A STRANGER AMONGST STRANGERS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU SUBASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS IN TEXAS, 1865-1868 Christopher B. Bean, B.A., M.S. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2008 APPROVED: Richard G. Lowe, Major Professor Randolph B. Campbell, Committee Member Richard B. McCaslin, Committee Member Melodie Kelly, Committee Member Arian R. Lewis, Committee Member and Chair of the Department of History Sandra L. Terrell, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Bean, Christopher B. A Stranger Amongst Strangers: An Analysis of the Freedmen’s Bureau Subassistant Commissioners in Texas, 1865-1868. Doctor of Philosophy (History), August 2008, 476 pp., 5 maps, bibliography, 372 titles. This dissertation is a study of the subassistant commissioners of the Freedmen’s Bureau in Texas from late 1865 to late 1868. Its focus is two-fold. It first examines who these men were. Were they northern born or southern? Did they own slaves? Were these men rich, poor, or from the middle-class? Did they have military experience or were they civilians? How old was the average subassistant commissioner in Texas? This work will answer what man Freedmen’s Bureau officials deemed qualified to transition the former slave from bondage to freedom. Secondly, in conjunction with these questions, this work will examine the day-to-day operations of the Bureau agents in Texas, chronicling those aspects endemic to all agents as well as those unique to certain subdistricts. The demand of being a Bureau agent was immense, requiring long hours in the office fielding questions and long hours in the saddle inspecting subdistricts. In essence, their work advising, protecting, and educating the freedmen was a never ending one. The records of the Freedmen’s Bureau, both the records for headquarters and the subassistant commissioners, serve as the main sources, but numerous newspapers, Texas state official correspondences, and military records proved helpful. Immense amounts of information arrived at Bureau headquarters from field personnel. This work relies heavily on reports and letters in the Bureau agents’ own words. This dissertation follows a chronological approach, following the various Bureau administrations in Texas. I believe this approach allows the reader to better glimpse events as they happened. Copyright 2008 by Christopher B. Bean ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MAPS............................................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Chapters 1. “A STRANGER AMONGST STRANGERS”: WHO WERE THE SUBASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS? ..............................................................10 2. “THE POST OF GREATEST PERIL”: THE E. M. GREGORY ERA, SEPTEMBER 1865-APRIL 1866..........................................................................48 3. CONSERVATIVE PHOENIX: THE J. B. KIDDOO ERA, MAY 1866- SUMMER 1866 .....................................................................................................97 4. BUREAU EXPANSION, BUREAU COURTS, AND THE BLACK CODE: THE J. B. KIDDOO ERA, SUMMER 1866-NOVMEBER 1866 ...............................146 5. THE BUREAU’S HIGHWATER MARK: THE J. B. KIDDOO ERA, NOVMEBER 1866-JANUARY 1867 .................................................................203 6. “THEY MUST VOTE WITH THE PARTY THAT SHED THEIR BLOOD . IN GIVING THEM LIBERTY”: BUREAU AGENTS, POLITICS, AND THE BUREAU’S NEW ORDER: THE CHARLES GRIFFIN ERA, JANUARY 1867- SUMMER 1867 ...................................................................................................262 7. VIOLENCE, FRUSTRATION, AND YELLOW FEVER: THE CHARLES GRIFFIN ERA, SUMMER 1867.........................................................................313 8. GENERAL ORDERS NO. 40 AND THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU’S END: THE J. J. REYNOLDS ERA, SEPTEMBER 1867-DECEMBER 1868 .............360 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................410 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................451 iii Texas Counties in 1860 1. Hardeman 56. Navarro 111. Colorado 2. Wilbarger 57. Anderson 112. Austin 3. Wichita 58. Cherokee 113. Harris 4. Clay 59. Nacogdoches 114. Liberty 5. Montague 60. Concho 115. Jefferson 6. Cooke 61. McCulloch 116. Orange 7. Grayson 62. San Saba 117. Val Verde 8. Fannin 63. Lampasas 118. Kinney 9. Lamar 64. Hamilton 119. Uvalde 10. Red River 65. Coryell 120. Medina 11. Bowie 66. McLennan 121. Atascosa 12. Knox 67. Limestone 122. Karnes 13. Baylor 68. Freestone 123. DeWitt 14. Archer 69. Menard 124. Lavaca 15. Haskell 70. Mason 125. Wharton 16. Throckmorton 71. Llano 126. Fort Bend 17. Young 72. Burnet 127. Galveston 18. Jack 73. Williamson 128. Chambers 19. Wise 74. Bell 129. Maverick 20. Denton 75. Falls 130. Zavala 21. Collin 76. Robertson 131. Frio 22. Hunt 77. Leon 132. Dimmit 23. Hopkins 78. Houston 133. La Salle 24. Titus 79. Angelina 134. McMullen 25. Davis 80. San Augustine 135. Live Oak 26. Jones 81. Sabine 136. Bee 27. Shackelford 82. Kimball 137. Goliad 28. Stephens 83. Gillespie 138. Victoria 29. Palo Pinto 84. Blanco 139. Jackson 30. Parker 85. Hays 140. Matagorda 31. Tarrant 86. Travis 141. Brazoria 32. Dallas 87. Milam 142. Webb 33. Kaufman 88. Burleson 143. Encinal 34. Van Zandt 89. Brazos 144. Duval 35. Wood 90. Madison 145. Nueces 36. Upshur 91. Walker 146. San Patricio 37. Marion 92. Trinity 147. Refugio 38. Harrison 93. Tyler 148. Calhoun 39. Taylor 94. Jasper 149. Zapata 40. Callahan 95. Newton 150. Starr 41. Eastland 96. Edwards 151. Hidalgo 42. Erath 97. Kerr 152. Cameron 43. Johnson 98. Comal 44. Ellis 99. Caldwell 45. Henderson 100. Bastrop 46. Smith 101. Washington 47. Rusk 102. Grimes 48. Panola 103. Montgomery 49.Shelby 104. Polk 50. Runnels 105. Hardin 51. Coleman 106. Bandera 52. Brown 107. Bexar 53. Comanche 108. Guadalupe 54. Bosque 109. Gonzales 55. Hill 110. Fayette iv v vi J. B. Kiddoo’s Subdistricts, September 1866 1. Marshall, Harrison Co. 18. Leona, Leon Co. 2. Austin, Travis Co. 19. Sulphur, Springs Wilson Co. 3. Galveston, Galveston Co. 20. Wharton, Wharton Co. 4. Crockett, Houston Co. 21. Marlin, Falls Co. 5. Houston, Harris Co. 22. Meridian, Bosque Co. 6. Sherman, Grayson Co. 23. Livingston, Polk Co. 7. Bastrop, Bastrop Co. 24. Liberty, Liberty Co. 8. Millican, Brazos Co. 9. Victoria, Victoria Co. 10. San Antonio, Bexar Co. 11. Courtney, Grimes Co. 12. Brenham, Wash. Co. 13. Matagorda, Matagorda Co. 14. Houston, Harris Co. 15. Richmond, Fort Bend Co. 16. Seguin, Guadalupe Co. 17. Marshall, Harrison Co. vii viii Charles Griffin’s Subdistricts, July 1867 ix J. J. Reynolds’ Subdistricts, November 1867* (*According to Bureau Records, Subdistrict 51 did not exist in November, 1867.) x INTRODUCTION Few eras in American history have had a more profound and lasting imprint on this country as the decade or so that followed the Civil War. Reconstruction, as this period is called, was an attempt to wipe away the vestiges of slavery and to reintegrate the former Confederate states into their normal places in the Union. The North’s version of republicanism and democracy shaped its efforts to rebuild the region. Although this effort targeted white southerners in some ways, it primarily focused on the nearly four million freed slaves. The freedmen, as they came to be called, were to carry on the principles of the Republican party and unionism. By infusing the ideals of “free men, free soil, and free labor” into the former Confederate states, northern Republicans hoped the South would be shaped in the image of the victorious Union states. With this infusion, it was hoped, the foundation for a southern Republican party could be laid and all remnants of the old order erased. Central to this restructuring was an organization created with much hope and optimism on March 3, 1865. The first federal social-welfare organization in the United States, the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, which functioned under the auspices of the War Department, operated in all the former Confederate states and former slave states and had what most historians see as a multipurpose task: easing the transition of the freedmen from servitude to freedom; implanting republican ideals of democracy and free labor in the ashes of the “peculiar institution,” and preventing any further attempts to break up the Union. Legislators wrestled with exactly how to arrange and empower the Freedmen’s Bureau (or the Bureau, which contemporaries commonly called it). Congressmen James Brooks of New York and William D. Kelley from Pennsylvania worried that this organization might create a permanent dependent class and new system of vassalage. A leading Republican senator, Henry 1 Wilson of Massachusetts, was concerned the agency might disrupt the balance between the federal government and the states. Senator Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania saw the Freedmen’s Bureau as a tool to influence and control black votes, while Senator Lazarus Whitehead Powell of Kentucky likened Bureau agents to “overseers” and “negro drivers,” and noted how this agency might “reenslave” and control the freedpeople. Still others, including William Henry Wadsworth of Kentucky, doubted the constitutionality of such an organization, and Samuel Clarke Pomeroy,