separated from the freed-
men). Each time he placed himself in front of the iron door, however, the
Knights removed him, the last time with a warning not to interfere again or
else. Th
e attackers eventually gained entry and killed Smith. Simultaneously,
others took the freedmen from the enclosure and killed two of them. For the
next six months, Jeff erson was under martial law, with federal authorities
arresting and trying the perpetrators in what became known to Texans as the
Stockade Trial. Curtis, criticized for his actions that night, was transferred out
of Jeff erson and removed from further Bureau service.
In 1868, as conditions worsened, two SACs were murdered performing their
duties. On his way to Dallas to replace William H. Horton, George Eber was
robbed and murdered. His murderer(s) remained at large. While at Boston,
near the border with Indian Territory, William G. Kirkman constantly battled
the unreconstructed element. He received death threats and an indictment for
murder in September 1868 for shooting a prisoner trying to escape. While at
Boston, Kirkman simply survived, living day to day. But his luck ran out. With
the situation deteriorating in northeast Texas in late 1868, Reynolds recalled
subordinates from the area, including Kirkman. He delayed his departure to
collect his records. As he busied himself, Cullen Baker and his gang arrived in
town. Kirkman noticed them and tried to make it to a nearby house for better
protection. Before he could make it, he was shot down in the street. As his body
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 161
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 161
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
162
The Freedmen’s Bureau’s End
lay in the street, white Bostonians took it upon themselves to insult Kirkman
one last time by stealing the money out of his pockets, the watch from his hand,
and his horse.
Even with the increased resistance in 1868, the vast majority departed the
Freedmen’s Bureau alive. To be sure, 92.8 percent (181 out of 195) of agents in
Texas, whose departure could be determined, survived their tenure in the Lone
Star State (the reason for departure for 44 agents could not be defi nitively deter-
mined). Fourteen men died in service (7.2 percent), seven of those because of
yellow fever. Outlaws or ruffi
ans murdered four. Th
e rest fell from disease, natu-
ral causes, or accidents. Table 8- 3 shows the reasons why terms ended in Texas.
As can be seen, nearly two- thirds (n=127; or 65.1 percent) of the men left the
agency for bureaucratic reasons, either policy of the Bureau or military exigen-
cies; with the overwhelming majority of those departing at the agency’s end or
when the military reassigned or reappointed men from its service. Th
e number
of men who asked to be relieved or were dismissed because of their actions was
surprisingly low, with the latter equaling 27 and the former 27 (approximating
slightly more than 27 percent collectively). Of those who voluntarily resigned,
their reasons varied. Some left for political opportunities (n=5; or 2.6 percent),
others for business (n=5; or 2.6 percent). A few could no longer continue because
of health reasons (n=2; or 1 percent). Still others simply tired of the stress and
frustration (n=12; or 6.2 percent). Reasons for dismissal also varied. Most
removed (n=20; or 10.3 percent) were for abuse, incompetence, criminality,
neglect, or “conduct unbecoming an agent,” such as intemperance and promis-
cuity. Offi
cials relieved A. P. Delano, William H. Farner, Hiram Johnson,
Table 8- 3 Reasons All Subassistant Commissioners Left the Freedmen’s Bureau
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
Died: murdered, disease, or accidents
.
n=
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 162
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 162
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. J. Reynolds Era, Sept. 1867–Dec. 1868
163
Charles Russell, Robert McClermont, and J. W. McConaughey for abuse of
freedmen, with the remainder going because of neglect, criminality, or “con-
duct unbecoming an agent.” A further four agents (2.1 percent) were dismissed
for Confederate service, although such a past did not necessarily result in auto-
matic dismissal. Th
e dismissals of three men could not be determined, other
than their dismissal.
Never passive participants, although at times it seemed, fi eld agents consid-
ered desperate measures to combat resistance. While some suggested
removing
freedpeople from those areas wracked with violence, others sought solutions a
little more logistically plausible. A noticeable number believed they could man-
age if Reynolds’s policies were not so restrictive. Unable to protect their charges,
they could now do little more than document outrages. A few examples will
suffi
ce. “I respectfully ask” Charles Haughn pleaded, “that if you consider me
competent to use the Authority without abusing it and it is intended . . . that the
sheriff shall obey my orders when I am acting in my offi
cial capacity that you
give me some written instructions that I can present to the sheriff of this county
if it shall become necessary.” He wanted the authority because every time he
had previously ordered the local authorities to act, “I am obliged to fi ght all the
Lawyers” who “discuss my right to act in their case.” If he can “beat them in
arguing,” Haughn wrote, “they will obey me.” Within a month, though, superi-
ors transferred Haughn to Cotton Gin, a place that he did not “fear to go,” but
was “considered by almost every one to be very unsafe.” At Tyler, Gregory Bar-
rett, a bit annoyed by an accidental shot to his leg, complained local offi
cials
were “determined that no more arrests shall be made by the military” and
desired to “nullify the laws of Congress” so as to make “it . . . impossible for me
to maintain my position.” Not relying on them, he employed soldiers to make
arrests. Smith County residents informed Bureau offi
cials about his allegedly
“arbitrary oppressive & despotic” ways. Reynolds reminded Barrett that civil
authorities were to make all arrests whenever practical, and that “military aid
[would be] given whenever requested.” He further noted Barrett should bear “in
mind that troops are stationed at Tyler to assist the civil authorities in main-
taining order as well as protect you in the discharge of your duties.” Reynolds’s
key words, of course, were to assist the civil authorities. “Th
e tenor of the fore-
going paragraph . . . is uncalled for,” answered Barrett. “I have oft en stated . . .
that the civil authorities will not make arrests of criminals and that no one has
yet been arrested by them in this Sub District . . . I have issued writ[s] time and
again and directed them to the civil offi