the inauguration of his successor on the 15th of December, probably owed
his appointment to his reputation as a Democratic editor. Though his
rise to political prominence was similar to that of the President, he
had not the latter’s inflexibility of principle. A secessionist in 1856,
when the success of Fremont appeared probable, he soon began to recede
from that position, and in 1859 was opposed to disunion; subsequently he
drifted with the popular current and even went so far in an advanced
stage of the Rebellion as to advocate a “last-dollar-and-last-man”
resolution. But even this, together with the expression of extreme
opinions, did not restore him to public confidence, and before the end
of the war the _Standard_, which he edited, became the organ of the
disaffected. Notwithstanding this wavering and inconsistent career the
fact that he was generally regarded as an enemy of secession singled him
out as the proper person to reorganize the government of North Carolina.
Though the President was not indifferent to the demoralized condition of
his native State, that consideration alone does not appear to have
induced him to begin the process of reconstruction with that
commonwealth. There is strong testimony to prove that Mr. Lincoln had
prepared a similar proclamation for restoring the former relations of
North Carolina, and on July 8, 1867, General Grant testified before the
Joint Committee on Reconstruction that he had twice heard read at
meetings of Mr. Lincoln’s Cabinet a paper embodying the same provisions
as that published by President Johnson.
Before taking the second step a brief interval elapsed; perhaps the
President was hesitating; however this may be, he informed Hon. George
S. Boutwell that “the measure was tentative.” The fears of the
Massachusetts statesman and his concern for harmony in the Republican
party, of which he was an able and honored leader, induced him, in
company with Senator Morrill, of Vermont, to call on the President.
During their conversation Mr. Johnson, when the dangers of his policy
were indicated, assured his visitors “that nothing further would be done
until the experiment had been tested.”[474]
Notwithstanding this deliberate assurance, the President at that time
appears to have almost determined on the system that he intended to
adopt, for scarcely two weeks had passed when he appointed, by a
proclamation similar to that for North Carolina, William L. Sharkey,
Provisional Governor of Mississippi. Within a month from the date of Mr.
Holden’s appointment others were made for all the remaining States
except Florida, the order for reorganizing which was delayed till July
13.[475]
The origin and development of the Executive plan having now been traced
with some degree of minuteness, it is not the design of this essay to
pursue circumstantially the institution of that system in the six
remaining States. By proclamations almost identical with that issued in
the case of North Carolina, provisional governors were appointed in all
of those commonwealths before the middle of July. Though the method of
reorganization in these States presented similar features, several were
distinguished in some respects from the others. Observations on those
differences will employ nearly all that remains to be said on
Reconstruction under President Johnson.
The appointment of Mr. Holden alarmed Republican leaders; the successive
proclamations for restoring the other States directed public attention
to the questions involved in reconstruction. Seeing that Congress was
not in session, that the President had assumed an expectant attitude,
and that every plan of reunion proposed was liable to serious objection,
it is not a matter of wonder that the recent Confederate authorities
attempted of themselves to restore Federal relations.
These were among the considerations that induced Governor Clarke, of
Mississippi, to summon the Legislature of that State to meet on May 18.
In his address convoking the disloyal assembly he urged the people, in
order to remove the necessity for sending Federal troops among them, to
restore and preserve peace. The Legislature came together accordingly,
and, among other measures, provided for the election, on June 19, of
delegates to a State convention. Before that date, however, the
President had appointed William L. Sharkey, an eminent jurist,
Provisional Governor, thus ignoring both the measures of Mr. Clarke and
the insurgent assembly. The latter was dispersed by a military order,
while the Governor was carried off to a fortress in Boston harbor.
Mr. Sharkey, in a dutiful and able address, appointed August 7 as the
day for holding an election of delegates to a State convention which was
to meet at the city of Jackson one week later. In this proclamation, he
said: “The negroes are now free—free by the fortunes of war—free by
proclamation—free by common consent—free practically, as well as
theoretically, and it is too late to raise questions as to the means by
which they became so.”[476] Though the Governor, to avoid the delay of
separate county organization, had appointed many local officials who had
held their posts during the Rebellion, he required all of them to take
the oath of allegiance prescribed by the President.
The convention, which assembled at the appointed time, declared the
ordinance of secession null and void, prohibited slavery and made it the
duty of the next Legislature to provide for the protection of the person
and the property of freedmen. The lawmaking body was also to take
measures for guarding both the negroes and the commonwealth against any
evils that might arise from sudden emancipation. The first Monday in
October was appointed for the election of State officers and members of
Congress. A memorial was also adopted urging the President to remove the
colored troops from the State. The members, acting apparently in their
individual capacity, united in a petition for the pardon of Jefferson
Davis and of Governor Clarke. The amendment of the State constitution
abolishing slavery was adopted by the decisive vote of 86 to 11. After
South Carolina, Mississippi contained the greatest proportion of slaves,
and was thus very deeply involved in the system.
While the convention was in session the President sent to Governor
Sharkey a telegram in which he made the following remarkable suggestion:
I am gratified to see that you have organized your convention
without difficulty.... If you could extend the elective franchise to
all persons of color who can read the Constitution of the United
States in English and write their names, and to all persons of color
who own real estate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty
dollars and pay taxes thereon, you would completely disarm the
adversary and set an example the other States will follow. This you
can do with perfect safety, and you would thus place Southern States
in reference to free persons of color upon the same basis with the
free States. I hope and trust your convention will do this, and as a
consequence the radicals, who are wild upon negro franchise, will be
completely foiled in their attempts to keep the Southern States from
renewing their relations to the Union by not accepting their
Senators and Representatives.[477]
From the view point of practical politics this recommendation was
undoubtedly a wise one, but it will scarcely be contended that it was
the suggestion of enlightened statesmanship. The South, distrusting the
President’s sincerity, refused to adopt his suggestion. The
communication is reproduced, not to show that the President was not
always impelled by the highest motives so much as to show that even
before Congress had assembled he had already come to regard as “the
adversary” those whose exertions secured his election.
In his proclamation appointing a date for the election of delegates
Governor Sharkey advised the people, when it might be necessary in
consequence of the remoteness of a military force, to form a county
patrol for the apprehension of offenders. Information having reached him
that in many parts of the State organized bands had been robbing and
plundering, and that the Federal troops were insufficient to suppress
these disorders, he urged citizens, especially the young men who had “so
distinguished themselves for gallantry,” to organize promptly in each
county volunteer companies, one of cavalry and one of infantry if
practicable, to assist in detecting, punishing and preventing crime.
From his headquarters at Vicksburg, General Slocum, the Federal
commander, immediately published an order to prevent the proposed
reorganization of the militia. The contemplated force, he said, would be
numerically superior to his own, and, as many of the Union troops on
duty in Mississippi were freedmen, collisions would be unavoidable. The
crimes referred to by Mr. Sharkey were, the General asserted, committed
against Northern men, Government couriers and negroes. Southerners, it
was true, had been halted by these marauders, but were promptly released
and informed that they had been stopped by mistake. Citizens who
recognized the persons were unwilling to disclose the names of these
lawless members of the community. The State, too, he declared, had not
yet been relieved from the attitude of hostility which she assumed
against the General Government. Those engaged in attempts to organize
the militia would be arrested.
Fearing that the President would not support General Slocum, Carl
Schurz, who had been sent South on a mission to assist in carrying out
the Administration policy, expressed in a communication to the President
some doubt as to the wisdom of the Governor’s action. To this the
President, in a reply of August 30, said he presumed that General
Slocum, without first consulting the Government, would issue no order
interfering with Mr. Sharkey in his effort to restore the functions of
the State government. In the matter of organizing patrols Mr. Johnson
took the same view as the Governor, and in that connection said, “The
people must be trusted with their government, and, if trusted, my
opinion is that they will act in good faith and restore their former
constitutional relations with all the States composing the Union.”[478]
The lapse of fifteen months had worked a revolution in the opinions of
the President. Circumstances, it is true, had changed since the delivery
of his Nashville speech; the main question, however, had not greatly
altered, for it was still important to determine the political people of
the late insurgent States. From declaring that “rebels” must take a back
seat in the work of restoration, the President had come to believe that
“the people must be trusted with their government.” It is not to convict
Mr. Johnson of inconsistency that his opinions are here brought into
juxtaposition, but rather to inquire whether every important
consideration for ignoring secessionists in 1864 had disappeared by
1865.
On representation from the Provisional Governor that the Federal
commander interfered to prevent the execution of his proclamation for
reorganizing the militia, the President on September 2 required General
Slocum to revoke his military order. Under instructions somewhat
peremptory in tone, that officer two days later rescinded his
proclamation.
The condition of the freedmen, as well as their exact legal status,
became about this time the subject of much discussion in Mississippi.
While many continued in the service of their old masters, numbers roamed
about the country in idleness, and nearly all of them had very
extravagant notions of their newly acquired rights and privileges.
Though the whites admitted of necessity the complete freedom, they were
for the most part unprepared to grant equal rights to negroes. Between
them and their employers, however, there occurred but little serious
trouble. All labor was contracted for, and owners of plantations,
apprehensive that labor would be difficult to secure at the beginning of
the season, were anxious to make contracts for the year 1866. Toward the
close of September the assistant commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau
turned over to the civil authorities all the business of his court. To
get rid of military tribunals, Governor Sharkey promised that in all
cases involving the rights of negroes their testimony would be accepted.
In the election, which was held on October 9, General Benjamin G.
Humphreys, late of the Confederate army, was chosen Governor;
immediately thereafter he was pardoned by the President. Five
Representatives in Congress were also elected. By the Legislature, which
convened and organized one week later, Governor Sharkey was appointed
United States Senator to fill the unexpired term of Jefferson Davis. For
the long term, Mr. J. L. Alcorn was elected. The legislation relative to
freedmen will be subsequently considered.
Besides his complaint to the President relative to the interference of
General Slocum with the proposed reorganization of the militia, Governor
Sharkey expressed dissatisfaction with the military authorities who
refused to obey writs of _habeas corpus_ issued by local judges. To this
Secretary Stanton replied that the grant of a provisional government did
not affect the proper jurisdiction of military courts, and that this
jurisdiction was still called for in cases of wrong done to soldiers,
whether white or colored, and in cases of wrong done to colored
citizens, and where the local authorities were unable or unwilling to do
justice, either from defective machinery, or because some State law
declared colored persons incompetent as witnesses. Mississippi was to a
considerable extent still under military law, and the suspension of the
writ of _habeas corpus_ had not been revoked. To a similar remonstrance
the Secretary of State replied that, the commonwealth being still under
martial law, the military power was supreme.
On receiving tidings of General Johnston’s surrender, Governor Brown, of
Georgia, called a session of the Confederate Legislature, but General
Gilmore, who commanded the department including that commonwealth,
issued a counter-proclamation annulling the late Executive’s order.
General Wilson, in writing the ex-Governor, used expressions that were
needlessly harsh, and whether the language was his own or that of the
President, to whom the commander ascribed it, the style was neither
dignified nor magnanimous. Whoever may have been responsible for the
phraseology, the Union General appears to have believed in a rigorous
exercise of the rights of conquest. With the defeat of this attempt of
the recent authorities to restore their commonwealth to its old status,
Georgia remained in military hands till the appointment, June 17, of
James Johnson as Provisional Governor.
In the work of reconciling the people of that State the Provisional
Executive was assisted by a sensible address of ex-Governor Brown, and
by the support of many leading secessionists. Now that the
“irrepressible conflict” had been settled, the people appeared anxious
for the reorganization of their State. The 4th of October was early
fixed as the date for holding an election of delegates. The suffrage of
citizens was solicited and received by candidates of ability and
character. These were pledged to advocate the necessary measures for
restoring their commonwealth.
The convention assembled at Milledgeville on October 25, was called to
order by the Provisional Governor, and elected Herschel V. Johnson as
its president. Instead of declaring the nullity of the secession and
kindred ordinances the convention “repealed” them. On the question of
repudiating the war debt the vote stood 133 to 117 in favor of the
proposition. This resolution, however, was not carried until November 7,
and appears even then to have been passed only after considerable
pressure from Washington, whence the President directed or assisted by
telegraph the proceedings in all the reconstruction conventions. The war
debt thus declared void amounted to $18,135,775. The necessity for this
action is evident; the hardships occasioned thereby can be easily
imagined.
The State constitution, which was thoroughly revised, recognized the
changes that had occurred in civil and social affairs. In that
instrument the freedom of slaves was expressly declared, and the
Legislature was required to make regulations respecting the altered
relations of this class of persons. The constitution as thus amended was
unanimously adopted by the convention.
Though Georgia was not the most loyal supporter of Jefferson Davis in
the time of his prosperity, now that adversity had overtaken him, the
convention, in a memorial to President Johnson, invoked the Executive
clemency in behalf of their late chief. The convention assumed for the
people their share in the crime for which Mr. Davis and a few others
were undergoing punishment.
As in the case of Mississippi, the President approved the organization
of “a police force” in the several counties, for the purpose of
arresting marauders, suppressing crime and enforcing authority.
The Legislature, which was elected November 15, assembled at
Milledgeville on the 4th of December following. With its proceedings we
are not now concerned more than to observe that the Thirteenth Amendment
was adopted by that body five days subsequently.[479] The measures of
the Georgia Assembly were not before Congress when it convened.
Like the chief magistrates in several other Southern States, the
Confederate Governor of Texas, when convinced after the surrender of
General Kirby Smith that the war had ceased, took steps toward bringing
his commonwealth into its old practical relations with the Union. He
accordingly ordered an election of delegates to a convention to be held
on June 19, but was anticipated by President Johnson, who two days
earlier had appointed Andrew J. Hamilton Provisional Governor. Though
the latter did not promptly appoint a day for holding the election, he
announced his intention of doing so at an early date. There was probably
in the minds of the less intelligent Texans a notion that emancipation
was to be gradual, or that it was not yet an accomplished fact. To
dispel any such idea the new Executive circulated an address which
informed the public that if, “in the action of the proposed convention,
the negro is characterized or treated as less than a freeman,” Senators
and Representatives from Texas would vainly seek admission to the halls
of Congress. The choice of delegates having been fixed for January 8,
1866, an account of the convention or of the proceedings in the Assembly
subsequently organized in that State does not fall within the scope of
this work. In the interval justice was administered by officers
temporarily commissioned for that purpose.
The negro population, which, because of the influx from other Southern
States, had doubled since 1860, presented a difficult problem in the
reorganization of Texas. They knew little of the uses of freedom and
were kept systematically at work only by the candid admonitions of
General Granger and the Governor. Toward the close of December, however,
a better feeling prevailed among them; but it appears to have been a
serious problem to have kept the freedmen of Texas steadily at work.
Planters throughout the State lost heavily by their inability to engage
or to retain in their service laborers enough to gather the standing
cotton crop. The full consideration of this subject is inseparable from
an analysis of Texan legislation relative to freedmen. Though well
advanced, the reconstruction of Texas under the Executive plan was not
completed before the meeting of the Thirty-ninth Congress.
Nothing in the reorganization of Alabama or of South Carolina calls for
especial mention. The same is true of Florida. Both the spirit and
tendency of Southern legislation, however, require to be noticed, and
with that examination a brief recapitulation will complete this
investigation.
Before concluding this inquiry two related topics require briefly to be
noticed, namely, the character of the reconstruction conventions, and
the _personnel_ as well as the spirit of the legislatures organized
under their authority. As to the former it may be observed that there
were several modes in which constitutional conventions could have been
assembled; all, however, were objectionable because of an element of
irregularity. Considering them chronologically, rather than logically,
the first was the method employed by the Union men of western Virginia.
The Wheeling convention of June, 1861, was composed of delegates chosen
at elections called, not by the constituted authorities, for they were
already committed to a policy of rebellion, but by a spontaneous popular
movement inaugurated by loyal and influential leaders. The work of this
body, even though revolutionary, or at least irregular in its origin,
was acquiesced in by the people affected and subsequently approved by
the General Government. So few, however, were the loyalists of the
insurgent States generally, that it was not practicable elsewhere in the
South to reorganize governments in a similar manner.
A second mode was that adopted by Mr. Lincoln. Under this method, the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, protected Union minorities in their
efforts to reëstablish local governments in harmony with the Federal
Constitution. This plan, it is evident, could be justified merely as a
military measure, and, therefore, was lawful only during the continuance
of the Rebellion. On the return of peace all such provisional schemes
would disappear unless tolerated by the neglect or confirmed by the
legislation of Congress. The conventions held under this theory rested
on the authority of the commanding officer, who was himself acting by
Executive direction. In reorganizing the government of Louisiana,
General Banks, it will be remembered, declared that the fundamental law
of that commonwealth was martial law, which was no more than his
arbitrary will. In purging the electoral people and amending the
constitution of that State he acted in strict conformity with that
assumption. If in the preceding pages the reconstruction measures of Mr.
Lincoln have been characterized as legitimate, it must not be supposed
that it was intended to assert that they would have been lawful in time
of peace, for under the American system it has never been deemed
competent for the national Executive to call a convention. Though the
establishments instituted under his authority, except in the case of
Tennessee, never received the permanent sanction of Congress, the
conventions which organized these governments stand on a foundation
somewhat different from those assembled by the appointees of President
Johnson, for in the summer of 1865 the plea of military necessity could
no longer be urged. If, therefore, the conventions held in Louisiana,
Arkansas and Tennessee were tainted with irregularity, those assembled
in the remaining States were undoubtedly revolutionary. Technically,
however, the conventions of both classes stand on the same footing.
Governor Perry, of South Carolina, regarded as revolutionary the body
which he convoked to reorganize his commonwealth, and for that reason,
as he alleged, dissolved the convention before it had taken final action
on the important question of the Southern debt.
The course of the Confederate governors of Mississippi, Georgia and
Texas, who summoned the insurgent legislatures of their respective
States for the purpose of calling conventions, suggests a third mode in
which the machinery of government could have been set in motion. This
plan, however, presented an evident difficulty, inasmuch as these
assemblies could not have been recognized without admitting in some sort
the validity of the secession and kindred ordinances. Mr. Lincoln, it is
true, intended, before hostilities had ceased, to permit the members of
the Virginia Legislature to meet as influential individuals for the
purpose of recalling their State troops from the Confederate army. The
surrender of Lee occurring soon after, and the President’s action having
been misunderstood, he withdrew this permission, and did it the more
readily as the necessity which suggested it had passed completely away.
The department commanders prevented any response to the proclamations of
the Executives in the three States named above, and President Johnson by
his prompt appointment of provisional governors ignored or anticipated
their action. To say nothing of the revolutionary course contemplated by
the ex-Confederate governors, the success of their plan required the
approval or at least the connivance of Federal authorities.
Still another manner of proceeding was for Congress, by calling or
authorizing conventions, to inaugurate the movement for reconstruction;
but the power of the national Legislature extends only to the passage of
enabling acts for Territories, and these commonwealths appear to have
been neither constitutional Territories nor constitutional States.
However, as some irregularity was inseparable from any system of
reorganization, the Legislative branch of Government was the authority
least objectionable for controlling informal changes in the nature of
the Union. If powers not conferred by the Constitution must be assumed,
it is better in the interests of civil liberty for the representatives
of the people to transcend the organic law.
The second mode, it need scarcely be observed, was that embodied in the
Executive plan. The conventions which assembled under encouragement and
direction of President Johnson had an opportunity unequaled since the
formation of the Constitution of winning the gratitude of the nation. By
adopting an enlightened and humane policy they could have furnished an
example of patriotism that would serve to influence the deliberations
not only of the first assemblies to meet under the new order, but of all
future legislatures in those States. It is well known that they did not
prove equal to this emergency; the concessions to Northern opinion were
not gracefully yielded, and lost much of their merit by having been
extorted from the fears of the delegates. In some instances the
conventions, by assuming functions of the ordinary legislative
character, transcended their powers, and many of them “repealed” the
ordinances without condemning the principle of secession. They amended
and even adopted constitutions that were never submitted to the people.
The civil rights of the negro were abandoned to the mercy of those who
had fought to perpetuate human servitude. No provision was made for
freedmen in the fundamental law, it having been assumed that the new
legislatures could be trusted to extend justice equally to all classes
in the community. In a word, those were disappointed who had expected
from the conventions a display of civic virtues commensurate to the
occasion.
The remaining topic, that is, the character of the reconstructed
governments as well as the spirit and tendency of their legislation, may
in this place be briefly dismissed. Not, indeed, that the subject is
unimportant, for it was mainly upon this question that the Thirty-ninth
Congress justified its refusal to admit members from the South, and
vindicated its rigorous treatment of the subjugated States. While an
investigation of public opinion in that section is essential to a
correct understanding of legislative action, the full consideration of
the subject belongs properly to a treatise on Congressional
reconstruction, a theme to which this essay is only introductory. For
the present purpose, therefore, a brief outline must suffice.
Though the reconstruction conventions were correctly regarded as
revolutionary, that character would not affect the legislatures
instituted by their authority if the people concerned acquiesced in
their proceedings. Americans of that day were not altogether indifferent
to the sacred right of revolution, even if the principle was not so
highly esteemed as formerly. An objection far more serious than the
irregular origin of these conventions was the spirit which animated
Southern legislators.
When the Thirty-ninth Congress convened at its first session members had
before them only the merest fragments of the mass of testimony
subsequently reported by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, though
even then they possessed evidence of the temper of the Southern mind
sufficient, they believed, to recommend the most deliberate procedure.
It would not be difficult to collect from contemporary literature proofs
of hostility to the General Government sufficient to justify the
attitude of Congress when it assembled on the 4th of December, 1865.
From various sources the Northern people had caught glimpses of the
actual condition of affairs within the late Confederacy. These
manifestations of unfriendliness to the Union were enough to excite
suspicion, and, in a matter affecting the future welfare of a great and
powerful nation, suspicion is a just ground for inquiry.
The alacrity with which the Southern people rushed to battle, as well as
the vigor with which they prosecuted the war, was a phenomenon not more
remarkable than the unanimity and promptness with which they apparently
acquiesced in the result. It was long before the people of the North
could believe that the rebellion was anything more than a leaders’
insurrection, and they could not easily be persuaded after its close
that those who had fought so desperately to destroy, were sincere in
their professions of loyalty to, the Union. It was not unnatural,
therefore, that the late adversaries of the South would look with
suspicion on her instant submission. With few exceptions Southern
statesmen seemed desirous of effecting an early reunion. While various
reasons might be assigned to explain this dutiful and almost unlimited
obedience, it is certain that the argument chiefly relied upon by the
provisional governors was that it was only by such a course that they
could hope soon to be relieved of the presence among them of Yankee
soldiers. Apprehension that more burdensome conditions might be imposed
by Stevens and other radical leaders in Congress was, perhaps, not
altogether without influence in producing this general acquiescence in
the policy of the President.[480] As every citizen who engaged in
rebellion had forfeited both his life and his estate, it would be
prudent temporarily to conceal any feeling of resentment, or any desire
of revenge. These considerations were not without influence on the
conduct of both the leaders and the people. With the quick upgrowth,
however, of a feeling of personal safety, encouraged, no doubt, by a
lavish distribution of pardons, and with an expectation, not unfounded,
that reconciliation would speedily be followed by either a restoration
of, or indemnity for, confiscated property, this policy of conformity
would vanish. Thus under exterior tranquillity rankled bitter memories
of disaster and defeat nourishing a state of unrest which even the
unquestioned influence of their late commanders could not always keep
from expressing itself in acts of violence. However, as Henry Winter
Davis had foretold, the Southern population generally put on the seemly
garb of peace and observed the form of holding elections.
Notwithstanding that many of their most enlightened citizens
recommended, and that their most trusted leaders enjoined, submission to
the new order, the transition from a state of hostility was marked even
at the outset by acts of the highest indiscretion. Nor were these
confined to irresponsible individuals whose utterances might have been
justly regarded as the momentary inspiration of passion. Some of the
acts referred to were the deliberate convictions of legislative bodies,
and, as these measures appear to have escaped criticism, they may fairly
be supposed to reflect the sentiments of the South. In the circumstances
this was especially unfortunate, postponing as it did the day of peace
and reconciliation; it afforded also a decent pretext to the “Radicals,”
if they desired one, for excluding the Southern delegations from
Congress. It justified inquiry, and investigation was fatal to Southern
claims of universal submission.
Though the exclusion of representatives undoubtedly intensified, it did
not occasion the change in Southern feeling, for the Mississippi
measures, presently to be noticed, were passed before the meeting of
Congress. Acts of frequent occurrence tended to confirm the worst fears
of that body, and long before the Joint Committee had completed their
labors they were supplied with new species of violence if any
description of outrage was lacking to crown their indictment. With due
allowance for the fact that during many years preceding the war outrages
were much more numerous in the slave than in the free States, it soon
became apparent that it was unsafe to leave to the justice of Southern
courts either the few Unionists who had remained faithful in that
section or the recently enfranchised slaves. The estimation in which the
former were held appears in the fact that in competition for office they
were uniformly defeated by ex-Confederate candidates, sometimes by
unpardoned, and even unrepentant ones. The feeling toward freedmen was
one of extreme bitterness. Overlooking scattered acts of violence and
outrage of which negroes were generally, though not always, the victims,
Southern hostility toward them found unmistakable expression in the
November legislation of Mississippi. On the 22d of that month was
enacted a law regulating the relation of _master_ and _apprentice_ in
the case of “freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes.” Among other things
this statute provided:
That it shall be the duty of all ... civil officers ... in this
State to report to the probate courts of their respective counties,
semiannually, ... all freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes, under
the age of eighteen, within their respective counties, beats or
districts, who are orphans, or whose parent or parents have not the
means, or who refuse to provide for and support said minors, and
thereupon it shall be the duty of said probate court to order the
clerk of said court to apprentice said minors to some competent and
suitable person, on such terms as the court may direct, having a
particular care to the interest of said minors: Provided, That the
former owner of said minors shall have the preference, when in the
opinion of the court, he or she shall be a suitable person for that
purpose.
Sec. 2.... That the said court shall be fully satisfied that the
person or persons to whom said minor shall be apprenticed shall be a
suitable person to have the charge and care of said minor, and fully
to protect the interest of said minor. The said court shall require
the said master or mistress to execute bond and security, payable to
the State of Mississippi, conditioned that he or she shall furnish
said minor with sufficient food and clothing, to treat said minor
humanely, furnish medical attention in case of sickness, teach or
cause to be taught him or her to read and write, if under fifteen
years old, and will conform to any law that may be hereafter passed
for the regulation of the duties and relation of master and
apprentice: Provided, that said apprentice shall be bound by
indenture, in case of males until they are twenty-one years old, and
in case of females until they are eighteen years old.
Sec. 3.... That in the management and control of said apprentices,
said master or mistress shall have power to inflict such moderate
corporeal chastisement as a father or guardian is allowed to inflict
on his or her child or ward at common law: Provided, That in no case
shall cruel or inhuman punishment be inflicted.
Sec. 4.... That if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his
or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master
or mistress may pursue and recapture said apprentice, and bring him
or her before any justice of the peace of the county, whose duty it
shall be to remand said apprentice to the service of his or her
master or mistress; and in the event of a refusal on the part of
said apprentice so to return, then said justice shall commit said
apprentice to the jail of said county, on failure to give bond,
until the next term of the county court; and it shall be the duty of
said court, at the first term thereafter, to investigate said case,
and if the court shall be of opinion that said apprentice left the
employment of his or her master or mistress without good cause, to
order him or her to be punished, as provided for the punishment of
hired freedmen, as may be from time to time provided for by law, for
desertion, until he or she shall agree to return to his or her
master or mistress: Provided, that the court may grant continuances,
as in other cases; and provided further, that if the court shall
believe that said apprentice had good cause to quit his said master
or mistress, the court shall discharge said apprentice from said
indenture, and also enter a judgment against the master or mistress,
for not more than one hundred dollars, for the use and benefit of
said apprentice, to be collected on execution, as in other cases.
Sec. 5.... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or
her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or
furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of
his or her master or mistress, or shall sell or give said apprentice
ardent spirits, without such consent, said person so offending shall
be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction
thereof before the county court, be punished as provided for the
punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen,
free negroes or mulattoes.[481]
In the matter of apprenticing minors it will be observed that the former
owner, when a person satisfactory to the court, was to have the
preference; in the event of his death his widow or other member of his
family was, if deemed suitable, to have the preference in
re-apprenticing the minor. When there was no record testimony of the
date of birth, judges of county courts were empowered to fix the age of
the minor. The act was to go into force immediately after its
passage.[482]
The act of November 25, conferring civil rights on emancipated slaves,
provided:
That all freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes may sue and be sued,
implead and be impleaded in all the courts of law and equity of this
State, and may acquire personal property and chooses in action, by
descent or purchase, and may dispose of the same, in the same
manner, and to the same extent that white persons may; Provided,
that the provisions of this section [1] shall not be so construed as
to allow any freedman, free negro or mulatto, to rent or lease any
lands or tenements, except in incorporated towns or cities in which
places the corporate authorities shall control the same.
* * * * *
Sec. 5.... That every freedman, free negro and mulatto, shall, on
the second Monday of January, one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-six, and annually thereafter, have a lawful home or
employment, and shall have written evidence thereof, as follows, to
wit: if living in any incorporated city, town or village, a license
from the mayor thereof, and if living outside of any incorporated
city, town or village, from the member of the board of police of his
beat, authorizing him or her to do irregular and job work, or a
written contract, as provided in section six of this act, which
licenses may be revoked for cause, at any time, by the authority
granting the same.
Sec. 6.... That all contracts for labor made with freedmen, free
negroes and mulattoes, for a longer period than one month shall be
in writing and in duplicate, attested and read to said freedman,
free negro or mulatto, by a beat, city or county officer, or two
disinterested white persons of the county in which the labor is to
be performed, of which each party shall have one; and said contracts
shall be taken and held as entire contracts, and if the laborer
shall quit the service of the employer, before the expiration of his
term of service, without good cause he shall forfeit his wages for
that year, up to the time of quitting.
Sec. 7.... That every civil officer shall, and every person may
arrest and carry back to his or her legal employer any freedman,
free negro or mulatto, who shall have quit the service of his or her
employer before the expiration of his or her term of service without
good cause, and said officer and person shall be entitled to receive
for arresting and carrying back every deserting employee aforesaid,
the sum of five dollars, and ten cents per mile from the place of
arrest to the place of delivery, and the same shall be paid by the
employer, and held as a set-off for so much against the wages of
said deserting employee: Provided, that said arrested party after
being so returned may appeal to a justice of the peace or member of
the board of the police of the county, who on notice to the alleged
employer, shall try summarily whether said appellant is legally
employed by the alleged employer and has good cause to quit said
employer; either party shall have the right of appeal to the county
court, pending which the alleged deserter shall be remanded to the
alleged employer, or otherwise disposed of as shall be right and
just, and the decision of the county court shall be final.
Sec. 8.... That upon affidavit made by the employer of any freedman,
free negro or mulatto, or other credible person, before any justice
of the peace or member of the board of police, that any freedman,
free negro or mulatto, legally employed by said employer, has
illegally deserted said employment, such justice of the peace or
member of the board of police, shall issue his warrant or warrants,
returnable before himself, or other such officer, directed to any
sheriff, constable or special deputy, commanding him to arrest said
deserter and return him or her to said employer, and the like
proceedings shall be had as provided in the preceding section; and
it shall be lawful for any officer to whom such warrant shall be
directed to execute said warrant in any county of this State, and
that said warrant may be transmitted without indorsement to any like
officer of another county, to be executed and returned as aforesaid,
and the said employer shall pay the cost of said warrants and arrest
and return, which shall be set off for so much against the wages of
said deserter.
Sec. 9.... That if any person shall persuade or attempt to persuade,
entice or cause any freedman, free negro or mulatto, to desert from
the legal employment of any person, before the expiration of his or
her term of service, or shall knowingly employ any such deserting
freedman, free negro or mulatto, or shall knowingly give or sell to
any such deserting freedman, free negro or mulatto, any food,
raiment or other thing, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars
and not more than two hundred dollars and the costs, and if said
fine and costs shall not be immediately paid, the court shall
sentence said convict to not exceeding two months’ imprisonment in
the county jail, and he or she shall moreover be liable to the party
injured in damages: Provided, if any person shall, or shall attempt
to persuade, entice, or cause any freedman, free negro or mulatto,
to desert from any legal employment of any person with the view to
employ said freedman, free negro or mulatto, without the limits of
this State, such person, on conviction, shall be fined not less than
fifty dollars and not more than five hundred dollars and costs, and
if said fine and costs shall not be immediately paid, the court
shall sentence said convict to not exceeding six months’
imprisonment in the county jail.
This arbitrary and cruel act, wholly inconsistent with a state of
personal freedom, by forbidding the lease to freedmen, free negroes and
mulattoes of either lands or tenements outside of cities, not only made
of the emancipated slaves a landless and homeless class, but deprived
them of all hope of rising out of that condition. On the second Monday
of January, 1866, less than two months after the passage of this act,
and annually thereafter, they were required to have a lawful home or
employment, and to possess written evidence thereof. This requirement
extended to the doing of even irregular and job work, and a written
contract for all labor for a longer period than one month. If the
laborer, without good cause, left the service of his employer before the
expiration of his term, he forfeited all wages for that year up to the
time of quitting. As the freedmen were wholly without representation in
the State judiciary, the master class could in every instance determine
the sufficiency of the cause. The intermarriage of the races was made a
felony, and the white or the black person convicted of that crime was to
be confined in the State penitentiary for life.[483] Southern whites had
no objection to the personal attendance, even in first-class railway
coaches, of colored servants, but as other than a servant, the freedman
was considered exceedingly obnoxious, and this sentiment was enacted
immediately before either of the statutes mentioned, into a law which
excluded negroes from riding in cars of the first class.[484]
There was some apprehension lest this and similar legislation would lead
to bloody outbreaks. The colored race generally was growing distrustful
and discontented. The fear of violence was probably not unconnected with
the passage of a law approved November 29, which provided:
Sec. 1.... That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the
military service of the United States Government, and not licensed
so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or
carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk, or
bowie-knife, and on conviction thereof, in the county court, shall
be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of
such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited
to the informer, and it shall be the duty of every civil and
military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro or mulatto,
found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be
committed for trial in default of bail.
Sec. 2.... That any freedman, free negro or mulatto, committing
riots, routs, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief and cruel
treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures,
language or acts, or assaults on any person, disturbance of peace,
exercising the function of a minister of the Gospel without a
license from some regularly organized church, vending spirituous or
intoxicating liquors, or committing any other misdemeanor, the
punishment of which is not specifically provided for by law, shall,
upon conviction thereof, in the county court, be fined not less than
ten dollars and not more than one hundred dollars, and may be
imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, not exceeding thirty
days.
Sec. 3.... That if any white person shall sell, lend or give to any
freedman, free negro or mulatto, any fire-arms, dirk or bowie-knife,
or ammunition, or any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, such
person or persons so offending, upon conviction thereof, in the
county court of his or her county, shall be fined, not exceeding
fifty dollars, and may be imprisoned at the discretion of the court,
not exceeding thirty days....
Sec. 4.... That all the penal and criminal laws now in force in this
State, defining offences, and prescribing the mode of punishment for
crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free negroes or
mulattoes, be and the same are hereby re-enacted, and declared to be
in full force and effect, against freedmen, free negroes and
mulattoes, except so far as the mode and manner of trial and
punishment have been changed or altered by law.
Sec. 5.... That if any freedman, free negro or mulatto, convicted of
any of the misdemeanors provided against in this act, shall fail or
refuse, for the space of five days after conviction, to pay the fine
and costs imposed, such person shall be hired out by the sheriff or
other officer, at public outcry, to any white person who will pay
said fine and all costs, and take such convict for the shortest
time.[485]
Though the General Government was solemnly pledged to guarantee the
entire freedom of the negro, he was completely disarmed by these
statutes, which were to be administered by men who had been but recently
serving the Confederate cause. The purpose of the last measure is
rendered clear by Section 4, which reënacted against freedmen all the
penal and criminal laws that had applied to slaves. It revived, in
short, the black code of _ante bellum_ times.
Persons convicted of vagrancy, under an amendatory act, approved
November 24, 1865, were subject to a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars and costs, besides a maximum imprisonment of ten days. The first
section, which defined who were vagrants, was general in its
application. The provisions especially affecting freedmen were the
following:
Sec. 2.... That all freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in this
State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in
January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business,
or found unlawfully assembling themselves together either in the day
or night time, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen,
free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen,
free negroes or mulattoes on terms of equality, or living in
adultery or fornication with a freedwoman, free negro or mulatto,
shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof shall be fined
in the sum of not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro
or mulatto, fifty dollars, and a white man two hundred dollars, and
imprisoned at the discretion of the court, the free negro not
exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months.
* * * * *
Sec. 5.... That all fines and forfeitures collected under the
provisions of this act shall be paid into the county treasury for
general county purposes, and in case any freedman, free negro or
mulatto, shall fail for five days after the imposition of any fine
or forfeiture upon him or her for violation of any of the provisions
of this act, to pay the same, that it shall be, and is hereby made
the duty of the sheriff of the proper county to hire out said
freedman, free negro or mulatto, to any persons who will, for the
shortest period of service, pay said fine or forfeiture and all
costs: Provided, a preference shall be given to the employer, if
there be one, in which case the employer shall be entitled to deduct
and retain the amount so paid from the wages of such freedman, free
negro or mulatto, then due or to become due; and in case such
freedman, free negro or mulatto cannot be hired out, he or she may
be dealt with as a pauper.[486]
* * * * *
No extended knowledge of human affairs is necessary to perceive that, by
a rigorous enforcement of these laws, the great mass of freedmen could
be easily restored to a state of practical servitude during the season
when their labor was desirable, and that for the remainder of the year
their condition would be little better than that of the pauper. That the
two races were regarded as equal before the law will scarcely be
contended. An act approved December 1 made it a misdemeanor in certain
cases for either a white or a black man to hunt hogs or other stock upon
any lands other than his own; the white man was liable, on conviction,
to a fine of from $100 to $500, or imprisonment from one to three months
in the county jail, or both, at the discretion of the court. For the
same offence no imprisonment was provided in the case of freedmen, and
the fine was fixed between $10 and $20. The latter, however, could be
hired at public outcry to the lowest bidder who would pay the fine and
cost. The employer, it was provided, was to have the preference in
hiring.[487]
The Legislature first to meet under the reformed government not only
expressed for the people of Mississippi no profound regret for resisting
the Federal authority, but left no doubt in what estimation it held
those who fought for Southern independence by releasing ex-Confederate
soldiers from indictments for misdemeanors committed before the
war.[488] In perfect harmony with the spirit of this act of oblivion was
one which changed the name of Jones County to that of Davis, and the
name of Ellisville in the same county to Leesburg.[489] This, it should
be observed, was only three days before the meeting of Congress.
This legislation, by no means the most severe enacted under the new
governments, marks in Southern sentiment a reaction no less unexpected
than the complete and almost instantaneous submission following the
surrender of Johnston. The sudden change in opinion has been ingeniously
and even absurdly accounted for. In the latter class of explanations may
be included the notion that the people of the South were exasperated by
the interference of Congress, that body, as already mentioned, not
having convened till after the passage of the obnoxious laws. On the
other hand, it was not generally known, even in Mississippi, that the
President in the work of reorganization had resolved to ignore the
coördinate political branch of Government; he had, indeed, fairly
signified to Governor Sharkey the position that he intended to assume,
but his communication to that official, which was never designed for
publication, was not immediately circulated through the State; the
knowledge, therefore, that the Executive had concluded to oppose the
policy of Congress could not have been a factor in disturbing the brief
repose of the seceding States, and we must seek elsewhere for the cause.
In many of the insurgent commonwealths rebellion had involved almost
every citizen in the guilt of treason, almost every estate in the
liability to confiscation. The President and his advisers hoped by a
generous distribution of pardons to win the esteem and confidence of
this numerous and influential class, and to leave to “Radical” members
of Congress the ungrateful office of punishment. This policy contributed
to awaken the undaunted spirit of the South, and was, no doubt, an
element in unsettling the conditions that prevailed after the surrender.
Northern magnanimity, which was content to regard the defeat of
secession as sufficient discipline for the rebellious States, and the
attitude of the Democratic party were also important influences in
misleading the South. More responsible for the reaction, however, than
any of these was the unsatisfactory administration of the Freedmen’s
Bureau. The testimony of General Grant can be cited to prove that, while
accomplishing much that was desirable, this institution was retarding
somewhat the progress of reconstruction. In a hurried tour of the late
Confederate States he had observed that it was not conducted with good
judgment or economy, and remarked in his report to the President that
“the belief widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern States,
that the lands of their former owners will, at least in part, be divided
among them, has come from the agents of this bureau. This belief is
seriously interfering with the willingness of the freedmen to make
contracts for the coming year.... Many, perhaps the majority, of the
agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau advise the freedmen that by their own
industry they must expect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure
employment for them, and to see that both contracting parties comply
with their engagements. In some instances, I am sorry to say, the
freedman’s mind does not seem to be disabused of the idea that a
freedman has the right to live without care or provision for the future.
The effect of the belief in division of lands is idleness and
accumulation in camps, towns, and cities.”[490]
Though its management was open to criticism, the necessity for the
existence of the bureau, to afford at least temporary protection to the
newly enfranchised, was perceived and acknowledged by the General. It
probably accorded well with the political aspirations of bureau agents
to create in the minds of freedmen a belief that the Government would
give to each of them “forty acres of land and a mule”; for this
expectation would be a pledge of allegiance to the Federal
representative, without the approval of whom no negro could seriously
hope to secure so enviable a start in his career of freedom.
That confusion would follow the violent overthrow of a long-established
industrial system was to be expected, and it was not unnatural for the
South to ascribe to the influence of bureau agents much of the mischief
inseparable from immediate emancipation. While the complaints of the
late insurgents were commonly considered with deference, it was scarcely
to be expected that they would not sometimes be despised, and it would
be easy to impute to their discontent every outrage reported to the
officers of the bureau or the commanders of the posts. Though Federal
representatives as a rule labored faithfully to restore and preserve
order, it would be singular if some of them, assuming the arrogant
manner of conquerors, did not occasionally depart from that system of
conciliation which the generous nature of Mr. Lincoln had adopted.
These were among the causes of the Southern reaction. It is no
justification of these severe and even cruel enactments to show, as Mr.
Herbert has done, that similar laws disgraced the statute books of many
Northern States. In the settlement then in progress the Southern people
conceded nothing of importance that was not won in the war, and if they
were as sincere in their desire for reunion as some writers contend,
they should not have feared the paradox of improving by their example
the ancient legislation of the free States, or have been alarmed at the
innovation of reducing to practice the principles of the Declaration of
Independence.
It is not to be denied that there was considerable ground for complaint
because of the influence of many employees of the bureau in demoralizing
the Southern system of labor, but the further punishment of a race that
had been trodden down by oppressive generations does not commend itself
as either a humane or an enlightened remedy; besides, the South was
greatly indebted to the fidelity of the negro, who during the war
possessed, without abusing, the opportunity as well as the capacity for
mischief. On the other hand, there was some obligation to Northern men
for their magnanimity, and under wiser counsels their wishes, and even
their prejudices, would have been respected. In the victorious section
public opinion, then in the formative stage, was watching anxiously the
progress and the proceedings of the new governments. Except a few
extremists, the voters of the loyal States did not dream at that time,
as was persistently asserted at the South, of forcing negro suffrage on
the rebellious States. They did, however, desire to see embodied in the
new State constitutions such provisions as would establish before the
law the equality of all classes.
While the policy of President Johnson did not altogether escape
criticism at the South, so general and so prompt was the acquiescence in
his plan, that when Congress convened nearly all the States recently in
rebellion had remodeled their governments and elected members of
Congress who were at the national capital waiting to be admitted to
seats. Without separately considering the new establishments, they may
be described concisely and with sufficient accuracy as governments
differing but little from those extinguished by the fall of the
Confederacy. The members of the former, it is true, had taken an oath of
allegiance, and the influence of that act upon their conduct will
presently be noticed. Though it certainly was not the original
intention, and appears never to have become the fixed purpose of Mr.
Johnson to entrust to enemies of the Government the work of restoring
the insurgent States, the result of his endeavors was that
reconstruction was left almost exclusively in the hands of those who had
attempted to destroy the Union. It was precisely such a contingency that
Mr. Lincoln had in mind when he declared in his message of December 8,
1863, that, “An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived State
government, constructed in whole or in preponderating part from the very
element against whose hostility and violence it is to be protected, is
simply absurd.”[491]
This deliberate statement, as well as the subsequent administrative acts
of Mr. Lincoln, sufficiently disposes of the notion that he favored a
rather loose system of reconstruction. Without attempting to distinguish
between theories really identical, there was still a considerable
difference in the reorganization effected under the two Executives. The
conditions which confronted the President and Congress in December,
1865, could have arisen only from disregarding the principle laid down
by Mr. Lincoln. From his solemn and reiterated declarations there can be
little doubt that he would have rejected without hesitation any system
of which the first fruits were little more than a nullification of his
decree of emancipation.
Notwithstanding his tireless threats of severity, we can easily perceive
in the reorganization directed by Mr. Johnson, a noticeable falling back
from the Executive plan of December, 1863, as announced and enforced by
his predecessor. Nor did this retrogression proceed from the greater
humanity, but rather from the greater weakness of the new President.
Even in the matter of fealty there was a difference; for while the
conflict was still doubtful, the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
General Government was a serious step for the Southern Unionist, because
the record thereafter singled him out, if not for destruction, at least
for annoyance, or for punishment by the friends of secession, and,
perhaps, the oath then effected some such object as it was designed to
accomplish. When war had ceased, however, there was no longer a choice
of sides, and thenceforth universal swearing as an instrument of
government became practically worthless. It was not regarded, at all
events, as an efficient security for the future. Mr. Johnson probably
continued to exact oaths of allegiance because they were formerly of
value in distinguishing the friends from the enemies of the Government.
Though professing the same general opinion on the subject of amnesty,
the principles on which the two Presidents granted pardons were
sufficiently distinct.
We have seen that President Johnson, who had once declared that “rebels”
should take a back seat in the work of reconstruction, so far changed
his opinion that he subsequently said the people must be trusted in the
restoration of their governments; he likewise modified his early
impressions as to the permanence of the establishments instituted under
his predecessor, for it was his original opinion that those governments
were merely provisional in their nature, and would require the
confirmation or the approval of Congress. Ultimately, however, he came
to regard himself as the judge of their sufficiency. The evidence of
this is conclusive. In a telegram of July 14, 1865, to Governor Sharkey,
Secretary Seward said:
“The government of the State [Mississippi] will be provisional only
until the civil authorities shall be restored, with the approval of
Congress. Meanwhile military authority cannot be withdrawn.”[492]
If it be contended that Mr. Seward made this important declaration upon
his personal responsibility the argument fails, because in a dispatch to
Governor Marvin, of Florida, dated September 12, 1865, nearly two months
later, the Secretary of State repeated the substance of the message in
language even more explicit. On that occasion he said: “It must,
however, be distinctly understood that the restoration to which your
proclamation refers will be subject to the decision of Congress.”[493]
The determination of President Johnson to retain the members of Mr.
Lincoln’s Cabinet would indicate his original intention of applying to
the subjugated States the system adopted by his predecessor. The
influence which led to the modification of the method of enforcing
without abandoning the principles underlying that plan it is not easy to
discover. His change of attitude toward the South has been variously
explained. By Mr. Blaine it has been ascribed to the flattery of
Southern leaders, as well as to the personal influence of Secretary
Seward, whose wide culture, and consequent humanity, would favor a
policy of conciliation. Without intending to underestimate the
insinuating address of the New York statesman it may be observed that
his powers of persuasion appear to have exerted themselves with most
success in the direction of the President’s inclination. The attention
of Southern leaders, a class of men by whom the President had hitherto
been ignored, deserves, however, to be noticed in any enumeration of
even the probable cause of the change. Another theory has it that Mr.
Johnson both feared and hated several of the leading Republicans,
because of their connection with a movement to procure his resignation
from the Vice-Presidency, a station which, they believed, he had
disgraced by appearing in an intoxicated state to take the oath of
office. His desire to punish those who had constituted themselves
custodians of the national dignity, it is asserted, was a principal
motive in his surrender to the South. A more reasonable explanation of
the change which occurred in the President’s attitude toward his own
section is that offered by Dr. Chadsey, who regards Mr. Johnson as an
inconsistent advocate of State Sovereignty.[494] In this principle he
believed as firmly as Jefferson Davis himself, though unlike the
Confederate chieftain he refused, by stopping short of secession, to
accept its logical results. Nearly all his administrative acts are those
which might have been expected from a Democrat of the strict
construction school, and Andrew Johnson never professed allegiance to
any other political party.
The governments of which the reorganization has been described in the
preceding pages continued in operation until suspended by the
Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867. Except Texas all these
establishments, as previously observed, had sent members to the
Thirty-ninth Congress. Their claims to seats, it is well known, were
completely ignored, and a select body, consisting of nine members from
the lower and six from the upper House, was appointed to investigate the
condition of the late Confederate States, and to report whether any of
them were entitled to representation in either branch of Congress. With
the conclusions of the celebrated Joint Committee this essay is not
concerned further than to observe that on the recommendation of the
majority the Tennessee delegation was admitted on the 24th of July,
1866. Long before that event, however, the task of restoring the Union
had been taken altogether out of Executive hands.
If we reflect how much swifter in a political organism is the progress
of ruin than that of repair, and consider that four years had been
abandoned to the destruction and disorders of civil war, we cannot but
be surprised at the attempt of the President, single-handed, to adapt
and execute in less than three months a series of measures designed to
restore tranquillity and revive prosperity among the impoverished
inhabitants of a wasted country. In this view his failure in the work of
reconstruction can excite little astonishment. One reason for this
precipitate action was a desire to reunite the sections before the
meeting of Congress, and it was so far a praiseworthy if not a prudent
course to adopt. But had he proceeded ever so leisurely there would
still have existed undoubted obstacles to success. To say that he was
lacking in the tact of his predecessor, that he was naturally of an
obstinate and even of a combative disposition, and that he possessed
defects, both of temper and judgment, would be merely to repeat a few
trite observations.[495] Conditions were rapidly changing, but with Mr.
Johnson, conditions passed for almost nothing, though in reality
circumstances make legislative acts beneficial or otherwise. Like the
measures of the Thirty-eighth Congress for restoring the Union, those of
Mr. Johnson may be carefully examined without discovering any
considerable traces of originality. Indeed, if we except President
Lincoln, this entire period seems to have been somewhat lacking in
constructive statesmanship, though no branch of the public service was
without officials of integrity, judgment and ability.
In the course of the preceding pages the inaugurals, the messages, the
letters and other communications of Mr. Lincoln have been freely quoted
to show his opinions on all of the principal and most of the subordinate
phases of reconstruction. To complete the design of this inquiry, there
remains to be considered but a single topic related to the main theme,
namely, the limitations of the Presidential plan for restoring the
Union. Many of these defects having been incidentally noticed, a general
recapitulation does not appear to be required, and the subject, it is
believed, may be appropriately concluded by an examination of those
features of the Executive system which the narrative has not hitherto
sufficiently emphasized.
This summary disclaims, however, any intention of attempting the
absurdity of testing the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln by contrasting
a method of reconstruction proposed in 1863 with that deemed adequate by
Congress to meet the changed conditions of 1867. We may, indeed, fairly
and even profitably compare the sentiments of the two political
departments in the summer of 1864, when, for the first time during the
war, they were arrayed in opposition on a fundamental policy of civil
administration. Because of its variance with received notions of
representative government, the so-called “ten _per cent._ principle”
will be first considered.
The proportion of the political people that Mr. Lincoln offered to
recognize as constituting a State encountered, probably, more opposition
than any single feature of his plan. While its merits and its defects
were equally evident, the latter, as might be expected, were given by
its adversaries the place of prominence in all their criticisms.
Exception was taken as well to the legality as to the expediency of the
principle. The former has been fully discussed, and on that subject all
that need be observed is that President Lincoln believed it
constitutional to preserve the Union, and every measure conducive to
that end he regarded as lawful.
On the question of expediency, however, several considerations suggest
themselves. Apart from its repugnance to the American idea of majority
rule, its palpable weakness was that governments founded on the consent
of a minimum proportion of the electors would require the support of
Federal power. Here occurs the question, did the forces thus engaged so
greatly impair the efficiency of the main armies as sensibly to retard
the work of destroying the enemy? It cannot be denied that there were
occasions when a few additional regiments could have been employed to
advantage; but neither the reverses nor the disasters of the Union
armies were caused by lack of numbers so much as by the need early in
the war of commanders of military genius. On the other hand, the troops
who sustained the new governments, besides weakening the Confederacy,
were affording protection to organizations that otherwise could not have
been recruited. There is record of not less than sixty-five regiments
furnished by the States restored during the Presidency of Mr.
Lincoln.[496] But even more important than this gratifying result was
the influence which the reinstatement of four seceding commonwealths
exerted on the attitude of those European powers which had proved early
in the conflict their hostility to the United States. The “Johnson
governments,” so-called, were never required to furnish any such
unquestioned evidence of reviving loyalty, and that fact should not be
overlooked in any comparison of the results accomplished by the two
Executives.
Notwithstanding the general existence of a strong opposition to minority
rule, the revolutionary proceedings in western Virginia were sanctioned
by every department of Government. Members from the loyal eastern
counties were at first admitted to seats in both branches of Congress;
their successors, however, were in turn refused this indulgence until
there was presented the novel spectacle of a single Senator representing
the diminished glory of the Old Dominion. Louisiana, too, which for a
few days was heard in the lower House, was subsequently excluded
altogether by the changing views of Congress. The revived bill of Wade
and Davis provided in one of its many forms for recognizing that State
as well as Arkansas, and even when the extremists obtained control of
Congress the loyal government organized in Tennessee was approved by
avowed opponents of the Executive plan. Mr. Lincoln, indeed, clearly
perceived the inherent weakness of his system, and no one could have
been more anxious than he to secure a wider constituency. These facts
seem to indicate that between him and Congress there was not then so
wide a gulf as, for partisan purposes, is sometimes represented. It is
true that there was a difference of principle between the two
departments; that there was a powerful party in Congress who believed
that reconstruction was essentially a work of peace and, therefore,
pertained exclusively to the national Legislature. The holders of this
view were, doubtless, confirmed in their opinion by a conviction that
the Executive was encroaching on a coördinate branch of government.
The Presidential system as well as the contemporary theory of Congress
restricted the suffrage of whites, by whom it was almost universally
engrossed at the foundation of the Republic. On the ground of justice
and to encourage the cultivation of civic virtues among the negroes, Mr.
Lincoln would admit those qualified to exercise this important
privilege. His successor acknowledged in a private communication that
for party purposes he favored some extension of the elective franchise
to freedmen. Though Congress advanced rapidly toward negro suffrage, the
first essay of that body in the work of reconstruction included no
provision for conferring on the colored race a right to participate in
government. By Wade and Davis it was not then deemed necessary even as a
defensive power. Only a few bold innovators, considered almost fanatic
on the question, were in favor of bestowing the right to vote on the
multitudes maintained by the Freedmen’s Bureau; it was not then deemed
within the commission of the general Government, the teachings of
political science were still respected by the majority in Congress, and
the fruits of victory, it was hoped, could be secured without a resort
to radical measures.
The form of an oath to support the proclamations and laws respecting
slavery appeared in the Presidential plan as a condition indispensable
to reinstatement. On this subject the difference between the Executive
and Congress was merely one of degree; for the Wade-Davis bill,
doubtless in imitation of the Presidential system, imposed terms
precedent, and the new constitutions were to repudiate the rebel debt,
abolish slavery and prohibit the higher insurgent officials, civil as
well as military, from holding the office of governor, from serving in
the State legislatures and even from voting.
By its adversaries the plan of Mr. Lincoln was condemned for its failure
to exact any security for the future beyond the oath of allegiance, the
telegraphic supervision by the President and the power of Congress over
the admission of members. This defect the legislative theory endeavored
to supply, but even the guardianship proposed by Wade and Davis could
give no assurance that the rebellious communities would not, after
reinstatement, eliminate by constitutional amendment the conditions
imposed on their readmission.[497]
However crude we may now consider Mr. Lincoln’s system it should not be
forgotten that with him the paramount consideration was the overthrow of
the Confederacy. With that purpose all his measures harmonized, and it
is scarcely critical to examine them from any other point of view. How
far necessity, which had originally suggested, would subsequently have
modified his plan it is now impossible to state. Without detracting a
particle from his well-won fame it may be admitted that his method,
which could not have foreseen the rapid succession of changes following
his death, was but indifferently adapted to solve the problem with which
Congress was compelled to deal in 1867; but the measure of permanent
success which attended the deliberate legislation of that body by no
means justifies the conclusion that some other system would have proved
a total failure. With all its immaturity the plan of the President was
not without its advantages. It aimed to restore with as little
innovation as possible the Union of the Fathers; with some exceptions
the natural leaders of Southern society were to participate in the work
of reorganization, and the author of this simple plan approached his
difficult task in a generous and enlightened spirit.
On the life and character of Abraham Lincoln an admiring generation has
exhausted the language of panegyric; the terms of censure have been
reserved almost exclusively for his method of restoring the Union; but
neither the critic’s ken, nor the ambitious phrase of eulogy, nor all
the thoughts that since his death have dropped from poets’ pens affords
that clear insight into his nature which is unconsciously revealed in
the simple and beautiful exhortation that concludes his last inaugural.
The sentiments which immortalize that celebrated state paper could have
proceeded only from the depths of a noble soul—a soul that would have
imposed silence on the voice of vengeance and would never have consented
to the revenge of section upon section. In this book an endeavor has
been made fully to discuss his plan of reconstruction; the spirit in
which he approached that difficult task is best stated in his own
generous and patriotic words, with which may be fittingly closed this
long though interesting inquiry: “With malice toward none; with charity
for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right,
let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s
wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and
lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.”[498]
THE END.
-----
Footnote 435:
Why the Solid South? p. 1.
Footnote 436:
This recollection has been verified by correspondence with Col. A. K.
McClure, the gentleman referred to.—=Author.=
Footnote 437:
Ex. Doc. No. 70, H. of R., 1 Sess. 39th Cong., p. 78.
Footnote 438:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 28.
Footnote 439:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 28.
Footnote 440:
Acts of the State of Tennessee, 1865, p. 33.
Footnote 441:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 779.
Footnote 442:
Ibid.
Footnote 443:
This election resulted in the choice of Nathaniel G. Taylor, Horace
Maynard, Edmund Cooper, Isaac R. Hawkins, John W. Leftwich, William B.
Stokes, William B. Campbell and Dorsey B. Thomas. The last named,
however, was affected by the Governor’s recount, and Daniel W. Arnell,
who was declared the successful candidate, was admitted to Congress
with the other Tennessee Representatives on the 24th of July, 1866.
See Why the Solid South? pp. 182–183.
Footnote 444:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 780.
Footnote 445:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 781.
Footnote 446:
Ibid.
Footnote 447:
Having been elected United States Senator, Mr. Hahn resigned the
governorship on the 4th of March and was succeeded in office by
Lieutenant-Governor Wells.
Footnote 448:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 510.
Footnote 449:
Globe, Part I., 1 Sess. 39th Cong., p. 101.
Footnote 450:
Three Decades of Federal Legislation, p. 429; also Why the Solid
South? p. 397.
Footnote 451:
Poore’s Charters and Constitutions, Vol. II. p. 1938 _et seq._
Footnote 452:
Letters and State Papers of Lincoln, Vol. II. p. 670.
Footnote 453:
Letter of Mrs. Anna Pierpont Siviter to the author.
Footnote 454:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 817.
Footnote 455:
Ibid.
Footnote 456:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 817.
Footnote 457:
McPherson’s Hand-Book of Politics, 1868, p. 46.
Footnote 458:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 800.
Footnote 459:
Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. II. pp. 9–11.
Footnote 460:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 800.
Footnote 461:
McPherson’s Pol. Hand-Book, 1868, pp. 45–46.
Footnote 462:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, pp. 801–802.
Footnote 463:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 802.
Footnote 464:
Letcher and Smith were Governors of Virginia during the war.
Footnote 465:
McPherson’s Pol. Hand-Book, 1868, p. 8.
Footnote 466:
Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. II. p. 70.
Footnote 467:
McPherson’s Pol. Hand-Book, 1868, pp. 10–11.
Footnote 468:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 626.
Footnote 469:
This ordinance was ratified by a vote of 20,506 to 2,002; Poore’s
Charters and Constitutions, Vol. II. p. 1419n; also Three Decades of
Federal Legislation, p. 385.
Footnote 470:
Ratified by 19,039 to 3,970 votes. Poore’s Charters and Constitutions,
Vol. II. p. 1419n.
Footnote 471:
McPherson’s Pol. Hand-Book, 1868, p. 19.
Footnote 472:
Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Vol. XXXII., p. 127.
Footnote 473:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 628.
Footnote 474:
McClure’s Magazine, Dec., 1899, p. 174.
Footnote 475:
The Provisional appointments were made in the following order: June
13, 1865, William L. Sharkey, Mississippi; June 17, James Johnson,
Georgia, and Andrew J. Hamilton, Texas; June 21, Lewis E. Parsons,
Alabama; June 30, Benjamin F. Perry, South Carolina; July 13, William
Marvin, Florida.
Footnote 476:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 580.
Footnote 477:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 581.
Footnote 478:
Ann. Cycl., 1865, p. 583.
Footnote 479:
Constitution of the United States, by Francis N. Thorpe, p. 49.
Footnote 480:
See Why The Solid South? pp. 9–10, for an ingenious explanation of the
unanimity and promptness with which the Presidential policy of
reconstruction was accepted by the South.
Footnote 481:
Laws of Mississippi, pp. 86–88.
Footnote 482:
Ibid., pp. 89–90.
Footnote 483:
Laws of Mississippi, 1865, pp. 82–86.
Footnote 484:
Ibid., p. 231.
Footnote 485:
Laws of Mississippi, 1865, pp. 165–167.
Footnote 486:
Laws of Mississippi, 1865, pp. 90–93.
Footnote 487:
Laws of Mississippi, 1865, pp. 199–200.
Footnote 488:
Ibid., pp. 210–211.
Footnote 489:
Ibid., p. 240.
Footnote 490:
Ann. Cycl., 1866, p. 132.
Footnote 491:
Ann. Cycl., 1863, pp. 780–781.
Footnote 492:
Gorham’s Life of Stanton, Vol. II. p. 255.
Footnote 493:
McPherson’s Pol. Hand-Book, 1868, p. 25.
Footnote 494:
President Johnson and Reconstruction, pp. 33–34.
Footnote 495:
In this connection his repudiation of the Sherman-Johnston agreement
will occur to the reader.
Footnote 496:
Strait’s Roster of Regimental Surgeons and Assistant Surgeons, p. 314.
This estimate includes all the troops furnished by the new State of
West Virginia.
Footnote 497:
The author believes himself fortunate in being able to place before
his readers a letter from the pen of Hon. J. B. Henderson, the only
surviving Senator who participated in the debates summarized in
chapter X., and, so far as the writer is informed, the only living
member who served in the United States Senate during that eventful
period. Coming, as it does, from one who supported many of Mr.
Lincoln’s most cherished measures, the letter will be welcomed as a
valuable historical document. It contrasts forcibly the Presidential
plan with the theory of Senator Sumner, and though written on August
21, 1901, more than a generation after the occurrence of the principal
events discussed in this book, it is characterized by the clearness
and the energy of expression which marked even the unpremeditated
addresses of the Senator’s Congressional career. On the subject of
reunion he writes as follows:
“Time, in my judgment, has stamped its approval on Mr. Lincoln’s views
touching the questions of reconstruction during the Civil War. He was
always calm and judicial. He was philosophical in periods of the most
intense excitement. He never lost his head, but under all
circumstances preserved his temper and his judgment. He was not the
buffoon described by his enemies. On the contrary, he was a wise
statesman, a learned lawyer, and a conscientious patriot; and, better
than all, an honest man.
“The infirmity in Mr. Sumner’s theories of reconstruction came from
the great exuberance of his learning. He ransacked history, ancient
and modern, for precedents growing out of civil wars. But these
precedents all antedated the American Constitution. They grew out of
monarchical systems of government, and had no relation to the
republican forms created by our Constitution. Under our system there
can be no suicide of a State. Individual citizens by rebellion and
disloyalty may forfeit their political rights, but the State as an
entity commits no treason and forfeits no rights to existence. Under
our Constitution the State cannot die. It is the duty of the Federal
Government to see that it does not die—that it shall never cease to
exist. If the State be invaded from without, the duty of the General
Government is to protect and defend it. If domestic violence threatens
the subversion of the local government, the nation’s duty is to
intervene and uphold the hands of those who maintain the laws. The
trustee of an express trust cannot excuse himself to a minority of the
beneficiaries because the majority repudiate his agency.
“‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government.’ No State government is republican in
form that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the Federal
Constitution. This is the essential test of republicanism. No State
can enter the Union without conforming its Constitution to this
supreme organic law. And whenever by force or violence, a majority of
its citizens undertake to withdraw the State from its obedience to
Federal law and to repudiate the sovereignty of the Federal
Government, it at once becomes the duty of Congress to act.
“This duty of Congress is not to destroy the State or to declare it a
suicide, and proceed to administer on its effects. On the contrary,
the duty clearly is to preserve the State, to restore it to its old
republican forms. Its duty is not to territorialize the State and
proceed to govern it as a conquered colony. The duty is not one of
demolition, but one of restoration. It is not to make a Constitution,
but to guarantee that the old Constitution or one equally republican
in form, and made by the loyal citizens of the State, shall be upheld
and sustained.
“If a majority of the people of a State conspire to subvert its
republican forms, that majority may be, and should be, put down by the
Federal power, while the minority, however few, sustaining republican
forms may be constitutionally installed as the political power of the
State.
“These, as I understand, were the views of Mr. Lincoln; and they were
not the views of Mr. Sumner, as enunciated in his resolutions of 1862
and advocated by him in his subsequent career in the Senate.
“A departure from these views gave us the carpet-bag governments of
the Southern States, and brought upon us divers other evils in our
ideas and theories of government, whose effects are yet visible.”
Footnote 498:
N. & H., Vol. X., p. 145.
APPENDIX A
THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SENATE
First session, July 4, 1861, to August 6, 1861. Republicans (31) in
Roman, Democrats (10) in _Italics_, Unionists (7) in =SMALL CAPITALS=,
vacancies 2.
Second session, Dec. 1, 1862, to Mar. 4, 1864.
CALIFORNIA.—_Milton S. Latham_ and _James A. McDougall_ (_vice_ E.
D. Baker, who died).
CONNECTICUT.—James Dixon and Lafayette S. Foster.
DELAWARE.—_James A. Bayard_ and _Willard Saulsbury_.
ILLINOIS.—Lyman Trumbull and Orville H. Browning.
INDIANA.—Henry S. Lane and _Jesse D. Bright_ (expelled Feb. 5, 1862,
and was succeeded by _David Turpie_).
IOWA.—James W. Grimes and James Harlan.
KANSAS.—James H. Lane and Samuel C. Pomeroy.
KENTUCKY.—_Lazarus W. Powell_ and =Garrett Davis= (_vice_ _John C.
Breckenridge_, expelled).
MAINE.—Lot M. Morrill and William Pitt Fessenden.
MASSACHUSETTS.—Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson.
MARYLAND.—=Anthony Kennedy= and _James A. Pearce_ (died Dec. 20,
1862, and was succeeded by =Thomas H. Hicks=).
MICHIGAN.—Zachariah Chandler and Jacob M. Howard.
MINNESOTA.—_Henry M. Rice_ and Morton S. Wilkinson.
MISSOURI.—=John B. Henderson= (_vice_ Trusten Polk, expelled) and
=Robert Wilson= (_vice_ Waldo Porter Johnson, expelled).
NEW HAMPSHIRE.—John P. Hale and Daniel Clark.
NEW YORK.—Preston King and Ira Harris.
NEW JERSEY.—John C. Ten Eyck and _John R. Thomson_ (died Sept. 12,
1862, Richard S. Field was temporarily appointed to fill the
vacancy, and James W. Wall was subsequently elected for the
unexpired term).
OHIO.—Benjamin F. Wade and John Sherman (_vice_ Salmon P. Chase, who
resigned Mar. 6, 1861).
OREGON.—Edward D. Baker (died Oct. 21, 1861, and was succeeded by
=Benjamin F. Harding=) and _James W. Nesmith_.
PENNSYLVANIA.—Edgar Cowan and David Wilmot (_vice_ Simon Cameron,
who resigned in March, 1861).
RHODE ISLAND.—Henry B. Anthony and James F. Simmons (resigned,
=Samuel G. Arnold= elected to fill the unexpired term).
VERMONT.—Solomon Foot and Jacob Collamer.
VIRGINIA.—=Waitman T. Willey= and =John S. Carlile=.
WISCONSIN.—James R. Doolittle and Timothy O. Howe.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CALIFORNIA.—Aaron A. Sargent, Timothy G. Phelps, Frederick F. Low.
CONNECTICUT.—Dwight Loomis, _James E. English_, Alfred A. Burnham,
_George C. Woodruff_.
DELAWARE.—=George P. Fisher.=
ILLINOIS.—Elihu B. Washburne, Isaac N. Arnold, Owen Lovejoy, William
Kellogg, _William A. Richardson_, _James C. Robinson_, _Philip B.
Fouke_, _John A. Logan_.
INDIANA.—_John Law_, _James A. Cravens_, William McKee Dunn,
_William S. Holman_, George W. Julian, Albert G. Porter, _Daniel
W. Voorhees_, Albert S. White, Schuyler Colfax, William Mitchell,
John P. C. Shanks.
IOWA.—James F. Wilson, William Vandever.
KANSAS.—Martin F. Conway.
KENTUCKY.—=James S. Jackson= (died in 1862 and was succeeded by
=George H. Yeaman=), =Henry Grider=, =Aaron Harding=, =Charles A.
Wickliffe=, =George W. Dunlap=, =Robert Mallory=, =John J.
Crittenden=, =William H. Wadsworth=, =John W. Menzies=, =Samuel L.
Casey= (_vice_ Mr. Burnett, expelled).
MAINE.—John N. Goodwin, Charles W. Walton (resigned, Thos. A. D.
Fessenden elected to fill vacancy), Samuel C. Fessenden, Anson P.
Morrill, John H. Rice, Frederick A. Pike.
MARYLAND.—=John W. Crisfield=, =Edwin H. Webster=, =Cornelius L. L.
Leary=, _Henry May_, =Francis Thomas=, =Charles B. Calvert=.
MASSACHUSETTS.—Thomas D. Eliot, James Buffinton, Benjamin F. Thomas
(sometimes classed as a Unionist), Alexander H. Rice, Samuel
Hooper, John B. Alley, Daniel W. Gooch, Charles R. Train,
Goldsmith F. Bailey (died May 8, 1862, and was succeeded by Amasa
Walker), Charles Delano, Henry L. Dawes.
MICHIGAN.—Bradley F. Granger, Fernando C. Beaman, Francis W.
Kellogg, Rowland E. Trowbridge.
MINNESOTA.—Cyrus Aldrich and William Windom.
MISSOURI.—Francis P. Blair, jr. (resigned in 1862), =James S.
Rollins=, =William A. Hall=, _Elijah H. Norton_, =Thomas L.
Price=, _John S. Phelps_, _John W. Noell_.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Gilman Marston, Edward H. Rollins, Thomas M. Edwards.
NEW JERSEY.—John T. Nixon, John L. N. Stratton, _William G. Steele_,
_George T. Cobb_, _Nehemiah Perry_.
NEW YORK.—_Edward H. Smith_, _Moses F. Odell_, _Benjamin Wood_,
_James E. Kerrigan_, William Wall, Frederick A. Conkling, _Elijah
Ward_, _Isaac C. Delaplaine_, _Edward Haight_, Charles H. Van
Wyck, _John B. Steele_, Stephen Baker, Abraham B. Olin, _Erastus
Corning_, James B. McKean, William A. Wheeler, Socrates N.
Sherman, _Chauncey Vibbard_, Richard Franchot, Roscoe Conkling, R.
Holland Duell, William E. Lansing, Ambrose W. Clark, Charles B.
Sedgwick, Theodore M. Pomeroy, Jacob P. Chamberlain, Alexander S.
Diven, Robert B. Van Valkenburg, Alfred Ely, Augustus Frank, Burt
Van Horn, Elbridge G. Spaulding, Reuben E. Fenton.
OHIO.—_George H. Pendleton_, John A. Gurley, _Clement L.
Vallandigham_, _William Allen_, James M. Ashley, _Chilton A.
White_, =Richard A. Harrison=, Samuel Shellabarger, _Warren P.
Noble_, Carey A. Trimble, Valentine B. Horton, _Samuel S. Cox_,
Samuel T. Worcester, Harrison G. Blake, _Robert H. Nugen_, William
P. Cutler, _James R. Morris_, Sidney Edgerton, Albert G. Riddle,
John Hutchins, John A. Bingham.
OREGON.—George K. Shiel.
PENNSYLVANIA.—_William E. Lehman_, _Charles J. Biddle_, John P.
Verree, William D. Kelley, William Morris Davis, John Hickman,
_Thomas B. Cooper_ (died April 4, 1862, and was succeeded by John
D. Stiles), _Sydenham E. Ancona_, Thaddeus Stevens, John W.
Killinger, James H. Campbell, =Hendrick B. Wright=, _Philip
Johnson_, Galusha A. Grow, James T. Hale, _Joseph Baily_, Edward
McPherson, Samuel S. Blair, John Covode, _Jesse Lazear_, James K.
Moorhead, Robert McKnight, John W. Wallace, John Patton, Elijah
Babbitt.
RHODE ISLAND.—=George H. Browne=, =William P. Sheffield=.
TENNESSEE.—=Horace Maynard.=
VERMONT.—Ezekiel P. Walton, Justin S. Morrill, Portus Baxter.
VIRGINIA.—=Charles H. Upton=, =Edmund Pendleton=, =William G.
Brown=, =Jacob B. Blair=, =Killian V. Whaley=, =Joseph E. Segar=.
WISCONSIN.—John F. Potter, Luther Hanchett (died Nov. 24, 1862, and
was succeeded by Walter McIndoe), A. Scott Sloan.
DELEGATES FROM TERRITORIES
COLORADO.—Hiram P. Bennett.
DAKOTA.—John B. S. Todd.
NEBRASKA.—Samuel G. Daily.
NEVADA.—_John C. Cradlebaugh._
NEW MEXICO.—John S. Watts.
UTAH.—_John M. Bernhisel._
WASHINGTON.—James H. Wallace.
APPENDIX B
THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
SENATE
First regular session, Dec. 7, 1863, to July 4, 1864.
Second session from Dec. 5, 1864, to March 3, 1865.
CALIFORNIA.—John Conness and _James A. McDougall_.
CONNECTICUT.—James Dixon and Lafayette S. Foster.
DELAWARE.—_Willard Saulsbury_ and _George Read Riddle_ (_vice_
Senator _Bayard_, who resigned).
ILLINOIS.—_William A. Richardson_ and Lyman Trumbull.
INDIANA.—_Thomas A. Hendricks_ and Henry S. Lane.
IOWA.—James Harlan and James W. Grimes.
KANSAS.—Samuel C. Pomeroy and James H. Lane.
KENTUCKY.—=Garrett Davis= (Senator =Davis= is sometimes mentioned as
a Democrat) and _Lazarus W. Powell_.
MAINE.—Lot M. Morrill and William Pitt Fessenden (resigned in 1864,
and was succeeded by Nathan A. Farwell).
MASSACHUSETTS.—Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson.
MARYLAND.—=Reverdy Johnson= and =Thomas H. Hicks= (died Feb. 13,
1865).
MICHIGAN.—Zachariah Chandler and Jacob M. Howard.
MINNESOTA.—Alexander Ramsey and Morton S. Wilkinson.
MISSOURI.—John B. Henderson (sometimes mentioned as a Unionist) and
B. Gratz Brown (_vice_ Waldo Porter Johnson, expelled, Robert
Wilson having been appointed _pro tem._).
NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Daniel Clark and John P. Hale.
NEW JERSEY.—_William Wright_ and John C. Ten Eyck.
NEW YORK.—Edwin D. Morgan and Ira Harris.
OHIO.—Benjamin F. Wade and John Sherman.
OREGON.—Benjamin F. Harding and _James W. Nesmith_.
PENNSYLVANIA.—_Charles R. Buckalew_ and Edgar Cowan.
RHODE ISLAND.—William Sprague and Henry B. Anthony.
VERMONT.—Solomon Foot and Jacob Collamer.
VIRGINIA.—=Lemuel J. Bowden= and =John S. Carlile= (sometimes
mentioned as a Democrat).
WEST VIRGINIA.—Waitman T. Willey and Peter G. Van Winkle.
WISCONSIN.—James R. Doolittle and Timothy O. Howe.
NEVADA.—James W. Nye and William M. Stewart.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CALIFORNIA.—Thomas B. Shannon, William Higby, Cornelius Cole.
CONNECTICUT.—Henry C. Deming, _James E. English_, Augustus
Brandegee, John H. Hubbard.
DELAWARE.—Nathaniel B. Smithers.
ILLINOIS.—Isaac N. Arnold, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne,
_Charles M. Harris_, Owen Lovejoy (died Mar. 25, 1864, and was
succeeded by Ebon C. Ingersoll), Jesse O. Norton, _John R. Eden_,
_John T. Stuart_, _Lewis W. Ross_, _Anthony L. Knapp_, _James C.
Robinson_, _William R. Morrison_, _William J. Allen_, _James C.
Allen_.
INDIANA.—_John Law_, _James A. Cravens_, _Henry W. Harrington_,
_William S. Holman_, George W. Julian, Ebenezer Dumont, _Daniel W.
Voorhees_, Godlove S. Orth, Schuyler Colfax, _Joseph K. Edgerton_,
_James F. McDowell_.
IOWA.—James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. Allison, J. B.
Grinnell, John A. Kasson, A. W. Hubbard.
KANSAS.—A. Carter Wilder.
KENTUCKY.—Lucien Anderson, =George H. Yeaman=, =Henry Grider=,
=Aaron Harding=, =Robert Mallory=, Green Clay Smith, Brutus J.
Clay, William H. Randall, =William H. Wadsworth=.
MAINE.—_Lorenzo D. M. Sweat_, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John
H. Rice, Frederick A. Pike.
MARYLAND.—John A. J. Cresswell, Edwin H. Webster, Henry Winter
Davis, Francis Thomas, _Benjamin G. Harris_.
MASSACHUSETTS.—Thomas D. Eliot, Oakes Ames, Alexander H. Rice,
Samuel Hooper, John B. Alley, Daniel W. Gooch, George S. Boutwell,
John D. Baldwin, William B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes.
MICHIGAN.—Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, John W. Longyear,
Francis W. Kellogg, _Augustus C. Baldwin_, John F. Driggs.
MINNESOTA.—William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly.
MISSOURI.—=Francis P. Blair=, jr. (seat successfully contested by
Samuel Knox of St. Louis), Henry T. Blow, _John G. Scott_, Joseph
W. McClurg, Sempronius H. Boyd, _Austin A. King_, Benjamin F.
Loan, _William A. Hall_, _James S. Rollins_.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.—_Daniel Marcy_, Edward H. Rollins, James W.
Patterson.
NEW JERSEY.—John F. Starr, _George Middleton_, _William G. Steele_,
_Andrew J. Rogers_, _Nehemiah Perry_.
NEW YORK.—_Henry G. Stebbins_ (resigned in 1864 and was succeeded by
_Dwight Townsend_), _Martin Kalbfleisch_, _Moses F. Odell_,
_Benjamin Wood_, _Fernando Wood_, _Elijah Ward_, _John W.
Chanler_, _James Brooks_, _Anson Herrick_, _William Radford_,
_Charles H. Winfield_, _Homer A. Nelson_, _John B. Steele_, _John
V. L. Pruyn_, _John A. Griswold_, Orlando Kellogg, Calvin T.
Hulburd, James M. Marvin, Samuel F. Miller, Ambrose W. Clark,
_Francis Kernan_, DeWitt C. Littlejohn, Thomas T. Davis, Theodore
M. Pomeroy, Daniel Morris, Giles W. Hotchkiss, Robert Van
Valkenburg, Freeman Clark, Augustus Frank, _John B. Ganson_,
Reuben E. Fenton (resigned Dec. 10, 1864).
OHIO.—_George H. Pendleton_, _Alexander Long_, Robert C. Schenck,
_J. F. McKinney_, _Frank C. Le Blond_, _Chilton A. White_, _Samuel
S. Cox_, _William Johnson_, _Warren P. Noble_, James M. Ashley,
_Wells A. Hutchins_, _William E. Fink_, _John O’Neill_, _George
Bliss_, _James R. Morris_, _Joseph W. White_, Ephraim R. Eckley,
Rufus P. Spaulding, James A. Garfield.
OREGON.—John R. McBride.
PENNSYLVANIA.—_Samuel J. Randall_, Charles O’Neill, Leonard Myers,
William D. Kelley, M. Russell Thayer, _John D. Stiles_, John M.
Broomall, _Sydenham E. Ancona_, Thaddeus Stevens, _Myer Strouse_,
_Philip Johnson_, _Charles Dennison_, Henry W. Tracy, _William H.
Miller_, _Joseph Bailey_, _Alexander H. Coffroth_, _Archibald
McAllister_, James T. Hale, Glenni W. Scofield, Amos Myers, _John
L. Dawson_, James K. Moorhead, Thomas Williams, _Jesse Lazear_.
RHODE ISLAND.—Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon.
VERMONT.—Frederick E. Woodbridge, Justin S. Morrill, Portus Baxter.
VIRGINIA.—Had Senators but no Representatives. =Joseph Segar=,
=Lucius H. Chandler= and =Benjamin M. Kitchen=, claimants for
seats, were not admitted.
WEST VIRGINIA.—Jacob B. Blair, William G. Brown, Killian V.
Whaley.[499]
WISCONSIN.—_James S. Brown_, Ithamar C. Sloan, Amasa Cobb, _Charles
A. Eldridge_, _Ezra Wheeler_, Walter D. McIndoe.
DELEGATES FROM TERRITORIES
ARIZONA.—Charles D. Poston.
COLORADO.—Hiram P. Bennett.
DAKOTA.—William Jayne (seat successfully contested by John B. S.
Todd).
IDAHO.—William H. Wallace.
MONTANA.—Samuel McLean.
NEBRASKA.—Samuel G. Daily.
NEVADA (admitted as a State).—Gordon N. Mott (Henry G. Worthington
was elected Representative when Nevada became a State).
NEW MEXICO.—Francisco Perea.
UTAH.—_John F. Kenney._
WASHINGTON.—_George E. Cole._
-----
Footnote 499:
The West Virginia Representatives took their seats Dec. 7, 1863.
INDEX
_A_
Abolition societies, Southern, ended by new industrial era, 5
Adams, Charles Francis, 50
Alabama, in Federal control, 50;
Arkansas Legislature addressed by commissioner from, 77;
insurrection in, 314;
injury sustained by, 437
Alabama, The, 50, 288
Albemarle, The, destruction of, 288
Alexandria, capital of loyal Virginia, 129;
convention meets at, 130;
blockade of, rescinded, 133;
Legislature assembles at, 137;
ceases to be capital, 446;
recognition of government of, marks no distinct Executive policy, 448
Alleghany Mountains, Virginia divided by, 96
Allegiance, oath of, 24;
Governor Johnson’s modification of, 27;
registration of, 28;
required of Louisiana voters, 45;
value of, 487
Allen, Henry Watkins, end of administration of, 418;
mentioned for governor of Louisiana, 422
Amendment, Thirteenth, Hampton Roads conference refers to, 399;
adoption of, by Georgia Legislature, 466
Amnesty and Reconstruction, Lincoln’s proclamation of, 23, 24, 25, 224;
authority for, 24;
classes excepted from benefits of, 25;
explanation of, 28;
applied in Louisiana, 61;
Howard’s reference to, 365;
Johnson’s proclamation of, 450;
Seward’s approval of, 451;
all insurgent States affected by, 452.
See Reconstruction
Anthony, Lieutenant-Colonel, arrest of, 169
Antietam, Md., Lee defeated at, 186
Arkansas, effect of Union victories in, 10;
enrolling agent sent to, 27;
loyal part of, 77;
Alabama commissioner addresses Legislature of, 77;
position of, 77;
interests of, 77;
opposition to separate State action in, 77;
convention bill passed by, 77;
conditional secession defeated in, 78;
influence of President’s inaugural in, 78;
secession of, 78;
secession favored by Governor of, 78;
military preparations in, 78;
confiscation ordinance of, 78;
Confederate Congress admit delegates from, 79;
convention conflicts with government of, 79;
military division of, 79;
dissatisfaction among soldiers of, 80;
troops of, in Confederate army, 80;
indifference of Germans and Irish, 80;
bonds of, 81;
Union sentiment in, 81;
menaced by Federal troops, 81;
flight of Governor, 82;
troops sent to Corinth from, 82;
John S. Phelps, military governor of, 82;
regiments furnished Union army by, 83;
return of leading secessionists, 83;
Federal reverses in, 84;
reconstruction of, 85;
amended constitution of, 88;
Confederate debt repudiated by, 88;
division among Union men of, 88;
Lincoln’s letter on reconstruction in, 89;
Gen. Steele’s address to people of, 90;
election in, 90;
adoption of amended constitution for, 90;
Congressman elected in, 91;
Congress excludes Representatives from, 91;
no Presidential election in, 92, 195;
legality of government of, maintained by Lincoln, 195;
loyal government in, 286;
insurrection in, 314;
Reverdy Johnson favors recognition of, 378;
Thirteenth Amendment ratified by, 409;
slavery abolished by constitution of, 410;
disfranchising act of, 410;
loyal government acquiesced in, 410;
pacification of, 411;
destitution in parts of, 412
Arnell, Daniel W., election of, 415
Arnold, Isaac N., resolution introduced by, 170
Army of the United States, Provost Court of, 40;
discontinuance of enlistments for, 408;
mustering out of volunteers in the, 409
Ascension, parish of, vote in, 74
Ashley, James M., reconstruction bill reported by, 289;
proposal to confer suffrage on negro soldiers and sailors, 294;
no provision for education of negroes in bill of, 298;
effects of reconstruction bill of, 302;
substitute introduced by, 304;
remarks on reconstruction by, 304;
motives for compromise offered by, 306;
reconstruction bill of, tabled, 311;
revived bill of, 312;
explanation of inconsistency of, 312;
reconstruction bill of, tabled, 313;
remarks on reconstruction by, 313
Atlantic Monthly, The, Sumner’s article in, 200
_B_
Baker, Joshua, member-elect from Louisiana, 56
Baldwin, Augustus C., reconstruction bill opposed by, 241
Baltimore convention, Lincoln renominated by, 32;
Lincoln did not openly influence, 34;
adjournment of, 277
Bancroft, George, relief meeting presided over by, 150;
address of, 151;
letter of, to Lincoln, 151;
Lincoln’s letter to, 152
Banks, N. P., expedition of, 43;
at Port Hudson, 49;
plans for invasion of Texas, 51;
petition of New Orleans convention to, 59;
intention of ordering an election, 61;
Free State General Committee’s attack of, 61;
decides against Free State Committee, 64;
Gen. Shepley’s disagreement with, 64;
Lincoln’s letter to, 65;
reconstruction letter of, 66;
Lincoln appreciates services of, 67;
urged by President to reconstruct Louisiana, 67;
date for election fixed by, 67;
Shepley’s registration approved by, 68;
proclamation by, 69;
order of, relative to election, 69;
letter to Lincoln, 70;
date of delegate election fixed by, 74;
before Congressional committee, 75;
Boutwell’s defence of, 255;
Powell’s criticism of, 346;
Governor Wells not in harmony with, 418
Bates, Edward, Attorney-General, letter to A. F. Ritchie, 105;
on admission of West Virginia, 123;
on Norfolk affairs, 135;
letter to Marshal McDowell, 147
Batesville, Gen. Curtis’s occupation of, 82
Baton Rouge, secession convention in, 36
Baxter, Elisha, election of, 91
Bayard, James F., 103;
admission of West Virginia Senators opposed by, 193
Bell, Joseph M., 40
Bell and Everett, vote for in Louisiana, 37
Belmont, August, Lincoln’s letter to, 39
Benjamin, Judah P., resignation of, 76, 424
Bent, Charles, 12
Berkeley County, provision for annexing to West Virginia, 110;
annexation of, 127
Bingham, John A., debate on West Virginia closed by, 119
Black, Jeremiah S., diplomatic mission of, 390
Blaine, James G., 73;
existence of schism in Republican party ignored by, 313;
quotation from, 441;
Johnson’s change of policy explained by, 489
Blair, Francis P., Sr., Lincoln interviewed by, 390;
camp of Gen. Grant visited by, 391;
Jefferson Davis interviewed by, 391;
plan of reunion proposed by, 391;
Mr. Davis’s letter to, 393;
Lincoln’s letter to, 394;
mission a failure, 394
Blair, Montgomery, on admission of West Virginia, 123;
time of emancipation deemed inopportune by, 188;
reply to Sumner by, 208
Bliss, C. C., 88
Blockade of Louisiana ports, 37
Blow, Henry T., remarks on reconstruction by, 301
Bonzano, M. F., election of, 76;
seat in Congress claimed by, 341;
report by Committee of Elections on, 341
Bordeaux, visit of Confederate naval agent to, 50
Border States, Lincoln supported by delegates from, 1;
Cotton States expected aid from, 161;
Lincoln interviewed by Congressmen from, 163, 171;
interests of South bound up with, 171;
majority reply of Congressmen from, 173;
emancipation proclamation did not affect status of slaves in, 383
Boreman, Arthur I., 100, 128, 129
Bouligny, John E., 43
Boutwell, George S., reconstruction speech of, 254;
President Johnson visited by, 458