The Ashburn Case

Georgia Historical Society
The Ashburn Murder Case In Georgia Reconstruction, 1868

Author(s): Elizabeth Otto Daniell
Source: The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Fall, 1975), pp. 296-312
Published by: Georgia Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40580188
Accessed: 25-11-2017 21:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Georgia Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Georgia Historical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:04:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Ashburn Murder Case In
Georgia Reconstruction, 1868

By Elizabeth Otto Daniell
Georgia in the spring of 1868 was the scene of

the murder of George W. Ashburn, a Scalawag. At th
time Georgia was under the Reconstruction Acts of March an
July, 1867, which divided the South into five military distric
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia constituted the Third Milita
District under the command of General John Pope until Janua
1868, when General George Meade became the officer in char
It was during the military regime of General Meade that
Ashburn murder occurred.
Though Meade had been more active than Pope, he was not
disliked in Georgia as Pope had been.1 The General's duties
centered around the establishing of a state constitution which
would meet the requirements set up by the United States Con-
gress for participation in national and state governmental affairs.
These requirements were embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment
which, "guaranteed to Negroes civil rights and the vote, dis-
qualified ex-Confederates who had formerly held federal office,
and forbade the states to pay Confederate war debts."2 The pas-
sage of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern states would
allow them to again send representatives to Congress. Not only
was General Meade to supervise the passage of new state consti-
tutions, based on the new electorate, but to see that persons and
properties were protected while the states were in the process of
reconstructing their governments.
The Congress, which passed the Reconstruction Acts over the
veto of President Andrew Johnson, was dominated by those who
believed in Radical Reconstruction. The historian Samuel Eliot
♦Graduate Student, Auburn University.
The Ashburn Case 297
Morison described the vindictive mood of that

cal propaganda has so enlarged on the facts as t
that a defiantly disloyal South was planning
Confederacy."3 The solution, as this Radical
was to force the Southern states into line. So
the Congress believed the securing of Republic
South was the motive behind these radical measures.4
The reaction in Columbus toward this Radical approach to
reconstruction was revealed in one of its newspapers which daily
ran a column entitled "Radical Truth!" It read: "The war of
swords against the South on the part of Radicals of the North,
is converted into a war of lies. . . .Owing to the unjust and
outrageous legislation of a fanatical Congress, the Press alone
has been left to defend and protect popular liberty and personal
rights."5
The murder of one such as George W. Ashburn, a white
Southerner, turned Radical politician, was to reflect much of
what was felt and thought in those Reconstruction days.
The first reference to George Ashburn in Columbus appeared
in 1856 in a report of the death of his infant daughter.6 His
prewar activities were described in a pamphlet written after his
death in 1868. The anonymous writer stated that Ashburn had
been a cruel overseer of slaves and had not remained on any one
plantation. The pamphlet also told of his having worked as a
waiter in the Oglethorpe Hotel in Columbus.7 A later writer
asserted that there was no evidence to indicate that Ashburn
professed any desire to free the slaves before the war.8
After the Civil War, Ashburn petitioned the U.S. Government
for compensation for services he had rendered as a private detec-
tive in the war.9 The claim was that in October, 1862, he had
detected Fred Stuart, a British subject, following the retreat of
General Don Carlos Buell's army and had engaged in the pur-
chase of goods to ship south to the Rebels. At Ashburn's own
expense he had hired a detective to follow Stuart. The goods were
seized, reported, and delivered to a U.S. marshal in Tennessee.
Some of the goods were not turned over to the government,
2ç8 Georgia Historical Quarterly
however. Nine hundred and sixteen gallons of brandy and whis

were kept by Ashburn to be used for the "benefit of the si
and disabled soldiers of the United States upon the battlef
of Stone river."10 The report of the petition also included t
information that Ashburn had been prevented by active mili
service from filing his claim at the time of the event. In Februar
1867, he was awarded one half of the value of the goods by
government. This amounted ^$3,838.00.
During the Reconstruction Period, Ashburn served as a del
gate to the Constitutional Convention of Georgia. This conven
was held in Atlanta from December 9, 1867 until March
1868. A contemporary described the convention as:
a new and odious body to the people. The old leaders were nea
unanimously disfranchised. Here was an organization, incarna
the idea of force and conquest, based upon negro supremacy a
white disfranchisement, and with fully one sixth of its num
colored delegates, in sudden shock of every prejudice and convict
and thus a fresh set of obscure men hoisted by abhorred mean
the leadership of the State. It was a spectacle that intensified
thrilling bitterness of the time.11
The resulting proposed constitution included provisions, suc

those concerning free general education, the abolition of impriso
ment for debt, and laws against dueling as well as homest
and relief provisions. The animosity of the people of Geo
was not so much directed toward the constitution as toward the
people who made the constitution.
As an active member of the convention, Ashburn called the
first session to order and nominated the temporary chairman.
He served on two of the sixteen standing committees, those dealing
with the commendable Bill of Rights and Revision.12
Ashburn had been violently opposed to a resolution passed by
the convention on January 21, which asked that persons who
had been active in the war be allowed to serve in public office
if they regretted their actions and were willing to work for the
reunion of the states on the basis of the Reconstruction Acts.
According to Ashburn the war had been one of ideas and the
"whites" still had rebellious opinions. Accordin

"It is the solemn duty of the Nation to preve
again being transmitted to the field of battle,
in blood and clothe its homes in mourning an
this, it must keep from place and power th
to the pernicious ideas which brought on
purpose the Test Oath is an effective instrume
had also offered resolutions in the convention for the relief of
the people of Georgia.14
After returning to Columbus in mid-March, Ashburn began
to work for the election of men he felt would support him for
the Senate.15 There was little time to accomplish this since the
election was called for April 20, 1868. Not only would state
officers be selected but Georgians would vote on the proposed
constitution at that election. On the Saturday night before his
death Ashburn was reported to have spoken to a large crowd
of Negroes at the courthouse in Columbus.16
The election brought a bitter struggle for power between the
Radicals and the Conservatives. The Radicals included those who
sought power and those who believed that this was the only
way Georgia could be restored to the Union. The Conservatives
were split between two groups. One refused to have any part
in the election to avoid giving legitimacy to a government it
rejected. This group hoped that the anti-Radicals of the North
would annul the Reconstruction Acts.17 The other group of
Conservatives determined to control the election to keep the
state from coming under the control of Carpetbaggers, Scalawags,
and Negroes.18 To this group, "To make an active fight was
recognized as a better course than to stand in ineffectual scorn."19
From Augusta, the New York Times correspondent reported
that the Radicals in the state were organized and the Conserva-
tives were not.20 Militant Conservatives in Columbus were
working for organization. A meeting had been announced for
March 23 for the purpose of taking steps in selecting Con-
servative candidates.21 Later at a meeting in Newnan, a proposal
was made that delegates meet in convention at Columbus on
3OO Georgia Historical Quarterly
the thirty-first of March to nominate candidates for both th

Third Congressional District and the Thirty-Sixth Senator
District.22 Ashburn was murdered on the night before this meetin
in Columbus.
During this time of political activity on the part of Conserva-
tives and Radicals, there were articles in the newspapers con-
cerning the appearance of the Ku Klux Klan in Montgomery,
Alabama. These notices warned "friends" to beware of Scalawags
or the Klan might come down in all its fury at any moment.23
This organization is said to have been used at this time to intimi-
date voters. Some Conservatives viewed the Klan as a way of
counteracting the Loyal or Union League which had come to
Georgia in 1867 to organize the Negroes. The appearance of the
Klan was also used by the Radicals to point up the danger of
the Southern white man and thus to keep federal military
protection.24
The Conservative hope of winning the election hinged on
either convincing those who were not Radicals to vote or con-
vincing those who were Radicals not to vote.
George W. Ashburn was killed on the night of March 31,
1868. His death created much reaction locally and nationally.
On April 1 a reprint of the report of the murder taken from the
Columbus Enquirer was carried in the New York Times. It began:
"Our citizens were greatly startled on Monday night and yester-
day morning by news that Geo. W. Ashburn had been killed
in the house in which he was living in the upper part of Ogle-
thorpe Street, by a body of men in disguise. The killing occurred
between 12 and 1 o'clock Monday night."25
Although shots had been heard by a number of persons and
some men were seen on the street and in the house, the Columbus
report stated that there was no evidence clearly implicating
anyone. There were, however, names of men given by the people
in the house at the time of the murder, but they were not printed
in the newspaper and were considered to be rumors and "wild
conjectures." From the statements of witnesses in the house it
was estimated that between fourteen and forty men had come
to the residence and demanded admission; when t

they forced entrance. Ashburn was standing ne
a piston in his hand but the men shot him imm
woman who lived in the same house stated that one of the men
had lost his mask and that she recognized him. She named one
of the "most respectable and orderly young gentlemen of
Columbus." Later, on examination at the inquest, she denied
having made the statement. The Columbus reporter wrote that
"no one acquainted with the young gentleman believed for a
moment that he was concerned in the affair."26
A Negro man had also testified that he saw one of the men
in the alley between Ashburn's living quarters and the next
house and that he had recognized the man. "As this charge may
also be disproved, we will not yet publish the name of the man
implicated," added the reporter.27
Also included in the report of the murder was the verdict of
the Coroner's jury that Ashburn had been murdered by parties
unknown. The conclusion of the article was that "Ashburn was
considered the chief organizer of the black Radical Party in
Georgia. His influence over the negroes was great, and there
was considerable excitement among this class of the population
on account of his bloody death. We are glad to say, however,
that we hear of no violent demonstrations by any of them."28
One anonymous writer contends that after the murder the
Negroes openly avowed their intention to avenge Ashburn's
death and that threats were made to burn the streets of Columbus.
Mayor F. G. Wilkins spoke to the Young Democrats Club on the
Wednesday night following the murder and warned that Negroes
would burn the city that night.29 These fears were never realized.
The reactions to the murder, as reported in the press, indicated
that some considered it a political murder, while others felt that
Ashburn was so disliked among those of his own Party that they
may have killed him, and still others felt that the Ku Klux Klan
had been responsible.
When the political animosity between Radicals and Conserva-
tives was mentioned in connection with the murder, an Atlanta
3O2 Georgia Historical Quarterly
correspondent of the New York Times asserted: "It is suspe

on the contrary, that he was killed by some of his own
ciates. . . . He was a very prominent Radical in the Convent
and the author of the Bill of Rights, but was strongly opp
to Bullock [Radical candidate for governor], owing it was
to personal disappointment at not having received the nomin
himself.30
General Meade's reaction to the charge that the Ku Klux Klan

had been involved in the murder was that he did not believe
jhat there was any such organization as the Klan. He thought
that the impression that there was such an organization was used
simply to intimidate voters.31
National reaction, as it appeared in the New York Times,
centered on the ideas embodied in the following report: "One
of the worst symptoms of Southern affairs is the murder of Mr.
Ashburn. . . .There seems to be little doubt that the motive of the
murder was political. Mr. Ashburn was an active and influential
member of the Radical Party, and had done a good deal toward
organizing the negroes of that section for political purposes/'32
The Times reporter believed that the feelings expressed in
the murder would be repeated in other parts of the South with
the possibility of the beginnings of a "war of races"- "through
secret conspiracies,- by private assassination and murder,- than
any open war for which any class of men can be held respon-
sible."33
At the time of the Ashburn murder the impeachment pro-

ceedings against President Andrew Johnson were at a high pitch.
Horace Greeley's New York Tribune used the murder as evi-
dence of the dangers of the President's views toward the recon-
struction of the South. The Tribune stated that "Andrew
Johnson is the very man who, more than all others has incited
and inflamed the fiendish spirit which impelled to this murder. . . .
The animus of that infernal document [the President's opening
message to Congress] is identical with that evinced in the butchery
of Ashburn."34
The New York Times, in answer to the Tribune's assessment
of the situation in the South, agreed that the Pre

so bitterly with Congress had contributed to
ment and temper there, but added that Con
had also caused the "Southern temper to bec
defiant."35
These two newspapers continued to use the Ashburn murder
as a focal point for a debate concerning Reconstruction policies.
The Tribune argued that the South was unreasonable and unjust,
and the Times maintained that while this was true there was
still too little consideration for the sentiments of the Southern
people and that they should be consulted in whatever policy
was under consideration.36
On April 3, 1868, the provisional governor of Georgia, Thomas
W. Ruger, offered a reward of "Two Thousand Dollars for the
delivery first made of any one of the principals or accessories
[involved in the Ashburn murder] and One Thousand Dollars
for the delivery of each and every other of the principals or
accessories to the Sheriff of Muscogee County."37
Many well known men of Columbus were arrested in con-
nection with the murder. On April 6, thirteen citizens were
taken into custody by Captain William Mills, the state govern-
ment's officer in Columbus. After four days they were released
on bond and four of the original thirteen were never arrested
again. From May 14 until June 16 twenty-two persons were
arrested by order of General Meade. Some were suspects while
others were arrested as witnesses. According to a report by nine
of the men arrested there were no warrants, affidavits, or charges.
These men also contended that of the people arrested, four were
bribed, tortured, and threatened, nine were released after im-
prisonment without explanation, and they remained as the group
tried for the murder.38 The allegation was made that the arrests
had been the result of Negro testimony which had been forced.39
The nine men finally accused of the murder were: Elisha J.
Kirkscey, the county physician, active in the Democratic Party;
James W. Barber, the manager of a wharf (wharfinger) ; William
Dudley Chipley, a grocery and commission merchant, also an
304 Georgia Historical Quarterly
active Democrat; Alva C. Roper and James L. Wiggins

men; Robert A. Wood, a deputy marshal; and three othe
who were active in the Democratic party, Columbus C
William A. Duke and Robert Hudson.40
There were a number of statements alleging the mistreatment
of the prisoners. The nine accused of the murder told of being
held at Fort Pulaski in small, dark cells without ventilation.
Distasteful food was vividly described in their reports, but it
was admitted that the rations they received were the same as
for the soldiers stationed there. Correspondence with friends,
relatives, and counsel was denied them. Similar complaints were
made after the prisoners were transferred to McPherson Barracks
in Atlanta. Charges were not given to the prisoners until the 27th
of June, just two days before the trial was to open. Since Sunday
was the intervening day, there was little time to prepare their
case.41
The use of force by government officials to obtain evidence

against the prisoners was cited by an affidavit printed in both
the Enquirer and the New York Times. The affidavit, sworn to
by John Strapler, a Negro, stated that he had been arrested on
May 14 without prior notice and taken to Savannah, then to
Fort Pulaski. He told of having been searched and of having
had his head shaved on orders by two government officials,
Captain Cole and Detective Whitley. Whitley had said that he
had an order from General Meade to "put him through,"
according to Strapler's statement. He told of threats at cannon
point and also of having been put into a sweat box for thirty-
three hours. Strapler was never used as a witness and claimed
that he had no information about the murder.42
Though the use of the sweat box was mentioned often in
connection with the prisoners, Strapler's affidavit was the only
evidence citing its use. General Grant was reported to be behind
the use of the sweat box in reports in the Enquirer, which con-
tended that General Meade would not have authorized that
method of torture.48
Resolutions, petitions, letters, and affidavits concerning the
mistreatment of prisoners and witnesses were

In answer to these complaints, General Me
official report in July, 1868. He told of his in
commanding officer in Columbus, Captain Mi
effort in cooperation with the civil authori
arrest those responsible for the crime. When
ported that he could not rely on the civil a
removed the Mayor, Board of Aldermen, Mars
and appointed others.
Meade's report stated that since the crime
well as a social one, there was no effort on the
or authorities to find the guilty parties. He, t
the War Department to send a competent d
Captain Mills in his investigation.45
The detective, H. C. Whitley, arrived in C
ported to General Meade that he believed t
was on the track of the criminals but that it
obtain testimony from people in Columbus, "a
be forfeited if they cared to disclose what th
recommended that certain parties whom he b
ledge of the affair, should be removed to some se
The result of this removal of witnesses from C
to Meade's report, was the disclosure of impo
case.
As to the treatment of prisoners and witnesses, Genera

requested that the officers in charge send reports of their m
of obtaining information. Detective Whitley admitted th
"operated on the fears of two Negroes, Wells and Strap
that he had done nothing beyond confining them to a c
threatening to shave their heads.47
After the examination of these reports, Meade conclu
if the civil authorities had acted in good faith and h
attempts at finding the guilty parties many of the harsh m
used by the government could have been avoided. H
his feeling that the case had required prompt action
3o6 Georgia Historical Quarterly
when all of the evidence was presented at the trial the

taken would be justified.48
The trial of the prisoners began on Monday, June
continued until July 24. It was conducted by the m
authorities in Atlanta. The prisoners pleaded "not gui
also recorded their objection to being tried in a military
when they were not serving in the army. This, they sa
violation of the Constitution and not in accord with the
to a trial by jury.49
In reporting on the beginning of the trial, the Enquire
reference to the fact that not only were the accused be
in prison but also some of the witnesses. This situation w
sidered by the paper to be "part of the plan by which i
men are to be convicted."50
Joe Brown, the Ex-Governor of Georgia, led for the prose-
cution. Governor Brown was very unpopular in Georgia at that
time because he had supported the Reconstruction Acts, and had
made statements such as: "the conqueror has the right to dictate
terms to the conquered, which the conquered are bound to
accept."51 Of Brown's part in the prosecution of the Columbus
men, contemporary Avery wrote: "The support of Grant and
the prosecution of the Columbus prisoners charged with the
murder of G. W. Ashburn, were the two acts of Gov. Brown
at this time, that concentrated upon him the public obloquy of
Georgians. The latter stood against him, however, when the
former was forgotten and explained."52 Governor Brown ex-
plained his motives in taking the case on the basis of his require-
ment that General Meade let him control the case and thereby
he was able to keep the prosecution out of the hands of "very
extreme men."53
Another charge against Brown was that he had offered to be
the counsel for the prisoners for a fee of $10,000, and when they
had refused to hire him at that price he had accepted the govern-
ment's offer. One of the defendants, W. A. Bedell, corrected
this charge, stating that he had tried to employ Governor Brown
but was told that he had already been re

ment.54
The group defending the accused men included quite an array

of legal talent. Two of the men were later governors of Georgia,
Alexander H. Stephens and James M. Smith. Stephens had also
been Vice President of the Confederacy. H. L. Benning had
served on the Supreme Court, and others of the defense were
prominent lawyers, M. J. Crawford, J. M. Ramsay, L. J. Gartrell,
and R. J. Moses.55
Testimony of six men and two women made up the case for
the prosecution. Two of the men had accompanied the group
that had committed the murder; another lived in the house with
Ashburn and had been present there on the night of the murder;
the remaining three men claimed to have had conversations with
several of the defendants before or after the murder. Of the two
women who were witnesses, one was a resident in the boarding
house where Ashburn lived and had seen the murder and the
other gave testimony against one of the defendants, James L.
Wiggins, a policeman. According to this witness, Wiggins had
worn a masquerade suit on the night of the murder, saying that
he was going to Temperance Hall with thirty other men to hear
a "Speaking." He had asked her later to swear that he had been
at home at the time of the shooting, she said.56
Witnesses for the prosecution told of bribes and threats by
various ones of the defendants.57 One such incident was cited
by a Mr. Bennett, who had lived in the house with Ashburn.
Bennett claimed that after the murder, William Chipley, one
of the accused, had paid bail for him and in return he was asked
to give information concerning Republican activities in the state.58
In cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, the coun-
sel for the defense attempted to bring out information concerning
money which was believed to have been offered to witnesses
by the government. The characters of the prosecution's witnesses
were also called into question by the defense.59
Only part of the case for the defense was heard before the
trial was ended. Their case consisted of testimony from friends
3o8 Georgia Historical Quarterly
and relatives of the accused as well as statements from the for

mayor and solicitor general of Columbus.
Witnesses for William Duke contended that he had been in
Meriwether County, some forty miles away from Columbus,
at the time of the murder.60
Dr. Kirkscey's family testified that he had been at home on
the night of the murder. A statement by Kirkscey's sister-in-law
created some discomfort for the defense, however. When asked
about the family's reaction to Ashburn's death, she said: "He
[Dr. Kirkscey] regretted it, as it was so near the election, and
it would create excitement among the negroes; the females were
glad of his death because he was a radical; the female members of
our family desire the death of all the Radicals."61 She was asked
to clarify her statement the next day, at which time she said:
"I meant to say that we were not delighted to hear of the death
of Radicals, only such men as Ashburn, who are trying to excite
negroes to insurrection and deeds of violence against their former
owners."62
Governor Brown was severely criticized in the Columbus

paper for his treatment of the ladies in Dr. Kirkscey's family
during cross-examination. It was felt that he was ungentlemanly
toward them because he questioned their honesty and kept them
on the witness stand too long.63
Governor Brown's cross-examination of defense witnesses was
in large part used to "test the memory" of the witnesses. He
attempted to show that their recollections of other dates and
times were not as accurate as those surrounding Ashburn's
murder.64
F. G. Wilkins, the former mayor of Columbus, testified for

the good character of those accused of the crime, and the evil
character of the prosecution's witnesses. He also admitted that
all arrests in connection with the crime had been made by the
military and none by the civil authorities.65
In defense of the action of the civil authorities, John Peabody,
former solicitor general, said that the usual practice in the case
of the jury at the inquest's not being able to determine who was
guilty, was for extra effort to be made by

of the victim. He said that no officer in
charge of the investigation. No one had b
for prosecution even though one of Ashburn
and others who wanted the reward had tried to find out who had
committed the crime. Peabody's testimony also revealed the
reaction he felt the people in Columbus had to the murder, that
"they did not believe that any number of citizens would have
gone there deliberately to do such an act. The only solution they
could give to it was that they had gone there for some other
purpose, and that A. [Ashburn] had fired on them."66
The last set of testimony in the trial was that of witnesses for
Columbus Bedell. His doctor and a pharmacist testified that he
had been sick on the night of the murder, and a Negro man
who cleaned his room testified that he had checked Bedell's gun
on the morning after the murder since he had heard rumors that
Bedell had been involved. He said that he did not believe the
pistol had been fired.67
Another witness for Bedell commented on having a masquerade
party at William Chipley's home during the past winter, but
pave no specific date.68 Other references to Chipley's having
had a masquerade party on the night of the murder have been
included in later histories of Columbus.69
Orders from General Meade on July 24 ended the military
trial. On July 21, the Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted
by the state legislature and under the Reconstruction Acts this
ended military rule. The prisoners were released to Captain Mills,
who was to free them on bond.70 They returned to Columbus
where the required bond was signed, and where they were wel-
comed by a large crowd.71
General Meade viewed the end of the trial and of his adminis-
tration with relief but continued to argue that the evidence would
be on the side of the government's action in the Ashburn case.72
Investigation into the murder of George W. Ashburn was
never resumed with the result that the guilty parties were not
determined. One can read the evidence that is available and
3 io Georgia Historical Quarterly
consider the possible guilt or innocence of those accused.

The end of the trial and the end of Meade's administration
of the military power of the government coming so close
together led some to believe that the trial had been a tool of
coercion used to secure Radical measures in the state.73 Most
histories of Georgia seemed convinced of the innocence of the
group accused of the murder and used the event to point up the
tyranny of Radical Reconstruction.74
In addition to the political strife of the time, the fact that a
group of men was involved in the crime further confuses the
problem of guilt or innocence. It is true that the men accused
of the crime pleaded not guilty, but often group guilt seems to
disperse the feeling among many and thus tends to lessen it in
the minds of the individuals involved. Guilt might also be lessened
by the feeling of justifiable homicide in the minds of those who
saw Ashburn as the enemy in a time of "war."
Legally the accused men were innocent because they were
never proven guilty. Morally perhaps we shall never know
whether the guilt was theirs or not. We can, however, see the
reflection of some of what was felt in those Reconstruction days
in the bitterness, distruct, violence, and fear that surround the
events of the murder of George W. Ashburn.
Notes
lEdwin C. Woolley, The Reconstruction of Georgia (New York, 1901), 46.
2Samuel Eliot Morison, 'ine uxjora History oj ine American jreopie (New
York, 1965), 715.
zibid.. 716. 4Woolley. Reconstruction, 46.
5Columbus Daily Sun, January 8, 1868.
«John H. Martin, Columbus, Georgia, from its Selection as a "Trading
Town11 in 1827 to its Partial Destruction by Wilson's Raid in 1865, (Colum-
bus, Ga., 1874), 93.
"Radical Rule: Military Outrage in Georgia. Arrest of Columbus Prisoners :
with Facts connected with their imprisonment and Release (Louisville, Ky.,
1868), 1-4.
8Bond Almand, "The Ashburn Murder Case and Military Trial," in The
Georgia Bar Journal, X (August, 1947), 43.
OILS., Congress, House, Committee of Claims, The Reports of the Com-
mittees of the House of Representatives. . .1866-1867. 39th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Rept. 19, Vol. III.
loibid.
ni. W. Avery, The History of the State of Georgia From 1850 to 1881. . .
(New York, 1881), 376.
The Ashburn Case 3 1 1
i2Ethel Kime Ware, A Constitutional History of Georgia, (New York,
1947), 140-41.
13 William A. Russ, Jr., "Radical Disfranchisement in Georgia, 1867-71,"
in The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XIX (September 1935), 185.
HAvery, Georgia, 386.
^Radical Rule, 3; Almand, Ashburn Murder, 44.
lQRadical Rule, 3.
nNew York Times, March 30, 1968, p. 2.
löAlbert Berry Saye, A constitutional History of Georgia, 1782-1945.
(Athens, Ga., 1948), 271.
löWoolley, Reconstruction 48.
zoNew York Times, March 30, 1868, p. 2.
2iColumbus Daily Sun, March 21, 1868. wibid., March 26, 1868.
Mlbid.. March 21, 1868.
24B. Merton Coulter, A Short History of Georgia (Chapel Hill, 1933),
348-51.
MNew York Times, April 6, 1868, p. 5.
26/&id. 2ilbid. 2BIUd.
zvRadical Rule, 4.
30Columbus Daily Sun Anril 15. 1868. 31IOÎ/Î.
32New York Times, April 15, 1868. Mibid.
34New York Times. ADril 9. 1868. 35j&id.
Mlbid., April 7, 9, 11, 1868.
37Georgia Executive Dept. Executive Minutes, July 10, 1866-December 23,
1870., p. 120.
zzDaily Columbus Enquirer, July 26, 1868.
^Radical Rule, 5.
40Columbus Daily Sun, May 12, 1868; Radical Rule, 187; Daily Columbus
Enauirer, July 17, 1868.
iiDailv Columbus Enquirer, July 26, 1868.
42New York Times, July 21, 1868; Daily Columbus Enquirer, July 15.
1868.
4&Daily Columbus Enquirer, July 15, 1868.
^Radical Rule, 187-88.
*&New York Times, September 12, 1868, p. 5.
wibid. iilbid. mbid.
49DaiZi; Cnlumhuft Enauirer. Jnlv 1 IRfiR
Wlbid. siNew York Times, April 27. 1868.
52Avery, Georaia, 386. 5SIbid.. 387. 54/&id.. 387-88.
55 Almand, Ashburn Murder 46.
SQDaily Columbus Enquirer, July 2, 4, 5, 1868.
57/öid. mbid., July 4, 19. 1868.
59Jôid., July 2, 4, 5. 19. 1868. Mlbid.. Julv 8. 12. 1868.
«ilbid., July 12, 1868. Mlbid., July 14. 1868.
mbid.
64/öieL, July 14. 16. 25. 1868. 65J&Í/Í.. Julv 17. 18. 18fiR.
eej&id., July 19, 1868. Wlbid., July 22. 23. 1868.
tsibid., July 22, 1868.
«»Etta Blanchard Worsley, Columbus on the Chattahoochee, (Columbus,
1951), 310; Nancy Telfair [Louise Gunby Jones], A History of Columbus,
Georgia, 1828-1928, (Columbus, 1929), 159.
<"Avery, tteorgia, 387-88.
iiDaily Columbus Enquirer, July 26, 1868.
^Report of Major General Meade's Military Operation and Administration
of Civil Affairs in the Third Military District and Department of the South
(Atlanta, 1868), 11.
73Telfair. Columbus 169-70.
74Avery, Georgia, 387-88; Francis Letcher Mitchell, Georgia Land
312 Georgia Historical Quarterly
People (Atlanta, 18937), 424. Something of the later life of one of tne
accused is known. As a controversial figure in Florida, William Douglas
Chipley's strong-willed nature was described by the Pensacola Commercial:
"To a man who obeys his mandates, Chipley is a good friend, but woe to
him who seeks to thwart his will. . . ." See Edward C. Williamson, "William
D. Chipley, West Florida's Mr. Railroad," Florida Historical Quarterly,
XXV (July, 1946-April, 1947), 340.

The Ashburn Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ashburn Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georgia Historical Society

The Ashburn Murder Case In Georgia Reconstruction, 1868

Georgia Reconstruction, 1868

Georgia in the spring of 1868 was the scene of

♦Graduate Student, Auburn University.

Morison described the vindictive mood of that

however. Nine hundred and sixteen gallons of brandy and whis

The resulting proposed constitution included provisions, suc

"whites" still had rebellious opinions. Accordin

the thirty-first of March to nominate candidates for both th

to the residence and demanded admission; when t

correspondent of the New York Times asserted: "It is suspe

General Meade's reaction to the charge that the Ku Klux Klan

At the time of the Ashburn murder the impeachment pro-

of the situation in the South, agreed that the Pre

active Democrat; Alva C. Roper and James L. Wiggins

The use of force by government officials to obtain evidence

mistreatment of prisoners and witnesses were

As to the treatment of prisoners and witnesses, Genera

when all of the evidence was presented at the trial the

but was told that he had already been re

The group defending the accused men included quite an array

and relatives of the accused as well as statements from the for

Governor Brown was severely criticized in the Columbus

F. G. Wilkins, the former mayor of Columbus, testified for

guilty, was for extra effort to be made by

consider the possible guilt or innocence of those accused.

You might also like