The politics of the summer and fall of 1827 were the most violent, controversial and chaotic in the Arkansas Territory. In connection with the elections of August 27, there were two duels--Thomas Newton versus Ambrose Sevier–and Robert Crittenden versus Henry Conway–the latter of which resulted in Conway's death--and another killing the following spring of one losing candidate by another–Edmund Hogan by Andrew Scott. This case exemplifies how the Superior Court was involved in the controversies of the day. The court documents provice a glimpse into the mudslinging between the two territorial political factions that accompanied the election of August 1827. The account herein draws heavily from three sources, by Margaret Ross, Lonnie White, and John Hallum.

Shortly before 1827, two political factions arose in the Arkansas Territory: the Conway and Crittenden factions. The Conway group would later support General Jackson for the Presidency and became the Democratic party. The Conway group claimed the members of "The Family," a powerful group of Democrats who dominated Arkansas government and politics of the time. Many members of the Family were related by blood or marriage. The group's namesake was Henry W. Conway, who had come to Arkansas from a wealthy Tennessee family.

Robert C. Crittenden's group supported Henry Clay, and would later become the Whig party. Hallum opines that

"[t]hese rival parties for political power embraced an intensity and determination of purpose rarely equaled, never surpassed, in the history of American politics. Each party was often carried beyond the bounds of moderation and temperate discussion. These intemperate discussions in time bore much bloody fruit, and gave Arkansas the unenviable name abroad, from which she has not entirely recovered to this day." (Hallum, 264)

The two political alliances are involved in this case. Here, the groups consisted of Robert Crittenden and Robert C. Oden and Thomas W. Johnston on one side and William E. Woodruff, Henry W. Conway, Chester Ashley, Ambrose H. Sevier, Governor George Izard, Matthew Cunningham, William Montgomery and Sylvanus Phillips on the other side.

What was the source of the conflict between William E. Woodruff and Robert Crittenden that led to Crittenden's filing a libel suit against Woodruff? A number of incidents, all splashed across the pages of the Arkansas Gazette, led to their enmity.

Robert Crittenden had been appointed the first territorial secretary (the equivalent of a lieutenant governor) by President Monroe in 1819. He had arrived in Arkansas months before Governor James Miller, and had established a firm political base before Miller's arrival. But his administration as secretary and acting governor was slipshod. In 1824, territorial delegate Henry Conway was asked by the secretary of war to take $7,000 of funds earmarked for the Quapaws to Crittenden, who was acting governor and responsible for disbursing it. Conway ran short of money on the journey and spend several hundred dollars of the Quapaw money on the way back. When he reached Little Rock, Crittenden granted Conway's request to borrow even more, for a total of $600. Both the borrowing and the approval, if given, were illegal. Crittenden later denied that he had given Conway permission to borrow the money.

Meanwhile, President Adams had appointed George Izard to be the new territorial governor in 1825, disappointing Crittenden's hopes for the position. Izard was not pleased with the disorderly records and unaccounted-for financial dealings that had been Crittenden's responsibility. Crittenden had left Arkansas before Izard's arrival, leaving no executive in charge, and did not return for months. Relations between Crittenden and Izard were not good, but Conway, Sevier, Woodruff and Chester Ashley, Crittenden's law partner, supported Izard and became his friends.

One of Crittenden's friends, Thomas W. Newton, the clerk of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, had also borrowed public money and did not repay it for so long that Izard finally sued Newton. Chester Ashley was Izard's advisor in the lawsuit, thus incurring Crittenden's disapproval.

In 1826, Crittenden asked permission of Secretary of State Henry Clay to be absent from the territory for 60 days, beginning November 1, to travel to Washington City (as Washington, D.C. was called in those days) to be present while his accounts were audited so that he could explain any inconsistencies and thereby secure his reappointment to the post of secretary. Izard had already planned to be gone during this time, and he and Crittenden stopped speaking to each other around August or September when Crittenden announced his plan to be absent.

Crittenden and Ashley dissolved their partnership in late 1826. Crittenden left for Washington in January. Letters were sent to both the Gazette and to delegate Conway in Washington complaining about Crittenden's dereliction of duty. Adams had already reappointed Crittenden by the time the letters reached Conway. Crittenden supporters threatened Woodruff because he had published anti-Crittenden letters. The two factions were beginning to polarize. Ambrose Sevier, Conway's cousin, had been law partners with Robert C. Oden, who supported Crittenden. They dissolved their partnership in early 1827. Oden announced his candidacy for territorial delegate in April, pitting him against the popular Conway.

Oden charged Conway with illegally keeping the $600 of Quapaw funds. The charge was published in the Gazette. Conway responded that Crittenden gave him permission to take the funds. This dispute touched off a heated letter-writing campaign in the Gazette. Conway was in Washington and could not timely respond but Woodruff, Ashley, Sevier and Dr. Matthew Cunningham wrote a pseudonymous letter under the name of "A Voter of Pulaski County," which was published in the Gazette defending Conway.

In the letter, "A Voter" made a number of allegations concerning Crittenden. Crittenden had sworn that he did not give Conway permission to keep $600 of the treaty money temporarily for his own uses. "A Voter" charged that Crittenden's oath was not proof of the truth of this account, and he asked the readers to believe the man they trusted more, thus implying that Crittenden's oath was false and that he could not be trusted.

Furthermore, "A Voter" alleged that Crittenden had misapplied government funds to his own private advantage and that of his friends. The letter accused Crittenden of fraudulently transferring a government draft for $2750 to someone from Arkansas Territory for private land speculation and advantage. Apparently, Crittenden had transferred the draft to a man to purchase the lands on which the town of Little Rock was built. [This charge was not true.]

"A Voter" also alleged that Crittenden himself had given some of the Quapaw money to "a Little Rock merchant" [Thomas W. Johnston] to buy goods in Kentucky which were sold to the Indians at a large advance. In addition, "A Voter" alleged that Crittenden had been accused of secretly participating in a contract to furnish the Quapaw with provisions when they were about to remove from their lands on the Arkansas River to lands on the Little Red River. Crittenden was supposedly a party to the contract furnishing the Indians with corn and beef when they were removing, and had kept $900, his proportionate one-third share of the profits of the contract.

One of the more interesting allegations in the letter of June 12 concerned a land transaction. In March 1827, Woodruff moved to a new office on Markham and Scott streets. "A Voter" charged that Crittenden had fraudulently conveyed the land to Woodruff because that Crittenden had no title, having acquired the land from Oden for no consideration, in a plot to defraud creditors of Oden. (The creditor was a client of Chester Ashley.)

Ironically, all those involved in the complex Crittenden/Oden/Woodruff land conveyance that caused so much controversy during the summer of 1827 neglected to have Mrs. Crittenden release her dower rights to the land. After Crittenden's death in 1834, she went to court to recover interest in the property that her husband had publicly declared he had never lawfully owned. She filed her petition for dower in 1838. The case was finally decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Woodruff's favor.

After the June 12 letter was published in the Gazette, Crittenden and his people demanded the writer's name and threatened retribution in the form of "cow-hiding, dirking, ear-cropping, and shooting, to be performed by Crittenden if his antagonist were married or by Thomas W. Newton if he were single." "Cowhiding" was a form of insult or punishment whereby the punisher would whip the punishee with a coarse whip made of cow-hide, "dirking" would involve stabbing with a dagger-like knife, and "ear-cropping" would consist of marking the ears, or cutting them off totally, as one would a domestic animal. Under the code duello, duelists had to be equivalent in their family structure. Thus, a single man would not be justified in challenging a married man to duel. If the man with whom the challenger quarreled had a different marital status or children, he had to request another person to make a challenge to duel.

After Crittenden sent Woodruff a written request for the name of A Voter, Woodruff responded on June 15. He refused to give up the name of "A Voter," but reminded Crittenden that he could reply by writing a letter to the newspaper, and also reminded him that the charges of "A Voter" related exclusively to his acts as a public officer and were therefore proper subjects for public investigation. Woodruff also made a veiled admission that he was, in fact, responsible for the content of A Voter's letters. Woodruff's letter states, "I conceive it to be the duty of all Editors. . . where they decline giving up the names of authors of communications, to assume the responsibility of such publications themselves. You will therefore consider me (though not the author) responsible for the charges alleged against you in the publication which appeared in my yesterday's paper, over the signature of "A Voter of Pulaski County;" and I now announce to you, that I am prepared to sustain those charges, if you think proper to require me to do so."

In the June 19 edition of the Gazette, Woodruff published Crittenden's response to "A Voter." Crittenden claimed that he could not disprove the charges because key witnesses were absent from the territory. Thus, his strategy would be to file a libel suit which would force Woodruff to bear the burden of proof. In the same edition, A Voter of Pulaski County's third letter was published. This latest letter stated that Crittenden had prematurely commenced his suit [this seems not to be true, since the declaration was not formally filed until July 5] and should have waited until all of the charges against him were stated by "A Voter" in the columns of the Gazette. It also accused Crittenden of trying to enlist all of the competent attorneys in the territory on his side, and predicted that he would be unsuccessful. One attorney, presumably Sevier, was "proscribed forever" for declining to sue Woodruff, and another attorney, likely Ashley, had had "eternal enmity" declared against him for defending Woodruff. In this letter, "A Voter" stated that the June 12 letter had brought about at least one good outcome: it had "torn the mask of friendship" [between Woodruff and Crittenden?]. He also stated that all the charges in the June 12 letter had been admitted by Crittenden [this was not true]. "A Voter" further asked for a full public statement of the transactions between Crittenden and the Quapaws, especially those concerning the special services rendered to the Indians for which reservations were granted and for an explanation of why Francis Imbeau was forced to abandon his farm and take a reservation on unimproved land.

On June 21, 1827, Robert C. Oden tried to get Woodruff to publish a circular. It criticized Conway, Woodruff, Ashley and Izard. Woodruff agreed only to print those parts that were critical of Conway and Izard since they were public officials. He refused, however, to print the sections that criticized Ashley (stating that he feared his own liability in a libel suit if Ashley chose to sue him) and, of course, those sections critical of himself. Oden argued that Woodruff would not be liable in a libel suit by Ashley as he was merely the printer and not the author. Woodruff, however, steadfastly refused (though he likely had no fears at all of a suit by Ashley, Ashley being his friend and ally). Woodruff tried to persuade Oden to omit portions of his manuscript, but Oden refused and withdrew the entire manuscript. As a result of this incident, Oden's friends reportedly gathered at the printing office with the intention of beating Woodruff; they retreated when they found that Woodruff's printers were prepared to defend him. Woodruff denied that anything more serious than empty threats had been made; he, however, then took the first definite stand for the Gazette in any political contest, announcing that he would give open opposition to Oden's candidacy through the columns of the Gazette.

Oden decided to take his manuscript to Memphis to be printed. He commissioned two men to take the manuscript for him, one of whom was Dr. William P. Reyburn who lived in Crittenden's home while he read law. On the return trip from Memphis, the two men parted ways when they disagreed about how to best cross the Grand Prairie. Dr. Reyburn apparently lost his way in the swamps for four days and was forced to survive of raw crawfish, blackberries and sassafras leaves. He lost his horse, saddle, bridle, and hat before coming to a house on the river bank several miles below Little Rock. Only the saddlebags containing Oden's printed circulars came through the ordeal undamaged. They were distributed immediately after reaching Little Rock in mid-July.

Meanwhile, on June 26, "A Voter" denied that his previous letters were written in an attempt to influence the election between Conway and Oden. Rather, he said, his motivation in making the charges against Crittenden was that Crittenden sanctioned the charge of defalcation (embezzlement) against Conway and he wanted to expose Crittenden's "delinquencies." In the letter, "A Voter" stated that Crittenden had reason to take offense at the charges, but that he would feel much worse when they charges were proven true. "A Voter" also responded to Crittenden's accusations that "A Voter" had used information derived from social conversations with female family members; "A Voter" denied doing so and retorted that Crittenden and his friends were the only ones who would do such a thing.

Crittenden filed his original declaration on July 5, 1827 via his attorney William Cummins. The form of action was trespass on the case for libel. In his suit, Crittenden alleged that Woodruff was responsible for the publication of the June 12 letter of A Voter of Pulaski County. He claimed damages of $25,000, an amount that was quite high for that time. In fact, the amount claimed is ten times more than the Court awarded in Arkansas Territory's first libel case in 1823, Hogan v. Russell, in which a jury found for Edmund Hogan in the sum of $2,400. Here, Crittenden claimed that the libel had injured and prejudiced him in his character and reputation among the citizens of the territory, caused him to be suspected and believed to have acted unworthily, unjustly and dishonestly in his public employment, that it had rendered him liable to a charge for corruption in office, that he lost profitable and honorable appointments which he held under the U.S. government, made him liable to be prosecuted for the crime of making a fraudulent deed, had caused him to suffer pain, distress, and trouble of body and mind, and had otherwise greatly injured him.

Violence, or threatened violence, had broken out in Arkansas Territory at various points throughout the summer. Hiram Whittington, foreman of the Gazette in 1827, wrote to his brother on July 26, "The inhabitants of this town have been in a terrible uproar for the last three or four weeks, on account of an election which is to take place in August. Night before last, I saw four pistols presented to as many hearts, within six inches of each other, and had it not been for the interference of bystanders there would have been four or five persons killed. That there will be bloodshed before the election is over, there is not much doubt. Mr. Crittenden, Secretary of the Territory, has threatened to cut Mr. Woodruff's throat for publishing a communication concerning his official conduct, and, what is much worse, has threatened to cut off the nose of every printer in the place and pull down the printing office. Should he attempt either, he would be used up very soon. You have no idea what a set of villains inhabit this place. Mr. Woodruff and one of the young men in the office are sick with the fever; brought on, I believe, by fear."

In another letter to his brother, Whittington stated that "Mr. Woodruff, my employer, being an honest and sober man, the majority of the people are his bitter enemies, and he has frequently been threatened. About a month ago, three worthies got into such a fury, owing to a piece published in the Gazette criticizing the conduct of the Secretary, that they threatened to annihilate all the printers; and one of the judges of the Supreme Court swore that he would pulverize every printer in the Territory in less than a month."

The election took place on August 6, 1827. Conway handily won with a vote of 2,427 to Oden's 856. Even though the official count would not be known for a month, on August 14, A Voter had published in the Gazette a letter boasting of Conway's victory and chiding Crittenden about the "blighting effect" of his friendship for Oden, implying that his support had cost Oden a significant number of votes. A letter written by Conway was published on August 17; it responded to charges in a letter on July 24 by Crittenden discussing the $600 retained by Conway of the Indian funds. In this letter Conway basically called Crittenden a liar. The same day the letter was published, Crittenden sent Conway a letter announcing that he would challenge him to a duel. The duel, however, could not occur immediately only because of the anticipated birth of his third child. Crittenden's first two children, both sons, had died earlier.

Meanwhile in September, Conway's cousin Sevier fought a duel with Thomas W. Newton on September 4 in Cherokee territory. After shots were exchanged, the two reconciled and no injuries resulted, although Sevier was later indicted–see United States v. Sevier. On October 11, the court gave Crittenden leave to amend his declaration to include charges relating to the letters published after June 12. The next day, Crittenden filed his amended declaration and the court granted Woodruff leave to plead. The amended declaration was in three counts. It again related his standing in the community and his reputation prior to Woodruff's alleged libel, and stated that he had honorably served as Secretary of Arkansas Territory for seven years and had acting governor when the governor was absent. In the first part of the amended declaration, Crittenden also related the circumstances by which he possessed money to negotiate a treaty with the Quapaw as a Commissioner. The amended declaration related the contents of the June 12, June 19, and June 26 letters from "A Voter of Pulaski County" that were published in the Arkansas Gazette. Also at the end of the amended declaration, is the allegation that Woodruff had found and converted 2500 Eagles [coins], of the value of $25,000 that Crittenden had lost on June 12, 1827. The case was continued to the next term by the court on October 18, 1827.

The Conway/Crittenden duel took place on October 29, 1827 on the east side of the Mississippi River, nearly opposite the mouth of White River. Crittenden's wife was ignorant of the duel at the time, because she was recovering from an extremely difficult childbirth. Wharton Rector was Conway's second and Benjamin Desha was Crittenden's second. Conway's preparation for the duel included obtaining letters from William Montgomery and Sylvanus Phillips, telling of remarks Crittenden had made to them during the summer indicating that Crittenden wanted to fight the duel long before he actually issued the challenge to Conway. The letters and Crittenden's note of challenge had been left in Woodruff's keeping and he put them in his article reporting the duel (published on November 6) so as to place the blame for seeking the duel on Crittenden alone. Conway was wounded first and was taken to William Montgomery's home where he died on November 9. In the same issue of the Gazette that announced Conway's death was a long address by Crittenden written before he knew that Conway had died. In it, he told his side of the story and commented on the letters of Montgomery and Phillips. Conway's vacancy was filled in a special election on December 17. Ambrose Sevier won the election, as against Richard Searcy and Andrew Scott.

One might wonder why Woodruff and Crittenden did not duel. Woodruff was not challenged to any duels as he had made clear in June that he would rather fight legal battles than physical ones. He had taken a public stand against dueling as far back as 1820 and most people knew of his position. He was, however, apparently was very worried about personal conflict. The Arkansas History Commission reports that later in his life he recalled, "In 1827 it was not very good. I found it difficult to avoid personal collision. I cannot say that I was afraid of my life but always went armed in those days. At times I had some apprehensions of being assassinated in my own house. Crittenden usually kept a class of men about his person who were regarded with suspicion for some of them were among the most desperate men of the country. He was not inclined to stand in the front but advanced his satelites [sic] and they were ready to do his bidding."

One bright event occurred for Woodruff during that year, however. On November 14, Woodruff married Jane Eliza Mills, niece of Isaac and Maria Toncray Watkins. Isaac Watkins, however, was murdered in a store on Main Street less than a month later. Apparently the previous day, Watkins had accused his killer, John Smith of stealing hogs from his farm and Smith retaliated with violence. See United States v. Smith.

The lawsuit proceeded. On December 10, 1827, Crittenden moved that a dedimus issue to Pulaski County to take depositions de bene esse to be read in evidence in the suit. A deposition de bene esse is one that can only be used upon proof that the witness is unable to attend trial, and that must be taken in the presence of a judge. The court ordered the depositions in Pulaski County and also ordered on December 27 that a dedimus issue directed to a judge or justice of the peace in New Orleans to take depositions to be read on behalf of Crittenden at the trial. On December 31, 1827, upon motions of both parties, the Court ruled that a dedimus issue to any judge or justice of the peace in Pulaski County to take depositions de bene esse of witness to be called on behalf of both Crittenden and Woodruff be read as evidence at the trial. David E. McKinney, clerk of the Superior Court, thus issued a subpoena for Thomas W. Johnston to appear and testify on behalf of Woodruff. On January 1 and 12, 1828, the Court ruled again that dedimuses should issue to take depositions de bene esse to be read at the trial on the part of the parties at trial, and J.T. Garrett, the Deputy Sheriff of Pulaski County executed the subpoena on Thomas W. Johnston at Big Rock Township.

A fair amount of negotiation seems to have taken place in the Spring of 1828 because on April 30, 1828, the parties reached an agreement and the Court ordered that the suit be dismissed. Each party was to pay its own costs and no attorneys fees were to be claimed or be taxed against either party. Ashley was the one who figured out how to effect a compromise between Crittenden and Woodruff. Clearly, Woodruff was in a bad legal position. His defense consisted entirely of relying on the truth of his statements and justification. At this point, he could not prove the truth of any of the charges he had made in the letters of "A Voter." Woodruff claimed that the only two persons who could testify as to the truth of the matters were Conway, who had died in the duel, and Isaac Watkins, who had recently been murdered by John Smith. Crittenden's legal position was better than Woodruff's, but he knew that he needed to avoid further unfavorable publicity until the reaction to Conway's death subsided. So they both thought it was best to settle the case and mitigate any potential harm. Under the terms of the settlement, Crittenden agreed to drop his suit if Woodruff withdrew all derogatory comment contained in the letters. Crittenden and Ashley collaborated on an article to be published in the Gazette over Woodruff's signature and submitted it for Woodruff's approval. Woodruff rejected that article and wrote one himself in which he admitted that the letters were derogatory and that proof of his charges would require information from witnesses who could not be obtained. Crittenden accepted Woodruff's letter after some negotiation and the suit ended with dismissal.

However, the following October Crittenden and Desha were indicted for dueling. The indictments were quashed because they were technically deficient. See United States v. Crittenden and United States v. Desha.

This case, though settled somewhat amicably in the end, illustrates the vitriol with which the parties in Arkansas territory vied for political and personal power. Politics in Territorial Arkansas were competitive, controversial and highly influenced by personal connections. The election of 1827 and the lawsuit between Woodruff and Conway provide insight into this unique period of Arkansas history.

Previous Case | Next Page