CLOSE OF THE RADICAL DOMINATION
After the recognition of the loyal government by Congress, the only
hope of the disfranchised ex-Confederates of regaining political
control of the State lay in a division in the ranks of the Union
party. So long as Governor Brownlow remained at the head of affairs,
no such division occurred. He served as Governor the full term of two
years, and was re-elected. Before the expiration of his second term,
he was chosen by the Legislature to represent Tennessee in the United
States Senate. According to a provision of the State constitution, the
vacant governorship descended to De Witt Senter, Speaker of the State
Senate. Mr. Senter was inducted into office on the 29th of February,
1868.
Three years had now passed since the close of the war, and the
restoration of civil government, but the majority of the white
citizens still remained disfranchised, and no steps had been taken to
remove their disqualifications. In speaking of this aspect of the
situation, Mr. Fletcher, Secretary of the State, said: “Our mistake
was that we made the franchise law sweeping and perpetual, offering no
hope or inducement to the ex-rebel to become loyal. The man who is
disfranchised in a republic is not apt to feel that it is his
government, or to take pride or interest in it, nor apt to make a
useful or even law-abiding citizen of it. I do not feel comfortable in
a State where half of the people and two thirds of the tax-payers are
publicly degraded by law, without motive to be proud of the State and
government.”
Upon the day of Governor Senter’s inauguration, the air was filled
with rumors and signs of coming changes. Whether it would be a violent
eruption or a peaceful change through constitutional means, no one
could foresee. In the great crowd which gathered at the Capitol to
hear the inaugural address, there was noticed by the press reporters a
number of distinguished Southern leaders. This in itself was
considered a harbinger of the coming storm. The address proved
disappointing to all. It was expected that the Governor would give
some intimation of the policy he intended to pursue, but he simply
expressed his appreciation of the office to which he had been
elevated, and his desire to see peace and prosperity restored to the
State.
There was little of interest in the character or career of the new
Governor. He was born in Granger County in 1833. His father, William
F. Senter, had represented the Second Congressional District in the
Twenty-eighth Congress. Although Governor Senter had been chosen
Speaker of the Radical Senate he had never shown himself an extreme
partisan. He had even been a member of the secession Legislature of
1861; but Congress had relieved him of his political disabilities on
the 22d of December, 1868. It was therefore with a hopeful expectancy
that the people of Tennessee hailed his advent into the office of
Governor.
But before Governor Senter could make any change in the
administration, the State was plunged into a heated campaign to elect
his successor. He was entitled by the Constitution to serve out
Brownlow’s unexpired term, but only a few months remained of that. His
aspirations naturally went beyond his brief _pro tem._ term, and he,
therefore, announced his intention of becoming a candidate subject to
the approval of the Union party.
A new candidate soon appeared in the person of W. B. Stokes. Mr.
Stokes was the Representative of the Third District in Congress. His
record had been somewhat similar to that of Governor Senter. At the
beginning of the war he had identified himself with the secession
movement, but had quickly deserted what he saw to be a sinking ship.
After the war, as if to make amends for his past conduct, he became
one of the most extreme and bitter Radicals.
At first, the canvass was a mere personal contest, having little
significance to any one except the Radical leaders. A Convention of
the Union party was called to meet in Nashville on May 22d. Both
candidates pledged themselves to abide by the decision of this
Convention.
Ex-President Johnson’s return to Tennessee at this time added to the
uncertainty of the contest. He was still a power in Tennessee
politics, and it was rumored that he might enter the race as a
Conservative Democrat. The Radical Convention assembled in Nashville
on the day appointed. It was called to order by Thos. Cates, chairman
of the Central Committee, who was a Stokes man. After the reading of
the call, Judge Houck moved that Mr. Pearne, a friend of Governor
Senter, be made temporary chairman of the Convention. His motion
having failed to be recognized by Mr. Cates, he put it to the House
himself and declared Mr. Pearne elected. Mr. Pearne attempted to reach
the chair, but was forcibly prevented. This resulted in a hand-to-hand
contest between the delegates. Failing to perfect a temporary
organization, the Convention adjourned until the following day. But at
the second meeting the disgraceful scenes of the first were repeated.
It finally dissolved amid the utmost confusion.
_The Union and American_, a daily newspaper, published in Nashville,
contained the following report of the Convention’s proceedings.
“The so-called Radical State Convention, the most
disgraceful, profane, and vulgar assemblage of men ever
congregated in the State to consider public affairs, came to
an abrupt termination yesterday, after an ineffectual
attempt of two days to organize. It simply dissolved. It
could not even adjourn. It had no chairman, no secretary,
and could not even transact any business. It met as if by
chance, and dispersed from necessity. It was an agglomerate
discord, an inflamed mob filled with mean whiskey and meaner
passions. It was a meeting of mortal enemies under the guise
of friendship to decide the spoils of misdeeds and crimes.
They quarrelled and fought, and called each other liars and
thieves, and all manner of epithets. Such a congregation of
vulgar elements, so fierce, so bitter, and so reckless, was
never seen before in this section of the Union.
“This assemblage of Radicals was called together to counsel
for the good of the State, and present to the people a
person of such fair name and true patriotism as to be worthy
of them and the State for their chief executive!”
The above description was written by a “rebel” editor, but the
following account, taken from the _Knoxville Whig_, is scarcely less
severe: “We share in the regret of all good Republicans that the late
Convention was so divided, boisterous, disrupted. We have attended
many conventions, national and State. We never attended one in which
such injustice, violence, and fraud were practised.”
These two pictures of the Convention, drawn from different
standpoints, give us some idea of the kind of men that had ruled
Tennessee for four years. At last the household was divided against
itself; it was only a matter of a few weeks until it should fall.
The Senter faction attempted to throw the blame for the disrupted
Convention upon Mr. Stokes and his friends. They denied the charge,
and asserted that at least sixty-four counties had been instructed for
Mr. Stokes, which would have insured him the nomination. The result of
the discussion was that Governor Senter and Mr. Stokes declared their
intentions to “fight it to a finish at the polls.” They began at
Nashville, January 5th, a joint canvass of the State. A direct issue
was soon made between them on the franchise question. Governor Senter
declared “that the time has come, and is now, when the limitations and
disabilities which have found their way into our statute-books, as the
result of the war, should be abolished and removed, and the privilege
of the elective franchise be restored, and extended so far as to
embrace the mass of the adult population of the State.”
Mr. Stokes thus defined his position: “When the killing of Union men
ceases, the hellish organization of Ku-Klux is abandoned, and the laws
are observed, then I am willing to entertain a proposition to amend
the State constitution so far as to allow the disfranchised to come in
gradually, by providing that the Legislature may by a two thirds vote
remove the disabilities for those who petition, and come well
recommended by their loyal neighbors.”
After these declarations of principles the struggle became one of
paramount importance to the whole people of the State.
As the time for the election approached, and the official registration
began, signs of uneasiness appeared among the supporters of Mr.
Stokes. They felt confident that the majority of the Radical votes
were for their candidate, but they realized that Governor Senter was
“master of the situation.” He had control of the same machinery
Governor Brownlow had employed so successfully in changing the results
of Congressional and State elections. Would Governor Senter use this
in his own behalf, thus destroying the Radical party with an
instrument of their making? This question was asked and discussed both
upon the stump and in the newspapers.
The election occurred on the 5th day of August. At the same time the
election for the State Legislature was held. The issue was the same as
in the gubernatorial contest――that is, universal suffrage or continued
disfranchisement. Contrary to expectations, the election passed
without any serious conflicts or disturbances of the peace. The result
was not long in doubt. It could be seen on the following day from the
partial returns that Governor Senter had been elected by an enormous
majority.
The official returns were as follows:
SENTER. STOKES.
East Tennesssee 23,877 22,471
Middle ” 58,646 19,149
West ” 37,681 13,209
------- ------
120,204 54,874
54,874
------- ------
Senter’s majority 65,330
The Conservative candidates to the Legislature, who stood upon the
same platform as Governor Senter, were elected almost to a man.
Immediately after election, Mr. Stokes and his friends raised the cry
of fraud. They lost no time in hurrying to Washington in order to
bring pressure to bear upon President Grant to declare the election
void. Mr. Stokes set forth his claims in a lengthy interview. He said
in part: “Governor Senter being governor or acting-governor had the
appointment of the registrars of the election. He put in such men as
he thought would do his bidding. They at once opened the flood-gates
and let everybody in, the disfranchising clauses of the Constitution
were trodden under foot and entirely disregarded, certificates of
qualification as voters were issued to disfranchised rebels, and even
boys of sixteen and seventeen were allowed to vote. Besides this there
was a course of intimidation pursued under the instruction of Senter
which prevented hundreds of Republicans from voting. You see Senter
was governor. He had militia and intended to use them, if necessary,
to elect himself. In many cases where the rebels had the upper hand
the Republicans, especially the negroes, could not vote in their
precincts for fear of violence. What defeated me was the rebels who
were disfranchised under the constitution. I got 56,000, which was
Grant’s vote last fall. Seymour’s was 33,000 last fall, but Senter’s
vote was this time 119,000. The 86,000 additional which Senter got
were rebels and minors.”
These charges made by Mr. Stokes were replied to in the daily press by
Governor Senter. He claimed that it was unfair to compare the vote in
the recent election with the presidential election of the previous
fall. In the presidential election the Republicans were sure of the
result in the State, so they had made no effort to bring out a full
vote. It would be much fairer to take the vote cast in the
gubernatorial election of 1867 as the standard by which to measure the
result of the recent election. In 1867, Governor Brownlow’s vote was
19,900 more than Mr. Stokes had received, yet the registration of 1867
exceeded the vote cast by over 20,000. The old registration law was
still in force, but had been modified by a decision of the Supreme
Court which admitted at least 40,000 votes which had been kept out in
1867. In other words, Mr. Senter claimed he could have received a
majority of 20,000 had there been no new registration. The newly
appointed registrars, referred to in Mr. Stokes’s interview, were,
with the exception of three tenths, regularly discharged Federal
soldiers.
Mr. Stokes in his efforts to secure Federal intervention was supported
by all the Radical leaders. Many of those who had supported Governor
Senter in the election were now most active in the attempt to prevent
his induction into office. Among the first to change front was Mr.
Brownlow. Early in the contest he had favored the nomination of
Governor Senter. After the disruption of the Radical Convention, he
still continued to support Governor Senter. It was not until after
election that he seemed to realize that Governor Senter’s victory
meant the return to power of the ex-Confederate and consequently the
downfall of Radical domination.
President Grant turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the Radical
leaders. They sought Congressional action, but met defeat here also,
as Congress passed a resolution thanking President Grant for his
refusal to interfere with affairs in Tennessee.