Through the 1870 election, Jackson County African Americans and their few white Republican allies had faced political violence with surprising resiliency. In early 1871, however, the weight of the relentless pressure began to show. Jackson County’s Regulators, undeterred, even spurred by the disappointment in the 1870 election, were plotting even more audacious crimes. Rumors of their plots reached alleged targets in neighboring Gadsden County and even the governor’s office.
White Republicans began falling out of the ranks. John Barfield resigned his seat in the state assembly shortly after it convened in January 1871. Sheriff Thomas West, beaten on a Marianna street in early February "by a crowd of scoundrels," abandoned his post and Jackson County. In March, James W. Yearty, a state assemblyman from adjacent Calhoun County was murdered, allegedly by outlaw Luke Lott. Yearty's offense was that he "acted with the Republicans.”
John Quincy Dickinson, the highest Republican county official, was depressed by these events, believing his assassination was inevitable. He confessed his despondency to his friends, who received each communication from Dickinson as though it might be his last. Regulators’ defiance and abuse of freedmen was brazen. “Everyone seems inclined to take advantage of the absence" of Sheriff West, Dickinson wrote, and "[i]t just seems as if the devil had possessed the whole community." Dickinson’s pessimism in late March was well placed. He was fated to join the victims soon enough.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Mooring establishes a defense: temporary insanity
[Sources: Columbus Daily Enquirer, 7/31/74, 8/1/74, 8/2/74, 8/4/74, 8/21/74, 9/2/74, ; Atlanta Daily Herald 8/9/74]
How could a successful businessman, known for his refinement and poetic sensitivity, coldly shoot down his brother-in-law without provocation? To answer this question, two newspapers pondered Mooring’s state of mind. Tellingly, these Democratic journals ignored Mooring’s reputation for violent outbursts, probably because his targets had typically been Republicans and African Americans. Instead, scrutiny focused immediately on convenient explanations: temporary insanity and heavy drinking.
As news of the murder spread, some Mooring ally began laying the groundwork for an insanity defense. The Columbus (GA) Enquirer learned from “a gentleman living in Florida” that Mooring had previously been “put into an insane asylum in North Carolina, but becoming better was released.” Re-enforcing the supposition that Mooring had temporarily lost his senses, at least two anecdotes circulated describing Mooring’s utter shock when informed he had killed Charley Nickels. The Enquirer provides a graphic depiction of the pathetic scene: “after his arrest a friend approached Mooring, who was wrapped in a sheet and had a wet towel on his head, and asked him why he had killed Charles Nickels. Mooring burst out in a laugh, and regarded the question as absurd. He pretended to believe (or really did so) that he knew nothing of such an act, and had not done it. He asked, “What should I kill Charley Nickels for?” The Courier presented the scene quite differently: “When told by a lady friend who was visiting him of the crime he had committed, he fainted and fell from his chair.” Presumably one story and not both are accurate: it would be remarkable were Mooring stunned when hearing on two separate occasions that he had slain his wife’s young brother. Whatever Mooring’s reaction, fainting or incredulity, the examining justices of the peace found Mooring “to be in a condition neither mentally nor physically able to undergo an investigation.”
The Enquirer, in fact, initially voiced some skepticism about Mooring's purported insanity when employing the word “pretend.” In its first reports of the murder, the Enquirer’s editor considered whether Mooring “affected insanity or had really lost his mind.” In these early reports, the Enquirer mentioned Mooring alleged drinking in the days before the murder. The Courier, presumably more reliable, did not mention intoxication and the Enquirer quickly dropped that theory. Is this because drunkenness might have prevented pleading insanity as a defense?
Mooring’s conduct in while in custody began to sway the doubters. He did not partake of food for several days, and became “the picture of emaciation and despair.” He was “so prostrated from extreme nervous excitability and want of food, (which he rejects) that he has been given quarters in a room at the jail under guard, and fears are entertained of his recovery.” While the implication is left that Mooring was horrified at his deed, this is not explicitly stated and there is left room to surmise his distress might actually be over his forthcoming trial and punishment. In any event, the Enquirer shortly was convinced to drop its doubt about Mooring’s insanity. The editor reported receiving a letter from “a gentleman of undoubted veracity who knew Mooring, and he has solved the inexplicable problem by giving us evidence most conclusive of the insanity of Mooring, and this misfortune has tainted his family and comes to him as an inheritance.”
Mooring establishes a defense: temporary insanity
How could a successful businessman, known for his refinement and poetic sensitivity, coldly shoot down his brother-in-law without provocation? To answer this question, two newspapers pondered Mooring’s state of mind. Tellingly, these Democratic journals ignored Mooring’s reputation for violent outbursts, probably because his targets had typically been Republicans and African Americans. Instead, scrutiny focused immediately on convenient explanations: temporary insanity and heavy drinking.
As news of the murder spread, some Mooring ally began laying the groundwork for an insanity defense. The Columbus (GA) Enquirer learned from “a gentleman living in Florida” that Mooring had previously been “put into an insane asylum in North Carolina, but becoming better was released.” Re-enforcing the supposition that Mooring had temporarily lost his senses, at least two anecdotes circulated describing Mooring’s utter shock when informed he had killed Charley Nichols. The Enquirer provides a graphic depiction of the pathetic scene: “after his arrest a friend approached Mooring, who was wrapped in a sheet and had a wet towel on his head, and asked him why he had killed Charles Nickols. Mooring burst out in a laugh, and regarded the question as absurd. He pretended to believe (or really did so) that he knew nothing of such an act, and had not done it. He asked, “What should I kill Charley Nickols for?” The Courier presented the scene quite differently: “When told by a lady friend who was visiting him of the crime he had committed, he fainted and fell from his chair.” Presumably one story and not both are accurate: it would be remarkable were Mooring stunned when hearing on two separate occasions that he had slain his wife’s young brother. Whatever Mooring’s reaction, fainting or incredulity, the examining justices of the peace found Mooring “to be in a condition neither mentally nor physically able to undergo an investigation.”
The Enquirer, in fact, initially voiced some skepticism about Mooring's purported insanity when employing the word “pretend.” In its first reports of the murder, the Enquirer’s editor considered whether Mooring “affected insanity or had really lost his mind.” In these early reports, the Enquirer mentioned Mooring alleged drinking in the days before the murder. The Courier, presumably more reliable, did not mention intoxication and the Enquirer quickly dropped that theory. Is this because drunkenness might have prevented pleading insanity as a defense?
Mooring’s conduct in while in custody began to sway the doubters. He did not partake of food for several days, and became “the picture of emaciation and despair.” He was “so prostrated from extreme nervous excitability and want of food, (which he rejects) that he has been given quarters in a room at the jail under guard, and fears are entertained of his recovery.” While the implication is left that Mooring was horrified at his deed, this is not explicitly stated and there is left room to surmise his distress might actually be over his forthcoming trial and punishment. In any event, the Enquirer shortly was convinced to drop its doubt about Mooring’s insanity. The editor reported receiving a letter from “a gentleman of undoubted veracity who knew Mooring, and he has solved the inexplicable problem by giving us evidence most conclusive of the insanity of Mooring, and this misfortune has tainted his family and comes to him as an inheritance.”
[Sources: Columbus Daily Enquirer, 7/31/74, 8/1/74, 8/2/74, 8/4/74, 8/21/74, 9/2/74, ; Atlanta Daily Herald 8/9/74]
Friday, March 18, 2011
Edwin W. Mooring murders his brother-in-law, Charley Nickels, in cold blood
In the summer of 1874, the contradictions of Edwin W. Mooring, a man of great refinement subject to bouts of uncontrollable fury, are shown most dramatically. Mooring, now about 45 years old, could compose and publish a lovely, pastoral poem, but was also capable of the most outrageous violence. We’ll let the Marianna Courier tell the story of Edwin W. Mooring’s heinous conduct on July 24, 1874: “On Saturday last, about 5 o’clock P.M., while our young townsman and merchant Charles Nickels was attending the wants of one of his customers, and no doubt little expecting his time of earth so near its close, Mr. E. W. Mooring, formerly of this place but now of New York City, and brother-in-law of Mr. Nickels entered the rear door of the store fronting on the street north of the main business street, armed with a double barrel gun, got within a few feet of Mr. N., and fired, three shots striking him, one passing obliquely through the bowels from which he died in about six hours.” [Marianna Courier in Atlanta Sunday Herald, Aug. 9, 1874]
The Columbus Enquirer, which took great interest in the matter, adds further details, informing us that Mooring then set out kill his father-in-law, William Nickels, “but could not find him as he was behind a door in the store.” According to the Enquirer, “Mooring then proceeded to Mr. Nickols’ [sic] house, where his own sister was spending a vacation, and cursed and abused her terribly, and threatened to kill her.” [Columbus Enquirer, July 31, Aug. 1, 1874].
Mooring was then arrested by the sheriff (probably young James A. Finlayson at this point). There is no indication that he resisted in any way.
Who was the victim, Charles Nickels? Nickels was about twenty three at the time Mooring killed him. As an adolescent, Charley had already made a name for himself, participating in the Battle of Marianna where he was seized by the federal troops and then released in Vernon during the column's withdrawal to Pensacola. [Dale Cox, Battle of Marianna, 127]. At the time of his death, Nickels was following in his father's footsteps in entering into the mercantile trade. According to the Courier, he had been in business for nearly two years "and having been an active and energetic young man acquired a good trade, continually increasing and was making rapid strides to being the first merchant of our town." [Atlanta Sunday Herald, Aug. 9, 1874].
Next, we'll review the reaction to the murder, including Mooring's defense.
The Columbus Enquirer, which took great interest in the matter, adds further details, informing us that Mooring then set out kill his father-in-law, William Nickels, “but could not find him as he was behind a door in the store.” According to the Enquirer, “Mooring then proceeded to Mr. Nickols’ [sic] house, where his own sister was spending a vacation, and cursed and abused her terribly, and threatened to kill her.” [Columbus Enquirer, July 31, Aug. 1, 1874].
Mooring was then arrested by the sheriff (probably young James A. Finlayson at this point). There is no indication that he resisted in any way.
Who was the victim, Charles Nickels? Nickels was about twenty three at the time Mooring killed him. As an adolescent, Charley had already made a name for himself, participating in the Battle of Marianna where he was seized by the federal troops and then released in Vernon during the column's withdrawal to Pensacola. [Dale Cox, Battle of Marianna, 127]. At the time of his death, Nickels was following in his father's footsteps in entering into the mercantile trade. According to the Courier, he had been in business for nearly two years "and having been an active and energetic young man acquired a good trade, continually increasing and was making rapid strides to being the first merchant of our town." [Atlanta Sunday Herald, Aug. 9, 1874].
Next, we'll review the reaction to the murder, including Mooring's defense.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Edwin W. Mooring, poet
Edwin W. Mooring wrote the following poem for the Columbus (Georgia) Daily Enquirer-Sun, published on July 4, 1874. [From the Digital Library of Georgia: http://enquirer.galileo.usg.edu/enquirer/about].
July would turn out to be a very fateful month for Mr. Mooring.
July would turn out to be a very fateful month for Mr. Mooring.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
E. W. Mooring continued: troubles with the in-laws
In 1852, Mooring, about 24 years old, married his 19 year old first cousin, Willie Ann Nickels (their mothers were sisters with the last name of Lawrence). According to J. Randall Stanley, the couple eloped. Later accounts report that Wille Ann's family had opposed the marriage, leading to a "feud..among the opposing elements." Later, the families reconciled "after a fashion" to the extent that the 1860 Census lists the Moorings and their children living in the Nickels household. Willie Ann’s father, William Nickels Jr., was born about 1800 into a wealthy mercantile family in Maine, but had left for North Carolina for his health, marrying there and settling in Marianna in the 1830s. Nickels became a prosperous merchant and tavern keeper - the Nickels family ranked 14th in wealth among Jackson County families in the 1860 census.
Nickels operated a store in Marianna with his partner, Thomas Gautier (whose children make an appearance throwing rocks in T. Thomas Fortune’s After War Times). Mooring had a credit account at his father-in-law's store where he purchased provisions. Nickels also informally served as Mooring’s agent, presumably taking care of his daughter’s finances when Mooring was traveling. When Mooring was seized by the Union column after the Battle of Marianna in late 1864 and imprisoned in Elmira, Nickels again took control of Mooring’s finances on behalf of Willie Ann. Mooring later claimed he had left a large sum of money, perhaps $30,000, in Nickels’ control.
Even though Nickels continued to represent Mooring intermittently after Mooring’s return to Marianna in mid-1865, Nickels’ conduct as agent for his son-in-law apparently was the source of some tension between the two men whom, we can suppose, were predisposed to view each other warily. Nickels’ own statement about the arrangement suggests his casual approach: “I was agent for Mooring for part of the time the accounts were kept, can’t designate the time. I had some Confederate money of Mooring’s in hand; can’t state that amount. I suppose I have of his in hand two or three thousand dollars. I was agent for him at different times. Sometimes could not satisfy him, and I would cease. Can’t say when agencies commenced or closed; have nothing to show this.” Nickels’ informality toward Mooring’s affairs strikingly contrasts with his careful accounting of Mooring’s debts to the Nickels & Gautier firm. Mooring stopped his account with the firm in July 1867, probably about the time William Nickels and Thomas Gautier dissolved their partnership.
The dissolution of Nickels & Gautier was announced in the Marianna Courier in January 1868, along with a notification that William Nickels would settle the firm’s business and accounts.
The Nickels family's standing seems to have fallen in the wake of the war. William Nickels, now in his 70s, had fallen far in relative wealth compared to his peers, which was typical for planters, but not merchants after the upheaval of defeat and Emancipation. Nickels still managed to buy the enormous Bellamy mansion from Gautier at a steep discount, probably as a result of the same financial distress that led to the end of their partnership. [For information and pictures of the "Bellamy Nickels mansion, See http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fljackso/Bellamy/Nickels.html ].
At the same time, it seems that a wide rift had opened up between Mooring and Nickels. In January 1872, Nickels sued his son-in-law in the Florida circuit court for $1,388 for “goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered” to Mooring by the now long defunct Nickels & Gautier firm. Lawsuits among neighbors and even friends were common in Jackson County at this time when litigation was a favorite participatory sport. Nickels, however, pursued this claim with particular vehemence.
Mooring apparently argued that the claim had already been paid by Nickels out of Mooring’s finances that he controlled. Nevertheless, prior to trial, Mooring approached Gautier and delivered to him a check drawn on a New York bank for $600. In return, Gautier gave Mooring a receipt on behalf of Nickels & Gautier confirming that this payment settled “all demands” by the firm against Mooring.
Learning from Mooring’s lawyer, D. L. McKinnon, about the settlement with Gautier, Nickels was initially befuddled, then livid. Approached by McKinnon to learn about his intentions regarding the pending litigation, Nickels insisted that he would “fight it out.” Claiming that his son-in-law and former partner had colluded to defraud him, Nickels proceeded with the lawsuit against Mooring. The jury found for Mooring, concluding that Gautier as a partner to the Nickels & Gautier, had the authority to settle the debt owed the firm.
This defeat outraged Nickels. After the circuit court denied his demand for a new trial, Nickels appealed to Florida’s Supreme Court. Here he was represented by powerhouse attorneys: George S. Hawkins, a former congressman and Florida Supreme Court justice, and William H. Milton, a former state solicitor. Eventually, only in January 1877, the court heard the case of Nickels and Gautier v. Mooring. The Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Mooring. [Nickels and Gautier v. Mooring, 16 FL 76 (Jan. 1877 term].
A later newspaper account surmised that the lawsuit had "aroused the old feeling" of hostility between Mooring and William Nickels. It might also be guessed that the lawsuit was the result of shattered relations. The same 1874 newspaper reported that "some three years ago from a private difficulty Mooring endeavored" to shoot his young brother-in-law, Charles Nickels. According to the same account, Nickels' sister interfered and "Mooring received the pistol ball in his own arm." [Columbus Enquirer, Aug. 1, 1874]. This 1871 time period coincided with Mooring's taking his family from Marianna to Europe. The sequence of events (the lawsuit, the shooting, the departure) is impossible to know, but it seems reasonable to conclude that that they were all connected. In any event, by the time the Florida Supreme Court heard William Nickels' appeal and issued its ruling, relations between Mooring and his in-laws had deteriorated tragically.
Nickels operated a store in Marianna with his partner, Thomas Gautier (whose children make an appearance throwing rocks in T. Thomas Fortune’s After War Times). Mooring had a credit account at his father-in-law's store where he purchased provisions. Nickels also informally served as Mooring’s agent, presumably taking care of his daughter’s finances when Mooring was traveling. When Mooring was seized by the Union column after the Battle of Marianna in late 1864 and imprisoned in Elmira, Nickels again took control of Mooring’s finances on behalf of Willie Ann. Mooring later claimed he had left a large sum of money, perhaps $30,000, in Nickels’ control.
Even though Nickels continued to represent Mooring intermittently after Mooring’s return to Marianna in mid-1865, Nickels’ conduct as agent for his son-in-law apparently was the source of some tension between the two men whom, we can suppose, were predisposed to view each other warily. Nickels’ own statement about the arrangement suggests his casual approach: “I was agent for Mooring for part of the time the accounts were kept, can’t designate the time. I had some Confederate money of Mooring’s in hand; can’t state that amount. I suppose I have of his in hand two or three thousand dollars. I was agent for him at different times. Sometimes could not satisfy him, and I would cease. Can’t say when agencies commenced or closed; have nothing to show this.” Nickels’ informality toward Mooring’s affairs strikingly contrasts with his careful accounting of Mooring’s debts to the Nickels & Gautier firm. Mooring stopped his account with the firm in July 1867, probably about the time William Nickels and Thomas Gautier dissolved their partnership.
The dissolution of Nickels & Gautier was announced in the Marianna Courier in January 1868, along with a notification that William Nickels would settle the firm’s business and accounts.
The Nickels family's standing seems to have fallen in the wake of the war. William Nickels, now in his 70s, had fallen far in relative wealth compared to his peers, which was typical for planters, but not merchants after the upheaval of defeat and Emancipation. Nickels still managed to buy the enormous Bellamy mansion from Gautier at a steep discount, probably as a result of the same financial distress that led to the end of their partnership. [For information and pictures of the "Bellamy Nickels mansion, See http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fljackso/Bellamy/Nickels.html ].
At the same time, it seems that a wide rift had opened up between Mooring and Nickels. In January 1872, Nickels sued his son-in-law in the Florida circuit court for $1,388 for “goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered” to Mooring by the now long defunct Nickels & Gautier firm. Lawsuits among neighbors and even friends were common in Jackson County at this time when litigation was a favorite participatory sport. Nickels, however, pursued this claim with particular vehemence.
Mooring apparently argued that the claim had already been paid by Nickels out of Mooring’s finances that he controlled. Nevertheless, prior to trial, Mooring approached Gautier and delivered to him a check drawn on a New York bank for $600. In return, Gautier gave Mooring a receipt on behalf of Nickels & Gautier confirming that this payment settled “all demands” by the firm against Mooring.
Learning from Mooring’s lawyer, D. L. McKinnon, about the settlement with Gautier, Nickels was initially befuddled, then livid. Approached by McKinnon to learn about his intentions regarding the pending litigation, Nickels insisted that he would “fight it out.” Claiming that his son-in-law and former partner had colluded to defraud him, Nickels proceeded with the lawsuit against Mooring. The jury found for Mooring, concluding that Gautier as a partner to the Nickels & Gautier, had the authority to settle the debt owed the firm.
This defeat outraged Nickels. After the circuit court denied his demand for a new trial, Nickels appealed to Florida’s Supreme Court. Here he was represented by powerhouse attorneys: George S. Hawkins, a former congressman and Florida Supreme Court justice, and William H. Milton, a former state solicitor. Eventually, only in January 1877, the court heard the case of Nickels and Gautier v. Mooring. The Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Mooring. [Nickels and Gautier v. Mooring, 16 FL 76 (Jan. 1877 term].
A later newspaper account surmised that the lawsuit had "aroused the old feeling" of hostility between Mooring and William Nickels. It might also be guessed that the lawsuit was the result of shattered relations. The same 1874 newspaper reported that "some three years ago from a private difficulty Mooring endeavored" to shoot his young brother-in-law, Charles Nickels. According to the same account, Nickels' sister interfered and "Mooring received the pistol ball in his own arm." [Columbus Enquirer, Aug. 1, 1874]. This 1871 time period coincided with Mooring's taking his family from Marianna to Europe. The sequence of events (the lawsuit, the shooting, the departure) is impossible to know, but it seems reasonable to conclude that that they were all connected. In any event, by the time the Florida Supreme Court heard William Nickels' appeal and issued its ruling, relations between Mooring and his in-laws had deteriorated tragically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)