Benjamin H. Bristow: Civil Rights Champion, 1866-1872 (1969)

BENJAMIN H. BRISTOW: Civil Rights Champion, 1866-1872 Ross A. Webb In our own day, when the issue of civil rights weighs heavy upon the American conscience, it is interesting that the arguments and aims of contemporary civil rights leaders rest heavily upon those put forward in the post-Civil War period. The issue then, as now, involved a Federal invasion of states rights as a result of congressional legislation aimed at guaranteeing the rights of a minority—namely the Negro. One of the champions of civil rights in that era of detraction was Benjamin Helm Bristow. Born on June 20, 1832, at Elkton, Kentucky, Bristow was the son of Francis Marion Bristow, outspoken congressional critic of secession in 1861.1 After attending Jefferson College in Pennsylvania , Bristow read law in his father's office. With the outbreak of rebellion he became a Union supporter. Although resident in a pro-Confederate area, Bristow helped raise two Federal regiments in Kentucky; saw service at Fort Donelson and Shiloh; assisted in the capture of the Confederate raider, John Hunt Morgan; and served in the state senate from 1863 to 1865 as a strong supporter of the Lincoln administration . With the adjournment of the senate in June 1865, Colonel Bristow resumed his law practice at Hopkinsville.2 However, in the fall of that year, through his friendship with Attorney General James Speed, he secured the appointment as assistant district attorney for Kentucky. In this capacity he assumed a leading role in the prosecution of the government 's cases since the United States attorney, Joshua Tevis, was prone to ill health.3 In the spring of 1866 Bristow wrote to the Attorney General requesting permission to arrest and prosecute formerly indicted Confederates. He advised Speed that pardon to such individuals should be dealt out sparingly since governmental leniency was not appreciated. Speed considered Bristow's observations so important that he showed the letter to the President. Already aware of "the troubles in Kentucky," Johnson promised the Attorney General that he would withhold further par1 See Ross A. Webb, "Francis Marion Bristow, A Study in Unionism," The Filson Club History Quarterly, XXXVII (Apr., 1963), 142-158. 2 See Ross A. Webb, "A Yankee From Dixie: Benjamin Helm Bristow," Civil War History, X (Mar., 1964), 80-94. 3 Joshua Tevis to James Speed, Nov. 16, 1865. Papers of the Attorney General, Letters Received, Kentucky, 1832-1870, National Archives, Record Group 60 ( hereafter referred to as NA, RG. ). J.A. Rowland to Joshua Tevis, Nov. 21, 1865, Papers of the Attorney General, Letter Book E, 316, NA, RG 60. 39 40CIVIL WAR HISTORY dons to Kentuckians and authorized Bristow to proceed with his actions . Antagonized by the aggressive activities of his assistant, Tevis remonstrated and shortly after resigned, whereupon Bristow was appointed his successor.4 As reconstruction got under way, the legal business of the government increased tremendously; the calendars of the Federal courts were filled with treason, confiscation, and revenue cases. Bristow requested, and secured, the appointment of Gabriel C. Wharton as his assistant. Together they worked hard to impose Federal law and order upon the state.5 Kentucky at this time was filled with unrest due to the antagonism against the administration caused by the promulgation of the Thirteenth Amendment and the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau. Although the legislature, in conformity with the law, repealed the slave code and gave virtually all civil rights to the Negro, it did withhold the use of Negro testimony as evidence against whites.6 Dissatisfaction grew even stronger when the Radical Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, over President Johnson's veto. This measure not only attempted to define citizenship, but asserted the right of the Federal government to intervene in state affairs if necessary to protect its citizens. It declared that individuals "of every race and color" had the right in every state to sue, give evidence, inherit, hold and convey property , and were entitled "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property." As a threat to delinquent states, the Federal courts were given exclusive jurisdiction over offenders and the United States military...