jZDl/ TWO MISSOURI HISTORIANS. A PAPER READ BEFORE THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MISSOURI, AT ITS FIRST ANNUAL MEETING, HELD AT COLUMBIA, DECEMBER 5, 1901. REPUBLICAN PRINT MARYVILLE, MO. 1902. Gtti./^,mkhii^h}^dhi / TWO MISSOURI HISTORIANS. •^•^•^ •.#''^' '^•>ik*'^- v-\;i r(\ \ \ n, 'i. w . r'.,o, ti > y\ ■%> o. r\ A PAPER READ BEFORE THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MISSOURI, AT ITS FIRST ANNUAL MEETING, HELD AT COLUMBIA, DECEMBER 5, 1901. REPUBLICAN PKINT MARYVILLE, MO. 1902. Only One Hundred copies privately printed, of which this is Number "^^^ y^ p. Author. (Pertan). f My'02 TWO MISSOURI HISTORIANS. The following paper was read by H. E, Robinson, Editor of the Maryville, Mo. RepubUran, before the State Historical Society of Missouri at its first annual meeting held in Columbia, Mo.. December 6, 1901: One of the most important epochs in the history of the United States was that covered by the war oi 1861. I do not propose, of course, entering upon a close exam- ination of the causes that led up to that conflict, bu. a cursory review seems to be essential in the proper pre- sentation of the mattei- covered by this paper. The slavery question, with its accompanying issues of free trade and state sovereignity, were matters of bitter discussion from the time of the adoption of the federal constitution. I speak advisedly m classiug state sover- eignty as a side issue of slavery, for, while it was a prime factor in the discuswion over the adoption of the eonstitution of 1787, after that result it fell into the backgrouiKi except among the most strenuous uphold- ers of the svstem of slavery. The state of Missouri cHine into being through heat- ed although wordy confli'^t. Its very existence as a state was through a coriipromise on the slavery ques- tion. And oddly, though perhaps naturally, its polit- ical history from 1820 to 1861 .•> as so impregnated with bitterness and rancor tliat the state has been well styled by one of our historians "a bone of contention." In 1861, vvheu the fever of secession was rampant in the blood of all who believed in the doctrine of states' rights, or state sovereignty, Missouri was the most populous as well as one of the most wealthy of the slave-holding states. Naturally, there was a strong de- sire on the part of those who 'vere in favor of secession to see Missouri allie'l with tiie Southern states. And, just as naturally, tbere wa« as stronji; a wish on the part of those who believed in npho!(iinj2: the authority of the federal government to hold Missouri on the side ol the Uuion. It was not strano'e, then, that the poh'tieal contest of 1860, and the preliminary strife of the first months of 1861, in Missouri, were characterized by a struag'le in which every inch of jj-round was disputed, in which the leaders were mcu of the strongest} force, and in which no favors were asked or (;Tanted. Kach side seemed to 7-ealize that as went Missouri so would go the conflict and their exertions were emph;i*izod by this conclusion. * * * 1 think that a careful study of the situation as it then existed will lead any candid mind to the following con- clusion: Missouri would have ])a8sed an ordinance of secession and joined her interest with the Southern con- federacy had ic not been for two facts: 1. By some scurcely explainable stupidit}^ the state legislature which convened at Jefferson City on the 31st of December, 1860, aud which was beyond doubt over- whelmingly in favor of secession, or, at least, of uunco- erciou, instead of grappliug the situation boldly, tem- poi'ized by passing an act providing for the election of a convention, and explicitiy giving to that convention all authority over federal relations. Members of that convention were chosen on February 18, 1861, and iw herculean work on the part of the Union men of the state the 104 members elected were Largely opposed to secessioii, although many of them were slaveliolders and ail but eighteen were natives of slave-holding states. When too iate the Irieads of secession saw their error, aud the more conserva,tive of them realized that the.y had forever missed their opportunity. 2 When, on February 6, 1861. a company of regu- lars under the command of Capt. Nathaniel Lyon, marched into the St. Louis arsenal, the possibility of secession on the part of Missouri became naught. "Ke was the greatest ina.n I ever saw in my life," says Col. Snead. i met him on three r.ccasions— a-t the confei- ence between the Miss;overnor from the capital, and all his troops into the uttermost corner of the state, and by holdiuo; Prince and Mc('ulloch at bay, he had ^iven the Union men Oi Missouri time opportunity and courage to bring their state convention toj2,ether again, and had given the convention an excuse and the power to depose Gov. Jackson and Lieut. Gov. Reynolds, to vacate the seats of the members of the general assembly, and to establish a state go vei-nineut which was loyal to the Union, and which would use the whole organized power of the state, its treasury, its credit, its militia, and all its great resources, to sustain the Union and crush the South. All this had been done while Lyon was boldly confronting the overwhelming strength of Price and -VlcCulloch. Had he abandoned Springfield instead, and opened to Price a pathway to the Missouri; had he not been willing to die for the freedom of the negro, and for the preservation of the Ui ion, none of these things would then have been done. By wisely planning, by boldly doing, and by bravely dying, he had won the fight for MJSHOui'i." The historical importance of the period covered by the war of secession in its co::nection with American an- nals will scarcely be disputed. And I am persuaded my hearers will at least partially admit the importance of this epoch that I have claimed for the state of Missouri, This being the case, brings us to the examination of the written history of that period, the prime fact endeavor- ed to be covered by this paper. —10— Thpre is no other state, with whose history I am con- versant, that has had so important an era as was that of 1861, covered so thoroughly, and yetsopraiseworth- ily, as has been that of Missouri. Its historians, one writing from the standpoint of an ardent Union man, the other from the view of an equally ardent supporter of secession, although writing two decades apart, each cover the period closing with the death of Gen. Lyon, on the 10th day of August, 1861, at Wilson's creek. Thus, seemingly, tiiey are agreed upon one point— that those few preguant months settled the fa.te of Missouri and (if the nation. A most curious coincidence will be noticed, that these opposing historians wee within a very short period each connected with the same paper in St. Louis, the Evening Bulletin, Peckiiam tirst, as founder ofthepaper and afterwards, Snead, as editor, after his fi-iend, Long- uemaii-e, had bouy,-ht it and ('hanged its politics. This point will be more fally brought out later on this arti- cle. * * In point of time, the Union liistory appeared first. In 1866 was published in New York, a book entitled "Gen- eral Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861: A Mono- graph of the Great Rebellion, by James Peckham, for- merlv lieutenant colonel 8th infantry, Missouj-i volun- teers!" James Pecknam was born in New York city, at 690 Water street, December 15, 1828. His father died of the cholera in 1832, and he was conijx-lled to nia.ke his living by perFonal effort from most extreme youth. I have been favored in obtaining a diary he kept for most of his life, from which some interesting details have been gathered. The entries in this diary p.ove him to have been one of the most ro^dng, restless be ngs imaginable. Of his first visit to l^.'Iissouri, he speaks thus: "Arrived in St. Louis, September 1, 1848, with 10 cents m my pocket and three shirts tied up in a little carpet bair with an an old linen coat. "Was in St. Paul, Minn.. September 25. 1848. -11- "Occupied Oelober and half of Xoveinber in ti-aveling throuojh Neorii ska down t(3 the Kansas, down to the Missouri, down to St. Louis." oy In January, 1852, Mr. Peckha.m entered the erapl "^ of a telegraph company. installin<>: their lines, and cam to Sd. Louis again, stopping- at the Monroe house, cor" ner of Second and Olive streets. An entry in his diary sa,3's- "i^eft St. Louis. Wednesday, 25th (February, on board steauiboat Kansas, and a.i-rived at Boonville, Mo., Sat- urday ui})jht, 11 o'clock, February 28. "Took ch;vrg:e of Boonviile telegraph office, March 1, 1852— two iustrinnents." In 1856 Mr. Peckhani returned to his native city, and in November, 1857, he ran i)1. Morgan L. Srairh, Lieut. Col. James Peckham and Mn]. John McDonald. -12- After takiDj? part m the Pittsburg landing the Corinth campaigns, Col. Peckham resigned and returned to Mis- souri, and on Monday, June 1(5, 1862, he was married to Miss Catherine Bohauuon, at Jefferson City The same day he began work for the St. Louis Daily Union, at which he continued until September 6, 1862, when he was commissioned lieutenant colonel of the 29th Mis- souri volunteers, Col. John Cavender. On Mareh 14, 1863, he was mustered as colonel of the regiment. He saw hard service, and w-s wounded in both arms, so that, as he says in his diary: "Mustered out of the service of the United States at my own request, on account of disability from wounds received in battle March 14, 1864." James Peckham was enrolled as a member of the bar Friday, Sepiember 8, 1865, by Judge Wilson Primm. He was introduced by Jo P. Vastine. Among the last entries ir: bis diary is the following: "Traveled over xvlissouri with (len. F. P. Blair on an electioneering toui-. during the months of May and June 1866. "Start for New Yoi-k cit}^ to publish my life of L,jon, Friday, June 15. 1866." ' Col. Peckham died at Hot Springs, Ark., Junel, 1869, and his remams were brought to St. Louis and interred in Bellefontaine cemeterv. He left a x^idow and one daughter, who still reside in St. Louis. He wa.s a man of wit and good fellowship, although somewhat erratic by nature. His old associates seem to be united in saying that he was somewhat elusive, disappearing from view at times for several days, and not very easy to become acquainted with. His history of Missouri is a mass of documents and facts that can not be obtained elsewhere. Original or- ders, letters, proceedings of \arious committees, and tne like, fill the 400 pages of this book to such repletion that it is no wonder that Col. Snead aamits his indebt- edness to it as "a book whose glaring faults are more than compensated bv the important facts, the remem- brance whereof it has preserved." S*""^ COL THOMAS LOWNDES SNEAD, -15- Said a Jefferson City correspondent, of the Missouri Democrat, under date^of May 11, 1861: "From what I ovei-hear, I take it as a, fact, that a bill has passed appropriatino- money for the purpose of in- ducino- the savage Indian tribes to the west of us to make a descent upon Kansas and Iowa. I heard Mr. Peckham denounce to ;*. secessionist the heathenism of such a law, and the response he received was as follows: 'It will be d d lucky for you fellows if u orse thinas than that ain't done to you belfore we are throuo'h with this thmo-.' " Among' the most valuable documents preserved for the historian l>y Col. Peckham were scores of letters sent from almost everA' section of Missouri to Col. F. P. Blair, which illustrate fully the feelino- of unrest and solicitude which then prevailed. As Col. Peckham states these selections were made ''from severs! bushels ot" let- ters sent to Col. Blair ar that time," and it is a source of much reg'rer that morn of this correspondence was not preserved. As it is, we are under obligations to Col. Peckham for the little we have. As corrobor.ative of the statement made toward the first of this paper, thai the legislature of 1861 was overwhelmingly iu favor of secession. I may herequote a passage from Col. Peckham's book concerning- the or- g:auization of that body, of which he was a member: "On the 2d of January an election for permanent officers was held in the house, and the successful candi- dates were entirely of the secession mold. Speaker Mc- Afee was an undisguised secessionist. The vote for speaker stood thus: McAfee, 76; all others, 48. On the niorniiig' of the 3d the lieutenant governoi- issued a private cn-cular, which was placed on the desks of cer- tain senators, inviting to his room all those seuatoj-s who were in hearty sympathv with 'our Southern breth- ren,' and who were 'firnily determined to see our sister states secure their rights.' for the purpose of making up the senate committees. Of all the ofhcers and clerks of Doth branches of the legislature. I know of but one who was not an avowed secessionist.'' —16— In 8ome respects Col. Snead, who has ^iven us the his- tory of the same period from a Confederate standpoint, was more fortunate than his predecessor. He had the advantage of all the docrimentary matter preserved by the former, as well as much other which had been brought to light, and the passions engendered by a cruel war had somewhat cooled, so that, taken as a whole, his book is more critical and possesses more of a historical tone than does that of Col. Peckham. In fact, Col. Snead's book, which appeared in 1886 under the ti'le, ''The Fight for Missouri from the Elect- ion of Lincoln to the Death of Lyon, by Thomas L. Snead, A. L). C. of the Governor; Actmg Adjutant (i-^n- eral of the Missouri State Guard; Chief of Staff of the Army of the West; Member of the Confederate Con- gress," is so fair, while presenting his view of the con- flict, and so generous in ascribing merit to his oppon- ents, that there is a well substantiated belief on the part of many that to this cause is to be ascribed the failure of Col. Snead's book tv) receive that recognition from his fellows lliat lie thought it deserved, and which was certainly its (iue. Thomas Lowndes Snei'.d was born m Richmond. Va,., in 1827. Ele was graduated from the universify of Vir- ginia, and came to Missouri in 1851, setthng in St. Louis. While waiting for practice he clerked for awhile in the courthouse, and then entered into partnership with Judge Wickham. In November. 1852, hewas mar- ried to Miss Harriet V. Reel. lie practiced law in St. Louis until 18(51, and. as was frequently the case then with young lawyers, engaged ardently in newspaper political writing, becoming editor of the St. Louis Even- ing Bulletin, which eart;estiy supported Breckinridge for the prcsiilency, after the purchase of that paper »)y Longuentaii'e from its founder. James Peckha-ns. As illustrative of tlie position of the Breckinridge Demo- cra.cy at that time, I quote from Col. Snead's preface: '•\V'e belie vtd that the slave holding states could not remain iii the Union, with either safety or honor, unless thp North should consent to give thein constitutional guaian tees i-jtat their rights as coequal states of the Union should be both respected ar.d protected by the t'eden^l government, and because we thouglit that this question should be plainly submitted to the North in the then pending presidential election and a positive answer demanded. As Mr. Douglas' candidacy, with his policy of equivocation, prevented this question from being put fairly to the North, we opposed him and everyboay who supported him." * w * As further illustrating- the spirit which prevailed in those days, T may be pardoned for introducing the fol- lowing parenthetical statement: The St Louis Evening Bulletin was then owned by Eugene Louguemaire, who appears to have been a hot headed and quarrelsome secessionist. He attended the national Democratic convention at Charleston, S. C, in 1860, with others from Missouri, and while there be- came engaged in a political controversy with Gen. James Craig, of St. Joseph, one of the delegates from Missouri to that convei;tiou. The dispute went to such an extent that Longueniaire challenged Gen. Craig to mortal ( ombat, and it was only by the cooler counsels of Gen. John B. Clark, of Fayette, and others that the difficulty was averted. Col. Snead became private secretary to Gov. Claiborne F. J ackson, early in 1861. He then entered military service as aid to Gen. Sterling Price and remained with him until the summer of 1864, when he entered the Con- federate Congress as a member from Missouri. After Gen. Price came back to the United States from Mexico, where he had gone at the close of the war, he turned over all his records and papers to Col. Snead, with the understanding that the latter was to write the history of Missouri in the confederacy. Col. Snead moved to New York city after the clcse of the war in 1865 and took the editor-ship of the Daily News. Two years leter he resumed the practice of law, and also pursued his literary researches. On October 17, 1890, he died suddenlj^ of heart disease, and his re- mains were brought to St. Louis for burial. He left a widow and two children, who are still living in New Jersey. He left the manuscript covering the history- of Missouri in the confederacy, which is still in the possess- -20— ion of his widow. It liad been his aim to publish this, but disappointment at the cool reception accorded to his first volume caused him to reconsider his determin- ation, an act by which, I think, the world has been the loser. Said Col. Snead's brother-in-law to me: "He was a most loveable disposition, and it was im- possible for hmi, while being an intense partisan, to be otherwise than fair. I remember once in 1862 he was at Little Rock, Ark. and his wife went to see him. She made a remark to him one day that she would think he would 'just hate the Yankees.' To this he replied that he found it impossible to hate anybody, for he realized that all could not think alike. And so he continued through life, loving and being loved." Col. Suead rests where he would have chosen to be laid away, in beautiful Bellefoiitame cemetery, in St. Louis, in the state of his adoption. He and Col. Peck- ham, soldierly antagonists, rival historians, preservers of the annals of opposing sides, sleep their last sleep in the same Held . If * As a fitting parallel with Col. Snead's magnificent tribute to Gen. Lyon, quoted before, I will close with his equally eloquent judgment pas.sed upon Uen. Ster- ling Price after the battle of Wilson's creek. "Of danger he seemed to take no note, but he had none of that brilliant dash, of that fine frenzy of the fight, which men call gallantly, for he was great rather than brilliant. He was wise, too, and serenely brave, quick to see, prompt to act, and always right. From this time he was loved and trusted by his soldiers as no Missourian had ever been; and never th'^'reafter did he lose their trust and devotion, foi* throughout all the long years of waT-— years ciowded with victories and de- feats— the virtues which he displayed that day grew more conspicuous all the time, while around them clus- tered others which increased the splendor of these— un- selfish devotion to his native land, unending care for the men who fought under his flag, constancy under de- feat, patience under wrongs tiat were grievous, justice toward all men, and kindness toward every one." GEN. STERLING PRICE. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 760 353 6 L»« " '■' '« » LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 760 353 6 pHSJ