Murder at a Methodist Camp Meeting: The Origins of Abraham Lincoln's Most Famous Trial

By: Daniel W. Stowell

In May 1858, in a crowded courtroom in central Illinois, Abraham Lincoln defended a young man on trial for his life against a charge of murder. The one-day trial of People v. Armstrong was to become his most famous case. The events leading up to this famous legal drama are less well known. They occurred near a Methodist camp meeting in rural Mason County, Illinois in the summer of 1857. Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, camp meetings were an integral part of frontier religious life in the Old Northwest. Originating in the Great Revival in Kentucky at the turn of the nineteenth century, camp meetings flourished in the frontier regions of the South and the states emerging from the Northwest Territories. Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Disciples of Christ widely employed camp meetings to strengthen existing congregations and win new adherents.¹ Early Methodist circuit riders had preached across the state as settlers arrived from eastern states. Systematic in everything, these pioneer preachers established churches, districts, and annual conferences. By the mid-1850s, the Methodist Episcopal Church was firmly established in Illinois, although not every community had a church building.	1
Although Christians across the nation continued to hold camp meetings throughout the nineteenth century, the assemblages took on a more orderly tone in the 1840s and 1850s. Initially characterized by intense enthusiasm and a democratization of participation, the camp meeting became more orderly and domesticated to denominational needs. In 1854, B.W. Gorham, a Methodist minister in Wyoming, published a Camp Meeting Manual to defend the practice and to assist preachers and laity in organizing a successful camp meeting. In the middle states, he recommended holding a meeting between mid-June and mid-July or between mid-August and mid-September. The ideal spot would have “a bountiful supply of good water”; a canopy of shade trees; and available lumber for stand, seats, and tent poles. If possible, the meeting should be held in a neighborhood of Methodists “who will be likely to sympathize with, and sustain order in a meeting.” Typically, a meeting of from five to eight days was the proper length.²	2
*Abraham lincoln 1858*
Gorham also recognized the need to preserve order: “Very much, both of the success and the reputation of a Camp Meeting, depends upon the due maintenance of proper police regulations on the ground.” Unfortunately, “large numbers of people of reckless character attend Camp Meetings, although they seldom, if ever, visit any other place of worship.” Furthermore, “nearly all persons, not decidedly religious, are disposed to take liberties in a forest, which they would not do in a church … ” The Presiding Elder of the district where the camp meeting was held was in charge of order on the campground, but Gorham also deemed it wise to have one or more civil officers on the ground to make arrests if necessary.³	3
Rowdies at religious meetings had become so disruptive in ante-bellum America that the Illinois state legislature in 1833 made it a criminal offense to “disturb a worshiping congregation.” The Act declared that anyone who “by menace, profane swearing, vulgar language, or any disorderly or immoral conduct,” interrupted or disturbed “any congregation or collection of citizens assembled together for the purpose of worshiping Almighty God,” or who sold, attempted to sell, or otherwise disposed of “ardent spirits or liquors, or any articles which will tend to disturb any worshiping congregation or collection of people, within one mile of such place” would be guilty of a high misdemeanor. If a jury found the accused person guilty, they could impose a fine not exceeding fifty dollars.⁴	4
More than two decades later, individuals still skirted the violation of this law, as the events at a camp meeting near Walker’s Grove in Mason County in the summer of 1857 demonstrated. The pastor of the local congregation was Rev. George D. Randle. Born in 1805 in Montgomery County, North Carolina, Randle had moved to Illinois as a child. His family settled near Edwardsville, and his father died when he was still young. Randle was converted at a camp meeting as a youth, but he did not join the ministry until 1847, when he was licensed to preach. For several years, he served as a local preacher, filling in for the Methodist circuit riders when they were not available. Randle joined the Illinois Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at its meeting in Quincy in October 1856. There, Bishop Matthew Simpson appointed Randle to his first full-time appointment—the Walker’s Grove mission circuit in eastern Mason and northwestern Logan counties in central Illinois.⁵	5
The presiding elder of Randle’s district was the veteran circuit rider Peter Cartwright. One of the earliest Methodist preachers to come to the Illinois frontier, Cartwright migrated to the state from Kentucky in 1824, six years before Abraham Lincoln’s family moved to Illinois from southern Indiana. Converted in an outdoor meeting in Kentucky in 1801, Cartwright soon began preaching and was ordained as a preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1806.⁶	6
After he moved to Illinois, Cartwright was the dominant figure in Illinois Methodism for the next four decades. In 1832, Cartwright won election over Abraham Lincoln for one of several seats in the Illinois state legislature representing Sangamon County. In 1846, the two men met again in electoral combat, when Democrat Peter Cartwright and Whig Abraham Lincoln vied to represent the Illinois Seventh District in Congress. That time, Lincoln tri-umphed and served as a one-term representative in Washington. By the 1850s, both Cartwright and Lincoln were notable figures in Illinois society—Cartwright in religious circles, Lincoln in legal circles, both in matters of politics.⁷	7
*Peter Cartwright*
Rev. Randle moved to the Walker’s Grove Mission with his family in November 1856, “in a shower of rain, hail, and snow,” and found “a Parsonage without any plastering.” The mission had no church buildings in the still sparsely settled area. However, earlier preachers had established at least ten different preaching stations, usually a home or schoolhouse, which Randle visited periodically throughout the spring and summer of 1857. In the neighborhood of his first preaching appointment lived “Bro. James Walker and family, good, substantial Methodists,” who “did a good part in the financial support of the church.” The Walkers were just the kind of Methodists that Gorham had prescribed in his recipe for a successful camp meeting.⁸	8
James Walker had moved to Mason County from Indiana in 1837. Walker settled near a fine grove of trees on four hundred acres, built the first frame house in the area, and raised a family of seven children. The grove contained oak, black walnut, sugar maple, hickory, butternut, and mulberry trees, as well as a variety of shrubs. Walker established a post office in his home in 1839 and served as the area’s first postmaster. He held the position until the post office was moved across the Sangamon River into Menard County eighteen months later.⁹	9
The Walker’s Grove Mission held its fourth quarterly meeting on August 29, 1857 with Rev. Peter Cartwright presiding. Randle announced that thirty-three people had joined the church since the last quarterly meeting. In his report on the “state of religion” for the Walker’s Grove Mission, Randle observed, “Most of the Classes appear to be prousperous [sic]. Some however are Rather Leuke [sic] Warm … We Believe that the cause of God is Spreading.” The ten small preaching locations had contributed $71.35 “for the support of the Gospel” during the quarter.¹⁰	10
At this last quarterly meeting of the year, “which was held at Walnut Grove a few miles from the parsonage,” Randle later remembered, “we had a glorious revival.” Preachers at the camp meeting revival included Randle, Presiding Elder Cartwright, Rev. R. U. Davies, “Bro. Colwell of Quiver, and some local brethren were present also Bro. T. Bryant of Middletown circuit who helped much.” The camp meeting began on Saturday August 29 and lasted for ten days.¹¹	11
Camp meetings had been a feature of frontier life for decades by 1857, though in some areas, they had begun to wane. When a Christian Church editor in Indiana criticized the meetings, the Methodist Northwestern Christian Advocate defended the meetings as both good and successful: “These convocations of the people in the wilderness this year have been greatly blessed. The spirit of opposition seems to have been held in check, and the Spirit of the Lord has been poured out.” “From all quarters,” the editor concluded, “we hear of glorious seasons—seasons of divine visitation in connection with these meetings.”¹²	12
In August 1856, Joseph B. Malony reported on a camp meeting just completed in neighboring Fulton County: this spirit continued without relax all afternoon dooring [sic] which time convictions and conversions followed in quick succession and the watchword of the afternoon was Mr or Miss such a one was down praying or had just got threw[.] as evening drew on the encampment becom [sic] to small and little groups scattered to the woods in all directions untill [sic] the entire grove appeared presented one of the grandest sein [sic] of confused sounds that mortal ear ever witnessed of grones cries screems [sic]shouts songs and prayers and as it begun to grow dark the sounds drew near the ground and we had to go out of carry som [sic] of the sisters in to camp who wer [sic]so filled with the Spirit as to be perfictually [sic]helpless …¹³	13
As in other areas of Illinois, the camp meeting at Walnut Grove or Walker’s Grove in Mason County was well attended by Methodists and by those seeking religious instruction. Other people also came to this large, multi-day religious and social gathering. Randle later recalled that “many of the huxter [sic] and whiskey family also came” to the meeting to sell their goods to those gathered at the meeting. The Methodist ministers and leaders “kept the whiskeyites a mile off and made the huxters [sic]show that they did not sell anything that would intoxicate,” in the hopes of avoiding trouble. Young men frequently came to camp meetings with everything but religion on their mind, and they gathered on the fringes of the meeting to race horses, drink, gamble, fight, and socialize.¹⁴	14
A few days after the camp meeting concluded, Randle eagerly reported the success to the Central Christian Advocate in St. Louis, Missouri. In a letter to Editor Joseph Brooks, Randle wrote: Our camp meeting for this charge, closed on the 7th inst. Our beloved elder was at his post, being on the ground at an early stage of the meeting. We had a pleasant quarterly conference. Our old hero, P. Cartwright, preached with great acceptability on Saturday and Sunday, but in order to meet his previous engagements, he left on Monday. The camp meeting continued for ten days; the people came and heard the word gladly; the Lord gave us a glorious revival; sinners were converted, some fell to the ground and cried for mercy, others ran away from the camp ground. We do not know the exact number of converts, but think we are safe in saying between thirty and forty were happily converted. Twenty-eight joined the M.E. Church. We look for better times. Several brethren from adjoining charges rendered us assistance; may the Lord reward them all, for their labor of love. Evening meetings are still kept up in the neighborhood with happy results. Praise the Lord!¹⁵	15
In his glowing report to the newspaper, Randle did not mention what he later included in his reminiscence about his first year as a minister on the Walker’s Grove Mission circuit—the death of a man on Tuesday September 1, 1857, from a fight that had occurred near the whiskey wagons outside the camp meeting. According to Randle, the camp meeting continued for several days until unexpected news electrified the camp: This was a large camp meeting, and many of the huxter [sic] and whiskey family also came, but we kept the whiskeyites a mile off and made the huxters show that they did not sell anything that would intoxicate and got along fine until Tuesday morning. The news came to camp meeting that a man was killed at the whiskey camp. This report proved true. This caused all the huxters and whiskeyites to leave forthwith. Our meeting being under good way became more interesting than ever. Continued with great interest until the next Tuesday morning. There were some young men converted that have been preachers for years, and good acceptable men.¹⁶The man killed at the “whiskey camp” was James Preston Metzker, and his death led to a trial that became legendary in the life of Abraham Lincoln.	16
James Preston Metzker was a young farmer in his mid-twenties who lived in nearby Menard County. On Saturday August 29, 1857, he was among those young men on the outskirts of the camp meeting in Mason County. In addition, there were James H. Norris and William Duff Armstrong. Norris, a farmer in his late-twenties, was married and had three or four children, but he was “intemperate.”¹⁷ William Duff Armstrong was a twenty-four-year-old farmer from nearby Menard County. More importantly, Armstrong was the son of Jack and Hannah Armstrong.¹⁸	17
The three young men—Metzker, Norris, and Armstrong—knew each other, and all had been drinking on that Saturday night near the whiskey wagons. During the evening, both Norris and Armstrong fought with Metzker, possibly together but probably separately. Metzker apparently left the camp meeting the next morning and died two days later. The Mason County sheriff promptly arrested both Norris and Armstrong for the murder of Metzker.	18
Although the average consumption of alcohol was on the decline by the 1850s from its peak in the 1830s and 1840s, communal binges still occurred, and camp meetings provided the social setting for such drinking sprees. Those who participated tended to be among the lower economic classes, such as farm laborers, were more likely in their twenties than older, and were more common in the West than in the East. When the Illinois Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church met in Decatur on October 1, 1857, the Committee on Temperance reported, “The last year has been more replete with misery and death, occasioned by the sale and use of intoxicating drinks within the bounds of our work, than any year, perhaps, in the last ten.”¹⁹	19
*William Duff Armstrong*
The Mason County Circuit Court held its second semi-annual session for 1857 in late October and early November. The court impaneled a grand jury to consider indictments, and after hearing eleven witnesses against Norris and Armstrong, the grand jury returned a true bill in the indictment for murder. The indictment declared that Norris and Armstrong, “not having the fear of God before their eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigations of the Devil … unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of their malice aforethought did make an assault” on James Metzker. The indictment claimed that Norris had used as a weapon a stick of wood about three feet long and that Armstrong had used a slingshot. The latter weapon was a small ball of metal, usually lead, encased in leather and attached to a strap.²⁰	20
Both Norris and Armstrong pleaded not guilty, and Armstrong requested a change of venue to a court in another county “on account of the minds of the inhabitants of Said Mason County being prejudiced against him.” The judge granted the change of venue in Armstrong’s case to neighboring Cass County, but Norris went to trial immediately. After the attorneys interviewed more than seventy-two potential jurors, the court impaneled a jury to hear the case. The jury found Norris guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced him to eight years in the state penitentiary—the maximum sentence for a manslaughter conviction.²¹	21
*Hannah Armstrong*
Sometime before the Cass County Circuit Court met ten days later, William Duff Armstrong’s mother asked Abraham Lincoln to defend her son against the charge of murder. Lincoln had known William Duff Armstrong’s parents, Jack and Hannah Armstrong, since he was a young man in New Salem, Illinois. When he arrived in the town, his wrestling match against Jack Armstrong initiated him into the male culture of the town and won him the respect and loyalty of Armstrong’s extended family and friends, the “Clary’s Grove boys.”²² When the governor of Illinois called for volunteers to drive Sauk and Fox Indians from the northern portion of the state in the Black Hawk War, the men from New Salem elected Lincoln as captain of their company. Jack Armstrong served as one of his sergeants. Hannah Armstrong sewed leather onto Lincoln’s pants to extend their usefulness, and Lincoln sometimes stayed at the Armstrong’s home a few miles from New Salem. Lincoln never forgot their kindnesses to him, and when the younger Armstrong faced a murder charge, Lincoln represented him and charged nothing for his services.²³	22
At the November term of the Cass County Circuit Court, the court continued the case to the next term to await the transfer of records in the case from the Mason County Circuit Court. Lincoln and Armstrong’s other attorneys urged the court to allow Armstrong to post bail. Because Illinois law prohibited the court from releasing on bail a person accused of murder, the motion for bail was in effect a motion to reduce the charge to manslaughter, which was a bailable offense. However, the court overruled the motion, and Armstrong remained incarcerated until the May 1858 term of the Cass County Circuit Court.²⁴	23
*Cass County Courthouse*
Armstrong’s case came up for trial on Friday May 7, 1858 at the Cass County courthouse in Beardstown, Illinois. Judge James Harriott presided over the trial. State’s Attorney Hugh Fullerton, assisted by J. Henry Shaw, represented the people of the State of Illinois for the prosecution. William Walker, Caleb J. Dilworth, and Abraham Lincoln represented the defendant Armstrong. For decades, participants and scholars have debated the progress and outcome of this trial. The first and second generations of historians in the mid- and late-nineteenth century interviewed and corresponded with individuals who had been in the courtroom. Historical detectives interviewed attorneys, several jurors, the judge, witnesses, court officials, the mother of the defendant, and eventually the defendant himself to obtain their memories of the trial. Predictably, these memories, recorded from seven to thirty-nine years after the trial, diverge from and even contradict one another. However, they also provide details about the case and trial unavailable in the sparse official documentation.²⁵	24
What is clear is that Abraham Lincoln played a pivotal role in the case and that he had several strategies for victory. His first goal was to obtain the proper type of jury. “Lincoln was smart enough to get a jury of young men,” recalled witness William O. Douglas. Younger jurors would be more sympathetic to the passions aroused in other young men by too much whiskey. The oldest juror, foreman Milton Logan, was thirty-eight, and the average age of the jurors was twenty-eight.²⁶	25
During the trial itself, Lincoln carefully examined and cross-examined witnesses. Among the prosecution’s principal witnesses was Charles Allen, a farm laborer from Menard County. Allen testified that he had seen both Norris and Armstrong strike Metzker in the head. Under cross-examination, Allen told Lincoln that he had seen the events from thirty yards away by the light of a nearly full moon high in the sky. Lincoln questioned Allen repeatedly about how he had seen so clearly the events to which he testified, so that Allen’s testimony regarding the moon was etched in the minds of the jury. Allen insisted that the moon was high in the sky and nearly full, lighting the scene of the assault. Lincoln then introduced an almanac for 1857 that showed that at the time of the fight, the moon was low in the sky and within one hour of setting. The moon set at just after midnight on August 29, 1857. According to one of the prosecuting attorneys, the almanac “floored the witness” and discredited his oft-repeated testimony in the eyes of the jury. One of the jurors later remembered, “The impression of the almanac evidence led the jury to the idea that if Allen could be so mistaken about the moon, he might have been mistaken about seeing Armstrong hit Metzker with a slung-shot [sic] … “²⁷	26

Lincoln also questioned witnesses for the defense, including Dr. Charles Parker, who testified that a blow to the back of the head, like the one Norris inflicted on Metzker, could cause injury to the front of the skull as well. Dr. Parker used a human skull to illustrate his testimony to the jury. Lincoln argued that the blow to the back of Metzker’s skull by Norris had also cracked the skull in the front, near the right eye, where Armstrong was supposed to have struck Metzker. Judge Harriott later recalled, “The Almanace [sic] may have cut a figure, but it was Doct [sic] Parkers testimony confirming Lincolns theory” that led to Armstrong’s acquittal.²⁸	27

In his closing argument before the jury, Lincoln summarized the testimony of the witnesses and the scientific evidence presented by Dr. Parker (regarding injuries to the skull) and by the almanac (regarding the location of the moon on the night of August 29). Finally, he recalled for the jury how the defendant’s parents had been kind to him when he was a young man, friendless and alone. He insisted that he defended Armstrong without a fee because of his great love and respect for the young man’s mother. William Walker, one of Lincoln’s co-counsel, observed that “The last 15 minutes of his Speech[sic], was so eloquent, as I Ever heard, and Such the power, & Earnestness with which he Spoke that Jury & all, Sat as if Entranced, & when he was through found relief in a Gush of tears[.] I have never Seen Such mastery Exhibited over the feelings and Emotions of men, as on that occasion.”	28
One of the prosecuting attorneys agreed, “Armstrong was not cleared by any want of testimony against him, but by the irresistable [sic] appeal of Mr. Lincoln in his favor. He told the jury of his once being a poor, friendless boy, that Armstrong’s father took him into his house, fed & clothed him & gave him a home &c.; the particulars of which were told so pathetically that the jury forgot the guilt of the boy in their admiration of the father. It was generally admitted that Lincoln’s speech and personal appeal to the jury saved Armstrong.” He later added, “it was Lincoln’s speech that saved that criminal from the Gallows, and neither money or fame inspired that speech, but it was incited by gratitude to the young man’s father … ” Nearly forty years after the trial, the accused himself admitted that Lincoln’s speech was critical: “it seemed to me ‘Uncle Abe’ did his best talking when he told the jury what true friends my father and mother had been to him in the early days, when he was a poor young man at New Salem. He told how he used to go out to Jack Armstrong’s and stay for days; how kind mother was to him, and how, many a time, he had rocked me to sleep in the old cradle. He said he was not there pleading for me because he was paid for it; but he was there to help a good woman who had helped him when he needed help. Lawyer Walker made a good speech for me, too, but ‘Uncle Abe’s’ beat anything I ever heard.”²⁹	29
At the end of the trial, both the prosecuting and the defense attorneys presented to the judge a series of instructions to be given to the jury. State’s Attorney Fullerton proposed four jury instructions for the prosecution, and Abraham Lincoln proposed the following two jury instructions for the defense: That if they have any reasonable doubt as to whether Metzker came to his death by the blow on the eye, or by the blow on the back of the head, they are to find the defendant “Not guilty” unless they also believe from the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that Armstrong and Norris acted by concert, against Metzker, and that Norris struck the blow on the back of the head. That if they believe from the evidence that Norris killed Metzker, they are to acquit Armstrong, unless they also believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong acted in concert with Norris in the killing, or purpose to kill or hurt Metzker.³⁰	30
Judge Harriott gave all six proposed instructions to the jury. Caleb J. Dilworth, one of the other defense attorneys, later insisted, “What the case turned upon was the instructions given by the court. There was no question but what the fight with Armstrong and Metzker was an individual affair, and Norris was not present and had nothing to do with it. The assault of Norris was also a separate and distinct affair, and Armstrong was not present and had nothing to do with the other matter. Norris had been convicted of the killing.” After the court gave the jury the instructions proposed by Lincoln, “of course the jury found for the defendant, as the testimony was clear and conclusive that Armstrong had nothing to do with the assault which Norris made.”³¹	31
Whatever proved to be the decisive factor in the verdict, the case of People v. Armstrong reveals Lawyer Lincoln at his best. He used the structure of the court system to his advantage by selecting a jury of younger men and proposing brilliant jury instructions. He demonstrated his detective skills in the careful examination and cross-examination of witnesses. He employed scientific evidence to support or refute testimony. Finally, he marshaled his considerable oratorical skills to appeal to the jurors’ emotions and sense of nostalgia by recalling the kindness of the defendants’ parents to him when he was a directionless young man. Lincoln’s adroit blend of tactics earned his client a rapid acquittal of a charge that could have cost him his life.	32
This most famous of Lincoln’s cases began when a group of Methodists in central Illinois gathered for a season of spiritual renewal and revival. The Illinois legislature had made it a crime to disturb a worshiping congregation, and the organizers of the camp meeting had kept the “whiskeyites” away from the campground. Nevertheless, this camp meeting, like many others in antebellum America, drew both saints and rogues. Excluded from the immediate area of the worship services, scoffers gathered at whiskey wagons nearby to gamble, drink, and mock the devout. The combustible combination of youthful bravado and whiskey led to many fights, one of which turned deadly on the Illinois prairie in August of 1857. The aftermath of this tragedy led to one of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest legal triumphs—the exoneration of the son of Jack and Hannah Armstrong, who had been so kind to him when he was a friendless young man.	33
Notes¹ Charles A. Johnson, The Frontier Camp Meeting: Religion’s Harvest Time (Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1955), 81–121; Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 49–56; John B. Boles, The Great Revival: Beginnings of the Bible Belt (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), 51–69; B. W. Gorham, Camp Meeting Manual, A Practical Book for the Camp Ground (Boston: H. V. Degen, 1854), 14–7.² Gorham, Camp Meeting Manual, 121–4.³ Ibid., 151–3.⁴ “An Act to Preserve Good Order in All Worshiping Congregations and Societies in This State,” 1 May 1833, The Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois (Chicago: Stephen F. Gale, 1839), 727.⁵ Minutes of the Thirty-Third Session of the Illinois Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Cincinnati, OH: Methodist Book Concern, 1856), 8–10; “Rev. George D. Randle,” Journal and Records of the Sixty-Eighth Session of the Illinois Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Quincy, Ill.: C. Galeener and H. M. Hamill, 1891), 54–5; Biographical Sketch of George D. Randle, n.d., in “Sketches of Early Ministers; Laymen; Schools; Circuits; and Camp Meetings in the Illinois Conference, 1809–1874,” 63, Illinois Great Rivers Conference, Archives and Special Collections, Henry Pfeiffer Library, MacMurray College, Jacksonville, Ill. Less than a decade later, Bishop Simpson delivered the oration at Abraham Lincoln’s funeral in Springfield. Matthew Simpson, Funeral Address Delivered at the Burial of President Lincoln (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1865); Robert D. Clark, The Life of Matthew Simpson (New York: Macmillan, 1956), 246–8.⁶ Robert Bray, Peter Cartwright: Legendary Frontier Preacher (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 30, 49, 76.⁷ Ibid., 206–13.⁸ Biographical Sketch of Randle, 67–71;⁹ History of Menard and Mason Counties, Illinois (Chicago: O. L. Baskin & Company, 1879), 664, 667–68; Joseph Cochrane, Centennial History of Mason County (Springfield, Ill.: Rokker’s Steam Printing House, 1876), 184–5.¹⁰ “Delevan Mission, Walker’s Grove Mission, Mason City Circuit, Quarterly Conference Records, 1854–1885,” 25–7, Illinois Great Rivers Conference, Archives and Special Collections, Henry Pfeiffer Library, MacMurray College, Jacksonville, Ill.¹¹ Biographical Sketch of Randle, 71.¹² Northwestern Christian Advocate (Chicago, Ill.), 16 September 1857, 146:3.¹³ J. B. Malony to Row et al., 17 August 1856, 3–4, SC 991, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Springfield, Ill.¹⁴ Biographical Sketch of Randle, 71; Johnson, Frontier Camp Meeting, 222–8; Gorham, Camp Meeting Manual, 26–7, 152–5.¹⁵ Central Christian Advocate (St. Louis), 16 September 1857, 146:5.¹⁶ Biographical Sketch of Randle, 71–2.¹⁷ Prisoner Number 2564, Register 2, Department of Corrections, Alton State Penitentiary and Joliet/Statesville Correctional Center, “Registers of Prisoners,” RS 243.200, I-Ar; Petition for Pardon, c. 1861, Pardon Papers for James H. Norris; James H. Norris to Richard Yates, 22 February 1863, Pardon Papers for James H. Norris, both in Secretary of State, “Executive Section, Executive Clemency Files,” RS 103.096, Illinois State Archives, Springfield, Ill.¹⁸ Virginia Gazette (Virginia, IL), 12 May 1899, 1:7.¹⁹ W. J. Rorabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 206–7, 239, 248; Ian R. Tyrrell, Sobering Up: From Temperance to Prohibition in Antebellum America, 1800–1860 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979), 4; “Report on Temperance,” Minutes of the Thirty-Fourth Session of the Illinois Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern, 1857), 32.²⁰ Indictment, filed 5 November 1857, People v. Armstrong case file, Cass County Circuit Court Records, Cass County Courthouse, Virginia, Illinois.²¹ Affidavit for Change of Venue, 5 November 1857, People v. Armstrong case file; Orders, 5 November 1857, Circuit Court Record B, 272–3, 278; Mason County Circuit Court Records, Mason County Courthouse, Havana, Illinois; “Criminal Jurisprudence,” 3 March 1845, Revised Statutes of the State of Illinois (1845), 155–6.²² The “Clary’s Grove boys” were members of the Clary, Armstrong, Watkins, Jones, and related families who lived in the pioneer settlement of Clary’s Grove, located three miles west of New Salem, Illinois.²³ Reminiscence of Hannah Armstrong to William H. Herndon, c. 1866, Herndon-Weik Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.²⁴ Order, 19 November 1857, Circuit Court Record C, 153; Order, 21 November 1857, Circuit Court Record C, 159, both in Cass County Circuit Court, Cass County Courthouse, Virginia, Ill.²⁵ Daniel W. Stowell, “The Promises and Pitfalls of Reminiscences as Historical Documents: A Case in Point,” Documentary Editing 27 (Winter 2005): 99–117.²⁶ Reminiscence of William O. Douglas to J. McCan Davis, c. 1896, Ida M. Tarbell Collection, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA; U.S. Census Office, Seventh Census of the United States (1850), Cass County, IL, 43; U. S. Census Office, Eighth Census of the United States (1860), Cass County, IL, 78–279 passim.²⁷ J. Henry Shaw to William H. Herndon, 22 August 1866, Herndon-Weik Collection; John T. Brady to J. McCan Davis, 12 May 1896, Ida M. Tarbell Collection.²⁸ Reminiscence of James Harriott to William H. Herndon, c. 1866, Herndon-Weik Collection.²⁹ William Walker to William H. Herndon, 3 June 1865; J. Henry Shaw to William H. Herndon, 22 August 1866; J. Henry Shaw to William H. Herndon, 5 September 1866, all in Herndon-Weik Collection; Reminiscence of William Duff Armstrong to J. McCan Davis, May 1896, Sun (New York), 7 June 1896, evening edition, 2:3.³⁰ Jury Instructions, 7 May 1858, copy files, Henry Horner Lincoln Collection, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Springfield, Ill.³¹ Caleb J. Dilworth to J. McCan Davis, 18 May 1896, Ida M. Tarbell Collection.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.