Still the Arena of Civil War: Violence and Turmoil in Reconstruction Texas, 1865-1874

Chapter 1: The Post of Greatest Peril?: The Freedmen’s Bureau Subassistant Commissioners and Reconstruction Violence in Texas, 1865–1869

36 CHAPTER 1 The Post of Greatest Peril?: The Freedmen’s Bureau Subassistant Commissioners and Reconstruction Violence in Texas, 1865–1869 by Christopher Bean F ollowing the Civil War, federal authorities often described Texas as a bastion of unconquered former Confederates and violenceprone frontiersmen. Many northerners viewed Texas as an unpleasant place—in many cases, a deadly one, especially for Unionists and freedmen who either worked for or supported the federal government and the Republican Party. During the early postwar years, white Texans were particularly concerned about subassistant commissioners (SAC) of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (more commonly referred to as the Freedmen’s Bureau), a select group of men who were entrusted to oversee the former slaves’ transition from bondage to freedom and who proved a biting reminder of the South’s recent defeat. Even the commissioner of the Bureau, Oliver Otis Howard, wrote in his autobiography that Texas was “the post of greatest peril.” Given that contemporaries viewed Texas in such negative terms, it is not surprising that scholars examining the Reconstruction era have emphasized the role that violence played in obstructing the Bureau’s activities in the state. In fact, during the last fifty years within academia, violence against members of the Freedmen’s Bureau has become a self-evident truth, something all Bureau men experienced in the performance of their duties. However, scholars have failed to produce a comprehensive study of the violence waged against Bureau men in the Lone Star State. As such, this essay will examine the frequency and intensity of violent acts perpetrated against SACs in Texas as described by the Bureau agents themselves.1 Although the Bureau entered the state in September 1865, major resistance to the organization and its agents did not occur until the spring The Post of Greatest Peril? 37 and summer of 1866. As they recovered from the shock of defeat, white Texans “awakened” with a clearer idea about what the Radical Republicans wanted to achieve with their Reconstruction agenda. Compared with this agenda, which most white Texans found unacceptable, President Andrew Johnson’s plan for Reconstruction was more acceptable, if not more lenient, one that allowed them to retain control of their states with little control and interference from the national government. Once the newly elected state legislature “met” benchmarks set down by Johnson, and he declared Reconstruction complete, white Texans quickly moved to reassert greater autonomy over their own affairs. The recently elected governor, James W. Throckmorton, a prewar Unionist but a man imbued with racial beliefs similar to those of the most ardent fire-eating Democrat, was a fierce opponent of federal intervention in state matters. The governor resented the Freedmen’s Bureau, which he sarcastically called “one of the grand Institutions of the country.” Throckmorton announced that he would not “countenance any wrong or outrage” arising from the Bureau’s activities, which included any actions taken by agents other than caring for black indigents. His belligerent stance not only caused conflict between ex-Confederates and Illustration 2. The Freedmen’s Bureau byAlfred Rudolph Waud. Illustration first appeared in Harper’s Weekly, July 25, 1868. (Courtesy of Library of Congress) 38 Christopher Bean Bureau men, but also emboldened some local officials to resist all federal authority.2 Although superiors reminded subordinates that “you must not pay any attention to any action” from the local officials, these words were of little consolation to those in the field. When written appeals for redress—both to state executives and Bureau officials—proved ineffective, local officials resorted to more forceful maneuvers, i.e., attempted arrest and detainment of SACs. Crockett officials indicted Stanton Weaver for interfering with a freedman’s arrest, while the Harris County sheriff issued an arrest warrant for Bryon Porter. Backed by the local post commander, however, Porter ignored the writ. Jacob C. DeGress also feared arrest if not for the local garrison’s presence. A simple “reminder” that an agent’s power rested in federal authority defused the situation, but on rare occasions that reminder had to come armed with bayonets.3 Conflict between SACs and civil officials often arose when state officials refused to abide by state or federal law, such as providing aid to refugees and the poor in their counties regardless of color. In a few instances, however, disputes arose due to the actions of belligerent or obtuse SACs. The cases of William Longworth and Samuel A...