RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 2004
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004104147
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Fred Eichorn | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. John Meixell | |Member |
| |Mr. Robert Osborn | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests correction of the general court-martial and
sentence of dismissal by removing them from Chaplain Plummer's military
record, including a correction to reflect an honorable discharge as of the
last day of service.
2. The applicant is a great nephew of the deceased, Henry Vinton Plummer,
a former United States Army chaplain, who was dismissed from the Army in
1894 after having been found guilty by a general court-martial of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. The applicant is a member of "The
Committee to Clear Chaplain Plummer, Inc." and has received authorization
from the descendents of Chaplain Plummer to apply to this Board.
3. The applicant provides the declarations of authorization from family
members, an impact statement, numerous proclamations and letters of
support, a brief in support of the application; and an additional four
volumes of historical documents, excerpts from contemporary books and
articles, official proclamations, resolutions, citations, etc. The five
volumes of documents are indexed and tabbed accordingly, to include an
annotated table of contents. The table of contents and the annotated table
of contents are included herein as an integral part of this case. Names of
contemporary personnel, other than authors of books and articles, have been
blackened out.
4. The impact statement provides information on the impetus leading to the
formation of the committee, the social situation as it existed in Chaplain
Plummer's day, his character, courage, and diligence; and concludes by
stating that exonerating Chaplain Plummer would correct an injustice, bring
closure to the Plummer family, and allow him to assume his place in the
family history with the honor it deserves.
5. Statements and proclamations from 24 different sources follow the
impact statement. These include documents from prominent federal
officials; the governor and lieutenant governor of the state of Maryland
and other state officials; officials of Prince George's County, Maryland;
retired military officers, to include the former Army Chief of Chaplains;
authors and historians.
6. For the purpose of clarity, the titles and ranks in use in the late
1800's are used herein, e.g., Chaplain Plummer, Saddler Sergeant Benjamin,
Lieut. Col. Bernard, etc.
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:
1. Counsel requests that the Board exercise its authority, to posthumously
eliminate the improper court-martial from Chaplain Plummer's military
record, and grant him the honorable discharge he rightly deserves. He
states that Chaplain Plummer, the first African-American chaplain in the
Regular Army, was subjected to an improper court-martial due to racial and
personal animus.
2. He states that Chaplain Plummer is an important part of African-
American history and that his accomplishments need to be celebrated – that
fundamental fairness and equity dictate that now is the time to correct his
record, and restore America's confidence that members of the Army will
receive just treatment regardless of skin color.
3. He states that the Committee to Clear Chaplain Plummer, Inc., comprised
of many of Chaplain Plummer's living descendents, academicians and others
from the community deeply familiar with the subject of the application,
enjoys wide-ranging support. Counsel quotes from Major General Zimmerman,
the retired Chief of Chaplains: "It is my strongest conviction that
Chaplain Plummer's court-martial and dishonorable discharge are illegal,
inequitable, unfair, and unwarranted. … I am satisfied without question
that Chaplain Plummer was a victim of a racially motivated prosecution
using the false testimony of an African-American noncommissioned officer
who had a well-known and long-standing grudge against him … At the root of
[court-martialing him] was not only racial prejudice but also intolerable
bias."
4. Counsel provides information concerning Chaplain Plummer's background
and military service, to include his involvement in the temperance
movement, his efforts to end liquor sales at the Fort Robinson canteen, the
post leadership's rebuff of those efforts; his assignment to inferior
quarters, the "lower line," with the African-American enlisted Soldiers and
officers' servants; and his humiliation at being publicly denied housing to
the "upper line."
a. The leadership at Fort Robinson also suspected that Chaplain
Plummer authored a letter vowing to protect African-Americans from lynch
mob type justice from whites in nearby Crawford, Nebraska; and that he was
the author of a circular which threatened retaliation for violence against
African-Americans. Counsel states that Lieutenant Colonel Reuben Bernard,
the acting post commander at the time, informed the commanding general
[Department of the Platte] that he suspected that Chaplain Plummer was the
author of those publications, but was unable to prove it.
b. The court-martial charges emanated from Chaplain Plummer's contact
with Saddler Sergeant Robert Benjamin, whom he had disciplined when they
were both serving at Fort Riley, Kansas.
c. Counsel relates the events that resulted in Chaplain's Plummer's
court-martial. Chaplain Plummer, on the night of June 2, 1894, joined
three other African-Americans at the quarters of Sergeant Major Jones to
discuss fundraising for the church. One of the Soldiers, Sergeant Dillon,
had just received a promotion. Chaplain Plummer had a toast of whisky in
his honor, and while there for approximately two hours, had an additional
glass. He gave Sergeant Benjamin, with whom he had an acrimonious history,
some money to buy milk, and when the sergeant did not return, he went to
his house. Sergeant Benjamin's wife and daughter (whom he knew well) were
both there, and Sergeant Dillon arrived to collect his laundry from Mrs.
Benjamin. Plummer talked and played with the Benjamin's daughter while
Dillon played the organ.
d. After leaving Sergeant Major Jones' quarters, Sergeant Benjamin
went to the canteen, consumed so much liquor that he vomited on others at
the canteen, went home inebriated, and became upset with the scene at his
home. He directed Chaplain Plummer to get up, words were exchanged, and
Sergeant Dillon stepped between the two. Chaplain Plummer left the
quarters and walked home. He saw several people; all who testified that he
was not intoxicated.
e. Later that evening, Sergeant Benjamin prepared a complaint in the
company of Private Reese, who delivered the complaint to Lieutenant Colonel
Bernard as acting Post Commander. He had Chaplain Plummer arrested, and
upon his return, Colonel Biddle, the Post Commander, recommended a general
court-martial. One week later, Colonel Biddle advised the Commanding
General that Plummer's usefulness "as an officer and chaplain" had
"virtually ceased."
f. An investigating officer took multiple affidavits and recommended
modifying the charges because Sergeant Benjamin's statement was only
slightly corroborated, stating that he did not believe the charges could be
sustained as Colonel Biddle had drafted them. Although the charges were
adjusted, Colonel Biddle insisted that Chaplain Plummer be charged under
Article 61 (as opposed to Article 62) because upon conviction, Chaplain
Plummer would be automatically dismissed from the Army.
g. Chaplain Plummer was tried for drinking liquor with enlisted men
and furnishing additional liquor, and behaving in an unbecoming manner by
playing with the Benjamin's daughter and engaging in an angry altercation
at the Benjamin's house. An all white jury convicted him and sentenced him
to be dismissed from the Army. Against the recommendation of the
Commanding General of the Army, the sentence was approved.
h. A few weeks later, Sergeant Dillon (a defense witness) was tried
by court-martial and discharged from the Army for arguing with Sergeant
Benjamin after Chaplain Plummer's trial. Shortly before Chaplain Plummer's
discharge from the Army, Sergeant Benjamin was promoted.
i. Chaplain Plummer moved to Kansas and continued his religious work.
He later applied for another chaplaincy appointment in the Army, only to
be denied. He continued unsuccessfully to try to clear his name until his
death in 1905.
j. Counsel provides information gained from various contemporary
books and articles concerning Chaplain Plummer's case; a section titled,
"Statement of Facts," e.g., Chaplain Plummer's personal background, the
racial tenor of American society in the 1890s, and Chaplain Plummer's
military service at Fort Robinson. He provides a detailed version of the
background leading to Chaplain Plummer's court-martial.
k. Counsel states that the Board should find that the preferral,
referral, and trial of Chaplain Plummer's court-martial (under the Articles
of War) were infected by racial and personal animus, thus warranting a
finding that an injustice exists and should be removed. Professor
Winthrop, in his 1886 treatise, Military Law, made clear that a court-
martial was improper if it was based on the hostile animus of the officer
preferring the charges, or if the charges lacked a meaningful examination
of the facts supporting the allegations. The Board should find that the
evidence adduced at the court-martial does not rise to the level to justify
Chaplain Plummer's ultimate conviction and dismissal for conduct unbecoming
an officer and gentleman.
l. The command had no interest in being fair to Chaplain Plummer, and
instead improperly focused on how to convict him based on the testimony of
a witness with overwhelming credibility problems in order to eliminate him
from the Army. Except for personal grudges, the charges would never have
been brought. In today's society, celebrating Sergeant Dillon's promotion,
as Chaplain Plummer did, would not serve as the basis for a court-martial.
It is also evident that he would not have been court-martialed if he and
the enlisted men with whom he celebrated in 1894 were white.
m. The command did not properly investigate the charges against
Chaplain Plummer. The post commander had a duty to investigate the
allegations and only prefer them if they were well founded. Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard and Colonel Biddle did not conduct a meaningful, balanced
investigation of the facts before arresting Chaplain Plummer and preferring
charges against him.
n. Colonel Biddle and Lieutenant Colonel Bernard apparently believed
that charging Chaplain Plummer with drunkenness and misconduct would be the
perfect way to eliminate him while insulating them and the command from
charges of racism, and that even Sergeant Benjamin's documented extreme
intoxication did not cause either of them to have second thoughts about the
merits of the case. Even the Commanding General of the Army recognized the
unfairness in Chaplain Plummer's conviction because of the impossible
situation. He did not believe that the standard for whites could be applied
in Chaplain Plummer's case because he was black.
o. Against this backdrop, the all-white court-martial had to consider
whether it was unbecoming for the chaplain to celebrate Sergeant Dillon's
promotion at the home of the chaplain's neighbor, the highest-ranking
African-American enlisted man at Fort Robinson. Chaplain Plummer's defense
counsel asked the court members to place themselves in his position and to
tell him if it was a violation of the law for the accused (Chaplain
Plummer) to associate with the highest noncommissioned officer of the post
of his color. The only reasonable explanation for his conviction is that
the court members failed to consider who he was, where the command made him
live, and who he relied on for social and financial support – or the court
members were themselves predisposed to convict Chaplain Plummer because of
the color of his skin. Chaplain Plummer's conviction should be removed
from his record because there are substantial reasons in equity to question
the propriety of convening the court-martial, and there is ample reason to
determine that the command breached the duty of fairness owed to Chaplain
Plummer and that these failings severely affected the administration of
justice.
p. The actions that Chaplain Plummer was alleged to have committed
were not prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Army.
q. His visit to Sergeant Major Jones' quarters did not constitute
conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman because the white post
leadership ostracized him and imposed segregationist policies. Socializing
with the people with whom he lived, and the only people with whom he was
allowed to interact, did not bring disgrace upon the Army and does not
constitute conduct unbecoming. Chaplain Plummer testified that he was a
stranger to the white officers at Fort Robinson and that he did not want to
force or intrude socially upon them. The command's lack of support for the
African-American church and school placed Chaplain Plummer in a position
similar to that of a civilian pastor required to tread softly and maintain
the good will of the membership so that people would be encouraged to give
money to support the church's operation.
r. His expanded social interaction with enlisted Soldiers and their
families did not bring disrepute upon or disgrace to the officer corps
because it did not undermine discipline and good order. The court members
apparently did not evaluate Chaplain Plummer's actions in the context of
the discrimination he faced as an African-American officer and minister of
God. They considered whether his conduct was prejudicial to good order and
discipline or caused disrepute to the officer corps in a rigid and
unrealistic manner.
s. Chaplain Plummer did nothing to discredit the Army while at
Sergeant Benjamin's quarters. Although the environment was probably very
tense, the testimony of all the witnesses corroborates Chaplain Plummer's
account, except Sergeant Benjamin, whose veracity was highly dubious and
who had a motive to fabricate. This one Soldier destroyed the chaplain's
career by testifying against him, and he did so at a point when the post
commanders, who were opposed to Chaplain Plummer's activities, were
considering Sergeant Benjamin for a promotion and a pay raise. Sergeant
Benjamin not only got his raise, but also got his revenge.
t. This is an extraordinary case and the Board should seize this
opportunity to correct a great injustice inflicted on the first African-
American chaplain in the Regular Army. The Committee to Clear Chaplain
Plummer respectfully believes the Board must acknowledge the injustice in
this case and remove the court-martial as though it never occurred and
issue Chaplain Plummer an honorable discharge. The committee does not seek
any monetary compensation for Chaplain Plummer or his family, simply to
restore and recognize his good name.
5. In making his case, counsel refers to excerpts taken from articles and
books [which he furnished with the application]. For instance, counsel
states that Colonel Biddle having returned to Fort Robinson, personally
preferred court-martial charges against Chaplain Plummer on June 9, 1894;
and that Colonel Biddle's forwarding of the charges to higher headquarters
"found no fault with the Chaplain's attention to post schools or church,"
but purported to determine the interests of discipline warranted a criminal
prosecution "for its own sake," particularly since he claimed the Chaplain
was still "odorous with the fumes of liquor" on June 3, 1894. In this,
counsel makes reference to excerpts from Charles L. Kenner's book, Buffalo
Soldiers and Officers of the Ninth Cavalry 1867-1898 (1999).
6. In making reference to Chaplain Plummer's efforts in ending the sale of
alcohol at Fort Robinson, and his verbal appeal to his superiors after the
canteen was reopened, counsel derives his information from a book by Alan
K. Lamm, Five Black Preachers in Army Blue, 1884-1901: The Buffalo Soldier
Chaplains (1998).
7. Counsel refers to Frank N. Schubert's, Buffalo Soldiers, Braves, and
the Brass: The Story of Fort Robinson, Nebraska when stating that in 1893,
Chaplain Plummer advised Colonel Biddle regarding the lack of support he
received as Superintendent of Schools and that Colonel Biddle pointedly
rebuked Chaplain Plummer for his indiscretion.
8. In referring to Chaplain Plummer's quarters assignment [to quarters in
the lower line] and the public announcement that he was permanently
assigned housing to the lower line, counsel refers to excerpts from the
above-mentioned books by Lamm and Kenner.
9. Counsel draws from Lamm's book in referring to the controversy
surrounding Chaplain Plummer's perceived authorship of threatening
documents. He makes reference to a chapter from a book by Earl F. Stover,
Chaplain Henry V. Plummer, His Ministry and His Court-Martial, concerning
the acrimonious relationship between Chaplain Plummer and Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard, and to Schubert's book concerning Chaplain Plummer's
complaint of discrimination by Lieutenant Colonel Bernard to Colonel
Biddle.
10. From Kenner's book, counsel refers to Sergeant Benjamin's "up for a
promotion," at the same time of Chaplain Plummer's trial, which he received
after he testified against the chaplain. "Benjamin was also aware of
Plummer's disfavor with Bernard, whose support was crucial for him to
obtain a coveted promotion to ordnance sergeant, which would raise his
monthly pay from twenty-two to thirty-four dollars."
11. Counsel states that all of the scholars that have written about
Chaplain Plummer's plight have criticized the command's action and the
eventual injustice of a court-martial.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of alleged error or injustice
which occurred in 1894. The application submitted in this case is dated 18
February 2004.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. Henry V. Plummer was born a slave in Prince George's County, Maryland
in 1844. On 4 April 1864, during the Civil War, he enlisted in the Navy,
served on the U.S.S. Coeur de Lion and was discharged from the Navy on
August 8, 1865.
4. On June 15, 1881 Henry V. Plummer applied to the Secretary of War for
the position of chaplain in the United States Army, stating that during the
rebellion he enlisted in the Navy for three years and was honorably
discharged, that he had learned to read, and that by hard study graduated
at Wayland Seminary in Washington D.C. in 1879. In the meantime, however,
he had charge of the First Baptist Church at Bladensburg, Maryland, where
he remained for five years. He also had charge of a church in Charles
County, Maryland, and was now doing missionary work at the Mount Carmel
Church in Washington, D.C. He stated that he was a regularly ordained
minister of the Baptist denomination.
5. Henry Plummer received recommendations from various persons, to include
Washington, D.C. ministers, federal officials, and county and state
officials, and in May 1884 from Frederick Douglass by way of a
recommendation to the President, Chester A. Arthur. On 1 July 1884 he was
nominated to be Chaplain of the 9th Regiment of Cavalry. On 8 July 1884 he
was commissioned as a chaplain of the 9th Cavalry. He executed the oath of
office on 12 July 1884.
6. Chaplain Plummer joined the 9th at Fort Riley, moved with them to Fort
McKinney, Wyoming Territory, and to Fort Robinson, Nebraska in 1891. In
addition to the duties normally associated with a chaplain, that is
religious and spiritual instruction, he was also tasked with overseeing the
Soldiers' education, for many of them could not read or write. He was the
Superintendent of Schools at Fort Robinson.
7. The statute concerning Army chaplains, in effect at that time, shows
that post, hospital, and regimental chaplains would make monthly reports to
the Adjutant General of the Army through the usual military channels, of
the moral condition and general history of the regiments or posts to which
they may be attached. That statute also states that the President may, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint a chaplain for each
regiment of colored troops and thirty post chaplains. Chaplains shall have
the rank of captain of infantry, without command, and shall be on the same
footing with other officers of the Army as to tenure of office, retirement,
and pensions. The duty of chaplains of regiments of colored troops and of
post chaplains shall include the instruction of enlisted men of the common
English branches of education. The Army Regulation in effect at that time
indicates that an appropriate set of quarters, equal to the allowance of a
captain, will be set apart permanently for the chaplain.
8. A summarization of some of Chaplain Plummer's monthly reports -
a. In his December 31,1887 monthly report, while stationed at Fort
McKinney, Chaplain Plummer appealed for more money for post schools and
recommended that teachers' ranks be commensurate with their positions.
b. In his March 1892 monthly report, Chaplain Plummer commented on
the pernicious use of alcohol at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, requesting that
authorities take steps for the ultimate destruction of the system [sale of
alcohol at the post exchange]. This report caused some consternation on
the part of members of the chaplain's command, and on May 2, 1892 he was
directed, by order of the then post commander, Lieutenant Colonel Sanford,
to explain every allegation that he made in this report. Apparently,
because of his report, the post exchange was closed for a period of time.
In a report made by Lieut. Colonel Sanford to the Department of the Platte
concerning that matter, that officer also commented on the chaplain's good
work, stating that the attendance at both religious services and at schools
was unusually large and larger than at any post with which he was
acquainted and that fact was attributed entirely to the efficient manner in
which Chaplain Plummer carried on his work, for which he was entitled to
high commendation.
c. In his June 30, 1892 monthly report, Chaplain Plummer stated that
there was an advance and improvement for good along the whole line of
religious work at the post. He stated that the moral and general history
of the post for the month was fair.
d. In his January 30, 1893 monthly report, Chaplain Plummer stated
that he had been given a new church and school building and no longer had
to conduct services in the amusement hall. He stated that the moral and
general history of the command during the month was very good.
e. In his July 31,1893 monthly report, Chaplain Plummer stated that
the moral and general history of the command for the month would compare
favorably with any command of equal size and under similar circumstances in
the country.
f. In his May 31, 1894 report, he stated that the moral and general
history of the command was very good.
9. Three evaluation reports submitted on Chaplain Plummer are available -
a. On May 1,1890 Chaplain Plummer's commanding officer at Fort
McKinney, Wyoming rated his performance and conduct as good or excellent,
commenting that he was a good man, anxious as far as he could see to do
good.
b. On December 15, 1891, Colonel Biddle, Commanding 9th Cavalry,
rated the chaplain's professional zeal and attention to duty as excellent;
and his conduct and habits, condition, and care as to the welfare of men as
very good; and stated that he believed that he was a good man and
conscientious in the performance of his duty.
c. In his January 14, 1894 evaluation on Chaplain Plummer, Colonel
Biddle, rated the chaplain as very good, but stated, "I am not capable of
judging a man's ability as a clergyman, as I think that as a class they
were apt to be in conflict with the general code of military discipline.
Men are governed (and should be) from the standpoint at which they look at
things which in my case widely differs from that of Chaplain Plummer,
therefore I feel that I may be unjust in expressing the general belief
concerning him or in an opinion of my own."
10. In a June 23, 1893 letter to Colonel Biddle, Chaplain Plummer
complained of discrimination and humiliation against him by Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard, during Colonel Biddle's absence. He cited the denial by
Lieutenant Colonel Bernard of the use of the band, which had always been
available to him. He stated that he was denied transportation to bring
workers from nearby Crawford for a temperance meeting; however, not two
weeks later a showman was given an escort and transportation to carry his
baggage and company to the town of Crawford. He stated that Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard denied him quarters on the "upper line" when they became
available, even though he [the chaplain] outranked all other captains, save
one, on the post, and he was the only married captain left on the "lower
line." He complained that not only was he denied such quarters; Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard issued a formal order setting apart the quarters occupied
by him [the chaplain] as his quarters, and caused the order to be read by
his adjutant to the assembled command. The chaplain cited his service to
the country during the late war, and his honorable service with the 9th,
and questioned whether it was fair for him to have been so treated and
humiliated.
11. Colonel Biddle forwarded Chaplain Plummer's letter to Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard for his information and comments. Lieutenant Colonel
Bernard, in turn, remarked that the chaplain made this [complaint] with the
same object in view that he had when he wrote about the canteen when
Lieutenant Colonel Sanford was in command, which was, as the chaplain had
informed him, done for spite and to make Sanford's administration of the
post as obnoxious at Washington as he could, as he [Lieutenant Colonel
Sanford] had treated the chaplain shamefully about quarters. Lieutenant
Colonel Bernard's remarks were forwarded to Chaplain Plummer by the post
adjutant.
12. In response thereto, Chaplain Plummer stated that Lieutenant Colonel
Bernard was mistaken, that there was no animus or spite intended, but that
he felt aggrieved at some of Lieutenant Colonel Bernard's rulings affecting
him, and he thought it proper that Colonel Biddle should know how he felt
about it. He stated that he had no motives but honorable ones in
acquainting him with his grievances.
13. In late December 1893 and in January 1894 there was correspondence
concerning the number of teachers needed at Fort Robinson, with the Office
of the Quartermaster, Department of the Platte, questioning why six were
required when four teachers would appear to be adequate. Chaplain Plummer
indicated that the attendance of men at school was so irregular that it was
difficult to calculate on the number of teachers actually required;
however, he thought that the present corps of teachers was necessary. In
this, he was supported by Colonel Biddle, who replied that, "It is not
strange that the number of school teachers at this Post exceed those of any
other Post in the Department for illiteracy among colored men is far
greater than among white, they not having the same educational advantages
in their early youth as their more favored white brother. The young
recruits that I received last year from Kentucky are especially anxious to
learn to read and write correctly and I am anxious to give them every
opportunity. It is unfair to draw any comparison between the number of
school teachers required at a Post garrisoned by white troops and one
garrisoned by colored troops."
14. On April 20, 1894 Chaplain Plummer asked the Adjutant General for
consideration by the Secretary of War, that he be detailed to conduct a
missionary expedition to central Africa to introduce American civilization
and Christianization. On June 22, 1894 the Assistant Adjutant General
informed him that there was no law authorizing the Secretary of War to
detail any officer of the Army for such an expedition.
15. On June 6, 1894, the Acting Post Adjutant informed Chaplain Plummer
that he was placed under arrest, and indicated that he was enclosing a copy
of the charge, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and the
specifications against him. Colonel Biddle caused an investigation to be
conducted and obtained sworn statements from the individuals concerned.
Synopsis of two such statements -
a. In a June 8, 1894 statement, Chaplain Plummer stated that on the
evening of June 2, 1894 he did visit the quarters of Sergeant Major Jones,
whose quarters were next door to his, and found there Sergeant Major Jones,
Sergeant Dillon, and Sergeant Benjamin. He excused himself for intruding,
stating that he wanted to see the sergeant major. Someone said they were
having a social time in honor of Sergeant Dillon's promotion. On
invitation, he did take a seat, and did take a drink or two in honor of the
occasion, but denied being under the influence of liquor or carousing with
the sergeants. Having been accosted by Sergeant Benjamin to the effect
that he [the chaplain] was down on him did talk with Sergeant Benjamin in a
friendly and social manner over their Army life of nearly ten years, when
they were alone, Sergeants Jones and Dillon having gone out. He wanted a
drink of milk and Sergeant Benjamin volunteered to get it. Sergeant
Benjamin departed to get the milk. His stay with the sergeants was simply
to impress Sergeant Benjamin that he was not down on him. He stayed for 15
or 20 minutes after Sergeant Benjamin left. Sergeant Major Jones was
preparing to take a bath, and since Sergeant Benjamin had not returned with
the milk, he thought that he had carried the milk to his house. Being in a
hurry for the milk, and having an old blouse which was torn, he took it off
and put on the sergeant major's blouse and went down to Sergeant Benjamin's
house for the milk.
There is not a particle of truth that he behaved in a disgraceful
manner at Sergeant Benjamin's house before his wife and Sergeant Dillon.
He was simply playing with the little girl, a member of his school.
Sergeant Benjamin came in. He was boisterous, and began cursing, swearing,
and raving like a mad man. He asked for his milk, however, the sergeant
continued to rave and abuse him, saying that he was going to report it. He
started to go toward Sergeant Benjamin to pacify him, but Mrs. Benjamin and
Sergeant Dillon prevented him, saying to go out, which he immediately did.
He was not in Sergeant Benjamin's house more than two or three minutes
after he came in. The vulgar and improper words that he used were simply
the invention of a drunken and prejudicial mind, who sought to stab his
friend of nearly 10 years standing. There was no witness to testify his
having used any such language on that or any other occasion. He stated
that Sergeant Benjamin has been angry with him because he refused to attend
his socials and balls, and because he upbraided his friend, Private Reese,
who failed to salute him. He stated that on the evening of June 2,
Sergeant Benjamin requested a loan of 15 dollars, and he refused him,
telling him that he did not have it, but the sergeant said that he did have
the money and would lend it to him were he not down on him. Sergeant
Benjamin was seen at the canteen crazy drunk on that night, having spent
two or three dollars there for beer. His malevolence against him was
apparent by refusing recently to let his wife solicit funds for the
purchase of an organ for church. He requested that the Post and Department
authority not tarnish his unblemished record on the word of such an
unworthy Soldier as Sergeant Benjamin has proven himself to be. He
requested that his statement be given a fair consideration and stated that
he would do his best to steer clear of so vile an enemy in the future.
b. Sergeant Dillon made a statement to the effect that he and
Sergeant Major Jones had a drink of whiskey, then went to supper, meeting
Sergeant Benjamin on the way back and inviting him to Sergeant Major Jones'
quarters to have a drink with them. As they were going in the back, they
saw Chaplain Plummer in his back yard. He and the sergeant major had a
conversation and then joined Sergeant Benjamin and himself in Sergeant
Major Jones' quarters, where they all had a drink of whiskey. Chaplain
Plummer had at least two drinks. He had to go to a concert, and afterward
returned to Sergeant Major Jones' quarters and found them all still there.
He took a drink and then somebody proposed that they have some milk punches
and Sergeant Benjamin left to get some milk. He did not return while he
[Sergeant Dillon] was there. Chaplain Plummer shortly left wearing the
sergeant major's blouse. In a little while he left to go to Sergeant
Benjamin's quarters after his washing. Chaplain Plummer, Mrs. Benjamin,
and her little girl were there. They requested that he play the organ.
Mrs. Benjamin left the room and the chaplain got down on the floor, lying
with the little girl. Sergeant Benjamin came in and told the chaplain that
he did not allow anything of that kind in his house and to get up. The
chaplain and Sergeant Benjamin got into a dispute and were about to come to
blows, and he stepped between them and told the chaplain to go away and go
on home. He took hold of both of them to keep them separated. He opened
the door and after the chaplain went out, closed it. He was unable to
recall the language they used, but they were talking in a very angry,
excited manner and very rapidly. In about 15 or 20 minutes, Sergeant Major
Jones came in, and Sergeant Benjamin informed him that he knew what he
wanted, and that he need not come for anything of the kind. He asked Mrs.
Benjamin to retire and then told the sergeant major good night and showed
him to the door. He [Sergeant Dillon] went outside with the sergeant major
and walked to his quarters, meeting Chaplain Plummer in front of his house.
He asked if Sergeant Benjamin was over the spell that he had, or words to
that effect. He told him that he guessed that he would get over it by
morning.
16. On June 9, 1894, Colonel Biddle submitted to the Assistant Adjutant
General, Department of the Platte, papers on the matter for the
investigation and action of the department commander. He stated that upon
his return from duty at Fort Omaha, Lieutenant Colonel Bernard, submitted
to him a complaint of Saddler Sergeant Benjamin, stating that he had not
taken action any further than certain verbal investigation. He stated that
he had been unusually careful in his investigation, obtaining sworn
statements so as to show what grounds there were for the complaint and the
charges drawn up. He stated that he thought they could be proven. He
stated that he thought that Chaplain Plummer's usefulness as an officer and
chaplain in the regiment had virtually ceased, and could only be restored
by the thorough vindication that a trial by court-martial could give him.
He stated that he granted Chaplain Plummer's request for the withdrawal of
two witnesses, in that they virtually knew nothing of the case, only
knowing that the chaplain reported to the commanding officer the next
morning, June 3rd, after being sent for in regard to the complaint, odorous
with the fumes of liquor. He stated that in regard to the chaplain's
attention to his schools and church, he had no fault to find, but could not
help recommending trial by court-martial for his own sake as well as that
of the regiment. He stated that it was thought best to have the evidence
in the form of affidavits, so that no variation might arise at the time of
trial. He stated that Sergeant Dillon was apparently a reluctant witness
only giving what information he positively had to, and that Sergeant Major
Jones' evidence was given in a straightforward manner, but without any
great willingness.
17. Captain Crowder, Acting Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Department of
the Platte, investigated the pending charges against Chaplain Plummer
preferred by Colonel Biddle, 9th Cavalry, Commanding Post of Fort Robinson.
He obtained affidavits –
a. Saddler Sergeant Benjamin. He, Sergeant Major Jones, and Sergeant
Dillon went to the sergeant major's quarters. Chaplain Plummer saw them
and he and the sergeant major remained outside the quarters talking while
Sergeant Dillon and himself went into the quarters. The chaplain and the
sergeant major came in. Sergeant Dillon had found the jug of whiskey. The
chaplain and he took a drink together. Sergeant Dillon found an album and
showed the chaplain and the sergeant major pictures, some of which were of
his (Dillon) children. The chaplain remarked that someone else must have
got them for him, and everyone laughed about that. The chaplain began
skylarking [horse playing]. After that they began drinking again. The
chaplain began horse playing again. Dillon had gone to the concert. At
that time he had seen the chaplain take three drinks. The jug was almost
empty, so the chaplain asked him if he would go to the club to get some
more. The chaplain wrote an order for the whiskey; however, at that time
the club attendant, Scott, came by and the chaplain told him to give him
(Benjamin) a bottle of whiskey. He went with Scott and brought back a
bottle of whiskey. Then they all took a drink. Scott had returned with
him but refused to drink with them. Dillon came back and the chaplain
began horse playing again. Dillon said to stop this foolishness and take a
drink. He did not take a drink, but the other three did. The chaplain
asked him if he had some milk at his house and he told him no, that he was
drinking and would do just as he did before when he was down there drunk.
He went away, and when he went home he found the chaplain lying down on the
floor and his little girl lying across his chest. The chaplain was rolling
back and forth playing with the little girl. He wore a blouse with
sergeant major chevrons. He [Benjamin] asked his wife why she allowed that
and she replied that she had asked the chaplain to get up and leave, but he
would not do it. He snatched the girl from the chaplain, told the chaplain
to get up, and asked the chaplain how he would like it if he [Benjamin]
acted that way before the chaplain's wife. The chaplain remarked that Mrs.
Benjamin was nothing, but his wife was a lady. He told the chaplain to
leave or else he would report him. The chaplain said that he could whip
him before he could shit. At that time, Dillon, who was there all the
time, stepped between them. He told the chaplain to go home. He and
Dillon had a tussle at the door and finally Dillon got the chaplain out the
door. The chaplain tried to get back and Dillon opened the door and told
him to go home. The chaplain replied, "The damned son of a bitch. I'll get
even with him." The chaplain then went away.
b. Mrs. Benjamin. About 9:00 P.M. on June 2nd, 1894, the chaplain
came to her house, wearing the blouse with sergeant major chevrons on it.
He asked for her husband, stating that he sent him for some milk. She said
that her husband was not home. She gave the chaplain some milk. About
that time Sergeant Dillon came for his clothes. She asked him to wait and
take the chaplain with him as she saw he was not in a very good state and
seemed to have been drinking. About that time the chaplain threw himself
on the floor and began playing with her little girl. She told the chaplain
to get up, that this was no place for him in this state. He replied that
he was waiting until Sergeant Benjamin brought him his milk. Her husband
came home and said to the chaplain to get up and that was no way for him to
act. The chaplain asked about his milk, and then her husband again told
him to get up and leave the house. The chaplain got up and he and her
husband had some very angry talk. She said they were both very profane in
their language but did not remember the exact words used. She took the
little girl to the bedroom and when she came back she heard Sergeant Dillon
say to the chaplain to go home. Sergeant Dillon had got between the
chaplain and her husband and rushed the chaplain out of the door, closed
the door and locked it. The chaplain went out. She related that some
little time ago, perhaps a month ago, the chaplain and the sergeant major
came to her house, upset the chairs in the rooms and picked up the dog and
pretended he was going to put it in the stove. She told the sergeant major
to take the chaplain away. They soon left and the next morning the
chaplain apologized for his conduct.
c. Sergeant Major Jeremiah Jones. He was in his quarters with
Sergeant Dillon, who gave him a dollar to get a quart of whiskey. He went
to the club, got the whiskey, and he and Sergeant Dillon had a drink. They
then went to supper and on the way back met Sergeant Benjamin, and asked
him to come with them to his quarters. He saw Chaplain Plummer, who said
that he wanted to see him. Sergeants Dillon and Benjamin went into the
quarters and when he and the chaplain went in, they were taking a drink of
whiskey. The chaplain had a glass of whiskey and they all took a drink
together. It was in honor of Sergeant Dillon's promotion. He heard
Benjamin telling the chaplain that Reese could whip him. He could see that
there was hard feeling between the two. Dillon had gone to the band
concert, leaving about 7:00 P.M. He left the house for a half hour and
when he returned they were still there. He asked them if they were going
home and Sergeant Benjamin replied that he had not had any dinner and would
go soon. He [Sergeant Major Jones] then went to the canteen and found them
both there when he returned. The chaplain told Sergeant Benjamin to get
that [whiskey] that he would give him an order. As Sergeant Benjamin
started to go, Scott, the attendant at the officers' club came by, and the
chaplain told him to give Benjamin a bottle of whiskey. Sergeant Benjamin
returned with the whiskey. Dillon had come back at that time and they all
had a drink. He stated that he was going to take a bath. The chaplain
gave Sergeant Benjamin some money to get some milk, leaving the chaplain
alone. While taking his bath the chaplain asked if Sergeant Benjamin had
returned and when he told the chaplain that he had not, the chaplain said
that the was going to his [Benjamin] house, but he advised the chaplain not
to, and the chaplain replied that he would not go. Sergeant Dillon
returned and said that he would go down [to Benjamin's house] and pick up
his wash. After finishing his bath, he went out. When he returned to his
quarters, he saw his blouse on the bed with a spot on it. Knowing that he
had not left it there, he went down to Benjamin's house.
Before he got there he heard Benjamin talking pretty loud. When he
went in, Sergeant Benjamin stated that he need not come in trying to smooth
things over for the chaplain. Mrs. Benjamin started to tell him about the
chaplain, but Sergeant Benjamin told her to go to bed. Sergeant Benjamin
began to race around like a wild man, displaying a razor, and stating that
it was a good thing that Sergeant Dillon was there otherwise he would have
cut the chaplain's heart out. He left and Sergeant Dillon went with him.
Returning, they saw Chaplain Plummer, who asked if Sergeant Benjamin was
quiet and asked Dillon if there was anything wrong with his conduct.
Sergeant Dillon replied that the only thing wrong was the chaplain being
there [at Benjamin's house]. The chaplain stated that he guessed that
Benjamin would sleep if off and be quiet in the morning. As to carousing
in his [Sergeant Major] quarters, he stated that he saw nothing of it
beyond noticing that Sergeant Benjamin on two occasions tore the blouse
that the chaplain was wearing, the last time tearing it clear up the back.
Beyond that, and excepting the fact that they were jovial and sociable
together, he saw nothing that could be called carousal. He told the
chaplain not to go to Benjamin's house, because he knew that Sergeant
Benjamin had hard feelings against him. They had been discussing their
differences that evening. When he left the chaplain he did not think that
he was intoxicated, although he had taken to his knowledge two drinks.
While he could not state positively that there was no carousing in his
quarters, none took place in his presence beyond what was stated.
d. Sergeant Dillon. The first part of his affidavit in many
respects, mirrors that of the sergeant major. Prior to him going to the
concert, they were all drinking. Chaplain Plummer had at least two drinks
that he knew of. He returned from the concert and found them all still
there. The bottle of whiskey was still there and he took a drink. Someone
proposed getting some milk, he supposed to make some milk punches.
Chaplain Plummer furnished the money and Sergeant Benjamin went for the
milk. He left to go up to the officers' line and when he returned he found
no one there except the sergeant major. He told him that he would take a
drink and then go to Mrs. Benjamin's house to pick up his wash, which he
did. He found Chaplain Plummer, Mrs. Benjamin, and the little girl there.
Chaplain Plummer had been drinking milk. He asked him [Dillon] to play the
organ. The chaplain got down on the floor, lying with the little girl.
Sergeant Benjamin came in and told the chaplain that he did not allow
anything of that kind in his house, to get up and asked him how would he
like him to come to his house and lie on the floor. He did not remember
what the chaplain said, but he got up and Sergeant Benjamin began to
dispute with him. He was very angry and was shaking his fist at the
chaplain. He had his back to the chaplain and did not see what he was
doing. He stepped between them as he thought they would come to blows. He
asked the chaplain to leave, which he did. At the time he separated them,
they were talking in a very angry and excited manner, and very rapidly. He
did not know what either of them said. The chaplain wore the blouse of a
sergeant major of cavalry.
About 15 minutes after the chaplain left, Sergeant Major Jones came
there. Benjamin told him that he knew why he was there and he need not
come for anything of the kind. Benjamin asked his wife to retire and told
the sergeant major good night. He got his wash and joined him. The
sergeant major asked if Sergeant Benjamin was over his spell and he told
him that he would be over it in the morning. When he first met Sergeant
Benjamin on that evening he asked him to take a drink and he was sober.
While at the sergeant major's quarters, he saw Sergeant Benjamin tear the
chaplain's coat and grab the chaplain and push him around. Beyond that, if
there was any carousing, he did not see it. It might have occurred but he
did not know any more about it other than what he stated. He did not know
whether there was any profane or vulgar language used by either the
chaplain or Sergeant Benjamin at Sergeant Benjamin's quarters during their
quarrel. They were both talking and he was talking himself. Such language
might have been used by one or both, but he could not swear one way or the
other. During the evening, he remembered seeing the chaplain take at least
three drinks of whiskey. When he separated these men during their quarrel,
they were about two feet apart.
e. Chaplain Plummer. The investigating officer indicated that the
chaplain forwarded to the Assistant Adjutant General of the Department the
following letter [Chaplain Plummer's above statement that he swore to on
June 8, 1894].
18. Chaplain Plummer submitted to the investigating officer an affidavit
from Sergeant Major Jones, to support his charge of animus against Sergeant
Benjamin-
Sergeant Major Jones stated that on the night of June 2nd, 1894, when
he went to Sergeant Benjamin's house, Sergeant Benjamin approached him in a
raving and boisterous manner, and told him that it was no use for him to
come here to try to smooth over things for the chaplain. Sergeant Benjamin
stated that if it had not been for Sergeant Dillon, he would have cut his
heart out with [his] knife. On the following morning, Sergeant Benjamin
remarked that he was getting even with the chaplain for reporting him at
Fort Riley. Sergeant Major Jones stated that Sergeant Benjamin had
remarked on several occasions that he intended to get even with the
chaplain for reporting him for some difficulty that he had at the post
bakery at Fort Riley, while Chaplain Plummer was in charge of the bakery.
19. Chaplain Plummer submitted to the investigating officer affidavits
from five individuals – Sergeant Franklin (retired, post exchange steward),
Farrier Williams, Sergeant Bradden, Corporal Armstrong, and Lewis Tolliver
(a cook at the post canteen), to support his statement in his letter that
Sergeant Benjamin had been drinking in excess at the canteen just prior to
the trouble between them at Sergeant Benjamin's quarters. All stated that
Sergeant Benjamin was drinking freely and vomited in the post exchange
while there. Three stated that he was drunk or appeared to be drunk.
20. Chaplain Plummer submitted to the investigating officer an affidavit
from Sergeant Tracy to show drunkenness after the quarrel at Sergeant
Benjamin's quarters –
First Sergeant Tracy stated that during the evening of June 2nd, 1894,
he was aroused while in his quarters by loud, boisterous, profane, and
obscene language used by Sergeant Benjamin, who came near his gate with a
knife, and who stated that he would cut your [the chaplain] throat out, you
damned son of a bitch, and did continue for some time to make such threats.
Having known Sergeant Benjamin since 1872, and it not being unusual for
him to act in such a manner, he paid little attention to it.
21. In support of his denial that there was any carousal at the quarters
of Sergeant Major Jones, Chaplain Plummer submitted to the investigating
officer an affidavit from Quartermaster Sergeant Harris –
Quartermaster Sergeant Harris stated that he occupied one half of the
building in which Sergeant Major Jones lived, and he did not see any person
going into Sergeant Major Jones' part of the building or hear any unusual
noise, and had there been any he would have heard it readily.
22. To support his denial that he became intoxicated on the night in
question, the chaplain submitted to the investigating officer three
affidavits –
a. Private and Mrs. Miller stated that they were sitting in their
room in the chaplain's quarters when between 9:30 and 10 P.M., the chaplain
knocked on the door, asking for milk. When told there was none, he
mentioned that he would take his bath. Both stated that there was nothing
in his speech or manner to indicate that he was under the influence of
intoxicating liquor. Had he been, they would have noticed.
b. Corporal Lyman stated that on the night of June 2nd, 1894, about
9:30 P.M. he saw the chaplain walking in a quiet and orderly way, which was
usual with him when walking about the garrison. He stated that he was very
near to the chaplain and observed him closely, and that had he been under
the influence of liquor, he would have noticed it. He stated that he did
notice that he had on the chevrons of a sergeant major. He stated that he
was positive that the chaplain was sober.
23. On June 28, 1894 Captain Crowder submitted to the Assistant Adjutant
General of the Department his report. The charges, conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman, consisted of two specifications –
a. In that Chaplain Plummer did visit the quarters of Sergeant Major
Jeremiah Jones, 9th Cavalry, and did there drink and carouse with enlisted
man, and did become under the influence of intoxicating liquor on June 2,
1894 between the hours of 5 PM and 9 PM.
b. In that Chaplain Plummer, did, while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, and wearing a blouse with sergeant major chevrons,
visit the quarters of Saddler Sergeant Robert Benjamin, and did there
behave in a disgraceful manner in the presence of Mrs. Robert Benjamin and
Sergeant D. R. Dillon, Band, 9th Cavalry, by lying down on the floor, and
by engaging in an angry altercation with said Sergeant Benjamin, and when
told by said Sergeant Benjamin to get up from the floor and go home, did
reply: "I can whip you before you can shit," or words to that effect, and
when leaving did call the said Sergeant Benjamin a "son of a bitch," or
words to that effect.
24. The investigating officer obtained the above-mentioned affidavits from
each of the witnesses, from the chaplain; and from individuals who made
statements that supported the chaplain.
25. The investigating officer stated –
a. That the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Sergeant Benjamin,
covered all the material allegations of the charges in the case and that it
was obvious that it was upon his affidavit, rather than the affidavit of
the other witnesses, that the charges were framed.
b. That his statement that Chaplain Plummer was at the quarters
of Sergeant Major Jones from about 6:30 P.M. to about 8:30 P.M., drinking
with
Sergeant Major Jones, Sergeant Dillon, and the chaplain's appearance at
Benjamin's quarters wearing a sergeant major's blouse, were fully
corroborated,
but his statement as to the fact of intoxication of Chaplain Plummer, the
carousal
at Sergeant Major Jones' quarters, and the use by the chaplain of the
vulgar and
profane language set forth in specification 2, were so slightly
corroborated by
other witnesses that it became most important to examine into Sergeant
Benjamin's standing in his regiment, his relations to the accused, and
other
witnesses in the case, and such other circumstances as would enable a
correct judgment to be formed as to his creditability as a witness.
c. That he was informed that Sergeant Benjamin had served
continuously in the Army for 21 years, that his standing for efficiency was
generally good, and that his character as a witness could not be
successfully attacked. Several officers informed him that if called upon
to do so they would bear witness that his general reputation for truth and
veracity was good.
d. That Sergeant Benjamin's evidence bore many inherent marks of
honesty. The facts tending to discredit him were the animus which he bore
the chaplain, not only at the time of the trouble, but for some time prior
thereto; his [Sergeant Benjamin] extreme intoxication at the time of the
quarrel with the chaplain at his [Sergeant Benjamin] house; and the failure
of Sergeant Major Jones, Sergeant Dillon, and Mrs. Benjamin to fully
corroborate his statements as to matters which it was conceded occurred in
their presence. The failure of Sergeant Major Jones and Sergeant Dillon to
fully corroborate the statements of Sergeant Benjamin as to events
occurring in their presence is largely explained by the fact that both in
his investigation and that made under the direction of the post commander,
they were found to be most unwilling witnesses, and that the fact of their
unwillingness would be readily apparent to any court.
e. That on June 2, 1894 and for some time prior thereto, the
relations between Sergeant Benjamin and the chaplain were very much
strained, and that at the time of the alleged altercation between Sergeant
Benjamin and the chaplain, the former was to a very considerable degree
intoxicated. The failure of Sergeant Major Jones and Sergeant Dillon to
fully corroborate the statements of Sergeant Benjamin as to events
occurring in their presence is largely explained by the fact that both in
his investigation and that made under the direction of the post commander,
they were found to be most unwilling witnesses, and that the fact of their
unwillingness would be readily apparent to any court.
f. That the affidavit of Mrs. Benjamin was given him with great
reluctance. She seemed to be truthful. In particular, the chaplain's gross
misconduct at her house at the time alleged in the 2nd specification,
consisting of his refusal to get up from the floor where he was lying, and
leave the house upon her request, his threat to her husband, and the use of
vulgar, intemperate, and to a slight degree, profane language, during the
altercation alleged.
g. That he was credibly informed that Mrs. Benjamin was in receipt
of numerous communications urging her not to testify against the chaplain,
saying that it was a matter of race pride that it was her duty to stand by
the chaplain.
h. That he was further informed that Mrs. Benjamin would shortly
separate from her husband because of his action in reporting the chaplain.
i. That in view of the animus and intoxication of the prosecuting
witness, and of the unwilling attitude of the other witnesses, he did not
believe the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charges in their present
form. If amended to omit the allegation of a carousal and drunkenness in
specification 1, and the further allegation of the use of the vulgar and
profane language set forth in specification 2, substituting for the
latter the more general averment of conduct to the discredit of the
military service, the charges in such modified form could be sustained,
provided always that Mrs. Benjamin consented to testify. He submitted
amended charges and specifications he thought the evidence would sustain:
Charge: Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Specification 1: In that Chaplain Plummer did on June 2, 1894, visit
the quarters of Sergeant Major Jeremiah Jones, and did then and there
engage in drinking intoxicating liquor with enlisted men of the 9th
Cavalry, and did himself furnish an additional supply of intoxicating
liquor to said enlisted men, remaining with them engaged in drinking
for a period of about three hours. This between 5 P.M. and 8:30 P.M.
on the date and at the place above specified.
Specification 2: In that Chaplain Plummer did about 8:30 PM, June 2,
1894, visit the quarters of Saddler Sergeant Robert Benjamin, wearing
the blouse of a sergeant major of cavalry, and did there behave in an
unbecoming manner in the presence of Sergeant David R. Dillon, Band,
9th Cavalry, and Mrs. Robert Benjamin, by lying down upon the floor
and refusing to get up and leave the said quarters when requested so
to do by the said Mrs. Benjamin, and upon being told by the said
Sergeant Benjamin to get up from the floor and go home, did engage in
an angry altercation with the said Sergeant Benjamin, and did threaten
to whip the said Sergeant Benjamin, and did use intemperate and vulgar
language toward the said Sergeant Benjamin. All this in the presence
of the said Mrs. Benjamin, and to the discredit of the service, at the
place and on the date above specified.
j. That Chaplain Plummer admitted his presence at the quarters of
Sergeant Major Jones at the time alleged, and having taken one or two
drinks while there. The evidence of Sergeants Jones and Dillon shows
pretty conclusively that he took four drinks. That he sent Sergeant
Benjamin to the officers' club about 7:30 P.M. for an additional quart of
whisky, and that he remained at the quarters of Sergeant Major Jones for
the time alleged; that he visited the quarters of Sergeant Benjamin, clad
in the blouse of a sergeant major, and that he was lying on the floor a
part of the time while there. Chaplain Plummer emphatically denied,
however, the he drank to excess, or that he used any vulgar or profane
language during the altercation at Sergeant Benjamin's house, and stated
that in the altercation Sergeant Benjamin was the aggressor, his own action
being limited in an attempt to pacify the sergeant.
k. That the chaplain's denial of the use of profane language and of
participation in the quarrel with Sergeant Benjamin was not supported by
the affidavit of Mrs. Benjamin, nor by the affidavit of Sergeant Dillon,
who stated, however, he did not know what either of them said.
l. That the chaplain's justification for much of his conduct as was
admitted by him was that he was attempting to cultivate friendly relations
with the enlisted men present, and particularly Sergeant Benjamin, with
whom he had trouble of long standing, and that he was willing to take a
drink or two with him to further the object in view. He claimed that his
conduct should be leniently considered because the conditions at Fort
Robinson were such that limited his social life to the colored
noncommissioned officers. He claimed a record of meritorious and faithful
service during his entire Army career.
m. That he [Captain Crowder] was not at all clear as to the
advisability of trial in this case for the reason that he felt convinced
that Mrs. Benjamin would not testify, and without her testimony, the more
important allegations of the 2nd specification, might not be
established. A finding of guilty on the remaining allegations of both
specifications would doubtless be regarded as falling short of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and be followed by conviction under
the 62nd Article of War and the imposition of a disciplinary punishment, in
the case of a chaplain a result of doubtful utility to the service.
n. That he enclosed the originals of all affidavits, together with
copies of some official correspondence between the chaplain and his
commanding officer which tended, he thought, to disprove his
representations of faithful and meritorious service.
26. In a July 27, 1894 endorsement the Commander of the Department of the
Platte stated that in view of the facts developed by the investigation by
Captain Crowder, the evidence in support of the graver charge would be of a
doubtful character, it was suggested that the commanding officer of Fort
Robinson ascertain if Mrs. Benjamin would testify in the case. He invited
attention to the form of the amended charges included in the accompanying
report by Captain Crowder.
27. In response thereto, on August 9, 1894, Colonel Biddle, returned the
amended charges, and stated that he believed that Mrs. Benjamin would
testify, but she might change her mind at any time. He stated that he
agreed with the Acting Judge Advocate that the finding under the 62nd
Article of War would be of no good to the service. He stated that if
Chaplain Plummer were left with the regiment, he would do his best to
conform to the laws, and give him all that his position required, which was
his duty to him as an officer, but that he feared that the high character
and purity of a Christian life could not be conceded to him as the church
would require, or the sentiments of Christianity demand, yet he was unable
to criticize on that ground as many others might. He did not hold himself
a justice to those professing the Christian religion.
28. On August 10, 1894 Chaplain Plummer acknowledged to the post adjutant
the receipt of a copy of the charge and specifications against him. He
made a statement to the effect that on June 2nd, 1894 he wanted to see
Sergeant Major Jones in regard to his church service. He did visit his
quarters and found Sergeants Dillon and Benjamin. They gave him the
respect customary to an officer. His stay with them was for the sole
purpose of impressing Sergeant Benjamin that he was mistaken in his opinion
that the chaplain had inimical feeling towards him. Those sergeants
invited him to have a drink with them, and he did. Sergeant Benjamin asked
him for an order to the officers club for some liquor. He refused. The
clerk of the club passed by and he told him to let Sergeant Benjamin have
what he wanted. After their conversation, Sergeant Benjamin volunteered to
get him some milk and he gave him the money for it. When he did not
return, he went to Sergeant Benjamin's quarters. Having an old and ragged
blouse, which he had on while watering his yard and garden, he put on the
blouse of Sergeant Major Jones. When he arrived at Sergeant Benjamin's
house, he was not there. A few minutes later Sergeant Dillon came. He
began talking with the little child who was lying on the carpet. Sergeant
Benjamin came in and began in a boisterous manner to abuse him. He made no
reply other than to say hush his voice and to ask for his milk. All of the
intemperate, vulgar, and other unbecoming words were used by Sergeant
Benjamin, and that too after he had left the house, hence the impossibility
of his having an altercation or angry words with him in his house. As he
started across the room to quiet Sergeant Benjamin, Mrs. Benjamin and
Sergeant Dillon both said that he was angry and to go out, which he
immediately did. He later found out that Sergeant Benjamin was crazy
drunk.
Being largely dependent upon the enlisted force of the garrison for
funds to carry on his church and Sabbath school work, if in his enthusiasm
to have the chaplain's work a success, he has been in the opinion of the
authorities too familiar, he hoped that it would not be considered
intentional to bring discredit upon the service. His service of 10 years
in the regiment without receiving a severe reprimand was now called into
question by such an unworthy Soldier as Sergeant Benjamin and has been
humiliating. Sergeant Benjamin was not worthy to be believed. He has lied
in this case. While not complaining against his brother officers, for
their treatment of him could hardly have been better, socially he was
nearly a total stranger. Ten years experience has taught and raised in him
a dread of appearing before those who must compose a court to pass upon the
charge and specifications. It was almost impossible to find a court of
officers entirely destitute of any feeling against a man of his position.
Were circumstances different or if he was a member of the dominant race, he
would ask for a court, but as he was not, he had no alternative, but to
appeal to the authorities to settle the case without dragging him through a
court.
29. On August 11, 1894, Colonel Biddle forwarded the chaplain's letter to
the Department of the Platte for consideration and action and stated that
he had said all he had to say on the matter.
30. On July 31, 1894 Chaplain Plummer submitted his last monthly report to
the Adjutant General, stating that most of the troops had been in the field
and that owing to the excessive hot weather, the services have been only
fairly attended. He stated that the garrison for the month had been very
quiet and orderly. Services were suspended from the 1st to the 16th
inclusive, owing to the Chaplain [his] being in arrest.
31. In an August 25, 1894 telegram to the Adjutant General, Brigadier
General Brooks, commanding [Department of the Platte?] stated that Chaplain
Plummer was to be tried for [conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman]
under the sixty first Article of War. A note appended to that telegram
indicates that it was seen by the Secretary of War.
32. Article 61 of the Articles of War, then in effect, states, "Any
officer who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
shall be dismissed from the service."
33. Article 62 states, "All crimes not capital, and all disorders and
neglects, which officers and soldiers may be guilty of, to the prejudice of
good order and military discipline, though not mentioned in the foregoing
articles of war, are to be taken cognizance of by a general, or a
regimental, garrison, or field-officers' court-martial, according to the
nature and degree of the offense, and punished at the discretion of such
court."
34. On August 27, 1894 Chaplain Plummer was arraigned and tried upon the
charges and specifications enumerated above. He pled not guilty. Chaplain
Plummer was represented by both military and civilian counsel. Witnesses
for the prosecution and for the defense testified and exhibits were
introduced as evidence. Chaplain Plummer testified in his own behalf.
35. Testimony for the prosecution -
a. Sergeant Benjamin's testimony mirrored much of that he provided in
his affidavit, that the chaplain, Sergeant Major Jones, and Sergeant Dillon
all were drinking at the sergeant major's quarters, that the chaplain was
skylarking, and that he made a disparaging remark, in jest, concerning
Sergeant Dillon's children. He stated that the chaplain stated that he
would send Reese to prison, at the same time striking him [Benjamin] on the
side of the mouth, drawing blood, that the chaplain told the club
attendant, Scott, to give him [Benjamin] a bottle of whisky, that all drank
the whisky, that at the request of the chaplain he went to get some milk,
and when he went home, he found the chaplain lying on the floor with his
little girl, that he told the chaplain to get up and go home, that there
was an altercation between them, that the chaplain told him that he could
whip him and that the chaplain cursed him as he was leaving. He stated
also, that they [Benjamin, Jones, and Dillon] all helped in tearing the
chaplain's coat, that they were all skylarking at one time or another. He
stated that the chaplain had been at his house drunk before, but he never
reported it, and would not have done so now had Dillon not been present.
He stated that he received a letter threatening to lynch him if he
testified against the chaplain. The letter and envelope were introduced as
evidence. When questioned by the defense, he denied vomiting at the club,
and denied complaining that the chaplain was holding himself aloof from him
in social matters. He denied remarking that he would send the chaplain to
hell [sometime after the affair at his house]. He denied asking the
chaplain for $15.00. He denied talking over the matter [making a complaint
against the chaplain] with Private Reese. He stated that he did not talk
the matter over with his wife, but she did ask him not to report it. He
denied stating to Dillon [after the chaplain left his house] that he would
cut the chaplain's throat. He did state that he went out of his house with
a knife in his hand about 45 minutes after the chaplain left because
someone threw pebbles on his roof.
b. Mrs. Benjamin's testimony was similar to the information she
furnished in her affidavit. She stated that the chaplain told her husband
that he could whip him, and after being pressed by the Judge Advocate,
testified as to the exact expression she stated the chaplain used, "I can
whip you before you can s___." She stated that the chaplain was swearing
during the altercation with her husband, that Sergeant Dillon came between
her husband and the chaplain, and that Sergeant Dillon pushed the chaplain
out. When questioned by the Judge Advocate she stated that she told the
chaplain to get up and go home, but he did not do so. She stated that she
did not willingly come to testify against the chaplain. She stated that a
Private Stewart of Company A delivered a message from the chaplain that if
she testified again him, he would show her up, and that a day or two later,
he came back, stated that he (Private Stewart) had misconstrued the
message, and that the chaplain stated that he would not let out on her if
she did not go against him. Mrs. Benjamin also stated that she received a
letter from a Commissary Sergeant Jeffers of Angel Island, California, a
person whom she knew from the past, appealing to her to not testify against
the chaplain. When questioned by the defense, Mrs. Benjamin denied
remarking to a Mrs. Howard on the condition of Chaplain Plummer during the
incident, or the same to a Mrs. Rogers; and denied that she had a
conversation with a Charles Pettis stating that the chaplain had not done
anything wrong and that he had not used indecent language. When asked by
the defense, she stated that she had not come willingly because the
chaplain was of her race and that she did not want to do anything that
would hurt him because he had always treated her kindly. She stated that
Private Reese was in her house when her husband wrote out the complaint
against the chaplain, and that he was talking with her husband during that
time. She stated that her husband went out of their house with a knife in
his hand approximately an hour after the chaplain had gone. She stated
that she could not say whether or not the chaplain was sober at the time of
the incident.
c. George Scott, attendant at the officers' club, testified to the
effect that about 7:30 P.M. he was going by Sergeant Major Jones' house
when he was called in and the chaplain gave him a verbal order to let
Sergeant Benjamin have a quart of whiskey. He got the whiskey and gave it
to him, and returned to Sergeant Major Jones' house with him. Sergeant
Benjamin insisted that he have a drink, but he declined. He stated that
the chaplain had said to let Sergeant Benjamin have a quart of whiskey and
charge it to him [the chaplain]. He stated that he did not notice anything
peculiar about the chaplain, other than he was a little lively, good
natured, and talking.
d. Sergeant Major Jones testified much as he had as indicated in the
information contained in his affidavit. He did state that the chaplain
mentioned borrowing his [the sergeant major] blouse, that he drank twice
with the chaplain, and that when he went out [of his quarters] and returned
found his blouse on the bed with a little dirt on it. Upon cross
examination, the sergeant major stated that he connected the soiled blouse
with the trouble at Sergeant Benjamin's house, indicating that if the
chaplain had gone to Sergeant Benjamin's house, he might have had a row
with Sergeant Benjamin because of the feelings that he knew Sergeant
Benjamin had toward the chaplain.
e. Sergeant Dillon testified that he had given the sergeant major a
dollar to get some whiskey, that the sergeant major did get some whiskey,
that he had several drinks at the sergeant major's house, that the chaplain
took a drink with him and the sergeant major, that the sergeant major and
he [Dillon] then went to supper, that on the way back they met Sergeant
Benjamin, invited him to the sergeant major's house, that the chaplain
joined them after having talked with the sergeant major, that he took two
or three drinks with the chaplain, that upon arriving at Sergeant
Benjamin's house to get his wash, the chaplain was there, asked him to play
the organ, which he did, and the chaplain laid down on the floor talking
with the little girl. He stated that he did not hear Mrs. Benjamin say
anything to the chaplain, that Sergeant Benjamin jumped on the chaplain
when he came home, telling the chaplain that he did not allow anything like
that in his house. He stated that the chaplain got up and he got between
the chaplain and Sergeant Benjamin as he thought they would come to blows.
He stated that he asked the chaplain to go home and that he went out. He
stated that the chaplain did not make any threats to Sergeant Benjamin,
that he did not understand the words Sergeant Benjamin used, that he could
not say if the chaplain was angry or not, that he could not say whether or
not Sergeant Benjamin was drunk, that Sergeant Benjamin was boisterous, and
that the chaplain did not seem to be angry.
The Judge Advocate stated that it must be evident to the court that
the feelings of the witness (Sergeant Dillon) were hostile, that the
prosecution had been forced to call Sergeant Dillon and Sergeant Major
Jones as they were the only persons besides Sergeant Benjamin who were
present during the greater portion of the time. Continuing the testimony,
Sergeant Dillon stated that he could hear the chaplain say something like
"hush," but could not remember the manner of the chaplain, that he did not
remember if he was talking in an angry manner, and did not hear him say
anything. Upon cross examination, he stated that the chaplain acted as if
he was angry, but that after Sergeant Benjamin spoke to the chaplain he did
not understand what he said in reply because he was playing the organ at
that time. He stated that shortly after the chaplain left, Sergeant
Benjamin ran out after a man (who he thought was the chaplain), and that he
called him [Sergeant Benjamin] back and told him not to make a fool of
himself. The Judge Advocate continued by asking Sergeant Dillon where he
was when the Sergeant Benjamin came home. He answered that he was sitting
on a piano stool, and that he wheeled around when Sergeant Benjamin spoke
to the chaplain.
f. First Lieutenant Hutchinson, the post adjutant, testified as to
the time of the supper call on the evening of June 2, 1894, stating that
the call should have sounded at 5:30 P.M. that day.
g. Private Stewart testified that he had been down to Mrs. Benjamin's
on a Sunday, was coming back, when the chaplain called him and asked him if
he heard her say anything about his case. He stated that he told the
chaplain that everything that she said was favorable, and when asked by the
chaplain, stated that he did not hear her say she was going against him.
He stated that the chaplain said that when he saw Mrs. Benjamin again to
tell her if she does not go against him that he would not let anything out.
He (Private Stewart) told Mrs. Benjamin and she said that the chaplain
knew nothing on her to let out. A week afterwards, Chaplain Plummer met
him and told him that he told Mrs. Benjamin wrong, and to relate that to
Mrs. Benjamin, so he told Mrs. Benjamin again. She said that what you told
me was that the chaplain was not going to show me up. He (Stewart) said
that the chaplain said that he would not let anything out. She said that
had the same meaning. When questioned, Private Stewart stated that he did
not know what the chaplain meant and the chaplain did not say what he meant
by "letting anything out."
36. For the defense -
a. Sergeant Dillon stated that before the chaplain came into the
sergeant major's house, there was no remark made upon the chaplain as to
his general sobriety, that he did not make a remark to the effect to hurry
up because if that old man [the chaplain] came in he would lie by the jug
until it was empty. He stated that there was no derogatory remark made by
the chaplain in a joking manner, when they were looking at photographs of
his [Dillon] children. He stated that Sergeant Benjamin tore the
chaplain's blouse, that he did not assist in doing so, nor did he see the
sergeant major do so. He stated that he did not see the chaplain crawling
on the floor, tumbling Sergeant Benjamin, or under the side of the bed,
[e.g., skylarking as Sergeant Benjamin testified]. He stated that he did
see Sergeant Benjamin running after a man outside Sergeant Benjamin's
house, that Sergeant Benjamin stated that he thought it was the chaplain
and that he wanted to cut his throat, and that he ran after another man
that was passing by. He stated that Sergeant Benjamin had a knife in his
hand. He stated that when the sergeant major came to Sergeant Benjamin's
house he started to talk to Mrs. Benjamin; however, Sergeant Benjamin
ordered her not to talk with him and ordered her into the next room, and
invited the sergeant major out of his house. He stated that Sergeant
Benjamin stated that he was going to make a report against the chaplain
because there were four men right there to witness it, and he did not want
any strangers to see anything like that going on in his house. He stated
that he did not hear the chaplain say anything to insult or injure Sergeant
Benjamin or his wife, that he did not hear the chaplain use any insulting
or vulgar language, and that he never heard Mrs. Benjamin ask the chaplain
to get up, nor did he hear the chaplain threaten Sergeant Benjamin. He
stated that Sergeant Benjamin was very angry, but he could not say whether
the chaplain was angry or not. When questioned concerning Sergeant
Benjamin's reputation for truth, Sergeant Dillon stated that it was bad;
however, when questioned by the Judge Advocate, stated that he heard it
discussed by the Soldiers of the post, and gave examples thereof. When
questioned by the court why he invited Sergeant Benjamin, a man of his
character as Sergeant Dillon has stated, to the sergeant major's house,
Sergeant Dillon stated that he wanted to find out [his character] himself
before he condemned him. When asked by the Judge Advocate if he formed his
unfavorable opinion of Sergeant Benjamin's veracity before or after he had
trouble with Chaplain Plummer, Sergeant Dillon stated that he formed his
opinion before that and it was unfavorable, and that he invited Sergeant
Benjamin to drink with him because he did not quite find out about him at
that time.
b. Sergeant Major Jones testified for the defense, stated that
Sergeant Benjamin tore the chaplain's coat on two occasions, that neither
he nor Sergeant Dillon assisted in tearing the coat, and that upon his
[Sergeant Major Jones] return from the canteen, he heard Sergeant Benjamin
state to the chaplain that if he were not down on him, he would let him
have it [whiskey]. He heard the chaplain say to go ahead and get it, that
the chaplain was writing something when Scott came by, that the chaplain
tore up his writing, and remarked to Scott to let Sergeant Benjamin have
what he wanted, that they came back with a quart of whiskey and that they
all took a drink, but Scott did not care for any. He stated that he did
not hear any joking remark concerning Sergeant Dillon's wife. He stated
that he treated Sergeant Benjamin's cut lip with salt, that the chaplain
gave Sergeant Benjamin some money to get milk, that the chaplain later said
that he was going to Sergeant Benjamin's house for the milk, that the
chaplain asked him for loan of his blouse, and that he told the chaplain
that he would loan him a civilian coat when he returned from his bath. He
stated that when he arrived at Sergeant Benjamin's house he heard loud
talking, that upon entering Sergeant Benjamin was talking and waving his
hand and running up and down the floor, that Sergeant Benjamin told him
that it was not worth while for him to try to smooth things over for the
chaplain, that the chaplain had behaved shamefully, that had it not been
for Dillon being there he would have cut his heart out, that when he
[sergeant major] started to ask Mrs. Benjamin what happened, Sergeant
Benjamin told her to go to bed, and that since he could not talk with Mrs.
Benjamin, he [the sergeant major] would go out, which he did, Sergeant
Dillon following him. He stated that Sergeant Dillon said that the
chaplain had done nothing disgraceful, but that Sergeant Benjamin must have
had it in for him. Sergeant Major Jones related the details concerning the
incident when the chaplain turned over chairs in Sergeant Benjamin's house
the previous February, indicating that it was all in fun, that the chaplain
was sober, and that they all laughed it off. He stated that after the June
2nd incident, Sergeant Benjamin remarked that he was getting even with the
chaplain for reporting him that time at Fort Riley. He stated that
Sergeant Benjamin's general reputation for truth and veracity was bad and
that he would not believe him on oath in any matter where he was personally
interested. Upon cross examination, he stated that he did see Sergeant
Benjamin with a knife, that it looked like a razor, and that he said he
intended to cut the chaplain's heart out. When questioned, the Sergeant
Major stated that he did admit previous to the trial that he had known of
the chaplain taking a drink, previous to the June 2nd incident.
c. Trumpeter Louis Fort testified that on June 3rd, Sergeant Benjamin
said to Sergeant Major Jones that if the chaplain had asked Sergeant
Benjamin's pardon, he would have dropped the affair, and that if the
Sergeant Major had come to him, he would have dropped it, and then he
stated that he was getting even with him for something that had occurred
between them sometime.
d. Private William Thomas testified that he saw Sergeant Benjamin
drinking three glasses of beer at the canteen on the evening of June 2,
1894, between 8 and 9 o'clock, and that he thought Sergeant Benjamin was
pretty full of liquor. Private Thomas Williams testified that he saw
Sergeant Benjamin drinking beer at the canteen on the evening of June 2,
1894, and that he vomited on the floor, spattering his [Williams] clothing.
Corporal Wilson H. Armstrong testified that he saw Sergeant Benjamin
drinking on the evening of June 2, 1894, and that he vomited on the floor,
and that he vomited on Farrier Williams' pants. He stated that he judged
that Sergeant Benjamin was pretty near drunk. Louis Tolliver, cook at the
canteen, testified that Sergeant Benjamin vomited on the floor during the
evening of June 2, 1894.
e. First Sergeant Tracy testified that on the evening of June 2,
1894, between half past nine and ten 'clock, he was aroused by loud talking
near his quarters, got up and saw Sergeant Benjamin standing out in front
of his gate using profane and boisterous language, and that he had
something in his hand. He stated that there was some man ahead of him and
he [Sergeant Benjamin] said that he had better go you "god dam sun of a
bitch" or he would cut his throat.
f. Mrs. Emma Howard testified that on or about the 8th day of June,
1894, Mrs. Benjamin stated to her that the chaplain was not doing anything,
but sitting on the floor with Clara [her daughter] when her husband came
in, and that the chaplain had always treated her as a gentleman, and she
could not swear to any lies against the chaplain for her husband or anyone
else.
g. Private Charles Pettis testified that Mrs. Benjamin told him that
the chaplain had not done any harm that she knew of except putting on the
sergeant major's blouse, that he was playing with the little girl, and that
she was not going to do the chaplain any harm, because he had done her no
harm, and that her husband had come in and raised a fuss over it.
h. Private William H. Brown testified that he was the typewriter
clerk at the post headquarters, and that he believed that the letter [the
supposed threatening letter received by Sergeant Benjamin] was typed on the
typewriter at post headquarters, because of the peculiarities of some
broken letters, which he had tried, unsuccessfully, to put back together.
He testified that he was away with the troops at Butte, Montana, and that
Sergeant Benjamin had access to the typewriter. The implication by the
defense was that Sergeant Benjamin typed and sent the threatening letter to
himself.
i. Chaplain Plummer testified that he had been at Fort Robinson for
three years and six months, that for a short period of time, the late
Lieutenant Alexander was the only other commissioned officer at the post of
his color, that the next highest officer of his color on June 2nd, 1894,
was Sergeant Major Jones, with whom he had been acquainted for about 10
years. He stated that he met with Sergeant Major Jones before supper on
June 2nd to get up entertainment to pay off church indebtedness, that after
supper he came back in company with Sergeant Dillon and Sergeant Benjamin,
that he called Sergeant Major Jones inside and they talked for two or three
minutes, and that he had talked to Dillon about setting up some
entertainment, and that he [the chaplain] had better talk with Dillon. He
went to the sergeant major's house. They said that Sergeant Dillon had
been promoted, they had some liquor, and they invited him to take a drink
with them. He stated that he did take two or three drinks. He stated that
he had heard that Sergeant Benjamin had a grievance against him and that he
endeavored to impress upon Sergeant Benjamin that he was mistaken in his
opinion, and that Sergeant Benjamin accepted his entreaties and it was all
settled. He thanked him [Sergeant Benjamin] for his kindness, and that of
his wife, when he first came to the regiment 10 years ago. With reference
to furnishing the liquor for Sergeant Benjamin, he stated that Sergeant
Benjamin had said that he was sick, that he could not get any good liquor,
and if an officer would give him an order he could get some. He stated
that at first he refused, but then Sergeant Benjamin placed a piece of
paper and pencil in his hand, stating that the chaplain would if he were
not down on him. At that time Scott came by, and he told Scott to let
Sergeant Benjamin have what he wanted. With reference to the photographs
of Sergeant Dillon's wife and children, he stated that he made no
derogatory remark. He stated that he had been suffering from lumbago, that
he wanted some milk, and that Sergeant Benjamin volunteered to get some.
He gave Sergeant Benjamin the money to purchase some milk and at that time
Sergeant Benjamin asked for a loan of $15.00. He told Sergeant Benjamin
that he did not have the money to spare. Sergeant Benjamin told him that
he would return with the milk and after waiting for about a half hour or
so, asked the sergeant major if he would loan him his coat or blouse. The
sergeant major stated that he would when he came out [of his bath] and that
he thought that he had a civilian coat that he could have. He [the
chaplain] stated that he had on an old coat that he wore in his garden. He
took the sergeant major's blouse and went to Sergeant Benjamin's house.
Upon arriving, he knocked on the door. Mrs. Benjamin let him in. Sergeant
Benjamin had not gotten there. Mrs. Benjamin gave him some milk. Sergeant
Dillon then arrived asking for his washing. Mrs. Benjamin went to get them
and he asked Sergeant Dillon to play the organ. After sitting on a chair
talking with the little girl, he then sat down on the floor, with his
back against the wall talking with the little girl. Sergeant Benjamin came
in, began in a boisterous manner and said all sorts of things, that he was
going to report it, and that he did not allow those things. He got up and
raised his hands and said, hush, hush. Mrs. Benjamin came in and stated
that he [Sergeant Benjamin] was angry, and he was drunk and for the
chaplain to go out. He started to go toward Sergeant Benjamin and then
Sergeant Dillon said to go out. He stated that he never used vulgar
expressions or indecent words as testified to by Sergeant Benjamin.
With reference to the testimony by Private Stewart, he mentioned to
him that it was a terrible affair, that they were trying to bring something
wrong in it between himself and Mrs. Benjamin, and that when he [Stewart]
saw her to tell her that the chaplain had nothing against her, and that was
the extent of any threats that he sent to her by Stewart. When asked by
the defense counsel, he stated that socially he was a stranger to the
officers of the regiment and their families and had been so for 10 years.
He stated that officially their relations had been very friendly and could
not have been better. He stated that he recognized the fact that he was a
member of a race recently freed from bondage and that he had not and did
not want to force or intrude socially upon his brother officers. When
questioned by the Judge Advocate, the chaplain admitted to having a little
whiskey and water with Sergeant Dillon before supper. He stated that
Sergeant Benjamin's animosity to him dated back 10 years when they were
both at Fort Riley. He commented on another occasion when there was cause
for a grievance between them. He commented on the incident at Sergeant
Benjamin's house, stating that he did get up and get out when asked to do
so when Sergeant Benjamin came home, loud and boisterous. He stated that
Sergeant Benjamin did not make any comparison in what he said as to how he
[the chaplain] might like his coming to his house and behaving like the
chaplain was at his [Benjamin] house. When questioned by the court, the
chaplain stated that he paid for the liquor got by Sergeant Benjamin, but
he expected that Sergeant Benjamin would reimburse him. The chaplain
stated that he was wholly or nearly so, dependent upon the enlisted portion
of the garrison for funds, compelling him to be friendly as a preacher with
the enlisted people.
j. The defense then called Lieutenant Hutcheson, post adjutant, as a
witness in regard to forwarding the charges against the chaplain, and the
returning of amended charges against him. Counsel for the defense then
stated that he desired to introduce an extract from the June 9th, 1894
letter and the endorsement returning those charges. There ensued an
argument between defense and prosecutor regarding the document to be
introduced, with the prosecution stating it had no objection provided the
entire document being introduced, which defense counsel objected to. The
court determined that no portion of the letter would be received in
evidence unless the whole letter was introduced. After further argument,
defense then decided not to introduce the letter as evidence.
k. Defense then stated that it desired to introduce into evidence the
second endorsement of the Department. Counsel stated that the original
charges were forwarded by the post commander with affidavits, stating that
he [the post commander] left it up to the Department Commander as to
whether charges should be preferred. The Department Commander sent his
agent to investigate, and he took affidavits and statements. The
Department Commander then decided that the original charge and
specifications could not be proven, and enclosed [to the post commander]
the amended charge and specification that could be proven if it were
possible to obtain evidence from Mrs. Benjamin. Counsel stated that
because the Department Commander passed on the charge and specifications by
constituting a high court of inquiry, and then sent those charges upon
which the chaplain was tried, and that therefore having ordered the court
and having passed upon the matter, the court was ordered illegally. In
effect, counsel stated that the convening authority had made a minute
examination of the ex parte affidavits submitted to him by the Judge
Advocate of the Department, and therefore has prejudged the case. The
court ruled against the defense and determined that the endorsement would
not be received as evidence.
37. The Judge Advocate then stated that the prosecution had some witnesses
to call in rebuttal of the testimony introduced by the defense, the first
witness being Sergeant Dillon for the purpose of laying a proper foundation
to contradict the evidence that he offered for the defense. The court
directed that the Judge Advocate inform the court in detail concerning his
desire and how many witnesses he proposed to introduce and who they were.
The Judge Advocate stated that he wished to rebut some of the testimony
given by Sergeant Dillon, to rebut the efforts made to impeach the
testimony of Sergeant Benjamin, and to introduce some general testimony to
show a strong motive on the part of nearly all of the defense witnesses to
testify falsely. He stated that he would introduce a member of the band
and the four people referred to in the testimony of Sergeant Dillon where
he testified that he heard imputations cast upon the reputation of Sergeant
Benjamin, that he wanted to call six or seven people who were in the
canteen who saw Sergeant Benjamin, and that he wanted to call officers to
swear to the truth and veracity of Sergeant Benjamin.
38. Counsel for the defense stated that it would admit that the officers
would give Sergeant Benjamin an excellent character as a Soldier, but
stated that they had never been associates of his private life. Counsel
stated that the defense was willing to admit those witnesses with regard to
matters in the canteen, who would swear that Sergeant Benjamin did not
vomit and was not drunk and did not get drunk on beer at the canteen. The
Judge Advocate stated that he was willing to accept those conditions, but
not in regard to his good character, as his character was being impeached
in testimony and he was entitled to vindication in open court. Counsel for
the defense stated that it was willing to admit that if Mr. Gungl [of the
band] were brought upon the stand, he would swear that Sergeant Dillon made
contradictory statements.
39. The court determined that the evidence to be introduced was not on
material points, and would not be received as evidence. Further argument
by the Judge Advocate was denied by the court. There being no further
testimony, the court adjourned.
40. In defense counsel's summation, counsel touched upon the chaplain's
service to his country, stated that the chaplain did have three drinks with
the noncommissioned officers, and that he did, in order to keep on friendly
turns with Sergeant Benjamin, tell Scott to give Sergeant Benjamin a quart
of whiskey, but in essence he [the chaplain] was offering himself as surety
in case Sergeant Benjamin did not pay. Counsel stated that in no event,
however, could he say that his conduct was unbecoming an officer and a
gentlemen. Counsel related the circumstances whereby the chaplain's blouse
was torn, stating that three witnesses contradicted the testimony of
Sergeant Benjamin. Counsel related the incident in Sergeant Benjamin's
house, informing the court that prior to putting Mrs. Benjamin on the
stand, the Judge Advocate asked for a recess in order to talk with her as
she had just arrived from the east. Counsel suggested that Mrs. Benjamin
very reluctantly added the words, "I can whip you …," and that it was
evident to the court that she was not a strong woman, that is to say a
woman with strength of character, contending that she was under the duress
of her husband and that her testimony was not free and clear from her
husband's influence. Counsel stated that the general rule of evidence was
that neither the husband nor the wife was competent as a witness either for
or against each other. Counsel reminded the court that Private Reese had
advised her to stand by her husband in the matter. Counsel stated that the
testimony of Sergeant Benjamin was contradicted by Sergeant Major Jones,
and that a witness stated that Sergeant Benjamin had said that he was
getting even with the chaplain. He stated that the anonymous letter that
Sergeant Benjamin had received was written by himself on the headquarters
typewriter. He stated that witnesses said that Sergeant Benjamin was
drinking beer at the canteen and that he vomited on the floor. Counsel
commented on the illegality of the court, that the Judge Advocate of the
convening authority took affidavits and that the convening authority
forwarded the draft of the charge against the chaplain. Counsel called
attention to Winthrop's Digest concerning the institution of charges out of
hostile animus towards the accused or personal interest adverse to him, he
is deemed accuser or prosecutor within the article; nor is he less so where
though he had no personal feelings or interest in the case, he had become
possessed with the conviction that the accused was guilty and deserved
punishment, and in this connection, initiated or assumed as his own the
charge or the prosecution. Counsel stated that the chaplain had a long and
eventful life and if found guilty he would be disgraced forever. He stated
that the chaplain, born over 50 years ago as a slave, educated himself,
spent ten years in the Army with no charges being preferred against him,
supported and educated his children and worked to elevate his race. He
stated that the chaplain had testified that on account of his color he had
never had any social standing at the post, that he did not expect his
brother officers to associate with him, and that all doors were socially
closed to him. Counsel asked the court to consider his position and state
if it was a violation of the law for the chaplain to associate with the
highest noncommissioned officer of the post of his color.
41. The court-martial concluded its proceedings on September 7, 1894, and
on that date returned a verdict of guilty to both specifications and the
charge, and sentenced Chaplain Plummer to be dismissed from the service of
the United States.
42. On September 11, 1894 Chaplain Plummer requested through channels to
the Adjutant General that he be ordered before a retiring board with a view
of examination for retirement. On September 13, 1894 Colonel James Biddle,
endorsed the chaplain's request, stating that the chaplain had recently
been tried by a General Court-Martial; however, he opined that the
interests of the service would be best served by granting the chaplain's
request. His request was referred to the post surgeon who was directed to
conduct a physical examination of Chaplain Plummer. The post surgeon did
so, and stated from that examination and from his history of transient
disorders, he was unable to make any statement in support of his
application. The chaplain then was requested to furnish the names of
witnesses and also any evidence regarding the service performed by him
during the Rebellion. The chaplain provided the names of persons who could
testify as to his ailments. His request was forwarded to the Department of
the Platte. The Department Commander forwarded the request to the Adjutant
General, stating that there was not a proper case for retirement even if
the witnesses should testify fully in the line indicated by Chaplain
Plummer. The Adjutant General submitted the case to the Major General
Commanding. There is no evidence of any final action on his request.
43. On October 17, 1894 the Acting Judge Advocate General reported to the
Secretary of the War through the Major General Commanding the Army, upon
the case of Chaplain Plummer, tried by a General Court-Martial at Fort
Robinson, Nebraska in August and September of 1894. He recounted the
charge and specifications against the chaplain, stated that the chaplain
pled not guilty of the charge and both specifications, but was found guilty
upon all by the court, and sentenced to be dismissed from the service of
the United States. He alluded to testimonials submitted on behalf of
Chaplain Plummer, received after the transmittal of the record [of court-
martial proceedings] and indicated that those testimonials, which included
those from officers and members of Robinson Post Number 261, Grand Army of
the Republic, by some 25 noncommissioned officers and men of the 9th
Cavalry, by Lieutenant Colonel Sanford, 9th Cavalry, and by Lieutenant
Colonel Henry, who wrote on account of his interest in Mrs. Plummer, an
excellent woman and a Christian, were included with the record. He stated
that those testimonials stressed the ability of Chaplain Plummer, his
salutary influence over the men and his efficiency and earnestness in his
work. He stated, however, that no reference was made to the testimony at
the trial or to the facts of the particular offenses as charged. He
concluded that the court was justified by the evidence in its findings and
its sentence, and if the same standard was to be observed and the same
estimate to be applied to the case of a chaplain of a colored regiment as
to that of a post chaplain of the Army, he was unable to recommend a
commutation of the punishment adjudged.
44. In a October 17, 1894 comment [on the court-martial proceedings]
General John M. Schofield, Commanding General of the Army, stated, "Under
the social conditions existing in a colored regiment, conditions created by
law which requires that while all the officers of the regiment, except the
Chaplain, are white, all the enlisted men shall be colored, the familiar
association of the regimental chaplain with the noncommissioned officers of
the regiment and their families in the same manner their white Chaplains
associate with the officers of other regiments and their families, cannot
be a just subject of criticism. But the colored Chaplain may undoubtedly
be held to the same standard of propriety in his moral conduct in such
association that the white Chaplains and other officers of the Army are
held to in their social relations. In this view of the case the findings
and sentence of the court seemed to be fully justified. Yet, in view of
the antecedents of the race that constitute the mass of these regiments, it
might neither be just nor expedient to apply to them so high a standard of
personal conduct as may justly be applied to the more fortunate race. In
this view of the case, it is suggested that the sentence in the case of
Chaplain Plummer be commuted to suspension on half pay for the period of
one year."
45. On October 18, 1894 Chaplain Plummer appealed to the President for
clemency in his case.
46. On October 22, 1894 the Acting Secretary of War submitted the report
to the President, stating that the views of the Acting Judge Advocate
General were concurred in.
47. On October 27, 1894 two individuals wrote the President on the
chaplain's behalf, stating that for the sole reason of his color, he was
barred from social relations with commissioned officers of his regiment
[consequently, his personal and friendly relations with enlisted soldiers
of the regiment, the men who constituted his congregation]. Those two
individuals submitted letters, affidavits, and testimonials as to the
chaplain's character, and his reputation for sobriety.
48. Headquarters of the Army, Adjutant General's Office, General Orders
Number 56, dated November 2, 1894, shows that Chaplain Plummer was found
guilty of the charge and the specifications, and was sentenced to be
dismissed from the service of the United States. The President, Grover
Cleveland, approved the record, proceedings, and sentence on November 2,
1894. By direction of the Secretary of War, the sentence was ordered to
take effect on November 10, 1894, from which date Chaplain Plummer ceased
to be an officer of the Army.
49. In a November 9, 1894 letter to the Adjutant General, the now former
chaplain complained of his treatment. On November 12, 1894, he requested
that the President reappoint him in the Army, and then if deemed in the
interest of the service, he be placed on the retired list. In a November
12, 1894, letter to the President, the chaplain recounted his service to
the country, his success as an Army chaplain, with little or no help from
his fellow officers, and stated that his dismissal was the result of a
scheme based on false testimony and prejudice pushed to the front by
Colonel James Biddle, on account of racial prejudice toward him and his
work as a chaplain.
50. The former chaplain on several occasions appealed to the Secretary of
War and the President for an appointment as a chaplain, or in one instance
to be placed on the retired list. In March 1898 his wife appealed to the
Secretary of War on behalf of her husband, requesting that he be
reappointed in the Army. On March 14, 1898, The Adjutant General informed
Mrs. Plummer that it was beyond his power to help her husband, and that her
only chance was to appeal to the President for reappointment.
51. Mr. Plummer petitioned the Secretary of War and the President in 1898
for a commission in the Army. The Secretary of War on August 10, 1898
informed him that there was no vacancy to which he could be appointed. On
September 5, 1898, 28 republicans from Kansas City, Kansas signed a
petition on behalf of Mr. Plummer (a typed copy of the document is
apparently maintained at the Army Chaplain Museum). On September 1, 1899
he appealed to the President for an appointment as a chaplain in a proposed
colored volunteer regiment. On September 1, 1899 he petitioned
the Secretary of War for appointment as a chaplain in the Army to serve
with the regiment in the Philippines.
52. In September 1899 numerous individuals, to include public and private,
recommended to the Secretary of War that Mr. Plummer be appointed as a
chaplain in the Army. On September 29, 1899, six pastors from Kansas City
recommended to a United States Senator that Mr. Plummer be appointed as a
chaplain in the Army.
53. On January 13, 1904, the Acting Adjutant General informed a Member of
Congress that Mr. Plummer was not eligible for appointment as a chaplain in
the Army.
54. The former chaplain passed away in February 1905.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. There may be some truth to the argument that the command at Fort
Robinson harbored resentment against Chaplain Plummer because of his
activities in the temperance movement, and because of his March 1892
monthly report resulting in the closure, albeit temporary, of the post
canteen, although it appears that Lieutenant Colonel Sanford was the acting
post commander during that period of time. Lieutenant Colonel Bernard may
have indicated that the chaplain was responsible for an inflammatory
circular, drawing unwanted attention to the command and Fort Robinson,
causing him to be antagonistic toward the chaplain. The chaplain may have
added fuel to the fire when he petitioned the Secretary of War for
permission to conduct a missionary expedition to central Africa, again
bringing undue attention to the command. The relationship between Chaplain
Plummer and Lieutenant Colonel Bernard was strained at one time as
evidenced by the chaplain's June 25, 1893 complaint to Colonel Biddle and
Lieutenant Colonel Bernard's response thereto.
2. That there was racial bias against the chaplain is apparent. He and
his family were quartered in the same area of the post as the enlisted men,
in the "lower line." Lieutenant Colonel Sanford, once his commander, and
then Lieutenant Colonel Bernard, by denying the chaplain quarters in the
"upper line," both acceded to an acknowledged, albeit unspoken, policy that
a black officer should not be allowed to socialize with the white officers
of the garrison. Because of his race he was denied quarters appropriate to
his grade. Because of his race, an understanding apparently existed that
he would not interact socially with the officers at Fort Robinson. The
chaplain himself stated that he did not want to force or intrude socially
upon his brother officers.
3. There is evidence that Saddler Sergeant Benjamin had a grudge against
the chaplain at the time of the June 1894 incident and for some years
prior. His real or perceived abuse by the chaplain coupled with the June
2nd incident at his house might have set Sergeant Benjamin off – the "straw
that broke the camel's back," causing him, in his state at that time, to
submit his complaint against the chaplain, setting off a chain of events
that resulted in Chaplain Plummer's court-martial, conviction, and
dismissal from the service. Sergeant Benjamin's grudge or ill will against
the chaplain, however, did not mean that his complaint was disingenuous or
invalid.
4. The post commander caused an investigation to be conducted and obtained
sworn statements. The Department Commander caused an investigation to be
conducted, obtaining affidavits, to include those favorable to the
chaplain. Correspondence ensued between the Department Commander and the
Commander at Fort Robinson concerning the advisability of preferring the
charges, before deciding to do so. Notwithstanding counsel's argument, it
would appear that the charges against Chaplain Plummer were thoroughly
investigated. A complaint was brought, investigated, and charges preferred.
In these official actions, Chaplain Plummer appeared to have been fairly
treated.
5. Counsel's argument that the chaplain's actions at Fort Robinson, e.g.,
temperance movement, etc., are indicators that the command initiated
charges against the chaplain because of racial and personal animus and
that, except for personal grudges, the charges would never have been
brought is speculative. In this respect, counsel in effect, is impugning
the character of members of Chaplain Plummer's chain of command, namely
Lieutenant Colonel Bernard and Colonel Biddle. The evidence submitted
could very well be construed that those two officers, because of personal
bias, wanted to "get rid of" Chaplain Plummer. Evidence shows, however,
that Colonel Biddle at least, provided past favorable reports on the
chaplain, the latest report some five months prior to the June 1894
incident, supported him effusively regarding the number of teachers at the
post school, and subsequent to his court-martial, endorsed the chaplain's
request that he be [medically] retired, stating that the interests of the
service would best be served by granting the chaplain's request. It would
appear, then, despite counsel's contentions, and the numerous opinions
voiced in this respect, that Colonel Biddle did not let any personal
feeling toward the chaplain interfere with his official duties, but
strongly felt that because of the chaplain's conduct, his usefulness as an
officer and a chaplain had virtually ceased. In Colonel Biddle's opinion
the chaplain had compromised his office and rank. Colonel Biddle,
therefore, chose to prefer charges. Counsel's contention that Colonel
Biddle and Lieutenant Colonel Bernard had found a perfect way to eliminate
the chaplain, by preferring charges, while insulating themselves and the
command from charges of racism, is not supported by the evidence.
6. Counsel's contention that in today's society, celebrating Sergeant
Dillon's promotion, as Chaplain Plummer did, would not serve as the basis
for a court-martial is noted. It is not evident, however, that he would
not have been court-martialed if he and the enlisted men with whom he
celebrated in 1894 were white, as counsel avers. Nonetheless, neither of
these statements by counsel has any bearing on the case in hand. The
incident and the court-martial occurred over 100 years ago. To equate
society's mores then with the current rules laid down by society is neither
desirable nor possible. To do so would open the door to unlimited
challenges and re-arguments based on changing values and viewpoints, with
no decision ever being final. Even today, however, the Army's rules
prohibit relationships between Soldiers of different rank if they
compromise, or appear to comprise, the integrity of supervisory authority
or the chain of command.
7. The chaplain testified that socially he was a stranger to the
[regimental] officers and their families and had been so for 10 years.
Considering the times, there is no reason not to disbelieve his lack of
social relations with the officers at Fort Robinson or for that matter at
any other posts prior to his assignment there. Responsible not only for
the religious and spiritual matters at Fort Robinson, he also attended the
sick, and taught the enlisted Soldiers and their children. Officially, the
greater part of his time must have been with enlisted Soldiers and their
families, apparently with little or no help from the regimental officers.
Unofficially, or during his free time, it could be assumed that almost all
of his associations were with the enlisted Soldiers and their families
also.
8. The chaplain's expanded social interaction with enlisted Soldiers and
their families did not bring disrepute to the officer corps, and it did not
undermine good discipline and order, as counsel has stated. The chaplain
did perform his duties and endured his social situation for some 10 years
prior to his court-martial, presumably socializing during that time period
primarily with enlisted Soldiers and their families (an exception being the
civilians with whom he had contact), not affecting the discipline and order
of the regiment. The command apparently had no problem with this social
relationship, but only the nature of this relationship on June 2nd, 1894,
feeling that his actions were disreputable, unbecoming to an officer and a
gentleman, and should not be allowed to go unanswered, and that the
chaplain should be held accountable for his conduct. There is no injustice
in this respect. Colonel Biddle was the commander and the decision to
prefer charges was his to make, and he made it.
9. Counsel's contention that the evidence brought out at the court-martial
did not rise to the level to justify the chaplain's conviction and
dismissal is noted. The chaplain, however, had his "day in court." He was
represented by counsel. Testimony was heard for the prosecution and for
the defense. There was conflicting testimony; however, the court
determined that based on the evidence, from what they heard and saw, the
chaplain was guilty. The Articles of War, in effect at that time, called
for only one punishment – dismissal from the service. No other option was
available to the court, and he was sentenced to be dismissed from the
service.
10. The various appeals made prior to Chaplain Plummer's court-martial and
immediately after are noted. He had the support of black clergy and
congressmen, white citizens of Crawford, Nebraska, two of his former
commanders, and a captain and his wife [who was the chapel organist]. The
appeals made by him, his wife, and numerous other respected citizens on his
behalf, made throughout the years almost to the year he died, are noted.
The proclamations and letters of support have likewise been considered.
11. The evidence clearly shows that the chaplain was drinking with
enlisted Soldiers, that he furnished an additional supply of liquor, that
he wore the blouse of a "Sergeant Major of Cavalry," and that he was
involved in an altercation with Sergeant Benjamin, the extent of which was
disputed. Colonel Biddle determined that the complaint brought against
Chaplain Plummer was serious enough to warrant charges. The Departmental
Commander, after revising the charges, felt the same way. The court saw
and heard the accusers and saw and heard the defense. They sorted out the
evidence and determined that the chaplain was guilty. The court passed the
only sentence that it could – dismissal from the service. It is difficult,
if not impossible, to accurately replicate the actions of those individuals
involved in the "Plummer case" over 100 years ago, and without evidence of
an error or an injustice, to refute the decisions reached in 1894. That
the chaplain suffered social ostracism by white officers because of his
race, is undeniable. That he was unfairly prosecuted and convicted is not
apparent and not proven by the evidence submitted.
12. As indicated by counsel, General John M. Schofield, the Commanding
General of the Army, believed that the standard for whites could not be
applied to black Soldiers and recommended a light sentence for the
chaplain. Nevertheless, General Schofield also stated that if a black
chaplain was held to the same standard that the white chaplains and other
officers of the Army were held to in their social relations, the findings
and the sentence of the court seemed to be fully justified. The acting
Judge Advocate General concluded that the court was justified by the
evidence in its findings and its sentence, and that if the same standard
was to be observed for both a white chaplain and a black chaplain, he was
unable to recommend a commutation of the punishment adjudged. The
recommendation was endorsed by the Secretary of War. The President
approved the sentence.
13. Notwithstanding counsel's arguments, the numerous contentions of
personal and racial bias, and the numerous contemporary pleas and arguments
made in this case, the evidence is not there to prove that the chaplain was
treated unfairly or unjustly in the preferral or the investigation of
charges, the court-martial proceedings, conviction, review of the
proceedings, or his ultimate dismissal from the Army. There is no error in
this case of an injustice done to the chaplain. The preponderance of
evidence does not support counsel's contention of injustice.
14. Nevertheless, the chaplain's service to his country during the Civil
War and, his faithful and honorable service during his 10 years with the
9th Cavalry appeared not to have been taken into account, nor his
particular station throughout his service with the 9th – a black chaplain
socially rejected by his fellow officers. The evidence shows that the
applicant served his country and the 9th Cavalry well - that he was
conscientious, efficient, and did good works, and that he was a much
respected and admired officer. Chaplain Plummer received the support of
civilians, to include townsmen of nearby Crawford, soldiers and officers,
to include his former commanding officers, congressmen, and other prominent
and professional people, both black and white, both before and after his
trial, attesting to his honorable and upright character. Even Colonel
Biddle, his commanding officer and his accuser, recommended that the
chaplain be medically retired – that to do so would be in the best
interests of the service - instead of being dismissed from the service.
15. The chaplain's' good post service conduct is shown by the comments
made in the numerous appeals on his behalf, and support for him continued
throughout his life. His patriotism and love of country are reflected by
his appeals to serve his country during the war with Spain in 1898, to
serve in one of the "immune" regiments, and to serve in the Philippines
after the war.
16. Therefore, giving due consideration to the chaplain's service to his
country – during the Civil War and the Indians wars, his conduct after his
dismissal from the Army, his patriotism and his willingness to serve his
country again during a time of war, it would be altogether fitting to
remove the stigma connected with his dismissal from the service.
17. Thus, it would be appropriate and just to correct the chaplain's
records to show that he was honorably discharged from the Army on November
10, 1894, as a matter of equity.
18. There is, however, no error or injustice in this case with reference
to the record of trial by court-martial. Consequently, the request to
remove the record of trial by court-martial from official military records
is not granted.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
___FE __ ___JM __ ___RO__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was
honorably discharged from the Army on November 10, 1894, and that the
applicant be issued a Certificate of Honorable Discharge from the Army,
dated November 10, 1894, in the name of Henry V. Plummer, Chaplain
(Captain), in lieu of the dismissal of the same date.
2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
removing the record of trial by court martial from official military
records.
_____Fred Eichorn_________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2004104147 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20041123 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |YYYYMMDD |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR . . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |PARTIAL GRANT |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |110.00 |
|2. |126.00 |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010770C071029
The applicant states that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that he neither attempted to engage in sexual relations with a prostitute, nor did he violate any force protection policy by being out of uniform off Camp Butmir, nor did he compromise the safety of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission by allowing an unauthorized civilian to ride in a SFOR vehicle. Chaplain M___ went on to state that he then gave the young lady a ride to her home. The conclusions in the MP Report were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06339-01
second specification, because the verbal order given to him by his commanding officer, not to put salt in recruit canteens, conflicted with standard operating procedures follow the verbal order. Petitioner claims that the order was passed during command briefing where he was not present, and that neither the SOP nor the operations order addressed the issue. Petitioner's claim that his NJP was unjust because a verbal order given to him by his commanding officer, not to have Subj: BOARD FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05798-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 November 1992 to 15 January 1993. ’s e. Concerning the incident for which he received NJP, Petitioner states that while he was attending a recruiting conference with a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant (pay grade E-7) and master sergeant (pay grade E-8), the three of them went out on liberty;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009267C070206
The applicant requests that a memorandum of reprimand imposed by a general officer (GOMOR) and associated documents be expunged from the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant acknowledged the GOMOR and provided a rebuttal in which he maintained that he was not intoxicated under German law because his blood alcohol content (BAC) was only .054 at 0036 hours and .060 at 0038 hours and that German law provided that a BAC of .080 was considered evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020564
The 1SG then instructed the applicant several times to get to his quarters now. On 25 June 2009, the separation authority, approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharge with a general discharge. With respect to a medical discharge, there is no evidence in his records which shows he was physically or mentally unfit at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608200C070209
The applicant was tried by a general court-martial on 17 June 1947 on charges of breaking arrest, disobeying a lawful order of an NCO, drunk and disorderly, and disrespect to an officer. The applicant had an alcohol abuse problem while in military service. The Board considers the punishment of a DD to be overly harsh in view of the applicants alcoholism and in consideration of the offenses for which he was convicted.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01158
Although gait revealed a “slight limp right leg,” heel, toe and tandem walking were reportedly normal. At the general medical C&P evaluation 2 weeks after separation, the CI reported he had not consumed alcohol for 3 months, but that he was previously drinking a six pack, a fifth of whiskey or a case of beer daily.At the C&P examination, dated 13 December 2004 (a month after separation), the CI reported an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization at age 16 for mental evaluation in the context...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00979
ND03-00979 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030513. The next day upon arrival on board I was taken to medical and on the Portsmouth Naval Hospital where I stayed for a week and was given a psychological evaluation contracted for safety and was sent back fit for full duty to my command with the recommendation of alcohol rehabilitation Level 3. The summary of service clearly documents that alcohol rehabilitation failure was the reason the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084642C070212
The applicant submitted two requests to the Army Discharge Review Board asking that his discharge be upgraded. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: However, the applicant himself stated in his request for discharge that he had no problems in the Army until his arrival in Alaska.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081524C070215
The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a request to PERSCOM for promotion reconsideration by the FY98 LTC Chaplain Promotion Selection Board. The evidence of record shows the applicant submitted a second request for promotion reconsideration. There is no evidence available to the Board which shows that the applicant's awards or decorations were removed from the ORB submitted to the FY99 promotion selection board.