ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
You would not be holding this book in your hands if it were not for my formidable (and female) editorial team at Yale University Press. Phoebe Clapham encouraged me to start the project. Heather McCallum, Marika Lysandrou, Rachael Lonsdale and Samantha Cross brought it to the finish line. A special thank you to Marika and Rachael for supporting this work in large and small ways.
Marie-Eve Desrosiers and Rosalind Raddatz deserve special thanks for their constructive criticism and fierce belief in my project. Among my many cheerleaders are colleagues who are also friends. Throughout the course of writing Jennie Burnet, Marie-Eve Desrosiers and Noel Twagiramungu fielded my many questions to help me better understand the beautiful, complex and troubled country we all love. Catharine Newbury offered helpful advice in the final stage of writing, for which I am appreciative. I also benefited from email exchanges with journalists, academics, students and military men, Rwandan and foreign, who generously answered all of my questions about this or that event they had witnessed or researched.
Hearty thanks go to all who so graciously shared their photography with me. Aubrey Graham, PhD (Copyright 2012) deserves special mention for her stunning cover image of two young men pushing a bicycle towards the top of a hill just outside of
Rubavu. In the background, Mount Nyiragongo, an active volcano located across the border near Goma in the DRC, smokes.
For their boundless support and bedrock of friendship: Antonio Berrera, Marie-Eve Desrosiers, Rosalind Raddatz, Cassie Taylor, Kim Taylor and Tammy Wilks. And to Monica Costa, Heather Dockstader and the crew at Hamilton Whole Foods for keeping my desk in the back quiet and ready for my bursts of writing.
Many, many thanks to my first readers Becky Gough, Jamie Gagliano, Shannon Staley and Steve Terrill for encouraging me to keep writing, even when the book was in its messy first iterations.
Colgate University students in two of my undergraduate courses deserve enormous thanks. My 300 Level spring 2013 and spring 2015 Rwanda since the 1994 Genocide classes helped me to think about balancing the relationship between human rights and economic development. Students in my spring 2017 first-year course Rwanda, 1860 to present asked smart questions and offered important advice on drafts of various chapters that I assigned them. I am grateful for the chance to nurture their affection for Rwanda.
Colgate University’s Research Council generously provided financial support, for which I am also grateful. This funding supported my team of exceptional research assistants: Amanda Brown, Kristi Carey, Kevin Costello, Michelle Sagalchik and Hannah Sosland.
I am especially thankful for the care that each of my three anonymous reviewers put into improving my text. For an academic, pages and pages of criticism are never easy to swallow except in this case. It was a privilege to have my work read so carefully and so constructively.
Good peer review reminds me that I have also had the good fortune of having teachers and mentors who have taught me so much about reading and writing. Those Rwanda scholars who came before provided a sturdy bedrock of articles and books that I consulted in the course of writing. In addition to the work of scholars mentioned earlier, I hold dear the analyses of An Ansoms, Anu Chakravarty, Alison Des Forges, Lee Ann Fujii, André Guichaoua, Bert Ingelaere, Villia Jefremovas, René Lemarchand, Timothy
Longman, Catharine Newbury, David Newbury, Filip Reyntjens, Marc Sommers, Scott Straus and Lars Waldorf. Thanks too to my boys, Evan and Riley. You are simply the best. Finally, my deepest and most urgent thanks go to Rwandans, who gave so much of themselves to help me explain their country to you. In this regard, David Himbara, Alice Gatebuke, Etienne Mashuli, Revi Mfizi, Willy Rangira and Joseph Sebarenzi deserve special mention. Many chose not to be acknowledged by name. I know why. Let me simply say: your generosity and intelligence are the beating heart of this book. Murakozecyane.
ABBREVIATIONS
AgDF Agaciro [dignity] Development Fund
ADL Rwandan Association for the Defense of Human Rights and Public Liberties (Association rwandaise pour la défense des droits de la personne et des libertés publiques)
AFDL Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (Alliance des forces démocratiques pour la libération du Congo)
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
ALiR Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (Armée pour la libération du Rwanda)
APROMOSA Association for the Social Promotion of the Masses (Association pour la promotion sociale de la masse)
CDR Coalition for the Defense of the Republic (Coalition pour la défense de la République)
CIA Central Intelligence Agency (United States)
CNDP National Congress for the Defense of the People (Congrès national pour la défense du peuple)
CNLG National Commission for the Fight against Genocide (Commission nationale de lutte contre le génocide)
DANIDA Danish Development Cooperation Agency
DFID British Department for International Development
DGPR Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
DMI Department of Military Intelligence
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy of the World Bank
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAR Rwandan Armed Forces (Forces armées rwandaises)
FDLR Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques pour la libération du Rwanda)
FDU–Inkingi United Democratic Forces–Inkingi
FEWS Famine Early Warning Systems Network
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNI Gross National Income
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
IDP Internally displaced persons
IMF International Monetary Fund
IOC Integrated Operations Centre
LIPRODHOR Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (Ligue rwandaise pour la promotion et la défense des droits de l’homme)
MDR Republican Democratic Movement (Mouvement démocratique républicain)
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture
MINALOC Ministry of Local Government
MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MINEDUC Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Scientific Research
MINITERRE Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Natural Resources
MoH Ministry of Health
MRND National Republican Movement for Democracy (Mouvement républicain national pour la démocratie)
MSF Doctors without Borders (Médecins sans frontières)
NEC National Electoral Commission
NGO Non-governmental organization
NRA National Resistance Army (Uganda)
NRM National Resistance Movement (Uganda)
NURC National Unity and Reconciliation Commission
OAU Organisation of African Unity
ORINFOR Rwandan Information Office (Office rwandais d’information)
OtP Office of the Prosecutor (at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda)
PARMEHUTU Hutu Emancipation Movement Party (Parti du mouvement de l’émancipation Hutu)
PL Liberal Party (Parti libéral)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan
PSD
PSImberakuri
Social Democratic Party (Parti social démocrate)
Social Party Imberakuri (Parti social imberakuri)
RANU Rwandese Alliance for National Unity
RCD Congolese Rally for Democracy (Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie)
RCS Rwandan Correctional Services
RDF Rwanda Defense Force (replaced the RPA as Rwanda’s national army in 2002)
RISD Rwanda Initiative for Sustainable Development
RNC Rwandan National Congress
RPA Rwandan Patriotic Army (also called RPA-Inkotanyi)
RPF Rwandan Patriotic Front (also called RPF-Inkotanyi)
RWF Rwandan francs
TIG Works in the public interest (Travaux d’intérêt général)
UN United Nations
UNAMIR United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
UNAR National Rwandan Union (Union nationale rwandaise)
UNDP
UNHCR
United Nations Development Program
United Nations High Commission for Refugees, also known as the UN Refugee Agency
UNHRFOR United Nations Human Rights Mission for Rwanda
UNICEF
United Nations Fund for Children
UNOHCHR United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UPC Uganda People’s Congress
USAID United States Agency for International Development
ZAMBATT UN peacekeeping battalion from Zambia
1. Administrative boundaries during the civil war and 1994 genocide, including RPF offensive positions, 1993–94
2. Administrative boundaries from 2006, with revised town names
1. Belgian paratroopers guard a group of alleged Hutu arsonists during Rwanda’s Social Revolution in September 1960. In many parts of Rwanda, bands of Hutu insurgents regularly set fire to Tutsi homesteads in efforts to chase Tutsi out of the country.
2. Rwandans of all ethnicities fled the violence of the Social Revolution, taking up residence in neighboring countries. Here, in Goma, a patron (center) is shown with his clients in 1961.
3. Some Rwandans lived in makeshift grass homes in RPF-controlled camps during the civil war, like this one near Byumba, 1992. The RPF expected to be gratefully welcomed by a Hutu population who supported their liberation struggle. Instead, most met the RPF “invaders” with a mixture of fear and skepticism.
4. A group of mostly Tutsi civilians, seeking protection against Hutu militiamen, sit in the Sainte-Famille Catholic church listening to a member of the security services in May 1994. Many Tutsi were taken from Sainte-Famille and killed by Hutu militants who maintained checkpoints around the church during the genocide.
5. Rwandan children huddle, in shock, after their orphanage was shelled in Kigali during fighting between RPF rebels and government troops in May 1994, despite ongoing UN-brokered peace talks. The genocide created some 100,000 orphans; most live today in poverty, compounded by lack of access to education and high rates of HIV/AIDS.
6. Hutu men accused of participating in the genocide line up at a detention center in Kabuga, June 1994. Most killers were ordinary men—fathers, husbands and farmers who killed for reasons beyond ethnic animosity. Most participated in the carnage “because they feared punishment from other Hutu if they refused to take part in violence” (Straus, The Order ofGenocide, p. 96).
7. Canadian Major-General Guy Tousignant of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda discusses prison conditions with the RPF warden in Kirambo, northern Rwanda, April 1995. Seeking to control the northwest region of the country, the RPF subjugated ethnic Hutu residents.
8. Internally displaced Rwandans wait outside a hospital complex in Kibeho camp, May 1995. Medical supplies and hospital staff were non-existent, leaving most citizens to fend for themselves in deplorable conditions. The RPF explained that military action in the camp was necessary to root out potential génocidaires intent on continuing their killing of Tutsi.
9. Exhausted Rwandan Hutu refugees rest on the side of the road next to the old Muginga refugee camps near the Zairean town of Goma, November 1996. Seasonal rains made already squalid conditions even worse. The UNHCR bungled the repatriation effort, leaving the RPF to forcibly return fearful, war-weary civilians back to Rwanda.
10. Many of Rwanda’s genocide memorials feature hundreds of exhumed bodies, preserved with powdered lime, appearing as they did at death. This graphic display of remains, photographed in 2006, is at the Murambi Genocide Museum in southwestern Rwanda. Survivors of the genocide consider the raw display of the remains of their loved ones an offence to their memory and an affront to government-led reconciliation initiatives.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
live in peace, with this and many other crimes staring him in the face.”
The heart sickens at such a recital of cold-blooded murder; and the evidence of savage, not to say inhuman, barbarity that characterized the horrible crime is sufficient to humiliate the whole race of men and send our much vaunted Christian civilization reeling back into the dark ages. The shadow on the dial of Ahaz went back ten degrees —it was a wonderful miracle—but here, in the noon of the nineteenth century, the shadow on the dial of human progress and Christian civilization has gone down forty degrees without a miracle, and reaches the grosser, the darker and the baser passions of our fallen nature, which instigate and then execute deeds of horror at which all Christendom revolts.
CHAPTER XXI. REV. B. H. SPENCER.
His Character and Position as a Minister—Order of Banishment— Interview with General Merrill—Note to Colonel Kettle—Cause of Banishment—Letter to A. C. Stewart—Provost-Marshal at Danville—Frank, Manly Reply—Second Letter to Mr. Stewart, and Petition to General McKean—The Latter Treated with Silent Contempt—Strong Loyal Petition Endorsed by H. S. Lane, U. S. Senator, and O. P. Morton; Governor of Indiana—“Red Tape”— Petition Returned—Hon. S. C. Wilson Counsel for the Exiles— General Schofield Finally and Unconditionally Revokes the Order of Banishment—Indictment for Preaching Without Taking the “Test Oath.”—Why he Declined to Take the Oath—Prayer for his Persecutors.
R . B. H. S .
Neither goodness, kindness, humility nor usefulness in a minister of the gospel could disarm malice or shield the servant of God from the persecutions of wicked men. It is truly astonishing how many and how diverse the pretexts framed for the arrest, robbery, banishment, imprisonment or murder of those whose only crime was that they were ministers of the gospel in connection with the M. E. Church, South. Infidelity was never at a loss for expedients and Antichrist was never without efficient agents.
The Rev. B. H. Spencer is almost a native of Missouri, being only six months of age when his parents came to Missouri from North Carolina, and has received regular appointments from the Missouri Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South, consecutively since 1843, when he was first admitted on trial. No man has a cleaner and purer record in the Church, both in his personal and ministerial character; and few men have occupied so many places of high trust and responsibility. He is one of the old Presiding Elders, and has often been called to represent his Conference on the floor of the General Conference, and has always proved himself to be prudent in council, wise in legislation, correct in administration and eminently useful in the pulpit; distinguished, perhaps, for his scriptural, practical and forcible expositions of the distinctive doctrines and duties of Bible Christianity. He is zealous, humble, earnest, energetic and Methodistic in all his ministerial work; extensively known and highly esteemed in love for his works’ sake all over the State.
Long associated with the honored names that will live in the annals of Missouri Methodism, and taking a high rank with them, the sentiments that introduced the Rev. W. M. Rush to these pages, and the reader, may, with but little alteration, introduce Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer is a representative man in his character and position in Missouri, and while his persecutions were severe and protracted, his was not an isolated case. He represents in his cruel and wanton exile a large class of Missourians, and especially of Missouri ministers, some of whom will, perhaps, never return to this State. B.
T. Kavanaugh, L. M. Lewis, E. K. Miller, B. R. Baxter and many others are possibly lost to the State forever. They may have gone out for different causes, but the peculiar proscription and persecutions to which ministers in Missouri have been subjected kept them out.
Few if any cases of persecution in Missouri present more deliberate meditation, cooler cruelty and more heartless inhumanity than the one disclosed in the following narrative, made in Mr. Spencer’s own quiet, clear and forcible style. His letters to the various military officials, written in exile, and while all the finer sentiments and feelings of his manly, Christian heart were writhing under the cruel injustice he had to bear without the means of vindication or the hope of redress, are worthy the pen of Cranmer, and would have given a higher tone and temper to the moral courage of Latimore.
The reader must, however, measure the man and his persecutors by the following paper:
“O B .
“D D : The first item that I send you is in regard to my banishment, as an act of ecclesiastical persecution.
“In the town of High Hill, Mo., on the 16th January, 1863, I received from the hands of a Federal soldier the following order, viz.:
“‘H N. E. D M , }
“‘W , M ., Jan. 13, 1863. }
“‘Provost-Marshal, or Commanding Officer, Danville, Mo.:
“‘S : You will cause the following persons to leave the State of Missouri, within a reasonable time after the receipt of this order, and reside, during the war or until permitted to return, at some place north of Indianapolis, Indiana, and east of Illinois. They will be required to report to you, by letter, once a month, and are not permitted to leave the State by way of St. Louis, but directed to go by Macon City and Hannibal, Missouri. Rev. B. H. Spencer, * * * * * * *.
“‘By command of Brigadier-General Merrill.
“‘G . M. H , A. A. G.’
“The above order was accompanied by the following:
“‘H 67 R E. M. M., }
“‘D , M ., Jan. 16, 1863. }
“‘Rev. B. H. Spencer:
“‘S : The above is a true copy of Gen. Merrill’s order to me. You will obey said order within six days from this date. You will report to these headquarters on the day of departure.
“‘By order of J. G. Kettle, Col. Commanding.
“‘J. F. A , Adjutant.’
“On the day of receiving this order I went to Warrenton, being Gen. Merrill’s headquarters, to see if I could not induce him to revoke it. I found him at the supper table, and unwilling to give me a hearing anywhere else, when the following conversation took place between us:
“‘Gen. Merrill, I have received from you an order of banishment from the State, and wish to see you in regard to it.’
“‘Then what is your name and place of residence?’
“‘My name is B. H. Spencer, High Hill, Mo.’
“General (in a passion)—‘I can do nothing for you!’
“I replied—‘It seems that the tongue of slander has reached you concerning me; will you hear evidence in my favor?’
“His reply was peremptorily, ‘No, sir!’
“I inquired, ‘Will you then read documents?’
“Answer in same manner—‘No, sir!’
“He then inquired—‘Does the order allow you to go by St. Louis?’
“I answered, ‘No, sir.’
“‘Then,’ said he, ‘see that you don’t go that way!’
“I replied, ‘I don’t expect to.’
“He said, ‘ see that you don’t!’ And then added, ‘You may think yourself very fortunate that you are not hung, and should feel that you are very mercifully dealt by!’
So the conversation ended, and I returned home and wrote the following note to Colonel Kettle:
“‘H H , M ., Jan. 19, 1863.
“‘Col. J. G. Kettle, Danville, Mo.:
“‘H S : Some time ago I promised to marry a couple in this vicinity on to-morrow night, and as it will not be in violation of Gen. Merrill’s order, and will furnish me some means with which to carry out that order, will you permit me to do so?
“‘I am, very respectfully, B. H. S .’
“The following is his reply:
“‘H 67 R E. M. M., }
“‘D , M ., Jan. 19, 1863. }
“‘Rev. B. H. Spencer:
“‘S : Your request to marry the couple and to preach is granted. I would say that you had better not speak of your banishment in your sermon.
“‘Yours, &c., J. G. K , Colonel.’
“On the 25th of January, 1863, I preached the sermon alluded to; and then, in company with four others, made my report to military headquarters at Danville, Mo. But, in consequence of an accident on the railroad, I was permitted to remain with my family until the 28th of that month, when, with a sad heart, I was compelled to leave my distressed wife and six little children and go into a land of strangers, and remain in exile for ten long months.
“Dr. H. W. Pitman, Rev. D. W. Nowlin, Rev. J. D. Gregory and Rev. Wm. A. Taylor were banished in company with me. We had no trial, either civil or military, nor would they condescend to tell us what were the charges against us, or whether, indeed, there were any. Nor to this day—September 7th, 1869—have we found out why it was done, except through private and unofficial sources. The information thus received as to the cause of my banishment was as I expected—I was banished because I was a Southern Methodist preacher! One of the officers was asked by one of my friends: ‘What are the charges against Spencer?’ He answered, ‘I never heard that there are any; but he is a man of influence, and, if disposed, can do a great deal of harm!’ Another officer was asked by another friend, and he replied, ‘The fact that he is a Southern Methodist preacher is all I want to know!’ There never was a more clear case of ecclesiastical persecution than was my banishment. Certain men sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E. Church, South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things in the nation; I opposed them, and they became my enemies and had me
banished. If any one doubts this let him attend to the following documents:
“‘A ’ M , I ., April 22, 1863.
“‘Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo.:
“‘S —There are reasons which induce me to believe that my case is wholly at the disposal of the officers and Union men of Danville and vicinity. If this be so, I wish to solicit your attention to a few considerations in regard to my case. And, first, I was banished from my home and family without a trial or a knowledge of the charges against me, or who preferred them. Now, sir, is this right? Is there any law, civil or military, that will punish an innocent man? How could the officer who banished me know that I was guilty of any crime without giving me a trial and hearing evidence in the case? Have I ever had such a trial? When? Where? Who were the judge, jury, witnesses pro and con? Where was the prisoner during the trial? And where was my legal counsel to see that justice was done me? With what was I charged, and who were my accusers? Three months have passed since my banishment, and I am still left in ignorance of why it was done. Was it done merely to gratify official ambition? or rather, was it not done to gratify the malice of secret enemies? Can the interests of the Government be secured or protected or its dignity increased by such treatment of one of its citizens? Do you say that I am a great rebel, and therefore such treatment is good enough for me? How do you know that I am a rebel at all, much less a great one? Did you learn it from mere rumor, or from a trustworthy witness, sworn to tell the truth before a proper tribunal and in the presence of the accused? In the absence of such evidence how can an intelligent gentleman make such a charge, if, indeed, any one does make it? If it be stated, or insinuated, that I have been, or am, disloyal or disobedient to the Constitution of the United States, or to any of the laws made in pursuance thereof, or to the constitution and laws of any State where I have ever lived, or to any military order or edict—this most unjust and oppressive one banishing me from my home and family not excepted—I deny the allegation and defy proof by competent testimony! Have I not silently borne injustice and oppression long enough? Can you blame
me for entering my earnest protest against such treatment? Has it not been said by officers who ought to know, ‘that there are no charges against me, but that I am a man of influence, and, if disposed, could do a great deal of harm?’ Now, if there are no charges against me, in the name of everything that an American citizen holds dear, why suffer me to be thus persecuted and oppressed without an effort to prevent it? Are you not a sworn officer —sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? and does that Constitution allow such treatment of an American citizen against whom there are no charges? and can you allow it to be done without an effort to prevent it and be innocent? And suppose I have influence, is that a crime? and what reason has any one to fear that I would use it for evil? Is it proposed to banish men of character and influence from the State for fear they will exert their influence for evil? If not, why send off, and keep off, so humble a person as myself? Is this the way an officer should fulfill his oath of office? Was he clothed with authority for this purpose? Is this the only protection I am to expect from the officers of my native State? Is not my banishment, under the circumstances, an unmitigated outrage upon civil and military order, as well as upon my liberties as a citizen? I love and almost venerate the Government of the United States as established by our patriotic ancestors! Among earthly institutions I expect and want nothing better. With it I find no fault. My complaint is against certain of its officers for the injustice and oppression with which they treat me. If you were in my place and I in your’s, what course would you wish me to pursue? If a peaceable and quiet citizen, such as I have always been, is not free from imprisonment or banishment, who is safe? Has justice forsaken the land? And is there no place where the oppressed may find redress? If there be any place where justice may be had, will you tell me where it is, and how to approach it? I must candidly believe that my banishment was caused by ecclesiastical persecution—that I am banished for an ecclesiastical and not for a political reason! Certain persons sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E. Church, South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things in the nation, and I opposed them, because I not only loved union in the nation, but also in the Church—hence they became my enemies, and for this cause alone, as I believe, they secured my banishment! I believe the officer who did it was deceived, and induced to believe me
a bad and dangerous man, or surely he would not have acted so hastily and rashly! But you know, and so do all my enemies, that such is not my character. Who would be injured by my return to my family? Can anybody tell? Does anybody fear it? Shall my secret enemies be allowed to continue the gratification of their malignity at my expense under pretense of friendship to the Government? Will my continued religious persecution do the Government any good? Why, then, suffer its continuance? Why keep a man in exile without just cause, who is in feeble health, with limited means, and a wife and six dependent children needing his attention? Will you not then allow me to come home at once? Do not even the instincts of humanity, to say nothing of the higher obligations of justice and official duty, urge compliance with this request? I honestly believe that you and the Union men of your vicinity can get me home if you will—just as easily as to say the word. I may be mistaken, but I honestly believe that my whole case is in your hands, and that I remain in exile or return to my family, just as you will the one or the other. I have reasons for this opinion, and if I am mistaken would like to know it. I wish to say that in all that I have written I have not intentionally used a single word that was disrespectful toward those in authority. In all that I have said, I have aimed to speak plainly, candidly and earnestly, but also respectfully. I respect you on account of the authority with which you are invested and the Government which you represent. But I protest against the way I am treated, and who can blame me for it? And if this protest shall be disregarded now, perhaps it may live and speak in vindication of my character when I am dead, and when the voice of injured justice shall be heard and respected. If you can not release me, will you tell me who can? And will you answer this at your earliest possible convenience, and let me know what you intend to do in my case.
I am, most respectfully,
“‘B. H. S .’
“The answer of the Provost-Marshal was prompt, frank and manly, and does honor to the head and heart of its author. Unlike every other officer, civil or military, to whom I had applied for information or redress, he did not treat me with silent contempt. He answered. And the answer is important, because it shows clearly that
he not only had no hand in the banishment of myself and my companions in exile, but that he also had been kept in ignorance of the intention to do it, as also for the reasons why it was done. Surely there could have been no public charges against us, or proper trial in our case, or the Provost-Marshal in our immediate vicinity could not have thus been kept in ignorance of such an intention till after it was done.
“It proves, furthermore, that by order of Gen. McKean, it was left to the so-called loyal men of Montgomery county, Mo., to say whether we should return or not. And we have the names of those who gave their sworn opinions as to whether it was proper for us to return or not, and could give them, but in mercy we withhold them. And, finally, it proves that our efforts to obtain a revocation of our order of banishment, to be successful, had to be kept to ourselves. Why? Simply because if our secret enemies found it out they would thwart our efforts at the headquarters of the Commanding General of the district. But the letter speaks for itself. It is as follows:
“‘O P -M , D , } M C ., M ., April 26, 1863. }
“‘Rev. B. H. Spencer, Ashby’s Mills, Ind.:
“‘D S —I have just received yours of 22d inst., and must acknowledge I am utterly at a loss to comprehend it.
“‘I want to say, once for all, to yourself, as also to Doct. Pitman and Judge Nowlin, that I had no hand in your banishment whatever, either as a private citizen or as an officer; that I never had, either directly or indirectly, an intimation that such a thing was contemplated. An order was issued by General McKean, who is Commanding General of this district, headquarters at Palmyra, to J. G. Lane, Provost-Marshal of Wellsville district, to take the testimony of the loyal men of Montgomery county in relation to the propriety of your return home. Lane was removed from office and his district thrown into mine, and the order was sent to me by General McKean, which I executed by taking the evidence of loyal men, both at High Hill and Montgomery City, as well as Danville. The evidence was sworn to and sent by order of the commanding General to his headquarters.
“‘Now, sir, I have given you the facts in regard to everything I have had to do with this case. And, although you protest against any intention to insult or offend in your communication, I must frankly admit that the whole tenor of your letter seems to savor of both. ‘How can you consent, without just cause, to keep one in exile who is in feeble health,’ &c., is one extract from your letter. ‘Will you not then allow me to come home at once?’ is another. Now, sir, you must know that I have no direct control of this matter! Why ask me such questions? Why not ask me, as a private citizen, to use my influence to obtain a revocation of the order? The authorities that issued the order of your banishment have never asked, neither have I given, my opinion as to the propriety of the order. Notwithstanding I consider your letter as invidious, and, as I understand it, full of insinuations against me, yet, under the circumstances, I will allow humanity to step in, discard all feeling that your letter may have excited, and give you the best advice I am capable of.
“‘Judge Nowlin, Doct. Pitman and yourself get up a letter, directed to Brig.-Gen. McKean, Palmyra, Mo., through me as Provost-Marshal of Montgomery county. Take humanity for your text; appeal to him through the tears of your wife and helpless children; let Government officers alone; agree to report to me once a week in person, if it should be considered necessary; give every assurance that your lips will be sealed in future as to the utterance of treason, directly or indirectly; send the letter to me and I will forward it, with such recommendation as I may deem proper and right, and, if that fails, I am at the end of my row. The success of this thing will very much depend on keeping my advice to yourselves. I may be mistaken, but I believe your liberation may be effected in that way. Give my respects to Judge Nowlin and Doctor Pitman.
“‘Yours, &c.,
“‘A. C. S , Prov.-Marshal.’
“To the above noble letter I made the following reply:
“‘A ’ M , M C ., I , } ‘May 4, 1863. }
“‘Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo.:
“‘D S : Yours of the 26th April is to hand, has been read and contents noted. And in reply let me say, I regret that you considered my letter in its whole tenor ‘invidious, offensive and insulting,’ notwithstanding my protest against such a construction. I knew the task I had undertaken was difficult, for there seems to be something about official position which is always more or less impatient of contradiction. And hence it was reasonable to conclude that this is true of military officers, who feel that it is theirs to command and for others to obey or submit, and not to reason or question. The difficulty was to so employ language as to convey some idea of my righteous indignation at the injustice of my treatment, and which would at the same time be respectful and courteous toward those in authority. And I question very much whether you yourself, in my circumstances, would, if you could, have done better. I was, with only a few days’ notice, forced away from the fellowship and pastoral oversight of hundreds of beloved brethren; from a most dependent and afflicted family; from my only means of their support; from the graves of my kindred, and every thing of earth that was dear; was denied the privilege of going by St. Louis, where I might have reached the ears of power and have gained a revocation of my order of banishment; with limited means, was compelled to travel a circuitous and expensive route to my place of exile; was denied the privilege of living in the loyal State of Illinois, where I had kindred, and it would have cost me nothing; was denied the sympathy of friends who would have helped me financially, but were afraid; was sent into a land of strangers, under Government censure, where, without sympathy, if without money, a man had better be dead; was not allowed to know the charges against me, who were my accusers, or even the semblance of a trial, though I had sought one of Gen. Merrill, of Gen. Curtis, of Gen. Halleck, of Gov. Gamble, of AttorneyGeneral Bates, of Secretary Stanton and of President Lincoln, and had done this, directly and indirectly, through men of commanding influence, whose loyalty was above suspicion, and all this without success; felt, yea knew, that I was innocent; that there could be no truthful evidence of my being guilty of any crime; knew that I was suffering all this to gratify the malignity of secret enemies who had deceived the military commander and secured my banishment; enemies who, like the midnight assassin, did their work and then slunk away to gloat over the misery they had caused; felt satisfied
that I was thus persecuted for an ecclesiastical and not for a political reason; was sure the Government could not be benefited by my persecution nor injured by my return to my family; and, finally, became thoroughly convinced that the influence that controlled the action of those who had the power to release me from the binding force of this order, or to keep me in exile, was in or near Danville; and, in a word, was satisfied that I had found out the locality of the authors of my trouble and why they persecuted me, but the identical names of my persecutors I did not know; and hence, in view of the foregoing considerations, I wrote you in the way I did. Now, interpret my letter in the light of my circumstances, and imagine yourself in my condition, and you will be able to ‘comprehend it,’ and to excuse anything that may seem ‘discourteous or insulting,’ especially when I assure you nothing of the kind was intended. You have my thanks for your prompt and manly reply to my letter. There are times when I would rather a man would abuse me a little than not answer me at all, and this is one of those times. You are the only officer who had the condescension, kindness, humanity, or whatever else you may please to call it, to answer a single one of my numerous appeals for deliverance from oppression, or for instruction as to where or how I might obtain it. To your praise be this spoken. It affords me much pleasure, also, to learn from yourself that you had no hand in securing my banishment, or knowledge of it until after it occurred. I wish I could think the same of every other citizen of Danville.
“And now that, in accordance with your wish, I am addressing you as a private citizen, may I ask, and confidently expect, that you will give me the names of my accusers, and the nature of their accusations against me, if there are any, together with the names of those loyal men whose sworn testimony was sent to Gen. McKean in regard to the ‘propriety’ of allowing me to come home, and the substance of what each one said? As that is the nearest a trial of anything else I have had, should not the accused be allowed to know his accusers, the names of the witnesses and the nature of their testimony against him? You reprehend me very severely for insinuating that you have any ‘direct control of my case.’ Well, I did not suppose you had authority to revoke the order of banishment; but I did suppose, and do still suppose, that you and your friends of that vicinity can influence Gen. McKean to revoke the order or not, just as you wish; and that you have control of my case in that way.
And hence it is that I am so thankful to you, and so much encouraged by your kind offer to use your influence with the commanding officer to set aside this order and permit me to return home. And I am sure if you do promptly and vigorously exert your influence in that direction you are certain of success.
“Among your items of advice you say, ‘Give every assurance that your lips will be sealed in future as to the utterance of treason, directly or indirectly.’ Now, as this is, to my mind, an intimation that some one, or all three of us, are charged with having been guilty of treasonable utterances, and hence are required to give assurance that we will do so no more, I wish to say for myself that, if such be the intimation, I deny the allegation in toto; for I have neither uttered nor acted treason, nor do I expect to do either in future. And if I am permitted to return, and you can protect me from the tongue of slander, and the secret enemies that with consummate mendacity hound my steps and torture and misrepresent my language and conduct, you will hear nothing of treason, either in utterance or action. But, if that can not be done—if the tongue of slander and falsehood against me can not be silenced in any other way—then give a fair trial, and make these secret liars, who whisper falsehoods into official ears against those they hate, ‘face the music,’ and I will vindicate my innocence. Upon that subject I can make no further promises. A mere charge of treason, you know, is no evidence of guilt. The immaculate Son of Man was accused of rebellion, sedition and treason, with blasphemy, and with being the agent of the prince of devils! Of Innocence itself they said, ‘He is not fit to live; away with him! crucify him! crucify him!’ And ‘If they have done these things in the green tree, what will they not do in the dry?’ And the same divine authority has said, ‘If any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he must suffer persecution,’ and I have made my calculations accordingly. As to your other suggestions, I wish to say that I will herewith transmit to Gen. McKean, through you, a request, or petition, for the revocation of this order in my case, accompanied with a few of the reasons why I make it, which I will thank you to send to him, if you please, together with such remarks and recommendations as you may think proper to make. Please let me hear from you at an early day, and much oblige,
“‘Most respectfully,
“‘B. H. S .’
“The petition was sent to General McKean, through the ProvostMarshal of Montgomery county, Mo., together with the best appeal that he could make in our favor. But the only notice he seems to have given it was to treat it with silent contempt.
“The following is a copy of that petition:
“‘A ’ M , I ., May 7, 1863.
“‘Brigadier-Gen. McKean, Com., Palmyra, Mo.:
“‘D S —Will you please to revoke the order of Gen. Merrill, of the 13th January, 1863, banishing me from the State of Missouri? A few of the reasons why I ask you to do this are—
“’1st. The order was unjust. The General who issued this order did not know me, was dependent upon others for his information concerning me, and was evidently deceived by my personal enemies, or he never would have issued it.
“’2d. I have never engaged in this rebellion in any way, nor violated any law, civil or military; and, therefore, am not deserving of this punishment.
“’3d. I have a wife and six small, helpless children, whose ages range from two to twelve years, from whom I have been forcibly separated for more than three months, and who very much need my attention, and, therefore, humanity, to say nothing of the higher claims of truth and justice, demands compliance with this request.
“’4th. If permitted to return, I expect to be, as I have ever been, a law-abiding and good citizen, and, therefore, the Government can not be benefited by my remaining in exile nor injured by my return to my family.
“’5th. As it is the duty and glory of a Government to protect its citizens in the possession of all their legitimate rights, I ask, and hope it will be your pleasure to grant, that I may return to my family in the enjoyment of the untrammeled liberty that I had before my banishment.
“‘This petition will be sent to your headquarters by Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo., accompanied by such
remarks and recommendations as he may think proper to make.
“‘In the confident expectation that you will grant this just and reasonable request at an early day,
“‘I am, most respectfully, “‘B. H. S .’
“After being compelled to remain long enough in exile to form character and make friends amongst strangers, at the end of nine months some of the most prominent Union men of Indiana, on the 31st August, 1863, sent the following petition to the Provost-Marshal General of the department of the Missouri:
“‘To Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead, P. M. G. of Missouri, St. Louis, Mo., or to whomsoever this petition should be addressed:
“‘The undersigned petitioners beg leave respectfully to represent to the proper authorities in the State of Missouri, that we are citizens of the United States, residents of the counties of Montgomery and Putnam, in the State of Indiana; that we are now and ever have been loyal and devoted to the Government of the United States; that we are supporters of the present Administration thereof, and that we are in favor of using all lawful ways and means for suppressing the present rebellion and preserving the Union established by our fathers; we, therefore, cordially endorse all and every one of the measures of the Government having these much desired objects in view.
“‘We beg leave further to represent that there have been residing in our midst, in our immediate vicinity, for the past six or seven months, three individuals, said to be citizens of Montgomery county, in the State of Missouri, and to have been banished from that State by the military authorities there, viz.: H. W. Pitman, B. H. Spencer and David W. Nowlin. While we can not know the causes that led to the banishment of these men, we would state that they came among us under the ban of the Government, and we looked upon them as objects of suspicion. They and their conduct have been closely observed and narrowly scrutinized, not to say strictly watched by our party, and we deem it but sheer justice to declare, candidly and
emphatically, that after an observation of the length of time indicated above we have seen nothing in these men that in our judgment would require that they longer be kept in exile.’
“‘They are represented to us as men having families dependent greatly on them for support, and every feeling of humanity is enlisted in their behalf, if the interests of the Government do not imperatively require their continuance in exile. With the lights before us, and in view of the facts that these men have resided for the past six or seven months in a population greatly excited on political issues, and among whom sundry disloyal practices have been rife, in which they have had ample opportunities to have partaken if they had been so inclined, and yet our observation has not been sufficient to detect them as aiders or abettors in these disloyal practices; we feel free, therefore, to declare emphatically our convictions that the interests of the Government will not be advanced by a longer continuance of their exile; but, on the contrary, we are satisfied that those interests would be promoted by a revocation of the order banishing them from Missouri. We, therefore, in behalf of these exiles, pray the authorities in Missouri who are empowered to do so to revoke the order banishing the said H. W. Pitman, B. H. Spencer and David W. Nowlin from the said State of Missouri, and to release them from further pains and penalties in the premises; and as loyal citizens in duty bound, we will ever pray, &c.
(Signed) “‘J W. H ,
“‘D . H. L , “‘F M. M M , “‘D . G W. M , “‘J K , “‘J. J. B , “‘A. D. B .’
“The undoubted loyalty of these petitioners, and their prominence in social and political circles during Mr. Lincoln’s Administration, received the following endorsement, which accompanied their petition and formed a part of it:
“‘I have known the signers of this paper long and well; they are true and loyal citizens of Indiana, and are all supporters of the
Administration. They are gentlemen of the highest character, and their statements are entitled to full credit.
“‘H. S. L , U. S. Senator.’
“‘The gentlemen who signed the foregoing statement are of undoubted loyalty, and their representations are worthy of credit.
“‘O. P. M , Gov. of Indiana.’
“And now, by way of showing how difficult it was for those in prison or exile to obtain a hearing at headquarters, in consequence of official routine, etiquette, or what is technically called ‘Red Tape,’ I give the following inscription, which was written on the outside of the above petition before it was returned to the petitioners. It seems first to have come into the hands of some sub-official, who read it and then wrote on it a digest of its contents, as follows:
“‘Petition. Citizens of Indiana. P. 102 (P. M. G.) 63. That H. W. Pitman, B. H. Spencer and D. W. Nowlin, exiles from Montgomery county, Mo., be permitted to return to their families and homes, as they have been closely watched while here and have always conducted themselves as Union men. These petitioners are indorsed by the Governor of Indiana.’
“This sub-official then seems to have sent it to the P. M. General of the Department, who, without granting or promising to grant the petition, sent it back to Gov. Morton, with the following explanation written on it:
“‘H D M , }
“‘O P. M. G., }
“‘S . L , M ., Sept. 3, 1863. }
“Respectfully returned to his Excellency, O. P. Morton, Governor of Indiana, with the information that there are no papers on the cases of the persons named in the within petition in this office. Neither does their names appear upon the records. They were probably banished by order of some district commander.
“‘By order of Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead.
“‘H. H. H , “‘Lieut. and A. P. M. G. Dept. of the Missouri.’
“Upon receiving it Governor Morton sent it to Senator Lane, who sent it to the petitioners with the following explanation:
“This paper was to-day returned to me by Governor Morton, with the indorsements on it. Sept. 7, 1863.
“‘H. S. L .’
“Just think of it! No trial, no charges, nothing for us or against us, not on the records, no papers in our cases, and yet we in exile and compelled to stay there! But we employed one of Indiana’s noblest lawyers, the Hon. Samuel C. Wilson, of Crawfordsville, to take that petition and go with it in person to Gen. Schofield’s headquarters. The result was an unconditional revocation of the order of banishment, on the 16th Sept., 1863, which is as follows:
“‘H ’ D M , }
S . L , M ., Sept. 15th, 1863. }
“‘Special Orders No. 252.]
“‘I. Dr. H. W. Pitman, David Nowlin and B. H. Spencer, citizens of Montgomery county, Missouri, heretofore banished to Indiana, to remain there during the war, are permitted to remain in any part of the United States, outside of the limits of this Department. They will report their places of residence the first of each month during the war to the Provost-Marshal General of this Department.
“‘By command of Major-General Schofield.
“‘W . W. E , Ass’t Adj’t-Gen’l.
“‘B. H. Spencer, per Maj. Dunn.’
“The foregoing facts and documents are a mere tithing of what might be given to the same effect, and go to show most clearly that I was persecuted in various ways, and banished from my helpless family for ten long months, for no higher and no other crime than that I was a Southern Methodist preacher!
