THE WORK OF RESTORATION.
Votes on the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment.—The New States and
Reconstructed States likely to vote for it.—Action of the
Commanders of the Military Districts.—The Fifth District.—Measures
adopted by General Sheridan.—His Reasons for them.—Further Action
of General Sheridan.—Governor Wells removed, and Governor Flanders
appointed.—Incidents in Charleston: The Railroad Cars; The Flag at
the Charleston Fire Parade.—General Sickles’ Order No. 10: Its
Provisions.—Attorney-General Stanbery’s Objections to it.—Other
Orders of General Sickles.—He asks to be relieved of his
Command.—Troubles in General Pope’s District.—Insubordination of
Governor Jenkins: General Pope asks that he be removed; General
Grant’s Indorsement.—Riot in Mobile.—In Richmond.—Registration,
and Powers of Military Commanders.—The Interference of the
Attorney-General.—His Written Opinions.—General Grant decides that
they are not Mandatory.—General Sheridan’s Opinion of
them.—Removal of Throckmorton.—Sheridan’s Complaint of
Rousseau.—The Removal of Secretary Stanton determined upon, and
of General Sheridan also.—The President’s Letter to
Stanton.—Stanton’s Reply.—General Grant’s Private Letter to the
President.—Stanton suspended, and Grant appointed Secretary of War
_ad interim_.—The Order for Sheridan’s Removal.—General Grant’s
Protest.—The President’s Reply.—Thomas appointed to the Fifth
District, but declines on account of his Health.—Hancock
appointed.—General Griffin’s Death.—General Sickles’
Removal.—Generals Canby and Mower’s Orders.—The President’s two
Proclamations.—Who are to be amnestied.—The President’s
Pardons.—General Hancock’s Special Order.—The President’s delight
with it.—He proposes that Congress shall make a Public Recognition
of the General’s Patriotism.—Congress “don’t see it.”—Measures of
General Hancock.—General Grant revokes his Orders.—Hancock asks to
be relieved, and is appointed by the President to the Command of
the New Department of Washington.—The New Constitutions.—Alabama:
The Measures of the Rebels to prevent the adoption of the
Constitution.—The Constitutions of the other States adopted.—Vote
on Convention and Constitution.
Before proceeding to give an account of the progress of reconstruction
under the Congressional acts, in the Desolated States, we subjoin the
following table of the votes of the Legislatures of the several States
on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was submitted to them
for ratification on the 13th June, 1866:—
VOTES OF STATE LEGISLATURES ON THE FOURTEENTH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOYAL STATES.
RATIFIED—TWENTY-ONE STATES.
_Maine._—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 31, nays 0. House, January
11, 1867, yeas 126, nays 12.
_New Hampshire._—Senate. July 6, 1866, yeas 9, nays 3. House, June
28, 1866, yeas 207, nays 112.
_Vermont._—Senate, October 23, 1866, yeas 28, nays 0. House, October
30, 1866, yeas 199, nays 11.
_Massachusetts._—Senate, March 20, 1867, yeas 27, nays 6. House,
March 14, 1867, yeas 120, nays 20.
_Rhode Island._—Senate, February 5, 1867, yeas 26, nays 2. House,
February 7, 1867, yeas 60, nays 9.
_Connecticut._—Senate, June 25, 1866, yeas 11, nays 6. House, June
29, 1866, yeas 131, nays 92.
_New York._—Senate, January 3, 1867, yeas 23, nays 3. House, January
10, 1867, yeas 76, nays 40.
_New Jersey._—Senate, September 11, 1866, yeas 11, nays 10. House,
September 11, 1866, yeas 34, nays 24.
_Pennsylvania._—Senate, January 17, 1867, yeas 20, nays 9. House,
February 6, 1867, yeas 58, nays 29.
_West Virginia._—Senate, January 15, 1867, yeas 15, nays 3. House,
January 16, 1867, yeas 43, nays 11.
_Ohio._—Senate, January 3, 1867, yeas 21, nays 12. House, January 4,
1867, yeas 54, nays 25.
_Tennessee._—Senate, July 11, 1866, yeas 15, nays 6. House, July 12,
1866, yeas 43, nays 11.
_Indiana._—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 29, nays 18. House,
January 23, 1867, yeas—, nays—.
_Illinois._—Senate, January 10, 1867, yeas 17, nays 7. House,
January 15, 1867, yeas 59, nays 25.
_Michigan._—Senate, January, 1867, yeas 25, nays 1. House, January,
1867, yeas 77, nays 15.
_Missouri._—Senate, January 5, 1867, yeas 26, nays 6. House, January
8, 1867, yeas 85, nays 34.
_Minnesota._—Senate, January 16, 1867, yeas 16, nays 5. House,
January 15, 1867, yeas 40, nays 6.
_Kansas._—Senate, January 11, 1867, unanimously. House, January 10,
1867, yeas 75, nays 7.
_Wisconsin._—Senate, January 23, 1867, yeas 22, nays 10. House,
February 7, 1867, yeas 72, nays 12.
_Oregon._—[25]Senate, September, 1866, yeas 13, nays 7. House,
September 19, 1866, yeas 25, nays 22.
_Nevada._—[25]Senate, January 22, 1867, yeas 14, nays 2. House,
January 11, 1867, yeas 34, nays 4.
REJECTED—THREE STATES.
_Delaware._—Senate, February. House, February 6, 1867, yeas 6, nays
15.
_Maryland._—Senate, March 23, 1867, yeas 4, nays 13. House, March
23, 1867, yeas 12, nays 45.
_Kentucky._—Senate, January 8, 1867, yeas 7, nays 24. House, January
8, 1867, yeas 26, nays 62.
NOT ACTED—THREE STATES.
Iowa, California, Nebraska.
INSURRECTIONARY STATES.
REJECTED—TEN STATES.
_Virginia._—Senate, January 9, 1867, unanimously. House, January 9,
1867, 1 for amendment.
_North Carolina._—Senate, December 13, 1866, yeas 1, nays 44. House,
December 13, 1866, yeas 10, nays 93.
_South Carolina._—Senate, —— ——. House, December 20, 1866, yeas 1,
nays 95.
_Georgia._—Senate, November 9, 1866, yeas 0, nays 36. House,
November 9, 1866, yeas 2, nays 131.
_Florida._—Senate, December 3, 1866, yeas 0, nays 20. House,
December 1, 1866, yeas 0, nays 49.
_Alabama._—Senate, December 7, 1866, yeas 2, nays 27. House,
December 7, 1866, yeas 8, nays 69.
_Mississippi._—Senate, January 30, 1867, yeas 0, nays 27. House,
January 25, 1867, yeas 0, nays 88.
_Louisiana._—Senate, February 5, 1867, unanimously. House, February
6, 1867, unanimously.
_Texas._—Senate, —— ——. House, October 13, 1866, yeas 5, nays 67.
_Arkansas._—Senate, December 15, 1866, yeas 1, nays 24. House,
December 17, 1866, yeas 2, nays 68.
Of these States North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Louisiana, and Arkansas, and possibly some of the other desolated
States, will reverse their decision the present summer, and Nebraska,
Iowa, and Colorado will also vote for it. On the other hand, New Jersey
and Ohio, which have now Democratic Legislatures, have attempted, but in
vain, to reverse their decisions and reject the Amendment. The votes of
the reconstructed States will undoubtedly be sufficient to secure its
adoption by the affirmative vote of the constitutional number (three
fourths) of the States.
The commanders of the five military districts, Generals Meade, Sickles,
Pope, Thomas, and Sheridan, after the passage of the Reconstruction Act,
and its first supplement, issued their orders, insisting on obedience to
its provisions, as according to the law they were required to do, but
manifesting at the same time a disposition to interfere as little as
possible with the existing civil government until the question of a
constitutional convention could be voted on, and if called, a new
constitution prepared and adopted, and the machinery of government set
in motion under the new regime. Many leading citizens of the South, who
had been prominent in the Rebellion, advised acquiescence in the
Congressional plan, and while strong opposition was manifested in many
quarters, it was hoped that there would be a general participation in
the work of reorganization. The opposition was violent, and most
strongly marked in the cities, where many of the leading papers, of
Rebel antecedents, took an active part in abusing and berating Congress.
The action of the military commander of the _Fifth District_, General
Sheridan, in suppressing the violence of the Rebel opposition, was early
and decided, as, indeed, was necessary. On the 27th of March, 1867, he
removed from office Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of Louisiana,
John T. Monroe, Mayor of New Orleans, and Edmund Abell, Judge of the
first District Court of the city, and appointed in their places B. L.
Lynch, Edward Heath, and W. W. Howe. In a note to General Grant, soon
after, he assigned the following reasons for this action:—
“I did not deem it necessary to give any reason for the removal of
these men, especially after the investigation made by the Military
Board on the massacre of July 30, 1866, and the report of the
Congressional Committee on the same massacre; but as some inquiry
has been made for the cause of removal, I would respectfully state
as follows: The court over which Judge Abell presided is the only
Criminal Court in the city of New Orleans, and for a period of at
least nine months previous to July 30, he had been educating a large
portion of the community to the perpetration of this outrage, by
almost promising no prosecution in his court against the offenders,
in case such an event occurred. The records of this court will show
that he fulfilled his promise, as not one of the guilty ones has
been prosecuted. In reference to Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General
of the State of Louisiana, I considered it his duty to indict these
men before this criminal court. This he failed to do, but went so
far as to attempt to impose on the good sense of the whole nation by
indicting the victims of the riot instead of the rioters—in other
words, making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. He was,
therefore, an abettor of and coadjutor with Judge Abell in bringing
on the massacre of July 30. Mayor Monroe controlled the element
engaged in this riot, and when backed by an attorney-general who
would not prosecute the guilty, and a judge who advised the grand
jury to find the innocent guilty and let the murderers go free, felt
secure in engaging his police force in the riot and massacre. With
these three men exercising a large influence on the worst elements
of this city, giving to these elements an immunity for riot and
bloodshed, the General-in-chief will see how insecure I felt in
letting them occupy their present positions in the troubles which
might occur in registration and voting in the reorganization.”
Monroe was mayor when New Orleans was captured by Farragut and Butler.
He had been pardoned by the President and reëlected mayor.
Early in April, General Griffin, who was in command in Texas, wrote to
General Sheridan, stating that, under the Military Bill, both the
Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of that State were disqualified to act,
and that he desired the immediate removal of Governor Throckmorton.
General Sheridan forwarded the letter to General Grant, with his
favorable recommendation indorsed thereon, and added that he feared he
would be compelled to remove Governor Wells, of Louisiana, who was
impeding him all he could. To this General Grant responded, April 3,
advising him not to remove the governors at present, the question of the
powers of military commanders being under consideration in the Cabinet.
This ended the matter for the time being. On the 6th of April, General
Sheridan telegraphed General Grant that he was nearly ready to proceed
with the work of registration, and that “an authoritative decision, as
to what classes are disfranchised, is very important.” General Grant
replied, that the questions had been submitted to the Attorney-General,
and that no answer had been received, adding, “Go on giving your
interpretation of the law until answer is given.” Breaches in the
Mississippi levees were very disastrous in March and April, and there
had been a serious conflict in regard to Levee Commissioners. General
Sheridan removed those officers May 2, and appointed others in their
places. June 3, General Sheridan removed Governor Wells, and appointed
Thomas J. Durant in his stead. June 4, he informed General Grant of his
action, saying, “He has embarrassed me very much since I came in
command, by his subterfuge and political chicanery. This necessary act
will be approved here by every class and shade of political opinion. He
has not a friend who is an honest man. Nothing will answer here but a
bold and strong course, and in taking it, I am supported by every class
and all parties.” Mr. Durant declining the office, General Sheridan, on
the 6th, appointed Benjamin F. Flanders in his stead. Governor Wells
declining to vacate the office, General Sheridan, on the 7th, addressed
a note to him, stating that he had been informed that he disputed his
right to remove him from office, which right he had previously
acknowledged and urged. He concluded his note as follows: “I therefore
send Brevet Brigadier-General James W. Forsyth, of my staff, to notify
you that he is sent by me to eject you from the Governor’s room
forcibly, unless you consider this notification as equivalent to
ejection.” General Forsyth presented the communication on the 8th, when
Governor Wells vacated, responding, “I surrender the office I hold only
to the sword.” Governor Flanders went to New Orleans in 1842, was driven
out of the city in 1861, by a body of Rebels, styling themselves a
Vigilance Committee, for his devotion to the Union. He made his way to
Cairo and Columbus, barely saving his life, and returned with Butler in
1862. In the fall of the same year he was elected a member of Congress.
Upon his return, he was appointed City Treasurer, and shortly afterward
was selected, by Secretary Chase, as supervising special agent for the
Treasury Department for the District. He was connected with the Treasury
Department from that time until his appointment as Governor. It having
been reported that General Grant favored reprimanding Sheridan for the
removal, the former telegraphed the latter, June 7, denying the report,
saying, “There is not one word of truth in the story.” The bold action
of General Sheridan caused great excitement, and rumors of his having
been removed by the President were constantly set afloat.
In the Second District, Charleston was the scene of one or two
interesting incidents in the earlier days of the enforcement of the
Reconstruction Act. During the last ten days in March, the freedmen, who
had been denied equal privileges in the cars, undertook to secure them
by force, and several of them were arrested. Commissioner R. K. Scott,
of the Freedmen’s Bureau, issued a circular, warning them that such
attempts would only retard the acknowledgment of their rights, and that
their only remedy was through legal process. The question was finally
settled May 3, by the directors resolving to admit all classes alike.
The arrested persons were released.
An annual parade of the Charleston fire department was to have taken
place at ten o’clock on the morning of the 27th of April. As it was
about starting, it was observed that it did not bear the American flag.
General Sickles thereupon addressed the chief engineer a note, stating
that, at the previous parade, regrets had been expressed at the absence
of the national emblem, and ordering that the Stars and Stripes be borne
at the head of the column; that an escort of honor be detailed to escort
it, and that each person in the procession salute it. The order was
obeyed, the procession being delayed until the ensign was procured.
General Sickles issued an order, April 10, known as General Order No.
10, designed to relieve the destitute, which attracted considerable
attention. It prohibited imprisonment for debt, except for fraud;
directed that judgments on actions arising during the Rebellion should
not be enforced; sheriffs’ sales on process prior to December 19, 1860,
were suspended for a year; allowed process to continue judgments entered
since May 15, 1865; suspended all proceedings for the recovery of money
in the purchase of negroes; protected advances of moneys and materials
for agricultural purposes, and made wages a lien; provided a homestead
exemption of $500; declared United States currency legal tenders;
property of an absent debtor should not be taken under foreign
attachment, but aliens should not be disturbed; other provisions
relative to criminal proceedings were set aside; the carrying of deadly
weapons was prohibited; corporeal punishment was abrogated; the
punishment of death in cases of burglary and larceny was abolished, and
terms of imprisonment substituted; the governors of North and South
Carolina were authorized to reprieve or pardon criminals sentenced by
civil courts. The order closed with these words: “Any law or ordinance
heretofore in force in North Carolina or South Carolina, inconsistent
with the provisions of this general order, are hereby suspended and
declared inoperative.” It gave great satisfaction in South Carolina, on
account of the features staying executions in civil cases.
In an opinion addressed to the President, June 12, Attorney-General
Stanbery strongly objected to the issuing of this and other orders,
which he said began to assume the dimensions of a Code. He said that
under it the commanding general assumed, “not only a power to suspend
the laws, but to declare them generally inoperative, and assuming full
powers of legislation by the military authority.” The Attorney-General
proceeded: “The ground upon which these extraordinary powers are based
is thus set forth in military order No. 1, issued in this district: ‘The
civil government now existing in North Carolina and South Carolina is
provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority
of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or
supersede the same.’ Thus far the provisions of the Act of Congress are
well recited. What follows is in these words: ‘Local laws and municipal
regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States, or the proclamations of the President, or with such
regulations as are or may be prescribed in the orders of the commanding
general, are hereby declared to be in force, and, in conformity
therewith, civil officers are hereby authorized to continue the exercise
of their proper functions, and will be respected and obeyed by the
inhabitants.’ This construction of his powers under the act of Congress
places military commanders on the same footing as the Congress of the
United States. It assumes that ‘the paramount authority of the United
States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede,’ is
invested in him as fully as it is reserved to Congress.”
The Attorney-General conceded that the orders were issued under an
honest belief they were necessary or expedient, and warranted by the act
of Congress, but he protested against the assumption of such powers, as
full of evil and mischief.
General Sickles issued an order, April 18, establishing a Provost Court
in the military post of Aiken, S. C., in consequence of “it having
become apparent that justice to freedmen cannot be obtained in the civil
courts within that post.” The court was given jurisdiction of any case
to which a person of color was a party, except murder, arson, and rape.
On the 23d of April, he issued an order prohibiting the sale or gift of
liquors to United States soldiers, sailors, or marines, and giving post
commanders supervision over all sheriffs and police within their
commands, and directing them, “whenever necessary for the preservation
of order, and the efficient discharge of their duties, to assume command
of the police force.” It having been alleged that the supply of food had
been greatly diminished by distillation; that distillers defrauded the
revenue, and maltreated the collectors when endeavoring to collect the
tax; and that the practice of distillation tended to increase poverty,
disorder, and crime, he issued an order May 30, prohibiting the
distillation of grain.
The strictures of the Attorney-General were received in Charleston June
19, and the same day General Sickles forwarded a request to Washington
to be relieved from duty, and demanded a court of inquiry on his
official actions. He was subsequently relieved, but the court of inquiry
was not granted.
_Third District._—Early in April, movements were instituted in
Washington to enjoin the enforcement of the Reconstruction Act, in the
name of the State of Georgia. (A similar movement was made on the part
of Mississippi). On the 10th of April, Governor Jenkins, of Georgia,
issued an address to the people of the State, dated at Washington,
advising them to take no action under the Reconstruction law until its
constitutionality could be tested. On the 24th, General Pope addressed
him a note, reminding him that it was his duty, under the law, to place
no impediment in the way of reconstruction, and that if he did, he was
liable to removal. General Pope likewise addressed General Grant on the
subject. His letter contained the following paragraph:—
“The ill effects of permitting the whole power of the provisional
State government, through all its civil departments and in all its
ramifications, to be used to frustrate the acts of Congress, and to
keep up the disturbed condition of the public mind, cannot be
overstated. No reconstruction is possible, and it will be next to
impossible to secure faithful administration of the laws, while such
influences are allowed to go on unchecked, unless the entire civil
government is overthrown and the military substituted. I deem it of
the last importance to arrest it now, in the person of Provisional
Governor Jenkins. If he is permitted to set authority at defiance,
it will be useless to notice such offenses committed by the minor
officers.”
General Grant forwarded the letter to the War Department, indorsed as
follows:—
“Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information.
The telegraphic despatch herein inclosed shows that Governor
Jenkins, of Georgia, has given such pledges to the commander of the
Third District as to induce him to withhold, for the present, his
order suspending the Governor.
“The conduct of Governor Jenkins demonstrates, however, how possible
it is for discontented civil officers of the reconstructed States to
defeat the laws of Congress, if the power does not exist with the
district commanders to suspend their functions for cause in some
way. It seems clear to me that the power is given in the bill ‘for
the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,’ to use or not,
at the pleasure of district commanders, the provisional machinery
set up without the authority of Congress, in the States to which the
Reconstruction Act applies. There being doubt, however, on this
point, I would respectfully ask an early opinion on the subject.
“If the power of removal does not exist with district commanders,
then it will become necessary for them to take refuge under that
section of the Bill which authorizes military commissions.
“U. S. GRANT, _General_.
“HEAD-QUARTERS, ARMIES UNITED STATES, _April 22, 1867_.”
A riot occurred in Mobile, May 14, on the occasion of a speech made by
Judge Kelley, of Pennsylvania, who had been speaking in the South in
favor of reorganizing under Congressional law. Four persons were killed
and twenty wounded. A citizens’ meeting was held, composed of all
parties, which denounced the outrage. The Mayor and Chief of Police were
censured, on an investigation into the affair, and, on the 22d of May,
were removed, and others appointed in their stead.
A negro riot took place in Richmond, May 9, on the occasion of an engine
trial, when a thousand negroes were dispersed at the point of the
bayonet.
No events worthy of special notice occurred in the First and Fourth
Districts, except the registration proceedings.
_Registration, and the Powers of Military Commanders._—The military
commanders had scarcely begun the work of registration before questions
involving the construction of the law were originated. Different
commanders construed the act differently, and of course conflicting
instructions were given. Some were very stringent, and others more
moderate. The one most widely variant from those generally issued, was
issued by General Ord, June 10. The views of Secretary Stanbery and
General Grant, respectively, are set forth in the following note, signed
by General Grant, June 23:—
“I entirely dissent from the views contained in Paragraph IV. Your
view as to the duty of registrars to register every man who will
take the required oath, though they know the applicant perjures
himself, is sustained by the views of the Attorney-General. My
opinion is, that it is the duty of the Board of Registration to see,
so far as it lies in their power, that no unauthorized person is
allowed to register. To secure this end, registrars should be
allowed to administer oaths and examine witnesses. The law, however,
makes district commanders their own interpreters of their power and
duty under it: and, in my opinion, the Attorney-General or myself
can no more than give our opinion as to the meaning of the law;
neither can enforce their views against the judgment of those made
responsible for the faithful execution of the law,—the district
commanders.”
The Attorney-General had addressed an opinion to the President, May 24,
giving his interpretation of the law, so far as relates to registration,
at length. Under it there were comparatively few who were not entitled
to register. This opinion was forwarded to the various commanders by the
President, with a note, directing attention to it. General Pope, June
27, telegraphed General Grant to learn whether the note of the President
was mandatory or not, and received the following response:—
“Enforce your own construction of the Military Bill until ordered to
do otherwise. The opinion of the Attorney-General has not been
distributed to district commanders in language or manner entitling
it to the force of an order, nor can I suppose that the President
intended it to have such force.
“U. S. GRANT, _General_.”
A similar despatch was sent to General Sheridan the same day, in answer
to a telegram. The latter officer, June 22, wrote to General Grant, that
the opinion of the Attorney-General opened a “broad, macadamized road to
perjury,” and that its effects were beginning to show themselves in
organized opposition to all the acts of the military commanders. “Every
civil officer in the State will administer justice according to his own
views: many of them, denouncing the Military Bill as unconstitutional,
will throw every impediment in the way of its execution.”
The Attorney-General gave a lengthy opinion, June 12, to the effect that
military commanders did not possess the power to remove State officers;
that they could not take cognizance of past offenses; and generally
confining their powers within limits more contracted than it had been
supposed was the scope of the law.
Under the supplementary Reconstruction Act of July 23, the military
commanders proceeded in the discharge of their duties. General Sheridan,
on the 30th of July, issued an order in these words: “A careful
consideration of the reports of Brevet Major-General Charles Griffin, U.
S. A., shows that J. W. Throckmorton, Governor of Texas, is an
impediment to the reconstruction of that State under the law. He is,
therefore, removed from that office. E. M. Pease is hereby appointed
Governor of Texas, in place of J. W. Throckmorton, removed. He will be
obeyed and respected accordingly.” Governor Pease took the oath of
office, August 7, and Governor Throckmorton vacated the following day.
On the 3d of August, General Sheridan informed General Grant that the
work of registration in Louisiana was complete, and that “the State
will, in all probability, come in as a Union State. In accomplishing
this registration, I have had no opposition from the masses of the
people; on the contrary, much assistance and encouragement; but from the
public press, especially that of the city of New Orleans, and from
office-holders and office-seekers disfranchised, I have met with
bitterness and opposition. I have, as I have heretofore stated to you,
permitted no political influence nor political machinery to help or
influence me in this work. Receiving the law as an order, it was so
executed. I regret that I have to make the charge against
Brigadier-General L. H. Rousseau, U. S. A., of visiting my command
recently, and without exhibiting any authority, interfering with my
duties and suggesting my removal.”
President Johnson had long been dissatisfied with Secretary Stanton, who
was friendly to the Congressional plan of reconstruction, and had aided
so far as was in his power, in the faithful execution of the laws
pertaining to that subject. The President was desirous of having his
Cabinet composed wholly of men who would reflect his views and support
him in the violation or careless and incomplete execution of the
measures which he hated, and Stanton, whom he could not use or control,
was to him a Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, who would do him no
reverence. He determined, therefore, to rid himself of him. Accordingly,
on the 5th of August, he addressed a note to the Secretary, saying that
public considerations of high character constrained him to say that his
resignation as Secretary of War would be accepted. Secretary Stanton
replied the same day in the following terms: “In reply, I have the honor
to say, that public considerations of a high character, which alone have
induced me to continue at the head of this department, constrain me not
to resign the office of Secretary of War before the next meeting of
Congress.” To this, the President made no direct reply. But his
determination to drive Stanton from the War Department had been too long
cherished to be relinquished, especially by a man of such a tenacious
and wilful disposition as the President. He had intimated in the latter
part of July, to General Grant, his intention of removing both Secretary
Stanton and General Sheridan, the commander of the Fifth District, from
their positions, and the General-in-chief, who well knew the value of
the two men, in executing promptly and fairly the laws, had remonstrated
in the following manly letter, which was only made public on the
subsequent demand of Congress:—
“HEAD-QUARTERS ARMIES OF THE U. S., }
WASHINGTON, D. C., _August 1, 1867_. }
“[Private.]
“_His Excellency, A. Johnson, President of the United States_:
“SIR: I take the liberty of addressing you privately on the subject
of the conversation we had this morning, feeling as I do the great
danger to the welfare of our country, should you carry out the
designs then expressed.
“1. On the subject of the displacement of the Secretary of War. His
removal cannot be effected against his will without the consent of
the Senate. It is but a short time since the United States Senate
was in session, and why not then have asked for his removal, if it
was desired? It certainly was the intention of the legislative
branch of the Government to place the Cabinet Ministers beyond the
power of Executive removal, and it is pretty well understood that,
so far as Cabinet Ministers are affected by the Tenure of Office
Bill, it was intended especially to protect the Secretary of War,
whom the country felt great confidence in. The meaning of the law
may be explained away by an astute lawyer, but common sense and the
views of loyal people will give to it the effect intended by its
framers.
[Illustration: PRESIDENT JOHNSON TRIES TO GET GEN. GRANT TO ASSIST HIM
IN PREVENTING THE SENATE FROM REINSTATING STANTON AS SECRETARY OF WAR.]
“2. On the subject of the removal of the very able commander of the
Fifth Military District, let me ask you to consider the effect it
would have upon the public. He is unusually and deservedly beloved
by the people who sustained this Government through its trials, and
feared by those who would still be enemies of the Government.
“It fell to the lot of but few men to do as much against our armed
enemy as General Sheridan did during the Rebellion; and it is within
the scope of the ability of few, in this or other countries, to do
what he has. His civil administration has given equal satisfaction.
He has had difficulties to contend with which no other district
commander has encountered. Almost, if not quite, from the day he was
appointed district commander to the present time, the press has
given out that he was to be removed; that the administration was
dissatisfied with him, etc.
“This has emboldened the opponents to the laws of Congress within
his command to oppose him in every way in their power, and has
rendered necessary, measures which otherwise might never have been
necessary.
“In conclusion, allow me to say, as a friend desiring peace and
quiet, the welfare of the whole country, North and South, that it
is, in my opinion, more than the loyal people of this country (I
mean those who supported the Government during the great Rebellion)
will quietly submit to, to see the very men of all others whom they
have expressed confidence in, removed.
“I would not have taken the liberty of addressing the Executive of
the United States thus, but for the conversation on the subject
alluded to in this letter, and from a sense of duty, feeling that I
know I am right in this matter.
“With great respect, your obedient servant,
“U. S. GRANT, _General_.”
The President was not, as we have said, to be turned from his purpose.
On the 12th of August, he notified Secretary Stanton that he was
suspended from office from that date, and on the same day addressed a
note to General Grant authorizing and requiring him to act as Secretary
of War _ad interim_. General Grant informed Secretary Stanton of his
assignment and acceptance, assuring him at the same time of his
appreciation of the zeal, patriotism, firmness, and ability with which
he had ever discharged his duties as Secretary of War. Mr. Stanton
replied to both the President and the General; denying the power of the
former to suspend him from office, without the consent of the Senate,
and saying that he yielded under protest to superior force; and
repeating the protest to the latter, while at the same time he assured
him of his personal appreciation of his sentiments and patriotism.
Having thus, for the time (though not permanently, as he hoped),
disposed of Secretary Stanton, Mr. Johnson next proceeded to issue an
order, assigning General George H. Thomas to the command of the Fifth
District, General Hancock to the Department of the Cumberland, and
General Sheridan to the Department of Missouri, and directing the
Secretary of War _ad interim_ to issue the necessary instructions to
carry the order into effect. A note from the President accompanied the
order, that, before he issued the instructions, he would be pleased to
receive any suggestions respecting the assignments. General Grant
replied the same day in a note, from which the following is an extract:—
“I am pleased to avail myself of this invitation to urge, earnestly
urge—urge in the name of a patriotic people, who have sacrificed
hundreds of thousands of loyal lives, and thousands of millions of
treasure, to preserve the integrity and union of this country—that
this order be not insisted on. It is unmistakably the expressed wish
of the country that General Sheridan should not be removed from his
present command. This is a Republic, where the will of the people is
the law of the land. I beg that their voice may be heard.
“General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and
intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to
defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the
unreconstructed element in the South—those who did all they could to
break up this Government by arms, and now wish to be the only
element consulted as to the method of restoring order—as a triumph.
It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of the loyal
masses, believing that they have the Executive with them.
“There are military reasons, pecuniary reasons, and, above all,
patriotic reasons, why this order should not be insisted on.
“I beg to refer to a letter, marked private,[26] which I wrote to
the President when first consulted on the subject of the change in
the War Department. It bears upon the subject of this removal, and I
had hoped would have prevented it.”
The President responded in a lengthy letter, dated the 19th. He had not
intended to invite a formal report, but only a verbal statement of
General Grant’s views. He was not aware that this question of removal of
General Sheridan had been submitted to the people for their
determination. He commended General Thomas’s abilities, and complained
of the results of General Sheridan’s administration as producing a
bitter spirit of antagonism. He had rendered himself exceedingly
obnoxious, and his rule had been one of absolute tyranny. In his
opinion, he should be removed.
General Grant issued the instructions required, August 19, attaching a
clause, directing General Thomas to “continue to execute all orders he
may find in force in the Fifth Military District at the time of his
assuming command of it, unless authorized by the General of the Army to
annul, alter, or modify them.” In consequence of the unfavorable
condition of General Thomas’s health, the President issued an order,
August 26, assigning General Hancock to the Fifth District, directing
him to “proceed directly to New Orleans, Louisiana, and, assuming the
command to which he is hereby assigned, he will, when necessary to a
faithful execution of the laws, exercise any and all powers conferred by
acts of Congress upon district commanders, and all authority pertaining
to officers in command of military departments.” General Grant issued
the necessary instructions. General Sheridan was directed to turn over
his command to Major-General Charles Griffin, which he at once proceeded
to do. He then came North, visited many of the principal cities, in all
of which he was enthusiastically received. General Griffin assumed
command, September 7, and issued an order, in which he directed that
“all existing orders should remain in full.” General Griffin soon died,
of yellow fever, and Brevet Major-General Joseph A. Mower assuming
command, reiterated the same order.
The President issued an order, August 26, relieving Major-General Daniel
E. Sickles, and assigning Brevet Major-General Edward R. S. Canby to the
command, of the Second District. General Canby assumed command,
September 5, and in his order adopted and confirmed all existing orders
and regulations.
General Canby issued an order, September 14, declaring tax-payers
registered as voters, qualified to serve as jurors. General Mower issued
an order, September 28, declaring all persons registered in Texas
qualified to act as jurymen.
General Grant issued an order, August 29, as General of the Army,
directing that commanders of the military districts created under the
Act of March 2, 1867, should make no appointments to civil office of
persons who have been removed, by themselves or their predecessors in
command.
On the 3d of September, apparently in vindication of his previous acts,
President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring the supremacy of the
Constitution, the Laws, and the decisions of the Civil Courts, warning
all persons against obstructing them, and enjoining all civil and
military officers to enforce them.
On the 8th of September, 1867, the President issued another amnesty
proclamation, in which he declared the people of the unreconstructed
States loyally disposed, deprecated a vindictive policy, and extended
the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865, to all persons
except the following:—
_First._ The chief, or pretended chief executive officers, including the
President, Vice-President, and all heads of departments of the pretended
Confederate or Rebel Government, and all who were agents thereof in
foreign states and countries, and all who held, or pretended to hold, in
the service of the said pretended Confederate Government, a military
rank or title above the grade of Brigadier-General, or naval rank or
title above that of Captain, and all who were, or pretended to be,
governors of States while maintaining, abetting, submitting to, or
acquiescing in, the Rebellion.
_Second._ All persons who, in any way, treated otherwise than as lawful
prisoners of war, persons who, in any capacity, were employed or engaged
in the military or naval service of the United States.
_Third._ All persons who, at the time they may seek to obtain the
benefits of this proclamation, are actually in civil, military, or naval
confinement or custody, or legally held to bail either before or after
conviction; and all persons who were engaged directly or indirectly in
the assassination of the late President of the United States, or in any
plot or conspiracy in any manner therewith connected.
This proclamation further declared the amnestied persons restored to all
privileges, immunities, and rights of property, except as to property
with regard to slaves, and except in cases of legal proceedings under
the laws of the United States.
This proclamation amnestied a very large number of Rebels, and left very
few to be excepted from pardon, and the greater part of these received
special pardons from the President upon application, without any
professions of repentance being required. Other cases also received the
Executive clemency, greatly to the prejudice of all efforts to bring
offenders to justice. Every counterfeiter or forger of the national
currency or bonds, every man who had defrauded the Government during the
war, by means of spurious claims, and every one who was detected in the
attempt to cheat the Government of its dues in the way of internal
revenue, was promptly pardoned by the Executive, generally on the first
application.
General Hancock assumed command of the Fifth Military District on the
29th of November, 1867, and issued a special order on taking command, of
which the second item was the most important, as containing an
exposition of his intentions in regard to the military and civil
government of the district. It was as follows:—
“_Second._ The General commanding is gratified to learn that peace
and quiet reign in this department. It will be his purpose to
preserve this condition of things. As a means to this great end, he
regards the maintenance of the civil authorities in the faithful
execution of the laws, as the most efficient under existing
circumstances. In war it is indispensable to repel force by force,
and overthrow and destroy opposition to authority; but when
insurrectionary force has been overthrown and peace established, and
the civil authorities are ready and willing to perform their duties,
the military power should cease to lead, and the civil
administration resume its natural and rightful dominion. Solemnly
impressed with these views, the General announces that the great
principles of American liberty still are the lawful inheritance of
this people, and ever should be. The right of trial by jury, the
_habeas corpus_, the liberty of the press, the freedom of speech,
and the natural rights of persons and the rights of property must be
preserved. Free institutions, while they are essential to the
prosperity and happiness of the people, always furnish the strongest
inducements to peace and order. Crimes and offenses committed in the
district must be referred to the consideration and judgment of the
regular civil authorities, and these tribunals will be supported in
their lawful jurisdiction. Should there be violations of existing
laws, which are not inquired into by the civil magistrates, or
should failures in the administration of justice by the courts be
complained of, the cases will be reported to these Head-quarters,
when such orders will be made as may be deemed necessary. While the
General thus indicates his purpose to respect the liberties of the
people, he wishes all to understand that armed insurrections or
forcible resistance to law, will be instantly suppressed by arms.”
President Johnson had at last, after much tribulation, found a district
commander after his own heart; and though it was soon found that General
Hancock removed loyal men from office, and, so far as he could, put
disloyal ones in their place, and that he was winning the praise of
every rebel in his district and the hearty dislike of every loyal
citizen, yet the President was so delighted with his course and his
proclamations, that on the 18th of December, 1867, he sent a message to
Congress, in which, after the most fulsome commendation of the General,
comparing him to Washington, and saying that to him belonged the
distinguished honor of being the first officer in high command south of
the Potomac, since the close of the civil war, who had given utterance
to these noble sentiments in the form of a military order, he suggested
to Congress, that some public recognition of General Hancock’s patriotic
conduct was due, if not to him, to the friends of law and justice
throughout the country. “Of such an act as his at such a time,” he
continued, “it is best fitting that the dignity should be vindicated and
the virtue proclaimed, so that its value as an example may not be lost
to the nation.” Congress could not view General Hancock’s conduct in so
praiseworthy a light, and they accordingly declined to make any public
recognition of it.
On assuming command, General Hancock found in force an order issued by
General Mower, who had been in temporary command, dated November 21,
removing several State and other officers. These orders were revoked in
different orders, and on the 3d of December, General Mower was relieved
from duty as Commander of the District of Louisiana and Commissioner of
Freedmen, and returned to his regiment. General Hancock also issued an
order, December 5, revoking an order issued August 24, requiring persons
to be sworn for registered voters, and restoring the State laws.
An order was issued from the Freedmen’s Bureau for the District of
Louisiana, December 19, which provided that all differences between
whites and freedmen, or between freedmen themselves, should first be
referred to the civil courts for adjudication. The Bureau agents were to
seek, in the first place, an amicable adjustment of difficulties, but if
they failed in that, then resort was to be had to the courts, to which,
also, all legal questions must be referred. They were likewise to act on
behalf of the freedmen as attorneys, and in case planters refuse or
neglect to pay their wages, if the courts fail to award justice, then
the agents are to enforce it.
In January, General Hancock proceeded to remove the colored members of
the Council of Education in New Orleans, on the alleged ground that they
had transcended their powers and duties, and to put Rebels in their
places. General Grant, on investigation, ordered him to reinstate the
members he had removed. He complied with the order, but requested to be
relieved from his command, and after some delay his request was granted,
and the President created a new Military Department of Washington,
including Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia, and after trying several other officers, placed Major-General
Hancock in command of it. Meantime, the voting for the constitutional
conventions, under the Reconstruction Act, had resulted in the decision
to hold conventions in all the desolated States, and the conventions had
begun to assemble. The first to convene was that of Alabama, November 5.
It consisted of one hundred delegates, sixty-one of whom signed the new
Constitution, and sixteen protested against it. Its provisions were
substantially the same with those of the other States, which followed in
its train, and we therefore quote them as examples of the general
character of these constitutions.
It declared all men created equal; persons born in the United States or
naturalized, to be citizens of the State of Alabama, possessing equal
civil and political rights and public privileges, and prohibiting
slavery. The following is the article in regard to suffrage:—
“In all elections by the people, the electors shall vote by ballot.
Every male person born in the United States, and every person who
has been naturalized, or who has legally declared his intentions to
become a citizen of the United States, twenty-one years old or
upwards, who shall have resided in this State six months next
preceding the election, and three months in the county in which he
offers to vote, except as hereinafter provided, shall be deemed an
elector.
“Soldiers, sailors, and marines in the United States service are not
permitted to vote by reason of being stationed in the State on duty.
Registration must be provided for by the General Assembly, and the
following persons are not permitted to register.
“_First._ Those who during the late Rebellion inflicted or caused to
be inflicted any cruel or unusual punishment upon any soldier,
sailor, or marine, employee, or citizen of the United States, or who
in any other way violated the rules of civilized warfare.
“_Second._ Those who may be disqualified from holding office by the
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known
as Article XIV., and those who have been disqualified from
registering to vote for delegates to the Convention to frame a
Constitution for the State of Alabama, under the act of Congress ‘to
provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,’
passed by Congress March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary
thereto, except such persons as aided in the reconstruction proposed
by Congress, and accept the political equality of all men before the
law: _Provided_, That the General Assembly shall have power to
remove the disabilities incurred under this clause.
“_Third._ Those who shall have been convicted of treason,
embezzlement of public funds, malfeasance in office, crime
punishable by law with imprisonment in the penitentiary, or bribery.
“_Fourth._ Those who are idiots or insane.
“All persons, before registering, must take and subscribe the
following oath: ‘I, ——, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and the Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama; that I am not
excluded from registering by any of the clauses in section 8,
article 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alabama; that I will
never countenance or aid in the secession of this State from the
United States; that I accept the civil and political equality of all
men, and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on
account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or
civil right, privilege, or immunity, enjoyed by any other class of
men; and furthermore, that I will not in any way injure, or
countenance in others any attempt to injure, any person or persons,
on account of past or present support of the Government of the
United States, the laws of the United States, or the principle of
the political and civil equality of all men, or for affiliation with
any political party.’”
The Convention adjourned December 6, and the Constitution was submitted
to the people on the 4th and 5th of February, 1868. The Rebels and those
opposed to the Constitution, and to the Congressional policy of
reconstruction, used every device to defeat it. The provisions of the
Reconstruction Act required that for the adoption of the Constitution,
there must be a majority of the whole number of registered voters, and
taking advantage of this, the Rebels registered as many names as
possible (many, it was believed, fraudulently), and then, when the time
came for voting, they not only kept away from the polls themselves, but
by threats, by discharging from their employ every colored man who would
vote, and by a general system of terrorism, sought to prevent as many as
possible from voting. The registration was 170,631 voters, but the
registry of four counties was illegal and fraudulent. This reduced the
whole number of registered voters to 156,945; and the lowest number
required for ratification of the Constitution was 78,473. The actual
legal vote, under these adverse influences, was 70,359, or 8,114 short
of the vote required. Of these 70,359 votes, 62,089 were for the
Constitution. Under the existing law, therefore, the Constitution failed
of ratification.
The Louisiana Convention met November 23. It adopted for its first
article, that all men were born free and equal, and on the 28th of
December, enacted the following as its second article: “All persons,
without regard to race, color, or previous condition, born and
naturalized in the United States, and residents of this State for one
year, are citizens of this State. They shall enjoy the same civil,
political, and public rights and privileges, and be subject to the same
pains and penalties.”
This Constitution was voted upon in April, and was ratified by a
majority of over 17,000 votes.
The Georgia Convention met on the 12th of December, and sat through
nearly the whole of January. The Constitution formed by it was adopted
in April, by about 18,000 majority.
[Illustration: “I SHALL DISCHARGE EVERY NIGGER WHO VOTES TO ADOPT THIS
RADICAL YANKEE CONSTITUTION.”]
The Florida Convention met January 20, 1868. At first there was
considerable difficulty—two factions existing in the Convention, which
seemed determined to divide and ruin its councils; but through the
friendly interference of General Meade, who had succeeded to General
Pope in command of the district on the 28th of December, 1867, the two
parties were reconciled, and the Convention perfected its Constitution,
which was ratified by the people early in May, by about 3,000 majority.
In South Carolina the Convention was called by a large majority, and met
on —— ——. Its Constitution was ratified in April, by a majority of over
36,000, in a registry of 127,550, and a vote of 85,843.
North Carolina adopted her new Constitution also in April, by nearly
30,000 majority.
Arkansas voted on her new Constitution in May, and ratified it by about
2,000 majority.
Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas have each held their conventions and
framed constitutions, but they have not yet been submitted to the
people.[27]
-----
Footnote 25:
Unofficial.
Footnote 26:
See this letter on a preceding page.
Footnote 27:
According to the most complete returns now available, the vote of the
registration and for a convention to form a constitution in all the
desolated States, except Texas, was substantially as follows:—
──────────────┬─────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────
STATES. │ REGISTRATION.[28] │ CONVENTION.
──────────────┼─────────┬─────────┬─────────┼────────┬────────┬────────
│ White. │Colored. │ Total. │ For. │Against.│ Not
│ │ │ │ │ │Voting.
──────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
Alabama │ 74,450│ 90,350│ 166,289│ 87,672│ 5,683│ 72,934
Arkansas │ 33,047│ 21,207│ 66,805│ 27,576│ 13,558│ 25,671
Florida │ 10,804│ 15,234│ 27,521│ 13,882│ 111│ 13,528
Georgia │ 95,214│ 93,458│ 188,672│ 102,282│ 4,127│ 82,263
Louisiana │ 45,199│ 84,431│ 129,630│ 75,083│ 4,006│ 50,541
Mississippi │ 46,636│ 60,167│ 139,327│ 69,739│ 6,277│ 63,311
North Carolina│ 103,060│ 71,657│ 174,717│ 57,359│ 18,635│ [29]
South Carolina│ 45,751│ 79,535│ 125,286│ 60,278│ 1,480│ 63,528
Texas │ 59,666│ 47,430│ 107,096│ │ │
Virginia │ 116,982│ 104,772│ 221,754│ 107,342│ 61,887│ 52,525
──────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
Total │ 630,809│ 668,241│1,347,097│ 601,213│ 115,764│ 424,301
──────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴────────┴────────┴────────
The latest available reports in regard to the adoption of the
constitutions and the election of legislatures in these States are as
follows:—
Total For Against. White Against. Colored Against.
vote. Constitution. for. for.
Alabama 71,817 70,812 1,005 5,802 900 62,089 105
South 98,046 70,758 27,288
Carolina[28]
Arkansas[29] 19,978 10,985 8,993
North Majority for Constitution over 25,000
Carolina—
Georgia Majority for Constitution over 17,923
Louisiana Majority for Constitution over 17,000
Florida Majority for Constitution over 3,000
The Governors elected in these States were, South Carolina, —— ——;
Arkansas, —— ——; North Carolina, W. W. Holden; Georgia, —— Bullock;
Louisiana, H. C. Warmoth; Florida, —— Reed. The Governors were all
Republicans. The Legislatures had also in every case a Republican
majority, in some cases a very large one. In Georgia, the Senate stood
27 Republicans to 16 Democrats, and 1 doubtful; the House, 96
Republicans to 24 Democrats, and 6 doubtful. In North Carolina, the
Republicans had 32 out of the 50 Senators, and 68 of the 122
Representatives. In Louisiana, the Republicans had 21 out of 36
Senators, and 56 out of 101 Representatives. The other States had
generally large majorities on the Republican side.
The Senators from all these States were Republicans, and the
Representatives in Congress were of the same party, except three from
Georgia, and one from Louisiana, whose seat was to be contested.
Footnote 28:
In a number of the States, a discrepancy will be observed between the
white and colored registries and the total. It arises from the fact
that we have used official totals where we could obtain them, giving
incomplete divisions of the races when we could obtain nothing better.
Footnote 29:
The returns of the vote in this State are so incomplete that the
number not voting cannot be given.