|
Essay Directory
2007 - 2008 Essays
Liberty Ladies
College: A Modern Educational Experience
by Alyssa Emery
Liberty Rising:
the 1934 Fire
by Rachel Ibok
Zerelda Mimms James:
Lover of a
Bandit
by Lindsey Melvin
2006 - 2007 Essays
Convention City
by
Lilia Toson
David Rice Atchison:
A Champion of the
People
by
Jesus Lopez
Dr. Seymore Pearley -
Clay County's First
African American Dentist
by Hayley VanderStel
Humphrey “Yankee” Smith
by Jonathan Entzminger
Missouri City in Black and White
or
Rebuilding a Culture
by Devin DeMoure
The Drake Constitution: When Missouri White
Men Could Not Vote
by
Kali Shipley
The Other James Brother
by Madison McGraw
White Oak: A Tender Side
of the Racial
Divide
by
Evelaca Dobbins
Home Page - William Jewell Essays
Home Page - WindingRiver.com
|
 Kali Shipley is a
2007, William Jewell College alum. She holds a triple major in
Spanish, English Literature, and Critical Thinking and Inquiry. Kali is
currently using her Spanish and English background to teach English as a
Second Language in the Lees Summit School District. Eventually she would
like to be a Children’s author, but until then, she enjoys writing for
herself and small publications.
The Drake Constitution:
When Missouri White Men Could Not Vote
After
the Civil War ended in 1865, the tumultuous times in Missouri did not
cease: biases, loyalties, convictions, and prejudices ran deep.
Missouri, and furthermore Clay County, was a microcosm of the larger
national controversies. Having a past of sympathizing with southern
states, Missouri held conflicting loyalties—most wanted to move away from
the days of alliances with the Confederate states, and move into a new era
of loyalty towards the United States of America. Despite Missouri’s
deep, but old, sympathies with the Confederate States, Missouri was also
one of the first states to emancipate its slaves on 11 January 1865.
Even with this positive step, guerilla warfare remained through groups
such as the “bushwhackers.” Clay County also held biases and
oppositions to the changing times. In 1863, not a single voter cast
a ballot in favor of Abraham Lincoln, and it was not until 1912 that the
Clay County Courthouse flew the United States Flag over its building.
It was during this turbulent time after the end of the Civil War, that the
controversy of the Drake Constitution arose in Missouri. The Drake
Constitution was the popular name given to the second amended Missouri
state constitution. As one of the members of the constitutional
convention, Charles D. Drake of St. Louis, aided in developing the
emancipation ordinance and helped form the new constitution—especially one
of its more controversial sections. This second constitution
purported to be an attempt at unifying Missouri with the ideals of the
Union, actually divided voters and spurred the already unstable political
hostilities.
Modeled after the Iron-Clad Oath which Abraham Lincoln’s
administration deemed unconstitutional, Drake and the Missouri
constitutional convention formed what is known as the Missouri Loyalty
Oath. The Oath required any man desiring to vote to swear his allegiance
to the Union and affirm that he had had no prior affiliation with the
dissenting Confederate States of America, or with anyone who had been a
part of or supported the Confederacy. The proposed changes to the
constitution did not seek to repair divisions amongst Northern and
Southern sympathizers—it was a divisive document, an attempt on the part
of radicals to gain absolute control. According to an historian of Greene
County, the divisiveness of the new changes added to the problem:
[A]
spirit of unrest and malevolence, hatred and ill-will, prevailed among our
people, and the character of the issues discussed, to say nothing of the
discussions themselves, was not calculated to restore an era of good
feeling or cause the two factions to make haste to clasp hands over the
bloody chasm. (Holcombe)
Under
the guise of protecting the Union and exterminating any hostile or
treasonous voters, the constitution restricted a large majority of voters
in a formerly Confederate-sympathizing state. Article II, Section 3 of the
constitution set out to establish a distinction between the loyal
citizens, and those that would threaten the Union:
No person shall be deemed
a qualified voter, who has ever been in armed hostility to the United
States . . . or has ever given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to
persons engaged in any such hostility; or has ever, in any manner, adhered
to the enemies, foreign or domestic, of the United States, either by
contributing to them, or by unlawfully sending within their lines, money,
goods, letters of information; or has ever disloyally held communication
with such enemies; or has ever advised or aided any person to enter the
service of such enemies; or has ever, by act or word, manifested his
adherence to the cause of such enemies, or his desire for their triumph
over the arms of the United States, or his sympathy with those engaged in
exciting or carrying on rebellion against the United States. (Rule)
The
language of this section prevented nearly everyone from being deemed a
qualified voter, especially in states loyal to the Confederate states.
Another part of the Oath required every man to also swear that he made
“this oath without any mental reservation or evasion, and [held] it to be
binding” on him. An article published in the Liberty Tribune a few
months before the constitution took effect noted the absurdity of an oath
that had no legal force yet claimed impending punishments on those who did
not take it or committed perjury by taking it (“The Oath under the
Constitution”). Clearly the men who devised the Loyalty Oath and Section
3 tried ardently to prevent many from voting, and unconstitutionally so;
Drake and the Radical Republicans sought unlimited control of the state by
employing these extreme restrictions on voters.
For
those with family members on both sides of the war, it was hard to think
that after the Civil War, any of them would have been innocent of any
thoughts or inclinations toward both sides of the national issues. A
writer for the Liberty Tribune openly challenged the authority of
Drake and the writers of the new constitution:
“Let
me insist upon every voter, that if you find that you cannot vote without
taking the oath, then take it, for there is no legal sanction to it, and
you may take it with as many mental reservations as you choose, for no
Court can ever enforce its penalties” (“The Oath under the Constitution”).
Although some may have taken the oath against their conscience, the
numbers show that in the entire state of Missouri, only 85,478 men voted
on the amended second constitution of Missouri. The Drake
Constitution was adopted by a slim majority vote of 1,862 (Holcombe).
In addition to losing the vote, the Draconian oath prohibited any
“disloyal” man—who refused to take the oath, or who was found “guilty” of
treason—to hold any office of power, honor, or influence. Men guilty
of treason could not hold office, could not practice law, could not teach,
could not preach, could not own property used for a church or religious
organization, nor could they be a councilman, director, or trustee.
Tucked away, between the pages of a binder about Clay County history, in
the Clay County Archives, rests a photograph of the founding fathers of
Clay County. Nearly every man in the photograph was disfranchised from
the vote because of the amended articles in the Drake Constitution.
During this chaotic time, the editor of the Liberty Tribune queried
readers who had been disfranchised to send in short statements about
themselves, as evidence of their patriotism, and why they had been
disfranchised. Many men responded, and through the short paragraphs
preserved in the Archives, stories begin to form around the faces in the
photo. Although the lives of the men varied—in their families, political
affiliations, home states—it is clear through their words that each one
deemed himself an exemplary upholder of patriotic ideals. Some men came
from heroic lineages, their fathers or grandfathers fighting in the
Revolutionary or Mexican Wars. Most of the men had immigrated to Clay
County from Kentucky; some were Whigs, some Democrats, but the one thing
they all had in common was disfranchisement.
William Nall of Scott County, Kentucky, registered to vote but his
registry was rejected. A.L. Darby described in detail his difficulty and
uncertainty in trying to vote: “they . . . [kept] me until twelve o’ clock
at night, telling me all the time it should be fixed so I could vote,” yet
it never was (Hodges). Another man, Robert Walker, expressed his
frustration with the new Constitution: “and it reminds me of old times
when our elections were held on the first Monday and Tuesday in August and
every White man was free—told to the world who he voted for, without
hiding it in a ballot (Hodges). Walker’s comments touch on the dangers
and undue restrictions placed upon good citizens by the Draconian
code—these new laws were violent withholdings of constitutional rights.
But Drake and the Radical Republicans were choosing to lead violent,
divisive changes in their majority rule. One historian expresses the
violent nature of the times: “It says much of the mood of the times in
Missouri in 1865 that when the Missouri Supreme Court attempted to
overturn the Oath, they were all immediately removed from the bench”
(Rule). No matter which county in Missouri, the new Oath and Constitution
were met with hostility and confusion. Even though in Clay County only
one person voted against the Drake Constitution, it is clear through the
mini biographical sketches sent to the Tribune that no man thought
the new Constitution would cause a stripping of fundamental constitutional
rights, such as freedom to associate and to vote. Missouri wanted to move
into an era of loyalty to the Union and reparation, not a time where
radicals ruled and denied the vote to earnest citizens.
Works Cited
Hodges, Nadine, trans. Old Men of Clay County and Patrons of Clay
County Atlas of 1877. Re-issued, 1968. Clay County Archives.
Liberty, MO. Page 17.
Holcombe, R.I., ed. “Adoption of the Drake Constitution.” History of
Greene County, Missouri. <http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/localhist/history/holcombe/grch14pt7.html>.
Rule,
G.E., ed. “The Missouri Oath of Loyalty of 1865.”
The Story of a Border City During the
Civil War.
Galusha Anderson, 1908. 29 March 2007.
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com/History/Oathofloyalty.htm . “The
Oath Under the Constitution: From the Missouri Republican.” Liberty
Tribune. 26 May 1865, Sec. none: 2. 29 March 2007.
<http://newspapers.umsystem.edu/Default/Skins/Missouri/Client.asp?
Skin=Missouri&AW=1178577321469&AppName=2>.
Home Page - William Jewell Essays
Home Page - WindingRiver.com |
