Missouri after the war

[1903sprfld]

I have been reading about the Guerilla war in Missouri. I wonder what it was like right after the war. After all of the murders and burnings I just can't see these people both confederate Guerrilla and Union Milita going back to their farms and homes like nothing happened.

 

[damYankee]

Add Kansas to the question, both states experienced violence for years after the war, but there was also a transition that took place, many who just wanted to leave the past behind, migrated west, one of the largest migrations west took place between 1866 and 1890.
There were also many bad hombres operating in Missouri and Kansas who were veterans of the war. My step grandfather was born @ 1881 in a soddy near Stockton, Kansas, life was extremely hard, men had to do what ever they could to support families.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Right. There were hard feelings on both sides for many people for a long, long time.

President Harry Truman had a famously pro-Confederate mother who was rumored to have refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom when she visited the White House. The family says that wasn't true but it makes a great story!I

Joking aside, there were those who were able to move past the war's horrors and those who took pride in passing a grudge on to the next generation.

 

[damYankee]

I have been researching the war in Missouri since the OP was posted, it's a part of the war I have long intended to study as some of my ancestors had moved into both Kansas and Missouri during the 1850s.
The Missouri Compromise set in motion one of the most violent sagas this nation has witnessed, there is no doubt in my mind the war was already being fought, even before Lincoln threw his hat in the ring.
But as the OP asked, what about the years following the war?
Reconstruction brought about much discord as the issue of slavery had. To understand why Missouri and Kansas suffered so much violence before and after the war, one must look at the 'Compromise" which set in motion a mass influx of pro slavery and anti slavery radicals into Missouri. Pro slavery supporters from bordering southern states, as well as abolitionist from bordering northern states (I know this is a generalization) rushed into Missouri to establish residency so as to be able to vote in favor of their cause.
For the people already living in these areas it must have been both a boon and a curse, property values must have gone up, allowing struggling homesteaders an opportunity to sell out and head west, many did just that. Those who stayed behind were caught in a political crossfire where a misspoken word could easily be your end.
IMO this is why Missouri and Kansas saw such violence.
I found this excellent reference to the Reconstruction era and wanted to get our discussion reignited on the right course,

https://ozarkscivilwar.org/themes/reconstruction
After four long grueling years of bitter conflict, Missourians were weary, and looking forward to new leadership and a peaceful future. Radicals swept the state election, and on January 2, 1865, Thomas C. Fletcher took his inaugural oath as Governor. With a host of serious economic and social issues facing the state, the Radicals won control of the house with promises of peace, progress, and tranquility. Governor Fletcher sought to unite the Twenty-third General Assembly with the message that now was the time for all to work together for the betterment of the state.

On January 11, 1865, the Missouri state convention, meeting in St. Louis, passed an emancipation ordinance immediately freeing all slaves in Missouri. With only four abstaining votes it became clear that Missouri had entered into a new era. Governor Fletcher proclaimed this as the first of many steps towards "radical policy" that would characterize the new Missouri. Charles D. Drake, a member of the Radical Party and spearhead of the emancipation ordinance, quickly became one of the most powerful figures at the St. Louis convention.

Drake proposed an "iron-clad oath" be added to the new state constitution. The oath required individuals to attest to his/her innocence of eighty-six acts of disloyalty against the state of Missouri and the Union. These acts ranged from providing money, goods, or intelligence to the enemy; to taking up arms; participating in guerrilla warfare, aiding or abetting guerrillas. Even expressing general sympathy for the South, or specific individuals that fought for the Southern cause, would be seen as acts of disloyalty. Failing to take this oath would prevent one from voting, holding a public office, and from holding professional licenses such as lawyers, teachers, clergy, and other influential positions.

Reaction to the Iron-Clad oath and opposition to Negro suffrage contributed to the return of the violence in the region. Both Missouri and Arkansas saw the emergence of guerrilla violence in the post-war years. Jesse James became the face of post-war violence. He and his gang robbed the Clay County Savings Association in Liberty, Missouri in broad daylight on February 13, 1866. They killed a young man in the street before their escaping with over $60,000. These bold acts shocked the public, as many civilians hoped to place the years of violence and depredation behind them.

While Governor Claiborne Jackson and the legally elected state representatives voted to secede from the Union in October of 1861. The United States Government did not acknowledge their authority. A provisional government, led by Hamilton Gamble, was given control of the state government. Thus, Missouri did not experience Congressional Reconstruction, since it did not officially secede from the Union. Instead Missouri's, post-war years were spent alienating those with ties to the Confederacy, bickering between Radicals and Conservatives, and filing claims of retribution for depredation caused during the War. With the return of manpower and relative safety of the region, construction on the railroad renewed in 1866. By 1870, it had reached Springfield, Missouri, brining new economic wealth and opportunities to the Ozarks.

Browse all collections in Reconstruction

 

[damYankee]

Letter Collections in the Reconstruction Category

Community and Conflict » Reconstruction

ozarkscivilwar.org

 

[damYankee]

A CONFEDERATE GIRLHOOD

A Confederate Girlhood, the memoir of Louisa Cheairs McKenny Sheppard, reflects upon the life of a young lady raised in the Ozarks during the Civil War. While her reminiscence is decidedly sentimental, it is a compelling representation of wartime and economic struggles and refugee life. Louisa wrote the memoir many years after the events took place. Researchers are reminded that the validity of the events recorded, as with any memoir, may be embellished and should be thoroughly researched.

Louisa Cheairs McKenny Sheppard, "Lou" or "Lulu," was the fourth child of Talitha and E.D. McKenny. Talitha died during Louisa's birth in 1848, and she was raised by her grandmother Louisa "Lucy" Terrell Cheairs. Lulu was twelve when the War began, and she recalled impact it had on Springfield and her family. Eventually, they were forced to flee Springfield, and her family left for uncle's plantation in Mississippi. Over time the family moved to Arkansas, and did not return to Springfield until after the War. A Confederate Girlhood is a recollection of Louisa's youthful adventures and a tribute to her beloved grandmother. https://ozarkscivilwar.org/archives/1121

 

[John Winn]

T.J. Stile's book on Jesse James (Last Rebel of the Civil War) has a lot of information about Missouri after the war. I've also often contemplated what it must have been like as so many moved here from Missouri. We've even got a valley close by named Missouri Flats for that reason.

 

[Nebraska Lawdog]

Former resident of Independence, MO here.
I remember talking with older neighbors when I was in my 20s,
they related stories told to them by their parents and grandparents.
There were still a lot of hard feelings toward Kansans stemming from the war.

 

[archieclement]

The republicans tryed to disenfranise Democrats through the Drake Constitution, it was so bad parts of a constitution were found unconstitutional. So it was overturned, Democrats regained control and things returned rather rapidly to rather normal.

Animosity and distrust may have lingered, but the violence waned in the majority of the state.

 

[Patrick H]

I have been reading about the Guerilla war in Missouri. I wonder what it was like right after the war. After all of the murders and burnings I just can't see these people both confederate Guerrilla and Union Milita going back to their farms and homes like nothing happened.

I doubt that anyone went back to their homes and farms like nothing happened. Yet, many DID go home, and did do their best to live in peace. Some were not able to fit back in. Some managed to resume a normal life only after a period of struggle. A few were able to capitalize on all the social upheaval for their own personal gain. In his post #9, @archieclement mentions the Drake Constitution. I recommend you do some reading about it. I'll provide a link to a very brief overview of the constitution, but you'll find more if you look. http://www.civilwarmo.org/educators/resources/info-sheets/constitution-1865-drake-constitution Life in Missouri was tough for many civilians during and after the war. It was particularly tough for people who had southern leanings, or who had actually served in the Confederate military. Gradually, things got better for most.

 

[Patrick H]

In my post #10, I mentioned people adjusting with various degrees of success or failure. John McCorckle was a Quantrill man who seems to have successfully resumed life. You can read his memoir titled "Three Years With Quantrill." He dictated it in advanced old age, so he makes errors in some of his timelines, but his memoir is fascinating. I would say Frank James and Cole Younger are examples of Quantrill men who assimilated only with great difficulty. Everyone knows Frank was an outlaw for some years, but he tired of the life and surrendered to Missouri's Governor Crittenden on the condition he would not be extradited to any state. He was not afraid to stand trial in Missouri, and so far as I know was never convicted of anything. He became something of a celebrity in Missouri. Cole, on the other hand, was captured after a robbery and served 25 years in the Minnesota prison. Now THAT would be a difficult assimilation! But he did return to a lawful life and actually formed a Wild West Show in which Frank was sort of an attraction. Frank's brother Jesse had a great flair for self-promotion (aided by John Newman Edwards) and tried to promote himself as a sort of Robin Hood of the west. Don't believe it! T.J. Stiles's book about him has already been referenced by John Winn in post #7. It's a good, well researched book. I recommend it, too.

 

[Patrick H]

The Missouri Compromise set in motion one of the most violent sagas this nation has witnessed, there is no doubt in my mind the war was already being fought, even before Lincoln threw his hat in the ring.

The Missouri Compromise actually allowed for Missouri to be admitted to the union as a slave state, and for Maine to be admitted as a free state. Immigration came into play in Kansas with the Kansas / Nebraska act, which said those states could determine by vote whether they would be free or slave, upon admission to the union. Many settlers from Missouri (including some with slaves) were already living in Kansas. The Immigrant Aid Society in Massachusetts recruited many, many people to move to Kansas on the condition they would vote "free state" when the time came. Missouri border ruffians did their best to flood Missouri settlers to Kansas and to rig elections in Kansas. The period known as "Bloody Kansas" happened as a result.

 

[damYankee]

You are technically correct, but Missouri was a divided state even before the Kansas/Nebraska Act. But also technically, every slave owner in Missouri were immigrants, homesteaders, squatters or land speculators, who immigrated after the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
I am curious if slavery was ever profitable in Missouri? As profitable as in the deep south?

 

[archieclement]

You are technically correct, but Missouri was a divided state even before the Kansas/Nebraska Act. But also technically, every slave owner in Missouri were immigrants, homesteaders, squatters or land speculators, who immigrated after the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
I am curious if slavery was ever profitable in Missouri? As profitable as in the deep south?

Incorrect as slavery was here before the Louisiana purchase. The first known slaves in Missouri goes back to 1720 when 500 were brought in to work lead mines. Slaveowners didn't have to immigrate here, as some were already here.

 

[damYankee]

Incorrect as slavery was here before the Louisiana purchase. The first known slaves in Missouri goes back to 1720 when 500 were brought in to work lead mines. Slaveowners didn't have to immigrate here, as some were already here.

I found a good source of info on the topic,

Missouri's Slave System and its Collapse during the Civil War , and according to the article,

Missouri instead emerged as a magnet for small-scale slaveholders, who were interested in practicing the diversified agriculture found in their original homes in the Upper South. The small number of slaves living on most Missouri slaveholdings altered the nature of the relationship between slaves and owners, as well as the family and community lives of enslaved people, but in the end these differences did not result in a more humane form of slavery. In fact, slavery in western Missouri was often just as brutal as elsewhere in the South. In the end, however, the many contradictions and tensions inherent in the small-scale system of slavery practiced in Missouri resulted in the institution's rapid collapse during the violent years of the Civil War. https://www.kclibrary.org/sites/def...tem_and_Its_Collapse_During_the_Civil_War.pdf

 

[archieclement]

I found a good source of info on the topic,

Missouri's Slave System and its Collapse during the Civil War , and according to the article,

It really offers little as it ignored slavery was here over 80 years under the French before the Louisiana purchase.

But certainly people already living here at the time of purchase, didn't immigrate here, as they were already here.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I have been reading about the Guerilla war in Missouri. I wonder what it was like right after the war. After all of the murders and burnings I just can't see these people both confederate Guerrilla and Union Milita going back to their farms and homes like nothing happened.

At the end of the war, and in the period shortly afterwards, most of the remaining guerrillas in Missouri either resumed peaceful pursuits or left the State. A few, however, became roaming outlaws. Imagine that after four years of waging guerrilla warfare, returning to farming or their homes (even if it were indeed possible), would have been an unattractive proposition for these young men. Apparently between 1865 and 1870, there was still a lot of lawlessness and violence occurring, involving former Confederate regulars or irregulars, in central and western Missouri.

Think that many of the surviving ex-guerrillas would have maintained defiant attitudes for many years after the war.

 

[damYankee]

Incorrect as slavery was here before the Louisiana purchase. The first known slaves in Missouri goes back to 1720 when 500 were brought in to work lead mines. Slaveowners didn't have to immigrate here, as some were already here.

Of course, slavery was there before the Louisiana Purchase. That has little to do with the topic.

 

[archieclement]

Yes, saying slaveowners immigrated here, when slavery was already here was rather irrelevant, and also false. I didn't introduce the claim, simply corrected it.

Also if your interested in slavery in Missouri I can suggest some far more in depth works then a term paper, Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri's Little Dixie is a rather good one, just the bibliography of sources used is more extensive then a 3 page essay.....Slavery in Missouri while older, is also a far more in depth examination.

 

[Booner]

You are technically correct, but Missouri was a divided state even before the Kansas/Nebraska Act. But also technically, every slave owner in Missouri were immigrants, homesteaders, squatters or land speculators, who immigrated after the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
I am curious if slavery was ever profitable in Missouri? As profitable as in the deep south?

I'm confused by your statement the Missouri was a "divided" state and then the "technical" statement too.

I get the feeling that you're mixing up the Missouri Compromise with the KS-NB act/"Bleeding Kansas."

The original American settlers to Mo were 30 or so families from Ky, led by Daniel Boone in 1790, when Spain controlled the Louisiana Territory, which included Mo., (for want of a better term, France leased the territory to Spain so they wouldn't have to surrender it to Gr. Britian due to their loss in the French & Indian War aka & Years' War to Gr. Britian). These families brought their slaves with them.

After the La. Purchase, it was the area of central Mo, along the Mo. River that had the greatest influx of settlers, and until the mid 1820's they were primarily from Ky, Tn, & Va, and the brought their slaves with them. This is why this are of Mo is known as "Little Dixie," and as one would expect with a nick name like that, the little dixie area of Mo. had the greatest concentration of slaves. The biggest cash crops in this area of the state were tobacco and hemp, thus the need for slaves. After the mid 1820's, a broader spectrum of immigrants came to the state, both from the U.S. and abroad. Of course, Mo was admitted to the Union as a slave state, and these immigrants may not have cared for slavery, but they accepted it by moving to the state. There wasn't a strong abolitionist movement here.

slave profitability-
If you look at some slave of the prices for slaves just before the war, their prices were some of the highest in the country.
While there were some large plantation style holdings, the average slaveholding was very small, with the master and slave working side by side in the fields. The general practice of purchasing slaves was a farmer buying a female slave to help with the housework; then a slave(s) to help with farm work, and finally (and I can't tell you how ugly this practice was), to buy an infant slave as an investment. They were very inexpensive as an infant, and as soon as they were old enough to work in the field, they were worth several hundred dollars.

The major cash crops were tobacco and hemp in central Mo, and cotton in the southern portion of the state along the Miss. River.
All of these crops ended up in New Orleans, the hemp was turned into rope and used to tie cotton bales. So, Mo had strong economic ties to the South.