A Civil War of Words in Boone-Duden Country
by Bob Brail

            One of the important life lessons that most people learn is that there is often more to a situation than meets the eye.  Factors unknown to us can play significant roles in events which, to us, seem easily understood.  We often, therefore, fail to fully comprehend a situation because we interpret it only in light of what we see. 
           
            In the spring of 1863, Boone-Duden country was torn by strife.  This civil war was not the one existing between supporters of the Union and those who sympathized with the Confederacy, as one might expect.  Instead the German communities of Augusta and Dutzow, both made up of supporters of the Union, were embroiled in a bitter dispute about a runaway slave.  This tense situation definitely had more to it than meets the eye of the modern reader.

            Sometime late in the evening on March 16, 1863, or early in the morning the next day, several slaves escaped from the farm of William Coshow, located in Darst Bottom, south of present-day Defiance, an area noted for its tobacco production and high number of slaves.  They quickly made their way west past Augusta and entered Warren County.  The runaways then walked toward the ferryboat landing south of Dutzow, across the Missouri River from Washington.  One slave approached Joseph Kettler, the captain of the ferry Wide Awake, and showed him a protection pass signed by a Union officer, granting the slave safe passage across the Missouri.  How the other escapees expected to cross the river, if they even did, is entirely speculative.  Kettler, perhaps suspecting a forgery, took the pass from the slave, returned to Washington, and showed it to Colonel D. O. Gale, who told Kettler the pass was not valid.

            Meanwhile a log-rolling had commenced in eastern Warren County at the farm of William Schacter.  Several men had been invited by Schacter to help, and one of these was Frederick “Fritz” Dickhaus.  Approximately two hours after the work started, the justice of the peace for Darst Bottom rode up.  He reported the escape of Coshow’s slaves and enlisted the help of the men at Schacter’s farm in capturing the runaways.  He may have specifically asked for Dickhaus’s help, since Frederick Dickhaus was the captain of the local company of the 59th Enrolled Missouri Militia; there were men at the log-rolling, including William Schacter, who were under Dickhaus’s command of Company A. 

            It is unlikely the men knew about the protection pass, so they must have been surprised when they found the slave sitting on the riverbank, waiting for the return of the Wide Awake.  As the slave catchers dismounted, the Wide Awake and its captain reached the landing.  Kettler stepped from the boat, gave the slave’s pass to the justice of the peace, and told him it was “in no manner of any account.”  Only when the slave refused to cooperate did Frederick Dickhaus intervene, telling the slave that it would be best if he returned to Coshow.  Dickhaus expressed his aversion to slavery and promised the slave the protection of the 59th EMM “if it were permitted.”  Apparently the slave was not convinced because violence ensued, and the man was knocked unconscious by an unidentified individual.  All the escaped slaves, who had been hiding in the undergrowth along the river were then captured and returned to Coshow. 

            Apparently two duck hunters observed the confrontation and returned to Augusta to report what they had seen.  What resulted were a war of words in the St. Charles Demokrat and several days of rapidly escalating tension in the Augusta and Dutzow area.  George Muench, a resident of Augusta and a radical abolitionist, wrote a scathing editorial for the Demokrat a little more than a week after the incident.  It was remarkable for its harsh language, especially its criticism of Frederick Dickhaus, a fellow German and supporter of the Union war effort, whom Muench described as a “bastard of his national tribe” and “unworthy of the honored name German.”  Dickhaus was a “slave owner’s bailiff.” Muench also sarcastically described him as a “bloodhound” with a “fine nose.”  He reported that a community gathering had chosen a committee which passed resolutions condemning the actions of Dickhaus, specifically stating they would have no further contact with Dickhaus and encouraging Company A of the 59th EMM to “no longer . . . tolerate” Dickhaus as their captain.

            About two weeks later, Frederick Dickhaus responded with an editorial in the Demokrat.  Much more succinct than Muench’s opening salvo but no less emotional, Dickhaus’s response called Muench’s description of the event “an infamous lie from beginning to end.”  Accompanying it were two notarized statements, one from William Schacter and another person at the log-rolling and one from the captain of the ferryboat, which supported Dickhaus’s version of the events of March 17.  Dickhaus mocked the committee and its resolutions, and suggested George Muench be sent to Washington, D. C., to preside over the Senate.  He stated that he did not support slavery and was “an emancipationist under the law . . . and [would] not steal [a] fellow citizen’s property or aid in its theft.”

            Two more responses to this controversy appeared in the Demokrat.  George Muench’s second, briefer editorial, and his final shot in this war of words, was printed on May 7, 1863.  Muench called the factual errors in his first editorial “insignificant” since the fundamental charge that Dickhaus was a “Negro capturer with violence” was still true.  Dickhaus was still the “blind tool of a slave-catcher,” and the dishonor . . . which [he] earn[ed] cannot be avoided.”  One more editorial would also appear on May 7, submitted by an anonymous “neighbor.”  Like the previous three, it was characterized by divisive and inflammatory language, calling George Muench’s first article “full of misrepresentations and lies.”  It is very clear that the writer was not an abolitionist, but a supporter of gradual emancipation.  The writer supported the version of events stated by Dickhaus and the two notarized statements, and demanded that Muench admit the truth about Dickhaus’s conduct.  He also called for an end to the persecution of Dickhaus which apparently had already commenced in Augusta.

            One hundred fifty years after the events, it seems obvious to the reader what caused this community strife.  George Muench and his supporters favored the immediate abolition of slavery and therefore felt no one should aid in the capture of a runaway slave.  Frederick Dickhaus and his supporters, however, believed that gradual emancipation was the best approach and therefore felt that until a slave was freed, under the law he belonged to his owner.  This disagreement was a major aspect of attitudes toward slavery in the North and not at all unusual.  However, besides this cause, what less obvious factors helped kindle the firestorm of words?

            One less obvious factor was religious in nature.  George Muench and his brother Frederick, who in the 1830’s had led several hundred Germans to settle in St. Charles and Warren Counties, were “free thinkers,” strongly committed to the “universality of freedom,” even in their interpretation of Christianity.  Trained as Christian clergy, they both eventually rejected many of the traditions of their faith by elevating human reason over religious dogma, and practiced a “rational Christianity.”  This meant they rejected much orthodox Christian doctrine, such as original sin, the atonement, and the divinity of Jesus, along with any denomination’s hierarchical authority structure.  Other Germans in the area were also free thinkers.

            The Dickhaus extended family, on the other hand, was Catholic, and they would have placed a high value on Christian orthodoxy.  In fact, Henry Dickhaus, Frederick’s father, was a charter member of St. Vincent de Paul’s in Dutzow when it was formed in 1837.  All of the Dickhaus men mentioned in this article are buried in that church’s cemetery.  Catholics like the Dickhauses would have had very significant religious differences with free thinkers like the Muenches.  This difference certainly led to incredibly important disagreements during the Civil War.  According to Mark Summers, author of Onward Catholic Soldiers: the Catholic Church During the American Civil War, the German Catholic community was not wholeheartedly behind the Union effort.  He writes, “German Catholics . . . failed to organize for the northern war effort in large numbers.”  This would have frustrated and angered the Muench brothers, who felt that all Germans should be enthusiastic in their support of the war. 

            Another factor could have been a particularly sensitive issue for German Catholics like the Dickhauses.  The Catholic archbishop of St. Louis, Peter Richard Kenrick, attempted to be completely apolitical during the war.  Although the other four American archbishops openly expressed their views during the Civil War, Kenrick resolutely remained silent.  Perhaps to the amazement and certainly to the frustration of the Muench brothers, he never issued a statement on slavery.  It was his desire that the Catholic Church in St. Louis stay out of the conflict.  He wouldn’t allow his priests to join either side.  At one point, Kenrick wrote, “I have decided to stay out of these troubles as much as possible.”  This stance must have been particularly maddening to the Muench brothers and may have created a religious tension between the Dickhauses and the Muenches that fueled the verbal war of the spring of 1863.

            Another possible source of tension between the Muenches and Dickhauses, the organizational structure of Company A of the 59th EMM, could have existed long before the events of March, 1863, occurred.  At the time of the incident, Frederick Dickhaus was the captain of the company, its highest ranking officer.  The company’s second-in-command was First Lieutenant Ferdinand Muench, George’s nephew and the son of Frederick Muench.  The Second Lieutenant was Francis Dickhaus, Frederick’s cousin.  Typically, each Civil War company had one orderly sergeant and four sergeants.  Of the seven individuals who eventually served as sergeant in Company A of the 59th  EMM, two were sons of Frederick Muench, Adolphus and Julius, and two others were members of the extensive Dickhaus family, Henry and Herman.  In addition, among the company’s privates were three more Dickhauses.  Is it possible family loyalties played a part of the animosity of the spring of 1863? 

            The 59th EMM was organized from a much smaller and short-lived Warren County regiment, a group of about 100 men.  Henry C. Brockmeyer, a noted free thinker, was initially elected captain of Company A by its members.  Ferdinand Muench, the nephew of George Muench, was first lieutenant and Frederick Dickhaus was orderly sergeant.  Sometime in the last half of September, 1862, only about six weeks after Company A’s formation, Brockmeyer resigned his commission in Company A and left to form a regiment as a lieutenant colonel.  In the election for new officers that followed in early October, 1862, First Lieutenant Ferdinand Muench, who may have expected election as captain since he was the company’s highest ranking officer after Brockmeyer resigned, was overlooked in favor of Orderly Sergeant Frederick Dickhaus.  This must have at least somewhat rankled Muench. Francis Dickhaus, a cousin of Frederick, was also elected as second lieutenant, replacing the previous one who resigned.

            Further complicating this possible tension was the unusual matter of Ferdinand Muench’s and Francis Dickhaus’s commissions. Simply put, Muench’s commission as first lieutenant never arrived from Jefferson City.  Weeks and then months passed, apparently without anything being done by Captain Dickhaus to remedy this situation.    Francis Dickhaus, on the other hand, received the wrong commission, a commission for first lieutenant!  Finally in May of 1864, over eighteen months after his election as captain, Frederick Dickhaus wrote to the adjutant general of Missouri, informing his superior of the mistakes and asking for Muench’s commission to be sent.  Within a few days Adjutant General John Gray directed Dickhaus to return Francis Dickhaus’s commission “in order that the necessary corrections . . . may be made.”  Apparently, shortly thereafter Ferdinand Muench finally had enough, for he left the 59th EMM and enlisted as a private in the 49th Missouri Infantry in August, 1864. 

            Why did Frederick Dickhaus wait so long to correct the obvious error?  Did he allow his cousin to serve as the company’s first lieutenant even though Muench had been elected to that post?  If so, one can only imagine the animosity that existed between supporters of Lt. Muench and Capt. Dickhaus, and one can understand even better the vitriolic response of George Muench to the events of March 17.  For months he may have simmered as he observed the unjust treatment his nephew received from the hands of Frederick Dickhaus.  In fact, Frederick Dickhaus himself, in his editorial in the Demokrat, implies dissension within the ranks of Company A, when he states that “there undoubtedly many, probably the majority, who belong to the Missouri Enrolled Militia” who were at the August meeting that resulted in the resolutions condemning Dickhaus. 

            Possibly one more factor helps explain the intense emotions that were expressed in the St. Charles Demokrat.  On March 23, even before George Muench’s editorial was printed in the St. Charles Demokrat, Frederic Dickhaus sent a terse letter to Governor Hamilton Gamble, whom Dickhaus addressed as “commander-in-chief.”  In the letter, Dickhaus specifically asked “if it is the duty of an officer of the Enrolled Militia to aid in running away slaves from their masters, or is it a criminal offense to stop a runaway slave?”  It is interesting to note that Dickhaus chose to write to Gamble and not his immediate superior officer.  Hamilton Gamble’s views on slavery were well-known to Missourians, and they were not at all endorsed by George Muench.  Gamble, a former slave owner from St. Louis, was a gradual emancipationist and, like Frederick Dickhaus, rejected abolitionism.  Gamble’s response to Dickhaus was absolutely clear: it was “not the duty of [an] officer [of the] EMM to aid the running away slave and not criminal to stop a runaway slave.”

            The fact that Frederick Dickhaus chose to address Gamble as his “commander-in-chief” is also important, for it clearly demonstrates Dickhaus’s understanding of his role as a soldier in the Enrolled Missouri Militia.  He was serving his state government, not his federal government.  This may seem like a fine distinction to the modern reader, but it was a real one in 1863.  The creation of the Enrolled Missouri Militia was the responsibility of state officials and, in fact, federal authorities never gave full approval to its formation.  After the war, almost no Missourians who had served in the Enrolled Missouri Militia were eligible for federal pensions.  Frederick Dickhaus saw himself, not as a Union soldier subject to the federal law prohibiting him from assisting in the capture of a runaway slave, but as a soldier of Missouri, subject to its laws. 

            In his brief description of the events of March 17 that subsequently appeared in the St. Charles Demokrat, Dickhaus made this distinction between federal law and Missouri law.  He made it very obvious he did not think Congress’s law prohibiting the return of runaway slaves pertained to him when he stated, “I will not steal my fellow citizen’s property or aid in its theft.”  He also carefully stated he had correctly conducted himself as a citizen and soldier of Missouri, and continued, “I will respect the laws of the state in which I live.”  Ending the editorial, he charged that the people who had attended the meeting in Augusta should show “more respect” for the laws of their state.

            George Muench, as is obvious from his editorials, placed no value on the distinction Dickhaus made.  Almost exactly one year earlier, in March, 1862, Congress had passed “The Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves,” which prevented Union soldiers being used by their officers to assist in the capture of runaway slaves.  In fact, the Act stated that “any officer who shall be found guilty by court martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from service.”  Muench probably did feel Dickhaus’s actions were illegal.  However, as Dr. Anita Mallinckrodt writes, “For Augustans, the issue was, as George Muench said, not only legal but deeply moral and humanist.”  Thirty years earlier, when George’s brother Frederick helped found the Giessen Emigration Society that eventually came to Boone-Duden country, one of its central tenets was the abolition of slavery because, as Frederick Muench wrote, “slavery and true freedom cannot, in fact, exist next to each other.”  Abolishing slavery would be to “rescue from perdition this state.”  Both Muench brothers had paid a price for their abolitionist views, having their lives threatened many times.  The distinction Frederick Dickhaus made between moral and legal obligations would have been meaningless to them.

            Why did the escape and capture of William Coshow’s slave create such a civil war of words in Boone-Duden country in the spring of 1863?  Certainly the differing views on abolition and gradual emancipation fueled the fire, but other, perhaps less obvious, factors had roles to play.  Strong religious differences within the German community of the area could have created problems long before the controversial events occurred.  The command structure of Company A of the 59th Enrolled Missouri Militia and Frederick Dickhaus’s response to Ferdinand Muench’s commission may have increased the animosity.  Finally, a differing view of which was paramount, a legal argument or a moral one, no doubt intensified the emotional responses on both sides.  Certainly, in Boone-Duden country, as the men sparred in the St. Charles Demokrat, there was more to the situation than met the eye.

Sources: ancestrylibrary.com; Annual Report of the Adjutant General of Missouri 1866 (books.google.com); archstl.org; archives.com/experts/bilby-joe; Augusta’s Harmony (Anita M. Mallinckrodt); Civil War Records: Missouri Enrolled Militia, Vol. 8 (Kenneth Weant); Federal Censuses; files.usgwarchives.net/mo/stlouis/bios/b6250001.txt; findagrave.com; Freed Slaves (Anita M. Mallinckrodt); A History of Augusta, Mo. And Its Area (I) 1850s-1860s (Anita M. Mallinckrodt); Interview with Dorris Keeven-Franke; Missouri State Archives (RG 133 Office of the Adjutant General); Missouri State Census 1852; mogermans.com; nps.gov/civilwar; Onward Catholic Soldiers: The Catholic Church During the American Civil War ( Mark Summers at action.org/pub/religion-liberty); The Other Muench: George, at Augusta, Missouri (Dr. Anita Mallinckrodt); philosopedia.org; shs.umsystem.edu/historicmissourians; ryproj2.com; wikipedia.org.