The Rule of the Major Generals
From the passage of the reconstruction acts to the close of Johnson's
Administration, Congress, working the will of the radical majority, was
in supreme control. The army carried out the will of Congress and to
that body, not to the President, the commanding general and his
subordinates looked for direction.
The official opposition of the President to the policy of Congress
ceased when that policy was enacted into law. He believed this
legislation to be unconstitutional, but he considered it his duty to
execute the laws. He at once set about the appointment of generals to
command the military districts created in the South, ¹ a task calling
for no little discretion, since much depended upon the character of
these military governors, or "satraps," as they were frequently called
by the opposition. The commanding general in a district was charged with
many duties, military, political, and administrative. It was his duty to
carry on a government satisfactory to the radicals and not too
irritating to the Southern whites; at the same time he must execute the
reconstruction acts by putting old leaders out of power and negroes in.
Violent opposition to this policy on the part of the South was not
looked for. Notwithstanding the "Southern outrage" campaign, it was
generally recognized in government circles that conditions in the
seceded States had gradually been growing better since the close of the
war. There was in many regions, to be sure, a general laxity in
enforcing laws, but that had always been characteristic of the newer
parts of the South. The Civil Rights Act was generally in force, the
"Black Laws" had been suspended, and the Freedmen's Bureau was
everywhere caring for the negroes. What disorder existed was of recent
origin and in the main was due to the unsettling effects of the debates
in Congress and to the organization of the negroes for political
purposes.
¹ The first five generals appointed were Schofield, Sickles, Pope, Ord,
and Sheridan. None of these remained in his district until
reconstruction was completed. To Schofield's command in the first
district succeeded in turn Stoneman, Webb, and Canby; Sickles gave way
to Canby, and Pope to Meade; Ord in the fourth district was followed by
Gillem, McDowell, and Ames; Sheridan, in the fifth, was succeeded by
Griffen, Mower, Hancock, Buchanan, Reynolds, and Canby. Some of the
generals were radical; others, moderate and tactful. The most extreme
were Sheridan, Pope, and Sickles. Those most acceptable to the whites
were Hancock, Schofield, and Meade. General Grant himself became more
radical in his actions as he became involved in the fight between
Congress and the President.
Military rule was established in the South with slight friction, but it
was soon found that the reconstruction laws were not sufficiently clear
on two points: first, whether there was any limit to the authority of
the five generals over the local and state governments and, if so,
whether the limiting authority was in the President; and second, whether
the disfranchising provisions in the laws were punitive and hence to be
construed strictly. Attorney-General Stanbery, in May and June, 1867,
drew up opinions in which he maintained that the laws were to be
considered punitive and therefore to be construed strictly. After
discussions in cabinet meetings these opinions received the approval of
all except Stanton, Secretary of War, who had already joined the radical
camp. The Attorney-General's opinion was sent out to the district
commanders for their information and guidance. But Congress did not
intend to permit the President or his Cabinet to direct the process of
reconstruction, and in the Act of July 19, 1867, it gave a radical
interpretation to the reconstruction legislation, declared itself in
control, gave full power to General Grant and to the district commanders
subject only to Grant, directed the removal of all local officials who
opposed the reconstruction policies, and warned the civil and military
officers of the United States that none of them should "be bound in his
action by any opinion of any civil officer of the United States." This
interpretive legislation gave a broad basis for the military government
and resulted in a severe application of the disfranchising provisions of
the laws.
The rule of the five generals lasted in all the States until June, 1868,
and continued in Mississippi, Texas, Virginia, and Georgia until 1870.
There had been, to be sure, some military government in 1865, subject,
however, to the President, and from 1865 to 1867 the army, along with
the Freedmen's Bureau, had exerted a strong influence in the government
of the South, but in the régime now inaugurated the military was
supreme. The generals had a superior at Washington, but whether it was
the President, General Grant, or Congress was not clear until the Act of
July 19, 1867 made Congress the source of authority.
The power of the generals most strikingly appeared in their control of
the state governments which were continued as provisional organizations.
Since no elections were permitted, all appointments and removals were
made from military headquarters, which soon became political beehives,
centers of wirepulling and agencies for the distribution of spoils. At
the outset civil officers were ordered to retain their offices during
good behavior, subject to military control. But no local official was
permitted to use his influence ever so slightly against reconstruction.
Since most of them did not favor the policy of Congress, thousands were
removed as "obstacles to reconstruction." The Governors of Georgia,
Louisiana, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas were displaced and others
appointed in their stead. All kinds of subordinate offices rapidly
became vacant. New appointments were nearly always carpetbaggers and
native radicals who could take the "ironclad" oath. The generals
complained that there were not enough competent native "loyalists" to
fill the offices, and frequently an army officer was installed as
governor, treasurer, secretary of state, auditor, or mayor. In nearly
all towns the police force was reorganized and former Federal soldiers
were added to the force, while the regular troops were used for general
police purposes and for rural constabulary.
Over the administration of justice the military authorities exercised a
close supervision. Instructions were sent out to court officers covering
the selection of juries, the suspension of certain laws, and the rules
of evidence and procedure. Courts were often closed, court decrees set
aside or modified, prisoners released, and many cases reserved for trial
by military commission. Some commanders required juries to admit negro
members and insisted that all jurors take the "ironclad" test oath.
There was some attempt at regulating the Federal courts but without much
success.
Since the state legislatures were forbidden to meet, much legislation
was enacted through military orders. Stay laws were enacted, the color
line was abolished, new criminal regulations were promulgated, and the
police power was invoked in some instances to justify sweeping measures,
such as the prohibition of whisky manufacture in North Carolina and
South Carolina. The military governors levied, increased, or decreased
taxes and made appropriations which the state treasurers were forced to
pay, but they restrained the radical conventions, all of which wished to
spend much money. According to the Act of March 23, 1867, the generals
and their appointees were to be paid by the United States, but in
practice the running expenses of reconstruction were paid by the state
treasurers.
Any attempt to favor the Confederate soldiers was frowned upon. Laws
providing wooden legs and free education for crippled Confederates were
suspended. Militia organizations and military schools were forbidden. No
uniform might be worn, no parades were permitted, no memorial and
historical societies were to be organized, and no meeting of any kind
could be held without a permit. The attempt to control the press
resulted in what one general called "a horrible uproar." Editors were
forbidden to express themselves too strongly against reconstruction;
public advertising and printing were awarded only to those papers
actively supporting reconstruction. Several newspapers were suppressed,
a notable example being the Tuscaloosa Independent Monitor, whose
editor, Ryland Randolph, was a picturesque figure in Alabama journalism
and a leader in the Ku Klux Klan.
The military administration was thorough, and, as a whole honest and
efficient. With fewer than ten thousand soldiers the generals maintained
order and carried on the reconstruction of the South. The whites made no
attempt at resistance, though they were irritated by military rule and
resented the loss of self-government. But most Southerners preferred the
rule of the army to the alternative reign of the carpetbagger, scalawag,
and negro. The extreme radicals at the North, on the other hand, were
disgusted at the conservative policy of the generals. The apathy of the
whites at the beginning of the military reconstruction excited surprise
on all sides. Not only was there no violent opposition, but for a few
weeks there was no opposition at all. The civil officials were openly
unsympathetic, and the newspapers voiced dissent not untouched with
disgust; others simply could not take the situation seriously because it
seemed so absurd; many leaders were indifferent, while others--among
them, Generals Lee, Beauregard, and Longstreet, and Governor
Patton--without approving the policy, advised the whites to coöperate
with the military authorities and save all they could out of the
situation. General Beauregard, for instance, wrote in 1867: "If the
suffrage of the negro is properly handled and directed we shall defeat
our adversaries with their own weapons. The negro is Southern born. With
education and property qualifications he can be made to take an interest
in the affairs of the South and in its prosperity. He will side with the
whites."
Northern observers who were friendly to the South or who disapproved of
this radical reconstruction saw the danger more clearly than the
Southerners themselves, who seemed not to appreciate the full
implication of the situation. In this connection the New York Herald
remarked:
We may regard the entire ten unreconstructed Southern States, with
possibly one or two exceptions, as forced by a secret and overwhelming
revolutionary influence to a common and inevitable fate. They are all
bound to be governed by blacks spurred on by worse than blacks--white
wretches who dare not show their faces in respectable society anywhere.
This is the most abominable phase barbarism has assumed since the dawn
of civilization. It was all right and proper to put down the rebellion.
It was all right perhaps to emancipate the slaves.... But it is not
right to make slaves of white men even though they may have been former
masters of blacks. This is but a change in a system of bondage that is
rendered the more odious and intolerable because it has been inaugurated
in an enlightened instead of a dark and uncivilized age.
The political parties rapidly grouped themselves for the coming
struggle. The radical Republican party indeed was in process of
organization in the South even before the passage of the reconstruction
acts. Its membership was made up of negroes, carpetbaggers, or Northern
men who had come in as speculators, officers of the Freedmen's Bureau
and of the army, scalawags or Confederate renegades, "Peace Society"
men, ¹ and Unionists of Civil War times, with a few old Whigs who could
not yet bring themselves to affiliate with the Democrats. At first it
seemed that a respectable number of whites might be secured for the
radical party, but the rapid organization of the negroes checked the
accession of whites. In the winter and spring of 1866-67 the negroes
near the towns were well organized by the Union League and the
Freedmen's Bureau and then, after the passage of the reconstruction
acts, the organizing activities of the radical chieftains shifted to the
rural districts. The Union League was greatly extended; Union League
conventions were held to which local whites were not admitted; and the
formation of a black man's party was well on the way before the
registration of the voters was completed. Visiting statesmen from the
North, among them Henry Wilson of Massachusetts and "Pig Iron" Kelley of
Pennsylvania, toured the South in support of the radical program, and
the registrars and all Federal officials aided in the work.
¹ See The Day of the Confederacy, by Nathaniel W. Stephenson (in The
Chronicles of America), p. 121, footnote.
The whites, slow to comprehend the real extent of radicalism, were
finally aroused to the necessity of organizing, if they were to
influence the negro and have a voice in the conventions. The old party
divisions were still evident. With difficulty a portion of the Whigs
were brought with the Democrats into one conservative party during the
summer and fall of 1867, though many still held aloof. The lack of the
old skilled leadership was severely felt. In places where the white
man's party was given a name it was called "Democratic and
Conservative," to spare the feelings of former Whigs who were loath to
bear the party name of their quondam opponents.
The first step in the military reconstruction was the registration of
voters. In each State a central board of registrars was appointed by the
district commander and a local board for every county and large town.
Each board consisted of three members--all radicals--who were required
to subscribe to the "ironclad" oath. In several States one negro was
appointed to each local board. The registrars listed negro voters during
the day, and at night worked at the organization of a radical Republican
party. The prospective voters were required to take the oath prescribed
in the Reconstruction Act, but the registrars were empowered to go
behind the oath and investigate the Confederate record of each
applicant. This authority was invoked to carry the disfranchisement of
the whites far beyond the intention of the law in an attempt to destroy
the leadership of the whites and to register enough negroes to outvote
them at the polls. For this purpose the registration was continued until
October 1, 1867, and an active campaign of education and organization
carried on.
At the close of the registration, 703,000 black voters were on the rolls
and 627,000 whites. In Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, and
Mississippi there were black majorities, and in the other States the
blacks and the radical whites together formed majorities. The white
minorities included several thousand who had been rejected by the
registrars but restored by the military commanders. Though large numbers
of blacks were dropped from the revised rolls as fraudulently
registered, the registration statistics nevertheless bore clear witness
to the political purpose of those who compiled them.
Next followed a vote on the question of holding a state convention and
the election of delegates to such a convention if held--a double
election. The whites, who had been harassed in the registration and who
feared race conflicts at the elections, considered whether they ought
not to abstain from voting. By staying away from the polls, they might
bring the vote cast in each State below a majority and thus defeat the
proposed conventions for, unless a majority of the registered voters
actually cast ballots either for or against a convention, no convention
could be held. Nowhere, however, was this plan of not voting fully
carried out, for, though most whites abstained, enough of them voted
(against the conventions, of course) to make the necessary majority in
each State. The effect of the abstention policy upon the personnel of
the conventions was unfortunate. In every convention there was a radical
majority with a conservative and all but negligible minority. In South
Carolina and Louisiana there were negro majorities. In every State
except North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia the negroes and the
carpetbaggers together were in the majority over native whites. The
conservative whites were of fair ability; the carpetbaggers and
scalawags produced in each convention a few able leaders, but most of
them were conscienceless political soldiers of fortune; the negro
members were inexperienced, and most of them were quite ignorant, though
a few leaders of ability did appear among them. In Alabama, for example,
only two negro members could write, though half had been taught to sign
their names. They were barbers, field hands, hack drivers, and servants.
A negro chaplain was elected who invoked divine blessings on "unioners
and cusses on rebels." It was a sign of the new era when the convention
specially invited the "ladies of colored members" to seats in the
gallery.
The work of the conventions was for the most part cut and dried, the
abler members having reached a general agreement before they met. The
constitutions, mosaics of those of other States, were noteworthy only
for the provisions made to keep the whites out of power and to regulate
the relations of the races in social matters. The Texas constitution
alone contained no proscriptive clauses beyond those required by the
Fourteenth Amendment. The most thoroughgoing proscription of
Confederates was found in the constitutions of Mississippi, Alabama, and
Virginia; and in these States the voter must also purge himself of guilt
by agreeing to accept the "civil and political equality of all men" or
by supporting reconstruction. Only in South Carolina and Louisiana were
race lines abolished by law.
The legislative work of the conventions was more interesting than the
constitution making. By ordinance the legality of negro marriages was
dated from November, 1867, or some date later than had been fixed by the
white conventions of 1865. Mixed schools were provided in some States;
militia for the black districts but not for the white was to be raised;
while in South Carolina it was made a penal offense to call a person a
"Yankee" or a "nigger." Few of the negro delegates demanded proscription
of whites or social equality; they wanted schools and the vote. The
white radicals were more anxious to keep the former Confederates from
holding office than from voting. The generals in command everywhere used
their influence to secure moderate action by the conventions, and for
this they were showered with abuse.
As provided by the reconstruction acts, the new constitutions were
submitted to the electorate created by those instruments. Unless a
majority of the registered voters in a State should take part in the
election the reconstruction would fail and the State would remain under
military rule. The whites now inaugurated a more systematic policy of
abstention and in Alabama, on February 4, 1868, succeeded in holding the
total vote below a majority. Congress then rushed to the rescue of
radicalism with the act of the 11th of March, which provided that a mere
majority of those voting in the State was sufficient to inaugurate
reconstruction. Arkansas had followed the lead of Alabama, but too late;
in Mississippi the constitution was defeated by a majority vote; in
Texas the convention had made no provision for a vote; and in Virginia
the commanding general, disapproving of the work of the convention,
refused to pay the expenses of an election. In the other six States the
constitutions were adopted. ¹
¹ Except in Texas, the work of constitution making was completed between
November 5, 1867, and May 18, 1868.
These elections gave rise to more violent contests than before. They
also were double elections, as the voters cast ballots for state and
local officials and at the same time for or against the constitution.
The radical nominations were made by the Union League and the Freedmen's
Bureau, and nearly all radicals who had been members of conventions were
nominated and elected to office. The negroes, expecting now to reap some
benefits of reconstruction, frequently brought sacks to the polls to
"put the franchise in." The elections were all over by June, 1868, and
the newly elected legislatures promptly ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment.
It now remained for Congress to approve the work done in the South and
to readmit the reorganized States. The case of Alabama gave some
trouble. Even Stevens, for a time, thought that this State should stay
out; but there was danger in delay. The success of the abstention policy
in Alabama and Arkansas and the reviving interest of the whites
foreshadowed white majorities in some places; the scalawags began to
forsake the radical party for the conservatives; and there were
Democratic gains in the North in 1867. Only six States, New York and
five New England States, allowed the negro to vote, while four States,
Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, and Ohio, voted down negro suffrage after
the passage of the reconstruction acts. The ascendancy of the radicals
in Congress was menaced. The radicals needed the support of their
radical brethren in Southern States and they could not afford to wait
for the Fourteenth Amendment to become a part of the Constitution or to
tolerate other delay. On the 22d and the 25th of June acts were
therefore passed admitting seven States, Alabama included, to
representation in Congress upon the "fundamental condition" that "the
constitutions of neither of said States shall ever be so amended or
changed as to deprive any citizens or class of citizens of the United
States of the right to vote in said State, who are entitled to vote by
the constitution thereof herein recognized."
The generals now turned over the government to the recently elected
radical officials and retired into the background. Military
reconstruction was thus accomplished in all the States except Virginia,
Mississippi, and Texas.