Rudi 'splains it: State control of St. Louis and Kansas City police
Soldiers and civilians exchanging gun fire on May 10, 1861, near Fifth and Walnut streets in St. Louis as the prisoners from Camp Jackson are marched to the Federal Arsenal (From the New York Illustrated News).
In the spring of 1861, St. Louis was seething.
Seven slave states had seceded by the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president on March 4, 1861, but Missouri and seven others hadn't decided whether to stay in the Union or join the nascent Confederate States of America.
Missouri sympathizers to the Southern cause of preserving slavery organized companies of 'Minute Men.' The large and recently arrived German population of the city — many with military experience in European conscript armies or the revolutionary forces of 1848 — was stridently abolitionist, organized as 'Wide Awakes' and drilling for possible action at Turnverein halls.
In this installment of Rudi 'splains it, I hope to help readers understand how Missouri became the only state with a major metropolitan police department under the direction of a board appointed by the governor.
That's Kansas City.
But the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners — four members appointed by the governor plus the mayor — wasn't Missouri's first. And if Republicans running the General Assembly have their way, it won't be the only one.
Legislation awaiting a final House vote and a signature from Gov. Mike Kehoe would put the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department under a similar board, as it was from 1861 to 2012.
Kansas City's police force was originally put under a state-run board in 1874, and lawmakers at that time modeled it on the St. Louis police board.
For the 1861 law, the model, but not the motive, came from Maryland, where it was used in Baltimore to overcome political violence directed by anti-Catholic Know-Nothing politicians.
The motive in Missouri — in 1861 and 1874 — was raw political power. Both cities had recently elected Republican city leadership while the state legislature and executive was firmly in the hands of Democrats.
Democrats lost control of St. Louis City Hall in the 1858 election. In Kansas City, a reform ticket swept Democrats out of office in 1873.
The potential dissolution of the Union in the spring of 1861 added a new layer of tension to the competition between the Democratic Party and the growing Republican Party. And secession-minded Democratic Gov. Claiborne Fox Jackson didn't want the only organized group legally empowered to use force to fall into hostile hands.
Not only were the new German-born citizens the most reliably pro-Union population, they were also responsible for giving Lincoln a plurality of the votes in the state's largest county and more than half of the votes the Republican received statewide as he ran fourth among major candidates.
Their votes were also essential to the 1858 election of Oliver Filley as the first Republican St. Louis mayor.
Jackson's other plans to push Missouri into the Confederacy weren't going well.
Delegate elections on Feb. 18, 1861, to a state convention to consider secession hadn't gone as expected, with a majority of Unionists, even if most also supported continuance of slavery. When delegates convened on Feb. 28, they voted to move to St. Louis rather than remain in Jefferson City, where Jackson and secessionist lawmakers could pressure members.
So with uncertain municipal elections approaching, the bill establishing a state-run Board of Police Commissioners was introduced in the state Senate on Feb. 26, 1861, and passed on March 2, 1861. The Missouri House approved the bill on March 25, 1861.
The Missouri Democrat newspaper, the Republican Party organ in St. Louis, denounced the bill and made sure opponents were well represented in its reporting.
'This bill is, in my opinion, nothing else but an odious and pernicious crusade against the rights and the true welfare of the city of St. Louis — a city that pays more than two-fifths of the whole revenue of the State….,' state Rep. Randolph Doehn of St. Louis said. 'Pretending to be friends of both, they poison, in reality, the good feelings of the state against the city.'
The main purpose of the bill, Doehn said, 'is submission and coercion of the Union-loving citizens of St. Louis….it deprives the people of St. Louis the sacred rights that are presumed to be the fundamental franchises of freemen, by rendering the control over their municipal rights into the hands of individuals who have never obtained a position by the free will and fair choice of the independent voters themselves.'
The Daily Missouri Republican, the major St. Louis newspaper supporting the Democratic Party, wrote an editorial that rhapsodized gleefully over the political advantage lost to Republicans.
'The Black Republicans are in agony — they have a cold sweat upon them — some of them rave as if afflicted with delirium tremens,' the paper's editorial began. 'The passage of the Police Bill through the House yesterday, and the certainty of it becoming law, has completely paralyzed them. The lopping off of so large a share of the patronage of the Mayor, and the putting of it in the hands where it cannot be used for political purposes, is a death-blow to their plans for a perpetuation of Black Republicanism forever.'
'Black Republican' was a political insult intended to keep the anti-slavery position of the party foremost in the minds of voters.
The police bill victory was short-lived, for Jackson at least.
On March 19, 1861, the State Convention voted 89-1 that there was 'no adequate cause' for Missouri to secede. It adjourned on March 22, 1861, empowering a committee to call it back into session if circumstances changed.
The war came on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter, the island fortress in the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor. Lincoln issued a call on states to supply 75,000 men.
'Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its object, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied with,' Jackson wrote to Lincoln in response to the requisition for Missouri soldiers. 'Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on any such unholy crusade.'
At the same time, Jackson was writing to Jefferson Davis, president of the rebellious states, for siege guns and mortars 'to batter down' the 'walls, and drive out our enemies' from 'the Arsenal at St. Louis, now under the command of an Abolition officer…'
In his letter to Davis, Jackson apologized because 'Missouri has been exceedingly slow and tardy in movements hereto, but I am not without hope that she will promptly take her stand with her Southern sister States.'
Jackson organized a state army called the Missouri State Guard and named Sterling Price, a former governor and Mexican war hero, as commander. The siege guns he requested arrived in St. Louis on May 8, 1861, and were moved under cover of darkness to 'Camp Jackson' at Lindell's Grove on the western outskirts of the city.
About 900 members of the Missouri State Guard were gathered at the site now home to St. Louis University.
In a pre-emptive strike, Capt. Nathaniel Lyon had marched 6,500 to 7,000 troops — regular Army units augmented by mainly German volunteers organized into regiments — six miles from the Federal Arsenal to Camp Jackson, surrounded the camp and took 689 men prisoner.
But as the federal troops were escorting captured Missouri militiamen away from Camp Jackson, a shot was heard and the troops opened fire on unarmed civilians, killing 28 and wounding 50 to 75 more.
Former army officer William Tecumseh Sherman, president of the St. Louis street railway company, witnessed the surrender and subsequent firing on civilians.
'I heard the balls cutting the leaves above our heads, and saw several men and women running in all directions, some of whom were wounded,' Sherman wrote. 'Of course, there was a general stampede.'
The Camp Jackson Affair, as it came to be known, ended any chance of Jackson securing St. Louis for the Confederacy. By mid-June, Jackson had abandoned Jefferson City to federal troops and in July, the State Convention, sitting in Jefferson City under federal protection, voted to remove Jackson and the entire General Assembly from office.
Control of St. Louis had a strategic advantage the Union would exploit throughout the war. By August 1861, James B. Eads had a contract to build the ironclad warships that proved essential to wresting control of the Mississippi River valley from the rebellious states.
The removal of officers elected in 1860 put Missouri under Republican control until the election of 1872. It also put the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners under Republican control, leaving no motivation to change the law.
The 1872 election was the first to occur after the General Assembly restored the voting rights of former Confederates, who had been disenfranchised by the state Constitution of 1865.
Their votes helped Democrats regain control in Jefferson City, overwhelming the votes from men formerly held in slavery who backed Republicans. Black votes, however, helped the reform ticket, endorsed by the Republican Party, gain control of Kansas City's government in 1873.
On Feb. 4, 1874, Democratic state Rep. James McDaniels of Jackson County introduced the bill creating the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners. The Kansas City Journal, the city's Republican newspaper, denounced the measure.
'In the first place the people of this city are not aware of having committed any crime for which the right to govern themselves should be taken away,' the Journal stated.
The law-and-order problems facing Kansas City revolved around the violence and prostitution associated with gambling, saloons and vagrancy. As the April 1874 election approached, Democrats were trying to blame the crime on the Republican city leadership.
The main purpose of the bill, the newspaper stated, was to put Democrats back on the city payroll. But the pay mandated by the bill, ostensibly to allow cuts of as much as 25% to the police budget, were inadequate.
'Men working on the salaries proposed must steal or starve, and as men will be found venal enough to take the positions, with the prospect of perquisites, our police force will become an institution more to be dreaded than the thieves themselves,' the Journal wrote.
The bill passed the Missouri House with only 10 votes in opposition and no votes against it in the state Senate.
Voters returned Democrats to power in Kansas City in the 1874 election, but only by 73 votes in the mayor's race and, by the Journal's account, only by supplying copious amounts of liquor to working class voters, both Black and white. The Journal also accused Democrats of bribing voters to support their ticket.
With the close vote, there was no incentive to repeal the law giving the state control of the local police. And except for a brief period in the 1930s, Kansas City police have been directed by the state-controlled board ever since.
As the 1874 bill was being finalized, the Journal warned its supporters that they would be blamed if crime wasn't brought under control by taking away local responsibility.
'We would call the attention of the law and order party to the fact that a metropolitan police bill has passed the house and is now pending in the senate, and will undoubtedly pass that body and become a law,' the Journal stated. 'This will wipe out the issue they are making in the present city contest; the reform they seek will then rest entirely with the police commissioners.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
The LA immigration riots reminds that neither party cares about law and order
The LA immigration riots reminds that neither party cares about law and order | Opinion Democrats and Republicans have a history of ignoring the law when it suits their political needs. Show Caption Hide Caption Newsom, Trump latest clash in long-standing feud Governor Gavin Newsom hit back at the Trump administration for deploying military troops to LA following ICE protests. President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have been fighting over protests and riots taking place in Los Angeles. In response to attacks on federal immigration officers, Trump involved the National Guard and members of the military in order to get things under control. Newsom responded by asking the courts to intervene and saying Trump has "lost it." But this controversy is exhausting because it is clear that nobody involved is interested in the even distribution of justice. Everyone is acting to serve their own political ends, which has been happening for years. Neither political party has a monopoly on law and order. Those who think their preferred party is the one that truly champions the rule of law are falling for partisan lies and likely have a short memory. Democrats and Republicans have undermined the rule of law There is a great irony to Trump aggressively responding to the June LA riots when he just months ago pardoned those charged with crimes in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including those who assaulted police officers. Trump's law and order campaign is entirely theatrical. He has no problem pardoning perpetrators of political violence or crime otherwise when they are aligned with him. He rewards people who commit political violence on his behalf and brings down the hammer against those who do so in the name of causes he is opposed to. It is a completely partisan scheme that goes against what the rule of law actually means. That doesn't mean I disagree with Trump, though. When cities like LA hardly do anything to stop violence, Trump gets the political opportunity to step in and stop riots. Now, these protests are spreading to more cities, which is likely to result in broader violence and more fights with the executive. Opinion: Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028. That goes both ways. Remember when Democrats tried to market themselves as the party of law and order as Trump faced a slate of criminal trials during his reelection campaign. That's laughable in light of their past actions. Democrats rightly blamed Trump for his provocation in 2021 after Democrats did the same thing during the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. There was no shortage of elected Democrats who simply stood by as violence and looting swept the country, and in some cases, they actively encouraged such violence. Biden was no better on the pardons front, brazenly using the presidential pen to corruptly pardon his son and other family members. Biden has previously posted on social media that nobody is above the law. Neither major party really cares about political violence; they only care about it when they can score political points or when they have to defend themselves against the ramifications of it. Following the law has become a partisan issue America now has different rules for enforcing the law, depending on who is in charge. It doesn't matter if you assaulted police officers while breaking into the U.S. Capitol; you'll be generously pardoned four years later. It doesn't matter if you participate in mass riots and looting in the name of racial justice, Democrats will sit by idly as you do more than $1 billion in damage to American cities. I am exhausted by watching politicians pretend that they care about violence beyond the political forces that it brings. Opinion: Trump's dysfunctional government can learn from these Republican governors It's clear that neither major party can be trusted to present leaders whom Americans can believe will enforce the rule of law justly. However, the best solution for our problem of partisan law and order is to stop electing leaders whom we cannot trust to enforce the law impartially. The past two administrations have done much to undermine the rule of law, and Americans eventually need to decide that we are sick of it. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Manhunt Is On for Suspected Killer of Democrats in Minnesota
A manhunt was under way Saturday for a suspect who shot two Democratic Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses and carried a manifesto listing other politicians and abortion providers in the state. Minnesota's Democratic House leader Melissa Hortman, 55, and her husband, Mark, were both shot and killed at their home by a man impersonating a law-enforcement officer, down to a vehicle that looked like a cruiser with lights and sirens, state authorities said. The suspect fled the Hortmans' house on foot.
San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
