John McCulla: A name better forgotten?

The approximate location of McCulla's farm is shown in red
From Library of Congress

John McCulla (or McCullough) was a central figure in efforts to reconstruct Chesterfield County during the years after the Civil War. He was a particular figure of hatred for regional conservatives, but he is largely absent from historical accounts of Reconstruction in South Carolina. In this post, we will take a look at who he was and what he did.

McCulla was born in Ireland around 1840. He moved to the United States around the end of the Civil War, when he was in his twenties. (Accounts differ as to whether he arrived in 1864 or in 1866.) I have been unable to find any records about McCulla prior to 1868, so it is unclear why he left Ireland, although there was nothing unusual about it. Ireland saw a huge level of emigration as people tried to flee the famine and poverty that had been devastating the country for decades.

McCulla had moved to South Carolina by 1868, and he quickly found a place within the state's newly empowered Republican Party. Following the ratification of a new state constitution that enfranchised freed slaves, McCulla was appointed treasurer for Chesterfield County by Republican governor Robert K. Scott. This position granted him considerable powers as it made him responsible for collecting taxes and disbursing state funds. 

McCulla likely secured his gubernatorial appointment through connections with Chesterfield's state senator, R. J. Donaldson. Both were incorporators for a Chesterfield land development company, the South Carolina Improvement and Trust Company, and the two worked closely together after Donaldson was elected to office.

McCulla purchased land for himself in fall 1868. He bought a two-hundred and twenty-nine acre plot from William K. Edgeworth, a member of a local planter family. The plot was located near the Hornsboro post office, where Thompson's Creek meets Store House Creek. A little over a year later (on January 6, 1870), he bought an adjacent two hundred and three acre plot in a sheriff's sale following the death of the owner (Alexander McMillan). These purchases provide further evidence of McCulla's relation with Donaldson and his supporters. The lands bounded land owned by the Challenge Mining Company which was run by Donaldson's supporters. 

McCulla used the land he purchased for farming. He did not have a family, so he was reliant on sharecropping and hired labor. Most of the people he employed were former slaves. As a farmer, McCulla practiced a mixture of cotton growing and subsistence farming that was typical for the region. 

The fact that McCulla was able to purchase so much land raises suspicions. He spent over $3,500 only a few years after he had immigrated from a poverty-stricken Ireland. He soon fell under suspicion for corruption and dishonesty. The biggest cause for anger was the allegation that he was "shaving" funds for himself when fulfilling money orders as treasurer.

The way in which McCulla was alleged to have enriched himself is demonstrated by an incident involving the state-funded Poor House. A women, Mrs. Williams, maintained a Poor House for paupers, and she was to receive five dollars per month for each pauper who was boarding with her. In the summer of 1870, the County Commissioners issued a money order to her. McCulla was present when this was done, and he explained that he did not have the funds to fulfill the order. When one of the commissioners, G. W. Duvall, said this was unacceptable, McCulla told Mrs. Williams that she should go to Cheraw and present the order to Mr. Donaldson. This was unusual because Donaldson was then Chesterfield's state senator and had no responsibility for distributing state funds.

Mrs. Williams did as McCulla suggested. However, upon arriving at Donaldson's office, she met with his clerk who only offered to provide her with half of the funds she was suppose to receive. This presented her with a dilemma as the money offered  was not enough to provide for the paupers under her care. While debating what to do, she happened to encounter G. W. Duvall on the street. He advised her to see if a merchant would take the money order for payment, but none would. Finally, having exhausted other options, Mrs. Williams accepted the funding that Donaldson's clerk was willing to offer. She was given less than half of the money she was due. The week after, Duvall became upset when he examined McCulla's records and found that it was falsely recorded that Mrs. Williams  falsely had received the full amount she was due.

Conservative leaders charged that the treatment of Mrs. Williams was representative of how McCulla performed the duties of his office. Milly Chapman, W. L. Mangum, and Ellenor Horn all reported similar experiences. 

Efforts to hold McCulla accountable for misuse of office began to gain momentum in September 1870. Each quarter, the county grand jury issued a presentment which provided them with a forum in which to criticize public officials. That term, the grand jury criticized McCulla and two other public officials. He was criticized for not exhibiting his books to the grand jury, and the circuit judge (James M. Rutland) responded by ordering that his office be searched and he be required to show cause at the next term of court why they should not be primally prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

The criticism McCulla received suggests that the criticism was not purely political. The circuit judge was a moderate Republican, and the grand jury included several Black men (including Oliver Hanna, Lisbon Timmons, Load Miller, and Malcolm McFarlan). 

The month after the presentment was issued was the month that the election was held. This was an important event. It was the second election for legislative offices that was held under the new state constitution, and it presented conservatives with their first opportunities to remove the Republicans from county government. 

Much was at stake for McCulla. With his personal ties to state senator Donaldson, he had a powerful defender, but Donaldson was up for reelection in October. If Donaldson was defeated by a conservative candidate, then both he and McCulla would not only lose political power, but they would also be facing the wraith of newly empowered conservatives. In fact, Donaldson was running against G. W. Duvall, the very man who had been been frustrated in his efforts to get McCulla to fulfill a money order for the county poor house.

McCulla and other supporters of Donaldson went to extreme efforts to see that Donaldson and other Republicans in the county were reelected. Conservatives alleged that McCulla and others engaged in election fraud. Election managers had given the ballot boxes to McCulla (who had no formal role in managing the election) to bring to Chesterfield Courthouse for counting. However, before he did so, he met with Senator Donaldson's brother-in-law (Alfred T. Peete) who replaced valid ballots for conservative candidates with fraudulent ones. 

A little over a week after the election (on October 31), the son of G. W. Duvall (Henry P.) swore a complaint against McCulla, Donaldson, and two others. McCulla was charged with conspiracy to alter the ballots and polls list for the precincts of Oro and Old Store. Based on the complaint, the trial justice Frank H. Eaton ordered their arrests. The fact that Eaton issued orders for arrests is a sign that the charges were serious. Eaton was a Union veteran from Maine and no friend of South Carolina conservatives like G. W. Duvall. 

McCulla was released on bond on a few days after his arrest was ordered. However, his fortunes continued to decline. A few weeks after his arrest (on November 22), the conservatives candidates arrived at the statehouse and were sworn in as the elected legislative representatives for Chesterfield County. McCulla's patron, R. J. Donaldson, had been removed from power, and his office was now held by the father of the man who had requested McCulla's arrest, G. W. Duvall.

Unlike Donaldson, McCulla did not lose his position as county treasurer in the October election because his position was appointed, not elected. Nevertheless, his position was in danger. Governor Scott, the man who had originally appointed McCulla, had been reelected, but he could be expected to remake his political appointments in response to the political changes demonstrated by the election.

Removing McCulla from office seems to have been a priority in Chesterfield. In February 1871, Duvall, now Chesterfield's state senator, wrote the governor a long letter asking that McCulla be removed from office and detailing at length his reasons for the request. Not only did Duvall repeat the complaints that McCulla was engaging in financial misconduct, but he also complained that he was "frequently drunk and unfit to attend to business." The governor finally removed McCulla from office in March.

McCulla's legal problems were becoming even more serious during this time. He was subject to a second bench warrant in January. The solicitor had issued a warrant after the grand jury issued a presentment reporting that McCulla had been overcharging for services. (He reportedly was charging five per cent on all monies received and on all funds passing through his office.)

When the court next met (in May), the grand jury indicted McCulla on the charge of failing to turn over his treasurer's books, and he was accused of "outrageously oppressing the people" by charging tax penalties beyond what was allowed by law. The last accusation led to yet another bench warrant was issued. 

McCulla finally faced a jury trial in January 1872, a full year after legal proceedings had begun. The trial had been delayed because the judge had not appeared for the previous term of court (held in September). The jury found him guilty on two counts: one for failing to turn over the treasurer's books and one for exercising the office of treasurer after his removal. McCulla was also indicted on official misconduct. There is no record of that third charge being dropped, but this was likely the case as the court journal show that he later repaid the government for the excessive charges he made.

I have not been able to find any record of the sentence that McCulla received, and whatever it was, it seems that he did not serve it. McCulla appealed to the state Supreme Court, and in May 1874, the court struck off the charge.

While McCulla was facing charges for his conduct as treasurer, he was also facing charges for election fraud. The records of what happened with these second set of charges is unclear. The court journal records that the grand jury returned no bill again him and the other men charged during the September 1872 term of court. The indictment paper, signed by the jury foreman, also states that the jury returned no bill. However, indictment records also include a handwritten document, signed by the solicitor, stating that the jury swore on their oath that McCulla and the others had committed the crimes they were accused of. Yet a third outcome was reported by the press: they reported in October that the solicitor had decided not to pursue matters further (i.e. he entered a "nol. pos." against Donaldson and his supporter John McCulla). 

The dates on the legal documents raise further questions about what exactly took place. The dates on both the indictment paper and handwritten document have been changed. On the handwritten document, the months "May" and "January" were written and then stricken out and the word January written a second time. Similarly, the year was changed from 1871 to 1872. None of these dates are the dates recorded in the court journal. The dates on the indictment paper are similar. The document is dated to January 1871, but the months "January" and May" were written and then stricken out.

Ultimately, the long-term legal consequences for McCulla seem to have been minimal. Not only does it seem that he avoided jail time, but he was even appointed to serve as an election manager in 1874, only a few years after he was indicted for election misconduct. One possible explanation is that all involved parties felt it was best to avoid further deliberation on the matter and simply move on. The need to prosecute McCulla and others in Donaldson's circle was diminished as county Republicans had largely been removed from power in the 1870 election. Moreover, close scrutiny of the election was likely to raise awkward questions for conservative politicians. In the months following the election, conservatives were accused of having engaged in voter suppression and of being involved in the murder of the Republican, Robert Melton, one of the witnesses set to testify in defense of McCulla and others. 

In his correspondence with the governor over the treasury appointment, G. W. Duvall explicitly spoke to the need to reduce political tensions. He wrote that he had made a recommendation regarding the appointment in the belief that it would "end the war between the two factions." He also appears to hint at the potential for further violence. After expressing anger at efforts by a Republican to secure the appointment, Duvall wrote that "[a]ll [is] quiet in this county," with the implication that the state of affairs would change if a poor appointment was made.

After Donaldson was voted out of office, most of Donaldson's supporters left Chesterfield. Donaldson's brother-in-law, who had also been indicted for election misconduct, moved to Spartanburg and found work as a music teacher and later as a dentist. Donaldson himself moved to Columbia for a few years and then ran a rice plantation near Georgetown that he purchased. McCulla, however, remained in Chesterfield County.

McCulla seems to have left political life by the mid-1870s, and certainly his political prospects were minimal by this time as the county government was firmly in the hands of his conservative enemies. He seems to have focused on his farm in Mount Croghan township. In 1880, a census taker recorded that he employed over one hundred Black farmers, making his farm one of the largest operations in the region. .  

McCulla appears to have financially supported himself for the remainder of the nineteenth century by renting land to Black sharecroppers. He never had a family, and he certainly could not have performed all the labor that was needed on a farm by himself. I can't find a record of his death, but he was still living in Mount Croghan in 1910, when he was in his seventy years old. By this time, it appears he had largely retired. He sold most of his land in the 1900s. Some of the land was purchased by Archibald Wade Hursey who built a mill, Hursey's mill, on the land. 

Approximate location of Hursey's Mill indicated in red
Image from Google Maps

Despite the anger that had been directed at him during Reconstruction, McCulla seems to have quickly faded from public memory. In a 1949 newspaper article, an older resident, Tom Turner, was interviewed about the history of the area. Turner recalled Reconstruction as some of the "darkest days," and mentions McCulla by name (although it was printed as "McCullough"). However, he only says that McCulla was a "Yankee" who was involved with a New York-based land development company and oversaw a 2,800 acre plot of land that was rented to Black tenant farmers. No mention is made of election fraud or the misuse of the treasurer's office. In the interview, Turner remarked that many names associated with Reconstruction, "that luckless era," are "better forgotten," and the same attitude appears to apply to McCulla's actions.

The area around McCulla's farm
From South Caroliniana Library

Sources

1. The daily phoenix. [volume], November 05, 1868, Image 2

2. The Charleston daily news. [volume], March 24, 1871, Image 3

3. The daily phoenix. [volume], May 05, 1874, Image 2

4. The daily phoenix. [volume], April 06, 1871, Image 2

September Grand Jury

1. W. A. Mulloy (b. 1815). White farmer and merchant in Chesterfield C. H. 

2. Lewis Ganey (b. 1846). White farmer in Chesterfield township.

3. Thomas Britt

4. J. H. Williams (b. 1810). A white miller in Alligator township

5. D. B. Douglas (b. 1848) A white farmer in Cole Hill township.

6. O[ilver] Hanna (b. 1832) A Black farmer in Chesterfield township.

7. T[homas] D. Spencer (b. 1840). A white farmer in Chesterfield township.

8. T[homas] M. Kirkley (b. 1835). White constable in Jefferson township. Born in North Carolina. 

9. J. W. Watson (b. 1838). A white farmer in Cole Hill township. 

10. S[amuel] Wilkinson (b. 1844) A white farmer in Cole Hill township.

11. Lisbon Timmons (b. 1827). A Black farmer in Mt. Croghan township. 

12. S. Hegmen?

13. L[oad] Miller (b. 1839). A Black farmer in Jefferson township.

14. D. McLean

15. M[alcolm] McFarlan (b. abt. 1846). A Black farmer in Cole Hill township. 23

16. E. Lowry. 

17. J[ohn] H. Lowry (b. abt. 1831): White man living in Mt. Croghan township.

18. W. Miller

Emancipation in Spartanburg: Lot Farrow meets the Union army

How did freedom come to enslaved people living in the village of Spartanburg? Unlike other parts of the Confederacy, freedom only came at the very end of the war. Spartanburg County was never the site of significant fighting, and Union troops only arrived in summer 1865. 

An unusually intimate look at the experience of enslaved people that summer is offered by testimony collected by the South Claims Commission. The Claims Commission was formed to provide financial compensation to individuals who had provided supplies to the Union army. Submitted claims were carefully vetted. Claimants had to not only describe the supplies that had been taken, but they also had to demonstrate that they had remained loyal to the Union.

Within Spartanburg County, two claims were submitted, one by the widow Jemima F. Harvey. As part of her claim, Lot Farrow, a man formerly enslaved by her husband, testified about his experience at the end of the Civil War. Lot provided testimony to the Claims Commission in October 1872 (roughly seven years after he had been emancipated). He was interviewed by a claims officer, Theodore W. Parmele. Parmele was a white Union veteran from New York City, so he was someone who was sympathetic to enslaved people but also had little experience interacting with them.

Lot's testimony was offered to help the federal government assess the value of the supplies taken by Union troops and determine whether his enslaver, Milo A. Harvey, had remained loyal to the Union. In the course of offering this information, Lot gave a detailed description of events in Spartanburg upon the arrival of Union troops.

Spartanburg Village before the War

"I was born a slave in the state of South Carolina" is how Lot Farrow introduced himself to Theodore W. Parmele. Lot was in his mid-forties. For a number of years, he had been enslaved by Jemima F. Harvey's husband Milo. Lot worked for Milo as a driver and a teamster. Milo had great need for these skills as he ran a livery stable and delivered mail for the federal government. 

Both Lot and Milo lived in Spartanburg, then a small village of one thousand-some people, approximately a third of whom were enslaved. The village was home to the county courthouse and a regular market, so it served as a regional center for the county which was a rural area largely populated by small farmers. Milo had moved to Spartanburg from Pennsylvania long before the war broke out. By 1860, he had achieved considerable financial success. He employed at least four stage coach drivers and owned a private home on the north side of Spartanburg's Main Street. While Milo clearly participated in slavery, it is unclear how many people he enslaved. The 1860 census records him as having enslaved two enslaved women, but this must be incomplete as he also enslaved Lot during this period. Milo reported to the census that his personal estate was valued at $10,000, likely the value of his stable together with the people he enslaved. All in all, Milo maintained a very comfortable lifestyle for his family, although he was not a member of the South Carolina elite as he did not run a plantation.

Lot's experience with slavery was different from most slaves in South Carolina. While many slaves were bound to a plantation or a small farm, Lot regularly traveled throughout northwestern South Carolina, helping his enslaver deliver the mail. Living in Spartanburg, he had an unusually broad social network as he was in regular contact with both white people and Black people enslaved by his neighbors.

Lot likely had a family in the antebellum, although there is no direct evidence on this matter. The 1880 census records Lot as living with his wife, Adaline, and their three children. All of the children were born before Emancipation, so Adaline and Lot likely started living together before the war, although any relationship would have been informal as the law did not recognize "slave marriages."

Lot and other people who knew Milo said that he was a Confederate albeit not an enthusiastic one. Milo opposed secession, but when the Civil War broke out, he "went with his state." However, he was pessimistic of the south's prospects and felt the war was bad for both sides.  Lot, unfortunately, did not offer his opinions regarding the Confederacy, and he likely kept those closely guarded.

The only member of Milo's household who served in the Confederate army was Milo's brother, John. He enlisted at the very beginning of the war, on day after Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter. His service was undistinguished. He fell ill and was discharged from the army that September. For most of the war, life continued one as before. Milo, with help from Lot, continued to run his stable and deliver the mail, although his employer had become the Confederate government.

Until the very end of the war, Spartanburg village was far away from battlefields. The village's population swelled  as people from places like Charleston moved there seeking refuge. Most residents experienced the war indirectly though the arrival of refugees, the absence of the many young men who were serving the army, the rampant inflation (especially inflated food prices), and the collapse of the cotton market. No Union troops came near the village, but residents traveling through rural areas needed to be concerned about running into Confederate deserters, escaped Union soldiers, or common criminals who were taking advantage of the breakdown in civil order.

Lot Farrow meets the Union Army

On April 30, 1865, several weeks after Robert E. Lee surrendered his army, Union troops came to Spartanburg. The Confederacy had collapsed as a military force, but many members of the Confederate government – including President Jefferson Davis – remained at large. President Davis was believed to be traveling through South Carolina, and two cavalry brigades were sent to the state from North Carolina in pursuit of Davis and other fugitive members of the Confederate government.

One brigade of Union cavalry, led by Brevet Brigadier-General William J. Palmer, arrived in Spartanburg on the evening of the 30th. No effort was made to resist them, and they were greeted by one citizen who simply asked that they respect private property. The Union troops were evidently impressed by both the village and the conduct of its residents. One solider wrote in his journal that Spartanburg was a "pretty town" that had "many fine residences" and was a "center of wealth." He remarked that residents appeared to have accepted the defeat of the Confederacy and were eager to move on in their lives. The troops remained in good order, and there were no reports of looting or pillaging. One company (Company G, commanded by Joseph R. Lonabaugh) was stationed in the village, while the rest continued their search for fugitive Confederate officials.

It is unclear exactly when Lot first met with Union troops. Lot could not remember the month or year that he encountered Union soldiers, but he recalled that it was on a Sunday around 2 pm. Another man who was present, Hugh Holt, recalled that the event occurred in early May. The first Sunday in May was on May 7, more than a week after the troops first arrived in the town. More likely is that Hugh was mistaken, and the troops came to the stable on the 30th (which was a Sunday).

Whenever the event occurred, it began with a group of an estimated twenty mounted Union soldiers arriving at the stable around 2 p.m. while Lot was working there. Present with Lot was a white man, Richard Arnold, who boarded his horses at the stable. 

The Union soldiers were led by two officers, and when they arrived at the stable, they asked for "Lot." After Lot made his presence known, they asked him where the horses were, and he told them that they were in their stalls in the stable. Lot recognized the officers as men he had met a month earlier. They had come to Spartanburg disguised as Confederate troops from Tennessee and asked him about the stable and other matters. Evidently, they had been scouting out future sources of supply for the Union army. 

The officers were friendly with Lot and acknowledged that they had met him a month earlier in disguise. The officers had brought their troops there to requisition supplies. The cavalry unit's horses were "badly used up," and they needed fresh horses as replacement. 

The Union men proceeded to take their horses from stable. Lot sent word to his enslaver, Milo, and asked what should be done. Milo responded by saying that, "he could not help it." While the men were taking the horses, Hugh Holt, a white man who was employed by Milo, showed up, but he did nothing but watch the proceedings.

In addition to the horses and a pair of mules, Milo had stored a large amount of fodder for horses as well as food provisions in the stable. After the horses were taken away, the soldiers began taking the provisions. Lot and Richard Arnold went to a Union headquarters that had been established near the Courthouse to lodge protests. Lot was simply told that the soldiers needed the provisions more than he did. Lot was unable to hear what Richard Arnold said, but the soldiers not only left his horses alone, they even posted a guard to keep others from taking them. Mr. Arnold had been loyal to the Union (a rarity in South Carolina), so presumably, he had convinced the Union officers that he should be allowed to keep his horses as a reward for his loyalty. 

Taking the provisions took all day. There was much to carry off. Stored in the stable were 1,500 pounds of bacon and one-hundred bushels of corn, among other goods. Lot helped the soldiers load several horse wagons with corn, and the soldiers enlisted the help of "colored people" (likely people enslaved by neighbors) and had them carry provisions for them. The soldiers rewarded them by giving them some of the bacon they had requisitioned. 

The soldiers only finished taking provisions at 10 o'clock p.m. Lot remained at the stable all night. Union soldiers remained in the village. Their presence caused anxiety among residents. Many saw had their horses taken, and some had their watches stolen, but the troops remained in good order, and there was none of the pillaging or looting that was reported in other parts of the south. After more two days in Spartanburg, the Union soldiers continued south in pursuit of Confederate leaders.

Freedom comes to Lot Farrow?

In principle, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed Lot from bondage and directed the army to preserve his rights as a freeman. In practice, life for Lot continued as it did before. None of the soliders encouraged him to leave his enslaver. When the army left Spartanburg, a number of newly freed slaves joined them, but Lot was not among them.

Freedom likely came to Lot during the summer. On June 5, a Union officer issued a proclamation that all slaves were now free. However, enslavers were free to ignore as the proclamation went unenforced. The proclamation was reissued in mid-August, and Union soldiers were stationed in the village on a long-term basis. At this point, everyone began to recognize that the practice of slavery had come to an end. 

The transition to freedom appears to have gone relatively smoothly for Lot. He continued work Milo but now as a paid employee. Compared to many, Lot and Milo had an easier time adjusting to the new labor situation as Milo had long employed free laborers at his stable, and Lot simply joined their ranks.

Lot achieved enough financial success that has able to purchase his own property in 1869,  only four years after Emancipation. He lived with his family in a two acre plot on "Rutherford St." He and his wife were also able to preserve their family despite the incredible pressures put on them by enslavement and the disruption of Emancipation. Unexpectedly eloquent testimony to the warm relations in the Farrow family is found an 1882 deed in which Lot granted parts of his property to his wife and children. He said the land was given in exchange for "the sum of one dollar" and "the natural love and affection which I bear to my said wife and daughter[s]."