Samuel S. Haury (1847-1929) was the first missionary sent out by a
North American Mennonite denomination, working among Arapaho and Cheyenne
people in what is now Oklahoma, starting in 1880. His mission career lasted
only seven years, however, ending in scandal in 1887. The end of Haury’s career
has only been publicly known in vague generalities. The most specific
explanation is found in Lois Barrett’s 1983 history of General Conference Mennonite
Church (GCMC) home missions, where she says Haury resigned because of “his
sexual indiscretion with another missionary at Cantonment.’1
The archival record does actually allow for a bit fuller explanation. Haury was located at Cantonment, Indian Territory, where the GCMC had a school for Cheyenne and Arapaho children. Haury was in charge of all the Cheyenne-Arapaho mission activities. Another missionary, Heinrich R. Voth, was located at Darlington, where Haury had started the first Mennonite mission school several years earlier. In a letter of May 14, 1887, from Haury to Voth, Haury says, “C. Krehbiel [chair of the mission board] has already informed you of my approaching departure from the mission, and of the sad cause, brought about by my own conduct and fault. The consequences are terrible. My heart is shattered. Pray for a deeply fallen one.’2
A week later, May 21, there is another letter to Voth: “Our departure is not yet specified. I expected to get my dismissal in today’s mail but it did not come. I hope that it will come soon. It would be best under these circumstances to leave tomorrow. But we will hardly be able to get away by the first of June.’3
The timeline of events seems a little muddied, however, since a letter also dated May 21, 1887, from Haury to the mission board, says: “I write these lines in deep shame and humiliation. I have already given the president of the board verbally and the secretary in written form my confession of my deep fall. . . . My deep fall consists of marital infidelity with Christina Hirschler, sister of my dear wife, so that she is already about 6 months pregnant.’4 This letter circulated among the members of the mission board, scattered from Kansas to Pennsylvania, through at least June 10.
A week later, we find the sole surviving voice from one of the women concerned, Susie Hirschler Haury, writing to H.R. Voth on May 28, in English (most of the other correspondence is in German): “We will go away soon, & it will be no more than natural that everybody at the Agency & at the schools will want to know why we have. Please tell them that we felt we could not remain or something to that effect. I would not ask you to tell an untruth, Never, but there is no need of having it spread among outsiders. It is not on my or our account I ask this, but on account of the Mission work & Christianity’s sake. For such people as live in the Agency & in this country generally, hearing anything of that kind, would call ‘the whole thing a fraud.’ Having had no Christian experience, they cannot know of the hearts-anguish such a person that has fallen, has in his own chamber & in the silent nightwatches.’5 Voth reassured her the next day that he would comply with her wishes.6
Susie Hirschler Haury gave birth to a son, Paul, on Jan. 28, 1887.7 This means that if her sister Christina was six months pregnant in mid-May, then that event must have occurred in mid-December 1886 when Susie was about eight months pregnant. Presumably her sister Christina had come out to help with household tasks before and after the birth.
Paul died on June 14, 1887. “This morning at about 5:00 the Lord took our little son Paul to himself, after several days of severe suffering and a 2 hour hard death struggle. The burial will be tomorrow afternoon about 2:00, Lord willing, and would like to ask you sincerely and urgently to lead this service. The service should be in English.’8
The Haurys must have finally left Indian Territory sometime around the end of June. A letter from G.D. Williams, the Indian agent for the Cheyenne and Arapaho, to J.D.C. Atkins, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 12, 1887, gives a perspective from outside Mennonite circles:
In accordance with instructions of Office letter of the 9th ult. [July 9] I have the honor to report that in the latter part of May last there were rumors about Cantonment, involving the moral character of Mr. Haury. As he had the entire confidence of this community as well as my own, and standing so high in his Church I gave them no credence. June 4th Mr. Haury advised me, by letter, of his resignation as Missionary among these Indians, without alleging any cause. On the 22nd day of June last, in company with Inspector Gardner, I visited Cantonment and learned beyond question that the charges were true.
During the second day of inspection of Indian houses, a number of the head men of the Cheyenne talked with Inspector Gardner about the matter, saying that they did not wish any more such men sent among then and that they desired Mr. Haury sent away. They were assured that he was about to depart, which he did in a few days thereafter.
These Indians do not entertain the highest sentiment regarding chastity, and while I do not believe the unfortunate act within itself would deter them from sending their children to the school, they will use it as an incontrovertible argument against a mission school under the same patronage and decline to support it. This applies more particularly to the Cheyennes who are largely in the majority at Cantonment and who have no earnest desire for the education of their children.
They grasp any excuse for withholding their children; for two years past they have given as a reason that the buildings were old, damp and unhealthful, but as soon as a new building was erected they would fill it.
In view of this I submit that they will use the late unfortunate occurrence with great effect among their people. I do not believe the scandal will in the least injure the mission school located at the Agency and in charge of the Rev. Mr. Voth, as for several years past Mr. Haury has not, in the Indian mind, been identified with it, and I am constrained to believe that the Cantonment Mission will not soon recover from the recent blow and that its success for the next year or two is in the gravest doubt.
The present “picket’ structures at Cantonment will serve another year with some few repairs – but a new building is needed and I believe it should be conducted solely by the Government to insure its success.9
The leading historian of the Arapaho, Loretta Fowler, offers some further explanation of Williams’ comments.
When Cheyenne and Arapaho chiefs directly challenged officials, they often did so by appropriating elements of the dominant ideology. For example, in the delegates’ attempt to counter Agent Woodson’s disparaging description of Cheyennes and Arapahos, they turned his own discourse against him: Woodson was lazy, neglected his work, was fiscally imprudent, and fell short of the ideals of monogamy and sobriety. He spent idle hours dancing while trying to prevent the Cheyennes and Arapahos from having dances. This same tactic was used in regard to local boarding school superintendents and even to missionary Haury, who was caught in an adulterous relationship.10
Fowler gives no sources for her comment about Haury’s “adulterous relationship.’
On Aug. 16, 1887, H.R. Voth wrote to a Captain J.M. Lee, who had apparently had some previous role in the Cheyenne-Arapaho area and remained friends with Voth.
Mr. H. has fallen very deeply. He had had unlawful intercourse with his sister in law, the sinful deed bearing bitter fruit. Mr. H. acknowledged his guilt voluntarily to the Mission Board, was of course promptly discharged, & had to leave. Although covered with shame & disgrace, yet accompanied by the deep sympathy & genuine regret of thousands of friends, his field of faithful labor and is now living in obscurity. The child was born a few weeks ago, but did not live long. That is, in a few words, the deplorable history which ended in such an extremely tragical manner, Mr. Haury’s evidently successful career as an Indian Educator and missionary.11
Haury moved to St. Louis to attend medical school.12 There is one major postscript to the 1887 scandal. At a meeting of the Kansas Conference (predecessor to the GCMC’s Western District area conference, today part of Mennonite Church USA) at First Mennonite Church in Newton, Kansas, Nov. 5-6, 1889, there is this resolution:
26. At the request of the brother, S.S. Haury, that the Conference use its influence in favor of his admission into the Mennonite denomination, the Conference resolves that as such it is ready to offer him the hand gladly and to let his reception take place in a public meeting to which all of the conference churches are herewith invited, on the 13th inst. in the Alexanderwohl Church by Elder Chr. Krehbiel with the assistance of Elder Jak. Buller, as commissioners of the Conference.13
Two persons recorded the actual event at Alexanderwohl. Johann Jantzen, a Mennonite minister from Beatrice, Nebraska, who was attending a ministers’ meeting, noted the event in his diary:
In the Alexanderwohl church, the former missionary Haury, who had been separated from the church, was re-accepted. He seemed very repentant. Elder Balzer read Psalm 51 and had the opening prayer. Elder Gaeddert preached on John 10:12, a very nice exposition. Elder Christian Krehbiel carried out the acceptance and Elder Stucky closed with prayer. It was a large gathering and a very large church, recently built. On the way back <to Newton> we had very nice weather and better roads; we stopped at the Bethel College foundation <construction site>, it is around 15 feet high now, with 3 feet in the ground.14
Then, H.R. Voth’s father Cornelius described the event to his son, mixed in with news about the farm and crops, in a Nov. 17, 1889, letter:
We still have 20 acres of corn to <cut??> and also so much work to prepare the cattle for winter. Now dear son, I must write to you a little about the acceptance of S.S. Haury into the community <Gemeinschaft> on the 13th last Wednesday in our church (it was a nice day), there were quite many people present, especially many elders and preachers because the day before in our school was the preachers’ conference, it was really a sad sight how deeply humiliated Haury was, an evil picture of how sin can bring a person down, it was too bad that you could not be present and also at the conference, since there is always something to learn for our life, I certainly believe Haury has genuine repentance, he cried many tears and was very broken down, there were also many tears from the assembly with him, it was a moving performance, to begin Elder Buller read Psalm 51, how we are kept, then Elder Gaeddert preached very seriously and Christian Krehbiel did the actual acceptance, Elders Buller, Gaeddert and Newton elder Toews stood around him and greeted him with hand and mouth <holy kiss?> and with moving words of encouragement, may the dear Lord protect everyone from such a heavy burden since one sees what serious sins bring about. They are again gathering potatoes which will be brought to Newton on Tuesday and sent to you.15
It is completely unclear what kind of reconciliation service took place Nov. 13, 1889. It was not an Alexanderwohl congregational matter but something more general, Kansas/Western District Conference or GCMC. There is no evidence that Haury was ever a member of the Alexanderwohl church. He joined First Mennonite in Halstead March 30, 189016, and then transferred to First Mennonite in Newton Nov. 21, 1897.17 These record books do not indicate where he was a member before 1890, but it was probably Summerfield, Illinois. The Summerfield membership records have been lost.
The Hirschler family was fairly prominent in GCMC circles. The father of Christina and Susanna, Daniel A. Hirschler (1821-1888), was a minister at Summerfield. Their brother John S. Hirschler (1847-1915) was also a widely known minister. Another brother, Daniel B. Hirschler, was an Oklahoma missionary. A niece (daughter of John S. Hirschler), Anna, married Gustav A. Linscheid and they were later Cheyenne missionaries. Another sister, Anna (1854-1896), was married to Peter S. Haury, brother of Samuel S.18
Two additional pieces of misinformation about the Haury incident deserve to be clarified. One rumor that apparently circulated in the Berne, Indiana, Mennonite community tied Haury to another sister-in-law, Elisabeth Welty Hirschler, wife of Daniel B. Hirschler. The rumor claims that Haury fathered the child Dorothea Hirschler, born Nov. 20, 1885. Daniel and Elisabeth Hirschler were mission workers in Cantonment.19 But obviously this does not fit the chronology of Haury’s departure almost two years later nor the contents of the Haury and Voth correspondence. Presumably someone in the community knew, well after the event, that Haury had had a sexual relationship with his “sister-in-law’ and extrapolated to the wrong sister-in-law.
The second piece of misinformation appears in Donald Berthrong’s 1976 The Cheyenne and Arapaho Ordeal. Berthrong stated that Haury “had been involved with school-girls at Cantonment.’ But the only source he cites for this is the letter from Williams to Atkins of Aug. 12, 1887, quoted above, which makes no mention of school girls.20 Obviously Berthrong had not seen Haury’s letter of resignation or the other mission-related correspondence, so he was reading into the Williams letter assumptions that were unsupported by his evidence.
Jim Juhnke also references this student-involvement rumor but footnotes Berthrong, so apparently he did not have an independent source for it.21
Christina Hirschler (1865-1941) married Louis M. Ledig in 1891. They moved from Summerfield to Upland, California, in 1895, and had one son. Samuel and Susie Haury also moved to Upland when he retired in 1913. It seems like that would have been an awkward situation.22