sign in sign up
<<
Home , American Civil War, Bleeding Kansas, Kansas Territory, Nebraska Territory

Kansas : A Journal of the Central Plains 24 (Spring 2001): 54–71.

BEFORE BLEEDING Christian Missionaries, , and the Indians in Pre-Territorial Kansas, 1844–1854

by Kevin Abing

ew would deny that passage of the Kansas– bill in 1854 was a watershed in the Unit- ed States’s toward civil . The bill repealed the hallowed Compromise and re- placed it with “popular ,” paving the way for the extension of slavery into territory above the 36º 30’ line. lines quickly formed as pro- and antislavery settlers rushed into for- mer Indian country to claim the choicest land and to perpetuate a particular socio-economic sys- tem. The area became the scene of the country’s most violent clashes over slavery in the antebellum era. Much has been written about , but the literature examines the slavery controversy in 1 thisF region only after passed the Kansas–Nebraska bill. This is an incomplete picture at best. In-

Kevin Abing earned his Ph.D. from Marquette University in 1995. His dissertation was a study of the Shawnee Indian Manual Labor School. He is currently employed as an archival assistant with the Milwaukee Historical Society.

1. The literature dealing with this period is voluminous, but examples of works that do not examine the slavery controversy in pre- territorial Kansas include Thomas Goodrich, War to the Knife: Bleeding Kansas, 1854 – 1861 (Mechanicsburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1998); David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848 – 1861, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (: Harper and Row, 1976); , Ordeal of the Union, Vol. II: A House Dividing, 1852 – 1857 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947); Alice Nichols, Bleeding Kansas (New York: Ox- University Press, 1954); Michael A. Morrison, Slavery and : The Eclipse of and the Coming of the (Chapel : University of Press, 1997); James A. Rawley, Race and Politics: “Bleeding Kansas” and the Coming of the Civil War (: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1969).

54 KANSAS HISTORY THE MISSIONARY (Thomas Johnson)

THE SLAVE (unidentified)

THE SHAWNEE (Payta Kootha) deed, the seeds of Bleeding Kansas fell on fertile ground, Furthermore, outside circumstances hindered the for slavery was a source of contention in Indian country tribe’s adoption of slavery. By the late eighteenth long before Kansas was organized. most lived in , an area in which the North- This was especially true among the Shawnee Indians. west Ordinance prohibited slavery; thus, Ohio bands re- The location of the Shawnee reservation assured that slav- ceived limited exposure to the “peculiar institution” in com- ery would intrude upon tribal matters; it was a 1.6-million- parison with , Creeks, and , who acre tract that hugged the south occupied much of the southeast- bank of the and ern . This explains stretched westward 120 miles why the historical literature per- from the Missouri border. Imme- taining to black slavery and Na- diately to the east lay Westport, rom the beginning tive has focused 3 Missouri, a zealously Thomas Johnson upon these southern tribes. settlement. More important, in- Shawnees, like their south- ternal forces stirred the contro- was the focus of the ern counterparts, did not begin versy to a fever pitch. Ironically, F accumulating slaves until their missionaries—men of God labor- interdenominational traditional culture came under ing to “civilize” Shawnees—were the “civilizing” influences of the most responsible for unleashing discord, harboring a United States. This transforma- and perpetuating sectional tur- tion first occurred among some moil among this group, thereby driving ambition that Ohio Shawnees, but it accelerat- laying the groundwork for Bleed- ed after the government re- ing Kansas. poisoned relations moved the tribe to Indian coun- try. Beginning in 1825 Shawnee or Shawnees, owning with his neighbors. bands near Cape Girardeau, slaves was a recent de- Missouri, and from Ohio emi- velopment. In the seven- grated to their new home in a teenth and eighteenth centuries black captives occasionally piecemeal fashion. The last Shawnee bands left Ohio in 1833 4 were found among Shawnee bands living in the Southeast, and made their way west. butF typically they were assimilated into the tribe. This On their new reservation, Shawnees encountered a vig- process reflected the Shawnees’ view that all should con- orous civilization program. As part of this effort, the feder- tribute to the benefit of the tribal community. They placed al government supplied the tribe with agricultural tools to little value on the accumulation of personal property. This encourage them to learn Euro-American-style farming tech- mind-set was vital to the tribe’s survival. The Shawnees’ niques. This would, in theory, stimulate the tribe’s members subsistence pattern paralleled that of other Eastern Wood- to abandon their nomadic ways and settle on individual land tribes as hunting was the primary source of food. plots of land. And, if Shawnees were to become truly “civi- Shawnee women supplemented the tribal diet by growing a variety of crops and by foraging for wild berries; howev- er, reliance on wild game often meant that hunger was a very real presence. Thus, it was crucial that Shawnees pool 3. See, for example, Theda Purdue, Slavery and the Evolution of Chero- 2 kee Society, 1540 – 1866 (Knoxville: University of Press, 1979); R. their efforts and resources for the collective good. Halliburton Jr., Red Over Black: Black Slavery Among the Indians (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977); Annie Heloise Abel, The Amer- ican Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist (1915; reprint, : Universi- ty of Nebraska Press, 1992); Daniel F. Littlefield Jr., Africans and Creeks: From the Colonial Period to the Civil War (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood 2. Jerry E. Clark, The Shawnee (: University Press of Ken- Press, 1979). tucky, 1993), 30–31; James H. Howard, Shawnee! The Ceremonialism of a 4. W. Harrington, The Shawnees in Kansas (Kansas City, Kans.: Native Indian Tribe and Its Cultural Background (Athens: Western Press, 1937), 3–6; Charles J. Kappler, comp., Indian Af- Press, 1981), 1–17, 43–46; Charles Callender, “Shawnee,” in Handbook of fairs, Laws and Treaties, vol. 2: Treaties (, D.C.: Government North American Indians, Northeast, ed. Bruce G. Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Printing Office, 1904), 262–64, 331–34; Grant Foreman, The Last Trek of the Smithsonian Institution, 1978), 624–25, 631. Indians (: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 54, 72–85.

56 KANSAS HISTORY lized,” they would have to relinquish their “heathen” commenced their work among the tribe, and in 1837 the deities and adopt Christianity. The tribe worshiped an Quakers established a third school. All three de- array of deities imbued throughout nature, and its religious nominations ostensibly worked toward the same goal, but beliefs and ceremonies promoted a sense of balance in its relations among them quickly soured as they competed 9 existence. To combat this “heathenism,” missionaries ven- with one another for Shawnee souls. tured to the Shawnee reservation to spread the Gospel and establish schools where Indian children could receive a rom the beginning Thomas Johnson was the focus “proper” education. of the interdenominational discord. A na- 5 Shawnees faced difficult realities in Kansas. The area tive, he ministered to settlers in Missouri was crowded with other transplanted tribes—, and prior to his appointment as a Shawnee mis- Kickapoo, Potawatomie, and Miami, among others—and sionary. He possessed qualities that served him well in his there was not enough wild game to support so many. Al- missionaryF endeavors—piety, excellent administrative 10 though some Shawnees tried to live as they had in the past, skills, and a keen business acumen. But he also harbored increasing numbers realized their culture would have to be a driving ambition that poisoned relations with his pious altered. Statistics illustrate this transition. According to an neighbors. Johnson hoped to monopolize the Shawnee mis- 6 1846 census, all the tribe’s 931 members were farmers. sion field and exclude any rivals. Yet another impulse dictated Shawnee acculturation: Establishment of the Shawnee Manual Labor School increasing numbers within the tribe were mixed-bloods. epitomized his desire. Initially, Johnson conducted a small There are no concrete figures, but when Quaker missionary boarding school for the tribe, but he grew disenchanted Wilson Hobbs arrived in Kansas in 1850 he noticed only a with its limited success. He envisioned something on a few full-bloods among the tribe, as “two hundred years of grander scale. In 1838 he traveled to New York and secured contact with border had done much to change their approval of the Methodist missionary board for a large 7 blood.” As products of white and Indian cultures, these manual labor school that would serve Shawnees and near- mixed-bloods were more amenable to white society. by tribes. He then ventured to Washington and gained the The changes also filtered down to Shawnee children. In enthusiastic endorsement of Commissioner of Indian Af- 1837 Chief John Perry told a group of missionaries, “When fairs Carey Harris. Lastly, Johnson met with Shawnee lead- we lived in Ohio, where we could get game, I thought not ers and persuaded them of the necessity for his school. The worth while to send my children to school, and I sent none; Shawnee Manual Labor School was a mammoth enterprise, but now we live where we cannot get game, I want my chil- occupying nearly two thousand acres. Johnson chose a site 8 dren to go to school and learn to work too.” Accordingly, roughly one-half mile west of the Missouri border along Shawnees supported mission schools in which their chil- the . Eventually, three large, brick schools/ dren received a rudimentary education and learned a trade dormitories were constructed, along with a variety of farm to help survive in a changing environment. buildings and workshops. Enrollment figures swelled to Shawnees had several schools from which to choose, well over one hundred students, and the school quickly be- for the missionary field on their reservation was crowded. came the showpiece of the government’s civilization pro- Thomas Johnson of the Methodist Episcopal Church began gram. The Methodist institution completely overshadowed ministering to Shawnees in late 1830. The following year Baptist missionaries Isaac McCoy and Johnston Lykins

9. For a discussion of this interdenominational rivalry, see Kevin Abing, “A Holy Battleground: Methodist, Baptist, and Quaker Missionar- 5. Indian country encompassed the present states of Kansas, Ne- ies Among Shawnee Indians, 1830–1844,” Kansas History: A Journal of the braska, and . The Shawnee reservation, however, lay entirely Central Plains 21 (Summer 1998): 118–37. within the Kansas portion. 10. William Stewart Woodard, Annals of Methodism in Missouri (Co- 6. “Census and Statistics of the Shawnee Tribe of Indians,” Letters lumbia, Mo.: E. W. Stephens, 1893), 62–63; Edith Connelley Ross, “The Received, 1824–1881, U.S. Office of Indian Affairs, roll 302, M234, Na- Old Shawnee Mission,” Kansas Historical Collections, 1926 – 1928 17 (1928): tional Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter cited as Letters Received). 422; J. J. Lutz, “The Methodist Missions Among the Indian Tribes in 7. Wilson Hobbs, “The Friends’ Establishment in ,” Kansas,” Kansas Historical Collections, 1905 – 1906 9 (1906): 161, n. 6; Nathan Kansas Historical Collections, 1903 – 1904 8 (1904): 253. Scarritt, “Reminiscences of the Methodist Shawnee Mission. And Reli- 8. 1837 Meeting Minutes, Society of Friends, Ohio Yearly Meeting gious Work Among That Tribe,” Annals of Kansas City 1 (October 1924): Records, 1808–1991, 13 (microfilm), Ohio Historical Society, Columbus. 436.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 57

the modest Baptist and Quaker schools, thereby accom- factions. Members of the Indian Mission Conference, plishing Johnson’s wish to dominate missionary activities which included the Shawnee reservation, allied them- 11 among the Shawnee people. selves with the Methodist Church, South. As a result of the Thomas Johnson also was at the center of the evolving “Plan of Separation,” the northern church lost jurisdiction slavery storm. Indeed, he introduced slavery into Indian over all Indian missions in Kansas. The rupture between country, perhaps as early as 1832. He was not alone, how- the Methodists, and similar splits among the and ever. Indian Agent Richard Cummins also brought slaves Presbyterians, were dark omens for these were the first na- 12 to the area sometime between 1832 and 1837. Regardless, tionwide breaches between slaveholding and nonslave- 15 Shawnees experienced little turmoil over slavery during holding sections. these early years, even though it was not a part of Shawnee The splintering also pushed slavery to the forefront as tradition. But, as the tribe’s acculturation progressed, some a source of controversy among Shawnee missionaries. The wealthier Shawnees (most of whom were mixed-bloods) battle lines were clearly drawn. The Methodists obviously emulated Johnson and Cummins and began acquiring defended the practice, while the Baptists, especially Mass- slaves. Joseph Parks, for example, was by most accounts achusetts native Francis Barker, and the Quakers charged the richest member of the tribe. He owned a trading house that slavery should have no place among those doing in Westport, a large farm, and several slaves. It is not clear “God’s” work. The Quakers’ aversion to slavery was wide- when he purchased his first slave, but by early 1843 he had ly known, and the presence of slaves at the Shawnee Man- a sixteen-year-old black “servant” appointed assistant ual Labor School especially struck them. Noting that situa- blacksmith. Other Shawnees followed Parks’s example. By tion, R. P. Hall asked, “Now is not this a stra[n]ge idea? It 1848 Richard Cummins commented that the “more opu- is to me, to think of heathanizing one portion of mankind 13 lent” members also owned slaves. [while] eracing heathanism from another portion. I think 16 Slavery did not afflict relations among the three mis- the machine can’t work well long.” sionary groups during the first decade of their work; plen- The Methodists dismissed the Quakers’ concern, ty of other issues were argued among the Methodists, Bap- claiming they treated their slaves benevolently. Indeed, tists, and Quakers. Perhaps the missionaries glossed over Jerome Berryman, superintendent of the Shawnee Manual the question to maintain a semblance of cooperation and to Labor School from 1841 to 1844, argued that slavery bene- prevent it from completely disrupting their religious fited . Looking back upon his mission- labors. This may be why, in the early 1840s, the Methodists ary career, Berryman concluded the physical, social, and dismissed the presence of slaves at the Shawnee Manual moral condition of black slaves was “greatly preferable” to Labor School as a “temporary arrangement justified by pe- that of any Indians. Berryman acknowledged that evils 14 culiar circumstances.” “incidentally connected themselves” to slavery, but these But the area would not remain immune from the agi- he attributed to bad men and not to the system. And, the tation surrounding slavery. In 1844 the issue divided the Bible recognized circumstances under which individuals Methodist Episcopal Church into northern and southern could own slaves “without rebuke from Him who is the 17 Master of us all.” 11. For more detailed accounts concerning the Shawnee Manual Evidence shows, however, that the slaves’ lives at the 18 Labor School, see Kevin Abing, “A Fall From Grace: Thomas Johnson and school were not as benign as the Methodists claimed. A the Shawnee Indian Manual Labor School, 1839–1862” (Ph.D. diss., Mar- quette University, 1995); Martha B. Caldwell, comp., Annals of Shawnee Methodist Mission and Indian Manual Labor School (Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society, 1939). 15. C. C. Goen, Broken Churches, Broken Nation: Denominational Schisms 12. Charles E. Cory, “Slavery in Kansas,” Kansas Historical Collections, and the Coming of the (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University 1901–1902 7 (1902): 239. In 1850 Cummins moved back to Missouri and Press, 1985), 13, 78–90; Lutz, “The Methodist Missions,” 179–80, 191. took as many as fifteen slaves with him. 16. Zeri Hough to Daniel Huff, , 1845, Huff Family Col- 13. Lutz, “The Methodist Missions,” 399–401; Harrington, The lection, Lily Library, Earlham College, Richmond, Ind.; R. P. Hall to Shawnees in Kansas, 6, n. 16; Richard Cummins to D. D. Mitchell, February unidentified, n.d., ibid. 2, 1843, William Clark Collection, vol. 8: 94, Library and Archives Divi- 17. Jerome Berryman, “A Circuit Rider’s Experiences,” sion, Kansas State Historical Society; Mitchell to Cummins, , 1843, Kansas Historical Collections, 1923 –1925 16 (1925): 180–81. vol. 7: 234–35, ibid.; Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 1848, 18. Later accounts also argued that the Methodists treated their NCR microcard ed., 446. slaves well. See James Anderson, “The Methodist Shawnee Mission in 14. William H. Goode, Outposts of Zion, with Limnings of Mission Life Johnson County, Kansas, 1830–1862,” Trail Guide 1 (January 1956): 12–15; (: Poe and Hitchcock, 1864), 99. Cory, “Slavery in Kansas,” 239.

58 KANSAS HISTORY slave girl complained to the Quakers that she thought it Methodists used slaves to civilize the Indians. “Is not this “quite hard that she had to work so hard and earn nothing the climax of inconsistencies?” he asked. for herself.” Moreover, unsubstantiated rumors held that Mendenhall thought this circumstance bore bitter fruit Thomas Johnson fathered an illegitimate child by one of among the Indians. The children at the Methodist school his slaves and sold the woman before the baby was born. developed an aversion to labor that was “so common Lastly, Miriam Hough, a Quaker missionary, heard of two among white people in a slave-holding community.” This, whippings at the Methodist he claimed, subverted the entire school in August 1846. In one civilizing program because the case, a school employee whip- children failed to learn “habits ped a black woman, but Hough of industry.” Mendenhall main- found the other incident even he rupture be- tained that most Indians op- “more disgraceful.” The same posed slavery, but some would employee “corrected” a male tween the own slaves if they could afford slave for an offense that Hough Methodists, and simi- them. He also feared that Indi- thought a “mere trifle.” The T ans who helped fugitive slaves punishment angered the slave, lar splits among the might arouse the ire of slave- and he brandished a knife at his holders in Missouri. Therefore, attacker. A struggle ensued dur- Baptists and Presbyte- Mendenhall implored the ing which the slave lost his “friends of Justice” to remove knife and immediately tried to rians, were dark omens this evil from Kansas. He real- flee. The employee hit the slave ized he might be persecuted, with a brick , slamming him for these were the first but he was determined to to the ground. The employee “bring the subject to public no- 20 jumped on the slave and beat nationwide breaches tice at all hazards.” him with a club. The thrashing The Friends’ agitation un- stopped, Hough supposed, between slaveholding doubtedly embittered their in- when the employee concluded teraction with the Methodists. that the slave “was hurt bad and nonslaveholding When Wilson Hobbs arrived at 19 enough.” the Friends mission in 1850, he The Quakers thought this observed that the Methodist situation should be brought to the public’s attention. school “seemed to hold herself aloof from, and above, the Richard Mendenhall fired the first salvo when the National more humble sisters near by, and they were too modest ei- Era reprinted his December 1847 letter to a friend in the ther to court or demand her respect. Hence, there was little 21 East. Mendenhall’s sole purpose was to “bring to the no- intercourse between them.” tice of the friends of Humanity the existence of slavery in this Territory, contrary to the restrictions of the Missouri he controversy tainted more than just missionary Compromise.” He laid the blame squarely on the shoul- relations, for it also drove wedges among the ders of government officials and the missionaries of the members of the Shawnee tribe. The Ohio and Methodist Church, South. Even more startling than slave- Missouri bands often quarreled over money and land. And owning missionaries, he argued, was the fact that the in 1852 the mixed-blood leaders of Ohio Shawnees over- hauledT the tribe’s traditional pattern of hereditary leader-

20. Richard Mendenhall to Dr. Bailey, October 30, 1847, National Era 19. Flora Harvey Kittle and Anna Steward Pearson, Shawnee Indians (Washington, D.C.), December 23, 1847, reprinted in Jerry C. Roy, “The in Kansas (Kansas City, Kans.: N.p., 1917), 28; “Interview with E. F. Heisler, Shawnee Indians in Johnson County: Some Views From Contemporary Editor of the Kansas City, Kansas, Sun,” E. F. Heisler Misc. Collection, Li- Accounts,” in The Shawnee Indians in Johnson County Kansas (Overland brary and Archives Division, Kansas State Historical Society; Miriam Park, Kans.: Johnson County Center for Local History, 1985), 6. Hough to Daniel Huff, , 1846, Huff Family Collection. 21. Hobbs, “The Friends’ Establishment in Kansas Territory,” 256.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 59 ship and replaced it with an elective form of government. Cummins reported yet another difficulty. Slaves from Not surprisingly, the mixed-bloods dominated the new Missouri fled into Kansas and Nebraska. Frequently, the In- structure. Lastly, the strain between traditional and Christ- dians returned the slaves to the agent, but Cummins inti- ian Shawnees alienated various bands and tore families mated that the Indians sometimes helped runaway slaves. apart. The introduction of slavery only hardened tribal fac- If the Indians became “tainted with abolition doctrines” tionalism, as the “progressive” mixed-blood leaders sup- and if Missourians became “jealous & suspicious of Indians ported the proslavery mission- on the subject,” the “conse- aries, while the traditional quences that would ensue Missouri bands sided with the would be very easy to conjec- antislavery forces. The stress ture.” Up to this time, Cummins was such that a portion of the hawnee support- noted, the Indians had main- antislavery Shawnees left to join tained peace and goodwill with a Shawnee band in present Ok- ers of northern their neighbors, but a “convul- 22 lahoma. sion tending to destroy” the Existing Methodist records Methodists pointed to harmony “would be deplorable S 24 blithely ignore the strife; yet, indeed.” others involved in Shawnee southern Methodists The problem soon became matters were very aware of the worse. Since the split, northern problem. In March 1849 Baptist as the source of strife, and southern Methodists en- missionary Francis Barker wrote saying they have suc- gaged in “border troubles,” as that the subject of slavery un- each group struggled to control derwent an “extensive investi- ceeded in carrying out churches along the Mason– gation” among the tribes along Dixon line. Finally, at the 1848 the Missouri border, and at one “their mad schemes.” General Conference, members time “much excitement pre- of the Methodist Church, North, vailed.” The Baptists, Barker re- repudiated the Plan of Separa- lated, prudently took no public stance in the , but he tion. Consequently, they began re-entering mission fields believed “that the system has but few advocates around that the southern church controlled. Their entrance into 23 25 us.” Kansas aggravated the growing tension. Indian Agent Richard Cummins also commented upon Trouble continued in 1849 when the Missouri Confer- the explosive situation. In a January 1849 report he noted ence of the northern church appointed Thomas Markham that the slavery controversy had infiltrated the “Indian as a missionary to the Shawnee tribe. After securing per- Country” and would “be the cause of much evil among the mission from the superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Indians themselves.” For example, several antislavery In- Louis, David Mitchell, Markham immediately embarked dians had removed their children from the Shawnee Man- on his missionary duties. It was not long before he encoun- ual Labor School. Cummins believed if the agitation con- tered obstacles. In March 1850 Indian agent Luke Lea ad- tinued, the tribes would split into pro- and antislavery vised Markham of the Shawnee leaders’ opinion that “it factions and the churches would be pitted “antagonistical- was contrary to their wishes that you should preach, any ly, one against the other.” Surely, he pleaded, “there is no necessity for such division & strife to be created among In- dians.” 24. Richard Cummins to Thomas Harvey, January 16, 1849, Letters Received, roll 303. 25. Arthur E. Jones Jr., “The Years of Disagreement, 1844–61,” in The History of American Methodism, ed. Emory Stevens Bucke, 3 vols. (New 22. Foreman, The Last Trek of the Indians, 169–70; Thomas Mosely to York: Press, 1964), 2:144–175; Fred Louis Parrish, “The Rise of Luke Lea, July 20, 1852, Letters Received, roll 364. Methodism in Kansas, 1830–1861, From its Inception to the Opening of 23. Francis Barker to Solomon Peck, March 14, 1849, American Bap- the Civil War” (master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1922), 50; Mark tist Foreign Mission Society–American Indian Correspondence, Ameri- Stephen Joy, “‘Into the Wilderness’: Protestant Missions Among the Emi- can Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, Pa. grant Indians of Kansas” (Ph.D. diss., , 1992), 192.

60 KANSAS HISTORY more, within their Country.” The chiefs believed pressed religious . They observed that the Church, Markham’s “sermons and conversations with their people North, had organized a conference in Missouri. “Shall we,” better calculated to divide and distract their Nation, than they asked, “who live on free soil enjoy less liberty than the of uniting and making them more happy and contented.” citizens of a slave state?” They assured Commissioner Consequently, Lea instructed the missionary to confine his Brown that Markham never discussed slavery in his ser- ministerial labors “among those who may be of opinion, mons or in private talks “except to correct some gross mis- 26 that your services will be of more use to them.” representation of the inquisitors of the Big institution.” The Shawnees asked Brown to have Agent Lea cease harassing arkham’s Shawnee supporters did not acqui- Markham, to inform their chiefs that they had no jurisdic- esce easily. One month later James , tion over the matter, and to initiate a government investi- 27 Charles Fish, and John Fish addressed a gation. But the commissioner took no immediate action. lengthy letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Orlando Despite the government’s delay and Lea’s persistent Brown.M They noted that eighty-five Shawnees had applied pressure, Thomas Markham continued preaching to the to the Methodist Church, North, for a missionary, and Shawnees. In March 1851 Markham finally met with Lea Markham had been appointed as a result. They denied that and several Shawnee chiefs to discuss the matter. Markham caused any trouble, pointing instead to the Markham presented a letter from the commissioner of In- southern Methodists as the source of strife and insisting dian Affairs, authorizing his activities. Lea, however, re- that these individuals “have so far succeeded, as to pro- fused to take any action because most of the Shawnee cure the official aid of the U.S. Agent, to carry out their Council was absent. But he promised to address the matter mad schemes of proscription and .” in a few weeks before the full council. Markham chastised The authors then launched a scathing attack upon the missing chiefs, for they “had not moral courage to at- those missionaries, claiming they were “devoid of all sym- tend when requested and defend their cause.” He also crit- pathy either for us, or our children.” Conditions at the icized Lea for basing his actions, not on the wishes of his school were miserable, convincing Shawnees that the only superiors, but on the “mere wishes of a majority of the reason the Methodists educated their children was to earn Chiefs of ” who may be “the dupes of Sectarian a profit. “The truth cannot be concealed,” they contended; bigotry, or the mere hirelings of Some trader, or Speculator, the Methodists “have departed from their legitimate office or whiskey trader, whose interest might require that the In- and have become ‘money changers.’” dians should be kept in ignorance.” If this was government These were the type of men, the Shawnee people de- policy, Markham insisted, then it ought to be publicized, clared, who turned the Indian agent and the chiefs against for he and his missionary brethren were “hazzarding a the tribal members remaining loyal to the Methodist great deal.” He was sure this case would be precedent set- Church, North. Fearing the “northern” Shawnees would ting, for the northern church had enemies everywhere who expose their “ill concealed corruptions,” the southern mis- would “do any thing in their power to drive us out of the 28 sionaries, like “all other religious tyrants,” conspired with whol[e] Territory, and State of Missouri also.” the civil authorities to eliminate the threat. Thomas John- Finally in May 1851 federal officials took action. The son and his colleagues tried to undermine the so-called commissioner of Indian Affairs informed Lea that the gov- “northern” Shawnees by pinning the “odious name of abo- ernment acknowledged the right of all denominations to litionist” upon them, even though they held no such sym- send missionaries to the Indians. He admitted that the gov- pathies. James Captain and his co-authors believed imme- diate emancipation “ruinous to the country,” but they thought no true Christian should engage in slave traffick- ing. They also asserted that the southern Methodists sup- 27. Charles Fish, James Captain, and John Fish to Orlando Brown, April 22, 1850, Letters Received, roll 303. 28. August 1850 Meeting, Journal of the Missouri Annual Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, 1849 – 1864, 36–39, Library and Archives Divi- sion, Kansas State Historical Society; Petition from the Shawnee to the 26. Parrish, “The Rise of Methodism in Kansas,” 50; Lutz, “The President of the U.S., , 1850, Letters Received, roll 785; Ed- Methodist Missions,” 192; D. D. Mitchell to “whom it may concern,” Sep- mund S. James and J.P. Durbin to Luke Lea, , 1851, ibid.; Lea to tember 3, 1849, Letters Received, roll 785; Luke Lea to J. B. Markham, J. B. Markham, , 1850, ibid.; Markham to J. P. Durbin, March March 20, 1850, ibid. 20, 1851, ibid.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 61 ernment appreciated the “opinions & wishes of the consti- progress as agriculturalists. Nevertheless, Congress period- tuted authorities of an Indian tribe, & will on all proper oc- ically debated bills to organize the territory west of Mis- 33 casions act in conformity with them.” But in this case the souri, but each time, sectional rivalries blocked passage. Indian Department could not accept the Shawnees’ deci- As pressure mounted, officials in the Indian Depart- sion, for in religious matters, “the rights of the minority, as ment faced a dilemma. In the removal treaties of the 1820s 29 well as those of the majority are entitled to protection.” and , the government made promises to the various Before Lea could explain his actions to the commissioner, tribes that their new homes would last forever. Yet, despite he was thrown from his horse and killed, and the entire these pledges, white reformers could not and would not matter remained in limbo. Finally, on , 1851, the In- impede American progress. The country’s rapid expansion dian Department notified David Mitchell in St. Louis that convinced them that the Indians would survive only on 34 unless objections arose, other than the Shawnee Council’s small, closely supervised reservations. decision, Markham must be allowed to minister to the To balance white demands with justice to the Indians, 30 Shawnee people. policy makers revived the tired argument that breaking up After three long years the northern Methodists won the reservations and allotting land to individuals was the 35 the right to work among the Shawnee tribe. But the victo- only way to truly civilize the Indians. Thomas Johnson ry was not without cost. The disturbance generated much added his voice to the growing chorus. In October 1849 he ill will among the northern and southern Shawnees. In- wrote, “For many years my mind has been directed to the deed, yet another portion of the tribe migrated to Okla- probable destiny of these remnants of tribes west of Mis- 31 homa to distance itself from the troubles. The conflict also souri.” Johnson was “fully satisfied that they never can be created an enduring bitterness between the northern and extensively improved as separate nations,” and the time southern Methodists. Years later William Goode, a mem- would come when it would be best for the United States ber of the Church, North, visited the Shawnee Mission, but “to throw around this country some form of government, Thomas Johnson ignored him. As far as Goode could tell, and buy up the surplus lands belonging to these little 32 his experience was not uncommon. tribes.” Those tribes unwilling to assimilate could maintain separate reservations, while the “enterprising part of each hroughout this intradenominational struggle, nation [could] hold property in their names and live among sectional conflicts further intruded upon Kansas. the whites, and take their chance with them.” Johnson de- For years Americans had been clamoring to open clared “that more of the Indians, in this part of the country, part, if not all, of this region for economic development. would be brought to enjoy the benefits of civilization on 36 Several motivations prompted this: to provide safe pas- this than any other plan ever presented to my mind.” sageT for the pioneers migrating to the far West, to quench Although good intentions may have motivated John- the desire for Indian land, and to speed construction of a son, other less lofty incentives certainly influenced his transcontinental railroad. Organization boosters, such as thinking. He was an aggressive entrepreneur who capital- Stephen Douglas, claimed that “hostile ized on any opportunity to enhance his own wealth. By savages” blocked the country’s progress, and, therefore, the “Indian barrier must be removed.” This view ignored the fact that the were not entirely filled with 33. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 145–49; Craig Miner and William E. Unrau, The End of Indian Kansas: A Study of Cultural , 1854 – 1871 “hostile” Indians. For years the Shawnees and other tribes (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1978), 5, 25–26; John W. Ragsdale Jr., along the Missouri border had maintained peaceful rela- “The Dispossession of the Kansas Shawnee,” UMKC Law Review 58 (Win- ter 1990): 233; James C. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 1852 – 1854 tions with their white neighbors and had made great (Lawrence, Kans.: 1953), 7–19, 123–54; Stephen Douglas quotation from ibid., 18; David M. Emmons, Garden in the Grasslands: Boomer Literature of the Central Great Plains (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1971), 7–15. 29. Luke Lea to Luke Lea, May 8, 1851, Letters Sent, 1824–1881, Of- 34. The standard work with regard to the evolution of the reservation fice of Indian Affairs, roll 44, M21, National Archives (hereafter cited as policy is A. Trennert Jr., Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Pol- Letters Sent). icy and the Beginnings of the Reservation System, 1846 – 51 (Philadelphia: 30. Thomas Johnson to Luke Lea, June 19, 1851, Letters Received, roll Temple University Press, 1975). 785; J. P. Durbin to Lea, June 29, 1851, ibid.; Charles Mix to D. D. Mitchell, 35. See, for example, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, July 21, 1851, Letters Sent, roll 45. 1847, 108. 31. Foreman, The Last Trek of the Indians, 169–71. 36. Ibid., 1849, 149–50; Thomas Johnson to Orlando Brown, October 32. Goode, Outposts of Zion, 250. 13, 1849, Letters Received, roll 784.

62 KANSAS HISTORY 1850 he had formed a freighting business and also dabbled Although Nebraska advocates suffered a setback, the in real estate in the fledgling community of Kansas City. issue certainly was not dead. Congress took an important And many suspected that Johnson established the Shawnee step toward organization on March 3, 1853. It added a pro- Manual Labor School to enrich himself and his Methodist vision to an appropriation bill authorizing negotiations brethren. Undoubtedly, Johnson viewed the potential with tribes of that region to open land for American settle- 41 breakup of the Indian reservations as an opportunity to get ment by extinguishing all or part of Indian title. rich in the typical American fash- This move sounded an 37 ion—through land speculation. ominous note for the border The escalating pressure wor- tribes and encouraged Nebraska ried the Shawnees. In 1851 several boosters in Indian country, in- members asked Thomas Wells, ohnson viewed the cluding Thomas Johnson, to step superintendent of the Friends up organization efforts. On July school, if the government intend- potential breakup 26, 1853, Wyandot missionaries, ed to open their reservation to of the Indian reser- leaders, agents, and traders gath- white settlement. Wells believed J ered at the council house. They the “disturbed mind of the Indi- passed several resolutions, in- ans” would be calmed if the gov- vations as an oppor- cluding calls for a central trans- ernment assured the tribe that it tunity to get rich in continental railroad, recognition “did not countenance such prac- of Indian rights, election of a con- 38 tices and schemes.” The govern- the typical American gressional delegate, and estab- ment gave no such assurances. lishment of a “provisional” gov- Nor did the Methodist missionar- fashion — through ernment. Abelard Guthrie was ies provide any solace, for nominated territorial delegate Thomas Johnson played an inte- land speculation. only after Thomas Johnson de- gral role in the efforts to organize clined the position. William the territory. Walker, Wyandot chief and new Wyandot tribal leaders, many of whom were mixed- provisional , announced the election would be 42 bloods, took the first steps toward organization. As early as held on October 11. the winter of 1851 the Wyandots unsuccessfully petitioned The convention did not offer the last word on this issue. Congress to organize the “Nebraska” Territory. The follow- At roughly the same time came a move to name a proslav- ing year they chose Abelard Guthrie, a white man who had ery delegate to oppose Guthrie. In early August, Thomas married into the tribe, to serve as a delegate to Washington Johnson and others issued a call for another convention to and lobby for organization, although he exerted little influ- meet at the Kickapoo village, near , on 39 ence upon Congress. Nevertheless, in February 1853 the September 20. This gathering also advocated the immedi- House of Representatives easily passed a bill creating Ne- ate construction of a transcontinental railroad and the braska Territory. But again, sectional concerns over the lo- speedy organization of the territory, but it demanded that cation of a transcontinental railroad blocked the bill in the slavery be protected. Lastly, Thomas Johnson was a unani- 43 Senate. Moreover, Southerners objected to organizing a ter- mous nominee for the territorial delegate. 40 ritory without protection of slave property.

37. Abing, “A Fall From Grace,” 292–93, 301–305. 41. R. McClelland to George Manypenny, , 1853, Letters 38. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 1851, 86. Received, roll 55; Miner and Unrau, The End of Indian Kansas, 6. 39. For a sketch of Guthrie’s life, see William E. Connelley, The Provi- 42. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 179–86; Connelley, The Provisional sional Government of and the Journals of William Walker Government of Nebraska Territory, 30–37; St. Louis Daily Missouri Democrat, (Lincoln, Neb.: State Journal Co., 1899), 101–52. , 1853. 40. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 102–12; Potter, The Impending Cri- 43. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 186–90; Connelley, The Provisional sis, 149–52. Government of Nebraska Territory, 37–38.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 63 Johnson agreed to the candidacy, presumably because posed place.” He also urged that Nebraska be “speedily he approved the Kickapoo resolutions. The Wyandot reso- opened, and actual settlers invited into it on the most liber- lutions did not mention the slavery issue, but the fact that al terms.” Manypenny believed this course was in the Indi- supporters of Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton dom- ans’ best interests, for it combined Indian welfare with 46 inated the meeting signified its antislavery tenor; Abelard American progress. Guthrie’s nomination amplified this tone. To proslavery Manypenny’s concern prompted him to delve into the men, Johnson seemed to be the area’s political affairs, and he ideal opponent: a slave owner, used his official position to in- he also commanded substantial fluence local residents to elect influence among the mixed- Thomas Johnson congressional blood Shawnee leaders and had issouri resi- delegate. Perhaps Manypenny the active support of govern- helped Johnson because both ment officials, especially com- dents were anx- wanted to extend slavery into 47 missioner of Indian Affairs Nebraska. More likely, howev- 44 ious to grab Indian George Manypenny. M er, Manypenny supported John- son’s candidacy because both anypenny arrived land and were angry expressed similar ideas about in Kansas on Sep- the Indians’ ultimate fate. Other tember 2 to dis- because Manypenny factors help explain the Many- cuss land cessions with the bor- did not conclude any penny–Johnson alliance. Many- der tribes. He found them in an penny was himself a Methodist, agitatedM state because many treaties with the bor- and Johnson took great pains to white settlers, undoubtedly en- expand upon that common couraged by events within the der tribes. bond. He met the commissioner territory, were exploring the re- at the Westport River landing, 45 gion to find choice claim sites. made a room available at the The situation was so bad that several tribes talked of using school, escorted him around the territory, and provided in- 48 force, if necessary, to drive these intruders off their lands. formation and advice. Manypenny gradually quelled any talk of hostilities and On October 11 local “citizens” gave Thomas Johnson a turned his attention to new treaties. He met stiff opposi- landslide victory in the contest for congressional delegate. tion. Tribesmen repeatedly pointed to government promis- This was no surprise to William Walker. He observed that es that this land would belong to them forever. Manypen- Abelard Guthrie had only the support of his personal ny acknowledged those pledges, but now the Indians’ friends, while Johnson had the active backing of his fellow “true interests required that these treaties should be can- missionaries, Commissioner Manypenny, Indian agents, celled, and that new ones should be made . . . as to conform personnel, and various Indian traders—a “com- to the great and unexpected changes that had taken place.” Most tribes balked at ceding any land, but eventually they became amenable to selling portions and maintaining smaller reservations. Manypenny objected, believing indi- vidual allotments were the key to the Indians’ salvation. 46. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 1853, 29–36; He hoped the tribes would be willing to forsake their reser- George Manypenny to R. McClelland, , 1853, Report Books, 1838–1885, 344–50, roll 7, M348, National Archives; George Manypenny, vations by the following spring and move to “some less ex- Our Indian Wards (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke and Co., 1880), 117–18. 47. This is the position argued by William Connelley. See, for exam- ple, Connelley, The Provisional Government of Nebraska Territory, 38; Con- nelley, A Standard and Kansans, 5 vols. (Chicago: Lewis 44. William G. Cutler and A. T. Andreas, History of the State of Kansas, Publishing Co., 1918), 1: 309–11. vol. 1 (Chicago: A. T. Andreas, 1883), 1: 626. 48. Jotham Meeker to Solomon Peck, , 1854, Jotham Meek- 45. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 128–37; Miner and Unrau, The End er Collection, Library and Archives Division, Kansas State Historical So- of Indian Kansas, 7–8. ciety.

64 KANSAS HISTORY

bined power that [was] irresistible.” Yet, confusion marred homas Johnson was pivotal in determining the this first election. The conventions at Wyandot or Kickapoo fate of Shawnee land, although he exerted little failed to clearly spell out who were qualified voters, and, in influence on the passage of the Kansas–Nebras- the words of a contemporary, the election was conducted ka bill. In January 1854 Congress began debating another “loosely” and “any and everybody were permitted to organization bill. To gain the support of Southern senators, 49 vote.” StephenT Douglas included a provision repealing the Mis- Nevertheless, Walker issued a certificate of election to souri Compromise and substituting Johnson in early November 1853. An irate Abelard Guthrie in the new territories. The bill set off a storm of protest ignored the election results and made his way to Washing- throughout the North, but Douglas steered the bill through ton as a Nebraska delegate. Adding to the confusion, a third Congress, and President signed it into law delegate from the northern portion of Nebraska Territory on May 30, 1854. For his part, Johnson aided organization 50 (west of the border) also traveled to Washington. efforts by helping extinguish Shawnee title to its reserva- The confusion in Washington reflected the strife along tion. Johnson returned to Shawnee country in late March the Iowa–Missouri border. Missouri residents were anxious 1854. He carried instructions from Commissioner Many- to grab Indian land and were angry because Manypenny penny directing Agent B. F. Robinson to assemble the did not conclude any treaties with the border tribes. Sec- Shawnees and have them appoint a delegation to accom- tional tensions, which had been building for years, became pany Robinson and an interpreter to Washington to nego- 53 more acute because the status of slavery in the proposed tiate a treaty. territory was in doubt. The emigrant tribes were equally Tribal leaders were ready, for conditions in Kansas restive. “Progressive” tribes, such as the Wyandot, wanted promoted a sense of urgency. As early as January, Robin- to integrate themselves more fully into white society; others son complained that Americans were stealing valuable wanted to sell all of their land and move to a safer area in lumber from Shawnees and encroaching upon their land. present Oklahoma. , Kickapoos, and Potawa- Tribal members met on and chose eight men to rep- tomies, among others, adamantly refused to sell any land. resent their interests in Washington. All but two, Black Bob Lastly, tribes such as the Omaha agreed to sell a portion of and Longtail, were “progressive” chiefs. Despite any dif- 51 their land and maintain a smaller reservation. ferences, all members of the delegation concurred that sell- As for Shawnees, Baptist missionary Jotham Meeker ing a portion of the tribe’s land and securing defensible ti- commented that they were “more divided among them- tles would best serve the tribe. On April 11 the Shawnees, selves than any other tribe in this region.” Shawnee bands Agent Robinson, and Thomas Johnson, acting as inter- were split into “heathen” and Christian factions. Despite preter, boarded the steamer Polar Star on their way to 54 missionary efforts over the years, the majority of the tribe Washington. still adhered to traditional beliefs. As for the Christian Commissioner Manypenny opened negotiations on groups, they were further subdivided into Quaker, Baptists, April 24. The Shawnees resisted Manypenny’s attempts to northern Methodists, and southern Methodists. Meeker have them sell all of the tribe’s land and move to a more also observed that the tribe squabbled over selling tribal distant location. Chief Joseph Parks asserted that the tribe land. When Manypenny visited the Shawnees in October, was willing to sell a portion of its land but refused to the tribe reached a majority, but by no means unanimous, move. The government, he claimed, had made solemn 52 decision to sell off a portion of its land. promises to protect Indian property from whites who were

49. “The Journals of William Walker,” reprinted in Connelley, The Provisional Government of Nebraska Territory, 386–88; Malin, The Nebraska Question, 192–96, quotation on 196. 50. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 192–96; Hadley Johnson, “How the 53. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 154–71; Malin, The Nebraska Question, Kansas–Nebraska Line Was Established,” Nebraska State Historical Soci- 288–349; George Manypenny to B. F. Robinson, March 15, 1854, Letters ety, Transactions 2 (1887), 85–87; Connelley, The Provisional Government of Sent, roll 48. Nebraska Territory, 39–41, 83–85. 54. B. F. Robinson to , January 5, 1854, Letters Re- 51. Malin, The Nebraska Question, 212–14, 223–27; Commissioner of ceived, roll 364; Ragsdale, “Dispossession of the Kansas Shawnee,” Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 1853, 30–31. 238–39; Caldwell, Annals of Shawnee Methodist Mission, 79; Weekly Missouri 52. Jotham Meeker to E. Bright, December 28, 1853, folder 17, roll Statesman (Columbia), April 28, 1854, Missouri Valley Historical Society FM100, American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. Collection, folder 47, box 2, ser. 2, Kansas City Public Library, Mo.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 65

55 “like the prairie wolves, prowling and stealing.” The ne- tion unless he stopped “intermeddling in matters so dis- 58 gotiations dragged on until a treaty finally was hammered connected and remote from the duties of a missionary.” out on May 10. The Shawnees ceded 1.4 million acres, re- Barker’s protests also disturbed Commissioner Many- taining two hundred thousand acres in the easternmost penny. Barker drafted a letter to Manypenny, claiming there portion of their reservation. was no evidence that he had fraudulently procured signa- The treaty also ensured that Johnson and the proslav- tures for the petition. He pleaded with Manypenny to con- ery Methodists dominated the Shawnee missionary field. sider his many years of missionary work and not to take 59 Johnson persuaded the chiefs to accept his overture to pay steps prejudicial to the Baptist school. Barker’s appeal fell the tribe ten thousand dollars over ten years for educating on deaf ears. Manypenny believed Barker had nothing up to seventy Shawnee children. In return, the Methodists about which to complain, asserting that, during treaty ne- received nearly two thousand acres of some of the best land gotiations, the commissioner went to great lengths to con- in Kansas (a tract that Johnson himself eventually ac- vince the Shawnees to include a for the Baptists. quired). The Shawnees also agreed to let the Quakers have Tribal members, Manypenny claimed, objected because 320 acres, as long as they maintained a school. If the school they “did not like Mr. Barker; said he was under the influ- were disbanded, the land would be sold to the highest bid- ence of those who were not their friends; that he had always der. Tribal leaders made no mention of the Baptists during kept up strife amongst them; and that they wanted him out the negotiations until Manypenny asked them to grant a of the country.” Manypenny believed that Barker was a tool 60 small parcel to that denomination. The Shawnees consent- of “designing men,” who hoped to derail the treaty. ed to set aside 160 acres for the Baptists, under the same re- Thomas Johnson likewise denounced Barker. In a mes- strictions placed upon the Quakers. Absolutely no mention sage to Secretary of the Interior Robert McClelland, Johnson was made of the northern Methodists. The southern denied allegations that the government showed favoritism Methodists, in effect, gained title to three sections of land, toward the Methodists with regard to the one-hundred- whether they operated the school or not. Their missionary thousand-dollar school fund. He also argued that the rivals, however, secured only temporary rights to much Methodists fairly compensated Shawnees for the huge land 56 smaller tracts. grant. But if the Senate desired to place the Methodists That provision further embittered the rivalry between under the same restrictions as the Baptists and Quakers, the Methodists and Baptists. In June 1854 Lewis Doherty, a Johnson added, the Methodists would not object as long as Shawnee- interpreter, dictated a petition to Francis the improvements “or their value be secured to the several Barker demanding the Shawnee school fund be equitably benevolent societies.” Johnson’s and Manypenny’s efforts distributed to all missionary groups. Barker forwarded a succeeded. On August 2 the Senate unanimously ratified letter and a copy of the petition to senator Lewis the treaty with a number of amendments, none of which 61 Cass. In his letter, Barker hinted that Johnson had bribed pertained to the mission schools. three Shawnee delegates to win their support of the school fund provision and claimed those delegates intimidated 57 other tribal members from signing Doherty’s petition. 58. B. F. Robinson to A. Cumming, , 1854, Letters Received, roll 364; Explanatory Statement from George W. Manypenny, 33d Cong., 1st Barker’s actions gained him powerful enemies. Joseph sess., 1854, S. Exec. Doc. and Rept. 25, 8. Parks charged that Barker himself wrote the petition and 59. Explanatory Statement from George W. Manypenny, 11–12; see also Francis Barker to E. Bright, , 1854, folder 7, roll FM97, Amer- then duped Doherty into gathering the signatures. Agent B. ican Baptist Foreign Mission Society. F. Robinson accused Barker of deliberately misleading the 60. The documentary evidence partially substantiates Manypenny’s claim. He did bring up the Baptist school during negotiations, but there is Shawnees, who were ignorant of the petition’s contents, no evidence that the Shawnees objected to the proposal. See “Ratified and threatened to remove him from the Shawnee reserva- Treaty”; Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, 33d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 9 (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969) 344–45, 347–48; Explanatory Statement from George W. Manypenny, 1–7; see also George Manypenny to Sam , July 17, 1854, Letters 55. “Ratified Treaty No. 268: Documents Relating to the Negotiation Sent, roll 49; Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United of the Treaty of May 10, 1854, With the Shawnee Indians,” roll 5, T494, Na- States of America, 365, 376–77. tional Archives (hereafter cited as “Ratified Treaty”). 61. Thomas Johnson to R. C. McClelland, July 14, 1854, Selected 56. Ibid. Classes of Letters Received by the Indian Division of the Office of the Sec- 57. Francis Barker to Jotham Meeker, , 1854, Meeker Collec- retary of the Interior, 1849–1880, roll 18, M825, RG 48, National Archives; tion; Barker to Lewis Cass, , 1854, Letters Received, roll 787. Ratified Indian Treaties, 1722–1869, roll 10, M668, National Archives.

66 KANSAS HISTORY ver the opportunist, Thomas Johnson quickly the subject.” Thomas Johnson and Robinson undoubtedly maneuvered to gain control of the Shawnee pressured the Shawnee Council and successfully con- school fund. Taking advantage of his presence in vinced its members to award the school fund to the 64 Washington, Johnson contacted Commissioner Manypen- Methodists. ny on August 3 and proposed a ten-year contract in which The council’s decision fanned Baptist resentment. Sev- theE Shawnee Manual Labor School would educate and eral days later Jotham Meeker contacted the mission board board up to seventy Shawnee in and angrily noted that children. For these services, the Shawnees had granted the en- Johnson requested the govern- tire school fund to the Methodists ment pay the Methodists six and “barely permit the Baptists to thousand dollars per year, a ver the oppor- teach their children.” Meeker also portion of which would defray reported how Robinson and John- the Methodists’ costs for the tunist, Thomas son told the Shawnees that Com- 62 three sections of land. Johnson quickly ma- missioner Manypenny wanted Manypenny forwarded E Francis Barker out of Indian coun- Johnson’s proposition to Secre- try. Meeker had developed a fair- tary of Interior McClelland neuvered to gain ly close working relationship with with the advice that the school control of the Johnson and visited him to dis- fund should not be divided cover what was actually said at among several denominations. Shawnee school fund the meeting. Johnson told Meeker It was better, Manypenny ob- that Barker had lied in his letters served, “that one Society by taking advantage to Manypenny and Lewis Cass. should manage [the fund], and Consequently, Manypenny, the that one efficient school will be of his presence in secretary of the interior, and the more valuable to the Indians entire Senate looked upon Bark- than two or three rival estab- Washington. er’s actions as an insult, and only lishments in the same tribe, the government’s respect for the with the funds so divided as to Baptist Church prevented any render each school to some extent inefficient and useless.” punishment against Barker. Johnson also took offense, He added that the Shawnee delegation negotiating the telling Meeker that he intended to hold Barker “responsi- treaty favored the Methodist school, a reputable institution ble for every false assertion and insinuation” made against with facilities that “excel those of any other establishment the Methodists. Compounding Barker’s difficulties, Meek- 63 in the Indian Country.” er discovered that Agent Robinson and Joseph Parks “have Before endorsing Johnson’s offer, McClelland thought joined with [Johnson] in his deadly hatred to our brother it prudent to consult the Shawnees. Consequently, Barker.” Despite their cordial relationship, Meeker disap- Manypenny instructed Agent Robinson to present the mat- proved of Johnson’s ambition. Noting Johnson’s enormous ter to the Shawnee Council and have it decide which influence with government officials, Meeker advised the school it preferred. Manypenny did not explicitly state his Boston board that “the better way would be, as soon as preference for the Methodists, but he certainly implied it when he wrote that it was “desirable that the fund should be concentrated in a single School, and Agent Robinson will so inform the council and request their judgment on 64. Robert McClelland to George Manypenny, , 1854, Let- ters Received, roll 787; Manypenny to Alfred Cumming, , 1854, Letters Sent, roll 49; B. F. Robinson to Cumming, August 22, 1854, Letters 62. Thomas Johnson to George Manypenny, August 3, 1854, Letters Received, roll 364. In November 1854 McClelland endorsed the decision Received, roll 787. of the Shawnee Council and Johnson’s contract proposal. See McClelland 63. George Manypenny to R. McClelland, , 1854, ibid; to Manypenny, , 1854, Letters Received, roll 787; Manypen- Manypenny to McClelland, August 5, 1854, Report Books, roll 8. ny to E. W. Schon, , 1854, Letters Sent, roll 50.

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 67

possible, to discontinue all labors at the Shawanoe Sta- within the council, but Johnson and Robinson abruptly cut 65 tion.” short any discussion and claimed victory without taking a Meeker’s suggestion outraged Barker. For years a cer- vote, “well knowing that there would be an overwhelming tain amount of hostility had existed between Barker, on majority against” the proposal. Jones asserted this treach- one hand, and Meeker and fellow Baptist John G. Pratt, on ery was typical of the Methodists, and the corruption was the other; Barker attributed their animosity to jealousy be- so evident the Indians had lost confidence in them. Never- cause the Shawnees enjoyed a theless, Johnson still wielded a better reputation for industrious- great deal of influence because ness and piety than did Meeker’s he had the backing of Indian De- Ottawas or Pratt’s Delaware In- partment officials. Jones alleged dians. But Meeker’s latest action or myself,” Johnson exploited that support convinced Barker more sinister to misrepresent the true wishes forces were at work. He charged John G. Pratt of the Shawnees in his “desper- that Meeker was more interested wrote, “I dislike this ate effort to get every one away in cultivating the favor of “F who has the confidence of the In- proslavery groups than in help- dians, and can give them advice, ing the Shawnees and that he, mode of proceeding, and information about what is Pratt, and Thomas Johnson were going on.” Jones foresaw dire conspiring to drive him (Barker) it gives an evil ap- consequences if Johnson suc- out of Kansas. It seemed to Bark- pearance to opera- ceeded. Not only would many er that Johnson had “extended Indian souls be lost, but proslav- his wings over Mr. Pratt and Mr. tions of a religious ery forces would gather much Meeker, all darkend as they are strength. Lastly, Jones comment- with slavery, for the purpose . . . character.” ed that Meeker and Pratt seemed of carrying his ends,” which to be “afraid to sustain Brother were the extension of slavery, the Barker.” But Jones did not impli- extraction of a large sum of money from the Shawnee na- cate them in any deceitful scheme, believing they hesitated, 66 tion, and the removal of Francis Barker. “lest they should excite the same opposition against them- 67 Others likewise believed the strife over the mission selves.” schools was symptomatic of a graver matter. Westport res- Lewis Doherty, Barker’s Shawnee interpreter, sur- ident Samuel Jones, son of a famous Baptist missionary, mised, as Barker did, that Pratt and Meeker were involved contacted the Boston missionary board at the height of the in an insidious plot with Thomas Johnson. Without Bark- controversy. Jones conveyed his that Thomas John- er’s knowledge, Doherty dictated a letter through Richard son and the southern Methodists were determined to re- Mendenhall of the Friends school to the Baptist mission move Barker and any persons who would “not use their board. Doherty noted that Meeker had sent Ottawa chil- influence to bring the Indians to favor the introduction of dren to the Methodist school for years where they were slavery in Kansas Territory.” Jones claimed Johnson and “taught to believe that slavery is right” and that Meeker Agent Robinson lied when they stated that the Shawnee and Pratt conferred frequently “in secret counsel” with Council unanimously awarded the school fund to the Johnson. He asked, “Can it be possible that this course has Methodists. There was, Jones insisted, much disagreement the sanction of the Board? Will they thus indirectly lend their support to slavery?”

65. Jotham Meeker to Solomon Peck, August 31, 1854, Meeker Col- lection. 66. Francis Barker to E. Bright, March 1, 1854, folder 7, roll FM97, American Baptist Foreign Mission Society; Barker to Bright, , 1854, ibid.; Barker to Bright, September 1854, ibid.; Barker to Bright, Sep- 67. Samuel Jones to E. Bright, , 1854, folder 11, roll tember 6, 1854, ibid. FM102, ibid.

68 KANSAS HISTORY Doherty intimated that Barker’s opposition to slavery, tive force than slavery among the tribe: white encroach- not the school fund issue, fueled his opponents’ bitterness. ment. Indeed, the flood of white settlement drowned out A key part of his enemies’ campaign to drive Barker out of any tribal discord over slavery, as tribal members banded Kansas was the controversy concerning the Shawnee peti- together to protect their homes. After the Kansas–Nebras- tion. Doherty forcefully claimed it was he who dictated the ka bill became law on May 30, 1854, Americans poured document to Barker and collected the signatures. Many across the Missouri border. Congress, however, blundered Shawnees, Doherty asserted, supported Barker and would because it organized Kansas Territory before any treaties be aggrieved to see his school abandoned. They were, Do- with the border tribes had been ratified. Technically, no herty added, “wholly unwilling to send their children to land in Kansas was legally available for settlement. But the the Methodist mission to be educated under proslavery in- lure of Indian land was too strong; settlers, speculators, 68 fluences.” and railroad agents fiercely vied with one another in a ra- Barker’s and Doherty’s condemnations of Pratt and pacious land grab. The Shawnee reservation was particu- Meeker were unwarranted. It is doubtful that the two Bap- larly tempting because it lay just across the Missouri bor- tists conspired to oust Barker; rather, they wanted to aban- der and offered fertile land and ample timber resources. By don the Baptist Shawnee mission because they were an- July Agent B. F. Robinson declared Indian country was gered by the Shawnees’ favoritism toward the “filled up with Squatters.” In the case of the Delaware 69 Methodists. Moreover, the alleged personal link between tribe, this was due, in no small part, to the military, which Johnson and the two Baptists may not have been as strong actually encouraged illegal settlement by organizing a 72 as Barker thought. As noted, Meeker criticized some of town company and laying out lots. Thomas Johnson’s actions. Pratt did likewise in a January 1855 letter to the mission board. He commented on the learly, the struggle that ensued in Kansas Terri- 73 profitable farming operations of other denominations, es- tory was, above all, a contest to control land. pecially those of “the notorious Methodist educator,” The majority of Kansas settlers, whether pro- or Thomas Johnson. “For myself,” Pratt wrote, “I dislike this antislavery, widely ignored Native American land rights. mode of proceeding, it gives an evil appearance to opera- As Commissioner Manypenny wrote, “From highest to 70 tions of a religious character.” lowestC amongst the people in Kansas, there has been one Although the extent of Pratt’s and Meeker’s associa- continued, persistent, determined effort to plunder the In- tion with Thomas Johnson is uncertain, the southern dians, and by force or fraud to deprive them of their lands. Methodists clearly emerged victorious in this denomina- Amongst all their differences the Squatters have uniform- 74 tional rivalry. By early 1855 Francis Barker abandoned the ly agreed in this.” Shawnee station, and the northern Methodists also gave up their short-lived, but hard-fought, venture. The only 71 competitor left was the unobtrusive Quakers. 72. B. F. Robinson to Alfred Cumming, July 13, 1854, Letters Re- The Methodists’ victory proved a loss for the Shawnees. ceived, roll 364; Paul Wallace Gates, Fifty Million Acres: Conflicts over Thomas Johnson’s efforts helped unleash a more destruc- Kansas Land Policy, 1854 – 1890 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1954), 1–3, 19–21; Miner and Unrau, The End of Indian Kansas, 3–4, 12–15; Anna H. Abel, “Indian Reservations in Kansas and the Extinguishment of Their Title,” Kansas Historical Collections, 1903 – 1904 8 (1904): 93; Foreman, The Last Trek of the Indians, 172; George Manypenny to R. McClelland, Sep- tember 26, 1854, Letters Received, roll 364. 73. Gates, Fifty Million Acres, was the first to critically examine the 68. Lewis Dougherty to the Board of the American Missionary primacy of the land issue in the Kansas struggle. Subsequent historians Union, September 10, 1854, folder 7, roll FM97, ibid. have incorporated Gates’s interpretation into their own accounts. See, for 69. Jotham Meeker to Solomon Peck, August 31, 1854, Meeker Col- example, Potter, The Impending Crisis, 202–3; Rawley, Race & Politics, lection; J. G. Pratt to Edward Bright, December 27, 1854, folder 2, roll 82–84, 98. FM101, American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. 74. George Manypenny to Robert McClelland, , 1856, Re- 70. J. G. Pratt to E. Bright, January 12, 1855, folder 2, roll FM101, ibid. port Books, roll 9; see also Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 71. Herald of (Lawrence), March 3, 1855; Robert C. Miller to 1855, 8. Most Bleeding Kansas accounts completely overlook how the Alfred Cumming, , 1855, Letters Received, roll 809. Most slavery contest affected Native Americans. More recent studies have filled that opponents naturally attributed Barker’s demise to his antislavery stance. gap. See Miner and Unrau, The End of Indian Kansas; Joseph B. Herring, See “Mycon to the editor,” , 1855, Herald of Freedom, February The Enduring Indians of Kansas: A Century and a Half of Acculturation 10, 1855; Sara T. L. Robinson, Kansas; Its Interior and Exterior Life, 3d ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990); Herring, “The Chippewa (Cincinnati: George S. Blanchard, 1856), 26. and Munsee Indians: Acculturation and Survival in Kansas, –1870,”

BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 69 Armed with that mentality, Americans greedily set out It is unclear how much of the correspondent’s account to dispossess the Indians. In the rush, violent clashes over is true, but he correctly discerned Johnson’s political aspi- land claims inevitably arose because of the confusing sta- rations. Johnson’s experience in Washington whetted his tus of Indian lands and because no surveys had been com- appetite, for he assumed a leading role in Kansas politics pleted. The introduction of slavery added a volatile com- and helped shape the territory’s immediate future. ponent to an already explosive situation. Unfortunately, Shortly after Andrew Reeder became territorial gover- the Indians were caught in the middle. nor, Johnson told Jotham Meeker that he indeed asked the The Shawnees could not look to Thomas Johnson for new governor to establish his executive offices at the refuge, for he was at the center of the unfolding controver- Shawnee mission. And, Johnson believed the territorial sy. As the nation’s attention focused on Kansas, his notori- legislature would also meet at the mission during the com- 76 ety and that of the Methodist school grew. Newspapers ing winter. In October Reeder arrived in Kansas and throughout the Northeast published letters excoriating eventually made his headquarters at the manual labor Johnson’s attempts to extend slavery into Kansas. A corre- school. His first move was to hold an election for a territo- spondent for the Springfield, , Daily Republi- rial delegate on . Once again, Johnson can, for example, labeled Johnson one of the “most deter- worked on behalf of the slave interests. He campaigned for mined bitter and unprincipled enemies to Freedom.” The proslavery candidate John W. Whitfield and encouraged author indicted Johnson for betraying the cause of Jesus Jotham Meeker to do his best to secure Whitfield’s elec- 77 Christ, in the same vein as Judas Iscariot, by using the tion. Whitfield won easily, but fraud tainted his victory, as Shawnee Manual Labor School to amass a “splendid for- Missourians crossed into Kansas and voted illegally to en- tune . . . in the vinyard of his Master.” Equally galling was sure his election. Sadly, this process was repeated the fol- Johnson’s use of slaves to increase his riches. Reportedly, lowing year, further polarizing the territory. one slave netted Johnson a yearly profit of one thousand By 1855 the Shawnees and Thomas Johnson took dif- dollars. In addition, the correspondent charged that John- ferent paths with regard to slavery. The tribe closed ranks son promised one slave family the opportunity to work to- and muted tribal differences in an ultimately unsuccessful ward freedom but sold them before they could do so. Last- attempt to maintain its Kansas lands. Johnson’s actions, ly, the writer disparaged Johnson’s political ambitions. He however, only served to intensify the slavery controversy. pointed to the missionary’s role in securing passage of the He was elected to Kansas’s first territorial legislature and Kansas–Nebraska bill, and also noted that Johnson invited helped secure passage of its stringent proslavery laws, a recently appointed Governor Andrew Reeder to locate his key step toward Bleeding Kansas. Prior to this episode, the offices at the manual labor school, an act that lent credence slavery issue in this region had been limited to a war of to rumors that Johnson intended “to be the real governor words. But it was an undeniably contentious issue among 75 of this territory.” whites and Indians alike. Ironically, preachers who were meant to be men of peace propelled the controversy to a more violent stage that eventually precipitated the most Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains 6 (Winter 1983–1984): 212–20; C. A. Weslager, The Delaware Indians: A History (, destructive conflict in American history. N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1972), 399–416; William E. Unrau, The Kansa Indians: A History of the Wind People, 1673 – 1873 (Norman: Universi- ty of Oklahoma Press, 1971), 164–215; Robert E. Smith, “The Final Re- moval of the Wyandot Indians,” Westport Historical Quarterly 7 (June William Phillips, The Conquest of Kansas By Missouri and Her Allies (Boston: 1972): 6–15. Phillips, Sampson and Co., 1856), 16–18; “S. H. C. to the editor,” New York 75. Springfield Daily Republican, September 20, 1854, reprinted in Daily Times, , 1856, in Indian Missions in Kansas clippings, “Annals of Shawnee Mission: Final,” 250–54, folder 5, box 4, Historic In- 1:153, Library and Archives Division, Kansas State Historical Society. dians Collection, Library and Archives Division, Kansas State Historical 76. Jotham Meeker to Solomon Peck, August 31, 1854, Meeker Col- Society. Similar letters are reprinted in ibid., 241–59 passim; see also D. W. lection; see also Thomas Johnson to Meeker, November 2, 1854, ibid. Wilder, Annals of Kansas (Topeka: Kansas Publishing House, 1886), 43; 77. Thomas Johnson to Jotham Meeker, , 1854, ibid.

70 KANSAS HISTORY BEFORE BLEEDING KANSAS 71