Rev. Henry N. Watts.
Why were native Missourians in the ministry marked as the special objects of displeasure? Were they sinners above all the men who lived and labored in this goodly State, that such exceptional notice should be taken of them in the administration of pious loyalty? Possibly the discrimination was made upon the ground of personal influence with the people. That they had more influence with the people and stood higher in public estimation than any imported men will not be questioned; but that their influence was used for evil purposes, either political, social or moral, is distinctly denied. That others were envious of their well-earned position, and jealous of their power over the people and consequent ability to control the moral forces of the State for ecclesiastical advancement and distinction, is too true to escape the notice of history; for upon this fact the only rational hypothesis can rest that accounts for the noteworthy pre-eminence given to the old native Missouri ministers in these persecutions. A man who had been so long and so well known in the Missouri pulpit as the Rev. H. N. Watts could not escape the heavy hand of the persecutor, and the distinction in suffering he had gained in the ministry.
Mr. Watts was admitted on trial in the Missouri Conference, M. E. Church, South, at St. Louis, in 1844, and appointed to Ripley Mission, Cape Girardeau District.
From that time on he has been a faithful laborer in his Master’s vineyard—always ready to go where the Bishop appointed him without murmuring or gainsaying. At times he has been called to fill the chair of Presiding Elder, and also to represent his Conference in the General Conference. His fidelity to the sacred claims and obligations of the gospel ministry has only been equaled by his loyalty to the Church of his choice and his fidelity to her distinctive peculiarities. He was always a man of one work, and never concerned himself particularly about the civil and political affairs of the country.
The policy of the Church and the saving principles and power of the gospel of grace were more to him than all “the things which belong unto Cæsar.” He thought that there were men enough to attend to Cæsar’s business, but none too many ministers to keep God’s business with men and man’s interest in the “kingdom of heaven” from suffering. Hence he kept himself free from political strifes and attended, with singleness of heart and life, to his holy calling. Thus he was engaged when the war broke out, and up to the summer of 1863 he had suffered very little molestation. He had taken no part in the strife and committed no act of treason against the Government; was a peaceable, orderly citizen.
In 1863 Mr. Watts was living in Charleston, Mississippi county, Mo., and on the 23d of July was arrested at his house by a squad of soldiers, accompanied by Meeker Thurman, Aaron W. and John Grigsby, and taken to Columbus, Ky. He was charged with no crime, and no offense against the laws or peace of the Government was ever alleged against him. In vain did he plead the protection of the Constitution of the United States. He was threatened with banishment or imprisonment during the war, unless he would take and subscribe a military oath, which was as repugnant to his feelings as it was oppressive to the rights of conscience. After taking the oath to secure his liberty, and receiving some personal abuse as a minister of the gospel, he was released and permitted to return to his home after an absence of several days.
In the spring of 1864, and while Capt. Ewing’s company of militia were stationed in Charleston, and Lieut. Jas. A. Reed was Ass’t Provost-Marshal, Mr. Watts was prohibited from preaching the gospel for several weeks by military authority. He continued, however, to travel his circuit and hold religious services. He would read the word of God, sing, pray and exhort the people to “flee from the wrath to come” and “lead peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and honesty.”
The following is the correspondence between the Assistant Provost-Marshal and Mr. Watts. It will serve to develop the nature of the persecutions he suffered in the light of the official records:
“Office Assistant Provost-Marshal, }
“Charleston, Mo., March 17, 1864. }
“Parson Watts:
“Sir: You will greatly oblige me, and at the same time not inconvenience yourself, perhaps, by calling at this office on or before the 19th inst., for the purpose of complying with ‘Special Order No. 61,’ issued by the Provost-Marshal General, St. Louis, Mo., March 7, 1864, requiring ministers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance therein prescribed.
“Your non-compliance with this notice will be taken as a refusal and will be acted upon accordingly.
“James A. Reid,
“1st Lieut. and Ass’t Provost-Marshal.”
To which Mr. Watts returned the following reply:
“Charleston, Mo., March 18, 1864.
“Lieut. James A. Reid, Ass’t Provost-Marshal:
“Sir: Your note of the 17th inst. has been received, asking me to appear at your office on or before the 19th inst., to comply with ‘Special Order No. 61,’ concerning ‘convocations, conferences, councils, assemblies,’ &c.
“1. I have written to St. Louis for certain information on this and other subjects. I would greatly prefer getting said information before taking action in this matter.
“2. I assure you I have not violated said order by attending any synod, council, conference, or any such assembly under any other name, since said order was issued.
“3. And as you think preaching would be a violation of said order, I have ceased preaching since I have heard of this order. And a private citizen is not required to take that oath, yourself being judge.
“4. As a private individual I have taken the oath of allegiance, a copy of which I have; and,
“5. I have not at any time, and do not design violating that order, and with this assurance I hope I shall not be hurried in this matter.
“Respectfully, H. N. Watts.”
Mr. Watts addressed the following letter to the Provost-Marshal General, St. Louis:
“Charleston, Mo., March 18, 1864.
“J. P. Sanderson, Pro.-Marshal Gen’l, St. Louis, Mo.:
“Dear Sir—Special Order No. 61, from your office, dated the 7th inst., ‘concerning religious convocations, synods, councils, conferences, or assemblies under any other name or title,’ not being understood as to the extent of its application, will you be kind enough to answer the following inquiries:
“1. Under these terms, ‘convocations, synods, &c., or assemblies under any other name or title,’ does this include congregational worship, or a congregation met in open church, with free seats, for preaching and other public services? and will each one so assembled be required to take the oath prescribed in Special Order No. 61?
“2. When an assembly of divines have met to transact the business of the Church, and have taken the prescribed oath, are they expected then to oppose secession and treason publicly from the pulpit, or only in private circles?
“3. A minister who has within the past year taken the oath of allegiance in another State, but is now traveling in this State, must he again take the oath before he can meet his congregation for public worship?
“Answers to these inquiries will be gladly received, if you can find time to answer
“Your obedient servant,
“H. N. Watts.”
The Assistant Provost-Marshal at Charleston received the following letter from the Provost-Marshal General in answer to the inquiries of Mr. Watts:
“Headquarters Department of the Missouri,
Office of Provost-Marshal General.
St. Louis, Mo., March 24, 1864.
“Sir—I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st, enclosing your correspondence with the Rev. Mr., Watts, and asking for further instructions; and, also, I am in receipt of a letter from the same Rev. gentleman, propounding to me the following questions:
(See questions above.)
“It can not be necessary, either for your guidance or that of the Rev. gentleman who has propounded these questions to me, to answer them categorically.
“The order referred to is too plain and distinct to be misunderstood. It applies, as the language used unmistakably indicates, to conferences and all other representative assemblies convened to promote the cause of religion and morality, and not to the ordinary meetings of Christians assembled for the business purposes of a congregation, or benevolent society, or for the worship of God. All the objects of it are answered when its enforcement is confined to the assemblies indicated in it, and, as a matter of course, it forms no part of its purpose or requirements that persons should take the prescribed oath before proceeding to worship their Maker when assembled for that purpose.
“In case of the attendance at any assemblage of the character indicated in said order of any one who has already taken the oath of allegiance prescribed by the laws of this State for the clergy to legalize marriage, &c., any certificate or evidence of the fact will be sufficient to render him eligible without again taking the prescribed oath.
“But, while such is the liberal construction of the Order No. 61, requiring no oath of those divines who have already taken the required oath to enable them to perform all their functions, it is no less the determination of the undersigned to enforce a rigid compliance with the ordinance of the State Convention of June 10, 1862, requiring licensed and ordained preachers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance therein prescribed before assuming to discharge the duties pertaining to their avocations under the laws of this State.
“Those who have failed to do so, and who, under the pretense of preaching or worshiping God, meet really for seditious purposes, and, in truth, to desecrate and violate the laws of God and their country, can not be allowed so to meet or carry on their seditious purposes, and will be held to a strict accountability.
“I have no inclination, nor do I conceive it to be any part of my duty, to answer the Rev. gentleman’s second interrogatory, and thus instruct him in his ministerial duties. My respect for his profession obliges me to presume that he is familiar with the Bible, and needs no such instruction from me. For the information asked in that interrogatory he will, therefore, have to refer to the Bible, whose expounder he professes to be. He need but do so in the proper spirit, and with an earnest desire to be guided by its teachings, to insure unto him a flood of light as to his duty in the premises.
“You will furnish the Rev. Mr. Watts with a copy of this letter, and be guided in your own actions by its instructions.
“Respectfully, J. P. Sanderson,
“Prov.-Mar. Gen’l.
“Lt. Jas. A. Reid, Ass’t Pro.-Mar’l, Charleston, Mo.”
The letter of the Provost-Marshal General was forwarded to Mr. Watts, through the Assistant Provost-Marshal’s office at Charleston, accompanied by an order from the latter office requiring him to take the Convention oath of ’62, or cease to preach, and report himself at headquarters, St. Louis. He went to St. Louis, took what was called the “Gamble oath,” returned home and resumed his ministerial labors.
The correspondence here given is specially valuable for the light it throws upon the spirit and bearing of the military authorities in the direct issue they made with the clergy of the State. Many ministers of the gospel were more oppressed and persecuted, but all of them did not so far yield to military authority on the one hand, nor so sharply contend for the rights of conscience on the other.
The “Special Order, No. 61,” has a history of itself that will be unveiled in due time, and the true nature of the proscription and persecution under it will be better disclosed in another place.
This forcing the conscience of ministers by prescribing “test oaths” is not a new thing. It is as old as the second great persecution under Domitian, A. D. 81, and as cruel as the Spanish Inquisition.
When State Conventions and military commanders in Missouri prepared political “test oaths” for ministers of the gospel as a class, and ordered all non-juring ministers under disability, the object was not doubtful in the minds of those acquainted with the history of religious persecutions.
Another martyred minister of the gospel, the horrible murder of another of God’s chosen messengers of salvation, and scene first of the great Missouri tragedy closes, the curtain falls, and both writer and reader may seek temporary relief from what Dr. Summers, in a private note, calls “a terrible narrative.” When the curtain rises again it will unveil other scenes in this wonderful histrionic drama, of which those already presented are but the preparation and prelude.
The trials and persecutions of the faithful men of God already narrated are sufficient to present the moral and religious phases of the war in Missouri to an intelligent public. Would to God the pall of oblivion could settle down upon the whole history. But if the world still retains its interest in truth; if the Church is still the repository of the testimony of Jesus and the divinely accredited authority for works of righteousness; if the ministers of the gospel are yet responsible for the “faith once delivered unto the saints,” for the purity of the gospel and the integrity of the kingdom of God on earth, and if history is valuable for the lessons it teaches and the principles it vindicates, then that truth, that righteousness, that faith, that history, all demand the record here made, the lessons taught and the principles vindicated in the trials and sufferings of God’s annointed servants during the recent reign of terror.
The following shocking narrative of murder must, according to the decision of the publisher, close the first volume.