Thursday, September 24, 2015

Promoting Central Missouri Events

One of the problems in promoting a fair or festival or any local event these days is where to publicize it. Most groups cannot afford TV and radio ads, and even promoting a post on Facebook or other social media does not mean one will get wide coverage. Even posters are expensive, and then there comes the problem of where to post them. It is no longer as simple as making press releases to the newspaper or radio.  Where once that is all one had to do, many folks no longer listen to the radio or subscribe to a newspaper. People now get their news and information from a wide variety of sources, and while one information source will reach one person, it may not reach another. Too, people often plan which events they plan to attend well in advance which means event planners must get information out early. This is not always easy to do with newspapers, radio, and TV as those news sources may not see the event as being relevant until only a few weeks before it takes place.

This is where Event Calendars come in. An event can generally be posted on these calendars months in advance. There are those that are in print and on the internet, and then those that are just on the internet. The ones in print often will not come out until the month or week of the event, but the ones on the internet may have listings as far out as a year before. The following list was made specifically for Central Missouri and is focused on Randolph County. Some are statewide however. If you are in another area of Missouri it is a simple matter of doing a Google search for the name of your town, county or region, and "event calendar." Most all of these listings are free. Perhaps the most important one is the Missouri Division of Tourism's Travel Guide as your listing will be both in print and on the internet months in advance of the event.

Print and Internet

Missouri Division of Tourism Travel Guide:
Missouri Life:
Moberly Chamber of Commerce Calendar of Events:

Internet and/or Other

Columbia Daily Tribune Events Calendar:
KMIZ Event Calendar:
KOMU Community Calendar:
KWIX/KRES Event Calendar:
VOX Magazine Events Calendar:

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

The Follies of Burning the American Flag to Protest the American Government

You are disenchanted. You are tired of a government whose police beat and shoot people in the street at the slightest provocation. You are tired of a government that taxes the Middle Class to the breaking point. You are tired of a government that allows itself to be bought by corporations and billionaires. So what do you do? How do you show your anger? What symbolizes the government? What governmental emblem or symbol you can take out your frustrations on? Well, the American flag of course. It makes perfect sense. It is the symbol of the government that has maltreated you. Sound thinking, right? There is a problem with this. Not everyone sees the American flag as symbolizing just the government.

You see many people see the American flag as not being the flag of the government of the United States of America, but as being a symbol of the people of the United States. So when you burn it you are not just attacking the government, but attacking the American people as a whole. That makes you a traitor in many people's eyes. It goes further than that. Many see the American flag as symbolizing a certain set of ideas espoused during the American Revolutionary War. They link it to ideas as justice, freedom, human rights, and such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America Constitution. It is in the original Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 It does not say "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Government of the United States of America..." but "to the Flag of the United States of America" i.e. all of us that are American citizens, to all of us that are a part of this country. Further, it says "with liberty and justice  for all." So there in the very pledge it says the flag represents the people and stands for certain ideas. If the government no longer represents the people, or no longer represents the ideas that this country was founded on, then the government's flag is no longer the American flag. The American flag, I feel represents the American people, human rights, freedom, and justice.

So next time you decide to destroy a symbol of a government you see as repressing you, do not choose the American flag. Instead, loudly proclaim that the American flag does not represent tyrants, bigots, or oppressors. State that it is your symbol, and you plan to take it back from those whose ideas conflict with those the American flag represents. Find another symbol of the government to take your frustrations out on. Burn politicians in effigy, but I beg you do not desecrate the our flag, the flag of the American people.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Some Thoughts on Slavery, Racism, and the American Civil War

The American Civil War is a very complex issue especially for states like Missouri where sympathies were very much divided. Here in my part of Missouri (which is called LIttle Dixie by the way) many wealthy slave holders were Union men. Meanwhile, many that did not even own slaves fought for the Confederacy. The Confederate Bushwhacker "Bloody Bill" Anderson who grew up in my hometown never owned slaves, nor did his father, or his father's father. Meanwhile, wealthy slave holders like Benjamin Lewis of Glasgow, Missouri were Union men. He was beaten nearly to death by Anderson for that very reason. This was very, very common during the war. Wealthy slave holders often were pro-Union while those that owned no slaves served the Confederacy.

This was largely due to the propaganda of the time. Wealthy slave holders in states like Missouri were under the impressionism they could keep their slaves after the war. Meanwhile, many felt the war was being fought for states rights, and that the Union Army was nothing more than Northern invaders. The North had similar issues. People there were often under the impression the war was being fought to "preserve the Union." It never occurred to many on both sides that the issue at heart was slavery.

 Even the issue of slavery is not as simple as it seems. For example, I often recommend people read the slave narrative "The New Man: Twenty-Nine Years a Slave, Twenty-Nine Years a Free Man" by Henry Clay Bruce. The picture of slavery its author paints is neither consistent with the Antebellum white literature, nor that of today, or even the Northern literature following the war. It paints a picture of good and bad inconsistent with white American literature of any era. It is in stark contrast with the Southern Antebellum literature about the "happy slave" and the Abolitionist literature about the cruelty of slavery. The issue for folks like Mr. Bruce pure and simple was freedom. Still, even with the simple idea of freedom being the main concern, post-war society was very complex. For example. what is surprising about what Bruce talked about in his narrative is the he himself was guilty of prejudice against darker skinned African Americans, as well as what he calls "poor white trash." Mr. Bruce is sometimes more sympathetic to former slaver holders than he is his fellow African Americans and whites living in poverty.

As much as racism was an issue in the South, classism was as well. I know this complex situation concerning slavery and race issues firsthand. My Great Grandfather Towles' three slaves begged not to leave him. The fear of being on their own with no money, and having to seek jobs terrified them. My great grandfather was sympathetic, but being a Middle Class farmer and carpenter he could not afford to pay them. He had fed and clothed them from goods produced on his farm, not profits from his business. And unlike the image of the racist former slave holder, he taught his children, "Never mistreat the colored people." This flies in the face of the PC view of the cruel slave master quick with the whip. My Great Grandfather Canote and one of his brothers fought for the Union. And while Southerners intermingled with freemen following the war. Two of my Great Uncles on my mothers side fought for the Confederacy. You even had Southern sympathizers drafted into the Union army. While the war may have been fought over slavery, the personal views of many then were often contradictory in the State of Missouri, or not what we would expect. You saw men who supported slavery fighting for the Union cause, and men who did not believe in slavery supporting the Confederate cause.

One fact remains, the Southern States seceded over slavery. There was no other reason. Even the argument they seceded over states' rights holds no water as the "right" they were wanting to preserve was to own slaves. What bothers me most in all this though is the North seems ignorant of its own racism and prejudice. When desegregation of schools is brought up, it is always Little Rock that is mentioned first. They ignore the riots in Boston in the '70s over "busing" that were racially motivated. In fact the issue of desegregation in what is sometimes called the "most racist city in America" is almost never mentioned. The Boston desegregation race issues have been in my opinion swept under the rug. People also ignore the fact that the draft riots in New York City during the Civil War were in part racially motivated. During the riots blacks were attacked in the streets mostly by Irish immigrants upset that wealthy men could buy their way out of the draft. Even the treatment of the Irish and other immigrants in the North is a lesson in the prejudice of Northern Anglo-Americans. Lynchings were not unheard of in states like Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In some areas of the North African Americans were restricted to living in only certain neighborhoods. Racism to many only exists in the South though. However, it can be seen in the North as well. Meanwhile, there were areas in the South like mine where the KKK was driven out with guns and baseball bats. Yet it still flourishes in Northern States like Indiana where one sees the Confederate Battle Flag much more often. I will concede that racism was more prevalent in the South esp. in places like Mississippi and Georgia, but the North is not without its own sins in that area. The issues of the American Civil War, slavery, racism, general prejudice, even classism are in many ways as complex now as they have ever been. And I think instead of focusing on one part of the country we need to look at all of it. I often have to wonder if all this hoopla in the media over the Confederate Battle Flag is smoke and mirrors to take our minds over the treatment of blacks by the police in places like New York City and Chicago. One thing is clear though, things must change.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

How Things Do Not Change: The Antebellum South and Present Day America

With the recent shooting in Charleston that was racially motivated, and the hatred for the fact that the Confederate flag still flies over the North Carolina state house I have seen a hatred of the South arise. A lot of folks feel that while only 1% of Southerners owned slaves in the Antebellum South, that the other 99% could have done something about it. They feel the 99% were guilty of complacency. They therefore feel that the Old South is something to be hated and reviled and that everything the South produced was somehow connected to slavery. The sad fact is the 99% that did not own slaves probably could not do anything to stop slavery, other than do things that we today are not willing to do. Those against slavery or who simply tolerated it simply did not have the money or political power to ban slavery, or felt they did not. In addition, they were encouraged by those in power and those in control of the media to think slavery was a necessary evil.

Think of it in today's terms and you will see what I mean. The Waltons, a member of today's 1% pay their workers such low wages that many of the workers have to go on welfare. Does that mean, that I, a member of today's 99% am to blame for that? No, as I am powerless to change it. Were I to run for office on a platform of raising wages I would lose no matter how popular my position may be simply because I do not have the wealth or political influence to do so. And while racism may have been common in the Antebellum South, hatred of the poor is pervasive in our society today. Why? Because the folks of the Antebellum South were told the slaves were subhuman, lazy, and without white masters would accomplish little. Similarly we are told today that the poor are lazy and always looking for a handout, content to live on the government dole.  Hating the poor is the racism of our age. Does the fact that many in the 99% hate the poor that I as a part of the 99% do also? No, I do not, I advocate for the poor. I am no different than the Southern Abolitionists of the pre-Civil War South who made a lot of noise, but could not change the system without outside help. The Antebellum South bore a striking resemblance to the United States of today. The politicians and businessmen guilty of keeping a system hurtful to the people were kept in power because the folk were told to hate a certain class of people, and that the system in place was a necessary evil which is what is happening to the people of the United States today. Those that do believe the poor are lazy and willing to stay on welfare have been manipulated to believe so by those in power and who control the media. In addition, like the Antebellum Southerns concerning slavery, we are told that low wages are a necessary evil, that wages must be kept low to keep prices of goods low.

How then are we to hate all things connected to the Old South when we as a people are guilty of the same sort of transgressions? If we are to do so, should we not also hate everything of our culture since we are guilty of the same type of transgressions? Further, hating the Old South and present day Southerners s is in and of its self a form of prejudice. To class a whole group of people, in this case the 99% that did not own slaves of the pre-Civil War South in a period when things were much different, who were unable to change the status quo is no different than creating a stereotype of Jews, Blacks, and other minorities. You are creating a stereotype of Southerners as ALL being a group of racists. It is in its own way a sort of bigotry. The fact is the 99% who did not own slaves in the Antebellum South were powerless to change the situation, were told the system was beneficial, while others like Sarah Moore Grimk√©, Moncure Conway, Jasper Collins, and their followers were even Abolitionists. There were reasons Southerners tolerated slavery, just as there were reasons many in the North of the time tolerated the Industrialists and their below the living wage. We do the same thing with allowing the Waltons and Koch brothers to do what they do. We are guilty of sins not much different than those of Antebellum Southern society.

To attempt a change in any society requires wealth and political power, and may mean putting our own livelihood at stake. It is true most Antebellum Southerners were probably racists, but so were many, many in the North. Many in both the North and South still are. Racism is by no means merely a Southern thing. There are good reasons Boston is sometimes called the most racist city. It is true they allowed the institution of slavery to exist. But is this no different than the myriad things that we allow to exist that benefit only a few, and hurt many. I mean we live in a nation that has gone through three wars just to make war profiteers wealthier, that keeps wages low so we do not have to pay ten cents more an item at the checkout line, who think a class of people are lazy. So who are we to judge the 99% of people that did not own slaves of the Antebellum South?

We allow a hurtful system to remain in power just as the 99% of the Antebellum South did. We keep voting into power men that support a system that hurts many, We still do business with businessmen that want to maintain the status quo. We like the pre-Civil War 99% are led to believe a group of people are lazy, We are guilty of the same sort of complacency they were. In closing, it is okay to hate the Confederacy, it is okay to hate slavery, but it is not okay to hate the South and all things Southern because of those things. There are many things the South produced worth preserving that had nothing to do with slavery such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Bill of Rights were based in part on. There are the writings of the Southern Abolitionists such as Sarah Moore Grimké, Moncure Conway, and Jasper Collins. Not to mention Southern cuisine. If we are to discard everything connected to Southern culture simply because we feel the 99% were complacent then we are hypocrites of a great degree. They allowed a system to stay in place that was wrong just as we do.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Smithland, Randolph County, Missouri Revisited

A year or two ago I wrote a post on my attempts to find out information on the mysterious Smithland, Missouri which appears on many state maps from 1844 to 1875. It is always shown as being the Southern part of Randolph County. Often it may be the only place shown in the county besides Huntsville and Mount Airy, places still remembered today. It is mentioned regularly in the Fayette, Missouri paper The Boonslick Times (published in the 1840s) in regards to the arrival and departure of the mail, with an occasional announcement of an estate sale or advertisement for some goods sold in Smithland.  Yet, Smithland is not mentioned in any of the county histories, and has only brief entries in gazetteers. There is only one work I have found that contains much information on it and that was a pamphlet entitled Higbee Centennial 1872-1972: Higbee Through the Years compiled and edited by Emily F. Patison now deceased. I presume the information in the pamphlet was compiled from early editions of the Higbee News (sadly for many years a defunct newspaper) about the history of the area many years before at a time when folks remembered Smithland. Using this and what information I could glean from the Moberly papers of people remembering Smithland I composed my first post on Smithland entitled, The Forgotten Village of Smithland I have since learned new information that answers some questions and raises others,

First though a recap of what I had learned when I made that post. Smithland was in the Southern part of Randolph County, Missouri not far from Higbee, Missouri and not far from other ghost towns whose locations are known like Harkes and Elliot. It was a stage stop between Paris, Missouri and Fayette, Missouri, and served as a post office from 1838 to 1858. It was founded by landowner Joel Smith's family, and it was on the land of the Smith family it sat. Joel's son William operated the stage through Smithland during the Civil War, but stopped the line in 1866. According to Esther Leech's Master's Thesis published in 1933 Place Names Of Six East Central Counties Of Missouri  the stage line stopped operation when the Western  Branch of the North Missouri Railroad began operation. The biography of William Smith, son of Joel Smith found in Randolph County, Missouri, Cemetery Records and Histories says much the same thing.  It had operated as a stage stop for over 30 years by that time as in 1833, State Representative George Frederick Burckhardt of Randolph County planned to introduce a bill declaring the stage road from Paris, Missouri via Smithland to Fayette, Missouri a state road. Whether this was done or not I have been unable to find out.  Smithland at its peak boasted a post office, a small inn, a blacksmith shop, a general store, a tavern, and even a horse race track. According to old stories told by old timers of their parents found in editions of the Moberly Monitor-Index from the 1930s Smithland was large enough that political rallies were sometimes held there. Yet by 1867 according to  Missouri As It Is in 1867 by Nathan Parker Smithland had a population of only 50.

When I wrote my first post on Smithland it was not clear to me what caused its decline. However, having done more research and put some thought into it as well as much discussion with other researchers I have decided it was due to a number of factors. Primary was the loss of the post office, and mail being carried through Smithland on its way to Fayette or Paris. This role was taken over by Renick whose post office opened the year Smithland's closed. With the coming of the railroad mail no longer needed to be carried by coach. The railroad also meant no more riders for the stages. As long as rail traffic went north and south on the railroad as it did throughout the Civil War there was room for stages going east and west. However, with the opening of an east/west railroad in the county the need for coaches was gone especially since the largest towns were now served by them. Finally, the Civil War no doubt dealt Smithland a blow. The area of Smithland was a beehive of bushwhacker activity. The Battle of Roan's Creek (also known as Silver Creek) was fought only a few miles away. Joel Smith himself was even pistol whipped by "Bloody Bill" Anderson, and had horses stolen from him. The stage roads were used for all sorts of military and partisan traffic.Finally, Joel Smith was the second largest slave holder in Randolph County, Missouri. With the emancipation he lost a substantial investment, not to mention perhaps no longer had the manpower to operate his farms. Even had it not went into decline its days were perhaps numbered. The railroad bypassed it by a mile or so, and a new town called Higbee sprung up not a few miles to the southwest in 1872 on the tracks.

The big issue for me in addition to its history, was its location. This had been problematic. I had been told by the County Commissioners one who lived not a quarter of a mile from the Smithland site it was south and slightly west of the low water crossing on Randolph County Road 2520 and 2520's intersection with  RCR 2530. The problem with this location is none of my research backed it up. The Smith family owned land close by, but I could not connect them to that specific piece of property. On the 1876 County Atlas it was owned by Henderson Wilcox and none of Joel's land patents from earlier years were close to the area. And while the Smith family owned land nearby, it was not exactly adjacent property. Then while doing more research as the question of Smithland's location still nagged at me I found a legal notice for an estate sale in a November, 1848 issue of the Boonslick Times published in Fayette, Missouri. It read as follows:

WILL be sold to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the 25 of December next, the tract of land on which the late Wm Smith lived; known as the Smithland tract. containing about 820 acres, on the road from Glasgow and Fayette to Paris, one fourth to be paid in hand, and the balance in three equal annual installments. Any gentleman wishing to purchase a good country residence, would do well to examine this tract; the soil is good; has about 3 or 400 acres under good fence. The buildings all roomy and commodious, there is an abundance of timber land, and it all lies convenient to the grand prairie, and has an abundant supply of stock water, with a never tailing well in the yard.
There will also be sold at the same time five negroes, all in the prime of life, (to wit:) 3 men one boy, about 15, and a girl about 18 (years of age. Tho particular terms of the sale will be made known on the day of sale.
Executors of the Estate of Wm. Smith, dec'A,
Nov. 18, 1848. 39 ts.
This blew me away. Everything I had read said Joel Smith founded and owned Smithland. Not one book, not one 20th century newspaper article, not even the highly informative Higbee Centennial booklet said otherwise. Joel Smith founded and owned Smithland, end of story. Yet, here was this announcement of a sale in 1848 that says William Smith lived on the Smithland tract and had about 820 acres. My first thought was to go looking for land patents, a task made easy by the Bureau of Land Management. I did a search on the BLM website, and turned up many land patents by William Smith. and the earliest one was precisely where the County Commissioners had told me the village of Smithland was. Further land patents went up and down what is now Randolph County Roads 2520 and 2530. I can probably safely say Smithland has been located. As to who William Smith was to Joel Smith I cannot say. He could be a father, brother, uncle, or even cousin. I did a futile search for genealogical information, but could find none. What is clear is William Smith did live on the area of land called Smithland, and owned at one time the probable site of the village of Smithland.

I also managed to make a longer list of folks that lived in and around Smithland. There is Joel Smith's family to which we must add the William Smith that died in 1848. Joel Smith was originally from Kentucky. His wife was Dorcas Smith nee Tureman. They reportedly had nine children. I can only find the names of six. He had one son William Smith who married Florence Head daughter of Doctor Walter Head of Huntsville, Missouri. He built and operated the Grand Central Hotel in Moberly, Missouri in 1880. The rest of Joel and Dorcas Smith's children were daughters and they are listed in no particular order. One of his daughters was Mary who married William James, William James was through his sister, Susan, brother in law of Doctor James Marion Walker who owned land beside some of Joel Smith's properties. Then there was Sarah Catherine who married James Edwin Rucker. According to her obituary in the Higbee News she lived on the farm she was born on her entire life and died there in 1924. The Smiths' daughter Elizabeth married John Tunstall Coates who would become a Circuit Judge and was influential in the early days of Moberly (he has one of the streets in Downtown Moberly named for him). Elizabeth died young. and after her death her sister Amanda married Judge Coates. Finally their daughter Annie married George Bradford. George became a prominent farmer Southeast of Columbia, Missouri.

In addition to the family, I have uncovered other names of people that may have lived near Smithland. Smithland produced one famous or should I say infamous son. According to the Encyclopedia of  Frontier Biography Thomas F.M. McLean also known as "Bison" McLean was born in Smithland. He attended the University of Missouri and was recommended for an appointment to West Point by W.W. Hudson Professor of Mathematics as well as University President John Hiram Lathrop. He was admitted to West Point in July of 1844, but was dismissed in August of 1848 for being "deficient in conduct." He then traveled to California where he took up life with Native Americans and took to raiding. It could be he is related to Doctor William B. McLean whose estate was listed for sale near Smithland in a January 24, 1846 edition of the Boon's Lick Times. A Mary McLean according to the 1876 plat map of Randolph County Missouri owned land adjacent to Joel's Smith's property, and near the old village site. I cannot help but think they are all somehow related. Abiel Leonard who was at one time Secretary of State of Missouri and lived in Fayette apparently stayed in or near Smithland at some point. He received a letter there in 1855 from a Mrs. Terrell according to The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Volume 58.  Also according to that volume Fleming Terrell lived in Smithland or nearby. According to postal records Reubon Watts was Postmaster of Smithland in 1856. Other people are mere names, and they are Thomas H. Withers, his wife Susan nee Shackleford, T.L. Watts operated a store at Smithland going by ads in area papers of the time.  William Fleming Boulware is stated as living near Smithland in an edition of the Randolph Citizen when his house burned. Other names linked to Smithland in papers of the period were B.G. Harris, Moses Goodfellow, and A. Foster. Peter Bass, Susan E. Creason nee Robb, Henderson D, Wilcox founder of the village of Harkes, Missouri owned property adjacent to Joel Smith's property.

Probable Site of Smithland
Probable Site of Smithland