Chapters

Introduction
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Seeds of Discontent
The 12th Confederate State
Missouri’s Provisional Union Government
Post War Politics

After four long grueling years of bitter conflict, Missourians were weary, and looking forward to new leadership and a peaceful future. The 1864 political ballots listed two names for Governor. Thomas L. Price, who although commissioned as a general in the militia, did not have an impressive service record, nor was he believed to have played an active role in the defense of the state. Thomas C. Fletcher, on the other hand, had a very impressive service record, and as a Colonel, was actively engaged in the War. In fact, Fletcher did not extensively campaign for the election because he was still on active duty in the summer of 1864, and Sterling Price’s Missouri Campaign. The Radicals, being staunch Unionists, proudly promoted Fletcher’s military record in the political campaign using it to their full advantage.

The Conservatives retained control of the state throughout the War; however, post-war Missouri was the beginning of a new era, one in need of healing and rebuilding, and in dire need of progression. Missourians were ready for a new direction, and the Radicals appeared to be the answer.

The 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,

Being victorious everywhere, let magnanimity now distinguish our action; and; having nothing more to ask for party, let us, forgetful of past differences, seek only to promote the general good of the people of the whole commonwealth.1

However, Fletcher’s vision for unity would never fully transpire. The Radical party had many progressive ideas, but underneath lay deeply rooted vindictive desires to punish anyone linked to the Confederacy. Although the Radical party consisted of devout Unionists, they quickly found themselves facing fierce debates and opposition on their ideas for disenfranchisement, reframing and rewriting of the state constitution, emancipation, Negro suffrage, and other key issues. Constant feuding within the Radical party left some members alienated; thus weakening the party’s strength and ability to accomplish their goals and objectives.

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 entered into a new era. Governor Fletcher proclaimed this as the first of many steps towards “radical policy” that would characterize the new Missouri.2 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, as he filled the political void left by the death of Governor Hamilton R. Gamble. Drake’s political power and often over-bearing influence, however, soon had the delegates at odds with one another.

Drake, a St. Louis attorney, and former law student under Governor Gamble, was known for having an evolving political agenda. Drake had been a Whig, a Know-Nothing, and a Democrat. He was also a supporter of Stephen A Douglas and Claiborne Jackson in 1860. Before the Civil War, Drake strongly supported slavery, however, by 1862, he concluded that the entire conflict was a result of slavery, and therefore, no longer wanted any part of it in his state. In 1863, Drake emerged as a leader in the Radical Union party. However, as a result of his wavering political views, many saw Drake as an untrustworthy opportunist, willing to change his beliefs in order to achieve political power.

Beyond emancipation, the St. Louis convention faced the central issue of disfranchisement of anyone with questionable loyalties to the Union. Delegates explored creation of additional constitutional amendments to enforce these disfranchisement policies. Drake argued for the abandonment of new amendments, and urged the convention to draft an entirely new state constitution. Drake’s proposal quickly met opposition from both those within and outside the convention.

While delegates agreed it was important for the Radicals to strive towards progress, many feared Drake’s motivation. Drake’s arrogant and forceful personality, paired with his wavering politics, caused further strife among the delegates, particularly among the German delegates, who generally distrusted him. The Germans still remembered Drake’s anti-abolitionist days, and were skeptical of Drake’s motives for opposing suffrage for aliens. Drake called for an alteration of voting districts to single-member districts in counties entitled to multiple representatives, which specifically impacted the German communities. Drake’s proposition to tax and restricts Churches, as well as their assets and holdings were interpreted as “anti-Catholic” and attempts to limit religious freedom by the German community. However, despite opposition from the Germans, moderates and conservatives, Drake’s political power pushed forward his agendas.

The disfranchisement of the “rebel” presence from the state became a major undertaking at the state 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 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. Opponents of the harsh oath, dubbed it the “Code of Draco”, based on Dracon, a man from Greece in the seventh century B.C., who also enacted harsh laws upon Greek society. Moderates and Conservatives adamantly opposed the oath and believed that the same oath of allegiance from the Civil War would be sufficient.

The tight economic situation combined with the pressures from the political unrest, the Radicals’ new constitution and Iron-Clad oath, as well as opposition to Negro suffrage may have contributed to the return of the violence. At the same time, attorneys busily filed civil actions on behalf of citizens that were victims of depredations and wrongful death lawsuits caused by bushwhackers and soldiers. County courts called up Grand Juries, indicting men of war time crimes, even though President Johnson had previously issued under his amnesty terms. Angry sentiments ran high, especially among the loyal union citizens that had suffered at the hands of their Southern neighbors throughout the war years. Many veterans were once again forced be on the offensive against bushwhackers, and many took up arms for their own protection.

By 1866, Missouri experienced a full reoccurrence of violence. Bushwhackers once again started up their menacing activities, wrecking havoc and terror among citizens, stealing, killing, and attacking citizens. Jesse James and his gang robbed the Clay County Savings Association in Liberty, Missouri in broad daylight on February 13, 1866, killing a young man in the street before escaping with over $60,000. The return of violence caused many to question the stability of the region and possibly deterred war refugees from returning home.

In 1865, Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau in an effort to help the refugee whites and freed slaves with their readjustments. Task performed by bureau agents consisted of providing clothing and food rations for families during the winter; assisting African Americans in finding work with local farmers and helping with contract negotiations. They assisted former slaves legalize their marriages if they had not had legal weddings while in slavery; and creating schools for African-Americans.

The Radicals strongly supported and urged the establishment of education for African-Americans. In Springfield, Missouri, Miss Emeline Howard and Miss Letitia Townsend enrolled one hundred and fifty African-American students in 1870. By 1870, the number of African-American schools had doubled across the state, and over nine thousand African-American students were attending classes. Out of 42,000 black children statewide, census records indicted that 21% were attending school. By 1875, there was a well established African-American education system in Missouri.

Negro suffrage continued to be an important issue and movement in Missouri politics in the proceeding years. Radicals continued to support and push for additional legislation, and hoped their efforts would ensure the African American vote for the party. The Democrats, however, strongly opposed any Negro suffrage amendment, claiming African Americans were not experienced nor qualified enough to vote since they had just been released from slavery.

In 1867, Carl Schurz arrived on the political scene in St. Louis, and rapidly progressed in power and office. Schurz, an attorney and leader of German Americans in Wisconsin, established himself as a prominent figure within the Republican Party. During the Civil War, Schurz was a brigadier general of volunteers and rallied the Germans to the Union cause. He was actively involved with Radical groups and frequently traveled and lectured. Schurz recognized Missouri’s strong Radical ties, but realized the state would need to move in a more liberal direction to progress.
Campaigning for the Republican Party, Schurz promoted congressional reconstruction, and the importance of Negro suffrage. Schurz became the first German-born American elected to the U.S. senate, and served from March 4, 1869 to March 3, 1875. Upon his election, he continued working toward his party’s goals of obtaining Negro suffrage and extending a peaceful hand to the disenfranchised whites.

Let us make them understand that they have only to do full justice to all the friends of the Union, and they may count upon full mercy to themselves; that they have only to come to us as men sincerely loyal to the new order of things and we shall meet them with the open hand of welcome.3

Ironically, Schurz’s campaign on “reconciliation,” as two years later the Radical party split. Their continual falter gave way to the emergence of Liberal Republicans in Missouri.

On February 26, 1869, Congress approved the 15th Amendment. Radicals in Missouri immediately rushed through a resolution for ratification and passed it on to Governor Joseph Washington McClug for signing. Negro suffrage had finally been achieved in Missouri.

Browse all collections in Politics & Government

1. William E. Parrish, A History of Missouri, vol. III 1860 to 1875. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973), 115.
2. Parrish, 116.
3. William E. Parrish, Missouri Under Radical Rule 1865-1870. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1965), 267.