Read Ebook: White man bery unsartin: Nigger haint got no friends no how; the blackest chapter in the history of the Republican Party; the men who robbed and combined to rob the freedmen of their hard earnings. by Adams F Colburn Francis Colburn

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 135 lines and 19887 words, and 3 pages

The damaging effect, morally, physically, and otherwise, on the negro, of the robbery of the Freedmen's Bank can hardly be over estimated. It was a very serious blow to his progress--to his future hopes. It made him lose faith in the integrity of the white man. The hope of gain no longer sweetens labor with him. He no longer saves his money to deposit in a saving bank, where he was so plausibly told it would bring him large interest, and ultimately a home. No; my experience has been that a large majority of the negroes to-day spend their money as they earn it, and indeed have lost that ambition to put something aside for a rainy day which characterized them a few years ago.

I will here relate an instance in proof of what is said in the above, and which will forceably illustrate a thousand other cases. During the campaign on the peninsula under McClellan, we had our headquarters at Toler's Farm, Cumberland Landing, on the Pamunkey. A very intelligent and respectable colored man came to me and disclosed the secret that he had more than fourteen hundred dollars, in silver, buried in the cellar. His wife, a wonderfully active woman, and one child were owned by the Tolers. He, himself, was the slave of a Mr. Myers, of Richmond, of whom he bought his time, as was common among the more intelligent and thrifty slaves. He boasted that his master would trust him anywhere, and had always been very kind to him. The Tolers, on the other hand, were very hard on their slaves, and Henry's greatest ambition was to get money enough to purchase the freedom of his wife and child, and the money he had saved from fishing and oystering on the York and Pamunkey rivers was for that purpose. For that he had toiled, and toiled, and toiled for sixteen years to get money enough to purchase the freedom of his wife and child. Even then he could have taken his money, his wife, and his child, and gone to Washington; but he refused. Indeed, he remained true to his master until the fall of Richmond. Then he came here, put what money he had left in the Freedmen's Bank, and the painful story is told in these words: he lost it. The Washington sharpers got it. I met this man a few years ago; dissipation had overtaken him; he was a changed man; uttering curses on the heads of the men who had robbed him.

Let us retrace our steps again.

A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

was again derelict of its duty. When the gang organized to rob the bank had finished its nefarious work, and its doors were closed in bankruptcy, one would have supposed that the most important question to be decided was the quickest and most economical method of winding up its affairs, to the end of saving as much as possible to the poor, deluded depositors. A Republican Congress did exactly the opposite of this.

Instead of authorizing the President to appoint a receiver, a man of well-known integrity and business capacity, it authorized him to appoint a board of three commissioners, each at a salary of three thousand dollars a year, to be paid out of the funds of the bank. This was virtually giving the commissioners a long lease of the funds.

Grant, in making these appointments, charmingly illustrated what is known as Grantism. Creswell, who resigned his position in Grant's cabinet to escape impeachment, and with whose official and political record the country is already familiar, was his first choice. Money is Mr. Creswell's fetish, no one has ever accused him of doing a charitable act, and as for political convictions, he has about as much use for them as a savage has for a time-piece. When a Senator, a true friend of the race, remonstrated against this appointment and predicted the result, Grant said Creswell was a lawyer, and as such could make himself useful in managing the legal affairs. We shall see what kind of legal service this lawyer has rendered.

Grant's next choice was an aged black man, with a very benevolent face, named Purvis. Of law, banking, finance, poor Purvis knew just nothing. His knowledge of medicine even was slender, and he resided in Philadelphia. These qualifications, however, were satisfactory to Grant, who said the Board would not be complete without "one nigger," whose presence was necessary to inspire confidence in the plundered depositors. He doubtless meant the poor devils, the washers and scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant, who had been plundered by his cronies.

Grant's third choice was R. H. T. Leipold. His qualifications were that he was a Hessian by birth, had lived in Wisconsin, was a favorite of Senator Howe of that State, and had been a clerk in that great American penal colony, the Treasury Department. I want the reader to make a note of this Senator Howe part of the business, as I shall have something to say on it hereafter, when a son-in-law of that Senator figures somewhat numerically.

To men of Purvis' and Leipold's type, this salary of three thousand dollars a year was a god-send of no mean dimensions. But placing them in charge of the bank's money was a very dangerous power to intrust such men with. Grant, I am told, used to allude to these commissioners as representing Europe, Africa, and America. That it was a charming blending of colors must be confessed. The sombre clouding, however, hung around America, represented by the man Creswell.

Let us turn now and see how these commissioners have discharged this

MOST SACRED TRUST.

Let us survey the field carefully and thoroughly, and see how these commissioners have got away with the savings of the scrubbers and the washers, the widows and the orphans of the very poor and the very ignorant. And I will begin this by turning to the testimony and report of Hon. Beverly Douglass' Investigating Committee, made to Congress May 9th, 1876. That investigation developed:

First: A chapter of fraud unparalleled in the history of crime.

Second: Shameful dereliction of duty on the part of the commissioners.

Third: That J. A. J. Creswell was too much engaged in other business, to give any of his valuable time to the bank. That he paid Leipold 0 for attending to his part of the business, and quietly pocketed ,500.

Fourth: That the colored man Purvis, followed the example of Creswell--paid Leipold 0 to excuse him.

Fifth: That Leipold was the great Republican high priest, who ran the bank according to his own methods.

Sixth: That the remaining funds were fast disappearing into the pockets of the commissioners and their favorites.

Seventh: That the commissioners were appointed on the 4th of July, 1874, and that no report of their management has been made, as was required by law.

Eighth: That more than sixty thousand dollars had disappeared in a single year, for what was called "expense account."

Ninth: That there was at least a suspicious connection between Leipold, Senator Howe's man, and lawyer Totten, a son-in-law of the same Senator.

Tenth: That G. W. Stickney succeeded D. L. Eaton, as Actuary of the bank; that some of the very worst frauds on the bank were committed during his administration, and with his knowledge. Not only this, but that he was found to be individually indebted to the bank to the amount of ,680.

Brother G. W. Stickney, sometimes called Colonel Stickney, is well known in Washington, alike for his praying propensities and sharp practices. He is, if I may be pardoned for using the phrase, an outwash of the war, a Christian statesman of the Schuyler Colfax type. He is one of those persons who could, at any time, get a certificate of good character from those illustrious friends of humanity, U. S. Grant and Boss Shepherd.

Let us turn to page 50 of Mr. Beverly Douglas' report and see what Brother J. W. Alvord, at one time president of the Freedmen's Bank, says of Brother G. W. Stickney:

Q. I want you to tell the Committee, without any evasion or concealment, whether, during your administration as president, or your connection with the bank as trustee, there was, to your mind and your comprehension, a fair, faithful, and honest administration of its funds?

A. I can answer in the language of Saturday last. There was I would not say dishonest, but improper loaning to men who were not responsible; loaning upon insufficient security; loaning on illegal security, such as city scrip and personal chattels; and permitting employees at the branches to loan without the knowledge of the trustees. The Actuary gave them such permission as that. They quoted him as authority for such loans. I do not think that the trustees ever stole any money. The matter of Vandenburgh is one of the marked instances that I would range under insufficient security.

Q. You seem to be very well acquainted with Vandenburgh, from your boyhood up. Do you know whether there was any business connection in the street paving business between Vandenburgh and Alexander R. Shepherd at the time these loans were being negotiated?

A. I do not know that there was any business connection.

Q. Tell us of any other connection that there was between them.

A. I know that they were acquaintances, and that Mr. Shepherd was at the head of affairs here, while Mr. Vandenburgh was a contractor.

Q. Contractor under him?

A. Contractor of him; he contracted to do his work in the city for pay....

Q. Where is this Mr. Stickney, the actuary? Does he live in this city?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was his pecuniary condition when he entered the service of the Freedmen's Bank?

A. He was a man without any appearance of any considerable amount of means--not very large amount of property. He is a wide-a-wake, active, business real estate broker.

Q. How much property has he got now?

A. I cannot tell.... I think he has an interest in a good many pieces of property; how large that interest is, or how well secured, I cannot say.

The above will serve to show what kind of a man this G. W. Stickney was. The simple truth is that, when he took charge of the bank's affairs, about all the property he had was his pretensions to being a high church Republican, and his stock in trade in religion of an assorted kind.

Old man Alvord was an unwilling witness. He could have told the Committee much more than he did of the connection between Stickney and Shepherd, Vandenburgh and Shepherd, John O. Evans, Lewis Clephane, and Hallett Kilbourn. Vandenburgh is a free and easy, good natured, open-handed man, and not naturally dishonest. And yet he was, during the reign of Mr. Shepherd and his Ring, a sample sheep, of which Clephane, Evans, Kilbourn, and Shepherd constituted the flock. He was associated with them in the paving business, and the very large amounts of money he was permitted to draw from the bank from time to time, and while Stickney had almost absolute control of its funds--nearly 0,000--convinces me that there was not only collusion, but that Vandenburgh was used as an instrument by his more designing confederates. These "Vandenburgh loans," as they are called, are regarded as bad as any made by the bank. That Vandenburgh never could have used so large an amount of money in his own business, the Committee were satisfied. This, too, must be said, that Mr. Beverly Douglas was very decidedly of the opinion that Vandenburgh was "used by the master spirits of the ring to pull their chestnuts out of the fire."

Stickney was responsible for these bad loans. They were made with his consent, perhaps not criminally. I have, however, given enough proof to convince the candid reader that he never should have been employed as an officer of the bank again.

I come now to the saddest and most melancholy chapter of this history of fraud. I refer to the report recently wrung from the commissioners in response to Mr. Muller's resolution, introduced in Congress February 25th, 1878. This report, is a very remarkable document, and merits to be extensively read and carefully studied. It is a remarkable document, as well for the force in which it illustrates the blighting power of money, the want of heart, soul, and conscience, even the better class of mankind is afflicted with at the present day, and, worst of all, that there is very little difference between the men, who, in 1870, deliberately plotted to rob the bank, and the men, who, in 1878, and under the disguise of law, make themselves and their friends the beneficiaries of what there is left.

The following passage is quoted from this remarkable report, to which the names of the three commissioners are attached. It reads like a bit of exquisite satire:

"In conclusion, permit us to say that we have no knowledge of any improper use of the funds of the company to which reference is made in the preamble of the resolution of the House of Representatives, except sums required for the payment of petty expenditures and expenses incurred by agents and deducted from their collections."

This is a very singular statement to make to Congress, and is false on its face. Can it be possible that these commissioners were so deaf to public sentiment that they did not hear the criticisms made on their conduct in managing the affairs of the bank for the last three years? Do they not know that the atmosphere of Washington has been foul with scandals in regard to the relations between one of the commissioners and a well-known Washington lawyer, who was enriching himself at the expense of the washers and scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant? Do they not know that these suspicious relations have been the talk of the Washington bar for at least two years? Why, gentlemen commissioners, this report of yours is, of itself, the best proof that there was just cause for these scandals, if such you choose to call them.

I have shown that Creswell and Purvis were mere figureheads, who pocketed their salaries with heartless regularity, while Leipold did all the business, and was really the Board of Commissioners. I have also shown this man Leipold's relations to Senator Howe, and his son-in-law, lawyer Enoch Totten. We have now only to turn and see what an extensive field lawyer Enoch Totten found for his legal services, and how splendidly he improved it. Here are some of his charges:

The sad story of greed recorded in the above account of fees is so well told as to render comment by me unnecessary. And yet the above is by no means all lawyer Enoch Totten got of the money of the washers and the scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant. He can afford to ride in his coach; and I hope he can sleep at night with the self-satisfaction that he has been just and generous to the poor freedmen who had been so cruelly robbed, and had pocketed only what was right of their money.

Not very long since, Mr. Frederick Douglas said there were men in Washington, living in palaces, and riding in their coaches, who were prominent in robbing his people of their hard earnings. Mr. Douglas never told a greater truth. I envy no man destined to carry a guilty conscience through the world with him.

To turn to this lawyer Totten, he may be eminent as a lawyer, but I never heard of it. Nor have I ever heard that his reputation at the Washington Bar was such as to entitle him to excessive fees. I have heard of Attorney-at-Law Totten, in connection with the "Beaufort and Texas Prize Claim," which, in the language of District Attorney Wells, was one of the very worst frauds invented to get nearly a million dollars out of the Treasury of the United States.

I am assured that the legal services rendered by Mr. Totten, were of a very simple and commonplace kind; and that there are at least fifty members of the Washington Bar, as good and perhaps better lawyers than Mr. Totten, who would have gladly performed the service for one-sixth of the amount charged.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet