A RECONSTRUCTED STATE.
It seemed impossible for the people of Mississippi—and the same may be
said of the Southern people generally—to understand the first principle
of the free-labor system. Their notions of it were derived from what
they had seen of the shiftless poor whites about them, demoralized by an
institution that rendered labor disreputable. They could not conceive of
a man devoting himself voluntarily to hard manual toil, such as they had
never seen performed except under the lash. Some compulsory system
seemed to them indispensable. Hence the new black codes passed by the
reconstructed legislatures of several States.
Mississippi, like South Carolina, on returning to the fold of the Union,
from which those innocent lambs had strayed, made haste to pass
apprentice laws, vagrant laws, and laws relating to contracts and labor,
designed to bring back the freedmen under the planters’ control. “An Act
to regulate the Relation of Master and Apprentice,” passed in November,
1865, provides that “all freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes, under
the age of eighteen, who are orphans,” or are not maintained by their
parents, shall be apprenticed “to some competent and suitable
person,”—the former owner to “have the preference;” that “the said
apprentices shall be bound by indenture, in the case of males until they
are twenty-one years old, and in case of females until they are eighteen
years old”; that said master or mistress shall have power to inflict
“moderate corporal chastisement”; that in case the apprentice leaves
them without their consent, he may be committed to jail, and “_punished
as provided for the punishment of hired freedmen, as may be from time to
time provided for by law_,”—the meaning of which is clear, although the
grammatical construction is muddy; and that any person who shall employ,
feed, or clothe an apprentice who has deserted his master, “shall be
deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor,” and so forth.
It will be seen that, by this act, (approved November 22d, 1865,) not
merely children without means of support may be thus bound out under a
modified system of slavery, but that young girls, and lads of from
fourteen to eighteen, capable not only of supporting themselves, but of
earning perhaps the wages of a man or woman, may be taken from the
employment of their choice and compelled to serve without wages the
master or mistress assigned them by the court.
“An Act to amend the Vagrant Laws of the State” provides that “all
freedmen over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in
January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business,”
(as if no man was ever honestly without employment,) “or found
unlawfully assembling themselves together either in the day or night
time, shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof shall be fined
in the sum of not exceeding fifty dollars, and imprisoned at the
discretion of the court not exceeding ten days”; provided, however, that
in case any freedman “shall fail for five days after the imposition of
said fine 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 to
any person who will for the shortest period of service pay said fine or
forfeiture and all costs.”
A bill “To confer Civil Rights on Freedmen, and for other Purposes,”
enacts “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 choses 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 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 and cities._”
Not to speak of the gross injustice of this last provision, what shall
be said of the wisdom of that legislation which prohibits an entire
laboring class from acquiring real estate in the country, where their
presence and energies are indispensable, and holds out an inducement for
them to flock to the towns, which are crowded with them already, but
where alone they can hope to become freeholders?
Another section of this bill enacts that freedmen shall be competent
witnesses in all cases where freedmen are parties to the suit, or where
a crime is alleged to have been committed by a white person upon the
person or property of a freedman. But it does not give them the power to
testify in cases in which only white persons are concerned. All the
negro testimony bills which I have seen, passed by the legislatures of
the reconstructed States under gentle pressure from Washington, are
marked by this singular inconsistency. If the negro is a competent
witness in cases in which his own or his fellow’s interests are
involved, he is certainly a competent witness in cases involving only
the interests of white persons. He is permitted to give evidence when
there may exist a temptation for him to swear falsely, and not when
there is no such temptation. By the enactment of such laws the whites
are in reality legislating against themselves. Even Governor
Humphreys—late Rebel general, but now the reconstructed executive of the
“loyal” State of Mississippi, elected for his services in the
Confederate cause—in his message to this same legislature, favoring the
admission of negroes into the courts as an indispensable step towards
ridding the State of the military power, and of “that black incubus, the
Freedman’s Bureau,” made this suggestive statement:—
“There are few men living in the South who have not known many white
criminals to go ‘unwhipt of justice’ because negro testimony was not
permitted in the courts.”
The act “To confer Civil Rights on the Freedmen,” proceeds to make the
following provisions, which look much more like wrongs: “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,” (of course on any terms
that may be offered him,) “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 sixth of this act; which
licenses may be revoked for cause, at any time, by the authority
granting the same.”
Section sixth enacts: “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; ... and said contracts shall be taken
and held as entire contracts; and if the laborer shall quit the service
of the employer before expiration of his term of service, without good
cause, he shall forfeit his wages for that year up to the time of
quitting.” But who is to be the judge with regard to the “good cause?”
The white man, of course, and not the negro.
“Section 7. Be it further enacted, 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.”
Section ninth provides that if any person “_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_.”
These extracts—which I have made verbatim from an authorized copy of the
recent State laws, with only such abridgments as were necessary to
compress them within reasonable limits—show plainly enough what ideas
prevail in the late Slave States on the subject of free labor. The
design of all such enactments is simply to place both the labor and the
laborer in the power of the employer, and to reorganize slavery under a
new name. The fact that they are practically set aside and annulled by
the military power and the Freedmen’s Bureau, does not set aside or
annul the spirit which dictated them. This still animates the people of
the South; and I was often plainly told that as soon as the States were
fully restored to their rights, just such laws as these would certainly
be put in force. I remarked to a Mississippi planter, “Do you not think
it was unwise for your Legislature to pass such a code of laws?” “Yes,
it was unwise, _at this time_,” he replied, not understanding the scope
of my question. “_We showed our hand too soon._ We ought to have waited
till the troops were withdrawn, and our representatives admitted to
Congress; then we could have had everything our own way.”
Since the admission of negro testimony in the civil courts of the State,
the freedmen’s courts had been discontinued,—greatly to the disadvantage
of the colored race. The civil courts could hardly be induced to give
the negro’s cause a hearing. There were some exceptions; and at
Vicksburg I found a judge who seemed inclined to administer justice
without regard to the prejudice against color. This was Judge Yerger, an
original Union man,—one of the seven (against seventy-eight) who voted
No, on the adoption of the ordinance of secession in the Convention of
1861; the same who, when asked by a member what title should be given to
that act, replied, “Call it _An Ordinance for the Abolition of Slavery
and the Desolation of the South_.”
Yerger was the President of the new Convention that reconstructed the
State. That Convention was animated by a very different temper from that
shown by the new Legislature. The Convention was composed of the best
men in Mississippi, who went prepared to do what the Government at
Washington had a right to expect of rebellious States returning to their
allegiance; the Legislature was made up of a different class, elected
after the people of the South had been encouraged in their animosity and
arrogance by the discovery that treason was not to be punished, nor made
particularly odious. The Convention was governed by men of large
influence and liberal views; the Legislature was controlled by
narrow-minded intermeddlers, mostly from the poorer districts of the
State, where the inhabitants hated the negroes the more by way of
revenge for having owned so few.
It was claimed by the better class that the Legislature did not
represent them, and there was talk of calling another State Convention.
But the Legislature, although it did not carry out the views of the more
enlightened and progressive citizens, nor reflect in any way the
sentiments of the great mass of true Union men in the South, namely, the
blacks, represented quite faithfully the majority by which it was
elected.
I have already alluded to the organizing of the State militia,—an abuse
that unfortunately received the sanction of the Administration. The only
possible excuse for it was the cry raised regarding anticipated negro
insurrections. To guard against danger from a class whose loyalty and
good behavior during the war challenged the admiration of the world,
arms were put into the hands of Confederate soldiers who had returned to
their homes reeking with the blood of the nation. Power was taken from
the friends of the government and put into the hands of its enemies. The
latter immediately set to work disarming the former. They plundered
their houses, under the pretence of searching for weapons; committing
robberies, murders, and other atrocities, with authentic reports of
which pages might be filled. Neither were white men, known to sympathize
with the Union party of the North, safe from their violence. Governor
Humphreys himself, startled by the magnitude of the evil that had been
called into existence, told Colonel Thomas that he had been obliged to
disband several militia companies already organized, “on learning that
they were sworn to kill negroes asserting their independence, and to
drive off Northern men.”
Of what was being done by private parties outside of the militia
organizations, a curious glimpse is given in the following “general
order,” published in the Holmesville (Miss.) “Independent”:—
“[General Order No. 1.]
“SUMMIT, MISS., Nov. 28, 1865.
“In obedience to an order of His Excellency, the Governor of
Mississippi, I have this day assumed command of all the militia in
this section of the State, with head-quarters at this place. And
whereas it has been reported to me that there are various
individuals, not belonging to any military organization, either
State or Federal, who are engaged in shooting at, and sometimes
killing, the freedmen on private account; and whereas there are
other white men reported as the attendants of, and participants in,
the negro balls, who, after placing themselves upon a social
equality with the people of color, raise quarrels with the freedmen,
upon questions of social superiority already voluntarily waived and
relinquished by them in favor of the negro, by which the peace of
the country is broken and the law disregarded; I therefore order the
arrest of all such offenders, by the officers and soldiers under my
command, and that they be taken before some civil officer having
power to commit to the county jail, for the purpose of awaiting the
action of the Grand Jury.
“Men must quit blacking themselves, and do everything legally.
“OSCAR J. E. STUART,
“Q. M. G. and Col. Com. Militia.”
The objection here seems to be to shooting the freedmen “on private
account,” or doing anything “illegally,” thus taking the proper work of
the militia out of its hands.
There were no doubt serious apprehensions in the minds of the people on
the subject of negro insurrections. But a great deal that was said about
them was mere pretence and cant, with which I have not seen fit to load
these pages. There was not, while I was in the South, the slightest
danger from a rising of the blacks, nor will there be, unless they are
driven to desperation by wrongs.
I remember two very good specimens of formidable negro insurrections.
One was reported in Northern Mississippi, and investigated personally by
General Fiske, who took pains to visit the spot and learn all the facts
concerning it. According to his account, “a colored man hunting
squirrels was magnified into a thousand vicious negroes marching upon
their old masters with bloody intent.”
The other case was reported at the hotel in Vicksburg where I stopped,
by a gentleman who had just arrived in the steamer “Fashion” from New
Orleans. He related an exciting story of a rising of the blacks in
Jefferson Parish, and a great slaughter of the white population. He also
stated that General Sheridan had sent troops to quell the insurrection.
Afterwards, when at New Orleans, I made inquiry of General Sheridan
concerning the truth of the rumor, and learned that it was utterly
without foundation. The most noticeable phase of it was the effect it
had upon the guests at the hotel table. Everybody had been predicting
negro insurrections at Christmas-time; now everybody’s prophecy had come
true, and everybody was delighted. A good deal of horror was expressed;
but the real feeling, ill-concealed under all, was exultation.
“What will Sumner & Co. say now?” cried one.
“The only way is to kill the niggers off, and drive ’em out of the
country,” said another.
I was struck by the perfect unanimity with which the company indorsed
this last sentiment. All the outrages committed by whites upon blacks
were of no account; but at the mere rumor of a negro insurrection, what
murderous passions were roused!
Of the comparative good behavior of whites and blacks in a large town,
the police reports afford a pretty good indication. Vicksburg, which had
less than five thousand inhabitants in 1860, had in 1865 fifteen
thousand. Of these, eight thousand were blacks. On Christmas-day, out of
nineteen persons brought before the police court for various offences,
fourteen were white and five colored. The day after there were ten cases
reported,—nine white persons and one negro. The usual proportion of
white criminals was more than two thirds.
An unrelenting spirit of persecution, shown towards Union men in
Mississippi, was fostered by the reconstructed civil courts. Union
scouts were prosecuted for arson and stealing. A horse which had been
taken by the government, and afterwards condemned and sold, was claimed
by the original owner, and recovered,—the quartermaster’s bill of sale,
produced in court by the purchaser, being pronounced null and void. The
government had leased to McAlister, a Northern man, an abandoned
plantation, with the privilege of cutting wood upon it, for which he
paid forty cents a cord: the Rebel owner returns with his pardon, and
sues the lessee for alleged damages done to his property by the removal
of wood, to the amount of five thousand dollars; a writ of attachment
issues under the seal of the local court, and the defendant is compelled
to give bonds to the amount of ten thousand dollars, or lie in jail.
Such cases were occurring every day.
The beautiful effect of executive mercy upon rampant Rebels was well
illustrated in Mississippi. A single example will suffice. The Reverend
Dr. ——, an eloquent advocate of the Confederate cause,—who, as late as
March 23d, 1865, delivered a speech before the State Legislature, urging
the South to fight to the last extremity,—under strong pretences of
loyalty, obtained last summer a full pardon, and an order for the
restoration of his property. The —— House, in Vicksburg, belonging to
this reverend gentleman, was at that time used as a hospital for colored
persons by the Freedmen’s Bureau. Returning, with the President’s
authority, he turned out the sick inmates with such haste as to cause
the deaths of several; and on the following Sunday preached a vehement
sermon on reconstruction, in which he avowed himself a better friend to
the blacks than Northern men, and declared that it was “the duty of the
government to treat the South with magnanimity, because it was not
proper for a living ass to kick a dead lion.”
There was great opposition to the freedmen’s schools. Dr. Warren, the
superintendent for the State, told me that “if the Bureau was withdrawn
not a school would be publicly allowed.” There were combinations formed
to prevent the leasing of rooms for schools; and those who would have
been willing to let buildings for this purpose were deterred from doing
so by threats of vengeance from their neighbors. In Vicksburg,
school-houses had been erected on confiscated land, which had lately
been restored to the Rebel owners, and from which they were ordered,
with other government buildings, to be removed.
In the month of November there were 4750 pupils in the freedmen’s
schools,—the average attendance being about 3000. Of these, 2650 were
advanced beyond the alphabet and primer; 1200 were learning arithmetic,
and 1000 writing.
The schools were mainly supported by the Indiana Yearly Meeting of
Friends, the Ohio Yearly Meeting, the American Freedmen’s Aid
Commission, (composed of various denominations,) and the American
Missionary Association, (Congregational.) Elkanah Beard, of the Indiana
Yearly Meeting, was the first to organize a colony of colored refugees
in Mississippi, and through him his society have furnished to the
freedmen practical relief, in the shape of food, clothing, and shelter,
to a very great amount. The United Presbyterian Body had fifteen
teachers at Vicksburg and Davis’s Bend. The Old School Presbyterian
Church had a missionary at Oxford, introducing schools upon plantations,
and the Moravian Church had a pioneer at Holly Springs.