The Civil War Comes to Missouri

The Congress of the Southern States which met at Montgomery, Alabama, on February 7, 1861, elected Jefferson Davis president. He had distinguished himself as an officer of the Mexican War and had been Secretary of War from 1853 to 1857 under President Franklin Pierce. Fort Sumter fell on April 14 and the next day President Lincoln issued his call for volunteers to put down the rebellion. On April 29 Jefferson Davis summoned the Confederate Congress to a special session and asked for authority to carry on war. His message states the causes of the secession and of the formation of the Confederacy:

“. . . The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country. The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one. It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the states which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects. During the war waged against Great Britain by her colonies on this continent a common danger impelled them to a close alliance and to the formation of a Confederation, by the terms of which the colonies, styling themselves States, entered “severally into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.' In order to guard against any misconstruction of their compact, the several States made explicit declaration in a distinct article-that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled'.

‘Under this contract of alliance, the war of the Revolution was successfully waged, and resulted in the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, by the terms of which the several States were each by name recognized to be independent. The Articles of Confederation contained a clause whereby all alterations were prohibited unless confirmed by the Legislatures of every state after being agreed to by the Congress; and in obedience to this provision, under the resolution of Congress on the 21st of February 1787, the several States appointed delegates who attended a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union'. It was by the delegates chosen by the several States under the resolution just quoted that the Constitution of the United States was framed in 1787 and submitted to the several States for ratification, as shown by the seventh article, which is in these words: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.'

The Constitution of 1787, having, however, omitted the clause already recited from the Articles of Confederation, which provided in explicit terms that each State retained its sovereignty and independence, some alarm was felt in the States, when invited to ratify the Constitution, lest this omission should be construed into an abandonment of their cherished principle, and they refused to be satisfied until amendments were added to the Constitution placing beyond any pretense of doubt the reservation by the States of all their sovereign rights and powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

‘Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs. The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves. The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. . . . By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the Inaugural Address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern;. . . In addition to the long-continued and deep-seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible. When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country. In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave. The increase in the number of slaves by further importation from Africa was also secured by a clause forbidding Congress to prohibit the slave trade anterior to a certain date, and in no clause can there be found any delegation of power to the Congress authorizing itin any manner to legislate to the prejudice, detriment, or discouragement of the owners of that species of property, or excluding it from the protection of the Government.

‘The climate and soil of the Northern States soon proved unpropitious to the continuance of slave labor, whilst the converse was the case at the South. Under the unrestricted free intercourse between the two sections, the Northern States consulted their own interests by selling their slaves to the South and prohibiting slavery within their limits. The South were willing purchasers of property suitable to their wants, and paid the price of the acquisition without harboring a suspicion that their quiet possession was to be disturbed by those who were inhibited not only by want of constitutional authority, but by good faith as vendors, from disquieting a title emanating from themselves. As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves.... Emboldened by success, the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress; Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nation whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra-fanaticism, and whose business was not 'to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquility”, but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister States by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp powers not delegated by the Constitution, for the purpose of impairing the security of property in slaves, and reducing those States which held slaves to a condition of inferiority. Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave-holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperilled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history. Here it may be proper to observe that from a period as early as 1798 there had existed in all of the States of the Union a party almost uninterruptedly in the majority based upon the creed that each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge as well of its wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. “. . . In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well-established, and so necessary for self-preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions. They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union. . . .”

The state of Missouri found itself deeply involved in the growing tension. Most of the citizens or their parents had come from Kentucky, Virginia, and the other Southern states, and were naturally sympathetic with the people of those states. Governor Robert M. Stewart had urged in his last message on retiring from office on January 3, 1861, not to be frightened by the past unfriendly legislation of the North, nor be dragooned into secession by the restrictive legislation of the extreme South.' The incoming governor, Claiborne Fox Jackson- a Douglas Democrat-in his inaugural message stated that Missouri was in favor of remaining in the Union as long as any hope of maintaining the guarantees of the federal Constitution remained, but was utterly opposed to the doctrine of coercion, and it was impossible to separate the interests of Missouri from those of the other slave-holding states. He proposed that the legislature call a state convention in order that the will of the people may be ascertained and effectuated.’

The legislature authorized such a convention, and an election was held on February 18, resulting in the selection of ninety-nine members. Those from Buchanan County were Robert M. Stewart, Willard P. Hall, and Robert Washington Donnell. Robert Wilson was one of the three from Andrew County. The convention assembled in Jefferson City on February 28, selecting as president Sterling Price, a former governor of the state, and as vice-president Robert Wilson. On March 9 the Convention adopted several resolutions of which the most important were:

‘At present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve connection with the Federal Union, but on the contrary she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality of all the states.’

‘In the opinion of this Convention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding states, or the employment of military force by the seceding states to assail the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable settlement of the fearful issues now pending before the country; we therefore earnestly entreat, as well the Federal Government as the seceding states, to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war.’

In anticipation of this meeting, Robert Wilson had invited a number of leading men of northwest Missouri to meet with him at his daughter's home, "The Pines, just west of Ashland Avenue in St. Joseph. Among those attending were Robert M. Stewart, Willard P. Hall, Judge Silas Woodson, and Judge Henry M. Vories. The weather was mild enough to permit the men to meet under a large chestnut tree on the lawn. General Wilson presented the matter to them in approximately the following words:

‘A crisis is approaching in Missouri's affairs. It is the expectation of those who called for the Constitutional Convention that Missouri will secede. Before we send our delegates to the Convention, we should consider the matter anew.

‘First, has Missouri-as a State belonging to the Union by purchase-the right to secede?

‘Second, seceding, will she triumph eventually in her course?

‘Third, should that secession endure, will it promote the future welfare and permanent progress of the State?

‘After careful weighing of all these questions, I tell you NO in answer to each one. Missouri has no right to secede. Missouri, even aided by her seceding sister States, can never victoriously face the overwhelming forces of the North. And last, secession implies the continuation of slavery in the State, and slave owner though I am, I declare to you that in time slavery will prove a source of weakness to Missouri. The political, economic, and moral interests of Missouri are with the North. While the emancipation of the slaves would force an immediate loss of money upon their owners, that loss would be far more compensated for by saving in costs of the war. If Missouri casts her lot with the seceding South, she will eventually stand alone with no support from either side, partly because of our geographical position, and partly because of the division of sentiment among our people.’

General Wilson's presentation won the endorsement of the meeting, and it was agreed that all would return to their respective counties and become candidates for delegates to the convention.

On April 15 President Lincoln issued his call for 75,000 men of the militias of the various states to suppress the rebellion. Missouri was assigned the quota of four regiments. In response Governor Jackson replied:

‘Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on such an unholy crusade.

‘On April 20 the United States Arsenal at Liberty was seized by order of Governor Jackson and on April 22 the state militia was ordered to go into various camps on May 3 to attain a greater degree of efficiency and perfection in organization and discipline. Pursuant to this order some eight hundred men assembled at Camp Jackson' in the western suburbs of St. Louis. Captain Nathaniel Lyon, U.S. Army-a Connecticut man-in command of the U.S. Arsenal at St. Louis believed that one of the objectives of this mobilization was the capture of the armory.

‘On May 2, 1861, the state legislature convened at the call of Governor Jackson. He reported on the speed of events in the country, arousing the most gloomy apprehension. He referred to 'the progress of the fanaticism, sectionalism and cupidity of the Northern states, culminating in the triumph of a purely sectional faction, on the dangerous and monstrous perversions of authority by President Lincoln, and of the fidelity to the Constitution and the Union by the people of Missouri. He recommended "the arming of our people and placing the state in an attitude for defense.

On May 9 Captain Lyon marched some six thousand men with twenty pieces of artillery to 'Camp Jackson, forcing its surrender. Crowds gathered and a number of bystanders were shot. The militiamen were made prisoners and released on parole.

News of this development aroused the State Legislature to action, authorizing the governor to borrow one million dollars to arm and equip the militia to repel invasion and protect the lives and property of the people.

On June 11 a conference was held at the Planters' House in St. Louis between Governor Jackson (accompanied by Sterling Price) and Nathaniel Lyon, now promoted to brigadier general (accompanied by Colonel Frank P. Blair, Jr.). Jackson offered to disband the State Guard and preserve a strict neutrality if the federal government would agree not to occupy any localities in the state. General Lyon rejected this proposal, insisting that the federal government should enjoy an unrestricted right to move and station its troops throughout the state wherever, in the opinion of its officers, that might be necessary to protect "loyal subjects' and to repel invasion. The meeting lasted six hours. In breaking up, General Lyon said to Governor Jackson: “This means war. In one hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines.'

Governor Jackson and Sterling Price returned to Jefferson City by train, burning railroad bridges behind them. On the next day -- June 12 -- Jackson issued a proclamation calling into active service 50,000 state militia for the purpose of repelling invasion and for the protection of the lives, liberty and property of the citizens of this State. He advised the people 'that your first allegiance is due to your own state; and that you are under no obligation whatever, to obey the unconstitutional edicts of the military despotism which has enthroned itself at Washington, nor submit to the infamous and degrading sway of its wicked minions in this state.’

On June 13 Governor Jackson left Jefferson City, never to return, and on June 15 federal troops from St. Louis took possession of the city. In September, at Lexington, Missouri, Governor Jackson called the General Assembly in extra session at Neosho, Missouri, on October 21. It is not known how many legislators responded, but it was voted to dissolve the political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America. It was voted to notify the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America. Governor Jackson died of cancer in Arkansas on December 6, 1862. After the war, his remains were removed to the family burying ground of his father-in-law, Dr. William B. Sappington, at Arrow Rock.

On July 22, 1861, the Missouri Constitutional Convention met in Jefferson City. Sterling Price was by then a major general of the Confederacy, so Robert Wilson was elected president. It was reported that the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, and secretary of state had been vacated, so the convention proceeded to elect successors: Hamilton R. Gamble, governor; Willard P. Hall of St. Joseph lieutenant governor; and Mordecai Oliver (later of St. Joseph) secretary of state. Governor Gamble served until January 31 1664 when he died as the result of a fall on the icy steps of the capitol building. He was succeeded by Willard P. Hall, who served as governor until January 2, 1865.