cer during the war. Aft er Bureau service in Texas and Louisi-
ana, he accepted a commission in the regular army and served until 1870. Having
amassed a sizable amount of money (more than twelve thousand dollars in
wealth in 1870), he soon entered Republican politics as Texas’s fi rst superinten-
dent of public instruction. In this position he zealously performed his duties in
the face of Democratic resistance. When Democrats regained control of the
state, they removed him from offi
ce, but he remained active in local, state, and
national Republican party politics until his death in Austin in 1894.
Hiram Seymour Hall, a native New Yorker and lieutenant in the 43rd
U.S.C.T., participated in every battle and campaign of the Army of the Potomac
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 17
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 17
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
18 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
from July 1861 through April 1865, receiving the Medal of Honor for “gallantry
in action” at Gaine’s Mill. His bravery and skill brought him to the attention of
Brigadier General Ambrose E. Burnside, who selected him to lead the ill- fated
storming party aft er the explosion at the Battle of the Crater outside of Peters-
burg. Losing his right arm in the attack, he later lamented its eff ect: “No more
for me to lead my command on the fi eld of battle, no more for me the thrill of
fi re that I had felt with my comrades on two- score fi elds of patriotic glory.”
Post- Bureau, Hall resumed his private life in Missouri and Kansas to live out his
days as a farmer. Another SAC, William H. Horton, lost his arm in battle and
fi nished the war in the Veteran Reserve Corps. He left Texas aft er his tenure,
retiring to Kentucky, where he worked for the Bureau of Internal Revenue until
his death in 1893. A native of Pennsylvania, Frank Holsinger enlisted and even-
tually became a captain in the 19th U.S.C.T. While on picket duty, a bullet struck
his right arm, completely shattering the bones in the forearm. His wound left
“his right arm and hand . . . completely disabled.” Holsinger, aft er leaving the
Bureau, moved to Kansas with his family. Th
ere he lived a rather normal (yet
fi nancially successful) life (eleven thousand dollars total in wealth) as a farmer
until his death in 1916.
Farmers were the second largest group of agents (n=18, or 17.1 percent).
According to the statistics for the state at that time, a little more than one in
three Texans listed farming or planting (non- slave labor, of course) as an occu-
pation in 1870. If added to those who listed some other agricultural- related
occupation, the number climbs to more than 70 percent of Texans. Th
e Bureau
clearly underrepresented men from this occupation, a fi nding similar to another
state study of the Bureau. In his study of the Freedmen’s Bureau and local white
leadership in Virginia, Richard G. Lowe found the agency demurred at select-
ing farmers when choosing suitable offi
ceholders for that state. Of the 18 agents
in Texas who listed farming as their occupation in the 1870 census, only 7 had
owned slaves according to the 1860 census. All were Southern born, with only
one coming from a non- Confederate state (Kentucky). All were also civilians
and, with the exception of one, signifi cantly older (51.3 to 36.33) than the average
Bureau agent in Texas. From those who owned slaves, four qualifi ed as planters
in the pre- emancipation sense: 20 or more slaves. Approximately one in fi ft een
(6.7 percent) agents whose occupations were established (n=105) owned at least
one slave prior to the war. Th
ese percentages diff er greatly from those in Geor-
gia, where almost half (49 percent) the agents had owned at least one slave.
Texas numbers resembled those in Virginia, where only 10 percent of Bureau
men were former slave owners. Th
e paucity of former planters (slaveholders for
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 18
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 18
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?
19
that matter) in the agency in Texas refl ected the opinions of those heading the
organization in the state. Both E. M. Gregory and J. B. Kiddoo distrusted the
planter class “with the interests of the freedmen.” Bureau offi
cials in Texas sim-
ply did not trust former masters with the welfare of their former slaves. It
appears that personal preferences of each state’s assistant commissioner, rather
than any overall Bureau policy handed down from Washington, explain the
disparities.
Texas Bureau and census records indicate that Bureau men were generally in
their late thirties (n=154, 36.33 years of age) in 1870. Th
at would place the average
individual generally in his early to mid thirties at the time of his appointment.
In fact, nearly 44 percent of all agents were in their thirties at the time of their
appointment (see Figure 1- 4). Th
at holds steady when civilians are taken out of
the study. Th
ose with military service had an average age of 35.8 years (n=120).
Civilians, however, were nearly a full decade older on average than their mili-
tary counterparts, with an average age slightly more than 44 years of age (n=34).
Th
e discrepancy can best be explained by those who lacked military service due
to age. Unfortunately, the census did not compute average age, so a comparison
with the population as a whole is diffi
cult. Further, such a comparison may not
70
60
50
40
SACs
30
20
10
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Figure 1–4. Number of Bureau Agents by Age
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 19
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 19
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
20 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
be a meaningful item considering the entire population includes children.
Comparison to the military, on the other hand, is possible, and since the Bureau
came under military control and drew from its ranks, the comparison is useful.
Th
e average Union soldier, according to historian Bell I. Wiley, was 26.3 at the
war’s conclusion. Th
e average SAC in Texas was about fi ve to ten years older
than his Billy Yank counterfpart.
With many challenges inherent in Bureau work (long hours and inspection
tours with little or no help), it was generally not a job for the old. Almost one-
third (n=46, or 29.8 percent) in 1870 were forty or older, and of those whose age
could be confi rmed (n=154), slightly more than 10 percent (n=16, or 10.4 percent)
had reached at least fi ft y. Despite the selection of offi
cers, oft en older than the
men they led, these men would still have been young enough to meet the agen-
cy�
�s demands. Prewar politics might also have played a part. As noted by Rich-
ard G. Lowe’s study, the Virginia Bureau avoided members of the Democracy,
the party identifi ed with secession and slavery. Th
e average agent in Texas
would have been barely voting age and less likely to have been identifi ed with
the state’s (or the South’s) slaveholding politics.
Th
e Bureau generally drew from the wealthy (real estate and personal prop-
erty combined for the 1870 federal census) between $1,000 and $4,999. On
average, they held approximately $2,540 in real estate and slightly more than
$1,427 in personal property, which totaled approximately $3,967 in wealth
(n=110). While some were worth tens of thousands of dollars, 63 individuals
listed their total wealth (real estate + personal property) below $1,000, with a
signifi cant portion with no valued wealth. Using measurements from the Ninth
Census, Statistics of Wealth and Industry, and Historical Statistics of the United
States, an average white head- of- household in 1870 had more than $2,141 in
total wealth. Although SACs in Texas held almost twice the amount of wealth
as the average head- of- household ($3,967 compared to $2,141) in the United
States in 1870, nearly six in ten (n=63, or 57.3 percent) of Bureau men either had
no wealth or were not fi nancially well- off (below $1,000 in wealth).
Th
e numbers reveal a dichotomy in wealth between SACs in Texas. A student
of wealth in nineteenth- century America, Lee Soltow defi nes very poor as hav-
Table 1- 4 Wealth of Subassistant Commissioners in Texas
$ Value of Wealth
–
–
–
,–, ,–,
,+
Number of Agents
Percentage .
.
.
. .
Note: Determination of each agent’s wealth came from the 1870 U.S. Census.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 20
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 20
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?
21
ing no real estate or personal property. He found that 61.6 percent of whites in
1870 had at least $100 or more in wealth. Th
ese numbers correspond with
Bureau agents in Texas: 60.9 percent of Bureau men had real estate or personal
property of at least $100. A closer look at asset holders shows that 40.9 percent
held only real estate. Th
at percentage corresponds with the 43.3 percent of white
property holders in 1870. Slightly less than 42 percent (41.8) held only personal
property. Th
is equals almost 50 percent lower than the white male population
in 1870 (61.6 percent). Broken down by age, those holding property in Texas
corresponds with the country as a whole.
Th
ese fi ndings diff er from those in other studies. Paul A. Cimbala, for
instance, examining the Bureau in Georgia, discovered offi
cials appointed men
who, on average, were twice as wealthy as Texas agents (n~$8,000). Cimbala’s
population (including a much higher percentage of former slaveholders) helps
explain the diff erence. Th
e varying fi ndings for Texas and Georgia demonstrate
that offi
cials in Washington, D.C., did not impose one policy for the organiza-
tion. Instead, offi
cials in each state were free to implement policies of their
choosing, according to conditions within their districts. Broken down by spe-
cifi c occupation, those in the farming profession averaged around $3,861 in real
estate (not unexpected) and slightly less than $2,678 in personal wealth. Former
slave owners far exceeded those yeomen farmers (those who did not own slaves)
in both categories. Individuals in the legal profession (n=12)—lawyers, judges,
and law enforcement—held just under $2,367 in real estate and around $1,583 in
personal wealth. Soldiers (those whose wealth could be established in the 1870
census, n=43) possessed slightly more than $1,000 ($1,007) in real estate and
slightly below $802 in personal (the average of other occupations was not
included due to only one to three people).
Why would the Freedmen’s Bureau turn to such fi nancially prosperous indi-
viduals? Certainly offi
cials wanted those inspired to help the freedpeople,
imbued with good Republican ideology, and steeled for the trials and tribula-
tions that awaited them in Texas; but these characteristics were hardly limited
to those with wealth. Th
e answer might partially lie with the high percentage of
heads- of- households (84 of 105, or 80 percent) or married men (n=62, or 59
percent), each contributing in its own way to increased wealth. Th
e answer
might be explained by the constant struggle for funds that plagued the agency
from its inception. With restraints on spending, including salaries for civilian
agents and allocations for supplies, Bureau offi
cials wanted individuals not reliant
upon the salary and men with some disposable income. Offi
cials rarely counte-
nanced complaints about pay (a red fl ag indicating commitment to money rather
than to his duties), usually reminding the complainant of “[m]any requests for
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 21
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 21
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
22 “A
Stranger Amongst Strangers”
employment, the writers of which, are strongly recommended” and warning
that “worthy and capable men can be procured to fi ll the vacancies.” A perusal
of the records uncovers few complaints about monthly salaries (ranging from
SACs purchasing supplies and providing charity out- of- pocket. Th
e intense
scrutiny of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the nineteenth- century philosophy on
government spending meant offi
cials had to stretch every dollar, and solvent
agents helped in this course.
Measurements of wealth and demographic traits are revealing, but they do
not explain why these men wanted to be Bureau agents. Despite the voluminous
Bureau records for Texas, there existed only application letters for twenty- four
men (these are only of those who received an appointment). As desirous as it
would be to have many more, these two dozen applications, nonetheless, shed
light onto what motivated someone to pursue Bureau service. References to
military service, Northern origin, and other perceived indicators of Union sen-
timent and loyalty litter these applications and letters of recommendations.
Highlights of upstanding character and intelligence likewise appear. Few appli-
cations referenced
only one reason for qualifi cation. Most, in fact, highlighted
multiple reasons for applying (see Table 1- 5).
Since the Bureau was a quasi- military organization, applicants naturally
stressed their service during the war. With more than three- quarters of SACs
for Texas having military experience, Bureau offi
cials favored a martial back-
ground. Th
e prevailing opinion of the professional military at the time explains
this. Discipline and regimentation, among other attributes such as patriotism
and unionism, were generally believed to accompany any applicant with mili-
tary experience. Military service notwithstanding, an appeal to one’s character
and competence was the only other reason to appear in a majority of the appli-
Table 1- 5 Primary Reason Agents in Texas Cited for Employment in Freedmen’s Bureau
Patriotism,
Protecting
Character
Unionism,
Military
Economic/
the
and
and
Anti-
Reason Service
Job
Reasons
Freedmen
Competence
Confederacy
Number of Agents
Citing in Application
Percentage of
.
.
.
.
Total Applications
Note: Reasons came from letter or application for employment to Assistant Commissioner in Texas.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 22
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 22
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Who Were the Subassistant Commissioners?
23
cations. It surpassed free- standing appeals to one’s patriotism, unionism, and
hatred for the “so- called Confederacy” as well as clarion calls for protecting the
freedmen. At fi rst glance, considering the nature of the work, this lack of ideal-
ism and zealotry for the former slaves is surprising. But this quasi- military
organization most likely preferred pragmatism and common sense above ideal-
ism and zealotry.
Such applicants fell into two main groups: those with military service and
those without, with the former typically highlighting their service above all
else. Th
ey defi nitely believed their sacrifi ce for the Union was qualifi cation
enough for an appointment. Th