Reconstruction in Virginia--The State Legislature Advised to Adopt
the Fourteenth Amendment--Congressional Reconstruction as a Result
of the Refusal--The Manner in Which the Acts of Congress Were
Executed--No Resort to Trial by Military Commission--The Obnoxious
Constitution Framed by the State Convention--How Its Worst Feature
Was Nullified--Appointed Secretary of War.
In August, 1866, after my return from Europe, I was assigned to
command the Department of the Potomac, which included the State of
Virginia, then governed in part by the Freedmen's Bureau and in
part by the provisional government which had been organized at
Alexandria while the war was still in progress. The State had yet
to obtain from Congress a recognition of its government, which
recognition was understood to depend upon the ratification by the
State legislature of the then pending Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. This subject was very fully
discussed between me and the leading members of the legislature.
I advised them to accept the proposed amendment as the only means
of saving the State from the more "radical" reconstruction under
act of Congress, which was then threatened. It was urged that
Virginia would not suffer much from the operation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, because of the general intelligence of her white population
and their superiority in numbers over the negroes--advantages which
some of the other Southern States did not enjoy; that if the Virginia
legislature would ratify the pending amendment, Congress could not
refuse to recognize the existing State government and make it
permanent; and that Virginia would thus be restored at once to her
full privileges as a State in the Union. I visited Washington,
and obtained from leading Republicans in Congress the assurance,
so far as it was in their power to give it, that such would be the
result. On my return to Richmond, it at first seemed that the
amendment would be speedily ratified. But other influences,
understood to come from some source in Washington (probably President
Johnson), finally prevailed; the amendment was rejected; and Virginia
was thus doomed to undergo "congressional reconstruction" in company
with her sister States.
RECONSTRUCTION IN VIRGINIA
The "policy" of President Johnson having resulted in an "irrepressible
conflict" between him and Congress, finally culminating in his
impeachment, the reconstruction of the States lately in insurrection
was undertaken by Congress. First an act dated March 2, 1867, was
passed for the military government of the "rebel States," and then
another act, dated March 23, 1867, prescribing the conditions of
organization of State governments preparatory to restoration to
the Union; the last-named act was supplemented by the act dated
July 19, 1867. All of these acts were passed over the President's
veto. They provided for the assignment of military commanders in
the several districts, with nearly absolute powers to govern those
States and direct the steps in the process of reconstruction. It
fell to my lot to command the First Military District, into which
Virginia was converted by the act of Congress.
The terrible oppression of the Southern people embodied in those
acts of Congress has hardly been appreciated by even the most
enlightened and conservative people of the North. Only those who
actually suffered the baneful effects of the unrestrained working
of those laws can ever realize their full enormity. The radical
Congress was not content to impose upon the Southern States impartial
suffrage to whites and blacks alike. They were not content even
to disfranchise the leading rebels, according to the terms of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Even those would not be
sufficient to put the Southern whites under the domination of their
former slaves and of adventurers from the North, and thus to secure
the radical supremacy in the reconstructed States. Hence another
and an enormous stride was taken, with the purpose of putting those
States under what became known as "carpet-bag" governments, so
offensive as to be nearly intolerable even to their authors. That
stride consisted in imposing the so-called "iron-clad oath" upon
all officers, of whatever grade or character, in all the former
Confederate States. That oath excluded from office not only all
who had in any way taken active part in the rebellion, but even
the most constant Union men of the South who had remained at home
during the war; for not one of them had escaped "giving aid or
comfort" in some way to those engaged in the rebellion. Even so
conspicuous a loyalist as Judge Rives, afterward United States
district judge, declared, after mature deliberation, that he could
not take that oath, although his constant fidelity to the Union
was known to all of Virginia.
I asked this noted Union man to accept the office of chief justice
of the State, but he could not take the prescribed oath. He had
permitted his boy, about to join the Confederate army, to take
one of his horses rather than see him go afoot. Perhaps the judge
was too conscientious. But it was the evil effect of the law to
exclude the highly honorable and let the rascals in. Thus the
Union could not have the benefit of Judge Rives's eminent services
in the vital work of reconstruction, and some "carpet-bagger" had
to take his place. And thus, although the acts of Congress permitted
a majority of the whites to vote, their choice of officers was
restricted to negroes and "carpet-baggers"! To these latter,
therefore, was committed the entire work of organizing and
administering the Southern State governments, which required the
aid of the United States troops to support them, and which fell by
their own weight the moment that support was withdrawn.
RECONSTRUCTION IN VIRGINIA
The manner in which I executed those "reconstruction" acts of
Congress in Virginia, so as to save that State from the great evils
suffered by sister States, is perhaps an instructive part of the
history of that time. The following extracts from my orders and
correspondence clearly show the constitutional principles upon
which my administration was based. They also give the essential
points in the history of Virginia reconstruction up to the time
when the Convention had completed its work of framing a constitution.
My "General Orders, No. 1," dated Richmond, Va., March 13, 1867,
was as follows:
"I. In compliance with the order of the President, the undersigned
hereby assumes command of the First District, State of Virginia,
under the act of Congress of March 2, 1867.
"II. All officers under the existing provisional government of
the State of Virginia will continue to perform the duties of their
respective offices according to law, unless otherwise hereafter
ordered in individual cases, until their successors shall be duly
elected and qualified in accordance with the above-named act of
Congress.
"III. It is desirable that the military power conferred by the
before-mentioned act be exercised only so far as may be necessary
to accomplish the objects for which that power was conferred, and
the undersigned appeals to the people of Virginia, and especially
to magistrates and other civil officers, to render the necessity
for the exercise of this power as slight as possible, by strict
obedience to the laws, and by impartial administration of justice
to all classes. . . ."
On April 20 was issued "General Orders, No. 16":
"I. Temporary appointments to fill vacancies which may occur in
county or city offices will, in general, be made upon the concurrent
recommendations of the County Court or City Council and of the
President of the Board of Registration ( 1) for the county or city.
"II. The several County Courts and City Councils are requested to
confer with the Presidents of the Boards of Registration concerning
such appointments, and to agree upon a suitable person to fill any
vacancy that may occur.
"III. The President of the Board of Registration will forward to
the assistant adjutant-general the recommendation of the court or
council, with his own indorsement thereon.
"IV. When a County Court is not in session, a recommendation signed
by five justices, including the presiding justice, will be received
in lieu of the recommendation of the court.
"V. County and corporation officers appointed by the commanding
general will be required to give the bonds required by law, and
will be subject to indictment for malfeasance, misfeasance, or
neglect of official duty, the same as if they had been elected by
the people."
On May 28 was issued "General Orders, No. 31," in part as follows;
". . . IV. The military commissioners [officers of the army] will
make a prompt report to these headquarters of each case of which
they may take jurisdiction, and the disposition made of such case.
Where parties are held for trial, either in confinement or under
bail, such full statement will be made of the facts in each case
as will enable the commanding general to decide whether the case
shall be tried by a military commission or be brought before a
civil court.
"V. Trial by the civil court will be preferred in all cases where
there is satisfactory reason to believe that justice will be done.
But until the orders of the commanding general are made known in
any case, the paramount jurisdiction assumed by the military
commissioner will be exclusive.
"VI. All persons, civil officers and others, are required to obey
and execute the lawful orders of the military commissioners to the
same extent as they are required by law to obey and execute writs
issued by civil magistrates. Any person who shall disobey or resist
the lawful orders or authority of a military commissioner shall be
tried by a military commission, and upon conviction shall be punished
by fine and imprisonment according to the nature and degree of the
offense. . . .
"VII. This order will not be construed to excuse civil officers,
in any degree, from the faithful discharge of their duties. It is
intended to aid the civil authorities, and not to supersede them,
except in cases of necessity."
NO RESORT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION
No case arose in Virginia in which it was found necessary, in my
opinion, to supersede the civil authorities in the administration
of justice. Not a single citizen of that State was tried by military
commission. Yet some cases arose which well illustrate the
fascinations of absolute power to those who desire the benefit of
its exercise in its own interests. Some of the most prominent
citizens of Virginia, men who had earnestly opposed the general
policy of military government then in force, came to me to settle
their petty differences summarily. They seemed much disappointed
when I declined to adjudicate such cases, and informed them that
they must be content with the slow process of trial before their
own civil magistrates. Other orders were in part as follows:
"Richmond, Va., July 26, 1867.
". . . III. The governor and other executive officers, the courts
of law, and councils of cities are invited to recommend suitable
persons for appointment to such offices as, under the existing laws
of Virginia, are usually filled by their appointment or upon their
nomination. . . ."
"Richmond, Va., August 8, 1867.
". . . VI. Military commissioners are reminded that they are to
be 'governed in the discharge of their duties by the laws of
Virginia, so far as the same are not in conflict with the laws of
the United States, or orders issued from these headquarters,' and
that they are not to supersede the civil authorities, except in
cases of necessity. In such cases the action, or failure to act,
of the civil officers should be fully reported, in order that the
commanding general may hold them to a proper accountability for
any neglect of duty. . . ."
THE OBNOXIOUS CONSTITUTION
Upon the adjournment of the State Convention, I sent the following
letter to General Grant:
"Richmond, Va., April 18, 1868.
"Dear General: In spite of every effort that could be made to
prevent it, the Virginia Convention has adhered to its proscriptive
measures, or rather to the most objectionable of them.
"After every other means had failed, I even went so far as to visit
the Convention, and urge the repeal of the test oath. But what I
said seemed not to have the slightest influence. I inclose a
newspaper report, which is a pretty accurate one, of what I said,
and which will show that I have at least done my duty in that
regard, if not more.
"The same baneful influence that secured the election of a majority
of ignorant blacks, and equally ignorant or unprincipled whites,
to the Convention, has proved sufficient to hold them firmly to
their original purpose. They could only hope to obtain office by
disqualifying everybody in the State who is capable of discharging
official duties, and all else to them was of comparatively slight
influence. Even the question whether their Constitution will be
ratified or rejected, the treat with indifference. Congress, they
say, will make it right anyway. . . .
"Of course I may be mistaken, but my opinion is that the Constitution
must be adopted. This would not be a serious matter if it (the
Constitution) were a good one, and good officers could be elected
under it. But it seems hardly possible that the Union party can
organize upon a satisfactory basis for the election. The negroes
and their associates will doubtless insist upon unqualified
indorsement of the Constitution by their nominees. This the
respectable whites will not give. Hence the late Convention will
be reproduced in the legislature, a large majority being either
worthless radicals, white and black, or bitter opponents of
reconstruction upon the congressional plan. The danger is that we
will have on our hands, not only one big elephant in the Constitution,
but a host of little ones in the shape of officers-elect who are
not fit to be installed--a prospect not very encouraging, at least.
"My impression is that the wisest course would be to let the thing
fall and die where it is--not submit it to the people at all. We
can then go on putting Union men in office and reorganizing the
provisional government upon a loyal basis, until the friends of
reconstruction get control of the State. Then a convention can be
called which will frame a Constitution fit to be ratified by the
people of the State and approved by Congress and the country at
large.
"If Congress would give a little more latitude in the selection of
officers, by modifying the test oath, there would be no difficulty
in filling all the offices in the State with men who would aid
restoration. Without some such change, the work of reorganization
cannot be carried very far. The view of the question which I have
given above is, of course, the local one; but it seems to me the
national one leads to the same conclusion. I can't see how the
indorsement of such a Constitution as this one, by the Republican
party, can be otherwise than damaging to them in the North. Would
it not be wise for Congress to say at once, We reject, once and
for all, proscriptive constitutions?
"I have written this letter merely to suggest points that occur to
me as worthy of very careful consideration. I suppose Congress
alone can determine what is to be done.
"As explained in my official letter to-day, I feel bound to await
the action of Congress before ordering an election. The nominating
conventions of the two parties meet in Richmond on the 6th and 7th
of May. Perhaps it may be best for Congress to await their action
before determining the question. . . . "
The newspaper clipping inclosed in the above letter to General
Grant was a report of the proceedings of the Convention which
appeared in the "Richmond Dispatch" of April 18, 1868. Several
other letters to General Grant, near the same time, explained the
situation in detail.
As was to be expected, and in spite of any influence which the
military commander could properly exert, that proposed Constitution,
like those framed in the other States, perpetuated the worst features
of the acts of Congress. It disqualified all the respectable whites
from any active part in the government, leaving the negroes and
"carpet-baggers" full sway. So sweeping was this disqualification
that in many parts of the State not a native Virginian, white or
black, could be found who could read or write, and who would be
eligible for election or appointment to any office. In my great
anxiety to save the State from so great an evil, I went to the hall
of the Convention and explained the impossibility of organizing a
government under such a Constitution, and besought the Convention
to strike out the disqualifying clause. I was listened to with
cold respect, my advice was disregarded, and promptly after my
departure the Constitution was finally adopted, and the Convention
adjourned _sine die_.
But the State was, nevertheless, saved from the impending disaster.
The act of Congress required that the Constitution be submitted to
the people for ratification or rejection; but Congress had failed
to appropriate money to pay the expenses of an election. If an
election was to be held, the money must be taken from the treasury
of the State, by the order of the district commander, or else
Congress must make a special appropriation for that purpose. I
declined to sanction the use of the people's money for any such
purpose, refused to order an election for ratification or rejection
of the obnoxious Constitution, and referred the matter to Congress,
with a recommendation that the people be authorized to vote separately
on the disqualifying clause--a privilege which the Convention had
denied.
HOW ITS WORST FEATURE WAS NULLIFIED
The radicals in Congress were so glad, apparently, of this mode of
escape from a result so obnoxious to the better sense of the Union
people at that time, that not a voice was raised in favor of the
"carpet-bag" Constitution or in disapprobation of my action in
regard to it. The instrument was permitted to rest quietly in the
pigeonhole of the district commander's desk until the next year.
Then an act was passed providing for submitting that Constitution
to the people of Virginia, with the privilege of voting separately
on the disfranchising clause, which clause they, of course, rejected.
Thus Virginia was saved from the vile government and spoilation
which cursed the other Southern States, and which the same radical
Congress and its successors sustained until the decent public
sentiment of the North would endure them no longer.
It is, perhaps, not too much to say that if the other district
commanders had in like manner refused to make themselves parties
to the spoilation of the people placed under their charge, Congress
would have shrunk from the direct act of imposing upon them such
obnoxious governments, and the country might have been saved the
disgrace of the eight years of carpet-bag rule in the South. At
least it is certain that a large proportion of the more moderate
among the Republican majority in Congress at that time indulged
the hope that respectable governments might be organized under the
acts of Congress. But they made this difficult, if not impossible,
when they gave their assent to the amendment of those acts, prepared
by the extremest radicals, depriving the Southern whites of any
active part in the organization of their governments. Impartial
justice, as expressed in "impartial suffrage," might have led to
tolerable results even in those States where the blacks were in
the majority. But under a law which gave universal suffrage to
the blacks and disfranchised the influential whites, any tolerable
result was impossible unless under the administration of a man who
had the independence and courage to disarm such a law of its
poisonous sting. However this may be, it is certain that Virginia
owes its escape from the sad fate of her sister States to the action
of her district commander, who has abundant reason for the belief
that the good people of that State fully appreciated the fact.
APPOINTED SECRETARY OF WAR
With this service to the people of Virginia, my duty in that State
practically terminated. The impeachment trial of President Johnson
had reached its crisis. It had become evident to those who were
wise enough to discern the "signs of the times" that the Senate
would probably not sustain the articles of impeachment by the
necessary two-thirds majority. This would leave unsettled the
quarrel between the President and Congress over the War Department,
and that on the eve of an exciting Presidential election, in which
several of the newly reconstructed States were expected to take
part. In not one of these States was the new government able to
stand alone or to preserve the peace within its borders. A firm
and impartial administration of the War Department in the sole
interest of peace and order during the coming contest was the one
indispensable want of the country. Without that, a revival of
civil strife seemed inevitable. Under these circumstances, I was
urged to accept the office of Secretary of War, with the assurance
that in this way the contest which endangered the peace of the
country could be adjusted. I gave my consent, the nomination was
promptly sent to the Senate, and that body, in spite of its very
large majority in opposition to the President, confirmed the
appointment with almost entire unanimity. The impeachment was
dismissed, and that dangerous farce, which had come within one or
two votes of inflicting lasting disgrace upon the country, happily
came to an end.
Upon the inauguration of the newly elected President in March,
1869, I laid down the war portfolio without having incurred censure
from either party for any of my official acts, and with the
approbation of all for impartial discharge of duty. But, apparently
lest such a thing might possibly happen again, Congress made haste
to pass a law prohibiting any army officer from thereafter holding
any civil office whatever! In 1895 that law was so modified as
not to apply to officers on the retired list! It is a singular
coincidence that I had just then been retired.
[( 1) The presidents of Boards of Registration were army officers
detailed by me for that duty.]