cacy ranged from superb to criminal and incompetent, with the
latter two being the rule. In fact, with the exceptions of John F. Brown and
J. Orville Shelby, both of whom did adequate jobs, and Philip Howard, consid-
ered industrious, hard working, and dedicated, the rest of Gregory’s civilian
agents were apathetic, incompetent, controversial, or criminal. Of the seven
men dismissed by headquarters, some of whom were dismissed because of
economizing eff orts or past Confederate service, all but one were civilians, with
most of them dismissed for actions considered contrary to the agency’s goal
and values. Table 2- 2 lists reasons Gregory’s military and civilian agents left
the Bureau. Bureau historian William L. Richter concludes that Texas Bureau
Table 2- 1 Length of Service for Agents Appointed by Gregory
Type of Bureau Agent
Number
Avg. Length of Service (Months)
Civilian
.
Military
.
Note: Dates came from Freedmen’s Bureau Roster of Offi
cers and Civilians.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 44
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 44
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The E. M. Gregory Era, Sept. 1865–April 1866
45
Table 2- 2 Reasons Agents Appointed by Gregory Left Bureau Service
Military Agents Total
Civilian Agents Total
Total and
Reason
and Percentages
and Percentages
Percentages
Bureau Operations: Bureau
.
.
.
ended, consolidation, and
transferal or reassignment
w/i 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
Total: All Gregory’s Agents
n=
n=
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.
“scalawags” were hardly worth the trouble, concerned with political patronage
and revenge, and too oft en unqualifi ed or malfeasant. Although the political
patronage claim is debatable, Richter’s sweeping indictment, despite harshness
in its delivery, is accurate.
Selecting civilian agents was more art than science. One case best illustrates
this diffi
culty. Aft er leaving the organization, George C. Abbott got mixed up
with unscrupulous men and was killed. J. B. Kiddoo, Gregory’s successor as
Bureau chief of Texas, described Abbott as “a very bad man who was killed by
an accomplice in rascality in a personal diffi
culty.” Th
at statement was unques-
tioned at that time, but Abbott’s tenure with the agency suggests otherwise.
Perhaps malfeasant at the time of his death, he showed no tendencies of the sort
while serving the Bureau. Offi
cials at headquarters never questioned Abbott’s
commitment to the freedpeople, and no one claimed he ever did anything other
than what his duties called for.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 45
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 45
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
46
“The Post of Greatest Peril”
Th
e Bureau’s initial months in Texas can best be described as a work in prog-
ress. Offi
cials and subassistant commissioners alike attempted to work out the
bureaucratic kinks, but were not always successful. As the initial men entered
their posts, full of zeal and pride, they too oft en lacked the necessary accoutre-
ments. Pervasive ignorance about their authority and their underestimation of
the workload only compounded the problem. Beyond the broad goal of imple-
menting free labor and protecting the freed community’s rights as citizens,
much remained murky, as they were left to “use their best judgment.” Such a
situation caused unnecessary frustration and, at times, outright bickering.
With agents “using their best judgment,” the desired consistency was impossi-
ble. Rectifying this situation, however, would no longer fall to Gregory. White
Texans were angered at his zeal for the freedpeople’s welfare and many, includ-
ing high- ranking military offi
cials in Texas, believed his “zest and energy” for
the emancipated came at the expense of their former masters as well as the
Bureau’s eff ectiveness. In late March 1866, in response, Howard reassigned
Gregory to Washington, replacing him with Brevet Major General Joseph B.
Kiddoo. It would be up to Kiddoo to fi x not only some of the problems that
bedeviled his predecessor, but also to extend the power and infl uence of the
Freedmen’s Bureau.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 46
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 46
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
Conservative Phoenix
3
Th
e J. B. Kiddoo Era,
May 1866–Summer 1866
White Texans saw Gregory’s removal as a victory, albeit limited.
Encouraged to greater resistance, they believed they could alter
their condition through “restrained belligerence.” In the spring of
1866 whites increased opposition to federal attempts at Reconstruction in ways
not seen since war’s end. Th
eir resistance moved from verbal criticism in the
spring to acts of violence by the summer’s end. Th
eir struggle was set against the
backdrop of restoration, for as whites defi ed the Bureau, they also busied them-
selves with readmission under President Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction
plan. As state politicians met certain benchmarks for readmission, their con-
stituents desired greater control over their civil aff airs and less federal oversight.
Embodying this sen
timent was Governor James Webb Th
rockmorton, who was
the torchbearer for his “defeated” countrymen. Amidst atmosphere, a new
assistant commissioner attempted to succeed where his predecessor had failed.
Brevet Major General Joseph Barr Kiddoo brought much experience and
commitment to his new position. Born in Pittsburgh in either 1837 or 1840, he
entered military service in 1861. He served with the 63rd and 137th Pennsylvania
Volunteer Regiments (units in the Army of the Potomac), rising through the
ranks for his “meritorious” actions in the Peninsular and Chancellorsville
Campaigns in 1862 and 1863. In late 1863 he transferred to the newly created
all- black infantry service. An offi
cer in both the 6th and 22nd United States
Colored Infantry Regiments, Kiddoo participated in the siege of Petersburg
throughout late 1864 and early 1865. While leading his men in an unsuccessful
attack against the city’s defenses, Kiddoo received a “lacerated wound of the
back by a minié ball,” a wound that never fully healed. For the rest of his life, it
discharged “half an ounce to an ounce of pus” daily. Th
is wound, which surely
prematurely ended his life, was extremely painful and oft en incapacitating. For
his actions before Petersburg, despite accusations of a “whiskey- crazed brain,”
Kiddoo was honored in September 1865 with a promotion to brigadier general.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 47
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 47
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
48 Conservative
Phoenix
Aft er leaving Texas, he was reassigned to the Department of the Lakes and then
to New York City as superintendent for recruiting. In that time, he became a
lawyer and was admitted to the Bar of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in 1867.
Kiddo left the military in 1870. Even with his wound, he remained active, join-
ing the National Rifl e Association and serving as a pallbearer to General George
A. Custer’s coffi
n aft er his death at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Kiddoo later
died in New York City in 1880. Th
e army ordered his internment at the United
States Military Cemetery at West Point.
In the meantime, Kiddoo arrived in Texas in May 1866 and discussed condi-
tions in the state with the outgoing Gregory. In a letter informing Howard
about the situation in Texas, Kiddoo called it “very agreeable.” “I am agreeably
disappointed,” he said, “in all I have heard or seen thus far.” His glowing report,
however, masked signifi cant problems with the labor situation in Texas, most
notably enticements (luring one to break a labor contract with another). Field
agents reported numerous instances of enticement in early 1866, which “openly
set at defi ance the authority of the Bureau.” For example, in Robertson County,
Virginian native Champ Carter, speaking for more than a few, pleaded with
superiors for redress. “I tell you frankly General,” he declared, “. . . if the demor-
alization is not stopped—if the contracts are not enforced . . . if the freedmen
are not required to return & comply with their contracts when they leave with-
out cause—if the planter is not punished who hires a freedmen with another
planter the whole planting interest & every interest [will suff er].” He continued
with a warning that all “hangs on a balance as fi ckle as the wind.” A New York
Herald correspondent, who had toured Texas and witnessed these problems,
compared the agency’s attempt to regulate labor to tickling a rhinoceros with a
straw. Doubtless, it was going to be as diffi
cult.
Within a few weeks of writing to Commissioner Howard about his agree-
able disappointment, Kiddoo wrote a less sanguine letter detailing problems
reported by his fi eld personnel. A fl awed policy and the diffi
culties inherent in
transitioning from one labor system to another, according to Kiddoo, caused
these problems. Gregory had shown sympathy for the freedpeople, realizing
they, recently emancipated, had yet to learn “responsible citizenship.” He justi-
fi ably dealt with them quite leniently. Such leniency, according to the more
conservative Kiddoo, caused preventable problems. Both planters and their
hands had to be held accountable, by a “vigorous system of labor.” Kiddoo
sounded this change in policy through Circular No. 14, a measure he deemed
“simple justice.” Th
e new standard would throw “moral infl uence about the
Freedmen in their transition state.” With the order, he wanted to “induce them
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 48
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 48
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
The J. B. Kiddoo Era, May 1866–Summer 1866
49
to maintain inviolate the provisions of so solemn a legal document as a written
contract. ”
Leniency resulted in “fl agrant violation of the laws of Contracts,” according
to Kiddoo. He viewed enticement as “dishonorable . . . [and] destructive to the
energetic system of labor the bureau desires to establish.” Th
e practice, in fact,
had become so prevalent it threatened the state’s agricultural interests. As one
disgruntled employer put it, “High wages off ered by asses has turned [the freed-
men’s] heads.” Kiddoo hoped his circular would dissuade such “asses” by pro-
hibiting “any employer, planter, or other person [to] tamper with, or entice
laborers to leave their employers with whom they have contracted in good
faith,” with the amount of fi nes at the discretion of the Bureau agents. Accord-
ing to historian James D. Schmidt, Kiddoo had revived labor law not used in the
North since the eighteenth century. In reality, the new policy was not much
stricter than Gregory’s, since offi
cials still prohibited SACs from using physical
coercion against freedpeople who refused to sign or had broken their contracts
(“compel the negro to work without resorting to physical punishment”). As
“their friend and guardian,” they were to inform hands of the consequences of
breaking their contracts. If persuasion did not work, the freedperson was to be
fi ned (up to fi ft y dollars). Th
e new regulations held the employer (fi nes up to fi ve
hundred dollars) and employee equally responsible for their actions.
Of course, much of the labor system’s success depended on the SACs. In
another circular, Kiddoo required them to tour their subdistricts to explain
the new regulations. Offi
cials in Galveston had previously never explicitly
mandated fi eld trips. Kiddoo, on the other hand, now ordered such tours
mandatory, greatly increasing their already sizable workload. Two examples
will suffi
ce. J. Ernest Goodman, the agent at Columbus, disclosed to his supe-
riors that his wartime injuries allowed “but a partial tour” of his district.
Livingston agent and wealthy planter, James A. Hogue, also wanted no part of
this expansive duty, and aft er completing a tour of his district and fi nding the
“crops of this section ver
y bacward [sic]” and “the Blackman . . . not getting
justice,” he resigned his commission. During the spring and summer of 1866,
many fellow agents reported satisfactory labor conditions in their districts,
with labor and capital fi nally being married. For example, Massachusetts
native and postal worker Alex B. Coggeshall stated that the “planters of this
county seem to be disposed to treat the freedmen fairly and the freedmen
have exceeded the expectations. . . .” But this, like so many other rules, had
exceptions. A number thought these expressions of amity and fairness from
planters fl eeting.
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 49
18779-Bean_TooGreat.indd 49
4/27/16 11:13 AM
4/27/16 11:13 AM
50 Conservative
Phoenix
Problems still existed. Th
ere were still complaints planters had yet to settle
with their hands for the previous year’s work (a problem not experienced by all
agents in the same degree). Plus, some professed confusion about the kind of
payment that should be paid. Planters also expressed continued discontent with
idle freedpeople. Despite claims to the contrary, misunderstanding about the
meaning of Kiddoo’s circular was another problem. Bureau offi
cials in Galves-
ton frequently referred subordinates to Circular No. 14 in answer to their ques-
tions: some misunderstood it, and others applied it in an ex post facto manner,
something Kiddoo strictly prohibited. Th
e SAC at Liberty, the local doctor
J. Orville Shelby, for example, was a little confused. According to Shelby, the
order allowed him to punish those who broke their contract with only a fi ne. He
did not believe he could force them to return to the original employer they had
contracted with. Richard Cole, already angry that many of his hands had left ,
disagreed and claimed Shelby misunderstood the circular. Cole thought it
forced hands back to the employer they had contracted with. He wrote Kiddoo
to inform him about Shelby. Shelby, however, stood fi rm, and Kiddoo concurred
with him, for it was discovered that Cole had abused some of his hands, causing
the contract to be annulled. Although Shelby was vindicated, the job took its
toll on him, and he discovered that justice for the freedpeople came with a price.
Before he could fi nd redress, Kiddoo relieved him. A frustrated Shelby blamed
his removal on a conspiracy by local citizens. But information had surfaced that
he had been a surgeon in the Confederacy, precluding him from taking the