07/13/2024
It's about time we got something straight!
130 Years of Mistaken Identity
in San Bernardino’s 1859 Ainsworth-Gentry Affair
By Deven L. Lewis
Research by Dorris Lyn Killian and Deven L. Lewis
It’s time to set the record straight. The man named “Gentry” of San Bernardino’s notorious September 21, 1859, Ainsworth-Gentry Affair was not a “Thomas” Gentry, but rather Franklin “Frank” Gentry, a high-profile physician in the California cities of El Monte and San Bernardino in the 1850s. Certainly, the people of the time knew the “Gentry” in the newspaper reports was Frank Gentry, not “Thomas” Gentry. But beginning in approximately 1883, the histories of the Affair began to misidentify the Dr. Gentry who was the instigator of the event that ended in a riot and gunfire. It became our mission to find out the truth about the Dr. Frank Gentry at the heart of the Affair and how he came to be misidentified as “Thomas” Gentry in later histories of the event.
Most San Bernardino historians are familiar with the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair, the story of two feuding physicians, Ainsworth, a Unionist, and Gentry, a Southern sympathizer, whose personal animosity towards one another broke out into a civil war in San Bernardino, involving heavy gunfire and fights between citizens of both San Bernardino and El Monte, and a loaded canon (now residing at the Native Sons of the Golden West Hall in San Bernardino). The following is the account of the Affair as described in Ingersoll’s Century Annals of San Bernardino County, 1769 to 1904, LA Ingersoll, Los Angeles, 1904, pages 343-344:
“One of the most noted instances of disregard for right or law occurred in 1859 and is known as ‘The Ainsworth-Gentrv affair.’ An eyewitness and participant describes it thus: "San Bernardino at this time had two physicians, one of whom was union in sentiment, the other a southerner. This fact, mingled with a feeling of professional rivalry and perhaps with other causes not made public, produced a rancor which finally led Dr. Gentry to attack Dr. Ainsworth with a horse whip. Dr. Ainsworth seized the whip and struck his assailant in the face. The next day. Gentry, on meeting his rival, fired his pistol at him. Ainsworth escaped the shot by dodging, and returned the fire — but no one was hurt. Gentry collected his friends and they began to make serious threats against Ainsworth. The friends of the latter determined to protect him and eight young men armed themselves. [They]removed Ainsworth to an old adobe house on the corner west of the South Methodist church and there kept guard over him for two or three days. The Gentry party sent word to El Monte that the Mormons had attacked them, and about fifty men from that settlement armed themselves and rode over to San Bernardino. On learning that the Ainsworth party were simply protecting their man, the better class of these visitors returned home. But a few of the more lawless under the leadership of a desperado — one Green, remained and paraded the streets, firing their guns, terrorizing the citizens and defying the authorities. They loaded the old cannon which had looked so formidable in the Fort Benson affair and hauled it into place, announcing their intention of burning clown the house where Ainsworth was in hiding and shooting his guard. One of the guard succeeded in reaching the cannon unnoticed and spiked it with a rat-tail file. When the attacking party became too aggressive the guard prepared to fire. Word was passed to "save fire and shoot low" — and the most of the attacking mob suddenly vanished. A few shots were exchanged, however, and one of the Ainsworth party, Bethel Coopwood, was wounded in the shoulder.
The sheriff, R. V. Herring, was finally compelled to call upon the citizens generally to aid him in restoring order, and the intruders were driven out and sent home.”
Although Dr. Ainsworth can be easily identified as Alonzo Ainsworth (who was residing a year later in San Bernardino in the 1860 census, age 29, occupation “Physician”), no such clear identification has been made for Dr. Gentry by later storytellers. The Los Angeles Star report of the incident, which occurred on September 21, 1859, does not name the offending parties, just the names of those injured:
“A shooting affair came off here today, in which several were wounded—David Coopwood, wounded in the arm, the ball passing through to the shoulder-blade; Bethel Coopwood, wounded in the leg, wrist and mouth; Frank Green, of El Monte wounded in the back; Mat Welch received a slight wound.”
Some contemporary writers have identified Dr. Gentry as “Thomas” Gentry or “G.T.” Gentry. This misidentification may have originated with the prolific publisher of California history, Wallace W. Elliott. Elliott’s “History of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties, California”, published in 1883, relates the story of the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair and identifies the two physicians as “Dr. Ainsworth” and “Dr. Thomas Gentry”. (Wallace Elliott, occupation “Publisher”, age 47, born New York, can be found in the 1880 census living in Oakland, Alameda County, California.) Elliott did not specifically source his identification of Dr. Gentry as “Thomas” Gentry, and it is curious, since the surviving newspapers of the time reviewed to date did not identify the two parties. In fact, Elliott was writing of an incident occurring 24 years earlier; his lack of an identification of Dr. Ainsworth’s first name suggests a possible verbal source who had no recollection of Ainsworth’s first name and an inaccurate recollection of Gentry’s first name. Another possibility is that Elliott found a Thomas J. Gentry in the San Bernardino Assessor records and assumed that he was the Gentry of the Affair. Regardless of the circumstances, this misidentification of Gentry appears to have been carried forward by many subsequent writers of the Affair, who may have used Elliott’s work as source.
The high profile “Dr. Gentry” of the 1850s was Dr. Frank Gentry, who had attended the University of Louisville Medical School in 1851, close ties to many of the well-known men of El Monte/San Bernardino through the “Democracy of El Monte” organization for which he was elected President in 1854. In the Los Angeles Star newspaper, September 13, 1854 edition, it was reported that the “Democracy of El Monte” had elected new officers: Dr. F. Gentry, President; B. Coopwood, Vice President; and A.J. King, Secretary:
“On Thursday, September 11th, a respectable meeting of the Democracy of El Monte township, was held at the office of C. O. Cunningham, Esq. On motion of Capt. E. Hunter, the following gentlemen were elected officers: President, Dr. F. Gentry; Vice President, B. Coopwood; Secretary, A. J. King. On motion, of B. Coopwood, Capt. E. Hunter, B. F. Coopwood, F. Gentry and A. J. King were. appointed a committee to draft resolutions and report immediately, wherefore, the following were submitted and unanimously adopted. Resolved, That we, the Democracy of El Monte Township, heartily approve of the nominations for President and Vice President made by the National Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, 1856. Resolved, That we endorse the Platform and resolutions of said Convention. Resolved, That we will cheerfully support the nominees for State and County officers at the next general election, and that we will use all honorable means to defeat our opponents, under whatever name they may assume, more especially those who style themselves Black Republicans. DR. F. GENTRY, President,. A. J. KING, Secretary.”
On October 18, 1856, the Los Angeles Star reported that the following gentlemen were elected by the El Monte precinct to be delegates at the Democratic County Convention: David Lewis, Bethel Coopwood, Ben Barton, Frank Gentry, A. J. King, E. B. Tyler, D. R. Dickey, W. W. Maxy.
One of the men injured in the notorious 1859 Affair was Bethel Coopwood, who was involved with Frank Gentry in the Democracy of El Monte organization, as cited above as a member and delegate to the Democratic County Convention. Bethel Coopwood was an Alabaman, having come to California from Texas circa 1854, apparently first living in El Monte and moving to San Bernardino in 1857. He has been described as a lawyer, a judge and historian, who returned to Texas in 1861. Convention delegate Ben Barton was a physician from South Carolina, practicing in Alabama and Texas until he came to California in 1854. (Dr. Barton and Dr. Gentry were probable partners of the Barton & Gentry partnership referenced in the June 18, 1859, edition of the Los Angeles Star concerning a Grand Jury investigation of the books of San Bernardino and the determination of the incompetency of the Board of Supervisors; among the list of various payments made are these two entries: “Barton & Gentry, for oil and turpentine, furnished for jail, $62 50" and "Barton & Gentry, for oil and turpentine, $60.50".) Delegate A. J. King was Andrew Jackson King, a Georgian, who came to California from Santa Fe circa 1852 and settled in El Monte. King is described as a lawman, lawyer, legislator and judge of Los Angeles County; he became the first county clerk of San Bernardino County in 1853 , was an Undersheriff of Los Angeles County, and had been a former member of the earlier “Monte Rangers” or “Monte Boys”.
Dr. Frank Gentry was linked again to Bethel Coopwood, as well as to C.O. Cunningham and W.W. Maxy, in the newspapers of the times concerning the 1857 capture of the Flores Gang. The Gang had murdered Los Angeles County Sheriff James Barton, Constable Charles Baker, Deputy Charles Daly, and Constable William Little just outside of San Juan Capistrano. Barton and his men had been after the Gang for their criminal activities throughout Southern California since 1855, which included robberies and shooting ranchers and their families. Former Mexican Governor Pio Pico’s brother, General Don Andres Pico, took charge of forming a large posse to go after the Flores Gang following the murder of Sheriff Barton and his men. The posse was divided into smaller posses, according to the Los Angeles Star, February 7, 1857 edition story entitled “Pursuit of Robbers”. Two of the smaller posses were led by “Dr. Gentry” and “B. Copewood”. Dr. Gentry’s participation is well documented in the article, and it was none other than Dr. Gentry’s posse that captured Flores and a number of Gang members at one point, however, Flores ultimately escaped and was recaptured 24 hours later by other men.
That the Dr. Gentry of the above-cited February 7, 1857 article was Dr. Frank Gentry is supported by a Star article 7 days later concerning the involvement of a boy named “Chino” in the capture of the Flores Gang. The boy was affiliated with the Gang and had given information to Pico regarding the Gang’s whereabouts in exchange for his own life. Whether or not Chino should be spared was apparently a hot topic among the outraged citizens; in the February 14, 1857 edition of the Los Angeles Star appears an article entitled “Statement Concerning Chino”, which begins:
“The following document has been handed us for publication, and we readily give it a place. It will be seen that the particulars stated therein respecting the boy Chino are the same as we published last week, with the addition, that Don Andres Pico and Don Tomas Sanchez, to induce the boy to give them information concerning the hiding place of the robbers, promised him his life. This has been a subject of controversy among our citizens during the week, but now that the fact has been authoritatively vouched for, we hope all dissension or difference of opinion will cease…”
The above is followed by the statement of Frank Gentry, Bethel Coopwood, C.O. Cunningham, and W.W. Maxy as witnesses to the fact that the boy, Chino, had been a valuable informant and that Pico’s promise to spare Chino’s life in return for the information should be honored. In other words, “Dr. Gentry” and “B. Copewood” of the Los Angeles Star article of February 7, 1857 were “Frank Gentry” and “Bethel Coopwood” of the Los Angeles Star statement of February 14, 1857, calling upon the citizens to honor Pico’s promise to spare Chino - Gentry, Coopwood, Cunningham and Maxy having had firsthand knowledge of the boy’s value.
Some two years later, as the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair played out in September of 1859, Dr. Gentry’s fellow Democrat and Vice President of the Democracy of El Monte organization, Bethel Coopwood, “…sheltered the pro Union Doctor Ainsworth in his own home from a mob of pro southern sympathies and was wounded in the shootout that was the climax of the 1859 Ainsworth-Gentry Affair.” In other words, Coopwood set aside his Southern sympathies and nobly protected Unionist Ainsworth from a mob made up partly of El Monte men, many of whom he must have known well and were called into battle by his fellow Confederate sympathizer Dr. Frank Gentry. Where Gentry and Coopwood had been political allies and shared honor in hunting down the Flores Gang, the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair most likely shattered any personal alliance Gentry and Coopwood may have had because of Coopwood sheltering Dr. Gentry’s enemy, Dr. Alonzo Ainsworth.
Dr. Frank Gentry disappeared from the Los Angeles County records not long after the Affair, which may have made it difficult for Elliott and other later writers to fully identify him. But the Los Angeles Star newspaper gives us clues as to Gentry’s whereabouts after the Affair. In the October 22, 1859 edition of the newspaper, one month after the Affair, is an article entitled “Arrivals at the Bella Union Hotel, the week ending October 21, 1859”. Listed twice (meaning Frank had checked into the historic Los Angeles hotel on two separate occasions that week) is “F.Gentry, San Bernardino” and “F. Gentry, Cucamonga”. In the December 8, 1860 edition, the County of Los Angeles, District Court of the First Judicial District, noticed Frank Gentry and Robert Tweedy, as defendants in the matter of P. Kyle vs. Gentry and Tweedy, to answer Kyle’s complaint with respect to a $614.14 debt claimed to be owed to him by the defendants. This claim may have been for damages incurred by Kyle as a result of the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair; the rate of interest on the debt began to accrue on September 21, 1859, the day the Affair occurred. (Robert Tweedy was a pioneer of Southern California, owning a store in San Bernardino in 1857; he had come to California from Arkansas, and may have shared Gentry’s Confederate sympathies.) Within the notice is the remark that Frank Gentry had left the state and his reputed place of residence at the time was Antoino [sic], Pike County, Arkansas. In fact, in the 1860 federal census a Frank Gentry can be found living in Antoine, Clark County, Arkansas, with an occupation of “Physician”. Although the age of this Frank Gentry is shown as “26” in that census, family trees at Ancestry.com and a family Bible reflect him as “Franklin” Gentry, born in 1826 in Arkansas, a son of William Gentry (b. 20 Apr 1788, South Carolina, d. 22 Mar 1858, Clark County, AR) and Jane Narrod. The John Gentry and wife Polly listed in the household on the line directly above Frank Gentry in the 1860 census record cited are believed to be Frank’s brother, John H. Gentry and wife Polly.
It appears Dr. Franklin “Frank” Gentry stood behind his profound sentiments about the pending Civil War; following the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair, he went home to Arkansas, where he enlisted in Company A, 19th Arkansas Regiment as a 2nd Lieutenant to fight for the Confederacy; he “resigned” 25 July 1862. The men surrounding Frank Gentry in the Arkansas enlistment record are believed to be 3 of his brothers (Alfred, James and Samuel). Franklin Gentry’s death date in some Ancestry.com trees is reflected as 24 Apr 1864 (no location given or source cited). To date, he has not been found in the 1870 census or later census records, suggesting he may have died before the 1870 census, perhaps from wounds sustained fighting for the same beliefs that led to the Ainsworth-Gentry Affair.