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 a village, he had an unusually broad social network as he was in regular contact with both white people and the 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 the 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 on 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 through 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 replacements. 

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 for 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 he was 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]."

D. Wyatt Aiken Letters: A murder at Hodges' Depot

Col. D. Wyatt Aiken, a leading conservative in Abbeville County, was arrested for suspected involvement in the killing of Republican politician B. F. Randolph. Col Aiken had not been present at the killing, but he had given public speeches condemning Randolph in violent language, and only two days before the killing, he had personally threatened him.

The following letters provide an unusually close look at the incident from Col. Aiken's perspective. The two letters that follow are among those held by the South Caroliniana Library as part of the David Wyatt Aiken Papers collection.

The first letter, dated November 11, 1868, is a letter that Col. Aiken wrote to his daughter, Ella Gaillard, while in jail in Columbia on charges of being an accessory to the murder of Senator Randolph. Ella, aged fifteen at the time of the letter, was the oldest of Col. Aiken's children.

The letter reveals much about the conservative response to the murder of Randolph. Col. Aiken received an outpouring of support: conservative allies offered to not only pay his bail, but they also helped make his time in prison more pleasant by bringing him bedding and food. Aiken mentioned by name "Wm. McMaster," "Mr. Sloan," and "Col. Haskell."

All three men were prominent conservative lawyer / politicians who had served Confederacy: "Wm. McMaster" was likely Col. Fitz William McMaster, "Col. Haskell" Alexander Cheves Haskell, and "Mr. Sloan" John Trimmier Sloan. (Both John T. Sr. and Jr. were active in politics, so it could have been a reference to either of them.) F. W. McMaster would go on to provide the legal defense for a prominent conservative leader during 1871 Ku Klux Klan criminal trial.

Col. Aiken also received support from less prominent conservatives. The unnamed jailer was a former Confederate solider, and he went out of his way to treat the colonel with kindness. While South Carolina conservatives complained loudly about being unjustly crushed by a tyrannical Republican government, Col. Aiken appeared to have been treated very generously by the criminal justice system.

Columbia [unreadable]

Nov 11 68

My Dear Daughter,

When I left here the other day I hoped to be able either to meet you on your way down, or at any rate at the Depot in Col. [i.e. "in the city of Columbia"]. But I had no control of my time here, nor have I yet. On my arrival here I was put in a carriage, and taken directly to a magistrate's office, and though allowed an interview with my lawyer, I was sent to jail. The Constable, who ordered my arrest, seeing the universal sympathy that was manifested for me, went with me to the jail and ordered the comfortable quarters for me. A friend sent me a lounge, Wm. McMaster bed, Mr. Sloan my excellent meals, and all the acquaintances I had in Col. called to see me, each proffering to go on my bond to any amount and to bail me out of jail. there was no judge before whom I could appear in Col. except Judge Hoge, + I declined having anything to do with him for you remember, he was the man that I lectured so severely that day at Hodges Depot. So Wm. McMaster, my lawyer, sent to Lexington for Judge Boozer, who did not reach here until late last night. And as the Attorney General, who is to represent the State against me, was not here but in Charleston, he had to be telegraphed for and this evening at 5 O'Clock set by the judge as the hour for my appearance before him. As soon as the the result is known will note it on this letter and mail it to you + you must read  + send to Aunt Ellen. This letter is [as] you may file away to be read long in the future as an epistle written to you by your father when in jail. Only think of it, yesterday as the Greenville train rolled into the depot I looked through the bars of my grated window + wondered if my daughter was in that train, and knew how sad would be her happy heart if she knew where her imprisoned father stood looking for + thinking of her. I hope, however, to get out of this prison this evening. Except for the first hour or two I have not feel that I was in close confinement though when the first grating of the heavy bar + turning of the iron lock that closed my cast iron door, was heard, my very pores oozed a cold sweat that made me feel miserable. After the sheriff + constable left the house, however, the jailor came came up to see who I was + when he found out that I had been a Col. in the Brigade [i.e. a colonel in a Confederate army brigade] in which he fought, he said "Col. I'll push to the door + you may ordered it locked if you wish." He has been very kind to me and says, he knows me too well to keep me as he would an ordinary prisoner. Everybody has been so kind to me. One man, whom I only knew by name, sent me word he would secure my bond for $100,000 if necessary. Another told Col Haskell to tell me he was envious of me. Poor mother doesn't know that father is in jail, or she would go crazy. I told Joel to write her + not mention it + told him not to let you girls show it. I have not seen him to learn whether you really went down. I suppose you did. I will write you again from home + am afraid it will be a lecture, for I intended giving both you + Mattie. Kiss Mattie for me. Study hard both of you. Third regards to Dr. + Wm. For + Love to Uncle Joe + family

Yours affectionately,

Father

The other letter is a January 15, 1869 letter written to Col. Aiken. While the letter-writer signed his name, I can't read the signature, but he appears to be a local conservative politician. He was writing a few months after Randolph's murder, and this was evidently a time when Aiken's alleged involvement in Randolph's murder was coming under increased scrutiny. The letter-writer was writing to express sympathy and share what he remembered of Col's Aiken's actions. 

Two things are notable about this letter. First, it shows that Col. Aiken and the anonymous letter-writer (and presumably many other conservatives) show no remorse for Randolph's murder or the the own violent rhetoric in the months proceeding the killing. Second, the letter supports the theory that Col. Aiken's involvement in the killing was limited to violent public rhetoric. 

Abbeville S. C. Jan 15 '69

Dear Col: 

Yours of 13th inst. was read today and I hasten to reply.

I well remember the occasion to which you refer and much that you said. You spoke of Randolph as having visited Greenville for the purpose of counteracting the effect of the democratic mass meeting which had lately been held there, and supposed that he would follow for a similar purpose in the wake of the one which you were then addressing – that his mission was of the most incendiary character, tending to array the black man against the white man and thus leading to bloodshed – that in so doing he would deserve death as a public [warning], and you felt addressing that if he came into your neighborhood preaching such sentiment he would get what he deserved, a piece of ground six feet by three. The foregoing is the substance of the allusion made by you to Randolph as I remember it. Of course I understood it as everybody else did, spoken in the heat of a political campaign and I have no more idea that the saying had any more to do with the killing of Randolph than the remarks of any other speaker upon the occasion.

I have seen Whipper bill. It is atrocious, as is also the vindictive persecution of which you have been made the subject. 

Be addressed of my sympathy and hope of your speedy + swift deliverance.

Yours Truly, 

UPDATE: The signature may be "J. S. Cothran." If so, the author was James S. Cothran, a lawyer and Confederate veteran who led the county Abbeville party. 

Sources

1. [Letter; 15 Jan. (18)69, Abbeville, S.C., to 'Dear Col.' (David Wyatt Aiken Aiken, David Wyatt (1828-1887)], Folder 9. South Carolinians Library. 

2. [Letter to Ella Gaillard Aiken regarding jail], Aiken, David Wyatt (1828-1887) Folder 9. South Caroliniana Library.

Who murdered B. F. Randolph?

Who murdered South Carolina Senator B. F. Randolph? William K. Tolbert, Joshua Logan, and John West Talbert were the murderers. There is no serious question of this. Tolbert confessed to the shooting, and implicated the other two. His testimony was supported by four additional witnesses, two of whom had witnessed then shooting themselves. 

But naming the killers is only a first step in understanding the crime. The shooters were clearly not acting on their own. They were part of a large crowd that had gathered as the Hodges Depot train station to watch Randolph die. What brought William K. Tolbert, Joshua Logan, and John West Talbert to the train station? Why did they commit the crime? How were they connected with conservative political leaders? In this blogpost, we'll try to answer these questions and then look at the longterm impact of the killing.

Bringing the assassins to justice

The answers we have to question, "Who killed B F Randolph?" were generated by efforts by state officials, so let's begin by looking at how the legal system responded to the killing.

Holding the perpetrators responsible presented an immense challenge to South Carolina's criminal justice system. Up until a few month before the murder, the civilian courts were suspended, and the legal system was run by the army. While the courts were now open, nobody was entirely sure about what they were suppose to do as a recent revision to the state constitution had reorganized the legal system. 

In the case of Randolph's murder, the greatest difficulty was the practical matter of bringing the perpetrators to court. The state's law enforcement was minimal. There was nothing like a modern police force. Typically, law enforcement in Abbeville County was handled by the county sheriff. A South Carolina sheriff did not have a large staff and instead would deputize volunteers when he needed additional manpower. In the case of political violence like the killing of Randolph, a major problem was often that the sheriff had no interest in apprehending the perpetrators. The sheriff was elected and lived in the community, so he was often a representative of white conservatives. This appeared to have been the case in Abbeville. The sheriff was Henry S. Cason, a white man who had worked as a merchant in Abbeville before the Civil War. Records about Cason are scarce, but he appears to have been a conservative. In any case, the sheriff appears to have made no effort to apprehend Randolph's murderers.

The other instrument for law enforcement was the chief constable. The chief constable, John H. Hubbard, had been appointed by the governor, so he was fully supportive of stopping political violence against Republicans. Statewide, he oversaw twenty-four constables, six of which were assigned to Abbeville County. In their efforts to hold Randolph's assassins accountable, they arrested two conservative leaders who were suspected of having plotting the assassination. This was one of the few instances were political leaders were arrested for suspected involvement with political violence. 

The first person arrested was Col. D. Wyatt Aiken. Col. Aiken was planter and a leading figure in county conservative politics. He had declared in a speech that Senator Randolph should be given "four feet by six" (i.e. a coffin) if he comes to Abbeville County. This was one of several violent public denunciations he had made, and only two days before the murder, he had even threatened Randolph in person.

At the request of the chief constable, a magistrate (Solomon) issued an arrest warrant for Col. Aiken on a charge of accessory to murder. On November 9  (approximately a month after the assassination), a posse of two deputies and three Union soldiers arrested him and brought him to Columbia. Col. Aiken spent a day or two in jail and then was released on bond. After his release, Aiken published a public letter to the governor expressing harsh criticism over his treatment. He claimed he was "feloniously incarcerated" and accused the governor of tyranny, comparing him to the French king Louis XIV ("proclaim 'I AM THE STATE'"). The chief constable he called a "hiring." Most remarkably, he warned that the governor was risking further violence. He closed the letter with a warning that, if the governor persisted in his "scheme of tyranny," then he predicted that it would "redound with serious consequences upon the heads of higher officers than the chief constable, you will not charge me with 'being accessory before the fact,' for the exasperated consequence upon such cruelty is widespread and not confined to a single race." This statement seems to be a long-winded and indirect way of threatening that the governor with violence if he persisted in his law enforcement efforts, a shocking statement of make when when several politicians had  been assassinated.

A second arrest was made on December 24. That morning, the chief constable and five or six of his deputies arrested J. Fletcher Hodges. He was a member of a prominent family (his father George W. Hodges was the founder and namesake of Hodges' Depot), and although he was not a leading figure in county politics like Col. Aiken, he certainly had potential. The evidence against Hodges was stronger than that against Col. Aiken. While Aiken had not been present at the train station when Randolph was killed,  multiple witnesses had not only seen Hodges there, but they had even testified that he had mocked Randolph's corpse. Moreover, one witness testified that, the night before the murder, he had heard Hodges talking about how Randolph was going to be murdered at the train station. Despite this, the results were the same. After less than a week in jail, Hodges was released on bail. Neither Col. Aiken nor Hodges faced further legal consequences after they were released, and conservative leaders had some success in making their arrests into a cause célèbre.

A big break in the case occurred in January 1869. That month the chief constable arrested one of the accused triggermen: William J. Tolbert. His arrest was reported on January 11. The details are somewhat confused. Newspapers reported that he'd been arrested in swamp, but he evidently had already agreed to turn himself into the authorities. After his arrest, he told authorities that his two accomplices, Joshua Logan and John West Talbert, fled the state after being given $1,000 as aid.

A month after his arrest, Tolbert testified before a congressional subcommittee charged with investigating the election held in November. His testimony was explosive. He not only offered a detailed account of the murder of Randolph, but he explained how leading conservatives had been behind the murder and other acts of political violence.

Legal efforts to hold Randolph's murderers accountable ended on a strange note. Tolbert escaped from the state penitentiary on August 2, 1869 (after he'd been imprisoned for roughly half a year). In December, an Abbeville constable (Jerry Hollingshead) received information that Tolbert was at a dance held in a private home. The constable went to arrest Tolbert, but when he attempted to do so, Tolbert resisted and the two exchanged gunfire. The constable was seriously injured, and Tolbert killed. This brought an end to the government's efforts to obtain justice for B. F. Randolph.

Tolbert's Testimony

William K. Tolbert's testimony at the February 1869 congressional committee hearing offers a lot of insight into the nature of conservative political violence. Tolbert said that he and his two accomplices (Talbert and Logan) had originally gone to Hodges' Depot to hear Randolph speak, However, when they got there, they were told that he would not be speaking there. Instead, he would be taking the train to Anderson and delivering a speech there. Tolbert learned of this from the group of men who had gathered around the train station. The group included Langdon Corner, James Cochran, Fletcher Hodges, and John Brooks.

The men gathered at the train station were there because they were angry with Randolph. Many said that he had been engaged in provocative political speech. At one public meeting, he was said to have threatened to "burn up the state," a serious threat as many property-owners feared arson

The men evidently were planning attempting to murder Randolph because they had come to the train station armed, and while waiting for him, they engaged in target practice. Shortly before Randolph's train pulled in, some of the men suggested that Tolbert, Talbert, and Logan should be the shooters as they were less likely to be recognized. When Randolph's train pulled into the state, Langdon Conner asked the train conductor if Randolph was a passenger. After being told he was, Conner informed the others, and they took positions on the train platform. After Randolph changed trains and took a seat, James Cochran expressed concern that the shooters were not disguised but decided that Randolph needed to be killed before he left town. Fletcher Hodges then came up to the shooters with a roll of money, and said that the money is Tolbert's once Randolph is dead. Around this time, Randolph got off his seat and walked to the platform of his car. John Brooks came over to Tolbert and others, pointed out Randolph, and instructed them to kill Jim. William K. Tolbert, Joshua Logan, and John West Talbert then shot Randolph dead and rode off.

Political violence in Abbeville

A close look at William K. Tolbert's testimony and related evidence shows that conservative political violence functioned in the manner described by Elaine Frantz in her book Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction. Focusing on Ku Klux violence in York County, she argues that Ku Klux violence developed out a partnership between the local criminal element and conservative elites. Violent criminals, otherwise uninterested in state politics, targeted Republicans in exchange for conservatives elite's political and financial support. 

Apolitical criminals seems to be an apt descriptions of William K. Tolbert, Joshua Logan, and John West Talbert. According to Tolbert, the three shot Randolph because they were offered money by the son of the founder of Hodges' Depot. While Tolbert understandably did not present himself as a career criminal to the congressional subcommittee, this seems to be what he was. In public testimony, both conservatives and Republicans described Tolbert and the other two as notorious "bad men." Congressman George Dusenberry described them as being part of a group of "reckless men, here, who would kill man for five dollars and a little whiskey." J. A. Leland called these men a "small band of ruffians" who were a general menace to the community. Each Saturday, he said, they would engage in "rowdyism, swearing, drinking, and shooting pistols," and they would prey on freedmen during the night. Citizens were afraid to try and arrest them, and women were so frightened that they would not go around at night. 

Tolbert was a member of the democratic party, and at the time, membership provided him with considerable license to commit crime. According to Tolbert, the regional Democratic Party included a secret sub-organization that he called the Ku Klux Klan. The main function of the main function of the sub-organization was to suppress the Republican party, especially by disrupting the activities of the Union Leagues (which helped organized Black voters). They organized regular patrols to find and break up Union League meetings. They also tried to suppress the Republican vote at the November 1868 election by having Ku Kluxers go through the community, demanding that Republican voters turn over their ballots which they proceeded to destroy.

Some easy to overlook details about the murder of congressman James Martin (the assassination that directly preceded that of Randolph) suggest the manner in which criminals took advantage of the political situation. Martin was killed while transporting a barrel of whiskey. The whiskey-trade a major part of criminal activity, and getting a hold of the barrel may have been as significant a motive anything political. The previous day the ten-year old son of Congressman was sent to Martin's to pick up some whiskey, and on his way back, he was waylaid by men who took the whiskey he had purchased. Those men may have been the very same ones who murdered Congressman Martin.

It is unclear if the murder of B. F. Randolph was formally organized by the Democratic Party. Tolbert said that earlier voter suppression acts had been planned at regular party meetings but he had learned of Randolph's visit informally. However, the distinction does not seem to be that significant. A number of democrats were present for the killed, and they included the men who instructed Tolbert and the others to commit the act. 

The aftermath

What was the long-term significance of the assassination of B. F.  Randolph and other Republican politicians. The political violence certainly did not lead to the Democratic Party gaining power. The Republican Party enjoyed a strong political base as Black voters made up more than 60% of the electorate, and voter suppression was not enough to over come this. Republicans continued to win major elections until the 1876 which saw the statewide collapse of the Republican Party. 

Democrats themselves seem to have decided that political violence was ineffective. There are few recorded acts of violence after Randolph's killing, and when Ku Klux Klan violence erupted in 1871, Abbeville was not among those counties were civil liberties were suspending, indicating that violence was not a problem there. 

At the same time, the assassination was highly significant. On the most basic level the Republican party lost a leading politician. Randolph was hard to replace too: few Republicans in South Carolina had qualifications comparable to Randolph's college education and military service. 

The killing also appears to have had a chilling effect on local Republican leaders. A number appear to have become political allies of the Democrats in 1876. Aaron Mitchell, one of men who had accompanied Randolph on the fatal train ride, gave political speeches in favor of the Democratic candidate and was even participated in an Abbeville rally for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Wade Hampton. In congressional testimony, he explained that he had joined the Democrats because he was disgusted with the corruption and incompetence of the Republican party, but certainly, witnessing the murder of leading Republican must have impressed upon him the power of the Democrats.

Sources 

1. "Arrest of Colonel D. Wyatt Aiken" The daily phoenix, November 10, 1868, Image 2

2. Edgefield advertiser. [volume], November 18, 1868, Image 3

3. The daily phoenix. [volume], December 25, 1868, Image 2

4. "More arrests in Abbeville." The daily phoenix. [volume], December 30, 1868, Image 1

5. The Charleston daily news. [volume], December 31, 1868, Image 3

6. The Charleston daily news. [volume], January 12, 1869, Image 1

7. "The Randolph Murder – One of the Perpetrators Surrenders Himself." The southern enterprise. [volume], January 13, 1869, Image 2

8. "On the Wing." The Charleston daily news. [volume], January 25, 1869, Image 1

9. Abbeville press. [volume], February 19, 1869, Image 1

10. The Anderson intelligencer. [volume], March 04, 1869, Image 2

11. Abbeville press. [volume], March 12, 1869, Image 2

12. The Anderson intelligencer. [volume], March 04, 1869, Image 2

13. "The New Regime." The Charleston daily news. [volume], November 19, 1868, Image 4

14. The daily phoenix. [volume], January 13, 1869, Image 2

15. The Abbeville press and banner. [volume], December 17, 1869, Image 2

16. The daily phoenix. [volume], December 04, 1869, Image 2

17. The Charleston daily news. [volume], December 08, 1869, Image 1

Assassination in Abbeville: The murder of B. F. Randolph

B. F. Randolph
From Wikipedia

Nineteenth century Ku Klux violence reached its height in the South Carolina counties of Spartanburg, York, and Union in 1871. However, political violence in the state began three years earlier with political killings of the Republican politicians B. F. Randolph, Solomon G. W. Dill, and James Martin. These incidents took place in different parts of the state: the counties of Abbeville, Kershaw, and Newberry.

The most shocking of these murders was that of state senator B. F. Randolph. Senator Randolph was shot to death in broad daylight at the Hodges' Depot train station. His killers are often referred to as Ku Klux Klan members, but here we'll take a close look at who actually participating in the act. We'll see that incident does not fit into the usual image of Ku Klux violence, although it was undoubtably a political murder. 

The fact that Randolph was killed at Hodges' Depot is itself noteworthy as Randolph had no real connection to the town. Hodges' Depot (now just Hodges) is located in the northwestern part of the state. Now it is part of Greenwood County, but at the time, Greenwood did not exist, and the area was part of Abbeville County. Randolph was a senator for a county in the Midlands, namely Orangeburg. Randolph had never spent a significant time in the northwestern part of the state. He had come to South Carolina during the Civil War as Union soldier. Like a number of former Union soldiers, he had stayed in the state after being mustered out of the army. He first lived in Charleston, but once Reconstruction started, he became an elected official for Orangeburg.

Randolph was able to rapidly advance in state politics as post-war South Carolina presented him with great opportunities. After Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts (enfranchising Black voters), there was a great need for politicians in South Carolina who could represent newly freed Black South Carolinians, and Randolph was perfectly suited for this role. Born free in Kentucky to Back parents, he had attended Oberlin College, completing the school's college preparatory program and one year of college. After his studies, he had worked as a school principal in Buffalo, New York for a few years before the Civil War broke out and he joined the army. His college education and military experience were rare and valuable political credentials during this time. 

Randolph's first major political position was as a delegate to the 1868 South Carolina Constitutional Convention (where delegates revised the constitution in accordance with the Reconstruction Acts). He was then elected to a four-year term as the state senator for Orangeburg County.

The same traits that made Randolph a success in politics also made him into a figure of hatred for conservatives. A reporter for the New York World newspaper called described him as a "thicklipped, lustful mulatto." A number of newspapers within the state gave him the mocking nickname "Rev. Burnt District Randolph." A month before he was murdered, the Charleston Daily News published the following description of a speech he gave at the statehouse:

This allusion to the power of the press [by another senator], kindled the dormant wrath of the Burnt District [i.e. Senator Randolph]. The smoke and flames broke forth in suffocating forty. In fact the Burnt District was in its most flaming condition. Lying rebels and rampant disloyalty were the staples of his irate harangue. But the speech cannot be properly appreciated without some idea of the appearance of the poor devil in the act of uttering it. There he stood, not square, fleshy and saddle-colored as he was familiar to the citizens of Charleston before the renowned adventure that gave him his sobriquet; but long, lank, cadaverous, loosely jointed, his leather colored skin surcharged with bile and clinging dark and discolored to his high cheek bones, his long black coat hanging from his shoulders as if from two pegs, his beard unshaven for three days, a proportionate amount of dirt unwashed, his left hand holding the lapel of his coat, his right army pumping up and down in his favorite gesture which he learned in his boyhood in his efforts to procure the water which he carried on his head in the streets of his native Mud Town. . . . The amount of malice that animates this scarecrow can only be accounted for by supporting the heart (?) to be as hideous as the body.

While this was one of the longer diatribes against him, the general tone and attitude was indicative of his general treatment by the press. 

Map of Abbeville County
From South Carolinians Library

Background to the Murder

In light of the inflammatory rhetoric published by the newspapers, it is not perhaps not surprising that political violence began breaking out. The new state constitution, which granted Black men a number of political rights including the right to vote, was ratified on April 16, 1868. Prior to that, conservatives hoped that they could defeat attempts to enfranchise former slaves through conventional political means like organizing voters to oppose the newly proposed constitution. Those efforts were soundly defeated. Not only was the constitution ratified, but in late April, an election was held under the new constitution and it resulted in a Republican-dominated state government being elected by that state's Black majority. It was then that conservatives turned to political violence as a means for regaining power.

The first acts of political violence were small-scale threats and violent acts against Republican voters, especially local Black political leaders. The first major political assassination took place on June 4, a little over a month after the new state legislature was elected. That evening, a group men approached the home of a Kershaw County congressman, Solomon G. W. Dill, and then discharged firearms. The senator and another man were killed, and the senator's wife was seriously injured. 

The murder occurred during a time of heightened tensions as an election for county offices had been held on the previous day. It is not entirely clear why Congressman Dill was targeted as he is a somewhat obscure figure. He only appeared in the historical record after his 1868 election as a convention delegate. He was a white man in his late forties who had spent his life in South Carolina, much of in Charleston. He appears to have moved to Kershaw to serve in politics. Dill was killed before the state legislature convened, so he must have been killed for his political rhetoric (which was incendiary) and the general offense of being a white South Carolinian aligned with the Republican party.

The next major political murder took place on October 5. Abbeville County's congressman, James Martin, was killed while traveling home by wagon from the village of Abbeville. Three men on horseback overtook the wagon and shot Martin with pistols. 

Other than being a member of the Republican Party, Congressman Martin does not seem to have done anything particularly controversial. He was an Irish immigrant who had worked as a merchant in Abbeville before the Civil War. He did not have much of a political record, and he appears to have been killed as a part of a general plan to assassinate the county's Republican legislators. The other legislators survived simply because they took major precautions after Martin's murder. For example, Abbeville's senator, after learning of Congressman Martin's death, slept in the woods for several nights and then disguised himself and traveled by train to the state capitol of Columbia.

R. F. Randolph
From Library of Congress

Randolph's Murder

Senator Randolph was a far more prominent politician than Congressman Martin or Senator Dill. That September, he was elected chairman of the Republican's State Central Committee. It was in that capacity he was traveling around the state. 

Randolph was well aware of the problems with political violence in the state. The previous month, he proposed a resolution to ask the governor what the legislature needed to preserve the peace, noting that "many lawless acts have recently been committed" and "the former leaders of late rebellion by their journals and public speakers are again advising and urging resistance to civil authority."

Randolph was personally warned about the potential for violence in Abbeville County. After Abbeville's state senator fled to Columbia following the murder of Congressman Martin, he met with Randolph. Randolph had been appointed to make speeches in Abbeville, and the county's senator warned that doing so "would be very dangerous for you." 

Despite the warning, Randolph traveled to the county on October 16, only a few weeks after the murder of Congressman Martin. He traveled with Associate Justice Solomon L. Hoge, a prominent Republican. They planned to speak at the village of Abbeville, but before arriving there, their train stopped in Hodges' Depot, so they could switch trains. 

As Randolph and Hoge were changing trains, Col. D. Wyatt Aiken, a prominent planter active in regional conservative politics, approached and engaged them in a conversation. He asked if was speaking with B. F. Randolph. After Senator Randolph affirmed that he was, Col. Aiken told him, "You damned son of a bitch, you have no business here." He went on to warn that, if all white men were like him, Randolph would not set foot again in his railroad car. Randolph stood firm and said that he was going to take the train to Abbeville and speak. The conversation then ended with Col. Aiken telling him that, if he did so, he would never see the capital city of Columbia again. 

Randolph and Hoge delivered speeches the next day. Hoge left that evening, while Randolph planned to leave the next day for the town of Anderson, where he was scheduled to speak. Unfortunately for him, just as Col. Aiken had threatened, conservatives in Hodges' Depot and the neighboring village of Cokesbury began planning to murder him. That evening in Cokesbury, Henry Nash, a Black man who was running for county commissioner, overhead two white men, Fletcher Hodges and Sam Simmons, discussing their plans for the next day. They not only stated that they were going kill Randolph, but that anyone who wanted to see him killed should go to the depot when the train whistled.

The next day, Randolph boarded the train, and when it pulled into Hodges' Depot, a large group of white men had gathered around the depot. Estimates of the group ranged from about eleven to fifty men. The group included Fletcher Hodges, the man who had planned to kill him the previous night. Also present were two local Black political leaders, Aaron Mitchell and Thomas Williamson, who were there to greet Randolph. Aaron had brought his daughter. Seemingly oblivious to the danger he was in, Randolph grabbed his baggage and then switched trains. As he did so, he began chatting with Aaron and Thomas about routine political matters. After finding a seat on the new train and setting down his personal belongings, he went to the door of his train car, continuing talking to Aaron and Thomas. At that moment, the assassins struck.

Some of the white men at the depot had begun walking up and down the train, looking into the train cars. When Randolph emerged from his car, a number of men drew revolvers and three of them opened fire. Randolph was hit multiple times. Aaron Mitchell was standing less than two feet away from him, and Randolph's blood splashed him in his face. The whole scene was witnessed by Aaron's daughter.

Aaron Mitchell had come armed with a pistol which he drew and pointed at one of the assassins. That assassin bent down to avoid being shot, and the other two pointed their pistols at Aaron, daring him to shoot: "Let him shoot. I will fix him." Aaron put his gun away and returned to the train car. The assassins then began walking away from the train, taking care to pick up their percussion caps as they went. Once they got about 50 yards away, they put their guns away. They then walked to a store owned by James Cochran. When they got close, two men emerged from the store and asked, "Did you get him?" One of the assassins replied, "By God, we have got him." They then got on horses and rode away.

After the men left, Aaron Mitchell ran over to inspect Randolph and found him dead. While he was inspecting the corpse, Fletcher Hodges (who had spoken about murdering Randolph on the previous day) came over and asked, "What is this?"Aaron responded, "They have shot this man." Fletcher asked Aaron who had shot him and got an evasive answer, "It is not worth while to ask me; the men are known and there is not a man here but knows them." Fletcher responded with an implicit threat: "Well, you had better mind how you talk; you don't know whether they are known or not."

After the exchange, Fletcher walked over to the Randolph corpse and exclaimed, "Yesterday you boasted, and thanked your God, that negro blood run through your veins, but now it is running on the ground." Upset at the remark, Aaron began to exchange words with Fletcher, but he was taken aside by another one of the white men, Langdon Conner. Langdon advises him, "Aaron, you come away from here and shut your mouth or some of them will hurt you." Aaron followed the advice, but before leaving, he tried to take some of Randolph's personal effects. However, a third man, Pompey Davis, stopped him and told him to leave it. Finally, Aaron gathered a group of four Black men to move Randolph's corpse, but the white men in the crowd would not let him, so he got in his train car and returned home.

Randolph's corpse was left lying on the ground overnight. The next day, a group of men placed him in a coffin, and it was sent by train to Columbia. On Sunday October 18, funeral services for Randolph were held at the Bethel A.M.E. Church. He apparently was given a cemetery burial, but it unclear where exactly he was buried. In 1871, a new cemetery, Randolph Cemetery, was named in his honor, and was supposedly reburied there, but no headstone or burial plot has been identified. 

Closing thoughts

At the start of this post, I observed that Randolph's murder is often referred to as one of the first incidents of Ku Klux Klan violence, but a close look at the event shows important differences from Ku Klux Klan violence. The incident differed from typical Ku Klux Klan violence in that the target was a statewide political leader, rather than a local leader. Moreover, the murder had none of the theatrics of typical Ku Klux attacks: the murderers didn't wear any of the elaborate disguises or pretend to be supernatural creature. They also didn't make any effort to disguise their actions. Not only did the murder occur in broad daylight in front of a large audience, but it was publicized in advance, and political supporters were invited to show up. In a later post, we'll take a closely look at the assassins, and this will further highlight the nature of the murder. The assassins were well-known local criminals who were given "a roll of money" for killing.

The murder of B. F. Randolph is unusual for an additional reason. He actually received a measure of justice. One of the assassins was arrested, imprisoned, and then later killed by law enforcement after escaping jail. While imprisoned, he gave testimony about the killing. This, together with personal records of Col. Wyatt, provides an unusually close look at murder from the perspective of the perpetrators.

The daily phoenix. August 21, 1869

Sources

1) "A Brace of Carpet-Baggers–The Men who would Rule South Carolina. The Orangeburg news, August 8, 1868, p. 1.

2) "State Republican Convention." The Anderson intelligencer. [volume], September 16, 1868, p. 2

3) "From the State Capitol." The Charleston daily news. [volume], September 23, 1868, Image 1

4) "Randolph's Scape" The Orangeburg news. [volume], April 11, 1868, Image 5

5) "Dreadful Murder." The daily phoenix. [volume], October 09, 1868, Image 1

6) The National Archives in Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M653; Residence Date: 1860; Home in 1860: Abbeville, South Carolina; Roll: M653_1212; Page: 37; Family History Library Film: 805212

7) The Charleston daily news. [volume], September 11, 1868, Image 1

8) Abbeville press. [volume], October 09, 1868, Image 3

9) "'Burnt District' on the Rampage." The Anderson intelligencer. [volume], September 09, 1868, Image 2

10) Keowee courier. [volume], December 10, 1869, Image 2

11) "One Thousand Dollar Reward!" The daily phoenix. [volume], August 21, 1869, Image 1

Black life in Chesterfield: London Craig

Historical marker for the John Craig House
Photo courtesy of author

A major challenge in researching the history of Reconstruction-era Chesterfield County is the lack of records of Black people. The entire county was largely poor and rural with the only major economic center being Cheraw, so the people who appear in extent records are largely white political leaders who lived there. (An important exception is records of the Southern Claims Commission which includes testimony from formerly enslaved people about their experiences during the Civil War. Their accounts were discussed in the post "Unionists in a Confederate stronghold.")

Here we take a look at a source of information about formerly enslaved people in the town of Chesterfield. The source is a photocopy of a typewritten essay titled, "The Craig House -- Home of Soldiers." The essay can be found in the local history room of the Matheson Library in Cheraw, specifically in a file labeled, "85. Towns Other Than Cheraw Chesterfield County." There is no date or author listed, but the essay is similar to one that appears in the book Historic Houses of South Carolina. That book was published in 1921, so the essay likely dates to around that time.

The Craig Home

The essay discusses The Craig House, a historic home in the town of Chesterfield. The house plays a significant role in the local history. It physically occupies a central location in the town. Chesterfield is a small town (the population is about 1,300 today, but it was only a few hundred in the nineteenth century) centered around a small business district that is anchored by the county courthouse. 

The Craig House is a large, beautiful house located across the street from the courthouse. It naturally attracts the attention of visitors, even unwelcome ones. General Sherman made the home his headquarters when he passed through. 

The house is the oldest one in town, and it was built for the early settler, John Craig. Craig was an Irish immigrant who ran both a general store and a mill. He likely also farmed as he enslaved a large workforce (thirty-two people in 1820), and there would have been little for them to do besides farm.

John Craig's sons played a prominent role in the town. His son, Hugh, was a Methodist minister who served three terms as state congressman. Hugh's brother, William E., lived in the Craig House and farmed. William E. did not hold major elected office, but he played a role in county politics as he would host many local politicians when they visited town. The prominent Cheraw politician and lawyer, M. J. Hough, was staying with him when the Civil War broke out.

Unexpectedly, the essay on the history of the house includes an intriguing paragraph about a Black member of the household:

London, a colored boy who had been discovered in a huckleberry patch when he was about five years old, was taken care of by William E. Craig. He lived in the house as a house boy until he was old enough to join the United States Army. He is supposed to have been the first colored man from this section to join the Army. This abandoned slave boy became a worthwhile citizen who was highly respected by both white and colored races.

The paragraph appears right after a discussion of the Craig family's service in the Confederate Army ("[William E.'s son] received three Minie balls."). In context, it appears to serve as a defense of the Craig family, and by extension Confederate South Carolinians. The Craig family strongly supported the Confederacy, the author seems to argue, but they should not be condemned for fighting for slavery as they were very kind to a "colored boy." 

Certainly, a modern reader wishes the author had written more about London. We can flesh out this account by drawing on other records. 

The Craig House
Photo courtesy of author

The life of London Craig

London did not know when he was born, but he estimated his birth year to be 1865, the year that the Civil War ended. On his death certificate, his mother is listed as "unknown," but his father is intriguingly listed as one "Richard Norwood." The fact that the father has a last name is significant as enslaved people rarely used last names. His father could have adopted his enslaver's family name, but the lack of information suggests that London may have been the son of an enslaved woman and her white enslaver, or another white man in the household. One possible candidate is a white miller named "Richard Norwood" who was living in nearby Union County, North Carolina and in Chester County, South Carolina around the time of London's birth. Richard was twenty-five years in 1865, so he certainly could have fathered London. Ultimately, we can only speculate who his parents were and why he ended up abandoned in a huckleberry patch as a young child.

I haven't found records explicitly confirming London's presence in the Craig household, but there is strong circumstantial evidence. As an adult, London adopted the "Craig" family name, calling himself "London Craig" or "London C. Craig." The account about the Craig House invites us to take this as evidence of the close and friendly relationship between London and William C., but of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt. The use of the "Craig" family name connected London to a prominent local family, an important thing in small town South Carolina, and using a different last name risked offending them.

London is said to have joined the Craig household at age five. This would date his arrival in the Craig household to 1870. The timeline makes sense. That year was during Reconstruction, a time when the plantation system was in chaos and life was generally disrupted. Everyone in the Craig household was regularly reminded of this state of things as the courthouse, just across the street, had been left in ruins by Union troops. Lacking the resources to rebuild, judicial proceedings were held in the Methodist church, the most suitable building still standing.

London arrived at the Craig House right when it was the center of some of the most impactful local political events. The year 1870 was not only an election year, but the year of an election of unparalleled importance. Political conservatives were seeking to overthrow the local Republican government that had come to power following the political enfranchisement of Black men. They regained powered after an  election marked by ballot stuffing and voter suppression. The actual ballot counting took place just down the street from the Craig House. 

Whatever his motivations, William E.'s decision to have London live with him saved London from tremendous hardship. With the planation economy in shambles and racial tensions at a high, a Black orphan like London,  without powerful guardians like the Craig family, would have been exposed to poverty, starvation, and violence.

The account of the Craig House states that London lived in the house until he was old enough to join the army. This would have been around 1883, the year that London turned eighteen. William E. died in 1872, and from that time until 1883, the house was run by William's daughter, Sarah, and her husband, W. J. Hanna. London is not listed among the people living with them in the 1880 census or anywhere else that I've looked. This could be a simple oversight on the part of the census-taker, or London could have already left the area.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any records of London's miliary service. As with his absence from the 1880 census, this could simply be an error with the record-keeping, or it could indicate something more significant such as the fact that the Craig House account is simply wrong.

The next recorded date we have is 1891. That is the date of his marriage to a young Black woman named Theresa. While I can't verify London's military service, such service is consistent with the timeline. The period when London appears to have left Chesterfield is approximately an eight-year period, a reasonable length for military service. 

After marrying Theresa, London remained in the town of Chesterfield. In 1900, he was working as a farmer. Whatever he did for work during the 1880s and 1890s, he was good at it as he had earned enough money to own his own house. This was a rare achievement for Black man in Jim Crow South Carolina. 

The 1900 census did not record the addresses of homes, so it is unclear where exactly London was living. They likely were living near downtown Chesterfield since the records show that they were living near many professionals and local officials such as the town constable and the county treasurer. A comparison of London with his Black neighbors highlights his personal achievements. Most Black families rented their houses and were headed by men working as common laborers.

The census shows Black people and white people living in close proximity to each other. Likely, the Black people were living on side streets. Before Jim Crow, the different races had lived in close proximity to each other, often on the same land. In the early years of segregation, this housing pattern often evolved into one where white families lived on a main street and Black families on nearby side streets. Only later did white and Black neighborhood become physically distant.

At some point in the 1910s, London found work as a mail carrier. This was a plum job for a Black man during Jim Crow. As a federal job, it offered better wages and stronger job security than almost any other job available to a Black man. The position suggests that he was held in high regard by local white community leaders (who exerted strong control over federal appointments). They would have been concerned about giving such a good, public-facing job to an "uppity" Black man.

In 1910, London and Theresa were living on Church St., a street off Main Street. The area was similar to the one where they were living in 1900: the neighborhood was a mixture of Black and White families with the Black families being largely working-class families. It was still the case that most families were headed by a men who earned a living in a menial job like farm laborer or house servant. The only other middle-class family was headed by the Methodist preacher, Caeser C. Robertson, who presumably preached at a nearby church.

In 1920, the street London and Theresa were living on was renamed "Railroad Street," but otherwise their living arrangements were the same. London died of natural causes on June 4 of that year. Theresa lived for more than twenty more years, passing away on October 11, 1943. While she gave birth to three children, none of them lived to adulthood, so this brought the family to an end.

View of Main Street from Chesterfield Courthouse
The stoplight in the upper right-hand corner is the intersection of Main and Page
Photo courtesy of author

Modern map of Chesterfield
From Google Maps

Sources

1) Fourth Census of the United States, 1820; Census Place: Chesterfield, South Carolina; Page: 122; NARA Roll: M33_119; Image: 252

2) Year: 1910; Census Place: Court House, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: T624_1455; Page: 4a; Enumeration District: 0036; FHL microfilm: 1375468

3) Year: 1900; Census Place: Court House, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1523; Page: 3; Enumeration District: 0021

4) South Carolina Department of Archives and History; Columbia, South Carolina; South Carolina Death Records; Year Range: 1900-1924; Death County or Certificate Range: Chesterfield. Certificate Number 013004, Volume Number 22.

More on the Election Day murder

Ballots from the July 1869 election
From the South Carolina State Archives
Courtesy of the author

In the blogpost Chesterfield during Reconstruction: A murder on election day!, we discussed a murder on Election Day, Saturday July 24, 1869, at Mount Croghan in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. The Confederate veteran Archibald Nicholson was killed by the freedman Jacob Brewer. While the murder was reported in newspapers, the incident fell out of the public eye. In particular, it was unclear whether Brewer ever faced legal consequences. After a trip to the state archives, I now have a better understanding of what happened.

Recall the basics of the incident. On Election Day, Archibald and his brother John walked four miles from their home to the town of Mount Croghan. While there, Archibald decided to purchase cedar that was being sold near the polling station. While queuing in line, he got into an argument with a freedman (unnamed in press reports) who tried to push his way forward and make a purchase. Upset with the freedman, Archibald attacked him with a knife he was carrying. At this point, a race riot broke out. About thirty or forty men had come to town, and many of them began to fight, with white men trying to defend Archibald and Black men trying to defend the freedman. Jacob Brewer was among those who joined the fight, and he struck Archibald in the head with a gun he had picked up and then ran off. After the fight, Archibald went home, but his injury proved severe, and he died later that day.

Legal proceedings against Jacob Brewer began two days after the election day. The case was a major test for the legal system. South Carolina had been under military rule for several years, and the civil courts had only opened roughly a year earlier following a reorganization under a new constitution. The county jail was still under construction, so basic issues like where to imprison people were not yet resolved.

Under the newly reorganized legal system, the state official who was immediately responsible for handling matters was the magistrate, George W. Brewer. Brewer was a white farmer who had lived in the area since before the war. Little information is available about his politics, but he likely was an active Republican as he was appointed by Governor Scott. As was common for magistrates, Brewer does not appear to have had any formal legal training, but he was educated and highly literate.

Magistrates had limited authority over criminal cases, so G. W. Brewer's role was restricted to preliminary matters like ordering witnesses to testify. The grand jury hearing and the trial would be held in the Court of General Sessions in the town of Chesterfield with Judge Archibald J. Shaw presiding over the proceedings. Judge Shaw had been elected on a conservative ticket and was the sort of man that conservatives wanted to place in office. He was a native South Carolinian who had practiced law in the antebellum and had served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.

Most practical issues, like bringing the accused to court, were handled by the county sheriff, P. F. Spofford. Born in Massachusetts, Spofford had moved to South Carolina before the Civil War to work as a shoemaker in Cheraw. He appears to have embraced the state culture. Spofford had served in the Confederate army and had been elected on a conservative ticket, but he appears to have enjoyed broad support as he received a Republican endorsement a few years later when he ran for re-election. Ultimately, he went in to serve as sheriff for almost two decades.

The job of prosecuting the case was handled by the county solicitor, James M. Rutland. Rutland was also a native South Carolinian who had practiced law before the war, but he was one of the few prominent South Carolinians who had opposed secession and the Confederacy. However, he was also a political moderate who supported only limited political rights for freedmen. All in all, the county legal system was run by people who could be expected to prosecute the case against Jacob Brewer with vigor. 

In the case of a suspected murder, legal proceedings begin with a coroner's inquest to determined the cause of the death. The details of the inquest were given in the blogpost "Chesterfield during Reconstruction: A murder on election day!" Magistrate Brewer held the inquest, and the outcome was predictable: two physicians testified that Archibald Nicholson was killed by a blow to the head, and several people testified to having witnessed Jacob Brewer strike the blow. 

After the coroner's inquest, Magistrate Brewer recorded testimony from one additional witness, issued  recognizances to three other witnesses (binding them to testify), and issued arrest warrants for two more witnesses.

The identities of the witnesses shed some light on the proceedings. The person who gave the witness testimony was Oliver P. Edgeworth, a white farmer who had served in the Confederate army. One of the two men that the magistrate issued an arrest warrant for (Alexander Oliver) was also a white farmer, but the remaining three were witnesses were Black, and likely freedmen. Two of them, Jacob and Essick Lowry, were among those who testified at the coroner's inquest, while the third was a new witness.

We can some get some additional insights from looking at the recognizances that were issued. The terms of each agreement was that the witness swore that, if they failed to appear as a witness before the court, then they were indebted to the state for a substantial amount of money, typically two hundred dollars. The witness did not actually provide the sum of money, but it was expected that they owned enough in land and other goods so that the state could recoup the debt. In case there was concern over whether the witness could cover the debt, a third party could cosign the agreement. Thus the existence a third-party co-signature suggests both that (1) the witness had limited financial means and (2) enjoyed a positive relationship with the third party.

A. M. Lowry cosigned for Sandy Gordan, Jacob Lowry and Essick Lowry. The common last name ("Lowry") suggests that A. M. may have enslaved Jacob and Essick before the war, in which case the two were likely still farming on A. M.'s land. In general, A. M. was heavily involved in the legal proceedings. He also served as foreman on the jury for the coroner's inquest and made the complaints that provided the basis for the arrest warrants issued for Chester McKenzie and Alexander Oliver. Likely this reflects A. M.'s strong engagement with local politics. A. M. was a successful small farmer who served in the state legislature during the antebellum. He would go on to lead efforts to "redeem" the state government and was elected to the legislature on the conservative ticket in 1872.

Over the course of summer and fall, Magistrate Brewer and Sheriff Spofford would work together to gather additional witnesses. They secured agreements to testify from all the witnesses from the coroner's inquest (Benjamin Blackeney, Edmond Moore, and Hardy G. Hendrick), the two men the magistrate had issued warrants for (Chester McKenzie and Alexander Oliver), and O. P. Edgeworth.

Criminal proceedings against Jacob Brewer should have begun at the August session of the Court of General Sessions. However, shortly before the July election, the judge issued a letter that he would not be holding court that term. Thus legal proceedings first began in January 1870. 

The record of what transpired is confused. There is no mention of the case against Brewer in the criminal journal of the court. However, incitement papers state that the grand jury issued a true bill of indictment  against Jacob Brewer. Based on the indictment, the judge issued a warrant for Brewer's arrest, and the solicitor was able to present the case against Brewer at a jury trial. 

It appears that the sheriff was unable to locate Jacob Brewer, but the jury trial against him was held in May term. The petit jury found him guilty of murder, and a second bench warrant was issued for his arrest on May 9. The sheriff reported on September 4 that he had been unable to locate Brewer, and the judge decided to sentence Brewer in absentia that month. The exact terms of the sentence are unknown as the records were sealed, but a second arrest warrant was issued on September 17.  The sheriff spent the next few months searching for Brewer, but reported on December 31 that he was unable to find him. This brought matters to anti-climatic end. Presumably, Jacob Brewer, recognizing that he was facing serious criminal charges, had fled the county. Certainly, in the chaos of post-war South Carolina, it would not have been difficult for him to leave without the sheriff noticing.

The fact that the legal proceedings against Jacob Brewer went unrecorded in the criminal journal of the Court of General Sessions is worth inspecting further. This likely reflects simple incompetence on the part of the court system rather than an intentional effort to conceal operations. Other important legal cases also went unrecorded. For example, records of the state penitentiary show that two men (A. Roberts and E. Simmons) were found guilty of crimes during the January court term yet those legal proceedings also went unrecorded in the criminal journal. Moreover, the crimes were very serious. One man (A. Roberts) was given a life sentence for murder, while the other (E. Simmons) was given a ten year sentence for burglary, larceny, and horse stealing.

The citizens of Chesterfield County themselves appear upset with the legal system. Each term, the Grand Jury issued a presentiment in which they described problems with the county government. In a typical presentment, the Grand Jury might describe problems with infrastructure like bridges and roads or the poor house or the county jail. The Grand Jury organized for the January term singled out for criticism Magistrate Brewer's handling of the election: "We present Mr. G. W. Brewer for not discharging his duties as magistrate in not attempting to preserve the peace at Mt. Croghan on or about the 24th July 1869 at which time and place there was a considerable riot." 

The whole incident seems to confirm the opinion Wilmington Evening Star that "Riots and murders seem to be the order of the day." However, while the newspaper blamed lawlessness on "radical [Republican] rule," few, if any, of the individuals responsible for maintaining law and order in Chesterfield were radical Republicans. While there were valid complaints against the new Republican state government, the difficulties also strongly reflected problems with South Carolina's historical criminal justice system. In the antebellum, South Carolina's legal culture was distinctive for being weak and inefficient. Many in the state lived in rural areas, on farms or plantations, and a majority of residents were enslaved people who enjoyed few if any legal rights. The state government gave planters and farm-owners broad discretion in how they maintained order on their lands (enslaved workers could be beaten for arbitrary reasons), and disputes between planters were often resolved informally. This system became unsustainable following Emancipation and the collapse of the planation system. Events in Chesterfield show that the new judicial system created by the 1868 state constitution only had a limited ability to maintain order, but given the poverty, disorder, and destruction that was pervasive within the state, its hard to imagine how any newly legal system could have achieved more than a limited success.

Testimony of Oliver P. Edgeworth

After being duly sworn says that he was at Mount Croghan in the County of Chesterfield in the Lancaster Road near Mr. Burch's field. Mr. Archibald Nicholson standing near the field and saw person person [sic] run up and strike Mr. Nicholson was a stout man and struck with a gun holding it in both hands and struck a hard lick and believes the person to be one Jacob Brewer and he ran off immediately after he struck the blow he also states that one Edmond Moore told him at the time the blow was struck that it was Jacob Brwer that struck the lick inflicted upon Nicholson

this July 21 1869

Oliver P. Edgeworth

Witnesses

Chester McKenzie (b. 1829) Virginia. Black. Chester McKenzie was a farmer in Mount Croghan. He was still living in Mount Croghan in 1900. 

Sources: Year: 1900; Census Place: Mount Croghan, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1523; Page: 6; Enumeration District: 0024

Alexander Oliver (b. 1849) White farmer living in Mt. Croghan.

A second possibility for "Alexander Oliver" is: 

Alexander Oliver (b. 1833) White. Alexander Oliver was a farmer in Cole Hill. 

Bondsman

A. M. Lowry

Albert Robinson

Heinson Jordan

S[amuel] D[avis] Watts

Simon P. Burch: 42 year old Black farmer in Mt Croghan.

A. D. Watt

Richard Oliver

January Term Grand Jury

Malcolm McColeman (foreman)

Lat. C. Burch

A. H. Blakeney

Jackson Copeland

D. G. Campbell

John Ellerbe

Wm. Ganzy

Robt g. Griffith 

David Hancook

Alfred Johnson

James C. Lee

Thos. F. Malloy

James Massey

Lewis Melton

W. J. Rivers

Geo. W. Spencer

Frank Wilk

May Term Petit Jury 1

Richmond McMeans?

Adam Eubanks

Wm. Cassady

John Agerton

Evis Bittes

Lal McLead

Josiah Murmmlyan

G. W. Davidson

L. M. Hough

Frank Pate

W. A. Courtney

Sam Williams

May Term Petit Jury 2

L. C. Evans

Albert Evans

R. E. Evans

George Blackwell

Jack Baken

Chaos. Gathings

John Highlands

Alex Roninson

B. A. Evans

Alex Linton

Lee Brewer

Levi McFarlands

Voter intimidation in 1870s Chesterfield County

In Chesterfield County, following the 1870 election, conservatives and Republicans accused each other of election misconduct. The conservatives' accusation received a great deal of attention, likely because conservatives largely controlled the regional press. Here we take a closer look at the Republicans' claims.

Chesterfield Republicans claimed that conservatives had suppressed the Republican vote in the precincts of Cole Hill and Alligator through intimidation. The claims were sent to the state board of canvassers and then the senate committee on privileges and elections and its analogue in the House. Presumably, they deliberated on the claim, but there was never any substantiative public vetting. The board of canvassers accepted the election returns for the Cole Hill and Alligator precincts without giving a justification. The senate committee found that the evidence provided by Republican leader R. J. Donaldson was "very general and unsatisfactory," and recommended that he give additional testimony, but he never did so, and the matter was dropped.

The response by the house committee to the voter intimidation claims was a fiasco. When it came time for the nine-person committee to issue a report, the two different reports were issued, one recommending that the board of canvassers decision be upheld, the other recommending that it be overturned. Each report was signed by four members, with one member abstaining from signing either report. After a lengthy and contentious debate that include one committee member advocating voting against the recommendation of the report that he had signed, the House voted to overturn the board of canvassers' decision. 

What can we say about the Republican claims of voter intimidation. There are only a few pieces of evidence available to us. In its report, the county board of canvassers gave precise numbers on voters. In Alligator and Cole Hill precincts, the number of Black voters was 19 while the number of white voters was 202. These numbers indeed suggest misconduct. State-wide, Black voters almost uniformly supported the Republican party, and in Chesterfield, Republican candidates usually received the majority of the Black vote plus a small number of votes from white Unionists. The returns from the two precincts are consistent with this: the number of votes received by the Republican candidate is almost identical to the number of Black voters (21 versus 19). However, the number of Black voters is suspiciously low. Black residents made up about 16% percent of precincts, but they made only about 8% of the voters.

Some additional information is offered by the affidavits submitted to the General Assembly. The exact text is given below. One person (Rodrick Outlaw) claimed that Republicans had been threatened with violence if they voted for their party, while another person (Willis Copeland) stated that he knew three voters who voted the Democratic ticket because they were told that otherwise they'd lose their jobs (likely sharecropping).

We can try to get some more information out of the affidavits by looking into the people named. Unfortunately, the most useful resource, the 1869 militia enrollments, is currently unavailable (the website is down). Looking at census records, Rodrick Outlaw Jr. appears to be a small farmer who had been in the Alligator / Cole Hill area since before the Civil War. Unexpectedly, Outlaw was a white Confederate veteran. Since we only have a name and a rough location to go by, it is conceivable that I could have misidentified, but the use of the generational title "Jr." is further evidence that Rodrick was white because enslavement tended to work against the sort of family relations suggested by the generational title.

The trial justice that Rodrick went to, B. C. Cassidy, was someone he likely knew. Cassidy was a white South Carolinian who had been farming in Alligator / Cole Hill since before the Civil War. Although he never held a major elected office, he had long been active in local government, serving as a constable, an election manager, and a magistrate (an antebellum office similar to that of trial justice) during the antebellum. Cassidy appears to have become supportive of the Republican party, although unfortunately there is no records of his political development.

The other affidavit was handled by the trial justice Frank H. Eaton. Eaton is well-documented. Originally from the northeast, Eaton came to South Carolina as an officer in the 25th Regiment in the last months of the war, when the regiment was sent to Darlington to participate in the post-war occupation. He remained in the state after leaving military service. By 1870, he had moved to Cheraw and was serving in several state and federal positions. In addition to his position as a trial justice, he served as an assistant federal tax assessor and as a U.S. commissioner (a position similar to a modern magistrate judge).

I haven't been able to find about Willis Copeland, the person who had Eaton write out the affidavit, or the three men he refers to (Jacob McGoogin, Samuels Evans, and Henry Sellars). Copeland's statement suggests that the three men were likely freedmen who were working as sharecroppers for conservative former planters.

The senate committee's evaluation that the two affidavits were "very general and unsatisfactory" seems fair. Neither affidavit included enough information to change the election results, but they certainly invited further investigation, an investigation that was never performed. Absent new evidence, we can't verify the affidavits, but certainly, other developments in South Carolina clearly demonstrate that the Republican vote was often suppressed through threats like those that the affidavits reported.

At the same time, conservatives did not need to have suppressed the Republican vote to win the election. The official election returns had conservative candidates winning the election by approximately one-hundred and twenty votes, and the demographics of it only cost them about twenty votes.

The best summary of Chesterfield election was perhaps offered by legislators Lawrence Cain, Prince R. Rivers, and David Harris. In a complaint submitted to the General Assembly, they stated that the evidence showed that the election had been carried out in an illegal manner and recommended holding a new election.

Affidavit One

South Carolina

Chesterfield Co.

Personally appeared before me B. C. Cassidy Trial Justice in and for said county state Rodrick Outlaw Jr who being duly sworn deposes and says that on the 19th Oct 1870 at the General Election he was afraid to vote the Republican ticket on account of previous threats that Republicans would be shot or their houses burned over their heads that he voted the democratic ticket through fear and to his personal knowledge many other voters were threatened and kept away from the polls through fear.

Rodrick Outlaw Jr [marked with an "x"]

Sworn before me

1st Nov: 1870

B. C. Cassidy

Trial Justice

Affidavit Two

State of South Carolina

Chesterfield County

Personally appears before me Frank H. Eaton Trial Justice in and for said County and state Willis Copeland a legal voter of said county and being duly sworn declare on oath that he is intimately acquainted with Jacob McGoogin and Samuels Evans and Henry Sellars who are legal voters of said County. That he knows that they each intended to vote the Republican ticket on the 19 Oct. last but their employers threatened to turn them from their homes if they voted for Donaldson that under these threats he knows that each of the voters named voted the Democratic ticket contrary to their desire + purpose  and he further says that each of the voters named are now afraid to testify to the fact lest their live be so dangered.

Willis Copeland [marked with an "x"]

Sworn to before me

this 19th Nov. 1870 

F. E. Eaton

Trial Justice

Dramatis personae 

Samuel Evans (b. abt. 1829)

South Carolina. Black

Occupation: farmer. 

Samuel Evans was working as a farmer in Jefferson township in 1870. He remained there until sometime between 1900 and 1910 when he moved to Union County, North Carolina.

Sources
1.Year: 1870; Census Place: Jefferson, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M593_1491; Page: 314B
2. Year: 1880; Census Place: Jefferson, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1225; Page: 347B; Enumeration District: 006
3. Series: Militia Enrollments of 1869 (S192021)

4. Year: 1900; Census Place: Jefferson, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1523; Page: 1; Enumeration District: 0022

5. Year: 1910; Census Place: Buford, Union, North Carolina; Roll: T624_1134; Page: 10b; Enumeration District: 0119; FHL microfilm: 1375147

Jacob McGoogin (b. abt. 1844)

South Carolina. Black

Occupation: farmer, laborer. 

Jacob McGoogin (or McGoogan or McGuigan) was working as a farmer and a laborer in Chesterfield township in 1870. He and his family had moved to Old Store by 1880.

Sources
1.Year: 1870; Census Place: Court House, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M593_1491; Page: 307A
2. Year: 1880; Census Place: Old Store, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1225; Page: 396A; Enumeration District: 008
3. Series: Militia Enrollments of 1869 (S192021)

Rodrick Outlaw (b. 1825; d. 1897)
South Carolina. White.
Occupation: farmer. 

Rodrick (or Rodrick) Outlaw was born in Kershaw County, South Carolian to unknown parents. He first appears in the historical record in the 1850 census. That year he was living in Chesterfield in the household of Jane Holloman and working as a laborer. He had started his own family farm by 1860. He served in the Fourth South Carolina Infantry during the Civil War. After the war ended, he returned to his farm. He was still living there in 1870 and in 1880. Rodrick died in 1897 and was buried in Pleasant Hill Church Cemetery.

Sources
1. The National Archives in Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M432; Residence Date: 1850; Home in 1850: Chesterfield, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 851; Page: 133b
2. The National Archives in Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M653; Residence Date: 1860; Home in 1860: Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M653_1217; Page: 123; Family History Library Film: 805217
3. Year: 1870; Census Place: Alligator, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M593_1491; Page: 242A
4. Year: 1880; Census Place: Alligator, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 1225; Page: 259B; Enumeration District: 001
5. South Carolina Department of Archives and History; Columbia, South Carolina; South Carolina Death Records; Year Range: 1925-1949; Death County or Certificate Range: Lancaster. Certificate Number 014522

B[enjamin?] C. Cassidy (b. abt. 1828; d. September 9, 1878)
South Carolina. White.
Occupation: farmer

B. C. Cassidy (or Cassady) was born in South Carolina. He likely first appears in the historical record in 1850 as "Benjamin C. Cassady," a farmer in Chesterfield County. In the antebellum, he served several minor roles in the state government: as a constable, a magistrate, and an election manger. After the war, he appears to have become supportive of the Republican government and received an appointment as a trial justice by Governor Scott. He died in 1878.

Sources
1. Book1
2. Book2
3. Book3
4. Book4
5. Year: 1870; Census Place: Alligator, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M593_1491; Page: 240A
6. The National Archives in Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M653; Residence Date: 1860; Home in 1860: Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: M653_1217; Page: 121
7. The National Archives in Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M432; Residence Date: 1850; Home in 1850: Chesterfield, Chesterfield, South Carolina; Roll: 851; Page: 124b

Frank H. Eaton (b. July 14, 1843; d. August 2, 1887) 
Connecticut. White. 
Occupation: assistant assessor, clerk, U.S. commissioner. 

Frank (or Franklin) H. Eaton was born in Hartford, Connecticut to Jeremiah Sewall and Harriet Eaton. The family moved to Portland, Maine when Frank was a small boy so that his father could serve as pastor at the Free Street Church, a Baptist church. As pastor, Sewall was very outspoken in opposing slavery. Sewall died in 1856, but the family remained in Portland. By 1860, Frank was working as a store clerk. 

Frank enlisted in the Union army in late 1862. He first served in the 25th Maine Regiment and then in the 29th. He left the service with the rank of sergeant major. 

Frank began living in South Carolina after the Civil War ended. He likely first moved to the state with the 25th Regiment went it was sent to the town of Darlington to participate in the post-war occupation.  By the summer of 1867, he was living in Marlboro County. That July, he was one of nine men appointed by the military government to serve on the county board responsible for registering voters, including newly enfranchised freedmen, and organizing a ballot on whether to hold a constitutional convention.

Frank had moved to the town Cheraw by 1870. There he served as an assistant assessor. Around this time, he also received a federal appointment as a U.S. commissioner (a position similar to a modern magistrate judge). 

He moved to Columbia, SC in 1875. There he continued to work as a U.S. Commissioner and also practiced law. He provided legal representation for the Union veteran Charles J. Stolbrand. Stolbrand ran as the Republican candidate for U.S. congressman of the 3rd district. The conservative Democratic incumbent (D. Wyatt Aiken) claimed electoral victory, but Stolbrand tried to contest the outcome. He was unsuccessful and the incumbent remained in office for seven more years. 

Frank was lost his position as U.S. commissioner in 1881. He was removed by Judge Bond for cause, although the details of Bond's reasoning weren't publicized.

Frank died on August 2, 1887. He is buried in Mount Moriah Cemetery in Philadelphia.

Sources

1. The Abbeville press and banner. [volume], April 13, 1881, Image 3

2. The daily phoenix. [volume], July 26, 1867, Image 3

3. Check mom's diary.

4.  testimony on 1876 election.