Let Them Work: The Freedmen's Bureau Labor Contracts of Franklin County, Tennessee

By Mary Osweiler Powers

There is no available information at this time.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 15, 2010
• ISBN: 9781469107530

Book preview

The Freedmen's Bureau Labor Contracts of

Franklin County, Tennessee

Mary Osweiler Powers, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2010 by Mary Osweiler Powers, Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

76998

Contents

The Franklin County Bureau

The First Bureau Agent—

F. A. Loughmiller

Thomas A. Word & Joel B. Smith

Rev. William Green

The Labor Contracts of

F. A. Loughmiller

Trial Docket of the Freedman’s Bureau

On April 5, 1865, the legislature of Tennessee unanimously ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and all slaves in the state were officially emancipated. The action ended months of uncertainty about the legal status of the state’s black population, a confusion that arose from the wording of Lincoln’s Final Emancipation Proclamation. By exempting Tennesseans from his list of people in rebellion against the United States, Lincoln had given some slaveowners hope that a limited form of slavery would survive the war.¹

Ratification put an end to the possibility of slavery’s restoration and opened the doors of economic opportunity for the freedmen. Black workers could now choose their employers, negotiate the terms of their employment, and move to farms where they were better paid. Many freedmen abandoned the fields altogether, taking day-labor jobs in nearby towns where they could live in a larger black community.

Those who depended on slave labor before the war found the transition to a free labor system difficult. Most white employers were reluctant to deal with workers who were less submissive, demanded better income, and, in some cases, were politically active. These tensions between planters and ex-slaves created a shortage of farm workers and threatened to destroy the already war-ravaged economy of the South.

Southerners were not alone in their concern about the ramifications of emancipation. Northern army personnel, politicians, and civilian relief organizations recognized the severity of the problem, but they could not agree on a way to solve it. Some felt the freedmen needed comprehensive long-term assistance to prepare for freedom. Others believed aid should be kept at a minimum, fearing the freedmen would become as dependent on the federal government as they had been on their former owners.

Several methods of dealing with the slaves’ transition to freedom had been tested during the war, ranging from land redistribution to strictly supervised communal living. A few politicians proposed recolonizing blacks, while others lobbied for gradual emancipation. By the war’s end, however, practical considerations had resolved the debate in favor of a minimalist philosophy—less was better. It was charged that paternalistic programs had repressed blacks, cost too much money, and expanded the power of the federal government. Moreover, Union soldiers and relief workers were in a hurry to go home, and public willingness to fund relief programs had declined. With fewer workers and dollars at its disposal the federal government implemented a tougher policy toward economic and social programs for the freedmen. The new attitude was summed up by Brigadier General Clinton B. Fisk, head of the Tennessee Freedmen’s Bureau: "There is no preventive for suffering among the freedmen save such as they themselves furnish or succor except in industry. Let them work."²

Contract labor was, therefore, the remedy of choice. The system was not the invention of disgruntled former slaveholders: it had its origins in the contraband camps run by the Northern armies.³ The Unionists were optimistic about creating a new agrarian utopia in which "the lion and the lamb, the contractor and the contraband, [would] lie down together.⁴ The free-contract-wage method of preparing the slaves for freedom matured under the sponsorship of camp superintendents, and when the war was over it was continued under the auspices of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

The bureau was a new federal entity officially known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. It was created by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln on March 3, 1865. It was given five broad goals: to supply the basic needs of freedmen; to foster economic stability; to administer justice; to distribute bounties; and to promote educational efforts among the blacks.⁵ It was expected to function as an umbrella agency, coordinating the efforts of the various relief agencies and army personnel. Prior to its establishment there were at least five religious groups and as many secular organizations providing assistance to the freedmen in Tennessee. In addition, four black societies and two departments of the U.S. Army were struggling with the problems of the ex-slaves.

According to the original legislation the Freedmen’s Bureau was scheduled to operate for only one year after the end of the war, and despite the good intentions of the politicians, its mandate to provide services to the needy was not accompanied by any appropriation of funds.⁶ Lincoln appointed Major General O. O. Howard to act as commissioner of the new agency.⁷ As directed by the congressional act, Howard divided the former slaveholding regions into ten districts and recommended an assistant commissioner for each. These men were army officers, and they were able to draw their military pay while serving as assistant commissioners.⁸

The man chosen to head the bureau in Tennessee was Clinton B. Fisk. General Fisk had a reputation as a tough soldier, an ardent abolitionist, and a shrewd businessman. When he heard of Fisk’s appointment, President Andrew Johnson allegedly said, Fisk ain’t no fool, he won’t hang everybody.⁹

Fisk needed to exercise all his management skills in his new post. Usually the bureau’s districts corresponded to existing state boundaries, but it had been decided to combine Kentucky and Northern Alabama with Tennessee.¹⁰ In order to administer his sizeable district, Fisk split it into three sub-districts headquartered at Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville. Each sub-district was, in turn, divided into agencies operated from the county seats. Because the black population was spread unevenly across the state, an agency of the Bureau was not established in every county. Farms in East Tennessee were generally small holdings which were worked by their white owners without the use of slave labor. Most of the area’s freedmen lived in the environs of Knoxville and Chattanooga, so only a few of its rural counties ever operated agencies. In contrast, many farmers in Middle and West Tennessee had become accustomed to using slaves as field hands, and commercial farming was the mainstay of the economy. Although there were few vast plantations, white planters had frequently acquired three or more slaves. In these two sub-districts the labor shortage was critical, and county agents were expected to play a key role in preserving the pre-war work relationships between landowners and field hands.¹¹

The labor needs of white farmers were not the only reason the Bureau wanted to restrict the movement of black laborers. There were also sound humanitarian arguments for keeping the freedmen in rural areas. If they stayed on the farms they were likely to have housing and subsistence rations; if they migrated to the cities there was no food or shelter for them. Disease and crime were rampant in the urban areas, and the booming wartime job market was drying up as the Northern army demobilized.

But keeping the freedmen down on the farm was easier said than done. Many blacks felt their new liberty was in jeopardy if they remained where they had been held in bondage. Isolated on small farms in the country, they felt cut off from their brethren and vulnerable to the power of the white majority. Increasingly they became distrustful of any financial arrangement that deferred payment until the crops were gathered in the fall. They had grounds to be suspicious of the promises of whites: even federal officials had not always treated black workers fairly when they were in the care of the Union army, and the promised forty acres and a mule had not materialized. Now, as the war came to its close, white planters were still reluctant to bargain with freedmen, and wages plummeted. As more freedmen refused the chancy work now, pay later assurances of landowners, many fields went unplowed.

At its inception the Freedmen’s Bureau had both the curative and the authority to ensure it was administered according to directions. To give black workers a sense of security and provide both freedmen and landowners with legal documentation in case an agreement was not kept, the bureau implemented the contract system of free labor. This mechanism had been developed in the federal camps during the war, and it established black workers as paid laborers. In the new scheme of things, the county agent was to put the agreements into a legally binding format that specified the conditions of labor, the rate of pay, and the term of service. Contracts were made in duplicate, signed by both parties and witnesses, and registered by the agent. The bureau agents were allowed to charge a fee for their part in drawing up the contract. Initially the fee was ten cents per contract to cover the costs of paper and registration. In the early months of the bureau’s operation the agents received no other compensation for their work. If a labor contract were breached, the offended party could take the matter to the local courts or refer the matter to the bureau. In his capacity as judge and jury of the freedmen’s court, the local agent was able to make binding rulings—so binding they could be enforced by the use of federal troops.¹²

Because the agency was closely tied to the federal army and its ambitions conflicted with the traditional class structure of the defeated Confederates, its presence was not welcomed in most of Middle and West Tennessee, and its agents were considered loathsome. The bureau’s low rate of pay and the possibility of social ostracism made the job of county agent distasteful to men who lived in areas with strong Confederate ties. Thus, although General Fisk had the framework of the Freedmen’s Bureau in place by July 1865, he was still faced with the task of finding competent men to serve as agents. In order to justify and explain the functions of his new bureau he began to accept speaking engagements in the various counties. He talked with members of the white and black communities, seeking advice and gathering information about prospective candidates. Only men with proven loyalty to the United States during the rebellion were eligible for the job, and ex-Confederates were barred from working for the Freedmen’s Bureau by a requirement that all bureau personnel, civilian and military, had to take an oath of loyalty. In addition to loyalty to the Union, agents were expected to be men of personal integrity who supported emancipation. Business experience was also necessary for the management of the bureau’s affairs. In order overcome the bitterness between Northerners and Southerners it was also hoped to find native Tennesseans to fill the appointments. ¹³

The Franklin County Bureau

Circumstances in Franklin County militated against the easy introduction of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Franklin Countians had been in the forefront of the secession movement and were enthusiastic supporters of the Confederate States of America. The area contributed three regiments to its armies and leadership to its government. During the federal occupation of Middle Tennessee many of its citizens continued the struggle by participating in covert activities, harassing the Northern troops, and supplying goods and information to Confederate forces. The Yankees exacted retribution on its population, commandeering food, destroying property, and hunting down members of the resistance. The resultant loss of manpower and property in the county was staggering, and the taste of defeat was bitter in the mouths of the survivors.

While there was no love lost between the Northern army of occupation and the citizens of Franklin County, there were practical issues for the county’s white leadership to consider. Food was in short supply, and many residents were on the brink of starvation. War casualties had depleted the white labor force, and many ex-slaves had left the farms to congregate around the Union camps at Tullahoma, and Decherd. Franklin County had a significant number of freedmen within its borders. Data from the 1860 census show that 3,581 blacks—over twenty-five percent of the county’s population—were owned by 572 whites.¹⁴ The local population of blacks was augmented by the arrival of migrants from Northern Alabama, who had been attracted to the safety and work available with the U.S. Army at the rail depots.

Labor issues aside, there were pressing political reasons for Franklin County’s leadership to opt for an agency of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Unruly elements had been harassing the freedmen, and word of the incidents had reached the U.S. Army. General Fisk had received a letter from Gen. R. W. Johnson, commandant of the remaining Federal forces in Middle Tennessee. Johnson wrote, I have been unofficially informed that at some points from which the troops have been recently withdrawn the citizens have caused the colored schools to be closed and the teachers ordered to leave. Will you please inform me at what points the schools have been interfered with, as I will post colored troops there to enforce the laws and protect the schools.

D. B. Gordon, one of the Presbyterian relief workers who had been working among the freedmen at Decherd, was one of those who felt compelled to write to General Fisk. He was leaving the area and was reluctant to abandon his charges. Gordon reported, [T]he teacher of the colored school has been subjected to much inconvenience, and his apprehension of injury… has become greatly increased. Since federal troops had been withdrawn, religious services had been disturbed and the freedmen had been robbed by armed ruffians who threaten to commit every kind of outrage. He asked Fisk to establish an agency of the Bureau to safeguard the rights of the freedmen in the area.¹⁵

Gordon’s plea might have been ignored if the Freedmen’s schoolhouse at Decherd had not been burned almost immediately afterward. As reported in the Nashville Daily Press and Times, the arson occurred within days of the school’s opening:

Burning down a school house is about as low down in rascality as a dirty fellow can fathom. We are sorry to say that some mean rascals burned down the freedmen’s school at Decherd the other day. The fellows who perpetrated the act deserve to be kicked out of civil society as they will be required to re-build the school-house and will have colored troops sent there by the Bureau forthwith to prevent any further interference with the humble and laudable efforts of a poor people to educate and improve themselves. They will find out that laying school-houses in ashes is a very unprofitable sort of amusement to indulge in.¹⁶

Given the circumstances, General Johnson did indeed send a troop of black soldiers to Decherd, and