disapproved; that, I can understand, and have no right to question. But in this,
there seems to be query: ‘Why an offi
ce at one place costs more than at another[?]’ ”
Th
roughout the Bureau’s existence, its fi eld agents routinely complained about
the diffi
culties in obtaining (as well as the lack of) offi
ce furniture and receiving
from headquarters the required amount of offi
ce supplies (i.e., pens, ink, statio-
nery, etc.). Problems arose not so much because of white Texans’ actions or atti-
tudes but because of bureaucracy’s nature. Th
e agency was supposed to draw
supplies from the military. Th
is caused much delay and confusion, since some
army offi
cers did not feel “authorized to serve the offi
cers of this Bureau.” Con-
sider the case of William Longworth at Sutherland Springs. He worried that his
lack of furniture will lead some “to suspect I am fl inching in the cause.” An
exasperated Longworth reminded headquarters of his situation:
Remember I am away in the wilderness, far from any post or district com-
mander, and scarcely recognized by them when I presented myself, and have
not yet had the assistance of as much as a bottle of ink. And all the while a
disaff ected community foaming and raging around me, I have to maintain a
hospital and boarding house for all . . . under my cognizance, together with
transportation for the sick and helpless, and all entirely out of my own
pocket.
With contract fees forbidden (for the time being), agents routinely used per-
sonal expenses, despite discouragement by superiors. Examples abound in out-
of- pocket expenses for offi
ce supplies, horse feed, fuel, and assistance. “I have
several times employed special agents when it was impossible for me to go
myself,” wrote one agent, “and in each instance have paid such agents myself.”
Congressional funds for agents’ salaries in July 1866 went a long way to remedy
this situation, but instances of men spending their own money to perform offi
-
cial duties continued throughout the organization’s existence. John Dix at
Corpus Christi in December 1867 had to pay for both his and a detachment of
soldiers’ supplies. “I have not been able to get one dollar refunded,” he reminded
superiors. “And therefore I respectfully ask your aid in pointing out some way
for me to receive the amount I have expended. ”
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 34
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 34
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The E. M. Gregory Era, Sept. 1865–April 1866
35
A few raised their superiors’ ire with unauthorized expenses and instances
of improper use of materials. Offi
cials issued many a reprimand for excessive
and improper use of stationery and unauthorized expenses for school books,
scouts, guides, transportation, and requests for reimbursement for personal
expenses. For example, A. P. Delano and A. H. Mayer, the SACs at Marlin Falls
and Liberty, respectively, were reprimanded for what superiors believed to be
repeated and fl agrant disregard of policy. Th
ey repeatedly informed A. P. Delano
that the Bureau lacked funds for hiring scouts or guides, only to have him
request funds for such hired help. “I am surprised that you should still employ
scouts and guides,” replied assistant quartermaster Samuel I. Wright to the less-
than- compliant agent, “aft er the conversation we had in regard to it.” Wright’s
replacement, Charles Garretson, who appeared to enjoy reminding subordi-
nates they had exceeded their authority and that there “is but one Disbursing
Offi
cer of the Bureau in this state,” experienced similar problems when he
questioned A. H. Mayer’s postal expenditures. “Th
e accounts of no SAC in the
State, presented a corresponding increase” and with no explanation as to why,
he noted. “Th
ere may be some circumstances connected with the Post of Lib-
erty, which [would] justify a larger disbursement for Postage, than that which
takes place at the much more important post of Marshall.” Th
e quartermaster
responded to a request for fi ft y- three quires (unbound reams of paper) by suspi-
ciously asking, “How [can you] require 10 times [the necessary] amount . . . in
addition to the 3 quires allowed [each 5 months]?” Bureau records include
numerous such admonishments and rejections. Th
e actions by Delano and
Mayer aff ected not only their dealings with superiors, but also the relations
between those at headquarters and all those in the fi eld. A select few cast suspi-
cion on all and contributed to a perception at headquarters that subordinates
lacked frugality. Th
is contributed to a rift between superiors and their agents.
Whether responsible or not, all complained about supply problems. In many
instances, in fact, offi
cials failed to provide subordinates with even the mini-
mum monthly allowance of offi
ce supplies or basic furniture called for in the
Offi
cers’ Manual, which superiors required all to have and refer to for guidance.
Th
ey charged agents with what many believed an impossible task and never
fully supplied them with the most basic aids.
Insuffi
cient supplies became such an issue that superiors sent William H.
Sinclair, Bureau Inspector for Texas, to investigate in 1867. In his report, he
discovered that many in the interior lacked the tools “for the proper and regular
discharge of their duties.” Sinclair admonished headquarters for the “discour-
aging and perplexing” feeling by subordinates. “Th
is subject might to some
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 35
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 35
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
36
“The Post of Greatest Peril”
seem a small matter,” he warned, “but to the agents . . . it is not.” Th
e supply
breakdown became quite frustrating at times; even boiling over into direct
confl ict with superiors. Drawing the most ire and seen by some as primarily
responsible for the lack of supplies was Assistant Quartermaster Charles Gar-
retson. Garretson and David L. Montgomery confl icted for several reasons,
including Montgomery’s requisition for stationery. In addition, in late summer
of 1867, Montgomery complained about not receiving his pay. Garretson endorsed
the letter as follows:
Respectfully returned to Head Quarters . . . with the information that
although certifi ed accounts for Offi
ce Rent were transmitted to this offi
ce by
Col. Montgomery his offi
ce [rent] has not been reported to this day on Form
No. 21 and no account for services or Rent can be paid until reported. Col.
Montgomery’s report of Persons etc. for April & May were both received at
this offi
ce 30th June 186
7. Th
e May report was returned for correction and
was not received corrected until 9th August 1867. On . . . 8th July Col. Mont-
gomery’s fi rst voucher in favor of B. H. Denson was returned for correction.
On . . . 20th July his second voucher in favor of B. H. Denson was returned
for correction. On . . . 27th July his certifi ed accounts in favor of William J.
Goodman for offi
ce rent were returned for correction and have not yet been
received correct nor has Col. Montgomery’s report of Persons for June 1867
been received corrected. Until Col. Montgomery’s Reports of Persons for
March, April, May & June have been perfected, William J. Goodman’s
account for Offi
ce Rent cannot be paid. My absence at San Antonio and the
illness of the whole of the clerks with this offi
ce have prevented B. H. Denson’s
account from being paid between 14th Aug. & the present date. It is submit-
ted that under the circumstances detailed above Col. Montgomery is scarcely
in a position to complain of the non payment of his certifi ed accounts. It is
now 13th of Sept. and his report of Persons & articles for June is not on File
in this offi
ce.
Montgomery, angry about the whole ordeal, took matters into his own hands.
He purchased stationery and sent the voucher to Garretson for reimburse-
ment. Th
e assistant quartermaster rejected it, noting the problem stemmed from
the agent’s “incompleteness or incorrectness of every Report.” Montgomery
accused Garretson of neglect and incompetence, only to have him ask who the
true incompetent was, considering Montgomery could not follow orders or
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 36
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 36
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The E. M. Gregory Era, Sept. 1865–April 1866
37
properly complete forms. Th
ese feuds, which continued until the agency’s end,
refl ected a serious problem within the Bureau’s chain of command in Texas.
Th
ose appointed by Gregory experienced many of the same problems as
their successors. But they also faced unique problems, ones stemming from the
immediate aft ermath of the war. Of particular concern was a rumor among the
freedpeople that they would receive land from the federal government. Th
e gov-
ernment would supposedly confi scate and divide Southern plantations into
forty- acre plots among the former slaves in late 1865. “Th
e Negroes had left their
old homes and were refusing to make contracts for the new year with any per-
son,” reported John T. Raper from Columbus. “Th
ey were waiting for a division
of property.” Th
e freedpeople’s refusal to contract threatened to derail free labor
in Texas. Th
e president’s pardons of wealthy former Confederates, which rees-
tablished their right to their land; Commissioner Howard’s Circular No. 15,
which rescinded his previous circular laying out procedures for distribution of
confi scated land to ex-
slaves; the almost sacrosanct belief Americans had
toward private property; and Northern Republicans’ unwillingness to “disturb
the traditional relationships between capital and labor” all combined to quash
land redistribution—if it ever was a realistic option. Gregory then instructed
fi eld personnel to immediately “remove so erroneous and injurious an impres-
sion.” Th
is was diffi
cult, because even aft er the 1865 holiday season passed with
no land distribution, the rumor persisted. At Liberty, for example, agent A. H.
Mayer described freedpeople as late as 1868 still believing they would receive
land, this time from the Radical Republicans with their election to offi
ce in
Texas. “I regret to state,” he frustratingly stated about his attempts to disabuse
them of this belief, “that all my eff orts have been abortive, and will continue to
be so long as bad men control them. . . .”
Further complicating matters, some white Texans feared once freedpeople
realized no land was coming, they would rise up in rebellion. Th
e holiday sea-
son of 1865 portended another Santo Domingo (i.e., a bloody slave uprising
between 1791 and 1804) in the minds of many whites. Christmastime instilled
hope for one group, but brought fear to another. All the hysteria, optimism,
and, ultimately, frustration late in 1865 turned out to be nothing more than a
momentary concern for Bureau men. Of more lasting importance was the
implementation of free labor, something considered the “knottiest problem of
modern times.” With slavery’s demise, a new labor system had to be implanted
in the South. Th
is objective constituted the basis of the Freedmen’s Bureau
operations and to a great extent, its success greatly hinged on its agents’ eff orts.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 37
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 37
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
38
“The Post of Greatest Peril”
labor in Texas. Th
e diffi
culties faced by agents in late 1865 and early 1866,
although “fi xed” at certain times and on certain occasions, remained to befud-
dle their successors.
Th
e agency’s name disguises its true mission, for it could have been easily
called the Labor Bureau. To nineteenth- century Americans, free labor meant
economic mobility, equality before the law, contract labor, self- suffi
ciency, and
property ownership, and, despite any fl aws and contradictions, it exemplifi ed
what Northern society believed good, contrasted by what was wrong and back-
ward about the slaveholding South. Northerners saw the war’s outcome as a
triumph of their economic system, and through the Bureau they planned to sow
the seeds of free labor in slavery’s ashes. “If federal troops introduced emanci-
pation on the point of a bayonet during their war,” declared Jeff rey R. Kerr-
Ritchie, a student of Virginia Reconstruction, “their [Bureau] cousins were
charged with imposing free labor negotiations under the nib of a pen.”
Infl uenced by the military’s policies during the war, Commissioner Howard
issued a circular letter that vaguely framed the agency’s free labor system. He
instructed subordinates in May 1865 to introduce “a practical system of com-
pensated labor” and to dissuade the freed community that they did not have to
work. In extreme cases exceptions could be made, but no aid was to be granted
to the able- bodied. Howard realized this might cause some suff ering, but that
was to be expected. But idleness, a sinful, personal fl aw contrary to man’s exis-
tence on earth, must not to be tolerated. Th
e commissioner believed their free-
dom would come through their labor and thus viewed the examination of
contracts as “the most important duty of an agent upon being assigned.” He
hoped to “rehabilitate labor” in each state and “establish the actual freedom of
the late slave.” Freedom measured by “justice in settling past contracts and in
making new ones.” Th
e policy turned Bureau agents into a vast army of “employ-
ment agents.”
Avoiding rigidity, which might stifl e experimentation on the part of planters
and the freedpeople, Howard left his subordinates to fi ll in the details. Gregory
liked free labor’s prospects in Texas and wanted to transfer the “spirit that has
made the great states of the Northwest.” Gregory put his optimism into details
in late 1865. Labor relations were to be controlled through the labor contract,
reconciling freedom on one hand and the state’s authority on the other. It was a
way to ensure freedom and equality—perhaps myopically, some claim—backed
by federal protection. Contracts had to be made for at least a month, but not
longer than one year. On plantations, contracts had to be made with the head of
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 38
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 38
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The E. M. Gregory Era, Sept. 1865–April 1866
39
each worker’s household and include all capable of working (specifi cally his
wife and children). Gregory ordered agents not to set wages, but also not to
approve any unfair wages: in Texas, wages ranged from two dollars to fi ft een
dollars per month according to the sex and quality of the worker. Th
e employer,
furthermore, provided food, quarters, fuel, and medical attendance for the
entire family. Each contract was a lien upon no more than one half of the crop
until the hands had been paid. Since freedmen “have not learned the binding
force of a contract,” it should stipulate punishment for unjust absence of work,
which usually meant forfeiture of wages or treatment as a vagrant. Agents were
to approve each contract, only if the freedman understood “what he was called
upon to do, if the contract was not unfair, if the negro understood it, and gave
consent.” Th
is understanding proved elusive, since “slavery proved a poor
preparation for freedom. ”
Th
is responsibility, as noted, to educate Texans about what agent Eugene
Smith called “the Yankee way of doing business” fell to Bureau men, who on
many occasions also had to fi ll in the details. Gregory believed the only path