The Cass Township Slave schedule cites the number of slaves and slave owners residing in the Greene County Township in 1863. This unique record provides a census of slavery in the middle of the Civil War. A Federal slave schedule was completed in 1860, providing a census of slaves and slave owners before the War. The emancipation of slaves prevented a post-war slave schedule from being completed. The historic value of this document resides in its comparison with the 1860 schedule and other slavery documents from Greene County. Through this comparison, researchers may draw conclusions about the impact the war, the Emancipation Proclamation and other events possibly had on number of slave owners and slaves in Greene County, Missouri.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

Amanda and family lived in Jasper County, Missouri before the war. They moved to Missouri sometime before 1855, and owned a small amount of land, which Austin cultivated. In early August 1861, Austin and his brother-in-law James McLahlan were along the head of Little North Fork in Barton County, Missouri. The 26 defendants surrounded the men and took them prisoner. The men were held for twenty hours against their will, before they were brought onto John R. Cabiness’ land, a Union man who lived in Jasper County. Austin asked one of the defendants, John R Chenault, to let him go. Chenault refused stating, “they would make an example of him.” The men threw a rope over a tree branch a half mile from Cabiness’ home and placed a noose around Austin’s neck. Two men pulled on the rope lifting Austin from the ground, while the rest of the party held the rope until he was dead. James was six feet from his sister’s brother when he died.4

Since the suit included numerous defendants, the proceedings were very long and tedious. All of the defendants proclaimed their innocence and believed the case should be dismissed for a various reasons which included the, “Damages for which said action is brought did not arise from the Commission of a felony or misdemeanor done by this Defendant and Because there is no revenue Stamp affixed to the original papers and process filed in said suit.”5

After a change in venue, the testimony of the individuals involved in the case were submitted to the court. One of the defendants, William Board explained that he could not have partaken in the murder because he was not even in the town when it occurred. While several witnesses testified on the behalf of the defendants there were also witnesses for the plaintiff, including the testimony of James McLahlan and Nelson Knight. Knight was taken prisoner by the Defendants in 1862. At that time John Newman, one of the defendants, boasted, “We have hung Austin Ireland a brother-in law of that damned Black republican James McLahlan’s.”6

Through the graphic testimonies of the witnesses, Amanda Ireland and her attorney’s learned that Austin’s political affiliation was not the only reason why he was murdered. Austin was killed in retaliation for the killing of the defendant’s friend, a Mr. Broom. Allegedly, Austin admitted to the men before he was hung that he stood guard as others robbed Broom’s store, during which encounter Broom was killed. The 26 defendants held a mock trial, with Chenault acting as the judge, and found Austin “guilty.”7

In July 1865, Abraham Ireland, Austin’s Uncle also filed a lawsuit against several of the same defendants. He claimed the men stole and damaged his property and set fire to his farm. Abraham sought damages up to ten thousand dollars, claiming the men stole:

One Horse saddle and bridle of the value of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars One other horse a stallion of the value of Two hundred Dollars one Rifle gun of the value of Twenty Dollars Ten head of Cattle of the value of Two Hundred Dollars one other horse of the value of Fifty Dollars and also a large amount of wheat corn and Rye & Hay of the value of Two Hundred Dollars also about one Hundred head of hogs there being not less than one hundred head of hogs of the value of Three Hundred Dollars.
Abraham Ireland, Order of Publication. 25 Jul. 1865

As in the Amanda Ireland case, the men denied any wrongdoing and submitted their petitions to dismiss the suit as quickly as possible. Due to the vicious nature and predominance of the warfare in region, many of the county court rooms were filled with civilian claims of restitution. The final verdict of both the Amanda Ireland and Abraham Ireland case is unknown; however, the fact that many of the defendants were charged in multiple crimes throughout the region did not bode well for their claims of innocence. Old animosities and resentments were not forgotten in the post-war years, and these court cases represent the extreme violence that plagued the countryside.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
2. Austin Ireland, 1860 United States Federal Census; Census Place: Center Creek, Jasper, Missouri; Roll: M653_624; Page: 901; Image: 361; Family History Library Film: 803624.
3. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
4. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
5. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
6. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
7. Amanda Ireland vs. John R. Chenault, et al. 1865. CW 18. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.

Due to the nature of the warfare in region, many of the country court rooms were filled with civilian claims of restitution. On November 17, 1864 Alvis Sheppard filed a lawsuit against George Messick and Harvey McCune. He claimed that the men illegally imprisoned him for twenty four hours. According to Sheppard the men formed a “court” and tried him on the account of being disloyal to the Confederate States of America. Messick and McCune denounced Sheppard as a “black republican” and abused him will he was detained.

Messick and McCune were no strangers to the legal system as they had been sued several times before for similar crimes mentioned in the Sheppard Case.1 However, these gentlemen were very clever and knew how to manipulate the tattered legal system to their advantage, which is why they were able to evade prosecution numerous times. The first tactic they implored was requesting a change of venue, since they were not citizens of Missouri, but claimed to residents of Red River County, Texas. and therefore would not be able to receive a fair and unbiased trial. The case was moved to the Greene County 14th Judicial Circuit Court.2

Messick and McCune had a half a dozen witnesses submit depositions saying that they had not imprisoned Mr. Sheppard and that in fact, Mr. Sheppard himself had stated how lucky he was that he had not been captured. Messick’s brother testified that on “the latter part of August, 1861 him and his brother, the defendant had stopped at plaintiff, Shepherd’s house in Lawrence County, Missouri; and during the conversation something was said about our being lucky in not having been taken prisoner, when Shepherd went on to state that he had also never been a prisoner; but that he had been afraid one time that he would be imprisoned; and that it was when he went to see Capt. Baker to get his mare which had been captured some time before. He said thought that he was mistaken; that Captain Baker treated him like a gentleman, and that he was not imprisoned.”3

Nearly an identical story was given by several other witnesses, including the testimony of a woman, Mrs. Mary F. Bottom. Messick and McCune knew that the witnesses they had selected would support their defense because they were close friends who all supported the Southern cause. The actual transgressions brought to court were often just pretenses of a deeper source of resentment to a fellow neighbor who had a differing political view. Old animosities and resentments were not forgotten in the post-war years. The violent struggle between jayhawkers and bushwhackers left a bitter legacy throughout the Ozarks.

The results of the case are unknown and the credibility of all those involved in the case are questionable; which make deciphering the events that transpired in August of 1861 difficult to know with absolute certainty.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. McCune, Harvey T.; Hagler, John; Messick, George W, Missouri State Archives: Missouri Judicial Records, 1867, accessed on October 26, 2010, http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/stlprobate/images.asp?id=30584&party=McCune%2C+Harvey+T.%3B+Hagler%2C+John%3B+Messick%2C+George+W&case=&date=1867&reel=c53606&debugMode=false&numberMarked=0#
2. Alvis C. Sheppard vs. George W. Messick and Harvey T. McCune. CW 39, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
3. Alvis C. Sheppard vs. George W. Messick and Harvey T. McCune. CW 39, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.

Benjamin Gratz Brown was born in Lexington, Kentucky, May 28, 1826. Brown graduated from Yale College in 1847 with a degree in law. He was admitted to the bar in 1849 and commenced practice in St. Louis, Missouri. Brown soon got into politics and was elected as a member in the State house of representatives from 1852-1858. During his time in office he helped found the newspaper, the Missouri Democrat and was the chief editor in 1854.1

His strong opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act almost cost him reelection in 1854. Brown spoke to the Missouri General Assembly in 1857 and forcefully demanded the end of slavery in Missouri. Brown’s strong political made him many enemies, especially the lieutenant governor, Thomas C. Reynolds.2 Their feud escalated to the point of violence when Brown challenged Reynolds to a duel after Reynolds made slanderous comments about Brown in a rival newspaper. Brown was shot in the knee and would permanently walk with a limp for the remainder of his life.

Brown, although strong-willed and often controversial, was an intelligent politician. He did not base his support on emancipation of slaves in Missouri on humane grounds, but of aspirations for free white men and called slavery a barrier to economic progress. His speeches in the state legislature actually designed to work on several levels: the call for slavery’s end was designed to appeal to German immigrants, most of whom were hostile to the institution; the call for economic progress was designed to appeal to moderate Whigs whose party had self-destructed over the slavery issue; and the emphasis on free labor was designed to appeal to the aspirations of ordinary farmers who had made up the backbone of Benton’s followers.3

In 1860, he attended the Republican National Convention as a delegate for Edward Bates. Brown believed Bates was too conservative, and when the convention nominated Abraham Lincoln Brown cast aside his loyalty to Bates and supported Lincoln.4 With the outbreak of the Civil War in Missouri, Brown organized his own regiment, the 4th Regiment of the Missouri Volunteers and served as colonel of the company. The regiment patrolled St. Louis streets for three months and reinforced the troops of General Franz Siegel after the Battle of Carthage in southeastern Missouri. Brown did not reenlist when his term of service expired.5 The regiment did not face any significant conflict and Brown realized that he was a better leader in the legislature than the battlefield.

In 1863, Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate when Southern sympathizer Waldo P. Johnson was expelled. Brown focused his term on the state’s economic conditions. He helped obtain federal reimbursements for military expenditures, secured federal land grants for the development of railroad lines, and worked to improve navigation on the Mississippi River. Brown also advocated the nationalization of telegram lines, the reduction in working hours for federal employees.6 On January 11, 1865, the Missouri state convention, meeting in St. Louis, passed an emancipation ordinance immediately freeing all slaves in Missouri. However, Brown did think that measure was enough to help Missouri move into the future. Brown wrote to Mr. J.R. Winchell in April 1865 about his doubts that Unionists and southern sympathizers could live together post-Civil War. “I need scarcely say that I am one of those who have from the beginning believed that the loyal and disloyal can never live in Missouri together and the latter must be forced to depart and I believe that registration is the only mode that will accomplish it.”7

Brown though would change his beliefs on punishing southern sympathizers when leadership of the Radicals passed to Charles Daniel Drake. The Missouri 1865 Draconian Constitution, so named because of Drakes influence, severely restricted the civil rights and liberties of southern sympathizers. Believing that such measures were justified only in times of war, Brown recanted earlier demands for eternal punishment for former Rebels, and called for universal suffrage and amnesty.8

Senator Brown, citing poor health, returned to Missouri in 1867. He was nominated as the Liberal Republican Party nominee for the 1870 gubernatorial election and, with support from the Democratic Party, was elected in 1871 as the 20th governor of Missouri. Brown’s tenure, although limited by law to a two-year term, was productive. Taxation laws were changed, and he quelled the Ku Klux Klan within Missouri’s borders. He also established the law and medicine departments at the University of Missouri and supported a new admissions policy allowing the enrollment of women.9

In 1872, Brown was nominated as a vice presidential candidate under Horace Greeley for the Liberal Republican ticket. Greeley’s eccentricities, along with Brown’s reputation as a hard drinker, doomed the ticket. After the election of 1872, Brown returned to his law firm in St. Louis and continued to practice until his death on December 13, 1885 in Kirkwood, MO.10

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. Norma L. Peterson, American National Biography; Dictionary of American Biography; Freedom and Franchise: The Political Career of B. Gratz Brown. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1968. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000905
2. Benjamin Gratz Brown, 1871-1873; Office of Governor, Record Group 3.20; Missouri State Archives, Jefferson City. http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/mdh_splash/default.asp?coll=brown
3. “Benjamin Gratz Brown”, Missouri Civil War Sesquicentennial, http://mocivilwar150.com/history/figure/213
4. Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds. Biographical Directory of the Governors of the United States, 1789-1978, Vol. 2 (Westport, Conn.; Meckler Books, 1978
5. Missouri State Archives Finding Aids 3.20, “Benjamin Gratz Brown”, pg 2, http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/findingaids/rg003-20.pdf
6. Missouri State Archives Finding Aids 3.20, “Benjamin Gratz Brown”, pg 2, http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/findingaids/rg003-20.pdf
7. Benjamin Gratz Brown Letter to J.R. Winchell. Apr. 20, 1865. B. Gratz Brown Papers, 1863-1865, CW99, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri. 2, pg 1.
8. Brown, Benjamin Gratz, in All Biographies (on-line) from Men of Our Day; Or Biographical Sketches of Patriots, Orators, Statesmen, Generals, Reformers, Financiers and Merchants, L.P. Brockett (St. Louis, MO: Ziegler and McCurdy, 1872).
9. Benjamin Gratz Brown, 1871-1873; Office of Governor, Record Group 3.20; Missouri State Archives, Jefferson City. http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/mdh_splash/default.asp?coll=brown
10. Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds. Biographical Directory of the Governors of the United States, 1789-1978, Vol. 2 (Westport, Conn.; Meckler Books, 1978)

The civil suits stemmed from the destruction of the mill, machinery, stored goods, and the three homes owned by the Bowers. The importance of regional grist mills to rural Ozarks communities cannot be overstated. Mills served myriad functions to the regional economy, and their preservation and continued operation was important to maintain a sense of hopefulness and security in the Ozarks during the War.

The first Bowers suit began on January 23, 1864, with the plaintiffs asking for roughly $32,000 in damages from 47 defendants. Depositions failed to produce a confession, and instead served to absolve certain defendants of association with the alleged crime. Defendant, Jess Newton Gotcher, noted the importance of the mill to his family living in the area, as evidence of his innocence.

(I) had no hand in it and (am) not guilty of any participation in the same (I am) opposed as a soldier and officer the robbing of private citizens non combatants and destruction of private property (I) regretted to hear of the plaintiffs mill being destroyed by any one as (my) Father lived in the neighborhood and depended on the mill for his breadstuff and (I) had…lived near the mill and was acquainted with the plaintiffs and regarded them as (my) personal friends though differing politically and (I) had no inclination to injure the plffs had (I) been present (I) would prevented so far as lay in(my)s power and injury to the person as property of the plaintiffs…
Deposition of Jesse Newton Gotcher, Paris, Texas, October 25, 1866

On October 18, 1865, the Bowers brought suit against Henry “Harvey” T. McCune for the destruction of their property. McCune’s son, Thomas, was a defendant in the first trial. The second suit did not proceed quickly, but it did produce results. Despite McCune’s death during the trial, the deposition continued, and the Bowers finally received a confession in 1869.

(I) was in Benton County Arkansas in September, 1863, and in September about the last of September 1863 (I) left Benton County with Gen Shelby’s Command, and proceeded to the State of Missouri and reached Lawrence County in the State of Missouri on or about the fifth day of October 1863, and…(I) together with one John Nelson Set fire to and Burned the Mills and Other buildings On Spring River in a little town known by the Name of Oregon. …(The) burning was done as Gen Shelbys Command pased North from Benton County Arkansas And…(I) knew at the time that…(if I) Burned the Mills and other buildings that it was in violation of Gen Shelbys orders And (I) was not ordered persuaded nor hired to burn said buildings but done it with (my) own free will and accord…(I believed at the mill)and other buildings was that the Malitia of Lawrence County Missouri made their head quarters at said Mills and other buildings and that (I) wanted to broke up their nests…
James Barnes, Dallas, Arkansas, October 15, 1869

James Barnes also implicated his partner in crime, James Dixson. The men believed Bowers Mill was a nest for the Enrolled Missouri Militia (EMM), and thus justified its destruction. The EMM stationed men around mills throughout the Ozarks to establish a safeguard for civilians and help alleviate fears of guerrilla attacks. The militia’s presence allowed for continued cultivation and provided a source of food for the men. The destruction of Bower’s mill hurt more than just George, John and William, as it impacted the lives of women, children and Union forces that depended on the mill for food.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

John Polk Campbell was one of the first pioneers of European ancestry to settle in present day Springfield, Missouri. The Campbell family was instrumental in the establishment of Springfield and Greene County. As Springfield grew, so did the Campbell’s prosperity. On August 11, 1851, John created his last will and testament, bequeathing all of his “property, real & personal, monies and effects” to Louisa T. Campbell, his “dearly beloved wife.”1 With Springfield firmly established, John began to explore southward into Indian Territory and Texas. He eventually died on May 28, 1852 in Oil Springs, Cherokee Nation.2

After John’s death, Louisa attempted to secure his property and entered into a dispute over a mulatto girl named Margaret with Samuel Sproul. Louisa claimed Sproul wrongfully and unjustly detained the girl, even though she was rightfully left to Louisa through John’s will. Sproul responded that he had been the girl’s true owner since 1850, as she was a gift from John Polk Campbell to him and his wife, Mary. Mary Frances Sproul was the second daughter of John and Louisa, and was the first Caucasian female to be born in present day Springfield. Mary and Samuel lived in Greenfield and had no children.

The family unsuccessfully tried to settle the disagreement outside of the court system. In June 1855, Leonidas Campbell, John and Louisa’s son, visited his sister’s home and demanded they turn over the slave. Samuel refused, so Leonidas kidnapped her. He grabbed Margaret and rode back towards Springfield with her on the back of his horse. Samuel chased after Leonidas, and was able to reclaim Margaret and brought her back to his home.

Unable to settle the dispute, Louisa sued Samuel for $1,000 in damages and custody of the girl. On March 11, 1856, the court authorized Louisa T. Campbell to “collect and secure all and singular the goods & chattels rights and credits which were of the said John P. Campbell at the time of his death in whomsever hand and possession the same may be found….” This disagreement over Magaret did not split the Campbell family, but this case represents the circumstances many civilians faced before the Civil War. Rivalry over property, debt, murder and other preexisting issues often fueled feelings of revenge and hatred causing the Civil War to become even more personal and violent then it was already destine to become.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. John Polk Campbell Will, 11 August 1851, Campbell vs. Sproul, 1855. African America Circuit Court, Folder 10. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
2. “Lucy M’Cammon’s Home, Built in 1851, Holds Memories of Civil War Visitors” in The Springfield Leader, 3 June 1932, pg 15.

On May 4th, 1858 Wadlow filed a claim against Benjamin Perryman in the Probate and Common Plea court in Greene County, Missouri for one thousand dollars. The outcome of the case hinged on the definition of the slaves’ condition. The way to determine the “sound condition” of a slave was very subjective and the evidence to prove that a slave was “worthless” had to be quite substantial for a claim to hold any legal standing in a court of law. When Violet and Aaron came to Wadlow, they were very ill. Mrs. Whittenburg, another slave of Wadlow’s, testified that when she helped Violet into bed she “discovered that the Negro woman could not lie on one side because it caused her a lot of pain.”3

The declarations of the Negro woman, Mrs. Whittenburg, were excluded by the court, and because the judge did not allow her testimony, the verdict came back in the favor of Perryman. Charles Wadlow, displeased with the outcome, decided to appeal the case to the State Supreme Court, in which they sided with Mr. Wadlow; sighting that the lower courts had erred in not allowing the testimony be submitted into evidence.

We see no difference between this case and that of Man vs Hill & Haynes, 10 Mo. 323. The evidence offered by the plaintiff of the declarations of the slave, made whilst she was laboring under sickness, as to the cause of her ilness and the source of it, was admissible and the Court erred in excluding them. With the concurrence of the other Judges, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded
Charles Wadlow vs. John G. Perryman.

The slave laws that prevailed during the time did not allow for a slave to testify against a white person in court.4 However, since Mrs. Whittenberg was not testifying against Mr. Perryman, only stating the condition she saw Violet in after Wadlow bought her, her testimony was legally admissible into court. The case was returned to the Common Plea court, and no documentation of further ruling could be located.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. 1860 United States Federal Census; Census Place: Cass, Greene, Missouri; Roll: M653_621; Page: 259; Image: 259; Family History Library Film: 803621.
2. Charles Wadlow vs. John G. Perryman, 1857. S1 F007. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
3. Charles Wadlow vs. John G. Perryman, 1857. S1 F007. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri. Part 2, pg 8
4. “Slave Codes”, U.S. History Online Textbook, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, http://www.ushistory.org/us/6f.asp

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln announced that boys under eighteen could enlist in the Army with their parents’ consent. The following year, Lincoln prohibited enlistment of those under eighteen.3 Heavy casualties, however, led recruiting officers to look the other way when underage boys tried to enlist. As a result, an unknown number of soldiers—probably around five percent—under the age of eighteen served in the Civil War. Although, Williams was over eighteen years old, his mother claimed he was still a minor and did not have her consent to enlist in the army. Elizabeth filed a lawsuit against the enlisting office, Col. Benjamin Crabb, citing her son was still a minor under the age of twenty-one, and that Crabb was unlawfully detaining William in Greene County, Missouri. Crabb refuted the charges and denied he had custody of William. Crabb claimed he was a captain in the 7th Iowa Infantry on August 14, and was not a mustering officer for the 19th Iowa Infantry.

The results of the lawsuit are not known, but the case highlights the extreme lack of men on the home front and how desperate women were to have support in trying to survive through the war. Mrs. Cope may not have wanted her eldest son to be involved in combat. If William died during his service, Elizabeth would be left totally alone to raise her two younger boys Levi and Emphraim. She had already lost her husband and the fear of losing another family member may have driven her to try and get her son out of the military. There are a many unanswered questions surrounding this case and the individuals involved. Further research and evidence is required to reach any definitive conclusion.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. 1860 United States Federal Census; Census Place: Chequest, Van Buren, Iowa; Roll: M653_342; Page: 320; Image: 561; Family History Library Film: 803342.
2. Elizabeth F. Cope vs. Benjamin Crabb, 1862. Box 27. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri
3. Mintz, S. (2007).Child Soldiers. Digital History. Retrieved 29 October 2010 from
   http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_civilwar/child_soldiers.cfm

Col H. [Higdon] R. Jarrett and Col [Joseph T.] Morton had made a settlement of the difference between them in regard to the swopping of their negroes, Green [Greene] & Wyatt, & that Morton had given up to him Jarrett the note he held against him as payment of the difference in the terms of the use of said negroes & Jarrett told Morton there were some credits on said note which he had forgotten when he agreed to take the note, as a settlement of the transaction. Jarrett told Morton that he must pay him something more –since he had discovered there were credits on the note he had forgotten – but if Morton would pay him the amount of these credits he would then be satisfied
- Higdon R. Jarrett vs. Joseph T. Morton, 1865-1868. S/F 32, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri, Deposition of John H. Miller, pg 2.

The situation became even more complicated when Joseph T. Morton’s son, John A. Morton, entered a trade agreement on January 1862, with Mr. Jarrett without the consent of his father.1 John Morton agreed to exchange the slave, Wyatt, back to Jarrett in exchange for the slave, Greene. As his testimony revealed, John Morton believed the arrangement he had negotiated was in error, stating that he thought his father would have preferred that he had not made the trade.2 However, John Morton explained that he made the exchange in an effort to save Greene’s life, which was threatened since he had given information of some brandy a neighbor of Jarrett’s, Mr. McCraken, had to some soldiers, who then threatened McCraken to obtain the liquor. Joseph Morton, his son John, and Greene all returned to Arkansas, but a month after arrival Greene ran away and went back to Missouri. John Morton returned to Springfield, Missouri in September of 1862 and took Greene back into his possession. Morton stated, “I moved out to father’s farm—I took Greene with me when I moved out to the farm—Greene was shot & killed.”3

Wyatt Jarrett, one of the slaves involved in the dispute, testified in court on Jarrett’s behalf. Before the Emancipation Proclamation slaves were considered property and therefore, had no legal standing in the United States. Jarrett’s case showed the change within the legal system, which allowed for African-American testimony to be, submitted as valid evidence in legal proceedings.4

The way the swap was My master [Higdon R. Jarrett] was to Keep Greene [Green], and Mr [Joseph T.] Morton was to Keep me until Mr Morton came back to this country – And it was also agreed that when Mr Morton came back, That if Greene & Myself wished to stay as the swap then was, we could do so, if not we could go back to our old homes – My Master H.R. Jarrett & Mr J.T. Morton, made a swap & swapped back again, the way I understood it – that is, my Master H.R. Jarrett, swapped Greene back to Mr Morton for me – Mr J.T. Morton the deft told me that he & Mr H.R. Jarrett, had swapped me back to Mr H.R. Jarrett, for Greene.
- Higdon R. Jarrett vs. Joseph T. Morton, 1865-1868. S/F 32, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri, Deposition of Wyatt Jarrett, pg 2

Higdon R. Jarrett submitted his testimony to the court and explained that he was just seeking the difference between what he and Mr. Morton had agreed upon and what he was actually paid. However, he did not want payment in Confederate currency. It was virtually worthless and could be purchased for 10¢ on the dollar.5

The entire case hinged on Wyatt being profitable to Mr. Morton. Morton informed Jarrett that he would “pay him what was right” if Wyatt made him any money in Arkansas.6 Unfortunately, only worthless confederate currency was in circulation and since Morton was unable to find work for Wyatt that paid more than it cost to feed and clothe him, he did not believe he owed Jarrett any money because no profit was made. So, Jarrett brought suit against Morton to regain some of his financial losses.

Jarrett though appeared to try and receive double payment from Mr. Morton by settling the dispute outside of the court system, but then sued Mr. Morton over the same business deal. Once the judge became aware of this transaction he reversed the ruling of the court and dismissed the case stating “that if the plaintiff intended to rely on the action he brought in the Court he should have rescinded the Compromise entirely and returned the 50 dollars… he cannot bring this action whilst he recognizes the Compromise by keeping the 50 dollars. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”7

This is a very confusing court case and the accuracy of the events that happened is questionable. Disputes over slave contracts and trades were common. They increased after the slaves were freed because many owners faced a significant loss in equity.8

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. Deposition of John A. Morton ,Higdon R. Jarrett vs. Joseph T. Morton, 1865-1868. S/F 32, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri, .
2. Higdon R. Jarrett Testimony. Dec. 1, 1866, Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
3. John Morton Testimony. Dec. 1, 1866. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
4. Melissa Milewski, “From Slave to Litigant: African Americans in Court in the Post-Civil War South,” New York University, http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspectives/slave-litigant-african-americans-court-post-civil-war-south
5. Higdon R. Jarrett Testimony. Dec. 1, 1866. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri. Pg 12.
6. Higdon R. Jarrett Testimony. Dec. 1, 1866. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri, Page 11
7. Higdon R. Jarrett vs. Joseph T. Morton, 1865-1868. S/F 32, Appeals, Dec. 1, 1866. Greene County Archives and Records Center, Springfield, Missouri.
8. The Civil War and Emancipation, “Africans in America”, PBS.org, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html

During the war Newton County was subject to extensive guerrilla warfare. Both armies came to Granby for lead to make ammunition. The “Neosho Company” was organized in October, 1860, and later joined the Missouri State Guard under Captain Henderson Jennings. Newton County residents were divided between the Confederacy and the Union, though there were few abolitionists in the area. The County saw several battles which resulted in a vast depopulation of the area and destruction of Newtonia.

Although never specifically identified as bushwhackers or guerrilla fighters, the men who kidnapped Henry were most likely part of a guerrilla band. The defendants denied having taken part in the Henry’s imprisonment and harassment. In September 1866, the court dismissed defendants Daniel Hutchison, William Tilton, William Humphrey, Sanford Hutchison, Asberry Bright, and Samuel Reynolds. After a series of replication motions and continuances, the defendants were granted a change of venue to Greene County, Missouri. The final ruling of the case is unknown, but it represents the various types of violence committed throughout the region and how civilians were left to recover their losses. Due to the vicious nature and predominance of the guerrilla warfare in Missouri, many county court rooms were filled with civilian claims of restitution in the post-war years.

Contributed by the Greene County Archives and Records Center

View this collection

1. 1860 United States Federal Census; Census Place: Van Buren, Newton, Missouri; Roll: M653_636; Page: 999; Image: 491; Family History Library Film: 803636.