INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Fage(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

Universl^ Micfxxilms Internationcil

300 N ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1 R 4EJ, ENGLAND 7907556

KREMER, GARY R. A b i o g r a p h y o f JAMES MILTON TURNER.

THE AMERICAN university, PH.D., 1978

Uni\«rsiW Micrcxilms International 300 n zeebhoau . ann arbor , mi âsiœ

© 1978

GARY R. KREMER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MILTON TURNER

by Gary R. Kremer

Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

History Signatures of: Committee; Committee: ^ ^ Chairman:

Date: / I /r J t

1978

The American University Washington, D.C,

THE IMEBlCiK UNIVEHSITY LIBEiSY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank all of the people who have assisted me in any way over the past four years in the preparation of this manuscript, I am grateful to Lorenzo J, Greene who introduced me to the historical figure J, Milton Tur­ ner in a way that prompted me to pursue and to finish this study. My colleague Antonio F, Holland has read parts of this manuscript and has continuously offered helpful sug­ gestions. William E, Parrish, whose books on post-Civil War Missouri provided me with a starting point for studying

Turner's life, has given me hours of his valuable time, and has, in the process, become something more to me than a helpful scholar: he has become a good friend. Other historians have also shared their research with me, par­ ticularly Lawrence 0, Christensen, Joe M, Richardson, and

Elizabeth Caldwell Beatty, Numerous librarians and archivists have tolerated my persistent questions and, more often than not, been able to help me find answers, I especially want to thank the following libraries: the Library of Congress, the Na­ tional Archives, the State Historical Society of Missouri, the Kansas City Public Library, the Missouri Historical Society, the University of Missouri, Lincoln University, the American U niversity, the U niversity of Oklahoma, the

i i Oklahoma Historical Society, the Moorland-Spingam Research Center, and the Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Mis­

souri. I particularly want to thank Mrs. Mary Moran of the

Oklahoma Historical Society, Ms. Esme Bahn of the Moorland- Spingarn Collection, and Dr. William Allen and Mr. Wilbur K irkpatrick of the Masons.

Two of my Lincoln University colleagues have been especially helpful in the preparation of this study. Tho­ mas E. Gage and Kathleen Wojciehowski have read the entire

manuscript and have been two of my most constant, and help­ fu l, c r itic s . Both have done more for me than anyone has a right to expect of people in their respective positions;

that is because they are more than an historian and a lib ra ria n : they, too, are good friends. There are also a number of people at the American University whom I wish to thank. A dissertation fellow­

ship from the university for 1977-1978 greatly facilita­

ted the completion of this study. Likewise, I was assist­ ed by the comments made by a number of my fellow gradu­

ate students who sat through seminars with me during the

early stages of this study. In retrospect, their patience

and tolerance toward me were remarkable. In particular, I want to mention Betsy G riffith , Lonnie Bunch, John Vaughn,

Tom Jarvis, and Ed Smith. Just as importantly, Allan J. Lichtman, who directed one of those seminars, has been of

great help to me.

I l l My committee has made the writing of this dissertation a rewarding experience. No one who has not sa t in on one of Roger H. Brown's classes can appreciate the contagious thirst for knowledge that he exudes. I am most grateful to have had the opportunity to work with him, Alan M, Kraut has probably done more than anyone to force me to re­ fine and c la rify ray in te rp re ta tio n of T urner's lif e and for that too I am grateful, Robert L, Beisner is the sin­ gle most important reason that this research project be­ came a reality. When others were trying to discourage my inquiry into Turner's life because of a lack of sources. Professor Beisner encouraged me to continue and to dig a little deeper. If his confidence in me ever waned, he never let on, and for that I am extremely grateful. Finally, I wish to thank Linda Epstein who typed the entire manuscript and my wife Marcy and our two children, Randall and Sharon, for their patience with my single- minded obsession with the life of J. Milton Turner during the past four years. Deficiencies that remain in the study stand more as a testimony to my own intransigence than to the quality of the help that I have received.

IV CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... i i i INTRODUCTION. THE BLACK LEADER AS ASPIRING BOURGEOIS...... 1 CHAPTER I. EDUCATION TO UPLIFT THE RACE...... 25 CHAPTER II. THE POLITICS OF MUTUAL BENEFIT ...... 63 CHAPTER I I I .THE PRESIDENT'S MAN IN A SAVAGE LAND. . . 105

CHAPTER IV. THE PRESERVATION OF A NOBLE EXPERIMENT . . 143 CHAPTER V. IN SEARCH OF POWER BACK HOME...... 185

CHAPTER VI. DOING WELL BY DOING GOOD...... 227 CHAPTER VII. A PYRRHIC VICTORY ...... 269

CHAPTER VIII. A FINAL EFFORT FAILS ...... 313 CONCLUSION. THE BLACK LEADER AS TRAGIC FIGURE...... 354 SOURCES CONSULTED ...... 367

V INTRODUCTION

THE BLACK LEADER AS ASPIRING BOURGEOIS

The focus of th is study is the lif e of James Milton Turner, a nineteenth century black Missourian who was con­ sidered by many of his contemporaries to be the most im­ portant leader of his race in that state. He flirted with national prominence in the 1870's when he served as the Minister Resident and Consul General to Liberia and again, less successfully, when he tried to organize black Demo­ crats and Independents in a protest movement against the neglectful policies of the Republican party during the eighties and nineties. Turner was an intelligent and gifted man who, despite his talents, was generally a failure as a leader of blacks.

This study chronicles that failure and seeks to explain it.

To do that is to shed light on an even more funda­ mental historical problem; the question of the impact that the Civil War and Reconstruction had on black life in Amer­ ica. Those two events thrust blacks into a fundamentally new social, political, and economic position in American society. Innumerable obstacles presented themselves as the freedmen sought to adjust to an altered status for which slavery had i l l prepared them. Without money, property, or education, they tried to move into the mainstream of a

highly-competitive, literate, capitalistic society. The effects of that transformation upon the freedmen were severe. As Peter Kolchin has written: the greatest significance of the story of black Recon­ struction . , . lies in its revealing the revolutionary nature of the period . , , , In almost all areas of life their [blacks'] social relationships--both with whites and with each other--underwent dramatic and rapid change. The changes were not so much narrowly economic , , , as social, political, legal, and psychological,!

The specifics of that transformation have yet to be 2 told adequately. Crucial to the whole process was the role

of the local black leaders who tried toguide the freedmen through the labyrinth. While a study such as this one cannot reveal all of the effects of the Civil War and

Reconstruction upon blacks, it can provide insight into one

aspect of the more general question of adaptation to free­ dom: the effectiveness of black leadership. Was Turner a typical black leader? Historians have

only recently addressed themselves to the problem of devel­ oping a model of postwar black leadership, David C, Rankin's essay on "The Origins of Black Leadership in New Orleans During Reconstruction" is a seminal effort in that

Peter Kolchin, F irs t Freedom: The Response of Ala­ bama's Blacks to Emancipation and keconstrue:t'lon (.Vfestport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, l972j, pp, lUj-lyS, 2 Richard 0. Curry, "The C ivil War and Reconstruction, 1861-1877: A Critical Overview of Recent Trends and Inter­ pretations," Civil War History 20 (September 1974): 215-238. ------direction.3 Rankin identified two hundred and one postwar

New Orleans blacks in his effort to describe the "typical" black leader. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the

leaders identified by Rankin is the degree to which they were d ifferen t from the black masses. Rankin concluded th at virtually all of the postwar leaders had been free before

the war, most of them born free. Most were natives of Louisiana, many of them descendants of old aristocratic

French families. Almost all of the New Orleans leaders had prewar jobs that required either skill or training, and they "were financially much more secure than the great majority of blacks in antebellum New Orleans . . . ." Most of them could read and write and many had been formally educated.

Finally, many of them had served as soldiers during the

Civil War.4 There is insufficient evidence from which conclusions can be made about the applicability of Rankin's findings to other states. Until further studies of the type that he undertook have been completed, however, it will be impos­ sible to speak of any one leader's "typicality" or "repre­ sentativeness." Still, the case study of a local leader pro­ vides an opportunity to observe the boundaries imposed by a persistently racist society upon such a person and to note

^David C. Rankin, "The Origins of Black Leadership in New Orleans During Reconstruction," Journal of Southern History 40 (August 1974): 417-440. 4%bid. the response made to those limitations. Analysis of the life of one already identified leader

such as Turner can, then, suggest hypotheses to be tested as

the question of adaptation is considered in its entirety in the future. Was Turner's different social and educational upbringing, eventually resulting in his inability to lead the black masses effectively, characteristic of the post­ war black leaders? Was his seeming obsession with status

and power shared by others like him? In sh o rt, were his thoughts and aspirations, successes and failures, typical?

There is an inherent methodological difficulty in trying to explain the behavior of a leader such as Turner, however. Without any well-tested and generally accepted

hypotheses regarding the motives and behavior of postwar

black leaders in general, one is hard pressed to interpret

a particular individual's actions. For that reason, I have abandoned the nineteenth cen­

tury briefly in an effort to explain Turner. I have turned to E. Franklin Frazier's book Black Bourgeoisie: The Rise of a New Middle Class in search of a clarifying model.^ I have viewed Turner as an aspiring middle-class bourgeois whose asp iratio n s, p e rsiste n tly adhered to in some form or other, go far toward explaining both his failure to maintain a consistently strong position of leadership in the black

^E. Franklin Frazier, Black Bourgeoisie ; The Rise of a New Middle Class (Chicago: Free Press, 1957; re p rin t ed. New York: Collier Books, 1962). community and the fru stra tin g responses to th at fa ilu re th at he exhibited.

Frazier, of course, was writing about a group of mid­ dle-class blacks living in the period 1937-1957, Still,--he was addressing himself to a problem that was central to post-Civil War black life: what happened when the people who claimed to be the leaders of a minority group tried to assimilate into the mainstream American culture? What ef­ fect did it have on their ability to lead the group they purported to represent? How did it change their percep­ tions of their constituents? How did the people they claimed to lead view them? What was the middle class a s­ pirant's reaction to the ultimate rejection of his efforts by a r a c is t America?

Frazier's answers to these questions, what I have called the Frazier model, are useful for understanding how

Turner responded to the dilemma th a t F razier argues was typical of mid-twentieth century middle-class black aspir­ ants. Although some of the specifics of Turner's response differ from those of Frazier's bourgeoisie--differences which are largely explained by economic and social changes occurring over the nearly one hundred year time lapse-- Frazier's model makes Turner's actions explicable. Like­ wise, the F razier model would seem to be a useful tool for understanding other postwar leaders whose education, up­ bringing, and experiences were similar to Turner's. Although he concentrated on the black middle class of the 1940's and fifties, Frazier implicitly acknowledged the applicability of his theories to the nineteenth century.

He argued that the intellectual forebears of the class about which he was writing were the free blacks of ante­ bellum days. In particular, he emphasized that the roots of the black bourgeoisie lay in the occupational differentia­ tion of the antebellum free blacks. The black proto-bour- geois , then, was one whose occupation d iffe re n tia te d him from the masses of blacks both in terms of money earned and occupational status gained.^ The value placed on money and the particular defini­ tion of status adhered to by the free blacks were products of their education, which was shaped by white middle-class ideals. Indeed, Frazier argued that "education has been the principal social factor responsible for the emergence of the black bourgeoisie.In particular, the educational roots of the black bourgeoisie lay in the middle-class ideals passed from northern missionaries to black pupils who attended school immediately prior to, during, and after the Civil War. Those antebellum schools established by northern white missionaries, he said, "represented an entirely alien conception of life and culture from the standpoint of the social heritage of the Negro masses." They encouraged the internalization of the bourgeois values of "piety, thrift.

G ib id ., pp. 29-42

^Ibid. , p. 24. and respectability," so that, once having made those values his own, the newly-emerging black bourgeois saw himself

as an about-to-be assimilated American, whose future was

in his own control because he had acquired the tools neces-

g sary for success. Education in white schools served not only to orient the bourgeois to white values of success; it also height­ ened occupational differentiation, thereby giving the black bourgeois greater access to better and traditionally non­ black jobs. This had the same effect upon him that it had

upon middle-class w hites: i t made him extremely money conscious. In short, the means of obtaining wealth, "piety, thrift, and respectability," became less important than the new "virtue" of wealth itself. Or, as Frazier wrote of the

class of people studied, "they have been taught that money w ill bring them ju s tic e and equality in American l i f e , and Q they proposed to get money." Politically, Frazier argued, this middle-class orien­

tation led black leaders to become opportunistic. Eager to

receive patronage positions at the hands of white politi­ cians, the black bourgeois sought to reconcile his own desires to become upwardly mobile with the obligation he felt to confront whites with a demand for freedmen's civil and p o litic a l rig h ts. That dilemma was resolved by his own

®Ibid., pp. 60-85.

^Ibid., p. 85. 8

ability to rationalize: he identified his advancement by

the white power structure as a symbolic gesture of civility to a ll black people. Or, as F razier wrote, he accommodated "the demands of blacks for better economic and social con­ ditions to [his] personal interests which [were] tied up with the political machines . . . The logic of the black bourgeois's attempt to mea­ sure his life by the middle-class standards of the white world ultimately led him to a refusal to be identified with

the black masses, or their folk background. Indeed, he con­ stantly tried to become part of that white society. He was

destined to fail in that effort because the racism of whites precluded their acceptance of any blacks into their society. But he was also rejected by the masses of blacks because he

had condescendingly snubbed their way of life. Consequent­

ly, the black bourgeois developed an intense inferiority

complex for which he tried to compensate by exaggerating his superiority to the masses of blacks. It is here, in the second part of Frazier's book, labeled "The. World of Make-Believe," th at he begins to o ffer specific examples of the ways in which these exaggerated notions of superiority manifested themselves. The fabrica­ tion of the myth of the importance of establishing "a Negro

capitalistic employer class" was one result. Black leaders.

lOlbid., p. 86; also, see pp. 85-111.

l^Ibid., pp. 130-146. Frazier argues, encouraged their constituents to believe that the eventual solution of the race problem required be­ l i e f "in a separate Negro economy" in which "the Negro can

build his own manufacturing plants, stores, and banks with the earnings of Negro workers, who, by patronizing these Negro enterprises would create more c a p ita l and give employ­ ment to Negroes." Behind the idea of a separate black econ­ omy, Frazier argues, was the black bourgeois's hope that

he would be able to monopolize the Negro market. Another manifestation of "The World of Make-Believe,"

according to Frazier, was the creation of "the Negro Press"

as a medium for reports about the exaggerated economic well­

being and cultural achievements of'the black bourgeoisie. The black press, which was controlled by the bourgeoisie, allowed it to attempt an "escape from its inferiority and

inconsequence in American society.Frazier's detailed explanations of the importance placed on "so-called Negro business," the use of the black press in a self-serving manner, and the distorted importance placed on black "society" are more suggestive than definitive. What they suggest, however, is that blacks who sought to live in *wo worlds but were accepted by neither tried to compensate for their rejection by exaggerations of their own importance. The definition of the specific character-

l^Ibid., p. 166.

ISlbid., p. 174. 10 istics of compensation must be provided by the historians who take in-depth looks at the black bourgeoisie that emerged after the Civil War. That is one of the major purposes of this study. There is one final conceptual tool offered by Frazier. In a closing chapter entitled "Behind the Masks," he makes it clear that the black bourgeois was never able to insulate himself completely in the world of make-believe. He was not, for example, any more able to escape oppression than were the masses of blacks. Consequently, he developed a "pathological struggle for status within the isolated

Negro world and craving for recognition in the white w o r l d . "^4 His continued inability to achieve success in either direction compounded his frustration, leaving the bourgeois a man characterized by the intensity of his emotional and mental conflicts. That is the Frazier model. It has been much criti­ cized for its polemical nature, and rightly so, for Frazier was not seeking to understand the phenomenon that he was describing so much as he was trying to use i t as a club to beat the "New Middle Class” over the head with. He con­ demned the black bourgeoisie for abandoning the black masses and for allowing its collective strength to be dissipated by a belief in foolish myths. Not surprisingly, some of the

14lbid., p. 213. ISibid., pp. 213-232. 11

opposition to Frazier has been no less vituperative in its denunciation of him than he was in his criticism of the

black bourgeoisie. In an introduction to Nathan Hare's

Black Anglo-Saxon, published in 1970, Oliver C. Cox dis­

missed F razier's book as rubbish: There is hardly a consequential assertion regarding t r a it s of the Negro middle class that does not prove to be unreliable or egregiously misleading. Its critical evidence is a composite of personal anec- odotes [sic], hearsay, erratic news items, and dis­ torted social science information. Unfortunately, Cox also sought not to understand but to condemn. Recently, however, there have been more schol­

arly attempts to assess the value of the Frazier model and to use i t as an instrument to explain certain phenomena of black life in America. William H. Toll has found much of what Frazier says

useful in trying to explain the adjustment of rural south­

ern blacks to urban areas, particularly in the late nine­ teenth and early twentieth centuries. In an exploratory

review a r tic le e n title d "The C risis of Freedom: Toward

an Interpretation of Negro Life," Toll argues that Frazier's

chief contribution was that "he put his finger on the need to understand Negro life as a peculiar adjustment to the

American environment . . . Frazier's major short-

l^Nathan Hare, Black Anglo-Saxon, with an Introduc­ tion by Oliver C. Cox (New York: Collier Books, 1970), p. 20. l^William H. T oll, "The C risis of Freedom: Toward an Interpretation of Negro Life," Journal of American Studies 3 (December 1969): 266. 12

coming, according to T oll, was th at he "condemned rath er

than studied the adjustments to the urban environment of 18 the various classes within the Negro community,"

Toll argues that a new theory of black life in America must take into account the variety of ways in which blacks have struggled to achieve autonomy in the face of a racist culture. Blacks, he says, have seized their oppor­ tunities where they could, so that the path to freedom has varied from lo c a lity to lo c a lity . Indeed, he argues, "the degree to which local adjustments and local institutions differ among Negroes and the great variety of such local en­ deavors indicate that black America has coped with racism 19 in different ways," In short. Toll maintains, blacks have tended to adapt local white strategies to achieve middle-class status rath­ er than devising alternative strategies. Moreover, he im­ plies, historians ought to focus their attention on the creative efforts made by blacks to move into the mainstream of American life rather than on the slowness of their 20 progress. For Toll, then, the "Crisis of Freedom" came with the black effort to adjust to a white world. Blacks tried to develop mainstream institutions, locally defined, but persistent racism and their own "rural outlook" kept them

l*Ibid.

l^ibid., p. 279.

ZOlbid. 13

lagging behind white, urban, middle-class culture. This

"cultural lag" was especially strong "among rural Negroes

and early arrivals in the city." Consequently, in many cases, he writes, "the black experience [economically, socially, and politically] seems to have paralleled the 21 white rural experience several generations removed." Toll goes on to suggest that one of the problems in late nineteenth century urban America was that the black

middle class from which leaders were drawn was impatient with the black masses' slow development. Blacks were making efforts to move into the mainstream culture, but many black leaders failed to appreciate those efforts and

saw, instead, only the lag. Black intellectuals, in his judgment, were especially unwilling to accept the cultural

integrity of the masses, and, instead, tried to remold them

according to white standards of acceptability. Consequent­ ly, rather than trying to organize the black population for

action, many black leaders first sought to change it. The result was friction between the leaders and those they 2 2 claimed to lead. Similarly, William Muraskin has employed the Frazier model in an effort to explain what he argues has long been 23 a key black institution; Prince Hall Freemasonry.

Zllbid., p. 269. Z^Ibid., p. 276.

William Muraskin, Middle-class Blacks in a White Society; Prince Hall Freemasonry in America (.Berkeley; University of California Press, 1975J. 14

Muraskin's work, first of all, offers a much more detailed critique of Frazier than does Toll's, He joins Toll in lamenting that Frazier's "hostility to the group he set out to describe often overflowed into moralistic polemic, which

lost sight of reality, Muraskin empathizes with the black middle class and

chastises Frazier for condemning it. The black middle class

is more victim than victimizer, he argues* American society has conspired against it, entangling it in a massive web of

contradictions. Frazier, he charges, was well aware of the

precarious economic, social, and cultural plight of the black middle class but he ignored the logic of his evidence. "Out of hostility," Muraskin continues, "he adopts a moral­

istic stance that assumes the middle class is responsible for its actions even though such moral culpability requires 25 a freedom of choice that he knows it lacks." Muraskin also attacks Frazier's methodology, rightly noting that although Frazier claimed to study the black

middle class, in fact he focused on a small elite at the top of that class: primarily college-educated profession- 2 als and businessmen. That flaw is at the heart of what

Muraskin identifies as a basic difference between his study

and th a t of Frazier.

Z^Ibid., p. 2.

Z^Ibid., p. 5.

2*Ibid., p. 2. 15

Muraskin argues that both he and Frazier are con­ cerned with an analysis of the effectiveness of black lead­ ership. He says that both he and Frazier agree that the effectiveness of the black bourgeois leader was severely compromised, but he points out that they disagree as to the cause of th at compromised leadership. F razier, he explains, by concentrating on the upper-crust of the black bourgeoisie and that element's propensity to identify with the white up­ per middle and upper classes, essentially argues that the black bourgeoisie were ineffective leaders because they abandoned the black masses in favor of the world of make- believe. Muraskin, concentrating on Prince Hall Freema­ sonry, which he believes has consistently been represent­ ative of the black middle class, finds that black lead­ ership has been ineffective because black leaders, who had internalized "white lower-middle-class morality and be­ havior" tried to change the black masses to conform to the white middle-class ideal. Muraskin accepts Frazier's argument that the black bourgeoisie is alienated from both the black lower and white middle classes, and argues that, as a result, the black middle class has been acutely self-conscious and frus­ trated, all of which, he concludes, "gives a tragic quality to black middle-class life."^®

Z^Ibid., p. 5. 2*Ibid., p. 291. 16

The black leader, then, internalized white middle-

class values and sought to pass those values on to the black masses. But, as John Blassingame has recently pointed out, the antebellum black slaves had a value sys­

tem far different from that of white society. In a percep­ tive essay entitled "Status and Social Structure in the

Slave Community: Evidence From New Sources," Blassingame points out that "the degree of personal contact a slave had with whites was inversely related to his or her status in 29 the quarters," Blassingame argues that "slaves reserved the top rungs of the social ladder for those blacks who per­

formed services for other slaves rather than for whites. Since slaves had, as Blassingame points out, a status structure of their own creation, they must have applied

th a t model to postwar black lead ers.A leader could expect the support of the black masses so long as he gave

the appearance of helping blacks. But, a leader's success might be inversely related to the closeness of his per­

ceived attachment to whites, and if he began to be seen as

serving white interests, he would become suspect and inef-

29 John W. Blassingame, "Status and Social Structure in the Slave Community: Evidence From New Sources," in Harry P. Owens, ed.. Perspectives and Irony in American Slavery (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1976), pp. 13/-152.

^°Ibid.

^^Leon Litwack, "The Black Response to Emancipation," paper presented a t "A Symposium on the F irs t and Second Reconstructions," University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, 16 February 1978. 17

factual as a leader. Muraskin offers Martin Delany as an example to illus­

trate his point. Delany was an author, abolitionist, black leader, and, Muraskin writes, "a classical model for the 32 pride and prejudice of the black bourgeoisie." By ad­ hering to white middle-class values, Delany allowed himself to be co-opted as a black leader. His own co-optation, in

turn, allowed the maintenance of white hegemony. Delany was fiercely conscious of his blackness and just as fiercely hostile toward whites. One manifestation of that hostility was his championing of black emigration to a new homeland outside of the United States as early as the 1850's. It was his stand on this issue, Muraskin points out, th a t has made Delany a hero of modern black n atio n al­ ists .^ ^

For all of his apparent radicalism, however, Delany was not a radical at all. As Muraskin points out, "when he talked of the Negro people and th e ir future he measured their glory, achievements, and prospects in white terms." His notions of morality were not those of African peoples or of plantation life, "but rather a mirror reflection of mid-nineteenth-century Anglo-American morality. What Delany meant was that the Negro could "out Anglo-

^^Muraskin, p. 78.

33lbid., pp. 78-79.

3^Ibid., p. 79. 18

Saxon the Anglo-Saxon." Consequently, when actually con­ fronted with the newly-freed blacks after the Civil War, Delany had a difficult time empathizing with his oppressed brethren. As Muraskin points out, "his reaction to the ex­ slaves was so negative, and his censure of them so strong that it drew a heated response from Frederick Douglass who, despite his own middle-class loyalties was shocked to see 35 Delany's bourgeois commitments so nakedly revealed." In keeping with those bourgeois commitments, Delany offered the following solution to the economic reconstruc­ tion of the war-ravaged South. A combination of economic forces would have to be created; Capital, land, and labor require a copartnership. The capital can be obtained in the North; the land is in the South, owned by the old planters; and the blacks have the labor . . . , the net profits being equally shared between three,--capital, land, and labor,--each receiving one third of course.

This plan was somewhat less generous than one might expect of a champion of blacks. In addition, Delany became a go-between for planters and laborers, arranging contracts with ex-slaves. Eventually his fraternization with white planters created suspicion among the freedmen. In 1868

Delany's biographer, Frank A. Rollin, took great pains to absolve his hero of the charge of "selling out," and as 37 Muraskin points out, Delany did not do so consciously.

3^Ibid., p. 80.

3Glbid., p. 81.

^^Frank A. Rollin, Life and Public Services of Martin 19

"But," Muraskin concludes, "his ideas about respectability, morality, manners, economics, and politics were such as to make him a stranger in the world in which the ex-slaves lived." Little wonder, then, Muraskin observes, that Delany should be attached to Prince Hall Masonry, Indeed, that attachment "was totally in keeping with his faith in him­

s e lf and his race, and with his commitment to the id e a ls, 38 values, and behavior of the Anglo-American middle class," Frazier's characterization of the black middle class, with modifications by Toll and Muraskin, helps to explain much about the life of J, Milton Turner, Turner was, first of all, the son of an occupationally differentiated black man who was able to buy his family's freedom by the time Turner himself was three years old. He was educated, in violation of Missouri law, in white Christian schools of St, Louis, in addition to a black C hristian school whose master incessantly preached the bourgeois values of "piety, t h r i f t , and re sp e c ta b ility ," Later, as a young adolescent, he attended the Mecca of Christian abolitionism, Oberlin College in Ohio,

Turner grew up with an unreserved faith in his own ability to rise above the traditional lot in life of the black masses. After the Civil War, he became involved in

R, Delany (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1868), ^^Muraskin, p, 81, %q See Chapter I, 20

what Toll might have called the paramount "local" issues of

the time: suffrage and education. He attached himself to

the local means for achieving political ends: the Radical Union party. He was never really able to distinguish his own progress from that of the advancement of black people and he quickly earned the label of "opportunist" for his seeming inconsistency and blind allegiance to the Radical

machine. He was rewarded handsomely for his support of Radical causes, however, by being named to the Liberian minister­ ship in 1871, a p o sitio n he held u n til 1878. Presumably,

the success he realized in attaching himself to the Radicals

reinforced his belief in the applicability to himself of the white middle-class work ethic: proper preparation for a job, combined with hard work, would be rewarded, regard­

less of one's race.41

The Liberian appointment was the high point of his career. It was also a time when he revealed his manifestly hostile attitude toward Africa, whose civilization he measured against white middle-class standards. Throughout his tenure there, he called for the Christianization and education of that "savage l a n d . "42 For Turner, the Liberian appointment was only the

4®See Chapter II.

41see Chapter III.

42gee Chapters III and IV. 21

beginning, the first step on an ever upward-moving scale of

rewards for exemplary performance. Or so he hoped. In fa c t, although he hoped to move from Liberia to a more lu ­ crative government appointment, his extremely optimistic expectations were a far cry from the social reality that he faced upon his return in 1878 to a post-Reconstruction America that was largely unconcerned about black civil

rig h ts. For one thing, the one local o u tle t for black upward mobility available in the seventies, politics, was closed

to him. Turner tried to re-establish a black political coalition that would presumably be a means by which he could rid e to power and influence again. His ventures on behalf of black migrants fleeing the racism of the South in

1879-1880 were unsuccessful, largely because of his anti­ pathy for the black masses; he wanted to change them as a 43 means of helping them. Having failed to re-establish control over the Mis­ souri black community. Turner struck off to right wrongs, and get ric h , in the Oklahoma T erritory. Having long be­ fore become convinced th a t wealth could buy power and status, he sought to make money. But because he also saw his own destiny inextricably bound to the advancement of black people, he welcomed an opportunity "to do well by doing good." In Oklahoma he engaged in complicated but

*^See Chapter V. 22 potentially profitable legal maneuverings on behalf of black freedmen who had been the slaves of Indians in antebellum days.** Turner worked as an attorney for the freedmen regu­ larly from 1883 until his death in 1915. Throughout the first two decades of that thirty-two year period he made re­ peatedly unsuccessful efforts to re-establish the kind of p o litic a l power th at had earned him the Liberian m in ister­ ship in 1871. He was unable to obtain a following, however, largely because the constituency he wooed saw his motives as being transparently selfish and opportunistic.*^ Turner's retreat into Frazier's world of make-believe, as the frustration of living on the margin of both black and white society grew, manifested itself differently than Frazier's focus on the elites of the middle class suggested, however. There is no evidence that Turner's energies were dissipated by the Frazier-postulated conspicuous consumption of the black bourgeoisie. Nor did Turner develop the

"pathological" concern with black "society" that Frazier argues led to the bourgeoisie's establishment and control of the black press. Likewise, he did not take an overriding interest in the creation and nurturing of black businesses. In short. Turner did not abandon the black masses so much as he drove them away.*^ And, his frustration over being

**See Chapter VI. *^See Chapters VI and VII.

*^There is little doubt that Turner was rejected by 23 unimportant led him to exaggerate his importance in a variety of ways, most noticeably, in his distorted recol­ lections of the crucial nature of his role in events long past and to which he was only indirectly connected. It also led him to try to escape to the world of Freemasonry, much as Martin Delany had done.*®

Turner, like Frazier's man "Behind the Masks," was unable to insulate himself from the oppressive world of white racism and the unappreciative world of the black masses. As a result, his life was filled with conflict, brought on by the mental and emotional tensions that were at the heart of his existence. Although he preached adherence to "piety, thrift, and respectability," much of his life was impious, thriftless, and unrespectable. the black masses, particularly during the years after 1870. While the evidence for rejection is good, the evidence for why the rejection occurred is thin. The nature of the historical records left behind by the largely illiterate black masses made it highly unlikely that documents would be found in which statements such as, "we rejected Turner because he c ritic iz e d our way of l i f e , " would be made. Consequently, the explanation I offer, that Turner's vocal adherence to a white bourgeois value system and his con­ stant denigration of the black folk culture caused blacks to reject him, is inferential only. I have observed that Turner did alienate the black masses and I have inferred that the explanation lies in the Frazier-Muraskin-postu- lated ethnocentrism of the black bourgeoisie. While one may argue that Turner's behavioral eccentricities might also have caused alienation, one must acknowledge the argument of Frazier and Muraskin that marginality exacer­ bated personality idiosyncracies. *^This is particularly obvious in an interview with Turner four years before his death in 1915. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911.

*®See Chapter VIII. 24

Consequently, there are inconsistencies aplenty in

Turner's life. Many of them are explicable in terms of the Frazier-Toll-Muraskin model, although the model cannot explain the specific responses to frustration made by Tur­ ner. Those explanations can be found only in the field of

psychology, a discipline of little use here because of the

paucity of personal data left by Turner. There are, however, some inconsistencies which the Frazier model is hard-pressed to explain even in general terms. The most notable of these is the fact that Turner took a coramon-law wife in 1867, a time so early in his career that i t would be d if f ic u lt to argue that he had already suffered psychologically from marginality. That deviation from "respectability," however, does not make the model any less useful. Rather, i t merely points to the complexity of the life of James Milton Turner, adding his name to the long list of historical figures who advocatéd ideals that they themselves were incapable of living up to. CHAPTER I

EDUCATION TO UPLIFT THE RACE

It is impossible even to begin an account of the life of J. Milton Turner without reference to conflict, for the

accuracy of his birthdate is itself a matter of contro­ versy.^ The family tradition of Turner's owner records that he was born on May 16, 1840, the same date as the

slave master's son, for whom he was named. In 1871, how­ ever, upon receipt of a commission to Liberia as M inister Resident and Consul-General, he told Secretary of State

Hamilton Fish that he was born on August 22, 1839.^

Helpful articles on Turner include the following: Irving Billiard, "James Milton Turner: A Little Known Benefactor of His People," Journal of Negro History 19 (October 1934) : 372-411; Noah Webster Moore, ''James Milton Turner, Diplomat, Educator, and Defender of Rights 1840- 1915," Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 27 (April 1971): 194-201; Lawrence 0. Christensen, "J. Milton Turner: An Appraisal," Missouri Historical Review 70 (October 1975): 1-19; Gary R. Kremer, "Background to Apostasy: James Milton Turner and the Republican P arty," Missouri Historical Review 71 (October 1976): 59-75. ^Irving Billiard wrote in 1932 that George B. Vashon, Turner's long-time friend and associate, had been given this information by Turner himself. Billiard was able to get a corroboratory account from William A. Kelsoe of St. Louis, author of a publication called the St. Louis Refer­ ence Record. B illia rd , 374. ^Turner to Hamilton Fish, March 17, 1871, "Despatches from United States Ministers to Liberia, 1863-1906," Micro­ copy No. 170, vol. 2, October 24, 1868-January 24, 1872, National Archives, Washington, B.C.

25 26

The nine month discrepancy is not te rrib ly im portant, of course, except that it points to an obstacle to pinning down the details of Turner's ancestry and early life in

Missouri. There is little extant information about his family's background and his pre-adult years, and much of the data that does exist comes from Turner himself. He provided a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter with a nearly

4,000-word interview in 1911. Some of what he said is grossly erroneous; some is accurate. There is a touch of truth in much of what he reported, although he had a re­ markable facility for embellishing the raw narrative of an event in such a way as to enhance his own reputation. Finally, much of what he said simply cannot be corrobo- 4 rated. There is, however, sufficient information available to conclude that Turner grew up in a free black family whose head was d iffe re n tia te d occupationally from the masses of blacks, that his family sought to perpetuate and even heighten that differentiation in his own life by sending him to the best schools available, that his educa­ tion oriented him toward the bourgeois values summed up in

E. Franklin Frazier's phrase, "piety, thrift, and respecta­ bility," and that his major goal as a post-Civil War educa­ tor was to pass on to the freedmen those same virtues. Turner's ancestors, at least as he told the story in

*St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911. 27

1911, were notable individuals indeed. He claimed that his father, John Turner, was descended from a Moorish prince and his mother from the Vey trib e in Africa. The Vey, he reported with pride, had "invented a system of writing and elaborated a grammar." Likewise, he said that his father was a nephew of Nat Turner, famous leader of the 1831 slave insurrection in Virginia. Although the elder Turner played no part in the rebellion, J. Milton recalled that his fa­ ther had been implicated in the conspiracy and had been pro­ tected from white vengeance-seekers by his young master,

Benjamin Tillman. Twenty-one years after this interview. Turner's step-daughter, Mrs. Lillie B. Mason of Fulton, Mis­ souri, categorically denied that her step-father was related to Nat Turner.5 Whether or not the Nat Turner revolt was behind the move, Benjamin Tillman did leave Virginia for St. Louis with his slave John in the early 1830's.^ John Turner had been taught the "science" of veterinary surgery, and he became known as a "horse doctor" in the St. Louis area. In 1898 J.

Milton told an interviewer that his father was the first veterinary surgeon St. Louis had, a claim that would be dif­ ficult to support, and that the elder Turner had done work for "Jesse Arnot, Louis Spelbrink and other old timers.

^ I b id .; B illia rd , p. 373. 6 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911; Colored Demo- crat [St. LouisJ, 16 Octoberb( 1920.

?St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 March 1898. 28

Shortly after the move to St. Louis, Tillman was caught in a financial bind and had to sell John to Frederick Colburn, and for some time thereafter John Turner was frequently called John Colburn. He continued to work as a horse doctor for the Colburn family, an occupation, J. Mil­ ton claimed, that allowed him to make the acquaintance of such future notables as Ulysses S. Grant, then an obscure D St. Louis cardwood peddler. At some point, John Turner purchased his own freedom and married Hannah, the slave of the Reverend Aaron Young, who had emigrated from Kentucky to St. Louis County. He was eager to purchase his wife, but, according to his son, the asking price of three thousand dollars was too high.

Consequently, he decided to conspire with an abolitionist doctor to gain Hannah’s freedom. As it happened, Mrs. Tur­ ner had broken a bone in one of her w rists. Dr. T iffen, the attending physician, agreed to report to her master that the hand would have to be amputated. That done, the Reverend

Young lowered the asking price for Hannah to four hundred dol­ lars, well within John Turner's range. J. Milton, who was then four years old, was thrown into the bargain for an extra fifty dollars when his father finally purchased both wife and son at an auction conducted in St. Louis on the steps of the Old Courthouse, at Broadway and Market streets.®

®Ibid., 9 July 1911.

^Ibid. A representation of the manumission paper 29

This young free black grew up in a St. Louis black community th a t was dominated by a wealthy group of mulatto freedmen. Missouri was no stranger to slavery, the first blacks having been brought to the St. Louis community by Philippe Francois Renault in 1720. Economic conditions determined the number of slaves in a given locality in

Missouri, just as in all the other slave states. Missouri's climate and soil lent themselves to the production of tobac­ co and hemp, as well as the cu ltiv atio n of grain and the raising of livestock. Without a single staple crop, Mis­ souri never developed large plantations as did the cotton states. As a result, Missouri slaves were more likely to be employed in a wide variety of occupations, including that of v a le t, b u tle r, handyman, fie ld hand, maid, nurse, and cook. Working at such jobs greatly f a c ilita te d the s e l f ­ purchase of slaves, and by 1850, when Turner was ten years old, there were 2,618 free blacks in Missouri, more than h a lf of them in the St. Louis area.^® In fact, there arose in St. Louis what Cyprian Gla­ morgan, a contemporary black writer, called a "Colored Aris­ tocracy." That group of blacks, according to Glamorgan, showing the freeing of the young Turner and his mother was printed as an illustration for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article of 9 July 1911; Dilliard, p. 374. ^^Lorenzo J. Greene, Antonio F. Holland, and Gary R. Kremer, "The Role of the Negro in Missouri History 1719- 1970," in Official Manual: State of Missouri, 1973-1974, ed. Thelma t*. Goodwin (Jefferson City and St. Louis: Von Hofman Press, 1974), pp. 2-5. 30

"command[ed] several millions of dollars." Although they

could not vote, they exercised political power through their wealth. They were, then, "by means of wealth, education, or natural ability . . . the elite of the colored race." Even

though Turner's family never entered this antebellum aris­ tocracy, i t is reasonable to assume th a t the Turners, like most other free blacks in St. Louis, took this "Colored Aristocracy" as a model after which they hoped to pattern their own behavior.

Perhaps that desire to emulate the black aristocracy was at the root of J. Milton's parents' desire to see that their son receive a good education. Exactly when he began school is unknown, but by 1847, when he was only seven, Mis­

souri adopted a law specifically prohibiting the education of

blacks. Anyone operating a school or teaching reading and writing to any Negro or mulatto could be punished by a fine

of not less than five hundred dollars and up to six months 12 in jail. Turner gained much of his early education in

what was known as a tallow -candle school run by the Reverend

l^Lawrence 0. Christensen, ed., "Cyprian Glamorgan, The Colored Aristocracy of St. Louis," Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 50 (October 1974); 10-ll7 Christensen points out that Glamorgan's figures are open to question, since the Manuscript Census of 1860 for St. Louis indicates that free blacks held only $221,498 worth of real and personal property.

^2phe best account of the development of black educa­ tion in Missouri remains Robert I. Brigham, "The Education of the Negro in Missouri" (Ph. D. dissertation. University of Missouri, 1946). 31

John Berry Meachum.^^ Meachum was born a slave in Virginia on May 3, 1789,

eventually purchasing his own freedom and that of his fa­ ther. He migrated to St. Louis in ISIS and worked as a car­

penter and a cooper. He became the protege of Reverend John Mason Peck, studied under him, and was ordained to preach in 1825. He became the pastor of the F irst African B aptist Church in 1827, serving in th at capacity u n til his

death in 1854.1*

It would be difficult to draw a direct causal link between the philosophies of James Milton Turner and John Berry Meachum. Still, there is a remarkable similarity between what Meachum preached in the 1840's and fifties, and what Turner endorsed in the 1860's and seventies. One his­ torian has called Meachum "the most outspoken Missourian in favor of education for blacks" during the antebellum period. That same scholar has also described Meachum as "the Booker T. Washington of ante-bellum Missouri."1® In

August 1846, at a time when Turner was probably enrolled in the primary grades under Meachum’s tutelage, Meachum wrote an "Address to the Colored Citizens of the United States."

l^History of the Central B aptist Church of St. Louis (pamphlet, no date), cited in Moore, p. l95; Donnie D. Bellamy, "The Education of Blacks in Missouri Prior to 1861," Journal of Negro History 59 (April 1974) : 143-157.

l*Noah Webster Moore, "John Berry Meachum: St. Louis Pioneer, Black Abolitionist, Educator and Preacher," Bul- letin of the Missouri Historical Society 29 (January 19 73): W-WT.------^®Bellamy, p. 149. 32 which included the following advice to black people: In order that we might do more for our young children I would recommend MANUAL LABOR SCHOOLS to be established in the different states, as the children could have free access to them. And I would recommend in these schools pious teachers, either white or colored, who would take all pains with the children to bring them up in p iety and in industrious h ab its. We must en­ deavor to have our children look up a little,-for there are too many to lie in idleness and dishonor. Hence, according to Meachum, education was supposed to prepare one for participation in economic life, as well as instill in young people universal principles of right con­ duct. Industrial education, in his view, offered the best hope for the unity and eventual u p lift of blacks. By 1846, the Reverend Meachum's African B aptist Church had a member­ ship of five hundred persons, with Sunday School attendance of from 150 to 300. The congregation was composed of both free blacks and slaves. Meachum was intensely opposed to slavery, although he remained committed to non-violence, once telling a white teacher in his school that "violence can only bring punishment and suffering." He purchased the freedom of a number of his less fortunate brethren in bondage and encouraged other free blacks to do likewise. In the meantime, he counseled, blacks should try to take care of themselves and to prepare for the day when freedom would 17 come.

Preparation through education was not always so easy, however. The Missouri law against black education was

^^Ibid.

l?Ibid., p. 150. 33

enforced sporadically. Purportedly, Turner was present in

Meachum’s school in the basement of the African Baptist Church, when law enforcement officials burst in, disrupted the proceedings, and arrested one of the white teachers, an Englishman, charging him with breaking the law by teaching

blacks "reading, writing, and f i g u r i n g ."18 Sometime la te r

Meachum’s school was forced to close down, and he responded by building a steamboat-school which operated from the mid­

dle of the Mississippi River. Thereafter, students traveled to and from the boat by means of a s k iff. Meachum continued

the operation of this school until his death in 1854.19 Turner stopped going to Meachum's school sometime be­

fore the letter's death. Exactly why that happened is un­

clear. At any ra te , he continued to pursue knowledge in fo r­ mally while working as an office boy at six dollars a month for a Dr. McDowell, Robert H. Whitlaw, and others. In 1911

he recalled that he had satisfied his passion for learning by

studying the books of these men secretly, all the while keeping "a watchful ear cocked for the footsteps of those who might detect him and denounce him to the authorities."20

Sometime around 1854 or 1855 Turner again returned to formal education, this time at Oberlin College in Ohio.21

IB lbid.; St. Louis Post-D ispatch, 9 July 1911.

l^Bellamy, p. 149. 20s t. Louis Post-D ispatch, 9 July 1911.

21juanita D. Fletcher, "Against the Consensus : Oberlin College and the Education of American Negroes" 34

His name appears in the annual catalogue for 1855-1856, but, as George M. Jones, Secretary of Oberlin College, pointed out in a letter to Irving Dilliard, dated February 1, 1932, "it

was the custom to enter names a year late." 2 2 There is no record of Turner's ever having paid a bill at Oberlin.

Consequently, i t seems lik ely th at he obtained room and board from a professor. George B. Vashon, Turner's long­

time friend, said that Turner was placed in the hands of Dr. James Harris F airchild, who found him a home, and that the young scholar made progress "some-what beyond the average."

Vashon did not elaborate on the meaning of th is la s t s ta t e ­ m ent.23

No other record of Turner's experiences at Oberlin exists. Still, it would be hard to imagine that that hot­

bed of abolitionism and moral righteousness had no effect on him. He must have heard the endless arguments in favor of

abolitionism and the endorsements of equal rights and edu­

cation for blacks. Something of the flavor of that atmosphere can be

gleaned from the life of the antislavery emissary Stephen Blanchard who came to Missouri from Oberlin as an American

(Ph. D. dissertation. The American University, 1974); Wal­ ter G. Robinson, Jr., "Blacks in Higher Education in the United States Before 1865" (Ph. D. dissertation. Southern Illinois University--Carbondale, 1976).

22ceorge M. Jones to Irving M. Dilliard, February 1, 1932, cited in Dilliard, p. 376. 23coiored Democrat, 16 October 1920. 35

Missionary Association representative in September 1859.2* Joe M. Richardson has described Blanchard as "the most active missionary in Missouri." Using the medium of the church pulpits opened to him and the St. Joseph Free Demo­ crat , which published his articles, Blanchard launched an intense antislavery campaign based upon religious conviction of Biblical opposition to slavery. Likewise, he constantly 2 R circulated antislavery literature. Blanchard's behavior, Richardson maintains, was typical of A.M.A. representatives, who considered themselves to be "Christian abolitionists," genuinely interested in "divesting freedmen of the shackles of ignorance, super­ stition and sin." As such, of course, they were the epito­ me of E. Franklin Frazier's antebellum Christian educators of a black proto-bourgeoisie. Hence, it seems likely that the bourgeois value system preached to Turner by Meachum in

St. Louis was reinforced at Oberlin by the same kinds of people that helped to produce a B l a n c h a r d .26

That same atmosphere must have helped also to foster in Turner a religiously-based opposition to the institution of slavery. A.M.A. workers, according to Richardson, tended to see the Civil War as God's punishment for Southern ad-

2*Joe M. Richardson, "The American Missionary Associa­ tion and Black Education in Civil War Missouri," Missouri Historical Review 69 (July 1975) : 433-448. ZSibid. 26lbid. 36

herence to slavery. God's wrath would be appeased, they reasoned, "only when blacks were recognized as equal to

whites . . . That view of the Civil War as a God-sent punishment and the slaveowners as sinners helps to explain Turner's extreme opposition to rebel re-enfranchisement in postwar

Missouri. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the A.M.A. and Oberlin had a great e ffe c t upon Turner, not the least of which was that he became an American Missionary

Association representative within a few years after the end 28 of the war. Whether he actually met the fanatical a b o litio n is t John Brown, who la te r gained fame at Harper's

Ferry, Virginia, at Oberlin, as he boasted in 1911, would 29 be impossible to say. Turner's stay at Oberlin ended in e ith e r 1856 or 1857.

Some difference of opinion exists about why he left there. George B. Vashon reported in 1920 th at Turner returned to St. Louis because his father's death made it necessary for him to take up the support of his mother and sister. That is unlikely, since a John Turner was licensed as a free

black "Horse Doctor" in A pril 1861.^® Likewise, the Edwards

Z^Ibid. 28 F. A. Seely, Missouri School Report, January 1, 1870, Freedmen's Bureau Records, Educational Division, National Archives. For more on Turner's opposition to restoring the vote to former rebels, see Chapter II. 29 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911.

Dexter Tiffany Papers, Bonds for Free Negroes, 37

St. Louis Directory for 1864 lists the elder Turner as a "horse physician," residing at 114 S. Third Street. His name does not appear in the 1865 Directory. Whatever the cause of J. Milton Turner's return to St.

Louis, however, he found himself in the peculiar position of being an educated black man in a slave state. No record exists of how he spent the next several years, leading up to the outbreak of the C ivil War. Vashon reported th at he was serving as a "bootblack and general factotum" at Camp Jack­ son when Union soldiers under Nathaniel Lyon and Francis P.

Blair attacked a group of Southern sympathizers, encamped just west of St. Louis. According to Vashon, he came into the city with Captain Blair, and a short time later joined the Union e f f o r t . ^2 He apparently entered the Civil War as a body-servant to Colonel Madison Miller, a St. Louis rail­ road entrepreneur. He was present at the Battle of Wilson's Creek and reported witnessing the death of General Nathaniel Lyon. He also claimed to have participated in the battles of Pea Ridge, Belmont, Island No. 10, Paducah, Ft. Henry, and

C o r i n t h . S3 Likewise, he was at the Battle of Shiloh, where

Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Missouri; Christen­ sen, "J. Milton Turner," p. 2. 3^Edwards St. Louis Directory, 1864 (St. Louis: Rich­ ard Edwards, 1864), p. 537. See, also, volumes for 1857 and 1860. 32coiored Democrat, 16 October 1820; St. Louis Post-D ispatch, 9 July 1911.

33s t. Louis Post-D ispatch, 6 March 1898. 38 he received a hip wound that, according to Vashon, caused him to limp the re st of his l i f e . 34 It was apparently at the Battle of Shiloh also that Colonel Miller was seriously wounded and captured by the Confederates. Turner, thinking that the Colonel had been killed, returned to Missouri with the four thousand dollars that Miller had given him for safe­ keeping. He gave the money to Mrs. Miller, who was the sis­ ter of Thomas B. Fletcher, a man who later became Missouri's Radical governor. Undoubtedly, this Miller-Fletcher family connection facilitated Turner's entry into Missouri poli­ tic s . 35

Some weeks after Turner's return to St. Louis, Miller showed up in the city on parole from a Confederate p r i s o n . 3 6

According to Turner, Miller was so overwhelmed at finding his money waiting for him that he rewarded his former body-ser­ vant with five hundred dollars. Turner's direct involvement with the war seems to have ended at that point. He remained in St. Louis, where he claimed to have devoted much of his time to helping slaves escape to the North. Often at night, he said, he tied a skiff containing a fugitive slave to the stern of a steamboat so that it might be towed to the

Illinois shore of the Mississippi River and freedom. He

34coiored Democrat, 16 October 1920. 35st. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911.

3^U.S., Department of War, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Con^ federate Armies, sef. 2, vol. T] (1880-l901), p . 885. 39 delivered the fugitives to the Reverend John Anderson of

Brooklyn, his contact person in Illin ois.37

When the war finally ended in 1865, Missouri, a slave state that had remained in the Union, was in a shambles.

Life had become quite precarious for all Missourians, black and white, during the war years. The bloody raids of ex­ tremists such as Quantrill's Raiders, Bloody Bill Anderson, and the James boys were only the more exotic expressions of the widespread and deeply felt antipathy of "rebels" and "unionists" for each other. Moreover, even though the war ended in 1865, the war m entality lived on in Missouri for many years after. Little wonder that the generally un­ skilled, uneducated, and unprepared blacks, who were attempt­ ing to enter the mainstream of Missouri social and economic life, felt great a n x i e t y .38

The Missouri Equal Rights League, a black organization which cooperated with various white philanthropic agencies, attempted to advance the rate of assimilation and adjustment of the freedmen. The organizational meeting of the League was held at a church on the corner of Green and Eighth stre e ts in St. Louis on October 3, 1865. There was a large

3?Ibid. 38The best work on guerilla warfare in Missouri during the Civil War is Richard S. Brownlee, Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy: Guerilla Warfare in the W est,1861-1865 (Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, 1958). See, also, William E. Parrish, Turbulent Partnership ; Missouri and the Union, 1861-1865 with an Introduction by Robert L. Dl Davidson (Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1963) . 40 number of black men and women present, including most of the best-known black leaders in the state. According to a news­ paper account, the mass meeting was "called for the purpose of advancing the rights of the race and promoting the 39 interests of the colored people in the State." The first order of business was to elect officers.

The Reverend G. P. Wells was elected chairman, and Blanche K. Bruce, who would later become the first black United States Senator, elected from Mississippi, was chosen secre­ tary.*® The Reverend Wells proceeded to speak to the crowd, endorsing the League and calling for a defense of the rights of black people. He was followed in his remarks by a Mr. Clark, a white man, who not only endorsed the right to vote for blacks, but also counseled those assembled to lobby actively for black suffrage. He also suggested the appoint­ ment of an Executive Committee to d istrib u te information among the people. In addition, he recommended the es tab- 41 lishment of a newsletter to publicize their claims.

At some point during the evening, J. Milton Turner, then twenty-five years old, gave the crowd what the Missouri Democrat described as "a most fervid and pertinent speech in advocacy of the rights of his race." Turner's role in

^®Tri-Weekly Missouri Democrat, 4 October 1865. *®Melvin I. Orofsky, "Blanche K. Bruce: United States Senator 1875-1881," Journal of Mississippi History 29 (May 1967): 118-141.

*^Tri-Weekly Missouri Democrat, 4 October 1865. 41 this first meeting is impossible to assess. His speech was only one of many, all of which were followed by the assem­ bly's unanimous adoption of a series of resolutions. In these propositions, the black Missourians called attention to their plight as freedmen, without the rights and privi­ leges of the elective franchise, and charged that such a condition was little better than the oppression they had suffered under slave masters. Secondly, they emphasized that the denial of the franchise which they experienced was due not to a lack of patriotism on their part or a lack of commitment to the country during the war. Rather, they said, they had been "proscribed alone and singly on account of [their] color." They decided unanimously to "demand those rights and privileges which rightfully and logically belong to us as freedmen . . . [who] have never deserted the flag of our common country in the hour of its darkest peril." Likewise, they suggested that their future safety and prosperity would be best insured by the establishm ent of the principle of equality before the law for all people, regardless of color. They endorsed the idea of disallowing the rebellious states to return to the Union until they had endorsed the principle of "the universal right to the ballot box." Finally, they chose a seven-man executive committee to carry out the spirit of these resolutions. The members of this committee included the following: H. McGee, Col. F. Robinson, Moses Dickson, J. Bowman, Samuel Helms, Dr. G.

Downing, and George Wedley. This committee was sp e c ific a lly 42 charged with the responsibility of providing for a series of mass meetings, procuring black speakers, and preparing an address to the black people of Missouri.*^ Less than two weeks la te r, one of the mandates of the mass meeting was met when an approximately 2,700-word Address to the Friends of Equal Rights appeared in local newspapers, and was printed separately for distribution throughout the state. Although Turner had not been a member of the original Executive Committee, his name now appeared on this document as the secretary for the organization. He had been employed in that capacity shortly after the organizational meeting. His exemplary performance at the October 3rd meeting must have prompted the other Committee members to enlist his aid. Turner continued to serve as secretary for 43 the Executive Committee throughout its existence.

The Address began with a reference to the Civil War as a holy battle between an advanced civilization and a relic of barbarism. It acknowledged a debt of gratitude to

God for His deliverance and asked Him to secure for black people the liberties and privileges "which are enjoyed by every other American citizen." These rights and privileges, the Address asserted, could only be found in the exercise of the right of suffrage. Without the vote, black people were being forced to submit to taxation without representation

*2ibid. *3ibid., 16 October 1865. 43

and were having to obey laws th at they had no voice in framing. Several times the Address equated the plight of black freedmen with that of the American colonists who re­ belled against the arbitrary and dictatorial rule of Eng­ land. The principle that ought to be employed, it was ar- 44 gued, should always be "the consent of the governed." Black demands for political equality, the Address continued, were not excessive:

We ask not for social equality with the white man, as is often claimed by the shallow demagogue; for a higher law than human must forever govern social relations. We ask only that privilege which is now given to the very poorest and meanest of white men who come to the ballot-box.

The petitioners reminded their readers that they were citi­ zens of the s ta te and the nation and th at th e ir to il had enriched both. They also recalled that nine thousand black soldiers had "bared their breasts to the remorseless storm of treason, and by hundreds went down to death in the con­ flict while the franchised rebel . . . the . . . bitterest enemy of our right to suffrage, remained . . . at home, safe, and fattened on the fruits Of our sacrifice[,] toil and blood." The state of Missouri and the nation could, the Address argued, benefit from black votes against "disor­ ganizing elements" just as they had benefited from black muskets during the Civil War.*®

The freedmen expressed doubt about the wisdom and the

**Ibid.

*®Ibid. 44 benevolence of their former masters, and added that it was those masters, along with the "Northern Copperheads," who had fought for the past four years to enslave their bodies and souls. Hence, they mistrusted the paternalistic poli­ ticians who "are so anxious to do for us our voting, to perform all our legislation and to accept all our political responsibilities .... If we are to be nursed and strengthened into manhood solely at the hands of others, we ask in the name of God that it be done by our friends, and 46 not by our enemies." This last point was a tacit acknowledgement of how poorly a slave society had prepared the freedmen for compe­ tition in a white world. Hence, the petitioners hastened to assure their readers that black people did not want to be­ come burdens upon society. Consequently, they pleaded, why not help blacks to develop the skills that were expected of white citizens of the United States. If black people were weak because of their prior servitude, why not give them the help they needed to be strong? If they were ignor­ ant, give them "the lessons of experience . . . which is ever deemed essential to white man’s advancement." If they were poor, allow them to accumulate their own capital, start their own businesses, and, by their vote, support laws fa­ vorable to th e ir own commerce. In short, the p e titio n e rs called upon their readers to help them make over the black

4*Ibid. 45

47 freedmen in the white bourgeois image. The Committee warned that the question of what to do with black people in the immediate postwar period would become the greatest issue before the Republic. The Address closed with a request of the friends of black rights to help the Executive Committee by contributing money to its campaign. In the meantime, the Committee concluded, "let our tru s t be confided in Him whose ju s t Providence has wrested the lash from our taskmaster and through our great and good Lincoln given to our oppressed people, a universal emancipation."^® Some fifteen months later, Turner, as secretary for the Committee, presented a report of the League's first year of activity. The occasion was another mass meeting, this time held on the anniversary of the emancipation of

Missouri's slaves. Turner indicated that the Address to the Colored People of Missouri had been distributed and favorably received, and th at the Committee had corresponded with a number of the "more distinguished" black speakers in the state, "with a view to secure their services in a canvass of this State." The Committee hired John M. Lang­ ston of Ohio who began his tour on November 27, 1865, by delivering a speech at a place called Turner's Hall in St.

Louis. He followed that speech with engagements at Hanni-

*?Ibid.

*®Ibid. 46 b al, Macon City, C h illico th e, St. Joseph, Kansas City, Se- dalia, and Jefferson City. Everywhere he went the message was the same : he pleaded for black suffrage and for black access to education. He closed his campaign on January 9,

1866, in Jefferson City, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was opened to him and he spoke before the members of the le g isla tu re and others.

In addition to Langston's efforts, the report con­ tinued, J. Milton Turner had also carried a similar message throughout the state, especially the southeastern portion. He was particularly active in the areas surrounding the towns of Cape Girardeau, Commerce, and Jackson. That region remained strongly sympathetic to the rebel cause, and Turner encountered great opposition. On one occasion he was even forced "to escape for his life at midnight, barefooted in the snow, leaving his shoes behind him."®® The Committee also circulated a petition throughout the state, imploring the legislature to provide suitable schools for black children and endorsing an amendment to the

Constitution that would remove the word "white," and, in so

'^^Missouri Democrat, 15 January 1867. Langston was an Oberlin College graduate who had begun a law practice a few miles outside of Oberlin in 1854, about the time that Tur­ ner became a student there. In 1890 he became the first black in the history of Virginia to be elected to a Congres­ sional seat. Maurice Christopher, America's Black Congress­ men (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1971J, pp. 1*7- 148. William E. Parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870 (Columbia, Mo.: U niversity of Missouri Press, 19657; PP- 133-135. ^®Missouri Democrat, 15 January 1867. 47

doing, would proclaim the legal equality of all the state's citizens. That petition gained the signatures of 4,000 black persons, at which point it was turned over to the

Honorable Enos Clarke, Representative from St. Louis, to present to the Legislature. The report offered "hope for more liberality in the present Legislature now in session . . . ," and encouraged friends of the black cause to con­

tinue bombarding legislators with petitions and appeals "for

equal justice towards all who are loyal to the state and

government without respect to the color of the loyalists' s k in ."51

The report also recounted the difficulties under which

the Committee had labored. The most pressing problem was

the burden of expenses. Those present at the meeting were

informed that the League had incurred expenses totaling $2,221.82. Donations, subscriptions, and proceeds from

entertainments had brought in $900.25, leaving a balance of $1,321.57 to be paid. Lastly, the committee expressed its thanks in this, its final report, to the many friends who had supported the League and asked for continued support in the effort "to awaken an enlightened public sentiment" so that free schools and the right to vote would soon be avail- c 2 able to black people in the state. The Committee emphasized th at "we mean to make our

Sllbid. SZlbid. 48

freedom practical," adding that it saw education as the

chief means by which that could be done. Convinced that the responsibilities of citizenship could be best fulfilled by

an educated citizenry, it sought to establish schools for blacks wherever it could. It was in support of education that J. Milton Turner

was most active during the four years following the Civil War. Unfortunately, many of the details of this involvement are unclear. He claimed to have established the first black

school in the s ta te , in 1866, a t Kansas City.®® However, the newspaper accounts of the founding of that school do not include any references to him.®* In fact, it seems unlikely that he had settled into a regular job as late as the fall of 1867. On October 17 of that year, Mr. J. R. Shipherd wrote to Enoch K. Miller, an American Missionary agent in Arkansas, telling him that Turner, "a very intelligent col'd

[s ic ] man desires a good place where he and his wife could find support."®® Turner had apparently taken a common-law wife, who had a daughter by a previous marriage, earlier in the year. Although his wife was from Ohio, the couple and the child were living in St. Louis in 1867.®®

®®St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911. 54 Daily Journal of Commerce, 30 August 1867, 18 September 18o7.

®®J. R. Shipherd to E. K. Miller, October 17, 1867, Enoch K. Miller Papers, Arkansas Historical Commission, L ittle Rock, Arkansas.

®®Ibid. Testimony of E stelle B. Montgomery and L illie 49

Turner's association with the black school in Kansas

City probably did not begin u n til the spring of 1868. The

Kansas City School Board was organized in August 1867. At that time, there were 250 black children of school age within the district. Initially, one teacher, Mrs. M. J. Copeland, was appointed. She was soon replaced by her bus- c 7 band, who was paid a salary of sixty-five dollars a month. Turner's first appearance in the official records of the Kansas City School Board occurs on March 17, 1868. The minutes reflect that a decision was made on that date that

"James M. Turner be employed to teach the colored school in

Kansas City, Missouri at $60 per month. Time to Commence,

April 6, 1868."58 A cash book for the remainder of 1868 reveals that Turner was paid sixty-five dollars for his services on May 5, 1868, and an additional sixty-five dollars on June 27 of th at same y e a r . 5 9

Turner was not retained for the following fall, al­ though there is no in dication as to why he le ft. On Septem-

M. Mason, Charles W. Turner et al vs. Miltonia Turner Hill, et al. Case No. 2884, Circuit Court, Division 2, St. Louis, HTssouri. 57%. R. Howell, "The Colored Schools of Kansas City, Missouri," in Your Kansas City and Mine, ed. William H. Young and Nathan B. Young, J r . (Kansas City, Mo.: By the Editors, 1950), p. 21.

58Minutes of the School Board of Kansas City for March 17, 1868, Howell, p. 21. 59cash Book for the School Board of Kansas C ity, 1868, pp. 17, 21, Missouri Valley Room Collection, Kansas City Public Library, Kansas City, Missouri. 50 ber 1, 1868, James D. Bowser of North Carolina was employed

"to teach the colored school at $65 per month as soon as room suitable is procurred [sic]." By the end of the school term in 1870 there was an enrollment in the Kansas City Colored School of 197, with an average daily attendance of ninety-seven students.®® Turner's activities during the first half of the fol­ lowing year are also unclear, although it is certain that he was involved in some way in black education. He may have begun a teaching position at a school for black children in Boonville, Missouri. He was definitely in that position during the spring of 1869. Governor Joseph McClurg, w riting to President Ulysses S. Grant on April 26, 1869, id en tified

Turner as "a teacher in Booneville [sic], in this state."®^ Indeed, by the spring of 1869 Turner must have been considered one of the most important people working on behalf of black education in Missouri. On May 17, 1869, Richard B. Foster, the founder and first principal of Lin­ coln Institute, delivered an "Address Upon Colored Schools" before the State Teachers' Association Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. Foster suggested the importance of Turner's role and commented that "He, instead of myself, ought to have delivered this address to you."

^^Howell, p. 21. ®lj. W. McClurg to U. S. Grant, April 26, 1869, "Ap­ p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Grant Adm inistration," Record Group 59, National Archives, Washington, D.C. G^Antonio F. Holland and Gary R. Kremer, e d s., "Some 51

Presumably, it was Turner's effectiveness in the pro­

motion of black education that prompted F. A. Seely, Freed­ men 's Bureau Agent in Missouri, to appoint Turner as his

assistant in July of 1869. Seely described Turner as already being an American Missionary Association Agent (perhaps the result of J. R. Shipherd's 1867 letter to Enoch K. Miller). According to Seely, Turner engaged in his work

of establishing black schools "with the hearty cooperation of the State Superintendent of Public Schools [Radical T. A. Parker] who gave him a commission as his a s s is ta n t." Seely

noted that Turner's job of establishing schools and securing teachers was greatly aided by this official legitimizing of

his activities.63

Turner worked under Seely from August 1, 1869, through

February 1870. In this final report to Seely he noted that he had traveled "between eight and ten thousand miles" and

had been "instrumental in calling into use between seven and nine thousand dollars belonging to colored children as their pro rata share of the common school fund . . . ." He had,

he wrote, "caused directly and indirectly the erection of seven or eight school houses and opened thirty-two schools

Aspects of Black Education in Reconstruction Missouri: An Address by Richard B. Foster," Missouri Historical Review 70 (January 1976) : 191. 63p. A. Seely, Missouri School Report, January 1, 1870, Monthly and Other School Reports - -M issouri, April 1867-July 1870. Freedmen's Bureau Records, Educational Division, Microfilm Publication No. 803, roll 25, Frames 0165-0177. 52

in various parts of the S t a t e . "64

His problems with respect to the establishment of black schools had been great. He noted that "one of the greatest obstacles, is the fact that in such sections where the largest number of colored people are found there is a preponderance of disloyal and former slave holding peoples, who in most cases are opposed to the establishment of these [black] schools." That problem was complicated by a good deal of opposition "by both white and colored inhabitants to the appointment of white teachers in colored schools." As a result, he noted, his duties had been rendered "ardeous [sic] by the unyielding distaste evinced by those opposed to colored schools." He was, he admitted, "at a loss to sug­ gest . . . a remedy for this condition of things . . . ," unless "it be the daily spread of more enlightened ideas as a permeating ingredient of an advancing civilization."6$

Turner took heart in his successes and revealed his bourgeois biases when he noted with pleasure that "the colored people generally are frugal and temperate, very

64Turner to Seely, February 28, 1870, Letters Received, A-F, January-December 1870. Freedmen's Bureau Records, Educational Division, Microfilm Publication No. 803, roll 10, Frames 0428-0434. Seely, who submitted his report on Tur­ ner's activities before the latter had had a chance to sub­ mit a final report, estimated that Turner had been instru­ mental in "the establishment of from twenty to twenty five schools and bringing into use from five to six thousand dollars of public funds . . . ." Seely noted that Turner was paid five hundred dollars for his services, along with $374.49 for traveling expenses. Seely, Missouri School Report, January 1, 1870. 65ibid. 53 anxious to be taught (for which they are apparently ready to make considerable sacrifice) as also for the acquisition of tracts of land for farming purposes." He observed that he had "at all times encouraged . . . cooperative effort[s] by groups of several families." Where those ventures had been successful, he continued, he "noticed a superior manliness and independence of thought and action, comparing favorably with the servility which the past condition of many neces­ sarily engendered."66

Although Turner's early role in the development of black education in Missouri is fairly clear, his part in the founding and early years of Lincoln Institute is uncertain. The black Missourians who served in the Sixty-second United

States Colored Infantry and their officers originated the idea of the Institute. As Lieutenant Richard B. Foster re­ counted the story, a number of soldiers were told in January of 1866 that they would soon be sent home. They were happy at the thought of returning home, and they f e lt s a tis fie d that many of the enlisted men among them had at least learned the basics of reading and writing while in the service. S till, there was great anxiety that when these men returned to Missouri, "the education so happily commenced shall c e a s e . "67 Hence, it was quite logical that such conversation should lead to the suggestion of establishing a school for

66ibid.

6?R.67r . Bb . Foster, . ______Historical_____ Sketch of Lincoln Institute (Jefferson City, Mo.: n.p., 1871), p. 6. 54

blacks in Missouri and that a committee should be formed

to carry out that task. The first meeting of this committee was held in Cap­ tain H. R. Parson's office at Fort McIntosh, Texas, on

January 14, 1866. Surgeon C. Allen was elected both chair­ man and treasurer, with Lieutenant Foster being elected

secretary. Other members of the committee were Captain Parsons, Captain DuBois, and Lieutenant Adamson. A motion

was passed authorizing each member of the committee to col­ lect contributions and to forward the money to the treasurer. The assistance of other officers in the Sixty-second was

s o lic ite d and Lieutenant Foster was appointed to act as a

"traveling agent" for the committee.6®

Money quickly poured in. The lieutenants gave fifty

dollars each, officers of higher rank one hundred dollars.

A f i r s t sergeant gave seventy-five dollars and several s e r ­

geants gave f if ty , "w hile," according to Foster, "the number who gave 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 dollars apiece is too great for me to recall their names . . . ." The total collected from the Sixty-secondwas $5,000.10: $1,034.60 contributed by

the o fficers and $3,966.50 by the e n liste d m en.69 Meanwhile, Foster, acting in his capacity as traveling agent for the committee, visited the Sixty-fifth United

Minutes of the Meeting of the Educational Committee formed to Establish a Black School in Missouri, Lincoln University Quarterly 1 (May 1922): 1.

69poster, pp. 5-12. 55

States Colored Infantry and collected between th irteen and

fourteen hundred dollars.70 The in ten sity of the commitment

that these men felt toward black education is exemplified by

the actions of Private Samuel Sexton of the S ix ty -fifth , who gave one hundred dollars when his annual salary totaled on­ ly $156.71

It was Foster, also, who was designated as the agent

to carry money raised by the black soldiers to Missouri and

to set up a school for freedmen. He was a reasonable choice, for his a b o litio n ist and humanitarian credentials were im­

peccable. Foster was a benevolent Carpetbagger, born and raised in Hanover, New Hampshire, graduated from Dartmouth College, well-steeped in the Congregationalist tradition.

He was the descendant of an old New England family which

had emigrated from Ipswich, England, before the Revolution. He taught school in Illinois and Indiana prior to the Civil

War. Foster demonstrated his abolitionist sentiments as

early as 1856 by taking part in the John Brown raid upon

Fort Titus, Kansas. In 1862 he entered the service of the Union Army as a private in the First Nebraska Regiment. When Abraham Lincoln authorized the formation of black regi­

ments, Foster volunteered to join the Sixty-second United

States Colored Infantry, later rising to the rank of lieutenant.

70Foster's account says $1,379.50. The Minutes of the Committee say $1,324.00. Foster, p. 7; Minutes of the Meeting of the Educational Committee, p. 2.

7lFoster, pp. 5-12. 72ihis account of Foster's background draws heavily 56

Having collected the money from the black Missouri volunteers, Foster made his way to Missouri. Upon his ar­ rival there in the summer of 1866, he was beset by problems. He made an abortive attempt to establish a school in St. Louis before he moved west to Jefferson City, only to encounter additional problems. His plight is best summed up by his efforts to find a place to house the school. "I ap­ plied to the colored Methodist Church for their house," he wrote in 1871, "... but the minister refused, alleging as a reason that the teacher would be white." "I applied to the white Methodist Church," he continued, "... but the minister refused, alleging as a reason that the scholars would be b lack ."75

By fall, however, those obstacles had been circumvented and Lincoln Institute opened its doors for the first time. Later, in 1911, James Milton Turner claimed to have been the catalyst that started the whole movement that eventually culminated in the establishment of the school. He reported how he had appeared before "a negro regiment" on their pay day and delivered a speech instead of the customary religious exercists, "it being Sunday." According to Turner’s account, the soldiers responded to his appeal for money for the pro­ posed school by contributing five thousand dollars within a upon Holland and Kremer, "Some Aspects of Black Education in Reconstruction Missouri," pp. 184-198. See, also, W. Sherman Savage, The History of Lincoln U niversity (Je f­ ferson C ity, Mo.: hlew Day Press , 1939), pp. 10- li.

73poster, p. 10. 57

few minutes. The money was then delivered to Foster who

carried it to Jefferson City to establish the sch o o l.7*

George B. Vashon offered a slig h tly d iffe re n t account of

Turner's involvement in the founding of Lincoln Institute. Vashon reported in 1920 that "at the close of the War Tur­ ner and 'E lder' Love, a colored preacher, collected some­

thing more than five thousand dollars from Negro soldiers in Louisiana and Arkansas 'for Negro Education in Missouri.'" This was the money, according to Vashon, that was used to

establish Lincoln Institute.75

Notwithstanding the Turner-Vashon testimonials, it is

doubtful that Turner ever made the speech that he claimed to have made or that he even played a significant part in the

founding of Lincoln Institute. His role, if he played one

at a l l , must have been minor, perhaps performed as one of his many responsibilities as secretary of the Equal Rights

League. Had he been more involved, Foster surely would have acknowledged Turner's efforts, as he acknowledged the ef­

forts of a number of others who helped in the establishment of the school. Even if Foster had not done this, surely

Turner's name would have appeared in the proceedings of the organizational committee, established to get the Lincoln

Institute project off the ground.^®

7*St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911. ^®Colored Democrat, 16 October 1920.

76Foster, pp. 1-10; Minutes of the Meeting of the Educational Committee, pp. 1-3. 58

In addition to claiming th a t he had provided the impetus needed to get Lincoln Institute started, Turner also claimed to have been responsible for gathering funds for the school once it had been established. He reported in 1911 that he had accompanied Foster on a fund-raising trip to the East. He recalled that the two of them had been introduced to William Thaw in Pittsburgh and that Thaw, after hearing Turner's plea for money, "gave him a check for 7 7 $1,000, and his sister, who was present, gave $500 more," Again, this incident may have happened, but it certainly did not occur during the first four years of the school's exis­ tence. Foster recorded in 1871 that he had journeyed to the East during the summer of 1866 in an unsuccessful attempt to gain additional money for the school. He clearly left the 7 8 impression that he made the trip alone. Likewise, Foster did record in his history that an agent was hired to raise funds in the spring of 1868. That agent's name, however, was Mr. C. R. Beal of Michigan, not J. Milton Turner. In fact, the first mention of Turner in Foster's history is an account of a state convention called by Turner in January 1870 for "those interested in the education of the colored 79 people of this state . . . ." Turner himself indicated in his final report to Seely that "owing to the great demand for colored teachers in this State, I conceived the idea of

^^St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911, 78 Foster, p. 9.

7®Ibid., p. 11. 59

establishing a state convention of colored men to consider

our educational wants, and petition the legislature to establish a normal department in the Lincoln Institute with

a view to training and educating colored students for the on teachers work." Sometime a fte r th at convention, Turner was hired by the school to solicit money throughout the state and nation, and the trip with Foster could have occurred during 1870.®^

Clearly, some sort of relationship had developed between the

two men by June of 1870, for on the twenty-seventh of that month, Foster, who was forced to be absent part of that sum­

mer, wrote to the Freedmen's Bureau, notifying officials

there that J. Milton Turner had been given a temporary ap­

pointment to administer the s c h o o l .

The problem with the Lincoln Institute incident, as with all the others about which Turner offered testimony in his 1911 interview, is simply that his word about what he did in earlier years is not reliable. In fact, his exagger­ ations are so frequent and so great that one is tempted, where there is no doubt, to disbelieve him. This is all the more true because most of what Turner related about his

®®Turner to Seely, February 28, 1870, Freedmen's Bureau Records. ®^Missouri State Times, 9 September 1870; Boonville Eagle, 3Ô July 1870.

B^Foster to Freedmen's Bureau, June 27, 1870, note appended to Annual Report, Freedmen's Bureau Records, Educa­ tion Division, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 60

early years was written in his old age. It was not, however,

only the problem of age that caused him to develop a faulty

memory of his past and to exaggerate his contributions. Rather, it was the frustration of living on the margin of

American society, never being fully accepted, either by white or black Americans. The 1911 interview is, then, an illustration of how J. Milton Turner’s "world of make- believe" manifested itself.®® It is only in the context of Frazier's theory of a

frustrated bourgeoisie that Turner's late-life fantasies make sense. Turner was an aspiring bourgeois who measured success by white middle-class standards. His education had

given him that orientation, and he, in turn, sought to pass it on to the freedmen of his state. That, of course, explains the intensity of his efforts on behalf of black education in Missouri. He acknowledged that most slaves were ill prepared for freedom, precisely because he saw them as not measuring up to white middle-class standards, but that only made a commitment to th e ir education more cru cial. There was, of course, a corollary to this view: blacks who had already demonstrated that they were at home with white middle-class values should not be made the victims of a color line anywhere in American society. Quite logically, then, he expected to be treated as the equal of any white man who was similarly talented. In short.

®3gee Introduction, pp. 8-9. 61

Turner's vision of a reconstructed America included a

po sitio n of wealth and power for him self. For a few years i t seemed as though th a t would happen. Turner cap italized

on his work with the Missouri Equal Rights League and black education by riding those positions to political prominence in the Radical party in 1870. The Radical Republicans facilitated his appointment to the Liberian ministership in 1871. The vision was in ta c t. The expectations and hopes

born in the Civil War were coming true.®* However, as Republican ascendancy gave way to a restoration of the old racist social and political order by the late seventies and early eighties, hope turned to bitter

disappointment. Likewise, as his influence on the white power structure decreased, so did his power among the black

masses. Indeed, as early as 1870, many in the black com- 85 munity labeled him opportunistic and untrustworthy.

L ittle wonder th a t he became fru stra te d and

alienated. The society in which he lived was only a shadow of the one he envisioned. Not only did both blacks and whites fail to reward him for the skills he possessed, they did not even acknowledge those skills. Reflecting on his life in 1911, then, he tried to exaggerate his accomplish­ ments, even attaching himself to supposed adventures of well-known men in an attempt to gain recognition. It was Jesse James, he said, who had frequently given him money to

8*See Chapter II.

®®Ibid. 62

keep the black Kansas City school open when "the school commissioners . . . ex Confederates . . . refused to ap­ propriate a salary . . . "But for Jesse James," he

reported, "I could not have kept up the school." Likewise, it was Turner's efforts, in the face of great personal danger, that provided General Grant with the liquor neces­ sary to continue the war effort. Had it not been for his

alleged sneaking behind enemy lines to refurbish Grant's personal liquor supply, he implied, the Civil War might

well have been lost.®® In the late 1860's, however, the frustration that was to fuel those pretensions was far in the future. For

the moment. Turner could look at himself with great satis­

faction. As the decade drew to a close, he had every

reason to believe that he was a highly influential and

respected black man.

®®St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 9 July 1911. CHAPTER II

THE POLITICS OF MUTUAL BENEFIT

The period of Radical Reconstruction in Missouri, extending from the end of the C ivil War u n til 1870, was a

time when the Radical Republicans needed the black vote and made extensive efforts to curry it. The motives of the

Republicans who aligned themselves with blacks were u tili­ tarian and short-sighted. Their support of black causes

reflected more the precariousness of Missouri politics than

a genuine manifestation of concern for black people.

The Radicals' strategy was to identify and then latch on to a black leader who could coalesce a potentially power­ ful black vote. They found such a man in James Milton Tur­ ner, whose work on behalf of black education had made him a well-known figure in M issouri's black community. Turner matched the Radicals' opportunism. Like Frazier's bourgeoisie of seventy years later, he was unable to separate his own progress from that of the general popula­ tion of black freedmen. Hence, he interpreted the Radicals' overtures toward himself as evidence of their commitment to equal opportunity for all blacks. Consequently, he came to view the Republican party as an effective vehicle not only for his own advancement, but, by extension, as a means by

63 64 which all black people could gain passage into the world of the white middle class. So persuaded, he actively cam­ paigned for the Radical political candidates in 1870, de­ livering, according to one contemporary account, 20,000 black votes to their cause. Throughout the campaign, he continuously exhorted the freedmen to adopt the values of "piety, thrift, and industry," so that they could accumulate wealth, which he identified as the source of all power. His almost fa n a tic a l commitment to the Radical party had mixed results, however. On the one hand, the Radicals rewarded his unfailing support by facilitating his appointment to the Liberian ministership. On the other hand, however, a wave of suspicion began to swell up around him, causing questions to be raised about the purity of his motives. Missouri's Radicals traced their origins to an 1862 split in the state's Unionist party. They were the persons who supported Lincoln's push, in the spring of 1862, to emancipate slaves in the border states. Emancipation was the major issue in Missouri by the fall of 1862. The ballot was limited to the Unionists because of a strict proscrip­ tion against Southern sympathizers, imposed by Missouri's war-time provisional government. The Unionists divided into three broad categories. There were, first of all, the Char­ coals, who favored immediate emancipation; the Claybanks, who favored a more gradual ending of the institution of slavery; and, finally, the Snowflakes, who remained stead­ 65

fast in their opposition to emancipation.^ The Claybank, or moderate, position triumphed in itial­

ly with a constitutional convention proposal in June 186 3 calling for the ending of slavery in Missouri on July 4, 1870, to be followed by an apprenticeship system for former

slaves. Such a proposal was too conservative for the Char­

coals, who immediately launched a campaign against the Claybank proposal and its most well-known supporter. Gover­ nor Hamilton R. Gamble.^ By the late summer of 1863, the

Charcoals, and other liberal elements of like-mind, joined forces in a newly-formed Radical Union party under the leadership of Charles Daniel Drake of St. Louis. These Radicals met in convention at Jefferson City on September 1,

1863. Approximately seven hundred delegates from roughly

three-fourths of the counties in Missouri attended this meeting to launch the party on its way.3

The Radicals then followed a strategy that, according to Professor William E. P arrish , became increasingly fam il­ iar throughout the state. They denounced their Conservative

opponents as "Copperheads" who were not true Union men. "By February, 1864," Professor Parrish writes, "the Radicals had become strong enough to push through a bill calling for a

Iparrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870, pp. 2-3. I have drawn heavily upon th is work for general back- ground narrative. ^Ibid., pp. 3-4.

3lbid., pp. 6-8. 66

referendum at the fall election on the question of holding

a new state convention to consider emancipation, suffrage,

and revision of Missouri's constitution."* The Radicals dominated the 1864 election; their gubernatorial candidate, Thomas C. Fletcher, won by a 40,000 vote majority. Further­ more, Missouri voters overwhelmingly supported the Radical proposal for a new state convention.® The Radicals also dominated the 1865 state convention and were, in turn, controlled by Charles Drake. The first issue of substance to be dealt with was that of emancipa­ tion. The convention quickly passed an emancipation ordi­ nance on January 11, 1865, followed by Governor Fletcher's formal proclamation announcing the end of Missouri's slave system.® A resolution of the problem of what to do with blacks once they were freed was not so easily arrived at, however. There were three major concerns: 1) should blacks be allowed to testify against whites in legal court cases;

2) should blacks be allowed to vote and to hold office; 3) should the state provide educational opportunities for blacks at public expense?^ After considerable debate, the convention resolved the first question by deciding "that no person, can on ac­ count of color, be disqualified as a witness . . . ."

4%bid., p. 9. ® Ibid., p. 12. ®Ibid., pp. 14-19.

?Ibid., 115-118. 67

Radicals moved more cautiously on the suffrage issue, how­ ever. The vast majority of Missourians remained hesitant

about the black franchise. Even the Radical leader, Charles

Drake, was skeptical about including a black suffrage plank in the constitution, fearing that it would cause the entire document to be rejected by Missouri voters. Consequently, the privileges of voting and office-holding were limited to O qualified white males. Finally, the convention cleared the way for state-established schools for blacks by including a provision sta tin g th a t the General Assembly "may" estab lish schools "for children of African descent." Funds for all public schools were to be appropriated "in proportion to the number of children without regard to color. Only the proposal of black suffrage and office-holding had been soundly rejected by the convention. It was to that issue that the members of the black Missouri Equal Rights League, formed in October 1865, addressed itself.The

League's lobbying efforts in Jefferson City were the most important catalyst for the increased momentum of the black suffrage question during the 1867 session of the General Assembly.Consequently, the legislature proposed a con-

*Ibid., pp. 117-118.

9lbid., p. 118. l®For a discussion of the Missouri Equal Rights League, see Chapter I, pp. 39-48. llparrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870, p. 136. 68 s titu tio n a l amendment to elim inate the word "white" as a qualification for the suffrage. It was submitted to Mis- 12 s o u ri's voters for ra tific a tio n in 1868. The Radical party in Missouri reached the height of its power in 1868. Radical candidate Joseph McClurg was elected governor by an approximately 20,000-vote margin.

Still, opposition to black suffrage was intense and the proposed black voting rights amendment was defeated 75,05 3 to 55,236. Consequently, Missouri's black citizens did not gain the right to vote until the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.13

The rejection of the 1868 amendment illustrated the growing lack of unity within the Radical party and, conse­ quently, its inability to unite Missouri voters. The most important issue of disagreement was the Radical leader Drake's insistence that the party continue its stand against enfranchising former rebels. Many would-be supporters of the black franchise refused to support black suffrage until disenfranchised rebels were allowed to vote. A more liberal and to le ra n t faction of Radicals, led by newly emerging Radical leader, Carl Schurz, formed around this issue.14

IZfbid., pp. 137-138. l^William E. Parrish, "Reconstruction Politics in Mis souri, 1865-1870," in Richard 0. Curry, ed., Radicalism, Racism, and Party Realignment: The Border States During Reconstruction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1Ô69), pp. 27-28. 1 4 lb id ., pp. 25-27. 69

Schurz became a co-owner of the Wesliche Post in St. Louis on April 16, 1867. This was one of the largest German language newspapers in the country, and an ardent advocate of Radicalism. He easily moved into the leadership vacuum created when Drake moved to Washington, B.C., in March 1867, filling the Senate seat vacated by B. Gratz Brown.

Schurz himself moved into a vacant state senate seat in

1868 and led a movement during the 1869 legislative session to submit two amendments to the voters of Missouri, one giving blacks the right to vote, the other restoring the franchise to the "rebel" element. Most of the other Radi­ cals in the legislature were not ready for such a move, however, and the idea lay dormant for another y e a r .15

The ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, giving blacks the right to vote on the national level, revived the idea. Confident of making th is new bloc of voters th e irs , many Radicals felt less afraid of re-enfranchising rebels.

Consequently, the Liberal faction of Radicals pushed through the legislature, by February 1870, a proposal to submit three amendments to Missouri voters the following fall: the first would modify the test oath to a simple declaration of support for state and national constitutions, thereby making it possible for former rebels who intended to support the existing state and national governments to have all citi­ zenship rights restored to them; the second amendment would

15Ibid. , p. 28. 70 eliminate the test oath completely for jurors; and the third would repeal the oath as a requirement for office-holding and remove all racial barriers to political office. In the meantime, Radicals began wooing the black lead­ er James Milton Turner in an e ffo rt to move newly-enfran- 17 chised blacks solidly into the Radical camp. Turner was a logical choice. He had gained a good deal of publicity working with the Missouri Equal Rights League, the Freed- raen’s Bureau, the American Missionary Association, and the 18 State Department of Education. Turner's attendance at the Colored National Laborer's Convention in Washington, D.C., as the Missouri representa­ tive during December 1869 confirmed his rise to the politi­ cal leadership of black Missouri. The resolutions endorsed by the convention offer insight into Turner's political and social philosophy at the time. John Berry Meachum, Turner's antebellum mentor, could well have written the platform for 19 that convention twenty years before. According to the resolution of the convention, God had created labor as the natural heritage of all men. The most efficient and productive way to utilize labor was capitalism.

l*Ibid., pp. 27-28. l^Ibid. 18 For Turner's role with these various agencies, see Chapter I, pp. 35-49. 19 For the Turner-Meachum connection, see Chapter I, pp. 30-33. 71

Harmony should always exist between capitalists and la­ borers. In fact, each individual should strive to become a capitalist. Several steps could be taken to achieve that

goal: avoid intemperance; pursue education; encourage in­ dustrial habits among blacks; and, teach trades and profes­ sions to black children. In short, the convention placed a high priority, in E. Franklin Frazier's terms, on transform­ ing the black masses into a black bourgeoisie. Turner echoed his own endorsement of that transformation time and time again during the next year as a political campaigner.^" The convention also proclaimed the basic soundness of the American system, and asserted th at the republican form of government could and "should be administered for the b en efit of a l l ." Presumably, for blacks th a t meant that they should not be hindered by racist laws and customs in their quest to become capitalists.21 In addition to these resolutions. Turner, who served the convention as one of several vice presidents, offered a proposition that signaled a portent of things to come in his relations with former rebels back on the campaign trail in Missouri. The conventioneers had heard Senator J. W. D.

Bland speak in favor of doing away with a test oath for officeholders in the state of Virginia. Turner adhered to

20New E ra, 13 January 1870. Zlwew Era, 13 January 1870; Elevator, 24 December 1869 72

his long-held conviction that rebels were evil men in need of chastisement when he appealed to the laborers assembled

to "distinctly disavow all responsibility for the sentiments expressed here . . . by Senator J. W. D. Bland apologizing

for the negro-hating, unreconstructed rebels of Virginia ...22

Turner launched his political activist campaign as

the defender of black rights in the state of Missouri almost

immediately upon his return from Washington. I t was an as­ sertive, even defiant, campaign by a man who saw himself not groveling at the feet of political power brokers, but rather as a flexible, independent, and potentially powerful supporter of whatever would enhance the achievement of his vision of a non-racist, reconstructed America. His attitude and demeanor in a speech delivered at a Jefferson City con­ vention in January 1870 set the tone. He called the gathering of Missouri's blacks to pressure legislators into providing state aid for Lincoln Institute, a black normal school located in the city. 2 State Superintendent of

Schools T. A. Parker had written of the desperate need for black teachers in his Annual Report of 1869. In addition, he had suggested that the need could be met by providing state support for Lincoln Institute.^4 Nothing had come of

^^New E ra, 13 January 1870. Z^Missouri Democrat, 24 January 1870. This was the same convention referred to in Chapter I, p. 58.

Z^Missouri, Department of Education, Superintendent of 73 the suggestion, however. Turner sought to change that by making it clear to the Radicals that they should support his proposed legislation if they were serious about meeting the needs of black people. He warned them that blacks would be watching their legislation, "and if it did not suit them the Radical party could not count upon the votes of the colored p eople."25

The next month the Missouri General Assembly enacted a law granting five thousand dollars annually in state aid to

Lincoln Institute under the condition that the Institute trustees first agree to convert the school into a facility for the training of black public school teachers. In addi­ tion, Lincoln had to raise the equivalent of $15,000, either in the form of cash, buildings, grounds, or a combination of all three.26

On March 10, 1870, the Radicals, perhaps in search of a forum to justify their concessions to the black bloc, as well as to try to help Lincoln officials to raise the neces­ sary $15,000, opened the Hall of Representatives to Lincoln Principal Richard B. Foster and his students for a public recitation. The students acquitted themselves well, accord­ ing to the Missouri Democrat. "The examinations in class

Public Schools, "Special Report on Schools for Colored Chil­ dren," Fourth Report of the Superintendent of Public Schools of the State of Missouri, 1869 (l870) , pp. 34-37. 25Missouri Democrat, 24 January 1870. 26parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870, pp. 131-132. 74

studies," it reported, "exhibited intelligence, promptness, and a degree of proficience that compared well with other

schools, and was at once evidence of the capacity of the race and of the earnest labors of the teachers of the school." An attempt to solicit funds for the school from those present followed the exhibition. Governor McClurg

chaired the meeting, giving the proceedings official Radical sanction. Turner delivered the keynote address, appealing

for contributions. Governor McClurg led the way by pledging

one hundred dollars, followed by Lieutenant-Governor Stanard, Foster and Turner, each of whom also contributed one hundred

d o lla rs . Subsequently, Turner was employed by Lincoln officials

to continue fund-raising. He and the black minister Moses Dickson worked in that capacity for much of the summer and were paid forty percent of their collections, "that per cent 2 8 [including] all personal and traveling expenses." Both Turner and Dickson had to borrow fifty dollars from the school before they could begin their work. Their commissions were withdrawn on September 8, 1870, "because their other en- gagements do not allow them to attend to th at business."20 Turner combined the jobs of fund-raiser and political advo­ cate, a mixture that brought criticism against him for "can­ vassing the State" for a "political clique" while being paid

^^Missouri Democrat, 12, 14 March 1870.

^® Ibid., 26 July 1870.

Z^Missouri State Times, 9 September 1870. 75

by Lincoln Institute.^0

In April of 1870, while canvassing. Turner came out against enfranchising former rebels, seemingly reversing a position he had taken in January when he had said that "the ballot box ought to be opened to all citizens as quickly as

legal forms would permit.He was a featured speaker at

a St. Louis rally held in April, a gathering that was one of the most spectacular black political demonstrations ever held in that city . The occasion was a commemoration of the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Missouri Democrat estimated the crowd assembled to be between eighteen and twenty thousand. Blacks formed a procession, extending for two miles to a "vast gathering at Yeager's Garden." The procession included numerous black fra te rn a l, p o litic a l, and social groups, among them, the Western Star Encampment

Knight Templars, the Dramatic Club, the United Brothers of Friendship, the Mutual Aid Society, persons from the various black political wards, the Waiter's and Coachmen's Society, the Sunday School Union, the United League Society, and the baseball clubs. Once at the Hall of Yeager's Garden, those assembled were treated to a number of orations, the last of

^^Missouri Democrat, 26 July 1870; Boonville Weekly Eagle, 30 July 1870. 5^Missouri Democrat, 24 January 1870. Although the evidence lis inconclusive, it seems likely, given Turner's harsh statements about "unreconstructed rebels" at the Washington meeting in December, th at his January statem ent about an open b a llo t box was meant as a response to e ffo rts to disallow the black vote and did not, therefore, apply to rebels. See pp. 71-72 above. 76 which was delivered by J, Milton Turner, He talked about two of the three co n stitu tio n a l amendments to be submitted to Missouri voters the following fall. The very fact that such amendments could be proposed by a so-called Radical le g isla tu re , he argued, was evidence th a t some lawmakers had begun to betray the Radical cause. He described the first amendment as providing "for the enfranchisement of disloyal and colored citizens." The second, he said, "pro­ poses to allow rebels and colored men to hold office," He then offered his own assessment of the amendments. "I re­ gard the whole matter as a scheme for the enfranchisement of disloyal citizens in the ensuing fall election," he said,

"that they may have a voice in regulating the future status of the loyal colored man." He bitterly attacked those who would "unhesitatingly place the loyal colored man's hope for eligibility to office in an amendment with the formerly disloyal white man, thereby insuring from the very outset, the defeat of both proposals to held [sic] office." Like­ wise, he criticized the proposed first amendment because he considered it to be a ruse to re-enfranchise rebels:

By including negro suffrage these men thought to win the colored vote for the suffrage amendment, and by the help of Democrats who could have no possible ob­ jection voting for the enfranchisement of the already enfranchised colored men, they hoped to carry the proposition to enfranchise rebels, and thereby place these men in a position to vote two years from next fall for their own eligibility to office and to vote externally against the loyal black man becoming an office-holder in this State.32

^^Missouri Democrat, 12 April 1870, 77

He went on to criticize "this same Legislature" for its failure to make any provision for blacks to sit on

juries. With black people being denied the privilege of serving on juries and without having eligibility to office, he indicated that he was not "in favor of enfranchising the

disloyal men of Missouri." He recalled that many believed

that the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment ended the

mission of the Republican party. He did not share that view. "I contend the mission of the party will not be com­

p le te ," he said , " u n til the word 'white* is strick en from the constitution of every State in this Union, and all men placed on perfect equality before the law of the country. There was. Turner concluded, one other immediate task

facing black people. Blacks must be "thoroughly represent­ ed" in the next nominating convention, "and see that our in­ fluence be cast for only such candidates as have made a con­ sistent record of the past." He had, he said, compiled a

list of votes on matters of importance to black people, and he intended to campaign against "all such men as voted no when they should have voted aye." A truly Radical General

Assembly needed to be elected the following f a l l , he argued:

"I much prefer trusting my cause to the hands of men who, in the face of all opposing influences, have carried the work thus far successfully, than depending on men who fought to

S^Missouri Democrat, 12 April 1870. SSlbid. 78

make slavery the chief corner-stone of our beautiful struc­ tu re. "^4

By May, Turner was being berated extensively for his extremism. The Radical Missouri Democrat published a caus­

tic critique of his actions. By that time, he had attended the planning meetings of the Radical S tate Committee which was making preparations for the state convention. According to the Democrat, he had "stated openly that he was making speeches and organizing the colored people to vote against the pending constitutional amendment . . . ." Consequently, the Democrat f e lt compelled to warn "people in every p a rt of the State [to be] on their guard against this speaker . . . ." The newspaper admonished Turner that if the amend­ ments to the Constitution failed to pass, "the colored men

[of Missouri] can never hope to have any other rights ex­ tended to them beside those which the United States Consti­ tution gives."35

Many blacks opposed Turner's stand against the amend­ ments because of their concern that this would jeopardize future concessions to the black cause. Turner reacted strongly to such opposition. In fa c t, the Democrat reported, he publicly abused a number of black detractors at a gathering in May. According to the newspaper account. Tur­ ner became so angry with Mr. C. H. Tandy, one of his more

34lbid. 3 5 ib id .; Missouri Democrat, 13 May 1870; People's Tribune, 18 May 1870. 79 vocal opponents, th at he b it him, "Mr, Tandy , . the paper reported, "showed the scars on his hand caused by the bite of Turner, Despite opposition from both blacks and whites, Tur­ ner continued in the same vein, A few days later, he de­ livered another speech commemorating the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, this time in Columbia, Missouri, The local newspaper, the Statesman, described him as "a man of considerable ability." He possessed, the paper wrote, "a fine flow of language and [is] never wanting for an idea

. . . [he is] well versed in ancient and modern history and in the political affairs of the day . . . ." On occasion, the Statesman continued, he "would make such flights of elo­ quence and exhibit such a degree of learning as to astonish both his white and colored auditors . . . ." He went into a comparative discourse on the Greek, Roman, English, and American forms of government, "and made therefrom some in­ teresting deductions." He advised unemployed blacks living in towns and c itie s to move to the country, go to work on farms, presumably as hired laborers, and get money to buy land. Then, in a burst of rhetoric that revealed the quin­ tessence of his philosophy, he described money as a great power, and a passport to respectability and importance in the community. He advised his black listeners to educate themselves and th e ir children "at every cost, and learn how

3*Ibid. 80 to depend upon themselves, as they could no longer lean for •zn support upon the w hites." He counseled this audience also to vote against the proposed s ta te co n stitu tio n al amendments. He argued th at blacks were under no obligation to disenfranchised whites who had done nothing for black advancement. His speech con­ cluded, Turner turned over the podium to a black man named Cook who spoke "but a few minutes." Cook had come to Co­ lumbia specifically to counter Turner's arguments against the co n stitu tio n al amendments. However, he changed his mind after hearing Turner's speech. Cook later invited his new idol to return with him to St. Charles, Missouri, to de- 38 liver an anti-amendment speech. Turner continued making speeches against the co n sti­ tu tio n al amendments throughout the summer of 1870. Like­ wise, he continued to insist that blacks be given "fair" representation at the state nominating convention to be held in September. His position on those two issued placed him firmly in the camp of Radical gubernatorial hopeful Governor Joseph W. McClurg, and against the more concilia­ tory Liberal faction, led by Carl Schurz and gubernatorial candidate B. Gratz Brown. The Radical State Executive Com­ mittee met at St. Louis in early May, with Turner appearing before it, reiterating his warning that the black vote

^^Missouri Statesman, 20 May 1870.

3 8 ib id ., 27 May 1870. 81 would be cast for the Radical tic k e t only i f blacks were 39 given a fair share in its selection. The Committee drafted a proposal for black representation, revised it, and redrafted another proposal when it met again on August 2 to prepare for the convention. Turner rejected the Com­ mittee's offer and was able to have his objections sus­ tained, forcing the adoption of his own recommendation for 40 180 black delegates out of a total of 797. The Liberal followers of Schurz and Brown, already disenchanted with the autocratic machinations of the Radicals, were distressed over these concessions to Turner. They suspected, quite rightly, as it turned out, that his ability to have his way on the black representation issue was indicative of the McClurg fa c tio n 's strength. Despite th is victory by Turner, however, he did not wield the power at the convention that he claimed more than forty years later. He indicated in 1911, in that fantasy-ridden Post- Dispatch interview, that blacks had had 200 delegates at the convention, rather than the 180 they actually had. Likewise, he painted a picture of the convention as primarily a per­ sonal duel between himself and Carl Schurz. Indeed, he claimed that he was so pressured by Schurz that he had telegraphed President Grant for instructions. As Turner

%q Missouri Democrat. 13 May 1870; Missouri State Times, 27 May Ib/U. ^^Parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule. 1865-1870, p. 291; Missouri Democrat, 4 August 1870. 82

told the story, the reply came back: "You don't seem to

know that I hear every speech in the convention by means of

a wire on my desk. You are right. Who cares for Carl Schurz? Stand pat. [signed] U. S. Grant." Turner claimed to have read that telegram on the floor of the convention,

an action, he asserted, that led to a split in the Radical party of Missouri.*1

It is doubtful that Turner ever received such a tele­ gram, much less read it on the floor of the convention. However, Colonel C. Q. Ford, United States Internal Revenue Collector of the St. Louis District, did present a message

to the convention from President Grant that was similar in

spirit to the one reported by T u r n e r . ^2

That flight of fantasy aside, however, the fight over

re-enfranchisement of former rebels, combined with the quarrel over black representation, did split the Radical

party at the convention in September, with the Liberals nominating B. Gratz Brown for Governor and the Stalwart

Radicals nominating Joseph W. McClurg. Both groups s o lic ­ ited the votes of Missouri's newly-enfranchised blacks. Turner, convinced by the Radicals' actions that they were

truer friends of blacks than the Liberals, supported the former. Meanwhile, the Liberals attempted to win over the black voters by using the services of C. H. Tandy and George

41st. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911.

42Boonville Weekly Eagle, 24 September 1870. 83

43 B, Wedley, both blacks from St. Louis. As the November election drew closer, however, Radi­ cals had second thoughts about their rigidity on the re-en­

franchisement issue. Finally realizing that winning the battle on that issue at the convention might lose him the war at the polls, McClurg signaled a Radical about-face when he indicated that he would no longer offer opposition 44 to the proposed constitutional amendments. On October

28, the day a fte r McClurg's le tte r was w ritten. Turner loyally followed the party line by endorsing the passage 4 5 of the same amendments. The Missouri Democrat responded immediately by casti­ gating Turner for this "acrobatic feat" of again reversing an earlier position, "No man," the Democrat reported, "can estimate the harm which he has done to the colored people who trusted his fluent ta lk ." Likewise, the Democrat r e ­ acted with some shock at Turner's effrontery in announcing his own candidacy for a Congressional seat from Missouri's Second D is tric t.

Turner even went so far as to endorse the candidacy of certain Democrats, hoping thereby to split the would-be

43parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870, pp. 302-303. 44 This announcement came in a l e tte r from McClurg to a friend. The letter was subsequently published in news­ papers throughout Missouri. Missouri Statesman, 4 Novem­ ber 1870.

43ibid.; Missouri Democrat, 31 October 1870. 46 Missouri Democrat, 31 October 1870. It seems un- 84

Liberal vote, forcing Democrats and Liberals to neutralize each other. In that way, he attempted to stop the apostate Liberals from rising to power and restoring the old racist political and social order. Such late-hour maneuvering was of little help to the

Radicals, however. Despite these and other machinations, despite Turner's efforts and overwhelming black support, despite even the fact that President Grant endorsed the Radical candidates and condemned the bolters, the split in the party was too much to overcome, and a coalition of dis­ sident Liberal Republicans and Democrats defeated the Radi­ cals at the polls.46

The intensity and bitterness of the 1870 election in Missouri precluded any post election rapprochment between

Liberal Republicans and Stalwart Radicals. Consequently, Stalwarts could count on no patronage positions from the

Liberals. As a result, many of them looked to the Grant administration as a source of federal appointments. One of those people who sought the special favor of the President 49 was, of course. Turner himself. likely that Turner saw himself as a serious candidate, given the fact that this announcement came only days before the election. 4^Missouri State Times, 11 November 1870. 46parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule, 1865-1870, pp. 309-311. 4^Gary R. Kremer, "Background to Apostasy: James M il­ ton Turner and the Republican Party," Missouri Historical Review 71 (October 1976): 63. 85

Although Turner sought Radical patronage on the fed­ eral level after the 1870 election, his efforts in that direction had begun more than a year and a half prior to that date. By early 1869 he was confident that his leader­ ship ability among Missouri's blacks gave him certain pow­ ers of leverage within the official Radical party struc­ ture. In A pril and May of th at year, a number of Missouri Radicals, convinced of Turner's powers of persuasion, sent letters of recommendation, endorsing his attempt to gain the position of Minister Resident and Consul General to Liberia. These letters of recommendation attest to the value the incumbent Radicals placed on the black vote and their desire to reward someone whom they believed could deliver it. Appropriately enough, Charles D. Drake, Missouri's "Mr. Radical," and also a United States Senator, sent the first letter. Drake described Turner as "a colored gentle­ man who, in my opinion, is well-qualified for the place . . ♦ Moreover, Drake suggested to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, Turner's appointment "would give much satis­ faction to the people ofMissouri.Drake's letter was followed eight days later by one from State Superintendent of Schools, T. A. Parker, the man who had commissioned Tur-

C. D. Drake to Hamilton Fish, April 16, 1869, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis­ tration," Record Group 59, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Hereafter referred to as "Applications and Recom- 86

ner to serve as Assistant Superintendent. Parker acknow­ ledged his acquaintance with Turner, adding, "[I] cheerfully

bear testimony to his scholarly attainments." According to Parker, Turner was a man of "exemplary deportments and rare oratorical abilities." In addition, Parker concluded, "No man in the whole country has given deeper study to the

government and various relations of the Liberian Republic „51

Two days after the Parker letter was written, Mis­ souri's Radical Governor, Joseph W. McClurg, followed with

his own endorsement of Turner, whom he described simply as "a citizen of African descent." In the letter to Grant, McClurg reminded the President that Turner was currently teaching at Boonville, that he had been educated at Oberlin,

and that he had distinguished himself as an orator. "He is, McClurg wrote, "unquestionably a man of ability, sustains 52 a fine moral character and would honor the p o sitio n ."

Likewise, former Governor Thomas C. Fletcher, brother-in-

law of Madison Miller, the man whom Turner served as a body- servant during the war, joined the attempt to secure the 53 m inistership for him. Fletcher observed th at he had known mandations for the Grant Administration." S^T. A. Parker to U. S. Grant, April 24, 1869, "Appli­ cations and Recommendations for the Grant A dm inistration." w. McClurg to U. S. Grant, April 26, 1869, "Ap­ p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Grant Administra­ tio n ." 53 For the Miller-Fletcher family connection, see Chapter I, pp. 37-38. 87

Turner for "several years," He described Turner as an "in­

te llig e n t and energetic young man and a true p a tr io t." He also said he believed Turner to be fully competent to serve as Minister to Liberia, adding that "in consideration of his past course he is deserving of such a mission." "I have," Fletcher closed, "personal knowledge of his integrity as a man and think him eminently an upright man."^^ There was also a brief note from Carl Schurz, written on the back 55 of Fletcher's letter, endorsing Turner's request. Schurz's support, however, ceased when the fight over re-en­ franchisement of rebels surfaced during the summer of 1870. Other letters in support of Turner's attempt to gain the diplomatic post came from State Treasurer William H.

Dallmeyer, Secretary of State Francis Rushman, Attorney-

General H. B. Johnson, and State Auditor Dan M. Draper. Dallmeyer also described Turner as a "scholar," mentioning his education at Oberlin, adding that "he is a man of re­ finement and culture, of good moral character . . .

Secretary of State Rushman acknowledged knowing Turner per­ sonally and informed the President that "[Turner] comes well

Thomas C. Fletcher to U. S. Grant, May 28, 1869, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Administra­ tion." It is impossible to say whether or not Fletcher's "personal knowledge" of Turner's integrity referred to Turner's returning the $4,000 to Fletcher's sister. ^^C. Schurz to U. S. Grant, May 28, 1869, "Applica­ tions and Recommendations for the Grant Administration."

^^William H. Dallmeyer to U. S. Grant, April 26, 1869, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Administration." 88

recommended by some of the most in flu e n tia l men in our 57 S ta te ." Both H. B. Johnson and Dan M. Draper acknow­ ledged in their letters that they were not personally ac­

quainted with Turner, although both spoke of his "well established and deserved reputation" in the state of Mis­ souri.^® Draper's letter of April 30, 1869, was not followed by another in support of Turner u n til December 13, 1869. At that time, seven Missouri Congressmen, along with the

two Missouri Senators, Drake and Schurz, forwarded a single

letter to Grant. The letter called attention to Turner's desire to gain the Liberian ministership, adding that "Mr. Turner is a colored man of education, fine natural ability, and of unexceptionable [sic] character." In addition to Drake and Schurz, the following persons signed the letter:

J. T. Benjamin, representing Missouri's Eighth Congressional

District; J. F. Aspen, from the Seventh District; S. A. Finkelburger, from the Second D is tric t; S. H. Bayed from the

Fourth D is tric t; D. P. Dyer from the Ninth D is tric t; R. T. Vernhorn, from the Sixth D is tric t; and, S. S. Burdett, from the Fifth District.®^

®^Francis Rushman to U. S. Grant, April 29, 1869, "Ap­ p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Grant A dm inistration."

CO H. B. Johnson to U. S. Grant, A pril 30, 1869; Dan M. Draper to U. S. Grant, April 30, 1869, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Administration." 59 J. T. Benjamin, J. F. Aspen, S. A. Finkelburg, S. H. Bayed, C. Schurz, C. D. Drake, D. P. Dyer, R. T. Vernhorn, S. S. Burdett to U. S. Grant, December 13, 1869, "Applica­ tions and Recommendations for the Grant A dm inistration." 89

C learly, the endorsement of Turner seemed to party regulars to be a good political move. As Professor William Parrish, the historian of Radicalism in Missouri, wrote in reference to this list of Radicals supporting Turner:

"[that] really does not leave any party leader of signifi­ cance out, except [B. Gratz] Brown who had retired." This, Parrish continued, was "quite an accomplishment."^® Unfortunately for Turner, however. Grant had already chosen Francis E. Dumas of Louisiana to serve as Minister to L iberia. He received an appointment on A pril 21, 1869. However, Dumas declined the position on May 5, and the office remained vacant for nearly a year, until James W.

Mason was appointed on March 29, 1870.®^ One can only speculate as to why Turner was not offered the position during this period. The only hint of an explanation comes in a letter from C. A. Newcombe to President Grant, dated January 28, 1871. Newcombe indicated that during the year after Turner's initial application, "it was not then known that Mr. Turner would accept the position if offered to him

," This could mean that Turner had become so active

Kremer, "Background to Apostasy," 65. Professor Parrish made this written comment in the margin of an early typewritten draft of the article cited. Personal files of the author. ®^James A. Padgett, "Ministers to Liberia and Their Diplomacy," Journal of Negro History 22 (January 1936); 57-59. ------A. Newcombe to U. S. Grant, January 28, 1871, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis­ tration. " 90 in Missouri politics during 1869-1870 that he unofficially withdrew his application. Similarly, he may have been optimistic about a Radical victory in the Missouri guberna­ torial election of 1870 and, consequently, a position for himself somewhere in Missouri government. At any rate, af­ ter the Radical defeat in the 1870 election. Turner renewed his attempt to gain the ministership. By that time, he sought any federal appointment, suggesting a conviction that the only vehicle for upward mobility for him as a black p e r­ son was the federal, and still Radical, government.®^ The facts surrounding the actual appointment are some­ what muddled. In 1933, a prominent St. Louis businessman,

Rolla Wells, recalled in his memoirs that his father had almost single-handedly obtained the ministership for Turner.

He told how he and his family were staying in the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., when suddenly his sister became ill. His father rushed to the office of the hotel trying to find someone to go for a doctor. Unfortunately, the dis­ tressed father was unable to find another soul awake in the hotel, since it was five o'clock in the morning, and he rushed fra n tic a lly onto Pennsylvania Avenue. Just then, a black man happened to come "sauntering along," recognized Mr. Wells as a St. Louisian, and asked if he could help.

After being told that a child was quite ill, the black man raced off to locate a doctor, who "arrived in due time and

G^Kremer, "Background to Apostasy," 65. 91

all was well." That black man from St. Louis was, of course, Milton

Turner. Several days later he returned to the hotel. Mr. Wells asked him what he was doing in Washington, and Turner replied that he had been trying unsuccessfully to gain the appointment to Liberia. He had, however, abandoned all hope th at th at would happen and was trying to find a way to get back to St. Louis. Erastus Wells immediately told Tur­ ner that he would intercede with President Grant for him, asked him to stay in the city for a few days, and loaned him some money "to tide him over."®®

Erastus Wells and Ulysses Grant were, according to son Rolla, "quite friendly, having known each other in the early days when Grant was living in St. Louis." Subsequent­ ly, Mr. Wells approached the President in the White House and asked him to appoint Turner to the Liberian minister­ ship. Grant balked at the suggestion, however, claiming that the appointment of a black man to such a position was

"unprecedented."®® The President's opposition to the ap­ pointment soon faded, though, when he was told the story of

"the supposedly dying infant daughter." The President, ac­ cording to Wells, responded to the story by instructing his secretary to draw up a certificate of appointment for Milton

®4golla Wells, Episodes of My Life (St. Louis: n.p., 1933), pp. 20-23.

®®Ibid.

®®Ibid. 92

fi 7 Turner as Minister to Liberia,

More than thirty years later. Turner endorsed Rolla Wells's candidacy when the latter was running for Mayor of

St. Louis in 1901. He told an audience at a large "Negro meeting" that Erastus Wells, the father of the Democratic candidate for Mayor, had facilitated his appointment to the

Liberian ministership.®® In an interview with a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report­

er in 1898, Turner gave a somewhat d iffe re n t account of the appointment. He acknowledged that he had gone to Washington

in search of a job shortly after the Radicals' defeat in the 1870 ele c tio n . However, he did not acknowledge seeking a diplomatic post. In fact, he said he did not "aspire to

anything higher than to be a messenger at $100 a month," Purportedly, he met with the President, told him of his intentions, and was turned down flat, with Grant telling him, "he had better go home . . . ." The next day, he said, he chanced to meet the President, who was taking his morning walk in Lafayette Square, Again, the two men talked, with Grant giving him no indication of a change of heart. By that time. Turner admitted to thinking "very i l l of General G rant," and being "mad a ll over,"®®

Later that day, en route by train back to St. Louis,

*?Ibid. ®®Ibid. AQ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 March 1898, 93

Turner was invited to join a "party of office-seekers" for dinner. He declined the invitation, and the group left him alone to sulk. While passing through Pittsburgh a few min­

utes later, these men suddenly burst into his car, congrat­

ulating him on being named a United States Minister. His appointment to Liberia had been announced in the evening papers. 70' Both of these renditions of how the appointment oc­ curred ignore the more important role of Radical support in Turner's request for office. Erastus Wells was not the major force behind Turner's appointment. Neither was Tur­

ner's visit with the President. In fact. Turner received the appointment because of another round of Radical support. Within days after the 1870 election. President Grant again

received pro-Turner letters from Missouri Radicals. Lame- duck Governor Joseph W. McClurg was the f i r s t to w rite,

sending a letter dated November 10, 1870. He began by em­ phasizing to the President that he was "most earnest in the

request I now make." He wanted President Grant to consider

"the claim that J. Milton Turner, Esq. has upon the National Republican Party as well as that of th is S ta te ." McClurg emphasized that Turner could not expect anything from the party that had just come to power in Missouri. "Mr. Tur­ ner," he wrote, "has rendered services not surpassed in im­ portance and value by any man in the S tate." McClurg em­ phasized that Turner's ability was unquestioned and his

?®Ibid. 94 qualifications for a high position undoubted. "I have carefully observed Mr. Turner during the canvass," he con­ cluded, "and cannot hesitate to pronounce him a man of strict integrity. Two days later, E. S. Rowse, Treasurer for the State Republican Central Committee, wrote a letter endorsing Tur­ ner's application. Rowse asserted that Turner's "great eloquence and power have rendered great aid to the National Republican cause in this state and his services should be recognized by all who have that cause at heart." Turner, Rowse reported, had devoted much of his time and money to the success of the party. In fact, Rowse wrote, the "time and means" the black leader had devoted to the success of the party left him financially "crippled . . . but with a stout heart still devoted to the cause." Consequently, Rowse expressed the hope that Turner's "claims upon the party [would] be recognized by the A dm inistration." Rowse concluded: "no more efficient campaigner has worked in our cause and though we have not been successful our defeat has by no means been brought about for lack of earnesteffort and one [of] the most e ffic ie n t workers we had was Mr. Turner."72

Likewise, on November 12, State Republican Committee

W. McClurg to U. S. Grant, November 10, 1870, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis­ tra tio n ." T^E. S. Rowse to U. S. Grant, November 12, 1870, "Ap­ plications and Recommendations for the Grant Administra­ tion." 95

Chairman Isaac F. Shepards endorsed Turner's candidacy. He acknowledged that Turner had worked as a canvasser for the State Republican Committee, asserting that Turner was "an able speaker of intelligence and judgment, and an earnest devotee to Republican principles." He drew attention to the fact that Turner's "influence among the colored people has been very great, and I believ e," he continued, "always exerted to lead them to vote in such directions as to sus­ tain the National administration." Shepards admitted that Turner had been subjected to "peculiar circumstances." He acknowledged that the black leader had been extensively criticized by the opposition press, had been the victim of countless bribery attempts by "large money offers," and ar­ gued with "by men of power [who sought] to induce him to prove faithless to his chosen party." Shepards continued in an eloquent defense of Turner's character: "Where many white men of influence have faltered, he has stood firm; where personal friends of his own race have gone over to the bolters, he has maintained his integrity; and where pecu­ niary temptations have been preferred he has repelled them."

Such a record, Shepards concluded, entitled him "to a full 73 consideration for the service he has shown." In the meantime. Turner was still without a position and eager for the appointment. He wrote a letter of inquiry

^^Isaac P. Shepards to U. S. Grant, November 12, 1870, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Administra­ tion." 96

to Daniel T. Jewett on December 20, 1870. Jewett, a parti­ san Radical, had been appointed by Governor McClurg to fill the recently-vacated Senate seat of Charles Drake, who had

resigned.Exactly what Turner asked of Jewett is unknown, since his le t t e r cannot be found. However, something of its spirit can be gleaned from a look at Jewett's response, dated December 25, 1870. Jewett informed Turner th at he

had been to see the President with Drake, but that he had no "particular talk with him about Missouri affairs . . . ." However, Jewett added, the President had said "he would see

me on the subject any evening--if not very specially en­ gaged." Consequently, Jewett assured Turner that "at our first interview I will lay your claims before him and see what can be done." Apparently Turner had inquired about

the Santo Dominican m inistership, to which Jew ett replied

that the job would probably go to some "well known public man." He suggested that a "secretaryship [to the Santo Do­ minican mission] may possibly be open to you," although he

recalled that such an appointment would require an ability

to speak Spanish. Even should such a position be obtained, however, it would, according to Jewett, be only temporary

and of little value. "I hope something better may turn up

for you," he wrote, since "I know well the services you rendered and I believe you can be relied on for future good

74parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule. 1865-1870, pp. 315, 363n43. 97

work." Jewett concluded by noting that if he "had the run

of this place," Turner would have an appointment, assuring him that "I will do the best I can do for you."75

Roughly one month la te r . Turner traveled to Washing­

ton for an audience with President Grant. He carried with him a letter of introduction, dated January 28, 1871, writ­

ten by C. A. Newcombe, a party faithful and a personal friend of the President. Newcombe identified Turner as "the colored orator of M issouri," who, he said , had become "one

of the best representatives of his race in this country." He described Turner as a man of "liberal culture," asserting

that his superior ability was recognized even by his ene­ mies. "The colored men," he continued, "point to him with especial pride as a speciman [sic] of the natural capacity of their race." Newcombe indicated that Turner was visiting

Washington as an applicant for the Liberian ministership.

He pointed to the fact that Turner stood "high in the esteem of the colored men of this State all of whom nearly to a man were faithful among the faithless." Newcombe then went on to express the hope, in an extremely revealing statement, that "if [Turner] can go to Liberia for two years he will gain a National reputation which will make him the univer­ sally trusted leader of the colored men in the Campaign of '72." He continued:

D. L. Jewett to J . M. Turner, December 25, 1870, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis­ tra tio n ." 98

It is highly important that the colored men of the nation be held together as a unit and in no way can this be better done than by recognizing their claims in an Executive appointment such as Mr. Turner seeks. He can come back in '72 and take his place as the chosen leader of his race and whose [s i c ] claims to leadership will not be d i s p u t e d . 'O

Party faithfuls obviously viewed Turner as an actual political force in Missouri who had the potential to exert that same positive force on the national level, if he gained exposure. The President must have agreed with this analysis, for he reviewed Turner's dossier soon after the l e t t e r 's v i s i t , making the following note on the back of one of the letters of recommendation: "If the Minister to

Liberia does not accept, and leave for his post with but l i t t l e delay, I am w illin g th at th is appt. be made. U. S.

G r a n t . "77 This note, dated February 2, 1871, also gives a ring of authenticity to Turner's 1898 account of the ap­ pointment. He reported then that during his conversation with the President, Mr. Grant told him that he had appointed an Arkansas man to serve as Liberian minister, but "he had delayed his departure and was not bowed down with grati­ tude." As Turner recounted the story, Grant then "rang his bell and instructed his secretary to notify this ap­ pointee that he must start that night or not at a l l . " 7 ®

76c. A. Newcombe to U. S. Grant, January 28, 1871, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis­ tra tio n ." 77written on back of E. S. Rowse to U. S. Grant, November 12, 1870, "Applications and Recommendations for the Grant Administration."

7^St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 March 1898. 99

Less than two months a fte r th is v is it with Grant, Tur­

ner received official notification of his nomination as

Minister Resident and Consul General for the United States to the Republic of Liberia. On March 17, 1871, he wrote

to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, accepting "the exalted position thus tendered."79

After receiving Senate confirmation, the new minister

settled his personal affairs and sailed from New York on May 25, 1871. He arrived at his post on July 7, 1871.80 Turner's first-hand involvement in Missouri politics was over. On May 17, 1871, the Jefferson City People's Tribune. often the black orator's foe, offered a sympathet­

ic and generally accurate assessment of his political ca­ reer in Missouri. The Tribune described him as "the con­

necting link between the black and white politicians." As such, he led a particularly precarious existence. "His

luck," reported the newspaper, "has been like that of the flying fish who when acting as a bird gets the gull after

him, and when he drops into the water finds the shark waiting to receive him." In short. Turner was criticized

79j. M. Turner to Hamilton Fish, March 17, 1871, filed with "Despatches from United States Ministers to Liberia 1863-1906," roll 2, Microcopy No. 170, vol. 2, October 24, 1868-January 24, 1872, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 80j. M. Turner to Hamilton Fish, May 12, 1871, Despatch No. 1, July 10, 1871, "Despatches from United States Ministers to Liberia," vol. 2. 100

by both black and white politicians. He had begun his ca­ reer in politics early in 1870, as a supporter of the

Liberals in the spring city election in St. Louis. At that

time, "the Liberals . . . stood by his side on the platform,

and pledged to him their word that the revolution would not

be over until negroes were placed on juries." That was, of course, still in the days when a solidly united Republi­ can party seemed possible. After the party split, however,

he cast his lot with the Radical McClurg faction. "There­ after," the Tribune confirmed, "he became, as he claimed, the representative of 20,000 freedmen." That claim was disputed, of course, and Turner had numerous "quarrels on the stump, and everywhere with men of his own color."

"But," the paper continued, "he was triumphant."®^ At least for the moment. Turner's rise to power in

the Missouri black community, and the opposition he gener­ ated within that community, can best be understood by re­

calling John Blassingame's argument that the slaves had

their own internal social status structure, which they

applied to men who sought to become their l e a d e r s .

Turner possessed many of the characteristics listed by Blassingame as extremely important for status within the black community: f i r s t of a l l , he was not a mulatto, some­ thing Blassingame says "was the mark of degradation"; second-

Blpeople's Tribune, 17 May 1871.

BZsee Introduction, pp. 16-17, for a discussion of the Blassingame thesis. 101 ly, Turner's work with the A.M.A., Freedmen's Bureau, State

Department of Education, and Missouri Equal Rights League id e n tifie d him as someone who was trying to help blacks.

Blassingame observes that "the top rungs of the social lad­ der [were reserved] for those blacks who performed services for other slaves rather than for whites"; one of the most important ways that service could be performed, again, ac­ cording to Blassingame, was teaching the slaves, a service which Turner was deeply involved in. In addition, Blas­ singame argues, "one of the most important ways fo r a slave to gain status was to be skilled in what folklorists call the verbal arts." It is reasonable to assume that Turner's widely-acclaimed oratorical skills could have been inter­ preted by former slaves as excellence in the "verbal arts."

Finally, Blassingame states that "among the slaves accorded the highest status in the quarters was the rebel." Clear­ ly, Turner's speeches, especially early in 1870, gave the impression at least of being defiant challenges to white

Missourians.®^ Why, then, did a distrust of Turner, if even among a minority, begin to develop? The answer lies in a combination of Frazier and Muraskin's arguments. Because Turner identified himself as an aspiring bourgeois, he became, as Frazier might have argued, politically opportunistic, a tool of the Radical party machine. As blacks began to perceive that

®^Blassingame, pp. 137-152. 102

he was serving white interests, they began to question his motives. Moreover, because Turner identified with the white middle class, he tried to differentiate his own behavior from that of the masses of blacks, whom he sought to change

so that they too could enter the bourgeoisie. His con­

tinuous exhortations to blacks to become something other than what they were must have had the same effect that Muraskin argues Martin Delany's castigations had; they eventually repelled his listeners. The speech Turner delivered at Jefferson City to a largely black audience shortly before leaving for Liberia offers a good illustration of how far, in his view, he had advanced beyond the masses of blacks. Indeed, he offered his own experience as evidence of how far a black man could advance, presumably in a Radical-run America.

Turner spoke with great pride about how he appreciated his audience's confidence in his "ability to discharge the duties of this high and important mission to a foreign port." He recounted how "a few short years since," he had been "a slave in this community." He continued:

But such has been the progress of your beauteous republic in the hands of men who learn well the lessons of Washington, Jefferson, Jay and that constellation of bright heroes who laid the foun­ dation stone of our organic system; such has been the revolution accomplished under the auspices and control of their influence, that to-day instead of standing here a plodding slave I stand here the accredited representative to a foreign port.*4

^^People's Tribune, 17 May 1871. 103

He went on to promise those who had gathered to honor

him that he would keep their trust. He indicated, in what was clearly a gross misrepresentation of the facts, that "the position has been thrust on me by popular opinion.

It is not given to me of my seeking . . . ." That over­ dramatization of his appointment behind him, he went on to promise "to represent the whole United States, and the opinion of the American people . . . upon the sunny shores of Africa." He acknowledged, moreover, that he had a spe­ c ia l duty to remember "th at heretofore despised class with which I hold my humble identity . . . ." He promised black people that he would "never no never, hazard your inter­ ests." He had been, he made clear, "Born in your midst, one who has lived in this free republic from childhood, under auspicious circumstances, at risk of life and limb . . . frequently opposed [to] the institution of slavery, [and] to-day . . . the enemy of all legislation or law 8 5 that would compromise any citizen of the republic."

Clearly, Turner saw his ministerial appointment as a vindication of his belief in the Radical party as a vehicle for his own advancement, and, indistinguishably, the advancement of a ll blacks. Not only had the Radicals gone to battle for black suffrage and education, they had even made him the official representative of all American people in a foreign land. What greater proof of sincerity and

G^ibid. 104 purity of motive could there be? All would be right with a Radical-run America. Radicalism would both carry through and preserve the revolution wrought by the Civil War. Or so he thought. He could not anticipate the frustra­ tions he would suffer subsequently in the face of a rein­ vigorated racism in the late seventies and beyond. He could not know that within less than a decade, those same

Radicals would turn their backs on his own effort to be elected to a Congressional seat from Missouri’s Third Dis­ trict, and that by the late eighties he would lead a movement of blacks away from Republicanism and toward Democracy and Independency. He could not know any of these events of the future, and, not knowing them, he le f t for

Liberia with an optimism about his future and the future of the country that he would never know again. CHAPTER III

THE PRESIDENT'S MAN IN A SAVAGE LAND

Milton Turner left New York City for Liberia on May 25, 1871. He had hoped to leave earlier but was detained, primarily by a desire to oversee the enrollment of his daughter and an orphan niece in Oberlin C ollege.1 His

decision to send the two children under his care there is symbolically significant, for it represented an attempt on his part to provide them with the same opportunity for differentiation from the black masses that he had enjoyed. Indeed, it was his view of the Liberian ministership

as a position that set him apart from the black masses that he particularly cherished. As an aspiring bourgeois who sought recognition from white society, he was flat­

tered to be named the Minister Resident and Consul General

to Liberia. He reveled in the aura of irony surrounding

the appointment. As a black man in Missouri little more than one year before, he had been unable to vote. Sud­ denly he had become the number one American c itiz e n in a

Turner to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, March 12, 1871; Turner to Fish, April 10, 1871; Turner to Fish, May 25, 1871. These letters are filed with "Despatches from United States Ministers to Liberia, 1863-1906," Microcopy No. 170, vol. 2, October 24, 1869-January 24, 1872, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Hereafter referred to as "Despatches."

105 106 foreign country, the official representative of the United

States, a point that he frequently emphasized. Turner exhibited a strong affection in his corres­ pondence as minister for the country that allowed his rise to such a position of prominence. He also continued to see the Republican party as willing to allow virtuous and hard-working men, whatever their skin color, to advance up the ladder of success. The keys to advancement, he con­ tinued to maintain, were still the "piety, thrift, and respectability" of the bourgeois world. Because he found the Liberian life style so inconsistent with those values, he searched for ways to uplift what he continually referred to as a barbaric civilization, hoping thereby to become an instrument for progress and Americanization on the west coast of Africa. Unfortunately for Turner, however, his Liberian experience was destined to be interspersed with disappoint­ ments. He found the Liberian social, political, economic, and religious ways of life highly resistant to change and the Americo-blacks who had migrated there quite ineffec­ tive in civilizing the natives. Likewise, he never fully adjusted to the Liberian climate, succumbing frequently to bouts of "African fever," several of them quite severe, throughout his seven years in Liberia. Finally, the drudgery of his day-to-day routine involved him in activ­ ities that he could hardly have anticipated when he wrote 107

to Hamilton Fish, indicating that "after well matured

deliberation I have determined to accept the exalted posi­

tion thus tendered me by the government of my country ,,2

Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that Turner's frustration-induced fabricating in his 1911 Post-Dispatch

interview was added to by the disappointment he experienced

over his Liberian stay. When Turner recalled his Liberian career in 1911, he emphasized his power and the pomp and

circumstance of his p o sitio n . He remembered th at P re si­ dent Grant had personally issued a warning to him: "I sh all hold you ju st as responsible as I do the Ambassador

at the Court of St. James.If the President did make such a statement, neither he nor his Secretary of State spelled out the specifics of that responsibility, for Tur­ ner received nothing except the printed instructions given to all diplomatic agents of the United States, in addition to a general expression of confidence in his ability to do th at which would be "conducive to the harmony and friendly relations existing between the governments of the two co u n trie s.

^Turner to Hamilton Fish, March 17, 1871, "Des­ patches," vol. 2. 3gt. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911.

^Instruction No. 1, March 10, 1871, "Diplomatic Instructions of the Department of State, 1801-1906," Liberia, March 16, 1863-July 18, 1906, Microcopy No. M77, roll No. 110, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Here­ after referred to as "Instructions." 108

Turner also reported in 1911 that he had made

"several" trips to Europe while serving as minister. Upon arriving in Berlin, he said, Bismarck had "roared" the

following greeting to him: "Welcome to Germany, I'm very glad to see you." The Crown Prince, later to become

Kaiser Wilhelm, asked him about the conditions of black people in the United States, expressing "astonishment" at

the diplomat's ability to rise above the racism of his country. Turner recalled his introduction to the future King Edward VII in England and the entertainment at Windsor which followed. Likewise, he remembered how he "frequently had to obtain the intervention of United States warships and marines to protect the black republic from the inroads

of savage tribes."^

There is no evidence either in the despatches that Turner sent to the State Department or in the instructions that the Department sent to him that a European trip was ever made. The reality of his Liberian experience was much duller than the picture he painted in 1911. Likewise, he wielded less power than he claimed. Perhaps that ex­ plains why he dwelt at such length on the formalities and festivities of his office. The appurtenances of his of­ fic e se t him apart from the black masses and what he f e l t was their inferior culture; they made him respectable.

^St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911. For a de­ tailed account of this last claim by Turner, see Chapter IV. 109

Little wonder, then, that he dwelt gratifyingly on

the "festive courtesies" surrounding his official recep­

tion by the President o f Liberia on July 19, 1871. He

responded to his host's hospitality with a speech out­ lining what he hoped to accomplish as Minister to Liberia.

First he proclaimed his own importance by emphasizing that he was carrying out the "expressed command" of President Grant in making known to the Republic of Liberia his country's desire to strengthen and perpetuate friendly relations between the two states. He went on to congrat­ ulate the Liberian officials on the noble enterprise they were engaged in, revealing, in the process, his own biases against the "barbarism" of African culture and the means by which he believed Africa could be "saved." It would be, he said in tones reminiscent of his antebellum educa­ tion, "the Christian religion" that would "debarbarize and benefit for almost immediate usefulness thousands of human beings whose intellects are today debased by the destruc­ tive potency of heathenish superstition. A short time later Turner's wife wrote to a St. Louis friend of this occasion, telling her that "the President and Cabinet gave Mr. Turner a superb reception." She had been overwhelmed by the proceedings. "Just to think,"

^"Reception of the American Minister," African Repository (Washington, D.C.: American Colonization Society, 1871), vol. 47, pp. 309-313. For a handscribed version of this speech, see Enclosure 1, Dispatch No. 8, July 25, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. 110

she wrote, "of generals and colonels in uniform. Cabinet

officers, city councilmen, lawyers, doctors, other profes­ sional characters, authors, editors, poets, and other dis­ tinguished literary people, together with a live Presi­ dent and a bevy of ladies to correspond, and they, every- 7 one, colored:" Another opportunity for similar festivities pre­ sented itself six months later when a new President,

Joseph J. Roberts, was installed. Turner attended the inauguration and was officially presented to President

Roberts. On that occasion he reassured Mr. Roberts of the United States' concern for the prosperity of Liberia and

for the continued good relations between the two countries. He emphasized again that he had been "especially entrusted by His Excellency the President of the United States . . . with the responsible duty of contributing to the perpetuity of these important relations . . . ." Likewise, he assured President Roberts "that during my official residence near the Government of your country, i t sh all be my sincere object and profound pleasure . . . to discharge the duties of my important trust . . . ."® State dinners such as one given by the Liberian

President in March 1872 were common fare for the foreign

^African Repository, vol. 47, 344.

^Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 35, January 24, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 2. I ll minister. He relished the opportunity to gather with

other dignitaries, expressing delight at the number of

"distinguished persons present." On that particular oc­ casion, Mr. Roberts offered a toast to President Grant, Q to which Turner felt it "a very pleasant duty to respond."

Indeed, he rarely missed an opportunity to praise publicly the President who had given him his job, noting at one time that "there can be no more pleasant duty than that of speaking of President Grant." Presumably, he saw Grant's willingness to appoint him to a "high" governmental posi­ tion as one manifestation of the President's responsivness to theretofore oppressed Americans. Indeed, he wrote of his belief that Grant's major goal was "the utilization of every national capacity to the advancement, prosperity, and amelioration of the great-American [sic] masses

. . . Only one other Republican, Charles Sumner, was f i t to be ranked as G rant's peer. When Sumner died in 1874, Turner wrote to W. H. Lynch, the secretary of an ad hoc committee formed to commemorate Sumner's passing. He praised Sumner as "America's most s e lf-s a c rific in g hu­ manitarian," and "her most eminent statesman . . . ," sug­ gesting a conviction that he identified Sumner's egalitar­ ian attitude toward blacks as the standard by which all

^Dispatch No. 41, March 15, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3, February 6, 1872-June 20, 1873.

l^Dispatch No. 106, January 1, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4, January 1, 1874-March 4, 1875. 112

others should be judged,

The country that Grant and Sumner served was no less blessed by Turner's tributes. Once on the occasion of a Fourth of July celebration he wrote to the administrative

officers of the Republic of Liberia, informing them that

his country's celebration of its independence "is to an American under any circumstances a proper occasion for the renewal of pledges to Democratic Institutions of Govern­ ment." He went on to express the hope th a t those "same propitious Institutions" could be made to work in Liberia,

a place he identified as "the outpost of civilization in 12 th is unknown land."

Although state dinners, formal parties, and Fourth of July celebrations were important parts of the Liberian min­ ister's job, they did not occupy most of his time. Nor were his more time-consuming duties always so pleasant.

One of his most important tasks was to keep the State De­

partment up to date on the internal politics of Liberia.

That was no small task, considering the chaos of Liberia's domestic affairs when Turner arrived. Turner's identification of Liberia as an "outpost of civilization" is a useful concept in trying to understand

that country's avowed purpose in the 1870's. Liberia had

^^Turner to W. H. Lynch, June 20, 1874, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 130, June 20, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4, 12 Turner to J. J. Roberts, J. E. Moore, H. W. Dennis, and William M. Davis, July 4, 1874, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 136, July 8, 18/4, "Despatches," vol. 4, 113

been established in 1822, the product of a movement begun

by the American Colonization Society to establish a set­ tlement for freed blacks of the United States on the west coast of Africa. The colony was named Liberia, after

lib e rty , and i ts cap ital c ity , modeled a fte r Washington, D.C., was named Monrovia, a fte r President James Monroe. The political, legal, social, economic, and religious structure of the new settlement was provided by the Ameri­ can Colonization Society and modeled after that of the

United States. The task of carving out a new country in Africa was great. From the beginning, the people who settled Liberia met fierce opposition from native Africans. That opposi­ tio n , combined with the h o s tility of the climate to native

Americans, and the limited resources available to the set­ tlers, made for a high level of tension and instability in the lives of the first generation of American blacks to go to Africa. Those obstacles were overcome s u ffic ie n tly , however, to allow Liberia to declare its independence from foreign rule and se le c t its f i r s t president in 1847. By 1870 Liberia had become a successful commercial site for trade with Europe and the United States. The country had 286 miles of coast land, but it stretched back from the coast

l^Richard West, Back to Africa: A History of Sierra Leone and Liberia (New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970) , p. 115. 114 only about forty-five miles. There were probably between seven and ten thousand Liberians of American origin in the country in 1870. The first decade of Liberia's independence was dominated by President Joseph J. Roberts, who was elected in 1847 and re-elected every two years until 1855 when he was succeeded by his Vice President, General S. A. Ben- son.^4 Benson, in turn, served four terms (1856-1863).

Daniel B. Warner served as President from 1864-1867 and James S. Payne from 1868-1869.^5

All four of these men were members of the Republican party, a group which represented the mulattoes of Liberia against the blacks, who were known as Whigs. There were a number of issues on which the two p a rtie s d iffered .

The blacks wanted more skilled and well-educated immigrants from the West Indies, while the mulattoes, fearing that such people would challenge their power, wanted to en­ courage the less well educated blacks from the southern

United States to emigrate. In addition, the blacks favored opening up the interior, while the mulattoes were fearful that new trade routes might mean a lessening of their grip on the commerce of the country.

1 4 ib id ., p. 224. *15, Benjamin Brawley, A Social History of the American Negro (New York : The Macmillan Company, 1921), p. 193.

lowest, p. 238. 115

The black Whig candidate for President, Edward James Roye, won that position in 1870 after what historian Hollis Lynch has called "one of the most fiercely contested elec- 17 tions in Liberian history." He quickly committed his coun­ try to an expensive long-range plan of development. Roye, like Turner, a former Oberlin College student, had been in

Liberia since 1846. He and his Whig colleagues were de­ termined to open the interior of Liberia to settlement and trade. Such a goal could be f u lf ille d most easily by means of a railroad. "I believe," he said in his inaugural address, "that erection of a railroad will have a wonderful influence in the civilization and elevation of the native tribes." He argued that "the barriers of heathenism and superstition will disappear before the railroad . . . as frost and snow will dissolve before a summer's rain." Such an undertaking would serve to increase Liberia's exports, while also providing the country with a potentially enor­ mous market for finished goods. Unfortunately, however, such a program would be extremely expensive and burdensome for the country.1® Roye hoped to finance his scheme by securing a loan either in Europe or the United States. David Chinery,

l?H ollis R. Lynch, Edward Wilmot Blyden: Pan-Negro P a trio t, 1832-1912 (London! Oxford U niversity Press, 19671,"p. 4ÏÏ';

^®Abayomi C. Cassell, Liberia: A History of the First African Republic. Foreword by Bravid W. Harris, Introduction by Milton R. Konvitz (New York : Fountainhead Publisher's, Inc., 1970), pp. 267, 272-274. 116

Liberia's Consul General to Great Britain, and W, S,

Anderson and William H. Johnson, Liberian financiers, quickly negotiated a loan for $500,000 with a private

corporation in London. Roye publicly supported the loan, even though its terms were usurious and the agents who

arranged it were to make windfall commissions. Immediate opposition to the loan arose among Republicans. They were further angered when President Roye declared the

adoption of a constitutional amendment extending his term of office from two to four years. That was the last straw for the Republicans. They began a movement to depose 19 Roye and his government. Turner wanted to keep the State Department abreast of the events in Liberia, while maintaining close ties with both Roye's Whigs and the opposition Republicans. He wanted, however, to avoid taking sides in the controversy. Unfortunately, the problem of adjusting to the Liberian climate led him to make a move that jeopardized the neu­ trality he was so intent upon preserving. Convinced that he needed some "trustworthy person" to help him during those periods when he was ill, he hired Henry DeWitt Brown to serve as his aide. He found Brown to be particularly competent and helpful, largely because Brown had only recently retired as private secretary to the Liberian Sec-

^^Ibid., 272-274. See also. Lynch, pp. 48-52; Brawley, pp. 195-196; West, pp. 240-241. 117

retary of State. Turner quickly learned something about Liberian pol­ i t i c s , however, when, in mid-August 1871, he received a letter from Liberia’s Acting Secretary of State, informing him th at Brown was an enemy of the government and should be removed "from the re sp o n sib ility of Secretary to the United States Legation."^1 The American minister responded to this request by informing Liberian officials that Brown had no official relationship with the United States govern­ ment, and, th erefo re, could not be removed from a position he did not hold. He explained that Brown was employed only to help him during "my acclimation," informing them that the Liberian citizen was not paid by the United States Government, "but at my personal expense." He noted that his two immediate predecessors had done the same thing, "without objection being offered by the Govt, of Liberia."

He concluded by informing Liberian officials that if their government "feels still to request his dismissal and will place the matter in such terms as this legation can recog­ nise, I promise to give the subject most earnest consider- 2 2 ation." The Liberian government responded with an even

Z^Dispatch No. 10, August 26, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. 2^Sydney G. Crummell to J. Milton Turner, August 17, 1870, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 10.

Z^Turner to Sydney G. Crummell, August 18, 1871, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 10. 118

stronger insistence that Brown resign, and he soon did 50.23

The Brown incident was only one manifestation of the

strong hostilities between Whigs and Republicans. Opposi­ tion to President Roye continued to grow, with Turner giving an indication of an impending coup in September

1871. At th at time he n o tified the State Department of the assassination of Samuel S. G. Findlay, the Postmaster

General and C ollector of Customs for the Government of Liberia. The assassination occurred near Turner’s resi­

dence, when, as he told the sto ry , "sixteen or twenty men lay in ambush until the return of the Post Master Genl. from his supper and fire[d ] simultaneously upon him from his rear . . . ." The Whigs, according to Turner, described

Findlay as "an uncompromising supporter of the present ad­

ministration," while the Republicans declared that he was nothing more than a "desperado." The government’s in­ a b ility to a rre st anyone for committing th is crime led Tur­ ner to conclude that the Roye administration was in serious tro u b le .24 The coup fin a lly came in late October 1871. On the twenty-fifth of that month. Turner wrote to the State

Department, informing it that "a revolution exists in

2 3 g y d n e y G. Crummell to J. Milton Turner, August 18, 1871, Enclosure B; Henry DeWitt Brown to J. Milton Turner, August 19, 1871, Enclosure D, Dispatch No. 10. Z4üispatch No. 11, September 4, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. 119

Liberia." The following day, the American minister was formally notified that Roye had been deposed and that a

provisional government had been established.^® Two days

later the provisional government arrested and deposed the President, his Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury. Turner attended a preliminary investigation

and discovered that the President had been charged with pocketing $75,000 from the English loan.2?

The American m inister waited for only three days after the coup before extending official recognition to the new government. He assured the Chief Executive Com­ mittee that "the policy of strict neutrality with refer­ ence to any internal disturbance that may now exist within the Republic of Liberia, will be adhered to by the Govern­ ment of the United States."^8

Meanwhile, that neutrality was threatened by two separate requests made by Turner. On October 26 the c iti­ zens of Maryland County, Liberia, met in a mass meeting to

Z^Dispatch No. 18, October 25, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2; U. S., Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (1872), p. 323, here­ after referred to as Foreign Relations. 2®H. R. W. Johnson to J. Milton Turner, October 28, 1871, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 20, November 1, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2; Foreign Relations, 1872, pp. 327-328. 2?Dispatch No. 19, October 30, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2; Foreign Relations, 1872, pp. 324-326. Milton Turner to H. W. B. Johnson, October 30, 120

express their opposition to the fall of the Roye adminis­ tra tio n . They were so unhappy th at they p etitio n ed Turner

to have the area in which they lived annexed to the United

States. Turner responded that to extend protection to the

secessionists would violate the pledge of neutrality that he was committed to uphold. Similarly, President Roye wrote to Turner, swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States and asking for the protection of that government as a United States citi­ zen from "mob a c tio n ."30 The American m inister denied

Roye's request.Later, a fte r several months of con­ finement in the city jail, Roye managed to escape, only to

be pursued by a group of fifty men. According to Turner's account of what followed, Roye leaped from the beach into the sea in an attempt to swim to the small boat of an

English vessel close to shore. He drowned in the process.

Exactly how is unclear. Turner wrote that he had talked with the coroner who rendered the verdict of death by

drowning, although he also reported that an examining

1871, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 20, November 1, 1871, "Des­ patches," vol. 2; Foreign Relations, 1872, pp. 327-328. Z^H. W. Erskene to J. Milton Turner, October 26, 1871, Enclosure A; Turner to H. W. Erskene, October 26, 1871, Enclosure B; Dispatch No. 21, November 1, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. ^®E. J. Roye to J. Milton Turner, October 23, 1871, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 22, November 1, 1871, "Des­ patches," vol. 2. 3lTurner to E. J. Roye, October 26, 1871, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 22. 121

32 physician had reported a skull fracture as well.

The frenzy surrounding the 1871 revolution caused Turner great personal discomfort, leading him to express increasingly hostile criticisms of the Americo-Liberians. In February 1872 he wrote of his displeasure with the

"sensitiveness of the people of this country as relates to real or supposed interference by foreigners . . . ," adding that this "renders my position both official and social exceedingly delicate." In short. Turner's prestige had fallen during the period of the revolution because of the prevailing suspicion of foreigners and he was quite unhappy about his declining sta tu s. Two months la te r he offered a concrete example of the lack of respect th at the Liberians showed him. Li­ berian officials had been searching for the $15,000 first installment of the English loan for some time. They be­ lieved it was stolen by former President Roye. The search for the money, Turner wrote, "has been d ilig en t and p e r­ sistent, and so eager does this government seem for the capture of said monies, that its eagerness apparently gives assurances to the citizens of this country to reci­ procally suspicion [sic] each other and especially to suspect foreigners." He went on to explain that his w ife's recent illn e ss had forced the two of them to move

^^Dispatch No. 39, February 14, 1872, "Despatches,' vol. 3. S^Ibid. 122

temporarily outside of the city of Monrovia. He had left

most of his possessions in the house of his landlord.

Prior to this, he had been trying to accumulate "some English gold coin" with which to finance his sick wife's return to the United States. As it happened, Mrs, Roye gave Turner two hundred pounds in return for his personal draft. Soon after she carried the money to him. Turner's

landlord, having witnessed the exchange, concluded that the money given to Turner was part of the $15,000 first payment on the English loan. The landlord and his wife

entered Turner's room while he was out of the city,

searched his belongings, and found the money tied in a

red shawl. The Liberian immediately concluded that Tur- 34 ner was party to the th e ft.

Subsequently, Turner overheard his landlord c riti­ cizing him to a friend. The words stung Turner's pride. The landlord called him a "nigger" and a "black thieve" and complained that "we have enough [of that type] here without getting more from America." The landlord went on to say that he did not understand why a "nigger" had been sent to Liberia to serve as minister, concluding with the assertion that "we can't respect no nigger as Minister ..35

Dispatch No. 40, March 30, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. See also. Turner to H. W. B. Johnson, March 9, 1872, Enclosure A; H. W. B. Johnson to Turner, March 13, 1872, Enclosure B; Turner to H. W. B. Johnson, March 14, 1872, Enclosure C, Dispatch No. 40, "Despatches," vol. 3.

^^Ibid. There is no indication whether this land- 123

It was this last statement that particularly offended Turner, for the Liberian was trying to lump him with the

masses of blacks back in the United States, the very group

that Turner was trying to separate himself from. Hence, Turner complained bitterly that the repeated personal in­

dignities to which he had been subjected had led him to the conclusion that "the policy of our President in ap­

pointing a negro citizen of the U. S. to this country is not fully appreciated . . . That distressed him be­ cause even if others did not understand, he was, he said,

"fu lly aware and highly appreciative of the importance of

the position taken by the Administration in the presence of our entire country in elevating one like myself to a position of such great responsibility, trust, and confi­

dence." Indeed, he continued, it was the very importance of his position that led him to feel a responsibility toward the United States government, but also to the people of L iberia, a s ta te , he noted, "which is composed of men with whom I am identified by blood and r a c e ."36

Hence, notwithstanding the insults that had been in­

flicted upon him, he still felt obligated to play a role in the advancement of Liberian civilization. Consequently, in May 1872 he forwarded an optimistic four-thousand-word dis­ patch, assessing the "national capacities, present condi- lord was black or white.

3®Ibid. 124

tion, and future prospects of Liberia," as a means by which to enlighten that country as to the steps it needed to take to make progress. He began by emphasizing the vast potential of the small republic. Liberia, he wrote, was "better adapted to the rapid progress of civilization than any African te r rito r y . . . ." I t had good harbors and was blessed with an abundance of streams and rivers. Its soil, he wrote, was "inexhaustibly productive." In short, he said, "the liberality of nature . . . is quite suffi­ cient for the purposes of Christianity . . . [and] no country better compensates industry, especially the labor 37 of the farmer, than does Liberia." Indeed, it was for the "purposes of Christianity" that the little republic existed. Turner spoke with ap­ proving affection of the Araerico-Liberians who had left their country behind so that they might spread "among their still benighted brethren the softening influences of 38 Christian light and love." Liberia’s mission was to e sta b lish a C hristian commonwealth which would serve as a "radiating force . . . in the civilizing and Christian­ izing [of] Africa." To accomplish that goal. Turner con­ tinued, Liberia needed men, education, and wealth. Those three elements would provide "the beginning of civiliza­ tio n ," but the completion of the task would be le f t to the

^^Dispatch No. 45, May 25, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3; Foreign Relations, 1872, pp. 330-337.

3*Ibid. 125

native Africans. In keeping with the bourgeois rhetoric

he had employed on the campaign trail in 1870, Turner urged the Liberian government to adopt a policy of taking aborig­ ines out of the hinterlands of Africa and sending them to Christian countries for education. "In the adoption of

such a policy," he wrote, "lies Liberia's most direct route of developed nationality; her grandest prospects for the future." The ultimate success of such a plan was as­

sured, Turner concluded, because it was God's will. He would not have endowed Liberia and Africa generally with

such rich natural resources had He not intended "the

evangelization of Africa . . . ."39

Turner carried this paternalistic feeling of su­ periority over into his relations with the aborigines he

came into contact with. Nowhere is that more evident than

in the account he gave of an 1874 v is it by a group of natives of the Vey tribe who "serenaded" him. He wrote to the State Department that their music and instruments

reminded him of the customs of the still primitive North

American Indians. He relished the opportunity to meet with them in his " o ffic ia l capacity" and f e lt certain that he had persuaded them of the United States government's desire to see "the elevation and civilization of the aboriginal tribes of Africa." He was impressed by the Vey and suggested that they would be prime candidates for

S^Ibid. 126

civilization. They already had a language, he wrote, which had been "found susceptible of, and reduced to grammar." Likewise, he continued, they had shown "indications of

inventive genius, general teachableness, [a] desire to be advanced and . . . learn and adopt the ways of civiliza­ tion . . . ." Hence, it seemed reasonable to him to as­ sume that the Vey would play an important part in the future expansion and maturation of the Liberian state.4® Liberia's primitiveness led Turner continually to express the hope that the government would somehow be able to harness effectively the country's natural resources. On December 31, 1873, he reported to the F ifth Auditor of the United States Treasury that the Liberian legislature was considering several proposals to locate and develop the country's mineral resources. Such proposals, if en­ acted, would have a salutary effect on the country, for they would put many people to work, people "now unemployed and aim less," and would channel them "to the s o il,- - th e only real source of commercial greatness. The country's inability to pull itself out of finan­ cial trouble placed Turner in a delicate position in 1873, when the State Department instructed him to collect a debt

4®Dispatch No. 143, August 22, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. It should be recalled that it was the Vey tribe from which Turner claimed in 1911 to be descended. See Chapter I , p. 27. 4lTurner to Fifth Auditor, United States Treasury Department, December 31, 1873, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 105, December 31, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 127

due the United States. In October 1869 the Republic of Liberia purchased "arms and munitions of war" totalling $38,684.14 from the United States. The debt was to be paid by October 19, 1872. When th at date passed without any money changing hands. Turner was instructed to collect. On April 19, 1874, he presented an account of indebtedness to the Liberian government and followed it up with a per­ sonal audience with President J. J. Roberts, during which he asked for payment on the account. Roberts expressed the conviction th at "the Government of the United States will probably, in view of Liberia's embarrassed financial condition, forgive the debt without payment thereof. On May 17, 1873, the Liberian Secretary of State penned a formal response to Turner's request for payment. He apologized for his government's failure to respond earlier, but laid the blame for that negligence on the political troubles that had surrounded the revolution of 1871. The Secretary referred to the embarrassing finan­ cial situation of his government and asked Turner to apprise the United States of the same. He expressed the belief that the amount was so small a sum for such a great country as the United States that the latter would cancel the debt.*^

^^Dispatch No. 74, April 25, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3; Turner to H. R. W. Johnson, April 19, 1873, En­ closure A, Dispatch No. 74. 43H. R. W. Johnson to Turner, May 7, 1873, Enclosure 128

Turner followed a week later with a letter to Hamil­

ton Fish, offering his assessment of the situation. He reported that he was fully satisfied "of the inability of

Liberia to pay this or any other one of her several for­ eign debts." Indeed, he doubted that the Liberians could afford to pay even the interest due. He knew, he wrote, "of no fact more strikingly apparent to the most casual observation than the general absence of money throughout the Republic of Liberia." This predicament was due

largely to "unskilled management" of fin an cial a f fa ir s . Liberia's financial problems were hard to understand, he said, particularly when one contemplated "the untiring willingness of the soil to liberally remunerate the labor of the farmer . . . ," Hence, he returned to a familiar theme, arguing that "the impoverished condition of the masses" in Liberia was due to the failure of the govern­ ment "to make the cultivation of the soil the principal

industry of their country." Coffee, he wrote, could easily become the most remunerative agricultural product of the country, if only some attention would be given to

its growth. That was not being done, however, because there was a widespread tendency in the country to indulge in "continued consumption without adequate production."

He warned that unless the people broke out of that lethar-

A, Dispatch No. 74. Note an error in lettering the en­ closures, for both this enclosure and Turner's letter to Johnson are marked "Enclosure A." 129 gic state of mind, Liberian finances would remain "impo­ tent" and the independence which could result from self- reliance would continue to escape the country.** On October 1, 1873, Turner reported his government's decision to Liberian Secretary of State Johnson. He told Johnson that President Grant accepted the problems of

Liberia as sufficient justification for the past delay in paying the debt, but that the President wanted the interest of $9,168.15 paid as soon as possible.*5 The 46 in te re st was fin a lly paid in August 1874.

Not all of Turner's time in Liberia was spent re­ porting on Liberian politics, offering philosophical as­ sessments of the country's potential, or collecting old debts. A good deal of it was spent in performing routine, clerical chores. The most routine of all his tasks was that of simply acknowledging receipt of the instructions sent to him by the State Department. In addition, there was always the task of keeping an

Dispatch No. 74, May 14, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. Note that there are two dispatches marked "No. 74," one dated April 25, the other May 14.

*®Turner to H. R. W. Johnson, October 1, 1874, En­ closure A, Dispatch No. 88, October 20, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. *®Dispatch No. 112, March 4, 1874; Dispatch No. 141, August 10, 1874; Dispatch No. 144, August 22, 1874, "Des­ patches," vol. 4. *^Nearly twenty-one percent of the 306 dispatches sent by Turner during his Liberian career were devoted primarily to acknowledging receipt of instructions. 130 adequate amount of supplies available in the legation.

When he first arrived in Liberia he surveyed the consu­ late's inventory and discovered that he did not possess the consular arms or an American flag, both of which he quickly ordered.*® In addition, he found that he needed more than a dozen different kinds of blahk forms to carry out his bureaucratic chores.*^ Likewise, he had to make quarterly reports to the

State Department, as well as annual reports. The quar­ terly report included a list of all official letters sent from the Liberian consulate, along with a brief notation of the contents of those letters; an indication of the number of enclosures forwarded with each le tte r , and the amount of postage required by each piece of correspondence.

Also, each letter received at the consulate had to be recorded. A record had to be kept of every American vessel either arriving at or leaving Liberia. The report had to show the month and the day th at the ship arrived or de­ parted, its class, name and tonnage. It had to show the

48Dispatch No. 6, July 12, 1871; Dispatch No. 7, July 13, 1871; "Inventory of the Archives of the U.S. Legation at Monrovia," Dispatch No. 7, "Despatches," vol. 2. *^Dispatch No. 16, September 30, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. The following dispatches have to do primarily with ordering or receiving supplies for the legation; No. 1, July 12, 1871, vol. 2; No. 15, September 30, 1871, vol. 2; No. 38, February 6, 1872, vol. 3; No. 86, Septem­ ber 30, 1873 vol. 3; No. 122, April 29, 1874, vol. 4; No. 135, July 7, 1874, vol. 4; No. 283, December 1, 1877, vol. 7. 131

name of the port from which the ship had set sail, when it was built, where it was built, where its home base was, where it was bound, the name of its owners, and the name of its master. In addition, each quarterly report had to include statements about the ship's cargo, including

where it was produced, where it was manufactured, if

applicable, a general description of the cargo, its

quantity, and an assessment of its value. Next, the re­

port required the listing of names of any deceased Ameri­ can citizens in Liberia, along with an estimation of the value of a deceased person's belongings left with the consulate, and an accounting of the disposition of those belongings. That list also had to include the permanent

place of residence of the deceased, where he or she had died, and what vessel he had belonged to if a seaman.^®

As the official representative of the United States,

30"Quarterly Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 1871," Dispatch No. 14, September 30, 1871, "Des­ patches," vol. 2. The following dispatches contain quar­ terly or annual reports; No. 14, September 30, 1871, vol. 2; No. 36, January 24, 1872, vol. 2; No. 42, March 31, 1872, vol. 3; No. SO, June 30, 1872, vol. 3; No. 66, November 5, 1872, vol. 3; No. 68, December 31, 1872, vol. 3; No. 104, December 31, 1873, vol. 3; No. 117, March 31, 1874, vol. 4; No. 131, June 30, 1874, vol. 4; No. 149, September 30, 1874, vol. 4; No. 159, A pril 16, 1875, vol. 4. In April 1875 Turner was instructed to separate future diplomatic and consular correspondences forwarded to the State Department. Consequently, the quarterly and annual reports for the remainder of his term in Liberia are contained in "Despatches From United States Consuls in Monrovia, Liberia, 1852-1906," Microcopy No. 169, vol. 3, April 15, 1875-August 11, 1882, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Turner filed thirty-six consular reports. 132

Turner found himself the recipient of a wide variety of

requests made upon his government. In December of 1872,

for example, he became the caretaker of an American sea­ man who had been discharged from the ship Albert while it stood in the harbor of Monrovia. Turner reported that he

attempted to get the seaman, John H. Myers, to leave Liberia for England, "but he did not seem inclined to leave, his appearance [and] manner proclaim him to be a

man of reckless habits . . . ." Some days later, word was brought to Turner that Myers had fallen desperately ill, the victim of African fever. Turner immediately dispatched his personal physician to care fo^ the stricken seaman,

but the effort was in vain, for Myers died "sixty hours after his illness had been brought to my attention." Tur­ ner reported that after Myers's death he had discovered

that the deceased "wasted his money most reckless[ly] by

buying whole cases of Gin, and making extravagant presents . . . ." As a result, Myers died penniless. Consequently,

Turner felt obliged to pay the balance due on his board

bill and also covered the seaman's funeral expenses.®^ On another occasion, in 1873, Turner suddenly found himself trying to care for three orphaned children. The

children's mother had died suddenly, leaving Turner with the responsibility of returning them safely to relatives in the United States. Locating relatives who were willing

®^Dispatch No. 28, December 22, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2, 133 and able to pay the children's way to America and to care for them once they were there was not easy. In the mean­ time, someone had to look after the children. Two of them had some semblance of temporary care, although in the case of "little Anthony," Turner remarked, the poverty of the aged widow who cared for him "vies in many respects with that of the child." The oldest of the three, Clar­ ence, had no one to turn to , and he became the recip ien t of the American minister's personal sympathy. "The result is," Turner wrote, "that . . . notwithstanding my financial inability long to continue such a course, [Clarence] is now with me at Monrovia, an attendant upon the school of this place, and undergoing treatment for a horrid ulcer upon his le ft ankle, of more than eighteen months stand­ ing. "5% Another of Turner's routine jobs was to facilitate the development of American business interests in Liberia. In 1873, for example, when he was temporarily in the United States, the State Department instructed him to con­ tact D. C. Perrin and Company, a manufacturing firm, of Battlemarch Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Upon arriving in Boston, Turner received a letter from a Perrin spokes­ man, outlining the company's goals. Perrin and Company had recently been given a sample bale of something they labeled "bamboo fibre" by two merchants named Lewis, also

S^Dispatch No. 59, September 6, 1972; Dispatch No. 79, August 1, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 134 of Boston. The Lewises obtained the material in Liberia and hoped to sell it to Perrin on a regular basis. The company was much impressed with palm fibre. "It is," the spokesman wrote, "very tough [and] colors e a sily , and thus becomes an excellent m aterial for us to weave with a c o t­ ton warp to manufacture as banding for cheap hats, to take the place of cotton ribbons, which are imported from Eng­ land and Germany." Consequently, Perrin had a number of questions to ask about the fibre, all of which its repre­ sentative addressed to Turner "at the suggestion of Hon.

Hamilton Fish . . . ." Perrin wanted to know how cheaply the fibre could be obtained, and whether it could "be prepared for the looms to the best advantage in Liberia, where labor is cheap . . . ." Perrin even suggested that if it could be obtained cheaply enough, the company would consider establishing a branch of its business in Liberia. Perrin added in a postscript, "for reasons that will be obvious to you, we should prefer that you would be inde- 53 pendent of the Mess, [sic] Lewis agent." Subsequently, Turner referred Perrin's request to a firm known as B. P. Yates and Sons of Monrovia, Liberia, and arranged a meeting between the two businesses. The

Yates firm promised to become a supplier of palm fibre to Perrin. Turner assured Perrin that Yates could be trusted.

53 D. C. Perrin and Company to Turner, February 20, 1873, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 98, December 30, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 135

explaining "I am personally acquainted with both the

partners of B. P. Yates and Son and feel confident you may

rely upon their statement. It was more than a routine duty that Turner performed

when he encouraged American businessmen to invest in Libe­

ria, however. Given the country's continued consumption

without adequate production, its inefficiency and aimless­ ness, he became increasingly convinced that Liberia would become prosperous only if it had present on its soil Ameri­ can c a p ita lis ts who would serve as both models and prods to

Liberian business. Consequently, it was in that spirit of bourgeois training that he promoted another business venture in May 1874.55 Edward S. Morris of Phildelphia

and his business associates wrote to Turner, expressing the desire "to build up in a substantial manner, between

Liberia and this city in particular a substantial trade."

He informed Turner that the Liberian government had granted

them five "Letters Patent," two for hulling coffee and three for manufacturing indigo, and asked Turner to let him know i f the m inister became aware of any infringements of the contract.56

S^Turner to D. C. Perrin and Company, no date. En­ closure B, Dispatch No. 98, December 30, 1873, "Des­ patches," vol. 2. See, also, B. P. Yates to D. C. Perrin and Company, December 20, 1873, Enclosure C, Dispatch No. 98. S^Dispatch No. 125, May 19, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. S^Edward S. Morris to Turner, March 10, 1874, Enclo- 136

Turner responded with an "expression of my high appreciation," and added his prediction that if the venture was given the proper care, it would be virtually impossible not to succeed. He expressed the desire to help in any­ way that he could, but he also took the opportunity to tell Morris how grateful he was for what the latter was doing. Turner’s effusive language and clear message war­ rant quoting him at length. Turner told Morris that he wanted to express to you both my gratitude for your per­ sistent effort and determination to aid in the grand work of evangelizing and c iv iliz in g A frica, and my high appreciation of your apparent comprehension of the means needed to remove the wants of this Republic. Your philanthropic effort to spread the sunshine of modem progress in the bhadowy places of this mighty, but unknown land, unlike the great majority, does not pause to spend its strength in fruitless endeavor upon the Americo-Liberian, but goes directly to the native African or aborigine-- the only real hope for this country's future .... Your valuable machine is not only an economy to the coffee planter, but the native African, by con­ tact therewith, shall find it not only capable of utilizing his labor, but of educating, elevating, and advancing him toward civilization.5?

While Turner held out the hope th at American c a p ita l­ ists would eventually uplift the African natives, he was less certain about his own ability to persevere in Liberia. Perhaps his greatest difficulty in that country was his inability to adjust to its climate. He had been in Africa for less than a month when he was stricken with what he sure A, Dispatch No. 125. 5?Turner to Edward S. Morris, Esq., May 19, 1874, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 125. 137

described as a "severe illness."5® It had, of course,

been his illness during the "acclimation period" that had prompted him to h ire the controversial Henry DeWitt Brown

as an aide.®^ Unfortunately, he never became fully accli­ mated. On December 2, 1871, he reported to the State De­

partment that he had been suffering for the past twenty days from a severe attack of African fever, noting "[I]

find myself recovering very slowly indeed."®® That attack continued through much of December, with Turner still in confinement when he was confronted with the problem of the

American seaman, John Myers. By May 30, 1872, the American diplomat still had not been able to rid himself of this sickness. He wrote to the State Department, informing Secretary Fish that he had been suffering from African fever since November 7, 1871.

He noted that his physician had repeatedly suggested that

he leave Liberia temporarily. He had, however, thus far

"preferred to remain at my post of duty . . . ." His weakened condition caused him to reconsider that decision,

though, and he requested a leave of absence " u n til such

Turner to Sydney G. Crummell, July 28, 1871, En­ closure C, Dispatch No. 9, July 31, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. S^Dispatch No. 10, August 26, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. ®®Dispatch No. 27, December 2, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. ^IDispatch No. 28, December 2, 1871, "Despatches," vol. 2. 138

time as I shall be able to recruit strength to endure the severity of this climate . . . He enclosed a doctor's statement, attesting to his illness and his need for a

f i 2 change of climate. The leave was granted, although Turner was unable to

depart until the middle of August. He chose Professor Martin Henry Freeman, presumably a Liberian c itiz e n and a professor at Liberia College, to perform his duties while he was gone. Turner noted in a dispatch to the State De­ partment that in view of the fact that the department would o ffe r no compensation to Professor Freeman, he would pay the professor himself.®^ Turner made his quarterly report from his home in St. Louis on November 6, 1872.®* On November 22, 1872, he wrote to Hamilton Fish, indicating that his address had been changed from St. Louis to New Richmond, Ohio.®® In addition, he requested a twenty-five day extension of his leave. He explained that he made that request "because of the continued interference of ill health with the discharge of certain personal duties which demand my attention prior

®^Dispatch No. 46, May 30, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. ®5Dispatch No. 57, August 15, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. ®*Turner to Hamilton Fish, November 6, 1872, filed with Dispatch No. 66, November 5, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. ®®Presumably, th is was where his wife had gone when 139

to my departure to resume my official duties at Mon­

rovia."®® Turner was granted the additional days, but was still unready to return to Liberia by mid-January 1873. Con­

sequently, he requested another extension of his leave.

He explained to the State Department that "much of my leave of absence was used by me in observing the general

condition of my own people in the Southern States." As a result of these travels, he found himself in Vicksburg, Mississippi, waiting for his baggage and papers to be shipped to him by rail. "I will be forced to remain here

some days," he wrote, "or loose [sic] personal effects of greater value than I am monetarily able at present to re­ place."®^ He did not return to his post of duty until April

17, 1873, more than six months a fte r he had left.®® During the next year Turner had frequent, although milder, attacks of African fever. On April 30, 1873, he again wrote to Hamilton Fish, informing the Secretary that she left Liberia. Her daughter later testified that Mrs. Turner had been from the Cincinnati area. New Richmond is only a short distance from Cincinnati. Perhaps she had relatives there. Testimony of Lillie B. Mason, Charles W. Turner et al. vs. Miltonia Turner Hill, et al., Case No, 2884, CircïïTt“üourt, Division 2, St. Louis,“Missouri. G^Turner to Hamilton Fish, November 22, 1872, filed with Dispatch No. 66. ®^Turner to Hamilton Fish, January 14, 1873, filed with Dispatch No. 68, "Despatches," vol. 3. G^Dispatch No. 71, April 18, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 140

he had been suffering from African fever for an extended period. The illness had been particularly severe during a three-month period prior to his writing, forcing him to be

confined to his room inste d of going to the legation. Again, he reported th at his physician had to ld him to

leave Liberia for sixty days, advice that he had ignored because he wanted to stay at his post. He could stand it no longer, however, and again he asked the State Depart- 69 ment for a leave of absence. The second leave was granted and Turner left Liberia 70 on October 25, 1874. He arrived in Washington, D.C., on November 28 and reached his home in St. Louis on November

30. From St. Louis, he went again to New Richmond, Ohio.71 Four days before his leave was to expire. Turner wrote to the State Department requesting an extension. He indi­ cated that he had "discovered that it is necessary for me to wait until about the last days of next month for direct transit from the United States to my post in Africa . . . ."

Therefore, he "reluctantly" requested the Department to extend his leave twenty-six days. He concluded by inform-

®^Dispatch No. 123, April 30, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. 7®Dispatch No. 152, October 25, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. 7^Turner to Hamilton Fish, January 21, 1875, filed with Dispatch No. 154, December 31, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. 141

ing the Department that if it consented to extend his

leave, he planned "to spend a portion of that time, in making an informative v is it of very general nature, to several citizens of the more eastern cities, who bestow

and direct much of the philanthropy now going from the ,7272 United States to Liberia." He finally arrived back in 73 Liberia on A pril 12, 1875. He had, by that time, been the Liberian minister for nearly four years. Liberia had not yet reached that state of "debarbarization" that Turner had looked forward to

upon his a rriv a l there in 1871. I f anything, his tenure

in that West African country had further convinced him of the seriousness of the Liberian problem. The minister­

ship had not given him the kind of life that he had ex­ pected. Many things had happened over the four years that he could hardly have anticipated. The 1871 civil war had

introduced him to the intense political animosity and

instability in the country. Although he retained an ex­

alted view of his position and continued to see himself as

superior to both the black masses in America:and Africa,

he had to admit that he was not universally admired in Liberia. He often participated in gala affairs open only

to those in the country's political inner sanctum, but he

^^Turner to Hamilton Fish, January 26, 1875, filed with Dispatch No. 154, December 31, 1874, "Despatches," vol. 4. 73nispatch No. 155, April 12, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 4. 142 spent more time f illin g out forms and processing often de- pressingly mundane requests for his services. Even had all else about the ministership been totally rewarding, his poor health would have prevented full enjoyment. Still, his notion of what Liberia needed to help it pass into the modern age remained unshaken. Little won­ der, then, that he should seek the financial support of American philanthropists upon his return to the United States. If anything, he had become increasingly eager to help American businessmen and philanthropists export capi­ talism and Christianity to Liberia. He continued to think of himself as an instrument of education and progress in Africa. Despite all of the problems, therefore, he was not ready to remain in America for good, and so, he returned to the outpost of civilization that he had left six months before. There was s t i l l work to be done. CHAPTER IV

THE PRESERVATION OF A NOBLE EXPERIMENT

James Milton Turner returned to Liberia in April

1875 and w ithin six months was confronted with the d if ­ ficult situation of another civil war in Liberia. In this instance, the rebellion was by members of the Grebo tribe against the central government of the nation. Turner, fearful both for the safety of Americans in Liberia and for the survival of the Liberian republic, sided with the government and ultimately facilitated armed intervention

into the war by the United S tates. The Grebo War was not, however, the only problem Turner faced. Rather, it was to him only a symptom of the

sorry state of Liberian internal affairs. The black diplo­

mat became increasingly d isillu sio n e d with what he con­

sidered to be the Liberian government's penchant for pur­ suing self-defeating policies. In particular, he was un­

happy with what he thought was continuous harassment of

American business interests. Turner retained the conviction that American entre­ preneurs, by setting up businesses in Liberia, could pro­ vide a bourgeois model of behavior for the aborigines of the hinterland. Having done that, Liberia would then be­

143 144 come the prototype of "piety, thrift, and respectability" for all of Africa. But how could the Americo-Liberians be assisted in spreading the bourgeois gospel when they insisted on pursuing short-sighted policies that jeopar­ dized the achievement of that goal? They did not know how to treat the natives in Liberia, and that led to a running battle between aborigines and the more civilized settlers.

Moreover, the Liberians were hostile to foreigners, par­ ticularly businessmen, who, Turner believed, should be kindly treated because their capital, sound business prac­ tices, and general bourgeois example were needed if Liberia was to show any progress.

By 1877, then, when an upsurge of eraigrationist sentiment among American blacks led to attempts to estab­ lish colonies in Liberia, Turner came out strongly against such colonization schemes. The ineffective wrong-headed- ness of the Liberian government, combined with the ever­ present unhealthy African climate, made Liberia no place for the black American masses. That position brought down upon him the wrath of both the American Colonization So­ ciety and the Liberian government. Consequently, when his health fin a lly forced him to resign his post in 1878, he expressed no regrets about leaving Africa.^

Ipor the only published accounts of Turner's years in Liberia, see Irving Billiard, "James Milton Turner: A Little Known Benefactor of His People," Journal of Negro History 19 (October 1934): 381-405; Gary R. Kremer, "Back­ ground to Apostasy: James Milton Turner and the Republican Party," Missouri Historical Review 71 (October 1976): 67-72. 145

Turner, it will be recalled, had been given no specif­ ic instructions upon assuming his position as Minister to

Liberia. Hence, his handling of the Grebo War was more the product of his own notions about how the matter should be handled rather than the result of State Department direc­ tives. His career, then, fits comfortably into what Robert L. Beisner has defined as "Old Paradigm" diplomacy.

Beisner argues that from the end of the Civil War to at least the advent of the Harrison administration in 1889, guidance offered to American diplomats sent abroad was "minimal and vague." That was due primarily to what Beis­ ner calls "the core assumption of the Old Paradigm--that the United States was safe, her security threatened in no way by anyone.Consequently, it was not unusual that policy proposals should flow from the field to the State

Department rather than the other way around. Turner first mentioned the problems with the Grebo trib e in a dispatch w ritten on September 7, 1875. He in ­ formed the S tate Department that the Grebos had declared war against the Liberian government "and are under arms and strongly intrenched at Cape Palmas and along the Ca- valla River, a distance of thirteen miles southeast by east from Cape Palmas . . . ." The Grebos, according to

Turner, numbered approximately 30,000 persons. Their com-

Zpobert L. Beisner, From the Old Diplomacy to the New, 1865-1900, The Crowell American History Series (New York : Thomas Y. Crowell Company, In c ., 1975), p. 39. 146

plaint against the Liberian government was that it had

sanctioned the th e ft of land from them by a group of

American-born blacks at Cape Palmas under the auspices of the Maryland Colonization Society.^ The Grebo-Liberian government conflict had existed

since the founding of the Cape Palmas colony in 1857. Repeated efforts at reconciliation were unsuccessful. Moreover, the Grebo tribesmen were feared as p o te n tia lly powerful foes. According to Turner, there was a wide­

spread conviction in the country th at the Grebos had been taught to use firearms in the American Episcopal mission

school at Cape Palmas.* The American minister acknowledged the seriousness of

the problem but laid most of the blame on the Liberian gov­ ernment. The leaders of the small republic, he argued,

had not made the proper efforts to forestall such a crisis. If the Liberian experiment was to prove successful. Turner

argued, then the Americo-Liberians would have to elevate

the African aborigines and move them into the mainstream of the c iv iliz e d world, not antagonize them. Turner was

especially galled because the Liberians had found it impos­ sible even to avoid an armed conflict "with the only

trib e of aboriginal Liberians upon which schools, and the influence of civilization have made any considerable impres -

^Dispatch No. 178, September 7, 1875 , "Despatches,' vol. 5; Foreign R elatio n s, 1875, p. 831. ^Foreign Relations, 1875, p. 833. 147 sion . . . It was plain to see, he argued, that the government's policy toward the natives was a "downright failure . . . In particular. Turner found deplorable the govern­ ment's policy of perpetuating the notion of "two distinct and separate classes" in Liberia. The government was failing in its responsibility to assimilate the natives into the civilized business and social activities of the country. The natives could not be ignored nor simply dis­ missed as an inferior class; they had to be educated and their skills used if the Liberian state was to prosper.^ If only the Liberian government had used more ef­ fectively the medium of the Episcopal schools. Turner ar­ gued, they could have induced the aborigines "to enter and become an integral part of the sovereign state of Li­ beria."^ Turner's view of the role to be played by mis­ sionaries, especially the Methodists and Episcopalians , was best summed up in his assertion that "the aggression of Christian missionaries upon heathenism is always the harbinger of the highest civilization . . . ." In 1878 he would recall, in reference to the Methodist and Epis­ copalian missions, that "no two movements in Liberia . . .

^Dispatch No. 189, November 3, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. Gibid. ^Dispatch No. 178, September 7, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5, Foreign R elations, 1875, p. 834. 148

have been more capable if strongly supported, of material

contribution at one and the same time to the welfare of the

aboriginal tribes and to secure the final permanency of demo­

cratic institutions of government in these parts of western A frica." Those two American churches represented a d irect

assau lt upon "mahomadanism [s i c ] and upon the su p erstitio u s traditions and fetish worship of the African tribes who dwell in this quarter . . . ."® The efforts of the missionaries, however, had been negated by the faulty decision making and general insensi­ tivity of the Liberian government, and, consequently, assimi­ lation did not take place. As a result, violence could not be fo restalled and the f i r s t major b a ttle of the Grebo War

occurred on September 8-9, 1875. An attack party of Grebo

tribesmen, "armed with excellent Snyder rifles," assailed

Cape Palmas. The attack was repelled, but only after six

Liberians were k ille d and an undetermined number were wounded.

Turner grimly proclaimed his b e lie f th at the Grebos might

fight on indefinitely, in view of the fact that they were

fig h tin g for the land th at had always been th e ir home.^ The implications of the war for Americans in Liberia became apparent soon after the actual fighting started. On

^Dispatch No. 296, February 15, 1878, "Despatches," vol. 7.

^Dispatch No. 178, September 7, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5, Foreign Relations, p. 835. 149

September 20, 1875, William Allen Fair of the American

P rotestant Episcopal Church mission informed Turner th a t two members of the mission at Cavalla, in Maryland County, as well as the American property th ere, were "in danger in consequence of the war between the natives and the

Liberians." Communications with the m issionaries had been cut o ff. Fair wrote, and he expressed the view th a t "the only way they can be gotten out from there is by means of an American 'Man of War.'"^^

The American minister responded to Fair's request on

October 7. He indicated that his inquiries had led him to believe that the missionaries in question were British sub­ jects, not American citizens. He had, however, asked the Liberian government to do what it could to insure the safe­ ty of the two. He explained that for the moment, however, he could not even extend protection to American property in the area. The Liberian government was obligated to protect such property "by Treaty s tip u la tio n ," and he could not interfere without a formal governmental request. Mean­ while, he explained, as the representative of the United

States, he was bound to take a stand of "strict neutral­ ity ."^ ^ The government's request came quickly, however.

William A. Fair to Turner, September 20, 1875, En­ closure A, Dispatch No. 183, October 7, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. l^Turner to William A. Fair, Dispatch No. 183, Octo­ ber 7, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. 150

Within four days of his letter to William Fair, Turner indicated in a telegram to Hamilton Fish that the Liberian government had informed him of its inability to protect Americans or American property. Furthermore, the govern­ ment wanted Americans removed from the native towns for their own protection. In consideration of these dire cir­ cumstances, Turner closed by suggesting that an American 1 2 ship-of-war be sent immediately to Cape Palmas. He followed with a lengthy letter to the State De­ partment on October 11, 1875, in which he clarified the problem and argued for United States intervention in the

Grebo War. Liberian o ffic ia ls had informed him of th e ir inability to protect United States citizens or property rights in Maryland County. He had responded by telling the

Liberians that the United States would, therefore, assume that role. He then set forth the argument that Liberia would be "incalculably benefited" by American assistance in her effort to put down the Grebo rebellion. The govern­ ment's army, he reported, numbered only one thousand men and its supplies were meager. In contrast, the Grebos, he explained, had a population numbering more than twice the civilized population of Liberia. Moreover, they were capa­ ble of enduring the hardships of war in a tropical climate.

In addition. Turner emphasized, "two thirds of the Ameri­ can [business] interests in Liberia are situated in Mary-

^^Turner to Hamilton Fish, n. d ., filed with Dis­ patch No. 184, October 11, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. 151

land County . . . Just as importantly, Turner argued, there was a serious threat of the rebellion spreading to other aborigr inal tribes. Should that happen, Monrovia, the nation's capital, would be defenseless. Consequently, he wrote,

Americans living in Liberia were unanimous in th e ir view of the need for the presence of a United States man-of-war on Liberia's coast. Logistically, he explained, the impact of the ship could be maximized quite easily since the Grebos were, in most cases, congregated close to the sea­ shore and could, therefore, offer little resistance. In fact. Turner argued, "one ship-of-war could disable their campaign in a few hours, by destroying th e ir towns, and demolishing their works." The very presence of such a ship might by itself be sufficient to restore peace, and "create for Liberia a moral influence with the tribes now so gener­ ally r e s tiv e ."1*

The day after forwarding this letter. Turner sent another dispatch to the State Department, reiterating his request for a ship and offering additional evidence sup­ porting the wisdom of that action. He enclosed two letters from the D irector of Domestic and Foreign Missionary

Society of the United States, the Reverend L. H. Eddy, who

l^Dispatch No. 184, October 11, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. l*See also , S. B. King to Turner, October 8, 1875, Enclosure A; J. E. Moore to Turner, September 28, 1875, En­ closure B; Turner to S. B. King, October 8, 1875, Enclosure C; Turner to Jasper Smith, October 11, 1875, Enclosure D. 152

emphasized the serious danger in which the Protestant Epis­ copal Church Mission in Liberia found i t s e l f because of the

war and pleaded with Turner to see to it that "an armed

vessel of the Navy of the United States . . ." be sent to Cape Palmas Two days later, Turner forwarded a hastily-scribbled

note to the State Department, written on the street as he was making his way to catch a steamer bound for Cape P al­

mas. He had just received word that the Liberian forces there had suffered heavy losses in an important battle. Eight or nine government soldiers were killed, about

thirty-five wounded, and three "brass pieces of artillery" captured. Again, he expressed the hope that "the Depart­

ment w ill see f i t to order a Man-of-War to Palmas immedi­

ately."^^ The American minister arrived at Cape Palmas on Octo­

ber 19, 1875. He quickly discovered that the Grebo forces controlled most of the towns in which American businesses were located. He informed the Department that he had taken steps to secure the lives and property of American

citizens but again expressed the fear that it would be a long war, "the severe afflictions of which will be of small import compared with the almost sure disaster which must

ISpispatch No. 185, October 14, 1875; Eddy to Turner, October 9, 1875, Enclosure A; Eddy to Turner, October 12, 1875, Enclosure B; Turner to Eddy, October 12, 1875, Enclo­ sure C. l^Dispatch No. 185, October 14, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. 153 sooner or later befall [Liberia's] institutions of govern­ ment . . . should the 'Grebo' tribe succeed in their . . . 17 efforts to drive Liberians from this country." The war took an even more serious turn in late Novem­ ber 1875. The fear th a t the Grebo rebellion might touch off a revolt among other tribes was given substance when two German vessels were captured off the coast of Liberia and five crew members murdered. According to Turner, the tribe that perpetrated this "outrage" was the Kroo, who

"strongly sympathize with the 'Grebo cause,' and have for sometime threatened Liberia with hostilities, of which it 18 is thought this deed is the beginning." By December, the Liberian government had become im­ patient in its wait for a response to its request for a man-of-war. It forwarded a letter to Turner and asked him if he had received a reply to the request. He had not, he answered, but he did send the Liberians' note to the State 1Q Department. The same day that Turner filed that report, he was invited to meet with President Roberts to discuss the Grebo revolt. Again, the President spoke of his eagerness to determine the intentions of the United States in the mat-

l^Dispatch No. 187, October 19, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. l^Dispatch No. 196, December 2, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. l^Dispatch No. 199, December 6, 1875; J. E. Moore to Turner, December 3, 1875, Enclosure A; Turner to Moore, December 3, 1875, Enclosure B; Moore to Turner, December 154

ter. He told Turner that he was confident of receiving help from England, should he request i t , but emphasized that he was biased in favor of the United States. Which­

ever power extended a helping hand, the President stated, the assistance of a foreign power was absolutely essential

for Liberia's survival. Alluding to the recent capture of the German boats, Roberts went on to express "the convic­ tion that all interests on the Liberian coast will be in­

secure unless Liberia issues victorious from her present troubles . . . ." Turner closed the dispatch with his own

dire warning of impending doom, explaining that "the s it­ uation at Cape Palmas grows each day more appalling for

the interest of Liberia. Neither Turner nor the Liberians needed to be con­ cerned about the American government's willingness to pro­ vide a man-of-war to assist in quelling the Grebo rebellion. Turner's undated telegram to Fish, in which he requested an

American ship, was received at the State Department on Oc­ tober 27, 1875. Fish wrote to the Secretary of the Navy that same day and requisitioned a man-of-war. Upon inform­ ing Turner of that decision, he expressed the hope that the ship "may not arrive there too late to compass the object 21 for which its presence has been requested."

4, 1875, Enclosure C. ZOpispatch No. 200, December 6, 1875, "Despatches,' v o l. 5. ^^Instruction No. 104, November 15, 1875; Instruc- 155

Such a decision was heartily supported by the Ameri­ can Colonization Society. The organization which had been responsible for the founding of Liberia indicated its belief that the public generally had been gratified by the announcement that the U.S.S. Alaska had been ordered to Cape Palmas. In fact, the Society called for a continued

American military presence in Liberia, adding that "the interests of humanity, religion, science, legitimate com­ merce, and duty require this service." Indeed, the Socie­ ty expressed the hope that Liberia would become "the mart where American manufactures could be exchanged for the products of Western and Central A frica," thereby making African trade "one of the most important branches of Ameri­ can commerce."22

The New York Times was no less eb u llien t in its sup­ port of the use of American force to preserve the Liberian government. In an editorial closely paralleling Turner's own attitude toward the West African nation, the Times of­ fered the following argument on November 28, 1875: We have planted the Liberian Republic, and we can hardly permit it to be destroyed. It is true that it is not altogether as successful a State as we could wish it to be. What with the coast fever on tion No. 103, October 27, 1875, "Instructions." 2^African Repository 52 (January 1876): 7. For additional information on the attitude of the American Colonization Society toward the Grebo War, see the A fri­ can Repository 52 (April 1876): 40-42, 59-60; African Repository 52 (July 1876): 80-82, 90; African Reposi- to ^ 53 (April 1877): 40-41. 156

one end, the wild Africans on the other, and the constitutional reluctance of the colonists to do any unnecessary work, Liberia has had great diffi­ culties to contend with. Still, a Christian and civilized African State has been established, and it may yet prosper and exert a civilizing influence upon the African Continent which will be worth in­ finitely more than Liberia has hitherto cost. If the colonists are really in danger of being over­ whelmed by the savage trib e s , by a ll means le t us protect them. It will not do to let the experi­ ment of an African republic be suddenly brought to a violent and bloody e n d . 23

Turner received notification from the State Depart­ ment in mid-December 1875 th a t a man-of-war was on its way.2* Subsequently, he forwarded a lengthy dispatch in which he offered an assessment of the role he believed the United States should play in ending the fighting and es­ tablishing amiable postwar relations between the Grebos and the Liberians. He began by enumerating several linger­ ing difficulties. First of all, he noted that morale was low among supporters of the government, largely because the government did not have enough money to purchase arms and provisions necessary to keep an army in the field. But even i f th at obstacle was overcome and the Grebos were actually defeated. Turner reasoned, the natives could reasonably continue to conduct a guerilla war indefinitely.

I f th at happened, i t would be d if f ic u lt for the Liberian

2^New York Times, 28 November 1875; see also . New York Times, 8, l2, 22 October 1875; 2, 25, 26, 27 Novem- ber 1875; 1, 3, 22, 28, 29 December 1875. 2*Dispatch No. 203, December 13, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5; Dispatch No. 204, December 13, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5. Turner to J. E. Moore, December 11, 1875, Enclosure 157

government to maintain control over Cape Palmas "without . . . the constant maintainence [sic] throughout several

years upon that part of this coast . . . of a force suf- 2 5 ficiently strong to hold the natives in awe."

Despite the fact that many Liberians hoped that the United States would maintain a military presence in Li­

b eria a fte r the Grebo revolt had been put down, Turner argued to the State Department that the expense of such an

undertaking made it highly undesirable. Alternatively, Turner suggested that moral suasion should be used. The natives had to be convinced that "the presence of the Republic of Liberia on the coast of Africa is intended to evangelize, civilize and bring the tribes . . . into closer and more happy commercial relatio n s with the modern world

and not to terrorize or treat those tribes unjustly."

Hence, Turner saw a simple show of force as being adequate

to chasten the Grebos. After all, he noted, if that

did not work there would always be "sufficient time to

subdue the tribe by force of arms."2^

The U.S.S. Alaska arrived in Monrovia on February 3, 1876.22 Its commander. Captain Alexander A. Semmes, con­ tacted Turner immediately and was briefed by the latter.

2^Dispatch No. 211, January 29, 1876, "Despatches," v o l. 5. 26jbid. 2?Dispatch No. 214, February 11, 1876, "Despatches,' vol. 5. 158

Turner wrote to the State Department soon after that he

was happy to see that Semmes agreed with Turner’s "show of force" plan. Subsequently, the Alaska embarked for Cape Palmas with President Payne on board and with a view to­ ward avoiding actual hostilities if possible. Turner noted that Liberia was pervaded "by a universal gratitude" for the United States' decision to send a man-of-war. In­ deed, the Liberians were so pleased that Turner felt com­ pelled to w rite of his hope th at they would not in te rp re t the action of the United States in the wrong light. He wanted the Liberians to understand that the United States sent the man-of-war only because of a dire emergency and he expressed the fear that such "gratuitous aid" furnished upon such a large scale might further handicap Liberia’s development of an attitude of independence and national 28 self-reliance. On March 2, 1876, Captain Semmes wrote to Turner in­ forming him th a t the Grebo reb ellio n against the Liberian 29 government was over and a peace treaty signed. Captain 7k Dispatch No. 215, February 14, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 5. See, also, the following enclosures with No. 215: Turner to J. E. Moore, February 4, 1876, Enclosure A; Moore to Turner, February 4, 1876, Enclosure B; Moore to Turner, February 4, 1876, Enclosure C; A. A. Semmes to Turner, February 4, 1876, Enclosure D; "Protocol," Enclo­ sure E; Turner to Moore, February 7, 1876, Enclosure F; A. A. Semmes to President of Liberia, February 4, 1876, Enclosure G; Moore to Turner, February 9, 1876, Enclosure H; J. E. Moore to A. A. Semmes, February 9, 1876; Enclo­ sure I; Turner to A. A. Semmes, February 11, 1876, Enclo­ sure J . 2Q Dispatch No. 220, March 8, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 5. 159

Semmes "with unswerving integrity supported the just claims and demands of the Republic . . . Consequently, the terms of the peace treaty were ones with which the Liberian government felt very comfortable.^® The Grebos agreed, among other things, "to fully and unequivocably

. . . acknowledge the Supremacy of the Government of Li­ beria and agree to submit to its laws."31 Exactly how this all came about is unclear, although it certainly did not occur in the way that Turner said it did more than thirty-five years later. In 1911, four years before his death. Turner's vivid imagination prompted him to give a highly d isto rte d account of the Grebo War th at maximized the role he had played. He erroneously recalled that as Minister to Liberia, he "frequently had to obtain the intervention of United States warships and marines to protect the black republic from the inroads of savage tribes." Likewise, he recalled, in a similarly exaggerated statement, how "as a Commodore in the navy, a rank which his position carried with i t , he was from time to time the superior officer of 'Fighting Bob' Evens, Rear Admiral Sampson, and Admiral Schley, who were then a ll young officers." There is no evidence to support any of

3®Moore to Turner, April 8, 1876, Enclosure B, Dis­ patch No. 226, May 31, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 5. 31"Treaty of Peace," Enclosure C, Dispatch No. 226, May 31, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 5. 160

32 these claims.

Referring to the Grebo War, Turner hinted th a t i t was due to the machinations of "a picturesque African prince, named Seyton, whose fath er was chief of a large

tribe, with 40,000 warriors, on the border of Liberia." According to the reminiscing Turner, Seyton was Oxford- educated and had studied military tactics in Germany.

Upon his return to Africa he smuggled in many rifles and drilled his army "after the German fashion." Subsequently, he waited for an appropriate opportunity, and when i t came he seized Cape Palmas County. Again, if any of this is true it is not reflected in any of the contemporary accounts of the Grebo War, including those made by Tur- 33 ner.

Turner went on to explain that the Liberian army of 4,000 men was sent to restrain Seyton but that the wily

African, "forming an ambuscade with great skill after the best Prussian tactics . . . captured the whole Liberian army, bag and baggage." At that point, the Liberian P resi­ dent turned to Turner, who immediately wired to Washington for permission to intervene. Within thirty days, he re­ ported, "Commander Schley, with several ships, came sailing into the harbor from Lisbon." Turner's dispatches in 1875 made no mention of the "ambuscade" incident, nor is there

^^St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 1911. S^Ibid. 161

any indication that the Alaska was accompanied by other ships. Indeed, Turner even reported the name of the com­

mander inaccurately; i t was Semmes, not Schley. The American minister, at least according to his own 1911 testimony, proceeded to the scene of the fighting,

with a marine escort. He was accompanied by someone

id e n tifie d only as "Midshipman Winslow, la te r distinguished in the Spanish-American War." Turner, not being one to mince words, explained to the chief that "unless he turned the Liberian army loose I would hang him and Seyton too."

A tense moment followed until Turner, in an effort to dramatize his power, "told Winslow to turn loose a Gatling

gun upon the forest." That had the desired effect: The land shook with the roar ofthe guns, and 400 bullets a minute . . . tore trees to shreds. The chief leaped straight in the air and shouted: 'Your king big man--whoee! Me fight such big man? No Î •

Needless to say, the king freed the Liberian army and all hostilities ceased. In re a lity . Turner did not even accompany Captain

Semmes to Cape Palmas, and apparently the peace agreement was reached with only a show of force that did not include

any violence or even the firin g of weapons , although the captain made it quite clear that he was not averse to em­ ploying the use of either.

3*Ibid. 35ibid. 3®Log of the U.S.S. Alaska, January-A pril, 1876. See 162

The seeming tendency to pursue self-destructive policies that got the Liberian government involved in the Grebo War in the f i r s t place was also the cause of the mistreatment of actual and potential capital investors from other countries. In addition to not knowing how to treat African aborigines, Turner maintained, the Liberians did not know how to treat foreigners. Consequently, they pursued policies that antagonized the very people who held the key to the survival of the Liberian experiment: the businessmen who were willing to transport their civilizing capitalism to the shores of Africa. In May 1875 Turner offered the State Department the example of the problems encountered by the firm of

Edward S. Morris and Company of Philadelphia, which he had helped to become established in Liberia barely one year before. The firm was using steam machinery to hull cof­ fee and was also manufacturing indigo. In the spring of

1875, Turner was approached by John O'Neale Stockham, a representative of the firm. According to Turner, Stock­ ham "complained to me that he experienced great annoyance and embarrassment on account of the persistent disposition of Liberians to intimidate, if not obstruct his business operations on the St. Paul's River . . . ." Stockham said especially, the entries for February 9, 1876, February 26, 1876 and February 29, 1876; Naval Records, RG 45, NA. Also, see Semmes to Secretary of the Navy George N. Robe­ son, February 12, 1876 and March 1, 1876; Letters received by the Secretary of the Navy, Captains Letters, 1805-1885, Microfilm Copy No. M125, Roll 392, NA. 163

that legal proceedings against him had been threatened because he was operating a business away from a port of 37 entry. Turner investigated the complaint made by Stockham and reported that he had learned that the chief opposition to the American merchant was that he had established a place of business approximately thirteen miles from coastal

Monrovia and was intercepting customers on their way to the cap ital c ity and sellin g goods to them a t c u t-ra te p rices. Hence, Stockham was taking business away from

Liberian merchants and they were responding with retalia­ tory measures. The "Port of Entry" law was a typical ruse

to antagonize foreigners, Turner explained. "[T]he proper­ ty of foreigners investing capital in Liberia has come to be looked upon as subject to whatever inconvenience of obstruction," he continued, that "Liberians in their more

capricious moments, may feel inclined to expose such 38 property to." Subsequently, the harassment of Stockham continued when he was sued for damages by a man who had been found

^^Dispatch No. 164, May 7, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 4. 38 Ibid. See, also, the following enclosures with Dispatch No. 164: Turner to Secretary of State J. E. Moore, A pril 15, 1875, Enclosure A; Moore to Turner, May 6, 1875, Enclosure B; Attorney General W. M. Davis to Moore, A pril 30, 1875, Enclosure C; "An Act Confining and Restricting Foreign Vessels to Ports of Entry," Enclosure D. 164

guilty of stealing merchandise from his store. The man

claimed th at Stockham's binding and delivering of him to the local magistrate entitled him to a compensation of $1,000. Moreover, the writ was not served on Stockham

until he was preparing to leave on an important business trip to the United States, and the hearing for the case was set for June despite Stockham's repeated requests that it be postponed until after his return from the United

S tates. Turner appealed unsuccessfully to the Liberian At­ torney General to have the case postponed. He was annoyed over the incident and informed the State Department of his belief "that this entire matter is a conspiracy, upon an unwarrantable pretext, to intimidate and discourage Mr.

Stockham's firm in their business in Liberia." He ex­ plained that there existed in Monrovia "a strong prejudi­ c ia l feeling against anyone who prefers to do business on the river upon a scale sufficiently large to attract trade that would otherwise push its way to Monrovia."*® As a result of Liberia's "morbid tendency to incon­ venience foreigners," Turner looked to the State Depart­ ment to e sta b lish a precedent for protecting American c i t i ­ zens who invest their capital in Liberia. First of all.

3®Dispatch No. 167, May 28, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 4; affidavit of John O'Neale Stockham, May 25, 1875, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 167. *®Dispatch No. 167, May 28, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 4. 165

he asked for instructions that would "unequivocally" arti­ culate the intention of the United States government "to

protect the interests of Americans and their property in Liberia . . . Secondly, Turner asked that the indig­ nity imposed by the Liberian Attorney General on the United States in the Stockham case "be not passed unno­

ticed." Still feeling the slights he had been subjected to over the years of his stay in Liberia, Turner pleaded that something needed to be done to prompt the Liberians to offer his legation the respect that it deserved.

The "Port of Entry" law, according to Turner, was the source of general complaining among foreign merchants doing business in Liberia. On June 28, 1876, Turner ap­ prised the State Department of Osceola Jackson's unhap­ piness with that same law. Jackson was a United States c itiz e n , doing business at Buchanan in Grand Bassa County for the firm of Gates and Porterfield of New York C i t y . *2

The case began in February 1876,when Jackson for­ warded a letter to Turner, complaining of the Liberian law which prohibited foreigners from trading at any points other than "the so called 'Ports of Entry' . . . ." The result of that law, Jackson explained, was that Liberian merchants monopolized trade. Jackson hinted that it was possible to bypass the law, but only by paying fees which

*llbid. *2oispatch No. 233, June 28, 1876, "Despatches," vol, 6. 166

amounted to extortion. He argued that in view of the fact that the Liberian government had asked for American sup­ port during the Grebo War, the State Department should be made aware of Liberia's mistreatment of foreigners. Jack­

son closed by expressing disappointment at having found

that "an american [sic] if his skin was white could neither own land, or enter into business, except under such restrictions as placed him at the mercy of rival

Liberian Houses. Turner followed with a letter to Liberian Secretary of State J. E. Moore, informing him of Jackson's complaint and indicating his belief that the "Ports of Entry" law

was discriminatory. He argued that such a policy unjustly subjected American citizens doing business in Liberia to 44 unequal burdens before the law. It took Moore six months to reply to Turner. When

a reply did finally come it contained a flat denial that

any discrimination against foreigners was taking place.

Subsequently, Turner held out little hope for the progress

of the nation which not only refused to reverse anti- foreign business policies, but denied that they even ex­

iste d .

^^Jackson to Turner, February 1, 1876, Enclosure A, Dispatch No. 233. 44 Turner to Moore, February 29, 1876, Enclosure B, Dispatch No. 233, June 28, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 6.

^^Moore to Turner, June 24, 1876, Enclosure H, Dis­ patch No. 233, June 28, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 6. 167

The same logic that led Turner to endorse the use of an American man-of-war to put down a native rebellion

and to protest the anti-foreign policies of the Liberian government, led the American minister to develop an increasingly cynical attitude toward the wisdom of the colonization of American blacks in Liberia.*® He came to

that position slowly. During his first year as a foreign minister he had spoken with nothing but praise for those "expatriated Americans" who had chosen Liberia "for the purpose of planting upon these shores of Fatherland the banner of untrammeled manhood, and of spreading among their still benighted brethren the softening influences of C hristian lig h t and love."*^

The improved postwar condition of blacks in America, however, raised serious questions, as far as Turner was concerned, about the wisdom of continued migration of blacks to Liberia. "While none would discourage such a desire to leave the United States for Liberia," he wrote in 1872, " a ll must concede that the number who desire to leave is comparatively small, and of a class whose de-

*®For a general discussion of the post-Reconstruction movement of southern blacks to Liberia, see George B. Tin­ dall, "The Liberian Exodus of 1878," South Carolina His­ torical Magazine 53 (July 1952): 133-145, and Lenwood G. Davis, ''black American Images of L iberia, 1877-1914." Liberian Studies Journal 6 (No. 1 1975): 53-72. *2oispatch No. 45, May 25, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3; for the published version of this dispatch, see, Foreign Relations, 1872, p. 333. 168

graded manhood and absolute dependence but i l l adapts them to the wants of the primary economy of a young and aspiring 48 democratic government." Many of the blacks who came to Liberia, he explained, were lured there by what he considered to be impossible

dreams. He wrote of a group that arrived in Liberia in December 1871. Within five months fo rty -fiv e to f if ty of

the original 243 persons had died. Of the remaining num­ ber, he explained, "many are acclimating, thirty-five or forty are intending to return, the remaining are quite despondent, and those who remain here will be little else than a burden to the country."*® Turner's position as Minister Resident forced him to deal directly with disenchanted and frustrated black Ameri­ cans who had been disappointed in their search for a bet­ ter life in Liberia. Such was the case when John H. Adams and Sandy Garroway requested his help on behalf of a group that claimed it had been duped. The persons Adams and

Garroway represented claimed to be citizens of the United

States and wanted help in returning to their homes there.

The group had arrived in Liberia with the help of the American Colonization Society, hoping "by their labor [to acquire] comfortable homes and spend useful lives" in Af­ rica. Instead, they had spent their entire time in Liberia

*®Ibid., p. 337.

49Ibid. 169 in "the Receptacle," a house located near Cape Palmas, established to provide new immigrants a home for the first six months a fte r th e ir a rriv a l. There were sixty-four persons in a ll. They had been told by Liberians th at they had forfeited their American citizenship by going to Li­ beria. After a round of questioning. Turner gave them a tentative reply, suggesting to them that they were still American citizens unless they had expressly denied their citizenship. He did, however, caution them that he knew of no statutory provisions that would allow the United States government to pay for their return trip to Ameri- ca.= “ This group of immigrants, he wrote, was typical,

"composed from among th at class of American freedmen whose wealth of inexperience is equaled only by their incompara­ ble credulity." They were well-meaning, upright people, he wrote, but they should have stayed at home. Had they remained in the United S tates, he suggested, they would have been among familiar people whose customs they shared.

Likewise, they would have been able at least to fulfill their basic needs by performing the task "in which of all others they are at present most useful, 'to wit,' that of laborer upon the southern farm."^^

^^Dispatch No. 81, August 12, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 51 Ibid. 170

Turner was quiet on the colonization efforts through much of his tenure in Liberia although he did finally take a strong stand against such activities in 1877. The inten­ sity of colonizationist activities increased dramatically in that year. The American Colonization Society was making widespread appeals to American blacks to leave the United

States. Turner quietly observed the Society's efforts until August 1877, when a rumor began to circulate that J. B. Finney, "a prominent and enthusiastic advocate of the emigration of negro citizens of the United States to Li­ beria, has been named . . . Minister to Liberia, with a view of facilitating that emigration scheme." Such a policy. Turner pointed out, was inconsistent with the stand of a government that "has never announced any policy with the view to f a c ilita te the emigration of any class of her c itiz e n s , These rather innocuous statements about colonization schemes were followed a few days la te r by a fro n tal assault on those forces that he thought were conspiring to remove black Americans from the United States to Liberia. On

September 3, 1877, he forwarded a lengthy dispatch to the

State Department, parts of which were published in American newspapers, offering his assessment of the Colonization 53 Society's proposals.

SZpispatch No. 272, August 30, 1877, "Despatches," vol. 6.

S^Dispatch No. 273, September 3, 1877, "Despatches," 171

The American minister began calling attention to the amount of newspaper publicity being received by the coloni- zationists. In view of the popularity of emigration schemes, he said, he felt compelled to speak out. He wanted to protect American blacks, he said, particularly those who had no idea of what A frica was lik e . They were leaving the southern United States, where, he argued, they were in demand as laborers and where they lived in "com­ parative comfort." They had very little hope of succeeding in Africa, he wrote; indeed, nine out of ten of them would not even be able to make enough money to return to the United States. That being the case. Turner felt obligated to detail his reasons for opposing the movement of American blacks to Liberia. First of all, he argued, although the African soil was quite fertile, the tools used for tilling it were primitive. Likewise, the climate was so harsh that it was "almost impossible for anyone except a native to work .55 • • • • Although he acknowledged that the soil was fertile and the mineral wealth of the country great, he emphasized that the Liberian government had not yet learned to take vol. 6; for a published version of this dispatch, see Foreign Relations, 1877, pp. 370-375.

S*Ibid., p. 371. S^lbid., pp. 371-372. 172

advantage of those blessings. Consequently, Liberia's economy was entirely colonial, the country having "never

been independent to loose herself from other countries enough to produce food sufficient for her daily home con­ sumption." Thus, a commodity such as ric e th at could be easily and p ro fitab ly produced at home was imported from England and sold for four dollars a bushel. Such a s i t ­ uation made it difficult for the American immigrant to survive, for most of the goods he consumed had to be im­ ported, making his cash outlay very high. By contrast,

Turner wrote, "the native is strong and hardy, with a very few wants, and able, at fifty cents per day, to per­ form the labor usually assigned to horses in other coun­

trie s ." ^ ^ Even if the immigrants could find ways to sustain life on the west coast of Africa, Turner argued, its

quality would be quite low. They would be cut off from friends and homes, without knowledge of A frican customs, would probably suffer from fever and end up mourning the loss of family members who had succumbed to the unhealthy climate. Consequently, he remarked, there was little won­ der that most American blacks who arrived in Africa soon wanted to return home. Indeed, he noted that he had never known of the departure of a vessel to America without

S*Ibid., pp. 372-373. 173

57 receiving "a dozen applications to be sent back." Another of Liberia's shortcomings was the absence of a public school system. The only roads in existence were

"footpaths cut by the natives . . . ." Likewise, the only way of transporting goods was on the heads or backs of 58 n a tiv e s. In short. Turner argued, neither Liberia nor Africa was any place for American blacks. He categorically re­ jected the contention "that the negro of America, after three centuries of absence from Africa, the long weary years of which were not altogether devoted to training him in the things which pertain to the higher walks of know­ ledge, is better prepared than any other foreigners, physically or otherwise to carry civilization to this un­ fortunate people . . . ." Thus Turner, far from seeing black Americans as potential participants in a pan-African brotherhood of the oppressed, saw them as citizens of the

United States whose futures were tied to the growth and development of that country. "In fine," he wrote, "my ex­ perience has been that when the American negro is brought face to face in contact with this work, he is, for all practical purposes, as much a foreigner as any other people, and can only extend to the barbarous African the

S^Ibid., p. 373. S^Ibid., pp. 372-373. 174

same philanthropic sympathy."^9

L ittle wonder, the American m inister commented, th at

American immigrants often wanted to return home. Even if they could adjust to the rigors of Liberian life, their dream of "evangelizing, civilizing, and colonizing Africa"

was destined to fail. "After sixty years," he wrote, "we

find that those who have remained with praiseworthy deter­ mination . . . have not assimilated a single tribe of native Africans . . . .

In view of the fact that the migration of blacks from America to Africa was not achieving its desired purpose. Turner called for it to stop. That was not to

say that he thought efforts to civilize Africa should stop.

Rather, he suggested, Americans should adopt a policy like that employed by other enlightened countries. The Euro­ peans, for example, saw the necessity of "supplying light

from without Africa; but . . . they trust the continuation,

indeed the completion, of the work to the indigenous in­ habitant h im self."^1 The best procedure. Turner argued, would be to estab­

lish schools and colleges where the natives could acquire an education without having to leave Africa. In language reminiscent of his antebellum teacher John Berry Meachum,

S9lbid., p. 373. GOlbid. G llb id ., p. 374. 175

Turner called for the establishment of "manual-labor schools" which, he argued, would "supply the class of men needed in this country . . . He suggested that the Vey tribe, because of its mem­ bers' desire to learn and their "inventive genius," would be "the best vehicle for the propagation of civilization to the interior tribes of Africa." Consequently, he argued, the money that was being spent on transporting American blacks to Liberia would be better spent in educa­ ting the Vey.GS Such a move should be made quickly, however, for Christian evangelists who procrastinated were in danger of losing the b a ttle for souls to Moslems. Hence, he warned that

if Christian philanthropists loiter much longer in manipulating this chiliahedronic idea into shape, the Mandingoes, who as Mohammedans, are indefatigable missionaries will probably very soon disseminate the dogmas of their religion among this desirable people, and thus place their evangelization at least another half century farther into the future."*

Given the problems that the Liberians faced. Turner was not at all certain that the Liberian experiment would survive. He closed this lengthy dispatch with the asser­ tion that "Whether Liberia succeeds or fails, she cannot be accepted as a fair test of the negro's capacity or

GZlbid. G^Ibid. G*Ibid., pp. 374-375. 176

incapacity for self-government."^^ Turner's stand on the emigration issue was a contro­

v e rsia l one that drew the wrath of opponents down upon his

head and that of the State Department. Initially, the State Department issued a statement critical of Liberian emigration, abstracting Turner's arguments but failing to

indicate the name of the author. Members of the Executive Committee of the American Colonization Society, upon seeing

this statement, met in a special meeting to draft a retort. The Committee decided to respond by offering testim onials from persons "whose knowledge and opinions formed from

personal observations in Liberia, constitute them impartial and unbiased witnesses." Consequently, supporting state­

ments were offered by the Rev. Abraham Hanson, former Min­ ister Resident of the United States to Liberia and Bishop

G ilbert Haven, who had only recently returned from an o f­

ficial examination of the Methodist Episcopal Church mis­

sion in western Africa. Subsequently, the source of the anti-emigration state­ ments became known and excerpts from Turner's dispatch ap­ peared in newspapers throughout the country. Again, the American Colonization Society offered a rebuttal, this

65 Ibid., p. 375. ^William A. Coppinger, "Liberia: A Statement," African Repository 54 (January 1878): 21-23; see also, G. W. Samson, "Liberia Defended," African Repository 54 (April 1878): 54-59. 177 time directed at the American minister. The Rev. Thomas

S. Malcom, who wrote the essay on behalf of the Society, called Turner's statements "self-contradictory." He re­ peated Turner's litany of Liberian sins, countered it with his own list of that country's qualities, and concluded with an expression of hope that the "Christian civiliza­ tion may eventually penetrate the Dark Continent, enlight­ ening it, redeeming it and transforming it into the arena 7 of the new and splendid history." Opposition to Turner's criticisms of Liberian coloni­ zation were not confined to the shores of the United States, however. Indeed, resistance was even more intense in Li­ beria itself, prompting Turner to forward a lengthy dis­ patch on April 15, 1878, explaining that his opposition to colonization had resulted in "a series of unfriendly be­ havior and indeed downright mistreatment directed against me during the last past two or three months by Liberians high in official station in their country . . . . Turner explained that the Colonization Society sup­ porters in the United States exercised a good deal of in­ fluence over Liberian affairs and that ever since the pub­ lication of his Dispatch No. 273 Society officials had been encouraging Liberian officials to harass him.^^

G?Rev. Thomas S. Malcom, "Is i t Suitable for Emi­ grants?" African Repository 55 (January 1879) : 19-22. GGpispatch No. 302, April 15, 1878, "Despatches," vol. 7. 69lbid. 178

His dispatch had, he continued, touched off a debate

that was still raging, for in addition to discouraging potential black emigrants from leaving the United States, Turner's comments had also discouraged would-be philan­

thropists from contributing to the cause. In fact, he said, colonization agents in the United States were already w riting to Liberian o f f ic ia ls , working to have him removed from o ffic e . While Turner could offer no tangible proof that those letters ever really existed, he explained that he was inclined to believe that they did because of a host of

"collateral occurrences." Numerous little incidents of harassment had become commonplace, "such as taking away the halliards from my flagstaff several times by night, significant but disguised expressions and innuendoes con- 71 cerning my despatch, and other such things . . . ."

Conditions worsened, however, following the d istri­ bution among Liberian officials of a St. Louis Republican commentary upon ex tracts from the dispatch. The a r tic le , he wrote, was taken "from house to house" and shown to "gathering knots of persons," and even exhibited "in the streets of Monrovia with excited recommendations that sum­ mary vengeance be wreaked upon me . . . ." At about the same time, the American minister reported, "the Secretary

^°Ibid.

^^Ibid. 179

of the Treasury of Liberia abused me in the street pub­

licly . . . Later the same day, the Secretary again directed "abusive and indecent language" against him. Simultaneously, word erroneously spread that Turner had told a group of recent emigrants that they had forfeited

their American citizenship. The dissemination of that rumor increased the number of people who were unhappy with Turner, and added to th e ir displeasure. "That and the

following night," he wrote, "rocks were thrown against the door of the Legation . . . ." There was even consider­ able sentiment to mob him, although that idea was discarded 72 "on account of the harm which might befall the state."

In the midst of this hostile atmosphere, Turner received instructions from the State Department to try to collect the 1869 debt owed to the United States government. Many people in Liberia, Turner explained, felt that he had "managed or manipulated in some mysterious ways to prevent the Government from canceling th at indebtedness by making a bestowal of it upon Liberia . . . ." At the same time, the Liberian Secretary of the Treasury tried to tax, un­ justly the American minister maintained, an American ves- 73 sel stopping at Liberia on a non-trading mission. Turner was incensed by such "incivility" and closed this lengthy dispatch with a statement that reveals the

T^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 180

depth of his annoyance and disappointment over the Li­ berian government's failure to appreciate adequately

either his own efforts or those of the government he repre­ sented. He had, he said , always been aware that we are a great and powerful C hristian nation recognizing and morally defending the confraternity of the nations, and pledged by our very origin and the richness of the legacy of our principles to the promotion of international friendliness and unity, and to the universal brotherhood and amity of man. I have, in consideration of that grand fact, as well as the origin of the people composing this far off and struggling Republic, striven to have the United States always occupy the highest ground in her effort to extend the moral influence of her friendship to Liberia.?*

Not surprisingly, Turner had had his fill of being unappreciated. He was gone from Africa almost before his dispatch of April 15 had had a chance to arrive at the

State Department. He left Monrovia for the United States on May 20, 1878, his continuing health problems causing

him to overcome whatever hesitancies about leaving that 75 might have remained. Although he had taken an extended leave of absence

from his ministerial duties in 1874-1875, that leave had 74lbid. 75 For Turner's request to be recalled, see Dispatch No. 266, July 14, 1877, "Despatches," vol. 6. For accounts of Turner's health during the latter years of his stay in L iberia, see Dispatch No. 202, December 18, 1875, "Des­ patches," vol. 6; Dispatch No. 220, March 8, 1876, "Des­ patches," vol. 5; Dispatch No. 249, September 8, 1877, "Des­ patches," vol. 6; Dispatch No. 266, July 14, 1877, "Des­ patches," vol. 6; Dispatch No. 292, January 26, 1873, "Des­ patches," vol. 7; Dispatch No. 306, April 24, 1878, "Des­ patches," vol. 7. 181

not had a lasting therapeutic effect on his health. Con­ sequently, he had been back at his post barely six months

when he drafted another request for a leave. He wrote to the State Department on December 8, 1875, indicating that

"Since my return to Monrovia, my health has continuedly

[s i c ] been in a most u n settled condition." His physical

ailments were many. "I am at present suffering from two severe abscesses," he wrote in December 1875, "the most serious of which is situated on my throat In

addition, he explained, "I have several ailments resultant upon the fever of this coast: such as effection [sic] of the liver, spleen, etc." He enclosed a statement signed by two doctors, attesting to the precarious condition of his health.76

Secretary Fish postponed a response to Turner's request, citing as justification the Grebo rebellion that was raging then in Liberia. In addition. Fish reminded Turner th at he had been away from his post from October 25,

1874, to April 7, 1875.7? Turner was not satisfied with Fish's response and reiterated his request on March 8, 1875, emphasizing that

^Dispatch No. 202, December 8, 1875, "Despatches," vol. 5; see, also. Enclosure A, affidavit of J. A. Parson, M.D. and T. H. M. Ealey, M.D. , December 3, 1875. 77instruction No. 109, January 18, 1876, "Diplomatic Instructions of the Department of State, 1801-1906," Microcopy No. M77, vol. 110, Liberia, March 16, 1863-July 18, 1906, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Hereafter referred to as "In stru c tio n s." 182

he had "a dangerous abscess on my throat standing open

since la st October, and which no one believes can be 78 healed in this climate . . . Again, however, per­ mission was not forthcoming, and again he renewed his re- 79 quest.

The leave was finally granted on June 13, 1876, and 80 ordered to extend for sixty days. Turner arrived in New

York City on October 12. He wrote to Secretary Fish from th at city on December 20, requesting an extension of his 81 leave u n til January 20, 1877. Turner was back in Liberia less than six months when

he submitted a request to be recalled from his position. He indicated at the time that it had been his intention to

resign for more than a year "because of the general bane­ ful effect which this inhospitable climate is having upon my physical organization . . . ."®2 The State Department granted his request to be re­ called but asked him to remain at his post until a succes-

7®Dispatch No. 220, March 8, 1876, "Despatches," vol. S. ^^Instruction No. 121, A pril 21, 1876; Dispatch No. 226, April 21, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 5. ^^Instruction No. 121, June 13, 1876, "Instructions."

^^Turner to Fish, October 25, 1876; Turner to Fish, December 20, 1876; both le tte rs file d a fte r Dispatch No. 249, September 8, 1876, "Despatches," vol. 6. ®^Dispatch No. 266, July 14, 1877, "Despatches," v o l. 6. 183

83 sor could be found. When a successor had not been ap­ pointed by January 1878, however, Turner again wrote asking for another leave of absence, this time to be 84 granted in April. He left Liberia for a thirty-day leave on May 20, 1878. He never returned from that leav e. There was nothing for him to go back to. He had gone to Liberia initially feeling important, convinced that he would be respected as a valued representative of the government of the United States. He had hoped to be instrumental in the furtherance of bourgeois, Christian institutions in that country so that Liberia could become, in turn, a civilizing force throughout the West Coast of

Africa. But it had not worked out like that. He was sick most of the time, and even when he was not he had to s i t by and watch the Liberian government do things which he knew were inimical to the future growth of the country.

Moreover, when he did try to point out the error of their ways to Liberians, he found them to be to ta lly unapprecia­ tive. In fact, they were downright disrespectful of

^^Instruction No. 150, October 12, 1877, "Instruc­ tions . " ®^Dispatch No. 282, January 26, 1878, "Despatches," vol. 7. G^Dispatch No. 306, April 24, 1878, "Despatches," vol. 7; Instruction No. 162, March 5, 1878, "Instructions." 184 his position and his authority. Consequently, instead of the universal gratitude he expected for the tasks he performed in Liberia, he was increasingly criticized during the latter years of his stay there. The law of diminishing returns had set in. It was time to go back to the United S tates. Surely, with the fame he had gained as a representative of the entire American nation, and with a Republican President still at the helm of state, something better awaited him there. CHAPTER V

IN SEARCH OF POWER BACK HOME

James Milton Turner returned to Missouri early in the summer of 1878. The s ta tu s , power, and wealth with which he equated success had eluded him in Liberia, so he renewed the search in America. Turner still identified the Republican party as a suitable vehicle for collective and individual black up­ ward mobility. However, as the harsh realities of the Redeemed South became more apparent to him, he began to change. Although he initially had misgivings about black migration from the South, he soon came to be an active supporter of the exodus , so long as it did not mean migra­ tion abroad. Likewise, he became increasingly annoyed with the Republican party's unwillingness to fight racism, either within the country generally or within its own ranks specifically. Consequently, by 1882, after four years of first-hand experience with Republican inability and unwillingness to counter Redemption, he was ready to counsel blacks to end their support of Republicans who perpetuated racism in the country.

Not all of Turner's frustrations were the result of white oppression, however. The black leader who had co­ alesced the black vote in 1870 sought unsuccessfully to

185 186

regain the status he had held in the Missouri black com­

munity earlier in the decade. He failed in that effort,

however, in part because the old charge of "opportunism" resurfaced and in part because his exhortations to the black masses to develop a bourgeois life style carried with it a condemnation of their current pattern of living. Quite simply, they resented the criticism. As early as the 1870 election Turner had revealed his philosophy of power when he described money as a pass­ port to respectability and importance in the community.^

He had, as E. Franklin Frazier wrote of the black bour­

geoisie in the next century, "been taught that money will bring . . . justice and equality in American life, and 2 [he] proposed to get money." Turner had been totally unsuccessful in his attempts

to amass wealth, however. He was plagued by money prob­

lems throughout his stay in Liberia. His financial con­ dition had been so unstable in 1871 that he was forced to

borrow money in order to go to the West African country.^ On April 19, 1873, he wrote to Secretary Fish, explaining

to him that "Upon my arrival here, I found in existence an indebtedness, caused by a mistake in my personal matters,

and which it is incumbent upon me immediately to pay, or

^See Chapter II, page 79, above. 2 F razier, p. 85.

^Dispatch No. 50, June 30, 1872, "Despatches," vol, 3. 187 else have the r e lia b ility of my standing in th is community effected [sic]." He immediately drew a four hundred dol­ lar draft on the State Department in favor of the Li- 4 berian business firm of Payne 8 Son. Certainly, his re­ peated and extended trips back to the United States were expensive.^ In addition. Turner lost an undisclosed sum of money when a New York bank in which he had deposited money failed during the 1873 Panic.^ As early as 1872, Turner was convinced of the in­ adequacy of his four thousand dollar a year salary. Con­ sequently, he made an extensive lobbying effort to have his salary increased when he returned to the United States on his first leave of absence late in 1872. On February 7,

1873, he wrote to Hamilton Fish and informed the latter of how "during my call upon the President last Monday," Grant had "very kindly alluded to the amount of my salary and in­ formed me th at he supposed the amount allowed my post of duty was seven thousand five hundred per annum . . . ." Tur­ ner reported that the President said he would sign a bill raising the Liberian minister's salary to that level if such

Turner to Hamilton Fish, April 19, 1873, filed with dispatch erroneously marked "Dispatch No. 72." The lat­ ter is the second of two pieces of correspondence marked "Dispatch No. 72." ^For one thing, he had to pay his temporary replace­ ment out of his own pocket: Dispatch No. 57, August IS, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 2; see, also. Turner to Fish, March 31, 1873, filed with Dispatch No. 70, "Despatches," vol. 2.

^Dispatch No. 89, October 29, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3; see, also. Dispatch No. 94, November 6, 1873, "Despatches," vol. 3. 188 a bill was passed. At that point. Turner turned his ef­ forts toward the Congress. "I . . . took the liberty," he wrote, "of calling . . . upon the chairmen of the Com­ mittees of both the upper and lower houses of Congress to­ gether with Senators Wilson, Morton and many others of both branches of Congress . . . ."^

Turner's efforts to have his salary increased were un­ successful, and he continued to have financial problems.

Not surprisingly he used much of his last leave of absence, during the winter of 1876-77, trying to find a better position. He set his sights high, as is evidenced in a letter he wrote to Blanche K. Bruce, black Senator from Mississippi, with whom he had visited while on leave, and whom he had known through th e ir work together with the Mis­ souri Equal Rights League. He began the letter with a vague reference to the atmosphere of uncertainity surrounding the election of President Hayes, wondering whether it might affect his for­ tunes. He indicated that he had already written "to the three or four Republican members from Missouri" informing them that "while the 800,000 negro voters are not unappre­ ciative, . . . the present political exigencies require that every element of our party, to its utmost fibrous ca­ pacity should be attracted--not dispelled-contracted not

^Turner to Hamilton Fish, February 7, 1873, filed with Dispatch No. 68, December 31, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. 189

g scattered . . .

Black people. Turner had informed the Missouri Con­ gressmen, expected "substantial recognition of their pow­

er with the party." Turner's view of the form that recog­ nition should take was to appoint "elite" blacks such as himself to positions of authority. Moreover, he reasoned, the experience already gained by "negro gentlemen in re­ sponsible stations" should not be lost. Therefore, he wrote, he had requested " th e ir advice and endorsement for e ith e r a

promotion in the Foreign Corps or for the post of Governor g of one of the territories."

If he continued to work for the State Department, Turner indicated, he wanted to be sent "to the Central

American states, vix [sic] ; Costa Rica, Guatemala, Hon­ duras [sic] , Nicaragua and Salvador, as Minister Resident, or in the same capacity to Hawaii." He explained to Bruce

that "either of these positions are of more importance in our Foreign relations than the one of which I am at present

incumbent, and of more distinguishing grade as they do not

in their Archives of Legation, include the duties and title of Consul General." However, he continued, i f h is services were needed more in the United States, and

g Turner to Blanche K. Bruce, March 12, 1877, Blanche K. Bruce Papers, Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard U niversity, Washington, D.C.

^Ibid. 190

[if] it should be thought impolitic to request that a negro gentleman be entrusted with the gubernatorial authority over one of the territories, then, though differing with that opinion, I would be willing to accept such position as my partisan friends in their judgement might pronounce the most advisable.I" Whatever happened. Turner concluded, in a sentence that reveals his inability to separate his own advancement from that of the masses of black people, it was "of first importance to our cause, that some distinguished negro gen­ tlemen be accredited by the new administration to some other than a negro Court." Not to press the point at the present, he exclaimed, would be to demonstrate that "we had in some sense given a kind of tacit acquiescence in the policy of sending negro gentlemen as diplomatic officers only to negro Courts. Turner left Liberia for the United States in May 1878. George B. Vashon, his long-time frien d , reported in 1925 that Turner's homecoming was spectacular. "Boston, New York,

Philadelphia, and Washington," he wrote, "vied with each other in the splendor of the banquets with which they wel­ comed the homecoming of the black man whose service they regarded as a vindication of the emancipation proclamation and the 15th amendment." Vashon noted th at Turner's recep­ tion in St. Louis was particularly warm. It was there that "the horses were taken from the carriage in which Turner rode from the railway station and exhuberant Negroes dragged

lOlbid. l^Ibid. 191

12 the momentary idol through the s tr e e ts ."

Although such a reception would have undoubtedly bolstered Turner's hopes to return to a more prominent political position, there is no evidence that a celebra­ tion ever occurred. Indeed, Vashon him self did not even live in St. Louis in 1878, and it is likely that he relied on Turner's own distorted testimony, as he did on so many other things, about how the black minister was received back home. In fact. Turner's return to St. Louis was ap­ parently so uneventful that the local newspapers did not 1 % even take note of it. Turner could hardly have been home more than a few weeks, however, when a movement to elect him to a Congres­ sional seat began to develop w ithin the black community.

Whether or not that movement was initiated by Turner is im­ possible to Say. On July 18, 1878, however, the weekly St. Louis Globe-Democrat carried an open letter from six clergy­ men, "and others," asking Turner's permission "to use your name before the Republican Nominating Convention as a fit and proper person to be Representative from the Third Con­ gressional District of the State of Missouri." The letter writers indicated their regard for Turner as an "exponent

^^Colored Democrat [St. Louis], 16 October 1920.

l^Neither the daily nor the weekly editions of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, nor the daily editions of the Missouri Republican, cfontain any reference to Turner's re turn to St. Louis, much less of any sort of celebration that might have occurred. The black [Topeka, Kansas] Colored Citizen simply noted that "Hon. J. Milton Turner has arrived in New York," Colored Citizen, 5 July 1878. 192 of the fixed and settled principles of the Republican party of Missouri," and indicated their belief that those princi­ ples were "in a sense essential to insure prosperity and revive the prostrate condition of the industries of the country . , . The clergymen called to mind Turner's record of "distinguished services" and indicated that they wished to place his name before the Republican nominating 14 convention. The clergymen's appeal was only a preliminary to the "Rousing Meeting" held in early August by the Independent

Republican Club, "A big turnout of the colored folks" gathered at the corner of Eleventh and Christy Avenues in St, Louis on August 7, 1878, The purpose of the meeting was to propose Turner as a candidate, although the latter claimed to be there because the gathering was "to protest against the domination of the Post Office ring in the Re­ publican party, Turner was asked by a reporter just before the meeting began whether he thought he could get the nomination, de­ spite the fact that "Mr, Filley" was opposed to him. Chauncey Filley was a white Republican who served as Radi­ cal Mayor of St, Louis in the 1860's and as St, Louis Post­ master in the 1870's. He remained active in St, Louis

St, Louis Globe-Democrat, 18 July 1878, The Mis­ souri Statesman carried a notification of Turner's can- didacy the next day, ^^St, Louis Globe-Democrat, 8 August 1878, 193

politics until at least 1909, Filley was one of the leading strategists of the Missouri Republican party for forty years after the Civil War, Turner identified him as part of "the Post Office ring" and blamed him for the party's failure to

give blacks more meaningful patronage jobs,^^ Turner told the reporter that he could win the nomination "if the Re­ publicans outside the ring stand together," He argued that most o f F ille y 's power in Washington was due to the e rro ­

neous belief that the Republican leader controlled the black

St, Louis vote. That was simply not true, Turner explained, and he went on to inform the reporter that he had "ju st re ­ turned from Washington" and had "enlightened President Hayes 17 on the subject," The Conversation between journalist and aspiring Con­

gressman was cut short as speeches endorsing Turner's can­ didacy began, John Little gave the first speech, an ora­ tion which must have s tir r e d fond memories of the early days of the decade when the black vote was being courted by both

factions of Republicans as well as by the Democrats. He complained that the Republican party had been guilty of

using the black vote for "self-aggrandizement," without re-

Lawrence 0, Christensen, "Black St, Louis; A Study in Race Relations 1865-1916" (Ph, D, dissertation. Univer­ sity of Missouri-Columbia, 1972), pp. 208-209, For Filley's relationship with blacks in later Missouri politics, see Larry H, Grothaus, "The Negro in Missouri P o litic s , 1890- 1941" (Ph, D, dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia, 1970), pp. 1-7, 1 7 St, Louis Globe-Democrat. 8 August 1878, 194

warding blacks for their support. He emphasized that there were 7,000 black votes to be had in St. Louis and that "if

they were properly organized they would be the balance of power." J. Milton Turner, he asserted, "was a demonstra­ tion that a black man had not only the right to vote, but the right to be voted for." Indeed, John Little believed

it unlikely that any man placed on the Republican ticket 18 would be mentally superior to Turner. W. R. Lawton, a Democrat turned Republican, spoke next. Black people, he explained, simply sought justice. They wanted someone who could and would represent th e ir interests in Washington. "If Mr. Turner were placed in the

Congressional chair," he said, "he would display intelli­ gence which would eclipse that of any of the present Repre­ se n ta tiv e s, and when he came back the people would not need to ask him to show his papers to see whether or not 19 he had been to Congress." Three other men followed with similar speeches, in­ cluding C. W. Scheutzel, described by the Globe-Democrat as "one of the old time Republicans, and the only white man who spoke . . . ." The preliminary speeches out of the way. Turner arose to address the meeting. He began by recounting a conversation he said he had had a few days before with President Hayes. He had, he said, complained to the Presi­

l*Ibid.

l^ibid. 195 dent "that the negro vote of the state of Missouri had been ever faithful to Republican principles without receiving . . . that degree of political recognition which other classes of voters in the Republican party has received . . . ." He had pointed out that even though blacks held the balance of power among the Republicans in St. Louis, and even though blacks were "diligent and untiring" members of the Republican party, "they had never yet had the hap­ piness of receiving from the National Administration, the elevation of a single one of their race to an executive office where patronage to their own people could be dis­ pensed . . . ." Indeed, he exclaimed to a loudly cheering audience, blacks had thus far had to be content with "the position of messenger at the Post Office or as bootblack to 20 the C ollector of Customs and to United States M arshals." The black orator's candidacy for political office was an effort to reverse that situation. He had decided to run, he said, because "I saw that we were restive and dis­ contented because of this lack of honorable recognition, and that we the Third District had determined to throw our­ selves in the breach, and te s t the professions of the Repub­ lican party." The matter was an easy one to resolve. He knew he was well-qualified for the office. Hence, it seemed clear to him that "if the Republican party is sincere, then it won't reject a man simply because his skin is black." ZOibid. 196

Rejection of his candidacy, he reasoned, would obviously be evidence of insincerity. Even should the Republicans demon­ strate their insincerity by turning their backs on his can­ didacy, however. Turner resolved not to leave the Republi­

can party. His audience again cheered loudly as he empha­ sized that instead of leaving the party, blacks would

"organize and show it that we are the balance of power."

Victory would ultimately go to blacks, he argued, because the party would, at least at some point, return to the same high principles to which it had been committed during the Grant years. "I know from my travelings between here and New York and the Capitol [sic]" he proclaimed, "that

the Grant campaign is 'booming' in the hearts of all true Republicans." He closed his speech by asking his audience

to "look forward to the Presidential candidate for 1880,

and proclaim yourselves Grant men fe a rle ssly , and then you 21 will be on the side of right in the time of danger."

Despite strong black support for Turner, however, he

did not gain the nomination at the fall convention. In fact, newspaper accounts of the convention fail to mention

his name as a candidate for the Congress. Why that hap­ pened is unclear. Perhaps he had no support from anyone

ZlThe black Colored Citizen of Topeka, Kansas, coun­ seled St. Louis blacks to "'show no quarter' in the coming campaign." "If the Republicans refuse to nominate him," it continued, "he should run as an independent candidate. No need of mincing matters. If unprejudiced, white Republi­ cans will vote for him--if prejudiced, the colored voters should vote against them." Colored C itizen, 30 August 1878. 19 7 other than blacks. Clearly, the Republicans were much less solicitous of the black vote than they had been in 1870. Turner and Moses Dickson were elected to the Republican Cen­ tr a l Committee only a fte r a Boone County delegate made "a strong appeal on behalf of the colored people of his re­ gion, saying that they had always been faithful to the party, yet had never been represented in the state cen­ tral committee." Although the convention was willing to tolerate two black members on the state central committee, a motion to add four blacks instead of two "met with strong opposition . . . ."2 2

Turner's unsuccessful candidacy in 1878 marked the third time that he was thwarted in bids for an elective of­ fice. One must assume that his disappointment was mounting.

He had declared himself a candidate for a seat in Congress from M issouri's Second D istric tonly days before the e le c ­ tion in 1870.23 He followed that short-lived and unsuc­ cessful e ffo rt by making an attempt at a p o sitio n in the

Missouri House in 1872. Curiously, Turner ran for the Gen­ eral Assembly seat while on one of his leaves of absence from the Liberian ministership. That candidacy nearly cost him his life when he ran afoul of one of his old political foes from the 1870 ele c tio n , George B. Wedley. The Mis - souri Statesman of October 25, 1872, reported that Wedley was one of Turner's most outspoken opponents in his effort

ZZMissouri Statesman, 18 October 1878.

Z^Missouri Democrat, 31 October 1870. 19 8 to be elected to the Missouri House. According to the newspaper, the two men met at a reception for Turner and the latter "denounced Wedley in strong terms." Early the next morning, Wedley left his home with a colleague for a political meeting and encountered Turner on the street outside his house. This time it was Wedley's turn; he reproached Turner for his insulting behavior of the day before. Turner's response was direct and unequivocal: "[he] knocked him down three times," whereupon Wedley,"drew a pen-knife and thrust it into the lower part of Turner's left lung."^^ That fracas left Turner critically wounded and proba­ bly had a great deal to do with his inordinately long ab- 25 sence from Liberia u n til April 1873. He did not men­ tion the stabbing in any of his correspondences with the State Department. Martin H. Freeman, his temporary sub­ stitute in Liberia, however, noted in December 1872 that the "mail of 26 November . . . brought newspaper accounts that Hon. J. Milton Turner had been stabbed as supposed fatally."2G

Turner's failure to gain elective political office, particularly in 1878, was only a symptom of the decline in

Z^Missouri Democrat, 10 October 1872. ZSpor Turner's request for a leave and for extensions of his leave, see Chapter I I, pp. 137-139 above. Z^Dispatch No. 67, December 17, 1872, "Despatches," vol. 3. 199

black power in the former slave s ta te s as they had been 27 redeemed from Radicalism. The question of black rights became much less important to the country generally after the election of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Turner's

absence from the United States during most of the 1870's had kept him from experiencing first-hand the most serious manifestations of this reaction. Undoubtedly, he read

about them, and he made an effort on at least one of his leaves of absence, to travel through the South and assess 28 the condition of black people. He had even had his own

brush with overt racial discrimination early in 1877 when

he was refused a room a t the Astor House in New York City. Turner sued the proprietors of the hotel, contending that

they had violated the 1875 C ivil Rights Act. He acknow­

ledged to the court that the actual damages he suffered

amounted to only two dollars, the amount he said that he

had to pay a porter for taking his luggage to another hotel. Still, there was a principle of law at stake. There is no 29 evidence as to the outcome of his s u it.

27 For a general discussion of black life in post- Reconstruction America, see Rayford W. Logan, The Betrayal of the Negro; From Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson 2nd ed. (.New York: The Macmillan Company, IsJbSj. 28 In 1875, Turner indicated his desire to receive, at government expense, the following Washington daily news­ papers: the Republican and the Chronicle. Dispatch No. 151, October 16, 18/5, and Dispatch Ko. iSô,“April 15, 1875. He also asked to receive the New York Daily Evening Post. In addition. Turner justified his request for an extended leave-of-absence in 1873 on the grounds that he spent much of his time "in observing the general condition of my own people in the Southern States." See Chapter III, p. 139.

^^New York Times. 17 January 1877. 200

Whatever the degree of his immediate awareness of the crimes against black people in the South during the period following the Compromise of 1877, Turner was soon to get a first-hand view of the freedmen's plight. Po­ l i t i c a l terrorism and "bulldozing" were so bad by 1878 that many blacks began to flee the Redeemed South for "the pro­ mised land" of Kansas.St. Louis, located as i t was at a critical place on the Mississippi River, became a way station for the hegira to the West. By early March 1879 the first of the more than six thousand blacks who would come to St. Louis during the next four months, en route to

Kansas, arrived. The sheer numbers of these people, known contemporaneously as "exodusters," not to mention their generally destitute condition, did not go unnoticed by Turner.

The problems faced by the exodusters were legion. The f i r s t obstacle they had to overcome was to secure money for boat fare up the Mississippi. It cost from three to four dollars per adult to travel from the vicinity of Vicks­ burg, Mississippi, to St. Louis. Children under ten years of age were transported for half price, and a small amount of baggage was carried free of charge. Consequently, a

^®Nell Irvin P ainter, Exodusters : Black Migration to Kansas A fter Reconstruction (New York: Alfred A. Knoph, 1977), p. 10. The term "bulldozing" referred to the night- riding violence of white vigilantes.

^^Ibid. P a in te r's book is the b est, as well as the most recent, account of the 1879 exodus movement nationally, The most d etailed account of the exodus as i t related to St. Louis remains Glen Schwendemann's "Negro Exodus to Kan- 201

family of five needed from ten to fifteen dollars just to

get up the river, an amount that, in many cases, blacks had to raise by a hasty and unprofitable sale of most of th e ir 32 household goods. They arrived in St. Louis with their money spent and no way to secure passage to Kansas. Consequently, they were

in desperate need of immediate relief, and the black commu­

nity of St. Louis was quick to respond. The first attempt to extend aid to the black migrants from the South was or­ ganized by Charleton H. Tandy. Approximately two hundred and eighty men, women, and children arrived in St. Louis on

March 11, 1879, in a condition of "utter want." When the news of their arrival reached Tandy, he tried to find jobs for a few of the men and to arrange impromptu sh e lte r for the entire group. He made a brief, but largely unsuccessful,

effort to obtain financial help from a white organization known as the Mullanphy Emigrant Relief Board. This was an

association established under the provisions of the will of 33 Bryan Mullanphy of St. Louis to help migrants moving West. Having failed to get adequate help for the emigrants

sas: First Phase, March-July, 1879" (M.A. thesis. The U niversity of Oklahoma, 1957). ^^These figures are based on testimony offered before the Select Committee of the United States Senate to In v e sti­ gate the Causes of the Removal of the Negroes from the Southern States to the Northern States, and quoted in Schwendemann, pp. 39-40. ^^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 12, 13, 14 March 1879. For a detailed account of Tandy's attempt to solicit funds from the Mullanphy Board, see Schwendemann, pp. 40-46. 202

from the Mullanphy Board, Tandy concentrated on the St.

Louis black community for a relief effort. He issued a call to blacks of the city on March 14, 1879, asking them to come together to consider the plight of the exodus- ters.^* Three days later a mass meeting of blacks was held in St. Paul's Chapel.Tandy was elected president; J. T. Smith and J. W. Grant, vice presidents; Charles E. S ta rk e s, tre a su re r; and Robert Kimbrough and J. B. Dyson, secretaries. After considerable discussion, the gathering resolved to create a committee of fifteen persons which was charged with the responsibility of seeing to all the needs of the migrants including the arrangement and supervision of their transportation to Kansas. The black churches of the city were the focus of relief activity, all of them having opened their doors to the migrants. On March 18, the day after the mass meeting, the Committee of Fifteen met at St. P aul's Church and decided that there was so much work to be done th at they needed to expand th e ir group to become a Committee of Twen­ ty -fiv e . J. Milton Turner was selected as one of the ten new members.

34st. Louis Globe-Democrat, 14 March 1879; Schwende­ mann , p . 46. 33s t. Louis Globe-Democrat, 18 March 1879; Schwende­ mann , p . S5 . 3*Ibid. ^^Missouri Republican, 19 March 1879; St. Louis 203

The Committee of Twenty-five proceeded to break i t ­ self down into subcommittees on Finance, Resolutions, Re­ ception, Entertainm ent, and Commissary. Since a ll of the other activities were possible only if there was money, the subcommittee on Finance was the most important. Turner's name was added to th at subcommittee's membership sometime T O p rio r to March 26, 1879. On the same day th at the Committee of Twenty-five was created, the number of black exodusters in the city rose to fourteen hundred. Once again, i t seemed neces­ sary to call a mass meeting, this time for the twentieth of March. Tandy again presided and asked the Reverend

John Turner, chairman of the Committee of Twenty-five, to report on the group's progress. Turner responded with an informal report, explaining that he had not had time to prepare a written statement. His report was followed by an attempt by Albert Carter to persuade the gathering to endorse what the Missouri Republican called "a series of bitter resolutions indorsing the emigration from the South upon the ground that the colored people were too much

t Q abused and maltreated by the whites of the South.” Carter wanted a standing committee appointed "whose duty [it] should be to encourage emigration from those

Globe-Democrat, 21 March 1879; 26 April 1879; Schwendemann, pi Î51 2^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 26 March 1879.

^^Missouri Republican, 21 March 1879. 204

Southern states from which these people come; to distribute circulars among them, and if need be go down in person and urge them to quit the land of oppression to move to a more genial clime. J. Milton Turner interrupted Carter's speech on at least two occasions and made it clear that he did not sup­ port the resolutions proposed by Carter. After the latter had finished, John W. Wheeler responded to the Carter pro­ posal with anger, warning that "the colored people . . . could not afford to array themselves against the white pop­ ulation and that was what the adoption of Carter's resolu­ tions meant." A heated debate followed Wheeler's remarks with the more moderate members present eventually prevailing upon the group to pass a resolution that recounted the crimes of violence against black people in the South, of­ fering them as justification for the black exodus. Milton Turner got through an amendment requiring the resolution to be forwarded to the President of the United States. Turner addressed himself at length to the question of the exodus two days later in a letter to the editor of the 4 2 St. Louis Globe-Democrat. He acknowledged that the

4°Ibid. *^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 21 March 1879; Missouri Republican, 2l March 187Ü; Schwendemann, pp. 62-657

*^Turner to the Editor of the Globe-Democrat 22, 1879, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 23 March 1879, 205

presence of hundreds of blacks in the city, fleeing from

the South, made it necessary to consider "the vexed ques­

tion of the negroes' condition in that section of our country." He asserted th at even the most incredulous p e r­

son had to be convinced "that rifle clubs and other politi­ cal organizations have worked the persecution, perils and

death of hundreds, not to say thousands of negroes at the South." He had, he wrote, l i t t l e sympathy for the opinion that blacks were leaving the South because they had been persuaded to do so by p o litic a l demagogues. Rather, he exclaimed, they were leaving, "because of ostracism and persecution . . . and downright race prejudice." Neither did they leave because of a naive conviction that they would receive "that imaginary 'mules [sic] and forty acres.'" It took more than that to remove people "from places on which many of them were born and have grown to old age." Not that the emigrants were particularly well- informed of what lay ahead for them. Indeed, in a sentence reminiscent of Turner's comments about the Liberian exodus movement, he pronounced the blacks fleeing the South to be "inexperienced and ignorant of the outside world and its way . . . ." Still, he wrote, the fact "that a people so ignorant as these emigrants would start upon a long and uncertain journey without clothes, food, money or other necessary preparation, argues more than resentment or de­ spair." In fact, he continued, "it argues desperation." 206

To the credit of the much-maligned blacks, he said, their

desperation had "not shown itself in deeds of violence .,43 • • •

Ultimately, Turner maintained, it would be to the

South's own detriment to maintain blacks in such an atmos­ phere of depression and frustration. "The political and race prejudice of the white man," he wrote, "have so blinded him to his own interest in the case that he has allowed the relations of labor and capital at the South to become utterly disrupted." He went on to explain that he

thought whites should be training blacks to become respect­ able capitalists. In a passage which left little doubt

about his dissatisfaction with the life style of the South­ ern black masses, Turner spoke wistfully of their need to

be taught middle-class virtues: Where the negro or laborer is improvident and a spend­ thrift, the white man or capitalist is so prejudiced that his own interests would be to teach the laborer frugal and provident habits. Many of those people who were reared in the South have never been twenty miles from home, and have always been accustomed to depend on others. It is not surprising, therefore, that in numerous instances they are without frugal habits and in their new estate of freedom remind one more of grown up children than of persons of mature mind.44

Turner went on to write approvingly of the paterna­ listic way in which one planter in Arkansas he knew of, J.

R. S. Gilliland, had taught his black field hands how to

^^ibid.

**Ibid 207

keep "their expenditure within their income . . . The

result was, he declared, that "Gilliland's people are pros­ perous and contented. The Gilliland place is not for sale,

nor would the laborers leave that place, much less the 45 South." He concluded by declaring his belief that what was

needed was an "adjustment of the relations between labor and capital at the South . . . ." In the absence of such an adjustment, and with the blacks leaving the South, Tur­ ner thought it was possible that "our great cotton-growing sections" could be destroyed. Likewise, blacks leaving would deprive grain farmers of the North and West of "a considerable home market" for cereal products. Moreover, he was suspicious of the black laborer's ability to adjust "to the clim ate, habits and farm customs of our Western section." Despite these reservations, however. Turner en­

couraged the black worker to leave the South "in numbers sufficiently large until his emigration shall prove a cor­ rective to the haughty, domineering, selfish, landholder and capitalist of the South, solving forever the vexed question of the relations of the capitalist and contribu­ tor to the nation's material wealth in those parts. Within a few days after Turner's letter appeared in the Globe-Democrat, the number of black emigrants in the city rose to twenty-five hundred, and more had to be done to

4Sibid. ^^Ibid. 208 offer them temporary relief while they waited for transpor­ tation to Kansas. On March 26 the Globe-Democrat published a notice issued by the Committee of Twenty-five, asking for assistance for the refugees. It encouraged all "charity- loving people of St. Louis" to send "provisions and cloth­ ing," part of which would be used to sustain the emigrants in St. Louis, with the remainder helping to defray the cost of sending a number of blacks on to a colony at Wyandotte, Kansas.4? Despite the fact that he was a member of the commit­ tee coordinating relief activities for the refugees. Tur­ ner still had reservations "as to the propriety of the action of the congregations in giving food, shelter and transportation to the immigrants . . . ." He was con­ cerned that the aid provided to black emigrants would only serve to encourage destitute Southern blacks to move North, thus adding to the relief rolls. Blacks, he explained,

"would be emboldened to spend all they possessed for pas­ sage to this city, and trust to persons here for assist­ ance." Likewise, he mustered still another argument against the black exodus: blacks, by leaving the South, were forfeiting any possibility of Republican victory there. Moreover, they were moving to a sta te th a t was a l ­ ready indisputably Republican, a reality that would give them little political influence. Those reservations aside.

4?Ibid., 26 March 1879. 209

however. Turner took the position that inasmuch as a relief program "had been begun . . . it was necessary to continue

i t . "4* The arrival of black migrants in St. Louis continued unabated into A pril. The black community of the c ity , un­ able to generate sufficient relief funds in St. Louis, de­ cided to send Charleton H. Tandy on a fund-raising trip East. Tandy arrived in Washington, D.C., with a memorial to be presented to the Congress and signed, among others, by ex-Missouri Congressmen L. S. Metcalfe and Nathan Cole, ex-Senator John B. Henderson, ex-Governor Thomas C. Fletcher, and J. Milton Turner. The memorial included a protest against the conditions that had led to the exodus, asked for an investigation into the treatment of Southern blacks, and closed with an appeal to "enforce law and or- 49 der" below the Mason-Dixon Line. Turner's support of the exodus grew as the number of

Southern blacks moving into St. Louis increased. By A pril, his explanation of the exodus included the following "basic causes"; the partial failure of crops the year before, black overpopulation in the cotton states, and "adverse po­ litical pressure." The exodus, he argued, would help to ease the overpopulation problem in the South, to the advan­ tage of both blacks and whites remaining there. Moreover,

*^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 26 March 1879.

*^New York Daily Tribune, 8 April 1879. 210 it would have the effect of improving race relations in the South because the blacks who remained would be prodded,in a way not clearly defined by Turner, to become more bour­ geois. According to Turner, the exodus

would necessitate more industry among the colored people [who remained], give them better social or­ ganization and more steady remunerative employment. Beyond doubt the indolent and a irle ss lives of many of the Southern blacks, their improvidence and sloth­ fullness , have the effect of promoting and maintain­ ing a strong aversion between the two races, and constant-discord and more or less intimidation is the re su lt. As his interest in the exodus increased, so too did h is d issa tisfa c tio n with the work being done by the Commit­ tee of Twenty-five, and in mid-April 1879 Turner headed a movement to create a new organization to take its place. The Globe-Democrat of April 18 carried the announcement that a corporation, known as the Colored Immigration Aid Society, had been formed. Turner was one of eight charter members. In contrast to the all-b lac k Committee of Twenty-five, the membership of the new society included three prominent white politicians: Jacob E. Merrell, W. A. Scudder, and E.

S. Rowse. Those three persons were invited to serve as members of the Board of Directors of the Society in order to establish a "permanent organization" that would offer relief to "the 196 families now camped upon the Levee, and

^^New York Daily Herald, 7 April 1879; P ain ter, p, 244.

^^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 18 April 1879. 211

such others as come a l o n g ."32

There was another, more fundamental difference, be­ tween Turner's group and th at of the Committee of Twenty- five. In keeping with Turner's commitment to i n s t i l l bour­ geois values into the black masses, he proposed to do more than simply meet the immediate needs of blacks en route to Kansas. Turner hoped, through his organization, to estab­ lish settlem ents in Kansas and elsewhere th at would i n s t i l l into the black migrants responsible work habits so that they would not become "paupers in the land whither they journey."S3

Turner's Colored Immigration Aid Society met on April

19, 1879, with Turner serving as president. He announced, early in the meeting, th at he had received le tte rs from var­ ious parts of the country, expressing sympathy with the relief efforts and offering to provide money when it was needed. He also explained, in response to a question, that his group was an organization established to supplant the loosely-structured Committee of Twenty-five, which, he ar­ gued, "had done its business in a very random and irresp o n ­ sible way" and had become "wholly disorganized and could not be got together."34

32ibid., 20 April 1879. 33u. S., Congress, Senate, Report and Testimony of the Select Committee of the United States Senate to In v estig ate" the Causes of the Removal of the Negroes from the Southern" States to the Northern States, Report No. 693, part 2, 46th Cong., 2nd Sess., lâSO, pp. 120-121.

34gt. Louis Globe-Democrat, 20 April 1879. 212

The Society president went on to predict that the

migration from the South would continue. He reiterated a

familiar theme when he explained that although there were many reasons for the exodus, "the principal [one] was the conflict between capital and labor . . . ." Not unrelated

was "the extravagance both of the white planter and the colored laborer . . . ." He was particularly critical of thriftless black workers who, he said, "ran up large grocery b ills for cove oysters and candy . . . ." He

did not ignore the fact that besides these character dé­ ficiences "the colored man was practically ostracised, bulldozed, shot, hung, etc.

According to Turner, the Committee of Twenty-five had gotten into debt because of its inefficiency and was eager "to turn over their liabilities to the present organization

Likewise, Turner argued that bringing respectable white citizens such as Merrell, Scudder, and Rowse into the

Society would serve "to place the organization above sus­ p ic io n ."36

Turner's claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the

Committee of Twenty-five was not about to turn anything over to the new organization. Indeed, discussion at the April 19 meeting made it clear that the Committee would not cooperate with Turner's group, that "there was the green-eyed

jealousy existing between the two bodies, and that nothing

33ibid. S*Ibid. 213

5 7 could be done to bring about harmony." Two days after Turner's Society met, the members of the o rig in al Committee of Twenty-five gathered to esta b lish a counter "permanent aid association." There was little effort made to conceal the Committee's ill-feeling toward J. Milton Turner. The Reverend Moses Dickson, with whom Turner had worked closely on behalf of black education during the immediate postwar period, insinuated that Tur­ ner had misused funds collected for the refugees, and ex­ pressed his opinion that "Milton Turner . . . had not treated the other members with courtesy." John Wheeler labeled Turner as "the Judas of the committee" for having created a separate organization, arguing that Turner had betrayed them and that they did not want anything more to do with him.38

Meanwhile, Turner's group was meeting in another part of the city, although with a considerably smaller attend­ ance, and stoking the fires of discord by charging the Committee of Twenty-five with the same so rt of misuse of money and general irresponsibility with which he was being charged.3^ On April 23 the Committee of Twenty-five met again.

There was only a small number of people in attendance and

3?Ibid. 3®Ibid. , 22 April 1879. 39lbid. 214 much of the discussion was about the differences between

the riv a l organizations. "The unanimous feelin g ," according to the Globe-Democrat, "was that no attention should be paid to the society led by J. Milton Turner." The Reverend

John Turner, president of the Committee, wanted it clearly understood that "he was a distinct person from J. Milton Turner . . . ." Presumably, Milton Turner tried to impress his brethren with the righteousness of his position by referring to his Liberian experience, for the Reverend John

Turner also sarcastically emphasized that "he was not of the 'diplomatic corps. Milton Turner was grossly offended by the sudden up­ surge of animosity toward him, and on April 24, 1879, he addressed a letter to the editor of the Globe-Democrat, indicating his intention to "henceforth treat with con­ temptuous silence all innuendoes levelled at me . . . In a phrase that offers insight into the obnoxious con­ descension that must have grated his opponents. Turner re­ marked that he would in the future ignore the criticisms of men "who are scarcely known beyond their own family cir­ cle, and who, through a spirit of envy, jealousy or malice, belabor themselves to pervert my motives and endeavors in behalf of my poor afflicted people, and to detract from my well-earned reputation and character in this country.

GOlbid. ^^Turner to the editor of the Globe-Democrat, 24 April 1879. 215

He defended the idea of the Colored Emigration Aid

Society as "a grand conception," arguing that the men who composed i t were determined to carry out its mission. As

to allegations that he was dishonest. Turner remarked, "I have only to point the people of the country to my public record." He continued on to sing his own praises in a pas­

sage strongly reminiscent of the speech he had given in Jefferson City just before leaving for Liberia. He pointed with especial pride to the fact that, born on these s tr e e ts , in remote and humble circum stances, I have had a somewhat, at least, conspicuous public experience, and it is my especial pride to-day to be able to defy any man in or out of this country, living or dead, to place a finger on the point of my infidelity to the interest of the elevation of my unfortunate people.

He closed by defying "any living man or any dead man's his­ tory" to make "any direct and definite assault upon my good

name and honest character . . . ." Two days later a mass meeting, called by Turner,

attracted two hundred black citizens. According to the

Globe-Democrat, at least two-thirds of those present were d is s a tis fie d with and c r itic a l of the Committee of Twenty-

five, particularly with regard to its failure to turn any

funds over to the group headed by J. Milton T u r n e r .

On April 28 the Reverend John Turner's faction again met, with the Reverend Turner labeling J. Milton Turner's mass meeting "a disgrace to the colored people . . . ."

^^Ibid. GSlbid., 26 April 1879. 216

Charges of the letter's misuse of funds were repeated.^4

Ultimately, the Reverend Turner's committee was more suc­ cessful in raising money, largely because it had more sup­ port from the St. Louis black community. Likewise, the black migrants trusted the Reverend Turner's group more than they did the Colored Immigration Aid Society. Unquestionably,

Milton Turner's paternalistic condescension rankled potential grassroots supporters. Quite obviously, he had difficulty viewing the exodus as the life and death struggle that it was for the emigrants. To them, the exodus meant an opportunity to live the kind of life that had been denied them in the South, an end in itself; to him, it was, first of all, a way of changing that life style, and, secondly, a concrete way of demonstrating black power in the South, both means to an end. The sole concrete contribution of the group headed by the former Minister to Liberia consisted of $250 in cash, turned over to the Reverend Turner's Colored Relief Board in mid-summer. 65 By contrast, the Reverend Turner's group provided nearly three thousand dollars worth of goods and services between March 17 and April 22 a l o n e . 66

The Colored Relief Board's greater identity with the black masses, however, combined with the confusion over two

6 4 i b i d ., 29 April 1879. 63painter, p. 227; St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 22, 26, 2 7 July 1879; 5 August 1879. 66schwendemann, p. 82; Senate Report 693, Part 2, pp. 121-122. 217 seemingly identical black relief organizations, handicapped the Relief Board's efforts to secure financial assistance from outside of the St. Louis community. The following editorial comment in the Atchison [Kansas] Globe best sums up the wariness of potential contributors;

The colored preachers of St. Louis are making a great deal of money out of the exodus donors. There are two societies, and each one accuses the other of gross,, irregularities, which are nothing short of thefts. In May 1879 a meeting was called at the Eighth Street

B aptist Church in St. Louis to hear Charleton Tandy's r e ­ port on his generally unsuccessful visit east "on a mis­ sion in the interest of the refugees." Tandy singled out

Frederick Douglass for particular criticism, indicating that the black leader had treated him coldly and had re­ fused to assist. At that point, John W. Taylor arose to offer a resolution "condemning Fred. Douglass and declaring him a tr a ito r to his race." Milton Turner, who by this time knew what it was like to be labeled a "traitor," came to Douglass's defense. As Wheeler's motion was about to be voted upon. Turner jumped from his seat and rushed to the platform shouting "My Friends, dear friends; hold on, just think first what this means!" The chairman of the meeting ruled Turner out of order, but, according to the Missouri

Republican, he "persisted in speaking, and a motion carried to allow debate." Turner argued "that Fred Douglass had done more than any living man for his race and it would be

^^Atchison [Kansas] Globe, 19 May 1879. 218

a shame and scandal on St. Louis colored people to declare him a traitor without an investigation into the charges preferred against him." The resolution of condemnation was

withdrawn by acclamation following Turner's speech, to

which he responded, "This is the happiest moment of my life, this prevention of a wrong to Douglass and the colored ra c e ."68

As Nell Irvin Painter has pointed out, the St. Louis Colored Relief Board "limped along" for the remainder of the year and continued into 1880, even though "the public had lost interest in the Exodus, and contributions were negligible."69

Milton Turner's interest switched from relief back to politics as the 1880 election grew near. Presumably eager to become a power broker the way that he had been a decade earlier, he began to lay the groundwork in March of that year for his own appointment to a federal position. First he gathered all of the letters of recommendation filed with the State Department in 1870-1871 in support of his applica­ tion for appointment to the Liberian ministership.^® Less

68Missouri Republican, 16 May 1879. For a similar account, see the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 16 May 1879.

69 Painter, pp. 229-230. 7®J. Milton Turner to the State Department, State De­ partment Registers of Miscellaneous Communications Received, Microcopy No. M-17, Roll 63, vol. 139, p. 90, NA. This was the second time since his return from Liberia that Turner made an overt attempt at securing a federal position. In the summer of 1878 he had applied for the position of "Appraiser of Customs" at St. Louis but had withdrawn in 219

than a month later he headed a delegation of Missouri blacks, known as the Missouri Republican Union, that trav­ eled to Washington and called upon President Hayes. They explained to the President "that the negro vote of the

State of Missouri is entirely unrepresented in official positions . . . That was unfortunate, they explained, since "the negro vote amounted to 40,000, and controls two, if not three. Congressional districts of St. Louis . . . ." They argued "that if the President would elevate a colored man to a responsible o f fic ia l position in Missouri i t would reunite the colored people, who are now disaffected on ac­ count of having to carry the burdens of the party without charge or emoluments That sentiment of disenchantment was growing among prominent black leaders throughout the nation and it threat­ ened to increase after James A. Garfield's election to the

Presidency if Garfield did not become more "responsive" to 7 2 his black constituency. What did "responsiveness" mean? Apparently two things. One was the placing of prominent blacks in impor- favor of someone else, perhaps because he wanted to devote more time to his candidacy for a Congressional seat. James Milton Turner f il e , "Applications and Recommendations Dur­ ing the Hayes Administration," R.G. 59, NA. Interestingly, Turner claimed in 1898 that "under Gen. Arthur he had an easy berth as special agent of the Customs Department," a grossly erroneous claim. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 March 1898. ^^New York Times, 2 April 1880.

^^Elizabeth Caldwell Beatty, "The Political Response 220

tant patronage positions controlled by the Republicans, the

kind of thing that Turner and the Missouri Republican Union had declared to be a necessity in April 1880.^3 in addi­

tion, black leaders wanted some federal action to be taken to protect the civil rights of blacks in the Redeemed 74 South.

One month after the election of Garfield, J. Milton

Turner presided over another meeting of the Missouri Re­ publican Union. The group called for a national black con­ vention to be held in Washington, D.C., as a preliminary

step to making political demands of the Republican admin­ istration. The call was entirely consistent with Turner's growing conviction that disunity was one of the major stum­ bling blocks to effective black political influence.

Hence, the call attempted to evoke a sentiment similar to 75 the one present during the years of Radical rule. The call began with the assertion that "the Negro has reached a significant juncture in citizenship." It pro­ claimed the "truth" that Garfield's victory could not have of Black Americans, 1876-1896," (Ph. D. dissertation. The Florida State University, 1976), pp. 35-55. 73lbid., p. 48. Nationally, the demands focused on the appointment of a black person to a cabinet position. Frederick Douglass, Blanche K. Bruce, John M. Langston, Robert E llio tt, Robert Devaux, and William Wells Brown were among those thought by the black press to be suited for such a position. ?4lbid., p. 35-58.

^^Ibid., pp. 47-48; Tribune [Topeka, Kansas], 25 December 1880. 221

occurred without the black vote.^^ The black vote, it de­

clared, was "an indispensable factor. It can grant tri­ umph or secure defeat." With that principle in mind, it followed logically that the black vote "should receive the respect due its power." Anything less, the call proclaimed, "is not the dignity of citizenship; whatever is less than 77 citizenship is peonage and serfdom." The Missouri Republican Union addressed i t s e l f sp e c if­

ically to the plight of black people in the South where

"the new amendments [to the Constitution] are practically abrogated; labor is unremunerated; life and property in­ secure; [and] terrorism prostrates the American ballot, and retards development." The seriousness of these matters prompted the Union to "request the p a tr io tic and public spirited negro men to assemble in council in the city of Washington, D.C., March 3, 1881. The March conference never materialized, however.

^^Turner's role in the nomination and election of Garfield is unclear. He did attend the 1880 Republican Convention, one of many prominent black leaders who did so. Apparently, Turner was not a delegate. He was one of a group of people specifically mentioned by Edward W. Blyden, President of Liberia College and Liberian Minister of the Interior, with whom Blyden was invited to dine. The other "leading colored men" mentioned by Bly­ den were Frederick Douglass, Blanche K. Bruce, Dr. Robert Purvis, and Robert B. E llio tt. H ollis R. Lynch, Edward Wilmot Blyden: Pan-Negro P a trio t, 1832-1912 (London : Oxford University Press, 1967), p. ill. ^^Tribune, 25 December 1880. 78lbid. See also, Louisianian [New Orleans], 25 December 1880, and the New York Times, 16 December 1880. 222

The Washington, B.C., People's Advocate summed up the attitude toward the proposed convention when it reminded its readers how singularly unsuccessful such movements had been since 1873. The Advocate spoke against the gathering simply because it believed that such a meeting would not be effective. It suggested an alternative "way to secure recognition" by "local conferences and local organiza­ tion.

Whether as a direct response to this suggestion or not. Turner did turn his efforts toward Missouri. In February 1881, the month before the proposed national con­ ference was to have been held, he and J. H. Murray of St. Louis visited the Missouri capitol in support of proposed changes in the school law that would have provided better facilities for black education. The two men met with Demo­ cratic Governor Thomas T. Crittenden and presumably en­ dorsed an end to segregated education, for Crittenden in­ formed them that although he would support "any action to advance the objects sbught by the colored representatives," still, he "thought it would not be wise to disturb the present law so far as it provides for the separation of the colored and white scholars."®® While in Jefferson City, Turner tried to gain access to the hall of the House of

Representatives "to lecture upon the political condition of

79people's Advocate, 8 January 1881; Louisianian, 15 January 1881. ®®Missouri Statesman [Columbia, Missouri], 4 February 1881. 223

the country." Representative Wray of St. Louis moved the

adoption of a resolution offering the House facilities for the occasion, but for some reason the resolution did not come to a vote, and there is no evidence that Turner made his speech.®!

Nearly one and one half years after the aborted

national conference was to have been held in Washington, Turner presided over a state convention held in Missouri’s capital city. Much of the convention was a reiteration

of what had become a familiar Turner theme: emphasis on the preparatory tool of education. Turner's long-since- dead mentor, John Berry Meachum, would have been pleased

with the gathering. More than thirty years before, he had proclaimed the need for education among blacks to prepare them for the eventual day when freedom would come. In p a r­ ticular, he had placed emphasis on industrial education,

which, he believed, offered the best hope for the unity and

eventual uplift of blacks. Now Turner, committed to the belief that the acquisition of skills would lead to money,

and th a t money would lead to statu s and p o litic a l power,

modified the message to apply to the post-emancipation era.

Turner began the proceedings with a brief but "ear­

nest" speech in which he "stated the object of the council

81 The Missouri Statesman of February 4, 1881, re­ ported that Turner's request was denied. The House Journal, however, indicates that a motion to table the Wray resolu- tion was defeated 113 to 11 but shows no vote on the reso­ lution itself. Missouri, General Assembly, House, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-first General Assembly of the State of Missouri, 1881, p. 244. 224

to be for the purpose of discussing the subject of the establishment of a mechanical or industrial school in which

colored boys and girls may be taught the skilled trades and arts . . . Subsequently, the convention passed resolu­

tions endorsing the creation of kindergartens for blacks and the establishment of compulsory education for black youths. While much of the meeting was a rehash of Turner's by now familiar emphasis on the need for black people to make

adjustments in their lives so as to put themselves in tune with the mainstream of white society, and while much of it was consistent with Turner's long-existing optimism that blacks would one day be assim ilated into American society, there was another side to the proceedings. The gathering carried with it also an element of the politics of con­ frontation that had led Turner and the Missouri Republican Union to call for a national convention two years earlier. It was a patently assertive and even defiant meeting of persons who were quite dissatisfied with their lack of

®^New York Times, 26 August 1882; People's Tribune, 30 August 1882. Subsequently, there came out of this con- ference a "memorial" presented to the state legislature at the beginning of the 1883 session, "praying for the estab­ lishment . . . of an industrial school for the education and training of the colored youth," along with a better, and compulsory, educational system for blacks. The memorial was referred to the Committee on Education which reported back two days later, concluding that members "have con­ sidered the same and recommend that no action be taken . . . ." Missouri, General Assembly, House, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-second General As~ sembly of the State of Missouri, 1883, pp. 179, 195. 225 political power. In Turner’s case, it was a clear example of how far Republican racism had driven him away from the hallowed sanctuary of the party of Grant and moved him down the path toward political apostasy. The convention, with Turner presiding first as tem­ porary, and, later, as permanent chairman, passed a resolu­ tion endorsing "every movement whose purpose shall be the emancipation of the negro race from the thraldom of polit­ ical demagogues." It acknowledged "with profound grati­ tude the efforts of the Republican Party in behalf of our race . . . ." It even acknowledged that the Republicans' "platform of principles as announced at every convention is the most p ra c tic a l, progressive, and safe to a ll the elements of our composite nationality . . . ." Neverthe­ less, the black people of Missouri attending this meeting were sufficiently disillusioned with the Republican party that they f e lt compelled to "Announce as the new Monroe Doc­ trine of the era of emancipation that the negro voter in the United States shall not henceforth consider himself a subject for colonization and appropriation for any polit­ ical party, but that the individual['s] right to think, speak, and act for himself shall be untrammeled by party chains. The convention went on to endorse a specific way of dealing with an unresponsive Republican party. It encour-

®^New York Times, 26 August 1883; People's Tribune, 30 August l8S2. 226 aged black Missourians to adhere to the following policy in the next election: "That whenever a colored man has been nominated on the Republican tic k e t and been beaten, while the other part of the ticket was elected, we recommend them to vote independently and without regard to party,

That position was a far cry from the party line that Turner had endorsed in 1878, Perhaps he would have come to it sooner had he not been out of the country during the period that the South and his own state were being Redeemed, As it was, his faith in Republicanism did not wane until he saw the effects of unrestrained Southern racism in the exo­ dus movement and witnessed, along with other black leaders, the unwillingness of Republican leaders to extend important patronage positions to the best of his race.

His return to America had been an enlightening, if not altogether pleasant, experience. Despite what he considered to be his superior qualifications to lead black people, he had been overtly rejected by many St. Louis blacks who did not share his view of the strategy needed for black upward mobility. Moreover, his earlier view of the Republican p a rty 's commitment to e g a lita ria n principles was seriously called into question. Still, he retained the view that black people were important politically and that a properly organized black coalition could wield considerable power. But if that overall strategy was sound, perhaps the tactics would have to be rethought.

*4lbid. CHAPTER VI

DOING WELL BY DOING GOOD

James Milton Turner’s Colored Immigration Aid Society

was a colossal failure with regard to its avowed goal of

providing relief and direction to black exodusters. It did,

however, have one important long-range effect: it intro­ duced Turner to the Oklahoma Territory and to the former black slaves of Indians remaining there after the Civil War. In the process of trying to help Southern blacks find a place to move. Turner became aware of what he considered to be gross violations of the civil rights of the freedmen living in Indian Territory. Consequently, in 1883 he set

out to seek legislative and judicial remedies to their problems. Turner encountered trouble almost from the beginning.

He lobbied for five years on behalf of a bill to give the

freedmen full tribal rights. Ultimately, he was able to secure passage of that bill only with the help of the Demo­ crats whom only a few years before he had considered to be the bane of the American political system. Not unmindful of the help of his benefactors, he committed the ultimate act of political apostasy: he switched from the Republican to the Democratic party. A new era in Turner's struggle

227 228 for statu s and power had begun.

The Cherokee freedmen's case was tailor-made for Tur­ ner, given his inability to separate his own progress from th at of other blacks. Here was an opportunity to combine his own interests with the interests of the people he hoped to serve. If wealth was the key to success, the fees he charged the Cherokee freedmen could make him wealthy and he, in turn, could help them to achieve that which was rightfully theirs. Ironically, the criticism of Turner increased in pro­ portion to the intensity of his machinations on behalf of the freedmen. He was labeled an opportunist, a manipulator, and even a fraud. Hence, even though he came to achieve the legislative goal he sought, his reputation was seriously damaged by the suspicion his tactics aroused. Turner's Colored Immigration Aid Society had declared in May 1879 that it was in favor of black emigration. It did not "favor that the immigration should be confined to

Kansas, but to such sections of the country, Kansas in ­ cluded, as w ill receive and p ro tect them in the exercise of the rights which the Constitution guarantees alike to all c itiz e n s . Presumably, the Society had in mind the Oklahoma Territory, for there was a growing tendency around the turn of the decade for black leaders to view that region as a

1st. Louis Globe-Democrat, 15 May 1879. 229

land of promise for blacks. Black newspapers, in particu­

lar, began to advocate opening up the Oklahoma Territory to blacks.2

Although Turner's Society failed miserably in 1879, he bounced back in 1881 with a plan to settle Southern blacks in Oklahoma through the medium of a new organization called the Freedmen's Oklahoma Association. Apparently the

Association was going to facilitate the homesteading of blacks on 160-acre tracts of land in the Oklahoma Terri­ tory, charging a fee for its services. The Association began distributing handbills to blacks in early spring, "promising 160 acres of land to every signed freedman who w ill go and occupy the public lands of Oklahoma."3

Turner was the president of the Association, a rela­ tionship, one newspaper commented, which made the success of the venture very unlikely. The Daily Tribune went on to note that "of late the Hon. J. Milton Turner has been rendering himself unpopular with his own people, and they look with suspicion on any proposition coming from him." The suspicion apparently was that Turner was somehow going to "swindle" the potential settlers, although the manner in

^Beatty, p. 59. A resolution was offered at the 1883 national Negro Editors' Convention, held in St. Louis, to ask the Secretary of the Interior to appropriate $5,000 for the support of black schools in Indian Territory. The reso­ lutio n was tabled. New York Times, 14 July 1883. ^U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Executive Documents, S. Doc. Ill, part 2, 47th Cong., 2nd Sess., l881, pp. 2-4. 230

4 which that was supposed to happen was not spelled out.

The Association failed to last more than a few months Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs C. W. Holcomb's as­

sertio n in a le tte r to Secretary of the In te rio r Kirkwood

that "there are no lands in the Indian Territory open to settlement or entry by freedmen, or by any other persons, under any of the public land laws of the United S tates,"

sealed its fate.^ That view was given judicial sanction in the May 1881 case of the United States vs. Payne, in

which the district court of Arkansas ruled that "colored persons who were never held as slaves in the Indian coun­

try, but who may have been slaves elsewhere, are like other citizens of the United States, and have no more rights in the Indian country than other citizens of the United

S ta te s . Presumably that meant the end of Turner's attempts to settle Southern blacks in Indian Territory, although the Indian Chieftain, a weekly newspaper published in Vinita,

Indian Territory, carried an announcement in September 1883 indicating that "J. Milton Turner, the colored ora­ tor and politician of St. Louis . . . ," had been in In­

dian T erritory and was "working up a scheme to locate a

^Daily Tribune [Jefferson City, Mo.], 15 April 1881. ®C. W. Holcomb to S. J. Kirkwood, Senate Executive Documents, No. Ill, pp. 2-4. ^Thomas F. Andrews, "Freedmen in Indian T errito ry : A Post-Civil War Dilemma," Journal of the West 4 (July 231 colored colony on the strip of country called Oklahoma."

The Chieftain noted that Turner had been a frequent visitor "to Vinita and other points in the territory within a few months . . . . If Turner was still interested in a black colony in 1883, i t is lik ely th at he was hopeful of estab lish in g a settlement in Oklahoma Territory to be populated by black Q men and women who had formerly been slaves of the Indians.

As early as 1881 he had written to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in an attempt to ascertain the legal status of freedmen w ithin the Choctaw and Creek Nations. Unfor­ tunately, the original letter written by Turner has long since disappeared, making i t impossible to determine ex- 9 actly what he asked. The September 1883 edition of the

1964): 373.

^Indian Chieftain, 14 September 1883. In the spring of 1883, Turner had attempted to get a federal appoint­ ment as a "special agent of the Department of the Interior . . . with the view of facilitating the investigation of fraudulent entries of portions of the public lands." John M. Hamilton to Secretary of the Interior H. M. Teller, April 27, 1883; J. Milton Turner to H. M. T e lle r, May 3, 1883; Department of the In te rio r, Appointment D ivision, File No. 784, December 1883, NA. ®Morris L. Wardell, A Political History of the Chero­ kee Nation 1838-1907 (Norman, Oklahoma: U niversity of Oklahoma Press, 1938) , p . 231. 90nly a brief abstract of the letter remains. The original letter was H. C. Carter and J. Milton Turner to the Justice Department, March 22, 1881, Letters Received, Land Division, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 76, National Archives, Washington, D. C. (Hereafter cited as L.D., BIA, R.G. 76, NA). Turner recalled in 1889 that in 1881 and 1882, "I was representing the Freedmen of the Choctaw Nation before the Department of the Interior." 232

Chieftain which carried the announcement that Turner was in the Territory also begrudgingly acknowledged that there was unhappiness among black freedmen in Indian Territory, particularly in the Cherokee Nation, However, the Chief­ tain took the position that insofar as the Cherokee Nation was concerned, "the obligations she v o luntarily assumed towards her colored citizens have been carried out in good faith and there is no portion of the race , , , within the lim its of the United States whose condition is so good or privileges so extensive and valuable. The Cherokee freedmen, however, took a different view of their condition. They argued that the Cherokee

Nation was systematically and illegally depriving them of the full tribal and political rights to which they were entitled. That difference in perception of the status of the freedmen cannot be understood without reference to the previous twenty years or more of Cherokee-black relations. It had its origins in the antebellum days of black slaves and Indian m asters, the C ivil War, and the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866, The Cherokee Nation had been split into northern and southern factions since the 1830*s. Most of the slaves congregated among the southern Cherokees, and

No specifics were given. Affidavit filed by J, Milton Tur­ ner, Enclosure, Turner to Secretary of the Interior, Sep­ tember 10, 1889, File 298, Special Files of the Office of Indian Affairs, 1807-1904, National Archives Microfilm Publication M574, roll 81, frame 0238 (hereafter cited as Special File 298),

^^Indian Chieftain, 14 September 1883, 233 that faction aligned itself with the Confederacy during the Civil War. The war was disastrous for both sides. All of the bitter animosities displayed on the larger scene between North and South were played out in microcosm with­ in the Cherokee Nation. Homes were burned, fences and farm implements destroyed, livestock slaughtered, and, of course, human blood shed. So bitter was the hatred, in fact, that the majority of loyal Cherokees confiscated the land of the Confederate members of the tribe so that the southern Chero­ kees had no homes to return to at the end of the w ar.ü

The federal government moved in to restore order in the Cherokee Nation in late 1865. On September 1 a meeting was called to draw up a Reconstruction treaty. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, unwittingly serving as a protagonist rather than a conciliator, began the first ses­ sion by accusing all Cherokees of being traitors to the United States during the Civil War. He refused to dis­ tinguish between the minority southern party which had joined the Confederacy and the majority northern party which had not. That charge set the stage for a debate that lasted more than ten months, until, on July 19, 1866, the Cherokee Nation became the la st of the Five C ivilized

Tribes to sign a Reconstruction treaty. While the major issue had been whether or not to

llHanna P. Warren, "Reconstruction in the Cherokee Nation," Chronicles of Oklahoma 45 (Spring 1967): 180; Walt Wilson, "Freedmen in Indian Territory," Chronicles of Okla­ homa 44 (Summer 1971): 230. 234

divide the Cherokee Nation permanently into northern and southern factions, the question of what to do with blacks

within the Territory was also important. Southern repre­ sentatives Stan Watie and Elias C, Boudinot argued that the federal government should remove a ll blacks from Cherokee Territory at government expense. The northern faction,

f i r s t headed by John Ross and then, a fte r his death, by Lewis Downing, argued for a section of land to be set aside within Cherokee Territory for the exclusive use of black

freedmen. Ultimately, both sides agreed to the government's com­

promise offer. It included a provision allowing former

slaves of Cherokee masters still living in the Cherokee Nation in 1866, as well as former slaves who had fled during the Civil War years but who returned within six months after the date of the treaty, to enjoy thereafter

all the rights and privileges of full-blooded Cherokees, That six-months provision and the confusion it created over

who did and who did not have legal status within the Nation 12 posed problems for the Cherokees for nearly fifty years. The treaty provision granting a narrowly-defined group of freedmen undefined equal political and civil rights was the focal point for controversy in which Milton Turner

12 Information in this and the preceding two para­ graphs has been synthesized from the following sources: Warren, pp, 181-189; Wilson, p, 233; Paul F, Lambert, "The Reconstruction Treaty of 1866," Journal of the West 12 (October 1973): 474, 488-489, 235 became involved in the 1880's. In 1883 the Congress of the United States ordered $300,000 to be paid to the Chero­ kee Nation in return for the cession of several millions of acres of land west of the Arkansas River. The money was to be distributed among members of the Cherokee Nation as the Cherokee Council saw fit. Problems arose, however, when the Cherokee Council voted to limit the distribution of the money to full-blooded Cherokees, thus excluding black freedmen. The Cherokee Chief Bushyhead vetoed the act, but i t was subsequently passed over his o b j e c t i o n .

The Cherokees advanced a two-fold argument in defense of their action. They reasoned that the dispersal of the money was an internal matter in which no outside party had a right to interfere. Land, they maintained, was a com­ modity held in common by the Cherokee people. No individual had a right to buy or sell land within the Nation, nor, for that matter, to derive any personal benefit from the sale of land by the Nation. Money received from land cessions went into a common fund and was distributed by the Cherokee Coun­ cil according to need. There were, as far as the Cherokees were concerned, no inherent individual rights or claims to the material bounty of the Nation. The Cherokee Council used money in the common fund to provide social services

!%ardell, p. 235. For a concise chronology of the case, see J. Milton Turner to President Grover Cleveland, June 14, 1886, L etter No. 15802, L etters Received, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA. 236

such as educational facilities and poor relief whenever it deemed those services to be necessary. The black freed­ men, it argued, had not contributed toward the expansion of the common fund and, therefore, were not entitled to share in the 1883 appropriation. The Council did not view that decision as discriminatory. The decision was simply one of d istrib u tin g the money among those persons who had contributed to the common fund. Almost as an afterthought, the Cherokees added a second argument against sharing the money with their former slaves. They pointed out that no other reconstructed state had been forced to share its fi­ nancial resources with black freedmen, The freedmen, of course, viewed the situation differ­ ently, They immediately expressed their dissatisfaction with the Council decision and agitated for its reversal. During the early summer of 1883, the annual "Emancipation

Day" fair became a forum for the discussion of ways to force the Cherokees to share the $300,000, A decision was made to send two black members of the tribe to Washington to plead the freedmen's case. Consequently, on June 2, 1883, Lewis Daniels and Ike Rogers arrived in the C apital,

On June 9 they met with Secretary of the In te rio r Henry M. Teller who listened to their story but declined to become involved in the matter. Ten days later Daniels and Rogers

^*H, R, 1345, 48th Cong,, 1st sess,, 1883, Special F ile 298, frames 664-672, 237 were back in Indian Territory planning to pursue the matter by means of a mass meeting of all freedmen in the Cherokee

Nation. Two mass meetings were held in December of 1883. They were well attended, owing to the wide advertisement provided by local newspapers and messengers. The first of the meetings was held on December 6, 1883, at Lightning Creek in Indian Territory and the second on December 11, at Fort Gibson.!® Out of these meetings came a committee empowered to select and employ an agent to represent the freedmen in their claims against the Cherokee Nation. The experience of Daniels and Rogers with the Secretary of the Interior convinced the freedmen that the success of their cause depended upon their ability to solicit the support of a prestigious spokesman to intervene of their behalf. Pre­ sumably J. Milton Turner's ministerial experience seemed to qualify him for that role. In addition, his efforts to facilitate black migration into Oklahoma had made him a somewhat well-known figure in Indian Territory. Hence, the

!5Lewis Daniels, affidavit filed with the Commis­ sioner of Indian Affairs, September 28, 1889, Special File 298, frames 299-303; David Martin and Andrew Norwood, af­ fidavits filed with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, September 19, 1889, Special File 298, frames 269-270.

!®Minutes of the Meeting of the Freedmen held at Lightning Creek, December 6, 1883, Special File 298, frames 397-399; le tte r from Lightning Creek Committee to Permanent Committee, December 14, 1883, Special File 298, frames 414-417. 238 ad hoc committee of freedmen approached Turner about the job and, upon his acceptance of the mission, it granted 1 7 him the power of attorney for the whole group.

Turner's assumption of the role of an "attorney" is one of the more mystifying moments in the man's life. There is no evidence th at he ever became an attorney, a l ­ though he listed his occupation as "lawyer" or "attorney" for fifteen of the thirty-five years that his name appears in Gould's St. Louis Directory.!® In 1916, Charleton H. Tandy offered testimony before the St. Louis Circuit Court in a trial aimed at the disposition of Turner's estate.

Tandy had known Turner from 1857 until the letter's death in 1915. He was asked directly, "Was Milton Turner a lawyer?" Tandy's response was "Not to my knowledge. I don't think he was ever admitted to the practice of law."

Tandy did go on to note, however, th at "I really think he was a better lawyer than one half of the men that are at the Bar."!®

The first reference to Turner as a lawyer appears in the account of his January 1877 discrimination suit against the Astor House in New York City. The newspaper identified

!^Minutes of the Meeting of the Permanent Committee held at Four Mile Creek, December 20 and 21, 1883, Special File 298, frames 409-413; Special Contract of J. Milton Tur­ ner, Special File 298, frames 51-53. !®Gould's St. Louis Directory (St. Louis: David Gould, 1877-1915). !®Testimony of Charleton H. Tandy, Case No. 2884B, St. Louis Circuit Court, Civil Court Building, St. Louis, Mo. 239

Turner as "quite a linguist and an able lawyer," although it noted that he had employed legal counsel to prosecute his claim.One can only speculate about why Turner began to identify himself as an attorney at that early date. Clearly, he had no idea at that time of being involved in

the Cherokee freedmen's case. Rather, given Turner's ap­ parent desire to re-en ter p o litic s in 1878, i t must be as­ sumed that he thought his id e n tific a tio n as a lawyer would be politically helpful. Whatever Turner's original motives for calling him­ self a lawyer, his ability to play the role of an attorney was crucial to the success or failure of his efforts on behalf of the Cherokee freedmen. His attempts at coloniza­ tion had led him to a realization of the problems confront­ ing blacks in Indian Territory. By 1883, he had developed some rather negative views about the Indians. In June of th at year he wrote to Missouri Republican Congressman James

H. McLean about how "Indians discriminate against [blacks] on account of color." Blacks, he told McLean, were trying to become industrious and "to materially build up them­ selves and their children and obtain a substantial owner­ ship of the soil . . . ." Hence, he saw blacks as being at least nascent capitalists. "While the Indian goes down showing no longevity to withstand civilization," he contin­ ued, "the Negro . . . shows a desire for the tex t books and

^®New York Times, 17 January 1877; see Chapter V, 198 above. 240

takes to the ways of civilized life," He concluded by noting that "Whatever else may be said upon this subject, it is true that the Negro is in no sense advanced or im- 21 proved by contact with the Indians," Turner made it clear, however, that not all of the

blame should fall on the Indians, The federal government, which, of course, had been dominated by Republicans since the Civil War, was also at fault for creating an atmosphere that was conducive to the violation of black rights. The

government had been too mild toward all former slave states. The Cherokees had freed their slaves and made concessions to blacks in the 1866 Reconstruction treaty only because they feared government re p ris a ls . However, the Turner scenario went, as the federal government became more and more p er­ missive of racist actions against blacks, the Cherokee Na­ tion embarked on a program of "debarring the black freedmen from th e ir rig h ts. To counter that trend. Turner accepted the position of attorney for the freedmen and launched a campaign in sup­ port of their rights. His motives, however, were not con­ fined to the benefits he believed he could gain for his

21 Turner to James H. McLean, June 2, 1883, L etter No. 10546, L etters Received Relating to Choctaw and Other Freed­ men, BIA, R.G. 69, NA, 22 Enclosure No. 2, Turner to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, June 8, 1887, Letter No, 14942, Letters Received, L, D,, R.G, 75, NA, 241 downtrodden black brethren. He clearly entered the case with the hope of personal gain, indicating, according to a man whose aid he s o lic ite d , th at "there is a lo t of money to be made in this thing."^3 When he signed the "Power of Attorney Agreement" drawn up on December 20, 1883, he also signed a contract that promised him twenty-five percent of the gross amount to be paid by the United States, in ad­ dition to a sum equal to "all necessary expenses in the pros 24 ecution of this claim."

A fter signing the contract on December 20, 1883, Tur­ ner left for Washington, "in company with Joseph Brown, a

Cherokee freedman, and a regularly authorized representa­ tive of the Cherokee freedman [sic] . . . ." In either February or March 1884 he and Brown presented their claim to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who, according to Turner, "prepared a bill which was argued . . . before the Indian Committee of both the Senate and the House of Repre­ se n ta tiv e s." The Senate Committee on Indian A ffairs sub­ sequently recommended that money be appropriated to send a special subcommittee on a fact-finding trip to Indian Ter­ ritory. Though the Senate endorsed that procedure, the sub- 2 5 committee did not begin its work u n til May 1885.

23Henry E. Cuney to John M. Noble, Secretary of the Interior, August 16, 1889, Special File 298, frame 146.

24gpecial Contract, Special File 298, frames 51-53.

ZSjurner to William F. Vilas, Secretary of the In­ terior, undated, received in the Department of Interior December 12, 1888, Special File 298, frames 0034-0042. 242

In the meantime, Turner, who, along with Joseph Brown, had spent 2 75 days in Washington already, returned

to St. Louis. From there he traveled to Muskogee and Vinita in Indian Territory for a two months' stay, came back to St. Louis late in 1884, and returned again to Wash­ ington in January 1885.2®

Prior to the special Senate subcommittee's May trip into Indian Territory, Turner was instructed by the chair­ man of the group. Senator Henry Dawes, to gather witnesses at Vinita where their testimony would be taken about May 20, 1885. Turner complied with the chairman's request and had twenty-nine witnesses assembled at Vinita at the ap­ pointed time. Abruptly, however, the subcommittee changed its mind and decided instead to meet at Muskogee rath er than Vinita. Consequently, Turner transported the twenty- nine freedmen to Muskogee at his own expense. The trans­ portation costs were $169.65, and an additional fifty dol­ lars was spent for food and lodging. Fifteen of the twenty- nine persons presented by Turner testified before the subcom­ m ittee. In addition to his work in Indian Territory, Turner had begun to lobby among Congressmen in an effort to con­ vince them to support the freedmen's claim to $75,000 as their share of the 1883 settlement. Realizing that he did

Z*Ibid.

2?Ibid. 243

not know many political leaders in Washington, he employed

someone who was acquainted with the legislative process and who could introduce him to those persons whose friendship

would be valuable in his attempt to get a freedmen's bill passed. Shortly after his arrival in Washington, the at­ torney for the freedmen contacted Henry Cuney, described by

himself as a man who was employed intermittently in the House and Senate, who agreed to a s sis t him in the case.

Subsequently, Turner and Cuney visited political notables such as Samuel West Peel, Democratic Representative from

Arkansas and Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Af­ fa irs . They also met, among others, David Browning Culber­

son, Democratic Representative from Texas; Constantine B. K ilgore, also a Democrat from Texas; Benjamin Butterworth,

Republican from Ohio; Thomas M. Byne, Republican from Penn­

sylvania; Charles B outelle, Republican from Maine; and 2 8 Dwight M. Sabine, Republican Senator from Minnesota.

Turner returned to St. Louis from the May meeting with

Dawes's subcommittee and remained there until January 1886, when he again went to Washington, staying there for nearly

2®Henry E. Cuney to John M. Noble, Secretary of the In te rio r, August 16, 1889, Special File 298, frames 145- 152; Richard Harvey Cain to Henry E. Cuney, August 16, 1889, Special File 298, frame 170; Henry E. Cuney to Senator Con­ stan tin e B. Kilgore, August 18, 1889, Special File 298, frame 174; Senator Dwight May Sabine to Henry E. Cuney, August 28, 1889, Special F ile 298, frame 181. Turner la te r denied having hired Cuney, although the evidence is heavily weighted against Turner's contention. There never was a formal contract drawn up between the two men. 244

eight months. He had, by that time, become impatient with

the slowness of the legislative machinery. Consequently, in an attempt to speed up the process, he addressed an eighteen-page petition to President Grover Cleveland on

February 8, 1886, in the hope th at the President might make

it possible for him to bypass the Congress. The petition was a cogent rehearsal of the narrative of events from the signing of the 1866 treaty to June 1886. The treaty provisions, the black lawyer argued, were clear. The freed- men were entitled to "all the rights of native Cherokees," including an equal share to all tribal wealth; and, he con­ tinued, the federal Constitution clearly recognized the preeminence of treaty provisions over statutory enactments. Hence, he concluded his petition by asking the President to issue an executive order forcing the Cherokee Nation to end 29 its discrimination against blacks. While the President rejected the idea of an executive order, he did submit a letter of recommendation to the Com­ missioner of Indian Affairs, endorsing Turner's position, and employing much of Turner's language in a recommendation that remedial legislation be passed. A few days later.

Turner went with the Missouri Democratic Congressman John J.

O'Neill to the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,

Turner to President Grover Cleveland, February 8, 1886, Letter No. 15802, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA; Indian C hieftain, 11 February 1886. 245

J. D. C. Atkins. Atkins pronounced the freedmen's claim to be "manifestly just" and subsequently forwarded the Presi­ dent's correspondence to the Senate, along with a draft of a b ill, prepared by the Commissioner, that would grant the freedmen a share in the $300,000 payment: ' was the b i l l drafted by the Commissioner that became law .30 Within scarcely more than a month, the bill was intro­ duced into the Senate, and Turner had appeared before a special Senate committee on its b e h a l f . 31 The bill passed the Senate by mid-summer but ran into trouble in the House, where it failed to be considered before the expiration of the Forty-ninth Congress.3% That setback shattered Turner's hope o f a speedy time­ table for the passage of his bill. He had written in July that he expected the bill to be passed quickly by the House and signed by the President.33 The legislative wheels ground slow ly, however, and by November 1886 Turner had temporarily despaired of seeing the freedmen's bill passed.

30"Messages From the President of the United States," Senate Executive Document No. 82, March 3, 1886, Special F ile 298, frames 604-614. Indian Chieftain, 18 February 1886.

3^Indian Chieftain, 1 April 1886. 3^Ibid. , IS July 1886; 22 July 1886. Henry L. Dawes wrote on September 4, 1886 that though Senate Bill 1800 had passed the Senate, "the condition of business in the House made it impossible to get action upon it." H. L. Dawes to Joseph Bralay, Special File 298, frame 727.

33xurner to Editor of Indian Chieftain, July15, 1886, Indian Chieftain, 22 July 1886. 246

So frustrated was he, in fact, that he told a St, Louis

Post-Dispatch reporter that he intended to abandon poli­ tics, "I am satisfied," he said, "that the colored man will never achieve his rightful place in society through the door of politics , , , . Black political agitation, he explained, was of­ fensive to whites. Black powerlessness dictated "that they tried some other means of raising themselves than through politics," Alternatively, Turner returned to a familiar theme. He argued that what a black person needed "to make him a valuable citizen" was "education and money , , , ," Moreover, in a statement that reveals a hardening of his position since the 1879 exodus, he stated that blacks could get neither money nor education as long as they remained in the South, The hatred of blacks and whites for each other ran too deep. Blacks had to be separated "from the old in­ fluences" in order to restore initiative and "get an im­ petus toward the improvement of themselves, Just as importantly, Turner argued, blacks needed to become landowners, not just farm laborers. Land ownership, he reasoned, entitled one to "a real interest in the govern­ ment," Indeed, he went so far as to ask rhetorically whether or not "a colored man" who possessed no property had any business "imposing taxes by legislation upon property,"

^^St, Louis Post-Dispatch, 19 November 1886,

3Slbid. 247

Presumably, he meant that black legislators should be property-owners, for he went on to say that "when the negro

owns land and helps to make the wealth and worth of the country, he will have a right to say something besides casting his vote, in the government of the country. Turner proposed to work toward a resolution of this problem by establishing a colony in Butler County, Mis­

souri, about 180 miles south of St. Louis. In language reminiscent of the aims of his Freedmen's Oklahoma Associ­ ation, he noted that Southern blacks who moved there would

"have an opportunity of getting both land and education under the most favorable circumstances." He made a vague claim to having access to 25,000 acres of "very fertile" soil in the area. His plan was to give black migrants jobs harvesting timber, presumably paying them with the profits, and providing them with an opportunity to accumulate a down payment on a homestead. He acknowledged that the colony had not really gotten started yet, but noted that "I will send some carpenters down in a day or two to build houses," He wanted it understood that "there is nothing communistic or socialistic in the plan," Quite the oppo­ site, it was a means by which he believed blacks could be­ come capitalists, "All we want," he noted, "is to give our 37 people a chance to buy homes,"

3*lbid, 3?Ibid, 248

Although Turner claimed that "there are now some

actual settlers on the lands," there is no evidence that this colony was ever established. Indeed, there is no evi­

dence that any serious effort to establish it occurred. The only mention of it is in the November 19, 1886, Post-

Dispatch interview. Consequently, Turner's formulation of a colonization scheme is perhaps best understood as a sh o rt­ lived, impulsive reaction to frustration over a lack of lob­

bying success, rather than as an operational plan for anoth­ er exodus of Southern blacks. One should bear in mind th at Turner was quite optimistic about the passage of the freed­ men's bill. Likewise, he had serious financial problems throughout the time the legislation was pending. He could count on little or no income until the bill was passed, a

reality which must have made the postponement of its pas­

sage in 1886 a harsh b l o w . 38

The colonization scheme was not the only m anifesta­

tion of frustration over the failure of the Congress to en­

act a freedmen's bill. By spring 1887 Turner had de­ vised another plan by which he hoped to gain the $75,000 settlement for the freedmen, along with his own fee. The

freedmen's case had become one of the issues between the two major political parties in Cherokee Territory. The National party included in its platform a provision to grant the freedmen their claim to $75,000 and full tribal

38por more on Turner's financial status, see p. 266 below. 249 rights. The Union party was opposed to both of these pro­ posals. Turner decided he would actively campaign for the

National party. The 1887 Cherokee election, according to historian

Morris Wardell, was "one of the bitterest in the history of the Nation."40 Turner did nothing to assuage the bitter­ ness. He traveled throughout the Nation, making strong speeches in favor of the National party and attacking the opposition. His political speech-making in Indian Terri­ tory created a furore which culminated in a petition by fifty-four members of the Union party (only eight of whom were black) to the United States Indian Agent at Muskogee, asking to have Turner physically removed from the T e rri­ tory . 41 Their major point of contention was that Turner was being paid to deliver votes to the National party. In

S^Turner to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, June 8, 1887, Letter No. 14942, Letters Received, l.D ., BIA, R.G. 75, NA.

40wardell, p. 343. 41petition to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, un­ dated, received June 7, 1887, Letter No. 14871, Letters Re­ ceived, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA; Aleck Hawk, affidavit, September 19, 1889, Special File 298, frames 277, 278. See, also, the Indian Chieftain, 2 June 1887. The Chieftain ad­ vised Turner "not to monkey with the politics of the coun- try," and exclaimed that his actions had "the appearance of being that of one who is paid for what rumor says he is doing." See, also . Turner to the Reverend Lawrence Ross, May 26, 1887, Indian C hieftain, 16 June 1887. 250 support of their argument, they submitted to the Indian

Agent, Robert L. Owen, sworn testimony from two persons.

Ilo Martin testified that "On or about the twentieth day of May 1887, J. Milton Turner told me that he was to get two hundred dollars a d is tr ic t" for making p o litic a l speeches throughout the Nation. Likewise, Columbus McNair testified that Turner told him "he was employed to make a p o litic a l canvas [sic] of this nation in the interests of the National party for which he expected to be paid."4%

Turner readily admitted his involvement in Cherokee Territory politics, but he adamantly denied having received any money for the venture. In fact, he argued that the trip to Oklahoma cost him $120, rather than profiting him.43 Whatever the truth of the charges. Turner stood to gain if the National party won, both for himself and for the cause he represented. The National party lost the 1887 election, however, and th a t, combined with Turner's growing d isb e lie f in the ability of the Fiftieth Congress to pass the freedmen's bill, led to a slightly different gesture of frustration: Turner decided to try to regain the Liberian ministership. When one recalls the antipathy he had developed for that position

42petition to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Letter No. 14871, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA. 43Turner to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, June 8, 1887, Letter No. 14942, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA. 251 only a decade before, his effort to return is all the more revealing. Charles H. J. Taylor of Kansas, who had been appoint­ ed M inister to Liberia on March 11, 1887, resigned on No­ vember 11, 1887.44 By December, Turner had a number of his friends and political acquaintances submitting letters of support on his behalf. The first of those was written on

December 3 by C. F. Schultz of St. Louis who noted simply th at he had known Turner for a number of years and th at he was pleased to recommend him for the position of Minister

Resident and Consul General to L i b e r i a . 45

On December 6, 1887, J. H. Wear, a St. Louis dry goods wholesaler, wrote to Missouri Democratic Senator F. M. Cockrell and asked him to use his "influence in having the President consider [Turner's] application favorably

. . . ."46 Sometime in early December, also, what was described by participants as "a large and enthusiastic meeting of negro citizens of St. Louis" was held during which "it was resolved that J. Milton Turner is the choice of Missourians for Minister to Liberia . . . ." Out of

44padgett, pp. 74-75. 45c. F. Schultz to Grover Cleveland, December 3, 1887, "Applications and Recommendations for the Cleveland Admin­ is tra tio n ," R.G. 59, NA. 46j. H. Wear to Hon. F. M. Cockrell, December 6, 1887, "Applications and Recommendations for the Cleveland Admin­ istration," R.G. 59, NA. 252

that meeting came a six-person committee charged with the responsibility of requesting "Missouri senators and members

of congress to urge the appointment of Turner upon [the] 47 president," On December 10, 1887, Cockrell was again the recip ien t of a pro-Turner letter, this time from his friend, St, Louis

attorney William B, Thompson, Thompson noted that "several

of your warm friends and friends of mine have urged me to join in a letter to the President, as well as to yourself, in favor of the appointment of J, Milton Turner as Minister to L iberia." He indicated th a t he had known Turner only by

reputation, noting that the latter was "a shrewd politician , , , ." Thompson revealed that it was his understanding

th at Turner had "openly and publicly announced his adhesion to our [Democratic] principles , , . adding that "I think him the most intelligent man among the colored people

of the country, and I believe that his appointment would a ttra c t universal a tten tio n and would give universal s a ti s ­ faction , , , ," Thompson concluded by asserting that he

thought "there would be no difficulty in securing a peti­

tion signed by almost all of the prominent men here in St, 48 Louis or in the State in favor of his appointment,"

M, J. B ritton, P. H, Murray, George J. Wood, Charles H, Tyler, J. L, Turpin, George Long, and S, Y, Jordan to F, M, Cockrell, December 7, 1887; th is was a telegram which also carried with it the note "Please show (Senator) Vest § the p re sid en t," "Applications and Recommendations for the Cleveland Administration," R.G, 59, NA.

AO William B, Thompson to Hon, Francis M. Cockrell, December 10, 1887, "Applications and Recommendations for 253

In addition to the above-mentioned letters, Cockrell

received correspondence endorsing Turner from St, Louis Comptroller R. A. Campbell and Oscar W. Collet of the Mis­ souri Historical Society, the latter of whom commented that "as a life long democrat, [I] consider Mr. Turner's appoint­ ment ap p ro p riate."49

Turner did not receive the appointment, however. In­

stead, Ezekiel Ezra Smith, a black North Carolina newspaper publisher, was appointed on April 24, 1888.^® Though it is possible that Turner did not receive the position because

"by some oversight [his endorsements] were not sent to [the State] Department," it is impossible to explain why he did not receive the post. Perhaps his prior appointment by a Republican President made the Democrat Grover Cleveland wary of him. Perhaps too, Ezekiel Smith was simply a stronger candidate. Whatever the case, one of the most interesting things about Turner's attempt to return to Li­ beria was th at he sought Democratic patronage and he led at least some Democrats, notably William B. Thompson, to be­ lieve that he had switched party alliances. That was a por­ tent of things to come in the following year's national the Cleveland Administration," R.G. 59, NA.

4^R. a . Campbell to Hon. F. M. Cockrell, December 16, 1887; Oscar W. Collet to Hon. F. M. Cockrell, no date, "Applications and Recommendations for the Cleveland Admin­ istration," R.G. 59, NA. SOpadgett, p. 75. 254 election.31

Turner was still unsuccessful in his attempts to get the freedmen's bill passed as the 1888 political season rolled around. He latched on to a new tactic as late spring turned to summer. In July of 1888 he called for a convention of black Independent and Democratic voters to be held in Indianapolis. The purpose of the convention, as he expressed it, was to register a protest against the

Republican party and acknowledge the Democrats as the proper party to which blacks should give their support. Aware that both the Democratic President and the Democratic Commissioner of Indian Affairs had supported his proposed legislation, and that it still needed to pass through a Democratically controlled House, he praised the Democrats, asserting that the election of Cleveland to the Presidency had brought political emancipation to blacks. In return, he argued, blacks ought to support Cleveland's bid for re- election.^^ Such a political reversal of his intense pro-Republi­ can stands of the decade before did not, of course, occur overnight. Its logic, however, was inherent in the position

31p. M. Cockrell to Assistant Secretary of State G. L. Rives, July 3, 1888; J. Milton Turner to the State De­ partment, April 28, 1888, "Applications and Recommendations for the Cleveland Administration," R.G. 59, NA.

32"A Wrangling Convention," New York Times, 26 July 1888; Lawrence Grossman, The Democratic Party and the Negro; Northern and National Politics, 1868-92, Blacks in the New World Series, August Meier, ed. (Chicago; University of I llin o is P ress, 1976), p. 145n3. 255

Turner took in his speech before the Independent Republi­

cans when he was aspiring to the Republican Congressional 53 nomination in 1878, He had become increasingly aware of

the unwillingness and inability of the Republicans to de­ liver for him as they had done in the early seventies. Besides, they were out of power now, and there were concrete benefits to be gained by catering to the Democratically con­ tro lle d Congress, Turner's long-time frien d , George B,

Vashon, himself a black Democrat, wrote in 1901 that Tur­ ner became a Democrat in 1885 as part of a strategy for getting the Cherokee bill passed into law. He indicated that in that year Milton Turner made a "radical Democratic speech" a t Union C ity, Tennessee, the event which marked his desertion of the party of Grant,Likewise, Henry Cuney wrote in 1890 that Turner had only turned Democratic

"in order to pass his Bill,"^^ According to Cuney, Tur­ ner "decided to get up a convention of colored Democrats," thereby ingratiating himself with the party hierarchy and ensuring the passage of his bill,^^ The evidence over­ whelmingly supports the statem ents of Vashon and Cuney.

^^See Chapter V, pp. 194-195 above, ^^George B, Vashon, "Progress of Negroes in Their Efforts to Free Themselves from Republicanism," Republic [St, Louis], 4 August 1901, ^^H, E, Cuney to Col. Robert C hristy, January 20, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0178-0187, S^ibid, 256

Early in June of 1888 Turner began distributing a form letter to potential participants in the July conven­ tion. It was to be held in Indianapolis, "for the reason that Indiana is, in this campaign, the most doubtful of all the states, and because this would seem to be of all years the most opportune for the intelligent negro voters of that S tate, and New York and other States of the Union, to make themselves valuably and significantly felt and appreciated," Turner affixed the names of eighteen nationally known black 57 leaders to this letter. Enclosed along with this piece of correspondence was another circular, calling blacks to the convention, and headed with the caption "Attention Colored Voters!" This call proclaimed the 1888 election to be "unequaled by any political contest that has ever transpired since the forma­ tion of our Government," The Republican party. Turner wrote, would use "Herculean e ffo rts to regain what i t lo st in 1884 , , , ," "Defeat to the Republicans this year," he asserted, "will no doubt lead to a disintegration of their party and its relegation to join other like organiza­ tions that have lived, flourished for a time, and, having outlived their usefulness, are now 'numbered among the

C O things that were,'"

57 Printed letter from J, Milton Turner, June 12, 1888, Enclosure 1, William Calvin Chase to Benjamin Harri­ son, July 9, 1888, Benjamin Harrison Papers, Reel 9, Series 1, Library of Congress, ^^J, Milton Turner, "Attention Colored Voters!" Enclosure 3, Ibid, 257

The pertinent question insofar as black people were concerned, Turner challenged, was "what part are ^ going to act in the great p o litic a l drama of 1888?" He continued;

"Are we to stand 'up and be counted by th is party or th a t,' like so many dumb driven cattle, or . . . are we going to

act as men, each in accordance with his own uncoerced con­

victio n and vote with th at party which he may deem most likely to promote the interests of himself and [his] race?" Turner called for "more in d ividuality and less clannishness

on the part of the colored people in politics," arguing that such a position would "place them on a higher plane in the estimation of the dominant race of this country" than they had had since the passage of the Fifteenth Amend­ ment . 39

Turner closed his "call" by asking blacks to assemble in Indianapolis on July 25, 1888, "for the purpose of con­

su ltin g and considering upon what recommendations may be decided upon as best to promulgate to the colored electors of the country." Perhaps in an effort to anticipate criti­

cisms, he assured his readers that "the proposed conference

is not called in the interest of any particular party or in­ dividual but purely of the negro."60 Although Turner claimed that the convention was not being called "in the interest of any particular party," the

3 9 ib id; . Washington Bee, 18 August 1888. 60ibid. 258

gathering was subsidized by the Democrats whose platform

claimed that under Cleveland "the rights and welfare of all

the people have been guarded and defended, every public in­ terest has been protected, and the equality of all our citi­

zens before the law, without regard to race or section, has been steadfastly maintained." Eager to sway the majority of black voters into the Democratic camp, party officials courted prominent black leaders such as Peter Clark, T. Thomas Fortune, George T. Downing, James M. T ro tter, James C. Matthews, T. McCants Stewart, and, of course, J. Milton Turner.61

Before the convention even met, however, a wave of c ritic ism arose against Turner and James M. T ro tter in p ar­ ticular. The old charge of opportunism resurfaced. Turner was accused of surreptitiously conspiring to sell black votes to the Democratic party. The Washington Bee claimed th a t the idea of the convention had originated with James

Monroe Trotter, a black man who held the coveted position of Recorder of Deeds for the District of Columbia. Trotter, the Bee reported, had been asked by the President to devise

61crossman, pp. 144-145. Significantly, Turner's calling card turned up in a letter from Missouri Democratic Senator F. M. Cockrell to Democrat Daniel S. Lament. Cock­ rell's letter introduced "Capt, W. D. Mathews," one of the signatories to the June 12 letter, and about "whom I spoke to the President Saturday." Cockrell was arranging a meeting for Mathews with the President already in late May. F. M. Cockrell to Daniel S. Lamont, May 28, 1888; F. M. Cockrell to President Grover Cleveland, May 28, 1888, Gro­ ver Cleveland Papers, Series 3, May 18, 1888 to June 9, 1888, Reel 122, Library of Congress. See, also, the Cleve­ land Gazette, 28 July 1888. 259 a scheme to take black votes away from the Republicans in the 1888 election. Trotter, eager to please his patron, seized upon the idea of an Independent or Democratic con­ ference and employed Turner to assist him. Turner, because he had thus far been unable to get the Cherokee bill passed, and because he was generally disillusioned with Republi­ canism, welcomed the opportunity to play quid pro quo p o li­ tics. He viewed the convention as a grand opportunity to win the favor of key Democratic leaders and get his bill through both houses, while also, in a sense, punishing the Republicans for their betrayal of both himself and black , 62 people. Unfortunately for Turner and Trotter, however, word soon got out among members of the black community that those two men were attempting to betray black interests for their own selfish gains. Emotions were further raised when it was discovered that Turner had signed the names of prominent black political leaders as endorsers of the con­ vention without their permission or knowledge. The call issued by Turner bore the names of eighteen prominent black men from Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois, Tennessee, Kan­ sas, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.

Only three of them, besides Turner, had been contacted prior to the distribution of the call, and several of the others expressed great indignation over being "made responsible for

6^Washington Bee. 18 August 1888. 260

a political scheme that Turner is endeavoring to operate

solely in his own i n t e r e s t . "^3

After several days of charges and countercharges, Charles H. J. Taylor of Kansas City, the nationally recog­ nized leader of black Democrats, decided to go to the In­ dianapolis Convention and thwart the e ffo rts of Turner and

Trotter. Taylor, himself an ex-Minister to Liberia and the editor of the Democratic journal Public Educator, as­ serted that he did not propose "as a representative of the

pioneer negro Democrats, whose democracy commenced before

the elevation of Cleveland to the Presidency, to allow gentlemen who have just entered our ranks to take charge and le a d ."64

The confusion that was bound to re su lt from a leader­ ship fight was added to by a Republican attempt to sabotage the July meeting. William Calvin Chase, black Republican

editor of the Washington Bee, wrote to Benjamin Harrison on

July 9, 1888, urging that the Indianapolis convention

"should be stopped." He asked for the candidate's aid in this matter, immediately, as we have no time to loose [sic]

. . . ." He offered Harrison a "plan of operations" to throw the Democratic convention into an uproar and asked th at his scheme be kept c o n fid en tia l,63

6^Ibid. 64"A Wrangling Convention," New York Times, 26 July 1888.

63william Calvin Chase to Benjamin Harrison, July 9, 261

Chase maintained "th a t the real object of the pro­ posed meeting is to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction in the

minds of the colored voters of the country and to . . . cause a diversion . . . in the interest of the Democratic

P arty." Chase explained th at one of the persons planning the convention was a friend of his who had joined the move­ ment only to keep tabs on its operations. That friend told Chase that "arrangements [had been] made to pay the fare of those invited to attend both to and from the conference, as well as their care whilst there, all at the expense of the Democratic Party.

Chase was adamantly convinced th at "we must capture this conference . . . [and we] can do it by and with the assistance of the [Republican] National Committee." Chase's inside friend, he wrote, was chairman of the credentials committee and, as such, had power "to send out invitations to whomsoever he may chose." Consequently, while Turner and Trotter were "inviting those who are of their way of thinking . . . ," he wrote, "my friend will invite only those he knows as true and tr ie d Republicans and with them we will capture the meeting . . . [and] adopt resolutions endorsing the nominees of the Republican party. County, State and N atio n al."6?

1888, Benjamin Harrison Papers, Reel 9, Series 1, Library of Congress. GGprinted letter from William Calvin Chase, July 9, 1888, ibid.

67ibid. 262

In order to carry out this scheme, Chase maintained, the Republican National Committee would have to "appropriate

five thousand dollars for the purpose of defraying the ex­ penses incidental to getting our friends there . . . If th a t sum was provided. Chase said , he could promise "at le a st two hundred of the most in te llig e n t, zealous and ac­

tive colored Republican leaders in the country" at the con­ vention to "care for the interest of the Republican p a rty ."68

The desire of Turner and Trotter to make the conven­

tion a success, combined with Taylor's equally firm resolve to w restle control from them and Chase's commitment to d is ­ rupt the whole proceedings, made conflict virtually inevi­ table. When Turner arrived in Indianapolis he was met by a number of openly hostile delegates, rather than the uni­ formly warm, receptive group he had anticipated. Clearly, a number of the delegates had been persuaded by Taylor's labeling of Turner as a usurper, and when Turner was asked his opinion of the Kansas Citian's influence among black Democrats, he replied bitterly: "Taylor is a national buf­ foon and a national ass. He is an empty b a rre ll ro llin g down a rocky hill. I have no words to waste upon him."69

GBibid. Whether the Republican National Committee provided any money or not, a number of Republicans did a t ­ tend the convention, though they were not able to obtain endorsements for Republican office-seekers. New York Age, 28 July 1888. 69"A Wrangling Convention," New York Times, 26 July 1888. The Cleveland Gazette reported th a t upon his a rriv a l 263

The conference opened at 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, July 25, at the Hendricks Club rooms in Indianapolis, with Tur­ ner serving as the convener. At the time, approximately sixty of the seventy delegates were present. Turner pref­ aced the proceedings by reiterating his reasons for issuing the call. It was time, he said, that "the Negroes were asserting themselves, or at least time they had begun to think independently."^6 Having completed his introductory remarks. Turner tried to get the convention to move into executive session, thereby excluding "all persons not holding credentials as delegates . . . ." That caused a stir, as the Indianapolis Freeman said, over "whether the convention should go into temporary organization during its temporary organization;"

After considerable discussion. Turner's suggestion was re­ jected in favor of the view "that all the proceedings should be known to the outside world.

During the afternoon session, the Committee on Perma­ nent Organization offered its majority report to the gath­ ering. It recommended that Peter Clark, a veteran black

Democrat and a nominee acceptable to the C. H. J. Taylor in Indianapolis, Turner discovered that "his position among the sixty-two Negroes who constituted the representation of delegates was that of a distinguished high private." Cleve­ land Gazette, 28 July 1888. ^Opreeman, 28 July 1888.

71Ibid. 264

faction, serve as permanent chairman. A minority report, offered by Joseph Hauser of Illinois, recommended that Tur­ ner hold that position, A heated debate followed, with

p artisan speakers making pleas for one or the other of the candidates. When the roll call was finally taken, the wrangling and confusion were so great that balloting took

more than an hour. Subsequently, the tellers came up with two different tallies: one showing Taylor the victor, the other showing the two candidates tie d . When the secretary reported only the tie, pandemonium broke loose. Charges of

cheating and subterfuge f ille d the room, leading to a melee

of flying f is t s and drawn revolvers, ending in the a rre s t 7 2 of several delegates. Ultimately, Clark was declared the winner. The next

day, amid what the Freeman called an "auspiciously peace­ ful" session, T. Thomas Fortune asked Turner to explain "the position of himself and [his] friends . . . in the in­

terests of peace and harmony." The black orator rose to speak amid shouts of "Turner," "Turner." Under normal cir­ cumstances, he declared, he would give no expression of his feelings "after suffering such an overwhelming defeat as I did yesterday . . . ." His loyalty to his supporters, how­ ever, forced him to speak, he said. His followers, he pro­ claimed, "are Western men, and as Western men saved, in a great measure, this country, there is a determination on

^^Ibid.; "A Wrangling Convention," New York Times, 26 July 1888. 265 their part now to save the Negro." That could only be ac­ complished without strife; hence, he said, "we bow to the will of the majority." He spoke flatteringly of his op­ ponent Clark before warning the Republicans that black Democracy would defeat them at the polls in November. "I will say to our Republican friends," he continued, "who are so solicitous about us, that we are not being enticed away from the Republican fold. We are simply cool[l]y and d elib erately walking away. "?3

Having explained his motives to his own satisfaction. Turner concluded by saying, "Ask me for no further speech- making but show me how I can aid in the election of Cleve­ land and Thurman and no e ffo rt of mine w ill be spared to ac­ complish that e n d . "^4 During the closing session that afternoon, however, chaos threatened to return when, while the question of whether or not to establish a national executive committee was being considered, F. V. Anderson of Pennsylvania introduced a resolution that would have made J. Milton Turner its chairman. Turner, however, was eager to avoid another conflict. Hence, he argued for the appointment of the committee by the convention, but sug­ gested that the committee be allowed to select its own chairman. He was apparently confident that he could gain the chairmanship by committee vote, without risking a floor

?3ibid. 74ibid. 266

fight that involved the entire convention. His confidence was borne out when the executive committee selected him as its chairman an hour later. That ended the business of the

convention, which adjourned so that its participants could take part in a mass meeting at which Clark, Turner, and

others spoke. Turner was the last speaker and, in what the Freeman called a "b rie f but fo rcib le p lea," he called 7 S "for a division of the Negro vote . . . ." Later, on board a train en route to Washington, Turner expressed regret over the turmoil of the events at Indian­

a p o l i s . ^6 He was committed, however, to doing what was

necessary to get the freedmen’s bill passed. Consequently, he spent much of the following f a ll making p o litic a l 77 speeches on behalf of Democratic candidates.' While Turner was overtly maneuvering in Democratic

circles, he had a colleague working more quietly but with equal, if not greater, success among Republicans on behalf of the Cherokee bill. By January of 1888 the bill had been floundering for nearly two years in the House, held up

largely by the lobbying of Cherokee Elias C. Boudinot who sought to have the whole case referred to the courts as an alternative to trying to resolve the problem through the

7Slbid. 76"Attention Colored Voters," Washington Bee, 18 August 1888. f^Indian Chieftain, 23 August 1888; 27 September 1888. 267

legislative p r o c e s s .

Turner became increasingly desperate and in January asked Washington attorney and businessman Garrett H. Ten

Broeck for help. He told Ten Broeck that up to that time he had been able to find work in Washington to cover his expenses, that he "was entirely out of funds, [with] no prospect of employment in Washington and th at unless he could secure some outside assistance he would lose all that he had put into the case . . . ." Ten Broeck quietly lobbied for the bill among Congressional leaders known to him through his business contacts and after a ten-month effort, primarily with the help of Republican Congressman David B. Henderson of Iowa, was able to have the bill 70 called up and voted upon favorably on October 19, 1888. The new law provided for the distribution of $75,000 among the Cherokee freedmen and other "adopted citizens," specifically the Shawnee and Delaware Indians who lived in the Cherokee Nation, under Cherokee rule.®® The signifi-

78nenry E. Cuney to John M. Noble, Secretary of the In te rio r, August 16, 1889, Special File 298, frame 147; Richard Harvey Cain to Henry E. Cuney, August 16, 1889, Special File 298, frame 170; Elias C. Boudinot to Secre­ tary of the In te rio r, July 6, 1889, Special File 298, frames 0495-0502; Indian Chieftain, 12 September 1889. 7®Garrett H. Ten Broeck to Secretary of the Interior John M. Noble, January 11, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0802-0805.

BOcherokee Freedmen A ct, S tatutes at Large 25, 608 (1888). According to Turner's attorney. Congress learned from Turner's e ffo rts th a t certain adopted Delawares and 268 cance of that step was best summed up by Turner in Decem­ ber when he wrote that "the passage of this act settled their condition, relieves their apprehension that they will be forced to leave, defines their status, confirms their title to an interest in the 11,035,000 acres of land held by the Cherokees, and in fine to all the rights of the na­ tive Cherokees as provided for under the Treaty of 1866."B1

It had been a long and arduous task, trying to get the bill passed, but at last the goal had been accomplished.

All that remained was for Turner to collect his fee for the legal services he performed. That would be the least dif­ ficult part of all. Or so he thought.

Shawnees were e n title d to the same considerations as the former black slaves. Hence, they lumped them a ll together for the sake of uniform legislation. J. H. McGowan to John W. Noble, April 5, 1889, Special File 298, frames 0474-0476,

Blfurner, affidavit filed with Commissioner of Indian A ffairs, incomplete date, 1888, Special File 298, frame 41. CHAPTER VII

A PYRRHIC VICTORY

The Cherokee Freedmen's Bill for which James Milton

Turner labored, and which became law on October 19, 1888, created more problems than it solved.^ Despite Turner's confidence that the bill had settled the condition of the freedmen, the "settling" had only begun. Indeed, Turner's own status as the attorney for the freedmen was an open question. He had spent nearly five years of his time, along with thousands of his own dollars, furthering the freedmen's claims. Once the bill was passed and it became apparent that the attorney for the freedmen was entitled to a large payment for services rendered, challengers to

Turner's claim as the attorney of record surfaced. The challenges led to an investigation which revealed that, even though Turner was the attorney of record for the freed­ men, he had engaged in questionable maneuvers to get the statute enacted. Those ploys had included promising finan­ cial rewards to many of those who helped him, a commitment which he failed to keep. The investigation stood as confir­ mation of what many had long charged: Turner was an oppor-

ICherokee Freedman Act, S tatutes at Large 25, 608 (1888).

269 270

tu n is t.

There were other problems as well. It was true that the 1888 freedmen's bill did provide for the distribution of $75,000 among the Cherokee freedmen, but who were the freedmen? How would they be id en tified ? How would they be paid? Just as importantly, what did the future hold for the freedmen in Cherokee Territory? What would happen if the Cherokee Nation continued to deny the freedmen full

tribal rights? Would legislative remedies have to be sought each time a new land cession was made? The Fiftieth Congress sought to answer those questions

in 1889 by means of two additional legislative enactments. The Secretary of the Interior was granted five thousand dol­ lars to cover the expense of compiling a list of persons who were entitled to participate in the per capita distri­ bution. The Secretary of the Interior, in turn, appointed

Special Agent J. W. Wallace to head this census-taking op­ eration. Wallace traveled to Indian Territory, compiled a

l i s t of names, and turned them over to the Indian Agent of

the Union Agency at Muskogee, Oklahoma, to carry out the provisions of the 1888 legislation.^

Congress referred the question of the freedmen's fu­ ture status to the United States Court of Claims. Hence,

^Act For Fulfilling Treaty Stipulations With Various Indian Tribes, Statutes at Large 25, 994 (1889). Turner to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, January 13, 1892, Letter No. 1920, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, R.G. 75, NA. 271

the courts would decide "what are the just rights in law or

in equity of the . . . Cherokee freedmen, who are settled and located in the Cherokee Nation under the provisions and

stipulations of article nine of the aforesaid treaty of eighteen hundred and sixty-six . . .

The 1888 bill, then, started moving a whole chain of events. It also tied Turner to dealing with the problems of claimants against the Cherokees and other Indian Nations

for the rest of his life. Confident after his victory on

behalf of the freedmen, and hopeful of continued success in the Court of Claims case. Turner tried to extend the logic of the 1888 bill to black-Indian relations in Nations other than the Cherokee. Whatever combination of altruism, op­

portunism, and righteous indignation over justice denied had gotten him involved with the freedmen in the first place, he made a career out of challenging the attempts by the Five Civilized Tribes to confine citizenship rights to

full-blooded Indians. As the government continued to pay

the Indians for land cessions, the potential profits to be made by the freedmen's attorney increased. His subsequent

efforts, however, were less successful than his initial ap­ peals on behalf of the Cherokee freedmen. Indeed, even his

attempts, after the turn of the century, to admit more Chero­ kee freedmen to per capita payments were largely unsuccess-

^Act To Refer Cherokee Freedmen's Claims to the Court of Claims, Statutes at Large 26, 655 (1890j. 272

fui. Ultimately, his career as an attorney for the freed­ men ended in frustration when he not only lost the last case he worked on, but also was unable to collect any fees from his clients and ended up suing the very people whom he had been trying to help. Nine days after the passage of the 1888 Cherokee freedmen's bill. Turner's lawyer wrote to Secretary of the Interior William F. Vilas, asking that no "final settlement of this matter" be made until his client had had an oppor­ tunity to "file his account and be heard.Turner submit­ ted his claim in early December 1888. It was a detailed, itemized account of his expenditures, extending back to

January 1884, and amounting to $12,210.61, plus the 25 per­ cent commission he had been promised, for a total of $30,960.51.5

Turner's claim was referred to the Commissioner of In­ dian A ffairs on December 12, 1888. While his claim was pending, the Commissioner drafted a resolution which was presented to Congress and passed into law on March 2, 1889.

Among other things, the new law provided for a $15,000 pay­ ment to be made to "any duly authorized agent or agents

^J. H. McGowan to Vilas, October 27, 1888, Special File 298, frame 0004; see, also, F. M. Cockrell to V ilas, October 18, 1888, Special File 298, frame 006. Why Tur­ ner hired an attorney when he claimed to be a lawyer him­ self remains a mystery.

^Account of J. Milton Turner, Fees and Expenses, Special File 298, frames 0027-0033. 273

acting for said freedmen and rendering them aid in obtaining the allowance of said seventy-five thousand dollars . . .

An assistant attorney general assigned to the Department of

the Interior offered the opinion in June 1889 that "no formal authority of the appointment of said committee of

Cherokee freedmen is filed with the papers, nor is there sufficient evidence before me that the parties who signed the contract were authorized to do so or to bind the Chero­ kee freedmen for the payment of the sum stipulated to be paid to said Turner." He did, however, indicate his belief that Turner was entitled to the $15,000 fee.& Others, however, were less convinced. In July of

1889 the Secretary of the Interior received the first of several challenges to Turner's claim. Consequently, Sec­ retary Noble ruled on July 23, 1889, that $7,500 should be paid to Turner immediately, with the balance to be paid only after those "who have or may file claims contesting the rights of said Turner to said balance," had had an opportunity to do so. For the remainder of the year, therefore, the Inter­ ior Department accepted counter claims from people who argued that they were entitled to a share of the $15,000. Some claimed that Turner had promised to pay for services they

^George Shield to Secretary of the Interior, June 7, 1889, Special File 298, frames 0445-0457. ^Affidavit of Secretary of the Interior John W.Noble, July 23, 1889, Special File 298, frames 0459-0463. 274 had rendered but that he later reneged on the payments. Others stated flatly that they had done things on behalf

D of the bill for which Turner was claiming credit.

The principal challenger to Turner's claim was Elias g C. Boudinot, a Cherokee Indian. Boudinot claimed to have become involved in the attempt to gain tribal rights for the Cherokee freedmen immediately after the May 1883 de­ cision confirming the distribution of $300,000 to Cherokees by blood. Indeed, he argued that it was upon his advice at meetings at Lightning Creek and Fort Gibson that J. Mil­ ton Turner was selected to serve as the freedmen's attorney. Boudinot explained that "I put J. Milton Turner forward in th is matter because I knew him to be a colored man of repu­ tation and ability; and, in so doing, it was expressly understood that I would continue my services in this behalf at my own expense, and that if successful in whatever fee might be paid by the freedmen or allowed by the United

States we should share equally.

^Special File 298 was compiled as a result of claims made by persons who argued that they had a right to share any fees Turner received. I t contains more than 1,000 frames of letters and other affidavits pertaining to the case. ^For affidavits filed for and against Boudinot's claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0082- 0089; 0095-0102; 0122-0132; 0142-0144; 0187-0191; 0196-0204; 0205-0211; 0212-0226; 0227-0235; 0236-0259; 0260-0263; 0264- 0321; 0325-0338; 0339-0342; 0344-0352; 0358-0365; 0390-0425; 0428-0435; 0435-0441; 0486-0488; 0495-0507; 0508-0522; 0523- 0524; 0527-0575; 0659-0663; 0758-0767; 0810-0811. 10 Final Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of 275

Boudinot clearly did work on behalf of the freedmen. He was the principal figure behind the presentation of a

"Memorial" on behalf of the freedmen to the House of Repre­ sentatives during the Forty-eighth Congress which contrib­ uted to the establishment of a subcommittee of the House

Committee on Indian A ffairs to investig ate the treatment of the freedmen. There is even considerable evidence that Boudinot did introduce Turner to the freedmen's case and was instrumental in getting him appointed as attorney. The Secretary concluded, however, that Turner was "the author­ ized agent" and that if Boudinot had any relationship to the case it was, at most, as Turner's assistant. Consequently, Boudinot's claim, i f he had one, was against Turner and not under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. In addition to Boudinot's claim, Charles Journeycake submitted a petition to the Department on July 26, 1889, arguing that as attorney for the Delawares, he and his three partners should receive money which was to be paid to Turner on behalf of those Indians.In the case of

Journeycake, et , the Secretary ruled that their claims had arisen only after Boudinot had written to Journeycake's

J. Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0944. lllbid. l^For affidavits filed for and against Journeycake's claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0102- 0105; 0366-0375; 0716-0717; 0771-0795. 276 partner on July 12, 1889, complaining that "Turner, 'the black-son-o£-a-gun, was claiming to have rendered ser­ vices for the Delawares even though he "was a mere figure­ head and deserves nothing." Boudinot followed with a sec­ ond letter on July 24, 1889, stating clearly that his pur­ pose was "to defeat the nigger Turner from getting what be­ longs to you and Journeycake." Consequently, the Secretary concluded that the claims of Journeycake and his partners were not legitimate.13

In August 1889 Henry E. Cuney filed a claim for $1,300 in compensation for aiding in securing the appro­ priation of the Cherokee Freedmen's Bill.l* Cuney claimed to have had a verbal contract with Turner. By his own ad­ mission Cuney was also not a "duly authorized agent" of any of the beneficiaries of the 1888 act and therefore only had a personal contract with Turner, "to whom he must look for his compensation . . . ."15

Cuney's argument that he was hired by Turner is per­ suasive and offers the clearest example of how Turner re-

l^Final Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of J. Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0944. l*For affidavits filed for and against Cuney's claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0145-0186; 0262; 0654-0658; 0703-0712; 0752-0757. l^Final Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of J. Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0949. 277

fused to acknowledge help he had received. First of all, Cuney filed a sworn statement from A. W. Kellogg, an assist­

ant postmaster of the Senate, who not only testified to Cuney's interest in the matter but acknowledged that at Cuney's request he had lobbied on behalf of the freedmen's

bill with Illinois Republican Representative Lewis E. Payson. Mr. N. W. Cuney file d an a ffid a v it in which he swore that Turner had admitted to him the employment of H. E. Cuney. Fred G. Norris, private secretary to ex-Republican Senator

Dwight Sabin, sta te d that Henry Cuney introduced Turner to

the Senator, "with a view of obtaining his support of the Indian bill." W. H. Smith, Assistant Librarian of the House,

frequently saw Turner and Cuney "in consultation during the pending legislation relative to the Cherokee claims" and

added that he thought Cuney had rendered valuable services. Ezra N. H ill sta te d that Turner had told him he had employed Cuney to a s s is t him and th at Cuney was to be well paid. George H. Giddings, one of the few people whom Turner did acknowledge hiring, swore that Cuney greatly helped Turner,

that Turner had been quite pleased with his services, and that Turner had promised to pay Cuney the same one thousand dollar fee that Giddings had been promised. Democrat William Crain of the House wrote th at Cuney

introduced Turner to him and testified that Turner had asked him to call up the Indian bill, which he had declined to

IGlbid. 278

do. Democrat C. B. Kilgore of the House was also in tro ­

duced to Turner by Cuney and admitted to being persuaded to withdraw his opposition to the bill because of Cuney's lob­ bying.1? All of these testimonials notwithstanding, however.

Turner steadfastly refused to acknowledge having received any help from Cuney or having promised to pay him anything.

In fact, he mounted a counteroffensive against Cuney's emi­ nently persuasive claim. Turner instructed his lawyers to try to discredit Cuney by apprising the Secretary of the

Interior of Cuney's indictment on a criminal charge in the District of Columbia. Such a maneuver made Cuney furious, and he replied in kind, "Turner and his counsel," he wrote, "must be desperate when they descend to such base­ ness as cooking up evidence against my character." Such behavior, however, did not surprise him, for he professed to believe that Turner "is capable of anything." Though

Cuney claimed to be averse to mud-slinging, he made it clear that he could engage in it, if Turner wanted to pur­ sue those tactics. "I know," he wrote, "of several whore­ house bills outstanding against Turner as well as money that he borrowed and refused to pay. There are," he con­ tinued, "some liquor bills too."IB

l?Ibid. IBcuney to C hristy, January 20, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0178-0187. 279

One of the few people who did have a written contract

with Turner was George B. G iddings.G iddings, however, claimed that Turner owed him one thousand dollars whereas

Turner was only willing to pay five hundred dollars. Gid­ dings *s claim was like all the rest: "He must," the Secre­ tary of the Interior wrote, "look to Turner, and not to

this Department . . . ." Garrett H. Ten Broeck had a claim of a slightly dif­ ferent nature; he advanced Turner large sums of money "to pay his personal expenses whilst advocating the passage of the appropriation of $75,000 . . . ."21 Additionally, he also claimed to have "used his personal influence with members of

Congress to secure the said appropriation and the further

one of $15,000." As in the case of Giddings, Turner ack­ nowledged his liability, stating that he owed Ten Broeck

$5,212.01. Despite the fact that Turner acknowledged the

legitimacy of the debt, however, he paid Ten Broeck only two thousand dollars, leaving Ten Broeck to plead with the Sec­

retary of the Interior to take the balance of $3,212.01 out

of the amount still due Turner, "as [Ten Broeck] believes Turner to be pecuniarly irresponsible." The Secretary re-

19por affidavits filed for and against Giddings's claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0106 0121; 0353-0357; 0525-0526; 0713-0715; 0718-0721.

Z^Final Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of J . Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0944. Z^For affidavits filed for and against Ten Broeck’s claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0482-0487; 0768-0770; 0796-0809. 2 80

jected Ten Broeck's claim for the same reason that he re­

jected all of the others: Ten Broeck might or might not have a legitimate complaint against Turner, but if he did, it was the result of a private contract and was not subject

to the provisions of the1889 legislation.22

William Brown, one of the o rig in al members of the com­ mittee that hired Turner, also claimed he was entitled to two thousand dollars "for expenses and services as committee­ man in securing the appropriation for the freedmen."23

Brown claimed to have been responsible for securing the job

for Turner, for which, he said, the black lawyer promised him four thousand dollars, though Brown was willing to set­

tle for only half that amount. Brown filed affidavits from

Roswell Machey, George W. E llio tt, and Joe Douglas, a ll cor­ roborating his story. Again, however, the Secretary of the In te rio r concluded th at "apart from any question about the morality of the transaction, the case is one of an entirely private and personal contract between the parties, with which the beneficiaries under the act had nothing to do, and in no way comes within the purview of the act authorizing the payment of compensation."24

22pinal Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of J. Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0944.

23por affidavits filed for and against Brown's claim, see the following frames of Special File 298: 0090-0094; 0131-0141; 0322-0324; 0376-0389; 0438-0441.

^^Final Decision of Secretary Noble in the Claim of 281

Having rejected a ll attempts to garnish the remaining $7,500 previously assigned to Turner but held in escrow un­ til his challengers could be heard, the Secretary finally ordered "that the remainder of the fund of $7,500 be paid to J, Milton Turner, as follows: $3,750 at this time, and

$3,750 on July 10, 1 8 9 0 .

It was something of a hollow victory for Turner, how­ ever, for even though he emerged from the affair with the fu ll payment of $15,000, that was less than h a lf the amount he had hoped to c o lle c t. Moreover, his reputation had been severely damaged. He had obviously fa ile d to liv e up to commitments to a number of persons who had helped him to get the bill passed. Quite simply. Turner's machinations on behalf of his bill finally caught up with him. Indeed, there were even indications in the latter stages of the push for the bill that his increasingly intense lobbying efforts had reached the point of diminishing returns. In September of 1888, for example, J. E. Bruce offered the following assessment of Turner's activities on behalf of the Cherokee bill. "Mr. Turner," he wrote, "is a brilliant and scholarly man, a very poor lobbyist and an excellent judge of fire­ water, which he samples too often and as a result it loosens his tongue too much." Bruce maintained, erroneously as it

J. Milton Turner, March 26, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0895-0944. Z^lbid. 282

turned out, that Turner had "succeeded admirably in talking

his bill to death by boasting of his sharp practices to se­

cure its passage." Indeed, Bruce maintained that the bill would not pass the House "so long as Turner has anything to do with it."2^ Likewise, Henry Cuney quoted Republican

Congressman Robert LaFollette as saying th at Turner's a c tiv ­

ities during the late summer and early fall of 1888 actually 7 7 postponed the passage of the bill. Garrett Ten Broeck

also wrote that Turner "complicated himself politically and secured the opposition of the Republicans and found he could

make no progress whatever . . . ."2 8 Hence, even when successful. Turner was criticized both by his colleagues and by those he purported to serve. Looking back in 1889 on the previous six years, he must have wondered why he had even begun arguing the Cherokee freed­ men's case. What had seemed to him in 1883 to be a simple, straightforward case of asserting the freedmen's claims and co llectin g his fee had become immensely long and complicated.

His efforts to speed up the process , particularly his in­ volvement in Cherokee p o litic s and his work on behalf of the Indianapolis Convention, brought him extensive

2Gj. E. Bruce to the Editor of the Cherokee Advocate, September 9, 1888, quoted in the Indian C h ieftain , 2? Sep- tember 1888. 2^H. E. Cuney to Robert Christy, January 20, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0178-0187. ZBCarrett Ten Broeck to Secretary of the Interior, January 11, 1890, Special File 298, frames 0802-0805. 283

29 criticism. Even after the bill was passed, he was unable to secure the compensation to which he thought he was en­ titled. Ultimately he had to settle for an amount less than half of that for which he hoped. Moreover, he was paid that only after a delay of more than one year, during which time he had to submit to the challenges of people who con­ tested his claim. Indeed, the reality of the 1889 fee set­ tlement, combined with the harshness of the words of Turner's detractors, must have been a stark contrast to the black law­ yer's expectations. Whatever his disappointment might have been, however.

Turner continued to work on behalf of the freedmen. Another cession of land in 1890 brought an additional payment of $300,000 to the Cherokee Nation, with the prospect of more to come. The potential profit to an attorney for the freed­ men was enormous. The 1890 law which referred the question of the freedmen's future status to the courts also author­ ized them to hire attorneys, "the amount of compensation of such attorneys and counsel fees, not to exceed ten per cent of the amount recovered . . . ."30

29por Turner's role in these two affairs, see Chapter VI, pp. 247-264 above. 3PAct to Refer Cherokee Freedmen's Claims to the Court of Claims. Statutes at Large 26, 635 (l89o); U.S., Court of Claims, Whitmire, Trustee v. Cherokee Nation and the United States , Cases Decided in the Court of Claims of the United" States at the term of 1894-1895, 30 : 138-159. 284

Almost immediately, rumors circu lated about who the attorney for the freedmen would be. The Indian Chieftain reported on November 6, 1890, that "J. Milton Turner has secured a contract from the colored citizens for the pro­ secution of all their claims against the Cherokee Nation ,,31

That announcement was premature, however, and there was a good deal of anti-Turner sentiment still present among the freedmen. On November 13, Luster Foreman, who described himself as the "president of the Freedmen brotherhood of the Cherokee nation," declared that "no such contract exists." Moreover, he exclaimed, "the Cherokee Freedmen don't need any attorney and if Mr. Turner has any such contract it is a spurious and bogus one."32

A week later the Chieftain noted that "the colored people are becoming involved in an acrimonious controversy as to who shall represent them in the court of claims." Interestingly enough, the Chieftain, which had spoken so critically of Turner's political maneuvering in the 1887 tribal elections, now wrote glowingly of the black lawyer.

It suggested to the freedmen "that Turner probably accom­ plished in their behalf what no other man in the country could and there is no telling what his resources are."

3^Indian Chieftain, 6 November1890. 32ibid., 13 November 1890. 33ibid., 20 November 1890. 285

Late in November, a call was issued for a convention to be held in the Cherokee Nation to discuss the logistics

of pursuing claims in the courts. The convention recom­ mended Moses Whitmire, a member of the original committee

of blacks that had hired Turner, to the Secretary of the Interior as the official representative of the freedmen. He was to act as their trustee. Whitmire was accepted of­ ficially by the Secretary in mid-December and empowered to

employ counsel to pursue the case before the Court of Claims. Turner's questionable tactics of the previous seven years made him an extremely controversial prospect. Again on January 1, 1891, the Indian Chieftain encouraged the freed­ men to "secure the most able attorneys if they expect to participate in the proceeds from the sale of the strip lands." It asserted that "J. Milton Turner has already won half the fight for the freedmen . . . ." Notwithstanding Turner's victory, however, the Chieftain noted, "there is already a conspiracy on foot to beat him out of his attor­ neyship and give it to other parties. This looks like very bad policy indeed," the newspaper continued, "for there is not a man in the country who has given the cause of the freedmen the attention which Turner has and there is hardly a possibility of their getting a lawyer to take this case who possesses the ability which Turner does." The Chieftain concluded its editorial support of Turner by noting that

"the very fact of his being a colored man gives him an espe- 286

cial advantage when appearing in behalf of his own race

which his white competitor could not hope f o r . "34

On January 22, 1891, the Chieftain announced that Turner had prevailed in his attempt to be named as the at­

torney for the freedmen and indicated that he would "at

once take steps to secure for the colored people a share in th at i n te r e s t."33 Simultaneously, on January 21, 1891, the

Missouri Pacific Railway Company issued a circular to Chero­

kee freedmen, announcing reduced rates for round trip tic­

kets from twelve points in Indian Territory to the town of Braggs, where they could presumably make an attempt to in­ clude themselves among the freedmen who were entitled to the per capita distribution. J. Milton Turner arranged the railroad "scheme," as it was called by his critics.36

Most of the people who traveled to Braggs were blacks who had been left off of the so-called Wallace Roll, com­ piled by special agent J. W. Wallace in 1889, and were mak­ ing an attempt to have their names added. In March 1891

a citizen of Indian Territory, Fred M. Strout, complained

34ibid., 20 November 1890; 1 January 1891; 8 January 1891. 35ibid., 22 January 1891.

36h . C. Towsend to Turner, January 21, 1891, Enclo­ sure 1, Fred W. Strout to the Acting Commissioner of In­ dian Affairs, March 18, 1891, Letter No. 10705, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. 287 to the Acting Commissioner that "J. Milton Turner collected hundreds of dollars . . . from 'to-late' [sic] niggers who T y [sic] he has managed to get on the roll." Strout was not the only person who complained of Tur­ ner's appointment as attorney. Joseph and William Brown wrote to the Acting Commissioner on March17, 1891, making, as the Commissioner wrote, "sundry charges of extortionate practices said to have been indulged in by Mr. Turner upon the colored people of the Cherokee Nation." The Commis­ sioner replied to the Browns' complaint by indicating "that all the charges against Mr. Turner referred to by you in your letter were canvassed by the Secretary of the Interior at the time when he had the selection of Moses Whitmire under consideration." He told the Browns that "the matter will not now be re-opened," but he explained to them that they were free to submit facts pertaining to Turner's al­ leged "unprofessional conduct" to the Court of Claims.3®

Despite the fact that he was surrounded by an atmos­ phere of distrust, and even hate. Turner spent a good deal of time in Indian Territory during 1891. In January 1892 he offered an assessment to Commissioner T. J. Morgan of the

37pred W. Strout to the Acting Commissioner of In­ dian Affairs, March 18, 1891, Letter No. 10705, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. 38Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Joseph and William Brown, March 25, 1891, Letter No. 10925, Let­ ters Sent, L.D., BIA, NA. 288 inadequacy of the job done by special agent Wallace. He complained "that many persons entitled to a per capita share of [the original $75,000 and subsequent payments] had been, for lack of complete evidence and various other reasons . . . unjustly dropped from the rolls made by Commissioner

Wallace." To illustrate his point. Turner proclaimed that on the Wallace Roll "a son was frequently paid and a father denied recognition; the same was true of a daughter while the mother was denied."39

According to Turner, he had complained to the Secre­ tary of the Interior of this "incongruous and confusing spectacle" of a son or daughter being listed on the roll, while their parents' names were not included. The Secre­ tary, he noted, had promised "to make another supplemental roll . . . to the one already made by United States Commis­ sioner Wallace." The compilation of a new list was delayed, however, because Wallace had exhausted the five thousand dollar appropriation provided for that purpose. Hence, the

Secretary had committed himself to making the supplemental roll "whenever the Department was in possession of the funds necessary to defray the expenses . . . . The time period for the new roll to be taken was fixed for January 1892, and the Indian Agent at Muskogee, Indian

3^Turner to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, January 13, 1892, Letter No. 1920, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. 40lbid. 289

Territory, published notices that he would receive applica­

tions from black freedmen omitted from the Wallace Roll un­ til January 28. Turner complained that the "inexperience

of the parties interested" made the time too short. He was, he said, "of the opinion that easily from 6 to 1200 persons are laboring under this particular hardship and un­

less granted ample opportunity to maintain their rights they w ill be ultim ately debarred by undue not to say apparently summary process." In view of that fact, he asked for an ex­

tension of the January 28 deadline. He also asked the Sec­ retary of the In te rio r to "recommend to the proper Committee

of Congress that the necessary appropriation be made to per­ fect and complete the so-called Wallace roll."^^ Turner concluded his letter to the Commissioner with

a frank explanation of his concern about the number of freedmen to be added to the roll. He noted that the delay he was requesting "seems to the attorneys of the Cherokee freedmen necessary . . . in view of the fact that in much of

their cause already brought before the Court of Claims . . .

their [the attorneys'] interest will turn largely and in­ deed with great significance . . . upon the numerical aggre­ gate of human souls whom they shall be able to prove are included within the solemn treaty stipulations of the 9th Article of the Treaty of 1866."^^

^^Ibid. 42lbid. 290

Commissioner Morgan replied to Turner's letter on January 21, 1892, He was of the opinion, he wrote, that

"Special Agent Wallace gave ample time, nearly nine months, to every freedman in the Cherokee Nation, to present in person or by attorney, his or her claim to enrollment with the evidence on which it was based." Morgan acknowledged that certain claimants "failed to complete or perfect their evidence" because of their "gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of business methods," but he argued that such claims could be adjusted through the Indian Agent. He noted th at much correspondence had already gone on with freedmen who felt that they had been unjustly excluded, "and wherever the proof has been [sufficient] . . . parties have been instructed how to complete their chain of evi­ dence, by furnishing them a series of questions to be an­ swered, under oath, in accordance with fact."^^ The Commissioner declared that, while Wallace's work was not p erfect, the job he had done was commendable. The apparent incongruities to which Turner referred, he said, could be explained in most, if not all, cases. He cited the case of Martha Sales to illustrate his point. Mrs. Sales was fifty-three years old when she appeared before Special Agent Wallace on October 23, 1889, She had been born in the Cherokee Nation, the slave of Joe Riley. During

43 Commissioner to Turner, January 21, 1892, Letter No. 1920, Letters Sent, L.D., BIA, NA. 291

the C ivil War she fled to Kansas and did not return u n til 1881. Clearly, the Commissioner argued, that was more than

the six months stip u lated by the 1866 tre a ty . Mrs. S ales's daughter, Anna Harris, on the other hand, was in the Chero­ kee Nation at the time of the treaty and remained therein 44 and her claim was admitted,

Morgan saw no need to postpone the January 28 dead­ line. He did, however, assure Turner that "no claim will be refused consideration by this office by reason of its late presentation." Regarding Turner's request that Morgan ask Congress for an additional appropriation to update the Wallace Roll, the Commissioner declared that "I see no neces­ sity therefore . . . ."^3

Turner responded on January 29, 1892, and in so doing added an entirely new element to the conflict. Up to that time he had essentially argued that the problems with the Wallace Roll could be explained simply in terms of shoddy census taking. However, the Commissioner's mention of the example of Martha Sales led Turner to the conclusion that Morgan had grossly m isinterpreted the six-months clause of the 1866 treaty. Consequently, he apprised the Commissioner 46 of his own view of that provision.

^^Ibid. 45ibid. ^^Turner to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Jan­ uary 29, 1892, Letter No. 3906, Letters Received, L.D., NA. 292

Turner quoted Article 9 of the 1866 treaty to the Commissioner which declared that "all freedmen who have been lib erated by voluntary act of th e ir owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the Rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within 6 months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees." The black lawyer advanced the argument that Article 9 referred to two distinct classes of blacks: "freedmen" and "free colored persons." The former group, he said, consisted of "all freedmen who have been lib erated by voluntary act of th e ir owners or by law," and the latter, "all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the Rebellion and are now residents therein, or who may return to the territory with­ in six months from the date of the Treaty." In Turner's view, the 1866 treaty made no limitations on the rights of the "freedmen," who were, simply defined, any former slaves of the Indians. Since Mrs. Sales had been born in Chero­ kee Territory, the slave of an Indian master, she could not be excluded from the ro ll because she had moved to Kansas at the close of the war and had not returned u n til 1881.47 Turner accentuated his argument by pointing out that

4?Ibid. 293

Mrs. Sales was representative of hundreds of freedmen in

a similar position. It was for them, Turner pleaded, that

the matter should be reconsidered and the rolls reopened. "May I not hope that you will again consider this matter," he continued, "and the point I so strongly urge, for I

feel that I am dealing with the rights of about eleven hundred people?"^®

There is no evidence of a formal response by the

Commissioner to Turner's resourceful interpretation of

the 1866 treaty. In fact, the next extant piece of cor­ respondence between Turner and the Commissioner came a full year later, in April 1893, when Turner requested in­

formation as to the statu s of J u lia Bass Teale and her children. He asked that "if Mrs. Teale be classed among those freedmen who are denied recongition from incomplete proof then please inform me what additional evidence is necessary to establish her case as a beneficiary under said article of said treaty."49

Three days la te r. Commissioner D. M. Browning r e ­ sponded to Turner's inquiry by informing him that Julia

Teale's claim had been rejected by Special Agent J. W. Wal­ lace on December 16, 1889, and th a t the Department of the

In te rio r concurred in th a t decision. Browning made no men-

48ibid. 4^Turner4^Turne to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 22, 1893, Letter No. 14518, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. 294 tion of Turner's attempt to distinguish between "freedmen" and "free colored persons." He implicitly rejected such a distinction, however, by denying Mrs. Teale's claim even though he acknowledged that she had been born in the Chero­ kee Nation, the slave of a Cherokee Indian, and was still a resident of the Nation at the outbreak of the Civil War. The reason he rejected her claim, he explained, was because she moved to the Choctaw Nation during the war and remained there until 187 7, when she moved to Kansas. Hence, she had never re-established residency in the Cherokee Nation and was not in compliance with the treaty's six-month clause.SO

In January 1894 Turner submitted a similar request to Secretary Hoke Smith on behalf of Charlotte Alberty. When the Civil War broke out, Ms. Alberty lived in Indian

Territory, the slave of a Cherokee. She was taken by her master to Texas during the war, returned to Indian Terri­ tory in 1866, remained until 1868, then went to school in Chicago. She returned to the Cherokee Nation in 1881, re­ mained a year, le ft again, returned for four months in 1883, and le ft again u n til January 1893. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to whom Turner's inquiry had been re­ ferred, responded simply that "the applicant lived out of the

Nation too long, and was reported on the rejected schedule

SOcommissioner of Indian Affairs to Turner, April 26, 1893, L etter No. 14518, Letters Sent, Land Division, BIA, NA. 295

sent to this office July 14, 1893 . . .

Not all freedmen in Indian Territory were eager to have the Wallace Roll tampered with, however. Many blacks who were on the original roll feared that any re-opening of the roll might result in their subsequent exclusion. Isaac Rogers and G. W. Vann wrote to Secretary of the Interior Hoke Smith in December 1893, indicating that "there are numerous complaints against [Moses Whitmire] and great d is ­

satisfaction among the freedmen . . . ." First of all, they wrote, Whitmire was appointed the freedmen's trustee

"without their consent and we believe in col[l]usion with J. Milton Turner to compromise the s u it against our w ill

and to our disadvantage." Hence, Rogers and Vann were fearful that the activity of Turner and Whitmire would jeo­

pardize the gains already made by the freedmen. They com­

plained that the trustee and his attorney were trying "to

disturb the 'Wallace Roll' and throw out a great many freed­ men who are recognized and legally placed thereon; and i f

he persists and succeeds in his efforts it will cause many

poor freedmen to be made homeless and endure many hard- c 2 ships." There is no evidence to support the contentions

S^Turner to Secretary of the Interior, January 16, 1894, L etter No. 3074; Commissioner of Indian A ffairs to Turner, February 14, 1894, Enclosure, L etter No. 3074; Turner to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, March 5, 1894; Letter No. 9312; Secretary of the Interior to Turner, March 12, 1894, L etter No. 9812; L.D., BIA, NA.

SZpew M. Wisdom to Secretary of the In te rio r, Decern- 296

of Rogers and Vann. By this time Turner had been charged with so much wrongdoing th at many freedmen assumed the worst of any venture that he was involved in. Despite opposition, however. Turner and Whitmire con­ tinued to challenge the Wallace Roll. The fact that in

1894 another land cession was made for the staggering sum of $6,640,000 must have had something to do with their per­ sistence. The Cherokee freedmen's case was finally heard by the Court of Claims in March 1895. A fter becoming in ­ volved in the case in 1891, Turner had recruited Robert H. Kern, Frederick W. Lehmann, Wells H. Blodgett, and H. D.

Laughlin to assist in preparing the case for the Court of

Claims. All four of those men were prominent white St. Louis attorneys. Kern, an active Democrat, was Turner's chief partner in the case. Kern and Lehmann argued the case before the Court of Claims. The two white attorneys focused their arguments on the constitution of the Cherokee Nation and the treaty of

1866, and pleaded th at those documents e n title d the freed­ men to "all the rights of native Cherokees." The attorney her 26, 1893, Letter No. 47939, Letters Received, Land D ivision, BIA, NA. G. W. Vann and Isaac Rogers to Secre­ tary of the In te rio r, incomplete date, December, 1893, Enclosure, Wisdom to Secretary of the Interior, December 26, 1893, L etter No. 47939. ^^Lawrence 0. Christensen, "J. Milton Turner: An Appraisal," Missouri Historical Review 70 (October 1975): 17; U. S., Court of Claims. Whitmire. Trustee v. Cherokee Nation and the United States, Cases Decided in the Court" of Claims of the United States, at the term of 1894-1695, -W:— Twrnr.------297

for the Cherokee Nation responded that the intention of the Cherokees was "to confer upon the colored people in the

Cherokee Nation, and all who might become residents there­ of, such rights, and such rights only, as were conferred upon the colored people in other parts of the United

States," Hence, the Cherokee Nation "was certainly under no obligation to provide for this class of persons , , . Any other in te rp re ta tio n , the Indians argued, "would place a penalty upon the Cherokee Nation not imposed upon any

other people w ithin the broad domain of the United States

and one with no p a ra lle l in its h isto ry ," In addition, the Cherokees argued that the entire affair was an internal matter and "th at the Cherokees possess the sole and ex­ clusive right to manage their own internal affairs, and of

control of the persons and property of their citizens, there has been no question for more than half a century ,,54

The Court of Claims rejected the Cherokee plea, but

postponed a final decree in the case until it could be in­ formed of "the number of persons who were entitled to par­

ticipate, or of the number of persons who constitute the body of the present claimants, Two weeks la te r the Court met again, with Kern and W.

U,S,, Court of Claims, Whitmire, Trustee v, Chero­ kee Nation and the United S ta te s, Cases Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States at the term of 1894- 1895', 30; 138- i 51j ,

S^ibid, 298

H. Blodgett arguing the case for the freedmen. By that time there had been three monetary distributions totaling

$7,240,000. The Court ruled that the Wallace Roll should be used for deciding who among the freedmen should receive per capita payments. However, the Court declared that the original Wallace Roll compiled in 1889 should not be used.

Rather, the so-called "corrected Wallace Roll," compiled subsequent to the sending of two agents into Cherokee Ter­ ritory in 1890, would be used. Counsel for the Cherokees challenged the accuracy of the Wallace Roll and its revi­ sions. Instead, they argued that the number of freedmen in the Nation should be drawn from a census "made by the nation at some time between 1880 and 1882." That number was 2,052, whereas the revised Wallace Roll insisted that the true number of freedmen living in 1883 was 3,524. The

Court of Claims found in favor of Kern and B lodgett's argu­ ment that the revised Wallace Roll should be used. In ad­ dition, it provided for additional amendment to the roll by instructing the Secretary of the Interior to "cause the Wal­ lace roll to be further corrected by adding thereto descend­ ants born since March 3, 1883, and p rio r to May 3, 1894, and striking therefrom the names of those who have died or have ceased to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation . . . ." To carry out that task, the Court authorized the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a commissioner to go to Cherokee country and determine the facts necessary for the correction 299

of the roll.56

Using the number of 3,524 freedmen out of a to ta l Cherokee population of 28,243 and taking the total sum to be $7,240,000, the Court ruled that $903,365 was to be dis­ tributed among the freedmen. The total represented as the

Court pointed out, "more than $250 for each person- more than $1000 for every family of the freedmen . . . ."57

Moreover, the Court "decreed to the attorney of the com­ plainants for compensation and counsel fees, including the

compensation of all associate counsel and the expenses and disbursements incident to the litigation, 2 per cent on the amount of the recovery, to wit, $18,067.30, which amount, it is adjudged, shall be paid by the defendant, the Cherokee Nation." In addition, the attorneys were to be paid four percent, or $36,134. Moses Whitmire, the trustee for the freed­ men, was to be paid five thousand dollars, again, out of the money to be paid the freedmen.58

Not only was the present status of the Cherokee freed­ men clearly defined, but their future as well. The Court ruled that "the freedmen and free colored persons aforesaid and their descendants, are entitled to participate hereaf­ ter in the common property of the Cherokee Nation in the

56ibid., pp. 189-196. That revision of the roll be­ came known as the Kern-Clifton Roll. 57ibid.

58ibid. 300 same manner and to the same extent as Cherokee c itizen s of 59 Cherokee blood or parentage may be entitled . . .

The Cherokee Nation appealed the verdict, to which Whitmire, Turner, and the other four attorneys responded by declaring that if the Cherokees refused toaccept the va­ lidity of a revised Wallace Roll, they would themselves ap­ peal the case and attempt to add more persons to the l i s t than even the Wallace Roll would allow. The six men pub­ lished an open "Address to the Freedmen" in the Indian Chief­ ta in on September 19, 1895. They warned the freedmen th at

"the [Cherokee] nation has kept the Freedman out of his money for years in courts, and now that it is well-whipped, is trying its further knavery.Indeed, the freedmen's representatives expressed confidence in being able to win a $150,000 increase for their clients in a Supreme Court fight. They were particularly incensed over the actions of

Ike Rogers and Chief H arris, who, they complained, had called a convention for September 15, 1895, for the purpose of "prolong[ing] the payment of the Freedmen th e ir ju st rights under the decree of the Court of Claims . . . ."

The Address closed with a warning to the freedmen "to have nothing to do with Mr. Ike Rogers, nor the Cherokee nation in this matter, but leave it to the court where they are sure to win.

59ibid. GOlndian Chieftain, 19 September 1895.

Gllbid. 301

Subsequent to the Court's decision. Turner continued doing e sse n tia lly what he had done during the previous five years : helping individual freedmen assert their claims to inclusion in the much-revised Wallace Roll. The Indian Chieftain of April 30, 1896, noted that "J. Milton Turner, the able colored attorney for the Cherokee freedmen came in

[to Vinita, Indian Territory,] Tuesday from St. Louis and will remain some time in the interest of his clients before the commission appointed to make a roll of Cherokee freed­ men entitled to citizenship in this n a t i o n . "^2

Even after the new roll was completed there was contro­ versy, however. Payment was fin a lly made in February 1897, but only after mutual recriminations of "alleged crooked­ ness" and "alleged misconduct." The Interior Department charged W. J. McConnell with the responsibility of investi­ gating the manner in which the rolls had been compiled.

The special agent concluded that "the entire transaction of the enrollment of the Cherokee freedmen and free colored persons, together with the appropriation of the money by the

Cherokee council for the purpose of equalizing payments, was a disgraceful a f fa ir ." McConnell noted th at "men high in the councils of the Cherokee nation, as well as others trusted by the Cherokee freedmen and free colored persons, have grossly and outrageously betrayed the confidence of a

^^Indian C hieftain, 30 April 1896. 302

too-confiding p e o p l e . "63

Congress responded to McConnell's report by deciding that yet another roll should be taken, this one by a Senate committee headed by Henry Dawes.Hence, the whole ques­ tion of who was and who was not entitled to per capita pay­ ments was again reopened. Although the Dawes Commission's new roll was not accepted formally by the Secretary of the

In te rio r u n til March 4, 1907, Turner and others became aware much earlier that the new list excluded a number of freed­ men whose names were on the Kern-Clifton Roll.^^ As early as 1903, Turner trie d to ascertain the status of those people whose names had either been added to or de­ leted from the Kern-Clifton Roll by the Dawes Commission. More than one year later, he wrote again to the Office of Indian Affairs, indicating that "I am still in a way inter­ ested as an attorney in fact for the interests of the Chero­ kee Freedmen . . . ." He noted that the Cherokee Chief had said recently, in reference to the roll of freedmen retaken by the Dawes Commission, "th at 2008 of said Freedmen had been placed upon a so-called doubtful list." Turner indi-

63lndian Chieftain, 16 February 1899.

64çurtis Act. 30 Stat. 495 (1898).

^ 5 u .s., Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation and United States V. Whitmire, Trustee for Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation. United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Su­ preme Court at October Term, 1 9 ll, 30: llST ^^Turner to Secretary of the In te rio r, July 7, 1903, Letter No. 43298, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. 30 3 cated that he had been intimately concerned with the fate of those 2,008 blacks and asked what "their present status" was in the Indian Office.The Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs responded that his office did not know of the exact number of rejected applicants, but that the accepted enroll­ ment of Cherokee Freedmen had risen to 3,881.^® Turner continued, for the next five years, to seek clarification on the disparity between the Kern-Clifton Roll and the Dawes Roll. In addition, he made repeated, although unsuccessful, efforts to further the claims of blacks who, he argued, had been excluded unjustifiably from the 1897 payment. Eventually he submitted the names of thirty-one persons who, he claimed, belonged in this latter category. In every case, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs ruled that the persons in question were e ith e r not e n title d to payment or had already received payment.^9

Meanwhile, Turner and his legal colleagues translated their concern about the incongruity of the Kern-Clifton and

Dawes rolls into a formal petition to the Court of Claims in May 1909 on behalf of those persons whose names appeared on the former list "and prayed that the action of the Dawes

G^Turner to Willis Smith, February 7, 1905, Enclosure, Letter No. 12075, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. G^Acting Commissioner to Turner, February 25, 1905, Letter No. 12075, Letters Sent, L.D., BIA, NA. G^File 57818, L.D., BIA, NA, contains a dozen pieces of correspondence between Turner and the Commissioner of Indian A ffairs, extending from 190 7 through 1909. 304

Commissioner and of the Secretary of the Interior be declared unlawful . . . ."70 "pbe Court of Claims found in their fa- vor. 71' ^ That victory was short-lived, however, because in 1912

the United States Supreme Court overturned the Court of Claims' decision to reject the Dawes Roll, thereby ending

further attempts to add persons to the list of freedmen re­ ceiving payments. The Court noted that the Kern-Clifton Roll "had been made up with haste and under circumstances 72 which caused question of its correctness." Consequently,

i t affirmed the ro ll compiled by the Dawes Commission to be the most accurate and the one from which future d is trib u ­ tions were to be made.

While all of this was going on. Turner was trying to apply elsewhere the maxims established with regard to the

Cherokee Nation. Having long since become convinced that wealth was the key to power and that the prosecution of claims such as those made by the Cherokee freedmen could be financially rewarding. Turner was ready to help Indians who were making claims against the United S tates. When one r e ­ calls his early condemnatory statements about Indians, one

s . . Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation and United States V. Whitmire, et al., p. Il6. ^^U. S., Court of Claims, Whitmire, Trustee v. Chero­ kee Nation and the United States, Cases Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States at the Term of l908- 1909, 44: 457-46X------7^0. S ., Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation and United States V. Whitmire, et. al., pi ll7. 305

is persuaded to believe that his only motives were financial. Early in 1900 he wrote to Missouri Democratic Representative

Champ Clark in an effort to gain information about the sta­ tus of the Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia, and Piankeshaw Indians who resided on the Quapaw reservation. He also wanted to

know how much former Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert

Stevens had paid for the sale of Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia, and Piankeshaw lands in 1854 and by what comparison of values 73 the appraisal was fixed. Clark forwarded Turner's letter to the Acting Commis­

sioner of Indian Affairs who declined to provide Turner with any information until Turner furnished "an affidavit showing your in te re st in the subject, and to what use and for what purpose such information, if furnished, is to be applied. Turner responded with a sworn affidavit, dated April 20,

1900. First of all, he indicated "that he is the attorney for the Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia and Piankeshaw Indians," Secondly, he explained that he was one of several "attorneys and agents" who were representing those Indians in their ef­ fort to collect a claim against the United States. He in­ dicated that he and his colleagues were preparing to intro­ duce a bill into Congress that would send the matter to

^^Turner to Champ Clark, April 5, 1900, Letter No, 17428, Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. ^^Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Turner, April 16, 1900, Letter No. 17428, Letters Sent, L.D,, BIA, NA. 306 the Court of Claims. Likewise, in April 1906 Turner and S. T. Wiggins initiated an appeal on behalf of the freedmen of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Initially they argued in support of a bill that would "give to the freedmen of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations at a price to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior additional lands to the 40 acres already secured to them . . . ." Many freedmen had held and improved land in excess of forty acres prior to the 1866 treaty and the trea­ ty's forty-acre provision forced them to sacrifice their improvements on their holdings of more than forty acres. Hence, Turner and Wiggins emphasized that they were not ask­ ing anything to be given to freedmen. Rather, they simply wanted the freedmen to "be allowed to buy and pay whatever price may be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior for a limited area of additional land, so that the right of pur­ chase may not be worthless and empty to them."^^

The Commissioner rejected the appeal of Turner and

Wiggins, explaining to the President "I do not believe that the freedmen in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations are en­ titled to the special privileges which are covered by this

^Spurner to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 20, 1900, Letter No. 19823; Turner to Commissioner of Indian A ffairs, April 20, 1900, L etter No. 19805, a ffid a v it of J. Milton Turner, April 20, 1900, enclosed with Letter No. 19805; Letters Received, L.D., BIA, NA. Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the President, April 17, 1906, Letter No. 31811, Letters S ent, L.D ., BIA, NA. 307 petition . . . He continued: "The freedmen are not . . . entitled to a privilege which has been denied to the regularly enrolled members of the tribe.

Early in 1910 Turner again demonstrated his interest in the rights of "persons of mixed Indian and negro blood in the Choctaw and Chickasaw N ations." He was apparently a leader of freedmen at a meeting held in Washington, D.C., on January 22, 1910, to support Senate Bill 5875.78 Senate Bill 5875 proposed to "transfer certain names from the freedmen roll to the roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations." According to Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger, the intent of the bill was "to enable such persons to take an allotment of 320 acres of the average allotable lands of the Choctaw and

Chickasaw Nations, instead of 40 acres, the amount provided as the allotm ent of each Choctaw and Chickasaw freedman."^®

The Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1866, unlike that of the Cherokee Nation, specifically excepted the freedmen from p a rtic ip a tin g "in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by or belonging to said nations re­ spectively . . . ." The treaty did, however, grant to "all persons of African descent, resident in the said nations

77 Ibid. 78secretary of the Interior to the President, March 10, 1910, File No. 10406, L.D ., BIA, NA. 79Ibid. 308 at the date of the treaty . . . and their descendants, here­ tofore held in slavery among said nations . . . forty acres each of land of said nations on the same terms as the Choctaws and Chickasaws . . . ."80

Turner's argument, however, was that the rights of persons of mixed Indian and freed­ men blood did not depend upon these provisions of law relative to freedmen, but that their rights in the Nations accrued by reason of th e ir descent from Choc­ taw or Chickasaw Indians, and that they were entitled thereby to recognition as citizens by blood of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations and to the full allot­ ments of land and other property as such citizens.81 Turner argued also that a legal precedent for his plea had been set by the Interior Department in February 1905. At that time, an assistant to the Attorney-General, as­ signed to the Interior Department, had ruled that Joe and D illard Perry "were e n title d to be enrolled as Chickasaws by blood" because their descent "was fully and indubitably shown to have been from Charles Perry, a Chickasaw by blood, and Eliza Perry, who was part white, Indian and negro . . . ."82

Subsequently, therefore, the Perrys' names were trans­ ferred from the freedmen's roll to the roll of citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation. That led to a flood of simi-

80ibid. 81lbid. This is Turner's argument, as presented by Secretary Ballinger. 82ibid. 309 lar requests made by other freedmen who claimed to be de­ scendants by blood. In April 1906 Congress stipulated a deadline of March 4, 1907, for the completion of the rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes. The Secretary of the In­ terior was to have no authority to approve enrollment of any person after that date.83

In view of th at fact and in view of the fact th at

"the Department does not believe that sufficient land remains to furnish full allotments to those who would be transferred from the freedmen to the blood roll if the bills transmitted with Mr. Turner's petition were enacted," Secretary Ballinger argued against a reopening of the r o l l s .84

Ballinger's position carried the day, and that ended

Turner's efforts on behalf of freedmen. There simply was nothing more that could be done. The rolls were closed and were not to be reopened. Despite Turner's lack of success on behalf of the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen, he and his colleague tried to collect $12,000 for attorneys' fees. The freedmen balked at paying and Turner and Wiggins sued in an

Oklahoma district court. The court awarded the two lawyers six thousand dollars, a decision that was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, where i t was upheld. Turner was still trying to collect his share of the six thousand dol-

83lbid.

G4lbid. 310

lars when he was killed in a railroad tank car explosion in 1915.85

Turner's nearly thirty years of legal maneuvering for

the Indian freedmen came to an end, however, with the closing of the rolls. He could count as his major accomplishments the passage of the 1888 Cherokee bill, the expansion of the

Wallace Roll, and the clarification of the future status of the Cherokee freedmen. It had been an expensive odyssey.

His scheming had seriously damaged his reputation. More­ over, he was singularly unsuccessful in his attempts to ad­ vance freedmen's claims after the Court of Claims victory. Undoubtedly, he collected considerable sums of money in

attorney's fees despite his lack of success in his later y e a r s . 86 That money, however, was never able to restore him to the position of power and statu s th at he had enjoyed in 1870-1871. It is only this frustrating failure, mea­ sured against his excessive expectations, that makes Tur­ ner's gross exaggerations of 1911 understandable. In an exaggerated statement that E. Franklin Frazier would have termed a retreat to "the world of make-believe," Turner told a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter that he had won

"for freedmen of the Cherokee nation about 1,400,000 acres of land and approximately $1,400,000." Likewise, he claimed

85Daily Ardmorite, 2 November 1915. Washington Bee, 15 November 1915. The Bee declared that Turner had made more money in attorney's fees than any other black man in the history of the country. 311

that his efforts had led to a decision in 1911 establishing

the t i t l e of Cherokee Freedmen "to oil lands in Oklahoma, valued at between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000." Moreover,

he explained that he was "also prosecuting claims for ne­ groes formerly the slaves of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, in which he had already won for them 100,000 acres of land." That venture alone, he revealed, would net himself 87 and his three law partners "a round million dollars."

He also claimed that "for the last 30 [sic] years he had acted as the Washington representative of the Five

Civilized tribes of Indians in Oklahoma." In the Cherokee

Nation alone, he explained, "2600 names of persons of mixed

negro and Indian blood, which were stricken from the rolls by the Department of the Interior, have been ordered re­

stored by the United States Court of Claims." In that case. Turner asserted that property amounting to from $10,000,000

to $12,000,000 was involved and he indicated that he ex-

OQ pected to earn approximately $1,000,000 from it.

He even made a point, in the interview, of explaining

how, despite his successes, he had "remained . . . modest

and unassuming . . . ," allowing "his white colleagues to take the prominent roles, while he was content to suppress

87g t. Louis P ost-D ispatch, 9 July 1911. For more on this interview and Frazier’s concept of "the world of make- believe," see Introduction, pp. 22-23. GGibid. 312

oq himself in the background until summoned to come forward."

Thus, at least, ran the Turner scenario, created by a man whose frustrations over a lack of recognition and suc­ cess led him to exaggerate his own accomplishments in a way that was limited only by his quite vivid imagination.

The 1911 interview was the life of Turner as he thought it should have been, not l i f e as i t re a lly was.

G^ibid. CHAPTER VIII

A FINAL EFFORT FAILS

Although his efforts on behalf of the Indian freedmen occupied much of James Milton Turner's time after 1883, he maintained other interests. He continued to try to exercise the political power that he had wielded in the early 1870's and to which he had tried to return at the Indianapolis con­ vention in 1888. He adhered to his decision to leave the

Republican party as a gesture of defiance against a group which, he said, did not take blacks seriously as a politi­ cal force. He remained a Democrat u n til the advent of Theo­ dore Roosevelt on the political scene when he again switched his allegiance in the hope that Roosevelt would revive the old Radical party of the Grant days. Increasingly, however, both blacks and whites paid less atten tio n to Turner. Party leaders seemed not to care whether he was a Republican or a Democrat. Turner had be­ come a leader without a constituency. He had alienated the former slaves by his condemnation of their way of life.

Likewise, the racism of white society precluded his entrance into the white middle class. One of the results of this rejection by both blacks and whites was that Turner turned in the last one-third of

313 314

his life to a black fraternal organization that had insti­

tutionalized the very type of white bourgeois values and

behavior that Turner’s early life experiences had oriented him toward: Prince Hall Freemasonry. Hence, Masonry pro­ vided a disappointed Turner with an oasis of familiarity

and frien d lin ess in a sea of h o s tility and hate. Although the status-conscious Turner did achieve some recognition within the limited community of black Missouri Masonry, he inexplicably withdrew from most Masonic a c tiv i­

ties in the last five years of his life. Indeed, he spent the final years of his life in near isolation, living out of a boarding house in St. Louis in a very strained rela­

tionship with a second common-law wife. Politics remained one of the foci of Turner’s atten­ tion in his later years. He followed his 1888 effort to organize and coalesce the independent and Democratic black vote in the country with an appearance at the National Ne­ gro Convention held in Washington, D.C., in February 1890.

Turner was one of the delegates to this convention, made up of persons wavering between continued support of the

Republicans and alliance with Democrats.^ His influ­ ence, however, was minimal. In fact, his only effort to speak to the largely Republican group was suppressed. Un­ der the guise of seconding a nomination. Turner began a

^St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 25 January 1890; see, also Beatty, p. 210, and Grothaus, pp. 11-12. 315 speech announcing that "We came here for the purpose of devising measures for the amelioration of our race, and es­ pecially that portion of it in the United States south of Mason and Dixon's line." He went on to explain that "We ask this at the hands of the party we are in [the Republi­ can]; if that party fails us, then we propose to seek a party that thinks it can help us; but, if that too does not 2 assist us, then we propose to help ourselves!" The audience reacted with hostility to the black ora­ to r 's comments, in terrupting him with "cries of 'O rder,' 'What way do you vote?' 'D idn't you vote for Cleveland?'

'I rise to a point of order,' etc." Ultimately, according to the Globe-Democrat, a motion to limit all seconding speeches to five minutes prevailed and Turner sa t down.^ Whether in direct response to that humiliating ex­ perience or not, some months later Turner again announced a colonization plan, this one reminiscent of his 1886 pro­ posal to establish a black colony in Butler County, Mis­ souri. There is no evidence that the 1890 scheme was any­ thing more than an imaginary hope, for the only references to it seem to be confined to two back-to-back issues of the New York Times. Still, it is worthwhile considering because it reveals something of a change in Turner's vision of a black utopia. Significantly, the colony was to be

2 St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 5 February 1890.

^Ibid. 316

outside the United States, in Mexico. That was in direct

conflict with Turner's assertions four years earlier that the future of black people in the United States was tied to their ability to adjust to life in their natural home­ land of the South. Turner explained to a reporter that

"the plan is being promoted by a firm of coffee dealers in New York, who have a capital of about $5,000,000." The

purpose of the firm would be "to put the negroes to raising coffee and sugar." According to Turner, the benefactors of the plan owned about 2,000,000 acres of land, "which will be divided up among the colonists." He emphasized that no

rent would be charged for the land and that "the firm will

furnish a means of support for the negroes until they can

get th e ir grounds under c u ltiv atio n and become s e lf-s u s ­

taining." Turner revealed that the benevolent capitalists were "willing to spend $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 in that way."4

Turner further emphasized that he was only the attor­ ney for the firm in the matter. The directors of the firm had asked for plans to carry out their program, he said, and "the one presented by me pleased them the most . . . ." He asserted that there was optimism that "the movement can be made very beneficial for the negroes" and revealed that he had already received a large number of applications from blacks who were eager to go. Significantly, he closed by

^New York Times, 6 August 1890. 317

stating "that all these applications are from negroes in

the North, where the negro is supposed not to be sup­ p ressed ."5

The New York Times of the next day reported that Tur­ ner had acknowledged th at both the scheme and the firm in ­

volved were mythical, figments of his imagination.^ Al­ though only an illusion. Turner's proposal revealed his continued belief that white Americans owed blacks assist­ ance in their struggle to become part of the white bour­ geoisie and, additionally, his awareness of the frustrating barriers to success for blacks in the United States, even in the North.

Later in the year. Turner spoke at a black political rally in St. Louis and urged blacks to be politically re­

alistic and to support the Democrats, whatever their ideolog­ ical preferences. "It seems to me," he said, "a species

of political insanity for the Negro, from sheer prejudice, to continue him self arrayed, en masse against any great political organization powerful enough to control whole

States and elect a president of the United States." Turner especially encouraged the young blacks present to revolt against the Republican party, arguing that it allowed blacks no voice in the selection of candidates, and no meaningful

Sibid.

^New York Times, 7 August 1890. 318 share of party honors and patronage.7

Turner's encouragements of apostasy went unheeded, however, in large part because of the general awareness of the Democratic party's lack of concern about blacks. As Professor Larry Grothaus has stated, "a possible alliance between Negroes and Democrats fa ile d in the early 1890's [in Missouri] because the chief concern of the party was its rural constituency and not the urban Negro.”® With the Missouri Democrats unwilling to do anything to attract black voters, and with the black voters unmoved by Turner's appeals, there was really very little political activity that the once powerful black leader could engage in. In 1892 he joined a nonpartisan movement by "the lead­ ing colored men of St. Louis” to call national attention

"to wrongs th at were being heaped upon them and to the f r e ­ quency with which negroes are being lynched or burned alive on the mere accusation of crime, without the process of law

. . . ." Turner and a committee of seventeen other black St. Louis leaders called for "a day [of] humiliation, fasting and prayer." They asked blacks all over the country "to meet on this day [May 31] at their places of worship, re­ gardless of creed, and to unite in prayer for the removal of the cause of these wrongs.

7 c r o t h a u s , pp. 11-12; Republic [St. Louis], 2 3 October 1890.

^Grothaus , p. 13. 9st. Louis Globe-Democrat, 23 April 1892; 11 May 1892. 319

That nonpartisan activity aside, Turner played no

part in politics again until 1898. In that year black dis­ content with the Republican party erupted into what Pro­ fessor Grothaus has called "an important political revolt."

St. Louis Republican leader Chauncey F ille y 's f a l l from power in 1896 led to an almost total cessation of patronage posi­ tions and even menial political jobs for blacks. Blacks ex­ pected eight hundred of the eight thousand jobs available

in St. Louis. Instead, they held only seventy-six in 1898.

Moreover, although there were no black candidates in the city in 1898, blacks wanted David Murphy, whom they saw as sympathetic to themselves, renominated as Judge of the Court of Criminal Corrections. Murphy’s renomination, however,

was rejected by the Republicans.^® That defiance of blacks as a constituency prompted

them to form an independent p o litic a l organization and also

to move toward the Democratic party. A slate of black can­

didates that did not include Turner was offered for several

elective positions and the Democrats, led by Governor Lon

V. Stephens, began making overtures to the black rebels. Governor Stephens wrote to several black St. Louis leaders, among them Turner, hoping to sway them toward the Democra­

cy. He assured Turner and others that he would talk to the St. Louis Police Board about the appointment of a black po­ liceman, and he made sim ilar commitments to other leaders.

l®Grothaus, pp. 7, 17-18.

l l l b i d . , p. 19. 320

Turner appears to have played a relatively minor part in the 189 8 revolt. He, of course, needed no convincing.

He had made the switch from Republicanism to Democracy a

full decade before and he could not pass up the opportunity to chide those who were so slow in seeing the light. In October 1898 he delivered a speech at an "Independent ne­ gro ra lly ," described by the Republic as "the most remark­ able demonstration of political enthusiasm in St. Louis for many years." The newspaper reported that "the hall

was jammed to the entrance and the enthusiasm was un­

bounded. "12 The black orator began by telling his audience that

"I am wearied with you negro voters of St. Louis . . . ."

He charged that "for years you have given 9,000 votes for

60 ja n ito rs h ip s , and i f you continue to do as you have done

in the past you will never gain for yourselves and for your

sons the political liberty which is more valuable to you than the name of citizen which is empty if you do not make

your rights at the polls effective I"1^ Turner charged that the only claim to black loyalty that the Republicans could make was that "they freed the American negro from slavery." Even th at claim, he said , was untrue. "Democrats as well as Republicans," he noted, had fought against the slavocracy during the Civil War.

l^Republie, 29 October 1898.

13lbid. 321

Then, in an obvious slur on the Gennan-Americans who repre­

sented a large segment of the Missouri Republican party, he exclaimed, "and I tell you , . . that when Julius Over- reacher and Henrich Allgrabber come to you and say th at he and only he is entitled to the negro vote, you can tell him in all truth and sincerity that he lies,"^^ Turner charged that blacks had "no equal representa­

tion" and th at the Republicans had made every e ffo rt to keep it that way. No doubt mindful of his own unsuccessful at­

tempts to gain political office, he continued: You never had one man in the L egislature; you never have had a negro in a constabulary position. You have never known your power. But I have hoped, and not in vain, th at when our young men began to come out of the public schools of Missouri and to know the rights which are th eirs by the law of God and man, they would ris e up in the power of the American b a llo t and see to it that they are recognized, if not by the party with which they have been allied, then by the Demo­ cratic garty, or better still, by their own party

He went on to tell them that their failure to stand up to the Republicans had made them the "political laughing stock of the world." The independent movement was needed

to restore black dignity; each black person who joined it would thereby "announce his political freedom and, in ele­ vating himself . . . elevate his race."^® Despite Turner's exhortations, the 1898 political re-

l^Ibid. iSjbid. l*Ibid. 322

volt had little immediate impact. Dr. D. W. Scott, the in­

dependent black candidate for Congress from the Twelfth Dis­ trict who had appeared on the program in October with Tur- ner, polled only six hundred votes. 1 7

The rebellion did not die, however, and as the 1900 election approached the Democratic machine in St. Louis was making renewed efforts to attract black voters. Notorious ward boss Ed Butler and his son Jim, who was running for Congress, organized black support. They were aided by a new machine organization in the city run by St. Louis Police Board Commissioner Harry B. Hawes and known as the Jeffer­ son Club. Through Hawes's e ffo rts , an auxiliary Negro J e f ­ ferson Club was formed, with C. C. Rankin, Crittenden Clark, W. H, Fields, and J. Milton Turner as leaders.^®

The Negro Jefferson Club r a llie d behind Democrat Rol- la Wells in the mayoral contest in 1901. Wells was the son of the man who claimed to have helped Turner get the Liberian ministership in 1871. The Club had units in twenty-six of the twenty-eight city wards and held a public black Demo­ cratic Convention for the first time.^® Not a ll Democrats were in favor of s o lic itin g the black vote, however. Indeed, the urban machines of Kansas

City and St. Louis were attacked by a loosely configurated.

l^Grothaus, p. 22. l® Ibid., pp. 23-25; Republic, 25 March 1901.

l®Ibid., p. 27; Wells, pp. 20-23. 32 3

but none the less powerful, "Confederate faction," made up largely of rural Democrats, who countered the machine over­

tures by trying to legalize racism. In 1903 a new effort was launched to establish Jim Crowism in Missouri. Tur­ ner was one of a number of blacks who traveled to the s ta te capitol to testify against the legal sanction of segrega­ tion. Ultimately the Jim Crow bill was defeated, but only a fte r black urban voters pressured Kansas City and St. Louis machine leaders to oppose the measure.2®

Turner's role in all of this is obscure. He certain­ ly was only a minor party figure in the 1903 fight against the Jim Crow bill. Perhaps that fact, combined with the vicious manifestations of racism still present in the De­ mocracy in that year, were the major factors th at led him again to switch political allegiances as the 1904 election approached. He must have been disappointed at not being allowed to play a more important role in party affairs.

Perhaps that is why he furnished a Globe-Democrat reporter with such erroneous information when it was announced that he would d eliv er a series of speeches on behalf of the Re­ publicans, beginning in September 1904. Turner told the reporter th at as a Democrat he had traveled a ll over the

United States "as one of the national speakers for that party." He told of how "in 1896 and 1900 he accompanied

Mr. Bryan on some of his tours, speaking to the negro voters

?n Grothaus, p. 34. 324 from Bryan's car, and was the only colored man with the p a rty ."21

The next evening Turner addressed a group of Republi­ cans and explained why he had switched his allegiance from the Democratic party. He explained that "efforts to divide the negro vote have taught at least one useful lesson." They have, he continued, shown "how deep rooted and brutal in its quality is the prejudice that actuates and controls the party represented by such human monstrosities as Varda- man, Tillman, Davis and John Sharp W illiams." By contrast, he said, he advocated the election of Theodore Roosevelt "because this broad-minded, intellectual giant of true Ameri­ canism has inspired and reawakened in the grand old Repub­ lican party the memory of its traditions of the past, and because, through that reawakening the party, in convention assembled at Chicago, unanimously adopted that resolution which committed its candidates for Congress to the enforce­ ment of the terms of the fourteenth amendment of the con­ stitution."2%

Just how genuine Turner's optimism was would be impos­ sible to say. There is some strong evidence, however, that he had essentially despaired of advantages, either personal or collective, for black political involvement. Although he lived for eleven years after the 1904 election, there is

21st. Louis Globe-Democrat, 15 September 1904.

Z^ibid., 17 September 1904. 325 no indication that he was again involved in any political contest. The most persuasive argument that Turner had lost much of his faith in the traditional political structure is his turn to black Masonry in the 1890's. Even his attach­ ment to the Democratic party had not brought him the power and status that he had known half a lifetime before under Radical rule in Missouri. He was hurt and confused. Where had he gone wrong? Who was to blame for his failu re? He was alienated both from whites and blacks. It was, as Wil­ liam Muraskin has written in his study of Prince Hall Free­ masonry, "difficult to know where the problem lies--is it the whites or the 'no-good' lower class blacks who are to blame?"23

Unable to answer that question. Turner fled to an in-between world, made up of people who, he thought, shared his values and vision: the world of the Masons. It seems reasonable to conclude that Turner looked to Masonry to perform the same psychological and social functions that William Muraskin argues it performed for most of its mem­ bers. It allowed the black victim of white racist oppres­ sion to respond creatively to the limitations placed upon him. It allowed the black person to create an integrated self-image for . . . [himself] as an upstanding American Citizen; it . . . helped

Z^Muraskin, p. 250 326

psychologically bind the black Mason to white society by enabling him to identify with the Caucasian middle class; it . . . created a haven within the larger black society where bourgeois Negroes have re­ ceived protection from the lif e sty le of the non­ bourgeois blacks who surround[ed] them; and while having helped to create a positive sense of community among its middle-class adherents, it . . . served to estrange them from the mass of black people.24

Turner did not turn to Masonry u n til he had v irtu a lly given up on retrieving his lost status, both in the white and black communities. He left behind no explanations about why he waited until 1890, fifty-one years after his birth, to become a Mason. It is clear, however, that although he did not become a Mason until 1890, he had had repeated and prolonged contact with Masons for thirty years or more.

Many of the leaders of the Missouri Equal Rights League with whom he worked during the immediate postwar years were Ma­ sons. Despite the fact th at black Masonry was extremely important in Monrovia, Liberia, the small West African city in which Turner lived from 1871-1878, there is no evidence that he became a member. Indeed, in 1879 a committee of St.

Louis Masons was assigned the task of assessing the status of Masonry in Liberia. Turner had ju s t returned the year be­ fore to something of a hero's welcome in St. Louis and would certainly have been expected to provide information if he had been a Mason or even a friend of Masonry. However, his 7 c name is not mentioned in the committee's report.

24ibid., p. 74. 2®0fficial Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Com­ munication of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, A.F. 8 A.M. 327

Turner's failure to associate with the Masons during the years of the sixties through the eighties corresponds with his optimism during much of that period of being ac­ cepted into the mainstream of white society. Lodges were separate and, consequently, inferior to white society; Tur­ ner was most reluctant to accept an inferior station in life because of his race. Not, at least, until the frustrations of the eighties had sufficiently dulled his expectations and caused him to seek status and solace elsewhere.

Prince Hall Freemasonry was the logical place for Tur­ ner to turn. Institutionally, Freemasonry accepted and en­ dorsed the same bourgeois standards of respectability and morality that Turner had made part of his value system in antebellum Missouri. Endorsement of those values meant, by extension, a good deal of emphasis on differentiating Ma­ sonic behavior from the behavior of the masses of blacks, a cleavage that Turner had always tried to effect in his own l i f e . 26

Turner entered the mysterious world of Masonry slowly, simply being listed as one of eighty-two members in Widow's

Son Lodge of St. Louis in 1890. He did not attend the An- 2 7 nual Communication that year. By 1893, however, he had risen to the level of second-ranking o ffic e r in Widow's Son

(Hannibal, Mo.: Standard Printing Co., 1880), pp. 27-28. Hereafter referred to as Official Proceedings. ^®Muraskin, pp. 43-85.

^^Official Proceedings, 1890, p. 87. 328

2 A Lodge. At la s t he had found a forum for p o litic a l a c tiv ­ ity in which he could act out all of the roles he had longed to play in the mainstream culture. That, Muraskin argues, was one of the vital functions performed by Masonry, "Free­ masonry allows its adherents to act as if they were first- class American citizens," he writes. "If one wishes to be an active participant in the democratic political process 2 9 and to carry out civic responsibilities, one can." In 1894 Turner rose to the leadership of Widow's Son. As its Worshipful Master, he represented his lodge at the Twenty-eighth Annual Communication, held at Moberly, Mis­ souri, August 28-31.^® He actively participated in the election of officers for the Communication, obviously relish­ ing the reality of his ability to once again influence votes and persuade people. He also took particular interest in two measures designed to preserve the history of black Ma­ sonry in Missouri. According to William Muraskin, the Masonic sense of history is crucial to an understanding of the organization. By tracing its foundation to Prince Hall, a free black of the eighteenth century, the fraternity "has erased from the

^®Official Proceedings, 1893, p. 107. Muraskin, p. 132. ^®Qfficial Proceedings, 1894, pp. 10, 73, 111.

^^Ibid., pp. 39-40; 37. 329 mind of the black Mason his actual descent from slaves

, , , In the process, also, it has given him a new heri­ tage; or, as Muraskin has written, it has allowed the black man, as the inheritor of the Masonic past, to cease "to be a poor, insignificant member of an oppressed group and . , , become a member of the most important and idealistic insti- 32 tution the world has ever seen!" It is little wonder, then, that this man who had so often been maligned and un­ appreciated moved to keep the same thing from happening to others in that 1894 meeting. On the first day of the con­ vention an address was delivered by "Bro. W. P. Brooks, one of the oldest Masons in Missouri." Brooks was the only living member of the original committee appointed for the purpose of founding the Grand Lodge of M issouri. His "im­ pressive and interesting" recounting of the early days of the organization was followed by a resolution offered by G, W. Guy and Turner. The resolution, subsequently adopted by the convention, called for Brooks to furnish a synopsis of the Grand Lodge of Missouri's early history for publication in the Official Proceedings. Likewise, it resolved that Brooks's photo be included in the same edition of the Pro- ceedings.,. 33 That resolution was followed by another, offered by

Joe E. Herriford, G. W. Guy, and Milton Turner. It recalled

^^Muraskin, pp. 196-197.

^^Official Proceedings, 1894, p. 33, 330

"with pride" the record of Missouri's Most Worshipful Grand

Lodge and pointed out the necessity of maintaining an his­ torical record of that proud past. It resolved that a com­ mittee be formed to collect the proceedings of each of the previous tw enty-eight Annual Communications of the Grand

Lodge, bind them, and place them under the care of the Grand Secretary. Turner offered an amendment to the resolution, calling for a copy of each of the Proceedings to be sent to the Missouri Historical Society in St. Louis, and for W. P. Brooks to be a member of the committee formed to carry out that task.34

34ibid., pp. 34-35. Mrs. E. A. Stadler, Missouri His­ torical Society Archivist, told me in an interview on July 5, 1977, that those records were never made a part of the Society's holdings. She checked the Society's minutes for that period, in my presence, and could find no reference to black Masons, Turner, or W. P. Brooks. She said that in her judgment there were only two possible explanations: 1) the black Masons changed their minds, and decided not to turn over the material; 2) the Society rejected the offer since i t was making no e ffo rt to co llect black m aterials at that time. It should also be noted that this was not the first time that Turner showed an interest in preserving an account of black historical contributions. In 1882 he de­ livered a eulogy of Dred Scott upon the occasion of the presentation of a portrait of the latter to the Missouri Historical Society. Turner noted at that time that "the Negro has been with us in felling forests, in redeeming lagoons, and in building cities where there were waste places. And, I may add, that his toil in our fields of plenteous harvest has aided the ramifications of our sub­ s ta n tia l commerce. The Negro has been with us from the very beginning of the history of our State, and, indeed, of the nation i t s e l f . Surely he must somewhere, at some time and somehow have carved his humble niche in the tem­ ple of time." Irving Billiard, ed., "Dred Scott Eulogized by James Milton Turner," Journal of Negro H istory 26 (Jan­ uary 1941): 9. For the original, hand-written version of this eulogy, see Dred Scott Papers, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Mo. 331

Turner was re-elected Worshipful Master of Widow's

Son Lodge in 1895 and again he represented that lodge at the Annual Communication, this time held in Lexington, Mis­ se souri. He actively participated in the routine business of the convention and he again joined with others to offer

•Z f . a special resolution for consideration by the entire body. This time, he proposed "to establish a Masonic Home 37 for indigent Master Masons, th e ir widows and orphans." Although Turner was only one member of the committee which

offered the resolution, he was clearly the force behind it, endorsing it, pushing it, trying to get it approved by the 38 entire Communication. Ultimately, the Committee's pro­ posal was amended to have its resolution carried out by a six-person committee appointed by the Grand Master. Per­ haps assigning the task to a committee temporarily destroyed it, for the Masonic Home did not come to fruition for another decade.

Turner's advocacy of the Masonic Home, nevertheless, was symbolically significant in two ways. First of all, it came at a time when he was disenchanted and disillusioned with white America. Consequently, his endorsement of a plan

^^Official Proceedings, 1895, p. 117. ^®Ibid., pp. 46, 60-61.

^^Ibid., pp. 14-15. 38 See, for example, his parliamentary maneuvers on behalf of the measure. Official Proceedings, 1895, pp. 39, 44, 45-46, 51. 332

by which blacks could take care of their own makes sense.

That same logic must have influenced him to support the resolutions offered by the Committee on Masonic Relief, of

which he was also a member. The Committee had the respon- 39 sibility of approving payments to indigent Masons. The Masonic Home and the R elief Committee performed another, perhaps more important, function, however. William

Muraskin has indicated one of the basic goals of orphanages was that "the children in the home were raised to be model

c itiz e n s, embodying as much as possible a ll the m iddle-class virtues in which Masons placed so much faith." In short, the Masonic Home provided Masons with the opportunity to be

frugal, save their money, and invest it in a project that would ultimately contribute to the advancement of the race. It was something that they had complete control over and,

as Muraskin indicates, it became "an arena for the realiza­ tion of [the fraternity’s] ideals of self-help, thrift, hard work, and cleanliness." In the process, it also served as

a mechanism for differentiating the behavior of black Masons from the black masses.^® Such an undertaking was right down

Turner's alley. The Thirtieth Annual Communication was held in Jeffer­

son City, Missouri, in 1896, the scene of many of Turner's

3®Ibid., pp. 52-54. 4n Muraskin, p. 151. 333 political triumphs more than a quarter of a century before. He again attended the Communication, although he was no 41 longer the Worshipful Master of Widow's Son. The Communi­ cation was welcomed by President Inman E. Page of Lincoln 42 Institute. On the second day of meetings. Turner, whose status had been enhanced by an appointment to the rank of "Grand Orator," offered another resolution on behalf of a proposed Masonic Home. His resolution suggested that the

Grand Lodge secure land "for the purpose of establishing a

Masonic Orphan's Home." The resolution was referred to the 43 Committee on Masonic R elief. Subsequently, the Committee endorsed his proposal, resolving to establish a "department . . . to the Masonic R elief work known as the Masonic Home of the Grand Lodge of Missouri." A three-member committee was appointed "to devise ways and means of founding and maintaining said home." As a matter of procedure, however, the proposal had to be submitted for approval to a ll of the 44 local lodges throughout the state.

On the third day of the Communication, meetings were tem porarily suspended so th at the Grand Lodge could accept

Capitol City Lodge No. 9's invitation "to take a drive to the principal points of interest in the city . . , Grand

^^Official Proceedings, 1896, pp. 66, 99

4^^bid., p. 7.

43 lb id ., p. 25.

^^Ibid., pp. 42, 45. 334

Master Pelham placed the Lodge in the hands of Special Grand Marshal J. Milton Turner. Soon the Lodge formed to leave the hall of the House of Representatives where it was meet­ ing, moving onto the driveway encircling the capitol where carriages s u ffic ie n t in number to accommodate the 250 men waited. The caravan proceeded first to cross "the great new steel bridge [spanning the Missouri River] connecting North Missouri with South Missouri." It continued on to the State Prison, then to Lincoln Institute, then to "other points of interest." The Institute was the major attraction.

The cortege gathered to hear speeches in the Institute's newly erected $40,000 building (Memorial Hall), at which point Grand Master Pelham urged "the Brethren" to send th e ir children "to this great institution of learning.The tour over and the Grand Lodge back in session. Turner o f­ fered a resolution of pride in "Lincoln Institute and its management." He called attention to the Institute as "the magnificent gift of the old soldiers and the generous State of Missouri to the cause of education." Ever consistent in his belief in education as the key to black upward mobility,

Turner included in his resolution the assertion that the Institute held "great promise for the Negroes of the State of Missouri . . . ," adding "we commend it to the hearty support of the Negro Masons of the State."*®

*®Ibid., p. 41.

*®Ibid., p. 42. 335

Turner again represented Widow's Son Lodge at the 189 7 Annual Communication.He was on three regular committees

that year: "Rules and Order of Business"; "Jurisprudence";

and "Grand Master and Grand L ecturer's Address." One of

the first orders of business was the Grand Master's Address, a good portion of which was devoted to an endorsement of the proposed Masonic Home. The Grand Master commended his l i s ­ teners on Masonic progress over the past decade, reporting to them that their efforts had made it possible for $60,000 to be paid to widows and orphans during that period. Such efforts, however, were insufficient. "If it shall tran­ spire," he said, "after all our grand pretensions and phe­ nomenal success, we permit a Negro Mason to die in d e s titu ­ tion or in the alms house of the State we shall be dis­ graced." He urged his fellow Masons to "take immediate steps, as far as possible, to provide for the wants of our poor and destitute Masons." That, he argued, was the real purpose of Masonry. "As I comprehend its symbols," he said,

"this is its teaching, and as I believe in its principles this is its design."*® A motion to refer the Grand Master's Address to the Committee on the Grand M aster's Address followed, with an amendment offered by Milton Turner. He was so moved by the speech that he called for its submission to the St. Louis

47pfficial Proceedings, 1897, p. 9.

4®Ibid., pp. 21-23. 336

Globe-Democrat for publication.49 Later, Turner's Commit­ tee on the Address "heartily" endorsed the Grand Master's suggestion "with reference to the subject of Masonic Relief

..." and resolved "to entirely adopt the language of his address, and to request the M. W. Grand Lodge to set apart a day for a sermon, to be universally preached throughout this Jurisdiction upon the subject of Masonic Relief and

Charity." I t went on to recommend th at the Committee on the Masonic Home be "empowered during the ensuing Masonic year . . . to secure premises for such few indigent Masons, th e ir widows and orphans as may be w ithin the financial power of th is M. W. Grand Lodge to care f o r .

Turner was liste d as a member of Widow's Son Lodge again in 1898, although he did not attend the Communication that year. Likewise, he was still a member of the same lodge in 1899, although he again failed to attend the annual meeting. In addition, there is no further mention of the proposed Masonic Home in either the 1898 or 1899 Official Proceedings. Perhaps his work among the Cherokee freed- men and his short-lived farm implement business, begun in St. Louis in 1898, kept him too busy during th at time.®^

49ibid., p. 23. 3®Ibid., pp. 28-29. Slpfficial Proceedings, 1898, p. 11; 1899, p. 91,

SZgt. Louis Post-D ispatch, 6 March 1898. 337

Turner’s involvement in business in 1898 was eminently consistent with one of black Masonry’s major precepts: that

businesses run by blacks could raise the entire black popu­ lation to the bourgeois level, thereby solving the race problem.®^ In 1898 Turner listed his occupation as "Mana­

ger, Milton Turner Manufacturing Establishment and Attorney

for the Cherokee Freedmen."®* Although the Milton Turner Manufacturing Establishment did not last long, it was an ex­ tremely ambitious enterprise. The business was located on Broadway Street in St. Louis. Turner apparently provided the money and the organizational skills necessary to turn

into a re a lity an idea possessed by George W, Murray, a black former member of Congress from Charleston, South Carolina.®® Murray's idea was to build a "multiplex machine" for farm work, a machine that would do a variety of tasks. It was an implement equipped with an assortment of attachments th a t would allow i t to be a rye, oats, barley, or wheat planter; an ordinary drill; a corn planter; a grass mower; a cultivator; a cotton planter (performing five different functions at once); a cotton chopper; and, lastly, a potato digger. Interestingly enough, for a man obsessed with ac­ ceptance by white society. Turner emphasized th at he employed

®®Muraskin, pp. 146-147. ®*Gould's Directory, 1898, p. 1682.

®®St. Louis Post-D ispatch, 6 March 1898. 338

only white laborers in his shop, indicating that he had "half a dozen first-class white mechanics" who worked for

him. The business folded by the following year.®®

No Official Proceedings are available for the years

1900 and 1901, so it is impossible to say how quickly Tur­

ner returned to active involvement in Masonic affairs after his venture in business. He did attend the Annual Communi­

cation held on August 19-21, 1902, at Cape Girardeau, Mis­ souri. Still a member of Widow's Son in that year. Turner was nominated by J. A. Jordan for the post of Junior Grand

Warden, although he curiously and inexplicably asked that

r n he not be considered for the post. Again, there is no mention of the Masonic Home. One of the major topics of interest at this Communication was the proposed 1904 World's Fair to be held in St. Louis. Turner was appointed to a special committee, along with six other Masons, that was assigned the task of preparing for th at event.®® The com­ mittee resolved to send an invitation "to all Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the World to attend and p a rtic ip a te " in a World Congress of Masons. The committee acknowledged that the exposition to be held in St. Louis would bring "all the nations of the earth [to] contribute the best products

®6lbid.

®?Offic®^Official Proceedings, 1902, pp. 36-37, 93. ®®Ibid., p. 8. 339

of th e ir minds and h e a rts --th e ir a rts , le tte rs and sciences,

as w ell as th e ir most cogent evidences of progress in p o l i t ­

ical, economic, social and spiritual elements . . . Consequently, the committee saw the fair as an opportunity, like none available to blacks before, "in which the Negro may give to all the world the practical proof of his capa­ bilities and possibilities in every relation that may ef­ fect his career as a citizen as well as the happiness of

those with whom he is to associate as a citizen . . . It was, in short, an opportunity for the Masons to demon­

strate the degree to which their behavior was differen­ tia te d from the black masses and to show ju st how much of

the bourgeois culture they had imbibed.®®

The 1902 gathering also witnessed a pathetic, but un­

explained, display of self-pity by Turner that apparently moved the entire convention. For whatever reason. Turner was obviously seeking recognition. It seems reasonable to conclude that Turner's status in the Missouri Masonic community was less than he thought it ought to be, although why that is so is unclear. At any rate. Turner arose ostentatiously during the middle of the convention and asked permission to bid the members of the Grand Lodge

®®Ibid., pp. 39-40. Turner's involvement with the effort to establish a convention to demonstrate black abilities presumably was at the bottom of his letter to Booker T. Washington, whose aid he solicited in preparing for the World's Fair. Turner to Booker T. Washington, Incomplete date, 1900, Booker T. Washington Papers, Li­ brary of Congress, Washington, D.C. 340 good-bye, "because imperative duties called him away," In his leave-taking, he asked that a special record be made of his desire "that Bros, Chinn, Pelham, Ricketts and Kenner [all high-ranking Masons] be selected to pronounce the Ma­ sonic eulogy over his lifeless remains . . ," should "death call him hence before the next session . . , According to the Official Proceedings, Turner then said good-bye,

"with an impressiveness that lent solemnity to the scene , . . amid the te a rfu l silence of numbers deeply affected ..60

Whatever the explanation for the strange leave-taking, death did not call Turner before the next meeting, and he returned for the Thirty-seventh Annual Communication, held at Richmond, M issouri, August 18-20, 1903,®^ Whether or not i t was the re su lt of his impromptu speech of the year before, the 1903 gathering conferred upon him an honor that was reserved for only a select few. For the first time. Turner's photograph appeared in the Official Proceedings, the same uncommon honor th at he had recommended for W, P.

Brooks nine years earlier. In addition, Turner resur­ faced as an active participant in the routine business of the Lodge and also served on several committees.®®

®®Ibid., p. 47. ®^Official Proceedings, 1903, pp. 8-9. ®^Ibid., illustration between pp. 20-21.

®®Ibid., pp. 8-9, 18, 20-22, 42. 341

One of those committees was charged with the responsi­ bility of assessing the condition of black people in the

country at the time. The committee's report thus offers

insight into Turner's view of the status of black people as

of 1903. It began by asserting that the conditions con­

fronting black people were "ominous and threatening." It emphasized the the United States was the home of American

blacks, recalling Frederick Douglass's statement, "now that he [the black man] is a free man [he] demands th a t he be allowed to rest beneath the protecting folds of the stars

and stripes."®* One is reminded, in that statement, of Turner's adamant opposition nearly thirty years before to Liberian emigration schemes. He had written, for example, in 1877, that the American black man was "as much a for­

eigner as any other people" to Africa.®® The committee also emphasized that American blacks had been loyal to their government, recalling how "the pages of history record no more brilliant achievements than

Negro men exhibited at Valley Forge; at New Orleans under Gen. Jackson; at Chapultepee under Winfield Scott; at Pe­

tersburg and Ft. Wagner; with Dewey in Manila Bay, and with Roosevelt . . . at El Caney, Santiago and San Juan." It

®*"State of the Country," Official Proceedings, 1903, pp. 59-61. ®®Dispatch No. 273, September 3, 1877, "Despatches From United States Ministers to Liberia, 1863-1906," Microcopy No. 170, vol. 6, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 342

noted that black literacy rates had risen from twenty-two percent in 1880 to forty-six percent in 1890 and sixty-four

percent in 1900, emphasizing that the literacy rate for

blacks was twelve percent higher than that for whites in South Carolina. In keeping with its bourgeois orientation,

the Masonic committee singled out Booker T. Washington as

an exemplar of industry and virtue, labeled him "great" and identified Tuskegee as "a magnificent testimonial to the

capability and genius of the greatest Negro educator of the age . . . ." It also paid tribute to a member of the white business elite, Andrew Carnegie, who was identified as a "grand old Philanthropist."66

The committee acknowledged that the country had been "wonderfully prosperous" during the previous six years, ad­ ding that blacks had clearly contributed to and benefited

from that p rosperity. Figures from the Twelfth Census were offered to show "the enormous m aterial advancement of the

Negroes, who now own real add personal property to the huge

total of $1,300,000,000 . . . ." Despite the efforts and

successes of black people, however, the committee lamented

the fact that "the humiliating conditions attempted to be

forced upon the Negro have become more accentuated than at any time since the Negro was clothed with the panoply of American citizen sh ip . . . ." The most appalling example

6 6 i«state of the Country," Official Proceedings, 1903, pp. 59-61. 343 of those "humiliating conditions" cited by the committee was the spread of lynching in the South. The committee called upon high government officials to speak out against this "atrocious and indefensible crime" and noted with ob­ vious satisfaction that President Roosevelt had already done so. That action, it wrote, "once again stamps him as being one of the bravest and most courageous men that ever sat in the Presidential chair. The committee acknowledged also that not all of the problems afflicting blacks were caused by white racism. In words rem iniscent of Turner's life-commitment to "piety, t h r i f t , and re sp e c ta b ility " as keys to success, the com­ mittee noted that the "moral condition" of blacks needed to be "decidedly improved," adding that "it behooves every Negro [who] desires the prevalence of a better condition of affairs, to bend their [sic] whole energies to instill in the masses higher ideals and more wholesome surroundings

. . . ." It registered specific opposition to "destroyers of pure womanhood," white or black, in sistin g that speedy and certain punishment be meted out to rapists, no matter what their race. The committee's report on the "State of the Country" concluded with an appeal to all American c iti­ zens "to ra lly to the standard of fa ir play and equal op­ portunity . . . ." It specifically thanked Colonel Thomas

®?ibid. 344

Connor of Jo plin, M issouri, who gave $5,000 to each of three black churches in that city and to Andrew Carnegie for his gift of $6,000,000 to Tuskegee Institute.

The topic of a Masonic Home was finally revived again at the 1905 Annual Communication, after being ignored for nearly ten years. Turner again led discussion on the topic, serving as Chairman of the "Special Committee on the Masonic Home." His report to the Communication argued that Masonic charity was one of the fundamental principles upon which the Masonic Order rested. Consequently, he argued, one of the best ways to demonstrate a firm belief in the importance of "this great human principle" would be to create a sinking fund "for the purchase of a Masonic Home fo r poor and indigent Master Masons, th e ir widows and orphans." This could be done, he explained, by assessing each Mason five cents per month. Turner’s proposal was accepted by those present and the Grand Master and Grand

Secretary were given the responsibility of selecting a site for that purpose. A- Masonic Home was in operation near Hannibal, Missouri, by the next annual meeting. 69

Turner's name appeared again on the Widow's Son Lodge ro ster in 1905. His role at the Communication th at year, in addition to his chairmanship of the Special Committee, was an active one. The gathering was held in Boonville,

G*Ibid.

^^Official Proceedings, 1905, pp. 10, 48, 345

the sight of one of Turner's early teaching positions nearly forty years before. The meeting was opened with a wel­ coming speech by the Boonville mayor and Turner was asked to offer a response. He stated that his long acquaintance with the town's residents made it possible for him to ac­ knowledge "gladly" their "genuine character." He hinted th at he would like to become the Most Worshipful Grand Mas­ ter of the organization when he called attention to the fact that the last three Grand Masters had been persons who were identified with the educational interests of Boon­ ville. He went on to assure his listeners that "Boonville was the Masonic Mecca, dear to the hearts of a ll those who aspired to that position," an obvious statement about his own aspirations.70

Brother Turner also served as a co-chairman of the 71 "Committee on Complaints and Grievances" in 1905. This committee was an appeals court for Masons dissatisfied with the justice handed out to them by local lodges. It also served to help the Masons police themselves and en­ force the higher moral standards called for by Turner's committee in its "State of the Country" message in 1903.

Since outward behavior was important to the Masons

7 ° Ib id ., pp. 10, 48. 71lbid., p. 7. Turner served on similar committees in 1897 and 1903. See O fficial Proceedings, 1897, p. 37. and Official Proceedings, 1903, ^ FSl 346 in their attempt to instill a bourgeois morality into their members, brushes with the c iv il a u th o ritie s were treated harshly. In 1905, for example. Turner's committee sustained a judgment by William Henry Lodge No. 45 of Platte City, Missouri, expelling William Pearson for criminal conviction by the courts of the state of Missouri. Likewise, it sus­ tained a similar ruling by True Blue Lodge of St. Louis against Thomas Sanders, It also recommended the indefinite suspension of W. S. Carrion who was found guilty by Wilker- son Lodge "of shooting with intent to kill . . . J. R. A. Crossland.

Official Proceedings for the years 1906 and 1907 are missing, but the Proceedings for 1908 reveal that Turner was again an active participant in Masonic affairs when the craft was called together at Hannibal, Missouri, for the Forty-third Annual Communication. His photograph appeared in the publication of that year, along with the following notation: "Bro. Turner is a national character. He has held many responsible positions as representative of his people. He is deservingly popular with the craft for his suave manner and u n selfish devotion to the elevation of 73 his fellow man." Appropriately enough, there also ap­ peared in the 1908 Proceedings a photograph of the new

Official Proceedings. 1905, pp. 31-32. For the importance of judicial committees such as these in Prince Hall Freemasonry, see Muraskin, pp. 125-126. ^^Official Proceedings, 1908, illustration between pp. 124-rzr:------— — ^ ------347

Masonic Home that Turner had been instrumental in estab­

l i s h i n g . 74 The Home was a going concern by that time.

The Grand Master, in his annual address, said th a t "the purchase of property and the establishment of a home for the old and decrepit members of this Jurisdiction" was

"the most creditable thing [we] have ever done." He con­ gratulated those present, and the lodges they represented, offering them an invitation to visit the Home, a short dis­ tance from where th e ir convention was being h e ld .75

Turner participated in other ways as well in 1908.

Early in the convention he addressed the entire body, re­ calling again the importance of Masonic history, speaking

"eloquently of the sacrifices of the Masonic pioneers with whom he was acquainted." He emphasized to the craft "that we owe to those heroes a debt of gratitude which we should be ever ready to pay."7^ Again he participated in the election process, seconding Brother Ricketts's nomination to the office of Grand Master.77 Brother Ricketts, in turn, appointed Turner to serve again as Grand Marshal in the

"public parade."78 In addition to those activities. Turner also served again on the "Committee on Complaints and

74ibid., illustration between pp. 24-25,

75ibid., pp. 18-19. 76ibid., p. 23. 7?Ibid., pp. 38, 55-56.

78ibid., p. 40. 348

Grievances."79

Turner appears to have become quite inactive after that 1908 meeting, although the evidence is inconclusive.

Official Proceedings for the period 1909 through 1915 are not available, except for 1910. The record of the annual

gathering in that year includes Turner's name as a member

of Phoenix Lodge No. 78 in St. Louis. He did not, however,

attend the annual meeting.Likewise, Turner's will, w ritten only a few weeks before his death on November 1, 1915, hints th at he had ceased Masonic a c tiv itie s several

years prior to 1915.^^ One can only speculate about why Turner's Masonic career ended so abruptly. Perhaps Turner had been hope­

ful of risin g to the leadership of the Missouri Masons, as his speech of 1905 suggests, and simply gave up on that

hope by 1910. If that was the case, even the position of Grand Marshal, the honor of having his photograph published in the Official Proceedings, and whatever other plaudits

that could have been offered him, would have been disap­ pointing when measured against his expectations. Likewise, perhaps status in a segregated organization was no longer desirable to him. His repeated fa ilu re during th is period

79lbid., pp. 59-60, 10. 89official Proceedings, 1910, p. 177. 8^Will of J. Milton Turner, Will No. 45591, St. Louis Probate Court, Civil Court Building, St. Louis, Missouri. 349

to win the battles he waged against the Commissioner of

Indian Affairs might have soured him on a number of things, including Masonry. Whatever the reason for his withdrawal.

Turner obviously came to feel less eager to be involved in Masonic activities. When he died in Oklahoma in 1915 as a

result of injuries suffered in a tank car explosion, the Official Proceedings included a brief obituary of Turner, noting that he was a member of Phoenix Lodge. S ig n ifican tly , it spoke of Turner as a hero out of the somewhat distant past, identifying him as "for many years Grand Marshal of the Grand Lodge." His name had been a household word among

blacks in the early eighties, it said, implying that he had been much less known, if not forgotten, after that, and con­ cluded by noting that he was "as an orator . . . gifted as

few men this race and country have ever known." 8 2 Turner's name appeared in the Official Proceedings for

the la s t time in 1917. George L, Vaughn, Grand Attorney

for the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Missouri reported that the Grand Lodge had become a litigant in the disposi­ tion of Turner's estate. His will had been contested by

"persons alleging themselves to be his heirs." Turner had willed $1,000 to the Masonic Home at Hannibal, contingent 8 3 upon his estate being worth $25,000 or more.

^^Official Proceedings, 1916, p. 18, St. Louis Argus, i, 12, iTJ 26 November 1915; 5, 1Ù December 1^15.

^^Official Proceedings, 1917, pp. 60-61, 350

The controversy over the division of Turner's estate offers insight into the turbulence of the once powerful black leader's personal life in his late years and suggests that the frustration he felt politically and socially af­ fected his relationship with his family. It began in Feb­ ruary 1916 when his will was filed in St. Louis Probate C ourt.84 E lla Brooks Turner, who was not lis te d as one of

Turner's beneficiaries, although she claimed to be his wife, contested the will, sending the case into Circuit Court. Pre-trial depositions and trial testimony revealed that Turner did live with a woman named Ella Brooks after the death of his first wife in 1907 and that the two of them lived as husband and wife from la te 1909 u n til ju s t before Turner's la s t tr ip to Oklahoma. According to E stelle Montgomery, Turner's secretary , and William H. Hollam,

Turner trie d to get his "wife" to sign a deed th at would have allowed him to borrow money "from some man in Texas."

Mrs. Brooks refused, greatly angering Turner. He le ft for

Oklahoma soon a fte r, trying to c o lle c t money from his Choc­ taw freedmen clients.8&

of J. Milton Turner, Will No. 45591, St. Louis Probate Court, Civil Court Building, St. Louis, Missouri. 85case No. 2884B, St. Louis Circuit Court, Civil Court Building, St. Louis, Missouri. See, also. Appeals Court Case No. 15958, Missouri State Archives, Jefferson City, Missouri. B^Testimony of Estelle Montogmery and William H. Hollam, Case No. 2884B. 351

Turner's annoyance with Mrs, Brooks's refusal to sign the deed may have been the major reason he failed to include

her in his will. Even prior to that disagreement, however, theirs had not been the happiest of relationships. Despite the fact th at Turner occasionally referred to Mrs. Brooks as Mrs. Turner, the elder woman told the secretary to refer 8 7 to her as Mrs. Brooks, "to keep the peace." John J, Jones, who testified that he knew J. Milton Turner for twenty-eight years, said that "he [Turner] treated Mrs. Brooks ju st as

though he owned her . . , 8 8 Jacob Fishman, a peddler from whom Turner often bought clothes, indicated that the 89 two people fought a lot. In addition to the fric tio n between Turner and Mrs. Brooks, there is also at least a hint of similar disquietude

in Turner's relationship with his first wife and her daugh­

ter and grandchildren. Once in 1896 Turner's stepdaughter and he came to blows in a dispute that lends its e lf to sym­ bolic, albeit speculative, interpretation. One night in April of that year Turner came home not only quite late but evidently quite intoxicated. His wife, who asserted it her "custom for years to spread his meals in his room, no matter what time he came home at 1, 2, or even 3 o'clock in the morning," proceeded to prepare his dinner. Turner, meanwhile.

o n Testimony of E stelle Montgomery, Case No. 2884B. O O Testimony of John J. Jones, Case No. 2884B. 0 Q Testimony of Jacob Fishman, Case No. 2884B. 352

went up to his room, making a good deal of noise in the

process. At that point, his daughter, whose four children were asleep in the house, asked Turner to be quiet. He

swore at her, told her to mind her own business, and finally

demanded th at she leave his house with her children. She

refused, saying that it was much too late at night. A physical confrontation ensued, resulting in Turner's being

struck with a pitcher and rendered unconscious. Later, while recovering from a fractured skull in a hospital, he

"loudly bewailed the girl's ingratitude," saying "her hus­ band will not work . . . and I support the whole family, including four little g i r l s . In many ways, in fact, that incident sums up much of the man's life. He felt unappreciated and ignored, con­ vinced that he could have accomplished much save for the barriers of white racism and the provincialism of the black masses. Late in life he retreated to the more comfortable world of black Masonry, as, according to William Muraskin, so many other members of the black bourgeoisie did. It was, of course, a retreat into a world of illusions, for there was little power or status to be gained in Prince Hall Freemason­ ry. Indeed, black Masonry, in a sense, institutionalized the alienation of the black middle class from either the white bourgeoisie or the black masses. Although the Masons hoped

9PNew York Times, 15 April 1896. 353 th at th e ir brotherhood would eventually u p lift the race, moving blacks into the mainstream American culture, their very existence confirmed their marginal, in-between status, Even though Turner left little direct evidence about his thoughts during the last years of his life, the indirect data suggest that he had come to understand this no-win situation and that the frustration of that realization ad­ versely affected his personal life. E. Franklin Frazier has written that all attempts by the black middle class to escape the frustrations of marginality were bound to fail. As he put it, the black bourgeoisie was "unable to escape 91 from the emptiness and f u t i l i t y of th e ir existence."

That phrase is as f ittin g an epitaph as any for James M il­ ton Turner.

^^Frazier, p. 237. CONCLUSION

THE BLACK LEADER AS TRAGIC FIGURE

In 1976 Nell Irvin Painter published Exodusters; Black Migration to Kansas After Reconstruction. In that book Painter sought to write grassroots black history: the story of the illiterate, former slave, agrarian masses who, she says, adhered to "a rural Black folk culture."^ She juxtaposes those adherents to a black folk culture against the formally educated blacks who had imbibed "Euro-American culture and values," the group I have chosen to call the black bourgeoisie. She speaks of this latter group, some­ what disdainfully, as "representative colored men," a phrase that was applied to them in the nineteenth century by whites to identify them as the best representatives that the race had to o ffe r. Not su rp risin g ly , she includes James Milton Turner among this group for which she has little good to 2 say.

Painter is critical of this group because, she says, they refused to acknowledge the cultural integrity of the black masses. Consequently, they were impervious to the

^Painter, pp. 14-15. ^Ibid., pp. 15, 226-227.

354 355 real hopes and aspirations of the former slaves. They were more concerned with changing the rural blacks to fit the white image of respectability than they were with changing America to respond to the needs of its black citizens. Hence, they were accommodationists who were falsely labeled leaders by whites because they "spoke to whites in a language [that whites] . . . readily understood." Little wonder, she con­ cludes, that such black "leaders" did not represent "the authentic voices of rural Blacks.

Much of what Painter says about Turner and other "rep­ resentative colored men" seems justified. Turner was un­ questionably a black leader without a constituency, partic­ ularly after the 1870's. Still, her hostility toward Tur­ ner and others like him makes it impossible for her to un­ derstand the attempts that they did make to deal with white racism and, just as importantly, how, by identifying them as "representative colored men," white society effectively co-opted potentially viable black leaders. In short, she has seen people such as Turner, Blanche K. Bruce, P. B. S.

Pinchback, John Rainey, John L. W aller, the Rev. John Lynch, the Rev. T. W. Henderson, John Mercer Langston, Richard T. Greener, J. D. Kennedy, and a host of others, as "assim i­ lated blacks" who are to be condemned for their own assimi­ lation and for their propensity to "criticize the [black] folk for deviating from 'civilized' Victorian values and

3 lb id ., p. 16. 356 conventions.*’^ She fails, however, to appreciate the fact that it was the very different socialization process experi­ enced by black bourgeois leaders that caused them to seek as­ similation, to fight white racism in the particular way that they fought it, and, quite often, to find that their educa­ tio n alienated them from the masses and neutralized them as effective leaders. They became as much victims as they were oppressors. Rather than summarily condemning Turner and others lik e him, then, an effort ought to be made to understand them. For with an understanding of their plight will come greater appreciation for the complexity of immediate post-Civil War black life. In Turner's case, he seemingly had all the tools necessary to be an effectiv e leader: he was b rig h t, articulate, capable of dealing with white society on its own terms. Unfortunately, however, his education and social upbringing had oriented him toward a system of values that led him to ask the "unschooled Blacks to change their way of life."^ That alienated blacks from him and caused them to question his true motives; it also caused them to turn to leaders whose ability to understand them and willingness to accept them as they were precluded their ability to deal with white society. Hence, Turner's plight, and, according to William Muraskin, the plight of the entire black bour­ geoisie is best understood as a tragedy: Turner's own limi-

*Ibid. ^Ibid. 357

tâtions spelled his ultimate failure.^

Although Turner's alienation from the black masses is obvious in his later life, there is even a hint that he was an annoyance to them in the mid-sixties when he tried to

establish public schools under a Radical Missouri govern­ ment. In 1870 the Boonville Eagle commented on Turner's lack of popularity in the black community of th at small

town during 1869, when he conducted a school for blacks there. The Eagle reported that Turner had become "exceed­ ingly obnoxious to the colored people," and noted that "in th is community, where he is well known, the colored people 7 have no use for him." Although such a statement, reported

by a white newspaper that was critical of Turner's involve­ ment in politics, does not offer conclusive evidence, it does suggest that Turner's alienation from the black masses began early in his career. Indeed, given Turner's views about what co n stitu ted success, the only way in which he had

to measure his progress was the distance he put between him­

s e lf and the persons he proposed to lead. This irony, Wil­ liam Muraskin argues, was typical of the black bourgeoisie

generally. Muraskin writes that as an emerging class, seeking to define and solidify itself[,] the black bourgeoisie [was] acutely self- conscious, particularly in its awareness of the dif­ ferences which divide[d] it from the black masses.

^Muraskin, p. 291. 7 Boonville Eagle, quoted in the Fulton Telegraph, 12 August TWTO. — ------358

Not far removed from the lower class in time or space, the middle-class black . . . of necessity [came] to view his lower-class counterparts as a negative refer­ ence group--of vital importance to defining what the black bourgeoisie [was] by demonstrating what it was not .8

But white racism made it impossible for Turner ever to become a p art of the class which he so admired. In 1874, during the hopeful years of his life, when he held what he considered to be an extremely responsible position and when he was still committed to the Republican party as an effi­ cient vehicle for upward social mobility, the black diplomat philosophized about the prerequisites of a successful govern­ ment. He argued "that right intentions, unaided by consist­ ent policy and practice, cannot constitute successful govern­ ment." Rather, he proclaimed, "good government seeks to its utmost capacity the development of the resources, the advancement and assim ilation of the component elements of a country, and the enlightenment and amelioration of the con­ dition of the governed." Nothing else, he concluded, "can insure prosperity, contentment, and patriotism among the people . . . ."9 But at every level of American so cie ty , in Turner's view, the resources and assimilation of one of the major component elements- - the black population--had been ignored. Nowhere was that more evident than in the treatment he had been accorded. He had expected great things upon his re-

^Muraskin, pp. 292-293. 359 turn from Liberia in 1878, only to find the Republicans un­ willing to support his candidacy for Congress on account of his race. The destitution of the 1879 exodusters impressed upon him the plight of Southern freedmen and the federal government's tolerance of persistent racism. That opinion of the government and the society which it represented was solidified in Turner's dealings on behalf of the Cherokee freedmen. For years Turner combated racism in a variety of ways. Incapable of separating his own fa ilu re to r is e to power and status from the more general plight of post-Civil War blacks, he tried to organize and lead a vaguely-defined movement that would assert the reality of black political power. Hardly the acquiescing, servile man described by Painter, on countless occasions he prodded fellow blacks to stand up against the Republicans and to endorse Indepen­ dency or even Democracy as a way of emphasizing black s o li ­ darity and strength. It took him a long time to realize that the problem was not confined to the lack of organiza­ tion and assertiveness of black people, but to the unwilling­ ness of white America to acknowledge the reality of a black constituency. Despite the fact that he ultimately came to recognize that reality, he never really adjusted to it. He had been obsessed, as Frazier would have said, "with the struggle for status.He had to accept, instead, marginality. But

^^Frazier, p, 236, 360 marginality, as Muraskin writes, "hurts; it hurts the black bourgeoisie, it hurts the black population as a whole ..11 • ê • •

One of the effects of that hurting, according to Muras­ kin, was that the black bourgeoisie found it difficult to

live by the values it preached. Once the black man became fully aware of his unqualified rejection by the white so­ c ie ty , the probable re su lts were "dem oralization and anomie 12 , , . Muraskin quotes an angry Grand Master of Texas who spoke about this inconsistency between words and deeds among Masons, The Grand Master said that he was acquainted with some Masons who were "letter perfect in ritualistic ceremonies of Free-Masonry," but "who are the personifica­ tion of selfish, hellish, hypocritical, malicious living Masons , , , obsessed with personal, ambitious desires for self-advantages and promotion , , , ," He went on to say that they would do virtually anything to enhance their own status. As Muraskin writes, "Such men are the natural re­ sult of a society that emphasizes individual aggrandizement and then blocks most of the normal avenues for achieving 13 it," Hence, the seeds of failure were sown along with the seeds of hope planted in the hearts of the aspiring bour­ geois .

^^Muraskin, p, 291,

^^Ibid,, pp, 244; see, also, pp, 237-291, l^ ib id ,, p, 261, 361

Ironies and inconsistencies of th is so rt abound in Turner's life. He preached the gospel of "piety, thrift, and respectability," yet periodically abandoned all three. He twice took common-law wives, despite Christian exhorta­ tions to avoid such "living in sin," He impiously got into fights and shouting matches with political opponents, once b itin g C, H, Tandy and punching George B, Wedley, not to mention the 1888 Indianapolis melee and the 1896 fight with his step-daughter. Despite his call to practice thrift, he was often in need of money, particularly during the years when he pursued the Cherokee freedmen's claims. He practiced dirty tricks to get his legislation passed, and then, when it came time to split the fee, he denied receiving any help and even resorted to character assassination in an effort to avoid sharing the money. Just as importantly. Turner never really worked at a steady, regular job after the 1870's, something that he con­ tinuously called for other blacks to do. His name appears in Gould's St, Louis Directory thirty-five times between 1877 and 1915, During that period, he failed to report an occupation for himself during twelve of the thirty-five years th at he is listed,He reported his occupation as "lawyer" or "attorney" during sixteen of those years, al­ though there is no evidence that he ever practiced law in

l^Gould's Directory. 1877, 1879, 1881, 1885, 1886, 1889, 1891","18!)^, 1SU4,"1896, 1897, 1910. 362

St. L o u i s .P r e s u m a b l y , he was referrin g to his work on behalf of the Cherokee freedmen. That work is the closest thing to a regular job th at he held. Indeed, he liste d him­ self as being involved in either "claims" or specifically as the attorney for the Cherokee freedmen on two occasions.

Three times in the early 1880's he listed his occupation as "editor" although there is no evidence of any editorial work that he did,^^ On two other occasions he indicated th at he was involved in real e sta te and in 1890 he and another man listed their occupations as "Manufacturers' agents" while in 1898 he ran his short-lived Turner Manu- 18 factoring Establishment, Whether or not he actually made more money as a law­ yer than any other black man had ever done, as the Washing- 19 ton Bee reported, would be impossible to say. It appears that much of the money he did make, he invested in Oklahoma real estate, speculation that was entirely in keeping with the bourgeois ethic,His will reveals that although he realized the potential worth of some of his holdings in

l^ibid., 1893, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1913, 1914, 1915,

l* Ib id ,, 1895, 1898, l^Ibid,, 1882, 1883, 1884,

l*Ibid,, 1887, 1888, 1890, 1898, 1 9 Washington Bee, 15 November 1915, 20 For the value placed on property ownership by the black bourgeoisie, see Muraskin, pp, 60-63, 156-158, 363

Oklahoma, he was uncertain about their current real value.

Ironically, six years after his death a newspaper reported that oil had been discovered on some of the land he owned, making his estate worth nearly a third of a million dollars in 1921.22

Turner's public behavior throughout much of his life belies the model of "respectability" that he encouraged the black masses to follow. Wherever he went he seemed to cause trouble. His behavior was often erratic. He continuously switched courses: after fighting a bitter battle against enfranchising former Rebels in the 1870 election, he sud­ denly and unaccountably switched and came out for their right to vote; after supporting the Republicans for more than a decade, he switched over to the Democratic party, only to change allegiances again in the early twentieth century. He nearly destroyed the St. Louis Committee of Twenty-five which was trying to help the exodusters find their way to Kansas because he arrogantly insisted that the

Committee follow his own plan of action. He alienated both blacks and Indians in Oklahoma and ended up suing the very people he had gone there to help. Turner was not a man of strong moral fiber. He had few inner resources to fall back upon when his own dreams of

21will of J. Milton Turner, Will No. 45591, St. Louis Probate Court, Civil Court Building, St. Louis, Missouri.

22s t. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1 October 1921. 364

power and status failed to materialize. He had been taught

that status, wealth, and power would accrue to those who

p racticed "p iety , t h r i f t , and re sp e c ta b ility ." But once he

became convinced th at money was the key, he sought to be­

come wealthy by any means possible. Subsequently, blacks id e n tifie d him as an opportunist and rebelled against him,

and whites, who saw that he represented no meaningful con­

stitu en cy , ignored him. Perhaps a man of finer mettle might have been able to respond to these frustrations more constructively. The data is too slim to provide a psychological profile that would explain Turner's particular responses to what, according to F razier and Muraskin, were common experiences among the

aspiring bourgeoisie. Still, it is more useful to think of

this class of real and would-be leaders as a tragic group of men whose very socialization carried with it the elements of

their own destruction rather than as the merely opportunis­ tic and odious lo t th at Nell P ainter defines as the "re p re­ sen tativ e colored men." One final irony about Turner's life should be noted.

He had become, as the Masonic eulogy suggests, something of a mythical hero out of the past by the time he died in 1915.23 Consequently, throngs of blacks in St. Louis turned out to mourn a memory and a symbol, "the first Negro to

23pfficial Proceedings, 1916, p. 18. 365

enter the American Diplomatic S e r v i c e . "24 His funeral

proved to be one of the largest ever held up to that time

for a black person in St. Louis. The Masons came out in force and caused many to comment "upon the magnificent and beautiful manner in which the order conducted his ser­

vices. "25 Several weeks la te r, a "C itizens' Memorial" s e r ­

vice was held in honor of his memory. Turner would have relished such an occasion. At long last, those who had

ignored him had come to pay their respects. There were two hundred honorary "Vice Presidents" of the memorial alone,

a list which reads like the "Who's Who" of prominent Mis­

souri blacks. One of the people present was Leonidas C. Dyer, a white United States Representative from St. Louis. Congressman Dyer eulogized Turner, noting that "He was a man of great ability and rendered fine service to his coun­ try and race." The dead orator would, no doubt, have agreed.

Likewise, he would have concurred with the assessment of his

life offered by an anonymous editor who proclaimed that "J.

Milton Turner was a leader who moved among the masses--none being too lowly; who marched with intellectuals, none being his superiors."26 A pity, he might have added, that his

24^ew York Times, 2 November 1915. Ebenezer Basset, not Turner, was the first black diplomat. Benjamin Quarles, Frederick Douglass, (New York: Atheneum Press, 1969), p. JTT. 23Kansas City Sun, 15 November 1915.

26quoted in Noah Webster Moore, "James Milton Turner, Diplomat, Educator, and Defender of Rights 1840-1915." jjrr.Missouri------Historical Society Bulletin 27 (April 1971): p. 366 worth could be recognized only after his death. SOURCES CONSULTED

Manuscript Collections

Columbia, Missouri. State Historical Society of Missouri. Notes on James Milton Turner. Jefferson City, Missouri. Inman E. Page Library. Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Curators of Lincoln University. Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri State Archives. Appel­ la te Court Records. Case No. 15958.

Kansas City, M issouri. Kansas City Public Library. Mis­ souri Valley Room Collection. Cash Book for the School Board of Kansas City, 1868. L ittle Rock, Arkansas. Arkansas H isto rical Commission. Enoch K. Miller Papers. St. Louis, Missouri. Civil Courts Building. Probate Court. Will No. 45591, Will of J. Milton Turner.

St. Louis, Missouri. Civil Courts Building. Records of the Circuit Court. Division 2. Case No. 2884B. St. Louis, Missouri. Missouri Historical Society Dred Scott Papers.

St, Louis, Missouri. Missouri Historical Society. Ludlow- Field-Maury Collection.

St Louis, Missouri. Missouri Historical Society. P. Dexter Tiffany Papers. Bonds for Free Negroes.

St Louis, Missouri. Missouri Historical Society Walsh Collection.

Washington, D.C. Library of Congress. Benjamin Harrison Papers . Washington, D.C. Library of Congress. Booker T. Washington Papers.

Washington, D.C. Library of Congress. Grover Cleveland Papers.

367 368

Washington, D.C. Moorland-Spingarn Research Center. Blanche K. Bruce Papers. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Records Division. Record Group 69. Letters Received Relating to Choctaw and Other Freedmen.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Bureau of Indian Af­ fairs. Records Division. Record Group 75. Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1880-1915. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Records Division. Record Group 75. Letters Sent by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1880-1915.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Bureau of Indian Af­ fairs. Records Division. Record Group 75. Special Files of the Office of Indian Affairs, 1807-1904. Microfilm Publication M574, roll 81, "J. Milton Tur­ ner and others, claims for attorney fees for repre­ senting the Cherokee Freedmen, Shawnee, and Dela­ ware in claim for share of proceeds of Cherokee lands," 1888-1890. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Interior Department. Appointment Division. File No. 784.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M17, roll 63. State DepartmentRegisters of Mis­ cellaneous Communications Received. Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M77, vol. 110. "Diplomatic Instructions of the Department of State, 1801-1906."

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M169, vol. 3. "Despatches From United States Consuls in Monrovia, Liberia, 1852-1906."

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M170, rolls T-2 through T-7. "Despatches from U. S. Ministers to Liberia, 1863-1906."

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M803, roll 9. Records of the Education Division of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Letters Received A-P, June 1869-January 1870. 369

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M803, roll 10. Records of the Education Division of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Letters Received A-F, January-December 1870.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Microfilm Publication M803, roll 25. Records of the Education Division of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Monthly and Other School Reports, Missouri, April 1867-July 1870.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Naval Records. Micro­ film Publication M125, roll 392. "Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy." Captains' Letters, 1805-1885.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Naval Records. Record Group 45. Log of the U. S. S. Alaska, January April. 1876.

Washington, D.C. National Archives, Record Group 59. "Ap p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Cleveland Administration." Washington, D.C. National Archives, Record Group 59. "Ap- p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Grant Adminis- tr a tio n ." Washington, D.C. National Archives, Record Group 59. "Ap p licatio n s and Recommendations for the Hayes Adminis- t r a tio n ."

Other Unpublished Sources

Beatty, Elizabeth Caldwell. "The Political Response of Black Americans, 1876-1896." Ph. D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1976.

Brigham, Robert I. "The Education of the Negro in Mis­ souri." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Missouri- Columbia, 1946. Christensen, Lawrence 0. "Black St. Louis: A Study in Race Relations, 1865-1916." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia, 1972.

Dreer, Herman. "Negro Leadership in St. Louis, A Study in Race Relations." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Chicago, 1955. 370

Fletcher, Juanita D. "Against the Consensus: Oberlin Col­ lege and the Education of American Negroes." Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , American U niversity, 1974.

Foner, Eric. "The meaning of Emancipation and the Defini­ tion of Freedom." Paper presented at "A Symposium on the First and Second Reconstructions," University Of Missouri-St. Louis, 16 February 1978.

Fullinw ider, S. Pendleton. "The Emancipation of Negro Thought, 1890-1930." Ph. D. dissertation. Univer­ sity of Wisconsin, 1966. Grothaus , Larry II. "The Negro in Missouri P o litic s , 1890- 1941." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Missouri- Columbia, 1970.

Hogan, Daniel M. "The Catholic Church and the Negroes of St. Louis." M. A. thesis, St. Louis University, 1955. Holt, Thomas. "The Emergence of Negro P o litic a l Leadership in South Carolina During Reconstruction." Ph. D. dis­ sertation, Yale University, 1973. Kremer, Gary R. "Cole County, M issouri, Freedmen, 1865- 1880." M. A. thesis, Lincoln University, 1972. Litwack, Leon. "The Black Response to Emancipation." Paper presented at "A Symposium on the F irst and Second Reconstructions," University of Missouri- St. Louis, 16 February 1978. Mann, George L. "The Development of Public Education for Negroes in St. Louis, Missouri." Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana U niversity, 1949.

Robinson, Walter G. , Jr. "Blacks in Higher Education in the United States Before 1865." Ph. D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, 1976.

Schwendeman, Glen. "Negro Exodus to Kansas: F irs t Phase, March-July, 1879." M. A. thesis. University of Oklahoma, 1957. Shick, Tom Wing. "The Social and Economic History of Af­ ro-American Settlers in Liberia, 1820-1900." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1976. Slavens, George E verett. "A History of the Missouri Negro Press." Ph. D. dissertation. University of Missouri- Columbia, 1969. 371

Toison, Arthur L. "The Negro in Oklahoma T errito ry , 1889- 1907: A Study in Racial D iscrim ination." Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , U niversity of Oklahoma, 1966. Williams, Henry S. "The Development of the Negro Public School System in Missouri." M. A. thesis. University of Chicago, 1917.

Public Documents Act for Fulfilling Treaty Stipulations with Various Indian Tribes . St at ut es at Large. vol.. JS (1889).

Act to Refer Cherokee Freedmen*s Claims to the Court of Claims. Statutes at Large, vol. %6 (1890). Cherokee Freedmen Act. S tatutes at Large, vol. 25 (1889). Curtis Act. Statutes at Large, vol. 30 (1898). Missouri. Department of Education. Superintendent of Public Schools. Fourth Report of the Superintendent of Public Schools of Missouri, 1869 (1870). Missouri. General Assembly. House. Journal of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-îirst General As~ sembly of the State of Missouri (l88l)~. Missouri. General Assembly. House. Journal of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-second General As­ sembly of the State of Missouri (1883).

U. S. Congress. Senate. Report and Testimony of the Select Committee of the UnitecTStates Senate to Investigate the Causes of the Removal of the Negroes from the Southern States to the Tlorthern States, Report No. 693, p art 2, 46th Cong., 2nd Sess., T880.

U. S. Congress. Senate. Senate Executive Documents. S. Doc. Ill, part 2, 47th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1881.

U. S. Court of Claims. Whitmire, Trustee, v. Cherokee Nation et al. Cases Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States at the Term of 1894-1895. vol. 30 (1895).------U. S. Court of Claims. Whitmire, Trustee, v. Cherokee Nation yd the Unite^d Statesl Cases Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States at the Term of IGOT)-1909': vol. 44 (1909). 372

U. S. Department of State. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. 8 vols. (1871-1879).

U. S. Department of War. War of the Rebellion: A Compila­ t ion of the O fficial Records of the Union and Con- federate Armies. Series 1, vol. 52; Series 2, vol. 3. Î I 8 v o is . (1 8 8 0 -1901). U. S. Supreme Court. Cherokee Nation and United States v. Whitmire. Trustee for Freedmen of the Cherokee N ation. iJnited States Reports : Cased Adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term, 1911. vol. 301 (1912).

Newspapers Atchison [Kansas] Globe, 19 May 1879.

Boonville [Missouri] Eagle, 30 July 1870; 24 September 1870.

Cleveland [Ohio] G azette, 28 July 1888. Colored Citizen [Topeka, Kan.], 5 July 1878; 30 August 1878. Colored Democrat [St. Louis, Mo.], 16 October 1920.

Daily Ardmorite [Ardmore, Ok.], 2 November 1915. Daily Journal of Commerce [Kansas City, Mo.], 30 August 1867; l8 September 1867. Daily Tribune [Jefferson City, Mo.], 15 April 1881. Elevator [San Francisco, Ca.], 24 December 1869.

Freeman [Indianapolis, In d .], 28 July 1888.

Fulton [Missouri] Telegraph, 12 August 1870.

Indian C hieftain [V inita, Ok.], 14 September 1883; 11 February 1886; 18 February 1886; 1 April 1886; 15 July 1886; 22 July 1886; 2 June 1887; 16 June 1887; 23 August 1888; 27 September 1888; 12 September 1889; 6 November 1890; 13 November 1890; 20 November 1890; 1 January 1891; 8 January 1891; 22 January 1891; 19 September 1895; 30 April 1896; 16 February 1899.

Kansas City [Missouri] Sun, 6 November 1915; 13 November 1915. 373

Louisianian [New Orleans, La.], 25 December 1880; 15 January 1881 . Missouri Democrat [St. Louis, Mo.], 15 January 1867; . 24 January1870; 12, 14 March 1870; 26 July 1870; 12 April 1870; 13 May 1870; 4 August 1870; 31 October 1870; 10 October 1872.

Missouri Republican [St. Louis, Mo.], 19 March 1870; 21 March 1879; 16 May 1879. Missouri Statesman [Columbia, Mo.], 20 May 1870; 27 May 1870; 4 November 1870; 18 October 1878; 4 February 1881.

Missouri State Times [Jefferson City, Mo.], 9 September 1870; 27 May 187Ô; Tl November 1870.

New Era [Washington, D.C.], 13 January 1870. New National Era [Washington, D.C.], 25 May 1871. New York Age, 28 July 1888. New York Daily H erald, 7 April 1879.

New York Daily Tribune, 8 April 1879. New York Globe, 8 September 1883. New York Times, 28 November 1875; 8, 12, 22 October 1875; 2, 25, 26, 27 November 1875; 1, 3, 22, 29 December 1875; 17 January 1877; 2 April 1880; 16 December 1880; 2 April 1880; 26 August 1882; 26 July 1888; 6August 1890; 7 August 1890; 15 April 1896.

People's Advocate [Jefferson City, Mo.], 8 January 1881.

People's Tribune [Jefferson City, Mo.], 18 May 1870; 17 May 1880; 30 August 1882.

Professional World [Jefferson City, Mo.], 25 April 1909.

Republic [St. Louis, Mo.], 23 October 1890; 29October 1898; Z? March 1901; 4 August 1901. St. Louis Argus, 5, 12, 19, 26 November 1915; 5, 10 December 1915. 374

St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 18 July 1878; 8 August 1878; 12, 13V I T March 1875T 18 March 1879; 21 March 1879; 26 April 1879; 23 March 1879; 26 March 1879; 18 April 1879; 20 April 1879; 22 April 1879; 24 April 1879; 26 April 1879; 27 April 1879; 29 April 1879; 5 August 1879; 15 May 1879; 16 May 1879; 25 January 1890; 5 February 1890; 23 April 1892; 11 May 1892; 15 Septem­ ber 1904; 17 September 1904.

St. Louis Post-D ispatch, 19 November 1886; 6 March 1898; 9 July 1911; 1 October 1921.

Tribune [Topeka, Kan.], 25 December 1880. Tri-Weekly Missouri Democrat [St. Louis], 4 October 1865; 16 October 1865. Washington [D.C.] Bee, 18 August 1888; 15 November 1915.

Other Published Sources African Repository, vols. 47-54. Washington, D.C.: American Colonization Society, 1871-1878. Reprinted N.Y.: Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1967. Edwards' St. Louis Directory for 1864. St. Louis: Richard Edwards, 1864. Gould's St. Louis D irectory. St. Louis, Mo.: David Gould Publisher, 1877-1015.

Official Proceedings of the Annual Communications of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, A.F. 8 A.M. Hannibal, Mo.: Standard Printing Co., 1880, l8 8 7 , 1890, 1892- 1898, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1916, 1917. Official Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Communica- tion of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, A . F . 8 ATM. Fayette, Mo.: Fayette Globe P rin tin g Co., 1899.

Official Proceedings of the ^nual Communications of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge. A.F. 5 A.M. Palmyra, Mo.: Sosey B ros., 1902, 1904.

Books and A rticles

Abbott, Martin. "Free Land, Free Labor, and the Freedmen's Bureau." Agricultural History 30 (October 1956): 150-156. 375

Abel, Annie H. The American Indian Under Reconstruction. Cleveland : The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1925. Anderson, Galusha. The Story of a Border City During the C ivil War. Boston : L ittle , Brown and Company^ 190 8.

Andrews, Thomas F. "Freedmen in Indian T errito ry : A Post- C ivil War Dilemma." Journal of the West 4 (July 1964) 363-377. Aptheker, H erbert, ed. A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States" 2 vols. New York: Citadel Press, 1968. Armstrong, Warren B. "Union Chaplains and the Education of the Freedmen." Journal of Negro History 52 (April 1967) : 105-115. Babchuk, Nicholas H. and Thompson, Ralph V. "The Voluntary Associations of Negroes." American Sociological Review 27 (October 1962) : 647-655.

Barclay, Thomas S. "The Liberal Republican Movement in Missouri." Missouri Historical Review 21 (October 1926): 59-lOF: Bardolph, Richard, ed. The Civil Rights Record: Bla^k Americans and the Law, 1847-19/0. New York: Thomas Y~, Crowell Company, 19 70. Beisner, Robert L. From the Old Diplomacy to the New, 1865- 1900. The Crowell American History Series. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., In c ., 1975. Bellamy, Donnie D. "The Education of Blacks in Missouri Prior to 1861." Journal of Negro History 59 (April 1974): 143-157.

Berry, Mary F. "Reparations for For Freedmen, 1890-1916: Fraudulent Practices or Justice Deferred?" Journal of Negro History 57 (July 1972): 219-230. Blassingame, John. "Before the Ghetto: The Making of the Black Community in Savannah, Georgia, 1865-1880." Journal of Social History (Summer 1973): 463-488. ______Black New Orleans, 1860-1880. Chicago: Univer­ sity of Chicago Press, 1973. ______. "Status and Social Structure in the Slave Communi­ ty: Evidence from New Sources." In Perspectives and Irony in American S lavery, pp. 137-1571 Edited by Harry P. Owens. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of M ississippi, 1976. 376

Brawley, Benjamin. A Social History of the American Negro. New York; Macmillan Co. , 1921. Brotz, Howard., ed. Negro Social and Political Thought, 1850-1920 . New York: Basic Books, 1966. Brownlee, Richard S. Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy: Guerilla Warfare in the West, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, 1958.

Burnham, John C. "The Social Evil Ordinance--A Social Ex­ periment in Nineteenth Century St. Louis." Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 27 (April 1971) : TO 3-717.------

Caldwell, Dorothy J. "Vignettes of Famous Missourians, James Milton Turner." Missouri Historical Review 54 (October 1959): 55-571

Cassell, C. Abayomi. Liberia: History of the First African Republic. Foreword by Bravxd W. H arris, Introduction by Milton R. Konvitz. New York: Fountainhead Pub­ lis h e rs , In c., 1970. Chapman, Berlin B. "Freedmen and the Oklahoma Lands." Southwestern Social Science Quarterly. 29 (April 1949): 150-159. "The Pottawatomie and Absentee Shawnee Reserva­ tion." Chronicles of Oklahoma 24 (August 1946) : 29 3-30 5. Christensen, Lawrence 0., ed. "Cyprian Clamorgan, The Colored Aristocracy of St. Louis." Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 30 [October 1974) : 3-31.

'J. Milton Turner: An Appraisal." Missouri His­ torical Review 70 (October 1975): 1-19. ______. "The Racial Views of John W. Wheeler." Missouri HTstorical Review 67 (July 1973) : 535-547.

Christopher, Maurice. America's Black Congressmen. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., Inc., i97l. Cook, Samuel DuBois. "The Tragic Conception of Negro H is­ tory." Journal of Negro History 41 (October 1960): 219-240.

Curry, Richard 0. "The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861- 1877: A C ritic a l Overview of Recent Trends and In te r­ pretations." Civil War History 20 (September 1974): 215-238. 377

Curry, Richard 0., ed. Radicalism, Racism, and Party Re­ alignment: The Border States During Reconstruction. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press, l9o9. Cruden, Robert. The Negro in R econstruction. Englewood C liffs, New Jersey: P rentice-H all, 1969. Davis, Lenwood G. "Black American Images of Liberia, 1877- 1914." Liberian Studies Journal 6 (No. 1 1975): 53-72. D illia rd , Irving. "Jamos Milton Turner: A L ittle Known Benefactor of His People." Journal of Negro History 19 (October 1934): 372-411. ______. "They Came From Missouri and They Showed the W^rld." Missouri Historical Review 36 (October 1941): 3-31.

______., ed. "Dred Scott Eulogized by James Milton Turner." Journal of Negro History 26 (January 1941): 1-lTl

Donald, Henderson H. The Negro Freedman: Life Conditions of the American Negro in the Early Tears After Emanci­ p a tio n . New York: H. Schiiman, 1952.

DuBois, W. E. B. Dusk of Dawn; An Essay Toward an Auto­ biography of~a Race Concept" New York : Harcourt, Brace, 194Ù. Reprinted, N.Y. : Schocken Books, 1968.

Eriksen, Erik H. "The Concept of Identity in Race Rela­ tions: Notes and Queries." Daedalus 95 (Winter 1966) 145-171. Evans, J. W. "A B rief Sketch of the Development of Negro Education in St. Louis, Missouri." Journal of Negro Education 7 (October 1938) : 548-552.

Fichter, Joseph H. "American Religion and the Negro." Daedalus 94 (Fall 1965): 1085-1106. Filley, Chauncey I. Some More Republican History of Mis­ souri . St. Louis : Christman Printing Co., 1902.

Fischer, LeRoy H., ed. The Civil War in Indian Territory. Los Angeles: Lorrin L. Morrison Publisher, 1974.

Fleming, Walter L. "'Pap* Singleton, The Moses of the Colored Exodus." The American Journal of Sociology 15 (July 1909; May l9lO ): 61-82. 378

Fletcher, Ralph, and F letcher, Mildred. "Some Data on Occu­ pations Among Negroes in St. Louis From 1866 to 1897." Journal of Negro History 20 (July 1935): 338-341.

Flynn, John P. "Booker T. Washington: Uncle Tom or Wooden Horse." Journal of Negro History 54 (July 1969) : 262-274.

Foster, Richard B. Historical Sketch of Lincoln Institute. Jefferson C ity , Mo.: n.p. , 1871. Fox, Stephen R. The Guardian of Boston: William Monroe T ro tte r. Studies in American Negro Life. New York : Atheneum Press, 1970.

Franklin, John Hope. "Reconstruction and the Negro." In New Frontiers of the American Reconstruction, pp. 59- 76. Edited by Harold M. Hyman. Urbana: University of Illin o is Press, 1966.

Frazier, E. Franklin. Black Bourgeoisie: The Rise of a New Middle Class. Chicago: Free Press, 1957. Garvin, Roy. "Benjamin or 'Pap' Singleton and His Fol­ lowers." Journal of Negro History 33 (January 1948) : 7-231

Gavins, Raymond. The Perils and Prospects of Southern Black Leadership: Gordon Blaine Hancock, 1884-19 70. Dur- ham, N.C.: Duke U niversity Press, 1977. Gillette, William. The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. G ittin g er, Roy. The Formation of the S tate of Oklahoma, 1803-1906. Publications in History, vol. 6. Berkeley : U niversity of C alifornia, 1917. Goldstein, Michael L. "Preface to the Rise of Booker T. Washington: A View From New York City of the Demise of Independent Black Politics, 1889-1902." Journal of Negro History 72 (January 1977) : 81-99. Grossman, Lawrence. The Democratic Party and the Negro; Northern and National Politics. 1868-92. Blacks in the New World Series. Chicago : University of Illinois Press, 1976.

Gutman, Herbert. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925. New York : Pantheon Books, 1976. 379

______. "Peter H. Clark: Pioneer Negro S o c ia list, 1877." Journal of Negro Education 34 (Fall 1965): 413-418.

Hammersly, Lewis R. The Records of Living Officers of the U. S. Navy and Marine Corps. 3rd ed itio n . Rhila- delphia: JT B, TTppincott 8 Co., 1878. Hare, Nathan. Black Anglo-Saxon. Introduction by Oliver C. Cox. New York: C ollier Books , 1970. Higgins, Billy D. "Negro Thought and the Exodus of 1879." Phylon 32 (Spring 1971): 39-52. H ill, Mozell C. "The All-Negro Communities of Oklahoma: The Natural History of a Social Movement." Journal of Negro History 31 (July 1946) : 254-268.

Howell, W. R. "The Colored Schools of Kansas City, Mis­ so u ri." In Your Kansas City and Mine, pp. 21-22. Edited by William H. Young and Nathan B. Young. Kan­ sas City, Mo.: By the E ditors, 1950. Kensell, Lewis Anthony. "Reconstruction in the Choctaw Nation, 1865-1870." Chronicles of Oklahoma 47 (Sum­ mer 1969) : 138-153.

Kolchin, Peter. F irst Freedom: The Response of Alabama's Blacks to Emahcipation and Reconstruction! Westport, Connecticut : Greenwood P re ss, 19 72. Kremer, Gary R. "Background to Apostasy: James Milton Tur­ ner and the Republican Party." Missouri Historical Review 71 (October 1976): 59-75. Kremer, Gary R. and Holland, Antonio F ., eds. "Some Aspects of Black Education in Reconstruction Missouri: An Address by Richard B. Foster." Missouri Historical Review 70 (January 1976): 184-19?!

Kremer, Gary R. and others. "The Role of the Negro in Missouri History, 1719-1970." In O fficial Manual: State of Missouri, 1973-1974, pp. 1-35. Edited by Thelma P. Goodwin. Jefferson City, Mo. : James C. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of State, 1974.

Lambert, Paul F. "The Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866." Journal of the West 12 (July 1973): 417-489.

Lewis, Elsie M. "The Political Mind of the Negro, 1865- 1900." Journal of Southern History 21 (May 1955): 189-202. 380

L ittle f ie ld , Daniel F., Jr. and U nderhill, Lonnie E. "Negro Marshals in the Indian Territory." Journal of Negro History 56 (April 1971): 77-87.

Logan, Rayford W. The Betrayal of the Negro: From Ruther­ ford B. Hayes' to Woodrow Wilson. 2nd ed. New York; The Macmillan Company, 1968. Originally printed as The Negro in American Life and Thought: The Nadir, 1877-1901 by the same publisher. Low, W. A. "The Freedmen's Bureau in the Border States." In Radicalism, Racism, and Party Realignment: The Border States During Reconstruction, pp. 245-264. Edited by Richard oT Curry. Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. Lynch, H o llis. Edward Wilmot Blyden: Pan-Negro P a tr io t, 1832-1912. London : Oxford University Press, 1967. McCullar, Marion Ray. "The Choctaw-Chickasaw Reconstruc­ tion Treaty of 1866." Journal of the West 12 (July 1973): 462-470. McPherson, James M. "Coercion or Conciliation? Abolition­ ists Debate President Hayes’s Southern Policy.” New England Q uarterly 39 (December 1966): 474-497.

"White Liberals and Black Power in Negro Educa­ tion, 1865-1915." American Historical Review 75 (June 1970): 1357-1T5F!

McReynolds, Edwin C. Oklahoma: A History of the Sooner S ta te . Norman: U niversity of Oklanoma Press, 1954. Meier, August. "The Beginning of Industrial Education in Negro Schools." The Midwest Journal 7 (Spring 1955): 21-44.

"Comment on John Hope F ranklin's Paper." In New Frontiers of the American Reconstruction, pp. 77-86. Edited by Harold M. Hyman. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966. "The Negro and the Democratic P arty." PhyJjan 17 [S’econd Quarter 1956): 173-191. Negro Thought in America, 1880-1915; Racial geologies in the Age of Booker T. Washington. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 196*. 381

Meier, August, and Rudwick, E llio tt. "The Boycott Movement Against Jim Crow Streetcars in the South, 1900-1906." Journal of American History 55 (March 1969): 756-775. Mellinger, Philip. "Discrimination and Statehood in Okla­ homa." Chronicles of Oklahoma 49 (Autumn 1971): 340-378.

Moore, N. Webster. "James Milton Turner, Diplomat, Educator, and Defender of Rights, 1840-1915." Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 27 (April 1971): 194-201.

______. "John Berry Meachum: St. Louis Pioneer, Black ÂFolitionist, Educator and Preacher." Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 29 (January 1973): 96:103.------Muraskin, William. Middle-class Blacks in a White Society: Prince Hall Freemasonry in America. Berkeley : Uni­ v ersity of C alifornia Press, 1975. Orofsky, Melvin. "Blanche K. Bruce: United States Senator 1875-1881." Journal of Mississippi History 29 (May 1967): 118-14T:

Padgett, James A. "M inisters to Liberia and Their Diplo­ macy." Journal of Negro History 22 (January 1937): 50-92. Painter, Nell Irvin. Exodusters: Black Migration to Kan- sas After Reconstruction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, T97T: P arrish , William E. Missouri Under Radical Rule^ 1865-1870. Columbia, Missouri : University of Missouri Press, 1965. ______. "Reconstruction Politics in Missouri, 1865-1870." Tn Radicalism, Racism, and Party Realignment: The Border States During Reconstruction, pp. 1-36. Edited by Richard 0. Curry7 Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. The Turbulent Partnership : Missouri and the Union, r?61-1865. Columbia : University of Missouri Press, TM3:------Parrish, William E., gen. ed. A History of Missouri. 5 vols. Columbia, Mo. : University of Missouri Press, 1971. Vol. 2: A History of Missouri, 1860-1875, by William E. Parrisin 382

Patterson, H. Orlando. "Slavery, Acculturation, and Social Change." British journal of Sociology 17 (June 1966) : 151-164. "

Pope, Christie Farnham. "Southern Homesteads for Negroes." Agricultural History 44 (April 1970): 201-212. Porter, Kenneth W. "Negro Labor in the Cattle Industry, 1866-1900." Labor History 10 (Summer 1969) : 345-374.

Quarles, Benjamin. F re rick Doug lass. Washington, D.C.: Associated Publisteers. Inc.! 1948; reprint ed. , New York: Atheneum P re s s , 1968.

Rainwater, Lee. "The Crucible of Identity: The Negro Lower- Class Family." Pa.edalus 95 (Winter 1966): 172-216. Rampp, Larry C. "Negro Troop Activity in Indian Territory, 1863-1865." ChroTiicies of Oklahoma 83 (Spring 1965): 531-559. Rankin, David C. "The Origins of Black Leadership in New Orleans During Reconstruction." Journal of Southern History 40 (August 1974) : 417-4401 Reasons, George and P a tric k , Sam. "James Milton Turner's Education Career Led to P o litic s ." Kansas City S ta r, 11 January 1975 .

Redkey, Edwin. "Bishop Turner's A frican Dream." Journal o f American History _S 4 (September 1967): 271-29ÏÏ1 ______. Black Exodus : Black Nationalists and Back to ^ r i c i ~ Movements 7 1890-19 lO. New Haven, Conn.: 7ale University Press! 1969.

Reimers, David M. White Protestantism and the Negro. New York: Oxford U niversity Press, 1965.

Richardson, Joe M. "The American Missionary Association and Black Education in Civil War Missouri." Missouri Historical Review 69 (July 1975) : 433-448.

. The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida, 1865- T?77. Tallahassee : Florida State University, 1965. Riddleberger, Patrick W. "The Break in the Radical Ranks: Liberals versus Stalwarts in the Election of 1872." Journal of Negro History 44 (April 1959): 136-157. 383

______. "The Radicals' Abandonment of the Negro During Reconstruction." Journal of Negro History 45 (April 1960): 88-102.

Ripley, C. Peter. Slaves and Freedmen in Civil War Loui­ sia n a . Baton Rouge: lSu P ress, 1976.

Roberson, Jere W. "Edward P. McCabe and the Langston Ex­ periment." Chronicles of Oklahoma 51 (Fall 1973); 343-355.

Rollin, Frank A. Life and Public Services of Martin R. Delany. Boston : Lee and Shepard, 1 8 6 8 .

Rose, Harold M. "The All-Negro Town: Its Evolution and Function." Geographical Review 55 (July 1965): 362-381. Savage, W. Sherman. The History of Lincoln University. Jefferson City, Missouri: The New bay Press, 1939. ______. "The Legal Provisions for Negro Schools in Mis­ souri from 1865 to 1890." Journal of Negro History 26 (July 1931): 309-321. ______. "The Negro in the Westward Movement." Journal of NFgro History 25 (October 1940): 531-539.

Savage, William W., Jr. The Cherokee Strip Livestock As­ sociation: Federal Regulation and the Cattleman*s Last Frontier. Columbia : University of Missouri Press, 1973. Scarborough, W. S. "The Negro and the Louisiana Purchase Exposition." Voice of the Negro 1 (August 1904): 312-315.

Schwendemann, Glen. "The Exodusters on the M issouri." Kansas Historical Quarterly 29 (Spring 1963): 25-40. "Nicodemus: Negro Haven on the Solomon." Kansas Historical Quarterly 34 (Spring 1968): 10-31.

______. "St. Louis and the 'Exodusters' of 1879." Journal of Negro History 46 (January 1961): 32-46. "Wyandotte and the First "Exodusters' of 1879." Kansas Historical Quarterly 26 (Autumn 1960): 233-249.

Seifman, Eli. "Education or Emigration: The Schism Within the African Colonization Movement, 1865-1875." History of Education Quarterly 7 (Spring 1967) : 36-57. 384

Shoemaker, Floyd C. "Some Colorful Lawyers in the History of Missouri." Missouri Historical Review 53 (January, April 1959) : 125"ITr,""Z2 T-HIT. Starobin, Robert. "The Negro: A Central Theme in American History." Journal of Contemporary History 3 (April 1968): 37-57: ------

Stevens, Walter B. St. Louis, The Fourth City, 1764-1909. 3 vols. St. Louis : S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1909.

S trickland, Arvarh E. "Toward the Promised Land: The Exo­ dus to Kansas and Afterward." Missouri H isto rical Review 59 (July 1975): 376-412. Sweet, Leonard I. Black Images of America, 1784-1870. New York: W. W. Norton $ Co., 1976. Thornbrough, Emma Lou. T. Thomas Fortune: Militant Jour­ nalist. Negro American Biographies and Autobiog- rap h ies. Chicago § London: U niversity of Chicago Press, 1972. Thorpe, Earl E. The Mind of the Negro: An Intellectual History of Afro-Americans. Baton Rouge, La.: Ort- lieb Press, 1961.------

T indall, George B. "The Liberian Exodus of 1878." South Carolina Historical Magazine 53 (July 1952): 133-145.

T oll, William H. "The C risis of Freedom: Toward an I n te r ­ pretation of Negro Life." Journal of American Studies 3 (December 1969): 265-280.

Vandersee, Charles. "Henry Adams and the Invisible Negro." South Atlantic Quarterly 66 (Winter 1967) : 13-30.

Vincent, Charles. Black Legislators in Louisiana During Re cons t ruct i onü Baton Rouge: LSU P re ss,1976. Voegeli, V. Jacques. Free But Not Equal: The Midwest and the Negro During the Civil War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196 7.

Warden, Morris L. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation, 1838-1907. Norman, Oklahoma: U niversity of Oklahoma P re ss, 1938. Warren, Hanna R. "Reconstruction in the Cherokee Nation." Chronicles of Oklahoma 45 (Spring 1967): 180-189. 385

Weaver, Valerie W. "The Failure of Civil Rights, 1875- 1883, and Its Repercussions." Journal of Negro H is­ tory 4 (October 1919): 368-382.

Wells, Erastus. Episodes of My Life. St. Louis: n.p., 1933.

West, Richard. Back to Africa: A History of Sierra Leone and Liberia: New York: H olt, Rinenart and Winston, In c ., 1970.

W illiams, George Washington. H istory of the Negro Race in America. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1883; reprinted. New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1968.

Williamson, Joel. After Slavery: The Negro in South Caro­ lina During Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965. Wilson, Walt. "Freedmen in Indian Territory." Chronicles of Oklahoma 44 (Summer 1971): 230-244.

Woodward, C. Vann, ^erican Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Dialogue. Boston : L ittle, Brown and Company, 19 71. ______. Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and fFe End of Reconstruction. Boston: Little, Brown, 1951. Revised and with a new introduction and con­ cluding chapter. Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1956.

Woolfolk, George R. "Turner's Safety Valve and Free Negro Westward M igration." Journal of Negro History 50 (July 1965): 185-197.